CCU Demonstration

[lisanorman]

This is the first time I have viewed the SF website and was prompted to do so after our pastor this past week discussed SF and it's pending demonstration at Colorado Christian University. Let me begin my prefacing a few things. I am a christian, do doubt about it. However, my theology and political views never seem to fit into the box of modern conservative Christianity. What can I say, I didn't vote for George W. Bush. Anyway, there are a number of things I wish to address and welcome the input of others from everyside of the fence.

The topic of homosexuality and all things concerned with sexual orientation seem to be the rage these days, not just in secular society, but especially within the christian church. As I see it, believers, and by that I mean those who attend church and fit nicely into the stereotypical idea of a christian, are taught that there are many sins. All sins bear consequences, some greater than others. But there are sins that far exceed the jawdropping response begged by adultery, abortion, idolatry, and theft. The GLBT lifestyle being one. In my mind, both sides of this argument often seem unwilling to even entertain the notion of the other. The church see's all gays as sinful, in need of salvation and serious pyschotherapy. The GLBT sect views most evengelical churches as narrow-minded and as one member of this site said, "about as open as a can of closed worms." I have to believe there is middle ground somewhere and it frustrates me that this issue has become a deadlock between so many people.

This past Sunday our pastor, who I have a great deal of respect for, addressed homosexuality from the pulpit. He talked about the GLBT lifestyle as sinful because the bible says it is. He also said that the subtle sin of pride, self-righteousness, and assorted other things are sinful too. He said that as believers (you know what's coming...) we are to love the sinner, hate the sin. Duh. Trust me, in the gammit of sin, I've covered most of them. I just don't think it's my place to judge someone else about theirs. My greatest purpose in life is to let others know that they are not alone on their journey (whatever that may be) and that they are deeply loved by Christ. So here's my question: I've read over SF view on what the bible says and it indicated that the view of homosexuality at the time the old and new testament were written is entirely different than modern culture. True. But if you're really a believer and you accept the word of God to be absolute truth, how can you shift one interpretation to beget the lifestyle YOU choose to lead? I'm not just asking this in terms of homosexuality. I think we all do it one way or another - I know I certainly have. To me, the bible is clear on a whole lot of things, one above all. Jesus died for me, he loves me no matter the depth and gravity of my depravity and nothing, absolutely nothing, can separate me from his love. It doesn't matter if you're straight, gay, bisexual, or somewhere in between. You're human and Christ died for you just as much as he did for me. I guess my question lies within theology, what the bible says and so on.

I want to ask one more question and this is primarily aimed at straight-christians, although perhaps others can respond as well. What is it about the GLBT lifestyle that you are so against? What sets you off? Why are we allowing our leaders to dictate what is right and wrong instead of relying on the holy spirit to guide us? What makes you so uncomfortable about same-sex relationships? And why for crying out loud, do we allow GLBT individuals to be treated as sub-human, without the same priveleges and basic rights we are afforded?

One more thing...the equality ride is supposed to come to Colorado Christian University within the coming weeks. Our pastor asked the congregation (which numbers several thousand and includes some of the most influential members of our community) not only to pray, but to stand with CCU against SF and the ensuing (and I quote) "demonizing" of our higher education institutions through the promotion of the GLBT lifestyle. I think he missed the point. This isn't about being gay or straight, christian or non-christian, right or wrong. It's about the basic treatment and equality for all humanity, regardless of predicating circumstances. SoulForce and members of the equality ride, on demonstration day I won't be on either side of the picket line. I'll be in the middle of the road, hoping that each side can come to the table and genuinely hear and understand the other perspective.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Lisa Norman

[Vanessa White]

Lisa, let me say welcome to Soulforce forums, and I am glad that you are a person, a Christian person, that wants to find middle ground with others who think and feel different than yourself. I find that refreshing and enlightened, although I have met others like yourself as well, which is a step forward.

I need to know clearly what part of your post means, however. I am so grateful that we can count you as another person who seems to be advocating for similar rights for persons in relationships, whether opposite sex or same sex relationships. However, you are often in your post using the term "lifestyle", and I am not sure what you mean by that. If that is your way to say that you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then that is your opinion. I know that I was created the way that I am without making a conscious, active choice to have a gay sexual identity. I choose my relationships, as well as my relationship behaviors, but not my inner soul telling me that I am meant to be in same-sex relationships, such as when a heterosexual person just "knows" that they are meant for opposite sex relationships- that is not a choice for me. And, although I went to a private Catholic college, and then a Jesuit university, I am not knowledgable to a great extent about the Bible. But, I do attend church weekly and know that God , and Jesus, have a great love and admiration for me because I love others and take care of those in need. Whether I am loved for myself but not for my "sin" by those in my congregation, I do not know. I never have felt unloved by them, nor have they created any tension if they do have issues with my orientation. I really believe, whether the Bible is being interpreted correctly or not, that based on being a gay person, in a committed relationship and raising a child, that I am not a person committing a sin. I do believe that with many Christians, there will continue to be disagreement about that. But, I think what often stops up the dialogue is when our sexual orientation is clumped into a set of behaviors or living a certain "lifestyle", which is as generalizing as if I were to say "All Assemby of God persons are..." or "All Baptists are....", and I really try daily to treat each person as an individual. The Freedom Rides will hopefully help any gay students at these institutions, or their allies, feel loved, and not alone, and better able to advocate on behalf of themselves and others. I do believe that the middle ground is where I would like for us to all be on this topic, but it is difficult when many on both sides cannot get past the idea of "sin", "Sinner", and "lifestyle". FOr me anyway, that gets me stuck. Any other thoughts on this from anyone???? Peace to you Lisa Vanessa:pray:

[themattperry]

Lisa,

Thanks so much for your post. You bring a reasoned, honest point of view to these forums -- welcome!! You also raise some legitimate questions, which I can't help trying to answer. So here goes ...

In my mind, both sides of this argument often seem unwilling to even entertain the notion of the other. The church see's all gays as sinful, in need of salvation and serious pyschotherapy. The GLBT sect views most evengelical churches as narrow-minded and as one member of this site said, "about as open as a can of closed worms." I have to believe there is middle ground somewhere and it frustrates me that this issue has become a deadlock between so many people.

