Home of the Brave and the Free

Posted on August 15, 2012 by robw77

Really? Our country’s history is full of examples where all men and women are not free. If you happened to be Native American, Asian, African American, Hispanic or a Woman you did not have the same freedoms. Every group that has asked for equality, since our forefathers signed the Constitution into the law of the land, has been met with a long hard fight, by those who actually enjoyed the privilege of being free. The path to freedom for many has been littered with bible verses tossed in to stop or slow their progress.

We still have inequality going on in our country, and some who enjoy freedom to love and marry who they want are fighting to keep the status quo away from gays and lesbians. And like our ancestors before us, many have used their religion and their bibles to justify their reasons. With the inhumanity our country shows towards groups of people since the time before our Declaration of Independence for our freedom, and the drawing up of the Constitution declaring freedom the law of the land, the latter may well be one of the most hypocritical documents we have.

Our own treatment of groups of people repeatedly breaks the laws of our country. Even today, letting religion dictate whether a gay or lesbian can marry their loved ones, goes against their rights rendering the law little more than a piece of parchment paper for all the good it does to protect them from being discriminated against.

When the Declaration of Independence declared “…We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness…” there was no clause that said unless you are _(fill in the  blanks)_. Homosexuals as well as heterosexuals fought the Revolution and every war after to procure and protect our freedom. When the Constitution was signed in to law and the Bill of Rights ratified, equality was part of the package.

When marriage became a civil union between two people who lawfully entered into a contract that was licensed by the government, that is when religious beliefs no longer could have lawful bearing on who can or cannot marry, accordingly. Separation of church and state is supposed to guarantee it.

Yesterday the Democratic Party showed some progress by unanimously approving marriage equality as part of their 2012 platform! This is encouraging for those of us who are rallying for the LGBT community. Here’s what they said:

“We support the right of all families to have equal respect, responsibilities, and protections under the law. We support marriage equality and support the movement to secure equal treatment under law for same-sex couples. We also support the freedom of churches and religious entities to decide how to administer marriage as a religious sacrament without government interference.

We oppose discriminatory federal and state constitutional amendments and other attempts to deny equal protection of the laws to committed same-sex couples who seek the same respect and responsibilities as other married couples. We support the full repeal of the so-called Defense of Marriage Act and the passage of the Respect for Marriage Act.”

Now all that is necessary is for the platform to be ratified at the Democratic Convention in Charlotte, N.C. I hold hope that it will pass—it will be a platform to be proud of and a firm stand that we believe we are all created equal.

As a woman, I know the history of the fight it took so that my Grandmother could vote. Many a bible toting man undoubtedly let them know where a woman’s place was to be. According to their bibles—the voting booth wasn’t one of them. It is important for me to speak up for the rights of others, just as those before me did for my genders’ right to vote. And as a Christian who has the freedom of religion to believe, worship and attend the church of my choosing, because someone stood up for my religious freedom—some even sacrificed their life for that right. For me it means that I too need to be diligent and stand strong with my LGBT brothers and sisters in opposition to oppressing legislation that keeps them from having the rights and protections that I take for granted.

The mending of our precious Constitution is important so that no matter who a person is; their rights and freedoms are guaranteed—as it says on that fine-looking parchment paper.

“We the people of the United States …  promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Image by Ono Kono.

Posted in Bible, Prejudice, Religion, US Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

A Gay Dad’s Thoughts on Being Restricted from Making My Kids “Ex-gay”

Posted on August 14, 2012 by robw77
No Hate

Can children be protected from hate that their parents don’t understand to be hate?

Updated: This now has been signed into law in California.  California has passed yet another bill in the effort to create a state where truly the society is affirming and equal for all.   This bill has the added objective of making our state safe for all, especially teens and children.  The kids in question here, ironically, are also the ones who are at most risk for bullying and teen suicide.  This time, the issue is not about either of those dangers to them…at least, not directly… it is to save them from damage from their own parents, even though said parents in their hearts, believe they are doing good.  Or just don’t want the neighbor’s to talk.

What the Bill is About  The legislation states that a mental health provider may not seek to change an individual’s sexual orientation if that person is under the age of 18.  This includes efforts to “change behaviors or gender expressions, or to eliminate or reduce sexual or romantic attractions or feelings toward individuals of the same sex.”

