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)
Tags: bigots, bodycounts, child abuse, children, Elaine Donnelly, Evan rants, Focus on the Family, fundamentalists, George Rekers, Laurie Higgins, Maggie Gallagher, Matt Barber, NARTH, Peter LaBarbera, religious right, sadism, Tony Perkins76 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
This is what you can expect when you start, as christianity does, with the premise that we are born in need of salvation. When you start with the premise that we are by nature faulty, you tend to find faults.
Comment by John Stencel — May 18, 2010 @ 7:00 am
I think if Jesus can accept us “just as we are” it would stand to reason that his followers should take on that same mantle of accepting people just as they are.
Comment by Ray Sager — May 18, 2010 @ 10:34 am
Amen! Keep up the great work!
Comment by J M — May 18, 2010 @ 12:06 pm
What do you really mean? By accepting do you really mean approving?
“I think if Jesus can accept us “just as we are” it would stand to reason that his followers should take on that same mantle of accepting people just as they are”
Comment by Bob — May 18, 2010 @ 4:37 pm
“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.”
~ Mohandas Gandhi
Comment by Raymond — May 18, 2010 @ 4:44 pm
Does anyone know where Kraig is now? It would be interesting to find out how his life turned out, and what his opinions are about what he went through as a child and young adult.
Comment by The Church Lady — May 18, 2010 @ 8:31 pm
Well. I didn’t think it was possible for me to hate the man more, but there it is. Children’s lives are ruined, and all for what? To pander to a collection of insecure, superstitious kooks with a control complex.
Looking forward to the day when this insanity finally collapses in on itself.
Comment by Makyui — May 19, 2010 @ 6:47 am
Bob, I’m concerned. You’re not really suggesting that it was okay to torture this child to change his sexuality? Seeing as how Jesus is here and if he did exist, according to the Bible, he said nothing about homosexuality I don’t see how parsing words like “accepting” or “approving” makes any difference.
Comment by Daniel — May 20, 2010 @ 7:43 pm
Daniel:
Bob, I’m concerned. You’re not really suggesting that it was okay to torture this child to change his sexuality?
Bob:
What? Of course not. Don’t be concerned.
Daniel;
Seeing as how Jesus is here and if he did exist, according to the Bible, he said nothing about homosexuality I don’t see how parsing words like “accepting” or “approving” makes any difference.
Bob:
Then do you take His silence as an endorsment of homosexuality?
Comment by Bob — May 20, 2010 @ 9:27 pm
Bob: Do you take his silence of turkey sandwiches as a condemnation of turkey sandwiches? What are you trying to say?
What about his silence of women equality? Is he condemning or endorsing it? Are those the only choices?
Why should it matter anyway, in a secular state like the US, where the ONLY reason to condemn gays is because some dude in a suit said so?
Comment by Makyui — May 21, 2010 @ 12:09 am
Makyui writes;
Bob: Do you take his silence of turkey sandwiches as a condemnation of turkey sandwiches? What are you trying to say?
Bob:
Yes. You will go to hell if you eat a turkey sandwich. But seriously, Ray brought up Jesus, then I asked for clarification on one point, then Daniel asked me for clarification. But anyway here is my position;
Jesus stated that He came not to abolish the Law but to complete it. So whatever the Law does mean with regards to homosexuality, Jesus agreed with that.
Makyui writes;
What about his silence of women equality? Is he condemning or endorsing it? Are those the only choices?
Bob:
Jesus was far ahead of His culture in the way He treated women.
Makyui writes;
Why should it matter anyway, in a secular state like the US, where the ONLY reason to condemn gays is because some dude in a suit said so?
Bob:
It’s always important to understand the actual historical perspective of why things are the way they are. People are always using Jesus’ words or their perception of who He is for their own ends. Sometimes their arguments are correct even if their motive is wrong. Sometimes both are wrong. Sometimes, probably rarely, both are right.
Comment by Bob — May 21, 2010 @ 12:18 pm
“Yes. You will go to hell if you eat a turkey sandwich.”
Maybe, Bob! He doesn’t say that we won’t go to Hell for eating it, does he?
