I just found an article about a police raid on a gay bar in Fort Worth, TX. According to the police, the gay men in the bar were "groping them" provoking them to tackle a 26-year-old gay man, giving him a concussion and leaving him in critical condition. Four or five policemen tackled a 160lb 26yo gay man which made me wonder: How many police officers does it take to dog pile a gay man? Answer: The more the merrier!
My only gripe about the article is that, while I don't condone what happened by ANY stretch of the imagination, I do feel that the police chief was misquoted. Nowhere in any linked articles did I find any indication that he said "That faggot had it coming". That sentiment may have been implied from what he actually did say:
"You're touched and advanced in certain ways by people inside the bar, that's offensive," he said. "I'm happy with the restraint used when they were contacted like that."
I don't feel, however, that an implication deserves to be included in the title of a news article.
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Friday, June 26, 2009
Time Well-Spent and Other Time....Not so Much...
Today was my first day of Summer vacation, so I decided to celebrate by heading to the IMAX in Seattle (the real one, not the LieMax blogged about earlier) to see Transformers 2. Actually, I went into Seattle yesterday to buy the ticket, to ensure myself a seat in the 1pm show.
I wanted to like Transformers 2. I really did. I was excited about it! I was. What a lame movie it turned out to be. It is full of stupid one-liners, unfunny comic relief characters, cliche plot devices, a complete disregard for the laws of physics, a 90-minute story pointlessly stretched to 2 1/2 hours, and a blatant (and completely laughable) rip-off of Battlestar Galactica.
Transformers 2 is a prime example of what you get when plot development and carefully crafted characters take a backseat to big budget effects and CGI. The filmmakers were so in love with their special effects that all care and attention went to that more than anything else. I can sum up the story in once sentence: A lazy villain robot sends his minions off to gather his needed supplies to blow up the sun while the good guys run around trying to figure out how to stop it. All of this is wrapped up and tied together with a love story even less believable (and interesting) than the one George Lucas crafted in Episode 2.
I'd say by the hour mark I was bored with the film and really didn't care what happened. They even threw in the "uninformed" military cliche who accidentally aids the bad guys with his anal-retentive attention to military protocol. Frankly, I think President Obama would be embarrassed to have this guy in charge of anything. It seemed like the writers got bored with him, too because he gets dumped in the middle of nowhere and we never really find out what happens to him. It got to a point where all the machines started looking the same and I stopped caring about any of them, too. In huge fights, the viewer can't really decide who they should be rooting for.
The only interesting human characters were Sam's parents, but they ended up just being another tired plot device - and a poorly structured one, at that. I actually like Shia LaBeouf, but there was so little for him to do in this, that his talent was wasted. That's a sad statement to make about the main character of the movie. He was much more interesting as Indy's son. In fact, half-way through the movie I wondered if they were working on another installment of the Indy story, hopefully giving Shia something better to do.
As for the IMAX experience? Well, lets just say that I much more enjoyed the Star Trek showing in the fake IMAX theater than I did this. As I mentioned before, the filmmakers were in love with their CGI creations so the only portions of the movie blown up to IMAX proportions involved fights between robots. Unfortunately, they didn't think it necessary to IMAX-size the entire scene, with the result of several shots within one scene shrunk back to the smaller format right in the middle of the action. Since the director favored quick cut editing for action sequences, the switching between formats is glaringly annoying.
Okay, one more thing, then I promise I'll stop bitching about this movie. Parents...PLEASE DO NOT take your children to movies like this! This movie is NOT for kids! I was stuck between two kids under the age of ten, and both of them got bored with this thing even sooner than I did. The kid on my left started shaking his soda cup for thirty minutes and then suddenly found the noise made when a straw is pulled through the lid fascinating for another thirty. The girl on my right found her candy wrapper more fascinating than the movie for the last 90 minutes. Oddly, I found the fact that their parents were clueless to their actions more interesting than the movie.
After the lame attempt at film making was over, I wandered over to the Experience Music Project to check out the Jim Henson exhibit. I am a huge fan of the Muppets and I was hoping to save my day by getting lost in the world of Jim Henson. Thankfully, I was not disappointed. Not only were several of the Muppets on display, but they also had Fraggle Rock characters and characters Henson created for commercials in the 50s and 60s. They also had MANY original Henson sketches hanging all over the exhibit with a fascinating look at Henson's creative mind. Yes, they had the Mahna Mahna guy and his backup dancers on display, too. I got a picture of them on my cell before being rushed by a security guard who told me that pictures were not permitted. I also got pics of Rowlf and Kermit!
They had a stage area where you could go behind a set and perform with Muppets to one of many songs played to the audience. It was a great way to get an idea how difficult it can sometimes be for Muppet performers to get a character just right. The exhibit will be here through most of the summer - until about mid-August. If you're in the Seattle area, I suggest checking it out!
After checking out the Muppets, I headed to the Sky Church, the large room just outside the EMP. There is a huge jumbotron that lights up to music being played. They had set up a tribute to Michael Jackson there. On display was the jacket he wore when he performed the Moonwalk for the first time while singing Billy Jean along with, naturally, a shiny white glove. His music was playing and they had tables set up with frequently replaced paper so people could write down their thoughts about the King of Pop. Thankfully, most of the messages were kind.
I was getting tired of hearing people bashing Michael Jackson since the announcement of his death yesterday. People kept writing him off as a freak and pervert and criticized the media for caring so much about his death. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Michal Jackson left a huge imprint on music history. A friend of mine commented that he was the Elvis of my generation and I would have to agree. Is it, then, so shocking that his death would be covered like this? Personally, I think Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers that music has and ever will see and I was sad to hear about his passing. I just hope that people will stop remembering MJ the freaky pervert and start remembering the talented guy who contributed to the life soundtracks of so many children of the 80s.
I wanted to like Transformers 2. I really did. I was excited about it! I was. What a lame movie it turned out to be. It is full of stupid one-liners, unfunny comic relief characters, cliche plot devices, a complete disregard for the laws of physics, a 90-minute story pointlessly stretched to 2 1/2 hours, and a blatant (and completely laughable) rip-off of Battlestar Galactica.
Transformers 2 is a prime example of what you get when plot development and carefully crafted characters take a backseat to big budget effects and CGI. The filmmakers were so in love with their special effects that all care and attention went to that more than anything else. I can sum up the story in once sentence: A lazy villain robot sends his minions off to gather his needed supplies to blow up the sun while the good guys run around trying to figure out how to stop it. All of this is wrapped up and tied together with a love story even less believable (and interesting) than the one George Lucas crafted in Episode 2.
