Gibson City’s silent majority
Sometimes my posts practically write themselves… I read an article on how one town in Illinois is refusing to give up Chief Illiniwek.
According to the News Gazette:
Gibson City officials started an “Honor the Chief” day in 2005, when controversy over the University of Illinois athletic teams’ mascot was at a peak.
Translation: Gibson City created an event that makes money for the town. The event is fueled by racism which has proven to be highly flammable and profitable.
And now that the Chief has officially been retired, this town and its leaders still want to celebrate the Chief and what they believe he represented. Gibson City Mayor Dan Dickey, while not a UI alumnus, joins many of the town’s 3,374 residents in being passionate about Chief Illiniwek.
Translation: The Chief was eliminated but since this paper is apparently all about making a pro-Chief stance, the word “retired” will be used so that the rationale for the Chief’s elimination does not make it to print. Many of the town’s residents are white. The citizenry of Gibson City is 98% white and less than 1% Native American.
“It’s not about an individual; it’s about what the Chief stands for,” Dickey said. “He’s not a mascot; he’s a symbol of dignity and integrity – how can anyone argue with that?”
Translation: The Chief is used as a means for Gibson City to generate income. Apparently racists have deep pockets.
Dickey invites everyone to “bring a lawn chair, enjoy free entertainment and celebrate the Chief. “We’re giving the silent majority a chance to speak in Gibson City,” he said.
Translation: Mayor Dickey has placed a racist homing beacon in the town square.
Also, if white people in Gibson City are the “silent majority”, you know, all 98%, does that mean that Native Americans in Gibson City are using high-powered megaphones?
Related posts:
Eric,
I would be curious as to your position on Florida State University’s Seminole name and Chief Osceola (also portrayed by a white man if I am not mistaken). Are your feelings the same?
FinanceBuzz
29 Aug 07 at 10:08 am
Chief Illiniwek at UIUC has long been denounced by Native Americans and their allies. The campaign to keep the chief at UIUC has been lead, in large part, by middle/upper class white people.
Florida State’s situation seems to be a tad bit different. Instead of saying that Native American voices do not matter, FSU has worked (translation: donated a lot of money) with the Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma regarding Chief Osceola.
ps: Do you think you will ever use your real name instead of an alias on my site? Just curious…
Eric Stoller
29 Aug 07 at 6:02 pm
Probably not. As long as there are those on the PC side that will stigmatize a person for not holding PC views, then I feel it is only smart to be careful about showing my identity. I am not ashamed of my views so do not take it that way. But sometimes, there are people less open-minded of differing viewpoints.
FinanceBuzz
30 Aug 07 at 9:37 am
FinanceBuzz,
Be careful not to allude to your past – Eric has been known to stalk in multiple media…
Also, Eric – I can’t help but poke by every now and then (after all – you gave me a lot of free time!) But I was wondering – what do you think of ethnic stereotype sports mascots that are white? Are the Flying Dutchmen and Fighting Irish also racist stereotypical mascots that should be eliminated, or do they not count?
radar
31 Aug 07 at 8:20 pm
Radar,
I can’t answer for Eric, but I think “white” mascots are pretty craptacular. However, I do think there is a difference between Native mascots that were adopted by white folks and white mascots that were adopted by white folks.
For me, the issue of the use of such stereotyping mascots is at least partially rooted in having the approval of the relevant people.
Additionally I think the Fighting Irish mascot is an incredibly interesting case given the history of the Irish, who weren’t considered white until they chose to ally themselves with the WASP majority against people of color. Check out Noel Ignatiev’s How the Irish Became White.
Dennis
2 Sep 07 at 2:26 pm
FB,
I find it incredibly interesting that you are essentially accusing others of not being open-minded enough when it comes to the beliefs of others (or, in this case, your beliefs) when the very beliefs you are defending are commonly seen as close-minded. Personally, i fail to see how reacting poorly to beliefs such as the correctness of racial profiling is close-minded. I consider such reactions logical.
Forgive me for using you as an example. For a long time, I have heard self-identified conservatives argue – in all seriousness – that “liberals” who claim to be “tolerant” are actually the intolerant ones because those “liberals” don’t tolerate the existence of conservative intolerance (intolerance in this case being a code word for things like racism or homophobia).
Note: I am not accusing you of being racist or homophobic. It is the form, not the content, of the argument I am interested in here. One could also call it projection, tactic in which one accuses one’s opponents of doing the very thing one is doing.
