For sammy1980

[dewdrop_world]

Sammy1980 --

I was considering making a point by point rebuttal against your posts, but it looks like keltic and others have already been busy with that. So I want instead to make some more general observations and hopefully build a little trust before dealing with specific grievances.

First, just a very, very general point about "user friendliness" -- it's extremely hard to read huge blocks of text where there are no paragraphs. It's very tiring for the eye.

That's an insignificant point of typography, mainly a personal preference, ignore if you like. Now let's get to business --

My overwhelming question for you as I read your posts is, what do you think of all of this? I ask because almost everything you're saying here is very very familiar. Your points are nearly exact quotations of points I've heard going back some 16 years to the time when I came out of the closet. So, are they truly your opinions, tested against hard evidence, or are they things you've been told that you simply accepted as true?

It looks like you've been studying some "opposition research" -- the names of companies, LGBT elected officials etc. -- and I find myself also wondering if you're here to hear a different side of the story so that you can make up your own mind, or if you're here mainly to get some things off your chest. (Either way is fine, but the way you approach us is, in part, going to determine the kind of response you get.)

What I mean is, some of the things you've said have been pretty one-sided. There is no gay conspiracy to make conservative Christianity illegal, for instance. The idea that we will be rounding CC's up and herding them into prisons strikes me as a right-wing paranoid fantasy, the type that would be used in an anti-gay fundraising letter, more than a reasoned response to what gay people are really arguing for.

You mentioned legislation concerning the schools. Are you aware of cases where gay students have been harassed, physically threatened, even beaten, and teachers were aware of the harassment and violence but did nothing to stop it because of their personal opposition to (or discomfort with) homosexuality? Are you aware of cases where the teachers joined in with insults against gay students, and were never disciplined?

We are aware of those cases, and that is the motivation for anti-bullying legislation. We are not talking about "any criticism," nor should we. I'm very serious about the First Amendment. You can say things that really tick me off, but if one of my "friends" says you shouldn't have the right to say it (even nicely) then I'm walking away. No, in this case we're talking about schools that have failed to create safe learning environments for all students, not just the nice straight ones.

It's possible that you're referring to different legislation -- in that case, bring us a link to the text of the proposed law and we can discuss it. I'm fairly confident that what the legislation actually says is very different from what you've read about it.

That goes back to my main comment. You've read a lot about homosexuality from one perspective (which I believe is a politically-motivated conservative position that may or may not be faithful to Jesus' example -- that is, it may be "Biblical" only in the sense of "opposing homosexuality" but in its opposition, it may do things that are not Christian). Are you questioning what you've read? You are here, so you must have some questions. I think that's great! Most of your fellow evangelical Christians would not come here and ask anything.

---

This is a really hot topic, and it brings up a lot of fears for everybody. I've felt for a long time that building trust, getting to know each other, is at least as important as hashing out the issues. So let me start that with a couple of questions, and you can ask questions about my life journey also.

- What are the biggest influences on your faith?

- What blessings has your faith brought into your life?

- What events or thoughts brought you to this forum?

I'd really like to know more about where you're coming from. Hope you'll be willing to share!

Thanks,
James

[dewdrop_world]

Responding to this post, let me take a few of the points out of order.

Your comments are in italics.

If you would like to know me, please ask questions without making assumptions, I would be more than welcome to answer them for you.

I have done so, just above. Would love to hear your answers.

I just wanted to reason with them, but it didn't work.

What, exactly, didn't work? What is the result you were hoping for?

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.

Read my first post -- I actually agree with you on this. I think most of us would agree. I wish for a couple of things: first, that people would commit to approach contentious topics with mutual respect and a desire to understand others perspectives; and second, that people would have a thicker skin and allow others to make honest mistakes while attempting to be respectful.

Now, what exactly is discrimination? Let's suppose that in my office, one of my colleagues is an evangelical Christian. Let's also say that this person leaves notes on my desk every day saying how much she wishes I would come to my senses and convert away from being gay. Let's say also that every time we have to work together, she never misses an opportunity to remind me how much pity she feels for me as an unrepentant sinner.

Now let's say that after awhile, the company advises her to stop doing this because it's creating a work environment that makes it harder for me to do my job.

Is that discrimination?

Suppose, in the same situation, I would take every opportunity to make insulting statements about evangelical Christianity. And, after some time, the company would tell me to stop because it makes it harder for her to do her job. Is that discrimination?

I would say neither case is discrimination. The company's purpose is to accomplish certain tasks, and if employees act in certain ways -- on the company's dime -- that get in the way of that, the company has every right to say, "Suck it up and do your job."

I vaguely remember the Progressive Insurance case you mentioned in an earlier post. If I recall, the issue was that the letter writer identified himself as an employee of the company (I think it was a letter to the editor, not to a congressman -- I could be wrong about that, it was a while ago). Now, almost every company has it in the employment contract that employees can participate in the political process as they choose, but they must not under any circumstances imply that the company endorses the employee's specific views. Exactly the same as if I wrote a letter to the editor, mentioned my employment with Acme Widget Corp., and did not make it clear that my opinions are my own and not the views of the company.

Not to spill too many more words on it, but I would just say again: tell us your sources. Very likely, there's a side to the story that your sources are not telling you.

Cathy, the conservative Christian leaders like James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and Jerry Falwell do talk about pedophilia, incest, divorce, and abortion, no less than they talk about homosexuality and how it affects family.

But they aren't saying divorced people, or women who have had an abortion, should be summarily fired from teaching jobs? They do say that about gay people.

Dobson is an interesting case. He's published a lot of material on homosexuality, most of which is filled with distortions and sometimes outright fabrications of "evidence" to prove how horrible gay people are. Check out http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com -- the "featured reports" go point by point through the Dobson/Paul Cameron material and illustrate (with sources) the types of falsifications (i.e., lies) that the anti-gay right wing use repeatedly to "prove" their point.

Falwell and Robertson rely heavily on Dobson's "research" in stating their positions. Why, if their views about homosexuality are right, do they have to chronically resort to falsehoods to make the point?

So I have to issue a challenge -- what is your interest here? To stand up for your belief in certain Christian leaders, or, if shown that those leaders are making false statements, to discover the truth and form your own opinion?

I am just being light and salt, like Jesus commanded all of us to be and I can't stop being that.

Well, to be honest, I see a pretty big difference between the tone of your writing and your statements that you are looking for open dialogue. I am not the only one who feels that way. I just believe that I have to find the good in the middle of the bad and appeal to that.

So, I'm trying to respond to you in an assertive but nonconfrontational way. Hoping for a response in kind.

James

[andrewlittle]

Come on over here, Sam, don't be afraid. We're all friends and the water is - well - heating up.

Sam you wrote:

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.

Sam, I thoroughly agree that it is wrong for ANYONE to discriminate against another - no matter what the differences may be. Everyone has a right to say that homosexuality is a sin and oppose gay marriage, if that is what they believe. Everyone also has the right to say that people who hold these views are wrong. Stating these opinions is not an act of discrimination.

That being said, stating either of these opinions - or any others for that matter - incessantly in a workplace or other gathering place is, in fact, harassment. An employer has the responsibility to make sure that the workplace is productive, while at the same time as safe as possible for all. It is the harassment factor that generally prompts termination or discipline.

