27 replies to this topic

[elle]

Le?enje homofobije

"Homofobija: nedostatak ose?aja ljubavi za pripadnike vlastitog pola i posledi?na mr*nja takvih ose?aja kod drugih... verovanje u
neodvojivu superiornost jednog oblika ljubavi i koja zbog toga treba dominirati."
Audre Lourde

Predugo se na seksualne i emotivne veze me?u pripadnicima istog pola gledalo kao na glavni drustveni problem. Problem, me?utim, nije
istospolna emocionalna ili seksualna veza. Drustveni problem je homofobija - mnostvo na?ina na koji se ljudi poni*avaju zbog seksualne
orijentacije i ose?ajnog izbora.
U mnogim su kulturama istopolne veze drustveno prihva?ene kao normalan oblik ljudskog ponasanja. U nasem drustvu mnogi ljudi veruju
kako je seksualni kontakt izme?u dva muskarca bolestan i nemoralan, a seksualni kontakt me?u *enama ne samo bolestan i nemoralan
ve? i nepostoje?i ili nemogu?.
U ovom tekstu se govori o tome kako prepoznati homofobiju kod sebe i drugih, kako homofobija steti heteroseksualcima, koji su uzroci
homofobije te kako se ona mo*e le?iti.

Kako prepoznati homofobiju kod sebe i drugih
?etiri su razli?ita, ali povezana oblika homofobije: personalna, interpersonalna, institucionalna i kulturalna.
Personalna homofobija je predrasuda temeljena na li?nom uverenju da su lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci gresni, nemoralni,
bolesni, inferiorni u odnosu na heteroseksualce ili nepotpuni muskarci i *ene. Personalna homofobija se manifestuje ose?ajima straha,
nelagode, nesvi?anja, mr*nje ili ga?enja prema istospolnoj seksualnosti. Svako, bez obzira na seksualnu orijentaciju, mo*e osetiti
personalnu homofobiju. Kad je ose?aju lezbejke, homoseksualci ili biseksualci naziva se internalizovana homofobija.
Kao i heteroseksualci, lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci su u?eni kako je istospolna seksualnost inferiorna heteroseksualnosti te
mnogi ovo internalizuju, pro*ivljavaju u sebi, do te mere da je samo-prihva?anje vrlo tesko. Oni prihvataju stigmu koja je prika?ena o
lezbejke, homoseksualce i biseksualce bez da razmisljaju kako je njihovo iskustvo rezultat pritiska. Jedan rezultat ovakvog razmisljanja
jeste da lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci bri*ljivo skrivaju svoj identitet; drugi o?ajni?ki pokusavaju negirati ili promeniti svoju
seksualnu orijentaciju; a neki pokusavaju ili po?ine samoubistvo.
Interpersonalna homofobija je individualno ponasanje temeljeno na personalnoj homofobiji. Ta mr*nja ili nesvi?anje mo*e se izra*avati
smisljanjem razli?itih imena, pri?anjem viceva, verbalnim i fizi?kim zlostavljanjem i drugim individualnim diskriminacijskim postupcima.
Interpersonalna homofobija u svom ekstremnom obliku dovodi do toga da se lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci fizi?ki napadaju zbog
nikakvog drugog razloga osim napada?eve homofobije. Mnogi ljudi iskazuju svoj strah od lezbejki, homoseksualaca i biseksualaca na
nenasilan, uobi?ajeniji na?in. Rodbina ?esto namerno izbjegava svoje homoseksualne i biseksualne ?lanove porodice; saradnici su
distancirani i hladni prema svojim radnim kolegama lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima; heteroseksualni prijatelji nisu
zainteresirani za slusanje o vezama svojih prijatelja lezbejki, homoseksualaca i biseksualaca.
Institucionalna homofobija se odnosi na brojne na?ine kojima vlada, poslovni sektor, crkve i druge institucije i organizacije diskriminisu
ljude na temelju njihove seksualne orijentacije. Institucionalna homofobija se tako?e naziva heteroseksizam.
Institucionalna homofobija se reflektuje u religijskim organizacijama koje imaju ?vrste stavove ili pravila protiv toga da lezbejke,
homoseksualci i biseksualci vode misu ili slu*bu; agencijama koje odbijaju pru*iti usluge lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima i
vladama koje nisu uspele osigurati jednaka prava za sve gra?ane, bez obzira na njihovu seksualnu orijentaciju.
Kulturalna homobija se odnosi na drustvene norme i standarde koji diktiraju uverenje kako je biti heteroseksualan bolje ili moralnije
nego biti lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci te da svako jeste ili bi trebao biti heteroseksualan. Kulturalna homofobija se tako?e
naziva heteroseksizam.
Kulturalna homofobija se vidi svaki dan na televiziji i u oglasima gde je doslovno svaki lik heteroseksualan, svaka erotska veza
uklju?uje *enu i muskarca i za svako "normalno" dete se pretpostavlja da ga privla?e te da ?e se ven?ati za nekoga suprotnog pola. U
malobrojnim slu?ajevima gde se portretiraju lezbejke, homoseksualci ili biseksualci, prikazani su obi?no kao nesretni, stereotipni, skloni
samo-destruktivnom ponasanju ili ambivalentni u pogledu svoje seksualne orijentacije.

Kako homofobija steti heteroseksualcima?
Homofobija i heteroseksizam jasno vrse pritisak na lezbejke, muske homoseksualce i biseksualne *ene i muskarce kroz individualne
oblike verbalnog i fizi?kog napastovanja i kolektivnih delovanja koji uzrokuju nevidljivost, bezvrednost i diskriminaciju homoseksualaca i
biseksualaca. Me?utim, homofobija i heteroseksizam tako?e stete i heteroseksualcima. Odr*avanjem rigidnih definicija "prikladnog"
seksualnog ponasanja i veza, opusteno u*ivanje u bilo kakvoj senzualnoj interakciji ili emocionalnoj bliskosti me?u pripadnicima istog
pola je ograni?eno. Strah od toga da ?e biti shva?en kao lezbejka ili homoseksualac ograni?ava razvoj prijateljstva me?u pripadnicima
istog pola. Ovi strahovi pridonose razvoju stresa i emocionalne nefleksibilnosti i mogu unistiti heteroseksualnu vezu.
Homofobija ?esto razara porodice kad roditelji saznaju da im je dete lezbejka, homoseksualac ili biseksualac. Koliko bi bolje bilo
sa?uvati porodicu podupiranjem i postivanjem svih ro?aka, bez obzira na njihovu seksualnu orijentaciju.
U drustvu gde su dostignu?a lezbejki, homoseksualaca i biseksualaca skrivena ili omalova*avana , heteroseksualci imaju iskrivljen
pogled na stvarnost; u?e jedino o *ivotima drugih heteroseksualaca. Negiraju mogu?nost u?enja iz iskustava, vestina i znanja lezbejki,
homoseksualaca i biseksualaca. Heteroseksualci mogu obogatiti svoj *ivot ukoliko ostanu u kontaktu s lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i
heteroseksualcima.
Negiranje jednakih ljudskih prava lezbejkama, homoseksualacima i biseksualcima vodi ka ograni?avanju prava svih ljudi. Vlade koje su
naj*es?e potiskivale homoseksualce, tako?e ograni?avaju ljude na temelju pola, rase, etni?ke pripadnosti, verskih uverenja i klase. Ako
lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci mogu biti meta diskriminacije, svaka druga grupa u drustvu mo*e postati meta. Ako duboko
verujemo u slobodu i individualna prava, tada ?emo ceniti sve ljude i razlike me?u njima koje tako mnogo pridonose pluralisti?kom
drustvu.

