Gay Christian Network Anounces “Reclaiming Christianity” Initiative

Justin Lee

June 18th, 2010

Guest author Justin Lee is the Executive Director of the Gay Christian Network.

Regular readers of Box Turtle Bulletin already know what damage the Christian community has often done to LGBT people, whether it’s going to Uganda to preach anti-gay messages or putting on ex-gay conferences like Love Won Out that teach parents to push their kids to become straight.

The way some Christians talk, you’d think that Jesus was a card-carrying homophobe whose public ministry consisted of preaching against homosexuality and “healing” people of “homosexuality demons.”

None of this is true, of course. As depicted in the Bible, Jesus spent his public ministry preaching a message of love and forgiveness, meeting people’s needs without judging them. He was most heavily criticized for being so accepting of the outcasts of his day. He never spoke a word about homosexuality; instead, the only people he publicly criticized were the self-righteous religious leaders who excluded others while glorifying themselves. And even though some believe that a handful of Bible verses cast a negative light on gay relationships, many Christians believe those passages have been misinterpreted, and they certainly don’t justify the kind of obsession we see in some Christian circles.

Nevertheless, many in the LGBT community are willing to concede the entire Christian faith to the likes of Fred Phelps and his “God hates fags” clan. They insist that Christians are beyond redemption, and that the only step forward for the LGBT community is to somehow rid the world of Christianity altogether. (I wonder how they plan to accomplish that!)

Those of us at The Gay Christian Network think otherwise.

We know that there are many LGBT and affirming Christians in the world. We know that too often, we’ve allowed the anti-LGBT Christians to speak for our faith while we remain silent. Frankly, they’ve been better organized and more vocal. And we aren’t willing to put up with that anymore.

Starting this weekend, we’re working with affirming churches from across denominational lines to begin a series of mini-conferences called “Reclaiming Christianity” as a way to take a stand. The events will include training in how to respond to Bible bashing, screening of a pro-LGBT Christian film called Through My Eyes, and group discussion on practical steps to take to combat homophobia in churches and local communities. We’d love the help of BTB readers in getting the word out.

The kickoff event will be this Saturday, June 19, in Raleigh, NC. After that, events are scheduled in Indianapolis, Birmingham, Detroit, and Houston, with more to follow. The events are being sponsored by local LGBT-affirming churches in each of these cities, and organized by The Gay Christian Network, an interdenominational nonprofit organization serving LGBT and supportive Christians around the world.

The Reclaiming Christianity events are designed to counter anti-gay and ex-gay events with an affirming Christian message. It’s time for our side to get as organized as their side is, and stop letting the ones with the megaphones define Christianity.

If you’re interested, we’d love for you to be a part of what we’re doing. Details are on the conference website at ChristiansWhoLove.com.

In the meantime, I’m listening. What do you think affirming Christians need to do to counter the anti-LGBT messages? And will the secular LGBT community ever be willing to work with them to make change, or have they been permanently been written off?

RB_Chicago

June 18th, 2010

Could you not utilize the tools of your opponents by attacking strawmen who want to ‘rid the world of Christianity’. If you have sources, cite them. Otherwise you’re no different than the people who say ‘The Homosexual Agenda wants to indoctrinate children’.

That being said, I have no desire to rid the world of christianity. Christianity is doing too fine a job of making itself both unpalatable and irrelevant. From financial scandal to child rape, the only prequisite for Christian belief, it seems, is a heart felt unwillingness to act according to christ’s teachings.

Brought to you by a former catholic whose high school president was recently outed as a child molester.

penguinsaur

June 18th, 2010

http://www.gaychristian.net/greatdebate.php?fbb_session_id/5ab7d8b88edc2ecc1b3a87453d03401d/

If ‘side B’ is anything more than a tiny fringe *which I find doubtful since no one bothers debating a tiny fringe* than your claims to be ‘affirming’ are a complete and utter lie.

Justin Lee

June 18th, 2010

Hi RB,

I wish it were an exaggeration or a strawman, but the truth is, I regularly receive messages from fellow LGBTs who tell me that trying to build bridges with Christians is useless, and that either Christianity itself or religion in general is the problem, and that the world would be better off without them. The implication, of course, is that fighting for LGBT equality means fighting *against* Christianity, and some will even come right out and say that point blank. Just read the comments on any LGBT-themed blog when the topic comes up, and there’s usually at least someone carrying that torch.

I certainly wasn’t trying to imply that there’s some kind of secret LGBT plot to destroy religion! That would be ridiculous. My point was that there are many who think that Christianity itself is the problem, and I think that’s an entirely unhelpful approach.

I hope that’s clearer!

Justin Lee
Executive Director
The Gay Christian Network

Jason D

June 18th, 2010

I, too, have no desire to destroy Christianity. I do, however, think a country that promises freedom of religion should not favor one segment of religion over others. It absolutely shouldn’t defer to any religion as the basis for our laws.

That being said, I think it’s wonderful you want to reclaim your faith. I think it’s great you refuse to concede it to others. I mean, with so many different variations on Christianity, it makes sense for their to be room for some LGBT-positive sects.

However, Justin, I think you’re glossing over how much religion has been used to abuse gay people.

In the old days what was the worst punishment? It wasn’t death. It wasn’t slavery. It wasn’t rape.

The worst punishment was exile. Family, society, they kept you safe, fed, warm, sheltered, taken care of. They gave you purpose, meaning, safety, support, love. Exile meant strife, struggle, forced and permanent seperation from everything and everyone that mattered to you. It was worse than any death.

LGBT folks from certain religious traditions have been essentially exiled –forced to navigate life without the care, support, guidance, and love of those they trusted. They’ve been betrayed by their church, their family, their religion. All the promises of “family” and “unconditional love” betrayed for such petty reasons. Those that didn’t become suicidal, die on the streets, or enter an ex-gay program, survived in part by rejecting their former religious teachings. So you really can’t blame people for being unhappy with religion.

It’s a bit like getting married to a wonderful person who loves and respects you, then suddenly turns on you, beats you, rapes you, and leaves you by the side of the road to die.

You should not be surprised by this reality. Nor should you be surprised that some people are permanently turned off, just like some people after being raped, beaten, and left to die don’t want to have anything to do with their ex-partner. Expecting them to forgive and move back in with someone who cruelly abused them would be seen as insane.

I’m sure it’s very frustrating, but that’s where some gay people are. No amount of reasoning is going to make them forget how much that betrayal and exile hurt.

Justin Lee

June 18th, 2010

Hey Penguinsaur,

Trust me, I understand your skepticism. As you’ll no doubt have noticed, in that debate, I’m the one arguing in *favor* of gay relationships. We’re on the same side here.

Early on in our organization’s development, we made an important decision. We recognized that the Bible debate is a huge issue for many people. So rather than shutting down the Bible debate on our website, I decided to create a space for that discussion, bring it out into the open, and explain what my position was. There are very few places where people can have that discussion in a safe environment, so I felt that it was important to do so.

I also felt it was important as a way of fighting against the damage being done by ex-gay organizations. Ex-gay organizations thrive only because conflicted gay people who believe the Bible condemns their relationships think that “becoming straight” (which doesn’t work) is their only choice. So for them, we created an alternative: a gay-affirming space where they were allowed to live peacefully in celibacy, affirming their sexual identity, without being forced to change their beliefs by doing so. Again, I think it’s important to respect people’s beliefs.

That said, the “Side B” community (that is, celibate gay Christians) represent only a small minority of our overall membership. The vast majority, including our executive director (me), and our governing board, are all “Side A.” Many of us are in committed relationships, and those who aren’t (again, me) are still hoping to find the right one someday.

The event in question, this “Christians Who Love” event, is a Side A event that offers a pro-gay-relationship view of the Bible and does not promote the other side. So yes, it’s an affirming event for affirming churches.

Justin Lee
Executive Director
The Gay Christian Network

Justin Lee

June 18th, 2010

Jason,

No, trust me, I absolutely understand where they’re coming from. I don’t blame them one bit. I’ve seen horrible things done in the name of religion, and it turns my stomach. I fight that stuff every day.

But even for those who have been terribly hurt by Christians, I hope they’ll understand the importance of having some of us out there doing the work to change minds in the Christian community, so that stuff like this doesn’t happen again.

Justin Lee
Executive Director
The Gay Christian Network

Martin

June 18th, 2010

(Disclaimer: I’m speaking as a non-Christian whose issues with Christianity are NOT primarily about the religion’s stance (real or perceived) on LGBT people.)

To my mind, the most important thing that the Gay Christian Network can do is TALK TO OTHER CHRISTIANS. For the most part, LGBT people are aware that there Christian denominations and individual congregations that are outspoken in their acceptance of LGBT people. We don’t need to be reminded, yet again, that not all Christians hate or devalue gay people. More important, we understand that these accepting people are not behind the ongoing efforts to dehumanize gay people.

Rather, the focus of your efforts should be those Christians who insist that GLBT people cannot be good people. Those are the Christians who make it their job to ensure that GLBT people remain unequal. They’re also the ones who have already decided that they have no reason to regard GLBT people as their equals or even as complete human beings. No amount of pleading from secular LGBT organizations is going to get through to them.

However, they might be willing to listen to other Christians, or to people whom they see as Christians first, LGBTs second. You might be able to persuade such people that hating LGBTs is not, or ought not to be, an article of faith.

Paul in Canada

June 18th, 2010

Justin, congratulations for your willingness to be pro-active in persuing your faith as a gay person. It doesn’t surprise me that many of the ‘reactions’ here, and I’m sure on your website, are defensive in nature. Religions of all kinds, not just Christianity, have brought us so much pain and lost years of wholeness.

You are up against many who see, as I do, the issue of organized religion (again, not just Christianity) as a formidable foe fighting against who we are as LGBQT folks.

I was raised evangelical Christian and still, at 50 years old, fight tiny battles deep inside my psyche on an almost daily battle. Wounds and scars that never seem to disappear.

And I still struggle with claiming my faith in The Sacred, and seeing Jesus as a shining example of love and social justice.

I wish you all the best. Blessings on your effort!!!

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

Will GCN be working with liberal Christian denominations or is this program focused only on conservative churches?

CPT_Doom

June 18th, 2010

Well if you’re looking for ways to deal with the anti-gay churches, have you thought about bringing back burnings for heresy?

I am only being about 80% snarky with that statement. Any study of the history of Christianity – which at this point has so many permutations that it can no longer be considered one religous belief system – demonstrates the extremes to which various sects of Christianity once oppressed each other. The thousands murdered during the Reformation, many by their own friends, neighbors and family members, are a testament to the ugliness and hatred that can be unleashed when one religious group believes it possesses perfect truth. Yet now the various sects can co-exist, even though many of them accept behaviors (marriage after divorce) that are considered sinful by others.

If I were in your shoes, and wanting to have the impact you say you want, I would stress the sinful lives we all live. I don’t mean in the “we’re all sinners working to get better” sense, but in the sense that even in choosing a branch of Christianity, you are likely to be making a “lifestyle choice” that someone else considers immoral, even though you believe it is a sign of your personal growth. But there is a difference between believing someone else is living immorally and believing that person is a threat to society who must have limitations put on his/her freedom to exist.

The distinction is one of humility. To believe a behavior is immoral is to accept the tenets of a specific faith. To believe that immoral person must be considered “less than” is to be arrogant enough to believe you know the mind of God, which is an impossibility.

Justin Lee

June 18th, 2010

Martin, you’re exactly right that the change has to come from talking to other Christians. That’s why I think these events are so important. They’re events being put on by affirming churches, for Christians, to help train them to make a difference in their own denominations. The change must come from within.

Paul, I know you’re right, and it grieves me. :(

Neon Genesis, these particular events are primarily working with liberal/progressive churches that are already LGBT-friendly. The goal there is to work with our existing supporters to help them work together to share a positive message in the Christian community. However, we also have other programs for conservative churches, such as a new “church toolkit” we’ve developed. We do work all across the spectrum.

CPT_Doom, I agree that humility is a vital key to any discussion of this nature. Thanks for the feedback.