Lisa, I hear loud and clear your desire for middle ground. Many of us as gay and lesbian Christians feel the same desire. For example, my partner, who grew up in a fundamentalist church and whose family is still very religiously conservative, often feels torn between his past and family and the reality of who he his and who he loves. The idea of common ground is attractive to him because it is comforting. But when it comes to certain matters of justice there sometimes can simply be no compromise. Martin Luther King Jr. did not compromise in the face of injustice. Gandhi did not compromise in the face of injustice. Nor should the equality riders (who earlier today were arrested by Liberty University and Lynchburg Police) compromise in the face of injustice.

(As a note -- there are plenty of great churches and religious Colleges that also do not compromise in the face of injustice ... perhaps it's at one of these that you'd find the middle ground you seek. That said ....)

The truth as I see it is that common ground can sometimes code speech for the tacit acceptance of injustice. In this case we are talking about the injustice of homophobia and anti-glbt policies at religious colleges. Homophobia in schools and colleges is not an abstract problem, it a real and deadly problem -- one that contributes to the silencing, repression and even death of many many many glbt young people.

The glbt community has a suicide problem -- our youth attempt suicide and kill ourselves at a far higher rate than straight folks (see for example .... http://www.unhcc.unh.edu/resources/glbt/glbtsuicide.html
http://www.lambda.org/youth_suicide.htm) This reality is but one of the factors that intensifies and makes real this issue for me. The very survival of glbt youth in non-affirming churches is threatened by the words that come from the pulpit and the policies of those Church's institutions.

I guess what I'm trying to point out, Lisa, is this: when glbt folks describe certain churches as closed-minded by using some of the language you cited, this may indeed be an unhelpful way of speaking, depending on the context. It may not build connection or foster trust. However, please do not equate it to the oft-unintended devastation perpetrated by Churches on their most vulnerable members -- their glbt youth. Churches have real power over real people's lives, and they have a responsibility to their communities and families to not contribute to the death or exile of any of their members ...

Lisa, when your pastor said what he said from the pulpit the other Sunday, what do you think the gay and lesbian young people in the congregation were thinking and feeling? What do you think their experience in your church is like in general? This is not a theoretical question, because it is almost certain that they are there, silenced by the very type of words that your pastor speaks. I was once one of them.

The equality ride, by challenging these points of view, and the policies they produce , is standing up for those within your college and others who cannot stand for themselves. This stand is just -- it is right.

Do you agree?

But if you're really a believer and you accept the word of God to be absolute truth, how can you shift one interpretation to beget the lifestyle YOU choose to lead?

I wanted to also respond to this -- I would encourage you to read some of the other threads on this board for other thoughts, but briefly:

- The Bible mentions things related to prohibition of homosexuality in only a few places. It mentions prohibitions on divorce in many many many more places. Why do you we prohibit one but not the other?
- Even where the Bible seems to prohibit gay sex it is often unclear what is being prohibited and why (see Hamerlik's book http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/188636009X/102-5254760-3408944?v=glance&n=283155)
- Even granting that the Bible contains verses prohibiting gay sex, we are confronted with the reality that the Bible prohibits scores of other behaviors and practices that we engage in daily (wearing mixed fibres etc etc ...) and requires many actions that we find horrible and don't do (the execution of certain rape victims etc etc )

The truth as I see it is that we all interpret, through the Holy Spirit, the scriptures that are handed down. Too often in history, they have been used to perpetrate injustice on God's children. To me, this is simply another example.

Lisa, I'm glad you posted -- keep coming back ... I'd be curious to hear if you have any reactions to what I've said, and also I'm glad that you plan to come out and see the SF folks when they come to your school. My prayer is that you embrace them as they will no doubt be willing to embrace you. Perhaps you can find common ground with them by offering them welcome and working with them to change the broken spirits of those who still condemn and threaten the GLBT saints in your community.

[lisanorman]

[QUOTE=Vanessa White].

I need to know clearly what part of your post means, however. I am so grateful that we can count you as another person who seems to be advocating for similar rights for persons in relationships, whether opposite sex or same sex relationships. However, you are often in your post using the term "lifestyle", and I am not sure what you mean by that. If that is your way to say that you believe that homosexuality is a choice, then that is your opinion. I know that I was created the way that I am without making a conscious, active choice to have a gay sexual identity.

Vanessa,

The most candid and honest answer I can give you about using the term "lifestyle" is that I don't know what else to call it. To me, it's an adjective without any hidden meaning. Do I think people choose to be gay? Honestly, I don't know. What you have to understand is that I've been in church my whole life and grown up in a very conservative manner. I was taught and for many years that others chose to be gay. It's only been within the past two years that I've questioned that particular. No one in my family is gay, at least that I know of, but I do have some gay friends. I found out recently that a good friend of mine is gay but there is an enormous amount of shame on his part about it. In order to render our relationship functional and in tact, I haven't questioned him greatly on whether or not he chooses to be gay. The issues in his life are many and I don't wish to intrude nor open a discussion that would create strife. What's interesting is that I am the least passive person you'd meet. I'm terribly opinionated and tend to say exactly what I'm thinking before engaging that button in my brain that reasons things out.

Does that answer your question?

[BruceChris]

Lisa: It is always nice to hear from any person, but especially a young Christian person who is coming from a place of open-mindedness and
charatibility. There are many places on the web that can give you input, and insight for and by LGBT Christians. Take a look at Christianlesbians.com, or pflag.org,
or Welcomingresources.org, or welcomingresources.org/links. There are many, many groups of GLBT Christians out there who wish to harm no one,
believe themselves to as much children of God as anyone else, and only want to be loved by and love others. Most of them believe that they are the way God created them, and that God loves them, and wants them to be
happy.

Reguarding the homosexual "lifestyle", at least 99% of the time, it's pretty much the same as yours or mine. (I'm a straight guy, by the way, with many gay friends) They eat, sleep, have jobs or go to school, pay bills and taxes, do the laundry and shop for groceries.

Reguarding the Word of God, by whuch I guess you mean the Bible, try to remember that there are many, many translations of every part of the Bible.
Serious Biblical scholars start out by learning the original Greek, Hebrew, and
Aramaic as they were used, in spoken and written form, by the people of the time, two and more thousand years ago. One of the most highly reguarded Biblical scholars alive today is Episcopal Bishop John Spong, who has written many books about how the Bible has been translated, mis-
translated, and misused over time. At the Catholic conferance in the mid-
1960's called Vatican Two, one of the conclusions that they came to is that the Bible is NOT a science textbook. One of the things that science is learning more and more about these days is that the matter of being male
or female is a LOT more complicated than it looks. There is a VAST amount of material on that topic on the web, too. (I must in a somewhat tongue-in-
cheek way point out that in Genesis, it DOES say that God made us male
AND female, not male OR female)

Speaking of lifestyles, I might point out that there are many married straight couples in their older years, and many gay or lesbian couples in the same age group that have been together for many years, who are no longer having sex. Yet clearly, they love each other. What exactly is it that makes them different in the eyes of
God, or in the eyes of man?

