A Gay Manifesto

[LiberalNation]

As a conservative christian what kind of response would you have to whittman's manifesto?

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm

San Francisco is a refugee camp for homosexuals. We have fled here from every part of the nation, and like refugees elsewhere, we came not because it is so great here, but because it was so bad there. By the tens of thousands, we fled small towns where to be ourselves would endanger our jobs and any hope of a decent life; we have fled from blackmailing cops, from families who disowned or ‘tolerated’ us; we have been drummed out of the armed services, thrown out of schools, fired from jobs, beaten by punks and policemen.

And we have formed a ghetto, out of self-protection. It is a ghetto rather than a free territory because it is sill theirs. Straight cops patrol us, straight legislators govern us, straight employers keep us in line, straight money exploits us. We have pretended everything is OK, because we haven’t been able to see how to change it - we’ve been afraid.

In the past year there has been an awakening of gay liberation ideas and energy. How it began we don’t know; maybe we were inspired by black people and their freedom movement; we learned how to stop pretending form the hip revolution. Amerika in all its ugliness has surfaced with the war and our national leaders. And we are revulsed by the quality of our ghetto life.

Where once there was frustration, alienation, and cynicism, there are new characteristics among us. We are full of love for each other and are showing it; we are full of anger at what has been done to us. And as we recall all the self-censorship and repression for so many years, a reservoir of tears pours out of our eyes. And we are euphoric, high, with the initial flourish of a movement.

We want to make ourselves clear: our first job is to free ourselves; that means clearing our heads of the garbage that’s been poured into them. This article is an attempt at raising a number of issues, and presenting some ideas to replace the old ones. It is primarily for ourselves, a starting point of discussion. If straight people of good will find it useful in understanding what liberation is about, so much the better.

It should also be clear that these are the views of one person, and are determined not only by my homosexuality, but my being white, male, middle class. It is my individual consciousness. Our group consciousness will evolve as we get ourselves together - we are only at the beginning.

I. ON ORIENTATION

1. What homosexuality is: Nature leaves undefined the object of sexual desire. The gender of that object is imposed socially. Humans originally made homosexuality taboo because they needed every bit of energy to produce and raise children: survival of species was a priority. With overpopulation and technological change, that taboo continued only to exploit us and enslave us.

As kids we refused to capitulate to demands that we ignore our feelings toward each other. Somewhere we found the strength to resist being indoctrinated, and we should count that among our assets. We have to realize that our loving each other is a good thing, not an unfortunate thing, and that we have a lot to teach straights about sex, love, strength, and resistance.

Homosexuality is not a lot of things. It is not a makeshift in the absence of the opposite sex; it is not a hatred or rejection of the opposite sex; it is not genetic; it is not the result of broken homes except inasmuch as we could see the sham of American marriage. Homosexuality is the capacity to love someone of the same sex.

2. Bisexuality: Bisexuality is good; it is the capacity to love people of either sex. The reason so few of us are bisexual is because society made such a big stink about homosexuality that we got forced into seeing ourselves as either straight or non-straight. Also, many gays go turned off to the ways men are supposed to act with women and vice-versa, which is pretty fucked-up. Gays will begin to turn on to women when 1) it’s something that we do because we want to, and not because we should, and 2) when women’s liberation changes the nature of heterosexual relationships.

We continue to call ourselves homosexual, not bisexual, even if we do make it with the opposite sex also, because saying “Oh, I’m Bi” is a copy out for a gay. We get told it’s OK to sleep with guys as long as we sleep with women, too, and that’s still putting homosexuality down. We’ll be gay until everyone has forgotten that it’s an issue. Then we’ll begin to be complete.

[KarlMarx]

This thing that you copied is so wrong on so many levels it's hard to know where to begin.

1. Marriage is an institution defined by God in the Book of Genesis... "for that reason a man will leave his mother and his father and cleave unto his wife and the two shall be one flesh". We don't profess to be Christians and recite the Nicene Creed then say "never mind" just because it's now popular to believe that sodomy constitutes a marriage.

