Good news! Giglio has withdrawn from the inauguration.
I am honored to be invited by the President to give the benediction at the upcoming inaugural on January 21. Though the President and I do not agree on every issue, we have fashioned a friendship around common goals and ideals, most notably, ending slavery in all its forms.
Due to a message of mine that has surfaced from 15-20 years ago, it is likely that my participation, and the prayer I would offer, will be dwarfed by those seeking to make their agenda the focal point of the inauguration. Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years. Instead, my aim has been to call people to ultimate significance as we make much of Jesus Christ.
Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing, thus I respectfully withdraw my acceptance of the President’s invitation. I will continue to pray regularly for the President, and urge the nation to do so. I will most certainly pray for him on Inauguration Day.
Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God’s grace and mercy in our time of need.
Notice that he does not withdraw his anti-gay message — it’s just not a “priority” right now. Anyone want to take bets whether he considers homosexuality one of those forms of slavery he’d like to end?
Could one of the presidential advisors please mention to him that it doesn’t matter what religious leader they try to recruit for this job, he or she is going to be an asshat?
Oh, wait, strike that: I have an interesting suggestion. Bring in the Rev. Barry Lynn — I think he’d probably do a good job of offering a secular benediction.
Yeah. Those pesky liberals. How dare they imply that human rights matter?
Oh no! My actual words are coming back to bite me in the ass! It’s all the gay’s fault! And their agenda.. *mutter* something…something…
Not suprising at all that Giggly has not said he believes in anything else but what he did say in his lovely anti-homosexual diatribe. He is still one more bigot that really hopes no one notices and one more Christian who thinks that his and his version alone is the only “right” one. His core message and goals are still hate anyone who doesn’t agree with us, try to force our narrow little minds on everyone, and pray, becuase gee, that’s so effective.
Ah! He is now a martyr, persecuted because he dared to speak out against Big Gay™. His Freeze Peach™ has been put in the juicer.
Bryan Fischer is having an orgasm over this.
I have a modicum of sympathy for the “That was 15 years ago” defense. I dunno if I ever held any views that odious, but I certainly would not want to be judged on the views I held even 5 or 10 years ago.
What’s missing, of course, is a repudiation of those views. If Giglio came out and said, “That was what I believed to be true then, but I now see I was badly mistaken and I apologize for those lives I negatively effected”, then he’d have a reasonable case to take the “15 years ago” defense. As it stands, it’s more like, “I don’t say that stuff aloud very much anymore.” Yeeeeaaaahhh….
I’m surprised he didn’t just brazen it out. Maybe he had a twinge of conscience? That’s fatal for a preaching career.
“as we make much of Jesus Christ”
This phrase is cracking me right up for some reason. Yes, you will make much of him, won’t you? It almost sounds cute.
So how does this work? By submitting to the “lord” and committing your life to doing the “lord’s” work, you end slavery?
Of course, I should have known. The clergy are no longer slaves to the “lord”, they have laity to be slaves. People brainwashed into their delusions who willingly perform unpaid work for an organization are not slaves, they are self indentured. No, no slavery at all in the church.
I’ve seen this movie before.
This is the part where we’re called “intolerant” for calling a bigot a bigot.
He’s not changed his mind, mind you, he’s just had other priorities. What could be a bigger priority?
What does that even mean? It sounds like he’s trying to spread his religion around so he gets validation for it from other people.
I’m pretty sure PZ will be getting a call from the prez. soon to replace Gigi. Who else would suffice?
What if we got Brother Sam Singleton to do the inauguration “benediction”?
“Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing…”
How can this not be of his choosing? Nobody *forced* him to say those things 15 years ago; he did that on his own initiative. Or maybe his choice would be to sweep that all under the rug for a few days, and how dare those agendists keep him from whitewashing his own history!
Also: “Our nation is deeply divided and hurting, and more than ever need God’s grace and mercy in our time of need.” Someone might should remind him that part of the reason for the divide is that people like him keep insisting that every single person *needs* what he’s selling. This statement may as well read “there won’t be any more disagreement if everybody just agrees with me.”
Heh!
If only gambling were so easy.
I’d love to see Chris Hedges do it. He has a M.Div., and the potential to piss off just about everyone. Not the best friend of atheism (nor worst enemy), but a righteous dude.
I do not believe in Chris Hedges.
