Read it and marvel/vomit over the fact that this man runs free, still able to hurt little boys like the one described here:
What do you do with a little boy who likes cross-dressing and playing with dolls? If you’re George Alan Rekers, you “extinguish” the boy’s feminine behavior with a sometimes violent Pavlovian regimen while your scientific team observes through a one-way mirror.
(…)
In 1974, Rekers, a leading thinker in the so-called ex-gay movement, was presented with a 4-year-old “effeminate boy” named Kraig, whose parents had enrolled him in the program. Rekers put Kraig in a “play-observation room” with his mother, who was equipped with a listening device. When the boy played with girly toys, the doctors instructed her to avert her eyes from the child.
According to a 2001 account in Brain, Child Magazine, “On one such occasion, his distress was such that he began to scream, but his mother just looked away. His anxiety increased, and he did whatever he could to get her to respond to him… Kraig became so hysterical, and his mother so uncomfortable, that one of the clinicians had to enter and take Kraig, screaming, from the room.”Rekers’s research team continued the experiment in the family’s home. Kraig received red chips for feminine behavior and blue chips for masculine behavior. The blue chips could be cashed in for candy or television time. The red chips earned him a “swat” or spanking from his father. Researchers periodically entered the family’s home to ensure proper implementation of the reward-punishment system.
After two years, the boy supposedly manned up. Over the decades, Rekers, who ran countless similar experiments, held Kraig up as “the poster boy for behavioral treatment of boyhood effeminacy.”
At age 18, shamed by his childhood diagnosis and treatment, Rekers’s poster boy attempted suicide, according to Gender Shock, a book by journalist Phyllis Burke.
I believe the scientific term for George Alan Rekers is “you sick, sadistic bastard.”
It’s one sort of evil to take your own seething self-hatred out on adults. It’s yet another to rape the innocence and identity out of a child whose only crime is that he doesn’t fit into the gender-binary construct that George Rekers, apparently, has never been able to attain for himself.
But let’s be clear about one thing: the reason organizations like Truth Wins Out exist, why Jeremy spends countless hours chronicling the anti-gay movement at Good As You, why Amanda Marcotte takes the time to analyze and explain patriarchy in words any can understand but few have heard before at Pandagon, why Pam Spaulding and her crew and Joe Jervis and the Box Turtle guys (AND SO ON) — and the reason why I make a point of mocking these people as dismissively as they truly deserve — is that this story, while grotesque, should not be shocking. Yes, it’s appalling, but it is only the natural result, taken to its extreme, of Religious Right teachings on sexuality and on gender. And these stories, in all their varying degrees, are myriad, but they all have one simple common denominator: the overarching, bellyaching desire of heterosexual religious men (and those who wish to God every night that they might one day be heterosexual) to control the lives, the gender expression, the sexuality, of all people they view as lesser. This includes women, children, racial minorities, and certainly LGBT people. Again, this is the natural conclusion of the notion of the junk science of “reparative therapy.” This is what happens when people who have been trained like show ponies to repress everything authentic about themselves in the pursuit of the lifeless, unhappy “ideal” of the fundamentalist worldview are allowed to flourish unhindered by modernity. (I mean, look at Saudi Arabia, for god’s sake. Yeah, it’s the same.) This is what happens when those people’s ideas are accorded an ounce of respect. We all have freedom of speech, at least in the United States, but part of that freedom is the responsibility for those of us who live in verifiable reality to do everything we can to ensure that the sadism of the Religious Right, and its concomitant junk science, are granted all the respect they deserve in the marketplace of ideas. (Hint: That would be “none.”) It’s our responsibility to do everything we can to help as many people understand that when people like George Rekers, Tony Perkins, Peter LaBarbera, the entire staff of Focus on the Family (including the chipper young cretins they’ve hired to “reach out to millenials,” a battle they’ve long lost), Matt Barber, Elaine Donnelly, Laurie Higgins, Maggie Gallagher, or any of their buttbuddies in bigotry open their maws and spew forth, their words amount to nothing more than long disproven, hateful, ignorant lies. It’s our responsibility to make sure that those who come across our words are armed with the resources (our side being the only one which actually relies on research and reason, citations, real science, etc.) to know the Religious Right is lying, only and always, and to know precisely how and why they’re lying.