I think the “tolerance” argument illustrates a huge misunderstanding of recent history. As far as I know, in the early 90s, “tolerance” became a huge buzzword among liberals who wanted to work against racism and other oppressions. “You need to be more tolerant of difference!” they would cry. Somehow – and sometimes I think was intentional – the message of increased (but not limitless) tolerance was heard as absolute moral relativism by many conservatives (“Be totally tolerant of everything everywhere all the time!” they would hear). As if the only choices were between a stark moral absolutism and a rampant, postmodern, “anything goes” type of moral relativism. Hardly.
As a result of that, the argument that “liberals are the intolerant ones” was born. Notwithstanding the argument being totally inaccurate, it missed the point of anti-oppression work in the first place. “Tolerance,” for many people, was never the goal. Instead, it was acceptance of difference. Tolerance still implies a master-slave relationship, one based on hierarchy and control, where white folks are merely “tolerant” of people of color – the implication being that white folks can rescind their tolerance and makes demands of others at will. See, for example, Tim Wise’s work on the trouble with the concept of tolerance.
Dennis
2 Sep 07 at 2:48 pm
Dennis,
I am going to keep this short so if it is not a full-fledged response, I apologize.
1. I do not consider my stance on airport security close-minded. I consider it realistic. It is not that I am seeking an all-out focus on race. I am supposing a “racial” link apparently based on the background of the 9/11 hijackers. If their religion, country, religious sect, etc. is more correlated, then I would propose that that be the screen. If it is indeed race, then we should not be afraid to acknowledge that. That is my only point. Find what attribute is correlated (someone in law enforcement has likely already done these types of analyses) and do not allow political correctness to impede our law enforcement efforts in that direction.
2. First, conservatism does not equate with racism. Not all social conservatives will take a stand against homosexuality though many will on moral grounds. However, there are plenty of socially conservative views that are not tolerated. How often do we see inferences that Christians are hate-mongers because they will not “tolerate” any and all behaviors? In fact, in reality, as a Christian I do “tolerate” these behaviors because it is not my place to judge. However, that does not mean I necessarily embrace and encourage that behavior. That is not hate-mongering but often, those on the left do not tolerate such an outlook.
3.
This does not surprise me in the least. I have long said it is not tolerance of homosexuality that activists are after, it is acceptance. While I may “tolerate” this lifestyle (after all, what can I do even if I did not want to tolerate it?), unless someone can show me that I have misinterpreted the Bible’s message on this, then I cannot and will not accept this lifestyle. In general, I think many people will tolerate various things, but acceptance is a different level that many of will not take because it effectively becomes promotions of positions to which we may be opposed.
FinanceBuzz
3 Sep 07 at 7:26 pm
Radar,
Thanks for the reminder. My situation is not as sensitive as yours. It is not a huge deal if he does unearth my identity. I have fans of my alma mater’s archrival figure out where I lived and worked and posted it on their message board one time because I insulted them!
I just do not want to make it easy, especially if some PC HR rep ever happens to be doing a search on my name and takes exception to conservative viewpoints. I am very open with my views at work and if it were not for any future HR concerns of potential employers, I would not be in least bit concerned that my real identity be linked to my posts. That and the fact, that I just like to use an online handle whether it is sensitive material or not.
FinanceBuzz
3 Sep 07 at 7:31 pm
FB,
You are so… helpful. I said this:
Then in your comment, you said this:
Of course it doesn’t. I’m not sure why you felt the need to point that out. I was using race as an example in illustrating a particular kind of argument.
You also said this:
I had said this:
I had hoped it would be clear that the vast, vast majority of people who are advocating for tolerance and/or acceptance of difference are not, ultimately, arguing for tolerance or acceptance of “any and all behaviors.” For example, I don’t think you’d find many social justice advocates arguing in defense of, say, Michael Vick’s behavior at this point. Neither would I suspect to find folks advocating for, say, the tolerance or acceptance of child molestation or bestiality as a lifestyle choice. Like I said, we can choose between more than Christian morality and “everything goes.” The world is a complex place, and our ethical systems need to reflect that.
Dennis
3 Sep 07 at 11:15 pm
FinanceBuzz – It’s interesting to me how you frame your reason not to provide your real name (which if anyone knows how to use Google, it’s not difficult to find…). I am open about my views, both on this blog and in person. By the way, I warned you in a previous comment on another post about calling homosexuality a lifestyle. I feel that your name (Derek, I believe…) should be attached to your beliefs.