Justin Lee
Executive Director
The Gay Christian Network

Priya Lynn

June 18th, 2010

Justin asked “What do you think affirming Christians need to do to counter the anti-LGBT messages?”.

The most important thing is to be visible and to be heard. The anti-gay christians are very loud and in your face and its easy to forget they don’t represent all christians. This means affirming christians need to spend money on supportive advertising, radio shows, TV commercials and so on. Every time an anti-gay christian gets on the airwaves and makes the false claim that legal gay marriage is an attack on their freedom of religion because it will force churchs to marry gays against their will we need affirming christians to be on the airwaves saying that’s not true, nowhere where gay marriage has been allowed has any church been forced to marry gays against their will – the truth is those opposing gay marriage are attacking freedom of religion by preventing those churches which wish to marry gays from doing so.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

Justin Lee, I hope you can get the Episcopal church on board with this because as it stands right now, the liberal Episcopalians are the most LGBT-friendly Christian denomination, but even among the Episcopal church, there’s a lot of divisions. On the one hand, you have the liberal gay-friendly Christians like John Shelby Spong, but on the other hand, there’s conservative Episcopal churches who are very anti-gay and there’s even Episcopal churches in Africa who support Uganda’s “kill the gays” bill. There needs to be a greater effort in that church especially for understanding, compassion, and tolerance and a desperate need to combat hateful beliefs like the support for the “kill the gays” bill.

David Foreman

June 18th, 2010

I just watched “Through My Eyes” in it’s entirety yesterday. What a touching, thought-provoking video.
I plan on sharing it with everyone I can.

Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2010

Justin,

I hope and pray that God gives you the strength to endure the hostility of both those within the faith who will hate you for being gay and those within the community who will hate you for being Christian.

You are doing good work, brother, and I pray for your success. Our lives (at times, literally) depend on it.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

Justin Lee, you may be interested in the site, thefriendlyatheist.com At their forums:http://forum.friendlyatheist.com/ they have both Christians and atheists who post at the site who are engaged in encouraging dialog between Christians and atheists. There are Christians there who are fundamentalists who believe homosexuality is a sin and there are liberal Christians who support gays. There’s also a forum there on Atheist/Christian cooperation that you may be interested in if you’re interested in promoting dialog between the secular community and the Christian community on LGBT issues.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

Gah, that url should be friendlyatheist.com without the the.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

And if you’re trying to get the secular LGBT community involved, you might try contacting as many secular humanist organizations as you can.

Michael G.

June 18th, 2010

70% of LGBT Americans consider themselves Christians. With 2.1 billion baptized Christians worldwide, there are probably 200 million LGBT Christians worldwide.

I think the main problem involves psychology. There are modern, contemporary Christians who integrate science and psychology into their worldview. And there are Christians stuck in a worldview from many centuries ago.

There are two camps of Christianity now, those who react to homosexuality with moral judgment and those who react with understanding. Those of us who are gay and Christian share other Christians’ reaction against the sleazy side of gay culture.

Certainly every Christian who knows that our God is a God of love should want to fully include LGBT Christians and honor their relationships. It is shocking when you consider that Christ showed such empathy and humanity toward everyone who cheapened themselves sexually.

Promiscuity and dehumanizing sex is our common opponent. Christian and non-Christian, let’s all stand against every subculture of lust, and encourage everyone we know to enter into an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.

I think what Justin Lee and the Gay Christian Network are doing is heroic, honorable, and a great moral good in our society today. Thank you, Justin.

Jarred

June 18th, 2010

Justin,

First let me say that I’m glad that GCN is doing the work that it is doing, and I’m sure that many LGBT folk who wish to remain within or join the folds of Christianity will strongly benefit from what you’re doing. That is to be admired.

Having said that, I would note that many of us, including Martin above, have deeper issues with Christianity (though I have no desire to see it cease to exist) than some Christian’s stance on the issues of sexual orientation and gender identity.

One of the big issues that I see is that many segments of Christianity seem to be about who’s “in” and who’s “out,” and that seems to be a mentality that is hard for many to escape. And to be honest, I’ve seen some gay Christians (I can’t speak to whether any of them are even remotely associated with GCN, so I don’t wish to make any claims as to how this reflects on your organization) who seem to simply move gay Christians from the “out” group to the “in” group and don’t have much of an opinion change about other people, particularly those still in the “out group.” (I’ve even seen the hopefully rare case of a gay Christian who’s still willing to speak somewhat disparagingly of those “other gays.”) To me, that’s a matter of great concern, especially as someone still part of “the out group,” and I can hope you can appreciate how I might be a bit wary of some gay Christians and seeing them as allies.

Is there ultimately a solution to my concerns? I’m not sure. And I’m not sure that it’s GCN’s job to (entirely) address those concerns. But at the same time, I just felt it important to note that there are reason why some of us who are still not Christians may have issues with even a gay-affirming form of Christianity.

Muscat

June 18th, 2010

Justin –

I think many affirming churches have been laying the groundwork for exactly this sort of training, so I wish you luck.

I think affirming Christians need to continue doing some of the things they are (IME) already good at, such as writing letters to the editor and participating in LGBT community events such as Pride celebrations. They also need to be a visible presence in rallies and marches for LGBT rights. However, I think the most important step in terms of redefining the national debate is that they need to become more proactive in dealing with the media. Affirming Christians need to develop relationships with media contacts at a level that those contacts immediately associate their point of view with GLBT rights stories – as a needed point of view beyond just “religious right” versus “(secular) gays.”

Beyond that, I think in terms of dealing with the split within Christianity I think there is a lot of fertile ground here. There are a lot of people in conservative churches – particularly those who have LGBT family members, friends, co-workers – who don’t necessarily subscribe to their church’s official line. Or, at least, they have questions. But they don’t feel particularly motivated to buck the status quo either. I think there is a lot of “bridging” work that can be done here. What that work would look like depends on the specific goals of this program. Is it to reduce homophobia across lines of belief about homosexuality, or is it to convince people that Christianity and homosexuality are compatible?

While I think individually there are secular LGBT folk who have strong negative feelings towards Christianity and/or religion in general, and I think as a whole LGBT folk (including LGBT Christians) harbor some ambivalence about organized religion, overall I think LGBT organizations still see religious/spiritual allies as allies. Most community centers and directories keep a list of LGBT-friendly religious organizations, there are commonly events held regarding LGBT & spirituality, and pro-LGBT-and-Christian/ religious messages are seen as important in making overall arguments for LGBT rights. I think when help is offered to secular LGBT organization it will be welcomed and, particularly if there has been demonstration of willingness/ commitment by affirming Christians to help, if help is asked for secular LGBT organizations will gladly give it.

On the other hand, the strength of affirming Christian churches in dealing with conservative Christianity may be exactly that they are not simply representing the (secular) LGBT community. People who may not be willing to faithfully dialogue with the “godless gays” may be willing/ able to with fellow Christians.

Neon Genesis –
I think you’re forgetting the United Church of Christ. The Episcopal Church of the United States might be the largest LGBT-friendly denomination, but I’m not sure it’s the most LGBT-friendly.

Jarred

June 18th, 2010

Christian and non-Christian, let’s all stand against every subculture of lust, and encourage everyone we know to enter into an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.

There’s a problem with that, Michael G. As a non-Christian, I suspect that I have a much broader understanding of what can qualify as a healthy sexual relationship that honors both/all partners’ dignity. And I find your immediate judgment of some of those relationships rather off-putting.

Muscat

June 18th, 2010

Jarred –

Well said in both accounts (and I don’t think you have to be a non-Christian to make those observations).

Jason D

June 18th, 2010

I agree with Jarred the “subcultures of lust” wording is rather judgemental and vague enough to include all kinds of people who are in a “healthy sexual relationship that honors both/all partners’ dignity.”

Priya Lynn

June 18th, 2010

I’m also put off by Michael G’s attitude toward sex. It seems that when he thinks of sex he sees it first and formost as a negative, destructive thing that must be rigidly controlled and minimized.

Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2010

Muscat / Neon Genesis

Actually the largest gay-friendly denomination is the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (and a case could be made for the United Methodist Church). But, yes, the UCC is the most gay friendly denomination in the country of any significance.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

I think Priya Lynn brings up a good point about viewing sex as negative. I think another issue that churches need to address is changing how we view sex. It seems strange that some Christians claim sex is a gift from God but then turn around and promote a negative anti-sex view unless it fits into a traditional marriage pattern. Christians need to change the way they see sex as something that can be positive and healthy rather than negative that must be repressed and change the focus on sex as being a health issue rather than an issue that needs to be repressed.

Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2010

…an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.

That sounds to me like a goal worth seeking whether one is gay or straight, Christian or nonChristian, or any other demographic.

Priya Lynn

June 18th, 2010

Yes, Timothy, but that was the second view of sex that Michael G came up with, what came first to his mind was all the negatives. Even that statement implies that sex is easily undignified – I certainly don’t share that viewpoint.

Jarred

June 18th, 2010

Yes, Timothy, it’s a goal worth seeking, though I’m not sure it’s the only one worth seeking. (I tend to let other people set their own goals.) I also think it becomes problematic when people start trying to decide what “proper” intimacy and love should like like for other people. Different people have different needs and levels of comfort when it comes to any kind of relationship, and failing to respect that quickly gets you back into moralism, which differs from morality in that the former is an unhealthy concern and desire to control what other people do. Personally, I wish far more people would spend more time worrying about maintaining their own morality rather than trying to dictate others’ moral choices and/or frameworks.

Uki

June 18th, 2010

-_-

The comments are getting stupid.

It’s like watching atheists bashing to a Christian for revenge.

Tommy

June 18th, 2010

Fred Clark has a wonderful, and informative, series of posts on this subject.

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/05/sex-money-part-1.html

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/06/sex-money-part-2.html

http://slacktivist.typepad.com/slacktivist/2010/06/sex-money-part-3.html

Uki

June 18th, 2010

It’s like bigotry, by liberals -_-

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

So any criticism of Christianity = bigotry by liberals?

Uki

June 18th, 2010

well, any criticism for freedom have always been considered bigotry.

Uki

June 18th, 2010

bah, I don’t care anymore about this kind of thing.

Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2010

Tommy,

Thanks for the links. Very cool.

Timothy Kincaid

June 18th, 2010

Neon,

No not all criticism of Christianity is bigotry. Some of it is deserved, some is constructive, some is useful.

But I see criticism of Christianity by gay folk similarly to the way I see criticism of homosexuality by Christians.

Yes, there are things to criticize, but when all you hear is the criticism, when it arises at every possible opportunity, when it is expressed in the most condescending of terms, then I begin to see bigotry.

In other words, not all Christians hate gays and not all gays hate Christians. But some do.

Ben in Oakland

June 18th, 2010

Michael, though I agree with most of what you say, I (pace, please, jarred) had a lot of problems with this.

“Promiscuity and dehumanizing sex is our common opponent. Christian and non-Christian, let’s all stand against every subculture of lust, and encourage everyone we know to enter into an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.”

The first sentence is not true at all. I see neither as my opponent, because I don’t have the slightest desire to oppose other people’s behavior that has no effect on my life. The opponent to me seems to be the people who DO oppose other people’s behavior that has no effect on their lives, and then to oppose those people as well. That is the actual truth of “love the sinner hate the sin”.

That’s not love, it’s narcissism.

And yet at the same time, I agree with you totally: dehumanizing sex is probably not so good for us as a species, but then, it gets tricky when you ask who gets to define dehumanizing sex. I can assure you that, as a former total slut, some of the most loving, fun, intimate sex I ever had with men and in situations that many people would think of as dehumanizing– if they didn’t ask me. In fact, there are people who will claim that gay sex is dehumanizing. (It is, in the same way that marriage is somehow about irresponsible heterosexual procreation, and every child deserves a mother and a father. Try reconciling THOSE two).

See the problem? It’s making decisions for other people based upon what YOU think. You are relieving them of their responsibility as humans.

