Archive for the ‘homosexuality’ Tag

Another Colorado Baker Faces Discrimination Charges   5 comments

I predicted this, by the way.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/

I don’t know Bill Jack, the man who ordered the cake, but I suspect this was a set up to do exactly what he is doing, pushing this into the courts to force Colorado courts to a major decision.

The Masterpiece Cake case last year involved a Christian who refused to bake a “wedding” cake for a same-sex couple because he believes God does not want him to participate in homosexual activities even to this degree. Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission with the backing of Colorado courts ruled that Jack Phillips had no right to exercise his freedom of religion and opt out of same- sex weddings. He has since stopped baking wedding cakes altogether.

On the surface, Bill Jack did a deplorable thing. He asked the baker to bake a wedding cake that said “God Hates Gays”. You’ll have to look back in my blog for my full position on this, but God does not hate gays, only the sexual behavior gays participate in, and Christians are not called to hate, but to live in love with God, which will sometimes put us at odds with the world. While I fully support Jack Phillips’ right to practice freedom of religion and refuse to bake a “wedding” cake for a same-sex couple, I call Bill Jack a sinner for the hateful nature of what he requested. And I fully support Marjorie Silva’s right to refuse to participate in his act of hate.

But I suspect Mr. Jack is pushing an issue that needs to be pushed. I don’t think this is about hatred of homosexuals at all. I think this is about civil rights — the right of Christians not to participate in objectionable activities through our businesses.

Jack Phillips, the Masterpiece Cake baker, chose not to bake a cake because he believes God does not approve of homosexual lifestyles, including same-sex “marriage”. He further believes that he as a Christian should not participate in homosexual lifestyles, even by giving them the tacit approval of baking a cake for a same-sex “wedding. So he refused to bake a “wedding” cake. In doing so, he stood firmly on the 1st Amendment and the Bible. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission chose to ignore the long-established definition of “freedom” and forced him and his employees to submit to “reeducation” classes and promise to be the go-to bakery for gay wedding cakes.

Now Marjorie Silva is making a stand on her right not to inscribe a hateful message on a cake. I fully support that decision and for the same reason. If Mr. Jack wanted his anti-gay cake, he could have found another baker willing to do it for him or taken Silva up on her offer to provide the tools for him to do it himself. Instead, he filed a civil rights complaint. The article I am posting insists the cases are different. I would argue that they are not. It really comes down to this:

If Christians can be forced to participate in the activities of the world that we consider to be sin — if we have no freedom of conscience to refuse — than we have no freedom of religion and we might as well be living under a totalitarian state.

In fact, I would argue that we are living in a totalitarian state and just haven’t acknowledged it yet. If you belong to a marginalized minority — which is what Christians have become in this nation — you do not have the same standing before the courts as someone who is a member of a protected class of citizens.

This case is going to prove that.

I predict the Human Rights Commission and the Colorado courts will rule in favor of Marjorie Silva, the owner of Azucar Bakery. They will pontificate that Silva was exercising the correct sort of conscience and therefore had every freedom to deny Bill Jack service. In doing so, they will make it clear that Christians are no longer considered equal citizens who have a right of conscience unless they align their beliefs with the current worldview.

See also —

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-wont-review-new-mexico-gay-commitment-ceremony-photo-case/2014/04/07/f9246cb2-bc3a-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html

 

What Jesus Said   Leave a comment

It’s popular today to say that Jesus didn’t say anything about homosexuality, so it must be just all right with Him.

For we, as Christians, pay particular attention to the words of our savior. Jesus said nothing regarding homosexuality, and in his ministry spoke more about the sins fo the spirit than the sins of the body. …Our reading of the Bible in its entirety is one of a loving, forgiving and nurturing God who wants us to help create a world that accepts and empowers us all.” (Letter to the editor, (Episcopal) Rev. Penelope Duckworth, Stanford Daily March 1990).

That’s true. Homosexuality is not specifically addressed in the four gospels. However, to assume that Jesus was neutral on the subject ignores a mass of indirect evidence to the contrary. It is Biblically sound to say that God’s love and grace is available to gay men and lesbians. Jesus extended mercy and forgiveness to men and women from all walks and circumstances of life. For example, turn to John, Chapter 8.

