Serious Question: Practicing Gay AND Christian??

[frankandcathy]

Well, the whole issue with Ted Haggard has gotten me to exploring on the web and I've come across a whole lot of articles from gay web sites...including Christian ones. This shocked me.

I'm befuddled. I don't understand. This isn't a question designed to cause anger but a fact-finding one.

How can you be a practicing homosexual (not repentant about it) and still be a Christian?

Is the issue just that you don't think homosexuality is a sin? If so, how can you not believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? Do you believe those verses were just mistranslated? Do you feel there were just for that culture at that time?

Do you feel that an unrepentant sinner of any persuasion (liar, drunkard, adulterer, etc.) can also be a Christian?

Oh yeah, also: what is the difference between a gay Christian and just a gay person? What I mean is, how does this affect your behavior politically and sexually? Does that express itself in one monogomous relationship or not? What is the "standard" for being a gay Christian? What is okay? What is not okay? What about politically? Do you still speak out against other Christians (i.e. the "religious right?")

I am sure I just offended about a jillion people but I don't mean to. I just don't understand. I think that for far too long there has been a lot of name-calling from both the "religious right" and the gay community. I don't want to participate in that. I just want to understand where you're coming from.

I hope someone is brave enough to explain!

Thanks.

[Dash]

Man, there are so many articles and threads here for you to read if you are truly interested in learning what we think. Spend some time exploring before you grill us. It's no fun to start over from the beginning with every person who's just discovered that not everyone agrees with the anti-gay Christian perspective.

I'm glad you are here and glad you have been motivated to start looking into the issue.

Be sure also to read the forum guidelines so you don't get yourself a premature escort to the exit door.

Cheers!

[kara speltz]

How can you be a practicing homosexual (not repentant about it) and still be a Christian?

Is the issue just that you don't think homosexuality is a sin? If so, how can you not believe that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin? Do you believe those verses were just mistranslated? Do you feel there were just for that culture at that time?

Do you feel that an unrepentant sinner of any persuasion (liar, drunkard, adulterer, etc.) can also be a Christian?

Oh yeah, also: what is the difference between a gay Christian and just a gay person? What I mean is, how does this affect your behavior politically and sexually? Does that express itself in one monogomous relationship or not? What is the "standard" for being a gay Christian?
I am sure I just offended about a jillion people but I don't mean to. I just don't understand. I think that for far too long there has been a lot of name-calling from both the "religious right" and the gay community. I don't want to participate in that. I just want to understand where you're coming from.

I hope someone is brave enough to explain!

Thanks.

Well, first of all as Dash said, welcome. Secondly, start off by reading a pamphlet we have on the website, that can be downloaded called, "What the Bible Does and Doesn't Say About Homosexuality." That's for starts

Next, let me just say that you are so filled with heterosexual privelege that you feel justified in insulting others, because you think your orientation is superior to ours. IT'S NOT!!!! And just as I would hope you would learn about your white skin privelege and how that affects everything in your life you need to begin to recognize your heterosexuall privelege.

God doesn't care WHO we love, only HOW we love. I am a lesbian Roman Catholic christian, who understands that her particular faith is one of the leading advesaries in terms of religion based intolerance and bigotry.

There are times, when I could just scream at the arrogance that straight people have. But because I came out at a very late age, I was 38 at the time (some 30+ years ago), I also know what it's like to be blinded by that privelege. Truth be told I had issues with transgenders some 8 years ago, and it was a very dear friend who walked with me through my ignorance that got me passed it.

To assume that God blesses heterosexual relationships and condemns gay relationships just is inane.

I am a devout Christian. I try to place my life in God's hands daily, and trust that God will be there to show me the way. That trust has led me to also place my life in danger, because I've felt called to ministry.

My being oppressed in this society gives me a dependence on God that means I understand that everything in my life is GIFT (including my orientation).

I was blessed to be on part of the Equality Ride for a week in Texas, and while there got some excellent opportunities to truly dialogue with people who had the same mistaken impressions of LGBTs you entertain. It was an amazing opportunity, and one that continued upon my return because "coincidentally," a gentleman who works at a fundamentalist college in my area, asked me to help him understand. We've been meeting once a month for several months and it has been interesting, to say the least.

My prayer for you is an open heart, and a great deal of humility as you approach this. I'm guessing that some one close to you may be gay and that this will be an opportunity to truly reflect God's love in that person's life. There are no accidents. God placed you here in this forum for a reason, that much I'm sure.

Again, welcome, Kara

[Pablo Rafael]

Frank and Cathy,

Your question is not a bad one at all. When I first heard of gay Christians I shared your same concern. How can someone be gay and Christian? Aren't the two mutually exclusive?

This was a very important question to me because I am gay. I tried to deny it for a long time but had to come to the realization that I am gay and nothing was going to change that fact.

I would suggest that you download the text of Mel White'sWhat the Bible Says About Homosexuality. You can find it on the top of this web page. Go to "resources" and it is the first item in the menu. It is a quick download. It is consice and well written.

I would say yes, that the Bible has been misinterpreted over the years. There are only six passages which deal with homosexuality at all. The Old Testament passages all deal with the cermonial holiness laws that were abolished by Christ's death on the cross. The New testament passages, all except Romans 1, use terms that have been translated by some people as refering to homosexuality, but that translation is certainly not very solid. The word "Homosexual" was only translated as that in the later 20th century translations of the Bible.

If homosexuality is a sin, the question is why doesn't God specifically address it or at least speak about it more? I, like you, knew that it was a sin and a horrible sin; I had always hear that. I knew that the Bible taught that. But with further critical Bible study I realized (to my own great relief) that what I first believed was not the truth.

I could recommend the book Jesus , the Bible and Homosexuality by Jack Rodgers. (I'm not sure I have that title 100% correct. ) It is Biblical research by a Presbyterian theologian. He is not gay himself and has done unbiased study. It deals a lot with the Presbyterian Church but is of interest to all. I am a Catholic and got a lot of good scholarly information from The Church and the Homosexual by John Mc Neil. It was written in the 1970's, but is an excellent book. It deals a lot with the Catholic church which might not be of as much interest to non-Catholics.

If you are really interested in this topic, please research further. There are many examples in history when a prevailing view that was widely accepted at the time was rejecected by later generations. Many people said that slavery was supported by Scripture. Few people believe that now. People used the Bible to oppose women's sufferage. That idea has pretty much been discredited. Even Martin Luther used the Bible to prove that the heliocentric solar system proposed by Copernicus was wrong.

By the way, I am a conservative Christian who firmly believes that God leads us to lives of service and sexual purity. I believe in monogamous relationships. I think I am part of the majority of gays who do not believe in a lifestyle of immorality. I resent how gay individuals are portrayed by the media. A lot of that is the fault of individuals in the gay "subculture" who have abused their freedom for a life of immorality. Most of us are not like that. Just as heterosexuals should not be judged by the worst members of their group, neither should we.

Thanks for taking the effort to ask this question. Please explore further.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[Zerbie]

Wow. I see you've opened the Extra Jumbo Family Size Can O' Worms, here.

That's okay. ;) Welcome.

I found nothing offensive in your actual tone, although I wonder if you can see why Kara reacted with a degree of offense to the nature of the questions themselves? You touch a very raw and painful nerve with these questions, but you've also come to a very good place where most people are gentle, patient, and willing to engage. From the kinds of questions you ask, I have the impression you see 'gay people' as a monolithic and extremely different 'Other,' and that there must be some kind of Rule Book for being gay, if there are "standards" and all of that. I fault the society we were raised in for leading us to believe that there is a single monolithic "gay lifestyle" that all homosexuals belong to, like members of a secret club or something. Saying so is just as ridiculous as saying all heterosexuals adhere to some kind of "straight" standard, and are likewise all the same. Isn't that silly? We were all taught to believe that silliness - gay people were taught it when they were growing up too, and had to learn differently - just as you are now doing.

As for a "standard" for being gay and Christian, I'd say there are as many standards for that as there are gay Christians. Reconciling one's affectional orientation with a traditional, conservative Christianity tends by its nature to take one off of beaten paths to forge for oneself. But for supporting examples and details, you will have to ask one of the gay Christians here.

I suggest you search through the forums here for previous discussions of religion, and reconciling one's religion and sexuality - there was even a poll about just that, but it was about a year ago, so you will have to scroll through the old pages to find it.

I've read some of the books and pamphlets others have suggested above, and I second their recommendations. Please follow through and read them - they are very accurate depictions of what millions of people go through.

Thanks for being brave enough to ask.

[kara speltz]

Wow. I see you've opened the Extra Jumbo Family Size Can O' Worms, here.

That's okay. ;) Welcome.

I found nothing offensive in your actual tone, although I wonder if you can see why Kara reacted with a degree of offense to the nature of the questions themselves?
Thanks for being brave enough to ask.

Dear Zerbie: I think it's really important that we call people when they say something offensive. I think we gay folks tend to be way too apologetic at times. As an example, how would you respond to someone going into say the NAACP website, saying something like, wow do you folks really think you're equal to white people? help me understand.

I, do understand where they are coming from but there is an arrogance that needs to be acknowledged.

There was an organization back in the 50's called the Catholic Interracial Councils. They had sit down dinners with white and black families. Clearly, the only way for white people to come to those dinners was in a place of humility and understanding that they had no idea what life was like for black folks on a day to day basis.

My response to Frank and Cathy was with that understanding of how we begin to learn how a group of peoples live are affected by their oppression.

I'm not angry, I agree that it was a very courageous step. And I do salute them for that.

Kara

[BruceChris]

I believe that you are asking an honest question. You could probably use a lot of information. That conservative Christians try to believe that homosexuality is a "choice", because for them it is an article of faith. That they refuse to believe millions of people who say "I was BORN this way"

Google gay Christian, or Christian gay, and read what's out there. There are millions of hits out there. Read

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1536

Meet some of our people here, and read our postings. Read

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1074 and try to see that we are all about friendship, and not all about sex.

God loves you, and we have found that God loves us.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Daniel]

Frank and Cathy,

Others have said it very well: there is a great deal iof information on this site in terms of threads dealing with your questions as well as specific issues you might have.

However, your questions are real, I have no doubt of that. Putting aside the issue of whether your questions have been offensive, I would like to laud you for having the wherewithall to visit this sight and voice your concerns.

Right off the top of my head, I would like to respond with this: gay Christians don't see themselves as having to justify their existence any more than you do.

The issue here is not the status of gay people and how they fit into your vision of the world, but rather, who they are in and of themselves (this goes both ways btw). I know this may sound overly simple, but if you were friends with a range of gay persons- this would make sense to you. It's all too easy for us to get all 'tribal' with each other. This faction. That faction. This religion. That religion. Color. Nationality. Sexuality. At some point, we have to learn to see past our divisions and drop our need to be right about everything.

No. I don't think being gay is a sin- anymore that I think being black or a jew is a sin- or making a ton of money is a sin.

I have a husband (we were married in Toronto a few years ago) and if I were to sin big time, it would be to 'step out' on my guy when, in fact, I have consciously and verbally agreed not to do that. That is my personal agreement with him (not every gay or straight person feels this way about their partner btw!) But that is how I would see myself: how others would see me is beside the point. As far as I am concerned, it is about integrity- doing what one says one is going to do.

I grew up something of a fundamentalist, but would not call myself that now, having had many life experiences which lead me in another direction. This has been a very good thing actually. An expansion rather than a throwing away of parts of myself.

Gay Christian? Yes. There are such animals. And Gay Buddhists. Gay Catholics. Gay Methodists. Gay Hindus. Gay Sufi's. Gay Everything. Name it and we are that.

I think you will find that diversity is the constant here. If this is a problem for you, then I would suggest that gay people aren't the source of that discomfort, but rather, your conception of what is- or should be. I think you may find that you are going to have to expand somewhat yourself. The joke (it's not funny actually) is that when gay people come out of the closet, often, someone that they know goes in. Dealing with these issues can be either very exciting or very terrifying. Often both.

Ok. Why do you ask all this?

Know anybody gay?

Is your concern abstract or personal? If it is personal, the learning curve is steeper, but well worth the climb. If abstract, these issues may just roll around in your brain and produce a good deal of cognitive dissonance. That's no fun.

I'm glad you are hear to get to know us, at least in cyberland. But I would encourage you to get to know some gay people in the flesh (I bet you probably already know a few people at your church- but they might not be out to you). A great deal can be learned therein which cannot be expressed here. Real understanding comes from real connection- not just from moving the thoughts in our heads around like furniture.

Oh. The only thing I practice is my scales when I warm up to sing.

Wink. Wink.

[keltic63]

Frank and Cathy,

Gay Christian here!

and like Daniel, I practice the piano, the other stuff, I'm pretty good at. ;)

When I opened this thread I thought "here we go again." Yes, as you can tell, we've done this before. Is there some reason we need to do this again? Do you question other people that you consider to be sinners, in this same fashion?

I am sure I just offended about a jillion people but I don't mean to. I just don't understand. I think that for far too long there has been a lot of name-calling from both the "religious right" and the gay community. I don't want to participate in that. I just want to understand where you're coming from.

I hope someone is brave enough to explain!

Let's look at this section of your post for a moment. Yes, I find your post offensive, but I'm sure that it was not your intention to offend. That last line, about someone being "brave enough" to explain, is very nearly a challenge, like drawing a line in the sand and saying "I dare you." Is that what you are doing here?
Many lgbt people would not respond with anger and name-calling if the religious right did not cast the first stones. Christian leaders regularly make offensive, judgmental pronouncements about homosexuals through their tv shows, websites, direct mailings, and any other outlet they can. Think about Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson. According to them, we're responsible for hurricanes, economic problems, the rise of witchcraft, and even 9-11. I do a lot of reading, but I don't recall any lgbt writers making any of those kinds of claims against straights or Christians. I'm not saying that awful things aren't said, I'm just saying that most often I believe it is a reaction to something said about us.

There's plenty here to help you out. I think this Letter (http://www.godmademegay.com/) is an excellent start to understanding how someone could be both gay and christian.

and finally, I am willing to engage in a discussion with you. I do this often. we can do it here, in private messages, or we can exchange emails if you'd like. if you want discussion, here I am.

Steve

[scott snedeker]

Dear Frank and Cathy

I am reminded of a Dutch proverb: "Once you step out of the door, You already have a large part of the journey behind you."

Your venture on to this site and asking this question warms my heart and fuels my building optimism the world is becoming a kinder place at a pace that overwhelms me with joy!

Because you are taking the first step to understanding and thus breaking down barriers to love, you are furthering the truly Christian spirit of universal love! Universal love, The simplest and most accurate answer to the Question: "What would Jesus DO?"


You Honor me with your request because I can feel the love in your asking. So I will answer genuinely.


Imagine the time in your adolescence when you were discovering your sexual awareness. Now Imagine being told that your feelings of sexual attraction make you a worthless deviant because you feel them toward the same sex. So to survive you hide this secret and stifle the growth of your emerging dentity and learn to hate yourself.

This I Fear is psychological child abuse at its worst.

Then imagine the miracle of courageously overcoming this self loathing
imposed by your past abuse. This epiphany restores your sense that you are a person deserving of happiness, equal worthiness and love. A hard fought internal struggle won by myself and many other gay people.

Acceptance and affirmation of your own NATURE is the foundation of Spirituality

Some say being gay is a choice. They are half right. You can choose to be
true to your nature and experience passion, romance and love, all essential
parts of a balanced normal life. Or you can falsely pretend to be attracted to the opposite sex and live an empty passionless lie.

There is no verse in the Bible that can leap off the page and harm anyone. The only harm comes from what some one might do to you in the name of their God. Violence in spirit or material form is not God's will. If a verse causes you to feel fearful, negatively, or angry toward yourself or others, then you are just not ready at this time to understand it. Select another verse that makes you feel love toward yourself and others for this is God's message that you are ready to understand.

God wishes us to love one another (man or woman) so that he can share in our joy!

Scotty:cowboy:

[kara speltz]

Frank and Cathy,

Gay Christian here!

and like Daniel, I practice the piano, the other stuff, I'm pretty good at. ;)

When I opened this thread I thought "here we go again." Yes, as you can tell, we've done this before. Is there some reason we need to do this again? Do you question other people that you consider to be sinners, in this same fashion?



Let's look at this section of your post for a moment. Yes, I find your post offensive, but I'm sure that it was not your intention to offend. That last line, about someone being "brave enough" to explain, is very nearly a challenge, like drawing a line in the sand and saying "I dare you." Is that what you are doing here?
There's plenty here to help you out. I think this Letter (http://www.godmademegay.com/) is an excellent start to understanding how someone could be both gay and christian.

and finally, I am willing to engage in a discussion with you. I do this often. we can do it here, in private messages, or we can exchange emails if you'd like. if you want discussion, here I am.

Steve

Dear Steve: I'm so glad you recommended "Letter to Louise," it is one of the best documents, I've seen. I often send it to folks who are questioning whether they can be gay and christian. But I hadn't read it in a while, and it really is one of the best things I've seen and worth rereading periodically.

I hope Cathy & Frank that you are finding this thread helpful to your process.

Kara

[frankandcathy]

Well, I just checked my e-mail and someone has asked me to reply to all the responses that I've received on this post.

I haven't, of course, had a chance to read any of the documents yet because I just now read the replies but I would like to respond so far and then add more later after reading.

I am sorry that several people were offended. I just didn't want to be another right-wing Christian who throws stones at "them" without ever asking "them" what their side of the story is.

Would I get on a black faith-based web site and ask similar questions? Yes. I think I would. I might do that, in fact. (I often wonder why a majority of black Christians are democrats. I really want to know why because as far as I can see, their basic moral values don't gel with the democratic party. But there's obviously a reason. I have a theory that all people vote more with their pocketbook than with their conscience...but that's another story.)

I think you are correct that their is no "gay Christian" community absolute cohesion just as there is no "straight Christian" community absolute cohesion. There could be a set of basic values defined but each church/person may disagree with them on some level. I was hoping to get a basic set of values (as an "evangelical Christian" might be able to give a basic set of values for evangelicals). And I think in some ways I did and in some I didn't. But at least I learned something!

I've heard this said before: in the homosexual community, one's sexual orientation is considered a part of who you are just as is your personality, your eye color, etc. The heterosexual community obviously feels that way about THEMSELVES but not about homosexuals. It's something we choose to dissect out of people and make it separate so that we can "hate the sinner and love the sin." I think that this is where a great rift has occurred because this is a mental block that cannot really be overcome. How well can anyone really respond to someone who is saying, "I really like you...except for your eye color. Will you get colored contacts for me? I prefer blue eyes." They may say that they love you, but...that doesn't feel like love, does it?

The comment about "is anyone brave enough" was certainly not some kind of line in the sand. I have much better things to do with my time than to try to incite a riot against myself on a gay web site. What I meant by that is, "Is anyone willing to take the time to explain something to someone who has no clue about it." The answer was a resounding, "Yes." Thank you.

I see that the word, "practicing" is somehow not kosher. Please have mercy on a white, religious, right-winger from the burbs who is not up on the latest lingo. I am finding myself going back and deleting certain words and using more "politcally correct" ones so have patience, please. I'm trying here.

Do I know any gay people (that are out)? Not really. I have a grocery store clerk and a service woman whom I think are gay. That's about it. What I do have is a heart to reach people with the love of Christ and if I see that there is a big rift between the church and a certain segment of people, I feel I want to try to understand why so I can help if possible.

Since I am trying to be truly open and truly honest (and knowing that I am probably going to have shots taken at me anyway because no matter how hard I try NOT to be offensive, I will probably seem so), I will tell you something that strikes me right off the bat.

I think one of the things that I've noticed just in reading some of the posts is the attitude of "I have a right." Now, before you kick me off or stone me, let me say that the Christian community at large is just as guilty of this.

With the gay community it may be, "I have a right to be gay, get married, live my life the way I want, etc., etc., etc."

With the Christian community at large it may be, "I have a right to live in a country where marriage is defined MY way, my children don't have to have gay teachers, my values are put into law as the norm, etc., etc., etc."

So, this is the question: Was this the attitude of Christ before He was asked to lay down His life? Wasn't his whole gig one of "I'm here to do the will of my father?" Wasn't Christ asked to not only sacrifice any sexual desires he may have had (did he have any? different topic) but also any ideas about having the political system work in his favor or to have it produce morality as he saw fit?

Isn't this the real problem with ALL humanity? We're really into our "rights" but not really into laying down our lives for others?

Hey, I know this is a tough pill to swallow. I've been married almost 10 years and I can tell you that to lay down my life on a simple thing like "Can you PLEASE pick up your own socks off the floor" is a struggle. To be asked to set aside your SEXUALITY or your political views in order to love others is monumental. It's not easily done. Some would say that it's impossible or unnecessary.

I'm not really saying what I think anyone should do. I just wonder if the attitude (on both sides) of my "rights" is helping or hurting the cause of unity in the body of Christ?

What will make more impact with you? A straight Christian who holds up banners declaring you to be sinful and demanding their "right" to live in a country where marriage is one man and one woman or a straight Christian who chooses to use their time loving you and serving you instead?

What will make more impact with me (and other straight people)? A gay person who holds rallies demanding their "right" to be married or a gay person who reaches out to me by offering love and service?

Look, all I'm saying is that for three decades we've been at war over who is "right," who should have more or less "rights," what God says is, "right," and who should get "right" with God. Maybe it's time for all of us as individuals to set aside our "rights" and our "offenses" and try to really, really love and serve one another...knowing that only the Holy Spirit can convict you or me of sin (whether it be whom you choose to have sex with or how you speak to those different than you).

I have personally made a commitment to get to know those around me who are gay (or whom I think are gay). I have committed not to just see them as "that gay guy" I try to avoid at the store. I have committed to try and love and serve the gay people around me just as I have committed to love and serve the poor, the black, the Asian, the Mexican, the rich, and the muslim people around me.

God has put a consuming fire in me: to reach others with His love and to serve them in a real way. It is not my job to convict them of whatever sin I think they may have. That's God's job and the only way I can really influence it is to show MORE love...not less.

Whew! That was long and sort of didactic. Sorry! Well, I have to admit, I'm going to hit the "submit reply" button and I'm cringing a bit.

I will try to go read the recommended items right now!

[kara speltz]

Well, I just checked my e-mail and someone has asked me to reply to all the responses that I've received on this post.

I haven't, of course, had a chance to read any of the documents yet because I just now read the replies but I would like to respond so far and then add more later after reading.

I am sorry that several people were offended. I just didn't want to be another right-wing Christian who throws stones at "them" without ever asking "them" what their side of the story is.

Would I get on a black faith-based web site and ask similar questions? Yes. I think I would. I might do that, in fact. (I often wonder why a majority of black Christians are democrats. I really want to know why because as far as I can see, their basic moral values don't gel with the democratic party. But there's obviously a reason. I have a theory that all people vote more with their pocketbook than with their conscience...but that's another story.)

Maybe it's time for all of us as individuals to set aside our "rights" and our "offenses" and try to really, really love and serve one another...knowing that only the Holy Spirit can convict you or me of sin (whether it be whom you choose to have sex with or how you speak to those different than you).

I have personally made a commitment to get to know those around me who are gay (or whom I think are gay). I have committed not to just see them as "that gay guy" I try to avoid at the store. I have committed to try and love and serve the gay people around me just as I have committed to love and serve the poor, the black, the Asian, the Mexican, the rich, and the muslim people around me.

God has put a consuming fire in me: to reach others with His love and to serve them in a real way. It is not my job to convict them of whatever sin I think they may have. That's God's job and the only way I can really influence it is to show MORE love...not less.

Whew! That was long and sort of didactic. Sorry! Well, I have to admit, I'm going to hit the "submit reply" button and I'm cringing a bit.

I will try to go read the recommended items right now!

Dear Frank & Cathy: I can see you're really trying, but you really don't have ANY comprehension of the privelege you operate under. You said you'd be willing to give up your rights, but the truth is you can't even comprehend what that would mean. It would mean you'd have no say over each other's health care. That if Cathy died (being the mother of the children), you Frank would have no rights to them. If one of you died, the other person would have to find a new home because the home you bought and paid for together and shared for years would no longer automatically be yours.

There are so many priveleges that go along with being white, middle class and heterosexual, that it would take almost forever to identify them. So I won't even try. But your attempt to recognize them will be some of what will help break down the gaps between us. We experience these priveleges denied us on a regular basis.

And for the record, there is a huge difference between you as white folks going on a black website asking why blacks would vote for Democrats then you're coming on this website, asking the question how can you be gay and Christian. Part of that being the horrendous history most of us (who are Christians) have had in being asked that question time and time again and for the most part being told we can't be. The more compreable question of going on a black website, would be something like asking them why they think they have the right (or capacity) to vote. You see this is more compreable because that was part of the oppression black people faced some 50 years ago and people died for that right. Many still face them today.

It's hard, I know, to take on a different mind set, and I really hear you struggling with it. As a white woman who raised a black child, I had to learn a different mind set. As a lesbian, when learning about transgenders, I had to learn a different mindset. All of this is to say, I'm glad to hear you're writing and cutting and rewriting, trying to learn how to express your feelings without creating more pain for us. I do appreciate that.

Part of the work I see for my own life as an out lesbian involved in ministry within my Catholic parish, is to help educate about the issues of heterosexual privelege as well as white skin privelege because that also so deeply affects my family.

I'm really glad you're here. I'm really glad we're having this conversation, because it's such an important one and we have to stop talking at each other and begin the listening process. But as a word of caution, as a woman who has been out as a lesbian for over 30 years, there probably is nothing I haven't heard already, so it gets to be a bit frustrating when straight folks think that if they just say this one thing it will change everything. And poof suddenly, I'll turn straight:eek:

What I know in my heart is that my orientation is a GIFT FROM GOD. It is a gift that I celebrate, and i'm not really looking for tolerance, I'll be honest. I want to celebrate that gift just as openly and honestly as you celebrate your orientation.

Kara

[keltic63]

Well, I just checked my e-mail and someone has asked me to reply to all the responses that I've received on this post. I suspect you checked the box that subscribes you to this thread. every time someone posts, you'll get an email. :)

I haven't, of course, had a chance to read any of the documents yet because I just now read the replies but I would like to respond so far and then add more later after reading.
you did a pretty good job responding. it's a nice long post. I'm going to cut some of it out just to make this post a bit briefer, and to respond to certain things in your post.

I am sorry that several people were offended. I just didn't want to be another right-wing Christian who throws stones at "them" without ever asking "them" what their side of the story is. as I said, while some of it was offensive, I don't believe that was your intention, so "no harm, no foul."
I've heard this said before: in the homosexual community, one's sexual orientation is considered a part of who you are just as is your personality, your eye color, etc. The heterosexual community obviously feels that way about THEMSELVES but not about homosexuals. It's something we choose to dissect out of people and make it separate so that we can "hate the sinner and love the sin." I think that this is where a great rift has occurred because this is a mental block that cannot really be overcome. How well can anyone really respond to someone who is saying, "I really like you...except for your eye color. Will you get colored contacts for me? I prefer blue eyes." They may say that they love you, but...that doesn't feel like love, does it? Why do some straight people, in particular, very conservative Christians, ignore respected scientists, doctors, psychologists, and valid & reliable scientific studies that indicate homosexuality is not a choice? They also apply a double standard, by allowing their orientation to be something inborn, or a trait determined by genetics, while denying that same science to lgbt people.

I see that the word, "practicing" is somehow not kosher. Please have mercy on a white, religious, right-winger from the burbs who is not up on the latest lingo. I am finding myself going back and deleting certain words and using more "politcally correct" ones so have patience, please. I'm trying here. Mildly offensive, which is why the jokes were made. The underlying tone of using the phrase "practicing homosexual" implies choice. No one here will tell you that they chose to be gay. The term "practicing" is funny because, well, we think we're pretty good at being homosexual, there's no need to practice!

Do I know any gay people (that are out)? Not really. I have a grocery store clerk and a service woman whom I think are gay. That's about it.
This is the one that always gets me. Estimates of the number of homosexuals in the population run from 3-10% Allowing a number from the most conservative estimate, that would still make 3 gay or lesbian people in the 100 you see on any given day (say, shopping, commuting, church, community gatherings, the movie theater, etc. ) If you can name 100 people, somewhere between 3 and 10 are gay. YOU just aren't aware of it. My question about that is "why aren't you aware of that?" If it's because they are closeted, that's fine. But what if they're just not willing to come out to you? Is there something you've carelessly stated that leads them to believe you can't be trusted with that information? Have you inadvertantly pushed someone away? Because I don't know you, I can't make that judgment about you, but I think it's worth thinking about.
What I do have is a heart to reach people with the love of Christ and if I see that there is a big rift between the church and a certain segment of people, I feel I want to try to understand why so I can help if possible. that's noble and loving. but if it's because you think gay people need the love of Christ because they are gay, you're going to get nowhere. People need the good news of Christ because ALL have sinned. I'm a sinner, but homosexuality isn't my sin, because being gay isn't a sin.

Since I am trying to be truly open and truly honest (and knowing that I am probably going to have shots taken at me anyway because no matter how hard I try NOT to be offensive, I will probably seem so), I will tell you something that strikes me right off the bat.

I think one of the things that I've noticed just in reading some of the posts is the attitude of "I have a right." Now, before you kick me off or stone me, let me say that the Christian community at large is just as guilty of this.

With the gay community it may be, "I have a right to be gay, get married, live my life the way I want, etc., etc., etc." I don't recall anyone in the gay community ever saying that they have a right to be gay. This would indicate a choice.

With the Christian community at large it may be, "I have a right to live in a country where marriage is defined MY way, my children don't have to have gay teachers, my values are put into law as the norm, etc., etc., etc." and in this paragraph we see the problem, right? someone's perceived rights are intruding on the right's of others.

So, this is the question: Was this the attitude of Christ before He was asked to lay down His life? Wasn't his whole gig one of "I'm here to do the will of my father?" Wasn't Christ asked to not only sacrifice any sexual desires he may have had (did he have any? different topic) but also any ideas about having the political system work in his favor or to have it produce morality as he saw fit?

Isn't this the real problem with ALL humanity? We're really into our "rights" but not really into laying down our lives for others?
Are you suggesting that gay & lesbian people should stop being gay & lesbian out of love for their more conservative Christian brothers and sisters?

Hey, I know this is a tough pill to swallow. I've been married almost 10 years and I can tell you that to lay down my life on a simple thing like "Can you PLEASE pick up your own socks off the floor" is a struggle. To be asked to set aside your SEXUALITY or your political views in order to love others is monumental. It's not easily done. Some would say that it's impossible or unnecessary. some Christians do put this onto the homosexual, but not the heterosexual. In other words, some denominations claim that homosexual people are of "sacred worth" etc. but that homosexual actions are sinful, therefor homosexuals must live celibate lives. Yet, this is never required of heterosexuals. Is physical love truly meant to be experienced ONLY by heterosexual couples? Would it be better if gay people tried to find a person of the opposite sex for the sharing of sexual love and release of sexual energy, even if they didn't "love" each other?

I'm not really saying what I think anyone should do. I just wonder if the attitude (on both sides) of my "rights" is helping or hurting the cause of unity in the body of Christ? I think it's less about "rights" and more about controlling the things one doesn't understand. There is fear about homosexuals. There is fear about what will happen if gays and lesbians are allowed to marry. I happen to know that some of the gay people on this board are married, legally, to each other. It's a gay marriage. Yet, this gay marriage doesn't make straight married couples less married.

What will make more impact with you? A straight Christian who holds up banners declaring you to be sinful and demanding their "right" to live in a country where marriage is one man and one woman or a straight Christian who chooses to use their time loving you and serving you instead? Christians demanding to live in a country where marriage is one man and one woman are not serving and loving anyone but themselves, and others who agree but their boundaries. Preventing me from marrying my partner and enjoying the 1,500 benefits bestowed on married couples by benefit of the marriage license, is not loving and serving, it is excluding, ostracizing, and hurting to gay & lesbian couples.

What will make more impact with me (and other straight people)? A gay person who holds rallies demanding their "right" to be married or a gay person who reaches out to me by offering love and service? does my ability to marry the man I love deprive you or other straight people of anything?

Look, all I'm saying is that for three decades we've been at war over who is "right," who should have more or less "rights," what God says is, "right," and who should get "right" with God. Maybe it's time for all of us as individuals to set aside our "rights" and our "offenses" and try to really, really love and serve one another...knowing that only the Holy Spirit can convict you or me of sin (whether it be whom you choose to have sex with or how you speak to those different than you).
if nothing else, you've got to learn about the "choice" argument.

I have personally made a commitment to get to know those around me who are gay (or whom I think are gay). I have committed not to just see them as "that gay guy" I try to avoid at the store. I have committed to try and love and serve the gay people around me just as I have committed to love and serve the poor, the black, the Asian, the Mexican, the rich, and the muslim people around me. That's good to hear. Hi, I'm Steve!


Whew! That was long and sort of didactic. Sorry! Well, I have to admit, I'm going to hit the "submit reply" button and I'm cringing a bit.


come on. it wasn't that bad, was it? :eek:

[andrewlittle]

FrankandCathy,

I'm going to add some comments from the point of view of a straight ally. I have been where you are - evangelical, white, male, privileged to beat the band, and clueless about people who aren't just like me. That doesn't mean I didn't care - just that I had not taken the time to try to look through someone else's eyes at the culture we live in. You can never accomplish that feat entirely, but the effort is well worth it.

First, the suggestions that you actually meet, talk with - really get to know as people - some GLBT folk is essential. BUT! Be very careful. This is something you are trying to understand - the benefit, initially at least, is for you. It is a very privileged position when we expect someone we exercise power over to teach us why it's wrong. That, in and of itself, can be considered oppressive. It is imperative that you walk, talk and question humbly and in full respect of the fact that you are asking to trespass on someone's personal property - their possibly traumatic experiences of being considered "less than human" and certainly "less than a child of God" - their experiences of having to claim value when culture says they have none.

Kara's reminder about social location is critical to learning about 'others'. That is where you are - quite possibly through no fault of your own - but you are seeing yourself as normal and others as - well - other than normal. That's what 'other' is all about - it translates to "not like me".
Society has taught you that YOU are the picture of the social norm - you are white (dominant trait), male(dominant trait), heterosexual (d.t.), presumably middle class or above (d.t.) and God knows how many other ways of looking at the way you match the norms of society. You can tell you're a member of dominant culture when you don't have to question why you're different.

Now, this is probably a little offensive. Imagine, then, how offensive it is to someone who cannot just identify themselves as you do - as a person - they have to have initials (GLBT) or racial descriptors (Black American, Asian American, etc.) or any number of classifying descriptions that give some sense of belonging to a group. If all people were accepted as simply people, these self-identities would not be necessary.

If I could make a suggestion, it would be to eat with some GLBT folk who are willing to assist you in learning - of course, that would require that you were absolutely honest about why you wanted to meet in the first place. Christ ate with people who didn't line up with dominant Jewish norms. He could eat with anybody and accomplish eating with a sinner, since we all qualify. He ate with people who were excluded or rejected or derided by the culture around them. Then he didn't set out to learn about them - he simply was with them, saw them as fully people, and engaged them where and how they were.

You have nothing to fear, except the possibility of transformation. Maybe you could even ask questions like, "Why do people like me think we're so special?" "In what way have people like me hurt you?" "How can I be a friend?"

Above all else, keep trying.

[BruceChris]

It was probably my personal message, which first shows up on your end as an email, that you are referring to:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We hope to engage you in a continuing and respectful discussion"

And I would appreciate it very much if you could respond to the postings in your thread, at least after having done some additional reading, or research. Please, I feel that we need some input from you (two) so that we can focus our responses better.

Peace, and God's Love, Bruce Chris

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I felt that I, and probably most of us need to have a sufficient understanding of who you are, where you are coming from, what your beliefs are, and what exactly you are trying to ask. I have to cling to the belief that there has to be regular input from both sides, to have a dialogue. I do not in any way expect that you could have read even a fraction of what is out there, I was just hoping that you might have read some, plus what we have posted here. I apologise if I have in any way made you feel pressured. I do thank you for getting back to us, and I pray that our conversation can go on with respect, a minimum of judgement, and even some Christian love, as we get to know each other better.

Peace, and God's Love, and I truly hope with humility, Bruce Chris

[Pablo Rafael]

Frank and Cathy,

I knew when I first saw your posting that you would get a lot of responses. I also knew that the responses would not always be positive. You must forgive us if we are a little sensitive. The lesbian/gay individual has had to suffer with discrimination from society, in the workplace and from family members. We are fighting battle for acceptance and the opposition against us grows ever more vicious year by year.

I think the key question is, "Is homosexuality a sin?" I would say no. I say this as a person who for most of his life thought it was. I am a person whe believes that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and does not think that God's Word can be changed to suit a person's desires. I would ask you why you think it is a sin? Most people point to the sin of Sodom, but nowhere does the Bible say the sin of Sodom was homosexuality. In fact Jesus states otherwise. I won't go into a whole explanation of Bible passages; the recommendations you have been given will do a better job of it.

