"...And the Lord set a mark upon Cain, lest any finding him should kill him." - Genesis 4:15, King James Version
If you are unfamiliar, or rather, in complete darkness on the quote above, I'll give a small recap: Cain, according to Christianity, is the world's first murderer. He kills his brother Abel and is exiled. But Cain gets scared, telling God that he's afraid somebody is going to whack him Soprano-style the minute he walks. Given, I revised it a bit there, but this is what is known: God puts a mark on Cain so that all may know who he is, and yet respect him enough not to kill him.
The mark is never described, and for centuries men have sought to find the mark. And when I say 'sought to find,' I really mean 'thrust upon whoever they disliked at the time.' In the epic Beowulf, this is the monster Grendel. In the Americas, this was once African-Americans. In later times, it was the Jews. All have been named, thought of, or indirectly referenced as children of the first killer. Terrible, unspeakable things fell upon them all. And in our present, the mark is laid upon homosexuals.
I'm giving a slightly biased neutral here. I'm not gay, I like boys just as much as the next girl. But, if that next girl happens to like girls, guess what? I'm not running away from her. I'm not treating her any different. I'm not exiling her. I don't think this is kindness, I think this is sanity. I am all for gay rights. Many of my friends, males and females, are gay. I don't go looking for them. Yeah, most of my friends are straight, but if one wants to tell me they aren't, I don't hang up the phone.
Many people believe that the situation here in America isn't that bad. I'll admit, other than the occasional mention of gay marriage and jokes thrown around at school about 'that boy' or 'that girl', I even thought for a while that nothing was extreme. We all have a way of having our opinions, hearing the opinions of others, and making a niche in them. I live in a small town with several open homosexuals. People dislike them, but, for the majority, they are treated the same as heterosexuals. So why should I think elsewhere it was different? Why should I ever imagine that there was a person who couldn't tolerate it? Not saying you have to be for gay rights, you don't have to. But I had always been led to believe that gay people weren't in any trouble. Naivety is often a blissful place until someone close to us pierces it.
Now, like I said: I have friends that are gay. One of them I met online. For purposes of my laziness in over-using the pronoun 'she' and my friend's privacy, I'll call her Terry. Terry was just coming out of the closet when I met her. She used to come online and talk to me about her troubles. Her parents didn't take it too well, but she was making it. They still accepted her. But then one night she contacted me and I knew that things were different. Terry told me that her aunt had found out about her opening, and she was now trying to get her enrolled in an anti-gay camp. One that would 'cure' her of her 'disease.'
I looked at the screen as if I were watching Britney Spear's latest dance performance. A camp? To try and 'cure' homosexuality? I told her she was crazy. She showed me sites that proved me wrong. There are camps in America which promote heterosexuality, and believe that their program can help 'squash out any homosexual feelings.' These camps hide behind the flimsy fact that the Bible states it's evil to love someone of the same sex. It also says that women have to keep their hair covered, not a tradition I see carried out by too many anti-gay women. In fact, it states a lot of things those people don't do, and yet I suppose they have a right to cast the first stone. Though, really...there's this guy, of the very slightest importance, in the Bible who tells us specifically not to do that.
I'm not trying to change anyone's religion. I don't want to make someone feel that because I say something, they have to believe it too. We all, homo and heterosexual alike, have felt those butterflies when we saw someone. We all find certain people attractive. And love, though at our age a vague and confused thing, is a feeling nonetheless beautiful when felt and shared between two people. You could not force me to love a woman, just as I cannot force Terry to love a man. If Terry had told me that she loved women because of their bodies, because of the hype of sexuality in women that is smashed across television, I would have questioned her. Because love isn't about someone's body. It isn't about hair, or eyes, or what size they can get down to. If love was that, it couldn't survive. Our bodies, in the realm of love, are cold and barren. It is our souls that burn it up and create that dooming heat. Our souls know when we're trying to kid ourselves. We can only find that happiness in that soul that heats up our own in that single glance, that makes us laugh and feel joy. A man or a woman can do that. It is, thankfully, not a limited thing.
