Once Again, Gay Jesus Stirs Up Trouble

Personally, I like the idea that Jesus was gay. I don't know why, but make no mistake - this is not supposed to be insulting or baiting toward Christians. As a non-Christian, I think of Jesus in the same grand scope as I think of Paul Bunyan or Captain America. I might not think of Jesus as being real, but I do think of him as a kind of superhero and his compassion is a superhuman trait that he has, in the same way Spidey has his Spidey sense and Green Lantern can use his ring to make shit.

So, I kind of like the idea of Jesus and the Apostles being a band of gay Texans. I get that, you know? Well, evidently a trustee of a Michigan community college doesn't share my artistic appreciation regarding the son of the Christian god. :/

Trustee opposes funds for theater over gay Jesus

A Michigan community college trustee says he opposes funding "evil things," citing school support for a theater group that once performed play depicting Jesus and his apostles as gay Texans.

Grand Rapids Community College is working to close a $3.5 million budget deficit.

At a meeting Monday, Trustee Richard Ryskamp objected to $60,000 budgeted for three groups, including $19,000 for the Actors' Theatre.

In 2003, the troupe presented Terrence McNally's play "Corpus Christi."

Ryskamp says the school should consider if groups it funds "are meeting a standard of decency."

President Steven Ender says the college doesn't censor the theater. A trustees vote on the budget is expected in June.

Expression shouldn't have to be decent. Art shouldn't be constrained by one group of people's opinion regarding the tastefulness of the content. If the trustee doesn't like the performance, he or she ought to use their own equally proportioned freedom of speech to speak out against it instead of trying to use their position of authority to force people to curb their own expression.

Also, fucking chill out on the homosexual hatred. We get it, you don't approve. Obviously you're obsessive about this shit, you're throwing a fit about a play that was put on seven years ago. Now stop throwing a fit because fewer and fewer people care what you think. You can't force society to stagnate just because you refuse to evolve.

Gay Angels Disturb Priest

Yeah, I'm serious.

Priest wants church painting removed because ‘angels look gay’

A Catholic priest at a Dominican Republic resort town wants to destroy artwork in his parish because the painting shows angels with “a homosexual expression”. This confuses the faithful, he argues.The painting named "Allegory of the Virgin of Carmen," was concluded 12 years ago by Dominican artist Roberto Flores. The artwork adorns the interior of the church of “Our Lady of Carmen” in the mountain community of Jarabacoa, an agricultural and tourist center located in the Dominican Republic.

The priest Johnny Duran sparked the controversy surrounding the painting, after promoting the adoption by the Jarabacoa City Council of a resolution that revokes an earlier statement by the same council that designated the mural as municipal heritage.

Explaining his reason to revoke the previous decision and destroy the mural, the priest argues that the church congregation feels uncomfortable by the painting and that the mural does not inspire religious sentiments because the angels there depicted have a “diabolical, homosexual look” in their faces. Further, he contends that it is not clear whether the angels are male or female.

Obviously the picture I posted is not the painting from the church, unfortunately I couldn't find a picture of that painting. So I did a google image search for the term 'gay angel' and found quite a few that looked similar to the one above. To me, that's not a gay angel, that's a stereotypical hunky male angel. I guess I understand how someone might 'look gay' if they're inundated with homosexual stereotypes, but somehow I don't think that a classical painting in a church has angels with rainbow accessories who are snappy dressers with great taste in art or whatever homosexual stereotype you want to imagine.

Look, you can't look at someone and know for a fact that they're gay. A painting is even more ambiguous because art is 100% subjective. What someone sees in art says far more about them than it says about the art itself. So, if the priest looks at a painting and sees a gay angel staring at him, I don't think the real issue will be dealt with by removing the art.

Why My Son Will Never Be A Boy Scout

One of the hardest aspects of being a parent is the social pressure to conform for the sake of your kid. I don't know anyone who has kids who hasn't at some point struggled with a choice or situation where the majority believes something is either acceptable or unacceptable, good or bad, and the parent disagrees. I feel like it's important to give your kid all of the experiences you possibly can, and though economic and social constrictions make those available experiences different in every case, I think that one of the hardest things for a parent to do is to separate their own opinions regarding activities from their willingness to allow their kids to experience those activities.