And I also agree here totally: non promiscuity is probably better for us as a species than promiscuity. For relationships, for health, for public health, for emotional health, maternal health, babies, welfare, for environmental concerns, for every possible thing you could think of.

But who says that promiscuity is the problem, and who gets to define promiscuity? Coming, as it does, from religionists, even the use of the word betrays a bias, a bias that isn’t reflected in the truth of my life.

As a now monogamously married but formerly total whore, I’m fairly certain that promiscuity isn’t the problem. Responsibility, or in more functional terms, ascertaining and accepting reality, is.

We haven’t taught people responsibility at all. We make drugs illegal and spend vast amounts of money trying to eradicate them and their usage, instead of teaching people how to use them responsibly. We as a society can’t teach young gay men ways they can avoid catching an easily preventable fatal disease, because we can’t acknowledge the reality of gay sex and gay people.

For that matter, we as a society can’t teach young straight men and women not to create babies they cannot and will not support. We’re agin’ sex eddication and birth control, divorce and abortion. And thus the most of the most conservative states and communities have the highest rates of out-of-wedlock births, divorce, and poverty.

then you said, “Christian and non-Christian, let’s all stand against every subculture of lust…

There’s that religionist word again– lust. Subculture of lust is straight out of Peter LaBabs playbook. It means nothing. Our whole culture, straight and gay, is built around the lust of one human for another. The church has never officially liked that very much, because they can’t REALLY control it, which is why it seems the abrahamic religions are so obsessed with sex. All about control, not what God may actually think about oral sex.

And finally, you said this: “and encourage everyone we know to enter into an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.”

In fact, I would agree totally with you, except that I don’t. Not everyone wants a relationship, and lots of people think they want one, when they really don’t. Lots of people think they are ready for one, when they are totally clueless. Lots of people think that a relationship will solve their problems. Ha! I know, because when I was single, I dated a lot of them. I used to say “I date dead people”.

Nor should they be in one. But they will anyway. Either way, not my concern. And thus, I agree with Timothy: it is a wonderful thing to wish for.

Jarred

June 18th, 2010

Ben: Thank you for such a thoughtful and detailed comment. I agree with a lot of what you said.

Ben in Oakland

June 18th, 2010

Jarred, you are welcome. I was mostly expandiong on what you had to say, and wanted to acknowledge that.

Priya Lynn

June 18th, 2010

Uki, how about being specific as to what you’re objecting to? I can’t understand your concern.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

“In other words, not all Christians hate gays and not all gays hate Christians. But some do.”

And some gay people hate all bisexual people and some bisexual people hate all gays and some gays hate all lesbians and vice versa and some gays, lesbians, and bisexuals hate all transgendered people. Hatred of an entire group of people is not a religious problem nor is it a secular problem, they are human problems and no one group of people is free of the danger of falling into bigotry or another person.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

Typo, that should read no one group of people is free of bigotry towards other people.

truthteller

June 18th, 2010

“He never spoke a word about homosexuality; instead, the only people he publicly criticized were the self-righteous religious leaders who excluded others while glorifying themselves.”

I see some self-righteous people here. Those who want to control others’ feelings, lust.

The indoctrination runs deep and before changing anything one needs deep self-assesment, otherwise you will change the people in power but not the dynamics.

Having said that, I say bravo to the Gay Christian Network. It’s about time someone took on the bigots controlling Christianity today.

They should expose them for the Pharisees they are and not forget to make it unpalatable for politicians to be associated with them.

Timothy (TRiG)

June 18th, 2010

Timothy Kincaid,

I don’t hate Christians. Christianity, on the other hand ….

Michael G.,

Promiscuity and dehumanizing sex is our common opponent. Christian and non-Christian, let’s all stand against every subculture of lust, and encourage everyone we know to enter into an advanced, wise, loving, mature intimate relationship in which both partners’ dignity is honored.

Thanks for being a moralising pratt.

Justin Lee,

You might be interested in reading Greta Christina’s articles on the subjects of the intersection of faith, atheism, and sexuality.

How to Be an Ally with Atheists

How Can Atheists Be Good Allies?

Being an Atheist in the Queer Community

The True Faith: Liberal and Conservative Christianity

How Gay Marriage Is Destroying Normal Marriage – No, Really

Getting it Right Early: Why Atheists Need to Act Now on Gender and Race (Part 2 of this essay again makes explicit comparisons with the LGBT community.)

And, more tangentially related, but a bloody good read, Atheists and Anger.

TRiG.

TomTallis

June 18th, 2010

In my general thinking, people will automatically get my respect and they will have to work pretty hard to lose it, but…

I don’t trust individual Christians (or any follower of any Abrahamic sect) of any stripe until they, by their actions and words prove themselves worthy of my respect. But Christians as a group or groups? No. I don’t think that I could ever trust Christianity as a whole or any sect of Christianity to ever do the right or humane thing except by accident.

Michael G.

June 18th, 2010

I’m not sure you can be gay and Christian and not have SOME standard or ideal in your life for sex, intimacy, and relationships. I think you guys are going a bit far the other way.

For me, the ideal is an intimate relationship that is mature and faithful, soul to soul, mind to mind, body to body. When we fall short of that ideal, we repent and ask the Lord helps bring us back toward the ideal.

It’s always between us and the Lord, and not other people’s place to judge us. But if we have no standard or ideal at all regarding sex and intimacy and relationships, then that falls outside the realm of Christianity, in my view.

Neil D

June 18th, 2010

I have, sadly, come to the conclusion that this gay christian movement is a traitorous cabal of weak men and women who, for a reason I cannot begin to fathom, desire to sell us out to the enemy. No thanks. I guess gay christians are the enemy too.

I can’t help but wonder when they will begin to call out the rest of us for our immoral sexual behavior. You all know its coming soon.

Please, just go to your churches and leave the rest of us alone. Don’t even bother calling yourselves gay. I don’t want to be associated with you.

Neil D

June 18th, 2010

Sorry – I just should have read the messages from Michael G.

Really, are you good Christians just embarrassed by the rest of us?

Muscat

June 18th, 2010

Timothy

I guess it depends on your definition of “gay friendly denomination.”

I wouldn’t call the UMC a gay-friendly denomination, although I take what I think is your point, which is that individual congregations are gay-friendly and probably have a larger total membership than “officially” gay-friendly denominations.

While I am happy with the steps the ELCA has taken and think it provides a good model for other denominations (including the UMC and Presbyterian USA as well, perhaps, as the larger Anglican Communion) to move forward/past the divisive issue of homosexuality, I’d say their denominational stance is more gay-neutral than gay-affirming.

Evan Hurst

June 18th, 2010

Wow, I’m late:

RB Chicago and penguinsaur, thank you for saying what you said, and moreover, being comments 1 and 2.

And Jarred, this comment of yours:

“As a non-Christian, I suspect that I have a much broader understanding of what can qualify as a healthy sexual relationship that honors both/all partners’ dignity. And I find your immediate judgment of some of those relationships rather off-putting.”

Hehehe, yes, and the DATA bears that out as well! The non-religious do BETTER, have healthier, more egalitarian relationships than the religious. Hilarious, but true.

Carry on, my snarky atheists and other nonbelievers, carry on.

Neon Genesis

June 18th, 2010

“I have, sadly, come to the conclusion that this gay christian movement is a traitorous cabal of weak men and women who, for a reason I cannot begin to fathom, desire to sell us out to the enemy. No thanks. I guess gay christians are the enemy too.”

Contrary to the claims of homophobic Christians, there is no unifying gay agenda that all gay people universally agree upon, so the concept of gay Christians being “traitors” to a non-existent agenda is a ridiculous No True Scotsman fallacy. To paint all gay Christians is just as bad and stereotyping as it is for gay Christians to paint all gay people in a non-monogamous relationship as sleazy and it makes you no different than the Christians you demonize.

pax58

June 18th, 2010

When I came to terms with my sexuality, I gave up my ordination in the United Methodist Church because being open about my relationship would have but me at risk of losing my ordiantion anyway. The mainline churches are in a transition right now, in the United Methodist Church there are strong supporters for GLBT rights, but the over all organization has a long way to go.
The Epicopal Church I attended has a priest in a committed relationship. GLBT persons can be ordained and serve openingly. Gene Robinson, an opening gay man was ordained a bishop several years ago and the Epicopal Church ordained a lesbian in May.
The Archbishop of Canterbury (the official representative of the Anglician Communion) has hit the Epicopal Church hard in the last month, asking they no longer serve on internation ecumenical committee, but the Epicopal Church has stood firm in its support of GLBT people inspite of the attacks by conservatives. I am proud of the Epicopal Church’s stance because even though it is paying for its inclusiveness, it is not backing down.

Aaron

June 19th, 2010

Thany you Neon, you stated that far better than I could have.

I am a gay Christian who opposes injustice of all forms. I’m on the gay communities side and the only difference between myself and a nontheistic gay activist is that I believe God is on my side, too.

Neil D

June 19th, 2010

“Stockholm syndrome is a psychological shift that occurs in captives when they are threatened gravely but are shown acts of kindness by their captors. Captives who exhibit the syndrome tend to sympathize with and think highly of their captors. When subjected to prolonged captivity, these captives can develop a strong bond with their captors, in some cases including a sexual interest.

Psychiatrist Frank Ochberg, widely credited with Stockholm Syndrome’s psychiatric definition, describes it as “a primitive gratitude for the gift of life,” not unlike that felt by an infant.

According to the psychoanalytic view of the syndrome, this tendency might be the result of employing the strategy evolved by newborn babies to form an emotional attachment to the nearest powerful adult in order to maximize the probability that this adult will enable—at the very least—the survival of the child, if not also prove to be a good parental figure. This syndrome is considered a prime example for the defense mechanism of identification.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

Are some homosexual men and women so desperate for acceptance that they identify with their oppressors? Have they forgotten (in June no less!) the concept of gay PRIDE?

“The word pride is used in this case as an antonym for shame, which has been used to control and oppress LGBT persons throughout history. Pride in this sense is an affirmation of ones self and the community as a whole.”

Shame indeed.

Neon Genesis

June 19th, 2010

“Are some homosexual men and women so desperate for acceptance that they identify with their oppressors? Have they forgotten (in June no less!) the concept of gay PRIDE?”

Expect that not all Christians are homophobes and there are a lot of Christians out there who support gay rights, so your analogy to Stockholm syndrome doesn’t work. One should think gays would know better than to stereotype people.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

Neil said “Are some homosexual men and women so desperate for acceptance that they identify with their oppressors?”.

No doubt about that, just look at the anti-gay gays like over at gay patriot.

Timothy Kincaid

June 19th, 2010

Muscat,

I’ll agree that theologically the UMC as a whole cannot accurately be considered pro-gay. But their attitude is certainly not similar to, say, the Southern Baptists. And they are more supportive civilly if not yet within the church.

I have fond feelings for the UMC. The California branches voted to oppose Proposition 8.

And I’ll happily take the support of churches who say, “we believe this, that and the other about the Bible and church structure, but we also believe in civil rights and social equality.”

So you’re right. They aren’t exactly supportive within the church, but they aren’t our enemies in society either.

pax58

I am so proud of the Episcopal Church. As you said, they are paying a price to be inclusive.

But I do believe that when you pay for your dignity and integrity, you value it more. Having taken hits, they aren’t going to just decide to change their minds the next time the wind blows another way. They have made being inclusive now integral to their idea of faith.

Brennin

June 19th, 2010

“Hehehe, yes, and the DATA bears that out as well! The non-religious do BETTER, have healthier, more egalitarian relationships than the religious. Hilarious, but true.”

As a statistician, I’d like to know what “data” you are referring to, hayseed. There is much pseudo-statistics out there, e.g., the “studies” by Gregory Paul and Nanette Gartrell, that vapid atheists and/or gays suck up immediately but I know better.

Incidentally, homoerotic acts are both irrational and antithetical to the Christian ethos. I do not envy Mr. Lee’s Sisyphean task.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

Brennin, its perfectly rational for gay men to seek romance and sexual release with each other. It leads to mutual support and happiness, is good for those gays and good for society in general. That may be antithetical to your version of christianity, but certainly not to rational christians.

Donnchadh

June 19th, 2010

Brennin, you’re bringing up once more the idea that certain sex acts are “irrational”. Can you point out to me any that are rational? The only purpose that I can imagine to them is procreation. Basically, you’re reducing us to animals (I would say machines, but the analogy would fail) that only use sex to play their part in the Darwinian mechanism. We are intelligent social beings and we have enriched/perverted every aspect of our sexuality with meaning, but you won’t get anywhere applying a yardstick of rationality to it.

David

June 19th, 2010

Posts like the one by Neil D.:

“I have, sadly, come to the conclusion that this gay christian movement is a traitorous cabal of weak men and women”

are why this site is worthless as a resource when trying to convince heterosexuals to abandon their prejudice against homosexuals.

Neil uses exactly the same arguments that homophobes use, and worse still, the same dehumanizing process of deciding, based on his own prejudice, what the people he hates “really” feel, want, experience.

“to sell us out to the enemy. No thanks. I guess gay christians (sic) are the enemy too.”

The reality is that most of the work to advance civil equality for GLBTQ people has been done by people of faith, gay and straight. In contrast, the most ardent supporters of anti-gay theology are not just fundamentalists Christians but atheists as well, who assert and defend anti-gay theology, and summarily dismiss criticism of it, in order to make a case against all people of faith.

History, including current events, demonstrate beyond a shadow of doubt that reinforcing and celebrating any one prejudice, including Neil’s prejudice against people of faith, intrinsically nurtures all prejudice. People who bash Christians are nurturing homophobia just as people who bash gays and lesbians are nurturing racism,antisemitism, and anti-religious prejudice.

“Don’t even bother calling yourselves gay. I don’t want to be associated with you.”

Homophobes assert the exact same thing to gay Christians – that we are not to call ourselves Christian, that they do not wish to be associated with us.

Neil, please understand that GLBTQ people of faith do not take orders from you, you do not get to determine our identity for us. If you do not want to associate with us, then the burden is on you to leave; you do not get to expel us from society just to celebrate of your prejudice against us.

The truth is that atheism has so much in common with homophobia, and racism and sexism etc., that it really is just another form of prejudice.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

David said “The reality is that most of the work to advance civil equality for GLBTQ people has been done by people of faith, gay and straight.”.

Most of it has been done by gay christians, certainly not straight christians. The overwhelming majority of straight christians have worked to oppress gays and are virtually singlehandedly responsible for the inequality we see today.

David said “In contrast, the most ardent supporters of anti-gay theology are not just fundamentalists Christians but atheists as well”.

You keep trying to spread that BS but it doesn’t fly any better now than it did the first time you brought it up. Anti-gay atheists are damn few and far between, you’ll be hard pressed to find any anti-gay atheist web sites or organizations whereas the anti-gay christian versions are a dime a dozen. There is no atheist anti-gay declaration along the lines of the manhatten declaration with over 400,000 christians declaring their hatred of gays and equal rights for gays.

Neon Genesis

June 19th, 2010

“I’ll agree that theologically the UMC as a whole cannot accurately be considered pro-gay. But their attitude is certainly not similar to, say, the Southern Baptists. And they are more supportive civilly if not yet within the church.”

The Unitarian Universalists are also very supportive of LGBT rights and are supportive of same-sex marriage. But I’m not sure if the UUs still self-identify as a Christian denomination or if they’re their own thing now.

“Posts like the one by Neil D.:

“I have, sadly, come to the conclusion that this gay christian movement is a traitorous cabal of weak men and women”

are why this site is worthless as a resource when trying to convince heterosexuals to abandon their prejudice against homosexuals.”

If you hate this site so much, why do you come here?

Neil D

June 19th, 2010

What Priya Lynn said. Thanks.

penguinsaur

June 19th, 2010

David said “In contrast, the most ardent supporters of anti-gay theology are not just fundamentalists Christians but atheists as well”.

PROVIDE A SINGLE STATISTIC TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP.

ONE ****ING PIECE OF EVIDENCE.

You constantly claim this and have never provided any evidence whatsoever.

We know for a fact that the majority of Christians in America hate gay people, that’s the reason gay marriage isn’t legal. Stop trying to cover up for that fact by lying and claiming atheists are just as bad.

Find one Atheist group that supported something like Prop 8 *that thing funded entirely by theists*, one famous atheist who opposes gay rights, one poll showing that the majority of Atheists hate gay people.

Do this or admit your pulling all of this out of your ****ing ass just to attack atheists because you can’t find a real reason to attack the group that supports gay rights overwhelmingly.

Richard Rush

June 19th, 2010

David,

Once again you are drawing a false equivalence between Christian-bashing and gay-bashing.

Christianity is without credible evidence of its truth, and is arguably superstitious nonsense. There is, however, credible evidence that Christians have been responsible for enormous human suffering that continues to this day.

Homosexuality is a verifiable condition supported by enormous credible evidence. But unlike with Christians, there is no credible evidence that homosexuals have ever never been responsible for human suffering, despite what Scott Lively would have people believe.

The only suffering going on is the suffering of homosexuals at the hands of Christians. While we acknowledge that significant numbers of Christians are gay-supportive, the fact remains that virtually 100% of the organized anti-gay persecution in the U.S. is either directly motivated by, or justified by, Christianity.

So spare us the whining about how Christians are being persecuted. Christians routinely attack those who refuse to believe and live in accordance with their demands, and then when anyone fights back, they whine about being persecuted.

Richard Rush

June 19th, 2010

Typo:

But unlike with Christians, there is no credible evidence that homosexuals have ever never been responsible for human suffering, despite what Scott Lively would have people believe.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

Well said Penguinsaur. Look at every prominent atheist, from Dawkins to Hitchens to Harris, to Chomsky, to Dennet to Harris and anyone else you can think of, they’re all pro-gay. Think of prominent theists and the vast majority of them are anti-gay. Think of any anti-gay advertising campaign and they’re all run by christians, not a one by atheists.

Brennin

June 19th, 2010

“But unlike with Christians, there is no credible evidence that homosexuals have ever never been responsible for human suffering, despite what Scott Lively would have people believe.”

Nero was responsible for human suffering.

Mwanga II was responsible for human suffering.

penguinsaur

June 19th, 2010

“Nero was responsible for human suffering.”

Nero was gay? Never knew that. Their was also a transgender emperor who was bloody and oppressive but basically all the Roman Emperors were to some degree.

Brennin

June 19th, 2010

“Brennin, you’re bringing up once more the idea that certain sex acts are ‘irrational’. Can you point out to me any that are rational?”

Those which are congruent with the natural capacity or function of our generative organs.

Richard Rush

June 19th, 2010

Brennin, those examples are not legitimate. Whatever their evil deeds, they were not done in the name of homosexuality, and you surely know that. There are always going to be some bad individuals scattered among all groups. The suffering I’m talking about at the hands of Christians was most certainly done in the name of Christianity.

Brennin

June 19th, 2010

“Nero was gay? Never knew that.”

According to Suetonius:

“He so prostituted his own chastity that after defiling almost every part of his body, he at last devised a kind of game, in which, covered with the skin of some wild animal, he was let loose from a cage and attacked the private parts of men and women, who were bound to stakes, and when he had sated his mad lust, was dispatched by his freedman Doryphorus; for he was even married to this man in the same way that he himself had married Sporus, going so far as to imitate the cries and lamentations of a maiden being deflowered.”

You can add Nero to the list of Prop 8 opponents.

“Their was also a transgender emperor who was bloody and oppressive…”

Elagabalus

Brennin

June 19th, 2010

Richard,

Mwanga II had his Christian pages executed when they refused his sexual advances.

Also, there are the recent attempts to punish Ake Green and Stephen Boisson for speaking out against homosexual acts.

Now, I’d agree that there aren’t as many instances of gay persecutors but I’d say that’s because they haven’t had the same access to power over the last several centuries.

(A caveat: I know a homosexual or two and they aren’t persecutors.)

Jarred

June 19th, 2010

I’m not sure you can be gay and Christian and not have SOME standard or ideal in your life for sex, intimacy, and relationships. I think you guys are going a bit far the other way.

That’s all fine and good. The thing is, in your previous comment, you were pushing to have non-Christians push your “Christian” standard for these things. I’ll note that even among Christians, there’s not total agreement on what those standards should look like. As such, expecting non-Christians to share your standards and promote them as what everyone should follow is just plain silly.

Of course, I’ll also note that you are in error — and bordering on arrogance — if you think I have no standards when it comes to sex or relationships. I simply noted that my standards are looser and more broadly defined than your own. I’ve also noted that they are my standards, which mean that I intend to apply them to myself rather than push them on other people. I may share with others where my personal standards and boundaries lie and why I chose them, but it’s up to them to decide if those same boundaries are necessary or appropriate for themselves. Because they (hopefully) know themselves far better than I know them.

But the insinuation that I have no standards at all is both inappropriate and laughable.

David

June 19th, 2010

Priya: “Most of it has been done by gay christians, certainly not straight christians. The overwhelming majority of straight christians have worked to oppress gays and are virtually singlehandedly responsible for the inequality we see today.”

Someone asked for statistics.

Currently, in the U.S., atheists account for 10% of the population, approximately, and about half of them oppose civil equality for GLBTQ people. And GLBTQ people account for about 10% (70% of whom are Christian) of the population as well. Yet, polls show that the country is nearly split 50/50 on GLBTQ civil equality. So, support for GLBTQ civil equality breaks down thusly: 2% from het atheists, 3% from gay atheists, 7% from gay people of faith, and 38% from straight people of faith.

Opposition comes 5% from atheists, and 45% from people of faith. Approximately.

Sorry, but that is not “overwhelming majority”.

“You keep trying to spread that BS but it doesn’t fly any better now than it did the first time you brought it up.”

And you are still relying on empty dismissals, even though your own posts have often been perfect examples supporting my assertion.

“Anti-gay atheists”

That is a dishonest reframing of my assertion. While your claim doesn’t match my extensive experience, which supports the 50/50 break down mentioned above, whether or not someone is anti-gay is irrelevant to whether or not they promote anti-gay theology as the accurate interpretation of the texts.

Your strawman doesn’t change the fact that atheists on the web consistently defend anti-gay theology, stating that it accurately reflects Christian values and the principles in the Bible.

Neon: “If you hate this site so much, why do you come here?”

Who said anything about hating this site? I offer criticism because the site has potential. If you won’t address what I actually posted, why respond?

penguinsaur:

“PROVIDE A SINGLE STATISTIC TO BACK THIS CLAIM UP.

ONE ****ING PIECE OF EVIDENCE.”

Shouting and obscenity do not create a convincing argument.

“You constantly claim this and have never provided any evidence whatsoever.”

And you and your peers provide no evidence for your vicious hate speech about people of faith. So you demand of me a level of evidence you do not prove.

“We know for a fact that the majority of Christians in America hate gay people,”

No, that is not fact, that is a mix of fantasy, exageration, and propoganda. The reality is much more nuanced than that. Even among anti-gay fundamentalists, most are not motivated by hate, but are simply parroting what they have been taught, responding to false fears.

“Stop trying to cover up for that fact by lying and claiming atheists are just as bad.”

I am not telling lies, and atheism is a prejudice that is just as bad as homophobia, racism, sexism, or any other prejudice.

Your attempt to bully me is evidence in support of my premise. Rather than treat me like a human being equal to yourself, you gave me orders as if I were your inferior, after, of course, subjecting me to obscenity and false accusations.

Richard: “Once again you are drawing a false equivalence between Christian-bashing and gay-bashing.”

No. I am drawing an accurate comparison between the prejudice directed at GLBTQ people, and the prejudice directed at people of faith.

However, since you introduced the issue of “bashing” – the outward expression of a prejudice, the two kinds are remarkably similar. Both homophobes and atheists use identical arguments, rely on exaggeration and deception, and degrade and dehumanize their targets. Both commonly express a desire for a world free, respectively, of homosexuals and people of faith. Both cherry-pick specific negative examples to broad-brush all homosexuals or all people of faith.

Of course, comparative bashing is a red herring game that cheapens the consequences of prejudice, and creates a horrific amoral position of justifying abusing people of faith because GLBTQ people have been abused more. It leads to “we can hurt them because they hurt us” excuse for destruction and brutality.

Can you see that justifying abusing one group of people because of the abuse inflicted on another group is evil? Remember, that is a tactic that has been used over and over again to justify genocide and persecution.

Richard, the rest of your remarks go to the heart of how atheism is a prejudice, and get a post of their own.

Neon Genesis

June 19th, 2010

“Someone asked for statistics.

Currently, in the U.S., atheists account for 10% of the population, approximately, and about half of them oppose civil equality for GLBTQ people. And GLBTQ people account for about 10% (70% of whom are Christian) of the population as well. Yet, polls show that the country is nearly split 50/50 on GLBTQ civil equality. So, support for GLBTQ civil equality breaks down thusly: 2% from het atheists, 3% from gay atheists, 7% from gay people of faith, and 38% from straight people of faith.”

When we ask for statistics, we want sources. Give us survey links like Gallup or Pew Forum, not numbers you just pulled out of thin air and don’t even tell us where you got them from.

“Who said anything about hating this site? I offer criticism because the site has potential. If you won’t address what I actually posted, why respond?”

You specifically stated this site was worthless as a resource. Why bother coming to a site if you think we’re all worthless? Or do you love us sinners but hate our sin?

“Your attempt to bully me is evidence in support of my premise. Rather than treat me like a human being equal to yourself, you gave me orders as if I were your inferior, after, of course, subjecting me to obscenity and false accusations.”

How is criticism of the flaws in your arguments bullying? Or are you one of those Christians who thinks they’re being persecuted anytime someone disagrees with them?

“Can you see that justifying abusing one group of people because of the abuse inflicted on another group is evil? Remember, that is a tactic that has been used over and over again to justify genocide and persecution.”

I find it amazing that for someone who claims is being prejudiced against by atheists and preaches so holier than thou about prejudice fails to recognize the prejudice in their own lives towards atheist. Why can you not realize you are prejudiced towards the atheists you claim are being prejudiced towards you? You are protesting too loudly and I frankly think you should pluck the shard out of your own eye before you pluck the shard out of ours if you really are a Christian.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

David said “Currently, in the U.S., atheists account for 10% of the population, approximately, and about half of them oppose civil equality for GLBTQ people”.

BS. You made that up. If you hadn’t you’d have had a source for that claim.

David said “And you are still relying on empty dismissals, even though your own posts have often been perfect examples supporting my assertion.”.

That is profoundly nonsensical and in perfect keeping with the bizarre rants you’ve posted here. I’ve never made an anti-gay comment, I’m very progay and your suggestions that my posts are perfect examples of your claim that atheists are anti-gay is insane. Thankyou for doing such a perfect summary discrediting everything you’ve said.

Priya Lynn

June 19th, 2010

Brennin, that you had to search through thousands of years of history to find two questionable examples of gays causing suffering shows the rarity of such examples. When Richard said there is no credible evidence that gays have ever been responsible for human suffering he meant as a philosopy of an organized movement such as we find in christian movements who’s stated goal is to oppress gays.

David

June 19th, 2010

Richard

“Christianity is without credible evidence of its truth,”

Actually, the evidence of Christianity is the same as the evidence for sexual orientation:

personal testimony about one’s experience.

Setting aside the issue of genetics, sexual orientation at its core is about who one desires sexually, forms an intimate emotional bond with. At its core, it is entirely intangible, and no, you can’t really rely on measuring erections. Ultimately, when someone says “I’m Gay” or “I’m Straight” or “I’m Bi” the only evidence is their word. Sexuality is the expression of people’s experiences, thoughts and feelings.

Just like religion.

Religion is the accumulation of people’s testimony to their experiences, their thoughts, and their feelings. It also includes the art, and literature, argumentation and analysis that has been produced by people to reflect and express that accumulated experience.

When you declare that Christianity is not credible, you are dismissing the testimony of millions and millions and millions of people about their own experiences and their own life and their own feelings.

Just like homophobes do when they insist that homosexuality is chosen, dismissing the testimony of GLBTQ people about our experiences, lives and feelings.

Atheism has no evidence of its own, it is simply the denial of the experiences of people of faith. Homophobia has no evidence of its own, and is simply the denial of the experiences of GLBTQ people.

In both cases, the atheist or the homophobe has simply concluded that all people of a particular subset of humanity are not credible when talking about their own lives. In other words, both have pre-judged all members of a group solely because of who they are.

That is prejudice. Atheism is the prejudice against people of faith, concluding that because of who they are, they are not credible witnesses to their experiences.

As a gay person of faith, it is just as offensive when some atheist denounces and denies my experience of God as ‘not credible’ as when some homophobe denounces my experience of the beauty and unitiveness of homosexual love as ‘not credible’. Both you and the homophobe are rejecting my life and my experiences out of malice.

“and is arguably superstitious nonsense.”

That something can be argued doesn’t make it accurate, or ethical. Homophobes have equally degrading arguments that they make about homosexuality. And they are equally comfortable using dismissive and offensive language to negate something that is valuable and meaningful to other people.

“There is, however, credible evidence that Christians have been responsible for enormous human suffering that continues to this day.”

No. There is evidence that some Christians have been responsible for enormous human suffering. Just as there is evidence that some atheists have been responsible for enormous human suffering, and evidence that some men have been similarly responsible, and some women, and some short people, and some tall people, etc.

There is no category of human beings from which at least some individuals have harmed others, including homosexuals.

Some people in every category have harmed others. Your selective use of the ’caused human suffering’ is a symptom of prejudice, because you are ignoring that all other categories of human being have members who have hurt people, yet you only apply your test to Christians.

And, you ignore the fact that within Christianity there have been millions of people who have done immeasurable good for the world as well. In a cause for justice, people of faith have fought and died to protect others from harm. In every disaster, people of faith have dug deep and donated, or labored with their own hands, to rescue and nurse and bury and rebuild.

When atheists ignore all of the good that people of faith have done, and all of the tremendous diversity of people of faith, it is exactly the same as homophobes (or other bigots) ignore all the positive contributions of GLBTQ people and all the diversity of GLBTQ people.

“Homosexuality is a verifiable condition supported by enormous credible evidence.”

Only because you chose to believe GLBTQ people. To a homophobe, that evidence is not credible, just as the testimony of people of faith is not credible to you.

This is where atheism and homophobia are both prejudices: when it comes to evidence, atheist and homophobes chose to believe what supports their preconceived, negative opinion of other people.

“there is no credible evidence that homosexuals have ever never been responsible for human suffering,”

This is irrational on two levels. First in the assumption that all people of faith, or all GLBTQ people, share some group-wide responsibility for anything. Second, in the notion that no GLBTQ person, ever, has ever harmed another person.

Heck, read the snarky posts from Paris Hilton, or in the comments on any gay blog, and you’ll find GLBTQ people causing human suffering by being verbally abusive.

“The only suffering going on is the suffering of homosexuals at the hands of Christians.”

The only suffering? In the entire world, the only people who suffer are GLBTQ people?

Further, many progressive/liberal people of faith, gay and straight, have stated that the anti-religion hate speech that appears so frequently on the ‘net is degrading to us.

“the fact remains that virtually 100% of the organized anti-gay persecution in the U.S. is either directly motivated by, or justified by, Christianity.”

That is not a fact, it is spin, carefully worded spin, but spin none the less. Of course, one could make a similar claim: virtually 100% of the organized anti-religious persecution, world-wide is either directly motivated by, or justified by, atheism.

The difference though is important. The core principles of Christianity do not condone or support prejudice of any kind, Christianity is not intrinsically prejudiced, nor is it intrinsically a prejudice.

Yes, some people have used religions, including Christianity, to justify their prejudices, including homophobia. But people have also used science, philosophy, politics, expediency, and even atheism, to justify prejudices, including homosexuality. For any given element of human life, culture, knowledge or craft, some one or many someone’s have use it to harm others.

While Christianity has at its core a principle of respect of human life, atheism has only contempt for the lives, testimony, and experiences of most human beings.

“Christians routinely attack those who refuse to believe and live in accordance with their demands, and then when anyone fights back, they whine about being persecuted.”

Just like atheists on line then. Of course, I have whined about being persecuted, your argument is a disparaging distraction. And only some Christians “routinely attack” others, as perhaps only some atheists routinely attack people of faith, and then whine about being persecuted.

And it is ironic that you brought it up, because your post, and that of your peers, is largely a matter of responding to criticism by claiming to be persecuted, instead of addressing the issue I actually raised –

that all prejudice is abusive and unacceptable, and by nurturing any one of them, we nurture all of them.

Meanwhile, the verbal abusiveness that you and your peers have displayed in response to my post validates my earlier point: the anti-religious hate speech that dominates this site seriously compromises its usefulness as a resource for actually communicating with heterosexuals who are not yet supportive of GLBTQ equality.

It isn’t fair or ethical to criticize homophobes for slandering GLBTQ people, when so many atheists here slander people of faith.

David

June 19th, 2010

Priya

“BS. You made that up. If you hadn’t you’d have had a source for that claim.”

No. Your post is abusive, an example of prejudice. The ten percent number I used is an average across a variety of sources, from atheist websites to polls to encyclopedias. You simply dismiss it out of hand because of who I am. Since you didn’t cite sources for your own claims, though, by your own test, it means every claim you’ve made is made up.

Actually, Priya, have you ever cited a source here at BTB? Please provide a link to some examples of you citing a source.

“That is profoundly nonsensical and in perfect keeping with the bizarre rants you’ve posted here. ”

That is another empty dismissal, and a personal attack. Again, this is evidence of extreme prejudice on your part. Instead of responding to what I actually wrote, you vilified me instead.

“I’ve never made an anti-gay comment, I’m very progay and your suggestions that my posts are perfect examples of your claim that atheists are anti-gay is insane. ”

Either you didn’t understand my statement that you quoted, or, you are deliberately avoiding what I stated with obfuscation.

I didn’t say you’ve made anti-comments, I said your posts are examples that validate my premise that atheism is a prejudice against people of faith.

So whether you misunderstood, or misconstrued, my prior statement, the verbal abuse that you and your peers inflict on people of faith here parallels the verbal abuse that homophobes inflict on GLBTQ people, and in both cases, it is a symptom of prejudice.

David

June 19th, 2010

Neon

“When we ask for statistics, we want sources. Give us survey links like Gallup or Pew Forum, not numbers you just pulled out of thin air and don’t even tell us where you got them from.”

And yet you provide none yourselves.

It is that implicit double standard of prejudice at work once again. To you, anything you say is credible, just because, and you do not need to cite sources. But anything a person of faith says is not credible, we must cite sources.

You don’t believe me because of who I am, not because of what I’m saying.

“You specifically stated this site was worthless as a resource. Why bother coming to a site if you think we’re all worthless?”

Again, you are reading into my post concepts that are not there. I wrote: “this site is worthless as a resource when trying to convince heterosexuals to abandon their prejudice against homosexuals”

First you read that as “I hate this website” – though the concept of hate does not occur. Then, you read “we’re all worthless” into it, and my expansion, when again, that concept does not occur.

I provided a very explicit statement about a very limited use of this site. I stand by it, and, frankly, I think that you agree, since you have rebutted things I did not say instead.

This site has value, as a form of ‘preaching to the choir’, as long as the religious members of that choir are willing to experience prejudice directed at them not for their sexuality, but for their religion.

“How is criticism of the flaws in your arguments bullying?”

Nice strawman, but penguinsaur did not offer criticism. Why not address the real thing I was talking about, instead of red herrings?

“I find it amazing that for someone who claims is being prejudiced against by atheists and preaches so holier than thou about prejudice fails to recognize the prejudice in their own lives towards atheist.”

Making a false accusation creates nice diversion, but it fails to address my statement that you quoted.