So what is the 'mark of Cain'? What type of symbol did God place upon that scared man? Was it really something that had to be so horrible? Must we assume that Cain gave birth to children just as evil as he? I don't think he did. I don't think that there is one people, one religion, one belief that Cain was endowned with. I think he was simply given a mark of safety which, as it was on no other man, was turned into something evil. Don't make people evil because of your own thoughts. Don't take away their humanity to give them such generic names as 'Jew' or 'Homo' or 'Black.' Cain killed, but someone wanted to kill him. He was not the only evil. That title was shared between him and the people which wanted to choose his horrible act in order to obtain some type of justice. And then who would be evil? The one who killed and paid for his action, or the one who killed to make him pay tax on it?
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
I think that the whole anti-homosexual thing is a sort of backlash effect. People are starting to be more open about it and some people don't want to have to get used to that fact. Homosexuality has been condemed ever since Christianity set in. Why? Because the bible says it's wrong. (Actually, the NT doesn't mention it and the OT only has problems with Jews practicing it)
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Then they put man in the sentence and we all went to hell from there.
It is really nice to see a God fearing Homosexual loving blog like this one. Thank you.
Maybe pink was the mark;)
http://www.progressiveu.org/121106-boys-n-pink
~sideways
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
I can only speak for myself, no one else.
I am a single, straight, conservative, christian male.
I do view homosexuality as a sin, but have no ill-will towards homosexuals. I interact with them on a daily basis and view them no differently as someone who has heterosexual sex out of wedlock.
As a conservative, I believe that people should not have things thrust upon them. As such, I take offense to 'gay pride' parades or the homosexual overtones in movies and television shows. However, I would have an equal offense to any parade based on sexuality, and I have equal offense to movies or tv shows that are sexual in nature.
If two people want to, in the privacy of their own home, have sex... I don't care. If they want to get a hotel room and have sex... I don't care. If they want to invite multiple people, or film it, or engage in what is generally thought of as 'deviant' activities during sex... I don't care.
Do it in public, I care.
I worked with someone who, after the 2000 election, was in tears, convinced that conservatives wanted to make a 'concentration camp' for homosexuals, to convert them or they'd be killed.
Utter nonsense. He was lied to by people who hate conservatives. I don't know that I hate anyone, with the possible exception of child molesters.
Hate the SIN, not the sinner. It doesn't mean that I'll accept homosexuality as 'normal' (no matter what society says) or as 'good' or as anything akin to a heterosexual married couple... It means that I'll accept the PERSON.
What people view as sins may not be, and things people do NOT view as sins MAY be. Popular Opinion doesn't make something right or wrong (whether it agrees with you or not)... Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong. In our effort to accept PEOPLE, we have been taught to believe that there are no absolutes and that if you do not like an action, then you are being discriminatory against a person who likes that action.
That isn't true. It is very possible to accept and like people, but not agree with, or like, their actions. We do it every day. Don't you have friends that do things that you wouldn't do or don't like? They're still your friends, right?
my thoughts anyway..
Sometimes I wish we could vote on good comments as well as blogs because then I could give you a five.
Tolerance is annoying sometimes esspecially when it creates intolerence for people who beleive one way or another strongly.
Great post.
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
"As such, I take offense to 'gay pride' parades or the homosexual overtones in movies and television shows."
Don't watch.
"Hate the SIN, not the sinner. It doesn't mean that I'll accept homosexuality as 'normal' (no matter what society says) or as 'good' or as anything akin to a heterosexual married couple... It means that I'll accept the PERSON." How kind of you. So you'll think that they are wrong and evil and abnormal because of a natural sexual preference, but it's all ok.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
Actually, no. You either don't understand my point of the entire post, or you are twisting my words on purpose. I'll hope it is not the second of the two possibilities.
I don't think that THEY are evil. I think their action is wrong and immoral. And, frankly, given that 'abnormal' means something that is not the norm, and homosexuality is a vast minority, I guess that it would be abnormal.
It is also not natural, but a deviation from the natural 'male/female' relationship.
It is not NEW, and I think that is more accurate than saying that it is natural.
In what way is this intolerant? Do I need to accept as Ok anything anyone ever does? Do you believe that we shouldn't have any separations?