There is an activity that I will never be comfortable allowing my son to participate in, and it's something that for a lot of Americans is seen as a hugely valuable experience for boys especially - the Boy Scouts of America.

For a lot of people, the Boy Scouts are considered one of the best activities you could encourage your son to participate in. They will cite all of the great things about the Scouts - their focus on community and being a good Samaritan, their dedication to volunteerism and to being loyal, honest, etc. I find exceptional value in these things as well, the problem I have with the boy scouts ought to be an obvious one. Take a look at their oath -

On my honor I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country
and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong,
mentally awake, and morally straight.

It is a requirement to believe in god in order to be a Scout. Which, if my son decided he believed in god wouldn't be as big of an issue for me as something far more sinister - the fact the the Boy Scouts of America is an actively and vocally homophobic organization.

So, let's revisit the list of all those admirable things that makes the Scouts such a great experience for boys. Their focus on community (except for the gay community, which should be rejected) and being a good Samaritan (though this only extends as far as heterosexuality is concerned, as the scouts also teach discrimination), their dedication to (specifically straight) volunteerism and to being loyal (as long as your loyalty has nothing to do with homosexuals), honest, etc.

The fact is, it doesn't matter how many awesome things the Scouts do as an organization, everything they do is tainted by the fact that they actively endorse homophobia by not allowing homosexuals to be scouts or scout masters. Presumably this rule is in place because the Scouts are a religious organization.

I don't like the idea of making too many moral decisions on behalf of my son, but I refuse to support his participation in an organization that endorses homophobia regardless of what the popular position on the organization might be. There are no amount of camping trips and volunteer experiences that would be worth putting my son in a position where he has to reject an entire group of people in order to participate in these activities.

So, I guess this summer we're going camping.

All You Need Is Love...And A Civil Rights Lawyer.

Well, this shit is effing ridiculous.

Greene v. County of Sonoma et al.

Clay and his partner of 20 years, Harold, lived in California. Clay and Harold made diligent efforts to protect their legal rights, and had their legal paperwork in place—wills, powers of attorney, and medical directives, all naming each other. Harold was 88 years old and in frail medical condition, but still living at home with Clay, 77, who was in good health.

One evening, Harold fell down the front steps of their home and was taken to the hospital. Based on their medical directives alone, Clay should have been consulted in Harold’s care from the first moment. Tragically, county and health care workers instead refused to allow Clay to see Harold in the hospital. The county then ultimately went one step further by isolating the couple from each other, placing the men in separate nursing homes.

Ignoring Clay’s significant role in Harold’s life, the county continued to treat Harold like he had no family and went to court seeking the power to make financial decisions on his behalf. Outrageously, the county represented to the judge that Clay was merely Harold’s “roommate.” The court denied their efforts, but did grant the county limited access to one of Harold’s bank accounts to pay for his care.

What happened next is even more chilling: without authority, without determining the value of Clay and Harold’s possessions accumulated over the course of their 20 years together or making any effort to determine which items belonged to whom, the county took everything Harold and Clay owned and auctioned off all of their belongings. Adding further insult to grave injury, the county removed Clay from his home and confined him to a nursing home against his will. The county workers then terminated Clay and Harold's lease and surrendered the home they had shared for many years to the landlord.

Three months after he was hospitalized, Harold died in the nursing home. Because of the county’s actions, Clay missed the final months he should have had with his partner of 20 years. Compounding this tragedy, Clay has literally nothing left of the home he had shared with Harold or the life he was living up until the day that Harold fell, because he has been unable to recover any of his property. The only memento Clay has is a photo album that Harold painstakingly put together for Clay during the last three months of his life.

With the help of a dedicated and persistent court-appointed attorney, Anne Dennis of Santa Rosa, Clay was finally released from the nursing home. Ms. Dennis, along with Stephen O'Neill and Margaret Flynn of Tarkington, O'Neill, Barrack & Chong, now represent Clay in a lawsuit against the county, the auction company, and the nursing home, with technical assistance from NCLR. A trial date has been set for July 16, 2010 in the Superior Court for the County of Sonoma

This story isn't being covered very well (if at all?) on the news, so I think anyone with a blog should go ahead and post it too. Can you imagine what it would be like to be in either of these guy's position? If I was sick and I couldn't see B-rad, I don't know what I would do. Not to mention missing out on the last few months of my love's life, having my entire life sold out from under me, and being forced into a nursing home against my will.

