Have you been getting deluged by all that "Norm wrote" "Alice wrote" "Chris wrote" "Fred wrote" "Alphonso wrote" spam mail recently? If you even bothered looking at any of it (I always open junk like that in View Source so as not to activate any malicious code) you know it’s all been part of a stock "pump and dump" scam, one of many going about recently.
In most cases the companies themselves are not behind the scams. Some of these scams are believed to be related to professional Russian hackers running a botnet powered by tens of thousands of hijacked computers. Some fraudsters even gain access to legit logins on brokerage accounts to buy the penny stock they’ve artificially run-up.
In the beginning, it may have worked. Not too savvy investors believed they’d stumbled onto some secret they could exploit for money, even though people who buy into penny stock scams typically lose 25 per cent to 40 per cent of the investment’s initial value.
But these days, there are so many stock scam mails they seem to have lost their appeal. With dozens of "hot tips" it is difficult to pick a winner. Spammers may have diluted their own market…
Over the weekend another tidal wave of stock spam arrived. The Great American Food Chain (GAMN) would profit a 330 per cent gain, the spam promised, but instead the stock nosedived 11 per cent.
Ha! Serves them right. Trying to target their spam to actual stock market investors may have been too clever by half. I’ve never played the stock market, but I would imagine if I were an investor and I saw an obvious pump and dump scam arrive in my mailbox and it was about a stock I was invested in, I’d get my money the hell out of it fast. You could probably create a real time database to alert investors to pump and dump scams just by monitoring spam mail. It’s not a long term money making plan. But then crooks never think about tomorrow.
What Would You Do For A Million Dollars? What Would You Do For A Million Votes…?
There’s this ethical question that goes something along the lines of, If someone offered to give you a million dollars to kill some random person, with the certainty that you would get clean away with it…would you do it? There was a time when I would have been shocked to hear people admit that they would.
What I would like to do now is change the terms of the test a little…
If you were running for President of the United States…and someone offered you a million votes in a swing state to kill some completely random person, with complete certainty that your name would never be attached to that murder…would you do it…?
Subject: re: you
From: "P. BELL"
Date: Wed, November 22, 2006 3:39 am
To: pam [at] pamspaulding.com
Why should you get the same privledges as we married couples do? I am not here to judge you. Love the person, hate the sin. But about you and Bush? I pray that law will be passed so you will NEVER be recognized in the US. Your beef will him is because he actually wants us to be more like we were when we first started this country-Chrisitian roots and all. I am not talking about the nutso Chrisitians out there who make a fool of themselves to be seen, I am talking about the people who really have a relationship with God, living the truth.
Did you know that homosexuality is specifically mentioned in the bible? Listed as ABNORMAL, DISCUSTING, and an ABOMANATION. You were not created to be this way, and so when you SLANDER a person who is againist you, mock their beliefs, and try to screw up this nation even more than it is for my children’s future, than you will deal with me.
I am not talking about the nutso Christians… You know this is only going to get worse, now that their White House messiah has lost his rubber stamp congress. And never mind the nutso Christians. Take a long hard look at how Mitt Romney and John McCain are belly flopping into the fundamentalist gutter now that the next presidential election cycle is closing in on us.
The problem the republicans face is that their policies are just not popular. Make the rich, richer…make the poor and middle-class poorer…rape the environment…curtail civil liberties…war, war and more war… There is no majority in America for any of that. So for the past few decades the republicans have been cobbling together a rough coalition of faux libertarians, fascists, Me-First Americans and bigots and with the ascendancy of George Bush, it’s won them elections…barely. Corruption and wild deficit spending cost them enough of the faux libertarians and the Me-Firsts that they lost last time. But make no mistake: the religious right and the rest of the bigot vote stuck with them. They lost the voters who finally got fed up with the spending and the corruption and the war. They loose the bigot vote now, and they’re done for decades to come and they know it.
The point being…don’t assume that as the Gay Bogyman looses it’s power to sway the independent voters that the republicans will stop using it. They can’t take even a middle ground position on gay rights, without loosing the bigot vote.
So republicans running for president in the coming years are going to fall all over themselves in the coming election to prove that they’re bigger gay bashers then the other guys. And in the process, they are going to deliberately rouse the passions of the mob. Because that mob is a vital part of their political base. Even long after it stops winning them elections. Because there is loosing, and there is having the bottom fall out. So they will keep inciting the mob.
And somewhere right here in America, some random gay people are going to die for the sake of giving those campaigning politicians some extra votes they wouldn’t otherwise have gotten. Think about that, the next time you hear one of them talk about Morals, and Values and God and Country.
Galileo was persecuted for revealing what we now know to be the truth regarding Earth’s place in our solar system. Today, the issue is homosexuality, and the persecution is not of one man but of millions. Will Christian leaders once again be on the wrong side of history?
Not all of them. The author Mary Renault once said that politics, like sex, is an expression of the person within. If you are mean and selfish and cruel she said, then that will show up in politics and it will show up in your sex life when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. To that I would only add religion. If you are mean and selfish and cruel it will show up in your religious life, when what really matters is that you aren’t the sort of person who will behave like that. I realize this point of view rubs people who believe in the transforming power of faith the wrong way but it’s been my experience. When contemplating the Eternal, it’s pretty damn hard to separate what’s you, from what is trancendant, and that’s if you’re really trying. For most people, religion is a mirror, and you never know that better then when the discussion turns to homosexuality, and all of a sudden God just seems to agree with every cheapshit prejudice of the believer you’re talking to…
In the USA Today Opinion pages last week, Oliver "Buzz" Thomas, a Baptist minister and author of 10 Things Your Minister Wants to Tell You (But Can’t Because He Needs the Job), tried to reason with his fellow Christians. He might as well have been talking to the wind.
Christianity is not the problem. Christianity has nothing to do with the problem. Christians, just like any other group of random people anywhere, both do and do not accept the homosexual as their neighbor. For the ones that do their faith clarifies and illuminates and sustains that deeply felt need to love their neighbor, and stand with them when they are persecuted. For the ones that do not, Christianity provides an excuse, a cloth they can wrap the rotting core of their hatreds in, so they won’t have to look at it, won’t have to look at what they are becoming because of it. You try to take that cloth away from them and they’ll grip it with a ferociousness the likes of which you’ll never witness anywhere else. Because once that cloth is gone, they have to take responsibility for what they are, for they’ve done.
Last week, U.S. Roman Catholic bishops took the position that homosexual attractions are "disordered" and that gays should live closeted lives of chastity. At the same time, North Carolina’s Baptist State Convention was preparing to investigate churches that are too gay-friendly. Even the more liberal Presbyterian Church (USA) had been planning to put a minister on trial for conducting a marriage ceremony for two women before the charges were dismissed on a technicality. All this brings me back to the question: What if we’re wrong?
Religion’s only real commodity, after all, is its moral authority. Lose that, and we lose our credibility. Lose credibility, and we might as well close up shop.
It’s happened to Christianity before, most famously when we dug in our heels over Galileo’s challenge to the biblical view that the Earth, rather than the sun, was at the center of our solar system. You know the story. Galileo was persecuted for what turned out to be incontrovertibly true. For many, especially in the scientific community, Christianity never recovered.
This time, Christianity is in danger of squandering its moral authority by continuing its pattern of discrimination against gays and lesbians in the face of mounting scientific evidence that sexual orientation has little or nothing to do with choice. To the contrary, whether sexual orientation arises as a result of the mother’s hormones or the child’s brain structure or DNA, it is almost certainly an accident of birth. The point is this: Without choice, there can be no moral culpability.
This is reason’s case. It’s a good case. But it’s the wrong case to make to about half his audience. For the Christians who don’t hate, the evidence of science, and for that matter the lives of their homosexual neighbors, provides further cause to stand with the gay community, and speak out against persecution. But when you try to reason with the ones who just can’t see the people for the homosexuals, you’re talking right past them. Appeals to reason, appeals to the Christian faith, do not reach down to where the hate is. Mr. Thomas is not even talking to half of his audience. He’s talking past them.
For those who have lingering doubts, dust off your Bibles and take a few hours to reacquaint yourself with the teachings of Jesus. You won’t find a single reference to homosexuality. There are teachings on money, lust, revenge, divorce, fasting and a thousand other subjects, but there is nothing on homosexuality. Strange, don’t you think, if being gay were such a moral threat?
On the other hand, Jesus spent a lot of time talking about how we should treat others. First, he made clear it is not our role to judge. It is God’s. ("Judge not lest you be judged." Matthew 7:1) And, second, he commanded us to love other people as we love ourselves.
This is also reason’s case. The rules of evidence have merely changed from the scientific, to the theological. But it is still an appeal to reason.
