Gays Harassing Straights

Here is a news item reported a couple of days ago, and it shows yet again that there are heterosexual victims of harassment by homosexuals.

Gays accused of discrimination in resort town

By Jason Szep
Fri Jul 21, 8:34 AM ET

PROVINCETOWN, Massachusetts (Reuters) - Provincetown, New England's summer gay capital, is facing a rise in harassment and discrimination. But this time it's straight people who say they are being ridiculed as "breeders" and "baby makers."

Less than a decade after a successful campaign to end violent paroxysms of "gay bashing" in the beach town at the tip of Cape Cod in Massachusetts, police and town officials report a resurgence in tension between gays and straight people.

Police Chief Ted Meyer said straight people complained of being called "breeders" over the July Fourth holiday weekend, and that in one serious incident a man was charged with assaulting a woman who signed a petition to ban same-sex marriage in Massachusetts, the only state where it is legal.

Equally troubling, he said, Jamaican workers in Provincetown say they have been the target of racial slurs.

"It's been a series of issues," Meyer said.

The flare-ups in a town that overflows in summer with a colorful mix of gay couples often openly holding hands or kissing, cross-dressers and flocks of curious tourists coincide with a planned vote this year in the state Legislature on an amendment to ban gay marriage -- a measure that has rallied activists on both sides of the issue.

Gay-marriage advocates have set up a Web site -- -- that publishes the names of people who have signed the petition, including at least two locals in Provincetown who say they have been singled out and verbally abused by gays since their names appeared on the Web site.

Town officials said the town is struggling to strike a balance between protecting the right to freedom of expression for petition signers, and ensuring its gay majority contain their anger at what many see as an assault on their hard-won right to marriage.

Police would not classify the slurs and name-calling as "hate crimes." But a town meeting was called last Friday to discuss whether social attitudes were changing in the gay resort village with a population of 3,431 that swells to 60,000 in summer and includes a large number of Jamaicans.

"We have business that we haven't talked about as a family," Town Manager Keith Bergman said. "The impact of the same sex marriage petition is high on that list."

Some gays expressed shock at being accused of discrimination after years of suffering harassment.

"There are still a lot of straight people who treat gays badly," said Steve Bowersock, 35, an artist who owns the Bowersock Gallery on the town's main Commercial Street.

Bowersock, who was once married to a woman, said he moved to Provincetown in 2004 with his partner because it gives gays a political voice. He admits he sometimes discriminates against straight people he finds offensive

"If there's a straight couple and I hear them in the background going 'oh fags', I'm like 'hello, where the hell do you think you are?' So in turn I get mad," he said.

"If I see someone nervous like a big butch guy, and you can just tell he's a redneck, I'll grab my partner and I'll kiss him. It's not being mean, but 'hello you're in our town'."

The Rev. Henry J. Dahl, pastor at St. Peter's Church, said several of his parishioners had complained to him of being singled out and verbally abused after signing the petition.

"I don't think it's totally unexpected that there would be some reaction to people who signed the petition," he said. "Let's just hope we can have civil discourse."

Joe Solmonese, president of gay rights group Human Rights Campaign, said the petition signers invited trouble by taking a position that says "loud and clear that you believe that gays and lesbians should be treated as second class citizens."

Posted by Admin on Wednesday, August 2, 2006 in General
(48) CommentsNotify othersPermalink


Wow, you losers really need to get lives.

Posted by XX on October 02, 2006 at 10:46 AM | #

It appears to me that the nature of homosexuality in the United States is best demonstrated by the behavior of homosexual priest in your Catholic churches. They sexually prey on boys and young men under their control.

Posted by Ahmand Moghandi on October 26, 2006 at 04:59 PM | #

Ahmand Moghandi: The vast majority of homosexual men in the U.S. are not Catholic priests, and of those who are, only a few have molested males.  The behavior of a small minority should not be assumed to characterize the larger group that it is a subset of unless there is reason to do so.

Posted by Erik on October 28, 2006 at 02:49 PM | #

I’m not surprised to find there are heterosexual victims of harassment by homosexuals. If you’re straight, Erik Holland, you had probably better get used to the idea that you are one more heterosexual who is going to be harrassed by homosexuals. In your case, I don’t blame them - I feel rather tempted to harrass you myself.

Posted by Raot on November 17, 2006 at 06:56 PM | #

Raot: It is understandable that when gays have no argument, some of them resort to harassment.  Such incidents need to be documented though since they counter victimization politics.

Posted by Erik on November 18, 2006 at 05:23 PM | #

Sure, anyone who thinks that gays are getting upitty and need to be deprived of some of their excess rights is going to go straight to Erik Holland for dirt on queers! Seriously, you’re a minor figure, and anyone who wants something to make gays look bad can find it without you. There are plenty of anti-gay organisations and websites already. Yours is only one more in a crowded market place.

Try finding a different hobby.

Posted by Raot on November 18, 2006 at 06:03 PM | #

Raot: This is not an anti-gay site; it is not advocating social stances except that bathhouses and their surrogates need to be shut down.  Neither is it my hobby.  I update this site infrequently and the materials are for those that are interested in the nature of homosexuality.

Posted by Erik on November 19, 2006 at 02:15 PM | #


I have found the article on this website to be rather informative regarding how homosexuals respond to observational comments corresponding to their ‘sexuality.’ Indeed, I found this site to be nothing if not simply informational, and yet a certain homosexual to whom I mentioned this site’s existence because rather offended at its very existence and, subsequently, stated that it was ‘gay bashing’ or whatever. I do not know exactly from where this inherent hostility derives nor do I understand why it has occurred upon the mere mentioning of a website which this person has never even visited before. Perhaps someone here could explain if this is a common occurrence. In other words, do homosexuals often respond in such a manner when they feel as if they are being ‘accused’ of some sort of ‘offense.’ It seems as if they innately know that their sexuality is aberrant and/or dysfunctional if they are so quick to accuse others of somehow ‘discriminating’ such a distorted version of whatever they seek to believe. Please respond to this message.

Posted by Brent on January 16, 2007 at 06:41 PM | #

Brent: To some extent you have answered your own question.  Gays typically realize that their sexual inclinations are deviant—though they usually do not believe that there is anything wrong with their orientation—and are not too pleased when they encounter an uncensored description of their sexual behaviors that is also accessible to the general public.  The homosexual you have talked about formed an opinion of this site without going through it!  He obviously knows about the nature of gay sexuality and just what the reaction of the general public would be upon encountering a thorough description of it.  All you had to tell him was that there is a site out there that describes gay sexuality in some detail, and he formed a negative opinion of it right away and even used a term connoting physical assault (bashing) to describe the contents of the site.  What does one expect of a people indulging in behaviors that most people find some combination of bizarre, disgusting and sometimes hilarious?

Posted by Erik on January 28, 2007 at 06:24 PM | #

WEll when was the last time a group of gay people killed a straight person for being straight? Never. You can be sure it would be all over the news thanks to people like you. And yet gays are attacked and killed every day for being gay.  And you are going to act like the victim here? Because someone kissed in front of you or called you a breeder? Don’t make me laugh…

Posted by Kristen on February 09, 2007 at 06:09 PM | #

Kristen: Violent acts against homosexuals are unfortunate events, and I do not condone them in any way.  However, most anti-gay harassment is verbal.  Anti-gay murders are extremely rare.  Your impression of the mainstream media is flawed.  An anti-gay murder will be all over the news, whereas gays murdering heterosexuals because the heterosexuals involved are opposed to homosexuality will be addressed by few media outlets, almost none of whom are major.  The mainstream media are pro-gay.  Consider the following two murders:

On Nov 13, 2002, in Chicago, a 19-year-old male homosexual beat and killed a 51-year-old Christian, Mary Stachowicz, after she questioned his lifestyle and asked him why he slept with men but not women.

On Sep 17, 2003, in Detroit, 64-year-old Bertha Atkins was beaten to death by a claw hammer wielded by her grandchild, Larqeta Collier, 16, and her lover, Sharon Patterson, 17, because Atkins disapproved of their lesbian relationship. The teens set fire to Atkins’ house after killing her, hoping to destroy the evidence.

Apparently, you have not heard of the crimes above, and neither have most Americans.

Posted by Erik on February 11, 2007 at 09:02 AM | #

You are quite uninformed.  Look at any city’s hate crime reports and you will see oodles of anti-gay murders, especially against transgendered individuals.  Most of these murders are never solved. Last year the LGBT community was the target of both the most AND the most violent hate crimes in my home city of Los Angeles.  I see no similar trend against straights.  I’m sure gays kill straights every now and again, as would be expected in our violent society. However, you can only point to two cases and I could point to hundreds, thousands if we are including non-fatal attacks. That’s what a culture of hate breeds: trends and patterns, not isolated incidents.

Posted by Kristen on February 11, 2007 at 01:18 PM | #

Where do you get off? Your so called research is cherry picked from organisations and entity’s that have the same biogted outlook towards minority members of a society. You preface your opinions by saying that you are only informing people (of what, I have no idea?) but you are (apparently) unknowingly fueling hate crimes by purveying your extremist attitudes.

