An Open Letter To Michael Glatze genre: Gaylingual & Hip-Gnosis & Uncivil Unions
Today, Michael Glatze, a well known figure in the gay world and a former proponent of gay rights, wrote of his rejection of homosexuality in an essay posted at World Net Daily. I have posted Michael's essay below and I have followed it with my own open letter to Michael. I think Michael should be whoever he want's to be...but his choice to do so by attaching negative judgments to the lifestyle of other well-adjusted gays warrants a response.
How A "Gay Rights" Leader Became Straight
By Michael Glatze
Homosexuality came easy to me, because I was already weak.
My mom died when I was 19. My father had died when I was 13. At an early age, I was already confused about who I was and how I felt about others.
My confusion about "desire" and the fact that I noticed I was "attracted" to guys made me put myself into the "gay" category at age 14. At age 20, I came out as gay to everybody else around me.
At age 22, I became an editor of the first magazine aimed at a young, gay male audience. It bordered on pornography in its photographic content, but I figured I could use it as a platform to bigger and better things.
Sure enough, Young Gay America came around. It was meant to fill the void that the other magazine I'd worked for had created – namely, anything not-so-pornographic, aimed at the population of young, gay Americans. Young Gay America took off.
Gay people responded happily to Young Gay America. It received awards, recognition, respectability and great honors, including the National Role Model Award from major gay organization Equality Forum – which was given to Canadian Prime Minister Jean Chrétien a year later – and a whole host of appearances in the media, from PBS to the Seattle Times, from MSNBC to the cover story in Time magazine.
I produced, with the help of PBS-affiliates and Equality Forum, the first major documentary film to tackle gay teen suicide, "Jim In Bold," which toured the world and received numerous "best in festival" awards.
Young Gay America created a photo exhibit, full of photographs and stories of gay youth all across the North American continent, which toured Europe, Canada and parts of the United States.
Young Gay America launched YGA Magazine in 2004, to pretend to provide a "virtuous counterpart" to the other newsstand media aimed at gay youth. I say "pretend" because the truth was, YGA was as damaging as anything else out there, just not overtly pornographic, so it was more "respected."
It took me almost 16 years to discover that homosexuality itself is not exactly "virtuous." It was difficult for me to clarify my feelings on the issue, given that my life was so caught up in it.
Homosexuality, delivered to young minds, is by its very nature pornographic. It destroys impressionable minds and confuses their developing sexuality; I did not realize this, however, until I was 30 years old.
YGA Magazine sold out of its first issue in several North American cities. There was extreme support, by all sides, for YGA Magazine; schools, parent groups, libraries, governmental associations, everyone seemed to want it. It tapped right into the zeitgeist of "accepting and promoting" homosexuality, and I was considered a leader. I was asked to speak on the prestigious JFK Jr. Forum at Harvard's Kennedy School of Government in 2005.
It was, after viewing my words on a videotape of that "performance," that I began to seriously doubt what I was doing with my life and influence.
Knowing no one who I could approach with my questions and my doubts, I turned to God; I'd developed a growing relationship with God, thanks to a debilitating bout with intestinal cramps caused by the upset stomach-inducing behaviors I'd been engaged in.
Soon, I began to understand things I'd never known could possibly be real, such as the fact that I was leading a movement of sin and corruption – which is not to sound as though my discovery was based on dogma, because decidedly it was not.
I came to the conclusions on my own.
It became clear to me, as I really thought about it – and really prayed about it – that homosexuality prevents us from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we're blinded by homosexuality.
We believe, under the influence of homosexuality, that lust is not just acceptable, but a virtue. But there is no homosexual "desire" that is apart from lust.
In denial of this fact, I'd fought to erase such truth at all costs, and participated in the various popular ways of taking responsibility out of human hands for challenging the temptations of lust and other behaviors. I was sure – thanks to culture and world leaders – that I was doing the right thing.
Driven to look for truth, because nothing felt right, I looked within. Jesus Christ repeatedly advises us not to trust anybody other than Him. I did what He said, knowing that the Kingdom of God does reside in the heart and mind of every man.
What I discovered – what I learned – about homosexuality was amazing. How I'd first "discovered" homosexual desires back in high school was by noticing that I looked at other guys. How I healed, when it became decidedly clear that I should – or risk hurting more people – is that I paid attention to myself.
Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it, caught it, dealt with it. I called it what it was, and then just let it disappear on its own. A huge and vital difference exists between superficial admiration – of yourself, or others – and integral admiration. In loving ourselves fully, we no longer need anything from the "outside" world of lustful desire, recognition from others, or physical satisfaction. Our drives become intrinsic to our very essence, unbridled by neurotic distractions.
Homosexuality allows us to avoid digging deeper, through superficiality and lust-inspired attractions – at least, as long as it remains "accepted" by law. As a result, countless miss out on their truest self, their God-given Christ-self.
Homosexuality, for me, began at age 13 and ended – once I "cut myself off" from outside influences and intensely focused on inner truth – when I discovered the depths of my God-given self at age 30.
God is regarded as an enemy by many in the grip of homosexuality or other lustful behavior, because He reminds them of who and what they truly are meant to be. People caught in the act would rather stay "blissfully ignorant" by silencing truth and those who speak it, through antagonism, condemnation and calling them words like "racist," "insensitive," "evil" and "discriminatory."
Healing from the wounds caused by homosexuality is not easy – there's little obvious support. What support remains is shamed, ridiculed, silenced by rhetoric or made illegal by twisting of laws. I had to sift through my own embarrassment and the disapproving "voices" of all I'd ever known to find it. Part of the homosexual agenda is getting people to stop considering that conversion is even a viable question to be asked, let alone whether or not it works.
In my experience, "coming out" from under the influence of the homosexual mindset was the most liberating, beautiful and astonishing thing I've ever experienced in my entire life.
Lust takes us out of our bodies, "attaching" our psyche onto someone else's physical form. That's why homosexual sex – and all other lust-based sex – is never satisfactory: It's a neurotic process rather than a natural, normal one. Normal is normal – and has been called normal for a reason.
Abnormal means "that which hurts us, hurts normal." Homosexuality takes us out of our normal state, of being perfectly united in all things, and divides us, causing us to forever pine for an outside physical object that we can never possess. Homosexual people – like all people – yearn for the mythical true love, which does actually exist. The problem with homosexuality is that true love only comes when we have nothing preventing us from letting it shine forth from within. We cannot fully be ourselves when our minds are trapped in a cycle and group-mentality of sanctioned, protected and celebrated lust.
God came to me when I was confused and lost, alone, afraid and upset. He told me – through prayer – that I had nothing at all to be afraid of, and that I was home; I just needed to do a little house cleaning in my mind.
I believe that all people, intrinsically, know the truth. I believe that is why Christianity scares people so much. It reminds them of their conscience, which we all possess.
Conscience tells us right from wrong and is a guide by which we can grow and become stronger and freer human beings. Healing from sin and ignorance is always possible, but the first thing anyone must do is get out of the mentalities that divide and conquer humanity.
Sexual truth can be found, provided we're all willing and driven to accept that our culture sanctions behaviors that harm life. Guilt should be no reason to avoid the difficult questions.
Homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another, perpetuated through national media targeted at children. In European countries, homosexuality is considered so normal that grade-school children are being provided "gay" children's books as required reading in public schools.
Poland, a country all-too familiar with the destruction of its people by outside influences, is bravely attempting to stop the European Union from indoctrinating its children with homosexual propaganda. In response, the European Union has called the prime minister of Poland "repulsive."
I was repulsive for quite some time; I am still dealing with all of my guilt.
As a leader in the "gay rights" movement, I was given the opportunity to address the public many times. If I could take back some of the things I said, I would. Now I know that homosexuality is lust and pornography wrapped into one. I'll never let anybody try to convince me otherwise, no matter how slick their tongues or how sad their story. I have seen it. I know the truth.
God gave us truth for a reason. It exists so we could be ourselves. It exists so we could share that perfect self with the world, to make the perfect world. These are not fanciful schemes or strange ideals – these are the Truth.
Healing from the sins of the world will not happen in an instant; but, it will happen – if we don't pridefully block it. God wins in the end, in case you didn't know.
My open letter to Michael:
Dear Michael,
I read your posting at World Net Daily and I wanted to share some of my own thoughts on your thoughts and the larger subjects of sexuality, religion, and authenticity.
First, let me say that your words express an inner anguish that seems to have been your companion for many years. I have great sympathy for your heartache. Your attempt to resolve that anguish is noble, however your efforts to extrapolate your own journey as a tonic for all that ails others within the gay community is sadly misguided.
I don’t know you so I hesitate to offer my observations without one important caveat. Your life has been lived by and large in the public sphere…first when you embraced homosexuality through YGA and your many other activities…and now as you embrace an alternate reality that you have chosen to share through World Net Daily. Therefore, I make the assumption that both then and now, it has been your choice to submit yourself to the scrutiny of others. If I’m wrong, my apologies.
You note that YGA “was meant to fill a void" for young gay Americans…something not so “pornographic". Is it possible that YGA was meant to first and foremost fill your own void and to combat your own issues with pornography? Let me elaborate. You see pornography is not the unique domain of homosexuals…it is available to virtually all sexual persuasions and curiosities…and one has the free will to partake or to pass.
I’ve read gay newspapers and periodicals for many years and I’ve always known I had the discretion to read and view those articles, advertisements, and photographs of my choosing. When you speak of homosexuality as being “by its very nature pornographic" isn’t it plausible that what you are actually explaining is how you elected to define your own affiliation with homosexuality? Keep in mind that one can affiliate with heterosexuality in the very same manner…maybe you have yet to discover that prerogative.
You also state that “homosexuality is not exactly ‘virtuous’". Clearly, virtue is not innate to any sexual preference…just as it isn’t innate to Italians, Caucasians, tall people, people near the equator, or people who drive yellow cars. Virtue is a chosen state of being that is available to all humans. Your proximity to virtue during your homosexuality was a function of your actions as a human being with free will…not something one can definitively obtain or be denied as a result of some affiliation. If you lacked virtue, YOU lacked virtue…being gay need not separate one from virtue.
You indicate that “homosexuality prevents US from finding our true self within. We cannot see the truth when we’re blinded by homosexuality." The quest to find ones self should never be sought through affiliations. The fact that you couldn’t find communion with your self while you identified as a homosexual is not an indictment of homosexuality…it is an indication of your own internal conflicts…conflicts you played out in the public arena then and conflicts you now purport to have resolved in an alternate reality…once again seeking to air your process on the public stage. Unfortunately, your process now is not necessarily any more authentic than your process then.
What remains consistent is your need for others to affirm who and what you are whenever and wherever you tell us what you are. Don’t take this wrong, but I recall a time when I would fret about eating in a restaurant by myself…all I could think about was what others may be thinking it said about me. In a conversation with a wise friend, I mentioned my hesitation and she offered this observation, “Daniel, what makes you think you’re that important or that relevant in the minds of other diners? Why you are there eating alone is only meaningful to you."
