Ex-Gay Watch

As George Will recently said, “Certain social problems tend to go away as generations go away.”

sigh. Thank you for this. I hope so too. They didnt even know about the BF. It was simply because I am gay.

at least the things we are doing are helping to hasten the day of acceptance.

I’ve listed 10 evidences that things have changed on my blog if your readers are interested…….including a mention of ex-gay watch.

http://alifeofunlearning.blogspot.com/2008/07/celebrating-our-future.html

So that’s what happened to Pomo. Poor guy.

I’m with you. I hope things keep changing, and the sooner the better.

First they questioned what the Bible said about slavery.

Then they questioned what the Bible said about women.

Now they are questioning what they think the Bible says about homosexuality.

When will they question whether it is possible for a book to that was written by human beings (I mean men) to be the word of God?

Christine said,

When will they question whether it is possible for a book to that was written by human beings (I mean men) to be the word of God?

I questioned it and then, over time, concluded that the Bible is not the word of a god.

I’m no longer a believer, but when I was, I understood the Bible as the word of God in words of men. The concept of divine inspiration doesn’t have to mean divine dictation. It can mean that God led human authors to true insights about himself, but the authors expressed those insights through their own personal, cultural, and historial perspective.

The biblical authors accepted the view of their times and culture on slavery, women’s rights, and homosexuality. We just need to separate their core message from their historical limitations.

Nick C.
An excellent way to state that! Amen!

I recently read Chris Hedge’s new book, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, where he aptly pointed out that humanity is not progressing toward a peaceful utopia–secualr or religious– because, he says, humanity is fatally flawed with its animal nature (in other words, original sin). When I read the statistics that young evangelical christians are becoming increasingly tolerant of gay people, I hope for a Star Trekkian future somewhere far down the road, but living in Idaho, I often despair. Here they hurl Bible passages at me unthinkingly, and when I respond logically and reasonably, they compare me to a murderer and a thief. I have been lurking on this website for a couple of years now, and the information I’ve obtained from it has been very helpful in my own coming-out process. I’m glad you guys are here.

I hope for a Star Trekkian future somewhere far down the road, but living in Idaho, I often despair.

Ron,

I got a good laugh out of this. You might consider moving to another galaxy, or at least, state.

If you do decide to move to another state, Ron, hurry through Utah and then onto Nevada. I understand there is a Trekkie adventure at the Las Vegas Hilton Hotel that might come close to your utopian desire. But I sympathize with you. I had a rather “Children of the Corn” feeling in Blackfoot, Idaho one time I visited the County Fair there. Really!

Pomo, I am sorry about what you’ve dealt with.

I too really hope this trend accelerates.

I recently read Chris Hedge’s new book, I Don’t Believe in Atheists, where he aptly pointed out that humanity is not progressing toward a peaceful utopia–secualr or religious– because, he says, humanity is fatally flawed with its animal nature (in other words, original sin).

While the part about humanity having an animal nature is true, what Hedge doesn’t realize is that our technology is progressing toward a future that can minimize or even remove unwanted traits, of not only new generations, but of existing ones as well. This is the very essence of transhumanism: to build a better future by intrinsically changing humanity itself rather than only its environment. The future would look more like Orion’s Arm than Star Trek.

It is not common for non-human animals to engage in coordinated mass slaughter of their own species, nor to kill other species for reasons other than competition for food, nor to mandate belief in elaborate lies about reality.

Furthermore, there are few non-human species (locusts?) that strip the earth of resources on a scale remotely comparable to humankind.

It seems to me that we would be much better off if we paid closer attention to our animal natures and less attention to the sadistic, insane, and irrational ideologies of certain religious power blocs. Let’s not forget that some rich and powerful religious-rightists — both Christian and Islamic — desire the destruction of the Earth through their political allies’ deliberate fulfillment of apocalyptic “prophecy.”

I’m glad that some evangelicals are waking up the fraud and oppression that has been perpetrated against them by bigots who claim to speak for God.

Dear Folks:

Bear in mind that this kind of a poll could simply be further evidence of cultural accommodation on the part of those who claim to be Biblically-centred. I know that you probably have made up your minds that what Scripture says about homosexual practice is contextually limited, or just plain incorrect, but bear in mind that a generation who can disbelieve that homosexual practice is wrong, can also disbelieve that the love command is right.

Nevertheless, grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ…

Is it just me or is Mr. MacKenzie making the claim that the act of extending tolerance is detrimental to one’s beliefs?

Hello again. My point is that the term “accepting” can mean a lot of things, and not necessarily all of them are positive. Accepting can mean a generation that is simply disengaged from the “hot button” issues of the day because they “really can’t be bothered”– which may point more to dispassionate apathy, and neither benevolence, nor tolerance, nor charity at all.

Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

David

I will settle for accepting as in not trying to legislate my life to be more difficult to live than yours (assuming you are heterosexual). I might also settle for it meaning that, by no longer fueling the fires of hate, nor giving tacit support to the idea that gays are less than human, my life might be just a little bit safer in the future.

I’ll be honest with you, David, I don’t care for passive aggressive jabs which each end with “Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ.” It has a tone of insincerity that simply causes more people to believe in plastic Christianity. And to posit that greater acceptance might be akin to discarding the command to love is just incredibly sad and more than a bit ironic.

Accepting can mean a generation that is simply disengaged from the “hot button” issues of the day because they “really can’t be bothered”– which may point more to dispassionate apathy, and neither benevolence, nor tolerance, nor charity at all.

I was out with a bunch of new friends last night, and during the talking about relationships, they asked me what kind of guys I was in to. When I proceeded to out myself and ended up mentioning I was single, their immediate reaction was to try to think of which of their gay friends they could set me up with.

It’s not apathy.

“Really can’t be bothered” may not sound like a great moral advance, but it may well be the beginning of one.

