Tuesday, March 26, 2013

Is It A Choice? Um, Does it Matter?

I love Netflix. You find something you like, watch it, and then it suggests other things you might like. I call this "Netflix Crack" because it's so damn addictive. Christy and I recently watched a documentary called "For the Bible Tells Me So", director Daniel G. Karslake's examination of the ways in which ultra-conservative Christian organizations exploit scripture to justify the denial of human rights, specifically to the LGBT community.

Another film, "One Nation Under God", explored (neƩ exposed) the practices used by various groups to "cure" gays of their homosexuality. Likening homosexuality and lesbianism to alcoholism or drug addiction, these groups' untrained "counselors" sought to correct gay behavior through behavior modification, aversion therapy and counseling, among others. (One ministry asked hairdressers and manicurists in the community to volunteer their time to give lesbians makeovers. In a karmic twist, one of the hairdressers was flamboyantly gay but none of the counselors seemed to notice.)

Naturally, this is absurd. By the end of a very informative weekend, I'd watched 4 documentaries and learned much. For example, there are many ministries that offer this service; Exodus International is one of the largest. (Another far-reaching group, Love in Action, closed its doors in 2011, succumbing to pressure from protestors and the state of Tennessee.) Many of them feature as their spokespeople, "ex-gays" that have successfully completed their programs. I actually laughed out loud when I saw how un-cured these sad, self-delusional people were.

Their groundless premise is that homosexuality is a choice. One can choose to – or not to – be gay. During a Q&A on an episode of "Donahue", a normal-looking woman stood up in the audience and asked the guests, "Why do you feel the need to sleep with men?", to which one guest calmly replied, "Why do you feel the need to sleep with men?" Rousing applause.

For those still wondering if it's a choice, please watch the following educational video:

What struck me even more than the absurdity of these organizations and their so-called curative therapies was the people who created and continue to support them. They're some of the most hateful people in the United States. These are the Christians that picket gay pride rallies and parades with signs that read such godly proclamations as "GOD HATES FAGS!" and "JESUS KILLS FAGS!" and "DEATH TO HOMOS!" These are the people who want to dictate the Christian values that we, as a nation, should live by. These people want to be our moral compass.

Nowhere in the Bible does it state that it's a good Christian's duty to insult, beat, and kill homosexuals because there were no Greek or Hebrew words for "homosexual" or "sodomy" in the original Bible. Those words were added in the 1946 Revised Standard Version [RSV] of the Bible. ("Homosexual" wasn't even a word until Austrian-born novelist Karl-Maria Karbeny used the term in 1869.) They compare the "sin" of homosexuality as akin to murder, rape and pedophilia. I think it's curious that being gay isn't even one of the Ten Commandments. But murder is. So is adultery. And theft. And lying. But, presumably, these lying, cheating, sign-toting homophobic thieves feel it's their duty – their God-given right – to terrorize the LGBT community.

Most of all, these hateful soldiers in God's army seem to be scared. But what the hell are they scared of? Certainly not the wrath of God. If they were, they wouldn't be murdering gay people. Or cheating on their husbands and wives, and then lying about it. Or stealing from their employers. Maybe they're scared of their own perversion of His Word. Maybe they're scared of what they don't understand. It wouldn't be the first time that ignorance bred fear. Maybe they're scared of change. Their narrow ideal of family values is being challenged. Our society is marching forward and maybe they're scared of getting trampled under its feet.

Or maybe they're just desperate for someone to hate more than they hate themselves. And that is scary.


  1. I love your post, Steven.

    ongoing discussion here in germany at the moment: should homosexuals have the same rights when it comes to marriage and having children.

    One of the so called arguments makes me vomit, every time i hear it.
    It is not natural.
    Next time I hear that, i will commit a murder.
    It is natural. You will find just about every variation of sexuality in nature that you can think of, including some you never thought of.
    Living beings love other sexes, have more than 2 sexes, change their own sexes during their lifetime and make themselves pregnant for example, nature offers all kinds of aspects of sexuality.
    and of course you find prefering the own sex in animal life just as well. With primates too.
    As i said, next time someone says it is not natural, i will most likely commit a murder.

    Thinking of the second argument that makes me crazy, children of "such" relationships will be homosexual themselves. Well, well. Where do most of homosexuals come from (more than 95%)? From heterosexual families.
    The so called "ideal" family is the source of violence and abuse just as well.
    There was a time we thought the earth was flat. It took a long time to learn.
    I am afraid, when we learn not to discriminate homosexuality, we will do this only if we can find a new group to discriminate.
    Because it is what we need. We need to be able to dicriminate people, for whatever reason.
    We need "us" and "them".
    "Them" do not have to be homosexuals, but right now they are still available...

    1. @sorei: Holy cow. You said so much of what the sociologists and psychologists said in the documentaries I watched. The need -- NEED -- for one group to have another group to call "other".

      Diversity in sexual orientation was mentioned too. I knew a little about that, but not as much as we know now. We're the only species on the planet that practices any type of discrimination or bigotry.

      One thing that you brought up that wasn't mentioned was the parents of homosexuals. I never really thought about all the straight parents who have gay children. Do they blame themselves? Would it be okay if the rest of the community shunned and picketed them because they gave birth to a gay boy or girl?

      Sadly, hate is natural. Unfortunately, hate for no reason is too.

    2. You make a very good point @Sorei. Bugs, animals, fish all have different ways about them. It's all natural.

      People imposing their beliefs on other people really irritates me. Live and let live is what I believe. Are they healthy and happy and living good lives? Yes? Then who cares what they're doing in the bedroom? So they kiss and hug and hold hands in public? Does it directly affect me? Nope. Go for it.

      People just need to mind their own business and deal with their own stuff.

    3. @Grey Goose: YES! I keep wondering how straight couples think they're being harmed by same-sex marriage, let alone just plain old relationships. How do Peter and Paul being married and receiving health benefits harm Bob and Sue? I've yet to hear an actual, legitimate argument supporting a ban on gay marriage. And, to me, misquoting scripture isn't a legitimate argument.

    4. You brought up Peter and Paul getting health benefits @Steven. This is what really makes me mad. That all these gay haters think it's OK to deny committed couples benefits that they get if they're in marital relationships. How do they think that's fair and how does it hurt them if two married guys or two married women get health or dental benefits?

      The LGBT community deserves all the same rights we have. My husband and I have so many benefits through his job, but friends of ours, one who works for the same company, who are a gay couple don't. He does but his partner doesn't because they can't get married. They want to get married but they can't. So his partner doesn't have any health insurance because his job doesn't provide it. It's stupid. It makes my blood boil.

  2. These groups are crazy and scare me. I don't get why they can't just let people live their lives as long as it doesn't hurt them or others. I mean who really cares about someone's sex life? I don't go around thinking about it. I only care about mine. Why do they care so much about other people's? It weird and creepy.

    I don't get how people can hate so much, but what's really insane is how they can call themselves Christians while hating. That's so wrong.

    1. @Michelle: I read an article yesterday (which, of course, I can't find now) that said something like, "We need to ban gay marriage in order to protect traditional family values." And I was like, protect them from WHAT??? Hordes of LGBT couples descending upon their comfortable, bigoted, Christian communities and stealing their children for wild orgies designed to convert them to The Dark Side? I mean, seriously, what are they so afraid of?

      Affording rights to one group doesn't eliminate those rights from another group.

      Weird and creepy is right, @Michelle. I don't think about anyone else's sex life but my own. Why do they?

    2. This has been a big topic at work this week and we've had some interesting discussions. You would have enjoyed it @Steven!

      One of the arguments a guy here tried to make was that marriage was supposed to be between a man and a woman simply so they can have kids. I guess this has become their big stance now. My argument to him was that if that's the definition, then older people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. Infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Couples who don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. On and on. It's stupid. It doesn't make any sense.