Scroll down to the comments below his opinion article, and you can see what reasoning with bigots gets you…
Sodom and Gomorrah??? And you are a Baptist Preacher?? Shame on You. What would Jesus do? He’s already done it (Death, burial and resurrection) "Grace"! God’s Word is the same yesterday, today and forever. Choice is everyone’s decision: Heaven or Hell. This is the reason no one fear’s God, is pastors like you that is suppose to be preaching the Truth, are tickling the ears with what the people want to hear. All of us will stand before the Lord’s judgement; you and me included…….Now do your JOB! Their house is on fire….Tell them to come to the Lord for salvation. Talk about discrimination are you discriminating against GOD??? God won’t let you starve, if He Called you to the ministry? Have a good day.
In spite of what you try to "prove" and your smear tactics against good Christian people, Bible-believing Christians will NEVER accept your lies and propaganda for a sinful lifstyle which God Himself in the Bible condemns. Homosexulality is sin and no one is born with it. Your hatred of the church only reflects your own bias. I you want to promote this perversion you have a right to do so, but don’t condemn others who choose to believe the Bible instead of your lies and distortion!
Oliver Thomas seems to believe that disagreement with gays on matters of sexual beahvior is equivalent to persecution and bigotry. Since when is it a crime or a sin to hold certain standards of behavior, or to disagree with liberalized views of sexual conduct? When did Christianity require indulgence of urges strengthened by genetics? Why must Jesus expressly condemn an activity for churches to be justified in opposing it? (If that were the case, Christians would be compelled to accept substance abuse, pedophelia, pornography, and a whole host of other inborn attractions Jesus didn’t mention by name.)
Yes I am disappointed and I’ll get to that in a moment. What Oliver "Buzz" Thomas has forgotten are scriptures such as; [Romans 1:26-27]…
Ah yes…the Some Of My Best Friends Are defense…
I’m no homophobe or gay basher, I have had good friends that are gay, but I never compromised my standing on the word of God to accommodate their feelings. Believe it or not they actually over time appreciated the fact that I stuck firmly with my convictions and didn’t conform to what society sees as tolerance. I accepted them for who they were as people but not their sexual sin and they knew that from the beginning and know it still to this day. If I were to run into them again at the market we’d joyfully catch up on lost time and laugh at college memories.
The, Shoot Your Bible Verses Back At Them Like A Machine Gun approach…
Sexual immorality is explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included…
Old Testament
Exo 22:16,17
Deu 22:13-29
New Testament
1Co 6:15-20; 7:1,2
You know that your bodies are parts of the body of Christ. Shall I take a part of Christ’s body and make it part of the body of a prostitute? Impossible! Or perhaps you don’t know that the man who joins his body to a prostitute becomes physically one with her? The scripture says quite plainly, “The two will become one body.” But he who joins himself to the Lord becomes spiritually one with him. Avoid immorality. Any other sin a man commits does not affect his body; but the man who is guilty of sexual immorality sins against his own body. Don’t you know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit, who lives in you and who was given to you by God? You do not belong to yourselves but to God; he bought you for a price. So use your bodies for God’s glory. A man does well not to marry. But because there is so much immorality [from the Greek word porneia, Strongs #4202], every man should have his own wife, and every woman should have her own husband. (TEV)
In the last passage listed above, Paul commends marriage as a means to avoid "fornication" (KJV), "immorality" (NAB, NIV, REB, TEV), "sexual immorality" (NRSV), which is a translation of the Greek word porneia (Strong’s # 4202). That Greek word and its related Greek words porneuo (Strong’s # 4203), pornos (Strong’s # 4205), and ekporneuo (Strong’s #1608) are discouraged throughout the New Testament, as in the following verses:
New Testament
Mat 5:32
Mat 15:19
Mat 19:9
Mar 7:21
Joh 8:41
Act 15:20,29
Act 21:25
Rom 1:29
1Co 5:1,9,10,11
1Co 6:9,13,18
1Co 7:2
1Co 10:8
2Co 12:21
Gal 5:19
Eph 5:3
Col 3:5
1Th 4:3
Heb 12:16
Jude 1:7
Rev 2:14,20,21
Rev 9:21
Rev 14:8
Rev 17:2,4
Rev 18:3,9
Rev 19:2
Homosexual acts are explicitly discouraged in the Bible passages below. The full texts of a few representative verses from Paul’s genuine writings are included.
Old Testament
Lev 18:22-30
Lev 20:13
New Testament
Rom 1:24-27
24 God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other. 25 They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself… 26 Because they do this, God has given them over to shameful passions. Even the women pervert the natural use of their sex by unnatural acts. 27 In the same way the men give up natural sexual relations with women and burn with passion for each other. Men do shameful things with each other, and as a result they bring upon themselves the punishment they deserve for their wrongdoing.
1Co 6:9,10
9 Surely you know that the wicked will not possess God’s Kingdom. Do not fool yourselves; people who are immoral or who worship idols or are adulterers or homosexual perverts [from the Greek word apsenokoites, Strong’s #733] 10 or who steal or are greedy or are drunkards or who slander others or are thieves—none of these will possess God’s Kingdom.
If you bother to look in the bible you will find problems for these kind of people. In God’s world they were not born this way. If I was a gay male I would start looking at women closer and become a member of God’s Church, and If I was a gay female I would look closer at men and become a member of God’s church.
First, Poppycock! Second, I am sick of the Matthew 7:1 argument…
Third, yes Jesus never mentions homosexuality per se. He does, however, discuss adultery several times.
Just another liberal screed trying to downplay religion and lift up their homosexual agenda. There is a reason that homosexuality has been looked down upon by almost every civilization and religion. It’s is against god’s will and nature. Homosexuals can’t reproduce so they have to coopt your children to advance their agenda and the bible is a major stumbling block in their way, so that is why the attacks on religion and the bible.
There’s this old joke about how protestantism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Peter, and protestant fundamentalism represents the ascendancy of Paul over Christ…
Mr. Thomas you do yourself quite a disservice by showing your complete ignorance of scriptures. First of all, the Old Testament law was given to the Jewish nation and it was never expected that non-Jewish individuals would follow these laws. So for you to say that if I apply the verse in Leviticus 18 and therefore I must therefore keep the whole law shows you incompetence in interpreting and applying scripture. Paul explicitly tells the Gentile converts in New Testament that they were under no obligation to keep the law (see Galatians 2 and 3)of the Old Testament.
Sir, I will never make any apologies for my beliefs because there is no need for me to do so since my beliefs can be backed up by the word of God.
Gay, Homosexuals whatever, you trust in the lord, your way is wrong, but he still loves you, while I find you kind of sickening. Ya see, I am not performing according to God’s plan by my feeling as I do.
And for anyone who thinks religion is a cause of prejudice, and not just another one of its excuses…
What I don’t understand is how homosexuality differs from any other congenital birth defect or condition (ie downs syndrome, spina bifida, or any of the myriad of other birth defects). Something goes wrong in the development of the fetus and alters the funtioning of the brain. So while it’s debatable whether or not their behavior is moral or immoral I don’t think there’s any reason why there shouldn’t be research into preventing whatever changes the brain chemistry in the first place. Homosexuality is a disease… we shouldn’t be embracing it… we should be looking to cure/prevent it.
hate the sin, not the sinner.
to know the LORD is to fear…to fear the LORD is to love…to love the LORD is to obey his comandments.
You may believe there is a God and in Jesus, but this is not enough, you must make a formal commitment to them. Remember Jesus says there is no way to the Father except thru me. There must be a vocal (or prayer) some action by you to make a commitment. Your belief only may leave you in a place you do not want to be. You may say I believed, why am I being denied eternal life. For some belief may be enough, but for others there is eternal death. Some of us who claim to be Christians may not receive eternal life (I may be one I do not know). My wife tells me I am to judgemental. Maybe I should listen closer. Anyway go to a bible study and find out why you should be a Christian.
Take the following steps!
In my belief there are two steps to becoming a member of God’s family. Formally accepting Jesus as savior, (I believe Jesus is the Christ the son of the liveing God, I believe in my heart he is Lord and God raised him from the dead).
Be, Baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
You have been forgiven at this point and the Holy Spirit now lives within you, to give you strength and help you in your sinful ways which will require much prayer.
As a straight woman, I don’t understand what it’s like to be attracted to the same sex, but I have had conversations with those who have never felt any other way. However, as a Christian, I do believe in the Bible’s condemnation of homosexuality, and fornication, adultery, etc.
Even if I followed your line of logic that some people can’t help it, how far should we extend these "rights"? What’s never addressed is the "gay today, gone tomorrow" crowd, who argue for gay "rights" while only temporarily in gay relationships.
Ann Heche (straight, gay, straight again…Julie Cyphers, married to Lou Diamond Phillips, "married" to Melissa Etheridge, now married to a man again…) the list goes on. If we’re supposed to believe that gay people can’t love anyone of the opposite sex, these actors aren’t very good ambassadors for the cause.