I'd say by the hour mark I was bored with the film and really didn't care what happened. They even threw in the "uninformed" military cliche who accidentally aids the bad guys with his anal-retentive attention to military protocol. Frankly, I think President Obama would be embarrassed to have this guy in charge of anything. It seemed like the writers got bored with him, too because he gets dumped in the middle of nowhere and we never really find out what happens to him. It got to a point where all the machines started looking the same and I stopped caring about any of them, too. In huge fights, the viewer can't really decide who they should be rooting for.
The only interesting human characters were Sam's parents, but they ended up just being another tired plot device - and a poorly structured one, at that. I actually like Shia LaBeouf, but there was so little for him to do in this, that his talent was wasted. That's a sad statement to make about the main character of the movie. He was much more interesting as Indy's son. In fact, half-way through the movie I wondered if they were working on another installment of the Indy story, hopefully giving Shia something better to do.
As for the IMAX experience? Well, lets just say that I much more enjoyed the Star Trek showing in the fake IMAX theater than I did this. As I mentioned before, the filmmakers were in love with their CGI creations so the only portions of the movie blown up to IMAX proportions involved fights between robots. Unfortunately, they didn't think it necessary to IMAX-size the entire scene, with the result of several shots within one scene shrunk back to the smaller format right in the middle of the action. Since the director favored quick cut editing for action sequences, the switching between formats is glaringly annoying.
Okay, one more thing, then I promise I'll stop bitching about this movie. Parents...PLEASE DO NOT take your children to movies like this! This movie is NOT for kids! I was stuck between two kids under the age of ten, and both of them got bored with this thing even sooner than I did. The kid on my left started shaking his soda cup for thirty minutes and then suddenly found the noise made when a straw is pulled through the lid fascinating for another thirty. The girl on my right found her candy wrapper more fascinating than the movie for the last 90 minutes. Oddly, I found the fact that their parents were clueless to their actions more interesting than the movie.
After the lame attempt at film making was over, I wandered over to the Experience Music Project to check out the Jim Henson exhibit. I am a huge fan of the Muppets and I was hoping to save my day by getting lost in the world of Jim Henson. Thankfully, I was not disappointed. Not only were several of the Muppets on display, but they also had Fraggle Rock characters and characters Henson created for commercials in the 50s and 60s. They also had MANY original Henson sketches hanging all over the exhibit with a fascinating look at Henson's creative mind. Yes, they had the Mahna Mahna guy and his backup dancers on display, too. I got a picture of them on my cell before being rushed by a security guard who told me that pictures were not permitted. I also got pics of Rowlf and Kermit!
They had a stage area where you could go behind a set and perform with Muppets to one of many songs played to the audience. It was a great way to get an idea how difficult it can sometimes be for Muppet performers to get a character just right. The exhibit will be here through most of the summer - until about mid-August. If you're in the Seattle area, I suggest checking it out!
After checking out the Muppets, I headed to the Sky Church, the large room just outside the EMP. There is a huge jumbotron that lights up to music being played. They had set up a tribute to Michael Jackson there. On display was the jacket he wore when he performed the Moonwalk for the first time while singing Billy Jean along with, naturally, a shiny white glove. His music was playing and they had tables set up with frequently replaced paper so people could write down their thoughts about the King of Pop. Thankfully, most of the messages were kind.
I was getting tired of hearing people bashing Michael Jackson since the announcement of his death yesterday. People kept writing him off as a freak and pervert and criticized the media for caring so much about his death. Love him or hate him, you have to admit that Michal Jackson left a huge imprint on music history. A friend of mine commented that he was the Elvis of my generation and I would have to agree. Is it, then, so shocking that his death would be covered like this? Personally, I think Michael Jackson was one of the most talented performers that music has and ever will see and I was sad to hear about his passing. I just hope that people will stop remembering MJ the freaky pervert and start remembering the talented guy who contributed to the life soundtracks of so many children of the 80s.
Wednesday, June 17, 2009
All Shook Up
Yesterday was quite an adventure. I was driving kids home from my second and final school of the afternoon and, for once, actually driving the route on time. I had already dropped off at two stops and was heading to the third. As I approached a driveway, I noticed a car backing out. You know how you have the moment when you are pretty sure the driver will see you and stop, but you start to slow down anyway, just in case? Well, the car didn't slow down. As soon as I noticed that, I slammed on my brakes and watched as the car continued scraping along the front of my bus. I turned to scowl at the driver of the car and that's when I noticed that there wasn't one in it! The car continued on its path across the street and over an embankment where it came to rest along a couple thin trees - the only things preventing it from toppling the rest of the way down the forest hill.
Immediately I heard crying. Remember, my bus was still pretty fairly loaded with children. There was a kindergartner on the floor. I helped him up and back to his seat, making sure that he was okay. Next came the embarrassing task of calling the accident into base. The next several minutes were hectic. I was required to write down the names of all the children on the bus, while listening to the two-way radio in case base was calling me, dealing with excited children and trying to figure out if the owner of the car was anywhere around. Also, there was a young man who had been on a bike and he was walking around trying to see if there was anything he could do to help.
Here is what happened (at least I think this is what happened - the woman didn't speak English very well). The owner of the car had backed her car out of the garage, then gotten out to go back into her house and get a cell phone. She didn't put the car in park or engage the parking brake, so it rolled down the driveway and in front of my bus.
Finally the police and my managers arrived. One manager started filling out an accident report, taking down everyone's information. The women who owned the car didn't really want to talk - she kept saying that she had called her husband and he was on the way. I was still trying to deal with all those excited children on my bus!
Eventually, their principal showed up and helped me with student management. Another driver also showed up, ready to offer up her bus so we could get the children home. Finally, they decided to move the kids to the other bus. Three children said that had been injured, but the police and principal looked at them and they weren't seriously injured. My biggest concert was the little kinder who had fallen forward. I used this as an opportunity to explain to the children that I'm not just being mean when I harp on them to sit in their seats the correct way - I'm not just being a mean old bus driver!
About fifteen minutes after the other bus left with the children, parents started showing up. Apparently someone called them and told them to pick up their children at the accident site. We then had to deal with scared parents on top of everything else. I rushed back to my bus and called the other driver on our two-way radio, asking her to stay with the kids at the last stop until their parents could get back there.
The police officer made it clear that I was 100% not at fault in the accident. Still, I couldn't help but run through the "what-ifs" in my head. What if I had stopped sooner? What if I hadn't assumed the car was going to stop? What if I had been going a little bit slower? What if I had called in sick and not been driving at all?! I was worried that they might find me partially at fault. Maybe they would tell me that I should have been better prepared to stop or something.
