England, the country I lived in for three years back in the late 1980s, has lost it's collective mind (but the U.S. isn't far behind, these days).
From the Telegraph:
Bristol City Council wants to prune bushes and remove cover from an area known as the Downs to improve the landscape and encourage rare wildlife.
But its own gay rights group has opposed the move, claiming that cutting back the bushes was "discriminating" to homosexual men who used the area for late night outdoor sex known as dogging.
So now cleanup efforts are on hold while the homosexuals wrangle to protect their wrangling-spot.
To the Telegraph's credit, they did cover an aspect of the story you might not find in most American newspapers: the illegality of these sexual antics.
Peter Abraham, a Conservative councillor, hit out at the anti-gay accusations as "offensive".
He said: "How can it be discriminatory to clear land that might stop what is an illegal practice? We need to manage the Downs properly. For a long time we have been told that the scrub land needs to be opened up.
"I find it offensive to suggest that by taking this action - which might stop people collecting to carry out what some might describe as illegal acts and certainly offensive behaviour - you are being discriminatory."
So not only are these homosexual activists brazen enough to demand the bushes be left alone for them to frolic in, they make this demand in open defiance of existing law!
Apparently this isn't the first time this brushy area has been the scene of a skirmish between law and decency on one side, and immorality and perversity on the other--with immorality winning.
A row blew up last October when it was revealed that four fire fighters had been disciplined for allegedly disturbing a gay sex session on the Downs by shining their torches into the bushes.
After complaints that their actions were homophobic, the four senior officers from Avon Fire Service were fined £1,000 and transferred to other fire stations.
Now take a step back from this story for a minute and consider the activity objectively. Consider that this homosexual group is vehemently demanding the right to have sex in a public area, and that (public property) brush in that area not be cut so as to keep their sexual activity more conducive, and they are demanding this in open defiance of the law.
Does this sound like a sane response? Does this kind of heated, lustful behavior and the demand for access to it sound normal, natural or healthy?
19 comments:
Bob,
As a gay man, I am angered and sickened by this behavior. It's a shame that the gay community is represented by the vocal, radical minority, rather than the average, ordinary majority. I am living proof that not all gay people are angry, disease-ridden activists who want to trample over people's rights and demand permission to have sex in public. Yet because my ordinary life doesn't draw attention to itself the way other people's might, I'm less likely to get noticed.
That said, it also bothers me that articles like this are typical of the ONLY picture you portray of gay people on this blog. In other comments, you've said that you know at least one gay person. While I have no idea what this person is like, if he/she is anything like me, they are not like the extreme examples you describe in this and other articles. And even if they are, I hope you know that most gay people are not like that.
Despite this, the only message you spread to your audience is that homosexuals are activists, carry diseases like AIDS, engage in unspeakably depraved behavior, try to indoctrinate children, want to hijack marriage, and impose their lifestyles onto the general public. Pretty negative stuff, eh?
You've also said that you don't hate homosexuals. But do you love them? I have a hard time believing that you do, because from the looks of it, you can't stand them. Don't you have anything nice or good to say about us? Don't say it's because there is nothing good TO say, because if you take the time to look, you'll find that there is.
I challenge you to print one article that doesn't portray homosexuals in a negative light, one that demonstrates your Christian love for them, one that opposes gay stereotypes rather than reinforce them, one that represents homosexuals as people, not a faceless mob of sex-maniacs.
Even though I support gay rights, I agree with you about this issue. Public sex is against the law no matter if you're gay or straight.
I believe that the issue of homosexuality is covered accurately and fairly on Dakota Voice. Homosexuality is consistently held to be sin and against God’s will for mankind. It is no worse and no better than other sins of morality such as drunkenness, adultery and fornication, but, it is the only one that has a political organization to promote its activities and its acceptance. Homosexual advocacy often comes off as in-your-face defiance as you have noted, Alex. It may be that there is a majority of homosexuals like you who live quiet, unobtrusive lives, but how would we know? No, it is the contingent of vocal homosexual activists who make news and sometimes we respond.