P.Z., please please please suggest someone from the Nation of Islam or Bishop Gene Robinson. Watching the Far Right’s exploding heads and foaming mouths would be worth the pain of listening to the benediction.
You have to wonder what he’s been saying about homosexuality in more recent times. The google is too swamped over his withdrawal to research it. Perhaps he just got smart-ish and uses code, like:
What might the nation be so deeply divided over?
I say Obama should just skip the idea of having any religious leader at the inauguration. Go straight to the top. Get Mr. Deity to do it.
Whether or not human rights apply to those who are not cis-gendered straight white middle aged college-educated Christian men?
What a dirt bag.
I’m confused, though -doesn’t his kind kind of seek the spotlight? I find it incredulous that the problem is that the issue isn’t of his choosing. Doesn’t he like the attention?
Maybe my concern is misplaced, but I feel I have to ask: Mr. Giglio, what’s wrong? Are you okay?
I very much think that the value of this statement depends on his definition of ‘all forms of slavery’ – as an example, I wonder what his stance on abortion rights and access is? My definition of ‘slavery’ certainly includes the use of legal force to deny women their bodily autonomy and compel them to carry a foetus to term against their will, and indeed in a fashion that might imperil their own health or lives. I would argue it is one of the most widespread forms of slavery in the modern world, and certainly the form most widely endorsed by self proclaimed ‘moral’ figures in soceity. I somehow doubt that Giglio’s definition of slavery would be so comprensive.
I wonder if Giglio would care to prove me wrong by publicly denouncing the so called ‘pro-life movement’ as the ‘pro-enslavement of women’ movement it really is?
I have a sneaking suspicion that the only response I would get is the sound of crickets.
I notice that he has not repudiated his own earlier statements, so it is reasonable to suppose that he hasn’t actually chnged his mind but instead has merely learned not to speak his bigotry aloud, or at least not to do so in front of potential witnesses or near recording devices.
I don’t consider going from being an open bigot to a closet bigot to be much of an improvement.
And objecting to that message is making our agenda the focal point of the inauguration.
When it gets to the end of that inauguration ceremony and the tio says “so help you god”, I’ve always wished that someone would say, “Fuck, I’ll take any help I can get.”
Hey, he didn’t choose for someone to found out what he said, in public, about homosexuality!
truthspeaker @ 23;
With bigots like Giglio, the people who steadfastly point out that gay people actually are human beings deserving of full equality are always the ‘real’ villains of the peace, thoughtlessly forcing their agenda of the personhood of gay people into platforms intended to deal with ‘more important’ issues like bible bashing. They keep remorselessly ‘hounding’ him for nothing more than a little unrepentant homophobia as if it’s a big deal.
Poor, poor little Giglio. Why does no one feel his pain? *plays the world’s smallest violin*
tsig @6
The Presidential Inaugural Committee issued a statement that makes it sound sort of like he might have been asked to leave instead of him deciding to bow out on his own:
Right, because the only cause we liberals have is GLBT rights, which we want to make the focal point of the inauguration….
Ogvorbis: You think? And all those agendas* that trouble them: homosexuality, abortion, women’s rights, “immigration” (itself a code word for brown people). Yes, it’s truly a sin not to be white, straight, male, Christian, and privileged.
* I love his use of that word. It speaks to the fact that his religion is essentially the business of marketing and branding.
re: agendas
I think we should try to trick Them into using ‘agendae’.
I agree that the optimal solution is not to have any sort of religious presence at a state function like this. But as long as we have to have one, why does it ALWAYS, ALWAYS have to be evangelical? You’d think main line Protestant denominations simply no longer existed.
I nominate Katharine Jefferts Schori, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church USA. She’s the first and only female primate in the Anglican Communion, she’s a strong LGBT ally, she’s pro-choice and pro-Planned Parenthood, and she’s a trained scientist. And her daughter is an Air Force pilot. Oh, and the conservatives in the ESA hated her so much thatwhen she appointed a gay bishop they all left, but she wouldn’t let them take church assets with them, and she is regularly accused of heresy for not taking the whole “accepting Christ as your personal Lord and Saviour” schtick seriously.
Oh, wait. She pissed people off who weren’t liberals! Can’t have that, nosirree.
Clearly, speaking on this issue has not been in the range of my priorities in the past fifteen years.