You have also said a whole lot more in your posts - so I disagree that this is "all I wanted to say."

Sam wrote:

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.

Excuse me, but heterosexual privilege had pretty much been covered by the time you arrived. I can only assume you read the previous posts and, taking exception to the privilege discussion, opted to comment in your first and subsequent posts about it. Good for you - that is your right. It is not your right, however, to then childishly point your finger and say, "Well, I only bring it up 'cause they do."

You reinitiated the conversation about privilege in a thread where it had already been discussed. The suggestion, in order to continue that kind of discussion and avoid hijacking Cathy's thread which was inititiated for HER conversations and HER questions, was to take it to another thread. That way people can have the option of reading about your concerns as opposed to being forced to see them when they look at Cathy's. It allows people to have choice.

As of this post, you have yet to write in the thread James started for that purpose, which leads me to believe that your intention is, in fact, to derail and deflect the discussion occurring in Cathy's.

Sam wrote:

I just wanted to reason with them, but it didn't work.

You never know, Sam, start using reason and stop using party-line diatribe and it just might work. I've been known to reason through things - when I have to.

Sam wrote:

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.

Persecution of evangelical Christians? Yes, all those flaming GLBT folks (10 points to the first person who knows what word I was tempted to use here) out there passing laws to stop evangelical Christian marriages; denying EC's from having property succession rights; trying to prevent EC's from adopting children because the may raise more - you, know - evangelical Christians; denying EC's from having the ability to preach. Persecution, evidently, is in the eyes of the beholder. It's just some of have cataracts, I guess, and fail to see the suffering burden of being "true" Christians.

As to your different perspective - it is the cultural party line - the mantra of the day. Say something new and thoughtful and I would be inclined to welcome it and discuss. Spewing the same old soundbites does not equate to "giving a different perspective", it just indicates an unwillingness on the part of the spewer to hear any different perspectives than those which they have adopted as truth for all time.

Intimidating? Hmm, I'll have to think about that. Okay, that's enough thought. No - you're not the least bit intimidating. Annoying, frustrating, remarkably un-self-aware, mind numbing as all get out, perhaps - but not intimidating.

Then again, perhaps I'm just exhibiting controlled fear.

Sam, if you are interested in dialogue - engage in dialogue. Ask questions. Discuss the answers received. Show some interest in listening.

You entered with a monologue - a decidedly self-righteous, pontificating monologue at that - and then cry and moan that we don't listen. Give me something to listen to that I haven't heard before.

Trust me, Sam, as I have already unfortunately demonstrated, I can be as unreflective, self-righteous, closed minded, arrogant and insipid as you are appearing to be - its just that I hope I would have the common sense to go someplace where people want to hear that BS.

And, Sam, I used to be anti-gay and I used every piece of rhetoric you have used. That was over twenty freaking years ago, however. You want to add something new to the conversation, then think for yourself and make it - I don't know - new, perhaps - insightful, maybe - self-aware would be good - the least bit interesting, yeah, that's it.

[Pablo Rafael]

James,

Thanks for trying to move the discussion to a new thread. I had avoided posting on Cathy's thread because this discussion didn't have anything to do with her original purpose.

Sammy1980,

Your reasoning used to support your idea of discrimination against heterosexuals and against conservative Christians doesn't stand up.
I will say I am a conservative Christian; I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. I also, like Andrew, used to be anti-gay. I have heard the arguments; they are an excuse to continue prejudice and discrimination.

Compare the numbers:
Is our president a conservative Christian?
How many gay/lesbian presidents have we had?

How many of our political leaders are openly conservative Christian?
How many of our political leaders are openly gay?

Don't Christian radio stations have the biggest share of the radio audience?
How many gay Christians have you ever heard on the radio?

Do the conservative Christians have multi million dollar media ministries?
How many gay Christian ministries are there? How large are they?

How many high school students have been persecuted for being Christian?
How many high school students have been persecuted for being gay?

How many conservative Christians are in the closet out of fear of persecution?
How many LGBT individuals are in the closet for fear of persecution?

I have heard similar arguments to continue the discrimination against ethnic minorities. Living in a primarily Hispanic community I hear things like, "White males are the only ones you can discriminate against" That kind of talk only is an excuse to continue discrimination. When Hispanics and blacks finally earn as much as whites rather than 55% as much, when the number of minorities who own businesses equals their share of the population, when governing boards and legistatures contain equivalent minority numbers, when job opportunities are equal,when the amounts of inherited wealth are equal, then I might admit that discrimination against the minority groups is at an end. However, that is a long way off.

Likewise, saying that heterosexuals are a in danger of being discriminated against is ridiculous. Where do gays ever even get an equal break let alone privledge? When the LGBT population has as large a share of influence, acceptance and respect as the heterosexual Christian community does, I will reconsider your argument. Right now that is so far from happening that the idea is totally without merit.

I say this as both a member of the gay community and the conservative Christian community. One group has much greater power, wealth, influence and status than the other; there is no comparison between the two.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[sammy1980]

[QUOTE=dewdrop_world;15048]Sammy1980 --

I was considering making a point by point rebuttal against your posts, but it looks like keltic and others have already been busy with that. So I want instead to make some more general observations and hopefully build a little trust before dealing with specific grievances.

First, just a very, very general point about "user friendliness" -- it's extremely hard to read huge blocks of text where there are no paragraphs. It's very tiring for the eye.


Hi James,

I would like to apologize for not making paragraphs. So, I would like to give you some feedback.
I think that everybody has a right to have their own opinions and I have studied research. I checked the NARTH. It is a secular organization that makes people change their homosexual behavior into heterosexual behavior. I discovered that there were people who were satisfied with NARTH, and testified that they felt better after that. So, why are you still criticizing NARTH? I would like to hear a different side of story, if you have any.

So, I see that my comments about prisons strike you as a right-wing paranoia fantasy. Please understand that I said those things, after I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot by Keltic. All I was arguing for that heterosexual privilege exists nor less as homosexual privilege does, and I listed examples, not to mention that I have never said that anything bad about individual GLBT people. Instead of just simply saying "I disagree with you" so I could draw the line on this issue, Keltic kept attacking me. Because of his scurrilous accusations, I got the message that he wanted to silence me because he was prejudist against me for my views on homosexuality, both biblical and political. So, in order to make Keltic understand, I used prisons as symbol of taking away somebody's freedom, not necessarily physically placing a person into a correctional facility, in order to demonstrate that a man will still have his beliefs if he is prohibited to share them, vocally. Those beliefs, regardless of what those beliefs are, will stay in a person's heart. Just to let you know, there are some radical people in the gay community, like Michael Swift, whose goal is exactly what you said, to criminalize any opposition to homosexuality, which includes organized religion. A couple of weeks ago, Elton John made a comment saying that organized religion should be banned because it oppresses gays and lesbians. In 2003, there was a proposal in Canadian parliament to make Bible a hate literature. It got rejected. Also, there was a case in Sweden, where a pastor named Ake Green was sentenced to one month in prison, for preaching a sermon in his church against homosexuality, by using biblical references. He only criticized gay civil unions, gay adoptions by arguing that it would offend innocent children, however he stressed out that individual gays and lesbians should not be belittled as Jesus never belittled anyone. He never cursed or ridiculed any GLBT person, he just preached what he believed needed to be done in the eyes of God, however the newly passed Swedish law considered the sermon as a disrespectful hateful speech. Here is the website www.akegreen.org, please evaluate it for yourself. You can read the sermon itself, too. The main concept was just that homosexual behavior and laws promoting it were bad, but not the individual gays and lesbian people. Sweden isn't very far from America (just about 10 hours of flight) and Canada is much closer, so based on this, why couldn't I assume that something similar could happen here, given the fact that there are people in our government who would like to have similar laws legislated, like Sheila Kuehl, she is an openly lesbian, have you ever heard of her? What about the statement, made by Keltic that evangelical Christians want to create theocracy? Does that sound like a paranoia to you? I mean, there are some folks who want to make the Bible the law of the land, but definitely not me. I am just a simple guy who wants to practice his faith without afraid of being repressed, and I am very scared, based on what I experienced.

