Duck Dynasty: No, Tolerance Doesn't Have To Go Both Ways

Sorry. Duck Dynasty again. It's always the stupid shit that forces a dialogue, it seems.

There's a lot of whining going on about there being no tolerance for people of faith in America anymore.

Here's the thing about tolerance. Tolerance (which I've posted about before here) does not require that one be tolerant of social injustice. When we denounce beliefs which cause harm to others (and yes, denigrating LGBT folks and equating homosexuality with bestiality is indeed harmful), we are in no way in conflict with the concept of tolerance. Tolerance, in a global declaration by the UN, is defined as "the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments...The practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one's convictions."

When people state that they stand with Robertson because he has the right to speak freely about his faith, they're right -- he does have that right. But it begs the question -- are Christians required by their faith to malign human beings for their natural traits? (If so, that's a horribly flawed morality.) And are those who disagree required to tolerate it?

The reason why it has become "politically incorrect" to denigrate gays and lesbians is not because society no longer tolerates religious belief or family values. It's because this view of sexuality and gender is as unethical and as harmful as the Taliban belief that women should stay at home rather than go to school. It is quite simply archaic and discriminatory thinking that has no value in modern society -- thinking that is morally dubious at best. While those who embrace reason, science, and human progress are moving on and leaving behind naive and outdated views from ancient texts, others remain kicking and screaming, believing that others are being intolerant of their Bronze Age ideas about sexuality and gender (or about the origins of the cosmos and life).

If we must tolerate religious views of LGBT-condemning fundamentalist Christians, then we must also tolerate the religious views of women-stoning fundamentalist Muslims. We can't say that one is any more or less correct. They are both morally unsound and archaic views that cause harm to others.

Why aren't people tolerant of those who wish to cure epilepsy or mental illness by drilling holes in the skull? (This was a common early medical practice.) Well, mostly because we learned more about biology, realized that we were mistaken, and we changed our approach.

There is nothing about tolerance that requires someone to tolerate the mistreatment or maligning of other human beings because of their natural traits. So crying foul on this one and saying it's an attack on faith and family values is to miss the point. Because anti-LGBT sentiment is not a value. Any faith that dictates that it is, is morally flawed. Acquiescing to such ideology is not a virtue.

The Duck Dynasty Thing Has Absolutely Nothing To Do With Free Speech

The creator of this image doesn't get it.

So this whole Duck Dynasty/A&E thing. I've been seeing a lot of comments in the blogosphere/Twittersphere, and petitions being passed around on Facebook, and one thing seems clear: Too many Americans have no idea what the First Amendment does and doesn't do.

Robertson has all the rights in the world to believe and say what he wants about LGBT folks. Nobody can take that right away from him. However, his employer, A&E, has no obligation whatsoever to pay him for making comments which they feel are not aligned with their values. They are in no way compelled to continue to provide a forum for a guy who has offended a significant number of their viewers.

I imagine if an employee of Fox News (or any other network) made comments on or off the air that equated Christians with swine, that individual would be suspended. And I imagine that the same people who are backing Robertson and boycotting A&E, would applaud the suspension of this employee.  And if he were to remain, I assume they would boycott the Network.

You have the right to say whatever crazy, hurtful, or morally dubious thing you want (short of hate speech, which is not protected).  You don't, however, have the right to keep your TV job after you say it.

8 Things I Don't Get About Evangelicals Leaving Nasty Notes (And No Tip) For Homosexual Waitpersons

Here's what I don't get about Christians leaving nasty notes and no tip for homosexual waitpersons (see here and here for a few recent examples):

If homosexuality is a choice (as so many misinformed Evangelicals believe), and if acting upon homosexual urges is 'an abomination,' then I have a whole lot of questions:

1. How do these Evangelical diners know that their waitperson is having sex, or with whom they have having sex? Maybe their waitperson is a virgin?

2. Why are they so sure that their waitperson is gay? Did they talk about all the gay sex they're having and then list the specials for the day?

3. Do Evangelicals think about the sex that every waitperson is having? Maybe that's a problem?

4. Do they leave similar judgmental notes for seemingly straight waitpersons who might be having sex for reasons other than procreation? Or who might be divorced? Or having an affair? Or who might have a tattoo? Or who might be judgmental assholes?

5. WWJD?

6. Maybe sexual orientation is not a choice?

7. Maybe who cares if it is a choice?

8. Maybe gratuities are for services rendered and not for the display of specific human traits?

SBM Worldwide: You Too Can Prevent Homosexuality

SBM Founder, Stephen Bennett

Via SBM Worldwide:

Stephen Bennett, 49 years old, struggled with same-sex attraction (SSA) throughout his teenage and young adult years, living an openly-gay lifestyle for more than 11 years until he was 28 years old. In 1990, Stephen, happy with his homosexual lifestyle and in a committed "gay" relationship for several years, was lovingly and biblically engaged about his lifestyle and evangelized with the gospel of Jesus Christ by a Christian friend. Two years later, much to the shock of everyone who knew him — especially his family and friends — Stephen was born again and completely surrendered his life to the Lord. It was at this time that Stephen made the decision to walk away from his homosexual lifestyle, never to return. His journey of "coming out" of homosexuality then began — dealing with many painful, emotional issues he had buried — including being molested at the age of 11. Stephen would never be the same again. 

Stephen left his male partner and began his new walk with Christ in January of 1992. He began dating Irene in October of that year, then the two were married the following year, in June of 1993. Today, more than 20 years later, Stephen no longer struggles whatsoever with homosexuality. He shares his story of freedom and complete change at churches, conferences, events, and in the media worldwide. His encouraging message is that individuals who desire change can know that change is completely possible.

