-Box Turtle Bulletin shares reports and photos from last weekend’s Join the Impact rallies across the country.
-The California Supreme Court agrees to hear challenges to Proposition 8.
-Focus on the Family announces another round of layoffs.
-eHarmony to extend its matchmaking services to gays and lesbians.
-Bill O’Reilly smears San Francisco in a “documentary” tailored to “prove” that secular liberalism will destroy America.
-2008 U.S. Presidential Candidate Mike Huckabee declares that gays haven’t been beaten enough to merit using the title “civil rights movement.”
-A new report finds that scientific study has been hindered by political controversy, forcing scientists to either censor their briefs or abandon endeavors. “Red flag” words include gay, lesbian and AIDS, among others.
-Vermont lawmaker John Campbell receives a bomb threat after announcing plans to introduce legislation legalizing same-sex marriage in the state.
I guess the plight of John Campbell proves these people are no more than fundamentalist terrorists.
As per eHarmony, it’s good that they’re doing this, but I wouldn’t be surprised if they sabotage the results somehow.
I wouldn’t use that new eHarmony site. I mean, why pay money to people who had to be forced to take it and are grudgingly serving you? I wouldn’t use it for the same reason that I would not want to start my married life in a Southern Baptist church. I really don’t understand those lawsuits, anyway. We should be giving our money to the people who had our backs from the beginning.
Also, as a bisexual woman, I’d still have a hard time using it. There is no “gender neutral” option–it’s one site or the other. Even the name “Compatible Partners” is icky–it’s just so half-assed and so cold.
Huckabee probably sleeps very well at night and has no idea why we get so angry.
No sympathy for Focus. Not an ounce.
I’m actually morally confused over this. I feel a company has a right to make their own business decisions and choose their own clientèle, but does that give them the right to refuse paraplegics from using their services? I honestly don’t know.
What are yall’s opinions on the morality of making companies accept gay customers? Do they have a right to choose their clients, or are they morally obligated to serve as wide a range of people as possible, and why?
I have big issues with gays suing eharmony over and over to get their way. There are tons of sites to meet gay people on..why mess with a religious one that doesn’t want same sex relationships? This has angered a lot of religious people. Huckabee is right in that gays have not nearly received the oppression that African Americans have. Actually, in 2007, there were 3 times as many hate crimes because of race as opposed to sexual orientation. And more religious hate crimes than sexual orientation ones. Yet gays continuet to yell about how oppressed they are….
I’m gay, and I didn’t sue eHarmony nor am I really concerned over whether they expand their dating service to same-sex individuals, so I can’t say I “got my way” on anything. Please try not to generalize. I don’t know the specifics on this lawsuit, but it seems to be governed by the laws of New Jersey. Take it up with their legislature if you think you are somehow damaged by this second site they will be building.
There is no way we are going to get into a childish game of “my dad’s been persecuted more than your dad” here, but since when is there a bright line of offenses after which a group is considered marginalized? And when did you or Gov Huckabee decide you could dictate that? There are more racially motivated bias crimes than religious ones, does that disqualify people of faith?
The more I read that second part of your comment, the more I feel the need for a shower. Seriously Steve, if this is a drive-by comment, I wasted 10 good minutes on it. If you are serious, then you really need to sit back and ponder on why it matters so much to you if eHarmony opens a same-sex oriented site. How is that hurting you or anyone else?
And for that matter, when did eHarmony become a religious institution? Aside from their original PR boost from James Dobson, all they do now is make money by helping people shack up — not exactly new but also not exactly traditional. Granted, they have a Stepford Wives vibe but they are far from a church except in advertising.
And what proportion of the population do each of those groups represent? When you add up all the racial minorities and compare that to the percent of the population who identify as LGBT, either the attacks per population even out (if you assume 10% LGBT) or attacks per each LGBT are dramatically higher than per each person of color (if you assume 2-4% of the population is LGBT).
Why are homophobes always so illogical? Never mind.
Can we set up “white only” signs or “no Jews allowed” signs? I think your question was answered long ago.
