I know from speaking to people in the gay community, that most of us do not understand why laws, such as the Federal Marriage Amendment, or the state equivalents get passed so easily, and why we do not see more opposition to these legislations. My husband, Robert, has been doing a lot of research, and we have realized quite a bit lately as to why the gay community is going down in flames, pun intended.
The gay community is comprised of many facets of life. Unlike other groups of people, we are very heavily wired to the Internet, cell phones, I-pods, you name it. We tend to shop in the trendier stores, go to the nicer restaurants, and are more worried about our bodies and image than hunger or poverty. We are the epitome of image conscious, well, obsessed actually. We barely have time to have highly constructive relationships, let alone donate time to worthy causes. If we cut out going to the gym just twice a week, that would free up time to volunteer at an AIDS hospice, or work with gay community group to help enrich the lives of people of the LGBT community.
There is something that has disappeared as well. I blame it on the gay men. Yes, we are responsible for the disappearance of the GBT. Look at the news, everything is gay. Gay men, gay marriage, gay equality. What about lesbians, bisexuals, or transgender individuals? Do we only care about ourselves? The movement in the community says yes, but I like to believe that we are not this self-absorbed. We need to start involving everyone into the struggle, because our numbers are much greater when you take into account everyone involved in the community. We all know, whatever differences we may have, lesbians are just as strong, just as committed, and just as prosperous in our society as any gay man out there. The same goes with bisexuals and transgender individuals.
That is another point. We segregate ourselves off from heterosexuals too. How many people do you know that live in an area with quite a few heterosexuals? Here in Columbus, not many. Most gay people confine themselves to few areas, while the rest of us are spread throughout the remainder of the city. There are quite a few people out there, of all different sexual orientations that support gay rights, and equality in general. We might see the African-Americans turn their backs saying that we are not the same in the civil rights movement, but remember, without the general populace helping out, they would not have achieved equality either. We need to do the same, and include anyone who feels that discrimination is wrong.
I know quite a few people out there love websites, especially ones like Out In America and Gay. Com. Let me ask you this though; do these sites do more to hurt or to help the gay community? We are painted as many different things, from loose acting, to child molesters, to people with mental illnesses. We turn around, and embrace websites that do absolutely nothing for the gay community at all. I mean, OIA gives news, sure, but it is more of a personals site than anything else. Yet, if you go through the parent company and look at the stance of some of the staff, people in charge even, they talk about sex being one of the most important things with being involved in the gay community in general. This is not the direction that we need to be headed in if we want equality. Open up just a slice of gay publications, and most of the articles or pictures are guys in very skimpy clothes. Take a look at a lot of the PRIDE events out there right now, they are nothing more than a parade of twinks who are selling sex in order for us to be proud. Companies like Ethan Interactive, the owners of OIA, are so proud because they are involved with PRIDE and feel that helps the gay community more than anything. I have never learned a darn thing at a PRIDE event, other then the fact that non-alcoholic Pina Coladas taste really good.
Speaking of groups, we have already established that groups like OIA and Gay.com aren't doing anything for the gay community, other than helping the stereotype that the "far right" likes to point out. What about other groups, such as non-profits, groups like the Human Rights Campaign, ACLU, or local groups? Well, when Robert was doing his research, we found out that the HRC chapter here in Columbus doesn't do anything honestly. They have no true contact info; they have 16 people on their steering committee, and do not have anything on their calendar at all. The only real events that they hold are fundraising events for THEMSELVES. They are not even raising funds for other groups in the area. What about the Stonewall Democrats? That is a local group of gay Democrats in the area that are supposed to support candidates, and lobby for GLBT rights in Columbus, and in Ohio in general? Well, every event they hold is in a bar, and they charge for every one of them. Then they ponder why they are not reaching more people in the community when it comes to turning out the gay vote. Look through their calendar, and they are not doing anything to enrich the gay community either. The only real thing that they do is have a booth at our gallery hop and give out literature. I bet if you dig a little further, their board is paid. Which brings us to yet another worthless group, Equality Ohio. Equality Ohio is run by a bunch of people who literally sit around and congratulate themselves on how great they are, and how much they do for the gay community. The only thing that they have done, other than hold fundraisers for, oh wait shock, themselves, is organize people to lobby Congress on the state level. Once again, have not done a thing to stop the marriage amendment, have not tried to have the current law repealed, but yet they think that they are amazing and are making a difference.