Now what if homoesexuality is a sin? (Which I don't think it is) Just for the sake of discussion, I will play the devil's advocate.
Here is a quote from Billy Graham, "I think the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin. But the Bible also teaches that pride is a sin, jealousy is a sin, and hate is a sin, evil thoughts are a sin, and so I don't think homosexuality should be chosen as the overwhelming sin that we are doing today."
You made a comment about "unepentant" sin. Don't all of us have unrepentant sin? I do things I know are wrong, and I know that I am going to do it again. I act selfishly; I know it's wrong. I'm sorry I do it, but I know I will continue. On this side of eternity we all live in sin, but that sin is wonderfully erased by God's grace shown to us on the cross. Even if a person is still convinced to believe that homosexuality is a sin, one can't elevate it to the supreme sin by which "good" people and "bad" people are judged. I am not advocating "cheap grace". I believe God calls us to live lives of service and holiness; we have no excuse to rejoice in wrongdoing. It is easy for many people to attack homosexuality because it is something they don't have to deal with personally; it is easy to point out the errors of someone else, less easy our own.

Much mention has been made about "rights". My dear grandparents thought interracial marriage was the worst sin that could happen. They even had their Bible verses to "prove" it. Grandma told me if I married a black woman she wouldn't visit me. They thought that their right to live in a society without interracial couples was legitimate. How can we have a right to discriminate? Our rights end when they infringe on the rights of others. No one has a right to live in a society without homosexual marriage. No one has a right to deny rights to someone else so they can be comfortable.

I was going to make just a short response here, but it has gone into a long homily, sorry.

Another great book that doesn't deal so much which the scriptural aspects of the question is Stranger at the Gate by Mel White. It is a fascinating story of his struggle as a fundamentalist gay Christian. (Maybe someone has already recommended it; I don't remember.) It is a wonderful book that is easy to read that can't help but pull at a person's emotions.

Thanks again for your questions. If we could have this discussion througout Christianity at large, many prejudices and bad feelings could be done away with. You are so right in saying that our job is to love and serve one another. If we keep love in mind as we debate, the Holy Spirit will lead us all to a deeper understanding.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[frankandcathy]

Okay, well, that was pretty painless. I'm about to toddle off to bed but I wanted to read everyone's responses and say, "Thank you" for your replies.

I did get to read the "Letter" web page today. I think it's well thought out and obviously pulls from different sources. I think there were some biblical issues that weren't hit upon, however. Things that I don't have the time or energy to detail here (still processing through some of them at that) now. Hopefully I will get to do so some day.

Kara: I am really appreciating your insights. I'd never consider the house/children issues...mostly because I don't have to! Um...I'm not out to change anyone's sexuality. Really. I'm not.

Keltic...you're keeping me on my toes, I see.

I think the reason (the one, sole reason) that most Christians ignore science, physchology, etc. is because we believe the Bible is infallible. We believe that when we open our Bibles and it says, "Men shouldn't have sex with one another" that's pretty cut and dried. That's it. If the Bible said, "I should dress up like a monkey every Thursday" then that's what we'd do.

The problem with that argument, though, is very apparent: what about things like "Don't wear a shirt of mixed fabrics?" "Women should be silent in church." Are we just picking and choosing what suits us? Yes, in some ways, we all are. No Christian that I know of (gay or straight) sees it as a problem to wear shirts of mixed fabric or for women to speak in church.

So the question then becomes: what is the criteria for actually doing what the Bible says to do (or not do). Ah, there's the rub. There are as many theological answers to suit anyone's desires as there are desires.

This is the other big reason: most conservative Christians do not see homosexuality as something you're born with. We see it as something that happened to you as a result of sin in the world.

I think that I think of it in terms of my own recurring sins as a result of my family's messed up dynamics. I yell at my children when I get stressed out. I can't seem to stop doing this. This must be ingrained in me. Maybe it's genetic?

Now I'm not expecting ANYONE here to agree with this. I am sure that would be, in your eyes, like saying to me, "You're not really straight. You weren't born that way. You can work on changing that." I would just stare at you with my mouth open and wonder how you could be so dense.

I don't think I make disparaging remarks about gay people...but you never know. No, I don't think that the people around me aren't "out" to me because of something I said or did. But you never know.

Ah, read carefully. I was careful not to say that "gay people need Jesus because they're gay." My point is that gay people seem to be separated from the church at large and therefore, perhaps, from the love of Christ. Gay people need Jesus because they're people. The same as everyone who doesn't know Him.

LOL. I am absolutely not suggesting that the gay community stop being gay for their conservative brothers and sisters...although, hey, no, just kidding. I am suggesting that both "sides" lay down their political agendas, harsh words, etc. and begin serving one another in love.

I wonder how many times James Dobson and Jerry Falwell have physically served a group of gay people by giving of their time, money, or resources if not to help further "the cause" then at least to help meet real needs like food, clothing, etc. I am sure that there are homosexual people touched by their ministries but not in an intentional way.

I also wonder how many times the gay Christian community has served its conservative Christian family in the same way (would we let you? I hope so).

Andrew: I'm the "Cathy" part of "Frankandcathy." http://www.soulforce.org/forums/images/smilies/wink.gif

I definitely don't understand what it's like to be anyone but me.

LOL. It makes me think of that scene in PCU where everyone's standing in line waiting to get into the concert and you have the various outcries from each group about how oppressed they are. FInally one of the feminists says something like, "Woman have been oppressed all over the world for thousands of years. Shut up!"

So, yeah, I have a small inkling of what it's like to be the "other." I like to do woodworking and I often get weird looks from men when I try to talk to them about band saws, routers, etc. Often if there's two or more of them, they just ignore me or even just turns their backs on me.

I'm sure if I magnified that feeling about 1,000 times I'd have an idea.

Bruce: Bon't worry about it. I understood what you meant.

Didn't I say I had to go to bed?? Oh how I do love to hear myself talk...goodnight!

~C

[kara speltz]

Dear Frank & Cathy: Thank you for your openess, and your sense of humor. I'm truly finding this helpful to my own journey because it seems since the Equality Ride, I'm being led to these kinds of serious face to face (so to speak) conversations. I really believe that this loving dialogue will make a real difference. I've been a follower of nonviolence for some 40 years now, but it wasn't until I came to Soulforce, that I realized that I had things to learn from my advesaries. The peace movement can be very arrogant and think we have all the answers. I still struggle with that on a daily basis, but at least I now know that it is something I need to struggle with.

Again I thank you for your amazing courage to step forward and engage in this. I truly believe God is getting you ready for an amazing ministry and I praise God for that.

Kara

[andrewlittle]

I love it. Thanks, Cathy.

It's a bit of a bugger being shown your own bias, but it's always helpful in the end. What's that old saying about making assumptions?

And a woodworker, to boot. I taught a woodworking class to seven women at the vocational school in Delaware Ohio a few years back. You should have seen the looks I got from the "guys". It had "traitor" written all over it. Do you still have all your fingers - if so, we're both rarities at woodworking shows. Bless your heart, keep it up.

I would love to address the "Men shouldn't have sex with one another" part of your post, but I am leaving bright and early in the morning for Ohio for the week. Would you mind, when I get back, if I address the two Leviticus passages in chapters 18 and 20 that this comes from.

I have studied Greek and Hebrew extensively, and I can tell you that neither of those passages say that in the original languages, and even in the later Latin it is very ambiguous. The King James Version is the first time that prohibition shows up with that language in scripture.

I won't be looking to change your mind, necessarily. But I do want to show that tradition has had an awful lot to do with translation, and that there may be at least "a reasonable doubt" of guilt.

I will check your posts next weekend to see if it is okay. I will want your permission and will not post the explanation on your thread if you don't grant it.

In the meantime, have a great week - well, that goes for everyone.
Andy

[scott snedeker]

I would love to address the "Men shouldn't have sex with one another" part of your post, but I am leaving bright and early in the morning for Ohio for the week. Would you mind, when I get back, if I address the two Leviticus passages in chapters 18 and 20 that this comes from.

I have studied Greek and Hebrew extensively, and I can tell you that neither of those passages say that in the original languages, and even in the later Latin it is very ambiguous. The King James Version is the first time that prohibition shows up with that language in scripture.
Andy


Wow! that's huge! What's more Pan (my sigil) was worshipped by the Greek countryfolk too! Ok maybe that went too far:lol:

But more seriously
There is no verse in the Bible that can leap off the page and harm anyone. The only harm comes from what some one might do to you in the name of their God. Violence in spirit or material form is not God's will. If a verse causes you to feel fearful, negatively, or angry toward yourself or others, then you are just not ready at this time to understand it. (negative touchstone) Particularly if it is mistranslated! Select another verse that makes you feel love toward yourself and others for this is God's message that you are ready to understand. And probably less likely to be mistranslated.



My exploration into spirituality is very new. I am starting from scratch after having emptied my religious closet of any belief. I use my emotions as a guide to find touchstones. So far I find a few basic resonances:

Fear is the emotional state farthest from my Source (God if you will) It is the most disconnected state on the emotional spectrum. "the greatest coward can hurt the most ferociously"---Annie Lennox

Love, ecstacy and joy are the closest connection to my Source.

Acceptance and Affimation of my nature connect me with my Source. This means I must live actively in accordance with being gay, polyandrous (not monogamous!), a nuturer, a teacher, a student, a comedian, etc. And by doing so I allow in the joy of Source Energy (God).

My best spiritual teacher is Abraham (Abraham-hicks.com not the biblical reference) which is a discipline of thought focus, a kind of modern Ann Rand.

I consider something valid and true if it activates love, joy or some other positive vibration in me. If it does not then it has no value to me. You could call it spiritual Hygiene.

Life is supposed to be fun!;) there is great love for you! We are complete and extensions of source energy!
love Scotty:cowboy:

[keltic63]

Keltic...you're keeping me on my toes, I see.
Glad to be of service :D

I think the reason (the one, sole reason) that most Christians ignore science, physchology, etc. is because we believe the Bible is infallible. We believe that when we open our Bibles and it says, "Men shouldn't have sex with one another" that's pretty cut and dried. That's it. If the Bible said, "I should dress up like a monkey every Thursday" then that's what we'd do.

The problem with that argument, though, is very apparent: what about things like "Don't wear a shirt of mixed fabrics?" "Women should be silent in church." Are we just picking and choosing what suits us? Yes, in some ways, we all are. No Christian that I know of (gay or straight) sees it as a problem to wear shirts of mixed fabric or for women to speak in church.
so you do see this as choosing a scripture to support one's personal prejudices, even in the face of overwhelming evidence?



Now I'm not expecting ANYONE here to agree with this. I am sure that would be, in your eyes, like saying to me, "You're not really straight. You weren't born that way. You can work on changing that." I would just stare at you with my mouth open and wonder how you could be so dense.
yet this is what we hear from much of christianity.



I wonder how many times James Dobson and Jerry Falwell have physically served a group of gay people by giving of their time, money, or resources if not to help further "the cause" then at least to help meet real needs like food, clothing, etc. I am sure that there are homosexual people touched by their ministries but not in an intentional way. the argument is that by pointing out our sin, they are loving us into heaven. it's pretty clear from recent political campaigns though that gay marriage and homosexuality in general are good motivators for the ultra-conservative politcal bloc.

I also wonder how many times the gay Christian community has served its conservative Christian family in the same way (would we let you? I hope so). we are there, serving, and I bet you don't see us. I serve a church as music director on a part-time basis. I am the only "out" person there, and as far as I can tell, there may be only 2 other closeted individuals in the congregation. I know that these women serve in various ministries of our church. my guess is that we are indeed everywhere, but often slip in, unnoticed.

[BruceChris]

Scott, in the post above, you describe the ways, or your way of reading, interpreting, and understanding the Bible. This would commonly be called your hermaneutic, in the theological community. And every Biblical scholar has their own hermaneutic.

At this point, I have to stop, and back up, and go over some basic material. The Bible comes to us from many sources, and over almost 2000 years for the New Testament, and for a much longer period of time for the Old Testament. Copies of different works have been lost and found, translated and sometimes mis-translated or even edited. At times, works have been written by one author, but somehow ascribed to another. There is evidence that the synoptic gospels were written in a certain order, each one drawing from the last, and expanding on what was said before. As I understand it, what we call the Bible was largely put together by St. Augustine and a group that he worked with, about 1500 years ago. He was, in essence, the editor, and his beliefs were foundational to much of what we have as Christian theology even today. And anything that he decided to leave out, was simply left out.

Theologians and Biblical scholars usually spend years studying the ways that the original Greek, Aramaic, and Hebrew were spoken and written, at the time that each work was writen in a particular language. It does not take very long to realize that there are an almost unlimited number of translations of the Bible, if you take it one verse at a time. Some of these languages did not even have words for certain concepts, like homosexuality. Lesbianism was almost totally ignored, since back then, women were just not considered very important, and so if something did not involve a penis, it wasn't even considered sex.

I admit that I often spend more time reading books written by theologians and biblical scholars that I do reading or discussing the Bible itself. And the more I read, the more questions there are that I encounter that call into question the very definitions of Christianity itself. I personally have to conclude that the Bible cannot simply mean what it says in plain English; for the above reasons, because there are so many different translations, and most of all, because it simply was not written in modern, or "plain" English.

To wrap up, I have two points. First, that Scott uses what I would call a hermaneutic of love, as I try to do, in my own way. Honestly, it frightens me that there are so many people who have a hermaneutic only of sin and judgementalism.

Second, that there are many students of Christianity, and the Bible, who undoubtedly have innumerable additions and corrections to what I have said here. But I must stand by the basics, and I hope that many of them will stand with me.

Frank and Cathy, I realize that what I have said here could be very troubling to think about, and complicate your lives no end, but it is the truth, at least as I am learning it. And I pray that what I have said may make you thoughtful, even curious, and I would hope, NOT frighten you back to one understanding of one Bible, as it is used in one denomination.

To put it another way, I believe that each of us is as God creates us, and that is good, as good as we can make it, if we follow the Great Commandment.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[suzer1013]

I think the reason (the one, sole reason) that most Christians ignore science, physchology, etc. is because we believe the Bible is infallible. We believe that when we open our Bibles and it says, "Men shouldn't have sex with one another" that's pretty cut and dried. That's it. If the Bible said, "I should dress up like a monkey every Thursday" then that's what we'd do.

The problem with that argument, though, is very apparent: what about things like "Don't wear a shirt of mixed fabrics?" "Women should be silent in church." Are we just picking and choosing what suits us? Yes, in some ways, we all are. No Christian that I know of (gay or straight) sees it as a problem to wear shirts of mixed fabric or for women to speak in church.

So the question then becomes: what is the criteria for actually doing what the Bible says to do (or not do). Ah, there's the rub. There are as many theological answers to suit anyone's desires as there are desires.

This is the other big reason: most conservative Christians do not see homosexuality as something you're born with. We see it as something that happened to you as a result of sin in the world.

~C


Hi Cathy. While other folks here have pretty much covered what I would respond with, I just wanted to point out that there is a very large community of Christians who are liberal and progressive, and who would very much disagree that the Bible is infallible, or that Christians ignore science and psychology. It is somewhat amusing for me to see someone speak of Christians and say "we" believe a certain thing, when Christians actually have many different beliefs and Biblical interpretations. (It also seems to assume that the folks here on Soulforce are not Christian -- many of us are.) Your phraseology seems to speak for all Christians, when in fact, you really speak for a subset of Christians who believe as you do. I was raised in a progressive Christian denomination, and it was quite an eye-opener to find that some Christians would not even consider me a Christian because I interpret some Biblical passages differently than they!

There are some folks who believe, perhaps as you do, that in order to be Christian, we all must believe the same thing. However, there are other Christians who would greatly disagree. I would be careful of making blanket statements such as "most Christians ignore science" -- it's just not true. Perhaps some people who are Christian dismiss science, but I think most Christians accept scientific discoveries to some extent (most people no longer believe the earth is flat, for example). Perhaps what you are referring to is the subset of Christians who dismiss modern science and psychology's discoveries about homosexuality?

I appreciate your good intentions here, but hope that you can recognize that many of us here do identify as Christian, and see no incongruity with being Christian and being gay. If you (as others have) have been taught that being gay and Christian is impossible, I hope that the conversations here can help you gain some understanding of our position. However, you do not speak for all Christians, just as I do not speak for all Christians.

Unfortunately, many here have been hurt by Christians and I would hope that those who have suffered will see that there are denominations and congregations that are welcoming, do not see homosexuality or committed homosexual relationships as sinful, and will not question their ability to be Christian and GLBT. Even the question, unfortunately, can be hurtful.

Susan

[kara speltz]

we are there, serving, and I bet you don't see us. I serve a church as music director on a part-time basis. I am the only "out" person there, and as far as I can tell, there may be only 2 other closeted individuals in the congregation. I know that these women serve in various ministries of our church. my guess is that we are indeed everywhere, but often slip in, unnoticed.

Exactly! We've been in these churches, serving invisibly for centuries and centuries. The difference now is we refuse to continue that invisibility. And what has been the response? Beth Stroud is a good example a wonderful minister who is loved by her congregation, but defrocked by her church.

It is the very fact that throughout history we allowed ourselves to be invisible that brings us to this place today. Imagine if Alexander the Great, Michaelangelo, DaVinci, and the countless GLBTs who have given their lives to serving God's people had been recognized as who they were?

Kara

[marutidas]

First of all Namaste Frank and Cathy,

Many passages of the Bible are out of step with modern people, The six refering to Homosexuality, wearing mixed fabric or working on the sabbath.

The core of Christianity is vital, but it is not important to follow all of what the bible say literaly.

Jesus talk about Helping the poor and the sick, those in need with love.
To treat all of humanity with love and compassion.
From the last estimate I have heard, there are about 200,000 verses on that very subject.

So what is more important, to follow the Bible to the T or be a good, loving and descent human being.

The ten commandments were not just something to avoid, My Catholic Priest said it best you cant not guide with law, you can only guide with love.
So, Law is the shadow, Love is the Reality.

On the part of sexuality,
The Bible is not a Book about human sexuality, It is about Gods love and not about what people do in the privacy of their bedroom.

I beleive a good, healthy sex life, can be a very good thing in a relationship.

:pray: With closed palms, I bow to the divinity with in you.

[Daniel]

To wrap up, I have two points. First, that Scott uses what I would call a hermaneutic of love, as I try to do, in my own way. Honestly, it frightens me that there are so many people who have a hermaneutic only of sin and judgementalism.


I smiled when I read this and like very much your expression "a hermaneutic of love". The phrase would make a great book title. It also brought to mind an implied psychological stance which might be best expressed in the idea: "Projection make for Perception". In short, it means that we tend to see what we've seen before- and look for it. It becomes a loop. This applies to how we think too.

If we don't see gay people in our midst, it's not because they aren't there, rather, we are 'blind' to them. They aren't our 'norm' - part of our world- if one is straight.

Of course, it goes the other way.

Case in point: I'm very aware that as I walk the streets of NYC I 'see' handsome men a great deal more than I do women. They stick out in my consciousness. Why? I'm gay. And I'm confident that I'm missing a lot when I'm busy 'seeing'.

Ideas or people. It's much the same thing, I think. We have to want to see to see.

Is that believing? :lol:

I guess this means we all could spend more time looking for love.

[BruceChris]

-----------------------

[marutidas]

My belief in the Hindu Scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as Divinely inspired...I decline to be bound by any interpritation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason and common scense.
---Mahatma Gandhi
I do not believe every word of the Bible is direct from God,
The people who wrote the Bible or preach from the Bible are not unbiased, they feel that their interpritiation is the most valid and no discuses the differences.

It is scientifically proven that Homosexuality is not a disease, mental disorder or the like, it is not a choice, and there many factors that are involved that make a Gay person who they are. There many Gay people who just want to be treated like human beings with all the rights and priviledges that hetreosexuals enjoy, instead of being treated like an alien life form.

The bible doesn't go in length about homosexuality, it does not talk about human sexuality, it does talk about social taboo, alot. Jesus did not follow many of the things that the clergy said to do in his time, working on the
sabbath, Embracing lepers, ect. The bible does talk in length about helping the sick, the needy. So it is matter of what is more important, to follow all of the bible to the letter, of do what is right for our lives now and not what was acceptible 2000 years ago.

---Marutidas

[kara speltz]

My belief in the Hindu Scriptures does not require me to accept every word and every verse as Divinely inspired...I decline to be bound by any interpritation, however learned it may be, if it is repugnant to reason and common scense.
---Mahatma Gandhi
I do not believe every word of the Bible is direct from God,
The people who wrote the Bible or preach from the Bible are not unbiased, they feel that their interpritiation is the most valid and no discuses the differences.

It is scientifically proven that Homosexuality is not a disease, mental disorder or the like, it is not a choice, and there many factors that are involved that make a Gay person who they are. There many Gay people who just want to be treated like human beings with all the rights and priviledges that hetreosexuals enjoy, instead of being treated like an alien life form.

The bible doesn't go in length about homosexuality, it does not talk about human sexuality, it does talk about social taboo, alot. Jesus did not follow many of the things that the clergy said to do in his time, working on the
sabbath, Embracing lepers, ect. The bible does talk in length about helping the sick, the needy. So it is matter of what is more important, to follow all of the bible to the letter, of do what is right for our lives now and not what was acceptible 2000 years ago.

One of my favorite quotes about the bible comes from Karl Barth and I sometimes use it as a "signature." He says: ""I love the Bible too much to take it literally. To do so is to select those passages which fit one's beliefs, not those which challenge one to grow in understanding. It is to use the Bible to keep one from making the changes God seeks in our lives."

For me that resonates with how I understand the bible.

Kara

[marutidas]

One of my favorite quotes about the bible comes from Karl Barth and I sometimes use it as a "signature." He says: ""I love the Bible too much to take it literally. To do so is to select those passages which fit one's beliefs, not those which challenge one to grow in understanding. It is to use the Bible to keep one from making the changes God seeks in our lives."

For me that resonates with how I understand the bible.

Kara

My feeling of the Conservitive interpritation of the Bible is Silly. None seek to become better than they are now. They follow blindly, instead of looking inside themselves. If they are asking these questions, and concetrating on the external rather the internal, how will they grow beyond this point?

Amma says, "that scriptures are good in the beginning, because they teach us morals and structure, like teaching a tree to grow upright. But as we grow, we must transend that structure, this is the basis of spirituality...religion is like eating sugarcane, you bite in into the stalk,(the tenants of the religion) and suck out the essence,(spirituality) and spit out the stalk...but many are swollowing the stalk and spitting out the essence."

No one can ever control what others do, but I can control myself, my actions and my thoughts and my words. If move to improve those, the world will change around me.
I learned that from a very early age, It got me into trouble alot :lol:
The trouble is applying it everyday.

[1engelbythesea]

I am suggesting that both "sides" lay down their political agendas, harsh words, etc. and begin serving one another in love.

:pray: Yes, Cathy ... but that is easier said than done. However I do not think it is impossible.
When Mother Theresa asked for permission to leave her teaching position to go serve the poor, and the sick in Calcutta the bishop said: How can you do this? You are just one person and there are so many of them. Her answer was "one at the time" I may not reach all of them, but it will make a difference in those I reach.
The order of the Sisters of Charity has more than 60,000 nuns all over the world doing just that nowadays.
If we can lay down our resentments, misunderstandings, political agendas, harsh words and begin serving one another in love as you suggested would be a wonderful truth. Let us forget the mutual mistakes that we have made and start to talk to each other from the heart. And if we both share the good in this with not only each other, but our own groups.
It is not our job to judge; the bible is very clear on this one. Each of us have plenty to work on our own selves, without wanting to change anyone else. I do believe that on final judgement God will look at the intent in our heart, grace will save us from our mistakes if our intent was to serve and love each other.
Cathy you may yet lead others into the light with your search for understanding. I do believe you are honest, follow the light.
We are all children of God!

[frankandcathy]

Well, I just got back into town and I have to say: there's too much to say!

I don't think I have time to answer every thing or every detail but I will try to hit the major points. Sorry if I don't respond to something anyone wanted to know about.

I think the thing is this: there are so many "versions" of Christianity, religion, etc. that it's just too easy for EVERYONE to stay where they're at and believe what they currently believe. To think of overturning your whole thought process by sort of starting over and trying to re-learn everything is overwhelming to most of us. I am inclined to stick to my current belief system because it works for me and because I believe it's truth. This is not to say that I don't consider other arguments or analyze other opinions but, all in all, I always wind up right back where I started. Which probably depends more upon personal experience that anything more "substantial."

I am personally just not able to swallow the idea that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally or meant to be taken as a set of guidelines because it sort of removes the personal nature and then, why would I read it? Why not pick up any other holy book and read that with as much enthusiasm? The crux of that issue seems to be, for me, that I belive that Jesus is the one true God. Therefore, I want to hear what HE has to say to ME, not just what he had to say to some other folks once. I do not at all discount Him speaking to me NOW through the Holy Spirit but, let's be honest, people hear a lot of things from "God" that don't line up with scripture. I don't want to take that chance. Does that make sense?

suzer: The point is well noted about liberal vs. conservative theology in the Christian church. It should be understood that when I am speaking of "Christians" I am pretty much speaking of conservative Christians (having already identified myself as one). Especially when the question itself was stated in those terms. I do not for a minute pretend that ALL Christians believe the same way. This, too, confuses me. I'm getting used to the confusion, now though. :o)

On that same note, my husband's family is in a "liberal" denomination and their faith often confuses me. They read many of the same materials that we do (Max Lucado, Beth Moore, etc.) but don't seem to have a desire to be evangelistic at all or even discuss anything spiritual. It appears to make them uncomfortable. It's hard to understand ANYONE who is very different than you. I'm learning that.

marutidas: you're thoughtful and obviously so well meaning. I think I have a super-duper different theology than yours because mine starts and ends with Jesus but I'm glad to see you on here and feeling absolutely free to leave your thoughts and opinions. Thanks!

davidcom: I'm so glad to hear that you attend such a church that is alive and reaching out. Again, I don't agree with you on the purpose of scripture thing necessarily. I am with you 100% on the foot of the cross, grace, etc. I'm just not sure at what point we shut down our "sin-ometer" for ourselves or inside the church walls. We are obviously not to allow rampant sinfulness in the body of Christ. Some believe homosexuality would be rampant sin, some do not. Outside of that, I wonder how "gay-friendly" churches differ or are similar to "regular" churches in regards to dealing with sin in the congregation. Surely the Holy Spirit is the leader, guider, and teacher. But what of those who are running amock, seemingly not listening to the Holy Spirit's conviction, causing dissension or immorality? Is there a strategy for dealing with this type of behavior in "liberal/progressive" or "gay-friendly" churches. I am just curious. I imagine it depends upon the theology of the church itself. Anyway, I don't miss your larger point about the POINT of Jesus' ministry and our lives as Christians.

Bruce: This is not the first time I've heard the argument about the Bible being edited. Was it the council of Nicene or something like that? (Man I wish I could go to seminary.) I totally understand where you're coming from. It's hard to know what the Bible is or isn't. But, again, it's just more comforting (easier?) to take it at face value, trust that God made sure the "good stuff" got in, and believe it's God's word to you.

Many will call that feeble-minded but I call it realistic. I know that I could spend a lifetime researching languages and meanings but I don't want to spend a lifetime doing that. I'll take the word of the majority of scholars who've gone before me and just go with their understanding. Then I can get on with the business of loving others and trying to fulfill the Great Commission (which others may or may not believe was a mandate from Jesus to ME).

I caused a big to-do at our last church by mentioning that not everything in the Bible is true but that the Bible itself is still truth. This sort of blew their minds and they looked really, really shocked. I think one lady's mouth was actually hanging open. I pointed out that in Ecclesiastes, the statement, "Everything is meaningless" isn't actually true...but that I understood what his point was. I don't believe that the apostle Paul was saying I should "live as though I weren't married." I don't believe that is what the Lord would want me to do. But that's what Paul said, isn't it? And yet, if you ask me, I will say that the scripture is the innerant Word of God. Does that make sense?

Ironically, in the faith tradition that I got saved in (Pentecostal), there is a common practice of teaching that certain passages should be read in context, taken not as a command but as wisdom for that day, etc. (women speaking in church, women's covering of the head, speaking in tongues, prophesy, etc.). Of course, this strain of Christianity is very, very outspoken about homosexuality as well so...again, it just goes to show that the practice of molding the Bible to suit yourself is pretty common.

keltic: thank you for being a loving servant to the church at large.

Pablo: I have to say that I appreciated your post so much. Maybe because I think you understand more of where I'm at? Or because you're "like me?"

I think homosexuality is a sin because every version of the Bible I've ever owned says it is. (I'll address this more later on.)

I am in agreement with Billy Graham's quote. In fact, I think the problem comes in when we begin to get too political about our faith and our faith becomes intermixed with a particular party or agenda.

Okay, this will probably sound really arrogant but it's not meant to be. I don't believe I have any unrepentant sin in my life. This means: I don't believe there is a sin in my life THAT I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF and have not asked forgiveness for or taken steps to correct. This does not mean that I don't continue to do it! No indeed, I struggle daily with pride, etc. just as we all do.

I am not of the mind that we may just go on sinning saying, "Oh, but grace will abound all the more." Or "I'm covered. I don't have to quit doing this."

I think the reason why homosexuality seems like such a "big sin" is because of the political nature that swirls around it. Perhaps without all the political crud, none of us would be all that concerned about it? At least no more than lying, stealing, or anything else.

I am going to be honest with you about Mel White's book. I understand all here probably adore him but I would have a hard time swallowing a book from a man who left his wife and children to live a homosexual lifestyle. Now, I'm not casting blame. I'm only saying that I'd rather read a different source to get the low-down. Being married with children, it just hits too close to home to think of losing the love of my life and father of my children in the way that I "signed up for."

Okay, I said I would eventually sit down and talk about some of the Biblical issues I have with the concept of homosexuality as a sin. Here are a few.

1. I just don't believe that the scholars who translate the Bible are biased enough or dumb enough to mis-translate it. It's a simple question of trusting their expertise over mine. Of course, this is up for debate and has been much debated, obviously. That's just my take on it.

2. The issue of symbolic meaning in the scriptures. I very much understand the Bible in symbolic terms.

a. When Paul says that the marriage of a man to a woman is symbolic of Christ and the church, I take that very much to heart. I believe that there is something inherently different about men and women in the way they're made. I believe that it takes BOTH sexes to complete a perfect picture of Christ and the church. I don't think that my marrying another woman would be a complete picture of Christ and the church. It would be the church...and the church. Or two men...Jesus marries Jesus? This seems to paint Jesus as way too narcissistic for me. I KNOW that mostly everyone here will disagree wtih me but I'm just trying to explain how I think.

b. The creation of woman as man's helper. I don't see men as being complete without taking a female wife. God could have very easily created another man for Adam to hang out with and make love to. Who would say that would be wrong? But I believe that women represent the church (or humanity) and men represent God. The creation of men and women and sexual relationship between them is a picture for the world of how God loves us as humans. Again, a man created for another man seems narcissistic and not at all like God. That is why when marutidas says that sex isn't really an issue in the Bible, I totally disagree. I believe that sex is essential to our understanding of God. Think of it, why are we made to reproduce sexually? Why not asexually? In my mind, the whole notion of sex between a man and a woman screams about God's love for us and his desire to plant life in us.

c. Pregnancy and childbirth. On the same lines, a seed of man goes into a woman and produces fruit which then is born. In the same way, God's seed (the gospel) goes into us and produces fruit (the fruit of the Spirit). The whole world can witness the love between a man and his wife in this process. In the same way, the whole world can witness the love between God and man in this process. The picture of the impregnantion of the virgin Mary is the best example of this that I know. It's a cross between the spiritual and physical truths.

3. There has been an argument made that if homosexuality were such a big deal that Christ would have said something about it. The same argument has been made that if Jesus had wanted us to speak in tongues that he would have done it himself. I find fallacy in both arguments.

Jesus didn't wipe his rear anywhere in scripture but that doesn't mean He thinks we shouldn't. He also didn't mention incest, pedophilia, or mass murder. Are we to assume that since he didn't mention them that he doesn't think they're wrong? Am I to assume that because Jesus never spoke in tongues in scripture that I am to abstain as well? The answer to both questions is obviously "no."

Well, I've been on WAY TOO LONG. I have to go but I hope that I've somehow furthered the topic along. Thanks again to all who've written!

~C

[Willy]

How can you be a practicing homosexual (not repentant about it) and still be a Christian?
May I point out that, at nearly the age of 50, I am not a "practicing" homosexual? I am an expert. I am proud of my expertise. In fact, as an American, I know that I and my fellow American homosexuals are #1 on the planet. Go, team! :)

I am sure I just offended about a jillion people but I don't mean to.
Why of course you don't. By the same token, I don't intend to mock or otherwise impugn anyone's sincerity or integrity with this post:

http://tinyurl.com/ymktpf

[tdogg]

I am with you 100% on the foot of the cross, grace, etc. I'm just not sure at what point we shut down our "sin-ometer" for ourselves or inside the church walls. We are obviously not to allow rampant sinfulness in the body of Christ. Some believe homosexuality would be rampant sin, some do not. Outside of that, I wonder how "gay-friendly" churches differ or are similar to "regular" churches in regards to dealing with sin in the congregation. Surely the Holy Spirit is the leader, guider, and teacher. But what of those who are running amock, seemingly not listening to the Holy Spirit's conviction, causing dissension or immorality? Is there a strategy for dealing with this type of behavior in "liberal/progressive" or "gay-friendly" churches. I am just curious. I imagine it depends upon the theology of the church itself. Anyway, I don't miss your larger point about the POINT of Jesus' ministry and our lives as Christians.

Just a thought for you to consider - I came out late in my to myself and everyone else - it's been a long process and still a process. I was raised Pentecostal (AG) since a small child/pre-teen and 'saved' in an AG church. I took years and years for me to accept myself, mainly because of what I've been told and taught for all those years and years - homosexuals go straight to hell in a quick moving handbasket. Why would I want to explore that part of me that has the real potential to damn me forever?? Finally I could deny myself and my desires no more - I began dating a wonderful woman (we are going on 2 years since that first date). When I began this relationship, I expected to feel guilt, shame, horror, separation, disaccord, the list could go on and on. What I felt to my amazement and wonder was none of those - I felt wonderful, in love for the first time in my life, alive, strong, happy - joyful, my heartstrings were pulled in the most amazing way, I felt like knocking on every door in the world and letting everyone know, it felt like 'coming home', like FINALLY thank God I knew who I was, what I was meant to be, who I was meant to be with, I finally felt like I actually belonged to the human race. The most interesting thing for me, was that I still felt like the Lord loved me, and I had my relationship with Him. I found that I could be me, homosexual and in a relationship and it was not horror, sin or abomination to God or myself. Now, I have handful of family/friends who are horrified and desperately praying for my soul. The vast majority of friends and family are happy for me, many of them telling me I finally figured out what they already knew. So, my own convictions and faith are telling me I'm not sinning, I'm not wrong, I'm okay with the Lord and He's okay with me - I celebrate my creation and Creator with joy and love. As far as the Bible, we cannot take it literally cover to cover, impossible for any human to live under those laws and constraints. We MUST take it with much prayer and meditation, in order for God's Spirit to put it upon our hearts (much like He did mine) how He would have us live.

Ironically, in the faith tradition that I got saved in (Pentecostal), there is a common practice of teaching that certain passages should be read in context, taken not as a command but as wisdom for that day, etc. (women speaking in church, women's covering of the head, speaking in tongues, prophesy, etc.). Of course, this strain of Christianity is very, very outspoken about homosexuality as well so...again, it just goes to show that the practice of molding the Bible to suit yourself is pretty common.

This is an example of how common practice is to pick and choose which Bible verses those would take literally and which they choose to decide it's not relevant for the current times. I find it interesting that Biblical laws and constraints are placed on me literally across the board; however, those that try to do the placing, though they feel they are in compliance with the entire Bible literally, cannot comply 100% cover to cover. Again they 'pick and choose' the verses they want to comply with.

In the church we attended while i was a child, there was an incident where the pastor, who was much loved and well respected in that church, turned a woman away from the church who dared to enter wearing a pair of pants. While the congregation clapped, stood and cheered for the pastor, I was horrified and that incident stays heavy on my heart and mind to this day. I didn't believe much of the stuff that was taught an preached to me, I didn't necessary stand up and say that, but in my heart I did not feel it was the true intent or meaning of the Lord or the Bible.

In the AG church I attended for some time with my parents were pretty strict on numerous issues. I found it interesting that they crammed tithing down everyone's throats, while the pastor and his wife were immaculately dressed and coifed, have a large beautiful home, drive expensive vehicles, pastor himself bragged on how many times he visited Starbucks in a day, and were always talking about going to lunch and dinner, etc. Meanwhile, the old widow I often sat next to, would faithfully give money every Sunday she could manage to attend (when her arthritis wasn't too bad) and she didn't have a ton of money to give. I finally couldn't stand to attend any longer, the last straw was the day the pastor talked about homosexuality being a sin, and the church must fight it, stand against it, etc etc etc. I was done with that church and most churches in general.

[keltic63]

I think the thing is this: there are so many "versions" of Christianity, religion, etc. that it's just too easy for EVERYONE to stay where they're at and believe what they currently believe. To think of overturning your whole thought process by sort of starting over and trying to re-learn everything is overwhelming to most of us. I am inclined to stick to my current belief system because it works for me and because I believe it's truth. This is not to say that I don't consider other arguments or analyze other opinions but, all in all, I always wind up right back where I started. Which probably depends more upon personal experience that anything more "substantial."
Well, this is discouraging. What I think I hear you saying is that it’s easiest to remain where one is, and give some lip service to other viewpoints. Are you then saying that it’s just not important enough to start over and re-evaluate your spirituality? What if the things you have believed are wrong? Does one ignore that thought because it would just be too difficult to research, pray, meditate, and contemplate?

