dogs over gays

"Dogs over Gays" cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

“Dogs over Gays” cartoon by nakedpastor David Hayward

[Get the original drawing or a really nice print of this cartoon HERE!]

A gay friend of mine once said to me, “My dog gets more respect than I do!”

I do suppose this has theological implications and ramifications.

You may also like...

15 Responses

  1. Adam Julians says:

    Is that just a gay thing?

    People will pay more attention to my dog than me. He is cuter though I give him that.

  2. Gary says:

    Adam I don’t think David is talking about how much attention people pay to dogs but rather it is whether they believe them to be eternally damned or not. (Though my dog is cuter than I am too) Ironically, even though my church did not teach dog’s go to Heaven in the sense of eternal life, they always allowed for the possibility of pets being present if we desired them. They NEVER allowed for the possibility of homosexuals being present however.

  3. Ya that’s the point Gary. Thanks.

  4. Adam Julians says:

    That’s interesting Gary with what you shared about your church and what David was getting at with adressing the attitude that anyone is homosexual is eternally damned. I’ve also had the latter said about me.

    In the church I am in, homosexuals are welcomed. In fact it is the minister (pastor) that happens to get the most verbal abuse from on, to the point of having to call an end to a meeting once because the indivdual was causing so much distruption and distress to members that were there. In the arts circles I mix in there are many who are gay and there rarely is an issue made of it.

    David made the valid point about the implied condemnation of anyone homosexual by heterosexuals in church. Of course anyone doing such is in effect demanding celebacy which is something not required of them and it being easy to point the finger as somone who is differnet than consider one’s own attitudes.

    When Jesus talks of hell, it seems to be from a place of compassion. i.e. that folks are missing out on what is best of the kingdom e.g. for creating brdens for others that are too heavy to carry and not lifting a finger to help rather than serving everyone they lead.

    My point is that in liberal progessive circles, its great that there is a welcoming of equality for anyone who is homosexual, but when that comes to the point of anyone who is gay expecting and being given special treatment then the pendulum has swung the other way. That there is an equivalent need for attention to attitudes that all face and that we all encounter prejudices.

    Some would argue that it is necessary for the pendulum to swing the other way for equality to be attained but if that were true then it would be OK for every African American to have a white slave.

    I don’t think many would sign up for that.

  5. Gary says:

    Yes the demanding celibacy part of it always struck me as a conundrum even when I was more fundamental in my beliefs. I mean if the condition was sinful already…what the hell difference did it make if they were celibate or not? Of course the church is sex obsessed and has had so many restrictions on sexuality not found in biblical analysis but which are rather the result of implied biblical meaning based upon individual perspective. As such…the act of sex is deemed the great sin in homosexuals so celibates can be tolerated. (So long as they are silent and kind of pretend to be something different than they are.) Since marriage is out of the question, (Even if sanctioned by the state) celibacy is all that is left. Once I discovered the mandate for celibacy outside of marriage was entirely man made rather than a command from God, the celibacy mandate became a cruel hoax perpetrated on an entire group who only wanted to live out their faith and worship with other believers.

  6. Adam Julians says:

    What you say Gary sounds similar to what was common thought in one church I went to but has not come up as an issue in the church I am in now. Some would say this is a sign of apostacy, some and indication of tolerance. I think one guy that is gay in the arts circels I mix with hit the nail on the head when in his stand up comedy act talked of being “tolerated”. But he didn’t just make it about being gay, he made it about all of us – that being tolerated is not what we need, but to be loved.

    I think what you talk of comes from a place of good intention but so often can be damaging. But then I am sure you have expereinced that too. I know I have. One can be sincere, but as the saying goes, one can be sincerely wrong.

    The best thing I heard was form someone who is gay sharing about his expereince of church. From that, my choice would be to “be there” with them with whatever they face and whatever choices they make as long as they are not doing me prsoanlly any harm. That includes if they are out of line speak to them about that as well just as I would do with a freind.

    I think there are two danges with this – the obvious homophobia, but also perhpas the less obvious false accusation of homophobia.

    I’m not in favour of the pendulum swinging one way or the other but settling in the middle.

    I hope that’s helpful.

    I agree that it is about detrmining what is of God rather than a mand made mandate and then acting on that IN LOVE. It’s always going to be a difficult one to negotiate when it comes to the issue of human sexualilty and I doubt if any one of us will have it all figured out how to do that soon.

  7. Bernardo says:

    The Koreans got it right. Dogs are yum yum good there.

