?

Log in

BACK DOOR BOY IN A FRONT DOOR WORLD
OUTSIDE OF SOCIETY - THAT'S WHERE I WANT TO BE
HOW TO OUT-ARGUE A FUNDAMENTALIST 
5th-Jun-2006 11:42 pm
HOW TO OUT-ARGUE A FUNDAMENTALIST

So-called “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” have an entire arsenal of arguments that they like to use to denounce gays/lesbians and homosexuality. These range from simple “religious” objections they claim appear in the Bible, to insane, irrational, and utterly false assertions that homosexuality does not even exist. Upon a single glance, many of these arguments may seem compelling, but even a modicum of logical thought is enough to easily disprove them. In this essay, I will define and explain as many of these arguments as I am aware of, and then proceed to prove each and every one of them wrong.

THE BIBLE

Many arguments employed by so-called “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” come from the Bible, a book which is (a) chock-full of self-contradictions, (b) frequently mis-interpreted, especially by those who claim to know it best, and (c) in large part ignored by these same “fundamentalists” (except for their pet references, the ones they love to keep hammering).

Specifically, “fundamentalists” love to cite six specific passages and/or verses found in different parts of the Bible. Three of them are found in the Old Testament, and the other three in the New Testament. Without further ado, here is a list with each chapter/verse reference, the text of the verse(s), and the truth that disproves the ideas held by so-called “Christians.” (NOTE: All Biblical references and text are taken from the Revised Standard Version of 1971, a version frequently used in the United States.)

(1) Genesis 19:4-8
But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, “Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.” Lot went out of the door to the men, shut the door after him, and said, “I beg you, my brothers, do not act so wickedly. Behold, I have two daughters who have not known man; let me bring them out to you, and do to them as you please; only do nothing to these men, for they have come under the shelter of my roof.”
Despite the fact that hypocritical “Christians” have applied the name of the city of Sodom to what they incorrectly view to be the “sin” of homosexuality, no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex is made here. The “fundamentalists” have created one themselves through a convenient mis-translation of Hebrew, all the while ignoring Lot’s attempt to prostitute his own daughters!

The last two words of verse 5, “know them,” are the key words here. The verb used in ancient Hebrew was yadha, which means “to know” in the sense of having knowledge of something. Out of the 943 times yadha appears in the Old Testament, only 10 times does it refer to sex — and in all of those cases, it refers to heterosexual sex. The ancient Hebrew language contained another word, shakhabh, which more correctly meant homosexual sex. Had a condemnation of homosexuality or homosexual sex been intended here, shakhabh would have been used.

Jesus Himself makes it quite clear what the sin of Sodom was in Luke 10:10-12: inhospitality. He tells His disciples that if they are not welcomed in any particular place, they are to wipe that place’s dust off of their feet; He also adds, “I tell you, it shall be more tolerable on that day for Sodom than that town.” In other words, Jesus has said that the town that doesn’t welcome His disciples will suffer a fate far worse than that of Sodom, because their sin of being unwelcoming is far worse than anything done in Sodom.

Even if any sexual connotation can be assumed from the Sodom story, it is also quite clear in verse 8 that the mob of men at Lot’s door will gladly obtain gratification from any source. Lot even so much as offers his virgin daughters to the mob; given that prostitution is clearly condemned by Jesus (John 8:1-11), it is ridiculous that modern-day “Christians” ignore the obvious “pimping” done here by Lot! Instead, they choose to twist the story to suit their own personal hatred, reading something into the story that clearly isn’t there.

(2) Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a man as with a woman; it is an abomination.
(3) Leviticus 20:13
If a man lies with a man as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death, their blood is upon them.
I take these two references together because much of the book of Leviticus is taken up by God’s rules for the ancient Israelites. God had just brought the Israelites out of 400 years of slavery in Egypt; under the leadership of Moses, they journeyed to the land of Canaan. Many Canaanites worshipped a deity called Baal; what we would today call “homosexual sex” was a fertility ritual performed by Baal-worshippers. The God of the Israelites must have been exceedingly jealous of Baal, or must have wanted the Israelites to avoid taking on Baalic practices. In any case, these two verses were intended to convey to the ancient Israelites that they were to be pure in their worship of their God (that is, they were to avoid taking on anybody else’s religious practices); no extraordinary meaning in today’s society can be found here. Finally, these verses make no mention whatsoever of lesbian sex; any true condemnation of homosexuality from God Himself would obviously include lesbians as well as gay men. The fact that this is not the case suggests that this passage was added later by homophobic humans.

As I mentioned above, many “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” ignore huge swaths of the text of Leviticus except for these two verses. Many of them, I’m sure, buy their clothing from Wal-Mart or some other “big box” retail giant, and they probably don’t stop to check the labels to make sure that their items don’t contain mixed or synthetic fabrics (in direct defiance of Leviticus 19:19). I’m sure many “fundamentalists” have eaten at McDonald’s, Burger King, Wendy’s, Carl’s Jr., etc., more than once; every cheeseburger they have eaten there defies Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26, and Deuteronomy 14:21. Every month, “fundamentalist” women of child-bearing age have a menstrual period; their husbands likely give them a back-rub to ease cramps, continue to share a bed with them, and sometimes even have sex with them — all in direct defiance of Leviticus 15:19-24. Many “fundamentalists” enjoy shellfish at their favorite seafood restaurants, defying God’s law in Leviticus 11:12. Many “fundamentalists” who wear glasses, have broken bones, have cuts, are disfigured, or have eczema or scabs continue to attend church services — all in defiance of Leviticus 21:18-20. If a male “fundamentalist” priest does not make absolutely certain that his fiancée is a virgin before he marries her, he has defied Leviticus 21:13. (For that matter, the non-virgin woman in question must be stoned as per Deuteronomy 22:13-21.) Many “fundamentalist” men shave their facial hair and sideburns, in direct defiance of Leviticus 19:27. Finally, and perhaps best yet, any “fundamentalist” couple that drifts right off to sleep after having sex defies Leviticus 15:18 — but that doesn’t stop “Christian” men from snoozing right after the act!

God makes quite clear the punishment for failing to abide by ALL of the laws He has laid out in Leviticus 26:14-39. Yet modern “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” ignore the vast majority of God’s laws other than those that support their own personal hatred of gays and lesbians. If God is, in fact, going to enforce Leviticus 18:22 on the day of judgment, then the whole book will be enforced, and all of the nearsighted, shellfish-eating, cotton/poly-blend-wearing “fundamentalists” are on the highway to hell. On the other hand, if God isn’t worried about those synthetic-fabric clothes, cheeseburgers, and shaven faces, He also isn’t too worried about homosexuality. To believe otherwise is the highest form of hypocrisy (which is itself condemned by Jesus all throughout chapter 23 of the Gospel of Matthew).

