Tuesday, May 23, 2006

Part Of The Reason I Have Had Blogging Issues

While most of the reason is because I now deal with news all day long for work that reading it/writing it in my down time wears me out (that and the BF would like me to spend some time with him), there is something else. I am going to repost a comment I made on Beak's site that explains something I have found very troubling.

I find it fascinating that people will take issue with Muslims for their strict interpretation of the Koran, hail the reformations that took place in our own religions like Christianity, etc., call us all enlightened (and therefore better than them) and then claim they know G-d hates gays cause it's in the bible. I have seen this hypocrisy around the blogway and in a way, that is one of the reasons I've been staying away from doing too much blogging. Seeing such blatant bigotry from people who call themselves religious (and their religion as being a "loving" one -- and this includes followers of my OWN religion) makes me want to pop a blood vessel. Sorry to write this here, Beak. But I saw these posts, and it just brought it all back. I've been planning to do a post on this, to explain why I've been away (in addition to just being overwhelmed by too much time reading news), but I guess this just inspired me. It's not an attack on any one person (and my apologies that it probably feels that way). Just voicing my incredible disappointment in general. It freaks me out to no end to read comments from people I adore and respect on the subject of terror only to see them able to turn around and make such upsetting statements.


At 12:20 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

The Bible does indeed explicitly condemn homosexual behavior. There isn't any way around that. It says what it says. The Greek word Paul uses in 1st Corinthians 6:9, arsenokoitos, quite literally / vulgarly means "ass-fucker."

While I am a Christian, I tend to view homosexuality in the context of a nature / nurture origin. Homosexuality is either a birth defect, or a mental disorder.

But what are we to do? Deny people the right to be disease vectors?

At 2:43 AM, Blogger beakerkin said...


I understand how you feel but this is all the more reason we have to speak up. The subject came up on my blog and I held my ground.

I do think that human rights for Gays is civil matter. I honestly do not care about theological implications of this or anyother matter. Yet I am also troubled by those on the left who see a need to broadcast this 24/7. Must young children have to read about homosexuality in early grade school readers like in NYC's children of the Rainbow nonsense.

I stood up for what I believed in. In fact I am fairly certain I was the one who brought up the jihad intollerance and some of the talk about gays in the first place.

Missing in this discussion is a subtle point that you and Rob both missed. Many of the more religious who object to homosexuals on religious grounds are in favor of Civil Unions. Florian and Nanc both said that explicitly. This is because as Americans we understand the division between theological and Civil laws.

The most amazing part is I stand up and state my case and Rob Bayn thanks you. This is why I am the Rodney Dangerfield of the blogosphere.

Now Ducky and John Brown are advocates of a sick and warped alternative lifestyle known as Marxism. Sending people to gulags, stealing property and liberation by
planned starvation is just evil.

This may sound odd but there are plenty of gays who swear there is a biological predisposition. I prefer not to think of friends as genetic mutants but this is where that path leads. Lets say that a genetic factor is found. People would then start aborting children based soley on that predisposition.

This is why the Gay community itself should stick with the view of alternative preference.

At 2:45 AM, Anonymous Rory said...

A few years ago I read a piece by a man who was incensed over the fact that a group of clergy, who had totally divergent views on a host of issues, were suddenly coming together over the issue of gay marriage. It happened that in this particular coalition, there were two men who were on opposite ends of the religious spectrum. One was a Reform rabbi who's a well-known TV personality in New York, while another was a Muslim cleric who sounded like a throwback to the Dark Ages. Like the man who wrote the article, I was furious to learn that these religious leaders were putting aside all their differences solely for the purpose of thwarting any possibility that some states might legalize gay marriage. (However, in the interest of fairness, I should point out that the Rabbi dropped out after being apprised of some of the more inflammatory comments made by the Imam on a variety of other subjects). But let's face it. Right now, our very existence is being threatened by the forces of evil in the world, and as far as I'm concerned, homosexuals just aren't one of them. But, having said that, the next time a gay married couple slams a passenger plane into a skyscraper, I promise I'll be willing to re-think my position.