For example, the instinct for cruelty towards those who are smaller or younger than us, or different from us, is one of the unpleasant traits that is particularly common in childhood. Although I can’t remember myself ever participating in physical bullying, I do still remember at the age of 10, with a friend, being gratuitously nasty to a sweet little boy of about 6 or 7 whose family had just moved in next door to my aunt. Why? We wanted to see if we could make him cry. I also remember at about the same age ganging up with others at school on a new boy who had arrived in the middle of the school term. A couple of years later I would never have done such things, not so much because I had taken stock of myself and had resolved to reform, as because I simply couldn’t be bothered behaving like that any more. A bit later still, of course, I came to a full realisation of how morally despicable the behaviour was, and even now, decades later, I feel ashamed when I recall it.

While behaviour of this kind in children should be always be corrected, we should worry far more about adults who still display a similar mentality – who have still not learnt “the grown-up emotions”, as Agatha Christie put it in one of her novels.

In the same way, simply “can’t be bothered” to discriminate against or to harass LGBT people, or to pry into their private lives, represents an important first stage in a general moral and social growing up. By the grace of God, may it continue.

Dear Mr. Roberts:

Re: “I’ll be honest with you, David, I don’t care for passive aggressive jabs which each end with “Grace to you all, in the Lord Jesus Christ.” It has a tone of insincerity that simply causes more people to believe in plastic Christianity.”

I’ve never been to this site before, and (granted) I am a heterosexual, but when I say “Grace to you, in Christ Jesus” I want you to know I mean what I say. It’s not some trifle or platitude to me, for the record. We all desperately need grace…

If I were to speak plainly, and thereby hopefully avoid the epithet of “passive aggression”, I would simply say that I have observed within the evangelical community a danger of going shallower, not deeper. Have you not witnessed this? Hence, when I warn folks that “accepting” may not be all that positive, I’m quite serious. You may choose to see it as positive, and that would be understandable from your point of view, but a general acceptance of certain trends may also indicate a growing sexual indifference, which while practical to your cause, may not be as positive as one might think.

I’ve seen the opposite of indifference in my community. Rather, it is inclusion. My non-gay friends are just as concerned with my safety when it comes to sexual intimacy and relationships as they are with their straight friends. It’s not that they’re indifferent to the fact that I’m gay. Like Boo, they are indeed interested that I find someone special. Should I lead a life of ultimately unfulfilling cruising, they would probably show their concern at my dissatisfaction with life. Other than the gender of the person I’m being intimate with, they are anything but indifferent about who I involve myself with.

I think that the simple fact that I would be intimate with someone of my own gender – no matter how faithful, monogamous, and wholesome the relationship might be perceived by an observer – is the true threat to opposition – a threat I will never ever truly understand.

David MacKenzie said:

You may choose to see it as positive, and that would be understandable from your point of view, but a general acceptance of certain trends may also indicate a growing sexual indifference, which while practical to your cause, may not be as positive as one might think.

There is no data here to support that conclusion so perhaps it is more telling of your own outlook than those who were surveyed. Again, however, even such a hypothetical trend would be helpful to those who are marginalized by the hatred not so thinly veiled by many in the church and pseudo-church organizations up to this point.

If you want to know what those young evangelicals might be responding to, just take a look here, and here, and here. Far from speaking out against these deranged groups, they are supported by the Church — if not publicly then privately. I don’t know you so perhaps you are not in agreement with such things, but that is something you will need to prove with words and deeds.

Until then, don’t be surprised that new generations are not prepared to join in such witch hunts. In my own experience, many have been ripped from their faith by the likes of those mentioned above. Does that bother you?

I grew up in the evangelical movement, eventually becoming pro-gay rights and actively advocating that position at my former evangelical school (Grove City College). I’d like to say those beliefs are common, but I still have yet to meet another pro-gay rights evangelical, and I live in the Northeast. I have met some people who are more open to gay rights than previous generations. I think there’s also a big divide between educated evangelicals and non-educated individuals within the evangelical community, with the latter being somewhat more likely to opposse gay rights.
I don’t know what to make of Mr. Mackenzie’s statements. It’s been my observation that evangelicals who opposse gay rights don’t exactly suffer much. On the other hand, I was kicked out of my college for my stance on homosexuality (there’s nothing an evangelical college hates more than a straight evangelical supporting gay rights). On the other hand, I would admit that evangelicalism is increasingly trying to market itself as “extreme”, “radical”, and “trendy”. Hence all the preachers lining up to support Bono. I’d even agree that some of the theology coming out of the more pro-gay rights parts of evangelicalism – such as the Emergent church – is relatively shallow on some issues, though not on gay rights. But that is a problem with evangelicalism, not with the LGBT community.
I do know that many evangelicals are being turned off by the homophobic rhetoric coming out of the religious right. I left evangelicalism because of it. Considering evangelicalism’s continueing problem accepting the mentally ill, the other community most oppressed by the church, I am not sanguine about the chances for a rapprochament between the LGBT community and evangelicalism. As is shown by the recent tragedies at Mercy Ministries in Australia, the church is always willing to make a buck off the suffering of the mentally ill and the LGBT community ( this time by exorcising demons out of both groups).

Again, however, even such a hypothetical trend would be helpful to those who are marginalized by the hatred not so thinly veiled by many in the church and pseudo-church organizations up to this point”

Dear Mr. Roberts:

From your practical, political point-of-view, you’re probably right. Even apathy, if it serves the advancement of a cause, still serves it.

And you’re also right about this:

I don’t know you so perhaps you are not in agreement with such things, but that is something you will need to prove with words and deeds.”