SBM Worldwide describes its organization as "an evangelistic, educational, exhortational, and encouraging Christian ministry dedicated to ministering to homosexual-identifying men and women who are seeking change. SBM Worldwide provides biblical, practical, and prayerful support and resources for men and women who are looking to overcome their unwanted same-sex attractions and identity."

Bennett and his wife Irene appeared on the CTN program "Homekeepers" to talk about Bennett's 'transformation.' Host Arthelene Rippy used the opportunity to plug the NARTH-endorsed Parents' Guide To Preventing Homosexuality.

Watch:

Stephen Colbert On How The Gays Created Hurricane Isaac To Disrupt the RNC

Stephen Colbert explains how the gays created Hurricane Isaac to disrupt the Republican National convention.

"Hurricanes form from rising moisture created by hot steamy man action aboard a gay Caribbean cruise. When that sin gets high enough it makes the angels cry and those tears fall to earth in the form of massive precipitation because homosexuals are a vital part of the water cycle. That's why the gay symbol is a rainbow!"

Watch:

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

Fischer: Gays Are Driven By A 'Dark, Venomous, Demonic Hatred'

Bryan Fischer, the man with absolutely no self-awareness, says the gays are the "real haters," because they are fueled by a Christophobic, heterophobic demonic hatred.

Watch:

Robertson: The Bible Was 'Terribly Wrong' About Slavery, But Not About Homosexuality

Evangelicals love to cherry-pick their scripture. They love to cite 'The Word of God' when it rails against homosexuality. "The Bible is quote clear," they'll tell you.

The Bible is quite clear about a lot of things that Christians have long dismissed: slavery, wearing blended fabrics, eating shellfish, executing people for petty offenses, etc.

Pat Robertson has a long history of hating gay people. "The Bible is so clear about homosexuality," he's said.

However, Pat, like many evangelical Christians, loves to cherry-pick.

"Despite what the Bible says, “We have moved in our conception of the value of human beings until we realized slavery was terribly wrong.”

Have we, Pat? It seems like just a few months ago, evangelicals were up in arms when Dan Savage suggested the same thing.

SAVAGE: We can learn to ignore the bullshit about gay people in the Bible the same way have learned to ignore the bullshit in the Bible about shellfish about slavery, about dinner about farming, about menstruation, about virginity, about masturbation. We ignore bullshit in the bible about all sorts of things. The Bible is a radically pro-slavery document. Slave owners waived Bibles over their heads during the civil war and justified it…We ignore what the Bible says about slavery because the Bible got slavery wrong.…If the Bible got the easiest moral question that humanity has ever faced wrong, slavery. What are the odds that the Bible got something as complicated as human sexuality wrong? 100 percent.

So, we have Pat Robertson admitting that the Bible was "terribly wrong" about slavery. To extend Pat's thoughts on the "value of human beings" idea into the treatment of the LGBT population doesn't seem to be much of a stretch, does it? It's not that radical a notion.

It will happen. Eventually. Unfortunately, we'll have to wait until bigoted dinosaurs like Pat Robertson die out.

Christian Group Backs Away From 'Gay Cure,' But Still Wants To Help Gays Live Heterosexual Lives

Left to right: Chambers, beard

Via msnbc:

The president of the country's best-known Christian ministry dedicated to helping people repress same-sex attraction through prayer is trying to distance the group from the idea that gay people's sexual orientation can be permanently changed or "cured."

That's a significant shift for Exodus International, the 36-year-old Orlando-based group that boasts 260 member ministries around the U.S. and world. For decades, it has offered to help conflicted Christians rid themselves of unwanted homosexual inclinations through counseling and prayer, infuriating gay rights activists in the process.

This is interesting news for those who have followed Exodus International's history.

Michael Bussee, one of the founders of Exodus, and Gary Cooper, a leader within the ministry of Exodus, left the group to be with each other in 1979. Bussee has since been a long-time critic of Exodus.

In 2007, Bussee, along with Jeremy Marks, the former president of Exodus International Europe, and Darlene Bogle, the founder of Paraklete Ministries, an Exodus referral agency, issued an apology to those who had been misled by Exodus. The three stated that although they acted sincerely at the time of their involvement, their message had caused isolation, shame and fear. The three had, in time, become disillusioned with promoting gay conversion.

"Some who heard our message were compelled to try to change an integral part of themselves, bringing harm to themselves and their families," stated the three in the apology.

Another Exodus Chairman, John Paulk was removed by the board of directors when he was identified drinking and flirting at Mr. P's, a Washington, D.C. gay bar, Paulk was introducing himself to patrons of the bar as "John Clint," a name he had used in his previous life as a hustler in Ohio. Paulk was the author of "Not Afraid to Change; The Remarkable Story of How One Man Overcame Homosexuality," and was on staff with Focus on the Family, where was manager of their Homosexuality and Gender Department.

Essentially, Exodus International's ex-gay therapy doesn't work. It never did. It hasn't worked for its clients, and it hasn't worked for its leaders.

At the group's annual conference, president Alan Chambers plans to start disassociating himself and his organization from the ex-gay, or conversion therapy, movement.

"I do not believe that cure is a word that is applicable to really any struggle, homosexuality included," said Chambers, who is married to a woman and has children, but speaks openly about his own sexual attraction to men. "For someone to put out a shingle and say, 'I can cure homosexuality' — that to me is as bizarre as someone saying they can cure any other common temptation or struggle that anyone faces on Planet Earth."

Chambers has cleared books endorsing ex-gay therapy from the Exodus online bookstore in recent months. He said he's also worked to stop member ministries from espousing it.

That's great news, right? Finally, Exodus admits that ex-gay therapy is a sham and that people don't choose their sexuality. So, what will Exodus International do now? They're through, right? Kaput?

Of course not. If they can't convert the gays, they'll just help them live a lie.