The “reparative therapy” this bill seeks to limit has been regarded by The American Psychiatric Association,  The American School Counselor Association, The American Academy of Pediatrics, The American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, The National Association of Social Workers , The American Counseling Association Governing Council , The American Psychoanalytic Association, The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry , and The Pan American Health Organization as harmful.

Concerns Against It   The “ex-gay” movement of course claims this is everything from “unconstitutional” “denying parental rights everywhere” which is “usurping the civil rights of parents who support their child’s right to receive therapy for unwanted same-sex attractions, especially when that child has been sexually molested” to “fascism”.  They claim that it ignores conjecture about “the psychological and physical health risks of sodomy “ and is based on “biased information without consulting the ex-gay community “  (source: Parents and Friends of Ex-gays)

Update:  Jo Linder-Crow and the California Psychological Association came out in favor of the bill and helped pass it.  She stated this in the comment section of this article when it appeared on the Huffington Post: “The California Psychological Association supports SB 1172 to ban the use of Sexual Orientation Change Efforts with minors. Our organization worked over several months with Senator Ted Lieu to modify the bill so that it protects minors from this potentially damaging intervention, while it protects legitimate therapy with minor patients who want to explore their own sexual orientation and identy. psychologists and patients. The legislative process is most often evolutionary as a bill is introduced and amended. This was the case with this bill, and we are pleased that by working collaboratively with the Author and Sponsors of the bill we were able to shift our position from an initial Oppose Unless Amended position, to a Neutral position, and finally to a Support position. We are hopeful that the Governor will sign the bill.”  Surprising, at least to me, is that  Jo Linder-Crow, executive director of the California Psychological Association, and a team of her colleagues were against it originally.   One of the leading concerns was that the bill not allow for therapy providers to be able to be sued (“We don’t support anything that brings this wider birth of legal action against psychologists”).  They also felt  the definition of “sexual orientation change” was too vague, and that minors should be able to choose to undergo the therapy themselves if they are deemed “mature”.

My  Take on It   Ms. Linder-Crow had no qualms last year in pushing to make children skiing without helmets illegal.  The bill was vetoed, much to her disappointment.  She did not seem concerned that either parents or “mature” kids be consulted in the practice.  There did not seem to be much ballyhooing over the specific of what “wearing” a helmet consisted.   Then again, there was no reason that someone would wear a helmet, and then go sue their therapist.

I do see some validity in the age of responsibility of someone choosing their own therapy, and in other cases, 12 years old and above is acceptable if the person can make a “mature” decision.  This is not other cases, however.  This is a case where the entire motivation to change is outside stigma, family and religious pressure. It is unthinkable that coercion would not be present consciously, subconsciously or unconsciously.  That coercion is the basis for many things that we guard vehemently against in the sexuality arena from statutory rape to sexual harassment.  I can think of no harm in asking even a seemingly willing participant from sharing, vetting but waiting until the age of consent for “feeling modification techniques”.

As far as being sued…professionals need to be held accountable, and I would hope that Linder-Crow has a proposal to make that happen if she has an aversion to court rooms.

My take, therefore, is …  the healthy kid population of California needs this protection.  As a parent, I am vigilant over my responsibilities and I am a “Daddy Grizzly” in care for my kids.  But I understand that I am not all knowing, and like my children, while I may protest and feel my autonomy is threatened by boundaries, inside, I welcome them.  I welcome being restricted on things that through my ignorance or carelessness, I may inadvertently put my children at risk.  I am not allowed to expose them to various adult material, substances, compulsion inducing behavior or to leave them alone in a heated car.

I would have even welcomed Linder-Crow’s ski helmet law.

I would not even want my own dogmatic evangelized agendas (if I had them) to harm my children—no matter what.  If I fell in the shower and every lick of sense fell out of my head, and I decided that I was going to send my boys to some crack pot therapist to MAKE them gay….  Go ahead and stop me.  Please.  Seriously.   (And something tells me that the P-ex gay flaggers would do everything in their power to do so.)

I want my children safe.   I want YOUR children safe.   Mental health professionals have concluded that risks from these therapies include “undermining self-esteem, connectedness and caring, important protective factors against suicidal ideation and attempts.”

Our kids will all be living in this world together, and if you screw up yours with damaging mental manipulation therapy, it will harm far more than just them.

So, tell you what…  let’s let them all get to 18, have their childhoods and develop to who they want to be.  Then if you have worked your propaganda right, they will select the agendized “therapist” you want for them.

But.  I hope not.