But one question I would have of you, and others, at this site is this? Is it POSSIBLE for me to disagree with you (even adamantly) and NOT be accused of hatred? Without any doubt in my mind, that one word is thrown around far too cheaply and easily these days…

Grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

(Pastor) David MacKenzie

Is it POSSIBLE for me to disagree with you (even adamantly) and NOT be accused of hatred?

That depends. What would you expect from an African American (or any reasonable person) in return for your adamant belief that he and all others of his race are inferior or evil? And how do you expect that same person to respond if that “sincere belief” led you to vote against any number of key rights he didn’t yet enjoy, or further, to actively promote that his gaining such rights would be the downfall of our society as a whole? You see, too many use their “beliefs” to justify all that and much, much more.

Speaking for myself only, I count among my friends some people who sincerely understand scripture to mean that intimate same-sex relationships are always sinful. However, these people do not campaign against my rights nor do they see it as a core issue — certainly not a salvation issue. Generally, they see it as one might see divorce and remarriage, something one must work out personally with God and not eligible for their judgment.

So in order to properly respond, I think we need to know more about what you mean by “disagree” and especially the “even adamantly” part. And for the sake of this discussion, let’s agree to skip what I anticipate will be an objection to my race analogy. You may not agree, but you asked the question, and that analogy is my best way of conveying the response you asked for.

I find it so interesting that people who would advocate discrimination against gay people hate when they are called on the advocacy of hatred and discrimination. They hate to be referred to as bigots or homophobes as well. I guess on some level they aren’t very prould of their own hateful actions.

Also, nobody would expect a Jewish person to refrain from calling a bigot on their ant-semetism, but gays are somehow expected to politely hold their tongue while others work diligently to deny equal rights to gay people. What planet do these folks come from?

Mr. MacKenzie, my perception is that you view the increasing tolerance of GLBT people by younger Evangelicals to be a negative. In the process of presenting your viewpoint you have not only condescendingly warned GLBT people not to get their hopes up, but have maligned the character of younger Evangelicals by claiming they must be apathetic or shallow because they have a ‘live and let live’ approach to GLBT people. You raised a concern that the evangelical community is not ‘going deeper’. Given the backdrop of what you’ve said, it seems to me that you are equating the current resistance to recognizing the rights of GLBT people as ‘going deeper’. To put it another way, you seem to be saying it is the evangelical community’s religious duty to make sure GLBT people are marginalized. With this in mind, how can you then act as if this discussion involves nothing more than a difference of opinion?

Also, nobody would expect a Jewish person to refrain from calling a bigot on their ant-semetism, but gays are somehow expected to politely hold their tongue while others work diligently to deny equal rights to gay people.”

John:

If you’ve ever run into a person who quickly says “anti-semite” just because someone got critical of Israeli foreign (or domestic) policy, then you’ll know what I mean when I say the words “hatred” or “homophobia” are used far too easily and often when it comes to this issue, as well.

David:

Hmmmm… this whole block-quoting thing is not working for me…. With respect to your comment: “Speaking for myself only, I count among my friends some people who sincerely understand scripture to mean that intimate same-sex relationships are always sinful.”

You can list me under the same category as those friends whom you have– that would be accurate enough. However, I am more “up-front” than some who may privatize the entire issue. For some folks obviously prefer to shy away from anything that may seem controversial or potentially confrontational.

Grace to you, in Christ Jesus,

David MacKenzie

To put it another way, you seem to be saying it is the evangelical community’s religious duty to make sure GLBT people are marginalized.”

PW: Obviously, some opinions carry implications. Hence, what people choose to believe is critically important. But just so I’m clear, what is your top 5 list (top 3?) of the ways in which GLBT folks are marginalized?

Grace to you, in Christ,

David MacKenzie

For some folks obviously prefer to shy away from anything that may seem controversial or potentially confrontational.

You are making a flawed assumption here that the reason people, for instance those I mentioned earlier with whom I am friends, don’t join in with the chorus of strong and open judgment is because they want to timidly avoid any subject that is controversial. By doing so, you have covertly inserted another false dichotomy into the discussion, mainly that there is your way (up-front, strong) and there is the other way (uninvolved, weak). This view fits well with your initial passive-aggressive statement (which I think PW has expanded upon well).

Even if you don’t realize you are doing it, this is just the sort of thinking which leads to the judgmental attitudes we have been discussing. I’m curious, would you be equally as “up-front” with an individual who had divorced and remarried? For example, would you denounce their lives as sinful, their current marriage illegitimate and adulterous?

PS: I may remark on your question to PW tomorrow, but in reference to that, did you look at the websites I linked to in this comment? Reviewing some of the content there, particularly those things which they lobby against, will give you a good start.

By doing so, you have covertly inserted another false dichotomy into the discussion, mainly that there is your way (up-front, strong) and there is the other way (uninvolved, weak). This view fits well with your initial passive-aggressive statement (which I think PW has expanded upon well).”

Wow David! You’ve certainly have some “hot buttons”. Do you not even see words like “may” in much of my commentary?

I’m not commenting on your friends; I don’t know your friends. I simply observe that (just like there May be many reasons why some evangelicals MAY appear to be more “accepting”), there MAY also be many reasons why some are more silent. And not all of them are healthy.

Grace to you, in Christ,

David MacKenzie

David MacKenzie said:

Do you not even see words like “may” in much of my commentary?

Yes, here again is the quote from your statement to which I referred:

For some folks obviously prefer to shy away from anything that may seem controversial or potentially confrontational. [emphasis added]

I don’t see how “may” does what you imply in that statement. Looking back over the statement as a whole, I think I understood your meaning well, and even conceded that you may not be aware of the effect. This is your idea of a hot button response? If so, it’s a good thing you landed on XGW, it’s pretty rough out there, lol.

David, it’s not really possible to have an honest exchange if you continue to dodge my questions. I’ve answered yours as best I can, yet you have avoided most of mine. It also makes what should be a simple discussion quite tedious as we cover the same ground while I try to obtain those answers.