It would seem that your quarrel is not with us but with homosexuals and groups who unfairly portray the homosexual lifestyle as you understand it. I encourage you to speak up and make yourself heard. More so, I encourage you to seek truth in the Word of God. You’ll find His yoke is easy and His burden light. He saved this sinner from great depths of depravity, including the sin of homosexuality, years ago. If you want to know more you can write me at drewas@gmail.com.
alexh2007, When homosexuals do something good (that isn't done to put a pretty face on an otherwise immoral and unhealthy behavior), I like to point that out. But I won't post smiley-faced articles simply to make myself or you feel better.
Does the doctor who tells his patient he has cancer hate his patient because he was frank and honest about his sick condition? Does the doctor who advises his patient to quit smoking or drinking hate his patient? Or is he showing concern for the patient, in the hopes that he may realize the gravity of his self-destructive behavior and change?
You challenged me to post just one article that portrayed a homosexual positively? How's this one: http://www.dakotavoice.com/2007/07/homosexual-activists-leaves-lifestyle.html? Michael Glatze surrendered his will to God and found God's love, redemption, and freedom from the sin which held him captive. Just as other homosexuals did even in the Bible (1 Corinthians 6:9-11).
If you give your life to God and find freedom from homosexuality, I'll be happy to cover your story at length. It would be a good story to rejoice over, even as the angels would be partying in heaven over it (Luke 15:10). Let me know if that happens and we'll talk.
I'd like to reiterate my closing questions in this post for re-consideration regarding the demands by these homosexual activists:
Does this sound like a sane response? Does this kind of heated, lustful behavior and the demand for access to it sound normal, natural or healthy?
Bob,
The article you showed me is about a gay man who stops having sex with men. This tells me that you only have something good to say about homosexuals when one of them goes away.
Dr. Theo,
Your statement that homosexuality is considered no worse and no better than other sins of morality contradicts what Bob said in an older comment, claiming that God finds homosexuality uniquely detestable among other sins. It seems that there should be a little more internal consensus at Dakota Voice before you start informing the public.
If this blog is so accurate and fair, why doesn't it publish articles about how gay people are persecuted around the world, such as in Iran, where they are executed, or Jamaica, where homophobia is a virtue? Why not address the rampant violence against gay people in the United States, such as the Larry King murder, and call your fellow Christians to respond with compassion and love? What articles have you written on the decidedly un-Christian comments by people like Pat Robertson and the late Jerry Falwell, who blamed 9/11 partly on gay people? Shouldn't comments like these be condemned by the Christian community? Shouldn't you do the Christ-like thing and speak out against bigotry?
That, to me, would be fair and accurate coverage of the issue.
Dr. Theo said something earlier I agree with. A vocal minority in a group can paint a stereotyped picture of that group as a whole. For years my views of conservative evangelicals was painted by comments from people like Pat Robertsom and Jerry Falwell. But after actually getting to know some conservative evangelicals I found out they aren't all hateful, stupid bigots. That taught me you have to look beyond the vocal activists.
Alex, my opinions are mine and Mr. Ellis' are his and there will likely be minor differences of opinion. Although we agree generally on most issues surely you do not think it desirable that all the contributors here walk in lock-step, do you?
My point about sin is that all sin is rebellion against God's will and all sin is detestable to God. We are all sinners and the wages of sin is death. It is only by the redemptive blood of Jesus Christ that I have hope for salvation and so can you. Sin is sin and the punishment will not be negotiated. Either confess your sin, repent and accept the saving grace of Jesus or die in your sins (whatever they may be).
Dr. Theo,
The equality/inequality of sins according to the Bible isn't really a matter of opinion though, is it? Saying that all sins are equal versus saying that homosexuality is uniquely detestable is not a minor difference. There's a disagreement on theology somewhere at Dakota Voice. You might want to address that before you expect outsiders to agree with you.