I’m apt to believe that hormones gone awry explain at least some cases of homosexuality. The stereotypically effeminate man or masculine woman, (no bra, short hair, no makeup, etc.) would fall into that category. I have even seen people whose sex is hard to determine at first glance. This of course does not excuse any form of sexual immorality, adultery or fornication, gay or straight.
What those who believe in gay marriage are really asking for is nothing less than acceptance of their behavior. Tolerance already exists. (And please dont bring up Matthew Sheppard – his murderer admitted that he only killed him for money; didn’t even know he was gay!)
If gay "marriages" were allowed, children could be taught in schools that these are perfectly acceptable lifestyles. I don’t claim to know what it’s like to feel "gay", but I also don’t want 6 year olds recruited into the lifestyle.
Mr. Thomas there is NO conclusive scientific evidence that homosexuals are born that way. 60 Minutes did a piece on this very subject a few months ago and these scientific theories were all over the place. (1) Its the mother’s fault — hormonal imbalance or triggers during pregnancy. However, on this program they showed faternal twins (same mother, same hormones) who had different sexual orientations. (2) Its in the DNA: again identical twins who share the same DNA — one is gay the other is heterosexual. (3) And there was the big brother theory which supposedly says the more big brothers a man has the more likely he is to be gay. Again, how do you explain the eldest brother being gay or no brothers being gay?
It was also interesting that NOT ONE of these theories explain lesbianism. According, to the scientist spouting this nonesense, when they viewed the dna of lesbians, looked at the hormonal balance/triggers/whatever of their birth mothers, or the status of their sisters — they could find no genetic reason to explain lesbianism. So where does that leave these scientific theories?
Mr. Thomas you have the absolute right to defend the practices of homosexuality. However, please do not mislead individuals reading your op-ed or other works that this practice can be backed up by science because that IS A LIE.
Finally, if you and others want to embrace homosexuality as a right, privilege, or whatever you see it as — fine, great, bravo, and more power to you. However, please do not lecture to me or tell me that I need to or will need to apologize to anyone because of my belief in God’s word.
The Scripture also says, "Fornicators and adulterers God will judge." Jesus doesn’t address homosexuality, because in the world of the Hebrew, that’s a "no brainer." If God condemned it as an abomination, and if He is not the author of sin or evil, it follows that He stands against it now.
With the author’s convoluted logic, God will have to apologize to Sodom and Gomorrah.
We, like the apostle Paul, should determine in our minds to know nothing save Jesus Christ and him crucified [1]; but what does this mean? For Paul, and every preacher, preaching Christ crucified is condemning, among many things, homosexuality. How do I know that?
In 1 Corinthians 6:9, Paul did not only condemn homosexuality in general, but got REALLY SPECIFIC by naming the “effeminate” or catamite (PASSIVE homosexual partner) and “abusers of themselves with mankind” or sodomite (ACTIVE homosexual partner). Who can misunderstand and misapply Paul’s word under inspiration?
Obviously, Mr. Thomas is tickling many ears having turned aside unto fables [2], which is great for crowd seekers because the world hears them [3]. Mr. Thomas, you need to remember, “Let not many of you become teachers, knowing that we shall receive a stricter judgment” [4]. Do your homework. Preach the word. Have backbone. Quit tickling ears.
I could easily address your abuse of other points e.g. Leviticus, Jesus & love, Mt. 7:1; but I want to keep this response short to be read by all.
It’s the truth, not fables, that makes men free [5].
[1] 1 Corinthians 2:2
[2] 2 Timothy 4:3-4
[3] 1 John 4:5
[4] James 3:1 NKJV
[5] John 8:32
We find ourselves living in a society, where the moral climate is at it’s lowest point (2 timothy 3:1-5). There are several million people on this plantet, Earth, who still have a love for God and His Word. True lovers of God’s Word are now in the minority but they will be vindicate and so will Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ. The family arrangement will perish if They do not bring an end to the selfish greed and depraved sexual appetite of those, who "claim" that God made them that way!!
How sad that a so called "minister of God" feels justified to support this "lifestyle" that the Word of God clearly condemns. If a heterosexual couple who are not married is condemned, how much more so a homosexual one!! God is not one to be mock, whatever a man sows, he will reap-Galatians 6:7.
Any religion claiming to be christain should have the courage to stand up for Almighty God and His Son Jesus Christ and not allow the moral climate to shape their views!!
The following individuals did not allow the world to shape their moral stand or views.
Foremost Jesus Christ, Moses, Abraham, Apostle Paul just to name a few.
If we are ashamed of God, he will be ashamed of us and not acknowledge us. That is a dangerous position to be in. It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God-Hebrews 10:31
Another Some Of My Best Friends Are…
A few thoughts for you and others to consider. 1)Your intentional selective Scipture usage is interesting in that this is exactly what you usually accuse the "bible beleivers" of doing. There are much more difficult passages in the Bible for you and others who agree with you to consider. I know you are aware of them, but instead of intelligent, informed dialogue, you chose selective banter that only seduces the uninformed. Jesus certainly didn’t speak on homosexuality, but that is only an argument from silence, which isn’t very convincing. If your reliance on science is so strong, maybe you ought to investigate the false claims of scientist throughout history and the damage they have caused as well. Investigate the claim that five years from now nearly half of what is claimed to be scientific fact will be disproved.
In Romans, Paul writes of the corrupted nature of man from birth. The idea that every one of us is predisposed to sin. The mere discovery of something that the Bible has claimed for centuries doesn’t change what sin is nor does it change our response to it. I do believe that homosexuality is outside of God’s desire for His creation. I also believe that Christ calls us to compassion for those that disagree with me. I am a local pastor with homosexual friends and a fellow staff member who struggles with homosexuality. He is one of my best friends. Can anyone speak the truth on the matter and have compassion without trying to make a political point? You are intentional in what you write and don’t write. To me your silence speaks so loud it is hard to read your words.
I give an "amen" to the person who reminded everyone that just because Christians view homosexuality as a sin, they are not "persecuters." Be reasonable! I am a Christian and do not for a minute think I will be able to understand the difficult trial of same-sex attraction. However, we are all sinners, we all have our individual hardships, temptations, lusts etc. For homosexuals, if they feel this is not a choice, then maybe they should focus not on the cause, but how to live in accordance with God’s law. I am not Catholic, and they certainly are not the moutpiece for all Christian religions, however I applaud them for standing firm with Biblical doctrine and not be swept up in what pop culture wants to feel is ok. The bottom line is if we want to be happy, we must obey God’s commandments. We cannot treat the commandments like a buffet, picking and choosing what is easiest for us to obey, and expect to feel satisfied. Wickedness never was happiness.
Here we go again. Pick out the parts you don’t like, inflate the ones you do and call it scholastic whatever. Agchhh. That’s an expression of disgust combined with frustration. It is because these so called "Men of God" lack the courage to apply the important spirit of the scripture, while amplifying the value of the "spices and mints", so to speak. It is in-obvious to these particular brand of "Pharise opaques", the ones who justify homosexual lust-gratification, that is, that the overall meaning and lesson in the Bible is the negation of the animal, or in more modern terms, carnal, in human nature. While they trumpet restraint in wrath, so long as it is not against their particular "natural-ness". While they limit lust, so long as it is not against children, yet. While they desparge greed, against the lastest poster children for oppression. And while they consult the latest trend, without thinking, of course, as to who or what they should be "against" in any particular month, week, day or hour, they do seem to forget that Christ told them that there is a Ghenna for those who do not seek him. If they believe they can do so while making "love" to the same sex, or children or animals or themselves or money or whatever, what person can argue to change them? If they believe that there is no righteous wrath, no one, not even Christ himself as to His correction of the Pharises, can turn them from their self directedness. They are what they are. Rationalized animals, the carnal self-purified and the makers of their own god and religion. It is the same as it has always been, with the only change being the technical mass media distribution of so polarized a view by so many that have been inculcated into the "sacredness" of our carnal roots. These are the same that would have pronounce "sin" upon Christ for whipping the money changers from the Temple. They never would have guessed they were defining "sin" upon the ultimate definer, of them, and, lest we forget, us.
I hear it all the time: "Wishful thinking" presented as fact – that homosexuals cannot help themselves; that they are born that way and that their is "scientific" evidence indicating a genetic basis. On the contrary, there is NO solid scientific evidence and what little there is has been effectively refuted. Why also doesn’t the liberal community want us to know what EX-GAYs have to say and how they fell into the lifestyle? Most will tell you that they were subjected to some form of dramatic emotional trauma (ie., parental or peer rejection and sometimes molestation) that caused them to go into a kind of self-defense withdrawal. One man said his dad always put incredible pressure on him as a youth to excel in sports…but he had no interest. Eventually his dad (and other boys) essentially rejected him, calling him a wimp. He withdrew and found relative safety in the company of his mother, sister and other girls that seemed to understand his emotions. He longed for the love and acceptance of his father and eventually tried to substitute other men for it. He also stated that the gay lifestyle means hundreds of gay partners but ultimately the lifestyle is empty, lonely and unfullfilling. His journey out was not easy because its emotional and mental…but there is a way out. He and many others are living proof.
