Speak Compassion

I often see anti-gay advocates make tragedies even more tragic when they turn them into hate speech against gays.   Ex-gay minister, Stephen Bennett is very good at this.  In his latest blog post, he carefully, and skillfully chooses words that try to link homosexuality to child molestation.    What is tragic for all of us is the misinformation puts more kids at risk.   What is tragic is that this type of distortion perpetuates the myth that gay men are more often child molesters than straight men.    It is nothing more than taking a sad and tragic event and making it even more tragic by using it as hate speech.

Stephen Bennett writes on his site:

“Read the story and weep. Weep for the young, innocent little boy whose life was taken in the most heinous of ways, because of two demented and evil homosexuals, a father and son, and a perverted wife and mother. The two homosexual men took turns brutally molesting and sodomizing the child before choking the little boy to death.”

The distortion is subtle, but it is there.  Stephen is turning the focus of this tragic story to something that doesn’t even exist in the story.   There is no evidence these men were homosexual, in fact the evidence points to them being heterosexual.    This older man did not identify as a homosexual man.   He was married to the women in this story.  It is also not clear from this story if the younger man identified as homosexual.    Stephen is calling them “homosexual” men because it fits with his distortion that gay men molest at a higher rate.  The distortion gets worse when we realize that when a man molests a little girl, Stephen does not refer to them as heterosexual molesters.   Men who are attracted to children are just that, attracted to children.  Studies show that those who are attracted to children tend not to care as much about the gender of the child but the availability of the child. It all comes down to the language. 

Dr. Gregory Herek explains:  

“Another problem related to terminology arises because sexual abuse of male children by adult men² is often referred to as “homosexual molestation.” The adjective “homosexual” (or “heterosexual” when a man abuses a female child) refers to the victim’s gender in relation to that of the perpetrator. Unfortunately, people sometimes mistakenly interpret it as referring to the perpetrator’s sexual orientation.”

Stephen Bennett continues this distortion by changing the wording in the Fox News Story.   Again, the changes are subtle but just enough for the reader to make a false link to homosexuality and child molestation.

The original wording of the story said:

The indictment charges all three family members with murder and child molestation in the slaying of Christopher, whose body was found March 15 inside a trash bag dumped by a roadside.

Stephen changed the wording to read:

The indictment charges all three family members with murder and homosexual child molestation in the slaying of Christopher, whose body was found March 15 inside a trash bag dumped by a roadside.

Notice how Stephen added the word “homosexual” to the charges.   There is no such criminal charge as “homosexual child molestation”.   This is a distortion of the truth, not the truth.   Stephen added these words because he wants you to think that homosexuality is associated with the child molestation but as I have pointed out already, neither of these men appear to have had same sex adult attractions.   The older man was married to a women.  His adult attractions were not to men.  The younger man appears by reading the story not to have had adult attractions but attractions to children.

This story is sad and disgusting.   It amazes me that anyone could do that to a child, but I am sickened just as much to see Stephen Bennett try to twist the truth of this story into hate speech against gays.   Stephen should post a clarification to clear this up, but we know he will not do that.   Mr. Bennett’s actions are immoral and wrong.    He has taken this horrible event and turned it into a event about a subject that is not link to it.   He also tries to link children being gay because they were molested which is another fact not supported by the science.   Mr. Bennett may mean well, but such distortions of the information are more dangerous to children.    Society needs real facts to protect children, not made up science from Mr. Bennett.     I would ask Stephen to back up his facts, but the truth is…he can’t, so he won’t.

Here are some resources to clarify what the research on child molestation says by the experts.   Once you see what child advocates and researchers say about the subject, you will further see how Mr. Bennett is distorting the language to match his hate of homosexuals and his goal of making homosexuality about things to which it is not.

Religious Propaganda of just plain ole hate

The Child Molestation Research and Prevention Institute

Are gays a threat to our children?

Crisis Center (Myths about child molestation)

Penguins, Pedophiles, and Paul Cameron

Facts About Homosexuality and Child Molestation 

Early Gay Death Syndrome.

Don’t laugh because my guess is that the we will have to deal with this term sooner or later.