On the flip side of the coin, there are groups that are trying to help. A little known group called BRAVER, which stands for the Buckeye Region of American Veterans for Equal Rights. They are a chapter of the national group, AVER (American Veterans for Equal Rights) which is a veterans service organization, trying to help GLBT service members in the community. They are a fledgling group, and yet are ignored. Statistically, veteran couples make up about 10% of GLBT households in Ohio, and yet, BRAVER and AVER are ignored.
We are supporting those who are not doing a darn thing. Why should they? We keep pouring our money into them, and yet they pat themselves on the back for a job well done, when they haven't done anything at all. We need to tell people like Equality Ohio, Ethan Interactive, HRC, and Stonewall Democrats that we don't want them to represent us in the community. That they are doing just as much to hurt us as the fanatics out there who want us to be classify us as mentally unstable. They are doing more harm to us than the Federal Marriage Amendment would. They make us look like self-absorbed, lazy, sex-crazed egomaniacs, and that is the last image we need.
I implore you all, if we want equality, if we want peace, we need to work together as a cohesive unit. Gay bashing affects all of us, as does the mounds of legislation that homophobes want to pass against us to make us sub-human. They can have any belief they want, that is not what we need to fight. If someone wants to say we are going to hell, that is fine, let them. But we will not win this fight be continuing the same road that we are headed down. We cannot embrace the wrong side of our culture just because everyone else does. We need to rise above, support groups who are making an ACTUAL difference, and stand up for ourselves and stand besides others who support our cause and us. We are loosing sight of any type of ethics, morals, or the proper way to handle a situation, and that will also hurt us in the long run. Maybe it is about time that we start our own organizations. You do not have to be the HRC to make a difference. Martin Luther King wasn't a member of a group, he was his own person, and through his inclusion, not exclusion did he reach people. We need to be active, proactive, and motivated if we want the tides of change to come through.
recommend this
email
print
link to this page
Comments: 45
Keep on postin'--this is a ten-er!
I believe that with an election coming up and the war in Iraq, people just don't want to be bothered with gay issues, especially when they don't pertain to them. But what people don't think about is this....
Just like world war 2, when the germans started taking the jews... it did not effect the catholics or us as Americans... so we turned our heads. Not until Pearl Harbor was attacked did we realize we had to stop Hitler. Funny that it took the Japanese to open our eyes to Hitler,.. imagine if they didn't.
When I was growing up in Chicago in the 80's, my mom had gay friends that I grew to love and spend time with. In my teen years I had many gay friends, bi-friends and straight friends. I learned young from my mother's example, that people are people are people.. yellow, purple, green, gay, black, straight.. what does it matter?
It probably helped that we were not religious... So many people are rasied to believe that being gay is an abomination against God and they pass this down through the generations. We are what we learn.
To warp up my rambling.. I would like to say as a white, straight, married mom of a teen daughter, I should be doing my part to make sure all Americans have the opportunity to have what I have.. a family with rights and health insurance and medical right to be there when my partner is sick, rights to make decisions in my spouses absence and the security of knowing that my child wouldn't be taken from me and kowing I could adopt if I wanted to.
Every good American should have that right.
I don't think your movement is the same thing as the civil rights movement. Black people were seperated through schools, restaurants, water fountains, bathrooms; you name it. Black people were also viciously attacked when they attempted to demonstrate. Gay people are trying to get equal marriage and adoption rights, and maybe a few other things I don't know about. It's just not the same thing.
Oh, and I thought gay meant everyone who likes the same sex. That's why they call it "gay rights", right. Lesbians call themselves gay, right.
