The world versus gay people?

When considering a statement like the “World versus gay people” the first thing that comes to mind is how untrue and misleading that is. It may feel that way sometimes, it may be said by certain people on each side of the sexual orientation divide as well, but it is something that really holds no water. It is understandable that there are radicals both heterosexual and homosexual who believe that the world is an “us against them” environment, but logic dictates that to be not only baseless, but a sad way to view the world and people that inhabit it.

There is no denying that if you look around enough you will find some churches and organizations which will preach blanket statements of how there is a real and pressing need to confront and defeat the gay community. Some of these people are misguided and think they are doing it for the good of the gay person to bring them the opportunity to find everlasting salvation. In other cases the groups that preach the same need to crush gays do so because the have a genuine dislike, fear of, or actual hate for gay people. They have no illusions that they are trying to somehow help gays through some twisted logic, but rather that they knowingly and openly want to see these people actually perish.

Looking at the other side of the lawn there are radical gay groups whom preach that all heterosexuals are oppressors and need to be fought tooth and nail at every turn on every issue. They advocate the use of reverse discrimination whenever possible, sometimes even violence. They live by the flawed logic that you cannot support a gay person if you are not yourself a gay person.

Each view is equally wrong and sad. The fact is that gay and straight people are far more alike than many people in the above groups like to admit. Some of those heterosexual people operate under the belief that no gay has ever done anything to benefit them in life and never will. Some of these gays operate under the fallacy that no straight person could possibly support them or their needs and desires for equality and are only out to harm them. Think of how pitiful life is to be lived with those types of mindsets.

Gays have contributed to things heterosexual people enjoy and use everyday. From well before da Vinici’s masterpieces and engineering designs to some of the earliest designers of microchips, gay people have created things we all enjoy. Likewise heterosexuals have created things all gay people use and enjoy. Gays served with great honor and distinction in the armed forces and countless other positions even when they were officially unwanted, and heterosexuals helped create and operate some of the most powerful LGBT organizations on the planet like PFLAG, Lambda Legal, and the HRC.

You simply cannot say the world is against gay people or gays are against heterosexual people when you examine such simple things as that. Were it not for countless heterosexual people that stood up alongside their gay family, friends, and even people they never met before to fight for their rights and basic human needs, the gay rights movement would be dead. You can go to any demonstration concerning gay rights and find a healthy dose of straight people there fighting for gays because they feel it is the right thing to do. You can go to any gay pride parade and find more heterosexual people than you can shake a stick at because they want to show their support.

In short you cannot judge all straight people and make a blanket statement like the world is against gay people because it is just wrong. Some people in the world are against gays, some organizations are against gays, but that is a far cry from the world. It may feel as if everyone is against gays some days, nearly every LGBT person has felt that way for a fleeting moment at least, but the statement has no leg to stand on and is unfair.

Tags: gay groups, reverse discrimination

Should marriage be a sacred institution between only a woman and a man?

What is marriage and who should be allowed to marry? Is marriage a union between a man and woman only? Is it a union between two men or two women? The answer is yes to all of the above. Marriage is not a question of gender, but a question of commitment.

What people against same sex marriage often say is that marriage is a sacred union between a man and a woman for the purposes of expressing their love, procreating, and living the traditional lifestyle as defined by our founding fathers. What they sadly often fail to realize is that the word marriage is defined as: “The state of being united to a person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law. It does not say only a man and woman, and even in dictionaries where that is stated the second definition states it is a same sex relationship in place of man and woman. Nowhere does it ever make mention of it being sacred.

Let’s be honest for a moment, if marriage was a truly sacred institution it would have to be conducted by a recognized spiritual leader correct? Why then can a ships captain, a judge, or non-religiously affiliated persons conduct such a sacred ritual? Why then could I, if I chose to, apply for and buy a license to marry people and have no religious affiliation whatsoever? It is really quite easy to do as long as you are over the age of eighteen and have the money to pay for it. Something like heart surgery requires a very specific person with advanced training and abilities, but to simply have a wedding you can have any number of recognized officials do it. Does that sound sacred? I will say the ritual, the ceremony of marriage itself can be sacred if (If is a big word here) the couple chooses it to be. The reality is that marriage is simply a contract, albeit a very powerful contract. To say marriage is sacred and/or for the purposes of procreation is to say every marriage not conducted by a religiously affiliated figurehead is void. It is to say every marriage that does not produce an offspring is void. It is to say every couple that has married with no intention of producing an offspring has entered a contract fraudulently and therefore should be subject to punitive damages against the governement. It is to say each half of those relationships has no legal rights concerning their partner.

What this contract allows is for the couple to enjoy legally recognized rights and benefits concerning health care, gaurdianship of minors, tax advantages and other financial considerations among a myriad of other issues. Why should these rights be allowed only for heterosexual couples? Quite frankly they shouldn’t be. Imagine for a second being a heterosexual couple in a union for some twenty years, unmarried but desiring to be, and having no rights as a common law couple. Your partner falls ill and needs medical care. You cannot legally play a role in how this will be carried out. Forbid that person passes away, you have no right to decide their eternal resting place. You have no rights to assumed inheritance and the estate you have built together can be legally carved up by your partners survivning family. Even if you were appointed as the persons medical proxy and the entire estate is willed to you legally, it can be contested and you will usually lose to their blood relations. Is that fair? For the vast majority of gay and lesbian couples in the U.S. that is a fact of we are forced to living in the confines of.