This kind of substandard treatment of homosexuals needs to end. We're supposedly civilized people, we shouldn't be treating people this way because of who they love.

And, not to go off on an entirely separate tangent, but where the hell are the teabaggers when incidents like this occur? You all are supposedly all anti-government, look at what has happened to this couple! Oh, yeah, I forgot, fear of catching teh gay often trumps mindless compliance to hyped up conservative FOX-nurtured political positions.

Viva la revolucion, guys.

When A Clothing Preference = Mental Disorder

Today on twitter via Queers United, I was made aware of something that I had no idea about - evidently, per Queers United blog:

...the APA considers individuals who crossdress to be suffering from "transvestic disorder".

That's right, kids! A preference in clothing = mental disorder.

You may say, "Now wait a darn minute, Pinko. We're not talking about just a preference in clothing! Stop purposefully misrepresenting the issue!"

The fact is, I'm not misrepresenting anything. I personally, like everyone else who is sane, wear clothes in which I feel comfortable. Technically, I would be considered a cross dresser given that I wear pants 99.99% of the time and I have a vagina. Joe blow misogynist might try to say that my desire to wear pants, even though I have said vagina, is indicative of some deep mental issue I have toward my own femininity. What he's really saying, however, is that he likes it when chicks wear skirts and because I'm a chick and I don't wear a skirt, there's something wrong with me. He is perpetuating his personal perception of normal as an objective measure of normality.

For men who prefer to wear woman's clothes, the issue and the judgment is far worse and honestly, nothing to laugh at.

It's people who think they are justified in assuming someone has a mental disorder if they don't conform to some imaginary, objective 'normal' standard who are misrepresenting the issue.
The APA often reflects the misinformed mainstream assumptions regarding behaviors and lifestyles as mental disorders, but luckily there are people who are actively vigilant about this and take steps to petition the APA for change. Here's a link to the petition to get this ridiculous classification for crossdressing removed from the APA. The listed arguments are irrefutable, in my opinion:

1. Crossdressing involves no inherent harm to the individual engaging in it, to other people, or to society. Its presence in a psychiatric manual (whether for reasons of diagnosis or for research) is anachronistic, trivializes the DSM, and diminishes the psychiatric profession;

2. By the 1980s, laws against crossdressing were abolished virtually everywhere in the U.S., Canada and Western Europe with almost no controversy as they were recognized to be anachronisms, unworthy of attention by law enforcement officials. The psychiatric diagnosis, however, remained in place;

3. In many other countries around the world, crossdressing is still a criminal offense, and the continued presence of this diagnosis in the DSM promotes the oppression of gender diverse persons by local authorities;

4. The mere grouping of crossdressing alongside criminal behaviors that can cause grave harm to non-consenting persons needlessly stigmatizes people who engage in harmless gender-diverse behavior;

5. The application of this diagnosis only to male persons is obvious evidence of sexism;

6. The arbitrariness of this diagnosis is compounded by its proposed extension to cover gay and bisexual men who were explicitly exempted in the past, and by the questionable reasoning given to justify the change;

7. The proposed "Transvestic Disorder" diagnosis would no longer be limited to crossdressers. It also now targets many transsexual women with the new specifier of "autogynephilia," a pejorative label implying that transsexual women transition for reasons other than harmony with their gender identity. This mischaracterization of transsexual women is already being exploited by political extremists to undermine their civil rights and human dignity.

8. The psychiatrist and former chairman of the DSM-4 Task Force, Allen Frances, M.D., recently wrote in the Psychiatric Times, "As psychiatrists, we have our hands full taking care of the suffering and distress caused by real mental disorders. There is no need for us to expand our purview to cover sexual thoughts and behaviors that are private and harmless."

9. In February 2010, the Norwegian Directorate of Health, following the earlier lead of Denmark (1995) and Sweden (2009), invalidated the diagnostic code for "Fetishistic Transvestism" in the standard Norwegian psychiatric manual. The Directorate of Health observed, "There have been no changes in these diagnoses for over 100 years... At best these diagnoses are completely superfluous. At worst they are stigmatizing minority groups in society."

