First published in the Chicago Free Press on February 6, 2008
David Kinnaman has seen the handwriting on the wall: "As these new generations begin to make up a larger share of the public, homosexuals will gain greater rights and protections-and widespread acceptance-in our culture."
Kinnaman is not happy about this. Kinnaman, who heads the Barna Group, which conducts survey research on and about evangelical Christians, is the author of Unchristian: What a New Generation Really Thinks about Christianity...and Why It Matters (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2007).
Kinnaman focuses on young people 16-29, particularly those he calls "outsiders"-atheists, agnostics, adherents of other religions and the "unchurched." Those now make up 40 percent of young people, he reports. Just a decade ago Christianity had an overwhelmingly positive image among the young, including outsiders, he says. But no longer.
"Our most recent data show that young outsiders have lost much of their respect for the Christian faith." They hold several negative images of Christianity: it is judgmental (87 percent agreed), too involved in politics (75 percent), hypocritical (85 percent), and out of touch (72 percent).
But the predominant negative perception is that Christianity is "antihomosexual." Fully 91 percent of "outsiders" say Christianity is anti-gay. Remarkably, 80 percent of young churchgoers agree:
"In our research, the perception that Christians are 'against' gays and lesbians-not only objecting to their lifestyle"-i.e., sex-"but also harboring irrational fear and unmerited scorn toward them-has reached critical mass. The gay issue has become the 'big one,' the negative image most likely to be intertwined with Christianity's reputation." In short, "A new generation of adults ... now accepts homosexuality as a legitimate way of life."
Kinnaman's book is meant to warn Christians that their political influence on the issue of homosexuality will ebb and that they need to undertake a "kinder, gentler" approach to gays such as getting to know them, engaging them in conversation, showing compassion, and talking about Jesus instead of initially taking a moralistic approach.
I am not sure that "compassion" is what gays expect these days. Acceptance is what most expect. But given the reiterated condemnations of "the homosexual lifestyle" (i.e., sex) by Kinnaman and his commentators in the book, evangelical Christians cannot offer that. It is their bottom line, their obsession.
But the Jesus of the gospels said nothing to condemn homosexuality. So the Christians eventually have to stop talking about Jesus and talk about "the Bible" (including the Old Testament), or even a rather amorphous (and manipulable) "biblical perspective." Bait and switch.
So the Christians have nothing to offer gays by way of sexual relating. Kinnaman asks, as if uncertain, "Is it still true that homosexuals have deep sexual needs, just like the rest of us?" But all they offer is celibacy. As one commentator writes, "What if we could provide intimate Christ-centered community and accountability for him or her in that pursuit? We believe that community is the answer to everyone feeling loved and human." Somehow it just doesn't seem the same.
Kinnaman moves inconspicuously from inoffensive "first statements" to more offensive "repetitions." He first says Christians oppose "church-sanctioned weddings for same-sex couples," which is part of their freedom in a civil society. But later referring to legislators, he says it is important to affirm that "marriage is between one man and one woman." So he thinks that not only churches should bar gay marriage but the state as well, a very different matter.
And Kinnaman refuses to engage the strongest gay arguments. For instance, asserting that a child needs a mother and a father, he opposes gay adoption. But-putting aside the research on same-sex parenting-there are many children in foster care and innumerable orphans worldwide with no parents at all. Are they better off with no parents or with two loving gay parents? Kinnaman refuses to reply.
Perhaps the most offensive Christian claim is that, as one commentator says, "There is not a special judgment for homosexuals (nor) ... a special righteousness for heterosexuals." Or as a pastor Kinnaman quotes puts it, "The struggle of gays in being attracted to the same sex is not different than my struggle in being attracted to the opposite sex."
What effrontery! All Christians know that loving heterosexual sex within marriage is perfectly legitimate and has a "righteousness" according to their God (Gen. 1:28). The unnamed pastor's attraction to his wife-a member of the opposite sex-has a legitimate mode of sexual expression, so the desire ("temptation") can be acted on. But his doctrine allows nothing for gays. Ultimately, one has to doubt these people's honesty or their intelligence.
Corvino, John
{ 105 comments }
← Previous Comments
You accuse the Bible of murdering innocents–when I say that a large segment of the gay subculture was involved with older men picking up young, confused men off the street, or in rest rooms, or in rest areas which led to many deaths by suicide, drugs, or STDs, you say it never happened, or that the gay community didn’t know about it. I would believe your concern for the death of the innocent if you truly wanted to address the horrible evil of that part of the gay world, or gay underworld. I am grateful that many of those young men turned to the Church where they at least lived long enough to make adult choices.
Bobby is a man, and no religion prescribes female circumsition, that is a cultural thing, not a religious one.
As for your statement against circumsition, circumsition has existed for thousands of years. It is embraced by both jews and arabs, and much of the west, and it is backed by science:
“On 28 March 2007 the World Health Organization and UNAIDS issued a statement endorsing circumcision in prevention of the spread of HIV [644]. This stated ?the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male HIV transmission has now been proven beyond reasonable doubt. This is an important landmark in the history of HIV prevention?. It went on to recommend circumcision for men and boys. Infant circumcision was also advocated because it is ?less complicated and risky?.”
http://www.circinfo.net/hiv_the_aids_virus.html
“The foreskin contains sensory nerve receptors as are prevalent over the rest of the penis.
There is no scientific evidence that the extra complement of these in uncircumcised men leads to greater sexual pleasure. In fact, some uncircumcised men have been known to complain that their penis is too sensitive, leading to pain, and seek circumcision to relieve this. Diminishing sensitivity is in fact desired by many men and women in order to prolong the sex act by preventing premature ejaculation [86].
http://www.circinfo.net/circumcision_sensitivity_sensation_sexual_function.html
The benefits of circumcision include:
? Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [408].
? Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [162, 168, 172].
? Reduced urinary tract infections.
? Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
? Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in men and their partner(s).
? Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
? Decrease in urological problems generally.
http://www.circinfo.net/health-benefits-and-reviews.html
It’s funny that gays, the people who are support to celebrate freedom and hate having other people tell them what to do, would tell other people what to do. Typical liberal hypocrisy.
Bobby is a man. As for the benefits of circumsition, there are many:
? Decrease in physical problems involving a tight foreskin [408].
? Lower incidence of inflammation of the head of the penis [162, 168, 172].
? Reduced urinary tract infections.
? Fewer problems with erections, especially at puberty.