With all the hate, wars and negativity in the world, why do you care so much what two people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms, when they are not hurting any third parties?

The most amazing thing is that some published has decided to carry your book, most probably because they think they can make a quick buck from peddling it to Charlie Church-goers in the Mid-West.

But all in all, I guess I shouldn’t get fired, up. At the end of the day, none of this has any credible, reliable factual basis.

Pal, your nothing but a movie of the week. Yesterdays newspaper at best.

I mourne my wasted energy on you, don’t bother replying. I won’t be back.

Posted by Paul on February 11, 2007 at 09:04 PM | #

Kristen: Oodles of anti-gay murders and a huge number of non-fatal attacks against GLBT individuals?  I want you to read the following incidents and answer the question posed subsequently.

A homosexual resident assistant at the University of Georgia reported that he had been the target of 9 hate crimes over a period of 3 years, including 3 acts of arson.  During questioning, he admitted that he had set the fires.

Two weeks after Matthew Shepard’s murder, a lesbian student at St. Cloud State University in Minnesota claimed that two men shouting anti-homosexual slurs at her had slashed her face.  Outraged students raised a $12,000 reward for information leading to arrest of her attackers.  She had cut her own face.

A lesbian student at Eastern New Mexico University claimed that she had been attacked following the appearance of her name along with that of 7 professors on an anti-homosexual “hit-list” posted at a local Laundromat.  She did not know that a surveillance camera had recorded her posting the list and she ended up in jail.

The three examples above are from:

Leo J. Faking the hate: Not all reports of campus incidents are true. Outlook, 2000:June 5.

More examples:

On March 30, 2001, The College of New Jersey suspended classes between 12:30-2 PM so that students could attend a campus-wide emergency meeting following a death threat taped on the door of the residence of Edward Drago, Treasurer and executive board member of the Gay Union of Trenton State at The College of New Jersey (GUTS).  Some professors made attending the meeting mandatory.  At the meeting, some shed tears while others read poetry and a professor came out of the closet.  Drago was assigned personal security guards on his insistence and was even interviewed by major newspapers.  As usual, the College Republicans were the suspects, but it turned out that Drago had fabricated the incident for publicity.  Source: Scerbo T. I was a campus hate-crime suspect., August 30, 2001.

On March 27, 2002, in Denver, CO, four men allegedly extensively slashed 17-year-old lesbian April Mora with razor blades, carved slurs on her body, and then beat her up because of her homosexuality.  This case brought her national attention. The National Transgender Advocacy Coalition (NTAC) strongly urged for the passage of hate crimes legislation to protect homosexuals and transsexuals, while calling the attack an example of domestic terrorism.  However, Mora gave inconsistent accounts of the attack, refused to take a polygraph test, and an examination by a forensic pathologist and a physician revealed that she had either self-inflicted the injuries or someone else had injured her with her cooperation, but this did not receive major media attention.

On Dec 14, 2003, a 22-year-old male transvestite hacked off his penis and told police that a crazy gypsy cab driver had done it because he hated men in drag.  His descriptions of the event were so inconsistent that it was easy for the police to determine that he had made up the story. Surgeons failed to reattach his penis. Source: Celona L, Fagen CR. ‘Tranny’ castrates self, fakes bias crime. New York Post, Dec 15, 2003.

On March 9, 2004, lesbian Claremont-McKenna social psychology professor Kerri Dunn, a recent convert to Judaism, found her car vandalized: the front window had been broken, the tires slashed, and slurs such as “k*ke whore,” “ni**er lover,” “shut up,” “bitch,” and an unfinished swastika had been spray painted all over the car.  Professor Dunn described the perpetrators as terrorists.  This was headline news; several students rallied, there was a sit-in, and her college offered a $10,000 reward for information leading to solving the crime.  Eyewitness testimony and a police investigation revealed that Dunn herself was the culprit.  Police records of Dunn revealed numerous arrests for shoplifting, possessing stolen property, refusing to comply with a police officer’s orders, driving with a suspended license, failing to appear in court, and other crimes.

My question to you is that if there is an epidemic of violent crimes against GLBT individuals, why do so many GLBT individuals have to resort to faking hate crimes for political gain?  Shouldn’t there be enough genuine cases for them to use?

Posted by Erik on February 13, 2007 at 01:35 PM | #

Paul: A hit-and-run comment, like a troll, shows just how confident you are of your criticism.  Have you really encountered arguments here along the lines of “this organization or entity says this”?  Look carefully and see the hundreds of citations from peer-reviewed science and medical journals, some of them even authored by gay activists.

I am not fueling hate crimes with this site.  There are two major reasons for anti-homosexual sentiments: disgust over the sexual behaviors of homosexuals and a belief that homosexuality is socially acquired or a chosen lifestyle.  People who find homosexual behavior disgusting find the most basic elements of it disgusting, i.e., what in gay slang is know as vanilla sex, and it has been this way for thousands of years.  In addition, my argument is that homosexuals are born that way, which is not going to exacerbate people’s worry that their children may “adopt” a homosexual lifestyle. 

There is a lot more to homosexuality than merely what two people do in private.  Besides, Church-going people are not the primary targets of my book since they will generally not be comfortable with the born-that-way argument; my primary targets are academics.

Posted by Erik on February 13, 2007 at 01:52 PM | #

well then, i guess law enforcement is just making shit up. hate crimes are just a political ploy! it all makes sense now…

latest FBI statistics:

Sexual-Orientation Bias

In 2005, law enforcement agencies reported 1,171 hate crime offenses based on sexual- orientation bias.

* 60.9 percent were anti-male homosexual.
* 19.5 percent were anti-homosexual.
* 15.4 percent were anti-female homosexual.
* 2.3 percent were anti-bisexual.
* 2.0 percent were anti-heterosexual.
(Based on Table 1.)

No one says that there has never, ever been a case of anti-straight hate or that every single person who cries hate is actually a victim. there are exceptions to everything. but to compare anti-straight to anti-gay hate crimes as a trend? it’s laughable!

the above statistics are just violent crimes, mind you.

your sources are dubious. the us world article is your only remotely credible source (where you bothered to give one at all) and it, too, seems cherry picked and biased. did you miss the bit at the end where the author goes off on liberal universities? he hurt his case right there…

find me some real evidence and we’ll talk. until then, just keep making yourself look bad.

Posted by Kristen on February 23, 2007 at 02:26 PM | #

and lest i be accused of not revealing my source…

Posted by Kristen on February 23, 2007 at 02:29 PM | #

Kristen: You cannot dismiss the U.S. News and World Report article because of the political orientation of the author.  The author would lose credibility if he made up the cases.  Neither is your dismissal of the other case studies justified.  The cases of April Mora and Kerri Dunn were widely covered in the media; please look them up.  The April Mora case is still documented at the transgender-advocacy site referenced, which you would consider a reliable source, but this site does not seem to have updated the article with the fact that a police investigation revealed it to be a faked crime.

On the other hand, the FBI statistics that you cited prove my point.  You are mistaken that the statistics refer to violent crimes; they refer to all types of crimes.  Since the details about type of crimes involving sexual orientation are not provided, I will address the data for the entire hate crimes dataset.  61.9% of the crimes were against people and 37.1% of them were against property.  Therefore, the violent crimes are a subset of 61.9% of the total crimes.  Then, we are told that in the entire dataset of crimes against persons, 48.9% of the crimes comprised of intimidation, 0.3% classified as “other,” 30.5% were simply assaults, 20.5% were aggravated assaults and 0.2% were murders or rapes (total 6 murders and 3 rapes).  Therefore, in the entire dataset, somewhat less than two-thirds of the hate crimes are against persons and about half the hate crimes against persons are violent.  Keep in mind that the total number of hate crimes against homosexuals/bisexuals is less than 1,200; I will just use 1,200.  Again, using the stats for the entire sample in the absence of better data, violent crimes are about 50% of 62% of 1,200 = 372, which we round off to 400, and aggravated assaults are about 20% of 62% of 1,200 = 149, which we round off to 160.  It is also highly likely that a number of anti-gay attacks resulted from the homosexuals making a pass at the heterosexual perpetrator(s) involved, which would make the classification of the assault as a “hate crime” of dubious value, but let us ignore this for the time being.  We have to consider the possibility that some hate crimes are not reported, but these would be the trivial ones.  Most of the serious crimes would be reported.  Therefore, the actual number of aggravated “hate” assaults against homosexuals/bisexuals would likely not be more than 200 in all of the U.S. during the year reported.  If you consider that the number of homosexuals and bisexuals in the U.S. is in the millions, then even if you double or triple the violent hate crime incidents, it is obvious that anti-GLBT violent crimes against them, especially those serious enough such that they can be used for political gain, are too few in number, which would easily explain numerous instances of GLBT individuals faking hate crimes.

