The Mormons play the victim card, accusing LGBT demonstrators of "violence" against Latter Day Saints. At issue, of course, are the ongoing protests, some in front of Mormon churches, following the LDS's massive fundraising effort on behalf of California's Prop 8, whose passage now bans same-sex marriage in the Golden State.
As others have noted, the ad makes no mention of, say, the actual violence that gay people encounter at the hands of those stoked full of hate by supposed Christians who've turned the gospel message of love inside out.
Relatedly, "Prop 8 The Musical" is making the rounds. I appreciate the passion, but doubt that careening so close to blasphemy is going to sway those indoctrinated to view gay people as unworthy of legal equality. But I'm told that God loves a good joke, and this one is pretty funny.
More. I don't think arguing in favor of lowering the bar for cohabitation rights is particularly helfpul. On the other hand, a federal civil unions law, as Chris Crain discusses, could act as an important step toward eventual marriage equality.
89 Comments for “Old Time Religion”
posted by Ashpenaz on
My belief in God and knowing God through Jesus is more fundamental to my identity than having homosexual attractions. Hence, if I have to pick sides, I pick the Mormons. I pick the Evangelicals. I pick the people who believe that sex is meant for lifelong, monogamous relationships.
I think the idea of a blasphemous musical is not only counterproductive, it is damaging. It does not help me make the case to my Christian brothers and sisters that I share the same basic values as all Christians. If I was asked to vote in an area where the gay community was using this kind of tactic, I would not vote for the gay agenda. I would march against anyone to stamped on and blasphemed my basic beliefs.
It is time that gays realized that many churches have fought hard within their ranks to create a place for homosexuals. One step to winning over the Mormons is to, say, join the Methodists or Episcopalians or ELCA Lutherans or the UCC, all of whom have bent over backwards to offer hospitality to homosexuals. It is ungrateful and rude to trample on those Christians who want to change the church. If we have to confront the Mormons, let’s do it along with the Methodists and UCCs in ecumenical dialogues.
I don’t identify as gay simply because it is always associated with this kind of counterproductive, immature, and, frankly, rude and stupid behavior. I am tired of having to suffer from the damage these supposedly enlightened urban gays constantly create.
posted by Bobby on
I saw that musical on the O Factor, it wasn’t fair and balanced, it’s completely one-sided, it only advocates the gay point of view. If we fail to produce fair and balanced culture the only people that will listen to our message are those who already agree.
As for protesting mormon churches, that’s a different story. In Dallas, Texas I saw black evangelicals protesting outside a gay bar. So if they can do it, we can do it. Evangelicals like the leftwingers are always trying to change the culture around them. Evangelicals try to ban porn stores, strip bars, bars that serve alcohol (in some cases), violent video games, etc. They even managed to get Howard Stern cancelled from 4 radio stations (just like the liberals did with Dr. Laura).
If you’re going to confront the culture, don’t complaint if the culture confronts you back.
posted by Rob on
My belief in God and knowing God through Jesus is more fundamental to my identity than having homosexual attractions. Hence, if I have to pick sides, I pick the Mormons. I pick the Evangelicals. I pick the people who believe that sex is meant for lifelong, monogamous relationships.
They don’t believe that, they believe that sex is only meant in marriage only, and obviously that locks out gays in their view.
I think the idea of a blasphemous musical is not only counterproductive, it is damaging. It does not help me make the case to my Christian brothers and sisters that I share the same basic values as all Christians. If I was asked to vote in an area where the gay community was using this kind of tactic, I would not vote for the gay agenda. I would march against anyone to stamped on and blasphemed my basic beliefs.
Oh please, even without this musical and protests, most of your ‘Christian brothers’ would have voted against gay rights anyway.
It is time that gays realized that many churches have fought hard within their ranks to create a place for homosexuals. One step to winning over the Mormons is to, say, join the Methodists or Episcopalians or ELCA Lutherans or the UCC, all of whom have bent over backwards to offer hospitality to homosexuals. It is ungrateful and rude to trample on those Christians who want to change the church. If we have to confront the Mormons, let’s do it along with the Methodists and UCCs in ecumenical dialogues.
While the UCC has made great efforts in helping out the gay community, and Episcopalians to a marginal extent, the Lutherans, and Methodists are still far behind in advocating for us in ecumenical dialogues, when they’ve been discriminating against gay clergy and still officially state that homosexuality is a sin. The Mormons won’t change their minds until the very last minute, just like when they discriminated against blacks until 1978, but I assume that by then the church will dwindle rapidly into oblivion.
I don’t identify as gay simply because it is always associated with this kind of counterproductive, immature, and, frankly, rude and stupid behavior. I am tired of having to suffer from the damage these supposedly enlightened urban gays constantly create.
Well then, you’re just telling me that you’ve surrendered simply because of the acts of a few. So much for the Ashpenaz that wanted to reform the ‘gay image.’
posted by Ashpenaz on
Let’s assume that the right to marry is associated with traditional morals and family values. Does promoting a blasphemous video, chanting outside of a church, and stamping on a cross suggest:
A. Gays are on the side of traditional morals and family values and just want to be included?
or
B: Gays are trying to undermine traditional morals and family values and are using some phony concept of “gay marriage” to push their amoral agenda on the nation?
I’m going to guess that most Americans see what is happening in response to Prop. 8 as B. I would think that if gays were truly committed to A, they would do other things, such as join a welcoming church, live out their values in monogamous relationships, and separate themselves from those segments of the gay community who really, really do want to undermine traditional values.
Many former gays have changed their identity to “queer.” If it’s to be queer, why isn’t it OK to be Christian?
P.S. Why don’t gays chant outside mosques or run inside and stamp on the Koran? Why don’t they protest worldwide Islamic oppression of gays?
posted by dalea on
It would be helpful Ash, if you could actually demonstrate that what you advocate equals ‘traditional values’. My take is that it is a fantasy ideal that bears little or no resemblance to the way actual christians have actually lived at any time in history. Simply a tool of oppression, not something anyone ever actually lived.
posted by Steph on
Traditional religious morals have given us 2,000 years of religiously-inspired violence and murder, the Crusades, witch burnings, Pope poisonings, World Wars, lynchings, cross burnings, genocide, fag bashings, Westboro Baptist, and most recently the Crusades 2.0. I say it is about time that traditional religious morals be trampled on and we damn well shouldn’t be making apologies for doing so.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK, Steph and Dalea, since marriage is a product of 2000 years of oppression, why do you want it? Is there anything in your statements above which suggest that you are NOT trying to undermine traditional values for a more “enlightened” agenda?
Let me suggest your slogan, “Hey, you bunch of hypocritical adulterers who spout values you don’t live up to and promote a violent and oppressive worldview which has stained history with innocent blood, would you please vote to give us the right to marry, even though we think marriage is an outdated, patriarchal institution which we plan to update by including open relationships and multiple partners? Thanks in advance!!!”
Good luck with that.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz no one said marriage is the product of 2000 years of oppression.
posted by Attmay on
So the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot because of Christianity, not fanatical Yugoslavian nationalism? Nice try there.
You really believe that no heterosexuals anywhere have practiced monogamy? And considering how many religious groups were prominent in the anti-slavery and anti-segregation movements, there are some bridges that it would be best not to burn.
posted by TS on
Ashpenaz’s A and B dichotomy, even though like most dichotomies it is an extreme oversimplification, may be useful. There are two (actually way more than two) general ways of thinking about tradition, morality, and religious values in the dynamic of the modern family present in the population. The interplay between them is very stark in the gay community for readily identifiable reasons. One basically defends some variation of a nuclear family structure that developed in the middle class throughout the West during the Romantic period (mid 1800s). There was a strong link between Victorian Christianity (which still heavily influences mainstream contemporary Christianity though it may come in a different box) and this ideal family: a man and a woman married for love and theoretically together til death, about 3 children, a single family home, and an orderly household in which relationships among family members are clearly defined. A set of assumptions about the gender roles of the people in that family has gradually been dropped, though it is still very present. This is the “Holy Family” sometimes seen on church marquees and nativity scenes. When this idea first emerged, it was actually very liberal, even radical. The notion of marriage for (chivalrous) love was extraordinary and somewhat unprecedented: The upper class had been marrying for political reasons and the underclass for less “elevated” reasons like lust, pregnancy, or economic necessity. The decreasing number of children was also a major departure from tradition in both classes, and it coincided to some degree with the development of birth control. Almost all socially conservative people (and many liberal people e.g. Hollywood) agree that this model is still relevant and successful today. There is some conflict here over whether the traditional layout should be amended to include same sex pair bonding and parenting. The path to amendment is uphill because the people who care the most for this model have other traditional sensibilities as well (e.g. that human homosexuality is a bizarre, sinful, decadent, even Satanic phenomenon).
posted by TS on
The opposing viewpoint (some variation of which gay people are more likely to adopt than members of the general population) is that it’s stupid. It was developed during a vastly different time alongside such ideas as colonialism, scientific racism, and nationalistic extremism. It’s inherently sexist. There’s even some scent on the breeze that marriage for love is a failed experiment. Monogamy developed to promote economic stability and prevent paternal confusion (for both of which it is no longer necessary). An effort to force people to feel monogamy emotionally seems to be doomed to failure because only some people are emotionally organized that way. I’m not sure I am. I’m young and it’s kind of hard to tell. It’s unsurprising that many gays find themselves questioning or even arguing against the modern Victorian family. My own was free of the usual problems (divorce, parental abuse or neglect, crappy sibling dynamics) except suburban loneliness (perhaps because my parents were less decadent than their neighbors and weren’t included in neighborhood functions and taught my sister and I to be judgmental of our R-rated-movie-watching, alcohol-inhaling peers). But I still find myself wishing I could have somehow become the person I am today without evenr having had a family at all. Little things like they don’t understand anything that’s important to me recently grew into big things when they found out I was gay. My father reacted with complete contempt and my mother has been silent in an insincere effort to hide her disgust and disappointment. It hurt me badly and I wish the nuclear family hegemony would be broken and there were some kind of free choice, some viable alternative.
