Sunday, April 24, 2005

When Lesbians Attack

Early last year, the mayor of San Francisco (Where else?) performed a series of queer "weddings." Shortly afterward, the Santa Cruz Bible Church held a Valentines week contest honoring the oldest and newest married couple. Two dykes who had been attending the church stood up to be recognized as the newest “married” couple. This of course raised some eyebrows. As reported in the Santa Cruz Sentinel:

(Doreen) Boxer and (Cynthia) Zapata, who were married in San Francisco just two days before the church service, were soon the only ones standing. But rather than being greeted with accolades, the couple was met with an uncomfortable pause as the contest moderator proceeded to confer with church leaders on whether to acknowledge a lesbian couple and give them the award, according to parishioners.

One of the parishioners made this comment to The Sentinel:

“It was so awkward," said Elena Steeves, who has been attending Santa Cruz Bible Church on and off for 15 years. Steeves vows never to return after that Sunday’s events.

"I felt so bad for them, and personally I felt betrayed,"

The fact that a person could attend the Church for 15 years and not know that know that homosexuality would be opposed by the church begs the question, just what do they teach there?

The pastor went ahead and gave the “newlyweds” the prize.

The executive pastor did stand up and condemn queer “marriage.”

I wrote and submitted a letter to the Sentinel which they wouldn’t publish. So I wrote the following essay and posted it on the Sentinel’s message board:

The incident with the “married” lesbian couple at the Santa Cruz Bible was clearly a staged event. One would have to be extremely gullible to believe otherwise.

There is no homosexual in America that doesn’t know that any truly Christian church opposes homosexuality. If they had any doubts, the Church’s name, the Santa Cruz BIBLE Church should have been a hint.

The article stated that the church ministry was “struggling “to respectfully affirm its beliefs. I’m sure that a minister in a Bible-believing church would have no problems affirming what the Bible says about homosexuality.

Boxer and Dixon claim they thought they were divinely guided to the Santa Cruz Bible Church. Perhaps it was. They seem to have gotten the message there that they apparently weren’t getting in churches they previously attended.

The Church leaders handled the incident better than I ever could have.

Boxer responded to my post on the message board and even left a long-winded message on my voicemail. Following is my response

I’ve finally read Doreen’s rant and will now respond. Don’t worry; my response won’t be nearly as long.

Boxer babbles on a lot about being judgmental, judging, etc. She has no problem being judgmental herself when she accuses others of being “narrow-minded”. Boxer claims that no person can judge her. What’s there to judge? She already stated she’s a lesbian. I would (also) remind Boxer that the Bible is one of the most judgmental books ever written.

Boxer speaks being “legally married”. Boxer, you weren’t legally “married”. The SF Mayor was breaking the law when he allowed such “marriages”

I(t) was amusing for Boxer to ponder the state of same-sex “marriages” if the world were primarily homosexual. Boxer, it isn’t. Being as how homosexuals don’t reproduce (I assume your children weren’t the result of you and your “wife” mating) that probably will never happen. We do know the result of a primarily homosexual society, re: Sodom and Gomorrah.

It was interesting to read the statements you attribute to your sister about homosexuals leaving California. Her statements seem to bring up the usual homosexual stereotypes in regards to home decorating, fashion etc. I’m certain that most of the people performing the jobs she listed are normal people. (Heterosexual) (According to Boxer, her sister said if queers left california the state would lose home decorators, fashion designers, etc)

This brings me to the actions of the Church. While the pastor was right to condemn same-sex “marriages”, he should have re-empathized that the Bible condemns homosexuality and that being a pastor of a Bible church he opposes it too.

I think the pastor should be concerned over how his Bible church was being labeled as “Gay friendly” He should also question how a lesbian couple could attend his church for 5 weeks and not feel convicted of their unnatural practices.

Boxer said she now attends the “Gay friendly”, First Congregational Church. Boxer liked their jazz service. Maybe the “gay friendly”, First Congregational Church should spend more time teaching the tenets of the Bible, rather than having “jazz services”.

As I’ve stated before, same-sex “marriage” is being pushed to so that homosexual couples feel good about themselves and feel normal. Should that ever happen, homosexuals will still know that their practices are an anomaly, not the norm.

Lastly, I don’t believe for a moment that Boxer didn’t expect the reaction she and her “wife” received in response to their self-outing. Boxer will be milking this incident for weeks.

About a year later, I had a chance meeting with a person who attends the Santa Cruz Bible Church and was present during this incident. He said he made his opinion to the pastor known that he opposed giving the queer couple the prize.


Anonymous Derek said...

What would Jesus have done? If you look for examples of how Jesus treated those that society was intolerant of, I think you'll find he did things like have dinner with them and wash their feet with expensive perfume. He would not refuse to acknowledge their love and commitment, imho. I certainly don't think He'd have to use quotes around any words referring to gay people or gay marriage. Also, to use the term "true" christian is judgmental and not very Jesus-like, ihmo. God is love, first and foremost. That's where real power resides.

Anonymous Anonymous said...

While it's possible that Jesus would have had dinner with sodomites (I doubt He would have washed their feet. Queeers get off on that kind of thing.) He also would have told them to go and sin no more. Perhaps He wouldn't use quotes around words refering to queer "marriage", He wouldn't use the word "marriage" at all when referring to homos. First and foremost, God is Holy and hates sin. He hates my sins (none of which he ever called an abomination) and the sins of sodomites. God is also a God of justice, anger and vengeance.



Anonymous derek said...

It seems the Bible doesn't agree with you. You know you've successfully created God in your own image when it turns out He hates all the same people you do. Can you really be so naive?

