Gay
Illinois Republican congressional candidate Susanne Atanus is asking you to believe that God is not only highly displeased with us, but that many of the life-threatening illnesses and precarious weather patterns we have been experiencing around the world are the direct result of an “angry God,” a God who means to inflict suffering upon thousands for the choices of wrongdoers.
What could be making God so unhappy, so disappointed, so furious that He would categorically punish so many people in such widespread and catastrophic ways?
The answer is clear and simple, according to Atanus: “We are provoking him with abortions and same-sex marriage and civil unions,” she added, blaming natural disasters like tornadoes and diseases, including autism and dementia, on recent advances in the LGBT movement. “Same-sex activity is going to increase AIDS. If it’s in our military it will weaken our military. We need to respect God.”
It feels almost silly to give Ms. Atanus’s diatribe any thoughtful attention, to shift even for a moment our focus and energy away from the places and people in our world who really need it. But if she believes this, truly believes this — and is publicly asking others to believe it, too — how many other people might there be out there that also feel this way?
Well, apparently even those within her own conservative Republican party aren’t willing to stick their necks out as far as she has and have asked Atanus to drop out of the GOP primary for the 9th Congressional District.
Jack Dorgan, chairman of the Illinois Republican Party, called Susanne Atanus’ comments “offensive.” “She has no place on the ballot as a Republican,” he said. “Her candidacy is neither supported nor endorsed by the leaders of our party, and she should withdraw from the race immediately.”
Adam Robinson, chairman of the Chicago Republican Party, said, “Atanus is not in any way affiliated with any of our efforts in the Chicago GOP, nor have we ever supported, endorsed, or assisted her in any way at any time.”
But Atanus is not budging. She adamantly refuses to drop out of the race, perplexed why the Republican party is not standing behind her.
Is it possible that Ms. Atanus is only boldly verbalizing what many other people are thinking, but are just too afraid to say? Is there that much of a divide between a God who would condemn a person for being gay and a God who would condemn a baby for not being baptized? Are the conservatives who claim to be offended and righteously speaking out against Atanus also denying opportunities — and even God’s unconditional love — to these very same people by creating and defending laws which discriminate and deprive them of equal rights and freedoms?
So how should we react to someone like Ms. Atanus? Do we just ignore the hate-filled tirades and antics? Do we look the other way because these outlandish proclamations just simply do not deserve our recognition and attention? Or do we talk about it, look it squarely in the face, and stand up to people like Susanne Atanus by saying, no, we do not desire to live in the kind of world which supports behaviors which are born out of a belief in an angry God?
What would you do?
(Lisa McCormack is a Feature Editor at The Global Conversation and lives in Orlando, Florida. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
Star of the American reality TV show Duck Dynasty, Phil Roberston, was recently very publicly vocal about his negative view of homosexuality.
A Philadelphia, Pennsylvania United Methodist Church minister, Rev. Frank Shaefer, was defrocked for performing the wedding ceremony of his gay son. (Full article here)
The discussion has taken the usual polarized tone, with the same ground being covered once again…political correctness…the right to free speech…what the Bible says…
The discussion that had the most impact on me was a blog called “In The Parlor” that suggested what we think about homosexuality doesn’t matter any longer saying:
“The stakes are too high now. The current research suggestions that teenagers that are gay are about 3 times more likely to attempt suicide than their heterosexual peers. That puts the percentage of gay teens attempting suicide at about 30-some percent. 1 out of 3 teens who are gay or bisexual will try to kill themselves. And a lot of times they succeed. In fact, Rev. Schaefer’s son contemplated suicide on a number of occasions in his teens.
The fact of the matter is, it doesn’t matter whether or not you think homosexuality is a sin. Let me say that again. It does not matter if you think homosexuality is a sin, or if you think it is simply another expression of human love. It doesn’t matter. Why doesn’t it matter? Because people are dying. Kids are literally killing themselves because they are so tired of being rejected and dehumanized that they feel their only option left is to end their life. As a Youth Pastor, this makes me physically ill. And as a human, it should make you feel the same way. So, I’m through with the debate.”