Posted in Family, Living, News, Politics, Prejudice, Religion, Research, Science, US Politics | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , | 12 Comments

Christian Bigotry Kills

Posted on August 13, 2012 by robw77
New Yorker

Bigotry Kills

Illustration courtesy of Christopher Greco

by Ono Kono

Did the title make you wince? I know they are loaded words; however, truth can shine a spotlight on ugliness. Although I don’t believe all Christians are bigots, the words and deeds of many of us are causing a lot of pain for others, and for some the pain is unbearable.

Some Christians aren’t even aware that the words they say harm other human beings; some don’t even care. Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words that make another person a pariah causes despair, loneliness, and distrust for those who hurl words like weapons. Words such as “love the sinner, hate the sin” may not seem as hateful as a “God hates fags” on signs we see in protests from one religious hate group. Unfortunately, for the person it targets, “love the sinner, hate the sin” is just as demeaning.

I challenge you to take a serious look at the words coming out of your mouth. Are they words of criticism or judgment of another group of people? Hold a mirror up, look yourself in the eye, and say those words to yourself. Now say them to Jesus. Hard to do, but when you say those words about another, it’s just like saying them to him.

Bigotry hiding under the cloak of Christianity is killing God’s children.

Posted in Prejudice, Religion | Tagged , , , , , | 18 Comments

The Homosexuality Question, Part II: Jesus DID Say Something

Posted on August 11, 2012 by thomsense

“This is pretty much everything the bible has to say about gay stuff…” is how I started the Bible gay hatlast paragraph of part I, but that’s a little bit disingenuous. There are other passages within the bible that are of interest to LGBT’s but they are not as explicit and directive as the six quotes I examined. There are several (possible) love affairs, most notably David and Jonathan, and Ruth and Naomi. Also, there is the matter of this weird word, “racha” (often written “raca”) found in the Sermon on the Mount and nowhere else. What is it?

The New International Version of the Bible leaves the word untranslated in its place (as does the KJV): Matthew 5:22: “But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.” What about the other translations? The New Living Translation uses the word “idiot”. The English Standard Version uses “fool”. The New American Standard Version uses “good-for-nothing”. In a real stretch, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English uses a phrase “I spit on you”.

It’s pretty obvious that this word “racha” is some kind of a slang word, pejorative and dirty. And because it wasn’t a “nice” word, no one ever wrote it down, except in this one Biblical spot! In fact, no other ancient textual source of the word was found until 1934. from igfculturewatch:

Further, in 1934 a papyrus was published from Hellenistic Egypt of the year 257 before the Christian era that contains the word rachas in an unspecified derogatory sense, but a parallel text suggests that it had the meaning kinaidos (“faggot”). It would thus have been a loanword from Hebrew in the vulgar speech of the Greek settlers in Egypt.

A-HA! Now things are starting to make some sense! Why would Jesus say “stupid” in his second prohibition and “you fool!” in his third? The answer is that he would not! Jesus is telling us in Matthew 5:22, in his second prohibition, not to call people out as faggots, plain and simple as can be.

Okay, that’s not exactly a ringing endorsement of LGBT’s. Jesus “racha” comment does tell Christians to get off LGBT’s backs about the persecution stuff, but doesn’t condone LGBT’s themselves. But there is another spot in the Bible that does better, Matthew 8:5-13:

When Jesus had entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, asking for help. “Lord,” he said, “my servant lies at home paralyzed, suffering terribly.”
Jesus said to him, “Shall I come and heal him?”
The centurion replied, “Lord, I do not deserve to have you come under my roof. But just say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I myself am a man under authority, with soldiers under me. I tell this one, ‘Go,’ and he goes; and that one, ‘Come,’ and he comes. I say to my servant, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.”
When Jesus heard this, he was amazed and said to those following him, “Truly I tell you, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith. I say to you that many will come from the east and the west, and will take their places at the feast with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven. But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.”
Then Jesus said to the centurion, “Go! Let it be done just as you believed it would.” And his servant was healed at that moment.

What? That doesn’t sound like much of a LGBT endorsement? Once again, it’s all in the translation. The original word used that was translated as “servant”, is “pais”. What is a pais? Basically a squire…with benefits. Not all Romans used their pais like that, but Luke corroborates that in this particular instance, the Roman Centurion mentioned in Matthew probably did. In Luke 7:1-10, the story of the Centurion and his pais is told again, but this time, the servant is referred to as “entimos doulos”. From St. John’s MCC Community website:

“The word doulos generically means ‘slave;’ it could not mean son or boy. Entimos means ‘honored’, so the combination would produce the contradiction of ‘honored slave,’ meaningless unless it applied to a ‘junior or younger male partner.’ Thus the meaning of pais in Matthew is limited to the partner in a same-sex relationship (reputedly, the shield bearers for Roman soldiers were their lovers).

