Source: thisjustin.com
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then a video must be priceless. If only the damaged lives were equally humorous. Here’s to a future where ex-gay organizations stop hawking cures, making empty promises and lobbying Congress, and actually help those who feel their faith is incongruous with their sexual orientation while respecting those who don’t. Then maybe a video like this wouldn’t seem so real.
Funny, I just posted this at about the same time you did.
What’s the rest of the story here? Does anyone see credits for the writing, production, directing or acting anywhere?
The link got removed by WP trying to correct the embedded code which it doesn’t like. I put back.
Thanks, David. That was very amusing.
Outstanding.
So…let me get this straight…er clear..whatever!!
To be straight means you apparently love to decorate…have a beautiful yard and garden….have BBQ’s…and have straight friends who just happen to be female…AND..you still get to act like a queen???? So explain to me what the difference is!! What a bunch of morons!! I just wonder how much they paid this guy to lie thru his teeth. Like he really thinks he is fooling anyone??
Tim, the tragedy is that it does seem real, but it’s a parody.
Do you know what, I can decide whether that’s hilarious or highly offensive.
This is no different then straight people making fun of gay people. I thought Exgay Watch had more class than this.
Actually, it is very, very different.
When heterosexual people make fun of GLBTQ people, it is in the context of a society that oppresses and persecutes GLBTQ people, where the sexual intimacy of a same-gender couple is either currently illegal, or was until just recently, a society wherein GLBTQ are specifically targeted for violence and discrimination.
The reverse context does not exist for GLBTQ people making fun of ex-gay ministries. GLBTQ are not amending state and federal constitutions to deprive anyone of basic civil rights, much less ex-gays or ex-gay programs. GLBTQ people are not going out and beating heterosexuals, or ex-gays with tire irons and baseball bats.
Stating that there is no difference, when the difference is based on the persecution and oppression of real human beings, betrays a strange ethical foundation that appears to see no harm in destroying people.
There’s a line, I think, between being funny and being offensive, and sometimes you just have to be able to laugh.
I thought this was pretty funny. Is it poking fun at Exodus and their claims? Yeah, but on the flip side it’s also using some gay stereotypes that can be offensive in other contexts. But like I said, I think sometimes you just have to laugh.
Some people on this thread are in desperate need of a humor transplant. If this is “highly offensive” (beyond “average, everyday, he-cut-in-line-in-front-of-me offensive”), then your Offense Threshold™ is so low, I’m surprised you’re not in a state of perpetual outrage.
I laughed. Several times. 🙂
Jim said:
If I thought it was simply that, I wouldn’t have posted it. Others can vouch for the fact that I am quite cautious, perhaps even overly cautious about such things. But this parody, in the spirit of The Onion or Landover Baptist, is relevant because on the one hand it is absurd, and on the other it is easily mistaken for the genuine article. See Tim’s comment above even after I made it clear in my post that the video was not real, and the many comments on the source site even though all they do is parody.
The parody squarely ridicules Exodus.
I think it’s unfortunate that ex-gay individuals who are unaffiliated with Exodus might suffer collateral damage — but that’s precisely why I believe that ex-gay individuals need to speak out against Exodus’ sex and gender stereotypes and offer credible alternatives to Exodus.
If ex-gays want the world to know that Exodus is unrepresentative of them, then they need to start loudly representing themselves, and stop waiting for someone else (like XGW) to do the work for them. While we’d love to hear from ex-gays who disagree with the stereotypes and politics of Exodus or other ex-gay political organizations, we can’t be their leader or advocate. That’s their own individual responsibility.
I’ve been to more than a few ex-gay barbecues….and this is HILARIOUS….and hauntingly realistic in many ways.
First, I’m a Christian. Second, in accordance with my understanding of God and His Word, I’ve chosen not to express my same-gender attractions sexually. By that definition, many people would label me as “ex-gay,” though I tend to avoid using the term because I feel it implies a degree of certainty or finality unbefitting of my current situation.