Here’s what I wrote, which you quoted:“Can you see that justifying abusing one group of people because of the abuse inflicted on another group is evil? Remember, that is a tactic that has been used over and over again to justify genocide and persecution.”

Note that it does not, and I have not, articulated prejudice against atheists. I asked, in longer words, about the whole ‘eye for an eye, he hit me first, tit for tat’ thing was acceptable.

Since the rest of your post was just ad hominem, without any substance or value, I’m going to ignore it as flaming intended to prevent discussion.

Look, presumably you are looking to refute my premise that atheism is a prejudice, and only a prejudice. Posting in the same fashion – personal attacks, dismissals, strawman and red herrings, double standards, etc. that homophobes use all the time,

does not refute my premise.

If you disagree with my premise that atheism is a prejudice – articulate specific, significant ways that atheism does not meet the definition of prejudice.

Or prove that atheism is anything other than a denial of other people’s experiences, testimony, feelings and lives.

Emily K

June 19th, 2010

Brennin sure spends a lot of time researching anything he thinks is “homosexual” or “homosexual-related.”

I guess yet another example of a Christian’s absolute obsession with anything having to do with sexual minorities. I dunno why this is. Maybe I can relate because I’m a progressive-minded Jew.

At any rate, since there are so many different kinds of sexual acts that use the body in different ways, and provide a meaningful, pleasurable connection for those involved, I’d say every single sex act is
“congruent with the natural capacity or function of our generative organs.” Otherwise people wouldn’t take part in them, and the human race wouldn’t enjoy sex as much as it does in as many ways as it does.

Except Brennin is probably not talking about sexual variety e.g. the Kamasutra. He’s probably talking about the usual “penis cramming into another man’s lower intestine” canard that Matt Barber, LaBabs, et al use to stir up an aversive response to human beings who may or may NOT do such things in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Guess that leaves us lesbians in the clear!

Emily K

June 19th, 2010

meant to say “can’t relate b/c i’m a progressive-minded Jew.”

Neon Genesis

June 19th, 2010

“Note that it does not, and I have not, articulated prejudice against atheists. I asked, in longer words, about the whole ‘eye for an eye, he hit me first, tit for tat’ thing was acceptable.”

Yes, you are prejudiced against atheists. By defining atheism as inherently prejudiced against religion, you are being prejudiced against atheists. You’re no different than the homophobic Christians who claim gays want to persecute Christians because they challenge homophobia. Take any of your comments you’ve said on this page about atheists and replace it with homosexual and you’re no different than the homophobes.

“Or prove that atheism is anything other than a denial of other people’s experiences, testimony, feelings and lives.”

Atheism merely means a lack of belief in gods. It does not mean a denial of people’s religious experiences. The only thing atheism means is that the person does not believe in God. Not all atheists hate all of religion. I am an atheist and I do not hate all religion and I even defended gay supporting Christians in this page but you don’t seem to acknowledge that because that would contradict your convenient narrative that atheism is inherently prejudiced. Furthermore, some religions are even atheistic. Buddhism is an atheistic religion which does not require faith in God. Are you going to claim all Buddhists are prejudiced against Christians, too? Let’s try an experiment:

“Judaism is Atheism is the prejudice against people of faith, concluding that because of who they are, they are not credible witnesses to their experiences.

“Blacks are the prejudice against white people of faith, concluding that because of who they are, they are not credible witnesses to their experiences.”

Do you not see now how your inaccurate and strawman definition of atheism is bigotry in itself? You’re accusing atheists of claiming all Christians to be bigots while at the same time you turn around and claim all atheists to be bigot. This surely makes you a hypocrite and a bigot yourself and I’d really like to know again why you’re here at this site since your only purpose here seems to be promote hatred.

Neon Genesis

June 19th, 2010

“And yet you provide none yourselves.

It is that implicit double standard of prejudice at work once again. To you, anything you say is credible, just because, and you do not need to cite sources. But anything a person of faith says is not credible, we must cite sources.”

Since you asked, here is my source:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece ” RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.

According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its “spiritual capital”. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

“The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.”

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.”

Rob

June 20th, 2010

“You keep trying to spread that BS but it doesn’t fly any better now than it did the first time you brought it up. Anti-gay atheists are damn few and far between, you’ll be hard pressed to find any anti-gay atheist web sites or organizations whereas the anti-gay christian versions are a dime a dozen. There is no atheist anti-gay declaration along the lines of the manhatten declaration with over 400,000 christians declaring their hatred of gays and equal rights for gays.”

Anti-gay atheists are indeed rare. Unsurprisingly, the ones that I know are also racialists.

penguinsaur

June 20th, 2010

I ASKED DAVID TO CITE A SINGLE POLL SHOWING ATHEISTS OPPOSE GAY RIGHTS, LINK TO A SINGLE PROMINENT ATHEIST WHO OPPOSES GAY RIGHTS OR A SINGLE MAJOR ATHEIST GROUP THAT OPPOSES GAY RIGHTS.

HE HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO DO ANY OF THESE BECAUSE HE CAN’T AND HE KNOWS HE CAN’T

PS: actual polls, not “well 50% of the country voted for Obama, so 50% of republicans must like Obama, 50% of Democrats must like Obama, 50% of whites must like Obama, 50% of blacks like must Obama…” I know you’ll probably just whine about being persecuted in stead of actually posting a source, but it’s worth a shot.

penguinsaur

June 20th, 2010

Maybe you could find a poll like this, which took me a whopping 5 seconds on google to find:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/128291/americans-opposition-gay-marriage-eases-slightly.aspx

Differences on the issue are also apparent by religious affiliation. Notably, 81% of Americans who claim no religious affiliation favor legal same-sex marriage. That compares to 48% support among Catholics and 33% among Protestants (including those who identify as Christian but do not specify a particular Christian denomination).

So know that I’ve cited an actual source, unlike you, for my statistics would you like to admit you were wrong in your Atheist bashing rant? Or would you prefer to just ignore this actual survey proving that FAR more atheists support gay rights than Christians in favor of your usual tactic of whining about how Atheists are persecuting you by not rolling over and letting themselves be insulted and lied about? Or perhaps you’ll just opt for that old classic of running away from this thread, pretending you didn’t see all those people pointing out how you were lying and reposting the exact same disproven crap in the next thread?

Burr

June 20th, 2010

Well hopefully that smackdown of evidence can end that painfully long non sequitur.

Gay affirming churches (and members of those that are not, like that ad in Maine featuring a Catholic grandmother) need to be more assertive of their religious freedom. That means spearheading advertising with their religious beliefs instead of being footnotes to newspaper articles. This needs to be taken personally as their issue (because it is!), not just as a small favor they can do for a portion of their followers.

justsearching

June 20th, 2010

I’m astounded by David’s reasoning. About half of Americans oppose legalizing gay marriage. About 10% of Americans are atheists. Therefore, about half of atheists oppose gay marriage. Idiocy.

Every god-damn poll that has studied the relationship between people’s religious fervor and views on gay marriage has showed that non-religious people are more likely to support gay marriage and gay rights in general.

Neil D

June 20th, 2010

David – Don’t worry about being persecuted for your religious beliefs. We’re doing you a favor.

“Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.”

And you really shouldn’t resist our persecution, just take it like a man.

“But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.”

Neon Genesis

June 20th, 2010

“Gay affirming churches (and members of those that are not, like that ad in Maine featuring a Catholic grandmother) need to be more assertive of their religious freedom. That means spearheading advertising with their religious beliefs instead of being footnotes to newspaper articles. This needs to be taken personally as their issue (because it is!), not just as a small favor they can do for a portion of their followers.”

They also need to tell their members to stop harassing their fellow atheist allies and focus on the real enemy.

Richard Rush

June 20th, 2010

David,

Once again you promote a false equivalence between the experiences of GLBTQ and religious persons. And thus, the equivalence you see between negative expressions toward homosexuality and religion are also largely false. Your characterization of that expression as “prejudice” flowing equally in both directions in nonsense.

The reality of sexual attraction exists entirely within each individual person. The are no independent external issues involved. And this reality occurs uniformly in all cultures, although its apparent degree of expression differs due to social forces.

But the reality of religion involves independent external issues in addition to the experiences occurring within individual persons. The question of a god’s existence is not answered by these experiences. There is an objective factual answer out there somewhere – a god either does or does not exist. The number of people believing one way or the other without empirical evidence contributes nothing toward answering the question. And unlike sexual attraction, there is little uniformity of religious belief among different cultures, other than just the existence of some form of religion.

David, your apparent expectation that religion should be immune from questioning and criticism (or even mockery and ridicule) is unreasonable. As long as religions insist on extending their controlling tentacles into all aspects of people’s lives, there is going to be backlash. And some of that backlash is going to strike at the foundational beliefs that underpin the presumption of religion’s authority. So instead of just lashing out at atheists, your time would be better spent by discovering and providing empirical evidence to support religious beliefs.

You said, “Atheism is the prejudice against people of faith, concluding that because of who they are, they are not credible witnesses to their experiences.” That blanket statement is nonsense. It is merely one convenient device for allowing your brain to dismiss the arguments of non-believers.

Priya Lynn

June 20th, 2010

David said “Actually, the evidence of Christianity is the same as the evidence for sexual orientation: personal testimony about one’s experience.”.

Not true. Beyond personal testimony we can observe behavior which corroborates testimony. Beyond that there are a wide variety of studies showing differences between gays and straights such as hair whorls, finger prints, same chromosone deactivation, pheremone response, startle response and on and on. If all we had was personal testimony then there’d be the same evidence for christianity as sexual orientation which would be none.

David said “Setting aside the issue of genetics, sexual orientation at its core is about who one desires sexually, forms an intimate emotional bond with. At its core, it is entirely intangible, and no, you can’t really rely on measuring erections.”.

Of course you can – erections are an extremely reliable indicator of sexual desire – to deny that is absurd. .
When you declare that Christianity is not credible, you are dismissing the testimony of millions and millions and millions of people about their own experiences and their own life and their own feelings.

Davud said “Atheism has no evidence of its own, it is simply the denial of the experiences of people of faith.”

Of course it has no evidence, that’s why people are atheists – there is no evidence to support belief in the supernatural.

David said “Homophobia has no evidence of its own, and is simply the denial of the experiences of GLBTQ people.”.

Wrong. Most homopobes acknowledge the experiences of LGBT people – they just think we are wrong for accepting who we are and acting on it.

David said “In both cases, the atheist or the homophobe has simply concluded that all people of a particular subset of humanity are not credible when talking about their own lives. In other words, both have pre-judged all members of a group solely because of who they are.”.

False homophobes acknowledge gays are same sex attracted but believe its wrong to act on those attractions. Atheists have no pre-judged anyone – we’ve looked for the evidence of the supernatural, found there is none despite centuries of concerted efforts to find it and rightly concluded there is no god(s).

David said “That is prejudice. Atheism is the prejudice against people of faith, concluding that because of who they are, they are not credible witnesses to their experiences.”.

If atheists are prejudiced then so are you – you’ve concluded that because of who we are we are not credible witnesses to our experience of a lack of god(s).

David said “As a gay person of faith, it is just as offensive when some atheist denounces and denies my experience of God as ‘not credible’ as when some homophobe denounces my experience of the beauty and unitiveness of homosexual love as ‘not credible’. Both you and the homophobe are rejecting my life and my experiences out of malice.”.

As an atheist it is just as offensive to me when a theists denounces and denies my experience of godlessness as “not credible” as when some homophobe denounces my transexuality. Both you and the homophobe are rjecting my life and experiences out of malice.

“There is, however, credible evidence that Christians have been responsible for enormous human suffering that continues to this day.”

David said “No. There is evidence that some Christians have been responsible for enormous human suffering. Just as there is evidence that some atheists have been responsible for enormous human suffering, and evidence that some men have been similarly responsible, and some women, and some short people, and some tall people, etc.”.

The difference is that christians persecuted others in the name of christianity. No atheist has persecuted others in the name of atheism.

David said “And, you ignore the fact that within Christianity there have been millions of people who have done immeasurable good for the world as well.”.

They’ve done more damage than good.

David said “In a cause for justice, people of faith have fought and died to protect others from harm.”.

Not nearly as many have done that as have oppressed and killed others.

David said “In every disaster, people of faith have dug deep and donated, or labored with their own hands, to rescue and nurse and bury and rebuild.”.

Yes, like sending thousands and thousands of dollars of talking bibles to the people in Haiti instead of food, water, and medical supplies.

David said “When atheists ignore all of the good that people of faith have done, and all of the tremendous diversity of people of faith, it is exactly the same as homophobes (or other bigots) ignore all the positive contributions of GLBTQ people and all the diversity of GLBTQ people.”.

No, its not the same at all. Homophobes seek do deny LGBTs equal rights, atheists support equal rights for theists even though theist frequently say things like “atheists aren’t citizens (g Bush) or that we shouldn’t be allowed to run for office.

David said “This is where atheism and homophobia are both prejudices: when it comes to evidence, atheist and homophobes chose to believe what supports their preconceived, negative opinion of other people.”.

False. Atheists simply refuse to belive in something for which there is no evidence.

“there is no credible evidence that homosexuals have ever never been responsible for human suffering,”

David said “This is irrational on two levels. First in the assumption that all people of faith, or all GLBTQ people, share some group-wide responsibility for anything. Second, in the notion that no GLBTQ person, ever, has ever harmed another person.”.

What Richard means is that there has never been any formal gay organization that has as a matter of policy been responsible for human suffering – you can’t say the same about formal christian organizations.

David said “Further, many progressive/liberal people of faith, gay and straight, have stated that the anti-religion hate speech that appears so frequently on the ‘net is degrading to us.”.

Oh and of course your anti-atheist hate speech isn’t degrading to atheists – its all about you, you’re the only one that matters in the world.

“the fact remains that virtually 100% of the organized anti-gay persecution in the U.S. is either directly motivated by, or justified by, Christianity.”

David said “That is not a fact, it is spin, carefully worded spin, but spin none the less.”.

Uhuh. Once again how about showing us some examples of this non-religious anti-gay persecution? You’ve been asked to do that several times and have failed to do so because it is virtually non-existant.

David said “Of course, one could make a similar claim: virtually 100% of the organized anti-religious persecution, world-wide is either directly motivated by, or justified by, atheism.”.

You could make that claim but it would be blatantly false. Most anti-religious persecution is one religion perecuting another – muslims persecuting christians, christians persecuting Jews and so on. In western democracies examples of anti-religious persecution by atheists is virtually non-existant.

David said “The difference though is important. The core principles of Christianity do not condone or support prejudice of any kind, Christianity is not intrinsically prejudiced, nor is it intrinsically a prejudice.”.

LOL! What a preposterous statement. The Bible commands that non-believers and gays be killed and tortured for eternity. The bible clearly states the Jews are god’s “chosen ones” – all others are inferior as is noted by god’s condoning of the Jews slaughtering of the peoples in the lands they want to take over even when such people are willing to make peace treaties.

David said “Yes, some people have used religions, including Christianity, to justify their prejudices, including homophobia. But people have also used science, philosophy, politics, expediency, and even atheism, to justify prejudices, including homosexuality.”.

The differnce being unlike with the bible people don’t find explicit support for their prejudices in science or atheism.

David said “While Christianity has at its core a principle of respect of human life, atheism has only contempt for the lives, testimony, and experiences of most human beings.”.

Nonsense. Any philosophy that has the majority of people who have ever lived suffering eternal torture, most for thought crimes, most certainly doesn’t respect human life. Atheism on the other hand values human life to the utmost because we know we only have one life to live and thus want everyone to make the most of it, not to forsake happiness in the only life they’ll ever have for the false promise of another a life after death.

“Christians routinely attack those who refuse to believe and live in accordance with their demands, and then when anyone fights back, they whine about being persecuted.”

David said “Just like atheists on line then.”.

Nonsense. There are no atheists trying to deny christians the right to marry or not be fired from their jobs or evicted from their homes merely for being christian, but their most certainly are many christians trying to do that to gays and atheists.

David said “And it is ironic that you brought it up, because your post, and that of your peers, is largely a matter of responding to criticism by claiming to be persecuted, instead of addressing the issue I actually raised “.

What’s ironic is that you claim you’re persecuted by atheists because they don’t accept your beliefs by somehow think you’re not persecuting atheists by not accepting our beliefs. The reality you are willfully blind to is that its not persecution to not accept other’s beliefs.

David said “Meanwhile, the verbal abusiveness that you and your peers have displayed in response to my post validates my earlier point”.

Ironic how you see verbal abusiveness everywhere but in your extremely abusive posts.

David said “the anti-religious hate speech that dominates this site seriously compromises its usefulness as a resource for actually communicating with heterosexuals who are not yet supportive of GLBTQ equality.”

Stating that religious beliefs are false and that most religious people are anti-gay is not hate speech, its reality. And stating reality encourages people to question their erroneous religious assumptions.

David said “It isn’t fair or ethical to criticize homophobes for slandering GLBTQ people, when so many atheists here slander people of faith.”.

False equivalence. Homophobes lie about LGBTs and seek to deny us equality under the law. Atheists tell the truth about theists (they have no evidence to support their beliefs) and support equality under the law for theists. And how bloody ironic for you to claim atheists are slandering theists after you bizarrely slandered me by calling me anti-gay.

Ben in Oakland

June 20th, 2010

Well, oh my is all I can say. We have a couple of posters here claiming that homosexuality is not using our organs the way god intended.

Did god tell you this, did you somehow extrapolate this from Romans, or did you just make it up all by yourself?

You seem to be saying that if you are not here to reproduce, there is no point to being here at all. Of course, gay people reproduce– when we are not busy raising the unwanted castoffs of irresponsible heterosexual procreation, many of whom are literally dying for a home, dying for the love of two parents (of whatever gender), or maybe just dying.

I have a friend who adopted an unwanted child who would have been raised in poverty and disease. M. is now healthy, bright, well behaved, and a joy to be around, instead of another piece of 3rd world refuse heading towards an early death because his heterosexual parents neither wanted him nor were prepared to care for him. How does preventing my friend from marrying another woman, thereby giving M a set of married parents do anything to protect anyone else’s family?

Let’s talk about perpetuation of the species? Are we running out of people that this is now relevant?

Your unconsidered reproduction is threatening the world and all families, gay and straight. Pollution, lack of water, energy, food, global warming are threatening our very existence,and you have the balls to ask ME why my love and relationship should be considered relevant and important? My point is NOT that my husband and I are not reproducing. My point is that many heterosexuals are, without thought.

So what exactly are heteros doing for the survival of the species, except making certain that whoever survives will be as miserable as possible.

Priya Lynn

June 20th, 2010

I said to atheists. “BS. You made that up [that 50% of atheists oppose equal marriage]. If you hadn’t you’d have had a source for that claim.”

David said “No. Your post is abusive, an example of prejudice.”.

Yes you did! That you think my stating reality is abuse if irrelevant to your claim that 50% of atheists oppose marriage equality.

David said “The ten percent number I used is an average across a variety of sources, from atheist websites to polls to encyclopedias. You simply dismiss it out of hand because of who I am. Since you didn’t cite sources for your own claims, though, by your own test, it means every claim you’ve made is made up.”.

I’m not disputing the 10% number even though you’ve posted no support for it either, I’m disputing your baseless claim that 50% of atheists oppose marriage equality. I have done a number of searches trying to find the percentages of atheists that support gay equality but have been unable to find any. What is obvious is that anti-gay atheists are virtually invisible and that is consistenat with the hypothesis that most atheists are gay supportive. You come here and rant about how abusive atheists are and then you LIE about the percentage that oppose equal marriage – you are far more abusive of atheists than I am of theists.

David said “Actually, Priya, have you ever cited a source here at BTB?”.

Just yesterday in fact:

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/06/18/23569#comment-70951

Note my last post yesterday (june 19th). And whether or no I’ve cited sources is irrelevant by the way. If I had made up statistics and failed to cite a source (which I have never done) that certainly wouldn’t justify you doing it as well. Your actions are despicable, you have no problem lying in your all-consuming desire to slander atheists.

I said “[your claim that I’m anti-gay] is profoundly nonsensical and in perfect keeping with the bizarre rants you’ve posted here. ”

David said “That is another empty dismissal, and a personal attack. Again, this is evidence of extreme prejudice on your part. Instead of responding to what I actually wrote, you vilified me instead.”.

You lie about me and then when I call you on it you claim I’m personally attacking you?! You are either profoundly dishonest or pathologically paranoid or some combination of the two.

I said “I’ve never made an anti-gay comment, I’m very progay and your suggestions that my posts are perfect examples of your claim that atheists are anti-gay is insane. ”

David said “Either you didn’t understand my statement that you quoted, or, you are deliberately avoiding what I stated with obfuscation.I didn’t say you’ve made anti-comments, I said your posts are examples that validate my premise that atheism is a prejudice against people of faith.”.

No, you’re lying again. Here’s how the converstaion went:

You said “In contrast, the most ardent supporters of anti-gay theology are not just fundamentalists Christians but atheists as well”.

I quoted that and replied “You keep trying to spread that BS but it doesn’t fly any better now than it did the first time you brought it up.”

And then quoted my statement immediately above and said “you are still relying on empty dismissals, even though your own posts have often been perfect examples supporting my assertion.”.

You claimed my posts were perfect examples of your claim that atheists are anti-gay and when I called you on your lie instead of apologizing you tried to cover it up with another lie. You can pretend I’ve been abusive to you all you want but I haven’t repeatedly lied to promote hatred, you have, you know no boundaries in your radical pursuit of demonizing atheists.

Priya Lynn

June 20th, 2010

Neon said “When we ask for statistics, we want sources. Give us survey links like Gallup or Pew Forum, not numbers you just pulled out of thin air and don’t even tell us where you got them from.”

David replied “And yet you provide none yourselves.”.

Your childish and false claim that “you did it too” in no way justifies you failing to cite a source for stats and most certainly doesn’t justify your total fabrication of the statistic that 50% of athesits oppose marriage equality – STOP LYING.

David said “It is that implicit double standard of prejudice at work once again. To you, anything you say is credible, just because, and you do not need to cite sources. But anything a person of faith says is not credible, we must cite sources.”.

Once again the utter invisiblity of anti-gay atheists is consistent with the hypothesis that most atheists are gay supportive. You have nothing to support your contention that many atheists are anti-gay beyond your desire to disparage atheists.

David said “You don’t believe me because of who I am, not because of what I’m saying.”.

No, we don’t believe you because you have no evidence for your claims although your lying on this thread is painting an unflattering picture of who you are.

“You specifically stated this site was worthless as a resource. Why bother coming to a site if you think we’re all worthless?”

David said “Again, you are reading into my post concepts that are not there. I wrote: “this site is worthless as a resource when trying to convince heterosexuals to abandon their prejudice against homosexuals”. First you read that as “I hate this website” – though the concept of hate does not occur. Then, you read “we’re all worthless” into it, and my expansion, when again, that concept does not occur.”

No, he never said anything about you hating this website and your statement that this website is worthless as a resource is similar to saying the commenters here are worthless as a resource.

David said “I provided a very explicit statement about a very limited use of this site. I stand by it, and, frankly, I think that you agree, since you have rebutted things I did not say instead.”.

Only a fool considers silence agreement.

“How is criticism of the flaws in your arguments bullying?”

David said “Nice strawman, but penguinsaur did not offer criticism. Why not address the real thing I was talking about, instead of red herrings?”.

Penguinsaur did offer criticism, he pointed out that you have nothing to support your clam that a lot of atheists are anti-gay – you can’t point to one Atheist group that supported something like Prop 8 *that thing funded entirely by theists*, one famous atheist who opposes gay rights, one poll showing that the majority of Atheists hate gay people.”.

You addressed none of those criticisms although you did fabricate a statistic that 50% of atheists opppose marriage equality.

“I find it amazing that for someone who claims is being prejudiced against by atheists and preaches so holier than thou about prejudice fails to recognize the prejudice in their own lives towards atheist.”

David said “Making a false accusation creates nice diversion, but it fails to address my statement that you quoted.”.

LOL, yes the accusation of your being prejudiced is false – that’s a good one.
Of course your baseless claim that most atheists are anti-gay isn’t prejudice, and neither is your false claim that atheists are just like fundamentalist homophobes, nor your claim that because atheism rejects your beliefs its prejudice but somehow your rejection of the beliefs of atheists is not.

David said “Here’s what I wrote, which you quoted:“Can you see that justifying abusing one group of people because of the abuse inflicted on another group is evil? Remember, that is a tactic that has been used over and over again to justify genocide and persecution.”

Strawman, none of us here has justified abusing one group because of abuse inflicted on another. Pointing out that religion is false and most christians are anti-gay is not abuse, its a statment of fact. And its ironic that you should make a statment like that and then repeatedly say you’re failure to provide a source for your stat that 50% of atheists are anti-gay is justified by others failing to provide sources.

David said “Note that it does not, and I have not, articulated prejudice against atheists. I asked, in longer words, about the whole ‘eye for an eye, he hit me first, tit for tat’ thing was acceptable.”.

See, now you lie again. You claimed most atheists are anti-gay – that’s prejudice, you claim atheist are just like fundamentalist homophobes – that’s prejudice. When you claim we reject your life and experience out of malice – that’s prejudice. When you say “atheist and homophobes chose to believe what supports their preconceived, negative opinion of other people” – that’s prejudice. When you say “atheism has only contempt for the lives, testimony, and experiences of most human beings” – that’s prejudice, a depth of prejudice that no atheist here has expressed towards christians.

David said “Look, presumably you are looking to refute my premise that atheism is a prejudice, and only a prejudice.”. If you disagree with my premise that atheism is a prejudice – articulate specific, significant ways that atheism does not meet the definition of prejudice.

That’s utter nonsense. Atheists have looked at the EVIDENCE and noted that despite thousands of years of searching for evidence in support of theism there is none and atheists have rightly concluded theism is false – that’s not prejudice, that’s SCIENCE. We haven’t pre-judged anyting, we’ve looked at the evidence and THEN drawn conclusions. YOU on the other hand decided first you wanted to believe in christianity and now you filter out the evidence that refutes it to focus on your imaginings that support it – THAT is the definition of prejudice.

David said “Or prove that atheism is anything other than a denial of other people’s experiences, testimony, feelings and lives.”.

The way science works is that the onus is on people making an assertion to provide evidence for its truth – you have provided none. We have no intellectual obligation to refute that which is presented without evidence.

Richard Rush

June 20th, 2010

David,

I noticed that you have been citing the good deeds of Christians and the evil deeds of atheists. They are irrelevant to the question of God’s existence, just as they would be irrelevant if I cited the evil deeds of Christians and the good deeds of atheists.

If someone told me they didn’t believe in God because of the way Christians treat gays, I would tell them that’s a very poor reason. There are plenty of good reasons for non-belief, but the behavior of Christians is not one of them, in my view. And on the flip side, when Christians condemn atheists by trotting out Hitler and Stalin, they are equally illogical (besides likely being wrong about those two examples). The answer to the question of a god’s existence does not depend upon the behavior of believers.

BUT, having said all that, I think there is one aspect of observing the behavior of Christians today that can help us conclude some things about the writers of the Bible: When I look at the degree of ignorance, delusion and superstition among so many people in today’s world of vastly greater knowledge than in Biblical times, I realize that the degree in those days had to have been many orders of magnitude greater. Ignorance, delusion, and superstition was virtually all they had.

toujoursdan

June 20th, 2010

BTW, Mainline Protestant laity and clergy are generally more gay friendly than the general American population.

Pew Survey:Most Mainline Protestants Say Society Should Accept Homosexuality

The U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, conducted by the Pew Research Center’s Forum on Religion & Public Life, finds that majorities of both denominations say that homosexuality is a way of life that should be accepted by society. Among mainline Protestants overall, 56% say homosexuality should be accepted, compared with only about one-in-four evangelical Protestants and four-in-ten members of historically black Protestant churches.

And mainline Protestant clergy tend to be more inclusive on this matter than lay people.

Pew Survey: On a range of policy issues, Mainline Protestant clergy are generally more supportive of LGBT rights than the general population, and mostly in line with Mainline Protestants overall

And they are generally becoming more progressive/inclusive.

Mainline clergy have become significantly more progressive on gay and lesbian issues over the last decade. Between 2001 and 2008, the number of clergy agreeing that gays and lesbians should have all the same rights and privileges as other American citizens increased 9 points from 70% to 79%. Nearly half (45%) of Mainline clergy report that their views on gay and lesbian issues are more liberal today than they were 10 years ago. About 4-in-10 say their views have not changed. Only 14% say their views are now more conservative than they were a decade earlier.

40 million Americans claim some affiliation with mainline Protestant denominations, so this is a big voting bloc.

Timothy Kincaid

June 20th, 2010

To David,

Some of the parallels you make between homophobia and “atheism” are reasonable. However, I think you make one critical mistake: your definition of atheism only applies to a subset of all real atheists.

Yes. There are those who, as you indicate, seek to villify religion and any who practice it. Their loud condemnations do often seem interchangeable with those of gay-haters. And, as homophobes do, they seek to exaggerate the ills of faith and ignore the positives.

And you are right that this subset does, like fundamentalist Christians, insist on the most literalistic and judgmental of interpretations as being “what Christians believe” but for the sole purpose of then denouncing Christians.

But I think that perhaps “Antireligionists” would be a better term for them than “Atheist”. They define themselves by in terms of religion (“religion causes suffering, etc.”) rather than by their own beliefs. In this way they are quite similar to those ex-gays who spend their days obsessing about not being gay.

There are comments posted here are at times in that manner. It is tiresome, annoying, and often bigoted.

However, there are many (I would guess most) atheists who are simply atheist: they do not believe in a deity. They do not consider the evidence presented as sufficient to outweigh their own experiences.

In my experience, these are often quite reasonable people. They often allow for religious people to come to their own conclusions.

We also have comments posted here in this manner. They are respectful and reasonable and a contribution to the conversation.

I do not see this latter perspective as any type of prejudice at all. Unlike the hateful atheist discussed above, it is not the categorical dismissal of group of people and their experiences.

It is rather, to me, like someone who hears a political appeal and still does not find it convincing. Disagreeing with an idea or belief does not make one prejudiced against that idea or those who believe it.

While I am sympathetic to some of what you say, if you insist on clumping all atheists as having one shared perspective, intent, and bias, then you are become no better than the antireligionists.

You must recall that while not all Christians are anti-gay, not all atheists are anti-Christian.

To the atheists (of whatever camp)

You do realize that you are piling on now, don’t you?

Timothy Kincaid

June 20th, 2010

toujoursdan,

I suspect (and hope) that the next wave of pro-gay activism will be from within mainline Christianity (and non-Orthodox Judaism). I think that these branches of people of faith will come to see that being pro-gay is a matter of faith in a way that many found being pro-integration was a matter of faith in the 60’s.

By changing the debate from “gay v. Christian” to “one denomination v. another denomination” will diffuse the “moral” reaction of people who are not strongly in either camp.

If there is no one set “Christian position”, then the “I don’t really go to church except for weddings and maybe Christmas” type of Christians will be forced to really see which side they fall on. And I think it will be ours.

To some extent it has already started.

Neil D

June 20th, 2010

For whatever reason, BTB likes to focus on the work of extremists. They are easy to refute because they are so over the top. Yet our real challenge is found among the more mainstream churches. The catholic church these days is staking out positions against our equality. For those interested in the challenges we face from catholics, I refer you to this facinating debate.

“A real challenge confronts those of us who perceive God at work among all persons and in all covenanted and life-enhancing forms of sexual love. That challenge is to take our tradition and the Scripture with at least as much seriousness as those who use the Bible as a buttress for rejecting forms of sexual love they fear or cannot understand.”

There are clearly acceptable and unacceptable “forms of sexual love” according to this defender of the faith. We will forever be in tension with the compulsion that religious people have to define certain sexual activity as sinful.

“I think it important to state clearly that we do, in fact, reject the straightforward commands of Scripture, and appeal instead to another authority when we declare that same-sex unions can be holy and good. And what exactly is that authority? We appeal explicitly to the weight of our own experience and the experience thousands of others have witnessed to, which tells us that to claim our own sexual orientation is in fact to accept the way in which God has created us. By so doing, we explicitly reject as well the premises of the scriptural statements condemning homosexuality—namely, that it is a vice freely chosen, a symptom of human corruption, and disobedience to God’s created order.”

There was discussion above about atheists using anti-gay theology to bash religion. Here is a guy taking this theology at face value and rejecting it. This is, truly, the intellectually honest position.

http://commonwealmagazine.org/homosexuality-church-1

I hope you find this article as interesting as I did.

Priya Lynn

June 20th, 2010

Timothy said “Some of the parallels you make between homophobia and “atheism” are reasonable.”.

Really? Please do tell us which ones.

Timothy Kincaid

June 20th, 2010

Perhaps reading beyond the first line will add clarity.

Priya Lynn

June 21st, 2010

Ahh, yes, I see it now:

“And you are right that this subset does, like fundamentalist Christians, insist on the most literalistic and judgmental of interpretations as being “what Christians believe” but for the sole purpose of then denouncing Christians.”.

How about showing us where any of the atheists in this thread did that?

Timothy Kincaid

June 21st, 2010

See, additional reading adds clarity. But one must also be careful not to add words.

Try reading it again without adding words like “in this thread”.

Neon Genesis

June 21st, 2010

So are we ever going to get an apology from David?

Chris McCoy

June 22nd, 2010

I think Christianity will come a long way when it finally re-addresses the foundational question asked by Cain, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” To what extent is my salvation dependent on yours?

As long as main-stream Christianity extols the concept that each person’s salvation is dependent on the salvation of their peers, Christians will constantly be minding everyone else’s business. It is not enough that I am X, you must be X also, because if you’re not saved, I’m not saved. Even if I have to force you to be X against your will, I’m doing it for your(my) own good.

I quite like Gandhi’s quote about Christians – “I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians – they are so unlike your Christ.”

I think the pathway to acceptance of BGLQT in Christianity, is to remind Christians of whose teachings they’re supposed to be following – Christ’s. We are, after all Christians, not Paulians or Peterians or Apsotlians.

What did Christ have to say about gays?
What did Chrsit have to say about judging others?
What did Christ have to say about hating your neighbor?

Timothy Kincaid

June 22nd, 2010

As long as main-stream Christianity extols the concept that each person’s salvation is dependent on the salvation of their peers, Christians will constantly be minding everyone else’s business.

I think that a different perspective on “my brother’s keeper” might be: to what extent is my salvation dependent on your care, instead of on your salvation. This is probably a much stronger instinct within mainline Christianity today than is the instinct for conversion.

I agree that conservative evangelical Christians often take the “I care about your soul, not your body” approach, but mainline denominations tend to let their good works be a witness rather than seeking to spread their faith through coercive methods.

Incidentally, according to the gospels, Jesus primarily taught the message of care for the physical concerns of your neighbors.

Jason D

June 22nd, 2010

a girl I was friends with in college mentioned at one point that a guilt trip was laid into them at every opportunity.

She said that basically they were told that if you had the opportunity to save someone’s soul, and you didn’t, that person will go to hell and it will be your fault. That you must do everything you can to save them, and hope that if you don’t God will forgive you.

Which I think explains some of it, but a lot of it is definitely naked bigotry in a string bikini of religious belief.

Timothy (TRiG)

September 20th, 2010

Yes. There are [atheists] who, as you indicate, seek to villify religion and any who practice it. Their loud condemnations do often seem interchangeable with those of gay-haters. And, as homophobes do, they seek to exaggerate the ills of faith and ignore the positives.

I’d be interested in seeing a single example, in this thread or out of it.

TRiG.

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

The Things You Learn from the Internet

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.