Lisa, I'm going to sign off here, I wish you nothing but God's love, and I hope that you get many more responses. I am also hoping to hear from you,
too, soon. BruceChris

[revtj]

Lisa, thanks for your post...I hope many people respond as sincerely as you do when the SF riders get to CCU. Your questions are honest and pertinent and don't seem pre-loaded with bias and I appreciate your open mind.

You know I often wonder if one reason Str8 people have trouble understanding gay people is because they are str8. I'm not being ridiculous. I mean if you are attracted to the opposite gender, then same-gender attraction would logically seem abnormal and the thought of gay sex would probably be gross.

That seems OK to me as long as we don't try to force our way on the other or deny basic human rights to either group.

[lisanorman]

[QUOTE=themattperry]Lisa,

Lisa, when your pastor said what he said from the pulpit the other Sunday, what do you think the gay and lesbian young people in the congregation were thinking and feeling? What do you think their experience in your church is like in general? This is not a theoretical question, because it is almost certain that they are there, silenced by the very type of words that your pastor speaks. I was once one of them.

The equality ride, by challenging these points of view, and the policies they produce , is standing up for those within your college and others who cannot stand for themselves. This stand is just -- it is right.

Do you agree?



Matt,

Thank you for taking the time to address my questions.

In response to your initial paragraph regarding Ghandi and MLK, I agree with you. Let me ask one question though, specifically aimed to those who support the parameters in which SF operates. Why so much focus on Ghandi and MLK? Was Christ not our greatest teacher? I think both Ghandi and MLK are two of the greatest figures of modern time and their accomplishments to further equality among the masses through non-violent means is beyond any adjective I can find to say respectable. My point is that church leadership isn't going to hear you for a number of reasons, including citing both of those people continually. I think if you begin to address this issue from the standing of Christ, you'll bend their ears more.

Clarify one paragraph for me...I guess what I'm trying to point out, Lisa, is this: when glbt folks describe certain churches as closed-minded by using some of the language you cited, this may indeed be an unhelpful way of speaking, depending on the context. It may not build connection or foster trust. However, please do not equate it to the oft-unintended devastation perpetrated by Churches on their most vulnerable members -- their glbt youth. Churches have real power over real people's lives, and they have a responsibility to their communities and families to not contribute to the death or exile of any of their members ...

I agree that particular phrasing does not foster trust, it wasn't my intent to subscribe that it did. My point was that many churches across America are totally close-minded to accepting GLBT people. Explain what you were trying to say. For a college grad, I'm lost.

On the scripture issues, I'll get back to you. That's a subject I need to research and learn about. I totally see your point about other prohibitions and their placement within text, usage, etc.

Finally, how did I feel when our pastor said what he did on Sunday? How do I think it made GLBT people in our church feel? Well, the thought of getting up, walking out and giving the pastor the finger all crossed my mind. Perhaps against my better judgement, my butt stayed glued to my seat. However, Tuesday morning during our women's bible study, the issue came up again from the leader and at the point I left the room. How do I feel? I feel angry, hurt and disappointed. Angry because a group of people that are equally worthy as me were alientated that morning. Hurt because I know of one gay man who was sitting two rows in front of me, who felt needlessly shamed. His yoke of bondage isn't homosexuality, but that he can't openly be and say he's gay and maintain his position of leadership at our church. Disappointed overall because I thought our church was better than this. I don't know how the young gay people at our church are treated. My kids are still under five and I deal with how to write your name using the correct letters and not writing your identity in a high-school group. My best guess? It's not talked about much and those who do bring it up are likely shuttled to our counseling department and made to listen to Dennis Jernigan recordings happily provided by Focus on the Family. Here's the rub for me. I love my church. I mean, I love it. They've walked with me through some very dark times, often being the tangible Jesus I needed to live another day. On most points, I agree with the doctrine of our church and support our leadership. But to listen to a man I respect say that SF was going to "demonize" Colorado just about put me over the edge.

You'd think these things would have been sorted out for me years ago. I graduated from NYU, work in politics, and live a moderately left-wing (I say that with a smile) life. You want to know what my greatest hope is? Well, one of them at least? I want a good gay friend. I want to know that person for who they are, how they are like me, but also to know how they are different in terms of their sexual orientation. I don't want another carbon copy of myself to call friend.

Do I agree that this stand is just and right. With all my heart yes. But I think, and tell me if you agree, that there are 2 issues here. One, that GLBT peopole be allowed to attend any college of their choice regardless of their sexual orientation. Two, from the perspective of the churches, that the GLBT way of life be promoted and accepted across the board. When Liberty U hear SF was coming, they didn't step back and say "maybe we should allow GLBT people to enroll in our school." They said "Hmmm. This seems like an opportunity for GLBT people to come here and promote how they live, what they do and say that the bible supports what we consider to be sin." Let me ask a stupid question and the following analogy however poor explains my point. I hate Italian food. Because I don't like it, I choose not to go to Olive Garden. If you're gay, why on earth would you want to attend a college that is so against it? On a personal note, those who choose to go to Liberty under the direction of Jerry Falwell ought to have their heads examined (big smile on my face, not trying to piss anyone off).

Let me know what you think. I have much more to say, but my fingers are worn out from all this typing.

Lisa

[keltic63]

Wow, Lisa, you've done a lot of thinking and a lot of typing!

But if you're really a believer and you accept the word of God to be absolute truth, how can you shift one interpretation to beget the lifestyle YOU choose to lead?

On the scripture issues, I'll get back to you. That's a subject I need to research and learn about. I totally see your point about other prohibitions and their placement within text, usage, etc.


I picked out these 2 quotes from your posts because they indicate your struggle with the word of God. When we hear someone like your Pastor say that the Bible clearly says something, we really want to believe it because this person has studied and has some authority. If it doesn't ring true in our spirit, we get this kind of cognitive dissonance that you're experiencing. You're growing!

Peter had to grow as well. He didn't want to go to Cornelius' house because Cornelius was a sinner and a gentile. God gave Peter a vision and taught him that he shouldn't call things unclean when God has declared them clean. By obeying God, Peter went and was blessed, and Cornelius and his house were brought to salvation.

