Last year Stephen Bennett Ministries (SBM) chartered a bus and took 30 Christians from Connecticut to evangelize gays and lesbians vacationing in Provincetown, MA for four hours. “Several” more folks from out of state joined Bennett there. Six hundred gift bags (printed with “You are truly precious in God’s Eyes” in pink, because it is the “symbolic color” of glbt folks) were distributed.
Inside each gift bag was a Bible, two gospel tracts for homosexuals and a special Bible insert which contained all the verses on salvation and what God says about homosexuality. Also included was a 25 minute CD with the gospel and a special recorded message directed to the homosexual, giving the listener a chance to pray and receive Christ.
Apparently the AFA and CFA provided financial support (both are thanked for their “full support in making this … a complete success”).
Bennett described the day as “life changing for all involved”, noting that his group of “strangers in a foreign land” sensed “sadness in many of the homosexuals’ eyes” and felt a “spirit of heaviness and evil” which reminded them of Isaiah 3:9 — “they parade their sin like Sodom”. He recounted a few positive stories, but noted a “greater number of negative” exchanges than positive ones.
One homosexual man who received a gift bag … noticed our t-shirts and came up to us, giving the gift bag back. “Get out of here and leave us alone! You and your message of hate are not welcome here!” he said.
After an altercation erupted between glbt folks and the Christian group, possibly ignited when Bennett’s group took photos of a man in drag and others in front of a pizza place, Provincetown police “told the evangelists they now feared for their physical safety and it would probably be best to leave P’town.”
Bennett and crew left convinced that “the lives of homosexual men and women … will be changed for eternity”, and on the bus ride home “many tears were shed for those trapped in the homosexual lifestyle in Provincetown”.
Eight months later, he is mounting a larger scale trip for August 7, scheduled to coincide with Gay and Lesbian Family Week in Provincetown. This time the plan includes chartering buses to bring Christians “from all over New England”, suggesting that “EVERY church in Massachusetts needs to be part of this outreach!!”
To do so, SBM says it needs $50,000 to cover its costs, and mentions buses, evangelists’ t-shirts, and Bible gift bags.
Let’s do a little bit of math here. How much evangelism could $50K buy? In round numbers, 500 participants distributing 6,000 Bibles appears to be within reach:
| $ 8,000.00 | Eight charter buses to bring 400 people in, and another 100 people arriving via independent means. |
| (According to BusBank.com (a national broker for bus charters), one-day cost for a bus seating up to 55 people will run $600-1,200. At $1,000 per bus, with 50 people on each bus, $8,000 could transport 400 people. | |
| $ 2,500.00 | T-shirts (400 bus riders + 100 self-transporters, $5/shirt) |
| Subtracting the above from the $50,000 fundraising goal leaves | |
| $ 39,500.00 | for Bible gift bags, which would buy |
| 5,600 |
Bible gift bags at $7 each; since 400 bags remained at the end of last year’s trip, as many as 6,000 could be available, or 12 bags per evangelist. An average of 14 bags were distributed by each person in 2003, a quarter of them by the two who handled distribution. |
These numbers are only the roughest of estimates, of course. Lower costs (or having participants pay their own way) could increase the headcount and the number of gift bags; higher overhead could decrease them. But they raise interesting questions:
- If SBM is actually mounting a smaller operation, where is the $50K going?
- Has Stephen Bennett Ministries collaborated with Provincetown officials on logistics? Is an approved parade permit needed?
- How will an attempt to put a Bible gift bag in the hands of ten percent of the estimated 60,000 people impact P’town?
- What crowd control measures and contingency plans would be appropriate?
By Bennett’s own account, 30-some people distributing 600 gift bags resulted in a dozen positive anecdotes, a “greater number of negative” interactions, including at least one potentially violent altercation. If he’s sincere about multiplying that effort by a factor of 10-20, the disruptions could multiply as well.
Luckily for SBM, Provincetown folks have proven themselves fully capable of ensuring the free speech rights of visitors, even when the speech is disruptive or hateful.
*laughs for 10 minutes*
um, I really don’t know what to say.
Perhaps he’s left room in the budget for a pair of these so he can visit one of local drinking establishments where the homa-se-shu-alls frequent without his secret identity being discovered AGAIN.
Then again, all the gay boys I know have a few drinks and magically seem willing to make out with girls. Maybe it’s his plan to spend the extra cash getting half the town drunk so they’ll at least be “bi” till it wears off.
oh my god the women wear pink shirts but the men have to wear white
*resumes laughing*
I just finished reading the article on the SBM site and I must say this isn’t the first time I’ve read/heard Bennett sound like a catty queen. Steph, are you sure you still aren’t gay, honey? ;-D
Lines like this:
“I joked with him and told him his perfume was beautiful and I asked the name of it – I said it would smell great on my wife.” (um yeah, on his “wife”, riiiiiiight)
“A very sloppily put together Marilyn Monroe look-alike was sitting with a group of militant homosexuals in front of Spiritus Pizza – a popular pizza place in town.” (lol. A little “queer eye” there, Stevie?)
“The lesbians were the angriest though. They weren’t ashamed to hide their hate – nor their mocking of God and Christianity.” (Hetero men fantacize about lesbians all the time, you have to be gay not to love the “angry lesbians.” ;-))
And why does it seem as though no one in the gay community knows this guy from his previous so-called gay incarnation in P-town. That place is a viper pit of gossip, how come we never hear from anyone there who used to know him?
(((Then again, all the gay boys I know have a few drinks and magically seem willing to make out with girls. Maybe it’s his plan to spend the extra cash getting half the town drunk so they’ll at least be “bi” till it wears off.)))
I’ve never heard any of these “ex-gay” fundies mention fag hags, ever, and I’ve listened to/read practically all of their materials. Exodus, Joe Dallas, Bennett, etc, none mention it. But it’s like, such a fixture in the gay community, how could they forget to preach about it?
“I’ve never heard any of these “ex-gay” fundies mention fag hags, ever, and I’ve listened to/read practically all of their materials. Exodus, Joe Dallas, Bennett, etc, none mention it. But it’s like, such a fixture in the gay community, how could they forget to preach about it?”
Because they only have a limited and unoriginal set of cookie cutters: the one with the distant father, the one with the sexual abuse during childhood, the other with the promiscuous activity during depression et al.
Actually Joe Nicolosi was my therapist for about a year and he told me that my hag was equally “sick” since she craved attention from non-masculine guys and that as I became “less-gay” during treatment I’d find myself and my “hag” growing apart.
“your days with Candice are numbered” he specifically said
And how does Dr. Joe’s prediction compare to the reality, Dan?
(((Actually Joe Nicolosi was my therapist for about a year and he told me that my hag was equally “sick” since she craved attention from non-masculine guys and that as I became “less-gay” during treatment I’d find myself and my “hag” growing apart.
“your days with Candice are numbered” he specifically said)))
So the closest thing you had to a “hetero” relationship (don’t know if you were having sex with her) was “wrong” and “sinful?”
I mean, did he want you to be straight, because if that’s what he *really* wanted, then why would a relationship with a familiar straight woman?
So, let’s see if I have this straight now, because I do tend to get very confused with these “ex-gay” ministry things… Candice was a straight woman, one who is familiar (maybe even sexually to you), a friend as well, but because she was your friend and/or boinked you while you were gay, then she’s part of the “gay lifestyle” you need to avoid?
The logic of these fundies always floors me.
ew no I never had anything even approaching a hetero relationship. Yes, Candice is my hag and continued to be until we graduated from college last aug and she got a job in Santa Cruz I’ve never so much as kissed a girl. Niclolsi believes that once a patient has suitably established a masculine identity they’ll have the desire from within to start dating women. He never encouraged me to date women and was very clear that that’s something his patients chose to do on their own.
{{ew no}}
hahahaha, ::snort:: 🙂 Lotsa boys who do, as you mentioned in your first post.
I have a question:
If somebody hands me a bible and I take it and then I proceed to tear it up or better yet burn it in front of the person that gave it to me… Is that legal in this country? Can I get in legal trouble for this?
Eager for your answers!! 🙂
Dan
If they give it to you, then it is your property to do with what you choose.
Just don’t be threatening or litter. If you tear it up, make sure you hit a trash can.
Actually I recall some AP story about flag burners I’d read a while back (forgive the lack of a source) where some kind of permit is required for “public burnings” and the local authorities nabbed them on that.
More disturbing to me is the fact that this year, Bennett wants to turn the children of gays, lesbians, and bisexuals against their parents. Because of these paragraphs from his press release, I’ve been sending it around the Net with the respectful headline “Hey, hey, kids, Fundie the Clown says your parents are going to hell!”:
> It breaks our hearts not only for homosexual men and women,
but for the
> children now who have tragically been brought into these
unnatural unions —
> children who have been denied the God given right of a mommy
and daddy.
> “Gay” parenting is one of our most tragic social experiments
of all time —
> and the children are the ones who will suffer the
consequences….
We are also having Christian clowns for the children
of homosexuals
> with balloons, children’s Bibles, children’s Bible songs CDs
and a special
> gift bag of goodies for them. Each Bible gift bag for the
children and
> adults costs $7.00 each. What will you do to help make a
difference in the
> life of a homosexual or child of a homosexual??
Jayelle again: Isn’t there a Commandment about respecting one’s parents? Why would these good Christians encourage kids to violate it?
I don’t know who this stephen bennett guy is, but right now you lot are looking more pathetic for treating him with such contempt and ridicule.
Jayelle: I don’t see anything in that paragraph that says the kids are being told their parents are going to hell. It doesn’t look like that’s written on any of the material they’re being given.
Christploitation:
“So, let’s see if I have this straight now, because I do tend to get very confused with these “ex-gay” ministry things… Candice was a straight woman, one who is familiar (maybe even sexually to you), a friend as well, but because she was your friend and/or boinked you while you were gay, then she’s part of the “gay lifestyle” you need to avoid? ”
Christploitation: I can’t understand how this could escape you. I’m guessing the theory here is that some men already have plenty of friendship-level contact with women, and that instead more time spent in loving contact with straight men will be helpful. It’s obvious that men need to be able to see women as more than just their sexual “other”, but for some men these friendships may be preventing from developing that concept at all.
