The Gay Agenda

[frankandcathy]

I had to write one more response before I toddle off.

I think this all goes back to the original reason I got on this web site in the first place.

Both "sides" (meaning CC and gay) must learn to stop battling one another with words, campaigns, etc. and begin to serve one another with love. Now certainly many people have pointed out that there are LOTS of gays and lesbians serving their conservative brothers and sisters. That is great. I, personally, want to see more conservatives serving their gay brothers and sisters.

But the point is, that none of the name-calling or accusations really gets us anywhere. When either side is living in fear or even propogating fear of "THEM," we're not getting anywhere.

I can assure you that I am one CC who doesn't want to "get rid of gay people" or "take over the country." My goal in life is to serve God by serving others...ALL OTHERS. This is how I experience the most spiritual growth.

One of my small group leaders always says, "You don't fight sin with sin. It never works." She is speaking about the relationship between spouses but it's true in all areas.

The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics. Spiritual battle must be fought with spiritual weapons: which are "not of flesh and blood" but are empowered by God to pull down strongholds and any idea that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The context of this passage is talking about meekness and appropriate "warfare." I think the strongest weapons we have are love and prayer and service.

Sure there are CC leaders who are doing things wrong. I do not excuse them at all. To compare them to Nazis is, honestly, a little trite at this point. Is there anyone who hasn't been compared to Hitler or Nazis? It's so overused. But that's not really the point. The point is...to call people Nazis is silly. It will not accomplish anything.

My question is: if you saw this book, did you read it? Did you really look at what it said and judge for yourself if it was true or just a pack of lies? Is there any possibility that some of the items in it could be true? What would that mean to you? Anything? Nothing? Or did you just pick it up, read the cover, and scoff at the author and CCs? What did that accomplish? What is it that you want to accomplish in this area? Anything? Nothing? How are you going to go about doing that? How am I? How are any of us? We must ask these questions of ourselves.

Okay, bed time!
Thanks for listening!
~C

[novaseeker]

Originally Posted by frankandcathy

Both "sides" (meaning CC and gay) must learn to stop battling one another with words, campaigns, etc. and begin to serve one another with love. ...

The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics.

It's an excellent point, generally speaking. The problem is that Dobson & Co. are not simply waging a spiritual battle, they are waging a well-financed political war against LGBT people. So while I think that on the grassroots, rank and file level it is very important to approach each other as you suggest, but for the sake of our own protection, we just can't treat Dobson & Co. like that because they are running around the country and working hard to pass laws restricting us everywhere they can. So it has to be a blended approach, at least from the LGBT side of things .. while we certainly ought not act in anger, but always in the spirit of love, we must nevertheless firmly resist the efforts being made by the Christian Right, and we must do that on the legislative, political and judicial levels to the best of our ability as well. The *attitude* or *spirit* of that effort is important to get right, and it should be positive, loving and reinforcing, but nevertheless relentlessly resist non-love.

Sure there are CC leaders who are doing things wrong. I do not excuse them at all. To compare them to Nazis is, honestly, a little trite at this point. Is there anyone who hasn't been compared to Hitler or Nazis? It's so overused. But that's not really the point. The point is...to call people Nazis is silly. It will not accomplish anything.

Well, I think one can compare something to a historical problem without labels. I mean, I don't think anyone is saying Dobson is literally a nazi. What has been proposed, and with some persuasiveness, is that some of the approaches of his group and the related groups bears substantial similarities to some approaches that totalitarianism has used in the last century, particularly the fascist variant of totalitarianism. That remains an important message, and while I agree that the people who are already enthralled by Dobson's message will not respond to that criticism well, the audience for the criticism is really the rest of the country who are not enthralled by the ideas of the Christian Right. It's an important argurment to be made, and I'm glad that several books have been published recently making it.

What is it that you want to accomplish in this area?

My very personal opinion is that the leadership and "true believers" in the Christian Right are beyond dialogue at this point. There isn't any convincing them, they are not interested in dialogue, and they are certain that their viewpoint is correct. There are plenty of other conservative christians who are similarly in the "mind made up" category, who are beyond dialogue. So, the path that has to be taken with respect to this group is no longer dialogue, really, but simply resistance.

There is still, in my personal view, considerable room for dialogue with more moderate voices from various faith communities, and dialogue should be continued with these people, and is being continued ... and is bearing fruit as well. This is a very positive effort and an encouraging one. To a certain degree, the future of our country hangs on the ability of moderate christians to reassert themselves in the society at large as a counterpoint to the CCs, and we shall have to see if that happens. Either way, continuing and deepening the dialogue between the LGBT community and these faith communities is important work, it seems to me.