In other words, Paul Cameron is back:

According to two researchers, the largest random sex survey ever conducted has reported that only 1.4% of adults engaged in homosexual behavior. Analyzing a 2003 Canadian Community survey of 121,300 adults, Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention that 2% of 18-44 year olds, 1% of 50 year olds, and only a third of a percent of subjects 60+ considered themselves homosexual. Thus homosexual activity was much more common among younger adults.What happened to the older homosexuals? “Some may have ceased to be sexually active,” said Paul Cameron, “or they may have died. Recent reports from Scandinavia indicate that the life expectancy of homosexuals is 20+ years shorter than that of heterosexuals.”

Now for those who are not in the know, Paul Cameron has a great degree of relevance in how Focus on the Family, Concerned Women for America, the Family Research Council, and the rest of the anti-gay industry lies about our lives.

It was Cameron who either popularized or created the myths that:

Gay men molest children at a high rate,

Gay men are sexually irresponsible individuals with a short life span,

LGBTs on the whole are hygenically disgusting people with a “devil may care” attitude about their lives.

Cameron created a series of studies that supposedly proved these theories. However, he also used bad tactics, including distorting the work of his colleagues.

For these offenses, Cameron has been censured by many research groups, including getting kicked out of the American Psychological Association. He claimed that he resigned from this group before being dismissed but this is not true. At the time he supposedly resigned, Cameron was under investigation for his tactics. APA rule specify that members under investigation cannot resign.

In my upcoming book, I devote an entire chapter to him, his lies, and how the anti-gay industry have used his studies or methodologies to demonize the lgbt community.

I also point out how when the anti-gay industry is not citing Cameron by name, they attempt to quantify his lies with distortions of their own.

With Cameron’s new announcement, it sounds as if he is trying to push up his “gays have a short life span” lie yet again. The truth of how Cameron is trying to recycle this claim is better explained by the site queersighted:

The research, by the way, was based on a sex survey of one Canadian community of slightly over 120,000 adults.

The survey revealed that there were more practicing homosexuals among younger people than among older people. Combined with other research, Cameron concluded that this is because homosexuals die young.

The best part of this story is that Cameron put out a press release that suggests that he presented his latest research during yesterday’s sessions of the annual Eastern Psychological Association Convention in Philadelphia.

According to his press release, “Drs. Paul and Kirk Cameron told attendees of the Eastern Psychological Association Convention…”

In fact, he did not present and was not on the agenda at this meeting. The fact is that he roamed the public corridors of the convention venue and “told” doctors about his research. Cameron was neither a registered speaker nor a member of the convention faculty.

Nonetheless he will present this research to lawmakers and judges as data that was “presented” at this legitimate convention . . .

This retread by Cameron is receiving much play at Free Republic and I am sure that the folks there know of his history. I have gone through past postings in which a member of the site diligently posts Cameron’s studies as if they are true. When the person was challenged on the veracity of the studies, he or she (I don’t know if it was a male or female) voiced very vehemently that there was a conspiracy to silence Cameron.

On the contrary, I am hoping that the anti-gay industry pushes Cameron’s new claim loudly. That way, those of us who know how they lie would have more ammunition for our claims that the anti-gay industry are more interested in distortions than morality.

Earlier today I put a comment under Joe’s post:

I have also decided that when people like Stacy Harp and Peter LaBarbera attack gay people for being disgusting, immoral, and unhealthy, they speak with the same voice that once said that black people are dirty, stupid and will attack the daughters of white people.

I decided to spend a little time today writing about slavery in the Bible.  The post is fairly long, so I apologize for my long-windedness–it just needed to come out (and I’ve cross-listed this on my own blog)!

I thought since I compared Peter LaBarbera and Stacy Harp with people who were all for slavery (well, I didn’t say that exactly, but something very similar) I just wanted to look at their beloved Bible, the Word of God, to see what Paul had to say, as a mouthpiece of God, about slavery.  I want to write about this because it shows that, for Paul, and if people believe that Paul writes with the hand of God, then God, approves of slavery.  There is a nice little letter, which is so short that it only takes about five minutes to read.  It is Philemon.  Philemon is a slave-owning master.  Onesimus is the slave who is owned by Philemon.  Apparently Onesimus ran away from Philemon and was currently working for Paul.  Paul also converted Onesimus to his religion.  By the way, Onesimus means useful or beneficial–how appropriate for a slave to be named that.  And it was this letter that was used (among other parts of the Bible) to justify slavery.  I would love to hear how Peter LaBarbera and Stacy Harp worm their way out of explaining why slavery is justified in the Bible, but is not justified today, in our “Christian” nation where they would like the word of God to be law.