Koji su uzroci homofobije?
Personalna homofobija (predrasude) prvenstveno je uzrokovana neinformiranos?u. Kao sto je slu?aj sa seksizmom i rasizmom, ljude se
u?i da budu homofobi?ni. Mitovi o lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima se nastavljaju prenositi u nasem drustvu usprkos
dostupnosti ta?nih informacija. Vrlo malo dece dobije nepristrane informacije o lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima; mnogi
odrasli nastavljaju verovati u stereotipe koje su nau?ili u detinjstvu, a neke verske i konzervativne organizacije promovisu la*i o
lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima.
Interpersonalna homofobija (zlostavljanje i individualna diskriminacija) se mo*e objasniti razmatranjem psiholoskih ?injenica u
povezanosti s predrasudama. Osobe koje nisu "na ti" sa vlastitom seksualnos?u, ili koje se ose?aju ugro*ene od istospolne
seksualnosti, sklone su rigidnosti prema tome sto je seksualno "ispravno" i mogu pokusati kazniti ili naturivati svoja uverenja
lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima.
Institucionalna homofobija je delomi?no uzrokovana takmi?enjem za mo?. Danasnja drustva stvaraju *rtvene jarce kako bi zadr*ala
status quo i pozicije onih na vlasti. Tokom proslog veka su razli?ite grupe kao sto su Jevreji, Afrikanci, Azijati, Latinoamerikanci,
Ameri?ki Indijanci, *ene, lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci bili okrivljavani za niz drustvenih i ekonomskih problema. Kad je
*rtvovanje jaraca uspesno, dominantna grupa nema potrebu za preuzimanjem odgovornosti za nepravdu ili odustajanje od privilegija.
Kulturalna homofobija je ve?inom uzrokovana drustvenim normama koje diktiraju "korektnu" seksualnost. Seksualni kontakt me?u
osobama istog pola doga?ao se u svim drustvima kroz istoriju i otvoreno je prihva?en u mnogim kulturama. Ali zapadna je civilizacija
represivna prema seksualnosti u svakom obliku, osim prema snosaju potrebnom za prokreaciju ili seksualnoj aktivnosti u kontekstu
heteroseksualnog braka. Zbog toga ?e istospolna seksualnost biti predmet strahovanja i proklinjanja.

Mo*e li se homofobija le?iti?
Homofobija je rasirena u ovom i mnogim drugim drustvima. Zbog tog sto smo svi produkt naseg drustva, ve?ina nas je homofobi?na, bez
obzira na nasu seksualnu orijentaciju.
Konstruktivno nosenje s homofobijom najprije zahteva priznanje njenom rasirenom postojanju. Mi ne mo*emo jednostavno ukloniti nase
homofobi?ne ose?aje, ali ako smo voljni priznati kako smo svi homofobi?ni, tada mo*emo preuzeti odgovornost za svoje izbore i
promenu naseg ponasanja.
Osim pretpostavke svugde prisutne homofobije, mo*emo u?initi slede?e:
Identifikovati homofobiju, a ne homoseksualnost, kao problem koji treba resiti. U razgovorima s prijateljima i kolegama otvoreno
govorite o homofobiji. Za mnoge je ljude jedino vreme kada razgovaraju o lezbejkama, homoseksualcima i biseksualcima - u kontekstu
homofobi?nih sala i viceva.
Razmisljati o sli?nostima i razlikama izme?u homofobije i drugih oblika potiskivanja. Koristenje znanja o rasizmu, seksizmu, klasizmu
itd. poslu*i ?e za bolje razumevanje homofobije i tra*enje na?ina da se odgovori na homofobiju.
Slusati iskustva lezbejki, homoseksualaca i biseksualaca i pretpostaviti kako su njihova iskustva s potiskivanjem valjana i istinita.
Sli?no, treba pretpostaviti kakav je na?in na koji lezbejke, homoseksualci i biseksualci do*ivljavaju svet razli?it od na?in na koji ga
do*ivljavaju heteroseksualci.
Aktivno podupreti anti-diskriminacijske napore, kao i kampanje u svrhu uklanjanja homofobi?nih predrasuda i nasilja.

dr. med. Livia Puljak

[elle]

nesto malo o korenima homofobije





After millennia of official persecution of homosexuals in the Judeo-Christian tradition, homophobia is
engrained in our society, just as racism is.

This pressure to conform to straight male jackets of behavior and appearance is reinforced by
acquaintances and strangers, male and female, but it is even more strongly internalized by men.

Almost every man has been called a little girl, a wuss, a pussy, a wimp, queer or faggot at some point
in his life. Even Manly Men can fear being thought of as queer or deviant, because it is the
Ůinvisible plagueÓ.

Anyone can be one, and every one different is assumed to be Ůthat way.Ó ThatÍs why men have so few
close male friends. No wonder men die of heart disease at such a high rate, they are so constricted
and armored.

As long as this internal homophobia is in place, most boys will avoid anything which is deemed to be
less than manly, like not jumping off high bridges when dared, or fighting when insulted, crying, even
feeling emotions, using big words, wearing pink or even pastels, dancing, or whatever.

http://coastalpost.com/98/2/9.htm

[Dunadan]

da li sam samo ja ili se i vama chini da se pojavi homosexualnosti i homofobije pridaje znachaj veci nego shto treba?

