Archive for March, 2013|Monthly archive page

Arguing with Christians on the Internet About Homosexuality

by Dean Hansen

A: God is Love.

B: Does God love homosexuals?

A: God loves everyone.

B: So God accepts homosexuals?

A: Yes, as long as they don’t have sex.

B: Why can’t they have sex?

A: Because homosexual sex is intrinsically evil.

B: Says who?

A: The Pope.

B: Who told the Pope that homosexual sex is evil?

A: God.

B: Is this the same God that Jesus called father?

A: Of course it is.

B: Then why didn’t Jesus ever say anything about homosexuality?

A: The Old Testament did.

B: Did Jesus write the Old Testament?

A: The Bible was written under the inspiration of God.

B: Didn’t Jesus say “I and my father are one?”

A: Yes.

B: So we should do what the Old Testament says?

A: Not everything.

B: Why?

A: Because we’d have to kill our own children when they were disobedient among other things.

B: You think killing your own children is wrong?

A: Of course it is!

B: Who told you that?

A: The Church! It instructs us in how to live holy lives.

B: What about smashing children’s head heads in with rocks, does the church command that?

A: Don’t be ridiculous!

B: So, some things in the Old Testament are just crazy?

A: It was a different time!

B: But it’s still inspired by God?

A: In most cases.

B: And it’s the Church’s job to sort it out?

A: Yes.

B: Even though the Church is filled with homosexual priests who abuse children?

A: It’s the Church’s job to sort that out too.

B: So you have a group of self-loathing homosexuals whose hatred contaminates everything it touches?

A: To err is human, to forgive divine.

B: Do you think forgiveness means entrusting your children to a church with no moral authority?

A: It’s better than having them go to hell!

B: Wouldn’t it be wiser to worry about the one your church has created for itself?


An Astonishing Message From a Gay Sister in Christ

Gil Bailie of The Cornerstone Forum seems to find the following testimony inspiring:

An Astonishing Message from a Gay Sister in Christ

Posted on March 18, 2013 by Hunter Baker

To the churches concerning homosexuals and lesbians:

Self-loathingMany of you believe that we do not exist within your walls, your schools, your neighborhoods. You believe that we are few and easily recognized. I tell you we are many. We are your teachers, doctors, accountants, high school athletes. We are all colors, shapes, sizes. We are single, married, mothers, fathers. We are your sons, your daughters, your nieces, your nephews, your grandchildren. We are in your Sunday School classes, pews, choirs, and pulpits. You choose not to see us out of ignorance or because it might upset your congregation. We ARE your congregation. We enter your doors weekly seeking guidance and some glimmer of hope that we can change. Like you, we have invited Jesus into our hearts. Like you, we want to be all that Christ wants us to be. Like you, we pray daily for guidance. Like you, we often fail.

When the word “homosexual” is mentioned in the church, we hold our breaths and sit in fear. Most often this word is followed with condemnation, laughter, hatred, or jokes. Rarely do we hear any words of hope. At least we recognize our sin. Does the church as a whole see theirs? Do you see the sin of pride, that you are better than or more acceptable to Jesus than we are? Have you been Christ-like in your relationships with us? Would you meet us at the well, or restaurant, for a cup of water, or coffee? Would you touch us even if we showed signs of leprosy, or aids? Would you call us down from our trees, as Christ did Zacchaeus, and invite yourself to be our guest? Would you allow us to sit at your table and break bread? Can you love us unconditionally and support us as Christ works in our lives, as He works in yours, to help us all to overcome?

Catholic GuiltTo those of you who would change the church to accept the gay community and its lifestyle: you give us no hope at all. To those of us who know God’s word and will not dilute it to fit our desires, we ask you to read John’s letter to the church in Pergamum. “I have a few things against you: You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam, who taught Balak to entice the Israelites to sin by eating food sacrificed to idols and by committing sexual immorality. Likewise, you also have those who hold to the teaching of the Nicolaitans. Repent therefore!” You are willing to compromise the word of God to be politically correct. We are not deceived. If we accept your willingness to compromise, then we must also compromise. We must therefore accept your lying, your adultery, your lust, your idolatry, your addictions, YOUR sins. “He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”

We do not ask for your acceptance of our sins any more than we accept yours. We simply ask for the same support, love, guidance, and most of all hope that is given to the rest of your congregation. We are your brothers and sisters in Christ. We are not what we shall be, but thank God, we are not what we were. Let us work together to see that we all arrive safely home.