So, in the spirit of labeling shit you don't like as a mental disorder and for those who think those who crossdress have a mental disorder, I feel there are other fashion choices which deserve this unflattering distinction FAR MORE than crossdressing. Feel free to add to the list as you see fit.

Wolf T-shirts. While often accompanied by rat tails and confederate flag stickers in the mid-west where the disorder is rampant, they can be found in rural areas outside the mid-west as well, usually being worn by a guy with a 'sweet' fantasy dagger collection.


Crocs. 'Nuff said.


Chicks who wear those sweatpants with a word written across the backside. Nothing says 'I'm clinically desperate for attention' like a wearing a pair of pants that force everyone around you to look at your ass.


ICP fans, aka "Juggalos". I feel this mental disorder is serious enough to warrant mandatory sterilization.

Ugly Christmas sweaters that additionally incorporate American patriotic zeal. Nothing says Christmas like a snowman with a flag. Wait, what?

WWJD? Kill Sick Gay People, Evidently.

A Ugandan lawmaker wants to pass a bill that calls for the execution of HIV+ homosexuals. Wow.

The Washington Post:KAMPALA, UGANDA -- A Ugandan lawmaker refused Friday to withdraw proposed legislation that would impose the death penalty for some gay men and lesbians despite international condemnation and presidential opposition to a measure that some critics said could scare off foreign investors.

Lawmaker David Bahati said he will not heed a call late Thursday from the government to drop the proposed bill, which has provoked criticism from gay rights groups and protests in London, New York and Washington.

"We have our children in schools to protect against being recruited into" homosexuality, Bahati said. "The process of legislating a law to protect our children against homosexuality and defending our family values must go on." The country's parliament is expected to debate the measure in late February or early March.

Although President Yoweri Museveni has told colleagues that he believes the bill is too harsh and has encouraged his ruling National Resistance Movement Party to overturn the death sentence provision, Information Minister Kabakumba Matsiko said the parliament will act independently.

Several lawmakers and officials from the ruling party said this week that they will push to remove the death penalty statute. They have proposed instead that gays receive counseling to convert them to heterosexuality.

Lawmakers outlawed gay marriage in 2005. The proposed legislation is being promoted as an update to Uganda's statutes against homosexuality, which date from the 1950s and do not address homosexuality by name, only by what the law terms as "unnatural offenses" and "gross indecency." The draft bill says anyone convicted of a homosexual act could face life imprisonment.

Current legislation imposes seven years in prison. Under the new law, the death sentence could apply to sexually active gays living with HIV or in cases of same-sex rape. The law would also include Ugandans living abroad, who could be extradited and punished.

http://tinyurl.com/yzonqw9

The quote in bold could just as easily come from Palin or Bachmann or any number of US politicians or pundits currently in a position of power and influence.

Uganda is a country whose majority (84%) is Christian, and this atrocious legislature is and example of what I fear about religion having government power. This is why I feel religion is dangerous and why I am vocal in my support of the establishment clause of the US constitution.

Pope: Bigotry is a Form of Religious Freedom!

So, again, the pope is an asshole.

He's now urging clergy in the UK and Wales to oppose an equality bill currently making it's way through Parliament. No, not just oppose - fight with "missionary zeal".

The Pope told the Catholic bishops of England and Wales gathered in Rome: "Your country is well-known for its firm commitment to equality of opportunity for all members of society.

"Yet, as you have rightly pointed out, the effect of some of the legislation designed to achieve this goal has been to impose unjust limitations on the freedom of religious communities to act in accordance with their beliefs.

"In some respects it actually violates the natural law upon which the equality of all human beings is grounded and by which it is guaranteed."

That's right, kids! The pope is all for equality, as long as the rights of religious institutions are made paramount. Essentially, everyone IS equal...equally less important than the church and the religiously motivated bigotry the church stands for.

Senior parliamentary officer Jonathan Finney had it right when he said:

"People should not be denied access to services and employment purely because they are gay. We've got to guard against sweeping exemptions seeming to protect one person's freedom, which actually really impact on other people's. What you can't start doing is saying that religious people have hard-won freedoms, we'll now restrict those, we won't give them to gay people, we won't give them to women."

