Leading evangelical magazine Christianity Today has weighed in on Uganda’s Anti-Homosexuality Bill 2009. In an editorial appearing today without attribution, CT urges American Christians to “listen, then speak.”
Faced with the possibility that thousands of Ugandans will be put to death, the writer has the audacity to say approvingly that “for American Christian leaders, both silence and open condemnation end up violating important missional and human-rights principles.”
This isn’t an argument about abstract moral principles. This is about human lives.
I can’t be the only homosexual wondering what human-rights principle could possibly be getting in the way of the clear condemnation of a law that would have you and me executed?
Just another example that the most important value to American evangelical Christians is their ideological purity regarding homosexuality. In their eyes, one must be sufficiently condemnatory or one is not a True Christian™.
This utterly inexplicable focus on homosexuality to the exclusion of practically all else has convinced me that modern evangelical Christianity is now nothing more than a new heresy.
Classic Christianity has always drawn a distinction between itself and other faiths by its insistence on the divinity of Christ, the reality of the atonement, and salvation by faith in Christ alone. Yet, today’s evangelicals have had no problem joining forces with Mormons and Catholics–two groups they would consider cultic or heretical, respectively–in order to fight The Gays. In other words, long-standing theological considerations central to the nature of Christianity are now secondary to one’s position on homosexuality–a tertiary theological consideration at best.
Therefore, because fighting The Gays is the most important consideration for the modern evangelical Christian, anything can be excused as long as it serves that purpose. How is this possible? Because when you are convinced you are on a mission from God, everything you do has His stamp of approval, and every decision you make–including moral fecklessness and inaction–is completely justified.
Christianity Today would never admit to this, and in fact, they would insist that I have slandered evangelicals by calling them heretics. But the facts don’t lie.
Dave, how did you manage to miss these two statements in the CT article …
“We also caution them against punitive strategies, as we believe that capital punishment for homosexual behavior goes well beyond the limit.”
“We join many other American voices in our concern over the way the proposed legislation can hamper ministry and harm children of God.”
Do you even bother pretending anymore that your reporting is fair or balanced?
No, Karen, I didn’t miss those. I purposely acknowledged the tension by including the full quote “For American Christian leaders, both silence and open condemnation end up violating important missional and human-rights principles.” If my aim were to misrepresent CT, I could easily have omitted part of the quote.
The ridiculous assertion that “open condemnation” violates “human-rights principles” outweighs everything else when it’s human lives in the balance.
I can’t speak for Dave, but bloggers are not journalists per se, and there is no claim of objectivity. People blog because they are advocating a position, and they are more akin to op-ed writers. However, I do believe that the writers of this blog try their hardest to present the opposing position correctly.
Your complaint is not unlike what those on the anti-gay side do all the time. You take one or two statements out of an article–scientific or otherwise–and make it appear to say the exact opposite of what it really said. You took two sentences out of an entire almost-1000 word article to claim that it didn’t say what Dave so accurately pointed out what it didn’t say–an unequivocal condemnation of the Ugandan Anti-Homosexuality Bill. You even ignored the title: “Listen, Then Speak.”
There is a massive difference between saying, “I don’t think that a genocidal policy is the best idea, but we shouldn’t rush to judgement of those who are promoting that as a solution,” versus, “Even though we’re not comfortable with homosexuality, the wholesale advocation of murder and life imprisonment is evil, and we condemn it in no uncertain terms.”
That was the point that Dave was making, and it’s one you clearly missed, deliberately or otherwise.
The lukewarm stance proffered by this CT article explains the shameful silence from some of the Church concerning Uganda. There should be no ideological or theological dilemma when the lives and freedoms of innocent people are at stake.
The nausea I am feeling in the pit of my stomach as I read it over this comes from the growing fear that, had this bill be about another class of people, this fence sitting would not even be an issue. I hasten to add, I rarely make that claim, and do so here only because it is painfully obvious.
And it will be a popular article among those who have allowed themselves to hate gays (in a very pious way, of course) and still think they are somehow doing the work of Christ. It will because they can safely sit on CT’s fence and stop feeling any pangs of obligation to help the 900,000+ Ugandans affected by this awful bill.
After all, they are homosexuals. They could repent and be changed.
Or perhaps we could save the theological tiddlywinks for after we have secured the threat to these these people’s lives and freedoms? Would it really be so hard to say you are against killing gays, CT? This should not be a mystery for you, the right thing to do is screaming at you.
I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again.
Just how many people have to die, be imprisoned, starve to death, thirst to death, be murdered, be attacked…
just how many children must remain in orphanages, how many teenagers kill themselves, how many innocents have to suffer, how many people who have done nothing to anyone except exist…
how many of these casualties are acceptable to you good Christians while you obsess over my sex life.
You don’t actually have to answer. There is no suffering too great for others to bear in the name of your self righteousness.
Yes, Christopher, and Dave pulled exactly one line out of context to try to make his point.
The section of the editorial Dave cited was a recap of some of the discussion going on in the evangelical community. It reflected a variety of opinions, many of which were contradictory to each other, and none of which were necessarily held or advocated by either the author or CT itself. That’s the main reason the author cautioned his or her readers to gather sufficient information and think it through before jumping to a knee-jerk response.
CT and the author’s opinions, on the other hand, were reflected in the lines I cited – that at least the capital punishment piece of the Ugandan legislation is harmful and unacceptable. With which most evangelicals, including myself, agree.
Now maybe you don’t think those two statements were strong enough. Fine. But to imply as Dave did at the end of his post that CT or the author thereby turn a blind eye to the killing of LGBT people is unconscionable. It’s nothing less than a witch hunt against conservative Christians, and that’s not acceptable whether this is an advocacy blog or not.
