Just listening to the BBC promoting homophobia on Any Answers

[pattihews]

Any Questions (Radio 4) this afternoon tackled the issue of the CofE and gay marriage. Any Answers (in which members of the public phone in with their opinions) has had four outspoken homophobic Christian callers and one who told us that Jesus loves us all and all we need it love.

I'm a lesbian. I'm still alive. I'm still, through gritted teeth, prepared to defend the right to free speech. But how come the BBC permits this and the shows no balance?

Forgot to say that if the question had been about transgender folk I think boundaries would have been drawn very sharply.

I was confused about why the presenter was surprised to be getting into theological arguments when this is literally the point. If they genuinely thought this I do wonder how much thought they'd given to the segment and yes it ended with little if any push back from others who view teachings and understanding differently.

Any Questions was simply terrible on the inevitable question about the Scottish GRR bill. Lots of ' most marginalised' and 'have consulted widely'. No mention that they had only consulted with organisations that the Scottish gvmt is bankrolling.

And no mention of women or women's rights.

There was one panel member who seemed to be on our side but was too terrified to articulate his disquiet, in any way other than to mutter darkly that he had daughters.

I am a Christian and very sorry for what you have been subjected to. Christians should not be throwing these judgements around. I would be more persuaded of their good faith if I heard them calling out unkindness, or selfishness, which are very clearly not Christian behaviours, rather than homosexuality.

Homosexuality is very much part of God's design and plan for the human race, and we would be incomplete without homosexuals in our communities

oldwomanwhoruns, I heard:

SNP - standard spiel, there has never been a more tested piece of draft leglisation, it's an outrage, etc, Conservative - party line, it's within their power, and there's a risk to women and girls and so Section 35 is justified, Labour - perching, terrified, on the fence, and then the non-political panellist, Imran Hakim, an entrepreneur, who was very plainspoken about being the father of girls, being very aware of possible consequences, and being very against the GRR Bill.

This is a theological argument, and to what extent you take the bible as the direct word of God. The church can’t say those who don’t believe should follow their precepts, but this isn’t about those who don’t believe. It is about how the bible should be interpreted by those who do believe. It is about faith. And as such I find it problematic when non-Christians say society accepts something so the church must too. It is imposing believes on others. Removing their freedom of believe. Homosexuality may be the medium here but it is broader than that. To what extent can someone hold a belief you find objectionable? It takes us straight back to the point - are we allowed to believe TWANW if others find this objectionable? You cannot say evangelical Christians mustn’t believe certain things and then insist on the right to single sex sports.

You can hold an objectionable belief but I don't expect it to be repeated without some recourse or moderation on the BBC where, for years, gender ideology could barely be mentioned without insistence that someone should be available to speak on the side of transgenderism. It would seem laughably medieval were people not telling me that they and their god think I'm an abomination.

I heard the Scottish debate, too, but I was shoving a hoover around the house and trying to bake a cake at the same time because we have guests coming, so I wasn't able to listen carefully. But yes, being T is brave and stunning and they are the most marginalised, and then afterwards hearing Christians quoting Leviticus... You may call it theological: it still hurts.

And earlier this week I went to see my Labour Senedd representative, with his assistant by his side, who told me — after I'd shown them a file of printouts about transgender prisoners being held in women's gaols, and crimes committed by transwomen — that there were always a few bad pennies and this sort of thing had always happened and would always happen. They both, several times, made the point that they weren't lesbians and so they couldn't be expected to see things from a lesbian perspective — which written down doesn't look so bad, but when they said it had a clear 'fucking paranoid lesbians' subtext.

Even a GC women's group I attend, mainly straight women who would call themselves feminists, say and do things that make it clear they're uncomfortable with having lesbians in the group. Difficult to pinpoint, but there is tension whenever they talk about issues they have with their male partners. There's come a point, several times, when one of them in particular looks over at me or one of the other dykes and says 'You're laughing at us, aren't you, cos we're facing things you've managed to get out of.' I'm not laughing, of course. There doesn't seem much to laugh about at the moment.