I heard about gay students being abused happening back in the 1950s but not recently, except for Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon. I believe what you said, but does having antigay harrassment, both physical and verbal justify the discrimination against CC students, like Edward Swan of University of Washington and Emily Brooker of University of Missouri, by expelling them out for their opposition of gay marriage and gay adoption? Remember, they didn't hurt physically a single person, they just acted upon their consciousness. A similar experience has happened to me, in my previous school. I was studying counseling and I admitted that I don't think I would be able to counsel people of the same sex on premarital issues. They said I was being homophobic, which I wasn't. I don't mind helping people dealing with common problems like sadness, loneliness, depression. These are the problems that both straights and gays face, but when it comes to political controversial issues, I want to take a walk. It's too heavy.

I was talking about several laws that were proposed in the state of California by Sheila Kuehl that would instruct to teach about contributions of gays and lesbians to the state of California to kids as young as 5. Don't you think it's a little bit early? Also, she proposed another law that would prohibit teaching anything negative associated with homosexuality? That sounds like one-sided indoctrination. They both got vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the terminator.

I have read several information from both sides about homosexuality; but the one that strikes me the most was the case of my cousin. He killed himself because he couldn't find commitment with the people he was dating, and he dated like a hundred of them, and he was telling me that they all used him for sex. He couldn't find a meaning in his life and even started doing drugs. He was telling me stuff like that many gay men were players and the thing about marriage, was all about money. He even told me once that he wished he could find a woman and start having kids, so his life would have some purpose, but he couldn't do so, because he was gay. Not to mention that he lived in a famous gay community of Greenwich Village, NY and that his parents were okay with him being gay. Based on what happened to my cousin, I began to question the naturality of homosexual orientation and I am still questioning it. I can't say that it was so-called homophobia that killed him, but the world of homosexuality he was living in. By the way, I suggest you read a book called 'My Genes Made Me Do It' by Neil and Briar Whitehead. This book is a scientific research dealing with homosexuality, and is not affiliated with any politics. I noticed that those researches resembe the experiences of my cousin and his life in the gay community.

James, do you believe when an EC is giving you an advice not to have sex with other men, he intends to belittle you? Have you ever thought that such person maybe wants to actually help you and that person means well for you? Not that I intend to give you any advices, but I noticed that whenever somebody says that homosexual behavior is a sin, that speech is being labeled as antigay? Like, there is an intended attack being done against an individual gay person. I wonder why?

- What are the biggest influences on your faith?

Well, I was just not knowing who I am and what is my purpose in life, so I came to Christ.

- What blessings has your faith brought into your life?

The blessings I have from my faith is seeing things how God wants them to be and being able to forgive people who have hurt my feelings. Without my faith, I wouldn't be able to do that.

- What events or thoughts brought you to this forum?

I came to this forum after the influence of having equality riders coming to my school, Colorado Christian University. I felt like that school was my only hope; you see, before that I was in two secular schools, where I encountered prejudice from liberal professors over my religious views on homosexuality. In CCU, I have found my sanctuary, and I felt like when equality riders came there, trying to change its policy, I felt like it would influence the Colorado lawmakers to stopt CCU being a Christian school. I would be greatly depressed if that happen. The message I want to tell everybody that I need a school like that because every other school would not accept me for who I am. I couldn't stay at home at Pennsylvania with my family that I loved, so I came to Colorado. do you know how difficult it was for me? I have a huge question; why would some people apply to such schools if they already knew, that their sexual behavior would not be tolerated, there? Why not apply to secular schools that are very pro-gay rights? For me, I couldn't stay at secular schools so I applied where I would be able to share my faith without fear. So, I thought that the opposite would work for gays and lesbian students. It doesn't make any sense.

I'm also coming from having both my uncles being imprisoned in Communist Russia for being Christians. That was a huge influence on my life. Maybe, because of that I subconciously connect it with having the same fate happening to me. About my first post to you, where I was alluding to Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians. Why would some people consider that as antigay? It only talks about the sexual behavior, not the individual gay and lesbian people. Actually, Romans 2 says that with all said, we should not judge anybody. So, I by no means wanted to judge you, but I wanted to know, what does those specific chapters mean to you? Just because I understand them the way I understand, doesn't mean that I am always right. It is just I see that homosexual orientation was not a gift from God. That's all there is to it. Why would somebody perceive my vision as an attack against gays and lesbian people, or against any people?

[sammy1980]

Hola Pablo,

I would like to clarify a couple of things

Compare the numbers:
Is our president a conservative Christian?
How many gay/lesbian presidents have we had?

How many of our political leaders are openly conservative Christian?
How many of our political leaders are openly gay?

Don't Christian radio stations have the biggest share of the radio audience?
How many gay Christians have you ever heard on the radio?

Do the conservative Christians have multi million dollar media ministries?
How many gay Christian ministries are there? How large are they?

How many high school students have been persecuted for being Christian?
How many high school students have been persecuted for being gay?

How many conservative Christians are in the closet out of fear of persecution?
How many LGBT individuals are in the closet for fear of persecution?

These numerical questions that you are asking, may or may not have valid points, it depends on a situation. The facts however remain the same; both LGBT and conservative Christians get persecuted. I don't think it really matters how many people in numbers get oppressed, because on both sides people have their feelings hurt, and that's what counts. What bugs me about this, is when one group tells the other how his or her group get persecuted, the other group is acting ignorant, acts like she doesn't want to hear about it, and calling the complaining group some offensive labels. It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, despite going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story. Likewise, when I posted some info, shared stories how conservative Christians get expelled from schools and fired from jobs because of disagreements with their supervisors over pro-gay political issues, Keltic started calling me antigay, which wasn't true either. Nothing personal against the man, I have already forgiven him and I hope he forgives me.

However, I guess me telling you all this, has to do with having equality riders come to my school, which is Colorado Christian University, this past summer. The fellows were trying to convince our administration to lift the ban on homosexual behavior among students there. Their justification for such a lift was the stories they told us, how religion is used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. After I listened to their stories and watched thier presentations, I mustered up a courage to speak with equality ride director Jake Reitan, by the way, very thoughtful and open-minded guy, and I told him why I believe schools like that with such policies are needed for people like me. My arguments were the infringement of civil rights of conservative Christian students in secular schools, including my personal experiences, pretty much what you heard so far. At first, Jake admitted that he never heard anything like that but he listened without confrontation. I was trying make him understand that if I go to a secular school and he went to a Christian school, both him and I would experience issues dealing with ostracism, loneliness, and hiding what you believe. To my amazement, he said it was wrong for liberal professors, some of whom were gay to shun me for my conservative Christian beliefs. This is what I call an open dialogue.

