In Brief: Young Evangelicals Increasingly Accepting of Homosexuality
August 18th, 2008
Citing the Pew Forum, Newsweek writes that views about hot-button issues are cooling somewhat on evangelical campuses, including those about homosexuality.
Young evangelicals are far more accepting of gay and lesbian lifestyles than their parents are: 34 percent of evangelicals between 18 and 29 think homosexuality “should be accepted,” compared with 24 percent of those from 50 to 64…
As I reflect on the recent firing of a friend from his job at a conservative Christian school because he is gay and in a monogamous relationship, I can’t help but hope this change accelerates.
Categories: Discrimination, Education/Youth
Pastor you are WAY out of your league:
Rape is rape, it has no sexual orientation. Rape is not about sex, it’s not about love, it’s not about consent, it’s about power and humiliation. So their rape was not “homosexual” as it had nothing to do with homo or heterosexual. In both the primate kingdom, and in man’s past males rape males as an act of power and humiliation — it’s the same motivation for raping women.
All aspects of their behavior clearly form part of the Lord’s problem with Sodom? So you’re suggesting that what they did as well as how they did it are all part of what condemned them? Wait, no you’re suggesting ALL of the things they did were the reasons why they were condemned. You really want to go with an absolute like that? The men spoke their demands, therefore god hates speech. It would also indicate God hates language as well, possibly also vocal cords, lips, and tongues. God must also hate the specific words used by the men of Sodom. The men refused to rape two girls, therefore God hates those who will not rape. I’m sure there are other aspects not mentioned in the story which also condemned them such as their haircuts, clothing, jobs, hygiene, and eating habits. What a problem for us! All these aspects condemned them yet we only know of a few!
Or, we could stop with the interpretation and look at what is the sin of sodom, laid plain as day here:
Ezekiel 16:49-49: “This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy.”
Notice it says “this was the guilt” not “this was some of the guilt” or “this was part of the guilt”. This was the guilt. Nothing about sex in there, nothing about rape, even “homosexual rape”. There it is, plain, simple, direct, no need to interpret, no need to try to figure it out. The Sin of sodom was that they were proud and affluent yet didn’t help out their common man. In other words, they didn’t “love thy neighbor”.
“But if God is judging our sexuality then he is not worthy of my worship or love if I will be judged according to whom I love which happens to be someone of the same sex”
Ken: I recognize that you may be befuddled by the Church, but this is the kind of statement that, for the life of me, this Pastor will never understand. For if God be God, then surely He can judge as He sees fit, since His is the only truly objective oversight. If someone says “God is not worthy of my worship, if…”, I already think: “this guy’s missed the point about the nature of God.”
More pointedly, perhaps, this kind of statement tells me that a man is already worshiping his own ego more than he is worshiping anything else. You might as well add (and I mean this jokingly) “…so help me, Me” at the end of the statement.
As for why does “my side” not do something about divorce, I would say that we are. No pastor I know is sitting here saying, “we think divorce is morally right”. In fact, in any given year, most pastors are probably counseling against it, and preaching about the tragedy of it all. I agree with you, Ken, that it is a huge threat against the stability of family. We’ve become very “consumerish” about a lot of things in Western society, marriage not the least. As for whether it garners enough attention, maybe it doesn’t. But if and when people begin to boast in their serial marriages, you can bet that there will be some Christian, somewhere, who will say “enough of that!”
But I also want to respond to this statement of yours, Ken, if I may: “Yes we do (hate the judgement placed on gay people), specially when that judgment is coming from so called followers of Christ that believe our sexuality is chosen”
I would tend to argue that Christians who believe that your sexuality is truly chosen are acting completely out of their integrity, based upon the assumptions they bring to the table. The essence of the problem does not lie, per se, in Scripture. The problem is that somebody’s theory is wrong. If homosexuality IS immutably genetically determined, then I understand your point and your anguish, utterly and completely. But I also observe that sixty years of sexual research has not yielded that conclusion. Moreover, if homosexuality is not immutably genetically determined, then you’re going to have to cut religious folks some slack. They are making an important contribution to the ethical and moral debate.
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
Jason: If that was the only Biblical witness to the problems of Sodom in Scripture, then you might have a point. But, of course, when things degenerate, they really degenerate, and this chapter in Ezekiel (which is likewise loaded with the language of sexual degeneration, both metaphorical and literal), is not the only reference point for the problems inherent with Sodom.
Grace to you, in Christ,
David MacKenzie
David M, Somehow I knew you were going to find a loophole. Answer me this, if sexual sin was so inportant to the destruction of Sodom, why was it left out of this passage that purports to list the exact sins of Sodom? Merely saying “well it says different somewhere else” now sets the book against itself. Now do you see why people leave Christianity? The book is a confusing mess.
Don’t think I didn’t notice that you dodged my point about your “all aspects” claim.
Thank you Jason and Ken. I wrote very similar thoughts, but inadvertently erased them, and just ran out of time to deal with it. but I do have a few thoughts, then I have no more time to deal with the certainty of the fundamentalist mindset. It just wears me out.
The Pastor wrote: The truth is that you will find ALL kinds of people throughout history misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting the Bible, including yourself.
I don’t ‘use’ the bible as anything but a means to an intellectual end. I certainly use it neither as a weapon, a moral guide, or a map to the cosmos. If I actually thought it was the word of G, I would give it far more credence. But it clearly is not. But what you say here is EXACTLY my point. All kinds of people, as you say. My experience is that people who use the bible to condemn and oppress gay people are just those kinds of people. I’ve already gone on about that. I won’t repeat myself.
My question to you is: how do you know that your not one of ‘those’ people? After all they were just as certain as you are. You have only the benefit of history, not foresight. Jesus was specifically speaking to such as you when he said “look not for the speck”.