(4) Romans 1:27
“[T]he men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error.”
This verse must be examined in its entire context, namely Romans 1:20-31:
“Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles. Therefore God gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, to the dishonoring of their bodies among themselves, because they exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever! Amen. For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct. They were filled with all manner of wickedness, evil, covetousness, malice. Full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malignity, they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, haughty, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, foolish, faithless, heartless, ruthless.”
The people to whom Paul refers here are heterosexuals who have decided to forsake God and avoid praising Him. In revenge, God has given up on them; therefore, they become “consumed with passion,” that is to say, they act in a lustful way. Both men and women were overtaken by lust, and became preoccupied with obtaining sexual self-gratification with whomever they pleased. Verse 28 in particular makes it exceedingly clear that the sin here is failure to worship God, not any kind of homosexual activity: “And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up ...” Homosexual sex (in that it is herein had by people who are heterosexual by nature) was God’s punishment for the sin of failing to praise Him, and not the sin itself. In fact, it is clear that God made these people have homosexual sex!

This verse does not condemn homosexual sex or homosexuality at all. It merely says that God made heterosexual people engage in homosexual sex as a means of punishment; it says nothing about people who are homosexual by nature.

(5) I Corinthians 6:9-10
“Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the kingdom of God.”
As they did with the Sodom story, “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” here again make a serious translation mistake, this time from ancient Greek. The key words here are “sexual perverts” (the last two words of verse 9 in the Revised Standard Version of 1971); the 1952 edition of the RSV had said “homosexuals,” which I might add was the first time that that word had EVER appeared in the Bible, but the translators decided that “homosexuals” could not be supported on the basis of Paul’s original Greek.

Paul used the words malakoi and arsenokoitai in his writing. Malakoi literally means soft, in the context of overall moral weakness; arsenokoitai, when it is found in any other Greek writings, means “pederast” or “pedophile.” The 17th-century King James Version of the Bible, the earliest known English version, somehow came up with “effeminate” for malakoi, and “abusers of themselves with mankind” for arsenokoitai. It is quite clear that any apparent reference to homosexuality was created through an improper (and perhaps homophobia-tinted?) translation at that time, and not intended by Paul or the God whose inspiration motivated Paul’s writing. (There were at least five other words in ancient Greek that would have more correctly meant homosexual sex or homosexuality, and it is rather telling that Paul did not use any of those.) As time went on, further mis-translations such as “male prostitutes” for malakoi, “homosexual offenders” for arsenokoitai, and the blanket use of “homosexuals” for both words, appeared in different versions of the Bible.

What is condemned here is moral weakness (adultery, thievery, alcoholism, and idol worship just to name a few things that Paul specifically mentioned), and pedophilia. No reference to homosexuality is made here.

(6) I Timothy 1:8-11
“Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, immoral persons, sodomites, kidnappers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted.”
The same translation mistake made in the case of I Corinthians 6:9-10 occurs here again. Once again, Paul used the word arsenokoitai, and again the King James Version (remember, the earliest known English version of the Bible) came up with the incorrect translation of “them that defile themselves with mankind.” Again, it is pedophilia and not homosexuality which is condemned here.

In conclusion, it is obvious that the Bible, if read properly, does not condemn homosexuality or homosexual sex within a loving, committed relationship. Lust, morally bankrupt living, pedophilia, and hypocrisy (such as that exhibited by “fundamentalist ‘Christians’”) are, on the other hand, quite clearly and forcefully condemned.

OTHER ARGUMENTS

“God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”

Technically this is a biblical argument as well, but “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” rarely seem to use it as such. Even many “fundamentalists” themselves will admit that the creation stories found in the first two chapters of Genesis are allegories; that is to say, they are not literal, provable absolute truth, but rather symbolic representations of the wonderful Creation of God the ancient Israelites beheld all around them.

However, even if we do take the creation story at face value (in spite of the REAMS of evidence supporting our having evolved from lower life forms over three billion years), it is not any kind of condemnation of homosexuality that God “created” Adam and Eve. If we do (foolishly) assume the creation story is absolute truth, then clearly the six billion humans on the planet had to start somewhere — we all have to be descended from somebody. Just because it took a man and a woman to reproduce (to kick-start the process) doesn’t mean that down the line, God wouldn’t see fit to introduce the phenomenon of homosexuality to the human race — likely as a means of attempting to prevent human over-population in His Creation.

Consider that today, fully one-fifth or more of the human race does not have enough of the nourishment needed to survive. This planet already contains more people than God/Allah/“Mother Nature”/(insert your favorite deity here) intended it to sustain, and still the numbers are exploding every day. Since purely gay and lesbian people by definition do not reproduce, their existence is a natural form of world population control. To say that this natural method of population control is ordained by God Himself is an obvious logical extension of the belief that God created and to this day still maintains nature (Genesis 1:28-31).

(All of the preceding material still ignores the absurdity of believing that the account of events in the first four chapters of Genesis is absolutely true. Bear in mind that Adam and Eve’s only children, Cain and Abel, were both male. Therefore, the proliferation of the human race from that point forward involves either (a) an Oedipal act of incest, which I’m certain “fundamentalists” would condemn; or (b) as Genesis 4:17 tells us, a contradiction of the rest of the creation story. All of a sudden we’re told in that verse that Cain has a wife, but up until that point humankind has consisted only of Adam, Eve, Cain, and the since-murdered Abel. So either Cain and Eve went horizontal, or God actually hadn’t created everything as suggested by the first two chapters of Genesis — meaning that either way, the “fundamentalist” approach of taking the Bible as literal truth is wrong.)

“Homosexuality is a choice.”

The way so-called “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” tend to look at things, people are homosexual simply by virtue of having made a “choice” to “live in sin.” However, it is exceedingly simple to prove this argument wrong.

I ask all of my male readers, both heterosexual and homosexual, to think back to when they were somewhere between 12 and 14 years old. (Being male myself, I have a common point of reference upon which to base this argument — nothing against female readers, but I didn’t have the same adolescent experience.) For those of you who are heterosexual, one day you just started noticing how beautiful the young ladies were starting to look. You saw their budding breasts and the developing curvature of their bodies, and you were in awe of this. You may have even experienced an arousal reaction to such visuals or thoughts. This just happened to you naturally; there was never any sort of choice you made to become aroused by attractive female bodies.

In homosexual males, the process is exactly the same, with the opposite result. Think about it: you suddenly started noticing how attractive your fellow young men were becoming. You saw the defined, muscular bodies; you saw the finely chiseled features; you saw hair begin to grow on faces, arms, and legs, and you were awed and aroused by it. Again, you didn’t exercise any choice in the matter — in fact, if you were like a large number of homosexual males, you probably tried to “choose” to be aroused by females. But no matter how hard you tried to actually be attracted to females — even if you dated or even had sex with a few of them — it just didn’t work. Those beautiful male bodies kept tormenting you, no matter how much effort you tried to exert. The whole process drove you crazy until you accepted yourself and came out.