2. Being bisexual is bad... it means there are twice the number of people who can infect you or that you can infect.

3. There is a thing called "free will". You aren't a salmon who by instinct must swim up a stream, spawn, and die. You may be attracted to members of your own sex but you don't have to act on it.

4. The problem with this rant you posted is that it confuses love with lust. Love is a lot more than who you sleep with.

5. Like it or not.. the world does not owe you a thing because you're gay. Your not the only ones who have been tormented for being different, have been beaten up, etc. Society now tolerates gays... they don't love you although you seem to believe you're entitled to society's love because your gay. Here's a bit of reality... society doesn't love the rest of us either... they just tolerate us.... so if society tolerates you, you're not doing poorly.

6. There is a thing called a profound and pathological sense of entitlement which many gays seem to be under the sway of. The world does not revolve around you, nor does it revolve around any other group of people you care to mention. Believe it or not there are other people who are far worse off than you, just go to Africa or Asia and find a refugee camp to see what I mean.

7. Disagreeing with you is not hate. In the adult world, people disagree with each other and remain friends. Disagreeing with the radical gay agenda is not hate, it's free speech. If you have a problem with that then grow up.

8.. Yes, I'm what you call a "homophobe".... but guess what... I'm not afraid of gays... I am not insane or in need of a psychiatrist... that "homophobia" label is something that the radical gays cooked up in order to discredit those who disagree with them. If anyone is guilty of being phobic it's gays... you have an obsessive paranoia of Christians and compulsively attach every negative attribute known to Man to them... It's not surprising that you single out your diatribe at Conservative Christians... why not Muslims? After all, they don't agree with the radical gay agenda either... nor do Orthodox Jews for that matter...

Perhaps if you sought out some real Christians, you would find them to be wonderful, caring, and loving people... who will love you but hate your lifestyle...

[LiberalNation]

number 1 helps.

[gabosaurus]

http://importantshock.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/full-of-people-who-care.jpg?w=455&h=341

[logroller]

I read like half a page, got hung up "ask a liberated woman about how het sex is all about the man", then skipped to the let's all be communists...no thanks.
Although, being lumped into a general stereotype that is the heterosexual male, im inclined to foot the bill... or is it, fit the shoe? Regardless, here's a joke in like taste to the content of the OP- whats the definiton of vagina? The box a penis comes in.

[jimnyc]

Sorry, LN, while I don't feel well right now I am willing to allow a lot to slide, but you just posted about 100 paragraphs here of another's work, and I can't take that chance. I just received an email from Google a few days ago that one of our threads from FIVE years ago was in violation of their terms of services and I had 48hrs to delete it or they were going to terminate my adsense account. So while some think I'm just busting chops, copyright infringement is important to big companies and even small blog writers.

I cut your post down to a reasonable amount and anyone and everyone is free to click on the link to read the rest. I really am sorry, not being a jerk!

[fj1200]

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm


... and we must figure out which our common enemies are: police, city hall, capitalism.
...
We’re not, as a group, Marxist or communist. We haven’t figured out what kind of political/economic system is good for us as gays. Neither capitalist or socialist countries have treated us as anything other than non grata so far.
But we know we are radical, in that we know the system that we’re under now is a direct source of oppression, and it’s not a question of getting our share of the pie. The pie is rotten.
...
We can make a direct appeal to young people, who are not so uptight about homosexuality. One kid, after having his first sex with a male said, “I don’t know what all the fuss is about, making it with a girl just isn’t that different.”
...
This means particularly economic and political democracy: common ownership and decision-making with regard to economic and social matters by society as a whole. We believe that economic and social democracy are the necessary conditions for liberation. In Marxist language, we assert that a democratic socialism is the necessary basis for building a classless society, i.e., communism.
...

1970? WTF? I think log had it about right; why is liberation synonymous with communism and common ownership? I can tell you that any progress you want to make is going to be fought because of one point that is made; I'll let you guess which line.