      Marriage is a ceremony and a legal contract between two people who love and are committed to each other that they will spend the rest of their lives with each other, supporting each other, loving each other, building a life together, devoted to each other, laughing with each other, crying with each other, holding each other's hands in quiet moments, giving a hug when needed, only having sex with each other, being there until one takes their last breath. It doesn't have anything to do with kids. Nothing at all.

      It doesn't have anything to do with the Bible either. Somebody else brought up that church and state are supposed to be separated. So why are these people trying to shove the Bible into this political thing?

    3. @Michelle:

      you wrote: ..."My argument to him was that if that's the definition, then older people shouldn't be allowed to get married because they can't have kids. Infertile people shouldn't be allowed to get married. Couples who don't want kids shouldn't be allowed to get married. On and on...."

      i am not sure on the other hand, what exactly was the situation (way back) when these "rules" were interpreted, if for example a group is too small in size, such a rule makes sense, because the group needs to get bigger. Just a thought.

    4. But even if back then the group needed to grow, it still wouldn't have kept loving couples who have no intention of having children from getting married. They were OK with it as long as the couples were a man and a woman, so their argument doesn't hold up.

    5. EXACTLY! Whether or not a couple -- ANY couple -- intends to procreate should have no bearing on their legal right to wed. Gay and lesbian couples don't infringe upon the rights of straight couples in any way. Why should straight couples feel threatened by gay couples? Is their faith in God and the Bible so tenuous that have to trample on the rights of their fellow brothers and sisters? Do they really believe God and Jesus don't want the LGBT community to have health benefits?

      These are the same narrow-minded people who thought blacks shouldn't have any rights.

      @Michelle: YES! Separation of church and state. These Christian fundamentalists (or just plain idiots) shouldn't be using the Bible to further a political agenda.

  3. I don't think I could sit through documentaries about this. The part I'm stuck on is that the Bible doesn't really mention homosexuality in it originally? So some guy just made it up? And now all these people are stuck on it and hating because of it? That's effed up.

    1. @Sarah: Yep, the original Bible doesn't say squat about homosexuality. Many words were "translated" – i.e. adapted – based on who was creating the different versions of the Bible. And then all the Christian fundamentalists jumped on the haters bandwagon, shaking their fists in righteous indignation.

      What gets me is how many of these people don't even keep their own yards clean. These people are thieves and adulterers and liars, but they focus all their attention on a group of people who a) aren't even sinning, and b) AREN'T AFFECTING THEIR LIVES IN THE LEAST.

      @Michelle nailed it when she said focusing on other people's sex lives - gay or straight - is creepy and weird.

      These Christians need to learn the true meaning of the Bible and then focus on living THEIR OWN lives the way they see fit and leave everyone else alone.

    2. Umm, there's a lot to be said here, and a lot of misinformation. While I believe that the choices of consenting adults, be they straight or homosexual, is an individual's choice and not someone else's, a lot of this information is off. Not hateful obviously, but off. And, I wanted to address it.

      As a Christian, I think the groups that engage in "hate-mongering" of anything is downright awful, and most people would agree. Thankfully, these groups are the minority and marginalized by all, and don't account for much in the "Christian-world" If I can use that term.

      Secondly, just because someone disagrees with one's views and expressions does not automatically mean that they "hate" you (not that you were implying this). I understand that these get confused often. And it is sad.

      Thirdly, we see a lot of adverse behaviors and happenings in nature that we would not want replicated in the human world. Just to name a few: Mothers eating their young, packs of lions turning on their elder leaders to kill them, etc. etc. So, I dont think this is a wise place to look for "natural" tendencies. I agree with the commentor that saying homosexuality isnt "natural" is the wrong argument, because it certainly feels natural to them. I think most opponents say it isn't natural plainly because the pieces don't fit, and the science doesn't work (procreatively). Which, may or may not be a just argument either.

