“They”–gay activists–”know if they make enough inroads into [schools], the same-sex-marriage battle will be moot.”
… last year’s big UCLA survey of college freshmen found that 57% favor same-sex marriage (only about 36% of all adults do). Even as adult activists bicker in court, young Americans–including many young conservatives–are becoming thoroughly, even nonchalantly, gay- positive.
From the October 10th issue of Time Magazine.
I previously presented my personal conclusion on preaching strategy in the post-Gay Marriage world here.
Echoing an analysis I made of how verbatim “gay bashing” preaching will be perceived, the article states:
Jennings believes a majority of GSA members are heterosexuals who find anti-gay rhetoric as offensive as racism. “We’re gonna win,” says Jennings, speaking expansively of the gay movement, “because of what’s happening in high schools right now … This is the generation that gets it.”
haribol.
a friendly challenge
:
what’s all this (above) have to do with integrity?
its not another typo is it?
it does seem to tell a different story from the integrity threads though.
:)
Challenge respectfully declined. The category tags are self explanatory: Media Watch. Trends.
:-)
fair enough. I was hoping for a productive discussion and not just arguement for the sake of arguement though.
Actually i did give your ‘Preaching in the Post-Gay Marriage World’ stance on how to deal with the inevitable a solid read and, to be honest, it does seem to have the potential to maintain integrity to the siddhanta and at the same time address the practical necessisty of formulating a strategy for dealing with gay couples who already visit our centers. Naturally this will increase as it is more widely accepted in our host society so if we don’t consider these things now then our future efforts to assist them in their spiritual lives may be inhibited.
I wonder how your stance would accomodate an incident that happened to me about 4-5 years ago …
I was in the Govinda’s during the lunch rush one afternoon dressed in dhoti and tilaka. A group of three obviously gay men approached me quite abruptly (as per the West-Australian demeanour) and demanded, “Does your religion condone homosexuality?”
I wasn’t much taken back by their loud and proud query despite that at that point I had the audience of a good portion of the customers who were seated and having their lunch. Also I was aware that the person who I was speaking to was a very outspoken gay activist as I’d seen him speak at rallies whilst on book distribution in the colloquial city of Perth where everyone seems to know everyone else who leaves their home. I thought that the opportunity might be great to present the concept that we are not actually our bodies and that both ‘hetero’ and ‘homo’ attraction are based on misidentification. This person is also a PHD and most educated folks in Perth know him as he is a very public figure in the university scene. Strangely enough I ended up designing a piece of software for his biology department when I worked for the Teaching and Learning center on Murdoch campus a few years later and he remembered me vaguely as a Hare Krishna. Then I got to preach to him rationally and the dialogue we had was healthy and respectful.
But this time I invited him to sit with me and discuss his question yet before I could even finish he demanded a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer.
So here I was with a small audience being aggresively confronted by a very well know professor and gay activist and co.
Again I tried to explain that their was an exact answer to his question and that it was neither ‘yes’ nor ‘no’ and that if wanted me to give any answer that we could sit and I’d explain our teachings on this point.
He wasn’t interested and then, as if he were giving me a last chance to convince him, he offered, “Just a simple yes or no will suffice.”
If I could go back in time I would probably have just held my ground and refused to be bullied into giving any sort of incomplete answer.
At the time I was thinking ….. his exact question was “Does your religion condone homosexuality?” so since he wants a simple answer I should give him one in the spirit of ye yatha mam prapadyante. (BG 4.11)
So I just answered plainly “No.”
He replied (quite condescendingly) “Thank you.” and stormed out of the restaurant in a swoosh with his supporters in tow.
I looked around the restaurant and saw that I had the sympathy of nearly everyone. The customers (mostly regulars) were looking at me supportively in mild disbelief of what had just transpired. I just smiled and shrugged my shoulders and we had a laugh.
I always did beat myself up a bit at how I handled that situation though as I thought that it could have been an opportunity to make an impact. Now I think I would handle the situation a bit better but back then I guess that this was the best I could come up with given my experience and level of faith.
How would you deal now with a situation like that?