I am personally just not able to swallow the idea that the Bible isn't meant to be taken literally or meant to be taken as a set of guidelines because it sort of removes the personal nature and then, why would I read it? But you don’t really do that, do you? Even if you followed just what is in the New Testament, you wouldn’t be allowed to attend church services without either a hat or a veil. You wouldn’t be allowed to wear makeup or jewelry. There are any number of things listed even in the NT that would limit the freedoms that I’m sure you enjoy now.

suzer: The point is well noted about liberal vs. conservative theology in the Christian church. It should be understood that when I am speaking of "Christians" I am pretty much speaking of conservative Christians (having already identified myself as one). Especially when the question itself was stated in those terms. I do not for a minute pretend that ALL Christians believe the same way. This, too, confuses me. I'm getting used to the confusion, now though. :o) So, is it in your mind, as in many other Americans’ minds, that the word “Christian” means “conservative/evangelical/fundamentalist Christian” and no others?



Bruce: This is not the first time I've heard the argument about the Bible being edited. Was it the council of Nicene or something like that? (Man I wish I could go to seminary.) I totally understand where you're coming from. It's hard to know what the Bible is or isn't. But, again, it's just more comforting (easier?) to take it at face value, trust that God made sure the "good stuff" got in, and believe it's God's word to you. Again, this is so discouraging. It’s almost like burying your head in the sand. So I have to ask, what if something other than the “good stuff” got in? Does pretending that it didn’t change that reality?

Many will call that feeble-minded but I call it realistic. Pretending that something is what it is not, is certainly not realistic. I know that I could spend a lifetime researching languages and meanings but I don't want to spend a lifetime doing that. I'll take the word of the majority of scholars who've gone before me and just go with their understanding. Then I can get on with the business of loving others and trying to fulfill the Great Commission (which others may or may not believe was a mandate from Jesus to ME). Yet, there are many differing opinions about those scriptures from many scholars. Theologians don’t always agree, but there is a way to judge whether those scholars are applying acceptable methods in their research.

Which is more important, the Great Commission, or the Great Commandment?

I caused a big to-do at our last church by mentioning that not everything in the Bible is true but that the Bible itself is still truth. This sort of blew their minds and they looked really, really shocked. I think one lady's mouth was actually hanging open. I pointed out that in Ecclesiastes, the statement, "Everything is meaningless" isn't actually true...but that I understood what his point was. I don't believe that the apostle Paul was saying I should "live as though I weren't married." I don't believe that is what the Lord would want me to do. But that's what Paul said, isn't it? And yet, if you ask me, I will say that the scripture is the innerant Word of God. Does that make sense? And right here, you admit that while you believe the Bible is inerrant, infallible, and to be taken literally, you’d prefer not to do that. Yet, you come here to ask us, why we allow ourselves the same grace that you grant to yourself.

Ironically, in the faith tradition that I got saved in (Pentecostal), there is a common practice of teaching that certain passages should be read in context, taken not as a command but as wisdom for that day, etc. (women speaking in church, women's covering of the head, speaking in tongues, prophesy, etc.). Of course, this strain of Christianity is very, very outspoken about homosexuality as well so...again, it just goes to show that the practice of molding the Bible to suit yourself is pretty common. Does this not give you a clue that perhaps someone has given you some misinformation along the way?

keltic: thank you for being a loving servant to the church at large.
Thank you for saying so. I feel as if I’m raking you over the coals in this post. I am purposely pointing out some things that are incongruent. I almost feel as if you are rationalizing your beliefs/opinions because to actually think about them, research them, and perhaps change them would just be “too much work.” So instead of doing the hard work, you just come and ask us to justify our existence. No one comes out of the closet on a whim. All of us have examined our lives, we’ve done the spiritual and emotional work, especially those of us who claim our heritage as the gay children of God. We’ve always been at the communion table with you. The church has allowed us there, as long as we keep silent about who we are. It is only a problem when we live open and honestly that they church declares us “strangers.” Well, I was baptized too! I’ve been in church all my life. I shouldn’t have to justify my life to anyone.


I think homosexuality is a sin because every version of the Bible I've ever owned says it is. (I'll address this more later on.) You really need to back this up with scripture and sound translation!


Okay, this will probably sound really arrogant but it's not meant to be. I don't believe I have any unrepentant sin in my life. This means: I don't believe there is a sin in my life THAT I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF and have not asked forgiveness for or taken steps to correct. This does not mean that I don't continue to do it! No indeed, I struggle daily with pride, etc. just as we all do. Is pride no longer a sin?

I think the reason why homosexuality seems like such a "big sin" is because of the political nature that swirls around it. Perhaps without all the political crud, none of us would be all that concerned about it? At least no more than lying, stealing, or anything else. When did Jesus declare that the political climate would determine the definition of sin?

I am going to be honest with you about Mel White's book. I understand all here probably adore him but I would have a hard time swallowing a book from a man who left his wife and children to live a homosexual lifestyle. Now, I'm not casting blame. I'm only saying that I'd rather read a different source to get the low-down. Being married with children, it just hits too close to home to think of losing the love of my life and father of my children in the way that I "signed up for." But this happens regularly. Many gay and lesbian people have married because they thought that it was the right thing to do, it would cure them, that they would forget about their natural desires for a partner of the same sex, because they wanted children, societal pressures, family pressures and expectations, ANY Number of reasons. Those who have tried to appear straight usually fail miserably! As I recall, you appeared hear about the same time that Ted Haggard’s activities were revealed. It appears you have questions about that. So you come to cast stones?

Okay, I said I would eventually sit down and talk about some of the Biblical issues I have with the concept of homosexuality as a sin. Here are a few.

1. I just don't believe that the scholars who translate the Bible are biased enough or dumb enough to mis-translate it. It's a simple question of trusting their expertise over mine. Of course, this is up for debate and has been much debated, obviously. That's just my take on it. And because you “just don’t believe” this makes it so???

2. The issue of symbolic meaning in the scriptures. I very much understand the Bible in symbolic terms.

a. When Paul says that the marriage of a man to a woman is symbolic of Christ and the church, I take that very much to heart. I believe that there is something inherently different about men and women in the way they're made. I believe that it takes BOTH sexes to complete a perfect picture of Christ and the church. I don't think that my marrying another woman would be a complete picture of Christ and the church. It would be the church...and the church. Or two men...Jesus marries Jesus? This seems to paint Jesus as way too narcissistic for me. I KNOW that mostly everyone here will disagree wtih me but I'm just trying to explain how I think. So why can’t Jesus’ love for the church be representative of the love we show to our partners? Is the picture painted in scripture all about the gender, or the relationship?

b. The creation of woman as man's helper. I don't see men as being complete without taking a female wife. God could have very easily created another man for Adam to hang out with and make love to. Who would say that would be wrong? But I believe that women represent the church (or humanity) and men represent God. The creation of men and women and sexual relationship between them is a picture for the world of how God loves us as humans. Again, a man created for another man seems narcissistic and not at all like God. That is why when marutidas says that sex isn't really an issue in the Bible, I totally disagree. I believe that sex is essential to our understanding of God. Think of it, why are we made to reproduce sexually? Why not asexually? In my mind, the whole notion of sex between a man and a woman screams about God's love for us and his desire to plant life in us. do you ascribe to the idea that the woman is to be subservient to man then?

c. Pregnancy and childbirth. On the same lines, a seed of man goes into a woman and produces fruit which then is born. In the same way, God's seed (the gospel) goes into us and produces fruit (the fruit of the Spirit). The whole world can witness the love between a man and his wife in this process. In the same way, the whole world can witness the love between God and man in this process. The picture of the impregnantion of the virgin Mary is the best example of this that I know. It's a cross between the spiritual and physical truths. This statement assumes that Gay and Lesbian people wish that everyone was like them. That is not the case.

3. There has been an argument made that if homosexuality were such a big deal that Christ would have said something about it. The same argument has been made that if Jesus had wanted us to speak in tongues that he would have done it himself. I find fallacy in both arguments. Jesus had a lot to say about divorce, but those scriptures seem to be ignored, particularly in the Bible Belt, which has the highest divorce rates in the country.

I’m really disappointed in your words in this post. You can do better, especially when you have come to us to gather information and learn about how we can claim the name of Christ. It appears you don’t really wish to understand that.

[pnggrad79]

Frank and Cathy,
I grew up in a staunch Southern Baptist family, and although homosexuality was never mentioned specifically or condemned, I was indirectly taught that it was wrong. an aberration, etc. I got married when I was 20, had two children within 10 years and in those ten years met a woman with whom I had a really strong attraction to. I tried to push her away, deny my attraction, and repented thousands of times for the dreams I had about her. For 12 years, she and I went back and forth about what to call this relationship of ours. Finally, when I was 36 I was laying on the couch unable to sleep because I was struggling with whether I could be a Christian and gay at the same time. I got on my hands and knees and prayed for the 1000th time for this thing to be taken from me, and all of a sudden a peace came over me, and I admitted to God that I was in love with another woman, and if that made me a lesbian, then I was a lesbian. I admitted it to her the next day, and now 8 years later, we are married (in Canada, of course) and I am happier than I have ever been. I divorced my husband, and then we moved in together.

I guess all that to say-I didn't think I could be in love with a woman and have a relationship with God. I struggled with this for 12 years before I came out. I think it is a serious struggle for anyone who is gay and loves God. We have been taught since the cradle that it is wrong. What I have come to realize through reading Mel White's book Stranger at the Gate
is that God loves me just like I am, and my salvation is not in question and never has been (Hebrews 4:4). God knew before I was even born that I was a lesbian and He still chose to send Jesus to die in my place. If I was unacceptable to God, He wouldn't have sacrificed his only son for me.

I am growing in the knowledge that Jesus said to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, souls and minds and love our neighbor as myself. If Jesus said that and had nothing to say about my lesbianism, then I can't see it as wrong.

[marutidas]

Now while it is true that you and I have differnt ways of doing things, We see God through different eyes, but it is the same God. God ,for me, has many names and faces, all over the world. So the from my perspective there is only one God. While I am sorry to hear that none of what you have read here has help you understand Gay and Lesbian Christians. But We are brothers and sisters all and there will alway be disagreements and I pray that God opens your heart to us in the future, so that you can see beauty of us as human beings and not just as Lesbians and Gays.

"The Lotus Sutra, the ancient teaching that all people have enlightenment within them and are essentially equals, is a radical teaching. If it were not, then racial, sexual, and age discrimination, not to mention violence, terrorism and war, would not exist."
(thank you lady in red:love:)

:pray: With closed palms, I bow to the divinity within you.
---Marutidas

[Willy]

I admire people who have the intestinal fortitude to engage in serious debates with evangelicals on the issue of homosexuality. I, on the other hand, have a hard time taking them seriously. To me, it's plain that their objections are primarily aesthetic, and that religion is nothing but a wrapper used to justify what to them is the Yuck Factor. It's all the dodge. I want to say to them: Yeah, I know you don't like it. I don't like your cheesy Christian music and those stupid fish decals, either. But it's not like I'm trying to ban it, so how about you back off?

If they didn't have so much political power I'd laugh at 'em. And in fact, even though they do have political power I still can't help laughing at 'em. Not very charitable, I guess, but if only the voting majority would do the same, we'd get somewhere. :)

[andrewlittle]

Frankandcathy, and maybe everyone else,

I just lost my taste for a public thread being a good place to discuss differences. I am just as guilty, but do we really think that entering into dialogue is the same as bombarding someone who is curious with mile after mile of diatribe, only some of which actually pertains to the questions they had in the first place.

I just read through the posts, trying to see myself in frankandcathy's place, and I have to tell you - I'd tell us all to take a flying leap.

I'm not surprised that frankandcathy dug in heels and stood firm, since reading the entire thread seems to have figuratively, and emotionally, backed her into a corner.

Frankandcathy, find the one or two people on this website that you think had something worthwhile to contribute, and try to have a private dialogue with them.

As for me, I think my time writing in threads like this has ended. I am now, at the very least, a little ashamed of myself for participating in this in the first place.

Andy

[frankandcathy]

Hey everyone. I can see that my last post created some disappointment (especially in Keltic). I am sorry to see that.

I think it is a struggle to communicate across the board in human relationships because we all desire to be known, understood, and (whether we admit it or not) have others validate where we're coming from.

It's cannot say that I can validate where every homosexual person is coming from. And, obviously, it's hard for some homosexual people to say that they can validate where I'm coming from. If I say that in some ways it's easier to just "believe what you believe" then I am somehow a disappointment to those who want a real discussion and resolution. It is desired of me that I attempt to try very hard to validate someone else's thoughts and understand where they're coming from but if I feel safe enough to express my own true thoughts, then I get derided as being one of the intolerant masses.

To change ingrained thought patterns is (as you all know) very difficult work. And it's not a process that will take place on a message board alone, or over a short period of time.

I don't believe that there will ever be a real dialogue between the two sides of theology until we can say to one another, "I see where you're coming from. I don't agree but I understand. Do you see where I'm coming from? Do you understand? Not necessarily agree, but understand?"

Therein lies the problem I think with the politicization of certain issues. It's no longer okay to disagree but also try to understand. So much is at stake that we feel we MUST come to agreement or someone MUST be subjigated to the beliefs of another.

Keltic: I have to say I think you are often misunderstanding what I"m saying. Even when I'm trying to make the point that not all Christians are alike, you seem to think that I'm saying, "All Christians are alike."

Indeed. It is easier for EVERYONE to believe what they want to believe spiritually. Chances are, if you had not been homosexual, YOU would have been perfectly happy to do the same. Please let that sink in for a moment.

I am not here to just say, "Oh well, that was interesting. I'll go right back to what I believe." I am here for the primary purpose of learning what YOU believe. And I have done that. And you have been most helpful. And I thank you for it.

Everyone here has broadened my understanding beyond what it was before (Yes, even you Willy). I certainly have more compassion and more knowledge now that I did before. I'd never thought about some of the painful issues that gay people struggle with. I hope that now I will be more sensitive and loving.

I have some questions to ask myself about what the purpose of scripture is, if I am simply "picking and choosing" what suits me, and what role the Bible should play in my life and the lives of others.

What on Earth makes you think that I'm not thinking about, praying about, meditating on, and studying this topic? Just become I don't come to your conclusions doesn't mean that I'm not thoughtful or that I don't care. If I didn't care, I wouldn't be here.

As ever, I would never say that a "sin issue" or a "commandment" is more important than loving people. Let me repeat, I am here in an effort to learn to love people better by finding out about them. Please don't forget that during this sometimes hurtful conversation. This may be a good time to exercise, "Forgive them Father, for they know not what they do" in regards to me if you can.

You have a great point about the infallability argument and why I feel I can apply certain standards to myself and not to you. Again, I'm thinking about that one and, no, it doesn't scream hypocrisy at me right now. Most likely because I've been immersed in a culture that does the same thing.

When I say "every version of the Bible I've read says it's a sin," I mean that the words are translated differently than the way they would be in a gay-friendly Bible. "The Letter" documents those differences well and I'm sure you've read it so I didn't feel the need to re-post them here.

I'll admit I was a little wounded on the "is pride no longer a sin" thing. But that's okay. Please let me clarify. I'm not trying to be prideful (but perhaps I am). I just meant to say that if any of us having sin in our lives that we ARE AWARE OF and we choose to say, "You know God, I really don't care about that one," that's unrepentant sin.

Do I feel like I have sin in my life? ABSOLUTELY! Do I feel like I have anything that I am doing that I KNOW is wrong that I am just telling God to "bug off" on? No. Do I keep sinning every day? ABSOLUTELY! Would I love to stop? Oh yeah. Can I? Not this side of heaven.

Do I feel I'm superior to others in general? Sometimes. I attribute that to my personality and some issues I had growing up but there's no excuse for it and it certainly doesn't belong in the kingdom of God. I think my journey here is helping me to understand better, "Take the plank out of your own eye..."

And I think this is probably where gay Christians have an advantage over straight ones. You've been beaten up enough to understand that beating someone over the head for "their sins" doesn't really help. You know that to try to force someone to be something you believe "God wants them to be" is often cruel. I am so thankful to see this humility here.

Keltic: Again, your point is my point. Jesus certainly didn't say the political climate should affect sinfulness or the degree or measure we judge it with. That is my point, too. We have let it do so (I mean we as in the "straight Christian" community).

I am certainly not here to cast stones. If I were the wife of Mel White OR Ted Haggard I would be devastated. I think that's part of the reason why I wound up here. How could a man do this to his wife? How could a straight man do this to his wife? A gay man? Any man? And honestly, Keltic, this is where I'm going to draw the line on trying to stretch my understanding. You make a vow at an altar to love someone forever, you make babies with them, and then for ANY reason you CHOOSE to leave, that bites. Am I saying that he CHOSE to be gay, no. That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying he CHOSE to leave. Am I sorry that he was ever put in that situation? YES! Am I aware that he would suffer for the rest of his life if he stayed? YES! Does it matter all that much to me? NO!

In our society, we applaud people like Nancy Reagan or the wife of Christopher Reeves for taking their marriage vows seriously. Yet we are expected to simply dismiss a gay man who leaves his wife because he's gay.

Did Mrs. Reagan or Mrs. Reeves ever get their sexual needs met again from their husbands? Probably not. Did they ever want to just walk away and go make themselves happy? I'm sure. Did they ever get tired of not being recognized by someone they'd poured out their lives to or get tired of changing adult diapers? I'm sure. And yet...they made a commitment. They stayed. And they should be applauded because in those moments they were the most like God. They sacrificed their own desires for the sake of someone else. You can paint it however you want but to make a family with a woman and then leave her for ANYONE else is pure selfishness. I don't care what the reason is.

Okay, I know that sounded a little vehement but it touches my heart. I wouldn't expect you to understand in the same way I do. You're a man who is in no danger of having this happen to you. You don't understand a mother's heart or the heart of a wife. I don't fault you for this. I'm just saying there is not excuse for the behavior. No matter how desperate someone may feel.

Let me ask you this. If I get really, really, really fat when I'm 50 and my husband is no longer attracted to me anymore, should he be able to divorce me? I mean, his sexual needs aren't going to be met. He will probably feel repulsed by me. He will feel unloved and uncherished. Is it okay, then, for him to say his goodbyes? Or is that just selfish?

Inn regards to divorce: I bet you're wondering if I feel that divorce is wrong. Well yes, I do. I have divorced friends who are fond of talking about the "ex-wife" or the "ex-husband" and my heart breaks. How can you make a life with someone and then just leave it?

Look, my grandpa was an alcoholic who beat the crud out of my grandmother and father and uncle. Eventually, my grandmother moved out with the boys and didn't go back. She never divorced my grandfather and never dated another man. She lived the rest of her life as a sacrifice to the vow she made. Is that a super situation? No. But do I admire her for remaining faithful to her marriage? Yes!

Do I think God can restore people, forgive them, and use their lives? Yes! Do I think divorce was ever the best plan? No. I am quite sure that every divorced person would choose something different for themselves if they had it to do over again.

None of this means that I don't have compassion on divorced people or that I don't feel sympathy for them. I think this is one of the problems. You might think that because I have a standard of beliefs and behavior that I am incapable of feeling sympathy for someone else. This is not true. You might think that because I am able to draw a mental line, that I am incapable of showing grace. Also not true. Because that's how God is. He draws lines but loves us when we cross them. I admit this isn't easy to do and too many straight Christians have just drawn the line and forgotten about the love...but not all of us.

keltic: Because I believe something does not make it so. I am sharing my beliefs. I am not arrogant enough to think that just because I believe something that it is necessarily true or will be accepted as true by everyone else.

You believing the scholars who translated the way that suits you doesn't make it so, either. You are choosing to trust one set of scholars. I choose to trust another. Why am I to be villified for the same thing that you yourself do? The truth is, neither one of us is a Greek or Hebrew scholar. We must, therefore, trust someone other than ourselves.

You ask a great question about why can't Christ's love be represented through ANY human love? Why not the love of best friends? Why not the love of a mother/child? Why not the love of two men? On some level, yes, every human love speaks of God. I am speaking in the terms of Paul, though. Marriage between a man and woman, specifically, their sexual union. I didn't choose the symbol...Paul did.

Do I subscribe to the idea of a woman being SUBSERVIENT or SUBMISSIVE? BOTH! I believe we are all to serve one another. Thus: sub-servient. I believe we are all to submit to one another. I believe there is an authority structure in the home. The husband is to love his wife and serve her and lead her as Jesus himself does the church. The wife is to serve and love her husband as the church should do for Jesus (remember, I'm very symbolic). Do I believe that women should be doormats for men (suffer physical and verbal abuses)? No. Do I believe that MEN should be doormats for their wives (get verbally belittled, "bitched" at constantly, go visually unstimulated, etc.)? No.

I don't understand what you meant about "this statement assumes that gay people wish everyone was like them." I don't think gay people wish everyone was like them.

I personally don't ignore the scriptures about divorce so I can't explain why some people feel justified in following Jesus and getting divorced.

Guys, my kids are awake from naptime. I have to go. Wish I could type more now but can't. Keltic, I hope to hear back from you soon.

~C

P.S. Willy: sorry the Christian community has left you disillusioned. I hope someone somewhere is showing you Jesus in a loving, practical way (I bet they are here!)

[frankandcathy]

I want to say to them: Yeah, I know you don't like it. I don't like your cheesy Christian music and those stupid fish decals, either. But it's not like I'm trying to ban it, so how about you back off?
)

Just for the record, I don't have a fish decal anywhere in my possession and I also dislike "cheesy Christian music." I prefer some good Southern Rock any day and my oldest child has announced that "Sweet Home Alabama" is her favorite song even though we've never taken her to Alabama. So there. :p

[frankandcathy]

Dave and Andrew:

I believe I'll take your advice on having a more private discussion with a few people. There are certainly several here that are obviously willing and theologically aware. Please don't feel bad for having participated, Andrew. You are "like me" and your opinions lent credence to some ideas.

In retrospect (being now armed wtih this new understanding) I can see how just plain "out there" it was to post in a forum like this with no real understanding of the complexities or personality, belief, etc. At least I can say that I'm now more aware or what that must feel like to all of you. I would like to thank everyone for their input and thoughts and for submitting to questioning by a clueless someone in cyberspace.

I do not fault anyone for anything that they said or replied. It is obvious that there is much hurt and misunderstanding on both sides. I have seen that it is FAR too easy to paint a convenient portrait of "them" whether through political motivation, pain, or fear. It's too easy to talk about "those gays" or "those right-wing Christians" as though everyone were popped out of a mold somewhere.

My sincerest hope is that the gay community is now somehow more aware of how *some* Christians think. I think this is crucial in strategizing how to come to an understanding and peaceable conclusion.

I, for instance, would never have guessed that there is a belief in biblical mistranslation. Now, being armed with this understanding, I must be aware that if I am ministering to someone who is gay and they ask, "Does the Bible say homosexuality is a sin?" I can at least say, "Well, here's what I've heard on both sides of the aisle. This is what I think and why. Here is what many gay Christians think and why." I hope that above all, my love for the Lord and my love for other human beings will shine through any semantics, translational issues, etc.

I would hope that the issues that I brought up are not easily brushed aside, either. I think it would be a shame for me to take one on the chin for my beliefs and then not have them really analyzed. It would be the height of "intolerant tolerance" to demand that I give serious thought to the "gay side" of the issue and to merely dismiss my thoughts as "right-wing hate speech." Which, unfortunately, I think it will be easy for many to do.

I will gracefully bow out now (at the suggestion of Dave and Andrew) and will try to answer any questions or replies by private message. Again, thank you all for your time and replies! I pray that God leads us all into a place where we are, above all else, loving him and loving and serving one another.

[BruceChris]

I am again a little bit rushed here, but I hope that I can add something positive here. First of all, of course it is not just men who do not figure out that they are gay, until they have been hetrosexually married for years, sometimes until they are quite old. Please read the link below, and read Both of my postings (it's not long), because I only put the explanation in the second one.

http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=1300

Just got your mssg, B right back

[BruceChris]

That most people do not get a chance to learn about their sexuality until they may have made many mistakes. And no, I'm NOT promoting promiscuity. If everyone is taught that they are going to get involved with the opposite sex, all but the most flaming queens and masculine dykes will tend to believe it, at least until they have hurt themselves and/or someone else. O.K., by that I simply mean those who KNOW, deep down, from the time that they are very young.

Indeed, one theological definition of SIN that is accepted as one possible meaning of the word is simply that of making a mistake that you were unable to avoid making. And in that sense, we ARE all sinners, no question of that.

I see you're still here--BC

[BruceChris]

I get the impression that the first thread was posted by Frank, and that all of the last few have come from Cathy. Cathy, I find you MUCH easier to take, and to talk to. (Now I hope I haven't offended Frank!!)

C, I like you, to the extent that I know you, and I RESPECT your standing up for your beliefs, even as I believe differently. I don't know how long you will be online, and I should probably just write this as if you were'nt coming back for a few days, but I see just now, that you're still here.

And I just read your latest post, if briefly. I DO WANT this thread to continue, although I would not be opposed to one-on-one, off line.--BC

[frankandcathy]

Well Bruce, both you and keltic have sort of requested that I stick it out here.

I'm a little wary of stepping on people's toes and hurting their feelings. I am asking in advance if comments about divorce, children, etc. are hurtful to please just forgive.

ROFL! No, the first post was Cathy as well. That was just my "late night" alter-ego of short and sweet, get to the point, "what are these people thinking" self! Franky is too busy chasing me around the room most of the time to go online and post stuff (Hey, I'm not practicing anything either! :D ).

Anyway, while I understand the problem of not realizing your feelings toward the opposite sex in our society, I still have no real desire to say that it's "okay" to leave your spouse. There's just a line there for me.

I did read the Oprah thread. I really think it's funny that so many people look to Oprah as some sort of spiritual giant...but that's another story.

Anyway, I am not going to be able to wrap my mind around dragging someone's children through this mess. I don't care who gets along with whom. I don't care how jolly and happy everything seems on a television show. It's just not right to do that to your children. A divorce is confusing enough much less pulling in, "now Daddy has a boyfriend" and "mommy has a girlfriend." Again, I'm sorry if this offends anyone but it's just how I see things.

Oh my goodness, it's way too late. I should have been in bed like half and hour ago. I'll have to check this later tomorrow!

Thanks.
~C

[Willy]

Willy: sorry the Christian community has left you disillusioned. I hope someone somewhere is showing you Jesus in a loving, practical way (I bet they are here!)
One of the things about growing older is that you start seeing things come around the track the second, third and fourth time. One of them being what I might call "the humble and reasonable Christian." Just when you start to think it might be for real, then comes Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson to tell you how it's really going to be. And as you watch that broadcast live from the Freeway Megachurch in East Nowhere, Texas, lo and behold in the crowd you see the humble and reasonable Christian, shouting Praise the Lord and hand me that noose! when Jerry 'n Pat inform the flock that God wanted America to be attacked on 9/11 because it tolerates the ACLU and homosexuals.

I've never had a problem with Jesus, and in fact when the Bible isn't contradicting itself or advocating genocide there are some genuine pearls of wisdom throughout. And why shouldn't there be? It's not the world's best selling book for nothing. Jesus ain't the problem. It's his followers that are the issue, especially the ones who proclaim that, as long as they believe, they can do anything they please between now and the Rapture. Which isn't even in the Bible, but hey, when did that ever matter to anyone anyway?

Like I say, if there weren't so many poor souls who take this stuff seriously, it would be a great show for Comedy Central.

[tdogg]

Hi Cathy,

I do understand where you are coming from in your beliefs - that was me for many years, although it wasn't necessary something I actually believed in my heart. But, because I wanted to make my family proud, to be the best Christian, to earn respect of my Christian mentors, I 'went along with' what I was told, but in regards to many issues, I never believed in certain things I was told in my heart. At this point in my life's journey, i'm finally in a position where I have accepted myself, actually like myself, and learned much - although I have much to learn. I can finally stand up for what my heart believes even if the rest of the world doesn't believe it. And I do.

So yes, I can understand why you believe what you do, and disagree with what you believe and still have a compassionate, understanding and genuine conversation with you. And many more on this forum can do the same.

Andrew, please don't go. I haven't had the opportunity to read many posts by you - maybe you haven't posted much - and your posts have touched me greatly. I would really miss what you have to say if you this thread drive you away! Don't, please.

This is really one of the rare threads in which I truly believe the person asking questions is genuinely interested in what we feel, believe and our experiences, and not here to beat us down, condemn us or cause us grief. I appreciate that Cathy, and as long as that holds true, I think you will find most willing to converse with you. I'm enjoying it so far myself! :)

[Willy]

p.s.: You can kinda sorta call me a Deist, at least on those days when I'm inclined to consider a belief in a supreme being, guiding force or what have you. Deists, in spite of the many lies told by Christians, were the founders of the United States. Unlike Christians they believed:

- That Christ was good and wise, but not divine

- That the Bible was good and wise (when it wasn't crazy and violent), but not divinely inspired or dictated

- That the concept of the trinity was stark, raving nuts

- That the "virgin birth" was stark, raving nuts on ergot (they didn't have steroids back then, but they did have mold)

- That God existed, but not as an active guider of human affairs, and certainly not of this or that election

- That the very worst governments were the ones in Europe that mixed Christianity with secular authority

Hence, when they created the governing plan for the U.S., as embodied in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, they protected the free exercise of religion while prohibiting the encroachment of religion into government. In the original text of the Constitution, for example, religion is mentioned only as a potential threat to freedom. No religious test shall ever be imposed for holding office, the document stated.

The founding documents never mentioned Jesus Christ, and specifically recognized non-believers by making provision that someone who didn't want to swear an oath could instead provide an "affirmation." These were NOT people who envisioned some sort of Christian nation, the many lies told by contemporary evangelicals (who ignore that inconvenient commandment about bearing false witness whenever it suits them to ignore it) notwithstanding.

I think James Madison, the fourth president, put it rather succinctly:

During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.

I would say one more thing. All of this might lead you to think I'm terribly hostile to Christianity. I'm not. Like the founders, I think there's plenty to recommend it, at least the "humble and reasonable" variant. But experience and a reading of history teaches me to be suspicious as hell, not so much of Christianity but of Christians.

[Daniel]

Cathy and Frank (why not the other way around for a change?)- Like others have expressed, I hope you stick around.

I saw your post about gay men leaving their wives (that's what we're talking about here, yes?) earlier in the evening and want to say that I understand you concerns from the point of view as a married man myself. No matter the gender involved, to deal with one's partner leaving- for whatever reason- is very hard to take.

I think one of the problems here is that many people enter into relationships without full awareness of who they are, much less their partner. An environment which doesn't affirm gay people is hardly one which leads to self-disclosure, much less to anyone else. But the force of sexuality being what it is, same-sex attraction tends to seep out past one's best intentions and even fervent commitments- whether it be to one's God or one's flesh and blood spouse. Setting aside the issue of whether being gay offends God (you can imagine what I think about that!), the reality of offending one's spouse is at least a relative reality.

It would be great if everyone who entered into marriage knew what they were doing, but alas, wanting it to be so doesn't make it so, does it?

I cannot imagine what Mrs. Haggard is going through right now, but simply hope that- even though the pain must be immense- the truth- even though it must be extremely hard to bear- will set her free.

[Dash]

Limiting gay relationships to "meeting sexual needs" ignores the basis of loving relationships, which is...yes...love. Please do not do to us what you would not have done to you. Our relationships are not just "about sex" any more than your relationship with your spouse is just "about sex".

Living in a long-term situation without love is debilitating to the soul. It is as dangerous and painful as losing a spouse. I think if your spouse came out as gay, you'd find that the issue is not as black and white as is often painted.

Regarding divorce...Christ denied men the right to take their leave of their wives, which left a woman poor and defenseless in a society where an unmarried woman was worth very little. The situation in today's world is much different. Then, Christ's wisdom empowered and supported women. To maintain today that no one should ever divorce is actually an oppressive injustice. Our society, with its expectation of spousal and child support, addresses the very same injustice that Christ addressed in his day.

The apostle Paul wisely recognized that there is no law against love...indeed there can never be a law against it. In his letter to the Galatians, he accounted love among the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5:22). This Christian "agape" love is the same love that Solomon praised in his Song of Songs--with all its devotion, erotic desire, and celebration of the beloved. When the Jews translated the Hebrew Testament into Greek, they rendered Solomon's Hebrew word for "love" in his great Song of Songs as "agape". Centuries later, Paul recalled the Greek of this Jewish wisdom literature and, inspired by the Holy Spirit, acknowledged that love was a special dispensation of the Divine for humanity. Against it, and against other fruits of this Spirit, there can never be laws. The love of gay men and women is just as precious and God-honoring as heterosexual love. Love is love, and our love is love. There is no legislative power that can stand against it...not secular, nor religious. All law bows to love.

Anti-gay Christians who arrogate themselves to judge gay people are no witness in the proof of the love we live, for only God and each individual soul can testify to its love. Therefore, all denials of the legitimacy of our loving relationships are really the equivalent of slander against us (and I personally believe blasphemy against Love). Such Christians may be guiltier of persistent and unrepentant sin than they allow themselves to consider. Under Judeo-Christian ethics it is considered wrong to bear false witness against your neighbors; and since those who judge us cannot bear true witness about our love, denying both it and our earnest claims of faith can only be said to be bearing false witness against us.

Marriage as we know it today is very recent invention. For the greatest part of history, including that which is recorded in the bible and Western history, heterosexual marriage was about property, money, inheritance, social status...many things, but not necessarily about romantic love. As Christianity grew, ascetic factions and leaders at various times in the early centuries would have preferred that even in heterosexual marriage the spouses remain celibate! Hundreds of years before the Church decided to take a controlling hand in heterosexual marriage--making it a sacrament--homosexual marriage unions were being blessed in both the Eastern and Western Churches. It was not until the 14th century, that bitter foes of same sex love were able to stamp out these marriage ceremonies.

Modern conservative Christianity has lost both its connection to history and its connection to the compassion and social justice that Christ modeled. It believes in, and indeed idolizes, a kind of 1950s television image of marriage and family--one that is blatantly and often dangerously false. Even a cursory reading of the Bible reveals that the loving familial and sexual relationships described therein have little to compare with the false idol of modern Christianity's "Family." A cursory reading of Christ's ministry and thoughts reveals an attitude toward Jewish laws that bears little resemblance to modern conservative Christianity's legalism.

Legalism and oppression...idolatry and fanaticism...complacency and injustice...these are common pitfalls seen throughout Judeo-Christian history. It is no surprise that conservative forces continue to oppress minority members of society today. It is what they have always done. Christ stood up against it. We do also by the strength of that Spirit.

By the strength of that Spirit we who follow the path of Soulforce strive to forgive our oppressors, and teach those who have been misguided by the Church.

[Pablo Rafael]

Cathy,

Just one final comment to your thread.(Last time, I promise.) I have appeciated your openess and interest. Being in a conservative Christian environment I have found that almost without fail gay and lesbian individuals have been thrown into the "evil, degenerate, going-to-hell" camp. Your honesty and sincere desire to understand where we are coming from is encouraging.

Being a teacher I encourage my students to stand firm on the Word of God and not to be shaken by various forces that would lead us astray. At the same time we must be open to change our views when the Holy Spirit opens our hearts to a new understanding.

Thanks for taking the time to respond to everyone. You can see that the gay Christian community is is very diverse group with differences of belief. (As is Christianity in general.) The effort you have taken to understand gives me hope. I don't expect people to agree with me on everything. I expect people to try to understand where I am coming from and agree that I have a right to my views. Thanks for doing just that.

I've got to quit. I've got a mountain biking trip to go on. It looks like another beautiful early winter day here in Colorado.

Yours in Christ, Pablo

[Zerbie]

Cathy,

When I was 19, a gay man proposed marriage to me. He saw me as his ticket to "normal," and even threatened suicide if I refused to marry him. It was a messy situation, and as the years go by I am ever more thankful that I didn't marry him!!!!! I would never wish any couple to struggle with the pain of an incompatible mixed-orientation marriage.

I have to log off and go do some work right now, but before I go:

In order to be fully responsible, one has to know what one is doing. One has to be self-aware. You have acknowledged that you had no idea the kinds of things gay people go through until you came here.
Well. One of my frequently used phrases is that anyone who knows the kind and depth of pain and misery a gay person feels while trying to fulfil expectations in an opposite-sex relationship that he (this applies to women too but you were talking about men, so I'll say he) is unable to fulfil - would not wish them to remain in that suffering. A struggling, questioning gay person who is being told from all sides that getting married is what he should do, and hopes against hope that it will all "change" once he does, cannot tell up from down, let alone have the self-awareness necessary to make a major life commitment. Trying to do the 'right' thing and be a 'good person,' he will walk right into his own cage and close the door behind himself.

I would like to say much more, but really need to go write a paper for class. . .

[BruceChris]

You have said a lot of things that I was planning to get around to saying. i.e.,

-----------------------------"GEE I Wish I'd Said That"---------------------------

--------------------DITTO, ZERBIE

Cathy, I am seeing you more and more as a truly loving person, with what I will call a very practical level of humility. As a matter of fact, I think that you are actually a closet case. - A closet liberal, that is. :lol: :lol:

It is more and more becoming my understanding that all good things come from love, and that all bad things come from fear. I believe that all of us have belief systems that are partially love based, and partially fear based, and that emotional maturity/spiritual growth consists of learning to be more loving, and less vulnerable to fear.