A Sister in Christ


Tim Brock responds:

Gil, this woman’s testimony is heartbreaking. Her confusion and unhappiness are palpable. Because I fathered and raised a gay son, my paternal instinct kicks in when I read stories like this, and I just want to take her in my arms and tell her she’s beautiful just as she is. If someone could only rescue her from that blighted environment where she is condemned, ridiculed, and hated, where she has learned to equate her own sexual desires with lying, adultery, lust, idolatry, and addictions. 

You can see that she has completely internalized all this loathing and that it has created a very toxic psychological brew in her life. “Thank God we are not what we were,” she writes, as if she had really sloughed off her sexuality and were no longer gay. But she still IS gay, and she knows the taunts are directed at her.

Newly-wedsWorst of all, she can never again be proud or happy, because she can no longer own her desires. Her desires are now mediated by the Church. She is told to desire what she cannot desire, to despise what she does desire, and to despise herself for desiring it. This is a recipe for madness.

Her story is so obviously tragic to me because I’ve witnessed something utterly beautiful and joyous: the love between my son and his husband-to-be, and the happiness their love has brought into their lives. I wish the same for this young lady, but my fear is that she is now trapped and has no way out. I’ve seen many others like her, and I just want to tell them, “This is NOT necessary! Get out of whatever cult you’re in. Now!”

Gil Bailie: Same-Sex Marriage is NOT a Civil Rights Issue.

Bernice King, My Father Did not...

[Note: The following article was posted on The Cornerstone Forum site on 3/13/13 and then removed two days later following responses from Tim Brock and Jim Swenson, below.]

Gil Bailie of The Cornerstone Forum writes:

The attempt on the part of those insisting on the redefinition of marriage to wrap their cause in the mantle of civil rights—claiming to represent “the civil rights issue of our time”—is ludicrous on many levels. (Today the civil rights of those wanting to express their sexuality in novel ways is [sic] perfectly protected already.) The real analogy is with the Supreme Court’s invention of the “right” to abortion—which really IS the civil rights issue of our time. Regardless of how many get swept up into the hazy logic of the sexual revolutionaries, over time people will begin to clear their heads—as has happened with the abortion question. Thirty years ago, and even ten years ago, pro-abortion advocates really believed that they were achieving what the Supreme Court claimed to be doing in Roe v. Wade: that is, settling the issue and ending the controversy. Regardless of how much damage is done in the meantime, the reality of marriage—just as the reality of racial justice and the reality of human life in the womb—will prevail. To steal from Francis Scott Key’s “Star Spangled Banner,” someday the morning will break, the smoke and haze of obfuscation will clear, and we or those who come after us will see that Western civilization is still there. Or we won’t, and it won’t be. For that is what is at stake in all three of these debates: racial justice, the life of the unborn child, and the cultural uniqueness and indispensability [of] marriage as it has been understood until the day before yesterday. (Again: go read Snyder’s book “Bloodlands,” and see what happens when the fundamental structures of cultural life are compromised or—in our case—cavalierly dismantled. “Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world…”)

Same-sex marriage is NOT a civil rights issue.

Tim Brock responds:

Gil, what you say about the civil rights of LGBTs being already protected is far from the truth. Forty-one states still do not allow gays to marry the person of their choice. In the nine states that do allow same-sex marriage, the couples are denied 1134 federal benefits that opposite-sex couples enjoy. Twenty-nine states allow discrimination based on sexual orientation. This means bias in hiring, promotion, job assignment, housing, conjugal visits, immigration, and access to medical services. Adoption by same-sex couples is banned in many states. This information is available all over the Internet.

I agree that the reality of marriage will prevail, and I think we’ve heard more than enough doom-saying. In those jurisdictions where same-sex marriage has been legalized, straight marriages have not been adversely affected. Western civilization is still there, and anarchy is not loosed upon the world.

I believe marriage is good for people, and I want my gay son to marry the person he loves. I want him to have loving companionship and the stability that marriage provides. And I want him to be able to talk about his “marriage,” not his “relationship.”

Jim Swenson responds:

Bernice King made the quoted statement in 2004. Since that time, she has joined her mother and her sister in supporting LGBT rights. She gave a very gay-inclusive speech not long ago.

[end of thread]

Dean Hansen writes:

Martin Luther King took his first bullet from rival black leader and congressman Adam Clayton Powell, who threatened to expose Bayard Rustin as a homosexual in a blackmail threat to derail the civil rights movement. Powell was prepared to lie and say that Rustin and King were having a sexual affair.   Rustin was King’s right-hand man, and the one who would later be responsible for organizing the March on Washington in 1963. Without him, it most likely wouldn’t have happened, and much of the civil rights legislation that followed would have been delayed. Before Stonewall, one “exposed” homosexuality; one didn’t deal with it or acknowledge it, and one certainly didn’t accept it publicly. King was worried that the movement would be derailed by such a controversy, and when Rustin volunteered to resign from the organization early on, King let him go temporarily. Rustin was devastated by King’s decision, because he fully expected him to call Powell’s bluff.

Post hoc generalizations and assessments about King’s stand on political and moral issues that were not yet even active in the public imagination are unfair to his memory and accomplishments, especially when they come from his own offspring, who are equally divided on the issue. King never said anything about homosexuality pro or con, public or private. It might be fitting to remind ourselves that he bears that in common with the founder of his faith.
The March on Washington demanded that the government put an end to officially sanctioned forms of racism. It doesn’t seem that difficult to imagine that Martin Luther King, whose movement for civil justice based on non-violence was largely implemented and sustained by the organizational skills of a homosexual black man, would be any less passionate about ending officially sanctioned forms of sexual bigotry that seek to keep one group of citizens at arm’s length over issues of marital equality.

Asking 3% of the population to live in perpetual sexual limbo in order to be pleasing to an imaginary conception of God is not that much different from asking Blacks in Mississippi to drink from a separate water fountain, when they are both drinking the exact same water. If “living water” is more divisive than its liquid version, who would want it, much less endure it?


Sophie Kicks the Door Down

The Cornerstone Forum writes:

“The process of desacralization … ends up by returning us to a savage sacrality.” – Antoine Vergote

We can, and should, move from the primitive sacred—at the heart of which is violence and superstition—to the sacramental sacrality of sanctification and holiness, but secularity is not sustainable in naturally religious creatures like ourselves. As a religiously edifying sense of the sacred is eliminated from cultural life, it is only a matter of time before primitive forms return: idolatry and child sacrifice.

Readers respond:

Sophie Sommers Mr. Bailie, what is the difference between primitive sacrality and the sacrality of Christianity? How does desacralization return us to sacrality?

Gordon Savage

Gordon Savage

Gordon Savage Sophie, Seriously, to understand what goes on at this forum you need to have read and thought through [René] Girard’s “Violence and the Sacred” and “Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World,” as well as Gil’s book [“Violence Unveiled”]. Minimum. If you don’t know how Girard differentiates the primitive sacred from Christianity, you’re simply missing the meaning of most of what goes on here.

Sophie Sommers Gordon, how arrogant of you to assume my question was asked out of ignorance of Girard’s theory. I have read all of Girard’s major works as well as Mr Bailie’s only one. And how ungenerous of you to put down anyone who asks a question about mimetic theory. Not very interested in outreach and education, are you?

Since you have been initiated into the mysteries, maybe you could answer my question, provided you have not taken a vow of secrecy and your fraternal society does not exclude women.

Can you explain the paradox? How does one achieve “desacralization” through human sacrifice, even if the victim is recognized as a victim? If God “sent” an incarnation of himself to be sacrificed for our sins, and that sacrifice was in expiation for original sin, as Catholic teaching holds, how is that NOT a continuation of the primitive sacred? How can the Passion “reveal” the scapegoating mechanism while actually serving the identical purpose that all blood sacrifice serves, i.e., expiating, cleansing of rancor and of sin? The victim is always regarded as a savior/god “after the fact,” and is also sometimes shown to have been innocent. Doesn’t Jesus’s death serve the same purpose for Christians as human and animal sacrifice always did for those who practiced it? It’s a foundational act because without it there would be endless mimetic conflict, making stable societies impossible. Isn’t that also what expiation is also all about? Carrying away sin? Cleansing the society? Washing oneself in the blood of the lamb?

Continue reading