Eventually the bus and I were released to go back to base. The bus was completely drivable. The only major damage to it was the front crossing arm had been ripped off by the passing car. My manager asked if I felt okay driving and I told him that I'd probably be one of the safeest drivers on the road because I would be overly cautious about everything! I didn't get done with filling out paperwork until around 6pm (an extra 1 1/2 hours of paid work!) at which time I walked to Taco Del Mar and bought a nice taco talad for lunch!
This morning when I went into work I was a bit of a celebrity. Everyone wanted to know what happened. Our manager in routing actually paid me a HUGE compliment. She said that I actually did better at reacting to the situation that I felt I had. It could have been a lot worse. Rather than running along the front of my bus, the car could have hit the service door on the side of the bus and caused a LOT more damage and injury. By stopping when I did, I prevented that from happening. Also, she said that I sounded very calm and collected over the radio. That surprised me because I was a NERVOUS WRECK!
Later, as kids for a morning shuttle got on my bus, I heard a girl talking in great detail about the accident. This surprised me because she hadn't been there. Remember that young biker that had been walking around? Turns out he had a camera and video taped a lot of the police interviews of me and the owner of the car. He had been showing the video to the girl's brother last night.
After driving the shuttle, once safely at the school, I called my manager and told him about the video. Maybe the guy caught the accident on tape! My manager assured me that it wouldn't be needed even if he did. The police officer declared me 100% not at fault. As far as they were concerned I did everything I could to avoid the accident. He had looked at the recently installed GPS on my bus and determined that I had been going 23.7 miles before slamming on my brakes, so I wasn't speeding.
He also noted that at the scene, I had been actually trying to find fault with myself for the accident. I guess I had been voicing some of my what-ifs. He commended me for thinking about my defensive driving and assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I did nothing wrong. If anything, I probably made the situation a little better.
That really made me feel SO much better!
In other news, I received a couple checks in the mail on Monday. Apparently, back in 1999 I had been the victim of credit card fraud. A company and wrongfully charged me for access to a porn site. I SWEAR, the charges were fraudulent! Anyway, ten years later the two checks for $27.63 are my portion from the class action suit against the company.
At first I thought this might be some kind of scam. Once I deposited the checks and signed the back of them, then someone would have my signature and bank account number. I did some research and found a couple websites where other people around the nation had been talking about also receiving the checks.
Between us all, we were able to dig up enough evidence that this was legitimate, so I am going to deposit the checks today after work! WOO HOO, I am $55 richer.
What am I going to do with that money? NOT SAVE IT!! I've saved $1100 in the past three months and I am feeling good about that. No, I'm going to use that money to buy tickets to see the musical Wicked, coming to Seattle in September. I have been dying to see that show and I missed it the last time it was here. I am NOT going to miss it again!
Immediately I heard crying. Remember, my bus was still pretty fairly loaded with children. There was a kindergartner on the floor. I helped him up and back to his seat, making sure that he was okay. Next came the embarrassing task of calling the accident into base. The next several minutes were hectic. I was required to write down the names of all the children on the bus, while listening to the two-way radio in case base was calling me, dealing with excited children and trying to figure out if the owner of the car was anywhere around. Also, there was a young man who had been on a bike and he was walking around trying to see if there was anything he could do to help.
Here is what happened (at least I think this is what happened - the woman didn't speak English very well). The owner of the car had backed her car out of the garage, then gotten out to go back into her house and get a cell phone. She didn't put the car in park or engage the parking brake, so it rolled down the driveway and in front of my bus.
Finally the police and my managers arrived. One manager started filling out an accident report, taking down everyone's information. The women who owned the car didn't really want to talk - she kept saying that she had called her husband and he was on the way. I was still trying to deal with all those excited children on my bus!
Eventually, their principal showed up and helped me with student management. Another driver also showed up, ready to offer up her bus so we could get the children home. Finally, they decided to move the kids to the other bus. Three children said that had been injured, but the police and principal looked at them and they weren't seriously injured. My biggest concert was the little kinder who had fallen forward. I used this as an opportunity to explain to the children that I'm not just being mean when I harp on them to sit in their seats the correct way - I'm not just being a mean old bus driver!
About fifteen minutes after the other bus left with the children, parents started showing up. Apparently someone called them and told them to pick up their children at the accident site. We then had to deal with scared parents on top of everything else. I rushed back to my bus and called the other driver on our two-way radio, asking her to stay with the kids at the last stop until their parents could get back there.
The police officer made it clear that I was 100% not at fault in the accident. Still, I couldn't help but run through the "what-ifs" in my head. What if I had stopped sooner? What if I hadn't assumed the car was going to stop? What if I had been going a little bit slower? What if I had called in sick and not been driving at all?! I was worried that they might find me partially at fault. Maybe they would tell me that I should have been better prepared to stop or something.
Eventually the bus and I were released to go back to base. The bus was completely drivable. The only major damage to it was the front crossing arm had been ripped off by the passing car. My manager asked if I felt okay driving and I told him that I'd probably be one of the safeest drivers on the road because I would be overly cautious about everything! I didn't get done with filling out paperwork until around 6pm (an extra 1 1/2 hours of paid work!) at which time I walked to Taco Del Mar and bought a nice taco talad for lunch!
This morning when I went into work I was a bit of a celebrity. Everyone wanted to know what happened. Our manager in routing actually paid me a HUGE compliment. She said that I actually did better at reacting to the situation that I felt I had. It could have been a lot worse. Rather than running along the front of my bus, the car could have hit the service door on the side of the bus and caused a LOT more damage and injury. By stopping when I did, I prevented that from happening. Also, she said that I sounded very calm and collected over the radio. That surprised me because I was a NERVOUS WRECK!
Later, as kids for a morning shuttle got on my bus, I heard a girl talking in great detail about the accident. This surprised me because she hadn't been there. Remember that young biker that had been walking around? Turns out he had a camera and video taped a lot of the police interviews of me and the owner of the car. He had been showing the video to the girl's brother last night.
After driving the shuttle, once safely at the school, I called my manager and told him about the video. Maybe the guy caught the accident on tape! My manager assured me that it wouldn't be needed even if he did. The police officer declared me 100% not at fault. As far as they were concerned I did everything I could to avoid the accident. He had looked at the recently installed GPS on my bus and determined that I had been going 23.7 miles before slamming on my brakes, so I wasn't speeding.
He also noted that at the scene, I had been actually trying to find fault with myself for the accident. I guess I had been voicing some of my what-ifs. He commended me for thinking about my defensive driving and assured me that I have nothing to worry about. I did nothing wrong. If anything, I probably made the situation a little better.
That really made me feel SO much better!
In other news, I received a couple checks in the mail on Monday. Apparently, back in 1999 I had been the victim of credit card fraud. A company and wrongfully charged me for access to a porn site. I SWEAR, the charges were fraudulent! Anyway, ten years later the two checks for $27.63 are my portion from the class action suit against the company.
