Today’s extra-special guest on Straight Talk Radio (03/15/06) was Michael Johnson of ADF talking about their upcoming event, The Day Of Truth. Johnson kept a pretty mild tone speaking about such agreeable things as equal-access and freedom of speech. Bennett however was foaming at the mouth. Here’s a fun excerpt of what Stephen had to say:
Over the years I’ve seen first hand the number of adults, teachers, principals even homosexual activists who have zero to do with the public school getting involved in the homosexuals’ Day of Silence. And you know it’s pretty clear that many people believe these kids are just being used by homosexuals as mere pawns to fight for their right to sin and obviously the Day of Truth was greatly needed because these kids and faculty for that matter were getting railroaded by propaganda from these homosexual activists.
[Download MP3 of Segment]
Bennett’s outrageous claim gay people are “using” children is even more comical when one compares it The Day of Truth’s webpage which is plastered with images of poster-twink Chase Harper.
Chase will be Bennett’s guest on Thursday.
And let’s not forget the unintentionally hilarious Day Of Truth video. Previous XGW coverage.
Day Of Truth? What, is it also Opposite Day?
I’m noticing the “pro-family” types have a hardon for kids lately. Can you say projection?
I’m seriously thinking about finding a nice unclaimed island somewhere and forming my own little gay country, someplace out of the way… With warm breezes, nice shade trees, and a hut right over there by the mango trees… Someplace to be away from all the “pro-family” types trying to legislate the removal of my rights as a person.
Yeah… Someplace warm, quiet, and very very gay 🙂
Hah, I like that you referred to him as a poster-twink. I’m not sure what they’re trying to do with that either. They can’t get lesbians, because they haven’t gotten the lesbians to like boys yet, and attracting gay teen guys by holding a carrot under their noses isn’t going to keep them from wantin more carrots. 😛
Haha.. They plastered a big ole homo right on the site. I love it. It looks like the photoshopped the picture onto Chase anyways.
Eeek, what an annoying web page… Every new sub page you go to, the Poster Twink pops up and bounces and pulsates as a Flash animation outline, then fades into full photo twinkdom. It’s sorta-kinda cute once, not on every single dang page.
Eeek, what an annoying web page… Every new sub page you go to, the Poster Twink pops up and bounces and pulsates as a Flash animation outline, then fades into full photo twinkdom. It’s sorta-kinda cute once, not on every single dang page.
So what are you suggesting? That when people go ex-gay they loose their design gene?
The use of Chase Harper as the poster boy for the day of silence is even more absurd considering his statements on the advertising video that people need to treat gays with love and respect. The reason he is in the national semi-spotlight is because he wore a T-shirt to school that was anything but loving and respecting. So, they basically let him lie in their video and then used him in their advertising. Good post, Daniel.
See, told you he was an angelically beautiful boy.
The things that make you go hmmmm….
I went to the site and got a kick out of what they consider “hostile questions”.
The “my religious values are everything and can’t and shouldn’t be challenged” attitude is searingly arrogant.
They haven’t had any bright ideas on how to reduce teen anxiety about orientation, suicide, harassment and assault-except to have this counter demonstration to what IS the answer to the problems that gay youngsters face.
This is what I mean. The Day of Truth organizers are hogging the floor long over and over again after their time is up and it’s due time for gay kids and their supporters to have their turn to speak for themselves and their needs.
OK. I know that I am entering into the proverbial hornet’s nest by posting here, but I couldn’t help noticing your comment and authority ranking at the Technorati ‘morality’ blogfinder listing.
This ex-gay watch blog happens to be listed at #3. My Talkwisdom blogspot happens to be listed at #18. I’m not sure how they establish such rankings. Perhaps it has a lot to do with the amount of hits.
You will notice that our blogs are totally opposite as far as morality is concerned. Yours tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible.
Anyway, at the Technorati ranking page, I noticed this little blurb under your blog title which describes one of the reasons for your blog’s existence:
“Offering news and analysis of ex-gay politics. Encouraging exgays to think outside the box.”
Well guess what? I’d like to invite those who might be willing here, to think outside the ‘gay activist/indoctrination box.’ Anyone willing to do that?
Hopefully, we will be able to start and maintain a civil dialogue without the obvious name-calling that you constantly use towards Stephen’s ministry and radio program. We’ll see by the reactions to my posts, I guess…
Brokeback Mountain: A Christian Response
The Cross: Liberating Desire
Christine,Because you made your invitation an insult, I think you’ve already failed to be civil.So, no.
How was my invitation an insult? Please explain…
The majority of insults that I see here are often directed at Stephen Bennett and other ex-gay people/ministries…
“How was my invitation an insult? Please explain…”
Well, there’s this for starters.
“You will notice that our blogs are totally opposite as far as morality is concerned. Yours tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible.”
This may be a hard concept to wrap your mind around, given the Manichean worldview expressed so often on your blog, but if exgaywatch was into moral relativism they wouldn’t criticize the ex-gay movement, because they’d believe that there’s nothing morally wrong with lying.
Calling Bennett and others on their copious lying is not name-calling, and exgaywatch is not about “indoctrination.” So yes, you did phrase your invitation as an insult.
My name got left off the above post.
Oh hello again Boo! Long time no talk!
You said: “but if exgaywatch was into moral relativism they wouldn’t criticize the ex-gay movement, because they’d believe that there’s nothing morally wrong with lying.”
That’s exactly why moral relativism is a hard concept to live by. The rules change so frequently. Must be a lot of truth to the fact that moral absolutes do exist.
Indoctrination could be a concept that exists ‘in the eyes of the beholder’. Your view of Stephen’s “lying” is debatable too. Is there absolute truth being presented here at this blog? Perhaps there is a lot of lying going on at this ex-gay watch blog…who is to judge?
OK. You label what goes on here then…
You must admit, we do come from totally polar opposite sides concerning the political, spiritual, and moral issues spectrum. So, don’t you find it uncanny that Technorati rated these two opposite blogs as authorities in morality? It brings into question from where moral authority originally came from; does it not?
Hi Christine,
I have to agree with Boo in that I took offense to your statement, “Yours tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm.”
Many commenters are Christians and are not secular/humanistic. Most are not morally relative. Simply because someone does not believe in your beliefs does not make them morally relative or non-Christian, and I agree that your description of this site was insulting.
Further, while the occasional name calling may unfortunately come through here, most of the criticism is well substantiated and factual. Simply defending Stephen Bennett’s radio show and ministry and writing off the criticism as name calling when most of it isn’t leaves the every day reader here with a bad taste in his or her mouth.