To repeatedly ignore the questions of others in the discussion is disrespectful, so we ask people to try to avoid that. With that in mind, would you look back over my last couple of comments and try to respond?

You can start with:

I’m curious, would you be equally as “up-front” with an individual who had divorced and remarried? For example, would you denounce their lives as sinful, their current marriage illegitimate and adulterous?

and go up. Thanks.

David MacKenzie wrote: “Obviously, some opinions carry implications. Hence, what people choose to believe is critically important. But just so I’m clear, what is your top 5 list (top 3?) of the ways in which GLBT folks are marginalized?”

Here are a few:

1) The assumption that somehow homosexuality is a sin apart from all others. The passages in the bible that allegedly condemn it are far from clear– either as prohibitions or condemnations. Yet to hear evangelicals talk, you would think that there is no other sin. This is tearing apart a number of churches, with gay people (in the anti-gay churches) being pushed as far to the margins as they can be. Jimmy Swaggart, the prostitute banger, said “It’s the worst sin.’ On what scriptural basis, Jimmy, or was it strictly financial. And you might try searching out Sally Kern on this very website. I’m glad she “loves” me in her extra-special Christian way. As a cancer on society, that makes me feel GOOD.

2) I married my boyfriend a week ago, and in two months, my marriage may be over. Religious rhetoric fuels the anti gay movements in every way. The bulk of the money and motivation to fund CA’s anti-marriage initiative comes from religious conservatives and churches. We are called a threat to marriage, a threat to children, a threat to morality, to the country, to G, to western civilization itself. Is that marginal enough for you?

3) Efforts to keep gay people out of hate-crimes protections are, like marriage, mostly fueled by the religious right. Apparently, their religions, self-chosen and maintained as they are, are worthy of protection, but I’m not. I’m just a sinner, and I can change my evil ways.

4) Don’t ask-don’t-tell. Gay people are not allowed to serve their country openly, though if they are willing to lie and hide, they might be allowed to, unless someone finds out. And why? all to make sure that some hypothetical straight boy doesn’t have to confront his insecurities. Meanwhile, straight soldiers die for lack of an Arab translator that unfortunately likes dick.

5) An initiative in Arkansas qualified for the ballot today. It would ban any unmarried people from fostering or adopting. Better the children should be in an orphanage then cared for my people of whom the so-called Christians don’t approve.

6) Pastors warn their flocks regularly that if gay marriage is approved, pastors will go to jail and churches will be fined. gay people wanting to live their lives are a MAJOR threat, and if you don’t vote my way– and give me some of your money– well, religious freedom is the price you will pay.

7) Ever hear the phrase, Kill a Queer for Christ? We don’t see it too much anymore, but it still shows up occasionally.

Those are just a few examples of marginalization. Here are some of my feelings on the subject. The ‘you’ and ‘your’ do not refer to you personally, just anti-gay religious people in general. I really have no idea what you think. but you know what? Gay people are lumped together as some monolithic ‘other’ that threatens all that is good and holy. So please excuse me if I do the same for evangelical Christians. I’m sure you appreciate the irony.

I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.

My and our equality before the law can be compromised because of YOUR religious beliefs. If you said that Jews or Buddhists could not have the same civil rights that you do because they do not share your religious beliefs, you would rightly be labeled a religious bigot. But because it is about gay people, and whatever you imagine my sex life to be makes you say “icky”, you are not being a bigot…so you say. You’re just expressing your religious opinion.

Personally, all I’m really interested in is getting the same respect from you that you extend to all of the other people whom you think are going to burn in hell forever, sent their by your just and loving god because they didn’t happen to hear the ‘good news’, or didn’t think the message was particularly convincing, or even sensical, or happened to be gay, or Jewish, or a ‘witch’, or whatever the reason-du-jour is.

Some Christians believe that their book is, as they put it, the inspired word of god. Apparently, despite all of the errors and contradictions contained within your book, it still remains inspired. You may think that using inspired by instead of word of god lets you off the hook for its inconsistencies and idiocies, its claim to moral authority when it is anything but a book of morals, most of which you ignore in any case (anybody going to Wal-Mart on Sunday?) while claiming its infallibility when it comes to gay people.

One of the things you do is proclaim that we gay people must hate you Christians for proclaiming the truth. You can’t distinguish between righteous anger and hate, for one. But I don’t hate you, despite your belief. Like a good Christian I hate your sins — your overweening pride, your willful ignorance, your belief that because you think something is true, it must be true, and therefore justifies whatever you do or say, because you are speaking for G and all that is good– just like all of the other people who murder, oppress, hate, judge and on and on and on.

I’m furious that people like you can smugly say we’re all not perfect, but you’ll still smarmily judge us anyway, and pretend that you’re not. I’m furious that you prattle on an on about morality, but the IMMORALITY of what is done to gay people every day throughout the world, damage that is inflicted on our happiness, our health, our security, and our lives all the time, does not even merit your notice– let alone an apology. Talk about a crime against nature–what about the crimes against our nature?

does this give you an idea about what marginalization means?

Good Job, Ben!

I’d like to add one thing. There is nothing wrong with being gay, any and all of the “reasons” that it is wrong that have been put forth are things and situations that are not unique to gays (HIV, domestic violence, etc), distortions, complete lies, irrelevant tidbits, or are based on a very specific interpretation of vague scriptures that simply put….have no constitutional weight whatsoever. I don’t care what your book says, or to be fair—-what you think your book says. I go to work, I pay my taxes, I love my partner as much as anyone ever loves their spouse. You don’t know what we do in the bedroom, and it’s none of your business anyway. Neither of us has raped or killed anyone, and there is nothing about being gay that has anything to do with harming anyone.
The only reason to limit our rights is because other people don’t want us to be equal to them. And that is simply not good enough.