Where do you draw the line? Is it ok to embrace other things that are generally seen as immoral or wrong? Do you support NAMBLA? Where do you draw moral lines and why are you intolerant towards people who draw different moral lines than you do?
After all, if we are supposed to be tolerant of people different than we are, shouldn't that include people who think differently than us as well?
the last I check tolerant does not mean to think something is okay. I am not sure when that line got speared but it seems as the only thing aloted intolerance is those people like you;).
all truths are easy to understand once discovered; the point is to discover them ~galileo
Here's my beef. You HATE the sin. You think that the way that they live their lives is wrong an immoral. The last time I checked, that makes it pretty damn hard for them to be treated fairly. For instance, I highly doubt that you support gay marriage or gay adoption.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
And you seem to really dislike and be intolerant of my perspective and moral compass.
Why is it that I am wrong for disliking theirs, and you are right for disliking mine?
Perhaps you need to be a touch more tolerant of people who do not share your point of view or perspectives on morality or life.
I don't care if you disprove of homosexuality or anything else that you consider a sin. What annoys me is the condescending attitude.The fact is that you, me and the whole world knows that if you feel that way about something, you cannot treat it on equal footing and the fact that you have assigned that hate to the sin doesn't make that discrimination any less real to the people who have to suffer it.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
this is sad, that a person will try to manipulate a kind person's gesture of understanding into a conspiracy against another.......sigh (I'm sorry but I can't stand bigotry or Zealots)
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.
Let us assume that I hate Christianity. (I don't) Now, because you are Christian, you are denied certain rights and people discriminate against you and say horrible things about you. Would it make you feel better if it was because they didn't hate you, they just hated what you were.
"Every man makes a god of his own desire."
-Virgil
> I don't think that THEY are evil. I think
> their action is wrong and immoral.
This position seems a bit...inconsistent to me. I mean, what doe the words "wrong" and "immoral" mean to you?
> And, frankly, given that 'abnormal' means
> something that is not the norm, and
> homosexuality is a vast minority, I guess
> that it would be abnormal.
Red heads are a "vast minority" of people with hair. Does that make red heads "abnormal" or just unusual.
> It is also not natural, but a deviation from
> the natural 'male/female' relationship.
Call me crazy if you wish, but when I hear the word "natural," I think of things that are found "in nature." Homosexuality occurs quite naturally throughout the animal kingdom. And, the whole male/female thing is not as common as you might think in the natural world. Yes, species with two sexes do have to get together in order to procreate (though the technology of cloning might one day make even that unnecessary for humans), but there are many species (including humans) that form family bonds and yes even engage in sex for reasons other that just to make babies.
> It is not NEW, and I think that is more
> accurate than saying that it is natural.
It certainly isn't "new," but I really have to question your criteria for "naturalness." Most of the relevant scientific research has indicated that homosexuality is a perfectly natural permutation of the normal human sexuality.
> In what way is this intolerant?
Telling someone that you "love" them even though you think they're a shitty person is not only intolerant, but insufferably arrogant. If you think that you're going to get a "nice" reaction when you approach people like this, you've got another think coming.
> Do I need to accept as Ok anything
> anyone ever does?
Considering that we live in a free country, yes you do unless you can objectively demonstrate how the actions of those persons harm you in a direct and demonstrable fashion.
> Do you believe that we shouldn't have
> any separations?
You may separate yourself from the public square if you wish. You do not have the right however to insist that other people give way and vacate that squre just because you might be "offended" by their lives.
> Where do you draw the line?
Its called the Constitution, and it draws a very plain line between the rights of one citizen and another. So long as you stay on your side of the line and I stay on mine, there really shouldn't be any need for you to worry.
> Is it ok to embrace other things that are
> generally seen as immoral or wrong?
You don't have to "embrace" people in order to respect their right to live thier own lives.
> Do you support NAMBLA?
Do you support the KKK?
> Where do you draw moral lines and why
> are you intolerant towards people who
> draw different moral lines than you do?
I am only intolerant of people who think that they can draw my moral lines for me. If you don't like gay people, that's fine. Don't be gay and have a happy life. But when you butt in and start telling me about how "immoral" I am, you better expect that I am going to bristle at the presumption and respond in kind.