Christine,
This is from your lead-in to the “Christian” response to Brokeback Mountain (just to be clear about conflicts of interest, I LOVED Brokeback Mountain, and was immeasurably moved by the piece both times I saw it in the theater):
It is no secret that many of the articles [e.g., reviews of the movie] included lashing out by those who harbor anger and frustration because of their secular humanistic opinions and beliefs that Christianity should be blamed for perpetuating the current culture war that is going on against the virulent homosexual activist agenda.
I am not clear as to how lumping these articles together as having a “secular humanist” worldview and describing the “virulent homosexual activist agenda” is in keeping with a civil dialogue.
As a counter-example, let me use my own family (and yes, even we gay and lesbian people have “normal” families). My mother was an Irish Catholic, my father a Congregationalist when they met. Dad, the oldest of three boys, converted to marry Ma (it was the 60s after all); his youngest brother also converted. His middle brother instead became a Southern Baptist.
Now the Southern Baptist “religion” is not too keen on Catholicism; the theology teaches that “papists” are not even Christians. Interestingly, the flip side is just as true. I was taught, in my Roman Catholic high school, that the Southern Baptists were at best heretics and at worst a cult worshipping a false god. You can imagine that religious discussions were not too friendly when we all got together.
I am proud to say, though, that as long as we did not discuss specific theologic beliefs, the family got along pretty well. All parties, even those convinced that the other has made a religious “lifestyle” choice that would land them in eternal hellfire, were able to treat one another with a basic level of human respect – we respected the right of one another to be wrong, and to handle their error with God themselves.
I think what angers me most about people like Mr. Bennet is their refusal to show that kind of respect. I can understand that my aunt and uncle have a valid moral/ethical/theologic framework by which to live. I may, and in fact do, think that framework is a bunch of hooey, but they have their own lives to lead. They show me the same level of respect, even though they know I am gay.
Mr. Bennet, when he makes claims like that referenced above, refuses to even acknowledge that organizations like GSLEN, which promote GSAs in school, might be doing it with the best intentions. He does not seem to understand that GSLEN may actually BELIEVE that there are gay and lesbian teenagers in our high schools who need help. He instead makes statements like:
“And you know it’s pretty clear that many people believe these kids are just being used by homosexuals as mere pawns to fight for their right to sin”
For Mr. Bennet it is not possible to ascribe ANY good intentions to his alleged “enemies.”
You are right, Christine, that Mr. Bennet and certain other “pro-family” leaders come in for a lot of criticism on this board. The reason is that they have earned that criticism through their individual actions. As much as possible, the moderators and authors on this board resist blanket attacks on all “Christians” or even “pro-family” movement members – individuals who act in inappropriate ways, however, will be called on their actions.
If you want a “civil dialogue” Christine, then you must treat those of us who have rejected your religious beliefs with the same respect that you expect for yourself. I cannot know who you are from a few postings, and you may be a perfectly lovely person (after all, my aunt and uncle would do almost anything for their extended family, and I have always honored them for that commitment), but that is separate from your religious beliefs. I like to think that I am able to judge people for the entirety of their lives and their actions that I experience or come to know, not from one specific piece of information about them.
One final thing, Christine, you suggested thinking outside the “gay activist/indoctrination box.” I think you should know that nearly everyone on this board, certainly all of us who are openly gay, have already done this. We were nearly all brought up in religions that condemned gay and lesbian people, and we operated from that viewpoint for some time (20 years, in my case). We did not simply spring up one morning as openly gay people, rather we struggled to reconcile our sexual orientations and religious beliefs. We have thought both inside and outside nearly every conceivable box you can name; we come to our beliefs only after a careful consideration of many other options. I don’t think I am going out on a limb to say that very few, if any, evangelical/fundamentalist “Christians” have done the same.
This was one of the basic problems we kept getting into at your blog, Christine. You and exgaywatch, like you and I, do not have polar opposite political, spiritual or moral worldviews. There are a lot of Christians here, and a lot of libertarians and centrists.
“That’s exactly why moral relativism is a hard concept to live by. The rules change so frequently. Must be a lot of truth to the fact that moral absolutes do exist.”
I’ve never heard anyone here deny that.
“Indoctrination could be a concept that exists ‘in the eyes of the beholder’. Your view of Stephen’s “lying” is debatable too. Is there absolute truth being presented here at this blog? Perhaps there is a lot of lying going on at this ex-gay watch blog…who is to judge?”
Well, apparently not you, who claim to believe in moral absolutes yet switch to a relativistic worldview of truth whenever it suits you.
“So, don’t you find it uncanny that Technorati rated these two opposite blogs as authorities in morality? It brings into question from where moral authority originally came from; does it not?”
I’m guessing not from an internet search engine.
I think you’re going to find the same problem here that we got into. Namely, it’s hard to have a dialogue when you insist on approaching it from the perspective that you represent God and everyone else is a minion of the devil.
Christine, very few people hold relativistic viewpoints, and most who criticize relativism don’t even understand it. There are different types, and really it is not a common viewpoint. You start out by misleading and misrepresenting. Also, this is far from a secular website. I am agnostic, and I can tell you that the material presented is very much from a different viepoint than mine–most is presented in a Christian/spiritual aspect. You also assume that there is indoctrination here. Is there something being taught? Yes. Is there doctrine? no. Also, indoctrination requires that people not think critically. This site is always looking at things from a critical viewpoint. Could it be that you are speaking from an ideological viewpoint, so everything you see that differs from you is indoctrination?
Christine,
While I agree with above posters that your invitation was slightly accusatory, I figured you meant well and took some time reading the links that you posted.
Much of what I read demonstrated a fundamental misunderstanding of what it is like to be a homosexual, or what is at stake here.
I am a Christian, and I am very proud of that; I do not make this statement lightly. I also, however, believe that homosexuality is acceptable; does this make me a non-Christian in your eyes? If it does, perhaps we should all step back to the basics and ask what makes one a Christian.
“while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible.” Statements like this turn me and others on this board off. Understand that I tried for many years to follow the “God-given absolutes” and discovered that there was a lot of hollowness and misinformation there. I’m not saying here that I broke with God; I’m saying maybe we’ve confused what God’s absolutes are. Definitive statements that reveal your conception of yourself as God’s messenger, sent to declare absolutes that most of us here have come to realize are a bit shaky, is off-putting, to say the least.
I would love to talk with you more and I am not in the least bit offended. Just trying to share what I gleaned from your post and blog.
Christinewjc, as a secular humanist I can assure you there is only one moral absolute I need to follow and that is to put fairness first, to follow the golden rule.
You say “You will notice that our blogs are totally opposite as far as morality is concerned.” and I agree your’s and my morality are polar opposites. Mine’s based on the simple logic of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the pain for all in an equal fashion. Yours is based on a contradictory, complex tome which appears exactly as one would expect if it were not written by a god, but by fallible primitive people.