  8. Gary says:

    “I think what you talk of comes from a place of good intention but so often can be damaging.”

    I can’t tell what you intend this statement to apply to.

  9. Adam Julians says:

    I was meaning about what you have commented about with a “man made mandate”etc. being confused with what is of God.

    So people often intending good and being sincere but being sincerely wrong.

  10. Gary says:

    Ah yes. Even for those who believe the bible is always right, the temptation is strong to confuse opinion with biblical revelation.

  11. Adam Julians says:

    Right – opinions (expecially with powerful emotions attached to them) can easilty be confused with biblical revalation. It’s natural for all of us to have attachment to what is pleasurable and be adverse to pain and suffering. But then what is pleasurable isn’t always good long term, and what is painful isn’t always bad.

    So we need something else than emotion and opinon to go on.

  12. Gary says:

    Granted. But it is equally true that what is pleasurable isn’t always bad long term and what is painful isn’t always good.

    Fundies seem to teach that pleasure is sinful indulgence and pain is purifying for the soul. But pleasure is often a beautiful gift (even where fundies see only sinful expression) and pain can be nothing more than a colossal inflamed ass.

  13. Adam Julians says:

    Yes, of course it’s also (and equally) true that what is pleasurable isn’t always bad long term and what is painful isn’t always good. I hear what you are saying about “sinful indulgence” and I understand where you are coming from with what you say about having been “more fundamental” before now.

    The way I see it is credit where credit is due and I am grateful for the foundation I was given with an Evangelical church. I’ve tended to move away from that as time has gone on, a choice that coincided with my own “Dark Night of the Soul” or I guess you could call “deconstruction”.

    Not suer what you mean by “colossal inflamed ass” but yes this sense of joy (a fruit of the Spirit) can sadly be absent at times in evangelical circles. I think that attibuting onels identity to being a “sinner” has a large part to do with that.

    In recent years I;ve come to the understanding that the term “sinner” was often used by the so-called “righteous” in the biblical context. There being irony in that in that the once being called a sinner perfomring an act that was right whereas the “righteous” being the one(s) out of line.

    I find it helps not to think as oneself and others as sinners but that we are all part good part evil part hero part villain and it being folly to consider oneself superiour to even the worse of others.

  14. Gary says:

    I simply meant that sometimes pain is not noble but rather nothing more than an inconvenience (pain in the ass) without some higher purpose.

    I agree with you on the so called righteous and the use of the term sinner. And I have a huge beef with anyone seeking to determine what is and is not sinful in another’s life outside of the very basic understanding of violation of the law of love by causing harm. I have come to believe that is the ONLY standard by which to evaluate the actions of another in the first place. (And a pretty good method to evaluate our own actions as well)

    I can’t go so far as to say I am grateful for my evangelical past though as I was raised and spent 40+ years of my life in very fundamental churches. I believe as a result I have lost literally years of understanding self and others because of it. And I also believe it placed great blinders to me in even beginning to comprehend God. In fact it was largely my eventual rejection of the nature of God I had been taught that lead to the freedom in my life to begin to explore what represented “truth” for me.

  15. Adam Julians says:

    I hear ya. Yup sometimes life just sucks.

    Yes I agree in principle with love. I would add the caveat of that being through connection with God’s love i.e. perfect love for what one of us can ever love perfectly?

    Well, I was only with that particular church I spoke of for 5 years and having come to faith later in life I already had an established sens of self. I can understand how 40+ years and being raised in that kind of environment for you will paint a different picture.

    However not unlike what you say about “blinders” I did find that my experience of what church was saying about God didn’t always match my experience elsewhere and there was pressure to conform. At the time I wasn’t spiritually mature enough to discern that so I deferred to others thinking that having been around longer they knew better.

    I was shocked one time however at a meeting with a discussion as to whether women be “allowed” to “pray audibly” at the weekly prayer meeting. I recall thinking that if there was as much enthusiasm for prayer as there were for perceived rights and wrongs over this issue then we would all be in a better place. As time when on I became suspicious of this and other approaches there e.g. towards feminist theology.

    My gratitude with that church and the foundation it offered was that right or wrong, there was an earnest approach to scripture and people genuinely whole heartedly committed to that. It’s not somewhere I cold worship now but I suppose for a while it served a purpose with me being there.

    Thankfully I got a better experience of engagement with differing theologies at college. I miss the common room discussions and debates there. A quick chat over a cup of tea to folks that for the most part are not interested in that kind of thing doesn’t quite do it.