On a cultural issue, I would like to tell you that my parents are immigrants from Russia, and I remember how some gay activists wanted to recruit me in their political campaigns. They were stressing the fact that my family experienced prejudice like they are doing now, so I got to support what they do. At that time, I just became a Christian and I simply told them that I was the wrong Russian, you know what I mean?

I was never really saying that heterosexuals are persecuted. It was just that small example of Cape Cod incident that I used, in order to show on a situational level, there could be both heterosexual and homosexual privileges. My main point was the persecution of conservative Christians. Speaking of it, do you remember when Andrew said that persecution lies in the eyes of the beholder ?. It means that if a person feels persecuted, only that person knows the best of it, and whoever don't share the feeling, know less. I can tell you from a personal experience that I was persecuted, because of my conservative Christian beliefs. For me, it's hard to think who suffers more or less, because the pain is still there. What I need to think is how to approach people who are persecuted for whatever reasons.

I am amazed what I hear; you are telling me that conservative Christian community has a lot of wealth and influence while organizations like Focus on the Family and AFA are telling on their websites that it's the GLBT community has strong wealth and influence, which is political. I feel like I'm torn apart and I think I should thoroughly examine and compare the two.

So, you are saying that you are a member of both the gay and the conservative Christian community. What do you mean by that? How is that possible?

[keltic63]

Originally Posted by sammy1980

So, I see that my comments about prisons strike you as a right-wing paranoia fantasy. Please understand that I said those things, after I was repeatedly accused of being a bigot by Keltic.

Your very first post in the frankandcathy thread is #88. In it you claim that heterosexuals are being oppressed by the homosexual minority, and you cite specific examples, which are just that, specific, and many relate to business policies about harassment and discrimination, not necessarily about homosexuality. My first post in response to anything you said was about your post #97, and my reply was short: Matthew Shepard.

You posted again in #100, and #101, and I reply to #100 in my post which is #102. In that post I ask many questions, but you chose not to answer them. Indeed you weren’t even aware that marriage licenses are not renewable as are drivers’ licenses.

In post #103, you introduce the idea of being imprisoned for holding anti-gay attitudes or making anti-homosexual statements. That is in response to BruceChris, not me.

In post #104 I respond to your words about Matthew Shepard.

In post #106, you begin with an insult directed at me and my ability to understand your posts. You later compare me to a communist leader.

In post #110, I respond to your accusations/insults from post #106. At that point, I stopped posting in that thread in response to requests from fellow forum members to cool things down, and to stop from highjacking the original post.

AT NO TIME DID I USE THE WORD ‘BIGOT’ IN THAT THREAD!!!!!

All I was arguing for that heterosexual privilege exists nor less as homosexual privilege does, and I listed examples, not to mention that I have never said that anything bad about individual GLBT people. Instead of just simply saying "I disagree with you" so I could draw the line on this issue, Keltic kept attacking me.

I actually said that I disagree in one of my posts. You offered examples, I offered examples.

Because of his scurrilous accusations, I got the message that he wanted to silence me because he was prejudist against me for my views on homosexuality, both biblical and political. So, in order to make Keltic understand,

again, it was not keltic you were responding to when you introduced the idea of prison.

as far as I'm concerned, you've insulted me and told lies about me.

[andrewlittle]

Something is becoming clearer, at least it seems that way to me. I am going to take some shots at clarifying issues.

First, we all have our noses out of joint. We all seem to think that we have been assaulted in some way by these postings. We have, and could continue to, detail the insults and accusations and become more deeply mired in what appears to be a vortex into hatred.

I, for one, am going to assume I have misunderstood a great deal of the conversation. There are significant differences in writing styles that are, I think, critical but I don't think that they have to be incompatible.

Suggestion 1 - let's stop assuming and ascribing intent to the people posting in this thread now. Let's assume that everyone's intent is to speak in a way that helps them be understood, and listen with an ear to really hearing what others have said.

To that end, Sam's last two posts have helped me to at least begin to understand where he is coming from. They don't line up with my experiences, but I am a long way from thinking that my sense of reality should apply to everyone - that's actually a scary thought.

Sam, in particular, has been personally hurt by pro-LGBT efforts and has very close, very real family experiences of anti-Christian persecution.

Most other participants in this website have been personally hurt by ant-LGBT efforts and have very close, very real experiences of pro-conservative-Christian persecution.

I, and other allies, haven't necessarily personally experienced either kind of persecution, but are here because we believe persecution is wrong for any reason, and we wish to stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Christ who have been wronged by society and church. We may also have had family or close experiences of various kinds that brought us to this place.

The commonalities are personal hurt, damage from persecution and the belief that persecution of any kind is wrong.

Okay, so far?

Suggestion 2 - if I am reasonably accurate so far, perhaps we should stop universalizing our experiences - making the specific into the general - and discuss how our worldviews and attitudes differ based on our unique circumstances.

There is a tendency in this website to ascribe certain characteristics to CC's, and to generally understand CC fear as something approaching paranoia (spelling?). I dare say, there is ample reason, when we listen to popular media and culture, to believe this. Sam, however, seems to have some legitimate reasons to feel fear.

Sam, you have generalized your and your family's experiences, which seem to very real and damaging, and specific examples that line up with your thoughts into something that is universally true. I think you have a relatively unique set of circumstances that give you ample reason for fear and antagonism, but I'm not sure how universally true they may be. By generalizing them, you have come across as just another paranoid CC, but I really think that is a grossly inaccurate judgment of your stands. For my part, I apologize and I will try to hear with more of a open heart.

Before I get into any more, could you each give me some feedback so far?
Am I full of sh-t, or do we have some basis for a reasonable dialogue?

[BruceChris]

Mostly because you sounded angry and extreem, and because I was having a lot of trouble understanding what you were trying to say. (Smaller paragraphs might even be nicer.)

I spend a great deal of time listening to the news, and reading, more often books by theologists and books on social issues, and I consider myself fairly well educated about current social issues. I do not read the bible that much, except in our bible study group, which has two ministers, and a seminary student as members. It is very clear to me that Republicans and Conservative Christians (CC's) have a great deal more money than liberals, or the gay community. Now that's only my experience.

I suppose that I do tend to see CC's and Republicans as pretty much the same group. Political observers and many newscasters often talk about the relationship between the two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: When you say
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, by going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean:
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT people are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, and ostracized, although GLBT people had been going through every means possible to earn society's respect. The members of my church called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah stories.

I hope that I have found the meaning that you had meant to convey in the above piece. If I have not, please correct me. I guess that proof reading and editing could help. And, It would seem pretty obvious how many GLBT people are often treated by members of some churches.

Sammy, about a week ago, we had in our (GLBT) church, a ceremony of rememberance for all of the transsexual people that were murdered in the last year, simply for being trans. I think the number was close to 100.