[Emproph]

Beneath contempt.

Well I got the book! The Homosexual Agenda, by Alan Sears and Craig Osten of the Alliance Defense Fund. The subtitle of this book is: Exposing the principle threat to religious freedom today.

Anyone needing a diatribe refresher (from this thread) on these two beans and the ADF can find it here.

So far I’ve only skimmed through it, but enough to say that If I could recommend just one book on the nefariousness of the Homosexual Agenda™ this would be it.

It’s an anthology of all the hackneyed arguments and out of context articles of opinion, and then some. An absolute masterpiece of vilification. I am truly impressed, it’s well below and beyond the pale than I was expecting. From what little I’ve read I already hate myself and my evil agenda to destroy civilization. I didn’t realize before that breathing is in actuality, just another aspect of my political agenda – to live.

~~

What’s the first rule when it comes to establishing credibility?

Lower the bar...

Originally Posted by A Note from the Authors

...both the authors and the ministry of the Alliance Defense Fund have nothing but respect, compassion, and sensitivity toward those ensnared in homosexual behavior.

...we carefully balance this love and respect for these individuals with warnings about the carrying out, promotion, and demand for legal approval for homosexual behavior...

By defining homosexuals as nothing more than a perverted sexual behavior to begin with, anything less than total excoriation would be disrespectful and unloving.

Maybe Emproph's being overly dramatic, it can't be all that bad...

~~

Chapter Six: The Silence (And Silencing) Of The Church:

Originally Posted by Page 143

Unfortunately, many evangelicals fear the I word (intolerant) and therefore seek appeasement with those who seek to undermine and silence the moral authority of the church and the gospel. It is much like Neville Chamberlain’s going to see Adolf Hitler at Munich in 1938 and selling out his country and its allies for the sake of "peace in our time."

The bottom line is that with radical homosexual activists appeasement is not enough. As we have seen, they are demanding total submission to their agenda.

Now that’s a creative use of the Hitler comparison. Indirectly compare the enemy, homosexuals, to Hitler, by feigning concern for your potential allies.

~~

The next post begins with this:

Attacks on the Church:

The most vivid example of the type of warfare being staged by radical homosexual activists and their allies is the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

If you’re familiar with my work, you may want to skip this next post and meet me at the bottom. I'm trying to keep commentary to a minimum, it's just that it's infuriatingly ugly material.

Black hole, air sick bag, just devolves, are all phrases that come to mind, I can’t quite describe it more coherently than that right now – descent into hell almost does it.

Fair Warning.

[Emproph]

Attacks on the Church:
The most vivid example of the type of warfare being staged by radical homosexual activists and their allies is the sexual abuse scandal in the Roman Catholic Church.

They mention that most if not all of the abuse was that of homosexual priests and go on to state:
However, the radical homosexual activists...who despise what the church stands for, have seized the opportunity in an attempt to swing the church doors open wide for the practice of homosexual behavior...

The next stage, I mean page, describes homosexuality as:
disordered desire, morally disordered, acts of grave depravity, intrinsically disordered, homosexuals are called to chastity

The Catholic Church sex abuse scandal:
...those who wish to remake the church in their image have attacked celibacy as the cause...Rather than attack the root of the problem, seminarians and priests who...have given themselves over (as in Rom. 1) to “shameful lusts.”

They quote George Weigel who suggests that:
"US bishops...absorbed from the therapeutic culture...a fear of appearing “judgemental” and “homophobic” in dealing with cases of clergy sexual abuse.”

And this tandem gem:
The bishop surely knew by the early 1990's that the majority of cases of abuse had to do with...boys and young men by homosexual clergy. Yet they were slow to act? Why?...fear of adding "homophobe"...[to the] vocabulary of put-downs of the Catholic Church...blunted the bishops’ ability to deal vigorously with the breakout of the scandal of clergy sexual abuse.

(Implying that known child predators were knowingly transferred from parish to parish to parish in an effort to appear “politically correct.” An atmosphere instituted no doubt by “radical homosexual activists." )

The proverbial disclaimer:
Before we continue...we need to make it clear that we are not condoning the cover-up of, or the terrible sexual abuse that has unfortunately occurred.

And now back to:
“how radical homosexual activists and their allies are exploiting this tragedy for their own personal, political, and legal gains.

...how homosexual misconduct and crimes actually advance their agenda, just as the AIDS disease was exploited...