Here is some of the letter, which Paul writes to Philemon, the slave-owner:

Paul writes to Philemon, calls him his dear friend and co-worker.  Notice too that Paul writes about the ‘church’ in Philemon’s house. Philemon is obviously a follower of Christ.  And obviously Philemon, the Christian, owns slaves:

1:1 Paul, a prisoner of Christ Jesus, and Timothy our brother, To Philemon our dear friend and co-worker,1:2 to Apphia our sister, to Archippus our fellow soldier, and to the church in your house:1:3 Grace to you and peace from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ.1:4 When I remember you in my prayers, I always thank my God1:5 because I hear of your love for all the saints and your faith toward the Lord Jesus.

Paul then writes about Onesimus, the slave.  He appears to be working for Paul and Paul wanted to keep him, but thought he still might be useful to his master Philemon:

1:10 I am appealing to you for my child, Onesimus, whose father I have become during my imprisonment.1:11 Formerly he was useless to you, but now he is indeed useful both to you and to me.1:12 I am sending him, that is, my own heart, back to you.1:13 I wanted to keep him with me, so that he might be of service to me in your place during my imprisonment for the gospel;1:14 but I preferred to do nothing without your consent, in order that your good deed might be voluntary and not something forced.

The word used for useless ‘is a standard term for bad slaves’–NRSV, p. 2248.  So Onesimus was a bad slave for his master Philemon.  But Paul is sending him back to his master.  He wanted to keep him as a slave, but since Onesimus is a slave, his owner must give consent. 

1:15 Perhaps this is the reason he was separated from you for a while, so that you might have him back forever,1:16 no longer as a slave but more than a slave, a beloved brother–especially to me but how much more to you, both in the flesh and in the Lord.

Paul hopes that Onesimus might no longer be a slave owned by Philemon, but Paul does not demand Onesimus’ freedom.  In fact, there is no demand here at all.  Nor does he condemn slavery, which was a normal part of Greco-Roman society.

1:17 So if you consider me your partner, welcome him as you would welcome me.1:18 If he has wronged you in any way, or owes you anything, charge that to my account.1:19 I, Paul, am writing this with my own hand: I will repay it. I say nothing about your owing me even your own self.1:20 Yes, brother, let me have this benefit from you in the Lord! Refresh my heart in Christ.

Paul implies that he will accepted the punishment that Onesimus will receive for being a runaway slave, and will also repay money to Philemon for anything that Onesimus owes.  This could show that Onesimus stole money, or that Onesimus, as a slave, is worth money to his master, and by running away, Philemon lost money.  And the phrase “I say nothing about your owing me even your own self” shows that Paul himself converted Philemon to Christianity. 

1:22 One thing more–prepare a guest room for me, for I am hoping through your prayers to be restored to you.

Not only does Paul NOT condemn slavery or Philemon the Christian, the slave owner, but Paul also will visit Philemon.  No doubt slaves will attend on Paul during his visit as they certainly will do to their master Philemon. 

The letter ends in a typical Pauline fashion.

So, there is slavery in the New Testament and it is not condemned.  In fact, Paul sends Onesimus the slave back to his owner! 

There are also many, many citations in the Old Testament and the New.  Here are a few from the New Testament:

6:5 Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ;6:6 not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart.6:7 Render service with enthusiasm, as to the Lord and not to men and women,6:8 knowing that whatever good we do, we will receive the same again from the Lord, whether we are slaves or free.6:9 And, masters, do the same to them. Stop threatening them, for you know that both of you have the same Master in heaven, and with him there is no partiality.

or I Tim 6:1-3:

6:1 Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed.6:2 Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties.6:3 Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness,6:4 is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words.

 Partly because of Paul’s letter, the issue of slavery had a long and bloody history in Christianity.  The issues that slavery brought up haunts this country today.  Racism is still alive in this country.  Can we blame the Bible and Paul for that?  Certainly, at least for part of it.  These ‘words of God’ were used to justify slavery.  Look at this quote from Jefferson Davis, the president of the Confederate States of America:

“[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God…it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation…it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts.”

or (found at the same site above):

“The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example.” Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina (19th century)

or:

“The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined.“  United States Senator James Henry Hammond (from South Carolina, 1857-1860).