“Early in the morning Jesus came again to the temple; all the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, ‘Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the law Moses commanded us to stone such. What do you say about her?’ This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, ‘Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.’ And once more he bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away, one by one, beginning with the eldest, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus looked up and said to her, ‘Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?’ She said, ‘No one, Lord.’ And Jesus said, ‘Neither do I condemn you; go, and do not sin again.'” (John 8:1-11)

A few things are clear here. Jesus released this woman from all past and future condemnation while at the same time silencing the self-righteous, prudish arrogance of the Pharisees. But don’t ignore His last statement to the adulterous woman: “go, and do not sin again.” The gift of forgiveness and reconciliation Jesus granted to this woman required that she mend her ways and lead a different lifestyle thereafter. It wasn’t that she hadn’t sinned. It was that He forgave her sin upon condition that she in faith did not continue in sin.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life. For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through him. He who believes in him is not condemned; he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.” (John 3:16-19)

Jesus demonstrated a similar depth of compassion regarding divorce, but He firmly endorsed the central importance of marriage in society:

“Now when Jesus had finished these sayings, he went away from Galilee and entered the region of Judea beyond the Jordan; and large crowds followed him, and he healed them there. And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, ‘Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?’ He answered, ‘Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh”. So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’ They said to him, ‘Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?’ He said to them, ‘For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery.’

“The disciples said to him, ‘If such is the case of a man with his wife, it is not expedient to marry.’ But he said to them, ‘Not all men can receive this saying, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it.'” (Matthew 19:1-12)

Jesus implied marriage was for life and divorce only permitted under the exception of adultery. The disciples were startled at the standards Jesus indicated when He quoted Moses as authoritative. A single life might be better, they said. Jesus responded that a celibate, single life, “for the sake of the kingdom of heaven” was acceptable.

Jesus made no mention of homosexuality as a third option for those who might have been “born that way.” He didn’t suggest that all have a right to choose their own “sexual preference.” He did not give us the slightest reason to believe that every individual has a God-given “right” to his or her body, to do with it what we wish. Instead, he presented a picture of marriage which is at times difficult and demanding, but is the only relationship where sexual expression meets with God’s approval. Those who prefer to remain single are to live as “eunuchs,” that is without expressing their sexual desires.

One reason Jesus said nothing specifically about homosexuality is that “gay lifestyles” were virtually unknown in Israel in His day. It’s always important to remember that Jesus lived in a culture. While God was certainly aware of the larger Greco-Roman cultural practices, Jesus’ audience was not. Everyone knew and understood the acceptable standards of their culture. Even suggesting heterosexual activity before marriage was scandalous enough that Joseph almost put Mary away for becoming pregnant by the Holy Spirit (Matthew 1:18-24)

Despite what some folks want to believe today, Jesus didn’t come to set aside the Old Testament and the Law of Moses. When He argued with the Pharisees and scribes, it was always over their extra-Biblical rules (a complicated web of taboos and strictures that circumscribed every action of daily living), not the actual Law of Moses. In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said:

“Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17-20)

“You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that every one who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell. And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away; it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body go into hell.” (Matthew 5:27-30)

“It was also said, ‘Whoever divorces his wife, let him give her a certificate of divorce.’ But I say to you that every one who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 5:31-32)

Jesus invariably upheld the authority and applicability of the teachings and Law of Moses. In fact He interpreted Moses in a manner which intensified the demands of the Law, that moved it from being a physical morality to being an inward holiness. It’s important to understand that the Law reveals the moral character and the holiness of God, attributes which do not change. The purpose of the Law of Moses was not and is not to produce good moral behavior, but to call all of us to understand our need for God’s mercy and forgiveness:

“…a man is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus, in order to be justified by faith in Christ, and not by works of the law, because by works of the law shall no one be justified.” (Galatians 2:16)

Bar Churches for Alcoholics   3 comments

Brad, my husband, asked to post on my blog. Since he has something worthwhile to say and he managed to organize it into sentences, I agreed. Lela

