It's not often you find a major cultural event where representatives from the three biggest churches in Sydney fail to turn up, but the Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras is one such event. A survey of the grounds at Victoria Park on the 17th of February showed a myriad of tents, with everything from Turkish Gozleme to gay dating, dog shows, and more. Yet, despite this panoply, not a single representative from the Uniting Church (which was unusual, given their lenient attitudes towards homosexuality in the church), the Catholic Church, or the Anglican Church (hardly surprising) was present. These three churches together would comprise about 75-80% of Australia's Christian population.
In fact, the only religious groups that were there were the Quakers, the MCC (Metropolitan Community Church), and some "gay Catholics". The two former bodies, as far as I could discern, were about dogmatic as the Dalai Lama. The Quakers in particular declared that they had dispensed with the Bible as anything other than "an important text" alongside Quaker writings and the writings of other faiths. The MCC similarly took the line that Bible was only a guide, and that the church was open to all regardless of gender identity/sexual orientation. The question that always occurs to me after such meetings is - why bother? I mean, the Bible (unless you take the Secret Gospel of Mark found by Morton Smith to be true) is probably one of the most prejudiced books in existence today. If, in an alternate universe, I happened to churn one out for public consumption, it would probably be banned on the grounds of inciting hatred against sexual minorities (as well as a whole host of other people). Why try and beat out interpretations that are pro-homosexuality, when the book is so clearly, fundamentally opposed to same-sex relations?
The gay Catholics, I thought, were just a tad more dogmatic, if only about the fact that they don't have a dogma. Operating outside the church proper, they met in a Catholic Church on Friday where a priest would provide a mass and the Eucharist, and then "party on", to quote a member. Further questioning on their religious position made me question however their commitment to liberal values. For instance, while they seemed to support the "Sorry" speech by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, when my partner pushed them on the issue of abortion, they quickly froze, referring to the issue as "deeply personal". Again, she pointed out that, as Catholics who "just happened to be gay", they would surely agree with the Pope on the issue of abortion, and indeed, contraceptive use, sex before marriage, etc. All too quickly the shutters were drawn, and we were quickly reminded that just because a person has an alternative lifestyle, that doesn't necessarily mean they're progressive on other issues. Can gay Christians be as bigoted as straight Christians? Absolutely, and I think the likes of these men, as well as the infamous Ted Haggard, prove this to be true.
On a lighter note, the Raelians were present, and as always, were a delightful laugh. Far less insidious then the Scientologists (who, in my opinion, are hands down one of the most evil organisations in existence today), their stall had a UFO model as well as various books by Rael, including my favourite "Sensual Meditation". They also had a pity quote, declaring that intolerance against homosexuals and bisexuals was foolish and misguided, as the issue was purely genetic, and was akin to "hating a cat just because it was a cat, or a chicken because it was a chicken". While I agree with the sentiment, I'm not sure about the metaphor.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
i was talking about this today with someone, and how i so wrongly assume that because someone is homosexual they have liberal attitudes in the rest of their life. and logically (and clearly realistically), it doesn't work that way. i think i may be willing to accept that sexuality is for the most part genetic. so there is an even distribution of the genes at a set percentage of the population. and then if you take into account the fact political/social/moral leanings are determined, for the most part by genetics, its just a maths thing. some people are gay, some are straight, some are otherwise inclined, some are liberal minded, some are conservative. none of them are actually mutually exclusive. it might be interesting then, from a scientific point on view, to do a study on where the genes that code for social/political attitudes and sexuality, perhaps it is possible that the genes for progressive attitudes and homosexuality are more likely to occur together than those for conservatism and homosexuality.
i guess my assumption comes from the idea that "religious people are conservative" and they have a tendency to hide their sexuality, when its not socially acceptable.
i think i have rambled enough
Post a Comment