Chambers said the ministry's emphasis should be simply helping Christians who want to reconcile their own particular religious beliefs with sexual feelings they consider an affront to scripture. For some that might mean celibacy; for others, like Chambers, it meant finding an understanding opposite-sex partner.

"I consider myself fortunate to be in the best marriage I know," Chambers said. "It's an amazing thing, yet I do have same-sex attractions. Those things don't overwhelm me or my marriage; they are something that informs me like any other struggle I might bring to the table."

While we can applaud Exodus International's admission that ex-gay therapy doesn't work, it's certainly not much of an improvement to then state that gay people still need to change.

"We appreciate any step toward open, transparent honesty that will do less harm to people," said Wayne Besen, a Vermont-based activist who has worked to discredit ex-gay therapy. "But the underlying belief is still that homosexuals are sexually broken, that something underlying is broken and needs to be fixed. That's incredibly harmful, it scars people."

So, we have moved on from "it's a choice" to "it's not a choice, but it's an affront to God and must be suppressed."

It's almost like progress. Except it isn't.

Bryan Fischer: Satan Behind Gay Rights, Planned Parenthood & Environmentalism

Another day, another batshit rant from Bryan Fischer.

According to Fischer, Old Scratch is behind everything from gay rights to Planned Parenthood to environmentalism.

Watch:

Despite Amendment One's Passing, NC Is A Better State Today

Amendment One has passed.

The easy thing to do is to get angry. To take it out on those who voted to enshrine discrimination into our state constitution.

The natural thing to do is to lash out. And with something as important as civil rights, I believe that is a completely valid response. When the citizens of our own state tell us we are less than human, it cuts deep.

I'm not gay. I can't express how it must feel to have the majority decide whether or not I should have the rights they are afforded. I am hyper-empathetic, however, so I like to think I have some idea of how devastating that might be.

There are people who are near and dear to me who will wake up tomorrow morning to a less welcoming North Carolina. They will wake up in a state that not only actively discriminates against them, but has also written discrimination into their mission statement.

There will be children, seniors, women, and heterosexual couples who will be harmed in the coming months and years because people are afraid of change.

As the inevitability of the passing of Amendment One sunk in, I began to feel resentful, angry, sad, embarrassed, and incredibly disappointed. I am sure millions of North Carolinians feel the same. But as the pro-amendment camp celebrates their victory in downtown Raleigh, it's important to remember that, while we suffered a devastating loss, what we accomplished over the past several months should make us all very proud.

The majority of North Carolinians were on the wrong side of history on May 8, 2012. Despite this fact, I have no doubt that North Carolina received an education over the past several months. Many North Carolinians were challenged, many for the very first time, to re-evaluate their views on homosexuality and same-sex marriage. Many who once believed homosexuality was a 'sin' and a 'poor lifestyle choice' now understand that we do not choose our sexual orientation. We also opened a lot of eyes to the cynical nature of politics (not so sure that was a secret), and encouraged them to really think about the potential unintended consequences of their vote. We rediscovered the power of music, art, and the written word to enact change (even if that change is much more gradual than we feel is acceptable).

Most importantly, we reminded people that every voice counts, and that everyone has a unique way to contribute to the cause of social justice. In all my years in North Carolina, I have never seen such an outpouring of creativity, passion, and determination. Despite our defeat at the polls, each of these efforts impacted many lives, changed many minds, and opened many hearts.

No amount of back-patting can make up for the fact that our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have been wronged. I have no words that will lessen the blow. It is a devastating blow that will reverberate for many years to come. This amendment will undoubtedly join the interracial marriage ban amendment of 1875 as one of the ugliest moments in North Carolina history. We will surely lose many of our wonderful friends and fellow citizens to other, more welcoming states, and I can't say I blame them.

What we can say, however, is that we put up one hell of a fight. While just we took a giant step backwards from a legislative perspective, we are actually a better state because of our fight. As odd as it may be to state, North Carolina is a more welcoming, more tolerant state today as a result of our hard work. There are more allies now than there were in September (or that there have ever been in our state's history). There are more people willing to stand up for injustice now than there were in September. There are more churches willing to reach out to (and stand up for) the LGBT population. There are more people willing to risk their community standing, their relationships, or even their employment status, by vocally protesting against religion-based bigotry.

Most importantly, there is an entire generation of young people -- kids, teens, and college students -- who witnessed this injustice firsthand. There is an entire generation of young people, like my own, who cannot believe that gays and lesbians would be denied rights enjoyed by the rest of the population. To them it is as unconscionable as denying marriage rights to interracial couples, or denying women the right to vote.

These young people are the voters, lawmakers, clergy, community leaders, business leaders, and elected officials of tomorrow. While we are devastated by Amendment One's passing, we do know that North Carolina's future is in their hands.

While we can be certain this younger generation will clean up our generation's mess, our part in this fight is not over. We will wake up tomorrow with a heightened sense of purpose and the resolve to pick up the pieces and continue in our fight to make this a better North Carolina for all families.

We shouldn't have to wait, but one thing is very clear. As MLK said, "The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Amendment One: 11th Hour Thoughts On Faith, Homosexuality & Choice

These words were originally posted in an online neighborhood forum about Amendment One to address a neighbor who believes homosexuality is a sin and that he could not cast a vote that condoned it, regardless of any unintended consequences of the legislation.



As both sides of the Amendment One debate wrap up their closing arguments, it has become clear that the vote comes down to religion. Mostly, it comes down to religion and the debate over the nature of sexual orientation.