The Pastor wrote: You hate the judgment placed upon you as a gay person.
YOU BET I DO– especially when it comes from people who are specifically enjoined by the person they allegedly revere most from DOING JUST THAT!!! Jesus was far more clear and specific on judging not than this alleged reference to homosexuality in Sodom. (Thanks again, Jason). As I keep pointing out, the only way you get a condemnation of homosexuality out of the Sodom story is to interpret and nuance the hell out of it. It’s called hermeneutics– the fine art of getting the bible to say what you want it to.
It’s also called BS. You have yet to address the substantive points put to you. The Sodom story is about homosexuality only because YOU believe it its, and you will deny all evidence and reason to keep asserting it.
The Pastor wrote: But I also observe that sixty years of sexual research has not yielded that conclusion. Moreover, if homosexuality is not immutably genetically determined, then you’re going to have to cut religious folks some slack.
You are being dishonest here, at the least. It may not be immutable– in a world where carpenters can be resurrected, anything is possible– and it may not be genetic, but that question is still open– but it has certainly been show to be deeply and unconsciously inherent, not subject to change, present throughout history, cultures, and the animal kingdom. Just like heterosexuality.And that is without a doubt.
Or you could just gather your own evidence by actually listening to the stories that gay people have to tell– and not just the ones that wanna be straight– instead of coming to us to tell us what is wrong with us.
And no, I’m not going to cut religious people some slack. They have been getting slack cut for them for centuries despite as you call it, their “misunderstandings”– and oppression, and murders, and hate, a discriminatory laws, political campaigns, wars, witchhunts and self-serving hypocritical morality–for starters. Just because they are sincerely mistaken (as in willfully ignorant) does not change the fact that they are mistaken and do tremendous damage to people who have done them no harm. When in doubt, above all, do no harm. And given the willful ignorance, I am rarely willing to believe that it is sincere. Your refusal to acknowledge that there is a difference between the rape described in Sodom and what we understand as homosexuality is a case in point. As I said earlier, if you can’t understand the difference, then you are in no position to be telling anyone lese about their morals.
If religion wants to be respected, then maybe it needs to start acting respectably.
David MacKenzie:
Please refrain from speaking as if you speak for the entire Christian community or that your interpretation of the Sacred Scriptures is the only accurate interpretation.
You mention that God hates divorce, but you fail to mention that Jesus allows divorce in the case of “fornication.” (The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 5:32). There is also the “Paulian Exception” for divorce – that of a believer married to a non-believer (Epistle to the Corinthians I; 7:15 – 1 Corinthians 7:15).
Why is it that those who seek to know the truth about what scripture has to say are marked as the “political and religious left?” Were it not for a “leftist” like Galileo, we’d still believe that the earth had four corners because according to the Apocalypse:
“After these things, I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth.” (Apocalypse – St. John 7:1 – Revelation 7:1)
Were it not for the “leftists” of the North (USA) before, during, and after the Civil War, slavery would still be considered sanctioned by God.
Were it not for the “leftists” who discovered in Scriptures that there were deaconesses, and that there is evidence women played a larger role in the early Church, there would be no female ministers or priests.
Were it not for “leftists” scientists who studied the human body under penalty of death, most of us would not be alive today- destroyed by the simplist of diseases.
Then why didn’t God wait until the English language came around until he had a book written about him/her?
My first language is Spanish, and I can guarantee you, English is the most messed up language on the planet. It is the most confusing language for anyone to learn. No other language has had more revisions and overhaul translations of the Bible than English because it is a language that is constrantly mutating and changing.
That’s why the Roman Church has kept its documents in Latin precisely because the language does not change. Even in Spanish, I could read documents from Shakespearean times and understand 90% of it. But an average American can only grasp 40% of a Shakespearan play written in Elizabethan English (and I am being generous on that).
When one reads the copies of the originals or the Latin translations of the originals of Scripture, it is a totally different picture than reading the Bible in English and depending on the translators’ prejudices and judgements.
I am not befuddled by the Church in general. I am befuddled by the earthly church on how they come to the conclusions they do. And all the wars committed in the Lord’s name and all the while claiming to do the “perfect” will of God. It is not God’s will they do these things but their own will they have grafted unto God and then turn around and claim it is his will we do them.
I do not worship an ego or myself. I was referring to your, You hate the judgement placed upon you as a gay person, since I and many other gays believe it is not chosen then why would God judge us and condemn us to hellfire on something we did not chose? That would be rather cruel of God that is suppose to be a perfect and holy judge would it not? So I have come to the conclusion that it is man that is judging gay people. Not God. And this is because of a certain sect of Christians that worship the erroneous belief of biblical inerrancy and their refusal to read the bible in context and in the time it was written that has caused the great suffering not of only gay people but those that have been marginalized by biblical teachings (Jews, blacks and women).
Dear Jason:
The same Jesus who, in context, says “Judge not” also says “Judge for yourself” in context. The Church was never meant to be silent on moral issues, but somehow people from yourself to Oprah don’t seem to get this one correct. I would submit that there is NO point to ANY of this Blog (and a million others) if we are all intended by God to be silent on moral and spiritual issues. This is a beyond a mistake; it is a current cultural abuse of the Bible.
I am empowered, in fact, by the Lord to exercise discipline in the Church by virtue of my calling in Christ Jesus: “what you bind on earth, shall be bound in heaven”. Or, “if you retain the sins of any, they are retained.”
This discussion, therefore, is extremely important, so let’s not just retreat to the fall back position of some lame and incorrect interpretation of “judge not”, which would surely indict both you and I if we were to examine the topic objectively.
Grace to you,
David MacKenzie
Mr. MacKenzie, since others have already eloquently listed some of the ways gays and lesbians are marginalized, I’ll point back to their examples as ones I would definitely have brought up earlier as an answer to your question.