Now you may say we are not forced to do so, but the fact is we must if we want to be together. Could we move to Massachussets or California to get married? Sure we could, but why should we be forced to do so when a heterosexual couple does not? As a heterosexual person ask yourself what you would do in the same situation if the roles were reversed and it was heterosexual marriage which was being denied. Would you resign yourself to living alone, deny your sexual identity, or live as best as you could and hope everything works out? How would you feel if this was done to you yet you were expected to live up to the same legal responsibilities such as paying taxes, jury duty, selective service enlistment for males, and all the other aspects of being a part of society?

Marriage is not really the sacred institution many people have kidded themselves into believing it is. It is really at it’s base a legal contract. The day each state began dictating at what age you could marry, how many people you could marry, and assorted other requirements people must meet in order to be married any hint of religion had to be removed from being mandatory under the contractual requirements. It became a government issue. Seperation of church and state is paramount here. They set the rules, they collect the fees, and if you try to circumvent them you are legally liable to the repercussions. As the governent is based on the premise of such mantras as equality and no taxation without representation, does their flouting of the rights of this segment of society allow gay and lesbian persons to flout their laws? No it doesn’t, not in the least. In fact if you try it you’ll wind up in jail most likely. It is sad that the LGBT in regards to marriage is so disgustingly marginalized and so many people think it is okay. It is a sad commentary on society. Suppose the laws were re-written to deny bi-racial marriages, imagine the outcry! It would make no more sense to do that than it does to continue to deny same sex marriage.

Look into our nations history over the last hundred or so years and notice the inequitable treatment of people based on perceived differences. Women could not vote at one time because it was thought they did not have the capacity to understand politics and even if they could their opinions were invalid as they were inferior to men. People of color were denied the vote along with the most basic of human rights and decencey because they were considered inferior and incapable of having the capacity to contribute to society aside from the most basic forms of tasks. While most people knew this to be untrue a small group of predjudiced people in positions of power managed to hold these people back for no valid reason, even when public opinion began calling for equality. Imagine where we would be now without the invaluable contributions of those people. Now it is the LGBT which is being discriminated against based on nothing more than the fact they are attracted to the same sex. Does that not smack of outright predjudice? Why is it that even in states where the public has voted in favor of gay marriage the legislators have denied it? Is America a government of the people, or a governemnt of the legislators and their personal opinions? If you are against prejudice, you are against it in regards to everyone, it is not something which is randomly doled out, it is a blanket state of thought.

The simple fact is for the vast majority of people opposed to gay marriage this is an argument of semantics. Read any number of opinions against it and many will say that while they oppose gay marriage they are just fine with it being a civil union or legally recognized domestic partnership, or anything except marriage. They say they are fine with people being gay. They say all this yet when they say no to gay marriage, they say we gay and lesbian people are inferior and not deserving of the rights they enjoy because they find the opposite sex attractive. Why is that? It is because in reality they are not really okay with gay and lesbian people. Not to be cruel but in all honesty it reeks of flawed logic and warped thinking. I would however be willing to make this deal, allow me and every other gay or lesbian person the right to enter a legally bindiing union with every, and I do mean every single legal right a heterosexual married couple has, and those opposed can call it a civil union or tapioca for all I care. I will know it is marriage and call it such.

Tags: contractual relationship, same sex marriage, same sex relationship, traditional lifestyle

Pioneers in medicine: Dr. Stanley Biber, Surgeon

Dr. Stanley Biber wore many hats during his long life as a man and a practitioner of medicine. Accolades were showered upon him his entire career for everything from the procedures that wouuld be considered routine to those that are far more exotic. Dr. Biber is not a household name outside of a small segment of society to whom he is both a pioneer and a hero, which is the transsexual population. Long before television networks were running documentaries and programs like Sex Change Hospital, Dr. Biber was changing the lives of thousands of male to female (MTF) transsexuals every year performing Gender/Sexual Reassignment Surgery (GRS/SRS) with such skill and in such large numbers that his adopted hometown of Trinidad, Colorado became known as the “Sex change capitol of the world.”

On May 4, 1923, Stanley H. Biber was born in Des Moines. Iowa. His father owned a furniture store while his mother concerned herself with carrying the banner of social causes, particularly those assoiciated with human equality, something she seems to have passed on to her son. Like many Jewish fathers of the time, Stanley’s father had hoped he would become a rabbi, and for a brief period of time so did Stanley. However when America entered into World War II Stanley put that desire and his secondary dream of becoming a concert pianist on hold and took a position with the Office of Strategic Services. The experience changed his life and after the war Stanley planned to become a psychiatrist. As fate would have it while attending the University of Iowa Medical School he again changed his mind and graduated with an M.D. in 1948 planing to be a general practitioner.

The next phase of Dr. Biber’s life led him to the Panama Canal Zone where he began performing surgeries while a resident. This was something that was driven by need more than choice and Dr. Biber proved to have great hands and instincts which instantly identified him as an excellent candidate to become a surgeon rather than a general practioner. Upon leaving Panama, Dr. Biber enlisted in the Army and served in a MASH (Mobile Army Surgical Hospital) while in Korea, the type made famous by the television show of the same name without the plethora of zany hijinks, but the all too real challenges and stresses of combat medicine. Biber proved his worth and was named Chief Surgeon during his tour before finishing his enlistment at Fort Carson Colorado. After discharging he moved to Trinidad, Colorado where he worked at the United Mine Workers Clinic in 1954.