(((Christploitation: I can’t understand how this could escape you. I’m guessing the theory here is that some men already have plenty of friendship-level contact with women, and that instead more time spent in loving contact with straight men will be helpful. It’s obvious that men need to be able to see women as more than just their sexual “other”, but for some men these friendships may be preventing from developing that concept at all.)))
Now I’m really confused.
More and prolonged “loving” contact with men and LESS contact with straight women friends familiar to the gay man?
That sounds pretty gay to me. Er.. it sounds like they are creating gay relationships minus the sex.
So it’s not gay “behavior” as long as sex isn’t involved?
:scratches head:
Yeah, I guess it sounds strange at first.
I think behind the theory is the concept of sexuality in its development. We observe that many boys isolate themselves from girls at a very young age (“boys’ germs”, “girls’ germs”). It may seem paradoxical, then, that these same boys come to find girls attractive at a later time, which is augmented by the kicking in of puberty. Presumably, the idea is that there is an attraction to the exotic, the “other”, rather than to that which is familar. It’s associated with the idea that men with same-sex attractions may be attracted to a manliness (“other”) they don’t see or acknowledge in themselves.
The issue, if this theory were true, is whether the development can be “replayed” with a different result later in life. Is it actually helpful or practical for such a man to seek the affirmation of other men in order to develop his own masculine identity?
In any case, I must respond to this:
“That sounds pretty gay to me. Er.. it sounds like they are creating gay relationships minus the sex.”
From your comments, I think your limited understanding of what constitutes loving is rather unfortunate, and just confirms all that I think is wrong with the brittle shadow of “masculinity” that we have been left with in modern anglo-saxon cultures. No wonder people think David and Jonathan were “gay”.
I’m sorry, on re-reading, that last paragraph sounded a bit rude and condescending. It’s just something that frustrates me, as a “gay” man myself.
Trevize, your honesty and open-mindedness is a refreshing change from the usual tone of the comments found here.
trevize,
We are all attracted to some things that are different (exotic?) to us. For some men, it’s women. For some it’s a different skin color. Myself, I find blonds to be exotic.
But what you’re suggesting is that gay men (yourself?) feel inadequate with their masculinity therefore they seek other men. My own personal experience is the complete opposite. I’m very masculine and I like not-feminine, but “softer” type of guys.
What I sense though is that you feel that there is something wrong with you being “gay” (quotations are yours). There is no point in trying to convince you otherwise; You have to figure things out for yourself, but I will leave you with this:
A family member of mine was just diagnosed a week ago with testicular and stomach cancer. Prognosis is not good.
He is 28 years old!
Enjoy life. Don’t punish yourself. And no, you will NOT go to hell.
Dan
Hey Dan.
I’m certainly not saying that everyone’s experience will follow that pattern. For example, I have trouble with the “weak-father” theory because I’ve always thought I got on well with my Dad. But I do understand the peer-envy aspects of these theories. I’m not a psychologist, but your attractions could be an example of some kind of transference.
The question for me is not whether or not I will go to hell, but whether or not my actions are good in God’s eyes. I do intend to enjoy life, but I don’t think that’s the main purpose of it. I appreciate your advice though.
I used the quotes because I don’t really like that label. It has too many connotations and associations.
Trevze
Most modern theories on sexuality think that sexuality is fixed very early in development(like before school age) and some even put that development before birth. My own view towards why gay men and women get along so well is because gay men don’t find woman attractive. The whole sexual tension found in straight friendships does not exist or not exist to the same extent. It is kinda hard to be just friends with someone when they are checking you out or is viewed as a potential mate and if the guy is effeminate then they may share some interests.
The trouble with a lot of the ex-gay mentality is they equate masculinity (if you are a guy) with being straight and they confuse attractions (finds men attractive) with actions (hasn’t slept with a guy or is married to a woman). If only the men would be more masculine or more in touch with their masculine they wouldn’t be gay. Having a friendship with a straight man might get you more in touch with your masculine nature, but don’t expect it to change the set of things you find attractive.
I have known quite a few effeminate straight guys and I have known gay guys show as much machismo as anyone else. The trouble is, an effeminate guy (straight or gay) is often picked on for doing, being, or acting outside socailly assigned gender roles and trust me just because a person is homosexual doesn’t mean they are more open minded about acting outside gender roles.
I find it so funny that when the religious right harks back to earlier ages they never seem to mention the things that don’t fit in with our current concept of masculinity. Wearing wigs, makeup, and patting oneself down with perfume are all things men did in the 1700. Why don’t men do them now? Or even in our times the colored men’s underwear market used to be for gay men now straight guys (or their girl friends) buy them. Are those guys less masculine? What they fail to accept is that definitions of masculinity and femininity are not quite as universal and time tested, as they would like to believe.
Yes there are differences between men and woman and those differences are found right down to the wiring in the brain. Those differences may explain why men prefer to do certain actives and woman others. However those differences are for the general population not for a particular individual. Just because woman are better with language does not mean that there are no great male teachers, speakers, and authors. Just because she is a woman don’t assume she will better handling children than any man, When you look at a person, you are not doing a detailed look at the wiring of that person’s brain and there are more differences between individuals than between genders.
Hey Jason,
I’m interested in what you said about gender stereotypes (eg. what was happening in the 1700s). I think this has a lot to do with the whole thing.
“The trouble with a lot of the ex-gay mentality is they equate masculinity (if you are a guy) with being straight and they confuse attractions (finds men attractive) with actions (hasn’t slept with a guy or is married to a woman). If only the men would be more masculine or more in touch with their masculine they wouldn’t be gay.”
I certainly don’t confuse attractions with actions, although it’s clear that one will tend to lead to the other unless conscious restraint is there.
As for confusing masculinity with “being straight”, that’s not exactly what’s going on. The idea is more that the self-image of an individual may affect their attractions. So, in a society where gender stereotypes are NOT as rigid and overbearing, a young boy is less likely to consider himself “unmanly” for having gender-nonconforming traits or attributes and for being sensitive. Whereas, in a society which, for example, elevates football stars over male ballet dancers in terms of masculinity, he may begin to see men, and/or other boys, as the “other”.
The point is not whether or not he’s RIGHT in thinking himself un-masculine, but whether or not he FEELS he’s right at the time. Later in life, he will probably reject those stereotypes, but by that time his attractions are already in place. I hope that makes sense.
So you’re right in saying that everyone is different. Unfortunately, at a young age we usually don’t have the necessary logic and open-mindedness to see that. Instead, we want to fit in, and the dominant gender stereotype WILL have an affect on us – our body-image, our self-image and our image of our femininity or masculinity.
Yes, some straight guys are “effeminate” by current cultural standards, and that is a joyous thing. The model described above would not necessarily apply to all, since there are differences in the child (personality, sensitivity, etc.) and in the parenting.
trevize,
“The question for me is not whether or not I will go to hell, but whether or not my actions are good in God’s eyes”
I was raised in a Jewish family. According to evangelical Christians (and others), my family and I will be going to hell for not following Jesus regardless of any other actions.
The point is, these people are full of shit and I will never consider what God wants or does not want us to do based upon any religious doctrine. Religions are man-made inventions that have nothing to do with the true nature of the universe and the deity.
Getting back to our topic, such actions by these ministries are intended to upset gay people and gay families, regardless of how they present it.
Imagine an opposite situation, a children’s religious day camp where people push christian bashing literature to kids and their parents in that setting. Would that be OK?
Dan
I do agree that self image can affect behavior i.e. choosing destructive behavior. I do not think that self-image affects attraction i.e. suddenly knowing what the heck straight guys see in woman. Lots of people have low self image and they all do not turn out gay and I have know lots of gay people who seem to have a good self image. While working on self-image might be good, don’t expect to be straightened out by it.
There are two camps. The ex-gay camp figures that homosexuality is somehow learned (or fixable) and therefore with proper treatment can be unlearned (or changed). The gay friendly camp figures that homosexuality is just a part of nature a part of a person’s being and trying to unlearn it is like trying to stop the tides.
Honestly no one knows what causes homosexuality and trying to fix it when you don’t know the cause does just does not seem productive. At the moment biological causes are strongly suspected and so any theory that suspects self image as the cause of homosexuality is outside of the main stream at least. As for the weak/absent father or domineering mother there is lots of evidence to debunk that theory and that theory has done quite a lot of harm to the relationships of homosexuals and their families (i.e. it’s the parent’s fault).
My own view is that the ex-gay moment is grasping at straws trying to undo the effects of new knowledge into sexuality (i.e. Homosexuality might be a part of nature and doesn’t appear to be something that needs fixing). As for if your actions are right by God that is something only you can answer. My own view is that the scriptures that people are using to condemn the action are being taken out of context and the reason why people are cling to scripture is because there is a great fear of homosexuality (No one knows what causes. Is it good or bad? What about the people I care about?). The bible has lots of scriptures that were used to support lots of things both good and bad.
Dan,
I can’t say that I see beliefs the same way you do. I believe there is a truth about our universe and our purpose as human beings, and some people may be closer to it than others. So to put all beliefs in a box and say they’re all wrong seems rather naive to me.
But I agree that there’s something wrong with “religions”, in the sense of people trying to *earn* salvation/nirvana/enlightenment/peace with God through doing all the “right” things. As a Christian, I should want to do the right things because of my relationship with a God who loves me, not because I’m afraid of going to hell.
“Getting back to our topic, such actions by these ministries are intended to upset gay people and gay families, regardless of how they present it.”
So you think their purpose here is to upset people? Are you sure you’re not paranoid? Regardless of what happens, I don’t think their purpose is to make people upset.
“Imagine an opposite situation, a children’s religious day camp where people push christian bashing literature to kids and their parents in that setting. Would that be OK?”
Yeah, I think literature that “bashes” people would be wrong. But the way some people think, to claim that someone might be wrong, or doing wrong things, is to “bash” them. I don’t believe that.
