Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community (https://thetfp.com/tfp/)
-   General Discussion (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/)
-   -   Gay teen sent to fundamentalist Christian program for gays (https://thetfp.com/tfp/general-discussion/92038-gay-teen-sent-fundamentalist-christian-program-gays.html)

Cynthetiq 07-15-2005 09:55 PM
Gay teen sent to fundamentalist Christian program for gays
 
Quote:
Gay Teenager Stirs a Storm
By ALEX WILLIAMS
MEMPHIS
LINK

IT was the sort of confession that a decade ago might have been scribbled in a teenager's diary, then quietly tucked away in a drawer: "Somewhat recently," wrote a boy who identified himself only as Zach, 16, from Tennessee, on his personal Web page, "I told my parents I was gay." He noted, "This didn't go over very well," and "They tell me that there is something psychologically wrong with me, and they 'raised me wrong.' "

But what grabbed the attention of Zach's friends and subsequently of both gay activists and fundamentalist Christians around the world who came across the entry, made on May 29, was not the intimacy of the confession. Teenagers have been outing themselves online for years, and many of Zach's friends already knew he was gay. It was another sentence in the Web log: "Today, my mother, father and I had a very long 'talk' in my room, where they let me know I am to apply for a fundamentalist Christian program for gays."

"It's like boot camp," Zach added in a dispatch the next day. "If I do come out straight, I'll be so mentally unstable and depressed it won't matter."

The camp in question, Refuge, is a youth program of Love in Action International, a group in Memphis that runs a religion-based program intended to change the sexual orientation of gay men and women. Often called reparative or conversion therapy, such programs took hold in fundamentalist Christian circles in the 1970's, when mainstream psychiatric organizations overturned previous designations of homosexuality as a mental disorder, and gained ground rapidly from the late 90's. Programs like Love in Action have always been controversial, but Zach's blog entries have brought wide attention to a less-known aspect of them, their application to teenagers.

Although Zach wrote only a handful of entries about the Refuge program, all posted before he arrived there in the Memphis suburbs on June 6, his words have been forwarded on the Internet over and over, inspiring online debates, news articles, sidewalk protests and an investigation into Love in Action by the Tennessee Department of Children's Services in response to a child abuse allegation. The investigation was dropped when the allegation proved unfounded, a spokeswoman for the agency said.

To some, Zach, whose family name is not disclosed on his blog and has not appeared in news accounts, is the embodiment of gay adolescent vulnerability, pulled away from friends who accepted him by adults who do not. To others he is a boy whose confused and formative sexual identity is being exploited by gay political activists.

In his last blog entry before beginning the program, at 2:33 a.m. on June 4, Zach wrote, "I pray this blows over," adding that if his parents caught him online he'd be in trouble. He described arguments he had been having with his parents, his mother in particular. "I can't take this," his post reads. "No one can. I'm not a suicidal person. I think it's stupid, really. But I can't help it - no I'm not going to commit suicide - all I can think about is killing my mother and myself. It's so horrible."

The Rev. John J. Smid, the executive director of Love in Action, declined to discuss the details of Zach's experience, citing the program's confidentiality rules. In an interview early this month at his headquarters, a weathered 1960's A-frame building, which was until recently a vacant Episcopal Church, Mr. Smid explained that teenage participants in Refuge are forbidden to speak with anyone the program does not approve of. Requests made through Mr. Smid to interview Zach's parents were declined.

Founded in California in 1973, Love in Action moved to Memphis 11 years ago. It is one of 120 programs nationwide listed by Exodus International, which bills itself as the largest information and referral network for what is known among fundamentalist Christians as the "ex-gay" movement. In 2003 Love in Action introduced the first structured program specifically for teenagers, 24 of whom have participated, Mr. Smid said. The initial two weeks costs $2,000, and many participants stay six weeks more, as Zach has.

The goal of the program, said Mr. Smid, who said he was once gay but now renounces homosexual behavior, is not necessarily to turn gays into practicing heterosexuals, but to "put guardrails" on their sexual impulses.

"In my life I've been out of homosexuality for over 20 years, and for me it's really a nonissue," Mr. Smid said.

"I may see a man and say, he's handsome, he's attractive, and it might touch a part of me that is different from someone else," he said. "But it's really not an issue. Gosh, I've been married for 16 years and faithful in my marriage in every respect. I mean I don't think I could white-knuckle this ride for that long."

Mr. Smid first learned that one of his teenage participants was a cause célèbre when protesters appeared outside his headquarters for several days in early June, carrying signs saying, "This is child abuse" and "Jesus is no excuse for hate."

He was bombarded by phone calls from reporters, he said, as well as by 100 e-mail messages a day from as far as Norway. Zach's writings, which appeared on his page on www.MySpace.com, were publicized by one of his online acquaintances, E. J. Friedman, a Memphis musician and writer, who read Zach's May 29 blog entry, "The World Coming to an Abrupt - Stop."

Mr. Friedman, 35, was disturbed by what he read and fired off an instant message. "I said: 'You should run away from home. There are people who will help you,' " Mr. Friedman recalled. "He said: 'I can't do that. I want to have my childhood. If this is what I have to go through to have it, then I will.' "

Mr. Friedman posted an angry message about Zach's impending stay at Refuge on his own blog. Mr. Friedman's friends picked up on the story and started spreading it on blogs of their own. Soon a local filmmaker, Morgan Jon Fox, who had met Zach through mutual acquaintances, joined with others to start a group called Queer Action Coalition, which organized the protests at Love in Action.

"We wanted to show support," said Mr. Fox, 26, who directed a fictional film about gay teenagers in 2003, shot at White Station High School in Memphis, where Zach is a student. "Then it kind of blew up."

Links to Zach's site bounced around the country. Mr. Friedman's Web page had so much traffic, "it blew my bandwidth," he said. Mr. Smid, too, was inundated with Internet traffic, much of it outraged at the attempts to change Zach's sexual orientation.

"All of a sudden, 80,000 Internet hits later on our Web site, the world has decided that he should be freed," Mr. Smid said. "Maybe he didn't ask for this. Maybe he doesn't really have the personality that really is going to be able to deal with this. And they talk about our 'abuse' of him."

The program at Love in Action has parallels to 12-step recovery programs. Participants, referred to as clients, study the Bible, meet with counselors and keep a "moral inventory," a journal in which they detail their struggle with same-sex temptation over the years, which they read at emotionally raw group meetings, former clients say.

Excessive jewelry or stylish clothing from labels like Calvin Klein and Tommy Hilfiger are forbidden, and so is watching television, listening to secular music (even Bach) and reading unapproved books or magazines.

"It's like checking into prison," said Brandon Tidwell, 29, who completed the adult program in 2002 but eventually rejected its teachings, reconciling his Christian beliefs with being gay.

Physical contact among clients other than a handshake is forbidden, and so is "campy" talk or behavior, according to program rules that Zach posted on his blog before he began at Refuge. Occasionally, recalled Jeff Harwood, 41, a Love in Action graduate who still considers himself gay, some participants would mock the mandatory football games.

"You could get away with maybe one limp-wristed pass before another client would catch you," he said, seated on a tattered sofa in a funky cafe called Java Cabana in the trendy midtown district of Memphis.

Because teenagers, unlike adult clients, return home at night, parents are asked to help keep them away from television and, more important, a computer. Zach has not updated his blog since entering the program.

For Mr. Smid and his supporters, offering Love in Action to teenagers is vital to combat what they see as a growing tolerance of homosexuality among young people. "We just really believe that the resounding message for teenagers in our culture is, practice whatever you want, have sex however, whenever and with whoever you want," he said. "I very deeply believe that is harmful. I think exploring sexuality can lay a teenager up for numerous lifelong issues."

Critics of programs that seek to change sexual orientation say the programs themselves can open a person to lifelong problems, including guilt, shame and even suicidal impulses. The stakes are higher for adolescents, who are already wrestling with deep questions of identity and sexuality, mental-health experts say.

"Their identities are still in flux," said Dr. Jack Drescher, the chairman of the committee on gay, lesbian and bisexual issues of the American Psychiatric Association, which in 2000 formally rejected regimens like reparative or conversion therapy as scientifically unproven. "One serious risk for the parent to consider is that most of the people who undergo these treatments don't change. That means that most people who go through these experiences often come out feeling worse than when they went in."

Two weeks ago the Tennessee Department of Health sent a letter to Love in Action, saying it was suspected of offering therapeutic services for which it was not licensed, a department spokeswoman said. Mr. Smid insisted in the interview that his program is a spiritual, not a counseling, center, and he is removing references to therapy from its Web site.

He said he does not track his success rate. Mr. Harwood, who graduated from the adult program in 1999, said that of 11 fellow former clients he has kept track of, eight once again consider themselves gay.

Although critics say such programs threaten the adolescent psyche, at least one teenager who considers himself a successful graduate does not agree. "In my experience people who struggle with their sexuality are more mature in general," Ben Marshall, 18, said. He recounted being in turmoil, growing up gay in a conservative Christian household in Mobile, Ala.

In 2004 his parents sent him to Refuge. "I went to Memphis kicking and screaming," he said. "I had grown to hate the church for the militant message it gave off toward homosexuality."

While enrolled he spent days listening to stories of the pain that homosexuality had caused clients and their families. Slowly, he said, his attitude changed. He ended up choosing to continue in Love in Action's adult program for nine months. While the program has a "high rate of failure," he said "there are enough successes to know I'm not alone."

But even success comes only through continuing struggle. Although he plans to date women in the future, Mr. Marshall said, he is avoiding any romantic relationships for the time being. "In all honesty, I'm just trying to figure out how to deal normally with men before I start to deal with women," he said.

Zach's parents did not reply to a request for comment for this article left on their answering machine. Last week his father, speaking to the Christian Broadcasting Network, said: "We felt good about Zach coming here. To let him see for himself the destructive lifestyle, what he has to face in the future."

In Zach's case there is no indication he was particularly upset about his sexual identity. Although his high school is in a Bible belt city, the student body is fairly tolerant of homosexual classmates, some students said, particularly those who, like Zach, are not conspicuous about their orientation.

"Stereotype me, if you dare," was the motto Zach chose for his blog, where he listed "Edward Scissorhands" and "Girl, Interrupted" as his favorite movies and Brandon Flowers, the lead singer of the alternative rock band the Killers, as the person he would most like to meet.

While Zach, as his blog recounted, only recently came out to his parents, many of his friends had known he was gay for more than a year, one classmate said. Zach openly identified himself as gay on his blog, which links to 213 friends' blogs listed in a Friend Space box on the site.

Zach is due to leave the program next week. His June 4 message expressed thanks for the more than 1,700 messages on his page, many voicing support. "Don't worry," he wrote. "I'll get through this. They've promised me things will get better, whether this program does anything or not. Let's hope they're not lying."
Zach's Blog

I'm not sure where I stand on this. I do think that it's fucked up for me and my lifestyle, but at the same time I have to have respect for someone else's religious beliefs and how they feel they should deal with this.

While I don't think that burkas are appropriate for me and mine, it's fine for someone else as long as they aren't trying to convert me and mine to wear burkas. I put this into that same category where if it's within their own community who am I to make or pass judgement?