Sammy, I believe that the Great Commandment, to love others as you love yourself (and, by implication, to learn to LOVE YOURSELF, humbly but with understanding) is much more important than focusing on sin, and judging others. And I am getting the impression that you feel that way a lot, yourself. And yes, I am going to resist the temptation to quote a lot of Bible verses. It seems that you can "prove" almost anything with a selected set of Bible verses.

I'm going to sign off, now. I've got to go and clean off some graffiti that was sprayed on my church, last week.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

[sammy1980]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

Something is becoming clearer, at least it seems that way to me. I am going to take some shots at clarifying issues.

First, we all have our noses out of joint. We all seem to think that we have been assaulted in some way by these postings. We have, and could continue to, detail the insults and accusations and become more deeply mired in what appears to be a vortex into hatred.

I, for one, am going to assume I have misunderstood a great deal of the conversation. There are significant differences in writing styles that are, I think, critical but I don't think that they have to be incompatible.

Suggestion 1 - let's stop assuming and ascribing intent to the people posting in this thread now. Let's assume that everyone's intent is to speak in a way that helps them be understood, and listen with an ear to really hearing what others have said.

To that end, Sam's last two posts have helped me to at least begin to understand where he is coming from. They don't line up with my experiences, but I am a long way from thinking that my sense of reality should apply to everyone - that's actually a scary thought.

Sam, in particular, has been personally hurt by pro-LGBT efforts and has very close, very real family experiences of anti-Christian persecution.

Most other participants in this website have been personally hurt by ant-LGBT efforts and have very close, very real experiences of pro-conservative-Christian persecution.

I, and other allies, haven't necessarily personally experienced either kind of persecution, but are here because we believe persecution is wrong for any reason, and we wish to stand in solidarity with our sisters and brothers in Christ who have been wronged by society and church. We may also have had family or close experiences of various kinds that brought us to this place.

The commonalities are personal hurt, damage from persecution and the belief that persecution of any kind is wrong.

Okay, so far?

Suggestion 2 - if I am reasonably accurate so far, perhaps we should stop universalizing our experiences - making the specific into the general - and discuss how our worldviews and attitudes differ based on our unique circumstances.

There is a tendency in this website to ascribe certain characteristics to CC's, and to generally understand CC fear as something approaching paranoia (spelling?). I dare say, there is ample reason, when we listen to popular media and culture, to believe this. Sam, however, seems to have some legitimate reasons to feel fear.

Sam, you have generalized your and your family's experiences, which seem to very real and damaging, and specific examples that line up with your thoughts into something that is universally true. I think you have a relatively unique set of circumstances that give you ample reason for fear and antagonism, but I'm not sure how universally true they may be. By generalizing them, you have come across as just another paranoid CC, but I really think that is a grossly inaccurate judgment of your stands. For my part, I apologize and I will try to hear with more of a open heart.

Before I get into any more, could you each give me some feedback so far?
Am I full of sh-t, or do we have some basis for a reasonable dialogue?

Andrew, you are not full of s--t, you are very thoughtful and insightful. Your last response made me feel a whole lot better, I feel more welcome. Thanks for continuing this open conversation. I agree with you, discrimination of any kind is hurtful.

[andrewlittle]

I am very interested in continuing this discussion, Sam. I think it may help many of us in the short and long run.

It will be a few hours before I can continue, however. I have this pressing need to finish tomorrow's sermon. By the way, thanks for the fodder for the sermon you and others have furnished. It's Christ the King Sunday, and I wanted to be able to discuss what Christ's reign might look like. In my mind, this conversation has the possibility of showing us.

God bless, Sam.

[sammy1980]

Originally Posted by BruceChris

Mostly because you sounded angry and extreem, and because I was having a lot of trouble understanding what you were trying to say. (Smaller paragraphs might even be nicer.)

I spend a great deal of time listening to the news, and reading, more often books by theologists and books on social issues, and I consider myself fairly well educated about current social issues. I do not read the bible that much, except in our bible study group, which has two ministers, and a seminary student as members. It is very clear to me that Republicans and Conservative Christians (CC's) have a great deal more money than liberals, or the gay community. Now that's only my experience.

I suppose that I do tend to see CC's and Republicans as pretty much the same group. Political observers and many newscasters often talk about the relationship between the two.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote: When you say
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and the members of my church how GLBT are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, ostracized, by going through every means possible to earn society's respect, they called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah story.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I take this to mean:
It happened to me, when I was living in a small town of Pennsylvania and I told the members of my church how GLBT people are being persecuted; by having being beaten, riduculed, called names, and ostracized, although GLBT people had been going through every means possible to earn society's respect. The members of my church called me a gay rights activist, which wasn't the case about me, and started hammering me with Sodom and Gomorrah stories.

I hope that I have found the meaning that you had meant to convey in the above piece. If I have not, please correct me. I guess that proof reading and editing could help. And, It would seem pretty obvious how many GLBT people are often treated by members of some churches.

Sammy, about a week ago, we had in our (GLBT) church, a ceremony of rememberance for all of the transsexual people that were murdered in the last year, simply for being trans. I think the number was close to 100.

Sammy, I believe that the Great Commandment, to love others as you love yourself (and, by implication, to learn to LOVE YOURSELF, humbly but with understanding) is much more important than focusing on sin, and judging others. And I am getting the impression that you feel that way a lot, yourself. And yes, I am going to resist the temptation to quote a lot of Bible verses. It seems that you can "prove" almost anything with a selected set of Bible verses.

I'm going to sign off, now. I've got to go and clean off some graffiti that was sprayed on my church, last week.

Peace and Love, Bruce Chris

Yes Bruce Chris, I told my members of the church I was in about the persecution of GLBT, I accidently skipped some words, sorry, and they started judging me. I am very sorry to hear about somebody spraying graffiti on your church. I hope you are not too angry about this because living in anger, does not do people much good. I can say that for myself, I was very angry on this post, and went off track.

Well, some Republicans may or may not be CC's. I don't know what each one's personal beliefs are. They oppose gay marriage, but I don't think it has to do with conservative Christianity but simply preserving the traditional definition of what marriage was for 5000 years in all cultures of the world. Speaking of George Bush, he expressed his support for civil unions for gays and lesbians, that's a hardly conservative Christian stance.

I have a general question; why when somebody talks to people about what he or she believes as a sin in the Bible, an assumption arises that the person is judging individual persons?

I would like to hear more.

Later,


Sam

[sammy1980]

Keltic, since you have finally showed up, I would like to publicly acknowledge how sorry I am for hurting your feelings and ask you to forgive me, because I did it unintentionally and I never meant to insult. As you have seen, I already forgave you. Now, what do you think about other things I said in this post so far?

Peace,

Sammy

[sammy1980]

Originally Posted by andrewlittle

I am very interested in continuing this discussion, Sam. I think it may help many of us in the short and long run.

It will be a few hours before I can continue, however. I have this pressing need to finish tomorrow's sermon. By the way, thanks for the fodder for the sermon you and others have furnished. It's Christ the King Sunday, and I wanted to be able to discuss what Christ's reign might look like. In my mind, this conversation has the possibility of showing us.

God bless, Sam.