I have been chastised in past posts for my adamant stance that homosexuality is not a choice. Some in the LGBT camp have criticized me (and rightfully so) for making this assertion, since people should be free to choose to be gay if they so wish. I agree wholeheartedly -- it shouldn't be anyone's concern if two consenting adults choose to be intimate with one another. But civil rights causes are a marathon and not a sprint, unfortunately. And the linchpin of the gay marriage debate is indeed the belief held by many religious people that homosexuals have made a conscious choice to live a lifestyle of sin and abomination.

We do not choose our sexual orientations. Our sexual orientations are determined by genetic, hormonal, and environmental factors. The following organizations have issued statements concluding that we do not choose our sexual orientation: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and American Academy of Pediatrics.

Sexual orientations are not binary. Bisexuality is an actual thing, and not just a phase in college.

Gender is also not binary. If you believe it is, please explain your beliefs to an acquaintance of mine who was born with ambiguous genitalia. Doctors and parents made a choice that she would be a girl. Guess what happened? She grew to only be interested in girls. Whoops. Gender dysphoria is a real thing.

At the time of the Bible, people did indeed believe that gender and sexual orientation were binary, just as they thought epilepsy was demonic possession, and just as they thought the earth was flat and at the center of the universe.

When we gained enough understanding, we realized that the sun was not a god, but rather a hot rock. Then we learned enough to understand that it wasn't a rock at all, but a fiery hot ball of plasma interwoven with magnetic fields.

Please read this article in The Atlantic exploring the nature of gender, and tell me that you believe that the boy in the article made a decision to be the way he is. No amount of church, or whippings, or therapy is going to alter what this boy is in his heart, and nobody should try to change that. To deny him the right to grow up to experience marriage and family is cruel and unusual punishment.

Brandon Simms, age 5

I realize that by pointing to examples of gender dysphoria I am not directly addressing the issue of gay marriage. It's not so different, however. My point is that we are who we are. The fact is that we are not all born as males who will grow up to be attracted to females, or females who will grow up to be attracted to males. Some of us will be born gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender. We are attracted to who we are attracted to. We can't turn that off and pretend. We all can't simply go along with society and ignore who we are at our very core. To do so is to live a lie. To force others to do so is to punish them for their natural born traits.

The Bible, while a great source of morality for many, cannot be looked upon for every bit of moral guidance. We must adjust our morality to consider our modern understandings about biology and the cosmos. If we don't, we will simply continue to live by Bronze Age morals -- and we know what that has done to Afghanistan, where they still practice many of the same laws that we find in the Old Testament. We Americans abhor their enforcement of holy law. We would do well to abhor it in our own country, too.

Good luck with your vote. I just hope that when you cast your vote you will feel comfortable knowing that a FOR vote will be engraved in stone. You may come to change your mind about sexual orientation. Changing a constitutional amendment, however, is not easily done.

If there is any doubt in your heart -- if you feel anything in your heart for those people like my acquaintance or the boy in the above linked Atlantic article, you should understand that by voting FOR, you are harming those people. (You are also harming heterosexual couples, children, seniors, and women -- but we've been through that already.)

If your Bible tells you to harm them anyway, then I am afraid your morality is flawed.

My morality requires that I never do harm to another human being, and that I respect the rights of minorities, and that I don't force others to live by my beliefs.  Is not one of our central roles as human beings to reduce suffering? How can we reconcile this with the denial of rights to our fellow humans based on their natural traits?

Legalizing gay marriage or domestic partnerships does not force someone else's beliefs on you (Remember, they will still be illegal if you vote AGAINST). This is what so many fail to understand. Legalizing domestic partnerships/civil unions/marriage doesn't alter YOUR rights to form a union that aligns with your belief system. Your YES vote tomorrow, however, will definitely alter others' rights. That is unfortunate, and completely at odds with everything that has made America a beacon of freedom.

I fear I will wake up on Wednesday extremely disappointed in my state. But I feel confident that before I die, I will see NC begin to accept all people for who they are, and afford them the same rights, no matter what their natural traits. It is a shame that North Carolina will have to be dragged kicking and screaming into the 21st century.

I thought we were beyond this, but I guess we will have another generation of this way of thinking, until we look back and are embarrassed by this legislation the way we are embarrassed by the inter-racial marriage ban amendment of 1875.

Looking Beyond Amendment One to Amendment Two

I have asked countless people to provide a secular legislative purpose for Amendment One. I have broadcast this question to thousands of people, via Facebook and Twitter. I have posed this question directly to people I know are planning to vote in favor of Amendment One.

Amendment 2?

Crickets.

I have yet to hear one legitimate secular legislative purpose for the amendment. I have also posed a similar question asking non-believers to come forward with reasons why they are voting for Amendment One.

Again, crickets.

I am aware that there may be some voters out there who claim to have a secular purpose for voting for the amendment. I am also sure there may be some non-believers who are doing the same. I do, however, believe that these instances represent a tiny sliver of the population voting in favor of the amendment.

What does this say?

I believe there are only a few conclusions that can be drawn: 1) Voters are ignorant to the effects the amendment will have on heterosexual couples, children, and seniors, 2) Voters are ignorant to the overwhelming scientific evidence that sexual orientation is no more a choice than right- and left-handedness or skin color, 3) Voters will go to great lengths to legitimize their own bigotry.

The common denominator here is religion-based bigotry.

One thing people need to understand is that we do not add constitutional amendments that a) deny rights to a group of citizens based on natural traits, or b) have no secular basis.

It does seem apparent, however, that a large swath of the NC religious population are determined to ensure that we do just this. As North Carolinians, this should be deeply disturbing.

What will Amendment Two bring?

Should the population become overwhelmingly Muslim (as it is in Dearborn, MI), can we expect an amendment to be based strictly on Sharia Law?