You see it was my perception that was flawed, not my situation. I was living outside of myself and relying on outside feedback to affirm myself…an exercise in futility. May I suggest you remain in the same predicament though you’ve altered your scenery? You proceed to state that you became aware of your homosexuality when you “noticed that I looked at other guys" and that you resolved your desires by paying attention to yourself. You continue by stating, “Every time I was tempted to lust, I noticed it." Your words are clues to your own flawed perception. How you see other men…lustfully…is of your making…it is the perception you brought to your experience with homosexuality. The men you lusted after were not the issue…it was what you carried within.
Unfortunately, you attempt to apply your reality to all other homosexuals…once again illuminating your need for external affirmation…and in your current circumstances you need to vilify that which you no longer want to inhabit your psyche. Sadly, electing to announce your heterosexual affiliation is not the equivalent of extinguishing your flawed perceptions nor does it mean you will approach your heterosexuality any differently than you did your homosexuality. The healing of the heart is not an external event that is subject too, or a function of, ones proximity to any particular societal construct…in this instance heterosexuality.
You then pivot towards religion and your search for, and discovery of, your “God-given self". Lacking in that observation is the realization that others may already be in harmony with their god-given selves. You see, may I regrettably suggest that you suffer the belief held by so many who identify as born again…you presume that everyone else must have lost sight of their god-given identities and is therefore in need of rebirth. May I posit that this is once again demonstrative of your need for external validation of your processes, your identity, and all that you experience? In other words, you are still a victim of your inability to embrace an identity of your own volition absent reinforcing feedback.
Your words provide further insight into your struggle. You state, “Lust takes us out of our bodies, “attaching" our psyche onto someone else’s physical form". More telling words may have never been uttered. What you describe is your own persistent psychic wound that manifests itself in the objectification of others in order to fill an internal void…one you must believe to be insatiable and outside your capacity to repair. You see, your demons are just that…your demons. While you may find comfort in believing that every other homosexual has the same demons…that belief is merely a defense mechanism your ego employs to assuage the pain.
I would also speculate that the mindset you held put you in contact with people suffering similar struggles…thereby allowing you to reach your misguided conclusion that all homosexuals were like you. As difficult as this may be to hear, the friends I have would have little difficulty identifying you and your particular perceptions and the flawed judgments that they foster. That reality likely limited your exposure…but it certainly did not serve as a legitimate basis for your current hypothesis. You see, all that you have identified in your diatribe against homosexuality is that portion of your identity that you subconsciously find detestable. I’m sorry for your dilemma but I reject your conclusion.
Near the end of your essay, you state that “homosexuality took almost 16 years of my life and compromised them with one lie or another". Shame on you. That statement is an affront to everything else you ask us to embrace. At what point will you take personal responsibility for your own behavior? The pursuit of truth is not a construct you get to strap on when it serves you and pine for when you lack the wherewithal to seek it.
What you need to strive for is authenticity. Your persona as a cheerleader in the latest and greatest uniform of your liking is simply the measure of your inauthentic self. Your predicament is sad and I feel for you…but your carelessness and your cavalier capacity to tear down whatever no longer serves your fragile identity is indefensible and unacceptable.
The fact that you now wrap yourself in the glorious guise of god may once again serve your masked and manipulative inner master but it puts you no closer to truth. You contend that god wins in the end because you have chosen to co-opt god to augment your own disenfranchisement from self-truth. While you have hitched your wagon to this particular iteration of truth, it doesn’t mean you have found truth. You have simply found a new mechanism of certainty that can be substituted for the ever elusive identity that in the end has ironically come to define who you are and who you aren’t.
Michael, I hope you’re able to find peace…but I have to implore you to do so without attacking those who have journeyed much further along the path.
Regards,
Daniel
Daniel DiRito | July 3, 2007 | 2:56 PM
Comments
1 On July 3, 2007 at 3:49 PM, Matt Comer wrote —
Wow. Daniel. Wow.
2 On July 4, 2007 at 10:49 AM, Lyndsey wrote —
Brilliantly written. Expresses clear, and provoking thought. Not to criticize or judge him, you simply wrote from the brain and the heart. Bravo.
3 On July 4, 2007 at 11:36 AM, Jimi wrote —
Ditto #1 & #2.
4 On July 4, 2007 at 1:52 PM, Glenn wrote —
This was amazingly written. And I have to say from my perspective you hit the nail Daniel. When I first met Mike Glatze I thought he was a complete creep. He subjected his body to every drug imaginable while he and his boyfriend pursued threeways and orgies with voracious appetites. Eventually a pseudo three-way relationship with a third guy developed - a relationship flaunted quite visibly in the Halifax gay community. The boundaries Mike set for himself were blatantly destructive. It is no wonder that now his body, mind and soul have all been rotted out. Beyond the guise of "editor" and "leader" he was a horrendous example of what it is like to be out and proud. His inability to mask his internal turmoil was apparent to anyone who took the time to look. I consider myself a good judge of character and I feel this perverse tirade of self-loathing Glatze has put out for the world to read is apt vindication. One day he will find peace but that won't happen through a God concept. As my mother would say: God helps those who help themselves - and this boy isn't helping anyone.
5 On July 4, 2007 at 5:02 PM, Amy wrote —
I applaud Mr. Glatze for his decision to turn from the homosexual lifestyle. It is a perversion from God's original design. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that he experienced threesomes, origies, and so on.
You are incorrect in stating that God doesn't know us. He does; and, furthermore, created us.
Homosexuality is a choice. I am glad he chose differently.
6 On July 4, 2007 at 5:46 PM, PortlyDyke wrote —
Thank you, Daniel, for speaking what I thought as I read Glatze's article.
7 On July 4, 2007 at 6:32 PM, Alex wrote —
Wow, Daniel, that was a stunning and brilliant analysis.
8 On July 4, 2007 at 6:55 PM, Ryan wrote —
Well said. I wish him the best, too. But I hope one day he can differentiate the choices he was making and how homosexuality doesn't influence those choices, rather that it just is, much like heterosexuality just is.
9 On July 5, 2007 at 9:58 AM, Ben in Oakland wrote —
Amy: It always amazes me how many right wing Christians hang out on gay websites, ready to tell us how we have chosen our sexuality and how it is against God's plans? Why is that? Why are you here? How do you know? How in your spiritual arrogance is it that God speaks to you and not to anyone else? Did you ever hear of Ted Haggard? Paul Barnes?
Amy, why is that heterosexuals never choose their sexuality, but gay people always do? Of course, you may be one of those ex-gays who have chosen to be hetero. But I have yet to find one that actually is, including the current Chief Ex-Gay himself, Alan Chambers.
Just because michael Glatze is a mess, and chooses his ex-gay path as a way of validating himself out of that mess, doesn't mean that the rest of us need to. How dare you say that God has not spoken to many good Christians who don't accept your ignorant and/or twisted view of sexuality.
There are so many theological, moral, and scientific holes in your beliefs, and i have learned that it is pointless to try to point them out to you. You're not interested. However, the day that all heterosexuals, chosen at random, declare that they choose to be heterosexual, I'll star believing that gay people choose it, too.
10 On July 5, 2007 at 10:06 AM, Alan wrote —
Daniel, you are not immune to falling into the same trap of generalizing our community. As a gay Christian, I can identify with Michael's demons; both secular and spiritual. He is in the midst of a full assault, both mentally and physically - of his own doing and also from other outside forces. His pivotal center is swaying from one extreme to another. That is not so unusual, especially if you have a group of fundementalists eager to count you among their personal victories, capitalizing on your heartaches and, as Michael put it, "in moments of weakness".
I am hopeful Michael will eventually (God willing) find a balance between his sexuality and his relationship with God. I did. Many others have. But do not assume that all gay people are in the same ball park as you spiritually; some of us actually use a capital G in our reference to a Creator.
Take care.
11 On July 5, 2007 at 10:07 AM, Jon wrote —
I have known many gay men and women and met several others. I have also met some who have left the homosexual lifestyle. In 100% of the cases of which I am aware, meeting Jesus Christ has liberated each one from the chains of homosexualaity. Like the case here, each was accepted and praised within the gay community, then insulted and attacked as soon as they left. Unlike the theme of this essay, I find that it is only the homosexuals themselves that are seeking outside validation, and those who leave the lifestyle are the ones no longer in need of that validation.
12 On July 5, 2007 at 10:50 AM, Ben in Oakland wrote —
Jon: I have six words for you. Ted Haggard. Paul Barnes. Lonnie Latham. All three were men who not only found Jesus, but gave their lives to him from an early age. All six founded churches, etc etc etc. All six were really big fags. Please. The point of the article is that just because someone claims he found jesus and found himself "liberated" from homosexuality, doesn't mean that one iota, one assumption, one statement has any reality, let alone truthfulness about what they are/were actually confronting. When I came out after years of trying not to be gay, that was the greatest liberation I ever experienced. Somehow, Jesus neevr found the time to tell me i was wrong, but blessed me with a wonderful husband, a good life, many friends,and A TRUCKLOAD OF FULFILLMENT. I have been a happy gay person ever since. The only source of my unhappiness is "good Christians" who have nothing better to do than to tell me that somehow my whole life's experiences are wrong. You so-called Christians now pursue gay people with the same absolute moral certainty that you are doing/expressing god's will with which you used to burn witches-- and other Christian heretics-- and with about as much basis in reality. When you have achieved Moral Perfection, then you may feel free to comment on my lack of it. Oh, wait. that's just what Jesus had to say, isn't it.
13 On July 5, 2007 at 12:36 PM, Daniel wrote —
First, a sincere thank to all for sharing their thoughts and observations...I truly appreciate the dialogue.
Amy,
I'm not sure where I stated that "God doesn't know us" and I'm uncertain as to the relevance. Whether one believes god knows us or we know him is a matter of faith. I am perfectly comfortable with that though one person's faith need not and ought not be used to condemn another. Faith is just that...it isn't fact. You suggest that being gay is a choice and I would suggest that faith is a choice. The problem with your choice of faith is that you also believe it anoints you with powers of judgment. I don't believe god intended that.
Alan,
I don't believe I said anything about the general nature of demons within the gay community...I simply stated that Michael's demons were his own...just as your demons would be your own...and mine would be my own. What I did state is that Michael is wrong to assume that his understanding of his demons allows him to draw conclusions about the entire gay community.
No doubt there are many gay people who have similar demons...but resolving one's demons isn't a function of determining how many other people have similar demons...unless one embraces the notion that misery loves company. Perhaps that is comforting but it has little to do with healing. My point is that Michael's healing process is just that...Michael's.
I think the actual point you are trying to make has to do with your conclusion that I don't believe in god...something you extrapolate from the fact that I didn't capitalize the word god. If I did believe in god, I still wouldn't capitalize the word. Far too many people think they know god and far too many of those that do, believe that "their" god is the real "God".