I feel that hiding behind an online handle so that you can disconnect your online commentary from your real identity is very disingenuous.
Radar a.k.a Kurt – I hope things are going well back in Ames and that you have been able to enjoy your free time. I hope the Cyclones have a good year. I was never a Hawkeye fan…
I don’t feel that the Flying Dutchmen or the Fighting Irish mascots are the same as mascots that represent people of color. I agree with Dennis. There is a big difference in a white man portraying a person of color (see Chief Illiniwek at UIUC for reference) vs. a white man portraying a white man.
Dennis – Thanks for commenting.
Eric Stoller
9 Sep 07 at 7:26 pm
Eric,
Does it make you feel powerful trying to out people? Two conservatives have taken issue with your points on your blog and two have been “outed.” Why not focus on our points rather than trying to shoo us away with your tactic? Or do you not care about dealing with our points but rather seeing that your positions do not face scrutiny?
As I have said, I have no problem owning to my views. The reason I would rather not is because of people who might choose to persecute someone because their views do not tow a PC line. Are you one of these people? Where do you come off thinking you have a right to determine whether someone should attach their name to their views? Hosting a blog does not give you that right. In fact, I simply prefer to use a common handle. I feel it gives a clean, common online presence on the majority of sites I visit. What is the harm in that? FinanceBuzz is far more unique than my name, after all. Hardly hiding behind that.
To be clear, it is not any shame in my views, it is concern over people who seem to demonstrate the self-righteous attitude displayed in your post. So thank you for outing me. You have not silenced me for even if you ban me from posting on your blog, there is a thing called free speech and I can simply post numerous other places. You have simply shown that rather than focus on my points or others who have similar views, you would rather attempt to push those views aside with your “outing.”
FinanceBuzz
9 Sep 07 at 8:19 pm
FinanceBuzz – I have never said that you or Radar had to leave the blogosphere or cease commenting on my site. I have no intention to ban you or Radar.
However, I do take issue (or maybe umbrage, it’s gotta be one of my faves…) with people who anonymously write comments that remove the dignity of persons in marginalized groups and then have the gall to say that their anonymity is somehow positively protecting them (the anonymous commenters) from the same people that they are disparaging in their blog comments. It would seem to be a bit paradoxical to me…
Eric Stoller
9 Sep 07 at 8:49 pm
Good sweet lord of the flies, FB. What the hell has Eric been doing for the last several months if not trying to engage with your points? Your comment that I quoted would be relevant if Eric had outed you after half a dozen comments, not after a third of year or more of back-and-forth.
I love dark irony; I think you just played the victim card, FB.
This is a bit trickier. In the abstract, I am a fan of the fact that the Internet allows anonymity, mostly because I think anonymity forces others to take one’s words seriously rather than see one’s identity and pass judgment. I am referring mostly to men disparaging women online if it’s discovered that someone is a woman, but I think the general point still stands.
So, the Internet allows for greater freedom of speech due to anonymity. In general, this is good.
On the other hand, while I also think you’re correct in noting that Eric’s hosting a blog doesn’t give him the right to out you, there are two things working against you:
1) The Internet is public. Unless Eric broke any laws, which I highly doubt, then outing you is an ethical matter of choice, and one you opened yourself to the possibility of by hanging around and commenting. The information was public and obtainable, especially since your presence on this blog leaves an IP trail that the blog owner can track.
2) You commented on the blog. Eric’s blog. You kept commenting. Insofar as anyone owns anything on the Internet, this is Eric’s blog, and b hanging around in Eric’s space, you make yourself vulnerable to his choices – right or wrong as they may be.
As unpleasant as outing is, it was Eric’s choice to make, and rather than get all self-righteous and accuse Eric of things that are obviously not true, maybe it’s worth wondering why Eric made the decision – and asking him in a non-aggressive way, of course.
Eric – I like your latest comment; using one’s power to harm others is not cool, and it seems to me that’s what’s going on here.
Dennis
9 Sep 07 at 8:56 pm
I did not saying I was leaving the blogosphere. I did not say I would be silenced. I just said that you can silence on this site if you so choose because it is yours.