And that speaking very generally, most of those that are called liberals tend to try to move toward love, and hope, when they feel safe to do so, while most of those that we see as conservatives retreat regularly into fear, as their main coping mechanism. And I know I'm gonna catch hell from somebody for saying that.

Conservative Christians (CC's) (well, the high profile ones, anyway) seem to be seeking to simplify reality, as much as they can. The world was created in 7 days, 5000 to 10,000 years ago, depending on who you ask, and nothing of any consequence has happened since. Scientists tell us that carbon dating yields reasonably accurate results back 100,000 to 200,000 years, while astronomers date the age of the universe at about 14 billion years.

Some CC's will try to tell us that God "planted the evidence", as a way to test our faith. I do not believe that. I do not believe that God would lie to us. I believe that God gave us science, or rather, allowed us to develop science, a little bit at a time, as a way to learn about the world around us, a little bit at a time.

There are male and female people, but there are a whole lot of us in between. Did you know that medical science has so far isolated 37 varieties of sex chromosomes? It's not just XX or XY anymore. Or that there are otherwise normal men who have XX chromosomes, and otherwise normal women with XY? They are infertile, of course.

I am going to offer you a little Biblical literalism here, but be warned. In Genesis 5 it tells us that God created us male and female, not male or female. That's right, each and every one of us is both male and female. In both you and I you will find exactly the same organs, tissues, and hormones. They're just a little different size and shape, or in slightly different places. And of course, for the first few weeks of life, we all have exactly the same bodies. If the chromosomes are XX or XY, and the hormones and hormone receptors do what they are supposed to do, we will end up with a normal and fertile male or female. CC's will try to tell us that any "errors" were never part of God's plan, and blame it on the Fall. That's right, Man (no, actually, I guess it was Woman :lol: ) broke something that God couldn't fix. That is not part of my belief system, either.

It seems to be becoming increasingly clear that our sexual identity, our sexual orientation, our sex organs, and ultimately our fertility are determined by the hormones present, and their effect on hormone receptors, during the first few weeks of life. And not at exactly the same time, or not in exactly the same way, which is why there are so many different varieties of sexuality. A person may look like a given gender, act masculine or feminine, identify themselves as one or the other (or a little of both), be attracted to one or the other or both, or different genders at different times of their lives, have male or female parts between their legs or something that is not clearly either, -- IN ANY COMBINATION.

O.K., I'm gonna stop here, I don't know how much medical or scientific backgroung you may have, or how long it may take to absorb. It is my observation that scientists do not tell lies, as they know that every other scientist would immediately jump on them. And when a mistake is made, there is often a race to be the one to correct it. And when CC's claim that science is "attacking" them, this usually means that science has discovered something that makes a simple world view inconsistant. CC's, well most of them, it seems, very much want to have exact, simple, and unquestioned answers to all questions. My friends who have been to liberal seminaries tell me that the more they study, the MORE questions they have, and they accept this as part of God's plan.

And hey, you have given me a good reason here to say some things that I have wanted to post here, for a LONG time. (And I am undoubtedly boring the hell out of those who know more of this stuff that I do)

May God grant his(her?) Peace and Love unto you, and unto all of us, Bruce Chris

[frankandcathy]

Hey all. I'm going to be busy for the next couple of days with family stuff but I wanted to (after QUICKLY skimming the latest posts) say, "thank you" again to everyone for being so honest. I will never say that I can understand the hurt, pain, and even shame some of you have felt. I just can't do it. But I will sympathize the best I can.

Lol! I'll don't think I'll ever be "liberal." Sorry. I am leaning toward libertarianism, as a matter of fact. I'm about fed up with the government trying to do what the church should have been doing for many years. It wastes money, breaks community, and basically doesn't work all that well.

Anyway, I do regret not being able to answer more now. I'm finding this to be a litle too addictive and am having to stop myself from logging on when the children are awake. I have a rule for myself that they need my attention far more than the computer so I only allow myself to log on when they're napping or asleep for the night. Then, of course, when my hubby is home I am occupied during those times. So, all of that to say...I'll do my best to get on again soon.

I want to say one last thing: please, please, please don't hear me as not being compassionate to those who were married once in a straight marriage. I know it was painful and I understand why it happened. I just personally have to draw the line somewhere. That's probably more about my love for my husband and children than about anything else.

Thanks again!
~C

[Willy]

Speaking of Christians, I understand Alaska's Republican Party to be dominated by the kind who regard the Bible as an object to be hollowed out, fitted with a lead weight and hurled at the head of the nearest heathen they can find.

Recently, Alaska's supreme court ruled that the state had to provide domestic partner benefits on the same basis as those provided to married couples. Rather than comply with the law, Alaska's evanglical-dominated Republican House of Representatives have chosen to ignore the law.

http://tinyurl.com/w3fou

So much for the "reasonable Christian" and quaint notions of the "rule of law," or even Jesus H's own advice to render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and so on. Unfortunately, the evanglical mainstream believes that their hatred trumps mere incoveniences like the law and the, ahem, holy scriptures. Maybe that Caesar line was in the part that got hollowed out, as described above?

Forgive me for not being surprised.

And now, moving on to Florida, here are some more reasonable Christians, who are against asking gubernatorial appointees whether they have been accused of discriminating against gay people on the job. So, frank 'n cathy, are you reasonable Christians who post soothing messages here -- well, after you offend people and then claim not to have had any such intention -- and then turn right around and push your hate agenda?

Just askin'

http://tinyurl.com/yhmjev

[frankandcathy]

I have just a few minutes to kind of let you guys know where I'm at.

I admit that I really like my simplistic view of things. I like having answers. I dislike not knowing or not understanding God. It drives me nuts to think about why God sometimes heals and sometimes doesn't.
I'm the kind of person that doesn't even want to watch a movie with no definite resolution.

Of course, in every area of my walk with God I've experienced not understanding and not knowing. It doesn't help that the BIble has so many conflicting ideals. Don't get married. Get married rather than burn with lust. Act like you're not married. Don't judge. Judge those within the church. Expel the immoral brother. Judge not lest ye be judged.

This is what I don't think: I don't think that conservative Christians are morons or are looking for quick fixes. I don't think that they're unintelligent or even choosing to turn a blind eye. As I'm sure you all know (I hope you all know) there are many, many conservative theologians who also research and look for answers. They definitely interpret things differently but it doesn't mean they're not sincere. I also don't think conservative Christians are hate-mongers. I DO think they've been whipped into a frenzy of fear by their political leaders.

I think it's a mistake to categorize ALL conservative Christians in the same way it's a mistake to categorize ALL liberal Christians. Is it possible that both sides represent parts of God? Is it possible that grace is better represented on the liberal side and judgment better represented on the conservative side? (While God is super graceful and loving we know that he also judges sin.) The question would then be: how do we work together to be "one body, many parts?" How do we work together to complete the picture?

I really want to encourage many in the gay community that even though the political climate is one that seems to be hatred-induced, there ARE straight Christians out there who have decided to "fix their eyes on Jesus" and not James Dobson or Jerry Falwell. We try each day to hear his voice. We try each day to seek his will. We live our lives as best we can to impact others with his love. I go to a church FULL of "manly men." They all hunt, fish, make tons of babies, etc. But I know their hearts. And while they're a little weird about hugging other guys, do I for one second think that they would say, "I can't love you as a brother or sister in Christ because you're gay?" No, I don't. Maybe I'm wrong. But I don't think so. Working out the "sin" issue is a totally different subject...which reminds me...

I think that the Lord has been trying to teach me in many, many ways that I am too judgmental. Our message this morning was on thankfulness, of course, and I began to wonder at what point we STOP being thankful for God's grace in our lives and start trying to shove rules down someone else's throat. Our pastor was even talking about that once and said very clearly, "You've got to want to love and serve people more than you want to shove the truth down their throats." I actually blushed because I thought, "He's talking to me."

I have had this problem repeatedly with good friends who are just not making wise life choices in my estimation. I find it very difficult to relate to them if they're not doing what I think they should do. It occurs to me that one of my best friends would rather spend time with her heathen friends than me because she just feels judged when she's with me. I really HATE that. I feel like my time here is really helping me see that attitude magnified and played out to its full extent.

One of the verses we read this morning was the one where Paul talks about: "Hey, you weren't saved by works but through faith. Are you now going to try to live by works? No! Let the Holy Spirit do his work!" I think this reminded me that if there is a sin to be pointed out....I'M NOT THE HOLY SPIRIT!!! The confusing part of that is...when does God use you to point it out and how do you know if it's just your flesh or God speaking to you??

I am turning the issue of judment over in my mind lately. Jesus said, "Don't judge others. Period." Paul said, "Don't judge sinners. Period. Judge those who are immoral within the church. Heck, I don't even judge MYSELF. God will judge the motives of all men's hearts."

I wish their were addendums after Revelation that just cleared this stuff up. For instance, "What I meant on the judgment thing: Let me do it except in situations x, y, and z."

I could ALMOST agree with the idea that we should just let the Bible speak to us in non-literal way and let God tell you what He meant by it. The only problem I have with that is...sometimes I just MISUNDERSTAND what God is trying to tell me.

If I, therefore, rely on what my brain says God is saying to me, it could be whacky as in, "God told me to beat the crap out of this gay man because he's an abomination" or "God told me to cut my baby's arms off and kill her (a true story)." :(

That's really the only problem I have with just using the Word as a "guideline" and letting Jesus himself tell me the details. To me, the details have to line up with what's written or who the heck knows who's hearing the Lord and who's not? Then it's just a free-for-all. If there's no set standard of behavior, there's chaos.

And isn't that really what Willy has been saying? Isn't that what drives him to be so vehemently angry? He doesn't see the behavior of conservative Christians to be lining up with the standard of scripture. And isn't that what James Dobson is saying? Isn't that what drives HIM to be so vehemently angry? He doesn't see homosexuality as lining up with the standard of biblical behavior. So we see that even when we use scripture as a guideline, things get fuzzy. Good grief!

What, then are we to say? The fruit of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control." Against such things there is no law. Okay, so then, if I want to know if you're really following the Lord, then I'll look for those things in your life. But, uh-oh, wait a minute, you're having sex with another man. There's no "self-control" there. That's sexual immorality (fruit of the flesh). You must not be saved. Wait a minute, I'm totally not gentle to my children and am far too sarcastic with them. I'm not saved?

Okay, well THAT'S obviously wrong. Let's see. Okay, how about this: you don't have to be perfect you just have to be getting better? Uh-oh, the only thing you're getting better at is making love to a man. You're not saved! Wait, though, I've been praying for TEN YEARS to be less angry and more gentle and I'm only marginally getting better. I'm not saved? Again, good grief!

Okay, I've been on too long. I must go. I hope this hasn't been too rambling. It's almost stream of concsiouness I guess. Sorry.

I leave you with one thought more: I am NOT happy with the political right-wing Christian community because I think they've created an atmosphere of unnecessary fear and loathing. I can understand believing in something but to never once (in my hearing) say GOOD things about what the homosexual community (or church) is doing, to never once (in my hearing) call for volunteers or money to serve those they "mean to rule" so to speak (Braveheart moment), to never once (in my hearing) say something about the pain and suffering that so many homosexuals go through...is just wrong. It shows a lack of compassion and love. Just as it is equally wrong for the gay political community (whoever leads them...I don't know) to respond in kind. None of us are without excuse. Not me, not Willy, no one. Throwing stones back and forth is not going to help anything at all. Insulting someone's deeply held religous beliefs on either side isn't going to help. Hating Jerry Falwell or James Dobson isn't going to solve the problem. Hating um...I dunno...Mel White? Boy George? isn't going to solve the problem either.

Good night.
~C

P.S. I'm starting to feel like I'm making a community of friends here. Gasp. :eek:

[Willy]

I also don't think conservative Christians are hate-mongers.
That's where I disagree with you. Evangelical ministers are lost without enemies.


I go to a church FULL of "manly men." They all hunt, fish, make tons of babies, etc. But I know their hearts. And while they're a little weird about hugging other guys, do I for one second think that they would say, "I can't love you as a brother or sister in Christ because you're gay?" No, I don't. Maybe I'm wrong.
I hunt. I fish. I don't make tons of babies. I don't run around hugging guys. Only one. As for loving me as a bro' in Christ, that's a bunch of empty rhetoric that demands nothing of anyone and therefore is worth zippo. I'm into works, not faith. Which is why I'm not an evangelical who thinks that as long as I've declared myself "saved" I can stomp on anyone at any time, secure in the belief that I'll go to heaven. Right along with that Muslim bomber who thinks he's going to the same place, the only difference between him and Robertson being that the Muslim thinks he's going to get 72 virgins upon arrival while Robertson's counting on the latest-model corporate jet.


That's really the only problem I have with just using the Word as a "guideline" and letting Jesus himself tell me the details. To me, the details have to line up with what's written or who the heck knows who's hearing the Lord and who's not? Then it's just a free-for-all. If there's no set standard of behavior, there's chaos.
Sounds like a personal problem to me. In any case, if you want to set standards go right ahead. Start with the rule of reciprocity, which is one of the many things that Christians stole from their forebearers and presented it as if they discovered it for the first time. In any case, try this: "First, do no harm." As someone who, for whatever reason, finds himself attracted to members of the same sex, I have a humble request: "Dear Lord Jesus, Protect Me From Your Followers. Amen."


Isn't that what drives him to be so vehemently angry? He doesn't see the behavior of conservative Christians to be lining up with the standard of scripture. And isn't that what James Dobson is saying? Isn't that what drives HIM to be so vehemently angry? He doesn't see homosexuality as lining up with the standard of biblical behavior.
I only appear to be angry. It's because I have a direct writing style. I don't care what you or Dobson believe. Just mind your own business. Or as the old song goes, "You can't even run your own life/So I'll be damned if you'll run mine." When I was growing up, there was this wonderful American phrase that went, "Mind your own business." We sure don't hear that one very much anymore. Why not?


Insulting someone's deeply held religous beliefs on either side isn't going to help. Hating Jerry Falwell or James Dobson isn't going to solve the problem.
I don't "hate" anyone. I do resent Falwell and Dobson and his idiot followers, and I often laugh at them. I mean, when that dude in Colorado Springs went out and said, I've never had a homosexual relationship with a man in Denver, I must admit that I laughed my ass off. And when I clicked around the internet and learned about the homoerotic art in his freeway church and the perky 20-something associate pastors, I laughed again. Not at him, but at the suckers he conned out of all that money.

The saving grace of the evangelical Christians is that, if you wait long enough, they'll eventually make utter fools of themselves in front of everyone. Moliere nailed it in 1664 when he wrote Tartuffe. It could be subtitled, The Jimmy Swaggart/Jim Bakker/Ted Haggard, etc. Story. I know I sound angry, but the only thing that ever makes me mad at you people is when you gain enough political power to threaten people whose freedom and happiness make you so jealous.

See, here's the deal: Instead of me having to persaude you of anything, it really ought to be the other way around because it's your crowd that's trying to tell me how to live my life. All I want out of you is to not encroach on anyone else. Why is that so hard for Christians, anyway? Why are so many Christians trying so hard with the persuasion? Is it maybe a grand effort to persaude themselves?

[andrewlittle]

Okay! I said I'm done and I meant it. But the conversation is just so interesting, I can't keep my mouth (fingers - whatever) shut.

Cathy said:
What, then are we to say? The fruit of the Spirit is "love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, faithfulness, and self-control." Against such things there is no law. Okay, so then, if I want to know if you're really following the Lord, then I'll look for those things in your life. But, uh-oh, wait a minute, you're having sex with another man. There's no "self-control" there. That's sexual immorality (fruit of the flesh). ... Okay, how about this: you don't have to be perfect you just have to be getting better? Uh-oh, the only thing you're getting better at is making love to a man.

Cathy, I know you used these as illustrations about what's wrong with judging others, but they show a distinct cultural bias that affects the entire dialogue in our culture and seeps ever so subtly into how we think.

You, Cathy, are having sex with a man. Is that a lack of self-control? In one post, you said Frank chases you around the house - I think you were talking about him feeling amorous. Is that a lack of self-control? Is it sexual immaturity? Are you just getting better at making love to a man? I think you would consider these normal expressions of love for and from your chosen mate.

The problem here is that you have focussed on one, and only one, aspect of GLBT persons. You would be rightly offended if I, or anyone else, reduced you to your genitalia and what you do with it. But that is the discussion that's out there - and in here. GLBT persons are more than a penis or a vagina - and their lives consist of a heck of a lot more that what they do with those particular pieces of anatomy. These are complete human beings we are talking about - complete with passions, gifts, graces and love. All of these things are gifts of God and they are not depleted because of sexual orientation. What a man does with his genitalia, or a woman does with hers, is not the sum of the person - it is actually a pretty small part of the sum. But that small part is what draws the line between made in God's image and not - at least in the minds of many.

I am sorely tempted to run with your comment about your friend's "heathen friends" and what that says, but I won't.

As to conservative vs. liberal. We're talking about a linear scale running from right to left, or left to right depending on your perspective. We locate ourselves somewhere along that line and define ourselves and others by the point they inhabit. We then decide that God also resides in exactly that same place. This goes beyond arrogance.

Whether "liberal" or "conservative" we just went several steps beyond putting God in a box of our own making. We just put God into an infinitesimal point along an imaginary line - we made God in our image. Each and every one of us is far more complex than one point on a line would indicate, and God surely is. If we are made in God's image, then God is along the entire spectrum and beyond. We are but imperfect, incomplete and partial images of God and none of us possess either the entirety of God's image, nor the authority to claim absolute knowledge of God's character and purpose.

Our faith, then, is based on what makes sense to us personally. How we view scripture is dependent on how we view scripture being used for or against who and what we are. It's not tough to see why most Jews disregard the New Testament when we consider how it has been used to justify centuries of pograms against them. It's not tough to see why women disregard or reinterpret the traditional views of the sections about women wearing head covering and keeping their mouths shut in religious gatherings. Why, then, is it tough to understand that those scant few, and very debatable, sections dealing with same-sex relations are rejected by the GLBT community?

God is in all of it and, I would imagine, pretty disgusted with it all as well. There are common threads that run through scripture and the most common from the prophets through Christ - summed up in "love God...and love you neighbor as yourself" - shows that scapegoating, demonizing or ostracizing any of God's children - "liberal" or "conservative", straight or GLBT, documented or undocumented, plain white wrapper or colorful, etc - is unrighteous behavior.

We chose as a society to focus on morality, because that gives us the "right" to judge others behavior based on what we consider norms. Instead, perhaps we should focus on ethics, which gives us the responsibility of judging our own behavior and attitudes on what God, or whatever name you apply to a higher source or standard, requires. It's that "splinter in your eye" as opposed to "the log in mine" thing. We are responsible to be righteous - not to determine the righteousness of others.

And, Willy, as much as I agree that you are a pistol, and a very likeable one, pistols often shoot off our own toes. Allies from dominant culture (white) were essential for overcoming the popular, Biblically-based myth of white supremecy. Allies from dominant culture (male) were essential to overcoming the popular, Biblically-based myth that precluded women from full citizenship. Popular culture, right now, wants to reduce GLBT to less than human, less than full citizenship and aberrant. It is Biblically based, just like the other mistakes Christians have made.

I agree that it is none of our business ("our" referring to non-GLBT persons), but this is not an ideal world. As angry as you may rightly be at the prospect, allies from the straight world are needed to stand with the GLBT community. It takes dialogue, not self-righteous diatribe, to make allies.

This is a political issue, and politics requires converting people to your side. This won't be accomplished that by using a Bible as a weapon, nor will it be accomplished by collecting all "conservative" Christians into one demonized category. The fact is that virtually every denomination has active, passionate advocates for full inclusion and rights for GLBT - this includes Southern Baptist, Pentecostals, Reformed churches, and evangelical unions. Just as every GLBT is a unique and gifted person, so is every Christian.

What is required is that we each get our heads out of our own behinds, and start to listen to and talk with other people who disagree with us. That, I think, is why this thread is so popular. It is, in and of itself, a testament to the desire of different people to converse in deep and meaningful ways. It comes with some expressed baggage, and some distinct tangents, but if Cathy is sticking it out, I am too.

[Zerbie]

Okay! I said I'm done and I meant it. But the conversation is just so interesting, I can't keep my mouth (fingers - whatever) shut.


Allies from dominant culture (white) were essential for overcoming the popular, Biblically-based myth of white supremecy. Allies from dominant culture (male) were essential to overcoming the popular, Biblically-based myth that precluded women from full citizenship. Popular culture, right now, wants to reduce GLBT to less than human, less than full citizenship and aberrant. It is Biblically based, just like the other mistakes Christians have made.

I agree that it is none of our business ("our" referring to non-GLBT persons), but this is not an ideal world. As angry as you may rightly be at the prospect, allies from the straight world are needed to stand with the GLBT community.

if Cathy is sticking it out, I am too.

Brilliant. Correct on all counts.

Andrew, I have been reading your excellent posts since you joined us and meant to welcome you, and thank you for your insight. (But it's been a ridiculously busy several weeks.) A belated happy welcome, and I am SO glad you decided to remain here. Thank you.

As to this conversation with Cathy, there are things she has written that made me angry. And there are things she has written that fill me with hope. Aren't all relationships somewhat like that?

I blame the society in which Cathy was raised for the "heterosexist" attitude she projects, which she is unaware of projecting. She has been in no position to see otherwise until now, and the things we are telling her, while old news to us, are new news to her. There is a learning curve. Haven't most of us gone through a long period of time when we were sifting through the noise from both "sides" in order to figure the whole mess out? I believe we have. As long as Cathy is asking questions and open to possibly learning something new I cut her all the slack in the world.

[Dash]

Moliere nailed it in 1664 when he wrote Tartuffe.

A couple years ago, I got to sing in Kirke Mechem's opera based on Moliere's play. First performed in 1980, based on a 17th Century play...still incredibly and pointedly relevant today--even in crazy, comic opera form! :)

[tdogg]

I could ALMOST agree with the idea that we should just let the Bible speak to us in non-literal way and let God tell you what He meant by it. The only problem I have with that is...sometimes I just MISUNDERSTAND what God is trying to tell me.

If I, therefore, rely on what my brain says God is saying to me, it could be whacky as in, "God told me to beat the crap out of this gay man because he's an abomination" or "God told me to cut my baby's arms off and kill her (a true story)."

This is why I try to listen to my heart. Although one's head may say, I need to beat the crap out of this person because they don't fit the mold I feel they should fit, if they have ethics and a conscience, their heart will tell them it's wrong. We can't totally rely on our heads, our brain isn't always correct, but our hearts, our conscience often is.

I don't believe anyone truly knows another person's heart, only God does. Therefore, we can guess and assume what another's heart is, but cannot know for sure. So, I try to avoid judging anyone, Christian, non-Christian, friend, relative and even try not to judge those who are against me. It's not easy at times and I'm not always 100% successful - it's a lifetime lesson. But justding is not my job and judging only causes bias, prejudice, scorn, envy, anger and often hate. Not a good thing.

Andrew, thanks for your thoughts, glad you didn't go away!

[MaybeImAmazed]

5 Years ago I was where you are: How can one be gay and Christian? After much prayer and study, I have come around completely. Obviously, you've gotten a lot of answers here, so I'll keep mine short. Here is the one verse that, more than any other, convinced me: Acts 11.17.

Peter says, "So if God gave them the same gift [the Holy Spirit] he gave us who believed in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I to think that I could stand in God's way?"

Of course, Peter is referring to Cornelius and other Gentiles. However, I personally know a number of gays and lesbians who, without a shadow of a doubt, have received the gift of the Holy Spirit. Who am I to tell God that they aren't allowed in God's kingdom? It's not my call; it's God's. As a Christian, all I'm supposed to do is love God and love my neighbor. I'll let God decide who belongs in heaven.

[Willy]

I had never heard of Moliere, and generally speaking I'm not a theatre person. I saw Tartuffe about 10 years ago in Boston. It was a production designed to be completely faithful to the original. I was laughing so hard I thought I was going to need medical attention. I was just amazed that something more than 300 years old was so fresh and relevant.

As for how to approach Cathy, look, I respect and admire those who have the patience to be cordial. You are my betters. I'm like one of those natives in the Amazon who stands right next to the riverbank and blows a poison-tipped dart at the first sign of a missionary. Sure, today they're carrying beads, candy bars and penicillin. But they've claimed our land for Christ, so tomorrow they'll be back with shoulder-fired Stinger rockets and aiming them at our huts.

Oh well. :)

[1engelbythesea]

:love: Until he extends the circle of his compassion to all living things, man
will not himself find peace. -Albert Schweitzer, philosopher, physician,
and musician (Nobel 1952)

[Willy]

At least he's moderately self-aware... thats something ;)
In the middle ages they used fig leaves to cover what they didn't want to notice; in the Internet age it is ellipses?

[frankandcathy]

Okay, I knew I'd catch all hell about "heathen friends." But it is an expression that I use. It would be pointless for me to get on here and pretend to be something I'm not...it would be much easier to make everything look really PC and sweet. But I feel like that would be deceptive. But, having said that...I could have chosen a better choice of words then (and in the future)! Sorry.

Andrew, I have to, once again, thank you for at least somewhat coming to my defense.

The thing about "you're having sex with another man, therefore you have no self-control" wasn't really a "Cathy" thought. It was just sort of a general idea in the whole line of thinking. I don't feel that having sex with anyone necessarily exhibits a lack of self-control. Those ideas weren't supposed to represent the way that I think, really. They were, in fact, meant to be read with some satire. Remember, the overall point was that I have a problem with judging others (whatever their sexuality may be) and I'm trying to work my way through what exactly Jesus expects me to do in this regard. To come back and tell me that I have this problem is, well...exactly what I was saying in the first place. The first step to recovery...

I think the point is well-received about how gay people are much, much more than what they do in the bedroom. The question is: Why is that the most important thing about gay people, from a straight person's perspective? Is it because we've heard so much about those "evil gay people" who are trying to take over our society? Is it because we rarely hear any nice things about gay people or what they are doing to serve the world? Quite possibly. Do we do the same thing with, let's say, drunkards? Maybe. Smokers? No. Liars? Perhaps. Pedophiles? Definitely. Adulterers? Pretty much. Incestuous people? Probably. So then is it just those whom we see as being in sexual sin that we villify the most? It would seem so. I wonder why this is? Is this a safety mechanism to protect our morality/society/whatever?

Andrew: I love this quote: We are responsible to be righteous - not to determine the righteousness of others.

Willy: I am finding it hard to respond to you because your tone is so caustic. I don't really expect you to soften up but I wanted to let you know for what it's worth. I am honestly wounded by your inability to see me as trying to understand, trying to help produce change in my community of Christians...but I'm sure your response to that might be something along the lines of, "How do you think gay people have felt for so many years with the religious right trying to annihalate them? Who cares if you're wounded?"

Willy: Also, very cool on the hunting/fishing thing. You're definitely helping me to break stereotypical molds. We were at the zoo today looking at the little African deer and my oldest daughter said, "Mommy, I'm going to shoot one of those deer." Which one, I asked? "The baby," she replied. She made her Daddy proud for "killing" a deer but disturbed her Mommy to no end about the "baby" part.:o

zerbie: I apologize again if anything I've said offended you. Thank you for offering me grace.

tdogg: I'm not sure I can, at this point, differentiate between the heart/head thing. I'll think about that one.

MaybeImAmazed: I like your thoughts a lot. Please private message me and talk more about your journey.

Dash: You had written a long post that I never got to respond to. Your ideas about marriage are interesting to me but I don't agree. I don't feel that it's the issue of "no one should ever divorce" as much as "divorce tears homes apart...and people apart." But I do see your point and it is well-taken except, perhaps, for the fact that women are now "liberated" and so aren't helpless if abandoned by their husbands. But, again, point taken.

I like your point about "there is no law against love."

Can you send me a link to verify the comment you made about the church blessing same-sex unions?

Please be more specific on how you feel modern CC ideals of family are biblically inaccurate. I would be curious to hear your take on this.

Bruce:

You asked me to respond to your last long post so I'll attempt to.


It is more and more becoming my understanding that all good things come from love, and that all bad things come from fear. I believe that all of us have belief systems that are partially love based, and partially fear based, and that emotional maturity/spiritual growth consists of learning to be more loving, and less vulnerable to fear.

And that speaking very generally, most of those that are called liberals tend to try to move toward love, and hope, when they feel safe to do so, while most of those that we see as conservatives retreat regularly into fear, as their main coping mechanism.

1. I initially misundertsood you on the liberal/conservative thing thinking you were speaking only of political issues, not mindset issues. I don't know if you mean "fear" or "judgment" or both. I think I prefer to think in terms of "structure" or "order." I think I am a person who really likes both of those. So to me, the "liberal" side represents sort of a free-for all love fest with no rules and the "conservative" side represents order and structure. I see the two sides working together. One provides a framework, or skeleton, if you will. The other provides the "meat." Does that make sense?

2. I already addressed the simplifying reality thing in my last post. I probably agree with you on that.

3. I did take intro to biology so I am vaguely aware of the genetic info on sexes. I had not heard anything about the different genes. Send me a link to that info if you can.

Okay, if that is true, I'm with you...kind of. I think the real mental block with same-sex "sex" is that it's a round peg, square whole type of deal. If, for instance, we were ALL born hemaphroditic, I think this whole issue would be moot.

Here's the deal, though: if I say, "God meant for me to have sex with another man. He made me homosexual." Then why the heck wouldn't God GIVE ME THE ABILITY to do so with the adequate sexual organs?

Willy mentioned something once about the Yuk Factor. He's 100% right. What bothers people is that same-sex intercourse (for men) doesn't involve two sex organs. It involves one sex organ and one digestive organ. I think the response to this from gay men/women may be one of disgust and we'll once again go back to, "this is none of your business anyway." I'm just telling you how people think. I assume you're already aware of this but you never know.

Oh yeah, it's a huge leap for CCs to understand that God has female qualities. That one was hard for me to swallow...but it's Biblical so I finally succumbed! ;)

4. As far as CCs distrusting sciece, you are 100% right. You said, "And when CC's claim that science is "attacking" them, this usually means that science has discovered something that makes a simple world view inconsistent." Well, I'm not sure about that...maybe.

I do feel that my beliefs are under fire from scientists, though. And I don't mean that there are reasonable questions being raised. I mean I feel we are under attack. I think, in fact, the CC community is under attack from Hollywood as well. I think these two factors (let's call it warfare mentality or being "in the trenches") is what has produced so much backlash against the gay community, science, etc.

Let's take evolution, for example. I personally think it's a bunch of hooey. How anyone could look at the complexity of human life and believe it sprung from single-celled organisms is beyond me. "Can you explain to me how cells, which have no cognitive thought processes, "decide" to change or evolve into a different type of cell?" I remember asking this question in my freshman biology class (I wasn't even a Christian at that time) and my professor stared at me blankly. She had no explanation. She had a doctorate in biology for heaven's sake!

More scientists are being to lean toward intelligent design. So, in fact, this is a case where the Christian community has stood firm in the face of persecution from the intellectual/scientific community and is turning out to be right. Of course it's also been the other way around, I'm not denying that.

Or let's look at Hollywood. It makes me irate when an evil character in a movie is painted as a "Christian." Cape Fear is an excellent example. Crosses are hung around the necks of just about anyone who's going to rape, murder, or destroy. Wasn't there a movie where a gay man was painted in an un-lovely manner and the film was boycotted and the director next came out with a gay-friendly film? Something with Tom Hanks, I think? Anyway, I'm not saying that any of that is an EXCUSE to hate gay people. I just want to try to explain a little of the viewpoint from this side of the aisle.

Whew! I want to close by saying that the more I get to know you all, the more broad my understanding becomes. I cannot say that my mind has been changed on the issue of "sin" but my mind HAS been changed on if that should even be the ISSUE!

I don't know of any Christian group formed against letting alcoholics buy beer. I don't know of any Christian group formed to stop liars, cheaters, adulterers, and the like from "foiling our society." It makes me pause and wonder what the heck started all of this. Has anyone got a good link to when the "gay wars" started in the U.S.? What set all of this off anyway?

I also want to thank those of you who are "working with me" to help me work through being judgmental in all areas of life. Obviously, those with my same belief system (inerrant scriptures, etc.) or those who are Christians are the most comfortable to me but I must say that everyone is saying a lot of great stuff. I am being constantly reminded that Jesus is big enough to handle the whole judgment thing. I would appreciate any thoughts on judging the church from within, though. Especially those in ministry.

~C

[frankandcathy]

Bruce sent me here to read about religion and homosexuality:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/when_religion_l.html

I have to say I had more fun reading the commentaries than the actual article. Many articulate people on both sides.

My favorite comment is, "Gay, Homosexuals whatever, you trust in the lord, your way is wrong, but he still loves you, while I find you kind of sickening.'

Warms the heart, doesn't it?

Sigh.

Again, what I took away from this is: We don't have to agree on everything but for the sake of Jesus himself can't we just LOVE one another????

~C

[Willy]

We don't have to agree on everything but for the sake of Jesus himself can't we just LOVE one another?
You have to walk before you can run. First comes indifference. Then tolerance. Then acceptance. Then, maybe, love. Evangelicals haven't even made it to indifference. They're still stuck on persecution. If you don't like my tone, then you might ask yourself how you'd feel if you continually had people flinging their "holy" scriptures at you and demanding you justify your existence. After a while, you might want to tell them exactly where to put those holy words.

You might be skeptical of the "let's all love each other" bit, too. By the way, it speaks volumes that you're more comfortable with me because I blow away animals with a 12-gauge. Why am I not surprised? Oh, and deer aren't my thing. Too many drunks in orange vests out in the woods. I go for waterfowl. Better class of hunters, Dick Cheney notwithstanding.

In a private message you asked me what a wingnut was. Check this site (http://stommel.tamu.edu/%7Ebaum/ethel/atrios-dictionary.html). It's pretty self-explanatory.

[frankandcathy]

Well, Willy, I think your tone was a bit more...soft?

LOL about the deer thing. It only makes me more comfortable because I associate it with the men that I know and trust and the one I love most dearly. Prior to 4 years ago, I'd never had a gun in my home. Then my husband took up hunting...

You're probably operating under the assumption that I'm a backwoods, gun-toting, varmit-eating redneck. But I grew up in a home with a doctor so guns were very much poo-pooed as weapons of human carnage.

Your point about "love" is not lost on me. Nor is your point about trusting on of "them."

~C

[Dash]

...and not yet getting to your specific request from me... :o

In your most recent post:

Willy mentioned something once about the Yuk Factor. He's 100% right. What bothers people is that same-sex intercourse (for men) doesn't involve two sex organs. It involves one sex organ and one digestive organ. I think the response to this from gay men/women may be one of disgust and we'll once again go back to, "this is none of your business anyway." I'm just telling you how people think. I assume you're already aware of this but you never know.

This is one of my favorite pet peeves regarding the "ick factor." Not, of course, to jump on you...but follow me here as we consider what is biologically true...what you yourself know, I'm sure...but haven't necessarily pieced together yet:

All organs of sexual use DOUBLE as organs of excretion. The male organ passes both urine and semen. The female organ not only recieves the emissions from the male, but passes the waste of menstruation and urine. So...are we to be suddenly squeamish when the male and female organ that passes solid waste is also a sexual organ? (in both opposite-sex as well as same-sex sexual expression)
.
Furthermore...there are biological hints that same-sex activity is welcome to the human body. In the male, the prostate gland is a well-known errogenous organ. A female cannot stimulate that area naturally with an errogenous organ of her own. The aroused male is, however, quite suited for that sexual expression. Likewise, in the female anatomy, we observe that the clitoris is somewhat distanced from the area stimulated by the heterosexual male's earnest ministrations--often and legendarily leaving the woman unsatisfied. But! (and I only understand this from reading about female primate same-sex activity...so my lesbian sisters, please forgive or correct if I am mistaken) Two females may mutually stimulate each other's most sensitive sexual organs by rubbing them against each other.

Of course, this discussion leaves out the most important aspect of any sexual expression, which is the love and warmth...the intimacy and tenderness that is shared between two lovers who bare their most gentle and secret selves to their lover.

I shall address your request for further information regarding same-sex marriage blessings in the early Church soon. Hopefully tomorrow. If not then, during my much anticipated four-day weekend. Now, I'm off to bed.

:love:

[frankandcathy]

Why, oh why, am I not in bed?? This is my last post tonight. Period.

I had this thought: "The more I read from my CC brothers and sisters, the more I see fear to be a BIG factor here. Again, I'm not saying I or anyone else has to agree with homosexual sex, per se. But what exactly are we afraid of? And, here's the bigger question: WHY DON'T WE FEEL GOD IS BIG ENOUGH TO HANDLE SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IS SUCH "BLATANT" SIN? Has he really left it all up to us now that we have to micromanage everyone's lives???? That doesn't leave very much time for the stuff like "loving your neighbor," does it?" This scares the heck out of me. How did we become so fearful? Doesn't perfect love "cast out fear?" More to the point: why are we not able to trust the one we believe ROSE FROM THE DEAD to handle sin in peoples' lives? Doesn't that also imply that we don't really trust him to handle sin in our lives? Then, if that's the case, what on Earth are we doing? I keep thinking about what Paul said about beginning in the Spirit and trying to finish the work in the flesh by your deeds. Creepy.

