Henson issues statement about Chick-Fila-A

[D'Snowth]

To witness?

That's how the line was written, that's how the line was delivered.

It didn't make any sense to me either, like, "Seriously? It's against the law to see someone is a homosexual", but when I think about it now, I THINK what the line was supposed to mean was I know how in some cases, like when couples elope to get married privately, the justice of the peace may call in a "witness" for the vows, so the pastor was asking the ghost, what happened to when it was illegal for someone to serve as a "witness" for gay couples eloping or getting married in secrecy. MAYBE, I don't know... alls I know is, I didn't like the club, I didn't like the play, and I'm glad I was only an extra in it (it was actually my best friend who was cast as the pastor).

 

[jvcarroll]

As I've explained to you before, PBS actually stopped having pledge drives (at least for children's programming), because all these radical right-wing conservative groups rallied to stop support and funding THEM for "teaching tolerence towards homosexual". I know, since I was homeschooled during my high school years, and homeschooling is VERY Christian-oriented/faith-based, so I knew what a bunch of these special interest groups were up to, and they were basically spreading the word, "Just say no to Clifford" among other shows like SST, Arthur, etc, because they were saying, "These shows teach our kids it's okay to be tolerent toward homosexuals, and that it's okay to be gay", and let me tell you, after that happened, our pledges PLUMMETED! We were losing more money than we were making money by having these pledge drives, even raise the minimum pledge from $20 to $25 didn't help, so we just stopped having pledge drives altogether.

It's really irksome... I remember during my sophomore year, for some strange reason, my mother enrolled me in some political club when she knows I HATE politics: first of all the problem is I did NOT agree with the party this group seemed to favor (they claimed they were non-partisan, but it was clear they were die-hard Republican), but for a couple of weeks, we were doing this really weird play-like-thing, the daughter of the group moderator wrote this play that was basically A Christmas Carol, but about Christianity disappearing from society to the point that it's basically illegal to be Christian, and Christians are having to meet in secrecy for worship... the main character, instead of being Ebenezer Scrooge, was a pastor who seemed more like Jimmy Stewart's character from It's a Wonderful Life... I remember at one point during the play, when one of the ghosts was showing the pastor what the world had come to, at one point during his "What happened to..." rambling, there was an actual line that was written into his rambling that included, "What happened to it being illegal to witness a homosexual?" Yeah, the girl who wrote the play also hinted that in addition to the irreligious taking over the world, the gays were too.

Yeah.

Wow! I read that like three times and wow! I'm speechless. I'd actually like to see that play out of morbid curiosity.

I do not understand how some otherwise kind and intelligent people believe that being tolerant toward LGBT people or granting them civil rights will somehow rob them of their own. It just reminds me of the popular kids not sharing the playground with less popular kids at recess.

It's usually peripheral arguments that are made. You know, the slippery slope that eventually it's going to lead to people marrying their toaster ovens. I do admit that some of those four-slice toasters are irresistible!

There's a lot of talk on JHC's facebook page that their wide scope of tolerance is somehow intolerant toward them when in fact that sort of tolerance includes them and everybody equally. I'm proud of the way they've handled this. They didn't even dive into the mud over the false recall debacle.

 

[D'Snowth]

Wow! I read that like three times and wow! I'm speechless. I'd actually like to see that play out of morbid curiosity.

I could type up a summary to the best of my memory, that is if other people are as curious as you are, otherwise, I could shoot you a PM, whichever would work best for everybody.

I do not understand how some otherwise kind and intelligent people believe that being tolerant toward LGBT people or granting them civil rights will somehow rob them of their own. It just reminds me of the popular kids not sharing the playground with less popular kids at recess.

It just gets really, REALLY ridiculous at how uptight these groups are about all of it, again, it sort of really just boils down to how they're basically saying, "We shouldn't let these people know that what they're doing is okay, because it's wrong, the Bible says so!"... it's the kind of mentality that they just are so wrapped up in, I think it's utterly ridiculous that not only has Michelle Bachmann basically been saying this like, "Kids shouldn't watch The Lion King because the music was written by a gay man", but that her husband actually runs a therapy clinic that's supposedly helps cure homosexuals of their sexuality... they even showed hidden camera footage of a session where a therapist told his patient, and I quote, "God designed men to be attracted specifically towards women, they're supposed to like things like they're breasts, that's the way God intended it." I never seen or heard such... I mean, even I find all of this really ridiculous at times, I can't even begin to imagine how it affects you or other gays personally, but again, even I think a lot of this is completely ridiculous and really uncalled for.

