The Scarier "Religion & Homosexuality" Thread

[WebWarlock]

Gods...



It has been a few years since I looked at this research, back when I was teaching at U of I's College of Medicine, but I'll try to dig up some stuff.



I do remember there were some statistical flaws in the data. Was it is enough to invalidate it? I don't remember.



On the other hand what is it with Prince anyway?

These women spend some time with him and the thing you know they are nuts.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Me: I think I'll have a mid-life crisis and bring home a little red convertible Vette.

My wife: Fine, as long as you don't bring home some little red-head.

[Gatito Grande]

Because Tim, Prince (like his queerer "Father in the Faith (of Rock&Roll)", Little Richard) is all about Sex&Guilt&Sex&Guilt&Sex . . . (repeat ad nauseum). Pretty soon, they become indistinguishable to those around him: "I love sex, so I'm a piece of sh*t! Because I'm a piece of sh*t, I'm good for nothing but sex!" Ye Olde Dysfunction.



********************************************************



OK, DawnsMan, GG will Explain It All :

Quote:

---

I seem to be the only poster there who believes that homosexuals were made that way from God. The other posters, including the cast member, believes that God did not make homosexuals that way and that it is a choice (and also a sin). I need some evidence to disprove this theory of theirs. Can anyone help me out?

---

They don't have "a theory." What they have is Bad Biblical Interpretation.



To have a theory---ala, an empirical theory, ala science---they'd have to believe in the scientific method . . . which they don't. Read on . . .

Quote:

---

One posted this as evidence that it is a choice.



"In 1993, biologist Dean Hamer of the National Cancer Institute found that in 40 pairs of homosexual brothers, 33 of them had the same set of DNA sequences in a part of the chromosome called, "Xq28."



This has caused many homosexual leaders to proclaim this "evidence" and demand respect and acceptance of homosexuality because of this apparent genetic trait.



However, in late June of 1995, reports were confirmed that Dean Hamer was being investigated by the Office of Research Integrity at the Department of Health and Human Services. Reports found that Hamer may have selectively reported his research and data – which has led many to question the credibility of his research.



Furthermore, in the late '90s, a team of researchers at the University of Western Ontario in Canada found no trace or evidence of the gay gene in homosexual men. The study found that the region of the X chromosome known as "Xq28" has nothing to do with the sexual orientation of a person. "

---

This (the phobes' denunciations of the above "biological basis" theory, among others) ain't science. This is what's called "knocking down straw men." What's the difference, you may ask?



Phobes "straw men knocking-down" is predicated on the following so-called "logic": "If any scientific theory---which we don't like---has any flaws in it whatsoever, it not only disproves that theory, it disproves the scientist(s) whom theorized it, their line of inquiry/experimentation, and anyone else whom *we* deem to be following that same line of experimentation . . . BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT!!!"



But, DM, here's the thing: science---True Science---is not about a theory being right or wrong . . . because in True Science, every theory is only provisionally right, or provisionally wrong. Everything is ALWAYS "pending further investigation"!!!



Do the theories they cite have flaws? Almost certainly (I'm really not up on the latest here). Does it matter? Hell no! Even if these theories were absolutely correct, they would still be further investigated, seeking replication of experiments, and additional data, etc. etc. What's important, is the Scientific Process . . . which your phobes and their pseudo-science have no interest in whatsoever (because they can't control the outcomes, in line w/ their cockamamie theology!!!!)



To wit: re "cures for homosexuality"



If I've said this once (to a supposed fag-curing 'phobe), I've said this a thousand times: give me a "ex-gay" male, hook him up to a penile pleismonitor (sp), and show him gay porn. The machine---not having a theory (much less a theology)---won't lie: does he, or does he not, get an erection??? If he does (and I've never heard that an ex-gay submitted to such an experiment), then don't give me any of this bullsh*t about a "cure": what you have here, is simple (behavioral) repression, and nothing more. [The fact that "ex-gays" are encouraged to marry (a member of the opposite sex) by their phobic programmers I consider to be the *height of irresponsibility*: they're setting up the straight partner for heartbreak---or worse, STDs---when the "cured" partner almost inevitably falls off the wagon. To say nothing of the self-loathing incurred by the ex-ex-gay person when s/he falls!]

Quote:

---

This is what the Buffy cast member said in the thread...



"God does not create anyone to be gay. one may have a proclivity toward that from as early as they can remember, but God does not create some people to be gay and others straight."

---

Ms. LaMorte, or whomever, is entitled to believe whatever the hell they want to. But they have no science for it . . . and they have no reputable Biblical justification for it, either. The Bible says *nothing* about being "gay" (or "homosexual"), so there is no Biblical basis to claim that God does or does not create people that way (the analogy I like to use, is "What does the Bible say about jet lag?" Because to discuss the Bible and "homosexuality" is just as anachronistic . . . even if the underlying neuro-physiological causes existed from time immemorial---inc. Biblical times).

Quote:

---

I want to give some evidence that God created homosexuals to be who they are.

---

We've established that the Bible says nothing---one way *or* the other---about God creating homosexuals. However, the Bible can be surprisingly useful about a lot of things which it does not directly address, if one---this is just my opinion---sticks to the Truths of the Gospel, and does not just go "proof-texting," in order to justify a prejudice. Let me show you what I mean:



"You will know them by their fruits. Are grapes gathered from thorns, or figs from thistles? So, every sound tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears evil fruit." (Matt. 7:16-17)



I offer for your consideration: all those couples---some together 20, 30, 40, 50 years!---lined up outside SF City Hall, or flocking to Massachusetts. Many w/ their kids (quite a few adopted out of the f-ed up foster care system). Tax-payers, law-abiders. Many military veterans (and/or peace activists!). Your cops, teachers, lawyers, mechanics, doctors, grocers, hair-cutters, cowboys! (One memorable couple from Wyoming who came to SF last February ). Your Honor, what we see here, are Good Fruits (no pun intended! )



Now, compare them, w/ geniuses like Ms. LaMorte (what, me bitter? ) . . . or better yet (i.e., far worse) , Spawn-of-Satan like Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps. I submit that this fruit stinketh.