If I believed in god, I wouldn't assume I'm smart enough to be certain that my "God" is THE "God". If I did make that assumption, I would be no different than the many people who assert that their god is THE "God" and then proceed to view that as a right to judge everyone who doesn't share the same "God". I view that as arrogance...and inconsistent with the example of the person identified as Jesus...an example I admire and respect regardless of his relationship with god.
My disbelief in god is a belief...not a matter of fact...just as your belief in god is a belief...not a matter of fact. What differentiates me from many who believe in god is that I accept that my belief isn't a fact that I can use to judge others. You see, I'm not intimidated by differing beliefs because who I am isn't reliant on a need to be proven right...I'm simply content believing what I believe and I'm happy to allow others the same.
Jon,
Building a premise and then affirming it isn't an exercise in reason...it is an exercise in judgment. When you reference the "chains of homosexuality", you simply impart your propensity for judgment...not any understanding of the state of being gay. You're entitled to your opinion...but may I suggest that it has nothing to do with me.
I don't need your acceptance because to presume as much would be to assume you are entitled to grant me acceptance. I would never diminish myself by doing so...nor would I grant that dominion to you simply because you believe it is yours to offer.
The fact that you want to use Michael's "conversion" as the means to reject homosexuality is the issue. Michael can do as he likes...but I don't have to accept his judgment or yours...which is far different than needing his acceptance or yours. Don't take this wrong, but you're not that relevant to me...just as I'm not that relevant to you.
It is also an assumption on your part that Michael was accepted and praised within the gay community. Who is the gay community? Do you know them all? I know a number of "prominent" gay people that I wouldn't praise just as I know a number of "prominent" straight people I wouldn't praise.
I think its rather naive to think that all gay people are good or bad people just as it is to assume that all straight people are good or bad. I view each person as an individual...and their sexuality has little to do with whether they are good or bad.
Those who seek to make those types of conclusions do so because they harbor bias and prejudice...they don't want to get to know the individual...it wouldn't serve their agenda. Further, I can't respect anyone that would act accordingly...and by all means I wouldn't seek their validation.
I hope Michael finds happiness...but he needn't do so by attempting to throw happy and well-adjusted gays under the bus. Isn't it possible he's doing so in order to receive the validation of some other group?
Thanks again to all for sharing. I truly enjoy the exchange.
Regards,
Daniel
14 On July 5, 2007 at 1:11 PM, Tom wrote —
This is for Amy (probaby a closet-case).
I don't mean to sound offensive, but you are probably no expert on human sexuality or an authority on gay-related issues. There is a vast field of unbiased, non-ideological, factually-based science on human sexuality, the overwhelming evidence of which indicates that human sexuality is either genetically-determined or triggered by hormonal activity during fetal development. Even without this knowledge, to assume that everyone on the planet is heterosexual is simply ignorant. To assume that betwen 5-10% of the human population is actively choosing to sin is ridiculous, particularly when homosexual activity has been documented in nearly 1,400 species in the animal kingdom. Your commentary suggests that all gay men and women, regardless up upbringing, either Orthodox Jewish, atheist, Catholic, or Hindu, have never once paused in their lifetimes to ponder their ironic position in an ideological religion-based world that is openly hostile, sometimes lethally so, to their sexuality. You, a heterosexual, female, cannot appreciate the vast amount of soul-searching required to reconcile what you're taught with what you are, not to menton, what is.
Again, it is almost pointless to have this conversation with a Bible-believer. You can cite Leviticus or Romans and suddenly the debate is closed. Homosexuality is a sin. Amazing that a simple case such as this can be made based on the same chapters which prohibit the consumption of pork, sanction the maintenance and treatment of slaves, glorify the destruction of polytheists and sorcerers, convey the proper ways to stone disobedient children to death, and instill fear of a "merciful" God at every angle. Yes, I completely understand that many new-age Christians consider these barbarities "misinterpreted" "misapplied" or "non-applicable in today's world." But that certainly did not stop the "pious" South from citing the Bible when fighting the abolition of slavery less than 200 years ago. Nor did it stop the Church from burning and torturing questionable women and "rebellious" Jews to death as recently as 300 years ago. My point is that all this violence can be rendered Biblically or theologically-defensible just as terrorism and violence against non-believers can be Koranically-justified in the Islamic world. Interpretation permits either.
Exactly how many Christians do you know that have truly read the Bible cover to cover? Would they react with horror to know of the violence sanctioned by the God of Abraham? Or are some simply Jesus-believing Christians who reject these violent passages and follow the teachings of Christ only? According to you, however, these people "must be willing to hear the entire Bible taught; not a "cut and paste" Bible." So, which is it? In my opinion, people do cut and paste because they have to. A literal intrepretation of the Bible is simply irreconcilable with life in the modern world becuase a lot of it, particularly in the Old Testament, would not just be considered by today's standards immoral, but also illegal.
You have to ask yourself some fairly obvious questions. Why are the least religious countries also the wealthiest, healthiest, happiest, and best educated? Do Swedes need God to treat each other with civility and respect? Is France and Norway's high birth rates, pro-family legislation, and extensive maternity leave irreconcilable with its corresponding pro-gay family policies? Why is crime and divorce statiscially lower in more liberal and progressive Blue State America than in the pious South? Does Tokyo need Jesus to post some of the lowest crime rates in the urban world? Why is there no Harvard in Kansas or Alabama? Conversely, the hyper-religious Muslim world suffers from the worst rates of violence, poverty, intolerance, and technological backwardness. Is this a coincidence? Is it not possible that their hostile treatment of women, coupled with a rigid belief system which suggest that all life-related questions are answered in the Koran and an obsession with the after-life, prevent their societies from harnessing their creative abilities and talent?
And by the way, are scientists lying when they suggest a biological basis for homosexuality? Do they have an agenda? If so, what would that be? Are they biased or subscribe to a particular ideology? As far as I'm concerned, scientists are simply curious about the nature of the world, make observations, formulate hypotheses, and test their veracity. They could care less what religion claims. They are in the pursuit of truth, not defending fairytales like Creationism, Noah's Ark, or the Tower of Babel. Those same scientists which cure diseases, alleviate famines, and make daily discoveries certainly do not fit the profile of immoral heathens who are out to "get religion." Can you imagine what our world would look like today without that human curiousity which so many Bible-believing Christians call Satanic temptation? And plus, if science had conversely proven anything in the Bible, you can bet that Christians would be applauding the scientific community and embracing their conculsions with almost hysterical enthusiasm.
Ultimately, I cannot change your mind. Only when someone very close to you, like one of your own children or grandchilren, comes out of the closet will you change yours. And before you assume that something went terribly "wrong" or that this child had been exposed to something "negative," consider, just for a second, that this is a natural, normal coincidence and there is no need to worry or seek therapy. If anything, I'm sorry to say, it has been Christians such as yourselves which drive gay men and women to therapy seeking to change one aspect about themselves which is unchangeable. Imagine how many young gay men and women have taken their own lives failing to do just that.
Now imagine a world where Christians such as yourselves ceased scouring the Bible for condemnatory passages and instead committed themselves to the following: 1.) alleviating suffering and 2.) increasing happiness.
15 On July 5, 2007 at 2:13 PM, Jon wrote —
Tom, Ben and others,
Almost all of any cogent reply to your postings easliy boils down to an issue of obedience or disobedience.
All of the entire Bible must be accepted and dealt with as a whole. Any form of "cut and paste" or choosing some passages while omitting others becomes worthless immediately. Any person is then free to declare anything they want to be good. As an example, say that I choose only passages dealing with David's murder of Uriah, sex with Bathsheeba and God's declaration of David as "a man after God's own heart" as my basis. I could then declare that God approves of killing any woman's husband in order to capture her as your new wife. Certainly this does not mesh with the rest of scripture.
God has declared homosexual sex to be a sin, just as he has premarital sex, lying, stealing and all other sin. The issue is will we obey God or disobey. That is the central purpose of the Bible and Christianity. Morality (obedience) is defined by who God is, His character, not something we decide. Our obedience, what we call morality, is aligning our character and behavior to who God is, and requires us having a relationship with God in order to teach us about Him. We can only be like Him if we know Him. The Bible is meant to help us know Him.
Homosexual behavior is no more and no less of a sin than telling a lie or murder. In each case, as with all sin, we have chosen an action that is outside of the character of God. All people, even Christians (and those in the list of names mentioned) commit sins. Forgiveness comes into the picture as we confess sin - which means agreeing with God that He is the sole definer of sin, not us. If we continue to live in sin and try to call it good, we deceive ourselves and in essence declare ourselves to be God by claiming to be the definer of sin.
The many sins commited in the name of God over history do not negate who God is or His call to us to be obedient. The many successes of science do not make any and every course of research or every conclusion reached correct or truthful. Painting with such a broad brush demeans only the painter, not the reader or the target of criticism.
Those who desire to know God and to be obedient can easily find Him. Those who wish to disobey and call it Christianity can also find that path to follow. Each has a clear result, defined by God, not by man.
16 On July 5, 2007 at 2:29 PM, Jon wrote —
Ben,
To directly answer your question to Amy "Why are we here?" in reference to Christians visiting this site - because Jesus sent us. Quite literally. He said - "Go into all the world, teaching, making disciples. etc." - and this is part of that world.
Their is a battle going on, and we are commanded by God to take on the enemy. That enemy is not you, but satan, the liar and deceiver.
Those who choose sin and also choose to call sin "good" and "right" are hi prisoners. God has commanded each and every Christian to set those prisoners free. How? Jesus said - "I am the Truth" and "the Truth shall set you free." Jesus is the one who sets the captives free. Our command is to teach and to introduce people to Jesus personally. He breaks the chains, not us. We are the messanger to the world to share the good news that we ourselves have also received to release us from our own bondage to sin.
It is most certainly never a case of any Christian being somehow above or better than anyone else. It is very simply a matter of giving everyone the news of the gift from God that they too can have.
17 On July 5, 2007 at 3:27 PM, Charles wrote —
Daniel,
I'm writing from Uganda, Africa. Your response to Glatze is a real "pouring out" of your heart. I understand what many guys who knew Glatze as "on our side" and now feel he's crossed the floor must be going through. But take heart! God gave each human being only one lifetime limited to about 80 years for those who are lucky to last that long. Its a tragedy to waste this precious resource living a lie and realising late in life that life could have been different. Mike Glatze has made a brave decision not to waste any more of his time. Remember, its those on the dark side that see light the brightest. Truth is not difficult to figure out. One can deny seeing truth, but see it you will!
In Africa we tend to call a spade a spade, not a big spoon, so forgive if what I say here sounds vulgar. How can anyone fail to see that a male was made to naturally join with a female sexually. The package was supplied complete, nothing missing, even the lubrication. The animals have never got this wrong, I dont understand how humans cannot see the obvious. That is the nature of "truth". Its plain so you cant miss it.