Dr. Biber practiced medicine in Trinidad for 15 years doing everything from treating colds, delivering children and performing surgeries. Whatever was needed he did without every feeling any ailment was beneath his stature. He took the Hippocratic Oath very seriosly and felt as a doctor and a man it was his duty to ease suffering in anyone he could. As such when a person approached him in 1969 asking if he could perform the MTF GRS procedure he said he wasn’t sure, but would investigate it and see if he felt he could. Dr. Biber spent much of his free time examining diagrams of the procedure from the surgeons at Johns Hopkins as that was really all that was available to use as a guide at the time.

As Dr. Biber related later in life about that first exchange he had no idea it would be so significant. He even admitted that when that first patient approached him and said “I’m a transsexual” he didn’t even know what a transsexual was. What he did know was he felt the procedure was something he could do as he said “Because I was young, I felt I could do any surgery.” There were two things he realized immediately, the first of which was that the Nuns at St, Raphael Hospital where he performed the first an subsequent surgeries may not approve, so they were conducted in secret until that was no longer possible. The second was that the GRS procedure seemed like something that could be done better.

He later stated that much to his amazement there was no opposition when the cat got out of the bag. With some small but significant changes to the MTF procedure, Dr. Biber was providing better nerve retention and health than was previosuly present in such surgeries. As such the clitoris of the neo-vagina was far more sensate and allowed the abiltiy to orgasm in a far higher percentage of patients than had previously been achieved. It wasn’t just that however which made Dr. Biber in demand, or the fact that there were only a handful of surgeons in the world performing the procedure, it was said he had an eye for creating a vagina that looked like a vagina and not simply a hole.

As such people flocked to him from around the world. At the height of his practice performing up to four of these procedures each week was not at all unusal. As time moved on he even began performing the female to male (FTM) procedure completing around 300 of those. While performing all these surgeries Dr. Biber continued to carry the full workload of his regular practice as well. Things however were not all sunshine and roses for Dr. Biber. he was refused insurance, he was admonished by the Colorado Medical Society for what they considered poor record keeping, and was even threatened with the possibility of losing his license. While the residents of Trinidad embraced his practice and the patients he saw who were affectionately known as “Biber girls” society as a whole was not in agreement.

Dr. Biber claimed to have treated someone of every race, age range, and socioeconomic segment of society except for a world leader. While the actual amount of GRS procedures he performed is unknown as many were performed in strict confidnce and kept off the records as much as possible, the range of at least 3,500 MTF procedures and 300 FTM procedures is undisputed. Dr. Biber himself said the number of MTF procedures he performed was more like 5,000. At one point it was believed and generally accepted by his peers performing these procdures that around 2/3 of all MTF procedures in the world were performed by Dr. Biber.

Even in semi-retirement Dr. Biber continued performing one GRS procedure a week as he was always in demand, and continued to do so even at 80 years old. To ease his transition into retirement he took on Dr. Marci Bowers as his apprentice and taught her all he knew about the procedure. As fate would have it, Dr. Bowers is a “Biber girl’ herself, and is the only transsexual in the world perfoming the procedure. In keeping with Dr. Biber’s tradition she pracrices in Trinidad, Colorado as he did and is the star if you will of the WE telvison network’s program Sex Change Hospital which chronichle’s the process for a new patient each week.

As skilled a healer as Dr. Biber was even he could not avoid death and passed away on January 19, 2006. He left behind a legacy of compassion that changed and saved the lives of thousands of people. It is in large part due to his willingness to help such people that most surgeons shunned, that today countless people around the world receive the procedure he refined which technology improved. Dr. Biber was more than surgeon, he was a humanitairan, an innovater, and a hero to the transsexual community all because he believed in two things; people that need to be healed should be healed, and that he could do it better.

Tags: office of strategic services, sexual reassignment surgery, stanley biber

How we can view gays as equals

There is a very simple way to view gay people as equals, you just do it! It really is that simple and it doesn’t matter how much money you make, what God you pray to, or what color you are. You simply recognize that gay people are people just as much as you are and as such deserve to be treated equally with respect based on the merits of their words and actions just the same as any heterosexual person would be. When it is put like that, is it really so difficult a concept to grasp?

Let’s examine this issue a bit further. Two men living next door to each other get up in the morning, kiss their spouse and kids goodbye and head off to work in opposite directions. Each man puts in a full day at the office and then some. They both skip lunch to get a project done on time, call to let their spouse know they are going to be a little late but will be on time for dinner, and fight traffic on the way home. They stop along the way at the store to pick up an item that was requested and pull into the driveway. One man tosses a football with his son, the other shoots some hoops with his. They both head in, have a meal, discuss the day, and change out of their work clothes after the meal. Each then sits at the dinner table and stresses a little over why a child’s grades may be slipping, paying the bills, and associated other tasks that any person with a family faces. Finally they settle in to watch some television, shower, and then head off to bed to do it all over again the next day. What about them is different?

The answer is nothing. Now let’s assume one of those men is gay, and consider again, what is different? The only assumed difference is the gay man will lay in bed with his male partner and the straight man with his female wife. Their day, their stresses, their wants, needs, and concerns are all the same. They want to provide for their family, give them the best life possible, and hopefully see their children achieve more than they did. That seems pretty equal does it not?

Each man is subject to paying taxes, bills, obeying the law, and doing what is necessary to be a productive member of society. What is so unequal about that? The first step to realizing that people are people regardless of our differences is that we all have the same basic motivations and desires. We want to be liked, loved, respected, successful, and happy. We all may take slightly different paths towards those goals, but just because a person is gay does not mean that their path is wrong. It is just different from the majority, and for that person it is right for them. That is what matters. So long as they hurt no other person in the process of pursuing those goals they should enjoy full equality with every heterosexual person that does the same.