At first I thought this might be some kind of scam. Once I deposited the checks and signed the back of them, then someone would have my signature and bank account number. I did some research and found a couple websites where other people around the nation had been talking about also receiving the checks.
Between us all, we were able to dig up enough evidence that this was legitimate, so I am going to deposit the checks today after work! WOO HOO, I am $55 richer.
What am I going to do with that money? NOT SAVE IT!! I've saved $1100 in the past three months and I am feeling good about that. No, I'm going to use that money to buy tickets to see the musical Wicked, coming to Seattle in September. I have been dying to see that show and I missed it the last time it was here. I am NOT going to miss it again!
Tuesday, May 26, 2009
Why not gay marriage?
Oh, great; another blog about being gay. What is this guy? Some kind of queer? As long as questions keep coming up in my mind about the confusing anti-gay defenses, the more I'm going to need to blog about it to help me better understand how and why these anti-gay activists think the way they do.
Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 8, continuing the ban on gay marriage in that state. A friend of mine said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. Back in November the people voted for it and it passed. It wouldn't make sense for the court to overturn a voter-approved proposition, wrong though it may be, because to do so would make people think that democracy doesn't work. I can see what he's saying, but at the same time, I'm saddened; not because of today's ruling, but because this issue went to the voters in the first place.
I have really tried to understand the anti-gay marriage defense. I have tried to find logic in their protests, their Bible verses, their actions. The more I look, the less logic I see. Instead, I see hypocrisy and double talk.
When I heard the news about Prop 8 in California, I started thinking, yet again, about this whole idea of the Bible's definition of marriage. Is it so clearly defined as people argue? I got out my NIV study Bible that I had in college and started looking up verses pertaining to marriage. One thing did become clear as I looked up the verses. Every single one of them were NOT official definitions. Not one! Instead, what I found were examples of marriage.
For one thing, all of the verses tended to start with one word: IF. "If a man marries a woman...", "If a man has recently married..." One verse actually said "For example..." (Romans 7:2-3). Are examples clear definitions as argued by the anti-gay marriage campaign? If I were to look up marriage in the Webster's Dictionary, would it say "For example, a man and a woman joining in union?" Actually, here's a fun fact! I did look up the word marriage on the Webster's online dictionary. Take a look at what I found.
As I looked at the "official" definition of marriage, I noticed that those were examples. So maybe an official definition is an example? Maybe those references in the Bible are "official definitions". If that is the case, then how do the people of today, who hold up these definitions of marriage in the Bible get around passages like
Romans 7:2-3 – For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adultress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adultress even though she marries another man.
Woah! Does this mean that a woman who gets a divorce is a slut if she marries another man and her ex-husband is still alive?
Here's another verse I found interesting:
Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Nowhere in that verse does it say "Marriage between a man and a woman." It just says the word marriage with no "clear definition" of what that word means. Now it does say "sexually immoral" and I know that many would jump on that phrase and say "Right there! That's the case against homosexuality right there because the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as 'immoral'!" Okay, fine, even if you adopt that narrow view, I would still have to argue that it doesn't specifically say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. All it says is that "marriage should be honored by all." Interesting. Honored by ALL. Should ALL marriage also be honored? Just wondering.
I went to Google and typed in the words "gay marriage Bible". I was hoping to find websites that would tell me exactly how and where the Bible speaks against gay marriage. Here is the first website that popped up.
I thought this essay was very interesting. Not surprisingly, the author turns to the story of Sodom found in Genesis. Two angels of the Lord went to Sodom to find Lot and the men of the city followed them. They knocked on Lot's door and demanded that the two angels be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Instead, Lot opted to send out his two virgin daughters and the men of Sodom had sex with them instead.
Okay, so here are my issues with this story and the defenses of the author of that website. First, how shitty is it that Lot sent his poor daughters out as replacements? This was the most holy man in all the city? This was the man that God sent His angels there to save? YIKES! Second, the men had sex with the woman. Well, if that's the case....they are they gay? I can tell you as a gay man, I have never had a desire to sleep with a woman. It just doesn't appeal to me. If I find a guy attractive and he sends out a woman and says, "Here, give this a try..." I'm going to walk away saying, "No thanks." So if those men of Sodom were such evil homosexual men, why were their sexual lusts satisfied by a couple of virgin chicks? They sound like creepy straight guys to me. Come to think of it, have you ever seen any pictures of angels? They look kind of....feminine, don't they? Could it be that these two pretty boys walked into the city and were mistaken as women? Just a thought.
So given all of that, is this as valid an example AGAINST gay marriage as the author of the website claims? In the summary, the author of the website lists this story under examples of the Bible "clearly" teaching that same sex marriage is wrong. But is this as "clear" an example as the author would like to believe? I find that hard to believe, myself.
To further discredit the list of Bible verses, under that same heading of the Bible clearly teaching against gay marriage, the author lists Judges 19:14. In my Bible, this is what the verse says: "So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin." Wow! That is very damning evidence against gay marriage there. I mean how can one argue against that? Clearly, that verse from the Bible is teaching that gay marriage is wrong! Right?
The author lists verses from Leviticus where, in another blog, I also pointed out other "sins and abominations" that Leviticus that today aren't considered sins.
Another verse listed under that same section as defense against gay marriage is Deuteronomy 23:17 - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." And the hard evidence against gay marriage is.....?
Another listed verse, 1 Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations of the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7
These are the verses from that section. I took that directly from the website. NOT ONE of them specifically talks about gay marriage! Some of them, don't even talk about homosexuality! Do you get the feeling that maybe at some point the author got bored and wanted to pad the arguement a little by throwing in arbitrary verses?
There are other verses listed on the website, but as I look at them, they do not specifically address same sex marriage or the Bible "clearly" speaking out against it, as these people love to claim. I just don't see the validity of their argument. I can't find a single passage in the Bible that specifically forbids a man being able to marry a man or a woman being able to marry a woman.
There are, however, plenty of verses talking specifically about divorce and what an abomination that is. Yet there is a practice that is readily accepted in today's society. Gays getting married doesn't protect the sanctity of marriage, but it's okay for two people to get a divorce? Well, the Bible clearly states otherwise. Why is it that one is okay but not the other, especially when the other (gay marriage) is NOT clearly stated in the Bible as claimed?
The idea of Civil Unions has started coming up. In Washington State, gays have finally been given what we are calling "Everything but..." Gays in this state now have all the rights of heterosexual couples in marriage, we just can't call it marriage. While many see this as a victory for gay people in our state, I still can't help but see that they still want to see us as second class citizens. Fine! Go ahead and have your union, but you still can't call it marriage! Oh, but you will have to pay your taxes and your civil service just like every other citizen.