This is a big part of why we do what we do.
Our adversaries hurt people. They drive their own to decades of depression and despair, and they drive their own children to substance abuse, rejection, depression and sometimes even suicide.
At the end of the piece quoted above, it’s stated that, even though George Rekers was caught in flagrante diddle-fingers coming back from Europe with a young male whore, that the brain trust at NARTH still stands by Rekers’ “science.” Of course they do. They will never let something like reality, or trails of blood leading to the bodies and souls of kids hurt by their “science,” get in the way of their obscene, wrongheaded, and wholly self-loathing vendetta against those citizens of the world who dare to survive, to love authentically, to dream, to fly, to fuck, to question authority, to laugh, to breathe, to celebrate, to mourn, to rage against the dying of the light…in short, to live, and to do so without asking the permission of the self-appointed religious police. NARTH and similar groups do not care about people. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that they have clear and palpable contempt for people, much as most right-wing organizations have clear, palpable contempt for their readers, knowing as they do that their intended audience is too stupid, too abused, or too brainwashed to know any better. They simply don’t care about the human beings involved.
So yeah. We do this to fight for the kids like Kraig, those many years ago, and those who still are vulnerable to an enemy which sees them not as people but as notches on their Culture War belts.
Can. I. Get. A. Witness?
Okay, I’m done spitting daggers now, so if anybody needs this soapbox…
(h/t Towle)










Daniel,
You wrote in message 38;
I don’t need religious people to love or accept me–I just want them to not pass laws against my rights and prevent me from living my life as I see fit. I don’t need them to agree with me–I just need them not to legislate their morality.
Comment by Daniel — May 24, 2010 @ 7:31 pm
I wrote in message 40;
Daniel,
I don’t want to legislate your morality either.
Comment by Bob
So, I was agreeing with you about anti-gay legislation.
Regarding ex-gay therapy, I never supported it.
Not that you can only respond, but that certain comments are directed. You yourself suggested I told you to calm dowm “Don’t tell me to “calm down” ” when that comment was to Priya. Do you agree with everything Priya wrote to me?
Priya,
Give me a break! I am dealing with two threads and multiple people. I can’t repsond to every point so you call me a coward. You try keeping up with all of you!
If you want me to respond to your point about race I will
later.
It’s certainly possible I didn’ pick up every nuance in your posts and you may not understand mine but what I react to is the claim that I intensionally lied. I may be wrong, I may misunderstand, I may do a lot of things but I do not intentionally lie in an attempt to manipulate and deceive. That is what I mean when I see the word lie.
I wasnb’t picking on anyone. I was noting that hwat I had to say, the questions I was aking, were not being repsonded to. I have more to say, but i don’t wish to be talking to myself only.
Bob, I don’t think you have the right to tell anyone on this site to “calm down”. These issues effect us personally–the fact that you view them as just an intellectual excersize doesn’t mean that we can’t feel personally threated or get personally involved when ex-gay therapists advocate child abuse. And your claims that you didn’t support ex-gay therapy are a little specious as you kept trying to parse ways that it is okay.
Daniel,
“And your claims that you didn’t support ex-gay therapy are a little specious as you kept trying to parse ways that it is okay.”
I was only asking and defending my own feelings. I know nothing of ex-gay therepy of that whole world.
Ben,
I know. I need time. I can’t keep up. Right now I need to get back to work.
Ben:
I wasnb’t picking on anyone. I was noting that hwat I had to say, the questions I was aking, were not being repsonded to. I have more to say, but i don’t wish to be talking to myself only.
Bob, if you don’t know anything about it why were you defending it? Maybe you should do a little research before you express your feelings. There is plenty of research available and a simple google search will bring a lot of it up. That way you don’t come on and express offensive opinions to people who have actually had experience with the subject.
All right. Enough.
Will someone else chime in and decide, between Daniel and me, if what he states is a fact that I “defended” ex-gay therepy, or what I keep saying that I did not.
Here are the choices;
1) Bob defends and is an advocate of so-called “ex-gay” therepy.
or
2) Bob does not defend so-called “ex-gay” therepy but has his own issues which we strongly diasgree with.
