如題

當然基督教又好,同志又好,其實都是用已有的文化資本,例如聖經,聯會國的人權宣言,等去支持自己..本來文本沒有的東西,可能經過用者的引申,又好似變成存在,以支持某些"政治"的目的.這是一場戰爭.
---然而同志社群確實被人否定,被人詮釋成一些不正常的人,所以有些同志不敢講自己是同志, 神聖的東西不在同志那一邊..她們只會被定義為魔鬼和誘惑---基督教又好,佛教又好,islam又好..什麼也好...其實不斷要維繫這種sacred 與profane, 目的就是建立秩序..
----我不理祂----聽人講了咁多同志....我反而想知什麼是同志, 有點模糊...

1. 游靜 said: "If I adopt your logic-- guess what do you think would happen in HK if a gay person complains a colleague of her/his Christianity?" I would not dispute the sort of answer you are likely to give to this question; you might, even with my support, declare that what the conservative Christians do, e.g. deprive LBGT people of their jobs, is ETHICALLY WRONG, and that it is urgent to change the law to protect the potential victims. But to say, with 煒煒, that "基督信仰反同運動已由一種『信仰』發展為一種政治" is too murky to make any sense at all.

If you meant by that statement to suggest, that sometime in the past conservative Christians only believed in anti-LBGT, but never used their social influence, public and private, to promote their views and further their ends; that therefore there is a recent change in the strategy of these conservatives, namely, that they begin to do something; hence their movement's becoming political: if you meant this, then you were making either a trivial observation or, at your own admission, even a wrong one: "Historically speaking," you just told us, "Christian fundamentalists have been employing many diverse and changeable ways [...]": not a recent development at all.

But you seemed to mean something different. You seemed to suggest, by the term "政治," that what these conservatives do is bad, very bad. So "政治," for you, is not only a descriptive term, meaning for instance the active use of social influence to promote views and further ends; but a normative one, indicating that the activity is ethically wrong. I am not sure whether you would ever call what you, or other LBGT activists, do "政治": If you do, and you only use the term descriptively, then "基督信仰反同運動已由一種『信仰』發展為一種政治" ought to carry no normative judgment at all: and as a description it is, as we just saw, either trivial or wrong. But if you do use the term, and use it normatively, then why is your "政治" commendable, but that of the conservatives to be condemned? The answer, not surprisingly, must lie in your view that certain moral beliefs of the conservatives are ethically wrong. But to articulate this point, you must either declare that the conservatives have misinterpreted their religion (hence my reference to plausible interpretations) or that the religion is in fact evil--XOX has long been advocating this, shall we say, radical position--seeing that all plausible interpretations of it indeed support anti-LBGT.

2. 游靜 said: "If you say that as long as both parties are struggling for more power then they should necessarily be seen as the same, then you're basically repeating exactly the rhetoric of the fundamentalists ("I'm fighting for democracy and civil rights just like the rest of you!")" No. I meant only to say that you could not condemn the other party simply by calling what it does "politics," as if the term already carried a clear normative judgment. There is ample room for you to articulate an ethical position against the conservatives.

3. 游靜 said: "In this movement where social and political dominance is the main goal, Christianity (or any religious beliefs for that matter) is a just a ploy." How do you know that, ma'am? Many conservative Christians--and I do not mean to sympathize with them--believe that it is truly God's will that LBGT people are decadent and evil. For them, Christianity is not a ploy, but the very foundation of their normative judgment. A set of beliefs might have motivated you to help out the LBGT people; would you say to yourself, that those beliefs are merely a ploy? Many Democrats in the US have long said that culture and religion and moral values are merely a ploy: "It's the economy, stupid." But unfortunately, it turns out that many voters, from different classes, are really motivated by culture and religion and moral values to vote for the Republicans; losing the moral battle has, I would you agree, cost the Democrats dearly. This is a lesson which LBGT activists might want to take to heart.