Don’t accuse me of comparing “anti-straight to anti-gay hate crimes as a trend.” The point of this entry is that there are also heterosexual victims of harassment by homosexuals, and the gist of my replies to you is that there is no epidemic of anti-GLBT violent crimes in the U.S.

Posted by Erik on March 03, 2007 at 10:47 PM | #

I just read this article and haven’t looked at this site in it’s entirety so this comment is objective to this article alone.  In regards to this article, I don’t think it should be so unthinkable that a minority group who has became a majority in this area may exhibit offensive behavior towards the minority.  Especially when it’s a majority that WERE the minority.  Why is it so different that there may be hostilities from the gay community towards the straight community when the opposite has been accepted for decades?  Yes, it has been claimed that heterosexual hostilities towards the gay community should stop, but for the heterosexual community to make this infraction a slap on the wrist has been a huge injustice at best.  Now the tables are turned and its the heterosexual community in this area that are feeling the prejudice and abuse.  I would never advocate any group to treat another unfairly, but maybe for once the heterosexual community should step back and think what it must have been like for homosexuals the last few decades!!  Maybe thay can take this negativity and put it to good use, maybe they can see how they feel when their the ones who are the target.  The heterosexual community has to understand that for years the homosexual community has had to fight for each and every right they can, and are still fighting.  So when they have gained something they have fought so hard for, it’s not entirely unforseen that they will retaliate and take it as a personal assault.  They aren’t looking for special rights, or any kind of rights different or above what the heterosexual community has enjoyed from the begining of time.

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 04, 2007 at 05:07 PM | #

Robert: You are portraying the issue in terms of the homosexual community vs. the heterosexual community, but there is variation within a community.  Yes, some homosexual individuals have been harassed by some heterosexual individuals; this does not make one community a victim as a whole and the other community perpetrators as a whole.  Two wrongs do not make a right, and the behavior of the homosexuals described in the article cannot be justified.

Is the same-sex marriage issue a demand for equal rights or special rights?  Society has the right to find some sexual behaviors and relationships more desirable than others, some relationships socially acceptable but others not.  People who find homosexual relationships less acceptable than heterosexual relationships have a right to harbor this attitude, and homosexuals do not have a right to insist that the former accept homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships, i.e., approve of same-sex marriage.  Homosexual couples who want to enjoy many of the benefits and responsibilities of a marital relationship are not being prevented from cohabiting, and have numerous legal options in the form of a will, contract, trust or deed.  The demand for same-sex marriage is a demand for special rights because homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual ones and thereby not justifiably designated equivalent, especially when most people do not see homosexual relationships as on par with heterosexual relationships.

Posted by Erik on March 06, 2007 at 09:21 PM | #

ERIK: I am portraying the issue as the homosexual community vs. the heterosexual community!!  What else would you call it?  Im not making a broad general description that covers these groups everywhere, I am talking about the groups in the area in regards to the article to which these comments are based on.  Please do not try and generalize my comments and draw attention away from the article and the reason these comments started.  You are dead wrong in your assumption that SOME homosexual individuals have been harrassed and that this does not mean the homosexual community as a whole has been harrassed.  WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN FOR THE LAST 5+ DECADES????  Homosexuals in ALL areas, all around the world, in the past and even in today’s world are victimized because THEY ARE homosexuals.  This isnt an issue that has happened to a few people, it’s something that has happened to almost every homosexual person in every area and every walk of life.  Your are right, two wrongs do not make a right.  However, that was not the point I was trying to make.  I was attempting to show that it cannot be completely dismissed that a group would react in a manner as they did.  Especially a group that has been victimized by the heterosexual community for years.  I again do not state this was the correct way to handle the situation, but I can understand.  When you have an oppressed group with the ability to fight back, they usually will. 

The question of same sex marriage is NOT an issue of special rights.  I would like to know what special rights we are asking for??  When you state that society finds some sexual behaviors and relationships more desireable than others, exactly what kind of sexual behaviors and relationships are you talking about.  This goes completely beyond the point of what this article is talking about.  As a homosexual and a citizen of the united states, I have every right to insist that heterosexuals accept homosexual relationships as equivalent.  Why would I not have that right?  You are very wrong when you state we are not prevented from legal options in the form of a will, contract, trust or deed.  In almost every aspect in terms of property, the family can and do have legal claim.  Many times, couples that have been together for many years in a healthy and loving relationship, only get trampled on in the courts by family members.  For example, my spouse gets ill or dies.  Families have a legal right to seperate me from everything we have worked for our entire life, they even have the right to expell me from his life (hospitals, nursing homes, etc...).  To tell me Im afforded the same rights as any other heterosexual couple (in legal pleadings) is ABSURD!  I would also like to know what you mean by homosexual relationships being different than heterosexual relationships.  Please emaplin that and use precise details, please don’t thump the bible either.  Don’t talk about homosexual relationships as not being on par with heterosexual ones when the divorce rate is ASTRONOMICAL!!!!!  Where is the sanctity??

Posted by Robert Williamson on March 07, 2007 at 09:07 PM | #

I’m straight and I dont like straight people.  Some gay people bother straight people and are troublesome, a hell of a lot more straight people are real trouble for others.  When was the last time you or someone you know was harrased or bother by gay people? Now ask the same question and swap gay for straight… chances are you have a higher number, ne?

Posted by spidermind on April 25, 2007 at 06:05 AM | #

Gays ARE harassing straights but this is not it. Gay groups keep pushing for more gay propaganda in schools in order to get more people to adopt the gay lifestyle.

That’s the real harassment. Gays have an average lifespan 20 years shorter than normal people. (This is because of all the diseases they collect and spread around)

What if smoking fanatics insisted on their right to propagandize kids with the wonders of smoking 4 packs a day? (If one pack a day costs you 5 years, 4 packs a day should be as healthy as the gay lifestyle)

Wouldn’t these hypothetical smoking fanatics be harassing children?

Yet when gay groups do the same thing we let them propagandize kids with a lifestyle that will extinguish 20 years of their lives.

It’s hard to tell what’s more disgusting, gay groups determined to harm our children or society that lets them.

Posted by Save the children on April 26, 2007 at 04:27 AM | #


The contents of that study you cited have nothing to do with what is being taught in schools.  You might also want to examin the ages of people in the study.  I’m sure we would all be interested to know that these people most likely grew up in a different era where society forced many of the behaviors that caused gay people to resort to the kinds of activities that could be seen as risky.  Also, your making a broad assumption about the entire population of gay people.  Not everyone partakes in practices (sexually and non-sexually) that would put them at risk to contract std’s or be diseased by your words.  There are just as many straight people out there that partake in pleasures that put them at risk.  What is being taught in school isn’t an attempt to “convert” kids to being gay.  Many people thought the same thing about black people.  Their lifespan is also shorter than a caucasian person (which I’m assuming you are.  Should everyone who doen’t conform to what the christian movement wants have to sit in the back of the bus?? But society left that barbaric type of thinking in the past (for the most part).  It’s only people like you that continue to perpetuate hate and ignorance.

Posted by Robert Williamson on April 26, 2007 at 06:13 AM | #

Robert: Your assertion that almost all homosexuals have been victimized because of their homosexuality is a gross exaggeration.  Just a few examples documented by homosexual activists themselves:

The majority of homosexual and bisexual individuals reported no victimization resulting from perceived anti-homosexual bias. Ref: Herek GM, Gillis JR, Cogan JC. Psychological sequelae of hate-crime victimization among lesbian, gay, and bisexual adults. J Consult Clin Psychol 1999;67(6):945-51.

GLBT individuals most frequently encounter verbal harassment, but 35% of homosexual and bisexual individuals in a college survey reported no verbal harassment resulting from perceived anti-homosexual bias. Ref: Herek GM. documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: the Yale Sexual Orientation Survey. J Homosex 1993;25(4):15-30.

It is simply not the case that the homosexual community as a whole is a victim of the heterosexual community.  When a few individuals within a community are the perpetrators and a few individuals in another community are the victims, the issue cannot be portrayed as community A vs. community B.

Do I really have to specify what kinds of sexual behaviors/relationships are found more socially acceptable by most people?  Some examples (> denotes greater public acceptability): adult-adult > adult-child, non-incestuous > incestuous, heterosexual > homosexual, pain free > sadomasochist, etc.  There cannot be any justification in your asking heterosexuals to accept homosexual relationships as the equivalent of heterosexual relationships because you are demanding equivalence for non-equivalent phenomena.  The most fundamental difference, namely opposite-sex vs. same-sex nature of the relationships, makes the phenomena non-equivalent.  There is hardly a need to talk about other differences to show the non-equivalent nature of heterosexual and homosexual relationships.  Nevertheless, I have already cited literature on the lower stability of homosexual relationships compared to heterosexual relationships, on average.  One could also add that a heterosexual couple can reproduce with each other, but a homosexual couple cannot reproduce with each other, and so on.  When you demand that non-equivalent phenomena be declared equivalent with respect to benefits granted by law in order to obtain the benefits, you are demanding special rights.  I have personally no objections to civil unions for same-sex relationships provided that they don’t function as marriage by a different name.  Civil unions can easily add benefits that are otherwise not available via other legal options such as will, contract, etc.  If people didn’t see same-sex unions as a stepping stone to marriage, there would be less opposition to civil unions. 