Ya gittin' the picture, DawnsMan? (And now would you be willin' to share it w/ Ms. LaMorte & Co.? ) What we have here, is---as always, pending further investigation---a preponderence of evidence: that the science tends toward a biological basis for same-sex orientation and behavior (across a wide variety of species, inc. homo sapiens). That this orientation, manifested in human beings whom we may call "homosexuals" are fully capable of lives---and same-sex intimate relationships---of integrity and manifest worth (what we may call, in Biblical language, "lives bearing good fruits"). That, what pathologies we may see therein, are not unrelated to the same pathologies we see in heterosexuals---and/or result from societal prejudice.



Furthermore, in a Christian context (what thread was this again? ): many of these well-integrated homosexuals are themselves Christian and---when living in Christian couples---seek to have their relationships be a blessing to themselves and others, in exactly the same way that Christian heterosexual married couples do.



GG Now therefore be it resolved: Gay, created by God (or Nature's God, or the "god" that is Nature, i.e. Evolution) is Good. Homophobia, created by ignorance and/or vile prejudice (and *not* God), in contrast, can be cured (via education, and freeing one's self from said prejudice). Hallelujah!!! Out

[Krazy Dreamer]

Quote:

---

The Bible says *nothing* about being "gay" (or "homosexual" ), so there is no Biblical basis to claim that God does or does not create people that way

---

When I read this, a lightbulb went off in my head. I had never thought about it this way before. You know what? You’re right, GG, the Bible doesn’t say anything about “being” gay. It does talk a little about homosexual behavior, but that, of course, is separate from the “state” of being gay. I know this, because I have read the Bible from cover to cover twice, besides reading some books more than others, including Romans and both Corinthians that the homophobes are so fond of quoting from. It saddens me that so many people like to misquote the Bible, and use it as an instrument to promote hatred, when, in reality it is a book of love, forgiveness, hope, acceptance, and yes, even peace.



Anyway, I don’t know if I would be willing to go so far as to say that God creates people to be homosexual (or heterosexual, or bisexual for that matter.) I’m not even going to go there. I do believe there must be some sort of biological or biochemical reason for sexuality, i.e. it’s not “all in the mind,” but I don’t know enough to comment further. What I do know for a fact is that it is not a choice. And it has always amazed me that some people think that it is. There is no logic behind this belief, whatsoever, besides justification for condemning and denying rights to “my people.” The ones who hold to these beliefs speak of things which they do not understand. I know from my own experience that my life would have been a thousand times easier had I had the choice to be “straight,” especially as a teenager. While I was by no means very popular in high school, there were always several boys who liked me, and wanted to go out with me, and I even did go on quite a few dates with some of them, but no matter how hard I tried to will myself to "like" them, I was not attracted to them at all. While I made quite a few buddies this way, (it always amazed me how much more accepting the boys were of my homosexuality than the girls), it didn’t actually provide me with the ability to “choose” my sexuality. But more importantly, I certainly would not have chosen the ostracism, verbal and physical abuse, or loneliness I felt being a gay teenager living in the 80s.

"Some men see things as they are and say,'why?' I dream things that never were and say, 'why not?'"

- Robert F. JFK

[thx1123]

Is homosexuality a choice or inborn.Who gives a damn.



I told myself i was transgendered.I mean being XXY chromosome it seemed like a likely reason for what I feel.



but although I am a cross dresser Hey,I like dresses, I am a man.A man who has just entered a relationship with another man.a man who was told by his pastor that the man who raped me was just like all other gays. Here s the thing.



He was wrong.I am not a pedophile and I am gay.



also the scriptures are clear the only sin that condemns someone to hell is rejecting Christ.If it won't sin you to hell let it drop.If you disagree with it pray for the brethren but let God do the judging.



Tabbums

[urnofosiris]

Quote:

---

also the scriptures are clear the only sin that condemns someone to hell is rejecting Christ

---

So that is the way it is. That would be me then. As well as the majority on the planet who do not believe in Christ. I believe he existed, probably was a good guy, but I don´t have him nailed to my wall, so to hell I go. At least I won´t have to worry about sharing my seat with a rapist or a murderer who does believe in Christ.

[thx1123]

here is what I belive.All men(and women) are sinners.



Romans 3:23



there is no such thing as degrees of sin.As God is rightous he cannot tolerate any sin in his presence.



the problem is he is also a loving god who is not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentence.



that is why he sent his only begotten son to take the sins of humanity on his shoulders.



That way any who accet him would have their sins covered by his blood.



To me it is like this.If I had a deadly virus and someone gave me a vaccine and I refused to take it and died.It would be my fault.



Actually I pray I am wrong.i hope that those who say that you were saved by Jeseus's scarifice on calvary with no need to accept it are right.But in my heart f hearts I do not believe that.



i cannot in good faith not stand up fot what I believe.



If i am wrong then those I love who do not accept Christ will be in heaven.YAY!!!



If I am right then by not telling them the message of salvation I am standing by and letting those I love go to hell.I can't do that.



ultimately it s their choice.i do not cram it down anyones throat but living a moral life is not enough.Nothing we can do will make us worthy of heaven and to skip hell.



That is why it makes no sense to harp on homosexuality.



Our actions good or bad cannot condemn or save us.We are condemned at birth and only his grace can save us.



Is God fair.No.It is not fair that a Ted Bundy could do what he did andf he accepts Christ go to heaven why an atheist who has lived a good life and helped others.



I am glad God is not fair.If he was there would be no hope.



if he was fair he would carry out the fair judgement and send us all to hell.



I am not better than an atheist,or a muslim or anyone else.



I am a filthy no good sinner who deserves hell.



Only God is good.



that is why it pains me to see my born again brothers and sisters act like they are better than gays(and me).they are not.



Anything good in me is Christ.