There are about 6 verses in the entire Bible that refer to homosexuality. Only one of them mentions same-sex relations between women. I'm guessing that from this we can gather that this issue is somehow not as important as some of our religious leaders are leading us to believe. As other has pointed out, there are verses very near those that appear to condemn homosexuality that also condemn fabric blends, such as poly-cottons, wool-silks etc, and verses that condemn eating shrimp or lobster. For some reason, we don't hear anything about those. There are many more that condemn divorce, yet the Bible Belt has the highest divorce rate in the nation. Massachussetts, which allows same-sex marriage, has the lowest divorce rate.

So, while you should go back and think about the verses, and how one might interpret them according to the culture of the time, the people being addressed in the scriptures, and what it means to us today, let me encourage you to think about the nature of God. Is God's love big enough to envelope all people? how would God have you respond to lgbt people?
Is there a "gay lifestyle"? what does it consist of? should all lgbt people be included in that description? What if the only knowledge I had of heterosexuals was what I learned from soap operas? would that be a fair representation of the heterosexual lifestyle?

Here's my "lifestyle" for this past week: Sunday morning-work at my job as music director for my church. Monday-spend time at the funeral home for my grandmother's passing, my partner at my side. Tuesday-take my children, from my straight marriage that ended in divorce, to the funeral and attend the wake. Wednesday-return to work where I teach music to elementary students, spend a quiet evening at home with my partner. Thursday-work again, and do my weekly "date-night" with my 18yo daughter, return home to spend a few quiet moments with my partner. Friday-put in a 14 hour day at a chorus festival, come home and get on the computer to see what I've missed at the Soulforce forums, while my partner calls for me from downstairs (I'm coming honey) Tomorrow- partner and I are going to the St. Patrick's Day parade......

yeah, that's pretty gay. I guess that's my choice. but as far as my orientation: I have no choice. I can't tell you what day I "chose" to be gay, and I'll bet you can't tell me what day you "chose" to be straight.

[Haven Herrin]

My name is Haven and I am on the Equality Ride as I type this. Every person's practice and belief in Christianity is a choice. One can take the Bible literally or seriously, but one cannot do both. Or rather, one would have to change one's apparel, eating habits, belief in gender and racial equality, and a whole host of other radical changes in order to take the Bible literally.

The Bible has been used before to impugn women, people of color, and those of other faiths. In those times, people chose certain parts of the Bible to justify their social prejudice. And now it is my contention that the same misuse of the Bible to justify a social prejudice towards GLBT people is occurring. One can choose to discriminate against me according to the Bible, and one can choose to love me and accept me according to the Bible. Adequate scriptural justification is available for both choices. So now I ask those who would impugn me: why do you choose to discriminate?

[Venari]

... Every person's practice and belief in Christianity is a choice. One can take the Bible literally or seriously, but one cannot do both. Or rather, one would have to change one's apparel, eating habits, belief in gender and racial equality, and a whole host of other radical changes in order to take the Bible literally.

The Bible has been used before to impugn women, people of color, and those of other faiths. In those times, people chose certain parts of the Bible to justify their social prejudice. And now it is my contention that the same misuse of the Bible to justify a social prejudice towards GLBT people is occurring. One can choose to discriminate against me according to the Bible, and one can choose to love me and accept me according to the Bible. Adequate scriptural justification is available for both choices. So now I ask those who would impugn me: why do you choose to discriminate?

Haven,

You begin with the assertion that every person's practice and belief in Christianity is a choice. I believe that to be true above all, we have a freedom to choose what we will follow and what we will choose to ignore.

The assertion that one cannot take the Bible to be both literally and serious seems to be flawed if not an oxymoron. As Christians it is not fully clear what, if any, of the Levitical laws still apply to our lives. Reading Acts 15:19-20 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015:19-20&version=31) we are seen one of the only lists in the Bible of what a Christian is to abstain from. So the only changes in eating habits are not eating food sacrificed to idols, meat form animals that were strangled and from blood. So there is no where in the New Testament where we are given any probation about what we wear or gender and racial equality ... nor is there any evidence of the "whole host of other radical changes" you claim there are.

Sadly you set up a poor argument; people have selectively used the Bible for their own agenda to for instance oppress women or to support racism. Yet you seem to fall into the same fallacy by propagating that one cannot take the Bible literally because of the "radical" changes it requires.

So people can take the Bible seriously and literally and not commit the fallacies you claim. These people are the ones with a firm foundation in what the Bible truly teaches and do not rely on what other say or what tradition/doctrine teaches.

So, if its not too imprudent, I would like to challenge you to present "solid" evidence for the argument you present that one cannot take the Bible seriously and literally.

-Venari

[Jamie McDaniel]

So there is no where in the New Testament where we are given any probation about what we wear or gender and racial equality ... nor is there any evidence of the "whole host of other radical changes" you claim there are.
Venari, I think Haven was talking about the Bible as a whole when she wrote that a strictly literal interpretation would result in "chang[ing] one's apparel, eating habits, belief in gender and racial equality, and a whole host of other radical changes." You obviously study the Bible, so I'm not sure why you excluded the Hebrew scriptures in order to say she was not correct.

Incidently, I really love the book of Acts. That passage you quoted is part of a great story because the early church was nearly torn apart by the issue of circumcision, gentile inclusion, and the eating of "unclean" foods. Even Peter, after having had his roof-top vision and meeting Cornelius, apparently backslid to the legalistic circumcision side.

I just purchased a new translation, actually a paraphrase of the Bible, called "The Message." After just reading Genesis again, I personally feel very uncomfortable about using the word "literal" around the Bible. I can't really believe humans 6000 years ago lived 900+ years or that Noah actually built an ark that was half the size of a modern cruise ship. (Although I should add that if had been asked back when I was a Southern Baptist, I would probably have said that I did believe just that because "the Bible said.")

So the idea of "taking the Bible seriously" sounds so much more open to the Spirit to me. How do you feel about those words, Venari, "seriously" compared to "literally"?

[Zerbie]

Thank you so much for coming over here to chat.

I resonate to you feeling anger and hurt when people in the church you respect and love "demonize" gays. I don't have a church background myself, but I grew up with a viciously homophobic family, and as a young person my best friend was a vicious homophobe, but I didn't know that until some of our other friends who were gay came out, and suddenly she treated them like lepers. The hurt I felt when she did this to our mutual friends was overwhelming. She would shame them loudly, in public!! I always waited expectantly for them to stand up to her, but it never happened: they would become ashamed, and run off, afraid to speak to either of us again. My conscience couldn't handle it: people would assume I agreed with her unless I spoke out loudly in opposition. And so, pretty quickly, I did. It was my own sense of how people deserve to be treated that compelled me to speak out/distance myself from the dehumanizing things that were being said.