***
As for one of your more recent points, why should we cut religious folks some slack because research hasn’t proven their position to be wrong? Since when does religion respond to research? Please don’t insult my intelligence by pretending that the religious folks who are convinced by their Bibles that we are second class will suddenly start viewing gays and lesbians as human because some scientist or researcher publishes a study. Since when does dogma ever yield to reason without a struggle or a long period of time passing? Consider that the Church took centuries to apologize to Galileo. Consider that it took Southern Baptists decades after the end of slavery to finally up and admit that it was wrong to support it. You say religious people make an important contribution to the debate, well you’ve got that right, they keep the debate going and keep the fires of intolerance hot by fueling the debate with their assumptions.
David MacKenzie:
Again, you need to specify that it is your interpretation of that scriptural passage and not of the whole Christian community.
For those of us who are Orthodox (Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Angelican, Syric, Coptic), the passage is Christ giving the power to forgive sins on earth and to define doctrines, first to Peter, then likewise to all the apostles, the first bishops of the Church. So unless you were ordained by a bishop and can trace the line of bishops back to the original apostles, Orthodox Christians, such as myself, would find your interpretation that you are “empowered” to be inaccurate.
The question of judging is not of making decisions as to what is right or wrong, it is one acting as if they were God and doing what only God can do – and that is to judge our hearts.
As St. Paul says,
“Let us not therefore judge one another any more. But judge this rather, that you put not a stumblingblock or a scandal in your brother’s way.” (Epistle to the Romans 14:13).
The Church must also not pick and choose which moral issues it wants to tackle and which ones it will throw to the wayside because it wants to look good. And by focusing on homosexuality (as if it is a moral issue at all) it has turned away from the true moral issues taught by Christ that need to be addressed by the Church.
While there are tons of anti-gay churches showering money for anti-gay campaigning, that money could be going to do what Christ commanded the church to do. Christ commanded us to feed the poor, cloth the naked, comfort those in sorrow. He didn’t say “comdemn the faggots!” And if your Bible says that I suggest you learn Hebrew, Greek, Latin, and Syric and read the scriptures as they were written and read in the early Church.
How many times is feeding the poor, clothing the naked, taking care of the widow, caring for the orphans, visiting those in prison…how many times are those mentioned by Christ alone, let alone the Bible as a whole? How many saints in the history of the Church dedicated themselves to doing the works of charity Christ commanded us to do? Now compare all that to how many times Christ said “Change the homosexual,” or “deny the homosexual rights,” and compare that to how many times the Bible as a whole mentions “homosexuality” and compare that to the history of the church… how many saints dedicated their lives to eradicating homosexuality? Of the thousands upon thousands of saints declared by the Church not one has ever devoted his or her life soley or in part to eradicating homosexuality.
The true Church is NOT silent on moral issues because it knows the TRUE moral issues are the ones Christ taught, NOT the ones created and thought up as evil by modern day Bible-Only Christians.
When the Son of Man shall come in his majesty, and all the angels with him, then shall he sit upon the seat of his majesty. All nations shall be gathered together before him, and he shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on his left. Then shall the king say to them that shall be on his right hand, “Come, you who are blessed of my Father, and possess the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. I was hungry and you gave me food; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you covered me; sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.”
The just will then answer him, saying,” Lord, when did we see you hungry and fed you? thirsty and gave you drink? When did we see you as a stranger and took you in? or naked and covered you? When did we see you sick or in prison and came to you?”
The king answering, shall say to them, “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”
(The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 25:31-40)
It does not say, at least in the Latin Vulgate nor the Greek versions of the Scriptures …
“I was a homosexual and you changed me into a heterosexual,” or “I was a homoseuxal and you made sure I would not have any legal rights.”
Since you are a Christian pastor, I highly recomend you study the Gospels; they can be a real help in understanding what Christianity is all about.
(I’m jumping in on this one, so forgive me if I get the context wrong)
Correct, but when “judge not lest ye be judged” is used, its meant (or at least is supposed) to convey the meaning of ‘judge not arbitrarily – lest ye be judged arbitrarily.’
I think that most of us here can agree that if we were bad people, doing bad things, and hurting others, that we should be judged accordingly. Therefore, “judge not,” would not apply in those circumstances.
–
But if you REALLY want to get Christian about it, we shouldn’t judge “bad” people who do “bad” things either! Sure, I may “judge” someone with a baseball bat who’s trying to harm my family, but at that point, the “judgment” is about protecting my family, not about intending to harm anyone.
My point being, it’s not about “judging” or “not judging,” it’s about about what measure do we use to judge.
David MacKenzie: “Anyway, one could go on, but suffice it to say my presence here is not to avoid any issue.”
I’m sorry, was this question answered or did I miss it? (I admit, I haven‘t read the entire thread (you people are way too wordy : ), but I don’t believe this question has even been answered since I asked it.):
Emproph: “And just how exactly is one supposed to “repent” of loving someone?”
My point being, David, who is being harmed that makes it a “sin?” — whether or not the creator of all that is (God), truly does deem ‘homosexuality’ a sin.
Or does your concept of sin not include the need for discernable harm? If so, are you arguing against a “sin” for which you see no discernable harm?
(BTW, gang rape doesn’t count)
If YOUR concept of sin does not require proof of discernable harm, then it would seem that you worship a God who defines sin arbitrarily.
At which point, whatever authority of the Bible you claim, is wasted on the understanding that God itself has no standard for and/or of sin-badness.
Clearly you don’t believe this.
My point being, it’s not about what you consider to be the FACT that God condemns homosexuality, it’s about WHY and HOW.
If God is love, and our love is REAL (and you know what I mean by that, and if you don‘t, say so), then how can the recipients of that love (given to them, to be shared with each other, by God) be “sinning,” simply by accepting it?