At 7:49 AM, Blogger Esther said...

Beamish, you know I normally get a kick out of you, but you totally missed yet made my point. Explicitly in the Bible? Yes, I know. But do you take everything in the Bible literally or do you choose to just take that one literally?

I guess I can't help but find our complaining about the literal teachings of the Koran inciting hate and yet we use the Bible to justify hating or judging a group a bit hypocritical.

Beak, Robert thanked me over you because you still add conditions. You're more open than many, maybe even most, but the fact you can make the leap from biological predisposition to genetic mutant, well.. There's still room for improvement. :) I think anyone who would abort their child cause they were predispositioned to being gay...well, my mind can't even wrap around that. Regardless of any of it, I appreciate your willingness to discuss this!

Rory, very interesting. Great points, as usual!

At 11:35 AM, Blogger Brooke said...


I find homosexuality to be a sin, as stated in the Bible. I cannot condone it, by marriage or otherwise.

Hate the sin, love the sinner.

The thing that gets to me about homosexuality the most is that SOME homosexuals are so in-your-face about it. It defines them, and drives their every decision.

I would never join a heterosexual group (unless you count my marriage), or walk up to someone and introduce myself as a hetero.

Look at some of the homosexual parades, and how those folks are dressed. While I am sure that is not indicitave of the average homosexual, you don't see that sort of thing in reverse.

If I did any of those sorts of things as a heterosexual, I would surely be regarded as a freak, and rightly so!

And, when after listening to homosexuals go on and on about needing special rights, heteros say "No!" to gay marriage, they are portrayed, again, as freaks, or hatemongers, ect.

And if there is one thing I hate above all else, it is the unchallenged double-standard.

At 12:20 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Hmm...Brooke. I apprciate hearing your thoughts! I'm going to try to address what I can. Please keep in mind I'm saying all this calmly, matter-of-fact in tone...cause I know it could be read differently. :) The written word is so darn tricky to tell tone.

OK, so 'in your face'? Some? Like some people are with their religion? I was accosted daily on campus (way back when) by Jews for Jesus. I've had people hand me King James Bibles while walking down the street. What about little girls these days wearing half shirts, showing off their big bellies cause they think they actually look sexy, throwing their sexuality in our faces? People are who they are. It's only when we're uncomfortable with it that it feels so "in our faces." If it's someone like you, seeing it feels normal.

Listening to someone go on and on about special rights usually means they've either had their rights taken away or never had them in the first place. I'm sure if someone were kept out of a country club because of some perceived or real slight (like being from a family deemed undesirable, either from wealth, religion or color), they'd be pretty vocal too. For those people who were 'privledged' to have been born white, male, eterosexual and Christian in this country, there isn't much that really needs to be fought for. For the rest of us, that's not always the case. Just add the gays to a long list of people who have to fight for what should be their every right.

At 4:05 PM, Blogger MissingLink said...

Was it something I said? :-(

At 5:08 PM, Blogger beakerkin said...


Read my comments again I never called Gays mutants. However, the Gay community itself is arguing the
issue from two incongruent points.

Point A is there is a biological basis.

Point B we are just like you with different tastes.

My point was that point A is a very dangerous road. If homosexuality is biologicaly based the abortion and cures for a trivial matter become a reality.

I think that if you reread the entire post my point was clear I am for gay rights as part of human rights. However, I do not want Ruth Bader Ginsburg clones determining religious terms like marriage.

However I am used to being the Rodney Dangerfield of the web.

At 9:01 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Awww, felis. Not that I recall, though others on your site, yes... as well as other sites. And even if it was you, you're welcome to your thoughts. I know it sounds like I'm trying to control what people say or feel, but.... I do understand where people are coming from, even if it's so far removed from how I feel. It's very complicated. This whole thread opened a discussion for me with a good friend at work who goes to Christian Bible study, and she did a lot to help me understand it a tiny bit more.