Where did they get these ideas?  It is clear they got them from the Bible, the Word of God.  But slavery as a law was thrown out of this country in the 1860’s, after a long and bloody war.  It was rejected.  Therefore it appears that the Word of God was rejected. 

So when the likes of Peter LaBarbera and Stacy Harp rail on and on about the evils of homosexuality because the bible says so, remember what happened to slavery, despite the fact that it was sanctioned in their very own religious book.  That is, of course, if Peter LaBarbera and Stacy Harp believe that slavery is an evil thing…Let them tell us all why they reject slavery when the Bible obviously doesn’t.  What do they think about our country getting rid of slavery when in fact Paul and others who wrote the New Testament talk about it so much without condemning it (and in fact they supported it)?

One wonders if they can then take the leap and see that all their belly-aching about homosexuals is the same kind of belly-aching that Jefferson Davis had about slaves? Both groups use(d) the Bible to support their views.  However, slavery is no more.  Soon the acceptance of anti-gay rhetoric will be no more.

Some days, I find it interesting, what I will see or read or hear on my life. Some days, I wake up and read how evil, immoral and depraved I am and other days I read nice stuff about how I can decorate a room (a talent I was not born with at all). In the meanwhile I go on with my day to day life.

Each day, as part of the research for this blog, a read countless other blogs, mostly anti-gay or at best non-supportive sites. I check through my “RSS reader” and checking on the different bloggers and see what they have found and what they are writing about. Again, I have to sift though the posts that describe my life (and those with a similar sexual orientation as mine) as dark, lonely, spiritually empty, and some other inaccurate ideas. Yet, I still go to work since I can’t call out gay. I still carry on regardless what I see, but I have to say it gets hard some days to mentally digest some of the stuff I read about gays and lesbians.

Lately the articles have been beyond the scope of reality. This whole minister who thinks we should genetically alter babies before they are born to help wipe out the gay people. Wow, that goes so far beyond any conversation I could dream of having. What person plans, dreams up ways to “do away” with a whole group of people by altering them before they are even born? And for what? So I won’t shack up with a guy? Buy a house and get two dogs from the rescue?

It begs the question each time I read this crap. The question haunts me each time I read Americans for Truth or Stacy Harp (who I only mention since she attacked me when I offered her a platform to speak on her views, she said I was trying to silence her…go figure). What does the world they work for look like for people like me and my partner and our two dogs? I ask these people to paint me a picture of the world when their mission is reached, but they couldn’t do it.

I wonder what would the world look like….(dreamy mist arises as we start to see the world as the anti-gay people are working hard to make it)

No hate crime laws, so it is okay to beat the crap out of gays………They haven’t offered any alternative to stopping the violence, they just don’t want any protections for it either. So it is fine to beat the crap out of us, claim we hit on you and kills us.

No non-discrimination laws, so even the best employees would be fired for who they choose to shack up with regardless what the last performance eval said….oh and that new job…..forget about it, they don’t hire sinners.

Sodomy laws would be back in place, so lots of people like me would be arrested for what I do in my own bedroom with another adult which is funny enough no different from what heteros do.

Mentioning homosexuality in public would be taboo, so I would need to lie to everyone and tell then Rick is my roommate or something.

Gays wouldn’t be permitted to have, be near, or raise children, so even if I had a child, they would take my child away because I refuse to lie about my sexuality.

No arrangements that look like marriage. So we wouldn’t have the durable power of attorney we have now. Which would be okay as long as nothing happen where one of us gets sick. At that point we would have to write each other off like we never met.

I could go on forever, but the point remains the same. What the fuck do these anti-gay advocates want from us? What does this world look like should they reach their goal? Picture it for yourself.

They fight hate crime laws, they fight both marriage and civil unions and in some cases any recognition at all for us. They fight teaching about us, they fight talking about us. They fight any attempts to stop discrimination of us. So if they get everything they want…..what does the world look like?

Scary!

I have yet to met an anti-gay advocate willing to give me a picture of what the world would look like should they get what they are working so hard to get. I believe the reason they refuse to answer the question is that the answer would show how they really just want us “gone”

Just for the sake of clarity.   I am not now, no have I ever been a member of SoulForce.  While I do support the group, they do not have “membership” per say.   I am not an employee of Soulforce, nor do I speak for them in anyway. All of the actions, writings and material here on this blog are solely my own and not in partnership with any group or organization.