Anyway, I'd say the whole premise of the manifesto, that a certain type of society oppresses gays, is incorrect. People may oppress, governments may oppress/pass oppressive laws, but that can happen in any type of society. I'll argue that freedom and lack of government "protection" is more beneficial to gays, or anyone for that matter, than the opposite. Blacks have been "protected" by the Civil Rights Act since the 60's while gays have not and 45 years later blacks are still trailing society as a whole by almost any measure. Gays right now are better educated and make more money than society as a whole without having the "benefit" of government protection. Why is there the panacea of the passage of laws to gain equality when gays have done just fine without them? I agree that the state shouldn't preference straight marriage over other relationships but the question shouldn't be more laws for some, it should be less laws for all.

Since this was written 40 years ago my question is do you feel that it's still relevant?

[Thunderknuckles]

I tried to get through that but had to stop after a few sentences.
Reminds me too much of that whiny little 5 year old diva that I call my daughter.

[gabosaurus]

I tried to get through that but had to stop after a few sentences.
Reminds me too much of that whiny little 5 year old diva that I call my daughter.

Or, as my daughter tends to say, "boring stuff sucks!" :laugh:

[LiberalNation]

I thought this manifesto was rather retarded myself but had to read for school assignment and must write paper about how I would respond to it from a conservative christian prespective. It's apparently a historical document in the queer movement.

[Thunderknuckles]

I thought this manifesto was rather retarded myself but had to read for school assignment and must write paper about how I would respond to it from a conservative christian prespective. It's apparently a historical document in the queer movement.
Well, in that case, I'll go back and try to plow through it and approach it as if it were my assignment.

[Abbey Marie]

Well, in that case, I'll go back and try to plow through it and approach it as if it were my assignment.

T, surely you have something better to do with your time?

[LiberalNation]

I think he was being sarcastic lol

I paid $1200 for this class er well the army did. Must be important.

[Abbey Marie]

I think he was being sarcastic lol

I paid $1200 for this class er well the army did. Must be important.

So, we taxpayers paid for it? Figures.

[aboutime]

There is only One Way to solve what many call a problem we humans constantly find reasons to argue about.

The list is short.

1. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Whatever anyone does privately, in their own life, so long as it doesn't cause harm, or injure other humans is NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.

[Abbey Marie]

There is only One Way to solve what many call a problem we humans constantly find reasons to argue about.

The list is short.

1. MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS. Whatever anyone does privately, in their own life, so long as it doesn't cause harm, or injure other humans is NOBODY ELSE'S BUSINESS.

Nice idea, but the problems arise when we all define "harm" differently.

[aboutime]

Nice idea, but the problems arise when we all define "harm" differently.


Abbey. I agree. Which reminds me of the old reliable Clinton remark about "IS".

Being much of a pragmatist here. I still believe. If everyone just minded their own business. Kept their mouth shut about other people. We would never need to discuss this as we do.

Much like Abortion. It get's Nobody anywhere, at any time.

My father always liked to remind us never to discuss Politics, or Religion with anyone unless you wanted an argument.

And look what NOT LISTENING to him got me.

[Thunderknuckles]

1. What homosexuality is: Nature leaves undefined the object of sexual desire. The gender of that object is imposed socially. Humans originally made homosexuality taboo because they needed every bit of energy to produce and raise children: survival of species was a priority. With overpopulation and technological change, that taboo continued only to exploit us and enslave us.

Homosexuality is not a lot of things. It is not a makeshift in the absence of the opposite sex; it is not a hatred or rejection of the opposite sex; it is not genetic; it is not the result of broken homes except inasmuch as we could see the sham of American marriage. Homosexuality is the capacity to love someone of the same sex.

I hope your instructor is asking for an objective Christina POV and grading you on your understanding of such a view and not asking for something that they can turn around and use as a tool to rail against those not in favor of homosexuality. That's just lazy educating.

On to the conservative Christian reply...

