23 July 2008
10 July 2008
Anything But Straight: The Pro Family Scheme...by Wayne Besen
Anything But Straight: The Pro-Family Scheme
Written by Wayne Besen
Wednesday, 09 July 2008 20:39
The last few weeks have shown that so-called pro-family organizations are some of the most useless, money-sucking scams in the world. With real families suffering from economic hardship in America, a declining birthrate in Europe and Google doubling the price of daycare for employees, the only thing right wing family groups want to discuss is their bizarre and all-encompassing fagela fetish.
Recently, The Brooklyn Paper, had a huge headline, "SPLITSVILLE: Brooklyn divorces up 30%." The article cited a number of reasons including, "when the economy tanks, so do many marriages."
One would think this would alarm so-called pro-family organizations and they would be out in force repairing marriages - or at least looking for economic solutions to take the stress off couples. Unfortunately, as I walked around my Brooklyn neighborhood, I saw not one representative from the American Family Association.
Well, I take that back. I did encounter one of the group's representatives on CNN Headline News as we debated a Heinz mayonnaise ad in the United Kingdom that featured two men kissing. I'm sure the children of these broken marriages in Brooklyn will feel much better knowing Heinz pulled the ad and they can have gay-free mayonnaise at both mommy and daddy's separate houses.
A new study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University showed that in 2006, for the first time in U.S. history, a majority of births to women under 30 - 50.4 percent - were out of wedlock. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out that, "By comparison, when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, just 6 percent of all births were to unmarried women under 30.
One imagines that this report might have startled "pro-family" organizations and they would have put their millions of dollars towards stopping this trend. No such luck. Instead, they are investing huge piles of money and manpower to pass anti-gay marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. The upshot for "pro-family" groups is that if heterosexuals keep screwing up marriage, by the time gay people finally win the right nationally, we won't want to use it.
"Evangelicals of the older generation have become obsessed in almost a technical psychological sense in opposing gay rights," David Weddle, a professor of religion at Colorado College told the Colorado Springs Gazette. "The irony is that homosexuality is not a biblical theme."
Right wing organizations and their flocks want to be taken seriously, but their priorities and actions are reprehensible. For example, a middle school teacher was fired in Mount Vernon, Ohio last month after preaching in the classroom, refusing to remove his Bible and burning crosses onto the arms of pupils. You read that correctly - he seared crosses on the body parts of impressionable students, as if it were a gang ritual.
Surely, reasonable people can agree that such behavior is inappropriate in the classroom. But, oh no, some of the yahoos in Mount Vernon believe their religion places them above the Constitution - so they are holding demonstrations in the town square. I wonder if these zealots would have the same reaction if a teacher were burning a Stars of David or Muslim crescents on the forearms of students?
A recent New York Times magazine article, "Childless Europe," explored why certain countries in Europe are losing population. The hopelessly out of touch Pope Benedict chimed in with his typically sunny advice. "Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future," the Pontiff said. "Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present."
Instead of selfishness, as the Pope implied, it was the traditional values of the Pope that contributed to the problem. In societies that either offered a safety net or where men shared the burdens of child rearing, women were having more babies. However, when educated women were stuck at home and forced to do all the work - such as in Italy - they chose to have less children. Will the Pope now call on men to help out more at home or for countries to ensure daycare for families?
Finally, the Wall Street Wonder, Google, plans to raise the amount it charged for in-house day care by 75 percent. Under the revised plan, parents with two children in Google day care could see their yearly bill increase to more than $57,000 from around $33,000. This crushing blow to the family drove a few employees to tears.
Was the American Family Association in Silicon Valley raising hell and standing up for families? No, they ignored grimacing parents, so they could punish Ronald and Grimace by launching a boycott against McDonalds for supposedly having a gay agenda. Maybe the delusional scolds at the AFA thought they saw rainbow color fries, in much the same way they once accused the cartoon character Mighty Mouse of snorting cocaine.
Right wing organizations can be considered many things - but certainly not advocates for the family. They inhale money, exhale anti-gay pollution and have done absolutely nothing for the traditional families they claim to represent. It seems the more such groups proliferate, the more the family deteriorates.
Written by Wayne Besen
Wednesday, 09 July 2008 20:39
The last few weeks have shown that so-called pro-family organizations are some of the most useless, money-sucking scams in the world. With real families suffering from economic hardship in America, a declining birthrate in Europe and Google doubling the price of daycare for employees, the only thing right wing family groups want to discuss is their bizarre and all-encompassing fagela fetish.