Hope this clears up any misinformation out there that says otherwise.

Ex-gay guru, Stephen Bennett is back in the news telling people how his 11 years being gay makes him an expert on homosexuality. I say that is rubbish. His 11 years of being gay make him an expert on Stephen not gays. He tells the Christian Post:

The evangelical leader also acknowledged many persons struggling with homosexuality who do not know the origin of “this temptation” and “deny that they consciously chose it.”

Sorry Stephen, but nobody made this choice to be gay. The idea of that is crazy, nonscientific and absolute rubbish. The man living in complete denial of science would be Stephen.

He also says in the article:

“The fact is homosexuality – having no scientific, biological basis whatsoever – is already a changeable trait without a patch or injection, one that I have personally received 14 years ago: Jesus Christ,” said Stephen Bennett, founder of the pro-family Stephen Bennett Ministries, in a released statement.

Apparently, Stephen is so busy touting these lies he missed the memo that homosexuality does have biological basis. There is an ever growing body of research that points to biology, not choice.

Bennett also goes on with the whole “Sexually based lifestyle”. For Christ sake, does he really think our lives are based on sex? Does he really believe that relationships that are based on sex could last for more than 20 minutes? Millions of gay and lesbian relationships last for 20 plus years. Trust me that would be impossible if it was based on sex.

Bennett, a former gay man for 11 years, agreed with Mohler. “No matter the future’s findings or lack thereof, homosexuality is, was and always will be ’sin’ in God’s eyes – an immoral, sexually behavior based lifestyle that should and can be changed,” he stated.

This man is giving others extremely false information but along with that he is touting all sorts of myths with his “I am changed” rubbish. Lots of gay and lesbian people were in heterosexual marriages before coming to terms with their sexuality. The fact that Mr. Bennett is married doesn’t mean he is no longer attracted to men, it just means he is managing well as a heterosexual. I still hold the theory that he is hurting more people than he helps.

Don’t forget about the petition for Stephen:

Dear Stephen and Irene Bennett of “Straight Talk Radio” and “SB Ministries”:

We, the undersigned, respecting your first amendment right to free speech, ask you to stop your violent message against gays, lesbians and their families. Many people are hurt and dehumanized when you call the lives of gays and lesbians destructive, call their marriages fake, and refer to gay unions as the putrid stench in god’s nostrils. While your message may be well intentioned, it is misguided and misinformed.

The Indian philosopher, Mahatma Gandhi internationally esteemed for his doctrine of nonviolent protest once said:

“I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent.”

Dehumanizing speech is violence. We ask that your stop your violence against gays, lesbians, their friends and families by considering the following:

- It is our belief that your campaign to change gays and lesbians into heterosexuals uses fear tactics, lies, misrepresented facts and flawed research. It is the belief of the undersigned that you are hurting more people than you help.

- Stop claiming since you lived as a gay man for 11 years, you have been there, thus claiming you can speak for all gays and lesbians. Your experience as a gay man was filled with poor choices and self-loathing. It is not a reflection of all gays and lesbians or their personal experiences.

- Stop generalizing gays and lesbians as child predators, pedophiles, bad parents, diseased or destructive. No mainstream medical or psychological association supports your claims. No credible, peer-reviewed research exists to back up your claim and much is available to refute it.

- Stop claiming homosexuality is curable disorder. There is no mainstream medical or psychological organization which concurs with the belief that homosexuality is a disorder and all agree that any attempt to change one’s sexual orientation is dangerous.

- Stop claiming that gays and lesbians have a “lifestyle”. Gays and lesbians have many different lifestyles and come from all walks of life. There is no one gay lifestyle and grouping us all together into your mold of destruction is inaccurate as well as insulting.

- Stop engaging in deception by omission. Your message only focuses on the poor choices of some gays and lesbians while ignoring all the well adjusted, healthy people successfully living their lives who happen to be gay or lesbian. If one were to do this with heterosexuals, the same violent message you spread about gays would become true of them.

Sincerely,

The Undersigned

The same man who appears in this ad that claims “Change is Possible” is also the same man who just appeared on Montel saying “we cannot change people”.  Meet Alan Chambers.