With that being said, I thought the video was hilarious. I love being able to laugh at myself. If a person’s “convictions” flare up at humorous parody, I think it signifies a grave insecurity in their beliefs. Along similar lines, I don’t get into a fit while reading XGW — despite many objections to what is said and how it’s conveyed — because my decisions shouldn’t be threatened by the existence of an alternative (or opposition.)
Therefore, it is my joy to respectfully disagree, when appropriate, and to laugh at well-produced parody such as this.
There is literally no Biblical command that person who is exclusively homosexual in his sexual orientatin must not express his same-gender sexual attractions sexually.
Jesus said that some men choose to be eunuch for the kingdom of heaven’s sake; but, that has to be their choice to that, not some person told them that they had to be sexually chaste. All of the “Don’t” rules related to sex in the Bible has to do with folks we would call heterosexuals.
Isn’t it more correct to just say that the Bible does not recognize that the homosexual orientation does not exist (in nature).
LD – No, it’s more correct to say that the Bible doesn’t see sexual orientation as an issue (it never addresses it so we simply can’t say whether St Paul or others understood it in a manner similar to our varied understandings today). It does however see sexual practice as an issue. The “Don’t” rules aren’t ever directed specifically at straight OR gay or whatever because those kind of definitions never occur.
But then of course we could get into the discussion over exactly what’s going on in Romans 1….
Very funny that the main character is ‘Randy’ and his friend is ‘Alan’.
Robert David said that is doesn’t seem real. Yes, it is a creation of the gays, but if you see a “real” it is just the same. If you got the chance go to the library and get “a nation under god”, you will see “ex-gay” and ex-ex-gay. The ex-gay, look as gay or more than any 100% gay. Simply because that doesn’t change. Check it out. It was created by the two Exodus founders. Now a happy gay couple.
Actually, Michael Bussee is the surviving member of that couple which Joan mentions. Michael does post in this blog.
When Jesus healed the Roman Centurion’s highly esteemed “boy,” that boy (pais in the Greek Bible text) was not a child but an adult. When pais referred to a grown up in the Greek Culture, it usually meant “boyfriend.” No Jesus did not see the man’s “boyfriend;” because the Roman Army Officer had respect for Jewish customs, which included not going to a Gentile’s place of residence.
But, the man had faith in Jesus’ authority to do anything and he told Jesus that he himself would tell a servant (literally a “slave”) do something and expect it to be done because of his own words which had authority.
So, he told Jesus that he knew that He could just say the word and his “boy” would be healed. So, Jesus did just that and word got to were Jesus and the Centurion were almost immediately of the healing which took place.
Jesus commended the Gentile man for his faith when he said, “In all of Israel, I have never seen anyone who has more faith than he does.”
Jesus always knew a person’s private life (by the power of the Holy Spirit); but, did he tell the man, “Go and sin no more?” No, he did not even mention sin at all and IMO, that proves Jesus accepted what we would call “gay relationships.”
Joe Allen:
Not to be rude, but is it appropriate for every comment thread to devolve into a proof that the Bible permits homosexual expression? It seems that things took a turn after my comment, when you attempted to refute my statement of beliefs. I thought that it was clear that I only stated my beliefs in order to qualify that I still found the video to be humorous, not to provoke a fruitless argument.
When Jesus healed the Roman Centurion’s highly esteemed “boy,” that boy (pais in the Greek Bible text) was not a child but an adult.
Er no, we have no evidence either way.
When pais referred to a grown up in the Greek Culture, it usually meant “boyfriend.”
Your etymological evidence for this being?
Jesus always knew a person’s private life (by the power of the Holy Spirit); but, did he tell the man, “Go and sin no more?” No, he did not even mention sin at all and IMO, that proves Jesus accepted what we would call “gay relationships.”
Apart from the fact that it’s grounded in an assumption that’s not present in the text (the pais was adult) and that the adult pais indicates a consensual partnership (which I have never heard of before in all the commentaries on the passage), that was a pretty good piece of exegesis.
Mike,
Many ex gays just do not want the ridicule of being tagged as ex gay and having to prove they are not in the same political or belief system as Exodus.
It is too much for family members as well.
I personally dread almost everytime something comes out on the Exodus website that has not been reviewed critically by themselves first – or has been deemed acceptable.
In fact, I wish Exodus or any other ministry would stay away from politics and hire a true critical reviewer for any research being quoted or posted.
Joan Manuel said: Yes, it is a creation of the gays, but if you see a “real” it is just the same.
I don’t know what the orientations of the actors/director/producer of this parody are. But it is important to realize that gay people are not the only ones who don’t believe ex-gays when ex-gays claim to have changed from gay to straight. Straight folks are equally dubious, and some of the funniest things that we have seen on the issue (the “reports” from Comedy Central’s “Daily Show”) appear to be work of a heterosexual “correspondent.”
I think that gay people get angry at the political machinations of Exodus, but my impression is that most straight folks find ex-gays claiming to be straight to be humorous, pathetic or both.
James, Joe Allen, Peter, etc.,
I checked out the website for http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com the other day. That’s the MCC church doing billboards in Indiana.
To my surprise their arguments about Scripture were well written, easily understood, and not heavy handed. I expected dogmatic preaching of a position and instead saw reasoned explanation.
When things were ambiguous, they stated that they were. For example, they don’t make the bold claim that the Ethiopian Eunich definitely WAS gay… but they say that he would have been associated with same-sex sexual expression. Much like if Phillip met with a hairdresser from San Francisco.
Their explanation of the Centurian’s pais was compelling. I don’t know that I would accept it out of hand (I’m not a Greek scholar) but it was logical and well thought out.
It’s a huge jump to go from entimos doulus meaning “honoured slave” and to it meaning a gay lover slave. That’s the supposition that makes jump that you make dubious. You simply CANNOT assume from the text that the slave wasn’t simply a great administrator (and therefore highly honoured). You’re going to need to demonstrate from other contextual greek texts that entimos doulus indicated exactly what you think it means. You need to demonstrate that the Hellenistic practice of pederasty (because that’s probably a better bet in this case then adult homosexual relationships) was shared by this Roman officer (a completely different culture). There’s basically much more work to be done before you can rest your argument on these huge assumptions that you (and others) are making about this Scripture.
Going further through that site Tim shows up more hazy exegesis. For example the argument that Ruth and Naomi were lovers is based on the Hebrew dabaq being the same “cleave” that Eve does to Adam. But a cursory word study shows the same root phrase being used in a large number of circumstances that are not in any sense sexual or erotic. For example:
Gen 19:19
Deut 11:22 / Josh 22:5
2 Kings 5:27
Psalm 137:6
Ezek 29:4
In fact, it’s used again in the book of Ruth itself where it clearly has a non-sexual context – unless you want to argue that these are all sexual / erotic relationships?
Ruth 2:8 – Cling to women
Ruth 2:21 – Cling to young men
I’m sorry, but the exegesis on that website, for those with a little bit of Greek or Hebrew, is not very strong.
Mary said:
“Many ex gays just do not want the ridicule of being tagged as ex gay and having to prove they are not in the same political or belief system as Exodus.”
Many gay people (at least the third who voted for George Bush) feel the same way about NGLTF, HRC, and GLAAD. They don’t buy into NGLTF’s progressive politics, or they don’t buy into HRC’s ties to the Democratic Party, or they tire of GLAAD’s pandering to straight Hollywood.
So they take action. They speak out with their own voices. They form the Independent Gay Forum or the Log Cabin Republicans, they write books (several of which become bestsellers), they start blogs.
It’s unfortunate that political groups claim to speak for people whom they don’t represent. But it happens, and the rest of us suffer unless we speak out with our own voices.
I can count on one hand the number of politically independent advocates for ex-gay issues: Disputed Mutability, Peter Ould, Warren Throckmorton, David Blakeslee. I welcome referrals to additional ex-gays who are independent of the political religious right.
This is no different then straight people making fun of gay people. I thought Exgay Watch had more class than this.
What’s more “class” got to do with humor? Humor and class are subjective. My guess is that this is parody- none the less, gay people making fun of other gay people who are claiming they are no longer gay- exgay because they think it’s something BAD.
So do you also have a problem with straight actors who portray gays, or gays who play straights?
I personally know ex-gay people and exexgay people who were
sleeping aroundstruggling with same sex attractions thinking noone was the wiser, so to me this is a great example of ART imitating LIFE.Peter,
I think you responded before you read the site. Or you didn’t read closely. Or you choose to ignore what they actually said.
They did not make the arguments that you are trying to refute. Although strawmen work well in the land of Oz (or perhaps in a cornfield in Iowa) they are lacking when presented as a form of debate. 🙂
They did not “jump from” entimos doulus to gay lover. It was the comparison of doulus with pais that suggested a closer than slave relationship in Matthew that establishes their point. They use entimos in Luke to support their position. I did not say I was convinced, but I will say that their argument is certainly stronger than your strawman refutation.
Additionally, they did NOT make an “argument that Ruth and Naomi were lovers”. While they say it was love, and that they were in a loving covenental relationship, they stop short of claiming that it was lesbian.
And they make a very valid point that no anti-gay church today would provide sacriment for Ruth’s devotion to Naomi, even if non-sexual: “Whether or not Ruth and Naomi were physically intimate, we believe it is the mere idea of two women living in loving, covenantal relationship that many Christians object to.”
Please, Peter, in effort to find fault with the site and to protect your cherished orthodox interpretations, please limit your objections to what is actually said, not what you wish to refute.
“Apart from the fact that it’s grounded in an assumption that’s not present in the text ”
LOL. Just like all of the gotcha verses used to condemn, revile and persecute GLBTQ people.
Peter, there was a distinct and obvious lack of substantiating evidence in your posts, though you criticized someone else for the same omission.
Not good.
I loved it. Funny, satirical and ridiculous, just like trying to change a gay person.
Kudos to those that did the film.
Peter,
You wrote,
When Jesus healed the Roman Centurion’s highly esteemed “boy,” that boy (pais in the Greek Bible text) was not a child but an adult.
Er no, we have no evidence either way.
and …an assumption that’s not present in the text (the pais was adult)…
But later you wrote,
simply CANNOT assume from the text that the slave wasn’t simply a great administrator (and therefore highly honoured).
I’m confused. Are you trying to claim that the pais is a young child who administered the Centurian’s estate?
Well now that really would be a very valued pais indeed, wouldn’t it. It’s not often a man of considerable power and authority as an administrator who is a child.
Or perhaps you just presented whichever argument seemed convenient without thinking it through. Perhaps you had a set conclusion and it really doesn’t matter whether your points were consistent or made sense.
C’mon Peter. You’re a smart guy. You can do better than that. Unless, of course, Jesus MCC is right.
Hilarious video! I don’t think it’s offensive at all!
I just found this website today, and would like to welcome ya’ll to check out some “ex gay” humour:
Moderator Edit: Links removed – people can view the site for themselves if they like through the hotlinked name.
I checked out the website for http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.com the other day, too. But, I didn’t totally agree on everything they wrote either.
I disagreed with this paragraph in regard to Jude Verse 7:
At the time the book of Jude was written, many believed some of the women of Sodom had engaged in intercourse with male angels. This belief was probably derived from Genesis 6:1, 2 and 4, where we are told the “Sons of God”(angels) took the daughters of humans as wives. This was the final act which brought God’s judgment on the earth in the form of a great flood. And it seems some Jewish writers believed this was also the sin which sealed Sodom’s fate.
And that was because in Bible times, Jewish men referred to themselves as the “Sons of God” while they referred to the women in their lives as the “daughters of men.”
Some folks used verse 6 in Jude which is about rebellious angels and try to use that a claim that the residents of Sodom knew Lot’s guests were angels. I seriously doubt that even Lot actually knew his two guests were angels since all angels in the Bible look like men.