Because it cuts into the revenue stream. Example: this disinvitation.
Hmm, yes, because demonizing folks who aren’t cis-hetero–that’s not an “agenda” at all!
Why, to hear some people talk, you’d think that politics is no place for an agenda. Who needs a plan or a goal? This is government by Schrodinger, where we have no idea what happens. It’s all random, because no one has an agenda to push.
That would explain the anti-gay position, though. This week, gays can’t marry. Next week, if the atom flies right, gay marriage will be mandatory. The week after that, there will be no marriage allowed at all, and the following week only pets will be permitted to marry (each other, but only if they’re from the same litter). SUDDENLY IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
I know this is kind of off topic but I’ve never really understood why people who aren’t homosexual are refered to as “straight” It’s not like homosexuals are “crooked” or anything. Not crooked as in dishonest but like “there was a crooked old man who walked a crooked mile. Just a thought…
I reiterate my suggestion from the other thread: he should pick a rabbi to do the benediction. It would actually show some religious diversity instead of just another evangelical Christian, and it would give the religious right fits trying to complain about it without showing their hypocrisy and anti-semitism.
A good working definition of evangelism, if you ask me.
I had never even thought of that.
Okay, self, that’s another bit of cultural baggage you need to shed.
But I’m a heterosexual white middle-aged male, why should I change?
Self, shut up and get with the programme.
Thanks for pointing that out, Barklikeadog. That is buying into the patriarchal and religious paradigm. I shall endeavor to do better.
Barklikeadog: I believe you are accurately describing why that is the term used.
This is why I use words such as “cis” and “hetero”. (Note: I am cisgender and hetero.) Some of my gay friends have objected to the term “straight”; whereas “hetero” doesn’t offend me in the slightest, and the meaning is clear, so why not use it?
Similarly, I find “cis” to be a very useful term. The range of [not cisgender] is complex and variable and defies a single term; whereas the state of being cisgender is extremely common and not particularly complex or confusing.
I have never thought about the term “straight” that way, although it sounds really obvious now that I’ve read it.
I think there was a not bad reason for using ‘straight’ back in the day.
But damned if I can remember what it was.
Out it goes.
geniusloci made a good observation. Why not choose an Episcopal, United Methodist, United Church of Chirst, or ELCA pastor to do the
hocus pocusbenediction? We are assured by liberal Christians that those are still the mainstream denominations that most American Christians belong to. They’re certainly the denominations that contain the most Democrats. So what’s the deal?He means “as we make much money of Jesus Christ”
that was kinda where my thoughts were leaning to. After lurking around Ftb and reading some of the posts by everyone here I’ve come to realize my heterosexual white middle-aged male attitudes needed some self adjusting. I just never gave the plights of others who aren’t hetero much thought. I just don’t encounter people a lot different from me. I had a very narrow focus. It’s like the people that live around here (Sonora, CA) I’ve never been in a place that was so “white”. They have no thoughts about other races and those “different” from them. I come from the south so I found this really strange. Still do really. I’d like to go somewhere where there is a lot more color and diversity.
I’m struck not only by the frequent meanness of the godbotherers, but by their near-constant arrogance.
Yes, can you imagine the tragedy? The world wouldn’t hear the prayer you would have offered!
Huh. I’ve used “straight” for years when talking about heterosexuals. I’ve never thought about what it actually means. Thanks barklikeadog.
Whoah, whoa. I don’t think we need to throw “straight” overboard just yet. I do not know its etymology but I do know that it’s become an accepted term used by people of all sexualities with no negative connotations. Even if it were (and we have no evidence yet that it is) implying gay people are “crooked” it is so far divorced from that that it barely or never occurs to most people.
It’s good to question these things, but it’s also good to do so with restraint. We don’t need to be on a hair trigger right from the starting line on every word.
I have been directed by the HOMINTERN to inform you all that the term “straight” is authorized for general usage.
If you wish to substitute “hetero” that is also authorized, but do not pair it with its typical antonym “homo” unless you have been trained and certified in Advanced Language Queering.
Oh lord. The fact that you never thought about what it “actually means” (and you don’t know that it does) is an indication that maybe this is non-issue. Really—I love you all but when this topic comes up you jump down the rabbit hole awful quick!
Ah, I see that HOMINTERN directive was an all-points bulletin.