Karen, the CT editorial was not simply describing the debate, but doing so approvingly. The author writes that “there is no escaping this dilemma.” That is a value judgment – and a warped one. There is no dilemma.
The author was conflicted. So again I ask, what possible human-rights principle gets in the way of a clear condemnation of the Uganda bill? By its own admission, the CT piece was not a clear condemnation.
As for a witch hunt against conservative Christians: no. Plenty of conservative Christians have done the right thing and unequivocally condemned the bill. Dr Warren Throckmorton, a conservative Christian psychology professor, has spearheaded the movement to denounce these violent proposals.
Unambiguously condemning the mass execution of gays is not a partisan issue.
How many times do we have to remind you that we want to keep this blog as work/school safe as possible??? You really can’t find the words to make your point any better than that? Think about how many people just lost access to XGW because their corporate filter snagged that bit.
I realize that this stuff is hard to deal with, and frankly it makes me sick to my stomach, but we are adults, no?
Dave, it’s obvious that you and I read and understand the CT article very differently. I still contend that the author CLEARLY stated (see my first post above) that CT believes the proposed legislation with capital punishment “harm(s) children of God.” (“Children of God = LGBT people, since they are the ones who would be harmed.)
But I’m content to stop arguing and let people read the article and decide for themselves.
David: I apologize. I often choose words to make the point as blatant as I can, lest there be any doubt as to what we are talking about.
That being said, feel free to redact to make it acceptable. I mean that.
Suggestions for the offending passages, if you don’t find your own, are:
…my sex life.
…what makes Sgt. Johnson snap to attention.
…what is patently none of your (i.e., the homobigot’s) business.
…other people’s sex lives.
…stuff you (the homobigot’s) know nothing about.
Thanks Ben, I don’t like doing that but I did here. It’s a frustrating job to try to keep us available as much as possible with net censors everywhere not bothering to know the difference or caring.
Warren Throckmorton has now weighed in and interprets it pretty much as I did.
Karen seems more concerned about conservative Christians having their feet held to the fire for their clearly inadequate response to this repugnant piece of legislation than the gay men and women in Uganda who will suffer unspeakable hardship due to this law. I personally don’t share Karen’s priorities.
Karen, why don’t you just admit it: If the bill replaced the word “homosexual” with “Christian,” there would be no doubts in anyone’s minds that it is morally unacceptable. You would be screaming from the rooftops about persecution and innocent blood being spilled.
and yet…
Christians *choose* their religion – they could convert if they wanted to.
Gay people? well, no matter how much anecdotal evidence is provided by ex-gays, the scientific community still says “no.” But of course, this is beside the point.
No Emily, actually the scientific community doesn’t say that.
There is absolutely no solid scietific evidence to support any particular causation factor. And national statistical sampling indicates that the majority of people who experience same-sex attraction do not go one to acknowledge a homosexual orientation or adopt an LGBT identity. You probably know this as well as I do, so you’re right (even though you felt the need to bring it up) – it has absolutely no bearing on this discussion.
John, I have absolutely no problem “holding conservative Christians’ feet to the fire” over this issue. As long as it’s done fairly. I don’t think Dave was fair in his assessment of the CT response. I haven’t read Dr. Throckmorton’s response, but since he is so personally invested in this cause, I’d have to read it through that lens.
FYI – I don’t see “liberal” Christians making much noise about it either, at least not in my denomination, the United Methodist Church. A few “higher-ups” – mostly connected to advocacy groups – have issued statements, but other than that – zip. As far as I know, our Bishops have remained silent. I think most Methodists aren’t really aware of what’s happening with Uganda.
Since Karen didn’t oppose my statement about her change of attitude should the bill use “Christian” instead of “homosexual,” I’ll assume that I am correct – it would hold no ambiguity for her should that simple switch in words occur.
And I didn’t say “causation,” Karen. I said that homosexuals cannot change their sexual orientation.
You can cite all the 20-year old studies, all the NARTH statistics and all the anecdotal evidence of “ex-gay” testimonies you want. It will still make you incorrect and misinformed.
Jeez, even Dr. Throckmorton, who DOES believe homos can change, is on our side of this. Just give up the phony piety already.
Emily, have I even said here what my personal “attitude” is toward the bill? I did say that I oppose the capital punishment part. Beyond that, I really haven’t said anything. You’re making an assumption based on my attempt to try to clarify what the CT article said. So how do you know that I’m not tacitly in agreement with you?
You’ve just proven again by your personal barbs that you – and a number of other folk on this blog – can’t even begin to interact with me without preconceived malice.
So, whatever.
So… what exactly is your position on the bill? What parts do you agree with, and what parts do you take issue with?
Christopher, thank you for asking.
I haven’t read the whole bill; I’ve read SOME about what others are saying about the bill – mainly on the Throckmorton, Ex-Gay Watch and Exodus blogs. (By the way, anything I post here is my own opinion and not necessariy Exodus or Transforming Congregations.)
I’m clear about two things.
One, I unequivocally oppose the death penalty or life imprisonment as punishment for homosexual behavior. Not all Christians agree about this, obviously, but I think it’s probably the majority opinion, at least within Western cultures.
Two, I also believe, on the other hand, that society has the right (and responsibility) to sanction or regulate sexual behavior. As to what that regulation should look like or whether Christians should try (or not) to influence the outcome, I’m not certain yet – especially as it applies to another country of which I have very little knowledge.