Thanks, jason. You wrote: The only reason to limit our rights is because other people don’t want us to be equal to them.

I will add this. There is another reason. Our very existence scares the hell out of some people, whether because (in their minds) we are SO different from them, or (in their souls) so similar.

Dear Ben and all:

Thanks for the “hurricane”. Oh well, so the wind, reap the whirlwind as the Bible says. (That’s a joke, by the way;-)

It wasn’t entirely unexpected, but getting back to you, David Roberts, lots of issues come up with respect to your site, and I’m not trying to avoid any of them (divorce, etc.), but I may have to review what’s been said so far, before I re-engage…

Grace to you, in Christ,

David MacKenzie

David MacKenzie: I wasn’t trying to blow you over, but one of the things I believe in is being as absolutely clear as I can be– especially when it comes to the treatment of the gay and lesbian minority at the hands of the heterosexual majority, especially when it is motivated by (allegedly) sincere religious belief.

The reason for this is simple. I don’t want to leave any room for someone to pretend that it isn’t the basic prejudice that it, and to then call this something other than what it is

It is one thing to say “I disapprove of homosexuality”" or “My religion says it disapproves of homosexuality.” I think it is wrong, stupid, petty, non-reality based, prejudiced, and unconscious, and unconscionable, but who am I to judge?

I am just a adult human being who loves in every sense of the word another adult human being. As Jason noted, apart from gender, I can determine no difference between homosexual and heterosexual love– good, bad, and indifferent.

It is quite another thing to pull a Sally Kern and say I love you but hate your sin… and then make up a whole dung heap of reasons why I am a despicable human being and a cancer on society. It is quite another thing to be an Alan Chambers and say, I choose not to be gay (even if I still am), and I will work to make sure that my choice is validated by making sure that all of the rights afforded to the majority are NOT afforded to you. It is quite another thing to claim to be doing research and speaking the science and reality based truth, and then NARTH that research and claim that I am sick, evil, depraved, and a child molester, criminal, a threat to all that is good and holy, and then use that ‘knowledge’ as the basis for political campaigns against me, which are thinly disguised attacks on my very right to exist.

And finally, it quite another thing to be speaking for morality, and then commit the most immoral acts and pat yourself on the back for it. $30 million dollar will be spent on the marriage initiative in California. how much good could that have done to feed starving Christians everywhere? Jesus had nothing to say on the subject of homosexuality. He did think that feeding the poor was a good idea.

Dear Ben:

I respect your opinion, and your freedom to state it. In part, I’ve just shown up at this site, not to be a web troll or a “home-site” wrecker, but to witness for myself what the participants are saying on a host of gay-related issues. Your last e-mail is lengthy, and it begs a number of questions, but I want to skip to the second-to-the-last sentence you’ve since raised in your follow-up, because (being a pastor) I’m not inexperienced with respect to what the Bible says.

In truth, Jesus actually DOES make an indirect comment about homosexuality. It comes from the eleventh chapter of Matthew, verses 20-24. In it, Jesus denounces those local cities where most of his miracles took place and yet people did not believe him, saying that it will be more tolerable on the day of judgement for even Gentile cities than for them. He then uses the same logic in a discussion about Sodom, implying that even this city would have repented had it witnessed His miracles and ministry.

As it still is today, the city of Sodom in Jesus’ day was a byword for all manner of sin-related issues, including homosexuality. For Jesus to invoke it rhetorically means that he knew what people thought about it, and He uses that to point at other cities’ issues of sin, all while not denying what took place in Sodom.

In fact, he repeats the classic gospel hope here– to turn away from sin (to repent) and receive Christ brings peace with God, no matter who we are or what we’ve done.

Grace to you, in Christ,

David MacKenzie

So, just to be clear. Mr. MacKenzie doesn’t want to be accused of hatred and discrimination, but dances around and refuses to answer questions about divorce and legal discrimination against gays and lesbians.

If he isn’t really willing to engage with us in a forthright manner, I see little to no reason to continue entertaining him. Probably best to ignore him and not waste further time and energy on him.

There you go again David M. You seriously cannot answer David Roberts question on divorce and remarriage being the sin of adultery. You instead skip to answering Ben’s question about Jesus never mentioning homosexuality, and in turn state Jesus made an indirect mention of it when discussing the sins of Sodom in Matthew v. 20-24.

I have been away from gay/anti-gay related sites since February and returned only a month ago to check things out. During that time of hiatus I was able to wash away the anti-gay rhetoric from my mind to have a more peaceful and meaningful relationship with Jesus, one that I have never had before. Now upon returning I am sickened by the hate being slung full force by some anti-gay Christians that have the “love the sinner but hate the sin” mentality. Nothing I see has changed except the attitude towards gays by some Christians which has grown increasingly negative and hateful as the progression of gay civil marriage begins to take root.

David M, I would like to share with you something. I have met several ex-Christians on websites that have confirmed the hateful rhetoric they used to spew towards gays as one of the reasons why they left Christianity. Some were former pastors. Some were believers for decades. This was their very mantra in order to convince people that gays are sick, twisted, deviant and evil. And they claimed this was all done in the name of love. Where is the love? Its no wonder people are leaving Christianity or becoming atheists. Conservative evangelical/fundamentalists Christians from where I am sitting have poisoned the true message of Christ. Fear and Judgment have replaced Love and Understanding. Its nothing more than repentance by coercion. Jesus never forced himself on others but his followers have no problem in doing so by word and deed.

I pray the title of this thread is true and the younger set of Evangelicals are accepting of gay people. Perhaps all is not lost.

In truth, Jesus actually DOES make an indirect comment about homosexuality.
[…]
In fact, he repeats the classic gospel hope here– to turn away from sin (to repent) and receive Christ brings peace with God, no matter who we are or what we’ve done.