How about this
3) Bob came into this website which is, in part, devoted to exposing the abuses of “ex-gay” therapies and said that it is okay for people to pursue ex-gay therapies and it’s wrong to criticize them if they do so. He then went on parsing and using circular logic to the point where he hoped people couldn’t remember what he said in the first place. He then asked people “why are you so angry”. Bob, I’ll say enough–enough of you going on and on about things you don’t know anything about and don’t seem really interested in finding out about. You want to preach and for us to agree with you but you’re not really interested in hearing what we have to say–though we have actual experience with the subject at hand.
Ben, this will have to be somewhat quicker than I wanted.
Ben writes:
Bob, you wrote this: “I agree with your arguments. I doubt if many other conservative Christians will.”
As I said, you have basically made my point for me. This really isn’t about religious belief at all, though what it is really about has been justified as “sincere religious belief”, as if that were some sort of excuse for centuries and volumes of vicious, heinous lies, used to attack, demonize, and destroy gay people.
Bob:
So, if gay hatred exists separate and apart from religion, then a religious bias or taboo may not be based on hatred at all.
Ben writes;
It is strictly about what it has always
been about– how much the verfy existence of gay people offends, bothers, terrifies, and entices some straight people, and a whole bunch of people who wanna be straight– but ain’t.
Bob:
Is there scientific data?
Ben write:
As a Jew, I can totally reject all of conservative Christian belief– even the totality of all Christian belief itself– and this bothers NO ONE except the occasional, rabid fundamentalist. Were I a Buddhist, I could completely reject the very notion of the western god, let alone The White Christ, and that might get a few tsk-tsk-too-bad-you’re-going-to-burn-in-hell-forever-now-I-just-love-Thai-food asides, and that would be the most anybody would proffer.
Bob:
Agreed. Good point.
Ben writes;
But let me say I am gay and demand to be treated like anyone else, and you would think that 10,000 gay people just took a mass dump on the floor of St. Peter’, all the while celebrating a black mass by the ritual sacrifice of Christian children.
Bob:
Yes, I agree. Christians and other religious people go way way overboard. I agree. Even if you grant that they will always consider homosexuality a sin, as a whole Christians tend to make it a much much bigger sin that any other sin. The people I know treat it the same as anything else. I know that won’t make you happy though.
Ben Write;
Political campaigns are started. Lies are told. Attacks–totally divorced from anything resembling reality– begin about the Homosexual Agenda. The homosexual Menace. Our Army will be paralyzed. The children– the innocent children– are in danger!!!! Religious freedom is under attack!! Empires are or will be destroyed!!! People will want to marry their dogs and have anal sex with their mothers! Men in dresses are just waiting to swarm ladies restrooms and sodomize little girls. Only large donations to quack science and quack religion (in NARTH, you get a two-fer) will stem the tide of the rain of faggot death and destruction. Kill the fags before they destroy America!!!
Bob:
I agree it gets insane. The insight I can offer is that behind that and many other tendencies is a sort of slippery-slope mentality. People are against things not for what they actually are, but for what they are afraid they will become.
Ben:
And on and on and on.
Bob:
Yes.
Ben:
Why do you think that this is so?
Bob:
A rhetorical question but I think as implied above it is pure fear driven. Fear for that if “those gays get their hands on our kids they will all turn gay”. Of course that is stupid because no one is going to be turn gay for fun and if thier kids do turn gay it would happen anyway.
But another is not as silly. That is *fear* that if the “gay agenda” wins, that it will *advocate* complete disrepect for Christianity and especially used to say God doesn’t exist in public schools. They fear people who *hate* Christians will teach their children to hate their parents and their parents God.
Completely unfounded, do you agree?
Ben write;
Do you think that this may not be about homosexuality at all, but just plain old bigotry. Just like the burning of witches, done with the same absolute moral certainty. Just like centuries of anti-semitism, fostered and suckled by the Church. Just like centuries of kill the protestants or kill the catholics. Or kill the infidel.
Bob:
Like I said, its fear based. I always suspect some of the most hateful gay bashers are sexually insecure themselves.
Ben writes;
It doesn’t really matter. It’ just hate dressed up in its sunday-go-to-meeting best. Why anyone– and by anyone, I mean YOU– would give this sort of crap any whiff of moral authority, is totally beyond me. Who would take this latest crusade as anything but more of the same?
