Exeter College Oxford allows homophobic organisation to hold conference on premises

In my opinion homophobia is as unacceptable as racism and should be treated so. There were, and still are, a hell of a lot of white people who believed it would be harmful for white children to be adopted into black families. That doesn't make them right. Equally, whilst I totally disagree with being against gay adoption, it is NOT on the same level as calling homosexuals "evil" and "wrong", and saying that they should try to cure themselves. Sadly, Christian Concern falls into that second category of people.

You say that sexual equality "goes against the moral imperatives associated with sex". I'm slightly confused here - if you're talking about sex being described as a union between a man and woman, I don't accept that argument just because it's written down in a book. If you're talking biologically (in terms of reproduction), many women in heterosexual relationships choose not to have children now, so that doesn't really apply.

As for the part in bold, I'm not even going to answer that. It makes me feel sick. Sexuality is whatever you want it to be. At the end of the day, if two men or two women choose to have a relationship, they're not hurting you. So you shouldn't hurt them by preaching to them about what they should or should not do.

'Unacceptable' and 'disagree' is again a subjective line. I'd say that telling homosexual members of the JCR that they are ill/evil would reliably result in social exclusion, even formal discipline if a fuss was raised. I don't have to keep accommodating people who hold such offensive views, even if they have a right to say them. Same principles apply here.

There are hundreds, even thousands of other places this conference could be held that would not pose a problem - no politically active students, no homosexual members to be offended, no active LGBT messages to contradict. Telling them to go somewhere more appropriate (for a private conference) is not denying them a platform. Corporations invariably do have political agendas, and Oxford is far more responsible an organisation than a private corporation.

It is indeed an important question. Your line is no less subjective/arbitrary, its just more lenient.

To all the people who responded to me, I'm not ignoring your messages, but I've decided that I'd rather not debate this any more because it's strayed massively off-topic. I can't believe that some people on here think that gay people should be forced to be celibate or date people of the opposite sex. We shouldn't be debating whether homophobia is right - it's wrong, and perhaps in 50 years' time we'll look back and shake our heads at some of the attitudes that are currently seen as acceptable by a worrying number of people.

Why would it result in "social exclusion"? Slightly nutty God-squad people say weird stuff all the time. I'm sure the intelligent, erudite homosexuals of Oxford can cope with a private conference perhaps touching, as part of a wide-ranging discussion of a great many topics, on the morality of homosexuality. As I said earlier, I've already debunked the notion that this organisation equates homosexuality to paedophilia.

If the governing body of Exeter decided amongst themselves not to allow this conference to be held, or every student in the college signed a petition to stop it, I would not have a problem, because Exeter College would have decided to take a moral stand on this issue, as is its prerogative.

So it seems to me that most in the college don't have a major issue with this, but instead other people, who think they know better, are telling the staff and students of Exeter what they ought to do.

Most issues like this are subjective if you push them far enough. I just think it's a reasonable position that enlightened educational institutions should be stifling discussion in any way,

Clearly this is true. And views are changed by discussion.

You again seem to, ironically, have a problem with people using their freedom of speech. I and others do not think these people should be accommodated in Oxford and we are allowed to say it and make our case (in a public setting - the local evangelical church could tell us to not hold our conference on homophobic christians there if they wanted).

Ah well if this was a 'discussion' then i think few would have a problem with debating these guys - that way objections can be openly stated. Its not a discussion - its a private meeting where phrases like 'the gay problem' will no doubt be commonplace.

Exeter Alumnus Returns Degree

Exeter College alumnus Michael Amherst handed back his English BA to the University at the Exam Schools on Tuesday.
The gesture was made in response to the controversy surrounding Exeter College’s renting out of college buildings to the evangelical anti-gay group Christian Concern.

Exeter’s actions have been widely condemned since the emergence of the story in 4th week, including by legendary civil liberties and LGBTQ campaigner Peter Tatchell who commented that:

Oxford University is renowned worldwide for its pioneering scientific and ethical achievements; for its pursuit of truth and equality. It’s therefore bizarre that Exeter College is facilitating a Christian fundamentalist event that promotes homophobia and discredited so-called ‘cures’ for homosexuality

...

"I am sorry to say that the conduct of Exeter College in both agreeing to host Christian Concern and in their response to it has left me with little choice. Exeter College is no longer a place with which I wish to be associated."

"I welcome the College’s decision to review its procedure for future bookings..."

I have a friend who went to the conference (as a delegate).

He was surprised at the content of the conference which he had no idea about. He was told it was about Christian leadership, but then found when he got there that it was about abortion and homosexuality. There were some extremely high-flying speakers giving their arguments, and my friend, who is of the Reformed persuasion, said that other Christians there (young people) didn't really understand the issues Christian concern or the American group were arguing for.

There seemed to have been a lack of communication or miscommunication as to what the event was about to those who went there.

As to the debate, it is so very hard to come out on one side of this debate. Personally, I do consider myself a Christian, but Christians, on the whole, are way behind the secular world in developing mature methodologies for understanding texts and language. Christians still go on about what 'the Bible says', but they can't account for differing interpretations and different hermeneutics which come up with different view points.

Simply put, what exactly, could a Christian have to object about a 'gay relationship'?

(1) 'Homosexuality' as such was not even coined until the 1870s, and since then dramatic change has happened in turning same-sex intercourse into a whole pathology which Christians now believe 'gays' need saving from.

(2) Can a Christian say they object to love? Just because two of the same-sex choose to live in a way which looks remarkably like a heterosexual nuclear family, can they then say it is evil? And whose fault is it anyway that 'gay relationships' do look like heterosexual ones (which then appear wrong and threatening)? Perhaps because in western society it is extremely difficult for people of the same-sex to be very intimate in any way other than to mimic the nuclear family.

(3) And what of the physical? Many self-identifying gay people don't even value the physical (sexual) very much, if at all in some cases. Is there something wrong with them? In some historical periods, such a relationship would seem like a good friendship with nothing to cry up about.

(4) Even if we get onto the physical- are we to condemn kissing? Even in very sexual acts there is a plethora of intentions and contexts which surround a sexual act. Some people engage in 'sexual' acts without any expressed emotional intimacy at all. And to get into the real core of it, any health specialist today will verify (especially for the man) about 'hidden' areas of pleasure. Who planted them if not God?


I think mostly Christians sometimes need to think what is really real about their arguments, and what is just discourse which they have inherited and passed on, which they use to tackle other discourses. Really, I have this image in my head of two people arguing using words and scripts about sexual identities and so on, and two people beneath them loving each other who have never heard of such words or arguments or anything. We need help to see what is real, and what is just rhetoric or discourse.

Mercifully God has come in Jesus (who is a person- not a book), and the Spirit is given to help us (via our hearts/minds) to intuit what is OK. And that isn't to say that we make mistakes- in Christian speak there is a 'war' and so on in us.

Although I don't agree with Christian Concern's actions, I can at least understand them, and empathise, even though I wish they'd try and do the same and realise that most of the energy they make is down to discourse fighting (and Jesus said not to fight at all).