Some say that gays can’t be viewed as equal because their God says it isn’t so. That is fine and well as a personal opinion, but in societal interaction and functioning it is flawed.There are nearly 500 recognized religions or spiritual movements which have been or currently are recognized as valid when considering the many splinters of larger organized faiths. Not all agree on what God has said or intended, or even on the same God. We all believe our faith is correct just as strongly as someone else believes theirs is. That means someone is wrong, or perhaps we are all wrong. It isn’t very likely we are all right. Even withing Islam, Buddhism, Christianity, and Hinduism which are the largest religions in the world, they cannot agree within them self on God. However, the one thing they all say is that God is Love, and that although we cannot be perfect or God as humans, we should aspire to. As such, religion is no basis for not treating gays equally.

People need to get along with each other, the differences in people is what makes this planet work. If we were all the same how boring would life be? How many things we enjoy everyday that are the product of LGBT persons would the world be missing? There would be no Sir Francis Bacon, Clive Barker, Lord Byron, Leonardo da Vinci, James Dean, or Sir Elton John just to name a few. We have all in some way benefited from their lives and contributions to society, even though most had to live a closeted life or suffer inequitable treatment.

Tags: equality, human rights, lgbt equality

How to avoid being judgmental towards homosexual relationships

One of the best ways to avoid being judgmental towards gay relationships is to begin by exercising good judgment. It isn’t at all uncommon for anyone to see something they do not like or understand and make a snap judgment based on a general impression without ever really asking them self why they feel that way. Even when they may share this impression of how they feel about something with another, they may not be able to answer the question even if pressed to.

There is no denying that gays are in the minority and it has really only been the last 15-20 years in which gay couples have begun a more visible part of the public landscape. For countless decades they kept their sexuality and relationships under wraps aside from the confines of places that were specifically designed to be safe havens for them. Now however you may see gay couples holding hands while strolling through the shopping mall, giving each other a hug and kiss as they go their separate ways before attending class or heading off to their job, or even sitting in the seats in front of you at the movie theater with their arms draped across each others shoulders. As this is something for many that is still new to some people in the visible sense regarding real life and not just television or movies, it can be unsettling. People aren’t sure how to react and just find them self thinking “I don’t like it.” They may not know why, they just have it in their head it is somehow wrong.

In order to avoid this it helps to honestly ask yourself why you feel it is wrong? Is it the visual, some sort of moral or spiritual hangup, or is it just that you flat out don’t like gay people. No matter what answer is arrived at, examine that even further and again ask why you arrived it. Is it because someone told you that is how you’re supposed to feel, is it rooted in just not having ever known enough about homosexuality to accept these people, or again, is it just because you don’t like gays in general?

Then stop and ask yourself this, what if the roles were reversed and you found yourself in an environment, even if just for a few hours of one day in which you as a member of a heterosexual couple found yourself in the position of being the minority. Would you want all those homosexual couples judging your relationship as lesser, twisted, sick, or abnormal just because you are in a heterosexual relationship without even knowing you? How would that make you feel honestly, and then ask yourself if your doing that to a gay couple in the same situation still seems like a good idea or a fair thing.

Dig a little deeper and start asking yourself mpre poignant questions like whether or not gay couples that are held to the same standards in societal functioning are less deserving of the right to be a couple than a straight couple is. Is their love for one another somehow lesser than that a man may feel for a woman? Does the fact that a couple may be absolutely no different than you in regard but being gay really something that somehow lessens your relationship or has a negative impact on your life in any way whatsoever?

As simple as this may sound, if a person were to try broccoli and then say they didn’t like it, that would be a perfectly acceptable judgment because they gave it a chance and based that judgment on real and rational experience. To say you don’t like broccoli though without ever trying it is unfair to broccoli and does it a disservice. The same applies to judging gay couples, if you haven’t tried it and based your assessment on sound rational reasons, you can’t judge it. That is the easiest way to avoid being judgmental towards gay relationships.

Tags: gay relationships, relationship issues, relationships

Hate never makes sense

Many years ago when I came out, I was told by a person i respected that coming out was hanging a target on my back – and head and chest and pretty much over every inch of skin. Have I encountered hate over the years for being an LGBT person? Without any doubt I have. At times it has come from people I didn’t even know just seeing me with my partner and deciding it was okay to slur us. People I’ve worked with have certainly showed me their uglier less tolerable side. It has come to me from people claiming to be of the cloth. It’s even come to me from my own family and people I held as my closest friends. No matter how old or used to it I get, it still never makes sense.

I can understand family to a degree. My family was strong in a faith system that explicitly frowned upon LGBT persons. My coming out challenged their beliefs and in their minds forced them to choose between whether what they have always learned was the word of their savior was right or if I, their child, was right. In my mind, that doesn’t excuse the treatment I received, but in a warped way I understand that. It still hurts today even though they are all long gone.

Co-workers I even understood to a degree. It isn’t easy to think you know a person and then find out, quite by surprise, they are very different than you ever imagined. But I would still wonder, if my sexuality doesn’t impact the money they make, doesn’t have any effect on whether they can pursue their own happiness or even advance in their career, why would anyone care? Still, void of any logic, co-workers could, and sometimes would, be extremely hateful. Even to the point of trying to ruin my career.

I’ve dealt with hospital receptionists that left me in a waiting room (with full insurance mind you) so long I watched a full shift pass, another get halfway finished, and then, and only when, the waiting room nearly emptied after watching a 12 hour parade of people stream in and out was I seen. And even then the first question out of the Dr. that saw me was “Do you have AIDS – and don’t lie to me.” It was an odd question to say the least seeing as he had my chart with blood work indicating I was clean – and the whole thing of being there because I got hit with a softball in the face and thought I may have broken a cheekbone. Even after the battery of questions, I could hear him tell the nurse to “ice down the dyke” and he’d see me after he had his jog and a shower.

Friends…geez…Everyone has heard the stories of friends that turn on you as soon as they hear you’re gay. No need to rehash even a tiny fraction of those.

What still amazes me though are the people you don’t know that still find a way to hate you. I play this one game online that deals with people networking. I’ve been both openly gay and online long enough to know that anytime I wind up in a grouping of a very large number of people I’m going to have a problem at some point with someone – everyone does gay or not. Yesterday, it happened. I did this series of activitiess to help my partner out – my life partner. I wanted her to have an unexpected smile – it was Valentine’s day after all. I’ve done it before so it wasn’t something that was like breaking new ground.

Everything was fine until I got this direct message basically asking if I was stupid. I answered back, define how I am being stupid. The answer was that I was doing these missions that cost money (virtual money no less) instead of spending on the people that invested in me – like him because I had a duty to do that. I tried to remain rational and explained that while it may not help my share price in this virtual world game, it certainly would help me in my real world life in more ways than I could explain. The answer came back that the person had seen my picture (Which has the ‘It’s OK to be Takei’ symbol and he said “You’re one of those. How sad for you.”

Now why would anyone care? It’s a game. A game I made that person in particular a lot of virtual money playing. This is someone from out in the Caribbean I’ll never meet in real life. Even if I had the chance to prior to this, I doubt it would even be a flicker of a thought to meet or even converse with this person. Still, even after deciding to block the person to avoid a nasty fallout, they had to follow me around the web telling me I needed to find salvation to atone for my illness. The more I blocked the individual from site to site, the more hateful they got until I could only imagine someone foaming at the mouth while typing.

This wasn’t the first time it’s happened and it is far from the last I’m sure, but I wonder – what drives a person to hate someone they don’t actually know so fiercely that they would spend a day cyberstalking you just to tell you they hate you – because you’re gay. Why would someone want to devote so much energy to hate? Where is the sense in hating someone, or group, idea, or whatever, so much that you could devote the time you could otherwise spend with family and friends, working, studying or doing anything productive instead being directed at telling people you will never actually know you hate them – just because they are different.

Is there any sense in it at all?

Tags: discrimination, hate, marginalized

Homosexuality and the Bible: What does it really say?

Homosexuality and and the gay rights movement are in the news again with further legalization of gay marriage. Debate on this topic has elicited many arguments on each side. Usually it comes down to little more than one side saying it is allowing two people in love to legally celebrate that love, and the other side claiming it is against God, immoral, and should therefore be illegal. In exploring the issue further, what does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

 Genesis 19 is a passage people run to in regards to homosexuality when referencing the Bible. It details Lot’s visitation by two angels and the subsequent events. In short, the mob of townspeople wanted to meet with the angels to “know” them. Lot refused and offered his two virgin daughters to the mob to be heterosexually raped in their place. The mob declined and the city was destroyed. Nowhere does it say the city was destroyed because of homosexuality although it is the view many seem happy to accept. In Matthew 10:14-15 and Luke 10:7-16 Jesus implied the sin of the citizens of Sodom was not homosexuality but their inhospitable treatment of strangers. In Ezekiel 16:48-50 God clearly stated it was because of their pride, excess in food and drink, and worship of idols. No mention of sex anywhere. In short, the sins of Sodom had nothing to do with sodomy. Not in Dueteronomy 29:23, Isiah 1:9. Jeremiah 23:14, Lamentations 4:6, Amos 4:11, Luke 17:29, Romans 9:29, Jude v.7, or Revelation 11:8 which all make reference to Sodom does it ever bring up their sins as being sexual.

Leviticus verses 18:22 and 20:13 have long been a favorite clobber passages against homosexuality, but again, what does it really say? “Thou shall not lie with mankind as with womankind: it is abomination.” This is a part of the Jewish Holiness Code which also prohibits polygamy, intercourse with a woman on her period, tattoos, dietary laws, poly blend clothing, cross breeding livestock, mixed field sowing, and requires a Saturday sabbath. It also states a woman is not telling the truth if she claims she was raped but no one heard her scream. Male homosexuality was considered as idolatry because man was viewed as the perfect representation of God. Also worth noting, only the male that was penetrated was considered to be degraded as he assumed the role of an “inferior” woman. Likewise, as women were considered imperfect and degraded at birth, lesbianism was perfectly fine.

Since the Christian faith system abandoned following he Jewish Holiness code nearly 2,000 years ago it has no right to enforce it. The Old Testament is Hebrew law, not Christian law. While the Christian church considers this Jewish Holiness Code to be obsolete, it still focuses on the two lines against homosexuality, while voiding all others. This implies it is okay to pick and choose what passages are to be followed and which can be disregarded based on personal preference. Even Hebrews 8:18 states: “For on the one hand there is an annulling of the former commandment because of its weakness and unprofitableness, for the law made nothing perfect.” Consider Hebrews 8:13: “In that Christ says ‘a new covenant,’ Christ has made the first obsolete.”