? Decrease in certain sexually transmitted infections (STIs) such as HIV, HPV, chlamydia, syphilis in men and their partner(s).
? Almost complete elimination of invasive penile cancer.
? Decrease in urological problems generally.
http://www.circinfo.net/health-benefits-and-reviews.html
And for all you anti-freedom people out there, perhaps you forget that parents have the legal right to authorize surgical procedures in the best interests of their children.
Few more stats from http://www.cirp.org/library/statistics/bollinger2004
In the USA:
For every 100,000 infant circumcisions, they may prevent:
0 to 5.3 deaths from testis cancer
0 to 1 deaths from penile cancer
For every 100,000 of infant circumcisions:
1000 cases of “subsequent circumcision complications,” including:
18 infant deaths
I’m a parent, and I left it to my sons to decide, as adults, whether the potential health benefits of circumcision, given their particular sex lives, was worth the risks of this surgery, and the reduction of their sexual sensitivity.
So again, Priya, you are saying that all the people in Zeke’s congregation and denomination, since they are Christians, are promoting an “evil book” and calling for the death of all gays.
And it appears Zeke agrees with you.
The Church deserves to be on the receiving end of this righteous indignation. It should be challenged, taken to task and yes, even cursed for the harm it has caused in the name of God and Christ.
It’s funny how AKN, Zeke, and others always try to argue that “all gays aren’t like that”, but fall strangely silent, or even rationalize, statements like yours about all Christians.
Perhaps if they want to be perceived as different, they should act differently.
Read this article and then answer the question–who has killed more people lately, Christianity or the mainstream gay community?
http://pageoneq.com/news/2008/Antigay_pundits_pleased_at_admission_that_AIDS_is_a_gay_d_0215.html
Northdallass, the problem is your bible, it says :
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There’s nothing in the gay community’s criticism of religion that remotely aproaches that kind of evil.
The very foundation of your religion is evil. The torture and murder of the innoncent Jesus for the wrongs of others. We know instinctively that its wrong to punish people for things they didn’t do. We know instinctively that one person can’t take responsibility for the wrongs of others and yet this abomination is what you base the very foundation of your religion upon.
Ashpenaz, the gay community didn’t kill any of the people you refer to, AIDS did. The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS. Once again, the blaim falls on your religious community.
Hey Ashpenaz, I didn’t mean REPARATIVE therapy. Quit stuffing words in my mouth. Dammit, you are one humungous pain in the hind quarters. I mean therapy, as in get your effin life together therapy. Others may respect you, but I sure as hell don’t. Didn’t it ever cross your pea-sized mind that maybe, just maybe, you can’t find a steady is because they don’t choose to get involved with a simpering, woe-is-me basketcase? There are most likely loads of fellows who would like to hook up with you, but the bettin’s good they stay away because they see the neuroses of a sick, pathetic mam. You have more issues than a Times Square newsstand.
As far as that smarmy remark about foreclosure: my house is paid for, thanks.
In order to undergo reparative therapy, I have to believe there is something wrong with me. In order to undergo the therapy you suggest, I have to believe something is wrong with me. I don’t think there is anything wrong with me. I’m not going to do anything for shame-based reasons anymore. Also, as per my above post, I’m not sure why you think anything I say is “woe is me.” I’m still here skipping and humming because there are no gays in my life. I hope, based on some of the more thoughtful posts here, to meet rational, adult gays, but we won’t be meeting at the house you inherited.
Gays having unprotected sex with multiple partners have killed more people than Christians.
Older gays taking advantage of young, confused gays have killed more people and caused more suicides than Christians.
It’s better to be a fundamentalist and grow to adulthood than be an out ‘n proud gay and die from the abuse and indifference of a callous, shallow subculture.
Ashpenaz, your contradictory claims show you to be lying. You claim to be happy and skpping that there are no gays in your life, yet constantly lamenting that you don’t have that special someone to share a long term monogamous relationship with. This kind of schizophrenia doesn’t make anyone happy. Its one thing to lie to us, but please stop lying to yourself. You’re never going to find that special someone as long as you keep blindly and indiscriminately condemning all gays.
Older gays taking advantage of young, confused gays have killed more people and caused more suicides than Christians.
Umm. Yeah. Maybe in some alternate upside down universe.
It’s better to be a fundamentalist and grow to adulthood than be an out ‘n proud gay and die from the abuse and indifference of a callous, shallow subculture.
I guess, since being alive is better. Hmmm. Are gays where you are from that awful?
I’m not sure why people on this board are so unwilling to look at that segment of the gay community which consists of older men praying on confused youth–and then taking responsibility for the consequences. You pretend it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t abusive or that nobody has died of drugs, suicides, or STDs. And you want me to get therapy because I hold the gay community accountable.
Have you ever seen Suddenly Last Summer, you know, the gay classic where Katherine Hepburn is trying to force Elizabeth Taylor to have a lobotomy because Kate can’t handle the truth Liz is telling her? Well, it’s not just a movie to get ideas for costumes, girlfriend, it’s about the way you treat anyone who won’t be quiet about the corrosive, deadly parts of the rainbow.
Umm. Yeah. Maybe in some alternate upside down universe.
My, how quickly they forget.
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
But of course, LGBT people have a ready excuse; it’s not our fault we can’t control ourselves, it’s all because of religious people.
The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.
Of course, that would be believable, given the number of LGBT people who engage in promiscuous and reckless sex and spreading HIV and the fact that STD rates are skyrocketing, even in places with gay marriage. But unfortunately, there are those of us out here who do not engage in such, and that makes it far more obvious that it is a choice of the LGBT individual to have promiscuous sex and spread HIV.
And again, Priya, you flatter us with a post that demonstrates the emptiness of statements like Zeke’s and AKN about antireligious rhetoric being put out by LGBT people — because they have nothing to say about yours. Indeed, as Zeke’s statements demonstrate, they fully support and endorse what you are saying.
The Church deserves to be on the receiving end of this righteous indignation. It should be challenged, taken to task and yes, even cursed for the harm it has caused in the name of God and Christ.
“Barlow believes a combination… blablabla.”
Get your head out your ass. An anecdote isn’t evidence of shit, and given that Barlow was quoted in the article, we can assume he didn’t kill himself over his HIV or his improper relationship with an older man. The article you quoted doesn’t even reference suicide.