The Rules are very much something that I would understand that a TFP member here would have great issue with. But again, I with the shield of religion, I cannot decry it except for me and my lifestyle. If I was a member of their fundamentalist beliefs maybe I could.

really I'm just left with scratching my head and wondering...

ngdawg 07-15-2005 10:23 PM
If this boy had to make his own decision about this, I doubt he'd be there. He was sent. Yes, people's beliefs should be of their own choosing-this does not seem to be of his.
Also, when are people going to realize that it is not a choice? As many have said in one way or another, " Sure, I 'chose' to be someone who is discriminated against, disowned, beaten up and ostracized."
One Sunday, after church, my daughter's friend was approached by a woman who declared, "You are Goth and God hates Goths. You need to be more appropriate when you come here." The response of this 13 year old? "God loves everyone, even Goths." Would that more adults had this child's frame of mind.....

martinguerre 07-15-2005 10:32 PM
as a queer Christian, i've been following this story with a mix of anger and horror. such programs are about as anti-grace as they can be...

what really scares me is how effective these people are at convincing young people that they are not loved, not acceptable to God, and outside of grace. queer teens commit suicide at alarming rates, and this rhetoric and practice is a huge part of the problem.

it's just sad all around...

Bill O'Rights 07-15-2005 10:59 PM
So...what we have here is a good, old fashioned, reeducation camp. This would be kinda funny...if it didn't chill me to the bone. No "campy" talk, stylish clothes, or secular music? I see. So what do they do? subject the kid to "straight" porn 24/7, in the hope of "saving" him? It sounds to me as if someone there needs some serious help...and it ain't Zach.

Strange Famous 07-16-2005 08:42 AM
how hideous.

Ustwo 07-16-2005 08:58 AM
Heh what strikes me is if you wanted to make a person 'un-gay' and thought it was somehow enviroment over genetics the 're-education' camp would have a lot of willing naked women :)

Based on the hostility of the homosexual community to anything which suggests that someone can change from gay to straight, I have to wonder what their reaction would be if the cause of homosexuality was isolated and a 'cure' was found. Take a pill, like poon-tang if you will.

snowy 07-16-2005 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
as a queer Christian, i've been following this story with a mix of anger and horror. such programs are about as anti-grace as they can be...

what really scares me is how effective these people are at convincing young people that they are not loved, not acceptable to God, and outside of grace. queer teens commit suicide at alarming rates, and this rhetoric and practice is a huge part of the problem.

it's just sad all around...
It is sad, very sad. It's sad that these people can use God to force their own agenda onto others. I am a Christian; that said, I have the utmost belief in grace and in God's love for myself and for my fellow humans--regardless of sexual orientation. That these people cannot grasp the fact that there are things about ourselves we cannot change just flabbergasts me.

Homosexuals do not choose to be the way they are. That being the case, then they are what God made them. Who do these people think they are, to be able to sit in judgment of God's creation?

I hope that Zach comes out of this strong. Either way, he has brought light to an organization that does terrible things to people. Terrible things indeed.

martinguerre 07-16-2005 09:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Heh what strikes me is if you wanted to make a person 'un-gay' and thought it was somehow enviroment over genetics the 're-education' camp would have a lot of willing naked women :)

Based on the hostility of the homosexual community to anything which suggests that someone can change from gay to straight, I have to wonder what their reaction would be if the cause of homosexuality was isolated and a 'cure' was found. Take a pill, like poon-tang if you will.
I suspect the reaction would be very mixed. i know many people who would give *anything* to be straight. and i know many people who are happy and secure in their queer idenities. in a society that was accepting and open to queers, i doubt there would be many takers. but i'm sure at least a few would...

i think the reason the change movement is seen as traitorous is that they trade in many of the same anti-queer tropes that make life as a queer such a pain. they sell a false hope and make people all the more self-hating...and since there is no "cure" the only way to get through this happy is to be accepting and grateful for who God made you to be.

Cynthetiq 07-16-2005 09:38 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
only way to get through this happy is to be accepting and grateful for who God made you to be.
and that is the crux of it all from straight to gay to bisexual or any of the "labels" in my sig.

It's also Rule #1 and #7 of the 10 Rules of Being Human

Rule One - You will receive a body. Whether you love it or hate it, it's yours for life, so accept it. What counts is what's inside.

Rule Seven - Others are only mirrors of you. You love or hate something about another person according to what love or hate about yourself. Be tolerant; accept others as they are, and strive for clarity of self-awareness; strive to truly understand and have an objective perception of your own self, your thoughts and feelings. Negative experiences are opportunities to heal the wounds that you carry. Support others, and by doing so you support yourself. Where you are unable to support others it is a sign that you are not adequately attending to your own needs.

roachboy 07-16-2005 09:44 AM
if the xtian right followed ustwo's advice, maybe there would emerge new fundamentalist christian joy divisions.
they would bone for jesus, based on an institutionalization of the idea of the mercy fuck.
great idea.
i would enjoy watching the rationales for this.

=====
i dont know about the relativizing move in this case---i am not sure that i understand how routing what i at least take as a variant of bigotry through a belief system that is in many more important ways about acceptance and love could be confused with somethign that represents christianity as a whole---i see the re-education camp idea as an outcome endorsed by a particular position within the huge range of possibilities that christianity could equally easily support.

so i think you can separate the notions that underpin the re-education camp idea, and the attempts to pathologize homosexuality, away from the idea that somehow the people behind both represent christianity as such. they dont.

if make what i think are basic separations, then it seems prefectly reasonable to pass judgements on the whole policy of re-education camps for the children of fundamentalists who happen to be gay.

but what if you dont make that move?
every bigot truly believes that there is a basis for his or her bigotry. it is not an arbitrary position pulled out of the sky.
if you cannot pass judgement on the beliefs of others, then, at one extreme, you could argue that the khymer rouge, who truly believed that urban intellectuals--denoted often by people who lived in cities and who wore glasses--were a real danger to the well-being of society as they understood it--faced with the consequences of this belief that the khymer rouge truly held, you would really have no choice but to say that well the outcomes are kinda fucked up but the beliefs themselves...different strokes for different folks.


at the other end, relative to this story:

do you really think that you have to accept the pathologization of homosexuality simply because a narrow segment of christians have decided to treat it as a kind of mental disorder?
if you acquiesce on these grounds and do not pass judgement on this, are you in effect conceding that the homosexuality=mental disorder is a legitimate way of interpreting homosexuality?
is it? on what possible basis?

does the routing of the justifications for bigotry through the bible make that bigotry ok?
would you apply the same stadard to any other type of campaign waged in the name of the same texts?
would you adopt the same relation to the crusades, say?
the long history of persecuting heretics?
the long history of antisemitism?
would you have to suspend judgement in the same way when you thought about the curiously comfortable relationship between the catholic church in italy and mussolini because of the coincidence in their respective theories about an organic division of labor?

does that fact that these beliefs have been translated into an institutional structure (these re-education camps/programs) make the camps ok?

to my mind, the entire rationale for such an approach to homosexuality is bigotry straight up and nothing more.
the frightening thing within the story is that the creation of institutions rooted in this bigotry has the effect of normalizing it within the fundamentalist christian community. the surprising thing in this thread is the extent to which judgements about this appear to be problematic because the people who believe this nonsense route their beliefs through biblical sources.

Daniel_ 07-16-2005 09:51 AM
It's torture.

When communists "re-educated" people in the Korean war it was called "brainwashing" and deemed unacceptable by the USA and UN.

In the UK sending someone against their will to a punitive regime where you control who they may talk to and what they may say is called "false imprisonment" and is the charge levelled at kidnappers.

Under EU human rights legislation kids have taken their families to court to not be sent to boarding schools - so this would be SO illegal it hurts.

I thought you guys had free expression? Wasn't there some amendment or other?

The first one?

All religions are mad when they get fundamentalist, it seems to me.

la petite moi 07-16-2005 10:57 AM
This reminds me of "But I'm a Cheerleader"...

And I thought it was only a movie! This is absolutely wrong. I hope Zach ends up standing up for himself after he turns 18 or moves out of his parents' house. Sad.

Cynthetiq 07-16-2005 11:02 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by la petite moi
This reminds me of "But I'm a Cheerleader"...

And I thought it was only a movie! This is absolutely wrong. I hope Zach ends up standing up for himself after he turns 18 or moves out of his parents' house. Sad.
Oh thank you for reminding me of that movie. I do recall seeing it and remember the discomfort I had along these same lines. But you're right I passed it off as "just a movie"

dobster 07-18-2005 10:48 AM
I've half read The Rules for the prison they've sent him too (it's getting far to depressing to carry on), but read the section on Relationship Issues :

Quote:
"1. No physical violence or physically threatening dialogue. Violation of this rule warrants immediate dismissal from the program."
Looks like you just have to get in a fight to get out...

I fucking hate this whole thing. The families these "straightened out kids" will eventually fall into as adult will be completely fucked up when mum or dad's true sexual needs become to much to conceal.

Jinn 07-18-2005 12:09 PM
A step above a concentration camp.

Quote:
"1. No physical violence or physically threatening dialogue. Violation of this rule warrants immediate dismissal from the program."
Things like this get me all flared up, and seeing that I immediately had the words for the 5 choice swear words, the 3 human parts, the 5 weapons, and the 6 violent actions I would mention angrily in a casual conversation with the head of the "school."

filtherton 07-18-2005 12:28 PM
In order to cure you of your homosexuality, we're going to send you to a camp full of other homosexuals in your age group. This camp will also probably be staffed with a large amount of closeted homosexuals. We trust you to not fall in love with eachother or fuck eachother out of your love for our twisted interpretation of god. Oh yeah, and football games are mandatory, it's funny, but it seems like everyone wants to play either center or quarterback. hmmm...

FrellingSmeg 07-18-2005 05:23 PM
I had a friend in High School. Like most of the people in my school, he was mormon. Unlike most of the people in school, he was gay. His parents sent him to a brainwashing camp like this one. Before he went, he was funny, out going, and interesting to talk to. When he got back, it was like someone had turned his volume down. It was pretty evident that he had some mental conflicts.

Religion is supposed to be about love. Shipping someone off to some camp to change them, is not love.

Ustwo 07-18-2005 06:00 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrellingSmeg
Religion is supposed to be about love. Shipping someone off to some camp to change them, is not love.
This is more of a topic for philosophy, but what religion is suppose to bring out is not only love.

For most Christians its being 'saved' which is the most important thing. Love means nothing if you are going to go to hell right? So to their viewpoint, it is far better to mess them up mentally and save them from hell, than make them happy but damn them to eternal hell fire.

martinguerre 07-18-2005 10:54 PM
while that is one trait of some moden Christian communties, it is historically not the only, or even dominant viewpoint on salvation.

the neo-orthodox that i am, i have to say feelingsmeg is a whole lot closer to the Gospel than the idea of highly personalized salvation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by I John 4:7-12
Beloved, let us love one another, because love is from God; everyone who loves is born of God and knows God. Whoever does not love does not know God, for God is love. God’s love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his only Son into the world so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the atoning sacrifice for our sins. Beloved, since God loved us so much, we also ought to love one another. No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God lives in us, and his love is perfected in us.
in short...i think these people have constructed an idol, a miserly and impotent one at that. i don't dare to say that God cannot reach in to every life exactly where they are, or that God cannot love another human being as God's own child. to theorize a god that is as bound as this theology of self-hatred requires...is to worship a dead thing, something that is nothing more than a human creation.