I have not implied that a will, contract, deed or trust grants the equivalent of marriage rights, but they are much better than nothing.  The very fact that most eligible homosexuals have not entered same-sex marriage or equivalent where available or bothered to sign a legal document with a partner so as to grant the partner various legal rights while acknowledging certain obligations toward the partner shows that few homosexuals are interested in a same-sex martial relationship; the demand for same-sex marriage is basically a desire to force society to acknowledge homosexual relationships as equivalent to heterosexual relationships, and opposing this is not bigotry.

With respect to your reply to “save the children,” as well documented within this site, compared to heterosexual individuals, homosexual and bisexual individuals manifest much higher rates of risky sexual practices, venereal diseases, substance user disorders, mental illnesses and criminal behaviors, i.e., their lifespan is bound to be shorter.  Therefore, teaching about the normality of homosexuality/bisexuality in school is certainly at odds with the facts. 

Spidermind: There are a lot more heterosexuals than homosexuals.  Therefore, it should not be surprising that there are more gays harassed by straights than the other way around, but there are numerous examples of straights harassed by gays apart from the news report above.

Posted by Erik on May 09, 2007 at 12:08 PM | #

Erik: Your wrong about the victimization.  The surveys you noted are from a singular age braket and DO NOT reference the homosexual population as a whole.  I can cite to you occassions that happen on a weekly basis from a heterosexual expressing degrading comments towards someone who is homosexual.  Also, you don’t have to be verbally or physically assaulted to be a victim.  In my state, you can lose your job and your apartment because your gay.  There is no protection for this.  You can be completely qualified for a job and be denied because your gay (and the same thing for an apartment).  Your partner is in the hospital, let’s say he is dying from leukemia, the can and has denied a partner the ability to see him.  Many families make the request to the hospital to keep the partner out.  I don’t understand where you don’t see the victimization in these simple acts.  But I can accurately tell you there are many many more than what I’ve stated, those were some basic and simple examples. 

Your right, when a few on this side and a few on that side are in battle, it does not equate to comunity A vs. community B.  However, when community A does things that cause widescale oppression for community B it definately equates to a form of oppression.  Lets start with the most popular of these, DOMA.  Why in the world would the heterosexual community feel the need to waste so much of the nations resources to uphold “the sanctity of marriage” when it has become anything BUT!!!  The divorce rate is HIGH, the psychological and financial blows to the children of these families is often harsh, and the list goes on.  So, why continue to use an antiquated religious “backdrop” for a system that is clearly not what was intended in it’s conception.  Why not allow gay people to marry?  Because it’s not what the heterosexual society wants.  Is that oppression?  Is that victimization on a wide scale?  Laws are being passed in every state, bills are being flown through states congresses that are strictly targeted with language or intent on oppressing homosexuals.  What some cal morality I call oppression/victimization.

You state the homosexual relationship is unstable compared to a heterosexual one.  You have got to be kidding me.  Open homosexual relationships are relatively new to society.  However, many long term relationships were conducted in secrecy.  Myself being one of those.  I know of a lot of gay men and women who have been in long term healthy relationships.  I can guarantee that if the heterosexual community allowed legal marriage between homsexuals, they would be suprised by the amount of fidelity there would be in the relationship.  The instability you have cited in the simple paragraph of a stufy (I would hope the rest of the study was nore indepth), is not indicitive of the homosexual population as a whole.  Your also talking about a study that was conducted in 1984, a world away from the homosexual culture of today.  That study was over 20 years ago.  Hell, the target age group you cite so often wasn’t even alive then; their outlook and “culture” are nothing like it was at that time.  However, I’m sure that study also didnt explore any underlying causes for men to act the way they did sexually.  A homosexual relationship in 1984 wasnt anything like it is today.  However, homosexuals do perceive sex differently than the christian heterosexuals.  However, for the age group you like to cite, the heterosexual practices and unsafe sex are just as apparant as they are in the homosexual arena.  You may also be suprised at how many homosexual relationships are NOT open.  True, an open relationship is an aspect that gay couples choose, but it’s also true that there are many heterosexual couples that engage in open relationships.  Ever seen a “swingers” website or publication?  It’s not because they like to use playground equipment.

Your basing your argument for marriage on the fact that a gay couple can’t have children.  Was Conan the Barbarian your father?  Science has already shown that a man can give birth, and an embryo can be created without the need of a female.  But I’m sure things like that don’t come to play when your trying to victimize a population group.  It doesnt matter that children are being born to broken homes every day, it doesnt matter that children are being aborted because they were a mistake every day, it doesnt matter that children are being born with defects to drug addicted mothers, all this doesnt matter when it comes to two gay men wanting to get married and having a long lasting happy relationship together.  Marriage is a religious aspect, and we have al seen the evidence that it long ago left the religious arena when things like divorce became so popular.  You offend me when stating you don’t like the idea of a civil union when it’s a stepping block to marriage.  What the hell is so wrong with us wanting to get married.  I love my partner and will be with him for the rest of my life.  However, legaly; wills, contracts, etc… have massive stumbling blocks.  There is nothing legal outside of blood family bonds that cannot be opposed/overturned or strictly stripped from someone.  Why can’t I benefit from insurance, from bank accounts, our real estate when my partner dies?  The truth of it is, when my partner dies his family can swoop in and tie all of that up in court indefinately.  I can be removed from the home while the courts work everything out, I can be completely stripped from the life we built together when he passes away.  All we want it that same protection that the heterosexual community taked for granted!!!  We don’t want special rights.  What kind of special rights is that??  No, I really want to know, what kind of special rights is that??????

LOL, you really don’t understand.  You really expected a floodgate for every homosexual couple that lived within a district that allowed domestic partners?  Did you truly think that on the day the law was passed that every homosexual would turn to the person beside them and just run to the courthouse and get married?  Maybe, just maybe, because they didnt do that might show to you that we do take our relationships seriously and aren’t going to jump into a legal agreement with someone just because it was possible.  Maybe we are thinking it through for the long run instead of jumping head first.  Maybe we are trying to make that commitment only when it’s the right thing and the right time. Maybe we are looking at the aspect of marriage in an entirely different light than you think we are.  Also, lets take the example of Hawaii.  They have the Reciprocal Benficiary Act.  This allows people to be a legal relationship with someone who they are not legally allowed to marry.  At first this seems like a wonderful thing until you start reading the wording of the act.  Not only would it allow homosexuals to get married, it would also allow mom and son, brother and sister, etc… to get married.  I for one find this offensive that we would be grouped into those categories.  That is an entirely different thing.  Because of this wording, I would never consider that an option.  You have to admit and understand where I find that offensive.  Incestual relationships are nothing like homosexual relationships.  I do not agree with you, opposing the ability for homosexuals to marry is bigotry.  I love my partner and will be with him till the day I die.  I just want to know I have the same benefits are the couple down the street that have 3 children, are on welfare, deal drugs, and share an open relationship do.  Your making marriage to be something moral, when the example family I stated above exists on every street in every city all over the world.

I disagree with you about the “save our children” response.  You yourself are a Hypocrit.  You have stated so many contradictory comments on this site it amazes me.  You once stated that our lifespan was shorter because of STD’s and our perversions.  Now your stating it’s “bound” to be shorter because of this.  Also, these facts are not well documented on your site.  Your site is full of old studies that predate current trends, the studies are singled to particular group (and some even state this) without being a proper sampling, and many of these studies have been backed by groups who are already biased to their outcome.  Now, if you will show me a study that has been conducted properly, and deals with the CURRENT trends and facts I will read it with interest.  I am sure this would also help your credibility.  However, what is taught in school is not about what kind of sex acts homosexuals do.  What kids learn is things like the Stonewall riots, medical and scientific research and their findings, the historical data that has been established for this population, etc… They arent taught or influenced because they like our supposed sexual practices.  But, I do think it’s time for another good old fashioned book burnin!!!

I would like to see some of the reports you have about the gays that have harrassed straights.  I would like to see these reports, not from a religious backed news organization, but from reputable news sources.  I would find it interesting to read about these cases.  Please make sure and cite the source.

As always Erik, I eagerly await all the well thought out and planned responses I get from this site.

Posted by Robert Williamson on May 09, 2007 at 07:52 PM | #

Robert:  Only the second survey about victimization is from a restricted age bracket; the first one is from the general population.  Just because you can lose your job for being gay in the absence of legislation outlawing such discrimination does not mean that you will.  Americans overwhelmingly oppose firing someone because the person happens to be a homosexual.  Most openly homosexual individuals in the U.S. will not lose their job for being homosexual even in the absence of such firings being outlawed. 

Your portrayal of homosexual victimization is ridiculously exaggerated, and I have been citing stats whereas you are resorting to emotional arguments.  There is simply no justification in considering the homosexual community as a whole the victim of the heterosexual community as a whole.  Even if you consider marriage, it is obvious from all regions where same-sex marriage, same-sex civil unions or equivalent have been legalized (many years in some places) that only a few of the eligible homosexuals have taken up the offer, i.e., most homosexuals have no interest in marrying someone of the same sex, which in turn means that it does not follow that the outlawing of same-sex marriage is victimizing the homosexual community as a whole.

I have not argued that homosexuals are incapable of long-term relationships; some surely are and have been into them.  However, the fact remains that open relationships are common among homosexual men, as the citations show, and I haven’t just cited a study published in 1984, but also numerous papers published from 1989 to 2003 as supportive evidence.

I haven’t argued that homosexuals do not have a right to same-sex marriage because “a gay couple can’t have children,” but because it is not justified that non-equivalent phenomena be treated as equivalent.  The inability to mutually produce a child is just one of the factors that make homosexual relationships non-equivalent to heterosexual relationships.  I am not opposed to granting legal benefits to people in homosexual relationships.  I just don’t see any justification in granting to homosexual couples the same exact set of benefits available to heterosexual couples.  Your hypothetical scenario about what may happen if your partner dies can be largely remedied by your partner naming you in his will; there is no need for marriage.  Of course some benefits cannot be had by homosexual individuals in the absence of a same-sex marriage provision such as insurance and social security benefits, but there in nothing unjustified in providing a different set of benefits for fundamentally non-equivalent types of relationships.

Hawaii has a legal provision allowing benefits to be afforded to incestuous relationships?  Get lost!

How am I contradicting myself by stating that the homosexual lifespan is bound to be less than that of heterosexuals given numerous negative correlates of homosexuality that are expected to lower life span?  Quit accusing me of the same allegation of citing old, biased studies.  I have cited a bunch of studies, mostly current, whereas your comments are devoid of comparable studies that refute my arguments.  Please do not waste my time. 

Of course, the sordid facts about the sexual behaviors of homosexuals are not being taught in school, but a lot of nonsense such as the “normality” of homosexuality is being taught in school.

So you would like me to cite examples of straights being harassed by gays or experiencing anti-straight harassment that are taken from “reputable” sources?  Well, sources you would consider “reputable” are pro-gay and would thereby jump at illustrating the victimization of homosexuals but bury stories of reverse victimization.  So why should I bother?  Anyway, here are a couple: Robert Gould, Rolf Szabo, Betsy Hansen and a Key West incident.

Posted by Erik on May 10, 2007 at 11:52 PM | #

“Of course, the sordid facts about the sexual behaviors of homosexuals are not being taught in school, but a lot of nonsense such as the “normality” of homosexuality is being taught in school.”

I’m genuinely curious as to what difference you believe teaching these “sordid facts” would make?

Homosexuality has been marginalised for a very long time. The results are manifestly clear: young homosexuals discover their sexuality amidst shame and denial, often living for years in the closet and even destroying families in their quest to feign heterosexuality. Merely accepting and loving themselves meant discarding “moral” principles which society has drilled into them since their formative years; inevitably, other more useful principles become casualties of this deconstruction. And so we have a homosexual sub-culture of destructive hedonism which perpetuates the “sordid… sexual behaviours” and other equally dangerous activities you criticise. In other words, teaching children to fear gay people, and breeding self-loathing in gay children, creates a self-fulfilling prophesy.

Happily, a lucky (and growing) minority of gay people are learning from the errors of history, and are now working to build monogamous, stable, productive, life-long relationships which are valuable to themselves, their partners, their families and society. If children are taught about this instead, then they will grow up with similar expectations of monogamy for gay people as they have for straight people, and thus homosexuals will be subject to similar social pressures as heterosexuals. Furthermore, gay children will learn what model they should aspire to emulate in their relationships.

Gay marriage, whatever name you want to give it (only please, make it something which verbs well), is not a step toward normalising homosexuality; it’s a step toward normalising HOMOSEXUALS—protecting them from becoming casualties of those excesses encouraged by the silly, babyish “scene” culture and encouraging them to integrate productively into civil society.

If we are going to teach “sordid facts,” blame should be correctly apportioned. The aetiology of the problem is the cruelty and intolerance of past generations toward homosexuals; the result is a horrifying melange of promiscuity, drug use and irresponsibility; the cure is the acceptance and social regulation of our gay brothers and sisters.

Posted by Jordan on June 09, 2007 at 03:56 PM | #

I have read a lot of these messages and this is a very interesting forum.  I do not see any hatred of homosexuals here.  I see concern for the wellbeing of humans in general.  I do not hate gay folks.  I do not like the lifestyle and I do not think that there should be special rights for any group at all.  I see marriage as a human right, but the definition of marriage is that 2 people of the opposite sex do it.  Not 3 people, not 2 of the same sex, but a man and a woman.  This was an institution created by God, whether you believe it or not, and only He can change that definition.  I do not believe He has.  So, if you are gay, you still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

What bugs me is that people who read this who are gay are quite possibly going to write me off as uneducated because I am a Christian and I believe that there is something bigger than me that has determined what is right and what is wrong.  But I assure you, I stay educated and informed.  I do not want any person here who is gay to ever think I hate you.  I love all of you.  There are a lot of Christians out here who feel as I do and the reason we despise your lifestyle is because of what it has done to each of you.  God tells us not to do certain things because He CARES about us.  There are consequences to our actions.  We often cannot see that we are wrong and we want to believe that we are in the right.  Our feelings deceive us.  I am guilty of disobeying Him and I am not perfect.  I can only tell you what God says is right or wrong.  None of us will ever live up to it, which is why Christ had to come.  Without going into a full-blown sermon, I am just trying to tell you that true Christians hate the sin but love the sinner.  Because we are sinners, too.  But the lifestyle you choose may seem right for you, but there is so much damage that it causes.  I am not just pointing the finger at homosexual sex, but any promiscuity.

Is it okay to disapprove of your lifestyle and still love the person?  I hope so because that is how I live my life now.  I used to be much different. 

BTW, I do not believe in “hate crimes.” Any crime against someone is out of hate, and they are all just as wrong, regardless of the groups involved.  Murder is murder.  It is still wrong.  Thanks for your time.  I hope I have made some sense and I do not want to alienate anyone just because I disagree with you.

Posted by Kim on June 27, 2007 at 12:28 PM | #


“I see marriage as a human right, but the definition of marriage is that 2 people of the opposite sex do it.”

That is not universally true across all times and cultures, Kim; but even this does not matter, because the discussion is about what the definition of marriage should be, not what it is.

“This was an institution created by God, whether you believe it or not, and only He can change that definition.”

The religious institution of marriage may have been created by God; however, the civil institution is created by lawmakers. And besides, I believe that I have a religious prerogative, sanctioned by God, to get married to my partner. Surely you see why it is unfair to ask the government to value your judgement over mine, Kim?

“So, if you are gay, you still have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex.”

What gay person deserves the torture of a relationship they don’t want to be in? What straight person deserves a partner who doesn’t appreciate them fully? What family deserves to have its foundations built on sand? Don’t you see the harm in this so-called “right”?

“What bugs me is that people who read this who are gay are quite possibly going to write me off as uneducated because I am a Christian and I believe that there is something bigger than me that has determined what is right and what is wrong.”

I am a Christian myself, Kim.

“There are a lot of Christians out here who feel as I do and the reason we despise your lifestyle is because of what it has done to each of you.”

Being gay has done nothing to hurt me. What has hurt me is people telling me that it’s not OK to be who I am. Unkind or hasty comments from friends, relatives and acquaintances, or people arguing that my partner and I are a danger to children and to society, and shouldn’t be allowed to marry and start a family.

“But the lifestyle you choose may seem right for you, but there is so much damage that it causes.  I am not just pointing the finger at homosexual sex, but any promiscuity.”

The lifestyle I have chosen could not be further from promiscuity, Kim. I aim to settle down into a monogamous, married relationship with my partner. Gay people need a model of monogamy as badly as anyone else, which is why I support gay marriage.

“I hope I have made some sense and I do not want to alienate anyone just because I disagree with you.”

You’ve been clear enough, and I don’t feel alienated. I hope you agree that I have also been clear and open with you, sister.

Posted by Jordan on June 28, 2007 at 03:18 AM | #

Thank you for your honesty.  I have a question for you.  As a Christian, how do you justify your lifestyle?  I ask you this because I really actually want to know.  It is not rhetorical.  I know that, as a Christian, I am moved by the Holy Spirit to stay away from unhealthy and unbiblical things and lifestyles.  (I am not perfect and I slip as we all do.) I do not think that you are any different, but yet you are living a lifestyle that God has specifically outlawed and spoke against in His Word.  He even destroyed a city or so and the people in it because of their homosexuality.  Paul the apostle speaks against it as well, so it is not just old testament.  I am not in the people changing business, I can only change me, I am just saying what God says.  I honestly believe that your lifestyle is dangerous and that it is bad for you.  This is why God is against it.