Should we add an amendment stating that anyone who does not worship God be killed? (Deuteronomy 17:2-7)

If a city worships a different god (or no god), will an amendment require the destruction of the city and the execution of all of it's inhabitants... even the animals? (Deuteronomy 13:12-15)

Will an amendment require that we kill our own family members who choose a different religion? (Deuteronomy 13:6-10)

If a man has sex with an animal, should we kill both the man and the animal? (Leviticus 20:15-16)

If a man has sex with a woman while she is menstruating, should we cast him out from society? (Leviticus 20:18)

If the preacher's daughter sleeps around, should an amendment require that we burn her at the stake? (Leviticus 21:9)

Will an amendment require that psychics and horoscope writers be put to death? (Leviticus 20:27)

If a man cheats on his wife, or vise versa, will an amendment be in place to ensure that both the man and the woman are executed? (Leviticus 20:10)

Will an amendment outlaw Super-Cuts, and shaving? (Leviticus 19:27)

When men fight with one another, and the wife of one draws near to rescue her husband from the man who is beating him, and puts out her hand and seizes him by the private parts, will an amendment require that we cut off her hand? (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

You might tell me that none of these old laws are valid because they were for a different people at a different time. I will see your old crazy law argument and raise you a few equally as old, and much more vague Bible passages which you claim denounce homosexuality.

You might not want these laws to become amendments because you have broken some of them, and when you broke them nobody got hurt.  The same can be said for homosexuality. Gay marriage hurts no one. Amendment One does.

You are entirely free to cherry pick scripture to validate your own prejudices against taxpaying citizens who simply wish to live their lives in a loving relationship with a consenting adult. You are free to dislike someone based on their natural traits. You are free to be freaked out by homosexuality (That's your problem.) You are free to believe that it is a sin, or that your holy book requires you to believe that it is an abomination.

What is wrong, however, is forcing your personal beliefs into a constitution whose purpose is to protect its citizens, even those of us who do not share your particular religious beliefs.

Be careful what you wish for. It's a slippery slope.

Amendment One Supporters: I Have Nothing Against Homosexuals, Except That I Do

Christian Conservatives have a most disingenuous mantra when it comes to the topic of marriage equality.

Take the following passage from a News & Observer article about NC's Amendment One:

Gaffney said she was not against homosexuals and has gay and lesbian friends. But she does not want them to have the right to marry.

“If America doesn’t get back to God, we are going to definitely be lost,” she said.

While those who use the 'I'm not against homosexuals -- I have lots of gay friends" line tend to believe they are doing the Christian thing by fighting marriage equality, what everyone else hears is this:

"I am not against homosexuals, it's just that they're wicked, sinful, and hell-bound, and I believe their rights should be restricted."

Sorry, folks, but you're either with homosexuals or you're against them. You either accept the overwhelming scientific evidence which shows us that sexual orientation is determined by genetic factors, brain structure, and early uterine environment, or you simply ignore it and continue to cling to the Bronze Age view of homosexuality as abomination. (Those same folks believed epilepsy was caused by demons.)

And no matter how much you try to convince yourself and others that you have gay and lesbian friends despite your discriminatory views, you might want to reconsider just how they view your friendship. People usually don't think too highly of 'friends' who consider them to be abominations unworthy of equal rights under the law.

"I really like you, but you are part of why America is lost. You are leading us away from God, and I am working to ensure that your rights are limited."

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Stop trying to candy-coat your bigotry, folks. Free yourself. Admit it. You really, really don't like gay people and you want to see them suffer.

Tell us the truth. It's the Christian thing to do, right?

On The Eve Of The Titanic Anniversary, Let's Remember That The Homosexual Agenda Is Like An Iceberg

As we observe the 100th anniversary of the sinking of the Titanic, what could possibly be more apt than a homosexual agenda analogy?

Leave it to Truth in Action Ministries to use the opportunity to force a metaphor.

See, the Titanic is America. And the homosexual agenda is the iceberg. Or something.

Anyway, by adding ominous music and some cinematic flair, it's clear that if Americans don't stop people from being gay, then this naturally occurring formation will prevail over the poorly executed man-made construct. Or something?

Watch:

My Amendment One Twitter-Fight With Two Leading Anti-LGBT Bigots

On Friday night, I responded to a tweet by Peter LaBarbera referencing NC's Amendment 1 measure, which would add language to the NC constitution which would define marriage as between one man and one woman.

DL Foster, Patrick Wooden, Peter LaBarbera

For those of you unfamiliar with Peter LaBarbera, he is the president of Americans For Truth About Homosexuality, an anti-LGBT organization that is classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. He's a horrible, horrible man.

As I was preparing to reply to LaBarbera's tweet, Pastor DL Foster, founder of the ex-gay ministry organization Witness Freedom Ministries chimed in by praising NC conservatives and people of faith for their 'passion' for fighting 'evil' homosexuality.

For those of you unfamiliar with DL (yes, that's what he goes by) Foster, he was "delivered from homosexual sin over 22 years ago," and now reveres himself as "an expert, well versed on issues in the cross section of sexuality and theology." His Website states that he's been "quoted, cited and interviewed extensively in such media venues as CNN, Newsweek, Charisma, WorldNetDaily, 700 Club Newswatch, AOL Black Voices, Faith Under Fire, ABC News, Jewish World Review, TV One Network and numerous other print and broadcast mediums."

It was an ugly and disjointed discussion, if you can even call it a discussion. As these things go, it was sloppy, rapid-fire torrent of off-the-cuff remarks, retorts, overlapping threads and nothing even resembling a conclusion.

If anything useful came out of it, hopefully the below Storify-zation of the melee will show you what we're up against on May 8, and just how important it is that people get out and vote.

We won't change the minds of folks like Pete and DL. We're better off using that time and energy making sure that people know the harms of the amendment, and that they actually go to the polls to vote.

Anyway, here goes...

