Forum

On the lgbt right

Politics, Philosophy And Religion

Fernando

#1 ·

Earlier today I was scrolling Twitter and came across a peculiar post, which I think warrants discussion for the ideas it seems to represent. The post in question was written by a self proclaimed gay republican, in fact "The Gay Republican" is quite literally his display name on the platform. It reads as follows:
"As a gay man I’m tired of people acting like Christians are just ssssoooo bad. The worst a Christian will do is judge you, quietly.
Muslims LITERALLY kill gays just for being gay!
Christianity and Islam are not the same and I’m tired of people acting like they are. Christians create free societies. Muslims create oppressive theocracies. Christians love their neighbors. Muslims oppress them.
As a gay man, I would love nothing more than to see more Christians in the world."
in my opinion there are 2 ways to read this. Either the OP is intending to make the argument that between a Christian society and an Islamic one, the former is the lesser evil in his view, or he is attempting to run defense for the Christian religion itself by making this argument. Ordinarily, one would probably assume the lesser of 2 evils reading is the correct one here, in fact I myself did so. But a cursory reading of the replies to his post, and his subsequent responses to them, seem to indicate that the defense of Christianity interpretation is meant to serve as the correct interpretation of the text. And I find this bizarre.
It is perfectly defensible to make the argument that from the perspective of someone concerned with advancing lgbt interests, the Christian society is the lesser evil, because it is less hostile to said interests. But note the use of the words "less" and "evil." From the perspective of the lgbt advocate, neither society, nor the religions that animate them, are goods to be defended. They are evils, precisely because they are hostile to their interests. The only difference between the 2 is the degree to which they are hostile. So I find it odd that someone who is (presumably) also concerned with advancing these interests would be running defense for either system here.
Now, anyone who is even slightly familiar with me or my work may find it odd that I would address this contradiction at all. I'm as Catholic as can be, and I've made my stance on these matters as transparent as possible for the sake of engaging these particular activists. And I, of course, still stand by my positions on the subject. No part of this post should be interpretted to imply the opposite. My motivation for making these observations at all stems from my tendency to analyze the internal logic of ideas and systems of thought, regardless of whether I personally hold to them or not. It is simply not rational to recognize 2 systems hostile to your interests and run defense for one of them, and this holds true no matter what your particular interests may be. And that is why I find the emerging coalition of self proclaimed lgbt right wingers, here exemplified by the author of the post, bizarre.
To be clear, I do not believe there is any logical contradiction between an out and proud lgbt identity and a strong sense of nationalism. If "The Gay Republican" finds himself on the right because he happens to have nationalist sympathies, if he supports The President because he advocates an intensely anti migration stance, for example, I see no issue with that in principle. However, if he finds himself on the right because he considers himself an ally of conservative Christians and their agendas, he is acting in a manner that is logically contradictory and self defeating. And the progressives would be right to point out to him, and anyone else in the lgbt community who may share his views, that such people are not his allies and that he is undermining his own cause.
But these are just my thoughts, and I write these posts for the sake of engaging with the thoughts of others. So feel free to leave your own opinions in the comments.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."

Sir-Charlie

#2 ·

I haven't read the full thread, but I assume they mean that Christian societies tend to be secular running theirs on ideas like equality before the law, tolerance, etc, whereas Islamic ones tend to run their societies more in line with literal religious beliefs.
All that I survey, I could easily destroy. From time to time, it is important to remind these small creatures of the true extent of my power.

Fernando

#3 ·

This would be a plausable reading if not for the replies and his responses to them, wherein he defends the Christian religion itself.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."

Sir-Charlie

#4 ·

Yeah very bizarre. Sounds like those weird progressive Christian schools where they accept the gays and so on, but can you really be a progressive Christian and a Conservative at the same time?
All that I survey, I could easily destroy. From time to time, it is important to remind these small creatures of the true extent of my power.

Fernando

#5 ·

No, that's a contradiction as well. And he isn't even a Christian himself, so there's just no reason to run defense for the religion from his perspective.
Chesterton, G.K. "When men choose not to believe in God, they do not thereafter believe in nothing; they then become capable of believing in anything."

djsenter

#6 ·

1 likes
Progressive Christianity is a phenomenon I can't quite wrap my head around as of yet, because it seems to be cultivating beliefs, which are often contrary to what Christianity stands for. Anyone can explain how do you call yourself a Christian, when you literally go against what the bible says?