And just how exactly is one supposed to “repent” of loving someone?

Well, David, if you are going to insist that the story of Sodom is about “homosexuality” then you clearly neither read it nor understand it. And what someone told you about it was a product of their own imaginations– or yours. Someone had already decided that this was about homosexuality, and since that fits in nicely with existing prejudices, it would never occur to them or to you to question the assumption that that is what is about, instead of reading what is actually there. So, I’ll explain it to you.

As a prelude, I will note this much for you. To claim it is about Homosexuality, which includes both men AND women– well that is the first thing you are making up. Gay women are not a part of this story AT ALL. So it may possibly be about male homosexuality– except that it isn’t– but it is not about HOMOSEXUALITY.

Allowing the bible to be the best commentary on itself– when it isn’t being contradictory or ridiculous– there is not ONE place in whole of the bible where there is even a vague (as the bible seems to be on this subject) reference to Sodom being a city of homosexual men, and only ONE where the sin of Sodom was sexual or even remotely sexual. There is a reference in First (?)Timothy about ‘going after strange flesh’, but at least one bible (New standard, I think) I’ve seen it said that refers to lusting after angels. and though my husband is an angel and I definitely lust after him, I can assure you that is not what they were talking about. All other references to Sodom contain no sexual references whatever (excluding the story itself). All allusions to homosexuality are far later accretions, and certainly have nothing to do with homosexuality as we understand it today, which is not as it may have been imagined 1000 years or more ago, when it included more than just homosexual acts. And, as I always say about this issue, a vague reference to Sodom is not a discussion about homosexuality. The creator of the universe is remarkably coy on this subject of homosexuality– it always needs to be interpreted, nuanced and guided into existence– where as he wasn’t on no divorce, no adultery, or going to Wal-Mart on Sunday, and feed the poor. Do you think that might have something to do with the men who have claimed to be his mouthpieces? Do you think their agenda might be showing?

The story itself is remarkably ancient– I am guessing it is one of the oldest in the bible. G is not omnipotent– he has to travel on the road ON FOOT with two angels to see if the reports he has heard about Sodom are true!! This is another clue about its age. Yahweh was still an inconsequential Midianite storm god with delusions of grandeur when this story was written.

G tells Abraham he is going to destroy the cities of the plain because they are not righteous. Abraham manages to convince G not to do it if he can find one righteous man. All knowing, all powerful G actually bargains with Abraham! Another clue to its age– G has remarkably human attributes. Apparently, Abraham couldn’t find one, because G destroys the cities. Actually, he doesn’t because he isn’t all powerful. The angels are the ones who actually do it. Apparently, you had to be there.

Note that even in the story thus far there is no discussion of any kind of sexual activity, let alone homosexuality. Not one. G wants to find a RIGHTEOUS man, not a heterosexual one. David Vitter and John Edwards can both assure you that they are not the same thing.

The angels arrive in the City and find shelter in Lot’s house. The men of the City go to his house and demand that Lot give him the men. Here is the first sexual context– and it is clearly RAPE, not consensual homosexual activity, though writing those words is revolting to me– it sounds like Englishmen in gaiters whipping each other and shouting Cheerio. But that’s what it is. They were not inviting the angels out for a hot night of romance. They were threatening gang rape. Lot even offered his two ‘virgin’ daughters to the crowd, complaining that he would not be a righteous man if he let the sanctity of his hospitality be sullied by the rape of his guests– a contextual clue that it was not about homosexuality. Among his other virtues, he thought more of his guests than he did of his daughters (good father, he) and he wasn’t all that bright. Why would he offer his two daughters to a bunch of gay men? Hello, idiot! What was he thinking? I’m sure it must have seemed to be a good idea at the time. They wouldn’t be interested. And they weren’t. They demanded the strangers.

And here is where the unthinking, unconscious but nevertheless vicious bigotry just blooms like a magic mushroom on a meadow muffin. The context is the threat of FORCIBLE ANAL RAPE. That cannot be nuanced out of existence. When you say that homosexuality is the sin of Sodom on the basis of this story, you are unthinkingly and/or deliberately conflating the gang rape of two men (or two women, had lot’s ploy succeeded) with… (wait for it)

…a consensual relationship between two men OR two women (we’re all homosexuals, you know, even Lesbians)– who love each other and wish to build a life together, perhaps raise children, but in any case, be there for each other in sickness and health all the rest of the things I just said to my husband a week ago, and which I have performed for the past 6 years. No forcible rape involved. I do not approve of forcible rape. And if you can’t tell the difference between the two circumstances, then pastor or no, you have no business judging the morality of ANYONE. And honey, when you go so far as to take a reference made by Jesus to be a comment on homosexuality when he clearly said nothing of the sort, then I think a wee bit of judgment is somehow creeping in. We gotta let the fags know we’re onto them.

So the angels destroy the Cities on the Plain. Interestingly, we never found out what the sin of Gomorrah was. Except that there were four people Whom God allows to be saved. 1) Lot, who apparently is an alcoholic, because he managed to preserve a sufficiency of wine from the destruction to get himself into a drunken stupor. He’s a great father– his two daughters could have been gang raped for all he cared. Great example of righteousness you have there, G. 2) His wife, who disobeys a direct commandment from God not to look back at the city’s destruction. Another good example of righteousness, since we are told to obey G in all matters–when we can understand him. 3) His two daughters, who get Lot drunk and have sex with him. We’re not told even how Lot managed to get it up, given the amount of liquor, the destruction of all property, friends and family, and that THEY WERE HIS DAUGHTERS, for G’s sake!