Recently, The Brooklyn Paper, had a huge headline, "SPLITSVILLE: Brooklyn divorces up 30%." The article cited a number of reasons including, "when the economy tanks, so do many marriages."
One would think this would alarm so-called pro-family organizations and they would be out in force repairing marriages - or at least looking for economic solutions to take the stress off couples. Unfortunately, as I walked around my Brooklyn neighborhood, I saw not one representative from the American Family Association.
Well, I take that back. I did encounter one of the group's representatives on CNN Headline News as we debated a Heinz mayonnaise ad in the United Kingdom that featured two men kissing. I'm sure the children of these broken marriages in Brooklyn will feel much better knowing Heinz pulled the ad and they can have gay-free mayonnaise at both mommy and daddy's separate houses.
A new study by the Center for Labor Market Studies at Northeastern University showed that in 2006, for the first time in U.S. history, a majority of births to women under 30 - 50.4 percent - were out of wedlock. New York Times columnist Bob Herbert points out that, "By comparison, when John F. Kennedy was elected president in 1960, just 6 percent of all births were to unmarried women under 30.
One imagines that this report might have startled "pro-family" organizations and they would have put their millions of dollars towards stopping this trend. No such luck. Instead, they are investing huge piles of money and manpower to pass anti-gay marriage amendments in Florida, Arizona and California. The upshot for "pro-family" groups is that if heterosexuals keep screwing up marriage, by the time gay people finally win the right nationally, we won't want to use it.
"Evangelicals of the older generation have become obsessed in almost a technical psychological sense in opposing gay rights," David Weddle, a professor of religion at Colorado College told the Colorado Springs Gazette. "The irony is that homosexuality is not a biblical theme."
Right wing organizations and their flocks want to be taken seriously, but their priorities and actions are reprehensible. For example, a middle school teacher was fired in Mount Vernon, Ohio last month after preaching in the classroom, refusing to remove his Bible and burning crosses onto the arms of pupils. You read that correctly - he seared crosses on the body parts of impressionable students, as if it were a gang ritual.
Surely, reasonable people can agree that such behavior is inappropriate in the classroom. But, oh no, some of the yahoos in Mount Vernon believe their religion places them above the Constitution - so they are holding demonstrations in the town square. I wonder if these zealots would have the same reaction if a teacher were burning a Stars of David or Muslim crescents on the forearms of students?
A recent New York Times magazine article, "Childless Europe," explored why certain countries in Europe are losing population. The hopelessly out of touch Pope Benedict chimed in with his typically sunny advice. "Europe is infected by a strange lack of desire for the future," the Pontiff said. "Children, our future, are perceived as a threat to the present."
Instead of selfishness, as the Pope implied, it was the traditional values of the Pope that contributed to the problem. In societies that either offered a safety net or where men shared the burdens of child rearing, women were having more babies. However, when educated women were stuck at home and forced to do all the work - such as in Italy - they chose to have less children. Will the Pope now call on men to help out more at home or for countries to ensure daycare for families?
Finally, the Wall Street Wonder, Google, plans to raise the amount it charged for in-house day care by 75 percent. Under the revised plan, parents with two children in Google day care could see their yearly bill increase to more than $57,000 from around $33,000. This crushing blow to the family drove a few employees to tears.
Was the American Family Association in Silicon Valley raising hell and standing up for families? No, they ignored grimacing parents, so they could punish Ronald and Grimace by launching a boycott against McDonalds for supposedly having a gay agenda. Maybe the delusional scolds at the AFA thought they saw rainbow color fries, in much the same way they once accused the cartoon character Mighty Mouse of snorting cocaine.
Right wing organizations can be considered many things - but certainly not advocates for the family. They inhale money, exhale anti-gay pollution and have done absolutely nothing for the traditional families they claim to represent. It seems the more such groups proliferate, the more the family deteriorates.
26 June 2008
New Me
I have struggled with weight gain for many years. I haven't seen hide nor hair of my 'ideal weight' since about age 22 or so. With each year that has passed, I've gotten older, more sedentary, more careless with what I put in my body. The results of this have culminated in a myriad of problems in my life...high blood pressure, low energy, frequent minor illnesses that my body just can't seem to avoid or fight off, not to mention the endless cycle of binge eating, and the complete feeling of hopelessness and helplessness that has come with watching my body turn into something that can only be described as a circus freakshow attraction, and believing that I am too far gone to do anything about it. Looking at pictures of myself, I have cringed inside. I'm fairly certain that the majority of my low self esteem in the last couple of years has been a result of my negative body image issues. Going to the doctor has been torture, because, while she is an excellent doctor with a wonderful bedside manner who is very thorough, she tells the truth...my weight is causing health problems I can no longer ignore. I feel humiliated.
I have struggled with attempts to change my lifestyle in the past - dieting, trying to eat better and excercise more, using weight control products. All those attempts have failed, probably because I truly believed that I couldn't change it, no matter what I did.
Back in April, Angie and I decided to get married. As the excitement began to build, so did the anxiety. It might be a bit selfish and shallow, but I truly don't want to be this heavy when I get married. I know it's a sad reason, but I want to be at a healthy weight, basically so the pictures of our nuptials don't look crappy. Sad, huh?
It might be a sad reason, but it is a POWERFUL motivator. I joined Weight Watchers in May. I go to a meeting every week, plus I use their online tools to track my points and activity.
Then, three weeks later, I joined Curves for Women. I work out at least 3 times a week.
My initial weeks in Weight Watchers were difficult, although the program makes it ridiculously easy to change your lifestyle. I was used to eating enough food at each meal to feed probably 3 people, if they were eating correct portions. Also, I'm addicted to sweet stuff...ice cream, chocolate, whatever it is, I can't get enough. When I started following the points system, and measuring my food for correct portions, I thought I was going to starve. The group leader pointed out that I probably wasn't following the healthy eating guidelines, because if I was, I wouldn't feel hungry. She was right. I've been working really hard at it, and it's getting easier. At first, even though my weekly weigh-in's reflected weight loss, I didn't feel any different. I joined Curves in an effort to increase the efficacy of my new healthy lifestyle (translated - lose weight and look and feel better faster.) It has been 8 weeks since I started. I've lost 12.6 pounds to date, an average of about 1-2 pounds a week, give or take.
A couple weeks ago, I went to Six Flags with a friend, and got some pictures taken. It was the first time in I don't know how long that I didn't want to cry when I saw a picture of myself.
Last week I had a little pulled muscle in my arm, and when flexing it to see exactly where the pain was, I noticed a muscle...I'm gaining muscle definition. I can't even begin to describe how excited I was when I realized this.
Also last week, in what used to be a weekly event and is now a rare treat, Angie & I ordered chinese take out. Being a creature of habit, I always order the sweet & sour chicken with fried rice & an eggroll combo. The difference this time was this...before, I would eat the entire thing without a second thought. This time, I barely got through half of it before I was full, and more importantly - I recognized that I was full - and I stopped eating. Amazing.
This week, I went to put on a pair of my pants just out of the laundry..usually when I put them on they are a bit tight for awhile, but not now. This week, ALL my pants are fitting just a bit more loosely.
Yesterday, a couple of agents in my office gave me positive feedback...telling me they could really see a difference. Few things are more motivating than other people telling you how great you look.
I'm starting to see results, and I feel so good, like I have taken control of my body. I no longer feel helpless, no longer feel hopeless. Plus, now that I'm beginning to see small results, it has motivated me to continue. Suddenly, although it's still a long way off and will require discipline and commitment, my goal of returning to my ideal healthy body weight doesn't seem so out of reach. As long as I remain committed, as long as I maintain these changes in my life, I will get there...and come May of next year, dressing up won't be such an anxiety filled event...
12 June 2008
Marriage Equality, California Style
Beginning June 17th, county clerks in California can begin issuing marriage licenses and performing marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, thanks to the recent California Supreme Court ruling that struck down a ban on same-sex marriage, making California the second state in the US where marriage is legally recognized for same sex couples. In addition, the California Supreme Court refused requests to stay the decision pending the outcome of the November elections. This is important to me for a number of reasons:
First, I am a native Californian, and it makes me feel proud that my home state is taking steps to eradicate discrimination against g/l/b/t/q people.
Second, California is a trend setting state. By this I mean that historically speaking, what happens in California in regards to civil law tends to have a far-reaching impact; it spreads across the rest of the United States, not necessarily quickly, but consistently, and occassionally with the help of the United States Supreme Court.