4 iste teme
dzizs

[Pobunjenik]

Не да се придаје значај него се болесно претерује са тиме.
Циљ Завере јесте да људе који се противе назадним појавама у друштву, као што је хомосексуализам на пример, прогласи фашистима, будалама, лудацима, итд. Е, зато су смислили једну реч која у суштини обухвата све то, а та реч је хомофобија. Доћи ће време када ће људи који се противе педофилији бити називани "педофобични" или нешто слично.

[MiraB.]

Dobro bre, Madame, odakle izviru ovi nazadni i bolesni textovi? E, ako ovo nije Zavera (iskreno se nadam da je pravilno napisano!), ja ne znam sta je?!



SOS od ovakvih Zaverenickih tipova na forumu! Je l' taj moderator spava, sta li?!

[Venom]

zavera sa velikim Z... nema ni ime, to je zavera nad zaverama. kratko i jasno Zavera

[elle]

cia, vidi sta jos kazu

neki




jedna od definicija homofobije:




The American Heritage Dictionary
(1992 edition) defines homophobia
as "aversion to gay or homosexual
people or their lifestyle or
culture" and "behavior or an act
based on this aversion." Other
definitions identify homophobia as
an irrational fear of
homosexuality.




http://psychology.uc.../prej_defn.html



eh, sad...

[Pobunjenik]

А све те дефиниције креирају Заверини људи.

[elle]

Pobunjenik, aj' bez ljutnje, procitaj ovo, bas je lepo






In the first years of the twentieth century heterosexual and homosexual were
still
obscure medical terms, not yet standard English. In the first 1901 edition of
the "H"
volume of the comprehensive Oxford English Dictionary, heterosexual and
homosexual had
not yet made it.

Neither had heterosexuality yet attained the status of normal. In 1901,
Dorland's Medical
Dictionary, published in Philadelphia, continued to define "Heterosexuality"
as "Abnormal
or perverted appetite toward the opposite sex."" Dorland's heterosexuality, a
new
"appetite," was clearly identified with an "opposite sex" hunger. But that
craving was
still aberrant. Dorland's calling heterosexuality "abnormal or perverted" is,
according to
the Oxford English Dictionary's first Supplement (1933), a "misapplied"
definition. But
contrary to the OED, Dorland's is a perfectly legitimate understanding of
heterosexuality
according to a procreative norm.

The twentieth century witnessed the decreasing legitimacy of that procreative
imperative,
and the increasing public acceptance of a new hetero pleasure principle.
Gradually,
heterosexuality came to refer to a normal other-sex sensuality free of any
essential tie
to procreation. But only in the mid- 1960s would heteroeroticism be
distinguished
completely from reproduction, and male-female pleasure sex justified for
itself. ...

Between 1877 and 1920 Americans were embarked on The Search for Order,
documented in
historian Robert H. Wiebe's book of that title. Though Wiebe doesn't mention
it, this hunt
for regularity gave rise in the arena of sex to the new standard model
heterosexuality.
This paralleled early-twentieth-century moves to standardize railroad track
widths, time
zones, business and manufacturing procedures (discussed by Wiebe), as well as
to test and
regularize intelligence and femininity and masculinity....

In 1923, "heterosexuality" made its debut in Merriam Webster's authoritative
New
International Dictionary. "Homosexuality" had, surprisingly, made its debut
fourteen years
earlier, in 1909, defined as a medical term meaning "morbid sexual passion
for one of the
same sex." The advertising of a diseased homosexuality preceded the
publicizing of a sick
heterosexuality. For in 1923 Webster's defined "heterosexuality" as a "Med."
term meaning
"morbid sexual passion for one of the opposite sex." Only in 1934 does
"heterosexuality"
first appear in Webster's hefty Second Edition Unabridged defined in what is
still the
dominant modern mode. There, heterosexuality is finally a "manifestation of
sexual passion
for one of the opposite sex; normal sexuality." Heterosexuality had finally
attained the
status of norm.

In the same 1934 Webster's"homosexuality" had changed as well. It's simply
"eroticism for
one of the same sex." Both terms' medical origins are no longer cited.
Heterosexuality and
homosexuality had settled into standard American.

In 1924, in The New York Times, heterosexuality first became a love that
dared to speak
its name. On September 7 of that year the word "hetero-sexual" made its first
known
appearance in The New York Times Book Review significantly, in a comment on
Sigmund Freud.
There, in a long, turgid review of Freud's Group Psychology and the Analysis
of the Ego
one Mary Keyt Isham spoke of "repressed hetero-sexuality" and "hetero-sexual
love". . . .

By December 1940, when the risque musical "Pal Joey" opened on Broadway, a
tune titled
"Zip" satirized the striptease artist Gypsy Rose Lee, by way of a character
who,
unzipping, sang of her dislike for a deep-voiced woman or high-pitched man
and proclaimed
her heterosexuality. That lyric registered the emergence in popular culture
of a
heterosexual identity.








http://www.pbs.org/w...atzhistory.html





odlican link, ima svasta za sve koje ova tema na neki nacin muchi


muchi li koga ova tema?




peace & love!!!

[vladan]

"Циљ Завере јесте да људе који се противе назадним појавама у друштву, као што је хомосексуализам на пример, прогласи фашистима, будалама, лудацима, итд."
Pobunjenik

Za tebe, lepo moje, sve to ne vazi; za tebe vazi samo jedna rec: BUDALA!

[yenta]

mislim da ce ZZZZavera ovako i nastaviti sve do trenutka dok pobunjenik ne prizna. pred svima.

[Pobunjenik]

Шта да признам?

[yenta]

polako pobunjenik, ne skachi pred rudu, sve ce se saznati polako - zzzavera se tek uigrava...

[elle]

apsolutno




jer da to nije slucaj, ne bi bilo ni ovog teksta


a tekst govori sledece:






















Let's talk about the meeting you
had with Mel White, his people and
your supporters. Are you happy you
had that meeting?

Mel and I have been friends for about 15
years. He wrote for me, Dr. Billy Graham,
Pat Robertson, and others, before he came
out of the closet. After he came out in
1991, I maintained a relationship with
him. In fact, I asked him to do some work
for me after that, which he did not do,
because he was taking over the leadership
of what I call the grassroots gay and
lesbian membership. The gay and lesbian
community has its very passive,
in-the-closet, quiet people on one
extreme. On the other, there's the wild,
wooly Queer Nation, Act Up, burn-it-down,
shoot-everything-in-sight crowd. And then
the normal crowd, like all the rest of
us, who live, do their own thing; they
don't want you bothering them, and they
don't want to bother you. Mel heads up
that group. He's a very sensible,
intelligent person. We don't agree on a
lot of things, but we're good friends.

How did this meeting come about?