As long as even one person in this world is persecuted for who they are, for being a hamrless, even beneficial member of society that otherwise would never be singled out, too many people are being persecuted. And that’s wrong.
Steve:
Steve, I guess you miss the good ol’ days when we could just burn gays at the stake, along with heretics, witches, jews, hell, anyone we felt deserved to be under the fires of love. Guess you’d love to see the Church gain its rule again over the world…well, it didn’t work in Europe and it won’t work here. Learn from history.
Hey, did you guys see that Ted Haggard is back in the pulpit?
https://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/REL_HAGGARD_RETURNS?SITE=PATOW&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT
Jayelle,
Personally, It bothers me when anyone loses a job, with the exception of Don Imus. That aside, it does present a bit of a quandry for an HR person. I am an accountant, so I don’t do hiring, but if I saw a resume with “Focus on the Family” as a prior job, it would take everything good in me not to put it in the shredder. Maybe we should send letters to James Dobson when we hire these people to show him we have more respect for those who are different than he does.
Steve says:
eHarmony is NOT a religious dating site. The founder is an evangelical Christian, I believe. But in all the controversy, the company never claimed a religious reason for refusing to match gay couples. They simply said they didn’t know if the criteria they had developed to match heterosexuals would work for gay people.
Personally, I don’t really see why anyone would care that much about getting included in eHarmony. However, the fact remains that if you run a “public accomodation,” you cannot discriminate against certain segments of the public.
If eHarmony had defined itself as a Christian dating service, serving only people who subscribed to a certain statement of faith, they actually would have had a better chance of winning this case. But because they presented their business as a public accomodation, open to all, they could not legally refuse service to gay people in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.
This is rather shallow so I’ll probably regret mentioning it at all, but these digest threads are fairly open. Anyone who reads Randy Thomas’ blog will probably know that he has a tendency to express himself through text like a 12 year old girl — lots of “lemmee see” and “just sayin'” and then the one time he actually described with giggly pride how he “fist bumped” someone (yes, he used those words).
Perhaps it is just me and the late hour, but his latest post caused me to laugh out loud and feel a bit creepy all at the same time. I’m gay as pink ink so I guess I’m allowed to say it — that is one of the gayest posts I have seen in a long time. It’s all about how much fun he has chatting it up with his hair dresser, lacking only a debate on if highlights would be too obvious a tell.
I don’t mean to imply there is anything wrong with such a post, but considering the source — the 40 year old VP of the world’s largest ex-gay ministry — wow. Maybe there really is something to this “gays are stunted adolescents” thing.
Now that I’ve given substance to Randy’s opinion of XGW, carry on.
David, when you drive by his blog as often as i do, your eyes fall out of your head from rolling. and there is no blog in the blogosphere that drains my “live and let live” energy more than his.
To Steve,
Those who value their religion over scripture have a right to be mad. For religion to admit to being so publicly, and influentially wrong regarding gays requires a form of humility even it and its followers aren’t presently capable of. And if Huckabee is the Christian he claims, he’d right the wrongs his sword of a toungue has been responsible for. In fact here is an article I wrote in response to statments he made in January of this year:
“I have opponents in this race who do not want to change the Constitution. But I believe it’s a lot easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God. And that’s what we need to do – to amend the Constitution so it’s in God’s standards rather than try to change God’s standards so it lines up with some contemporary view” – Presidential Hopeful: Mike Huckabee
Mr. Huckabee uttered these words amidst a Michigan audience Monday January 14th 2008. I, for one, welcome his statements. They open a door to the scattered debris buried throughout history regarding the “word of the living God” and “changes”. As a result, one might therefore ask…”How would history respond to Huckabee?” “Would it support Huckabee’s claim that it’s ‘easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God?” Let’s consider just two examples.