The anus was not made for sexual intercourse. Glatze also talked about his stomach upsets "due to the life he was living". You remembered a lot from his article but not that part. Those who are honest will tell more of the hell that homosexuality really is. A venereal disease is bad enough affecting the primary sexual organs, but who knows the pain of a rectal venereal infection or of fecal incontinence due to a damaged anal system? Would you rather persist on a path you know is destroying your life and of other impressionable young people you mislead.
I hope next time you write, you will congratulate Brother Mike Glatze for his bravery. Mike was in the limelight for the wrong reasons. He had fame but knew he was infamous. Its not easy to walk away from this kind of limelight. But its wise.
God bless you Daniel.
Charles
ctuhaise@yahoo.com
18 On July 5, 2007 at 3:41 PM, Ben in oakland wrote —
To Jon: I know it is pointless to write this, because you already know all of the truth, and anybody else's is really of no interest to you. But I will.
1) Jesus had nothing to say about homosexuality. He was very clear about judging others. "Look not for the speck in yourbrother's eye, lest you miss the beam in your own." Pretty unequivocal, Jon. Yet here you are, judging just what constitutes a sin that needs to be judged and condemned. He was also very clear about divorce. Yet fundamentalists are known for judging others unconditinally, and have the highest divorce rate in the nation--and not for reasons of adultery only.
2) Your spiritual arrogance in your assumption that you know the mind of god simply because you believe something that you might have read in a book is surpassed only by your willingness to ignore everything else in that book that does not comport with your present prejudices. See #1 above.
3) As I noted: "You so-called Christians now pursue gay people with the same absolute moral certainty that you are doing/expressing god's will with which you used to burn witches-- and other Christian heretics-- and with about as much basis in reality." As I have always noticed when I make this statement, it is never answered. Except the one time when a nice Christian lady said, "Well, they were ignorant and cruel then." And you are not now? "I guess we made a mistake" is no excuse for the misery you so-called good Christians have inflicted on anyone who disagrees with you. See #1 and #2 above.
4) You never talked about the three ministers above. you just went on about your stuff. Are you going to tell me that those three didn't "really' give themselves to Jesus? Please. They did nothing but, and no amount of giving or praying changed a thing for them. What does one have to do to please Jesus and god? Or is it really that God doesn't give a flying fuck up about homosexuality? BUT YOU DO!!! See #1, 2, and 3x above.
As a christian, you have a right to believe that being gay is sinful, and you are free to expound it in your churches and your homes, however unpleasant it maybe for me as a gay man to hear it. It's a free country. When you cross the line into intolerance is when you use my life as a means of raising funds and influencing others to further your own political, religious, and social agendas, and to deny me the rights that you have, based upon your own peculiar interpretations of the bible.
Honey, it's just sex. If you spend the same obsession on war, hunger, poverty, corruption, bigotry, religious intolerance, the environment, that you spend on screaming about our sex lives and denying us what you take for granted, what a better world this would be.
But you won't. This is easier and more satisfying.
19 On July 5, 2007 at 3:42 PM, Daniel wrote —
Jon,
I realize you and I will likely never agree...but I must make one important point. Your reference to what god has directed or commanded or ruled to be acceptable or unacceptable omits one very relevant issue...it is simply based upon hearsay. Those who assert the bible to be the word of god do so as a matter of faith; not as a matter of fact.
Has it ever crossed your mind to ask why god would give incorrect information to those he entrusted to write down his word? If the bible is his words, then it would have to be absolute since he is all knowing. If your answer is that his words were written down and interpreted with errors, then you have no way to substantiate which words are accurate and which are inaccurate.
Further, scholars who have studied the origin of the bible will point out that the bible has been reinterpreted numerous times...primarily because those in power wanted it to support their notions of right and wrong. In fact, a number of gospels were simply removed from the bible...by men mind you...not because god emailed someone and instructed a revision.
Has it ever crossed your mind to wonder why the last time god spoke directly to a human was some 2,000 years ago? Why did he speak then and never again? If someone were to state that god had spoke to them today, would you believe them or would you assert that they were a lunatic? How would one make those determinations and distinctions?
How would you ever know if god chose to speak to someone today...how would you verify that fact? Further, would the scrutiny you would apply today be the same that should have been applied when the bible was written? Can you tell me who scrutinized that process all those years ago? If not, why do you believe what was said then but not what is said now by this person in our midst who says god spoke to him?
Let's assume today that a man makes a claim to have spoken to god. How would people of faith determine that they should or shouldn't have faith in the words of this man? How would you refute his claims if you didn't think god had spoken to him? Is faith only relevant to, and required when, it applies to what happened 2,000 years ago? Why would your standards change today...shouldn't your faith be consistently applied? Further, if you didn't apply your faith consistently, what would compel me to believe that you are able to ascertain when your faith is accurate and when your faith tells you to disbelieve? If it isn't consistent, then how can your faith be trusted?
Therefore, I contend that what you actually endorse is mysticism...which I don't object too...but it cannot be presented as anything more...unless you would actually apply the same standards today to claims that god had spoken to someone. In reality, the beauty of institutional religion (what I am calling mysticism) is that is starts with a premise that cannot be verified and asserts that it also cannot be disputed.
A reasoned skeptic would then need to ask why...what might make that so and what might be the human motivations for such a construct? Isn't the bargain obvious? We (religious leaders) tell you (the followers) what to believe and to do so "faithfully" and in return we will take away your fear of death by promising you an eternal afterlife. Lastly, isn't the rest of the directive from religious leaders this, "Oh, and by the way, god isn't going to speak again and only we actually know what he said when he did speak and anyone that asserts he spoke to them today is a charlatan and mustn't be believed."
Here's the end game. If one disagrees with the religious leaders, the promise of an afterlife is withdrawn...leaving one without a construct to deal with the anxiety of death. The bargain is sealed.
Look, you believe as you like...but what you believe is far short of fact and far too easily explained as the acts of men who desire to manipulate other men. You see, you need the bible to be the word of god since it is how you choose to see and understand your human existence. Nothing wrong with that...but it is nothing more than "your" reality. In the end, your belief in god is the equivalent of what you assert being gay to be...a choice.
Take care,
Daniel
20 On July 5, 2007 at 5:15 PM, Ben in oakland wrote —
To the guy from Africa: "How can anyone fail to see that a male was made to naturally join with a female sexually. The package was supplied complete, nothing missing, even the lubrication. The animals have never got this wrong, I dont understand how humans cannot see the obvious. That is the nature of "truth". Its plain so you cant miss it. "
Do you ever read anything but what you already know, think anything you haven't already thought? It is not obvious--anything but. KY wasn't made for gay men. Homosexuality has been observed in over 1400 species of animals. My genitalia works just fine with my husband's.
If you are going on about the nature of "truth", be sure to take it out of quotation marks.
There have been many "obvious" truths in the world, very few of which have turned out to be actually true. Obvious doesn't make it true.
Here is a real obvious one. There are many different sects of Christianity, Obviously, they can't all be true, because they disagree. There are many different religions,each claiming to be the truth. They must either all be true of they must none of them be true. Now THATS obvious.
I suggest you go up to a nice muslim in Uganda and tell him his faith is JUST NOT TRUE. See what he has to say.
21 On July 5, 2007 at 5:19 PM, Daniel wrote —
Charles,
Unfortunately you haven't a grasp of what I feel or what I'm communicating. I don't know Michael and I could care less if he wants to be a heterosexual...he can be a monkey if he wants. Whose side he's on is irrelevant to me. The fact that you and he seem to think one side is good and one is bad is the only thing I care to address.
I also don't care if 100 gays decide to be straight tomorrow and they do so in the public sphere. Who they are is for them to determine and it has no relevance to who I am. I won't have lost a thing just as I haven't lost a thing in Michael's choice.
The problem arises when and if Michael and those 100 people characterize their election as an indictment of who I am...you see I know who I am and I'm not in crisis nor will I be as a result of what Michael or any other gay or straight person decides about their sexuality.
Do you have a crisis each time a straight person decides they're gay and comes out? Do you see them writing about the sins of heterosexuality? Do you see the gay community calling that proof that being straight is bad and arguing that the person has finally seen truth and abandoned evil and darkness? I'll clue you in...we take people to be who they say they are and leave it at that...you wanna be gay, good for you...you wanna be straight, good for you. We don't see one as good and one as bad. That is your crutch and your obsession.
As to plumbing, I'll assume that you never have oral sex since the mouth seems to be ambiguous in that regard. I would hate to think that you're putting your penis in the same place a gay man might...wouldn't want to think your gay...and you certainly wouldn't want a woman's mouth or throat to suffer the trauma of plumbing abominations. Think of the diseases.
What are you going to do if a new sexually transmitted disease becomes fatal? Will that mean that god is punishing people for being heterosexual? Is cervical cancer, which results from the transmission of the HPV virus via the insertion of a penis into a vagina, an indication that male/female sex is wrong? Oh this plumbing stuff is so confusing to me.
As to Michael's stomach aches, can I see the diagnosis? When a man approaches a woman for sex and she says she has a headache, is that the result of being a heterosexual? Does straight sex give women headaches? Oh, and what can you tell me about yeast infections?
Tell ya what Charles...you worry about your plumbing and I'll worry about mine. So far my doctor seems to think it works just fine...but then he isn't a minister so maybe he's biased.
Finally, I won't be congratulating Michael at this point. Last time I checked the Hallmark store, they didn't have a card for changing one's sexuality...but then again I've never looked for one. Besides, he didn't congratulate me on having my act together so I can't see congratulating him for struggling with his.
Or are you suggesting he wrote his essay and published it (limelight?) to be congratulated? That would seem to be a rather odd expectation from someone who had just found "The Truth".
Anyway, the last time I read his essay and my letter, all the sympathy was flowing in only one direction. Funny thing how that works, isn't it?
Charles, you're entitled to your opinions and please know that I have no problem with you wanting to share them here at Thought Theater. I welcome all points of view.
Take care Charles,
Daniel
22 On July 6, 2007 at 12:33 AM, Justin wrote —
Daniel,
Your response was articulated with clarity and great insight. However with that said- the tone of your open letter, while on the surface dry and intellectual, was truly rather hostile. You slapped Glatze with a fine glove rather than a rough gauntlet, if you will. And while I can certainly understand the offense you took at many of Glatze’s terse comments, I hate to see what could be an excellent, valuable dialogue turn into nothing more than a veiled attack. [I’m not questioning your right to be offended or to respond publicly- or even to attack back.]
I read the article, and not knowing world net to be a reputable news source, I googled the name and found your response. I actually find that I agree with you on some, if not most, of your observations; Glatze’s words and actions do seem to hint at needs for external affirmation. I could not find his essay on world net convincing- it felt forced, fabricated- I think one can even feel the emotional, intellectual, spiritual and social turbulence that still plagues Glatze- needing to preemptively defend himself “no matter how slick their tongues." Let me just state first that I am a Christian, and I actually do not doubt (or at very least do not presume to judge) the validity of his spiritual conversion. Nonetheless, I can sense the same flaws and psychological weaknesses you observed.