Kodi, I was engaged to a woman actually. It is not a choice at all. The problem is that that is not the issue honestly. The issue here is equality, and for anyone to expect to be treated fairly, then we must treat others fairly as well.
Thanks to everyone else!
And give me all the evidence you have to prove that the world was formed 4.5 billion years ago. I wouldn't jump to conclusions.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html#howold
http://home.entouch.net/dmd/age.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/geotime/age.html
http://www2.nature.nps.gov/geology/USGSNPS/gtime/ageofearth.pdf
If you do not believe that the Earth is old it must be because the bible doesn't say so. I guess that means cars don't exist, airplanes, credit cards, cell phones, the ice age dinosaurs, cameras, television or the like. Because lord knows, one person is the end all. I think this is a great indication that if these people were in divine contact, then God played a huge trick and just left them in the dark on the past and the future.
Also, why is it that God used to pop up so much in biblical times, but never now? Just curious as to why he isn't as social now.
Also, if evolution doesn't exist, then how are there different races? We decended from two people supposedly, so why are there different races? God never changed our race, at least, it doesn't say so in the Bible. Well, obviouslly, people that do not actually have the knowledget that they claimed to when they wrote it, would not have the answers to these questions. Sad, but seems that Nostradamus knew more.
First I will explain to you the flaws of carbon dating and how it should have no place in your "proof" of an old earth. In carbon dating:
Radiation from the sun strikes the atmosphere of the earth all day. This energy converts about 21 pounds of nitrogen into radioactive carbon 14. This carbon 14 slowly decays back into normal, stable nitrogen. Extensive laboratory testing shows that about half the C-14 molecules will decay in 5,730 years. This is called the half life. After another 5,730 years half the C-14 will decay leaving only 1/4 of the original C-14. It goes from 1/2, to 1/4, to 1/8, etc. In theory it would never disappear, but after about 5 half lives the difference isn't measurable with any degree of accuracy. Nothing on earth carbon dates millions of years, because the scope of carbon dating only extends a few thousand years. Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 to reach the point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it's being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached the point of equilibrium. There's more C-14 in the atmosphere no than there was 40 years ago. This would prove that the earth is not yet 30,000 years old. This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past have less C-14 than plants and animals now. This one fact totally upsets the data obtained by C-14 dating. Scientist do not know that the carbon-14 decay has been constant. They don't know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Testing shows that the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first tested in the 1950's. That's just a lesson on how pethetic and unreasonable carbon dating really is.
So no, dinosaurs have not been proven to be 4.5 billion years old. Neither have rocks. How did the fossils get here if the earth is only 6,000 years old you say. Well, if you've ever read the bible or heard of it, you would know about the great flood. "In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month--on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights."-Genesis 7:11-12.
1. The top 3,000 feet of Mt. Everest is made up of sedimentary rock packed with seashells and other ocean-dwelling animals.
2. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water.
3. Petrified clams in the closed position (found all over the world) testify to their rapid burial while they were still alive, even on top of Mt. Everest.
4. Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a flood.
Just a few fun facts on fossil formation and the flood. Does that answer your question?
DrDino.com
If I don't believe that the earth is old it must be because the Bible says so? Alright, maybe that's part of it, but that's not my only motivation. I believed that the earth was millions of years old being a Christian until I saw "The Age of the Earth", a seminar series video by Dr. Kent Hovind. This totally changed my ideas and I realized how stupid the idea of evolution and basically an old earth really was. And ya, no. There are many creation scientist out there that believe the earth is billions of years old; which I disagree with. Oh ya, and there's definately non-religious people out there that don't believe in an old earth. So no, people that don't believe in an old earth have proof other than the Bible.
And what the heck. Us christians aren't elaborating on stuff that the Bible doesn't say, we're mainly elaborating on the stuff the Bible does say, and basic common sense. And for the stuff that the Bible doesn't say that needs a theory, we figure out an explanation the best we can. So ya, cars do exist.
