Every local news station in Phoenix came to the press conference today in opposition to Love Won Out. Video of the entire press conference will be posted soon.
Update: And here’s the video.
[googlevideo]-8344195389415698722[/googlevideo]And the Q&A.
[googlevideo]-7302457955324224016[/googlevideo]
Good speaking throughout – great job Daniel!
I think the pastor could have been better prepared for the harder questions. That stuff he said at the end was pretty weak. That’s unfortunate because there really are good arguments which don’t involve ignoring the issues. Daniel should have stayed up there :). And to the reporter saying that LWO doesn’t expect you to change, what are all those billboards for?
This needs to be transcribed. These reporters sound so ignorant, not bad, just as though it’s actually “news” to them. With that in mind it strikes me that many “ordinary” people must not be getting this message who could be, especially with effective news conferences like this.
It almost seemed more like a super crash course on the politicization of ex-gay ministries than a ‘press release.’
Paraphrased:
The Reverend really said a lot of good things, unfortunately even his refutation of Corinthians with his depiction of the Biblical support of slavery and misogyny – as horrible as the implications of that are – doesn’t compete with: “You’re going to burn alive forever if you’re gay and ok with it.”
Forget racism and sexism for a moment. Jesus Christ himself defined remarriage as ADULTERY!
Now read 1 Corinthians 6:9-11:
They’re the one’s who want to put this into black and white terms, so let’s do it!
Either condemn “unrepentant adulterers (remarried*)” the same as homosexuals, or ‘forgive’ us both the same!
We need someone like Wayne Besen to speak the Bible back to them. These people don’t have a moral toothpick to stand on, but more importantly they don’t understand anything other than the threat of FEAR itself.
Perhaps someone can determine a way of delivering the impact of that message in a more spiritually nonviolent way, but if they are going to claim the Bible as their basis for their beliefs about homosexuality, then Leviticus 20:13 is the end result:
To even mention that their beliefs are based on the Bible should be taken as a declaration that they ultimately intend to have us put to death. If that is not their intent, then their beliefs are not Biblically based, in which case they can’t be trusted either way.
_________
*with scant exception: https://www.ph.unimelb.edu.au/~jlc/stuff2.html
Emproph said:
This needs to be transcribed.
Go for it!
The Bible also supports slavery, as an institution, we now know and understand that as a sin, the Bible supports the subjugation of women, we now know and understand that that is absolutely wrong.
This is a poor argument because it attempts to attack the authority of Scripture, something which will get one exactly nowhere with that audience. We won’t be effective in communicating if we use interpretations of the text which are just as distorted as theirs, eg. Scripture does not support slavery, but rather spoke to how to live within a system where it was an integral part of society.
A better argument would be to illustrate how people later used those passages to incorrectly justify the marginalization of an entire class of people at a time when society had learned better. This translates into what is happening now with gays.
Leviticus 18:22 is useless to condemn homosexuality and I’m surprised anybody would go there. The Corinthians passage is far more effective because people of good conscience can look at the Greek and make an argument for both sides. When I take the totality of scripture and my own understanding of God and then view that passage, I do not see it as condemning me or my life. But that’s not a view one can force on anyone by trying to convince them of how flawed you think the Bible is.
These people don’t have a moral toothpick to stand on, but more importantly they don’t understand anything other than the threat of FEAR itself.
I can understand your frustration, but again these generalizations won’t accomplish much. Neither side of this equation has a singlular point of view. And I think Wayne would probably be the first to say that others would do better with the details of these scriptural arguments.
“I can understand your frustration, but again these generalizations won’t accomplish much. Neither side of this equation has a singlular point of view. And I think Wayne would probably be the first to say that others would do better with the details of these scriptural arguments.”
I don’t think you do understand the frustration I’m trying to express here because I’m NOT generalizing. I’m talking about Exodus International and Focus on the Family, if there truly even is a difference. These people are LIARS and HYPOCRITES to the CORE, and I stand by my statement that they “do not have a moral toothpick to stand on.” They LIE in the name of Christian Love. In addition to the misleading statements they give, they are responsible for the intentional falsities on their web sites.
I’m surprised that you’re “surprised” that anyone would ‘go to’ Leviticus 18:22. That’s candy compared to the “Kill Gays” Leviticus 20:13 passage that I referred to. I’m “frustrated” because these people are politically pining for my death! The potential implications of which are ACTUAL DEATH.
Have you been to the Exodus or Focus on the Family websites?
I’m sure they just forgot to mention that last portion of the Scripture:
They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
-Lest they appear too Christian.
It’s offensive enough that they even trot out the Leviticus 20:13 “Detestable” Gays part, but it’s even MORE offensive that they attempt to hide the “MURDEROUS Christians” part of the verse. Not that it’s surprising, I just find it Satanically dishonest.
That’s not even just “twisting” scripture though, that’s dismembering and disposing of it. And you think that mentioning inconsistencies like this (slavery, misogyny) comes across as an attempt to undermine Scripture?
How?