Three years ago, he came here and spent
the day with me, to try one more time to
convince me that the Bible approves the
behavior. At the end of the day, he had
failed, and we made an agreement: "I
believe that homosexuality is sin, but I
like you. We can be friends if we can
stipulate that." And we have been
friends.

Earlier this year he came and said, "Can
we discuss violence on both sides?" This
was after the Matthew Shepard event in
the prior year, Billy Jack Gaither,
Columbine, when some Christians were
targeted, and the Wedgewood Baptist
Church shooting in Ft. Worth. We agreed
that we could talk, if they are willing
to stipulate that we believe, as
evangelicals, that the lifestyle is sinful--we'll leave that out of the
discussion. The discussion will be about how to lower the rhetoric, bring
down the shrill voices, and hopefully assuage some of the violence. Our
staffs and Mel met together for a couple of months, worked out all the
details, and we had a weekend here in October . . . At the end of the
weekend, we both agreed that we made a good first step. We both got some
things we did want and didn't get some things we wanted.

What did you learn from that weekend? And what did you want
that you didn't get?

We really wanted more acknowledgment from Mel and the 200 Soulforce
delegates about the violence that is directed towards Christians by gays
and lesbians. I'm speaking of the St. Patrick Cathedral trashing. I'm
speaking of the situation in Arkansas, where a 13-year-old boy was raped
repeatedly by two gay men and eventually suffocated to death, which made
very little media. That type of thing.

We wanted also a little more respect from them towards former gays,
ex-gays, who have come out of the lifestyle and who are saying publicly,
"Just as we chose into the lifestyle, we can choose out." Even Mel's
group, even the more moderate gays and lesbians, have a very hostile
attitude towards former gays, who are trying to reach out to people in the
lifestyle. They look on them as hatemongers, when they're just the
opposite. We didn't get that acknowledgment.

I brought Michael Johnston in, who
spoke during the conference and in the
press conference. He's an ex-gay and a
committed Christian, who's dying of
AIDS. Soulforce came to Thomas Road
Baptist Church . . . and attended two
of our five services. Michael spoke in
one of them, and I spoke in the other.
They were very infuriated by even the
presence of Michael Johnston, and that
is antithetical to what they're trying
to say and do. They want the general
public to show love and
acceptance--properly so--towards gay and lesbians in housing
accommodations, jobs, work, etc. In order to get that, they've also got to
make room for persons like Michael Johnson and thousands of them who have
come out of the gay lifestyle. They probably would say that our bringing
that into the equation was something they didn't want.

They didn't want you to bring in ex-gays?

The complaints I have heard from Mel and others generally come down them
feeling like it was a low blow to have ex-gays invited to the weekend. My
feeling was, if we're really going to have open discussion, let's bring in
anybody who wants to come. . . . All the extremists, such as Fred Phelps,
were there. And they behaved themselves. They didn't hurt each other or
anybody. As evangelicals, it was difficult not to allow the rightness or
wrongness of the lifestyle. But you give a little--allow ex-gays to be
there, who can tell you that you don't have to be what you are--as you
chose in, you can choose out. There's a difference of opinion on that, but
no more so than we have in our camp. They are asking a little too much and
giving too little.

But can't you see why they would feel that way about your
bringing in ex-gays? Does it not go to the very heart of what
gay people say--that this is the way they are born, just as you
and I are born heterosexual?

Some gays say that they are born gay. But many, many realize they chose
it, and many, many have come out. . . . We've had seven who attended with
Soulforce who have begun corresponding with us, and saying for the first
time, "We realize that we don't have to stay in this lifestyle. May we get
some spiritual help from you?" We are working with them. They are doing it
very quietly. They don't want even their own people to know they've done
this.

Obviously, you believe that homosexuality is a choice.

Oh yes--all behaviors.

Do you believe that it's a choice for everyone? Do you believe
there may be some people for whom it's not a choice, that it's
their sexual orientation?

No, I don't believe that. I believe that all of us are born heterosexual,
physically created with a plumbing that's heterosexual, and created with
the instincts and desires that are basically, fundamentally, heterosexual.
But I believe that we have the ability to experiment in every direction.
Experimentation can lead to habitual practice, and then to a lifestyle.
But I don't believe anyone begins a homosexual. They begin the way God
made them: male, female, with all the dispositions that are built in. If
they choose to be bisexual or transgendered or homosexual, they're human
beings, and they have the ability to do it. But as a Christian,
biblically, scripture makes very clear that it's an immoral position. Even
Romans I says that at some point, when they finally are just so committed
to doing that. The quote from the King James is, "God gives them over to a
reprobate mind," or a malformed mind.

But even in that very quote, in that letter, Paul says later
that there is nothing that is unclean.

Up until the New Testament era, there were certain dietary regulations

. . . due to health, and so forth. But after the coming of Christ, one may
eat anything, as long as he gives thanks for it, because no particular
animal is unclean. That has nothing to do with morality, or character, or
integrity. The rules of morality and character are embedded in both the
Old and New Testament.

Mel White tried to convince you that the Bible actually
approves of homosexuality. What did he say? What arguments did
he muster?

He was an evangelical minister prior to his coming out of the closet. He
taught Bible and theology at Fuller Theological Seminary in Southern
California. He wrote for Dr. Billy Graham. He was married to Leila, with
children and grandchildren, when he decided to abandon them his marriage,
and his life, and move in with his male lover, Gary Nixon. In my mind, his
argument would say, "I wrestled all those years. I never enjoyed my sexual
activity." That is so totally irrelevant. He had a commitment there. He
said to his wife, "Until death do us part." They brought children to the
world. His parents, likewise, were, in their minds, defrauded.

But is it irrelevant to the question of whether homosexuality
is a choice? If he did all of that, and had electroshock
therapy treatments and all kinds of psychological therapy, and
he still felt that that's who he was--

I don't think he needed any of those treatments. All he needed to do is
keep his commitments. The horrible thing that Mel has done, and I've said
so to his face, is that when a man leaves his wife and children for
another woman, he has done a terrible thing. He has crushed lives and left
behind wreckage that he can never correct. God can forgive him, of course.
. . . But when you leave and go off into the homosexual lifestyle, you
have said, "My sexual gratification is more important than those children,
that woman, those grandchildren. As long as I feel good and I have my
sexual gratification, so be it." That is so selfish. It is so wrong. There
are people who never marry, who live their whole lives chaste and pure.
Our Lord Jesus was never married. Paul was never married, or the apostle
Paul. It is not a terrible thing for a man to have bad desires and bad
drives. Temptation is not sin--yielding to temptation is sin. He didn't
have to yield to that temptation.