The idea that got Galileo in trouble with the Roman church, that the earth is the center of the Universe, was from Aristotle and not the Bible. Such human philosophy invaded the church and was partly responsible for the Reformation. This makes the author’s main premise that science is superior to the Bible in this case null and void. After this absurdity he then tries replace biblical teachings again with human philosophy. This would recreate the same error he was trying to condemn. Anyone who thinks this article has any merit needs to take a logic course.
Now the bottom line is this? Should we change every law that exists to accomodate a group of people who are living outside what is considered the legal bonds of marriage. NO. We wouldn’t do if for other special interest groups. If they want to live together as companions and partners, then finding a way to make it work for them is part of the burden of choosing that lifestyle. Because whether they like it or not, homosexuality may not be a choice; maybe it is something that happens at birth, but deciding to live a gay lifestyle is a choice. If being gay wasn’t a bad thing, then why do so many homosexuals say that they tried to live a heterosexual lifestyle; made every attempt to live straight? Why did they not tell anyone when they were very young and first had those strange attractions to the wrong sex? Because something within their own PERSONAL moral structure let them know it was wrong. The apostle Paul said in Romans that "nature itself lets us know there is a God." Nature also lets us know the lifestyle that God ordained for man to live. You rarely see two male dogs trying to mate…they would kill each other.
Anyway. I love you. Whether you are gay, lesbian, straight, Pentecostal, Church of Christ, Church of God, Mormon, Seventh Day Adventist, Catholic: I love you because I love HIM, and he has allowed me the capacity to love you all.
Now one last word for "Buzz." SHUT UP!
If I am travelling South on I-75 and I approach an exit from the flowing highway I must choose to leave it. But my journey has begun with me travelling south on I-75.
If I am alive I am on a heterosexual journey. I do not need to choose to be heterosexual, I am. I must however choose to exit that journey.
Homosexuality is a choice, and a sin. And the fact that I don’t choose to be hetrosxual does not disprove homosexuality’s status as a choice.
I believe in compassion and acceptance, but not absolution. Those who are debating the scripture are demonstrating their lack of understanding of a very complex issue regarding God’s law as reveled across time. The Bible does teach against homosexuality from a variety of perspectives, and does not contradict itself in doing so.
The scientific community says that alcoholism is in the genes and murderers have a gene that makes them predisposed to kill. Let’s just say that everything is OK. It sure makes it hard to figure out what a morally pure life is. I guess you have all the answers and we have had it wrong for years.
When it comes to tolerance, where is yours?
The problem with this very old tactic is that Mr. Thomas discredits the Bible in order to discredit Leviticus, then appeals to that very same Bible (presumably Matthew, Mark etc.) in order to support his position on homosexuality. This "Cafeteria" approach to Scripture supposes that some Scripture is wrong while other scripture is right. Thus Scripture is only inspired in spots, a so-called "Dalmatian theology". The problem with this faulty approach is the question of who decides what parts of scripture are inspired or right and what parts are wrong. In his article, Mr. Thomas has appointed himself the supreme determiner of Biblical rightness. Thank you, but I will let Scripture determine that for itself.
Mr. Thomas if you want to condone homosexuality that is your God given right but don‘t “try“ to change “The Word of God“ to fit your beliefs? The Bible says we were all born sinners.
It is irrelevant that a person is born gay. Your sin may have included homosexuality etc.., mine included lying, fornication etc… Thank God I had parents and “The Word of God” to give me standards to live by or I would still be a liar today. The problem is, who is teaching someone who is born gay, that it is wrong. Someone needs to teach a pedophile, yes, you may be attracted to little children, but it is wrong. I don’t believe that a person wakes up one morning and yawns and says “I think I will be attracted to little children today”. No, they were born that way. Does that make it alright? Are there any studies being conducted on that subject?
There is good news for the homosexual, the pedophile, and the liar you don’t have to be.
To every person who has made up their minds to live life their own way and not according to “Godly Principles”. There is no need to argue. It is your God given choice.
Ironically, homosexuality is one area where religion and science agree. Contrary to what the author states, a close reading of scientific literature shows there is NO scientific PROOF that homosexuality is innate, genetic, inborn or biologically pre-determined (scientists are backing off from the gay gene theory). There is ample "common sense" evidence that homosexuality is, however, very harmful to people involved, witness the AIDS crisis and numerous diseases such as anal cancer for which homosexual men are at greater risk.
No one is born homosexual. With that being said, no one chooses to be homosexual either. It is like other psychologcial issues, a matter of development, beginning with childhood. But no one has to be homosexual. I know this because I am a man who left homosexuality. I am not just talking about behavior here, but patterns of sexual response and fantasy. I can’t say it was easy but it can be done. A truly liberal and tolerant approach would make people aware of this alternative. This is the message that needs to get out to people yet is rarely, if ever, heard.
With all due respect, I believe you’ve been "bonging the yahe"( When religion loses its crdibility 11/20/06). Comparing Galileo with gay rights is an absurd straw man argument. You want to talk persecution?… try being a devoted follower of Jesus in secularized American society today. As for Christianity’s moral authority, try admonishing anyone by quoting from the Bible…you might get a blank stare and a laugh. I don’t know where you are getting your "fact" and "truth", but I am not aware of a "gay gene" being discovered…scientists who have spent years studying this issue, simply do not know. Sure there may be a predetermination at an early age, but an argument from nature is flawed, because as everyone (not just Christians, Jews and Muslims) knows, nature is flawed. As for your quoting from Scripture, the Law ( for followers of the Christ) is fulfilled in Jesus…so we are not under the law, but not free of moral living (Acts 15), including sexual morals in the context of Hebrew Biblical morality. Of course,if you are not a follower of Christ, this doesn’t apply to you and you can ignore it like you ignore the letters of St. Paul, etc. Unfortunately your article, to me, supports what the " Religious Right" has been saying about a " Homosexual Agenda"…biased judgemental statements without hard scientific proof used to attack the demonized " narrow-minded, Bible thumping Christians", etc. I don’t think this email has much of a chance of being published in USA Today, but I thought I would try and check your open mind.
If Mr. Thomas has proved anything from his essay, it is his complete ignorance of the Bible. There is no text in scripture stating that the Earth is the center of the solar system; the Bible makes no mention of a solar system, and never states that planets go around anything. Venus, Mars, and Jupiter are never discussed. Galileo was persecuted by the mediaeval Roman Catholic Church, an organization dominated by tradition, not scripture; an organization that burned many people alive for reading the Bible or translating it into the language of the common people. Going on, eating catfish might have been forbidden by Leviticus, but there was no death penalty stated for this offence, or for many others. Premarital sex might have been forbidden, but if the two were single, the penalty was not death, but rather marriage forthwith to the partner in question. Mr Thomas totally fails to catch the basic distinction made by the New Testament regarding ceremonial laws specially applicable to the Jewish nation at that time (cf Acts 15), and moral laws which applied to all humans for all time (see Jesus’ statements, Matthew 5, the Sermon on the Mount). Jumping with Mr Thomas to Genesis, it is stated that everything that God made was good. This statement was made at Creation, and not after the Fall or the entrance of sin into the world. Mr Thomas and his logic would imply that rapists and child molesters are good, since God made them. Traveling to Romans 1 or any other references by Paul to homosexuality, there is absolutely no hint that minors are being discussed by Paul; it is another wishful dream by the august reverend to try to prove his desired conclusion. Homosexuality, with no special qualifications, bells, or whistles, is held forth as a prime example of the moral depravity of the Gentile world, and all who engaged in that sin or many other sins listed there, at the conclusion of the chapter are declared to be worthy of death. Mr Thomas begs to argue that Jesus never mentions homosexuality. Nor does he mention rape. Guess Jesus thought that rape was a very trivial thing. Get a brain. Garbage in, garbage out.
I have no doubt homosexual desire is genetic. I also have no doubt that if medical science bothered to look, it would find genetic links to all of mankind’s evil desires. God created a perfect man and woman, but their own choice to sin condemned their offspring to be imperfect. The obvious way that this imperfection is passed down is through the now-imperfect genetic code.
A complete reading of the Bible leaves no doubt that God is Love, but He is also Perfectly Just. Jesus was compasionate to sinners, but He left no doubt that sin keeps man separated from God, and that only by believing in His Perfect Sacrifice could man be saved from God’s Judgement. To quote (completely) from the Gospel when the adulerous woman was accused: "…neither do I condemn you. Go and sin no more."