But again, I don’t see any gay-bashing material in what was given to the kids. I can’t guess at what the parents received. I’m not saying I approve of what this guy did anyway. I just think you guys are over-reacting and condemning.
Jason,
“I do not think that self-image affects attraction i.e. suddenly knowing what the heck straight guys see in woman.”
Possibly, but that would depend on what is the root of the attractions. As I said previously, the theory may possibly be correct about the original development of attractions in many men, but that doesn’t mean you can become a kid again and develop a different way.
“Lots of people have low self image and they all do not turn out gay”
Yes. Be careful not to fall for the logical fallacy that a model must work identically in all cases to be correct in any cases. For example, one boy might deal with low gender self-image by trying to earn the respect of his peers through power/money/daring/chasing after chicks in a beefed-up car. Another might find himself trying to “own” the other boys through attractions, which become sexual. It will depend on experiences and on the personality of the individual (which might be the most that biology affects attraction).
“My own view is that the ex-gay moment is grasping at straws trying to undo the effects of new knowledge into sexuality (i.e. Homosexuality might be a part of nature and doesn’t appear to be something that needs fixing).”
Exactly what do you mean by a “part of nature”? That seems very vague. Are we talking about genetics? Hormones? You propose avoiding the study of non-biological causes because there’s evidence that there’s a link between some biological traits and homosexuality? It’s obvious that biology affects sensitivity and gender-nonconforming traits, so why rule out the possibility that learned experience also has a large influence?
And, in any case, even if homosexually turned out to be TOTALLY pre-programmed before the human grows larger than one cell, don’t you think the “ex-gay” people would just declare that it’s still a negative thing, like hereditary deafness or colour-blindness?
I feel that a lot of the research in this area is being done by VERY non-objective researchers, on both sides.
“My own view is that the scriptures that people are using to condemn the action are being taken out of context and the reason why people are cling to scripture is because there is a great fear of homosexuality”
I agree that some of the scriptures are being taken out of context. I also agree that some people cling to scriptures out of prejudice and fear. And I definitely agree that people have used scripture to support lots of dodgy things in the past. So, that’s it, there must be nothing to it! We can lump them all into a nice neat box of fundamentalists and bigots!
Personally, I used to be “pro-gay” in my belief, but I was challenged to rethink it one more time, and I realised I had a lot of pride that was making me lash out at anyone who disagreed with me on this issue.
I won’t launch into a scriptural discussion, but just say that I think the Bible says heaps about sex and gender, in many different parts, far beyond the few verses that people associate with this issue.
Besides the scriptural stuff, it also occurred to me that the idea that someone’s life experiences of gender and sex will NOT affect their attractions growing up, that each person’s feelings were pre-programmed from conception, is ridiculous. It just seems so simplistic and deterministic! We’re talking about human beings here.
trevize,
First of all, I must say that you are obviously a thinking person and I enjoy having a chance to engage with you at this level. Unlike adversarial encounters, I believe we can both get something out of this.
To your latest response:
“I can’t say that I see beliefs the same way you do. I believe there is a truth about our universe and our purpose as human beings, and some people may be closer to it than others. So to put all beliefs in a box and say they’re all wrong seems rather naive to me.”
You did not understand me. when I said that these Christians are full of shit, I did not mean to say that all they believe is wrong. For example, the Bible says “thou shalt not murder” I’m not for a second claiming that the Bible is wrong there.
In addition to the universal truisms in the bible. It is filled with promotions of racism (Ezra 10), slavery, polygamy, women ownership, etc. All these things make me realize that the truth is out there but the Bible is not the vehicle for getting closer to it.
“As a Christian, I should want to do the right things because of my relationship with a God who loves me, not because I’m afraid of going to hell.”
I’d like to challenge you here. Why are you convinced that you need to be a Christian? Would you have been a Christian if you were born in Bangaladesh, or in Yemen? Why do you believe there is a God, rather then consciousness in all things like some eastern philosophes claim?
“So you think their purpose here is to upset people? Are you sure you’re not paranoid? Regardless of what happens, I don’t think their purpose is to make people upset.”
History is a testament of how the Bible was used to oppress gays, jews and others. Thankfully at this point in Christian history, the Jews are not viewed as evil people (Titus 1:10-14) or Christ killers, therwise the jews would have been facing another inquisition. This is not paranoia. History as well as current events show clearly the nature of the human race when religion goes unchecked.
I know some of these people go around thinking that they’re only doing good. That is just rhethoric believed by the naive. Others know exactly what they’re doing and what their true purpose is. Similar reasonings were used in the past to keep the social order of black slavery, punish interacial relationships (Numbers 25, Numbers 36), and to limit other basic freedoms. It was always to “protect” families, to “save” people, “for the children”
“But again, I don’t see any gay-bashing material in what was given to the kids. I can’t guess at what the parents received. I’m not saying I approve of what this guy did anyway. I just think you guys are over-reacting and condemning.”
The Bible to me is without a doubt gay-bashing. Leviticus 8:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:18-29. Giving that to a gay person is no different than giving a jew a VHS of the Eternal Jew.
Dan
trevize,
A few comments regarding your response to Jason…
I don’t have an issue with “Ex-gays”, straights, or whoever, ponder the possibility that homosexuality is a defect of some sort either physically or psychologically.
As for the whole nature part, I don’t believe any genetic evolution is without it’s intended purpose.
The first monkeys with no tail could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
The first wild dogs to seek human companionship could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
The first birds to lose their ability to fly could have been considered to be defective by an objective observer.
There is a greater inteligence here and I’m sure homosexuality has it’s purpose as well.
Dan
Hey Dan,
“It is filled with promotions of racism (Ezra 10), slavery, polygamy, women ownership, etc.”
Man, talk about throwing a heap of elephants into the room. I wouldn’t have the space in a book to write a detailed response to all of these points.
I’d say that the Ezra passage is a pretty weak passage to support the general practice of racism, particularly as it is understood in its modern context.
The issue of slavery is even more complex. From what I’ve read, the kind practiced in Ancient times is very different from what we usually imagine (New World slavery), and it may have been more suitable in a society which was yet to establish the kind of civil support, education and workplace systems we now have. I understand that many Bronze Age cultures in the Near East, like the Israelite society, were extremely fragile – hence some penalties that we would consider harsh, and practices that we now consider abhorrent.
Polygamy, I’m not sure if I ever see that as promoted as the preferred situation, merely reported.
Women ownership – I have read that this is a largely misunderstood issue, but there are so many passages it would be difficult to address each one. However, I think the fact that God’s image is described as created male and female sets the tone of equal essential value right from the start.
“Would you have been a Christian if you were born in Bangaladesh, or in Yemen?”
Possibly. Having read the name “Yeshua” might not be necessary. I think it is actually quite difficult to be a true Christian in so-called “Christian” nations. You guys would be the first to agree that such nations are often full of hypocrites and charlatans pretending to be righteous.
“Why do you believe there is a God, rather then consciousness in all things like some eastern philosophes claim?”
To be honest, I haven’t read the Vedhas or the various “Tao”s or many of Confucius’ writings. I am still on this journey, but right now, I find the creator God to be consistent with a universe which has a beginning, and with a community of persons who have the ability to split atoms and ask questions about the first microseconds of the universe, but who also have a spiritual hunger. I am attracted by the idea of grace, not earned, but given. I am amazed by the impact on society brought about by the life, and death, of Jesus.
Your discourse on history is true in many ways. I disagree with Hitler (who was anything but a Christian, according to his writings) just as I disagree with people in modern times who abused nations of people and used them for slave labour, then tried to use scripture to justify it. Being black is something out of your control. Being a woman is also something out of your control.
Having same-sex attractions, while you may or may not be born with them, is also something out of your control. What you do with them, if we believe in free will, is something that IS in your control.
“The Bible to me is without a doubt gay-bashing. Leviticus 8:22, Leviticus 20:13, I Corinthians 6:9, Romans 1:18-29. Giving that to a gay person is no different than giving a jew a VHS of the Eternal Jew.”
There is much to say about reading things out of context, so, yes there is a danger in just giving someone a book and expecting them to just get the right message first time.
I think the Bible says nothing of orientation or the gay “identity”. As such, it bashes no person with same-sex attractions, though it does condemn some behaviours (and quite harshly in Leviticus, though this also condemns a lot of things which I no longer believe are to be condemned in our society).
The problem, as I see it, is people’s inability to separate the actions from the person. Gay-haters do it, when they send hate mail against people made in God’s image, and pro-gay people do it when they refuse to accept love without the additional approval of their actions.
If I could say this, I was a Christian for a long time before I started to believe that having sex with men was not God’s best plan for me. Do I believe God hated me at that time? That he wanted to send me to hell? No. Do I believe he hated me BEFORE I began to take Christ seriously? That he wanted to send me to hell then? No. One of the lynchpins of Christianity is that God so LOVED the world…
Imagine I smoke, and I am a Christian (I am not equating same-sex sex with nicotine). Does this mean I’m not saved? Does it mean that God hates me? Should people at “church” avoid me and send me hate mail? No, but I believe it means that God still has to bring me to the point where I can lay down something that is against His will for my life. I believe also that my brothers and sisters in Christ are charged with the duty to love me regardless, to encourage me, and to rebuke me if that is the right thing to do at the time.
trevize,
“From what I’ve read, the kind practiced in Ancient times is very different from what we usually imagine (New World slavery), and it may have been more suitable in a society which was yet to establish the kind of civil support, education and workplace systems we now have.”
There are plenty apologetic excuses for what is in the Bible. How about this one? Exodus 21:20-21
“Polygamy, I’m not sure if I ever see that as promoted as the preferred situation, merely reported.”
This sounds like promotion to me: 2 Samuel 12:8
“You guys would be the first to agree that such nations are often full of hypocrites and charlatans pretending to be righteous.”
Absolutely! when have you last heard of Christians actively looking to deny the rights of adulterers, divorcees, those who don’t keep the fourth commandment (keeping the Sabbath Holy)?