I hope to get more clarity about this, but frankly, I haven’t read or heard anything persuasive from a Christian/Biblical/Theological perspective about the “criminalization” aspect. Those who support criminalization (or recriminalization in the US) have only been allowed sound-bites (Hardball, for example) or have misinterpreted Scripture about grace and law. Those who oppose it haven’t offered any solid argument either, just the catch-all “consenting adults” stuff, which has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. So, if anyone out there knows of something theologically substantial, I’d appreciate the citations or links.
For the last six years I’ve been more focused on how Christians should respond regarding teaching and pastoral ministry inside the Church. I haven’t been involved in social causes and shifting gears will not happen quickly or easily.
But I’m continuing to think and pray about it, and also to ponder what role, if any, I might have in shaping a Methodist response to the situation in Uganda. So, the more thoughtful opinion and responses on this blog have been very helpful, and I’m thankful for them.
I want to end this post by apologizing to Dave for the ultra-snide tone of my very first post. It was a very combative opening salvo, and I’m sorry for that.
Thank you, Karen.
“Those who oppose it haven’t offered any solid argument either, just the catch-all “consenting adults” stuff, which has no basis whatsoever in Scripture. So, if anyone out there knows of something theologically substantial, I’d appreciate the citations or links.
”
oh, my. I was going to stay out of this.
How about these:
I do not share your religion. Do not make me a criminal because you believe i have committed some extra special sin in your particular book which means that I can be put into jail or executed for my private behaviour that is of no conceivable interest to anyone else or provable consequence to anyone but myself. stop messing with my life to enforce your religious beliefs on people who do not share them. If you as a Christian cannot justify doing it to Jews, Buddhists, or animists who reject the totality of your religious beliefs, then please don’t try to justify it because I have somehow offended this tiny part of conservative Christian belief.
If you want some scriptural justifications, try these:
Judge not lest ye be judged.
Look not for the speck in your brother’s mind lest you miss the deam in your own.
Let he among you who is without sin cast the first stone.
Love one another as I have loved you.
Do unto others what you wold have them do unto you.
Render under caesar that which is Caesars.
Scribes. Pharisees. Hypocrites.
sorry, that’s brother’s eye and beam in your own
Actually Ben, by birth, YOU are a Pharisee. As am I.
Karen Booth,
You talk about the fate of human beings as if it is some minor abstract issue that is of little consequence. The tone of your response about how you are unsure if gay people should be thrown in jail demonstrates so clearly that you care not at all for your fellow human beings.
I haven’t been to church in years and would describe myself as very disillusioned. However, I am operating so much closer to the message of Jesus Christ than you could ever hope to with your virtually complete disregard for the welfare of others.
Your hate has blinded you to the most basic message of Jesus Christ. I would really suggest that you go back to the beginning and start all over, because somewhere along the way, you have gotten irredeemably off course.
I would have to agree with John on this Karen. Your approach is far too leisurely and abstract. Alan may have delayed his own stand longer that I thought was wise, but he did make a clear and decisive one. You seem almost validated by the CT article. And if you really haven’t read the bill, by all means take 15 minutes to do so — that’s really all it will take.
What you call preconceived malice in most cases is probably better termed experience. Your record here hardly paints you as a shrinking violet. You can be very harsh. I’m glad to see you apologize for your introductory comment, but that’s something new in my experience with you. But when one is accustomed to debating with a bull (even those I know who like you have acknowledged this about you), one tends to act accordingly.
This isn’t exactly true, it would be best said that there is not yet enough reliable scientific evidence to explain in full what causes one to be homosexual. The same can be said of what makes one heterosexual. But there is no doubt that genetic factors are involved — by what exact mechanisms has not yet been discovered. So it is correct to say that anyone who says they know the whole story (or even a significant part of it) is wrong.
That is a statement which requires an legitimate source for substantiation. Please provide one if you want to make it.
David writes in response to my statement … There is absolutely no solid scietific evidence to support any particular causation factor.
” … it would be best said that there is not yet enough reliable scientific evidence to explain in full what causes one to be homosexual. The same can be said of what makes one heterosexual. But there is no doubt that genetic factors are involved — by what exact mechanisms has not yet been discovered. So it is correct to say that anyone who says they know the whole story (or even a significant part of it) is wrong.”
I agree. I thought I said the same thing just using fewer words.
David also asks about my statement about statistical sampling. I’m willing to find the citations and post them here, but it will take some time.
I choose not to respond to Ben and John because I choose not to respond to any second guessing of motive or to character assassination. (Some of your comments border on that, too, David Roberts.)
And it would be really refreshing (possibly groundbreaking) on this thread if I wasn’t the only one apologizing.
I would like to see a really indepth discussion about criminalization of sexual behavior from both a cultural/sociological and religious/Biblical perspective, but I don’t think that can happen here.
So, I’ll be bowing out now. Again, thank you for the helpful comments.
Karen Booth ends (perhaps) her participation in this thread by declaring herself a victim, because people called her on her callous disregard for others. Again, she expresses no concern for the real victims this thread is about, gay human beings in Uganda. Hopeless.
Perhaps, but I thought your version might be interpreted as saying that no scientific evidence existed of any sort, when in fact it does. I’m not implying that you made the statement with that in mind, simply that I wanted to be as accurate as possible.
Thank you for committing to source your statistical statement.
John and Ben can speak for themselves, but I really don’t see how you can say that about my comment without being guilty of the same thing you are accusing others of.
Again, you have a reputation and a couple of of comments without biting someone isn’t going to change that. Stop worry about whether you are being treated exactly how you would want to be and just go with the flow. John and Ben both made some valid points, address those and ignore what you feel is misplaced anger or passion.