Third, in November, thanks to dubious efforts by religious conservative groups, California voters will go to the polls and vote on a proposed amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. Because the Supreme Court refused to stay their decision, Californians will have the opportunity to see the results of same-sex marriage (or as I like to call it - marriage - calling it anything other than what it is contributes to the notion that it isn't equality for a basic civil right we are asking for, but a special right or privilege in addition to the rights we already have, and that is a lie) and recognize that, just like Massachussetts, marriage equality will have absolutely no negative impact on society. In fact, the positive economic impact on the state of California is expected to exceed 600 million dollars over the course of the next 3 years. I feel fairly confident that the amendment will be defeated.
Fourth, unlike Massachusetts, anyone from any state can get married in California. It might not be recognized in their own state, but lack of current state recognition does not make the marriage any less meaningful or valid in the eyes of the couple, their friends and family, or to God, for that matter.
I admit that I have not always been much of a marriage equality activist in my lifetime. It was never really that important to me, as I never thought I would truly want to be with someone for the rest of my life. My view of relationships was this - people come into your life for a variety of reasons, stay awhile and then leave when there is nothing more you have to offer each other. Why would you want to muddy the water with marriage, making it more of a hassle to make a clean break? This is how I used to think, until I met Angie, and we started dating. Now, a year and a half later, we own a house together and suddenly I find myself looking at her sometimes and thinking things like 'This is the woman I'm going to be with for the rest of my life' and 'What would happen to her if something bad happened to me?' I want her to be protected, the same way I want to be protected. When we bought our house, we made the decision to go ahead and have a lawyer draw up our wills, powers of attorney for healthcare and general decisions, etc...$1200 for some documents that provide us about 1/4 of the rights and protections a straight couple gets just as soon as they sign on the dotted line of their $35 marriage license. When I forked over that money, I recognized what g/l/b/t/q people have been fighting for...equal protection under the law...and I deserve it just as much as my straight counterparts.
I'm going to marry Angie next year. We are planning a religious ceremony in Georgia through the United Church of Christ, which is open and affirming, and recognizes marriage equality, even thought the state does not. Then we plan to have a civil wedding in either British Columbia, Canada or California, so we will have legal recognition of our marriage, at least in those states who currently recognize it. Once again, lack of recognition on my state's part does not make my marriage any less meaningful or valid to me or to Angie, and we feel confident that it will be recognized in all states in our lifetime.
First, I am a native Californian, and it makes me feel proud that my home state is taking steps to eradicate discrimination against g/l/b/t/q people.
Second, California is a trend setting state. By this I mean that historically speaking, what happens in California in regards to civil law tends to have a far-reaching impact; it spreads across the rest of the United States, not necessarily quickly, but consistently, and occassionally with the help of the United States Supreme Court.
Third, in November, thanks to dubious efforts by religious conservative groups, California voters will go to the polls and vote on a proposed amendment to the constitution that defines marriage as between a man and a woman only. Because the Supreme Court refused to stay their decision, Californians will have the opportunity to see the results of same-sex marriage (or as I like to call it - marriage - calling it anything other than what it is contributes to the notion that it isn't equality for a basic civil right we are asking for, but a special right or privilege in addition to the rights we already have, and that is a lie) and recognize that, just like Massachussetts, marriage equality will have absolutely no negative impact on society. In fact, the positive economic impact on the state of California is expected to exceed 600 million dollars over the course of the next 3 years. I feel fairly confident that the amendment will be defeated.
Fourth, unlike Massachusetts, anyone from any state can get married in California. It might not be recognized in their own state, but lack of current state recognition does not make the marriage any less meaningful or valid in the eyes of the couple, their friends and family, or to God, for that matter.
I admit that I have not always been much of a marriage equality activist in my lifetime. It was never really that important to me, as I never thought I would truly want to be with someone for the rest of my life. My view of relationships was this - people come into your life for a variety of reasons, stay awhile and then leave when there is nothing more you have to offer each other. Why would you want to muddy the water with marriage, making it more of a hassle to make a clean break? This is how I used to think, until I met Angie, and we started dating. Now, a year and a half later, we own a house together and suddenly I find myself looking at her sometimes and thinking things like 'This is the woman I'm going to be with for the rest of my life' and 'What would happen to her if something bad happened to me?' I want her to be protected, the same way I want to be protected. When we bought our house, we made the decision to go ahead and have a lawyer draw up our wills, powers of attorney for healthcare and general decisions, etc...$1200 for some documents that provide us about 1/4 of the rights and protections a straight couple gets just as soon as they sign on the dotted line of their $35 marriage license. When I forked over that money, I recognized what g/l/b/t/q people have been fighting for...equal protection under the law...and I deserve it just as much as my straight counterparts.
I'm going to marry Angie next year. We are planning a religious ceremony in Georgia through the United Church of Christ, which is open and affirming, and recognizes marriage equality, even thought the state does not. Then we plan to have a civil wedding in either British Columbia, Canada or California, so we will have legal recognition of our marriage, at least in those states who currently recognize it. Once again, lack of recognition on my state's part does not make my marriage any less meaningful or valid to me or to Angie, and we feel confident that it will be recognized in all states in our lifetime.
07 May 2008
I freely admit I stole this from Dan Savage...
...but he took the words RIGHT out of my mouth:
'And speaking of the so totally holy and super-sacred institution of marriage...
When two dudes marry, the marriage-is-between-one-man-and-one-woman brigades crap their collective pants, vomit up ten thousand press releases, and run in circles screaming about all the hurricanes and earthquakes and unattractive haircuts that Our Loving Father™ is gonna rain down on our heads if we don't pry Adam off Steve right fucking now.
Well, the one-man-and-one-woman crowd has been strangely silent about this polygamist sect in Texas that's been all over the news. It appears that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been organizing marriages/statutory rapes between one man and dozens or more women and/or girls. "Where's the outrage?" writes a reader, which prompted me to go looking for some outrage at the website of Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org/). There are more anti-gay-marriage press releases packed onto CWFA's website than there is fudge packed into all the homos in all the Sodoms in all of North America. But there's not one single word that I could find about these straight men in Texas violating the holy and sacred one-man-and-one-woman rule. What gives?
When two dudes marry, the marriage-is-between-one-man-and-one-woman brigades crap their collective pants, vomit up ten thousand press releases, and run in circles screaming about all the hurricanes and earthquakes and unattractive haircuts that Our Loving Father™ is gonna rain down on our heads if we don't pry Adam off Steve right fucking now.
Well, the one-man-and-one-woman crowd has been strangely silent about this polygamist sect in Texas that's been all over the news. It appears that the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has been organizing marriages/statutory rapes between one man and dozens or more women and/or girls. "Where's the outrage?" writes a reader, which prompted me to go looking for some outrage at the website of Concerned Women for America (http://www.cwfa.org/). There are more anti-gay-marriage press releases packed onto CWFA's website than there is fudge packed into all the homos in all the Sodoms in all of North America. But there's not one single word that I could find about these straight men in Texas violating the holy and sacred one-man-and-one-woman rule. What gives?
30 April 2008
The Truth
On April 25th, thousands of students had the opportunity to voluntarily participate in an annual 'Day of Silence' in support of their GLBTQ classmates who have suffered bullying and violence as a result of homophobia. In response to this successful annual event, the Alliance Defense Fund, one of those anti-gay conservative groups hosted their 'Day of Truth' protest which apparently was not as successful, since virtually all references to it online ceased about 2 days before the event.
A supporter of ADF responded to this article by saying this:
Joe wrote:
"The truth is that being gay is wrong and immoral.Personally I don't care if you are gay or not, but when groups like GLSEN start to infiltrate our schools and try to indoctrinate our Children I draw the line.The reason that the ADF doesn't have more support is that most parents don't know that GLSEN had infiltrated our public schools starting at the Kidder Garden level.As more and more are being made aware of this, ADF is gaining support. "
You know me, I can't resist telling the truth. Here's my response:
No, it isn't. That isn't truth...it's conjecture on your part.
The truth is there is nothing immoral or wrong about the ability to love another human being, gay or straight.
The truth is there is no 'infiltration' and no 'indoctrination' of children in schools.
The truth is fundamentalists coined these phrases as part of the 'dumbing down' of their followers(read 'voters.')
The truth is that instead of accepting the opinions of thousands upon thousands of medical, psychological, psychiatric, sociologic and pediatric professionals who all say the same thing, fundamentalists expect you to follow along with their hate filled agenda like good little sheep, voting for discriminitory laws and supporting legislation that deprives good, honest, tax paying citizens of their basic fundamental rights based solely on the gender of their partners. They do this by insulting your intelligence through the use of these typical inflammatory buzzwords designed to engender strong negative feelings in people in an effort to illicit the response they want.
The truth is that children need education regarding diversity and tolerance. Tolerance does not mean acceptance...it just means 'live and let live.' Have your beliefs, believe in them with all your heart if you choose to, but don't force them onto people who have a different truth than you, especially when their truth is backed up by thousands of professionals, and yours comes only from your choice of religion.
The truth is diversity and tolerance education makes the world a safer place to be - from people just like you.
Oh, and 'kidder garden?' Lol...dumbing down, indeed.
29 April 2008
I chose to be gay the same day you chose to be straight...
'Show me irrefutable, scientic proof that being gay is a gene that you are born with. Show me how you equate homosexuality with the color of one's skin. Show me where it says in the Bible that God created Adam to be with Steve or Dave, and that homosexuality is not wrong. Show me that changing the definition of marriage to include homoseuxality won't encourage other "alternate" lifestyles to have the definition changed to fit their wims. Don't tell me that there is all kinds of research going on.....I know that, I follow the news. Show me that you are BORN gay.'
-pa resident post commenting on a letter to the editor regarding the proposed legislation banning marriage equality
Oh great..another 'christian' demanding proof of a gay gene. How fascinating that those who profess a belief in a supernatural God, for which no scientific proof exists, demand that same scientific proof when it comes to a person's sexual orientation. There's no specific gene that has been isolated for left handedness either, but you don't hear people running around saying 'being left handed is a choice' anymore. If they did, they would be laughed right out of the room. Homosexuality is no more a choice than heterosexuality. Some people are born gay, just like some people are born black, or left handed or with blue eyes. Marriage traditions in the bible included polygamy, a widow having to marry her dead husband's brother, a rape victim having to marry her rapist, among other atrocities that obviously would not be acceptable in this day and age. It's interesting how some christians will overlook these bible examples, but still believe that their idea of 'traditional marriage' is the only one that God condones. Nowhere in the bible are loving, committed same sex relationships looked upon in a negative light. Nowhere. Two women or two men falling in love and choosing to express that love through marriage would cause not one single bit of harm to you, to your marriage, nor to the 'sacred institution' of marriage.
01 April 2008
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
That quote is credited to Anne Lamott. It's one of my favorites.
There is a growing and hotly contested debate amongst progressive and more conservative Christians regarding what God and the Bible really say about homosexuality. On the one side are Christians who believe it is a 'sin' to be homosexual, and that God condemns all acts, including acts between same-gender couples, even if they are married. On the other side, there are a growing number of christians and biblical scholars, gay and straight alike, who don't see it the same way.
I'm not going to waste my time debating scripture, since I'm sure most people have already heard and either accepted or dismissed anything anyone has to say about it. All it proves is that different people can get very different messages from God and from the same bible, and not a single one of us can know which message is 'right.' Personally, I don't even think it's about who's right or wrong, because all we really know is the truth that God has placed on each of our hearts.
I know for a fact that MY God - the one who created me just as I am, loves me, redeems and sustains me - would NEVER condemn me for my sexual orientation, which is as innate and God-given as my eye color and right handedness.
This is God's truth to me...and I share it with as many people as I can in hopes that they can wade through the negative and judgemental messages that so many 'christians' feel the need to share. The only thing these 'christians' are really doing is driving gay and lesbian people, who KNOW that their sexual orientation is not a choice, away from God. Why put your faith in a God who would condemn you for something you can't change about yourself? Driving people away from God is not a Christian's job. Yet it is what countless 'christians' have done when they spread this message.
I have to ask, are you really serving God when this is the outcome of your words? I think not.
31 March 2008
OMG! Can people really be THIS stupid?
I frequent a discussion board called Topix.net. It features various news stories followed by reader comments and discussion. Any time there is a story about anything related to gay or lesbian people, it seems the 'christofascists' come out in force to spread the most awful and degrading lies I have every heard. Sometimes I wonder how these people can call themselves 'christian' and keep a straight face.
Today someone was actually trying to convice people that homosexual acts are the CAUSE of AIDS. No matter how many times it was pointed out to him that AIDS is caused by a virus and no matter how many links to correct information he was provided with, he still insisted that no, AIDS was caused by two gay people having sex. Can people really be this stupid? Another poster kept insisting that the APA still considers homosexuality a mental disorder, only they now call it 'gender identity disorder,' when in reality 'gender identity disorder' has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, as a quick google search of the APA will clearly tell you.
It's scary the kinds of beliefs people will hold onto in spite of factual evidence to the contrary. I think it's called 'cognitive dissonance' -the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs (thanks wiki). The example of this phenomenon I was given in college was something like this: WWI prisoners who were systematically rounded up and marched off for execution were routinely told they were going somewhere else for a purpose other than execution, and although they had seen their neighbors marched off the day before and not return, although they had heard the gunfire at the edge of town, the prisoners chose to believe their captors and go with them willingly. I think those who hold negative views of gay people are caught up in this pattern of cognitive dissonance. They have been told all their lives by society, by their families, by their pastors, by other religious zealots that being gay is a choice, that it isn't a natural thing, that homosexuals are going to hell. In spite of all the evidence suggesting the innate state of sexual orientation, despite knowledge that homosexuality, while certainly not the majority, is a natural variant of sexual orientation and is found in at least 1000 species of the animal kingdom, in spite of a growing recognition by religious scholars that the translations of the bible are not concrete, that homosexuality is NOT a harmful behavior and therefore cannot be a sin, some people continue to twist and filter the information, in an effort to reinforce their beliefs.
Hate groups like NARTH and the AFA prey on these people...and are guilty of using inflammatory speech and spreading terrible lies to reinforce these beliefs in an effort to further their political agenda to block equal rights legislation for gay and lesbian people. How do I know this to be true, and not just 'liberal propaganda?' I listened to what they were saying. I went to their websites and researched, checking their info against the info from the AMA, APA and many other credible sources. I started noticing that every time I would do an internet search for something related to gay/lesbian/bisexual or transgender issues, I would get a bunch of religious websites. So, I did a google search of just the term 'homosexuality.' Of the top ten listings, six are religious based websites offering their viewpoint, instead of factual information. This clearly tells me that there is an agenda...and it definitely isn't 'that gay one.' Thank God there are people out there, both gay and straight alike, who are willing to speak the truth.
Okay, that's my rant for the day.
Today someone was actually trying to convice people that homosexual acts are the CAUSE of AIDS. No matter how many times it was pointed out to him that AIDS is caused by a virus and no matter how many links to correct information he was provided with, he still insisted that no, AIDS was caused by two gay people having sex. Can people really be this stupid? Another poster kept insisting that the APA still considers homosexuality a mental disorder, only they now call it 'gender identity disorder,' when in reality 'gender identity disorder' has nothing at all to do with sexual orientation, as a quick google search of the APA will clearly tell you.
It's scary the kinds of beliefs people will hold onto in spite of factual evidence to the contrary. I think it's called 'cognitive dissonance' -the filtering of information that conflicts with what one already believes, in an effort to ignore that information and reinforce one's beliefs (thanks wiki). The example of this phenomenon I was given in college was something like this: WWI prisoners who were systematically rounded up and marched off for execution were routinely told they were going somewhere else for a purpose other than execution, and although they had seen their neighbors marched off the day before and not return, although they had heard the gunfire at the edge of town, the prisoners chose to believe their captors and go with them willingly. I think those who hold negative views of gay people are caught up in this pattern of cognitive dissonance. They have been told all their lives by society, by their families, by their pastors, by other religious zealots that being gay is a choice, that it isn't a natural thing, that homosexuals are going to hell. In spite of all the evidence suggesting the innate state of sexual orientation, despite knowledge that homosexuality, while certainly not the majority, is a natural variant of sexual orientation and is found in at least 1000 species of the animal kingdom, in spite of a growing recognition by religious scholars that the translations of the bible are not concrete, that homosexuality is NOT a harmful behavior and therefore cannot be a sin, some people continue to twist and filter the information, in an effort to reinforce their beliefs.
Hate groups like NARTH and the AFA prey on these people...and are guilty of using inflammatory speech and spreading terrible lies to reinforce these beliefs in an effort to further their political agenda to block equal rights legislation for gay and lesbian people. How do I know this to be true, and not just 'liberal propaganda?' I listened to what they were saying. I went to their websites and researched, checking their info against the info from the AMA, APA and many other credible sources. I started noticing that every time I would do an internet search for something related to gay/lesbian/bisexual or transgender issues, I would get a bunch of religious websites. So, I did a google search of just the term 'homosexuality.' Of the top ten listings, six are religious based websites offering their viewpoint, instead of factual information. This clearly tells me that there is an agenda...and it definitely isn't 'that gay one.' Thank God there are people out there, both gay and straight alike, who are willing to speak the truth.
Okay, that's my rant for the day.
28 March 2008
Proud to be an American - no, really....
Recently I received an email from a family member with one of those attachments...you know the ones - emotionally charged pictures of American history, historic tragedies like 9/11, and commentary on the 'war on Terror' usually with a good country music song like 'Proud to be an American' or something like that as a backdrop. The presentation included comments like - let's keep 'Him' in our constitution and our schools, etc. It illicited many strong feelings in me as I watched it.
It's good to remember tragic history and to feel patriotic.
I had to ask my family member, though...what were her true thoughts regarding keeping 'christian traditions' embedded in our civil law?
As an American, I strongly believe that dissent IS patriotic...it's our right as Americans to question the government. As both a lesbian AND a Christian, I have difficulty with the whole 'Keep Him in our Constitution & schools' thing.
Legislating based on religious beliefs is a very large part of why I don't have equal protection and am denied access to the more than 1000 rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with marriage. This concerns me, because my God, the one who created me just as I am, loves me, redeems me and sustains me, is being used to justify this blatant disregard of my basic, fundamental rights. I have been told, personally, on more than one occassion by people professing to be christians that I cannot be gay and christian because my 'lifestyle' is 'sick and deviant' and God condemns me for it, that no matter how honestly and faithfully I live my life, I am going to hell because I 'choose' to live in direct rebellion of 'God's Word,' and that my christian church isn't a true church because they are open and affirming of all people. I'm fortunate to have such a strong faith in God that these words have little effect on me anymore. My faith is and always will be stronger than bigotry. The important thing I have learned about religion is that it should NEVER be used to make laws or deny equal rights.
While current legislation regarding equal rights for all is slowly changing, there is a vast 'christian' movement who continue to thwart this progress any way they can, including spreading vicious and horrible lies about gay and lesbian people (just google OK state rep Sally Kern, as an example) and introducing legislation that opposes equal rights for no other reason than their religious beliefs. Many of the horrific tragedies reviewed in the presentation my family member sent me are glaring examples of religious extremist behavior, and should serve as a reminder of what can happen when a country does not recognize freedom of (and from) religion. Religion is a personal thing, and should remain so. It should never be used to dictate civil law.
What do you think? It's a topic very close to my heart, and I love discussing it with people.
It's good to remember tragic history and to feel patriotic.
I had to ask my family member, though...what were her true thoughts regarding keeping 'christian traditions' embedded in our civil law?
As an American, I strongly believe that dissent IS patriotic...it's our right as Americans to question the government. As both a lesbian AND a Christian, I have difficulty with the whole 'Keep Him in our Constitution & schools' thing.
Legislating based on religious beliefs is a very large part of why I don't have equal protection and am denied access to the more than 1000 rights, benefits and privileges that are associated with marriage. This concerns me, because my God, the one who created me just as I am, loves me, redeems me and sustains me, is being used to justify this blatant disregard of my basic, fundamental rights. I have been told, personally, on more than one occassion by people professing to be christians that I cannot be gay and christian because my 'lifestyle' is 'sick and deviant' and God condemns me for it, that no matter how honestly and faithfully I live my life, I am going to hell because I 'choose' to live in direct rebellion of 'God's Word,' and that my christian church isn't a true church because they are open and affirming of all people. I'm fortunate to have such a strong faith in God that these words have little effect on me anymore. My faith is and always will be stronger than bigotry. The important thing I have learned about religion is that it should NEVER be used to make laws or deny equal rights.
While current legislation regarding equal rights for all is slowly changing, there is a vast 'christian' movement who continue to thwart this progress any way they can, including spreading vicious and horrible lies about gay and lesbian people (just google OK state rep Sally Kern, as an example) and introducing legislation that opposes equal rights for no other reason than their religious beliefs. Many of the horrific tragedies reviewed in the presentation my family member sent me are glaring examples of religious extremist behavior, and should serve as a reminder of what can happen when a country does not recognize freedom of (and from) religion. Religion is a personal thing, and should remain so. It should never be used to dictate civil law.
What do you think? It's a topic very close to my heart, and I love discussing it with people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