Science has ruled out supernatural causes and has yielded virtual magic as a result: cars, planes, homes which are marvels of comfort and convenience, astounding medical interventions which all strongly suggest science speaks the truth. The bible which claims to be the work of a supernatural all powerful being contains no marvelous scientific revelations or medical interventions which would give powerful credibility to its claims, instead its lack of any spectacular insight unknowable by ancient man is a testament to its human origins. To me your morality does not make a clear committment to fairness and that is immoral and threatening to me – I don’t want you presuming a right to control not just your own life, but mine as well.
You ask “…don’t you find it uncanny that Technorati rated these two opposite blogs as authorities in morality? It brings into question from where moral authority originally came from; does it not?”
Christine, it should be painfully obvious where moral authority comes from and it isn’t a supernatural source. Moral authority comes from an agreement of cooperation between people – it is entirely a human construct. With no agreement there is no moral authority. The foundation of society is a sincere one for one trade of questions and answers. Moral authority does not come from another saying “I’m so powerful I’m going to force you to do it my way.”
I know I’m going to offend /someone/ with this post, but since everyone else is speaking their true minds I might as well go for it, too 🙂
I was born in the Ozark region of southern Missouri, and raised in the Church of Christ with one of the most ultra-conservative families you’ll find. My grandfather was an elder, a song leader, and he filled in for the preacher, Bill McFarland, every time Bill was sick or away. I continued in the Church of Christ until I was about 16-17 and left mostly out of burnout, and also because I realized that religion couldn’t answer the most important questions in my life at the time.
Or to be more precise… Christianity DID answer the questions in my life but the answer was one of misunderstanding, fear, and intended for people who lived and died LONG ago, where natural phenomenon such as rainbows and rainstorms were portents from god.
I even spoke to the youth minister at length about the subject of homosexuality not long before I left, and I left with more uncertainties than I believe he meant to create (I know he meant well).
Making a long story short, 5 years after I stopped going to that particular church (and having had no contact with anyone who still went there besides my grandmother) they suddenly decided, out of the blue mind you, to ask my grandmother to pass along a message that I was no longer welcome at the Alto Road Church of Christ.
Why? I hadn’t been there in 5 years and only once or twice did I encounter someone who went there at a local summer festival in my small suburb. They didn’t even have the cajones to tell me personally, they asked my grandmother to pass along the message! Talk about adding insult to injury.
Anyway my grandmother never officially told me. I found out by accident. Grandma had told the elder that basically he could (and I’m paraphrasing) “get lost” 🙂
What was the point of my writing? I knew I had a point in here somewhere… It started out as background info and turned into an autobiography!
Oh! Here was my point…
I think Christine illustrates one of the fundamental problems with mainstream Christianity: Dominionism. Believing their god to be the source of all morality. Believing their religion to be the /FIRST/ source of law and code of conduct. (christianity is none of these things, if you take the time to know your history).
The concept of Morality existed in society LONG before the Christian Movement started. The Code of Hammurabi predates Mosaic Law, but the buck doesn’t stop there either. Aboriginal peoples have worshipped the sun since the dawn of man.
And religions of today STILL worship the sun, just in a different fashion. Just take a look at some of the imagery/iconagraphy being used. (think of halos behind Christ’s head, represnting god, and Christ in front of god acting as mediator/conduit to god)
Anyway! Making a long post short (again) I’ve never understood why the people on this planet have to FIGHT so much. Can’t we all just say “okay we’re all right about god and no one has a monopoly on god, and those who don’t want to hear about all this god stuff are still equal people, EVERYONE deserves our respect and can make their own damn choices, so we should just stay out of other people’s business”.
Madeline Kahn from an episode of Cosby said, “You’re all up in my kool-aid without knowing what the flavor really is!”
“I think Christine illustrates one of the fundamental problems with mainstream Christianity: Dominionism. Believing their god to be the source of all morality. Believing their religion to be the /FIRST/ source of law and code of conduct. (christianity is none of these things, if you take the time to know your history).”
Dominionism is not a part of mainstream Christianity. It is an aberration of American fundamentalist Protestantism. It also isn’t simply the belief that God is the source of all morality, but the belief that religious authority should take the place of public secular authority. We don’t have to say everyone is right about God (which is a nonsensical statement given that different people hold diametrically opposed conceptions of God), we just have to say that we won’t force out religious views on anyone else and won’t confuse religious authority with state authority.
Quote: “Dominionism is not a part of mainstream Christianity”
I was talking about American Christianity 🙂
But it’s not aberrant. Take a poll. Go watch televangelists, watch Robertson, listen to Dobson, read Falwell, read Graham or basically ANY of the “national leaders” of christianity, /especially/ the ones in government.
And the rest of your paragraph is basically what I meant, although I refrained from typing people’s ears off, as I have a tendancy to do if you let me 🙂 I just like talking…
Quote: “We don’t have to say everyone is right about God (which is a nonsensical statement given that different people hold diametrically opposed conceptions of God), we just have to say that we won’t force out religious views on anyone else and won’t confuse religious authority with state authority.”
Again, that’s exactly what I meant.
Sorry if I came off the wrong way in my above post, boo… It’s just a bit frustrating to get your exact point across when you’re having a typed discussion instead of a spoken one.
Enough of people who claim to speak out of concern for “the children”, yet ignore the real needs of the real children around them.
Enough of people who radiate hostility to gay and bi teens, then claim to have the solution to their problems.
Enough of people whose idea of “discussion” is a monologue about how horrible the people on the other end are.
Enough, enough, enough already. *shakes head*
Scion, when you start that island up, can a bi woman move there, too?
Oh, right, the eternal, never-changing word of God as found in the Bible. Christinewjc, I happen to have a book next to me that elaborates on that concept eloquently, so if you’ll allow me:
The author of the book in my lap quoted the above two paragraphs from another source, and voiced his approval:
Sounds a lot like “the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible”, yes? Oh, but wait, he continues:
So I suppose you support slavery as one of those “God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible”?
Or are you a “relativist” whose morals have changed with the times in opposition to your God’s eternal, inerrant, unchanging law?
Er, Christine, correct me if I’m wrong but didn’t you post an entry on your blog not so long ago about how you felt you might not be cut out for “ministry to gay people”?
I think maybe it’s because whether you intend it to be so or not, you’re usually perceived as confrontational and condecending. You may not think that terms like “relativistic” are insulting, but when you contrast them with yourself as “moral,” it comes off as calling your intended target of debate amoral and ethically laissez-faire when such is not the case.
~Jayelle~
Sure, bi women can come… but women can’t come to the gay guy side! Or maybe women could have a different island altogether?