I am thankful to the people in our government who pushed for the recent legislation granting rights to gay people here. They have worked hard to get us that. It may not be exactly the same as marriage, but it is darn close. It's "everything but..."
Is it important that gays get the word "marriage?" I honestly don't think that it does. Sure, I just ranted in this blog about the semantics of the word. I guess in the end, what really matters is how the two men or the two women feel about each other. If their love is genuine, that's all that matters, isn't it? Do they have to call it marriage? I don't think it really matters.
My point in all this was to question the "logic" of anti-gay people. They throw out these verses from the Bible as damnable proof for their cause, but when you go and look at them, you find holes in the theory. More questions are raised than outright proof. Yet time and time again these verses are thrown into the argument as law. Those verses are held up as testament to the validity of the Bible while those other verses, the ones that speak against other things in practice today are ignored. That's selectiveness. They're just taking the verses that they think support their cause and "forgetting" about the other ones.
There is a word for that. It's called hypocrisy.
Today, the California Supreme Court ruled in favor of Proposition 8, continuing the ban on gay marriage in that state. A friend of mine said he wasn't surprised by the ruling. Back in November the people voted for it and it passed. It wouldn't make sense for the court to overturn a voter-approved proposition, wrong though it may be, because to do so would make people think that democracy doesn't work. I can see what he's saying, but at the same time, I'm saddened; not because of today's ruling, but because this issue went to the voters in the first place.
I have really tried to understand the anti-gay marriage defense. I have tried to find logic in their protests, their Bible verses, their actions. The more I look, the less logic I see. Instead, I see hypocrisy and double talk.
When I heard the news about Prop 8 in California, I started thinking, yet again, about this whole idea of the Bible's definition of marriage. Is it so clearly defined as people argue? I got out my NIV study Bible that I had in college and started looking up verses pertaining to marriage. One thing did become clear as I looked up the verses. Every single one of them were NOT official definitions. Not one! Instead, what I found were examples of marriage.
For one thing, all of the verses tended to start with one word: IF. "If a man marries a woman...", "If a man has recently married..." One verse actually said "For example..." (Romans 7:2-3). Are examples clear definitions as argued by the anti-gay marriage campaign? If I were to look up marriage in the Webster's Dictionary, would it say "For example, a man and a woman joining in union?" Actually, here's a fun fact! I did look up the word marriage on the Webster's online dictionary. Take a look at what I found.
As I looked at the "official" definition of marriage, I noticed that those were examples. So maybe an official definition is an example? Maybe those references in the Bible are "official definitions". If that is the case, then how do the people of today, who hold up these definitions of marriage in the Bible get around passages like
Romans 7:2-3 – For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law of marriage. So then, if she marries another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adultress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adultress even though she marries another man.
Woah! Does this mean that a woman who gets a divorce is a slut if she marries another man and her ex-husband is still alive?
Here's another verse I found interesting:
Hebrews 13:4 – Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral.
Nowhere in that verse does it say "Marriage between a man and a woman." It just says the word marriage with no "clear definition" of what that word means. Now it does say "sexually immoral" and I know that many would jump on that phrase and say "Right there! That's the case against homosexuality right there because the Bible clearly defines homosexuality as 'immoral'!" Okay, fine, even if you adopt that narrow view, I would still have to argue that it doesn't specifically say that a marriage is between a man and a woman. All it says is that "marriage should be honored by all." Interesting. Honored by ALL. Should ALL marriage also be honored? Just wondering.
I went to Google and typed in the words "gay marriage Bible". I was hoping to find websites that would tell me exactly how and where the Bible speaks against gay marriage. Here is the first website that popped up.
I thought this essay was very interesting. Not surprisingly, the author turns to the story of Sodom found in Genesis. Two angels of the Lord went to Sodom to find Lot and the men of the city followed them. They knocked on Lot's door and demanded that the two angels be sent out to them so they could have sex with them. Instead, Lot opted to send out his two virgin daughters and the men of Sodom had sex with them instead.
Okay, so here are my issues with this story and the defenses of the author of that website. First, how shitty is it that Lot sent his poor daughters out as replacements? This was the most holy man in all the city? This was the man that God sent His angels there to save? YIKES! Second, the men had sex with the woman. Well, if that's the case....they are they gay? I can tell you as a gay man, I have never had a desire to sleep with a woman. It just doesn't appeal to me. If I find a guy attractive and he sends out a woman and says, "Here, give this a try..." I'm going to walk away saying, "No thanks." So if those men of Sodom were such evil homosexual men, why were their sexual lusts satisfied by a couple of virgin chicks? They sound like creepy straight guys to me. Come to think of it, have you ever seen any pictures of angels? They look kind of....feminine, don't they? Could it be that these two pretty boys walked into the city and were mistaken as women? Just a thought.
So given all of that, is this as valid an example AGAINST gay marriage as the author of the website claims? In the summary, the author of the website lists this story under examples of the Bible "clearly" teaching that same sex marriage is wrong. But is this as "clear" an example as the author would like to believe? I find that hard to believe, myself.
To further discredit the list of Bible verses, under that same heading of the Bible clearly teaching against gay marriage, the author lists Judges 19:14. In my Bible, this is what the verse says: "So they went on, and the sun set as they neared Gibeah in Benjamin." Wow! That is very damning evidence against gay marriage there. I mean how can one argue against that? Clearly, that verse from the Bible is teaching that gay marriage is wrong! Right?
The author lists verses from Leviticus where, in another blog, I also pointed out other "sins and abominations" that Leviticus that today aren't considered sins.
Another verse listed under that same section as defense against gay marriage is Deuteronomy 23:17 - "No Israelite man or woman is to become a shrine prostitute." And the hard evidence against gay marriage is.....?
Another listed verse, 1 Kings 14:24 - "There were even male shrine prostitutes in the land; the people engaged in all the detestable practices of the nations of the Lord had driven out before the Israelites."
No Same Sex Marriage Biblical References in the Old Testament
The Bible clearly teaches no same sex marriage.
Genesis 19; Judges 19:14
Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13
Deuteronomy 23:17; 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46; 2 Kings 23:7
These are the verses from that section. I took that directly from the website. NOT ONE of them specifically talks about gay marriage! Some of them, don't even talk about homosexuality! Do you get the feeling that maybe at some point the author got bored and wanted to pad the arguement a little by throwing in arbitrary verses?
There are other verses listed on the website, but as I look at them, they do not specifically address same sex marriage or the Bible "clearly" speaking out against it, as these people love to claim. I just don't see the validity of their argument. I can't find a single passage in the Bible that specifically forbids a man being able to marry a man or a woman being able to marry a woman.