Bob:
Youe stated earlier;
“All gay people want from conservative Christians is the getting exactly the same respect from them that they give to Jews, Muslims, atheists, pagans, adulterers”
A perfectly valid point. And I would give *that* kind of respect.
Bob– I have just a few minutes to write this morning.
You wrote: “So, if gay hatred exists separate and apart from religion, then a religious bias or taboo may not be based on hatred at all.”
It’s hard to say what religious prohibitions on anything may be based upon, and religion based homophobia may be based upon bible passages.
But that isn’t what I am saying. Just because someone says that such and such is his sincere religious belief does not make that a true statement. And it certainly doesn’t make it right. People sincerely believed that there were witches, that these witches were causing untold harm to others, and that god wanted these witches to be tortured and murdered horribly.
Yet we know that witches in that classic sense do not exist. And though it is possible to blame witch-hunting hysteria on ergot (LSD)tainted wheat, there is very little evidence to support that contention. some people must have been seeing witches where there weren’t any.
What I said was that a good deal of anti-gay hatred is given a “decency” cover by religious belief. Let’s take two examples. you talk about how your acquaintances just believe that homosexuality is a sin like any other, and treat it as such.
I would contend that they probably don’t, but since you are immersed in that culture, you don’t see it for what it is.
Homosexuality a sin. We’ll assume this is sincere religious belief. Therefore, based upon my religious beliefs, you should be denied civil marriage, your kids should be denied the rights and protections that having married parents would bring, you can pay twice the taxes I pay, your partner will be unable to collect the residual of your pension even though you have been a couple for 40 years while the woman I met last week and married can get all of mine.
A rather large line has just been crossed, and that line says that my life should be made as difficult and unpleasant and disadvantaged as possible based upon your religious belief.
Homosexuality is a sin. We’ll assume this is sincere religious belief. Therefore, on the basis of my beliefs, if I want to deny you a job or a place to live or kick you out of the military, I can do so, because YOU are a sinner.
If I pulled that on a Jew, we would call it anti-Semitism. but do it to a gay person, and it’s just sincere religious belief.
I can give you a lot more examples, but I think you get the point. If your friends consider homosexuality a sin like any other, but advocate differential treatment based upon that sin, than they have crossed over the line to hatred, no matter how they wish to perceive it, no matter how “soft” it appears to be. They cross over the line the minute they say “my religious beliefs, which you do not share, will determine the course of your life.”
Here is something I wrote a few years ago on this subject. There are a few references in it that will be meaningless, as it was address to a particular person. But the gist is what is important.
So, you say you’re not a bigot.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn as heterosexuality, despite the testimony of tens of thousands– if not millions– of gay people, despite the simple logic of “who would choose a life of discrimination and vilification”, you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Your beliefs about us are more important than any amount of actual evidence, but you’re not a bigot.
You say that it is not you that is disapproving of homosexuality, and not you that is judging, but God. Funny, I don’t hear God talking, I only hear YOU talking. I hear you quoting “God’s word”, allegedly on this subject, while ignoring all of the passages in the Bible that don’t accord with your personal prejudices, whether it is eating shellfish or pork, or destroying all of the unbelievers in our midst with a sword. (Deut. 13-6, 8-15)
Apparently God only means what he says some of the time– for instance, when he agrees with you.
But you’re not a bigot.
Let us not get into the appalling divorce figures for ‘sacred’ institution of marriage. You quote your Bible about the “wrongness” of homosexuality, but ignore far more compelling commandments that don’t comport with your non-prejudices. For example, Jesus was very clear on this subject: divorce is not an option. He also was quite clear about judging others before you yourself have achieved perfection. All of that you just cheerfully ignore, but not for any reasons that could be labeled bigotry.
It’s just what you believe. How can that be a statement of bigotry?
You’re very clear that based upon your religious beliefs, my HUSBAND and I are not entitled to the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage, even in a very obviously second class civil union, that you enjoy. In other words, my and our equality before the law can be compromised because of YOUR religious beliefs. If you said that Jews or Buddhists could not have the same civil rights that you do because they do not share your religious beliefs, you would rightly be labeled a religious bigot. But because it is about gay people, and whatever you imagine my sex life to be makes you say “ick”, you are not being a bigot…so you say. You’re just expressing your religious opinion.