I get flack for hanging with "heathen"



but it makes no sense to me that they are good enough to tell about Jesus but not good enough to hang with???



That is putting ourselves above them.As long as they show me and what I believe respect,that is all I ask.



I pray that Osama and Suddam come to Christ.I would not even see them go to hell.



Do they deserve hell.Yes.But according to scripture so do we all.

Quote:

---

Now, compare them, w/ geniuses like Ms. LaMorte (what, me bitter? ) . . . or better yet (i.e., far worse) , Spawn-of-Satan like Fred "God Hates Fags" Phelps. I submit that this fruit stinketh

---

amen.If God could hate we would all be in trouble.



To me giving your Son to atone for the sins of the worlds was an act of love.



The scriptures say whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.



It did not say whosoever Fred Phelps approves of shall be saved.



He actually protested outside the CDC headqaurters in Atlanta becuase they are trying to cure aids.



Maybe I am reading the wrong Bible.Jesus cured leperswho many considered by the self rightous crowd to be suffering their disease ourt of Gods wrath.



Maybe we should follow his example. now that is radical thought.



Fred Phelps uses christ to justify his vile hate just as Bin Laden uses Islam.



Also,when Fred Phelps got in my and my pastors face in Atlanta at the Southern Baptist convention I noticed.He needs to use mouth wash.


src="http://www.ezboard.com/intl/aenglish/images/emoticons/smile.gif" />

tabby

Edited by: thx1123 at: 7/31/04 11:50 am

[WebWarlock]

And all of this is why I am a happy atheist.



That is a difference from a certain "angry atheist" I know of, but basically if God makes you happy, then great I am happy for you.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Me: I think I'll have a mid-life crisis and bring home a little red convertible Vette.

My wife: Fine, as long as you don't bring home some little red-head.

[Gatito Grande]

. . . and it is why I am a happy universalist (the Real Message of the Gospels, if so-called "Christians" would just stop their *fear & loathing* long enough to read it: contextualized, from the heart---not literalist, from the pea-brain. JMO )



There was a blurb on the news today (actually, the wonderful quiz show "Wait, Wait: Don't Tell Me" on NPR), that the countries which have the highest GNP are the ones where the most people believe in hell (natch' the U.S. Rules). And why shouldn't they? Usually, the pursuit of $$$ is predicated on making life a living hell for someone else (and probably also, the subconscious belief that you can buy your way out of hell in the next life). It's the Protestant Work (read, profits) "Ethic" {snort!} in action!



Whereas, if you believe that, in God's good time, it's all going to work out for the best, you can stop all the grab-grab-grab-grab-grab in the Here & Now . . . and instead, start making heaven on Earth for everybody (the same "everybody" you're gonna be stuck w/ forever, so you might as well start makin' friends w/ 'em now! )



GG Well, that's my version of Christianity anyway: via Scripture, Tradition and Reason, in good Anglican fashion. Oh---to put this back on topic---note how this sensible and generous vision of the Gospels produces the most LGBT-positive (catholic) church? No coinkydinky, I sez! Out

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 7/31/04 8:32 pm

[thx1123]

Quote:

---

Usually, the pursuit of $$$ is predicated on making life a living hell for someone else (and probably also, the subconscious belief that you can buy your way out of hell in the next life). It's the Protestant Work (read, profits) "Ethic" {snort!} in action!

---

actually,it is not as far off topic as you might think.



The idea of buying your way into heaven comes from a belef in salvation through works.



A lot of people seem to think by mistreating the "heathen"9gays,muslims,Tg,wiccans..etc)they are gaining favor with God.Gaining God's favor through works.



The pursuit of profit is not bad.Putting profit above the needs of others is.



Thinking homosexuality is wrong is not nessecarily bad.It is an opinion. Using that as an excuse to mistreat homosexuals and impose your opinion on others is.I would have no problem if the preachers taught being gay was wrng but we should treat gays as brothers.



What theY teach is being gay is wrong *WINK* Love the Sinner*Wink*Hate the sin*WINK*And we show our love for the sinner by working to deny then basic human rights.





tabby

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

A Pentecostal Movement preacher in Borgholm, Sweden, was jailed for one

month June 29 for making antigay statements.



Åke Green was found guilty of agitating against an ethnic minority for

saying homosexuality results from "evil powers" and violates the Bible's

story of creation, that gays are a tumor on society, and that AIDS is

caused by gay sex.



The Kalmar district court ruled that the right of gays to be protected

from such language outweighed Green's right to make homophobic

statements in the name of religion, the Aftonbladet daily newspaper

said.



Sweden's National Federation for Sexual Equality (RFSL) commented:

"Freedom of religion should never imply agitation against persons. It is

this type of agitation that foments hate crimes against homosexual,

bisexual and transgender persons."

---

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Hmmm. I don't think I can agree ("Go Sweden").



I am a defender of hate crime laws, but that is defined as a violent (or at least threatening violence) crime plus hateful expressions (against a defined group), not the hateful expression alone (but hateful expressions in the workplace is an entirely different kettle of fish: fire their bigoted arses!).



The answer to hate speech, is True Speech. In fact, I think that someone like Fred Phelps performs a valuable service: he uncorks what bubbles just underneath the surface of a lot of bigoted people. As such, he makes a great object lesson: I'd hate to see him made a martyr, by locking him up.



GG When it comes to Hate Speech, a bigot's own worst enemy is him/herself. Let them make a vomitous spectacle of themselves, while those w/ a shred-of-a-conscious look on in disgust (and, OT: if it's from a religion, they'll take down that piss-poor belief system w/ 'em) Out



*NB to Tabby: note that I said "subconcious belief" in buying their way out of hell. I don't doubt that these Prot types think that their "faith in Jeeeezus" will save 'em (Whereas the Jeeezus in question said "Not everyone who cries 'Lord, Lord!' . . . "). But when you look at their actions, you'll see *anything* but faith in a Loving God. No, their belief-system is predicated on FEAR: fear of hell (or, as one Bible college's faith statement---that I researched for my dissertation---put it: "eternal conscious suffering in the Lake of Fire." So don't imagine you'll ever pass out from the pain! )



Seen in this way, a profession of faith in Christ is *in itself* a kind of Let's Make a Deal capitalist scheme: "I don't want ________, ergo I'll _________." This is a transaction, not a relationship.



