Objecting to Stereotypically Gay Role Models

[JohnLocke]

Here's a question:

"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including homosexual persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "gay" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young heterosexual men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "gay mannerisms" regardless of the sexual orientation of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?

I appreciate your thoughts.

 

[Lynden1000]

I wouldn't think it would be correct. After all, if you don't have evidence that the person is homosexual, on what basis would you be removing them?

Catching a male church leader making sexual advances at another man would be good evidence. A high-pitched tone of voice would not.

 

[Lynden1000]

Another point...

If you wrongly accuse someone of being homosexual and remove him from his job, you run the very real risk of a lawsuit- one that you would likely lose if the accusation was false and was made on flimsy evidence.

 

[Paulos23]

I agree with both of Lynden's posts.

I would add you have the start of a witch hunt here, one that might tear your church and your community apart.

Even if he is gay, if he is doing his job well and not harassing anyone does it really matter?

 

[selfinflikted]

Here's a question:

"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including homosexual persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "gay" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young heterosexual men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "gay mannerisms" regardless of the sexual orientation of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?

I appreciate your thoughts.

My question is why would you object to "sterotypical gay mannerisms"?

 

[JohnLocke]

Allow me to clarify:

I wouldn't be removing the individual from their job because they were or were not homosexual. I don't care.

The issue is, I believe that the young men are modeling the individual's stereotypically gay behaviors, that these behaviors are counter productive and injurious to the young men.

As far as the law suit is concerned, that's not an issue in the state to which I refer, because the employee is "terminable at will" and sexual orientation is not a protected class for the purposes of Equal Opportunity, 14th Amendment claims, etc. Finally, this is about behavior in front of the impressionable youth, not status.

Peace

 

[naotmaa]

Allow me to clarify:

I wouldn't be removing the individual from their job because they were or were not homosexual. I don't care.

The issue is, I believe that the young men are modeling the individual's stereotypically gay behaviors, that these behaviors are counter productive and injurious to the young men.

As far as the law suit is concerned, that's not an issue in the state to which I refer, because the employee is "terminable at will" and sexual orientation is not a protected class for the purposes of Equal Opportunity, 14th Amendment claims, etc. Finally, this is about behavior in front of the impressionable youth, not status.

Peace

Could you be more specific about how they are modeling these behaviors? What these behaviors are?

 

[selfinflikted]

Allow me to clarify:

I wouldn't be removing the individual from their job because they were or were not homosexual. I don't care.

The issue is, I believe that the young men are modeling the individual's stereotypically gay behaviors, that these behaviors are counter productive and injurious to the young men.

As far as the law suit is concerned, that's not an issue in the state to which I refer, because the employee is "terminable at will" and sexual orientation is not a protected class for the purposes of Equal Opportunity, 14th Amendment claims, etc. Finally, this is about behavior in front of the impressionable youth, not status.

Peace

And why do you care one whit about gay mannerisms?

 

[Paulos23]

How are these behaviors counter productive? I need some examples here before I can comment further.

As for the law suit, even in a 'at will' employment state there are anti-discrimination laws, so be careful. He may have a case if all your doing is firing him for 'supposed' gay behavior in front of kids.

 

[JohnLocke]

Perhaps this is a good exercise in determining the bounds of my tolerance/prejudice. So thanks.

1. Why would I care about stereotypically gay behavior? Because I think it is maladaptive. I live in the Deep South, where those who exhibit such behavior are subject to discrimination even violence. In my professional experience those that exhibit these behaviors: weak hand shakes, "lilts", touching beyond handshakes or that necessary to plow through a crowd, large dangling earrings, do not go as far or fare as well as those that refrain from such behaviors. Admittedly, I work in a traditionally masculine profession.

2. Why do I care? Because I have familial ties to some of the young men and want them to succeed in life, business, etc. and believe that habits formed at this age have a marked impact on later development and the longer they persist the more difficult they are to replace. In my experience, "exuding power, competence and confidence" is absolutely vital to one's success in my profession. These mannerisms act counter to that.