Comment by Makyui — May 22, 2010 @ 6:24 pm
Makyui writes;
“Yes. You will go to hell if you eat a turkey sandwich.”
Maybe, Bob! He doesn’t say that we won’t go to Hell for eating it, does he?
Bob:
Well, you had better make damn sure its on Jewish rye.
Comment by Bob — May 22, 2010 @ 6:35 pm
Bob: Then do you take His silence as an endorsment of homosexuality?
I take his silence– assuming he said nothing about homosexuality, which is disputed in some corners (see http://www.well.com/user/aquarius/rome.htm)– as an indication that this particular subject, so all-fired important to some of his followers, was not of any importance to him, not even enough to mention in passing (assuming he didn’t, of course).
He was god, and he should know.
however, as many people have also shown repeatedly, it is a big mistake to assume that what we mean by homosexuality was being referred to in any way, shape, form, or translation, by any part of scripture. This has also been shown over and over not to be the case. The references are oblique, at best.
Allegedly, without exception, every time homosexual practice is mentioned in Scripture, it is condemned, says your average bible-believer. Unless, of course, you realize that this is not a true statement no matter how you parse it. Unless of course, you already BELIEVE it.
Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality. NOTHING on a subject that is so goddam important to bible-believing Christians. you’d think if it was actually important, he might have mentioned it oh,say, ONCE!!!!!
The bible may or may not condemn some aspects of gay sex. It is amazing to me how unclear God manages to be on the subject, when he is so clear on so many other subjects, including the very best way to sacrifice an ox in case he left his at the office. So coy: “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV of words we don’t know the meaning of, and which requires pages of exegesis to explain into a clear condemnation of something that might possibly, in a vague general srt of a way, be aobut homsoexuality as we understand it today, and not how it might have been understood by an iron age tribe 2000 years and 8000 miles away.
If it were as important to G as it is to you, he would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’ it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.” (He was a Jewish god, after all).
Now, that is clarity befitting the creator of the universe.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 22, 2010 @ 11:00 pm
If Jesus knew fuck all about the world he supposedly created, he would have known something about homosexuality, since it’s present all throughout the animal kingdom, and since he didn’t say a word about it, it suggests to me that the accounts of Jesus are those of a man of that time, uneducated as they were, uncultured as they were, and certainly NOT the creator of jack shit.
In a thousand years, this conversation won’t even exist, because religion will be merely a footnote in the history books, since it’s never done any good for anyone that couldn’t have been achieved through rational means.
Comment by Evan Hurst — May 23, 2010 @ 5:17 am
One thing to keep in mind in all this: Even the word “homosexuality” did not even exist until 1850 or so in Europe, mid-1880′s in the West, as it was an “invented” word by Sigmund Freud, who tried to define what had not been defined before, in trying to “cure” the ones who were apparently “anxious” about their attractions/sexual leanings. The reason that the word did not appear in the Bible, or anything else for that matter, is that it was a conjured up word, an amalgam, from the origins of the use of the word.
Any Scriptural “context” since the late 19th century that uses this term is based on an INTERPRETATION on the best of THEIR knowledge, not actual words in the original texts, Greek or Hebrew.
Sorry, Christianists-who-want-to-have-their-way-to-condemn-something-they-don’t-like. The reason Jesus did not mention homosexuals/homosexuality is that it simply did not exist in his day, nor any other century until the 1850′s, and then only by one man’s need to explain the yet to be explained, and somehow “label” a situation so the doctors who wanted to try to “cure” it could somehow “quantify” an answer. All this leads me to question whether “Doctor” [?!?] Freud would have been a member of NARTH, or even be a voice in the din of noise called “EXODUS.”
All that to say, what man of science would actually want to lend his name to such quackery?
Comment by CAfurrball — May 23, 2010 @ 7:17 am
Actually, furball, freud did not invent the word homosexuality. I tihnk it was havelock ellis, but I could be wrong about that.
Actually, Freud was fairly gay supportive, given his itmes. See if you can dig up his “Letter to an American Mother”, written, I think, in the early 30′s.
