Re: ��h�� -- ��ۥѬ��Яd�� Liberal Christian Forum of Hong Kong

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 ]

Subject: Re: ��h��

Author:
Clement Lo

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 15:22:34 04/01/05 Fri
In reply to: XOX 's message, "Re: ��h��" on 14:40:22 04/01/05 Fri

Please let me clarify my words.

Why I say "as if people do not have a right to be heterosexual"? Because, anything, any words, any selectivity, any perspectives could be regarded as a symbol of heterosexualism--if one is too alert or sensitive. So the ultimate way, the purest way, the cleanest way, is to get rid of heterosexual people totally. "-isms" do not exist abstractly, but always among people.

Even if there is no explicit heterosexualism, won't the "implicit, implied" heterosexualism be suffocating enough that it is not really easy for non-heterosexuals to breath a fresh air?

I think tolerance is mutual. The dominant thought should not be hegemonous, while the non-dominant thoughts should also not be oppressive or radical upon their struggle against hegemony.

>//If what XOX means by "good churches" are only those
>XOX agrees to (e.g. must be absent of any
>heterosexualism--as if people do not have a right to
>be heterosexual...)... then I really doubt whether
>XOX's "good churches" are as commonly understood... //
>
>Wrong assumption again.
>
>Heterosexualism is the term use for people that
>exclude all other sexual orientation except
>heterosexuals. That means they do not allow other
>people to be freely express their sexual orientation
>if they are not heterosexuals.
>
>Good church should never be excluding people based on
>sexual orientation. That would be as disgusting as
>church being racist (done that) and sexist (still
>doing it).
>
>Good church should accept individuals as loved
>children of God, and be inclusive, not exclusive.
>
>I didn't expect anyone to misunderstand that very
>simple concept.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject	Author	Date
Re: ��h��	XOX	15:33:15 04/01/05 Fri