 Interpretation of the original text of the Bible isn’t always right. Dueteronomy 23:17 (King James version) says that “There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel” This is incorrect. The original text uses the word “qadesh” which means holy one in the context of a man that participates in ritual temple prostitution. There is little to no evidence that temple prostitutes had sex with men. Other Bibles employ the accurate reflection of this, yet as the King James version is so popular this misconception survives. Any translation using the word sodomite or pervert are completely wrong. The same can be said of I Kings 14:24 and 15:12 in regards to the mistranslation of the word qadesh.

Corinthians 6:9 is the single most blatantly fabricated attack on homosexuality in the Bible. The original text was written in Greek by Paul using the term malakoi arsenokoitai. Malokaoi means soft, the translation of arsenokoitai has been lost but is believed to mean moral. This seems logical as the church translated this to English as meaning “soft morals” for centuries. Calvinist revised soft morals to mean masturbation. In the twentieth century it was revised to homosexual. Translating this as homosexual is inaccurate as there were many words for homosexuality in ancient Greek and the words malakoi and arsenkoitai never appear anywhere in conjunction with homosexuality. If Paul meant homosexual he could have used any number of those known common phrases to describe it. The same can be said of Timothy 1:9.

Judges 19 is the story of Levite which details his visit to Gibeah. A gang of men appeared and was made welcome by a farmer Levite had taken up with. The mob demanded Levite be sent out to be homosexually raped but the farmer insisted Levite not be abused and offered his own virgin daughter along with Levite’s concubine to be raped instead. The mob accepted this offer, raped his daughter repeatedly, and then murdered her. Why this is important is that again this was a matter of hospitality, not homosexuality. If there can even be any inference drawn out of this story it is that homosexual rape was wrong (In keeping with the Hebrew views on idolatry) and not heterosexual rape. It says nowhere consensual homosexual relationships are wrong.

 Romans 1:26-27 initially appears to condemn homosexuality, but take a closer look. Paul actually only criticizes people for engaging in sexual activity against their nature. At the time in Greece, where Paul was, homosexuality and bisexuality were accepted as natural for some people. Therefore, we can conclude this was actually aimed at people participating in sexual acts against their own individual nature. It quite simply cannot be said this was aimed at homosexual activity alone, but heterosexual acts considered unnatural as well. It is too vague for any blanket interpretation.

Many people often forget the Bible also depicts two same sex relationships, one lesbian and one gay. These were between Ruth and Naomi, Ruth 1:16, 2:10-11 and David and Jonathan, 1 Samuel 18:1-4, 20:41-42, and 2 Samuel 1:25-26, “Jonathan… your love for me was wonderful, surpassing the love of women.” These unions are respected and honored. While it cannot in all fairness be determined these were actively sexual relationships, it can be seen these were far more intimate than friendships. One does not need to engage in a homosexual sexual activities to be in a homosexual relationship.

What can we take from all this? Primarily that translations are sometimes inaccurate. Even what may seem to be a subtle difference can be significant. We can conclude that although homosexuality has never been popular from the Hebrew or Christian standpoint it cannot be said that consensual homosexual acts are wrong under the New Testament. We can conclude the arbitrary enforcement of only one section of the Hebrew Holiness Code by people not abiding by all it’s other laws is a ridiculous double standard. Christ made hundreds of references concerning belief and behavior but never said one word against or in regards to homosexuality.

The New Covenant ended the distinction of clean and unclean under the Holiness Code to allow all people to become a part of the New Covenant as evidenced in Acts 10. God told Peter to set aside his prejudice and that he could no longer condemn or exclude those who did not fit into the rules of the Old Covenant. Ephesians 2:11-22 states “In Christ Jesus, you who once were far away have been brought near… You are no longer strangers, foreigners or aliens, but fellow citizens with all God’s people.” Isn’t it time we all set aside our prejudices?.

Christianity, Social Tolerance, and homosexuality, John Boswell, University of Chicago Press, 1980, page 42)

Tags: bash phrases, gay and religion, gay in bible, homsexuality in bible, lgbt religion

Assessing the Catholic Church’s stance on homosexuality

In regard to homosexuality, the Catholic church is one of the biggest living contradictions in organized religion. While they are often tagged with offenses against the gay community improperly, they have done plenty to make it clear that even a gay Catholic in “good standing” is a second class citizen at best regarding equal treatment. To be fair, the good and bad must be pointed out in order to fully explore the issue of the Catholic church and homosexuality.

 The Catholic church will in fact welcome gay people into the church. They are as welcome to worship as anyone, and as always just as welcome as anyone else to fill up the collection plate and donate to the never ending building funds. The other side of the coin is that they condemn any sexual act between two people of the same sex and would require a person to confess this as sin in order to be a Catholic in good standing. The problem is that a gay person sees their natural instincts regarding sexual activity no more sinful than a heterosexual person who is not required to confess such as a sin.

What it really comes down to is the churches outdated notion of purely procreational sex being flouted. You can most certainly be gay and be a good Catholic so long as you are celibate, just look at all the gay priests in the Catholic church and this is clearly evident. Although Pope Benedict XVI is said to be cracking down on this, so far he has done nothing but talk tough as they cannot recruit enough straight people wanting to be priests. Pope Benedict’s own feeling on homosexuality is that it is an “Intrinsic moral evil” and as he is God’s representative on earth and Catholic Dogma states what he says on earth God holds true in heaven that means something. Homosexuality must then be considered evil in Catholicism. That is of course until another mortal man appointed to that position changes the stance. It must confuse God an awful lot remembering what is and is not evil. Can you see the contradiction yet?

While the Catholic church is staunchly anti-gay now, it wasn’t always. Heck, there were three openly gay Popes cloistered in the holy robes of the Catholic church; Pope Julius III, Pope Leo X, and Pope Sixtus IV. Those are just those known openly. There were rumored to be many more, especially in the early years of the RCC and during the “Dual Pope era” when the RCC had two Popes, over a dozen were at least rumored to have engaged in homosexual acts. The church had no problem with those people being God’s emissary on earth. The Vatican even taxed gay male prostitution for several centuries in order to keep the coffers full, in effect making them somewhat of a pimp. While that is a pretty harsh statement, it was a pretty harsh policy and it cannot be avoided or swept under the rug. It happened and it is wise to acknowledge mistakes were made and moved on from them.

The Catholic church is often said to be against the death penalty, however when it comes to homosexuals they have a separate policy. That is not something manufactured for shock value, it is the truth and there is no denying more blood has likely been spilled by order of the Vatican, primarily thanks to the Crusades, than other faith system. The Vatican, as a permanent observer of the United Nations, publicly stated that they oppose a resolution that would protect gays from being killed because it would “add new categories to those protected from discrimination.” It must be unbearable for the Catholic church to consider that people being imprisoned or killed based on their sexual orientation alone is something most of the world agrees is wrong and immoral. How odd the one observer nation there to monitor human rights, almost exclusively, is the one to vote against something to preserve the rights of God’s creatures who have done nothing worse than be gay. It’s not like we’re talking child molesters here preying on congregants, just people that happen to be gay.

The Catholic church has no problem accepting gay children or the children of gay parents into their private schools. This is something they are often said to refuse to do, but I can personally assure everyone that they in fact do allow such entrants. The difference being that when they have parent teacher conferences or a baccalaureate mass they ask only one parent be designated to attend these (assuming the parents are a gay couple) so as not to upset the children. They also, at least in our case, wanted to be sure that tuition would be paid in full, in advance, no excuses every session, as it was felt gay couples were somehow less economically stable.

A gay child is offered the same educational experience from any other child so long as they are willing to “act” straight and make no mention of they them self being homosexual, their parents being homosexual if that is the case, nor broach the topic of homosexuality in any manner other than as is in accordance with official Catholic dogma. The bottom line is that if you send your child to a Catholic school and they or you are gay, you have to accept their rules. Nothing forces you to make this choice, and the official stance held by the diocese in one area may not hold true in another.

The bottom line is that the self loathing gay willing to marginalize them self and throw them self at the mercy of the church as a wretched sinner because they are gay has a place in the RCC faith system. Those who do not will find they are welcome in words only, not actions. Even more troubling for the Catholic church isn’t so much that they have to deal with the gay issue, but that they cannot even keep their own recognized orders and leaders on the same page with their official outdated, extremist, and narrow minded rules regarding the issue. Until they get their own house in order, they shouldn’t worry so much about what goes in others.

Tags: catholic gay, catholic homosexual, homosexuality catholic, lgbt catholic, rcc, roman catholic church

Has the term “transgender” become too broad in its usage?

The term transgender is tossed about quite a bit these days with few people really understanding what it means. Like many words, it once had a very specific meaning that over time grew to cover more and more ground, While it goes without saying that in it’s broadest sense it encompasses nearly everything, it raises the question as to whether or not the term has become too broad and therefore of little value as a term for identification.

The Merriam Webster Dictionary defines transgender as: Having personal characteristics (as transsexuality or transvestitism) that transcend traditional boundaries and corresponding sexual norms.

Basically that means anyone who identifies as transsexual or crossdresses would be transgender. While that doesn’t seem bad, the term transgender in it’s everyday use has grown to encompass so many people that in actuality share so little in common, that if someone where to identify them self as transgender you have a laundry list of options to choose from. The person may be transsexual, a transvestite, a crossdresser, drag king/queen, genderqueer, intersexual, or a person that identifies as one of these groups emotionally but not necessarily outwardly. That’s a whole lot of people.

The bone of contention with many people that belong to one of these groups is they often don’t want to be confused with one of the others. To someone outside the community this may seem silly, but for many people defined as transgender it is a very touchy subject. You will often find transsexuals and drag kings/queens (DQK) who are revolted by being lumped in with crossdressers (CD’s) and transvestites (TV’s). There are plenty of DQK that are disgusted by being mistaken as TV’s or CD’s. By the same token there are plenty of TV’s and CD’s who want nothing to do with being identified along with transsexuals. We’ve established that there are plenty of people that seem to want to be recognized as who and what they are.

That brings up the next question which is what are they all?

Under APA 94 transvestitism is a fetish. Transvestite people do not like hearing that, but that is what the medical community defines that behavior as. Transvestic fetishism is defined as:

A. Over a period of at least 6 months, in a heterosexual male, recurrent, intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving cross-dressing.

B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

* Specify if: With Gender Dysphoria: if the person has persistent discomfort with gender role or identity.

This defines a very specific type of behavior which as we discuss the other concerned groups will help identify the similarities if any and differences between each group by using this definition as a baseline. Note in particular point B in that this deals with sexual urges and fantasies as that is significant.

A crossdresser is often confused with a transvestite, however there is one glaring difference; crossdressers do not wear clothing of the opposite sex for any form of sexual gratification, but rather as a coping mechanism to deal with anxiety or stress related issues. While they may appear exactly the same on the outside, the motivations are very different.