I agree completely, so I will not engage in the debate here.
Why write this article then? Because a thought occurred to me…is it possible that this is just another act of the perfection of the Universe?
It seems that the offending act of the marriage was committed in 2007, and was revealed recently when Rev. Frank Shaefer’s parishioner, Jon Boger, filed a complaint with Methodist officials.
My thought moves to Mary O’Leary’s cow…the cow who, in legend, kicked over the lantern that began the Great Chicago Fire of 1871 which destroyed a large portion of Chicago. I think also of Judas, the disciple of Jesus, who betrayed Jesus with a kiss.
Have Jon Boger and Phil Robertson joined the ranks of those who, through purpose or by chance, change the world? Are Mr. Boger, and Mr. Robertson’s Soul purposes entirely different than what we perceive the purpose of their physical beings to be?
Think about it. Not only did getting defrocked not deter Rev. Shaefer, it set his resolve even more firmly. A USA Today article quotes him:
“Schaefer was told to give up his pulpit in central Pennsylvania by Thursday if he cannot support the denomination’s Book of Discipline. But Schaefer, who describes the book as contradictory and biased against gay people, said he will not go quietly.”
“I am actively committing to having those discriminatory laws changed and banished from our Book of Discipline,” Schaefer said. “That’s the only way I can reconcile being a United Methodist at this point.”
“I cannot voluntarily surrender my credentials because I am a voice now for many — for tens of thousands — of LGBT members in our church,” he said then.
CWG tells us that religion is not wrong, just incomplete in its understanding. CWG also tells us that leaving a religion you do not agree with is not necessarily the best solution, and to consider being that voice from within that will create a change of understanding in that religion.
Jon Boger has steeled Rev. Shaefer’s resolve in all of this in a way that might not have happened had this simply slid under the radar.
The “In The Parlor” article referred to above was penned by a person who identifies themself as being a youth minister…and whose mind has publicly moved from the debate and into saying:
“We are now faced with the reality that there are lives at stake. So whatever you believe about homosexuality, keep it to yourself. Instead, try telling a gay kid that you love him and you don’t want him to die.”
When you humanize a theory or a theology, it gets different, and you often find you must change your mind.
Can we, in this New Year, resolve to humanize and personalize the issue…now?
(With true wishes of Peace on Earth dancing like sugar plum fairies in my head…Therese)
(Therese Wilson is a published poet, and is the administrator of, and Spiritual Helper at, the global website at www.cwghelpingoutreach.com She may be contacted at: Therese@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
February 7 is the opening day of the 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia. Traditionally, nations have put aside their differences, toned down their mutual antagonistic rhetoric and come together to celebrate the accomplishment of some of the world’s best athletes. For their part, the athletes have trained, some for years and years, to win a spot on the coveted Olympic team and take their shot at getting a gold medal.
The Olympics, however, are no stranger to controversy and political agendas.
– Athletes have been stripped of their medals when it is discovered, even if years later, that they violated Olympic rules. American runner Marion Jones was stripped of all of the medals she won in the 2000 Summer Olympics after she admitted to using performance-enhancing drugs.
– Athletes have found ingenious ways to cheat. In 1972, a member of the Soviet modern pentathlete competition used an epee with a modified handle that would register a hit, even a false one, when a button in the pommel was pushed.
– Nations have boycotted the Olympics in protest of the host country’s policies or actions (In 1976, 22 African nations boycotted the games after New Zealand’s soccer tour of South Africa. In 1980, the US led a boycott of the Moscow games to protest the Russian invasion of Afghanistan and in 1984, Russia “retaliated” by leading a boycott of the Los Angeles games, although the official reason given was lack of security for their athletes.)