Approaching the 13th century, the story about Sodom and Gomorrah had already developed a history of being altered. Now, it was officially adopting this more “contemporary view” – one which associated it with homosexuality. Initially, the reasons for those cities’ fate were confined only to the reasons given within Scripture. Not one biblical reference equated the cities with homosexuality. Nor could it, after all, the victims in the Genesis account were not even human. They were materialized angels, or as Jude 7 terms it ‘sarkos heteras’, literally ‘flesh different’.
After the erroneous authorization of homosexuality as one of Sodom’s sins, came defined derivatives of its name: “sodomy”, “sodomize”, “sodomite” – manufactured terms whose influence dates during the 13th century. Ancient ‘New Testament’ records, the Septuagint, and ancient Hebrew texts contain both the Greek and Hebrew words for both “Sodom” and “Gomorrah”. But they do not contain original Greek or Hebrew words for “sodomy”, “sodomize”, “sodomite” or any derivative of the name Sodom. History confirms that it was the ‘traditions of men’ that furthered this misleading addition along with its artificial definitions because according to the “word of the living God’, as some of the earliest manuscripts record it, the term “sodomite” is nowhere to be found. But according to the “word of the living God” as succeeding translators translate it, it’s scattered throughout both the Greek and Hebrew scriptures! This introduced into the text misleading notions and false conclusions. Because the city of Sodom, whose name formulates the word “sodomite”, could now be ‘biblically’ associated with ‘same-sex’ activity. Such an alteration provided a bridge for importing into scripture dishonest ideologies and words such as: “homosexuals”, “homosexual offenders”, “those who practice homosexuality”, and “homosexual perversion” just to quote a few bible ‘translations’.
First Corinthians 6:9 contains two Greek words: ‘malakoi’ and ‘arsenokoitai’. Bibles such as the Wyclif (1508), Young (1898), Interlinear Greek-English New Testament (1958), Jerusalem (English) (1968), New King James (1979), New Jerusalem (1985) and the New Revised Standard (1989), all “change” one of the Greek words, ‘arsenokoitai’, to either “synn of Sodom” or “sodomites”. Others, such as the New World Translation with References (1984) supply a footnoted reference containing “sodomite” to justify its faulty rendition. On the other hand, bibles such as The New American Standard (1963), the New International (1973), the New American Catholic (1987), and the New Living Bible (1996) change ‘arsenokoitai’ to “homosexuals”, “homosexual offenders”, and “practicing homosexuals”. The New King James (1979) opted instead to change the Greek word ‘malakoi’, which literally means ‘soft’, to “homosexuals.”
Some of the editions of the same Bible use entirely different choices for ‘arsenokoitai’. Compare the 1st and 2nd editions of the NIV. Other translations such as The Amplified Version (1958), the New English Bible (1961), Today’s English Version (1966), and the Living Bible (1971) opted to combine both Greek words to render a synthesized phrase involving the word “homosexual” in some form or another.
Even more astonishing is that some translators, while combining both Greek terms to render a reading in 1Cor.6:9, will footnote their reason, then without any explanation, provide the exact reading at 1 Tim. 1:10, where this time, only one of the Greek words ‘arsenokoitai(s)’, is used. The New World Translation with References (1984) allows the addition of the ‘s’ to manipulate its rendition at 1 Tim. 1:10. Not surprisingly, this action goes unreferenced. In fact, study the differences by comparing the two scriptures as translated in The Kingdom Interlinear Translation of the GREEK SCRIPTURES (1985). Still, others such as the NIV (2001) use two different translations for the same word and yet, provide no footnote at either location. This shameful stunt easily goes undetected! Then you have the NET Bible (2005) providing extensive commentary to colorfully excuse its predisposed decisions. It does a savory job creating the illusion of being scholastically conclusive.
