Interpreting the discourses: Youth voices

Within the RYS project, it was evident that religious young adults were keen to analyse the basis of religious interpretation, resisting attempts to follow certain edicts because of what a religious leader espoused. Darshan, a heterosexual Sikh, explained that he resisted scenarios where religious leaders told him what to do, as ordinarily no discussion or debate was cultivated, saying ‘you can’t participate... you are just listening there and it would still be the place where you follow what is being told by them’. Instead, young people emphasised their own learning, weighing up the often contested interpretations on sexuality matters, often marking a distinction between the mainstream interpretations of their religious tradition and what they personally believed. This was sometimes oriented through a personal relationship with god:

I interpret the Bible in a different way. I don’t think that God would necessarily condemn gay people but... Christianity wouldn’t approve.

(Leanne, Bisexual Christian woman)

There are a lot of things in organised religion that I don’t agree with and take my own stance on them.

(Heather, heterosexual Christian woman)

Jamil, a bisexual Muslim, had extensively analysed Quranic verses, and used this religious knowledge to his advantage when he encountered fellow Muslims who argued that the Qur’an forbade homosexuality, as he explains as he reflects on this conversation with a friend:

I said it does not say no in the Qur’an that homosexuality is banned, I said the acting of lusts upon men is Haram, acting upon lusts of anything is Haram, it’s immodest. So he said, “Ok I can see what you think, but I still think it’s Haram”. I said, “Do you read the Qur’an?” He said, “No”. I said, “How do you know it’s Haram?” He said “Because people say”. I said, “Yes, because people who are straight who hate gays will say that”... I didn’t let anybody [make me] doubt what I can believe because my connection is between me and Allah.

(Jamil, bisexual Muslim man)

In this exchange, Jamil was critical of those who followed others without their own discernment and study of the text. When the religious text is differently recast, this can have powerful effects. As Yip argues, ‘the significance of religious texts is undeniable. Even opponents with scarce theological knowledge often use clichés such as “The Bible says so” or “The Qur’an says it is wrong”, to justify their stance against homosexuality’ (2005, p. 49). Jamil drew upon the Sodom and Gomorrah story to argue this was about lust rather than homosexuality. This was complemented by his emotional connection with God, overshadowing the official discourses (Yip, 2005). God was a powerful ally in Jamil’s recalibration in his understanding of homosexuality and Islam. Overall, then, dominant religious discourses impact on young adults’ negotiation of sexual scripts available to them, but these were never absolute, and participants recognised that alternative discourses were available if they looked hard enough (Foucault, 1976). This also emphasised the lived nature of youth religiosity, where engagement with the sacred texts became part of their spiritual practice. For queer participants in particular, knowledge was power.