“To be honest, I haven’t read the Vedhas or the various “Tao”s or many of Confucius’ writings. I am still on this journey…”
Be careful, such freedom of choice might be deadly: Deuteronomy 13:6-9
“I think the Bible says nothing of orientation or the gay “identity”. As such, it bashes no person with same-sex attractions, though it does condemn some behaviours (and quite harshly in Leviticus, though this also condemns a lot of things which I no longer believe are to be condemned in our society). ”
So which parts of Leviticus do you discard? Why do you accept that you should not have a fullfiling sexual relationship with another man, yet you eat shellfish? (I assume)
“I believe also that my brothers and sisters in Christ are charged with the duty to love me regardless, to encourage me, and to rebuke me if that is the right thing to do at the time.”
I’ve been with my partner in a loving monogamous relationship for over 10 years. If any Christians attempt to rebuke me. I will rebuke them right back. If any Christians try to force their selective morality on me, I will expose their hypocracy loudly and clearly. If any Christians tries to fix the laws of the land to deny me equal rights, I will fight them using all means neccessary.
Dan
Dan,
I can see that you’re some kind of well-versed scripture debater, and I am not a well-versed apologist, so I think you’re going to be out of my league in this case. I suggest you find a good apologetics site if you want some better answers to your questions. I’m a little wierded out that you use the KJV though!
“There are plenty apologetic excuses for what is in the Bible. How about this one? Exodus 21:20-21”
This discussion mentions: “Ex 21.21 restricts the treatment of the slave to be no more severe than what the community/elders could do with a regular, free citizen. This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word ‘property’ might mean in such a context! But more on this in a minute…”
I said before that I think a kind of “slavery” might have been suitable or even appropriate for the society at the time. It is probably unsuitable now given what we have done in social security and other protections.
“This sounds like promotion to me: 2 Samuel 12:8”
Um… exactly what do you think would have happened in this society to these wives without a husband to take care of them? Many societies (like tribes in Papua New Guinea) still have polygamy because of so many male deaths in tribal wars and the advantages in protecting the status and dignity of the extra women. The question is, is this the IDEAL situation?
“Be careful, such freedom of choice might be deadly: Deuteronomy 13:6-9”
To me, this verse seems to be talking about SERVING other gods. While it was directed in a specific sense to the nation of Israel at the time, I think it does have relevance today. Such happens in a less literal sense when I worship at the altar of IKEA furniture or Nike sportswear, or perhaps if I bowed down before a many-armed Vishnu, having known the living God, though that would depend on what Vishnu represented to me. I notice most of your quotes are from the Pentateuch, but I presume you’ve heard the full story (you might call it an “excuse”) regarding the relationship between the original Israelite covenant and the covenant of grace in Christ.
“So which parts of Leviticus do you discard? Why do you accept that you should not have a fullfiling sexual relationship with another man, yet you eat shellfish? (I assume)”
I’m more convinced by the verses in Romans, etc, and Christ’s teachings (“a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife”) among others. I don’t *discard* any of Leviticus since I believe the Law can be useful in telling us about God’s heart, but I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law, and most gentile Christians seemed free to do this.
The Law is not a topic I’ve studied a great deal. I understand that there are moral laws which are seen to have a universal value and purity laws which are more specific to the nation of Israel at the time.
I don’t treat Leviticus as a rulebook that prevents me from having sex with another man, although it may form part of my understanding of how God sees men and women, and sex. I am interested in the purpose behind such strictures for Ancient Israel, if those strictures were inspired by, or came from, God.
“I’ve been with my partner in a loving monogamous relationship for over 10 years. If any Christians attempt to rebuke me. I will rebuke them right back.”
That’s your prerogative I guess. I would hope that love would be the first priority, though sadly it isn’t for many people who want to change the world.
“If any Christians try to force their selective morality on me, I will expose their hypocracy loudly and clearly.”
That sounds good actually! As long as they are truly being hypocritical.
I like what you said about adulterers and divorcees. Many people calling themselves Christians seem to have double standards, seeing homosexuality as the ultimate sin, while ignoring the over-sexed, anything-goes culture that “straight” persons have wrought. I too would like to say: “First see the plank in your own eye”. Who can campaign against “Queer eye for the straight guy” when there are shows like “Temptation Island”, when billboards and advertisements make beautiful people into objects of lust for the purpose of making money?It’s ridiculous.
“If any Christians tries to fix the laws of the land to deny me equal rights, I will fight them using all means neccessary.”
Yeah, I’m opposed to these laws too. Dubya is definitely not my hero.
trevize,
Ah I do not propose the abandonment of the study of all non-biological causes of homosexuality but then again I wouldn’t rank non-biological causes equally with biological causes. There is much too much evidence pointing at biological causes as being very strong causes of homosexuality to be discounted. It is more a case of they strongly suspect biological causes but they just do not have the smoking gun. When I say homosexuality is a part of nature, I mean it is found in just about every animal on earth. It may just be a variation of being human like being left-handed. In humans it may have offered evolutionary advantages to the species as a whole or just be a case of evolutionary imperfection (like the blind spot every person on earth has due to the way eyes work). It appears to pop up too much be to have been a big disadvantage to the species.
They have done studies between homosexuals and straight people concerning things like background and personality traits and found no real differences between gay and straight. A person who has no father is no more likely to be gay than a person who’s father is in the household. Nor do things like molestation seem to be a major factor in homosexuality. A molested person may act out inappropriately but homosexuals as a whole are no more likely to have been molested than heterosexuals as a whole so it doesn’t appear that sexual molestation is a leading cause of homosexuality. It seems that a molested person is just as likely to act out heterosexually or homosexually. There are some weak links between homosexuality and birth order but that is just about it. As for homosexuality and self-esteem I really do not see how wanting to have a relationship that is not supported by the society would fix a self-esteem issue. I can see how sex and self esteem could be tied together (i.e. people with low self esteem may be more promiscuous) but I don’t see it affecting attraction (i.e. You are just as likely to heterosexual and promiscuous as homosexually promiscuous as to do anything else)
I like psychology as a science but like many sciences psychology has it’s dark moments. A good example may be asthma. My grandmother was once told by a teacher not to give in to my mom’s asthma attacks because there was a well accepted psychological theory that stated that asthma could be considered psychological whenever all allgerins were removed.( I.e. if you get rid of the horsehair couch and the child has an asthma attack then it is psychological. ) Well now we know enough about immunology to know that getting rid of all possible allergins is impossible and you may even become allergic to things you were not previously allergic to. Lucky my grandma didn’t buy it. Image the amount of guilt and wasted time that theory based on inadequate knowledge caused. Yes there is a psychological component to asthma as there is to many diseases. You might be more likely to have an attack when you are feeling down but don’t expect that being happy rules out having an attack.
You are right the bible says nothing about orientation because the idea is a 19th century idea and that is why the King James Version does not contain the word homosexual (it had not been invented yet). It appears that before that time homosexuality was a bit more like adultery or drunkenness something anyone could be given to do not just some special group of people. I.e. everyone has about equal chance to break the rule. In fact that is what is causing the church a moral problem. The writers of the bible didn’t foresee that. You can’t exactly condemn someone for doing something they are attracted to or praise someone for not doing something they are not attracted to and the offer of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is not appealing(or perhaps even a good idea) to the supposedly sinning party. What to do? Ask them to change? Ask them not to do it? Or treat them the same as heterosexuals accepting some of their relationships but not all.
There are different Christian views of homosexuality. One view is that being homosexual in and of it self is not wrong but having homosexual sex is. I.e. thinking a guy is cute is just fine but doing anything with the guy is wrong. Only trouble with this view is that capacity for celibacy seems to be rather rare. Most people want a relationship and not just for sex. Last time I checked falling in love is a leading cause of people leaving the priesthood.
Another view is just thinking a guy is cute may land you in hell if you don’t repent the sin and promise not to repeat it. The only trouble with this view is if you are homosexual you are going to be thinking guys are cute (and perhaps doing more) often and promising to sin no more might be an empty promise. This view is too unrealistic and controlling.
A some what more liberal views are that homosexuality is a sin it might not be a great one. The only trouble with that view is if it is not a great one then are we permitting minor sins? How far should we allow it? Should the church congratulate you and your partner on your anniversary or should they give silent condemnation?
A liberal view is that what happened in the bible (i.e. homosexual sex acts in religious worship, prostitution, and rape) is not what is going on today(two loving commited partners). In which the question becomes which homosexual relationships to accept and which not to accept. I take this view.
Hey jason,
Thanks for stating your case. I’ve probably held all the views you espoused there at some time or another.
“There is much too much evidence pointing at biological causes as being very strong causes of homosexuality to be discounted.”
Yes, I would not discount that biology plays a part, though how much?
“When I say homosexuality is a part of nature, I mean it is found in just about every animal on earth.”
Now hang on a minute. This would depend greatly on how you define homosexuality. If you define it as emotional as well as physical, then I think you’ll have trouble showing it happening in animals. I think animals learn to repeat pleasurable experiences and are often “confused” about what their instincts are telling them to do. They also do things to express dominance or to diffuse tension. I would not define this as “homosexuality”, the 19th century concept you’re talking about. I see big problems with applying the behaviours of animals to the psycho-social experiences of humans.
“They have done studies between homosexuals and straight people concerning things like background and personality traits and found no real differences between gay and straight.”
I’ve already said that the response to life experiences will depend on the personality and other inborn traits of the individual being affected. We’re talking about complex interactions between the experiences and the personality.
“I can see how sex and self esteem could be tied together (i.e. people with low self esteem may be more promiscuous) but I don’t see it affecting attraction (i.e. You are just as likely to heterosexual and promiscuous as homosexually promiscuous as to do anything else)”
I guess that’s where we differ. You seem to see attraction as some genetic switch, which once set will come out that way regardless of experiences. I don’t. We know from fetishes that physical erotic reactions can grow from all sorts of things.
Recently we have seen the emotional side of this issue, that many men desire a deeply emotional relationship with another man, besides the sex. Indeed, this emotional craving may be the fuel behind the physical one. (By this I mean that without the emotional craving, the physical one might be indistinguishable from an inconvenient fetish). I believe it may be possible for those emotional needs to be met.