...sudden opportunity thrust upon them to defame the legacy of Pope John Paul II...Now, they sense, is their last opportunity to dismantle the church as we have known it.

They accuse “homosexual activists” of hypocrisy for “attacking the church for allowing men who prey on teenage boys,” whilst [we] simultaneously attack “the Boy Scouts for keeping the same individuals out!” (That’s wrong on so many levels I’m not even going to bother)

They quote Ann Coulter:
...they have responded to the gay sex abuse crisis in the priesthood by blaming Catholicism.

In regard to another article:
“..increasing tolerance of homosexual behavior...played a significant role in the scandal.”

They then go on to assert that:
“radical homosexual activists and their allies within the church are trying to reshape it into a modern day Sodom and Gomorrah...This is the strategic approach that radical homosexual activists use to achieve their agenda.”

They list three examples to illustrate this:
“Senate President Pro Tem John L. Burton of San Francisco” and gratuitously add “(any coincidence?). He introduced a bill to lengthen the statute of limitations for adult victims of church sex abuse which they characterize as: “so they could sue the Roman Catholic Church for damages.” -The other two examples are mischaracterized similarly.

More:
“Regardless of claims to the contrary, the current sexual problem in the Catholic Church is primarily a homosexual behavior problem.”

"To get a glimpse as to why this is a homosexual issue..."
..Reverend Paul R. Shanley, one of the most notorious priests caught in the scandal." He was part owner of a "racy homosexual club in the Palm Springs" and "attended the 1979 meeting that created NAMBLA."

Not only linking homosexuality with pedophilia, but squarely placing the blame for his and other priests’ careers of sexual abuse, with same-sex attraction and not with their superiors who knowingly, willfully and repeatedly transferred them into unsuspecting parishes to continue raping children.

They use a quote by Chuck Donovan:
“former vice president of the Family Research Council,” in an attempt to nullify the legitimacy of any criticism of sex abuse itself by “homosexual legal activists” here in America:

When homosexual activist marched outside of the House of Parliament several years ago...They were demanding, not asking, that the age of consent for homosexual relations be lowered to sixteen.

Look what I found:

The age of consent in England and Wales is 16, as specified by the Sexual Offences Act 2003 for heterosexual acts and for homosexual acts.

Male homosexual acts were decriminalized under the Sexual Offences Act 1967, Section 1, however the age of consent for such acts was set at 21, whereas the age of consent for heterosexual acts was 16

According to that, the age of consent for heterosexuals in the UK has been 16 since 1967.

Lie of omission.

~~

That was pages 143-155, I’ve only skimmed the surface of 12 pages out of 235 plus. That’s a taste of roughly 5% of the book and as far as I can tell, an accurate tenor as to the rest of it.

~~

Obviously they’re using this tragedy in an horrendously evil agenda to demonize gays to distract attention away from their attempt to abolish the first amendment for others under the guise of protecting it. The dishonesty of the spin and the insincerity of the disclaimers scream it loud and clear.

What disturbes me most is the true consequences of their blame shift here. It does damage to gay people as a whole, usually in overall subtle ways. All of it is unnecessary attention that desperately needs to be paid to the prevention of current and future abuse – within the Church and out.

Protect the kids from the homosexual couple down the street (who want to get married), not the respected _______, who actually is a pedophile.

Ultimately they are unnecessarily creating an atmosphere that not only perpetuates the existing potential for life devastating sexual abuse but also gives it cover.

I am often tempted to use the word unforgivable..

[Emproph]

Just in case you weren’t sufficiently swayed by all that. On page 142 (the precursor to “Attacks on the Church” section above), we find that:

Mel White is the founder of Soulforce, an organization dedicated to the silencing of the church with regard to homosexual behavior. His organization pickets the Southern Baptist Convention on an annual basis because of that denomination’s biblical stand on the issue. White has written a book justifying homosexual behavior and regularly receives positive press coverage about his pleas for “understanding.”

...One of White’s assertions is that conservative Christians lack grace when dealing with those trapped in homosexual behavior.

They then quote a passage of Paul in Romans 6 that begins with “What shall we say then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?..."

~~

In regard to-that-characterization of Mel White and Soulforce – and to borrow a line from Mad TV:


I’ve seen prison rapes more graceful than that...literally.

[novaseeker]

Protect the kids from the homosexual couple down the street (who want to get married), not the respected _______, who actually is a pedophile.

