You can purchase an autographed copy of Anything But Straight by sending a $35 check or money order to:
-------------------------
Wayne Besen
PO Box 25491
Brooklyn, NY 11202
Several months ago, I wrote a scathing article about The ManKind Project. I had researched the group and concluded that they were tied to the so-called "ex-gay" ministries.
I was wrong.
My friend, author Joe Kort, told me that the group was actually gay affirming. I looked into the topic more and this was true. However, what initially confused me was that several "ex-gay" ministries were praising the organization - because the group helped them get in touch with their masculinity. However, while the ex-gay ministries gave their stamp of approval to the ManKind Project, the organization never endorsed the ex-gay industry. If this seems a bit confusing - it was. At the request of Kort, I spoke with the Executive Director of ManKind, Carl Griesser. I apologized to him for getting it wrong and wrote a follow-up article. However, I let it be known that The ManKind Project needed to clarify that it was gay-friendly, as it was not readily apparent to those researching. Griesser said he would look into the matter.
Well, today he made good on his promise and if you visit the site, there is a big rainbow flag that proclaims - "Gay Friendly." If one clicks the flag, it leads to a clear statement on "Sexual Orientation and the ManKind Project."
Congratulations to the group for its bold, affirmative step. Not only will gay men know that ManKind is a welcoming place, but the flag will make it more difficult for columnists like myself to screw up. Griesser deserves respect and praise for his excellent leadership.
25 Comments:
Yawn...
In other news, it looks like a hit was taken the other day. The state Supreme Court in California is going to allow voters this November to consider a plan to define marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman, a move that could overturn the same court's opinion in May that same-sex duos should be recognized as "married."
It would appear that this decision delivers a significant blow to the Rainbow Task Force. Seems they won't be able to evade federalism and democracy after all. They've recently been trying to keep the ballot issue away from the people of California. In 2000, I believe it was over 60 percent of voters that upheld the definition of marriage as 1 man and 1 woman. Any bets on whether they'll do it again in November?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/17/2008 1:25 PM
1) We are going to win the ballot measure.
2) When you say, "The People" it is a joke. The state is made up of many people. Civil rights should never be voted upon. If you disagree, maybe we should fund a ballot measure banning the marriage of fundamentalists? I think it might just pass.
3) That you care, Tony, is bizarre. If you think gay people marrying will affect you, I feel bad for your wife...
posted by Wayne Besen, at
7/17/2008 1:31 PM
They aren't perfect, but the odds at intrade.com show that only 29% of the people there believe that the anti-marriage amendment will pass. There are other ominous signs for the amendment, including a recent Field Poll showing it going down to defeat.
Anything could happen, however. NEWS FLASH: If it does somehow pass, we will continue the fight. We will NEVER, EVER give up, ever, forever and forever! In the name of all that is decent and holy, we shall absolutely never, ever accept second-class status!
As for the right of the people to vote, they have no more a right to vote on the right of gays to marry than they do on interracial marriage.
>>>Fundamental rights are not subject to popular vote.<<<
The "Let the People Vote" idea is such an irrationality, and an unconstitutional one at that, that it begs description. But if they were allowed to vote on basic civil rights, perhaps we should call a vote on whether or not born again Christians should be able to marry. After all, they do have the highest divorce rate in the country.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/17/2008 1:52 PM
Thanks for your response Mr. Besen. I highly doubt the side you support will triumph in November, but who knows.
With all due respect, I disagree that my use of the term "the people" was inaccurate or inappropriate (or "a joke") in the context I used it. Recall what I wrote:
"[Homosexual activists have] recently been trying to keep the ballot issue away from THE PEOPLE of California" (emphasis added).
Obviously the State of California is made up of many people. And homosexual activists were trying to keep the ballot issue away from every single person - homosexual or heterosexual or bisexual or asexual or etc. - in November.
Your write that "[c]ivil rights should never be voted upon."
Well, you assume of course that homosexual couples have a "right" to have their relationship recognized as a "marriage" by civil authorities. But that's the very issue that has to be voted on by the people in California!
I realize Mr. Besen that you want to ASSUME that this is a "right," demand it, then complain that your "rights" are being violated when your demand is rejected by a majority of the people of California. But you're committing an obvious error by assuming precisely what you need to both prove to the citizens of California and then win at the ballot box.
I would add that a legal recognition of homosexual couples as "married" is not matter of civil rights at all. Homosexuals can have a legally recognized marriage under the exact same conditions that ALL citizens marry.
For example, persons eligible to be granted a legally recognized marriage must be unmarried, they must be of a certain age, they must marry beyond the bounds of close blood relation, and they must marry a person of the opposite sex. There you have it. The exact same laws apply to every single citizen.