You point out, rightly I believe, that he left behind a
commitment. And that's terrible when anyone does that. But he
gave up a marriage and grandchildren and his place within the
conservative Christian movement in order to come out as gay.
Doesn't that say something about this not being a choice?

No, it doesn't. He came out because he was caught and exposed. . . . Once
it got out, then of course he came out. Many people come out just because
they wish to do it, but that wasn't the case with Mel. I'm Mel's friend;
I've clearly said so. But it's a terrible thing to leave behind the
wreckage of a family, just so that I can sleep with somebody I want to
sleep with. Big deal. You don't have to sleep with anybody. You can spend
the rest of your life doing good things and helping people. . . . Millions
of people, for whatever reason, never had the opportunity to marry, and
they don't live immorally. The idea that you must be able to fulfill your
sexual desires . . . is totally self-centered. . . . It just doesn't fit
in the context of kindness and fairness and love and concern and
commitment. Mel is wrong. He can't talk himself and thousands like him out
of it. Life is supposed to be lived for God and for others. A little
gratification, that's fine, too. But amazingly, when you put God and
family first, you do get gratification.

Is there only one kind of family--heterosexual?

Without a question. . . . Marriage begins when a man and woman legally
marry. No other diverse family form is mentioned in scripture and in
western civilization. You'll find in every country, in every place, and in
every major religion, the heterosexual husband-wife relationship is the
exclusive family.

And in every country, in every civilization, and in every
religion, you'll also find homosexuality.

No question about it. And you'll also find bank robbers, drug addicts, and
alcoholics. Our church has a ministry for alcohol and drug-addicted men,
and for 41 years, without charging a penny, we've taken in thousands of
them. Half of them never used alcohol and drugs again. That's not perfect,
but it at least indicates that they don't have to be alcoholics and drug
addicts. We have a home for unwed mothers here, where girls 12 to 19 come,
pregnant, unmarried. We have started and helped to minister 1200 other
similar homes around the nation. You see the signs all over the nation,
saying, "Pregnant? Need help? 1-800-54CHILD." When they call that number,
they get Christian counsel. If they need a residence and someone to care
for them, at no charge, we will refer them, bring them in, minister
counsel to them. We hate the sin, but we love the sinner, and likewise
with gay and lesbians. We counsel and minister to them. We do all we can
to help. But we could never condone the lifestyle.

If you hate the sin and love the sinner, where's the love in
that? I know you said counseling. But are you not telling that
person that they're not as good as a heterosexual, that they're
somehow a second-class citizen?

No. They're being told that God loves them as equally as everyone else,
but that what they're doing is wrong. I just had a young man in this
office yesterday who has a terrible drug problem . . . with cocaine. I
didn't tell him, "Others are better than you," but, "What you're doing is
wrong. It will destroy you. There is help, if you're willing to take some
tough love, we can get you out of this." And the same thing with a
homosexual. "God loves you just as much as he loves every heterosexual.
What you're doing is wrong. It's going to destroy you. It's going to
destroy other lives. And if you want out, we can help you through the
gospel of Christ."

But there are millions of gays who are not destroyed. And many
of them are in very settled and loving relationships.

There are many alcoholics who can control themselves, and who live
reasonably successful lives. That doesn't make alcoholism right. There are
many heterosexuals who live immorally. They commit adultery. . . . That
doesn't make it right. It makes it very wrong. Today, as a pastor of
22,000 members, we have an epidemic here and around the nation in the
middle schools of oral sex. That's something we didn't really deal with at
the middle school level 30 years ago. But we're dealing with it this year,
and next year it looks like it's going to be worse. They've learned it
from the media advertising what the president did. . . . That doesn't make
it right. We have to work and help to bring the kids out of it.

There are many homosexuals. There are many promiscuous heterosexuals who
are living successfully, who pay their bills, who treat everybody
correctly, but who are still wrong. Any time you live outside the marriage
bond in a sexual way, you're violating the scriptures.

What makes you so sure?

One reason, of course, as a Christian, I believe the Bible is the word of
God. I take the Bible as the standard. And the Bible's very clear in its
condemnation of adultery--that a man or woman who violates his or her
marriage bond violates the laws of God. Secondly, a homosexual. Any sex
outside of the marriage bond between a man and a woman is violating God's
law. So obviously the homosexual is immediately violating God's laws. It
is not a sin to have latent desire or to be tempted immorally. The sin is
when you yield to the temptation.

Why would God put that kind of temptation in front of so many
people?

Temptation has been here ever since the Garden of Eden. When God placed
Adam and Eve here, he put also Satan in the garden, and God put the tree
of life in the center of the garden. . . . Adam immediately wanted the
forbidden fruit. . . . and he was expelled from the presence of God, and
sin entered the human race. Temptation and sin aren't new in the
twenty-first century. Men have always had the opportunity to do right or
wrong. We are creatures of free moral agency. . . . It is a choice we all
have. Promiscuous heterosexuality had been here since man's been here.
It's a matter of choice. As ministers of the gospel, we're supposed to
urge the little children right up from beginnings through adolescence that
you do have a choice, but if you'll choose God's way, you'll realize the
maximum good out of life.

I'm sure you have met gay and lesbian people who are raising
children, who are good citizens in every sense of the word, and
who also have love in their lives, and more importantly, bring
love to other people's lives. Where is the sin in that?

I know unmarried heterosexuals who are raising their children. While it's
not ideal, I thank God for single-parent mothers. Regardless how that all
happened, they have a child or children, and they are dedicating
themselves to giving all they can to their children. I say, "Kudos, God
bless you, and let the church help you." And we open the doors, and so on.


Do you say the same thing to gays and lesbians?

I say to gays and lesbians, regardless of how you get children. . . .
while showing love is a good thing, and sharing what you are and have with
other person is a good thing, the lifestyle you're living is so
reprehensible and so wrong. . . . Quite likely, , because you're their
role model . . . a higher percentage of your children will violate God's
law and will themselves be gay and lesbian. Therefore, as a gay or a
lesbian person practicing, you shouldn't bring unborn, defenseless,
helpless children into that context, where they become victimized by it.

You base the belief that this is a violation of God's law on
the Bible. Is it possible that you could be mistaken?

Only if God's mistaken. After 6,000 years of recorded scriptural data,
those who follow the teachings of the Bible know it's the best known model
in the world today. . . . I believe with all my heart that the Bible is
the infallible word of God. I therefore believe that, whatever it says, is
so.

It was written by men.