Ah, but you forget that they assume that:

1. The gay couple down the street is probably pedophilic (because they think that many homosexuals are pedophiles and that most pedophiles are homosexual, regardless of the data that contradicts that view);

2. The gay couple down the street will be "recruiting" your children to be GLBT.

The first point is simply laughable.

The second point is laughable when it suggests that there actually is "recruiting" going on, but I think what they mean is that they are afraid that if there are positive GLBT role models out and present in the community/neighborhood, this may (1) encourage young people who are GLBT to accept themselves (which Dobson et al do not want, because they think it is a sickness) and thereby get "recruited into the gay 'lifestyle'", and (2) encourage younger people who are not GLBT to be more tolerant of GLBT people, and thereby get "recruited into the 'gay worldview' of 'tolerance', 'inclusion', etc.". In other words, they are afraid that the presence of us in that context will deter their ability to pour their own hate and prejudice into their minds of their children, and will instead "recruit" their children into a more accepting perspective ... which of course will lead to the end of cilvilization as we know it.

[Emproph]

Originally Posted by novaseeker

The second point is laughable when it suggests that there actually is "recruiting" going on, but I think what they mean is that they are afraid that if there are positive GLBT role models out and present in the community/neighborhood, this may (1) encourage young people who are GLBT to accept themselves (which Dobson et al do not want, because they think it is a sickness) and thereby get "recruited into the gay 'lifestyle'", and (2) encourage younger people who are not GLBT to be more tolerant of GLBT people, and thereby get "recruited into the 'gay worldview' of 'tolerance', 'inclusion', etc.". In other words, they are afraid that the presence of us in that context will deter their ability to pour their own hate and prejudice into their minds of their children, and will instead "recruit" their children into a more accepting perspective ... which of course will lead to the end of cilvilization as we know it.

Good assessment Good assessment

[frankandcathy]

This has to be quick. I must go to bed.

emorph: kudos to you for reading this book (stomaching it if you will) and for posting so humorously. The reference to Nazis is funny because, well...it's so overused.

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons." Wish I had time to explain. Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

Anyway. I'm really going to bed!
~C

[Zerbie]

Whoa.

Cathy, I take offense at this and for heck's sake, I'm MARRIED!

Before I jump to conclusions about your motives for writing your last post, let me just ask you to clarify.

These are the points I take from your post. Are they what you meant:

1. Any time a comparison is drawn between anti-semitic Nazi rhetoric and anti-gay rhetoric that is practically verbatim and used today by certain groups (like the TVC and the AFA, and to a lesser degree FOF), it's "overused" to the point of being funny?

2. If gays were only to become "spiritual" they would cease to be gay??

3. That gay activists should be the bigger man and lay down their weapons: which means what precisely? That we should cease in our quest for equal protection under the law TO WHICH WE ALL ARE, as US citizens, ENTITLED?

Cathy, if these things are what you meant, they are all troublesome. #3 in particular is offensive and unacceptable. It is nothing other than telling gays to be good little homos and sit back and accept unequal treatment under the law so that they don't upset all the people who don't like the fact that they exist. It's BS Cathy. If you think I'm coming down hard on you please consider the reasons why.

Why are you here, Cathy? Are you here on a mission to try and convince people, some of whom struggled for decades, to try and change their orientation? That is how it appears to me. Am I mistaken?

[keltic63]

I have to echo zerbie's sentiments, if not so strongly as she does. as I was reading your post, cathy, I felt offended, yet couldn't quite figure out exactly what it was. zerbie has done a good job of listing them.

the attitude seems to be that if the gays would just "play nice" or "don't make so much noise" then the rest of society wouldn't be so offended by them (us gays.) are you asking us to go back in the closet?

so the call from cathy is for gays to be the "bigger" person and lay down their weapons; who picked up the weapons in the first place? who has the commandment of "love thy neighbor" been given to? why have gays picked up the weapons? why are christians holding and using weapons?

when a group of christians in this country can align themselves with an african bishop who supports the imprisonment of homosexuals, restrictive laws that forbid gay literature, media, gatherings, even for 2 homosexuals to enjoy dinner at a restaurant, I really have to wonder if it's possible or even wise for the gay community to "act nice." I don't believe that these "few" churches are a blip on the radar; I think this is serious. These churches have put themselves under this bishop's authority. what will they do when he makes demands of them that violate not only civil rights, but the teachings of Christ, or even the civil laws of this country?

the word "surrender" from you cathy seems to imply that we should just go ahead and do what is requested of us from the cc's. is that really what you meant to say?