– A nation’s athletes have been banned for policies of their government. In 1964, South Africa was suspended from competing due to their nation’s policy of apartheid. The suspension wasn’t lifted until 1992.
– Individual athletes have used the Olympics as a platform to bring awareness to social issues such as the racial discrimination. Two American runners, Tommie Smith and John Carlos, gave the “Black power” salute during the 1968 medal award ceremony.
– Terrorists have struck at the Olympics, most recently in 1972 when 11 athletes, coaches and judges from Israel were murdered by Palestinian terrorists.
– Judges have been known to play favorites. In the 1988 games held in Seoul, South Korean boxer Park Si-Hun was declared the winner despite being pummeled by his American opponent, who landed 86 punches to Park’s 32.
– Judges have also been known to “trade votes.” The French judge in the 2002 figure skating competition supposedly admitted to voting for the Russian pair to win so that the Russian judge would vote for the French pair in ice dancing.
– Athlete’s personal views, opinions and comments, when expressed on social media, have been known to get them into trouble. In 2012, Greek suspended their female triple jumper after she made what many consider a racial post on Twitter and Switzerland expelled one of their soccer players for a racist and threatening post on Twitter.
Now a new controversy has arisen. Earlier this year, the Russian government enacted a very strict, discriminatory and dangerous law against any sort of “propaganda” that condones or encourages minors to view nontraditional sexual relations as equal to traditional sexual relations. The law is vaguely worded and does not define either “propaganda” or “nontraditional sexual relations,” so there is very real potential that both athletes, their family members, support staff and coaches, commentators and camera crews as well as foreign attendees to the Sochi Olympics may find themselves locked up in a Russian prison for violation of the law and face fines, imprisonment and/or deportation.
It is clear that the law is having a very negative and dangerous, even deadly, effect on gay Russian citizens. Transgendered and gay Russians have been severely beaten, tortured and raped and many of the attacks have been filmed, some even finding their way onto YouTube. (Why anyone would want to watch such a video is beyond me. I do not need to witness the terrorizing of another human being to know that it occurs.) At least one gay man has died from the injuries he sustained during one of these attacks.
Human rights groups the world over are outraged at this development so near to the start of the 2014 Winter Olympics. Many are calling for a boycott of the Sochi games. Others are calling for the banning of Russian athletes from the games, much as South Africa was banned from participation for endorsing apartheid.
The problem is that if Russian athletes are banned because of the Russian government’s attitude towards gays, American and Ugandan athletes (among others) would also have to be banned since both those governments also have discriminatory laws against gays on their books. (Given the recent changes in laws in the US, it may come down to banning athletes from specific states that still have DOMA laws on the books.)
For its part, the IOC said it has received assurances from Russia that foreign athletes, coaches, commentators, crews and tourists will not be targeted and will be safe. The IOC has no plans to change the games’ location or ban Russian athletes.
How should we as individuals concerned with the spiritual evolution of humanity respond to this situation? When I mentioned the call to boycott to a co-worker, s/he replied that the Olympics should not be politicized. That the focus should be on the athletic competition. I countered that to do nothing would be tacitly endorsing the discrimination. In response, I was asked, “If someone punches you in the face and you turn the other cheek, are you tacitly endorsing violence?” Isn’t turning the other cheek what you do if you profess to support nonviolence?
Initially, I didn’t know how to respond because I do believe in non-violence. I also agree that the Olympics should not be used as a political platform and that athletes shouldn’t have to pay for the actions of their governments. I also believe in turning the other cheek, which I take to mean not retaliating in kind. If someone acts out of fear or loathing or even hatred towards me, I do not respond with anger or return the hatred or fear. (That doesn’t mean I allow myself to be “used” as a doormat either!) So I pondered the “pros” and “cons” of the major proposed responses: boycott the games, ban Russian athletes or allow the games to go on as scheduled.