 

 

It’s rare that Lela allows me to grab the microphone from her. She worries about having a Taylor Swift-Kanya West moment without Beyonce around to protect her, but if I give her convincing material, she agrees to post it. Brad

 

A while back, we (Lela and I) watched a PBS special on “welcoming and affirming” evangelical churches across America. I don’t know how big this movement really is. I don’t know many evangelicals who agree with it and this is PBS, which has strong anti-Christian political biases. If we don’t have a lot of these churches cropping up in the oh-so-very libertarian state of Alaska, I tend to think the story focused on the three churches in America that are actually doing this, but I could be wrong. Lela says the Internet might beg otherwise, but then maybe the churches that are not “welcoming and affirming” just aren’t advertising that … sort of like our church fails to publicize that we don’t serve alcohol during the service.

The basic story on Erbe’s program was about how loving these “welcoming and affirming” churches were, how God would not judge people for loving someone/anyone and that the church is completely wrong about what the Bible says about homosexuality. The destruction of Sodom had nothing to do with the men of Sodom wanting to have sex with the angels God sent to Lot (Genesis 19). God was angry for the city’s lack of hospitality. Pay no attention to Lot’s offering his virgin daughters to these men and them rejecting the girls because they’d rather have the unwilling angels. No, that’s not evidence of mass homosexuality and the desire for gang rape! That’s just not being friendly.

You get my point?

Someone in the Erbe broadcast said “it was all in the interpretation” whether you think the Bible condemns or accepts homosexual sex. Which got me thinking about Bill Clinton’s “it depends on what your definition of is is.”

Clinton, who claims to be a Southern Baptist, wanted the world in general to pass over his sin of lying by stressing the tense of the word. He was not currently having sex with Monica Lewinsky, so he didn’t lie to the press when asked if he was having sex with Monica Lewinski. Of course, he had had sex with Monica Lewinski – in the past. His rhetorical game worked. He got away with it as far as the press and his supporters are concerned.

Of course, he had a much deeper problem with the catholic (small c intentional) evangelical church of which he claims to be a member. Christians still see him as a sinner and, worse, we see him as an unrepentant sinner. You see, we’re all sinners. You, me, Bill Clinton, and Pope Francis – we’re all sinners. Yes, the pope is a sinner! And so am I!

My particularly favorite sin is alcoholism. I come by that naturally. My father, most of his brothers, his father and his grandfather were alcoholics. Irish Catholic, don’t you know? It’s what we do. On my mother’s side, every one of her husbands, several of her brothers, her father and grandfather were all alcoholics. I’ve personally had trouble controlling my drinking since I was 16. And, I’m an ass when I drink. I do stupid, dangerous, unloving and unChristlike things when I drink, which is why I usually don’t.

When I don’t, I am repentant for my sin. I just wrote that above paragraph. That is repentance. I admitted my sin, I called it what it was, I acknowledged its wrongness. And then, more important than anything else in repentance, I try not to do it anymore. I didn’t say I have never done it since salvation. I said I try not to do it anymore.

That’s my sin and repentance as opposed to Bill Clinton who justified his adultery and his lying about it and is probably doing both again and will justify both again if need be. Until he comes before God and then his excuses won’t do him any good.

What separates me from Bill is my dependence on God. I’m not superman. I am a sinner, but I don’t rely on rhetorical tricks to justify my mistakes. Instead, I continually turn to the “I Am” Who tells me there is “no longer any condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus, who do not walk according to the Spirit. For the law of the life-giving Spirit in Christ Jesus has set you free from the law of sin and death.” Romans 8:1. My sin has been set aside and God will not hold it against me … not because of anything that I have done, but because Jesus died on the cross for all of us who accept Him as Savior and Lord.