So you don't really care about "civil rights." And everyone knows it. Yours is an attempt to change the meaning of the term "marriage" in order to put a cosmetic face on a sinful, sexually deviant, and abnormal behavior and lifestyle. And having a legally-recognized "marriage" will go a long way towards achieving that cosmetic surgery.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/17/2008 2:05 PM
Tony-- one more time for you, and then we can go back to wondering why you are hanging around gay websites.
Heterosexuality is normal, it's just depressingly common. and exclusive heterosexuality is far less common than you would like to believe.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/17/2008 6:04 PM
sorry--should have read 'heterosexuality ISN'T normal.'
posted by Anonymous, at
7/17/2008 6:05 PM
OK Ben, what's your standard for "normal"? How do you come to the conclusion as to what is "normal" and what is not "normal"?
Also, Tony and others wrongly assume that marriage should even be a matter for the State in the first place. As I've said before, there's an enormous distinction to be made between marriage - a religious commitment between a man and a woman - as it has been known in every society for at least 6,000 years, and the very contemporary notion of state-granted civil marriage.
Self-proclaimed "conservatives" who see themselves as "defenders of marriage" attempt to justify their support for state involvement in marriage in almost the exact same way loony left-liberals justify every call for state involvement - it's all for the children! Here, both (alleged) "conservatives" and (loopy) leftists are totally misguided.
If the "conservatives" were truly interested in "protecting" and "restoring" marriage and the family as the safeguards of civilized society, they would jump at the chance to eliminate the State, at ALL levels, from the entire marriage process. After all, marriage survived for thousands of years without any government involvement. And in less than 1 percent of that time, the State has nearly managed to destroy it in the united States. What's there to fear from removing government from the equation? Actually, doing so would strengthen true, authentic marriages.
The "conservatives" will of course howl and wail about the other, non-sacramental commitments that will be pronounced by homosexuals as a "marriage." Big deal! People accept as true all sorts of peculiar and erroneous and insane things. If two men think they're married and announce that they're married, who cares? With or without a government document, these two men cannot and will not ever be truly married - exactly as they weren't married before government became involved in the process. In fact, it's only through the illegitimate power of the government to counterfeit a redefinition of the marriage concept that these rebellious people have a hope of creating their charades in the first place!
Finally Ben, please quit whining about people posting here who may not agree with you and Wayne. Mr. Besen is on TV and posts on a very popular blog. People will visit his site and challenge him and his readers. Either deal with it or simply don't post. Either way, quit bellyaching.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 12:18 AM
Good points Tony. What's priceless is the crazies in San Francisco who prides themselves on their alleged "tolerance." That's interesting because recently San Francisco officially condemned the Roman Catholic Church, specifically for the Church's stand on sexual morality.
According to the San Francisco Chronicle, the Board of Supervisors unanimously passed a resolution condemning the "act of provocation" by what it termed an "anti-gay," "anti-choice" organization that aimed to "negatively influence the politics of America's most TOLERANT and progressive city."
HMM...I guess "tolerant" and "tolerance" means something different when it's used by the left to credit themselves and when it's used to attack everyone else. If "tolerance" and "tolerant" meant what the left normally takes it to mean when they pat themselves on the back, then San Francisco would tolerate those who hold views that are in opposition to their own. Like, say, a religious organization?
What's also interesting is that Islam is both restrictive of women's rights AND prohibits homosexual conduct. And it proscribes the death penalty for those who violate its provisions. But no such resolution condemning Islam for its "anti-gay" and "anti--choice" rights was even proposed. HMM...
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 10:13 AM
Since when is civil marriage, religious marriage? The two are not the same even though both are marriage. Why do christian zealots get so bent out of shape over that?
What is more, proponents of one man one woman being allowed to marry are the same people who say that procreation is the primary purpose of marriage. Well, if that's the case, and I've said this before and I'll keep on saying it....ban all heterosexual couples from marrying if 1) they elect not to procreate and 2) if they can't procreate because of a medical or physical condition. These traditionalists can't have it both ways. Further, did this deity people refer to as God actually say he or it invented marriage for procreation or was it said by men? Did God or Jesus Christ actually state that homosexuality is wrong? Someone please provide me with the scriputural quote and proof thereof.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 10:35 AM
A few people and groups do believe and teach that Robert, but the vast majority do not. There was a Christian who commented on another post some time ago I recall and he articulated well what the purposes of marriage are.
Your analogy and conclusion are still flawed ones, however, and there is still no reason to extend "marriage" to homosexual couples, which are of a structural type that is completely incapable and totally unable to ever - EVER - under ANY circumstances (regardless of age, health, or intent) of producing babies naturally.