Everything revolves around the two quoted statements, the underlined in particular.
Whittman says that nature has left undefined the object of sexual desire. Well, I can make an evolutionary argument against this but this is about a Christian point of view right?
In this case, nature has nothing to do with it. God alone is responsible and He DID define the object of sexual desire between man and woman. Woman was created to be a mate for Man. Thus, Whittman is correct in stating that homosexuality is not genetic. It is God's Will that man and woman desire one another.
Where Whittman goes wrong is in defining what homosexuality is. He states that it is "the capacity to love someone of the same sex"
He is over generalizing. Heterosexuals also have the capacity to love someone of the same sex. Homosexuality, however, is the sexual desire for someone of the same sex.
Because this goes against God's Will, it is considered sinful behavior and should be avoided in life. Hence, Christian avoidance of homosexuals in general. To Christians, homosexuals are willfully engaging in sin without the desire to repent and ask God's forgiveness. This is the underlying source of what Whittman refers to as "taboo".
On a last note, Whittman is being a little melodramatic in stating the homosexuals have been exploited and enslaved. Please. I won't argue that homosexuals haven't been victims of abuse but to equate getting your ass kicked because you're gay with having someone slap the chains on you and claim you and your descendants as property is laughable.

[Thunderknuckles]

T, surely you have something better to do with your time?
Hey, it's Friday and I'm in between projects at work so I'm just sitting here writing a little code here and there while posting :)

[KarlMarx]

I think he was being sarcastic lol

I paid $1200 for this class er well the army did. Must be important.

OK... from a conservative Christian perspective... I assume that you would want to write what forms a Conservative Christian view of homosexuality. It is based on various verses in the Old and New Testament. That is why conservative Christians are opposed to gay marriage and view homosexuality as a sin... I hope this helps.

The first two are from the Old Testament. They are part of the first five books of the Bible known as the Torah or Law of Moses. These books were observed by the Jews as the Law of God.

The last ones are from the New Testament, they are from various letters of St Paul to the Corinithians and Romans

Genesis 2:24
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.

Leviticus 18:22
You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

1 Corinthians 6:9-10
9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+Corinthians+6&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a)] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

Romans 1:26-30
26 For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. 27 Likewise 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.
28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting;

[fj1200]

I thought this manifesto was rather retarded myself...

Well, that's a relief.

[LiberalNation]

Rev Louis Sheldon, The Agenda was the other reading. I think we are supposed to use it in our critique.

[DragonStryk72]

As a conservative christian what kind of response would you have to whittman's manifesto?

http://library.gayhomeland.org/0006/EN/A_Gay_Manifesto.htm

San Francisco is a refugee camp for homosexuals. We have fled here from every part of the nation Really? Even from Vermont, New York, Connecticut (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Connecticut), Iowa (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Iowa), Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Massachusetts), New Hampshire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_New_Hampshire), and like refugees elsewhere, we came not because it is so great here, but because it was so bad there. Huh, I must have missed the horribleness here in VA, and apparently, my buddy Hector missed his peoples' exodus as well. Oh, turns out a lot of homosexuals missed the exodus around here. By the tens of thousands, we fled small towns where to be ourselves would endanger our jobs and any hope of a decent life; we have fled from blackmailing cops, from families who disowned or ‘tolerated’ us; we have been drummed out of the armed services, thrown out of schools, fired from jobs, beaten by punks and policemen. So basically, when confronted with any degree of obstacle, you ran away so you didn't have to stand up for yourself. How did you get drummed out of an Armed Services that now accepts gay military members? What schools were you thrown out of, given that it's patently illegal to chuck someone from any school that receives even a dime of government funding for that reason.

And we have formed a ghetto, out of self-protection. YOu have no fucking clue what a god damned ghetto is, and any Jewish man or woman should be highly insulted by your adoption of the term. It is a ghetto rather than a free territory because it is sill theirs. Straight cops patrol us, straight legislators govern us, straight employers keep us in line, straight money exploits us. Oh the humanity! You have to deal with people who aren't like you! Dear God, how ever could a gay person live around straight people?! What about the gay cops, employers, and legislators? Or here's one, what about those straight people who are supportive of you? Why did you paint them as villains solely based on their sexuality? We have pretended everything is OK, because we haven’t been able to see how to change it - we’ve been afraid. Horse Shit, there is no reason left in this country to fear coming out of the closet, save if your family abandons you. It's been accepted.