Lest you accuse me of hating you, of being intolerant, of calling you names, as you accuse Steve McBrian of, let me be clear. I do not hate you, or really, care anything about you. I only wish that you would mind your own business, take care of your own marriage, and stop insisting that you have the right to mind mine–because of what you call your “religious beliefs”. You can believe whatever you want, and teach it to your children, and spew it in Church to your heart’s delight, however uncomfortable it may be for me to hear it. It’s a free country, at least for white, conservative, preferably Christian, heterosexual people. But why to you accuse me of intolerance when I tell you to keep YOUR religious beliefs out of MY life? I haven’t told you you can’t believe it, or that I will pass laws to make sure that you do.
What you hear from me, and from Steve McBrian, is not hatred, nor intolerance, nor anything like that. What you hear is ANGER.
I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.
I am angry as hell that any man and woman who met five minutes ago and have $50 for a marriage license can get married and have the full panoply of rights and obligations that go with it, but my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years, or Lance and Peter, together for 35 years, are legal strangers to each other. I am angry that they have to jump through all sort of expensive legal hoops to secure their lives together, all of which can be undone by the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that permits it.
I’m really angry that my friend Steve could not be at his husband’s bedside 20 years ago when Johnny was dying, because they didn’t have the medical power of attorney documents in their possession when Johnny was struck down. Johnny died alone. Steve grieved for him alone, and didn’t get to say goodbye to the man whose life he had shared for 15 years. All of that pain to satisfy some Christian’s beliefs about what is moral and immoral.
I’m furious that people like you can smugly say we’re all not perfect, but you’ll still smarmily judge us anyway, and pretend that you’re not. I’m furious that you prattle on an on about morality, but the IMMORALITY of what is done to gay people every day throughout the world, damage that is inflicted on our happiness, our health, our security, and our lives all the time, does not even merit your notice– let alone an apology. Talk about a crime against nature–what about the crimes against our nature?
You don’t approve of homosexuality, or as you put it, you’re not in agreement with what you see as our “choice”. Let me tell you something. I don’t approve of bigots, either. But the world is full of people just like you, who feel you have the right to do and say whatever you like to people you don’t know, whom you clearly know nothing about, and who have done you no harm.
And why? Because there is something YOU don’t like about them– their race, their religion, their gender, their ethnic group, their language, or their sexual orientation.
And if you can’t slip that one by anyone, you’ll even claim that GOD doesn’t like it.
Please don’t pray for me–what absolute spiritual arrogance. I don’t need it and I find it offensive that you think you have the right and spiritual cachet to do so.
And please don’t tell me you love me, either. I don’t believe it for a moment. I would prefer your naked hatred.
That, at least, is honest.
“Will someone else chime in and decide, between Daniel and me, if what he states is a fact that I “defended” ex-gay therepy, or what I keep saying that I did not.”.
While you’ve repeatedly claim that you don’t defend “ex-gay” therapy you’ve also asked where one can go to get “legitimate” help in changing orientations and have repeatedly suggested that it is right and good to want to change orientations and claimed this was an “intelligent” choice – all of that most certainly is a defense of “ex-gay” therapy and ideas so you most certainly can’t claim that you don’t support it.
Bob said “So, if gay hatred exists separate and apart from religion, then a religious bias or taboo may not be based on hatred at all.”.
There is non-religious gay hatred, but its damn rare. I’ve read hundreds, if not thousands of comments by atheists on gays and I’ve only ever encountered one anti-gay atheist. The overwhelming volume of gay hatred is rooted in, or justified by religious bias or taboo.
Bob said “People are against things not for what they actually are, but for what they are afraid they will become.”.
The slippery slope argument is just an excuse to cover up the lack of rational reasons to oppose gays. The classic line is “If we allow gay marriage then polygamy will be legalized.”. They can’t come up with any reasononable sounding excuses to prevent gays from marrying so they bring out the red herring of polygamy to “justify” preventing gays from marrying.
Bob said “If you want me to respond to your point about race I will
later.”.
If?! No, of course I don’t want you to respond, I just ask about it repeatedly because I want you to ignore it!
Give me a break, “if” indeed…
So respond already, I’m still waiting.