There is much more…Thomas’ opinion piece really opened up the sewers…but in a way it was all worth it, for this one response, from a reader named David. Here’s the bedrock of pain, right here. Here’s what this piss ignorant worthless useless sickening prejudice does to people, to families, to the bond between parent and child. Here is why I am not a Christian. I simply cannot follow Jesus where I’m pretty sure he would want me to go. He would say I need to forgive, and I cannot. This is why:
I thought some might be interested in what happened when I sent this article to my Christian family. First, the response from my older sister. Second, the response from my dad.
David,
Do you not realize how painful it is to receive something like this from you? Your lifestyle choice is your choice; I don’t agree with it, but it is your choice. In fact, I am very sad for you. You will never experience the joy of marriage, or the joy of becoming a father. The family name, Peery, has ended with our generation. You have lost your excitement for living the Christian life. Need I remind you that you were the head of the Christian club in high school; started the Christian group, the Core, at Santa Clara; worked at Hume Lake Christian Camp; and worked at a Baptist Church. Were all these Christian activities a cover-up for your true soul?! I’m not sure what turned you away from living the Christian lifestyle. If I recall correctly, you even were considering becoming a youth pastor. When I listen to my Christian music on my way to work many days I nearly come to tears when I think about you when listening to many of the words in the songs. I wonder how the evil one took hold of you, but I will never lose the faith that you will return and come to your senses. I only hope it is not too late. I think of our very own Uncle Jim and how he lost his life over making the decisions he did. I don’t know how, knowing that, you could repeat the cycle of this.
It’s not me who has to live your life; it is you and you alone. I don’t send you articles on how morally correct it is to be heterosexual; therefore, I don’t appreicate you sending me articles on how morally correct it is to be homosexual.
I will continue to pray for you in hopes that you might change. Until then, I am very sad for you.
Sarah
Hi David,
For yourself, don’t you think that homosexuality was a choice you made?
I’ve read up on a lot of scientific claims about homosexuality. The arguments I’ve read are weak at best. This article doesn’t cite specific scientific claims. If you want to, we can discuss the various studies.
Environment and family life are big factors too. Relationships with fathers are a huge factor. Were there people who influenced you?
Sodomy is discouraged all over the Bible; but the Corinthian church had some who came out of that lifestyle:
"Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God." I Cor 6:9-11
Homosexual sin is like heterosexual sin is just like a lot of other sins. Jesus can forgive it all if you ask for forgiveness. Let Jesus do the changing.
You are my son. I am proud of many things you do. I love you. God has used you in the past and wants to do great things through you in the future. The homosexual thing is not the real you. The scars will be there for a long time but it doesn’t have to define you. I hope we can talk more about it in the future.
Jesus said, "Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline. So be earnest, and repent. Here I am! I stand at the door and knock. If anyone hears my voice and opens the door, I will come in and eat with him, and he with me. To him who overcomes, I will give the right to sit with me on my throne, just as I overcame and sat down with my Father on his throne." Rev. 3:19-21. Jesus won’t barge in; he waits outside until the guy inside opens the door.
I won’t put you on the spot this Thanksgiving. You’re welcome here anytime. If you want to discuss more then or at another time, let me know.
Love,
Dad
Love. There is no knife that cuts like the one families wield upon each other. Strangers can beat the living crap out of you, can take your life away from you. But only family can chew your heart up, and spit it back out again in shreds. Love. Look at it. And if you are brave, consider that this is Exactly what the gutter means by it. If you’re not bleeding, then we’re not loving you enough…
Picture Minister Thomas trying to patiently reason with David’s father…a man who is slowly twisting the knife in his son’s gut out of…oh not hate surely, but Love. The problem is that you even think you can reason with a man who would do that to his own son, after having absolutely convinced himself of his own compassion in doing it. The more the kid hurts, the more Dad is loving him. And it is especially useless to reason with such as him from religious faith. All this man’s religion ever did for him, was take away his brakes. That was probably all he needed it for. Otherwise, how else could he put the knife in his son’s heart and still look at himself in the bathroom mirror every morning? In the end, Blaise Pascal said it best when he remarked that "men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction." But the religious conviction did not put the evil there. It was merely waiting for something to come along, and give it purpose.
To appeal to someone’s better nature, they first have to have one. And now you know why you can’t bring reason to a knife fight.
But then again…if Exodus respects a person’s right to self determination, why do they oppose same sex marriage, and why do they support a state’s right to enact sodomy laws? It’s simple: they don’t mean what they say. It’s just rhetoric for popular consumption. Self determination is anathama to the religious right…and not just with regard to the rights of gay people. Heterosexuals could find themselves in an America where it is illegal to sell any and all forms of birth control, even to legally married heterosexual couples. You can tell everything you need to know about the religious right’s respect for a person’s right to self determination by the sexual abuse they’re perfectly willing to inflict on teenagers, who cannot legally say no. When the rest of us loose our right to tell them No, they’ll do the same to us, never doubt it. The ninth commandment after all, says not to bear false witness against your neighbor. It doesn’t say anything about lying To your neighbor.
As some of you who follow this blog may know, I’ve been a bit preoccupied with my past lately. In particular, that time in my life when I was just starting to come out to myself as a gay male. Those were awkward, uncertain times for me, compounded by the fact that I had absolutely no confidence in my physical appearance. This was in no small measure, I am beginning to realize, due to the family atmosphere I was raised in. We were New England Baptists and of all the sins you could name (never mind for now, the ones you couldn’t), vanity was among the very worst. To take an excessive interest in your appearance was frowned upon. To dress to attract eyes to yourself, to your body, with all the sins of the flesh contained therein, was highly discouraged.
I look back on photos of myself from that time and to my astonishment now, I see a very cute young gay male who is dressed so plainly it is painful to look at. For some reason, I managed to allow myself to wear nicely fitting blue jeans. But I never dared ornament them as I sometimes saw the other gay guys doing… I’ve seen that there butterfly you’ve got tatooed on your pants…I’m gonna get me some of that…as the Aerosmith song goes… Yeah…I had fantasies of being that flagrant but I never went there, let alone tear my jeans just so. My shirts without exception were either white, or some dull solid earth tone. I never wore any jewelry. I let my hair grow long, but never took a great deal of care of it, so it was always a bit ragged in appearance. Deep down inside I would envy the beautiful male peacocks I saw during Pride Day. But I was too insecure about my looks to even think I could ever be beautiful myself. From the time I was a toddler I’d been taught not to want to be beautiful, or to want anyone to look at me.
Fast forward to the present. I’m 53 years old, and a senior systems software developer for the Space Telescope Science Institute. That means two things. First, I don’t have the metabolism of a twenty-something anymore. Second, my job has me sitting down most of the time. Alas, I still have my twenty-something appetite for junk food. So there I am, eating all the things I always have, cookies, chocolate bars, potato chips, burgers, fries, and more of the same all day long. Oh…and sodas…lots and lots of soda. Time was I could pack that all in and still stay 114 pounds and wear size 28 pants. Not anymore. Several weeks ago I got on the scales and they read 170 pounds back at me. I was 114 pounds almost until I was 35.
Several weeks ago I managed to re-establish a very tentative contact with the classmate I’d had my first big crush on…the object of my affections in my cartoon series, A Coming Out Story. It’s unlikely we’ll be having any face to face time in the near future…if ever. But one thing that really bugged the hell out of me for days after we chatted for the first time in 35 years, was what if we did meet? What would he see, were he to lay eyes on me after all those years. I had to reckon that the first thing he’d have noticed wouldn’t have been my graying hair…long as it still is.
Well somehow when I put it to myself that way, mentally picturing my first crush stepping forward in time to behold me as I appear now…it got me motivated. Okay…I’ll never have my twenty-something body back again…not without killing myself in the process. Middle aged guys just don’t look like that. But, I decided, I can look better then I do, and it was worth working for. I’m single, I’m lonely, and you don’t get invitations to go on dates if you don’t advertise. I realized looking at all those old photographs of me way back when, that I Was beautiful, I Was desirable…and I began to think that I could still be so again…at least to other guys in my own age group. If I could be the cutest looking guy in the room full of guys about my own age, I might still have a chance.
So for the first time in my life I decided to go on a diet, and join a health club where I could firm my body up a tad…
…and maybe in the process start feeling better overall too. I’d been having terrible problems in recent years with insomnia, and I was just too damn tired all the time. Every weekend practically, when I was trying to get things done around the house, I was napping instead. I felt as if my life was being napped away. So, as I rationalized it, if a diet and some regular exercise helped with those problems, all the better. That helped with the Baptist side of me, that still feels uneasy about paying too much attention to my looks. I could rationalize it as a health issue too.