Once upon a time I thought that gay folks could not be saved.  I was a young Christian who did not read the Bible like I should have.  I know that there are Christians who are gay because God will accept us as we are, THEN change us.  I know that God does not accept the behavior we all do, but Christ did die for our sins.  It just does not give us license to keep on sinning...hense your lifestyle.  I believe that people can be saved and deceived my Satan at the same time.  It happens all the time.

I understand that a gay person would not want to marry a person of the opposite sex.  But I was making a point that civil rights are different than special rights.  I also believe that a gay person who does not act on the sexual feelings he/she has is not sinning.  And I was not saying that homosexuality and promiscuity are the same thing.  They just both result in a lot of painful consequences like disease.  I believe that is the big reason God forbids both.  He knows what will happen.  ALso, since the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, He is concerned about how we USE our bodies.  Marriage is a sacred thing to God and He has always defined it one way...between a man and a woman.  It is for procreation, and a partnership that is similar to the relationship between the truine God.  In other words, when he sees 2 people who are married, he sees not the man and the woman, but us as One flesh.  This may be “just” God’s law and definition of marriage, but as a Christian, do you not think that God knows what is best for us?  Civilization has created its law based on God’s law and no civilization has ever survived without the tradition family unit in place.  They crumble.

I am glad you understand that I am not attacking you.  You are my brother in Christ and the love of Christ in me has emplored me to open my mouth about this subject.  God has placed many gay people in my path and has taught me to love you all.  And anyone who says that God hates you is not reading their Bible.  But He also cannot accept the lifestyle.  God is love, but He is also just.

I look forward to your response, Jordan.  God bless!

Posted by Kim on June 28, 2007 at 04:09 AM | #

Hi Kim,

Thank you for your honesty.  I have a question for you.  As a Christian, how do you justify your lifestyle?  I ask you this because I really actually want to know.

That’s a complex question, and also difficult to answer, because there’s no well-defined starting point. Before I begin, I’d like to make two observations:

1. Whatever my justification, it is not the position of any impartial government to decide whether or not my religious beliefs are more theologically sound than yours, especially not with a view to establishing civil laws such as marriage.
2. I’m not entirely sure what you mean by my “lifestyle”. I don’t think I’ve told you anything much about how I live my life, other than that I have a partner, so I’m curious as to whether you have made any additional inferences!

That said, this is my own position on Christian marriage. I understand that it’s controversial, but I’m certainly not alone in holding it.

According to the Jewish perspective of marriage, men and women were considered incomplete until they married. “It is not good that the man should be alone.” (Genesis 2:18) Note that this is the first and only thing which God states is not good about his creation! Most men and women are naturally directed to complement each other; this is because they have a heterosexual orientation, which makes them amenable to forming mutual sexual and romantic bonds. It was considered not only healthy, but essential to one’s fulfilment to be married. And I would like to impress the fact that sexual fulfilment and commitment to your partner was one of the most fundamental obligations of marriage. Through such a covenant with God and one’s partner, human beings are intended to find a sense of completion that they cannot find on their own.

Homosexual human beings, on the other hand, generally have no inclination to form such bonds with the opposite sex; in fact, many have a strong aversion to them. This is an unfixable aspect of their nature. The closest that a homosexual individual can come to emulating the normative model of marriage outlined above on an emotional, romantic and sexual level is with a similarly oriented same-sex partner; by the very definition of homosexuality, this is the one outlet for which their energies are naturally aligned.

Denying that homosexuals can marry seems like a straight-forward affirmation of the divine scheme expressly shared with us through Genesis, and repeatedly affirmed throughout the Bible—but the actual implications are not so obvious. In doing so, one essentially (and rather arbitrarily) admits that the relative gender of the participants is more important than their natural devotion and the inherent stability of their relationship; their sharing in each other, emotionally and sexually, satisfying deep, quintessentially human needs. In short, it elevates a physiological characteristic above the true spiritual, emotional and carnal union of a human couple under God.

Biologically, sex is not always cut and dried. There is a multitude of disorders which can obfuscate the identification of biological sex, such as AIS or hermaphroditism. Such individuals flatly contradict the notion of a binary separation of genders; they are not merely psychologically unsuited to a purely gender-based marriage, but without surgery (or imagination) they are physically inimical to it. What would God have us do? Should we fret about how we could possibly fit such outliers into a stark, exclusive model, or should we instead ask if there is a higher purpose to marriage which does not rely on mere physiology?

“But now abideth faith, hope, love, these three; and the greatest of these is love.” (1 Corinthians 13:13) The cement, and indeed the very foundation, of Christian society should be love. Marriage, however, is special among the relationships which Christians enter into: it is also intended to be exclusive, lifelong and sexual. Anything which could detract from this by introducing instability or sexual dissatisfaction is completely inappropriate. Such is the state of affairs when a homosexual man or woman feels pressured into marrying a member of the opposite sex. However, it is also highly improper for a person to be alone, given an alternative. Homosexual marriage strikes me as the only acceptable resolution which practically affirms the essential purpose of marriage.

“I do not think that you are any different, but yet you are living a lifestyle that God has specifically outlawed and spoke against in His Word.”

Again, I ask what lifestyle are you referring to? If you explain how you think it is biblically incompatible, I will respond as well as I can.

“He even destroyed a city or so and the people in it because of their homosexuality.”

I’ve always been confused about where people get homosexuality from a story about raping angels; it’s actually a really bad misinterpretation, and quite a serious one. Let’s look closely at the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, and what the Bible says about it.

First, the prophet Ezekiel flatly contradicts such an interpretation (emphasis mine):

“Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. They were haughty and did detestable things before me. Therefore I did away with them as you have seen."—<cite>Ezekiel 16:49–50</cite>

If homosexual sex were really the main sin of Sodom, one would expect it to be mentioned immediately after Ezekiel declared, “this is the sin of… Sodom”. In fact, there is no explicit mention of it at all! Rather, it seems that the sins of Sodom were pride, greed and inhospitality. Jesus himself backs Ezekiel up on this:

“If anyone will not welcome you or listen to your words, shake the dust off your feet when you leave that home or town. I tell you the truth, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgement than for that town."—<cite>Matthew 10:14–15</cite>

Here, he compares proud and inhospitable people (and towns) with Sodom and Gomorrah, evidently believing that there is a parallel. Furthermore, he explains that Lot’s wife did not escape the sins of her city:

“On that day no one who is on the roof of his house, with his goods inside, should go down to get them. Likewise, no one in the field should go back for anything. Remember Lot’s wife! Whoever tries to keep his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life will preserve it."—<cite>Luke 17:31–33</cite>

Her desire to keep her earthly lot—i.e. her greed—is what destroyed her.

Some people try to argue that the reason Lot volunteered his daughters is because, for some unexplained reason, it is somehow less sinful for a man to rape a woman than to rape a man. This is bizarre; surely rape is rape? I think that such an interpretation clarifies more about the prejudices of the reader than the story itself. But at any rate, the Bible puts paid to this. There is another, very similar story in Judges 19; the context, here, is that an old man is being sheltered by. Pay particular attention to verses 23 and 24:

“The owner of the house went outside and said to them, ‘No, my friends, don’t be so vile. Since this man is my guest, don’t do this disgraceful thing. Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But to this man, don’t do such a disgraceful thing.’”

What reason does the old man give for not delivering the traveller to the men outside the house? “[T]his man is my guest...” It seems clear that if he allowed his guest to be raped, he would be failing in his duty as a welcoming host—so instead, he delivers a concubine to the men outside, who is then raped to death. Given the similarity of the stories, one may extend the same moral lesson to the story of Lot: if he delivered the angels in his house to evil men, he would be guilty of inhospitality, so instead he offered his daughters. Notice how this clarifies two very interesting parallels:

— Lot as a humble, selfless, welcoming host, in contrast to a town renowned for its arrogance and cruelty;
— the story of Abraham and Isaac—just as Abraham was willing to sacrifice his only son to the Lord, Lot was willing to sacrifice his daughters to protect messengers of the Lord.

As a final note, if homosexuality were particularly rife in Sodom, it seems unusual that Lot was willing to give his daughters in marriage to men who lived there:

“So Lot went out and spoke to his sons-in-law, who were pledged to marry his daughters. He said, ‘Hurry and get out of this place, because the Lord is about to destroy the city!’ But his sons-in-law thought he was joking."—<cite>Genesis 19:14</cite>

His sons-in-law were destroyed too, presumably not because they regularly engaged in homosexual sex.

“I understand that a gay person would not want to marry a person of the opposite sex.  But I was making a point that civil rights are different than special rights.”

Could you expand upon this, Kim?

“And I was not saying that homosexuality and promiscuity are the same thing.  They just both result in a lot of painful consequences like disease.”

Although I do not comment from experience, I am aware that there is more than one form of homosexual intercourse. Also, absent promiscuity and drug use, I don’t think there are many vectors for disease. Anal sex may be an exception, but like I said, this is not the only form of homosexual intercourse.

“I believe that is the big reason God forbids both.”