But if I may, I want to defend Glatze, not by directly supporting his conclusions, but by examining some important things you missed in your analysis because you were too focused on Glatze’s personal psychological flaws. Glazte’s very career attests to the pornographically driven marketing plan used to mainstream homosexuality and captivate questioning and ‘gay’ youth into a particular ideological fold. It is this world of ‘lust’ that has been Glatze’s very reality for however many years, and it is from this reality that he has reaped his conclusions. [I sincerely understand that many people’s homosexual journey (including, most likely, your own) has not been fueled by pretty magazines with scantily clad boys.] But the existence of such widely spread ‘pornographic propaganda’ should be the cause of great concern- and even more alarming, the wide acceptance of such hazardous material as a good and valuable tool to advance the ‘normality’ of homosexuality; it is becoming (and I believe it HAS become) the very face of homosexuality in the west. It is this very face, this very perception that is so widely accepted and applauded that Glatze is taking issue with- upon which Glatze has come to base his definition of homosexuality. Frankly, your response should not be toward people like Glatze, but toward the high minded community that peddles this junk. [I understand that not ALL people who seek to mainstream homosexuality sink to this level- its just that so many, if not most, do.]
There is so much more I wish to discuss, but I will leave my comments to that.
Thanks
23 On July 6, 2007 at 6:42 AM, Alex wrote —
Why single out "pretty magazines with scantily clad boys" as the face of homosexuality when one can just as easily assert that pretty magazines with scantily clad girls are the face of heterosexuality? Why the double standard? Using sexiness to sell is hardly a gay phenomenon. C'mon, when was the last time you saw Bea Arthur in a bikini on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition?
24 On July 6, 2007 at 8:55 AM, Dennis Doyle wrote —
As a heterosexual male with no regard to one's sexuality when forming an opinion of another, I cannot help but wonder if Michael Glatze has left a lustful lifestyle or "become straight", as some of my conservative friends have said. If he were now straight, would he not announce a great sexual relationship with a woman? Would he not, as most straight men I know, glory in that which most straight men glory? I am speaking of straight man's obsession with the vagina. I accept Michael Glatze's contention that lustful sex, homosexual or heterosexual, may be without love, but it is still great. Most of the time when I am making love to my wife, it is an act filled with love. However, sometimes it is just some good, old-fashioned, lustful fucking. I enjoy both. Has he had the same experience with a woman? I do not think so; what I believe is that Michael Glatze has given up lust, not homosexuality.
25 On July 6, 2007 at 9:20 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Justin: your comments reveal your own particular bias. As one writer has already observed, magazines with sscantily clad girls are not considered the face of heterosexuality. The straight world has defined gay people soley in terms of our sexual orientation, then acts surprised when this is what we produce and all that they can see. Tunnel vision does not vindicate the reality of the results of what you see when you look through a narrow tunnel. When gay people try to move the dialog to something different--such as love, marriage, an end to prejudice, and so forth-- we are told that those things are not for us, because all that we are is about sex. I like looking at cute boys with no clothes on, just as my straight male friends like to look at cute girls with no clothes on. Why does it have (according to your view) a different value for them than it does for me? your argument reminds me of the gay men who complain that being gay is all about sex, and there is no truthfulness or value in the gay community except for that. According to them, no one wants anything more than that. That is what they are looking for, and that is what they find. Michael Glatze is no exception to this
26 On July 6, 2007 at 10:21 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Daniel--i wanted to say that how you presented your arguments was JUST FABULOUS! In my debates with these sin-obsessed christo-supremacists, I have often wished for the clarity of your arguments. I've tried to make your points, but have not always been so successful. You've produced a very eloquent way to say "don't believe everything you think!" I've bookmarked the page for future reference. Many thanks.
27 On July 6, 2007 at 10:31 AM, kelli wrote —
The thought that comes to mind when I read Daniel's response is "The Skrewtape Letters". It has the condescending tone of the head demon chastizing the lesser. Do not be deceived.
28 On July 6, 2007 at 11:27 AM, Daniel wrote —
Thanks again to all who have commented...even those I disagree with.
I'm short on time at the moment but I wanted to offer a couple thoughts.
Justin,
Your "pornography" hypothesis is unfortunately an absurdity and indicative of the growing problem amongst Christians with regard to it.
I wrote about the issue not long ago after reading an article about a pastor, Craig Gross with XXXChurch.com, who is attempting to address the pervasive issue of pornography addiction in Christian men. You can find the posting titled, Icebergs & Identities: What Lies Beneath...here:
Icebergs & Identities: What Lies Beneath
Given my limited time, let me offer one important thought. Images do not form the heart...the heart will succumb to images dependent upon the degree to which it has at it's core sincerity and authenticity...hence pornography is a symptom; not the disease. Pornography is simply images of our sexuality...if one corrupts that beautiful "blessing" called sex with a suspect heart, it is the heart that has gone awry.
As I stated to Michael, your view of pornography is a result of what you bring in your heart...what you fear isn't the images on paper, it is the thoughts that are in your head and your heart.
Kelli,
First, it's "The Screwtape Letters". Second, you haven't a clue who I am and what is in my heart. On the other hand, it's clear what is in your heart...which, given the doctrine you espouse, would suggest that you, my friend, will have to answer to your god for that.
Perhaps you should ponder the degree to which your judgmental inclinations deceive you and expose the darkness that actually inhabits your being. I'm not sure you would be able to recognize a demon...unless of course, you happened to glance inward.
I welcome debate and dialogue, but I'm not inclined to accept ad hominem attacks. If you want to contribute to the discussion, please do. Otherwise, perhaps we should stop meeting like this?
Regards,
Daniel
29 On July 6, 2007 at 11:36 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Kelli: some food for thought for you. Why is it for OK a christo-hetero-supremacist to say "(I believe that) God said it, (I believe that) I believe it, and (as far as I am concerned, no further need for any questions or debate) that settles it". If I told you that your husband was sleeping with another woman, you would rightfully demand some actual evidence before you wnet to the divorce court. Why is it that when a gay person says, "I'm sorry, but I'm not buying that garbage for any number of theological, logical, scientific, factual, and moral reasons, all of which, when considered with an open mind, thoroughly negate your statement. Here's why!" that we're being condescending.' When a c-h-supremacist says, "Well, my beliefs about you and what I think some book might have to say about you trump the whole of your life experience, education, knowledge, self-knowledge, science, and principle, spiritual knowledge, religious experience etc etc etc because I believe that God said it etc etc etc." and "You're so addled by lust and sin that you couldn't possibly know what's right and what god wants. I, on the other hand, have been blessed by absolute knowledge and moral clarity, at least when it comes to what I think about you."
Honey-- you don't think that's condescending? The spiritual and moral arrogance of you presuming the easy and absolute truthiness of those two statements is entirely condescending and bankrupt in more ways than I care to count. People like Michael Glatz by the kind of reasoning because they do not, as Daniel has so eloquently demonstrated, actually address the real and obvious issues. Honey, don't believe everything you think.
I've read CS Lewis--probably every book he ever wrote except for the Allegory of love. Reading Lewis very nearly converted me to Christianity when I was a young man. So i think that i could say with some authority that Lewis would say the very condescending nature of how c-h-supremacists see gay people and our issues is in fact a path to damnation. Self-serving moralizing, hypocrisy, condemnation, judgment, and ignoring the real world, science, knowledge, and compassion are not a spiritual path he would ever endorse.
I absolutely believe that Michael glatz led a life addled by lust and sin, and that he is now attempting to remake his life into something that works for him. Lust, unrestrained by self-examination, slef-knowledge, and self-restraint where appropriate, is indeed destructive,like drunkeness. But his sin was not his gayness. his sin was strictly against himself for failing to do what is best for him and his life, and has nothing to do with his beling gay. plenty of heterosexuals do exactly the same thing, but they don't leave heterosexuality, simply because that is not actually the source of their problems. Daniel is simply saying that Michael's problems are not because he is gay, nor is he gay because of his problems, nor is being gay the problem.
Isaid this in an earlier posting: "When I came out after years of trying not to be gay, that was the greatest liberation I ever experienced. Somehow, Jesus neevr found the time to tell me i was wrong, but blessed me with a wonderful husband, a good life, many friends,and A TRUCKLOAD OF FULFILLMENT. I have been a happy gay person ever since. The only source of my unhappiness is "good Christians" who have nothing better to do than to tell me that somehow my whole life's experiences are wrong. You so-called Christians now pursue gay people with the same absolute moral certainty that you are doing/expressing god's will with which you used to burn witches-- and other Christian heretics-- and with about as much basis in reality. When you have achieved Moral Perfection, then you may feel free to comment on my lack of it. Oh, wait. that's just what Jesus had to say, isn't it."
30 On July 6, 2007 at 11:39 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
sorry- last paragraph. Second daniel should have been michael
31 On July 6, 2007 at 11:55 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
I do have one more thought, and then I really have to get some work done. This whole thing is not really about God's alleged word. It is about prejudice, and nothing but prejudice, given a thin veneer of respectability by organized rleigion and right-wing politicians.
Here's how I know this. As a Jew, I reject the Christian story, and as a thinking human being, I reject so called Biblical morality, which any thinking person who has read the thing and thought about it can see is barely biblical certainly not moral. (Those babies whom god murdered in the flood were not sinners needing to be punished. They couldn't commit a sin even if they wanted to. WHO really sinned here?)This bothers the religious beliefs of no one but the most rabid fundamentalist, nor would any but the most clueless dare say so in public for fear of rightly being called a religious bigot. But let me say that I'm gay and reject just this tiniest part of conservative Christian belief, and suddenly, religious beliefs are offended, any pretenses to logic, reason science, or even theology (irony of ironies) are thrown out, letters to editor are written, right wing ministers make a lot of money, and right-wing politicans get elected and make a lot of money as well.
As I said in an earlier post: Honey, it's just sex. If you spend the same obsession on war, hunger, poverty, corruption, bigotry, religious intolerance, the environment, (some of which Jesus actually addressed) that you spend on screaming about our sex lives (which Jesus NEVER addressed, despite its paramount important to christo-hetero-supremacists) and denying us what you take for granted, what a better world this would be.
But you won't, because this is just a lot more fun and a lot easier. It is ssooooooo much easier to follow the words of the bible than it is to follow the words of Jesus
32 On July 6, 2007 at 11:58 AM, Daniel wrote —
The following was sent to Thought Theater by Michael Glatze:
To My Friends Who Are Trapped In Homosexuality By Michael Glatze
Dear friend,
Thank you for your kind comments and keen observations regarding my story and my revelation about no longer being homosexual and now being heterosexual. I thank you for the time that you have spent in considering this issue, deeply, and with great passion. God loves you.
God is right there, within you, whether you like to see Him or not.