      And lastly, the Bible does talk about homosexuality. It addresses it multiple times.Just off the top of my head: lev 18:22 Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with a man as with a woman. Obviously, it doesn't use the word homosexual since that word wasn't invented until the 1800's. Just like you wont find the word "dinosaur" in the Bible, because it too was invented in the late 1800's. But you can be sure that the Bible talks about both of those.

      And, where do you suppose the word Sodomy even comes from?

      I think there is a lot of misunderstanding on both sides, which is sad. Especially as a Christian. The point is not to win the argument. The point is to come to a relationship with God through Jesus Christ who died for our sins. Thats everyone-male, female, gay straight, muslim, whoever. And there needs to be a coming together and better understanding. I don't have all the answers, but its worth discussing. And I respect people's ability to choose for themselves.

      Sorry to run this on so long. Best to you all, and Kudos to the author for putting it out there.

    3. @anonymous: thx for your post, I like it (for whatever that may be worth or not)

      And, erm, no, I indeed did not mean to say to imitate everything that happens in nature ;)
      And yet, even if it sounds cruel, for those who do eat their young: it makes sense within their system and environment.
      The procreation thing does not make sense for me as argument (you stated it may or may not be a just argument)because if that was the main issue, a male and female that cannot have children together should not have the same rights either, just for example. Just stating my opinion here.

    4. @sorei: WOW!!! You wrote (paraphrased): "a male and female that cannot have children together should not have the same rights either". I never thought about it that way. And straight couples who can have children but choose not to would be subject to God's wrath too. Interesting...

      @anonymous: First of all, thank you SO much for sharing you views here! And thanks for the kudos. ;-)

      It's always interesting to hear an opposite point of view, and you stated your views clearly and respectfully. I have more to say, but I need to ponder what you wrote more carefully before responding for real. I hope you subscribed to these comments so you'll see the follow-ups. Please come back!

    5. @sorei: Yeah, I can agree with you on both of those points.

      And, whether or not a couple can have a child through sexual intercourse should have no bearing on their rights. I think that much is pretty clear. There are many examples of wonderful same-sex couples and sexually-sterile couples raising children.

      I was just trying to flesh out what those arguments were getting at. I think I was referring to the "biological potential" existing.

      I think its a strange debate, and personally I wish it wasn't as big of a deal as it is. I feel like not much will change either way regardless of what the courts decide. People will still be for it, people will still be against it.

    6. @First person: True, true -- court-rulings don't change minds, especially zealots. I've never heard of someone changing their fundamental beliefs about something because the courts said they should.

      It's been nearly 50 years (only) since people of different ethnicity were allowed to legally marry. And there are still neanderthals out there who think "the mixing of the races is impure". Unbelievable. And yet, believable.

    7. I think I should have read all the comments before I started commenting. :P

      That said, read my comments above about couples who can't or choose not to have kids, and what I've heard in my office and how I've responded.

      @Anonymous thank you for sharing your point of view here. I know not all Christians are anti-gay. There are some very open, loving, cool Christians who stand up for the rights of other people, and I think that's the way it should be. I mean didn't Jesus teach about loving people?

      It's the ones who stand outside with signs that have the word "hate" on them that disturb me. Those people can be classified as part of a hate group. If they hate anyone, that's wrong. That's not what God, Jesus, or the Bible told them to do. How do they justify their actions and words?

  4. @steven64: yeah please do (step away to ponder additional thoughts and insights, and share them).

    I realize there is a lot to discuss. I realized that as I started writing. But, I wanted to nonetheless.

    I will subscribe to the feed and follow as best I can.

    1. @First person: You're the "anonymous" that posted that long comment earlier?

    2. @First person we want you to keep posting here please.

  5. @steven64: yeah, yes. I didn't make the author selection correctly.

    First person, and Anonymous were both my postings.

    sorry about the confusion

    1. @Anonymous, you could use your first name here. We don't judge and we like different opinions. Honestly.

      Hi. I'm Michelle. :)

  6. the topic as such has a history throughout the world and throughout time:


  7. Replies
    1. LOL! @sorei you didn't scare me off. There's been a lot of talk going on about this at work so I've been focused on it there. I didn't realize there was so much here until this morning. I'm just now catching up. Maybe others are the same. I have a lot to say. :)

    2. I'm not scared off that easily. Been reading everything and taking it all in. Me and the wife have been talking about what you guys have been posting. I guess I could post some of our thoughts here. Don't know where to begin though.

    3. So we're all talking about it offline. LOL! Sorry @Steven.

    4. Not scared here. Just trying to back off the internet and get to what's real.

      On the advice of someone smarter than me, I'm spending less time online and more time with people face to face who are important in my life, like my family, boyfriend, and close friends.

      I'll still stop by to see what's going on, but you'll see less of me here. I think it's the best thing to do.

      I have advice for people who spend a lot of time online. Evaluate who is more important. The person standing in front of you, begging for your time and attention because you're too busy chatting/IM'ing/texting/webcamming/etc with people online? Or those people you're only in touch with online?


      Give the people in your life, the people you can actually spend time with in person, more of your time and attention. Don't let online people interfere with what's real.

    5. @Sarah you're doing the right thing. Whoever advised you to spend more time with the live people in your life over the online people in your life was smack on the money.

      I'm usually not on here a whole heck of a lot because my hubby and I have a very fully life that keeps us busy. Sometimes I have down days like today when I'm home with a cold and have time to be online. Usually I'm spending my free time with my hubby, family and friends. The people I love who are here in person are more important to me.

      I have some family in other states and they also are important, so I spend some time online with them, but I don't do a lot of Facebook stuff with old friends and what not because I just don't put them as a high priority. I like seeing them and catching up, they aren't part of my immediate world.

      The people who are part of my immediate world get the best part of me. Hubby first, family second, friends third, and anything left goes to those online people.

      Good luck to you @Sarah. I'm happy for you! :)

    6. @Sarah: I'm with @Michelle -- whatever wise person advised you to spend more quality time offline was right on. I go thru phases where I'm online fairly often, but it usually only lasts a couple of days. Then I'm off either working (I work from home), or doing other offline things. So more power to you!

      @All: I wasn't scared off either! LOL! I've just been swamped the last several days and haven't had time to read the comments that have been posted. (Even now, I'm supposed to be working. ;-)

  8. I do not understand the people who place one sin over another. Isn't all sin abominable in God's eyes? Do not misunderstand. I do not think homosexual acts are a sin. I believe others think so. I believe God will judge each person for their actions and thoughts. It is not my place to do such.

    I have not been placed on earth to judge. I have been placed here to be the person I can be. I have a purpose. We all do. Why some choose to judge, I do not understand.

    Would this same person condemn a cheating spouse? Would this same person condemn a liar? They so easily forgive these people. It's a mystery.

    We must all strive to be pure in our hearts and love. Let those who love of the same sex have their own lives. It isn't our place to tell them no. Let them have the same rights.

    1. I missed your comment @Farrah. None of us have been put here to be judges. That was a good observation!

    2. @Farrah: Hear, hear! It does seem to a...curious facet of human nature that certain "sins" seem more easily forgivable than others. And for some reason, many Christians have chosen homosexuality as a particularly unforgivable sin. The same people that would condemn a gay man would easily forgive their neighbor for lying. Or committing adultery. Or even murder.

  9. @Anonymous, I'm a Christian too. Fortunately, most churches don't preach hate against gays; however, there are some that do. Sadly, many churches today are still struggling with where they stand on the issue and how to deal with it as a denomination or congregation. It's evolving as society evolves.

    You picked a passage from Leviticus (18:22) that spoke about men not laying with other men. Here's my issue. There are 613 commandments from God. He gave them to the people of the time for good reason. Many were to keep people healthy (food laws). Over the years we've pushed aside those that no longer have a practical purpose for modern life. We've evolved. God hasn't struck us down because of it.

    The morality laws (commandments) naturally still have a place (don't lie, cheat, steal, commit adultery, etc.), but I don't believe being gay is a moral issue. People don't choose to be gay, and there isn't anything wrong with it. I firmly believe God created them to be the people they are, so it can't be wrong. He is, after all, God.

    Perhaps this law was given for a reason back in the day, a reason that no longer applies. Maybe it was a health reason. I don't know. But I do know that you can't use it as an argument for discrimination today. It doesn't work.

    The Bible is a religious document and should be kept separate from our government documents and laws. The United States is a country founded on religious freedom, so it's a violation of our founding principles for a group of people to enact laws based on their religious beliefs. What the gay and lesbian community does has nothing to do with anyone except themselves. They're simply living life, and asking for the same rights that you and I have. They should have the same rights. What you or anyone else personally believes based on religion should have no impact on them.

    Religion should never be forced on anyone. Everyone comes to God in their own way, in their own time; or not. When people begin telling others how they should live and what rights they can and can’t have based on ancient commandments from the Bible, they’re forcing their religion on others. That’s simply wrong.

    1. There are 613 commandments? I didn't know that.

      I like what you had to say about not using the Bible as an argument for discrimination. That was a good line. Everything you wrote was good @Christy.

    2. @Anonymous/First person: I was struggling with how to respond to your initial comment, @Anonymous. It wasn't that I took exception to what you wrote, I just wasn't sure where to begin! ;-) But I should have realized if I waited long enough, @Christy would say everything swirling thru my brain better than I could ever say it.

      @Christy: What you wrote was spot on. All of it. Um, that's it. ;-)

  10. Now I think I scared everybody off. Even @Steven. :(

  11. noooooooooooo :-)
    just bad timing

  12. So I had a lot to say about this topic, but I waited a couple of days so I could get my thoughts together. Then I come here and everybody has already said everything. :P Ha!

    Thumbs up to a lot that was written here. It took me a long time to read through it all. Now I'm not sure what to write. I had my thoughts all together and I don't want to rehash.

    So I guess I'll just say, "Way to go everybody!" :)

    1. LOL! I think that's an alright comment @Kirani, but I'm taking cold medication so what do I know. :P Nah, it's a good response. There have been some good things written here.

    2. @Kirani: I've been in the same boat as you for the last 4 days or so. I would read a few comments, work, eat, sleep, read a few more comments, work, eat, etc. And the longer I waited a more I read, the more everyone else was saying what was on my mind anyway, so I don't become a "looper" (repeating what everyone else has written).

      @Michelle: Cold meds, huh? So basically you're saying you were stuck at home, sick, bored and stoned. LOL! But what you've written has been right on the money.

  13. I feel like the unofficial ambassador of this blog today. LOL! That's what happens when I'm stuck at home with a cold people.

    You're lucky my hubby will be home soon and take me away from all of you. He'll make me soup and make sure I'm comfortable and taken care of. He loves me.

    1. @Michelle: You've done a wonderful job, Madam Ambassador! Thank you for keeping this post going while I was in the weeds with work. :-)

  14. @all,

    I tried to write a response, and went over the maximum characters. Ill try to get the response back up here shortened and condensed, or broken up into pieces.

  15. @Christy, I was going to approach this a different way, but It might be easiest to address your comments. But let me first say that there is a political, and a religious component to this debate.

    As far as Im concerned, I think that we are all in agreement on the political side of legalizing gay marriage in the sense that the State protects the rights of its citizens, even those that dont fit the traditional definition, regardless of religion. In that the state should really be agnostic in how it views its people. It allows for freedom of religion, freedom of expression, etc. etc, and protects its citizens rights and properties. So we can agree on that.

    In which case I would ask, what do we do about polygamous -and consenting- relationships? Do we still feel the same way, or is that "wrong" in some way? Does it matter if we think it wrong or not in the eyes of the State?

    Secondly, It is my hope that of the two bills out there right now, I think one is of Federal concern and one has to do with legalizing gay marriage on the state level. I dont have all the facts here, but it is my hope that only the state bill passes (i dont know which one it is). And here's why. What happens when a gay couple wishes to wed in a church that doesn't support their marriage? The couple could sue the church or religious institution on discriminatory grounds, which would now be illegal,- who's rights do we uphold?

