UMC bulletin boards

[suzer1013]

Hi everyone. I've lurked here for a while, but hesitated to post. Spiritually, I'm sort of lost right now, which I guess is the reason for my hesitation.

Until recently, I was a member of a local liberal UMC congregation in Atlanta. Great church, great people, but for a variety of reasons, I became disillusioned and left (partly because of the larger UMC's policies on homosexuality). Occasionally, I would read the message boards on www.umc.org. They would often infuriate me with people posting things that were anti-homosexual -- they were often extremely offensive. I only recently posted a few things, trying to remain positive and upbeat. (My posts are posted under the name Zoe, if you want to see what I wrote -- there was a whole argument about cross-dressing that annoyed me to no end with the closed mindedness of some individuals)

There is a gentleman that has recently come on those boards who is purposefully trying to enflame passions with his anti-homosexual rhetoric. I reported him once, so now he tries to still post anti-homosexual stuff under the guise of being "legitimate" articles against homosexuality. Trouble is, it is clear that these articles are biased, full of misleading misinformation, and are based on slanted, bogus research. It is very frustrating that the UMC is letting this guy post at all, but I also understand free speech concerns.

I'm not very good at dealing with folks like this, and my tendency is to just stop reading the boards, which I probably will. On the other hand, why should this guy be able to get away with this, and possibly encourage the gullible to believe this misinformation? Should I respond to him? Should I ignore his tripe? I feel if I don't speak out, I'm doing a disservice to my fellow GLBT citizens.

It makes me so angry that this guy is allowed to get away with presenting anti-gay material in the guise of a scientific article. After all, the UMC (despite it's anti-gay policies) still affirms homosexuals as being of "sacred worth." Maybe I should just accept the fact that half of the people posting on those boards are right wing fanatics and they are never going to be open to rational conversation. It just makes me mad (and sad), that's all.

Finally, I've never been able to fully and completely embrace Soulforce's non-violent teachings, which is also why I've avoided posting. I have a really hard time removing anger from my heart -- these people do make me very angry with their words of hate and use of religion to justify their prejudices. I don't know if I can approach someone like this guy in a peaceful and loving way. The "love your enemy" stuff is very hard for me. Unless I can cleanse my heart of anger and hatred toward the folks who would oppress me, I cannot follow Soulforce's methods. I wish I could. Maybe, over time, I'll be able to be more at peace with that.

Thanks for reading....

Susan

[NathanATX]

off to umc.org I go...

[NathanATX]

ok...

That was pretty disturbing.

I would REALLY appreciate some help from you guys in responding to some of these posts. Even if you're not really strong in the biblical details, simply expressing your opinion could make a difference.

www.umc.org and click on "online discussion" and register for the forums.

blessings,
Nate

[suzer1013]

Nate -- thanks for checking it out! I find the inflammatory anti-gay rhetoric on those boards is equivalent to (if not outright) hate speech, and I wonder who in the heck is monitoring the boards. Respectful discussion is one thing, hate speech is another.

I'll probably post some kind of response to the "Dangers of Homosexuality" thread, but I need to calm down a bit before I do. Another part of me just wants to wash my hands of the whole thing, and let the UMC do whatever it is going to do. But I guess I wouldn't be here if I didn't want to take some kind of action, right?

Thx.

Susan

[NathanATX]

Yes... the intensity and vulgarity from some of those posts is very disheartening. Keep in mind, most of them are coming from 2 or 3 bigots and everyone else is kinda-sorta not sure and are just going along with them because they don't have clear alternative of a truly Christ-like belief.

So, don't take it personally. Don't "attack" them."

But absolutely don't let them get away with what they're saying.

[keltic63]

Registered!

[keltic63]

WOW

where is Jesus in that community forum? I don't think I'll be visiting any UMC any time real soon if that is representative of their membership and Pastors! I was really surprised at the statements by some of the pastors there.

[NathanATX]

Thanks for registering!

Great post!

[suzer1013]

How does this sound as a reply to the "Dangers" post? Does it seem attacking at all? I certainly don't want it to come across that way. Just thought I'd get y'alls 2 cents before I post my reply. And thanks for your posts (here and there). A couple more tolerant and loving voices are needed on those message boards!