Heh, I’m kidding of course 🙂
The only requirement for my island would be you must play well with others.
OK, I would really not be into a segregated island situation.
Seriously, we can’t even agree on a fictitious island and the religious right thinks we have a common agenda?
Get real. 😉
Well we’re not really disagreeing on the fictional island, I’m just being silly 🙂
But seriously for a momment, you do bring up an interesting point with the “gay agenda” that some believe that we have.
I think they give us much more credit for being organized and committed to a common goal than for which we deserve. We can’t even agree on what to call ourselves as a whole!
I don’t blame some straight people for not being able to navigate the awkward terminology of the Gay, Bisexual, Lesbian, Transgender, Queer, Questioning, and Allies Community.
But “mad props” for those that are making an effort to try. We do appreciate people who take the time to understand us.
Ok, I hurt my back and I’m in pain. Tact will be lacking so don’t say I didn’t warn you.
Randi said:
[My morality is] based on the simple logic of maximizing the benefit and minimizing the pain for all in an equal fashion. Yours is based on a contradictory, complex tome which appears exactly as one would expect if it were not written by a god, but by fallible primitive people.
With that statement and the paragraphs that follow, you essentially did the same thing that Christine did, you were just more verbose:
Christinewjc said:
[Your morality] tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible.
You both just slandered and belittled the other’s beliefs, not to mention those of about 98% of the rest of the world (mine included). I’m beginning to expect as much from Christine, but I honestly expected more from Randi (and Scion and Skemono). None of you has to agree with the other’s beliefs, but you will respect those beliefs on this board. Regulars know this by now, but for the sake of emphasis: Christine, this is not an outreach to wayward Christians. If you want to discuss germane issues here, great – but you will treat others with respect and as equals (and in turn you can expect the same). I can’t think of anything more Christian than that. If you can’t do this, don’t post.
I’m not sure why you are asking for morality from a search engine – they work on how many others are reading and linking to each site. You seem to be implying some deeper spiritual meaning to Technorati but that’s probably best kept to yourself. To be honest, sites like yours are pretty common while XGW is not. People come here when they want a less polarized, more civil view of ex-gay and anti-gay issues. This probably accounts at least in part for our higher rankings at Technorati. If you are looking to boost your site stats, posting links here will not do it for any number of reasons.
As a Christian, let me give you some advice. It does not compromise your beliefs to allow others to make their own decisions in life. The only people who are allowed to exercise the kind of power that you seek over my life are those who I know deeply and love and to whom I have given permission to hold me accountable, and God; you qualify as neither. If you truly want to be a witness to others, live your life humbly and work out your own salvation with God – and let others do the same (even if that means that they ultimately never do). All you are doing now is making enemies of God. Reasoned input is fine, trying to control other human beings is not. There is nothing in scripture to justify using civil authority to impose religious doctrine (quite the opposite).
David
David said: “I’m not sure why you are asking for morality from a search engine – they work on how many others are reading and linking to each site. You seem to be implying some deeper spiritual meaning to Technorati but that’s probably best kept to yourself.”
Ah! Someone at last answers my question! No. I’m not “searching for morality from a search engine.” I was waiting for someone to admit that the ranking was decided because, as you stated, “they work on how many others are reading and linking to each site.” So, in fact, it doesn’t have anything to do with moral “authority” afterall. The “authority” (in their eyes) comes from how many hits and links are to a site.
Someone here attempted to answer my questions about where does absolute morality stem from; who is the moral Lawgiver? His (Randi’s)answer was less than satisfying (IMO):
” Christine, it should be painfully obvious where moral authority comes from and it isn’t a supernatural source. Moral authority comes from an agreement of cooperation between people – it is entirely a human construct. With no agreement there is no moral authority. The foundation of society is a sincere one for one trade of questions and answers. Moral authority does not come from another saying “I’m so powerful I’m going to force you to do it my way.”
I don’t agree. So we are left with the same question. People can agree some times when it comes to moral issues. But many don’t agree. It is then that the issue of tolerance comes up. Tolerance, today, has been misused to mean total acceptance without question. The original meaning of tolerance included disagreeing with the other person, not total acceptance.
It appears to me (from what I’ve read here occasionally) that ex-gay people, ministries and supporters are not tolerated. They are demonized, told they are lying to themselves about the change they experienced to heterosexuality, hated by the gay community, and even told that they don’t really exist. Where’s the tolerance in that?
If this site was genuinely interested in serving the needs of all people (the concept of do unto others as you would have them do unto you), then you would be celebrating all of the thousands ex-gay people who shared their testimonies of freedom from unwanted homosexual behavior and attraction. But no. I don’t think I have ever seen that here (admittedly, I could have missed it but I doubt it). Why is that? Why are these people constantly demonized by the gay community? What is at work in them that causes such a reaction? These are all questions that deserve answers.
The only celebrating that I see is when a person who fell back into the sin of homosexual behavior and “failed” as an ex-gay becomes an ex-ex gay. Then, he/she is back over on your side.
Could it have more to do with ideology than tolerance? Could it have more to do with rejection of the born-again, bible-believing believer than the rejection of the orientation change? Important questions to ponder.
I have known (personally) of only one gay person who actually said that she celebrated the fact that my new friend, Susan, was able to be released from the bondage of homosexuality. I thought that was very nice of her. She claims that it “isn’t for her” (the change, that is) but she at least recognized the fact that the other woman desired change and achieved it through Jesus Christ. I admire both women.
Anyway, I’ll be back later…using the hubby’s computer and he needs it now! I want to answer the many posts here and will attempt to do so as time permits.
God bless,
Christine
“Ah! Someone at last answers my question! No. I’m not “searching for morality from a search engine.” I was waiting for someone to admit that the ranking was decided because, as you stated, “they work on how many others are reading and linking to each site.” So, in fact, it doesn’t have anything to do with moral “authority” afterall. The “authority” (in their eyes) comes from how many hits and links are to a site.”
Um, Christine- you were the one who brought that site up. No one claimed an internet search engine gives anyone moral authority. Please stop making up strawman positions to ascribe to your opponents.
“It appears to me (from what I’ve read here occasionally) that ex-gay people, ministries and supporters are not tolerated. They are demonized, told they are lying to themselves about the change they experienced to heterosexuality, hated by the gay community, and even told that they don’t really exist. Where’s the tolerance in that?”
I’m not sure where you find that from the postings here (excluding individual commenters, who are free to say anything they want as long as it’s civil). The owners of this site consistently state that they believe anyone should have the freedom to seek to change their sexual orientation if they wish to do so. Commenters can agree or disagree as they wish.