Men wrote as God dictated it through them. The biblical statement is "Holy
men of old wrote as they were moved upon by the spirit of God." Forty men
wrote and recorded scripture--they were the instruments--the Holy Spirit
was the author, and every word of God is therefore pure. . . . All of the
40 writers, over the 1500 years of writing, were chosen as . . . different
personalities. Each one writes with their personality coming right
through. But the words came from God.

The words in the Bible that say that the world is flat--did
that come from God?

There's not a verse in the Bible that says the world is flat. As a matter
of fact, Isaiah 40:verse 22 . . . says that God created the earth on the
circle of the heavens. And it's in a circle that God has created the
earth. Nowhere does God say it's flat.

People disagree about the meaning of Paul's letters. They
disagree about Sodom and Gomorrah. They talk very frankly about
mistranslations from the Greek into King James. Do you listen
to any of those arguments?

I've spent the last 48 years studying the Hebrew and the Greek and the
English in all the translations . . . with the scholars. I don't believe
that one word was lost. God himself preserved the Bible, and brought it
down through the ages. If I were doing something that the Bible condemns,
I have two choices. I can straighten up my act, or I can somehow distort
and twist and change the meaning of the Bible. I can't allow both to stay
in place. So, most people who don't want to change their misbehavior try
to change the Bible.

You've talked a lot on this subject. What's changed in your
view of homosexuality? Something's changed.

Nothing has changed behaviorally in the homosexual community. What has
changed is that, somewhere back there, society--particularly the media and
education--decided to normalize this, and to make homosexuality an
acceptable, normal lifestyle with heterosexuality. So great minds and
great technology have been put to bear to make what is wrong seem right. .
. .

Why do you think that's happened?

Because the gay and lesbian agenda is normalization, and and bona fide
minority status. In the next five or ten years, the homosexual community
will have the same minority status as Hispanics and African Americans and
women and so forth. There's a huge economic benefit thereto. All of the
affirmative action privileges of bona fide minority status become
incumbent. Add to that family benefits, governmental benefits and so on. .
. Vermont is right on the edge now on same-sex marriage, and the Vermont
Supreme Court may rule the other way. Once one state has legalized
same-sex marriage, then a clause in the Constitution requires that all the
states honor that. There will be huge litigation efforts on all sides, and
they're happening right now. Unless the Supreme Court surprises me, maybe
ten years from now there'll be a 5-4 vote at least, saying it's okay. When
that happens, we have a modern-day Sodom and Gomorrah. We have a corrupt
society where the family is trashed and where everybody loses.

How do you lose, how do I lose, if two gay men someplace get
married, or two gay women get married?

First, because my taxes are used to support something that I believe, as a
Christian, is very wrong. I object to that . . . the same way antiwar
activists objected to their tax money paying for the war. The huge
multi-religious constituency in America will be forced to subsidize and
endorse what, in their hearts and in their faith, they believe is
terribly, terribly wrong.

Beyond that, from purely the moral and spiritual perspective, children
will grow up, believing that wrong is right. That's happening now in prime
time, with gay-lesbian stars. And it's being put together in a way makes
it appear okay. Then children role model, and the experimentation begins.
I have 7 million families on our mailing list that we minister to, and I
have through the years in America. With our counselors, with all the
pastoral work we do, I can tell you that when you get past the
husband-wife marital relationship, the physical downside is terrible, the
health problems are terrible, but more importantly, the moral and
spiritual fallout is very, very negative.

God created the family to provide the maximum love and support and
morality and example that one can imagine. When you have a godly husband,
a godly wife, children who respect their parents and who are loved by
their parents, who provide for those children their physical and spiritual
and material needs, lovingly, you have the idea unit. It's the nearest
thing on earth to what God wishes to have in his relationship from heaven.
When Christ died upon the cross, he was buried and he rose from the dead.
The Son of God and God the Son did all that to develop a relationship
between man and God. The relationship that God desires with man is that
kind of an intimate relationship, where Christ as the bridegroom and the
Church as the bride are married spiritually, and the followers of Christ
as children of that relationship are rightly related. It is the ideal from
God. Everything else is second- or third- or fourth-best. And all of it is
bad.

Is God love?

God is love. And because God is love, he doesn't let me play in the middle
of the interstate, so to speak. As a little child serving him and I do the
wrong things, he smacks my hands--all of us. . . . God gives parents for
the purpose of showing love to children, by teaching them right things,
right principles, what to do, what not to do.

My father was an agnostic. But he didn't like the smell of tobacco smoke,
and there was one vote at our house, so nobody smoked there. My mother was
a committee Christian. She didn't allow alcohol. My father used it, but we
children never used alcohol. I'm glad now, at age 66, that I never used
alcohol or tobacco. . . . I've buried a lot of friends who used tobacco or
alcohol.

That's what parents should do--keep their children following the rules.
And sometimes it isn't pleasant. . . . The heavenly Father loves everyone,
but because he loves you, when you do wrong, he'll give you a paddling.

But there's a hierarchy implicit in what you're saying. There's
the heterosexual family unit, and then everything else is . . .

Wrong.

Wrong. Then when you say, "Love the sinner but not the sin,"
aren't you saying that person is "less than?"

Absolutely not. We work with and help crack and alcohol abusers. That's
not saying "You're less than." But we're saying that, right now, you're
about to reduce yourself to where you cannot be useful, and where you have
no joy in life. . . .

And most gays would say that being gay has nothing to do with
living on crack.

It depends on the gay you're talking to. I could bring to you literally
thousands of ex-gays who would tell you that they were in a destructive
lifestyle until they came to Christ and got out of it.

And they would still be a small minority of the gay population
in this country, would they not?

They don't consider themselves a part of the gay population at all any
more. They believe that they chose in and they chose out.

But the point is, there would still be millions of gays who
say, "No, this is who I am. . ."

And they sit right where you do when I'm counseling them, and tell me, "I
was born this way." My first question is, "How do you know that?" "Well, I
am this way." "I know, but tell me when you had your first homosexual
experience." And they'll tell of a particular time, a particular place,
with a particular person. And I'll say, "Did you choose to do that? Or
were you raped? Or . . ." In most cases, "I chose to do that."

"Suppose you had chosen not to do that, and years passed, and you'd gone
through all the normal things that other kids do, and you got married, and
you became a parent, and you never lived that way again. The fact is, the
longer you experiment in any way--be it drug use, alcohol, whatever--the
longer you stay in, the harder it is to get out. But the Lord will still
help you out." Sometimes we lead gays and lesbians to Christ in their
forties, or fifties, and it's a traumatic thing. We lead our drug addicts
out, and it takes a while. But it's purely a matter of choice. Christ,
through his death on the cross, can forgive them, and by his holy spirit
deliver them and keep them delivered on a day-by-day basis, if they're
willing to follow him.