He was not Narth Vader by any means, though he was ot a liberationist, either.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 23, 2010 @ 12:02 pm
The word “homosexuality” (or presumably originally “Homosexualit?§t”) was coined by K?°roly M?°ria Kertbeny (born Karl-Maria Benkert), an Austrian-born Hungarian journalist, memoirist and human rights campaigner. His dates are 1824–1882. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl-Maria_Kertbeny
Comment by William — May 23, 2010 @ 12:29 pm
Ben in Oakland, et al.,
I stand corrected on the quote, then, although I believe he had at least SOMETHING to do with the word’s origins, back then. No one in “the West” had heard of the word used in this particular framework until WELL into the 1880′s.
My point about his “politics,” for the lack of a better word, was meant to be more tongue-in-cheek. I was thinking out loud, as I wonder why the psychiatrists of that day would have thought it an “illness,” or even a “disorder,” when they actually knew so little of it’s real origins [they still don't]. I remember as early as age 3 or 4 being attracted to other boys. Certainly, a boy that age is not even aware of anything “environmental” being askew in their lives, so the Christianists’ argument that it has anything to do with the upbringing of the child / social atmosphere is basically “full of holes,” as I only knew I found other boys attractive, at that age. Some may say “they [the psychiatric/psychological profession] could not find a fix for it, so they declassified it as an official “illness” or “disorder,” back in 1973. That was not the way to do it.” Sadly, the strict-Christianists’ thinking could not see outside the box, that “it does not need fixing.” As the character of the mother at the end of movie/book “Prayers for Bobby” found, “I could not fix my son, because he was not broken.” A heart-rending moment, most assuredly, as the mother’s part in the whole mess became painfully obvious. Again, another TOTALLY UN-necessary suicide of a young man, just as in the report of Rekers’ contention that the boy needed to fit inside THEIR “box.”
Anytime I hear or read of another young gay man or lesbian young lady committing suicide, I cannot help BUT point back to their religious background, as it is the only thing I have seen so far that drives the young person to such a despairing act. Granted, it may be a bit of something else, however, 99 times out of 100, it’s the religious beliefs that cause the most damage to a person’s spirit, whatever their age, however, the young people have more to lose, as – at a time in their lives when “fitting in” is so large an issue – some find ONLY rejection, and/or ridicule, for being “different,” and some of those are not even gay or lesbian, just perceived as “different” from/by their peers.
Comment by CAfurrball — May 23, 2010 @ 12:43 pm
And thanks, William, for the Wikipedia link. I will go back and read it.
Comment by CAfurrball — May 23, 2010 @ 12:46 pm
CAfurrball,
Gay sex practices were prevelent in the Greco-Roman world. There is hard physical evidence for this. Other sexual practices such as male and female prostitution including Temple prostitution was common. Pederasty and sexual abuse of slaves were rampant also. The reason Jesus did not have to mention all these practices specifically is that these practices were already condemned by the Jewish culture He grew up in.
CAfurrball:
Sorry, Christianists-who-want-to-have-their-way-to-condemn-something-they-don’t-like. The reason Jesus did not mention homosexuals/homosexuality is that it simply did not exist in his day, nor any other century until the 1850′, and then only by one man’ need to explain the yet to be explained,
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 3:05 pm
“The reason Jesus did not have to mention all these practices specifically is that these practices were already condemned by the Jewish culture He grew up in.”
A nice xplanation, but there is no evidence to support it, and JC isn’t here to defend himself.
I had this disucssion with a pastor, who said the same: “It was well known at the time that Jesus was referring homosexuality.”
I asked him how he knew what was well known at the time? He cited a writer– I forget who– who had basically said that this must have been the case because some obscure writer 1700 years ago– well after Jesus– thought so. i pointed out that he was basically giving a non-biblical authority the equivalent of biblical authority, or put it another way, justifying the authority of the bible iwth a non-biblical authority, which meant that his bible was lacking the ocmplete truth. and then, only in his opinion.
He abruptly left the conversation. I wonder why?
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 3:26 pm
Ben,
Jesus was addressed as and accepted as a Jewish Rabbi and teacher. He believed in the Old Testament which was His bible.