Who is telling the lies and who is telling the truth?   Is this just a misunderstanding?   I don’t think so.

While I was entertained when Peter La Barbera called me obsessed with Americans for Truth, I find that obsession much like most people’s obsession with American Idol.   Peter on the other hand has proven he has a very unhealthy obsession with what gay men do in bed.   His latest post is clearly evidence of this obsession.

Peter somehow has lost site of the facts of human sexuality.  Simply, most people seem to void in their mind that nothing gay men do in the sack is any different from what heterosexuals do.   Anal sex, oral sex, etc…all the same as what I see on any heterosexual porn site.

Peter writes in a very amusing article on his site for Americans for Truth:

“We should demand answers from the equivocating politicians and agnostic media: is it moral for men to engage in anal sodomy with one another? Is it moral for a man to stick his sex organ in the anus or mouth of another man? What about licking another man’s anus, as an act of pleasure? (Again, “rimming” … yuck…. no wonder “gay” advocates call this the “ick factor” and avoid publicly discussing actual homosexual behaviors like the plague.)”

As I read this, Yes I was laughing a tad.    Does Peter not get it, that heterosexuals have anal sex and that women have been famous for giving oral sex to the President?   Gay Advocates don’t discuss gay sex because it isn’t necessary to discuss it.  No “ick” factor is involved in it, just no necessity for it.   My right to see my partner in the hospital ER has nothing to do with sex.

The real reason behind La Babera’s article is a discussion on morality of gay sex.    Like their shouldn’t be a discussion on the morality of half the things that heterosexuals do.  He seems to never mention that which I would call deception by omission.   It is the things Peter never says, that say everything about him.   

A recent letter to the LA Times about the recent comments by Gen. Pace by University of California Professor, Nathaniel Frank came to mind when I read La Barbera rant.   Frank writes:

“Although people often conflate religion and morality, the two are not the same. Religion is about faith; morality is about goodness. Yet both are often invoked to express strongly held beliefs. Without offering an explanation of what is actually wrong with homosexuality, Pace, like those who invoke the Bible to oppose gay rights, is merely parroting dogma he inherited, not making a reasoned argument.”

I might say the same for La Babera, whose focus as usual is to invoke fear of homosexuals.   In his latest article he tries to scare invoking gay sex and the “ick” factor he tries to convince you people have.  The truth is most people either don’t think about it when they think of gay rights.   The obvious reason is that is doesn’t and should matter what gays do in bed anymore than it should matter what heterosexuals do in bed.    Trust me I have gotten enough spam in my email for all sorts of sick stuff that heterosexuals are doing in bed.   Stuff that certainly gives me an “ick” factor.  

Peter asks gays and lesbians this crazy question, also designed to invoke fear:

“Another question for the “gays” and their allies: on what basis do you declare sex acts between persons of the same sex moral (not immoral)? Please tell us so we can instruct our children and appropriately re-configure our Bibles”

It is not your bible that needs reconfiguring Peter, it is your tactics and motives to scare people about gays and lesbians.    This “ick” tactic is almost humorous.   As if the average American doesn’t realize that opposite sex couples also engage in “ick” acts, is it rarely the basis of their relationships.   Peter seems to think that all gays do in life is based on what we do in bed, but relationships based on sex don’t last and the studies prove that most gay relationships last about the same as their hetero counter-parts.  

A study by the Rhode Island Foundation (not a gay group) found:

“Rhode Island LGBTQ individuals have created lasting relationships and families. Fifty-three percent of all respondents reported being in monogamous relation-ships, with the average length of relationship being 7.25 years (range: one month to more than 39 years). Eighteen percent had previously been in a male-female marriage, and four percent were currently heterosexually married. Forty-five percent reported currently living with an LGBTQ partner (40% with partner, 5% with partner and children). According to the U.S. Census, 65% of the general Rhode Island population report living in a family household, with 48% living as married partners, and 31% living with children under 18.”

What is moral about gay sex isn’t the question Peter.   When you take your head out of the gutter, the question should have been what is moral about gay relationships which are not based on sex anymore than heterosexual relationships are.   So the answer you are looking for won’t come because you are not asking the right questions.