The Russian government stands to make millions of dollars from hosting the Olympics. A boycott of the Olympics would most certainly be felt in all sectors of Russian society. The money has already been spent to build the venues and the accommodations for the athletes and coaches. This is money that, one way or another, came straight from Russian citizens. But can the Russian citizens be held accountable for the policies of their government when there is no way to accurately gauge if the citizens support the policy? (The actions of a violent-prone minority most certainly do not represent the opinions of the entire citizenry any more than the actions of a few Islamic terrorists on 9/11 represent all Muslims.) On the other hand, doing nothing could be viewed as tacitly supporting the oppressive laws.
And then there’s the athletes. For some, this may be their only chance at competing in the Olympics. Is it fair to ask them to give up a life-long dream when it’s not yet clear how this law is going to impact gays in the long run? (Remember, sometimes all it takes is a spark to ignite a raging inferno and this may be the spark that ignites the Russian citizenry to stand up for human rights!) Furthermore, similar national laws have, in the past, been voided because of the very vagueness that makes them so dangerous and threatening. By banning certain athletes, are we not also politicizing the Olympics? Retaliating in kind? NOT turning the other cheek?
I was getting nowhere. Thinking myself in circles (as I often do!) So I took a couple deep breaths, looked inside and decided to take a look at this through the lens of Love.
Right and wrong/good and bad are all relative to the contextual field in which they’re found and according to the beliefs and perceptions of each individual. No one acts inappropriately given their view of the world. No one is a victim. There are no villains. Everyone is a co-creator of their reality: distorted, observed or actual.
It cannot be denied that the Russian anti-gay laws have brought the issue of equality for gays to the forefront in a way that has allowed people all over the world to witness the injurious effects of discrimination and the damage caused by the belief in superiority and separateness. The horrific videos have made the abstract idea of “torture” something very real and, to many, unacceptable. The faces of the young teens being harassed by Russian skin heads personalize this hatred and fear and many adults looking at this are thinking “That could be my child!” They begin to see themselves in others.
This provides an opening for a new conversation on what it means to be a human being and why we believe what we believe about being separate from each other and from Life/Love/God. The Olympic platform provides a stage in front of a world-wide audience in which that new conversation can be carried on. A way in which the message of Love/Life/Freedom/Goddess can be seen and heard by billions! Let us honor the sacrifice of our Russian brothers and sisters by having that conversation, even if it’s just with the guy sitting next to us at the bar while we watch the giant slalom or the woman next to us on the bus whose reading about the figure skating results or just with our own children. Let us help them remember the 25th core message given to us by God/dess: We are all One! Ours is not a better way. Ours is merely a different way.
(Shelly Strauss is a civil rights activist and speaker. In addition to becoming an ordained minister, she has written 20-plus novels and is the “resident visionary” at One Spirit Project. Shelly is also a spiritual helper on the ChangingChange website, offering support and guidance to people faced with unexpected and unwelcome change .)
In light of some recent unexpected statements made by some highly influential people in our world, I have been exploring more deeply the underpinnings of why we believe what we believe, and what it takes to create significant change in long and tightly held belief systems. What is the aftereffect globally when someone who has the massive outreach of the Pope or the controversial but well-known televangelist Pat Robertson publicly speaks outside of the box which holds their traditional points of view?
In an article published by The Huffington Post, “The 83-year-old televangelist [Pat Robertson] sat down on Sunday for the ‘Bring It Online’ advice portion of his Christian Broadcasting Network show, ‘The 700 Club.’ A viewer named David wrote in asking how he should refer to two transgender females who work in his office and have legally changed their genders. Instead of criticizing the trans individuals, Robertson approached the situation in a seemingly level-headed manner.”
“‘I think there are men who are in a woman’s body,’ he said. ‘It’s very rare. But it’s true — or women that are in men’s bodies — and that they want a sex change. That is a very permanent thing, believe me, when you have certain body parts amputated and when you have shot up with various kinds of hormones. It’s a radical procedure. I don’t think there’s any sin associated with that. I don’t condemn somebody for doing that.’”