Show us statistics proving the reason gay men and lesbians kill themselves is to be blamed on other LGBT people, and has nothing to do whatsoever with having to endure hostility and persecution, sometimes even from their own families.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1970973/posts
Oh, see, a gay teenager was shot in the head after having endured bullying from other boys at school. And the Jesus freaks at the FreeRepublic thread are calling the now dead gay kid a “sick freak” and saying the fact that he used to dress women’s clothing contitutes a “daily parade of his sexuality through the use of clothing, make up and so forth”, which “is, in fact, harrassment”, which finally led his poor murderer “to the point he felt it necessary to defend himself with a firearm.”
Screw you and all those who say bigotry has nothing to do with the inner misery some of us are subjected to.
See also the case of Kenneth Cummings Jr. (http://www.republicoft.com/2007/10/15/the-lgbt-hate-crimes-project-kenneth-cummings-jr/), a gay man who was killed because his murderer was supposedly doing God’s work.
Does this mean gays are killing themselves massively, or being killed by Christians, only or primarily because of religious bigotry? No, but your cherry-picked anecdotes don’t prove anything too, and you shouldn’t arrogantly act as if they do in order to bash gays in general and to have a rhetorical weapon against your opponents.
“But of course, LGBT people have a ready excuse; it’s not our fault we can’t control ourselves, it’s all because of religious people.”
Typical: arguing against a strawman.
“Of course, that would be believable, given the number of LGBT people who engage in promiscuous and reckless sex and spreading HIV and the fact that STD rates are skyrocketing, even in places with gay marriage”
Oh yes, it is indeed surprising that gays are not 100% married when two or three years ago a law allowing them to get married was approved! Lol! Heterosexuals have centuries of family tradition, and more than enough role models of committed couples to look up for. When you and some social conservatives, such as the retarded Stanley Kurtz, question gay marriage on the grounds that gays are not marrying in huge numbers after some few years of being allowed to, I can only laugh, but not without a hint of despise. I believe that were you heterosexual, you’d be joining the conservative monkeys at that thread in their hateful attempts to justify the murder of a gay kid.
“The Church deserves to be on the receiving end of this righteous indignation. It should be challenged, taken to task and yes, even cursed for the harm it has caused in the name of God and Christ.”
Why are the above statements bigotry? Its original author has shown quotes from the Bible which depicts the treatment men like you, ND30, would be subjected to. Modern churches mostly refrain from repeating those words for fear of a public reaction, but they haven’t refrained from demonizing us and, as the FR thread proves, minimizing wrong-doings against us.
My, how quickly they forget.
Barlow believes a combination of ignorance and emptiness led to his seroconversion. ?At that time I was the dumbest thing walking ? I thought I was invincible and could do whatever and not get ill,? said Barlow, who was 15 and dating a 35-year-old man. ?I thought I was in this relationship with this man who loved me, why do we need to wear condoms??
NDT, you have to do better than that. No, I didn’t forget that there are examples of gay predators. And if you reread my post, I don’t believe I said there were NO instances in which a gay person caused another to commit suicide (even though your example does not indicate suicide didn’t result from the predator’s despicable behavior). And I didn’t say that when a gay person commits suicide because of a gay predator, it was because of religious people. Many (not all, repeat, not all) of them cause enough pain to other gay teens, so I don’t have to blame them for additional wrongs.
But unfortunately, there are those of us out here who do not engage in such…
Yep, I belong to the “us” as well. But I consider it far from unfortunate, thank you.
“The Church deserves to be on the receiving end of this righteous indignation. It should be challenged, taken to task and yes, even cursed for the harm it has caused in the name of God and Christ.”
Why are the above statements bigotry? Its original author has shown quotes from the Bible which depicts the treatment men like you, ND30, would be subjected to.
I don’t believe the statement is bigotry, but I disagree with it. I don’t blame the Church for the wrongs. I blame the extreme individuals who use the Bible or whatever to justify their bigotry against homosexuals or whomever else they feel like spewing their hate and injustice against. I know far too many Christians, gay and straight, who are upstanding people, and recognize the wrongs of some people in Christianity. For every “Christian” clown like Dobson, LaBarbera, Robertson, Phelps, etc., there are thousands of Christians who are good and moral people. Just as I am not going to blame every Christian for the evil of some Christians, I am not going to blame every gay person for the evil of some gay persons.
Yes, the Bible has God ordered people dead for mindboggling reasons and all that garbage. But remember, these are persons who wrote what God ordered these things. Whether or not people believe that the words in the Bible are literally God’s or not is irrelevant. We have a long tradition of laws that murder is wrong and punishable, period. Anyone who wants to use the Bible, Koran, or other text to murder is responsible, not the text they quoted from.
Northdallass said “And again, Priya, you flatter us with a post that demonstrates the emptiness of statements like Zeke’s and AKN about antireligious rhetoric being put out by LGBT people — because they have nothing to say about yours.”
Zeke and AKN don’t use their religion as an excuse to bash gays whereas you do. Unlike you they acknowledge the wrongs anti-gay christians have committed against gays. Pointing out the wrongs of Christians against gays isn’t rhetoric, its just the facts. We’ve seen the foundation of your bible’s attitude towards gays and it is this:
If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.
There’s no forgiving that kind of evil attitude towards those that have harmed no one and you like the evil person you are defend that bible and refuse to call for such evil to be removed from it because you are virulently hateful of those who harm no one.
Ah yes, Marc.
An anecdote isn’t evidence of shit
And then you turn right around and quote one to prove your point.
What’s really funny is that there are as many people on that FreeRepublic post you cited saying that, no matter what, killing another person isn’t justified — for example:
How exactly was this self defense?
Deadly force as an option against ‘he makes me uncomfortable dressing the way he does’ is a load of cowpies.
Or:
Call me a “degenerate” if you want but this kid is a sick psychopath. I hope he spends the rest of his short, miserable life behind bars. He took a gun to school and put a bullet into the back of another kid’s head.
Contrast that with your willingness to claim that Kevin Barlow’s story is “shit” and that it didn’t really happen and doesn’t prove anything.
Typical: arguing against a strawman.
I repeat the quote in question:
The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.
That makes it clear that the religious community and ONLY the religious community is to blame for gay promiscuity and behaviors that spread HIV. It does not in any way state that gays are at all accountable or capable of controlling themselves sexually.
Oh yes, it is indeed surprising that gays are not 100% married when two or three years ago a law allowing them to get married was approved!
What difference would that make?