As far as the word "lifestyle"? Our lifestyles are determined far more by our values, our jobs/education, our families, our spirituality, than by whether we are romantically attracted to boys or girls or both. And that is why it saddens some of us to hear being gay referred to as a "lifestyle." As far as what to call it? What if we just call it "being gay"?

Again, thanks for visiting - I hope you'll come back often. It can be SO difficult to speak about these topics - especially for the first time. So I admire you for doing so. Thank you.

[Venari]

Venari, I think Haven was talking about the Bible as a whole .... You obviously study the Bible, so I'm not sure why you excluded the Hebrew scriptures in order to say she was not correct.

Jamie,

The reason I excluded the Old Testament is the sections that Haven referred to are within the Levitical cleanness and holiness codes. For the sake of space I am going to forgo complete citations. But with the coming of Christ and the establishment of the New Covenant we are freed from the laws. Being adherence to the Levitical code is what made a person holy and clean or unholy and unclean. So with the redemptive sacrifice of Jesus for the remission of sins we are freed from the laws, as confession of Jesus is what sanctifies a believer. To sum it up, the laws in the Levitical code offers an important history laying the foundation for the Christian faith, but they laws no longer apply to the life of a Christian.

Being that a person who takes the literally will know those passages are foundational to the Christian faith but not fully applicable.


So the idea of "taking the Bible seriously" sounds so much more open to the Spirit to me. How do you feel about those words, Venari, "seriously" compared to "literally"?

This leads to why I chose to raise the challenge. Literalism is often given a bad rap as it is often the people who claim a literal translation that pick and choose what passages to follow and what to ignore to meet their agenda. While serious means you actually believe what the Bible says.

So would say a being serious about the Bible, is truly believing in its message and a person who takes it literally takes the time to study and learn what all the passages mean and how they interact and the truth they have for believers.

I hope this answers your question.

-Venari

[BruceChris]

Lisa:

You asked earlier for an explanation of why so many straight Christians, or other people are often much more upset about gays and lesbians, or GLBT
folk in general, than about many real problems in this world. It's called
homophobia, and it is literally a fear of having to face up to issues of sexuality and homosexuality in one's own life. Some have referred to it as being insecure about one's own hetrosexuality.

Probably around half of us have felt attraction to someone of the same sex
at one time or another in our lives. This is fairly normal. But for a perhaps
fear or shame ridden conservative Christian, this is a very frightening thing.

Let's take a step back here, and review a little basic Freudian psychology. Almost always, when a person sees something within themselves
that they find unacceptable, they will use ego defenses called denial, and
projection. First, they will deny that they have a problem, or any
problem in this area. Then, they project this problem onto someone else, and blame the other person for the problem. Finally, they blame and
attempt to change the other person, because in their mind, if they can
"save" the other person, they "save" themselves.

Then as a final part of the process, because they have fought off the temptation that they see, they can say that for themselves this was a matter of choice. And if it was a choice for them, obviously it must be
a choice for everyone else.

Of course if you take a left-handed person and tie their left hand behind their back long enough, you can force them or teach them to do everything with their right hand, and so convince yourself that you have "solved" their "problem" of being left handed. Incidentally, at least in the past, in other languages, if you were left handed, you were referred to as being gauche, or sinister.

Finally, the more that a person is attracted to someone of the same sex, and the harder they fight it off, the more conflicted they are within themselves.
Almost always, the longer this person continues to present themselves to the world as straight, the more they will continue to rage against homosexuality, and the more people they will persecute. There are some
fairly well known individuals out there who have made a career out of
condemning, persecuting, and demonstrating against gays. Since some of them are well known for bringing lawsuits against anyone they can, we won't name names here.

Just one other thing to add, I believe that what we are looking for is not a middle ground, but Common Ground.

Lisa, (and others), I hope that I have been able to shed a little light on the question that you asked.

Peace and Love, BruceChris

[lisanorman]

I want to address two things. First and again, the word lifestyle being used in context to refer to homosexuality. There have been a number of responses that surmise I believe homosexuality to be a choice and furthermore, the usage of the term lifestyle somehow is derogatory. Perhaps my meaning and explanations were not clearly stated. I was honest when I said that I'm not sure if homosexuality is a choice. While my logic tells me it's not, 28 years of the church saying it is and providing their version of the truth creates a pull for me. Frankly, it really doesn't matter what I think about that. If you're gay, you're gay; if you're straight, you're straight. The bottomline is that we're all people, we all have strengths and weaknessess. In using the term lifestyle, I simply mean a way of life. My heterosexuality is a way of life, homosexuality is a way of life, our everday activities are a way of life. It is no way meant to be deaming or imply I think someone chooses their homosexuality. When I posted my original essay, I couldn't think of any other term.

Second, literal vs. serious interpretation of the bible. I think you must have both and balance them appropriately. I consider myself a student of the Bible and a child of God. Some passages of scripture I take literally, like the 10 commandments. Don't committ murder, worship to false gods, committ adultery and so on. To me, those are pretty literal and leave little room for any other perspective. Taking the bible seriously does not mean you must leave out literal interpretation. If we took everything literally, well, we still be living about 800 years behind the current time. To me, this is where the holy spirit does his work. He helps and guides us as we study the word to see how it practically applies to our life today, in this moment. I think it erroneous and perhaps on the verge of egotistic to say interpretation of the bible must be one way or the other. I take a lot of the bible literally and all of it seriously.

[Jamie McDaniel]

Frankly, it really doesn't matter what I think about that. If you're gay, you're gay; if you're straight, you're straight. The bottomline is that we're all people, we all have strengths and weaknessess.

Yes, and living openly as a gay man is a strength of mine. So is the love I show my boyfriend. Actively working for marriage equality is another.

[themattperry]

Lisa,

Thanks for your thoughtful response to my post and your continued presence here ... I hope that you feel welcomed even though what we discuss is difficult. I wanted to respond to your request for clarification:


Clarify one paragraph for me...I guess what I'm trying to point out, Lisa, is this: when glbt folks describe certain churches as closed-minded by using some of the language you cited, this may indeed be an unhelpful way of speaking, depending on the context. It may not build connection or foster trust. However, please do not equate it to the oft-unintended devastation perpetrated by Churches on their most vulnerable members -- their glbt youth. Churches have real power over real people's lives, and they have a responsibility to their communities and families to not contribute to the death or exile of any of their members ...