Perhaps the most damning bit of logic against this idea is the following: If homosexuality were in fact a choice, WHO IN THEIR RIGHT MIND WOULD EVER CHOOSE IT? Especially given the fact that so much anti-gay hatred and even violence are floating around today, no human being in his/her right mind would ever choose it. Yet there are still plenty of gays and lesbians around; this makes it quite obvious that choice is not a factor in the development of one’s sexuality. The “cause” of homosexuality has not yet been discovered — it could very well be genetic, it could very well be a result of parenting in the early years, it could be any number of things — but it absolutely is not choice. The only “choice” that can be made is to either admit the truth and accept one’s own homosexuality, or live a lie by burying one’s true desires — which is likely to make one miserable and extremely depressed.

“If you would turn your life to God, God will take away your homosexual desires and make you heterosexual.”

This myth is perpetuated by so-called “ex-gay” ministries that some “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” carry on. They try to fool you into thinking that through more prayer, you can be made to desire the opposite sex. While the exceedingly high failure rate of such programs speaks for itself — many leaders of “ex-gay” ministries have been spotted in gay bars, identified in online “hook-up” chat rooms, or recorded while using gay phone-sex lines — a little truth about human sexuality will drive the final nail into the coffin of this “fundamentalist” belief.

Contrary to a popular belief often promulgated by “fundamentalists,” sexual orientation is not determined by the gender of the persons with whom you engage in sexual activity, but rather by which gender gives you a greater (or any at all) arousal reaction. For example: I am gay because attractive male bodies arouse me. I could very well have (and in fact, have once had) sex with a woman, and I can be stimulated and even ejaculate from doing so. In fact, I could very easily decide to never again have sex with a man, and start having a ton of sex with women — but guess what? I’m still as queer as a three-dollar bill. The fact that attractive men arouse me would not change. By the same token, even if a straight man becomes annoyed with all the drama inherent in “playing the field,” and proceeds to search for gay men to provide him an outlet for his sexual release, he’s still straight — he still gets turned on by attractive women.

For a man, at least, being “turned on” is not necessarily a prerequisite to erection and ejaculation; these are largely physical reflexes. A man’s penis is designed to respond to sensation (i.e., touch), and it will frequently do so even in the absence of psychological arousal. As a hypothetical example, if I were blindfolded and ear-plugged in a room full of people, then stripped naked and given oral sex, I would experience just as much pleasure from a woman performing the act on me as I would from a man. Frankly, even if I knew that the person performing oral sex on me were a woman, that wouldn’t make much, if any, difference — I would become erect and ejaculate just the same. Again, that doesn’t mean I’m straight, or necessarily even bisexual; it just means my penis functions properly. The same thing would be true if a straight man were put in that position; just because he would experience pleasure and ejaculate — even if he knew another man was performing the act on him — doesn’t mean he is necessarily gay or bisexual. (I must admit to having close to zero understanding of female sexuality, but I would figure that the physical aspects of a woman’s pleasure cycle and orgasm must be similar.)

The “ex-gay” myth, however, requires you to accept fundamentalists’ logical fallacy that your sexual orientation is determined by the gender of your partner(s). As I showed above, even if you were to completely swear off sex with the same gender, and only have sex with the opposite gender in the future, it wouldn’t change the fact that you are still gay. You would still be at the very least psychologically aroused by attractive persons of your own gender. However, “fundamentalist” “ex-gay” ministries would claim you to be one of their “success” stories, saying that you had “turned from the ‘destructive gay lifestyle’” and “become a heterosexual through prayer and the grace of God” — when the fact is that you’re still not heterosexual, nor will you ever be. “Fundamentalists” try to fool you into believing that you are in fact heterosexual simply because you only have sex with the opposite gender and avoid same-gender sex, but this is simply not true.

So-called “ex-gay” ministries may be able to change the nature of your (physical) sexual activity (i.e., you will be told to seek out opposite-sex intercourse and avoid same-sex contact), and even some of your non-sexual behavior (i.e., you may be taught how to avert your eyes from an attractive member of your own gender; men may be taught how to pepper their speech with “dude” and “bro’” to sound more masculine; women may be taught how to apply makeup and curl their hair), but despite their claims to the contrary, they cannot change your actual sexual orientation (your natural affinity for either the same sex or the opposite sex). These “ex-gay” ministries must by their very nature assume that some attraction to the opposite sex was already present within you; if you are homosexual and intellectually honest, you know this is not the case.

Finally, given the recent scandal with abusive priests in the Catholic Church — many of whom are accused of having molested boys, some for many years — I would point out that this notion of “turn to God and He will make you heterosexual” obviously didn’t work too well for Catholic priests. I mean, they took vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience to God, but the good Lord never did make them heterosexual. Since that idea clearly doesn’t work for priests, it’s obviously false for the rest of us. (As if the truth hasn’t already been made obvious by people like Michael Johnston, who was the “poster boy” for the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s “ex-gay” campaign until it was revealed that the HIV-positive Johnston was knowingly infecting other men with the virus.)

If you’re stupid enough to still not be convinced, read this and this.

“Homosexuals are pedophiles.”

“Fundamentalist ‘Christians’” like to spread the myth that homosexuals are interested in having sex with underage children. Naturally, such rumors cause parents to experience a knee-jerk reaction; they come to believe that to protect their children, they must prevent all contact between their children and homosexual adults. However, a closer examination of sexuality and child-rearing patterns shows this belief to be utterly false.

First, let us examine the facts regarding victims of child sexual abuse. (The term “child” is here used to describe a person under the legal age of consent, which is usually 16 in many American jurisdictions.) Boys and girls are raised differently in our culture; different attitudes are impressed into their developing minds. We teach our young boys how to be tough and self-reliant; we teach our young girls that they are to be protected, and the means to help protect themselves.

As children approach puberty and adolescence, the influence of their peers takes on far greater influence than in the early years. Peer interactions among pre-adolescent boys usually involve an air of machismo: “I’m tougher,” “I can beat so-and-so up,” or more germane to this point, “I’m a real man because I’ve had sex.” Meanwhile, peer interactions among girls of the same age tend to focus on gossip and innuendo: “Did you see so-and-so’s new music video? I so-o-o-o want to buy that outfit she was wearing,” or “(Insert classmate’s name here) is such a whore, having sex that much.”

Between society’s general parenting attitude and the influence of peers, pre-teen girls (generally speaking) have largely negative attitudes toward sexual behavior. The hypothetical female classmate I referenced in the last paragraph is likely to become an outcast among her peers as a result of her behavior. Given the negative attitude, any natural curiosity a girl might have about sex is generally stifled. On the other hand, pre-teen boys tend to receive mixed or even sex-positive messages from society and their peers, particularly as they get closer to puberty. Rather than stifling boys’ sexual curiosity, these messages tend to encourage it.