We all like the idea of a Savior, but most of us don’t like the idea of a Lord. That means submitting to an Authority greater than ourselves and most humans don’t like that idea. I don’t like that idea. And when I dislike it the most is when I’m drinking. One is the symptom of the other, though I’m not sure in what order. When I am embracing my sin is when I am relying on the “I is” … me, fleshly man with feet of clay. I will justify my behavior – I come from a long line of folk who like to drink and Christian morality gets in the way of my good time – but it doesn’t change that I am violating a covenant I made with God. Jesus saved my soul, and I (in continuation of Romans 8) acknowledge my debt to Him by living according to the Spirit and not the flesh.

Which is why I wouldn’t and couldn’t be a member of a “welcoming and affirming” church. It’s not that I think God hates homosexuals. I think He feels about gays the same way He felt about me when I was drinking. Drinking wine is not a sin. No, it is not! Jesus turned water into wine and it was GOOD! The best wine at the wedding!

Drinking wine the way I drink wine is a sin! It was destructive to my body, mind and relationships. God still loved me enough to die for me on the cross and eventually I accepted that love, but in order for me to fully live in that love, I had to give up my favorite sin, because the way I drink doesn’t show God in a good light and is destructive of His temple in my body.

Sadly … when I was drinking, I didn’t know that. I couldn’t see the harm it was doing to me and I definitely wouldn’t to acknowledge the harm it was doing to my relationship with Jesus. And, I think that may be the sad plight of the “welcoming and affirming” movement. They think the problem is that the church is against them when the real problem is that God loves them so much that He wants them to give up something that He knows is harming them … and they can’t see that.

Thank God, literally, for putting Lela and other Christian friends in my life to point me away from sin, even when I didn’t want to give it up.

Thank God we don’t hold church in bars!

Which is kind of what I think a “welcoming and affirming” church is. If an alcoholic’s utopia is church held in a bar and the drinks are free, wouldn’t a homosexual’s utopia be a welcoming and affirming church that denies key portions of Scripture?

Freedom of Speech Should Be Free   Leave a comment

I’m a Duck Dynasty virgin. We don’t have cable, so I’ve never seen the show. I heard about it, but I probably wouldn’t have worked very hard to see it except for the Phil Robertson affair.

Like Mr. Robertson, I believe the Bible is pretty clear that homosexual behavior is a sin. If that offends you, please take it up with God. Somewhat like the law that says we in the United States have to drive on the right-hand side of the road or face manslaughter charges if we hit other cars head on when we drive on the left-hand side of the road – it is governed by forces larger than myself and it is so common-sense that I can’t see a reason to argue about it. God says homosexual behavior is soul-sucking behavior. I see evidence for that. As He is God and I am not, I don’t have a problem with accepting what He says.

This is not to say that gays do not have civil rights in our society. They have the same ones I have. Universal acceptance for their sexual conduct is not a civil right and their demand that it is threatens everyone’s fundamental civil rights. Do we need to list those? Freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom from involuntary servitude, the right to vote, the right to equality in public places, the right to due process of law, the right to equal protection under the law. I think that’s pretty much it. Constitutional civil rights are inalienable, God-given, based ultimately on the teachings of the Bible. They are also individual. Groups do not have rights. Go read the constitution and get back with me if you don’t believe me. If you find a reference to groups anywhere there, let me know.

Satisfied? Let’s move on, then.

In a free society, respectful disagreement should be expected and allowed. Society cannot avoid conflict. Homosexual sex directly contradicts the teachings of the Bible. Acknowledging that does not automatically lead to hatred of or violence toward homosexuals because the Bible is more than just a list of sins. The Bible is also a manual for love. All humans are sinners. I may not be violating God’s law by having sex with a woman, but I know I’m violating His law by being 20 pounds overweight. Like homosexuality, overeating is a sin because it treats God’s temple – the Christian’s body – disrespectfully. Hetrosexuals commit sexual sins themselves when they have sex outside of marriage, lust after those who are not their spouses, and divorce and remarry. A lot of Christians need forgiveness in those areas. There are also evangelicals who are themselves homosexuals who are challenged to reconcile their faith with their sexual urges in much the same way that Christians who are alcoholics must reconcile their faith with their addiction. Hatred and violence are also sins, according to the Bible. It’s a good thing the Bible teaches forgiveness and reconciliation, which is not acceptance of sin, but acceptance of the sinner.