Gays on side B thought they were apathetic about the California vote until they realized, after losing, what the outcome of the vote means. It means most of the people in even the most liberal state in the US are still contemptuous of them, and still confusing aesthetic judgments (man-on-man sex is gross) with moral judgments (man-on-man sex is wrong) with policy judgments (men who prefer man-on-man sex should be discriminated against). They became, spontaneously and understandably, very angry. They didn’t take to the streets to try to cause change, they took to the streets to express their rage.
posted by dalea on
I want marriage because it would solve many problems I had in my own life. It is no longer relevant, but I would not want anyone to be in the situations that lack of marriage causes. Does that make sense to you? Notice, there is no romanticizing or idealizing here. Just problem solving.
I do not think gay men are more promiscuous than straight men; we are just more honest. Looking over the landscape, I note that prostitutes are working the streets, and increasingly the internet. On Craigslist, they offer themselves as actresses in amateur erotica, which is legal. Prices for blowjobs start at $150 and rapidly go up. Must be a market for this sort of thing as the ads go up day after day. Check out Criagslist LA, gigs, adult. Loads of ads. Plus the ads for anonomous sex put up by both men and women. Many state when the spouse will be out. So, I just don’t see any reason to believe straight people are sooo much more virtuous than gay men.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Ummm…just so it’s clear. I think marriage was created by God. And so do the people we want to vote for marriage. Also, I believe that some people were created by God to be “eunuchs,” that is, people born without the inclination toward traditional marriage. (There is nothing in Scripture or history that suggests eunuchs were either castrated or celibate.) Jesus welcomed eunuchs into the Kingdom and offered them/us, I believe, the same opportunity for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which God designed for heterosexuals. Because I believe that marriage is created by God, and I believe there is Scriptural basis for homosexuals to be married, I think that I am in a better place to discuss marriage with the Mormons and the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Muslims and whoever else bases their morality on revelation from God. If you don’t think that God has revealed Himself and His plan for human relationships, then no one from these groups is going to take you seriously. Trust me. You’re not talking the same language.
posted by Rob on
Ummm…just so it’s clear. I think marriage was created by God. And so do the people we want to vote for marriage.
Vote for marriage?
Also, I believe that some people were created by God to be “eunuchs,” that is, people born without the inclination toward traditional marriage. (There is nothing in Scripture or history that suggests eunuchs were either castrated or celibate.)
Perhaps not in scriptures, but most definitely in ancient Greek texts long before the Bible was compiled. That argument is moot.
Jesus welcomed eunuchs into the Kingdom and offered them/us, I believe, the same opportunity for lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which God designed for heterosexuals.
What basis do you have for this heterodox belief? There’s a lot of righteous polygynous characters in the Old Testament, and God seem to gave them a nod of approval towards their relationships.
Because I believe that marriage is created by God, and I believe there is Scriptural basis for homosexuals to be married,
Weren’t you against same-sex marriage a few months ago?
I think that I am in a better place to discuss marriage with the Mormons and the Evangelicals and the Catholics and the Muslims and whoever else bases their morality on revelation from God. If you don’t think that God has revealed Himself and His plan for human relationships, then no one from these groups is going to take you seriously. Trust me. You’re not talking the same language.
You probably are better placed in discussing this with them, however I doubt that even you even talk the same language as they do, and would achieve very little in changing their beliefs. Even if they consider you a friend and tolerate “your lifestyle” as they would eloquently put it, they would still vote against your rights of marrying your life mate. Take Sarah Palin as a textbook example; who supports a referendum rescinding state benefits for same-sex couples, while saying with a straight face that she has gay friends. You being gay is something that they take pity upon you and wish to change.
BTW once more, you haven’t addressed my previous post.
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, what if it turns out that marriage was not created by God, but rather by people who wanted to give the impression that marriage was created by God? Marriage also evolved in time, in various cultures, by people, not by God. For example, women have become co-equal partners instead of just regarded as property. And it isn’t just up to evangelicals to decide what marriage is, or who created it. I guess we could continue to placate evangelicals, but why not convince people that some of their beliefs are outdated, unjust, and irrational? More people are realizing that as time goes on.
As for the eunuchs, who knows what they really were or if Jesus welcomed them into the Kingdom. You’d have to ask the people who wrote about the eunuchs what they meant by it. But it doesn’t really matter. We shouldn’t decide who should or shouldn’t get married based on someone’s interpretation of what the Bible says. We should be well beyond that at this point.
So the Archduke Franz Ferdinand was shot because of Christianity, not fanatical Yugoslavian nationalism? Nice try there.
Attmay, I don’t know if religion had anything to do with the person’s reason for assassinating the archduke, but wouldn’t be surprised if it did at least indirectly. But what really spurred World War I were the reactions that followed it. Russia got involved because of the religious ties that they had with Serbia. Heck, the current discontent in that region is still religious based.
By the way, I am far from advocating that religion is all bad. There are many good things about religion (as you alluded) and have the good fortune of having Sisters as colleagues who do promote good work. We need to keep that and continue to emphasize it. We just need to throw out all the irrational and unjust aspects of religion. Seems like that would be a good thing for all.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “(There is nothing in Scripture or history that suggests eunuchs were either castrated or celibate.)”.
Wrong.
Matthew 19:12
For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
One can only be made a Eunuch by other men by castration.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I would like to see you provide an ancient text which says that all eunuchs, everywhere were castrated and celibate. Eunuchs is a catch-all term for all the “sexually other,” that is, everyone who for whatever reason was not inclined to traditional marriage. Some of these were castrated. Most, IMHO, were people with a same-sex orientation. Thus, when Jesus welcomes eunuchs into His Kingdom, He welcomes me. So, I would argue with Christians, if Jesus welcomes me, you should welcome me as well.
Do I have to change? In the story of the Ethiopian eunuch, Phillip has just been healing people. He didn’t heal the Eunuch–so, apparently, being a eunuch, that is, being someone not inclined to traditional marriage, didn’t require healing. Homosexuality is not a condition to be healed, therefore. And there is no evidence that the Eunuch or the Centurion and his beloved slave were celibate, so that’s not a requirement either. Jesus welcomes all the sexually other into His Kingdom without requiring them to be healed or be celibate, though He calls us all to lives of fidelity and monogamy.
There–isn’t that a better approach than stamping on crosses?
I’ve looked through your previous post, Rob, and I’m not sure what I haven’t addressed. You really need to look at the websites of each of those churches to see how gay friendly they are working to be. Better yet, speak to a pastor in each of those churches. You will find welcome and acceptance. Until you actually meet people from these congregations, you’re not really in a position to criticize them, any more than people should criticize gays without attempting some level of relationship.
I LO-O-O-VE Sarah Palin. She offers domestic partnership rights to state workers. (And, as an aside, the First Dude is dreamy.)
Because Prop 8 focuses on marriage, I have to discuss marriage. I think gays would be better off, though, to choose civil unions and use those unions to create lifelong, sexually exclusive relationships which are the envy of the world.
posted by Rob on
I’ve looked through your previous post, Rob, and I’m not sure what I haven’t addressed.
You skipped the part about your ‘Christian brothers’ taking away your rights, as well as surrendering your gay identity.
You really need to look at the websites of each of those churches to see how gay friendly they are working to be. Better yet, speak to a pastor in each of those churches. You will find welcome and acceptance. Until you actually meet people from these congregations, you’re not really in a position to criticize them, any more than people should criticize gays without attempting some level of relationship.
For the UCC, I have no doubt that the majority are affriming. However here’s what I found on the other websites:
United Methodist Church:
http://archives.umc.org/interior.asp?mid=1728
More resources:
Methodists yes to full communion with Lutherans; no on gay change
http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=1867
Pastor Irene Elizabeth Stroud defrocked by the highest UMC court for being in a lesbian relationship.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_umc10.htm
So much for the UMC. Obviously not going to defend gays and lesbians.
As for the Lutherans, they seem to be debating the issue of homosexuality. Still their official position is against it.
http://www.elca.org/What-We-Believe/Social-Issues/Messages/Sexuality.aspx
There you go. The mainstream churches are pretty much on the middle of the fence with this, and aren’t likely to take a strong stand for our rights Why should mainstream gays and lesbians expect anything from them? Most churches have simply failed to minister to gays and lesbians, and many have made matters much worse regardless of their intentions. No lip service will change that.
I LO-O-O-VE Sarah Palin. She offers domestic partnership rights to state workers. (And, as an aside, the First Dude is dreamy.)
No she didn’t. The Alaska Supreme Court did, she felt forced to veto the the bill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Sarah_Palin#Same-sex_unions
Civil unions may be used as a stepping stone, but simply don’t carry the same significance, nor do they carry the same rights and privileges as marriage.
Also this is about government recognizing same-sex marriages, not legalizing it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “Eunuchs is a catch-all term for all the “sexually other,” that is, everyone who for whatever reason was not inclined to traditional marriage. Some of these were castrated. Most, IMHO, were people with a same-sex orientation.”.
That goes against the long stood understanding of the term eunuch which conventionally is understood to be a man with no testicals. Seeing as it is you who proposes an understanding which differs from the norm the onus is on you to provide evidence that the conventionally accepted is wrong. To this point you have failed to do so. It looks to me that your desire that your interpretation be so is overriding an objective appreciation of the evidence which points solely to a eunuch being a man with no testicals.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “I LO-O-O-VE Sarah Palin. She offers domestic partnership rights to state workers”.
Wrong. She opposed giving domestic partnership rights to state workers. She made it perfectly clear that this was her policy position in an Eagle Forum questionaire she filled out in her run for governor:
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/from_the_horses_mouth.php#comments
“10. Do you support the Alaska Supreme Court’s ruling that spousal benefits for state employees should be given to same-sex couples? Why or why not?