There is an age below which a child is almost guaranteed to report having been sexually abused, regardless of gender; I would place that at around age 8 or 9. Any younger than that, and the parental messages of “Don’t interact with strangers” and “If anybody touches you there, tell somebody” resonate loudly and clearly. However, as the pre-teen years start at around age 10, children tend to start desiring greater independence from authority figures.

Given all of the above facts, it is easy to see why many victims of child sexual abuse are boys between roughly 9 and 14 years of age. They are naturally curious about sex, and that curiosity is encouraged by society; but they are not quite mature enough yet to set healthy boundaries for themselves. It is not until perhaps 15 or 16 years of age that a young man becomes better able to define his boundaries, or even physically resist a sexual predator.

Let us next examine the facts regarding the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. The vast majority of adults who sexually abuse children are men; this is a result of simple biology. Male fertility equipment is capable of making its contribution to the procreative process as often as two to three times per day; meanwhile, female equipment is only capable of lending itself to reproduction for about 10 days out of every 28, and when it is “activated” (i.e., the woman becomes pregnant), it goes out of commission for nine months. Men have a far greater natural desire and physical need for sexual activity. Note that this does not excuse the sexual abuse of a child — there is no excuse for that, and I think anybody who does that deserves a .357 Magnum shell in the head — but it does explain why some sick men, regardless of their adult sexual orientation (if they even have one), look to children to obtain sexual gratification.

In many cases, child sexual abusers are so fixated on children — who, I might add, don’t have as many differentiating sexual characteristics like body shapes, hair, etc., as adults do — that they are not attracted to adults of either gender, but only to children. That is, they can be said to be more “child-sexual” than either heterosexual or homosexual.

Rarely are women the perpetrators of child sexual abuse. Most often when this is the case, an adult female authority figure such as a teacher seduces an adolescent, yet still legally underage (perhaps 13 to 16 year old) boy, convincing him to have sex with her. Sometimes, the woman’s role is limited to procuring children who are later victimized by a man — who could very well be, and frequently is, her husband! They may even enjoy a healthy sex life with each other, as husband and wife, outside of their child-abusing activities — I dare say most “fundamentalists” would call them heterosexuals.

As I have pointed out above, the most common victims of child sexual abuse are boys, and the abusers are usually men. Even if the abuser does have any kind of normal adult sexual orientation (heterosexuality or homosexuality), it is a gross over-simplification of the facts to assume, as “fundamentalists” do, that pedophilia is the exclusive province of homosexuals. The truth is that pre-teen boys’ societally-encouraged curiosity toward sex makes it easier to take advantage of them. Just because the perpetrator and the victim are both male does not necessarily mean the perpetrator must be homosexual; the perpetrator is merely taking advantage of a victim who is more likely to be willing than a girl would be. Again, that does not excuse the actions of the perpetrator, but it does explain them.

I cannot deny that SOME child sexual abusers are in fact homosexual — it would be dishonest of me to say otherwise — but homosexuals are certainly NO MORE likely to molest a child than are heterosexuals. If you agree with my estimates that the straight/gay split in the general population is 95% straight to 5% gay, then by logical extension, 5% of pedophiles are homosexual, and 95% of pedophiles are heterosexual.

A related argument sometimes advanced by “fundamentalists” is that a portion of the so-called “homosexual agenda” is to win the complete repeal of age-of-consent laws regarding sexual activity. It should be obvious on the surface that this argument is absurd; are not the vast majority of statutory-rape cases of a heterosexual nature? Though I cannot speak on behalf of the entire gay population, I can say that what the vast majority of gay people are seeking is an end to orientation-based inequality in age-of-consent laws. A perfect example was the state of Michigan, the laws of which (prior to the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2003 Lawrence v. Texas decision) had a consent age of 16 for male-female sex, but also stated an age of 18 for female-female sex, and completely criminalized male-male sex! Inequality such as this is a gross violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, and we rightly seek to have any such laws that still stand struck down. You can always count on “fundamentalists” to stretch the boundaries of logic to fit their agenda of hate and bigotry, though.

“There is no such thing as a homosexual Christian.”

This is hogwash, as evidenced by the myriad of Christian churches and denominations that display the true love of Christ to gay and lesbian people. Among these are the American Episcopalian Church, many Presbyterian denominations, the Metropolitan Community Church (MCC), the 1.3-million member United Church of Christ, and literally hundreds of smaller, independent congregations throughout the United States and the civilized world.

The only thing you must do to call yourself a Christian is accept Jesus as your Savior, who died on the cross to pay for your sins (of which homosexuality is not one, as I proved above in the “The Bible” section). As long as you welcome Jesus into your life and live according to His perfect example of unqualified, unlimited love, you are a true Christian — regardless of whether you are homosexual or heterosexual.

“AIDS is God’s punishment for homosexuals.”

Many “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” want you to believe this myth, that God is using the HIV/AIDS epidemic as a means of punishing homosexuals for their “sin.” Again, however, they are over-simplifying the situation and ignoring critical facts about HIV/AIDS.

The first known human case of AIDS was discovered in a heterosexual man in 1959, in what is today called the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Though very little is known about this man or his activities, a mid-1990s analysis of his blood plasma showed that his particular strain of HIV was almost identical to a certain strain of simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) — essentially a chimpanzee version of HIV. Further analysis showed that the chimp SIV was a hybrid of two other monkey versions of SIV, each one found in different sub-species of monkeys. This may not have been the only contact between lower primates and humans that resulted in SIV’s migration and mutation to HIV, as it has long been a common practice in African jungle cultures to kill and eat monkeys. Therefore, many people may have been infected with viruses from numerous sources — it is highly unlikely that all human cases of AIDS can be traced back to only one man. In any case, as science has proven, SIV and HIV are retroviruses that are capable of very quick (evolutionally speaking) mutation; in fact, even in spite of HIV’s explosive spread in the human race since the 1960s, it continues to mutate rapidly to this day.

In the United States, the so-called “sexual revolution” of the 1960s and 1970s led to changes in society. Suddenly, cultural mores were liberalized; taboos were no longer viewed as such. The feminist movement and the nascent gay-rights movement (which otherwise have had mostly positive aims and results) liberated women from the subservient sexual roles, and homosexual persons from the hiding and shame, that a once-oppressive culture had imposed upon them. The end result of all of this was that non-monogamous people of all sexual orientations started to become more sexually active (in general), thus providing far greater opportunities for HIV to be transmitted. (Bear in mind that, then as now, HIV is transmitted via contact between infected bodily fluids — and sex involves the exchange of a good deal of bodily fluids.)