 

[charlietheowl]

What Michelle Bachmann's husband does is really dangerous, because people who are enrolled in those "conversion" programs are being told that they themselves need to be changed for something they can't control, which isn't right. As someone who's struggled with self-acceptance as a bisexual, it's not really endearing to see people out there approach homosexuality as a disease, and I'm sure there are irreparable effects to people's psyches if they go through that sort of therapy. Personally, I know several people have made this point before, I don't see why who people choose to love has to be anyone's business, but I guess some people out there disagree.

 

[jvcarroll]

I could type up a summary to the best of my memory, that is if other people are as curious as you are, otherwise, I could shoot you a PM, whichever would work best for everybody.
It just gets really, REALLY ridiculous at how uptight these groups are about all of it, again, it sort of really just boils down to how they're basically saying, "We shouldn't let these people know that what they're doing is okay, because it's wrong, the Bible says so!"... it's the kind of mentality that they just are so wrapped up in, I think it's utterly ridiculous that not only has Michelle Bachmann basically been saying this like, "Kids shouldn't watch The Lion King because the music was written by a gay man", but that her husband actually runs a therapy clinic that's supposedly helps cure homosexuals of their sexuality... they even showed hidden camera footage of a session where a therapist told his patient, and I quote, "God designed men to be attracted specifically towards women, they're supposed to like things like they're breasts, that's the way God intended it." I never seen or heard such... I mean, even I find all of this really ridiculous at times, I can't even begin to imagine how it affects you or other gays personally, but again, even I think a lot of this is completely ridiculous and really uncalled for.

Wow! I wouldn't want you to spend too much time on that, but if a transcript was available - I'd read it!

The Lion King thing is just crazy. Does that go for his Muppet Show too? That's like one of the best ones ever!

 

[dwmckim]

I've tended to stay out of this thread (even though i originated it) mainly due to the fact that this subject and all the discussion surrounding it has been pretty much done to death many many MANY times here before and i just haven't had the energy, time nor desire to repeat the same things i've posted countless times before. I applaud those who still have the patience to return to the well and educate some of the "newbies" who hadn't been to this dance before (or the "oldies" with short memories ) in such an eloquent manner.

I did want to commend RedPiggy for bringing up something vital (that only took 13 pages to be mentioned...)

Something that may help is learning the background for the rules about it. Paul's against it but he (and Jesus) rarely have anything good to say about "normal" families either. The OT references historically involve pagan temple prostitution, not loving, informed homosexual relationships between consenting adults. We should also question an "abomination" when wearing different fabrics also is called one. Methinks some biblical authors needed a bit of a perspective check, especially when faced with dashing babies' heads against rocks and killing women suspected of adultery.
Much of what we see as allowed or forbidden in the bible refers to practices that the "average joes" at the time preferred, and there was the constant need to separate Hebrews from the Canaanites, even though they are historically related. It's less about "real" morality and more about identity propaganda.

The most fascinating and infuriating thing about the whole situation is that so much bashing and brouhaha occurs over somethng that when it comes right down to it wasn't even really mentioned in the original Bible texts in the first place!!!

Just about every single Bible passage that is used to talk about "homosexuality" were originally referring to practices/rituals that were so specific to that time and so long outdated that there don't even exist any modern words to translate them to. It's always interesting to look at various translations of the Bible and look at the words they use to try to even attempt to describe them - running the gamet to "sexual immorality" to more modern translations even going so far to use the word "homosexual".

So much persecution and bigotry of gay people is done in the name of God or the pretense of "The Bible says..." when a study of the original texts reveal that what we come to think of today as "being gay" and loving relationships between gay people (there are bad relationship choices people engage in regardless of the genders involved) simply were never even there.

In regards to thoughts about the specific situation this thread is about, i agree Henson has handled themself with total class and grace - and honor to the "Jim Henson" name. Jim himself may no longer be with us, but the people involved with Henson Company are largely comprised of people who knew him VERY well - including family, friends, and long-time colleagues - and they know what he stood for and the messages and philosophies (both personal and business) he lived by, taught, and incorporated into his life's work and they've acted in total accordance in the exact same manner that i have no doubt they still would have if Jim was still with us today.