In your post, you said basically taht both the GLBT community and the Church say hurtful and inaccurate things about eachother, and this results in a lack of common ground. What I meant by my response -- and perhaps it was not so clear -- is just that when gay people claim that a church is closed-minded and backwards, it results in an unhelpful and distrustful atmosphere between the two sides. When Churches preach a discriminatory and unloving stance towards gay people, the result is the same BUT IN ADDITION Churches contribute to an environment of silence, mistrust and fear in which the stakes are much higher. Namely churches effect the exiile and/or death of their own young members, betraying these children of God by labling them as fundamentally defective. Neither side should throw stones ... we should engage eachother in love and understanding. All I am saying is that when the church throws stones, people die, whehter in soul or body.

Also, I wanted to thank you for your honesty about scriptural issues and how we read the Bible. Literally? With modern, interpretive eyes? So much comes down to this, and so many fundamentalists would be freed in mind and heart if just given the freedom to read scripture with the eyes and mind that God gave them. Your most recent post follows up on this:


Taking the bible seriously does not mean you must leave out literal interpretation. If we took everything literally, well, we still be living about 800 years behind the current time. To me, this is where the holy spirit does his work. He helps and guides us as we study the word to see how it practically applies to our life today, in this moment. I think it erroneous and perhaps on the verge of egotistic to say interpretation of the bible must be one way or the other. I take a lot of the bible literally and all of it seriously.

This, to me, is the heart of the matter. You state your point of view very clearly, and I appreciate that. It seems to me that you approach some of the Bible literally, and some not literally. This is an overwhelmingly common approach, even among those who claim to be strict literalists. Strict literalism in this day and age is an impossibility -- anyone practicing it would be considered a monster. The truth is that we ALL interpret the Bible ... even strict literalism itself is an interpretation. Lisa, it seems that you take some passages of the Bible literally ... ie as clear instructions ... and other parts not. My questions to you are these:

1. How do you decide which part to take literally, and which part not? You cited the Holy Spirit ... and I agree, the Spirit guides us in all that we do. However, the Spirit leads people in different directions at different times. What if another believer felt spirit-lead to interpret a passage literally that you did not? For example, perhaps the spirit would lead me to interpret literally the Levitical law requiring a woman to be stoned to death if she did not cry out loud enough during her rape. I use an extreme example of course, but this is not very far from where we gay people find ourselves. One or two Levitical laws, and old testament story and one Pauline writing are being read literally and it is killing us. So who is right? It's Ok to say it's up to the Spirit as long as your life and limb are not threatened by a literal interpretation. I'm interested in your response to this.

2. I disagree with your assesment that it is egotistical to say that a purely non-literal reading is egotistical. In fact, by your own description of how you read the Bible Lisa, I would go so far as to say that YOU area purely non-literal reader. Here's why: While reading a part of the Bible, Lisa, you admit that you make a decision based on any number of factors including the Holy Spirit on how you are going to read the passage ... literally (as instruction), or not? This decision, guided by the spirit, is yours alone ... it is made outside the context of the Bible, and it completely governs the meaning you will draw from the passage you read. This shows that to EVERYTHING you read in the Bible, even those parts that you end up taking as literal instruction, you first apply your own human judgement. So whether or not this is egotistical, it is the fate of us all as God-created humans. We read things to which we appply our own judgements. Do you agree?


I think that what another poster might have meant by "you can either take the Bible literally or take it seriously" is that we might want to pretend that we do not apply our own human judgement and interpretations to scripture, but to say that we don't is a fantasy and it cheapens our relationship with the Bible.

Lisa, I hope this clarifies what I meant earlier, and I hope that you keep posting ... it has been enlightening to me. Also, let me reiterate that I hope that you find it within you to welcome the freedom riders when they arrive at your College -- they come to speak the truth in love.

[Emproph]

'Night before last, by meaningless coincidence, I was distinctly thinking that the most people ARE “middle of the road” and would be amenable to our “demands” of equality if it weren’t for the Lies of the few and the proud.

Speak of fear, early and often, openly and honestly. “Madonna phenomenon,” as I used to refer to her success story, was nothing more than “fearlessness.” I understand now what she meant.

Fearlessness is the result of the certainty of not only the goal, but also of it’s attainment. A confidence arisen out of one’s knowledge of the ability to accomplish it, which at this point in human evolution needs to be re-learned.

I think he missed the point. This isn't about being gay or straight, christian or non-christian, right or wrong. It's about the basic treatment and equality for all humanity, regardless of predicating circumstances. SoulForce and members of the equality ride, on demonstration day I won't be on either side of the picket line. I'll be in the middle of the road, hoping that each side can come to the table and genuinely hear and understand the other perspective.
Lisa, that part reminds me of Tammy Bruce. Rich white conservative homophobes LOVE her, yet she's openly democratic and a lesbian. You’d think she’s a conservative, but she really epitomizes what you suggest. I ‘interpret’ her as the quintessential pragmatic leftist. I read a quote earlier, something like: As opinionated as she is, is how much respect she has for the opinions of others. She thinks Bush is personally a good guy, but unlike most of today’s conservatives, she has the guts to acknowledge that his domestic policies et al, are deplorable. http://tammybruce.com/

I remember seeing her on CSPAN for the first time. She had me at “Pretend for a moment George Bush is NOT the devil.” She knew my language... And a few months ago on her second book tour, within ten minutes I was in support of the war and wanted to buy a gun, both for the right reasons. Unlike GW, if she were president I would at least have confidence in her ability to lie. I’d know that something was going on upstairs.

I don’t consider her a liar but she does actually think Bush is a good guy. But just from the times I’ve heard her speak, I respect that she has come to that conclusion after much careful and honest consideration. No wasted debate, I know where she stands. Furthermore, I have every confidence that when/if new or better information is presented, it could and would be objectively considered.

Her sincerity is not relevant in that respect, I agree with her example of “agree to disagree” as the way to go. It’s the most realistic approach to service the needs of the whole (everyone). The Goal. It costs only the death of the fear of fear to get there. ;)

Akin to what I was trying to relay in the “Is bigotry learned or born” thread, we need to show them we are equal by being superior at demonstrating equality (the golden rule/Christianity/the constitution etc.). As far as the tactics involved and basis of prejudice, homophobia and misogyny may as well be synonymous. I’m beginning to understand the institutionalized prejudice women have been facing for millennia, and that this is not a new fight, it's just new to me. The principle is the same.