HIV/AIDS was first discovered in the United States in 1981, largely in communities of gay men in big cities. Within a year, it was clear that heterosexuals, hemophiliacs, and people in other countries and even continents, were contracting the disease — but the Rev. Jerry Falwell’s initial description of the disease as a “gay plague” had already taken firm root in many people’s minds. It was discovered in 1984 that a virus was responsible for the AIDS epidemic, but this still didn’t change the minds of “fundamentalists” and other gay-haters — the “gay plague” theory supported their own personal hatred of gays and lesbians, and as far as they were concerned, that’s all they needed to know.

Moving on, let us discuss the biology of HIV/AIDS and sexual intercourse. HIV can be found in at least trace amounts in most of the fluids the human body produces, from blood to lymphatic fluid to saliva to semen/vaginal secretions. (The high acidic content of urine and stomach acid makes them unfavorable to the virus.) The highest concentrations of the virus are found in blood, semen, and vaginal secretions — the three fluids most commonly exchanged during sexual acts. The only thing the virus requires for transmission is a path into the bloodstream of the soon-to-be-infected partner; it doesn’t matter what the vehicle (blood, semen, or vaginal secretions) is.

Unprotected sexual contact of almost any kind provides an easy means for infected blood, semen, or vaginal secretions to be transmitted into a not-yet-infected person’s bloodstream. In the case of heterosexual vaginal intercourse, the woman’s uterus essentially becomes an open “cut” every month when she menstruates; there will always be parts of the internal surface of her uterus that do not fully “heal,” or re-line themselves. Therefore, HIV-infected semen ejaculated by the man has an easy path into the woman’s bloodstream. The virus can also be transmitted from a cut or sore on the man’s penis to a cut or sore on the woman’s vaginal lining, or from the woman’s vaginal lubricating secretions to a cut or sore on the man’s penis. Oral sex can also transmit the virus; it can be transmitted from semen or vaginal fluids to a cut or sore in the receptive partner’s mouth, throat, esophagus, or stomach. It can also be transmitted from saliva or a cut or sore in the mouth to a cut or sore on the genitalia of the partner being pleasured. Theoretically, even mutual masturbation poses a risk; there is the possibility of transmission from a cut or sore on the “giving” partner’s hand to a cut or sore on the “receiving” partner’s genitalia.

Perhaps the easiest means of transmission, however, is unprotected anal sex; the receptive partner (or “bottom” in gay slang) in particular is at very high risk. Consider this fact of biology: The primary function of the digestive system, which includes the intestines, rectum, and anus, is the absorption of nutrients from food into the bloodstream. The large intestine, in particular, will absorb almost anything passing through it into the blood — whether that substance is partly-digested food originating from above, or HIV-infected semen from below. It is as a result of this natural intestinal function of absorption that unprotected receptive anal sex is the highest-risk sexual activity. And who is it that engages in receptive anal sex, whether protected or not? That’s right, homosexual men — and to a lesser extent, heterosexual women. (A woman doesn’t have any sexual parts that she can insert into another person, so by definition she cannot be the insertive partner — only a man can be the insertive partner. Therefore, only a heterosexual woman or a homosexual man can be the receptive partner.)

The answer, then, is quite obvious — either avoid sex entirely, which is a choice that goes against human nature, or PROTECT YOURSELF IN EVERY SEXUAL ENCOUNTER! Latex condoms, when used properly, have been proven to be effective in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS and many other sexually transmitted diseases, as well as preventing pregnancy in heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Until you are monogamously committed to one particular partner, and both of you have been tested to be negative for all sexually transmitted diseases, you must use a condom to protect yourself — EVERY TIME. NO EXCUSES.

If God intended HIV/AIDS to be a punishment to homosexuals, He would have been smart enough to see to it that only homosexuals ever contracted it. This is not the case, and the argument that AIDS is a punishment for the “sin” of homosexuality is therefore rendered false.

“God hates homosexuals.”

This myth is largely the creation of the Rev. Fred Phelps, the pastor of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kansas. WBC’s anti-Christian “ministry” focuses almost exclusively on Phelps’ idiotic belief that God hates homosexuals. However, this is rather easily proven to be false.

I have coined the following rhyme to express a fundamental truth: “God doesn’t create anything He hates.” Since God clearly created all people in His image (Genesis 1:27), including homosexual people, He clearly cannot hate them — simple logic dictates that He would not have created them if He did hate them.

Furthermore, I have seen it said before that “Man created God in his image.” Most “fundamentalists” prove this every day by their actions: that is to say, their belief that God is hateful, angry, bent on revenge, and jealous is a reflection of their own personalities. Since they are full of hate, anger, and jealousy, they conclude that God must be the same way — and their preaching shows it.

You cannot simultaneously say that God is the very definition of love, and then say that He hates homosexuals (or anybody else), with any credibility. As far as I’m concerned, it doesn’t matter what person or class you place after “God hates”; you’ve already said something that isn’t true, regardless of the intended target.

Think about it: Even if “fundamentalists” were right, and God did hate certain people or groups, would those be the actions of a God that you would want to serve?

“Homosexuality is unnatural because it doesn’t lead to reproduction.”

“Fundamentalist ‘Christians’” seem to love this argument. In their view, the only reason for the existence of one’s sexual organs is reproduction, and any other use is “sinful.” However, this is also a myth — one based on ignorance of many facets of human sexuality and courtship rituals.

The assumption that heterosexual sex automatically leads to reproduction is absurd. Women in their child-bearing years are most fertile during approximately a 10-day portion of their 28-day menstrual cycle. (Conception is theoretically possible, though highly unlikely, at any other point in the cycle.) Sperm can live inside the female body for roughly six days; therefore, we can assume that heterosexual sex during an 11-day period (six days before ovulation, plus the five or so days of the ovulation process itself) can result in fertilization and conception. In other words, on 17 out of the 28 days of a woman’s cycle, the chance of procreation falls somewhere between highly unlikely and zero.

It is equally absurd to assume that God (or Nature) only gave us sexual organs for the purpose of reproduction. If that were in fact the case, there would be no need for a man to experience the earth-shattering pleasure of an orgasm (or carry on the “bumping and grinding” process necessary to arrive there), and women would not need to be capable of any sexual stimulation or orgasm whatsoever (in other words, the clitoris and the so-called “G-spot” would not exist).

In order to ensure the early survival of the human species, before modern medicine and sanitation practices and such, God (or Nature) had to make sex a pleasurable thing for humans to want to do it. Even today, with a now-overpopulated world, this primal instinct still holds sway: people have sex because it feels good, whether they are white, black, yellow, red, brown, or even green, gay or straight, male or female — the procreative possibilities of heterosexual vaginal intercourse aside.