It's probably worth noting that DL Foster blocked me immediately after this 'conversation.' I've only been blocked (that I'm aware of) by two other accounts: Governor Rick Perry and the Pro-Amendment organization NC 4 Marriage.

He's in good company.

15 Reasons Why North Carolinians Should Vote Against Amendment 1

1. Amendment 1 is poorly written

Many who are voting for Amendment 1 do not understand this poorly written amendment's implications beyond same-sex marriage. This amendment, if passed, would affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of North Carolinians.

2. Amendment 1 harms children
Amendment 1 strips legal protections from children (and not just children of same-sex couples).

3. Amendment 1 harms families
Amendment 1 bans all legal relationship recognitions except for married heterosexual couples, leaving all single-parent households, unmarried couples (with or without children), and domestic partnerships without many crucial legal protections.

4. Amendment 1 will harm seniors
Widowed or single senior couples could be forced to marry to maintain their legal protections, which would result in loss of benefits such as pensions, health care, and social security.

5. Amendment 1 may invalidate domestic violence and stalking laws as they apply to non-married couples
Domestic violence laws may only apply to married heterosexual couples if Amendment 1 passes, leaving unmarried women without protection. When a similar constitutional ban passed in Ohio, domestic violence convictions were overturned as a result.

6. Amendment 1 is bad for business
The Chapel Hill-Carrboro Chamber of Commerce has stated that "North Carolina’s proposed Amendment 1 is bad for business. It will interfere with employer’s ability to recruit talent and their right to provide competitive benefits to their employees. It also signals to employers and employees that North Carolina is not welcoming to the diverse, creative workforce that we need to compete in the global economy. We should not do anything that diminishes any corporation's interest in locating or remaining in North Carolina." Many North Carolina businesses agree, including Bank of America, House Speaker Thom Tillis (R), Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes, Replacements Ltd., and Capstrat.

7. Same-sex marriage is already illegal
The Amendment does not change the legal status of same-sex marriage in North Carolina. It will however, have cascading effects to the lives of children, families, seniors, and unmarried heterosexual couples. And do we really need to enshrine discrimination in our state constitution?

8. Same-sex marriage is inevitable
North Carolina State University House Speaker Thom Tillis (R), once a strong backer of the marriage ban, stated that he believes Amendment 1 will pass, but he believes it won’t remain long. “If it passes, I think it will be repealed within 20 years,” he stated. Desegregation was inevitable, and many fought it at the time. Do we really want to look back and be reminded that we voted to enshrine discrimination at a time when equality was becoming mainstream?

9. If your faith compels you to vote in favor of Amendment 1, you are blurring matters of church and state
If we are to write religious ideology into our constitution, where do we draw the line? Do we outlaw tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), divorce (Mark 10:9), and shellfish (Leviticus 11:10)? Do we allow Sharia Law for our muslim citizens? There is a reason why, as Americans, we don't legislate religious ideology. It's a slippery slope.

10. Faith leaders across NC are speaking out against Amendment 1
If you don't believe you can reconcile your faith with your vote against Amendment One, you may want to consider the hundreds of faith leaders from across the state who have pledged to vote against. Many have recorded video messages in which they share how their faith requires they vote against the amendment.

11. People who have devoted much of their lives to North Carolina and its citizens are speaking out against Amendment 1
Many people who have spent their entire lives working to make North Carolina great have spoken out about how Amendment 1 is bad for our state, including NC Libertarian Party Chair J.J. Summerell, Lt. Gov. Walter Dalton, Bev Purdue, Bob Etheridge, Rep. David Price, Russell and Sally Robinson (Russell is the grandson of the NC Constitution's principal drafter), Rep. Bill Faison, Sen. Eric Mansfield, Durham City Council Member Mike Woodard, and Duke Political Science Professor Michael Munger. Do you really believe that all of these proponents of our great state are part of a radical, extremist agenda to destroy the place they call home?

12. Sexuality is not a choice
Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. The biological factors related to sexual orientation involve a constellation of genetic factors, as well as brain structure and early uterine environment. The following major medical and professional organizations have concluded that sexual orientation (and gender identity) is not a choice: American Psychological Association, American Psychiatric Association, National Association of Social Workers, Royal College of Psychiatrists, and American Academy of Pediatrics. If you don't agree, when did you make the conscious choice to be heterosexual? Should our great state discriminate against people based on their natural traits?

13. Children do just fine in families with same-sex parents
The American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, the American Psychiatric Association, the American Psychological Association, the American Psychoanalytic Association, the National Association of Social Workers, the Child Welfare League of America, the North American Council on Adoptable Children, and the Canadian Psychological Association are all in agreement: Each has issued reports and resolutions in support of gay and lesbian parental rights. But let's not forget, this amendment also discriminates against single parents and unmarried heterosexual couples and their children.

14. Marriage has not always been defined as a union between a man and a woman
To characterize marriage as "the union between a man and a woman as designed by God," is, quite simply, to freeze the definition of marriage at the point in human history that suits your idea of what marriage should be -- with total disregard for how marriage came about, how it evolved, and how it will inevitably continue to evolve.

15. Less government in our lives
Regardless of political affiliation, Americans seem to agree that we would all like to see less government intrusion in our lives. This is a mantra to Libertarians. Conservatives decry what they see as the Obama Administration's desire to control our health care. Democrats largely stand united against the GOP's desire to control family planning. We all seem to agree on one thing: We need less government intrusion in our lives. Why should we allow the government to decide who we choose to love, who we choose to live with, and how we choose to raise our families? We have the chance on May 8 to send a clear message:

For more information on the harms of Amendment 1, please visit:
Protect All NC Families
Neighbors For Equality

Please donate what you can to help fund television ads to inform North Carolinians about the harms of Amendment 1.