Many blessings,

Susan


I have seen articles like this before. They attempt to appear scientific and legitimate by offering a lengthy bibliography of studies at the end of the article, from which the information in the article was supposedly taken. What these type of anti-gay rhetoric articles attempt to do is gather what was otherwise legitimate snippets of information from various studies and lump it all into one slanted article to support prejudice against homosexuals. The attempt to appear scientific and unbiased fails miserably when read with a critical eye.

I note that there is no author's name listed on the article, nor does it appear to have been published in any reputable, scholarly, legitimate journal. If I am incorrect, please feel free to give me the name of the original medical or other scholarly journal where this article was published, the name of the publisher and author.

While the studies cited may be legitimate, the information in them is used to mischaracterize the sexual behavior and sexual health of homosexuals. I cannot note too strongly that STDs and immoral sexual behavior are rampant in the community at large (both heterosexual and homosexual), and the vast majority of the studies cited were not intended to be misused as a diatribe against homosexuality.

My understanding is that the UMC states that homosexuals are of "sacred worth" and that the church urges friends and family of homosexuals not to discriminate against them because of their sexual orientation.

In my opinion, this disingenuous article amounts to hate speech against homosexuals. Respectful discussion is welcomed on these boards, but this is false and misleading information. I hope the readers of these boards will not be misled by such anti-gay rhetoric.

Zoe

[NathanATX]

Zoe... I had to google and google to find out where that "article" came from. But I succeded.

The author is Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr, copyrighted in 2002 I believe. On the concerned women for america website, they had "1997" by the article title. So I'm not sure exactly... but I think it was Diggs.

Here was my response:

************************************************

Whether the intent of the poster was malicious or not, the effect was.

Here is some background from the author of that "research."

*************
http://www.counterbias.com/559.html

I recently read “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” by Dr. John R. Diggs, Jr. I found the article on the Catholic Educator’s Research Center’s website in late January 2006. The article’s 2002 copyright is held by the Corporate Resource Council whose goal, according to their website, is to provide analyses “of the value to corporations of family- and faith-friendly employee policies. The goal of all CRC resources and programs is to equip corporate executives to establish family- and faith-friendly employee policies based on sound legal, financial and other business principles.”

Dr. Diggs has been a member of the National Advisory Council of the Family Research Council, the anti-gay political lobbying group that organized and sponsored the three “Justice Sunday” events (JS, JS II, JS III). Some of his beliefs have been posted on the FRC website. He has testified against Massachusetts’ H. 1643 and S. 1319, “An Act to Provide Timely Access to Emergency Contraception,” and has argued against “tolerance” education. He is a member of the Physician Resource Council of Massachusetts, “the medical advisory arm” of the Massachusetts Family Institute that is “dedicated to strengthening the family and affirming the Judeo-Christian values upon which it is based.” Dr. Diggs is also listed with the Ambassador Speakers Bureau and Literacy Agency whose “about us” begins with “Ambassador is the oldest and most established Christian-based talent agency in the United States.”

Dr. Diggs’ basic argument in “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was that “sexual relationships between members of the same sex expose” participants “to extreme risks of Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STDs), physical injuries, mental disorders and even a shortened life span.” [italics added].

“STDs” were the first risk in the list. Yes, homosexuals do suffer from STDs, just as do heterosexuals. Unprotected sex can be dangerous for everyone. No doubt about it. However, in the “Health Care” section of the article, several diseases “frequent among male homosexual practitioners” were listed: “anal cancer, chlamydia trachomatis, cryptosporidium, giardia lamblia, herpes simplex virus, human immunodeficiency virus, human papilloma virus, isospora belli, microsporidia, gonorrhea, viral hepatitis types B and C, syphilis.” [italics and links added]

There is no doubt these can be found in the gay community, but what bothered me was the statement “sexual transmission of some of these diseases is so rare in the exclusively heterosexual population as to be virtually unknown.” I am not a medical doctor, but after a few days researching on-line medical sources (hence the added links), speaking with health care providers (general practitioners and specialists) as well as “sex therapists,” it seems these diseases are not that “rare” or “virtually unknown” in “the exclusively heterosexual population.” Heterosexuals also practice oral and anal sex, as well as other more, shall we say “kinky” varieties that could also result in transmission of these diseases or precipitate the conditions that lead to them.

That Dr. Diggs chose to begin his non-alphabetical list not with the most common diseases but with rare “anal cancer” – strictly speaking not an “STD” – seemed suspicious, so I consulted medical, scientific and “general info” authorities: the National Cancer Institute, Cancer Information and Support International and Mamashealth, a nonpartisan, unaffiliated website “aimed at providing clear, simple, easy to understand information about health” which had this to say:

Anal cancer is more common in American women than men. It is often seen above age 60. In younger adults, it is more common in single homosexual men than in heterosexual men. … Anal cancer is very uncommon. [italics added]

The other two sources agreed. “The Health Risks of Gay Sex” was copyrighted in 2002, but according to the National Cancer Institute’s 2003 estimates, new cases of anal, anal canal and anorectum cancers nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 4,000; Male: 1,700; Female: 2,300.” Estimated deaths nationwide were reported as “Both sexes: 500; Male: 200; Female: 300.”

[NathanATX]

More than that though.

The intent of such hate-filled bigotry is to cause fear and disgust... in order to consolidate power and mobilize "the troops."

If your mission was to convince good Christian people to oppose homosexuals with everything in their power... how would you go about doing it?

- Convince them God has hate & disgust for gay people. Twist the scripture to back it up. If God hates them, it's ok for us to hate them.

- Highlight everything negative about gay people while preventing people from realizing that the same things happen--and worse-- with heterosexuals. Stds, bizzarre/kinky sex, promiscuity, drug use.

- Repress the knowledge of gay & lesbian people who have contributed positively to the world.

- Repress the knowledge of gay & lesbian couples who have been faithful to each other in committed, monogamous relationships for 10, 20, 30, 40 & 50 years or more. (I personally know many couples who have been together for 30 & 40 years.)

- Create gay & lesbian people as posing a threat to the good christian's individual family.

- Demonize gay people as anti-God & anti-Christian.

I could go on and on.

If you think the extremist right doesn't have an agenda against gay & lesbian people, you are seriously mistaken. And if you think they are not using good, loving, Christian people to accomplish it, you are deluded.

[Zerbie]

Hi Susan, welcome, glad you decided to post after all!

I am like you - finding it WAAY too difficult to respond to certain "arguments" and statements. My anger level goes off the charts sometimes (I have a really crappy past, too, so things easily trigger me.) The only thing to do is cope - do what you're doing. When you're too angry to address something objectively, just don't respond. Since these are online conversations, we can just walk away from the computer, punch a pillow, then go about our day and forget about it. If after that we find we have something to say that might actually be helpful, well then! We go back and post something when we're not in the throes of some hot emotion.

So I think what you're doing is terrific! I didn't find your post to be "attacking" in its tone. I'm sure those message boards need a reasoned voice. Glad that Nathan and Keltic are checking it out too - I won't be joining, as a non-christian, I don't see what I would have to bring to the discussion except an "outsiders" argument. And I'm very opinionated, so it wouldn't help, methinks.

[suzer1013]

Thanks for the welcome, Zerbie! And thanks also to Nate and Keltic for their support. I've just found it really disturbing that the UMC would continue to allow such stuff on their website. I think some of the more liberal voices there have just given up responding. But I think it's important that folks don't stray across those message boards and think that all UMC churches are going to be unwelcoming. Those boards certainly haven't always felt like a "safe" place for GLBT folks. Still, I'm drawn to reading them occasionally - - perhaps against my better judgment!

I struggle to remain loving in my message, even with those who are not loving with me. It is difficult, and sometimes it is easy to lose hope. Coming to Soulforce helps strengthen me, and I am so grateful that there are folks out there who are trying to make a positive difference.

Susan

[NathanATX]

----------------
On 3/21/2006 4:39:54 PM bill_chatfield@yahoo.com wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conrad,

Repeating the words of God is not bigotry. The words of the Bible come from God. You should be careful because if you call Leviticus 20:13 bigotry, you are effectively calling God a bigot, because those are his words.