“He went on to say he would ‘question the validity’ of someone who just says, ‘Well I’m really a woman’ because you ‘don’t count somebody as female unless they really are, or male unless they really are.’”
“When his co-host said the viewer doesn’t know the intentions or medical history of his co-workers, Robertson rebutted, ‘It’s not for you to decide or to judge.’”
Yes, Mr. Robertson’s unpredictable statements are still interwoven between layers of intolerance and judgment, but couple his message with the most-recent comments by Pope Francis which have been making spectacular headlines around the world where he told reporters “If someone is gay and he searches for the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge?” I am just wondering what might be happening here.
When the people who have been placed collectively at the forefront of large groups of people — whose numbers easily reach into the millions — change their points of view about long-held beliefs, or when they express new thoughts about old ideas, how does this impact the belief systems of the people who associate themselves closely with those groups? What is the ripple effect? Do large numbers of people “change their minds” because someone now told them to, whether that be for “better” or “worse”? How do we know when someone is a messenger versus a manipulator?
Of course, we know that truth, real truth, is a knowing that emanates from deep, deep within. So why is it, then, that so many of us experience our lives as a journey of seeking and finding, gathering our truth from places that exist external to us, perhaps even in the words of someone else’s truth, ignoring the accuracy of our own internal compass and pushing painfully past the true nature of our feelings?
Imagine a world where each and every one of us stood in the light of our own truth, where we didn’t say “yes” when we meant “no”; where we didn’t say “no” when we really truly wanted to say “yes.”
Perhaps in that kind of world we wouldn’t have parents giving birth to children on Saturday, July 20, and waiting until Wednesday, July 24, to name their newborn child, a precious new life, so they can find out what Prince William and Kate Middleton named their child first and follow suit accordingly.
Maybe in that kind of world it would be highly unlikely that some of the highest-rated television programs would continue to be “reality” shows which depict the “reality” someone else is choosing for us instead of the one we have the ability to create ourselves. Perhaps we would simply not desire to watch television at all…unless we do.
Maybe, just maybe, we wouldn’t be shooting people in our own neighborhoods because they look different than we do. Do you think it is possible that within the space and light of our own truth we would not ever feel moved to hurt or oppress another because we would understand at a very deep level that the “truths” we have been told, the stories we have made up about each other or been handed down, the ones which cause us to hurt each other in the first place, are simply not true?
And perhaps in that kind of a world people in positions of power and influence, such as Pope Francis and, yes, even Pat Robertson, will continue to break free from the bonds of history, tradition, and sameness to demonstrate that change, significant and lasting change, is not only a remote possibility, but it is something which is actually taking place right here, right now.
I’m just wondering how the tide of change will roll onto the shore of Humanity in the wake of some of these surprisingly refreshing and recently made comments. If we are going to live in a world where we continue to adopt someone else’s truth as our own, maybe we should be paying close attention right now to the new “truths” that are yearning to be heard and the new “story” that is desiring to be written.
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
I have two good friends who, on the night they got married a few years back, placed a large custom sticker on the back of the window of their car which boldly and playfully exclaimed “Love Explosion.” I have always thought it to be so wonderfully fitting to describe their relationship as a “love explosion” and still find myself smiling, even today, many years later, at the mere mention of it.
At this moment, I can’t think of a more appropriate phrase than a “love explosion” to describe what has happened in our country today, June 26, 2013, as the Supreme Court of the United States of America overturned the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law passed on September 21, 1996, which allowed states to refuse to recognize same-sex marriages performed under the laws of other states, effectively barring same-sex married couples from receiving federal marriage benefits. The victory means the federal government must recognize the marriages of gay and lesbian couples married in the 12 states that allow same-sex marriage, plus the District of Columbia, and give them the same benefits that they had been previously denied under the DOMA.