You can claim that you know for certain that our love is sinful bad and evil all you like, but until you can show HOW and WHY it is, your words fall on deaf ears. And so far, as far as I can tell, rightfully so.
Long story short, all it seems that you’re doing is saying that something’s bad, without showing the bad part.
As ugly and disgusting as it may seem (gay rights, gay marriage (based on disgusting disgusting gay-sex (intimacy) of course), etc.), I think it’s a fair enough question to ask, what really is it that you and/or God feel that is the “bad” part?
Good God, this is exactly why XGW attempts to avoid such post strings.
We’re here for one reason : our page watcher picked up “DM” (a person we ARE happy to catch up with), but sadly it turned out only to be an abbreviation of the name of an anti-gay evangelical pastor from Cowsplat, Alberta.
(Remind to self: never sign off your blog post the same way all the time … it makes it too easy for others to google you)
What We did find remarkable, and somewhat telling was a slight variation on the sign-off. QED : “Nonetheless, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ
Nonetheless??? Nonetheless… of what??? I’m so glad it is for Pastor David MacKenzie to decide who does and who does not receive the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ. Because none are more qualified to assume that position.
Too telling.
Even if one hadn’t bothered to seek out that “welcoming” shop-front Church in Alberta, or the “loving” attitudes expressed elsewhere. Dime a Dozen, are they not?
And this reminds us, on a more useful note: it’s about time we popped over and said hi to the real (and really gracious) “DM”. We’ve got to warn her how much evil is in the laugh of a 16 year old daughter who sees photos of her mum (and uncles) from before she was born. Hey… it was the 80′s: ‘everyone’ had a poodle perm. And pleated jeans. Die. Of. Shame.
The difference, my dear emproph, is this: the difference between morality and ethics.
Morality is simply a set of rules: this is good, that is bad. There need be no rationale, demonstration of harm, consistency, principle, or anything like that about it. Thus you have to ‘morality’ of the bible. The OT G consistently behaves very badly. even my 6 year old nephew, when i told him about G ‘hardening pharaoh’s heart, cried: “That’s not fair.”
Ethics flows from a set of principles. The basic one is this, in the immortal words of Mammy Yokum (and yes, I am showing my age). “Good is better than evil becuase it’s nicer.”
The Pastor (sorry, I’m not a sheep, probably why I’m not buying his product) subscribes to morals only,, and all his statements flow towards supporting that morality, consequences, logic, consistency, and fact be damned. That’s why for him, the world is sinful and fallen and we all need salvation. That’s why the ‘rules’ are so important, because without them, we would no longer need salvation, and then he would have to go out and get a real job.
Our statements from from ethics, as did the best of Jesus. ‘Do as you would be done by’ and ‘judge not lest ye be judged’ are highly ethical principles, and extremely moral in the best sense of the word. I don’t think I’m perfect, but i don’t see any evil, or even all that much bad, in myself and 90% of the people I know. When I do anything, to the degree I can be conscious and conscientious, I make sure that I am making my life better, the lives of people around me better.
Morality as defined by the my-way-or-hell crowd does not require nuance, knowledge, openess, or greatness of spirit. It merely demands what is required of all sheep– folow your pastor– excuse me, shepherd. Salvation is a requirement in that world, because it is defined by what is allegedly wrong, not by what is right.
An evangelical friend of mine (incidentally, quite pro-gay) once asked me if I wasn’t desirous of salvation. My response was this: “Salvation is of no use to me. If G would condemn ME to hell, then there is no help for anyone. and if hell is a demonstration of how much he loves us, then he and I have vastly different ideas of love.”
Who are you responding to here? I didn’t mention the “judge not” passage, nor did I mention anything about the church being silent on moral issues. Go ahead, do a “find on this page” search, you’ll find the word “judge”, but you won’t find me saying anything that has to do with your response.
I do see, however, that you’re still avoiding the implications of your “all aspects” claim. But that’s okay, I figured you’d avoid the issue in the hopes I would drop it. Just as you are avoiding other people’s questions.
But that’s the stock and trade for your side of this debate: Give an overly simplistic and ridiculous justification for bigotry and then ignore any issues that arise as a consequence of such “logic”. You’re not interested in debate, you’re certainly not interested in understanding us or our side, you’re merely interested in conversion. No sale.
We’ve strayed very far off topic and I apologize to XGW for my part in that. In short, David, you only have to read your own words in this thread to find out why Young Evangelicals are Increasingly Accepting of Homosexuality.
David MacKenzie said:
I’ve been patiently waiting to see if this was just a thin excuse to avoid addressing my questions, something which now seems likely. Again, I answered yours thoughtfully and in short order. I also mentioned that participation here requires adherence to certain basic guidelines, one of which is to not ignore the reasonable questions of another commenter in the discussion.
Now that you have had three days to consider at least one of my simple questions, please respond to it and the others I asked before you continue with any other comments here. This is only fair, both to me, and to others who operate under the same rules of civility.
Dear Folks:
If you keep mentioning a certain issue, I don’t have any problem coming back to it. But I did want to personally respond to Grantdale. I am a Pastor. And I am from Alberta: Devon (not “Cowsplat”), Alberta, in fact, but I am not the person that you linked with. I don’t know that person, nor that site.
I have certainly left messages in various blogs across the web in response to a whole host of things, and I’ve always used my real name because I believe transparency and accountability to be important.
So, go ahead and Google the name “Pastor David MacKenzie”.
I’ll make it easier for you, in fact:
Here’s my Home sight: http://www.regencychurch.com
Here’s my Pro-life site: http://www.babiesbreath.ca
Here’s my Prayer Mountain site: http://www.prayermountain.ca
Here’s my (just being built) Faith stories site: http://www.connnectingthe.ca
As for the “Die. of. Shame.” comment, I’ll ignore that, and just say…
Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
Pastor David MacKenzie
I actually have no problem with the “Church” (as if there is just ONE) speaking out on moral (However that might be defined) issues, though I would certainly disagree that they have any moral monopoly.