Furthermore, if God (or Nature) had intended sex to be used for procreation alone, He (or She) would have made men in such a way that they would only be capable of arousal, erection, and ejaculation during that most fertile portion of their female mate’s cycle. Yet this is not the case; younger men, in particular, are capable of as many as four decent ejaculations per day (“decent” here meaning that it contains a large enough volume of sperm to have much chance of procreation), and this is true on a 24/7/365 basis. Teenage boys, in fact, frequently seem to have one-track minds; it is almost as if they can’t get enough sexual release, what with their rampaging hormones. This proves that God (or Nature) gave us sexual organs for not only procreation, but also pleasure. Obviously, God did instruct us that it is wrong to obtain one’s pleasure at the expense (pain, suffering, etc.) of another; but consensual, mutually pleasurable sexual activities (including those of a homosexual nature) do not fit that definition.

Finally, any assertion that sexual organs only exist for the purpose of reproduction fails to logically answer the question as to why women experience menopause in their 40s or 50s. Why do the sexual organs of women not just shrivel away and disappear during the menopausal process? If reproduction is all they are there for, as she becomes no longer capable of reproduction, they should disappear, right? (And if marriage exists solely as a framework for the raising of children, why do we allow post-menopausal women, or impotent men for that matter, to divorce and re-marry?) I dare say that if sexual organs are only for reproduction, God would immediately strike dead any woman who gets a hysterectomy or a tubal ligation, or any man who undergoes a vasectomy.

“‘Even barnyard animals know better’ [than to be homosexual].”

I have double-quoted this one because I recently (October 2004) saw it reported in the media. As of the time of this writing, several U.S. states are preparing to vote on the addition of amendments that would prohibit almost any legal recognition of same-sex couples to their constitutions; Ohio’s Secretary of State, J. Kenneth Blackwell, actually brought out this line at a church rally in support of that state’s proposed amendment. However, as usual, Blackwell and other “fundamentalists” are completely ignorant of reality, or at least those large parts of reality that don’t suit their agenda of hate.

It is a well-researched fact that humans are not the only members of the animal kingdom that engage in what we would consider to be non-heterosexual behavior. Many lower primate sub-species, such as certain types of apes, chimpanzees, and monkeys, frequently engage in same-gender sex play; in fact, bonobo monkeys are well-known for being almost completely bisexual. Dolphins have been observed to exhibit “homosexual” behavior that isn’t just limited to sex; young dolphins are frequently seen in the company of either two adult males or two adult females! (That sound you just heard was the “fundamentalist” argument against same-sex legal marriage shattering like a piece of glass.)

Finally, shouldn’t the fact that “fundamentalists” have to resort to giving gays and lesbians the short end of a comparison with farm animals prove them utterly wrong? Such nonsensical drivel makes it clear that they are motivated by hatred, and not truth.

“Homosexuals are pushing for ‘special’ rights.”

This is another favorite argument of “fundamentalists,” which is used to assert that gay and lesbian people are trying to obtain rights that no other class or group of citizens has. While this tactic effectively engenders hatred by playing off of the ignorance of people who can’t critically think for themselves, this argument can be proven to be false on several fronts.

The type of person most likely to believe such an argument is, in all likelihood, disadvantaged in some way him/herself. That is to say, he/she is likely poor, unemployed (or not employable), and under-educated, and has little or no access to opportunities to improve his/her station in life. A person like this often feels the need to blame somebody else for his/her problems, and avoid taking responsibility for his/her actions. Enter the “fundamentalist ‘Christian’” preacher and his absurd claims that gays and lesbians are responsible for all of the world’s evils, and the recipe for hatred is complete. “Fundamentalist ‘Christians’” want this type of person to believe that his/her disadvantaged status in life is a direct consequence of “‘special’ rights for homosexuals,” rather than of his/her own mistakes (e.g., teenage pregnancy, dropping out of school, alcoholism or drug use, etc.). Therefore, the fundamental premise of this argument is already flawed.

A further study of the legal status of gay and lesbian Americans completes the destruction of this “fundamentalist” argument. In many states, and under federal law, a person can be fired from his/her job or denied employment, evicted from his/her housing (even if he/she is current on rent), denied the use of public facilities such as municipal recreation buildings, subjected to demeaning slurs, harassment, and physical brutality, denied the right to provide a loving, nurturing foster-parenting environment to a child in need of one, and removed from schools or denied admission thereto, for no other reason than the fact that he/she is gay or lesbian. In some states, so-called “homosexual panic” defenses in criminal trials for assault, manslaughter, and even pre-meditated murder have resulted in much lighter sentences being handed out to offenders — it is as if the courts believe that gays and lesbians are “less human,” and that it’s “less” of a crime to murder them! Protection from such widespread discrimination and denial of opportunity is not a “special” right by any stretch of the imagination; it is a right that all other Americans, including people of color, women, people of non-“fundamentalist ‘Christian’” religious faiths, the elderly, and immigrants, take for granted.

“Fundamentalists” also advance this argument in the context of the same-sex marriage debate, arguing that the ability to be legally married to a person of the same sex constitutes a “right” that heterosexuals would not have, and that gays and lesbians already have the right to “marry” (leaving off the necessary qualifier “a person of the opposite sex”). This type of argument is called a “strawman”; that is to say, the argument has nothing to do with the issue at hand. In the United States, heterosexuals take for granted the right to marry the person of their choosing — a person with whom they are truly in love — a person who adds great joy to their life. It just so happens that by the very nature of heterosexual desire, this other person will be of the opposite sex. On the other hand, gay and lesbian Americans are denied this right to be legally coupled with the one person of their choosing, and are denied all of the privileges and benefits of such status. Again, civil/legal marriage rights for same-sex couples would not be a “special” right — far from it; in reality, they would simply provide gay and lesbian Americans a level playing field.

“The homosexual ‘lifestyle’ is dangerous and unhealthy to society.”

When all else fails, “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” like to turn to this argument; it is sort of a “catch-all” argument that encompasses many of the rest. However, as is the case with all of their other arguments, this one has many fatal flaws and relies on twisted logic.

First, let us examine only the opening three words: “the homosexual lifestyle ...”. These words are bandied about by “fundamentalists” frequently, and without any thought. Through this choice of words, “fundamentalists” are trying to suggest that homosexuality is comprised solely of sought-after or actual same-gender sexual encounters, and that when they are not seeking or having sex, homosexuals essentially do not exist. Basically, they take a caricature of the few homosexuals who do actually (a) have a ton of promiscuous sex, (b) use certain “club drugs” to “enhance” their nightly nightclub experience, and (c) drink and/or smoke heavily, and attempt to pass off this caricature as the full and accurate picture of homosexual life.

It is quite clear that this picture is neither full nor accurate. While I must absolutely admit that there are some homosexuals who spend much of their time dancing, drinking, smoking, doing ecstasy or “Special K,” appearing as a drag queen at a gay pride parade, having sex, or any or all of the above, there exists a vastly larger percentage of the homosexual population that spends most of its time working (and by extension, paying taxes), doing household chores, walking the dog, reading the newspaper, attending gay-friendly churches, and performing community service. The un-Christian hatred in the hearts of “fundamentalists” blinds them to all but the few homosexuals who are in fact deserving of ridicule, and causes them to paint all homosexuals with a brush that is far too broad.