> After all, if we are supposed to be tolerant
> of people different than we are, shouldn't
> that include people who think differently
> than us as well?
If all you were doing was "thinking" differently, then we wouldn't be having this discussion. "Hate the sin but love the sinner" is nothing more than a passive aggresive disingenuity designed by christians to make them feel better about their prejudices. You can coat a turd with sugar, but when you take a bite its still gonna taste like crap.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
> I do view homosexuality as a sin, but
> have no ill-will towards homosexuals.
> I interact with them on a daily basis
> and view them no differently as
> someone who has heterosexual sex
> out of wedlock.
Do you believe that gay people should be afforded the same freedom to marry as other citizens of this country? If so, then you would be a very unusual "straight, conservative, christian male." If not, then your claim to view us no differently would seem to be rather disingenous.
> As a conservative, I believe that people
> should not have things thrust upon them.
How are gay people being "thrust upon" you?
> As such, I take offense to 'gay pride' parades
To assemble and petition the government for the redress of grievences are fundamental rights for all Americans, gay or otherwise. Why does it offend you when gay people exercise these rights?
> or the homosexual overtones in movies and
> television shows.
No one forces you to watch television or go to movies, so claiming "offense" for something that you only encounter voluntarily seems a little odd. And honestly, how often do you really see a "homosexual overtone" in a television show or movie? The LGBT community represents between six to twelve percent (depending on who you ask) of the U.S. population, but less than two percent of all television and movie characters are identified as being gay, lesbian, bisesexual or transgendered. Even some of the "gayest" network televisions shows out there (like, Will & Grace) rarely show more than hand holding and maybe a peck on the cheek.
> However, I would have an equal offense to
> any parade based on sexuality, and I have
> equal offense to movies or tv shows that
> are sexual in nature.
The only reason that Pride parades are focued on sexuality is because that sexuality is the focus of the bigotry directed at the LGBT community. Most of us would be quite happy to go about our lives in the same relative obscurity that satisfies most American citizens. But silence=death as the old activist's adage says, and I think it is a bit disingenous to take offense because a group that is being discriminated against stands up for itself.
> I worked with someone who, after the 2000
> election, was in tears, convinced that
> conservatives wanted to make a 'concentration
> camp' for homosexuals, to convert them or
> they'd be killed.
Is it really so hard to believe? History has certainly shown that this kind of violent repression is not impossible. The Nazis rounded up homosexual people and fed them into the ovens the same as they did with the Jews, the Gypsies and other "undersireables." And, even our own country has used concentration camps before. From the incarceration of Native Americans, to the detention of citizens of Japanese and German descent in WWII, and even today for suspected Islamic "terrorists" in places like Guantanamo Bay, we've certainly been willing to do so before.
> Utter nonsense.
Is it really? You know, it wasn't so very long ago where we (gay people) could still be arrested and jailed for the "crime" of having consensual, adult sex with our partners in the privacy of our own homes. Surely you've heard of the landmark case of Lawrence v. Texas. Prior to this 2003 decision, there were still States in this country that were actively arresting and imprisoning gay people for private, consensual, adult sex. So, don't tell me that its "utter nonsense" to be concered about the very real desire of some (most religious conservatives) to use police power of the state to indentify and incarcerate gay people.
> He was lied to by people who hate
> conservatives.
Perhaps he was lied to, or perhaps he was just a little more aware of some of the things that the more conservative elements in this country have been saying. For example, the now famous (infamous?) Roy "10 Commandments" Moore wrote the following regarding a custody case in the state of Alabama where the mother was a lesbian...
"The State may not interfere with the internal governing, structure, and maintenance of the family, but the protection of the family is a responsibility of the State. Custody disputes involve decision-making by the State, within the limits of its sphere of authority, in a way that preserves the fundamental family structure. The State carries the power of the sword, that is, the power to prohibit conduct with physical penalties, such as confinement and even execution. It must use that power to prevent the subversion of children toward this lifestyle, to not encourage a criminal lifestyle." (LINK)
Stuff like this is constantly coming of the pens and mouths of the religious right. A lot of it is probably just rhetoric, but when you're waving a book around that says very plainly that gay people should be killed, it really isn't much of a leap to wonder at what other nefarious plans you might have up your sleeves.