The issue for me is a simple one: keep it with in the four walls of your church, becuase those are the people that subscribe to your beliefs. Keep it out of public discourse because I’m not a member of your church, and I will fight against sanyone who says my right to live my life as I see fit (barring harm to others) can be limited by THEIR religious beliefs. The minister who married my husband and me is not a member of your church, either. He believes love is never a sin, but the expression of G’s presence on earth.
In our ocuntry, it’s called the separation of vchurch and state.
David MacKenzie,
Thank you. It was about time. I sometimes wonder what you people think “full and honest disclosure” means — but then I remember those like you have long known you need to recruit by stealth.
The “DM” we linked to is not you. Never thought she was. Never said she was. She’d call us an idiot if we thought you were her. FYI, dear ol’ DM is well known by many at this site. Possibly even “beloved” by some. Even us. (DM we hope you did not snort your warm cocoa up your nose at these comments, and hope you weren’t doing a 3am feed at the time.)
Also cannot imagine why you would want to ignore the “Die.In .Shame” comment — particularly as it was only directed at some seriously gravity and taste defying fashions of the 1980′s… but that’s your choice.
Personally we never accepted, and therefore never needed to reject, acid wash jeans, 3-Quarter pant or wicked perms. Brides should only wear “gip” under pain of death. Seriously.
I’m not sure where Devon, Alberta currently lies in regards to any of these evils … but … Don’t.Do.Them. Reject them as a ploy of Satan.
Trust me on this: Sodom was actually destroyed because it was a gated community and imposed a “Grey and Salmon” colour scheme long after their neighbours had seen the error in that sort of lifestyle.
I’d also like to know a little more about your qualifications Paster David MacKenzie. Your site is a little, urgh, scant. To be blunt, if your “about me” was a swinsuit it would be banned in 28 states of America. Even in Boston.
David MacKenzie,
I don’t think grantdale’s “die of shame” comment had anything to do with you and was a figure of speech about 80s hair and clothing styles. Your future comments will be moderated until you can do me the courtesy of responding to my questions.
Dear Ben:
The minister that married you and your partner probably is no different, on some level, than I am. If he believes that God’s love is meant to be “on earth”, then he doesn’t share your apparent belief that God’s love is meant for the four walls only of church buildings. So, obviously, he is concerned with Kingdom things, just like I am. I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.
You may not agree with people like me. But people like me (and not unlike you) are going to continue to question “what actions are right”, “what lifestyle is holy”, and they are not wrong for drawing conclusions about these things that the world needs to reckon with. For, if values are of value (even those of the gay community), then they are valuable in general, not simply in some mere ghettoized, contextual sense. Likewise, the implications of Christ have always gone far beyond the Church; if they don’t, then one has to wonder what the point of all the Kingdom talk is that Jesus clearly uses.
For the record, the separation of church and state was a concept first coined by a non-conformist Christian Pastor, who never meant it for the purposes of silencing religious debate or shuffling Christian belief to the cultural sidelines, but rather for the purposes of keeping an Established Church (denomination), like the Church of England, from being the sole means of political advancement within the American colonies, and for allowing for the honest operation of individual conscience.
Now, I recognize (along with others) that this string is now well beyond its original focus. And I have to confess I barely even understand Grantdale at this point in time. So, I think I will bid you all farewell. It’s been interesting stepping into your Blog.
Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ,
David MacKenzie
And there you have it. To avoid responding to the other side of a discussion, just ignore the questions being put to you. That’s quite a sleazy tactic, especially for one who would claim himself to be a leader in the church, Mr. MacKenzie. And congratulations on giving readers one more disappointing example of what so often passes as a Christian in this country. With that kind of witness, you would do less harm by simply staying quiet, no?
At least you have your tag line, that makes it all better.
I’m really busy today, and I don’t have much time for writing. David your remark was right on.
Pastor, I have SO many problems with what you wrote, and it is so wrong on so many levels.
I never said I though that G’s love was meant for the walls of a church only. Actually, I commented on the fundamentalist’s need to try to capture G’s love between the covers of a book– or within the walls of a church. but you see, there is a REALLY big difference between G’s love and your religious beliefs. You seem to think they are the same, which says a lot more about you and your conception of G’s limitations–excuse me, love– then many people’s ideas about it. Roman’s 1:23, which I have already recommended to you, and which I am sure you will insist plainly does not mean what it plainly means, is a good place for you to start.
You wrote: I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.”
We have VERY VERY different ideas of love. You idea of love is spreading the your conception of the gospel to the poor sinners out there– whether they are interested or not, without knowing whether they have already heard it and accepted it–or rejected it. In short, with knowing nothing about their spiritual state or how G sees them– or anything about them at all. In short, it’s all about you, and not about the people you allegedly love. And that’s not love, it’s narcissism.
Sally Kern, and a host of other good Christians, are all happy to tell me how much they love me, and then follow it up with the ‘cancer on society’ comments and the whole vicious panoply of anti-gay, homophobic, lying rants. They will tell me how much they love me right before they tell me how much they hate my child-molesting, disease spreading, country-destroying, religion-despising, marriage-compromising, military demoralizing ways. Sorry, if that’s love, I prefer hatred. At least it doesn’t assume I’m so stupid that I can’t tell the difference.
I never said you hated me, or that saying no equals hatred. But saying no on questions of this nature– well, I have a lot of problems with it. First and foremost, it is NONE of your goddamned and goddamning business– not my sex life, not the state of my soul, not my relationship to G, not my sins real or imagined, not your business, not your church’s business, not your god’s business (mine and yours disagree heartily), and not the government’s business.