The ship has already sailed on that issue (the criminalization of sexual behavior between consenting adults), in the form of Lawrence vs. Texas. Anyone who wishes to see that decision overturned needs to make their position on the following questions crystal clear before asking others to engage in any sort of public debate:
1. Which penalties should be imposed for which sexual acts? Be specific. A fine for each instance of sodomy? How much? What about community service for first-time offenders? If criminal sexual behavior is to be punished with some form of imprisonment, should it be in the local city jail, or do sodomites go to the Big House? If we vote for the city jail, where will the money for that come from — a new parcel tax, or a bond measure?
2. What evidence of criminal sexual behavior should be admissible in court, and under what circumstances? For example, if you suspect the two women next door of habitually committing sodomy, should your local police force be able to get a warrant to check out their sleeping arrangements? What about their email? Should the FBI handle some of this?
3. What should be the standard for non-criminal sexual conduct, and on what authority? Should monogamy be penalized on the grounds that it breeds selfishness, unlike the community-oriented family structure of polyamory? (Why does anyone think the have the “right” to have only one set of in-laws in their life? Not wanting to shoulder the burden of taking care of ten elderly parents is a sign of deep spiritual immaturity.) Should couples who willfully remain aloof from either the 24/7 master/slave lifestyle, or the evangelical Christian complementarian marital lifestyle be similarly penalized, on the grounds that their childish egalitarianism leads to disharmony and weaker pair bonding, not to mention confusion about who does the dishes?
Religion should not enter into any discussion of civil law. We do not live in a theocracy; therefore, the “consenting adults catch-all” is perfectly valid. My private opinion, as a matter of fact, is that consent does not automatically make everything okay. There are some forms of sexual behavior that I, personally, find distasteful, or ill-advised, or vaguely annoying, or even, in some cases, downright immoral.
But no matter how agreeable I might find a world in which everyone lived according to my values, I am not so foolish as to think anything good could come of trying to legislate such a world into existence.
As much as I wish the people who go to that event in San Francisco that involves a lot of naked bodies and egg yolks would just go away, I am not willing to shred the Constitution to make that happen.
Oh, grow up, “Anon.”
Well, oh my, yet again.
Karen Booth wrote: “I choose not to respond to Ben and John because I choose not to respond to any second guessing of motive or to character assassination. ”
I’ll write this even though Karen booth is not officially going to read it. But I hope she does.
I’m trying to find where I second guessed your motives or assassinated your character in my two postings. Other than a reference to the usual homobigotry, which was not (yet) directed at you in particular, and a plea to all “Christians” (you may consider the quote marks to be character assassination, but that’s up to you) not to use the coercive power of the state to enforce upon me religious beliefs I do not share, I am hard pressed to find one instance of reference to you or your possible motives at all.
In fact, all I did was point out what you might call the 1) founding principles of Christianity and the words of your Founder in both posts: take care of those people unable to take care of themselves, mind your own business, love others; and 2) the founding principles of our democracy and every civilized country on the planet– freedom of and from religion.
I can see that for someone such as yourself who is so heavily invested in being “America’s Best Christian” (apologies to the current holder of that title), pointing out your moral and religious failings might be considered character assassination. (Please spare me your self-deprecating protestations. We neither of us believe them, but for entirely different reasons). People who are so very invested in their moral and theological superiority rarely liked to be called on their hypocrisy– another way of saying that the truth always hurts, doesn’t it?
And of course, your motives are absolutely as pure as your character. No homohatred at all. You just want to take one of the odd translations and interpretations of ancient texts that comprise one of your particular beliefs about what may or may not be god’s word on a subject that may or may not be homosexuality and blithely talk about the possibility, nay, the desirability of throwing people, whom you do not know and who have done you no conceivable harm, into prison for offending those particular theological beliefs.
And who could possibly question motives like that, or think that hatred might be behind it, or fear, or self-righteousness, or any other part of the soul-and-spirit numbing morass of self righteous religion in its marriage to the self-serving ideology and ideation that comprises the anti-gay mindset? You’re not anti-gay at all. You love us. You really, really do.
So much that you are just willing to consider throwing us into prison, for our own benefit and the Greater Glory of God. And really, where’s the hatred in that? We should be Good, Giving, and Game for THAT kind of savage screwing over.
You want some sociology? I’ll be happy to provide some. I’ve got an BA and an MA in sociology. One of the things I have noticed ever since I came out and became involved in the struggle for gay rights 40 years ago is the singularly consistent sociology of Institutionalized Fundamentalist Christian Homohatred. It is the sociology of the bully; unfortunately, the whole phenomenon boils down to something as banal and crude as that.
For nearly 2000 years, you followers of the God of Compassion and Love, of Truth and Justice, have used the power of the church, the power of the state, the power of medicine and science, and the power of ignorance and fear, to attack a significant group of people whom you do not know, know nothing about, who have done you– or anyone else– no harm. Our crime is that we are different, and our difference makes you afraid, especially if you can see that you, too, might be a little different in ways you’d rather not think about. You really have nothing else on us but that difference. But that doesn’t slow you down at all. That’s where the whole Pantheon of anti-gay lies come from, whether it is the lie that this is god’s most especially horriblest nasty sin, or the lie that we are child molesters, or the lie that believing in Jesus makes you straight, or any of the rest of them.
Here’s some sociology for you. Homos exist. So do homohaters.
You and your kind– (BTW, I love saying that. Do you like how it feels to you?) have attacked, fired, vilified, murdered, jailed, slandered, castrated, tortured, and burnt gay people, accusing us of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because you don’t approve, or believe your particular version of God does not approve. For 2000 very long years. Your only debate– then and now– is which way is the best way to make the lives of people like myself as difficult and unpleasant, or short, as possible.