In other words, Matthew and Luke both tell a tale of one half of a LGBT couple being told that he had “the greatest faith in all of Israel” for believing Jesus could heal his lover, sight unseen! Unlike the woman who had been accused of adultery, Jesus never told the Centurion to “go and sin no more”. This LGBT endorsement sounds a bit better now, doesn’t it?

…And this is all without even getting into the “born eunuch” controversy…yet.

EDIT 8/21/12 I didn’t find this link until after I published this blog, but it does a GREAT job expanding on the story of the Centurion and his pais, and even brings gay marriage into the conversation: When Jesus Healed a Same-Sex Partner

Part I:   The Homosexuality Question Answered:  Not a Sin

The Homosexuality Question, Part III: Pro-Marriage Equality…Because the Bible Tells Me So?

Posted in Bible, Living, Politics, Prejudice, Religion, US Politics | Tagged , , , , , , | 33 Comments

A Gay Dad’s Perspective on the Hate Note Writing Father

Posted on August 10, 2012 by robw77

Dads writing notes have hit the blogsphere lately.  Two of them, one horrific and one good, have gone viral.  I am not going to belabor their history, but assume that if you are reading this, you are already well aware.

Boys walking.The first was not a recent note…it was written five years ago, but posted a few days ago,  by the son to whom it was sent.  The passage of time does not lessen its impact, it merely solidifies it, as the cold disregard it represents seems to be as fresh in the son’s life now as it was when it was sent  .  The second was written by a man who was moved by the first note.  He is a new father and he addresses his son, but twenty years from now.

The first letter comes from a father that the religious right would embrace.   They would see him as a man of principle and a man of “tough love”.   They would see the second dad as weak, misguided… but still within the rights to be a dad.

I, on the other hand, am their worst nightmare.   I am a gay single dad.  I am the parent that Bryan Fischer targets in a tweet about a hypothetical “underground railroad” to “save” kids from gay parents.  I have been told to my face that my boys and I are not “God’s best plan for a family”.   Since the events that lead to the formation of our family seemed very much by the Grace of God, I have to say that I do not agree with their opinion.

My sons, Jason and Jesse are 10 years old.  They were born to different drug addicted mothers, and I became their foster parent, and then their adoptive parent, and have had them since they were newborns.  My partner at the time and I are their Daddy (me) and Papa (him).  Papa loves and sees them on visitations, but has other life-driving events that have taken him out of our immediate family.  The boys love him and even though he is not physically present much, he is very much a spiritual part of their lives.

So, to recap…. Gay, divorced, single parent…. The nightmare to the religious right.  And yet, here I am, about to step up and share my perspective about these letters, not really from thoughts as a gay man, but from the heart of a parent…. As a Dad.  So, I would like to address the two fathers and their notes…and then to address my sons with a note of my own.

To the man of the first note:   I cannot in good conscience call you a dad.  In our modern society,  the parental  verb “to father” means to contribute DNA material to an unborn child.  You did that.  Congratulations, you are now at the level of thousands of foolish teenage boys.  You may have been at one time an actual Dad as well… loving, caring and wanting what is best for his child.  Five years ago, you wrote a note to your biological son, however, at a time when he needed you most…and gave him less than the least you had to offer.  In my opinion, on that day, you ceased to be a Dad.  Your son is now the child of us, the world, and we will nurture him and love him the way you should have, and we will pray that he knows that we are there for him in the ways that you are not.

We recently witnessed the spirit of a true Dad in the face of Tom Sullivan as he desperately tried to locate his son Alex at a movieplex in Aurora Colorado.  Tom held the true terror in his eyes that only a loving Dad could, that something horrible may have happened to the son he held most dear.

And I can’t see the screen right now as I type this through the tears remembering the horror that,  in fact, Tom’s worst fears were true and that Alex lay slain inside.

I cannot fathom the pain that Tom felt, and probably still feels.  If it were either of my sons in that situation, and I in Tom’s place,  all I can find in myself is a place without oxygen, without life, and a darkness so horrifying, that I don’t know if I could recover.   Those are the feelings of a Dad losing a son.  Those should be the feelings of a Dad losing a son.

