I certainly am not at a loss for words, as I have very strong feelings AGAINST this film.

This film is out to persuade others to “rethink” the morals and values that we live by.

Here in small town USA, we often feel safe and secure and a bit sheltered but this is no longer the case. More often then not, we Christians are faced with fighting for morals and values. We are fighting for our FAMILIES!

It is films like this that is tearing apart the very fabric that makes families strong.

I will contact the Library and voice my concern, if this film is showed, I will no longer support the Coudersport Library.

‎2 Peter 2:1-3- But there were also false prophets among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you. They will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the sovereign Lord who bought them—bringing swift destruction on themselves. Many will follow their shameful ways and will bring the way of truth into disrepute. In their greed these teachers will exploit you with stories they have made up. Their condemnation has long been hanging over them, and their destruction has not been sleeping.

In his letter to the church at Rome, the Apostle Paul adds his condemnation to homosexuality, when he writes:

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Like…wise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.”(Romans 1:26-27, NKJV)

In Homosexuality: A Biblical View, Greg Bahnsen puts it bluntly:

“God’s verdict on homosexuality is inescapably clear. His law is a precise interpretation of the sexual order of creation for fallen man, rendering again His intention and direction for sexual relations. When members of the same sex (homo-sexual) practice intercourse with each other…they violate God’s basic creation order in a vile and abominable fashion.”

Hasn’t the Tea Party been insisting that we follow the constitution? Or have they chosen to ignore that pesky First Amendment with its protection of freedom of speech?

The story on Coudy.com says that “The film promotes Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender equality, …” As someone who has seen the film several times, it believe that statement misrepresents the film.

While equality is something to be aspired, the film really is about promoting conversation and the exchange of ideas.

I can think of no better place for that discourse than a public library –– a place whose purpose is to be a place for ideas, information and discourse.

Dan I never said said anything about hate. Nor did my post sound hateful at all. NO ONE should hate ANYONE who is gay. That goes against what the Bible teaches. We are not to hate anyone, but hate what keeps them in bondage to sin.

I am a Christian and I use the Bible as a base for my families daily living. The Bible clearly states being gay is unnatural and is a sin. Of course for some who are not Christians and even some who are, find this immiscible.

Everyone is entitled to an viewpoint and or an opinion. I am not judging anyone, merely stating the facts as I see them.

What about the rights and liberties granted to Christians under the constitution? I’m not going to whine, but it is very clear that “some” put all of us into a catgory and view as haters of others if they do not think like we do.

It is my right to view a gay lifestyle as sin, according to the words I read in the Bible. Period, it’s my view. Thank you.

I’m glad we have libraries & courageous librarians who support education & freedom of speech & dialogue, all of which are vital to a working democracy.

I would encourage anyone to go and see this film.

I learned about how a young man, his family, school and community were affected by reactions to his sexual orientation.

I appreciate the efforts people are making to create more just and caring communities. I am glad to see people who want to build bridges across the divides of stereotypes & suspicion.

Thank you Coudersport Library & those involved in the film “Out in the Silence.”

When one actually sees this film, 2 things will quickly become evident. First it is obvious from his description that the quoted Pastor Pete Tremblay has not, and hence condemns from a point of ignorance. Second it is just that condemnation born of ignorance that is portrayed and protested against in the film.

The film is not about homosexuality as some allege, any more than it is an attack on Evangelical Christians as Tremblay alleges. It is not in support of Gay marriage as is oft supposed, nor is it in any way an attack upon conventional marriage. It is about the Holiest of Christian values, love, as in “A new command I give you: Love one another.” (John 13:3)Yes there are people of alternative lifestyles represented, just as there are persons of various “Christian” persuasions. The film is not about them, it is about healing the rift between them. It is about tolerance of varying perspectives. It is not an attack upon your lifestyle or beliefs, it is a proposal that other people’s lifestyles and beliefs, no matter how diametrically opposed, can and do have value, and to have yours tolerated, you must tolerate the others. As so succinctly put, ”Do unto others what you would have them do unto you.” (Matthew 7:12).

According to Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, “A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices. The correct use of the term requires the elements of intolerance, irrationality, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs. The term has evolved to refer to persons hostile to people of differing race, ethnicity, nationality, sexual orientation and religion in modern English usage.” I warn you that you will see bigots in the film. I urge you to see the film, then decide which ones they are, and which ones the Christians are. I suggest that they are not mutually exclusive.