Can you humble yourself to Him? It's a really nice feeling. I know that, in some small way, you want to. We all do. We don't like being separated from our Father; it makes us sad and lonely, forcing us to be angry, to act out, to get vulgar… well, I won't go on; many of you have already demonstrated, on your blog comments, exactly what I'm talking about.
God love you, Yes! He does! And, He wants you to be free from homosexuality. God made us men and women. Think about that; you could – really – be a man or a woman! Not a strange creature… but, real!
That's awesome…
Change is very difficult and takes a lot of inner strength. Do you have that strength? I promise you that the Gay Identity does not exist, that it is a fabrication of mankind (look it up, if you don't believe me), and that you are not "trapped" in same-sex-orientation.
To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid. I'm sorry, if that sounds cruel; it's not cruel. To believe that you are a false identity, created by man, unnaturally, to participate in social engineering, is to be stupid.
It's not the acts, as much as it is the Identity. No one ever told you that, before, because they wanted to feed you with the lie that homosexuality is a set thing. Any intelligent "homosexual" knows there's no fixed Gay Identity. If you don't believe me, ask the theorists or "intellectuals."
Gay Identity has been packaged and fed to you, and – if you believe yourself to be "Gay" – you have eaten it, preventing you from further growth and understanding of your true and real self.
Coming out from under this packaged lie requires strong self-confidence and will and desire to know the Truth. Yes, Truth is capitalized. It is that way for a reason. There is only one Truth.
That one Truth is the fact that you are beautiful, perfect, and glorious, in the image of He who created you… God. There is only one God. I know it may be hard for you to get your head around the paradoxical nature of God… but, He is everywhere "out there" and – at the same time – right inside your soul. He sees and knows you. He loves you.
He wants you to be free of homosexuality. I promise you that. He's rooting for you; He knows you can do it. Remember, He loves you! He's not judging you – those angry voices in your mind, planted there by Satan, might scream and judge and ridicule – but, no; He's not judging you. He has patience. He'll give you strength. All you have to do is pray to Him.
Prayer and love – True Love, my dear friends – requires total humility. Can you do that?
I know, in my heart, that all homosexuals desire to be free.
It is a new world, one in which the lie will not stand much longer.
The tide is turning. Be not afraid! It's a good change! Jesus will come. And, when that day happens, will you be – truly – yourself!?
Or, will you be a demon, trapped in a fabrication not your own, lusting and hating and destroying your soul to hell? Consider this one last thing: all the love you may believe you feel for yourself or for someone else, while trapped in the homosexual mindset, is a grain of sand on the beach of the love that you could feel. Healing is possible. When you chose to go there, you know who to call on for help. His name is Jesus Christ.
Michael Glatze
33 On July 6, 2007 at 12:01 PM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Damn!!! Daniel-- you did it again--exactly what I was trying to say to Kelli. you keep doing that, and i'll have to give up writing.
34 On July 6, 2007 at 12:06 PM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Michael: the same six words belie everything you say. Ted Haggard. Paul Barnes. Lonnie Latham.
And the lives of every poor sucker who has ever bought your twisted set of beliefs. come out of your ex=gayness, accept who you are, and start making choices that actually make your life work, instead of insisting that you're problems are really eveyrone's problems.
35 On July 6, 2007 at 12:20 PM, Anonymous wrote —
The elusive "gay gene".
From What It Means to Be 98% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and Their Genes By Jonathan M. Marks.
on the Hamer Study
"...The tricky design of the study makes it very sensitive to a few families matching or not, because the key scientific question is not "Do we have a gene for homosexuality?" but a surrogate question: "Is our 83% result sufficiently different from 50% to be meaningful?" A follow-up study by a different group found no such difference at all. Another follow-up by the original researchers found the difference now to be 67% rather than 83%, quite a bit closer to the 50% expected at random.
Nevertheless, best-sellers were written; careers and fortunes were made. "Born Gay?" Time asked on July 26, 1993. And the "gay gene"—which has never subsequently been found—entered the popular mind as a fact of science.
For me, however, the most interesting aspect of the study was the scope of the actual claim. How much homosexuality did these researchers believe they had actually explained with their study? From the publicity, you might expect the figure to be 90%. Or perhaps a more conservative 70%—perhaps they had explained over two-thirds of the homosexuality in our species, which would certainly merit headlines.
In fact, however, when I posed that very question at a conference in 1996, the answer was very different. It came in two parts. First, the result, according to the researchers, was ostensibly only about male homosexuality and had no relevance at all for female homosexuality; and, second, they believed they had explained about 5% of male homosexuality.
Five percent.
If we make a simplifying assumption that male and female homosexuality exist in the universe in equal proportions, then at best— assuming that homosexuality is a property of a person, not of an act, and assuming all the statistical issues raised are invalid, and assuming there is actually a gene there—they would have accounted for 2.5% of homosexuality in our species.
The third rule of molecular anthropology: There is no science other than behavioral genetics in which you can leave 97.5% of a phenomenon unexplained and get headlines.
That is the most obvious indicator of the cultural power and meaning of this work, and why it needs to be considered very carefully and regarded very skeptically. Virtually any claim, no matter how ridiculously small, can grab headlines. The question is not, "Do you believe homosexuality is genetic?" After all, the Constitution of the United States guarantees you the right to believe anything you want. The question is, "What have we actually shown scientifically about it?"
And the answer is, almost nothing.
36 On July 6, 2007 at 2:17 PM, Ben in oakland wrote —
Michael: i should have said this as well. Those three men have stories to tell, and the truth of their stories has far more weight to it than the story that you are trying to convince yourself is true
37 On July 6, 2007 at 2:27 PM, dreamdzign@yahoo.com wrote —
Being GAY is NOT the problem.
A response to: How a 'gay rights' leader became straight
I’ve been a silent participant in this life and human struggle. But I felt compelled to respond to a recent article on worldnetdaily.com as well.
Like many homosexual men, I “lived the lifestyle" through my late teens up through my early 30’s. Some of the things Michael Glatze points out about the homosexual condition, I completely agree with. For instance, lust and pornography are highly prevalent in our culture and I for one felt I was always in a highly charged state of sexual anxiety by living this lifestyle and reading any “respectable" gay magazine or literature. It was hard to get past the ads for doctors, dentists, life insurance, even the most silly service attached to pictures of almost naked men with perfect, chiseled bodies. Who wouldn’t be able to resist thoughts of lust and fantasies.
But that does not make homosexuality wrong. Heterosexuals have hundreds of magazines that display the human body in exactly the same, objectifying way, and no one questions their normality. What makes it wrong is when we act on our lustful thoughts and feelings – when we lose self control.
I came out at 17 years old, but I knew I was “different" as far back as I can remember, my earliest memory is about 4 years old. I had frequent gay thoughts throughout my early years of 5 to 10 years old. I can’t possibly believe this lifestyle is environmentally influenced. I have always believed it was natural and genetic. Regardless, I still hated myself for being this way.
About 8 years ago now, I was on Google attempting to find ways to painlessly end my life. I was fed up with being gay; I knew there was no way I could change. I was working for a Christian company at the time, and the literature at work and constant guilt I was feeling was too much for me to take anymore. I figured that if I ended my life instead of continuing to do what I was doing, maybe God could forgive me and would understand my decision was the best one to stop my “acting out". Like an idiot though, I did this Google browsing while at work. I didn’t know it at the time, but the company had installed monitoring software to watch their employees Internet and email usage. I was red-flagged right away.
After finding a solution I could attempt online, at 4:55 my desk phone rang and I could see it was the president of the company on the caller ID. I had no idea that he knew what was going on in my mind that I was going to do that night. I answered with no knowledge of what to expect. He asked me if I had a moment to come into his office, which I answered “of course".
When I got there, the head of Human Resources was waiting with him. I thought I was about to be fired. I knew my performance had been lacking as my depression over life had taken over. I would have never imagined the sequence of events that then happened.
They told me they knew what I was planning to do. And they wanted to help me! I was aghast. I instantly broke down — it was uncontrollable. I could not stop crying and it all spilled out of me. I told them I was gay and living with a man, that I couldn’t stop my acting out behaviors (I’ll explain later), and that I was miserable with my life, my decisions, being gay and I hated myself and my community. I wanted out, and I thought the only escape was death. I was HIV positive because of my own actions and there was no hope. I wanted to be in heaven because I was living in hell.
They both embraced me, telling me how much I was needed, loved and wanted here on earth. That God has a plan for me, a unique plan just for my life. They offered help, and a way out. They located a NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality) Psychologist for me, and even paid for my visits. I started the route to “recovery". I found a church that had an EXODUS program in it, and went to individual and group sessions. During this time, as fate would have it, God did have a plan for my life. It was when I met my husband of almost 8 years now.
I did the ex-gay thing for about 6 months. When I realized it was not working for me, I stopped and of course, soon after that I lost my job. It would take about 6 more years before I came to realize the real problem.
After I met my husband, we instantly settled into suburban life, setting up a home, building a life together. I had a new job; I was honest with him about everything up front. I was HIV positive, a whore, narcissist, and had never been faithful to anyone in my life. He was HIV negative, had never been in a relationship, and I was his first love. I came to learn later that he was mine too.
This gets me into what I call the “gay condition". During my late teen’s and up through about 33 years old, I was meeting men online, through phone sex lines, AOL, Gay.com, print ads in the local gay newspaper — anything I could do to avoid any pain.
My being gay didn’t start this way of course. I started off going to a gay teen group, I met a boyfriend, starting going out on dates. All the stuff that had been denied me throughout high school. I was a Senior when I started dating my first lover. I was in a constant state of euphoria. The problem was that because it had been denied me all my life, it was all I could think about. I felt like I could barely breath unless I could be near him. I left home 6 weeks before I graduated to move in with him and his Mom. I finished high school, my but grades were terrible. I was consumed by being with him that it literally made me crazy and ended up driving him away. Soon I learned how great it was to go clubbing and drinking away my sorrow with friends. And then how great it would be to find someone new who wanted me, and the cycle began.
I would have boyfriends and lovers, but all the while cheating on them. I could never get enough. I would often stay up all night until I found a hook-up. I would hook-up multiple times a day if I could. All I wanted was to be filled by men, as much as I could. I went from being safe at the beginning to right away only finding men who would top me bareback. I didn’t want it any other way. It had to have the illusion of something intimate, no matter how horrible the situation may have been.
I got into poppers when I was losing interest in sex. Of course, I could no longer maintain an erection, but that didn’t matter, I was a bottom. I experimented with Pot, X, Crystal, Cocaine, Speed, and a few others that I honestly don’t know what they were, but I took them because they were offered.
In June of 1997, my lover at the time found out that I was cheating. I was terrified of being alone, and that he would leave me, so we starting seeing a counselor. He told me right away I was a sex addict. No way, I thought. I’m not addicted to this. But I started going to a local SAA (Sex Addicts Anonymous) group so I wouldn’t lose my lover. I needed to appear like I was doing something to help our relationship and therefore myself. I continued cheating the whole time, just being more careful and hiding my tracks better. I finally left therapy, SAA and him 3 months later.