1 John 4:20
"If anyone says, 'I love God,' yet hates his brother, he is a liar. "

It's obvious you're capable of defining God however you see fit, without much regard for Jesus' teachings or the Bible, imho. That is the right of all humans. But in your limited, repressed views of sex, God, love, hope, marriage, don't attempt some sort of flailing moral superiority. please. You look out at others who don't share your beliefs in fear. You're consumed by it. Religious zealots, be it the Taliban or whatever freaky-deaky brand of Christianity you're into, experience the same fear and judgement and i dare say jealousy when they look at the world that does not repress themselves so. Your articles are an obvious excuse to vent some of that.

Actually straight people get off on the feet thing too, not that you'd know. Talk about conflicted. So, washing feet is flagged as sexual for you? So Jesus would do it to a prostitute but not a gay guy? What about a lesbian, or is that ok cause there's no butt sex? What about gay guys that don't have butt sex? Is that ok?

You're weird.

Blogger ROBOT said...

A person who truly hates someone refuses to tell them that they're involved in an unnatural, perverted practice.

I you want to be a queer, don't try using the Bible to justify it.

I don't define God as I see fit, I recognize that the Bible defines God. That same Bible quotes God as saying homos are an abomination.

get over it.

Anonymous derek said...

"A person who truly hates someone refuses to tell them that they're involved in an unnatural, perverted practice."

Do you have anything from the Bible to back that up, or just how you personally feel?

The same Bible says eating shell fish, wearing clothing of two different materials, having sideburns, all are abominations.

Blogger ROBOT said...

I don't seem to recall any time in the Bible when a city was consumed by fire because the people ate shellfish or had sideburns.

Neither do I recall any bans on eating shellfish or sideburns in the New Testament.

If you're trying to use the Bible to condone faggotry, give it up. It makes you look desperate.

Anonymous derek said...

I see your a real Bible-smith, quoting like no tomorrow. No city has been destroyed by fire in the New Testament at all. The old testament, I think most people agree, is an interesting story.

I couldn't care less what any of the ancient religious texts say about how I live my life. I don't base my life on what was written by men thousands of years ago about an invisible man in the sky the controls everything. We have science now and they are no longer needed to explain why the sun moves through the sky. Someday the rest of the world will clue in.

So, I take it by you lack of specific examples from your Bible, there are none.

Blogger ROBOT said...

Quoting derek

My responses are in brackets:

I see your a real Bible-smith, quoting like no tomorrow. No city has
been destroyed by fire in the New Testament at all. The old testament,
I think most people agree[1], is an interesting story.

[I also find it interesting and a great example of what God thinks of societies who fully accept sodomites.]

I couldn't care less what any of the ancient religious texts say
about how I live my life. I don't base my life on what was written by
men thousands of years ago about an invisible man in the sky the
controls everything.

[Then why do you spend so much time trying to convince me that the Bible doesn't condemn faggotry?]

So, I take it by you lack of specific examples from your Bible, there
are none.

[You were given a "specific" example. Your choosing not to accept it is your problem. When you're standing before God, try selling Him the same load of crap you're trying to sell me, and yourself. You know your "lifestyle" is perverted, you just think by getting others to accept your degeneracy, you'll also convince yourself.]


Blogger ROBOT said...

By the way, derek I finally read the link about the Catholic Church that you sent. While it shows another good reason on why I'm not catholic, I also noticed that it didn't list the Bible's condemnation of sodomy as being untrue.

You're out of luck again.


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Missing the point people. No government, anywhere, at any time, can give you, or deny you, Holy Matrimony.

Marriage is a religious & cultural tradition, and there are many cultures that are certainly NOT of judeo-Christian persuasion, that do recognize marriage.

When government gets involved, especially a supposedly 'secular' one, the strictures of any particular religious doctrine aren't part of the scenario. Government marraige is a contract, and it shares the same hallmarks as most any other contract. It is wholly outside the Faith.

The 'institution of marraige' as is perceived by the Christian majority, is in fact not under attack at all in this country by the homosexual lobby or the 'ultra-liberal' malcontents who want to make some feel-good changes to appease their fifteen minutes of guilt.

Government got into the 'marraige' business, and now and from now on, the 'definition' of what is or is not permissable in the secular marriage contract will continually be opened up to encompass a greater variety of ideas & world-views. (Actually, a big part of what thrust government INTO the marriage business here to begin with, were attempts to ban the types of marriages some people did not agree with, as with inter-racial couplings.

A 'License' by definition, is special permission from government to do something you otherwise could NOT.

Freedom of Religion, ancient tradition, and common practice all agree that We, as Free Americans, have a RIGHT to marry, that is beyond the power of government. We actually dont NEED any special permission. Government is supposed to be bound to recognize a Marriage as We declare it.

Personally, I think marriage is none of government's business, as is true with many other things. So, unless you are wanting to get government out of the mix altogether, you may as well get used to it.

If your Minister pronounces you by the power vested in him by the 'state of _____', instead of by the Power of God, your marriage is essentialy no different than a same-sex or polygamist, or any other type of coupling.

You want to "save marriage" then get on the right page, and preserve the sanctity of the marriage your Faith provides.


Blogger ROBOT said...

A basic knowlege of anatomy will tell you faggotry is unnatural and immoral. Ergo, two queers "marrying" is unnatural.

I suppose you're also against the government banning polygamy and marriage to farm animals.

In fact, Frank Kameny a hero of the queer community proposes just that. He claims bans on allowing humans to "marry" animals is against the Constitution.

What a sick, sick world


Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home