When you look at a heterosexual person, particularly one who you do not find attractive, is sex the first thing that comes to your mind? If not, then why is sex the only thing that comes to mind when you look at a homosexual person? Why are you incapable of looking at me, for example, and thinking football or hockey (topics that are far more likely to hold my interest than an immediate sexual proposition)? If your first thought regarding heterosexuality is not one of prostitution, rape, or strip clubs, then it is highly disingenuous of you to first think of sex at the mention of homosexuality. Homosexuality is no more a “lifestyle” than heterosexuality is. An example of a “homosexual act” would be a gay male couple enjoying a weekend of skiing in Vail, or a lesbian couple taking their dog for a walk in the park.

Just how is homosexuality dangerous or unhealthy to society? More to the point, how is homosexuality any more dangerous or unhealthy than heterosexuality? I have already proven above how HIV/AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases are no more homosexual problems than they are heterosexual problems. I have already proven that pedophilia and sexual abuse of children are no more homosexual problems than heterosexual ones. Homosexuals pay the same taxes (at higher rates, in fact, because of the current federal non-recognition of gay marriage) as heterosexuals, supporting the same institutions of society: law enforcement, snow/leaf/rubbish removal, firefighting and EMS services, and schools just to name a few. In fact, in some respects, homosexuality is actually less dangerous to society than heterosexuality — homosexuals don’t create unwanted pregnancies that result in abortions, neglected children, single-parent homes, and the youth crime wave that tends to be a direct result of the “over-burdened single parent syndrome.” When uncontrolled heterosexual behavior leads to a murder committed by the then-teenager 15 years down the road, it becomes clear that heterosexuality has caused more damage to society than homosexuality has.

CONCLUSION

It should be shockingly clear by this point that all of the views of so-called “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” regarding homosexuality are incorrect. Yet they continue in their lies, their campaign of intentional misinformation, and their “ministries” to rid the world of what they somehow perceive to be “the homosexual menace.” They take their own deep personal hatred of gays and lesbians, and perhaps even their deathly fear that they themselves are in fact homosexual, and attempt to “polish a turd,” so to speak, by wrapping those evils in the otherwise decent Christian faith.

The great Renaissance philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527) astutely realized that religious faith blinds people to the truth about their church (or governmental, for that matter) leadership. A leader, Machiavelli wrote, must only appear to possess good qualities; he need not actually possess them, and in fact he ought to do the work of evil. It should be chilling that among some of Machiavelli’s most loyal students are not only the most tyrannical despots the world has ever seen — Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin, and Stalin — but also such modern “fundamentalist ‘Christian’” leaders as Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Billy Graham, Gary Bauer, Tim LaHaye, and other pastors and preachers who impart the teachings of those men.

Furthermore, “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” fall under the sway of another Renaissance-era philosopher and theologian, John Calvin (1509-1564). Calvin somehow came up with the insane idea that certain people are pre-destined to go to heaven before they are even born; while hundreds of verses in the Bible make it clear that our actions in life have bearing on our eventual salvation or lack thereof, thereby rendering Calvin’s view false, “fundamentalists” have taken the idea one step further. A logical extension of the idea of pre-destination is the concept of the “justified sinner”; that is to say, if somebody in God’s “elect” already knows that he/she is pre-destined for heaven, he/she can hate, lie, steal, and even murder with impunity. Clearly, while most of these actions are blatant violations of God’s Ten Commandments, that little fact doesn’t make a difference to “fundamentalists” — in fact, this ungodly, anti-Christian Calvinistic belief is needed to support the attitudes and actions of “fundamentalists.” It is quite easy for them to assert that they are the elect of God, and that homosexuals are not, when Calvinism is a core belief. Taken a frightening step further, this Calvinistic belief is the justification “fundamentalists” and those under their sway use to support the beating and even murder of homosexuals: if somebody was pre-destined from the beginning of time to go to heaven, it doesn’t matter if they murder a homosexual in a fanatical, extreme attempt to “end the homosexual menace.”

In short, “fundamentalist ‘Christian’” leaders realize the core truths of Machiavellianism: that religion is necessary to exert power over people, and that the subjugated people can only be truly united in the face of an external threat. By using homosexuals as the “external threat,” American “fundamentalist ‘Christians’” are attempting to solidify power over the rest of the nation, and frankly destroy the very core of what America is all about — the inalienable rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Source: Larry's Phat Page: Being Gay | "How to Out-Argue a Fundamentalist "
Comments 
6th-Jun-2006 04:26 am (UTC)
I wonder how the fundamentalists are coping with the Gospel according to Judas pmsl
6th-Jun-2006 06:14 am (UTC)
"Even if any sexual connotation can be assumed from the Sodom story, it is also quite clear in verse 8 that the mob of men at Lot’s door will gladly obtain gratification from any source. Lot even so much as offers his virgin daughters to the mob; given that prostitution is clearly condemned by Jesus (John 8:1-11), it is ridiculous that modern-day “Christians” ignore the obvious “pimping” done here by Lot! Instead, they choose to twist the story to suit their own personal hatred, reading something into the story that clearly isn’t there."

Yeah, never mind he's tossing out his virgin daughters to be savagely raped by these guys... But, because I like you, I'll go one better:

What the hell are a bunch of rabid homos supposed to do with two virgin girls, besides grab a drink with them later and dish about those hotty angels cooped up in the house, hanging with the girls' dad? It. makes. no. sense.
6th-Jun-2006 06:19 am (UTC) - Regarding (4) Romans 1:27
“And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up ...” Homosexual sex (in that it is herein had by people who are heterosexual by nature) was God’s punishment for the sin of failing to praise Him, and not the sin itself. In fact, it is clear that God made these people have homosexual sex!

So... that mean, God got mad at them for not worshipping Him, and, consequently, HE screwed them in the ass for it!
6th-Jun-2006 02:06 pm (UTC) - Re: Regarding (4) Romans 1:27
Goddess, I love the way you put that.
6th-Jun-2006 03:52 pm (UTC) - Re: Regarding (4) Romans 1:27/ Thank you
Aiiiiiight?
6th-Jun-2006 06:32 am (UTC)
I can't/won't get into any of this with fundamentalists. I won't due to the simple fact that even if the bible spelled out everything clearly (which it does NOT), they blindly ignore the fact that these parables have been told over time and have been slanted by both normal men and by kings to fit given needs or to mold and sway public opinion. How can someone blindly devote themselves to what they think this book means? To me it's like believing in a chain letter curse.

6th-Jun-2006 08:14 am (UTC)
My family have heard me say it dozens of times...

The Bible was written by biased misogynistic mortal men during many different time periods and the books within the current Bible were chosen by religious figures in the 4th century.