I see Bob has replied on another thread to my questions about how he’d deal with a self hating black person.
Ben, I’ll have to repond tomorrow. Sorry.
not a problem. We’re getting to the meat of the issue, now. :)
Ben writes;
1. Bob– I have just a few minutes to write this morning.
You wrote: “So, if gay hatred exists separate and apart from religion, then a religious bias or taboo may not be based on hatred at all.”
It’ hard to say what religious prohibitions on anything may be based upon, and religion based homophobia may be based upon bible passages.
But that isn’t what I am saying. Just because someone says that such and such is his sincere religious belief does not make that a true statement. And it certainly doesn’t make it right. People sincerely believed that there were witches, that these witches were causing untold harm to others, and that god wanted these witches to be tortured and murdered horribly.
Yet we know that witches in that classic sense do not exist. And though it is possible to blame witch-hunting hysteria on ergot (LSD)tainted wheat, there is very little evidence to support that contention. some people must have been seeing witches where there weren’t any.
What I said was that a good deal of anti-gay hatred is given a “decency” cover by religious belief. Let’ take two examples. you talk about how your acquaintances just believe that homosexuality is a sin like any other, and treat it as such.
Bob: We try to.
Ben:
I would contend that they probably don’t, but since you are immersed in that culture, you don’t see it for what it is.
Bob: Not perfectly. Sure there is some bias. Same for drugs, divorce and some others
Ben:
Homosexuality a sin. We’ll assume this is sincere religious belief. Therefore, based upon my religious beliefs, you should be denied civil marriage, your kids should be denied the rights and protections that having married parents would bring, you can pay twice the taxes I pay, your partner will be unable to collect the residual of your pension even though you have been a couple for 40 years while the woman I met last week and married can get all of mine.
Bob: We say the act is a sin, not the desire itself. I *know* others and probably you say one can’t separate them. We profoundly disagree so lets not argue that point. I want to point out that in the Biblical view, as I understand it, there really is *no* such thing as a concept of orientation per se, straight, gay, bi. There is *only* one’ actions and obedience to God. We should equally condemn all acts outside of marriage and especially those of the believers most harshly. We recognize the world does not live by our rules.
But Christians recognize they live in the world and we here specifically live in a secular society. However, our founders wisely assumed that, though religion should not dominate society and people should be free, they *assumed* religious practice and beliefs were generally good for society and that civil institutions such as marriage were based on the divine institution and recognized by the state.
Regarding civil rights. It is already well known that most Christians have *no* problem with equal rights and with forming so called civil unions.
Ben:
A rather large line has just been crossed, and that line says that my life should be made as difficult and unpleasant and disadvantaged as possible based upon your religious belief.
Homosexuality is a sin. We’ll assume this is sincere religious belief. Therefore, on the basis of my beliefs, if I want to deny you a job or a place to live or kick you out of the military, I can do so, because YOU are a sinner.
Bob: There are already laws regarding job discrimination.
Ben:
If I pulled that on a Jew, we would call it anti-Semitism. but do it to a gay person, and it’ just sincere religious belief.
Bob: Nonsense. Why do you insist that I validate, approve, say that the practice of sodomy is not sin? I already grant that civil society can make its own laws to legalize it.
I may believe Jews reject their Messiah but I don’t want to persecute them for it. The fact that others *did* does not make my beliefs in error.
Ben:
I can give you a lot more examples, but I think you get the point. If your friends consider homosexuality a sin like any other, but advocate differential treatment based upon that sin, than they have crossed over the line to hatred, no matter how they wish to perceive it, no matter how “soft” it appears to be. They cross over the line the minute they say “my religious beliefs, which you do not share, will determine the course of your life.”
Bob: Your discussing politics, not morals.
Ben:
Here is something I wrote a few years ago on this subject. There are a few references in it that will be meaningless, as it was address to a particular person. But the gist is what is important.
Bob: Understood.
Ben:
So, you say you’re not a bigot.
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence that homosexuality is an inborn as heterosexuality, despite the testimony of tens of thousands– if not millions– of gay people, despite the simple logic of “who would choose a life of discrimination and vilification”, you believe that homosexuality is a choice. Your beliefs about us are more important than any amount of actual evidence, but you’re not a bigot.