After all, if LGBT culture supported monogamy, fidelity, and lifetime commitment, marriage would be a logical step, wouldn’t it? I can’t imagine that these gay couples who sob about how awful their life is without marriage and how they can’t bear to go on another minute would not all instantly rush down and get married.
What is more likely is that which was exemplified by the enormous number of domestic partnerships that were being dissolved in California in 2004 right before our state law making them equivalent to marriage took place. Seems that the same gays and lesbians who whined constantly about how their lives were worthless without marriage didn’t want to accept the same rules as married people have.
Heterosexuals have centuries of family tradition, and more than enough role models of committed couples to look up for.
And so do gays — those same committed couples.
But we can see why that doesn’t happen; gays and lesbians, as I just pointed out, don’t want to follow that model. They don’t want to have the responsibilities and keep the commitments that those same heterosexual couples have to follow.
“I’m not sure why people on this board are so unwilling to look at that segment of the gay community which consists of older men praying on confused youth–and then taking responsibility for the consequences.”
—#1, it’s a very small segment not worth discussing, although they should be punished severely. #2. An 18 year old is old enough to vote and join the military. #3. There are young people who lie about their age.
“You pretend it doesn’t exist or that it isn’t abusive or that nobody has died of drugs, suicides, or STDs. And you want me to get therapy because I hold the gay community accountable.”
—So what? In the straight community there are unwanted pregnancies, people not willing to use condoms, wife beatings, suicides, drugs, and all kinds of horrible things. Maybe you need to stop expecting so much from either community. Maybe you should thank God you’re gay. I don’t know about you, but women never really did like me, they certainly don’t hit on me, and sex with them has always been weird. If I wasn’t gay, I’d be screwed for life.
Ashpenaz, it’s like talking to a wall with you. I’ve decided not to waste any more time talking to a schizo.
Incidentally, I didn’t inherit my house. I bought it in 1988 & the mortgage was paid off in 2006.
I said “The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.”
Northdallass replied “That makes it clear that the religious community and ONLY the religious community is to blame for gay promiscuity and behaviors that spread HIV. It does not in any way state that gays are at all accountable or capable of controlling themselves sexually.”.
Once again Northdallass claims someone’s made an absolute statement when they haven’t. You’re a liar. If you had any integrity you’d take responsibility for your promotion of a bible that calls for gay people to be put to death. You won’t do it because you don’t care about right and wrong, you whine about people pointing out such evils and do nothing to renounce it.
After all, if LGBT culture supported monogamy, fidelity, and lifetime commitment, marriage would be a logical step, wouldn’t it? I can’t imagine that these gay couples who sob about how awful their life is without marriage and how they can’t bear to go on another minute would not all instantly rush down and get married.
Whoa! Take it easy there. Wanting justice and equality is not the same as having an awful life
for not being able to marry.
And so do gays — those same committed couples.
But we can see why that doesn’t happen; gays and lesbians, as I just pointed out, don’t want to follow that model. They don’t want to have the responsibilities and keep the commitments that those same heterosexual couples have to follow.
I just don’t think it’s fair to compare the models of commitment between gay and straight persons at this point. There is still no tradition of same sex marriage, or anything mainstream in the gay community. Heck, it’s only four years that anti-sodomy laws were found to be unconstitutional. We’ve given straight people thousands of years to see how they would fare. Let’s give gay people at least a generation or so, and let’s see.
Well, Jimbo, you must not get the chance very often to talk to people who think they are just as smart as you are. It must bug you that I trust my own reason and experience over yours. You calling me a schizo is the same as Kate calling Liz a schizo in the above-mentioned Suddenly Last Summer. Perhaps you want everyone to have a lobotomy so we can remove that part of our brains that doesn’t see the world the same way you do.
Right now, I’m into Matt Hughes. Outside of the physical attractiveness, he’s a Christian man with strong values. I bring him up because I have never met a gay man with similar values, but I know lots of straight men like Matt Hughes–men of faith, devoted to their families, responsible, accountable, mature. He’s the kind of man I’d like to meet and build a life with. But there are no gay men like that–unless his equally attractive brother turns out to be gay.
Pointing out the wrongs of Christians against gays isn’t rhetoric, its just the facts.
That’s not what you’re doing, Priya.
The very foundation of your religion is evil. The torture and murder of the innoncent Jesus for the wrongs of others. We know instinctively that its wrong to punish people for things they didn’t do. We know instinctively that one person can’t take responsibility for the wrongs of others and yet this abomination is what you base the very foundation of your religion upon.
Or, as I cited here:
Richard, any philosophy that says humans are secondary to an imaginary character is facist.
Or this:
Typical Northdallass, blame Pickton and take no responsibility whatsoever for the role and motivation his bible and Christians played in commanding and justifying these murders.
Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be murdered, Pickton was merely following what your “good” bible commanded. Your bible sets the example over and over again of your “god” murdering the innoncent for the wrongs of the guilty, its no surprise that Picton would use it to justify murder of prostitutes. Picton most certainly didn’t pervert the idea of what the bible is all about, he epitomized it – unjust torture and murder of innocent people. Stop making excuses for that bible of yours Northdallass, do what’s right and condemn the evil book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice. Stop making excuses for the evil that Christians like you distribute and promote. Accept responsibility for a change.
And an favorite:
The bible you claim to worship and follow clearly sanctifies polygamy and incest. Any Christian attempts to deny that they support such things are clearly lies given their unbridled support and promotion of it as the unblemished word of god.
So, in short, you call Jesus’s sacrifice of Himself for us an “abomination”, you claim that the Bible is completely “evil”, you claim that all Christians support the murder and torture of innocent people, you claim all Christians support polygamy and incest, and you claim that any who state they don’t are lying.
And until other LGBT people say you’re wrong, Christians, in my opinion, should take your words at face value as what LGBT people truly believe.
And finally:
Once again Northdallass claims someone’s made an absolute statement when they haven’t.
I quote again:
The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.
Your statement is clearly absolute. Nowhere in it do you assign any responsibility whatsoever to gays and lesbians for their sexual choices. Nowhere in it do you mention any other cause. You say that religious people are EXACTLY to blame for gay promiscuity and spreading HIV.
That leaves two possibilities; either all gays are promiscuous spreaders of HIV, or gays and lesbians CHOOSE to have promiscuous sex and spread HIV — which makes hash of your theory.
I just don’t think it’s fair to compare the models of commitment between gay and straight persons at this point.
Why not?
After all, the claim is that gays should have the same thing as straights RIGHT NOW because there’s NO differences and they are absolutely comparable.