3. Given the case law in my state, any lawyer who accepted a wrongful termination suit by this individual on the basis that they had been discriminated against for being homosexual would be lucky to get out of such a suit merely being found in contempt. Sexual orientation simply and expressly is not included among the classes protected by the anti-discrimination laws of the state to which I refer.

4. As far as a witchhunt goes, perhaps you're right, though I don't think that's my intent.

5. As far as the accusation that X is homosexual. 1) I never intended to make it, as the claim that one is a homosexual when one is in fact not is in almost every jurisdiction slander (or libel if in print).


From my perspective, maintaining a certain "professionalism" is a job requirement. Requiring among other things, answer your phone, return calls by the time promised, wear appropriate attire that has been recently laundered, shoes that are shined, refrain from profanity, etc. If someone was otherwise perfect, but presented the wrong image in my business, I'd consider terminating them as well. As much as we all may dislike it, image is very important in this modern life. Those that neglect it, do so at grave peril.

 

[selfinflikted]

Perhaps this is a good exercise in determining the bounds of my tolerance/prejudice. So thanks.

1. Why would I care about stereotypically gay behavior? Because I think it is maladaptive. I live in the Deep South, where those who exhibit such behavior are subject to discrimination even violence. In my professional experience those that exhibit these behaviors: weak hand shakes, "lilts", touching beyond handshakes or that necessary to plow through a crowd, large dangling earrings, do not go as far or fare as well as those that refrain from such behaviors. Admittedly, I work in a traditionally masculine profession.

2. Why do I care? Because I have familial ties to some of the young men and want them to succeed in life, business, etc. and believe that habits formed at this age have a marked impact on later development and the longer they persist the more difficult they are to replace. In my experience, "exuding power, competence and confidence" is absolutely vital to one's success in my profession. These mannerisms act counter to that.

I understand your dilemma. I'm gay, and I currently live in the south. I'm not what you would consider "feminine", but I do on occasion catch myself trying to "butch it up" for no real reason if I am amongst a crowd who I feel wouldn't be accepting of gays. That said, I believe your concerns are misplaced. Did you ever think that instead of trying to discourage "stereotypical gay mannerisms" that maybe we should try to discourage negative feelings towards them?

 

[Paulos23]

Interesting. I don't live in your part of the country so I don't see these behaviors as a problem. I don't see it as maladaptive, I see you wanting him to conform to your standard. If this guy was your employee I would recommend that you talk to him about what you listed in point one and give him a chance to change.

But not all professions are the same and don't require the same attitude or mannerisms. You might do better to take these young men aside and go over point one as behavior in the workplace. I don't think you will do any good in starting a campaign to remove this person.

 

[LittleNipper]

Here's a question:

"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including homosexual persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "gay" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young heterosexual men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "gay mannerisms" regardless of the sexual orientation of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?

I appreciate your thoughts.

Sorry, but if YOUR church affirms dignity to habitual sin, then YOUR church must take all the baggage that comes along with it ---- that is unless you wish to pass your own personal judgments. It would seem that such a church would have given up applying GOD's judgment.

 

[naotmaa]

Sorry, but if YOUR church affirms dignity to habitual sin, then YOUR church must take all the baggage that comes along with it ---- that is unless you wish to pass your own personal judgments. It would seem that such a church would have given up applying GOD's judgment.

Now, having stereotypical gay mannerisms does not make a person gay. Nor does not having these mannerisms automatically make them straight. So sexual orientation is beside the point in this case.

 

[MrPirate]

Here's a question:

"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including homosexual persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "gay" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young heterosexual men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "gay mannerisms" regardless of the sexual orientation of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?

I appreciate your thoughts.

try rephrasing this as:


"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including African American persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "black" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young white men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "black mannerisms" regardless of the skin color of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?”

offensive? You bet it is

but wait there is more


“The issue is, I believe that the young men are modeling the individual's stereotypically black behaviors, that these behaviors are counter productive and injurious to the young men.”

 

[MrPirate]

1. Why would I care about stereotypically gay behavior? Because I think it is maladaptive. I live in the Deep South, where those who exhibit such behavior are subject to discrimination even violence.