While the English word for “homosexual” didn’t come onto the scene until around 1869, the Greeks already had such specific terminologies and employed them (ironically, “sodomite” was not one of them). None of those terms, however, occur in the Genesis, Romans, Corinthians, or Timothy passages as recorded in both the Septuagint, or in modern-day Greek copies of the “New Testament” even as written by such consulted scholars as Wescott and Hort. But as history has shown, with the stroke of a pen, the “word of the living God” ‘can’ be changed, and has been! Albert Mohler, president of the Southern Baptist Seminary in Louisville, KY, publicly justified such a change on his radio program January 2, 2008 by referencing, albeit erroneously, Romans 1, saying “…female-female homosexuality…”, a phrase that passage never contains. Thereby, in Mr. Moher’s view, it paves the way for “homosexual” (‘both’ sexes going after their own sex) to perform as a viable translation for ‘arsenokoitai’, which literally means ‘male-bed’. In fact, take a listen to him for yourself https://albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2008-01-02 within the elapsed times of 26:30 – 30:20 min.
Carelessly, anyone attempting to justify ‘arsenokoitai’ being changed or even compared to homosexual, male or female, has first failed at recognizing the cohesive relationship the Scriptures maintain, and then, simply put, failed to translate! The first red flag should have been the fact that ‘arsenokoitai’, unlike the word “homosexual”, does not bear any reference to females. That’s interesting, especially when one considers that so-called Christians try to co-relate Romans 1 with the 1 Corinthian passage to support their erroneous claim. But despite such an unscriptural effort, a glaring omission inadvertently arises. Because while the Romans passage uses a Greek word translated by most as “likewise” to compare the rebellion of “both” sexes, addressing those women who ‘exchanged’ the natural use of themselves, it’s actually only the men whom the passage records as being ‘burned out’ with lust after one another after ‘leaving’ women. More importantly, however, is that the account in Romans never once uses the term ‘malakoi’ or ‘arsenokoitai’. And by the same respect, neither 1 Corinthians nor 1 Timothy utilize the wording found in Romans 1. Yet, coincidently, the same writer, Paul, wrote all three of these books! In fact, it’s worth noting that not even the early “Church Fathers” used 1 Cor6:9 or the two words found there in conjunction with homosexuality or Romans 1. That dishonest practice had yet to formulate, and it wouldn’t become a part of “Sacred Tradition” until centuries later. All the while, not even the structure of the words themselves ever allowed for such a comparison, this fact even being realized by “modern translators” as early as the penning of the Latin Vulgate which literally interprets ‘arsenokoitai’ as ‘liers with males’.
All along, however, it was the original biblical setting of the Romans 1 passage itself that provided the framework and dimension to Paul’s words found there to give it its perspective; because even history contextualized this passage in association with rampant orgies, bestiality, and idolatrous sexcapades. In fact, even within the Mosaic Law, the Levitical Law Code remained contextually accurate regarding the Canaanite culture of its day by addressing the idolatrous sex rituals its male priests engaged in. Hence, the absence of any reference to females. And the explanation of the Law, also known as the book of Deuteronomy, emphasizes this idolatrous theme by this time warning all of Israel against becoming temple prostitutes and cross-dressing, inturn, keeping itself apart from the pagan practices that lay ahead. So fittingly, Paul’s denunciation in Romans for their ‘passions of dishonor’ is something all Christians, gay, straight, or transgendered, agree with! All of this, however, presents a sharp contrast to the reaction Jesus had towards the faithful centurion who asked that his ‘pais’ be healed; or the interaction between the Gospels and the Ethiopian eunuch (or as some presume to hastily finalize: “court official”).
The fact is, the mess religion has made throughout the ages by being more exacting than the scriptures, and ripping apart text from its context concerning the “issue” of homosexuality is without debate! Even more unfortunate is that such influential people as James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, have chosen to hide such scriptural exploitations, by using terminologies as “the traditional Christian understanding” and “pro-family” to mask the facts. And to make matters worse, the latest trend by many so-called Christian leaders is to pacify their guilty past of distortion by using “compassion” and “love” as their Trojan Horse.