I support your Library’s courage in bringing Out in the Silence to Coudersport, to present an opposing position, to promote discourse, to counter intolerance, irrationality, and animosity, to educate the people, for only through education does understanding and tolerance evolve.

Stacey Gray, Carlton PA.

First off, the movie doesn’t really focus on the marriage issue. However, if the library did present such a film, I think that a far better response would not be to silence all debate, but show additional sides of the issue.

Surely, you are not suggesting that every taxpayer in Potter County approves of every holding by the library? Should people only be presented with materials and viewpoints with with they are already comfortable? Is there a minimum percentage of public approval that is required for a particular viewpoint or info to be heard? If that’s the case, then how is the general public ever to be informed if only ideas that are part of the mainstream are presented. There was a time when we believed women should not have the right to vote, or that it was morally acceptable to keep other human beings as slaves. What was the required percentage of public support before materials on those could have been available at libraries?

Would Christians willingly accept libraries that didn’t include their viewpoints if they were in an area where their religion was the minority? As a parallel example, I strongly disagree with most of the viewpoints of Sarah Palin. However, even in a predominantly politically progressive municipality, I don’t think that the majority should have the right to suppress any sort of materials in a library about her. I am confident enough that in the free marketplace of ideas, truth and reason will eventually win out.

Consider the message that this also sends to GLBT people and their families in Potter County. Effectively, you are telling them that their existence is so offensive that it can’t be shown in a public venue. (Hmm, doesn’t strike me as what my understanding of the teachings of Jesus seem to be about, and I think that the pastor in the film and other clergy I know might conceivably back me up on that one.)

Hmm, last I checked, there were books and materials at my library that are Christian and deal with that, so my tax dollars already are being used that way. But that’s okay, there are materials at the library about probably just about every other religious orientation, including atheism and agnosticism. So long as they all have equal access, that’s fine.

May I point out the the word for homosexuality as referring to a mode of being as an aspect of categorizing a person didn’t exist until 1850? There were people who would very likely have chosen to identify that way if they had access to that term, and some who might not have, but

I was at a film screening with a panel discussion several months ago that included a theology professor. A woman stood up with her Bible and quoted a passage that included the word homosexual. The theology professor (who had earned his doctorate a while back) pointed out that the language that the Bible originally would have been written didn’t have such a word. This effectively means that claiming that the Bible says something explicitly about homosexuality is akin to claiming that it says something explicitly about a representative democracy, such as we have now.

Similarly, I can’t imagine that there is an issue extant that some religious institutions have not objected to an interpretation of what the opposing side claims that the Bible or Jesus says. I know quite a few Christians who are equally offended by those attempting to defend being anti-gay. And of course, as a Pagan, it’s all sort of moot point from my perspective. (Not unlike pointing out Hindu beliefs about consuming beef or keeping kosher to Christians.)

I must admit to being uncomfortable that this is being represented as a gay vs Christian thing, as if all gay people and their supporters are by definition mutually exclusive from Christians. I am in fairly frequent contact with a Christian church where I live that is welcoming and affirming. It may not be my faith tradition, but I have no doubt that they are completely sincere in their religious beliefs.

Having known gay people who assume that Christian = gay-hating bigots, I feel that it is important to represent the tremendous range (and occasional overlap) in both communities. Years ago, I was one of 2 organizers for our local Pride Picnic. A woman attending made some kind of disparaging remark to the effect of all Christians being anti-gay. As it so happened, the woman who was my co-organizer was a PFLAG mom who saw her faith and Jesus’ message as being about embracing all, including GLBT people. (So, she was there promoting a Christian agenda according to her extremely sincere beliefs.) I felt mortified that this woman, who had given so freely of her time, might have overheard this remark. So, framing this as 2 mutually and irrevocably antagonistic sides hurts BOTH sides.

Thanks again Michael. I am glad that you have chosen to engage in a meaningful and respectful debate.

I would like to comment on the word “homosexuality” as the Bible refers (or does not for that matter) to it.

I believe you are correct, the word homosexuality did not exist when the Bible was written.

However, as I understand it the Bible addresses homosexuality by declaring that ‘A man lying with a man’ or ‘A woman lying with a woman’ is a sin.

So, while they did not have a ‘word’ for homosexuality, they certain understood and addressed the concept.

The one thing that I do take issue with is that when making arguments against what the Bible says, people use manipulations, such as saying that the word homosexuality did not exist when the Bible was written.

All too often such technicalities are used to make an argument.