You mean discrimination like the kind you are suggesting.

 

[Beanieboy]

try rephrasing this as:


"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including African American persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "black" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young white men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "black mannerisms" regardless of the skin color of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?”

offensive? You bet it is

but wait there is more


“The issue is, I believe that the young men are modeling the individual's stereotypically black behaviors, that these behaviors are counter productive and injurious to the young men.”

This is what it sounds like to me, and when you look at Jesus, he wasn't your stereotypical Family Guy Texan who don't take kindly to strangers, or beat up/kill anyone who's different.

Jesus said to turn the other cheek.
Not exactly Rambo.

He said that love is kind, gentle, patient, and does not delight in the ill of others. This isn't the rough, agressive, or "in your face!" kind of mannerisms in today's macho man.

The "stereotypical masculine man" chases anything with a skirt, thinks women should be virgins until married, but he has the right to sleep around, burp and fart in public, tell off-colored jokes, swear every other word to prove their manhood, sleep with women to prove their manhood, show how much liquor they can put away as a sign of their manhood, is very homophobic, goes to the gym all the time because he is obsessed with his muscles, can't dance, can't sing, can't dress himself to save his life, has bad hair, and can't hold a conversation unless it's about girls or sports.

Is that better?

 

[JohnLocke]

I"m afraid that this is the point where we agree to disagree.

I particularly like Mr. Pirates "stereotypical African American" critique. If those behaviors were wearing one's pants below one's buttocks, speaking in Ebonics (does anyone do that anymore? I don't know, lawyers don't), and the like. Then I would pull X aside and say, "The following are inappropriate, they will end now or your employment will" if I had the power to hire/fire. I don't think that that makes me a racist, just as I don't think to my objection to what I see as less than professional behavior makes me a homophobe.

Beanieboy, Jesus Christ was a Man's Man. When he was struck, he took it. When others feel asleep, he stood his post. When others complained of the impossible, he performed it. Where others broke faith, he remained loyal.

There are many ideas of what a Man is; there are even many ideas of who Jesus Christ was and is. I consider myself fairly masculine but I do not chase anything with a skirt, I have standards, I do think folks should be virgins until married, because sex with folks you're not really bounded too ultimately proves empty, but there's no gender bias there. I rarely tell off-color jokes (don't know many to tell the truth), I do swear for emphasis but not every other word nor to prove my manhood, I rarely drink, rarely hit the gym, (more of a cross country and kata kinda guy), I'm actually quite a good dancer and enjoy it a great deal, especially when one waltzes to God Smack or Korn the expressions on folks' faces is priceless. I can't sing, can dress myself (but admittedly it's hard to get a suit wrong), I've little hair left to be bad, and rarely have conversations about girls or sports, more likely politics, law, theology, economics, or local music.

It's about behavior and about setting forth role models most likely to succeed.

Peace

 

[ChaliceThunder]

Here's a question:

"If my church accepts and affirms the "dignity and civil rights of all persons including homosexual persons" is it moral for me to object to the presence of persons who exhibit stereotypically "gay" mannerisms, in tone, diction, body language, dress, appearance, etc. as leaders or role models in the church?

In other words, is it morally correct for me to campaign for the removal of a priest, deacon, sunday school instructor, etc. who serves as a role model for young heterosexual men and boys who also exhibits stereotypical "gay mannerisms" regardless of the sexual orientation of such teacher, priest, deacon, etc?

I appreciate your thoughts.

I'm not sure why you would want to "campaign" against somebody because of their mannerisms or speech patterns. What kind of Christian would do that?

 

[Paulos23]

I"m afraid that this is the point where we agree to disagree.

*snip*

It's about behavior and about setting forth role models most likely to succeed.

Peace

I have to agree here, that we will have to disagree. I don't think any of the behavior you think is required for success is required. True, there is a base standard for behavior in, say an office, but it is not up at the level your putting it. I have known lots of people that don't exhibit those behaviors you are for and do succeed in business.

And then there is the whole question of what is success for an individual, which can vary.