The truth, however, is that the sad consequences of such scribal manipulation are far from innocent, revealing certain aspects of the “Judeo-Christian” alliance to by anything but “pro-family”! The division and discrimination each group has been responsible for throughout every segment of their influence is unparalleled. Many actions and teachings branded with their seal of approval have influenced bible based weaponry and merciless isolation against certain types of individuals all because of their orientation! History well documents how these ones have been tossed out by their families, societies, congregations, and in various cases, themselves. Imagine the constant heartache of being in love with your soul-mate only to believe God is rejecting you as a result. Indeed even the fundamental desire for love and companionship has been trivialized and reduced to merely a tendency to be dealt with! And while a few may appear to, it’s at the peril of giving society false, generalized expectations and simplified conclusions regarding others. Ask yourself, how would all of this make you feel? Regrettably, some, trying to escape the mental torture have been stumbled into denying God and his Word altogether, while many others have sadly went out searching for comfort within the arms of suicide!
But not all “changes” to the “word of the living God” had the veneer of merely being variations of translation. Consider slavery. “What was ‘God’s standard’ regarding that Mr., Huckabee?” According to his statements, any “contemporary view” should be trumped by the “word of the living God”. “Was it?”
The Bible chronicles history throughout the maturity of humanity. So naturally within its pages, one finds the institution of slavery becoming progressively nullified. Prior to Jesus, the regulation of slavery by the Mosaic Law was a relief in comparison to the conditions of societal norm. But with Jesus came the new commandment to ‘love one another just as I HAVE LOVED YOU’. So while in the ‘Old Testament’ its regulated, in the ‘New Testament’ its woven into the background of biblical settings. And it would soon be made clear that there was no distinction between freeman or slave, Jew or Greek, nor male and female in Christ. Thus, escorting the understanding that all, from the womb onward are created equally and should be treated as such. It was this ‘spirit of the law’ that Jesus introduced to those early 1st century Christians, and it was this same law that was to be written upon their hearts.
However, on June 21, 1844, Baptist minister Basil Manly, president of the University of Alabama gave a sermon entitled “National Stability”. In it, he supplied many convincing errors that proved effective at keeping guilt and slavery at opposite ends. Several scriptures were quoted in efforts to give owners justification. He attempted to decorate the institution with Christian principles and accent any benefits slavery provided. His biblical references, in his opinion, projected slavery as a ‘divine ordination’. And in a warped pattern of thought, he reasoned that such an ordination was especially beneficial in that it gave slaves the opportunity to hear the Gospels.
True, during the 1st century, the decay of slavery had yet to be fully excavated from the early Christian congregation. They were still in their formative years! Despite this, Christians were not relieved of their obligation to uphold tenure or to ‘walk two miles when told to walk one’ as Jesus prescribed. Even more so, Christian principles were not off limits. As a result, the bible records Onesimus, himself being converted to Christianity, ultimately heeding Jesus’ example by allowing Paul to return him back to his master. Pastor Manly, however, taught that this and other biblical references implied approval and condoned slavery. As it was, not even a year after his sermon, the Baptists split; and the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) was officially formed on May of 1845.
Illiteracy for slaves was encouraged. It was feared that if God’s word were studied, their liberation would be realized. That seemed like an odd concern if, according to the “word of the living God”, it was sanctioned. Such an apprehension revealed the Southern Baptist’s awareness of what the “word of the living God” was actually communicating. Although the ‘letter of the law’ may have remained unaltered, it was certainly the religious leaders’ ‘spirit of the law’ that was highly tainted. Not surprisingly, Jesus issued a similar indictment against the Pharisees, who too exploited doctrine for personal gain.
The consequences of the SBC’s decision to promote slavery would play a major role in furthering racial relations in America to extreme lows. Their actions would serve as a critical reminder of one of the greatest and simplest commandments expressed by Jesus: “Love your neighbor AS YOURSELF”. More than a century would pass, however, before the Southern Baptist’s organization as a whole would admit any wrongdoing. Hence, in 1995, in a decision referred to as the “Declaration of Repentance”, an apology was officially declared. No longer able to deny the scriptural facts, their conservative, “contemporary view” was finally renounced and regarding slavery, the “word of the living God” had been restored. Such biblical hic-cups, however, would mar the SBC as having a racist and tragic past.