Peter Ould is a “Christian Orthodoxy” person; but, I am not one of those folks. That’s why he disagrees with me. “Christian Orthodoxy,” a historical theological term is now called “Orthodox Christianity,” especially in the USA. I am neither a Catholic nor a Protestant and have never belonged to a church or denomination which considers either of both of them as part of its church history.
Sorry about that, mod! 🙂
OMG Thank you, whoever did this!
Tim K,
Let me address your points:
Ruth and Naomi – This is the final paragraph of the piece:
The Bible is clear. Here we have two women who made vows, lived together for life, loved each other deeply, adopted each other’s extended families as their own, and relied on each other for sustenance — as do many lesbian women today. Instead of condemning these relationships, the Bible celebrates them, giving them their own book in Scripture.
That Biblical celebration of support for a quasi-lesbian relationship is based on the incorrect exegesis of a Hebrew word. Pure and simple.
As regards the pais and the doulus, we simply can’t make the inferential jump that you and the writer of the piece are making. He refers to his one servant as pais, and then in a generic term to stratiotas – soldier and doulo – servant. It’s obvious that the use of doulu simply acccompanies the other generic stratiotas – it has no special significance in comparison to pais UNLESS stratiota (a soldier) ALSO has significance.
You see, it pays to actually read the greek instead of just repeating what somebody else has said.
And I’m obviously NOT suggesting that the child was also the wonderful administrator. In two separate places I gave two separate examples of slightly better exegesis of the passage.
I would just like to point out that the book of Jude clearly emphasises and reinforces the belief that the “sons of God” were indeed angels….note in Jude, verses 6-7:
6 And angels who did not keep (care for, guard, and hold to) their own first place of power but abandoned their proper dwelling place–these He has reserved in custody in eternal chains (bonds) under the thick gloom of utter darkness until the judgment and doom of the great day.
7 [The wicked are sentenced to suffer] just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the adjacent towns–which likewise gave themselves over to impurity and indulged in unnatural vice and sensual perversity–are laid out [in plain sight] as an exhibit of perpetual punishment [to warn] of everlasting fire.
These passages clearly indicate that the angels (who left their former place of power)—-also known as the FALLEN angels— are the sons of God mentioned in Genesis.
However, it is important to understand this when trying to draw parallels between homosexuals of today, and the men of Sodom and Ghomorrah.
Bottom line: The men from Sodom were trying to impose forced sodomy on the two men (angles) that were visiting Lot, whether they knew they were angels or not.
Not trying to discount your argument, but I hope you see the corrollation as explained in Hebrews 2:16:
For, as we all know, He [Christ] did not take hold of angels [ the fallen angels, to give them a helping and delivering hand], but He did take hold of [ the fallen] descendants of Abraham [to reach out to them a helping and delivering hand].
What this tells me is that these were indeed angels in Sodom, and where Christ did not help them, He did help the fallen descendants of Abraham (Lot was Abraham’s nephew).
What is even more shocking is how the earth was repopulated as Lot’s daughters took turns getting him drunk and then having sex with him, because there was no man around (see Genesis 19:30-36).
Finally, it is important to remember that you could be absolutely right, and that the men did not know that the two men who came to see Lot were angels, for as Hebrews 13:2 tells us:
Do not forget or neglect or refuse to extend hospitality to strangers [in the brotherhood–being friendly, cordial, and gracious, sharing the comforts of your home and doing your part generously], for through it some have entertained angels without knowing it.
I would just add that this would include those who use the bible to bash gays in order to set themselves up as “leaders” who are so much more interested in an audience, and gaining power, and using it all to attract money to themselves….are just as tied to this scripture as anyone else.
Afterall, for all we know, ALL GLBTQ people are really angels in disguise, sent by God to make sure future generations don’t have to deal with all the hogwash that so many ill-informed people spread.
God bless us one and all, regardless of our beliefs, and remember John 3:16: For God so loved the world that He sent His only begotten Son, that whosoever should believe in Him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
That includes homosexuals! Glory to God in the Highest!
BrotherBrian
brotherbrian.org