[BruceChris]

I hesitate to put this in an "us verses them" context, but that is what You seem to have done. Our only goal is equal rights, and our only *weapon* is to suggest, or simply tell you that you are acting unlovingly, and therefore in an un-Christian manner, and to ask you to simply love us just as God has made us. You, on the other hand, and by implication all of the CC-ers, especially the extreem ones, are telling us that we must make one of several choices:

1. Go back in the closet, pretend that we are all just somehow lifelong bachelors, and give up on having almost any type of relationship.

2. Undergo ex-gay therapy, with at least a 90% chance of failure, and then spent the rest of our lives feeling utterly miserable, or maybe just kill ourselves.

3. Marry someone of the opposite sex, and ruin both of our lives.

4. Simply make a public confession, and allow ourselves to be executed, as a number of the more extreem CC'ers have advocated, publically.

Cathy, I am not sure that what we are holding can even be called weapons, but anything that brings with it the consequences described above can only be described as a weapon. Cathy, lay down YOUR weapons, and we will talk.

Love, but also some fear, and much disappointment, Bruce Chris

[BruceChris]

Cathy, I notice that in one of your recent posts, today I believe, you did not make ANY attempt to address the content of my posting, but limited yourself to a pronounced "Yeccch" at my addressing God as "She". Now I do not believe in automatic literal mindedness, as a rule, but exceptions CAN be awfully tempting.

So, obviously, by your beliefs, God has no female aspect, at all. So obviously, you could not have been created in Gods image, were only placed upon this earth to serve as an incubator for those Male images of God, and when you die, having no soul, you will simply cease to exist.

I knew it! The Patriarchs and Male Chauvinist Pigs were right all along. The only reason that wenches were placed upon this earth is so that a guy like me could simply grab the nearest one and have my way with her. Sanctity of Marriage? Clearly, the concept doesn't even exist! (And either way, you lose? That doesn't sound right, somehow)

So I am not really attacking you, as a child of God, but I AM attacking your Biblical literalism. (Love the sinner, hate the sin, can't seem to make this work at all consistently? Must have a problem here....)


Now, Cathy, I offer you my sincerest apologies for putting you through that. I do love and respect women, and believe that they are often if not usually better people than we are. And, you ARE indeed created in God's image, but only if you admit that She can indeed have as many female as male images. And I have NOT carried out my threat to just pack up and leave.

If I offer you my respect, and promise to READ ALL of any postings that I may comment upon, will you offer me the same? - Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by frankandcathy

Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe.

Changed into what?

I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help.

What does it look like when we get helped?

I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

Cathy Honey (I'm takin' liberties here I know- but just think of me as your hairdresser and you've just decided you want to be a redhead), that really is- as you put it- a silly thought.

As I see it, you are mixing Caesar with God.

(God)
Yes. I can agree with you that we ALL need to learn to live and breath without judgement. The law of Love isn't a bad guide. And after all, my love for my guy is probably a real head expander for many. But that's what love does- turn things inside out.

(Caesar)
The idea that there are spiritual weapons sounds like something from one of the Left Behind novels. Makes a nice story, and Milton would have loved it, but it's no way to make a life work: it puts everything said and seen and done into Us vs Them. I mean, lets get real here- you're talking about warfare. The implication being (please correct me!) that CC'ers are lovin' and the gay activist's aren't: THEY must lay down their 'weapons' and stop attacking us.

Sorry Honey (there I go again), this speaks to privilege. He who has it often does know he has it. And you have it. The gay's don't. It's that simple. And they (GLBT folks) are going to speak their mind (with loving insistence we hope- around here) until they can join the company of those with equal rights. Hopefully, when we have them- full out and cup running over- we won't take what we have for granted.

I hasten to relate the viewpoint expoused by Gore Vidal, who wrote what is considered by many to be the first novel (The City and the Pillar) in which a character was open about being gay:

"To begin to get at the truth about homosexuals, one must realize that the majority of those millions of Americans who prefer same-sex sex to other-sex sex are obliged, sometimes willingly and happily but often not, to marry and have children and to conform to the guidelines set down by the heterosexual dictatorship."

It is no accident that many embody these last two words, wrapping themselves in God and the flag. Please do not do as they do, I implore you.