I’m not sure what you’re getting at with the Asthma thing. I’m not talking about current psychological trauma vs disease, but events which took place during development of sexuality.
“The writers of the bible didn’t foresee that. You can’t exactly condemn someone for doing something they are attracted to or praise someone for not doing something they are not attracted to and the offer of a monogamous heterosexual relationship is not appealing(or perhaps even a good idea) to the supposedly sinning party.”
I agree that you can’t condemn the person. As for their actions, I’m not sure if that’s the case. Take someone who has a propensity to gambling, whether genetic or otherwise. Are you saying I can’t criticise their actions and try to help them to change them?
I agree that the offer of marriage to a woman is, for the most part, unappealing to me, but I don’t think the Bible declares that all must marry. Paul even suggested that singleness could be a better alternative in one of his letters. Why should we feel that we must get everything our feelings drive us to?
“One view is that being homosexual in and of it self is not wrong but having homosexual sex is.”
I guess I probably hold to this view.
“Only trouble with this view is that capacity for celibacy seems to be rather rare. Most people want a relationship and not just for sex.”
This is where I get a little frustrated. What’s with this cookie-cutter mould that everyone has to find that “special someone” and live happily ever after? Frankly I don’t see that in the life of Christ, Paul, or indeed many of the New Testament figures. Yet the modern church promotes it like EVERYONE has to do it.
It’s like we’re saying it’s impossible to have intimate and satisfying relationships with friends, and without romance and sex. Too bad for the people crippled below the waist huh?
The problem I see here is disintegration of a loving community. Since the early 20th century we’ve had this idea that a couple gets married and goes off to make a nice nuclear family behind a white picket fence. And if you don’t fit the mould, you just replace the wife/husband with a same-sex partner. Frankly, I don’t think this is how human community is meant to be.
Also arguing from what people want has problems. A lot of people would want more than one sexual relationship at a time if they felt it was right to do so. They would say, “Hey I’m programmed this way, to spread my seed”. Does that mean we give them the go-ahead?
“Another view is just thinking a guy is cute may land you in hell if you don’t repent the sin and promise not to repeat it.”
I probably wouldn’t agree with this view as it is defined here.
“A liberal view is that what happened in the bible (i.e. homosexual sex acts in religious worship, prostitution, and rape) is not what is going on today(two loving commited partners). In which the question becomes which homosexual relationships to accept and which not to accept. I take this view. ”
From this, I assume that you take the interpretation of Romans 1 as referring only to religious prostitution. Personally, I think that’s stretching it a bit, but I know that some well-known theologians argue this.
Paul lived in Ancient Greece and Rome. I really think he would have seen same-sex partners who, besides having sex, probably loved eachother. I think his issue is that seeing all this conflicted greatly with his mindset, where YHWH created an order and purpose for the universe and for male and female. I’m not talking about legalism here, but an underlying concept of gender, its sacredness and how it reflects God.
So yes, a same-sex couple who love and care for eachother has more good, in my mind, than a same-sex couple who are just doing it for the sex. But that doesn’t make it right.
trevize,
“I can see that you’re some kind of well-versed scripture debater, and I am not a well-versed apologist, so I think you’re going to be out of my league in this case. I suggest you find a good apologetics site if you want some better answers to your questions. I’m a little wierded out that you use the KJV though!”
I am learning as I go and yes I do debate apologists on other sites. As for using KJV, it actually serves a purpose, to demonstrate that scriptures can not be trusted as they have been perverted(?) to serve different people ideas, prejudices and interests. How can you trust the gospel (given orally for many decades before being written) to be accurate?
“This restriction on an owner should make one ponder what in the world the word ‘property’ might mean in such a context!”
I hope that other readers of this discussion will read Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV Version, KJV Version) and judge for themself. Questioning what propery means reminds me a little bit of Bill Clinton questioning what the meaning of “is” is.
“Um… exactly what do you think would have happened in this society to these wives without a husband to take care of them?”
Atleast we agree that the scriptures do not condemn Polygamy (right?). Christians are the ones to throw polygamy at our face as the next step in a slippery slope of immorality. Evil people these Christians are!
“I’m more convinced by the verses in Romans, etc, and Christ’s teachings (“a man will leave his father and mother and be united with his wife”) among others. I don’t *discard* any of Leviticus since I believe the Law can be useful in telling us about God’s heart”
Romans 1:18-29, does not preclude you from having a loving moral sexual relationship with another man! …as long as you don’t “degrade your body”, have “shameful lusts”, be “inflamed with lust”, do “indecent acts”, or get “filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity”
After all, all these things are true for straight people as well. Don’t you think?
“I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law”
This is Christian double-talk. So did he or didn’t he abolish the law? Do you keep the Sabbath holy?? Or is the Fourth Commandment just for the Jews?
“The Law is not a topic I’ve studied a great deal. I understand that there are moral laws which are seen to have a universal value and purity laws which are more specific to the nation of Israel at the time.”
We have all these interpretations by so-called bible scholars that supposedly tell us what things mean (moral laws vs. purity laws). Does the Bible tell us to keep such distinctions? Or is it the bible “scholars” ideas? Jewish Bible scholars have “explained” the Bible for thousands of years and came up with a twisted work of hate called the Talmud. The same book Neo-Nazis and other Jew-haters use to “expose” the evil of Jews.
“That’s your prerogative I guess. I would hope that love would be the first priority, though sadly it isn’t for many people who want to change the world.”
No matter what I do, it will be with more love than religions, religious people and religious texts have shown to those opposing them.
“That sounds good actually! As long as they are truly being hypocritical.”
Show me a Christian who protests gay rights who isn’t hypocritical!
It is sad that you chose to give up on having a fullfilling relationship with a man for some questionable religious doctrine. It is your life. I hope for your sake that you will never wake up one day and wish that you have lived your life differently.
Dan
Trevize:
I do try to see it all in light of the new covenant. For example, Christ declared at one point that he did not come to abolish the law, and Paul regards it very highly, yet both seemed to declare that avoiding eating different foods like shellfish is not the POINT, not in the spirit of the Law
Trev, you’re right that Christ has stated that he is there to fufill the law, but that hardly implies that He hasn’t changed the law. Paul in Galatians 5:14, states that what mostly matters to God is that you love and respect yourself as well as your comrades. If you deny and disrespect your nature, that is your sexual orienation, then how can you abide to the law? How does loving and caring for someone of the same sex be disrespectful to yourself? And yes, having sex can be an act of caring and love for another. It’s sad that you even see loving, Christian, same-sex relationships as an act against God despite their intentions. I certainly hope you find fulfillment in your solitude, but do realize that your choice of path is as selfish as the other.
Where do all of these anti-gay people get the idea that gays and lesbians are inherently unhappy?
“Recently we have seen the emotional side of this issue, that many men desire a deeply emotional relationship with another man, besides the sex. Indeed, this emotional craving may be the fuel behind the physical one. (By this I mean that without the emotional craving, the physical one might be indistinguishable from an inconvenient fetish). I believe it may be possible for those emotional needs to be met.”
I agree with you that the emotional needs might be meet, but not the sexual ones. My first relationship was with a girl. Well, I loved her. Liked being with her and had absolutely no desire to do much more than hold hands. Most gay guys who were married to a woman have a very similar experience of being in love with the person but not wanting/enjoying the intimacy with them. I don’t think I ever kissed her in a romantic way or even wanted to kiss her in a romantic way. I have had to restrain myself from the guys. I didn’t have to restrain myself from her.
The trouble with a relationship is that most people expect relationships attempt to fill both a physical craving and an emotional craving. You can certainly find a woman to fulfill your emotional needs but there is the physical problem. If your wife is not attractive to you then you are not going to be inclined to fulfill her desires. You also might feel that your sexual desires are not being met. Instead of an expression of love and intimacy sex that helps strengthen the relationship, it may become a chore if it is done at all.
This might not be a bad situation if both parties are not expecting much in the way of sex in the relationship. Marriages are built out of more than just sex. However most people expect that their marriage would have a certain amount of sexual intimacy in them and if one party does not find the other attractive then there may be an issue.
The other issue is temptation. I don’t expect that having a commit relationship would remove all temptation. People commit too much adultery for this to be true. However starting a relationship with a woman when honestly you would much rather have sex with a guy sounds like intentionally stranding yourself on Temptation Island. You want something your wife can not provide (i.e. look like a guy) and to be honest to her you can not do the thing that you want (have sex with a guy). It takes more will power to monogamous in a relationship where you do not find the other party attractive than to be monogamous in one where you do. I can certainly manage monogamy with a guy. However monogamy with a woman would be a much harder bargain.
I agree with you that celibacy is an option. I disagree with the idea that it is the only moral option. Like any situation celibacy has it’s advantages and its disadvantages. Some people may find it more appealing than others may. Heck even I have decided not to date for a while from time to time for various reasons. The trouble with mandating life long celibacy for all is well not everyone wants to be celibate or even is able to be celibate. It is sort of a double standard. Heterosexuals can get married if they do not find celibacy appealing or if despite their plans they fall in love. Homosexuals can not. I have yet to see a church kick someone out the church for bringing a heterosexual relationship to the church. However if you are a homosexual you have to debate if you want to bring your relationship to church even if you are not currently having sex.
If someone should want to be celibate I can understand the appeal (it a lot simpler) and I agree I do not think that being in a relationship will make you whole or you will find your other half. However people on average don’t seem very good at staying single. No matter how bad the breakup or even worse divorce most people bounce back and start looking for another mate. No matter how much sense it would make for people to remain celibate, they don’t. I don’t think it is just a sexual thing. People who are crippled bellow the waste have relationships or get married all the time. There is something about human nature that abhors being alone.
As for Romans 1, it seems to state the punishment for unfaithfulness is homosexuality. In other words homosexuality was the punishment not the sin. The sin was unfaithfulness.
21″For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. ”
Sounds like the people whom Paul is talking about are pagans. Pagans worship images of mortal man, birds, animals and reptiles. In fact the bible forbids making graven images of God or having any graven imagines in the church (Don’t tell the Catholics).