Dash: Ok. Never thought of that. Ever. Very, er...enlightening. Not sure how it's going to affect my OWN sex life...:o

Still not seeing why God didn't just make it all fit together "properly," though. I was asking someone else if they'd read that gay men have higher incidences of rectal or anal cancer. Is this true, anyone know? Is it also true for heterosexuals who practice anal sex?

Good night. I think I'll go ask God more about this stuff...well, maybe not ALL of it....

~C

[Willy]

Willy mentioned something once about the Yuk Factor. He's 100% right. What bothers people is that same-sex intercourse (for men) doesn't involve two sex organs. It involves one sex organ and one digestive organ. I think the response to this from gay men/women may be one of disgust and we'll once again go back to, "this is none of your business anyway." I'm just telling you how people think. I assume you're already aware of this but you never know.
I appreciate this comment because, at long last the truth comes out and we can talk turkey. Or more to the point, the turkey's digestive tract. It's much easier to deal with the truth than with the hoo-hah surrounding it. You know, sort of like that gay icon movie, The Wizard of Oz? Dorothy and Toto go through all the crap, and they kill the Wicked Witch along with way. What do they learn? That it was all a ruse to disguise the insecurities of a scared old man who's been faking it all the way along. That said, I have to admit that I loved those flying monkeys. It's probably what made me get interested in how to use a 12-gauge shotgun. Yup, The Wizard of Oz made a man out of me. Who'd a-thunk it?

Cathy, I had heterosexual intercourse twice. Call it my personal science project. Back in college. I wanted to be certain that I was really the homo I thought I was. After the first time, I figured oh yeah, you're a 'mo. But then I thought, hey, maybe it was an off night. Second time, I said to myself, look, you could do some emotional damage if you continue this charade. Thank Heisenberg I wasn't infected with evangelicalism; forget the damage it would have done to me, but instead think of what I might have done to some unsuspecting woman. Imagine Ted Haggard's wife. Married to a Christian fraud who makes the Cowardly Lion look like Sgt. Rock, with five kids to boot. If she survives without sucking on the gas hose, I'm going to be surprised.

Now, as for the parts fitting, let's put it this way: If whatever made us didn't want members of the same sex to be able to achieve orgasms together, don't you think he/she/it -- "the all-powerful and all-knowing intelligent designer" -- could have figured out how to do it? Without being more specific than that, I can assure you that my sexual experiences with other men have been thoroughly and repeatedly satisfying to the core. You really don't have a very high regard for your God, do you?

Oh, and when it comes to the use of the digestive tract for sexual intercourse, maybe I should post the phone number of one of my straight brothers. It's always been his favorite. Better fit, he says. Whatever floats yer boat, is my response. Just make sure to do it before dinner.

In any case, I'm positive about a Yuck Factor discussion, because it doesn't take too long before every party realizes that it boils down to personal preference. My neighbor across the street scraped his old house and erected some mini-mansion monstrosity. I hope he doesn't paint the stupid thing pink like his wife has been wanting him to do, or worse yet put one of those unbearably cheesy Christian fish symbols on his garage. I just might have to call out the local ecoterrorists.

[Daniel]

Still not seeing why God didn't just make it all fit together "properly," though. I was asking someone else if they'd read that gay men have higher incidences of rectal or anal cancer. Is this true, anyone know? Is it also true for heterosexuals who practice anal sex?

Hi Cathy- I'd like to address your question about gay men and anal cancer.

Gay men do indeed have a higher incidence of rectal cancer, that is, about 35 in 100,000 in gay men (HIV negative) as compared to 1 in 100,000 in straight men. To understand what this figure means one must keep several things in mind.

1) rectal cancer in gay men is linked to smoking and HPV (Human Papillomavirus).

2) the rate for anal cancer in gay men is about the same as that for women before pap smears became routine.

3) anal cancer is most often found in those over the age of 50.

These facts suggest that a gay man should use a condom during anal intercourse which will stop transmission of HPV (and HIV), not smoke and get a pap smear as his physician suggests. And this last point may be a most difficult to address: men are about as eager to see a doctor as much as they are to ask for directions when lost. And the latter is about being a guy, not being gay. ;)

Places to go:

http://www.gayhealth.com/templates/116419519325337351020/news/index.html?record=114&trycookie=1?record=114

http://www.lgbthealth.net/awarenessweek06/factsheets/cancer.html

http://www.lgbthealthchannel.com/msmcancer/index.shtml

Health care, rather than sexuality, is the relevant issue here. There is also the matter of homophobia among health care providers. Would you go to a doctor you couldn't be 'straight' with? I hardly think so. Add on top of this the difficulty in obtaining and keeping health care (it took me 4 years to get my place of work to recognize my husband as deserving the same rights as my straight colleagues) and the issue isn't as reductive as it seems- that is- it's not a simple matter of what one thinks about the 'parts'.

Parts are for mechanics. Not people making love.

[andrewlittle]

Like Willy, who I am appreciating more and more by the way, I think its time that the unholy debate center on the truth, instead of smoke and mirrors.

A battle between two extremes of U.S. Christianity has raged since the beginning of the 19th century - modernists/humanists and fundamentalists. As time has gone on, the battle has broadened to encompass a broader range of people that cannot be defined in terms of liberal and conservative anymore. But the extremes are still in the drivers' seats when it comes to what gets media attention and, so, what is publicly discussed. More centrist opinions are simply not newsworthy.

Anyway, religious ideology has always became indelibly intertwined with political ideology, resulting in pseudo-religious subjects becoming more and more the fodder of political diatribe aimed simply at garnering power through fear. In Christianity, look no further than the Crusades, the Nazi movement and periodic violent backlashes against Jews for visible signs of this type of religious/political manipulation. It has existed, however, for virtually all time and it is one of the underlying reasons Paul wrote so many letters to early churches.

But the point is that it has always been people in powerful positions, seeking yet more power, who drove the debates and used fear, ignorance (in the sense of lack of knowledge) and religious ideals to manipulate the silent majority. This has been the tools of both extremes of the political landscape - not just "conservatives". Misinformation has been the favorite weapon. In the time of the second and third century martyrs, one of the favorite weapons was the accusation that Christians, in communion, ate babies and drank their blood.

As each extreme uses misinformation to attack, they also gain the right to claim that they have to defend themselves against attack. Nothing pulls in the polulace like "defending what is rightly yours." Hitler was one of the first to really elevate homosexuals, along with Jews, other minorities and intelligensia (thinking people), to the level of being dangerous to the continued well-being of a certain race/class of people. Defense as an offensive strategy - brilliantly carried out by yet another megolomaniac.

Fast forwarding, the floundering politically conservative segment of the Republican party, of which I was ashamedly a part, needed to raise consciousness about how dangerous "declining social values" were to the American standard of living. The "cold war" - the great standard bearer of modern U.S. fear-mongering - had declined in significance and couldn't be relied upon anymore to instill fear of losing what we had. Fear had to be instilled in the populace from another perspective and religious diatribe provided the perfect weapon - and still does. To oppose this use of religion, the other end of the spectrum created fear of "conservative Christians" because they would take away the rights of middle America. Both extremes could, yet again, use fear and defense to manipulate popular support.

Enter homosexuals - say it out loud - any word with that many syllables that can be said in staccato is perfect for fear-mongering. Ho-mo-sex-ual-ity - its a perfect word for preaching and pontificating about evil incarnate. So much better than GLBT. If we simply tie it in with the other great bane of modern conservatism - abortion - we have the perfect tool for creating fear.

We can't use racial minorities anymore - they represent too big a voting block. Actually, if we use these ho-mo-sex-ual people we can get support from black folk who wouldn't ordinarily give us the time of day - if we can just convince them that their religious beliefs are under attack and need protecting, they might side with us. And the best thing - ho-mo-sex-uals are still largely closeted and won't be an election threat. Now, if we could just have another "evil empire" we could ... oh well, that's a different subject.

GLBT folks have been the pawns of power recently - all of a sudden their existence has shot up in significance - and what they do in the privacy of their own homes is the only characteristic that sets them apart. I mean, really they engage in anal sex, oral sex, mutual masturbation - my God, they even use dildos. What do you mean heterosexuals do these things as well - shut up, idiot, that's got nothing to do with it. At least, heterosexuals still stick it in the right hole occasionally and make babies once in a while. (Oops, now we're back to the early church and its obsession with creating more Christians - thanks to Augustine and Aquinas)

Oh well, I'm ranting.

I'll just add one thing for anyone interested in reading the Bible literally. Leviticus 18:22 & 20:13, literally translated from both the Hebrew and the Greek, read:
18:22 [Also,] you will not lie down with a male on a woman’s beds; it is an abomination.
20:13 [And] a man who lies down with a male on a woman’s beds – they have committed (done) an abomination. Both of them shall be put (executed) to death; their blood is upon themselves.
( I will gladly supply the paper I wrote on this to anyone interested - be warned - it is pretty dry stuff.)
The "bed" is used throughout Leviticus to represent the place of relations - the bed represents the relationship. This prohibition, like so many others, is about adultery - not ho-mo-sex-ual-ity. The first translation to make this about homosexuality was the King James in 1611. Actually, it was the KJV of 1606, but that had to be reprinted to correct the typographical errors. Thankfully, the 1611 was inerrant.

So let's get to the truth - let's deal with the fear that has been manipulated to swing the majority, and the population that has been preyed on to accomplish this task. Let's stop hiding behind someone else's theology, and really deal with the stuff that separates us.

Okay, I'm done. Sorry about the length.

P.S. Willy, when you lose some of the venum, you have an articulate, thoughtful voice that speaks truth - and let's people listen without as much defensiveness. I am so sorry for the pain the church has caused you.

By the way, I am a minister - I am evangelical - and I believe in the authority of scripture. I just don't believe in the authority of the bias that tradition has propogated.

Andy

[Zerbie]

Hey Cathy,

Please stick around - I saw your little note to me from earlier, and really don't have time to be posting now (or reading, shame on me, gotta go!).

But I will be back, as there is SO MUCH here to talk about (kind of an endless topic, isn't it?)

Thanks for your candor. I'll be back over the holiday weekend when I get some time to compose my thoughts in writing for ya.

Have a blessed Thanksgiving, Cathy and everyone.
:pray:

[marutidas]

Hating is alot easier than understanding, Hate is bred from ignorance, which in turn is bred from fear.

FrankandCathy,
I am so proud of you. Drudging throu fact and fiction , seeking the truth.
You may not be understanding the "Whole Sex" thing yet, but you are on the right path.


For me my coming out movie was Too Wong Foo: Thanks for everything --Julie Newmar, I also like The Wizard of Oz, You should read Wicked: The life and times of the Wicked Witch of the West, It put a the entire story on its head. What if the Wicked Witch was the Victim?

[tdogg]

Cathy,

Interesting to bring up sexuality and our organs specifically in the discussion. I have also had sex with men in the past, and the act with my current partner (a woman) is much more satisfying. I attribute this partially because I prefer females sexually, but much more than that is because of the love we share, the fact that I'm also satisfied emotionally, mentally and spiritually (yes, she support me fully in my spirituality) as well as physically. That, I believe, is the key to a successful relationship. That my sexual experiences with her are wondeful and satisfying on all these levels is, as I see it, a true blessing from God. Given this, why aren't we allowed to enter into marriage together from a legal and spiritual standpoint? Why would a heterosexual couple who don't have this, and/or who aren't all that compatible, be allowed to get married anywhere, anytime, anyplace and receive all the benefits that legal marriage allow? But, sadly, not us? These are the questions we ask for which we never receive a real answer.

My partner and I fit together like puzzle pieces, from head to toe. It's like we were created to be together. So, as far as body parts not fitting together, that assumption is not accurate - we do fit perfectly together.

Really, if we think about, imaging sex between two other people (explicitly) is probably a bit yucky. I can't even begin to imagine my parents (YUCK), my sisters and their men (YUCK YUCK), or anyone else I'm close with. Don't go there. It's something that I enjoy and treasure with the one person I love. And when we aren't making love (which is the vast majority of the time) - guess what? We are professional career women, cleaning house, grocery shopping, doing yard work, at Home Depot, watching the tube, cooking, going out to dinner, working out at the gym, playing with our pets, visiting family and friends, taking a walk, bird watching, riding the horse, going on trips, paying bills, voting on election day (thank goodness we do get that right at least!), reading the newspaper - my life is not unlike anyone else's. I'm a bit of a rebel, and can cause a raucus now and then, and I like to go out on a rare occasion and throw a few down and do some dancing, but otherwise, it's fairly mundane (well, so is the rebel, raucus and drink/dancing part too...).

As far as listening to your heart and not always your head, it's an activity that takes some practice. Most people I know, don't even know their heart talks to them. They are so busy going here and there, working, cruising through life, they don't ever notice the blooming iris in that field, the red-tailed hawk sitting on that pole, the cat hiding under that bush, the small bunch of poppies blooming on the side of the road, the cloud up high that looks like a bunny (had to throw that one in Zerbie - how are those new 'horses'???), they go through life and never see the beauty, the simplicity, the stillness, and therefore there is no time to listen to their hearts. Be still, sit in an empty field for a while, look around and see nature, listen to the sounds of the grasses blowing, the small birds chirping, the light breeze whispering by - then open your mind and listen to your heart. It get easier with time and practice. I'm so glad I finally listened to mine - I have the love of my life and it's wonderful, amazing, joyful (not without it's moments, like any other relationship) - and had I not listened to my heart, I would have missed my chance to be with this person that is so perfect for me.

Got a lot to do today, and running late on my time, so I hope you are getting a lot of out what people are saying here. There are some very heartfelt messages for you, I can feel the love and respect growing for you. I'm glad you are here, and hope you continue to ask questions and share your thoughts.

Everyone, have a wonderful Thanksgiving Day!! :D :rainbow: :sing:

Tdogg

[frankandcathy]

Tomorrow I have to get up early to go see family but I had to jump on just a sec to see what was posted.

Wow. Tremendous.

First of all...Willy...THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU. After reading and re-reading your posting I only found ONE THING to be offensive. I have a very high regard for God. If I didn't, I wouldn't be here. It's because of his love for me that I want to learn how to love others better.

I got A LOT out of what you wrote. Not really because of what you said but because of how you said it. Thank you again.

Daniel: Thank you for the links; I will try to look them up soon. The info was good and helpful.

Andrew: You blew me out of the water. I loved this post. Tremendous. I learned a lot and agreed with a lot. Very eye-opening. Is there a "value-neutral" book or web site that details and documents this history of the church/politicalization?

What I appreciated most, Andrew, was that you mentioned that "liberals" as well as "conservatives" have used these tactics. I think it's important for everyone to remember in this "debate" that we can't accuse the other side of throwing stones and then turn around and do the same thing. To "fight fire with fire" simply isn't working.

I have never seen so clearly WHY this debate is so important but I think I do now. It IS about power. Really, on both sides but moreso on the conservative side.

I loved your point about how heterosexuals practice the same acts yet it's not sinful. In fact, I'd wager that if a heterosexual couple practiced anal sex, they'd be told that "all things are permissable in the marriage bed" or "the marriage bed is undefiled." I know for sure that's what is said about oral sex because I asked once. "Toys?" I'm not so sure. But anyway, you get the point.

Andrew, I need more on: early church obsession with making babies?? Is this versus making converts/disciples through traditional means?

Unfortunately, yes, I want to read your LOOOOOONG paper. Um...maybe a condensed form??? :)

I didn't think you were ranting at all.

tdogg: You couldn't be more correct. Imagining others making love is a little yucky. Why porn videos are so popular...I dunno. I guess those are just super-attractive people? But, devoid of love, not very tasteful. But I digress...

What do you all think about this: Lesbians make me uncomfortable when they are "masculine." I am a well-dressed, attractive woman and like to hang around similar people. Please help me understand why sometimes being a lesbian involves looking masculine and sometimes does not. I know, I know...it shouldn't matter and I understand that. I just think it might help if I understood the reasoning.

Same for gay men. Why are some men "masculine" and other "feminine?" Is this a choice along the way? Keltic answered this partially (thank you) but I want to hear others' opinions.

BTW, I started sharing some of what I've been learning with my hubby and he agreed. I just started talking to him about WHY we are so afraid of "those gays" and who is responsible for stirring up that hornet's nest. It was really eye-opening for him. Thanks for helping me see a lot more about this.

HAPPY THANKSGIVING EVERYONE!

~C

[sammy1980]

Dear Kara,

I find your comments about so-called heterosexual privilege highly debating. It is debating because it depends on a situation, where that privilege exists. Maybe, in some redneck southern town, two men or two women walk in together hugging into a restaurant, chances are they will encounter vulgar slurs, but if a man and a woman walk in together hugging, they wouldn't experience so. I guess, in this particular case you would be right. However, if you look around what happens in our educational centers and corporations throughout the nation, you will see how much power and control gays and lesbians have. Actually, in our colleges and workplaces, gay rights activists persecute the ones who challenge anything that has to do with homosexuality. A student from University of Missouri was expelled because she openly opposed gay adoption. Her gay professor forced the class to endorse a letter of support to Missouri legislature, and she said she wouldn't do it because of her conservative Christian beliefs. A man in Ohio who worked for Progressive Insurance was fired from his job, because his gay coworkers discovered that he was writing a letter to Ohio senator that would support ban on same-sex marriages. It is important to remember that he did it on his own time. Almost all major companies and universities that are the main influences of our daily life are pro GLBT rigths, like Walmart, but the opinions of some ignorant southern rednecks have such a little meaning on what happens in our country. So, think again who is privileged and who is oppressed in a bigger picture. what are you trying to promote, anyway?

[BruceChris]

Wow, I've been gone for a day or so, and the whole thread is so WAY ahead of me. The main point that I have been trying to make here, is that males and females are so far more alike than different, and I don't mean philosophically, I mean SEXUALLY. I am now going to quote myself, for emphasis, and then add something that I have been looking for since this thread started.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are male and female people, but there are a whole lot of us in between. Did you know that medical science has so far isolated 37 varieties of sex chromosomes? It's not just XX or XY anymore. Or that there are otherwise normal men who have XX chromosomes, and otherwise normal women with XY? They are infertile, of course.

I am going to offer you a little Biblical literalism here, but be warned. In Genesis 5 it tells us that God created us male and female, not male or female. That's right, each and every one of us is both male and female. In both you and I you will find exactly the same organs, tissues, and hormones. They're just a little different size and shape, or in slightly different places. And of course, for the first few weeks of life, we all have exactly the same bodies. If the chromosomes are XX or XY, and the hormones and hormone receptors do what they are supposed to do, we will end up with a normal and fertile male or female. CC's will try to tell us that any "errors" were never part of God's plan, and blame it on the Fall. That's right, Man (no, actually, I guess it was Woman :lol: ) broke something that God couldn't fix. That is not part of my belief system, either
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This next is from an old "Bodies Like Ours" page on same-sex marrriage, wherein they point out that sometimes there is no clear "opposite' sex"

Bodies Like Ours is a site for and about the intersexed, those that we used to call hermaphrodites, but their point applies to all of us, to some extent. Remember, we have SOLID PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that there are a lot of chromosomes that are not simply male or female, but some perhaps unnamed combination, and some of us may not be clearly male or female of body.

Is it too difficult to understand that who we identify as, genderwise, what we have between out legs, whether we act Butch or Fem, and whether we are attracted to one, the other, or both can also vary all over the map? If Male or Female are not always clear, words like Homo or Hetro lose their meaning.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Defining One XY Man - One XX Woman

The arguments in opposition to marriage for gays and lesbians are being framed around the basis of a "one man - one woman" definition. From the very onset, the attempts are farcical because they are trying to legislate what exactly defines a man and a woman.

How we identify ourselves to others is not always a simple binary mechanism for the many thousands of individuals in this country who were born with an intersex condition. Intersexuality in its pure medical definition is a congenital variation of the sex and/or reproductive organs and /or chromosomal make-up that differs from standard male and female. An intersex person may be born with ambiguous genitals that make determining the sex of the baby at birth impossible; or with a chromosomal make-up that is a variation of the standard XX for female and XY for male. For example, some individuals are born XXY, and some XXXY. And then to confuse matters even more, individuals with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS) are born XY yet emerge from the womb looking quite female, are generally pronounced female in the delivery room, and may identify as female throughout their entire lives. While these examples are in no way exhaustive, they should present enough of a basis in fact to muddle any attempts to legally define what makes us male or female (or both for that matter).

Should a woman who is born with AIS and is heterosexual be denied the right to marry the man she loves because it would be a union of two XY individuals?

How should we classify an XY individual born with genitalia that didn't fit "male standards" and so was subjected to a sex-reassignment surgery during infanthood without his consent? If this person identifies in their gender of rearing, which will not match their genetic make-up, who can they legally marry? And if this person decides at some time in his life that he should've been left alone - without surgical reassignment - and transitions back to his birth gender of male, the answers don't get any clearer. Would marriage prior to gender transition (remember, this person was born male but underwent sex reassignment in infanthood to female) to someone appearing to be of the opposite gender be acceptable even though both partners are XY? How about marriage to that same person after he transitions back to his birth gender? What appeared at the onset to be a heterosexual relationship now becomes a homosexual one if we are to base gender on appearance. If based purely upon genetics, it was a homosexual relationship all along. It gets pretty convoluted trying to keep intersex people neatly classified, much less legislated.

Will individuals born XXXY be prohibited from marrying anyone, thus sentencing them to a life without any form of equal protection under the law? Perhaps they will be the true winners in this silliness by being given the green light to marry whomever they desire.

Sometimes it may take several days or weeks before sex is determined or gender of rearing is decided upon by someone other than the child. Let's hope those doctors and the parents make the right choice because if they don't, it could mean little Johnny or little Jane will be constitutionally prohibited from getting married to their heterosexual lovers someday; but wait, even if "the right choice" is made, little Johnny and little Jane may still be constitutionally prohibited from equal protection under the law due to narrow definitions of what makes us male and female.

Some religious arguments against marriage for gays and lesbians have centered on the basis of procreation. Pity the poor girl born without a vagina and uterus because she won't be procreating anytime soon and under that definition of one man-one woman, she could be excluded from heterosexual marriage. Based upon the procreation argument, we should ask all individuals to proceed immediately to the clerk of the court for genital and fertility checks to make sure God's will of heterosexual sex for procreation is being adhered to.

Nor can we try to define male and female based upon genitalia present at birth. Boys are born without a penis every day, just as girls are born with a clitoris that resembles a penis.

Suppose the parents respect the child's right to choose for his or herself any cosmetic genital surgery, and the person decides that their genitalia are fine the way they are. Will legislation attempt to deny them their basic right to heterosexual marriage because their genitals don't match their gender identification?

In the few cases outlined above, any legislation that attempts to define one man - one woman for the purpose of marriage could cause thousands of individual's unnecessary angst and grief. While some intersex people identify as gay or lesbian based upon their gender of rearing, not all do. However, most intersex people clearly identify as male or female, it's just that their gender identification may not match their genetic marker of XX or XY or XXY, or XXXY or XXO or XXYO. Can a gender identity ever truly match a genetic marker of XXY or some variation thereof? Some intersex individuals may very well confuse the issue even further for lawmakers when they declare that they are intersex only and identify as neither male nor female, or perhaps identify as both male and female. If they have the genetic make-up to do so and that is how the government defines us, what will keep them from entering into what appears to be on the surface a homosexual marriage but genetically is really neither?

If the legal definition of male and female comes down to whether we are XX or XY, the law will effectively be prohibiting heterosexual marriage in many instances. If it is based it upon gender identity or genital appearances, any such legislation may in effect be giving the green light to marriage for "genetic homosexuals" according to the government's own definition.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of intersex people in loving heterosexual relationships and marriages that could be called into question due to one partner having a chromosome make-up that doesn't match their gender. Then again, there could be thousands of gay and lesbian intersex individuals lining up to get legally married based upon these futile attempts at legislating and defining male and female. If such a law is to be enforced, accommodations for genetic testing to determine gender and genital checks may need to be written into the grand plan to keep us safe from the imagined dangers of marriage for homosexuals. The danger is not from people in loving homosexual relationships getting married, the danger is coming from attempts by the government and religious institutions trying to define the concept of one man - one woman.

Medicine has for decades been trying to surgically force intersex children into a male or female box according to their narrow definition based upon the genitalia. Those attempts are now under sharp criticism and debate. We can only hope that Washington doesn't further antagonize those often futile attempts through misguided legislation trying to define one man - one woman through a constitutional amendment. Such legislation which would only serve to further the stigma thousands of intersex people face from the moment they are born by extending it into legally defined marriage.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The intersexed are more sinned against than most of us, and for that we should offer them our love, and God's love. But remember, they are created in God's image, as are all 6 billion of us.

Cathy, I still owe you a message response, but after this, I'll have to completely re-write it.

Peace, and Much Love, Bruce Chris

[BruceChris]

I believe that what many CC's are truly SCARED TO DEATH of, is that if and when two gay persons get a good education, good jobs, buy a house, settle into a stable, long term relationship, and maybe decide to raise some kids, they will start to look like everybody else. And not have any more problems than straights. Like many of the respected members of - MY- church.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Emproph]

Dear Kara,

I find your comments about so-called heterosexual privilege highly debating. It is debating because it depends on a situation, where that privilege exists. Maybe, in some redneck southern town, two men or two women walk in together hugging into a restaurant, chances are they will encounter vulgar slurs, but if a man and a woman walk in together hugging, they wouldn't experience so. I guess, in this particular case you would be right.
Actually Sam these were the “particular case[s]” Kara referenced:

Dear Frank & Cathy: I can see you're really trying, but you really don't have ANY comprehension of the privilege you operate under. You said you'd be willing to give up your rights, but the truth is you can't even comprehend what that would mean. It would mean you'd have no say over each other's health care. That if Cathy died (being the mother of the children), you Frank would have no rights to them. If one of you died, the other person would have to find a new home because the home you bought and paid for together and shared for years would no longer automatically be yours.
Kara’s concerns in regard to privilege were in regard to a spouse’s health care, children and property, and NOT the legal right to hug in a restaurant in a “redneck southern town.”

Conclusion #1 -Health care, children and property = hugging in public.

However, if you look around what happens in our educational centers and corporations throughout the nation, you will see how much power and control gays and lesbians have. Actually, in our colleges and workplaces, gay rights activists persecute the ones who challenge anything that has to do with homosexuality. A student from University of Missouri was expelled because she openly opposed gay adoption. Her gay professor forced the class to endorse a letter of support to Missouri legislature, and she said she wouldn't do it because of her conservative Christian beliefs.
That’s called abuse of power. Kara wasn’t talking about the abuse of power, she was talking about the privilege of legal equality.

A man in Ohio who worked for Progressive Insurance was fired from his job, because his gay coworkers discovered that he was writing a letter to Ohio senator that would support ban on same-sex marriages. It is important to remember that he did it on his own time. Ibid.

...gay rights activists persecute the ones who challenge anything that has to do with homosexuality.
Conclusion #2 -A gay professor and gay co-workers = “gay rights activists.”
-Therefore gay rights = the right to persecute.
-Therefore the equal protection of legal rights regarding a spouse’s health care, children and property is exactly the same as the desire to unjustly persecute others.

I’m assuming this is the same logic you used to determine your “right” to slanderously mischaracterize the intentions of Kara and all gay rights activists.

Conclusion #3 -Being openly gay and not consumed with self loathing = “gay rights activist.”

Almost all major companies and universities that are the main influences of our daily life are pro GLBT rigths, like Walmart,Would this be the same “pro-GLBT Wal-mart and companies that many “evangelical Christians” are boycotting as a direct result of their respectful treatment of GLBT persons and their families?

The opinions of some ignorant evangelical Christians have such a little meaning on what happens in our country. So, think again who is persecuting and who is oppressed in a bigger picture. what are you trying to promote anyway Sam?
Thank you Emproph, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

[andrewlittle]

Dear Kara,

I find your comments about so-called heterosexual privilege highly debating. It is debating because it depends on a situation, where that privilege exists. Maybe, in some redneck southern town, two men or two women walk in together hugging into a restaurant, chances are they will encounter vulgar slurs, but if a man and a woman walk in together hugging, they wouldn't experience so. I guess, in this particular case you would be right. However, if you look around what happens in our educational centers and corporations throughout the nation, you will see how much power and control gays and lesbians have. Actually, in our colleges and workplaces, gay rights activists persecute the ones who challenge anything that has to do with homosexuality. A student from University of Missouri was expelled because she openly opposed gay adoption. Her gay professor forced the class to endorse a letter of support to Missouri legislature, and she said she wouldn't do it because of her conservative Christian beliefs. A man in Ohio who worked for Progressive Insurance was fired from his job, because his gay coworkers discovered that he was writing a letter to Ohio senator that would support ban on same-sex marriages. It is important to remember that he did it on his own time. Almost all major companies and universities that are the main influences of our daily life are pro GLBT rigths, like Walmart, but the opinions of some ignorant southern rednecks have such a little meaning on what happens in our country. So, think again who is privileged and who is oppressed in a bigger picture. what are you trying to promote, anyway?

Privilege is best understood as the ability to exercise bias or prejudice in concert with the inherent power afforded by society to institutionalize or normalize that prejudice.

LGBT folks, considered as a cohesive voting unit, do not have the collective political clout to exercise any bias or prejudice against society at large. Dominant culture, obviously, does. That can be seen in the myriad attempts to legislate against LGBT equal rights.

As Emproph rightly pointed out, you're using very specific, very particular situations to illustrate how some gay activists or some GLBT persons abuse the power that a limited system gives them.

Contrast that with how the dominant straight culture, of which I am one, demonstrates that same abuse of power, but on a society-wide scale because they have the clout to institutionalize their ignorance and bias. They have the power to say, "Normal looks like me - heterosexual. You're not like me so you're abnormal."

The test is ultimately found in where you have to go to be outside the specific arena of power that is abusing you. In the cases you cited, each of those abused can walk out a door into a world that looks and acts like they do. In the case of abused LGBT people, they cannot do that - they have to walk into some kind of limited enclave or gathering to find themselves in a safe place.

Lastly, what influence do ignorant southern rednecks have on what happens in our country? For God sakes, get your head out of your - well, dark place - who the heck do you think has been inhabiting the White House for these past few years and pushing an anti-GLBT agenda?

Which brings us to the best test of privilege. Just like you have done in your post, dominant privilege allows us to look at our own ignorance and decide that it should be the norm - and then have the power to vote that ignorance into law. Rednecks are not all Southern, you know.

[andrewlittle]

I forgot to say, Bruce, that your post is a masterpiece.

I lack the knowledge to make arguements involving the Intersexed population. I am glad you have the knowledge and resources.

When confronted with the argument that God would not create people to be GLBT, I have wanted to counter with the fact that God creates intersexed people regularly, but then we use cultural bias to determine their gender for them and, thereby, undo what God has done. I do know that medicine's proclivity for making that decision based on the outward appearance of an infant has left a great many people feeling like strangers in their own bodies.

Thanks for giving me a wealth of information and a place to find more.

[BruceChris]

I was up kinda late last night, but part of the point that I was trying to make has to do with us, and with ALL of us. The inter-sex movement has helped bring to our awareness the concept of sexual differentiation. That we ALL start out with bodies that are identical, except for the sex chromosomes.

That to become a perfectly differentiated male, we must have the right chromosomes. The right kind and amount of hormones must be responded to by the correct receptors, and at the right times. This then must result in a person with a male body, with a reasonable sized penis and descended testicles, who is fertile. In addition, this person must identify as being a man, and identify with other men. This person must also be attracted to those that he perceives as female. Perhaps he should never be attracted to males. And similar, for females.

Now since something like 10% of us are infertile, for whatever reason, another 10% of us claim to be gay, and Kinsey tells us that at least 37% of us have had at least one homosexual experience, It would be reasonable to assume that perhaps less than HALF of us are perfectly differentiated, "Pure" males, or females.

So when I say that Genesis 5 tells us that we are all created male and female, not Male or female, I am proof texting you with my own (for the moment) rigid and somewhat intolerant beliefs. No, not just beliefs, but Theology, or Hermeneutics, or whatever word sounds suitably impressive.

Cathy, I hope that you will understand that we must do whatever is necessary to teach Falwell, and Dobson and others that LGBTQAI etc are NOT just some tiny minority that can and should be swept under the rug, or frightened into invisibility. We too are God's children. We will not allow it, and God's love forbids it. (Cathy, I'm sorry if I placed you in such company, even for a moment. You are an awesome, and growing person.) - (David is just now chastising me unmercifily, and threatening to excommunicate me from everything gay. Point well taken)

And oh, yeah. I may be a fair hand with science, and logic, and rhetoric, but tdogg is pure poetry.

Peace, Love, and happy Turkey day, Bruce Chris

[tdogg]

Hi Cathy,

A quick post on one of your statements regarding masculine lesbians. Actually, I've seen some pretty butch straight women. I look at it as all people are individuals, unique tastes and preferences as well as unique genetic characteristics. it has less to do with sexual orientation and more to do with how comfortable a person feels in their environment and personal preferences (as far as how someone dresses, does their hair, make up or no make up, etc.).

I have days when I'm pretty butch - especially working a horse show. Ball cap, jeans, old t shirt, my boots, usually make up but hair stuffed in my hat. I have other days when I like to dress up and look fairly feminine. I'm not one to wear excessive make up or do up my hair fancy, I don't wear a lot of jewelery (earrings and a bracelet are usually it). It depends on my mood, what I'm doing, where I'm going, who I'll be doing and going with. For me it's across the board.

Others are pretty femme - always the hair, lots of make up, ruffles and lace (I'm a 'less is more' type). That's where they feel comfortable and how they express themselves. It's a matter of personality, and not sexuality. I would imagine it's pretty similar for guys - an individual choice on comfort and expression.

I like tools (not power tho, that's my girl's area!), sports (yup I'm the sport fanatic in the house), and I can hang with the manliest of men - but I also like shopping, decorating, cooking and can hang with the girliest girl (or guy). Just look at it as an individual's taste and not necessarily as an indication of sexuality (although it might be partly due to expression of their sexuality).

Anyways, hope you're having a great Thanksgiving everyone - enjoy and don't spent TOO much time on the computer!!!