Oh, well. G helps those who help themselves. but one might think that this particular god had some real moral issues of his own if he defined this quartet as RIGHTEOUS. But then, he was the one that destroyed all of the sinners of the world in a flood, even the poor babies who could not have sinned even if they wanted to. He was also the one that kept hardening Pharaoh’s heart, thereby giving him and excuse to visit a few more plagues on the Egyptians, culminating in them murder of all the Egyptian first born. A god like that should not presume to lecture anyone on morals. and neither should you.

We learn two things from this. 1) We have been defining the Hebrew translated as “righteous” incorrectly. The correct translation is “heterosexual, preferably incestuous, alcoholic, and disobedient.” And 2) It is all the fag’s fault. As always, heterosexuals behave badly, and it is gay people that pay the price.

I repeat: allowing the so-called Good book to be its own best commentary on itself, we find nowhere in the bible any reference to homosexuality as the sin of Sodom. Even Jesus didn’t say so. It took Christian scholars somewhere between 300 and 1200 years after Jesus’ death to come up with that– and ytour eprsonal interpetation that ‘it was well known the homosexuality was the sin of sodom. No it wasn’t, though heterosexuals would like us to think that it was. (Sorry, there is no table service for morality. It’s all self serving here at the Righteousnes Cafe!) And the Sodom story is the perfect example of why the bible is of no guidance to determining right and wrong, else you would not be accusing gay men of being sodomites.

I, too, see the increasingly negative and hateful stuff (as Ken R. previously mentions). And this battle will only intensify markedly this coming September when pro/con Prop. 8 lawn signs are only going to demonstrate which neighbors are against which neighbors. It’s not going to be pretty. Pitting neighbors against each other is partly due to organizations that are called: Churches? Just what is being taught in Sunday Schools nowadays?

No matter the outcome of this November’s election, the gap between “us” and “them” is only going to widen more.

Sad.

Ben: “Me thinks thou doth protest too much”– not from the Bible, admittedly, but at times Shakespeare had an insight or two. I am actually quite familiar with the liberal and secular claims that you have listed. All of them suffer from an inordinate sense of denial, brought on (most likely) by authors who had a psychological or political need for self-justification.

Also, Ben, you waiver between discrediting the Bible generally, and then spending 80% of your time defending a uniformly liberal approach to the Scriptures. Why bother with the Bible at all, if you so genuinely mistrust it?

In any case, the Biblical writers were not primitives, but for some moderns the answer seems hidden in plain view. I’m not surprised; you may recall that the Romans passage dealing with Lesbianism bluntly speaks about being “given up” to, in effect, delusion (1:24-28), which is a shocking thing, but occasionally happens by the Lord’s sovereign insistence throughout Scripture. This is just one reason why a reverent fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.

Nevertheless, the truth is the Bible is remarkably consistent in its approach to homosexuality, as well as to divorce. Divorce is condemned– in fact, the Lord “hates” it (Malachi 2:16). At the same time, homosexual acts are clearly and consistently deemed morally unacceptable. The reality that the term for homosexuality in some places is formed from more generic terms is irrelevant. One would linguistically expect a language like English (grown as it has from multiple linguistic strains, to be one of the largest in world history) to be more technically precise than ancient Hebrew.

The lengths to which the political and religious left goes to distance itself from the reality of Sodom is, indeed, quite bizarre. Did Sodom have a hospitality issue? Well, yes. Was Sodom guilty of a citizenry who wants to gang rape? Well, yes. Is Sodom also a place where that rape is manifested “homosexually”? Well, yes. Does the fact that those rapists are rapists justify their homosexuality?Well, no. In fact, all aspects of their behaviour clearly form part of the Lord’s problem with Sodom. However, according to the laws of Moses, hospitality issues were not capital offenses, whereas the other two were.

Anyway, one could go on, but suffice it to say my presence here is not to avoid any issue. I didn’t actually come here to exercise a ministry of condemnation. Christ’s ministry is not a ministry of condemnation. But neither is it a ministry of human endorsement and self-justification…

Hence, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

David MacKenzie

David: I can only say that you are in fact avoiding the issues. I expected as much, as that has been by consistent experience with anti-gay evangelicals. You failed to address ANY of my substantive issues, and just went back to your interpretations WHICH ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BY YOUR BOOK.

I don’t mistrust the bible. It’s not my book, riddled as it is with inconsistencies, barbarisms, and idiocies. I mistrust you and any religionist who thinks they can shut up the creator of the universe between the covers of a book written by desert peoples 2500 years ago. G is not as limited as you would have him be.

I have not listed either liberal or secular claims. I simply read the book and stated what was there is plain Aramaic. I’m not interested in liberal or conservative. My secular aims are limited to this: I am interested in getting your god-damned and god-damning book–and your conservative interpretations of it– out of my life. As I wrote earlier: “I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.”

Instead of actually addressing my arguments, you go to Romans. Another highly ambiguous passage, but I won’t debate it. I’ll just refer you first to Roman’s 1:23: …and changed the glory of incorruptible god into the image of corruptible man.” sound familiar? Your way of saying it is this: “The reality that the term for homosexuality in some places is formed from more generic terms is irrelevant. One would linguistically expect a language like English (grown as it has from multiple linguistic strains, to be one of the largest in world history) to be more technically precise than ancient Hebrew.” It’s not a technical term. It is an easily described set of actions.

In other words, we have to supply to precision that ancient Hebrew somehow lacked on such an important issue, which is another way of saying the your prejudices–excuse me, your beliefs– have achieved the status of the word of G. You don’t know much about linguistics, either. Eskimos have two hundred words for snow, we have three. I’m sure the ancient Hebrews had 200 words for sand. So much for modern precision. You are just substituting your beliefs for ancient Hebrew’s alleged lack of precision. Ancient Hebrew had no word for computer, either, but it was not due to a lack of precision. As I have commented previously, G is spectacularly unclear on this subject, whereas G seems to be very clear on a number of other topics. Here’s some ‘precision’ for you which I think ancient Hebrew could have managed quite easily had they been so inclined, and if it were as important to G as it is to you. G would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’s it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.” Now, that is clarity befitting the creator of the universe.