There are, however, plenty of verses talking specifically about divorce and what an abomination that is. Yet there is a practice that is readily accepted in today's society. Gays getting married doesn't protect the sanctity of marriage, but it's okay for two people to get a divorce? Well, the Bible clearly states otherwise. Why is it that one is okay but not the other, especially when the other (gay marriage) is NOT clearly stated in the Bible as claimed?
The idea of Civil Unions has started coming up. In Washington State, gays have finally been given what we are calling "Everything but..." Gays in this state now have all the rights of heterosexual couples in marriage, we just can't call it marriage. While many see this as a victory for gay people in our state, I still can't help but see that they still want to see us as second class citizens. Fine! Go ahead and have your union, but you still can't call it marriage! Oh, but you will have to pay your taxes and your civil service just like every other citizen.
I am thankful to the people in our government who pushed for the recent legislation granting rights to gay people here. They have worked hard to get us that. It may not be exactly the same as marriage, but it is darn close. It's "everything but..."
Is it important that gays get the word "marriage?" I honestly don't think that it does. Sure, I just ranted in this blog about the semantics of the word. I guess in the end, what really matters is how the two men or the two women feel about each other. If their love is genuine, that's all that matters, isn't it? Do they have to call it marriage? I don't think it really matters.
My point in all this was to question the "logic" of anti-gay people. They throw out these verses from the Bible as damnable proof for their cause, but when you go and look at them, you find holes in the theory. More questions are raised than outright proof. Yet time and time again these verses are thrown into the argument as law. Those verses are held up as testament to the validity of the Bible while those other verses, the ones that speak against other things in practice today are ignored. That's selectiveness. They're just taking the verses that they think support their cause and "forgetting" about the other ones.
There is a word for that. It's called hypocrisy.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
The Confusing Right
Today I received an email from an aunt describing a campaign going around that seeks to ban the reading of the Gospel on radio airwaves. The email calls for every Christian to step up and be heard, and of course please sign the petition on the email as they are praying for at least 1 million signatures.
Okay, first of all, I am not against the Gospel being heard on the radio. I'm all for the Gospel of Jesus being shared. I think it's a good message and one that shouldn't be banned from anything. According the the email, they also want to take Christmas carols out of public schools. Again, I'm against stuff like that.
To prove this, I'll quickly recount a story that happened in my own school district. Several students at a school in the richer part of town put up a Christmas tree in the school office with ornaments containing the names of kids from a school in the poorer part of town. The idea was that the rich kids would by a gift for poorer kids. Someone complained that the "tree" was a Christian symbol, so the "Giving Tree" was reduced to the "Giving Counter". As I did then, I still believe that this was a terrible thing that happened. An Incredible idea, launched by some amazing children, was ruined by closed-minded thinking.
So, let's be clear: I am NOT against the Gospel of Jesus being shared of the radio waves. I would never sign such a petition or participate in any events with that as the mission.
Here, though, is what came to my mind as I read the email. These are the same people who fought to get Howard Stern fined countless times for his radio show. These are the same people who lobby and fight hard to keep gays from getting married. These are the same people who demand that film makers censor themselves. These are the same people who supported Sarah Palin's groundless attacks on Barack Obama.
Am I missing something here? Is it okay for these people to do all those things I mentioned above, but not for people who may not believe in the Bible to question that? Is this not a double standard?
It's this kind of thinking that really bothers me. "I'm sorry, we just can't allow you express yourselves the way you feel you should, but please don't trample on our rights to it." I think this falls under the category of "We're right and you're wrong!"
This tends to be the unfortunate MO of the Christian right. They, having the moral high ground, have the right to do and say whatever they want and question the opinions and views of everyone who disagrees with them. Yet when their opinions and views are questioned, an all out war is launched with "That's not fair!" as the battle cry.
How can they not see the similarities? Well, I guess it's because they are so closed minded to the truth.
I hope one day there will be an understand in all of this. Until then, I guess I'll just continue to be confused by the Christian Right.
Okay, first of all, I am not against the Gospel being heard on the radio. I'm all for the Gospel of Jesus being shared. I think it's a good message and one that shouldn't be banned from anything. According the the email, they also want to take Christmas carols out of public schools. Again, I'm against stuff like that.
To prove this, I'll quickly recount a story that happened in my own school district. Several students at a school in the richer part of town put up a Christmas tree in the school office with ornaments containing the names of kids from a school in the poorer part of town. The idea was that the rich kids would by a gift for poorer kids. Someone complained that the "tree" was a Christian symbol, so the "Giving Tree" was reduced to the "Giving Counter". As I did then, I still believe that this was a terrible thing that happened. An Incredible idea, launched by some amazing children, was ruined by closed-minded thinking.
So, let's be clear: I am NOT against the Gospel of Jesus being shared of the radio waves. I would never sign such a petition or participate in any events with that as the mission.
Here, though, is what came to my mind as I read the email. These are the same people who fought to get Howard Stern fined countless times for his radio show. These are the same people who lobby and fight hard to keep gays from getting married. These are the same people who demand that film makers censor themselves. These are the same people who supported Sarah Palin's groundless attacks on Barack Obama.
Am I missing something here? Is it okay for these people to do all those things I mentioned above, but not for people who may not believe in the Bible to question that? Is this not a double standard?
It's this kind of thinking that really bothers me. "I'm sorry, we just can't allow you express yourselves the way you feel you should, but please don't trample on our rights to it." I think this falls under the category of "We're right and you're wrong!"
This tends to be the unfortunate MO of the Christian right. They, having the moral high ground, have the right to do and say whatever they want and question the opinions and views of everyone who disagrees with them. Yet when their opinions and views are questioned, an all out war is launched with "That's not fair!" as the battle cry.
How can they not see the similarities? Well, I guess it's because they are so closed minded to the truth.
I hope one day there will be an understand in all of this. Until then, I guess I'll just continue to be confused by the Christian Right.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
LieMAX?
I must admit, I was one of the many who flooded to the theaters on the opening weekend of Star Trek, helping to boost opening weekend ticket sales. You're welcome, Mr. Abrams. Unfortunately, my extensive Darth Maul outfit was not as widely accepted by the folks in line as I had hoped...
Since Star Trek was going to be a big movie, I decided to see it see it in IMAX. Imagine my surprise when I saw that a theater right here in town had just opened up an IMAX theater! That was VERY convenient, especially since I no longer have a car.
I walked for 30 minutes to the theater and when I got there, was very upset to discover that the online ticket I purchased two days ago was not registering in the system. Oh, they had charged my card, but they weren't offering me a ticket. Thankfully, the management staff at the theater were very kind. They managed to find record of the purchase in their computers and allowed me access without a ticket.