“If this site was genuinely interested in serving the needs of all people (the concept of do unto others as you would have them do unto you), then you would be celebrating all of the thousands ex-gay people who shared their testimonies of freedom from unwanted homosexual behavior and attraction. But no. I don’t think I have ever seen that here (admittedly, I could have missed it but I doubt it). Why is that? Why are these people constantly demonized by the gay community? What is at work in them that causes such a reaction? These are all questions that deserve answers.”
Please cite examples where the owners of this site have demonized ex-gays. Pointing out the inconsistencies in testimony and the dishonesty of certain ex-gay individuals and organizations is not demonizing.
“I have known (personally) of only one gay person who actually said that she celebrated the fact that my new friend, Susan, was able to be released from the bondage of homosexuality. I thought that was very nice of her. She claims that it “isn’t for her” (the change, that is) but she at least recognized the fact that the other woman desired change and achieved it through Jesus Christ. I admire both women.”
When you phrase attempted orientation change in such an insulting way- “released from the bondage of homosexuality” you should not be surprised to find that most gay people don’t celebrate being insulted.
Dang, second time that happened. Above anonymous post was me.
Christine, I have a few friends who consider themselves ex-gay (and I support them in that). I don’t call it “being released from the bondage of homosexuality” and I’m sure the gay person you are referring to didn’t either.
I get what you are trying to say (well, most of the time), but usually your comments use such loaded terminology that I want to scream instead of reply civilly.
Please don’t take that as being persecuted for Jesus…you’re just being persecuted because you’re not treating others how you would like to be treated (I’m sure you wouldn’t like your Christianity referred to as “the bondage of believing in a non-existent sky-god” instead of the very vibrant and real faith you feel you have; in the same manor, I don’t appreciate my sexual and relational orientation being referred to as “the bondage of homosexuality”).
Christine said, “I don’t call it “being released from the bondage of homosexuality” and I’m sure the gay person you are referring to didn’t either.”
But they do say that, Christine. It’s not me calling it that (since I have never been in that situation, how would I know anyway?)it is the ex-gay person calling it that.
I have learned a lot from several ex-gay Christian people. This is what they generally tell me. When their eyes are opened to what the Bible calls the sin of homosexual behavior, they then see it as formally being in bondage to it. Again, not my words, but theirs.
There are also people who have ceased homosexual behavior through the NARTH reorientation method(s). Perhaps they wouldn’t call it “being in bondage to the sin of homosexuality.” That’s fine. But those who left homosexual behavior through the power of the Holy Spirit when they accepted Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior usually see their former activity as bondage. Their words, not mine.
Christine said, “(I’m sure you wouldn’t like your Christianity referred to as “the bondage of believing in a non-existent sky-god”
You’re kidding, aren’t you? Such references are frequently hurled at me at my message board. In the past when I posted at the SAB (Skeptics Annotated Bible) message board, far worse things were often said to and about me. It comes with the territory. Jesus told his followers to expect it!
As far as bondage to sin is concerned, I was released from many types of sin that could be considered being in bondage. When I was not a born-again Christian yet and still involved with it (them), of course I didn’t appreciate anyone telling me that either. But now I look back and see that they were, in actuality, showing me the true, agape love of Jesus Christ by revealing my need to repent of such sins. One cannot be released from the bondage of any sin until he/she realizes that what they are doing is sin. Admittedly, I could have chosen to continue to believe that my activities outside of God’s design for my life were not sin and didn’t need to be confessed. You may make (or, may have already made) that choice. But the conviction for sin is prompted by the Holy Spirit of God and bondage to sin is a crafty tool of the Enemy of our souls.
I’m likely to get reprimanded for going too far off topic here, but I wanted to try to be clear on why I said what I said. To often, non-believers do not recognize that Christians count themselves as equal in the sin categories as non-Christians. They think that we think we are superior. No. We are not. That is a huge misconception. As Paul said, “I am the chief of sinners” because, as Saul, he persecuted, killed and tortured Christians before his conversion to Christ on the road to Damascus. He knows that he is only saved by the grace of God through the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross for our sins. It is not a position of superiority. It is more humbling than anything else. However, like I already said, it may not be perceived as a humbling experience by those who don’t agree, and/or reject Christ, or haven’t yet experienced the saving grace of Jesus Christ.
I do not see people criticizing exgays on this board. HOnest exgays are respected. What I see is that some exgays (a few prominent exgays) use false and hypocritical information to push their views. Exgay watch monitors that. That is legitimate and is not criticizing honest views. Some exgay advocates make ridiculous claims. Tolerance has never been about accepting everything noncritically. Tolerance is respect for views different than your own. Would DL Foster, for example, even be mentioned if he did not make hugely outrageous claims, attack others on the boards, and go to those in authority to hurt gays?
“But they do say that, Christine. It’s not me calling it that (since I have never been in that situation, how would I know anyway?)it is the ex-gay person calling it that.”
Whoever said it, it’s still insulting.
“Christine said, “(I’m sure you wouldn’t like your Christianity referred to as “the bondage of believing in a non-existent sky-god”
You’re kidding, aren’t you? Such references are frequently hurled at me at my message board. In the past when I posted at the SAB (Skeptics Annotated Bible) message board, far worse things were often said to and about me. It comes with the territory. Jesus told his followers to expect it!”
Yes, but do you celebrate being insulted in that manner the way you expect us to celebrate at being insulted?
I think Christine was referring to this:
“I have known (personally) of only one gay person who actually said that she celebrated the fact that my new friend, Susan, was able to be released from the bondage of homosexuality.”
I seriously doubt that this one gay person you know actually said she celebrated Susan being “released from the bondage of homosexuality.” Unless she has some serious self-hatred issues, a gay person just wouldn’t say that. More likely she was expressing the same sentiment expressed by the owners of this blog, who state that if people wish to try and pursue the ex-gay path and find that works for them, they respect their choices.
Christinewjc said:
I was waiting for someone to admit that the ranking was decided because, as you stated, “they work on how many others are reading and linking to each site”.
Waiting for someone to admit? You posed this absurd straw man in the first place. I honestly still don’t know what you are talking about unless there is a “moral authority” tag on Technorati. At any rate, it’s an automated search engine so you are tilting at windmills. And what on earth does any of this have to do with the thread topic? This isn’t a free-for-all.
Christine, I’m sorry but you are rambling and making absolutely no sense. As the other Christine pointed out, your language is so littered with loaded terminology that it’s hard to wade through. Much of what you have written is not accurate, especially what you have said about XGW, but you seem to gloss right over these when someone attempts to correct you. In fact, my early suspicions were correct in that you take any comments that are not in agreement with you as part of your “cross to bear”. If you are rude and condescending and someone calls you on it, that’s not a mark for Christ, it’s just what happens when one behaves badly.