Right now, you’ve got LGBT people bailing OUT of relationships because they DON’T want to have to follow the same rules as married couples. That should be a paramount sign that marriage and gay culture and commitment are quite incompatible. Hence, I see no problem with society waiting to grant marriage until gay culture catches up.
After all, the claim is that gays should have the same thing as straights RIGHT NOW because there’s NO differences and they are absolutely comparable.
Although I don’t believe most gay persons believe that, I’ll speak for myself. I do believe that gay people should have equality as soon as possible, because I believe it is fair and just. I also believe that marriage equality is beneficial (in the long run) to society and gay couples. I don’t believe that gay couples are ABSOLUTELY comparable to straight couples. Heck, I don’t believe any two couples are ABSOLUTELY comparable.
Right now, you’ve got LGBT people bailing OUT of relationships because they DON’T want to have to follow the same rules as married couples. That should be a paramount sign that marriage and gay culture and commitment are quite incompatible. Hence, I see no problem with society waiting to grant marriage until gay culture catches up.
I’ll grant you the first sentence. But keep in mind that almost half of current straight married couples bail out of their marriages. We see plenty of the celebrity marriages that end up in divorce after a couple of years or less, and Las Vegas marriages that last all of 24 hours or less. Yet no one is suggesting that we get rid of marriage for straight persons. Among other reasons, it is because there are plenty of straight couples that are willing and do want to follow the rules. And I’ll grant you that some straight couples can and do follow the rules even if they do NOT marry. Heck, we all know gay couples who do as well.
I’ll also grant that more gay couples than straight couples today don’t follow the rules. One reason is that most straight children grow up with at least some expectation of getting married. And unfortunately, so are still too many gay children. The problem is that that expectation is they marry someone of the opposite sex.
Now let’s look at most gay people today when they were children. If and when they told their parents that they were gay, how many were responded with something like, “That’s great! You can still find someone you love and share a full-life commitment with that special someone.” For most of us, instead it was either 1) some level of acceptance or tolerance for the lucky of us, 2) denial from parents, and still the expectation of marriage to the opposite sex, 3) a wish that their gay child was a drug addict instead, 4) being berated at, have things thrown at, taken to “reparative” “therapy,” and/or thrown out of the house, 5) some other non pleasant thing that I can’t imagine someone else went through.
Now keep in mind, NDT, I am not claiming anything ABSOLUTE here. Despite unpleasantries as children, there are examples of gay (and straight) couples that are monogamous. So of course, it is possible to buck the odds. And we know that there are examples of straight children, who grow up with parents being an excellent model of monogamy, yet the children are still promiscuous and/or commit adultery with their string of multiple spouses.
I am not stating that gay people should NOT be responsible and excuse their promiscuity on the lack of gay marriage. I am not stating that marriage equality is a cure all, and that gay promiscuity will decrease and monogamy will increase to the levels that straight people have. I am saying that it is no surprise that the levels of sexual promiscuity and irresponsibility is as high as it is. And I do attribute PART of that to the fact that as children, there did not exist many models of monogamous gay couples, and certainly NO examples of married gay couples. And in too many cases, gay children were, on at least some level, abused for being gay by their parents and peers.
You’re expecting ALL persons to grow up, be monogamous, and not be promiscuous, no matter what the circumstances of their childhood. That’s fine. But the reality is we know that is NOT nearly enough. How do we know this? Because we see that when straight children do not grow up with models of monogamy, a much higher percentage grow up themselves being sexually irresponsible. Further, responsible parents don’t say, “You know what, let’s raise our (straight) children to be ashamed of their sexuality, and let’s emotionally and perhaps physically abuse them because of it, and see if they still grow up and be sexually responsible. That way we can see if our children our worthy of marriage.” Instead, the responsible parents try to raise the children to be sexually responsible and not impose some sick test of worthiness. And you’ll find a much higher percentage are monogamous and enter good marriages.
So because of current circumstances, no wonder why it appears, in general, that gay culture and commitment are quite incompatible. I don’t believe that society should wait until gay culture “catches up.” In fact, no matter what happens, I don’t believe gay culture will ever fully catch up. I do maintain that marriage equality is fair and just. I do believe that marriage equality will benefit gay culture and all of society much in the long run. And I do believe that many gay couples are ready for marriage, if they want it.
We should NOT expect that a comparable percentage of gay people will instantly get married. In fact, I do NOT want to see that happen. There are gay persons who are not ready for marriage. I have no illusions that the instant marriage equality happens, it will change that. And, of course, there are gay couples that also should not marry. Should be no surprise, in light of the fact that most straight relationships do not end up in marriage either.
And until other LGBT people say you’re wrong, Christians, in my opinion, should take your words at face value as what LGBT people truly believe.
NDT, I strongly disagree with your statement. For what it’s worth, I disagree with Priya Lynn’s statement. But whether or not I state so, it is simply her opinion. An opinion of one LGBT person, and perhaps shared by others. This should, in no way, be interpreted to be the opinion of other LGBT persons, whether or not they say so. I do not comment on every single statement that you or others make. And you or anyone else should not construe every instance of silence to mean that I agree with it.
I do not hold all Christians responsible for the likes of immoral “Christians” (such as Dobson, Phelps, LaBarbera, etc.). And I don’t hold all Christians responsible even if they don’t comment on these individuals. And I don’t hold Christians responsible if they don’t speak out against the wrongs that happen in the Bible, and assume that they are evil if they don’t speak out against it.
So, where am I going to meet a man with the same sense of his masculinity, the same traditional values, and the same dedication to his marriage and family as Matt Hughes?
James: “So, where am I going to meet a man with the same sense of his masculinity, the same traditional values, and the same dedication to his marriage and family as Matt Hughes?”
You have no interest in meeting such a person, your repeated diatribes on this site have shown this to be true. Go back to your X-gay therapy and find a nice dyke to make miserable before you join your mom in the rest-home.
“So, where am I going to meet a man with the same sense of his masculinity, the same traditional values, and the same dedication to his marriage and family as Matt Hughes?”
—You just did. Nice to meet you, I have the same values you have. However, I doubt I’m your type. You probably prefer lean men. But don’t give up hope, just keep placing those ads on craiglist, eventually somebody will like you and you’ll get a date.
Actually, I’m placing my bets on Yahoo Personals. Craigslist seems a bit creepy to me. I keep hoping for Matt Hughes’ brother or Paula Deen’s unmarried son to post on Yahoo.
I told Northdallass “Pointing out the wrongs of Christians against gays isn’t rhetoric, its just the facts.
Northdallass replied “That’s not what you’re doing, Priya.”.
Of course it is you fool. Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be killed, your bible commands that gays be killed, your bible commands that those of other faiths be killed. Your bible sanctifies polygamy and incest. Your bible documents your god torturing and killing innocent people, the very foundation of your religion is the evil act of the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others – everyone knows its immoral to punish one person for what someone else has done. Those things are evil and your bible is rife with it, your bible is evil, that’s just the facts.
I said “The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.”
Northdallass replied”Your statement is clearly absolute. Nowhere in it do you assign any responsibility whatsoever to gays and lesbians for their sexual choices. Nowhere in it do you mention any other cause. You say that religious people are EXACTLY to blame for gay promiscuity and spreading HIV.”.
Typical lies on your part. Nowhere did I say only the religious community is to blame for gays who or promiscuous or that gays are in no way accountable or able to control themselves as you claimed – you made that up, you lied, those are not my words.
Northdallass said “Right now, you’ve got LGBT people bailing OUT of relationships because they DON’T want to have to follow the same rules as married couples.”.
They aren’t married you idiot. When they’re married then you can suggest that they follow the same rules as married couples.
Northdallass said “That should be a paramount sign that marriage and gay culture and commitment are quite incompatible. Hence, I see no problem with society waiting to grant marriage until gay culture catches up.”
Nonsense. There is no requirement that other races meet “committment quotas” before they are allowed to marry and their shouldn’t be for gays either. Blacks have more problematic relationships than whites and we don’t use that as an excuse to deny them the right to marry (any more). We don’t deny murderers or rapists the right to marry so don’t give us this BS that there’s some sort of morality test before people are allowed to do so, because there isn’t. If societies going to let everyone else marry without qualifications it can’t morally deny the same right to gays.
Pat said “Now keep in mind, NDT, I am not claiming anything ABSOLUTE here.”.
LOL, Pat, I applaud your patience and optimism. But little doubt Northdallas will take something you’ve said, say, “in other words”, “in short you’re saying”, “what you mean is” and then claim you’ve said something absolute twisted beyond all recognition as to what you actually did say. Similar as to when he consistently claims that one person’s opinion, such as mine, represents all LGBTs.
I do not hold all Christians responsible for the likes of immoral “Christians” (such as Dobson, Phelps, LaBarbera, etc.). And I don’t hold all Christians responsible even if they don’t comment on these individuals. And I don’t hold Christians responsible if they don’t speak out against the wrongs that happen in the Bible, and assume that they are evil if they don’t speak out against it..
Unfortunately, Pat, the LGBT Priya Lynn does, as I cited above.
Priya Lynn has made it clear that silence equals complicity and agreement by her statements. Until gays and lesbians publicly repudiate her statements and make it clear that she is wrong, gays and lesbians should be judged by the standard she has established.
The same with this statement:
Of course it is you fool. Your bible commands that unmarried sex partners be killed, your bible commands that gays be killed, your bible commands that those of other faiths be killed. Your bible sanctifies polygamy and incest. Your bible documents your god torturing and killing innocent people, the very foundation of your religion is the evil act of the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others – everyone knows its immoral to punish one person for what someone else has done. Those things are evil and your bible is rife with it, your bible is evil, that’s just the facts.
Again, according to the standards that Priya Lynn has set up, if you do not directly repudiate and condemn this statement, you support it. Either publicly repudiate her statements and state that she is wrong, or be held as complicit and agreeing with them.
Next up:
Typical lies on your part. Nowhere did I say only the religious community is to blame for gays who or promiscuous or that gays are in no way accountable or able to control themselves as you claimed – you made that up, you lied, those are not my words.
Again, the quote:
The rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS.
Your statement is clearly absolute. Nowhere in it do you assign any responsibility whatsoever to gays and lesbians for their sexual choices. Nowhere in it do you mention any other cause. You say that religious people are EXACTLY to blame for gay promiscuity and spreading HIV.
That leaves two possibilities; either all gays are promiscuous spreaders of HIV, or gays and lesbians CHOOSE to have promiscuous sex and spread HIV — which makes hash of your theory and your attempt to blame all problems on religious people.
Now, either admit that gay people choose to have promiscuous sex and spread HIV, or go back to trying to blame it all on religious people.
Priya Lynn has made it clear that silence equals complicity and agreement by her statements. Until gays and lesbians publicly repudiate her statements and make it clear that she is wrong, gays and lesbians should be judged by the standard she has established.
In case you’re serious, NDT…I don’t think so.
Besides, for all I know, she is imposing this standard on you, because she believes you imposed this standard.
But whatever the case, if anyone here tells me that I have to publicly repudiate the Bible, since otherwise my silence means I condone naughty things, my response will be along the lines, “I don’t think so.”
By the way, even if you are correct about Priya Lynn’s standards on other posters here, you do realize that I am under no obligation to follow them. I’ve got my own standards here, and I think they’re pretty damn good.
“That leaves two possibilities; either all gays are promiscuous spreaders of HIV, or gays and lesbians CHOOSE to have promiscuous sex and spread HIV”
This is the most ridiculous kind of false dilemma.
And I would like to point out that lesbians have by FAR the lowest rate of HIV infection: gay men, straight women, straight men, lesbians. If you’re going to blame gays for HIV without acknowledging how religious oppression has been a contributing factor, at least leave the women out of it.
Northdallass said “Your statement is clearly absolute. Nowhere in it do you assign any responsibility whatsoever to gays and lesbians for their sexual choices. Nowhere in it do you mention any other cause. You say that religious people are EXACTLY to blame for gay promiscuity and spreading HIV.”.
No, it is not absolute. Nowhere in it did I say that gays and lesbians have absolutely no responsibility whatsoever for there sexual choices, nowhere in it did I say that there is no other cause for sexual promiscuity. If you read it that way you are wrong, that is not what I’m saying and I’m telling you that clearly now. Stop lying and claiming I said something I didn’t. It is a fact, the rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS which is not to say it is the only thing that causes AIDS.
And now that Pat has come out and said that he doesn’t agree with me about the bible he’s put the lie to your statement that LGBTs fully endorse and support what I’m saying. Now repent of your sin and state that you lied about that and that you will be a better person in the future and never falsely assert again that all LGBTs fully support and endorse what I say.
And now that Pat has come out and said that he doesn’t agree with me about the bible he’s put the lie to your statement that LGBTs fully endorse and support what I’m saying.
Obviously Pat is not telling the truth.
The reason why is very simple; you would never be so hypocritical as to fail to attack someone who refuses to repudiate and condemn the Bible; after all, that would mean that that person, as you put it, supports a book that motivated and justified these murders, genocide, and all manner of injustice”. You would order them to “stop making excuses for the evil that Christians….distribute and promote” and to “accept responsibility for a change”.
So either Pat is lying…..or you have been exposed as a complete hypocrite.
Stop lying and claiming I said something I didn’t.
Which is why, I suppose, you’re suddenly rewriting the blanket statement you made, instead of just sticking with it.
Pat doesn’t use his religion as an excuse to attack innocent gays. His religion as he conceives it isn’t damaging to others – yours is and that’s why you are deserving of condemnation.
I told Northdallass “Stop lying and claiming I said something I didn’t.”
Northdallass replied “Which is why, I suppose, you’re suddenly rewriting the blanket statement you made, instead of just sticking with it.”.
I didn’t rewrite it, I included exactly as I originally stated. As you continue to willfully misconstrue it I added clarification as to the fact that I am not stating the absolutes you falsely claim I am. You claim to have misunderstood me, I’ve clarified that I’m not saying gays and lesbians have no responsibility whatsoever for their sexual choices and I’m not saying there is no other cause of promiscuity, you now have no excuse to be falsely claiming that I did. I repeat, the rejection and marginalization of gay people by the religious community is exactly what leads to shame based reckless behaviors that cause AIDS – that’s all I’m saying.
Pat doesn’t use his religion as an excuse to attack innocent gays.
And that, amusingly enough, makes up for the fact that he supports a book that, as you shrieked:
Your bible sanctifies polygamy and incest. Your bible documents your god torturing and killing innocent people, the very foundation of your religion is the evil act of the torture and murder of the innocent Jesus for the wrongs of others – everyone knows its immoral to punish one person for what someone else has done. Those things are evil and your bible is rife with it, your bible is evil, that’s just the facts.
Or a religion that:
The very foundation of your religion is evil. The torture and murder of the innoncent Jesus for the wrongs of others. We know instinctively that its wrong to punish people for things they didn’t do. We know instinctively that one person can’t take responsibility for the wrongs of others and yet this abomination is what you base the very foundation of your religion upon.
This is not surprising; after all, it mirrors that row over polygamy, where you were adamantly against it and condemning anyone who in any way supported it until you were shown the LGBT Karen’s support for it.
In short, Priya, you’re a hypocrite.
As you continue to willfully misconstrue it I added clarification as to the fact that I am not stating the absolutes you falsely claim I am.
“Added clarification” — or, in simpler terms, rewrote it.
And then, this is howlingly hilarious:
I’ve clarified that I’m not saying gays and lesbians have no responsibility whatsoever for their sexual choices
You’re not saying that gays and lesbians are responsible for their sexual choices. You’re trying to twist and spin to avoid that as much as you possibly can, because it makes hash out of your attempt to blame AIDS and gay promiscuity on religious people.
Yes, Northdallass, given that Pat doesn’t use his religion as an excuse to attack innocent gays he’s several steps up from you on the morality ladder.
And we’ve seen where you stand on polygamy, when I condemned polygamy, incestuous and pedophillic marriage you screamed “all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
Now you’re whining that that is okay because Karen supported polygamy too. You’re “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”.
Northdallass said “You’re not saying that gays and lesbians are responsible for their sexual choices. You’re trying to twist and spin to avoid that as much as you possibly can, because it makes hash out of your attempt to blame AIDS and gay promiscuity on religious people.”.
Gays and lesbians have some responsibility for their sexual choices as do the Christians who’s rejection and marginlization of gays leads to shame based behaviors that causes AIDS. Gays and lesbians accept their responsiblities, but unlike them you accept no responsibility for your rejection and marginalization of gays and the harm that causes. You are the one causing harm and refusing to take any reponsibility for it.
And again, Priya, you demonstrate your hypocrisy; something is wrong unless it’s an LGBT person you like doing it, and then you support and endorse it.
Hence your last statement, which is completely contradictory; you claim “gays and lesbians take responsibility”, but then you blame Christians for gay promiscuity and spreading disease.
What that makes obvious is that all a gay person who has sex with a fifteen-year-old child and gives him HIV needs to do is claim religion caused him to do it, and then Priya will come shriek how right he is and how innocent he is.
After all, you shriek how right polygamy is and refuse to condemn Karen for endorsing it as you do others. You shriek how right Pat is and refuse to condemn him for refusing to condemn the Bible as you demand of others.
Why should society respect or care about LGBTs like you when your hypocrisy is so obvious?
No hypocrisy Northdallass, you use your religion as an excuse to lie, demonize and attack innocent gays and that is why you are evil and they are not. And to highlight just how frequently you lie you did it yet again in your last ponst when you said “you shriek how right polygamy is”.
I never said any such thing, you’re a liar. It is you who defended polygamy when I opposed it, you who defended incest and pedophila:
“”all of your statements are discriminatory. It should not be automatically assumed that children are incapable of consent; that’s age discrimination. It should not be automatically assumed that being related to someone prevents you from giving informed consent; that’s discrimination on the basis of lineage or family. It should not be automatically assumed that all multiple marriages are exploitive; that’s discrimination based on assumptions about private lifestyle decisions…your attitude that people should not be allowed to marry their preferred sexual partner or partners is unconstitutional”.
And again your only excuse for doing this is that “others are doing it too”. You’re “like the immature teenage girl who argues that she should be allowed to do something because “everyone else” is doing it.”.
No hypocrisy Northdallass, you use your religion as an excuse to lie, demonize and attack innocent gays and that is why you are evil and they are not.
Let’s see an example of “innocent gays” like Priya supports.
A homosexual foster couple were left free to sexually abuse vulnerable boys in their care because social workers feared being accused of discrimination if they investigated complaints, an inquiry concluded yesterday.
Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey were one of the first homosexual couples in the country to be officially approved as foster parents.
They looked after 18 children in only 15 months.
In reality, they were paedophiles, who repeatedly abused the children in their care.
Even when the mother of two of the children reported her suspicions to the council, officials accepted the men’s explanations and did nothing.
Instead of banning children from staying with Faunch and Wathey, they sent youngsters with more serious problems to them. Between them, the couple abused four boys aged between eight and 14.
In a scathing report published yesterday, Wakefield Metropolitan District Council was condemned for treating the men as “trophy carers”.
The children’s charity Kidscape said those in charge of overseeing the safety of children in the care of Faunch and Wathey had allowed political correctness to override common sense.
The report, following an independent review of the case, said: “One manager described the couple as ‘trophy carers’ which led to ‘slack arrangements’ over placement.
“Another said that by virtue of their sexuality they had a ‘badge’ which made things less questionable.
“The sexual orientation of the men was a significant cause of people not ‘thinking the unthinkable’.
“It was clear that a number of staff were afraid of being thought homophobic.
“The fear of being discriminatory led them to fail to discriminate between the appropriate and the abusive.”
The report also accused the council of failing to carry out proper assessments before and after the children were placed with Faunch and Wathey.
“Issues arose in the first longer-term placement of two children, including potential indicators of child sexual abuse, which were inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon,” it said.
“More children were then placed with Faunch and Wathey, some successfully, some with concerns which were again inadequately investigated, understood or acted upon.
“The practice of some social workers in this case was deficient.”
The report’s authors, led by former Surrey social services chief Brian Parrott, said they could not be sure that Faunch and Wathey were “predatory paedophiles” who became foster carers in order to have access to children.
They added: “Our criticisms are much more of those in middle management whose job it was to piece together what was really happening, to ask the right questions and to be critical and probing.”
Wathey, 42, was jailed for five years in June last year after being convicted of four counts of sexual activity with a child and one offence of causing a child to watch sexual activity.
Faunch, 33, received a six-year jail sentence after he was found guilty of five charges of engaging in sexual activity with a child and two of taking indecent photographs of a child.
The couple, who lived together in Pontefract, West Yorkshire, were approved as foster carers by the council in August 2003.
Their victims included a 14-year-old boy with Asperger’s syndrome, a form of autism,who had a mental age of seven and was forced by Wathey to watch gay pornography.
Another youngster with a “very troubled background” was only in their care for a few weeks before being abused by Faunch.
But social workers had been aware of “inappropriate” behaviour long before then.
Just eight months after they started as professional foster carers a mother of eight-year-old twins, who couldn’t cope with raising them on her own, voiced concerns about them with social services.
While visiting the twins, the 34-yearold single mother was shown a picture taken by Faunch showing one of the boys going to the lavatory during a visit to Butlin’s holiday camp in Skegness and discovered a similar snap had been taken of the other twin.
A social worker took the photograph and promised a full investigation.
But the court heard that not only did social services staff lose the photo, they decided against contacting police after accepting Faunch’s explanation that he was trying to embarrass the boys into shutting the lavatory door.
Police later discovered that, days after the photos were taken, Faunch recorded an indecent video of the twins taking a shower. They began abusing the boys three months later.
Undetected, the offences continued over an 11-month period, Leeds Crown Court was told last year.
Police were called in to investigate the couple only after one of the abused boys told a woman he had been touched by one of the men.
Faunch abused all four boys and Wathey targeted one of them.
Judge Sally Cahill, QC, said neither had shown “empathy, remorse or any responsibility for their actions”.
Yesterday’s report said that the fostering panel which approved Faunch and Wathey accepted without hesitation their request to look after only boys on the basis that they didn’t feel equipped to look after girls.
The report made 41 recommendations for overhauling the council’s fostering process.
Last night, Michelle Elliott, a director of Kidscape, said: “Common sense went out of the window when they allowed political correctness to take over in this case.”
This happened because people were cowed by shrieking bullies like Priya who claim all gay people are “innocent” and that anyone who criticizes a gay person in any way, shape, or form is “evil” and “homophobic”.
And I might add no one is a bigger hypocrite than you. You claim to be a christian and yet you lie all the time and break one of the 10 commandments that you claim to follow.
And you lie yet again. I don’t support all those people and contrary to your lie I never claimed all gays are innocent. You’re a lying hypocrite.
LOL….nope, I criticized those gays and Priya shrieked that I was “demonizing” people who were “innocent”.
Besides, as Priya claims, it’s not those gays’ fault; “religious people” are at fault for gays’ sexual behaviors.
It’s pretty clear that ND30 NEVER met a homophobe that he didn’t like or a gay person (to the left of Roy Cohn) that he did.
Bobby, try to find a European study that backs any of those claims up. Also, try to go to a European website and do one of your anti-foreskin rants and see what kind of reception you get from the men there. See how many of them have all of the terrible problems that you claim is so common. Ask them how unhappy their uncircumcised penises have made them. Ask how many of them wish they were circumcised and how many would like to be. Then get back to me.
NorthDallasThirty, check out this website (of actual comments made by Christian fundamentists) and get back to me about how it is the Christians who are always the innocent victims of verbal assaults. Pay particular attention to the comments made by these good Christians, on good Christian websites, about people of other faiths, homosexuals and atheists.
As for going back to my church and telling them what I’ve said here, I already have and they agree with me. I am a member of the United Church of Christ which isn’t affraid to admit when we as a congregation and as a faith have erred, oppressed, hurt people unnecessarily or acted in a way that was not Christ-like.
I know that such things are anathema to you but we don’t view taking responsibility for past mistakes and taking responsibility for our words and actions as a sign of weakness or as something to be ashamed of.
Are you really arguing that the church has nothing to be ashamed of in its history? Do you really think that they have done nothing wrong in their dealings with gay people? Do you really believe that gay people’s anger with and fear of the church has NO justification?
I’m pretty sure that most gay people’s animosity toward the church is defensive rather than offensive; more in response to the church’s homophobia than spontaneous disdain.
After reading you posts over the years it seems pretty clear that Jared just may be right. I don’t think I’ve ever seen one of these discussions that you didn’t strongly take the side of whoever or whatever was accused of insulting/attacking/assaulting a (non-Republican) gay person or gay people in general.
I suspect, truth be known, you don’t really give a damned about spirituality, Christianity or religion of any kind. You’re attraction to Christianity, just like your seeming attraction to all things right-wing and/or homophobic is due to its antipathy for gay people and anything related to anything considered “gay culture” rather than any belief in a God or a God given moral/ethical code. If fundamentalists and Republicans became supportive of gay people tomorrow you would lose interest in them both before the sun came up the next morning.
← Previous Comments
Comments on this entry are closed.