The goal is to be as one, Heaven on Earth. But NOT defined as “morally relative, as long as it doesn’t hurt anybody” debauchery. Defined as insuring myself and my family’s physical, emotional, and spiritual safety. If we can show them, that we know what the goal is better than they do, by demonstrating our superior ability to bring it into focus better, in regard to this issue, we have a chance. If every "conservative" was as pragmatic as Tammy Bruce, the vitriol and anger would be eliminated from the ‘controversial’ issues.

I bring her up as an example because when you really think about it there is a method to the madness. As absurd as I consider my desire for equal rights to be an attack on their religious freedom, two “make sense of it all” things occur to me. One, it’s natural to think homosexuality is unnatural. Extrapolating from that, any protest on our part of this definition is “naturally” evidence of our delusion. And two, assuming we really are a bunch of sickos, our demand for equal rights would and should be seen as an attack (imagine that universe. Now wake up to that universe every day).

They have ingrained in them the historical and biblical notion of Christian persecution, but on a practical level they all experience or are at least sensitive to the “persecution” of being labeled a “Jesus freak” et al. Considering homosexuality unnatural is natural, being hated for not hating defies logic and effectively puts them on equal standing with the principle of persecution Jesus endured. A legitimate outrage if it were true. By not understanding this about them, we “commit” the same “sin” they do in being victims of “untruth.”

Most of us have seen Joe Brummers impeccable examples of speaking “truth in love,” I guess what I’m suggesting is to consciously take it that next exponential step. Use that same “tactic” of truth in love, yet do so with the “agenda” of focusing on WHY we believe what we do, in such a way that the conversation/debate itself becomes the bonding experience. Even if it’s a “failure” to understand or be understood, the method of approach WILL be understood, this is the key.

{We’re co-creaters with God because we’ve been given the power to create the future.}

The opposite of the “Intelligent Design” debate. The debate itself was created not to teach ID, but to teach that it is ‘intelligent’ to debate whether something should be taught as science, before it has even been determined to be science. Then overtake science, eliminate the need for logic and voila, theocracy USA.

The difference of what I’m suggesting is that we’d be teaching the meaning of importance specifically through honest humility
0/' And when the goin' get's a little bit tough, you've got to give, a little bit more. 0/' Missing Persons, 'Give.' http://lyrics-keeper.com/en/missing-persons/give.html

Instead of being insulted by their allegations, why not ask why? (that should be our new slogan) They're obviously under tremendous pressure. Why do they feel insulted? If going further would cause discord, leave it at that, let it rest. The expression of the message is the message.

Most of us here relate our personal witness of God/Love with the Bible but many of 'them' equate their personal experience with it (ergo the need for inerrancy. Inerrancy equals certainty).

If you’ve experienced the recognition of direct revelation you know what I’m talking about. One immediate understanding is that those who do not see, believe it is not possible for you to see either, and thus view your witness as an “example of your delusion,” as opposed to having insight. They’re fighting the same battle we are, except they think we don’t understand their concerns. This is the “middle” where we need to be with them. I think Most can be reached when reason is applied thoroughly and practically. If we could show that we understand this, I think it would be something they would respond to because they could relate to it. At the very least they’d be left with the impression that we took the time to understand them better. The only “agenda” involved would be in our specific and open intent to communicate that understanding.

Someone here said it recently, concurrent to my thought, that the issue isn’t so much about what we believe but why we believe it. If we could sit down and have a rational discussion with that as the premise everything would be just loverly. :rainbow:

First of course, we have to agree that asking why is the most important question.

[Zerbie]

I'm going to call one of your basic premises into question.
It's natural to think homosexuality is unnatural." IT IS????? Then I was an unnatural child. I found it utterly natural that one would love another human being. Of course! I did soon "learn" to suspect it to be unnatural.

Therefore the question: IS it actually natural to think homosexuality is unnatural? Or does one *learn* to think so?

That being said, I enjoyed your post. . .Emproph, you are making more and more sense to me, maybe I've learned to connect with your writing style. :)

[Emproph]

I'm going to call one of your basic premises into question.
It's natural to think homosexuality is unnatural." IT IS????? Then I was an unnatural child. I found it utterly natural that one would love another human being. Ew, you believe in Love? :eek:
(This first paragraph is satire)
When I see a heterosexual, my mind immediately races to the bedroom. I find that revolting, But not having superiority tendencies, I "naturally" recognize the difference between “what they do” and “who they are,” making my version of equality, superior to theirs. (Keep in mind I’m one book short of being the most prejudiced person on the continental shelf, I still have to remind myself that vegan snake handling clowns are people too.)

Therefore the question: IS it actually natural to think homosexuality is unnatural? Or does one *learn* to think so?
Seriously:
Maybe “think” is the wrong characterization, it implies an effort to understand.

It’s natural to ASSUME homosexuality is unnatural. Couple that with the heterosexual male survival instinct, kill or be killed now only expressible as “I’m better than you are,” add superiority tendencies, a Bible “commanding” you to hate what you already love to hate most, not being aware of knowing anyone whose gay, and you have a lifetime supply of egomania in the name of all that is good holy and true. What supremacist wouldn't find that natural?

I hope that's sufficient, otherwise my cop out is this: It’s a rich tapestry of denial and intrigue, interlaced with pride that no one post could properly sum up. :cool:

That being said, I enjoyed your post. . .Emproph, you are making more and more sense to me, maybe I've learned to connect with your writing style.
A little of both I think. I’ve been making it a point to be clearer lately. I’m hoping to someday make it a habit. :)

P.S. I preach WAY better than I practice.

[Zerbie]

Ew, you believe in Love? :eek:

When I see a heterosexual, my mind immediately races to the bedroom. I find that revolting, But not having superiority tendencies, I "naturally" recognize the difference between “what they do” and “who they are,” making my version of equality, superior to theirs. (Keep in mind I’m one book short of being the most prejudiced person on the continental shelf, I still have to remind myself that vegan snake handling clowns are people too.)






Er, huhhhh??????????????