And it's obvious that the contributors on this blog walk in lock-step, as you put it. Look at the self-congratulatory comments you put on each other's articles, almost as if they're put there for the reader's benefit.
"Either confess your sin, repent and accept the saving grace of Jesus or die in your sins (whatever they may be)."
I see we've reached the Christian Ultimatum: believe or die! Been there, done that.
Do you have any thoughts on the final paragraph in my previous comment, or are you going to keep trying to convert me?
I think that's the best thing to say about a homosexual: that they found freedom from slavery to sexual sin.
As for Dr. Theo's comments, the writers at Dakota Voice don't walk in lockstep, though we agree on most things and share a Christian worldview.
That said, I would say essentially the same thing as Dr. Theo. In the broad sense, God sees all sin the same: it all departs from his character, it all separates us from Him, and according to Romans 6:23 brings about death.
As for it being "uniquely detestable," I don't think I said that. I probably said something to the effect that God may find it especially detestable or more egregious than some other sins. In Proverbs 6, the Bible says "There are six things the LORD hates, seven that are detestable to him..." That is not to say that these are the only things God hates, nor are they the only things detestable to him, but the fact that God singled these out seems to strongly indicate that he holds the acts mentioned to be especially hated or detestable.
God uses the same word "detestable" about homosexual behavior in Leviticus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13. It also seems logical that, since God spent considerable time and subject material in the Bible spelling it out that his design for human sexuality was to be between a man and a woman for life, and specifically and repeatedly said that homosexual behavior was an egregious violation of that design, God may hold that offense in a greater degree of disapproval.
As for your other comments on Pat Robertson, et al, there is only so much time and effort which can be expended on this or any blog. I can't speak for the other writers, but I tend to stick with incidents and issues which are "overlooked" by the "mainstream" media, or explore angles of stories which are "overlooked" by the aforementioned "objective" media.
The "objective" media seldom misses an opportunity to cover Pat Robertson's and others' statements and gaffes. Coverage of Christian missteps, real or perceived, seldom escape media coverage; there's no need for me to duplicate what they've already done.
Coverage of the dangers of homosexuality, however, somehow never seem to make page 1...or even page 32. That darker side that Marshall Kirk and Hunter Madsen said should be kept from public view is being dutifully whitewashed by the "mainstream" media. As is the moral dichotomy of people who profess Christ and yet embrace a practice Christ has made plain over and over that He does not approve of.
In other words, the "mainstream" media is more than adequately taking care of reporting all the failings of conservatives and Christians, plus running interference for proponents of liberalism and immorality. They don't need my help.
There is, however, a "niche market" for the truth out there. I'm here to fill that niche for anyone who's interested. If you're only interested in the "broad way" (Matthew 7:13-14), there are plenty of sources out there providing access. Dakota Voice is here to provide access to the niche of the "narrow road."
I concur with your sentiments, Haggs. And I've known--and still do know--homosexuals who aren't activists: demanding acceptance and approval, demanding "marriage," demanding special accommodations and such. They just want to do their thing and be left alone.
I pray for their relationship with God and for their repentance, but we live in peace. It'd be nice if the activists would give up their radical agenda and live in peace, too.
I couldn't help but read "narrow road" as "narrow mind," but that's just me. Cheers.
Think of it as you will; it's what Jesus said. I think it's true that one's mind can be so open that one will believe any nonsense.
I wrote an article about hate-filled Phelps. I don't support the hate he spits out.
As I believe has already been discussed, many activists partake in an "in your face" campaign, and dare anyone to suggest the behavior within their campaign is inappropriate or offensive.
Oh... and look at the deal with the boy scouts in PA where activists lost a court battle, but then went to the city and complained that the scouts were discriminating. So, the scouts had to either change their rules to accommodate homosexuals or lose the building that they had occupied for years upon years upon years. That was unnecessary and mean-spirited and still makes me fume.
Carrie,
That Boy Scouts example makes me pretty angry, too. Activists, regardless of their political goals or affiliations, are usually obnoxious, offensive, and flat-out stupid when it comes to getting what they want at the cost of trampling on the liberties of others.