"Also, why is it that God used to pop up so much in biblical times, but never now. Just curious as to why he isn't as social now." Don't speak of what you think you know of how social he is until you have experienced his love. Don't think you can talk about his presence until you have truly felt and known that he is there. If you're speaking of why Jesus hasn't come back then here from me that he is. But don't talk to me about God's social presence until you know what it's like to be with him.
There can be many reasons for race, but one thing is known; God created them. The different races most likely came from Noah's three son's. Not saying that they came miraculously from the womb as different races, but God had a large play in putting together the beauty of diverstity.
I have a question for you: How is it that the world has evolved so perfectly? Everthing set to the perfect balance, everything in the perfect order. How did we come from a rock to beautiful, diverse human beings? What would even be the point in creating different races during evolution; there's no overviewer? How is it that the races would be made so beautiful and different in a process that has no point? This is just one reason I look to creation. This world is way to beautiful to have evolved.
Glad I could answer these questions that you claim I don't have the answers to.
First off. Did I ever say that the world has always looked this exact way, and that it isn't changing. No; so don't make up words to put in my mouth.
Oh, and I think you misinterpreted what I meant as a perfect world. Of course there are short comings that all life has to work out. It's the way the world all came together that is perfect. Some examples:
1. How do you explain the precision in the design of the elements, with increasing numbers of electrons in orbit around the nucleus?
2. What are the odds that the evolutionary process, proceeding by random changes, would produce human beings, plus millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, all with symmetrical features, i.e., one side being a mirror image of the other? We take symmetry in all these creatures for granted, but is that a reasonable outcome for a random process?
3. What are the odds that of the millions of species of animals, birds, fish, and insects, a male of each species developed at the same time and in the same place as a female of the same species, so that the species could propagate?
These are just a few of many questions for your "evolving" mind. I could go on forever.
And I wouldn't speak of the Bible this way when you really don't know what you're talking about. It was another time and place and culture, and these commands were never given to the whole world, and were not given to New Testament Christians (except for ones like "love your neighbor") and are not given to people today. In fact, the book of Colossians and Hebrews tell us that the civil and ceremonial ordinances given to the Hebrews--including the Sabbath commandment--were done away with at the cross. Why were they put there in the first place? To help Israel survive as a nation, distinct and holy to God; to help Israel stay organized and healthy and separate from the nations around them, which lived unhealthy and ungodly histories that ended in defeat and destruction. Alright? No, I'm not going to hell, and I'm proud to say I'm going to heaven. Do not speak of what you do not know.
In conclusion: I don't care what you think about my faith or my God; and I don't care what you think of my Bible. Believe what you want. And yes, the Bible is a whopping good read. I suggest you listen to it's message and think about the idea of a God before your run your atheist agenda like this.
This has long been called the most vexing question in the Bible; the verses you named. There is an explanation to this:
1. If Jesus did not see himself abolishing the Law and the Prophets, but "fulfilling" them, why is there good evidence that he abolished the food laws (Mark 7:19)? And why do New Testament writers insist, after Jesus' death and resurrection, that the sacrificial laws of the Old Testament are abolished (Hebrews 8:13; 10:1-18)?
2. Jesus would not contradict Himself, but He himself abolished the food laws in Mark 7:19. So when He says in Matt. 5:17-18 that he didn't come "to abolish" the O.T. laws but fulfill them," maybe the word "fulfill" means something like "bring to its full realization and completion."
3. So in Matt 5:17-18, Jesus is not telling us to zero in on every jot and tittle of the Old Testament laws -- for if we mess up at any tiny point, we'll go down. Instead, He is telling us to zero in on HIM -- for HE himself is what every jot and tittle of the Old Testament point toward.
4. And in every possible way, He fulfills the entire OT-- the Law and the Prophets. Because they point toward him, He has certainly NOT come to abolish them. Rather, he has come to fulfill them in a rich variety of ways. Not a single item of the Law or the Prophets shall fail, He says: not ever, until the end of time--until everything is accomplished.