My question is this - does the pope really want to draw parallels between bigotry and religion? Personally, I don't think the bible requires any help in proving that religion promotes bigotry but I have to wonder what the hell the pope is thinking trying to thinly mask his opposition to this equality bill as some kind of crusade for religious rights.

No, guys, you can't force your religious beliefs on others by demanding that rules ought not to apply to you because you interpret your book to say that they shouldn't. Your archaic religious beliefs - masqueraded as 'rights' in this instance because it suits your purpose - do not trump the rights of everyone else.

CBS Makes Their Conservative/Anti- Gay Leanings Clear

Is it a shock that CBS is showing bias toward the religious right agenda?

No.

But it's still infuriating!

CBS has rejected two unrelated ads which were submitted to the company for the coveted Superbowl commercial air time. CBS claims that the rejection of the ads were for different reasons, but it's hard not to notice that both of these particular ads feature homosexual themes, both direct and in-direct.

One of the rejected ads is for a guy dating site called Man Crunch. The site features two dudes watching the game, their hands meeting in a bowl of chips accompanied by a romance-movie-esque embrace and ends with a bewildered friend looking shocked at the turn of events. CBS claims that there were credit issues with the company which is the 'main reason' the commercial was rejected, however the company claims that allegation makes no sense because they offered to pay for the commercial in cash. Man Crunch is a fledgling but well-supported company that has 40 million dollars in investment funds which would easily cover the 2.5 million dollar price tag for the advertising space, but CBS claims they never offered to pay for the air-time in cash. Now that they've made their ability to pay clear, CBS isn't changing it's decision to reject the ad, which seems like a pretty strong indication that some bullshit 'credit' issue had nothing to do with their decision not to run the commercial.

The second ad which was rejected had no overt homosexual themes but it featured an effeminate man whose name is "Lola". The rejection of this ad is far more difficult for CBS to justify, given that the sponsor is a company which has been recognized as a Superbowl commercial fixture for years, GoDaddy.com. GoDaddy does have a commercial which is being aired Superbowl Sunday, but it is not the original commercial they submitted. CBS seems conspicuously silent as to why the first commercial was rejected. I suppose it's a bit more difficult to make up some bullshit excuse about a company whose money you've taken without incident for years.

Now, if CBS were consistent with their position regarding 'controversial' commercials I wouldn't have as big of a problem with this but all of this is happening in the same year that CBS decided to accept a fucking pro-life ad to be run.

So, just for the record - advertisement that advocates a single position on an extremely controversial and polarizing issue: OK. Advertisements geared toward or even alluding to homosexuals which are entirely commercial and advocate only the use of a specific product: Not OK.

If you want to see the ads, check out this blog. This person has also thoughtfully listed the contact information for the appropriate CBS employees if you feel compelled to lodge a complaint. I know I'm going to.

When companies like CBS have control of valuable advertising space and make decisions regarding that space which show a clear bias for or against particular groups, they are guilty of using that space as a political tool to promote a specific agenda. When this agenda is supportive of religious right ideals which promote the reduction of an individuals civil rights, I feel like it's the duty of everyone who values their own civil liberties to speak out.

Kissimmee, FL "In God We Trust" Ordinance Withdrawn, Bigot Pissed

KISSIMMEE, Florida - Kissimmee commissioner Art Otero is not letting go of his effort to add the words "In God We Trust" to the city logo and says he will take the initiative to a referendum if needed.

An ordinance that added the motto passed on first reading through the City Commission last month but was withdrawn last week by the board, after Mayor Jim Swan said that Otero's comments had brought "ridicule" on the city.

Swan read a statement at the meeting saying that the commission's original intent to add the motto for "patriotic purposes" had now been "tainted."

"Staff has been distracted from its normal duties responding to citizens comments and demands on the issues. There have been threats of boycotting local businesses and future businesses looking elsewhere," his statement said.

Otero had told the Orlando Sentinel he started the logo effort because he feared the country was moving toward "liberal postures such as homosexuality, gay marriage, abortion and the legalization of marijuana." He also referred to the Obama administration as "socialist."

Read More...