Here is some more sociology for you. We have a social purpose– of course. Like the Jews before us, we are defined as the source of all the world’s ills just by our existence. We must be punished, banished into the wilderness, segregated from society for the protection and betterment of that society, which would otherwise be perfect. (Specks and beams are appropriate here). In the mind of the Anti-Gay Industry, addicted to power and money and leading the borg-like ignorant and fearful, gay people become the scapegoats for all of the failings of heterosexuals, scape-goated in service to the wholly imaginary superiority and god-ordained hegemony of heterosexuality. I’m sure that if they could find a way to blame us for over-population, they would. We made Doug Manchester get divorced, after all. Our power is vast.
(Karen, honey, for the record: heterosexuality is neither normal, nor special, nor better, nor holy, nor the only– it is merely common. Also for the record: scapegoats are not only not required for a civilized society, they are not a good idea in a progressive one, and not functional in a reality-based one.)
Typical bully behavior, on the playground or in society. It’s always great– not for the victims, of course– when a bully doesn’t have to be a bully all by himself. Also very typical for bullies: they really don’t like it at all when the victims start pushing back. It makes them frightened because they have to worry whether they will now be the victims. And that is what we see here.
It is not a new thing, it is the same, getting-very-old thing. In each stage as we gay people have tried to claim our full citizenship and our full personhood, we have had to listen to the fears– another way of saying the potential victimhood, at least in their own minds– of the homobigots, paraded as if these were real concerns, verifiable facts, actual occurrences, logical positions. When California decriminalized homosexuality in 1976, the homobigots claimed that this was a direct ATTACK on the sanctity and existence of the hetero family. Man on dog sex! Seriously! When the first non-discrimination laws were passed– yet another attack on family values and hetero hegemony. Domestic Partner laws? An attack on family and god.
And on and on and on.
With the battle over marriage equality, we have hit the absolute lotto jackpot of lies and homohatred, of fear and victimhood. We are a threat You Name It: to children, society, family, law, religion, Christianity, marriage, the Constitution, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the military, santorum-on-dog-sex, the very continuation of the human race itself!!! Wow. Our power is vast. And of course, we are so perverted by our lust that we could not possibly value those things ourselves. Even more proof, if any more were needed, of the threat we pose.
We deliberately exclude, however, this particular bit of proof: none of the things the Religious Reich has declared would result if gay people are treated like full members of the human family have happened, can happen, or ever will. It’s because we ARE members of the human family. Some of us are even committed Christians.
Out of the hundreds of demonstrations nationwide after prop. 8 passed, there were a few instances of something approaching violence, though not Matthew Shepard violence or Lawrence king violence. There was some minor vandalism, but not burn-down-an-MCC-for-Christ vandalism. There were a few other incidents, some regrettable, most understandable, but few traceable or charged to an actual person known to be a homosexual. Some people lost some business, some people lost some jobs. It happens to gay people all the time. That was all of it.
Yet the anti-gay industry and its Religious Reich allies have turned this into a crucifixion, a veritable orgasm of victimhood. The threat was now so great that they couldn’t even be bothered to make a credible case in the trial over their latest attack on gay people. All of the people on their side, batshit-crazy or not, were too afraid to testify for fear of the attacks by the Homosexual Menace. God knows what they would do if they actually had the names and likenesses of their oppressors! William Tam and David Blankenhorn are probably lying bleeding on a fence in Wyoming even as we speak!
Of course, it might really be a matter that even imaginary martyrdom for your principles is just not convenient this week, because your principles are most likely imaginary, too. (See paragraph on founding principles above). That’s apparently what happened with the proponents of Prop. 8. I’m sure they would have had the courage of their convictions, had they had any convictions of greater substance than “I hate fags!” to testify with.
Which brings me back to what started this rant: “”I choose not to respond to Ben and John because I choose not to respond to any second guessing of motive or to character assassination.” Like all bullies, when the real victim stands up and says, “Back Off! I’ve had enough!”, the bully, now frightened, retreats from the field, claims victimhood, and demands even greater power over his victims to contain the threat. Does anyone not think that this horror of a law in Uganda is anything more than that? They’re just trying it out in Uganda and Nigeria since they can’t make it fly here– yet. So brave!
John (and a hat tip to you– you got there faster than writing one of my rants would allow me to!) had it exactly: “Karen Booth ends (perhaps) her participation in this thread by declaring herself a victim, because people called her on her callous disregard for others. Again, she expresses no concern for the real victims this thread is about, gay human beings in Uganda. Hopeless.” I would add that perhaps she should spend a week in a Ugandan prison so that she can note first hand its salutary effects. Do as you would be done by, Karen.
And vice versa.
emily– it was sarcasm. 🙂
Can we do a little better than “grow up” next time? I read the comment as one that illustrates a libertarian perspective on the matter, not necessarily one in favor of polygamy. I could be wrong, but even if so that seems a bit harsh.
It’s a valid question, Emily. You’ll understand when you’re older.
And in case my intention was not clear, I’m responding facetiously to what I assumed was a facetious reply. I’m quite tickled to see any view of mine described as libertarian. But if the shoe fits…
My comments on multiple in-laws, kinksters, etc., were simply meant to show what happens when you apply fundamentalist rhetoric to non-fundamentalist approved relationships.
Yes, sarcasm fits even better. Thanks, Ben.