Since I am a universalist, yes, I believe Fred Phelps' sorry-ass will go to heaven too. But until he gets his metaphysical head out of his metaphorical ass, being around all the faggots in heaven will make it seem like hell to him. (Either that, or the Romans have a good idea in purgatory---rather like the idea of FP being crushed under a load of rocks for a few bazillion eternities Not that I'm judging him or anything. )

[thx1123]

This news from sweden is very scary.I wish I had a dime for everytime I heard someone in the fundamental movement say say that the gays would start jailing anyone who dares to speak out against the abomination of homosexuality.This gives them "proof" that the evil secular goverments of the world are out to destroy any christian who dares to speak the truth.



Hate speech laws open a pandora's box that I am not interested in looking into.



Just think, the conservatives already say liberals hate all conservatives.I just can see hate speech laws turned on us to shut us up.criticism of Bush's stance on homosexual marriage=hate speech=long jail term=no more free critics.



That is why I would give my life to protect the right of those who hate me to express that hate.



Banning or criminalizing any form of speech sends it underground.



I would rather have a rattle snake in my back yard than a copperhead.A rattler's noise lets you know the danger it posseses.With a copperhead you might not know of the danger till you are right on it and then it is too late.



Tabby

[Diebrock]

GG, this has nothing to do with hate crime laws or maybe it has but we don't call it that.

Quote:

---

Let them make a vomitous spectacle of themselves, while those w/ a shred-of-a-conscious look on in disgust

---

while the rest takes it as encouragement to go beat up or at least continue to look down on homos, Jews, blacks, women (insert your minority of choice).





Maybe this is the difference between Europe and the US. It might be different priorities. Your first amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...]abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" against my (German) first article of the constitition: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."



I don't know the Swedish law but the German equivalent is

Quote:

---

Section 130 Agitation of the People

(1) Whoever, in a manner that is capable of disturbing the public peace:

1. incites hatred against segments of the population or calls for violent or arbitrary measures

against them; or

2. assaults the human dignity of others by insulting, maliciously maligning, or defaming segments

of the population,

shall be punished with imprisonment from three months to five years.

(2) Whoever:

1. with respect to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)), which incite hatred against segments of the

population or a national, racial or religious group, or one characterized by its folk customs, which

call for violent or arbitrary measures against them, or which assault the human dignity of others by

insulting, maliciously maligning or defaming segments of the population or a previously indicated

group:

a) disseminates them;

b) publicly displays, posts, presents, or otherwise makes them accessible;

c) offers, gives or makes accessible to a person under eighteen years; or

(d) produces, obtains, supplies, stocks, offers, announces, commends, undertakes to

import or export them, in order to use them or copies obtained from them within the

meaning of numbers a through c or facilitate such use by another; or

2. disseminates a presentation of the content indicated in number 1 by radio,

shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than three years or a fine.

(3) Whoever publicly or in a meeting approves of, denies or renders harmless an act

committed under the rule of National Socialism of the type indicated in Section 220a subsection (1), in a

manner capable of disturbing the public piece shall be punished with imprisonment for not more than five

years or a fine.

(4) Subsection (2) shall also apply to writings (Section 11 subsection (3)) with content

such as is indicated in subsection (3).

(5) In cases under subsection (2), also in conjunction with subsection (4), and in cases

of subsection (3), Section 86 subsection (3), shall apply correspondingly.

---

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

Edited by: Diebrock at: 8/2/04 4:44 am

[urnofosiris]

When would it be ok to punish such a person? Never? Can people, especially ones that hold a position of some authority, whether it be religious or political, just say whatever they want? If someone talks someone else into murdering a person, they can be held accountable and convicted of said murder. No one but their laywer would ever claim they were just excercizing their right to freedom of speech. It is not so black and white. The past (and present too) has proven that words can be used to incite hatred that leads to the worst atrocities imaginable. Who do we punish? Only the ones that are inspired by the words of others or the ones that have spoken those words in the first place? Do we really have to wait until those words lead to physical harm to another human being? I can´t go around waving a loaded gun in a crowd claiming I am just excercizing, why is it ok to spread words of hate when you know perfectly well there are people who would act on it? I think a person´s life is a bit more sacred than words of hate.

Edited by: DrG at: 8/2/04 3:39 am

[thx1123]

Quote:

---

Who do we punish? Only the ones that are inspired by the words of others or the ones that have spoken those words in the first place

---

Yes.Only the ones who actually committ the crime.It is not against the law to be hateful(and it should not be).It is against the law to kill or beat anyone regarless of the motivation.



Some say that the 1st chapter of Romans is anti gay hate speech.Do you really want the goverment rounding up and imprisoning those who preach from it.



I don't.



And who decides what is hateful.The same law that allows you to throw Fred Phelps in jail today can be applied to put you in the cell next to his.



What if we had hate speech laws and you had DA's and judges right of Ashcroft in your community and you spoke out against intolerant christians and they decided by speaking against them you were performing hate speech.



what if that pastor in Sweden makes a list of everyone who expressed being glad he is in jail and accused them of hate speech.





Do thse who preach hate and inspire others to these viscous acts deserve jail.Yes.I am not debating that.



the question is do we want to go down the slippery slop that hate speech laws would require to do that.



and who decides what is hate speech.Only liberals.Only conservatives.



Someone said it is up to the opressed to decide what is sexist,racist etc.



So a small group decides what is hateful and everybody else complies or they are thrown into jail.That has no place in a democracy.