It is from that vantage point, that I look at what you have done…willfully, voluntarily.  To walk away as you have is not, in my opinion, just ignorant…. It is hate-filled, ugly and evil.  I am sure there is some “walk-in-my-shoes” point of view here that I could be good enough to try and see, but right now, I do not see it, and no matter what it is,  I cannot see a justification for what you have done.

To the man of the second note, the AskYourDadBlog Dad :  You are a good guy… and going to be a great Dad.  That being said, your vision of your conversation with your future gay son…and the conversation I will have with mine, differ significantly.

Here is a letter that represents what I will be communicating to my sons in the not too distant future.  And therein lies a major difference…  I don’t want my sons to feel the need to hide in a closet to have “that” conversation at a later date.  About  anything.   That may not be totally realistic but as they walk their path of self-awareness, I want them to have someone to talk to along the way…their Dad.

Dear Jesse and Jason,

Hi guys.  You are about to become teen agers.  Wow.  It seems like just yesterday when God brought us into each other’s lives, that we found each other through adoption, and I had the absolute honor of becoming your Dad.

I am so amazed by each of you.  You are becoming fine young men, and when I have told you  that I “love you more than anything” every single day for the last ten years , I have meant it.  I love our talks, our sharing, and how you tell me all about your days…how you feel about your friends.  I love sharing books and movies and even hearing about the latest dilemmas and conquests within your Pokemon games.  I even love that you tell me what you are afraid of, so we can face those things together.

When you were babies, I imagined what you each would be like grown.  What your interests would be, what your hopes would entail and what your lives would be like.  You are now about half way there, and I have to tell you… I could not be more thrilled.  Getting to know you each and the bond that we have in our souls is the most profound adventure I have ever known.

In the next few years you are going to change.  You are going to grow up.  You are going to discover within yourselves new tastes, new ideas and new instincts.  You know we have rules and principles to live by that make us good citizens, help us to never harm others and to be loving caring beings.  With those, I hope you guide the new and developing you that emerges.  I also hope that you continue to feel free to share with me about feelings, thoughts, aspirations and dreams that you have.

Someday, you will fall in love.  As we have talked about… there are men who fall in love with women,  quite a lot of them actually, and then there are men who fall in love with other men…like Papa and I did.  As you develop into the men you are going to be, your instincts will tell you which of these you are.  Your instincts may also tell you that you are both.  I don’t know.

Here is the important point, however–  I won’t care.   I only care that you be happy and be the best you that you can be.  I care that you strive for your dreams, that you are in touch with the spirit of the universe, I call Him God—what you call him/her or it will be up to you,  and that you treat all people well along the way.  I won’t care about the gender or ethnicity of your future spouse…all I will care about is that you honor and nurture each other and support each other’s value, that neither lose their identity behind the desires of the other.

Guys, I did not have you by accident.  I did not have you because other people thought I should.  I had you because I wanted you more than I have wanted anything… and I want to give you the greatest life possible.  And I got you, I believe, because God intended for us to be a family.  I mentioned before about your dreams?  Well, you just heard mine.

There are things you will win, there are things you will lose and through each, you will have a champion, your Dad.  I am here for you, and I always will be.

You make me proud.

Love, Daddy

In our house, closets are now, and in the future, for clothes.                                  V6728Q948WDJ

Posted in Family, Living, Miscellaneous, News, Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , | 45 Comments

Justice in the News

Posted on August 9, 2012 by robw77

Cruel and Unusual Punishment

Marvin Wilson
Huntsville, Texas – Yesterday at 6:27 p.m. Marvin Wilson age 54 was pronounced dead and marked the seventh execution this year with nine more lined up to be killed in the next few months in the active death penalty state of Texas.

It’s been reported that the man was mentally disabled; however, the courts said he was fit to stand trial and receive his punishment. Whether he was disabled or not, what I find troubling with is how the state of Texas is becoming assembly line executioners. According to the Bureau of Justice, the state houses the largest population of inmates waiting to be executed.

Supreme Court Justice Scalia denied the petition for a stay of execution hours before the State of Texas killed Wilson. Lee Kovarsky, Wilson’s attorney sent out this statement after the ruling:

“We are gravely disappointed and profoundly saddened that the United States Supreme Court has refused to intervene to prevent tonight’s scheduled execution of Marvin Wilson, who has an I.Q. of 61, placing him below the first percentile of human intelligence. Ten years ago, this Court categorically barred states from executing people with mental retardation. Yet, tonight Texas will end the life of a man who was diagnosed with mental retardation by a court-appointed, board certified specialist.