Most homosexuals do not worship images of mortal man, birds, animals, and reptiles. You might have thought a guy was cute but you didn’t go over create a statue of him and call it a god like Hadrian and Antinous.
Here “24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another” and here “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts” It sounds like God is punishing them. In other words God gave them homosexual desires for worshipping idols. The sexual desires do not seem to originally come from or belong to the other party and even if they do it does not sound like God is some inactive innocent third party he is allowing something to happen at best and more likely causing it. There were pagan rituals that involved sex acts some of them heterosexual and some of them homosexual in nature. Oh and by the way this is the only part of scripture that even mentions lesbianism (which may be why it is a favorite).
Hey Xeno,
“Paul in Galatians 5:14, states that what mostly matters to God is that you love and respect yourself as well as your comrades.”
Yes, that is what MOSTLY matters to God. Couldn’t agree more. I think this issue is actually quite small next to the million-and-one other things that are wrong with the world. I hinted at that when I talked about what “straight” people have done with the gift of sexuality.
“If you deny and disrespect your nature, that is your sexual orienation, then how can you abide to the law?”
And who says this is my nature? Isn’t that what we just said was undecided?
“How does loving and caring for someone of the same sex be disrespectful to yourself? And yes, having sex can be an act of caring and love for another.”
But sex is also more than that. Yes, it can be an act of caring and love. That is so true! But I believe it also represents more, IS more. That is where my problem lies.
“It’s sad that you even see loving, Christian, same-sex relationships as an act against God despite their intentions.”
I think the loving part is awesome. I wish more “straight” guys cared for eachother as much as some same-sex couples do.
Zip,
I don’t remember saying that.
Hey Dan,
I’m concerned here that we’ll probably just end up polarising our own opinions. I must say that I think you come across as having a disdain for that broad group of people which you call “religious”. Something that’s been very big for me in my journey is the importance of humility. It’s actually one of the biggest themes in the Bible (bigger even than homosexuality!! 🙂 sarcasm there!). God constantly says how he will uplift the lowly and bring down those who are prideful. And Jesus seems to echo that in his sermon on the mount. Even from Genesis, I see a profound rebuttle to the predominant model of one big man, or men, on top of the heap (like Pharaoh).
Instead of temples to gods and goddesses who created humans to do their dirty work, with idols inside, we have a “temple” being made, part by part, filled with wonders, and finally HUMANS placed inside as His image. Only the flesh image of the Almighty: no representations of metal, wood and stone, are allowed (many Romans thought that the Jews were atheists because there were no idols or statues). He lifts up a nation of slaves, the nothings, the little people, and blesses them that they might be a blessing, and from them will come something amazing and it has. In the NT, this upside-downness becomes even more challenging, as Christ becomes a servant to his disciples, washes their feet.
To be honest, compared with the value of God, and hence of precious human lives, I don’t care much about what sex we’re attracted to. Love matters so much more.
“As for using KJV, it actually serves a purpose, to demonstrate that scriptures can not be trusted as they have been perverted(?) to serve different people ideas, prejudices and interests. How can you trust the gospel (given orally for many decades before being written) to be accurate?”
That’s another question that would take a book to answer. I studied Ancient History in my final two years of high school, and it seemed to me that you can get closer and closer to the truth, even with ancient texts that have an obvious bias (like the writings of Roman historians). By checking them against eachother, and against the known events of the time, and things like archaelogical evidence, you can come up with some idea as to where things are accurate and where things are fanciful fiction. As you know, there’s a broad spectrum of Christian and secular opinion on the early church and on the life of Jesus. I guess it’s not perfect, but at least they’re having a go.
“I hope that other readers of this discussion will read Exodus 21:20-21 (NIV Version, KJV Version) and judge for themself. Questioning what propery means reminds me a little bit of Bill Clinton questioning what the meaning of “is” is.”
Well personally, I would hope people would know that the Bible can’t be read like a newspaper printed yesterday. You can’t just pick out a couple of verses with words that rub us up the wrong way for the shock value of it.
Mr Clinton lives in our culture, is aware of the nuances and context, and what words mean. The article I linked discusses how the word choice of “property” is contextually bound. We think of the word as objectifying, something which demands the EXCLUSION of the person’s humanity. From what I’ve read, I don’t think this is how it was. In the Ancient Near East, people usually became slaves voluntarily (not because of eg. war). I know for sure that Roman slaves could OWN things. Can “property”, as we usually view it, own things?
“Exodus 21, for example, is considered by many to be unparalleled in respect to humanitarianism toward slaves.” Seen in this light, it is not a “low” for the Ancient Near East, but an example of an affirmation of the HUMANITY of slaves. The Israelites of all people would have known that.
I know it’s not a perfect situation, and it’s probably a good thing that it grates with our mindset now. Our modern social structures promote the value of individual rights and freedom very highly, but it’s taken a long time to get to this point.
“Atleast we agree that the scriptures do not condemn Polygamy (right?). Christians are the ones to throw polygamy at our face as the next step in a slippery slope of immorality.”
Perhaps not condemn, but I think, like other situations, it’s suggested strongly that it’s not the ideal.
“Romans 1:18-29, does not preclude you from having a loving moral sexual relationship with another man!”
Jason’s post talks about this. I’ll post something in my response to him.
“This is Christian double-talk. So did he or didn’t he abolish the law? Do you keep the Sabbath holy?? Or is the Fourth Commandment just for the Jews?”
Those are good questions. I don’t think he abolished the law, but that would depend on how you view the law – as a rulebook or as an instruction for the community of humans. We sometimes assume, for example, that the 10 commandments were like a modern legal document, brought out and rigidly applied to each case. I think the reality was that there were judges who applied grace and mercy in the treatment of cases. Summaries like the 10 Commandments were useful for instruction on values.
The kind of double-talk you’re talking about wasn’t just introduced with Christ. Isaiah talked about how God wanted justice over sacrifices. Perhaps legalists said to him, “Hey! It says it right here on the papyrus that we’re supposed to do this sacrifice each season! We can’t spend the money on helping the widows and orphans!”
When you ask if I keep the Sabbath holy, do you ask if I prepare toilet paper in single sheets the day before so that I don’t have to tear them on the Sabbath? The answer to that would be no. But I see the value in a day devoted to rest and to God. Jesus got in trouble for healing people on the Sabbath, and he said something that might have shocked, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.”
It looks like he was saying that we need to get over this concept that God made a bunch of laws and then made some humans to follow them.
“No matter what I do, it will be with more love than religions, religious people and religious texts have shown to those opposing them.”
Honestly, that’s a very worthy goal. Religious people have done bad stuff. There were also monks who healed and cared for enemies of the king during the middle ages. And there are christian aid organisations operating in hostile countries right now. I’m sorry your experience of “religious people” has been so exclusively negative. Honestly I am. I don’t know what else to say.
“I hope for your sake that you will never wake up one day and wish that you have lived your life differently.”
Thanks, I hope you make choices you won’t regret too. I think we’re always going to have things that we’ll look back on and want to change. Already I’m thinking I could have done some things differently when I was younger! 😀
Jason,
“The trouble with a relationship is that most people expect relationships attempt to fill both a physical craving and an emotional craving. You can certainly find a woman to fulfill your emotional needs but there is the physical problem.”
Yeah, I agree with what you’re saying here, but I wasn’t really talking about the kind of needs women can fulfill. In the old days, people had this idea that the “cure” for homosexuality was to find a gorgeous girl and marry her. She’d soon turn you straight! It seems now that people are starting to see that the focus is really on the same sex. So the kind of emotions I’m talking about are the need for affirmation, love, the sharing of joy with other men.
“if one party does not find the other attractive then there may be an issue.”
Absolutely!
“However starting a relationship with a woman when honestly you would much rather have sex with a guy sounds like intentionally stranding yourself on Temptation Island.”
Yes, it is not to be advised.
“The trouble with mandating life long celibacy for all is well not everyone wants to be celibate or even is able to be celibate.”
Yeah, I guess it’s not something I would mandate. The trouble is where is the line between mandating one thing and promoting the alternative as right?
“There is something about human nature that abhors being alone.”
Amen. This is kinda what I was saying before about community and how the whole nuclear family arrangement is unsatisfactory to me. Would people have to bounce back and forth between partners if they DIDN’T feel lonely or whatever else all the time?
“As for Romans 1, it seems to state the punishment for unfaithfulness is homosexuality. In other words homosexuality was the punishment not the sin. The sin was unfaithfulness.”
Yeah, it’s an interesting one. To me it’s written like a kind of spiral. A bit like in Exodus when Pharaoh hardened his heart, then God, then Pharoah again, etc. It’s a big topic to do with human choices and sin.
In a sense, I think the spiral also represents the decay of a society. Paul associates homosexual acts with a latter stage of this decay. But I don’t think he’s just talking about the things these people did in their worship.
“Most homosexuals do not worship images of mortal man, birds, animals, and reptiles.”
Are you sure? I think most in our society do, not just people with same-sex attractions. We worship everything from Britney Spears and the glamour of Hollywood to the share market and the almighty dollar, the incredible comforts that we surround ourselves with. Women and girls are driven to mental illness because of airbrushed models on magazines. (BTW, I just read that 10% of boys in my country have used anabolic steroids to try and make themselves look bigger). Businessmen are driven to early death and a joyless life because of the pressure to earn as much dosh as possible.
Despite the fears we have for how this obsessive worship will affect us and our children, we do it anyway.
I hope you’ll have gathered by now that I don’t see homosexuality as the great sin that’s ruining our society. People with same-sex attractions want love. I just think that our way of trying to get it is not the best.
trevize,
It is harder for me to respond during the week, hence the delay. You are correct that I have a disdain for religious people. Many of them are misguided, no question there. But many of them are also evil, pure and simple.
I grew up in the middle east. I saw first hand what religions do to otherwise normal people. There is a lot I could write about that. I’ll admit that of all religions (unless ofcourse you consider Budhism a religion which I don’t), Christianity is a great improvement. Well, I’ll qualify that. The Christianity that is practiced recently is a great improvement. Definately not the Christianity of almost two thousands years as it was practiced in Christian Europe. But your Christianity (more love, less wrath) is a new phenomenon. It didn’t even pass the test of time yet.