Show me in the Old Testament where it was allowed and accepted that people were allowed to have any sexual relations outside of marrage. Any two people caught having sex without being married to each other were called adulterers if one of them was married to someone else and if not married to anyone and having sex they were guilty of fornication. There was no special dispensation for two males or two females in love with each other.
Show me the loophole thet gets around the whole of the Law that woudld allow gay sexiality to be practiced.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 4:26 pm
Bob said “Show me in the Old Testament where it was allowed and accepted that people were allowed to have any sexual relations outside of marrage.”
Bob, show me in the old testament where is says gays can’t get married.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 24, 2010 @ 4:31 pm
“Show me the loophole that gets around the whole of the Law that would allow gay sexuality to be practiced.”
Bob, you know so little on your own history and theology– so it appears to me.
These are the same loophole(s) that claim that eating shrimp and pulled pork is not an abomination, or the ones that no longer require the stoning of someone caught in adultery or who was not a virgin on her wedding day.
The same ones that ignore the admonition of Deuteronomy to slay the unbelievers in your midst. The same one that says you must be killed if you work on the Sabbath.
The same ones that claim that Jesus came to fulfill the law, or to replace the law, or to substitute “love the lord your god” and/or “love one another as I have loved you” for the whole summation of what the law was about.
The loophole is sometimes called convenience. Sometimes it is called “understanding.” sometimes it is called compassion. and sometimes it is called “growing up.” What did Paul say about dim mirrors? Do you think he might have been referring to a legalistic interpretation of scripture, divorced from all reality, but especially from compassion?
In fact, why not ignore the bible altogether as an appropriate guide to modern living, especially given the fact that 2/3 of the people in the world think it is nonsense? Why not dispense with the alleged authority of ancient texts of highly questionable authority and ask the magic question- what position accords with the standards of common human decency, compassion, mercy and kindness?
One of the things that so many bible believers have proved to me, over and over and incontrovertibly, is that they know very little about their religion, their book, the history of their religion and their book, and their utter lack of compassion and humility. God himself becomes a convenience that you use to justify what you cannot justify by any other means. Hitler was not an atheist, Stalin had been a seminary student, on his way to being a priest.
My whole life’s experience, and everything I know about religion, psychology, sociology, and homosexuality– and my regular readers will tell you I know a lot– stands as a direct refutation to this nonsense that conservative religion– whether in its churchly or NARTH-y guises, has the slightest expertise in this matter, and that their interpretation of these ancient texts is both accurate and relevant– assumptions, not facts, which I do not share. and so it goes for a good deal of what passes for authority on moral matters from those who would cite their bibles as incontrovertible truth that their beliefs are the incontrovertible truth. Circularity upon circularity.
JC said nothing at all about homosexuality, but he did say “feed the poor”. How many children died in Darfur while good Christians were attacking my marriage as sinful?
And what kind of moral standard says that a child dying a slow and miserable death is nowhere near as important as making sure that gay people are as disadvantaged and damaged as possible, a plan of attack based upon lies, distortions, half truths, prejudice, bigotry, stupidity, and outright ass-hattery?
Those who would condemn gay people, claiming that they speak for G when they only speak for themselves, used to burn witches with exactly the same moral certainty. But we no longer burn witches, because we know that they do not exist, and because, as I already said…
…we don’t give authority to ancient texts that contravene any basic sort of morality and decency, and that apparently don’t involve telling other people what’ right in the eyes of the lord, or has to do with sex.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 5:12 pm
Bob, show me in the Old or New Testaments a shred of evidence that they were NOT written by ancient superstitious people who were completely ignorant of the world around them and thus could only conceive that a god created and controlled it all. Those Testaments should be treated as nothing more than interesting (but butchered) historical artifacts.
While I can understand why those ancient people invented the notion of gods, I think it is sad that it took so long for a few people to start looking beyond religion for reality, and then be persecuted for their efforts. And to this day religion seeks to retard progress toward gaining greater knowledge. For evidence, look no further than the recent education standards adopted by Texas.
Comment by Richard Rush — May 24, 2010 @ 5:14 pm
Ben asks;
JC said nothing at all about homosexuality, but he did say “feed the poor”. How many children died in Darfur while good Christians were attacking my marriage as sinful?
Bob:
If that were the main criterion for judgement, then the entire gay community should stop spending time on gay rights and work exclusivly to help Darfur. You condemn yourself with such arguments.
The answer is of course, Christians do both, as I am sure do other people.
And personally, I don’t spend any time trying to prevent you from being married.
And by the way, it makes no sense for you to refer to “JC”
since you do not believe he is the “Christ”. When you do what you are actually saying is “Jesus the Christ” meaning “Jesus the Messiah”. He is not some dude named “Jesus Christ”.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 5:34 pm
Priya writes;
Bob, show me in the old testament where is says gays can’t get married.
Bob:
There are no examples given I know of. Other laws apply. If you can find an example of a marrage referred to in the OT please let me know. I’d love to know. And don’t get all exited about David and Jonathan. I want one example of a marrage and a reason why, if it were legal, that no one seems to have done it in Scripture, and I mean a blessed union not merely noted. We know there was at least one example in the Roman Empire, when Nero castrated then married his slave boy Sporus so presumable, the practice existed in Greco-Roman society
earlier than Jesus walked.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
Bob’s a troll. He’ll just keep using circular logic until you want to hit your head on your desk. There’s no point in trying to argue or discuss with him, when he’s backed into a corner he’ll deny what he said. He’ll change his argument as he goes along.
Comment by Daniel — May 24, 2010 @ 5:44 pm
Daniel,
Bob’ a troll.
Just not true.
Daniel,
He’ll just keep using circular logic until you want to hit your head on your desk. There’ no point in trying to argue or discuss with him, when he’ backed into a corner he’ll deny what he said. He’ll change his argument as he goes along.
Bob:
Maybe, if some of you would stop impuning my character and accusing me of lying and claiming I am in denial or a self hater, and treating my beliefs as garbage, no as less than crap, we could make some progress.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 5:50 pm
Here’s the difference. Bob, i don’t claim to be a Christian, to follow Jesus’s words because they are his words, or any of it. i don’t claim any moral high ground which I then abandon in favor of my prejudices.
My moral high ground is the belief that religious prejudices whih harm the people i know and love to satisfy some moralizing
Christian busybody, supported by lies and outright hatred, do nothing to makethe owrld a better, or more moral, place.
Personally, I would have preferred that the 80 million spent fighting prop. 8 had gone to something that would have made the lives of millions of people better, instead of lining the pockets of political oepratives and reinforcing prejudice.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 5:51 pm
It doesn’t matter if a troll smiles while he posts, he’s still a troll.
Comment by Daniel — May 24, 2010 @ 5:55 pm
Bob said, “Maybe, if some of you would stop impuning my character and accusing me of lying and claiming I am in denial or a self hater, and treating my beliefs as garbage, no as less than crap, we could make some progress.”
Bob, what exactly would constitute “progress”?
Comment by Richard Rush — May 24, 2010 @ 5:59 pm
Bob, I don’t think it would benefit any of us who follow this site to make any “progress” with someone who seems to be trying to drum up sympathy for the ex-gay movement.
Comment by Daniel — May 24, 2010 @ 6:05 pm
Richard asks:
Bob, what exactly would constitute “progress”?
Bob;
Thanks for asking. I think I understand what most commenters positions are and maybe I kept going on too long because the discussion was heated. Sorry.
As a Christian person with some of my own inner conflicts
in these matters, I wanted to understand where you here were coming from and what the boundaries were. I also discusse with Christians about re-thinking the general opposition to gay rights- whether or not most Christians like what gay people do is a separate issue from whether or not we can as two groups not be in conflict and constantly fight over laws.
The problem is that many conservative Christians, my background, equate supporting gay rights with endorsing gay sex or disobeying the Scripture which need not be the case. I wonder if a case can be made, based on the freedom God gives man to make choices, that allowing, or perhaps not standing in the way of, gay marrage is not, for the Christian, rejecting God’s authority but merely letting man choose under God’s authority?
Perhaps these kinds of discussions are not appropriate for this group so we don’t have to discuss it here but any constructive feedback would be appreciated.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 6:51 pm
bob, the argument is a simple.
Let’s look at marriage. Marriage, despite religious claims to the contrary, is in our country a civil institution. you can get married in a church, but without a license from the state, you are not married legally. Likewise, though many churches will not marry gay people, many will. Obvious solution: gay people get married civilly or by their church, same as straight people. churches who don’t like it don’t have to be a part of it. Religious people who don’t like it– don’t get gay married.
Sodomy laws: not one single argument can be made for it from a religious standpoint, except they they think it is a sin. But they don’t use the law to punish other sins. Why this one? And lots of rleigious people don’t think it’s a sin. Solution: if your religion forbids homosexuality, lovely. mine forbids the eating of pork.
and on and on and on.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 7:02 pm
As i have said to you before (I’m pretty sure) I’m not really all that intersted in winning approval from religious people for homosexuality. 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 (pace Sanford, vitter, allen, Haggard, Latham, Barnes!) and all the other people that they believe are going to burn in hell forever, send there by a just and loving god for the crime of not accepting the deliverance and message he promised them in the name of eternal, god-like love.
Putting it in other terms: We should respect one another’s RIGHT to believe whatever he or she likes. We are under no obligation whatsoever to respect the BELIEFS THEMSELVES.
People forget this critical difference when it suits them.
Frankly, there are many beliefs that are not worthy of respect. Still, believe them if you like. Just don’t expect me to erect a criticism free zone around them.
And don’t expect me to take religious bigotry directed at me lying down. christians can believe whatever they want to believe. That is freedom of religion. Insisting that I believe it too, and lying about it constantly, is just plain old religious bigotry.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 7:09 pm
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
Ben,
I agree with your arguments. I doubt if many other conservative Christians will.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 7:38 pm
Daniel,
I don’t want to legislate your morality either.
Comment by Bob — May 24, 2010 @ 7:50 pm
Bob– which all goes to show that this really isn’t about rleigious belief at all. It is strictly about ewhat it has always been about– hoew much the existence of gay people offends and entices some straight people, and a whole bunch of people who wanna be straihgt0– but ain’t.
I will write a little more on this, if I have time.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 9:00 pm
Now I can write for a while.
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.
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.
George Rekers, not suprisingly, comes to mind.
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.
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’s, all the while celebrating a black mass by the ritual sacrifice of Christian children.
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!!!
And on and on and on.
Why do you think that this is so?
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.
It doesn’t really matter. It’s 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?
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 24, 2010 @ 11:53 pm
I said “Bob, show me in the old testament where is says gays can’t get married.”
Bob said “There are no examples given I know of. Other laws apply. If you can find an example of a marrage referred to in the OT please let me know. I’d love to know. And don’t get all exited about David and Jonathan.”.
Those “other laws” apply to things like temple prostitution and heterosexuals rejecting their true selves and having gay sex. No where in the bible does it condemn loving monogamous gay relationships. You can poo-poo and lie about David and Jonathan all you want but this is obviously a loving gay relationship where David’s love for Jonathan was greater than his love for women. Now go hide your head in the sand and scream “Is not! Is not!”.
Bob said “Maybe, if some of you would stop impuning my character and accusing me of lying and claiming I am in denial or a self hater, and treating my beliefs as garbage, no as less than crap, we could make some progress.”.
Your beliefs and actions reflect on who you are as a person. When you go around trying to demonize harmless gay relationships as “wrong” that rightfully impunes your character. Its a fact that your in denial and a self hater and when you believe bronze age bigots lies are god talking and telling you harmless gay relationships are wrong your beliefs are garbage, less than crap.
Richard asks “Bob, what exactly would constitute “progress”?”.
Like a coward Bob sidesteps the question and goes into some tedious insincere pablum about not supporting anti-gay laws. Bob other than that aside you’ve gone on and on about how its wrong to be gay and you want to change and follow the hatred of bronze age bigots. That’s clearly what you consider “progress”, but that’s not progress, that’s regression.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 25, 2010 @ 12:12 pm
Priya,
Since you have called me a liar several times, a coward, in denial, a self-hater and basically demonized me and my motives, tell me why I should respond to you?