I know, that term “sinner” is hurtful and offensive. Truths often are, as every alcoholic who has ever been confronted with the consequence of their drinking can attest. Phil Robertson was honest about what he believes. He probably should have not had his Carrie Prejean moment while under the scrutiny of GQ magazine. Who knows how much editing his comments underwent between when he spoke them and when they were printed. He’s clarified his thinking following the release of the comments. He’s said he’s an imperfect human being, a product of the 60s who sinned plenty before becoming a Christian and he believes in the power of forgiveness, but he’s not going to compromise his faith to salve society’s flavor-of-the-month cause. I agree with him, for the most part. Sin is not a concept the secular world really understands, so it’s not surprising that the discussion has turned toxic.

It might surprise some people that I have several lesbian friends. Well, not if you’ve been reading the blog for a while, because I’ve discussed it before. I used to work for a social service agency and there were a lot of lesbians working there. A couple became actual friends. When the Robertson affair hit the press, one of them and I engaged in a conversation about it. She knows I consider her lifestyle to be a sin. She also knows that I don’t hate her and that I pray for her salvation. She “gets” that I’m upholding Biblical principle both by acknowledging the sin and caring for the sinner.

On the other hand, a friend of my daughter – a public-school educated millennial – insists that evangelicals will just have to change our beliefs because there is absolutely no tolerating differences of opinion on homosexuality. “Homosexual rights are absolute, even if they violate your beliefs,” she wrote. “If you belief homosexuality is a sin, then you have no place in American society.” Because I like to argue, I managed to gin her up to suggesting reeducation camps for Christians and other fun moral-realignment activities.

Because my daughter cares for her as a friend, I chose not to post our dialogue. It would be one thing if the 20-something set were the only ones thinking this way, but they have loads of company.

Liberals ignore the downside to pursuing their idealistic visions. Ideally, everyone would believe as I believe, but that takes away the freedom of atheists. Similarly, homosexual rights cannot be absolute without the country sacrificing freedom of conscience, thought and speech. If Phil Robertson must sit down, shut up and be punished because what he believes constitutes “hate speech”, then we no longer have freedom of conscience or speech in this country. No one should want to nullify those freedoms for any reason, but it is a perfect wedge voting issue for the Democratic Party, which has spent the last 30 years using the public schools to proselytize that the gay agenda is civil rights, when in reality it is political manipulation.

Compromise on the issue would cost the Democrats votes because it would make social conservatives look … well, sane. Compromise in the political arena on this issue is possible. Let’s focus on civil rights as opposed to civil control.

Let’s start by getting government out of the marriage business. Whoa! See how easy that was? Government no longer decides who may and may not marry. Civil unions become a matter of contract the particulars of which may be registered with the state, but not decided by the state. Lawyers work out the details between parties who agree to the terms that are acceptable to them. Churches and civic organizations can, if they choose, perform ritualistic ceremonies that solemnize the contract … or not.

If churches don’t want to perform gay “weddings”, then they shouldn’t have to. Secular organizations could provide whatever ritual is desired by those who cannot solemnize their contract in a church. This leaves the individuals in faith communities free to exercise their beliefs while also allowing gays to contract for domestic partnership. Healthy heterosexual families are protected by contract law and homosexual couples are also. Nobody is treated as legal second-class citizens.
While we’re at it, schools (which are paid for by all of us) should get out of the proselytizing business. The viewpoints of GLAAD should not be promoted in public schools anymore than the viewpoints of the Robertson family.

Adoption is a more troubling and difficult problem, but it might be best for government just got out of the whole family business altogether. Let private adoption rule. Religious adoption centers should not be banned from excluding gay couples while secular adoption centers could accept them. The political line, unsupported by evidence, that children are entirely safe and thrive equally well in gay families should not be taught in public schools and should not be supported by the government.

If we got the government out of the way on this issue, we could then have a civil conversation about right, wrong and the role of morality in our society. Maybe if we listened to one another instead of demonizing the other side for political gamesmanship, we’d learn something.