“It is outrageous that the state of Texas continues to utilize unscientific guidelines, called the Briseño factors, to determine which citizens with intellectual disability are exempt from execution. The Briseño factors are not scientific tools; they are the decayed remainder of an uninformed stereotype that has been widely discredited by the nation’s leading groups on intellectual disability, including the American Association on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities. That neither the courts nor state officials have stopped this execution is not only a shocking failure of a once-promising constitutional commitment, it is also a reminder that, as a society, we haven’t come quite that far in understanding how so many of those around us live with intellectual disabilities.”

What is even more troubling is the court based their ruling on a fictional character out of a John Steinback novel. His son, Thomas Steinbeck told the Huffington Post:

“Prior to reading about Mr. Wilson’s case, I had no idea that the great state of Texas would use a fictional character that my father created to make a point about human loyalty and dedication, as a benchmark to identify whether defendants with an intellectual disability should live or die. I am certain that if my father, John Steinbeck, were here, he would be deeply angry and ashamed to see his work used in this way.”

I sometimes wonder which century I am living in. I believe history will record it as a barbaric one.

Posted in News, Prejudice | Tagged , , , , | 2 Comments

Romney’s Lost Moment

Posted on August 8, 2012 by robw77

Christie Whitman, Republican and former governor, points out a pivotal moment that could have been a game changer for Mitt Romney. It was the moment when Steve Snyder-Hill, a gay soldier, asked the dais of Republican candidates about Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. And the audience booed him. Steve became a symbol for something beyond the question he was asking. He became a soldier under attack from an audience that should have respected him.

According to Whitman… this was the moment that Romney could have stepped up and showed the country that he was the man for all the people of this country who love this country. That he recognized that to serve was to do something beyond political opinions.

Unfortunately, Romney is not such a man, and he has no such vision. He has four deferments and an instinct to duck.

That was the wrong time to duck.

Posted in News, Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

The Ultimate Judgment Call?

Posted on August 7, 2012 by robw77
The Help

“Courage isn’t just about being brave. It’s about overcoming fear and daring to do what is right for your fellow man.” The Help

Not long ago I was watching the movie “The Help” about a white woman in the 1960s, who took it upon herself to write a book full of horrendous stories told to her by black women. I am old enough to remember Martin Luther King’s speech, the marches, Rosa Parks on the bus, segregation, and the riots. I was still a kid, but I remember. I remember reading the book Black Like Me, by John Howard Griffin and how it terrified me to know that people were treated so horribly just because of skin color.

You see, I grew up in small towns where everyone was white; however, I do remember an interracial couple that attended our church. His skin was almost as dark as the black suit he wore on Sunday mornings. His large hands fascinated me, and when he turned them over his palms were almost as light as my skin after a few weeks in the sun. Her skin was just the opposite, as white as flesh could be. I had no idea the problems they faced—I was too young.

Later, I became aware of the prejudices they must have encountered. And wouldn’t you know it? The bible was used to justify the case against interracial marriages, and God was the biggest excuse for their bigotries they held so dearly and vehemently condemned those who married outside their racial boundaries. Sound familiar?

Griffin’s book opened my eyes to understanding just a small part of what it must be like to be the target of prejudice. Although the movie “The Help” comes from a fiction novel, it had a similar story line. A white woman has to tell the stories of what it was like to be a black woman in the south. It was acceptable or at least tolerated to be openly prejudiced during an ugly period in our country’s history.

I watched the attitudes of some of the characters in the movie and it really hit home, that it really isn’t about the people they scorn, it’s about what’s in their own hearts. If they couldn’t pick on black people, it would be someone else. Like today, being openly prejudice against blacks isn’t acceptable anymore. Today, the open and allowable bigotry is towards homosexuals, and as with interracial couples being looked down upon in the past, the bible is used as a weapon against them.

How can any Christian justify their prejudices with the bible, and be so disconnected from God’s love? Jesus came to this earth and told us, we must love one another, we must help one another, we must heal one another, and he specifically told us not to judge one another. Isn’t bigotry towards any group, the ultimate judgment call?