Please read what I posted earlier about showing respect for others while posting and consider this a warning concerning your behavior so far. And try to keep it on topic in the future please, you have your own site for ramblings.
David Roberts
aka ReasonAble
Ok, I was not going to do this, but I need to get it out my system. Christine, put yourself in my place (if you can). Do you know what it is like to have your kindergarten teacher tell your parents that she thinks you are gay? The parents, in love, put you through unnecessary therapy and required “masculine” training in which everyday after school you are required to do a certain number of “masculine” acts rather than have a normal childhood (you would become hyper-masculine anyhow). You know you are attracted to others of the same-sex only in high school even though you know that you can only pretend and act as if you like the opposite sex. In fact, this leads you to have unloving, uncaring sex with the opposite sex just to show how straight you are. Many of these women are tools to demonstrate to society that you are fitting into its norms. In fact, one may be pregnant afterward, but you do not care at all for her and avoid her. What about the fundementalist rule church (for me it was Mormon) that broke some of its rules to get you aboard the straight train–the leader of the church telling you to look at straight pornography and actually doing whatever to become straight. Especially when you do not want to.
Then, you go through the motions of the church doing what is expected all the time knowing you are a big liar and your thoughts are unhealthy. People around you state, wihtout knowing you are gay, that gays should committ suicide rather than “force” society to deal with you. You have never had gay relationships, but you are told by the society that you could be imprisoned or punished if you have a relationship (of course states say that is just a necessity, not enforced).
So, you are physically and mentally sick because of all this pressure and falseness. You tell your church you are leaving it because you are gay. They beg you to go to exgay therapy first before leaving. You agree and go through prayer,hypnotism, aversion thearpy, sports therapy, same-sex bonding, and eventually electroshock therapy is offered when none of it is working. You see what it has done to others and leave. THe church excommunicates you, but suddenly you are healthier physically and mentally than you have ever been. You become extremely successful, but the family rejects you for awhile for being openly gay (even your grandmother bolts her door because she thinks you are going to rape her since you are gay). You find someone and fall in love, but society at every turn tells you that you can’t possibly love that person. Your boss finds out and fires you, but you decide to make that positive. Your relationship is stronger than that of anyone you know–everyone else is getting divorced or having problems, but you are not allowed to marry and you are told to keep your relationship quiet–it is not respectful. However, you love your spouse more and more everyday. You are there for each other during the death of siblings, cancer, graduations from college, mvoings, and any other life moments. Everyday you are told via the media, message boards, and politics that you are worthless, that your love is fake, that it will end in sickness and death, and that eventually you will burn in hell for your love. You know that you are better than all that and you rise above all the naysayers, and they keep naysaying, but you become stronger and better every single day. Why Christine would you allow certain exgays to misrepresent your experience? Why not counter their false assertions? Hopefully you can understand my experience as a gay male. This is mine. And that is only a small slice of my history. Can you understand why people might challenge exgay positions?
Christine (WJC) –
I was not referring to the fact that an ex-gay person might say that.
I was saying that I doubted a self-accepting gay person would refer to being gay in that way (“the bondage of homosexuality”).
I can’t imagine a self-accepting gay would ever refer to an ex-gay as someone who is “released from the bondage of homosexuality.”
Also, if you clicked on the link at my name, it would direct you to my blog, where you might have read that I’m an ex-ex-gay (by the way, please don’t construe this as an invitation to start commenting on my blog – if you wish, you may, but I’ll go to your blog if I want to further converse with you).
For the record, when I was ex-gay, I never referred to being gay as “the bondage of homosexuality” – and would NEVER have said that to someone who was a self-accepting gay. How rude and insensitive!
Boo was right about the point I was making.
And Boo was further right in saying, “Yes, but do you celebrate being insulted in that manner the way you expect us to celebrate at being insulted?”
That was the point I was attempting to make. Not that no one has ever said that to you, but that it doesn’t feel very nice to be insulted that way. Likewise, I don’t like the way you talk to and about gay people.
It’s offensive to me…and I’m someone who actually understands where you’re coming from.
Christine, you also might want to see Grace’s post here, about the basics of respectful conversation when conversing with us at Ex-Gay Watch.
David said “You both just slandered and belittled the other’s beliefs, not to mention those of about 98% of the rest of the world (mine included).”
Long time no hear from, David. I disagree with you in degree, not kind. Christinewjc in my opinion represents a substantial minority of the world’s viewpoint, particularly in North America her opinion is common. Mine, is less common but while few people would acknowldge being atheist, many more would admit to not being religious, just as 10% of the population in one (CDC?)survey admited to being not heterosexual. There is nothing to fear from an honest statement of where we start from and if that is a total rejection of each others beliefs, so be it. Christinewjc doesn’t have any specific situation in mind where my moral framework is problematic for her or anyone else and I say that means she can’t think of one because there aren’t any. On the other hand I can think of many, many instances where religion is an intractable problem when we try to use it as a moral framework for solving human conflict.
Christinewjc, I am a male to female transexual and it hurts me when you refer to me as male.
You disagree that moral authority comes from the agreement reached between people, what about democracy? You disagree that moral authority does not come from another saying “I’m so powerful I’m going to force you to do it my way”. You are agreeing might makes right – does the leader of a military coup have moral authority as dictator? Does a parent have the moral authority to eternally torture their child for misbehaving because they are its creator? Might doesn’t make right, cooperation does.
Historically the more people involved in an agreement the greater weight, or “moral authority” it is given. When the whole population agrees on something it can be considered an absolute authority in a way that no religion can. It is far more likely the world can be united in fairness than united in religion. I have never heard and don’t see any way using fairness and equality as the ultimate moral framework will cause a problem for anyone religious or not. Christinewjc if you want to logically disagree with that it behooves you to at least give a hypothetical example of where fairness does not work or admit that it does.
No one is asking you to tolerate same sex affection without question. The only appropriate question for you is “Is it harming me?”. If the answer is “no” than you are morally obligated to tolerate whatever other’s want to do with their same sex affections given they don’t affect you.
Christinewjc, you also said “If this site was genuinely interested in serving the needs of all people (the concept of do unto others as you would have them do unto you), then you would be celebrating all of the thousands ex-gay people who shared their testimonies of freedom from unwanted homosexual behavior and attraction. But no. I don’t think I have ever seen that here (admittedly, I could have missed it but I doubt it). Why is that? Why are these people constantly demonized by the gay community? What is at work in them that causes such a reaction? These are all questions that deserve answers.”