My lesbian friend noted that she didn’t automatically assume Phil Robertson wants to eliminate gays from society because her friendship with me had taught her that I “believe homosexuality is a sin, but you don’t hate me.” That came from talking to one another in a civil manner, exercising our freedom of speech and allowing each other freedom of conscience and association.

Whoa! What an amazing concept! I think they used to call it liberty.

Being Gay is NOT an Excuse for Sexual Abuse of a Minor   Leave a comment

I ran across this article in the Daily Caller a couple of days ago.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/03/not-all-gays-support-lesbian-student-arrested-for-underage-sex/

Kate Hunt is an 18-year-old lesbian charged with having sex with her 14-year-old “girlfriend”. Some gay rights organizations have rallied to her cause, saying she’s the Rosa Park of LBGT issues. There’s a Facebook Page with over 50,000 members – Free Kate.

One Florida chapter of Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays begs to differ. “We have not been able to find where the charges brought against this unfortunate young lady are inspired by homophobia, or are in any way anti-LGBTQ,” wrote David McKinnon, president of the Vero Beach, Florida chapter.

I beg to differ even from them. Whether or not these charges were inspired by anti-gay feelings prosecutors may or may not hold is IRRELEVANT. Child sexual abuse is child sexual abuse. I know people who have served time for having sex with underaged people when they were barely adults themselves. I held my comments on this for a few days to allow three of my friends who are lesbians to weigh in. The answers were mixed. One thinks she should be able to “help” younger people “discover their sexuality through exploration” at whatever age the girl shows interest. The second feels that sex should always be between consenting adults. The third – who is now married to a man after being in a lesbian relationship for over a decade – said “Sexual abuse of a minor is sexual abuse of minor and if I had a nickel for every lesbian I know who, like me, had their first sexual encounter with an adult woman when they were in their early teens, I’d be rich. And, had I been protected from that encounter, I might have discovered men a whole lot earlier.”

From the article –

Two members of an unnamed area gay advocacy group told local media they resigned their positions after they refused to take a pro-Hunt stance.

“I’m gay, and I don’t side with Kate,” said one activist, who spoke to local media anonymously due to his concerns that the Free Kate movement would retaliate against him and his partner.

Still, Hunt’s supporters appear to greatly outnumber her detractors.

“The ACLU of Florida condemns the prosecution of 18-year-old Kaitlyn Hunt,” said the ACLU in a press release. “The facts as we understand them suggest that the state is prosecuting Kaitlyn for engaging in behavior that is both fairly innocuous and extremely common.”

I would note — had an 18-year-old boy engaged in this “fairly innocuous and extremely common” behavior with a 14-year-old girl, in most states, he’d be facing the same charges as Hunt.

Fair is everybody being treated the same. The rules about adult males with younger girls were solidified some years ago and plenty of adult women with underaged boys are now sitting in jail. If we want to go back to the days when Jerry Lee Lewis could marry his teenage cousin and we thought Summer of 42 was a romance story, that’s fine — if as a society we agree — but if as a society we feel that adults should not have sex with children and there ought to be laws against it, then we need to apply that law evenly and not exempt some because they have “special status”.

Why should the rules be different if the perp and/or her/his victim is gay? Being a cute, innocent-looking 18 year old does not negate the fact that this WOMAN had no business having sex with a MINOR!

Can We Stay Out of Each Other’s Bedrooms?   4 comments

I don’t watch a lot of television, so shows come and go without my notice. I think there’s a lot of good television out there, but I have other things to do and I miss too many episodes to enjoy a series if I try to watch in a traditional way, so I time-shift my viewing. If a program was good, I catch it on Netflix. If it wasn’t, I probably didn’t miss much.

Under the circumstances, my general impression of TV was that there seemed to be an awful lot of gay characters on the shows I occasionally tune into, but I thought it was just poor luck. Then Saturday I had lunch with friends from my social work days and some woman at a table near us went off on a five-minute rant about how the networks are canceling gay-themed shows right and left and putting “diversity on television” at risk.

Wow! Really? Inquiring minds want to know.