SP: No, I believe spousal benefits are reserved for married citizens as defined in our constitution.”.
She told the Anchorage Daily News that she would support a constitutional ammendment that would deny benefits to the domestic partners of public employees, which were ordered by an October 2005 decision of the Alaska Supreme Court, because, she said ?honoring the family structure is that important.?
http://dwb.adn.com/news/politics/elections/governor06/story/8049298p-7942233c.html
In an August 2007 interview with NEWSWEEK, Palin said she had upheld such benefits (angering fellow conservatives) but only because the state Supreme Court said it was unconstitutional to deny them:
NEWSWEEK : And do you have a position on that? Would you like to see it? Do you care? PALIN: I would vote to further define the definition of marriage as it pertains to benefits even?yes, I would.
That is, not extend benefits to same-sex couples?
Correct. And if it took an amendment to our constitution, I would go there ?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/162324
Sarah Palin was advised by her AG that it would be unconstitutional for her to refuse to implement the supreme court decision. It is solely for this reason that she did so.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Oops, I see Rob already partially covered the above.
posted by Ashpenaz on
http://gendertree.com/Eunuch.htm
Please check out this article about eunuchs–though, I admit, this is getting slightly off-topic. My point is that gays can use Jesus’ welcome of eunuchs as a way to discuss homosexuality and Christianity and thus win votes.
Wow–Sarah Palin agrees with Obama on gay rights! Thanks for clarifying that! Certainly, Obama’s religious mentors share Palin’s views.
The problem for many mainline churches is similar to the problem with the abolition of slavery. It’s clear that God wills all people to be free–but we have to find a clear Scriptural basis for that understanding which takes into account those verses which on the face seem to support slavery. If you joined the ELCA right now, you could join in on their discussion of sexuality and speak up for homosexual partnerships. You could help change an entire denomination which would then help us make the case for other Christians. Or you can stand outside and stamp on crosses and chant.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Even if they consider you a friend and tolerate “your lifestyle” as they would eloquently put it, they would still vote against your rights of marrying your life mate.
Then there’s the gay community, which insists that religious and conservative gays should kill themselves and which wishes death on their families.
So the choice comes down to the known abuse and hate from the gay community, or the lurid tales spun about your friends and acquaintances by those same gay people who are telling you to off yourself and how your doing so would make them “fucking estatic”.
posted by Attmay on
NDT, that guy who wanted you to commit suicide was banned. The problem with that is that “The Gay Community,” as you describe it doesn’t really exist. There is no office with a sign with that phrase on it. They don’t produce letterheads that say so. There are no dues paying members either. The gay “community” is an extremely loose confederation of people who have same-sex attractions but little else in common. I certainly don’t feel a sense of community with them.
So the choice comes down to the known abuse and hate from the gay community, or the lurid tales spun about your friends and acquaintances by those same gay people who are telling you to off yourself and how your doing so would make them “fucking estatic”.
No it doesn’t. The choice between one type of hate and another type of hate (and don’t try to deny that it is hate) is a false choice.
And if I were a teacher, any student caught using Wikipedia would get a big red “F” from me.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “Wow–Sarah Palin agrees with Obama on gay rights!”.
No, Obama supports civil unions with all the rights of marriage. Palin opposes that. Obama opposes a federal marriage amendment, Palin supports it.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Ashpenaz said “It’s clear that God wills all people to be free”.
Ahh…no. There are many passages in the bible which sanction slavery. There are none which prohibit it:
Old Testament
Exodus 20:17″Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
Deuteronomy 5:21″Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbor’s wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbor’s house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbor’s.
Exodus 21:20-21 “And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money [property].”
Exodus 21:26-27 “And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye’s sake. And if he smite out his manservant’s tooth, or his maidservant’s tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth’s sake.”
Exodus 21:1-4: “If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing. If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him. If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master’s, and he shall go out by himself.”
Deuteronomy 15:12-18: “And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman, be sold unto thee, and serve thee six years; then in the seventh year thou shalt let him go free from thee.And when thou sendest him out free from thee, thou shalt not let him go away empty: Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.”
Exodus 21:7: “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”
Leviticus 25:44-46: “Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property. You can will them to your children as inherited property and can make them slaves for life, but you must not rule over your fellow Israelites ruthlessly.” (NIV)
Leviticus 25:48-53: “After that he is sold he may be redeemed again; one of his brethren may redeem him: Either his uncle, or his uncle’s son, may redeem him, or any that is nigh of kin unto him of his family may redeem him; or if he be able, he may redeem himself. And he shall reckon with him that bought him from the year that he was sold to him unto the year of jubilee: and the price of his sale shall be according unto the number of years, according to the time of an hired servant shall it be with him.”
Exodus 21:8: “If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”
Leviticus 19:20-22: “And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the LORD, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the LORD for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him.”
Leviticus 25:39: “And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee; thou shalt not compel him to serve as a bondservant: But as an hired servant, and as a sojourner, he shall be with thee, and shall serve thee unto the year of jubilee: And then shall he depart from thee, both he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl1.htm
New Testament
Matthew 18:25: “But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made.”
Mark 14:66: “And as Peter was beneath in the palace, there cometh one of the maids of the high priest:”
Luke 12:45-48: “The lord [owner] of that servant will come in a day when he looketh not for him, and at an hour when he is not aware, and will cut him in sunder, and will appoint him his portion with the unbelievers. And that servant, which knew his lord’s will, and prepared not himself, neither did according to his will, shall be beaten with many stripes. But he that knew not, and did commit things worthy of stripes, shall be beaten with few stripes. For unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required: and to whom men have committed much, of him they will ask the more.”
Ephesians 6:5-9: “Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ; Not with eyeservice, as menpleasers; but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart; With good will doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men: Knowing that whatsoever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the Lord, whether he be bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master also is in heaven; neither is there respect of persons with him.”
Colossians 4:1: “Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven.”
1 Timothy 6:1-3 “Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their own masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words, even the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and to the doctrine which is according to godliness;”
1 Corinthians 12:13: “For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit.”
Galatians 3:28: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Colossians 3:11: “Where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all, and in all.”
http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Then there’s the gay community, which insists that religious and conservative gays should kill themselves and which wishes death on their families.”.
And by the same token, then there’s the religious community that believes in raping their daughters and killing their wives
http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=6348
and letting their children die of treatable illnesses:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_us/daughter_s_death_prayer
Actually I don’t believe the entire religious community is responsible for the isolated acts of some of its members, but in keeping with Northdallas’s assertion that the entire gay community is responsible for the isolated acts of some of its members this fits his logic.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Actually I don’t believe the entire religious community is responsible for the isolated acts of some of its members,
Actually, Priya, you do, and you have stated that fact on multiple occasions.
Meanwhile, as for your attempts at Biblical exegesis, let’s keep in mind that what said “source” is doing is stating that any reference to servants whatsoever constitutes a full-fledged endorsement of slavery in all circumstances. What said “source” also is strangely lacking is a comparison of other classical cultures to the Bible and their relative guidelines for treatment of slaves, especially the numerous opportunities in the Bible for slaves to be freed — something quite lacking in the classical antiquity that these “sources” worship.
That, and the fact that the last two passages cited demonstrate Ashpenaz’s point quite nicely.
Meanwhile, the mere fact that you cite those two examples demonstrates that you are more interested in shifting blame and protecting those gays who demand that religious and conservative gays kill themselves and for their children to be killed. In addition, it starkly points out the difference: heterosexuals and religious people prosecuted the examples you brought up, while gay people who demand that religious and conservative gays kill themselves are praised and supported by other gays and lesbians.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Actually, Priya, you do[blame all religionists for the isolated wrongdoings of some religionists], and you have stated that fact on multiple occasions.”.
False. Of course religious people have a responsibility for printing and distributing a bible that calls for killing gays and adulterers when people do just that but the bible does not call for fathers to rape their daughters, kill their wives, or to allow their children to die from treatable diseases (that I know of). In such cases where there is an absence of the religious community urging wrongdoing, unlike you, I most certainly have never held all members of a community responsible for the isolated wrongdoings of some members. Two entirely differnt situations. You’re the only one I know of who repeatedly insists all members of a community are always responsible for the isolated actions of its members.
Northdallas said “Meanwhile, the mere fact that you cite those two examples demonstrates that you are more interested in shifting blame and protecting those gays who demand that religious and conservative gays kill themselves and for their children to be killed.”.
The mere fact that you cited those two examples of ill-behaved gays demonstrates that you are more interested in shifting blame and protecting those religionists who vote against people’s rights to marry their life mate.
You’re so hypocritical.
posted by Attmay on
You, Priya Lame, are nothing but a typical lying leftist. You also accused NDT of heterosexuality in one of the posts he linked.
posted by Priya Lynn on
I wasn’t talking to you Attmay. Seems I’ve gotten my own blogstalker now. You rant about how I’ve lied but you’ve utterly failed to prove your false claim.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
False. Of course religious people have a responsibility for printing and distributing a bible that calls for killing gays and adulterers when people do just that
My suggestion: you might want to read the section of the Bible from which comes the famous quote that gay liberals like to use when caught about “cast the first stone”.
Meanwhile, the difference here is that, in the cases you mention, the people who committed said crimes were held responsible by their own co-religionists and associates. For some reason, religious and heterosexual persons do not share the belief that gays have that criticizing the behavior of another religious or heterosexual person is “self-loathing”, and thus, they tend to do so, rather than avoiding it as do gays.
The mere fact that you cited those two examples of ill-behaved gays demonstrates that you are more interested in shifting blame and protecting those religionists who vote against people’s rights to marry their life mate.
Actually, it showed that I do not consider opposition to gay marriage to be anywhere near the level of hate exemplified by telling religious and conservative gays to commit suicide and wishing death on their families.