As for all Christians hating homosexuals and such, I agree with you Michael. I don’t believe that any real Christians hate anyone, they simply do not agree, and feel compelled to not condone what they believe is a sin.

I have tried to leave my personal beliefs and opinions out of the article, but the comments are a great place for them, and so allow me to clarify my personal belief on the matter.

I am a straight man, however I have absolutely no hate or ill feelings towards homosexuals. I believe that people should be free to do as they please with their lives, and I am no one to criticize how they live their lives.

I do however see why some Christians feel that the sanctity of marriage would be compromised by allowing gay people to be married.

For thousands of years marriage was a religious matter, and not one of the state. Personally I believe this entire thing went wrong when the government took it upon themselves (and surely with the help of a great Christian influence at the time) to implement marriage as a state institution.

There seems to be a simple, yet impossible, solution to the entire situation.

Do away with marriage as a state law. Leave marriage up to the churches and various religious organizations that subscribe to the concept of marriage, and instead install a state ‘unified co-habitation’ if you will.

This would allow Christians to maintain what they view as their religious right, but would afford those who are not religious the same rights and benefits under law that married couples receive.

Although I feel this is not only the best and simplest solution, I doubt it would ever gain popularity on either side of the fence.

Either way, thanks again for your input Michael!

Thank you 7:25.

I have always been of the belief that one should listen, understand, and then digest another perspective or point of view before formulating one’s own opinion.

I hope that we can all continue to engage in a respectful debate with open minds regarding this matter.

Thank you all for remaining respectful while discussing this matter.

CoudyNews.com Editor,
Tim Hallman

Mr. Hallman:

Thank you for continuimg the discussion. In response to your question:

Back in the 1960s, my mother served upon a jury called to evaluate the morality of a supposedly pornographic film per the new community standards rulings. The question was, was it pornographic in regards to the morality of the day and should it then be censored. The verdict rendered was that while the individuals of that jury personally found it to be offensive, they could not and would not cause censorship as it was apparent by the film’s popularity and certain other aspects of the community (adult book stores and theaters) that apparently some people liked that sort of thing, and were entitled to their opinions as well

I have on several occasions found things in my public library that I personally found offensive. I did not have to read them. But on other occasions in researching other matters, I have found those same materials to be requisite to the research.

In that perspective, were this film a book instead, would there be any question as to the appropriateness of it’s inclusion in the public library? I would suggest that that there would be no question at all. And in that scenario, would a book review where persons met to discuss that book be a proper use of the publicly supported Library facility? Again I would suggest that it would be a totally appropriate use of the facility.

So now we have 3 sets of circumstance, the dissemination of varying perspective, the public discourse, and the question of relativity to the community. I believe all to be obviously in favor. The information needs to be available – especially in the rural communities without the resources available elsewhere -; there needs to be public discourse on the issue as evidenced by the issue being brought and the protest in your community; and it is relative as obviously there are intolerant people and their victims.

The remaining question is intent. Having seen the film, I will state my opinion that it does not promote any position except that of tolerance and acceptance of varying perspective. That is the film’s message. I will suggest that as with any other artistic work, each person interprets differently, sees their own qualities/deficiencies and message. As with so many things, what one gets out of it depends upon what perspective one brings into it. Let me tell you mine.

The prompting story is about a young man and the torment he suffers at the hands of society when he comes out as being Gay, how he is abused by first his school mates and then the administration, and then the community. The film then goes on to document several similar stories in the same community, and the attempts to find healing. My granddaughter attended that same school system at about that same time. Diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor at 9, she suffered the chemo and radiation treatments that caused her hair loss and stunted her growth. She was bald and now looks like a Downs child. She suffered the merciless torment of her school mates as well, and was eventually victimized by the administration, and ostracized by the community, hence, my passion for this story. If this film was about her, would there be any question as to it’s appropriateness for presentation and promoting public discourse on healing societal attitudes towards handicapped people?

And if it were a documentary about Rosa Parks in Montgomery, Alabama?

Or Betty Friedan?

I am sure the answers to all would be that they would be appropriate. Therefore I have to say that I find this film, recognized on it’s production merits and as a recognized instrument for social change, is indeed appropriate for the public venue. The only objection I have heard so far is that it offends some people because of the perceived orientation issue. I am not aware that attendance is mandatory.