You say you are entitled to say NO based upon YOUR religious beliefs (which you have admitted in this space could be mistaken), beliefs which I and a LOT of other people do not share, whether on the nature of homosexuality or G’s message to the world. But funny, you don’t usually makes campaigns against other religious beliefs– that would be so middle ages of you. Muslims, of course, excepted. But you (generic) feel free to do that to gay people on a regular basis. I don’t know if my marriage, which I assure you means far more to me than it does to you, will exist on November 4, thanks to people who, like you, know nothing about homosexuality, my soul,or my life– or their book– but still presume to tell me that I am not entitled to the same treatment in society that they are. In fact, the treatment I am entitled to is quite a bit different, and not in a good way, than the treatment they accord themselves. It’s called the myth of heterosexual superiority in service to the reality of heterosexual privilege.
You say you are entitled to say NO when you clearly know little about the subject (other than the precious little that your book allegedly says on the alleged subject), and NOTHING about me, my experiences, my life, my beliefs, and yes, MY homosexuality– we’re not really alike, despite your assumption that our ‘sin’ defines us so.
And here, pastor, is the crux of the issue. When you tell me you love me, it means vastly different things to each of us, as I have already elaborated. You– and again, this is a generic ‘you’– tell me you love me. Yet you advocate that laws be passed against, my intimate sexual behavior. You advocate that I can be fired from my job for that reason– not for anything I’ve actually done, but for who I am. You advocate against inclusion in hate crimes laws, because my sin deserves to be hated. You encourage me to get into a lifetime of pain and suffering, trying to change something that not only is almost always immutable, but doesn’t need to be changed. You tell me the finest part of me is evil, sick, and wrong. You tell me I am a danger to myself, society, the world, health, family, children and faith. You tell the most vicious lies about me, and doctor statistics to make it look like you are right when you are not, and casually makes statements that believers will change their views as soon as the evidence is in. The evidence has been in for quite a while, and they don’t give a good goddamn.
(This is for you personally: For most of this discussion, the evidence has been in for you to look at, and you have made it clear you have no interest in it. As a man of g, you already know everything that is necessary.)
And the weirdest thing about this– (back to generic) you actually seem to believe that if I only turn straight, or I pretend I’m straight, or convince you I’m straight– all of the rest of that lying garbage you believe is true about me…wait for it… simply disappears!
Going on. You pass laws against my marrying the person I love because you believe such love is WRONG. You get rights I don’t get for your luck in being hetero. My life, my happiness simply is not on your radar. Britney and Jason had more rights for the 15 drunken hours that they were married than do my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years. You blame me for the terrorist attacks committed by other committed fundamentalists of a different faith.
You literally demonize me. “Cast out the demon of homosexuality.” is something we’ve read on these pages.
This time I am speaking to YOU. You may tell me you love me, but the rhetoric and the religious belief is exactly the same as the generic you I have already addressed above. And I would be willing to bet that you do not believe my marriage can and should be valid, and would vote to “disappear” it if you had the opportunity, all in the name of loving me but hating my sin..
As far as I can tell, that “love’, the “rhetoric”, that “religious belief” is completely indistinguishable from the hatred of the Sally Kerns of the world.
So I prefer the hatred, because it is honest.
And it does not confuse its disapproval with the moral right to make my life as difficult and unpleasant as possible, all in the name of loving me and hating my sin.
Again.
Great post, Ben! Wow.
and it should be noted that I am not the same Jason that married Britney spears.
Thanks, Jason. I owe the words “heterosexual privilege” to you. It was what I felt. And I think it is an accurate description of the situation. Actually, I really feel a rant coming on, but I don’t think I am going to do it tonight. But I will try to do it tomorrow. Get ready to rant-and-roll.
I’m a man of god. I know things. i read the bible. i don’t have to actually Read the bible, as in reading it. It is enough that i know what it says. And on and on and on with the smug, self-rightous crap, the superior smile, the self-serving morality.
And the things that pisses me off the most? The I love you crap. I have a strong need to bitch-slap the good pastor back to last Tuesday. Maybe it will get him to think a little.
You know, I really do feel a rant coming on. and this is the comment that set it off:
“I also submit that just because I may believe that homosexual acts are wrong, it doesn’t mean I don’t care about homosexual people. Not all love says “yes”; all that says “no” does not necessarily mean hatred.”
But when the practical effects of your love and your care– and the political, cultural, religious and social agendas that your commitment to ‘love’ requires you also to commit to– is indistinguishable from the effects of the ‘no’s”, the ‘disapproval’, and the hate, then I might just lack the subtlety to be able to tell the difference.
So get ready to rant and roll. Here’s the title:
YOU WOULD RATHER….
You would rather bend and twist scripture, which you believe is the word of G, to fit your very narrow religious and political agenda , than to admit that the seven or so extremely ambiguous passages allegedly condemning gay people are no where near as clear as the 250 or so passages governing hetero behavior.
You would rather tear down the wall of separation between church and state that protects the religious freedom of everyone, than allow gay people to live their lives free of your religious bigotry –excuse me, your ‘love’ and ‘concern’..
You would rather that children who have been abused and neglected by their hetero parents be transferred from institution to group home to foster home to institution, rather than be kept in the foster homes of people you disapprove of, but with whom you have no factual or actual beef, other than that they exist. After all, it’s for the children.
You would rather that American soldiers die for lack of intelligence information that could be provided by Arabic and Farsi translators, rather than let gay people serve their country in the military, whether in the closet or openly and proudly.
You would rather that young men die of a fatal disease that is fairly easily prevented, rather than give them non-judgmental, factual information about how they can protect themselves. After all, they are just fags receiving the ‘just penalty for their error.’ If they didn’t persist in their sin, they wouldn’t have the problem.