This landmark decision is cause for celebration not only among those in the gay community, but for anyone who counts themselves among those who yearn for the day when all human beings on our planet will be able to freely express and experience love, absent judgment, absent restrictions, a day when everyone will be afforded equal opportunities in every aspect of their lives. And this historic ruling today by the United States Supreme Court is a very good indicator that we are indeed headed in that direction. Perhaps not as swiftly or speedily as many of us would truly desire, but, yes, the shift is definitely happening.
Events like this in our human experience help us to understand more clearly just how vast and limitless and immeasurable Love is. How silly for us human beings to think for one nanosecond that we could contain Love inside any kind of container, and somehow then attempt to keep it there by sternly guarding it with our narrow rules and stiff laws. How naive of some people on this planet to believe that we could place boundaries on that which is boundless and eternal. How peculiar that so many people thought they could define in human terms that which has demonstrated itself time and time again to exist outside the limited parameters of our language.
Love.
Love is all there is.
There is nothing but Love.
And try as we might to control, manipulate, restrict, quell, morph, or ignore the ways in which Love is choosing to be expressed in our lives, Love will pour forth, Love will radiate from the heartbeat of the universe, and Love will explode from the purest place of peace and joy. It will not differentiate between a man and a woman or a man and a man or a woman and a woman. It will not subdue or enhance its presence based on differing skin colors or countries of origin or religious preferences. It simply cannot. We can imagine that it can. We can believe that it can. And if we do not stop the insanity of thinking we get to choose who is allowed or who is denied Love, then our experience of Love will be one that reflects those narrow choices.
Thankfully, on this day, these revolutionary words were authored by United States Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, reflecting the New Tomorrow that we here at “The Global Conversation” are honored and overjoyed to stand witness to and share:
“DOMA undermines both the public and private significance of state-sanctioned same-sex marriages; for it tells those couples, and all the world, that their otherwise valid marriages are unworthy of federal recognition. This places same-sex couples in an unstable position of being in a second-tier marriage. The differentiation demeans the couple, whose moral and sexual choices the Constitution protects, see Lawrence, 539 U. S. 558, and whose relationship the State has sought to dignify. And it humiliates tens of thousands of children now being raised by same-sex couples. The law in question makes it even more difficult for the children to understand the integrity and closeness of their own family and its concord with other families in their community and in their daily lives.”
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
Once in a while, I come across a film that becomes more than simply an enjoyable experience, more than just an evening of pleasant entertainment, more than merely a way to spend a couple hours of my day. Every so often I encounter a movie that is transformational. And that is exactly the word I would use to describe “A Blue Flower,” a personal documentary written, directed, and produced by Nils Taranger as his graduate thesis film for the University of Central Florida’s Master of Fine Arts program in Digital Entrepreneurial Cinema.
Born with an indented chest, and subsequently experiencing rejection by his mother when he came out as being gay, Nils sets out on a spiritual quest to heal both his physical body and his emotional pain by searching for the one thing that he believed had the power and ability to cure him: the Blue Flower, which was thought to have mystical healing powers.
This creative, candid, and honest documentary courageously invites you on Nils’ journey as he travels far and wide, reaching out to members of the healing community — a lightworker, an alchemist, a Shaman, a Tantric yoga instructor, a spirit release treatment specialist, a “Course in Miracles” teacher, just to name a few — all in an effort to mend what he thought and believed to be broken or missing.
In his search for the blue flower, whose existence was said to be a myth, what Nils was allowed to discover is that what he was looking for, what he thought he was lacking, what he imagined to be impossible to find, did not exist somewhere outside of him; the healing was realized through a process of self-discovery, self-love, and a remembrance of his own magnificence and his own capacity to love…himself.
The underlying message in this film ties in perfectly to this excerpt from Conversations with God, Book 1: “You must first see your Self as worthy before you can see another as worthy. You must first see your Self as blessed before you can see another as blessed. You must first know your Self to be holy before you can acknowledge holiness in another.”