Gnderqueer people see them self as a person that does not fit into the binary gender system. They may identify as both male and female or something altogether different which cannot be defined. Some of these people may pursue the physical characteristics of either sex in whole or part or none at all preferring to be altogether different more along the lines of genderless or agender. A genderqueer considers them self to be a member of the third sex.

Moving along Drag Kings and Queens will dress in clothing which is associated to the opposite gender, but their motivation is usually monetary. These people are performers, they only take on the opposite gender persona they develop for this purpose. It is not a part of their sexual or gender identity in any way.

Intresexed persons are those whom are born with both male and female anatomic characteristics to varying degrees or in which the appearance of the external genitalia is ambiguous or differs from that characteristic of the gonadal or genetic sex. This again is a very specific type of person, about 0.018% of all births, and they are generally only associated with the term transgender because the condition is so rare and society is so fond of labeling, this was the only category that seemed to make sense. Worth noting is that the term intersex is currently being phased out as was hermaphrodite, and replaced with DSD 9Disorders of Sex Development.).

Finally there is the transsexual community. The popular misconception here is that transsexuals are defined as people whom have undergone Gender reassignment surgery which is false. A Transsexual is a person with strong and clearly defined cross gender feelings and a revulsion of their own primary/secondary sexual characteristics and physically born gender role which causes clinically significant stress, impairment, or or decreased functioning. A transsexual person whether surgically altered or not has a clear definition of self and does not temporarily assume a cross gender persona as do crossdressers or transvestites.

With all of that having been laid out it is clear to see that the term transgender has grown unwieldy. It encompasses such an incredibly diverse group of people who in all honesty don’t have that much in common. While the term transgender is convenient to use, it is diluted beyond any truly specific meaning. Whether the term will ever be discarded and people will be identified as they identify them self is unknown, but it certainly can be justified. If you don’t believe that, walk into a room with people from each group currently under this umbrella term, ask the transgenders to raise their hand, and notice how few do. Transgender is a dying term.

DSM IV

http://www.transgender.org/gidr/kwawp96.html

http:/ /wiki.susans.org/index.php/Intersexed

Tags: transgender, transsexual

The history of the Pink Pistols gay movement

The Pink Pistols isn’t really so much of a gay movement as it is a gay defense organization in the most literal sense. To be perfectly blunt members of the pink pistols are the ultimate nightmare for many gay bashers out there. They are armed and well trained gays with attitudes that have reached the point where they became so fed up with being the victims or potential victims of violence based on nothing more than their sexual orientation.

Take for instance Dan Weiner, founder of the Houston Texas chapter of the Pink Pistols, a bisexual man and Vietnam veteran. Dan expressed his disgust, horror, and sadness at hearing stories from fellow vet’s and co-workers about their gay bashing activities. “Weiner recalls one 70-year-old WWII vet recounting how upset his fellow soldiers were at the loss of extra spending money when the base cracked down on the routine beating and robbing of homosexuals.” He readily admits some was bluster, but more than enough was true and could easily be verified through crime reports. Being gay anywhere in the U.S. isn’t easy, in Texas it can be deadly.

It wasn’t however until Dan heard a story related by a trio unaware of his sexual orientation (Dan was not yet out of the closet) about their previous nights entertainment of “fag bashing” as they called it that he had they idea to form the Pink Pistols. Dan tells the story of how these three man related their shock that the gays they chose to pick on actually fought back, and as one said, “They were really beating the crap out of us.” Dan then realized that if gays decided to fight back instead of just taking the abuse over and over that like many bullies, these gay bashers might get the message and just stop. As the Pink Pistol’s slogan says, “Armed gays don’t get bashed.”

While the pistols are regularly ripped to shreds on the Internet they do enjoy a ton of support in the real world. Being bashed on-line is nothing new to LGBT persons anyway and not the real concern of the Pistols. Getting bashed in the flesh and preventing that is! Even guns rights organizations have backed the Pink Pistols which was surprising to many people as the members of such organizations generally trend to the more conservative side of issues. The way the Pistols won them over however is through doing things the right way. Arm yourself for sure, but only carry a licensed firearm you have been properly trained to use safely. Even the police in many cases support the Pink Pistols because they have demonstrated that they are responsible gun owners, not nut jobs with a vendetta.

An offshoot of the Pink Pistols is the Q Patrol which stands a post in the parking lot’s of gay clubs and other areas which are heavily LGBT. The provide a visible presence which is meant to deter possible problems not create them. Should a problem arise like passing vehicles throwing bottles or some such nonsense, they don’t engage the perpetrators, they simply take their license plate number and report them. When it comes to actual physical confrontations, so far so good. People are becoming aware enough of the Pistols to know they are armed and not the people to tangle with. Just to let these bashers know that the Pistols know who they are, they mail them a bright pink postcard which lists the phone numbers for the local LGBT community switchboards. No threats, no harassment, just a subtle message they have been documented and are going to be watched.

While an organization like the Pink Pistols is great in that their mere formation has decreased the number of gay bashings wherever their chapters are active, it is sad that they need to exist. The fact of the matter is however that anti-gay violence is still so prevalent today that the Pink Pistols are the best form of defense. It is important to realize, they do not advocate violence, they believe a weapon should only be used as the last resort when a life is at stake. The Pink Pistols are the perfect example of how a group of people pushed too far can unite and take care of their own.

Tags: lgbt groups, lgbt history, lgbt organizations, pink pistols