If my motive was to “remove the dignity” of someone, you might have a point. However, my motive is to stand for God’s Word regarding homosexuality, the issue that seems to have triggered your “outing.” I believe in standing on the Bible’s teaching that I am offering an opportunity at dignity that cannot be impugned by any man. You may choose not to believe this teaching, but that does not imply that I have harmful motives. This is precisely why I would suggest that Christian viewpoints are not given the same tolerance that you are so vociferous about for other groups. I believe I have stated about some of the opinions expressed on this blog that, while I strongly disagree, I believe your intentions are noble. Do I not receive the same benefit of the doubt?
FinanceBuzz
9 Sep 07 at 9:30 pm
Dennis,
I will give you that point. He did not act on a hair trigger.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that he did anything illegal. You are correct it is publicly available. Just use Google. However, it is just low class to use a non-legal term. If I were in some position of authority and he had reason to believe that I was infringing upon someone’s actual rights, then he might be justified. In fact, given the environment in which Radar works, he could have imperiled Radar’s job. That is playing games with people’s lives. Why? Because Eric does not like someone else’s opinions.
It is the principle of the matter. We are debating points online. The point is what it is whether you know the “real” identity of who made it or not. The real identity is immaterial when you get down to it unless you are truly causing tangible harm to someone (and “denying dignity” or some other nebulous concept does not fall under tangible harm in this country). So why “out” someone? Besides there are other reasons you might want to keep your identity secret. If you use a common handle on multiple sites, then having your identity attached on one site could attach to other places that could destroy that anonymity on something far more important than a social issues debate. How would Eric like it if I posted his phone numbers, addresses, maps to his house, what kind of car he drives, etc. and then justify by saying “well just use Google.” Even if I had all of that info, I would not post it because it would be low class to do that to someone over what is essentially a political disagreement. I have had people put far more information about online than my first name over a football rivalry. I was given enough information on one of the guys stirring this on to potentially have caused him some problems with his employer. I took the high road but I would have been far more justified to have acted than was Eric. I really did half expect to come home that night and at least find toilet paper hanging in my trees.
True again. It is his blog. And the classy thing to do, if he really felt that concerned about anonymity would be to 1.) put in place a non-anonymous policy for posts and 2.) give me a warning to stop posting stuff he disagrees with or I would be outed.
FinanceBuzz
9 Sep 07 at 9:48 pm
FB,
Interesting defense you put forth, that your motives are good.
That’s almost certainly true. It’s also completely irrelevant. If I’m trying to get somewhere really fast in a car – say, to the hospital, because I’m a doctor and there’s patients that need me – and I run down an old lady, my motives are good, but that lady is still dead.
It’s entirely possible to have good motives and bad outcomes. It’s also possible to have one set of motives and a completely different set of effects and consequences.
Your motives may be good, but I am with Eric in thinking that your comments sometimes have the effect of striking at the dignity of others.
Also, there is this:
There’s a nasty little assumption in there: that reference to “tangible harm in this country” suggests that you use the laws and traditions of the U.S. as your guide to such matters. It also implies that Eric’s arguments regarding dignity are invalid not based on their weakness or a potential counterargument, but because they are not the country’s rules. That’s a dangerous concept – can you think of any instance in which U.S. law and God’s Law, as you understand it, diverge? If so, then which one do you follow and why?
Besides, I’d argue that the maiming of one’s dignity causes some seriously tangible harm: it eliminates the possibility of real communication, which leads to violence. See Hannah Arendt’s definitions of violence for more.
Finally, I am left shaking my head at your claim that Christian viewpoints are not given “the same tolerance” as other groups. The claim is silly on its face – name the last self-proclaimed atheist who ran for President and got more than 1% of the vote.
Also, I think you might still be misunderstanding the nature of the debate. If by “Christian viewpoint” you mean ‘publicly dissing on homosexuality,’ then yes, lots of folks – myself included – are not interested in entertaining the idea yet again. We’ve heard it before, and found it wanting. Insofar as the U.S. actually has a classically liberal/pluralistic culture (which is very debatable), one of the ground rules has always been that public space is neutral…meaning that generally speaking no one gets to tell other people how to behave except to keep people from coming to harm. You want to go to church; fine. That doesn’t bother me one bit. You want to make claims about what the state should allow or disallow (i.e. who I can have sex with) or what I should think, then you (meaning anyone who makes this sort of argument) can bite my shiny metal ass.