I don’t believe any exgay seeks freedom from unwanted same sex attractions, they seek freedom from the judgement and rejection of people like you and your violent vision of a god who eternally tortures fallible humans for choices he knows some will inevitably make because they can. Same sex attractions don’t hurt or bother any gay person except for your imposition of condemnation on them. I don’t demonize “exgays”, the demon is the repression and spiritual violence that encourages them to try to be “exgay”
No one should have to jump through the “exgay” behavioral hoops just because another is threatening them with violence. How on earth can you expect me to celebrate a horror like that? There’s no way I want society threatening me into a version of sexuality not of my own choosing, why on earth would I want that for anyone else?
The only thing I’ve learned from reading Christinewjc’s posts is that her brand of xianity is something I could never take seriously. If following Christ means feeling smug and superior, insulting people and refusing to hear what they say (or in this case post), I’ll happily remain an atheist.
(And that is not to say I’m lumping other brands of xianity in with hers—hers is obviously an inferior brand.)
I do believe in absolute morality, though: it is a moral absolute that one approach all conversations with a spirit of grace, a love of learning and a sincere attempt at hearing as much as talking. That’s something Chrisitnewjc’s moral code misses altogether.
What I’m waiting to hear about is this:
someone who does NOT believe that homosexuality is a sin, who has ‘ex-gayed’ for purely personal reasons.
Now, I do know of gay-identified bisexual men, who, upon meeting and falling in love with a woman, have become, in a sense, ‘ex-gay’, because they are now straight-identified bisexual men in a longterm monogamous relationship with a woman.
I don’t see that as the same thing, really. Likewise, my husband (queer-identified bisexual) is in a longterm monogamous relationship (our marriage), but that doesn’t make him gay – he’s still bisexual.
Christinewjc’s approach to this topic reminds me of the Christianists who claim that Christianity should not be considered a religion, because it is, in fact, the ultimate truth of the universe as revealed to humanity. Oddly, there are Islamists who claim the _exact same thing_.
Randi,
You mocked a belief based on scriptural texts which are held by many to be the Word of God, and the supernatural in general. A large percentage of the world population professes a belief which can be tied to the God of the Bible, i.e. Protestant, Catholic, Islam, et al. Still more have a similar belief based on some sort of scripture. She basically mocked the secular or pretty much everything else. Between the two of you, I feel pretty safe in saying that you covered most of the population, though I’m sure it falls somewhat short of 98%. That was exaggeration for effect, otherwise I would have provided some reference.
Regardless, neither position showed much respect for the other and considering the uphill battle here, I would appreciate your understanding. I doubt you would have had the urge to make such comments if Christine (wjc) hadn’t been so forcefully projecting her own beliefs. Nevertheless, what’s good for the goose, etc.
David
Wow! My friend Brady tipped me off that there was a discussion going on over here that linked my blog post…so…I had to come check it out!
I probably shouldn’t admit this but the beginning portion of discussion between Boo and Christinwjc made me laugh out loud….and I needed that today! I particularly like Boo’s point about absolute truth not coming from an internet search engine.
I don’t really have anything else to say….oh…except to Jim Burroway from the beginning of this thread….my husband’s design skills continue to amaze me and seem to improve over time…so…no linkage between the lack of design skills/ex-gay phenomenon. Obviously, it’s just bad design. Looks like some straight guy did it. 😉 i’m JOKING!
Well, I can tell you David I am often hugely conflicted about what to put in my posts. On one hand I understand most of the world has a traditional respect for religion but I strongly feel this teaching of eternal torture in all these religions is needless psychological abuse and particularly where children are involved. Children should not be threatened with eternal torture by the mere suggestion that they have to correctly choose and follow a complex religion when even adults can’t agree on how to do that.
I find the idea that people need religion to be moral offensive and wrong. I’ve often said children instinctively understand the golden rule from a very young age when they’d be hard pressed to understand any religion’s rules for salvation. The following information helps confirm that, its a paraphrased excerpt from an article by LAURAN NEERGAARD, AP Medical Writer:
Psychology researcher Felix Warneken,
of Germany’s Max Planck Institute of Evolutionary Anthropology, reports in the journal Science the
capacity for altruism emerges as early as 18 months of age.
He performed a series of tasks in front of toddlers, such as hanging towels with clothespins or stacking books. Sometimes he “struggled” with the tasks; sometimes he deliberately messed up.
Whether Warneken dropped clothespins or knocked over books each of the 24 toddlers offered help within seconds but only if he appeared to
need it. He never asked for the help and didn’t say “thank you,” so as not to taint the research by training youngsters to expect praise if they helped. After all, altruism means helping with no expectation of anything in return. Toddlers didn’t bother to offer help when he deliberately pulled a book off the stack or threw a pin to the floor, To be altruistic, babies must have the cognitive ability to understand other
people’s goals plus possess what Warneken calls “pro-social motivation,” a
desire to be part of their community.
Primate specialists offer numerous examples of apes, in particular, displaying
more humanlike helpfulness, such as the gorilla who rescued a 3-year-old boy who
fell into her zoo enclosure.
Man, could we get a little more of topic if we tried?
Randi said:
Children should not be threatened with eternal torture by the mere suggestion that they have to correctly choose and follow a complex religion …
I agree and I don’t know anyone personally who wouldn’t.
I find the idea that people need religion to be moral offensive and wrong.
Fine, how you live your own life is up to you. My faith in God is very strong, but have you ever heard me tell you that your way of life is offensive to me? That’s how you deal with the dilemma of what (not) to post.
David
David, my point is that you can’t teach children to follow any big traditional religion and shield them from the religious idea that they risk hell if they don’t get it just right, and who amongst us (especially children) expects perfection from themselves? I don’t take it you’re agreeing with the implication I was trying to make that children should not be exposed to religion.
Randi,
This really is so off-topic….but….since I have children, and, like David, I’m a Christian, I’ll quickly tell you how we deal with that.
Yes, there are those within my church who have put the notion in my boys’ head that you should be Christian to escape hell. It’s only been a big issue for one of them…the more sensitive, creative one. And yes, it does upset me when he comes home from Bible class asking questions revealing that someone’s taught him something which has evoked that sort of fear in him.
We just refute this line of thinking point blank and talk to him about it. We are not teaching him to follow a religion…we’re teaching him to follow Christ. You’re right, religion is faulty. Oh well. I got past it and I know my children will be able to as well.
The fact that children inherently understand the golden rule from a very young age points me to belief in a creator who instilled this in his creation. It doesn’t do that for you. Okay.
