Queerty is better as a member

Log in | Register
 

There’s Actually Nothing About Gay Marriage in the World’s Most Stolen Book

One of the most useful side-effects of the pasage of Prop. 8 in California is that people are asking, “So why won’t we let the gays get married again?” and anti-marriage advocates, unable to win their case in the civic square have retreated to religion, pulling out the “Because the Bible tells me so” defense.

Not true, says Newsweek‘s Lisa Miller in this morning’s cover story, The Religious Case for Gay Marriage, which argues that there’s a pretty compelling theological argument for gay marriage. Looking at the institution Miller asks:

Shall we look to Abraham, the great patriarch, who slept with his servant when he discovered his beloved wife Sarah was infertile? Or to Jacob, who fathered children with four different women (two sisters and their servants)? Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon and the kings of Judah and Israel—all these fathers and heroes were polygamists.

The New Testament model of marriage is hardly better. Jesus himself was single and preached an indifference to earthly attachments—especially family. The apostle Paul (also single) regarded marriage as an act of last resort for those unable to contain their animal lust. “It is better to marry than to burn with passion,” says the apostle, in one of the most lukewarm endorsements of a treasured institution ever uttered. Would any contemporary heterosexual married couple—who likely woke up on their wedding day harboring some optimistic and newfangled ideas about gender equality and romantic love—turn to the Bible as a how-to script?

Miller goes on to argue that the traditional family values that religious conservatives in this country are so fond of protecting are virtually absent from the Bible and are modern inventions and interpretations of the Bible. She says:

Religious objections to gay marriage are rooted not in the Bible at all, then, but in custom and tradition (and, to talk turkey for a minute, a personal discomfort with gay sex that transcends theological argument).

Which is lately what we’ve been thinking too. The arguments against gay marriage are objectively pretty weak and almost every extended conversation we have with someone against gay marriage eventually devolves into a “gay sex is icky” conversation, to which I have to explain that most of us don’t have plans on to invite the wedding reception up to our rooms at the end of the night.

It’s an even-handed piece that will, if history is any indicator, result in Lisa Miller getting lots of nasty phone calls at the behest of the Christian Anti-Defamation League.

By:           Japhy Grant
On:           Dec 8, 2008
Tagged: , ,

  • 127 Comments
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      Pieces like the Newsweek article serve their purpose, I guess, which is to document to reasonable people that the Bible is at best ambiguous on the issue of same-sex marriage.

      But I don’t really think – despite the vociferous leaders and crazies at the rallies – that most who are opposed to same-sex marriage literally “believe” the Bible on this – or on any other specific issue (dietary rules, divorce, slavery, on and on and on). I think it’s just smoke screen for their unarticulated fears of gay people.

      As such, these types of articles are about as useful as spitting into a wind tunnel. Anyone who attempts to single out some chapter or verse in the Bible and transfer it verbatim to modern society is, by definition, a fundamentalist, and as a rule, out of reach and out of touch.

      These types or articles make for fun reading, and allow people who are not zealots – and even not of faith – to think that they have “gleaned some real truth” on what the Bible “really means”, as if the Bible “really means” anything except that which you want it to mean.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matt
      Matt

      From reading the excerpts of the article posted here, it seems it makes a compelling arguement for polygamy and not gay marriage.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:30 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • kevin
      kevin

      how is a work of fiction relevant to the gay marriage debate? Especially in a country founded primarily on the principle of keeping religion IRRELEVANT in issues of governance?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Strepsi
      Strepsi

      @JOE MOAG — I respectfully disagree. I think a LOT of people “literally” believe the Bible says it’s a sin, they just haven’t read the Bible. The Saeri Shephards of the world, who get information from their (disingenuous) Pastors. They say “sorry, it’s in the Bible, you can’t choose to cherry pick what God says”. Then you QUOTE the Bible to them, and ask why they are not signing any petitions to ban Red Lobster (shellfish are unclean), or Pork production from their State (pork is unclean – touch it and you need to be exiled)… OR… if they *really* want to protect the sanctity of marriage, why they are not making Propositions for Adultery to be punishable by death! By that point they usually spit at me, but the facade is cracked, and my work is done.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • ggreen
      ggreen

      Newsweek is the same rag that ran an article a few years back about how the DVD re-release of 80′s porno “The Pizza Boy He Delivers” was going to cause a spike in unsafe sex and degenerate behavior in gay men.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • spottsy
      spottsy

      I am basing my opinion on only the excerpts above:

      This article probably isn’t the most compelling case as to why Christianity shouldn’t disapprove of gay marriage. For example, Abraham sleeping with his servant? That whole story is about how he didn’t put his faith in God to allow his wife to become pregnant and so he strayed and slept with his servant in order to produce offspring and later had to repent. I don’t think that really has anything to do with polygamy.

      But anyway, even if the article is lacking, I think it’s great people are starting to open their Bibles and search for truths. As a Christian, I have only a few close friends who are interested in doing this. Whenever I have even heard a church sermon that briefly touches on homosexuality, I never hear verses to back up what’s being said.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:50 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      At this point, any reasonable article showing the ridiculousness of the argument against gay marriage/gays in general is welcome. No, it won’t change the mind of the Bible thumping homophobe, but, as the passage of Prop 8 shows, there are a lot of religious people caught somewhere in the middle who are listening to what the extreme Christian right are saying. Show those people an alternative and many of them will begin to see that those arguments are flawed. Personally, I’m happy for any help we can get.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:54 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • spottsy
      spottsy

      Kevin – what the Bible says is very important because so many voters vote based on what and who best matches up with their religious beliefs. Whether or not they should is a different debate. But if Christians take the the time to understand what the Bible actually says rather than what they think it says (since they are voting based on what it says) they will be more educated and responsible voters I think. And I know not everyone will change their opinions, but there’s nothing wrong with encouraging them to dig deeper rather than take what their friends or pastors say at face value.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 9:58 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • blake
      blake

      Um, why should the “Bible” matter to Americans who don’t follow it? Why should the “Bible” be the basis for deciding the rights of Americans in a SECULAR country?

      Separation of Church and State.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 10:17 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Olive Yurdich
      Olive Yurdich

      I just love that Marc Shaiman, and now Newsweek, have the balls to publicly point out inconsistencies in the bible. Christians have been hiding far too long behind the armor of Ammendment 1 of the Constitution while stabbing others with their god given swords. This article and the Prop 8 Musical video are like replacing those swords with plastic dinner knives.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 10:31 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      Joe — this piece is very important for two reasons:

      1) To let people know that conservativism isn’t the only kind of Christianity. There is a spectrum of viewpoints in the Christian community.

      2) It is important to bring up the religious discrimination inherent in Prop 8 against UCC, etc, and other sects that “marry” their gay couple congregants. Don’t those Christianities (and Jews and other religions) deserve respect and rights too — or do we allow – as Prop 8 does — the law to pick one version of Christianity over another? I think that is a another powerful argument — legally and culturally.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 10:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @blake:

      It doesn’t, except that when we win legally, we still need to win over people culturally — if that had happened already, Prop 8 wouldn’t have passed — and this kind of piece is very helpful on that front.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 11:06 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • RCDC
      RCDC

      @Chris: exactly. it’s not saying the Bible is the ONLY reason to be cool with/support gay marriage and therefore everyone must pay attention; it’s saying there’s just no support against. also, it’s very very important to remember in any kind of ideological or political battle what and how strong your opposition is. the vast majority of people in the US belong to an Abrahamic faith tradition, so it’s important to make arguments that will convince them, whether you feel it’s a necessary argument or not.
      Blake – when you use scare quotes to talk about an actual physical and cultural artifact, it just undermines your argument by making you look aggressive, radical, and, frankly, ill-informed. now if you’d said ‘the Bible, a “holy” book’…different entirely. :-)

      Dec 8, 2008 at 11:25 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • PJ
      PJ

      The whole argument about gay marriage stems from a single line in Leviticus. As has been mentioned, Leviticus talks about a lot more than just homosexuality. The modern zealots want us to think that these rules still apply. If they do, can someone tell me where I can buy a good slave from Canada?
      I have a problem with Abraham sleeping with his servant, personally. My problem isn’t that he slept with her. My problem is that when his wife got pregnant at the age of 90, he sent Hagar and Ishmael into the wilderness. Their only crime was that Hagar was doing as her master bid. Once Sarah got pregnant, he dumped them off to die. GOOD JOB, ABE!

      I have no problem with polygamy. I don’t care whether a man is married to one woman or twenty, as long as they can financially support the marriage and all it entails.

      I just want to get married to one man. The followers of Abraham seem to have a problem with that.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 11:48 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eugene
      Eugene

      It annoys me every time there are GLBT people who hate Christians based on their wilful misunderstanding of what Christianity is or is not about. They are determined to believe it is a religion. Hate speech from a GLBT person is no better than hate speech from a religious person.

      I become angry when I see some of the “arguments” made against what Christians believe, not because those people disagree with me but because they do not argue logically. They also quite happily gloss over most issues and then call it an argument. I become angry not just about such exceptionally weak arguments about Christianity but about anything.

      One should not effectively accuse people of assassinating their brains if one is guilty of assassinating one’s own. That is an insult to those of us who choose to think critically and it is an insult to learning, academia and Philosophy in general.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 11:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • AZgaybe
      AZgaybe

      well i’m guessing the “reporter” didnt read the whole highly revered/ridiculed holy violent bullshit bible as gays are considered by it as abominations and having unnatural affucktions(affections). One can’t defend marraige as between a man and a woman unless one considers it from a religious point. The state makes it a lawful protected union/contract/curse and the church works its magic on it and Ivana what the fuck Trump works it to her own pleasure. What a goddamn sanctified joke it all is…so let us vote on it and then the mob will rule ’cause that’s so american*. *refer to native americans, africans, jews, japanese(ww2), oh! and palestinians**. **refer to jews and arabs-hypocrisy seems to afflict us all.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Robert
      Robert

      @kevin:

      Okay… while you may feel that the Bible is a work of fiction, many voting people do not.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      Eugene, grow some balls and point out willful misunderstandings of the the (conservative) Christian viewpoint? THEN prove to me that Christianity is NOT a religion, and I may take a moment to take you seriously.

      Argh, grammar nazi mode.

      The arguments against gay marriage are objectively pretty weak and almost every extended conversation we have with someone against gay marriage eventually devolves into a “gay sex is icky” conversation, to which I have to explain that most of us don’t have plans on to invite the wedding reception up to our rooms at the end of the night.

      You need a comma before the first and because those are two independent clauses, and I find the usage of the comma between ‘conversation’ and ‘to’ dubious because the sentence does just as well without it. Another thing, “Plans on to invite”? Did you mean “plans on inviting”?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Eugene:

      Fair enough Eugene. But of course criticism of Christianity from gay people generally comes from the perspective of a group that’s been attacked emotionally and physically for a very long time. However, we should recognize now, for our own benefit, that we have many allies in the straight Christian community. We should actually help get the their loving inclusive message out and get them better PR. That would ultimately help us a great deal.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag:

      I disagree as well. Historically, were your argument true, several battles of discrimination in the past would have been lost. Nearly every variant of discrimination that is now condemned be Christians was originally endorsed by them. It took fight their doctrinaire belief to get them out of the way.

      Historical analogies:

      “Who demand the ballot for woman? They are not the lovers of God, nor are they believers in Christ, as a class. There may be exceptions, but the majority prefer an infidel’s cheer to the favor of God and the love of the Christian community. It is because of this tendency that the majority of those who contend for the ballot for woman cut loose from the legislation of Heaven, from the enjoyments of home, and drift to infidelity and ruin.” — Justin Fulton, 1869, in opposition to
      women’s right to vote.

      Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the
      interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix. ” — Statement by Virginia trial judge in 1959 case that led to 1967 U.S. Supreme Court striking down laws in 16 states that prohibited interracial marriage.

      “[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God… it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation… it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.” –Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

      Some of these views were held as late as 70s for a majority of people, and now what do we see?

      Indeed, schools like Bob Jones University which denied the right to interracial dating at their schools only changed their policy in 2000.

      It’s not a futile effort. It’s only one among many battles which need to be waged.

      I think a lot of this comes down to those gays who keep asking privilege question – but this is my right, why should I have to.

      My response is always going to be the same. While unfair, that’s the nature of these battles. You have to fight the discrimination of multiple fronts. We should ceed no territory or assuming that the battle is lost. Even if you do not reach the older believers, you reach the younger evangelicals. This is why you do this.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Chris:

      a) There are gay Christians. This reminds me of those statements by some about race and being gay like there are no gay blacks either. One of my friends is an out gay minister.

      b) As I recount to Joe in my post at No. 20, we are not the first group to address religious doctrine as the basis for discrimination against us. African Americans were made slaves based on the story of Hamm (spelling??) that said we were cursed by God. The Bible also explicitly has slavery in it , and that’s never condemned.

      The thing is that if we do not show up, and we ceed this battle of faith , it makes the battle in other areas harder. Gays keep doing this. We keep saying “let’s not go there.’ When in fact, we should be saying, “by any means necessary to win the war.”

      Dec 8, 2008 at 12:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: My point – which seems to have been missed (seems to be a recurrent theme on these threads) – is that while fundamentalists may say that “it’s in the Bible” or believe “it’s what the Bible wants”, they are not basing their views on that. They have their views – their hatred of gays FIRST – then use the Bible to justify those views. Pointing out that the Bible does not, indeed, support these views will only mean that they find some other justification for their bigotry.

      They don’t listen. As such, I’m suprised that they are not commentators on Queerty…

      Jesus himself could come down, sit these folks in a room and lecture them for 10 hours about how they are wrong, and they would emerge, agree that the Bible does not condemn same-sex marriage, and then move on to other justifications, like economics, or politics, or tradition, or Fox-News, or whatever.

      They are bigots, and couching their bigotry in terms of “the Bible” is a lot safer than calling us faggots or using the “N” word or whatever the case may be.

      That was the point of my post. I would like to see any evidence that a majority of people who, for a significant part of their adult lives, claimed that “the Bible says X, Y, or Z’, have later found out that there were wrong AND changed their opinion, not simply found a new justification for their hate.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: As I wrote in my original comment, these are the same type of people who used the Bible to support slavery.

      So, when you say “as I recount to Joe on No. 20…” might make you sound like you have hit on something, but I already addressed that.

      Once again, I just love it when you try and tell me something that I already know and have already mentioned.

      TGN, I get the feeling that you are trying desperately to pick fights with me, even when you agree with me. Did I do something to you in a previous life?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @Chris: Perhaps. But these types of articles have been run hundreds of times over the years on countless issues. Has that changed the hatred that these people feel?

      Moreover, as I was trying to say, their hatred comes first. They simply use a misunderstanding of the Bible to justify it. If you take that away, they will find some other justification, and nothing wil have been gained.

      These people are not moved by faith, reason or anything other than fear and hatred.

      These articles make people like you and me feel good, but, considering that the fundamentalists ain’t on the Newsweek mailing list, they are of dubious importance.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:25 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag:

      As I explained, the goal is not merely to change the bigot of today,b ut see this as a long project. Hence the quotes regarding race. All I did in the second post was to build on that.

      These same fundamentalists 30 years go thought interracial dating was an abomination.

      I know I might be on to something because I have already experienced it first hand. Have you ever talked suffiicently to conservative evangelicals to make your judgment?

      So long as we are seen as the morally perverse ones rather than the Christian doctrine which has more basis in later Church discrimination, it will always make our battles harder.

      It will always leave a large segment of the population, wrongly, believing that our very existence under their faith is the same as murder. Fairly or not, this means it has to be addressed.

      It leaves a vacuum, and when you leave that vacuum, some one else will fill it. As the No on 8 people learned in California.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: I have had the distinct mispleasure of having to work and talk and spend inordinate amounts of time with throngs of Christian Conservatives. Try working at the Urban League.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: What were their age range?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:48 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      Separate question: How long ago was this?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • tallskin
      tallskin

      Oh dear oh dear oh dear.

      How on earth can otherwise intelligent people base their morality and personal ethics on a rather unpleasant book written thousands of years ago?

      We should just laugh at people who take all this seriously.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: 1992 – 2000, ages ranged from early 20s to late 50s/60s. The Chicago Urban League is the largest Urban League in the system, with about 120-150 employees when I was there…

      Dec 8, 2008 at 1:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @tallskin: And it was not just employees, it was the community that I worked in doing outreach, advocacy, etc…not at all saying that there weren’t liberals, progressive, everything… but I had plenty of exposure to the fundamentalist mind set up close and personal. Lots of derogatory comments about me being white and gay…

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      @tallskin:
      Laughing at them won’t help us get equal rights. The US is different to the UK, far more people here take religion far more seriously.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag:

      I wonder, to be quite frank, if its race and economics rather than religion getting in your way. You were probably seen as the do-gooder outsider of privilege.

      Let me tell you from my perspective, what’s happened in the past. I will bring up the sexual orientation issue or its come up in conversations with someone. He or she will say something about economics or whites. I will tell them I am gay. They will say something about being black and economics. I will say unless you lived in a house without running water, you don’t want to trade economic hardship stories with me. The whole time no matter how they pushed, I would push back. If they tried to speak over me- I would say that you think you can get loud? Try growing up in the rural south, loud is not a fight you are going to win over me. Normally that sort of joke would calm things down or pisss them off. Either way, I kept at it, until it came to the real discussion.

      That’s how I typically handled it. I knew i would face a lot of resistance. These sorts of things always do. When my high school principle would take the basketball team into white schools in the 60s, the white students used to spit on them. She said that if you are going to change things, you got accept that’s part of the deal. So, I kept that in the back of mind when it came to the times I decided to discuss sexual orientation issues with evangelicals.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • WillBFair
      WillBFair

      @Eugene: Thank you. I just found this site and made an argument defending liberal christianity, and within 3 seconds was called every name in the book.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Of course Kevin is right – the bible, the quran and the book of moron are all fiction and a great waste of paper. I’m told that the ink used in them, especially raised ink, even makes them unsuitable as emergency toilet paper.

      The only important thing about this article is that some of corporate press realizes that the Obama/mormon/catholic axis that defeated same sex marriage in California, Florida and Arizona reignited our GLBT movements. And it makes them a tad nervous so they’re weighing in on our side.

      I love it when that happens.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @WillBFair: Yes, well, welcome to the bigotted, closed minded, religous zealotry of the non-religious wannabe leftists, with Bill Perdue, Village Atheist (the modern version of the Village Idiot), leading the pack.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @The Gay Numbers:

      Why does Joe have to be privilidged? OR a do gooder?

      I spend every single day of my life arguing-very well-with my black mother who REFUSES to push away from her irrational religous beliefs. So I completely agree with Joe.

      @Joe Moag:

      As a black person who has had MANY arguments on this with middle class to working class to rich class etc etc. It was exactly as you said. ‘They just don’t like us’.

      It’s a generalisation for sure but heck, it’s really idealistic to think that by just creating an intelligent debate, irrational people will listen to you.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 2:54 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: Look, TGN, I am not sure I am following what you are saying, so forgive me if I am off.

      I am not mad or bitter from my experiences. I don’t have some sheltered view of life and people, nor do I see people who are wrong as evil (not counting Bill Perdue and Charles Mueller).

      I am a person of faith. Not the faith of the Christian Right and not a faith I care to waste my time and yours going into in this thread.

      I was simply pointing out, in response to your question, that I have, indeed, had a TON of experience with Christian Conservatives. That’s all.

      Race, economics, religion… all of the above. Intolerance does not divvy itself up into neat little proportions…

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      @WillBFair:
      It happens a lot unfortunately. I’m not at all religious, and despise people who use religion as an excuse for bigotry and homophobia, but to blame all Christians or Christianity in general is completely – and often deliberately -misunderstanding things. Liberal Christians need to make their voices heard above the braying of the intolerant (of any kind).

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @John: Yes, that’s my point. They don’t listen. And that’s why they are fundamentalists, not the reverse.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:01 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Eugene:

      Eugene, your disingenuous argument is a pile of steaming poop. Blah. Blah. Blah.

      You accuse others, and I am assuming that you refer to Athiests when you accuse us of hate speech, while blatantly ignoring the hate speech emanating from your own Christian Camp.

      May I remind you of the golden rule, “Do unto others as you would have have them do unto you.”

      Or, do you, as many Christians do, cavalierly ignore that rule, along with many other commandments that are found in the bible?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:03 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John: I am not saying Joe is privileged. I am talking about their perceptions of him that maybe there. I have straight white friends who experience the same thing even when sexual orientation was not involved so his argument is not just about what he is saying, but also about who is saying it. Race concerns do not go away simply because he’s discussing sexal orientation.

      I can say this because it sounds like my experience as a black guy who grews up poor talking to other black people have been different than Joes.

      It does not lessen his experience to admit some are more capable of reaching people than others.

      We are both discussing our experiences here. My experience has been that yes there are a lot of people who will not change (just like a lot of white people who still felt that the Bible made Jim Crow morally right), but there re a lot who will.

      Your mother and the people he met are not the entire picture. No more than the people I met are the entire picture.

      The picture is mixed. but you are only going to know that by fighting to change the long term outlook

      The example I give above of my high school principle being spit upon was a life lesson that she was imparting to me that I don’t see a lot of here.

      I see a lot of -well its hard. yes, it is. That’s part of what fighting for rights always are. You are trying to change entrenched beleifs. No group before us had it any easier.

      It wasn’t easy to change the Bibiblical beliefs that the races should not marry. But it changed because people kept at it.

      I am discussing the broader idea of what gay civil rights groups should be doing. Don’t give up fighting on this religious territory, and over time (even if no now) it will pay dividends just like it paid other groups. That’s why the groups need to fight this battle. Not because you will not meet resistance.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:07 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Robert:

      >”Okay… while you may feel that the Bible is a work of fiction, many voting people do not.”

      That’s lame.

      A lot of people think walking under a ladder or breaking a mirror will bring bad luck. Those people vote too.

      So what?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:10 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: I agree, that the fight is always worth fighting. I still don’t think that an article like Newsweek’s is all that important, all that enlightening, or all that new. And, I still don’t think that it gets at a lot of the problem which is that these people hate first then use religion to justify it. I think that a faith-based “counter” to this is treating the symptoms, not the disease.

      I agree that liberal faith groups can do a lot of positives. I also think that they often succeed by emphasizing FACTS about the groups and peoples that are hated, not debating religious dogma across schismed wings of a church.

      Just my view based on my experiences.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:12 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I am not really sure what to tell you at this point. I give you Biblical quotes about other groups who experienced higher or equalivent levels of virulence based on the Bible as we have as gays. We know for a fact that those views over time have changed even with fundamentalists despite your own personal experiences. They changed because people kept at it rather than saying it was futile. That’s my only point here. I am not sure why, if you have no emotional investment in your position. this bothers you so much or am I missing something here?

      All John did was to point out another “this is my personal example” post. I provided the same,b ut I also added analogies to place our struggle in historical context. Nothing that any of you are saying is new. Even with fundamentalists. They were against women and blacks too.

      Moreover, I am also addressing reality here. You are a white guy. Race does not go away because you are trying to do good. No more than it goes away for me because I happened to be highly educated when I worked in corporate America.

      \This is our society. Race is a part of it. Black people are going to look upon you with more suspion than me. It’s not right. It’s just the reality.

      It does not mean it can’t be over come. It just means that if I were to have had the same conversation I probably would have reached more people (not all, just more) because I am a black guy who grew up poor. Just like I might add , a black guy (or woman) who is gay and religious would reach them better. There is no getting around that.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: Okay, your follow up post sounds like we are not disagreeing here. I just was putting a tweak on why this stuff matters. Not saying this particular article alone matters, but that it is a part of an overall effort that must happen. We are leaving ourselves open to these attacks if we don’t address them in a way that other groups in the past have.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:21 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: First of all, you first responded to my comment, not vice-versa, so all I have done is respond to yours.

      Secondly, as I said, maybe it was race. So be it. I think I can understand that, TGN. It’s not a tough concept to wrap my head around. But YOU asked if I had any experience with Christian Conservatives, I told you that I did, and you proceeded to diagnose, distill and dissemble that experience into a convenient straw man argument that I never said and that you could attack and be victorious over. Why?

      Third, as I said in the comment before this, I think liberal faith groups can have a positive effect. I told you, based on my experiences, how I think that they can be most effective, and then reiterated the point of my original post, which was that I don’t think that the Newsweek article was all that telling, all that new, all that important.

      Where you get “umbrage” from anything I have said is beyond me. Seems to be a need that you have with me, even when I agree with you and you agree with me.

      There are plenty of people on this thread that I think you might have some substantive issues with… take a go at them. Or don’t. Whatever.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Alexa:

      >Liberal Christians need to make their voices heard above the braying of the intolerant (of any kind).”

      The Christians are not making their voices heard above the braying of the “intolerent”

      1) I must have had my earplugs in when the Christian were ‘braying’ on Prop. 8 in CA and three other states as well.

      2) Is not your comment bass-ackwards?

      3) Having made your completely ridiculous, idiotic comment, would you care to share with us how you really feel about the GLBT community?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:28 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: Did you read my follow up?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: And, TGN, I really am sick and tired of being told by people that as a white guy, my work in the Civil Rights movement was a case “of doing good” or that I am a “do-gooder”.

      Are you under the impression that Civil Rights is the sole domain of African Americans? That Whites have no role in it? That Whites may also feel that we, as WHITES, suffer when anyone suffers a lack of rights? That if African Americans can have their rights abridged, so, too, can Whites? That poor whites suffer under the same barriers used to oppress blacks? Or browns? Or women? Or gays?

      I don’t want to hear that BULLSHIT anymore. Had enough of it to last a lifetime, buddy.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: It was posted after mine, so I read it after mine. I have sent you another one which I hope will resonate with you.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @The Gay Numbers: @Joe Moag:

      Hey, like I said in my post I was generalizing of course! It’s not always the case…

      But you’re both idealists that’s for sure and well, is that needed in this day and age.

      I was just pointing out that not everybody wants their ‘opinions’ changed. Esp religous people….or I should say people who have a societal secular way of leading their lives?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:47 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Joe Moag:

      >”I am a person of faith.”

      Oh, what a relief it is to learn that fact about you. Now, both Bill and I can lean back, comfortable in the knowledge that…

      1) Your ‘credentials’ are in order.

      2) You are certified by the American Psychological Association to make a medical analysis and assessment of the mental health of Bill Perdue.

      3) You know what the fuck you are talking about on a wide range of topics, from A to Z, and that you believe are above the heads of most of the ‘village idiots’ who post here.

      4) That your ‘higher source’ of knowledge is indisputable.

      5) And you are qualified, by a higher power, to pass judgement on Bill I or any other bloggers with whom you disagree, that we are certifiably “evil”.

      You will have to forgive me if I do not see (or hear) any distinguishable difference between you and the bigoted and hateful idiots who voted yes on Proposition 8 in CA and the other three states who passed similar initiatives.

      And that being the case, why don’t you just stay on your own blog where you can run the show, as you are obviously desirous of doing here, and spare all of us a lot of tiresome bullshit to wade through?

      Rubber hip-waders and gas masks are not my fave fetish wear.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @John:

      I meant ‘that IS’ needed. I’m all for idealism-I’m none too…!!

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @Charles J. Mueller: Charles, did you get permission from your master Bill Perdue to post this? I want to see a signed note from him before I respond further.

      Between you and Bill, I at least respect Bill a little. He’s not the sycophanitc side-kick that you are.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:57 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @John: Yup, idealist, guilty as charged.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I am not sure what to tell you here? I do not have any impression beyond reality.

      I deal with race every day of my life. So does any black person working in corporate America or in a predominantly white organization or with white friends. The irony of your post to me is that I have spent every day of most of my life having to deal with race not because I elect to do so (as you did), but because I am given no choice. I am not sure which is better, but my first thought process is that I sure would have liked to have your problem with race by comparison.

      My thought as I consider your post is to get a little angry that you somehow thing you are suppose to get around it? Is that your point? Why is that exactly?

      This is our reality whether we like it or not.

      So, what do you want here? For me to pretend that race does not matter? Because some white people decided to do the right thing? Good for them.

      Some straight, black and white, decide to do the right thing about gay rights. Does that make homophobia any less of an issue in your life? since you are here, I’m guessing no.

      Why do you expect black people to be any different than anyone else?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John: I am a realist. If you don’t fight, you lose. If you fight, at least you have a chance. It’s that simple. that’s the law of nature. Yours is the idealism in which you think you can win without fighting.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: I literally have no idea what you are talking about. Where oh where are you getting the idea that I discounted race? I have said – NOW THREE TIMES – that race may well be the factor in our differences on this issue. What do you want? An affadavit? Where are you getting this crap?

      Are you ignoring or mis-referring to my commentary about your oh-so-perjorative and condescending comments about non-African Americans – specifically, whites – working on Civil Rights? If so, I would enjoy having you state, verbatim, whether you beleive that a white man in this field is simply a “do-gooder” and has no versted interest in Civil Rights, and that it is the sole perview of African Americans. Is this what you are saying? Please clarify this for me, as you have me at a total loss…

      And your assinine comment that I “expect black people” to be different than anyone else on this issue is straight out of your ass, for it is certainly not based on a SINGLE THING THAT I HAVE SAID.

      Keep, trying, TGN, I am sure if you argue with me long enough you will find some crack of difference between the susbstance of our viewpoints on this and of mine, and thus justify your rambling and ridiculously misplaced anger or umbrage at what I have written.

      There’s just no agreeing with some people… You are getting this close to joining Bill Perdue and Charles Mueller as rant specicalists…

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:27 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @The Gay Numbers:
      Damn, I don’t want to get into a thing about the concept of ‘idealism’ but you say you are NOT idealistic? No?

      A ‘realist’ (surely) would argue you with because ‘realist’s’ never/don’t tend to do anything ‘proactive’ to change/alter situations. They believe, ‘this is what it is’, ‘it is human nature’….etc etc..

      You believe humans can ‘alter’ their intrinsic beliefs by engagement with intelligent discourse?

      So, as humans, it is inate in us to…seek intellectual or social progression….acceptance?

      Discussion is part of our make up. Used effectively it can create ‘good, change..difference’?

      You don’t think the people who you argued with and changed their minds, were kind of not ‘too far gone’?? They were maybe just sheep amongst the flock?

      Like I said before, this isn’t an argument, I’m on either of your teams…you both try to change stuff-thank god.

      But PLEASE I want to meet your ‘realistic’ friends who are as compassionate as you are about engaging dialogue or debate…

      All my ‘realists’ friends are not and accuse me of wasting my time going to protests or instigating controversial social projects!

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Joe Moag:

      > ”Between you and Bill, I at least respect Bill a little. He’s not the sycophanitc side-kick that you are.”

      Sticks. Stones. Bones. I’m crushed.

      Asking if I got permission from my master, Bill Perdue is so typical of faith-based types like you. Just make-up the innuendos, insults, lies and shit as you go along. Free-style editorializing at it’s finest.

      Umm…I believe the word you are groping for is “sycophantic”, or “sycophant”. Judging from some of your other typos, grammatical errors and “faith-based” comments on these blogs, however, “groping” seems to be a way of life for you.

      If you are attempting to intellectually “Lord” it over me, at least get your spelling and terminologies straight.

      It’s called spell check. Look into it.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @Charles J. Mueller: Oh, OUCH!!! You got me on spelling! Good one, Charley, good one! Now, go tell Bill what you did and maybe you’ll get a cookie.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: All I said to you was that a black person would have yielded better results. You said you did not want to hear that. At this point, unlike the other thread, I am not going to go back and forth. Life is life. Deal with it or not. I don’t care anymore.What I said is dealing with reality. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t try. It just means it will be harder for you as a white guy to talk about issues with a black person than it would be for me as a black person talking about it given our society.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:41 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @Joe Moag:
      I don’t think it’s personal with TGN, race is a sensitive subject and I have been known to not be as polite.

      The bottom line is this-which is an issue I have with ‘so called’ liberals…

      They want to do good to feed their egos or make themselves be important but don’t actually take the time to understand the people they are actually dealing…even if they want to.

      So in a way, it’s like the religous people who are so dogmatic..or blinded. We try and change their minds through knowledge and outreach about gays but they don’t move…or pretend to BUT ultimately (many not ALL) are just prejudice.

      With ‘do gooders’ or people who want to help because the genuinely give a sh*t about civil injusticeness etc…they also don’t want to look into the path that their ‘crusade’ is pretty superficial. This is a project. Again, they are geared by their egos….their want…

      I’ve meant so many people who meant well, religous….white…..rich…poor…socialists or not…

      And well, it was just part of their crusade.

      Do you understand were I’m coming from?

      Both parties have an agenda, we all do.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:42 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: Well, I would still love to get some clarification regarding your consistent reference to me, as a white, as a do-gooder vis-a-vis my work on Civil Rights. You said it, not me. I find that highly condescending and more than a little intolerant.

      Be that as it may…Life is life.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:43 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @John: As with you, I can only speak for myself when it comes to my motives in life for the work I have done. If it makes someone comfortable to notch that up as vacuous “do-gooderism”, then fine. Whatever. Ton of bullshit, but whatever.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:46 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @John: You confuse pessmism with realism.

      Realism does not say “never do x or y” It says here are the limitations and advantages for to acomplish a stated goal. Pessimism on the other hand assumes x is not possible at all ever. You are pessimist.

      That’s all I have done here in this thread. Advocate the realism that doing nothing will yield nothing.

      That’s why I assessed it’s possible to do it because although extremely difficult it was done with other groups also attacked (including blacks and women) . That’s the reality.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:52 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @Joe Moag:

      “Whatever. Ton of bullshit, but whatever.”

      Good.

      Don’t be deterred. Cynism is a bitch and will kill us all one day..

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • John
      John

      @The Gay Numbers:

      I guess there is that fine line….still you can see were the confusion falls..

      I guess it’s just ‘terms’.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 4:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I didn’t say I thought you are a white do-gooder. I said that was probably the unstated thinking that influenced the black Urban League perceptions of your positions on gay issues.

      This is why, by the way, the gay movement needs to move beyond white, upper class males as the only voice of the community to being more inclusive of multiple voices so that people can see that the gay community includes non-whites, people of low income background, etc. It’s a perception thing. Not what you are thing.

      Let me give you a practical example- they had Dan Savage on DL Hugley the other day discussing sexual orientation issues like marriage. My thought was- why didn’t they have a black gay preacher like Rev. Gomes of Harvard. He wrote a book called the Good Book which covers the Bible’s treatment of gays, blacks, women and other groups in a historical context. The conversation would have been entirely diffferent. Dan was fine, but he could not do what Gomes would have done.

      My point is that the Urban League people were not listening in part due to the topic, but also due to the speaker. They see that you are white guy so they question whether or not you undestand them or can be trusted. The distrust about white people’s motives in the black community is a powerful thing.

      My point is not to criticize your service. It’s the point out that race does not go away simple because you are doing the right thing. My having degree from a top 20 law school didn’t stop a major entertainment company executive from asking me had I taken Contracts Law. Americans see the world in racial ways. It’s not about you.

      The only other point i added is that your being tired of race discussions as you at one point stated is not a luxury blacks get to have, and it not a good place from which to discuss race with a black person such as myself. I get tired of race too. It does not matter if we are tired of it. It’s part of the American system. We have to address it.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: You make an excellent point about the gay rights movement, in specifics over the issue of Prop 8, which you and I have talked about on this site before and agree on completely.

      As to my being sick of race discussions, again, you are completely misquoting me. I said that I am sick of being told that my efforts, because I am white, are “do-gooderism”. I talk about race all the time, work on race issues (health, HIV/AIDS, politics, economics)… I am anything BUT sick of it.

      What I am sick of is exactly what I said I am sick of. Period.

      Also, I am getting about equally sick and tired of being misquoted.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Chris
      Chris

      @Joe Moag:

      But Joe, there are people who are reachable. People who don’t hate gay people, they just haven’t really thought about us……..there will always be the 20% – 25% of people who hate us — they hate themselves really — and they are probably the people who still approve of Bush so their skulls really are impenetreble anyway….but that doesn’t mean we should reach the people we can, in fact we need those people.

      So forward that article.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Joe Moag:

      > “@Charles J. Mueller: Oh, OUCH!!! You got me on spelling! Good one, Charley, good one! Now, go tell Bill what you did and maybe you’ll get a cookie.”

      No need for that. Bill is a big boy and can read my comments for himself.

      The “cookie” can be sent in an attachment. ;-)

      Is America a great place, or what?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @Chris: Yes, I agree, and in an earlier comment on this thread I said that I think it is more effective to reach those folks through facts about the groups that they hate, not to attempt to reach them through a religious debate.

      That’s all.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:17 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: Why is what you are sick of relevant in the middle of a conversation over what tactics and strategies may or may not be fruitful with regard to acomplishing equal rights as gay people?

      The reason I said what I said is I no more see its relevancy than my talking about the racial issues I face. I think its a tangent that has nothing to do with anything. Race here matters to me as a messaging and branding tool. Not because of what you are or are not. If race is getting inthe way of the messaging, then we need to neutralize it as the issue. The same is true of economics. If part of the branding/messaging issue for gay rights is that its seem as upper income people wanting extra rights- let’s have a diversity of economic voices as a part of the mix. I am strictly talking strategy and tactics here.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I thinkt he confusion happened due to the your personalizing what was a comment not personal to you. This is about strategy. When you did that, I assumedyou somehow that it was important what you felt personally with regard to the efficacy of the strategy. Personllay I would prefer race not to matter, but I also do think diversity is a good thing. but more than that, I think beyond the good that is diversity, people of difference expereinces can reach people differently. That’s my whole point- different strategies toward the same goal, including “is this the right messenger for this message?”

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: It is relevant because your comments were, in my opinion, a condescending reference to my motives and my perspectives. I am not the only one who saw that – John asked you in a reply “Why does Joe have to be a ‘do-gooder?’.”

      I am sure that you can see that, in the middle of a discussion, slamming someone’s motives for why and what they do with their lives might, indeed, be relevant.

      And, I am sure that you can see that I might, just might, get a little sick of it. I imagine that if the shoe were on the other foot, and I – for no reason – began to question your actions. motives and perspectives due to your race – you might take a little offense.

      Again, I have agreed, time and time again, with your points on tactics and strategies vis-a-vis race and politics, specifically around gay-rights issues. A point that you could have made a lot clearer had you not dragged my motives, based on my race, into it.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:44 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      “3) Having made your completely ridiculous, idiotic comment, would you care to share with us how you really feel about the GLBT community?”

      My comment was neither ridiculous nor idiotic. It’s not my fault if you failed to read it properly.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 5:45 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I didn’t discuss your motives. You can keep saying I did , but my actual posts never makes reference to you because my post not really about you. its about strategy. Here’s a way to address this, if I did wht you said, cut and paste where I say “Joe is a white do gooder” without my explaination being in the context of this perception of the Urban League and why a black person saying the same thing may have had a diffrent outcome.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 6:35 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @ TGN: Here: “Some straight, black and white, decide to do the right thing about gay rights Gay Numbers:

      As I said, I am not the only one who read your comments in this light.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 6:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Moag’s thinking is typically christian, anti-scientific and eurocentric. That is to say, it isn’t particularly reality based. In the world Moag lives in things are upside down and inside out. For instance, in the real world most christians are anti-GLBT bigots, while atheists are more often supportive. In the real world christians theocrats run things, not atheists and not the LGBT communities.

      But not in Moag’s Land of Oggedy Boogedy. In his world there’s a great cry wending heavenward from latter day morons, catholic child rapists and KKK baptists. They took away our right to marriage and now they say they’re persecuted. Moag, Eugene, WillBFair and all of god’s little ankle biting attack Chihuahuas engage in the same interminable whining when we disagree with their cult dogmas.

      Catholic cult members like Moag who admire priestly orders of child rapists like the franciscans and the jezuits have no more credentials than CHURCHILL Y did, and for the same reason.

      Catholic cult members like Moag who think GLBT folks have ‘deleterious’ genes suffer from internalized homophobia and subscribe to social Darwinism.

      ———————————–

      Like all superstitious brainwashed cult members, WillBFair is unfamiliar with what constitutes reality. He’s boohooing because on another thread he, pretending innocence, proceeded to vilify critics of superstition and treated us to a dose of undiluted, sanctimonious bullshit. He feigned shock when we returned the favor. Check it out at http://www.queerty.com/what-do-you-do-when-your-church-schisms-over-who-you-are-20081204

      As I said before, cult members who are mired in superstition, dogma, and ignorance had better get used to the idea that what you and the dodo have in common is that you’re extinct.

      You all need to get used to the idea that no one owes your superstition ridden cults anything more than a swift kick in the ass, and that we’ll keep being intolerant of bigots and child molesters until the cults die.

      —————————-

      (Charles, Moag says he has a little respect for me. A little respect from Moag is like a little bite from a Mojave green. Where have I gone wrong?)

      Dec 8, 2008 at 7:00 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @Bill Perdue: Ah, the Village Idiot – I mean Village Atheist – has come in from his sandwich-board-wearing, bell-ringing rant for the afternoon.

      HEAR YE, HEAR YE! GOD DOES NOT EXIST! OBAMA IS PART OF THE CATHOLIC/RACIST/OBAMA-ITE AXIS OF EVIL! Ring! Ring! Ring!

      Just in time to show his bravery to his lackey Charles Mueller! Such brave, wildly non-specific rants! Kudos! Kudos! Kudos!

      Actually, Kudos are a chocolate candy as well. Give Charles one, Bill, before you tuck him into his cage. He has been a good little boot lick for you all afternoon.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 7:08 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chuck
      chuck

      @Alexa:

      >I’m not at all religious, and despise people who use religion as an excuse for bigotry and homophobia, but to blame all Christians or Christianity in general is completely – and often deliberately -misunderstanding things.

      Is that not what you said and how should I have read it if, indeed, I “failed” to read it properly. I am a tad confused.

      1) If not the religious folks, perhaps you could enlighten me as to who exactly was responsible for the passage of Prop. 8 in CA?

      2) Was not the passage of Prop. 8 in CA an act of overt bigotry and homophobia by the religious folks who crafted and backed the measure?

      3) As one of the millions of victims of this overt bigotry and homophobia by religious fanatics, what is it that I completely and deliberately misunderstood?

      If, indeed, Prop. 8 was not the result of Christian bigotry and homophobia, who then shall we blame for it’s creation and passage?

      Peter Rabbit? Santa Claus? The tooth fairy? Leprechons?

      I am waiting with baited breath for the ‘truth’ to set me free.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 7:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Matthew
      Matthew

      @ Joe Moag:

      I could read your remarks all the livelong day…

      Dec 8, 2008 at 8:26 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: I ask you for a cut and paste, and this is the best you can come up with? . Yes, some black people who are straight work on gay issues, but it does not affect how a large number of the white gay community perceives of African Americans on gay issues. How is that again about you? It is about their perception. That its not relevant what you have done. If you are unwilling to read the rest of what I wrote in context thenw e will always come to blows. What does the rest of that post say?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 8:32 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chuck
      chuck

      Well, as is typical of many people of ‘faith’, it did not take long for the thin mantle of civility to crack and the false facade of pseudo-sophistication and intelligence to slip away, revealing the grotesque ugliness of a bigoted, hateful and vindictive self-loathing, homophobic gay man.

      When Moag found it increasingly more difficult to field direct questions and effectively counter dissent with his theories and postulations, like so many of his kind, he quickly resorted to name calling, verbal abuse and the vilification of those who refuse to buy into his upside down, inside out world of disjointed religious ideas and concepts

      No longer capable of arguing any of his points intelligently, with poise and dignity, he has become increasingly dependent on denigrating and debasing terms and words in a vain attempt to win his inane arguments.

      Calling us village idiots, sycophants, bootlicks, village Athiests, lackeys and having accused us of having our heads up each others asses, Moag has given us a remarkable opportunity to see the real person hiding behind a mask of pseudo-intelligence and mock-sophistication.

      He stands before us now, unmasked, in all of his hideous magnificence, revealed as the Mohave green that he really is, instead of the harmless garden snake he tried to pass himself off as.

      Thank you, Moag, for making such a splendid example of yourself for all of us to observe. By your vitriol, you have demonstrated to us, that you are no more a friend of the GLBT community than all of the gay-baiting, gay-bashing, lying, religious SOBs that recently voted our rights away at the polls.

      You must be very happy.

      Dec 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: By the way, to make sure I am not going crazy here is my first post to you on the subject of you working at the Urban League after I asked you the questions regarding who were the people you met. The first line says it all:

      “No. 33 · The Gay Numbers
      @Joe Moag:
      I wonder, to be quite frank, if its race and economics rather than religion getting in your way. You were probably seen as the do-gooder outsider of privilege.”

      I did not say there if you read the post, and seriously i am starting to question if you did, that you were a do-gooder – I said “seen as” or, in other words, perceived by others. I don’t get how you interpret that very first statement on the subject as my personal views about you.

      I added”

      “Let me tell you from my perspective, what’s happened in the past. I will bring up the sexual orientation issue or its come up in conversations with someone. He or she will say something about economics or whites. I will tell them I am gay. They will say something about being black and economics. I will say unless you lived in a house without running water, you don’t want to trade economic hardship stories with me. The whole time no matter how they pushed, I would push back. If they tried to speak over me- I would say that you think you can get loud? Try growing up in the rural south, loud is not a fight you are going to win over me. Normally that sort of joke would calm things down or pisss them off. Either way, I kept at it, until it came to the real discussion.

      That’s how I typically handled it. I knew i would face a lot of resistance. These sorts of things always do. When my high school principle would take the basketball team into white schools in the 60s, the white students used to spit on them. She said that if you are going to change things, you got accept that’s part of the deal. So, I kept that in the back of mind when it came to the times I decided to discuss sexual orientation issues with evangelicals.”

      How do you go from me discussing how race works and how economics works regarding the ability of particular speakers to speak to how its really just about me attacking Joe’s motives? I am still at lose for your logic given what I actually wrote. How does “seen as” by other become “I think you are”?

      Dec 8, 2008 at 8:39 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roland Basque
      Roland Basque

      Queers are people of a very special status and their needs supercede the needs of all the rest of humanity.They should command the rules and rights of all others.My belief is that queers know what is good for them and also the rest of the world that this qualifies them to have all their demands met.Since proposition 8 was passed by a majority vote and fell way short of gay expectations it should immediately be rescinded.The majority does not matter.The world needs to embrace HETEROPHOBIA with open arms as only queers know how to make the correct calculations for social harmony.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 5:45 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roland Basque
      Roland Basque

      Irrational pertains to the people that don’t agree with you because you are always right.I have to wonder then who is being irrational.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 5:49 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bruno
      Bruno

      @Roland Basque:

      Are you actually trying to change someone’s opinion using this immature reverse psychology bit ad nauseum? Or is it mental masturbation that queerty readers have to witness time & time again only for your benefit?

      Dec 9, 2008 at 6:22 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: The cut/paste was the wrong one and didn’t work – as you can tell from the sloppy job that it turned out as. As for the rest of this, it is now Tuesday, so I am moving on to the next thread, where I am sure that you will find some granular difference between yours and my points of view and blow them up larger than all outdoors…

      Dec 9, 2008 at 8:16 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @chuck: Now Charles, I told you to get a note from Bill first before addressing me. Do you have that note? I must see a note, signed…

      Dec 9, 2008 at 8:18 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      @chuck:

      I refer you to my original comment about deliberately misunderstanding. Of course SOME Christians use their religion as an excuse for homophobia, but blaming ALL Christians is just as bigoted as being homophobic.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 9:51 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joana Ribeiro
      Joana Ribeiro

      O ser humano pensa que pode fazer o que quer e mudar os princípios estabelecidos na antiguidade, mas, mesmo que não creia agora, um dia toda a humanidade incrédula estará diante de um Juiz, prestará contas de seus atos e palavras e receberá a sentença merecida. Há um Juiz sobre todos, o Senhor Jesus Cristo.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 10:00 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Inertia_90
      Inertia_90

      @Joana Ribeiro: Que é a evidência para a essa, Joana?

      Dec 9, 2008 at 11:20 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mike Burns
      Mike Burns

      A woman I work with recently finished reading the bible cover to cover and rather quickly came to the conclusion that she was one of the very few on the planet who actually had, judging from what the book’s fans claim is in the bible and what actually it says or doesn’t say.

      Odd that when one points out something that the bible actually says one is accused of distorting it by people who apparently wish it said something else and dislike the folks who point out how wrong they are.

      Apparently modern Christianity treats the book like a buffet and only choose what they themselves wish to believe and ignore those teachings of Christ that don’t support their bigotry.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 11:39 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Alexa:

      Then why are not these Christians coming forth and proclaiming their disagreement with Proposition 8 and demanding that it be repealed?

      I haven’t heard of a day of dissent or protest by the Christians who did not vote yes on Prop. 8 similar to the National Day of Protest the GLBG community held following the passing of that terribly unfair and unconstitutional measure. Did I miss something of misunderstand?

      Doesn’t it bother you in the least that your civil-rights were unceremoniously stripped away from you, or are you one of those str8 Christians who voted yes on on Proposition 8 and enjoys coming on a gay blog to heckle the denizens? You sure come off sounding like it with your defense of Christians. How about defending the victims of such heinous bigotry with the same fervor with which you defend Christianity?

      Can you explain that to me in a manner….that I won’t misunderstand? I am so sick and tired of hearing this lame argument that “not all Christians are bad.”

      It is just as lame as the “good” Muslims, who sit on their hands proclaiming that Islam is a peaceful religion, while hundred of gays worldwide are being executed in countries where Islam is practiced.

      Sitting on the sidelines and doing nothing to stop brutality and injustice while claiming to be innocent, in my book, makes those people just as guilty as those actually committing the crimes, for they are the very ones who are giving evil a tacit approval and allowing it to exist.

      I don’t see that as anything to feel good about or pat one’s self on the back for.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 12:15 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: Joe, I see you did not aknowledge that in fact I did not say what you claim I said. I cut and pasted the very first post I made on the subject of which you claim I attacked you. And, you were the one, by the way, claiming I attacked you. if it’s a small matter you spent a lot of time tryin to convince me that I said something I did not. The respectful thing to have done at the point I proved I did not was to say you were wrong. I have a question- are you ever wrong ? This is not trying to be offensive. Just an observationa bout your behavior here- thaat even when directly cuts and pastes what they wrote- you still make the conversation about them rather than your misunderstanding.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 1:24 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: I pointed out that (1) I posted the wrong quote (2) that it is a new day, so move on (3) that I was not alone in taking your statement to be an attack on my motivations based on my race (4) I stand by what I said originally (5) you waited for about 12 comments – all the while trying to worm your way around that comment – before re-posting it in your defense (6) I still think I correctly understood exactly what you were saying vis-a-vis my race and my “do-gooderness” (7) now go pick another fight with me on another post over something that you and I are in 99 percent agreement over, since that is your modus operandi on this site.

      Peace out.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 1:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Alexa
      Alexa

      @Charles J. Mueller:
      Again, deliberately misunderstanding or being obtuse. Go back and read my original comments where I say that I am not religious, make it perfectly clear I am not straight and say liberal Christians need to speak up.

      On second thought, don’t bother, this is a waste of both our times.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 1:37 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: Still no admission of error on your part regarding what I actually said. Post No. 87 says what I said.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 2:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Joe Moag
      Joe Moag

      @The Gay Numbers: If you would kindly re-read my last post to you, you will note that (1) I agree that you said what you say you said, and (2) I disagree that you meant anything different by it than what I have said all along you meant by it.

      I can draw this all out in Adobe, with graphs and charts and the like, if you would prefer.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 2:34 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Kevin
      Kevin

      On the day of national protest against Prop 8 in San Francisco and in front of thousands of people, religious leader after religious leader (all Christians by the way) came out against Prop 8 and against homophobia in the religious community. This included one lesbian pastor of the MCC, 2 gay Mormons, and 2 straight African American pastors – one of whom had been attacked in his own church for standing up for same-sex marriage.

      Unfortunately, it’s easy to just lump everyone into categories, like gay or Christian, and then pick a side to hate or put down.

      True christians know that the gate to enlightenment is narrow and few enter through it, while the road to despair is wide and travelled by many.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 5:29 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Joe Moag: How about you just admit you are wrong. Let me diagram this for you:

      ‘I was wrong. Sorry for misunderstanding what you said.”

      That would have been the adult response.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 6:30 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • lg
      lg

      I’m a Christian who believes:

      -the Bible is mis-interpreted in the article
      (the OT is a dif. text than the NT and many things changed in the NT)
      -The Bible speaks clearly that homosexual acts are sinful……as are divorce, stealing, murder, disprespecting your parents, sex before marriage, and lots of other things

      I’ll be honest..I have NO idea how I would have voted had I lived in CA. I do take my religion and faith serious and allow my values to determine to decisions I make. I also recognize that I “my job” is not to pass judgment on people.

      It’s annoying that many of you are quick to call me a right-wing religious fanatic who cannot think critically. Frankly, you are no less “close-minded” than you think I am.

      My point is…as a Bible-believing Christian I dont think things are so easily determined. I don’t know how I would have voted because “gay sin” is no different in God’s eyes than premarital sex and I’m not trying to outlaw that, either.

      Some of us are much less “judgmental” and homophobic than you give us credit for….and by the way.. I’m a women’s college basketball player. I have plenty of lesbian friends. I live with two lesbian bball players. We get along just fine, but disagree on a lot of fundamental issues. So who’s more close-minded and judgmental? You for not being able to see through disagreements or me who knows what I believe, isn’t sure exactly how it plays out politically, but can see you through “differences” we have??

      Dec 9, 2008 at 9:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Riki
      Riki

      I’m sorry, but those of you who are saying that the only time the Bible mentions homosexuality is in Leviticus… you are incorrect. In Romans, Paul describes homosexuality in this way, “Romans 1:26-27 – “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural 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 indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.” Clearly this is teaching that homosexual acts are sinful. Homosexuality is condemned in the Bible… you are free to reject that teaching if you wish, but please don’t falsely claim that the Bible doesn’t even say this, just because you don’t want it to.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 10:33 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Roland Basque
      Roland Basque

      @Bruno:
      Reverse Psychology Ad Nauseum I think not.Accept it as logic and truth.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 10:49 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Phil
      Phil

      Dear Riki:

      That is the New Testament, the warped bastard child of the Old Testament. The church decided, oh hayz, the old religion isn’t convenient for us anymore so let’s retranslate EVURYTHANG so that it would more easily fit into our member’s current lifestyles.

      Which is why purgatory doesn’t exist anymore.

      So I’m going to have to agree with someone who has posted before me. Hate first; justify later. Otherwise why not condemn everybody who celebrates “The Sabbath” on a Sunday?

      Dear Stupidfuck named Roland Basque:

      Title is self-explanatory. Accept it as logic and truth.

      Dec 9, 2008 at 11:13 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • The Gay Numbers
      The Gay Numbers

      @Riki: Commonly understood to also not mean what you think. Also, the obession with Paul is always interesting to me. Why is it that Paul and John are given such weight over all others? You may want to look that up. Let me give you an hint: it’s about controlling you.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 12:34 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      You bible bangers are really a piece of work. You can’t even agree amongst yourselves what it says, much less, what it means.

      You schmucks just don’t get it, do you? You think that if you keeping hitting us over the head with your holy bible, that somehow, we will get it.

      NEWSFLASH….there are a whole lot of folks who don’t accept your bull-bull as the end-all and the be-all of knowledge. As far as we are concerned, it just a collection of silly stories, imagined happenings and senseless clap-trap that contradicts itself over and over and “proves” nothing. Personally, I would accept the reading of tea leaves over the bullshit in bible, anytime.

      Telling us that “it sez so in the bible” just doesn’t cut it with educated people who use their heads for the purpose it was intended, rather than just as a hat rack and repeating that tired statement over and over, in the hope that you will get logical, intelligent people to agree with you, is a study in stupidity and a colossal waste of time…yours and ours.

      We are not going to buy that the earth is only six thousand years old. Radio carbon dating has proven otherwise.

      We are not going to accept that the sun revolves around the earth. Science has proven you wrong.

      We are not going to believe the flat-earth people. Hubbel can readily see that the earth is an orb.

      We are not going to eat the story of Jonah surviving in the stomach of a whale. One cannot survive without oxygen and being bathed in hydrochloric acid for three days and nights would long have turned you into a bad case of diarrhea.

      Maidens do not become “with child” unless they’ve been porked (or artificially inseminated).

      The dearly departed do not rise from the dead.

      Seas do not part.

      Etc., etc., etc.

      Whey you guys can come up with a more convincing argument than “It sez so in the bible”, we will be all ears and willing to debate intelligently with you.

      Until then, we will just continue to tune you out as we’ve always done and simply write you off as a bunch of lunies who bay at a full moon.

      When wolves do it, it’s kind of touchingly beautiful.

      When humans do it, however, it just looks you look plain stupid.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 1:11 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Correction: The last sentence should read, “it just makes you look plain stupid.”

      Dec 10, 2008 at 1:14 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Pugs
      Pugs

      As someone who lives in the Bible Belt, I can tell you that these folks will believe the Bible *says* it whether it actually does or not. Its what they’ve been taught since infancy. This is an area saturated in tradition. In my opinion, the rest of the country will have to accept gay marriage first and then the Bible Belt will come along kicking and screaming.

      http://www.ComeTogetherGiftBaskets.com

      Dec 10, 2008 at 8:12 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      @Pugs: Pugs, You’re likely right but a lot of us are still wondering why we lost in California. The Golden State is not exactly dead center in the Bible Belt.

      Or at least it wasn’t until Obama’s “gods’s in the mix, the mormons and the catholics ganged up on us and took away our right to marriage.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 8:35 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Bill Perdue:

      They took away our right to marriage, among a host of other rights.

      How long will it be before they take away our right to vote, or perhaps even our citizenship?

      It happened once before, in Hitler’s Germany, if you recall. The Nazi party is alive an well in America. It’s just called by the politically name of Christianity.

      They just don’t wear brown uniforms anymore and look just like the rest of us.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 3:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Charles J. Mueller:

      That’s the scary part, btw. Evil deeds are so much easier to carry out in the darkness of night and under the subterfuge of “goodness” and “Godliness”.

      Hitler knew that too. It was the precise reason why every German soldier’s belt was inscribed with

      “Gott mit uns”.

      He knew the value (and power) of the God word too.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 3:56 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      Correction: Belt buckle, that is.

      Dec 10, 2008 at 3:58 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Paublo
      Paublo

      As I do everyday my God commanded i pray for my enemies…that God give me wisdom and understanding that his will-work in my life that others would know the love of a personal God via my conduit towards them…his word and will is not of my control if it be done than it is…I will only ask for greater knowledge the knowledge that frees the mind of even the power obsessed…Thou shalt not have hate in thy heart…thou shalt not have vengence in thy heart

      Dec 10, 2008 at 4:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Charles J. Mueller
      Charles J. Mueller

      @Paublo:

      Besides praying to and waiting for God to do something, what will you, personally, be doing in the interim>?

      Dec 10, 2008 at 7:14 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nancy Meyer
      Nancy Meyer

      @Strepsi: I love to do this – my favorite is to ask them if they are wearing clothing of mixed fiber – Bible says you get stoned for that – I was told yesterday that I was wrong and that the Bible doesn’t say that – by a Baptist minister! – but it does. And it says NOTHING about marriage at all. That’s just an excuse the idiots who want to impose their own beliefs on everyone say to try to shut people up. John Stewart is right – if you are opposed to gay marriage, then don’t marry a person who is gay.
      And- if it’s so evil, why isn’t there a Commandment against it – like there IS for adultery? A MUCH bigger “danger” to marriage.

      Dec 17, 2008 at 8:51 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nancy Meyer
      Nancy Meyer

      @Paublo: Who are your enemies? People who want to impose their beliefs on you, because you have no right to your own, or people who just want to live the same life everyone else gets to?

      Dec 17, 2008 at 8:53 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Nancy Meyer
      Nancy Meyer

      @Charles J. Mueller: No one can take away your right to marry whoever the hell you want to – they can only try to prevent you from dong it – which is not really an “only” but these are God-given rights which every human being has and which no human has the right to take away from another.

      Dec 17, 2008 at 8:55 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • chuck
      chuck

      @Nancy Meyer:

      With all due respect, because I do not know you from Adam, are you ever out of touch with reality. You are living in an airy-fairy world, my dear. Come down out of the heavens to the real world, girlfriend.

      All that God-given rights goggelty-gook is fine and dandy. But, it the human pricks that make the laws we must live under and abide by, not God. In fact, it is the very people who believe God hates faggots, that have made it impossible for me to be with my family that they claim to be working so hard at protecting and preserving. It’s a 5,000 year old tradition, you know? And who are we to re-define it?

      There are some 32,000 multinational couples just like me and my partner. Tell God to tell the US Immigration Department who will not let me sponsor my Philippine partner because we can legally get married that they have no right to take my God-given rights away from me. I really feel that God should intercede here.

      Please be sure mail me at cbdcs4u@yahoo.com when you get a reply from God, won’t you. I’ll be checking my incoming email box anxiously.

      Dec 18, 2008 at 11:40 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Mark
      Mark

      @Eugene:

      Calling out willful ignorance is not hate speech. Don’t fall for that talking point because that’s what it is: a talking point.

      Dec 19, 2008 at 2:19 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Believer in Love
      Believer in Love

      1) This has already been established, but from every perspective (it’s more complex than just 2 opposite sides), there are going to be some thoughtful, open-minded people who are willing to listen to reason as well as many who are ignorant, belligerent and self-righteous. I think that anyone who is fighting for what they sincerely believe is right (human rights, religious truth, etc.) should be willing to do so in a respectful and respectable manner.

      2) As a follower of Jesus, I want to apologize for how churches and individual Christians have hurt and oppressed homosexuals instead of conveying Christ’s love as we should. I don’t believe that Christians can claim to be any less sinful or flawed than anyone else, but some of us are earnestly trying to better understand and follow Jesus’s teachings, which he summed up as loving God and loving people. Of course, there are a lot of complexities and ambiguities, and many people (myself included) have been guilty of twisting and tailoring parts of the Bible to suit personal views. But God has been showing me how I have been hypocritical, judgmental and unloving, and I am really trying to better understand a group of people I had once ignored because it was too uncomfortable and difficult to think about. I think there are a lot of Christians like me who are just beginning to confront challenges to culturally ingrained beliefs, more critically examine the “letter AND spirit of the law” of the Bible, and reconsider political and personal implications of faith when it comes to homosexuality. From the bottom of my heart, I ask for your forgiveness and patience because positive change in individuals and communities doesn’t come without a struggle. I’m just thankful that Jesus has enough mercy and love for me and a whole world of people who make mistakes and inflict so much hurt on each other.

      Dec 21, 2008 at 3:29 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Eccel
      Eccel

      @blake: The Holy Bible should matter to everyone. Jesus didn’t discriminate as to who he died for. The Son of God came for all sinners, American, Jewish, Asian, African; every soul that has sinned.
      If you have sinned, than you need to seek Christ, without Him there are two deaths; the death of the sinful flesh, and the eternal damnation of the soul. Is it worth risking?

      Jan 9, 2009 at 10:47 am · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Bill Perdue
      Bill Perdue

      Ancient fantasy tracts might be useful as a “Guide to the Avoidance of Frivolities”.

      The only other way they might conceiably be of value is as an emergency toilet paper supply. However, be forewarned. The ink, or so I’m told, is as irritating to sensitive skin as the ideas it contains are to sane minds.

      Jan 9, 2009 at 9:23 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·
    • Jay Clair
      Jay Clair

      What alot of people are missing is not that the bible is anti gay marriage in of itself, but instead antihomosexuality in all. To allow the action of gay marriage is to agree that there is no fault in it which the bible has been very clear on from Sodom and Gamora and into the New Testament.In 1 Corinthians 6:9 it states “Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral, nor idolators, nor adulterers, nor male prostitutes, nor homosexual (10) nor thieves, nor the greddy, nor drunkards, nor slanderers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” For this reason, we can tell that if these are the people not making it to heaven, that it is obviously not considered okay by God.

      Jan 23, 2009 at 3:36 pm · @ReplyReply to this comment ·

    Add your Comment

    Queerty now requires you to log in to comment

    Please log in to add your comment.

    Need an account? Register It's free and easy.

  • POPULAR ON QUEERTY

    FOLLOW US
     



    GET QUEERTY'S DAILY NEWSLETTER


    FROM AROUND THE WEB

    Copyright 2014 Queerty, Inc.
    Follow Queerty at Queerty.com, twitter.com/queerty and facebook.com/queerty.