In November of 1997 I became HIV positive. I had the worst flu I had ever experienced in my life right after Thanksgiving that year. I called a friend to take me to the hospital ER because my fever was over 105 degrees and my sweat was literally leaving blue stains on my sheets. I didn’t know what was going on. After spending the night in the ER on IV fluids, back home the next day I looked in the mirror and just told myself “You have it". I didn’t need a test, I knew I was HIV positive. After a week of this flu, it went away and I felt back to normal. I started back with the sex, and continued to never play it safe. I just didn’t care about myself anymore or anyone else. I told myself if they want to stick it in me unwrapped, that is their business.
I was well into this chain reaction living when I wanted to kill myself and my job found out. After I met my husband, for six years I continued this activity and life-threatening choices. I never played safe; I never told anyone I was positive. My husband began to suspect, but I tried ever harder to convince him that he was wrong and I was faithful. In June of 2005, it all came to a head, and he finally confronted me before I was about to head out of town for a family trip. I had programmed in some numbers into my cell phone of some guys I was planning on meeting up with during my trip that I had met online. I finally cracked and told him everything. It has been a rough two years for both of us, but we made it through. I finally learned the lesson that I was unwilling to learn years ago. I was a sex addict, and I was deeply hooked.
Being gay was never the issue. It was not what was wrong with me or what made me abnormal. What caused this fracture of self-hate was my growing sex addiction that grew from hate and abandonment over being different growing up and turning to the only thing I could get my hands on cheaply and easily to take away the pain of living and hating myself.
Looking back over the thousands of encounters I have had, I couldn’t help but think I was lost as a human being. I recall the saying that we’ve all heard that every time you sleep with someone else you leave a piece of yourself with them. I had no soul, no self left. After almost 2 years of SAA now, and a fantastic counselor, not to mention a very understanding and loving husband (who is still HIV negative), I have myself back, and I can finally sense the plan God has for my life.
I do consider myself a Christian. But instead of trying to understand countless passages in a book written by so many that claim to have written it while being influenced by the hand of God, and then finally put together by a Roman Empire Pagan council (rejecting many books of the Bible that we’ve never even read or seen) I made my peace with God. I decided that the only way this religion thing could work for me was to never go to church, never listen to anyone else about it, and make my own opinion. His son was sent to earth with ONE message for us all. We can be saved if we just believe. Once you accept that, and you ask him into your heart, that’s it, it’s a done deal, you are saved. His Golden Rule? To love one another as we love ourselves. Look around the world, our nation, our communities, the news, any media outlet, ourselves. Where is the Golden Rule being applied? Being GAY is NOT the problem. The world is losing its capacity to love one another at a rate far greater than any other time in history.
No, the entire gay community is not sex addicts. But I have to admit, the gay community does have a knack for free and uncommitted sex. I’ve described it many times that gay sex is just a like a handshake. It’s almost how we greet each other. We see an instant attraction (lust), act on it, and it’s no big deal because we are men. We don’t have those emotional attachments to sex; it’s just getting off. The problem is that it is not love, and where there is lack of real love, there is lack of the love of self. Self-hatred invades our culture like a virus spreading and growing and destroying our credibility and us. But I do not blame the gay culture for this, nor can we peg this on heterosexuals. The problem is not with one sexual identity; the problem is human nature period. Sex sells, our culture demands it, just about any company in the world who advertises understands that. And we’ve let it happen.
I was tired of feeling so sexually charged all the time. So I don’t go out to clubs hardly at all; my husband and I will go out about once every 6 months. I don’t read certain magazines; and I’m not talking about porn, even the most “safe" seeming publication can be filled with ads full of hot bodies. For myself, I prefer to not have them around me. I use my DVR a lot (digital video recorder) so I can skip as much advertising as possible. I prefer movies over TV anyway as most shows are Reality TV crap or another episode of who slept with who, who screwed who over, or who killed who. As my distance to advertising and our human culture grows, so does my love for myself, and my husband. I wish the message of love would grow, but I know in my heart for events to unfold the way they are supposed to, it will only continue to get worse. All I can do is voice my concerns and hope someone listens. I don’t judge culture, I’m not called to that purpose, nor is it my place. But I can voice my concerns.
I used to joke about those couples that would disappear from “society" once they hooked up. But now I understand that the only way to work on my relationship, continue to grow genuine love and maintain a healthy home life, is to stay as disconnected from the rest of the human condition happening around me as possible. It’s not hiding from the world, but protecting myself from it. It’s not about being GAY or saying it is wrong, it is about staying NORMAL in an abnormal world.
I hope my words are not misread. I certainly don’t mean to say that the entire gay community are sex addicts. That is simply not true, but I have the courage to admit my identity was fragmented by self-hate and it developed into a horrible range of coping skills. Gay or straight, I know I was not alone.
38 On July 6, 2007 at 2:42 PM, Alex wrote —
"To believe that you are Gay is to be stupid."
I can't believe I'm being called stupid by someone with so little common sense that he had to join a cult in order to stop his own irresponsible, immoderate, self-destructive debauchery.
39 On July 6, 2007 at 7:47 PM, Richard wrote —
To Daniel. The greatest thing about God (that's God, not god) is that whether you believe in Him or not, it does not change the fact that He is real. Maybe one day you'll challenge Him to show Himself to you. And maybe one day He will.
40 On July 6, 2007 at 10:32 PM, Jim wrote —
This is a fascinating debate, especially so when observing the difference in tone between the two sides. I wish I could put my finger on the nature of that difference...
One thing that has not yet been addressed is the damage done to (and by) people who are coerced into suppressing their sexuality. Anyone who has experience in counseling or self-help groups, as well as most gay people, can probably tell horrible stories of lives destroyed and potential unrealized.
I have one close friend who, in my opinion, has been successfully fighting the "demon" of homosexuality all his life. It is a life of alcoholism, an abandoned child, three desparate attempts at marriage (the third to a woman with whom he did not share a common language), and most recently his joining a Christian missionary youth organization and a permanent move to a third-world nation. His life has been one of flight from situations that suddenly become too uncomfortable to tolerate. Christianity, which he has adopted with cultlike intensity in recent years, seems to be working for him now, but I'm expecting it to get critically uncomfortable any day now (especially surrounded by all those Christian youth -- funny how that works). It pains me to consider the decades of chaos and unhappiness he has endured, and caused others, in his attempt to deny his innate identity. Like many in his situation, his denial is such that I'm quite certain he has no idea what is really going on.
I've understated and been vague about things in an attempt to respect my friend's privacy. But I hope the message comes through: that there are many, many people who live severely diminished lives in the "successful" pursuit of a "normal" life.
41 On July 6, 2007 at 11:45 PM, William Anderson wrote —
Dear Mr. DiRito, your letter was, on the surface, respectable. However, there are some substantial clarifications that need to be made. First, you attempt to minimize the challenge to the homosexual agenda done by Mr. Glatze's witness to his personal journey by trying to marginalize the relevance and impact of his statements. Indeed, one reason why Mr. Glatze's statements ring so true is because the experiences he articulates are shared by all people who have lived and are now leaving a gay lifestyle. Mr. Glatze’s statements hold weight exactly because those experiences are not restricted to him nor a small contingent of the “gay gone straight" set, nor one might say of the gay community as a whole. More men and women are sharing their stories, and the fact that those stories share so much in common establishes that the data is both personal and objective. Consequently, the gay lobby, for lack of a better term for the moment, should honestly contend with the relevance of these personal stories without resorting to dismissive tactics. There is objective data that cannot be so easily dismissed by any subtle ad hominum attacks on Mr. Glatze. Mr. Glatze is relaying his first hand account of a lifestyle that terminates in everything Mr. Glatze mentioned in his letter. People’s experiences can be objective AND personal. You, however, have attempted to marginalize Mr. Glatze’s statements by creating an unnecessary dichotomy between experience and empirical or objective assessment. Mr. Glatze, again, has given a very personal AND objective assessment of his experiences and, by virtue of having shared those experiences with others in the gay community, one must acknowledge that Mr. Glatze is confirming actual experiences and talking about men with whom he has shared a gay lifestyle, and that those same men and their actions have contributed to the rational conclusions that Mr. Glatze has expressed in his letter. Finally, just because Mr. Glatze has used language that may seem harsh to those who promote the gay lifestyle, there is no reason to dismiss the accuracy of the content of his statements. Mr. Glatze has accurately articulated the gay experience, and he - now a former gay activist - has used language by which many others are sure to recognize the difficult task of justifying a lifestyle that is characterized not so much by real self knowledge and authentic sexual complementarity and relationship as it is a propping up of an confused identity that is manufactured by inclusion in a dynamic that depends on mimetic rivalry. The violence and brokenness at the heart of homosexual relationships that Mr. Glatze has articulated is confirmation of that mimetic rivalry between men, men who assume confused sexual roles in order to reconcile within themselves a rivalry that, according to René Girard and others, is irreconcilable unless one resorts to violence (of one type or kind) done to self or another person. Those same violent tendencies may be seen in the deflections of gay activists who attempt to scapegoat ex-gays by reducing a person to the sum of his failed attempts to deal with “personal demons". Rather than confronting the reason why he (Mr. Glatze) was controlled by those “demons", you have not seen one of Mr. Glatze’s main arguments - i.e., that he was blinded by a homosexual lifestyle that, based on his experience, blinds everyone who engages in a similar lifestyle, thus making attempts to extricate one’s self from such a lifestyle very difficult and frequently opposed by unsympathetic or hostile activists. Mr. Dirito, you have not really addressed the source of those “demons", as you put it. Mr. Glatze is honestly contending with his early challenges and he further contends that those same challenges (“demons") have been exacerbated by the gay lifestyle. Mr. Glatze, by giving his forthright eyewitness account of the gay lifestyle, is refusing to participate in a culture, i.e., gay culture, which by its very nature is a culture in which people do violence to each other: emotional violence, sexual and physical violence, intellectual and spiritual violence.
42 On July 7, 2007 at 7:59 AM, Rainbow Demon wrote —
Fascinating. It never ceases to amaze me how totally predictable and parochial people of certain persuasions can be.
One should never pretend to say that [s]he alone has the answer to the way things should be. I never could understand this trait in others, or where they get the wherewithall to impose their views on another that they deem 'inferior' to themselves. (and yes, this attitude is manifest in the discussion above).
Belief and Faith are personal to each individual, and should never be obtruded or paraded about as collective or universal 'Truth'. If you find solace in your book, by all means read it - and don't impose your conclusions on others that it may or may not include in its pages.
No one is right or wrong here:
Michael has written how he feels (publicly),
Daniel has responded in kind (rather eloquently)
...and everyone has a right to their opinion.
I might add that the discussion is compelling.