Personally, I feel that despite their discrimination against openly gay people (as well as atheists/agnostics), the Scouts are a private organization and should have the right to decide who can participate. Still, my heart goes out to the young Scouts who realize they're gay and have to lie about who they are if they want to keep their merit badges. Makes it hard for them to live up to the Scouts' law of trustworthiness, but whatever.
Alex,
I agree with you that most activists I know (and know of) are as you described. This is not to say that everyone who leads a cause is such as they, but then, I don't see those people being labeled as activists either.
Why would young Scouts have to lie about being gay? See that is where I get really confused about the issue. When did it become a right and obligation to wear one's sexual preference on their sleeve? When did it become something everyone wants/needs to flaunt in public?
~Carrie
(I tried posting this earlier but it didn't show.)
Carrie,
I'll try to explain it to you as best I can.
First, I would suggest looking at the issue of "flaunting one's sexuality" from a different angle. This requires you to temporarily consider one thing -- that homosexuality and heterosexuality are equally normal and legitimate sexual orientations. From this egalitarian mindset, it seems unfair to say that a woman who tells her coworkers about what she and her husband did for their anniversary qualifies as "normal" conversation about an everyday part of someone's life, whereas if I, a gay man, were to tell my coworkers about where my partner and I plan to go for our summer vacation, it becomes "flaunting my sexuality" and "shoving it in people's faces." True, I can't say such a thing without letting people know that I'm gay, but likewise the woman can't talk about her husband without declaring that she's heterosexual -- essentially wearing her sexual perference on her sleeve and flaunting it in public, right? The double standard exists because most people would see her conversation as "normal" and something they're already comfortable with. Most people are not comfortable talking about homosexuality, so when they are confronted with it, be it from working with an openly gay colleague or whatever, I think a common response would be, "Jeez, why can't these people give it a rest already and stop reminding us that they're gay!" Speaking only for myself, I find this double standard to be very condescending and demeaning; it implies that I should cease talking about my partner at work or anywhere else, take his picture off of my desk, never show affection with him when we're in public, and basically keep a huge and important part of my life completely under wraps -- all for the sake of someone ELSE'S comfort. It's not fair.
A simpler example: if my partner and I walked down the street holding hands, you might say, "Stop shoving your sexuality in my face!" But if I saw you and your husband/boyfriend doing the same thing, I'd be inclined to say, "Stop shoving YOUR sexuality in my face!" When you look at it this way, I hope you'll see that it's basically the same thing. You don't even have to bring morals or the Bible into it; objectively speaking, we have both done something that tells the world about our particular sexual orientations.
It certainly doesn't help matters that most people's experience with the gay community comes from activists who do almost nothing BUT flaunt their sexuality. Pride parades, marches on Washington, and protests outside the city courthouse are all about being gay, and that's all people see as a result. As a gay man who is not an activist, I find this incredibly frustrating; frankly, I think pride parades are disgusting and show a total lack of dignity. Being gay is not something to be proud OR ashamed of -- it just "is." I hardly ever even think about it; it's just the way I happen to experience life. Getting back to the double standard I mentioned earlier, we don't see straight people getting together and celebrating how heterosexual they are, with half-naked men and women kissing each other in the streets and shoving their straight-ness in your face. Just as you heterosexuality is a non-issue to you, so is my homosexuality to me.
I guess it's just an annoying but necessary fact that gay activists can get what they want ONLY by reminding everyone of what sets them apart from the rest of society -- as all minority groups have done throughout history to achieve equal rights and protection from discrimination. In a perfect world, we would all sit down together and talk in a civilized way, without resorting to making public spectacles of ourselves. But as things are right now, gay activists are pissed off and want to be heard, which I guess explains their "need" to flaunt their sexuality. I don't even fully understand it myself, so you're not alone. And like you, I also get fed up with it from time to time.