Also sitting across this table, you could say that to a
heterosexual person. So when did you have your first
heterosexual experience? And did you choose it?

I could say that.

How is it different?

If they chose to have a heterosexual relationship before they were
married, I would say, "You made a mistake there, didn't you?" I mean, if
they're Christian now. "But God forgave you. You're married now. You've
got a husband, or a wife. You've got children. That's all under the blood
of Christ. Just stay in that pure relationship." But there is no reason to
lead a heterosexual out of heterosexuality, because that is God's plan for
humanity.

Do you know that because of Adam and Eve?

I know that because of the scriptures. I know that because of common
sense. . . .

There is a physical difference between men and women. . . . That doesn't
mean that they are less than those guys are. It just means they have a
different role and God made them different.

I don't know a man anywhere who's ever had a baby, or who wants to have
one. But my wife is a most wonderful mother. She gave birth to our three
children. I don't think that means that she is superior to me. But it
means that . . . God chose her for a different role, to nurture, to give
birth, and so on. I would not be a good mother. The same is true in the
sexual relationship. God gave us different physiological parts and being.
. . . We are different kinds of persons in the sense of God's anatomical
creation.

But some men are feminine, and some women are masculine. Do you
think it's just that cut-and-dried?

. . . To practice sexually anything other than the heterosexual lifestyle
for which God created and made us--and, practically, it just doesn't work
any other way without duress and abnormality--is to go against God's plan.
Very frankly, it has to be a choice. I truly cannot imagine men with men,
women with women, doing what they were not physically created to do,
without abnormal stress and misbehavior.

You can't imagine, and perhaps I can't imagine it, but millions
of people do, and love it. Furthermore, there is more than one
kind of sexual expression.

There's no question, millions do it and love it. Millions of heterosexuals
are like our president. With Hillary going to New York now, he's going to
have a heyday. That doesn't make it right. It makes it wrong, and it is
wrong. Whether millions do something is irrelevant. If something is right,
it is right. If it's wrong, it's wrong. And all sex outside of marriage
between a man and a woman is wrong.

You touched on femininity in boys, and masculinity in girls. Is
that what disturbs you about the Teletubby thing?

Not at all. I've never seen the Teletubbies. I never commented one word on
Tinky Winky. Brill's Content has already come out lambasting the AP
writer, David Reed, for creating that story.

That never happened?

Never happened. . . .

Your belief that homosexuality is a sin has not changed. But
what has changed in your position about how Christians should
behave about it?

I said during the anti-violence summit here with Mel White and Soulforce
and our 200 delegates, "While the evangelical church has been very
responsive in condemning the sin of drug addiction and alcoholism and
simultaneously reaching out, we have condemned homosexuality without
building the bridge. We've left the gay and lesbian community, whether by
intent or by perception, thinking that you're not wanted here. We have 200
of you here today because we want to tell you that we do want you."

I hope that the 70 million evangelicals in America, who almost unanimously
believe that the gay lifestyle is wrong, will also acknowledge that God
loves every gay and lesbian as much as God loves anyone else. While you
will not bring them into leadership or ordain them to be pastors, make
sure they know that they're welcome in your church. . . . Love them and
care for them, just as you would a heterosexual fellow who's running
around on his wife. You don't tell him, "You can't come in the building."
Welcome, because the idea is that our love and our message hopefully can
help bring them out of it.

Do you welcome them on your terms or on their terms?

In a place of worship, you welcome everyone carte blanche, so basically
the answer: is, on God's terms, and that is, "Whosoever will, let him
come." God does the judging. God does all the speaking. All we do is open
the doors.

A press person asked me 20 years ago what I would do if one of my sons
came to me and said, "Dad, I'm gay." I said, "I would put my arms around
him. I would let him know I love him just as much right now as I did
before he said that. I'd say, "There's nothing you can do to cause me to
banish you from my home or my love. But I want you to know I'm going to be
praying for you. I'm going to be talking to you. I'm going to be doing
everything I can to help you out of what you believe is your present
lifestyle. But you'll never see any diminution of my love for you."

Do you mean that even if your son said, "I'm not going to be
ex-gay; I'm gay?"

Almost every gay is going to say, "I am gay and I can't help it . . . and
this is the way I want to live." That would be irrelevant to me. The fact
is, "You're my son. Nothing can change that. And I'm going to love you,
right or wrong. But I do want you to know that my efforts will be directed
towards bringing you out of that." But meantime, business as usual.

By stating that so clearly, you're showing that it needed to
somehow be said.

I get e-mails and letters every day--we get up to 30,000 letters a day
here--from Christian families who think they've done God a service by
kicking their son or daughter out of the house. I go right back to them,
and: "Has your son killed somebody in your home, or injured your smaller
child, or physically assaulted you?" "No." "Then on what grounds do you
kick them . . . If it's a matter of self-preservation of your family, I
could understand that." "Well, he's gay. She's gay." I point out to them
that . . . if God kicked us out every time we displeased him, we'd all be
in sad trouble.

Which brings us to the Billy Jack Gaither case. One of the
killers has said openly that he feels that Billy Jack was gay,
and he's in hell, and it was okay, quite frankly, because the
Bible says so.

I watched the network show the other night in which he was interviewed.
I'm not a psychologist or a psychiatrist. But looking into his eyes, I
think he's crazy as a loon. I think he's capable of killing anybody,
anywhere, any time, and coming up with some justification for it. I think
he needs to be locked up the rest of his life, somewhere, for whatever
reason. If he wants to claim insanity, then put him in a insane asylum for
life. But just don't let him on the streets again, because looking into
his eyes and listening to his words, there was not an ounce of warmth or
compassion there. It sounded to me like, "You're wrong and I'm going to
kill you, and I'm going on to lunch."

What did you feel when he said, "I'm going to go to heaven
because God's forgiven me, but Billy Jack won't. He's going to
hell."

As I said, I think the boy's deranged. He certainly does not represent
Christianity or religion in general. There's no major religion that
endorses that. But there are extremists in every movement, who think
they're prophets of God, and that God ordained them to kill the enemy.

Billy Jack, who, by all accounts was an incredible human
being--do you think he's gone to hell because he's gay?

I don't think you go to hell for being gay, or for being promiscuous
heterosexually, or for stealing, or for committing adultery, or drug
addiction. I think you go to hell for rejecting Jesus Christ as your
personal lord and savior. And no human being has the right to say that he
had ever done that.

Do you think hell's a real place?

I think hell's a real place where real people spend a real eternity. I
think heaven's a real place where real people spend a real eternity.