You mention the importance of humility and the sin of pride. Well, in my book there is a bigger sin than pride and that is the sin of group mentality. Religions are most attractive to those craving acceptance, wanting to belong. There is nothing wrong with that, but within reason. Religions appeal to those experiencing a loss, feeling alone, wanting attention. It is no surprise that drug addicts, alcoholics, and others who are prone to peer pressures are the ones most influenced by religions. Religious people wait to you to be down and then they launch their brainwashing assualt and “save” you. The oldest trick in the book.
You say that you trust the scriptures to be correct by comparison of old manuscripts to each other and to historical events. Is that sufficient to base your life on? Just because manuscripts were copied of each other (with high but not complete accuracy) does not make the first one accurate. Which one is closer to the “true version” NIV or KJV? Neither do some correlations to archeological findings prove anything other than that certain places have existed and probably certain individuals lived around that time. These manuscripts are obviously filled with the biases (Ezra reference above), Nehemiah 13:25 and more, of the mere mortals who wrote them.
As for slavery, please read the summary of these books, A Defense of Virginia, written back in 1867, and also Slavery and the Remedy, written back in 1859. Our own American slavery was based on good loving Christianity. Heck, check this one out too: A Scriptural, Ecclesiastical, and Historical View of Slavery, written 1864.
I’m curious to know as to which denomination (if any) you belong. Your views come in conflict with most stricter views that baptists and evangelicals share. They would have a problem with your lack of “absolutes”.
Dan
Hey Dan,
Yeah, I’m extremely busy at the moment too, so I don’t know if I can spend too many more late nights on these extensive posts. I do appreciate your keeping up the communication though.
“I grew up in the middle east. I saw first hand what religions do to otherwise normal people.”
I think many ideologies do terrible things to people. As far as I know, the killings of many millions in the last century have come from non-religious Fascist and Socialist regimes. My mother’s dad moved out of Poland with his parents and had his surname changed to something sounding less Yiddish. Much earlier, my Dad’s family changed their name to something less Scottish, because of some persecution.
I hope you’ll believe me that I’m interested in truth, not a mob mentality.
“But your Christianity (more love, less wrath) is a new phenomenon. It didn’t even pass the test of time yet.”
Actually, I think it has existed since the first group gathered to celebrate Christ, but the spotlight has usually gone to the corrupt hierarchies, the prejudiced pew-warmers and the culturally conformist science-fearers. The early Christian churches (before the “Holy Roman Empire”), were known for their generosity. People wrote about how they just gave and gave and gave. I think love is a reality, as is “wrath”, though that word has now picked up so many historical associations that it’s difficult to use it without making people groan.
“It is no surprise that drug addicts, alcoholics, and others who are prone to peer pressures are the ones most influenced by religions. Religious people wait to you to be down and then they launch their brainwashing assualt and “save” you.”
You’re right that some “religious” people do try to overly influence people when they’re in emotional states.
I think it could also be argued that maybe the drug-addicts and alcoholics are the ones who have reached such a “rock-bottom” state that their pride no longer gets in the way of their laying down their lives for something (or someOne) bigger. Certainly, they are vulnerable at this point to being used by people (look at suicide bombers), but when Christ told the rich man that he might have to give up his riches to follow him, I don’t think that was a lesson about not being rich. In the OT, it’s written that God wants people who have a “broken and contrite spirit”. I think this have something to do with pride and a spirit of self-dependence.
I do understand and feel your rage against people who use others. There’s an old song by the band “Live” which has the same theme,
“And to Christ: a cross,
And to me: a chair.
I will sit and earn the ransom from up here…
Hey, now we won’t be raped,
Hey, now we won’t be scarred like that.”
To me, it’s talking about those preachers who twist the awesome truth of God’s grace and use it to control and use people. But if you think Christianity has somehow “evolved” so that we now think that’s wrong, and we didn’t before, I disagree.
“My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you. Greater love has no one than this, that he lay down his life for his friends.”
This hasn’t been included just recently. The gospels and Paul’s letters generally aren’t instructions on how to prey on disadvantaged, down-and-out people.
“Which one is closer to the “true version” NIV or KJV?”
As far as I know, we have papyri and codexes over a thousand years older than either the NIV or the KJV, so the question with these two versions is more about how accurate the understanding of the Hebrew and Greek is. For example, you’ve probably heard that some Renaissance sculptures show Moses with horns, because the Latin Vulgate (much earlier translation) didn’t draw a distiction between the Hebrew words for Moses’ “shining face” and “horns”. Of course, that one is probably not a major doctrinal issue.
I understand that the Dead Sea Scrolls, besides generating a new industry in quasi-fictional novels, have actually shown us how accurately volumes of the OT have been kept from the time of Christ to the present day.
“Nehemiah 13:25”
Certainly there is an aspect of culture in the Bible. It wasn’t written in a vacuum. I’m sorry if I’m not falling into the fundamentalist mould for you here. Nehemiah reacts quite angrily, but I think that these sections must be understood in light of Israel’s understanding that it must not conform to the nations around it, which was important since the Exodus. It seems to me that Israel came THIS close, time and time again, to being absorbed into one of the polytheistic cultures around it. Much as we place romantic love on a pedestal in our culture, the person we marry DOES influence us in ways we may not realise at the start.
I’m not saying that Israel necessarily did the best job of being a “light to the nations”, but it couldn’t have done anything had it been absorbed without a trace.
“As for slavery, please read the summary of these books…”
If you’re trying to convince me that people use the Bible to promote all sorts of things, you’re preaching to the choir here. I’ve already read enough Young Earth Creationists’ material to believe that.
“Our own American slavery was based on good loving Christianity.”
If you think so.
“I’m curious to know as to which denomination (if any) you belong. Your views come in conflict with most stricter views that baptists and evangelicals share. They would have a problem with your lack of “absolutes”.”
Maybe they would. I tend to spend a lot of time qualifying things I say, but I think it’s important. I guess I don’t consider myself as belonging to any particular denomination. I attend a slightly-evangelical, slightly-pentecostal church, but there’s a range of views among the congregation, at least the ones I’ve talked to.
Take care,
Nathan (that’s my real name)
Trevize, perhaps the kids aren’t being told their parents are going to hell. But they will be told by these clowns and books that something is wrong with their parents and that their parents are sinning. The intent is so clearly either to guilt queer parents into heterosexuality through their kids or to drive a wedge between the kids and the parents. If you see anything else, I’m dying to hear about it. It’s not often that I react to the actions of ex-gay ministers with disgust and anger, but this left me extremely disgusted and angry–and I’m not even a mother yet!
Treveze
I am sorta different. I don’t think that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is right or wrong. They just are categories at best. I don’t think society is in some sort of moral decay (or frankly that any society has even been through one). If you want to get a good idea of those simpler times read an old newspaper or an old book. Old times were never any simpler or any more moral than our times. They were just different. I was reading Agtha Christie’s autobio and was shocked by the way people acted in the early 20th century. They were just as lustful as they are today they just acted on it differently. ( i.e. lets not knock up the woman I am going to marry. However a lower class girl or the wife of a married man are just fine.)
What went on at that time was a bit more than people not spending time with God, or being greedy, or being showy with their sexuality. What went on was outright worship of other gods using sexuality. Paul lived in a world of temple prostitute. Paul lived in a world where homosexual unions were legitimate so long as one of the people in that union was a boy, a prostitute, a non citizen or a slave and this union would only be consider legitimate if a. the boy was not effiminated and/or b. the citizen in this union was did not play the passive role. The feelings of the weaker party in this union in the case of the prostitute, the non-citizen, or slave was a non-issues. Paul lived in a world where two thirty-year-old guys of equal social standing professing their love for each other would have been stoned. We live in a world where those sorts of unions are forbidden.
Paul lived in a world where Christianity was just a small cult of Judaism that was attracting many non-Jewish followers. A world where his religion was being oppressed by both the Romans and the Jews. He followed a new religion that had no scripture outside of the torah. About the closest thing modern Christians do today to idolatry is carry around lucky charms.
As for if homosexuality is right or wrong. My own feeling is that it isn’t. There are lots of things forbidden in the bible. Many Christians go bald headed, have tattoos, decorate their churches with statues wear 50% cotton shirts use banking all in defiance of the bible and the bible’s view on sexual morality is neither a consistent one (divorce old testament yes new testament no (with one rather sexist exception)) nor one which is always considered moral today( can we say not just polygamy is OK but also concubinage and marriage at age 13!) . I think sexual morality is less about the gender that you sleep with but how you handle the responsibility that goes with sexuality. Heterosexuality is just as destructive as homosexuality. Misusing sexuality can lead to problems and trust me homosexuals are no more likely to misuse sexuality than heterosexuals.
I think the church would be a far more healing institution if it gave gay relationships the support that they give heterosexual ones. If it encouraged sexual responsibility that could include but not be restricted to abstinence. If more of them offered marriage (yes the m word) to both gay and straight couples. If they preached both the joys of sexuality and the joys of celibacy as morally equal options. No the church doesn’t have to accept all homosexual relationships any more than they accept all straight ones but they should be treated equally. Instead of support the church often tries to keep gays in it’s comfort zone (celibate, or seeking a cure, or fearfully closeted). I like to call it the comfort zone because those were all the options gays had in the past and they didn’t work too well. Celibacy is not for the fait of heart. Seeking a cure when there is none known is a waste of resources and closets have a tendency to both accumulate skeletons and not stay closed. All those options did was generate a lot of guilt on the part homosexuals and did little else of value. There are lots of things in both the old and the New Testament that today we ignore for various reasons. What is so different about homosexuality? If the church allows people to divorce for reasons not listed(oh and by the way divorcing an abusive person is not in scripture), Why can’t homosexuals marry?
trevize / Nathan,
I wish you the best in your journey! You seem like a very nice guy!
Take care,
Dan
Hey Jayelle,
“The intent is so clearly either to guilt queer parents into heterosexuality through their kids or to drive a wedge between the kids and the parents.”