    I hope it would not happen, but there have already been issues in regards to the healthcare law that passed. Catholic and religious charities that provide healthcare would be forced to provide contraceptives and other birth control measures completely against their beliefs and doctrines.

  16. @Christy (yes Im still going)

    Some valid points. And, I could go on and on, but I attempted to respond to some of your comments specifically.

    I brought up that specific verse simply to address a comment someone made earlier about homosexuality not being in the Bible. That was one verse. There are others. More than a handful or times the Bible speaks of homosexual activity - as pertaining to sexual acts - that are not "laws" per se as written in the book of laws(Leviticus). Many of the characters were confronted with it. And, i dont want to single out homosexuals with that by any means, because there were lewd acts of sexuality amongst "heterosexuals" that were condemned as well. And it is not taken lightly. I just wanted to show that it was addressed.

    There were a number of ideas I was trying to address. But, I agree, those were different times, different people groups. Yeah, the Bible wasn't written in English, nor to modern day Americans. I would simply caution against throwing out parts we dont agree with or think dont apply. (Not that thats what you're advocating) But, to instead take a comprehensive approach to topics such as homosexuality, and marriage in general. I think a lot of people would be surprised at how marriage is treated in the Bible (i.e. - its not recommended for everyone). I could go a lot further, but I'll stop there.

    But, I wanted to say that I totally agree with basically everything you said in the last two paragraphs, in terms of how we treat religion and politics in todays day and age.

    1. @Anonymous: Hoo boy. You could really open up a can of worms bringing up additional "alternate" lifestyles. I think, for the sake of brevity, I'm going to refrain for commenting on polygamy because I just don't know enough about its origins or intended purpose.

      I believe if someone professes to follow the Bible as a fundamental way of life, they shouldn't pick and choose what scripture they adhere to. And it seems like 99.9% of Christian extremists do just that: they latch onto the parts they "like", practice and enforce it wholeheartedly, and then ignore the rest.

      My point, after watching those documentaries and doing some research (I didn't just take the filmmaker's word for everything), was that homosexuality, as we define it today, was not mentioned in the Bible. Many interpretations of the Bible by modern society have altered the original meaning. And espousing a dogma based on misinterpreted scripture is unfair and dangerous.

      As @Christy stated above, much of the Bible was written a language that applied to the times in which it was first written. Just like our Constitution has been amended a gazillion times, I believe the "spirit" of the Bible should be allowed to evolve so it serves the time in which we live.

      Christian homophobes who use the God, the Bible and their very Christianity to justify their bigotry gives all Christians a bad name.

      And blurring the line between politics and religion is bad for everybody.

  17. needless to say I LOVED the comment about polygamy. Now we start talking about tolerance...

    1. @sorei: @Anonymous brought up an interesting point. Where does the "line in the sand" get drawn as society evolves? What was once unthinkable a short time ago is now commonplace. Interracial can legally marry now, but many gays are having trouble. Eventually, I believe, gay marriage will be commonplace. But what will be the next social human rights issue? Polygamy? A woman having multiple husbands? Communes? AAAHHHHHHH! ;-)

      That may be another topic for another time.

      @Anonymous: I hope you're still out there, monitoring all this chatter. @Christy and I were busy all weekend, so that's why she hasn't replied to your response. Just to letcha know. ;-)

  18. I posted something on @Christy's blog.

  19. Replies
    1. Not dead, just...dormant. ;-) Thanks for checking in though. Head over to Christy's blog at http://booksflutterby.blogspot.com/ for some current stuff.

    2. OK, thanks. I got here through her blog. You've posted some interesting stuff. There's plenty to keep me busy reading for a while as I catch up.

    3. i agree about the "interesting"... :-)

  20. Thanks @Anonymous and @sorei! You've given motivation to get cracking. (I can't let my wife have all the fun. ;-))