In the past year there has been an awakening of gay liberation ideas and energy. How it began we don’t know; maybe we were inspired by black people and their freedom movement; we learned how to stop pretending form the hip revolution. Amerika in all its ugliness has surfaced with the war and our national leaders. And we are revulsed by the quality of our ghetto life. Stop saying ghetto, you have no fucking clue what a ghetto is, you ignorant asshole.

Where once there was frustration, alienation, and cynicism, there are new characteristics among us. We are full of love for each other and are showing it; we are full of anger at what has been done to us. And as we recall all the self-censorship and repression for so many years, a reservoir of tears pours out of our eyes. And we are euphoric, high, with the initial flourish of a movement.

We want to make ourselves clear: our first job is to free ourselves; that means clearing our heads of the garbage that’s been poured into them. This article is an attempt at raising a number of issues, and presenting some ideas to replace the old ones. It is primarily for ourselves, a starting point of discussion. If straight people of good will find it useful in understanding what liberation is about, so much the better.

It should also be clear that these are the views of one person, and are determined not only by my homosexuality, but my being white, male, middle class. It is my individual consciousness. Our group consciousness will evolve as we get ourselves together - we are only at the beginning.

I. ON ORIENTATION

1. What homosexuality is: Nature leaves undefined the object of sexual desire. The gender of that object is imposed socially. Humans originally made homosexuality taboo because they needed every bit of energy to produce and raise children: survival of species was a priority. With overpopulation and technological change, that taboo continued only to exploit us and enslave us.

As kids we refused to capitulate to demands that we ignore our feelings toward each other. Somewhere we found the strength to resist being indoctrinated, and we should count that among our assets. We have to realize that our loving each other is a good thing, not an unfortunate thing, and that we have a lot to teach straights about sex, love, strength, and resistance.

Homosexuality is not a lot of things. It is not a makeshift in the absence of the opposite sex; it is not a hatred or rejection of the opposite sex; it is not genetic; it is not the result of broken homes except inasmuch as we could see the sham of American marriage. Homosexuality is the capacity to love someone of the same sex.

2. Bisexuality: Bisexuality is good; it is the capacity to love people of either sex. The reason so few of us are bisexual is because society made such a big stink about homosexuality that we got forced into seeing ourselves as either straight or non-straight. Also, many gays go turned off to the ways men are supposed to act with women and vice-versa, which is pretty fucked-up. Gays will begin to turn on to women when 1) it’s something that we do because we want to, and not because we should, and 2) when women’s liberation changes the nature of heterosexual relationships.

We continue to call ourselves homosexual, not bisexual, even if we do make it with the opposite sex also, because saying “Oh, I’m Bi” is a copy out for a gay. We get told it’s OK to sleep with guys as long as we sleep with women, too, and that’s still putting homosexuality down. We’ll be gay until everyone has forgotten that it’s an issue. Then we’ll begin to be complete.

You know, I started doing the line-by-line on this, but it's just too full of shit. There is so much backwards bullshit in this, it just beggars belief. Apparently, I'm one of the evil straight people, since they literally lumped every not homosexual human being into the same category. Nevermind that I support gay marriage, that my Dad's gay, and I'm supportive of it. I'm still there, apparently, ready to burn away the gay menace.

God, I hate morons like this. They dumb down the whole argument, and create a war where none exists. It is just so fucking arrogant, talking for everyone like he knows every single gay person and their struggle. God fucking damn it, I really wish assholes like this would just shut the fuck up, and let the grown ups have the debate. These sorts of bullshit runs are always a huge step backward for the movement, and he needs to stop hurting his own team so damned badly.

[logroller]

On a last note, Whittman is being a little melodramatic in stating the homosexuals have been exploited and enslaved. Please. I won't argue that homosexuals haven't been victims of abuse but to equate getting your ass kicked because you're gay with having someone slap the chains on you and claim you and your descendants as property is laughable.