Aw, Beak, I do get where you're coming from but there is a difference between us. But I shouldn't presume to speak for Rob. Maybe you should ask him why he thanked me and not you. But I do respect you!

At 9:38 PM, Blogger Robert Bayn said...

I respect Beaks opinion on it, and i agree with Esther, you are more open than most, I did not mean to make it appear that i prefer Esther's positions over Beaks, i think both are good. Beak does have some exceptions, which we disagree on, but in the end we have the same goal, equality through civil rights.

Great post Esther, i have to say, I'm not surprised by a few comments by some, i wouldn't expect any less from them. As a gay Christian I'm use to the "going to hell" chants, thankfully those who quote the bible are not the ones who will judge me, but someone much greater than them.

At 9:40 PM, Anonymous seawitch said...

Many things in the Bible are explicit. If you take it literally, it tells you how to treat your slaves. It also tells you to stone the adulterer. It also says an eye for an eye.

But behind those statements is the Oral Tradition now in the Talmud. Some of the sites like Aish.com offer very good commentary on the Torah portions. The one about the portion in Leviticus was especially. It dealt with slavery. All is not as it seems.

Like an eye for an eye. This is meant that justice should be done. It doesn't mean that if you blind someone, they should blind you.

I've struggled with the feelings I've had about gay marriages. I find it easier to accept civil unions but am seeking understanding about gay marriages.

The main concerns I've had about gay marriages is that it would change the fabric of our society. But I've discussed this with others and I find that I'm becoming okay with the idea.

I work hard to be compassionate. It seems wrong to deny marriage to people because they're gay. There are numerous studies that show that homosexuals are wired that way. It isn't a birth defect or mental disorder.

All of us seek a life partner. Should others be denied the right to marry because they're gay?

Oh and esther, is it something I've said?

At 4:56 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

As you know, I am a Christian. The Bible speaks very clearly as to what God regards as sin. But it's not my job, as a sinner myself (We all are!), to go around condemning others.

It is indeed possible to hate the sin yet love the person. For Chrsitians, loving the sinner requires being able to pray for that person.

As I interpret the Bible, marriage between a man and a woman is ordained by God; homosexual marriage is not.

Do I have friends who are homosexuals or lesbians? I don't know, perhaps because I don't ask.

As to other bloggers with whose views I might differ on some topics but with which I strongly agree on others, I just chalk it up to differences, both of views and of life experiences. But that's just me. Maybe I'm too accepting?

Not long ago, a student who used to be in my class (He was born a hemophiliac) died as a result of AIDS-tainted blood. So I can appreciate what Beamish said: Deny people the right to be disease vectors?

Christians struggle with this issue of civil rights for homosexuals. It's not an easy topic for us.

At 7:46 AM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


I believe homosexual behavior to be psychologically abberant, socially destructive, historically a threat to community health, and well, just outright disgusting.

I don't need a Bible to prove any of those. A history or science book will do.

People will do what people will do. If all I do is hurt people's wittle feelings, I'll take a wrist-slap over what the gay pride guy starting a Hepatitis-A or AIDS epidemic is going to get.

Homosexuality was catagorized as a psychological behavior disorder by the American Psychiatric Association until 1973, when under pressure from "gay rights" groups, they removed that classification. No scientific discovery beyond "fags are getting their feelings hurt" was the impetus for change.

And now, we're to accept homosexuals as "alternative" rather than "birth defects" or "mental disorders."

I'll leave it to someone else to explain how it is that if a once respected peer-reviewed scientific journal could be forced to swallow homosexual dogma and change their stance without applying science at all, how can you argue against the peace of Islam's message? Don't you know if you upset them, they'll bomb you?