Now to keep up my groove here, let me suggest that Karen will probably stop reading your last comment at “Religious Reich” if she does read it at all. I doubt the usefulness of slogans like that in the first place, but they certainly don’t work where one is actually trying to communicate across an ideological divide (as we often do here). While we are at it, “homobigots” isn’t very useful either. You wrote some good things, but those terms tend to say something entirely different — and for some they really block the road.
In Emily’s defense, I should mention that she has participated in some discussions lately at other blogs that probably left her burned out on the subject of polygamy.
I’m not burned out on polygamy/polyamory. I’m burned out on condescension. Everybody thinks they “know” things. Don’t pat me on the head and tell me “you just don’t know yet.” Because I don’t think anyone else knows either. Isn’t that just as bad as when a fundamentalist christian says “I’ll know you’ll truly come to the Lord some day” to a gay Christian? I really don’t care how many people you have in your relationship, and I don’t care if you bring that opinion to this blog. Just don’t bring your messiah complex with it.
look, if it was sarcasm, then i apologize for jumping on it incorrectly. David’s right, I’m burnt out on such silly debates about whose relationship is “truer, purer, better, more mature…” Telling someone their relationship is more meaningful than someone else’s different kind of relationship is akin to telling someone that they quench their thirst better than somebody else. So, I’m sorry.
David, you’re quite right. I was somewhat intemperate in my words. But I am tired of people hiding behind their religion or their sincere belief in the threat du jour of the homosexual menace to much care. This is my life, and the life of people I know and love, good people who harm no one, that she is attacking.
I’ll admit I was intemeperate, yes. But not innaccurate.
Ms. Booth said this: “I would like to see a really indepth discussion about criminalization of sexual behavior from both a cultural/sociological and religious/Biblical perspective, but I don’t think that can happen here. ” I believe that was the same solution another Reich came to regarding gay people, Jews, and Roma, with the added spice of the death penalty, which is where this conversation started.
I’m not trying to convince Ms. Booth of anything. If her own brain, compassion and humanity could not do it, I don’t think I could. The only thing, as far as I can tell, that ever reaches the homobigots is a bobby griffith moment, a slap upside the head concerning the damage they do to innocent people so strong that they cannot ignore it.
Cultural/sosciological reasons for imprisonment? The Germans certainly had them– in spades. Unfortunately, they all boiled down to bigotry and scape-goating, fascism and terror, power and money, fear and control. Nothing noble about them, though they were paraded as such, as they are doing in Uganda now.
Religious and biblical perspectives? Whose religion, whose perspective, whose theocratic agenda? One Biblical perspective is execution for gay males. If Ms. Booth is not willing to advocate that, then any claims to biblical purity are suspect. And if she is, willing– well, I’ve already made my point about that. When is she going to discuss imprisonment for those abominating shrimp eaters?
I’m not actually writing for Ms. Booth, though I would hope she reads it and realize what she is so blithely advocating, and what that makes her among truly civilized people.
No, I’m writing for every gay person, for every straight family member and friends, who is willing to stand up and say…
ENOUGH!
Oh, good grief, Emily. As I said before, that comment was facetious. I was satirizing the attitude you’re complaining about, and I regret having made it if that did not come through.
As for the other issue — indulge me, if you would, by reading my original post again. My point is that before you discuss criminalizing anything, you need a) consider the practical implications of doing so, and b) not violate existing laws.
I think those people who believe it would be in society’s best interests to criminalize any sexual behavior, other than rape or child molestation, have not considered either the practical implications, or the extent to which this would violate the Establishment clause. They like to talk about it, because it gets their blood running; I think it’s almost like talking dirty for them — a Christian Reconstructionist masturbation fantasy, so to speak. Some probably also get a little thrill thinking that this kind of talk might, somehow, intimidate gay people. At the very least, it’s an attempt to move the Overton window.
(Btw, just to make my own position on rape and child molestation clear, I regard these primarily as acts of violence, rather than strictly sexual acts).
Note that I point out later in my original post that I have fairly strong opinions on the subject of morality. The examples I used there were all things I disapprove of rather strongly — and part of my disapproval does, in fact, come from my understanding of Scripture. I think it would be awfully nice if other people came to the same conclusions about right and wrong, via whatever spiritual or non-spiritual path they chose. But it’s not going to happen, and I’m not interested in destroying the foundations of American civil society by trying to throw anyone whose sex life does not resemble a moderately conservative, non-celibate, monogamous gay Episcopalian’s into prison. And since I don’t think my religious beliefs entitle me to criminalize anyone’s sex life, why do certain evangelicals think they should be able to fine or imprison me for mine?
As a matter of fact, I followed (though did not comment on) that raging thread at BTB on non-monogamy. I’m another one who will not mourn the demise of those particular gay subcultures that defined themselves mostly through a kind of wholesale sexual liberationism, and rejected the idea of sexual morality as something hetero and therefore irrelevant and boring. I’m happy that the latest generation of gay people doesn’t seem to feel the same need that mine did to define themselves as “other” and “queer.” One of the most heartening side-effects of the gay marriage movement — for me, at least — is that the boring, just like everyone else, GLBT masses are finally standing up and being counted. (In fact, I hope we get own flag out of this, maybe something with green and white stripes, to symbolize the lawn and white picket fence.)
…and take the “oh good grief” with a grain of salt…
Karen Booth regrets not being able to have a nice polite chat about criminalizing gay people with the very people she would be victimizing and putting in jail. Her very desire to have the discussion indicates that she is in favor of declaring gay Ugandans (and gay Americans) criminals who deserve “punishment.”