When I finally got into the theater, I was blown away by the size of the IMAX screen! Oh wow! It was beyond words. Well, one word did come to mind.....small. You know how IMAX screens are 72 feet tall? This one was barely larger than a regular screen.
Okay, so this topic has been discussed all over the Internet since the release of the new Star Trek movie. Many people were as shocked to discover the deception as I was. The very first thing I did after leaving the theater was send a text to my best friend Neil who had yet to see the movie: "The movie was good, but I'm not convinced that IMAX in local theaters is worth the extra $5"
I still feel that way, and apparently I'm not alone. An actor who has been showing up on NBC sitcoms like Scrubs and the new Parks and Recreation got downright angry at his theater, causing a scene the likes of which would make Russell Crowe blush. Check out his story on his blog here. Also, in his blog is a link to an explanation about this new fake IMAX campaign.
Now, I wasn't as angry as Aziz was after I saw the movie. After all, the film was fantastic! But I did feel as though I had wasted $5. Actually, I felt as though I had wasted $6 since they charged me a $1 "convenience fee" to buy the ticket online.
I think what upsets me about this new trend is that it is an outright lie. The official title for what I saw that Sunday morning was "Star Trek: The IMAX ezperience". Here's the problem, though. IMAX is in the scope of 72 feet high, towering over you. That's not even close to what I "experienced" when I saw Star Trek.
To me, this is like some guy in Arizona advertising views of the Grand Canyon from his backyard and then taking paying customers into his backyard to take pictures of his swimming pool. We have a word for that: rip off. Okay, that's two words. Here are two more: sue me.
Do Hollywood producers REALLY wonder why movie piracy is on the rise? Are they honestly scratching their heads wondering why people would rather spend and afternoon downloading an illegal movie torrent onto their computer instead of going to the movie theater? Don't get me started on the re-release and re-re-release of "Specialer" editions of DVDs. That trend is so rediculous it makes Michael Eisner's direct-to-video sequels of classic Disney movies seem like masterpieces.
Essentially, what these theaters are doing is luring in people they don't think will know any better. And most people don't. So, they happily collect their ill-gotten $5 extra per ticket, laughing all the way to the bank. If only the Joker would steal THEIR money!
Now, I did see Dark Knight in IMAX and it was the "real" IMAX. It was amazing! They shot in the IMAX format so that the bank robbery at the beginning (among many other scenes and shots in the movie) were in the 72 foot IMAX format. Imagine seeing that in the dinky LieMax versions now being offered by local theaters. I thought I heard somewhere that the next Harry Potter movie had scenes filmed in the IMAX format, meaning intended to be blown up to the full potential. I just don't see these cheap knockoffs being able to provide such an amazing experience as what I had when I saw Dark Knight.
Did I hate the movie Star Trek? Far from it. I enjoyed the movie very much. But I think I would have enjoyed it just as much on a regular-priced screen and maybe applied the saved $5 toward over-priced popcorn. Or, maybe spent the same amount of money and seen in on an actual IMAX screen.
I don't plan on giving money toward these new LieMAX experiences. They just aren't the real deal.
Since Star Trek was going to be a big movie, I decided to see it see it in IMAX. Imagine my surprise when I saw that a theater right here in town had just opened up an IMAX theater! That was VERY convenient, especially since I no longer have a car.
I walked for 30 minutes to the theater and when I got there, was very upset to discover that the online ticket I purchased two days ago was not registering in the system. Oh, they had charged my card, but they weren't offering me a ticket. Thankfully, the management staff at the theater were very kind. They managed to find record of the purchase in their computers and allowed me access without a ticket.
When I finally got into the theater, I was blown away by the size of the IMAX screen! Oh wow! It was beyond words. Well, one word did come to mind.....small. You know how IMAX screens are 72 feet tall? This one was barely larger than a regular screen.
Okay, so this topic has been discussed all over the Internet since the release of the new Star Trek movie. Many people were as shocked to discover the deception as I was. The very first thing I did after leaving the theater was send a text to my best friend Neil who had yet to see the movie: "The movie was good, but I'm not convinced that IMAX in local theaters is worth the extra $5"
I still feel that way, and apparently I'm not alone. An actor who has been showing up on NBC sitcoms like Scrubs and the new Parks and Recreation got downright angry at his theater, causing a scene the likes of which would make Russell Crowe blush. Check out his story on his blog here. Also, in his blog is a link to an explanation about this new fake IMAX campaign.
Now, I wasn't as angry as Aziz was after I saw the movie. After all, the film was fantastic! But I did feel as though I had wasted $5. Actually, I felt as though I had wasted $6 since they charged me a $1 "convenience fee" to buy the ticket online.
I think what upsets me about this new trend is that it is an outright lie. The official title for what I saw that Sunday morning was "Star Trek: The IMAX ezperience". Here's the problem, though. IMAX is in the scope of 72 feet high, towering over you. That's not even close to what I "experienced" when I saw Star Trek.
To me, this is like some guy in Arizona advertising views of the Grand Canyon from his backyard and then taking paying customers into his backyard to take pictures of his swimming pool. We have a word for that: rip off. Okay, that's two words. Here are two more: sue me.
Do Hollywood producers REALLY wonder why movie piracy is on the rise? Are they honestly scratching their heads wondering why people would rather spend and afternoon downloading an illegal movie torrent onto their computer instead of going to the movie theater? Don't get me started on the re-release and re-re-release of "Specialer" editions of DVDs. That trend is so rediculous it makes Michael Eisner's direct-to-video sequels of classic Disney movies seem like masterpieces.
Essentially, what these theaters are doing is luring in people they don't think will know any better. And most people don't. So, they happily collect their ill-gotten $5 extra per ticket, laughing all the way to the bank. If only the Joker would steal THEIR money!
Now, I did see Dark Knight in IMAX and it was the "real" IMAX. It was amazing! They shot in the IMAX format so that the bank robbery at the beginning (among many other scenes and shots in the movie) were in the 72 foot IMAX format. Imagine seeing that in the dinky LieMax versions now being offered by local theaters. I thought I heard somewhere that the next Harry Potter movie had scenes filmed in the IMAX format, meaning intended to be blown up to the full potential. I just don't see these cheap knockoffs being able to provide such an amazing experience as what I had when I saw Dark Knight.
Did I hate the movie Star Trek? Far from it. I enjoyed the movie very much. But I think I would have enjoyed it just as much on a regular-priced screen and maybe applied the saved $5 toward over-priced popcorn. Or, maybe spent the same amount of money and seen in on an actual IMAX screen.
I don't plan on giving money toward these new LieMAX experiences. They just aren't the real deal.