*snicker
Oh good, Mr Giglio really doesn’t need a bigger platform, he’s already too well known IMO as it is.
According to the infallible Wikipedia:
“The term “straight” originated as a mid-20th century gay slang term for heterosexuals, ultimately coming from the phrase “to go straight” (as in “straight and narrow”), or stop engaging in homosexual sex.”
Not sure how true it is, of course, although I can remember reading some 50’s-60’s science fiction that refers to gay as “bent” and hetero as “straight”.
Yeah. And I need to point out that a straight guy brought this up with the best of intentions, but a straight guy isn’t necessarily the best person to assign received meanings to words that may have homophobic implications. The reason why should be obvious.
I wish people would stop jumping like a leap frog every time such an issue comes up. It’s getting a little ridiculous and Tumbler SJ-esque. Please know I do not mean to insult or impugn any of my Horde compadres—but it IS getting a little twee and silly.
Back in the good old days, straight was the opposite of hippie. I think it had something to do with being straight laced. Or maybe a straight arrow or straight shooter. It some point it changed or added some new connotations.
At least he’s gone. Turnabout’s fair play, after the brouhaha over a decades old sermon by one of Obama’s former pastors being “anti-white, anti-American”…
Too bad his anti-science and totally infantile style of god-bothering didn’t make the spotlight, though. Baby steps, I suppose. Baby steps…
Good point, Josh.
When Barkslikeadog mentioned this, my first thought was the ‘straight – queer’ (with the archaic definition of queer as ‘strange’ (which may not be accurate but that is the way it was explained to me by my mother)) axis which sounds like an attempted put down to me (a straight hetero white male with privilege out the whazoo) which, if I have to reach that far back in my personal history means that I have not clue what I am talking about.
Sorry Josh, Tony and SGBM.
Is it okay if I still feel more comfortable with ‘straight’?
*shrug*
What Barklikeadog wrote made sense to me. I didn’t intend to go on a “this word is an insult, don’t use it” rampage.
Word up, Josh.
Never heard that word before. I’ll have to look that one up.
Twee is a great word!
Thanks though, all. I said my piece and don’t wanna be all lecture-y.
Ok, points acknowledged. Not really my place to give directives on what’s an anti-gay slur anyway.
It just sounded like an explanation that makes sense. Now that I’ve read them, other explanations make sense too.
Sorry for engaging in this, everyone.
“Bent” is sometimes used to mean gay in the UK, though it’s not massively common these days. Google tells me it’s also the name of a gay magazine.
ॐ
:)
*rereads HOMINTERN directive*
Apologies are not necessary, and discussions of what may be problematic are not to be discouraged, but it is strongly suggested that before stepping from “hmm this might be problematic” to “let us endeavor to stop doing it”, multiple spokespersons of the HOMINTERN should be consulted for more information.
Josh, Official Spokesgay@52:
I read you, Spokesgay!
Not to mention, wikipedia as a source for etymology/usage history? Pffffffft.
I would do away with the benediction entirely and replace it with a toast. Or many toasts.
Can’t we as a nation raise a glass together*?
*Of course, in the spirit of ecumenicism, you could fill your glass with whatever. Like a six-pack.
Here’s a suggestion for a benediction speaker: The Rev. V. Gene Robinson.
He is, after all, a (retired) bishop, of a major church. I also approve of the suggestion of Schiori.
I misread this as Advanced Language Queefing.
“Neither I, nor our team, feel it best serves the core message and goals we are seeking to accomplish to be in a fight on an issue not of our choosing”
As if Giglio didn’t choose to say what he did about homosexuality.
Me too
Echoing SGBM—please don’t be sorry to bring up the conversation. That’s a very good thing indeed and much to be encouraged. Really. My only objection was a too-quick decision.
I’d rather enjoy a benediction from Fr. Guido Sarducci.
machintelligence:
Nope. Square was the opposite of hippie.
Straight has also been used as not-high, as in grass or other drugs.
I always assumed “straight” was akin to “square.” Boringly normal, in other words. The opposite was “gay,” which seemed to imply being the life of some secret party somewhere to which dull pedestrian straights like me would never be invited. I took it as a subtle but relatively innocuous put-down.