Out of curiosity, would you change your mind if faithful, lifelong gay partners turned out to be no more susceptible to disease than straight couples in a similar position?

“ALso, since the body is the Temple of the Holy Spirit, He is concerned about how we USE our bodies.  Marriage is a sacred thing to God and He has always defined it one way...between a man and a woman.”

There are many men who have concubines, or multiple wives, in the Old Testament.

“It is for procreation, and a partnership that is similar to the relationship between the truine God.”

The procreation argument is quite weak, unless one is willing to exclude infertile or elderly couples from marriage. I suspect that the unitive aspects of marriage are more important, in God’s eyes, than the procreative. As for the idea that marriage mirrors the Trinity, this is very speculative, and I’ve yet to see strong biblical support for the idea.

“In other words, when he sees 2 people who are married, he sees not the man and the woman, but us as One flesh.”

Literally speaking, a man and a woman are still two separate organisms when they are having sex, so obviously the intent here is metaphorical. I have yet to see any decent explanation of why this metaphor would not also apply to a homosexual couple.

“This may be ‘just’ God’s law and definition of marriage, but as a Christian, do you not think that God knows what is best for us?

Of course I think that God knows what is best for us, but the question here isn’t if God knows best, but if you or I know best. Both from a secular perspective—wherein religion and state are separate concerns—and from a religious perspective—in which context we don’t dispute whether God knows best, but whether you know God’s will better for me, and others like me, better than I do.

“Civilization has created its law based on God’s law and no civilization has ever survived without the tradition family unit in place.  They crumble.”

There are two separate claims here. The first, so far as I am aware, is unprovable, insofar as we admit that we do not perfectly know God’s will. The second is not quite impossible, but may be intractably difficult: how does the existence of a family headed by a gay couple compromise a family headed by a straight couple? Surely encouraging gay individuals to enter into heterosexual marriages is far more dangerous to families and society?

If you wish to continue this discussion I suggest we take it elsewhere, since this blog is not really a place to discuss religion and we have already significantly diverged from the original topic. Should you wish to email me, my address is j.b.gray [at]

God bless you too, Kim! smile

Posted by Jordan on June 28, 2007 at 08:24 AM | #

Sorry, I can’t believe I forgot to mention this… But Lot himself explains why he doesn’t send the men out:

“No, my friends. Don’t do this wicked thing. Look, I have two daughters who have never slept with a man. Let me bring them out to you, and you can do what you like with them. But don’t do anything to these men, for they have come under the protection of my roof."—Genesis 19:7–8

Again, it’s clear that homosexuality isn’t involved in this story in any way!

Posted by Jordan on June 28, 2007 at 08:28 AM | #

I am just giving my opinion on the articles presented above. I am myself not the strict definition of christian. I am gay and consider myself spiritual instead of religious. I find that the message of christ is the most important thing about the bible, not anything else in it. The messenger is not important its the message that counts. Most people have bigoted and hateful views all fueled by churches and religions that claim to be about being holy and loving. All I see in all the established religions is restrictions on thoughts, actions, ideas, feelings, and divine expressions. Its all hypocracy. They tote the bible and other religious books as the word of God but all of them were written by men, many of these men historicly proven to be corrupt and imoral. I say you make a child attend a church meeting(i.e.-masses, sermons, sunday school etc.) and tell them if you dont believe this or that or you dont do this or that youll go to HELL would inspire blind belief. Id tend to make myself believe whatever there telling me without searching for the truth within myself.  And to back up their own hypocracy they tote how there holy book is divinly inspired and so therefore makes it the truth, I say that is mind control, propoganda and is inherently evil. I don’t follow one faith but all of them i don’t follow one savior but all of them for their message is universally the same. Love all and yourself, respect life, what fells right and just not what everyone else feels is right and just, and have faith that you aren’t alone. Walk a path of love and selflessness, and you will be rewarded in the end is all that these holy books boil down too. Any issues other then those that directly effect that are irrelavent. God and the holy spirit is neither female or male but contain aspects of both for they are divine. Divinity rejects nothing and no one, only people do and that is the way to tell truth form lies. Any holy book that spouts hellfire and damnation, prejudices and ignorance which all of them do are not truth but human lies devised by the men in power who are naturally flawed for they are not God. Who can ever truly understand any aspect of divinity and the infinite. The Divine One as I call it is beyond all of us and these worldy things. It saddens me to know that the majority of people are trully ignorant of the divine and what scares me is that the spout the fact that they know and have faith and all it has done is cause pain for all things in this world. I am trully ashamed of the human race and what it has justified doing to life with supposed divine word. We can never trully know God until we get there. All we can do is our best but all we seem to do is our worst by staying in limited, ignorant, hypocritical, and disgusting mind sets of fear and intolerance. We are all BLIND. And none more so then those of the One God Religions of current popularity.

Posted by Nicholas Corbin on June 30, 2007 at 01:33 PM | #

hey, just stopped by to tell you christians to go fuck your breeder selves.  by the way, that goes for all the dyke/fag breeders out there too!

Posted by christian basher on July 31, 2007 at 10:30 PM | #

Interesting...can’t breed if we do that.  Your words lead me to believe that you are full of hatred.  That is very self-destructive.  I have been there and done that and it nearly killed me.  I pray for you to have love in your heart.


Posted by Kim on August 01, 2007 at 06:09 AM | #

I feel that there SHOULD be Christian bashing by gays, because they deserve it in ways which would take up entire books to justify.  These Christians are sick ignorant uneducated evil people, and the best way to rid them of their past sins against all the innocent gay people they have harmed over the centuries and set them on the right course is to mercilessly punish them to give them a taste of their own medicine.

Posted by PW on August 09, 2007 at 08:59 AM | #

Two wrongs do not make a right.  Not all Christians hate gays.  So you want to inflict hate on people that you accuse of doing the same to gays?  Well, that is just very sad.  Sorry you feel as you do but I cannot justify persecution of any kind.  I can just disagree with the lifestyle and still love everyone.  And I am an Evangelical Christian who follows Christ.  Remember, Christ never persecuted anyone, but lovingly rebuked their lifestyle or behavior...and sometimes he angrily rebuked hypocrites.  I agree that a lot of Christians have not followed His example.
But you really should stop hating and start loving.  Not all of us hate you.  Hatred is not a Christian value and ones who hate people instead of their deeds are NOT true Christians and Christ will deal with them if they refuse to change.

Posted by Kim on August 09, 2007 at 02:05 PM | #

So heterosexuals MUST acknowledge that homosexuality is normal...while homosexuals REFUSE to acknowledge that homosexuality is abnormal.  This is what it all boils down to.  What gives the homosexuals the right to IMPOSE their beliefs on the heterosexuals?  What stops the NEXT group from imposing their belief that sex with ANIMALS is normal?

Posted by tabingins911 on August 18, 2007 at 11:31 PM | #

Are you for real? I am quite worried at the intolerant and prejudiced streak you appear to have. You may hate the sin but Christians love the sinner - this is what Jesus taught - and how hard it is! It is one of the most difficult things to do but underneath it all it means that all men and women are equal - not that some are less equal because you don’t approve of them or like them. The whole world is pretty much heterosexual - i think their is very little of gay people imposing themselves on the vast majority.

Posted by Trevor on September 07, 2007 at 01:50 AM | #

Yes...we are all created equally.  What we do, or our actions, are sometimes what makes us different.  I used to be extremely judgmental.  I was always a good person, but I thought that gay people could not be saved and I did not tend to be friends with them (though I was nice to everyone).  I would say that this lowered me as a person because I was not doing what God would want me to do.  I was still loved and valued by God, as EVERYONE is.  I do not believe I am better that anyone.  But my actions made me worse for a time.  But, in the grand scheme of things, none of us are perfect.  We all need and deserve God’s love.  God loves everyone, even the homosexual.  (Remember, CHrist came to fulfill the Law and save anyone who is willing to admit their sinful nature and accept what Christ did to atone for that sin.) I mean Paul, the apostle, was a murderer and persecutor of Christ’s followers and he was saved.  Not only that but he became the apostle to the Gentiles.  So God’s love is unending, and the love of His followers should also be unending.  Anyone out there who wants to bash Christians have a chip on your shoulder.  I cannot say it is unwarranted.  I have seen a lot of really uneducated Christians who do not understand their Bibles.  I challenge all of you, Christians, Homosexuals, everyone, to read Romans and see what the qualifications are for becoming a Christian.  It is a real eye-opener to understand that you do not hve to change before accepting Christ.  HE changes YOU when you accept Him.  I CHALLENGE you to read it.  My God-given love goes out to ALL of you!

Posted by Kim on September 07, 2007 at 03:27 AM | #

I have seen whites bash blacks, black bash whites, Mexicans bash Asians, straights bash gays, Catholics bash Protestants, people of all descriptions bash people of all other descriptions just for being different. Yet I don’t believe that it’s deviant to be black, Mexican, Asian, Catholic, or what have you. Do you? Every group has its share of troublemakers. I do not consider myself Christian, but I am quite familiar with the teachings of Yeshua of Nazareth, the man you call Jesus Christ, and it was his position that all have sinned in the eyes of God. Where is your website decrying people who work on the Sabbath? Who eat pork? Who bear false witness against their neighbors? Is one sin less than another?