As for a Boy Scout who might have to lie about being gay, think about it from his perspective. Imagine that you are a young Scout, on a camping trip with your buddies, and one of them asks you if you're gay. Secretly, you know that you are, but because of the Scouts' ban against openly gay members, you have to either lie or somehow avoid answering if you want to remain in the organization (sort of like Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but don't even get me started on that!). As I said in my previous post, I support the Boy Scouts' right to determine who can and cannot participate, but as an observer, I disagree with their discriminatory policies. It doesn't reflect too well on an organization that promotes morality and integrity if you set restrictions on kids like this, and essentially give them an ultimatum: you can either be honest about who you are at the price of being expelled, or, you can stay in the Scouts on the condition that you lie about your sexuality if asked and never reveal it to anyone. If a Scout wants to keep going on all those fun camping trips with his friends, he'll have to get a crash-course in pretending to be someone he's not.
But unlike the gay activists you mentioned, I think it's wrong to force an organization like the Boy Scouts to change an official policy. The same thing goes for other entities, such as the Catholic Church; they have every right to discriminate against women in the clergy. I think it's incredibly stupid to deny someone a job based on their anatomy, but it's none of my business, and I simply choose not to associate with people who are that superficial.
As for Don't Ask, Don't Tell, that's different. The military affects the entire country in a way that the church and the Boy Scouts never could, and prohibiting an entire population of people from protecting their country solely on the basis of whom they happen to love is, to me, reprehensible. There's something wrong with our world when you can get awards and medals for killing a man, yet you get a dishonorable discharge for kissing one.
Anyway, despite my rambling toward the end, I hope this helped!
Alex :)
Alex,
Sorry for the delay in answering you. I've been having computer problems. I'll try to have my answer posted shortly. If I don't, you'll know it shut me down still again.
~Carrie
Alex,
I'm not the best person in the world to use your initial comparison on. I don't readily discuss my personal life at the workplace with people who are merely my co-workers and not actually friends. Being the person I am, while I understand that some people have the need to do so, I don't quite understand the need to tell all to anyone with ears.
Likewise...
Two guys or two girls can go on a vacation together and not be gay. Best friends have often done so. Heavens, a guy and a gal that are merely friends might take a vacation together because they both wanted to see some special place and pooling their money and means could make it possible. Meaning... that going on a vacation with someone does not necessarily mean that the two people are in a sexual relationship. So, yeah... you could say that you and whomever are planning a vacation to wherever without wearing your sexuality on your sleeve. It depends upon how it is said and what has been said before.
There are some women that like to share intimate information of their sex life with others. They don't with me, because I won't listen to it. So, why would I want to listen to your intimate information? I'm not playing favorites here.
You said...
"...Speaking only for myself, I find this double standard to be very condescending and demeaning; it implies that I should cease talking about my partner at work or anywhere else, take his picture off of my desk, never show affection with him when we're in public, and basically keep a huge and important part of my life completely under wraps -- all for the sake of someone ELSE'S comfort. It's not fair."
Lots of people feel uncomfortable when others share more of their personal life information than is invited and welcomed -- just like I said above.
You go on to say...
"A simpler example: if my partner and I walked down the street holding hands, you might say, "Stop shoving your sexuality in my face!" But if I saw you and your husband/boyfriend doing the same thing, I'd be inclined to say, "Stop shoving YOUR sexuality in my face!" When you look at it this way, I hope you'll see that it's basically the same thing."
Okay... but since you won't see me walking down the street holding hands with anyone, except a child or someone else needing my assistance, does that mean I should be able to expect the same of you?
As for the Boy Scouts...
If a young boy thinks he is gay, he isn't required to tell the world. (And what if he isn't? What if he is just not sure what he is feeling during those crazy years going from a carefree child to an adult?) Within moments of your email, I thought of numerous responses he could give that aren't lying or denying self and all that good stuff.
On the other hand...
The Boy Scouts don't hire girls that are openly sexually active either. So duh!
Well anyways... I'm sure I didn't address everything in your comment, but I'm going to get this off before my computer loses my comments again.
~Carrie
Post a Comment