The Constitution, by comparison, denounced slavery nearly 130 years before the SBC’s public apology. And in due course, Jesus, through his perfect example, would confirm that the “word of the living God” never even supported it! Even with its 27 amendments, the Constitution has remained remarkably consistent with its intent as expressed in the Preamble. Amending it entails a two-thirds vote of both the House and the Senate and a three-fourths approval by the States. It ultimately has to win the hearts and minds of a nation before it can altered. Not so with the “word of the living God”. As history unmistakably confirms, by merely having the clout, the committee, and the hope that most will be too uniformed to notice, it most definitely can be changed, with ease and with devastating effects! Such actions are a disgusting insult to human dignity and above all Truth!
Mike Huckabee’s scene in Michigan presented a subtle reminder of the power of prestige and the prestige of power. If a former Baptist preacher hands it out, well then it must be true! His cheerful audience didn’t seem to have a problem with it. History, on the other hand, does. Without a doubt, Huckabee’s statements were a masquerading facade. They veil the un-Christian details of some of the religious rights’ positions and rhetoric, both past and present. The fact is, it’s not “easier to change the Constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God”. Clearly, the “word of the living God” has easily been changed. It is therefore not any surprise to find that in more place than one, its loving Author, aware of the possibility of manipulation, sternly warned against it!
Tru Agape
Copyright 2008
Tru Agape,
I’m a little confused. Are you claiming that there is a copyright on your comments here on ExGayWatch?
No. Sorry for any confusion. Anybody who wants is free to use my comments. It was the article itself that was copyrighted. And it too can be used by anybody. It’s just that if the article is reprinted in it’s entirety, I ask that Tru Agape be acknowledged for its compilation.
The issue of copyright in material posted to internet sites is an interesting one.
In general, copyright in postings to web forums, Blogs, Guestbooks etc, belongs to the author of each posting. A website may have a Legal section establishing different rules however. Amazon, for example, make it clear that in posting reviews on their website, you are assigning the rights in those reviews to Amazon.
An analogy would be a Visitors Book on a table in your home. You are fortunate in having a succession of illustrious writers and artists visiting your home and they make witty poems, drawings and aphorisms in your Visitors Book. In time, it occurs to you that you have a work on your hands that might be worth printing and selling.
But although you own the book itself – the paper and its binding – you do NOT own the original works it now contains. Those works belong to the individuals who wrote or drew them. To reproduce the book, perhaps for sale, you would need the permission of each contributor for his or her work to be used.
I’ve had a quick look for any indication of what the position of this site is – any indication the posting here constitutes assignment of copyright – but I don’t see anything (maybe not looked hard enough!).
That being so, the default position would pertain.
Just wanted to clear up any misunderstandings. Although the article is copyrighted, it is free to be used by anyone without a financial charge of any sort. Jesus made it quite clear that the Truth is free. And it would really hurt me if someone were to mistakenly believe that a profit was required before this article could be shared with anyone and everyone in whatever format deemed desirable. So if you find the article upbuilding, then as far as I’m concerned, by all means, share it!
Tru Agape….
Wow…I copied and saved your post on my computer. It will take some time to go over this and digest all that it contains. I feel so illiterate..lol
Does anyone here have any connections with publishers, or mass, heavily trafficted media of any sort?
(e.g. Newspapers, journals, radio, television, etc?)
I too feel so illiterate and uneducated when reading that sermon from Tru Agape. The posting is superb, excellent, it flies up against all those who hold the opinion as expressed and make the lives of gay people so intolerable. But the time is right NOW for humanity to get educated and STOP their barrage of missiles against gay people. It is very similar to Israel vs Gaza, Israeli vs Hamas. Israel wants to stop Hamas, Gay People want to stop the disparagement, insane comments, criticisms, judgements, condemnation, et.al., coming from the right wing and those who refuse to accept that gay people are PEOPLE first, and their sexual preference and choice is their own business, and to leave us alone. We do not disparage str8s by saying “look at that heterosexual” using a tone of utter disgust, and in the same manner we expect the same respect they demand from us.