5. In other words, Jesus does not conceive of his life and ministry in terms of opposition to the Old Testament, but in terms of bringing to completion that toward it all points. True, the detailed prescriptions of the Old Testament (about
sacrifices, and specific ordinances) may well be outdated, because hey, whatever is prophetic must be in some sense temporary. But since it was all prophetic, looking forward to Christ, it all finds its happy fulfillment in Jesus' person & life & death & resurrection.
Yes, the chances of all my questions are very small, but let's not compare it to the lotto. Come on Robert, we're talking about coming from an ameba to a man. Symmetrical features are common sense, that's why it would require a designer to create them. I know what you're referring to, natural selection. But hey, just because an animal starts off with one eye doesn't mean it will naturally develop another eye. There doesn't exist even one example of natural selection producing a new animal, organ, or even a major permanent change in an existing organism. This is because natural selection is just that-selection. It can create nothing new. It can only select the most advantageous information which is already present in the molecular blueprint of the organism. Natural selection cannot cause new information to be added to the DNA of an animal.
I appreciate the attempted understanding and the eased response. I don't quite understand what I need to learn of your side. I understand the general theory of evolution, yet I believe in creation, and I debate and question the theories of the people that debate and question the theories of mine. It's a never ending cycle. I am not asking you to believe what I say and I am sure as heck not standing behind my beliefs and damning everyone else. I am attempting to influence your ideas to attempt to influence you more to my viewpoints and attempting to influence the people possibly viewing the debate; as you are probably attempting also. I believe I'm right, and you believe you're right, making a never ending cycle of debates of personal opinion. Debates heat up when our the issues begin to affect our lives, which evolution does. I understand your viewpoint, and I know you understand mine. We just disagree, and will argue about it until one of us changes or stops.
Natural selection, Darwinism; whatever. I'm talking about the idea that an animal can go from no eyes, to one eye, to two eyes.
I've enjoyed our converstation too. You can quit arguing whenever you want. But as long as you ask me questions, I'm going to answer them.
No, I haven't read up on Darwinism or evolution yet; and I don't know why I would need to. I have a basic understanding on the religion, and I don't think I need to know any more. There's no way I will ever believe that there is no God and that we came from an ameba; never. I wake up in the morning knowing how complicated and planned life is, and I'll never resort to evolution to explain it. Maybe I will read up on it sometime, but I don't need to be an evolution scholar to speak against it's theory and it's influence on our schools.
All right; the Bible only condemns the physical act. The Bible condemns sinful acts, not sinful temptations, or sinful feelings not acted upon. I know God didn't want a man and a man together because the logic of human procreation and reproduction and survival screams that this act is not natural.
I still don't understand why you think I'm picking and choosing. There's a big difference between a commandment repeated one or more times in the New Testament and an event that was not commanded for us to take part in. God hates divorce and condemns it; and remarrying I guess could be considered adultery. What's your point? It is a sin to commit these acts but everyone sins. You should try to avoid these acts but if they happen, realize your wrong, ask for forgiveness, and move on with life. The men who wrote the book were divinely inspired by Christ, so in a way, Jesus did actually say these things himself.
You need to understand that I haven't based a definite view on this issue. I'm not totally anti-gay. I'm just analyzing what the Bible says and what my gut feeling is. When I said that political leaders don't want gays to change our moral ways, I meant the morals of natural marriage and a man and woman relationship. The basic crime and divorce rate is not more than heterosexuals; in fact, it may be less. That's not the kind of morals I'm talking about.
Ha; refuting science! You're comparing you're religion of evolution to science. Give me a break. And no, my religion is not fragile and I am not someone with blind faith and am not rude to my fellow man. I never once said that I wouldn't read about Darwinism danget. I just didn't see the point; and now I'm beginning to think that it may have a point. Also; how the heck was I supposed to be polite to your beliefs? I just stated what I don't believe in and what I believe is wrong, and then explained my side of the story. Seems you didn't have much respect for my beliefs, sir. Calling God's hand in creation no more than a three year old's cop out; calling my Bible poor education based wholly on fiction and folklore, people nailing other people to sticks! No hard feelings, right.