In fact, homosexuals are incapable of even engaging in the type of sexual act that results in natural reproduction.
As to our Creator's view of homosexual conduct and the homosexual lifestyle, assuming for the sake of argument that the Hebrew Tanakh and the Greek New Testament are our Creator's revelation to His creation, then those Sacred Scriptures reveal that God condemns homosexuality as an abominable and detestable sin that does and will receive His judgment. Here are just a few of the verses you asked for:
From the Torah:
Levitcus18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13, “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them.”
From the New Testament:
1 Corinthians 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Romans 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 11:26 AM
Tony, since I don't share any of your ignorant superstitions, why on earth would I give a rat's ass what your bible says? Are you the sort of anti-American scumbag who thinks the government should enforce your weirdo beliefs on me?
What exactly is the difference between you and the backward Muslim trash you so very clearly resemble?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 12:04 PM
Tom, at 10:35 AM on 7/18/2008, Robert asked the following:
"Did God or Jesus Christ actually state that homosexuality is wrong? Someone please provide me with the scriputural quote and proof thereof."
I was merely responding to his request.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 2:38 PM
Tony,
You poor soul. Do you not know that your own churches are filled with hypocrites? Jesus spoke out against hypocrites more often than homosexuality. Why should anyone believe your interpretation of Scripture? Or go to your churches? Or believe what your pastors say is true? Anyone can have a storefront ministry and thump a bible. Many of those churches are filled with adulterers (divorce and remarriage), false doctrines of the Money (Prosperity Gospel) gospel and teach the Rapture which in and of itself is blasphemous against God. So why should we believe you or anyone of your ilk says? It would be laughable if it wasn't so true and sad.
If your belief comes from a literal interpretation of Scripture why do you pick and choose what you want to believe is literal and other verses not? Even Paul said women should be kept silent. Do you support this literal interpretation? Should women be submissive and be kept silent? Do you support a literal interpretation of an eye for an eye even though Jesus said turn the other cheek? Do you own a slave? How do you determine which verses to follow and which not to follow? Do you only follow those verses which you want to believe in and disregard the rest only when its convenient for you? It certainly seems like it. Your own believe system is inconsistent and is certainly brow raising and appalling. That is why I do not believe the fundamentalist/evangelical belief mentality. Or Christian conservatives for that matter. I have found them through reading of books and online websites to be the biggest hypocrites that have ever walked this Earth. When I ask the same questions to other conservative Christians that I ask you above they scramble around in confusion and only turn to me in condemnation with no answers to my questions. As I said it would be laughable if it wasn't so true and sad.
If you are going to worship the Bible than do everything it says to do. Both OLD and NEW TESTAMENT. Then no one can accuse you of being a Cafeteria Christian. I wish you luck because you will be unable to do so. But please at least TRY. Wouldn't God at least want you to do that? ;)
Thanks for the response Ken. I have no doubt you've run into Christians who can't answer some of your legitimate questions and objections. This is unfortunate, but it isn't unusual.
I'm sure you would agree that there are homosexuals who can't answer the legitimate questions and objections of Christians. Simply because they can't or won't answer doesn't mean there isn't an answer. There normally is, and the issue is whether or not the answers provided are rational and consistent.
Concerning hypocrisy, it's true that hypocrites may show up at a building every Sunday, but there are no hypocrites in the true holy, catholic (i.e., universal), and apostolic Church - Jesus Christ's body and bride.
The word "hypocrite" comes from the Greek word for actor or pretender. Hypocrisy is the practice of professing beliefs, feelings, or virtues that one does not in fact hold. The Church is made up of true believers in the life, teachings, sacrificial death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ.
Hypocrites are "pretenders" who sit among God's people. God knows perfectly well those who truly and love Him and desire to serve Him in humility and grace. And the Bible warns that God will sort out the true converts from the false converts on the Day of Judgment. And all hypocrites will end up in hell.
As your other points, the simple answer is that it seems you and others have failed to make a distinction between the Law of Moses and the Law of Jesus Christ. The clear-cut teaching of the New Testament is that the Law of Moses has been rendered inoperative with the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the promised Messiah of Israel.
The Law of Moses in its totality no longer has authority over the Christian. St. Paul the Apostle stated very clearly that Jesus Christ is the end of the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses has been done away with, and Christians are now under a new law. This new law is called the Law of Christ, and it is a brand new law totally separate from the Law of Moses. The Law of Christ contains all the commandments applicable to a New Testament believer.