[sammy1980]

I want to promote, or raise awareness how much our First Amendment right has become jeopardized because of gay rights activism. Don't get me wrong though, I am not saying that all gays and lesbians are into political issues that deal with legislation of punishment against those who openly critique homosexuality and resemle the professor and Progressive employees I mentioned: as a matter of fact, my cousin was gay and he was very tolerant of differences in opinions. I was referring to how our workplace and education becomes pro-homosexuality politics, and how people who disagree with that, are being punished. Walmart is not the only organization that supports gay rights politics, so are 1-800-Flowers, Avon, Amazon, Avon, Barnes and Noble, Disney Store, FTD, Gap, Hallmark, Office Max, REI, Staples, Toys R Us, Verizon, and many others. Almost all business and insurance companies in US and Canada are connected with political organizations such as Gay and Lesbian Task Force, GLAAD, and of course, Soulforce. Just how much money have you received from Geico and Progressive? The cases I listed were just the examples to make you see what is going on. But I could list you a lot more, it's just would be difficult because there are too many and I could write for hours, which would make me feel very tired. The point I was trying to make was that heterosexual privileges and homosexual privileges both exist but not everywhere, it depends on a location and particular social environment. Just recently, a gay community in Cape Cod, MA were insulting heterosexual couples by calling them as breeders. As far as comparing openly gays and lesbians with evangelical Christians, at the workplace and at universities, if a GLB person announces to colleagues that he or she is gay or lesbian, most likely nobody would say anything critical and welcome them with open arms. However, if an evangelical Christian openly declares what he or she believes, he or she would have a serious talk with management about being insensitive to diversity and an evangelical Christian would be accused of being self-righteous. So, I would say that in workplaces and educational settings, gays and lesbians get privileged perks while evangelical Christians and anybody who glorifies heterosexuality will be silenced and reprimanded. I agree with you when you said that if a gay person walks into public, he would be perceived as abnormal, but that could happen to anybody, which, like I said, depends on a situational setting. There are people who hate gays, there are people who hate straights, people who hate women, people who hate men, people who hate children, people who hate French, people who hate firemen, people who hate policemen. It's not who you are but where you are at. I am curious though Andrew, why should any person, gay , straight, bisexual, trisexual, acknowledge to the whole world whom he or she wants to have sex with? Shouldn't that be a private matter? Should we all be exposed to everybody's privacies? Also, what is more important for people, the workplace and education that are the main factors providing them basic necessities such as food and shelter or the public arena, where everybody is entitled to having their own opinions? I wouldn't be surprised that the gay professor I was talking about encounters unwelcome treatment by the public. People who would learn about his oppressive measures he uses against the students, wouldn't think kindly of him. Hence, it would be his actions not his sexual orientation. Just like I have a problem with Svend Robinson not because he is gay, but because he proposed a law into Canadian parliament that would label Bible as a hate literature, due to having verses prohibiting homosexual behavior. His proposal got rejected, thanks God, due to the opposition of Christian members of the parliament. Speaking of politics, just recently 67 open gays and lesbians were elected into our government. Here are some of them: Patricia Todd, who will represent District 54 in the Alabama State House. Todd is the first openly gay person ever elected to any office in the state.
Kathy Webb, who will represent District 37 in the Arkansas State House. Webb is the first openly gay person ever elected to any office in the state.
Henry Fernandez, who won a seat on the Lawrence Township School Board, making him the first openly gay person ever elected to any office in Indiana.
Al McAffrey, who will represent District 88 in the Oklahoma State House. McAffrey is the first openly gay person ever elected to the Oklahoma state legislature.
Jolie Justus, who will represent District 10 in the Missouri State Senate. Justus is the first openly gay state senator in Missouri history.
Ed Murray, who will represent District 43 in the Washington State Senate. Murray, a former state representative, is the second openly gay state senator in Washington history.
Matt McCoy, who becomes the first openly gay candidate ever elected to the Iowa legislature. McCoy, a sitting state senator, came out during his last term.
Ken Keechl, who won a seat on the Broward County Commission in Florida, beating an appointee of Gov. Jeb Bush.
Jamie Pedersen, who becomes the third consecutive openly gay person to be elected to represent District 43 in the Washington State House.
Judge Virginia Linder will join Rives Kistler on the Oregon Supreme Court, making it the first state ever to have two openly gay Supreme Court Justices, according to preliminary results. There are many more gays and lesbians in our government that influence our culture and in some ways infringe the freedom of speech of evangelical Christians and scientists who object homosexuality, by proposing certain laws. So, it is still the question who has stronger influence, whether gay politicians or southern rednecks. Maybe, you are walking in a misinformed darkness, Andrew? On that note, I was simply trying to imply that open insults towards gays and lesbians are more likely to happen in the South rather than anywere else, and not that every redneck is a southerner. Other places seem to be more tolerant of gays and lesbians. I also think that George Bush is more open-minded than Sheila Kuehl, a California state senator. Bush supports civil unions for gays and lesbians, which grants them the same benefits as marriage would. Kuehl proposed laws that would criminalize any criticism of homosexuality in public schools and teaching that homosexuality is always great to all public school levels, as young as 5 year old kids. Finally, I want to say something about gay marriage. I have heard arguments from Kara and from Bruce dealing with benefits and people having androgyny. All these arguments lead to believe that marriage is about adults political, economic, and personal interests. However, marriages are needed in order to protect children, and the only way children are brought into this world is by monagamous heterosexual relation. Two men and two women together cannot conceive a child, neither can people with XXXY, neither can people without vagina or penis, it's logical science, therefore I don't see any reason for them to get married, because they can't have children, who would need it. I guess James Dobson was right about gay rights activists pushing for gay marriage, in terms of thinking of themselves first and not of the children. About benefits, my dear Kara, if you want your loved one to be properly taken care of and get life insurance, please, find yourself a good lawyer who would help you write a good will indicating that. There are many lawyers like that who are supportive of legal rights of gays and lesbians. Many of such lawyers are gays and lesbians themselves. I have a question though, maybe the idea of gay marriage is not about marriage at all, but about gays and lesbians earning respect from society? As far as respect, I respect all people who are open-minded and support personal liberties and different values of other people, despite personal disagreements. I would like to same to be done to me. By the way, any truly evangelical Christian would not persecute anybody even if they don't agree with certain sexual behavior. Evangelical Christians treat all human beings with love and respect, as Jesus did.

[dewdrop_world]

Sammy1980 -- interesting post, but off the topic of this thread.

I have a number of thoughts about it, will post later, but they really belong in a new thread.

James

[keltic63]

I Just recently, a gay community in Cape Cod, MA were insulting heterosexual couples by calling them as breeders.


Matthew Shepard

[sammy1980]

I'm sorry James. I just wanted to answer questions of Andrew and Emproph. To summarize my response to their views and views of Kara: privilege is not about who you are, gay, straight, white, black, yellow, French, English, Christian, atheist, but it's about whether you have power and the issue of who has power is very interchangeable, thus is the the privilege. To the topic: since we all sinners, it means we all make mistakes and not in a position to judge anybody for those mistakes, so there is no perfect practing Christian. To me, a Christian means anybody who wants to follow Jesus Christ, so if gays and lesbians want to follow Jesus Christ in their own ways, I can respect that. However, I think Frank and Cathy are asking the wrong question: the question should be is homosexuality compatible with God's definition of morality? The answer for that is always no. Romans 1 clearly explains what homosexuality is all about and it gives us the reason why it emerged, it happened and continues happening because people decided to live without God, therefore they evoked feelings of attractiveness to the same sex, which is known in the modern age, as homosexual orientation. So, Romans 1 gives a clear definition that homosexual attractiveness/orientation is in no way, a gift from God. I can understand that some people would disagree with that. Hey, they are entitled to their own opinions. What I don't understand, why would they disagree with the Scripture: is it because it's convenient for them, is it because they are prejudiced against evangelical Christians, or because they are convinced of that? Furthermore: 1 Corinthians specifically indicate that if you are having sex with a person of the same sex, you will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, so my question is, how do people who indulge themselves into homosexual behavior expect to go to Heaven, when the very Word of God says it's impossible?

[sammy1980]

Matthew Shepard

Keltic, I see your point, because Matthew Shepard was killed by two straight guys, which was very tragic, didn't justify the behavior of those gays and lesbians in Cape Cod. Furthermore, the people who killed Matt were not evangelical Christians, but drug-addicted lowlives who haven't even read the Bible in their entire life.

[keltic63]

On that note, I was simply trying to imply that open insults towards gays and lesbians are more likely to happen in the South rather than anywere else, and not that every redneck is a southerner. and do you speak out to prohibit such speech?
Finally, I want to say something about gay marriage...... and the only way children are brought into this world is by monagamous heterosexual relation. Two men and two women together cannot conceive a child, neither can people with XXXY, neither can people without vagina or penis, it's logical science, therefore I don't see any reason for them to get married, because they can't have children, who would need it. Are you in favor of defining marriage as 1 man and 1 woman who have the ability to procreate? Would you propose laws regulating those marriages that don't produce children within a reasonable time period, say, 5 years? perhaps all marriage licenses could come up for renewal after that time period. If said couple remains childless, the license would not be renewed, and the marriage could be dissolved. There is the problem though with infertile couples, what will you do about them? Oh, and what about sr. citizens? I have a widowed aunt in her 70's and her gentleman friend is in his 80's. They've thought about marriage, but since they can't procreate, I'm not sure that they deserve to be legally married. Right? I mean, as you said, it's all about the kids. About benefits, my dear Kara, unnecessarily condescending term for an evangelical Christian claiming to show love for a woman you only know through this message board. if you want your loved one to be properly taken care of and get life insurance, please, find yourself a good lawyer who would help you write a good will indicating that. There are many lawyers like that who are supportive of legal rights of gays and lesbians. Many of such lawyers are gays and lesbians themselves. And this is exactly why gay marriage should be allowed. If you are straight, all you have to do is show up at the courthouse, pay your money, and receive your marriage license. All of those benefits and privileges become yours just because you happen to be heterosexual. It is possible to create the same kinds of benefits through wills, powers of attorney, etc. and it comes at great expense to the same-sex couples. There are also states that have attempted to nullify and void any contracts that would give those marriage benefits to same sex couples. So in that case, they not only deny them equal rights to marriage, but also deny them the contracts that you say we should go pay for ourselves. I have a question though, maybe the idea of gay marriage is not about marriage at all, but about gays and lesbians earning respect from society? As far as respect, I respect all people who are open-minded and support personal liberties and different values of other people, despite personal disagreements. respect? like the kind you are showing Kara in this thread? or like the kind you're talking about by bemoaning the fact that a few homosexuals are now holding public office? Or the kind of respect you are showing lgbt people by worrying that a few dollars from corporate America has been donated to organizations that support LGBT rights? I would like to same to be done to me. You can't imagine the respect I'm giving you right now. By the way, any truly evangelical Christian No True Scotsmen FALLACY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman)would not persecute anybody even if they don't agree with certain sexual behavior. Evangelical Christians treat all human beings with love and respect, as Jesus did. Then why are you here? I mean, if we don't bug you, and you really do love us, what's the big deal if we have a little club on the internet? or if we collect our money and use it to do things that will benefit us? You seem to have some kind of axe to grind, you're upset that corporate dollars have seemingly helped lgbt people in some way. You fail to see your privilege as a heterosexual, and you've complained that gays are threatening your first amendment rights. When you speak of the things you've mentioned here, I get concerned for my 4th amendment rights, not to mention the rights granted to us by the Declaration of Independence (Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.) I'm not very happy thinking about what may happen to my partner if I die suddenly, and someone decides that because we are gay, he cannot have the house we are paying for and living in together. I'm not happy thinking that I may be asked to leave the emergency or hospital room should he have a heart attack, and I'm not family, or next of kin. Is this the kind of love and respect you have for me, and other gay people? the kind where you happily deny us access to housing, jobs, even our beloved partners simply because you think homosexuality is a sin?

[sammy1980]

I believe that what many CC's are truly SCARED TO DEATH of, is that if and when two gay persons get a good education, good jobs, buy a house, settle into a stable, long term relationship, and maybe decide to raise some kids, they will start to look like everybody else. And not have any more problems than straights. Like many of the respected members of - MY- church.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

No, Bruce. Majority of Conservative Evangelical Christians are afraid that they could be put in prison for what we believe is right: which is unacceptance of homosexual behavior. This fear comes from having gay and lesbian politicians in our government, who are attempting to pass legal restrictive measures on any criticism of homosexuality. Wouldn't you be afraid if you see so many gays and lesbians disproportionately fired from good jobs and expelled from good schools for advocating homosexual behavior?

[keltic63]

Keltic, I see your point, because Matthew Shepard was killed by two straight guys, which was very tragic, didn't justify the behavior of those gays and lesbians in Cape Cod. Furthermore, the people who killed Matt were not evangelical Christians, but drug-addicted lowlives who haven't even read the Bible in their entire life.

No. you don't see my point. so a few gay guys called a few people names? Matthew Shepard lost his life because and ONLY because he was gay. That's just one that we can use to reference publicly. There are thousands more. The rhetoric that flows from certain Conservative Christian leaders gives tacit approval to this kind of violence against lgbt people. You cannot compare name-calling to murder! and you cannot change horses in midstream and blame it on the bad "druggies" when you come here to indict all gays.

[Willy]

What do you all think about this: Lesbians make me uncomfortable when they are "masculine." I am a well-dressed, attractive woman and like to hang around similar people. Please help me understand why sometimes being a lesbian involves looking masculine and sometimes does not. I know, I know...it shouldn't matter and I understand that. I just think it might help if I understood the reasoning.

Same for gay men. Why are some men "masculine" and other "feminine?" Is this a choice along the way? Keltic answered this partially (thank you) but I want to hear others' opinions.
I am starting this during the break in the T-giving Day action. As I wrote in a different thread, I have much to be thankful (http://willymsrant.blogspot.com/2006/11/i-have-new-rabbi.html) for. Including computers, because sitting at the computer relaxes me, and if there's one thing you need on a holiday it is relaxation. :)

One typical response to a question like this one is to dispute the whole idea of masculinity and femininity. I'm not going to do that. I like to call things by their real names; while the categories are imperfect, I think it's somewhere between a dodge and a lie to argue that we don't recognize the concepts involved. Not only that, but I think there's no question that there's more non-masculinity among gay men than among straight men, and more non-femininity among lesbians than among straight women.

I don't think there's a single factor to account for this. Also, I think that, while these things -- "masculinity" and "femininity" definitely exist -- that too much is made of them in a whole variety of ways by both heterosexuals and homosexuals. Not only do people assign too much importance to them, but they assign values and traits that just don't exist when discussing these issues. And finally, people overlook the considerable variations that span all people, be they straight or gay, when it comes to the charcteristics that, taken together, we recognize as masculinity and femininity.

To be less theoretical: I personally know more than a few gay men who are quite masculine, and some who you'd call "hyper-masculine." In the military, there's even a stereotype attached to hyper-masculine gay men: "Jocko homo" is what I've heard. I'm longtime friends with a former marine who absolutely fits that stereotype. It's not a put-on. It's the way he is. Man's man all the way.

In my own case, in one of my jobs my co-workers flatly refused to believe that I was gay, and I flatly refused to give them a demonstration on the grounds that I was no one's clown. So we were at an impasse. So be it. And the two most effeminate men I've ever personally known were both straight. So there's no ironclad rule. That said, stereotypes exist for a reason: Silly, feminine gay males is one of them. Lying, cheesy, Bible-thumping, thieving, righteous evangelicals is another.

I suspect that many gay males are as effiminate as they are for cultural reasons. Human sexuality exhibits itself right away for most people. I knew I liked guys by the time I was six years old. I didn't know what the like meant; that started dawning on me at the age of 10 or 11.

I think what happens to a lot of homosexual males is that they feel what they feel, and as it turns sexual -- typically junior high school -- quickly pick up the cultural cues that essentially tell them that guys aren't supposed to like guys the way they do. They look around, and the only people who are "authorized" to have romantic feelings for males are junior high school girls.

For a lot of guys who like other guys, that becomes the role model for how to process their homosexual feelings, and it just continues on into adulthood. To me, it makes intutitive sense: Effeminiate gay males remind me of junior high school girls. A lot of tastes and habits get established during these years. Musical taste is a biggie, for example. Patterns of dealing with stress, ways of interacting with other people. That's really what the teenage years are about in the social sense, at least for most people.

You'll know that American society accepts gay people when the captain of the football team takes the captain of the baseball team to the spring dance and no one thinks twice about it. Ditto for the girl who's president of the student council and the other girl who's on the girl's field hockey squad. At that point, I don't think you'll see quite as much "stereotypical" behavior out of gay people, although there'll still be some because human beings vary in all traits.

By the way, I don't expect what I've described in the preceding paragraph to happen in my lifetime. Too many evangelicals out there to tell these kids that they're freaks who are bound for hell, and not just in the next life.

[sammy1980]

No. you don't see my point. so a few gay guys called a few people names? Matthew Shepard lost his life because and ONLY because he was gay. That's just one that we can use to reference publicly. There are thousands more. The rhetoric that flows from certain Conservative Christian leaders gives tacit approval to this kind of violence against lgbt people. You cannot compare name-calling to murder! and you cannot change horses in midstream and blame it on the bad "druggies" when you come here to indict all gays.

Keltic,

I guess it's either you didn't read into what I was saying or maybe I used poor communication techniques to get you understand. So, I'll say things again in a summarized way. I am very respectful to you, to Kara, to Andrew, and everybody else. That's why I want to have an open conversation with you. I was just trying to debate the issue of heterosexual privilege Kara was preaching about. Those arguments about gay and lesbian politicians, about corporations supporting gay rights, and about pro-homosexuality education I used not to show that I was upset (as a matter of fact; I'm not a politician, I don't work for corporation, and I am not a student, so they don't personally bother me), but to show that gays and lesbians are hardly unprivileged people, in general, and there could be heterosexual and homosexual privilege. Every aspect of personal and professional life is supportive of your causes, so I see the privilege, here. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinions, just like I am entitled to my own. I heard your concerns about you and your partner, so I think that gays and lesbians should have a civil union, like the one in Vermont and Connecticut. It gives them exactly the same benefits as marriage would for one man and one woman. And yes, I believe that marriage should be defined as such and it is about kids. Based on what I heard and read, the civil unions in Vermont and Connecticut and the ones in Europe haven't done any harm to anybody, yet. It would definitely save money on lawyers. I don't know anything about marriage licenses since I've never been married, so I can't make a comment on its renewal policies. Are marriage licenses like driver licenses? I never said all gays and lesbians want to attack my 1st amendment rights, but various gay rights activists. I hope you understand that not all gays and lesbians are gay rights activists. Many of them don't give a hoot about politics, I know some gays and lesbians where I work, at Walmart, I'm cool with them and they are cool with me. As a matter of fact, my barber Dan, who is gay thinks it's okay to argue against gay marriage for the sake of having opinions, because America is not Communist. By the way, no offense, but I noticed that you look like Lenin. Therefore, I don't condone any vulgar speeches against GLB just like I don't condone vulgar speeches against anybody and I'm not advocating to what happen to Matthew Shepard. How can you say, you are a follower of Jesus and condone murder, when the Bible tells us "Thou shalt not kill?" Generally speaking, gays and lesbians don't bug me, as you said. So, the only ones I indicted were the ones who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to confess that homosexual behavior is a normal behavior. About gay rights activisits like Sheila Kuehl, Svend Robinson, Michael Swift, and many others; I am not angry with them. Even if I give them benefit of a doubt and they win, they will still lose in the long run. Let us say, there is going to be a day when Bible and Christianity would be banned and all conservative Christians like myself would be imprisoned for our beliefs. The word of God stating the sinfulness of homosexual behavior would go underground from prison cells and reach millions of people, and people will believe that. You see, those gay rights activists can take away our rights to preach openly about the biblical standpoint on homosexuality but they can't take away what we believe. This is why they already lost.

Why am I here? To have an open dialogue with people. I guess there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong for having gay clubs, whether on the street or the internet. Those clubs are about freedom of expression, which I am always supportive. I want to have a freedom of expression, too.

[tdogg]

It gives them exactly the same benefits as marriage would for one man and one woman.

Sammy - this statement is completely incorrect. It gives us SOME benefits, but certainly not ALL benefits of legal marriage. I encourage you to really do some research if you have an interest in exactly what benefits gays and lesbians receive and what they do not. At least research it if you wish to make this type of statement. I know in California, we do not have nearly the benefits of married couples, and we are more progressed than most states.

So, the only ones I indicted were the ones who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to confess that homosexual behavior is a normal behavior.

And the only fundamentalists I am not warm to are those who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to depress and repress homosexuals who's behavior they feel is not normal. What is "normal" anyway?????????? Besides a city in, is it Illinois???

So that said, we each can believe what we want, but when our beliefs keep any other human from enjoying the full benefits that a particular seperate group enjoy, that is not only unconstitutional but unacceptable.

When each individual human person receives their due entitlement to full equality, no more or no less than the next human person, perhaps there will be no more need for what you call activism. I'm just not seeing what the problem is there. It definitely doesn't impinge on a heterosexual's rights (or priviledges) - you and I both know there is no danger of going to jail solely because you vocalize your disagreement with gays and lesbians.

[andrewlittle]

Willy, you're beginning to astound me - and I am completely serious - no tongue in cheek, whatsoever.

Whether it was by design, or an accident of timing, you completely avoided the pitfall of responding to the blithering idiot in some of the other posts, and gave us a beautiful post to read.

As an evangelical Christian, and I certainly don't think I fit the mold, I would definitely like see two captains, two male or or two female captains, comfortably walk into any high school dance or community restaurant. I would be honored to accompany them - although I would still be upset that I might need to do that for their safety.

You keep speaking your piece this way, and more and more people will listen. It'll be slow, but it will happen.

All blessings to you

[sammy1980]

It gives them exactly the same benefits as marriage would for one man and one woman.

Sammy - this statement is completely incorrect. It gives us SOME benefits, but certainly not ALL benefits of legal marriage. I encourage you to really do some research if you have an interest in exactly what benefits gays and lesbians receive and what they do not. At least research it if you wish to make this type of statement. I know in California, we do not have nearly the benefits of married couples, and we are more progressed than most states.

So, the only ones I indicted were the ones who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to confess that homosexual behavior is a normal behavior.

And the only fundamentalists I am not warm to are those who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to depress and repress homosexuals who's behavior they feel is not normal. What is "normal" anyway?????????? Besides a city in, is it Illinois???

So that said, we each can believe what we want, but when our beliefs keep any other human from enjoying the full benefits that a particular seperate group enjoy, that is not only unconstitutional but unacceptable.

When each individual human person receives their due entitlement to full equality, no more or no less than the next human person, perhaps there will be no more need for what you call activism. I'm just not seeing what the problem is there. It definitely doesn't impinge on a heterosexual's rights (or priviledges) - you and I both know there is no danger of going to jail solely because you vocalize your disagreement with gays and lesbians.

Tdogg,
Maybe, because in California, neither gay marriage, nor civil union is legally recognized, you don't get benefits. Like I said before, it depends where you are in order to say what is beneficial. Vermont and Connecticut are the only states where civil union officially exists, and I haven't heard anything about gays and lesbians who live there, being disappointed with that. Also, in New York, you could get your benefits straightened out with a lawyer pro bono. Civil unions in Sweden are very positive on the gay community, there. I am not in connection with fundamentalists, because they oppose even civil unions, and I don't. To me, civil unions are the best compromise between conservatives, liberals, religious, atheist, heterosexual, and homosexual people, which intends to make things better for everybody. The reason why gay marriage didn't exist for so long, not because of Christian faith, but different societies were all focused on bringing offspring for 5000 years. Marriage was all about children, but I guess it's not anymore. Thanks God, there is no danger of going to prison for saying critical things about homosexuality. As long as there are many open-minded people like you, I wouldn't worry about having anti-religious laws legislated. I guess, by using prison as an example, I wanted to prove that no political laws would ever alter people's beliefs.

[keltic63]

Keltic,

I guess it's either you didn't read into what I was saying or maybe I used poor communication techniques to get you understand. So, I'll say things again in a summarized way. 1st Insult
I am very respectful to you, to Kara, to Andrew, and everybody else. That's why I want to have an open conversation with you. I was just trying to debate the issue of heterosexual privilege Kara was preaching about. Those arguments about gay and lesbian politicians, about corporations supporting gay rights, and about pro-homosexuality education I used not to show that I was upset (as a matter of fact; I'm not a politician, I don't work for corporation, and I am not a student, so they don't personally bother me), but to show that gays and lesbians are hardly unprivileged people, in general, and there could be heterosexual and homosexual privilege. Every aspect of personal and professional life is supportive of your causes, so I see the privilege, here. Anyway, you are entitled to your opinions, just like I am entitled to my own.
I disagree that those comparisons can be made.
I heard your concerns about you and your partner, so I think that gays and lesbians should have a civil union, like the one in Vermont and Connecticut. It gives them exactly the same benefits as marriage would for one man and one woman. Separate is not Equal. And yes, I believe that marriage should be defined as such and it is about kids. so you agree that infertile couples, sr. citizens, and other heterosexual couples who choose to remain childless should not be allowed to marry? I don't know anything about marriage licenses since I've never been married, so I can't make a comment on its renewal policies. Are marriage licenses like driver licenses? marriage licenses do not need to be renewed. It was a hypothetical question relating to your statement that marriage is about the children. If a couple marries and doesn't have kids within a reasonable amount of time, then perhaps they shouldn't be married. I'm taking a satirical look at what we can do to make sure that marriage remains all about procreation and protecting kids. I never said all gays and lesbians want to attack my 1st amendment rights, but various gay rights activists. I hope you understand that not all gays and lesbians are gay rights activists. Many of them don't give a hoot about politics, I know some gays and lesbians where I work, at Walmart, I'm cool with them and they are cool with me. have you said any of the things to them that you've said here? I wouldn't keep you as a friend very long. As a matter of fact, my barber Dan, who is gay thinks it's okay to argue against gay marriage for the sake of having opinions, because America is not Communist. By the way, no offense, but I noticed that you look like Lenin. 2nd Insult Therefore, I don't condone any vulgar speeches against GLB just like I don't condone vulgar speeches against anybody and I'm not advocating to what happen to Matthew Shepard. How can you say, you are a follower of Jesus and condone murder, when the Bible tells us "Thou shalt not kill?" There are plenty of Jesus followers who use the Leviticus passages to condone the murder of homosexuals. Generally speaking, gays and lesbians don't bug me, as you said. Something about us bugs you, or you wouldn't be here making the statements that you have. So, the only ones I indicted were the ones who use forceful indoctrinative measures on a society to confess that homosexual behavior is a normal behavior. Do you have a definition of normal? About gay rights activisits like Sheila Kuehl, Svend Robinson, Michael Swift, and many others; I am not angry with them. It sure sounds/reads as though you are. Again, if you're not, what brings you here? Even if I give them benefit of a doubt and they win, they will still lose in the long run. Let us say, there is going to be a day when Bible and Christianity would be banned and all conservative Christians like myself would be imprisoned for our beliefs. First amendment, as you said, so this is not going to happen without a fight. On the other hand, writing discrimination into the constitution, or instituting laws that turn our country into a theocracy is a very real threat under the current administration. The word of God stating the sinfulness of homosexual behavior would go underground from prison cells and reach millions of people, and people will believe that. or perhaps you should say your particular interpretation of the word of God. You see, those gay rights activists can take away our rights to preach openly about the biblical standpoint on homosexuality but they can't take away what we believe. This is why they already lost. You see, those evangelical activists can prevent us from getting married, but they can't take away our love. This is why they already lost.

Why am I here? To have an open dialogue with people. I am amazed at the difference between your original post and Cathy's. I truly believe she is interested in dialogue. I read nothing but insult and disgust for gays in your posts. I guess there is nothing wrong with that. Just like there is nothing wrong for having gay clubs, whether on the street or the internet. Those clubs are about freedom of expression, which I am always supportive. I want to have a freedom of expression, too. So what is it you would like the gay activist community, those like soulforce to do? continue talking, or stop talking?

[dewdrop_world]

Just a little question here... Is there a reason why this thread is getting hijacked away from frankandcathy?

There's an edge creeping into this thread that I think detracts from the friendly tone of the discussion up until today.

My opinion remains that the discussion with sammy1980 should be handled in a separate thread. I don't think they are the same conversation, and it will be confusing to maintain both in the same thread.

James

[andrewlittle]

I agree. Both subject matter and tenor are moving well away from Cathy's questions and her attitudes - my own included.

A new thread would also be easier to ignore.

[frankandcathy]

Hey there. Just hopped on for a minute (HA) to see what had been posted.

Willy: Thank you again for a great post that was very helpful and very enlightening and only mildly critical of "my people." I think Andrew is most correct about you. WTG on not ripping into sammy.

Also, while I really liked most of what you said I was not sure if you were saying that men and women in general don't follow certain behavioral patterns. I believe, for instance, that men want to be shown a lot of honor and admiration ("You're the greatest guy in the whole world and the Earth shakes when you step.") and that women have a greater need for tenderness and understanding ("Honey, I just want to sit here, hold you, and hear all about your day without making any comments about what you can do to fix it.") I think it's also true that men are much more visually driven sexually and are much more interested in sex than women. So what say you to these differences? Do you think they exist?

I would like to address SAMMY because I feel it's important as one of his/her "kind" to do so.

Sammy: STOP. Please. There is a way to discuss your concerns without sounding hateful. You do you realize that you sound hateful, right? That's why Keltic is so up in arms. Perhaps your writing is just coming across that way, I don't know.

Your points are very valid and are a good reminder for everyone and I thank you for them immensely but they CANNOT be heard if the tone is seen as one of anger or attacking. Think about what Jesus's goal was: to reconcile people to God. If it is your goal here to do that, speaking harshly isn't going to get it done. Also...you'll get caught up in a bunch of tangent arguments about Matthew Shephard, politicians, etc. and your real points will never get across.

I think what you're saying is simply, "Prejudices exist for different people at different times in different places." This is true enough and no one would argue with you about that.

Sammy, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that the conservative Christian leaders don't "go after" divorced people? Or pedophiles? Or incest perpetrators? Aren't they ripping up families far more than gay people are? I know that these groups aren't lobbying to have certain rights issued to them but isn't child support or alimony a type of "divorcee right?" Did CC leaders jump up and scream about how wrong it is to grant "extra rights" to divorcees? No. In fact, many of them may be recepients!

I want to reiterate that I am not standing on the side of the "Bible says homosexuality is okay" debate. Frankly, I'm still wondering about the implications of that and what that would mean to my faith. That's not really the point, though.

The problem is that the church is at a point where we are relying on political power to accomplish in people's hearts what WE SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHING by winning people to Christ.

I urge you, as a sister in Christ, to consider what it is you want to accomplish here. You've said you want an honest and open discussion. That's probably not going to happen if you continue in the manner you've begun.

Also: please use smaller paragraphs in your posts. It's too hard to read in one long one.

tdogg: I really appreciated your post about "feminine" vs. masculine people. It's enlightening.

Bruce: Your posts were great. I had never thought of the hemaphroditic community. What on Earth are they supposed to do? Who are they "supposed" to marry according to scripture? What are they? Male/female/neither/both? Good points.

Perhaps it would help CCs (I hope this doesn't offend you if you're gay) if we looked at anything outside of "normal" as "abnormal." After all, we look at blind people as "abnormal" or anyone with a disability as "abnormal." We then try to make provisions to integrate them into society. And any wise person will see that there is much to be LEARNED FROM those who are "abnormal." They often have much different insights and perspectives than we do. Of course, this WOULD mean that we couldn't have gay marriage. We'd have to do a comprehensive "gay union" that we hammered out. I think this angle would help create compassion and sympathy in CCs and remove the FEAR FACTOR of some CC leaders. It would go something like this:

"Okay, we have to acknowledge that there are people out there born with different than normal chromosomes. There are also people out there that, sadly, aren't 'normal' like we are because they desire same-sex intimate relationships. Here are some of the problems these people face: x,y,z. How sad. We want to help all of these folks live full and happy lives despite their disability. We know they aren't God's 'perfect plan' but they're here now and we are responsible to love them and help them just as we would a blind or deaf person."

All right, now I know that sounds so idiotic to some of you but THINK OF WHERE THE CC COMMUNITY IS AT! Willy is right, the CC community at large isn't able to get to acceptance/tolerance much less LOVE! This is what I'm talking about when I talk about loving your CC brothers and sisters enought to lay down your life/rights for them. You may have to lay down your "right" to be understood on your terms. You may have to suffer through being labeled "disabled" to achieve an inroad to the things you want. I know how unbearable this seems because you all feel like you fought so hard to get to where you're at how on Earth could you retreat?

But really, is there any other way to get through to your CC brothers and sisters than to just "admit" you're not "normal?" What is that verse about not being a stumbling block to the weaker brother? Hebrews? Corinthians? I can't remember. My vision for this would be:

Step One: You admit your "abnormality" as being a "disability." You stop focusing on your right to a gay marriage and begin to ask, instead, for a gay union. I dunno. Play the pity card, for heaven's sake!
Step Two: Slowly, G/LB people are "allowed" in CC churches as openly gay (you poor things). They begin to be allowed to minister (just as a blind man would be)
Step Three: Eventually, the CC world realizes that you guys are great human beings, they don't have to keep listening to the voices of fear, and they just decide that either:
a) the marriage thing isn't such a big deal after all (because Jay and Jason are our good friends and we want to help them) or
b) we can't go for the word "marriage" but we'll make that "union" contract the best it can be for you

Yes, it sounds nutty. I have a brilliant girlfriend from California who insists that if the gay movement had started out from this position (let's call it the position of abject humility), they would be fully integrated and accepted part of our society now because the CC leaders wouldn't have a leg to stand on or an enemy to fight in this area.

David: You're sweet. Thank you. I'm honored.

Keltic: Your points on marriage between people who can't procreate are very valid but I'm sure you understand that Sammy was speaking in general terms. In general terms, yes, it's only one man and one woman who CAN make a baby.

It saddens me that CCs are thought of as anything but wonderful, loving, humble, serving people. Instead, we are seen as judgmental, ridiculing, and hateful.:(

Thanks everyone for all these posts.

Where I'm at right now with all of this:

On Judgment:
I wanted to quote something that David sent me privately. I think it may have changed my life. Here it is:

"As a pastor my job is not to judge people, but to hold them accountable to the principles and values that they say they hold. I express my concern, hold up a mirror, ask questions, but the judging is for them to do. I don't know what goes on inside a person and what I can see from the outside is only a tiny fraction of the reality. To judge is presumptuous. God will also judge us of course, but if we come before him dressed in the righteousness of Christ we should be o.k."

This has revolutionized my thinking about my "wayward" friend. Instead of judging her, I might begin to ask her questions about what she believes and THEN, as the Holy Spirit leads, gently ask her if she sees her actions as inconsistent. I think this is what the prophet Samuel did for King David...only in a more forceful, sneaky way. This has lifted a burden from my shoulders...the burden of feeling RESONSIBLE for someone else's life choices.

I think a lot of CCs struggle with this. We feel we MUST "save the world" because we have been taught that it's often our FAILURE to witness to others or point out their faults which has led them to destruction. Indeed, how many times have I heard that, "You never know. If you don't talk to him/her about Jesus, they might die and go to hell the next day." While this point, at its heart, has good intentions, "I should share Jesus's love with others whenever I can," it also carries the dangerous connotation that if we don't, we are ultimately responsible for their sins. Indeed, doesn't Romans say that all men are able to see God through creation and are without excuse? People are responsible for their own sins. How then did we get to the point that we feel that if we don't "go into all the world" RIGHT NOW, the world is lost? It brings me back to a previous point: We've kind of stopped trusting God to be God and put ourselves in that role.

Homosexuality a Sin?
I still have issues with this concept. One of the major ones is what I mentioned before about the symbol of marriage, Christ and the church, narcissism, etc. In fact, I find myself trying to play devil's advocate and accept that the Bible has just been mistranslated and I just can't do it.

What I AM now able to say is, "Darn it, I LIKE these people. They're just normal people who have a sense of humor, interests, etc. These people hear from the Lord. If this IS a sin, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE to hear from God about it themselves."

On the passages about expelling the immoral brother: I am not a church overseer. I'm not a pastor. I don't have to decide what to "do" with gay people in church. I'm glad of that. It's a tough call, I'm sure. I am sure many, many hearts have been broken over it. I am saddened that if I invite gay friends to church, they may encounter Jesus but may have to go elsewhere to build community. It's like segragated black/white churches.


Well, that's my "short" post for the night!

Thanks all!
~C

[sammy1980]

Hey there. Just hopped on for a minute (HA) to see what had been posted.

Willy: Thank you again for a great post that was very helpful and very enlightening and only mildly critical of "my people." I think Andrew is most correct about you. WTG on not ripping into sammy.

Also, while I really liked most of what you said I was not sure if you were saying that men and women in general don't follow certain behavioral patterns. I believe, for instance, that men want to be shown a lot of honor and admiration ("You're the greatest guy in the whole world and the Earth shakes when you step.") and that women have a greater need for tenderness and understanding ("Honey, I just want to sit here, hold you, and hear all about your day without making any comments about what you can do to fix it.") I think it's also true that men are much more visually driven sexually and are much more interested in sex than women. So what say you to these differences? Do you think they exist?

I would like to address SAMMY because I feel it's important as one of his/her "kind" to do so.

Sammy: STOP. Please. There is a way to discuss your concerns without sounding hateful. You do you realize that you sound hateful, right? That's why Keltic is so up in arms. Perhaps your writing is just coming across that way, I don't know.

Your points are very valid and are a good reminder for everyone and I thank you for them immensely but they CANNOT be heard if the tone is seen as one of anger or attacking. Think about what Jesus's goal was: to reconcile people to God. If it is your goal here to do that, speaking harshly isn't going to get it done. Also...you'll get caught up in a bunch of tangent arguments about Matthew Shephard, politicians, etc. and your real points will never get across.

I think what you're saying is simply, "Prejudices exist for different people at different times in different places." This is true enough and no one would argue with you about that.

Sammy, doesn't it ever strike you as weird that the conservative Christian leaders don't "go after" divorced people? Or pedophiles? Or incest perpetrators? Aren't they ripping up families far more than gay people are? I know that these groups aren't lobbying to have certain rights issued to them but isn't child support or alimony a type of "divorcee right?" Did CC leaders jump up and scream about how wrong it is to grant "extra rights" to divorcees? No. In fact, many of them may be recepients!

I want to reiterate that I am not standing on the side of the "Bible says homosexuality is okay" debate. Frankly, I'm still wondering about the implications of that and what that would mean to my faith. That's not really the point, though.

The problem is that the church is at a point where we are relying on political power to accomplish in people's hearts what WE SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHING by winning people to Christ.

I urge you, as a sister in Christ, to consider what it is you want to accomplish here. You've said you want an honest and open discussion. That's probably not going to happen if you continue in the manner you've begun.

Also: please use smaller paragraphs in your posts. It's too hard to read in one long one.

tdogg: I really appreciated your post about "feminine" vs. masculine people. It's enlightening.

Bruce: Your posts were great. I had never thought of the hemaphroditic community. What on Earth are they supposed to do? Who are they "supposed" to marry according to scripture? What are they? Male/female/neither/both? Good points.

Perhaps it would help CCs (I hope this doesn't offend you if you're gay) if we looked at anything outside of "normal" as "abnormal." After all, we look at blind people as "abnormal" or anyone with a disability as "abnormal." We then try to make provisions to integrate them into society. And any wise person will see that there is much to be LEARNED FROM those who are "abnormal." They often have much different insights and perspectives than we do. Of course, this WOULD mean that we couldn't have gay marriage. We'd have to do a comprehensive "gay union" that we hammered out. I think this angle would help create compassion and sympathy in CCs and remove the FEAR FACTOR of some CC leaders. It would go something like this:

"Okay, we have to acknowledge that there are people out there born with different than normal chromosomes. There are also people out there that, sadly, aren't 'normal' like we are because they desire same-sex intimate relationships. Here are some of the problems these people face: x,y,z. How sad. We want to help all of these folks live full and happy lives despite their disability. We know they aren't God's 'perfect plan' but they're here now and we are responsible to love them and help them just as we would a blind or deaf person."