I do remember when I was chastised as a child in the mid-1970s for using the word “queer” in its traditional sense, as in, “Isn’t it queer that Vladimir works nights and doesn’t have any mirrors in his house?” The whole idea of being “queer” or “gay” was itself unutterable, and I think kids threw those adjectives around without really even knowing what they meant, just that they were forbidden words. “Gay” was just another word for “lame.”
But when I was a child, even when I was a high school student, I was unaware that any of my classmates might be gay. There were rumors about the female gym teachers, which turned out to be true, actually. But it wasn’t until I had started hearing about the suicides of talented, well-liked alumni in their early twenties that I began to connect the dots. I wonder how many of those kinds of epithets, deliberate and inadvertent, they had suffered? I know I uttered plenty of insensitive, thoughtless things when I was growing up, not realizing the impact they might have, but I’m just glad anti-gay epithets weren’t among them.
I’m old enough to remember Lavender, light in the loafers and sprinkled with fairy dust being used.
Also, it cannot be denied that Bishop Schori has a ridiculously awesome purple hat. And Aretha did set the bar high.
@Barklikeadog #34 –
It comes from a different sense of “straight,” as in “conventional,” “ordinary” or “mainstream.”
I nominate Tim Minchin. Entertaining as well as inspirational.
He has a couple appropriate songs all set to go.
According to my go-to etymology source (etymonline.com), this “straight”-as-in-conventional business can all be blamed on the Bible!
Feh, hit the wrong button. Anyway, “straight” into use in the Jazz Era of the 20s to describe someone who was not a part of the drug and music scene of the day, meaning someone who was on the “straight and narrow,” a good-two-shoes who was likely to call the cops. It passed from there into other counterculture groups. After Stonewall and the radicalization of the gay liberation movement, it came into use among the gay community.
Isn’t the “straight” logic the same that makes us call the majority’s favored hand with a word that means “correct”?
vaiyt @81: Yes. As a lefty (in the political and handedness senses) myself, I find that both gauche and sinister.
I only do this with people I like as a way teasing and not to hurt feelings, if they are left handed I tell them ” you do know you are writing with the wrong hand?”
I am a northpaw myself. And don’t the Brits drive on the “proper” side of the road?
Brother Sam would be an interesting choice as well :D
Well in the UK in the days of my yoof, the world was divided into “straights” and “heads”.
Quijote I sorta love that you called him the tio.
This is from Louie’s Passion Conferences website:
Because, I’m sure, selling the material is necessary to raise money for his important ministry for the lord.
And this from the Passion City Church website about the church:
Talking about a company’s “DNA” is pure tech industry marketing gibberish.
He/they posted a statement today on the Passion City Church blog about the withdrawal. Here are a couple of pull quotes that caught my eye:
Note that he says his message “addressed” the issue of homosexuality. There is no hint here of reconsidering, much less recanting, his position.
The last sentence is strange. It reads like pesherim, almost like he’s saying that the “gay agenda” emphasis on individual rights has thrown out of balance the right to suppress homosexuality by the collective who consider it a sin.
Then a few paragraphs later:
I’m willing to bet he considers the “implications” of the bibles to be explicit: homosexuality is an “abomination.” Given that, then he probably assumes folks talking about individual rights are just wrong.
Erm, I’m not comfortable with any term that
magicianschiropractors use to describe themselves.Straight chiropractic.
Josh, I totally appreciate you getting the back of all us “straights,” but I was asked by gay friends (and not aggressively activist hypersensitive gay friends) to please avoid the term. So there are definitely some gay men out there who aren’t keen on the term.
I find “hetero” (which I contrast with “gay” or “homosexual,” not “homo”) a rather elegant solution. I also get a perverse kick out of seeing uptight heterosexual people who aren’t used to being referred to by a “label” briefly twitch.
“Het” is also a useful abbreviation of ‘hetero,’ although I have to say that IMO getting upset about ‘straight’ is on the same level as getting upset about ‘niggardly,’ although the latter has largely fallen out of common use regardless.
I use hetro. Works well enough and does often discomfit the het crowd.
I think perhaps ‘Straight’ meaning heterosexual was probably extrapolated from ‘Bent’, a slang and derogatory term for homosexuals that’s no longer in regular use. I rather like the word as reclaimed by gay and pro-gay people, much like the word ‘queer’.
jba55 (#51) wrote “I can remember reading some 50′s-60′s science fiction that refers to gay as “bent” and hetero as “straight”.”