It's simple, Otero. You had a chance of getting this BS passed until you showed your cards and left no doubt that this ordinance was not proposed by an American Patriot (tm) in the name of American Patriotism (tm) but rather as an anti-gay, anti-Obama extremist hell bent on pushing your god in any way possible in order to quell your own unfortunate fears about the big bad pace of social progression.

You forgot the cardinal rule of underhanded religiously driven politics - never be honest about your motivations or intentions. Stick to secular-based patriotism arguments and pretend the religious motivations don't exist AT ALL COSTS.

I have to thank you, however, for removing all doubt in regard to what the motivations behind this and no doubt most other pro-"In God We Trust" implementations really are.

Gays And The Fundies Who "Love" Them (But Not Like That)

It seems like whenever any institution shows the smallest amount of positive or protective response toward gays, the religious kooks go into a tizzy. As far back as 1999, a decade ago, the APA had this to say regarding 'reparative', 'conversion' or 're-orientation' therapy:

“The potential risks of ‘reparative therapy’ are great, including depression, anxiety and self-destructive behavior, since therapist alignment with societal prejudices against homosexuality may reinforce self-hatred already experienced by the patient. Many patients... were inaccurately told that homosexuals are lonely, unhappy individuals who never achieve acceptance or satisfaction. The possibility that the person might achieve happiness and satisfying interpersonal relationships as a gay man or lesbian is not presented, nor are alternative approaches to dealing with the effects of societal stigmatization discussed... the APA opposes any treatment, such as ‘reparative’ or ‘conversion’ therapy which is based on the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based on a prior assumption that the patient should change his/her sexual orientation.”

Just last week the APA finally adopted a resolution in regard to this position:

The American Psychological Association (APA) adopted a resolution Wednesday urging mental health professionals to avoid telling clients that they can change their sexual orientation through therapy or other treatments. The decision rejects the hundred years' worth of research indicating the effectiveness and benefits of sexual reorientation therapy due to "serious design flaws."

The resolution also advises that parents, guardians, young people and their families avoid sexual orientation treatments that portray homosexuality as a mental illness and rather seek treatments "that provide accurate information on sexual orientation and sexuality, increase family and school support and reduce rejection of sexual minority youth."

The approval was made at the APA's annual convention with a 125-4 vote.

What exactly is the driving force behind the dissenting and consequently religious response to this? Religion wasn't taken into account as if it were a fact. Specifically religious doctrines which are mostly fundamental in nature which say that homosexuality is wrong and can be reversed or cured. Please keep in mind that the bible certainly says NOTHING about the nature of homosexuality - there is no book of butch which outlines if it's a choice or a characteristic or pre-determined in some way.

This is the issue for them:

The task force examined the 83 studies conducted in English between 1960 and 2007 regarding SOCE, but concluded that the vast majority of the studies were unacceptable because of poor methodology. "Unfortunately, much of the research in the area of sexual orientation change contains serious design flaws," task force chair Dr. Judith M. Glassgold said. "Few studies could be considered methodologically sound and none systematically evaluated potential harms."

A good chunk of those rejected 'studies' were conducted by religious institutions and constitutes psychological pseudoscience. One asshole who makes a living peddling this 'you just have to WANT to change' garbage is...the guy who is complaining about the APA's resolution of course!

Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, founder and director of the Thomas Aquinas Psychological Clinic - a biblical de-gaying office - disagrees with the APA, stating:

the organization did not give sufficient weight to the years of clinical research that shows that in some cases sexual orientation is changeable through therapy. "The APA is really failing to not only represent science, which is its primary responsibility," he said, "but it's also failing to inform people."

The APA isn't failing to inform anyone of anything. In fact, these people have something to be happy about given that the APA didn't vote the practice of re-orientation therapy to be specifically unethical, they just refuse back it which means Nicolosi can still torment confused homosexual or bisexual people all he wants without risking the loss of his liscense.

I feel like Nicolosi's greatest fear is one of my strongest hopes - that people will abandon these types of therapy and instead learn to love themselves for who they are, whether they're theists or otherwise.

Official Religious Opinions On Gay Marriage - A Few Surprises

I was wondering the other day about christianity in all its forms and other religions and how each sect reacts to gay marriage. Not many surprises here

American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A.