I sound hostile. I don’t mean to. Just my thoughts.
grace
See for me Grace the fact that children know the golden rule from a very young age points to us being evolved to cooperate with each other instinctively to enhance the overall survivability of the group. And gays being evolved for the same purpose even though they may not personally have offspring. I wish I could be true to myself without differing with you, but to me following Christ is religion. A public discussion is fine, but if you’d prefer to differ in private (in detail please) you can email me at randi.schimnosky@sasktel.net
Nope. I’m done. 🙂
grace
It can be very confusing when so many people claim the mantle of “Christianity” and yet demonstrate such different attitudes. Fortunately, Christ told us how to identify his followers: they showed love for others. Let me use examples from this thread to show the difference in a “Christian” who follows Christ and one who, well, doesn’t quite meet the criterion:
grace at March 17, 2006 07:52 PM:
“…like David, I’m a Christian…”
Showing respect for another’s identity as Christian.
Christinewjc at March 16, 2006 12:56 PM:
“Yours tends toward the secular-humanistic, morally relativistic realm while mine is geared towards the God-given Christian moral absolutes as contained in God’s Word, the Bible”
An, um, slightly different approach.
grace at March 17, 2006 07:52 PM:
“It doesn’t do that for you. Okay.
I sound hostile. I don’t mean to. Just my thoughts.”
Showing humility, courtesy, and grace.
Christinewjc at March 17, 2006 11:21 AM:
“…far worse things were often said to and about me. It comes with the territory. Jesus told his followers to expect it!”
Showing, um, something else.
While both Grace and Christine (the anti-gay one) probably are in closer agreement over the interpretation and application of certain scriptures than either are with me, it seems to me that they are worlds apart when it comes to applying the message of love and grace brought by Christ.
While I don’t wish to judge as to whether either or both are truly followers of Christ, I will say that in applying Christ’s rules about determining who speaks in His name, I will be far more accepting of what Grace may have to say than I would Christine’s admonitions.
Christine (the anti-gay one)
“One cannot be released from the bondage of any sin until he/she realizes that what they are doing is sin.”
You are making an assumption that is in error and which discounts your entire position. You make no distinction between being a gay person and the performance of certain sexual activities. You simply classify everything as “sin”. Let’s separate the pieces and perhaps you will have a better understanding:
A gay person. Homosexual. Same-sex attracted. Generally this refers to someone who finds someone of the same sex to be emotionally and sexually appealing. There is debate as to whether the origins of attraction (and the sex to which it is directed) are pre-birth or have a basis that occurs after birth, yet all credible sources agree that this is not resulting from a conscious decision – it’s not originally a choice. There is no scripture that supports the condition of being attracted to the same sex as sinful.
Sexually active. The gay community does not have a term that distinguishes between gay people that are sexually active and those that are not. Nor is there a term that distinguishes between heterosexuals. However, let’s break this down further:
Married. This term raises problems for some conservative Christians. If sexual activity is forbidden “outside marriage”, then for them to condemn monogamous sexual activity within a covenanted relationship the anti-gay position has to be to reject marriage between persons of the same sex as “not true marriage”, regardless whether it is legal. To do so, Christians can claim that though it may be marriage in the eyes of the state, it is not marriage in the eyes of God.
But this issue is not universally accepted – indeed, some churches recognize marriage that is between persons of the same sex to be covenantal, with or without state recognition. Some theologians find sex within such a marriage to be in accordance with God’s plan, others do not. Yet both base their position on Scripture. To claim that those who disagree with you are “secular humanists” is to misunderstand the meaning of the words “secular” and “humanist”.
It can be debated at length as to whether this sexual activity within marriage is sinful – but (without being offensive) I don’t think you have anything original to contribute to that debate.
(On an indirect note, the notion of marriage “in the eyes of God” raises more problems when applied politically. Some Mormons believe that marriage not performed in the Temple is not marriage in the eyes of God. Some Catholics think marriage between divorced people is not marriage in the eyes of God. Many churches believe that mixed-faith marriage is not marriage in the eyes of God. It is truly inconsistent to deny civil recognition of gay marriage based on this standard.)
Promiscuity. I think most Christians would agree that a sexually promiscuous life is outside God’s ideal plan, regardless of the sex of the persons involved. Yet a Christian that condemns sex between persons of the same sex more than persons of opposite sex is demonstrating a bias not supported by Scripture. It’s fine to say “they’re both sin” but if you only post your objection to same-sex activity and never seem to post about opposite sex activity, you are inconsistent and are demonstrating that it is not the sin that you find offensive but rather the nature of the sinner. Though you may claim that both sins are equal, it’s clear that you don’t think both sinners are equal.
Lesbian. This is difficult for anti-gay Christians. Other than an indirect reference about certain women going against their nature, there is no reference to sexuality between women in the Bible. There certainly isn’t a direct prohibition against such activity. So any application to lesbians is only by extension and that’s not a very strong basis to apply such strong condemnation.
Ex-Gay. There seems to be two camps of this particular group:
Reoriented Ex-Gays. These are people who were once homosexual in orientation and are now are heterosexual in orientation. Yet sin does not seem to come into the equation. There is no scripture that supports any differentiation in regards to sin between a gay person and an ex-gay person in regards to whom they are attracted to.
Political Ex-Gays. These are people who have no change in attraction, but choose to leave a “homosexual lifestyle”.
Homosexual Lifestyle. This term is found exclusively in anti-gay language and does not seem to have an equivalent term inside either the gay community or the common community. It seems to be determined solely by whether or not one believes that gay persons should have equal treatment under law and whether or not one seeks either a relationship with someone of the same sex. Yet it is consistently described in terms of promiscuity. It is a bit confused.
It seems to be, as best as can be determined, as an attitude, an acceptance of a position, and is not in any way related to whether or not one engages in sexual activity. For example, a person that considers himself to be gay and has some sort of gay social setting but who is waiting to marry Mr. Right before sex (or chooses to live celibate) would still be considered to be living a “homosexual lifestyle”. And within the anti-gay ex-gay community, this “homosexual lifestyle” is the “burden of sin” that is overcome. Yet there is no Scripture that condemns such an attitude, person, or activity (to the extent it is non-sexual).
Even within the condemnation of sexual activity, only certain sexual acts are condemned while others are not. So to apply the term “sin” to activity that is not forbidden seems to be arbitrary. For example, there is not Scripture that forbids oral sex between persons of the same sex.
So, Christine, when you say that “One cannot be released from the bondage of any sin until he/she realizes that what they are doing is sin.”, what exactly are you talking about?
Specifically, is a monogamous couple living in covenant of their church “doing” sin?
Is a promiscuous lesbian “doing” sin?
Is oral sex “doing” sin? How about oral sex between married heterosexuals?
Is a celibate gay man or woman “doing” sin?
Christine, your position is not well thought out (or at least not well articulated) and it is, frankly, arrogant to come to this site assuming that the position of the people here is somehow based on ignorance about sin. It is your position that is based on ignorance and fuzzy thinking. I’m quite certain that nearly everyone here has spent far more time on this issue than you.