Please forgive me if I’m being too harsh, but it seems to me that I’m seeing something very obvious that you’re not. I’ve “studied” this well enough to know that they got NUTHIN.
This isn’t about reaching “them”, this is about answering to them in a way that we, et al, won’t have to answer to them again.
Like the Reverend said, they are neither God nor Jesus Christ and are thus not in a position to determine the salvation of anyone else. It’s humiliating how they drag the worthiness of people’s faith through the sludge of their political ambition. Worse than detestable their behavior is despicable.
Emproph,
Nice that you’ve “studied it.” Many of use here have lived it, grew up in it, and know it better than you could possibly imagine. Its also nice that you feel so strongly but your anger is a waste of time. If you want to speak to those who believe such, you better be able to speak their language which includes a thorough understanding of how they approach the Bible and how they use it. Your mistake about slavery would shut any chance you might have for dialogue.
Congrats to Daniel – he knows what he’s taking about, he’s paid his dues, and he’s finding his voice.
I have always been amused that there are those in our society who think I should live by Leviticus when none of them live by the rules of Leviticus.
Emproph, our moral indignation, even if justified, can only be effective as a motivation to work for the truth – not as an end unto itself.
Daniel, I recall from my time with Joe that the things we find ourselves attracted to in other men are not those things we lack, but those things we THINK we are lacking. An important distinction. I wonder if it was merely a difference in our perception of what he said. I remember that some of the guys in the group sessions would talk about how he had helped them sort of regain possession of themselves and allowed them to see that they were whole men who only thought they were “less than.” We used to joke that he was making well-adjusted gay men rather than straight men.
This discussions are inevitably going to have a religious or Scriptural basis. It’s those so called people of faith who bring it up every time to justify the way they want and expect gay people to be treated.
However, the minutae of application and our strictly AMERICAN standards of law and freedom is set aside.
It takes no imagination to know which part of the Bible was used in our laws to justify slavery.
Of course…why ONLY BLACK slaves?
Why ONLY gay people are required to receive The Word?
And in THIS day and age? We find slavery unacceptable and illegal.
Because of it’s inhumanity and cruelty against another human being.
And selecting those profoundly different as the only justification for cruelty is not available to us anymore as a principled society.
We don’t even make criminals slaves, nor banned from basic choices within certain institutions.
So why don’t those people, committed to their faith, find the inhuman treatment of gay people equally as detestable and unacceptable?
Especially since the social experiment of how gay people treat society at large has been a success?
Isn’t it the weighing of inhuman and cruel treatment against another person the ultimate standard, religious or civil by which we can examine ourselves and our commitment to compassion?
Why don’t these same factions really LOOK at how gay people treat others, as opposed to how gay people get treated?
Adulterers and thieves…are another category.
So are murderers…however irreversible and without the option of wiping away the act.
Being gay isn’t in this category either.
I’m looking to these so called Biblically guided moralists to NAME EXACTLY the differences.
But they never do, and they can’t.
Especially since, thieves, murderers, the divorced and adulterers are not restricted from marriage or raising children.
It IS astounding that a non criminal class of people cannot marry and still are discriminated against in certain professions, even after competence for it is already revealed.
So how can the Bible remain a standard for EVERYTHING in how gay people are treated, where it isn’t for everyone else?
We are many things. Religious, secular, atheist.
So given that quality, how can religious discrimination remain?
Mores the point…why do the oh so religious run, when you ask?
I HATE being lied to. I know you do too.
So where is the ethical soundness in doing so?
Well, there’s a real problem with using the Bible as a source of morality. I don’t even believe it’s divinely inspired—I’m an atheist. So, it matters not to me what the correct interpretation is. The original manuscripts do not exist, anyway, and the book has been radically changed over the years. The whole thing is an inconsistant and confusing mess, in my opinion.
Mark said:
The whole thing is an inconsistant and confusing mess, in my opinion.
As we have said, oh a billion times or so, it’s not our place here to pass judgment on anyone’s beliefs or lack thereof. Your opinion of scripture for the purpose of this discussion, however, is irrelevant. Matters of faith and doctrine are an integral part of the ex-gay equation, and that is what we are all about here. You don’t have to subscribe to it to have a rational discussion about it.
Gordo:
Regan DuCasse:
Gordo, what I’ve “studied” IS how they approach the Bible and how they use it, via my own conversations with them and reading those of others’ with them. So far all I’ve been able to determine is that the majority of them “use” the Bible the way their leaders tell them to (Dobson et al). Little if any thought goes into it, which is why they “run” when confronted with their own inconsistency. Their “approach” to the Bible is not their own.
If you have information as to how and why lying, dishonesty and hypocrisy is acceptable to the Bible believer then I am all ears, please enlighten us. Because I have asked this question of them more times and in more ways than you can imagine.
David Roberts:
I agree with that, but the issue here is in regard to the political application of those beliefs.
As far as this goes:
I think that’s what I’m saying. The semantics involved in reaching them personally is one thing, but Love Won Out is a political effort to define homosexuality as a choice, ultimately to criminalize homosexuals themselves. Whether they ‘believe’ that’s what they’re doing or not is irrelevant, it’s already happening.