The 2012-13 broadcast season featured more homosexual characters than ever before and the Big Four (CBS, ABC, NBC, FOX) lost 7.5% of their viewership, much of that in the very important 18-49 demographic. Is it coincidence or correlation that gays are up and ratings are down? The networks apparently saw correlation and canceled a record number of gay-themed programs, including Partners, Smash, and The New Normal. It appears the American television audience may not want so many homosexual men coming into their living rooms or, honestly, their bedrooms so often.

This seems indicative of the cultural revolution that America is struggling with right now. Sex is a very intimate act so why is television so focused on sexual orientation? I think I speak for most heterosexuals in America – Hollywood, stay out of my bedroom and I’ll stay out of yours. If it is wrong for my morals to intrude in your bedroom, it is wrong for your bedroom to intrude on my morals. Hollywood, populated by people whose mores prevent them from stepping into a house of worship, seeks to use television to shape mores, turning what is meant to be entertainment into a 3-hour nightly sermon, addressed to a nation that can’t even get out of bed for an hour sermon once a week. Wow, no wonder they’re hitting the scan button!

Many gays will insist that there is no intention to reorient opinion through gay programs, but the results, found in a poll in the Hollywood Reporter, shows that depiction of homosexuality make viewers more welcoming to it. Since the increase in gay programming on television started around 2002, views on gay marriage have exponentially swung in its favor.

This may be because the depictions of homosexuals on network television resemble advertising more closely than entertainment. What do most of us do during the commercials? Yes, change the channel … or turn off the set altogether and go do something else.

My husband, who is both pretty comfortable with his own masculinity and not hostile toward gays, says there’s only one gay character he tolerates on TV and a quick survey of his construction worker colleagues found agreement. The one character they like is Stefon, Saturday Night Live’s very inappropriate, sleep-deprived clubber. In my research I also learned that homosexual activists HATE this character. To figure out why, I watched three sketches and thoroughly enjoyed them – had some great belly laughs. I suspect this is because the writers, the actor, and the largely heterosexual audience are all in on the joke. Just as Dana Carvey’s Church Lady was not a mean-spirited attack on Pentacostal bun ladies, Stefon acknowledges that “alternative lifestyles” can go to extremes and those extremes deserve to be tweaked. Stefon is absurb and it’s funny, in part because Stefon is completely not believable, but what comes out of his mouth is … unlike the saintly depictions of homosexuals during the primetime propaganda hours.

I also watched an episode of The New Normal to balance the funny with the propaganda and found that the producers apparently expect the audience to buy the absurdity as normal. I haven’t been properly indoctrinated, so it isn’t funny. Ellen Barkin’s demonization of conservatives is a wooden caricature of what Hollywood thinks of those outside their social circle and the gay characters are mere symbols of a political and social position rather than interesting characters. They appear to exist as change-agents, not entertainment. I’m glad I only wasted one episode’s worth of time on that show. If the other shows were similar, I understand why they were canceled. Just because a show has gay characters is no excuse for being bad television.

So, here’s a thought, Hollywood. Try writing some interesting characters doing either funny or exciting things and don’t bother to tell us their sexual interests. Let us figure it out on our own. Leave something to the imagination. Recognize that television inhabits a culturally monolithic tiny bubble of America that embraces lifestyles that do not reflect much of American society. In this capacity, the ruling elites of Hollywood reject America as it is and tries to force us to become what we are not. It’s not overly surprising to me that American television viewers are refusing to cooperate and have chosen to reciprocate by rejecting Hollywood.

Where is the remote? Ah! Found it!

thebibliophagist

a voracious reader. | a book blogger.

cupidcupid999

adventure, art, nature, travel, photography, wildlife - animals, and funny stuff

Republic-MainStreet

The Peaceful Revolution Liberate Main Street

atleastihaveafrigginglass

What could possibly go wrong?

Who the Hell Knows?

The name says it all.

Rebellious Hazelnuts

Surreal Stories, Very Tall Tales

Adjusting My Sails

When the wind doesn't blow the way you want, adjust your sails

Stine Writing

Poetry, Positivity, and Connecting!

Writer vs the World

In search of beauty, inspired by literature.

%d bloggers like this: