Outrage after play depicting gay Jesus

  • metta

    Posts: 39089

    Nov 16, 2009 7:40 AM GMT

    Outrage after play depicting gay Jesus

    A play depicting Jesus as a gay man played to an appreciative audience in a packed Santa Ana church Saturday night, as a handful of protestors outside called it blasphemous.

    http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=7119871
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 7:46 AM GMT
    Haha - I love the word "OUTRAGE"icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 9:14 AM GMT

    Perhaps the gathering storm frightened them that night. icon_lol.gif

    ...................................

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 11:30 AM GMT
    A play I would like to see...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 12:06 PM GMT
    Some of those comments are hysterical. One reader writes:

    "code3equine 11/15/09 11:11 PM PST

    stop trying to make it exceptable to be gay. I don't hate"gay people". I just dislike that everytime you turn around someone it trying to force this subject on us. I think that there will ALWAYS be a stereotype for gays. This is just nonsense portraying Jesus as gay. He wasn't GAY. He was a happy man, yes, but not gay"
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Nov 16, 2009 12:07 PM GMT
    Everytime this Terrance McNally Play is done there's a protest of some kind

    Ain't it great that we live in a country that DOESN'T have the Religious Police? icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 4:35 PM GMT
    To some people it is blasphemus. There are no record of Jesus being gay so his play just seem rather silly. They have a right to feel outraged to these people they are making mockery out of there faith.

    considering that there are a large number of gay men who shun religon it just seems rather off putting to me.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 4:37 PM GMT
    Ducky45 saidTo some people it is blasphemus. There are no record of Jesus being gay so his play just seem rather silly. They have a right to feel outraged to these people they are making mockery out of there faith.

    considering that there are a large number of gay men who shun religon it just seems rather off putting to me.



    Wasn't John the beloved of Jesus? Couldn't a case be made?....

    I must say though it would be interesting to see the reaction if this play was about gay Mohammed...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 4:53 PM GMT

    Gay Jesus?

    Photo of a painting up at the Chicago Museum O.o It's Jesus embracing St. SomeoneOrOther... funny i couldn't find this photo on the net (i must have the name wrong) so i uploaded my own photo of it icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 4:55 PM GMT
    A case can been made of anything doesn't mean it's rational.
    Yes you prolly would get the same reaction.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 4:58 PM GMT
    I'm happy for anything that sends the religious into a hair pulling, chest beating, tooth gnashing tizzy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 5:05 PM GMT
    EXCELLENT!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 5:10 PM GMT
    Er, isn't this a play? As in fictitious? And put on by a christian parish?

    Let organized US religions fight amongst themselves. Maybe they'll be so distracted with hating each other that your rights will breeze through.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 5:39 PM GMT
    One would be better served concerning themselves with the spirit of Jesus and the way that spirit relates to how we must be with one another.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 5:51 PM GMT
    It can't be any worse than making a blond haired, blue eyed Aryan Jesus as they have in the past. "Well uhh yeah anti-Semitic christians (yes they actually exist) .. Jesus really was a Jew!!" But hey, that's freedom of religion and freedom of expression right? icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 6:16 PM GMT
    Golly. The guy allegedly walked around in sandals, had long hair, and hung out with 12 groupies. Sounds gay as hell to me.
  • HndsmKansan

    Posts: 16311

    Nov 16, 2009 6:17 PM GMT
    That old bastard Phelps will want to be in the mix on this one no doubt

    icon_evil.gif
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 16, 2009 6:25 PM GMT
    Being "gay" is a modern concept, and a fairly recent one at that (if memory serves it was the Department of Defense after WWI that invented the concept of homosexuality as opposed to homosexual acts, in an attempt to prescreen draftees for mental disorder). Homosexuality something one did, not something one was, for all the previous millenia. The idea that this mindset would be indulged, let alone openly accepted, was so foreign as to be inconceivable. Men and women engaged in homosexual acts all the way back into the mists of prehistory, but they still conformed to social gender norms because there were no other options. Whether or not Jesus or his disciples engaged in erotic activity (which I highly doubt), this did not make them gay. If such activity occured it only made them men with highly experimental and imaginative sex lives...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 6:28 PM GMT
    chuckystud saidGolly. The guy allegedly walked around in sandals, had long hair, and hung out with 12 groupies. Sounds gay as hell to me.
    icon_lol.gif either that or he was from California icon_lol.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 6:32 PM GMT
    jarhead5536 saidBeing "gay" is a modern concept, and a fairly recent one at that (if memory serves it was the Department of Defense after WWI that invented the concept of homosexuality as opposed to homosexual acts, in an attempt to prescreen draftees for mental disorder). Homosexuality something one did, not something one was, for all the previous millenia. The idea that this mindset would be indulged, let alone openly accepted, was so foreign as to be inconceivable. Men and women engaged in homosexual acts all the way back into the mists of prehistory, but they still conformed to social gender norms because there were no other options. Whether or not Jesus or his disciples engaged in erotic activity (which I highly doubt), this did not make them gay. If such activity occured it only made them men with highly experimental and imaginative sex lives...


    So by your argument - if men involve in same sex acts today and do not form a parternership with someone of the same sex, then that person should also not be considered gay or homosexual, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 6:46 PM GMT
    I'm a Christian, and I don't get worked up whenever someone does or says some ignorant offensive crap towards my faith. I'm not gonna act like a fanatical Muslim and blow people up over it. Maybe that's why people crack on Christianity mostly, they're afraid of the crazy Muslims. rofl.

    I just feel sorry for anyone who feels the need to try to offend someone like that, I don't find it funny when anyone's faith, ethnicity, or sexuality is made fun of in a way to get the person worked up.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 7:04 PM GMT
    Ducky46 saidTo some people it is blasphemus. There are no record of Jesus being gay so his play just seem rather silly.


    This viewpoint is heterocentric.

    There is also no record of Jesus being straight either. You assume that if not defined as gay that he is, by default, straight. Historically, anyone who is gay who was also considered a good leader or role model, was often depicted as asexual to placate the masses. It is only blasphemous to those who consider being gay as bad.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 7:08 PM GMT
    This play has been around at least a decade and it still causes shock? Do people still get upset at jazz or the jitterbug? Are their protests when video is shown of Elvis shaking his hips?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Nov 16, 2009 7:23 PM GMT
    "I'm not gonna act like a fanatical Muslim and blow people up over it. Maybe that's why people crack on Christianity mostly, they're afraid of the crazy Muslims. rofl."



    Yeah, it's a real shame the crazy muslims don't get their fair share of bashing. icon_rolleyes.gif

    I think more people are afraid of their medication than the crazy muslims. rofl
  • jarhead5536

    Posts: 1348

    Nov 16, 2009 8:07 PM GMT
    Blondizgd said
    jarhead5536 saidBeing "gay" is a modern concept, and a fairly recent one at that (if memory serves it was the Department of Defense after WWI that invented the concept of homosexuality as opposed to homosexual acts, in an attempt to prescreen draftees for mental disorder). Homosexuality something one did, not something one was, for all the previous millenia. The idea that this mindset would be indulged, let alone openly accepted, was so foreign as to be inconceivable. Men and women engaged in homosexual acts all the way back into the mists of prehistory, but they still conformed to social gender norms because there were no other options. Whether or not Jesus or his disciples engaged in erotic activity (which I highly doubt), this did not make them gay. If such activity occured it only made them men with highly experimental and imaginative sex lives...


    So by your argument - if men involve in same sex acts today and do not form a parternership with someone of the same sex, then that person should also not be considered gay or homosexual, right?


    Um, what? Before the 21st century, the concept of being "gay" was unheard of. Everyone got married, everyone had children, and those that undulged in same-sex acts did it with great secrecy and trepidation. Living what we would consider a life of honesty and pride was not an option as it is today. A committed partnership is not required to be gay.

    Those that engaged in same sex acts in the past did not agonize over their opposite sex marriages like closeted people do today. A 19th century woman, upon discovering that her husband was doing the deed with his chamber music partner, would find his acts repulsive but consider them acts of sexual perversion, not any indication about the strength of her marriage. The notion of deep romantic love for another man was preposterous, and it likely would not occur to someone to pursue such feelings, sex or not. I see it sort of like DL guys today, whose mantra seems to be, "I have sex with men on the side, but it has nothing to do with who I am." We recognize today that who you naturally prefer to have sex with has everything to do with who you are, and being an authentic and fully realized human means embracing your orientation...