You would rather that children be taunted, beaten, and ostracized for real or perceived sexual orientation or gender non-conformity, than include sexual orientation in anti bullying bills. Gotta stop that gay agenda where it counts– with the kids. After all, bullying is normal and natural, just like heterosexuality, and those kids need to learn that they have no value, and no adult will rescue them if they continue to deliberately transgress what your sadistic idea of the god of love has so clearly told them they must not do– if only they could read your book, and understand it with the finesse that you do. After all, spare the rod, spoil the child, n’est-ce pas? This is a fabulous example of that. Wouldn’t want those kids to turn out gay, or think that they are worthwhile human beings,.
You would rather believe that the bullying directed at children is the result of, not the validation of, attitudes like yours. Nevertheless, you’re ‘there’ for the kids. T though where ‘there’ is — that’s entirely open to question.
You would rather pretend that the story of Sodom is a clear condemnation of all homosexuality, thereby allowing you to conflate the relationship of two people who love and support each other throughout their lives with the threatened gang rape of two strangers, than admit that there just might be a difference between them. After all, they’re both wrong, so they must be the same.
You would rather that young men die of a highly preventable fatal disease, rather than affirm that marriage and monogamy are positive values for gay people, and ought to be encouraged for them. but bonus points here. Because you do everything in your power to degrade and destroy and prevent gay people from having normal , healthy lives and normal , healthy relationships, you then get to disparage those gay people (usually gay men) who express their sexuality in unhealthy ways and for not having normal lives and normal relationships, all the while completely denying the existence or the relevance of those who do. It’s a win-win situation– for you.
You would rather that children spend their lives in an orphanage or some third world hellhole, dying for a home, dying for parents (of whatever gender) that love them, or maybe just literally dying. After all, every child deserves a mother AND a father, and they are better off dead that adopted by gay people.
You would rather believe, despite all evidence to the contrary, that gay people cannot be good parents in every sense of the word, preferring to believe that every child deserves a mother and a father. I think we can CERTAINLY argue that. Ask any kid who has been abused, beaten, thrown out, or born addicted, or born to parents who didn’t want him, or weren’t prepared for him, or have their own emotional issues.
You would rather believe that a gay woman makes a lousy father, and a gay man a lousy mother, than give said gay people credit for being caring and conscious human beings. I can tell you, a lot of real fathers and mothers make LOUSY fathers and mothers.
You would rather rant on and on about the threat of gay marriage to heterosexual marriage, tell any lie, cook any statistics, rather than do anything at all about the mess that straight people have made of marriage. It’s all because the queers are getting married.
You would rather grant 25,000 moral waivers to convicted felons and cripple our national security, than allow upstanding, talented, patriotic gay people to serve their country openly and honestly– unless of course, they are willing lie and hide and hope that no one outs them. After all, it might make SOME BIGOTED, INSECURE, IMMATURE, FEAR RIDDEN STRAIGHT BOY UPSET????!!!!
You would rather blame gay people for child molestation when all the available un-narthed research shows that the majority of it occurs within the precious heterosexual family. After all, its easier and better to blame a faceless stranger for their non-existent crimes against children if it serves your political agenda. I mean, why look at the really ugly truth? It will just make straight people look bad and won’t save a single kid.
You would rather spend $30 million dollars to save your marriage from the non-existent threat of my marriage, than spend that $30 million dollars as you were enjoined by your lord and savior for saving the hundreds of thousands of lives of the people lost in Darfur. After all, they are just black, and poor, and far away. And at least they believe in Jesus. Oh wait. They don’t.
You would rather that gay men pretend to be straight and marry women that they have no sexual or romantic interest in, consistently commit adultery with strangers in parks (thanks Bob Allen), and endangers their lives, wives, families, and careers, (thanks Larry ), than live their lives openly an honestly with another man in the bonds of marriage. I have met an awful lot of those men– sadly. That way, you get to ruin two lives for the price of one. Bonus points– you get to pretend that these allegedly straight men are typical of the average gay man.
You would rather pretend that gay people are a cancer on society (thanks, sally), rather than admit that the real cancer on society is organized, institutionalized hate, especially when it is called love. E specially when it leads to the disaster known as the 2nd term of George Bush. Especially when it means your fundraising strategies might be crippled. Especially when it means that you won’t have to examine the many sins of heterosexual society, or Bush’s refusal to pay any attention to al Quaeda. You can just blame the fags for the moral, political, and financial decline of the country. Did you hear the one about the goat in the desert?
You would rather insist I get into a lifetime of pain and suffering and denial– trying to change something that not only is almost always immutable, but doesn’t need to be changed — than allow me to live my life in peace and happiness with someone of the same sex. The BEST research that has been published so far, the Jones and Yarhouse study, indicates that the effort is doomed to failure– ‘complicated’ and ‘ambiguous’ failure. AND THEY WERE ON YOUR SIDE. But hey, ex gay ministries need money, too.
You would rather insist that the finest part of me is evil, sick, and wrong– and make sure that I think so, too– than allow me the simple dignity of living my life in peace. Well, actually you will allow that, as long as I don’t demand respect, equality before the law, or to live my life in peace.
You would rather deny my children health insurance and security that comes with living in a home where their parents are married and have all of the societal benefits and support that marriage brings , than allow my marriage to exist. After all they’re just the children of fags and dykes. They may even be fags themselves. They are certainly not as valuable as the heterosexual children of presumably heterosexual parents. “Save the children” doesn’t apply.
You would rather blame gay people for the imminent fall of western civilization through means that cannot be tested, explained, or logicked into existence, than admit that unrestricted, unfettered, unregulated, unconscious, and un-responsible heterosexual breeding have brought the planet to the very brink of ecological and financial destruction. If only you weren’t so busy maligning us, I’m sure you’d find the time to do something about it. If you’re not the pope, aka G’s viceroy on earth.