You cannot say evangelical Christians mustn’t believe certain things and then insist on the right to single sex sports

they are two different things

I am sorry this is happening patti, the lack of balance is so wrong and it must be so frustrating

I don't think comparing the right to believe something objectionable with the right to single-sex sport is relevant or useful.

Religious beliefs are just that, beliefs. We have more than ample data to show that if even mediocre males compete in elite female sport, women will lose out. You can argue that on fairness alone, no belief involved.

'Homosexuality is very much part of God's design and plan for the human race
How do you know? Has He told you?

Fwiw, I think shelefttheweb is correct.
Churches that change to fit the society they are in are, generally, failing. Churches that don't, from Orthodox to Evangelical, are doing much better.

It's Any Answers. It's full of people with mad opinions. 'Twas ever so.

I was absolutely outraged at what I am sure was a deliberate decision to allow this one issue to dominate the discussion.

It was clear from the AQ programme, based on audience response, that many more people were concerned about levelling up and the Scottish GRR, where there was applause for those speaking up for women's rights.

So even on the basis of levelling up it was totally unprofessional to allow what is a minority group band on for hours about theological points that are of no interest to the vast majority of the population. (This isn't an attack on Christians - I am sure many other minority groups would love to have been the object of BBC promotion!)

I wonder if there is any way of finding out what proportion of call received, as opposed to those that made it onto the programme were about that.

I couldn't quite believe what I was hearing, particularly the murder comparisons. But then I suppose it did conveniently mean there wasn't enough time for discussion on section 35.

I thought the panel member who did voice concerns, was in fact really clear. He admitted he didn't know too much about it, but spoke very clearly about his concerns for his daughters. And was clapped. (I think he was there as a token local person rather than 3 politicians limiting their responses to fitting the party line.)

And what was so depressing, was getting all the usual poor marginalised group stuff, and never any acknowledgement that women have rights too.

Really? Maya had to go to court twice in order for us to say ‘TWANW and should not be in woman’s sport” as a manifestation of a protected belief.

Yes, two different things. One is a fact-based matter of justice and fairness. All the mediocre male swimmers who are having to slow down in swimming races in order not to finish the race when the women are only halfway: all the teenage schoolboys who can run faster than the world's fastest woman over 100m: the women hurt in contact sports such as rugby by men twice their size — all factual evidence that for safety and fairness we must have single sex sports.

We know that Maya's beliefs are based on science and research, but the only way to use the law was to plead belief. GC beliefs are based on science and knowledge.

Yes, I thought I heard one of them saying that allowing homosexuals to marry would be like legalising murder — and then I though I couldn't possibly have heard that. Is that what she (I think it was she) said?

Yes, I think she used the analogy twice.

I didn't hear the program.
But I would expect a discussion about whether a religion should change to allow gay marriage would have lots of comments from members of that religion who believe that homosexuality is a sin, as that is the basis of their objection.
Even though I disagree with them, I fully support their right to express their belief in a free society.
(I also support the right of religious people to say that having children out of wedlock is a sin, even though I have two.)

But the point is that TRAs say stating this is offensive, that TWAW and saying otherwise is a hate crime. Various legislatures have gone along with this, as did the first judge in Maya’s case (who said the belief that sex is immutable is not worthy of respect in a democratic society). As soon as we say certain beliefs are not allowed who makes that decision? When even TWANW is considered offensive by some?

That is an extreme comparison but for most faiths, not just Christians, you have to remember we are dealing with life in eternity. To condone something considered against a God’s laws would be to condemn them, and possibly you, for eternity. That is the only way I can see this comparison working? But that is why I don’t get the fudge of a blessing service (same with King Charles’ wedding as a divorce); either it is wrong in which case don’t marry them and tell them God loves them but not their behaviour or whatever, or you marry them. If you can bless them then it seems hypocritical not to marry them?

www.bbc.co.uk/foi/requesting-information/

It was shocking, but I very much felt that they were allowed to hoist themselves with their own petard.

Homophobia is alive and well in the Church of England. Important to know.