Peace,
=RD=
43 On July 7, 2007 at 9:04 AM, Alex wrote —
"I never could understand this trait in others, or where they get the wherewithall to impose their views on another that they deem 'inferior' to themselves. (and yes, this attitude is manifest in the discussion above)."
I think it ultimately boils down to fear of death and the existential angst of being self-aware yet solely identified with the temporal I/me construct. The only constant in this realm of duality, of relative existence, is change. There is no certainty to be found here. So mankind invents and seeks comfort in arbitrarily declared absolutes that are backed by the authority of superstition and magical thinking. A stronger mind can be content to take comfort with the declared absolute as subjective truth. However, the weaker mind, in its craving for pseudo-certainty, needs to project subjective truth as Objective Universal Truth in order to uphold the illusion of certainty and absoluteness.
44 On July 7, 2007 at 10:49 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
William Anderson:Pretty hard to sift through the density of your prose, but i will make these comments.
Michael Glatze statements: personal? Undoubtedly. Objective. I doubt it. That is Daniel's point. I've known very few gay people in my life who have the issues michael expresses. But they are happy people. Michaels' issues are characteristic of those who seek to blame the unhappiness in their lives on their homosexuality, or their homosexuality on their unhappiness. Neither is true. There are happy homosexuals and unahppy heterosexuals. Accepting Jesus has nothing to do with it. Lonnie Latham. Paul Barnes. Ted Haggard. There is more truth in their stories than there is in Michael's attempts to convince himself that the story he is making up about himself is true.
Bradley Schmeling. Gene Robinson. Troy Perry. Jane Spahr. Rich Danyluk. Now there you have some people speaking up for truth.
You: to assume that my homosexuality has blinded me says more about you than it does about me. I will say that your anti-gay attitudes have blinded you to truth. Being gay opened my eyes to all sorts of things that you are clearly incapable of seeing. but then, if you could see those truths, you would actually have to think for yourself and be responsible for your own life.
Your bias is made clear by these statements: "The violence and brokenness at the heart of homosexual relationships". "gay culture, which by its very nature is a culture in which people do violence to each other: emotional violence, sexual and physical violence, intellectual and spiritual violence.'
Huh?
Funny, my life, and the life of just about every gay person I know, is nothing like that. But then, we don't buy the line that you're selling. You have, and michael has, and so, it's true for you. Your whole diatribe is nothing but emotional, spiritual, and intellectual violence. The sad part is, you're doing it to yourself. It is nothing to do with being gay.
Next you'll be telling me that you love me as a sinner, but hate my sin. What bullshit. There is no way to say this nicely-- you have your head stuck up your ass, and the only thing you can see is shit. You have bought the whole ex-gay line. You cloak what you have to say in academic, formal, high-sounding language, but at the heart of what you have to say is simple fear and self hatred, an attempt to make whatever experiences you have had and misinterpeted-- or blamed on being gay-- as universal as you can, all in the vain hope of avoiding any responsbility in your own life for your own happiness.
and that was daniel's point.
Actually, though, you might say that I too love the sinner and hate the sin. I hate what you do, that you try to make your misery and unhappiness universal, attempting to deny the rest of us our chance at happiness and peace because you need validation for your choices and beliefs. I feel badly for you and for michael, that your lives have been so twisted by religion and fear and prejudice. I wish that some day you'll come to accepting who you are and creating a life for yourself that is not about "emotional violence, sexual and physical violence, intellectual and spiritual violence."
If that is how you see homosexuality, then that is what you are creating in your life.
45 On July 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM, hannah wrote —
I first heard about Michael Glatze yesterday when a member of my church sent me a message on facebook "Check this out guys! A gay activist, turned to Christ and disclaimed his homosexuality! God is good!" I think what Michael Glatze did is "ABSOULOTLY FABLOUS", it is so amazing to see the sins that God almighty can liberated even the most lost of souls from and i think it will open up the doors for many other people chained down with sin to see what God can do and become free.I know from reading through these comments that there are many people who disagree, and you may try to accuse me of being judgemental, prejudice and then turn around to call me "christo-hetero-supremacist" or use other ways to digrade christainity as you have done to every other christain who have voice thier opinoin in peacful non- prejudice ways or bring up certain christain leaders who have lost thier as an examaple of all christains (this would be the same as me saying all gays have unprotected sex and are bound to get aids), But i choose to voice my opinion none the less.My very best friend is bisexual and I still love her just the same as I did before she came out of the closet, but i still voice my opinion to her, tell about god and continue to pray for her liberation everyday. I abousoltly intend on telling her about Mr.Glatze and pray it will be a witness in her life. As i will pray for all homsexauls living in sin and everyone elese in this world ,including my self because everyone sins everyday the only difference between me and you is i try to elinmate it as much as possible and you accept name it as the way you are, and genetics. So to Michael Glatze thank so much for sharing your story I know that as much as they may oppose you or deny the fact ,your testimoniy will give that little bit of light many homeosexual need to start the begininng of the end of this stage in thier life. GOD IS GOOD!! God bless
46 On July 7, 2007 at 11:11 AM, Seth wrote —
What a load of psychobabble in post #41 and concluding with "i.e., gay culture, which by its very nature is a culture in which people do violence to each other: emotional violence, sexual and physical violence, intellectual and spiritual violence," really takes the cake.
The ONLY physical, intellectual and spiritual violence I've experienced as a gay male has been hurled at me by my father, my classmates and rednecks on the street. They all shared your conviction that their view of the world is the correct one and somehow this gives them the right to impose their beliefs on me through force, whether verbal or physical.
But then, I'd expect nothing less from a cult that glorifies torture and death on a cross as a path to salvation from themselves.
47 On July 7, 2007 at 11:52 AM, Ben in oakland wrote —
For hannah: When I use the words "christo-hetero-supremacist" I am not seeking to degrade Christianity. Christians have been doing that quite well all by themselves. You need no help from me.
It is a description of your beliefs that Christianity is the only valid belief system, that your particular version of Christianity (when it comes to sexuality) is the only valid version of Christianity, and that heterosexuality is the only valid sexuality, in your eyes or god's. Underlying all of this is the belief of Christians like you who assume that it is their religion's right and role in the world to control sexuality in the first place, whether for people who believe like you, or those who do not.
Religious people have been murdering and torturing each other for centuries, and inflicting their misery on the rest of us simply because we don't share their particularly twisted view of the world. If you religious peiople cannot agree on the nature of god and his message to the world, why should I think that you finally have it irght when it comes to your religious opinions about gay people?
Though I think Christianity and its view of itself is silly, sex-phobic, non-historical, mythlogical, and ultimately very destructive of peace, health, and happiness, don't take it personally. Rest assured I think the same of most religious belief, and I have no objection to you believing it. It's a free country.
Where I draw the line is your belief that just because you believe something, I should have to believe it, too, and welcome its destructiveness into my life simply because you think I should, and that your beliefs should govern my health and happiness to the exclusion of what I know to be true.
And, as I will never tire of pointing out, despite the central place that homo-hatred-- or as you are pleased to call it, love-the-sinner-and-hate-the-sin-- has for so many bible-believers, Jesus had absolutely NOTHING to say about it. He was quite clear about keeping your eyes off the sins of others.
As i said in an earlier post: "You so-called Christians now pursue gay people with the same absolute moral certainty that you are doing/expressing god's will with which you used to burn witches-- and other Christian heretics-- and with about as much basis in reality. When you have achieved Moral Perfection, then you may feel free to comment on my lack of it. Oh, wait. that's just what Jesus had to say, isn't it."
48 On July 7, 2007 at 12:49 PM, hannah wrote —
Ben
I'm sorry if you misinterperteded my comment. No where in what i wrote did I say I'm perfect and right and you're wrong; however, I do recall saying "As i will pray for all homsexauls living in sin and everyone elese in this world ,including my self because everyone sins everyday." I do agree that I myself and no other Christians in this world are perfect, as well as many other versions of Christianity due to misinterpretations of the Bible, though the Bible does clearly state God's views on homosexuality (Romans chapter 1, verses 24 -27). I do not think you were just in your reply to categorize my religion under the same umbrella as Christians of the past who persecuted others. I am not a religious person, I am a person of faith who tries to live as a disciple of God, opposed to someone who is just living by rules and regulations. I do not wish to judge you as a person because of the choice you may have made in your life regarding sexuality. I am sure you have many great attributes as well as every other homosexual in the world. I simply wrote my comment to express my opinion on the choice that Michael Glatze has made. I wish you well in your life and pray that God will help you find your way as he helped Michael.
49 On July 7, 2007 at 1:07 PM, Jessica wrote —
For Ben: THis is the first time I have ever heard of Michael Glatze, and I willl admit that I was impressed by his courage to stand up for what he believed. He has amazing courage todo a complete 180 degree turn and become heterosexual, as well as a Christian.
What I have to ask is WHY? If us Christians are so dogmatic, and have a sickly twisted view on "how the world should be run", then why did such a stauch supporter become a Christian?
Also I would like to point out a little error that you made in your comment. You made reference that Christians and "religious" people twist the world. I would like to differenciate the difference between religous people and Christianity.
Now, all religions are not the same. Born-again Christians try to follow God and have a relationship with Him through His Son Jesus Christ. Now religious people, and even some "Christians" are serving a set of rules that they claim makes their "religion". The mistake is that, all religions aren't the same, and you can't clump them all together. Islam, Buddism )whatever you like) follows a dead man/men....Muhammad was a man who started a religion and then he died, leaving a trail of followers who worship his dead body. Christians claim to serve a God who is living and omniscience, never-ending. So you can see how there is a large difference between religions, and again, I think it isn't right to clump everyone all together.
Also, in order to make a claim so great as "Jesus said nothing about it, and that he told us to overlook people's sins", you need to do some homework.
When Jesus was on earth He pointed out in several places the sanctity of marriage between ONE man and ONE woman (Mark 10:4-12). He talks about how holy such a bond is. Later on in Romans 1 verses 27-32 it talks about how God does not like (read it for yourself and see exactly what God had to say about homosexuality) homosexuality. Also thousands of years before God made many references about homosexuality and what He thought about it.(Through the laws to the children of Israel, and in HIs dealings with mankind over the years)
I think that you are confusing religious poeple, with Christians (like I earlier said). Religious poeple work on a set of laws that they can use and bend to their own purposes, but a born-again Christian live strictly to what God says. When Jesus was on earth He would sit with the prostitutes and talk to them, He loved them...but He would lovingly point out their sin and their faults. THis is the way a true Christian is supposed to act. We're not supposed to brainwash you, or kill you like some religious fanatics do....we are supposed to love the person while showing you what God says about your life-style and try to gently show you God's love.
I would like to also respond to some of the other blogs and comments as well. When people talk about Christianity they think of killing and torture. I would like to point out that most of these acts of inhumain cruelty were done by old bishops and popes of the past, who killed because they wanted power and who knows what all else. If you look in th