Me too, Andrew, I would like to continue in the discussion. I also got to go to work now, which is cleaning bathrooms at Walmart. So, maybe I'll hear from you in the evening.

Bye

[Pablo Rafael]

Originally Posted by sammy1980

So, you are saying that you are a member of both the gay and the conservative Christian community. What do you mean by that? How is that possible?

Sam,

This always seems to be the thing that amazes people most, that people can be both gay and Christian.

I am a Christian because I believe in the grace of God. I believe that we are saved by Grace through Faith. Our salvation comes from God through Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. We are His children when the Holy Spirit works faith in our hearts. Therefore we live sanctified lives through His power, doing good works as He has planned for us. I believe in the inerrancy of the Bible. (I don't believe in the inerrancy of man's interpretation of the Bible.) I consider myself a conservative (not fundamentalist) beacuse of these beliefs. By denomination I am a Catholic

I am gay because ... well because I am. I have tried to deny it. I have tried to change; that didn't work. I don't think denial ever works. I think changing doesn't work for many.

Aren't gay people all going to hell? That is a point you made earlier. Anyone who relies on himself and his own righteousness is sure to fail. But those who are covered by the grace of God are made righteous in God's sight. All are sinners, all fall short. God's love covers us all.

Doesn't the Bible condemn homosexuality? Well, not really.
Sodom, right? No, in fact even Jesus says the sin of Sodom is not homosexuality.
The levitical holiness laws? Those were abolished by Christ's death on the cross.
Saint Paul's letters? The two Greek terms sometimes but not always translated "homosexual" are uncertain in meaning, and that translation of those terms is based more on tradition and cultural influence than on the actual definition of the terms.

I am not one who believes that the Bible can be adapted to fit one's own personal beliefs and prejudices. It is God's word. People have been twisting the Bible to use it to their own purposes. That is not acceptable to me. I have changed my views 100% on the subject of homosexuality since I was in my 20's. I believe it is God's leading that has brought me to this understanding. Could I be wrong? I make no claim to a perfect knowledge of God and His work. I can only as humbly that He show me the way.

Tu Amigo, Pablo

[dewdrop_world]

Hi Sammy,

I discovered that there were people who were satisfied with NARTH, and testified that they felt better after that. So, why are you still criticizing NARTH? I would like to hear a different side of story, if you have any.

Ah, NARTH... just about as unbiased as Michael Moore (or Bill O'Reilly, for that matter).

So here is the thing about NARTH: they know how to make the statistics sound impressive, but the actual usage of the statistics is fundamentally dishonest in many cases. Again, read the articles at http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com -- especially The Heterosexual Agenda. This is a parody -- that is, NOT REAL -- of the kind of anti-gay literature put out by groups like NARTH, Focus on the Family etc. As you read it, you will probably be offended by many of its claims, but keep in mind that this is not what the author really believes about heterosexuality. He is doing this to show how the types of statistical manipulation, favored by NARTH to make gay people look bad, can be used just as easily to make straight people look bad. If these tactics are obviously untrue when applied to straight people, why do they magically appear to be legitimate when applied to gay people?

I think there are two answers: most people don't know enough about gay life to recognize how ridiculous the portrayal is in these anti-gay tracts, and second, many people want to believe in a hopelessly corrupt enemy that must be fought at every turn.

On reparative therapy: if someone wants to consult with Dr. Nicolosi to try to change sexual orientation (or at least behavior), that's an individual choice and I would not stand in the way. I disagree with that choice but it is absolutely not my place to take that choice away from anyone. But I do have problems with the way "reparative therapy" is presented.

- They don't talk about the failure rate (people who try to change but end up gayer than ever).

- Among those who fail in the treatment, they don't talk about the greatly increased risk of depression and suicide.

- Many such patients believe that becoming ex gay is the only way to be a good person (that is, the only way to have self esteem). Therapists like Nicolosi often encourage this kind of thinking because it increases the patient's "motivation" to complete the treatment. If the treatment fails, that leaves the patient in an even worse place.

- They do not present the treatment just as an option. They also suggest that people who do not want the treatment suffer from types of psychopathology that make them "sick" in need of a "cure." Who wants to be sick? (That's part of the manipulation.)

For the majority (well over 50%) of people who enter ex gay treatment programs, the cure is worse then the (imagined) disease.

A bit more on NARTH and friends:

Traditional Values Coalition (TVC) Presents Deceptive and Misleading Information about the American Psychiatric Association -- If the anti-gay position is so scientifically strong, why is it necessary to lie about professional associations whose views are different?

How Does Psychoanalysis View Homosexuality? --

They approach treatment of gay and lesbian patients with the goal of changing their sexual orientation -- clearly not an analytic stance. It is my own personal belief that many of their so-called successful conversions occur in either people with bisexual potential, or as "transference cures" in those who have severe psychopathology with little sense of identity and who are very malleable, or in those who have a strong desire to avoid dealing with their homosexuality and a strong wish to please the authoritative therapist. It is of course possible to learn to inhibit one's sexual desires and to control one's behavior. Another criticism of their claims is that they offer almost no long-term followup data. Many of us know of cases that ended conversion treatment as "cured" in whom the change did not last.

Even if we take their claims for success at face value, they report success rates of only 35 % at best. They do not discuss the 65% who do not change, except to emphasize that those who are highly motivated to change are more likely to be successful. There are growing anecdotal reports from other analysts that they frequently see those patients who attempted such "conversion" therapy and who have suffered serious adverse effects, such as depression, lowered self-esteem, increased shame and self-hatred -- and many who, under the belief that they had "changed," have married and now have children.

Also goes on to say:

There are many analysts, psychiatrists, and psychologists that would like for our organizations to declare this "conversion" or "reparative" therapy unethical. However much some of us might feel this to be true, it also raises questions of state control over freedom to practice therapy and is hampered by lack of valid statistical data to prove that overall the treatment is harmful. We have anecdotal evidence, but not yet statistical data.

In other words, the APsaA will not take action against reparative therapy until there is HARD evidence.

Just to let you know, there are some radical people in the gay community, like Michael Swift, whose goal is exactly what you said, to criminalize any opposition to homosexuality, which includes organized religion.

So you could track down a left-wing nut job. I could just as easily track down a right-wing evangelical Christian nut job and say that evangelical Christianity is not to be trusted because this is what they believe. What would I prove by doing that? Absolutely nothing.

A couple of weeks ago, Elton John made a comment saying that organized religion should be banned because it oppresses gays and lesbians.

IMHO, quite possibly the dumbest thing he ever said.

Gays and lesbians have a lot of reasons to be angry at religion -- or at least, religion used irresponsibly. I see a vicious circle happening -- a handful of right wing nuts gain undue influence in fundamentalist circles (including the Southern Baptist Convention) and start screaming and yelling about the gay menace (now that we don't have the Godless Soviets to deal with). Gays start to feel that religion is not worth the paper it's printed on -- which only serves as proof among the same nuts why the attacks on gays should intensify.

Who is going to break the cycle? Obviously neither James Dobson nor Elton John. So let's leave those naughty children alone, and use this rare and precious opportunity to cut through all of that nonsense.

Here is the website www.akegreen.org, please evaluate it for yourself.

I did, it's a stupid law that has no place in a liberal society. Hate speech is a problem but stating an opinion in a non-hateful way should not be illegal, ever.