At 9:16 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

As a Christian, the one thing I know is how imperfect I am, but that makes life all the better. I am constantly overwhelmed that a perfect God could not only love me, but tirelessly forgive me for my imperfections. And how great to know that there is nothing that the blood of Christ doesn’t cover!
John 3:16
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.
The Bible clearly defines right from wrong, but it never ceases to amaze me that some Christians will use God’s Word to target and attack other religions, ways of life, etc.
Yes, it cannot be denied that the Bible clearly condemns all types of sin.
1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.
But that last sentence is the whole point of Christianity. God IS love, but he hates sin because He loves us. God=perfect. Us=not so much… I think we can all agree on that. Look at the headlines we’re inundated with daily: war, death, destruction, etc. We are hurting ourselves and separating ourselves from God. Because He loves us, that hurts Him. It’s very simple.
Romans 6:23 says, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
All we have to do is believe that Christ died and TOOK OUR PLACE, i.e., took the punishment for every wrong we have ever done or will ever do when He died on the cross.
We all do wrong, but NEVER have the right to pass judgment on anyone. Speak the truth with grace, sure. But how dare we condemn one another when God Himself offers FULL forgiveness? And to say otherwise means that we don’t believe in the perfect sacrifice that was made for us.
This says it all:
John 8:1-11
But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.
At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"
"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

-Esther's pal (:

At 10:14 AM, Blogger Esther said...

Rob, so good to see you here. Thanks for coming by and commenting. And I agree about the judging part.

Seawitch….what you just said was beautiful.

AOW, thank you for your thoughtful words on the subject. I understand having different views, even if it doesn’t seem like it with this post. As for the Bible ordaining marriage between a man and a woman, but not between homosexuals, times change. (Doesn’t the Bible at one point talk about slavery as matter-of-fact? Again, times change.) I don’t feel a member of any clergy should be forced to perform a gay marriage but if they are willing, I don’t think it’s fair for our government to say they can’t, but that’s not really the discussion I was trying to have (more on that at the bottom of this comment).

Beamish… yep, looks like we’ll have to agree to disagree…vehemently. ;)

To my pal (she’s the one who I referenced above), thanks again for such interesting commentary. I always learn a lot from you. You did a great job of proving that judgement is not the basis of Christianity, which I do appreciate.

To all: One purpose of my post was to bring up what I sense as hypocrisy... our condemning Muslims for their strict interpretation of the Koran as an excuse to kill us when many of us use a strict interpretation of the Bible to justify harsh judgements of gays. That, rather than discussing gay marriage's validity or even people's personal feelings about gays was something I thought would be interesting to discuss.

At 10:19 AM, Blogger birdwoman said...

Yo, girl, I totally get your point. I was going to say that I found that rare in the 'sphere, but then I started reading your comments...

mutants? Pardon the pun, but JESUS CHRIST! Gays are GAY. They aren't MUTANTS! (sorry, these comments are really so basically mean that I don't know what to say!)

I was thinking about it yesterday in the car, actually, when the talk radio dude (I think Michael Medved) was saying that people couldn't tolerate W because he's christian. That's no the case. They tolerated Jimmy Carter tolerably well. It's fundamentalism that we in the middle don't like.

Keep blogging in the middle, kid. Your voice is a shining example of logic and compassion.


At 5:23 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

As I've gotten older I have found that I really don't care what people do in private as long as they aren't hurting anyone. People's sexual orientation is a nonissue to me.

At 5:32 PM, Blogger American Crusader said...

I do need to say one more thing. I agree with beak that liberals seem intent on putting homosexuality on every television show..let parents address these issues.

At 5:52 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Esther if you interpreted any of my comments as hating gays that would be a misunderstanding. It would be bad hermeneutics to interpret the Bible another way. The verses in the NT that speak of homosexuality do not exclude other sins such as adultery etc.

Just to make it clear I would never ever advocate hurting anyone in any way who is a homosexual.

At 6:01 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

Robert I hope you know also that I did not give a going to hell chant. I often have a hard time expressing myself and the words of Esther's pal most clearly states the way that I feel and was trying to express at Beaks.

At 6:04 PM, Blogger Esther said...

BW, thank you so much! That means a lot to me.

AC, thanks for visiting and commenting. It's always nice to see you! Hope you're feeling better and better with each passing day.

EB, I don't recall your comments being a bother to me at all but even if they were, no worries! You have every right to feel however you do. And you've always seemed pretty awesome to me.