Friday, May 15, 2009
Is it a sin?
I am currently reading a fantastic book right now. Usually, when I blog about something like that, I like to have finished the book before I discuss it. But I just finished reading a section that has really got me thinking and when I am thinking about something in this way, I have to write about it. It's just how I roll!
So first, let me explain about the book, then I'll get into what I just read...and thus, why I feel the need to write about it.
Thinking Straight is the second novel by Robin Reardon. I haven't read the first one yet, but I definitely plan to soon. Thinking Straight is about a gay teen named Taylor who, soon after finding the perfect boyfriend in another teen named Will, comes out to his parents. Naturally, his devoutly religious parents panic and send him to a Christian program called Straight to God. Taylor is told that he'll be forced to stay there until he is able to change his gay feelings.
When he first arrives at Straight to God, he is understandably angry. They thrust him into this invironment by calling his gay feelings sins from which he must be purged. To start the program, he is given a yellow sticker and told that for the first several days he'll be in "SafeZone" meaning that he cannot talk. The sticker will tell everyone else that he's in SafeZone so they won't try to make him talk.
Though it is clear that many people at Straight to God favor the belief that homosexuality is a sin from which the sinners must be purged, Taylor soon meets people within the program who have a different perspective.
Okay, I need to stop here because I'll start giving too much away and, frankly, if you're reading this, then I want you to consider reading Thinking Straight. I'll now talk about the segment of the book that has prompted me to start writing and hopefully give nothing more of the plot away.
There is discussion in the book about homosexuality as a sin. As a homosexual myself, I have struggled with the concept. My brother, who is a strong supporter of who I am, believes that being gay is not a sin, however acting on my sexual desires IS a sin. Even so, everyone is a sinner, so even though I may end up having sex with another man, I'm not any worse than a person who, for example, lies.
The people most vehemently against sexuality would argue that if I "choose" to be in a relationship with another man, and therefore have sex with him, then I am "choosing" to live in sin. That word "choose" is another one of those hot topics. Obviously, I don't choose to be gay. Trust me on this. Ellen Degeneres once asked Why would anyone choose to be gay? Why would someone choose the persecution and hatred of people? Why indeed? Believe me, had I actually had the choice, I would have had a thing for women so I could marry a nice girl and provide my parents with some awesome grandchildren.
This wasn't my choice, though. I am sexually attracted to men. Since I can't speak for straight people, I have to wonder if their attraction to the opposite sex is a choice. Did they choose to find it difficult to speak when around a member of the opposite sex? Did they find themselves choosing to have those natural desires about that person?
Ah, there's another word: "natural". You see, being gay is "unnatural", or so say the people against it. Another word is "normal". Personally, I have come to believe that normal is merely a setting on the washing machine. Anyway, what is "normal" exactly? Brown hair? Blond hair? Blue eyes? Brown eyes? Straight? Gay?
But I'm getting off topic, here, and that's just too easy a thing to do in this debate on homosexuality.
The thing I really want to talk about is homosexuality as a sin. Let's get back to the book. In the book several characters discuss the concept of sin. As a group, they come to the conclusion that sin is anything that takes us away from love. Love is what brings us to God, so anything that causes us to stray from love is a sin because it diverts us from that path to God.
Maybe that is too simplistic a summary of the discussion within the book. That's why I want to encourage you to read it and draw your own conclusions. But I really like this view of sin that the author makes. It makes sense to me that a sin would be something that takes a person away from love and, therefore, takes a person off the path to God.
So, by that definition of sin, is having sex with a member of the same sex a sin? If two men, for example, are deeply in love and having sex... are they removing themselves from the path to God? If you accept the above-mentioned view of love, then no, they are not. As with a male/female couple, the two men are expressing their love for each other. So how can that be a sin?
Let's look at the Bible - which they do in the book. In the Bible, homosexuality is called a sin. Why? Well, in Thinking Straight, the characters talk about when the Bible was written. Think about it... at that time, there wasn't security like retirement plans or savings accounts. Okay, in this day and age of a terrible economy, it would seem we are losing that, but for the sake of arguement, let's pretend that isn't happening!
Back in the days of the Bible, if someone didn't have kids who would care for them when they were older, then someone else, the community perhaps, would have to. They would essentially become a burden to the community. That might, in theory, cause people to depart from love. Maybe they'd be angry about the situation. Today, though, that wouldn't really be a problem. Today, homosexuals, though they don't have kids, can pretty much take care of themselves and aren't a burden on society (not counting the fact that so many people are still burdened by the concept of homosexuality).
So the theory is presented in the book that maybe back then, because homosexuality caused people to depart from love and therefore stray from that path to God, that it was a sin. It WAS a sin. Maybe it isn't a sin today because homosexualty doesn't affect people in that same way today.
Can something that was considered a sin back then, lose that status over time? Say, for example... Eating pig (Leviticus 11:7)? Eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:14)? Playing football (Levitivus 11:24-28)? Planting tulips with daffodiles (Leviticus 19:19)? Wearing a cotton-blend shirt (Leviticus 19:19)? Trimming your beard and side burns (Leviticus 19:27)? Getting a tatoo (Leviticus 19:28)? Working on Sunday, or whatever day you consider the Sabbath (Leviticus 19:30)? Standing up when an elderly person enters the room (Leviticus 19:32)? How about those sins that back then, required the sinner to be put to death: a son or daughter showing anger toward their parents - watch out teenagers (Leviticus 20:9), adultery (Leviticus 20:10)...
Today, many of those things wouldn't be considered sins. I mean who reading this loves to eat ham? Who reading this prefers to not have Elvis sideburns? Pastor...must you work on Sunday? So if these things aren't considered sins, why is homosexuality?
This is just what's on my mind right now. I really don't believe that expression of the love that one man has for another through sex is a sin. Granted, there are a lot of gay men out there who love to sleep around. I guess you could say there are a lot of gay men who love the freedom of multiple sex partners. But isn't that frowned upon as far as straight people go? If a gay couple is in a committed relationship, could their sexual activity be considered "making love?" If it IS "making love" then isn't it in keeping with the idea that they are still on that path of love to God?
Notice how I'm doing my best to not mention the fact that many people yell out "Oh God!" during sex? Really, I think that shows maturity!
So what do you think? Is this a sound arguement that maybe homosexuality isn't quite the sin that people still want to make it? Is it possible that, God willing, when I finally meet a guy who loves me and we enter into a relationship and we have sex out of love for each other, that we we won't be damning each other to hell because of it? I sure hope so.
I believe I was born gay. I believe that God made me gay. I believe that He's going to be okay with me having sex with a man with whom I am in love.
Now if only I could find that guy!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)