Yet another Evangelist embroiled in a sex scandal. This time it's George Rekers. George spends his time on a national board actively denouncing homosexuality, lobbying to block gay adoptions, etc.. He loves Jesus and wants to "cure" gays of their sinful illness. Oh, and he also hires a young male prostitute to help him with his "bag".....lol. When our society finally comes to the understanding that homosexuality is not a choice and not a sin, then finally, maybe we will see an end to gay men "hiding" in the shadows of religion, desperately seeking to deny their own sexuality, yearning for forgiveness for their abhorrent desires and "God willing" maybe even a "cure"! The child molestation incidents we have all heard about, within the Catholic Church, is another matter. No-one should confuse this terrible crime with homosexuality. It happens to a greater extent amongst heterosexuals. So, George adds his name to a long list of Evangelists and anti-gay politicians who suddenly find their own sexuality in the public spotlight. I've heard a lot of people say, "I don't care what they do, just don't throw it in my face with gay marches and stuff." Well, my answer to that is if gay people weren't under constant judgment and attack, if they had all the rights and respect as human beings that we expect for ourselves, then they wouldn't have to "fight back" with marches, etc.. It wasn't many years ago that it was perfectly acceptable for guys to go out, have a few beers and then go kick the crap out of a fag. It still happens in many places. I didn't "choose" to be heterosexual and they didn't "choose" to be gay. None of us "choose" our sexuality. We were just born that way. George's crime is not in being gay or having homosexual desires. His crime is in being a hypocrite. Our crime is in perpetuating the shame that drove George there.
It's happened, again Brewster, I find something satisfying in seeing people revealed to be "just human". We all are no better than we are, and someone putting on a veil of religiosity, such as this man did, to denounce others as loathsome- less than human- only to be discovered later to be "just human", himself, is a good reminder to people of that fact. Those who appreciated his attacks on gays will find ways to defend or excuse him. But no one should go too far out on a limb attacking others as he did, as they, too, may later be found to be "just human". In my experience, true goodness in people is something quite apart from whatever religious point of view, or none, they may choose to adopt.
Brewster, I could not agree with you more. Why was the Million Man March organized? Because blacks were still being discriminated against. Gay marches and parades need to continue until being gay is a non-issue. Until they don't feel the need to move to a gay area (there's on in Toronto). People who claim that gay is a disease are usually consumed by hate and just looking for an outlet. Immigrants and gays are the most acceptable targets.
More often, I suspect, it's compensation for latent, or repressed, homosexuality in themselves, and this man may have been a good example. I suppose it causes them so much anxiety they deny it externally- as vehemently as possible, including persecuting others for it- while sensing it internally. They may even be engaging in it, from time to time, but with extreme anxiety, and self-loathing. If they then blame homosexuals for triggering their acting out, it could offer an additional explanation for why they might often be strongly, and openly, homophobic. I'm reminded of the movie, "American Beauty", in which this exact phenomenon was explored.
They need to make it illegal for people to say "God said so" or "The bible said so" when pointing their fingers at all the "sinners" of the world.
I wonder how much longer the civil rights movement would have taken to bring about change without the vocal support of whites? Particularly influential whites. It seems to me that most of us, sit and nod, when we hear gay bashing conversations. I think most guys are afraid if they speak up people will suspect they are gay themselves. It makes if more difficult, no? When supported blacks no one suspected that they were secretly black. Nevertheless I think it's essential that heterosexuals speak up in support and I applaud those that do. I have wondered, from time to time, how Cheney reconciled his party's position regarding gay marriage, biblical references, etc. with his feelings towards his own daughter.
I've read that "Generation Y", in the U.S., don't have any issues with freedom of choice in this area of life, and are comfortable with openly gay people: I've had too many openly gay professional associates to be able to entertain many prejudices, myself, though I'm from another generation. Marches may not be necessary, too much longer.... There will always be those, like Focus on the Family, James Dobson, who will try to alert the "true believers" to the dangers posed by others who practice "perversions", whether of belief or practice, just as Islamists use their beliefs to justify hatred of those who follow Jesus, no matter how good the hearts of those infidels may be....
Brewster, you do realize that Barrack Obama, Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton also oppose gay marriage, don't you? How's that for a double standard? Additionally, I hope you are not suggesting that Republican voters are all religious evangelicals, or support religious fanaticism. You will find that Republican voters are gay, black, agnostic, atheists, and of all minority types. For example, Tammy Bruce is an openly gay, pro-choice, gun owning, pro-death penalty, Independent Conservative. She is also an Author and Nationally syndicated talk show host as well as a Fox News Political Analyst.
As time goes on people will care less. I agree with that. But even though Barack may toe the party line when it comes to homosexuals I doubt he believes it. Politicians are often forced to go along with their party (and Lobbying groups) to get into office and stay there. Sadly that's the way things seem to go.
Same sex marriage will ultimately have to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, in the U.S., as there will always be those who oppose it. If the states sanction marriage between two people, as they do, they will ultimately have to sanction it between two people of the same sex, to avoid denying citizens the equal protection of the law, which guarantee is written into the law, subject to change by amendment to the Constitution.