All right, now I know that sounds so idiotic to some of you but THINK OF WHERE THE CC COMMUNITY IS AT! Willy is right, the CC community at large isn't able to get to acceptance/tolerance much less LOVE! This is what I'm talking about when I talk about loving your CC brothers and sisters enought to lay down your life/rights for them. You may have to lay down your "right" to be understood on your terms. You may have to suffer through being labeled "disabled" to achieve an inroad to the things you want. I know how unbearable this seems because you all feel like you fought so hard to get to where you're at how on Earth could you retreat?

But really, is there any other way to get through to your CC brothers and sisters than to just "admit" you're not "normal?" What is that verse about not being a stumbling block to the weaker brother? Hebrews? Corinthians? I can't remember. My vision for this would be:

Step One: You admit your "abnormality" as being a "disability." You stop focusing on your right to a gay marriage and begin to ask, instead, for a gay union. I dunno. Play the pity card, for heaven's sake!
Step Two: Slowly, G/LB people are "allowed" in CC churches as openly gay (you poor things). They begin to be allowed to minister (just as a blind man would be)
Step Three: Eventually, the CC world realizes that you guys are great human beings, they don't have to keep listening to the voices of fear, and they just decide that either:
a) the marriage thing isn't such a big deal after all (because Jay and Jason are our good friends and we want to help them) or
b) we can't go for the word "marriage" but we'll make that "union" contract the best it can be for you

Yes, it sounds nutty. I have a brilliant girlfriend from California who insists that if the gay movement had started out from this position (let's call it the position of abject humility), they would be fully integrated and accepted part of our society now because the CC leaders wouldn't have a leg to stand on or an enemy to fight in this area.

David: You're sweet. Thank you. I'm honored.

Keltic: Your points on marriage between people who can't procreate are very valid but I'm sure you understand that Sammy was speaking in general terms. In general terms, yes, it's only one man and one woman who CAN make a baby.

It saddens me that CCs are thought of as anything but wonderful, loving, humble, serving people. Instead, we are seen as judgmental, ridiculing, and hateful.:(

Thanks everyone for all these posts.

Where I'm at right now with all of this:

On Judgment:
I wanted to quote something that David sent me privately. I think it may have changed my life. Here it is:

"As a pastor my job is not to judge people, but to hold them accountable to the principles and values that they say they hold. I express my concern, hold up a mirror, ask questions, but the judging is for them to do. I don't know what goes on inside a person and what I can see from the outside is only a tiny fraction of the reality. To judge is presumptuous. God will also judge us of course, but if we come before him dressed in the righteousness of Christ we should be o.k."

This has revolutionized my thinking about my "wayward" friend. Instead of judging her, I might begin to ask her questions about what she believes and THEN, as the Holy Spirit leads, gently ask her if she sees her actions as inconsistent. I think this is what the prophet Samuel did for King David...only in a more forceful, sneaky way. This has lifted a burden from my shoulders...the burden of feeling RESONSIBLE for someone else's life choices.

I think a lot of CCs struggle with this. We feel we MUST "save the world" because we have been taught that it's often our FAILURE to witness to others or point out their faults which has led them to destruction. Indeed, how many times have I heard that, "You never know. If you don't talk to him/her about Jesus, they might die and go to hell the next day." While this point, at its heart, has good intentions, "I should share Jesus's love with others whenever I can," it also carries the dangerous connotation that if we don't, we are ultimately responsible for their sins. Indeed, doesn't Romans say that all men are able to see God through creation and are without excuse? People are responsible for their own sins. How then did we get to the point that we feel that if we don't "go into all the world" RIGHT NOW, the world is lost? It brings me back to a previous point: We've kind of stopped trusting God to be God and put ourselves in that role.

Homosexuality a Sin?
I still have issues with this concept. One of the major ones is what I mentioned before about the symbol of marriage, Christ and the church, narcissism, etc. In fact, I find myself trying to play devil's advocate and accept that the Bible has just been mistranslated and I just can't do it.

What I AM now able to say is, "Darn it, I LIKE these people. They're just normal people who have a sense of humor, interests, etc. These people hear from the Lord. If this IS a sin, THEY ARE RESPONSIBLE to hear from God about it themselves."

On the passages about expelling the immoral brother: I am not a church overseer. I'm not a pastor. I don't have to decide what to "do" with gay people in church. I'm glad of that. It's a tough call, I'm sure. I am sure many, many hearts have been broken over it. I am saddened that if I invite gay friends to church, they may encounter Jesus but may have to go elsewhere to build community. It's like segragated black/white churches.


Well, that's my "short" post for the night!

Thanks all!
~C


Cathy, Keltic, Andrew, James, Tdogg, and others I want to accomplish here is make people understand that it is wrong to discriminate against people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and who oppose gay marriage, whether at work or at school. This is what all what I wanted to say. I hope soulforce would understand it, too. I also would like to apologize to Cathy and Frank for getting everything off your topic. It's just Keltic and Andrew kept talking about heterosexual privilege and accuse me of something that I wasn't. I just wanted to reason with them, but it didn't work. Cathy, the conservative Christian leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell do talk about pedophilia, incest, divorce, and abortion, nor less than they talk about homosexuality and how it affects family. Also, I don't think that I sound hateful but I realize that I sound intimidating because what I say, gives people a different perspective on certain issues that they are having difficulty of accepting, like the persecution of evangelical Christians over the issue of homosexuality. I am just being light and salt, like Jesus commanded all of us to be and I can't stop being that. How could you not see that? Keltic, I understand that it upsets you every time you hear someone objecting to homosexual behavior and I also learned from you that people have used the Bible to discriminate against GLBT people, kill them, and push for theocracy, and that you link it all together. I am very well aware of the atrocities committed by people who justified their actions by using the scripture, but I want you to understand not all CC's are like that, even though we disagree with you about homosexuality. I don't see Cathy and Frank being like that and I know, I am not like that. If you would like to know me, please ask questions without making assumptions, I would be more than welcome to answer them for you.

[andrewlittle]

Is there a "value-neutral" book or web site that details and documents this history of the church/politicalization?

Andrew, I need more on: early church obsession with making babies?? Is this versus making converts/disciples through traditional means?

~C

Cathy, sorry about passing over your request for books or other resources. I got sucked into the fast growing threads and forgot to get back to this.

Just about any textbook on church history, especially early church history, would provide ample discussion of the politics involved in the developing church. Keep in mind, some of these are older (as am I) and some quite expensive. If you have a college or seminary library near you, that might be helpful.

One of the best is: Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity, vol. 1. It is very neutral in its approach and is used by most seminaries. I have a copy I would be glad to lend to you.
Also: Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity.

As far as theology:
McGrath, Alister. Historical Theology: Introduction to the History of Christian Thought
Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform
Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christian Theology.
David G. Hunter. Marriage in the Early Church.

These will all deal with the progression of thought from the early church and on. Placher & Hunter are good, and the essays are written by various authors, so different perspectives are given.

Hope this helps a little. There are probably some good online resources that I will try to find for you.

[sammy1980]

Cathy, sorry about passing over your request for books or other resources. I got sucked into the fast growing threads and forgot to get back to this.

Just about any textbook on church history, especially early church history, would provide ample discussion of the politics involved in the developing church. Keep in mind, some of these are older (as am I) and some quite expensive. If you have a college or seminary library near you, that might be helpful.

One of the best is: Gonzalez, Justo. The Story of Christianity, vol. 1. It is very neutral in its approach and is used by most seminaries. I have a copy I would be glad to lend to you.
Also: Dowley, Tim. Introduction to the History of Christianity.

As far as theology:
McGrath, Alister. Historical Theology: Introduction to the History of Christian Thought
Olson, Roger E. The Story of Christian Theology: Twenty Centuries of Tradition and Reform
Placher, William C. Readings in the History of Christian Theology.
David G. Hunter. Marriage in the Early Church.

These will all deal with the progression of thought from the early church and on. Placher & Hunter are good, and the essays are written by various authors, so different perspectives are given.

Hope this helps a little. There are probably some good online resources that I will try to find for you.


Andrew,
I have read McGrath for my theology class. It was a great book, but it doesn't talk at all about the current subject matter.

[Daniel]

I urge you, as a sister in Christ, to consider what it is you want to accomplish here. You've said you want an honest and open discussion. That's probably not going to happen if you continue in the manner you've begun.

Also: please use smaller paragraphs in your posts. It's too hard to read in one long one.


Yes. I agree. Strongly.

If you want to be taken seriously, please refrain from posting long-winded paragraphs that have no end in sight. It makes the reader's eye glaze over.

Is this really so much to ask?

Please show the same respect for others that you would want yourself.

What is the advantage here? To be blunt: you will have to think about what you are saying and HOW to say it in an organized fashion. A good thing really. Everyone gets the benefit.

[Zerbie]

Cathy,

HI, nice to see you back, and to see you "brainstorming," as it were. ;)

The trouble I see with your suggestion that gays "admit" they're not "normal," in order to win some kind of scraps of pity from "normal" people is that - as I have observed in my own life (30 ish years) and from talk with those a generation older than myself - that's basically where we were as a society, and it was not working. It thrust gays onto the outside, making them marginalized people who, since they were not "normal," were not a part of the normal fabric of society. Rather than reach out and embrace them fully, most people accepted that it was the way things were supposed to be, all the 'normal' people here in the middle, and all those "weird" gay people on the fringes.

When you have a group marginalized like that, the center group tends to accept the status quo without questioning, and without understanding the experience of those "outside." People tend to follow a strong lead that is set for them, and if gay people demonstrate that it's "okay" for others to regard them as Less Than, then that is precisely what will continue to happen.

I've known so many "nice" gay people in my life, "nice" to the point of not speaking up when degrading things are said in their presence. What does that teach others? Only that it's "okay" to continue to ignore their fullness and humanity. Gay folk have been "nice" for generations, yet most folks in society don't then see the implications of institutional homophobia and how much harm it does.

Most folks see the status quo as okay and do not feel motivated to extend to gay folk those rights which they legitimately have as citizens, but which are selectively deprived of them simply because they are (or are perceived to be) LGBT. Are you aware that in many states of the US, an employer can fire someone if they perceive that person to be gay, and the employee has no legal recourse because it is ALLOWABLE to fire someone on that basis? The same is true of landlords and tenants. Jobs and homes are not philosophical niceties, but basic survival needs - means of subsistence and shelter. Most straight people have no idea that gay folks have no legal protection or recourse against such things, which still happen on a regular basis. Did you know about employment and housing discrimination?

RE: the "nice" gay person:
I'll never forget a few years ago during a conversation with an acquaintance, somehow things got to a point where he thought he had to either lie to me or come out as gay when he had not intended to disclose that information. That poor man turned white and trembled. Over and over he said, "This might offend you - you might think it's against your religion - "

I guessed what he was going to say, and thought I could short-circuit his panic, so I reached out to place my hand on his shoulder and tell him "It's OK" but he flinched back and said, "You might not want to touch me once you hear what I have to say." And after finally getting the words out, he stared at the floor saying, "You might be really offended and not want to talk to me anymore and I just want to let you know that it's okay. I'm not hurt, and I don't mind." Only he was trembling and looking at the ground. Then he was too afraid of my reaction to stay and see what I would say, so without giving me a chance to respond, he fled. That poor man felt he had to give me permission in advance to reject him.

What message does that convey to you, Cathy? Has anyone ever spoken to you that way? How do you think you might feel if someone said that to you?

[Willy]

sammy, a suggestion: The paragraph was invented for a reason. Big blobs of type are unreadable.

[Willy]

while I really liked most of what you said I was not sure if you were saying that men and women in general don't follow certain behavioral patterns. I believe, for instance, that men want to be shown a lot of honor and admiration ("You're the greatest guy in the whole world and the Earth shakes when you step.") and that women have a greater need for tenderness and understanding ("Honey, I just want to sit here, hold you, and hear all about your day without making any comments about what you can do to fix it.") I think it's also true that men are much more visually driven sexually and are much more interested in sex than women. So what say you to these differences? Do you think they exist?
Like so many things, it's a paradox and a balancing act. I think we're on risky ground when we assume differences that don't exist, and when we deny differences that do exist. (After all, if I didn't think there were differences then I'd want to copulate with members of both sexes. But I don't, so there must be differences at least to me.) I also think that a lot of differences held to be a function of male and female are socially constructed, and that a lot of them are a function of who is the penetrator and who is the penetrated.

That last category might be responsible for something I've noticed over the years, which is a greater degree of "emotional versatility" among a fair number of gay men I've known, at least to the extent that they're a passive sexual partner. There is something about that experience that changes your way of thinking, at least for a while.

If there's one wired-in difference that I'd tend (and only tend) to believe in, it's the idea that men are more visually driven than women. I also think that, as a general rule, women tend to have fuzzier boundaries between feelings and facts. Serves them very well in some situations, such as in the so-called helping professions. Serves them poorly in others, such as in highly fact-driven environments like, say, going to the doctor. What to a man will seem like standard clinical practice will often come across to a woman as cold and negative; if I had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman extrapolate attitudes from look, glance or tone and completely miss the actual content of the exchange, I'd own the world.

Maybe both of these things boil down to this: Men build their thoughts from a collection of individual observations; women start with the whole and work backwards. I hasten to add that as soon as you make these gross generalizations, then you'll find all kinds of exceptions among both men and women. There are plenty of very cool cucumbers among women (including heterosexual ones), and plenty of emotional types among men (including heterosexual ones). Which brings up a problem in general with stereotyping; it's a form of inductive logic ("that which is will be again"), which is the oldest, most useful, most intutive, most primitive and most often fooled and foolish sort of logic. Deductive logic is much harder, but less often subject to the errors of extrapolation at least when it's done in a rigorous and honest way -- as opposed to, say, when Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell said that the 9/11 attacks happened because God was pissed off at America because we "tolerate" the ACLU and homosexuals rather than kill them where they stand.

I do think inductive logic works pretty well for analyzing Christian evangelicals and other religious whack-jobs. They tend to be simpletons, or in the current parlance, "mentally challenged." Get some of them away from the congregation and they'll be surprisingly "reasonable" and "humble," or appear to be. Just when you get sucked in you'll happen to flip the TV to the broadcast from the First Freeway Church of Dallas and see your "reasonable Christian" out there in the crowd, raising his right arm at a 45-degree angle, clicking his heels and screaming "Jawohl, mein Fuhrer!" It sort of reminds me of homos on a dance floor in 1979, except that the homos were just havin' some harmless fun as opposed to the Christians who are bent on making people feel like shit now and forevermore.

[frankandcathy]

Ok, quick reply. Husband has set me on task for finding a digital camera for Christmas today.

Sammy: I certainly agree with you that both sides can be discrimantory and discriminated against. No argument here. And yes, you are coming across harshly. I am sorry I used the word, "hateful." That probably implies a level of viciousness you do not have. We'll say "harshly." Being salt and light doesn't have to involve harshness. That's a misconception that has been perpetrated upon many modern Christians which is why so many of them don't want to go out and "witness"...they think it means beating people over the head with the Bible. Remember: You have to want to love and serve people more than you want to shove the truth down their throats. Welcome! Use smaller paragraphs, please.:rolleyes:

Zerbe: The story you told was heartbreaking. I don't think I could ever imagine that. Of course I would be crushed if I ever saw another human being behave that way. That is a beaten-down, rejected attitude and it's NOT what Jesus came to give us. We are to have life and have it to the full. How very, very sad.

You do understand that I was being extremely idealistic/tongue-in-cheek, right? I am fully aware that most gay people would not be willing to submit to being labeled as "disabled." Who would?? I don't know if it would help or not, though. The point you made about gay people being silent/passive was well-put.

Andrew: you're too sweet to offer to loan me a book. What's shipping like on something like that??? Thanks for all the book info. I could be reading for the next five years.....

Willy: I appreciate your response. I'm thinking of my own experiences with talking to other men and women so I tend to use that as a gauge. But, of course, my experiences aren't the sum total of all human interaction. Thanks.

Okay, I'm starting to just laugh now at your gratuitious "shot at Conservative Christians." You better be careful or I'm going to stop believing that you're really sincere in your dislike for us.

Oh yeah: logically, you can't have it both ways. If you are firm in your belief that people can't be put in a box and "blanketed," you'll have to apply the same rule to Christians as well. Otherwise, you'll have to accept blanket statements made about gay men with a vitritolic writing style, a hunting license, and a bone to pick. :lol:

Has this thread run its course? I could say a lot more about Biblical opinions and things I'm reading about the Bible and marriage but is that really necessary? It was never my intent to try to "convert" you guys with all my Biblical knowledge (ha). And honestly, you're probably not interested in my trying to defend my position using scripture. So many people have probably been here to do that before you've probably heard it all. Do we just need to close this discussion down, do you think? I see the thread is a popular one and that many are enjoying it but is there anything left to glean?

Has anyone learned anything about CCs they hadn't thought about before? I have learned a lot about gay people for sure. I've learned more about compassion and judgment. I've learned that sometimes God speaks to you through others instead of you hearing his voice in your head. I've learned that just because others don't agree with you doesn't mean they don't have wisdom or understanding or that they aren't your brothers and sisters. I've learned that gay people feel just as close to Jesus as I do (maybe more at times). I've learned that many gay people love the Bible, albeit sometimes in a different way, and are knowledgable about scriptures. I've been reminded by several that we ought not focus on sin more than we focus on people. Bruce says it well when he reminds me that we've ALL been created in the image of God.

I had this thought last night: What if God is allowing a certain population (straight) to believe that homosexuality is a sin? What if he is, at the same time, allowing a certain population (gay) to believe it's not a sin? What if he's not all that concerned about it at all but wants to see how WE behave toward one another? What if he's made people different to see how we respond? In love or in anger? With harsh words or with sacrificial care? I don't know. I'm getting the impression that he may be doing that, though.

Everytime I begin reading the Word or asking the Lord about his stance on this, I personally keep getting led to different passages about marriage. I feel that what I'm hearing is still on the CC "side" of the issue but I know that what I've also learned is to love people no matter what and to not focus on sin as much as on loving and serving. It makes me wonder if God isn't wanting to see what I will do if I believe something is sinful. Do I jump to condemn others or do I sort of put that aside and love them? I'm not saying that God is playing games with humanity, I'm just wondering if this is some sort of cosmic test.

Does any of that make sense?
~C

[BruceChris]

And, by implication, ALL denominations could be right. (Now I draw the line at holy wars, or anything close to them) Where does God draw the line? I don't know.

Quote from Willy:
I also think that, as a general rule, women tend to have fuzzier boundaries between feelings and facts. Serves them very well in some situations, such as in the so-called helping professions. Serves them poorly in others, such as in highly fact-driven environments like, say, going to the doctor. What to a man will seem like standard clinical practice will often come across to a woman as cold and negative; if I had a dollar for every time I've heard a woman extrapolate attitudes from look, glance or tone and completely miss the actual content of the exchange, I'd own the world.

Maybe both of these things boil down to this: Men build their thoughts from a collection of individual observations; women start with the whole and work backwards.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I quote this, because I keep giving you facts and asking specific questions, and you keep coming back with generalities. (Laugh out Loud/Groan With Pain) Hey, if you really want facts, complete with a PHD signing his name, and a bibliography, you can google as well as I can. I take your last mssg to mean that of course you agree with the findings of science, you just don't want to commit to anything specific, at the moment.

And I could do with this post going on indefinitely, it is GREAT practice for some of us to organize our thoughts, learn good expository writing, and now and then admit to a mistake, and take another look at our own humility.And if you could come back, with some stories of CC's who are SERIOUSLY concerned about us, and may even question the harsher church teachings that they encounter, or Best Of All, get THEM to come here, I would LOVE it, and I'm not the only one.

Quote from Cathy:
You do understand that I was being extremely idealistic/tongue-in-cheek, right? I am fully aware that most gay people would not be willing to submit to being labeled as "disabled." Who would??

I LOVE it. Didja see the 60 minutes program about the High School girl on the track team, with the artificial leg? She's the fastest member of the team!

[Willy]

I had this thought last night: What if God is allowing a certain population (straight) to believe that homosexuality is a sin? What if he is, at the same time, allowing a certain population (gay) to believe it's not a sin? What if he's not all that concerned about it at all but wants to see how WE behave toward one another? What if he's made people different to see how we respond? In love or in anger? With harsh words or with sacrificial care? I don't know. I'm getting the impression that he may be doing that, though.
Ah, yes, that old habit of evangelicals to attribute human idiocy to "God's will." A rather convenient, if laughably transparent, device for dodging responsibility. I understand that the devil made Haggard do that dark and repulsive thing so often, by which I refer to his gay-bashing sermons.

[BruceChris]

That religion is not about what you believe, it's all about how you treat other people. I like that. So if I make a generality about CC's, if the shoe doesn't fit, don't take it personally.

And I have Lydia to thank for this:
"The bible contains six admonishments to homosexuals and 362 to heterosexuals. This doesn't mean God doesn't love heterosexuals, it's just that they need more supervision" - Lynn Lavner

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[Dash]

I had been asked (a couple pages back now) to provide source material for my assertion of the historical acceptance and blessing of same-sex marriages by the Church. For three library renewal periods, I have been reading, re-reading, chewing and digesting John Boswell's book The Marriage of Likeness: Same-Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe. (I suppose it is getting about time to either buy the blasted book or return it.) Somewhat unfortunately, this book requires a more scholarly bent than I can justly claim. It style is pretty dry, and there are generally more footnotes on a page than actual content. Being a classically-trained singer, I am acquainted with the diction of numerous languages (we studied some fifteen in one of my classes at Northwestern); otherwise, I would be hopelessly lost navigating the Greek, Latin, French, Russian words and quotations. As it stands, there is still much on which I must simply turn the page without any real grasp of the text. Alas...

His book rests on his study of medieval ecclesiastical documents representing the "Adelphopoiia" liturgies, http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/2rites.html which joined two men, or two women in a life-long bond of love. His conclusions that these represent "marriages" were and are hotly contested, and even in reading his book myself I recognize that it is not a proof, but merely a presentation of evidence. The reader must "pay her money and make her choice" regarding what to believe. For me, the implications are clear based on what seem to be the obvious circumstances surrounding the ceremonies:

1. They were public affirmations and celebrations of the love of two individuals.

2. These liturgies are similar in almost every respect to heterosexual matrimonial ceremonies (which came later to the Church). While they invoked different Biblical examples of love than opposite-sex marriage rites, they always called upon the special relationship of two (and only two) male saints or biblical figures. The elements often involved...the taking of hands, the lighting of a candle, the crowning (a practice now obsolete and unfamiliar to us), the final kiss...all these things if done now would constitute a wedding.

3. The assumption in some of the liturgies was that the couple would thereafter live together in love.

If I consider two modern American men who might request such a blessing of the Church, and also desire the witness of all of their friends in that public blessing, and if I consider that thereafter they would make a home together...well...I cannot imagine that any two men would go through all of that without it meaning one thing: marriage. So, while I do not have any special insight into the pre-modern mentality or disposition, I would dispute any mental gymnastics by which people would claim these liturgies were just for two good buddies...not lovers.

Furthermore, considering also that by the 14th Century these ceremonies were being outlawed because the growing Church opinion held them to be "immoral," I am led to believe that indeed they must have been used to marry same-sex couples in the eyes of God, the Church and society, and that opinion changed.

It is unfortunate that Christianity developed such a narrow view of the scriptures and of sexuality, but not surprising as the voices of extreme asceticism have dogged Judeo-Christian religion. Instead of moderation, these voices have often called for mortification of the flesh and desire. I believe that this "Puritanism" has had a profoundly chilling effect on humanity's self-image and our understanding of "love"...to the point where modern Conservative Christianity feels justified in ignoring or denying that two people of the same sex can even legitimately love each other. "It's not really love" it is believed, despite the proof that our hearts and our lives bear out.

Here follows a sample 11th-12th century liturgy from the appendix of Boswell's book. I include it in its entirety simply so that one can get the overall impression:

The Order for Uniting Two Men

Placing them before the altar, the deacon shall say these decanal prayers:
In peace, we pray to the Lord.
For heavenly [peace].
For the peace of all.
For their joining together in union of love and life, we pray to the Lord.
For these servants of God, -- and --, and for their union in Christ, we pray to the Lord.
That the Lord our God unite them in perfect love and inseparable life, we pray to the Lord.
That they be granted discretion and sincere love, we pray to the Lord.
For the presanctified gift of the precious body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that they should receive it without sin and preserve their union without envy, we pray to the Lord.
That they and we be granted all things necessary for salvation, we pray to the Lord.
That they and we be preserved from all suffering, danger and need.
Protect, save.
Most holy, most pure.

ii.

Prayer for Same-Sex Union

O Lord our God, who grant us what we ask for our salvation, who hath commanded us to love each other and to pardon each other [our] transgression, bless, Lord, giver of good [things], lover of mankind, these two servants of thine who love each other with a love of the spirit and have come to this holy temple wishing to receive thy sanctification and benediction; grant them unabashed faithfulness and sincere love, and just as you gave thy holy disciples and apostles thy peace and love, grant [them] also to these, Christ our God, Giving them all those things necessary for salvation and eternal life.

( Exclamation) For Thou art the light of truth and eternal life, and to Thee we give glory and praise, Father and Son and [Holy Spirit].

iii.
Then prayeth the deacon:
Let us hear the wisdom of the holy Gospel.
The priest readeth from John [17:1, 18-26]:

Jesus lifted up his eyes to his disciples and said, "Father,...
As thou has sent me into the world, even so have I also sent them into the world.
And for their sakes I sanctify myself, that they also might be sanctified through the truth.
Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;
That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou has loved me.
Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.
O righteous Father, the world hath not known thee: but I have known thee, and these have known that thou hast sent me.
And I have declared unto them thy name, and will declare it: that the love wherewith thou hast loved me may be in them, and I in them."

It is to be found on the seventh Sunday after Easter. And when the priest finisheth the Gospel, the deacon shall recite the decanal prayers.

iv.
The priest shall make this prayer before the table:
Lord God omnipotent, who didst fashion humankind after thine image and likeness and gavest unto them life eternal, whom it hath pleased that thy holy and glorious apostles Peter and Paul, and Philip and Bartholomew, be joined together not by the bond of blood but of fidelity and love, who didst deem it meet for the holy martyrs Serge and Bacchus to be united together, bless Thou also these thy servants, N. and N., joined together not of birth, but of faith and love. Grant unto them to love one another, let them continue without envy and without temptation all the days of their lives, through the power of thy Holy Spirit and the prayers of the Holy Mother of God and all thy saints who have pleased Thee throughout the ages.
(Exclamation) For thine is the power and thine the kingdom, thine the strength [and the glory. In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, now and forever. Amen.]

v.
The priest shall raise his voice and pray: Peace to all.
The deacon: Let us love one another.
Then shall the priest kiss the pair and they one another. Then the deacon shall pray: Let us bow our heads before the Lord.

vi.
And the priest shall make this prayer in a low voice:
O Lord our God, thou are the author of love, the master of peace, and the savior of all, vouchsafe unto us thy love, the fulfillment of the law, and grant unto us to think on that which is of Jesus, thine only Son, our God. Vouchsafe us to receive on another with love, as thine only son did receve us, and grant unto us to serve one other in love and most heartily to fulfill the law of thy Christ.
(Exclamation) For thine is the glory and the power, Father, Son [and Holy Spirit].

vii.
And then shall the priest pray, raising up his arms:
And grant unto us, O Lord, earnestly to serve Thee.
The people: Our father, [who art in heaven, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread, and forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from evil. Amen] (To the end.)
(Exclamation) For thine is the kingdom, the power and [the glory].

viii.
And then [the deacon] shall say:
Behold the holy for the holy.
[i]And the priest, lifting up the ciborium, shall say:/i]
Behold the presanctified holy of holies.
The people: Thou only art holy, O Lord, Jesus Christ
And he shall give Communion to both.

ix.
And after they have communicated the priest shall take the elder of them that have been joined together and the latter of them in turn takes the younger by the hand, and [the priest] leadeth them both, chanting the eighth tone of David.
Lord, [lead me] in [thy] truth.
Turn thee again, Thou God of hosts, look down from heaven, behold and visit this vine; And the place of the vineyard that thy right hath planted...
(Verse) Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, that delighteth greatly in his commandments.
Lord, Lord, look down from heaven.
(Verse) Give ear, O Shepherd of Israel, thou that leadest [Joseph like a flock].

x.
(Verse) [Behold,] how good and how pleasant it is [for brethren to dwell together in union.

It is like the precious ointment upon the head, that ran down upon the beard, even Aaron's beard: that went down to the skirts of his garments; As the dew of Hermon, and as the dew that descended upon the mountains of Zion: for there the Lord commanded the benediction, even life for evermore.]

And thus singing this whole psalm, verse by verse, unto the end, they shall add this verse:
Lord, Lord, look down from heaven....

xi.
Then shall they sing the hymn of the martyrs, following the tone.

xii.
And then: Glory be to the Father, and to the Son: and to the Holy Spirit. As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be: world without end. Amen.

xiii.
And the hymn to the Mother of God.

[Zerbie]

Ok, quick reply.
Zerbe: The story you told was heartbreaking. I don't think I could ever imagine that. Of course I would be crushed if I ever saw another human being behave that way. That is a beaten-down, rejected attitude and it's NOT what Jesus came to give us. We are to have life and have it to the full. How very, very sad.

You do understand that I was being extremely idealistic/tongue-in-cheek, right? I am fully aware that most gay people would not be willing to submit to being labeled as "disabled." Who would?? I don't know if it would help or not, though. The point you made about gay people being silent/passive was well-put.


Has anyone learned anything about CCs they hadn't thought about before?

I had this thought last night: What if God is allowing a certain population (straight) to believe that homosexuality is a sin? What if he is, at the same time, allowing a certain population (gay) to believe it's not a sin? What if he's not all that concerned about it at all but wants to see how WE behave toward one another? What if he's made people different to see how we respond? In love or in anger? With harsh words or with sacrificial care? I don't know. I'm getting the impression that he may be doing that, though.

Everytime I begin reading the Word or asking the Lord about his stance on this, I personally keep getting led to different passages about marriage. I feel that what I'm hearing is still on the CC "side" of the issue but I know that what I've also learned is to love people no matter what and to not focus on sin as much as on loving and serving. It makes me wonder if God isn't wanting to see what I will do if I believe something is sinful. Do I jump to condemn others or do I sort of put that aside and love them? I'm not saying that God is playing games with humanity, I'm just wondering if this is some sort of cosmic test.

Does any of that make sense?
~C

I think God is all the time sending us the impulse to love and care for one another, if only we "tune in" to the "channel" and pick up on it.

You nail it Cathy - the most important thing is love. Trust your brothers and sisters and God enough to believe that He will lead each of them on the path that is right for them, and then our business becomes one of sharing our abundance and joy. Please focus on that one most important thing. If homosexuality is morally right/wrong/neutral is not the question - the question is how people are *treated,* by one another and by the institutions in this society.

My heart broke when that man I told you about had such a difficult time telling me he was gay. I never want someone to feel so fundamentally rejected, yet it says something about this society we live in that some gay people *assume* they will be so treated. Contemplate on that, and consider what you might do/say to create an environment where gay people will feel emotionally safe around you. I think you're on the way. . . .

Oh btw - when I was a little girl I didn't know what "side" to take on this either, so I asked God. The "answer" I got was to love His little ones. . . and nothing about right or wrong. Just to love His children and see Him in them. :love: :love: :love:

[tdogg]

Everytime I begin reading the Word or asking the Lord about his stance on this, I personally keep getting led to different passages about marriage.


Well Cathy, maybe, just maybe the Lord is telling you we should all be allowed the right to marry... ;) :rolleyes: :) :love:

Hey, I'm really glad to see you are still hanging in with us!! I'm not necessary learning anything new about CC's, FC's, etc. But as always, excellent open and compassionate dialogue helps me to get to know those involved better, and certainly myself better as well. Glad this thread has reverted back to your original topic! :D

[andrewlittle]

Cathy wrote:
Andrew: you're too sweet to offer to loan me a book. What's shipping like on something like that??? Thanks for all the book info. I could be reading for the next five years.....

Cathy, I have spent a great deal of effort developing the persona of an unfeeling, sanctimonious, self-absorbed, verbose curmudgeon - and I believe I have done a pretty good job - so, well, "sweet" just threatens the heck out of that image. If you promise to call me an expletive (just one, mind you) to make up for your gross inconsideration, and email me a mailing address, we won't worry about the cost. It certainly isn't much to begin with.

Cathy also wrote:
Has this thread run its course? I could say a lot more about Biblical opinions and things I'm reading about the Bible and marriage but is that really necessary? It was never my intent to try to "convert" you guys with all my Biblical knowledge (ha). And honestly, you're probably not interested in my trying to defend my position using scripture. So many people have probably been here to do that before you've probably heard it all. Do we just need to close this discussion down, do you think? I see the thread is a popular one and that many are enjoying it but is there anything left to glean?

Has anyone learned anything about CCs they hadn't thought about before?

Well, Cathy, its your thread - despite the fact that one person wants to turn the clock back and claim it for his own purposes. (Oops, excuse me - I'm showing my nasty side again.) What do YOU think about the thread?

I will tell you what I have thought about the entire conversation.

You had the audacity to sign up on a LGBT website, ask questions that you wanted answers to, even though you knew that they may be inflammatory, enter into dialogue with people you KNEW you did not agree with, weather some decidedly emotional responses, and still kept asking questions and giving answers.

You had the nerve to state your opinions, to talk about those that had shifted and to keep us informed about those that were still contrary to what the people here would like you to have.

You have been willing to listen, think about, theologically relect on, and respond to virtually every major point made by a myriad of participants, without running away because you were grossly outnumbered or falling back on staid, worn out, ridiculously simplistic, soundbite BS like some other participant (oops, nasty again - sorry).

You have expressed compassion, affection and even love for those with whom you disagree.

Yes, indeed, it has been a total waste of time. Now, if only we could get many, many other people to waste their time like you have ...

Actually, Cathy, and I can only speak for myself, I think you and the other participants have shown what love, constructive dialogue and placing praxis over dogma looks like. This thread has been an example of listening with an ear to hearing and seeing with eyes to see.

Is it over? Maybe this one is. My sense is, however, that your questions won't be over and some other peoples' thirst for dialogue won't be quenched just yet.

I cannot speak for people who have had to defend their very existence day in and day out, but from my point of view this is how chiasms are traversed. This is how bridges are built.

Will we all ever agree completely? Doubtful. Will you ever be fully convinced to think like the rest of us here? I doubt it - mainly because, as you can tell, there is no "us" when it comes to opinions - we each have them and they are decidedly different.

That's not the point, anyway. The point is to try to see through others' eyes and hear with others' ears - the effort builds understanding between people who exist and think differently.

Personally, you have given me hope that there is some role I can play as a minister that has some value for all people.

I'd like, at least, to see new thread(s) taking off on some of the remaining issues or even, at the risk of sending some people off the deep end, doing an online Bible study to look at and try to understand the different ways scripture can be perceived. You know, to examine that premise of yours that, maybe, we're all right. By the way, we could all be wrong.

So, do what you think you need to do. But remember, I have come to love you and your inquisitiveness and your openness. I have loved the participants and their willingness to love someone different than themselves. I have especially come to love Willy - curmudgeons have to stick together, you know. Now, Sammy - well, maybe he's my test to see if I can love the unlovable - I'd really like to find some way.

God bless you - each and every one of you.

[Daniel]

Cathy- This moment reminds of those Carol Burnett shows- just when it was getting really good it was over. But then, one always hopes for more, yes?

As someone who posted a little bit on this thread and then sat back and watched it unfold like a flower, I have to say that your conduct (gag...that word sounds strange and formal) has been exemplary (gag..another big word!). What I like (notice the change to present tense- meant to encourage additional in-the-moment interaction) about your responses in particular is the care with which you weigh every one's words with a personal touch: you answer back leaving no one out.

Perhaps heaven is in the details....rather than the devil?

If anything, you've called to mind something I've posted on these pages at least twice that I know of, perhaps more, I like it that much. And that's a quote of Oscar Wilde's- straight out of Lady Windermere's Fan .

"Manners before Morals".

That, my dear, is what your seem to have in spades.

Ok. No more compliments.

Dash brought up Boswell's tome (and it is a great one) on Same-Sex Unions. I recently lent it to a CC Colleauge (that would make for three C's, no?) and he reported back that he found it interesting, but disappointing, for the simple reason that he was looking for some sort of early Christian affirmation of gay persons. Of course, I told him "you aren't going to find that in there. It starts about a thousand years after that!" But the fact that the unions Boswell writes about, unions which predate hetersexual marriage, is compelling stuff. It almost leads one to think that (gasp!) gay people invented the idea of marriage based on love.

How revolutionary is that?

We are the one's, after all, who are known to go and fix up a place, be it a neighborhood or the neighbor's hair. Wouldn't it be ironic if, in fact, gay people made the church and marriage what it is today? The very same places we want to be openly- and legally- involved in?

We are everywhere. Look no further than your choir loft.. We are there, trying to sing those high notes, reaching for the stars like everyone else.

I hope you stick around.

Ah...,.,yes.....there is a phrase which has been attributed to Boswell and speaks to matters of sexuality and faith which I paraphrase here because I can't remember it exactly: "You can't argue a person out of a postion they didn't argue themselves into."

Understanding doesn't always come through the head. Somehow, I think you already know this.

[frankandcathy]

Well, a lot of good things have been posted. It seems that just when I feel like, "What else is there to say?" I think of something else or read about something else.