Yes, Darwinism is a religion. The definition of science is systemized knowledge derived from observation, study, etc., and the root word prefix means "to know", to know! You don't know that the human race evolved over billions of years. You don't; and there's no observation or study to back it up either. This religion isn't even based on one percent of science. Evolution is just a pagan religion masquerading as science.
And I'm sorry that your religion doesn't get as much respect as mine. Maybe it's because most people in America look out to the world and believe in a God that created us, and believe that this life has a point and a purpose by a creator above.
Do you want me to give you the entire creation theory here on this site? If you want me to, I can. Don't think I don't have an explanation of how God had a hand in creation. A "science" book that has no concrete proof in it used by a culture sound a lot like folklore to me equally. Only you take out the God and creation factor and it only "sounds" more reasonable. Please show how we arranged from some exploding dust with concrete and scientific provable statements. It was a series of divinely inspired people that wrote the New Testament, and please, give me your contradictions you supposedly have. I'll answer them. You just don't understand. My belief in God is based off of faith. I look at our beautiful world and proclaim God as my savior and believe in a created world. This requires no proof to believe. And you just have to keep going on about how your religion has more proof than mine. You have no proof for your theory. You hide behind the word science and proclaim scientific superiority to mine. Lord help me.
I never said that you should care what others believe. I was just pointing out one of the reasons your religion might not get as much respect as mine. And I never stated my viewpoint on civil unions, so I'm not necessarily against them as you decided. Also; 54 percent is only 4 percent over buddy. The results may be much different on another network, and there's a lot of people out there that didn't even vote.
I also have something to say about the how mess. If someone were to prove that my beliefs were wrong, I would also change my views; yet nothing would deny my faith in God. There is not a single shred of proof that God doesn't exist, and there is no proof that he does exist. So which one will you choose? I've chosen mine.
Realize that your religion has no more credibility than mine, which you don't seem to understand. I am not held by blind faith and ignorance, and I do not hide in the dark and pretend that nothing exists, no more than you do. Also, my God is not imaginary. What is so ignorant, blind, and imaginary about believing in a God and arguing with people that insult it, huh? Oh, and somehow because I believe in God and speak of his name that makes me not want to further my education and self. These are far-fetched statements from what I ever said to you.
Alright, I will believe what I want off my faith, and you'll believe whatever you want off yours. Your intelligence and observation is no more present than mine. In fact, it's nonexistent. If I cannot see the contradictions in my book than maybe they're not there. Maybe you could actually point them out instead of claiming their existence as some kind of diversion tactic.
I never said you had to believe in God to be happy. In the way you put it, "false security", which you have no idea what you're saying until you've experienced God first hand. Here's the difference between you and me. I am not hiding behind my ever present and existing God and faith. The thing about me is that I don't claim scientific superiority to your theory. I don't use the word science in a way that is not true and doesn't make sense. I don't claim anything about my religion that is provably incorrect. You are hiding behind the word science and the false hope that your theory is any more provable than mine. I am speaking of what I believe adding the Bible in with the discussion. I'm not making any false statements about my religion unlike you.
Finally, use all the great tragedies in this world to deny my Lord all you want. These are horrible tragedies that require no theory of God's aide by you. You have no idea of how God has helped me with my problems so don't speak of them. You don't know my life and what I've experience. I have no idea that you are unhappy without Jesus in your life and that you have more problems than me so I don't base a conclusion on it; unlike you. You don't know what I've felt, so keep your ideas of my life to yourself.
Reason is the greatest enemy faith has. Hm, interesting. In a way it's true. They're are many things we Christians choose to believe that some people would see as unreasonable. What I don't understand about that statement is that believing in a God that created us and the things that happened by that God doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I think Martin must have had a little more up his sleeve when saying this. And notice that he said faith, not Christianity, not Islam, but faith. This statement would easily apply to your religion too.
I never denied anyone's connection to God; so what are you talking about? Also, preachers are no more connectively spiritual than us viewers; they just have the power to speak in front of an audience about the Lord better than we do. And the difference between Fred Phelps and our local preacher: Fred Phelps preaches hate, and Jesus preaches love. Jesus would never support picketing gay people and soldier's funerals, with signs of "God Hates Fags". Some Christian leaders are just totally misled and give us a bad name.