I think they may also think that these kids have parents who have kept them from hearing about Jesus (the assumption being that many of these parents hate the church and what it represents).
I would agree that setting kids against their parents is an awful thing to do. But I haven’t seen any evidence that they’re saying anything to the kids about their parents.
Hey Jason,
“I am sorta different. I don’t think that either homosexuality or heterosexuality is right or wrong. They just are categories at best.”
Yes, I used to hold that belief too.
“If you want to get a good idea of those simpler times read an old newspaper or an old book. Old times were never any simpler or any more moral than our times.”
Yes I agree. For example, I think people who talk about the 50s like it was a time of innocence have no idea. I do think, however, that there is a difference between our society and one in which the degrading of sex to pure lust and entertainment is “out of sight” rather than celebrated in the mass media.
“About the closest thing modern Christians do today to idolatry is carry around lucky charms.”
I’m sorry but I don’t see idolatry as limited to the worship of Zeus or Aphrodite. I see an idol as something we hold in our lives above all others, above God and His will. I really think there is a spiritual dimension to everything.
“Many Christians go bald headed, have tattoos, decorate their churches with statues wear 50% cotton shirts use banking all in defiance of the bible”
Mostly OT things which would need to be dealt with case-by-case, but the banking one is interesting. I agree that the way we use our money is important. I think this law was in place to protect the poor, since money-lending and banking in those times easily resulted in the abuse of the poor. I think it’s Nehemiah where this is talked about.
“(divorce old testament yes new testament no (with one rather sexist exception))”
Sexist? Sometimes these apparently sexist ideas were intended to protect women in the society. Obviously women are in a different position now, so this would have to be examined carefully.
“I think sexual morality is less about the gender that you sleep with but how you handle the responsibility that goes with sexuality.”
That is certainly very important! But saying one thing is more important than another doesn’t eliminate that other thing. I think it’s reasonable to suppose that SEX-ual morality has a lot to do with gender and society as well.
“Misusing sexuality can lead to problems and trust me homosexuals are no more likely to misuse sexuality than heterosexuals.”
I won’t put up a big argument here, although I don’t think the statistics on fidelity, etc. are in your favour here.
“I think the church would be a far more healing institution if it gave gay relationships the support that they give heterosexual ones.”
I think the church would be far more healing if it showed more love, along with the judgement. If there wasn’t so much hate, I think the gay rights movement would have lost most of its steam decades ago.
“Instead of support the church often tries to keep gays in it’s comfort zone (celibate, or seeking a cure, or fearfully closeted).”
I certainly don’t like the third option, but sadly it does happen.
“Seeking a cure when there is none known is a waste of resources”
Huh!!? I’m not sure if you meant to write this. There is no known cure for cancer, but we’re still seeking it.
“All those options did was generate a lot of guilt on the part homosexuals and did little else of value.”
Yeah the guilt thing is wrong. We’re all broken to some extent, but there should be “no condemnation” according to what we profess to believe. People shouldn’t feel guilty about feelings they didn’t choose.
“What is so different about homosexuality?”
Well one thing would be that it’s two people of the same gender.
When I was growing up, I had a disdain for the concept of gender. My mother once asked me to open the door for her and I reacted rather angrily. I thought that if women want to be treated the same in work and at home, there should be no double standards. I thought, eventually we’ll all wear one-piece silver suits like in sci-fi movies and call eachother “it”.
Now I realise that’s nonsense. Sex is something God made, and gender is not a useless construct from human society. It’s a beautiful thing. I think the sexual act, between people of different genders, has spiritual significance, is representative of certain truths about God and His purposes for us. The physical genetalia are also part of this significance, in the same way that our physical hands, with opposable thumbs, have some significance in our being the image of a Being who is powerfully creative. Seen in this light, it’s hard for me to avoid the idea that the approval of a full-blown erotic transaction between two people of the same gender seems to be kind of mocking this.
I’ve said before that I think the love that goes on between same-sex couples is often wonderful, beautiful also in God’s eyes, and an example to many opposite-sex couples. I just think there’s something wrong about the erotic/sexual side of it. I also think that often the emotional attachments are formed because of negative issues that I mentioned previously.
Dan,
Thanks! I wish you the best too.
Nathan
>Sex is something God made
“God” is the main character from a book of myths and fairy tales–the Wholly Babble.
Thanks raj. Such a diffinitive and verbose treatment to a topic that has been debated and explored by philosophers, sages and scientists since the beginning of recorded history.
I’m not asking you to approve of my beliefs, just trying to explain why I feel the way I do.
are my comments being deleted? what, no humor allowed?
I don’t get what’s wrong with a group of people handing out a “you’re precious to God” type bags. That doesn’t sound like hate. They didn’t seem to say or do anything like that Phelps guy. And if they did get out of the lifestyle, then what’s wrong with talking about it? Don’t people in this country have a right to share their experiences with me and others? Where is tolerance for these people among the glbt community? What could possibly be bad about being ex-gay? It also seems like we’re tarring them all with the term “religious right”, a new hate phrase. I think we are discriminating against them.
Mike –
Discrimination is always wrong, and you’re right to have us consider what this is all about. In this instance, the evangelists – other than their leader – are not ex-gays who have left “the lifestyle” (your phrase.) They are primarily straight folks representing groups like Concerned Women for America whose primary effort and ongoing objective re: homosexuals is to limit their civil rights through anti-gay legislation. Have you examined Stephen Bennett’s website, listened to his radio spots, or observed him in person? His ‘ministry’ has very little to do with loving homosexuals and a great deal to do with promoting intolerance.
Thank you, Rick. Sorry about “the lifestyle,” We used to use that out here in the boonies and I still do sometimes. Probably different in your part of the world. I know that most of the people handing out those bags were not ex-gay. Bennett is, though, and that’s commendable, that he’d come back to P-town, where he used to live. I’ve looked around his website and talked to him, and he is really a kind person. I’ve also talked to a person at Phelps church and they are completely different. Of course Bennett believes as he does, but he doesn’t seem to have any hate in him. He seems loving. You know, Rick, people who are against us don’t have to come and hand out literature and listen to our anger, which you have to admit, sometimes turns into rants. They could picket with those nasty signs, write hate mail, curse at us, etc. They don’t have to smile and say “I care about you.” Just some thoughts. Have you thought of calling him up yourself, sort of a
Rick-
Sorry! I sent this accidently before it was finished.
Thank you, Rick. Sorry about “the lifestyle,” We used to use that out here in the boonies and I still do sometimes. Probably different in your part of the world. I know that most of the people handing out those bags are not ex-gay. Bennett is, though, and that’s commendable, that he’d come back to P-town, where he used to live. I’ve looked around his website and talked to him, and he is really a kind person. I’ve also talked to a person at Phelps’ church and they are completely different. Of course Bennett believes as he does, but he doesn’t seem to have any hate in him. He seems loving. You know, Rick, people who are against us don’t have to come and hand out literature and listen to our anger, which you have to admit, sometimes turns into rants. They could picket with those nasty signs, write hate mail, curse at us, etc. They don’t have to smile and say “I care about you.” Just some thoughts. Have you thought of calling him up yourself, sort of a personal interview, and see how he responds? I’d be interested on how he reacts.
Steve Bennett does nothing but rattle his little tin cup for donations.
I’ve seen him on O’Reilly, read his columns on Worldnetdaily and I see no “love” in any of his actions.
His story is also highly suspect. I’m still waiting for somebody ANYBODY in the gay community who has had any contact with this huckster.
Anyone who claims to have had over “100 sexual partners” and has buried many boyfriends due to AIDS has to have left some fingerprints somewhere yet Stephen Bennett is a complete blank.
His tone towards the gay community sounds nothing like anything that would come from somebody who had lived in that community. At least with some of the ex-gay snakeoil salesmen out there you get a sense that they were part of the gay community but I don’t get that vibe from Steven.
Until I see some evidence to the contrary, I will personally hold on to the belief that he is a fake who is in this for profit.
The religious right had so many failures with past spokespeople (Paulk, Johnston, the founders of Exodus) that paying some straight guy to play the part wouldn’t be too far out of reach in my mind. No slip ups.
Hi Mike – I really appreciate your gentle tone and reasonable questions.
By the way – I live in the ‘boonies’ too – in NY state, but FAR from the city 🙂
I, too, have met Stephen Bennett and have posted my observations elsewhere on this site. He was certainly nice enough in person, but I was horrified by remarks he made publicly. I took him to task by email re: statistical information shared in a public service and once it became clear he could not back it up with hard data he stopped our email correspondence. I’m finding that is a common pattern for ex-gay ministry leaders. The same thing happened this week when I pressed for a supposed report published by another ministry.
Anyway… that’s been my experience with Stephen Bennett.
I can certainly appreciate that Stephen Bennett is not Fred Phelps. I take him at his word that he is genuinely concerned about gay and lesbian folks.
I also take him seriously when he marginalizes gays by referring to them in mock-quotes, distorts what they say, mischaracterizes evidence about them, misrepresents the lives of most ex-gays with his “complete change is completely possible” mantra, and creates unrealistic hopes among those who look to him as a leader.
It isn’t hard to see that his “You are Precious in God’s Eyes” message is wed to a condescending theme that he knows the lives of gays and lesbians better than they themselves. His Bible quotes on compassion are followed by his perception of sadness, heaviness, and evil amongst gays and lesbians. His followers are faithful saints and Christian soldiers, and by comparison the people of Provincetown are “rampant with sin”.
Bennett has many options for being a loving Christian presence in Provincetown. He could ask townfolk what the true needs of the downtrodden are and marshall his forces to bring something other than trinkets. He could offer to work hand-in-hand with folks there on something that really makes a difference for the community. He could shift from histrionics and mockery to meeting gays where they’re at.
None of those things would require him to give up his core beliefs. All of them would put a more credible face on a guy who seems desperate to be accepted as loving and compassionate.
Wow. Very well stated, Bose.
Open your mind. Judge, less not you be judged. Live and let live….in peace. Gays and lesbians are wonderful folks who deserve all the rights of everyone else.:)