Bob: Morality is not validated by science. Science owes obedience to morality. I am not arguing that homosexuality is “just a choice” and I think that is clear from my previous posts. I argue that what you *do* with it is involves choice.
Ben:
You say that it is not you that is disapproving of homosexuality, and not you that is judging, but God. Funny, I don’t hear God talking, I only hear YOU talking. I hear you quoting “God’ word”, allegedly on this subject, while ignoring all of the passages in the Bible that don’t accord with your personal prejudices, whether it is eating shellfish or pork, or destroying all of the unbelievers in our midst with a sword. (Deut. 13-6, 8-15)
Bob: True, Christians can be selective on what they emphasize. Some sins are unjustly treated as worse than others. Homosexuality has been so treated. Why? I don’t know, perhaps natural human bias impinging on religion. The fact that I can agree it should not be singled out does not make it less of a sin.
Context is important. Old Testament dietary laws do not apply to New Testament believers. Moral laws and principles are timeless. Laws dealing with the theocracy in ancient Israel cannot be directly applied to Christians in China. God gave us the Scripture but he also gave us brains and expects us to us it properly.
Ben:
Apparently God only means what he says some of the time– for instance, when he agrees with you.
Bob: Explained above.
Ben:
But you’re not a bigot.
Let us not get into the appalling divorce figures for ‘acred’ institution of marriage. You quote your Bible about the “wrongness” of homosexuality, but ignore far more compelling commandments that don’t comport with your non-prejudices. For example, Jesus was very clear on this subject: divorce is not an option. He also was quite clear about judging others before you yourself have achieved perfection. All of that you just cheerfully ignore, but not for any reasons that could be labeled bigotry.
Bob: Not judging others does not mean you can’t point out sin. True, Jesus said to “cast the beam out of your own eye before you remove the sliver out of someone else’” But the person with the sliver is still in sin.
Ben:
It’ just what you believe. How can that be a statement of bigotry?
Bob: Our beliefs are not just our arbitrary opinions. We don’t even have to agree or like them.
Ben:
You’re very clear that based upon your religious beliefs, my HUSBAND and I are not entitled to the same responsibilities and benefits of marriage, even in a very obviously second class civil union, that you enjoy. In other words, my and our equality before the law can be compromised because of YOUR religious beliefs. If you said that Jews or Buddhists could not have the same civil rights that you do because they do not share your religious beliefs, you would rightly be labeled a religious bigot. But because it is about gay people, and whatever you imagine my sex life to be makes you say “ick”, you are not being a bigot…so you say. You’re just expressing your religious opinion.
Lest you accuse me of hating you, of being intolerant, of calling you names, as you accuse Steve McBrian of, let me be clear. I do not hate you, or really, care anything about you. I only wish that you would mind your own business, take care of your own marriage, and stop insisting that you have the right to mind mine–because of what you call your “religious beliefs”. You can believe whatever you want, and teach it to your children, and spew it in Church to your heart’ delight, however uncomfortable it may be for me to hear it. It’ a free country, at least for white, conservative, preferably Christian, heterosexual people. But why to you accuse me of intolerance when I tell you to keep YOUR religious beliefs out of MY life? I haven’t told you you can’t believe it, or that I will pass laws to make sure that you do.
What you hear from me, and from Steve McBrian, is not hatred, nor intolerance, nor anything like that. What you hear is ANGER.
Bob: I hear the anger. Loud and clear.
Ben:
I’m sick to death that the course of my life, and my happiness, and those of millions of people just like me, can be subject to your prejudices, whether or you prefer to call them your religious beliefs or just admit them for what they are. I am equally sick that gay people are imprisoned, attacked, murdered, executed, used as political fodder, vilified, condemned, persecuted, jailed, slandered, libeled, and accused of all sort of things that are simply NOT TRUE because someone doesn’t approve, or believes their God does not approve.
Bob: Noted.
Ben:
I am angry as hell that any man and woman who met five minutes ago and have $50 for a marriage license can get married and have the full panoply of rights and obligations that go with it, but my friends Andy and Paul, a devoted couple for 40 years, or Lance and Peter, together for 35 years, are legal strangers to each other. I am angry that they have to jump through all sort of expensive legal hoops to secure their lives together, all of which can be undone by the combination of a distant relative, a homophobic judge, and a law that permits it.