As I remember, the wages of sin is death. And all have sinned and fallen short of God. To paraphrase another passage from the bible, perhaps you shouldn’t be harassing people over having specks in their eyes when you ought to be dealing with the plank in yours.

Discrimination isn’t the fault of any group of people. It’s the direct result of people of all groups judging each other over silly things like what color their skin is, or which consenting people they prefer to have sex with. Until that gets solved, I’m afraid your best course of action is to follow up on your promise to God and forgive them their trespasses.

Before you decide that this is just the devil talking, think about whether the father of lies would start by announcing himself as an unsaved heathen in a decidedly Christian community. Because if it were my job to sow discord and chaos among Christians, I think I’d try preaching hate under the pretense of serving God.

Next time I drink to Odin, I’ll put in a good word for you. Please try to take that at least as well as I do every time a Christian says they’re going to pray for me.

Posted by Jim on October 01, 2007 at 05:46 PM | #

it really is quite infuriating to see the amount of ignorance that has gone into the composition of this website. So the entire gay population with its myriad of very different individuals can be summed up by a few statistics you picked out of documents which were biased to start with? Unless you’ve been under a rock for the past...century or two, heterosexuals are just as likely to engage in what you choose to call “deviant sexual practices.” Ridiculous. Who are you to presume that you have the authority to “educate the masses” on homosexuality? What credentials have you to proclaim that your hateful spew of misguided compilations construes this so-called “amazing info” on homosexuals?

Posted by conspiracytheory on October 26, 2007 at 10:18 PM | #

Erik, anyone can find instances where heterosexuals have fabricated a crime for attention or other device.  It’s not hard.  I’d probably say it’s a lot harder to find the same with someone who is homosexual.  Society looks at homosexuals as lesser people, so their disgressions will appear above the rest.  The same as it was for african americans, japenese, etc.. in the eras when those populations were put under a microscope by white america.

In the statistics you stated earlier about the hate crimes, you completely negated any credibility you had by stating “It is also highly likely that a number of anti-gay attacks resulted from the homosexuals making a pass at the heterosexual perpetrator(s) involved, which would make the classification of the assault as a “hate crime” of dubious value, but let us ignore this for the time being.” How can you make sure an incredible statement without any shred of fact.  This only shows your true bias and hatred towards homosexuals.  No matter how much you will argue that my statement is not true, your actions prove otherwise.  Kind of like the kid accused of getting into the cookie jar; it’s hard to convince your parents that you weren’t when you have cookie crumbs around your mouth.

Your explanation of the statistics in that article remind me of a joke.  How many days a year do you work; there are 365 days in a year, 104 of those are weekends so that leaves 261 days, you spend 8 hours a day asleep for the equivalent of 87 days which leaves 174 days, you spend 3 hours a day using the restroom-smoking-talking-having lunch-etc.. for a total of 33 days which leaves 141 days, and so on and so forth.... kinda sounds the same to me.

You later referred to one of my comments and said that just because you can lose your job for being gay doesnt mean you will.  I live in a rural to semi-rural to urban area.  The beliefs of most heterosexual people in this area are not so forward thinking as those in the larger urban areas.  People HAVE lost their jobs for being gay, not gotten them for being gay, or have simply stated they wouldnt hire someone who is gay.  I have seen each other these, and I can say that your wrong in this instance.

KIM, you can hide behind the veil of trying to understand us through your vaulted christian ways, but your simply jaded and spewing your homosexual hate with a silver tongue.  Gee, I think I recall where satan was the same way.  I do wonder why you, as a self prclaimed christian, would lie so much?  Why don’t you just stop trying to portray being innocent.  Why don’t you just say how you feel, I can already see what it is.

TABINGIS911, your just stupid.  The “animal” thing is always the fallback for christans to use when they are loosing an argument.  We just want the same rights as the LAW affords you.  Were not looking for the same rights that GOD affords you.  We don’t want to “push” our lifestyle on anyone.  To be truthful, most of us wouldnt care what you think of us or care to socialize with you.  If you would simply give us marriage, you might be suprised at how much you don’t see us.  After all, marriage is the only right that allows us to love who we want and build a life with them without the fear it could be ripped away from us.  There really isnt anything left after that. 

ALL CHRISTIANS, I think its funny that you all talk about what jesus or god wants.  Your taking all this from a book that was put together by men, written by men, and distributed by men.  The books included in the bible were hand picked for the message they convey, not because they convey the message of jesus or god, but there are books that never made it into the bible that were thought to be more than the people should know or believe.  These books were also the ones that many cultures or societies had believed in for many years before the bible was created.  The bible you so lovingly like to quote from was put together CENTURIES after jesus suposedly ascended to heaven.  So, can you truly believe a book written 100’s of years after the fact, parts left out, is really accurate?  Have 20 people sit in a row side by side, the person on the end tells the person next to him something.  This person then tells the next, and the next, and then next, and so on till the last person. Every single time this exercise is conducted the end story is completely different than when it started.  So in those few minutes the ability to tell the story with your own personal flare resulted in a skewed or twisted story.  So, can you truly believe that 100’s of years later the story didn’t change?

Posted by Robert Williamson on January 16, 2008 at 01:47 AM | #

Robert, I liked you until your stupid “All Christians:” comment.

Posted by Petite on February 14, 2009 at 12:00 PM | #

PETITE, I don’t think my “All Christians” comment was stupid at all.  Christians have blasted homosexuals for decades without using anything other than cherry-picked verses, which are most often taken out of context from their intended meaning. They disregard that we are people, that we have feelings, and mostly they forget we are just the same as everyone else.  And in the context of this site, most of the christians who comment simply do so with prejudice and, more often than not, with malice.  When I see christians holding signs that say “fags must die,” when I hear a christian express that same sentiment either verbally or in writing I have a real problem understanding how they can call themselves christian.  After all, that would go against the highly touted book they covet so much and the beliefs they hold so dear. 

If your homosexual, and christian, then I truly do not understand you.  Most homosexuals who are christians go to church with people who simply tolerate them.  They still hold the beliefs that being homosexual is wrong and only accept you if you renounce your homosexuality.  How hipocritical is that?

But, people will like me and some will not.  If you liked me up till that comment, then your no better than the christians who liked us before we were homosexual when they didnt know.  Then, when we decided to come out of the closet they turned their back on us.  We were still the same person.  So, in reading my previous posts you understood the type of person I was, but because I made a non-slanderous and truthful comment about christians you decided to not like me.  If your christian I can totally understand your comment. 

BTW… what is your sexuality?

And for everyone who would like to know.  My father is a baptist preacher, my paternal and maternal grandfathers were also preachers.  I grew up in a religious household.  My point is, Im not making broad assumptions with no background.  I grew up watching hate and ignornace first hand.  Not just in my family and the church I went to, but in most religious people I met and in their churches.  I’ve even witnessed this in my adult life in catholic churches, episcopal churches, etc… I find it amazing that, no matter the faith, the church will attempt to show tolerance and understanding, but all they really want is for you to conform to their standards. 


Posted by Robert Williamson on February 15, 2009 at 02:54 AM | #

Erik, you cite this study.

“GLBT individuals most frequently encounter verbal harassment, but 35% of homosexual and bisexual individuals in a college survey reported no verbal harassment resulting from perceived anti-homosexual bias. Ref: Herek GM. documenting prejudice against lesbians and gay men on campus: the Yale Sexual Orientation Survey. J Homosex 1993;25(4):15-30.”

Then go on to say,

“It is simply not the case that the homosexual community as a whole is a victim of the heterosexual community.”

So to conclude, 65% of homosexual and bisexual individuals in a college survey reported verbal harassment resulting from perceived anti-homosexual bias. 65%! And this is just the college age group. It rather seems according to your own citation that homosexuals frequently enough victimised to be considered, on the whole, victims of harassment for being gay.

The article posted is an example of the fallacious argument of false equivalence.

Posted by Neil on December 05, 2009 at 05:31 AM | #

Robert, can I just say: although it is a long time since this was written, it is my absolutely honest opinion that Kim is absolutely a very loving, generous-natured person. Just because she disagrees with you on a matter concerning which she has probably been taught since childhood does not make her a bad or unloving person.

Posted by Jordan on October 07, 2010 at 07:37 PM | #

<< Back to main

Blog navigation

Latest comments by...

  • Michael in Welcome!.

  • paris sportifs in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Alison in Restroom (Public Toilet) Maintenance: How to Protect Them from Homosexuals.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Dave in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Salata in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Rain in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Nick Jones in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Akea in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • LLY in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • Concerts torrents in The Latvian Attitude toward Gay Pride.

  • barbie games in Anal Eroticism: Self-administration of an Epoxy Resin Adhesive into the Rectum.