Volunteer to help beat Amendment 1 on May 8:
Protect All NC Families
Neighbors For Equality

Most importantly, vote on May 8. (Are you registered?)

Read about why I am voting against Amendment 1:
Why A Heterosexual, Married, North Carolinian Father Of Three Cares About LGBT Equality

Robertson: "Demonic Possession" Behind Homosexuality

Offered without comment:

Wouldn't It Be Better If Satan Was Responsible For Leviticus?

The Book of Leviticus is a doozy. Certainly an apologetic, with a little bit of shoehorning, can make it seem not so bad. It was, after all, written for a specific audience during a specific time in history for specific reasons.

Too often, however, everyday folks cherry-pick things from Leviticus to validate all sorts of ugliness, most notably homosexuality and same-sex marriage.

However, when we read more than just those few segments of Leviticus that might seem to validate some of our own personal prejudices, we see that these cherry-picked lines that are often held as God's truth in 2012, are nested in with a whole lot of downright horrible, or just plain ridiculous, commandments.

Take these for example:

"For everyone who curses his father or his mother shall surely be put to death. He has cursed his father or his mother. His blood shall be upon him." (Leviticus 20:9)

"And the man that committeth adultery with another man's wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbor's wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death." (Leviticus 20:10)

"If a man lies with a woman during her sickness and uncovers her nakedness, he has discovered her flow, and she has uncovered the flow of her blood. Both of them shall be cut off from her people." (Leviticus 20:18)

"Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you; from them you may buy slaves. You may also buy some of the temporary residents living among you and members of their clans born in your country, and they will become your property." (Leviticus 25:44-45)

"Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard." (Leviticus 19:27)

"And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the whore, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire." (Leviticus 21:9)

"...and the swine, though it divides the hoof, having cloven hooves, yet does not chew the cud, is unclean to you." (Leviticus 11:7)

"...do not plant your field with two kinds of seed. Do not wear material woven of two kinds of material." (Leviticus 19:19)

"A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them." (Leviticus 20:27)

"But all in the seas or in the rivers that do not have fins and scales, all that move in the water or any living thing which is in the water, they are an abomination to you." (Leviticus 11:10)

Now, I don't care who you are, or what time you're living in, this is some of the worst advice you could possibly give to anyone, anywhere. As I often tell my children, 'I don't care what they did to you, violence is never the answer.' They understand this. God apparently does not -- at least not according to his word.

So often, when we bring up these insane passages from Leviticus, the Christian retort is something like, "Oh, well, Jesus came along and tossed that stuff aside. That's the old covenant. Jesus brought with him the new covenant."

Which is all fine until we also take into consideration that Christians believe Jesus and God to be one and the same. Jesus is, after all (according to Christianity), part of the Holy Trinity. Jesus is Lord, right?

So, this means we are to believe that God in his God form said a bunch of crazy stuff to a certain group of people. Then God in his man form came along and said not to pay attention to the stuff that he said in his God form because that stuff was a little much.  If God knew everything he knows now, and he should (he's God after all), his morality should not have changed over time -- or at least it should never, under any circumstances, at any time whatsoever, have involved child-killing or enslavement.

If we are also to believe that God is all-knowing (including all scientific and medical knowledge), and that he is all-loving and the source of morality, we have to accept that his commandments to these people were totally lacking in scientific and medical knowledge, and that his morality is easily questionable -- even by simple human beings such as you and I.

Take slavery (please!). You would think that under no circumstances could God, the source of morality for the three Abrahamic religions, possibly endorse slavery. It's not even like he was ambiguous about it. Leviticus is very clear on how slavery works, including the minor details of slave-keeping, -selling, and -trading. It's pretty embarrassing, actually.

The below video, by NonStampCollector illustrates just how horrible the slavery laws in Leviticus are, by presenting us with a scenario that would actually be more believable than believing that God would be cool with slavery: Satan, ever the trickster, takes a pen to God's manuscript, turning his very ethical guide on the treatment of other humans into a horrible, slavery-condoning nightmare. Only someone as terrible as Satan could possibly come up with such morality, right?

We can only conclude that flawed humans wrote Leviticus, that morality evolved over time, and that new scripture had to be written later to catch up with the human morality that allowed us to view Old Testament morality as immoral.

We can also conclude that if you use scripture from Leviticus, or anywhere else in the Bible for that matter, to validate the discrimination or mistreatment of other human beings for any reason, you're relying on the archaic morality of Bronze age desert tribesmen.

Against Marriage Equality? Try This Thought Experiment

I have a thought experiment for those of you who oppose same-sex marriage. (For the sake of this experiment, and based on the data, I will assume you are heterosexual.)

Suppose for a moment that you wake up and the slate is clean. If you are married, you are now single. If you have children, you are now childless. Everything is different, and you are unaware of the life you lived before.

Like most people, you have a drive to be employed, to find love, to start a family, to raise children, but you are starting anew.

I mentioned above that everything is different. Including your sexuality. Remember the first time you felt attracted to a member of the opposite sex -- that first crush? Imagine that attraction to the opposite sex is completely foreign to you. You do not feel any attraction to the opposite sex, just as you felt no attraction to the same sex when you began to develop crushes on the opposite sex in your school days.

Now, before we move forward, it's important to dismiss the obvious objection to such a thought experiment: our sexuality is defined by a combination of genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences. (When did you make the decision to be straight?)

So, here you are: a clean slate, a desire to move forward in your new life, find love, and start a family. However, despite your completely natural (and almost always unchangeable) attraction to the same sex, you realize that you will never be able to marry, form a family, and enjoy all the benefits afforded to married couples and families.