But mostly, I wanted to feel good about my looks. And its beyond merely wanting Mr. Right to notice me. I know I will never be most people’s idea of a stunning beauty. And that’s fine because I don’t think I would handle being gawked at all the time very well. But it isn’t vanity to want to be beautiful. It’s a matter of having inner self confidence and pride, and pride is only bad for you when it’s shallow. I look at those photos of me back then, and I wonder if I’d still be single today if I’d only given myself permission to be beautiful in the way I always wanted to be.
I decided to start my diet simply…one thing at a time. First thing I did was cut out all the between meal sugary fatty junk snacks. Swear to God that was All I Did…and within 5 day’s I’d lost 8 pounds! And no…it wasn’t water weight either that I’d lost. I was still constantly drinking ice tea all day long. 8 fucking pounds in 5 days and all I did was stop snacking constantly on junk.
That gave me real pause. See…I’d never thought of myself as being an overeater. I didn’t eat breakfast most days, and only had smallish lunches and dinners. I knew my diet wasn’t wonderful…and…sure…I wasn’t as physically active as I should have been. But somehow I’d never figured I was eating too much. But I’d come to rely on the junk food in the morning, the candy bars and sodas and such, to jolt me awake, and again in afternoon, to give me enough of a jolt to get me though the day.
When I stopped eating junk, I Did get pretty hungry mid morning and mid afternoon. Not horribly so though. And I would allow myself one lo-cal granola bar in the morning, and one in the afternoon and take a short walk around campus after lunch. My natural walking gait is pretty fast, people are always telling me to slow down, and I think Does burn off some calories.
Once upon a time I asked Keith, my ex, about the various diet plans out there for loosing weight. He scoffed them all off. He’d been to chef school and he told me that it was all just a matter of calories in, verses calories out. Nothing more magical then that he said. So now, for the first time, I started adding up all those calories in my daily intake. I was still putting down my weight gains to my physical inactivity through most of the day, and I really didn’t think my calorie intake amounted to all that much. But I’d lost so much so quickly from just cutting out the junk that I wasn’t sure anymore.
The fast food joints don’t make it easy to tell what you’re eating, and sometimes the labeling on the junk food items are deceptive (you have to pay close attention to what they regard as a “serving”. Some candy bars are listed has having two or more servings per bar…). Doughnuts…burgers…fries… I never ate all that much of any of it. But as it turned out…I didn’t need to. I was ingesting tons of calories anyway…nearly 4000 a day!
No fucking wonder my body was complaining! Never mind the waistline I’d built up over time. Once upon a time I wore 28 waist jeans. Then it became 31 inch. Then 32. It stayed at 32 for a while and then it became 33. By the time I saw 170 on the scales the 33s were getting tight. And my body was telling me it didn’t like it very much either. I couldn’t sleep right. I was tired all day long no matter how much sugar I ingested. By mid afternoon I was getting too tired to think straight, and it was affecting my work. Weekends I would nap almost all day. I went so far as to go to a sleep clinic, and try using a CPAP machine. Nothing worked. My stomach would cramp up suddenly after a meal. My bowels too. I put it all down to middle age. But now I was loosing weight, and suddenly all that stopped.
I sleep a thousand percent better now. My stomach and gut do not complain anymore. I am Much more active during the day then I’ve been in years and it’s not even that I’m working at it. Paradoxically, by eating less, I feel like I have so much more energy. It’s been an amazing change. In almost five weeks now of moderate dieting…nothing extreme at all, just watching my calorie intake basically…I’ve lost fifteen pounds, I’m back in my 32s, and I can see getting back into my 31s again. For the first time in ages, I can wear low risers and my stomach doesn’t hang over the belt buckle. My torso still isn’t as tight as I’d like it…but that’s muscle building, which will take time and persistence. But by spring I may even be able to walk along the beach without a shirt on, and not feel ridiculous.
I’m sure I’ve had it easier then other people, whose bodies for whatever reason, just want to be larger. I think the reason I lost weight so quickly is that my body just doesn’t want to be that heavy. Males in my father’s side aren’t, and in mom’s side they are only if they’re sedentary. I was cramming tons more calories into my body then it wanted and it got a bit cranky, as well as overweight. Other folks, whose bodies just want to be heavy in the first place, probably won’t loose weight as quickly or as easily as I have. But this convinces me for now, that all the weight gains I’ve been writing off as an artifact of middle age, aren’t necessarily. I just wasn’t eating right for my age. And at my age, and with the job I have, I have to make an effort to be physically active. I can’t just rely on metabolism to burn off what I take in because I don’t have that metabolism anymore.
The pain for me probably comes with the building abdomen muscle part of my plan. I need that now, more then when I was younger, because there is fat in there that probably won’t go away just from dieting alone. And they say you need a good set of abdomen muscles to prevent back injury as you get older. But I’ve never worked at building muscle before in my life, and it’s not something I’m looking forward to now.
But I only have to think about my first high school crush seeing me now, to get on with it. And…it just feels so good to be able to look in a mirror and think “yeah…I’d date that…”
This is me this morning. Those are Levis 527s. I really like the way the boot leg cut looks on those. I couldn’t possibly have worn those just four weeks ago. The hourglass is coming back…but I still have some work to do on it, and that’ll probably involve mostly muscle building. No I will not dye my hair. I’m not trying to look like a twenty-something again…just be good looking for my age.
I’m becoming too hooked on YouTube for my own damn good lately. But if you just dig around the site a little, you can find some pretty amazing creativity. There are artists like me, who find ourselves drawn to one or two well established forms, and we just want to explore all the ways we can make use of those forms. And then there are artists, like Lasse Gjertsen, a young Norwegian animator, who look at the base materials, the mechanics of it all, and see something new. This guy is Good…
Amature:
Machine Man:
Hva faen, Speil?
And… Hyperactive (which he refined on in Amature above):
O.J. Simpson created an uproar Wednesday with plans for a TV interview and book titled “If I Did It” — an account the publisher pronounced “his confession” and media executives condemned as revolting and exploitive.
Fox, which plans to air an interview with Simpson Nov. 27 and 29, said Simpson describes how he would have committed the 1994 slayings of his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and her friend Ronald Goldman, “if he were the one responsible.”
I’m going to write a book and title it, "If I Was Gay".
When Polish student Michael Gromek, 19, went to America on a student exchange, he found himself trapped in a host family of Christian fundamentalists. What followed was a six-month hell of dawn church visits and sex education talks as his new family tried to banish the devil from his soul.
Welcome to America. You devil worshiping heathen foreigner you…
Things began to go wrong as soon as I arrived in my new home in Winston-Salem, where I was to spend my year abroad. For example, every Monday my host family would gather around the kitchen table to talk about sex. My host parents hadn’t had sex for the last 17 years because — so they told me — they were devoting their lives to God. They also wanted to know whether I drank alcohol. I admitted that I liked beer and wine. They told me I had the devil in my heart.
Luckily the kid was able to get himself into another family that wasn’t batshit crazy. I’m torn about all this though. On the one hand, this is not the image of America I want other nations to get. On the other, this is exactly why our political process here in America and why our foreign policy, is such a crazy mess and I’m not sure the rest of the world really understands that. Maybe they all need to be placed with batshit crazy fundamentalists. They need to understand our crazies. They need to know what they’re dealing with.
The parents of Russell Groff speak their minds about a post I made a couple days ago…
The court battle is not over, our son was buried like a piece of garbage, in a pine box, in a woods, where his grave will grow up with weeds. There is no perputal care. We will not stop till we get his remains buried properly, in a vault, in his family cemetery. You don’t bury someone you love like this. This has been very painful to go through all of this, losing our son, who was our live. Dealing with all of the evil that has been done. We have not been able to mourn our son, who was involved in a life style that destroyed his beautiful life, wasted, just never having a change to be somebody. He should not be dead!!! He was in essence brainwashed and endoctrinated into this lifestyle. He was controlled, manipulated, and alienated from the parents who loved him so much. This is the norm, though in a homosexual relationship. If this was such a loving relationship, why did he die of AIDS!!!!
…and so on. You can read both their comments (yes…they followed up on themselves) and my brief response back at the original post, Here.
An interesting postscript on the Maryland Senate race: Exit polls suggest that the "white lie" phenomenon, in which more white voters tell pollsters that they’ll vote for the black candidate than actually go through with it in the end, may have helped doom black Senate candidate Michael Steele. This is a phenomenon more often noted against Dems, of course, since African-American candidates are Democrats much more often than they’re Republican, but in this case, it may have harmed GOPer Steele as well.
Steele lost by 10 points — a higher spread than some pre-election polls suggested. Exit polls show that white voters split their vote evenly between Cardin and Steele, well short of the percentage of whites that ordinarily back the GOP candidate in seriously contested races in Maryland. In pre-election polls, meanwhile, respondents were promising to vote for Steele at a higher rate: a Baltimore Sun poll from five days before the election had Steele leading Cardin among whites by seven points. So the Republican candidate may have been victimized by the "white lie" after all.