With regards to the Church analogy you suggest I would have to take a Constitutional position based upon Supreme Court Justice David Souter’s 1994 writing for the majority, concluding that “government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.” That being said, if one wishes to allow one Church to utilize the public building as a pulpit, then one must equally allow every other religion and non religion the same opportunity. If that is the case than I would have no issue as to the suggested use, though I suggest it would be a dangerous precedent to set, and that it is indeed not the case.

I have, and I believe rightfully so, protested a Church group sponsored assembly in that same school system. My issues were 2; that the program promoted intolerant positions toward certain members of the community, and more importantly that attendance was mandatory, hence the other religions and irreligious were improperly subjected to that group’s propaganda without opportunity to avoid it. That clearly is not the case here. Whether you believe it to be propaganda would be your decision after viewing, whether or not to attend is your decision before.

To be informed on the issue is an obligation though.

Now I will ask you a question:
In a recent decision by ”Judge Joseph Tauro of the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in Gill v. Office of Personnel Management and Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Department of Health and Human Services, declaring the denial of federal rights and benefits to lawfully married Massachusetts couples under the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) to be unconstitutional. Judge Tauro, who was nominated to the bench by President Richard Nixon, held in Gill that DOMA violates the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of equal protection of the laws, concluding that “indeed, Congress undertook this classification for the one purpose that lies entirely outside of legislative bounds, to disadvantage a group of which it disapproves. And such a classification, the Constitution clearly will not permit.” (http://www.hrc.org/14624.htm ) Do you feel that this protest is similarly based in an attempt to disadvantage and silence a group which it disapproves? Does it not concern you that the disapproval is based in irrational prejudice and ignorance?

Mr. Hallman:
Following the discussion, I must say that I agree with your comments regarding the improper institutionalization of “marriage” . I think that we would all be better served if we were to focus upon the legal contract represented by what has traditionally been referred to as marriage. Call that civil union or domestic commitment or anything you like, but don’t use the term marriage. Propose instead one rule under which all couples may apply and leave their sexuality completely out of it. Provide the equality of a contract of commitment to all persons Let churches use the terms Marriage and Annulment, and decide whom they will bestow the sacrament of Marriage upon, and withdraw it from. Let us all be subject to the same State opportunity for civil commitment and the dissolution there of generally known as divorce. Allow all people the same opportunity, the same “life equality” of employment benefits and civil and legal rights, and yes, even the misery of divorce! That to me is Equality, and separation of Church and State.
The issue is, of course, that some legally married couples have been denied rights and benefits available to spouses, but denied to them becausethey are same sex couples. Local ordinances and Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), a federal law adopted in 1996, define marriage solely as the union of a man and a woman. In July 2009, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts filed a suit challenging the federal government’s requirement that in operating federally-funded programs, including Medicaid and the administration of veterans’ cemeteries, the state must treat some of its married citizens differently than others. There are over 1,000 rights, benefits and responsibilities tied to marriage under federal law, including Social Security survivors’ benefits, family and medical leave, equal compensation as federal employees, and immigration rights, among others. The fact that all those denied these rights, benefits and responsibilities are homosexual couples is clearly discrimination, hence Judge Tauro’s ruling.
In Judaism there is a formal contract called a Kahtuba (sp.) which is the contract between the couple. They are married when they sign that Kahtuba (sp.), which is done normally in a small and private gathering of couple & witnesses. The ceremony is just the blessing of that union by the congregation through its Rabbi and by its God. I think this is a pretty good example. Let the couple – all couples – apply to the State not for a license, but to register their contract – just like we register wills and deeds and probates, and let it be official when the documents are filed. Let the congregations decide who to bless.

With regards to the Christian aversion to “sin”, how is it that “sin” is so oft manipulated per the then issue at hand? Shellfish are a sin, except of course when served in cocktail sauce. With regards to the Christian Church’s stand on homosexuality, I do not understand how a Christian religion based in love can turn its back on love. While I do not see anything referencing sexual orientation in the original 10, I do see that Commandment 9 says “Thou shalt not bear false witness”. As far as I’m concerned those are the universally accepted words of God, any dogma of any Church are the words of man. So how do they suggest that the words of man should override the words of God? Or the words of a Congressional ruling take precedence over the word of God? Lying is a sin, except of course when required by the Military’s Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell mandate. How can anyone sponsor anything that demands one bear false witness? How can anyone be opposed to ending such a directive to sin? But we see that opposition as well. Why? What are people afraid of? Equality?