/end thread jack

Ustwo 07-18-2005 11:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
while that is one trait of some moden Christian communties, it is historically not the only, or even dominant viewpoint on salvation.

the neo-orthodox that i am, i have to say feelingsmeg is a whole lot closer to the Gospel than the idea of highly personalized salvation.



in short...i think these people have constructed an idol, a miserly and impotent one at that. i don't dare to say that God cannot reach in to every life exactly where they are, or that God cannot love another human being as God's own child. to theorize a god that is as bound as this theology of self-hatred requires...is to worship a dead thing, something that is nothing more than a human creation.

/end thread jack
I wouldn't call this a thread jack, its very much part of the thread.

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 03:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
while that is one trait of some moden Christian communties, it is historically not the only, or even dominant viewpoint on salvation.

the neo-orthodox that i am, i have to say feelingsmeg is a whole lot closer to the Gospel than the idea of highly personalized salvation.



in short...i think these people have constructed an idol, a miserly and impotent one at that. i don't dare to say that God cannot reach in to every life exactly where they are, or that God cannot love another human being as God's own child. to theorize a god that is as bound as this theology of self-hatred requires...is to worship a dead thing, something that is nothing more than a human creation.

/end thread jack
Maybe but it's not you for you to decide that their interpretation of salvation is wrong, that's tantamount to someone saying that your lifestyle choices are wrong.

According to the Mormon faith, even if you aren't a mormon now, you will be after you die, you are "baptized posthumously" to make sure that you are "saved"


Quote:
April 11, 2004
Mormons Criticized Again for Posthumous Baptisms
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
LINK SALT LAKE CITY, April 10 (AP) — Researchers say Mormons have continued to baptize Jewish Holocaust victims into their faith posthumously, despite having promised to discontinue the practice.

"We are very hopeful that we will be able to convince the church to stop," Ernest Michel, chairman of the New York-based World Gathering of Jewish Holocaust Survivors, said Friday. If not, Mr. Michel said, his group will consider other options, "possibly legal steps."

A spokesman for the Mormon church, Dale Bills, said in a statement Friday evening that church officials "welcome the involvement of any who seek to resolve amicably the concerns expressed by some of our Jewish friends."

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has long collected names from government documents and other records worldwide for posthumous baptisms. Church members stand in to be baptized in the names of the deceased non-Mormons, a ritual the church says is required for them to reach heaven.

The practice is primarily intended for the ancestors of Mormons, but many others are included, since the church believes that a person's ability to choose a religion continues after death. Non-Mormon faiths have objected to the baptisms.

"Even if they say they want to do somebody a favor, it's not a symbol of love," said Rabbi Marvin Hier, dean and founder of the Simon Wiesenthal Center in Los Angeles. "It's a symbol of arrogance."

In 1995, the Mormon church acceded to demands by Jewish leaders that it stop posthumously baptizing Jews. But Helen Radkey, a Salt Lake City researcher, said Friday that she had found posthumous baptism records for 268 Dutch Jews killed in Polish concentration camps, which she described as a "small sampling." All were baptized well after the 1995 agreement.

Mr. Michel's group asked Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Democrat of New York, to intervene. Senator Clinton met last month with Senator Orrin Hatch, a Utah Republican and a Mormon, though neither would comment on the session.

guthmund 07-19-2005 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
at the other end, relative to this story:

do you really think that you have to accept the pathologization of homosexuality simply because a narrow segment of christians have decided to treat it as a kind of mental disorder?
if you acquiesce on these grounds and do not pass judgement on this, are you in effect conceding that the homosexuality=mental disorder is a legitimate way of interpreting homosexuality?
is it? on what possible basis?

does the routing of the justifications for bigotry through the bible make that bigotry ok?
would you apply the same stadard to any other type of campaign waged in the name of the same texts?
would you adopt the same relation to the crusades, say?
the long history of persecuting heretics?
the long history of antisemitism?
would you have to suspend judgement in the same way when you thought about the curiously comfortable relationship between the catholic church in italy and mussolini because of the coincidence in their respective theories about an organic division of labor?

does that fact that these beliefs have been translated into an institutional structure (these re-education camps/programs) make the camps ok?
That I think is the more pertinent question concerning this story. Personally I agree with you, roach. Bigotry is bigotry regardless of presentation. It's particularly disturbing to see so many people remain silent about it altogether. Just because these 'camps' have a particular church's seal of approval or a particular group's blessing doesn't change anything. It's bigotry.

Aren't some ideas too perilous, too dangerous to be so accepting of? I'm all for pluralism, I really am, but where's the line in the sand? How incredibly stupid (or dangerous, for that matter) does an idea have to be for it to be condemned by the majority publicly?

I realize that religion is unstable territory at best, but can't we all agree that 're-educating' gay teenagers is a bad thing? Can't we all agree that brainwashing, whether it's hidden under the guise of education or wrapped up in religious texts, is wrong?

Quote:
Originally Posted by cynthetiq
Maybe but it's not you for you to decide that their interpretation of salvation is wrong, that's tantamount to someone saying that your lifestyle choices are wrong.
Not directed at me, but I'd like to comment.

It is for me to decide what interpretation of salvation is right and wrong just as it is for me to condemn or accept any lifestyle I see fit. How else can one form reasoned opinion without deciding what's acceptable and what isn't? Why do I have to accept everything at face value and with equal merit?

It's 'wrong' when I decide to push that interpretation or lifestyle preference on anyone else against their will. Your right guaranteed under our law to practice, preach or observe your religion without fear of retribution only extends as far as your nose.

Why does the vast majority abhor the practice of snatching random homosexuals off the street and sending them to these re-education camps, but are perfectly accepting of parents sending their homosexual teenagers to the same place?

martinguerre 07-19-2005 07:50 AM
Quote:
Maybe but it's not you for you to decide that their interpretation of salvation is wrong, that's tantamount to someone saying that your lifestyle choices are wrong.
I disagree with the implication there...in a certain sense, Ustwo is right...Christian religion is not just supposed to be warm fuzzies. The kind of love that founds this faith is one so radical it will embrace the very worst violence we have to offer as human beings, confront it, show it to be a dead idol that is powerless, and forgive the practicioners. there is judgement....but the judgment and the mercy are the same.

what i'm saying here is that it is my calling as one who has been loved by God is to respond to that love. Jesus, when asked what commandments summed up the law, he replies with the Shema, that God is One, the One who has loved and saved because it is the nature of this unique God to do so. After that, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. Encountering God is to know love...and to me, this is salvation. Entrance in to relationship and freedom from the idols that consume our lives. This is why i contested the summation that Ustwo posted. He's right that a lot of people beleive that, but i wanted to point out that there are other traditions of theology and practice that have existed in the church. ideas of Christian freedom, that each is endowed by the love of God in Christ with the ability and right to be in relationship with God, dictate that i show respect and love for those i disagree with. but it does not mean stopping the conversation, or ceasing to proclaim what i hold to be true. and i expect to listen to them, as well...

which brings me here. to love and to be in relationship even and especially with the stranger and the other is not just a test to see if you're "good" enough. IMO, it is salvation being incarnated. Which is all to say...if i am in trusting and loving relationship with someone, my first priority is to love, to respond to God's love. But it is not to forgo judgement entirely, it is to know God's judgement is the mercy, and to act accordingly. i have come to accept that same sex relationships can be holy and display God's grace in human life. why i have come to judge reparative therapy is not becuase i hate the people who practice it...but because i have only seen it lead to harm and ruin. i do not sense any life in such teachings, and i should hope that someday all might be free from it.

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 09:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by guthmund
It's 'wrong' when I decide to push that interpretation or lifestyle preference on anyone else against their will. Your right guaranteed under our law to practice, preach or observe your religion without fear of retribution only extends as far as your nose.

Why does the vast majority abhor the practice of snatching random homosexuals off the street and sending them to these re-education camps, but are perfectly accepting of parents sending their homosexual teenagers to the same place?
The "wrong" is correct, that's the right time when it is wrong. Unfortunately, parents are the sole person liable for minors. It's up to them to decide what they think is right or wrong for them in their lifestyle and belief system.

I don't think its acceptable for me and mine, but I have to respect it because it is under the shield and guise of religious beliefs.

Quote:
I disagree with the implication there...in a certain sense, Ustwo is right...Christian religion is not just supposed to be warm fuzzies. The kind of love that founds this faith is one so radical it will embrace the very worst violence we have to offer as human beings, confront it, show it to be a dead idol that is powerless, and forgive the practicioners. there is judgement....but the judgment and the mercy are the same.
For you and your interpretation of the bible, my personal perspective differs from yours as it should be since my belief is that the relationship between me and god is between me and god not vis a vie and intermediary like a priest, rabbi, minister. Just like there are islamists that have a fanatical interpretation of the Koran, there are those that have that same with the bible.

sailor 07-19-2005 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Unfortunately, parents are the sole person liable for minors. It's up to them to decide what they think is right or wrong for them in their lifestyle and belief system.

I don't think its acceptable for me and mine, but I have to respect it because it is under the shield and guise of religious beliefs.
Within limits. It's not OK, or legal, to beat your children because your "belief system" entails physical violence against them. Sure, parents have a lot of leeway in dealing with their children (whether many deserve it or not is another discussion), but that doesnt leave them free reign to do whatever they like. I see similar issues here. I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can legitimately justify what is happening here.

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 09:36 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sailor
Within limits. It's not OK, or legal, to beat your children because your "belief system" entails physical violence against them. Sure, parents have a lot of leeway in dealing with their children (whether many deserve it or not is another discussion), but that doesnt leave them free reign to do whatever they like. I see similar issues here. I'm sure I'm a bit biased, but I find it hard to believe that anyone can legitimately justify what is happening here.
again, ABUSE is not condoned since that has been meted out as not acceptable. But spanking is acceptable to some people's child upbringing. Again, I speak for myself, I believe in "Spare the rod, Spoil the child."

You may not.

Who is right?

We both are.

But you are not allowed to IMPOSE your belief on me. You can and are well within your rights to state your case in print, voice, picket, etc. but you are not allowed to FORCE me to do what you think and believe is right for MY children. You are even within your rights to be a child advocate and petition a judge to intervene.

Now, the COURTS are a different matter. A court can intervene and often has. Recently in the state of AZ, there was a case of Vegans being cited for child abuse. I see this as no different.

Quote:
Vegan parents charged with child abuse
Melissa Blasius
12 News
May. 13, 2005 10:41 AM
LINK

Family's past examined

Two Scottsdale parents face three counts of felony child abuse after being accused of nearly starving their kids to death. The children, ages 3, 9 and 11, were fed a vegan diet. Police say the youngest weighed just 12 pounds, and all three are being treated for severe malnutrition at Phoenix Children's Hospital.

According to police reports the couple had a fourth child who died several years ago. While the official cause of death was menigitis, family members told the parents the three-year-old child was malnourished. She weighed 20 pounds when she died.

Nutritionists say vegan diets are safe for small children as long as they consume enough calories.

Gilda 07-19-2005 11:44 AM
Gah. As a homosexual I find this offensive, but as a spiritual Christian, I find it odious. Being homosexual is not harmful, it is the reaction of people like the bigots running programs like this that creates and helps to perpetuate the hatred of and discrimination against homosexuals in our society.

I wonder why it's the so-called sin of homosexuality that merits this kind of treatment camp and not other sins?

Why not set up a treatment program for people who propose laws against flag burning (idol worship)?

Or those who are addicted to reality tv (Idol worship).