For information about where you can see or obtain a copy of the movie “A Blue Flower,” visit this website: A Blue Flower
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team at www.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
(If there is a book, movie, music CD, etc. that you would like to recommend to our worldwide audience, please submit it to our Managing Editor, Lisa McCormack, for possible publication in this space. Not all submissions can be published, due to the number of submissions and sometimes because of other content considerations, but all are encouraged. Send submissions to Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com. Please label the topic: “Review”)
Pope Benedict XVI said, no, we are not in his annual Christmas message to the world, one of his most important speeches of the year, where he once again proclaimed that same-sex marriage is destroying “the essence of humanity.”
“People dispute the idea that they have a nature, given to them by their bodily identity, that serves as a defining element of the human being,” he said at the Vatican. “They deny their nature and decide that it is not something previously given to them, but that they make it for themselves.”
He further went on to say, “When freedom to be creative becomes the freedom to create oneself, then necessarily the Maker himself is denied and ultimately man too is stripped of his dignity as a creature of God.”
Could it be, as Pope Benedict suggests, that life truly is a shallow existence of “what you get is what you get”?
What would the Pope tell a child born a hermaphrodite, a condition in which someone is born with both female and male sex organs – a body given to him by God, by the way? Too bad? You deserve no one? Or perhaps the contrary: “Lucky you, you can have a relationship with whoever you want”?
And what about the Pope himself who has been “defined” by God as a male, given a penis, and yet chooses not to fall in line with that “identity” and chooses not to express romantic love to a female and chooses not to enter into intimate relationships? According to his own definition, is he not “denying” his own “nature” that God intended for him to share in intimacy with a woman and to reproduce? Is he not participating in his own freedom and creativity in an effort to self-define who he is and what he believes about why he is here?
Aren’t we ALL doing that very same thing?
Why are we being told to feel bound to our physicality when it comes to S-E-X, but celebrated when we demonstrate our capacity for greatness beyond our bodies in other ways?
My friend, Mark, whose body is partially paralyzed and riddled with unrelenting pain – again, the body given to him by God — climbed 108 floors of the Sears Tower in Chicago…and plans to do it again this year. I imagine it would be quite difficult to find anyone who would say Mark has “stripped himself of his dignity” by creating a new definition of himself that expanded far beyond his physicality.
But again, I get it. We are talking about the unspeakable, the shameful, the only-talked-about-in-a-whisper topic of S-E-X.
However, the Pope’s declaration of “Gay marriage, like abortion and euthanasia, is a threat to world peace” appears to be falling upon deaf ears as the Constitutional Court in largely Roman Catholic Spain upheld the law legalizing gay marriage last month, the British government announced it will introduce a bill next year legalizing gay marriage, and in France, President Francois Hollande has said he would enact his “Marriage for Everyone” plan within a year of taking office last May.
These are the visionaries, the writers of our New Cultural Story, the mold-shatterers and rule-breakers who do not believe in a God that makes mistakes. They are not buying into the twisted idea that God would create something so extraordinary and then make it wrong.
What these New Cultural Story global authors do believe in is Love. They do not believe same-sex marriage is destroying the essence of humanity, but rather that it IS the essence of humanity. They believe that love transcends everything and is denied to no one, that Love that has no rules and is certainly not reserved for only a select few to be experienced in a select way, and that the biggest continuing threat to world peace is not found, as Pope Benedict suggested, within the loving union of a same-sex partnership, but rather in a belief system that embraces and promotes a vengeful and judgmental God.