I’d like to make 2 comments. The dialogue generated here has been awesome and good to read people share ideas back and forth. I’d also like to comment more directly to Mr Hallman’s question about the use of tax dollars and the use of a public library. Sir, I am a gay man, and I’ve paid my taxes for as long as I have been old enough to work. Why shouldn’t MY tax dollars go to support the free exchange of ideas and dialogue? Isn’t that a cornerstone of our democracy. In fact, I can think of few uses of OUR taxes that are better spent. The same holds true for the use of a public library. It should be open for the free expression of ideas by all of the public.

I would feel differently, if this was a “gay film” of either fiction or non-fiction possibly, and if it had the intention to serve as propaganda. But I honestly don’t think it is or does. It is a documentary- it documents real people and their real lives. As someone who has made some film, I actually think Joe and Dean did a very good job of showing multiple sides of the issue, and trying to allow differing viewpoints and attitudes to be expressed, including those of folks like Diane Gramley, who chose not to speak when given a chance.

I’m glad to read that you will be seeing the film. I look forward to reading what you have to say, after you have seen the film.

Editor’s response:
The question raised about the tax dollars isn’t so much about the GLBT issue at hand, but whether or not a promoted film that could possibly become commercialized should be shown at an institution that is paid for by tax dollars.

You say the film is merely a documentary, but it has been promoted commercially. When the library receives books and other material, it does not take out newspaper ads to sway the public into reading that material.

I believe this is the difference, and why people have taken exception to the film. One cannot simply argue that the film should be treated exactly the same as typical material at the library, if it is promoted differently.

There are many people who believe drugs should be legalized. There is an entire sub-culture of drug users, probably larger than the GLBT community. If drugs are legalized, and it seems that it may actually happen someday, people would still take offense to a movie being shown at the library that promoted the use of drugs. Especially if that movie were advertised to people’s children.

You may say, “hey wait a minute how dare you compare drug users to the GLBT community”, and to that I say ask a long time drug user if they don’t feel the same about their lifestyle as you do about yours.

As for the film not serving as propaganda, then I ask why was the film advertised and promoted so much? Propaganda can be defined as the spreading of ideas or information to influence or introduce others to a cause. Certainly there must be some type of cause, or no one would have reason to promote the film.

Thank you Thomas

Welcome to the 18th century, Coudersport.

Screen the film, what are you afraid of. This is America. Free speech and EDUCATION. People have a right to make up their own minds. Stop the bigotry. Really, find something else to be pissed about. Not love.

Having been reared in rural PA and attending the Free Methodist Church while growing up, and all the while knowing that I was gay but remaining silent, is not something that any other human being should ever have to endure or tolerate. The pain that one suffers either internally by remaining silent, or externally by coming out and facing bigotry has finally got to come to an end. Being gay is not a choice. I did not choose to want to be called names and threatened by others while growing up. I sincerely hope that those of you who saw the film, walked away with an understanding of the torment and anguish that one who is gay must live with everyday.

That being said, I have read the articles and comments posted and I am actually finding myself deeply missing my rural PA roots. Everyone there should be proud of the dialog this has evoked among the community. I wish you all well on your journey towards understanding and tolerance. God bless.

Editor’s Response:
Hi Bill, and thanks for sending in your comment! I completely agree with you in that NO ONE, especially young people, should ever have to endure torment or heckling for any reason whatsoever.

Jody on July 28th, 2010 12:51 pm

Screen the film, what are you afraid of. This is America. Free speech and EDUCATION. People have a right to make up their own minds. Stop the bigotry. Really, find something else to be pissed about. Not love.
…………….

Yes Jodi (I am sure it is NOT your name) we do have free speech and here is mine, Shut up!

Who cares? The POINT in the whole matter was this.

Why should we pay for ANYTHING that we do not morally agree with?

We do NOT have to agree with the gay lifestyle and for anyone’s information, for some of us, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to agree with it. Something deep inside our souls say it is ABNORMAL and is a MORAL issue!

This is not a issue of civil rights or equality, you all can live your lives the way you want to, it does not mean I have to accept it or PAY FOR IT

You can not force individuals to have certain beliefs, so get over it! I am also against abortion, I feel it is wrong to kill and baby and NO ONE can force me think think otherwise.

I don’t care if these issues are accepted by some in society but the fact remains, they are not accept by everyone. SO pushing the gay lifestyle onto those who could care less how you live, it over kill.

Get over it. Live your life the way you want and STOP accusing others of hating you!!

I do not know want to say because i have strong feelings to wards this type of film!