Posted in Prejudice | Tagged , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Thin Line

Posted on August 5, 2012 by robw77

In 1971, the musical group The Pretenders informed us that there was a “thin line between love and hate”.  This in fact, has been also confirmed by scientists.  After an interesting experience in the blogsphere the other day, I am now wanting to know…  is there also a thin line between offense and amusement?

It all started when my only-know online friend (OKOF), Angela, (OKOF’s are an extension of our old imaginary playmates except OKOFs actually exist and have real lives somewhere in the real world), sent a message about a particularly irritating blog on which those of us in the OKOF group may want to comment.  I went for it.

The blog was by a Christian gentleman who treated his Christian family to a Christian meal at the very “Christian” Chik-fil-A on the “eat chicken fat to prevent gay marriage” day.  (OK, they really didn’t call it that…)  He took time to note there was a sole protester outside of said restaurant with a sign that pointed out all the other things the Old Testament prohibits that the Chicken-fat-A people had no problem indulging in.  (Is it just me, but does anyone else wish the Chik-fil-A hypocrisy really extended to them offering a fried shrimp menu item?  But no.  That would make them OBVIOUS.)

Anyway, he went on and on about this poor lone protester…calling him “angry” but dignified (“Let me tip my hat to the way you presented yourself.”), and arguing the points that were posted on his sign.  Apparently, from the blogger’s point of view, it was not misinterpretations of the OLD Testament that mattered…. it is only the misinterpretations of the NEW Testament that count. (Apparently, none of his Leviticus and Sodom and Gomorrah quoting brethren got the “NO OT”  memo.)  He was indignant that the protester would have any irritation of him, as a good man, standing up against the horrible censorship that Chik-fil-A was undergoing.

So, the blogger went on to pontificate how he wanted to talk nurturingly to this protester, and the blog comment people  thought it would be “Christian” to take the guy out food and/or water…and all agreed how wonderful they all were.  I guess the fact that the guy was a) not homeless, b) not looking to be converted and c) likely to be offended by Chik-fil-A purchases did not seem to take steam out of their self congratulation.

The blog seemed to welcome comment and “discussion”, and by the time I read it…I was ready.   I was very polite, succinct…and direct.  I did point out the failings of the blog commentary in living up to Christ principles, the second commandment in particular.   Then I hit “enter”.

I was then informed that my post was “under review by the moderator”.  This translated into “your post is never to see the light of day…ever”.  I then looked under their terms and conditions and noticed that they deemed it acceptable to decline any posts they felt were…argumentative.  Ahhh.  Gotcha.  Discuss…but don’t…ARGUE.

My head was reeling.  The offense of being censored by someone who was patting himself on the back for being the chicken eating marauder against censorship was almost too much for me to bear.

Just when the injustice of it all peaked in my head…I found the thin line.   I perused the rest of the blog.   The blogger, Joe Dallas, bills himself as a foremost sexual sin recovery expert.  He is particularly well versed in gay sexuality, and his photo is very attractive with a slight hair tussle and a come hither smolder.  It is obvious from the other content on the site that the man does a LOT of talking about sex. Sex, sex, sex… oh, and presumably how to avoid it.

I then got this visual image from his family’s point of view.   Out on the town to eat dinner with Dad.  Dad, who has let everyone know what a driven hedonistic slut he has been.  The conversation lags as Dad…dear old, hot, studly Dad…gazes longingly out the Chik-fil-A window at the sole protester…the cute guy with the bible quote sign.  Dear Dad, wanting nothing but to take the protester under his fold, put his arm around him…and lovingly explain it all.

I laughed.   Yes…I found that line…and I crossed it.  It was not the Pretender’s thin line of “love and hate, it was another pretender’s thin line of “offense and amusement”…. and I had made it over to the other side.

Posted in Bible, Entertainment, Prejudice | 3 Comments

The Homosexuality Question, Answered: Not A Sin

Posted on August 4, 2012 by thomsense

“God DOES state that homosexuality is DETESTABLE” Bible Gay Hat

I read those words today on my computer screen within a comment that mostly centered on talking up how loving the commenter actually was. “It’s not ME who hates fags, it’s GOD!” so, so many Christian believers say, in a bewildering variety of verbiage.

Not so fast, lady. Here was my response:

The biblical passages you are thinking of when you say, “God DOES state that homosexuality is DETESTABLE” are Genesis 19:1-5, Leviticus 18:22, and Leviticus 20:13 in the Old Testament, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, 1 Timothy 1:9-10, and Romans 1:21-31 in the New Testament.

Let’s take a look at these, shall we?

Genesis 19:1-5, in which the townspeople of Sodom want to “know” the angels. First of all, rape is not equal to homosexuality. Rape is equal to violence, domination, control, and humiliation. Second, Sodom’s fate had already been decided at the time these angels were in town. Ezekiel tells us the real reason: “‘Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen. Ezekiel 16:49-50 (NIV) The “detestable things” are further explained in Hebrew sources as a whole laundry list of cruelties to strangers, and toward anyone displaying compassion for another. Much killing and maiming is described.

Leviticus 18:21 (NIV) “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.”
Leviticus 20:13 (NIV) “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.”

This is most probably the place where you think that God said homosexuality is detestable, but there are several problems with that. First off, the prohibitions in Leviticus are specifically for the Levites, not everyone. Second, Jews decided a long time ago that all of them had a little Levite in them and have been following these rules, but not like you’d think. In Greek times, many Hellenized Jews participated in the Greek system of pederasty. But instead of having anal sex, they had intercrural intercourse (between the closed legs). In modern times, many loving gay Jewish couples only explore their love orally. In other words, God doesn’t hate homosexuality, just butt-sex, and then only if you’re a Levite. Third, who listens to Leviticus anyway? Certainly not Christians! How many anti-immigration “fencers” do you think are Christian? Considering the rhetoric I’ve heard from that side of that political issue, I’d think a whole lot. Yet, in between two of the most (in)famous passages in the bible, there is this little gem: Leviticus 19:34 “The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.” This isn’t some dumb restriction on blended fabrics or shellfish. This is about being kind to strangers, a Jesus-approved sentiment. Yet many Christians still cannot follow this tenet. Why should we pay attention to Leviticus while you yourselves seem to feel quite free to ignore it? EVEN when the N.T. backs it up??

1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (NAS) “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.
1 Timothy 1:9-10 (NKJ) “Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous person, but for the lawless and insubordinate, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for fornicators, for sodomites, for kidnappers, for liars, for perjurers, and if there is any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine.”

The word that was translated in these two passages as “homosexual” and “sodomite” is arsenokoitais. It is a slang term used in the bible only in these two places. Here’s what Paul R. Johnson wrote about this word, for “Second Stone” magazine titled “A New Look at Arsenokoitais” (1994 January/February issue):

“The Greek compound term arseno-koitais literally means ‘the male who has many beds’. The word arsen means ‘male’, the adjective o means ‘the’, and the term koitais is defined as ‘many beds’. Thus, the entire phrase means a male with multiple bed-partners; a promiscuous man. Everywhere that the word koitais is used in the plural in the Bible denotes promiscuity. However, when the same word is used in the singular form, the Bible gives approval because the singular denotes monogamy.”

In other words, God’s not keen on male sluts.

And lastly, we have Romans 1:21-31, the meat of which is contained in Romans 1:26-27:

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”

Once again, there are several considerations here. First off, this extensive description of behaviors contained in the entire 10 lines is the SYMPTOMS of idol worship. Second, you should note that the women “EXCHANGED natural sexual relations for unnatural ones” and the men “In the same way the men also ABANDONED natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. In other words, the idol worshipers WERE STRAIGHT. Third, Romans 2 offers you up some pretty stiff penalty for getting all judgey after reading Romans 1: Romans 2:1-4:

“You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God’s judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere human being, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God’s judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, forbearance and patience, not realizing that God’s kindness is intended to lead you to repentance?”

This is pretty much everything the bible has to say about gay stuff, and as I just showed, it’s all refutable. You’re actually on much firmer ground (excuse the pun) if you believe based on the Bible that the world is flat, as there are over 75 passages in both testaments describing the earth as flat, fixed, or at the center of the universe. Go figure.

EDIT 8/21/21: I should’ve done this earlier, but I should attribute Matthew Vines as a reference for this blog post. I didn’t actually re-watch his speech The Gay Debate: The Bible and Homosexuality when I answered this person in a comment and inadvertently wrote my first blog post. I did it from memory, and a few additional references on-the-fly. But the effort I made WAS essentially a re-hash of his awesome speech, and he should be credited.

Part II:  Jesus DID Say Something

Part III: Pro-Marriage Equality…Because the Bible Tells Me So?

Posted in Bible, Clobber Passages, Living, Politics, Prejudice, Religion | Tagged , , , , , , , | 115 Comments