[rainbowdog]

I have to agree with Zerbie, Brucechris, and Keltic on these issues. Cathy are you anti-gay or homophobic because you sound like we should give up and let the Christian Conservatives or Christian Fundamentalists ruin our lives . We are tired of being 2nd class citizens. We don't want special rights but equal rights I suggest you read Mel White's book "Religion Gone Bad" . Another book that i am reading that i wish i had read a long time ago is "Calling The Rainbow Nation Home" A story of Acceptance and Affirmation. If i had read that book when i first realize that i was gay i would not have done some destructive things i did like attempt suicide and heavy drinking.
i am not about to back down now. I am on a mission to tell other GBLTs about Christ and how He made us unique by being GBLT. i am doing prison ministry by encoraging these inmates who are new to Christianity and they just happen to be gay.
i think you need to do some research on homosexuality. Find some positive Christian gay and lesbian books on www.amazon.com Also do the research on homosexuality not only by Christianity but scientifically, historically, sociologically, and psychologically. In 1973 APA declared that homosexuality is not a sickness but a perfecally normal behavior for 10% of the population so therefore it is not a sickness or sin. God made me gay and i am proud of it.

God Bless,
Christy

[novaseeker]

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons." Wish I had time to explain. Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

As I wrote above, my own perspective is that this is a case of "both/and" rather than "either/or". In other words, yes, we do need dialogue between GLBT people and Christians of all sorts, including such CCs who are willing to listen and engage in dialogue.

But at the same time we definitely need to keep the fight in the civil realm as well, because that's where we need the protections the most, and, more fundamentally, because that's the means we can most likely use to change hearts and minds over time about who we really are.

I see it as two parallel tracks: one track is about convincing the hearts and minds, and other track is about securing equal treatment under the law. In my own personal opinion, while we can certainly make some individual progress on track one, we won't succeed on a large scale relating to track one unless and until there is substantial progress made on track two. The reason for that, in my opinion, is that when progress is really made on track two, more GLBT people will be willing and able to live and love openly and honestly in a variety of settings in America, people who now are still living closeted or virtually closeted in the mainstream world, or sequestered in gay ghettos, and hence in either case not in any significant "dialogue" with the larger community around them. Real dialogue requires openness, and legal protections and possibilities like anti-discrimination laws and union/marital options encourage GLBT people to be open about themselves in the mainstream world, to seek relationships in the open, and to live those relationships openly in the mainstream world -- all of which sets the stage for dialogue with the rest of the larger community.

That's why I see the activism, particularly as it relates to anti-discrimination type laws and marital/union options, to be critical to furthering the dialogue between GLBT people and the larger, straight mainstream world.

[tdogg]

Maybe I missed something along the way - but I am also a bit surprised and disappointed by your latest post on this thread Cathy. It seems to be quite different than your others?? I agree with what Zerbie, Keltic, BruceChris and Daniel say. There is much in your post that offends, and that depletes the trust bank a bit.

I agree, maybe you can explain your post and gain some trust back?

I will never lay down to allow anyone, CC or otherwise, to trample on me, my loved ones or my equal rights. Being the bigger person (MAN??) doesn't mean giving in to their oppression and abuse. Being gay doesn't mean one isn't spiritual.

It's not the gays that need a changin', so perhaps you are saying that those funamental extremist CCs are the ones who are totally reachable by the God of the universe (reading - changeable)???

Those who believe the Bible is literally inerrant, feel so free to pick and choose which words are applicable to their lives, and which are applicable to others - and they are not necessarily the same. That is the problem with Biblical inerrancy theories.

[rainbowdog]

Originally Posted by tdogg

Maybe I missed something along the way - but I am also a bit surprised and disappointed by your latest post on this thread Cathy. It seems to be quite different than your others?? I agree with what Zerbie, Keltic, BruceChris and Daniel say. There is much in your post that offends, and that depletes the trust bank a bit.

I agree, maybe you can explain your post and gain some trust back?

I will never lay down to allow anyone, CC or otherwise, to trample on me, my loved ones or my equal rights. Being the bigger person (MAN??) doesn't mean giving in to their oppression and abuse. Being gay doesn't mean one isn't spiritual.

It's not the gays that need a changin', so perhaps you are saying that those funamental extremist CCs are the ones who are totally reachable by the God of the universe (reading - changeable)???

Those who believe the Bible is literally inerrant, feel so free to pick and choose which words are applicable to their lives, and which are applicable to others - and they are not necessarily the same. That is the problem with Biblical inerrancy theories.

I agree with you tdogg. Cathy, I think you are a cc that picks the passages that condemns us, but you take the Bible literally and not from a historical approach. I think you use those 6 passages without reading the whole story. Back then their was nothing said about sexual orientation. I can't remeber the year they coined homosexuality as a sexual orientation that is nothing wrong with it. It cannot be changed. 10% of the population are getting this unique gift from God. God loves His GBLT children. Like the others on this thread you are offended me too. So keep an opened mind and don't force us to closed the closet door.