Bob: Noted.
Ben:
I’m really angry that my friend Steve could not be at his husband’ bedside 20 years ago when Johnny was dying, because they didn’t have the medical power of attorney documents in their possession when Johnny was struck down. Johnny died alone. Steve grieved for him alone, and didn’t get to say goodbye to the man whose life he had shared for 15 years. All of that pain to satisfy some Christian’ beliefs about what is moral and immoral.
Bob : Noted.
Ben:
I’m furious that people like you can smugly say we’re all not perfect, but you’ll still smarmily judge us anyway, and pretend that you’re not. I’m furious that you prattle on an on about morality, but the IMMORALITY of what is done to gay people every day throughout the world, damage that is inflicted on our happiness, our health, our security, and our lives all the time, does not even merit your notice– let alone an apology. Talk about a crime against nature–what about the crimes against our nature?
Bob: Understood.
Ben:
You don’t approve of homosexuality, or as you put it, you’re not in agreement with what you see as our “choice”. Let me tell you something. I don’t approve of bigots, either. But the world is full of people just like you, who feel you have the right to do and say whatever you like to people you don’t know, whom you clearly know nothing about, and who have done you no harm.
And why? Because there is something YOU don’t like about them– their race, their religion, their gender, their ethnic group, their language, or their sexual orientation.
And if you can’t slip that one by anyone, you’ll even claim that GOD doesn’t like it.
Please don’t pray for me–what absolute spiritual arrogance. I don’t need it and I find it offensive that you think you have the right and spiritual cachet to do so.
And please don’t tell me you love me, either. I don’t believe it for a moment. I would prefer your naked hatred.
That, at least, is honest.
Bob: Yes, I acknowledge the deep deep anger.
Jesus Bob, I thought you said you only had a few minutes to write.
That was Ben’s comment to me. Sorry for the confusion
amd the lengthy post.
Ben writes;
1. Bob– I have just a few minutes to write this morning.
You wrote: “So, if gay hatred exists separate and apart from religion, then a…
Bob, I’m really not sure what you’re trying to accomplish here. If you want to have ex-gay therapy do it. The people on this site will still have the right to call you self-hating but, what will it matter if you turn straight. Of course since the therapy doesn’t work you’ll just spend years being tortured and die unhappy rather than learning to love yourself–but do what you want. Why do you care what people on this site feel about you? And really, the more you go on the twistier you get and you just wind up sounding like the homophobe people here accuse you of being.
Becky,
Thanks for your perspective.
You’re welcome, Shug.
All Scripture is inspired of God. Just because Jesus Himself didn’t talk about homosexuality, those inspired to write the Bible by His Holy Spirit did. See Romans chapter one. God ‘accepts us as we are’ when we come to Him and repent of our sin. Repent means to turn away from our sin. Once we receive Jesus, (John 1:12), we are to live a holy life, putting away our sinful behaviors through His strength. He always loves us, but commands us to be holy as He is holy. We can do that through Christ.
Oh Lynn, that you still think we all need to believe the ridiculous writings of Bronze Age desert cultures is just sad.
Lynn,
I would be willing to take you seriously if you provided some real evidence of your religion’s validity. Or you might even have a smidgen of credibility if you could demonstrate that the adoption of your religion came as a result of exhaustive comprehensive unbiased research into all of the world’s religions. Although the research would take years, I don’t know how else a person could legitimately conclude that a particular religion is the correct one. Otherwise, I have to assume that you simply adopted the religion of your parents, or a prevalent religion in your geographic location, or maybe you just picked one that felt compatible with your personality. And, if so, your arguments come merely from indoctrination and the contents of a holy book. But all religions involve indoctrination and holy books, so why should I accept yours and reject the others? You need to understand that if you had been born in Saudi Arabia, it is overwhelmingly likely that you would now be praying to Allah, and extolling the Magic Truth of the Quran instead of the Magic Truth of the Bible.
I just love how they take it as fact (and think that other people do too) that the rest of the Bible was “inspired by god.” My goodness. If only a few people were saying it, we’d call them a crazed cult. Somehow they believe that because they’ve convinced countless people to believe it over the centuries that it’s somehow more credible.