Letters, we get letters...
This arrived in our Inbox overnight:
Reconsider your stance
Please stop trying to promote homosexual activity as an acceptable lifestyle. Sexual preference does not deserve special rights or a political agenda.
Imagine those who can't stop thinking about sexual acts with children or those who destroy the bond of marriage and a stable home environment for the sake of more sex or sex with other people beside their spouse. Should those kind of folks have a politcal (sic) platform as well and demand special rights? I think it would be horribly destructive.
Despite your attack on those who value our families and children, our society and moral values that made America great, you need to lower your anti-tolerant hateful glare at those who simply bring light to the hurtful truth you are trying to ignore.
The only "hate" present in those who oppose homosexuality is the act itself and the agenda to force its acceptance into mainstream society. The rest is out of love and concern for all people, no matter what issues they struggle with. Love the sinner, hate the sin is something you may have heard and that is at the very heart of Christianity.
For arguement's (sic) sake, let's assume one is "born" a homosexual. Actually, a homosexual is someone practicing homosexual acts, so we can't be "born" that way! Let's say they are born with a predisposition to having an attraction to the same sex. That doesnt (sic) mean they should be encouraged to act on that. Imagine someone with a family history of alcohol addiction. A (sic) they inherit the "gene" of alcohol addiction and find it overwhelming hard to resist. Should they be let alone to do their own thing? Maybe they should band together, get alcohol abuse related actions abolished and promote acceptance for their behavior. Maybe they should get special privelages (sic) and be immune to persecution for their actions while under the influence, after all, they were born that way and can't help it. Right?
I dont't (sic) mean to go on and on. I ran across your site while looking for billboard images. I just can't help it when I see things like this, I have to say something. I feel so concerned for those who are mislead (sic) and hurting.
(1) We agree 100% that "sexual preference does not deserve special rights or a political agenda." That is why are instead advocating for equal rights for people of a certain sexual orientation, using a human agenda.
(2) With all due respect, we don't want to "[i]magine those who can't stop thinking about sexual acts with children or those who destroy the bond of marriage and a stable home environment for the sake of more sex or sex with other people beside their spouse. And, we don't feel that pedophiles or sex addicts who cheat on their spouses deserve to have either a political platform or special rights. Fortunately, those situations have about as much relevancy to the fight for gay rights as Taco Bell has pertinence to the immigration debate.
(3) We attack? We have an "anti-tolerant hateful glare"? My friend, you need to spend a little more time reading G-A-Y. What we have is a deep respect for ALL families and children, including gay ones. And what we challenge are the hurtful misrepresentations and demonizations that our opposition passes off as truth. If you would like to take one o our refutations of "pro-family" logic and tell us how, exactly, we are wrong, then be our guest. But don't just throw a stone in our direction and make a claim about this website that is both unfair and untrue.
(4) While we agree that most of our "pro-family" opposition does not display outright hate towards the gay community, there is a large portion of society who still does. Anyone who is gay knows what such feels like. But even within the Christian community, where folks think they are opposing us out of love, what they are really doing is displaying animosity for our love based on their own socio-politic-religo views. It is this attempt to force their moral and faith views onto society at large that is truly disturbing. Gay people, by and large, respect religious freedom to a very heightened degree. However, we also respect that religious freedom gives everyone the right to be free from having their government legislated on the basis of one-sided faith views.
(5) Why is it always that "a homosexual is someone practicing homosexual acts," yet a heterosexual is simply a heterosexual? At the core, it is the behavior that defines all sexual orientations. This does not begin to refute that there is a bio-genetic basis for any orientation.
(6) We're not even going to really dignify your linkage of alcohol addiction and homosexuality. The two are apples and tequila shots.
(7) By all means, thank you for writing to say your piece. One should be engaged with the problems and fights that they see in the world, which is exactly why we dedicate our days to challenging the gay bias that we fill is one of society's most unjust, mean-spirited, amoral, discriminatory ills. We just feel so concerned for those who are misled (no sic) and hurting. We will do everything in our power to correct the fallacies that keep us from feeding our alcohol addiction loving in the way that is natural to us.
Good As You
I'm curious. Just were do we find that scripture that says, "love the sinner, hate the sin"? Is it in the same book of the Bible that says, "God helps those who help themselves?" Or maybe it's the scripture that follows, "you put your left foot in, you take your left foot out, you pur your left foot in and shake it all about".
Posted by: Timothy | Jun 21, 2007 11:34:37 AM
Oh Timothy, you Biblical dope. It's in the book of 'Convenient Concepts for Stone-Casting Evangelicals.' In some versions, it's inserted in lieu of the "judge not, lest ye be judged" part, as that tends to go unused anyway.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 21, 2007 11:39:29 AM
Why do people always liken being gay to genetic predispositions for harmful activities (ie theft and alcohol abuse)?
Being gay is more closely linked to genetic dispositions like left-handedness - something that until recently was seen as the sign of the devil, but never mind that.
Please, anyone out there who has such an inclination, do NOT use "both have a genetic cause" to link alcoholism (or kleptomania, or any other harmful disposition) to homosexuality for the express purpose of implying that homosexuality is equally harmful.
We realise that the purpose is to demonstrate harm where it cannot be demonstrated in any other way. We find this logic both flawed and malignant.
Posted by: Anon | Jun 21, 2007 8:07:40 PM
It's always interesting to see how sarcastic people can get when you touch a nerve that's in a state of chronic inflamation. Remember, if you have to justify something, it's usually wrong.
Why do you try to find a scripture with the words "love the sinnner, hate the sin" ? It's not there, nor did I say it was did I?
Let's assume you at least believe in God and believe that he loves us. Do you suppose he loves it when we sin? No. Whatever the sin, he doesnt like it because sin is what seperates us from him.