If you do want me to actually respond then you need to learn the distinction between attacking ideas and attacking people, calm down and just talk like a reasonable person.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 3:36 pm
I haven’t demonized anyone, and i am still waiting for several responses.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 25, 2010 @ 3:49 pm
Bob, you came onto a webiste by and for gays. You made ignorant and harful claims that have been disproven over and over again and yet you try to play yourself off as some sort of victim. Don’t tell me to “calm down” when you are trying to advance extremely dangerous therapies (with which I, unlike you apparently, have actual experience). What you are trying to advance is dangerous and there is absolutely no reason we should play nice with you when you’re trying to continue to push faux therapies that couse suicide and untold psychological damage and broken families. You may think you’re being reasonable by I don’t think you even know what that means.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 3:51 pm
Ben, Daniel,
Not you guys too! Can’t you clearly see I responded to Priya, not either of you.
Ben:
Bob: You gave me a thoughtful discussion which requires a thoughtful response although I took it as mainly an expression of your opinion and perspective which was interesting.
Daniel,
Clearly, I was not talking to you unless your name is Priya. In our last exchange I agreed with your main point.
So, what happened between then and now that you are so angry? I already stated many times before I disavow these change therapies.
BTW, asking to be talked to decently as a human being is not claiming to be a victim.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 4:24 pm
Bob, you’re not having a private conversation–you’re posting on a website the idea that you are having a personal conversation with Priya is just silly–and the idea that we can only respond to something directed to us personally is delusional.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 4:29 pm
Also, I don’t know why you thought we had some great agreement–I’ve never thought you were right with your promotion of ex-day therapy.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 4:30 pm
Bob said “Since you have called me a liar several times, a coward, in denial, a self-hater and basically demonized me and my motives, tell me why I should respond to you?”.
Bob, you refused to respong to my questions before I pointed out your cowardice in dodging them. You are clearly not willing to undertake honest give and take in a search for the truth. Stop acting like a troll and I’ll stop criticizing you.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 25, 2010 @ 4:53 pm
And I should add, Bob, stop lying about what I’ve said and I’ll stop calling you a liar.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 25, 2010 @ 4:56 pm
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?
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 4:59 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
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.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 25, 2010 @ 5:13 pm
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.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 5:18 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 5:47 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 5:49 pm
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.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 6:11 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 6:26 pm
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.
Comment by Daniel — May 25, 2010 @ 6:30 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 25, 2010 @ 7:57 pm
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.
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 26, 2010 @ 11:45 am
“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.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 26, 2010 @ 12:33 pm
I see Bob has replied on another thread to my questions about how he’d deal with a self hating black person.
Comment by Priya Lynn — May 26, 2010 @ 12:59 pm
Ben, I’ll have to repond tomorrow. Sorry.
Comment by Bob — May 26, 2010 @ 9:09 pm
not a problem. We’re getting to the meat of the issue, now. :)
Comment by Ben in Oakland — May 26, 2010 @ 10:16 pm
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.
Comment by Bob — May 27, 2010 @ 3:53 pm
Jesus Bob, I thought you said you only had a few minutes to write.
Comment by Becky — May 27, 2010 @ 4:01 pm
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…
Comment by Bob — May 27, 2010 @ 4:05 pm
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.
Comment by Becky — May 27, 2010 @ 4:38 pm
Becky,
Thanks for your perspective.
Comment by Bob — May 27, 2010 @ 5:09 pm
You’re welcome, Shug.
Comment by Becky — May 27, 2010 @ 5:27 pm
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.
Comment by Lynn — March 11, 2011 @ 12:03 pm
Oh Lynn, that you still think we all need to believe the ridiculous writings of Bronze Age desert cultures is just sad.
Comment by Daniel — March 11, 2011 @ 12:59 pm
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.
Comment by Richard Rush — March 11, 2011 @ 1:09 pm
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.
Comment by Evan Hurst — March 11, 2011 @ 1:33 pm