Once Jesus was sitting with a crowd when the Pharisees approached him. They asked him whether the people should pay their taxes to the Romans or not.
Popular opinion amongst the Jews, living under Roman occupation, was obviously against the Romans. To speak in support of the occupation and the taxation would go against popular opinion. At the same time, to speak against the Romans would be treasonous, grounds for imprisonment or death.
The Pharisees were sure that they had Jesus cornered. It was a simple yes or no question. Which way would he go: alienate the public, or offend the government?
Jesus said to them: “Show me a coin.”
Someone produced a coin.
“Whose picture is on that coin?” Jesus asked.
“Caesar’s” was the reply.
“So give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and give to God what is God’s” pronounced Jesus.
The Pharisees departed from that place in fear.
Public debate is about convincing the audience. Whoever wins the audience wins the debate.
By asking this particular question (”Does your religion condone homosexuality?”) your man defines the terms of the debate so that you can’t win (at least with his guys). The guy is not looking for anything else.
He didn’t ask for your religion’s perspective, he’s setting you up to lose by framing the question completely within his perspective, and the shared assumptions of the audience. Many times my attempts to publicly debate philosophy professors (back in the day when I did that sort of thing) would end with them turning to the assembled crowd and saying “Well, everyone knows…” or “As we all know….”.
In this case, for example, everyone automatically takes it for granted that your religion “condones heterosexuality” - that’s an important point to keep in mind. It colours how the audience will interpret your response, and we’ll examine that point later.
There is nothing wrong with your answer.
At the same time, you want to win his crowd, because your home crowd (the regulars) are already your posse; and you want to represent with credibility as well.
You can do one of two things: If you’re like Jesus you lay down a killing blow and get a knockout in the first round.
Here’s a Prabhupada knock-out punch:
Questioner: “You say that one who knows Krishna knows everything.”
Prabhupada: “Yes.”
Questioner: “So do you know everything?”
Prabhupada: “Yes.
Questioner: “OK, so how many windows are there in the Empire State Building?”
Prabhupada: “As many as there are drops of water in illusion.”
heh heh heh.
One from Gurudeva, Loft Sunday Feast, discussing death:
Questioner (trying to seize the initiative): “So how do you die, Dave?”
Devamrita Swami: “Oh…” (nods appreciatively to the questioner) “…that’s a very good question - and my name’s not Dave.”
Here’s one suggestion:
Q: “Does your religion condone homosexuality?”
A: “Our religion condones *celibacy*. It *tolerates* anything else.”
By answering in this way you take it to another level, by introducing the third option to homo and heterosexuality - *celibacy*, and you avoid the trap he has set up for you, where if you answer “no” to the question:
1. By implication you preferentially approve heterosexuality and condemn homosexuality (”discrimination”)
2. You condemn homosexuals (”intolerance”)
In public presentation (television, radio, even print), if you can’t summarize in a soundbite, you lose.
If he pushes back, you can re-emphasize:
“We condone *celibacy*. We *tolerate* anything else. Sexual desire of *any kind* demands a lot of tolerance doesn’t it? It just comes over you without you asking for it, and drives you to try to satisfy it. You have to learn to tolerate in order to master it, rather than being mastered by it.”
We’re not against homosexuality or heterosexuality. We’re against the oppression of material nature.
The other thing you can do is beg off completely:
“We teach people how to develop their spirituality, whatever their situation.”
This one disarms him completely because you don’t even try to outflank him or redefine the debate. You simply don’t engage.
And yes, the numbers of the people we are having to serve in this capacity is increasing, so it does require some thought in how to deal with it sensitively.
> In 1968 December, a lesbian initiated brahmin devotee brought
> her “girlfriend” with her to the temple and asked Srila Prabhupada if
> this were “alright” Srila prabhupada said that if she wanted to
> practice lesbian activity, then she should live outside the temple and
> not visit the temple until she was ready to give such things up. This
> took place in my presence, and there was no mistaking Srila
> Prabhupada’s intent.
>
> Please keep me up to date!
>
> Your eternal servant,
>
>
> Nara Narayan Vishwakarma das