When I say folks learn to "think" homosexuality is unnatural, I really do mean "think" in the sense of: Thought. Done. Book written. Concluded. Over and out. I didn't mean the reasoning process, which is much more alive. That they are not reasoning, but thinking someone else's thought, which isn't sincerely theirs. A static thought which both comes from and feeds back into the culturally encrypted homophobia we observe. You find this natural? I find it most unnatural - have you watched the movie South Pacific lately? "You've got to be carefully taught." It applies here as well. People learn homophobia. Or - don't they?!?!

[Emproph]

When I say folks learn to "think" homosexuality is unnatural, I really do mean "think" in the sense of: Thought. Done. Book written. Concluded. Over and out. I didn't mean the reasoning process, which is much more alive. I think the reasoning process is the whole point. The real issue is how much importance is placed on thinking through the consequences of one’s actions, words, beliefs etc. Homophobia and prejudice is just one aspect of that.
That they are not reasoning, but thinking someone else's thought, which isn't sincerely theirs. A static thought which both comes from and feeds back into the culturally encrypted homophobia we observe.
With some “Christians” intent on believing in Biblical inerrancy for the sake of superiority, they already have a foundation of denial paved for avoiding the importance of understanding. As long as this is maintained, anything desired can be believed or not. To that extent, yes people are definitely taught, ok, I think I see what you’re saying.
Yes, people are definitely taught to specifically hate for whatever reasons, without the programming to hate or think of someone or something as unnatural then it would simply be understood to “be.” Without the reasoning process, that’s what I consider to be assumption, I consider most people to be this. (Blanket acceptance of the lies told. The preacher’s saying it, it must be true.)

As far as those who’ve learned to hate, be prejudiced etc., are concerned, I think I’m trying to make a distinction between those who understand and agree with the “lesson” out of a sense of superiority and those who agree with it out of convenience of "certainty" or for fear of hell. The latter can be reached, the prior must be de-throned, a potentially big difference.
You find this natural? I find it most unnatural - have you watched the movie South Pacific lately? "You've got to be carefully taught." It applies here as well. People learn homophobia. Or - don't they?!?! That’s the 64,000 question! I see that it’s both. My question is, to what extent is it “nature vs. nurture.” But unlike homosexuality, the determination of “superiority tendencies” or being “taught” to hate can actually be measured in contrast with the guttural, immediate, face value response of disgust to the idea of homosexuality.

I’m thinking stereotypical genetic Male and Female characteristics here in response to social mores. Men are used to kill or be killed, Women are used to acceptance and nurture. That's just one regard in which I think there is a measurable difference of human egotistical behavior. That inclination to latch onto desired truth as opposed to actual truth.
What it really comes down to is, to what extent is social superiority taught and/or learned? (< Is that the crux of what you’re saying?)
{It’s been awhile since I’ve seen South Pacific, all I remember is peggy Lee singing scary high and something about shampoo.}

Am I understanding you or not? I wanna make sure we’re disagreeing about the same thing. :D

[Jamie McDaniel]

Zerbie had posted a good reponse that then moved this thread into a discussion deserving of its own thread. That thread can be found here:

Sexual Orientations that Shift (http://www.soulforce.org/forums/showthread.php?t=335)

Unfortunately in the moving of posts and creating a new thread, I inadvertently lost Zerbie's response that started it! That post was going to stay here with this thread.

Here is part of Zerbie's post from Venari's message that quoted it. Hopefully Zerbie can remember the rest and repost. Sorry Zerbie.

Those who have questioned what they were taught, or who somehow leap-frogged right over that lesson, are generally accepting and rather, what's the word? *neutral* in their reactions to gay people. And that reads as a much more natural way of being than the homophobic way. Whenever I was around homophobic persons, including semi-closeted, conflicted gays, I always felt awkward and uncomfortable with the issue. Once I met folks for whom it was a non-issue, suddenly the self-consciousness and awkwardness was gone from the room. Everyone was just living. Finally.

[Zerbie]

No, Jamie, it's mostly gone. The post you're talking about responded to Emproph, who went off on several nifty tangents, and brought him back to the same question I made about his basic premise: 'It's natural to find homosexuality unnatural.' I still say, no. It's unnatural to believe so, one has to be taught to believe such a thing.

Here's stuff not included in the deleted post: Emproph, since you forgot what South Pacific is all about (the something about shampoo was "I'm gonna was that man right outta my hair.) Go rent South Pacific and watch it through. Seriously. Please do. It's an excellent show. From, when? Around 1950 I think perhaps?

It deals strongly with racism - Army nurse Nellie Forbush falls in love with French exile Emile deBec who fathered 2 children with a polynesian woman (now deceased) and Nellie has been trained since childhood that mixed racial relationships are wrong. She doesn't know why she feels that way, she just does. Meanwhile, her platonic officer friend falls in love with a Polynesian girl and the islanders all expect him to marry her, but he embarasses and rejects her because his family in Philadelphia would never approve. He then sings the song "You've got to be carefully taught" to Emile deBec explaining how American culture teaches people from childhood to have these reactions, even though no one can give a logical reason for them. Now that I've spoiled much of the movie for you - go out and rent it! It's really a Must See. Too much of it is still relevant today.

[Emproph]

Emproph, who went off on several nifty tangents, and brought him back to the same question I made about his basic premise: 'It's natural to find homosexuality unnatural.' I still say, no. It's unnatural to believe so, one has to be taught to believe such a thing.
Sorry for the circular tangents.

I don’t think I’m talking about sustained homophobia/prejudice.

Take a heterosexual male for example. To him, the idea of being attracted to other men is unnatural. Homosexuality for him is unnatural. He didn’t learn this, he knows it.

From there you can argue the extent to which this is projected onto others by self, by teaching, superiority tendencies, growing up in a society where most people are heterosexual, etc.

Homophobia may be the same principle as run of the mill bigotry, but because it deals with nature itself as far as what is perceived to be “nature of self,” there is an insidious “nature” to homophobic bigotry that needs to be rooted out and addressed. I guess I'm trying to pin down an explanation as to why it’s so easily not seen as bigotry.

I suppose if we grew up in a society with varying degrees of bisexuality, we’d learn as children that sexuality is not fixed. A member of this society might be much less likely to project what they find unnatural onto others. Unnatural to them would be understood to be different, not unnatural.

I’ll make it a point to catch South Pacific again. ;)

[Zerbie]

So we are talking about different things. I was talking about the received opinion that there is something unnatural about same-sex love, and you were talking about how a straight person feels about the idea of romance with a member of their own sex. They are different points - one is a cuturally received conditioning, the other is the way someone's personal wiring is, uh, wired. :p