Or those who use profanity? (Taking the lord's name in vain)

Or those who work on Saturday? (keeping the Sabbath)

Or those who are overweight? (gluttony)

Or those kids who work afterschool jobs (greed).

Or those kids who refuse to get aftershool jobs (sloth).

Or bodybuilders (Vanity).

Or teens interested in heterosexual sex (lust, fornication).

martinguerre 07-19-2005 12:51 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Unfortunately, parents are the sole person liable for minors. It's up to them to decide what they think is right or wrong for them in their lifestyle and belief system.

I don't think its acceptable for me and mine, but I have to respect it because it is under the shield and guise of religious beliefs.
i have to really question this ethic. If we are serious about the vows made at baptism, then the entire community is responsible for the child. not only that, but it really evaporates the idea of children as property of parents...they are God's children, and we are but their guardians until they are ready to be independant. Jesus takes a very important stand on this issue, and makes children an important part of his ministry. laying hands on them and "letting the children come" is to show acceptance of those children as his responsibility. to the point...to watch what i believe is tantamount to child abuse occur in another household is not an act of respect for "to each his own" but a matter of having clean hands and a dirty heart.

Christian communities vow at every baptism to take communal responsbility for the child, to love them as God loves them without exception or fine print. i believe quite strongly that to teach a child to hate who they are is to preach the sin of ungratitude. to fail to confront this is to renouce the vows we have made as community.

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 01:24 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i have to really question this ethic. If we are serious about the vows made at baptism, then the entire community is responsible for the child. not only that, but it really evaporates the idea of children as property of parents...they are God's children, and we are but their guardians until they are ready to be independant. Jesus takes a very important stand on this issue, and makes children an important part of his ministry. laying hands on them and "letting the children come" is to show acceptance of those children as his responsibility. to the point...to watch what i believe is tantamount to child abuse occur in another household is not an act of respect for "to each his own" but a matter of having clean hands and a dirty heart.

Christian communities vow at every baptism to take communal responsbility for the child, to love them as God loves them without exception or fine print. i believe quite strongly that to teach a child to hate who they are is to preach the sin of ungratitude. to fail to confront this is to renouce the vows we have made as community.
Are you implying that you are not tolerant of the methods of how someone else lives and chooses how to bring up their children in their own lifestyle and belief system?

Surely someone who is requesting that other people be accepting of YOUR lifestyle and belief system. Just because they are under the "Christian" faith does not mean that they have the same beliefs as you. They may have similarities but again, each ministry is free to choose how they decide to interpret the bible and interact with each other and their own community.

Or someone like myself who does not have the same faith base as you? My ethic is to be questioned? All I am saying is live and let live. Not my place to force my opinion. I don't think what they are doing is right but it is not my place to try and convince them otherwise.

I don't see why you have a hard time with accepting the fact that someone else CHOOSES what they feel is best for their child and their family that is well within the rights and guidelines set forth in the US Constitution and US Judicial system.

You cannot seem to understand that it's THEIR choice to believe that not whether or not you believe it or disapprove of it. It's not yours to decide, it may be yours to have an opinion but again not yours to force someone else to believe.

martinguerre 07-19-2005 02:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
Are you implying that you are not tolerant of the methods of how someone else lives and chooses how to bring up their children in their own lifestyle and belief system?
In some cases, yes. I do not believe it is respect to allow for the freedom of action of the ones who happen to be adults, and not allow for the freedom of potential of the ones who happen to be young. A balance of the two is necessary.

Quote:
Surely someone who is requesting that other people be accepting of YOUR lifestyle and belief system. Just because they are under the "Christian" faith does not mean that they have the same beliefs as you. They may have similarities but again, each ministry is free to choose how they decide to interpret the bible and interact with each other and their own community.
As i said, i expect to talk. and i expect to listen. in the cases in which i disagree, i will let that be known. i am not starting a war here...i am stating my conscience.

Quote:
Or someone like myself who does not have the same faith base as you? My ethic is to be questioned? All I am saying is live and let live. Not my place to force my opinion. I don't think what they are doing is right but it is not my place to try and convince them otherwise.
Your ethic of parenting is not really the question at hand. I'm willing to be quite trusting that people have their lives figured out until i see evidence to the contrary. in this case, these reports and this kid's blog seem to be pretty clear evidence that these parents do not know what they're doing. And since we do happen to share the project of Christianity, it's my place to contest what that idea means. They in turn push back the other way...

Quote:
I don't see why you have a hard time with accepting the fact that someone else CHOOSES what they feel is best for their child and their family that is well within the rights and guidelines set forth in the US Constitution and US Judicial system.
I'm not interested in the law. I'm not pursuing legal options. No lawsuits filed. I am making public statements that this behavior is not in keeping with the revelation of Christ. It's not a legal question to me in the least. It's about making a stand for what i beleive to be important about my faith, and contesting what has come to be known as the Religious Right in this country. it is an artificial hegemony, a product of bad memory. not so long ago, the religious ones were the leftists and activists. and the pendulum will most likely swing back at some point. i'm doing my best to keep those memories alive, to remind folks that the project of Christianity has multiple centers, and is never defined by one party or theology. what we believe matters, and being critical of our theological assumptions is not just a nice thing to do for the sake of the mental work out. it is our duty to avoid idol worship, and the seeking after of false gods.

Quote:
You cannot seem to understand that it's THEIR choice to believe that not whether or not you believe it or disapprove of it. It's not yours to decide, it may be yours to have an opinion but again not yours to force someone else to believe.
Simply put, i disagree with this statement. I am not forcing anyone to beleive. I don't have a gun to their heads. I'm not using coercive power to put kids in re-education camps of shame. I'm not all but kidnapping these poor kids and telling them that God hates them, using the threat of the worst torture in creation to make them afraid of who God made them to be.

I don't buy the ideology of moral relativism. I am a theological liberal in many ways, but in many i am quite conservative. I believe in grace, that God's news for us is one of profound freedom. But to see the light is to know that we have been in darkness, that all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. I am not so proud as to say i always know the truth. but this is not an excuse for inaction in the face of what i believe to be contrary to the Gospel. My obligation is to speak up, to resist as i can, and to do so loving those who oppose me, seeking always their freedom from the service of the idols of fear and death, to humbly accept that i too am imperfect and that i must repent of my failings.

Sweetpea 07-19-2005 02:16 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ustwo
Based on the hostility of the homosexual community to anything which suggests that someone can change from gay to straight, I have to wonder what their reaction would be if the cause of homosexuality was isolated and a 'cure' was found. Take a pill, like poon-tang if you will.
off the OP, but...

Interesting take Ustwo,

Well, there are some individuals who are gay and don't want to be gay or lesbian for their own personal reasons and mostly due to discimination or their religion, i have known one such individual, who had deep issues with his attraction towards men, so in his case, i think he would welcome such a pill because it would make his life much easier.


Sweetpea

Sweetpea 07-19-2005 02:18 PM
as for this camp...

very much in keeping with the fundementalist approach on people being homosexual, i am not surprised.

I just have one question though:

If Jesus was accepting of all people, and these individuals want to follow in Christ's footsteps . . . then why is there this disconnect and such hatred?

Sweetpea

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 02:52 PM
martin....

the vein in which you speak are the same tracks that these people are also on. you just are coming from different sides. Your stated intolerance is equal to those that are intolerant to you and your lifestyle.

All I can say is you reap what you sow.

and from my "bible":

Quote:
Rule Seven - Others are only mirrors of you. You love or hate something about another person according to what love or hate about yourself. Be tolerant; accept others as they are, and strive for clarity of self-awareness; strive to truly understand and have an objective perception of your own self, your thoughts and feelings. Negative experiences are opportunities to heal the wounds that you carry. Support others, and by doing so you support yourself. Where you are unable to support others it is a sign that you are not adequately attending to your own needs.

martinguerre 07-19-2005 08:47 PM
cynthetiq...i think that comparison is quite shallow. we all make judgements about what is beyond the pale, and what is acceptable in others even if we personally disagree with it. comparing me to a bunch of homophobes is not a cheap shot, it's simply an ineffective one. i might assume that you beleive it is not the right of a parent to cannibalize their offspring for food. i believe it is not right to teach a child to hate who they are on account of sexual orientation. we're all drawing lines. your argument seems to be assuming that your line is a neutral or natural one...and i don't think that assumption is justified.

i think you overstate the virtues of tolerance. carried to an extreme, it is just as dangerous as the cultural despotism that you are taking issue with. also betrayed in your thinking is a view of children as chattle. you are only advocating tolerance and respect of the other so far as it recognizes the right of the parent to dispose of the child in whatever way they see fit. IMO, there is not a recognition of the child as equally valued as a moral agent.

would you support parents who sent depressed kids to camps that told them that God was really angry with them for being sad? is that just the parent's freedom? does it always show respect for another to abdicate moral judgement on their actions? what these folks are doing is teaching their own children to hate who they are. there is every reason to beleive that self-hate focused on sexual idenity is strongly linked with suicide.

why do you believe i ought to let that pass without comment?

as a post script. i take some issue with your vocabulary as well. i don't use the word lifestyle, as i think it confuses the issue. lifestyle implies choice, and is functionally vague. for instance, a person may have a chaste lifestyle or very active one...but neither of these choices depend on a non-chosen sexual orientation.

Cynthetiq 07-19-2005 09:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
cynthetiq...i think that comparison is quite shallow. we all make judgements about what is beyond the pale, and what is acceptable in others even if we personally disagree with it. comparing me to a bunch of homophobes is not a cheap shot, it's simply an ineffective one. i might assume that you beleive it is not the right of a parent to cannibalize their offspring for food. i believe it is not right to teach a child to hate who they are on account of sexual orientation. we're all drawing lines. your argument seems to be assuming that your line is a neutral or natural one...and i don't think that assumption is justified.

i think you overstate the virtues of tolerance. carried to an extreme, it is just as dangerous as the cultural despotism that you are taking issue with. also betrayed in your thinking is a view of children as chattle. you are only advocating tolerance and respect of the other so far as it recognizes the right of the parent to dispose of the child in whatever way they see fit. IMO, there is not a recognition of the child as equally valued as a moral agent.

would you support parents who sent depressed kids to camps that told them that God was really angry with them for being sad? is that just the parent's freedom? does it always show respect for another to abdicate moral judgement on their actions? what these folks are doing is teaching their own children to hate who they are. there is every reason to beleive that self-hate focused on sexual idenity is strongly linked with suicide.

why do you believe i ought to let that pass without comment?

as a post script. i take some issue with your vocabulary as well. i don't use the word lifestyle, as i think it confuses the issue. lifestyle implies choice, and is functionally vague. for instance, a person may have a chaste lifestyle or very active one...but neither of these choices depend on a non-chosen sexual orientation.
I support the parents abiltiy to make choices. I may not agree with the choices they make but it is not for me to agree with their choice. It is for me to accept the fact that it is their choice. It is not my child to raise or rear.

When a parent says, "Oh my child has ADD or is constantly depressed' and sends them to the doctor and sets them all up on a pill regimen, I don't agree with that either, but it's not my place to say that the parent is wrong. A parent is doing what they feel is right for them and for thier child.

If their belief system says that theiy have an angry god, who am I to correct them as an outsider to their ministry and teachings? What right do I have to do so? Do I have a right to say to an Orthodox Jew what he should and should not do for himself or his family based on their teachings and their readings? Do I have that right with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Bhai, Agnostics, Athiets? I do not have that right.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief for things that I do not agree with.

Children as chattle? Hardly, children are the moral and legal responsibilty of the parents up until the age of 18. Understand that parents have an obligation to fill their children with MORALS that agree with their own belief structure. Again, if they decide that they wish to promote bigotry and hatred vis a vie their children that is the parents prerogative. It's not right but it is not my place to tell a parent how to raise their child. Again, so long as what they are doing are within the guidelines of the US Constitution (of which you should know if you don't already that children do not have the same rights and protections as adults) and the US Judicial system then everything is fair game.

Quote:
lifestyle or life-style or life style
n. A way of life or style of living that reflects the attitudes and values of a person or group.
I do not see the word CHOICE in any definitions that I have in any of the dictionaries online or in my own home. I live a heterosexual lifestyle and all the trappings that come with it. My homosexual friends live homosexual lifestyles and all the trappings that come with it. Do we have choices in how we express our attitudes and values? Yes we do.

Why do I take umbrage at Gay Pride Parades? Because homosexual men seem to find it okay to walk about with their cocks flailing about in the wind for everyone to see. I do not see that happening at Puerto Rican Pride Parades, Irish Parades, Gulf War Veterans Hero Parades. The only similarities that come across is Mardi Gras/Carnivale, which it's well known to the organizers and vistors alike that debauchery is part of the process before abstinence. One does not walk down the street and accidentally walk into a crowd of Mardi Gras people all flashing their tits trying to get beads. Yet, here in NYC I've found myself crossing Gay Pride events where homosexual men felt the need to whip out their cocks to show to everyone. Even in gay bars that I have frequented here in NYC, I see plenty of homosexual men exposing themselves and parading around town that under normal circumstances would be considered indecent. I do not find that acceptable at all.

But that part of homosexual lifestyle is not representative of all homosexuals.
My boss is gay. He's very private about his sexual orientation, and keeps it quite low key. In fact I actually had to ask him directly if he was gay because he does not wear it on his sleeve. For his lifestyle he chooses to be very private about it. He also agrees that flapping penises in the wind does not help the gay cause of tolerance and acceptance. I know and am friends with many homosexuals that live and work in this manner and lifestyle.

crxforum 07-19-2005 10:15 PM
First let me say that Im not a fan of most Gay people who make it thier duty to go around and pronounce to everyone that they are gay and then shove it in thier faces. I know a bunch of gay people who do this.

I personally find it morally wrong to be gay.....

BUT

What the hell is wrong with the kid's parents? I mean how about someone kick them in the neck for me. Guess what mom and dad your son is steping up to the plate, being a man about his life, taking guts, courage, and the possibility of shame to tell you the truth. To be an honest and stand up guy. To do, what most likely was, the hardest thing he has ever done in his life. But he did it anyways. To show to you that he loved you and felt that you had the right to know how he was or feeling.

You think you raised him wrong because he is gay? Sounds like you raised an upstanding citizen with moral and emotional stability to be able to stand up to you and be able to put out what who most likely cause distress on himself. He did this because he respected you guys enough to think that you deserved to know the truth.

How about you parents man up, live with what your son has chosen, and move on. Or just take turns pushing each other down the stairs untill you get it through your heads that what your son has chosen is none of your business.

CRX Forum

martinguerre 07-19-2005 10:31 PM
why, might i ask did you feel the need to comment on your objection to pride parades? Why is this being discussed at all?

did i say anything that led you to believe that i support public nudity in locations where it is not agreed and consented to? did i say anything that led you to believe that i support casual sex? did i say anything that had anything to do with advocating promescuity? I, in fact, support an ethic of sex within the context of committed relationship. That's not the whole story, and i think there's a whole lot to say...but that's the basic message. I do not believe that having sex with more than one person in one's life makes a person a slut. i do believe that having sex with people you don't love isn't a good idea. I believe in commited relationships, and sexual expression with in the context of love and trust. I do not practice nor condone random sexual encounters. I do not practice nor condone sexual ethics that are not respectful of the health, dignity and welfare of other human beings. why is this even an issue?

Quote:
and all the trappings that come along with it
???

i am going to calmly ask: Wtf? I really do want to know. What do you mean by that? Sexual orientation does not predetermine any kind of life style. A person could be attracted to either or both genders and choose a wide variety of levels of sexual involvement with others, celibacy, monogomy, whatever. People do this. Your post notes individuals who have chosen both casual sex ethics, and people who are very discreet. So far, i think we're in agreement.

I stated that one's sexual morals are a lifestyle, and a choice. Attitudes and values are a choice. One's orientation is not. If you look to your original use of the word lifestyle, you refer to those who object to my lifestyle. This is why i object to that word. They do not object to my lifestyle. I wear in preppy clothes, and have been single for some time. I do not engage in sexual behavior outside of serious/commited relationships. They do not object to what is actually my lifestyle. They object to my orientation because they are calling it a choice. That's why i suggested the defintions i did...so that we could be clear about what you're talking about.

I think what i'm saying is in agreement with the dictionary here. If you do not agree with this, then i add this: Definitions are political as well as representation of average usage. In this country, the word lifestyle has become a code word in discourse on sexuality to mean chosen behavior. The phrase "the homosexual lifestyle" is used to represent extreme promescuity and implies that simply being gay means participation in that section of queer culture. Even if the dictionary says you can use that word, i'm suggesting that it's a problematic term for use in discussing queer culture because it has become co-opted by anti-queer activists.

i'm letting everything else slide...i think there are some foundational issues to the discussion here, cynthetiq. if this seems like thread jack, feel free to move material elsewhere. but since these issues have been raised, i think that i need to stop and direct my attention at resolving these questions first.

Gilda 07-19-2005 11:53 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by crxforum
First let me say that Im not a fan of most Gay people who make it thier duty to go around and pronounce to everyone that they are gay and then shove it in thier faces. I know a bunch of gay people who do this.
I agree completely with what you say here, but I wouldn't limit it to gay people. I dislike anyone who makes it a point to flaunt their sexuality in public and, as you say, "shove it their faces", regardless of their orientation. The guys who are exposing themselves that Cynthetiq refers to bug me, too, but the problem isn't that they're gay, it's that they're exposing themselves in a public situation where it isn't warranted. A jerk is a jerk regardless of orientation. It's also entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether parents have the moral right (they obviously have the legal right) to use force on their teen children to try to alter personality characteristics of which they disapprove.

But let's explore this a bit. If a homosexual couple are walking down the street holding hands or with their arms around each other, does that constitute shoving it in your face? If a homosexual makes casual reference to an SO in a conversation, does that qualify? If I were to take my wife to a school dance that I was chaperoning and dance with her (as some heterosexual couples sometimes do) would that qualify? If someone assumes that my wearing a wedding ring means that I have a husband, and I correct them, is that shoving my sexuality in their faces? If a lesbian dresses "butch", or a gay man effeminately, is that flaunting their sexuality?

I'm not saying that any of this is what you meant, but I have encountered those who mean exactly what I say in the paragraph above when they say they disapprove of homosexuals who shove their being gay into everyone's face.

There's a psychological phemonenon at work here called selective perception. You tend to notice certain things of interest far more than similar things that aren't of interest. A great many people who make the above complaint don't seem to realize that heterosexual people advertise their sexuality in a myriad of small ways all the time, in ways that usually go unnoticed because they are so common. Lovers holding hands, or dancing together, or sitting on a park bench making out, the casual reference to one's SO in conversation, the appreciative glance at a sexually attractive person, all of these are ways of casually advertising one's sexuality, and all are things heterosexuals do every day without thinking and without anyone taking any special notice, but it quite often can be labeled differently when engaged in by homosexuals, merely because selective perception causes it to be noticed more when engaged in by homosexuals.

I also tend to suspect that for some, the complaint of shoving it in your face is really a way justifying a predjudice that is against the person's sexuality and not their actions.

Again, I'm not saying that this is what you are doing. I assume that what you're referring to is public exhibitionism of one's sexuality, and if so, I agree that's it's distasteful, but I also think orientation has little to do with what makes it distasteful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
If their belief system says that theiy have an angry god, who am I to correct them as an outsider to their ministry and teachings? What right do I have to do so? Do I have a right to say to an Orthodox Jew what he should and should not do for himself or his family based on their teachings and their readings? Do I have that right with Hindus, Muslims, Buddhists, Bhai, Agnostics, Athiets? I do not have that right.

All I can do is shake my head in disbelief for things that I do not agree with.
I absolutely agree with you. So long as their belief systems don't harm others, or coerce others who operate outside their belief system into compliance with that belief system, I have no right to object to the right of a person to adopt and act on that particular belief system.

Quote:
Children as chattle? Hardly, children are the moral and legal responsibilty of the parents up until the age of 18. Understand that parents have an obligation to fill their children with MORALS that agree with their own belief structure. Again, if they decide that they wish to promote bigotry and hatred vis a vie their children that is the parents prerogative. It's not right but it is not my place to tell a parent how to raise their child. Again, so long as what they are doing are within the guidelines of the US Constitution
Well, there really are two issues here, the moral and the legal. The boy's parents have the legal right to do what they have done, and parents in general have great legal authority over their children until the age of 18.

But the moral issue is a separate one. For some fundamentalist Muslims, killing a sister or daughter who has been raped is a morally honorable thing to do. I disapprove of this, not because it is illegal in the US, but because I believe murder is wrong, and what's more I do believe I have the right to tell any and everyone who does this that what they are doing is wrong and immoral.

I've drawn my line at behavior that harms or coerces another who is capable of making a moral choice of their own. You seem to have drawn you line at legality. Fine, we disagree about where to draw the line, but we're both drawing lines.

This boy's parents are physically coercing him in an attempt to force their moral code on him. Do they have the right to teach him their moral code and religious belief system? Certainly. Do they have the right to force this belief system on him once he is capable of making his own moral decisions? I'd say definitely not. The ability to make moral decisions does not manifest itself with legal adulthood. Separate issues, separate arguments.

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 03:26 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilda
I agree completely with what you say here, but I wouldn't limit it to gay people. I dislike anyone who makes it a point to flaunt their sexuality in public and, as you say, "shove it their faces", regardless of their orientation. The guys who are exposing themselves that Cynthetiq refers to bug me, too, but the problem isn't that they're gay, it's that they're exposing themselves in a public situation where it isn't warranted. A jerk is a jerk regardless of orientation. It's also entirely irrelevant to the issue of whether parents have the moral right (they obviously have the legal right) to use force on their teen children to try to alter personality characteristics of which they disapprove.

But let's explore this a bit. If a homosexual couple are walking down the street holding hands or with their arms around each other, does that constitute shoving it in your face? If a homosexual makes casual reference to an SO in a conversation, does that qualify? If I were to take my wife to a school dance that I was chaperoning and dance with her (as some heterosexual couples sometimes do) would that qualify? If someone assumes that my wearing a wedding ring means that I have a husband, and I correct them, is that shoving my sexuality in their faces? If a lesbian dresses "butch", or a gay man effeminately, is that flaunting their sexuality?

I'm not saying that any of this is what you meant, but I have encountered those who mean exactly what I say in the paragraph above when they say they disapprove of homosexuals who shove their being gay into everyone's face.