God cannot be in the presence of sin. When Adam and Eve entered into sin, God had to remove himself from them due to the sin. He was not punishing them for it, but began a plan to fix the sin/seperation problem so he could be with his creation (mankind) once again. That plan was God becoming flesh and blood and nullifying our sin through a blood sacrifice by himself. The plan worked, but our role is to accept it and only ask forgiveness and it will be granted to us.
If you ask forgiveness, that means you are truly sorry and try to never do it again. If you keep doing something you asked forgiveness for, then you are not truly sorry. If you never ask forgiveness for something, you never get it.
So does God love us? Yes. Does God love the sin that seperates us from him? No.
Get the idea?
Posted by: Brett | Jun 21, 2007 10:56:52 PM
"Love the sinner, hate the sin is something you may have heard and that is at the very heart of Christianity."
Mahatma Gandhi, a Hindu, is the author of that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" crap of a quote.
Posted by: Franc | Jun 21, 2007 11:20:14 PM
Oh, Brett. It's cute you think you touched a nerve.
This is a gay activism site whose sole purpose is to challenge anti-gay rhetoric. You wrote, we responded.
Posted by: G-A-Y | Jun 22, 2007 7:16:59 AM
My statement about touching a nerve was only obvious by the evidence in the type of responses that followed. Nothing more.
It's funny you think Ghandi is the "author" of a concept taught nearly 2000 years before his time. If he indeed coined the phrase, good for him, but it is not a new concept.
Consider the most simplest of concepts. Why is homosexual sex a sin?
Answer: GOD defines marriage. He created. He designed it. You can base any arguement you want on man's definition or the governing laws of a state or country, but ultimately it is GOD's design. Changing the law or the rules or anything we write on paper doesnt change that. He states that it is a holy union between a man and a woman.
That being said, sex is only for those who are married. If God designed marriage and he designed sex, and he stated that they go together then anything else is sin.
That means that for a homosexual to have sex is the same thing as a heterosexual to have sex outside of marriage. Both are sin. Both seperate us from the closeness that GOd so desires.
Truth and peace to you all.
Posted by: Brett | Jun 22, 2007 8:52:36 AM
"Remember, if you have to justify something, it's usually wrong."
I'm seeing a whole lot of justifying going on after those words.
Posted by: John C | Jun 22, 2007 9:07:10 AM
Brett, your comments about god defining marriage apply only to those who believe that god exists. For those of us who don't, you are in no position to apply that concept to those people. In a civil society, government has an obligation to represent all citizens and treat them equally under the law. Marriage equality is just part of that equation and at a government level, "god" has absolutely nothing to do with it. Sex by the way, is an innate human desire, some people are monogamous, some are not, whether they be straight or gay. Your opinion about the role of god applies only to you and those who share your beliefs, as for the rest of us, leave us alone and let us live in peace.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 22, 2007 9:29:25 AM
Tim, that's true. Just because you don't believe in something doesnt mean it doesn't exist.
A practical statement that serves well is "ignorance is no excuse for the law". Meaning, if there is a law out there that I don't know about, or that I dont agree with, doesnt mean I am exempt from that law. It still applies to me whether I like it or not. So it's our job to know the law, and if we dont...search for it, because we are still subject to it.
Wouldnt you want to know the truth? You will still be subject to it whether you believe in it or not.
Posted by: | Jun 22, 2007 2:45:56 PM
Ah Brett, it really is too much that you enter a discussion with entirely unjustified assumptions from the very beginning. You want us to simply accept that God exists, so you can claim that this god posited certain things, ergo fabricating a psychological sanction of "sin". I'll spare you the demand to produce evidence for a deity, for the sake of discussion, though.
It should be noted that marriage predates any Mosaic religion. In the epic Gilgamesh, the oldest known religious text, the Queen married a new man every year. At the end of the year, the king would be killed and eaten to make the land fertile in a religious ceremony.
Of course, the Bible has several different versions of marriage, including levirate marriage, polygyny, owning of concubines and sex slaves, marriage to rape victims and prisoners of war, and, of course, the standard nuclear family. None of these forms of marriage are explicitly condemned in either testament of the Bible, and many of the former are expressly commanded. And nary you mind the relationships between Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, or Daniel and Ashpenaz.
Of course, if you want to be a liberal cherry-picker, you can decide which portions of the Bible you want to accept, and which ones you don't (along with how you want to explain Jonathan's nudity in front of David in 1 Samuel 18:4).
There are other holes in your argument. Since I'm largely arguing with you on your own terms, I won't begin to point them out. You do not, however, have a monopoly on the truth that you imagine in your god, nor do you have the ethical upper ground in the debate of homosexuality. With that, I suggest you analyze your own beliefs more closely with an eye of skepticism that not many Christians manage to exercise. You might come to more lucid understandings than you ever have.
Posted by: Karanis | Jun 22, 2007 5:12:09 PM
Brett, if you believe in it, good on you. I don't. Again, the government has a responsibility to represent and provide equality to all citizens. This includes the freedom to marry our spouses. I couldn't care less if you agree with it or not, think it's a sin or not, it's really none of your business and it's time these so-called christians minded their own business and attended to their own affairs, they are far from perfect. As far as truth of faith goes, it's up to you to provide evidence, so far, not one person on this planet who believes in god has produced a shread of evidence to back their claims. As a christian or whatever you are, it's not your place to make blanket statements about truth as far as faith goes and apply it to those who don't prescribe to it; it's not my truth as an atheist, and it's not your place to include those who don't prescribe to religious faith in the context of YOUR beliefs. So simple a concept yet so hard to grasp by the religious community. MYOB, stands for mind your own business.
Posted by: Tim | Jun 22, 2007 9:13:10 PMcomments powered by Disqus