> Hate the SIN, not the sinner. It doesn't mean
> that I'll accept homosexuality as 'normal' (no
> matter what society says) or as 'good' or as
> anything akin to a heterosexual married couple...
> It means that I'll accept the PERSON.
No offense, but that really doesn't sound like you're being very accepting at all.
> Right is Right and Wrong is Wrong. In our
> effort to accept PEOPLE, we have been taught
> to believe that there are no absolutes and that
> if you do not like an action, then you are being
> discriminatory against a person who likes that
> action.
Not at all. "Not liking" gay people isn't discrimination. That's bigotry. You are only being discriminatory if you treat people differently because you do not "like" them. In case you didn't answer it above, I will ask you again here...Do you believe that gay people should be afforded the same freedom to marry as other citizens of this country? If not, then yes, you are behaving in a discriminatory fashion, and despite what you might think you are treating us differently than everyone else.
Actions speak louder than words, my friend, and if your actions are discriminatory, then the difference between "hating the sin" and "loving the sinner" seems to be a bit lost on me.
percivale
-------------------------
"Vi Veri Vniversum Vivus Vici." ~ V.
Lance, I just wanted to comment here that I appreciate your view, because it's something that, honestly, I forgot to mention in my blog and should have: that there is no black or white stand on these types of issues. I understand what you say completely. Don't entirely agree, obviously, but I think I wouldn't be going too far as to say you'd find no fault in me saying I understand your view yet don't believe it - as that seems to be the entire situation here. ;)
Homosexuality, is, according to the Bible, a sin. It's wrong. Now, I'm a Christian, I love God, but I don't go strictly by the scripture. Does this make a difference in my view? Maybe. I was raised on the notion that everyone has their own rights. And by your words, I can sense that you believe the same thing. Tolerance doesn't mean we have to agree, and I'm glad that you stand up for your view. And I can't say a thing against the evil card, because it's your belief. Maybe you accepted that from the Bible, or maybe you accepted it from your own personal feelings. And you're totally right, I have plenty of friends who do things I dislike. I think I was trying to get that message across: it's all your personal opinion. I'm just a heterosexual who happens to see no problem with men loving men or women loving women. It's how I accept things. If you accept that people are equal, and dislike their life choices, though I disagree, I see where you come from. I just do not believe that God would want us to limit ourselves by living anything else than what we accept as truth. I accept that I love men. Terry accepts that she loves women. I accept these facts as good, but I know that not everyone can.
Tolerance is acceptance of different views. But that's where the word stops: Acceptance. And yet, too, we must be tolerant of tolerance, because we all accept acceptance in different terms. It's the endless pit of the tolerant, I'm afraid. But I did want to thank everyone for their views, because, again, I'm rather cut off from many, and was very interested in the responses.
I am a firm believer in the idea that I don't know everything. ;)
I believe what I believe about morality from the Bible. People are allowed (both in this country and by God) to believe differently than I do... and I them.
None of us are correct... we each seek to do what we can to get at the Truth of God. One day we'll have access to a perspective that is not twisted by sin.
But, in short. Yes, I agree.
I am a God fearing American. I do not agree with the gay lifestyle. But I do agree that by treating gay people differently we are showing a lick of love and compassion. In the bible we are taught that we are to live our life like Jesus would (WWJD). He would not hate them or really even think less of them in any way. The who anti-gay bull is getting old. I hope that it will go the way of the anti-black bull did. If we can learn anything from history it is that hate, fear, hurting someone elso, and pointing the finger of blame are all a waste of time.
So I say to all the people who hate gay people in the world GET OVER IT! What problem is it causing to you that they are around? Does it actually cause you pain? NO! So let it be, live with it and be concerned with your own problems.
And to sum up all of this religious idealism why don't we just go by the Golden Rule stated in the Bible "Treat Others as yourself", or what Jesus says about loving someone despite all of their faults? I mean I'm not a perfect example no way, but just to bring this to a point..... Isn't this something we can all agree upon? That Regardless of who a person is,what they do, or how they act it is always possible to Love them?
An Angel says hello as I say Good bye, hoping nothing may be sighed.