There's a psychological phemonenon at work here called selective perception. You tend to notice certain things of interest far more than similar things that aren't of interest. A great many people who make the above complaint don't seem to realize that heterosexual people advertise their sexuality in a myriad of small ways all the time, in ways that usually go unnoticed because they are so common. Lovers holding hands, or dancing together, or sitting on a park bench making out, the casual reference to one's SO in conversation, the appreciative glance at a sexually attractive person, all of these are ways of casually advertising one's sexuality, and all are things heterosexuals do every day without thinking and without anyone taking any special notice, but it quite often can be labeled differently when engaged in by homosexuals, merely because selective perception causes it to be noticed more when engaged in by homosexuals.

I also tend to suspect that for some, the complaint of shoving it in your face is really a way justifying a predjudice that is against the person's sexuality and not their actions.

Again, I'm not saying that this is what you are doing. I assume that what you're referring to is public exhibitionism of one's sexuality, and if so, I agree that's it's distasteful, but I also think orientation has little to do with what makes it distasteful.



I absolutely agree with you. So long as their belief systems don't harm others, or coerce others who operate outside their belief system into compliance with that belief system, I have no right to object to the right of a person to adopt and act on that particular belief system.



Well, there really are two issues here, the moral and the legal. The boy's parents have the legal right to do what they have done, and parents in general have great legal authority over their children until the age of 18.

But the moral issue is a separate one. For some fundamentalist Muslims, killing a sister or daughter who has been raped is a morally honorable thing to do. I disapprove of this, not because it is illegal in the US, but because I believe murder is wrong, and what's more I do believe I have the right to tell any and everyone who does this that what they are doing is wrong and immoral.

I've drawn my line at behavior that harms or coerces another who is capable of making a moral choice of their own. You seem to have drawn you line at legality. Fine, we disagree about where to draw the line, but we're both drawing lines.

This boy's parents are physically coercing him in an attempt to force their moral code on him. Do they have the right to teach him their moral code and religious belief system? Certainly. Do they have the right to force this belief system on him once he is capable of making his own moral decisions? I'd say definitely not. The ability to make moral decisions does not manifest itself with legal adulthood. Separate issues, separate arguments.
Agreed, but I didn't realize that I had drawn my line at legality, because I agree with your "harming" another statement, but at the same time, your muslim example meets me at the legal end as well. Put the setting in the Middle East and while the morals are still wrong yet the law states it's acceptable, I have to pause because it's not my community.

Morality is nurtured well before this gentleman hit his teens.

Those people without religious moral codes have only to follow legal code which is why I cited it as such. Some people have to filter their actions via first Canon Law and then second US law, while others like myself who left the church for this very reason of "intolerance vs. loving one another unconditionally." I no longer have to abide by Church law, I'm left with just what's legal. I'm making the assumption that an athiest is only bound by the limits of US law. Having lived in the very conservative country of Singapore I witnessed many moral differences of religions and societal moral codes. I entered that place scratching my head, but left it with a better understanding of how strong diverse multiple cultures interact with each other and live in somewhat harmony.

Public Display of Affection, for some heterosexual PDA is not acceptable which for them homosexuals doing the same fall under that, and I assume since they are so conservative double dip into the not acceptable side. I don't have any issue with it, but macking on your g/f b/f is not something I care to watch in public gay or straight.

The "in your face" thing is also troublesome to me but also not limited to homosexuals. Heterosexual men who talk about their sexual conquests openly and freely to me is also "in your face." If I'm not your close friend, why do you need to impose your sexuality on me?

To me TFP is not the same thing, since we come here to be within a venue where it is acceptable to explore these things. I don't expect to go to the store down the street and walk past a bar, only to see people sucking face and dry humping each other, gay or straight, in front of the bar. I don't care so much if it's inside, but if it "spills into the street" it is not acceptable to me because now you are inflicting it upon any who are just walking past to do their daily things.

rsl12 07-20-2005 05:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
Oh yeah, and football games are mandatory, it's funny, but it seems like everyone wants to play either center or quarterback. hmmm...
Limp-wristed mandatory football...hahahahhahahaha

I wonder if they get to slap each other's bottoms after touchdowns....

guthmund 07-20-2005 05:24 AM
If I can go back to the tolerance rhetoric for a second...

In the grand scheme of things, aren't there some ideologies that are just too ridiculous or worse, too dangerous to allow in civilized society? Doesn't blindly accepting every ideology as they come along devalue the truly great ideas and grant an unwarranted legitimacy to the idiotic? I just don't understand why 'intolerant' is such a bad word sometimes...

As for the law...

Don't we try teenagers for crimes as adults? Some states recognize their right to consensual sex and all states grant 16 year-olds the privilege of driving around without an adult chaperone. Teenagers work (with some restriction depending on state) and taxes are taken out of their paychecks just like every other adult. So, where is the disconnect? Moral arguments aside, isn't there a legal argument to be made here?

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 08:28 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
why, might i ask did you feel the need to comment on your objection to pride parades? Why is this being discussed at all?

did i say anything that led you to believe that i support public nudity in locations where it is not agreed and consented to? did i say anything that led you to believe that i support casual sex? did i say anything that had anything to do with advocating promescuity? I, in fact, support an ethic of sex within the context of committed relationship. That's not the whole story, and i think there's a whole lot to say...but that's the basic message. I do not believe that having sex with more than one person in one's life makes a person a slut. i do believe that having sex with people you don't love isn't a good idea. I believe in commited relationships, and sexual expression with in the context of love and trust. I do not practice nor condone random sexual encounters. I do not practice nor condone sexual ethics that are not respectful of the health, dignity and welfare of other human beings. why is this even an issue?
No you did not, but the community you say you are a part of claims that "it's my right to do so because it's how I express that I am gay." That's the explicit answer I have gotten from people that I have directly asked within the gay community.


Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i am going to calmly ask: Wtf? I really do want to know. What do you mean by that? Sexual orientation does not predetermine any kind of life style. A person could be attracted to either or both genders and choose a wide variety of levels of sexual involvement with others, celibacy, monogomy, whatever. People do this. Your post notes individuals who have chosen both casual sex ethics, and people who are very discreet. So far, i think we're in agreement.

I stated that one's sexual morals are a lifestyle, and a choice. Attitudes and values are a choice. One's orientation is not. If you look to your original use of the word lifestyle, you refer to those who object to my lifestyle. This is why i object to that word. They do not object to my lifestyle. I wear in preppy clothes, and have been single for some time. I do not engage in sexual behavior outside of serious/commited relationships. They do not object to what is actually my lifestyle. They object to my orientation because they are calling it a choice. That's why i suggested the defintions i did...so that we could be clear about what you're talking about.

I think what i'm saying is in agreement with the dictionary here. If you do not agree with this, then i add this: Definitions are political as well as representation of average usage. In this country, the word lifestyle has become a code word in discourse on sexuality to mean chosen behavior. The phrase "the homosexual lifestyle" is used to represent extreme promescuity and implies that simply being gay means participation in that section of queer culture. Even if the dictionary says you can use that word, i'm suggesting that it's a problematic term for use in discussing queer culture because it has become co-opted by anti-queer activists.
Demographics tend to say otherwise. Homosexuals are directly marketed to in media, the launch of LOGO is a huge step forward in providing intelligent programming directed at the gay and lesbian market.

I also have not once stated nor implied that sexual orientation is a choice. To do so would be disrespectful to my boss and good friends who are prominent members within the gay and lesbian communities.

Just because someone else co-opted words to make false representations of those definitions still does not change the definition. It may color your definition, but the definition is still it's original intent. My wife and I debate on this very subject all the time when she uses sentences like,"The cat lost it's purchase from the sofa." (she's a keen study in linguistics.)

martinguerre 07-20-2005 08:54 AM
Quote:
community you say you are a part of claims
i say this then. You're quite mistaken. The queer community i'm a part of does not engage in public nudity, or purposefully confrontational sexual practices. Here in Minneapolis, the 3rd largets Pride gathering in the nation, i didn't see anything that i wouldn't see at a public beach. Do some queer communities do those things? Yes. But that's a total non-sequiter to this discussion. Your random interjection of these complaints you have with certain queer communties simply do not follow the course of this discussion. So i'm asking. Is there a reason that these feelings of animosity or distaste are surfacing now? What about this discussion keys that response?

Your response on the word lifestyle doesn't leave anything more for discussion. If you're not willing to consider the implications of using terminology that has widely come to imply a set of homophobic arguments, then we've nothing left to say in the matter.

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 10:31 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i say this then. You're quite mistaken. The queer community i'm a part of does not engage in public nudity, or purposefully confrontational sexual practices. Here in Minneapolis, the 3rd largets Pride gathering in the nation, i didn't see anything that i wouldn't see at a public beach. Do some queer communities do those things? Yes. But that's a total non-sequiter to this discussion.
No, it's quite pertinent, since you say that ALL christian communities should abide by X rules and interpretations. As you are saying to me that it is quite wrong of me to say that ALL homosexuals engage in this public display of nudity (which I am not saying ALL are doing, just SOME) then you have to also accept that SOME fundamentalist Christian ministries feel that this type of camp is fair game for them to place their children. If one side its true, the the converse of it must also be true for other people.

It's your lack of trying to be understanding and accepting that some other faiths feel that this is part and parcel of their belief system.

You keep trying to filter my words through a "homosexual hatred" filter when there is no such malice on my part. All that I'm saying is what I've always been saying, if you want someone to accept you as you are, then you are required to accept someone as they are. That is not conditional, it's not "on the condition that they don't do X." If you make it conditional, which is what I keep hearing from your words, you are in my book no different than those people who are being intolerant towards your sexual orientation.


Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
Your response on the word lifestyle doesn't leave anything more for discussion. If you're not willing to consider the implications of using terminology that has widely come to imply a set of homophobic arguments, then we've nothing left to say in the matter.
Language is a living and breathing entity no different than others. I do not hear anyone in my company of homosexual friends tell me that "lifestyle" is a bad word. It maybe in your community but it is not in mine. Maybe it's because at one point in time it was a "bad word" here, but again, words can easily be diffused and changed as they always have.

martinguerre 07-20-2005 01:09 PM
Quote:
No, it's quite pertinent, since you say that ALL christian communities should abide by X rules and interpretations. As you are saying to me that it is quite wrong of me to say that ALL homosexuals engage in this public display of nudity (which I am not saying ALL are doing, just SOME) then you have to also accept that SOME fundamentalist Christian ministries feel that this type of camp is fair game for them to place their children. If one side its true, the the converse of it must also be true for other people.
Logically, that claim doesn't follow. I made a universal moral claim: i do in fact believe that faith in Christ calls people to be open and affirming of others, regardless of sexual orientation.

I make a totally unrelated descriptive claim. Not all queer communities engage in such practices.

Why does one have anything to do with the other? For the record, i think that responsible and respectful sexual practice is a universal "price" so to speak for the gifts and joys of sexuality. Again...my response is that your arguments are not tracking logically. Your claim here is what's good for the goose is good for the gander. My response is that yes, that's true. I beleive in universal moral imperatives. In both sexual ethics, and in being affirming of sexual orientation. Any descriptive claims about what queer communities do is unrelated. I was not saying that some communities should be confrontationally sexual and some not. I simply stated the fact of what was. Logically, that argument does not track.

Quote:
You keep trying to filter my words through a "homosexual hatred" filter when there is no such malice on my part. All that I'm saying is what I've always been saying, if you want someone to accept you as you are, then you are required to accept someone as they are. That is not conditional, it's not "on the condition that they don't do X." If you make it conditional, which is what I keep hearing from your words, you are in my book no different than those people who are being intolerant towards your sexual orientation.
I'm not making any such accusation. Your remarks have surprised me, and dissapointed me. But i have not, and do not now accuse you of malice or hatred. Straight priviledge does not exclusively rely on such overt things as that. For the most part, it is simply inertia. Things being the way they have always been, etc...