You would rather fight tooth and nail against the inclusion of gay people in hate crimes laws, rather than admit that a good deal of the hatred and violence we experience for no other reason than WHO WE ARE is the direct result of the hatred, lies, and violence you preach. After all, as the Pope himself has said, if gay people want to go around demanding rights that they could not possibly be entitled to, they shouldn’t be surprised if someone gets violent over it. Who do those people think they are? Children of G?
You would rather believe that my marriage is such a threat to your marriage that you MUST pass a constitutional amendment to keep me from enjoying what you have. If your marriage is so threatened by my marriage that this is the only course open to you, your marriage has problems that even a biblically correct lifestyle won’t help.
You would rather that I spend thousands of dollars to secure the life that my friends Andy and Paul have together spent decades building, rather than allow them the simple dignity of the rights that you can purchase with a $50 marriage license with a woman you met 5 minutes ago. Ah, the sanctity of marriage. Ask David Vitter. The difference, of course, is that all of our security can be overturned in a moment with the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that allows it. And with your approval, you just love us so much.
You would rather that our lives be made as difficult and unpleasant as possible, so that you can rest easy in your unshakeable superiority, whether real or imagined. Wait, it’s not real. Heterosexuality isn’t superior or special. It isn’t even normal. It’s just common. and exclusive heterosexuality is nowhere near as common as you would like to believe. ask Ted Haggard.
You would rather have sodomy laws, and see gay people in prison for the mere sin of their existence, invading the private lives of people you don’t even know exist, and demanding those people living lives of degradation and furtiveness, just to satisfy yourself that sin is being punished. Just not your sin.
You would rather create that world of furtiveness, shame, and degradation than allow gay people to live freely. after all, it’s for our own goddamn good. And you get so much satisfaction for it.
You would rather have good Christian people leave their faith– and abandon the hope of salvation that you so, so fervently believe in, and was G’s great gift to us, the central part of your faith– than admit that your incredibly biased and hypocritical and self-serving “interpretations” of “relevant” Scripture could possibly be more about bias and less about Scripture.
You would rather kick openly gay, accepting, proud gay people out of the clergy rather than pay attention to your own theology, which says that people become ministers because they have been called to the ministry by G. No one becomes a minister by going down to the mall and asking for an application at the holy recruiters. Maybe G is trying to tell you something about what he actually thinks, instead of what YOU think he thinks, bound as you are by your bibliolatry.
In short, you would rather add to the darkness in the world than add to the light, add to the lies than add to the truth, add to the hate and the fear rather than the love that you keep proclaiming you feel so strongly for the people you seem to hate so much.
OK, i’m done with my rant. That feels better.
David MacKenzie said:
I would submit that it’s not the job of one individual to say yes or no in such matters in the first place, unless perhaps when speaking to their own offspring. This is one of the fundamental flaws with this kind of thinking, that one has both the authority and the obligation to allow or disallow another individual’s choices in life — choices as personal as whom they may love in an equal and mutual relationship. Even God (who arguably would have the ultimate right to do otherwise) respects our free will, because without it there can be no true love, no sincere worship, no real growth.
Those with a view such as Mr. MacKenzie take on a role for themselves that overrides even that which God takes for Himself. Is that not the ultimate in arrogance?
I just found a mistake, this should read:
You would rather believe that the bullying directed at children is the validation of, not the result of, attitudes like yours. Nevertheless, you’re ‘there’ for the kids. Though where ‘there’ is — that’s entirely open to question.
All the trouble to write my rant, and it appears that the s.o.b.– excuse me, loving minister– never read it.
Actually, I’m not too surprised, and I really wrote it more for myself anyway. But I could tell from his initial comments that he was here to let us know that he possessed the keys to the kingdom, and wopuld let us know what the kingdom entailed. All we had to do was buy the product.
But since no one was buying– we’re just so lost in the miasma of sin here– he took his bible and went home. They want to talk to you as long as they think you might be buying, but if you are not, then no sense wasting time around here, talkingf to the damned. There are so many other souls that need to be saved,
Your pearls of wisdom are being read by others. Pounding all those keys were not for naught. I think what you type helps more than you realize.
Ben in Oakland, do you have any idea how tempted I am to share that beautiful and eloquent rant of yours on my blog, forums, e-mail lists, etc? (I’ll await your permission first.) That really put things in perspective. The good reverend may not have read it, but lots of other people should. Even if the people who need to read it don’t, it’s full of good talking points.
Ben:
All this reminds me of a story I once heard.
A “saint” goes to where there are “heathens” and begins talking to a “heathen,” preaching to him, telling him about God and his/her laws, the church, salvation, etc. The “heathen” tells the “saint,” “Until you can do all that you say I am supposed to do, I will never accept your religion.” Frustrated, the “saint” goes home and prays to God complaining that the “heathen” would not convert. “God, he says he will not convert until I do everything I tell him to do.”
Suddenly a voice from heaven fills his room and God says to him, “What part of what he said didn’t you understand, HEATHEN?”
Thank you for your kind words. I would certainly be amenable to that, though I would want to re-work it a bit to put it into the proper context and correct a few errors. And I would like it attributed.
Ben, of course I’ll attribute it. I don’t see where it needs fixing, but I understand that need to clean up from my own writing. No problem.
Jayelle– please let me know how to email you.
Take out the spaces:
jayelle 3 at yahoo dot com
Thanks!!!
Cowboy– I forgot to thank you for your nice words. i do hope I am accomplishing something.
Nevertheless, i do wish our good pastor would come back. It’s not very nice. and i have plenty more to talk about with him. I would love to hear, for example, how many of the anti-gay positions in my rant that he agrees with. I would like to here him defend those positions from a biblical perspective.
And when he does, i would lkike to hear him defend his ‘love’ with something besides his plans for my soul.