I was reading sammy's thread and saw a link to a web site of ex-gays. I didn't know such a thing existed. What is the feeling of you all here about this phenom? Do you think, "They were never gay to begin with?" Do you think, "They're just lying to themselves and aren't happy?" Do you think, "I tried that and it didn't work?"

Zerbe: Well, I guess for the sake of argument, I should mention that there are probably a lot of people in the world who are severely rejected and broken and it has nothing to do with being gay. Maybe this guy was like that BECAUSE of the societal rejection he had from being gay or maybe his father beat him every day of his life and told him he was a worthless piece of crap. I guess it would be presumptuous for either one of us to assume it was because he was gay.

Just as kind of a side note, I was reading a fictional novel (based on actual stuff) about women in the Middle East. I need to look up more facts on it but if what the guy was saying is true, you can get killed for being gay in hard-line Islamic countries. You may also get killed for being a Christian. :) America's not so bad, in that light, is it? At least we have the freedom of speech (most of the time)!

Dash: That was very considerate of you to post the union ceremony. My question is: What the heck does it mean??? It doesn't appear to be...anything that I could relate to. It's not a marriage ceremony, per se, because it doesn't contain the word "marriage." Is it implying sexual union or just "brothers in the Lord?" I read the link you sent and, obviously, the vote is still out on that one. How frustrating. The vote seems to be out on most of the things that would add some clarity! Is there no commentary on what the heck it meant from writers of that time? And when did it start and stop? And does that imply that it went on before that? And what would that mean? AUGH! Daniel mentioned it predated hetero marriage? I don't understand this. Marriage existed in the OT. Please explain, Daniel. Did you mean a marriage rite by the church? Surely not.

Bruce: Now you're poking fun at me, aren't you? I admit it. I'm coming out of the (walk-in) closet (filled with shoes, purses, and emotional outbursts): I AM FEMALE!!

Andrew: You're not fooling anyone here. You're a softie. I'll send you my address. I am very open to the idea of a Bible study forum which involves open-mindedness and people who are actually reading the Bible seeking truth. I think that would be a better forum to bring up the things I've been reading and gleaning from it.

tdogg: Well, it would be much easier if it was God saying, "Oh yes, I meant to add that in there. It's marriage between any two humans." But, alas....it wasn't to be. LOL. We're back to listening with your head again...and as we know, the head can be way wrong...I have too many stories like that to even count. ;)

On the topic of learning anything about CCs, I hope that it has occurred to *some* people here (Willy) that CCs are as diverse as any other "homogoneous" human population. I think it does a discredit to the "former CCs" and current ones here to continue to make degrading statements about them. And I hope that for everyone else (who are not making degrading statements at all but may still tend to think in blanket terms) that you, too, have seen that we're not all cookie-cutter Republicans with no heart who are actively interested in smiting those with whom we disagree.

I guess I'll say that I'll reply to any new questions that are coming up. Andrew, let me know how that Bible study forum would work and I'll think about it. Will we work together to set a "curriculum" or just do a free-for-all? Let me know your thoughts.

Oh yes, Daniel. God bless you. You are so kind to me. It means a lot. This has been a hard thing for me to do, mainly because of the time inolved, but I have grown through it.

My mom always says, "God is in the details." I never had the heart to tell her she was misquoting and now I'm glad!

Okay, I think I'll sign off for now. I've neglected to vacuum and stuff is sticking to my feet here...talk about a YUK FACTOR!

~C

[andrewlittle]

Time for another thread? Maybe.

Cathy wrote:
AUGH! Daniel mentioned it predated hetero marriage? I don't understand this. Marriage existed in the OT. Please explain, Daniel. Did you mean a marriage rite by the church? Surely not.

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia (my copy on CD-ROM):
The word marriage may be taken to denote the action, contract, formality, or ceremony by which the conjugal union is formed or the union itself as an enduring condition. It is usually defined as the legitimate union between husband and wife. "Legitimate" indicates the sanction of some kind of law, natural, evangelical, or civil, while the phrase, "husband and wife", implies mutual rights of sexual intercourse, life in common, and an enduring union. The definition, however, is broad enough to comprehend polygamous and polyandrous unions when they are permitted by the civil law; for in such relationships there are as many marriages as there are individuals of the numerically larger sex.

Notice by the way that the definition is not broad enough to comprehend something other than "husband and wife", but certainly polyamorous relationships of the more traditional (translate: heterosexual) kind.

Why would I quote the Catholics specifically on this question?
The answer is the Council of Trent in 1563. While the Catholic Church had been encouraging marriage ceremonies for several centuries, there existed no official sanctioning body before this Council. Marriages, themselves, were not considered an issue of government interest prior to this period.

By the 1500’s, however, there were so many marriages still taking place without witness or ceremony that the church had become disturbed. The Council of Trent, among other things, decreed in 1563 that marriages “should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.” Marriage took on a new role of saving men and women from being sinful, and of procreation. Love wasn't a necessary ingredient for marriage during this era, but because the Church largely regulated the state, government sanction of proper Christian ceremony became essential.

Some, both inside and outside the Catholic Church, have argued that the church instituted a formal marriage ceremony and sanctioning because it allowed control of noble families and their relationships. Church gained control of aristocracy, strategic alliances and offspring who were successors to thrones. Hmmm.

While marriage existed in the OT period and beyond, it didn’t look like what we now know. Marriage was an agreement, an arrangement, or a contract between any number of participants including families, kingdoms, states, etc. Prior to early Christendom, marriage looked like what we call “common law” marriage – it was simply an informal or semi-formal statement of commitment. Divorce was the breaking of that commitment.

BTW – the words and concepts of “marry” and “marriage” came into being in the 13th century (in Old English and French, which were related languages) and are derived from the name of Mary, mother of Jesus. Divorce, both the word and concept, comes from the 14th century, and comes from the Latin dīvortium, which means separation.

Okay, now the tough part. Wherever you read “in marriage” in the Old Testament, there is really some Hebrew wording based on “took as his woman” or, heaven protect me, “given as a gift.” The concept of marriage was retroactively superimposed, in the late middle ages, over the concept of exchanging PROPERTY – the property being, in these cases, women. E.g. in Gen 34:12 where the KJV says "dowry" and the NRSV says "marriage gift", the Hebrew translates literally "purchase price".

[Steven E. Webster]

Friends,

Now might be a good time to offer this reference:

www.exgaywatch.com

Steven E. Webster

[Zerbie]

Zerbe: Well, I guess for the sake of argument, I should mention that there are probably a lot of people in the world who are severely rejected and broken and it has nothing to do with being gay. Maybe this guy was like that BECAUSE of the societal rejection he had from being gay or maybe his father beat him every day of his life and told him he was a worthless piece of crap. I guess it would be presumptuous for either one of us to assume it was because he was gay.

J I need to look up more facts on it but if what the guy was saying is true, you can get killed for being gay in hard-line Islamic countries.


~C

Awrighty then. . . . The guy I told you about was an acquaintance who I had known for about 5 years but very superficially, only seeing each other a few times a year, etc. We always had easy, comfortable, cheerful conversations without any awkwardness. Then ONE DAY that subject came up accidentally (kinda long story how and not relevant, so I skip it), and all of a sudden his entire affect changed. The difficulty was in TELLING me that he was gay.

Of course, people with different temperaments all respond differently. There are those who would have lied. There are those who would have been "out" to me from Day One, and everything in between.

This poor fellow was, for whatever reason, terrified of revealing to an acquaintance that he was gay. He was THAT frightened of rejection. My intuition has always been that he wasn't really afraid of ME rejecting him, but that he had been rejected by a much more important person (people) in the past, and all subsequent rejection was an excruciating reminder. My feeling was that his parents had possibly said such things to him. Of course that's speculation, but I've lived through enough of my intuitions being accurate that I strongly suspect my guess is correct. There is no doubt however, that the rejection he feared was coming would be BECAUSE he was gay. That was what it meant to him, and emotionally, psychologically, that is the meaning that matters, because it's the one he was experiencing.

RE your reading about Islamic countries executing gays. . . . Yep. Sharia law calls for execution of homosexuals. I forget exactly which countries are involved except for Iran - and there are several more. Some countries imprison and torture gay people as well. It is happening right now. Yes, we are thankful it doesn't happen here - but full of grief that it happens anywhere. :'(

[frankandcathy]

It just keeps going, and going...

A few quick things: Zerbe: Thanks for clarification. You were 100% right.

Andrew: great post, I'm going to have to re-read it.

Checked out the Ex-gay watch web site briefly but not hardwired yet.

Two things I wanted to address that I feel will help what I like to call "The assimilation of all Christians into One Body."

1. If we want people to offer validation to our position, we must start with offering validation for theirs. Seek first to understand, then to be understood. I say this because I saw another member on another thread talking about he's "for sure" you can't be ex-gay and just ripping CCs to shreds who are "ex-gay."

Well, we can't be "for sure" on anything. I'm pretty sure that the people in the Virgin Mary's day were "for sure" she got pregnant by a human man. In the world of God, nothing is ever "for sure."

It doesn't have to be scary to validate someone else's experience (BELIEVE ME). It doesn't negate your own experience. It actually helps lend credibility to you because you're willing to listen. Think about it: Who is easier to believe? Someone who is screaming, "It's MY way or no way" or someone who says, "I can see that. But that's not what I think and here's why. But I understand your point."

2. To "love the sinner and hate the sin" seems impossible for many people to swallow (usually not the Christians I've met here but for non-believers). Let me explain: Let's pretend your teenage daughter comes home stoned out of her mind, pregnant, and announcing she's going to marry the gang-banger down the street. What is your reaction? Well part of it is definitely anger! Why? Because we have an inherent ability to HATE that which we feel destroys the lives of those we love and care about. As misguided as many of you believe CCs are in their beliefs, is it possible that they are just THAT worried about your eternal soul? YES!

Sidenote: I understand very well that homosexuals feel their sexuality is a part of them (don't we all?) and that there is no "me" without "gay." No need to point this out, I'm down with that.

It is also possible that they're just judgmental and looking for someone to roast. See, Willy, I don't totally disagree with you!

Is it also possible that they do the EXACT wrong thing and focus only on your sexuality and not on your relationship with God? Absolutely! It breaks my heart to hear of gay men and women who love Jesus but have been ostracized by their family and friends and churches.

THIS is the point at which we must meet people. Not to try and convince them that it's "okay to be gay," necessarily but to try to teach them that it's "okay to love gay people and validate that they are made in God's image too." They don't have to turn in their "I love Jesus and the Bible" bookmarks because they can put their arms around you, hug you, and think about something else besides who you sleep with. For me personally, this is my new goal with anyone I know who is wondering about this whole topic. To show them this truth.

I am NOT going to stay up too late typing, I am NOT going to stay up too late typing....

~C

[Willy]

Let's pretend your teenage daughter comes home stoned out of her mind, pregnant, and announcing she's going to marry the gang-banger down the street. What is your reaction? Well part of it is definitely anger!
At some point, you'll be finished slumming it here. And when you are, maybe you'll be able to remember one thing: I'm not your daughter's drug dealer. I didn't get her pregnant. And I sure as hell don't want to marry her. Didn't get your son pregnant either, and I guarantee you I don't want to marry his guilt-ridden ass. So, if you're looking for someone to get mad at, mosey on over to your bathroom, flip on the light switch and glance in the mirror. Thanks.

[Zerbie]

THIS is the point at which we must meet people. Not to try and convince them that it's "okay to be gay," necessarily but to try to teach them that it's "okay to love gay people and validate that they are made in God's image too." They don't have to turn in their "I love Jesus and the Bible" bookmarks because they can put their arms around you, hug you, and think about something else besides who you sleep with. For me personally, this is my new goal with anyone I know who is wondering about this whole topic. To show them this truth.

I am NOT going to stay up too late typing, I am NOT going to stay up too late typing....

~C

Cathy, I want to address your last paragraphs, but first - can you see what about the rest of your post angered Willy? - the implicit assumption that being gay somehow equates to being stoned, pregnant, hooking up with drug dealers (or whatever your example was.) They are not moral equivalents, but since you didn't clarify that up front, it reads like you think they are. I don't think you meant it, but at some level you seem to have unconsciously linked the two very different things as equal.

When we talk about heterosexism, we mean the subtle belief that gay is somehow inferior - a belief sometimes so subtle we're not quite aware of it. There's a nifty website that offers carefully constructed psychological tests for biases and prejudices, including a gay versus straight bias test. Let me dig around to find it again and then send you the link - you can take the bias test and see what it has to say. (I took the gay vs straight test expecting my preferences to come up equal, but was rated as having a strong automatic preference for gay people over straight ones - which is kinda funny since I married a straight guy! :rolleyes: )

As to your concluding point, I agree with you that a step needs to be taken where it becomes "okay" for Christiansin their cultural context to embrace one's gay friends/neighbors as made in God's image EXACTLY AS THEY ARE. Unfortunately, you may observe that those who do so then bear the brunt of homophobic verbal assaults as well. Be prepared for this possibility.

Now I personally wish we were wayyyyy beyond this point, but since we're not, I agree it's a step that needs to be taken. Thank you for committing to it. I hope you will continue to converse with LGBT people about the issues that matter to the gay community, and someday perhaps take further steps. I think you'll find yourself enriched and blessed.

[Willy]

It is a stock in trade for the evangelicals to equate homosexuality with the vilest things they can imagine. They've been doing it for decades, and gay people have bee objecting to it for decades. Thus the evangeliscals know exactly what they are doing, and if they should happen to deny it then they're simply lying, which is something else they do particularly well. That's why, when the Pentagon recently justified its antigay personnel policies on the basis of bee sting allergies (http://willypolitical.blogspot.com/2006/11/pentagon-gay-allergy-to-bee-stings.html), I thought it was a step forward from the usual slanders.

[frankandcathy]

Zerbie: Wow. You know, hindsight is 20-20. I can see now what a BAD analogy that was and how it could really be considered inflammatory and downright hurtful. I am so sorry, but thank you for believing the best and understanding that sometimes I'm not the brightest at thinking about how things sound.

Now...to the point...Yes, it's probably true that MANY CCs see homosexuality as THAT BAD. I personally don't feel this way at all and don't know any who do (as far as I can tell) but it's obvious from the behavior of some (Fred Phelps for one) that they DO see it as that bad.

That being said, it was still really a stupid analogy. I should have chosen something much milder. Again, I apologize for being so dense about that.

Good news from my end of things! I was visiting with a girlfriend today who is a restaurant manager. Her boss is a lesbian who is fumbling around in the dark about going to church and what it means to love God and be gay at the same time. My friend asked me whether I think it's "right" or not, and I said that the important thing was to try to love her and serve her. She reported that she has been doing this, trying to encourage her, praying with her at office parties, etc. This boss was once a youth leader but after she shared her (then struggles) with her church elders, they ostracized her and kicked her out of church. After that, her life basically went downhill in many ways. She said she felt distanced from God, started drinking heavily, and was just out-and-out crushed by it all.

I intend to e-mail my friend this web site address so she can forward it on to her boss. I'm sure she'll appreciate being here with so many faith-filled gay and lesbian people. My friend and I also discussed the possibility of this lady coming to our church and the other churches in our area that welcome gays and anyone seeking to know more about God.

Oh yes, her boss, after having prayed with my friend, bought a Bible and began praying again. But she seems to be taking one step forward, two back. I hope getting connected here will help her on her journey!

Willy: Your latest post reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask but had forgotten to. Can you share with us a little about your personal faith/values? I have heard a lot about what you DON'T believe but not very much about what you do.

Again, thank you all for bearing with me when I say dumb, hurtful, and thoughtless things. I know that you know that I don't mean to offend and it is a blessing to receive your grace and know that you are granting me more daily. I think this is very much like God to do. Thank you!

[Daniel]

Daniel mentioned it predated hetero marriage? I don't understand this. Marriage existed in the OT. Please explain, Daniel. Did you mean a marriage rite by the church? Surely not.


Cathy- I have Andrew to thank for putting marriage into a historical context. I was, however, reaching for something a bit broader and socially relevant. What I was reflecting on was this (which I confess is more right than left-brained):

1) same-sex unions (unions or marriage- whatever you call it- you still have two people who are committed to each other- right?) starting about the 12 century or so. A union- or marriage- which is not about property, lineage or transfer of a title. In short: three things are involved: two people and God. You have the devotion of the those joined together and devotion to God. Pretty simple, huh?

2) As Andrew has said, many have noted that marriage by the church- in it's formation- was about the regulation of relationships for economic reasons- not romantic love per se.

3) The same-sex unions cited by Boswell are, in effect, much more in keeping with the modern notion of romantic love. It's about two people who commit to one another (and to God in this case), which, in and of itself, isn't about the church getting its fingers involved in economic concerns.

Of course, this resonates with the observation/notion that gay people have been -historically speaking- the front runners in matters of culture and aesthetics. Gay people in the church want to be commited to each other and to God.

Why should we assume that it was any different in the 11th and 12th centuries? Just because they didn't have the word homosexual then doesn't mean monks didn't fall in love with each other.

To my way of thinking, gay people are quite radical. But then, love is radical, isn't it? As such, those monks in the church (may have) started the template which many take for granted.

Marriage! Unions based on love. Not economics.

Could I be stretching things pretty far? Sure. But I think I have a case.

I mean, who you gonna ask if that dress really is you? A gay guy will, more often that not, give you the unvarnished truth. Heck, gay guys probably stated the Cult of Mary. All that high churchy church stuff- religion in drag (no offense my dear Catholic friends- but you guys really do have theatrical side. "Father- love the dress, but your purse is on fire!")

And I really love it all. Incense. Prayers. Music. Well.... Episcopal music actually.

And the pope really does wear Prada! ;)

[Dash]

Dash: That was very considerate of you to post the union ceremony. My question is: What the heck does it mean??? It doesn't appear to be...anything that I could relate to. It's not a marriage ceremony, per se, because it doesn't contain the word "marriage." Is it implying sexual union or just "brothers in the Lord?" I read the link you sent and, obviously, the vote is still out on that one. How frustrating. The vote seems to be out on most of the things that would add some clarity! Is there no commentary on what the heck it meant from writers of that time? And when did it start and stop? And does that imply that it went on before that? And what would that mean?

I think your question, "what does it mean?" is a very important one. For my way of thinking, the answer is kind of your choice. Truth is we don't really know what it meant at the time. Oh we can probably speculate with a high probability of accuracy that for SOME people, it meant a blessing on their love and life together as lovers. I think we could also speculate with the same accuracy that for some, it served as a tool to arrange for economic bond (just like some marriages today are for reasons other than love, you know). And, yeah, though I don't get it at all...I imagine that some people may have just wanted the Church and the community's blessing for, and recognition of, their special friendship. :confused: Since we don't have anything like that in today's world, it is blank to my imagination. Closest I can come to is the "blood brothers" in that old TeeVee show "The Life & Times of Grizzly Adams." Hah!

But what does it mean to you? You have to make the same choice we all do everytime we read the Bible or newsreports or study history and tradition. What will you do with Jesus' words on bringing swords and division? What will you do with his words on peacemakers and poverty? What will you do with Paul's words on women being silent? What will you do with Hebrew Testament laws that allow a rapist to pay for the virgin and marry her? What will you do with the love that David had for Jonathan? What will YOU do? What Spirit speaks in you? How do you digest these things?

Will you use them to deny your brothers and sisters? Will you use them to lift them up? Will you use them to find your own path? Will you use them to harry God's children along the path you think is best? Will you ponder these things in you heart like Mary? God knows I've made all sorts of different choices in the brief span of my life...not always ones of which I can be proud.

What does it mean that 1-10% of 300 million people...some 3 to 30 million men and women in the United States are gay? What does it all mean? It really is an answer that is unfolding before us...an answer that we are still writing.

[1engelbythesea]

First of all kudos in having the intestinal fortitude to hang on in here even though there is much that your have not yet understood or digested.
First this is not a choice in life style this is who we are. A a realization that has come to each one of us after much pain and turmoil. We are free ... free at last of guilt.
I would indeed love for you to understand that there is a definite difference in the legal understanding of marriage and the rights the law system bestows upon those who marry in the eyes of the law ... and becoming one in the eyes of God.
The law allows atheists to be recognized as married in the eye of the law, but it does not allow for other God loving people to be recognized "be the law" as married.
First of all... the law should bestow equal rights regardless of belief, or ethnicity to be recognized as spouses (separation of church and state) ; second man should not make laws concerning God's acceptance of such union because that falls under the "do not judge rule" and it is between each individual and its maker.
How does it hurt you? that two people willing to commit themselves to each other in the eyes of God (as they understand God), and willing to accept the limitations of the law concerning union, dissolution of union, etc, etc. in any way violate any one else's rights. We would all have to be held responsible to the state the same way.
You have taken a big step in wishing to understand both side, and we ourselves have committed to listen to what you say.
Now what will you do with your own understanding, keep it or share it?
I think if all sides were willing to dialogue as you have, this world would be headed to a much happier future. In Love and Truth Nora:pray:

[marutidas]

From what I see about cc's, Is they get so caught up in the literal translation an miss the meaning, now I bear with me, I do not want to step on anyones toes, but I got a feeling I am going to anyway.

If you take a look from where I am sitting, a person who is very vocal about interfaith, I see the commonality of religions, all have that vital thread, the golden rule.
Do unto others as you have them do unto you.

This is spoken in Every religion, just in different ways. But when someone disagrees,The Golden Rule, in heated moments, is thrown out the window and much suffering errupts. This in my mind the most important thing that has ever come out of religion. My question, is why this is not applied in all avenues of life, to be equals?

This is just a pondering that has gnawing at my mind every time I see some cc comes on here and start posting some misinformed things, and how we choose to respond. Most who respond do so, out of genuine consern, but there are others who attack and ask questions later. May who come here like Cathy, misinformed, but seeking the truth, of which I am very proud because she has grown so much from being here. I know that some are going to come and emotions will run hot, But To give truthful and honest dialog and not harsh speech is our purpose.

Just something I have been thinking about, and I know in the past I too have been guilty of such things, but I have learned from my mistakes.
Again I say that while you can not control the thought and actions of others, you can control you own.

---Maruti Das

[frankandcathy]

Hey all. Just a quick reply.

Daniel: You're great. Great points. I hadn't really ever thought about a marriage based on mutual commitment and one based on contractual obligation.

Dash: I like what you said. My mind is already set on what I am going to do. I will choose to love others and point them to the cross. I will choose to NOT point out their sins (as I see them), being confident that the Holy Spirit will speak to them. I used to LOVE Grizzly Adams!

engelbythesea: Thanks for your encouragment. You're awesome.

Maritudas: Well, I liked what you said a lot. I appreciate someone saying (finally) outright: the gay people on this forum should NOT be bashing in the head of CCs (no matter how misinformed) simply because it's what the gay community sees CCs as doing and hates it...it's therefore hypocritical to respond in kind.

Er....but since I've not gay...I wasn't able to say that! So thanks!

You're a blessing. My Hindu friend who attends Catholic church...wow. What do you think of Daniel's fashion analysis?:lol:

~C

[andrewlittle]

This remarkable thread seems to be fading. Somehow, I don't think it is riding off into obscurity, however. It has been, in my mind, a testament to the God-given ability to overcome theological differences by honest and open dialogue.

Listen closely and you'll hear "Taps" playing ever so softly. Oh, maybe not - it could be a show tune. Hmmm.

We will, of course, never completely agree - which is, I think, the way it should be. If everyone thought like me, there would be a whole mess of f'd up people in the world.

Cathy, may God bless and keep you. May God bless your inquisitive mind and your beautiful spirit. May God give you other questions you wish to post.

BTW, Cathy, the book is on its way. And let's PM about a Bible study.

Love to you all, you are thoroughly remarkable people.

Andy

[Daniel]

We will, of course, never completely agree - which is, I think, the way it should be. If everyone thought like me, there would be a whole mess of f'd up people in the world.


Andrew- Surely you jest! I don't see your thinking as messed up. If so, your 'mess' functions at a high level and is quite articulate. Like what you say though: I don't always agree with my husband, but then, I love him anyway. He just hasn't figured out I'm right yet. :lol:

You know what? Love may actually be blind. Blind to everything that isn't like itself. Call me a universalist, but I really do think there is a place that we meet.

Cathy- that gay joke ("love the dress...") is as old as the hills. It's been attributed to the likes of Truman Capote as well as Tullulah Bankhead. If I had to choose, I'd go with Bankhead. She was the better drag queen of the two.

[Willy]

Willy: Your latest post reminded me of something I've been meaning to ask but had forgotten to. Can you share with us a little about your personal faith/values? I have heard a lot about what you DON'T believe but not very much about what you do.

I think the best description would be religiously agnostic, culturally Catholic. Meaning that I truly don't know about the god issue. There are forces we can't see or understand, but that doesn't mean they're spiritual in nature. After all, electromagnetism was seen only in the form of lightning before the 1800s, and to this day is incompletely understood, but no one sees god in a lightbulb.

I'm culturally Catholic 'cause I was raised that way, and even if I hadn't been raised that way I'd be culturally Christian because the U.S. is predominantly Christian and its ethical standards are based on Christianity to a large degree. If evangelicals would say the America has a predominantly Christian culture I wouldn't object, but when they say it's a "Christian nation" the connotation is theocratic and I object. (By the way, the Christians filched most of their material from the Greeks and Romans anyway, but that's a discussion for another time.)

As for the Catholic part, it has these two influences with me: First, I think the idea of guilt has a lot to recommend it, at least in small doses. Second, and related to the first, I think there is an obligation to charity. It doesn't make you good or better, it keeps you in the running for the title, "human being." The evangelical "success religions" -- the First Freeway Church of Dallas, and its antecedents going back to Puritan Boston -- make me want to puke or laugh, depending.

Third, and most importantly, I actively disdain faith in favor of works. I think the whole "born again" thing is a complete crock, a real joke. People who want their faith taken seriously should live their faith rather than proclaim it or use it as a weapon to make other people feel like shit. On the rare occasions when I encounter those true Christians, they get my unending respect. Partly because they are so rare.

Now, if evanglicals want to believe in faith rather than works, I say: Whatever gets ya through the night. Just don't run around putting your selective (or complete, for that matter) interpretation of the Bible into law and making everyone else perform the works you don't even care very much about to begin with. And if you think I'm going to hell, and if you think it lasts for eternity, then you really ought to let me enjoy the little sunshine I've got left before I'm plunged into the lake o'fire.

p.s.: People here think I'm a seething volcano who was done horribly wrong, blah blah blah. Not so. I just get p.o.'d about the evangelicals who have decided that the best and highest use of a bible is to hollow it out, insert a lead weight and fling it at the heads of the untermenschen. Oh, and I never got molested by a priest. I'm considering filing suit against the Catholic Church over that one: You mean to tell me there was a party going on and I wasn't invited? :)

[BruceChris]

I'm with you on what I think is your central point: If your karma is so radiant that you love your fellow man day to day, just because that is the way you are, you ain't got no use for being born-again. If, on the other hand, you spend all of your life wrapped in pious religiosity, instead of lending a helping hand when it's needed, no amount of borning is gonna help you.

Forgive me, I'm a little bummed, our freshly cleaned church just got tagged again.

Oh, and if I never was the recipient any unwarranted attention from a Priest, it's probably because I'm a Protestant.

May God grant you more Peace and Love than I'm feeling at the moment, Bruce Chris

[snuka12000]

You raised some very real and valid points. You have real and valid questions. I suggest that you read Mel White's book STRANGER AT THE GATE: To Be Gay And Christian In American. Also, on this website read the article that's entitled, "What the Bible Says - And Doesn't Say - About Homosexuality." Click on the RESOURSES tab above to get to that article.

I struggled with this for years.

What's a Christian? A Christian is a person that believes and has faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. All of us are sinners saved by God's grace. We need to Holy Spirit's guidance in our lives. The Lord Jesus Christ said nothing about homosexuality.

It is a mistake to take the Bible literally on every single thing. We must always take the Bible seriously. People tend to pick and choose which scriptures they want to stress and which scriptures they don't want to stress.

I believe that it is in God's will for gay people to be monogamous. There are man dangers in "sleeping around." However, just because a person gives in to their lusts doesn't mean that they don't believe in and have faith in Jesus.

I truly believe that the Lord Jesus Christ understands gay people. We are who we are and that can not be changed. God does not make mistakes; therefore, we should accept and embrace who we are.

[Pablo Rafael]

I actively disdain faith in favor of works. I think the whole "born again" thing is a complete crock, a real joke. People who want their faith taken seriously should live their faith rather than proclaim it or use it as a weapon to make other people feel like shit. On the rare occasions when I encounter those true Christians, they get my unending respect. Partly because they are so rare.


Willy,

You make a great point. I have found that I often disagree with what you say, being a Christian that considers himself to be theologically conservative. Your comments about us conservatives have not always been positive. I blame most of the negative image that Christianity had achieved on the conservative Christians of this nation.

The Bible says "You will know they are Christians by their love." My mom read a survey that asked, "What do you think of when you hear the word 'Christian'"? The most common response was, "critical". It is tragic that Christians are not known for their love, but for their heavy-handed use of the law. I must admit that in my years of church work I have gotten the most abuse not from non-believers but from the Christians who think they are right and are out to set the rest of us straight.

I have to separate how people who call themselves Christians act and what the teachings of the Bible call us to do. The key word of the Bible is "LOVE". Now we have to make sure that when people see Christians, love is what they see. We must realize that the people who go about proclaiming hate are not the voice of Christ in our world. The voice of Christ speaks through those who love and put their faith into action.

I must say I can't dismiss faith. Faith and works are two sides of the same coin. As James says "Faith without works is dead." However God's grace comes to us through faith. It is not one or the other; it is always both.

Please go easy on us Christians. There are a lot of us out here who really do want to put faith into action by showings God's love. In the end love always triumphs over hate.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[BronzDragon]

I'm befuddled. I don't understand. This isn't a question designed to cause anger but a fact-finding one.

I hope someone is brave enough to explain!

Thanks.

» *Thom says:* ~ Good Morning, Befuddled ;) your quesion is a currios one, and maybe I have one answer that can be added to the pile of others.

When they asked the Christ to list the most important of the Mizzvoth of the Torah, he listed that we ought to love the Eternal One with all our being, and love our neighbors as ourselves. From a Psychological and Existential perspective, I can only say this; If you cannot love the whole person, then the person you say you love is an object of fetish. My Gay behavior, orientation, identity, and all other aspects, are part of me, just as much as my love of coffee and a good book to read. I can love myself as a whole and complete individual, or as a collection of parts. This second path is the road to vain suffering and misery as terrible as any we can imagine.

Waz ain’t iz. Hoodoo Proverb
Thomas Potter, Warlock; ReiKi 2°;

[Zerbie]

.

I'm a little bummed, our freshly cleaned church just got tagged again.

May God grant you more Peace and Love than I'm feeling at the moment, Bruce Chris

(((((((Chris))))))) :pray:
:love: :love: :love:

So sorry to read about your church being vandalized *again.* Sad to hear of it. :( Just keep setting things right.

I've been thinking of you and your friends with best of wishes. . . .

[Willy]

Please go easy on us Christians. There are a lot of us out here who really do want to put faith into action by showings God's love. In the end love always triumphs over hate.
No can do on the go easy part, but I can tell you this much: Every so often -- once in a very great while -- I encounter a Christian. Inevitably, it's someone who never advertises it, and who, if you should happen to ask, downplays the hell out of it. Not out of shame but because that person understands where the cart goes and where the horse goes. These are the people you never see on television, or at the First Freeway Megachurch of Dallas.

[dewdrop_world]

Third, and most importantly, I actively disdain faith in favor of works. I think the whole "born again" thing is a complete crock, a real joke. People who want their faith taken seriously should live their faith rather than proclaim it or use it as a weapon to make other people feel like shit. On the rare occasions when I encounter those true Christians, they get my unending respect. Partly because they are so rare.

Then there's this, from Jesus himself:

1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, 4so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you.

5"And when you pray, do not be like the hypocrites, for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and on the street corners to be seen by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full. 6But when you pray, go into your room, close the door and pray to your Father, who is unseen. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you. 7And when you pray, do not keep on babbling like pagans, for they think they will be heard because of their many words. 8Do not be like them, for your Father knows what you need before you ask him.

James

[BruceChris]

Indeed, there are drawbacks to having one's church in a warehouse. Those large, flat sides can be tempting to adolescent males. We are beginning to figure out that this is all part of a turf war. The "blues" come in, and say, in effect, that this is now their territory. and then, the "blacks" spray over the blue, and say, in effect, oh no it's not.

With a wind chill of 9 below, this is not going to be fun, but we will cope, and we do get some of the most wonderful volunteers. Perhaps there is some small consolation in the knowledge that this is gang related, and not anti-GLBT.

It is also nice to know that there are people here willing to reach out.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[frankandcathy]

I am glad to see this thread sort of fading out of the "gay and Christian" question more into the "just plain old Christian" question.

I read somewhere that the #1 word that people use to describe Christians is "critical." Maybe it was on this board somewhere. In this thread? I can't recall.

Anyway, the point is: that's sad.

But the really wonderful news is that there are far more evangelical Christians who aren't fulfilling that expectation than I realized.

Marutidas pointed me to a great site by Tony Campolo and his wife in which they discuss their opposing views on "whether or not being gay is sinful" but they drive home the point that IT DOESN'T MATTER. I was especially buoyed by Tony's intense feelings that even though he feels being gay is not "right," he is very much against trying to convince gay people of this or even making it an issue. I was inspired by the overwhelming love and grace that they displayed. Tony Campolo is a big name Baptist preacher so it's good to hear someone teaching the Bible as Jesus intended it (so I believe)...which is to say, "Hey, love your neighbor. Love God. You're done!" I wonder why more CCs don't know about Mr. Campolo's view on this. Hmmm....

I've also been very encouraged by the folks that I've heard here defending their positions of faith and trying to "give it feet."

I'm probably not going to post much more to this thread because I'm kind of come to the end of my questions/answers. I'll keep checking to see what people are thinking, though.

~C

[rainbowdog]

HI FrankandCathy,
I agree with Kara on this one. God loves us no matter what our sexual orientations are. For your information there are a lot more heterosexual sins than homosexual sins. Let me summerized these 6 verses are really are about. First off, Sodom & Gommorah is about men raping other men and being hostile and violent. That is not only a sin but a crime as well.
The Holiness Code Levitcus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13- are talking about the laws back then, Did you know children who disobey their parents back then were put to death, it was a sin to eat raw shellfish like oysters, and it was a sin to wear 2 or more diffrent cloths like polyester and wool.
Romans 1:26 and 1:27 is talking about men having unnatural sex with other men as well as women having unnatural sex with other women. Paul was talking about heterosexual men and women having unnatural sex not homosexuals. It is natural for us because that is the way God made us.
Paul's letter to Corinthians and Timothy are also misintepreted. Paul is refering in these 2 verses as heterosexual males prostituting other males.
Finally if homosexuality was this horrific sin why was Jesus silent on the subject. We have learned so much since the Biblical times that there is this thing called sexual orientation. When 2 homosexuals are in a loving and committed relationship it is not a sin but a gift from God. I am proud to say i am not ashamed of being a homosexual. i am a proud lesbian Christian.
Also you might want to do more research on Gays and Christianity. Also be aware of the Fundamentalists religious right. What they say about us is not true.
i hope this web site will help you to understand us better.

God Bless,
Christy

[sammy1980]

HI FrankandCathy,
I agree with Kara on this one. God loves us no matter what our sexual orientations are. For your information there are a lot more heterosexual sins than homosexual sins. Let me summerized these 6 verses are really are about. First off, Sodom & Gommorah is about men raping other men and being hostile and violent. That is not only a sin but a crime as well.
The Holiness Code Levitcus 18:22 and Leviticus 20:13- are talking about the laws back then, Did you know children who disobey their parents back then were put to death, it was a sin to eat raw shellfish like oysters, and it was a sin to wear 2 or more diffrent cloths like polyester and wool.
Romans 1:26 and 1:27 is talking about men having unnatural sex with other men as well as women having unnatural sex with other women. Paul was talking about heterosexual men and women having unnatural sex not homosexuals. It is natural for us because that is the way God made us.
Paul's letter to Corinthians and Timothy are also misintepreted. Paul is refering in these 2 verses as heterosexual males prostituting other males.
Finally if homosexuality was this horrific sin why was Jesus silent on the subject. We have learned so much since the Biblical times that there is this thing called sexual orientation. When 2 homosexuals are in a loving and committed relationship it is not a sin but a gift from God. I am proud to say i am not ashamed of being a homosexual. i am a proud lesbian Christian.
Also you might want to do more research on Gays and Christianity. Also be aware of the Fundamentalists religious right. What they say about us is not true.
i hope this web site will help you to understand us better.

God Bless,
Christy

So, Christy, what do you think about Joe Dallas and his writings regarding this subject? Just curious.

Sam

[rainbowdog]

I know it is hard to do, but God tells us to pray for those who persecute us. We need to stick together and learn fom one another. My parents are ultra Christian Conservatives so i pray every night hoping one day they will accept me as a lesbian. We need to pray for Dobson, Falwell, Roberts, Kennedy, and rest of the fundamentalists gang. i know it is hard because if you are GBLT they are against us. But God is for us. Also let me make myself clear Homosexuality like heterosexuality is not a sin but a unique gift from God.

Peace,
Christy