What i'm concerned about here is that this discussion has had a very random track from my perspective. Some queers displaying poor sexual ethics really has nothing to do with a conversation about if reparative therapy is a valid option for a parent.

Say a parent was forcing "therapy" on a straight idenitifed child to be gay. If we were discussing this, and i blurted out that i hated the fact that there are a bunch of straight people who are overtly sexual, or that there are straight sex criminals...would you feel this would be a relevant addition to the conversation, or a distraction from the issue?

Reserving judgement, i've been asking you why you think this is relevant. I'm quite prepared for any range of answers. I'm still wondering. I've told you...I have no interest in making public promescuity acceptable. I believe in responsible and respectful sexual ethics. So telling me that as a queer person i have to be respectful of people who hate me so that the rest of society will respect slutty queers? I couldn't care less. Do i have to respect confrontational mardi gras revellers, or the people invovled in the "wilding" incidents of NYC a few years back (if we wanted an example of a straight parade gone horribly wrong)? Is that part and parcel of being respectful to straight society? No. Of course not. Why do you expect a logical connection between respect for queers in general has anything to do with respect for behavior of a subset of queers who display excessive behavior?

As i've said earlier, i think that you are free to make the comparison between myself and the advocates of reparative therapy. But you're ignoring the question of means, and also suspending judgement on what you think is right. We make acceptance of others conditional on all sorts of things. Some are valid criteria for defining what is a civilized person, and some are not. Race, orientation, etc...I feel are invalid reasons for making such a determination. I do think adherance to ideals of freedom of speech, commitment to civil resolution of problems instead of violence, etc...are valid ones. I'm sure you make categorizations of these criteria as well. Obliterating that process in your argument natrualizes your assumptions, which again....i can't grant you. Both myself, and these advocates of homophobia, believe in universal moral imperatives. But that's where the similarities end. Very few people are willing to abandon universal moral imperatives, and i suspect you have a few of your own. Murder is often the one final idea that people simply cannot accept the idea of tolerating opposing viewpoints on. They cannot co-exist with people who believe in random killing as a normal part of life. So yes...there is a comparision. But it's intensly non-descriptive. 99% of humanity (made up figure for sake of argument) beleives in universal moral imperatives. So saying that A and B are alike for that reason isn't incorrect. It is vague and non-descriptive, and largely with out meaning.

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 01:53 PM
You are getting too hung up on the words and the semantics of the actions. It's not the actions themselves its what they represent and how different sides of the spectrum they are. You find it to be distracting because I'm looking at it from a very high level of concept and you are looking at the definitions of words and meanings of the sentences.

As a well educated catholic man that no longers practices this faith, the bible states, "Do not judge, lest you be judged." As I have stated it's not for me to judge. I am not judging them at all.

I am looking at them as an example of how to live life, which is what I do when looking at all peoples of the world. I wish not to live my life like them. That's the only judgement that I'm making.

You are making conditions for acceptance. I am not.

Say a parent is forcing a "bad" child to a "tough love" camp, I don't agree with that either. But again, it's not my place to say they are not able to do so. It's not my place to judge their decision. It is my place to decide for myself how I want to live my life and my family.

In seeing their examples, I accept them as they are with the flaws they have and while I do not understand them, it is not for me to understand. It is for me to just accept them and love them as they are. This goes for the evangelicals, fundamentals, muslims, hindus, et. al. It's not my place to tell them they are doing wrong to make them change their ways. It's for me to live a live of goodness and tolerance and hope that my example is a good example of a good human being, which is what I found during my comparative studies of Western Religions and Eastern philosophies.

That does not mean I don't have my own flaws as I do, a human being has many flaws.

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 04:05 PM
my apologies for using "homosexual hatred" that was too strong of a choice and did not accurately reflect what I was trying to convey.

What I sense from you that my own intentions are suspect, and that you are scrutinizing my words to the point where you cannot see the forest for the trees.

I stated my beliefs in the post above and that's where I stand.

You seem to want to try to paint me into a corner and make a judgement on something that I feel I have no right to judge. What I can do is offer that it does not work for me and my lifestyle that is the ONLY judgement I am allowed to make.

I do not consider myself a religious man. I just try to live a righteous life. What *I* define as righteous, and try to be a good example for everyone else to look up to and emulate. I leave you with the one song from the folk masses that I used to love listening to because it represented how I feel I should be living my life:

Quote:
Make me a channel of your peace.
Where there is hatred let me bring your love.
Where there is injury, your pardon, Lord
And where there's doubt, true faith in you.

Chorus:
Oh, Master grant that I may never seek
So much to be consoled as to console
To be understood as to understand
To be loved as to love with all my soul.

Make me a channel of your peace
Where there's despair in life, let me bring hope
Where there is darkness, only light
And where there's sadness, ever joy.

Chorus:

Make me a channel of your peace
It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
In giving to all men that we receive
And in dying that we're born to eternal life.

martinguerre 07-20-2005 06:58 PM
i greatly appriciate the clarification post. and let me again assure you, i don't think you're one of the haters. I've met plenty of them in my life. I'm trying to get ordained as a Baptist minister. Believe me when i say, i've met the real bigots and haters. I'm making issue about some of the rhetoric not becuase it's the worst in the world, but because it has room for improvement.

and i understand your approach...but this is why i don't share it. the issue with living a life of example is that it may not be, at times, enough.

if i "tolerate" homophobes, will i be tolerated? Keeping in mind that until a few years ago adult, consensual homosexual sex was illegal in most parts of the nation. keeping in mind that anti-queer violence was widley practiced by the police as well as citizens in most parts of the country....

toleration without some baseline of moral imperatives is not a workable solution.

now. as long as people don't try to lock me up for being me, or worse, kill me...i'm fine being in a civilization with them. i can go to school with them, argue when it suits me, and retreat to safe space and friendly community when i desire.

i accord them the same rights and responsbilities. but nowhere in the civil compact do i find an imperative that toleration means a lack of comment or opposition. You quote from the Gospel, but i believe you make an important ommission. The texts are filled with confrontations. jesus, the desciples, mary, paul, and the church mothers and fathers all are recorded as confronting those they disagree with.

what they did not do is tell anyone that they were outside of God's grace and love. the message?

Repent. Turn from the ways that have brought you and your neighbors in to strife and separation. Turn again to God's way...and the forgiveness that is waiting for you.

I don't think the Gospel says keep your head down at all. What i beleive it calls me to is principled advocacy, remembering always the humanity and dignity of the people whom i am in opposition with on an issue. For instance I don't beleive that violence or overly coecive legal measures (those that go beyond requiring equal treatment and become punative towards practicioners of homophobia) are a good way of interrupting and confronting homophobia. To that extent, i tolerate them. But silence will not protect me.

If i am to become a full citizen with legal standing before the law, to be free from the danger of homophobic violence, to be able to marry whom i wish, and to live and participate in the communities which i desire to live in...

If i am to have any of those things, i will need more than silence. This nation knew a long period of silence. Queers in this nation were closeted, shamed, persecuted and reviled. I make no apology for opposing the desire for silence from a heteronormative society. that's my why.

Cynthetiq 07-20-2005 07:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by martinguerre
i greatly appriciate the clarification post. and let me again assure you, i don't think you're one of the haters. I've met plenty of them in my life. I'm trying to get ordained as a Baptist minister. Believe me when i say, i've met the real bigots and haters. I'm making issue about some of the rhetoric not becuase it's the worst in the world, but because it has room for improvement.

and i understand your approach...but this is why i don't share it. the issue with living a life of example is that it may not be, at times, enough.

if i "tolerate" homophobes, will i be tolerated? Keeping in mind that until a few years ago adult, consensual homosexual sex was illegal in most parts of the nation. keeping in mind that anti-queer violence was widley practiced by the police as well as citizens in most parts of the country....

toleration without some baseline of moral imperatives is not a workable solution.
If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me. Jesus lived his life with tolerance and acceptance. You claim your faith is based on his teachings, well that's the foundation.

This is why I equate you to the same track but on the opposite end as those fundamentalists that you deplore. You aren't living by the example that Christ says. You are willing to cast stones when you yourself are equally guilty of the same intolerance you expect from them.

You have two forces that are both using the bible to support their beliefs. You say confront and repent. What do you think the homophobes are doing? The believe the same thing so they are confronting and repenting as well.

In my opinion this is equal to force meeting force, and from my interpretations of the teachings of Christ, it then means to turn the other cheek and live by example.

If I recall correctly Jesus did not confront many people. He confronted the pharisees, he confronted the merchants at the temple, and he confronted his disciples.

I understand where you are coming from, being an asian minority in the 70s was not really all that easy. But let me ask you to stop, read what I just wrote especially the bold part and reflect on it. Because that is the crux of what you and I are talking about.

martinguerre 07-21-2005 06:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cynthetiq
If it was good enough for Jesus, then it's good enough for me. Jesus lived his life with tolerance and acceptance. You claim your faith is based on his teachings, well that's the foundation.
Unconditional love is not the same as tolerance, either way around. And i think this is the cause of some of our conceptual confusion. The path i beleive Jesus advocates is to love the enemy while confronting them.

Quote:
This is why I equate you to the same track but on the opposite end as those fundamentalists that you deplore. You aren't living by the example that Christ says. You are willing to cast stones when you yourself are equally guilty of the same intolerance you expect from them.


Quote:
You have two forces that are both using the bible to support their beliefs. You say confront and repent. What do you think the homophobes are doing? The believe the same thing so they are confronting and repenting as well.
And if someone keeps telling other people to be tolerant and not to rock the boat? Aren't they confronting those others, and asking them to turn away from their current behavior? We're all trying to convince each other. I make no apology for this. If i do so with hatred in my heart, and not love of the other, then that's when there is a problem. and that's one of the challenges in this fight. there are some people who simply think that queers are wrong, but genuinely do not bear hate. but a lot of people out there are very hate filled by this issue, and will do whatever they need to do to remain in a position or priviledge and power. it is the challenge for those of us who undertake anti-discrimination work to not let that hatred infect us as well.

Quote:
In my opinion this is equal to force meeting force, and from my interpretations of the teachings of Christ, it then means to turn the other cheek and live by example.

If I recall correctly Jesus did not confront many people. He confronted the pharisees, he confronted the merchants at the temple, and he confronted his disciples.
Turn the other cheek is a cultural reference that has long since been changed. The people he was talking to were the poor and the servants. If you backhand someone (as masters do) and they turn their head, you have two choices. You can use the unclean left hand to backhand them again, or you can punch them and acknowledge them as equals. Both are the equivalent of pouring gas on a fire, and even the most hardened master would think twice about doing either. It is a statement to one who holds power over you: I am still human, and i am not going to be bullied or cowed in to thinking otherwise. It has nothing to do with passivism...

In this dramatic form, Jesus recoccomends a third way. he doesn't say punch back, to use power as they do. and he doesn't say to lay down and take it. he says to recognize the humanity within the one who oppresses you, and to dramatically demand that they recognize your humanity. These are the confrontations he has with Pharisees, the Saducees, Roman officials, Herod, Pilate, the temple elites, the crowds at Gerasa, his own disciples, the assembly at Nazareth, the list goes on and on. Confrontation is part and parcel of the revelation of Jesus. How this confrontation takes place is why it is Good News, and not a gun to the head.

i eschew the use of power as these people have. as i noted earlier, i am not seeking legal means, or to coerce them. I strictly disavow agressive violence against those who oppose me (something that they do not). i am using the public air, and nothing else. In all my work...in the American Baptist churches, in school, in community...i use nothing other than my voice and my presense. one of my all time favorite protests occured at a church meeting. Hidden in the crowd of assumbled delegates were a dozen queers and allies. Every so often, two by two, they would get up and begin loudly proclaiming that they and the ones they loved were not sick, or demonic. They were beloved children of God...sinners saved by grace.

And two by two, they were dragged out of the room by security. They made no resistance to that force, and did not fight to stay. but they did not simply accept that their church was telling them that they were forbidden. they dramatically, and with profound hope for those opposed to them, demonstrated their humanity.

i believe such a thing is Jesus' way.

Cynthetiq 07-21-2005 07:12 AM
but your voice is decrying in the EXACT same manner the homophobes are. You are preaching tolerance vis a vie intolerance. A direct conflict.

I have said all that I can on this subject.

While I hear and understand where you are coming from as I have many activist friends in the gay and lesbian community here in NYC, you aren't understanding where I'm coming from in the slightest, because you would see the direct conflict that I have distilled down into three sentences, and are not addressing the crux of the issue. I have passed this discussion to my friends and they also can see the fallacy of your arguments and can see the harm that it will inflict.

In diplomacy if no one leaves any room for the other to have an out, war will surely ensue. You're creating a situation of an immovable force meeting an irresistable force. From what I can see from your view that you have expressed, you are on the path of eventually having to take up arms and preparing to wage war.

Menoman 07-21-2005 07:43 AM
I have to stay out of this thread or I'll go on a crazy rant about how ignorant and facist it is to send a boy to a camp which is made to change/repress the sexuality of him.

roachboy 07-21-2005 07:50 AM
i have been watching this debate with some interest as it has unfolded and chose to stay out of it...but i am increasingly perplexed by your position, cyn.

1. in an earlier post you talked about the importance of having lived in singapore in shaping your perception of how different groups might or might not interact and your relation to groups you understand as being outside your own...i am not sure i follow...i have lived in france for a few years off and on, and i found that after a certain period of learning the space a bit, i was perfectly able to pass judgements on particular political moves--racism directed against north africans in particular, muslims in general--the politics of the front national, which is to a significant extent about affirming and normalizing that racism. the front national foregrounds the claim that its reaction to islam in general is routed through a defense of a "pure"--that is catholic--france.
now because i lived in france for 5 years or so, i cannot pretend that i know the place. but i do not see how anyone can or should require perfect knowledge of a situation before passing judgement on it. it seems an unreasonable position to me.
i see no problem at all with coming to understand particular political lines and opposing them. not having complete knowledge is a given--you never have complete knowledge. you make arguments. those arguments are more or less compelling. if you waited around for perfect knowledge, neither you nor anyone else would ever be able to say anything about phenomena that are not immediate.

in my day gig as historian i long ago learned that perfect knowledge is an illusion--you wont get it, you cant get it, it doesnt exist. it seems to me that your position would make writing history impossible.

beyond that, there is a disconnect between my experience and yours--am curious about why you understand your singapore stay as paradigmatic in that is appears to shape your relation to many phenomena that are not in singapore.

2. i also wonder about the claim that you relayed this argument to friends who happen to be gay--did you understand this as consulting native informants? do you therefore understand "gay culture" (a strange term) as totally seperate from yourself? are you in a kind of anthropologist relation to your friends, then?


this is important because it seems that your view of tolerance is predicated on the assumption that groups formed around identity signifiers are wholly seperate one from the other, and that you, because you identify on different grounds, are in turn wholly seperate from them. i find this strange but wonder if it is an accurate representation of your views.

aside: i took from your post the implication that your friends, who you do not name and who are not speaking for themselves, are somehow or another "more gay" than martin guerre--you generate this impression because you seem to use your friends and your consultation with them as a kind of trump card here. did you mean that?

i guess these are more questions than anything else, so will stop with this for now.

martinguerre 07-21-2005 08:45 AM
cyn...i don't know why you insist i have no understanding of your argument. I get it. You think tolerance works, that the quiet example will win in the end.

I don't fail to comprehend what that will mean. I just disagree that it is efficacious. Suspending moral judgement of what is in our midst is to accept responsibility for affirming it. Silence is assent. And i do not assent to a culture that wants to treat some people as second class citizens.

And i'm not particularly bothered that a few of your friends disagree with my position as relayed to them by you. You choose to focus on certain elements of what i'm saying and have disregarded others. You have yet to tell me in what way you think that my disagreement with these people is coercive. In what way am i using power (what power do i have in the first place) to make them do what i want?

Do you not beleive in free speech? Should i be keeping my opinion to myself entirely? Do you really think that silence on queer issues will even keep queers safe? You keep dodging this. Will silence keep me safe? Can you really claim this, given the history of queer politics in this country? Yes or no. Will silence keep queers safe?

Your friends...do they not make public statements about why they think that homophobia is wrong? Is that not "intolerant" in the increasingly broad way that you have outlined? How is your intolerance for intolerance not intolerance itself?

Roachboy...excellent points. We are never given complete or objective information. Decision making is always on the basis of too little and often too late. But that does not excuse us from being moral agents, responsible for the decisions we do choose to make. These limitations should make us humble and cautious, but not paralytic.

and roach, while i do appriciate your question to Cyn about the way he represents his friends, i don't feel he was trying to out-gay me. he's right about one thing. the queer communities are not in static agreement. but he's wrong to imply that i'm isolated. along the comparative spectrum, i'm not terribly militant, but i'm not a doormat either. the difference is that i'm contesting for the idenity of religious groups as well as secular ones. it seems to make a pretty strong difference in how i get perceived. i carry a pretty traditional religious language, one that i think makes much more sense for those who are familiar with conservative protestant groups. i try to translate a bit when i know i'm talking to a broader audience, but there are a few quirks that i think end up being stumbling blocks in the process.

The allusion to racism is a strong one on this issue. Cyn, do you support the actions of the civil rights movement of the US? Was King too confrontational? Does putting racism in the language of sin create intolerance? or is Carver more to your taste?

Cynthetiq 07-21-2005 10:47 AM
roachboy,

first as a trump card no... as an "Am I off base in my thinking and can you provide some insight to help me understand better how this other person may or may not be thinking"

My example of Singapore reflects how I watched 3 dominant cultures work together as best as they can, Chinese, Hindu, and Malay cultures, along with Indonesians, Filipinos, and Expatriates of Europe and America. Chinese have very strong beliefs of not intermarrying as do Hindus, and older generations also are sepratist in nature mingling with only their culture. I do not profess any more than my experience of observation, not as an anthropologist but as a human being.

Again, you may wish to judge people. I do not. I wish to live my life as I do, looking at others and seeing if their actions match my own and if I should or should not incorporate such activities or beliefs into my own life.

I do not understand how you all cannot see that I WISH NOT TO JUDGE SOMEONE'S ACTIONS. I may not like them I may not subscribe to their ideology but I have to accept that they have the freedom to believe and act accordingly.

martin: No I did not selectively explain it. I printed the thread and handed it to them. When I see another friend of a lesbian activist group, I will hand it to her as well.

Quote:
Do you not beleive in free speech? Should i be keeping my opinion to myself entirely? Do you really think that silence on queer issues will even keep queers safe? You keep dodging this. Will silence keep me safe? Can you really claim this, given the history of queer politics in this country? Yes or no. Will silence keep queers safe?
Queers should be as safe as anyone else or any other individual. I make no special cases or dispensation for and group or sect than I do anyone else walking freely about the city or countryside. Any physical attack is not acceptable. Whatever the motivation behind it is irrellavent to me, it may be relavent to you and your agenda, but in my case the physical attack is unacceptable on it's face. The motive behind it to me is immaterial.

Will silence keep you safe? I don't know. Will your being "in your face" of someone who is equally vehement on their will and way keep you safe? I don't know that either.

I obviously believe in free speech and free expression. Which is why say that these fundamentalist groups are equally free to do as they please so long as it is withing the guidelines of the US Constitution and the US legal system. Again, you are free to picket, stand on a soapbox and decry their actions. You are free to judge them, I choose to abstain from judging as I don't feel it's my place to judge them. I do not like their actions and I will not emulate or assimilate those actions into my own values, lifestyle, or belief system.

Civil Rights leaders I have not a single issue with them. King led peaceful protests and acknowledged that the oppostion were not going to change their minds.

Religious social leaders that use intimidation tactics like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not accpetable to me. The also preach tolerance via intolerance. Again, I make no judgement on them, but I do not accept their belief as something I need to assimilate into my own.

roachboy 07-21-2005 11:00 AM
thanks for the clarification.
in this case, i take your use of the notion of tolerance to be quite particular to yourself. i disagree with your arguments. but in the end, this is a messageboard and noting the disagreement seems about as far as one can really go. if you were the parent sending your kid to one of these re-education camps, then maybe things would go differently, but you aren't so there we are.

doffing my inordinately large feathered hat, i deliver a sweeping bow and am now out the door.....

martinguerre 07-21-2005 04:02 PM
Quote:
Queers should be as safe as anyone else or any other individual.
I agree. The problem is that we know the record of silence. It's terrible. As a New Yorker, i'm sure you're familiar with the events of Stonewall. Until that night, police in NYC had every expectation that it was their right and duty to apply violence to queer communities unless (and even if) they paid cops off. You may see my actions as being in people's faces, but there's a reason i'm doing this. it's because i know the terrible price of remaining silent.

I think you misread King greatly. He had every expecation that the opposition would change. Read Letters from the Birmingham Jail, or any of his other works. He studied the ways of Ghandi, who's Soulforce practices were intended to create dramatic disruption of the discourse of oppressive power. It was intended to force the opposition to recognize them as humans, and to change not just policy, but thought as well. Ghandi's famous quote "We want the British to leave India. And we want them to leave as friends" I think says it all. He had to change the entire policy of a imperial power in the middle of WWII and the aftermath, and did so with the goal of building a new relationship of equals. King's protests weren't just about marching until policies changed...they were about creating empathy among apatheic bystanders and even among staunch opponents. That's the same philosophy of non-violent confrontation that i'm trying to work with in my advocacy.

But i'll leave things at that...

sashime76 07-22-2005 06:42 AM
So, what do they do with preachers / nuns that committed molestation? Covering up and paying money??

The.Lunatic 07-24-2005 10:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by sashime76
So, what do they do with preachers / nuns that committed molestation? Covering up and paying money??
I don't think nuns are much of a problem however priests are. Women aren't notoriously sexual predators.

Who enters a profession knowing full well you won't be able to take a wife...

Its a problem. It has no easy solution. It has roots in theism (ie for many people the church is infallible)

//edit in reply to orginal poster sorry for hi-jack

It's sad that people use the name of god to tell someone how they feel is wrong/immoral/perverted and can't be practiced or your soul is toast. Then again who am i to argue with the bible's claim that it is a sin and maybe just maybe (very unlikley) its true.

JoseFlanders 07-25-2005 12:09 AM
hmm
 
hmm


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 01:44 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360