I think he was being metaphorical; as though their free expression of self has been forced into the hetero paradigm... Though, now that i think about, having a gay slave around to assist the wife in decorating the house would be awesome-- just gotta find one who's into the Dom scene! :wink: let's we what Adsense pops up.

[LiberalNation]

If I was to identify as a conservative Christian myreaction to Wittman’s article would be critical. Marriage between a man and awoman is a cornerstone of Christian belief. Whittman attacks traditionalmarriage as a rotten, oppressive institution and as I Christian I would findthis offensive. <o:p></o:p>
Oddly I think there is one statement in Whittman’sarticle a conservative Christian would agree with. Whittman asserts that homosexuality is not genetic sowould a conservative Christian in most cases. To be considered genetic wouldimply homosexuals had no choice in their feelings but from the conservative Christianperspective I believe homosexuals are choosing to sin and giving into sinfuldesires that goes against Gods plan. At the same time as a conservativeChristian I am likely to see homosexuality as a mental illness that requiresmedical or religious intervention to cure. Sheldon points out this belief inhis article. <o:p></o:p>

That's all I got, I think Imma end up getting a C in this class. Some other people did better responses.

[gabosaurus]

I have found several references to male homosexuality in The Bible, but none about female homosexuality.
For some reason, the same people who condemn gay men are very accepting of lesbians. One of the most popular male fantasies is watching two women engage in sexual acts.

Why is female homosexuality more acceptable than male?

[logroller]

I have found several references to male homosexuality in The Bible, but none about female homosexuality.
For some reason, the same people who condemn gay men are very accepting of lesbians. One of the most popular male fantasies is watching two women engage in sexual acts.

Why is female homosexuality more acceptable than male?
I would say its because women have long been treated as lesser to men, rooted in genesis, where eve's succumbing to temptation established a weaker ethical status for women. Pretty much saying, see, women arent capable of making good decisions, so they're held to a lesser standard. That belief has precluded women from attaining power and influence, including voting, owning property and their being repressed sexually. why else do you think women's dress codes have long been stricter than men's? It's an attempt to prevent them from using their prowess to gain power over men, because women are a man's greatest weakness. just look at the masculation of women with power as a ball-buster dyke what have you. If a woman gets power, she's man-like. For the same reason a homosexual man is seen as effeminate-- weaker, sexually, physically and ethically-- that's what woman are supposed to be. It throws the whole paradigm out of whack if women are held to the same standard as men; it would establish them as equals, which threatens the paternalistic nature of our society. The force is strong with this one.Look at the masculation of God as Him, rather than Her. That's what always cracked me up about "traditional" marriage-- it was, traditionally, a legitimized ownership of the family by the master, the father and husband. Which is all well and good I suppose, some women , my wife for example, like being lorded over more, but I don't see how that need be legitimized by the state-- it's counter indicative of a government meant to secure freedom and liberty. but that's a different topic I suppose.

[LiberalNation]

I love bing fucked by a woman, just saying.

[DragonStryk72]

I have found several references to male homosexuality in The Bible, but none about female homosexuality.
For some reason, the same people who condemn gay men are very accepting of lesbians. One of the most popular male fantasies is watching two women engage in sexual acts.

Why is female homosexuality more acceptable than male?

What is the greater amount, $10 or $20? I've lived the male fantasy on that point, but truthfully, it's not all its cracked up to be.

[gabosaurus]

I love bing fucked by a woman, just saying.

http://bitt3rsw33tlitt3r.weebly.com/uploads/7/0/8/3/7083183/1982113.jpg

[aboutime]

I love bing fucked by a woman, just saying.


Sounds like you are being....... with, or without a woman, or a man. You're just F'd up.

[Abbey Marie]

I have found several references to male homosexuality in The Bible, but none about female homosexuality.
For some reason, the same people who condemn gay men are very accepting of lesbians. One of the most popular male fantasies is watching two women engage in sexual acts.

Why is female homosexuality more acceptable than male?

Romans 1:26-27 - "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and
were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts
with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion." (NIV) (http://christianteens.about.com/od/versionsofthebible/p/NIV.htm)