You wrote this: “Is Sodom also a place where that rape is manifested “homosexually”? Well, yes. Does the fact that those rapists are rapists justify their homosexuality? Well, no.” I have no idea what you are trying to say here, but you are clearly avoiding the issue.. That is not homosexuality, that is rape. Men who rape other men in prison are not homosexual, they are usually heterosexual AND rapists. If they had accepted lots daughters, that would not have made it about heterosexuality, and I doubt you would claim that it did. Men who rape women are rapists. As I wrote: “When you say that homosexuality is the sin of Sodom on the basis of this story, you are unthinkingly and/or deliberately conflating the gang rape of two men (or two women, had lot’s ploy succeeded) with a consensual relationship between two men OR two women (we’re all homosexuals, you know, even Lesbians)– who love each other and wish to build a life together, perhaps raise children, but in any case, be there for each other in sickness and health all the rest of the things I just said to my husband a week ago… and if you can’t tell the difference between the two circumstances, then pastor or no, you have no business judging the morality of ANYONE.”

but since you are going to state that Moses thought homosexuality was a capital offense– yet another set of dubious claims based upon a biased interpretation– then I suppose you are saying that gay people deserve the death penalty. If you are not, then you are denying the authority of your own book for your convenience…

…which is in fact the point of Romans 1:23.

Ben: I recognize that you’re angry, but do you suppose (logically) that the best of Biblical analysis comes from those prepared to curse the very Bible they’re supposedly analyzing?

Or, to put it another way, does the fairest analysis of your partner come from those who are prepared to curse your partner?

Or, does the best analysis of Karl Marx come from those who are prepared to damn Marx?

Hello?

Nonetheless, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

David MacKenzie

You wrote: “do you suppose (logically) that the best of Biblical analysis comes from those prepared to curse the very Bible they’re supposedly analyzing?”

No, nor do I think the best of biblical analysis comes from people who believe in its inerrancy, its perfection, that their interpetations of interpetations of translations of interpretations represent the truth of the book, or that G can be contained forever within its covers. in the immortal words of Helen bunker Hunt, that “Of course it’s true. every word of it. If you begin questioning the inerrancy of the bible, wheredo you stop?”where, indeed? Perhaps where it stops being real, clear, or relevant. Perhaps when it starts being used as a weapon against people that you disapprove of.

If you want to believe it is the inerrant word of G, then you must believe as well all of its inconsistencies and contradictions are not what they onbviously are. But here are a feew observationsd about that inerrant word of G:

50 years ago, misgenation laws were justified by people scraming out “immorality” and whipping out their bibles.

75 years ago, segregation laws were justifed by people quoting their bibles.

100 years ago, women were denied the vote, justified by people quoting their bibles along with threatening the ultimate ocllapse of the family\

200 years ago, slavery was justified by people quoting thier bibles.

300 years ago, thousands of innocent people who were thought to witches were tortured and burned by the moralists of the day, convinced they were doing God’s will, tridding the earth of a scourge, and quoting their bibles. sounds familiar? Do you believe in witches today?

400 years ago, Catholics and Protestants were torturing and slaughtering each, each assured by god that they were doing god’s will– and they had their bibles to back them up.

900 years ago, quoting their bibles, the Christians repsonded to the Muslim politcal power in THE HOLY LAND (Now there is a sarcasm!) by launching a series of crusades, destorying much that was invaluable, accomplishing nothing, killing untold 1000′s of people– and we are still paying the price at the gas pump today for that bit of destructive nonsense.

Do you begin to see a pattern here? Will you tell me that this is different? you finally have it right about whom to judge and what god hates?

Dear Ben:

When is a person takes the legal stand, they are assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. You hate the judgement placed upon you as a gay person, but I observe you have no trouble whatsoever judging contexts and individuals that neither you nor I can fully know, this side of the Kingdom of God.

The truth is that you will find ALL kinds of people throughout history misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting the Bible, including yourself.

But that says less about God, and more about (sinful) us, and actually confirms the central premise of the Bible– that people are sinners in desperate need of salvation.

Hence, grace to you, in the Lord Jesus Christ,

David MacKenzie

Divorce is condemned– in fact, the Lord “hates” it (Malachi 2:16)

Then why doesn’t your side do something about? Why not spend your time, money, and energy trying to pass laws making divorce a lot harder to get? It seems to me that divorce is one of the main reasons “the family” is breaking up. If you make divorce a lot harder to get, or near impossible, then perhaps you will look more consistent in your beliefs in protecting marriage and family.

But I seriously doubt that will happen. Its neither a money making issue nor will most heterosexual Christians and non-Christians go for it. They still want that easy way out of their marriage because there is no way on God’s green earth that anyone should stay with someone that they no longer love. Or even hate.

You hate the judgement placed upon you as a gay person

Yes we do, specially when that judgment is coming from so called followers of Christ that believe our sexuality is chosen. 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. Which I have always known since 5th grade.

Thankfully, I am not in the same mindset as you David M. If I was I am sure I would not be alive today.

The truth is that you will find ALL kinds of people throughout history misusing, misunderstanding, and misquoting the Bible, including yourself.

And you as well David M. If man is capable of misusing and misunderstanding the bible, then man is also capable of mistranslating the bible as well. Over and over again. I have read the bible contradictions. There is no way the bible is perfect and inerrant. Its impossible. And since the bible is in our hands we, and I mean man, make mistakes. And we live in an imperfect world. Nothing that has, is, or will be, except Christ if you are a Christian, will be perfect in this world. And this includes the bible you hold in your hands on Sundays.