Their motive to redefine America itself through marriage amendments and other laws is Biblically based. Set aside for a moment the intentional dishonesty of their junk science, the end result of their political motives is to have us imprisoned and/or put to death. In this context there is NO option for dialogue.
We don’t need to discredit scripture, it’s already ALL there for us. All we need to do is expose it in press conferences like this so that the public can see that their “Biblical” beliefs are NOT Biblical!
It’s as simple as asking them whether they believe I should be put to death as in Leviticus 20:13, or whether they believe that remarriage is adultery as in Luke 16:18. My point is that the answer to these questions needs to be OUT-IN-THE-OPEN. It is a weapon of truth that we are not utilizing in our defense.
As I see it, the answer to these questions – whatever they may be (yes, no, maybe so) – will be a further political talking point. If the answer is yes, then they advocate redefining America in order to make the murder of Americans legal, if no, then their position is not biblically based. If they obfuscate, then the answer is that they themselves think their answer is too ugly to be seen. We don’t need to condemn their position/answers on this, or accuse them of anything, all we need to do is expose it for the voting public.
I say this within the context of press conferences like this and anytime an advocate is speaking to the news media. The nature of reaching people one on one is a different animal. There are two fundamentally different dynamics at play here and both need to be addressed on different terms. One (personal) needs to be lovey-dovey “I don’t mean to offend you but…” in order to reach them, and one (political-media) needs to be “If you don’t believe I should be put to death then your belief about sin/homosexuality isn’t Biblically based to begin with.” Anyone with a working brain will understand the implications of the answer.
If the masses of followers get offended in the process of exposing THE TRUTH, then too bad! They’re the ones responsible for allowing this mess. And if WE don’t do something about it then they’re going to be faced with the decision to turn in their loved one’s to save their own skins, a scenario that most of them haven’t signed up for but are headed for. People are already commiting suicide, that should be enough.
My frustration here isn’t even about Exodus or Focus, it’s about us not wielding the power of truth that already exists for us, the Bible, the very thing that all of their “arguments” are based on. Their use of junk science (lies) and abuse of legitimate science (lies) is all in the name of secularizing their Biblical position.
If this discussion was happening 10 or 20 years ago I might see the legitimacy of complacency, but knowing what I know now about these organizations I’m concerned that we’re running out of time. Unlike us, they don’t treat honesty as a limitation. Meaning they have the “power” to manipulate mass fear at will – the #1 human energy resource.
Whether you agree with my understanding of the situation or not, do you at least see where I’m coming from?
Regan, this is BRILLIANT. And at the risk of seeming ignorant, I never thought of it this way:
It takes no imagination to know which part of the Bible was used in our laws to justify slavery.
Of course…why ONLY BLACK slaves?
It was not just the justification of the concept of slavery, but the justification for their racial bias. Is a non-racially based slavery moral (emphatically no) but the type inacted here was even less so because not only did it dehumanize but it did so not only on situations of economic condition (as did some historical slavery) but on attributes that could not be changed. While it is vile to enslave the poor, at least theoretically there was the possibility of an end. With race as a basis, there was never a hope for freedom. Perhaps it was not the cruelty of slavery, itself, that brought about its end, perhaps it was the inherent unfairness of how it was applied.
This may, in part, be reflected in the the emphasis on the mutability of orientation.
Moral people think it wrong to discriminate based on orientation. But it is easier to sell (it seems less cruel) if there is the possibility for an end. If people believe that you can change to avoid their cruel treatment, then they feel less guilty about it. And it might not be the inherent immorality of discrimination that eventually brings about its end, but rather the unfairness of its application.
We can see that an appeal to end discrimination is fairly easy to make when when it is understood that it is based on an immutable attribute such as race. Those who seek to keep discrimination against gays in place have a vested interest in keeping orientation viewed as mutable.
If people believe that you can change to avoid their cruel treatment, then they feel less guilty about it.
I think that sentence about sums it up. In fact the phrase “diamond shaped” comes to mind…
David Roberts wrote:
You are kidding me, right?
The Bible very definitely supports slavery. Old and New Testament. Numerous places.
Argue your second point, that the Bible spoke “how to live within a system…” if you will (and I agree), but you cannot seriously argue that there is anything but explicit support for the institution. How else can “Slaves obey your masters” be translated? This was the bedrock upon which American slavery was justified in the very religious south.
This raises two points. The point is not to attack the authority of scripture, but its wooden literal interpretation. Those who cannot understand that the cultural milieu where slavery was integral no longer exists, and that the command to obey masters cannot be taken into our times, will never get the application of this to GLBT folks.
The “religious” audience who will not grasp nuance or discern the Spirit behind the word are not a target for persuasion anyway. They will never be won over. These people should be exposed as hypocrites, and the real target, the reasonable people of this country, will see that the “religious” should not be allowed to write their flawed concept and bigotry into the law.