I recall “straight” as opposed to “kinked” or “kinky.” Heinlein?
Forget Barry Lynn I want jerry Dewitt to do the secular benediction.
Why not ask someone from the Wisconsin Sikh temple that was attacked by a white supremicist back in August?
I am hearing both that Giglio declined the invitation because he was embarassed and/or annoyed that his previous hate speech had come to light, and that the Inaugural Committee withdrew the invitation because they were embarassed and/or annoyed that his previous hate speech had come to light. Does anyone know what really happened?
I am strongly inclined to think that Giglio declined, and that the Committee is now trying to spin it as “We really DO care for the gays!”
I’ve always thought of “straight” as a synonym for “square”, as in within the lines, according to the norm, not rocking the boat, following the rules. It’s being part of the mainstream, unlike the people who are part of some subculture.
E.g. I’ve heard it used in distinguishing between straights vs heads (as in psychedelic drug users), where it has the association of “those boring people who just don’t get it.” It’s not straight/good vs. crooked/bad. It’s straight/meh vs. crooked/yay!
YMMV, of course. The term could well have different meaning depending on who’s using it.
Probably useless petition for a rabbi: https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/select-jewish-rabbi-perform-benediction-inauguration/kgsYPHL5
Giglio:
Very helpful indeed. Scripture lost and ended up in the dumpster.
Snort.. Greeeat. First we have Obama’s people saying, “We didn’t realize he was such a complete ass, so we decided to help him out the door and look for someone more sane.”, and now he is covering his ass with, “It was all my idea to leave anyway.” Yeah.. Not sure I entirely believe either that no one bothered to check out how nuts this guy was, until people complained, never mind that he himself decided it was a bad idea to give the speech. But, his claim sounds way more like total bullshit than the other one.
LykeX @ 98:
This was the sense I picked up somewhere along the line. “Straight” as somewhere in the same space as “square,” “mainstream,” “straight-laced,” “serious,” etc. means that it works well as an antonym or contrast for multiple different descriptors, not necessarily playing on “straight” in the sense of “straight line” (though it’s always available for puns). I was under the impression that “straight” as “heterosexual” emerged from early- to mid-20th-century gay subculture as a contrast to “gay.” It makes sense as a mildly dismissive term for heterosexuals given the self-descriptor “gay” — if “we” are “gay” in the “carefree, playful” sense, then “they” are “straight” in the “serious, grim” sense.
Welcome to Oceania, where WAR IS PEACE, FREEDOM IS SLAVERY, and IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH. Now all we need is a perpetual war, and we’d have a complete match….
I nominate The Reverend Horton Heat. Second choice, Reverend Raven of the Chain Smoking Altar Boys. Ms Daisy Cutter, I’m still trying to get all the coffee out my sinuses after seeing your current nym.
I suggested to the White House: “Just a thought. I don’t see how you’ll find a preacher to give your inauguration benediction that would be acceptable to everyone. How about not having a benediction at all? You’ll get just as much negative blather about that and don’t have to embarrass or affect anyone else. And 20% of this nation won’t have to listen to an ineffectual appeal to a bronze age god that doesn’t appear to exist.” I don’t expect they’ll take my suggestion.
Maybe the Rev. Billy F. Gibbons? He could play the benediction on Pearly Gates….
Just a postscript: the Episcopalians win after all. The Rev. Luis Leon of St. John’s Church in Washington, D. C. will deliver the benediction at the Inauguration. St. John’s Church is LGBT-friendly. Called it!
I would like to think this at least signals a move away from appeasing morally-bankrupt evangelicals. Time will tell.
This whole thing has been interesting and leaves one asking… 1. Is the Obama administration really as diverse as it says if they can’t include a Rick Warren or Giglio? 2. Is the LGBT community really as tolerant as it preaches? I’ve heard of homophobia but could this be Gigliophobia?
This whole things proves to me once again that man needs serious help with his sin, his thinking, choices, and behavior. We have a bad tendency as a nation not to get to the heart of the problem… the heart of man. And there is only one cure for that. The good news is that Louie Giglio has a greater platform now for communicating that message to a broken world.
http://darwinbullock.com/2013/01/11/louie-giglio-vs-the-homosexuallgbt-agenda/
Your message has been edited, removing all nonsense and bullshit. Have a nice day.