You know who else suffers from this phenomenon? Right…
…most of the measures on the Nov. 7 ballot in eight other states already have strong voter support. In fact, they may be even farther ahead than they appear, because polling on the issue has been consistently and inexplicably inaccurate.
Same-sex marriage ban supporters and opponents agree that pre-election polls often undercount support for the measures.
…
Polls that underestimated support for the bans were off by as much as 19 percentage points in North Dakota and 7 to 16 percentage points in six other states.
"What it means is that if history is any guide, which I think it is, you have to subtract at least four percentage points from pre-election polls to get a more accurate reading of what the results are going to be on election day," said Matt Foreman, executive director of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, a gay rights group working in opposition to the amendments.
Bans are expected to pass Nov. 7 in Idaho, Virginia, South Carolina, South Dakota and Tennessee. The races still appear close in Colorado, Arizona and Wisconsin.
…
Ban supporters also account for the consistent polling error in their strategies.
"We’ve seen it, I think, in every single case, that it is underpolled every single time," said Tom McClusky, vice president of government affairs at the conservative Family Research Council. "I’ve seen higher, but normally we would add 5 to 10 percentage points to any polling."
Gay rights supporters blame people’s unwillingness to express an anti-gay opinion to a pollster for the discrepancy between polls and the ballot box…
This is why we lost in Wisconsin and South Dakota, even though the polls said we could probably win. Arizona actually surprised me. I guess people are more honest about their opinion of gay people there. But this is something I’ve seen time after time, and not just regarding same sex marriage. When Anita Bryant went on her anti-gay crusade to repeal Dade County’s anti-discrimination law, the polls showed the race was close. It wasn’t even. The vote went against gay people by about four to one.
Call it, the Guilty Conscience effect. People know discrimination is wrong. Why else would you see so many cheap rationalizations for it? Gay people aren’t being discriminated against by the marriage laws…they have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex anyone else does… And it’s surprisingly uncynical. In years of arguing online with bigots, I keep running into this dogged insistence that as long as someone has an excuse to discriminate, no matter how pathetically lame it is, they’re not really discriminating. I am not a bigot…I’m very sorry you feel you’re being treated unfairly…but my flimsy rationalizations serve to excuse me from any and all blame for the unfairness of your situation…not that I am admitting that it’s unfair…not that I would ever admit to being a bigot…I am a Good Person… And so on… It isn’t prejudice, if you say you don’t mean it.
Some years ago, shortly after I started working up here in Baltimore, I was talking to a group of co-workers about the upcoming elections. It was 1992, and Alan Keyes was running against Barbra Mikulski. It was his second try at becoming a senator from Maryland, and that year and in that workplace of mine, sentiment was running high against democrats. These were mostly all blue collar folks where I was working then. Though I worked mostly with the managers, most of them had worked up the ranks from the field technicians they now managed. Baltimore blue collar folks through and through. And all of them white males.
This particular group of them were ranting that day, on and on about how much they didn’t like Mikulski. Mikulski was too liberal. Mikulski was too democrat. On and on it went. I was amazed and appalled at how thoroughly the republican Mighty Wurlitzer had turned what had to have been at one point a bunch of solid blue collar union democrats into republican voters. After several minutes of Mikulski bashing one of them asked me what I thought of her. By then Alan Keyes had his own reputation in the state for being a pure to the bone nutcase. So I shrugged my shoulders and said, Well…there’s always Keyes." They looked at me…a group of about a half dozen or so white middle aged, blue collar guys, and one of them finally said, "You really play dirty don’t you?" But he was grinning. The rest of them were all shaking their heads and grinning ruefully. Then I realized. What I thought I was asking them was, "Okay…but would you vote for a nutcase?" What they heard was "Okay, but would you vote for a black man?" Keyes never had a chance with them, no matter how much Limbaugh managed to make them hate liberals and democrats.
I thought about that all during this campaign here in Maryland, whenever the polls said that Steele was either winning, or close to it. All I had to do was stroll around my neighborhood and look at all the GOVERNOR EHRLICH signs in the yards, and not a single STEELE sign among them. But if it was racism that killed Steele’s chances among the Limbaugh republicans here, let it be said that he wasn’t above playing the race card himself. During the 2002 campaign, as Ehrlich’s running mate, Steele was asked if he supported adding sexual orientation to Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws. He instantly responded that there were already plenty of laws on the books protecting gay white men from discrimination.
Dig it. He took a question about gay rights, and turned it into a matter of race; of privileged white faggots riding on the coattails of the black civil rights movement. That’s straight out of the republican play book. I’d figured that Steele held the same cheapshit prejudices toward gay people Ehrlich did, or else Ehrlich wouldn’t have brought him onto the ticket. What I saw then was that he was just as big a race baiting thug as any other republican in the state.
And it came back to bite him in the ass. Welcome back to the world of the suspect classes Michael. You might have thought that being accepted into the republican machine was your ticket out of all that. It wasn’t.
…and why I’m so thrilled that our gutter crawling bigot of a Governor John Ehrlich got the boot last Tuesday. In May of 2005, Ehrlich vetoed a domestic partnership bill, saying it would "…open the door to undermine the sanctity of traditional marriage." This was, some of us noted, at a time when he was conducting a whisper smear campaign against the family of Baltimore Mayor O’Malley, who everyone figured would be his democratic challenger in the upcoming election. Ehrlich and his henchmen spread lies that O’Mally was having secret extramarital affairs utterly without concern for the effect on O’Malley’s wife and children. So much for the sanctity of marriage.
Maryland Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. vetoed a bill yesterday that would have granted rights to gay partners who register with the state, concluding after weeks of intense deliberations that the legislation threatened "the sanctity of traditional marriage."
The emotionally charged bill was among 24 that Ehrlich (R) rejected yesterday afternoon, including legislation to raise the state’s minimum wage by $1, allow early voting in elections and heighten oversight of the state’s troubled juvenile justice system. Another measure sought by gay rights activists that would have extended a property transfer tax exemption to domestic partners was also scuttled.
(Emphasis mine) His staff made a big noise to the news media afterward that he would "probably" sign the bill adding gay people to Maryland’s anti-discrimination laws. But that was another of his little moves to the middle made only when he knew he had no choice. The statehouse would have overridden a veto of that particular bill and he knew it. But it was useful to put the word out there that he’d sign it, because he’d just made a move which shocked, shocked, the chattering class…
Ehrlich’s decision to side, almost without exception, with business interests and social conservatives surprised some analysts, who thought he might try to burnish his credentials as a moderate by allowing some of the session’s more controversial bills to become law.
Most of the legislation vetoed yesterday had been strongly opposed by Republican lawmakers. But Ehrlich’s appeal to swing voters was key to his 2002 election in a state where registered Democrats still hold a nearly 2-to-1 advantage.
"I think it’s just breathtaking that he’s casting his lot with the right wing of his party," said Tom Hucker, executive director of Progressive Maryland…"He ran for governor as the moderate, affable son of an automobile dealer who would stick up for working-class families."
No it wasn’t breathtaking. It was eminently predictable. Ehrlich ran as a moderate. But he wasn’t. A simple glance at his political career would have made it obvious to anyone. He’s pure Ellen Sauerbrey Republican, and there are no moderates in the Maryland republican party since the Sauerbrey wing took it over.
A leading Republican lawmaker praised him for making "a principled decision."
"I know the governor wrestled with this decision because he may be sympathetic to some of the intentions," said House Minority Whip Anthony J. O’Donnell (R-Calvert). "But sometimes bad laws are the result of good intentions."
Modeled after laws in California, Hawaii and other states, the legislation would have granted nearly a dozen rights to unmarried partners who register with the state. Among those: the right to be treated as an immediate family member during hospital visits, to make health care decisions for incapacitated partners and to have private visits in nursing homes.
A principled decision. Anyone who knows a same sex couple, knows exactly the threat that constantly hangs over them from their lack of legal recognition…
A woman who could have benefited from the bill, Stacey Kargman-Kaye of Baltimore, said yesterday that she was heartbroken. "I don’t understand how a human being who has a significant other and children could not see the need for this," she said.
Kargman-Kaye, 37, said that after she emerged from heart surgery five years ago, a nurse literally pushed away her longtime partner, who was there to support her, "because we’re not considered a family in the eyes of Maryland."
But republicans just can’t seem to twist the knife in us enough…
A group of conservative activists had launched a petition drive in recent weeks that sought to repeal the bill if it became law. They argued that it was part of a "homosexual agenda" advancing in Annapolis. Maryland allows residents to put legislation passed by the General Assembly to a public vote if enough signatures are gathered.