The Law of Moses has been nullified, and we are now under the Law of Christ. There are many different commandments: The Law of Moses did not permit one to eat pork, but the Law of Christ does. There are many similar commandments as well, but they are in two separate systems. If we do not kill or steal or perform homosexual acts, this is not because of the Law of Moses but because of the Law of Christ. Conversely, if one does steal or kill or perform homosexual acts, they are not guilty of breaking the Law of Moses but the Law of Christ.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 4:41 PM
The Law of Moses has been nullified
Actually it wasn't. According to Scripture Matthew 5: 17-18
"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18.I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.
So, it does not matter what Paul says since he himself is not God. Jesus himself being God said, UNTIL heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. And since the heaven and the earth have not passed away the Law is still in effect. And many Christians (most conservative Christians do) use this verse to prove that the OLD LAW is still in effect. They still believe this to be true.
So who is correct? It seems to me there are too many people going around demanding that their interpretation is the correct version. Who do you follow? Which church is the true church of Christ? No one can seem to answer that question. Every church claims to be the "true" church.
And one final comment Tony. Does my salvation depend on Christ himself (his work on the cross) or your interpretation of Scripture?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/18/2008 5:08 PM
Ken, Jesus did indeed come to fulfill the law. But the Law of Moses did not end with the coming of the Messiah of Israel, or by Jesus'life, but by His death. As long as Jesus was alive, He was under the Law of Moses and had to fulfill and obey every commandment applicable to Him in that state.
The statement of Matthew 5: 17 - 19 was made while Jesus was still living, and as long as He was living He had to obey the Law of Moses in every manner that Moses commanded (i.e., not in the way the rabbis had reinterpreted it). Even while He was still living, Jesus already implied the doing away of the law in the future. One example is Mark 7:19 - "This He said making all meats clean." Can it be any clearer from this that at least the dietary commandments have been done away with?
The fact that Jesus said, "Do not think that I came to abolish the Law and the Prophets," merely implies He knew there was the danger of such thinking and even such accusations on the part of some of his detractors. Jesus knew what some of the Pharisees would say about Him because of His teaching and work. After all, Jesus did claim for Himself the authority of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. This is the background of Christ's teaching in Matthew 5: 17 - 19 and should not be ignored.
Rather than using Matthew 5: 17 - 19 to argue that the Law of Moses is still operative today as a rule of life, it's much better and more rational and consistent to understand Christ's words as teaching the inerrancy of Scripture. In verses 17 - 19 Christ has summarized the relationship of Himself and His teaching to the Law of Moses. He has unequivocally claimed to be the One Moses and Prophets of Israel spoke of who came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets, not to destroy them.
Furthermore, Jesus emphatically states that the whole Law in its entirety is as certain of fulfillment as the certainty of the endurance of heaven and earth. Before He interprets He makes it clear that what He is going to teach is in absolute harmony with the Hebrew Tanakh (i.e., Old Testament). According to His own testimony, Jesus came to fulfill, because not one jot or one tittle shall pass from the Law of Moses until all is accomplished. Jesus did not come to destroy or make void even the smallest portion of the teaching of the Law of Moses or the Prophets of Israel. According to Jesus' estimate, what may appear to be the least commandment is of equal authority with what may be considered the greatest.
You seem to be assuming Ken that I point to myself and that my interpretation of all scripture is the only correct interpretation. That's simply false sir. I do not point to myself and state that every one of my interpretations of Scripture are the only correct ones. If anything, I would oppose such a statement. But I will defend my interpretations based on grammer, history, tradition, reason, etc. If you disagree, by all means challenge my interpretation and document your assertions.
As for your final point, anyone who believes the Good News of Jesus Christ will be saved from God's judgment on their sin.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 10:34 AM
I agree Ray, and was happy to see the California Supreme Court hand down that very important decision. Thankfully the court rejected the case brought by homosexual activists who didn't want state voters to have a voice regarding an amendment known as the California Marriage Protection Act.
I had been concerned that the will of the people in California might be crushed, as homosexual "marriage" has become such a hot-button issue there. The people of the state - not politicians or judges or special interest groups - should be the ones to determine the outcome of what will constitute the definition of marriage in California.
It appears that most Californians favor the amendment, with a May 30 poll by ccAdvertising showing that 56 percent of residents support the historic and traditional definition of what constitutes a marriage. A Los Angeles Times poll found similar numbers (54 percent) supporting the amendment, with only 35 opposing it.
posted by Anonymous, at
7/19/2008 12:22 PM
Yeah... so...
That ManKind thing:
They're still basically practicing therapy without any real standards, regulations or safeguards.
...
Oh but hey they aren't necessarily homophobic! Well that's somewhat reassuring, right?
posted by Anonymous, at
7/20/2008 12:50 AM