And what if like I said the small group makes Ashcroft look libetral.



tabby

[Gatito Grande]

[I really want to respond, though I fear this thread is veering off of "Religion and Homosexuality." Not that it's unrelated, mind you, but I think we're getting into some broader questions of political philosophy]



Diebrock, I think the comparisons between the German and U.S. systems are very interesting. Particularly so, when the U.S., as a Post-WWII Conquering Nation, had the power to control the establishment of the (formerly West) German and Japanese systems. In so doing, they permitted the Germans and the Japanese to institute speech/political restrictions---because it served U.S. interests (vis-a-vis anti-Fascism and anti-Communism)---which we (Americans) would never tolerate at home. (Ergo: U.S = Big Ol' Hypocrites)



Having said that, I still side philosophically w/ the U.S. approach. To me, the difference between

Quote:

---

Your first amendment: "Congress shall make no law [...]abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press"

---

and

Quote:

---

against my (German) first article of the constitition: "Human dignity shall be inviolable. To respect and protect it shall be the duty of all state authority."

---

is that the former is relatively concrete and objective (such as when the Nixon Administration tried to prevent the Wash Post and the NY Times from publishing the Pentagon Papers: the Supreme Court said "Tricky Dicky, not under Our Bill of Rights you don't!), whereas the latter seems almost completely abstract and subjective. Couldn't you have definitions of "human dignity" vary from government to government?



Like I said, I favor Hate Crime legislation. When hateful speech is accompanied by criminal actions (or vice-versa), then you're outside the conundrum of subjectivity: lock 'em up.



Yeah, I know that seems like the U.S. system is waiting around for hateful violence to happen, before it can be stopped. The answer to that is, I guess, the beauty of deterrence: you prosecute one Klansman for burning a cross/painting swastikas on a black family's property (a crime, w/o question), and you deter a dozen others from even starting down that path (say, burning a cross on their *own* property---which is protected by the First Amendment).



In the German case in particular, I can see why the establishing authorities wanted to nip things in the bud a lot earlier (this year's Leni Riefenstal-esque Free Speech Spectacle, could lead to next year's Beer Hall Putsch, and the following year's Reichstag Fire, etc. etc.). But I remain convinced that that is a terribly slippery slope: what's used to ban fascism this year, could be used to ban socialism the next, etc. etc.



Just a day or two ago, I heard a repetition of the Oliver Wendall Holmes (?) chestnut "Sunlight is the best disinfectant." Shine a Big Ol' Light on an infection---like bigotry---and watch it die. Force it underground (via criminalizing it), and watch it spread like plague via vermin.



Taking this back OT, if someone like Fred Phelps is gonna preach/teach that "God Hates Fags," then dammit, I want to know that. If holding up a sign saying that were illegal, it wouldn't stop Phelps from believing---and {whisper, whisper} disseminating that. We (the objects of his hatred) just wouldn't be aware of the growing danger.



GG Phelps's spectacle is a price I'll gladly pay, to have him held up to public condemnation (and to keep tabs on the *sshole) Out

[thx1123]

Quote:

---

GG Phelps's spectacle is a price I'll gladly pay, to have him held up to public condemnation (and to keep tabs on the *sshole) Out

---

AMen!!!!



Let him speak.Or on second thought my friend Todd lives in the desert south west and has a Rottweiler who attacks jackasses.Maybe we could introduce Goliath and Fred.



Tabby

[sam7777]

Hate language is just language until it becomes the law of the land as it did in this country with the Jim Crow laws and in Germany with the Nuremeberg laws. While they have the right to spew their hate, we have the right to attack their opinions at every possiblity to ensure that their hate does not become the law of the land. When confonted by people who are trying to destroy you the only option is to fight back with the truth and keep fighting. If they attack us with laws then we must also fight back with laws. The rush to prevent gay marriage is being used as an excuse to deny gays their civil rights. Hatred in all it's forms is evil but even more so when the hate is directed at people for something that they cannot change. How can religious people hate so much when religion preaches love is simply beyond me to understand.

[The Angry Lion]

The First Ammendment tho is a negative freedom, and negative freedoms are all well and good as long as they lead to positive freedoms (diffrence, negative freedom means "Ill do what I like and nooone can stop me!' positive freedom is about developing as an individual but not harming others) and the first ammednment has been limited both quite recently and many times in the past. It took Larry Flynt in the 80's to recognize the basic concept that he had as much right to criticize Jerry Falwell as Jerry had to criticize him.



Although concentrating power on the hands of the state is an iffy thing, even if you think theyre only gonna use it against the klan and neo-Nazis, Id love to ban Phelps personally because A) I dlont think Phelps cares that most people think hes sick, if he thinks he can win even just a handful of converts with his actions then he will keep doing it B) No doubt he has caused a great deal of distress with his actions, and i think people should be protected from that specially at their child's funeral.

But Im not sure I want to give the state powers to do that, today Phelps, tomorrow anti-war protesters? maybe

My Country is the World. My Coutrymen Mankind-Thomas Paine

[Diebrock]

Quote:

---

But Im not sure I want to give the state powers to do that, today Phelps, tomorrow anti-war protesters? maybe

---

Not under the law I quoted above. Not unless the anti-war protesters are propagating hate against a segment of the population while they are at it, e.g. 'Stop the war in Iraq. Do something useful with the troops and kill our fags instead!'

_________________

Independence is my happiness, and I view things as they are, without regard to place or person; my country is the world, and my religion is to do good.

I've kissed her best friend. I've reached into her best friend's pocket and fished around for keys. And I gave her best friend my number. I must be doing something totally, totally wrong... - TBSOL by Dreams

[Gatito Grande]

Quote:

---

Not unless the anti-war protesters are propagating hate against a segment of the population while they are at it

---

Ah, but there's the rub: what exactly constitutes "propagating hate against a segment of the population"? (Anymore than what exactly constitutes "human dignity"?)



Ever since the Vietnam War, you would not believe the number of American veterans, who will tell you that someone shouted "Baby killer!" at them (usually accompanied by spitting). Now, I'm a "veteran" anti-war protester, and I've *never* seen such a thing happen (nor heard {hush, hush} some other protester confess to having done such a thing). Nevertheless, veteran after veteran will tell you this same story. Are they lying? Maybe some (specifically those w/ an ax to grind {ahem} in favor of whatever war protesters were protesting). Are many exaggerating? I suspect they are. But did some have "hate propagated" against themselves, as a specific "segment of the population"? Some, undoubtedly yes (those same veterans would probably unimpressed w/ the argument "it's not hate, if it's true"---and they could get any number of American judges, I bet, to agree w/ them).



Lemme try to bring this back to religion (and homosexuality): I have heard any number of Fundamentalist Christians, justify a hateful message (maybe not "God Hates Fags," but certainly "homosexuals will burn in hell") by the rationale of "If I honestly believe that this horrible outcome (hellfire) will befall [homosexuals, non-Christians, etc.], isn't the most loving, the most "human dignity-affirming" thing I can do, is to WARN [said hellbound sinners] of what will happen if they don't repent and turn to Jesus?"



What are our laws supposed to do? State "Whereas: believing that your speech constitutes warning against putative punishment in an 'afterlife' constitutes no defense against a charge of fomenting hatred?" I'm sorry, I just can't go there: that would, to me, have the State saying "Belief-system x is Officially Wrong." How could I know that my nice, liberal Anglicanism wouldn't be next? (To wit, in someplace like Saudi Arabia, my "nice, liberal Anglicanism" Officially IS Wrong! )



"We hold these things self-evident": wouldn't it be great if every single human being DID hold certain beliefs self-evident? ("Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" certainly works for my queer self! ). But we don't---and, IMO, as soon as one starts using the power of the State to define that which one claims is self-evident (one of my favorite {snort!} examples, is the RC Church and their Natural Law: "Don't argue w/ us---it's not our opinion [homosexuality is wrong], it's Natural Law!" ), then we're on the way to Totalitarianism.



Because I am a person of faith, I believe that humanity *will*, one day, reach consensus in favor of the progressive values I hold, um, sacred. But that won't happen w/o a struggle for ideas, and that can only happen if the State stays out of it.



Outlaw any kind of physical violence? Absofreakinlutely. Sue for slander/libel if someone says we're child molesters? You bet! (Bankrupt their arses! ) And if, say, a public school teacher propagates hate, Fire 'Em. But if someone just expresses their personal opinion that I'm "unnatural" or an "abomination" or "bound for hell", it can't really hurt me . . .



GG . . . and then I have the opportunity to Talk Back to the *ssholes! Out

[BBOvenGuy]

This past week the simmering battle in the Episcopal Church took a nasty turn, in what I'm certainly hoping will not turn into the Fort Sumter of our denomination.



On Wednesday, two Southern California Episcopal Churches - one in Long Beach and the other in Newport Beach - announced that they were seceding from the American church and placing themselves under the authority of the Diocese of Luwero in the Anglican Province of Uganda. The move is in response to the confirmation of Gene Robinson as the first openly gay bishop of the church and the practice of blessing same-sex unions in the Diocese of Los Angeles.



In a Pastoral Letter read today throughout the diocese, the Rt. Rev. Jon Bruno, Episcopal Bishop of Los Angeles, announced that he has blocked the rectors of the two churches from exercising their ministry and will officially depose them if they don't reverse their decision. He has also sent an official letter of protest to the bishop in Uganda for interfering in the affairs of the American church.



We're all hoping and praying for the best, but what's most likely is that the parishes will refuse to back down, the bishop will try to place new clergy in them, and we'll all end up in court arguing about whether the parishes or the diocese owns the actual church properties.



And this is Southern California. You can probably imagine what this could lead to in the conservative parts of the country. These are not good times for us.

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

[Gatito Grande]

Bob: dude! Where ya been? I was just thinking about you!



Really sorry to hear about this (and almost sorrier I didn't know about it already---just when I don't check the Progressive Anglican sites, things happen ). Any idea what precipitated this now? I mean, Gene was confirmed at General Convention a year ago . . . and aren't we (Anglicans) all supposed to "wait for the Eames Commission Report" (not that that's stopped 'phobic members of the Commission---and others, like certain African primates---from subverting the Commission's work w/ their own ultimatums anyway ).



GG Hang in there. Remember, you and I know the Ultimate (Triumphant) Ending of This Story: it's the Victory of the God which made me queer, and you and I in bonds of loving unity with one another! Out

[BBOvenGuy]

There are now three breakaway churches in LA, and reports indicate that the number could go as high as six.



What I've been reading is that it's part of a nationwide movement to create a "parallel" denomination in the United States that's part of the worldwide Anglican Communion without being part of the Episcopal Church. It's some idea a bunch of conservative priests and bishops thought up after last year's General Convention.



Of course, such a "parallel" denomination would have to be approved by the Archbishop of Canterbury, which isn't likely to begin with and certainly won't happen before the Commission report comes out.



I have a feeling that the secessions in LA and elsewhere (apparently there are now about 10 churches nationwide) are an attempt to force the Archbishop's hand. The Primate in Uganda has officially accepted the first two LA churches into his jurisdiction - that means this is no longer a local matter but is now an international one. All three of the LA churches say they'll leave the Ugandan diocese once they get their "parallel" denomination in the US. Otherwise, they insist they'll answer to the Ugandan church authorities and no one else.

"The stories we tell - that's us explaining how we think the world works. Once we speak it, once we say it aloud, that makes it real for us - and real for everyone else who hears it too. When we tell a story, we invite people to visit our reality. We invite them to move in. Our stories are the reality we live in." - David Gerrold, The Martian Child

[WebWarlock]

Well here in the conservative part of the country, things are not looking so bad.



There one church I drive by every once in a while (sorry I forgot the denomination, maybe Episcopal. That seems right) and it always has something interesting on it's sign out front.



Nice looking church, it's slogan out front reads "Open Hearts, Open Minds" which I thought was nice.



During the gay marriage debate a bit ago they had a sign that read "God only knows one kind of Love: All Love." Which know what I know about this church seemed like an endorsement.



I'll find out more.



But I feel this is going to be less revolution and more evolution.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Me: I think I'll have a mid-life crisis and bring home a little red convertible Vette.

My wife: Fine, as long as you don't bring home some little red-head.

[skittles]

WW, if "Open Minds, Open Hearts" is the official motto, then it is a United Methodist Church and the complete motto/mission statement is "Open Minds, Open Hearts, Open Doors."



Their website can be found here.



and when you visit their churches, you 'usually' find the message is true.



No, I'm not a Methodist, just a person with a memory that works occasionally.

skittles

Prepare the child for the path, not the path for the child.

[WebWarlock]

That must be it.



I'll drive by later today and double check, but I seem to remember that red flag.



It is a well respected church in the Northwest 'Burbs of Chicago.



Warlock

-----

Web Warlock

Coming Soon to The Other Side, The Netbook of Shadows: A Book of Spells for d20 Witches

Talent on loan from Cthulhu

[Gatito Grande]

In the Anglican Communion, the Eames Commission has released its widely-anticipated (i.e. feared) report, re the Bad Ol' Fag-Lovin' Episcopal Church. Here is the New York Times summation:

Quote:

---

U.S. Episcopal Church Is Urged to Apologize for Gay Bishop

By LAURIE GOODSTEIN



Published: October 18, 2004





An Anglican Church commission issued a report in London today that sharply rebukes the Episcopal Church USA for ordaining an openly gay bishop in New Hampshire and for blessing same-sex unions. The report calls for a moratorium on both practices "until some new consensus in the Anglican Communion emerges."



The commission asked the Episcopal Church to apologize for creating pain and division in the global Anglican Communion. With 77 million members in about 164 countries, the Communion is the second largest church body in the world.



The report also calls for the bishops who consecrated V. Gene Robinson a bishop in New Hampshire a year ago to consider withdrawing from Anglican "functions" until they offer "an expression of regret." Among the more than three dozen bishops who encircled Bishop Robinson a year ago and consecrated him with a laying on of hands are the current and former presiding bishops of the Episcopal Church.



However, the report also criticizes conservative bishops from parts of Africa and elsewhere as violating the church's lines of authority by, in effect, annexing American parishes that now refuse to recognize their more liberal bishops. The commission tells these conservative bishops to desist and to "express regret for the consequences of their actions." It urges conservative parishes that are unhappy with their local bishops to slow down and find alternative "oversight," preferably from within their own dioceses.



The Lambeth Commission was convened a year ago by the Archbishop of Canterbury to find ways to reconcile the divided church in the face of growing schism. Its chairman was the church's senior primate, Archbishop Robin Eames of Armagh, Northern Ireland, a veteran of reconciliation efforts. The commission included 17 theologians and bishops who ranged from liberal to conservative, took testimony from a range of church members and issued a unanimous set of recommendations.



Bishop Robinson's consecration last November took place over objections and warnings from conservative churches in Latin America, Africa and elsewhere. The opposition seemed most active in Africa, where gays remain closeted and popular sentiment regards same-sex relationships as a vice exported from the West. Attacks against homosexuality are a feature of Sunday sermons, and political leaders condemn gays as aggressively as the man on the street does.



The report issued today says that given the "widespread unacceptability" of Bishop Robinson's ministry in provinces around the world, the Archbishop of Canterbury should "exercise very considerable caution in inviting or admitting him to the councils of the Communion."



The Most Rev. Frank T. Griswold, presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, said in a telephone interview from London that he found the report "nuanced and balanced." Asked if he planned to apologize, he pointed out that the report never uses that word. He said the report asks for an "expression of regret" that the American church's decisions caused such dissension.



"I can regret the effects of something, but at the same time be clear about the integrity of what I've done," Bishop Griswold said.



The recommendations will now be taken up by various national and international church bodies. Bishop Griswold said that the executive council of the Episcopal church will meet next month, and the council of bishops will meetin November to figure out how to respond to the recommendations.



The report warns: "There remains a very real danger that we will not choose to walk together. Should the call to halt and find ways of continuing in our present communion not be heeded, then we shall have to begin to learn to walk apart."



The report catalogs the dissension that has torn the communion since the consecration of Bishop Robinson, and the decision by the Canadian province of New Westminster to bless same-sex unions.



Eighteen of 38 provinces issued statements condemning the decisions in North America. Several provinces declared themselves in a state of broken or "impaired" communion with the American and Canadian provinces. Parishes that disagree with their bishops' stances have broken with their dioceses and placed themselves under the authority of foreign bishops, as happened when three Los Angeles churches pledged themselves to the Archbishop of Uganda.



"All these developments have now contributed materially to a tit-for-tat standoff in which, tragically in line with analogous political disasters in the wider world, each side now accuses the other of atrocities, and blames the other for the need to react further in turn," the report said.



The Anglican Communion includes about 70 million members throughout the world, only about 2.3 million of them in the American branch, the Episcopal Church. The church in Nigeria, with about 17 million members, has helped lead the objections to a gay bishop.



Before the consecration of Bishop Robinson, there were warnings from leaders of Anglican churches in parts of Africa, Asia and Latin America that a gay bishop would not be recognized in their churches, and would prompt them to break ties with the American church.



The archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, said then that Americans had the right to choose their own bishops, but he also lamented their disregard for the objections of their more conservative church cousins in other parts of the world.



The consecration was a vindicating moment for many Episcopalians who had hoped the church would formally acknowledge the many gay men and lesbians who are priests, deacons and laypeople. But it sharpened a long-brewing power struggle between the more established branches of the Anglican Communion, which include the Church of England and the Episcopal Church U.S.A., and what were once the mission churches in the developing world.



A coalition of conservative American Episcopalians affirmed on Saturday that it had split from the national church and formed four new congregations, partly because of last year's consecration of the gay bishop. They plan to align themselves with a foreign bishop and meet in private homes in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

---

(Registration required to view the NYT website)



OK, it could be worse: Presiding Bishop Frank Griswold's response makes that clear. However, in expressing the content of my "regret," it is that so many Anglicans have apparently never actually read the Gospel: y'know, the story of how Christ died for all? Wherein we are enjoined to "Judge not, lest ye be judged"? (The story where putative "sinners" are embraced by Jesus, time and again---while the putatively "righteous" are told they will become Demon Chow, if they don't get off their "Thank God I am not like those sinners!" acts?)



GG The Bible: the book that does NOT contain one word (properly translated) of condemnation against "homosexuality"! Out



ETA: Here's a humorous cartoon recap of the "Windsor Report":



http://www.wibsite.com/features/windsorreport/

Edited by: Gatito Grande at: 10/23/04 5:55 pm

[Gatito Grande]

. . . and, what a surprise, they were right were he misplaced his conscience.



But, Good News, Archbishop of Canterbury Rowan Williams finally seems to have found both:

Quote:

---

Williams tells clergy: stop gay bashing



Christopher Morgan





THE Archbishop of Canterbury has issued a strong rebuke to conservatives in the worldwide Anglican Communion for the hostility of their language towards homosexuals in the recent row over gay bishops.



In an Advent letter to the 37 other Anglican primates around the world, Rowan Williams lays out in stark terms the depth of anger and vitriol unleashed by the gay row and calls for repentance from those who contributed to it.



Williams warns that ill-judged words can lead to suicide or even murder. He cites the homophobic killing last month of David Morley in London. “Any words that could make it easier for someone to attack or abuse a homosexual person are words of which we must repent,” he writes.



The 3½-page missive, sent out on Friday night, warns of serious consequences if Anglicans do not heal their rift.



“It is beyond doubt that we stand at a point where the future shape and character of the communion depends on our choices,” writes Williams.



While the archbishop does not state explicitly what his personal views are on the ordination of gays, his letter has been seized on by conservatives as evidence that he supports the liberal wing of the church.



David Banting, national director of Reform, the largest traditionalist group in the Church of England, said: “If somebody who holds orthodox views is by definition thought to be homophobic, that is a very unfair argument. I am simply trying to uphold the faith as we have received it.”



He added: “It (the letter) is presumably a gesture to the gay community who love to peddle this line that they all feel under enormous pressure and they are all being persecuted, which is not true.” [GG: Oh, f*ck off, *sshole! And get your boot off my neck while you're at it ]



Williams’s leadership of worldwide Anglicanism has been dogged by controversy over homosexuality ever since he was enthroned in Canterbury Cathedral in February 2003.



His inaugural General Synod, held in York last year, was interrupted by Peter Tatchell, the veteran gay rights campaigner who once stormed the pulpit of Canterbury Cathedral during a sermon by Lord Carey, Williams’s predecessor as archbishop.



After taking office, Williams was confronted with the decision of whether to allow Jeffrey John, a gay priest, to be put forward as Bishop of Reading.



Williams gave his consent, but after seeing the furious reaction of conservatives and evangelicals, persuaded John to withdraw, even though this went against his personal convictions. This change of position angered gay rights activists.



The gay bishops row was brought to a head by the election in June last year of Gene Robinson, an openly homosexual candidate, as Bishop of New Hampshire in America.



Twenty-two provinces, mainly in Africa and Asia, have broken relations with the American church over the issue.



A commission set up by Williams in response to the split has proposed a change that would stop provinces taking controversial steps — such as ordaining gay bishops — without agreement of the wider communion.



The most entrenched conservatives include Peter Akinola, Primate of Nigeria [GG: who can kiss my queer *ss ], who has called homosexuality an “aberration unknown even in animal relationships”.



Williams’s letter shows his level of concern about the language used by some Anglicans, whom he does not name, towards gays.



He writes: “In the heat of this controversy things have been said about homosexual people that have made many of them, including those who lead celibate lives, feel that there is no good news for them in the church.”



He adds: “Young people are driven to suicide by the conviction that no one will listen to them patiently; many feel condemned not for their behaviour but for their nature.”



Williams, who himself believes homosexuality is compatible with the Christian gospel, shows his anger at Morley’s killing: “As I write these words I have in mind the recent brutal and unprovoked murder of a homosexual man in London by a group of violent and ignorant youths.”



Williams adds that the two sides in the row should not put all the onus on their opponents to apologise. He writes: “Do not think that repentance is always something others are called to, but acknowledge the failings we all share, sinful and struggling disciples as we are.”



Colin Slee, Dean of Southwark, last night called the letter a “very firm slap on the wrist for archbishops and others who have been demonising homosexual people. The archbishop has to reach out and embrace the gay community and I think this letter could be the beginning of that reassurance”.

---

www.timesonline.co.uk/art...12,00.html



GG Advent: the New Year of the Church's year. Happy New Year indeed! Out

[russ]

Archbishop Williams' message is long overdue. As I've listened to the hate being spewed from those led by Archbishop Akinola, I can only shake my head in grief, and wonder that they can call themselves Anglicans. The tradition of our church has been inclusion, providing a home for divergent points of view and theologies.



I don't envy Rowan Williams his job. While having no authority outside of Great Britain, he has to attempt to keep the worldwide Anglican Communion together. Often this has meant holding his nose and going along with positions he personally finds abhorrent. Seriously, I begin to doubt if unity remains possible. As a Canadian Anglican, I certainly don't feel that my church has done all it can and should for equality. The levels of homophobic bigotry being expressed by African, Asian, and Latin American churches, as well as many here at home, make me ashamed to be identified as an Anglican.



Thank God for Abp. Williams action in rebuking "archbishops and others who have been demonising homosexual people." God grant him the strength to stand up under the attacks that will result.

Russ



When we love and give it everything we've got, no matter what the consequences, we are doing what we were put here to do -- Geneen Roth