CFA, on the other hand, has not only reacted in ways that really give them a bad name as "Christians", but also has attacked Henson in the process. I don't care what religious or political stripe you are, the moment things turn personal against either Henson or the Muppets (such as Fox News' December follies with its hit piece against "The Muppets"), i think that's the moment when we as Muppet/Henson fans can't in good conscience support them. Even if i was antigay to begin with and initially supported CFA, the moment they turned around and tried to deflect things by dissing Henson, that would have been the turning point for me where i would no longer be able to support them because they've now tipped their hand as being anti-Henson, and that is the biggest possible sin in this Muppet Freak's book.

 

[D'Snowth]

Wow! I wouldn't want you to spend too much time on that, but if a transcript was available - I'd read it!

I doubt there would be a transcript available anywhere, but as it turns out, I don't think I remember as much of it as I thought I did... what I do basically remember it starts off with a pastor feeling down about himself because he doesn't seem to be reaching his congregation, and he's noticed a slow decline in people attending his sermons and such, he falls asleep that night and is visited by the three ghosts of Christmas even though they're not there on Christmas matters. I don't remember what was shown to him in past, I think the future had to do with a teen mom asking a crotchety lady (who was meant to represent the devil, I think) to abort her baby, but the future he was shown was a small number of Christians getting together in secret (this was where I had the misfortune of being an extra) in one of those noir-style meetings ("Got the password?") so they can continue with their worship since it's not illegal and Christianity has become a minority, and soon, law enforcement officials break them up in Gestapo-esque fashion, which is what prompts the pastor to give the future ghost his "What happened to" rambling, including, "What happened to it being illegal to witness a homosexual?" Needless to say, he wakes up and releases that he has a job to do, to make sure Christianity still has a place in our society. SOMEWHERE in the play, it came in a conversation about a man and his "boyfriend", which I think is what was supposed to prompt the specific "What happened to" line.

The Lion King thing is just crazy. Does that go for his Muppet Show too? That's like one of the best ones ever!

Or remember the whole Teletubby controversy? Oh, Tinky Winky is purple, the gay color; Oh, Tinky Winky has a triangle on his head, the gay symbol; Oh, Tinky Winky carries a purse, something a gay man would do. Actually... considering they originated in the U.K., isn't it actually common for European men to carry purse-like carrying cases with them? So, purple and triangles aside as possibly being coincidences, the "purse" thing could very well be just a European thing that Americans didn't really understand.

 

[CensoredAlso]

That's how the line was written, that's how the line was delivered.

Hmm, maybe it was "witness to homosexuals"?

 

[jvcarroll]

I've tended to stay out of this thread (even though i originated it) mainly due to the fact that this subject and all the discussion surrounding it has been pretty much done to death many many MANY times here before and i just haven't had the energy, time nor desire to repeat the same things i've posted countless times before. I applaud those who still have the patience to return to the well and educate some of the "newbies" who hadn't been to this dance before (or the "oldies" with short memories ) in such an eloquent manner.

I did want to commend RedPiggy for bringing up something vital (that only took 13 pages to be mentioned...)



The most fascinating and infuriating thing about the whole situation is that so much bashing and brouhaha occurs over somethng that when it comes right down to it wasn't even really mentioned in the original Bible texts in the first place!!!

Just about every single Bible passage that is used to talk about "homosexuality" were originally referring to practices/rituals that were so specific to that time and so long outdated that there don't even exist any modern words to translate them to. It's always interesting to look at various translations of the Bible and look at the words they use to try to even attempt to describe them - running the gamet to "sexual immorality" to more modern translations even going so far to use the word "homosexual".

So much persecution and bigotry of gay people is done in the name of God or the pretense of "The Bible says..." when a study of the original texts reveal that what we come to think of today as "being gay" and loving relationships between gay people (there are bad relationship choices people engage in regardless of the genders involved) simply were never even there.

In regards to thoughts about the specific situation this thread is about, i agree Henson has handled themself with total class and grace - and honor to the "Jim Henson" name. Jim himself may no longer be with us, but the people involved with Henson Company are largely comprised of people who knew him VERY well - including family, friends, and long-time colleagues - and they know what he stood for and the messages and philosophies (both personal and business) he lived by, taught, and incorporated into his life's work and they've acted in total accordance in the exact same manner that i have no doubt they still would have if Jim was still with us today.

CFA, on the other hand, has not only reacted in ways that really give them a bad name as "Christians", but also has attacked Henson in the process. I don't care what religious or political stripe you are, the moment things turn personal against either Henson or the Muppets (such as Fox News' December follies with its hit piece against "The Muppets"), i think that's the moment when we as Muppet/Henson fans can't in good conscience support them. Even if i was antigay to begin with and initially supported CFA, the moment they turned around and tried to deflect things by dissing Henson, that would have been the turning point for me where i would no longer be able to support them because they've now tipped their hand as being anti-Henson, and that is the biggest possible sin in this Muppet Freak's book.

Agreed. Marriage has existed in many cultures, long before the Bible was written and it still exists in cultures that know little or nothing about that book. There's a lot strange things in the Biblical definition of marriage that don't fit with modern culture or that of the modern Christian. People also forget that marriage for love is a very new concept. It's only recently perceived as the norm.

I doubt there would be a transcript available anywhere, but as it turns out, I don't think I remember as much of it as I thought I did... what I do basically remember it starts off with a pastor feeling down about himself because he doesn't seem to be reaching his congregation, and he's noticed a slow decline in people attending his sermons and such, he falls asleep that night and is visited by the three ghosts of Christmas even though they're not there on Christmas matters. I don't remember what was shown to him in past, I think the future had to do with a teen mom asking a crotchety lady (who was meant to represent the devil, I think) to abort her baby, but the future he was shown was a small number of Christians getting together in secret (this was where I had the misfortune of being an extra) in one of those noir-style meetings ("Got the password?") so they can continue with their worship since it's not illegal and Christianity has become a minority, and soon, law enforcement officials break them up in Gestapo-esque fashion, which is what prompts the pastor to give the future ghost his "What happened to" rambling, including, "What happened to it being illegal to witness a homosexual?" Needless to say, he wakes up and releases that he has a job to do, to make sure Christianity still has a place in our society. SOMEWHERE in the play, it came in a conversation about a man and his "boyfriend", which I think is what was supposed to prompt the specific "What happened to" line.

Or remember the whole Teletubby controversy? Oh, Tinky Winky is purple, the gay color; Oh, Tinky Winky has a triangle on his head, the gay symbol; Oh, Tinky Winky carries a purse, something a gay man would do. Actually... considering they originated in the U.K., isn't it actually common for European men to carry purse-like carrying cases with them? So, purple and triangles aside as possibly being coincidences, the "purse" thing could very well be just a European thing that Americans didn't really understand.

Woah! That's so surreal and crazy! I probably would have enjoyed it on some level, but not the one intended.

What ever happened to boycotting the Teletubbies for being flat out creepy? Eeek! Are they still on?

 

[RedPiggy]

So much persecution and bigotry of gay people is done in the name of God or the pretense of "The Bible says..." when a study of the original texts reveal that what we come to think of today as "being gay" and loving relationships between gay people (there are bad relationship choices people engage in regardless of the genders involved) simply were never even there.

My issue, other than the severe lack of perspective (seriously? if I don't wear 100% cotton I'm going to **** for all eternity?), is that there are at least two instances I can easily think of where there were outright accusations (David) and implied accusations combined with desperate plot-torturing to make an angry hetero not a homosexual (Jesus). True, Saul was psychotic, but given the supreme crying jag after Jonathan dies, I just can't believe the rumors flying around at the time didn't have SOME kind of merit. The fact David conquers nearly every woman in a 100 mile radius seems to be an attempt to make David into a "man's man". Analyze his relationships with women and you find he NEVER has the same kind of loyalty he has with Jonathan. Women are just tools or prizes for him. Jesus, on the other hand, hangs out with 12 men, might be in love with a woman but because Christianity might implode if Jesus has a girlfriend, ironically make it look even MORE like a coverup of what Jesus actually wants. Other than the perfumed rubdown by that one chick, where else does Jesus show any kind of loving respect for women? He's emotionally distancing Himself from His mother, insults a gentile woman due to peer pressure, doesn't get married, berates "flesh and blood" relationships as often as He can spit them out, etc. Again, this is not conclusive, but the fact religion goes to such great lengths to make these characters into "men" surely does raise some eyebrows.

and he's noticed a slow decline in people attending his sermons and such, he falls asleep that night

Of course, for as we all know, morality can only be measured by church attendance.