What about the statement, made by Keltic that evangelical Christians want to create theocracy? Does that sound like a paranoia to you?

Again, there are left-wing nut jobs, and there are right-wing nut jobs. Our job is to make sure the nuts don't get too much power. (It is not to make sure that OUR nuts get into power .)

I heard about gay students being abused happening back in the 1950s but not recently, except for Matthew Shepard and Teena Brandon. I believe what you said...

Read From Teasing to Torment: School Climate in America - A National Report on School Bullying for more.

... but does having antigay harrassment, both physical and verbal justify the discrimination against CC students, like Edward Swan of University of Washington and Emily Brooker of University of Missouri, by expelling them out for their opposition of gay marriage and gay adoption?

No, it doesn't. The Brooker case is especially egregious. No professor should ever use their students for political purposes.

(Neither student was expelled, though... they were unfairly disciplined, and when they appealed higher within their universities, they were vindicated. There was the threat of expulsion, but it was never carried out. Who told you they were expelled?)

A similar experience has happened to me, in my previous school. I was studying counseling and I admitted that I don't think I would be able to counsel people of the same sex on premarital issues. They said I was being homophobic, which I wasn't. I don't mind helping people dealing with common problems like sadness, loneliness, depression. These are the problems that both straights and gays face, but when it comes to political controversial issues, I want to take a walk. It's too heavy.

I don't have a quick and easy answer to this one. I think we do (sometimes) throw around words like "homophobia" rather lightly (just as terms like "religious discrimination" can be tossed out very lightly as well). Like I said, we all need to have thicker skins about this. I'm just not sure it's so easy to separate emotional malaise from any sexual orientation, straight, gay or bi.

I was talking about several laws that were proposed in the state of California by Sheila Kuehl that would instruct to teach about contributions of gays and lesbians to the state of California to kids as young as 5. Don't you think it's a little bit early?

Not necessarily. Depends on the material.

Also, she proposed another law that would prohibit teaching anything negative associated with homosexuality? That sounds like one-sided indoctrination. They both got vetoed by Governor Schwarzenegger, the terminator.

I would just want the teaching to be true. What the right wing wants to teach about homosexuality is not uniformly true.

I have read several information from both sides about homosexuality; but the one that strikes me the most was the case of my cousin. He killed himself because he couldn't find commitment with the people he was dating, and he dated like a hundred of them, and he was telling me that they all used him for sex.

I'm really sorry to hear about this. I won't deny that huge segments of the gay community are shallow and hedonistic. A lot of us think that living in the gay ghetto is heaven for gay people, but the biggest gay 'hoods can be insular communities that concentrate and magnify the worst aspects of gay attitudes. It isn't always easy to resist the glittery facade. I wish I could have known and helped your cousin -- and I get mad sometimes at these parts of the gay community for being so cruel.

Based on what happened to my cousin, I began to question the naturality of homosexual orientation and I am still questioning it. I can't say that it was so-called homophobia that killed him, but the world of homosexuality he was living in.

Without diminishing those experiences in any way... is it true that gay people in general behave in the ways that your cousin experienced? Maybe I was lucky to have met stable, level-headed, intelligent, committed LG people early in my coming out process, so that I knew from the beginning that I didn't have to buy into the glamarama gay scene. That's why I get p*ssed off at gay playas who hurt people... it doesn't have to be that way and for many of is, it isn't that way.

James, do you believe when an EC is giving you an advice not to have sex with other men, he intends to belittle you? Have you ever thought that such person maybe wants to actually help you and that person means well for you?

To me it's a matter of trust. Many EC's feel that, because their views are "Biblically based" (I take some issue with that, but that's another conversation), they are self-evidently correct and so obviously beneficial that any reasonable person would automatically see it as such. Therefore, basic steps like getting to know the person you're preaching to are optional.

If someone wants to give me this type of advice, but they haven't taken the time to get to know me and haven't let me get to know them, then I have no idea whether the advice is truly offered for my benefit.

I think that, quite often, well-meaning advice serves another purpose -- to make the person offering the advice feel better about himself -- for "doing the Lord's work," for "helping a poor, misguided soul." This latter point is where compassion crosses the line into pity, because it's no longer about communication and understanding, but about reinforcing one's self-image as a "righteous Christian." It isn't about self-image; it's about being a servant.

I think that EC's are not always aware of all their motivations for giving advice, and I think that harms the relationship and makes gay people more likely to see hypocrisy in religion.

Out of time for today -- I should also say that I have given a whole lot more time to this discussion than I normally can, because of the four-day weekend. I will soon have to keep my responses a lot shorter. Very interested in continuing the chat, though.

Best,
James

[tdogg]

If someone wants to give me this type of advice, but they haven't taken the time to get to know me and haven't let me get to know them, then I have no idea whether the advice is truly offered for my benefit.

I think that, quite often, well-meaning advice serves another purpose -- to make the person offering the advice feel better about himself -- for "doing the Lord's work," for "helping a poor, misguided soul." This latter point is where compassion crosses the line into pity, because it's no longer about communication and understanding, but about reinforcing one's self-image as a "righteous Christian." It isn't about self-image; it's about being a servant.

Well said James - this is my experience with those few family/friends who profess to love me, but have no interest in getting to know me and my journey, but feel its their job to condemn me. Perhaps they have a genuine motive to 'save' me, perhaps they don't. It doesn't feel as tho their actions are out of love. It's not the message quite so much as the delivery. Funny - although I grew up AG and consider myself still a Christ-follower (not sure I want to be called a Christian anymore), those I trust the least are those who consider themselves fundamentalist Christian - the same ones who at one time I considered my mentors.

Sammy, read Dash's post - it will give some insight into the 'not so hetero-traditional marriage' history. Dash puts a tremendous amount of effort and thought into his research and posts - it's well worth reading several times over. There are other threads that he has posted on, which will give you some additional thoughts to ponder on the history of translations of specific words found in the original Biblical texts.

I have a general question; why when somebody talks to people about what he or she believes as a sin in the Bible, an assumption arises that the person is judging individual persons?

I believe, once again, this is due more to the delivery of the message than the actual message. If you re-read this entire thread - consider how Cathy delivered her messages and questions, and then compare to your delivery. I'm not judging your motives, I'm only trying to provide some insight on possible answers to your question above. When someone comes across geniune and true, others are much more open to dialoguing tho they may not agree with the person's beliefs and opinions. When it comes across judgmental, then it is likely to be received and answered back judgmentally. It's more of a self-defense, self-preservation approach. If we (all of us including me and you) all took a pro-active approach (yes, thicker skin and more open minds), the dialogue would be more informative and beneficial; however, we must all understand that those of us who have felt more judgment and prosecution/persecution will enter into the conversation with skin a lot less thick than those who haven't felt much at all. A little padding and compassion in the delivery will go a long way to open dialogue and less self-defense language.

Andrew is pretty much right on, we must realize that each of us hold valid, valued opinions, beliefs and feelings - and we must respect that. I just think we would get farther if we could delivery our messages with more compassion and empathy.