Do you think the gay liberation movement should be considered
in the same category as the Civil Rights Movement?

I grew up in the segregated South, right here in Lynchburg, Virginia. When
I grew up, black churches were black churches, and white churches were
white churches. Schools were the same way. In businesses, blacks ate in a
special place, and the whites ate out here, and rode the buses in front
and back, and so forth. So as a child growing up in that segregated
society, I was in high school before I began sorting it out for
myself--what is all this? By the time I was in college, I began realizing
that this is so terribly wrong. . . . When I baptized my first black
family at Thomas Road Church, I think it was the first in the area for a
predominantly white church. It was novel, and it brought on a lot of
conversation. We lost a few people over it. Everybody's forgotten all
that. And when you ask them, "Were you ever a segregationist?" "Oh, of
course not." Thank God, that's all changed.

But I'm often asked, "Do you think that the gay and lesbian thing
approximates the civil rights issue like segregation-integration issue?"
And it really doesn't. I don't see behavior in any way equating to the way
God created us. God made me a white male. And God made you as he made you.
We're all made by God as we are. . . . We grant a lot of things to
minorities that we determined we should grant, to give them a running
start to catch up. I don't think that gays and lesbians should have that
privilege any more than I think adulterers should. If you choose to be
unfaithful to your wife, that's your business. It's not illegal. It's kind
of stupid, but it's not illegal. . . . Gays and lesbians choose to be gay
and lesbian, to behave immorally in that way--and get the same benefits
that a bona fide minority does.

Gays and lesbians are discriminated against sometimes, are they
not?

There's no question, that's true. . . . the same way that evangelicals are
sometimes. I doubt I could get a job at Harvard . . . because I'm an
outspoken evangelical, and they are liberal theologically, and I
understand that. . . . We all discriminate in those ways. . . . As long as
they don't turn me away because I'm white, or turn me away because I'm
religious . . .

Would you equate not getting a job at Harvard with what happens
to gay and lesbian students in schools in America these
days--being called "faggot" all the time, being beaten?

Any kind of verbal or physical violence is wrong, and it should not be
permitted. No one should do such things, but as Christians, we should not
be involved in that kind of thing. As long as we have human beings . . .
you're always going to have those kinds of guys who took Matt Shepard and
killed him. You're always going to have the nuts and the fringe people on
the extremes. But we should work very, very hard to that 95% of people in
the middle who don't do that, and do our best to restrain those few people
from doing it.

In attempting to get the 95% of the people in the middle not to
discriminate, are there not things that gays and lesbians
should be protected against in terms of discrimination? Things
that are more difficult for them to suffer than it is for you
not to get a job at Harvard?

Employment, housing--I have been an advocate that, as long as the person
lives by the rules and doesn't damage the property and pays the rent,
there should be no difference. . . . At a Christian school, we should have
the right to decide that our faculty members and students live by certain
moral standards. We are privately, not publicly, funded. . . . We have the
right to demand that we have curfew, and we have a dress code. It's "yes,
sir" or "no, sir." It's respecting everybody. We've never had anybody
doing name-calling here at Liberty. You'd last one day. Once you're called
in, you're told, "If you ever do that again, you're gone. If you do,
you're out." That's the end of it. The public universities have a little
more difficulty handling things like that--there's lawsuits, the ACLU and
all the rest. It is a nightmare to run a public university.

Does homosexuality present a threat to American society as we
know it?

I think it does, if it's normalized. We will see a breakdown of the family
and family values if we decide to approve same-sex marriage, and if we
decide to establish homosexuality as an acceptable alternative lifestyle
with all the benefits that go with equating it with the heterosexual
lifestyle. Everything that America is built on--basically the
Judeo-Christian ethic--will be down the tubes.

Haven't we already seen a breakdown of the family?

We most certainly have, because in the last generation . . . we have
lowered the moral bar. . . . It's pretty hard to ever get it back up
again, because after certain things are tolerated, and no one pays a price
for it, the next guy or gal can do as they please.

That's also happened on a much larger scale in the schools. We don't have
discipline in our schools today. . . . There should have been a clear
understanding . . . that you're going to respect everybody else. Once you
allow things to happen, and guns come to school, and "Heil Hitler" and
black trenchcoats, at some point, one day you wake up and you have a
Columbine on your hands. You don't solve those problems after they happen.
You see them in the making. . . . Those parents should be held accountable
for the deaths in that school. . . . They were absolutely negligent and
derelict. But with Hollywood and video games, everything is violence,
violence, violence. Then we get upset when kids go do it. . .

Does Fred Phelps give the Christian right a bad name?

Fred Phelps does not give the religious right a bad name, because nobody
claims kin to that guy. He's a certified nut. He's got papers to prove
it--he doesn't, he should. Anybody who goes to a funeral of a little boy
who's dead, and his parents are looking at a big placard Fred Phelps puts
up saying "Matt is in hell," is either mean as the devil or a nutcase.
Either way, he doesn't represent anybody credible.

You haven't changed your mind about homosexuality being a sin.
But you had that meeting with Mel White, etc. I imagine there
are lots of people who were not happy that you did that.

We did hear from a few, but it was a very small few, saying that this was
compromise, leaving the impression that you're changing your position. But
the contrary really has happened. I received a letter yesterday from a
leading Methodist clergyman who said that they are considering doing on
the national scale, with their . . . denomination, a model, a larger thing
than we did here on the summit. They were asking for information. . . .
That's what I had hoped would happen, because unless we open the doors and
show love and get parents to stop putting them out on the street, we're
never going to solve it. The thing is exacerbated by force against force.
The lack of love in the church towards the gay and lesbian is undeniable.
We'll take a drug addict in, we'll take in an alcoholic, we'll take in
anybody. But if gays and lesbians attempt to come in the door, people
slide over. They don't want to sit by them. They don't want anything to do
with them. It's just the opposite approach the Lord would take. Hopefully,
we can begin to change attitudes--not doctrinal beliefs--but attitudes.

What changed you?

The violence issue. I never saw a day coming when Christians and gays and
lesbians and people who were different would be targeted for violence. . .
. I never envisioned someone taking a teenage boy out and killing him . .
. just because he was gay. I began to see that the level of hostility, on
both sides, had reached a point where it is very volatile. And before you
know it, we suddenly have 100 Columbines going in different settings for
different reasons. Gunpower won't stop it. We've got to reach the hearts
of people to stop it.

[queeria]

Joj, moracu malo da obnovim znanje svog engleskog zbog ove teme.
Bas ima svasta nesto pametno da se sazna tj. procita

Edited by queeria, 18 August 2003 - 14:05.