Of course, in the gay community, anyone who doesn’t support gay marriage or the gay orthodoxy doesn’t deserve to live, so it shouldn’t surprise anyone that you would consider the latter to be far worse than the former.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
That is, it shouldn’t surprise anyone that Priya Lynn considers opposition to gay marriage to be far more evil and awful than telling religious and conservative gays to commit suicide and wishing death on their families.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Hi Ashpenaz,
I doubt there is very little that WOULDN’T offend those who are more conservative in their views on religion and so on.
What I’m always concerned about is why ALL gay people have to answer for, or be held accountable for the immature or ugly behavior of a few?
The broad and generalized judgment on gay people is virtually insurmountable.
No one cared BEFORE the amendment passed what libel and defamation has followed gay people everywhere.
No one cared just how much patience and restraint gay people really have no matter what violation one or more of their number has suffered or endured.
The essentially peaceful rallies that have occurred nationwide, are treated as riots in the more conservative media.
I have attended several myself, here in Los Angeles and I know full well what happened at all of them.
There is little a gay person and their supporters can do that WON’T offend somebody.
It’s exhausting to reach past the layers of contradiction and misinformation that order our days.
And since the actions that have been more radical have only been an isolated few, I’m so over what those in opposition to gay equality who haven’t appreciated what’s really going on.
It didn’t take this skit, nor any rallies or resignations to turn off anyone.
All it took was seeing gay people get married and be in the company of children, or have judges rule they could…and the battle was joined.
DECADES ago.
I have been working with several organizations who are trying to regroup and restrategize outreach.
I have suggested that we do what Mormon missionaries do: go out two by two…or more if the neighborhood is dicey.
And go on educational missions. Put out the truth, and inform the public in ways that are friendly, and neighborhood based.
The opposition has ALWAYS made it harder because they do their dirty work where no one can reach or face them in person.
It is THEY who have retreated behind walls, and media booths and screens and won’t come out until they think the coast is clear.
The opportunity to really know gay people has always been easy and inevitable.
It’s not to late for any opportunity to educate and take control of the information that’s out there, and salve whatever feelings there are that might be negative.
When people talk about outreach, I think it’s very important. We can engage PFLAG, representatives from storied orgs like SCLC and SPLC and here in LA, the Museum of Tolerance.
But it’s also up to the other side to allow contact and exchange, and so far…few haven’t really been willing.
To me, this is especially cowardly and without merit.
Education is peace, knowledge is comfort, and ignorance is poison.
Why anyone would be resistant to education is beyond me.
Nonetheless, I know of no gay people, even committed activists who have condoned any negative behavior.
Already a full page ad was taken out in the NYTimes vilifying the basic motives of gay people at large.
The sea of defamation grows wider, as does the flood of misinformation.
How to counter that, is still being debated among ourselves.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Oops, typo, I meant few HAVE been willing.
Something else occurred to me. I attended a meeting at a restaurant called El Coyote in Los Angeles.
Most of the patronage are gay and lesbian and some found out the owner/manager who is Mormon, donated 100.00 and voted Yes on 8.
A week or so after the election, the meeting was held.
Marjorie (that’s her name), entered the room virtually collapsing, teary and shaking. She had to be held up by her three grown children and after reading a prepared statement that pretty much laid a guilt trip on her customers, she fled the room before anyone could talk to her.
That’s what I mean.
Why didn’t she consult her ‘friends’ BEFORE the vote?
She said she was shocked and deeply disturbed by our reactions, because she loved the gays and considered them her friends.
And I have been wanting to tell her just where her mistake in that was.
Now I understand she’s resigned. No doubt more conservative press will spin it as more pressure from those nasty, gay bullies, rather than her decision costing the restaurant a bulk of important business.
The fact remains that Marjorie didn’t think of gay people as her friends, let alone her peers.
I can think of so many times when white people could have lucrative businesses in black neighborhoods, but not HOMES near any black people, nor did their children attend school with black kids, nor did black people visit them as peers and friends.
And would be qquite comfortable voting for laws that would keep things that way.
That is the equivalent of what Marjorie did.
However much she didn’t FEEL any bigotry or animus towards gay people personally, she supported a law that decimated their legal marriages and left their families in legal limbo. Perhaps irreparably.
She didn’t care to ask how gay people would be directly affected, nor did she seem to care.
Their money was her friend, not THEM.
Those of us who are part of traditionally outcast minorities, are hard pressed to trust those smiling faces in front of us, aren’t we?
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallass said “Actually, it showed that I do not consider opposition to gay marriage to be anywhere near the level of hate exemplified by telling religious and conservative gays to commit suicide and wishing death on their families.”.
No, it demonstrates that you are interested in shifting blame and protecting those religionists who vote against people’s rights to marry your life mate. If you had any sincere concern about people wishing death on others you’d be condemning the Christian reconstructionists who call for gays to be executed as it commands in your bible. You don’t do that because you don’t give a damn about right and wrong, your goal is to demonize innocent gays. The level of hate amongst your co-religionists far surpasses that of those isolated gay individuals who hurt your feelings by insulting you.
Northdallas said “Meanwhile, the difference here is that, in the cases you mention, the people who committed said crimes were held responsible by their own co-religionists and associates”. MAKING NASTY COMMENTS ON A BLOG IS NOT A CRIME. And there is no evidence that suggests the people who held them responsible for their crimes were their co-religionists and associates – you’re just making that up. Quite the opposite in fact, when the police went to arrest the daughter raping wife-killing priest they had to wait until he was done his sermon out of fear that the congregation would get violent.
Note how Northdallas rants about gays making nasty blog comments but has no criticism for murderous christians.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Northdallas considers rape of ones daughter, murder of one’s spouse, and allowing one’s children to die of treatable diseases to be far less evil and awful than making a nasty blog comment. Now in a pathetic attempt to excuse his behavior he’ll make a disingenous show of condemning those christians after he’s beem given the opportunity to and repeatedly failed to do so.
Here’s another example of the morality of heterosexuals that Northdallas likes to hold up as an example:
A man and woman cheated on their spouses at a University of Iowa football game. They went off into the bathroom to have public sex. Contrary to Northdallas’s insistence that heterosexuals police their own the crowd cheered them on:
http://www.twincities.com/ci_11075245?source=most_viewed
posted by Attmay on
Fuck tolerance. Gay people need to have total control over all aspects of society. The media, education, business, politics, science, religion, you name it.
There is little a gay person and their supporters can do that WON’T offend somebody.
That’s why I stopped caring about playing nicey-nice with the breeders. I’m going to make it my goal never to go a day without making one heterophobic remark until gay marriage is legal in all 50 states, gays can serve openly in the military, and homosexuality is not used as a reason to disqualify adoption. If that takes me until the day I die, tough shit, you perverts. When you stop telling lies about us, I will stop telling the truth about you. If they couldn’t make babies their sexual practices would have been illegal, too. Hopefully soon the scientific breakthrough that will rid the world of heterosexuality while continuing the survival of the human race will come:
http://www.samesexprocreation.com/
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Now I understand she’s resigned. No doubt more conservative press will spin it as more pressure from those nasty, gay bullies, rather than her decision costing the restaurant a bulk of important business.
Sort of like how black people should resign rather than offend white racists and cost the businesses who hire them a bulk of important business.
Sort of like how gay people should resign rather than to offend those who are against gays and cost the businesses who hire them a bulk of important business.
You would call those people bullies. You can do the same with gays.
There is little a gay person and their supporters can do that WON’T offend somebody.
Which is, of course, a highly-convenient excuse for the gay community’s refusal to police its own.
posted by Attmay on
Please. No white racist would patronize a black-owned business, nor would a homophobe patronize a gay-owned business.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
If you had any sincere concern about people wishing death on others you’d be condemning the Christian reconstructionists who call for gays to be executed as it commands in your bible.
And once again, Priya’s off claiming that all Christians want to kill gays.
Remember this?
I most certainly have never held all members of a community responsible for the isolated wrongdoings of some members
Yes, well, that was only a few hours ago. Things change.
It shouldn’t surprise anyone that Northdallas considers rape of ones daughter, murder of one’s spouse, and allowing one’s children to die of treatable diseases to be far less evil and awful than making a nasty blog comment. Now in a pathetic attempt to excuse his behavior he’ll make a disingenous show of condemning those christians after he’s beem given the opportunity to and repeatedly failed to do so.
It also shouldn’t surprise anyone that Priya Lynn is incapable of sticking to the comparison made, which was of opposing gay marriage versus telling people to kill themselves, and is now trying to change it.
As it happens, I do adamantly oppose rape of ones daughter, murder of one’s spouse, and allowing one’s children to die of treatable diseases, and condemn those who would practice it. Of course Priya will try to insist that I don’t mean this; her usual practice is to smear and discredit others rather than dealing with the fact of what she and her fellow gay liberals support and endorse.
Contrary to Northdallas’s insistence that heterosexuals police their own the crowd cheered them on
Which is, of course, why they were arrested and charged, just as the people who raped their own daughters, murdered their own spouses, and so forth were.
And that’s the difference. No one is sitting here making excuses for them and trying to minimize what they did, nor is such behavior considered normal.
posted by Craig2 on
Sorry, I have to agree with Priya about the behaviour of conservative Christians and its institutional backing.
In the case of Catholic clergy paedophilia, it was heavily concealed by the church hierarchy. In the case of many white fundamentalist Baptists, their religion went hand in hand with organised white supremacist groups during the segregationist era. And there are active attempts by many fundamentalists to diminish the magnitude and severity of punitive responses to child battery.
Let’s not excuse institutional policy out of the mistaken assumption that it is individual aberration.
Craig2
Wellington, NZ
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Please. No white racist would patronize a black-owned business, nor would a homophobe patronize a gay-owned business.
I didn’t say “black-owned” or “gay-owned”, Attmay; I said specifically “businesses who HIRE them”.
posted by Attmay on
her usual practice is to smear and discredit others rather than dealing with the fact of what she and her fellow gay liberals support and endorse.
Tell me about it.
Let’s not excuse institutional policy out of the mistaken assumption that it is individual aberration.
There is no excuse for child molestation, terrorism, or other clergy-sanctioned moral ills. It needs to be condemned no matter how many are participating in it. And what the churches and mosques are doing to homosexuals is just as bad. But I’m not letting gays off the hook for things like yelling racial slurs at protests. Just because I dislike Mormonism, Christianity, Islam, and heterosexuality does not mean dislike is the basis for public policy. But the churches are trying to make their visceral dislike for homosexuality public policy.
As for the Catholic church, the Pope compared gay marriage to the Holocaust. He should know about the latter, being German and all.
All religions have to answer for some pretty embarrassing behavior. Remember what kind of kids Adam and Eve raised.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
So now we have gays like Craig2 and Priya Lynn saying that all Catholics are pedophiles, all Baptists are segregationists, and all fundamentalists support child abuse.
Meanwhile, everyone’s missing out on Priya Lynn’s fascinating meltdown over Nativity displays. Really cuts to the core and demonstrates the antireligious bigotry and hate that is at the core of the gay community — and explains why the gay community sees nothing wrong with telling religious gays to commit suicide because it would be “do(ing) us all a favor”.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
End hyperlink.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Many American voters see gays as people who hate religion and who are trying to undermine traditional values. Here’s the thing–the posts on this blog prove those voters right. I don’t get the connection between having homosexual attractions and hating religion and traditional values–apparently, some part of my “gay gene” was missing.
I read post after post, and here’s what I don’t get: why do gays want to be the exact thing that people accuse them of being? When people accuse gays of being anti-religious, anti-traditional values, and pro-undermining society, how does it help to be exactly of what you are accused of being? Wouldn’t it be better NOT to fulfill people’s negative expectations?
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, that’s a copout response. Instead of addressing the criticisms that posters brought up, you basically say, “See, I told you the gay community is anti-religious.” The implication being that you cannot refute the claims. Many gay persons are critical of religion. What’s wrong with that? Why should religion get a free pass. Even the most critical post on religion in this thread pales in comparison to some of the viciousness I’ve seen with persons blasting others’ political party or ideology. Yes, there are gay persons that are anti-religious. There are also religious people that are anti-religious as well (e.g., Baptists who bash Catholics or Mormons). What has happened with many gay people though is that they started questioning how their sexuality is an abomination, and decided that, lo and behold, it wasn’t. So they decided that religion was wrong about that. But then one questions what else religion is wrong about, and we find out that there is (like most things in life) plenty. No, this does not mean that all religion is wrong. But people do question that perhaps God didn’t say homosexuality was bad, but rather the people who wrote the scriptures 2000+ years ago said that homosexuality was bad. You choose to find an interpretation of the Bible that accepts homosexuality, and go out of your way to say that eunichs were really homosexuals (perhaps they were, perhaps not, but they’re still called eunichs). That’s your choice. Many people don’t want to constantly jump through hoops and perhaps demean themselves in order to reach some self-acceptance. Life is too short to take half of one’s life or longer to try and reconcile with a faith that finds them an abomination. Despite all this, most gay people I know are either Christians or Jews. And so what if a percentage of gay persons are anti-religious or nonreligious. Plenty of straight people are as well.
posted by Ashpenaz on
It’s just as wrong to be anti-religious as anti-gay.
Why would religious people want to waste half their time with a group of gays who find them an abomination? Life is too short. More to the point, why would religious people want to come to the aid of those who chant in front of their churches, step on their crosses, call them oppressive–and then have the utter gall to ask religious people to support them on marriage rights?
You can hate religion and religious people as much as you want–but if you want our vote, you’re going to have to be nice to us.
posted by Patrick. on
“Why would religious people want to waste half their time with a group of gays who find them an abomination?”
Yeah its not as if there is some obligation to love others (even the hard to love ones) as they love themselves! Wasn’t it Jesus that said “You don’t like me so you aren’t worth my time.”?
posted by Jim on
some fool who’s always blathering on and on writes:
“My belief in God and knowing God through Jesus is more fundamental to my identity than having homosexual attractions. Hence, if I have to pick sides, I pick the Mormons. I pick the Evangelicals. I pick the people who believe that sex is meant for lifelong, mon
ogamous relationships.”
so this fool writes:
My belief in dick and knowing dick through men is more fundamental to my identity than having fantasy attractions to magical thinking. Hence, if I have to pick sides, I pick the queers. I pick the cocksuckers. I pick the people who believe that sex is meant for fun as well as lifelong, monogamous relationships.
posted by Attmay on
A book that advocates murder of gays should not have any place whatsoever in public policy debates.
Furthermore, there are non-religious reasons to emphasize the benefits of monogamy. Emotional stability is one of them.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK, your points are clever and quippy. But exactly how are you NOT the anti-religious, tradition-undermining, values-overthrowing gays which most Americans don’t want to see married or adopting children? If you honestly hate religion, see sex purely in terms of pleasure which can only be had from multiple partners, think that marriage is not created by God but is simply a means for personal emotional stability, read the Bible as a text whose sole purpose is to convince people to murder gays–well, fine. But, why are you mad when people take you at your word? Why are you mad when people see you like that? And why are you mad when people who have honestly identified you as you clearly present yourself decide not to support you with their vote? I honestly don’t get it. I don’t know what it is you expect people to do!
posted by Pat on
It’s just as wrong to be anti-religious as anti-gay.
Sure, they are both wrong. But what you mean by anti-gay and anti-religious. Is it anti-religious to simply criticize a religious dogma? Especially one that says that being gay is an abomination? Look, I’m with you regarding stepping on crosses, and other activities that violates others’ rights. But despite all that, no one I know is advocating stripping rights (or privileges) away from religious persons.
Why would religious people want to waste half their time with a group of gays who find them an abomination? Life is too short. More to the point, why would religious people want to come to the aid of those who chant in front of their churches, step on their crosses, call them oppressive–and then have the utter gall to ask religious people to support them on marriage rights?
Not to sound like a schoolyard dispute, but who started the abomination business here? Hint: It wasn’t the gay community. Various religious communities have excoriated gay persons. I don’t think it’s a big surprise when many in the gay community don’t return the favor with hugs and kisses. We’re not all Jesus who can always turn the other cheek. No, I’m not excusing violence or other reprehensible activities against churches or religious persons. We should be above it. But so should the churches. They should recognize that not all gay persons are like those who step on old ladies’ crosses. Further, there’s a time to be nice, and a time to protest injustices. Being nice all the time has never worked.
It occurred to me if gay persons had the power to strip marriage rights away from persons of certain religions, I doubt that these persons would return the favor to the gay community with hugs and kisses either. In fact, I can just imagine some of the reprehensible acts and behaviors that would occur.
You can hate religion and religious people as much as you want–but if you want our vote, you’re going to have to be nice to us.
Gay persons simply want religion and religious people to be nice to us. Apparently, they don’t have to be. But things are changing. I figure soon enough, they will have to be nice to the gay community and other communities.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I really, really don’t believe that religion has ever cared about homosexuality, per se. My research on eunuchs tells me that society has always found a place for the sexually other, and this is true most societies up until–well, up until Stonewall when the gay community created an unnecessary backlash against themselves by pretending to be oppressed and starting silly rallies and parades. If you look at ancient Greek society, medieval society, Native American society, the 19th Century American West, the jazz age, etc. etc. etc., you find gays happily finding their way in the world. You cannot name one era in history when gays were not given a visible social role. Name one.
I think that religion is against the anti-religious, tradition-overthrowing, values-undermining attitude which apparently gays are required to have in today’s community. Since gays have decided that their very being requires that attitude, it is no surprise that society doesn’t want them around. Gays complaining about people hating them for simply being gay is like a group of clowns jumping out of an alley, beating up innocent passersby. When the people they are beating up cry out, “Please stop beating us up!” the clowns say, “Why do you hate us for being clowns?”
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Ashpenaz,
Consider this: religious faith is a choice. It’s a path that can change directions, not be practiced at all, not bear any disciplines enforced by the state whatsoever.
Regardless of that freedom of choice, and no enforcement of it’s practice, the common and continued assertion is that homosexuality carries the faculty of choice.
Furthermore, it IS the institutionalization of discrimination and hostility that leaves gay people little room to challenge the religious because of their minority status.
Challenging religious belief where they wouldn’t allow the person in question to LIVE is right to do.
After that, in all the years since so many religious proscriptions are out there, it’s taken BRAVERY, and moral virtue to WANT to see and be educated ABOUT homosexuality and it’s place as an orientation in all human life.
But rather than even be educated, the resistance to acknowlaging how wrong the religious actions and proscriptions are, it is cowardly on it’s face to allow for all manner of OTHER education about the human condition, sociology, biology and sexuality…but not THIS?!
Sexual orientation is the most innocuous and morally neutral of sexuality and as we learn more an more about how early it manifests, the mistaken idea that it’s a decision made in adulthood will go away.
The faith communities wield power, exploit and foster fear. And use it to an effect of denying human rights to the only minority of people they can get away with doing this to.
Regardless of whatever within that sexuality or sexual actions HETEROSEXUALS also engage.
There are religious taboos on autopsy, and other medical procedures, like blood transfusions and organ transplant that those of certain religious belief MUST refuse.
But the rest of us, CAN accept it, and those of the faith they chose, can’t tell the REST of us to refuse that procedure.
This is where religious freedom and freedom to make decisions that affect one’s life and happiness COINCIDE.
This is also possible with marriage equality for gay couples.
There is an understanding that there is moral benefit when one understands that benefits DO occur, and anything destructive DOES’NT.
One can believe what they want, but RESULTS have to matter.
If their beliefs on what homosexuality is or does, bears NO RESULTS in the negative they were LED to believe would happen, it’s time to let that belief go…and move on.
It’s been done for other things, as in the emancipation of women.
I can work for integration of gay and transgender folks too.
posted by Regan DuCasse on
Ashpenaz, you seem outrageously unrealisitc or uniformed sometimes.
The periods you’re talking about were clandestine for the essential things. The parts of life that required freedom and security. When you’re being entertaining or non threatening to the point of having no emotions or passion at all…it might not have been as likely a time to not be attacked.
But no one gay could EVER know, when that fragile truce could be broken.
The one’s that have all the social and political power and know it, always liked certain minorites IN THEIR PLACE…usually the place they CHOSE for them.
Even the marriage issue is one that the color bar can’t accomplish.
Unmarried status leaves gay couples EXTREMELY vulnerable. If not in a crisis, then in situations where privacy is essential.
Even the coming out process for gay teens carries UNKNOWN risks.
If just the perception of being gay, puts a young person in the crosshairs of unwanted attention, speculation and harassment…then we aren’t where we should be on the spectrum of social integration.
No one should have to be nice to anyone to have their privacy and dignity.
For some people just being a human being who IS engaged in aspects of life that are socially accepted everywhere should be enough.
And until it is…we have work to do.
And we have a lot of layers of miseducation, misinformation, misinterpretation and defamation to work through.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Find me one Scripture which discusses people born with a homosexual orientation. Just one. Post it here.
posted by TS on
Ashpenaz, you entertain delusions about the good book. I share one opinion with leaders of the religious right, and that is that the bible doesn’t bother to rant and rave against the sinfulness of sexual deviance and homosexuality because at the time it was written, it was regarded as so obvious as to not need saying. No remotely mainstream interpretation of Christianity has ever considered homosexuality anything but an abomination, except contemporary liberal denominations.
posted by Pat on
I really, really don’t believe that religion has ever cared about homosexuality, per se. My research on eunuchs tells me that society has always found a place for the sexually other
Ashpenaz, if that were really true, we wouldn’t be having this debate. Leviticus, for example, does condemn homosexuality. What’s interesting is that Christians have abandoned a lot of the nonos from the Old Testament (eating pork, wearing glasses at the altar, sacrificing animals, etc.), but still remained obsessed with homosexuality. Maybe the Bible doesn’t really deal with homosexuality that much, or you can argue that the Leviticus passage did not really refer to homosexuality. Even so, I find it hard to believe that the Bible thumpers waited until Stonewall, to all of a sudden decide that the Leviticus passage was a condemnation of homosexuality.
You cannot name one era in history when gays were not given a visible social role. Name one.
Name one? I can name plenty. Starting with every era before 1969. Sorry, but being regarded as a eunuch does not count as a visible role to me. That’s something we can all do without.
I think that religion is against the anti-religious, tradition-overthrowing, values-undermining attitude which apparently gays are required to have in today’s community.
I’ve got a news flash for you. We’ve being undermining traditions for thousands of years, thank God. Here’s a list as a start. Slavery; Rights only for the rich and powerful; Governments ruled by despots and absolute monarchs (divine right); Indulgences; Doweries; Predetermined marriages; Marriages between persons of same social class and/or race; Subjugation or women (with or without the pretense of honoring women). And religion did try to step in the way of some of these wonderful traditions at the time. Most embrace these changes now. Unfortunately, some of these traditions still exist in some cultures and societies.
Gays complaining about people hating them for simply being gay is like a group of clowns jumping out of an alley, beating up innocent passersby. When the people they are beating up cry out, “Please stop beating us up!” the clowns say, “Why do you hate us for being clowns?”
What about the clowns that don’t beat up innocent passersby? Should they be hated for being clowns? Ashpenaz, you apparently don’t like certain perceived behaviors by the gay community. Not only that, you condemn such behaviors unequivocally. Why isn’t that good enough for your church and your colleagues? Do you have to be regarded as a eunuch to be afforded dignity? Why doesn’t your church believe that YOU should not get married to the person you love?
Find me one Scripture which discusses people born with a homosexual orientation. Just one. Post it here.
Not sure what your point is, but you won’t find it. Just like you won’t find any passages about dinosaurs, the actual Creation of the universe, or the actual origin of humans. In fact, the Bible usually doesn’t address things that people were ignorant of at the time the Bible was written. And when it does address such things, it’s wrong. You’d think that if God wrote the Bible, He would have had the origin of the human species correct, and wouldn’t have the story of Creation as obviously wrong and not seemless and awkward.
You believe that marriage should be the way that YOU think God intended it. But there are thousands of different interpretations of what God thinks or grants. Thousands of years of Bible studies, and no one still knows for sure what the heck is going on. But we’re really talking about government recognized marriage here. Besides, people with no faith or questioning faith get married. People who believe in a God (or Gods) different from the God of Abraham can get married. Attmay is right to consider the benefits of marriage that have nothing to do with what persons believe that God thinks about marriage.
posted by Bobby on
I think Pat is right, Asphenaz, I don’t mind the president saying God Bless America, I don’t care about “In God We Trust” in our coins, or having “under God” in the pledge or allegiance, or calling a christmas tree a christmas tree and not the offensive term, “holiday tree” which some wackos use in the name of diversity. But imposing biblical law on all of us, like the “blue laws” that forbid selling beer on sundays before noon, is not acceptable.
posted by Ashpehaz on
I would rather be a “eunuch” than “queer” or “faggot” or any of the many other self-identifiers homosexuals use. Homosexuals redefined the word “gay” and there’s no reason why they couldn’t bring a new meaning to “eunuch.” However, I don’t particularly like the word eunuch, except that it designates a visible role for homosexuals in the ancient world.
Your understanding of homosexual life prior to Stonewall is not the same as mine. Mine has the advantage of being based on actual history. If you look at any era prior to the last half of the 20th century, you’ll find homosexuals happily fulfilling their visible social roles.
As you point out, religion, particularly Christianity, has been at the forefront of social change. It could be the same for homosexual rights, if we’d go inside the churches and worship instead of standing outside the churches and chanting. There are many welcoming mainline churches which are doing their best to reach out to homosexuals.
The verses in Leviticus do not discuss men with an inborn orientation.
My point, and I do have one, (extra points for recognizing that gay injoke), is that homosexuals would find it easier to achieve the goal of marriage/civil union rights by joining and working with churches rather than staying on the outside.
posted by Tommy on
Ashpenaz, it cannot be done your way. The majority of churches are against us, and the conservative elements within them probably will remain so indefinitely. Activistic behavior by either side may antagonize or exaggerate that basic fact, but it will not go away. To the contemporary religious traditionalist, homosexuality, not the “flaunting of it” or the “outrageous behavior” as you keep saying, is near the top of the list of modern bizarrities and decadences that plague humanity. I reject this notion as abhorrent and illogical, and nobody should be surprised if I harbor a little anti-religious sentiment.
You might have the misimpressions you do because you participate in a Christian social community. They, like everyone else in the world, are nice people. But you aren’t even out to them. If you did come out to them, they certainly wouldn’t reject or mistreat you because that’s not the “Christian” way. But entertain no delusions that what they would give you is support or acceptance.
posted by Pat on
I would rather be a “eunuch” than “queer” or “faggot” or any of the many other self-identifiers homosexuals use. Homosexuals redefined the word “gay” and there’s no reason why they couldn’t bring a new meaning to “eunuch.” However, I don’t particularly like the word eunuch, except that it designates a visible role for homosexuals in the ancient world.
We’ve been over this point before, and perhaps we can agree to disagree again. Words like “eunuch” and “faggot” are demeaning when describing homosexual persons. The terms “queer” not so much, even though I don’t prefer that term. Gay is pretty good, and standard terminology, and something I can live with for now.
Your understanding of homosexual life prior to Stonewall is not the same as mine.
Agreed.
Mine has the advantage of being based on actual history.
Hardly.
If you look at any era prior to the last half of the 20th century, you’ll find homosexuals happily fulfilling their visible social roles.
Herein may lie our disagreement. I think we perceive “happily fulfilling their ‘visible’ social roles” differently. While there are gay persons who did their best to play the cards they were dealt, it doesn’t change the fact that gay persons were oppressed and not free to be open in their sexuality in the same way that straight persons were. Not by a long shot. We’ve had this discussion before. Using terms like “confirmed bachelor,” “dear friend,” and other euphemisms does not mean that gay persons were happy fulfilling their roles. It was called survival. And the ones who did try to be free in the same way that straight persons were persecuted.
As you point out, religion, particularly Christianity, has been at the forefront of social change.
No. What I said (or meant) was that the Christian Church was resistant to social change (i.e. these wonderful traditions that I listed above). What I will say though is today, the Catholic Church, for example, is on the forefront of some good social justice causes. Unfortunately, they are an obstacle to others.
It could be the same for homosexual rights, if we’d go inside the churches and worship instead of standing outside the churches and chanting.
In a free society, only gays that want to go inside the churches should be free to do so. I am glad we live in a society that no one is compelled to go to church. Thank God for that.
There are many welcoming mainline churches which are doing their best to reach out to homosexuals.
There are (as well as synagogues), and I applaud the welcome mat that they put out for gay persons. God bless them.
The verses in Leviticus do not discuss men with an inborn orientation.
True. I never said otherwise.
My point, and I do have one, (extra points for recognizing that gay injoke), is that homosexuals would find it easier to achieve the goal of marriage/civil union rights by joining and working with churches rather than staying on the outside.
Okay, I don’t think I get your joke. You are making some kind of analogy with the Bible not talking about people being “in”born with homosexuality and saying that gay persons should be “in”side churches? My sense of humor isn’t always my strong point, but this joke still doesn’t make sense. Maybe it’s me. Did anyone else get it?
In any case, most gay persons are not looking to force churches to marry persons they don’t want to marry. If your church does not want to marry same sex couples, so be it. I’ll leave it up to you and your fellow congregants to deal with it. As you suggest, the persons protesting outside your church probably don’t want to get married in your church anyway. I won’t live long enough to see it, but I think the mainstream Christian churches will eventually follow suit and marry same sex couples, just as they eventually followed suit when the other traditions were undermined.
posted by Ashpenaz on
I am out to them. I am out to both pastors and several people I interact with on a regular basis. No, I haven’t stood in front of the congregation waving a rainbow flag, saying, “Hey, there, world, I’m gay!!!” There was another openly gay man who ran for church council, though. Look at what’s happening in the Los Angeles Episcopal diocese. If gays would simply “worship without prejudice” (yet more points for that gay injoke), they would discover that most mainline Christians are really ready to be accepting.
posted by BobN on
“Let’s assume that the right to marry is associated with traditional morals and family values”
Uh… why?
The right to marry whoever your father arranges for you to marry might be the “traditional” right you’re after…
posted by TS on
oh, episcopal! and L.A. no less. Well, never mind then. Go ahead and wave the rainbow flag; people will probably clap.
posted by Rob on
If you look at any era prior to the last half of the 20th century, you’ll find homosexuals happily fulfilling their visible social roles.
If you actually believe this, then you obviously have no idea where the term ‘fag’ as a gay slur originates from.
posted by Ashpenaz on
When are they going to post a column here in response to this week’s Newsweek cover story so I can say “I told you so”?
posted by Pat on
Ashpenaz, have you read the article (link below)? So, I’ll say it. I told you so. It makes a lot of the points I’ve been making. It also shows that even another thousand years of Bible studies are not going to settle what the Bible says about same sex marriage, marriage in general, or homosexuality. Anti-gay bigots are going to interpret the Bible the way they want, and the author of the article (who seems to support same sex marriage) has interpreted the Bible the way she wants. And even if the Bible was clear, we have to come up with arguments, for or against, that don’t rely on what people think that writers meant when they wrote the Bible 2000+ years ago. We’re not Saudi Arabia, Iran, or 16th Century Spain.
The article does mention your buds Jonathan and David. As the article suggests, it’s unclear whether Jonathan and David loved each other in the Biblical sense as well. That could be one interpretation. Another interpretation is that it could be another Biblical slap at women. Or maybe they had a deep and meaningful platonic friendship. Who knows? But weren’t they both married? Are we supposed to gather from that, that adultery is okay? Or is the Bible trying to say that we shouldn’t push gay persons to marry someone of the opposite sex. Again, who knows?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653/page/1
posted by Ashpenaz on
Yes, I have read the article. I think it is a great introduction to the struggle that we Christian gays are going through. It shows how religion can work on the side of social change. I hope that instead of yet another column about marching and chanting, someone on Indegay posts a column so we can discuss this article and even the response in Christianity Today in depth. Though the article has flaws, I am grateful that it brings a new approach to marriage rights to the general public since all they see are the chanting gays and fundamentalist believers.
posted by Attmay on
Furthermore, it is impossible to “lie down with a male as you would a female,” because the equipment is different.
posted by Ashpenaz on
http://s3.amazonaws.com/dfc_attachments/public/documents/119/Blessing_of_a_Lifelong_Covenant.pdf
Follow this link to the new-time religion–the rites of a lifelong commitment put together by the LA Episcopal diocese. I love this liturgical expression of the sort of relationship I think is God’s will for homosexuals. Supporting those who take these vows and those congregations who offer support for those who take these vows seems better than standing outside these churches and stamping on their crosses.
posted by Bobby on
I’m afraid Pat is right, Ashpenaz. Both Bill O’reilly and Laura Ingraham read the Newsweek article and neither liked it. And Bill O’reilly supports gay adoptions and civil unions! So he’s not exactly biased here.
Using religion to advance gay rights will not work. Like Pat said, people believe what they want to believe. Look at the Catholic Church, the bible is completely pro-death penalty yet the Catholic church is against the death penalty.
Jesus told his apostles ?He that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.? (Luke 22:36 KJV) Yet do Christian gun grabbers ever care for that verse? No! They ignore it, or they interpret it in a whole different way.
Look at the mormons, nowhere in the bible does it say that you can’t smoke, can’t drink alcohol and can’t consume coffee yet mormonism forbids all those things.
So arguing with religion is a waste of time. Even the traditional marriage preservationists will go out of their way to prove their points using secular arguments.
posted by Ashpenaz on
Exactly why is it better to identify with the gay community than with a church? Does the gay community have fewer hypocrites? Is it less oppressive to those who disagree? Is it less committed to its own mythology–is the Stonewall story any more real than the Eden story? Does it have fewer requirements–like having to “come out” to all and sundry? Is it less evangelical about its beliefs? Honestly, the Mormons could take a few lessons in how to oppress and shame people into obedience from the crowd at any gay bar.
So, my choice is to identify myself as a Christian first, and then as a man with homosexual attractions who is working to find God’s plan for men like me. The Episcopal rites I’ve linked above show me the direction that journey is likely to take.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “And once again, Priya’s off claiming that all Christians want to kill gays.”.
Pointing out that Christian reconstructionists call for the death of gays is in no way a claim that all Christians want to kill gays – you lie.
Northdallas said “It also shouldn’t surprise anyone that Priya Lynn is incapable of sticking to the comparison made, which was of opposing gay marriage versus telling people to kill themselves, and is now trying to change it.”.
It shouldn’t come as any surprise to anyone that Northdallas is incapable of sticking to the point made which was that
despite Ahpenaz’s claim that Christians consider him a friend and tolerate his “lifestyle” they would still vote against his rights of marrying his life mate.
Your attempt to change the subject and claim that gays are more hateful than Christians is falsified by the fact that the leader of the largest Christian group in the world opposes repealing laws that call for the imprisonment and execution of gays. A couple of isolated gays hoping two people die accidentally or by their own choice is in no way remotely comparable.
I noted the cases of a priest raping his daugher and killing his wife as well as a heterosexual couple cheating on their spouses to have public sex at a football game while the crowd cheered them on.
Northdallas said “No one is sitting here making excuses for them and trying to minimize what they did, nor is such behavior considered normal.”
Now you’ve backtracked to “No one here is doing that, to hide from your lie when you previousy claimed “in the cases you mention, the people who committed said crimes were held responsible by their own co-religionists and associates” – they most certainly were not, the crowd cheered the adulterous couple on and the police had to wait until the sermon was over to arrest the priest to avoid a violent congregation.
And no here is making excuses for those who suggested you and Mary cheney’s baby die or minimizing what they did, such behavior is not considered normal. I myself told Colorado Pat he had crossed the line, so stop with the false implication that people here maded excuses or minimized these actions.
Northdallas said “As it happens, I do adamantly oppose rape of ones daughter, murder of one’s spouse, and allowing one’s children to die of treatable diseases, and condemn those who would practice it.”.
LOL, just as predicted when its pointed out that you’ve failed to condemn evil Christians after repeated opportunities to do so you make a disingenous show of doing so. You wanted to ignore the evil Christians but I forced you into facing it and acknowledging it otherwise you’d have never admitted to it or acknowledged it, let alone brought it up of your own volition.
Northdallas said “Meanwhile, everyone’s missing out on Priya Lynn’s fascinating meltdown over Nativity displays. Really cuts to the core and demonstrates the antireligious bigotry and hate that is at the core of the gay community — and explains why the gay community sees nothing wrong with telling religious gays to commit suicide because it would be “do(ing) us all a favor”.”.
My logic was rational and unassailable. It was the Christians who had the meltdown. The vast majority of gays are religious and contrary to your lie that the gay community sees nothing wrong with you being told to committ suicide I and several others told Colorado Pat he had crossed the line. The gay community has in no way made any such statement.
Northdallas said “So now we have gays like Craig2 and Priya Lynn saying that all Catholics are pedophiles, all Baptists are segregationists, and all fundamentalists support child abuse.”
We never said any such thing, stop lying. The last time you lied about me like that you were told to apologize and when you refused to do so and insanely attempted to justify telling heinous lies about me you were apropriately banned from that forum:
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2008/11/14/6239#comment-24159
Now watch the predictable excuse “other people did it too and they weren’t banned” as though someone else’s wrongdoing excuses Northdallas’s.
posted by TS on
“Exactly why is it better to identify with the gay community than with a church? Does the gay community have fewer hypocrites? Is it less oppressive to those who disagree? Is it less committed to its own mythology–is the Stonewall story any more real than the Eden story? Does it have fewer requirements–like having to “come out” to all and sundry? Is it less evangelical about its beliefs? Honestly, the Mormons could take a few lessons in how to oppress and shame people into obedience from the crowd at any gay bar.”
You’re certainly right about that, Ash! You won’t be recieving much sympathy on this forum for your idea that gays ought to blame themselves for anti-rational and unfair treatment at the hands of the majority. But you make a strong case for your decisions about how to live your own life. Nobody should criticize those.
posted by Pat on
Exactly why is it better to identify with the gay community than with a church?
I don’t know Ashpenaz. I don’t necessarily agree with that. It depends on the church, I suppose.
Does the gay community have fewer hypocrites?
Probably not.
Is it less oppressive to those who disagree?
It depends on a lot of things. The individuals, the church, the issue of disagreement.
Is it less committed to its own mythology–is the Stonewall story any more real than the Eden story?
Okay. The Eden story is obviously false. The Stonewall story is true. What can be debated is its impact. It is clear that gay rights did advance exponentially since Stonewall as compared to before Stonewall. Was it Stonewall itself, or various coinciding events that spurred the rights, I don’t know.
Does it have fewer requirements–like having to “come out” to all and sundry?
Did you have to come out that way? I didn’t, and I live in a coastal state.
Is it less evangelical about its beliefs?
Again, all depends on the individuals.
Honestly, the Mormons could take a few lessons in how to oppress and shame people into obedience from the crowd at any gay bar.
Maybe so. They could have gotten more bang for the tens of millions they spent to strip rights from millions of people.
By the way, what gay bars do you go to? I’ve been to plenty in my day. I’m more the wallflower type, who keeps quiet, maybe chats up with the bartender, have my personal rule of NEVER going home with someone I just met despite a couple of attempts by others here and there, will ask the bartender to turn on a sports station on the tube, and will never get a call from GQ. Sure, there are aspects of the bars that I don’t like, and some of the patrons have ‘tudes. Despite these attributes being counter to your perceptions of the gay community, I’ve missed out on the oppression and shame into obedience.
So, my choice is to identify myself as a Christian first, and then as a man with homosexual attractions who is working to find God’s plan for men like me. The Episcopal rites I’ve linked above show me the direction that journey is likely to take.
I guess I’ve never ranked the different aspects of myself. I consider them all important, some more relevant at times than the others perhaps. Good luck with your journey, but don’t wait too long to initiate and accomplish it. It took about 17 years of my adult life to figure the gay thing out. I figure that was 14 years longer than it should have been. Life’s too short. Also, make it your plan. You want to own it and be responsible for it. Think of yourself in a row boat with oars. Don’t wait for God to row the boat for you. Use the oars. Don’t wait for God’s permission to row the boat as He has already granted it.
posted by Pat on
You’re certainly right about that, Ash! You won’t be recieving much sympathy on this forum for your idea that gays ought to blame themselves for anti-rational and unfair treatment at the hands of the majority. But you make a strong case for your decisions about how to live your own life. Nobody should criticize those.
TS, some sympathy will come from me. There’s a lot of blame to go around. That includes the gay community. But it also includes individuals. At some point an individual has to play the cards they were dealt and stop using the majority, the gay community, their parents, or whatever, as an excuse for what’s wrong in their lives.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I do so love it when Priya comes back and makes her desperate attempts to pretend she and her fellow liberal gays are not antireligious bigots.
Case number 1:
Pointing out that Christian reconstructionists call for the death of gays is in no way a claim that all Christians want to kill gays – you lie.
Not true. Priya Lynn screamed publicly that any Christian who believes in the Bible — which would be all of them — wants to kill gays.
If you had any sincere concern about people wishing death on others you’d be condemning the Christian reconstructionists who call for gays to be executed as it commands in your bible.
And before Priya Lynn tries to lie and spin again, I quote her own words:
Not in the same league at all and its part of YOUR bible that ALL Christians hold dear.
What makes this hilarious is that she refuses to condemn and completely repudiate her fellow gays like ColoradoPatriot and others who call for religious and conservative gays to commit suicide and for their families to die.
Case 2:
We never said any such thing, stop lying.
I quote:
Sorry, I have to agree with Priya about the behaviour of conservative Christians and its institutional backing.
In the case of Catholic clergy paedophilia, it was heavily concealed by the church hierarchy. In the case of many white fundamentalist Baptists, their religion went hand in hand with organised white supremacist groups during the segregationist era. And there are active attempts by many fundamentalists to diminish the magnitude and severity of punitive responses to child battery.
Let’s not excuse institutional policy out of the mistaken assumption that it is individual aberration.
Clearly, Priya Lynn and her fellow gay liberals state that it is institutional policy — which means all practice it — for Catholics to molest children, Baptists to be white supremacists, and fundamentalists to be child abusers. They publicly state that these are NOT the actions of individuals and that they are the fault of EVERYONE in the denomination.
This demonstrates that Priya Lynn was lying previously when she claimed that she “(doesn’t) believe the entire religious community is responsible for the isolated acts of some of its members”.
Meanwhile, I refer people back to Priya Lynn’s meltdowns on the Nativity scene to clarify the point. In particular, this passage where Priya Lynn is blasting a LIBERAL Christian is most instructive.
Piper you all share the same bible which clearly states non-believers are going to a hell of eternal torture. Until you change this your assurances to the contrary aren?t very convincing. If you want your doctrine to say a loving god will send no one to hell then put your money where your mouth is and publish your own bible that removes all the statements that say your god will send people to hell. Otherwise your assurances that no one will go to hell are done with a nudge, nudge, wink, wink.
Priya Lynn makes it clear that she intends to force Christians to change their beliefs and the Bible, and that she and her fellow gay liberals will do so by force of law, just as they already have in Canada. They have made it clear that religious beliefs and being gay are incompatible, and as that very post brags, the bulk of gays agree with her.
I?m also really pleased to read the bulk of comments posted on here are against this article in principle – as an Australian we look up to the US kinda like an older brother – (ok, like a strange older brother). This time though, I think you guys really have it right.
posted by Bobby on
“Honestly, the Mormons could take a few lessons in how to oppress and shame people into obedience from the crowd at any gay bar.”
—Ashpenaz, the mormon church gives gays a choice. Either submit to shock-therapy (with electricity, hence the term shock) to cure them or they are written out of their book of life, which means excomunication, something even the catholic church rarely does today.
So I don’t have much sympathy for the mormon church.
posted by Ashpenaz on
No, the Mormons don’t do that. Reparative therapy, whether effective or ineffective, is talk therapy, like any other therapy. It’s interesting that you think it’s ok to believe the worst extremes about the Mormons but get upset when everyone thinks gays are pedophiles.
posted by Bobby on
Well Ashpenaz, I stand corrected, although not too long ago, they did practice shock therapy.
http://mormonism.suite101.com/article.cfm/byu_electroshock_aversion_therapy
http://connellodonovan.com/abom.html
posted by Ashpenaz on
The shock therapy accusation is simply an urban myth, like Satanic ritual abuse. It just didn’t happen. It’s not helpful to slander the other side if you want them to treat us fairly.
posted by Rob on
The shock therapy accusation is simply an urban myth, like Satanic ritual abuse. It just didn’t happen. It’s not helpful to slander the other side if you want them to treat us fairly.
Don’t be an idiot. It did happened and it was documented by numerous “patients.” The fact that the LDS church still official sanctions Evergreen International is a disgrace.
You’re defending the wrong people Ashpenaz. Instead I recommend you to visit these sites on the subject before you make a bigger fool of yourself:
http://www.affirmation.org/news/2006_14.shtml
http://www.exgaywatch.com
posted by dalea on
Thank you Rob for bringing some actual information to this site. Ash, I have personally known gay men who were subjected to electro-shock treatment. And they had some actual scars to show for it.
posted by Ashpenaz on
OK–you go ahead and believe the myths about those mean ol’ Mormons and they’ll go ahead and believe those myths about those dirty ol’ gays. It’s pretty much of a draw. Apparently, you think that successful communication comes about when both sides believe the worst about each other. Good luck with that.
posted by Pat on
OK–you go ahead and believe the myths about those mean ol’ Mormons and they’ll go ahead and believe those myths about those dirty ol’ gays.
Ashpenaz, these are not myths. There are some dirty ol’ gays, and Mormons did sanction shock therapy in the past. If you don’t believe that’s true, at least make the attempt to refute the claim, and explain why people are mistaken about all the documentation, and why a google search gives plenty of articles with such.
Mormons no longer sanction therapy, which is good. Apparently, their official stand on homosexuals is that they may be members of the church, provided that they are celibate (just like any other couple recognized as unmarried in the church). They do say (and I give props for that) as long as a man has a homosexual orientation, they should not marry a woman. They are not averse to gay persons trying to change their orientation, as Evergreen International is an arm of the church that provides “reparative” “therapy.” That part is unfortunate, because professional organizations have said that such “therapy” is ineffective, so those that provide such service are immoral quacks. The Catholic Church’s position seem’s similar to the Mormon’s current position, except that I’m not aware of an arm of the church that provides “reparation” “therapy,” or if they believe it is possible to change one’s orientation. In a disgraceful move, Pope Benedict XVI refused to support the UN Resolution to eliminate penalties (including the death penalty) for homosexuality.
posted by Priya Lynn on
Northdallas said “Priya Lynn screamed publicly that any Christian who believes in the Bible — which would be all of them — wants to kill gays.”.
I never said any such thing – you lie.
Northdallas said “Clearly, Priya Lynn and her fellow gay liberals state that it is institutional policy — which means all practice it — for Catholics to molest children, Baptists to be white supremacists, and fundamentalists to be child abusers. They publicly state that these are NOT the actions of individuals and that they are the fault of EVERYONE in the denomination.”.
Neither I nor Craig2 said any such thing. Craig2’s saying something is a Catholic institutional policy is in no way a statement that all Christians practice it.
You’re desperate and your lying discredit you thoroughly. No one believes your BS, you’re consumed by hatred and a desire to attack innocent gays. I feel sorry for you that you’ll never achieve the happiness that so clearly eludes you.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
I never said any such thing – you lie.
Nope, you said it. Quoted directly.
Craig2’s saying something is a Catholic institutional policy is in no way a statement that all Christians practice it.
Craig2’s exact quote:
Sorry, I have to agree with Priya about the behaviour of conservative Christians and its institutional backing.
Nowhere is that limited to Catholics. Indeed, Craig2 calls out multiple denominations.
You’re desperate and your lying discredit you thoroughly. No one believes your BS, you’re consumed by hatred and a desire to attack innocent gays. I feel sorry for you that you’ll never achieve the happiness that so clearly eludes you.
LOL…..just like your screaming that I have an eight-year-old child chained up in the basement to molest, Priya, that’s nothing more than your attempt to get rid of someone who exposes you as the antireligious bigot and hatemonger that you are.
You don’t care about the gay community; as that example showed, you attack and fling hate at religious gay people who disagree with you. You’re only using other gay people as an excuse for your own sociopathic hatred of religion.