In 2005, the governing body of the American Baptist Churches in the U.S.A. affirmed that "God's design for sexual intimacy places it within the context of marriage between one man and one woman" and that "homosexuality is incompatible with Biblical teaching." In 2006, the church's southwestern regional board (which includes churches in California, Hawaii, Nevada and Arizona) split from the national church in reaction to its failure to penalize congregations that welcomed openly gay members.

Buddhism

There is no universal Buddhist position on same-sex marriage. According to some interpretations of the Buddha's teachings, one of the 10 non-virtuous deeds that lead to suffering is "sexual misconduct." The term is primarily understood to refer to adultery. However, some Buddhists interpret this term to include homosexuality, largely due to different cultural attitudes toward the practice in certain Buddhist countries.

Catholicism

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops opposes gay marriage on the ground that "marriage is a faithful, exclusive and lifelong union between one man and one woman." In 2003, the conference stated that "what are called ‘homosexual unions' [cannot be given the status of marriage] because they do not express full human complementarity and because they are inherently nonprocreative."

Episcopal Church

Although the Episcopal Church has not explicitly established a position in favor of gay marriage, in 2006 the church stated its "support of gay and lesbian persons and [opposition to] any state or federal constitutional amendment" prohibiting gay marriages or civil unions. Furthermore, in 2009, the church’s national convention voted to give bishops the option to bless same-sex unions.

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America

The ELCA currently defines marriage as a "lifelong and committed relationship between a man and a woman." In August 2009, however, the church's legislative body will vote to decide whether to adopt a new social statement on human sexuality. Specifically, the proposal at issue asks the church to "commit itself to finding ways to allow congregations that choose to do so to recognize, support, and hold publicly accountable lifelong, monogamous, same-gender relationships."

Hinduism

There is no official Hindu position on the issue of same-sex marriage. Depending on different cultural attitudes toward homosexuality, some Hindus do not support the practice of homosexuality. But others may choose to follow ancient Hindu texts, such as the Kama Sutra, that allow for homosexual behavior.

Islam

Islamic law explicitly denounces homosexuality, and the practice of homosexuality is a crime in many Islamic countries, including Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Judaism

While the Reform and Reconstructionist Jewish movements are ardent supporters of gay and lesbian rights, including the right of same-sex couples to wed, they do not require rabbis to officiate at the weddings of gay couples. The Conservative movement, which does not sanctify gay marriage, grants autonomy to individual rabbis to choose whether or not to recognize same-sex unions. The leadership of Orthodox Judaism has defined marriage as an institution between a man and a woman and therefore does not accept same-sex marriage.

Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod

In 2006, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod reaffirmed its position that same-sex marriage is "contrary to the will of the Creator."

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints

Mormon theology stipulates that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God." As a result, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not endorse same-sex marriage.

National Association of Evangelicals

In 2004, the National Association of Evangelicals reaffirmed its 1985 resolution that homosexuality is not sanctioned by the Bible. Thus the group does not support gay marriage or civil unions.

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)

Although the Presbyterian Church's governing body has not explicitly addressed the issue of gay marriage, the church issued a ruling in 1997 prohibiting the ordination of homosexuals. Regional bodies and clergy, however, have challenged this ruling, causing a major rift among Presbyterians.

Southern Baptist Convention

In 2003, the Southern Baptist Convention issued a statement confirming its opposition to gay marriage. It called on "Southern Baptists not only to stand against same-sex unions but to demonstrate our love for those practicing homosexuality by sharing with them the forgiving and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)."

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations

In 1996, the Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations passed a resolution in support of same-sex marriage.

United Church of Christ

In 2005, the United Church of Christ voted to legally recognize and advocate in favor of same-sex marriage.

United Methodist Church

In 2008, the United Methodist Church's top policymaking body reaffirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. The church does not sanction civil unions, despite recent objections from some regional congregations and clergy.

***

I was suprised that some buddhists are opposed to homosexual lifestyles. However, this sounds more like a personal belief and not a religiously mandated stance. I was also confused about the methodist position for personal reasons as I have a friend who attends a methodist church who is gay and his particular church seems very accepting of him and his partner, their lifestyle and commitment to one another.