Karen Booth is involved in the ex-gay movement. It is clear that even she sees that it isn’t working. People can’t change their sexual orientation, she knows it, and fewer and fewer are interested in ex-gay snake oil. Her desire (and yes, I feel completely comfortable saying this) to criminalize gay people is probably because she percieves that gay people are under inadequate societal pressure to come to her and her organization.
She is becoming less relavent by the day and hopes to find new ways to coerce people into the ex-gay movement. Her desperation to remain relavent is more important than the rights of human beings in Uganda. Some kinda ministry.
Anon: I like you already.
John: silly me to think she had an agenda, and not inquire as to what it might be. Ex-gay. Oh my stars! Do you have a link? Please? Cause if you do, then….
Who woulda thought! Religious belief, a mission, and possible cash flow!!!
The more things change….
David Roberts … here are the stats and citations.
6.2% of men and 4.4% of women reported experincing SSA. 2% of men and .9% of women identified themselves as having a homosexual orientation.
Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels, (1994) The Social Organization of Sexuality, University of Chicago Press.
A more recent Hunter College poll reported similar stats (2% men and .9% women) for those that identified as gay or lesbian.
Egan, Edelman, Sherill, (2008) Findings from Hunter College Poll of lesbians, gays, and bisexuals, the City University of New York.
I don’t have time to look up these studies right now, but I doubt that legitimate researchers use terms like SSA (Same Sex Attraction).
Also many studies of human sexuality ask people if they have ever engaged in sexual activity with men, women or both. Then, they might ask if the person considered themselves gay, straight or bisexual.
I suspect these studies, particularly the direct question being asked, are being misrepresented.
Laumann and team termed it same gender attraction, and they did measure it and also sexual identification as well as behavior.
Actually, the stats are higher for men that had ever experienced some attraction to the same gender – 6.3%.
See for yourself – https://books.google.com/books?id=72AHO0rE2HoC&pg=PA311&lpg=PR9&dq=%22Laumann%22+%22The+social+organization+of+sexuality:+Sexual+practices+…%22+&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&output=html
And John, stop insinuating that I’m a liar.
There you go again Karen, please calm down. I think he was questioning the study, not you. These sorts of surveys often times do tend to yield questionable results, and you were the one that said you would have to view what Warren said through the “lens” of his being “invested” in the issue.
I’ll try to look this up tomorrow and see how it stands. Depending on the questions asked, I can see the response being something like that. But with the kind of information that gets thrown around as fact, it is important that we request sources for statements such as this. Otherwise we could end up starting, or contributing to, bogus “facts.”
If someone else has the time and ability (and cares to), feel free to check it out. Just the facts, please.
Thanks for the cite.
Karen, I should have asked this earlier but could you explain the purpose of bringing this to the discussion? What point were you trying to make?
From a very brief scan, it seems they have recorded a percentage of people who have had sex with another of the same sex at some point as well as the percentage of those who actually have a homosexual orientation (or at least were comfortable at that time making that admission). I’m trying to understand your point. Thanks.
David, trust me, I’m calm.
John said, “I suspect these studies, particularly the direct question being asked, are being misrepresented.” Yeah, maybe he was just generally referring to all the many people out there who are talking about the Laumann study. I don’t think so.
I brought them into the discussion quite a bit ago in response to a comment of Emily’s that I may have (probably did) misinterpret. I think she said she was referring to change of orientation while I thought she was talking about lack of choice in behavior when one experiences attraction to the same gender. The point I would have been making is that (at least in this study) there are men and women who experience SSA and don’t go on to identify that as homosexual orientation.
Emily is the one who brought up science, and I think both of us kind of acknowledged it didn’t have a whole lot to do with the CT article.
Just so it’s out there publicly, now that I’ve read the full bill, I am also opposed to the 7 years imprisonment (or any imprisonment for that matter) for any of the behaviors cited in this bill. When I made my earlier post, I was only aware of the life imprisonment and capital punishment penalties.
Now I am leaving this thread, and it’s not because I think I am a victim. I’ve been on the receiving end of far uglier stuff than what was dished out here. It comes with the territory.
It’s because I sincerely wanted help in thinking through the whole idea of criminalization because I didn’t personally have clear answers, and if I do decide to try to do something in the Methodist Church (which would be in opposition to the bill) I need more wisdom on how to do that and what theologically to say. (Sociological information or passionate arguments from personal experience will not be enough.)
But that can’t be done here without a great deal of hostility directed personally toward me, and honestly, you guys who administer this site do little or nothing to mitigate that.
For the part that I played with my opening harsh post, I’ve already apologized, but will do so again if necessary. I’m sorry. But without an assumption of mutual good will, I don’t have time to sort through the rants to get to the parts that might “build bridges.”
Good for you, Ms. booth. you are opposed to crminal sanctions.
There’s a smart post over at Street Prophets about the curious timing of all this criminalization talk; if David Roberts doesn’t mind, I’d like to link to it:
https://www.streetprophets.com/story/2010/2/12/15308/7036
I think the author as a real point, both about the likelihood that this is being carefully orchestrated (whether or not every single participant realizes it), and about it’s potential for inciting violence.
A lot of information has come out in the last few years about the secret meetings that took place in the early nineties at Glen Eyrie Castle (near Colorado Springs), where professional far-right activists planned a centrally organized anti-gay PR campaign that was meant to look like a spontaneous grassroots movement. Thanks to Mel White and others, the transcripts of those meetings have been made available, and they have been exposed as the early astroturfing efforts they really were. (I’m sure none of this is news to the authors or readers of this blog, but I mention it anyway for context.)
I suspect there’s a trail of breadcrumbs here leading back to a small group of professional homophobes, and I hope that someone will follow it.