At 6:32 PM, Blogger Robert Bayn said...

I did not see it at all that way Elmer's, but i have heard it from other people (not neccesarly present company). I actually think your one of the good guys, we may disagree on a religious level, but you are least sensiable and civil, which is important.

At 6:56 PM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

EB IS one of the good guys, as RB mentioned.

At 11:38 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...

I don't hate homosexuals. I do refuse to validate their "lifestyle" as an "alternative."

We can only hope that with proper pre-natal care and advances in medicine, homosexuality will one day be cured.

At 7:48 AM, Blogger drummaster2001 said...

i am with American Crusader. i don't care about people's sexual orientation because it has absolutely nothing to do with me.

At 10:53 AM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

I agree Beamish.

At 11:17 AM, Blogger Esther said...

Try replacing gay or homosexual in your comments (not one of you in particular but just an exercise for everyone in general) with jew, black, catholic or whatever. If you still feel good about what you're saying, then rock on.

At 3:40 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


Should feel bad about hating Pepsi Cola? Because if I described a Jew the way I describe the taste of that foul substance, you'd rightfully think I was anti-Semitic.

Methinks your apples and oranges are incomparable.

At 10:57 AM, Blogger rockmother said...

Just one little point: as I understand it, in the christian religion, sexual coupling is sanctioned for the purpose of procreation (and I think - though am not sure, in the Jewish religion also).

Therefore, does the corollary apply? That sexual coupling with no chance of procreation is prohibited? This obviously includes homosexual coupling. But what about intercourse between man and wife where one of the partners is known to be infertile? Where the wife is beyond the age of possible childbearing?

As a very comfortable atheist who has no difficulty in knowing right from wrong without reference to any ancient books, I don't have a problem answering this.

What about those of you who follow (any) religion?

At 12:04 PM, Blogger Elmer's Brother said...

zRead Song of Solomon - God created sex not just for procreation but to be enjoyed by a man and wife.

To me it is apples and oranges as Beamish said.

Some people seem to believe if one is a homosexual you are born that way...such as a Jew or a Black person. I disagree.

However I wouldn't treat someone who is a homosexual any different from someone who cheats on their spouse or who is involved in any other type of sin that they will not repent of.

At 2:34 PM, Blogger Robert Bayn said...

Esther, i think you are right on the money. I think if people put themselves in the shoes of another person, they would think differently, and than some won't ever, but i think it's great that people like yourself and Beak, have a open mind on equality.

At 6:30 PM, Blogger Brooke said...

You beat me to the punch on that one, EB!

At 8:40 PM, Blogger muse said...

Either you believe in G-d or you don't.

At 8:57 PM, Blogger Esther said...

Beamish, I think you've got the apples and oranges, but i did expect that argument.

rob, thanks.

RM, interesting questions.

muse, not sure what you mean. And I wish it was that simple...either you believe in G-d or you don't. I've been trying to find my way back to G-d for many years, after having that belief snuffed out as a child and no real guidence to help me with it. So I find it anything but simple.

At 11:14 PM, Blogger Mr. Beamish the Instablepundit said...


God saw you type that, and knew you would before you did.


At 7:01 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

Just one little point: as I understand it, in the christian religion, sexual coupling is sanctioned for the purpose of procreation...

I know a few Christians who believe that, but most don't.

EB correctly sites the Song of Solomon in answer to your question.

Just a thought here...Does moral relativism play into this conversation? Is a "slippery slope" involved? Just a few questions to consider if anyone is interested.

At 3:47 AM, Blogger Always On Watch said...

I left you a message at Long Range.

At 6:26 AM, Blogger Sergeant America said...

Esther, I understand ya' loud and clear ... bloggin' in any worthwhile manner is a taxing activity frought with many issues that wear on one's mental health.

As for "walking in another's foot covering ..."

I've always chuckled at this contruction of the phrase:

"Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in his shoes. That way if he gets angry, he'll be a mile away - and barefoot."



Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home