I think that most normal people would agree that people who are homosexual are people of 'sacred worth.' They are no less valuable and no less deserving of love, respect, and dignity than any other person. God loves homosexual people just as he loves heterosexual people. These things are true and I will argue with anyone who disagress.

But, we should not call the words of the Bible bigotry, because those are God's words. We need to try to understand why God said what he did, and understand that Jesus' command to love others is higher than the various legal restrictions of the Old Testament.----------------



I disagree.

Bigotry comes in to play when you pick and choose what to believe and apply to your life and promote as your beliefs.

You believe in applying Leviticus 20:13, but you choose to overlook promoting Leviticus 20:18 "If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people."

Leviticus 20:13 most likely doesn't affect you.
Leviticus 20:18 potentially affects many heterosexual people in "good Christian marriages."

And what about divorce?

In Matthew 5:23, Jesus himself said, "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, causes her to become an adulteress, and anyone who marries the divorced woman commits adultery."

Leviticus declares the death penalty for adultery.

Leviticus 20:10 " 'If a man commits adultery with another man's wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.

Choosing one and not the other is clear bigotry.

[NathanATX]

I will concur that if you read the Bible literally, without any attempt at understanding the historical, cultural & language contexts, you can justify a condemnation of homosexual behavior.

I suggest to you that Christians simply don't do that. Even the most primitive, fundamentalist Christians don't take all of the Bible literally.

I firmly believe that if you apply the same methods to understanding the texts against homosexuality that you apply towards the the texts that advocate the misuse & abuse of women, slavery, racism, religious intolerance, etc., you will be left with a clear and powerful sense that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.

I believe the Bible is more a message of God's love to the world, especially as displayed through the life & sacrifice of Christ, than a message about sexuality.

[dewdrop_world]

Is anyone reporting gad113's posts on there? Seems to me they're in pretty blatant violation of the code of conduct.

I'll probably join in the fray... looking for a good fight

hjh

[dewdrop_world]

Followup to my previous -- here's my first post at umc.org:

http://archives.umc.org/idealbb/view...578A8AF37A785C

hjh

[Joe Brummer]

I tried to log in after registering to the site, but was never given a user name, and my email didn't work....

anyway,
Nate......

You need this.....The medical dangers of homosexuality, by Dr. John Diggs... refuted...

http://joebrummer.com/WordPress/?page_id=62

[suzer1013]

Thanks y'all for adding your voices and support on the UMC boards. As you probably know, the UMC is divided on many issues, and there are extreme right wing fanatics who are trying to take over the church. I have a book called "United Methodism at Risk" which details these groups and their efforts.

I am no longer a member of the United Methodist Church. I moved my membership back to the Episcopal Church, but I'm not attending anywhere at the moment. Still, I have an interest in the UMC as it struggles with the homosexuality issue (and others). I know the Episcopal Church struggles also, but it seems like they are about 20 years ahead of the UMC. What is scary is that there is a concerted effort by these groups to "take over" liberal mainstream churches and mold them to their fundamentalist theology. I find fundamentalism in most forms very frightening, and not, to my understanding, what Jesus would have wanted his teachings to be about.

As for this "gad" guy, I did report him once, and he was warned by the moderators to stop the extreme anti-gay rhetoric (he was supporting execution of homosexuals). I may wait a while to see if he continues his hate speech (which he probably will). If he does, I'll report him again.

What bothers me, is anyone coming across these boards trying to find out more about the UMC is not going to get an accurate depiction of the church. There's alot of good things about the UMC that is not represented by these folks. It's unfortunate that a few people are using the boards as a soapbox for their right wing rhetoric.

Susan

[suzer1013]

Oh my gosh! Those boards are livelier than I've seen them in ages! How refreshing. I am not well versed enough in scripture to make some of the arguments that some of you have made, so I'm really thankful that you have added to the discussions there. Maybe some hearts will be changed. If not, at least we are presenting an alternative viewpoint to what often appears there. Thanks, y'all.

Susan