Del. Donald H. Dwyer Jr. (R-Anne Arundel), a leader of the petition drive, said organizers would soon decide whether to continue, in case lawmakers override Ehrlich’s veto in January. Dwyer said he was "very pleased that the governor has sent a strong message about the morality of the state."
Dwyer had been puking anti-gay venom into the Maryland statehouse for years now, and I am delighted to say he lost in his bid for re-election this year. Good riddence. Perhaps the voters in Anne Arundel Country had just about enough of his brand of morality…
A gay Baltimore man has won a courtroom battle to keep his late partner buried in the Tennessee grave the two men chose.
But the victory is not absolute. Kevin-Douglas Olive said the parents of Russell Groff have indicated they plan to appeal the Nov. 2 ruling that Olive received Thursday.
“This is awesome,” Olive said. “It may not be over if they appeal, but I feel so good.”
Baltimore City Orphans’ Court Judge Karen Friedman ruled against Lowell and Carolyn Groff, who sought to overturn their son’s will and move his body to a family cemetery.
Groff’s parents argued in court Sept. 25 and 26 that their 26-year-old son didn’t know what he was doing when he completed his will and burial instructions shortly before his death on Nov. 23, 2004.
Groff, who was HIV-positive, died from a staph infection that spread throughout his body.
Olive said Groff was estranged from his parents at the time of his death, and completed a will and burial instructions in anticipation of the legal battle.
So he knew what he was doing all right. He knew his own parents would try to take him from the man he loved after death. And they tried. And they might Still succeed. Morality.
Olive, who married Groff according to local Quaker tradition in 2003, said his battle illuminates the need for equal marriage rights for gay couples.
“I won, but I wouldn’t have had to go through this at all if the state had some sort of provision that allowed my partner and I to have legalized our relationship in some sense,” he said. “This is kind of bittersweet because I had to go through a lot of shit to get this.”
A principled decision… That simple Quaker marriage of two young men in love in 2003 did nothing, Nothing to harm the marriage of any heterosexual couple in this state, or anywhere else. It takes nothing away from anyone save for this one thing: the ability to twist the knife in the broken heart of a gay person who has just lost the love of their lives. There is no pain like the loss of a loved one. What kind of person wants to make that bottomless loss even harder for someone to bear? What kind of person sees righteousness in it?
You have to utterly dehumanize the person who suffers. (Homosexuals don’t love, they just have sex…) But before you can do that, you have to take your conscience around behind the barn and kill it. And you do that, so you can make other people scapegoats for everything fine and noble and honorable that a human being could be, that you could never live up to. All your cheap failures of character, all your pathetic evasions of reality, all those need a scapegoat. Otherwise, you’ve only yourself to blame. And the best scapegoat of all, the one you can hate the most without reservation, is the one who faced their life squarely, honestly, and honorably, and became everything a human being can, that you could never be. It isn’t the sanctity of marriage but the sanctity of gay bashing that they’re afraid of loosing. Because if we don’t bleed, if we can’t be made to bleed, then they’re not righteous.
So after a generally positive election day, one where I can take some solid comfort in the fact that although seven states voted to strip same sex couples of any and all legal rights one state refused to go along, I find myself sweating blood again over the situation in Massachusetts, the only state in the union so far, to allow same sex couples to actually marry, as opposed to being civil-unioned.
In states where it only takes a minority of voters to sign enough petitions to put a referendum on the ballot, and only a minority of registered voters actually vote on the measures, anti-gay bigots have been enormously successfully in writing their gay and lesbian neighbors out of their state constitutions. But in most of those states, the state-houses have had little to no backbone in them to resist the hate. The religious right is powerful in the heartland, and in the south in particular, and many politicians in those regions make their careers either catering to it, or kowtowing to it when necessary. Standing for the devil and against the baby Jesus just isn’t a winning proposition.
But more and more in the blue states, the fight against hate is being joined. In California, the statehouse there actually passed a law granting same sex couples the right to marry (which Arnold to the everlasting shame of his name promptly vetoed). And in Massachusetts they’re not taking the venomous hatreds of the anti-gay gutter laying down. And they’re not just fighting on principle either. They’re fighting, finally, just like the enemy does. To win. By any means necessary.
Lawmakers voted to recess the ConCon until 2 p.m. Jan. 2, 2007 by a 109 to 87 vote, which is the last day of the legislative session. Technically, lawmakers could reconvene to take the issue up, but it’s extremely unlikely. Which means that the amendment has died by procedural maneuver.
When I first read the news I was both elated, and still a bit worried. Why not just adjourn altogether? Why leave prejudice and hate that one last chance and keep gay couples in the state, and all over the nation looking to Massachusetts for hope, still holding their breaths? Well…here’s why:
The significance of the recess vote as opposed to an adjournment vote is that Governor Mitt Romney cannot call the legislature back into session.
Tactics. They have a bigot governor who is kissing up to the religious right in hopes of making a run at the presidency. He’s been kicking the homosexual devil for their approval for months now (which he’ll never get because he’s a Mormon, but that’s another story…). But in this state the fighters for liberty and justice for all have taken full measure of the enemy. They understand perfectly well that they’re in a knife fight, and so they brought a knife. That’s how you fight a knife fight: to win. Let the gutter howl that they’re being denied their rights. It was their neighbor’s rights after all, that they were seeking to take away. This fight was never about rights. It was about power. It was about a group of venomous haters trying to reserve democracy, and its promise of liberty and justice for all, to themselves. If that’s what you’re about, then don’t complain when someone else comes along and takes some of that away from you: brother, you asked for it.
"I’m probably 3,000 feet to the right of Attila the Hun. But the gracious people, the socially conscious people, the liberal people, you’re the ones who always want everyone to be heard. What about these 170,000 people?" said Democratic Rep. Marie Parente.
Yes, we’re the ones who are always wanting everyone to be heard. And yes, you’re not. And that’s the whole point here. One-hundred and seventy billion people would still not have the right to take away a single individual’s right to equality under the law, let alone the rights of tens of thousands of their neighbors. They only way you do that, is to assert a right of force, by virtue of the power of your shear numbers. The term for that isn’t democracy, it’s mob rule. And that’s why we have checks and balances in our form of government, to prevent democracy from degenerating first into the rule of mobs, and then into tyranny. We The People includes your gay and lesbian neighbors too you drooling moron. It includes all of us. And yes, we are the ones who believe that. And yes, you’re not.
The people can always vote the politicians who stood by the gay minority out of office. But that takes more work, and it means every voter must weigh one vote taken in the statehouse against many. Maybe a voter does not like the vote their representative made on the same sex marriage amendment, but they generally like their other votes. Do they vote a politician they generally like out of office on that one single issue? Now suddenly, the bigots need the rest of the population to be as passionate about denying gay people equality as they are. And the population at large just isn’t. They might vote against us if it’s presented to them as a single issue. But it is not the single issue of most voters and the bigots know it.
This is how the tables turn on the bigots. For decades now they’ve been fighting against equality for gay people in situations where they’ve been able to win on their sheer passion, against a voting public that is lukewarm at best in support of us, but only lukewarm at worst in their own prejudices. They may find us distasteful, but they’re not going to throw out a politician they generally like because that politician let the homos marry each other. At least not in the blue states. Every time the gay haters have tried to hold a blue state statehouse accountable when it has supported, in some measure, the rights of same sex couples, they have failed. They failed in Vermont. They failed in California. And they failed in Massachusetts. And that is why there were 109 votes to recess yesterday. The voters Have spoken, and what they’ve said is they really don’t care that much about gay rights. And the bigots know it. That’s why the bigots want to fight this in a forum where they know they only need a minority of the registered voters to win, and where they can make the stab against their gay and lesbian neighbors as easy and painless as possible for just enough voters, to rewrite their constitutions. Tactics. They can’t complain now that they were outmaneuvered.
Well…they can…they’re hypocrites too after all. And they can probably still keep winning this way in the red states. Most of them. They lost after all in Arizona, which is more "leave us alone" libertarian then conservative (no daylight savings time for us, thank you…). But they’ve about picked off all the low hanging apples now, and the rest of it is going to be a fight, and no bigot ever wanted a fair fight. A fight where they massively outnumber their victims, sure. Their vision of democracy is more mob rule then anything resembling the vision of the founders. Which is why the founders put in all those checks and balances. A democracy is a government of citizens, of equals, not of mobs.
That’s the Mac "dock", for all you Windows and Linux kids (I am all three). Be nice if force quitting the Rumsfeld app took all its child processes with it…
Hey…I get to put the "Computer Geeking" tag and the "Politics" tag on the same post!
This blog is powered by WordPress and is hosted at Winters Web Works, who also did some custom design work (Thanks!). Some embedded content was created with the help of The Gimp. I proof with Google Chrome on either Windows, Linux or MacOS depending on which machine I happen to be running at the time.