Dennis
9 Sep 07 at 11:42 pm
Dennis,
Just because someone engages in some activity (and for Eric, this is not limited to homosexuality) does not automatically imply that it should be dignified. People cannot expect to receive support simply because they engage in some behavior. This leads to the secular side of my point:
Where is someone given the right to not be offended? Where does someone have the right to receive support in everything they do? Nowhere. As I have outlined in the past, my refusing to applaud certain behaviors has no impact on them aside from them possibly having emotional distress at not receiving universal encouragement. I am not suggesting that dignifying our fellow man is an unattractive idea. We should do that. But not everything should be dignified. We have a question of application.
The violence is the problem, not the hurting of someone’s feelings over having their dignity denied. I refuse to support homosexuality. I do not condone, support, or encourage violence against homosexual people. There is an enormous distinction. You cannot stipulate expression because through some distant linkage with someone who might commit violence from it. We have the freedom of expression and if someone acts on it in a violent manner, the problem lies in the person acting as such.
When did I tell someone how they must behave? When did I tell someone what to think? I offered a different viewpoint. Whether there is a law or not, I cannot force you to agree or follow that viewpoint. That is each person’s choice.
FinanceBuzz
10 Sep 07 at 9:58 am
Nice response, FB. And I’m not being sarcastic or anything.
The statements “I believe homosexuality is wrong” or “I consider homosexuality a sin” are both statements evaluating the moral worth of an act and finding it wanting. Implicit in that is that if something is bad or immoral, one should not do it.
Compared to the statements “I am not gay” or “I choose not to engage with or participate in homosexual acts” – those statements define one’s personal boundaries without the possibility of passing judgment on others. So yes, certainly you have a different viewpoint, but I think it’s incredibly important how one goes about sharing that viewpoint with others, since the language one chooses to use can convey very different meanings regardless of one’s intent.
I think I draw a large distinction between at least three general positions: 1) Encouraging someone’s behavior; 2) Being neutral on said behavior; and 3) Condemning said behavior. In your comments, FB, I see you condemning behavior and then acting like you’re simply not encouraging it. But since I consider those two different things, I wonder what you would consider an example of condemning homosexuality in a public forum. Or, possibly, I wonder if you don’t see yourself as condemning but neutral.
And as a large and important aside, there’s a lot of folks for whom “homosexuality” is not a behavior, but a significant component of their identity, which means it hurts even more when it’s condemned. I think that’s one big reason, at least for me, to bring up dignity, since we’re not talking about behavior for lots of folks, but something more essential to who they are.
Again – for what feels like the thousandth time – no one is claiming that ALL behavior should receive support. I think, charitably, we disagree on our criteria that we use to determine what behavior we think should be supported. I get the sense that the Bible is a source of your criteria; mine is decidedly more secular.
One thing, though: I believe that everyone should be supported as a person – up to and including their need for dignity – even if I fundamentally disagree with their behavior. To do otherwise is to strip them of their humanity, to make them into an “It” or an “Other,” and frankly, that road lies
madnessoppression.I think it’s a secular version of “hate the sin, love the sinner.” Any thoughts on that one?
Dennis
10 Sep 07 at 11:20 am
Dennis,
I think the highlighted portion is the key here. This is not about my personal opinion. My position is based on following the Bible. For me to bring one’s “personal boundaries” into a discussion seems to approach moral relativism, a concept which I cannot support as I firmly believe in absolute morals based on the Bible. I know some will tell you that the Bible is silent on homosexuality. While I am not a theologian, passages I have read seem to frown on this so I do not understand how they can come to their conclusion. The bottomline is that I am not pushing FinanceBuzz’s view of the world.
I understand that being told that something you are doing is wrong can hurt. I have heard many sermons that are quite convicting. However, because something hurts me, does not invalidate it. Sometimes being told something that hurts is the best medicine. There are things we all do that could fall into this category so this is not just about homosexuality. I agree that we should show love for our fellow man as you touched on elsewhere. And I know it is hard to tell where that compassion and brotherly love stops and supporting something that we should not support ends. Perhaps I am misinterpreting your position, but confirming dignity seems to imply supporting facets of their identity, in this case homosexuality.
Then what establishes what behavior should be supported? What is your standard? What defines “support this, do not support this?”