It's important to point out that official doctrines do not nessecarily dictate how specific churches operate, but if a church is willing to ignore the rules of it's own sect, then why do they maintain afffiliation with these institutions at all? Somehow I think standing up for equal civil rights might easily enough take a backseat to pre-determined tax exemption and other sect-specific perks - but pointing that out would be so very atheist of me, wouldn't it?

Homophobic Atheists

In the last few months I have run across a phenomenon which I cannot for the life of me understand. Most of the time when I cross paths with a person who does not support equal rights for homosexuals, that person presents the various edicts of their religion as the main reason for their support of the social rejection of gays, with an additional admission that they personally find homosexuality 'gross'.

Lately I have met a few atheists who do not believe homosexuals deserve equal rights, and their position remains essentially the same as the christian position, minus the religion. Which is to say, these people don't support equal rights for gays because they feel homosexuality is gross.

That's it. That's the only reason.

Now, I'm not saying these people don't dress their position up in misleading or grandiose wording such as claiming that homosexuality is unnatural (ignoring the facts that homosexuality occurs without any 'unnatural' intervention, making it entirely natural and that homosexuality occurs in many many animal cultures beyond humans as well) or claiming that homosexuality is a choice and that these people have equal rights if they 'choose' to be 'normal'. Hardly anyone comes out and says the real reason they oppose these people's basic rights - because homosexual relationships personally make them uncomfortable. I have to imagine a bit of dressing up is required when the truth of the position is so glaringly ignorant and selfish.

I have to wonder if these atheist homophobes don't allow us a unique view into the honesty of the anti-gay position. The religious tend to suppose a kind of helpless bystander role when confronted by the glaring disregard for another human being's rights with an air of "Don't blame me, God says it's wrong." When an atheist opposes homosexuality, you see the inspiration for the opposition for what it is - the selfish assumption that personal opinion of a majority should trump individual rights. I submit that this is the real reason for the rejection of homosexual rights among the vast majority of people and religion is a convenient and often unopposed excuse to hide behind.

I strongly urge any atheists out there who oppose homosexual rights to replace anything they have to say about homosexuals with the term 'atheists' and see if you still think the position is fair and logical. To religious America, which is currently the majority of this nation, your reasons for not supporting homosexuals are the same reasons they don't feel we atheists deserve our rights. It's not fair for that kind of treatment to be allowed to anyone, regardless of how 'gross' you think they are.

Gay Rights, Atheist Allies and WTF Black Community?

I always thought myself lucky to be born with a natural attraction to the opposite sex. Why do I say lucky? I've watched close friends deal with judgment, harassment, and aggression because of who they are - because they're gay - and I understood after witnessing it that I was lucky to be hetero. I'm sure my parents felt this way growing up in the rural Midwest during desegregation. The fact is - when you feel lucky because of how you were born, there's something bad happening to people who weren't born the same as you.

For a lot of atheists, the issues my friends have dealt with are all too familiar. Now, similarities have previously been drawn between the atheist movement and the gay rights movement and I don't think many people have a problem with this because they are both similar kinds of rejection received typically from religious conservatives (though not always). One could argue that discrimination against gays is worse because homosexuality is not a belief, it's a state of being and I agree with that, but discrimination on any level is unacceptable and so to say 'my suffering is less deserved than your suffering, though neither is acceptable' is moot.

For me, the passion of my support of gay rights is on par with the passion I have in my belief in atheism - I honestly cannot see any reason why gays should not have the same rights as anyone else. I even take offense to giving gays the same exact rights as everyone else but not allowing them to use the word 'marriage'. It's ridiculous, it's troglodytic in philosophy, and it's blatently seperatist. Have we learned nothing?

What really bothers me is when I see black people rallying against gays. Seriously? You don't see ANY connection between what happened to you or your parents, grandparents, etc and what some people are trying to do with gay rights right now? I imagine it must be a poisonous and hateful form of religion that allows these people to diferentiate between what they and their family went through for equal rights and what gays are currently going through regarding rqual rights. Which is a wonderful and specific example of why I think religion is a negative influence on modern society.

What spurnned this little rolling rant? This video taken of a group of teenagers (black) harassing a single gay man as he walked alone down the street. What the hell is wrong with these kids? Does it only take the span of a few decades for people to forget all of the struggle they had to go through before they turn around the inflict the same kind of hateful aggression they once rallied against?