Thank you for making a list of your contradictions. I will take a look at them and consider them thoughtfully. And I will expect the same in return when I criticize your religion, as you should too.
I agree with you that the political landscape for queer folk is pretty bleak in a lot of places (not so bad, in others), but I don't get what you are proposing as solutions.
"I implore you all, if we want equality, if we want peace, we need to work together as a cohesive unit."
How does this fit together with your litany of complaints against the HRCF, the State Equality group, the Stonewall Democrats, gay web sites, Pride parades, and every other organization that doesn't seem to be acting in ways you applaud?
I live in a city where gay folk live all over the place (look at a map of where domestic partnerships are registered, it's a surprise) and interact in a lot of ways.
I see lots of gay and lesbian and transgendered communities, only occssionally is there a sense of one.
Gay people are really diverse. For every body-obsessed high-end shopper in Ohio, I am willing to bet there are a dozen closeted folks, two dozen low wage earners, a few slobs, a couple anarchists, some deeply religious believers who struggle to fit in anywhere, boys with bad hair, a few who have really distrubed relationships with everyone, etc.
Getting diverse people to work toward the same end is always a struggle, even harder when the people often have histories of profound alienation, fearfulness, habits of secrecy, and a strong desire to be left alone.
"Maybe it is about time that we start our own organizations."
How are these new organizations you call for going to be different than the ones we have?
I am not trying to be an ass (this time), I would really like to hear how a lot of fractured people can begin to work together.
Peter, my idea is to start a group to actually work for equality of all. SO many of the gay Ohio groups sit around applauding themselves, yet have not done anything, literally. They have raised money and then keep it, bragging that their biggest goal is to make more the following year, yet have no direction as to what they will do with it. That is not helping anyone except for the board members stroke their own egos. We need organizations who are opposing marriage amendments, who are trying to protect same sex unions, and partnerships, and are making sure that all memebers of the community are included, NOT excluded.
Robert, you just won't stop will you; making false statements of what I said. I never told you to stop, so where did that come from? You started the dang conversation of respecting each other's religion and told me that I was giving less respect to yours than you were giving to mine; which I wasn't. It's far from clear that I believe it's ok to be a hypocrite; whatever you're thinking.
No, I am not above my God, and I never denied Fred Phelps's connection to God. I never said that I have proof that he is not divinely inspired by what he says, but the Bible and the basic Christian faith screams he's not. There's a good chance Phelps speaks to God, but as for his radical teachings, I don't think so. Of course there's no proof for what happens supernaturally, but there's and idea. Our God is a good loving God. Don't use Fred Phelps to give him a bad name.
Oh, I see, using the Bible that you're so into criticizing to criticize me again. I know of the teaching of turning the other cheek in the Bible. As we know, violence is never a good way to solve things and love is a better way to approach things. The Bible does say this, but when you and others decide to attack my faith, and deny my God, I will respond. I'm not sure that turning the other cheek would mean to not respond to someone disgracing the man that created the teaching in the first place.
I'm sorry my response made you sick, but I'll do what I have to. Please, get well soon.
The Psychology of Hypocrisy states that the reason for hypocrisy is basically: "Uncertainty of Beliefs: If you are not 100% certain in what you believe, then your actions are not likely to be consistent with your beliefs 100% of the time. A conservative interpreter of reality is seldom 100% certain about anything. This uncertainty can cause one to be hypocritical at times. "
Interesting........
Jonathan, I'm sorry if I sounded like I was judging you as a person when I asked my question about homosexuality. This was not an attempt to judge, it was an attempt to understand. I was asking you a question, not questioning you. Also, I never said that I know what it's like to walk in your shoes. I'm sure it's not easy; I bet it can be horrible.
If I have not based conclusions on everything in this world, which I haven't, then by your definition I am a hypocrite. But if you're not 100% sure in what you believe, do you really believe it?...
And off topic, what is wrong with Kodi?