Peace,
Christy

[BronzDragon]

Originally Posted by Pablo Rafael

Look in Ephesians [6.11 - 17]. Some weapons are:

truth, righteousness, peace, faith, salvation, the Word of God

» Thom says: ☛ So, I just got this message from Carisma OnLine.

It’s Time for the War Horse to Be Released
James Goll, founder of Encounters Network, speaks of a return to spiritual warfare. He believes the Lord is calling forth His “war horse”—a band of humble intercessors who will fearlessly and relentlessly fight against the powers of darkness with their prayers.
The global prayer movement will re-embrace spiritual warfare as a warrior anointing is mingled with the bridal revelation of the last few years. Job 39: 19–25 gives us a description of the war horse of the Lord. He is: (1) strong and mighty; (2) fearless; (3) relentless; 4) majestic and beautiful. Impartation and teaching about topics such as the believer’s authority in Christ, the keys of the kingdom and judicial intercession will be revisited and affirmed. It is time for the war horse of the Lord to march forth. The time will be marked both by escalating wars in the natural and by an intensifying of the war between the soul and the spirit in the body of Christ. The good news, though, is that the powers of darkness will take a heavy hit as humble intercessors are ignited with the gift of faith to war in the spirit realm.

» Thom says: ☛ Now, I am confused. Is this fellow comparing the Eternal One to a Horse? I don't see that in the epic poem 'Job. Did I miss something? And I did not see anywhere in that citation that the horse was a war horse. Is this normal? that some evangelists will read into the scriptures something that is not really there? or is this a rare event?

[andrewlittle]

Cathy wrote:

This has to be quick. I must go to bed.

There might be some clues in these simple statements that explain what some have perceived as an about face, or step backward, on Cathy's part. Speed and tiredness generally do not equate to well posited arguments in a serious discussion. It reappears when Cathy states, "Wish I had time to explain." I'd like to see Cathy restate this post when she has the time and is not tired. I think it entirely possible that she has been very misunderstood - not certain of this, but think it's quite possible.

I'm not sure that will happen, however. Cathy has not returned to the site, logged in at least, since she posted this thread on 12/25 at 11:24 PM. That's a long absence. Personally, I hope she will comeback.

emorph: kudos to you for reading this book (stomaching it if you will) and for posting so humorously.

Nothing inflammatory there. Doesn't sound like the beginning of a post intended to be offensive.

The reference to Nazis is funny because, well...it's so overused.

This caused a bit of a ruckus, eh?
While there is nothing "funny" about Nazis, I agree that the fact that they are used by both poles in this battle to denegrate the other is "funny" in the sense of being odd. I don't know that odd is what Cathy meant, but it is what I mean.

Nazis have been overused as negative examples. It's easy to see why when we consider that Hitler and the Nazi movement may be the most attrocious example of totalitarianism in recent memory.

I find it odd that neo-conservative social and religious leaders use the comparison, but they do it to create fear in the masses, and to co-opt, confuse and devalue the comparison for the "other side". I'd say that has worked quite well, but the comparison is ludicrous just the same. Nazis slaughtered innocents to further an agenda. They promoted "witchhunts" in order to get neighbor to out neighbor based on fear of the "other" who is not like us - does not have our values. Nazis were not on a mission to gain rights that were possessed by "non-Nazis", they took away the rights of others - rights to prosper, to flourish, and even to live. The comparison is made, then, to "prove" that liberal/progressive/pro-LGBT forces are trying to take away the rights of Christians. Okay, that is funny in all respects.

I find it odd that the pro-LGBT social and religious leaders use the comparison because it is, well, so overused and has become confused. It is not a effective comparison except for those within our camp. Perhaps there are other useful examples of totalitarianist religious movements that could be used for examples. How about:

The Spanish inquisition.
The Crusades and the killing of Jews and Eastern Orthodox Christians on the way to Holy Land.
Cromwell and the Roundheads in England.
The hunting, killing and deportation of Calvinists in Scotland by the British.
The killing of Quakers by the Puritans in New England.

There are actually dozens more to chose from that illustrate the point that totalitarianism, especially religious totalitarianism, resorts to extreme measures to control populations and demonize those who do not conform to their strict dogmas and social rules. These all, without exception, look a lot like the totalitarianist regimes we are currently battling. They look like a Christian Taliban, don't they.

Now, what I find seriously odd is the comparison to Nazis of large segments of the population, of either camp. The bulk of the German population was propagandized, misled and fear-mongered into complicity with the Nazis. This sounds like the process that is occurring with a great many of the conservative Christians in this country. That doesn't make CC's comparable to Nazis, just to lemmings.

nova: when I read your first post about CCs not battling spiritually, I had to laugh. After reading it I sat there saying, "That's what I'm saying. We HAVE to use spiritual weapons."

I don't know. I read this as Cathy recognizing that, after all was said and done, she and Nova were saying essentially the same thing in different language and concepts. I find myself arguing vehemently on occasion and then realizing that I have actually been agreeing with the person I am arguing against. My reaction, in those instances, is to laugh.

In her previous thread Cathy wrote:

The problem is that we try to fight spiritual battles with our mouths or with our minds or with politics. Spiritual battle must be fought with spiritual weapons: which are "not of flesh and blood" but are empowered by God to pull down strongholds and any idea that exalts itself against the knowledge of God. The context of this passage is talking about meekness and appropriate "warfare." I think the strongest weapons we have are love and prayer and service.

Novaseeker wrote:

So it has to be a blended approach, at least from the LGBT side of things .. while we certainly ought not act in anger, but always in the spirit of love, we must nevertheless firmly resist the efforts being made by the Christian Right, and we must do that on the legislative, political and judicial levels to the best of our ability as well. The *attitude* or *spirit* of that effort is important to get right, and it should be positive, loving and reinforcing, but nevertheless relentlessly resist non-love.

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I don't see thse as miles apart. They don't seem opposite, but simply different views of the same thing. I could be wrong.

Believe me, those who you think are unchangeable (Saul on the road to Damascus) are TOTALLY reachable by the God of the universe. I used to believe MUCH differently on many issues than I do now and would have gone down fighting on them. Many here are the same way. But no one is beyond spiritual help. I know it seems silly to ask that the gay activists "lay down their weapons and surrender." Someone has to, though. The only question is, who is going to be the "bigger" man...

This created quite the stir, with much of it seeming to be aimed at the "lay down our weapons" and "bigger man [sic]"

Zerbie responded with:

Cathy, if these things are what you meant, they are all troublesome. #3 in particular is offensive and unacceptable. It is nothing other than telling gays to be good little homos and sit back and accept unequal treatment under the law so that they don't upset all the people who don't like the fact that they exist. It's BS Cathy.

This sentiment was then echoed in a number of posts.

I am going to refer back to the beginning of this post, and reimforce that speed and tiredness do not make for a well-explicated post in a serious discussion (or well spelt for that matter).

I think Cathy is referring, in this statement, to her passage and the way her thoughts and ideology has changed over time and, MOST IMPORTANTLY, how they were changed. Those who we think are unchangeable (e.g. Cathy) are changeable through spiritual help (read - use of spiritual weapons), as opposed to using the non-spiritual weapons commonly used by the opponents.

Again, I could be wrong, but is it possible that Cathy is saying, "don't use the same weapons as your enemy, use the weapons of dialogue and love and gentleness that have worked with me"?

It seems to me that, if Cathy is guilty of gross generalizations, they are exhibited in assuming that others can be changed and reached by love and interaction as she has been. She is using her experience of being changed as a universal approach. I don't think she meant stop using any weapons, but chose weapons that stand in stark contrast to those used by our enemies. Be visibly different - be visibly Christian - be anti-hate.

Then again, I could be niave as hell and looking for the good in everyone.

[Daniel]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

It seems to me that, if Cathy is guilty of gross generalizations, they are exhibited in assuming that others can be changed and reached by love and interaction as she has been. She is using her experience of being changed as a universal approach. I don't think she meant stop using any weapons, but chose weapons that stand in stark contrast to those used by our enemies. Be visibly different - be visibly Christian - be anti-hate.

Then again, I could be niave as hell and looking for the good in everyone.

Andrew- All you say could be true. But we will never know unless Cathy drags herself to her computer and makes a post.

Speaking rhetorically, I only wish the opposition showed as much grace and consideration that you have in your exegesis. That is the spirit of nonviolence, it seems to me.

Have we (those of us that did) jumped on Cathy's back in our hurry to pick apart her post, reading into it that which we abhor the most, the condemnation of 'you can be changed if only you pray hard enough'? Perhaps. We may be guilty of bad manners and hasty reaction in response to hastily written- as well as incomplete- expression of thought.

It makes me reflect on the defenses we so easily raise when no defense is needed at all: looking for weakness in another, we overlook our own.

Cathy- where art thou?