Pablo, I always find it an interesting mystery that there are some who cannot fathom the possibility of a gay Christian. There are a few who make repeated deserate attempts to take away my faith since I am gay, but I refuse to allow them. It drives them crazy - and farther away from me. Yes, it is TOTALLY possible to be gay, Christian and (although I'm not) conservative!!! YES YES YES. Just read throughout these forums
Sammy and you will find it isn't only possible, it's reality.

As a California resident, I'm so very thankful and blessed that we have Sheila Kuehls and others who will not tolerate intolerance and inquality. Thank God for her! And no, we will not stop at receiving the crumbs of equality - we want the entire loaf of bread that other selected groups of citizens receive. Will we take the crumbs, yes some of not most of us will - otherwise, we would have absolutely NO rights as a couple. Will we stop at getting crumbs, no absoulely NOT. We will stop only at full equality, 100%, nothing more and nothing less than any other selected group is entitled to receive.

[frankandcathy]

Well Bruce thought my input might be helpful in this forum but after reading all the posts so far, I think you guys are doing great!

It appears to me that Sammy's writing style was just too brash at first, unbeknownst to him/her.

His (okay, I'm just picking a gender for ease of writing) apology seems to have been heartfelt and his personal loss and suffering engaging.

Anyone who cleans toilets at Wal-Mart deserves a HUGE pat on the back and "thank you" from me (mother to three who always seem to have to go when we're at the store). What a humbling and serving job to have.

Um...I dunno. If you guys want my input on anything, just ask. It appears Sammy is capable of holding his own here.

Andrew: Blessed are the peacemakers...for they will be called Sons of God. WTG.

tdogg: Please don't extrapolate yourself from "traditional" church/Christianity. Change most often takes place from within. The literal meaning of "Christian" is "little Christ." Don't let someone else define for you what the word means. How wonderful for those coming behind you to be able to look at "a Christian" and see something unexpected. There has been much said about all the closeted gay people in church. Who will reach out to them? The most obvious answer: their older brothers and sisters in Christ who have walked farther down the path and can help lead them.

Oh yeah, final note: let's not be too hard on Sammy for his delivery. He is, after all, a single male (yes?) and, speaking from personal experience, not the best at communicating. Why it took years for me to teach my husband to say, "I feel...." A little stereotyping can help sometimes, right??

~C

[sammy1980]

Hi guys,

It was nice to hear from all of you:

James: Thanks for your honest feedback. That stuff you sent me about heterosexual agenda, was way funny. It is truly amazing that a gay man would defend a conservative pastor and reject another gay activist. Doesn't his sermon sound a bit harsh, though? You said, yourself that the Swedish hate speech law was stupid and had no place in liberal society. Well, one of the laws that Sheila Kuehl proposed was to consider criticism of homosexuality in public schools as a hate speech.

Tdogg: I have heard about Sheila Kuehl being pushing against employment discrimination of LGBT people, which I think is fair, but the most recent one laws she proposed went too far. On gay marriage, I used to worry about this before, but now, it doesn't bother me at all. You see, with having it or not having will not have any affect on who and what people love. Whether it is a love for another person or a love for certain ethical codes that you want to live by. You see, my grandparents could only get their marriage certificates issued after living together for nearly 10 years. It was in Russia, and they were some political issues, pertaining to such a delay. They didn't have marriage certificates but they loved each other. The way I see it, the feeling of love is more important than having a certain document.

Pablo: In my personal experience, I had attraction for other men when I was in my teens but now I am attracted to women, which I consider is a gift from God. Yes, you can say that I am an ex-gay, however, I never had sexual relations with men, so you might say that I wasn't really gay. I guess, it's confusing these days to clearly define what it truly means to be gay. My 'therapy' was basketball. I always wonder, if I could change my sexual urges, why couldn't other people? That word you were talking about in the 1 Corinthians, from what I heard/read means 'men in a bed together,' literally speaking. It wasn't defined as homosexual until the 19th century. However, the scripture doesn't say anything negative or positive about having a sexual attraction for the same sex, known as homosexual orienation. Like I said before, anybody who wants to follow Jesus is a Christian. The key thing to remember is that we must deny ourselves and take up our crosses daily and follow him (Luke 9:23). This means that whatever we personally cherish most, we must give up, ie try to figure out what God really wants and not what we want. Then put his concerns above ours. I'm still in the process but I believe that God all has plans for all of us.

Cathy; Yes, I'm a single male. How did you figure it out?

See ya

[andrewlittle]

Please forgive the dry nature of this post. I think it's important. You may not.

Sam, how right you are to question this passage:

That word you were talking about in the 1 Corinthians, from what I heard/read means 'men in a bed together,' literally speaking. It wasn't defined as homosexual until the 19th century.

1Cor 6:9 has two words that, when translated into English, have been understood to be directed against homosexuality. The Greek the words, malakoi(s) and arsenokoitay, are problematic for different reasons, however.

malakos - is an adjective.
malakois appears in Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25 and is the neuter/plural form of malakos. malakoi appears in 1Cor 6:9 and is the masculine/plural form of malakos. This is the full extent of the appearance of the malakos adjective in the New Testament.

It appears in ancient Greek texts and is understood to mean, variously, freshly plowed (when talking about land), luxurious (when talking about clothing) and is also used to mean temple idol slaves or servants (Homer and others).

The Latin Vulgate Bible, from the 5th century translated malakois (Matt 11:8 and Luke 7:25) into mollibus, which means "luxurious" or "effeminate". It translated malakoi (1Cor 6:9) into idolis servientes, which means idol slaves or servants.

The King James version (1611), which relied heavily on the Vulgate, translated malakois to "soft" in Matt and Luke, as it was referring to clothing. But in 1Cor, evidently not being happy with "idol servants" they translated malakoi into "effeminate". It seems to many scholars that the Latin translators were closer in time and culture than the English translators, so they would have a better idea of meaning. None-the-less, the KJV translation has, of course, stuck ever since.

As far as arsenokoitay is concerned it appears twice in scripture and not at all in classic Greek literature. It is a compound word, not uncommon in Greek. 1 Cor 6:9 uses arsenokoitay and 1Tim 1:10 uses arsenokoitais. The words combined to make the first word are arsen (adjective neuter/singular), o (masculine definite article) and koitay (noun feminine/singular). The second word is the same, except that koitais is feminine/plural.

Now, the first thing is that the Greek language is gender specific. These words have feminine endings which means they refers to something female. The word parts are varied, however. arsen means “male”. o is the male definite article (the). koitey, the root of koitay and koitais, means “bed” or "place where koitus (coitus) occurs" - can we presume "female's bed", since it is feminine?

What was being communicated here? No-one is really sure. The KJV opted for “the abusers of themselves with mankind”. The NIV went with “homosexual offenders”. The NRSV went with “sodomites”.

The notion of "men in a bed together" is not literal at all, but shows the same bias as KJV, by assuming a lot of things that the Greek, or Latin, doesn't say.

But the Vulgate, translated 1000 years earlier, and closer to the original culture, than the KJV translated to adulteri, which means “adulterer” but in the female tense. You could argue that this doubles up on the earlier use of adulterer appearing in the same verse, but that one is male tense.

So which meaning do you want to use? It seems you have quite the range of choices, and biblical scholars can’t agree – can we?

I think, Sam, you show maturity in questioning the use of this passage.