Ben, thanks for the compliment, which I return.
The time for debate and discussion over the Uganda legislation was a year ago, not now. Karen Booth’s belated efforts to drive the bill’s opposition in endless circles should be ignored.
And the time for debate about criminalization in the U.S. ended even longer ago. There is nothing to be gained by reopening matters that have been settled in the favor of liberty for all.
Karen Booth,
You did misrepresented both Lauman’s book as well as the Hunter College poll. You did so in your first posting and then did it again in your clarification. This would be the clarification when you told me to stop insinuating that you are a liar.
In the Hunter poll the words “same sex attraction” do no appear once in the 37 pages. Further, the letters SSA only show up once as part of a citation that includes the word MaSSAchuessettes.
In the Laumann book, which I am not going to buy for $36 paperback to chase your particular diversion, the page that you link to does not contain the term “Same Sex Attraction” “SSA” or “Same Gender Attraction” or “SGA.” On page 311, there is a table, where one of the heading is “Sexual Attraction.” The following catagories are listed under the heading of Sexual Attraction: Opposite gender only, Mostly opposite gender, Both genders, Mostly same gender, and Only Same Gender.
The table is descriptive of who participants in the study are attracted to. It does not use the ex-gay invented pathologizing terms of Same Sex Attraction, SSA, Same Gender Attraction or SGA. These terms were invented by the exgay movement to label gay peolpe with a condition, Same Sex Attraction, that requires treatment. It is also used so that exgays can say that they aren’t gay, just suffering Same Sex Attraction, in an effort to give the false, untrue, dishonest impression that they were no longer gay.
SSA and Same Sex Attraction are terms that are only used by exgays, and they are meant to pathologize and insult gay people. Legitimate researchers and pollsters (ie. those not linked to the dishonest exgay movement) do not use these terms. I think it is a dishonest, untrue misrepresentation to imply that these researchers and pollsters share your pathologizing terms about gay people.
I apologize if anything in the above 5 paragraphs insuated that you are a liar.
After a short sojourn, we arrive back. And feel suitably ill.
Karen, if this is your honest opinion…
“I sincerely wanted help in thinking through the whole idea of criminalization because I didn’t personally have clear answers
Backed up by….
I haven’t read or heard anything persuasive from a Christian/Biblical/Theological perspective about the “criminalization” aspect.
… you stand condemned.
There will be no bridge to a person who needs ponder that question. That would be a bridge to my own persecution. It is not a question that should ever be posed.
Karen, you need to consider how grotesque your very questioning is. You have violated the Golden Rule from every point on the compass.
I am a person. I am not a debate. Take sides, or stand aside.
Thank you grantdael. A much shorter version of what I was trying to say.
I would like Ms. booth to respond to my post, but I don’t think she would. I’ve noticed that when you call these people on their easy solution to the Gay Menace, they either disappear or claim it wasdn’t what they meant.
I am glad to hear that she is opposed to imprisonment.
What are the chances that she will declare on her Transforming Congregations website that she opposes criminalization?
None.
What are the chances that she will emphatically oppose criminalization the next time a Christian Right “news” service asks her?
None.
What are the chances that under the pretence of “just asking a question” she will permit a putrid sewer to flow from her mouth?
Every. It’s how she operates.
The term Nasty Church Lady was invented for a reason, and I have no time for her type.
although I realize that this comment thread has been hijacked (and the focus taken away from what was said in Dave’s actual post), I’m surprised that nobody has commented on the way CT portrayed Scott Lively – as if he were involved in some kind of legit ministry.
They did so by avoiding any mention of what he actually believes and publishes on and speaks about.
CT has taken a very hard right turn over the past couple of years, but to mention Lively in this piece *and* to publish it unsigned is just…. typical, I guess, for the current editorial team.
It’s saddening, because in their less-read outlets (like Books and Culture), CT has actually been publishing articles where a lone voice (or two) in the wilderness has been speaking for the inclusion of gay people in churches – and not as “SSA ‘strugglers,'” either.
That all leaves me wondering what the hell is going on over there (and other things, too, but they’re not germane to this discussion….).
Yes, e2c, good point. Warren address this in his analysis.
As you say, Christianity Today isn’t all bad. Books & Culture certainly represents the more intelligent, thoughtful end of the evangelical spectrum. So it is very disappointing when it takes such an immoderate editorial stance.
… a link to Books and Culture piece Handel – Another Gay Anglican? for your perusal…. I was genuinely surprised by some of the things the author said, in a good way.
@ Dave: well, the “immoderate editorial stance” started during the early days of campaigning for the 2008 presidential elections, which is hardly (imo) coincidental. And some of their slurs – for they are slurs – have been really awful. (An incredibly biased piece that claimed that 90% of African Christians practice “witchcraft,” for example… even though many African Christians – and others – protested both the form and content of the article, the editorial team refused to publish any retraction, apology, or *clarification.* I personally think the piece was not only poorly researched and presented – by choice – but openly racist, *and* it was planted in the mag/on the web at a crucial time for Obama’s campaign… a slur by implication, I believe.)
And yet, a few years ago CT was publishing anti-torture editorials, as well as pieces on the last Israeli war against Lebanon that were 1st-hand reporting and comment from Lebanese citizens (most of them Christian).
I’d love to know who highjacked the CT empire, and why… and where the money’s coming from. (Sorry to sound cynical, but I can’t help it, given the piece you linked to plus their recent willingness to publish an “editorial” by 2 prominent members of The Fellowship that basically trashed Jeff Sharlet and his research, albeit in a polite way.)