So I take anything said in the Bible with a grain of salt.

I don't get why Fundies hate gays and lesbians so much, I don't see any gay men trying to marry them so what is their problem?
6th-Jun-2006 02:10 pm (UTC)
Okay wow.

I am not even sure what to say. Because bascly you have said it all. You'd think with so many other things to worry about people would not worry about who is in love with whom.

Thank you for writing this. If it's alright I would love to link this from my journal so that others may read it, as well I think I am going to bookmark it.

Just wow, again thank you.

You just blow me away I swear.

-Gina.
6th-Jun-2006 02:16 pm (UTC) - The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument
I really do like this. Its very well written, but the part about 'Not all gay men are ecstacy taking, promiscious drag queens: some like to walk the dog and go to church' is a dangerous route to go down.

First we must remember at Stonewall, it was the dragqueens that threw the first brick-laden purse.

And secondly, this leaves behind the people who can't fit into a fundies worldview- those who don't choose a traditional family, house + 2 dogs. Those that can't or don't want to pass. Gender outlaws and 'wierdos' like dragqueens and leathermen.

Its a dead end to accept rights and acceptance based on ability or desire to pass, we should hold out for acceptance regardless of how we look or act or how we desire to run our lives.

6th-Jun-2006 03:49 pm (UTC) - Re: The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument
Your comment makes me smile. It reminds me of a rant (one of many) that I enjoyed by Camille Paglia back in the day, where she went on about why on earth would gays and lesbians WANT to even assimilate and become everybody's favorite normal friendly neighborhood next door neighbor, why would the leathermen and drag queens etc. want to be "normal," when they are the epitome of the celebration of diversity and outrageous beauty and fun and all that "fringe" living.

I can just hear my mom's criteria of a good neighbor: "Well, as long as they keep their lawn nice, and they aint wearing assless pants, it's OK by me." That pretty much applies to everyone down the line.


I can see both sides. I can see the side of gays who just want a house in the 'burbs, a couple of kids, BBQs, etc., and I can see those lovelies who rail against the system in six inch heels and feather boas, or crew cuts and combat boots, etc. Camille couldn't understand why gays were banging against the "NORMAL" door, dying to get in. I totally understand where she is coming from. Why are you trying so hard to assimilate? But I totally understand wanting to settle down and be recognized, legally, insurance-wise, etc. There are the non-conformist gays as there are conservative gays, I guess, just like in the heterosexual pool. It takes all kinds.

I just wish, over all, our government understood that you cannot tether and temper freedom. You can't just have a little bit of freedom, you cannot be a "little bit" of a free society. I wish folks would stop treating homosexuality like a communicative disease.
6th-Jun-2006 07:09 pm (UTC) - Re: The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument

I can just hear my mom's criteria of a good neighbor: "Well, as long as they keep their lawn nice, and they aint wearing assless pants, it's OK by me." That pretty much applies to everyone down the line.


You know, and as much as i'm for radical self expression and diversity... I think it must be tempered with a concern "not to scare the natives". This is a bit of fuzzy logic, and its hard to determine where my right to wear assless chaps starts to infringe on your right not to see my ass. Basically I guess my rule of thumb is that gay.com billboard ads with naked guys kissing each other has a place in Chelsea, Castro or the South End, but does it really have a place in rural Demoines?

Is there such thing as a community standard, and how far is going to far with the concept?
6th-Jun-2006 07:10 pm (UTC) - Re: The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument
*acceptable community standard. Or A community standard that a far left activist GLBT person could incorporate safely into thier worldview without seeming like a hypocrite.
6th-Jun-2006 07:53 pm (UTC) - Re: The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument
Right. We have seen all too clearly the lines drawn illustrating conservative towns and non-conservative towns, but even there you find the fringe population that does not conform to the state's or town's "norms."

You are right, though, I think we need to look into demographics at that point; what areas accept the assless chaps and which areas would not be so open to them. Either way, the chaps should not be deemed **illegal.** That's the difference; if they aren't your thing, fine, but to make them illegal? Nonsense. Not that I mean to trivialize the gay marriage fight by juxtaposing it to the freedom to wear assless pants, but the concept is similar.

If I were allowed to marry my girlfriend, I wouldn't do it in rural Kansas. That's a blatant attack on the conservative sensibilities, and that ends up looking like aggressive propaganda. Who needs that much static?

This gives me a lot to think about.
6th-Jun-2006 08:50 pm (UTC) - Re: The danger of the "homos are just like you and me" argument
If I were allowed to marry my girlfriend, I wouldn't do it in rural Kansas.

What if you lived in rural Kansas? Why should you have to go somewhere "safe" to marry your girlfriend?

D
6th-Jun-2006 09:21 pm (UTC) - Re: Why I would move from Kansas
Because you can't change people's attitudes that way. Honestly, I wouldn't stay. I lived with an old- world Sicilian dad all my life, and I know there was no changing his ideas on certain things, and shoving his face in it never changed things; it just made my life miserable, absolutely miserable. I have had it up to HERE, trying to prove to someone I am not a freak, or trying to change someone's mind, a mind that is shut tight. I guess I am talking about choosing my battles. I know what you are saying. Why the fuck should I have to move? I totally understand that, but I would move if I were the only bisexual within sixty corn miles.

All throughout Brokeback Mountain I kept going, "Fuck! Move to New York! Get out of there, go to Australia - somewhere!"

Maybe I am a pussy, but I would rather be safe and happy. I would make a lousy martyr.
7th-Jun-2006 03:40 am (UTC) - re: animal kingdom
Not only that but I believe the Jerusalem Zoo had two gay vultures. (or at least birds). They eventually split up, but they were still two gay birds living together.
7th-Jun-2006 10:39 pm (UTC)
I do need to disagree about one thing. You make a statement that most sexual abuse of children involves boys. I think it is more accurate to say that most reported sexual abuse of children involves boys. While I am an anecdotal source, the number of females I know who were abused as children outnumber the number of males I know abused as children by a factor of 8 to 1. The vast majority of those women were abused by their own fathers. None of them reported their fathers to any authority figure or the police, even years after the event. Now it is possible that males are unwilling to discuss this aspect of their lives with friends and women aren't, I just find it odd that there is such a glaring discrepency here. As such, I would love to get truly accurate representations of child sexual abuse. I suspect that females molested by fathers is far more common than most people think, and daughters are unwilling to discuss this publicly for fear of the effect it will having on family and themselves.
17th-Jun-2006 03:55 pm (UTC) - Use Biblegram Anagrams to quash fundamentalists!
Anonymous
Right on! I want to share with you some very funny anagrams that can be used in religious debate. I guarantee that if you use them all, you'll leave 'em speechless! Here they are, free! www.lulu.com/stress (look for my BIBLEGRAMS)
This page was loaded Jul 22nd 2017, 10:58 pm GMT.