You see that your legislators are hoping to pass legislation that specifically discriminates against you. Organizations are raising millions of dollars to ensure that you, a taxpaying citizen, do not have the same rights as other taxpaying citizens whose sexual orientations, while different from yours, are determined by the same genetic, hormonal, and environmental influences.

Imagine that you are religious, and you attend church on Sundays. Imagine that your pastor and your congregation do not accept you because of who you are. They denounce you as a sinner, a sexual deviant, and an abomination to God.

Imagine that millions of people honestly believe that your pursuit of the same thing that they have (a spouse and a family) is going to destroy a social institution.  They claim that you are harming children (many even claim you are likely to be a pedophile) and that you are a threat to society.

Imagine that you are hospitalized, and the most important person in your life is not able to visit you. Imagine that the person who knows you the best, your soul mate, is not legally allowed to make important medical or financial decisions for you if you are incapacitated.

How does this life feel to you? How is your outlook on life? How do you plan to navigate the rest of your life in a place that will not accept you, a place where you are a 2nd-class citizen, a place where any sort of family you attempt to build will not accepted, a place which has made it clear that you are not welcome?

If you don't feel the least bit of sadness, frustration, or injustice at this point, you're either not being honest with yourself, or you're incapable of empathy.

Pastor Gives God's State Of The Union

Pastor,  and prop aficionado, Steven Andrew

Pastor Steven Andrew, who recently blessed us with his overtly-theocratic and grammatically offensive Christian Voters Guide, delivered God's State of the Union address yesterday. (The video of the address can be viewed below.)

So, not only are Americans entitled to a GOP rebuttal, we also get to hear God's.

Or at least God as he speaks through Pastor Andrew (which is, apparently, speaking in a Mister Rogers tone, but with a slight lisp, and surrounded by props).

Andrew begins his address with a prayer:

Heavenly Father, we come before you in Jesus' name, and father we ask, what is your state of the union. What do you want to tell Americans? Father, we look to you. You are our God, and we thank you now for answering us."

Andrew then spends some time telling us that America is a Christian nation, as he is wont to do. You see, in Andrew's view, non-Christians are not Americans. And there's certainly no place for homosexuals here, either.

What kind of God is willing to overlook a lukewarm church? A God who is willing to overlook a nation that has taken God out of government, schools, and courts? A God who is willing to overlook the sins of taking the holy bible and Christian prayer of school. A god who is willing to overlook 53+ million abortions?...But the blood of Jesus Christ is able to cleanse our nation and each individual who has been partaking of those abortions.

There is forgiveness for you and there's forgiveness for America through Jesus Christ. And also a God who's willing to overlook the sexual and homosexual sins that have been in the United States of America. Can you imagine a love so great?

Now I also want to ask you to look at a God who's willing to forgive Americans for foreign gods. God is a jealous God and yet the blood of Jesus says that He will forgive us as we repent from foreign gods.

Did you know that 80% of Americans say are Christians today? We have always been a Christian nation and we always will be a Christian nation. The reason is because we are a covenant Christian nation. You can't break a covenant.

Now, also look at a God willing to forgive all the Christians and Catholics who have voted for ungodly people, like Barack Obama, or for a Mormon cult member like Mitt Romney.

In an interview with The Christian Post, Andrew was asked about his belief that Obama is ungodly. He stated that Obama is a "wolf in sheep's clothing."

"What is Obama's fruit? His fruit is taking God out of government, lying that we're not a Christian nation, leaving living babies alone to die who survive botched abortions, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell...this is his fruit. So according to our Lord Jesus Christ, Obama's a wolf in sheep's clothing. It doesn't matter what he says."

Andrew believes that Obama was trying to turn George Washington's "Christian law into a non-Christian law," in regards to repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell.

"Ever since the beginning of the USA, homosexual sin has been outlawed in the military and the reason is because we want God to bless us in the military. And now for the first time in America people are trying to change into non-Christian ways," he said.

"Obama is against Christ...he's trying to break our covenant with God. The greatest evil anyone can do is leading a nation away from Jehovah."

Regarding Mitt Romney as "cult member," Andrew's USA Christian Ministries stated the following in a press release:

To help Christians understand the Mormon election issue [Andrew] has written "Five Mormon Cult Errors." The errors are Mormons: 1) deny God, 2) preach another gospel, 3) hide the cross, 4) have occult practice and 5) are anti-Christian.

"Many people know that Mormons teach heresies like Jesus is the spirit brother of Lucifer. But do people know voting for Romney will bring God's judgment (2 Chronicles 19:2)?" he adds. "Voting for Romney or Obama who do not follow God causes the economy to decline and removes Christian freedoms (Deuteronomy 28, Leviticus 26).

"If you love Jesus Christ, you won't vote for Mormon Romney," he adds."

Regarding homosexuality, here are some gems from Pastor Andrew, in his own words:

God created male and female. He shows us that there is a difference between the holy ways of one man and one woman lifelong marriage and the unholy ways of fornication, adultery and homosexual sin. God says that when people commit sexual immorality, they “defile My holy name” and a nation doing so is “defiled.”

God and history show us that God destroys homosexual societies.

Be careful you are not deceived. Some are lying about what our Founding Fathers believed on sexual sin. The truth is answered with this question: Who made the laws making homosexual sin illegal in the USA? Our Founding Fathers, George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson… made homosexual sin illegal in all thirteen colonies, followed by all fifty states. Why? They obeyed God. They were modest and preferred not to say the word “sodomy” so they called the sin “a crime not fit to be named”. George Washington removed by court martial homosexuals out of the military to have God’s blessing.

You have to decide are you on God’s side and our Founding Fathers’ side or are you on sin’s side. You can’t support both. Which side are you on?

In God's State of the Union, Andrew wraps up with a quick prayer, and a sales pitch to purchase his book.