(Lisa McCormack is the Managing Editor & Administrator of The Global Conversation. She is also a member of the Spiritual Helper team atwww.ChangingChange.net, a website offering emotional and spiritual support. To connect with Lisa, please e-mail her at Lisa@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
This past Monday, a dramatic step forward has been taken by the legislatures in California. As announced in the October 1, 2012, article of The Oakland Press, California Governor Jerry Brown signed SB1172 into law, which officially banned a controversial therapy technique aimed at converting gay teenagers into straight individuals. As conversion therapy has been seen to mentally and emotionally destructive to teens, the new law prohibits all minors in the state of California from being exposed to future sexual orientation change efforts.
What California has done speaks far louder than the Governor’s voice. California has showed us that teens don’t need to be “cured” of their displays of self-expression. In at least one part of our society, there IS an understanding that people can and should freely be themselves, without guilt or fear of being forced to change. There IS an acceptance of Who We Are, and there IS the freedom that allows us to demonstrate it. Instead of seeing gay teenagers as a “black sheep” to society, they are being recognized as human beings with a mind and a soul. Who’s to say that it has to stop there?
With this new law, we as teenagers are beginning to understand that it’s OK to express Who We Really Are. We know this as truth, and finally, society is catching up to this as well. As high and mighty organizations such as the California Board of Behavioral Sciences, the California Association of Marriage and Therapists, and the California Psychological Association have recognized the negative effects of forcing us to be someone besides our highest self, the laws of the land are changing and transforming into a more open environment.
No matter if it is expression of sexual orientation, divine beliefs, or political policies, we as teens have more freedom and more ways to express ourselves than ever. We don’t need to be remedied of any single aspect of our highest selves. If you have ever felt the fear of simply “being yourself”, know that you have the freedom to be confident and be recognized for the joy of Who You Choose to Be. As our teenage years, and all of our years, are for the purpose of redefining Who We Are in the next grandest vision of the greatest version of ourselves, love to live your expression of the highest self.
(Lauren Rourk may be reached at Lauren@TheGlobalConversation.com.)
Thank you, France, for demonstrating that, YES, our world IS evolving and moving towards a more loving and accepting society, breaking through the intolerant barriers of an Old Cultural Story which dictates in what form love is to be experienced and expressed and moving into a New Cultural Story where couples of all genders are free to experience and enjoy the rights and privileges afforded to ALL loving relationships.
According to a recent article in The Telegraph, “France is set to ban the words “mother” and “father” from all official documents under new plans to legalize gay marriage,” giving equal adoption rights to homosexual and heterosexual couples.
Justice Minister Christiane Taubira told France’s Catholic newspaper, La Croix, “Who is to say that a heterosexual couple will bring up a child better than a homosexual couple, that they will guarantee the best conditions for the child’s development?”
As expected, this proposed law is being met with vehement resistance by members of the Catholic Church. “Gay marriage would herald a complete breakdown in society,” Cardinal Philippe Barbarin, the head of the French Catholic Church, told Christian’s RFC radio last week. He is further quoted as saying, “This could have innumerable consequences. Afterward they will want to create couples with three or four members. And after that, perhaps one day the taboo of incest will fall.”
Wow, is the suggestion really being made that the legalized union of two loving same-sex mutually consenting adults is one step shy of a parent engaging in sexual relations with their own child or brother or aunt? And perhaps I’m confused, but isn’t it heterosexuals who have been historically, and still are even to this day, entering into multiple-partner relationships? What does THAT type of irrational conjecture have to do with a same-sex partnership being afforded the opportunity to be a legally and socially recognized union?
And just WHEN and HOW did God’s glorious gift of sex become a tool to be used to judge, control, manipulate, bring shame upon, and condemn? Do we honestly imagine a God who created the possibility of deeply felt love to exist between two souls – whether that is a man and a man, a woman and a man, or a woman and a woman – only to then be judged and punished for simply being who they are? What is it that we are actually afraid of here?
I applaud this bold step forward the country of France is proposing, a step that embraces the forward movement of The New Spirituality and celebrates everyone’s ability to enter freely and fully into a legally recognized union that supports at an equal level the depth of their love and the holy union of their souls.