FinanceBuzz
10 Sep 07 at 3:35 pm
One thing I want to point out is that my blog is sort of like my living room. People come and go via their comments. Some people choose to enter this site with a cloak of anonymity. Others, like Dennis, choose to attach their real identity to their words. I appreciate comments that further dialogue. What I do not appreciate are comments that are made under the cloak of anonymity against groups of people that I love and value. When someone starts saying that being gay is a lifestyle it raises my ire. People choose to be Christian, Atheist, Muslim, Agnostic, etc. That choice represents a lifestyle. People are gay just like I am straight. It is part of who were are. It is not a choice.
When someone enters my blog, anonymously, and takes an ideological stance predicated on an actual lifestyle and says disparaging comments about people that I love, I believe that it is my prerogative to remove their cloak.
FinanceBuzz – It seems to me that you are saying that your “lifestyle” gives you an absolute moral stance that someone’s identity is wrong. I cannot accept anonymous comments in my “living room” that strip, remove, and maim the dignity of anyone.
Why is it that your identity is predicated on telling LGBT folks that they are immoral and thus unworthy of rights (legal ones in this country) that you automatically receive?
Eric Stoller
10 Sep 07 at 4:16 pm
Eric,
Then perhaps you should make your “policy” known. I knew what you might do thanks to Radar’s warning. It was not a big deal, but more of an issue of the principle.
I have not made comments about any person you know or love. I have not attacked anyone personally. I expressed a viewpoint on a lifestyle/behavior/etc. (I am not sure what term you would have me use.). There is a difference and I want to be clear that I have not and have no intention of attacking anyone personally.
We have to agree to disagree here or refocus the scope of what we call choice. I am not going to reoutline my points on this as they are scattered on numerous posts through your blog.
FinanceBuzz
11 Sep 07 at 9:22 am
Wow. I am always amazed when I check in on this blog and see such rich discussion among people who disagree, and along so many topics. I’m being genuine here. I am really impressed that all parties involve care enough to carry this discuss this far, and I only wish I could make more time to be more involved here.
A lot’s been covered (too much to cover in one reply), so I’ll just add my two cents about FB’s most recent comment, mostly in regards to choice.
FB, you have consistently claimed that homoerotic desire (“homosexuality”) is a choice. With the exception of “political lesbians,” I have never heard someone who has homoerotic desire claim it is a choice. I do not feel I made a choice to be attracted to men. My friends who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, pansexual, and queer have never intimated that it was a choice, and when we have talked about it, everyone says that their urges are “natural,” not a choice.
So, your insistence that it is a choice confuses me. This, I suppose, comes from an epistemological (how do we know things?) stance. I think that other people know their own lives better than I can, so when someone tells me that they did not choose to be gay, lesbian, bisexual, pansexual, or queer, I feel I must believe them, because listening to them is the best way to understand their lived experiences.
So, in regards to epistemology, FB, I am wondering how you come to the conclusion it is a choice? And I also wonder what it would mean to you if queer folk know their lived experiences better than you know their lived experiences?
Michael Faris
11 Sep 07 at 7:12 pm
Michael,
My position on it being a choice is simple (and before Eric takes exception to this, I am simply addressing Michael’s point). I am attracted to women. If I engage in sexual activity with a woman, I choose to do that. Similarly, for a man who is attracted to men, if they engage in sexual activity with another man have they not chosen to do so? If they have not, then I see two possibilities on how they could do this without choice:
1. They are raped. This is not the case in the scenario we are discussing.
2. They have no control over their actions and they act completely on impulse and cannot control this. I seriously doubt this is the case either.
So, how can engaging in a homosexual act not be a choice?
FinanceBuzz
12 Sep 07 at 3:52 pm
FB.
I agree with you here. We choose to engage in the sex acts we choose to engage in (with the exception of rape). So, if I understand you correctly, you are saying being gay or lesbian is not a choice, but their sexual actions are?
Michael Faris
12 Sep 07 at 3:58 pm
Michael,
I had typed up a response but I also searched for some sites that discussed further the passage I was thinking of in my above comments (Romans 1:26-27). In reading several of these, I came to a realization that makes me feel that I should simply reference this passage and leave it at that. While I did not read anything in the few articles that I read to convince me that the Bible does not speak about homosexuality in a less than approving way, what did strike me was what two articles pointed out from the early part of Romans 2. I feel to give further exposition on my thinking of “choice” is to approach being judgmental. Thus, I simply encourage you to read Romans Chapters 1 and 2 and and consider what the Bible says. Also, you can Google Romans 1:26-27 and find many articles on this subject, far more than I took the time to read.
FinanceBuzz
12 Sep 07 at 7:46 pm