I will say that morality and god are separate.  They have to be since we have so many religions, gods, dogma’s, denominations yet somehow we all seem to agree on the bulk of morality.   Morality is more about human nature.   We know that it is wrong to starve children.  We know that it is wrong to spread rumors (or does Peter know that?), We all know that it is wrong to use violence or do we? While Peter is so obsessed with the morality of gay sex, he has ignored the fact we live in a world with far greater immorality than that.  

The answer Peter is really looking for he won’t ever get, but to answer the question of why gay relationships are moral Peter, it is because that is the way I was made and it wouldn’t be moral for me to live my life alone, depressed and dysfunctional.   Instead of being a burden to society I have made the best of the hand I was dealt.  I have sought happiness and love and found both.   Good for you that you think it is immoral.  Most gays and lesbians could care less what you think about the morality of our relationships, but your constant barrage of hate material, fear tactics and call to arms are far more immoral action than anything I am capable of.

In his post, Peter asks all sorts of questions of gays.  Before editing it out of the article he called it a “Challenge” to gays to prove the morality of gay sex (again, shouldn’t have been the question).   I challenge Peter, as I have before with no response:

You are against hate crime laws, violence prevention, recognition for gays, anti-bullying laws, diversity programs and anything else that shows us in a nice light.  Your mission is all about exposing us, demeaning us, dehumanizing us.  You wish to have sodomy laws reinstated, bar us from serving in the miliatary, taking our children away.   With all that said, where do we fit into your mission?  What does the world look like when you reach your goal? What is your goal?   What is the end game for us?  Where are the gay people?   Are we dead?    In jail?  In the camps waiting to be gassed?  I keep asking this question and you keep avoiding it.  Was is that?  

In the last few years, hundreds of Rhode Island same-sex couples have married in Massachusetts, Canada, and beyond.  Right now, these legally married same-sex couples have access to hundreds of rights and protections under Rhode Island law.  But yesterday, Representatives William San Bento (D - N. Prov/Pawtucket), Arthur Corvese (D - N. Prov), Peter Palumbo (D - Cranston),  Jon Brien (D - Woonsocket), and Helio Melo (D -  E. Prov) introduced HB 6159 - a harsh, sweeping bill that would preclude the state or any state agencies from recognizing marriages entered into by same-sex couples elsewhere, and would define marriage as between a man and a woman.  This bill was clearly introduced to counteract Attorney General Lynch’s recent opinion that state agencies should recognize the marriages of same-sex couples performed legally in Massachusetts or internationally. Don’t let the legislature take away rights from Rhode Islanders!  Tell your State Representative to oppose this discriminatory bill TODAY.  If you live in a sponsor’s district, or if you are a married same-sex couple, it’s especially important that your legislators hear from you.  And please help us pass the word along! Thank you for taking action - it’s this sort of grassroots action that will help us win!Warmly,

Jenn Steinfeld, Director, MERI

Marriage Equality Rhode Island has a petition up and says this:

Rhode Island is in a unique situation, because our laws don’t specifically ban marriage between same-sex spouses.  This means two things: first, that Rhode Island same-sex couples can marry in Massachusetts, and second, that these marriages will be recognized when they return home.  Attorney General Patrick Lynch made this clear last month with his statement that state agencies should recognize married employees as what they are - married.HB 6159 is a direct attack on same-sex couples!  This bill was clearly designed to counteract the impact of the Attorney General’s statement, and prevent the state from recognizing marriages between same-sex spouses, even if they were legal where they were performed.  If passed, it would also close the Massachusetts border to Rhode Island same-sex couples, shutting of access to marriage there.

From Pam House Blend:

The organization also notes that in a poll taken last April 45% of Rhode Island voters support marriage equality, with 39% opposed. The numbers for residents under 40 are even more affirming:  67% think gays and lesbians should be able to marry.

I see over at Americans For Truth About Homosexuality (why didn’t MSNBC call it by the legal name?  They just called it Americans For Truth) that Peter LaBarbera is up in arms over his appearance on MSNBC.  I can’t insert the video but you can see it here.  What you will notice as you watch this is that Peter LaBarbera has essentially nothing to say, except to repeat over and over that parents have a right to know what their kids are learning.  He repeats this about three times.  And Jason Cianciotto agrees with him.  However, this is what LaBarbera thinks ‘an astute observer’ will notice from watching this video: