Once upon a time the evangelical Christian’s typical response to homosexuality was that gay people are just messed up straight people who need to become better Christians so that God can stop them from being gay.
The complete failure of the “pray away the gay” movement, however, in conjunction with endless evidence that people are simply born gay, has succeeded in finally tossing that hoary argument onto the ash heap of history. But has that stopped evangelicals from arguing against homosexuality? Of course not. They just needed a new argument, is all.
And they found one. Today the Christian argument against gay people is typically … well, this, taken from an email recently sent me:
Would you support a serial adulterer who leaves his wife, but is just attracted to other women, because that’s who he is and how he was born? How about an alcoholic who just can’t help himself? Would you support him as he leaves his wife for alcohol? Would you support a glutton? A man of extreme pride? Why does homosexuality get a pass, and not any other sin?
A person with homosexual desires who resists temptation is exactly the same as a married man who resists temptation to carry on affairs with other women—which is to say, a human being battling the temptation to sin. The most compassionate thing that we could tell someone struggling with homosexuality (or any other sin for that matter) is to keep resisting temptation. Keep battling. Don’t give in. This is your badge as a Christian, that you fight temptation.
Now the argument is that a gay person struggling against the temptation to be who they really are is no different from anyone else struggling to resist a “sinful” temptation. Now, in other words, the refrain isn’t that gay people should stop being gay. Now it’s that they should stop acting gay.
Evangelicals are positively enamored of this new argument. If I’ve heard it once, I’ve heard it ten thousand times. We all have. You whisper “gay” into the ear of a sleeping evangelical, and there’s an excellent chance that he or she will start murmuring in their sleep, “Just like any other sinful temptation. We’re all sinners. Must resist temptation.”
And putting your brain to sleep before you say that is the very best way to say it, too. Because it’s an argument that could only make sense to a brain-dead person. It’s just too lame for words.
But lemme try to find some words anyway.
Virtually all sins share a crucial, defining, common quality. Because that quality, which is present in every other imaginable sin, is utterly absent from being or acting gay, insisting upon putting homosexuality into the same category as every other sin—or in the category of sin at all—is like gluing wings on a pig, and insisting that the result belongs in the category of “bird.” It doesn’t. It can’t. It won’t. Ever.
Here is that Big Difference between homosexuality and all those other activities generally understood to be “sinful”: There is no sin I can commit that, by virtue of my having committed it, renders me incapable of loving or being loved. I can commit murder. I can steal. I can rob. I can rape. I can drink myself to death. I can do any terrible thing at all, and no one would ever claim that intrinsic to the condition that gave rise to my doing that terrible thing is that I am, by nature, unqualified for giving or receiving love.
No one tells the chronic drinker, glutton, adulterer, gambler, or any other kind of sinner that having committed their sin—that being the way they are—means they must stop experiencing love.
Yet living without love is exactly what anti-gay Christians insist upon for gay people.
When you tell a gay person to “resist” being gay, what you are really telling them—what you really mean—is for them to be celibate. It’s okay for them to be gay; they just can’t live out their gayness.
What you mean is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life absolutely devoid of the kind of the romantic, long-term, emotionally and physically intimate love that all people, Christians included, understand not only as their birthright, but as just about the greatest part of being human.
Be alone, you’re demanding. Live alone. Don’t hold anyone’s hand. Don’t snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don’t cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don’t have anyone at your table to chat with over coffee in the morning.
Don’t have or raise children.
Don’t get married. Live your whole life without knowing that joy, that sharing, that fulfillment.
Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.
The “sinful temptation” that Christians are forever urging LGBT people to resist is love.
Now isn’t that funny, given that love is the one thing that Jesus was most clear about wanting his followers to extend to others? It’s just so funny it makes you want to laugh till you cry.
![John Shore on The Huffington Post](http://johnshore.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/huffpost.jpg?w=120 "John Shore on The Huffington Post\")
{ 885 comments… read them below or add one }
1 2 3 … 5 »
*cheering and clapping*
Jeannie mentioned the fundamentalist requirement that singles be celibate to the point of lacking casual affection. I think that is an excellent point, and my answer to it is that those rules, too, are cruel, and should be thrown out. They used to have social and medical functions, but now, given that women are not chattel, that we can prevent pregnancy, that we can prevent venereal diseases, and that we can cure some venereal diseases, the old "no touching" rules mainly cause pointless suffering. They drive people to undertake marriages for bad reasons, such as being desperate to get laid. They cause people to find out too late that they are incompatible in ways that only show up after you start living together. Such situations make people unhappy for no good reason, can help create abusive relationships, and can permanently scar children unfortunate enough to be exposed to them. If there really is a loving God who wants us to be happy and healthy above all, then God must think we are crazy for still following the old "no touching" rules.
If I ever have kids, whether their first necking session is at 12 or 16 or 28 doesn't really matter. What DOES matter is that they are comfortable with their bodies, their desires, their partners, and are respectful of all those. What does matter is that nobody gets abused, sick, pregnant, or pushed into having any kind of sex they don't want. What does matter is that what they're doing (kinky or not) is safe, sane, and consensual. What does matter is that they are getting the love, affection, and sex they DO want. What does matter is that they and their partners (be it one or many!) are making each other more happy and healthy, not less.
Cheering and clapping for YOU, Grace! Thanks for that. In addition to the nuttiness over orientation, we also have SUCH a horrible track record with promoting healthy body image in this culture. Having two daughters with drastically different body types has made that a huge issue to be continually addressed in this family. We focus on HEALTHY – not fat or thin, but man, does mass media, etc. make that difficult.
Sorry, got off track – but you have a very healthy perspective, Grace.
Jason, to whom was your question directed?
I'm going to assume it's Verne.
That's what I'm hoping – the placement was just odd . . .
I am Gay, I believe in God, I am a Christian, I just question the ethics of fellow Christians. I do not question God, since he made me the way I am.
Any questions, you homophobic, judgeMENTAL piece of excrement?
Thank you, John, for putting this out here so succinctly. Demanding that someone live hopelessly alone is a cruel demand, to say the least. Those choose to remain alone is one thing. Demanding it of an entire group of people is cruel.
As a "discerned" Quaker of 3 years or so standing, I cry for the bulk of so-called Christianity. The Quakers I worship with simply believe that there is that of God in EVERY person. That in HIS eyes, we are all equal and that it's not up to us to quibble with his handiwork. Further, that God's gift to Man is the ability to love, and that He'd like us to use it.
I don't know what motivates these bitter, condemnatory people who have the audacity to try to claim Christianity for themselves. They must have missed some of the important stuff in the Bible. You know, the stuff about being meek, leaving judgement to God, not being haughty and arrogant. I mean, if you're going to play fundamentalist and go word-by-word on weak interpretations of poor translations how can you ignore those words? Those are some of the clearest ones in the Bible.
THANK YOU for a well-written, thoughtful, compassionate blog post. I'm not Christian, in large part because of my "choice" to be lesbian, happy and loved. I made this "choice" when I was 19, after several years of struggling/suffering and praying, trying to be straight and being so miserable I considered suicide. I am now 44, and in a long-term, loving relationship. Our families accept us and are happy for us, and my heart breaks for the gays & lesbians I know whose "Christian" families and friends continue to preach hate to and about them.
Found the link to the post I was talking about earlier.
http://johnshore.com/2009/04/17/christians-minus-…
John, I found your words compassionate and inspiring. Shouldn't we, as Americans, as humans, extend the same protection of rights, freedom from bigotry, and wishes for loving relationships, to eachother? I can't think of any reason we would not want that for every person in our society. And shouldn't Christians, in particular perhaps because they claim the peaceful and loving teachings of Jesus, be at the forefront of compassionate reevaluation of old-fashioned ideas to result in inclusion of all people, regardless of sexual orientation? I can't imagine why not. Thank you for continuing the discussion in the right direction, forward.
I just want to say that following this past week has been pretty eye-opening for me. I don't get involved much in the comments b/c quite frankly some of these conversations just plain frighten me. That being said, I have never in my life as a straight Christian had a problem with homosexuality. I've never taken a stance of judgment and have always been angered by those that do. But what I will own up to is the thought that there is no place for homosexuals in the Christian community. While I would have wholeheartedly supported their right to marry, I probably wouldn't have invited them a church service b/c I thought their way of life didn't necessarily fit inside the context of living a Christian life (and yes, I was probably concerned they'd be met with a ton of prejudice or someone trying to scare them straight). And the reaction should be then that "don't I believe that God wants EVERYONE in a good, loving relationship with him and by excluding them from Christianity, I'm implying they do not deserve that either?" When it came to the answer of what God thinks about that, honestly I probably just chose to not go down that rabbit hole. Ultimately I believe that God works to cultivate a relationship with individuals on His own accord whether that be in a church or not. But you guys have forced me to jump down that rabbit hole and think hard about what I think in regards to this. I honestly had never thought about what it would be like for a person to be gay AND christian. Thank you, John (and fellow commenters), for opening my eyes to this and breaking down pre-conceived ideas I didn't even realize I had.
And thank YOU for being open about sharing this. Nothing means more than knowing that words you've written have expanded someone's understanding of the world. John's words are amazing, as are those of so many commentors, and I love reading that someone has been touched and changed by what someone here has written!
Wow! I am ashamed to have once believed that stupid argument myself (in my teenage years). No longer, of course.
I do confront people on their hypocrisy now and am a huge proponent of equal rights for everybody. I know it doesn't make up for the damages I did to my best friend in high school (by believing that stupid crap) who I later found out was gay.
I am very glad to see you blogging about this and standing up for everyone's rights!! Thank you thank you thank you!!
@Verne,
I learned on TV last night (Fringe) that there are 52 sphincters in the human body. Now I've learned that there is at least one on this blog. I pray for the those in your path.
My apologies for the snarkiness. I just couldn't believe my eyes…
Well, at least you were trying to be factual.
DON!!! Now *that* was funny . . . . . !
Some of the best humor is that which you least expect . . .
Don Whitt is my favorite.
Mindy and DR, you're too kind.
Well, okay, you're both just right.
We both just have really good taste. ;->
Thank you for this dose of sanity in a mostly insane, intellectually dishonest debate.
Wow, thank you sincerely for the well thought out, rational and reasonable argument. You may be one of the lone voices rising among Christians to say "This is wrong. Being gay is not a sin and we owe our LGBT sisters and brothers love and respect" but yours is a powerful voice with a powerful message. Thank you for your kindness, intelligence and courage in making your voice be heard.
Hi, thanks sooo much for this. Sometimes, amid all the hateful messages that I see broadcast all over the country and the world, I forget how caring and kind many Christians actually are. This is what Christians everywhere need to do–spread a message not just of tolerance but of genuine acceptance. There are (I believe) 613 commandments in the OT. Very, very few people follow all of them, so why pick one at random (assuming the translation we use is even the most accurate) and make it the exalted commandment, almost on a par with the big 10? Your message is beautiful and loving, and I thank you so much for it.
In regards to the 613 Mitzvot, there are three touching upon homosexual acts, and they forbid: to lie with a man as one lies with a woman; father-son sexual relations; uncle-nephew sexual relations.
So it would seem that not all male homosexual acts would be covered under the first prohibition alone.
Given the context of the verses on which that rule is based and considering what "abomination" seems to imply in Biblical Hebrew—and as Frank Sonnek noted that he, as a gay man, also detests the idea of lying with a man like one would with a woman—I have to concur with the consensus of Reform (and also among certain circles of Conservative and Modern Orthodox) Judaism that this refers to certain practices of idolatrous cults that preceded and surrounded Judaism in ancient times.
Mmm… I see why it went to spam at first… obviously I did that wrong with the link. (It was supposed to say "…noted here that…")
Thank you for being a voice of reason and reminding me that not all Christians are thoughtless and cruel. I love that you spoke out – because so many other Christians won't speak out and let the nutty ones be the public voice of the entire faith.
Love your message – xo
The Bible doesn't address homosexuality.
The word (and concept it describes) wasn't even coined until the 1800's.
There are various passages of scriptures that address same-sex erotic behavior. The context of those verses is critical. Audience, situation, issue, objective … all are important to take into consideration.
In my mind, that's what's missing from the knee-jerk response that attempts to apply "plain meaning of scripture" to situations where the meaning is not so clear once context is taken into account. And that's where wings meet pigs with glue.
Exactly… and it requires an understanding of history and culture and Hebrew and Greek and a whole lot more than "my (King James) Bible clearly says…"
Excellent post. It's good to see Christian allies on this issue.
@ John:
I'm sad….I just realized that Leviticus wouldn't allow us to eat your flying pig….
LOL! We could if we called it a bird!!!
As long as it's not an eagle!
There are so many reasons not to eat a flying pig!
Ah yes, eagle: the other white meat!
I am a Christian who LOVES God and pursues Christ as much as possible! I strive to keep an open relationship and dialogue with God. Not all "Christians" can realistically say this…some if not most of them are too concerned with image and following the letter of the law and taking the Bible "literally". They're actually called Pharisees and Jesus hated their hipocrisy.
This is what I know for sure — the Bible is the infallible word of God, but people — if we're to take it literally, then we should own slaves, beat our children with rods, take an eye for an eye, smear blood over our doors, and have women keep our hair long and covered…oh, and also stay in the house because we're "unclean" once a month.
Homosexuality a sin? Honestly, I struggle with homosexuality — I'm going to be real. My struggle is with my own emotions. Something doesn't quite "jive" when I see two women or two men acting affectionately. I'd chalk that up to lack of exposure, and my own misconceptions. But a sin? No. The ten commandments were given by God to Moses because God knew that the Hebrews couldn't and wouldn't govern themselves successfully. He gave them guidelines so they wouldn't fight with each other, kill each other, and decimate their chances of reaching the Promised Land. He didn't give them these laws to prevent them from loving or having companionship. God hates promiscuity, of any orientation. He hates abuse. He hates rape, murder, adultery, lying, cheating, etc. Homosexuality is about who one loves. If you're attracted to someone of the same gender, and you know you're absolutely not attracted to someone of the opposite gender, then you're gay — it's pretty simple.
Being homosexual does NOT translate into sin. God was condemning lust and lack of self control that we humans sink into. Because let's face it — once we succumb to lust, chaos, abusive desires – we're acting against God and not being loving, supportive, caring, or glorifying to Him.
Kim, let this non-Christian just say that you are yet another beautiful example of why there is hope for Christianity yet. Thanks for speaking up!
I, for one, would love to see the current batch of commenters give their opinions on a question I believe you raised some months ago, John.
If a gay couple isn't having sex, are they still sinning? Living together, loving each other, holding hands, watching movies on the couch, sharing bills, cooking dinner, going on dates, but not having sex?
Are they committing an abomination?
What if they start a family? Are they an abomination then?
Since it's so clear that traditionalists think they get to draw the lines regarding my life and its morality, I'd like some clarification. How much love and companionship, exactly, am I allowed to have?
Can I talk to girls? Go to dinner with them? Touch them? Hold the door for them? Please, bearers of infallible knowledge on what is and isn't sin for other people, enlighten me.
"Please, bearers of infallible knowledge on what is and isn’t sin for other people, enlighten me."
Haha! Awesome!
Matthew 5:27-28: "27"You have heard that it was said, 'Do not commit adultery.'[e] 28But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart." Thus, if I believed that homosexuality was a sin, I would believe that the homosexual desires, whether acted upon or not, are a sin–just as heterosexual lust is also a sin. However, there is enough question as to the true meaning of the "clobber verses" that I think it's best to go with the understanding that any verse which seems to imply that homosexuality is wrong is probably based in a misunderstanding of scripture.
Okay, but I didn't say anything about that. I'm talking about love, not lust. I'm talking about romance, not sex. Is hand-holding always sexual? Kissing? What if I can kiss someone without lusting after them? Can I kiss a girl then?
Yes.
If people *are* go with such a rigid and exacting understanding of scripture, it only makes it adulterous for you females to harbor homosexual lusts.
* …*are* ^going to^ go…
hmmm – Are homosexual desires always lust? Just wondering why you use these words as synonyms. I think I would make a difference between the two.
Me too. Sexual desire is normal and healthy; being subject to temptation is not the same as giving in to it. What lust is, however, is a fixation upon what isn't rightly yours. That can, at worst, lead to serious problems, and at best it's totally *not* loving one’s neighbor like Jesus told us we should be doing—it's not being an active servant to the will of God.
And that whole “lusting in your heart” thing?? Good lord, talk about a random rule aimed at inducing completely unnecessary guilt!!
As I tell my kids – your feelings are your feelings are your feelings. They are not good or bad, they just ARE. Everybody feels – insert emotion here – sometimes. What matters is what you *do* with those feelings. You can’t smack your sister because she made you mad. You can’t go into her room and take or damage her stuff. You CAN go to your own room and punch a pillow. You can write down all the reasons you’re mad at your sister, then tear it up and throw it away. You can count to 100, then TELL your sister why you are mad – no yelling, no name-calling. But there is nothing wrong with FEELING really, really mad at your sister.
My oldest daughter had some serious anger and heartache over being adopted when she was younger. Once, my mother was visiting, and said daughter was just being a royal pill – talking back, refusing to cooperate, really generally obnoxious. She was about 8 at the time. I finally told her to leave the dinner table and go wait for me in my room – I would be there as soon as I was finished.
When I went upstairs, she was sobbing big, angry sobs. I just sat with her, and hugged her, and waited until she caught her breath enough to tell me what was wrong. And her little 8-yr.-old self gulped out, “IT’S NOT FAIR!!” You get to look at Granny and see ‘xactly where you come from, and I’ll NEVER get to do that, ever!!” And with her words, her crying began to subside. I just held for her awhile and acknowledged that, yep, she’d gotten a raw deal in this department. I told her that her anger and sadness were perfectly normal, which in and of itself was a huge relief for her – part of the problem was that she felt terrible guilt for feeling angry.
Then we talked for a long time about how even though the *feelings* were completely reasonable, treating everyone else in the house badly because of them was not. It was not OK to be rude to her Granny, it was not OK to be obnoxious to her dad and me. It was not OK to be mean to her little sister. Nor was it OK to suffer in silence and simply be miserable, either. We talked about what *would* be an appropriate way to deal with those overwhelming feelings. She agreed that she could talk about them with me or my best friend, who an adult adoptee who understands those feelings well.
We talked about how sometimes, all of the energy generated by anger can be channeled into something good. So I had her think about why it was that she could not know her birthparents. While we don’t know her details, we do know that because of China’s one-child policy, birthparents gave up their babies in secret, so no information is available. I told her that one of the founders of our adoption agency was working, in China, on plans to eventually start a DNA registry there, so people who did leave their babies could one day register, and all the Chinese adoptees around the world could also, if they wanted to. Maybe when she was a grown-up, she could work on this. She could use her anger at a flawed system to help facilitate connections. And as we talked, she relaxed. She told me she was sorry she’d been so mean. And my little 8-yr.-old beamed and said she was DEFINITELY going to work on that DNA project, because even if she never found her own birthparents, if even one of her China sisters did, it would be SO COOL.
Then it was my turn to cry. Here was this little girl, heartbroken over a loss she didn’t even remember, and all it took was a little time and understanding, and she was ready to throw her energy behind a cause that might not help her, but would help someone who felt like she did. She simply needed tools understanding what to do with feelings that make her uncomfortable. She needed to know that she was OK for feeling them.
I apologize for going on for so long, but every time I read anything about “feelings” being bad or sinful or whatever all by themselves, I think of this. How could any God have shamed her for feeling those things? Her guilt was completely self-imposed, because she didn’t *want* to hurt anyone, but being so overwhelmed, she didn’t yet know how to control them. She had to learn.
If I had, instead of talking with her, told her that she was a brat for feeling that way, that she should be damned grateful she had a home instead of whining about what she *doesn’t* have – - – how much damage would I have done to her little soul? How much self-flagellation would she have had to endure? As her parent, it was my job to help her learn to improve her behavior, of course. But how can you tell anyone, especially a child, that their feelings – which they can no more help than they can help growing hair – are wrong?
To me, helping children develop the sense of self it takes to know which feelings are OK to act upon and which feelings need to be corralled and managed differently is THE most important job of parenting. Helping them learn to trust their own instincts means validating the instincts, the senses, the emotions that they each have inside. When acting upon a feeling is harmful to someone else, to things or to yourself, you have to find another way to handle it. But having the feeling in the first place, whatever it is, is simply part of being alive.
And I would think that God would be far more impressed with an adult, say, who feels healthy lust and CHOOSES not to act upon it but to go home and love his wife to pieces than someone who pretends he never, ever lusts after any human being but his wife.
I guess my point is that while you are, no doubt, correct about how fundamentalists might interpret that, I not only agree with your point, but believe with my whole heart that any part of the Bible that indicates FEELINGS are bad has either been completely misinterpreted, or we have used the brains God gave us to completely outgrow such nonsense.
I love your story! Thank you for sharing it!
Thanks, Jutta – I felt bad for rambling so long off topic, but it is a point near and dear to my heart, that allowing feelings thing.
Someone in another comment re-defined lust, however, and it made more sense, as it likened lust not just to sexual attraction but more like an obsession with something/someone you cannot have. That's different than what I was speaking of, so if that is the what the Bible means, it makes more sense.
Somehow, though, when I think of Jimmy Carter confessing that he lusted in his heart, I don't think of him as grappling with some enormous obsession. Who knows . . .
What Jutta said!
John:
I don't know you, but I love you, for this blog and this post particularly.
It's a bromance*, natch, but dude you rock!
*Not that there's anyting wrong with that!
*likes the idea of said bromance* I totally have a bromance with my girlfriend's best friend. Approval!
John, I love pretty much everything you write, though this is my first time commenting.
I whole heartedly agree with what you're saying here! I have several gay friends, men and women, all of them rigorously, and I mean with all they have, pursuing a relationship with Christ. Unfortunately, there are times when a few of them nearly give up on the faith because of this 'solution' their mentors offer them! Practicinghuman sees things the way that I wish more Christians would. There are levels of love and intimacy, we should respect them. Although married couples can have a guilty free sex romp, sodomy is still against biblical teachings, and I feel this is the underlying core of the anti-homosexual agenda, though isn't something preached to married couples for one reason or another.
Once I finish my degree, I really hope I can help change people's views on this through film
/rant
There are those who like to say that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context) and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are explained away. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful desires. Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible condemns homosexuality as a sin. Let's look at what it says.
Lev. 18:22, "You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination."1
Lev. 20:13, "If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltness is upon them"
1 Cor. 6:9-10, "Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God."
Rom. 1:26-28, "For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, 27and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. 28And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper."
Homosexuality is clearly condemned by the Bible. It goes against the created order of God. He created Adam and then made a woman. This is what God has ordained and it is what is right. Unlike other sins, homosexuality has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: They are given over to their passions. That means that their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins (Romans 1:18ff). As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian's Response to the Homosexual?
Just because someone is a homosexual does not mean that we cannot love him (or her) or pray for him (her). Homosexuality is a sin and like any other sin, it needs to be dealt with in the only way possible. It needs to be laid at the cross, repented of, and never done again.
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the homosexual the same as you would for any other person in sin. The homosexual is still made in the image of God — even though he is in grave sin. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don't compromise your witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness.
*Written by Matt Slick…and I have to say I Totally agree with this….!
Can someone please explain to me why, if these verses apply to homosexuality, the "put to death" part no longer applies? I hear about "loving" LGBT people. But if we're going to be "biblical" why are we not calling for execution of homosexuals?
@Alise:
We had the same discussion the other day on this blog. The response I got (not sure from who, so I won't ascribe the comment in case I'm wrong) was to, in my mind, completely side-step the issue.
For many fundamentalists, the only answer is typically: Jesus replaced all of those condemnations with his atonement for our sins, for taking on those sins. The condemnation still exists, but we no longer have to kill gays because Jesus died for our (their) sins. However, if gays don't accept Jesus, they're going to hell.
*sigh*
sigh indeed.
I just take comfort in knowing that this attitude is dying and that my (hopeful) grandkids will find this kind of discussion absurd.
Oh, and I should add that this particular explanation from fundamentalists is not explicitly provided for in the Bible. It is the typical rationalization they trot out to explain away why we can eat pigs, not have to wear hairshirts, or celebrate the Lord's day on Sunday instead of Saturday.
I got into a debate with my dad over this the other day. We somehow wandered onto the topic of tattoos and while I agreed I don't want one because I don't like them (I personally think they look tacky but that's just an opinion of aesthetics, not a moral judgement) he said they are against the Bible and that he "blamed the pastors for not teach the old testament" and that "God hates tattoos".
We discussed this while we were eating breakfast over a plate BACON, which I pointed out as pork, which is forbidden as well. He said the food restrictions no longer apply because of Paul's dream.
I then asked him why the heck he was wearing cotton-polyester blend clothing then, since that is not a food restriction but wearing garments of mixed fibers is part of the laws in Leviticus also, just like no tattoos and no gay sexin'.
I never did quite get an answer out of him about that one.
Of course Leviticus also allows you to sell your daughter to the highest bidder and I'll say right here if he'd ever tried it, I would have socked both him and whatever idiot was stupid enough to try to buy me like a piece of furniture.
As for Paul, well I'm not touching that with a 10-ft clown pole. I'll read his letters and writings as letters and writings, but I'm not about to put them on the same level as the teachings of Christ or consider them divinely inspired.
Jesus is the son of God, not Paul.
I'm sure that stance makes me some kind of terrible heretic but there you have it.
LOL – Ace, if your dad decides to sell you to the highest bidder, let me know and I'll do some fundraising to buy them out. I'll then benevolently grant you your freedom afterward, which will just me make feel all good about myself – so it'll be win-win.
;->
Aww, wouldn't you rather keep me? I'm a very good pet, I never eat from the garbage can or dig up the garden!
Just remember you have to FEED ME. ;P
I'll only keep you if you CHOOSE to stay. The emphasis in on benevolence here. It's the only way I'll get to feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
(But you'll have to argue over the purchase price with Rose, my feline overlord. She may not be willing to sell)
Well. That changes everything. You didn't tell me you had a feline overlord. I have two. Their decision is nearly always final. Especially regarding the canine court jester. Should the time come, we'll likely have to convene a feline caucus to hammer out the terms.
Haha, Ace. I'll join your church of the heretics, then.
Sign me up for your heretical church as well.
John, do you mind if you use your living room for our services?
…and can we bring electric guitars?
LOL– I'll have to remember that if my dad throws Leviticus at me for being bisexual; I can just be like, "What, are you going to sell me to the hobo on the street corner for a case of beer now? Because check your Leviticus; you can do it! Oh yeah, but be sure to take off that blended-fiber shirt before you get struck by lightning." <3
I agree – and the topic of Paul has always been a sore spot for me. Who is to say that it's equivalent to everything else? And how much of Scripture is truly God-breathed and how much is not? Just because some church fathers declared it to be sacrosanct doesn't make it so in my book.
There's still a lot of debate over the exact authorship of some of the letters traditionally attributed to Paul. He also dictated them to a secretary, not writing them down himself, so what we have written down may not have even been what he actually said, there's no way to tell.
The fact that it's still not even been confirmed that the man we refer to as Paul of Tarsus even wrote all of them is enough to make me take them with a grain of salt.
I'd be rather curious what Paul would say about what's been done with his personal correspondance over the centuries, if we could wake him from the dead long enough to ask, to be frank.
1) I think your dad meant Peter's dream: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%…
2) The one thing that might (technically) be supportive of the Old Testament sexual limitations while overruling some of the other Old Testament laws is Acts 15:20–"Instead we should write to them, telling them to abstain from food polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from the meat of strangled animals and from blood."–to see it in context- -http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Acts%2015&version=NIV. But to me, it's still not my place to judge other people, so it's one thing for me to say to myself "Okay, I'm going to try to abide by all the sexual restrictions in the Old Testament," and another thing for me to say "YOU must abide by the sexual restrictions in the Old Testament." One is me following my own principles, the other is imposing my principles on someone else, which I consider to be wrong.
Sorry, I got the two mixed up. Hard to keep all those P's apart.
"sexual immorality" is such a vague term, anyway.
Ace, did your dad actually mention a biblical reference about tattoos, or does he just assume that God hates everything that he does not like? I would also be interested in reading the reference about selling your daughters. Or do you mean a so-called “bride price” ? which is a bad translation for a culture practice that we don’t have in the West.
He didn't quote me a verse and chapter, if that's what you mean. But I'm assuming he was referring to this:
Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.
Leviticus 19:28
As for selling your daughter into slavery, I suppose I was mistaken.
…as that's in Exodus, not Leviticus:
"When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she will not be freed at the end of six years as the men are"
Exodus 21:7
(which rather directly implies that selling your daughter as a slave is A-OK by God, at least under some circumstances)
"Various verses are cited (out of context) "
I want to laugh any time someone quotes the Bible in English as some defining authority. The Bible wasn't written in English. So the word homosexuality doesn't appear anywhere; that's how someone decided to translate it.
Aside from the number of other "abominations" listed in that section that folks have pointed out are so easily ignored, there's a further oddity that is ignored.
Pork and mixed fibers and the like are very clearly stated: Don't do X, it's an abomination. Only this one line varies to don't do X, like (as you would with) Y, it's an abomination.
If you believe in the power of every Word, and that each one is there for a reason, then this is an important oddity. Why not just say don't be gay or men shall not know men?
thanks – I must have always skipped these verses – LOL
(And frankly things like bride-prices and dowries still reduce women to mere chattel and the physical property of their fathers first, then their husbands, and I don't really care that it's a "cultural" practice, in the past or in the present in some areas still. It's dehumanizing, however you justify it.)
How is a dowry dehumanizing?
Matthew, I believe a dowry is dehumanizing by implication. Historically speaking, a dowry was a way of providing a woman with a portion of her family’s wealth, The use of a dowry was combined with a bride price that the groom would pay to the bride’s family in order for her to marry him.
The dowry became the property of the husband, but the woman would inherit the dowry should she become a widow. If the woman died, the dowry, less the cost of the bride price, would be inherited by her children.
Traditional or not, it's buying and selling of a human being. Not a very good feeling for us ladies.
Dowry stems from times when women weren't allowed to own property. The dowry wasn't given as a gift for the married couple, it only belonged to the husband and it was provided to the groom as a thank you gift for taking the responsibility of caring for the bride. A dowry assumes that the bride before marriage was the property of the father, and after marriage the property of the husband.
A dowry is not the same as a woman entering into a marriage owning her own things.
What Jennie & Barnmaven said.
A traditional dowry is nothing at all like the "hope chest" parents may give to a daughter these days, which may be the image in your mind of a "dowry".
A modern hope chest is basically a wedding present, whereas a traditional dowry is kind of like throwing in the bridle and saddle when selling a horse. Items or money to be used to set up the household, they do not belong to the woman, they belong to the husband, as does the bride, in a very material sense.
I disagree. They do not belong to the husband; they belong to the newly contracted partnership of familial corporation. And while a bride-price is a rather clear case of purchasing, no purchase need be taking place in connection with traditional dowry.
Yes, a "familial corporation" of which the ownership and head is the husband.
Believe whatever you want, but most "traditional" marriages are nothing at all like equal partnerships. Just head to places like rural India or Saudi Arabia to see what "traditional" marriages look like.
Ownership and head is the husband my pretty white patootie: I clearly indicated joint venture.
And, obviously, what you're pointing to is traditional *given LOCAL cultural tradition*.
I know that it is difficult to understand and see it through the eyes of people in other cultures. That's why I said 'bride-price' is a bad translation. In many cases people do not really see it as a 'price' (like for a merchandise) but as the seal of an agreement between two families. Sometimes it is a way of allowing another member of the family to get married. Sometimes it is seen as 'reimbursing' the parents for all their investment. Sometimes it is a matter of allowing the family to replace the loss of 'labor.'
We are living in such an highly individualistic context, that it is hard for us to comprehend the thinking of people in group-oriented cultures. Women who grew up with this do not feel 'dehumanized' but appreciated. To us it might look like women are treated as property but they see it more as giving them the honor and protection they deserve.
There is more than one way to look at these things. I admit that I am often torn how to interpret them in my research.
I so agree, Jutta. Very good point – it is nearly impossible for someone who has grown up in the US to understand the concept of willingly making sacrifices for the good of the group – be it community or nation. I've heard sooo many people lam-bast the one-child-per-family policy put in place by the Chinese government in the late '80s, because they have no concept of sacrificing personal desires in order to help keep your entire nation from starving to death. There is a whole lot about China I don't agree with and I can't imagine having government impose family-planning rules, but after spending time there, I understand that for them, going along with what was best for the most is just a way of life. We really don't get that.
Mindy, my problem isn't when people sacrifice for their family or community, it's when one group or class of people is mandated to "sacrifice" (if you can even call it that when it is no choice at all) above and beyond that of other members of the same society, and to take a much larger burden than another class or group.
I don't like the male-only military draft either (or military draft at all), before someone brings that up accusing me of just being anti-male.
China's one-child policy is one of those things that sounds pragmatic and useful on the surface, but the Chinese government's manner of enforcing it – forced abortions & sterilizations, huge fines for more than one child, etc – are rather less excusable.
That policy is coming back to bite them in the ass lately also, as enough female fetuses and newborns were preferentially killed to skew a generation's gender ratio now that generation is coming into adulthood and many young Chinese men have a low chance of finding a wife if they want to marry, in some areas of that country. This has led to a rise in kidnapping and human trafficking as well, which Chinese authorities have only recently begun clamping down on.
The growing number of senior/retired people compared to the shrinking work force is a familiar problem to most industrialized nations, but China is seeing this problem much sooner in their relative economic development compared to Japan or the USA.
Honestly I don't think it's a very good example of sacrificing for the good of the community at all, because 1. it's not a true sacrifice if you are forced to do it, it's simply coercion, and 2. it's actual benefit to Chinese society is questionable at best.
Ace, you're absolutely correct in everything you write. I wasn't clear – I didn't mean to hold it up as an example of sacrifice for the greater good. Sacrifice implies voluntary willingness, as you say. My point was only that when China implemented that law, because their culture is one of putting the good of the group before that of an individual, the general population gave a general shrug and went along with it. It was not met by outrage and protests, etc., as such a thing would have generated in the West.
As I said, I am not in any way defending the Chinese government – I've been over there several times and am familiar with the widespread corruption, the inconsistent enforcement of laws – including the one-child policy – the many human rights violations, etc. But I've also talked to many Chinese people who can't understand why we, as Americans, feel outrage on their behalf over something like the one-child policy. And they look at some of our assumptions about the protection of our own individual rights, and can't imagine why we'd be so selfish.
The overarching mindsets of group vs. individual that are ingrained in our collective cultural consciousnesses put us viewing the world from diametrically opposed perspectives.
(i don't know why but there is no 'reply' button under your post, so I have to reply to my own.)
Mindy, I completely understand that you do not mean to endorse the whole Chinese system. It is helpful to have lived in other countries to understand at least in part, that people can look at things very differently. And that there is validity to many other approaches to life. There are always pro and cons to different approaches but usually they make sense, but only from the inside (called emic view) not when you look at it from the outside with a completely different set of assumptions (often called world view).
Oh – the reason there is no reply button is that wordpress only allows posts to nest 6 deep. After that, you have to keep replying to the 5th one, and the replies just land in order. Or you start a new post altogether and just note what you are referencing.
HTH.
Since I'm quite sure that most of them have taken out a mortgage or a car loan, used a credit card, or in some other way borrowed or lent money/goods at interest, i.e. practiced usury, I'll be sure to save them a seat.
Usary is committed by the party that earns interest.
The party that pays interest is blameless.
Perhaps I've been a lapsed Catholic for too long because I cannot recall what the sin is called where one is essentially an accessory. If the taking of interest or usury is a sin than so is contributing to the committance of this sin. There are very few instances in this economy where one MUST pay with a credit card, MUST take out a mortgage or car loan, etc. Most things can be done with cash, even if that takes longer to do so or isn't convenient. Mind you, I'm not advocating such an approach because I have no problems with how the concept of usury has developed over the centuries. Yet I find this mentality of "the Bible says X is a sin and that will never change!" to be completely ignorant of how much Christianity and Judaism have developed and changed over the centuries – including how we interpret the Bible!
The victim should not to be considered accessory to an offense.
What is your problem? Please TELL me that was sarcastic. If you honestly believe gay people deserve to be executed, you need serious mental counseling.
Yes, it was ABSOLUTELY sarcastic. I don't believe gay is sinful at all. I believe that rape, abuse, idolatry, exploitation are sinful, but a loving gay relationship? No chance.
I just don't understand how anyone who throws those "clobber verses" around can possibly do that and then turn around and talk about loving gay people. One says very specifically that they shall be put to death. It seems to me that if the verse still applies, the punishment should still apply. No one has ever been able to explain to me how that works.
Alise, there is not one shred of rational explanation available to those who fall back on Leviticus to "love" someone who is "in grave sin."
As DR said, thank God that Verne and his ilk are the minority, and that reasonable Christians are slowly but surely eradicating his views. There has certainly been an uptick in their volume recently, but I do believe their numbers continue to dwindle, and I am grateful for that every single day.
She's pointing out the irrationality of the other commenter's position.
Uh, I interpreted it as she's pointing out "If you're following one biblical command, then why aren't you following the other?" So, yes sarcastic, but more importantly, pointing out the sheer insanity of (a) the passages in question, and (b) the selective use of scripture to justify repugnant beliefs and actions.
I wouldn't call any part of Scripture "sheer insanity", but I think it's important to take it into context. The people for whom Leviticus was written were struggling with a lot of external influences telling them how to have sex, whether religiously or socially, outside of marriage. God was telling His people that this was wrong, that He had created them to love one person for all their lives. (Let's not get into the fact that Jacob and other biblical men had more than one wife; personally, I hate thinking about that. Ugh.) He didn't want His people to fall victim to the lie that casual sex was okay, so, like a caring Father, He put up some boundaries. I don't believe He intended to cast out any person for loving another, regardless of gender. I think He said what He said out of love.
Thank God this kind of mentality is being eradicated through the people who are on this forum hat represent the millions of sane, educated Christians. Sooner rather than later, this will a minuscule part of the discussion instead of woven into the macro of our culture. That just cannot come soon enough.
Christian leaders once argued over the sinfulness/rightness of the slave trade here in the states. We look back on that debate now and shake our heads in collective disbelief that slavery and Christianity could co-exist. Hopefully, the next generation will look at us with the same baffled disbelief.
Ric Booth is my favorite.
@Verne – You have much to learn. So very much to learn. I will pray for you.
Um pray for me…okay thank you …I’ll pray for you as well ….
God Bless !
Never mind. I've read your other responses, and frankly, you aren't worth my prayer effort because you will never open the tightly-closed sphincter that leads to your mind.
You may cross me off your prayer list as well – that, I really, REALLY don't need.
Yeah, I'm pretty sure his prayers for anyone else are pointless, Mindy
Verne, you do know you have to pray in Christ's name—right?—and not that of whatever antichrist you think rules the world.
I’m truly glad to have you here though, Verne. It’s people like you who make this blog exciting and help people to wake up to the gravity of this problem within the Church and to incite them to action.
Exhibit B.
::::snicker::::
You're like a Verne magnet, John.
And what about divorce. Condemned in the bible, yet it happens quite frequently.
Divorced people are also mistreated in many fundementalist churches. They are looked upon as second class citizens who failed in their responsibility and in many cases are denied positions of leadership. It happens, but it is not acceptable in many circles.
I concur. I was treated with contempt and outright disgust when my first husband and I divorced, because I wasn't being "biblical." Its the primary reason I stopped attending church many years ago.
I don't think I was in any way treated as badly as I think many churches and Christians treat LGBT people, nonetheless it was a painful experience.
There are those who like to say that the Bible condemns homosexuality. Various verses are cited (out of context), and the verses that people use to show that homosexuality is wrong are indefensible against rational explanation. The world wants to change God's words and meanings into something more suitable to its sinful pride and desire for simple, easy, unequivocal certainties that put others in their "place". Nevertheless, the truth stands: The Bible does not condemn homosexuality as a sin.
Unlike other sins, bigotry has a severe judgment administered by God Himself. This judgment is simple: The one who makes others miserable is a miserable person himself. Their hearts are allowed to be hardened by their sins. As a result, they can no longer see the error of what they are doing. Without an awareness of their sinfulness, there will be no repentance and trusting in Jesus. Without Jesus, they will have no forgiveness. Without forgiveness, there is no salvation.
What should be the Christian’s Response to the A-hole?
As a Christian, you should pray for the salvation of the a-hole the same as you would for any other person in sin. The a-hole is still made in the image of God — even though his particular part in that image happens to be somewhere down and center on God's backside. Therefore, you should show him the same dignity as anyone else with whom you come in contact. However, this does not mean that you are to approve of their sin. Don’t compromise your witness for a socially unacceptable opinion that is void of godliness—just as the a-hole as a part of the body is not so much of the substance of one’s being as just as its name implies: a void.
Matthew:
"What should be the Christian’s Response to the A-hole?"
Bloody brilliant….
I'm just slightly in love with you now Matthew.
Oops, maybe that's a sin. :O
Thank you for making me laugh. That's somewhat of a salve on the feelings that @Verne's response has engendered.
Brilliant. LOL.
Wow, thanks, everybody, for the warm response!
But just what are you doing with your mouth there, Ace! “:O”
@ Verne:
"Don’t compromise your witness for a socially-acceptable opinion that is void of godliness."
I'm so sorry that you place your faith in a book, not God.
I believe that He has spoken to my heart on this as in many things, and opened my mind to what His love for us is. So, I haven't compromised my witness…God has sustained it….
And why I've concluded is so different than what you are holding out as the "Truth" that it makes me think sometimes we don't live in the same Universe.
But we do, and I can only hope that you'll let God in your heart long enough to clean it out of this hatefulness. It isn't love. Why? Because you clearly are putting the hate part ahead of the love part.
This is the best response to the Verne's of the world:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZdnTMkTrvo&NR…
I don't hate homosexuals….it's their lives and their holes …God bless them whoever you are posing to be cristians ! who are u to judge my relationship with God and how do u know I put all my trust in a book….I've read the bible have you! If God wanted 2 men together he would've created them together….I find it disgusting sorry …I'm entitled to my own opinion as are you! There is no hate in my heart ..I have a gay friend and he has been my friend for over 8 years I pray for him when he needs it and l love and respect him but I don't approve of his lifestyle…but it's his life and I am no one to judge him do I think he can be saved yeah why not. God loves everybody but hates the sin and being gay is a sin….like stealing is like killing …etc…I pray to God that he rips the blindfolds from you eyes.
"If God wanted 2 men together he would've created them together"
you… probably wouldn't understand this… but He did.
"I find it disgusting sorry"
Funny you should mention what you find disgusting…
(I won't in the interests so as not “to judge” you.)
I'm truly sorry though that two men or women in love disgusts you.
"I’m entitled to my own opinion as are you!"
Yes, but the funny thing is, you try to pass it off as a matter of fact, regarding what someone else is actually thinking—namely God, that is.
"There is no hate in my heart"
Well, there's an awful lot in your tongue
"being gay is a sin"
Wrong: a sin is never "being" something; it is always *doing* something.
"I pray to God that he rips the blindfolds from you eyes."
What a coincidence! I was just about to pray the same darn thing!
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say "Verne" is somewhere between the ages of 14 and 17 at best (at least taking into account the grammar, spelling and primitive non-logic displayed in that reply he gave you)
Maybe it's Mel, typing with her other hand?
OK, that was mean. Sorry. I am curious about ol' Verne though – based on the name, I'm envisioning someone in his 50s or 60s who hasn't had a computer all that long, hence the many misspellings, etc. Not keyboard-savvy, shall we say. And the primitive logic is that of someone who has been completely indoctrinated and is completely non-curious – about anything.
What's your demographic, Verne? Care to share?
You are vile.
Aw, c'mon, DR, how do you really feel?
;->
I'm working on a word stronger than vile. I'll let ya know –
One of the first things I reassured my parents after I came out to them was of my constant commitment to purity. I was afraid they would think that suddenly, since I was dating a girl, sex wouldn't matter as much because I couldn't get pregnant, and I'd lose my virginity.
I told them I didn't want sex; I wanted love. Like every human being, I seek out people I like to be around, to talk to and listen to music with and discuss the latest Harry Potter fiasco–err, movie–with. I want a boyfriend OR girlfriend who's just as crazy as I am and loves to dance. But it's also important that he/she respect my decision to remain chaste until marriage. That's between God and me.
John, your posts are so inspirational. I was reminded, at the end of this one, of the TobyMac song, "I was made to love, and be loved by You." Doesn't that TOTALLY sound like God intended us to scourge ourselves clean of any desire to love and be loved by others? >.>
~Chelsea
Oh John. "Christian Fix-a-Gay and Homo No’ Mo! programs" – that was THE funniest. Excellent excellent excellent!
I think part of the problem is that virtually every aspect of married heterosexuality gets a free pass. If you're not married, then don't have sex. If you are married, then you can have whatever sort of sex you want. I've purposefully left the statements slightly crude because unfortunately when people hear the word "gay" all they think about is sex. Only in the case of homosexuality do we see any reaction about sexual morality (namely gay persons should not display any uniquely marital aspects of sexuality).
Really, the question of love demands a consideration of how we love. Additionally, I think we have an invitation to think more critically about the people who live sexually abstinent lives for any reason. How is love moving in, through, and for them?
I do not think being gay involves a compulsive drive towards genital contact with a person of the same gender. But I also think that people need to extend greater charity in understanding that all humans display a range of intimate behaviors with an array of people. Just because a gay person hugs another person of the same gender does not mean it is motivated by a desire for genital contact.
Excellent point. Being gay is NOT just about sex, and I believe many, many do not understand that. Celibacy is a personal choice, and if someone chooses to be celibate, for whatever reason, that is their private choice and of course should be respected. But no one should ever feel forced, by their religion, into celibacy on the basis of who they are. That is nothing short of cruel. Sexuality is part of our humanity and no one has the right to deprive another of theirs.
To me, it isn't just that gays are told that they have to be celibate in order to be good Christians. It's that they're told that their whole sexual orientation is wrong. "Don't feel that way," they're told. But they do feel that way. They can deny it. They can fight it. They can try to redirect it. But the bottom line is, they're still gay. And anti-gay people (religiously motivated and otherwise) stand on the outside and pass judgment on the feelings of another. This, to me, is the problem.
Exactly. I am soooo impressed with the breadth and depth of the responses here – I want to print them out and make every fundamental Christian sit down, with a gay person, eye-to-eye, and have this all read aloud. And I want every hate-filled fundie to then try to contradict it all, never breaking eye contact with the gay or lesbian person in front of them.
How many do you think could do it? Alone, without their "posses" of hate-filled sign wavers?
Exactly. The number one objection I get if I mention my partner is “I don’t think it’s appropriate for you to bring up your sex life.” But of course, if I used the word ‘wife’ instead nobody would ever think to accuse me of flaunting my sex life, because everyone knows that a husband-and-wife couple connect on multiple emotional levels that aren’t even related to sex at all.
That assumption isn’t applied to gay men and women. I once heard someone put it this way: homophobic people can imagine gay sex, and it disgusts them. But what they can’t imagine at all is love between gay people – that image just doesn’t exist in their minds, and so the idea of a gay relationship having any decent human feeling is truly unthinkable to them. Since their mind only has one place to go, whenever they see a gay couple buying a car, holding hands in a movie theater, etc. etc. all they can think of is how perverse gay sex is.
To add to that, I occasionally find people surprised when I say I "came out" long before I ever actually kissed a man, much less had sex with him.
Labeling oneself as "gay" or "lesbian" does not require sex.
I realize many of the commenters here seem to get that, but that's kind of a core part of the issue here. It's not don't engage in homosexuality and just find a good opposite sex partner; it's conservative religious folks saying don't express the sexuality that G-d gave to you.
BRAVO! This aspect of the whole thing was brought home to me by one of those who advance the argument John summarizes in his email. For some reason, the word "sex" in "homosexual" – which refers to gender, not the act – got under my interlocutor's skin. For the life of me, I couldn't get him to understand that we are talking about people who love – just love different than he does. The focus on "sex" to the exclusion of "love"and all the wonderful stuff that John outlines – holding hands, snuggling, sharing intimacy in ways that don't need words – makes of gay and lesbian folk something less than human.
As I said in response to an earlier thread, I believe, with the author of the first letter of St. John, that anyone who loves is of God. Not just the whole, tired, "agape no eros" argument. Love. Period. When you love, you are showing that you have opened your life to God, and that God is filling it, even if you don't know it.
All the other stuff, Bible verses and history, don't hold a candle to this. The central message of Scripture is the overflowing love of God for all creation and the participation in the prodigal love in which we partake. It comes out in all sorts of ways – my love for my wife and daughters; my friend's love for her partner of nearly 19 years and their shared life together; a gay couple I know who adopted a couple children and raised them to be outstanding students and athletes and now community leaders. This is all evidence that GOD IS THERE IN THE MIDST OF ALL THESE LIVES.
Anything else is treacle and nonsense.
Love this!
It's particularly interesting to read reflections on divine eros — namely God's passionate and articulate love for us. "Wounded by Love" by Elder Porphyrios contains a rich treasury of reflections around this exact topic.
We lose the meaning of eros when we attach it wholly and exclusively to romantic and sexual intimacy. Most Christians would be absolutely scandalized to hear that God loves us erotically. Yet, in Christ, we find an absolute union-without-confusion of the human and the divine. What other than the passionate drive for oneness could compel Him to join Himself so fully to our human existence?
We become one with another in so many different ways. Yet, so often, people can not even envision this oneness apart from conceptions of sex. It intrigues me that for all of the weddings that I have been to, I have never heard direct mention of sexual intimacy. The closest we come to the concept regards the begetting of children, perhaps an oblique reference to the marriage bed, and occasionally in the chosen readings of the couple. For the most part, the public celebration of a marriage is declaring the couple's intention to accompany one another on the road to holiness. Some even use Ruth's absolutely beautiful declaration to Naomi to declare their commitment to journey together.
Yet heterosexual persons are often afforded the grace to explore how they understand intimacy in relationships, knowing that their ideas of sexual intimacy will morph and change over their life course. We make decisions all of the time about how to honor one another in relationships. However, we so often declare to homosexual persons, "The road to intimacy is closed to you because we know that you are absolutely, positively, without exception going to make decisions that are wholly unforgivable." I find this declaration towards homosexual persons to be abhorrent as it denies a simple human need for relationships of all kinds.
Excellent article, but I did have a question after reading it. How is this living alone different then the life that Christians ask of single heterosexual men and women? I was a devout fundementalist woman and as such was completely, shall we say, inexperienced until my wedding at the age of 36.
Indeed I was expected to "Live alone. Don’t hold anyone’s hand. Don’t snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don’t cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don’t have anyone to chat with over coffee in the morning". The church I married in even asked me to save my first kiss for the wedding alter. So, it doesn't surprise me that many churches ask this of their gay members as well.
Too bad my perfect Christian marriage didn't work out – but that's another story…
BEAUTIFUL! 100% agreement from me on this.
So a gay man discovers he is gay at the age of 4. He can't *change*, despite all of his efforts to. He longs to be in a relationship with a man.
You are suggesting that a loving God who died for our sins so we could experience fellowship with Him and with one another would condemn him to a life of being absolutely alone because of an orientation that is woven into his very being? That's what you agree with so whole heartedly?
DR, first – you completely (willfully?) misunderstood Jeannie, apparently. What she is saying is that Christian fundamentalists are VERY restrictive when it comes to sexual mores (pronounced "morays").
Secondly – a quibble: Why are gays the only people allowed to "discover" their sexuality? Do we say that heteros "discover" their sexuality, too? And how do you "discover" it at age 4?
I'm going to ignore the whole willful thing so we can stay on topic. But I will remind you that you chose to be a part of this discussion and remind you that you are more than likely going to get some very aggressive counters from those of us who are currently dealing with gay and lesbians who've been quite ravaged by your particular mindset. So please bear that in mind.
I'm aware of the strict moral code re: Fundamentalists. Once they are married, they are free to be as sexual as they desire with one another. So while I'm aware of the realities that Jeanine faces, those are more than often, temporary restrictions until a straight person marries. Which is a different reality for a homosexual, they according to some Christians are to *never* experience intimacy – sexual intimacy included – with another person.
To your second point, as one who was in child education for a number of years, kids both gay and straight do start discovering the sexual/romantic side of their being between ages of 7. Kids start masturbating at that age, etc. That's when everything starts to turn on, there's just no framework to understand it yet. That's fairly well-documented.
My "particular mindset"? Wow – you are STILL willfully misunderstanding.
And no, a child's sexual identity at that early age is still very much in question. If you really had been in child education, you certainly don't have a degree in child psychology.
Many kids don't know by then. Others do. Diversity of experience; go figure.
Kara, I will agree to that. ;o)
Freda, if you don't like my answer about gay men and women having a strong sense of their orientation when younger, that's fine. All I really need is for them to confirm that, and you'll see that many do. I've no real need to debate them on that at all, data notwithstanding.
The topic that Jeanine put on the table was the celibacy that heterosexual men and women who are christian are also subject to celibacy – no sex, no intimacy, no cuddling. The question was posed as to how this was different than what gay people experienced. The question was answered. If there's something else you want to add along the lines of the actual topic instead of talking about me? Please do. If not, I hope that answered the question.
Gay people cannot get married, according to Christians. Therefore, they are condemned (by christians) to a lifetime
DR, I see nothing I disagree with in your comment.
But be careful about subjective vs. objective observations/knowledge. Simply because you know people who claim they knew a certain thing at age 4 doesn't make it so, unless there's documentation they can provide to back up the assertion (this applies to everyone, not gays). And also know that we can often look back on something to justify our present position – I have done it myself.
Please Note: I try to be very honest and literal, and present both sides of an argument, which often makes me seem to be "the Devil's Advocate".
Um…OK. You've already dismissed the possibility that the data I let you know I had some prior experience with and knowledge about was still in question (without even asking about the specifics). You made some crack about me not having a child psychology degree. And now you're calling into question the direct experience of gays and lesbians themselves.
I'm not really sure where you're going here or what your agenda is, but you're a bit all over the place. It's a little confusing.
@Mickymse
Why don't I go ahead and make that latter suggestion right now? If 1) you cannot watch a gay couple strolling hand-n-hand stop to share a kiss without losing it, and/or 2) you think Darwin was evil, insane, and/or demon-possessed, then you should not be allowed to adopt or teach children!
Matthew, I don't know how to say this, but not only does this make perfect sense to me, I completely agree with you.
I would actually say that, YES, heterosexuals “discover” their sexuality also. Anyone working with tweens should be well-versed in seeing the changes that happen with normal, healthy children entering puberty.
And, as for your question about restrictions on fundamentalist Christians, I would point out that there is not a national movement to deny marriage to those fC’s who fall short of the mark, and no one suggests that they should not be allowed to adopt or teach children because they fell short either.
Freda, we all "discover" our sexuality, at some point, during our childhood. Some don't realize it, of course. Some don't discover it until later in childhood. And when your sexuality fits the cultural norm, you just don't notice it. Your Barbie loves her Ken, and all is right with your world. But if you think Barbie and Midge should get married instead, people will tell you you're wrong – and so it begins.
Some kids know, in second grade, when Susie decides she "likes" Johnny and everyone giggles about it, that this burgeoning concept of opposite-sex crush feels completely foreign to them. They don't know why, and for some, it is simply that they haven't reached the developmental stage at which any kind of "crush" makes sense. My youngest daughter was going to marry me for a long time. Eventually she figured out that wasn't going to work, so she decided she was never going to marry.
Even now, at 12.5, she is not "into" boys – she wants nothing more than friendship – but she knows that when she's ready to date, it will be boys, not girls. She just knows. If she were gay, she'd "just know" it would be girls – but she would also hear and see the cultural messages that this is different. I make sure she hears that it would be OK, but of course she hears the opposite as well.
She knows that one of her teen-aged sister's best friends is gay and will date boys when he dates, and she knows that another of her sister's friends is a girl in a long-time, committed relationship with another girl. And it is NO. BIG. DEAL. But she knows that to some people, for whatever reason, it IS a big deal. And she also knows that judgmental attitude is wrong.
These kids don't have any choice as to who they are, and they no more deserve to be deprived of the joy of loving relationships than you or I do. It's not about sex. It's about falling in love, being allowed to have a crush – and not feel ashamed. Any church that really expects human beings not to hold hands or kiss until they are married is ridiculous – sorry, only my opinion, but that's nuts – because it's pointless. We are designed to show affection. No sex until marriage – that's fine if that's your choice – but no displays of affection at all?? That's just – - – well, dumb.
I am an admitted non-scholar of the Bible, but I've read enough about conflicting translations in the New Testament to know that there are questions about what was called a sin and what wasn't. I know that because only males are discussed in the context of homosexuality, the patriarchal culture of the time in which it was written *did* matter – and that it quite likely had as much or more to do with procreation and the "wasteful" spilling of the seed, so to speak, as anything. I know that God could not have created human beings as we are and not expected us to learn and mature as a people – he'd not have given us the brains we've got if that were the case. So following Jesus' orders to put love above all else and disregard the rest is easy.
Well said, and a thoughtful reply. Thanks!
Mindy, as usual for you, wonderfully put….
"My youngest daughter was going to marry me for a long time"
LOL that's so cute. Heheh.
Thanks, Ace – yes, it was. That same child is so scrumptious, so perfect that I often have to pinch myself to believe mothering her is truly mine to do.
My girls are miracles in every sense of the word.
The difference, Jeannie (and I guess Freda) is that no one thought you were supposed to live alone forever. There was always the expectation that you would end up in a loving relationship. Gays are supposed to live alone until they die. Hardly comparable.
John, true.
So what do we do with that as Christians? What should our response be, do you think?
Oh DR – you WOULD ask me that.
Well… the jury's still out on this subject as far as I'm concerned. HOWEVER, I am intellectual enough to know that our modern concept of marriage is far from historical (there's a great book called "Marriage and Family in the Middle Ages" by Geiss that I highly recommend).
SO: Is "marriage" only real if it's government sanctioned? Do we need a seal of approval from the government to say what's in our hearts and minds?
And in Florida (where I live) divorce is as easy as marriage, which makes marriage valueless, IMHO. I know that's common in many parts of the country.
So is living together in a committed relationship considered marriage? Possibly so, or some states wouldn't have the law of "common law marriage".
HOWEVER, if you look at John 4:17-18, Jesus makes a distinction between living together and marriage. Yet that might have been due to the culture at the time, which DID require a formal ceremony to be "married". And there are many gay couples today who have formal ceremonies that are not government sanctioned. So, are they married?
Finally, I have gay friends who don't want marriage legalized because they truly don't want to marry their partner and this will put pressure on them to do so. So – not all gay people want marriage as an option. Just a side note, there.
Freda, gay people need the right to be married in the eyes of the government, simply because of the civil and financial rights that such a relationship affords. They need to be able to get divorced, just like we can. There should be no difference.
If a particular church chooses not to marry gay couples, that is its choice, and its membership will change accordingly.
As for your gay friends who don't want it legalized so they don't feel pressured into marriage, well, that's just selfish. I know a lot of straight friends who have felt pressured in the same way, and that is simply a personal issue they'll have to deal with.
So no answer, Freda, just more hostility and talking around the issue and throwing up a few gay friends who "don't want to get married".
Conservative christians, pay attention. These kinds of non-answers aren't good enough anymore. And people aren't assholes for asking you to actually come up with an answer to the problems you are creating. It's quite simple and people aren't going to let you get away with the kind of evasion tactics that Freda used, here.
Freda, I know this is off topic but I will comment anyway. I am a divorced Christian. I am glad that it was easy to get a divorce. It didn't devalue my marriage at all. My husband did that! I fought tooth and nail, as they say, to stay married. It was the most humiliating and devastating thing I had to go through. I have never recovered all the way from it. I considered myself lucky to not have to go through anymore public humiliation in the courts. Years later, I watched as my father lay dying and anguished over losing him. Yet that wasn't as painful as having someone throw me away. My father loved me up until the end. (And still does!) One of my first concerns as a person approaching the unwanted divorce was how I could fit into my church. I am so glad my government didn't make us both go through anything else. Thank God for His unconditional love! Without it, I don't know what would have happened to me.
But that was my point. The church we were in expected all relationships to be completely platonic until marriage. In fact, we were rebuked by leadership if we showed anyone of the opposite sex that we have "feelings" for them. Courtships rituals were strictly overseen by the leadership and there was very little wiggle room outside of those courtships. They also knew that many of us would never marry. I have many friends still from that church that are well into mid life now and have never married. It was part of the "cross we bore" to live alone in sexual purity forever. I don't know – kind of like a laity of nuns and priest I guess.
My point I am trying to make is – if it was supposed to be okay for me and so many others, then I am not surprised that it is expected of gay people as well. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
Now, was it healthy? I don't think so. But I do not find this attitude surprising. And it is probably one of the many reasons why I break into a cold sweat whenever I have to go inside a church today.
Jeannine, I do think you're on to something here. Which is probably why it is so difficult for those who are gay to hear they can't ever get married.
I experienced that too in my high school years, part of a youth group that didn't even allow kids to hold hands. The ideas I got about sex were that it was bad and shameful. Ugh. So I know what you mean.
Agreed.
“Good for the goose, good for the gander.”
Not quite… I’d be perfectly happy with expecting gays and lesbians to be celibate until religious marriage. But then you have to provide that as an option.
I am so sorry for what you experienced! You referred to this above as "the life that Christians ask", but those are NOT Christian teachings, and only but a miniscule fraction of the people in the world who call themselves "Christians" have such extreme views. And that sort of personal-life control that that church exercises is cultic.
As for what true Christians—most all Christians—believe: that's not in their creeds; that's not in their scripture; not a hint of anything close.
What your church taught sounds suspiciously like the fundamentalist Christian cult I got involved in when I was 19–specifically, the Boston Movement of the Church of Christ (not to be confused with the mainline Church of Christ.)- -http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Churches_of_Christ. Am I on target here or was your church not a part of this?
No. But a lot of fundementalist Bible based cults have similarities I have discovered. You know, any group that is headed up by people with control issues can be painful.
An abusive church leader and a rapid alpha mom heading up the local PTA can both make me cringe.
Diana…I was in the Boston Movement in the ’80s and interestingly enough dealing with my brother coming out of the closet. Needless to say that was very rough. By the grace of God I got out and my brother and I are very close now. It took me alot of years to get to where I am now and that is… my job as a Christian is to love God and love people…period! That includes all colors, races, sexes etc. And Jeannie I too am very put off by “rabid alpha moms”
Call me a fool, but I don't believe that anyone except God has the right to determine what ANYONE is supposed to be or do until they die.
My sister is gay, and she was horribly betrayed by the girl she thought she was going to be with until she died. Seems now that my sister was taken advantage of by a person who wanted a child, but didn't want to be pregnant. It evidently didn't compliment the "Young Latino Boy" look that she obviously worked real hard at cultivating. If I sound bitter, I am. Not because she is gay, but because she's a calculating _______! As soon as my sister signed and gave her the legal papers allowing her "spouse" to adopt my niece, this person immediately left my sister and sued for full custody in family court. Of course no judge in his right mind would give that to her, but my sister is forced to hand over her daughter to this …person… 2 days every week. I have no idea what my little niece thinks as she grows older, and more aware of the subtle facts about who this person is and why she has to go with her every weekend. I realize she knows this person and probably has a certain amount of attachment and affection for her. But it would seem that once she's old enough to put it all together and realize that her second mama is not blood related, or her mama. My niece will be caught in the middle with someone who legally tricked her REAL mama and betrayed her in a horrible way.
Another friend, a guy, was celibate for 15 years. He grew up Christian and believed that God would change his orientation. He quoted Proverbs. Hope deferred makes the soul sick. None of his Christian peers blamed him when he came out. But the ten years since, haven't proven to him that this was how God wanted him to be either. He's had one or two gay relationships, but it's not what he wanted. He wanted a wife and kids. He wanted a family like he grew up in.
Dang it, John…we are all both fearfully and wonderfully made, yet we are still sinful and wayward muts bent on wrongdoing. If you believe that Jesus is Savior, you have to admit that He came for more than shits and giggles. We've got to see at some point that we need to be saved from ourselves and each other. The only love that can save us eternally is God's. I'm thankful for all of the love I've gotten and given to my parents, my siblings, my wife (ex-wife), my kids, and any other hurting soul that the good Lord gave me the inclination to love. I just don't think that the stuff we qualify as love is really the same stuff Jesus was talking about. I could be wrong, but it's God that will have to show me.
You and Cat have a great weekend.
All love and blessing, bro.
Careful, Tim – when an adoptive momma like me reads stuff like this: "But it would seem that once she’s old enough to put it all together and realize that her second mama is not blood related, or her mama. My niece will be caught in the middle with someone who legally tricked her REAL mama and betrayed her in a horrible way" – it makes my heart hurt. Obviously, your sister was hurt by this woman and you are angry on her behalf – and it is absolutely none of my business what kind of relationship your niece has with her.
BUT – blood-related does not a momma make, and I'm far more REAL a momma to my girls than the women who gave birth to them can ever be. Those women will always be important, always hold a place in our hearts – but can never create the bonds of love and family that come from a life lived together.
Because you have the option of marrying. Single men and women have the option to marry, to have sex, to be intimate. You have the *option* to be loved and love.
Gay people – according to what some Christians say God believes about them at their core – do not.
Single people have the possibility of marriage, and the choice to get married in the future. Maybe if I find the right someone is lot easier to live with than I will never be married. Hope is a key ingredient in happiness.
John, as much as I like your stance in most issues, in this post something does not rhyme for me.
"What you are truly and actually saying is that you want them to condemn themselves to a life devoid of love.
Be alone, you’re demanding. Live alone. Don’t hold anyone’s hand. Don’t snuggle on your couch with anyone. Don’t cuddle up with anyone at night before you fall asleep. Don’t have anyone to chat with over coffee in the morning."
I am single, I presently live alone, at other times I have shared an apartment or a house with other singles. OK, I do not cuddle up with somebody before falling asleep, but apart from this my life is definitely not 'devoid of love.' I do have people over for coffee, for meals, for movies, for long talks, I hold hands and hug other people (same sex and other sex). I have deep meaningful relationships. In my view love does not depend on living out my sexual orientation, whatever it is. To say that such a live is devoid of love sounds to me as misguided as some married colleagues who sometimes gave me the feeling, that I can't be happy unless I am married. Maybe that is a cultural thing – they were Americans, and I am not.
Maybe there is also an overreaction in society because of the whole discussion, that even people who live together in a non-sexual 'loving relationship' get frowned upon and possibly more.
I agree that the problem starts when we "demand' things of other people and judge them for what they do in areas that are really a decision between them and God.
I would see that along similar lines as divorce: God did not want marriages to be broken up. So you could call divorce a 'sin' because it is not how God originally meant it to be. But life is not perfect and people can be very imperfect and eventually come to a dead end despite their best intentions. So if a person decides to divorce then this is between him/her and God, and it is not my job to judge them but to help them along the path.
I don't think calling something a 'sin' is the real problem, but the legalistic and judgmental attitude that often goes with it. I have observed it in other areas and have seen the devastating effects, and it makes me sad, because this is not how Jesus would deal with it. Especially saying that a person will go to hell because of one specific sin is such nonsense and makes me wonder if this person has really understood the Gospel of grace.
It's not uncommon for people who've been married for most of their life to take this stance with regard to people who are single by choice, Jutta. I get it all the time, people going "oh poor you" or assuming something is mentally wrong with me, or that I must just be absolutely miserable.
But we live in a society where romantic relationships and sex both get put up on a pedastal as the only legitimate form of love between adults. I think that's sad, and devaluing a lot of other forms of love, friendship and affection that are equally profound.
"Especially saying that a person will go to hell because of one specific sin is such nonsense and makes me wonder if this person has really understood the Gospel of grace."
That is so true.
Jutta –
Speaking as a Christian gay man, I hope I can illuminate a bit of what the difference is to me.
You wrote: "I do have people over for coffee, for meals, for movies, for long talks, I hold hands and hug other people (same sex and other sex). I have deep meaningful relationships."
…when I was trying to live as "ex-gay", I could NOT do these things freely. I had to constantly be on guard. Because if at some point I were to have a male friend over for coffee, for meals, for a movie, and I should begin to have feelings for him, then I would be duty-bound to *deny* those feelings. If, God forbid, he should *reciprocate* those feelings, if he and I should start to fall in *love* — I would have to shut everything down, flee him, kick him out of my life.
That's not true for you (assuming you're straight). If you discover one day that you and a male friend are falling in love, you can welcome that relationship, embrace that love.
Christians are telling gays that they must never fall in love.
That we have gay men and women who are willing to contribute to this conversation with such insight is a blessing. It really is. If I were you, I'd have washed my hands of even dealing with Christians a very long time ago.
The patience and grace that we as Christians receive from the gay community who is still willing to even try to educate us is pretty amazing (though if you don't, who will? We've certainly not done terribly well in educating ourselves, John Shore being an exception to the rule).
From J(utta) to J(random)
Thank you for your willingness to share so openly. Yes, I can see that this is not easy. And this is were I think, you need to talk it over with your Lord and have peace over it.
On the other hand, I hope you realize that being straight does not mean I never have to deny my feelings. For example, if my visitor was married, I too would have to deny my feelings. Or if it was not appropriate for any other reason. I have been very gifted in falling in love with the wrong people in the past. :-S So, I know that it is not easy to deny your feelings.
BTW, I think I would prefer to call it “not act on my feelings” instead of “denying” them. Feelings happen and we cannot control that, but whether we act on our feelings is a choice. At least that is how I see it for myself and how I try to live. I say try because I know it does not always work. I just got angry on the phone with somebody, even though I had the best intention of not reacting that way …
As I said above, I can emphasize that it is difficult if there is no hope. I still have hope for myself.
But until then, I will not live ‘devoid of love’ just because I don’t have any sexual relationships. Or be afraid of having people over that might trigger my feelings.
After re-reading your post, I am wondering if you think that not acting on one’s feelings is more difficult for gay people? It sounds as if it actually kept you from having people over and you found it hard to relax, as if you could not trust yourself to control your actions. Why? Or did I misread your post?
I'm guessing J Random could answer this a lot more eloquently. That being said, as to the question of whether or not acting on one's feelings is more difficult than gay people:
If you're straight, there are certain rules (whether imposed by society or religion) one is expected to follow. If you should develope feelings for someone's spouse, you're not supposed to act one them. However, what's being expected of gays is somewhat similar to asking someone not to eat. Diets don't work because the more you deny yourself something you truly want, say cake for example, the more you want cake. Ever done the Atkins diet? I did. I went to sleep dreaming of mashed potatoes and woke up ready to murder someone for a slice of bread.
No we're not any less capable of acting on our desires. Everyone, gay or straight, has had unwanted sexual thoughts about someone who's "off-limits" so to speak. But to expect someone to not just abstain from sex but not even think about sex not just with someone who's off-limits but with anyone they are and ever will be attracted to….well it doesn't work.. It becomes as quickly intolerable as my lusting for a pile of mashed potatoes. Now I'm hungry.
Jutta –
I agree it would be difficult to deny (or “not act on”) your feelings in the case of falling in love with a married man. But that would be just one potential partner in one circumstance. Christians require us gays to avoid falling in love with all potential partners, under all circumstances. We must take a knife to our hearts, carve out that possibility, and cast it away. Moreover, we’re told to do this pre-emptively, before we ever fall in love with anyone, since for us falling in love is nothing more than temptation to sin.
I don’t think there’s any blanket statement to be made about how difficult it is not to act on one’s feelings as a gay person. In my personal experience, it was hard to relax. I’d go to Bible study only to see Kevin there; and he’s gorgeous; and that’s a sinful thought and it’s lustful to even look in his direction now; so I won’t even *talk* to him, because we might become friends; and it’d be wrong for me to be his friend because I’m so attracted to him; so I’ll keep my distance and I won’t get to know him because I’m not allowed to feel this way about anyone goddamnit.
I’m not allowed to feel this way. I’m not allowed to feel this way.
I’m not allowed to feel.
It’s a lot easier to not act on your feelings if you cut yourself off from feeling.
…that’s pretty much how it went, for me.
Thank God I broke free.
I also am not in any sexual relationships right now. And I’m not living devoid of love either. I have lots of great friends and family and a loving church who embraces me.
But what I want to express is how much more bright and open and hopeful my life has been since I opened myself to the *hope* of love. It’s the difference between black-and-white and Technicolor. It’s the difference between a dry crust of bread and a feast.
Yes, I have experienced similar situations. Except that I did not tell myself "you are not allowed to feel this way" but "you are not allowed to show your feelings" for a variety of reasons – either because the person was off-limits for me, or because I realized that just because the other person is gorgeous and triggers all kinds of reactions in my body, sexual attraction alone is not enough to make a good relationship. I prefer to be realistic about that and not like a friend who discovered after her marriage, that she wanted to discuss philosophy and he only wanted to read comic strips. Or because it is already clear that the person is not interested in me, showing my feelings would only be embarrassing.
You are right, hope can make all the difference. So maybe this is already the answer to my next question:
In which way would / did the situation change with 'Kevin' after you broke free, assuming that he was not gay? Wouldn't you still have the feelings and not be able to act on them? Or does it boil to accepting your feelings as ok, because you know God accepts you the way you are?
Jutta -
Buried on page 2 of the comments. I wonder if you'll see this.
"In which way would / did the situation change with ‘Kevin’ after you broke free, assuming that he was not gay? Wouldn’t you still have the feelings and not be able to act on them? Or does it boil to accepting your feelings as ok, because you know God accepts you the way you are?"
It does boil down to accepting those feelings. Having broken free, I still have to not act on those feelings when they arise — but more importantly, I can laugh at them rather than hide them. I can even joke about my feelings with Kevin (assuming he's a friend) — which is really the best way to deal with unrealizable attractions, I find.
The point isn't that I want to realize my every attraction. Nobody gets that. The point is not having to demonize every attraction. The point is that sooner or later, one of those attractions may just be returned; and whereas once that was the worst-case scenario of which I lived in fear, now it is the best-case scenario for which I live in hope.
JR,
Thank you so much for your reply!
I am so glad for you – that sounds beautiful.
Basically, this is what I would call true Christian freedom, no matter if this applies to same-sex attraction or other feelings, no matter if they are sin or not. We all need to come to this point of acceptance – self acceptance and knowing we are loved and accepted by the Lord no matter what.
And if we haven't truly experienced that, then we have problems accepting others in such unconditional ways.
"The point isn’t that I want to realize my every attraction. Nobody gets that. The point is not having to demonize every attraction. The point is that sooner or later, one of those attractions may just be returned; and whereas once that was the worst-case scenario of which I lived in fear, now it is the best-case scenario for which I live in hope."
Well stated, sir!
Oh, and Jeanine, my evangelical niece and nephew both had relationships in high school – chaste, innocent ones with fellow church members, but they definitely held hands, etc. If either of them were gay, they'd not have been "allowed" that most joyful rite of passage, so to speak. Why not?
I am glad your niece and nephew had a healthier church experience. As with many things, evangelical churches vary widely on their stances on what is and what is not acceptable for single people.
For the record I am pro gay marriage. I am pro people – period.
Blessings to you,
Jeannie
"pro-people, period." I like that!! And I apologize for getting your name wrong – Jeannie, not Jeanine. Will pay better attention in the future.
Jeannie, I'm a jerk. I got you confused with another Jeanine who was anti-gay marriage and I think you may have caught some of my lingering – let's be honest – hostility toward her. Which I really do need to curb (baby steps). Regardless, I'm sorry!
I'm the same kind of jerk. I was being terse and certainly not welcoming – and, admittedly, for the very same reason.
I got confused too. I'm so glad I came to this conversation late and thus saw this before I engaged in too much of my own form of mouthing-off.
Very understandable. After all, there is only one letter difference in our names. I have caught most of Jeannine’s posts and can understand where everybody is coming from.
Again – blessings to all
It may have been better to have held someone's hand.
“How is this living alone different then the life that Christians ask of single heterosexual men and women?”
The difference is the duration. The idea of not having sex outside of a loving relationship when you have the option at any time of entering such a relationship is entirely different than telling someone they can’t have sex outside a relationship and that they can never have a relationship with someone they love.
“You should be celibate until marriage” is only a fair condition if marriage is a reasonable option.
In re-reading this and other comments, I think I should clarify. Love has many meanings, and by "a relationship with someone they love," I actually meant "a relationship with someone they have fallen in love with."
Obviously, I love my mother and have a relationship with her, but that relationship is not of the same sort as the relationship I have with my boyfriend. None of my comments should be taken to mean that non-romantic love is valueless, just that it is different than romantic love.
Jeannie, the problem is that when heterosexual people are asked to abstain if they're not married, they're not being condemned to live their entire life that way, they're being asked to *wait* until they are married.
Gay people are not permitted to marry someone of the same sex, and most gay people, if we're honest have no desire to marry someone of the opposite sex, so gay people are asked to be alone forever. That's where the difference lies, and that's not only unreasonable, it is cruel.
Even Christ, when he was asked "Would it not have been better for this man's parents never to marry than for him to be born a cripple?" He replied along the lines that not everyone has the strength to remain celibate (eunuchs) for life. Christ didn't expect people to remain celibate, and neither did Paul, who said it is better to marry than to burn with lust.
Yet gay and lesbian people are told every day "You can resist acting on your gay desires. Remain celibate, or marry an opposite sex partner." because, of course! It's better to live a lie and cheat your spouse out of a true, loving, committed and mutually nurturing relationship than to be GAY!!
Can you see the problem?
Be alone. Live alone. Die alone.
There are some people who choose to live solitarily, or just end up that way, gay or not gay, for a variety of reasons, some quite legitimate.
BUT, that said, I really think it's nasty, nay EVIL, to demand that of anyone. If somebody chooses to lead a purely solitary life, that should be a personal choice, not the result of pressuring external influence, the result of gaping, leering bystanders shoving their noses into another's personal life where they don't belong.
I think the "it's just another sin to resist" camp are more blindly thoughtless than anything else, not really understanding or caring about the broader implications of what they espouse, or at least that's the impression I get. But that sort of myopic, disinterested emotional violence is somehow even worse than deliberate cruelty, because it's a lot harder to fight against ignorance than pure meaness.
Yes, blindly thoughtless.
Yes, yes, yes!!!!
Thank you for saying this so eloquently. I am so sick of the "struggle" of homosexuality. Struggle against love? How does that work?
Thanks for saying this so very well.
WOW. You really know how to open a can of Worms Supreme.
First, let me say I absolutely adore you and your frankness and willingness to call a pig a pig. ;o) And I agree with you 99% of the time.
On this issue, I must admit that I have questions and don't claim to have all the answers.
However: I also admit when I believe in (or practice something) that goes against what the Bible teaches. I cannot, in good conscience, say that the Bible is OK with homosexuality. It is most definitely NOT. But is GOD OK with it? That's another question. Because I struggle constantly with the concept of the inerrancy of scripture: How much is written by men, how much is dictation by God?
Which is why I can't definitively say that God is opposed to people who are in a loving and loyal relationship but I CAN say the Bible is. (My Christian fundamentalist friends and family may read this and have a heart attack at this point).
But I DO want to point out that wanting to have sex with ANYthing or ANYone when you're in a committed relationship is something that needs to be fought. So your article yesterday (married man w/ homosexual desires) wasn't so much about homosexuality as it was about entertaining infidelity.
I don't believe the Bible — well, not the New Testament — condemns homosexuality.
1) Leviticus has 2 verses against homosexuality. But the Old Testament has laws against eating pork and shellfish, and wearing different fabrics together (among others). Can you explain why you choose to follow this OT rule, and not others? (Try not to spill your bacon-wrapped shrimp on your cotton-polyester blend shirt when you answer.)
2) 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy: Paul used the Greek word “arsenokoites”, a compound word composed of "male adult," and "bed" (with a sexual connotation–we get the English word "coitus" from this Greek term). This word appears almost nowhere else in Greek literature. No one knows what Paul was referring to when he said "sex-bed-men." It's translated into 26 different words in different versions of English Bibles! It could be referring to male prostitutes, males who participated in other religions’ ritual sex acts, pederasts–there are a zillion possibilities that DO NOT include regular ol’ gay people.
Both passages, by the way, very strictly only apply to men. If you think the Bible contains ANYTHING against lesbians, you're making stuff up.
So — most people think the Bible is against homosexuality because of an randomly-followed Old Testament law and what is very probably a messed-up translation. Having studied these passages, I don't believe the New Testament is against homosexuality at all.
Sorry for repeating myself from a couple days ago, but I can't be silent on what I believe to be a serious misinterpretation.
Thank you for noting that the Bible doesn't mention lesbianism. I don't appreciate because I believe lesbianism is okay and male homosexuality isn't, but because it makes very clear the bias that is the true motivation for Christian oppression of gay people. It's not about the Bible. Maybe for a few individuals, but not for the anti-gay movement.
The fact that the old testament says nothing about Lesbianism, and almost nothing in the new testament, shows that the Bible finds no fault with God's sexual gift of erotic attraction. In men or women. The verses applied to men always seem to be making some other point, usually about wasting the "seed" or some form of idolatry.
I suppose I could be wasting my time and my breath, but I bring that up so that hopefully a few Christians will start examining why they believe the things they believe. I don't think homosexuality is wrong, and I believed that way before I knew about arsenokoites. But there's NO foundation for Christians' anti-gay stance unless they believe they should follow every O.T. law in the Pentateuch. And 99.99% of Christians don't.
weather ur talking homosexual or lesbian it is still the same thing, the bible may not exacly say “lesbian” but it does cover the subject, the term “homosexual” literaly means (taken from wikipedia)
“Homosexuality is romantic and/or sexual attraction or behavior among members of the same sex or gender. As a sexual orientation, homosexuality refers to “an enduring pattern of or disposition to experience sexual, affectional, or romantic attractions” primarily or exclusively to people of the same sex;”
And those who say the bible doesn’t talk about it or that it is wrong, just remember that God is all powerful creator of the universe, he created humans to worship him, and only those who except that has he given the right to become children of God. Gods word is ERY clear on Gods possition on the subject.
Gal. 5:19 19 The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; 20 idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions 21 and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.(NIV)
Yes, but as someone who can read the new testament in its original language (Greek), I can tell you that theNew Testametn does not use the word homosexuality (as there is no Greek word for it), lesbianism, man-man love, any of it. If you really want to know what the Bible says, learn the language and study it, not the (fallible) English tranlsations.
I have come to the belief that Leviticus 18:22 is right:
It is in fact sinful for men to boff other men.
IF one or both of them is straight.
I think Leviticus condemns the kind of sex that straight men have in prisons, aboard pirate ships, in all-male environments. That kind of sex tends to be the kind of sex that's devoid of love. And I think that Christianists have been confusing it with the kind of sex to healthy gay men (and two healthy gay women) share ever since the gays started coming out of the closet.
That makes sense, Max. If what is being condemned is sex without the context of a loving, committed, monogamous relationship, that's just fine. Because that sets the same boundaries for ALL people. Whether you agree with it or not – and there are a lot of people who see consensual sex as a healthy recreational activity – it is a reasonable religious stance, a "rule" that a fair and loving God might well impose upon His people. Don't be promiscuous. Don't share your body with someone outside the context of love.
That is so not the same as condemning gay people – and I hope your message about the differentiation between those two "brands" of gay sex is heard loud and clear.
Interesting point, Max and Mindy.
Actually this is something I have been wondering about – I can see that everybody here on this forum speaks of the kind of gay love that is really an expression of love and with the appropriate commitment to one person. But I kept thinking that there is this other kind of "gay love" that as you say is sex devoid of love. As far as I can see those who go to gay bars etc do not share your interest in a healthy, loving, long-term relationship. But I guess for most people this is actually the first thing that comes to mind. Including myself, before I started reading the posts in this forum. Not just out of the blue but because of personal stories I have read.
So how can you make the difference? How can you distance yourself from that type of gay life style, that gives all others a bad reputation?
Well, how do you, as a straight young college student, say, distance yourself from the party-hardy, casual sex, friends-with-benefits crowd that hangs out in bars, goes clubbing, etc.?
Just because a stereotype indicates that gay people go to gay bars for casual hook-ups doesn't make it true for everyone. If I were gay, I can imagine going to a gay bar to hang out, have a beer, listen to music and not have to worry about being judged for watching the girls walk by instead of the boys. Of course, I'll end up being judged by someone else for just having walked into the gay bar in the first place . . .
Gay people do not owe anyone an explanation about their own personal lifestyles just because straight people make assumptions about them based on stereotypes and rumors. It is not their obligation to distance themselves from those who give others a bad reputation any more than it is your job to distance yourself from the party crowd that has a less-than-stellar reputation. Most gays and lesbians just live their lives, eating in the same restaurants and drinking in the same bars and attending the same movies, sporting events and activities as anyone else. You just don't notice that, because they're so . . . . normal.
It is the job of straight people to NOT perpetuate stereotypes. If you don't know any gay people, you are in no position to comment on them one way or another. If you've (and I'm using the general you, not meaning you, personally, Jutta) made it to adulthood without learning not to base your perceptions of people on stereotypes, gay people probably aren't the only ones to fall victim to your bigotry.
You've got a point. I am glad I met some of the "other" kind here and can learn from them.
Jutta, I’m wondering if you think going to straight bars is ok. Or are you talking about picking up strangers when you say gay bars? Just for the record, going to gay bars isn’t always about finding sex just like going to straight bars isn’t. Sometimes it’s about going out with friends or a partner and having a good time dancing and having drinks.
I think the point that is being made isn’t so much about gay lifestyles vs. straight lifestyles; it’s really about healthy, loving, monogamous lifestyles vs. promiscuous lifestyles. Monogamous=good; promiscuous=bad no matter the sexuality of the participants.
Hi i’m richard i8′m a gay minister in oklahoma, I’m also an ex-con. beleive me when I say that there is a huge difference between mutual loving sex. and the type of influenced rape experienced in prison. Having come from a ‘lifestyle where One has a bad reputation on the street is simple to explain.I guess all hetero’s are celibate right into the wedding chamber. No certainly Not! . Sex is pervasive in all culture. except in the third world. Our lives are constantly bombarded with enticements of a sexual nature from soft drinks, to the entire gamut of consumerism. We as Gay people are usually used to keeping a pretty tight cap on ourselves until we reach critical mass. or” coming out”. then we endeavour to experience everything at once. i.e. starving person at a buffet. or we are the other type who is running to the Bars for release from whatever pressure family and society has put on us that day.the 3rd type of person usually at the bar scene,is just looking to get lucky. what they don’t realize is that there is the possibility of Love if they would slow down long enough to experience it. Eventually I believe there is a fundamental shift within us all. A realization that we don’t want to live our lives in a party till you drop conflagration. instead we begin to seek out permanence.Which comes in finding a relationship which could last. Personally, the easiest way to explain my past in the party /bar scene which was intense. It was for lack of a better word, Educational.I’m just sorry it took me so long to get my thesis finished.Pardon the pun. Arrival at the juncture for seeking permanence is varied for all people but, I believe we all get there eventually. We keep that distance by adjusting our values. Through realizing we are worthy, and just as capable as our Hetero- counterparts for committesd loving marriage and relationships. Activism in your community helps as well Be Blessed!
That's a very interesting (and sensible) interpretation which I had not seen before today, Max. Thank you for sharing it!
Max, I have been trying to tell str8 Christians this for years. If you’re straight, and you go off with another straight man, then yeah, both Lev 18:22 and Romans 1 also apply. But, as I keep trying to tell them, I cannot have “exchanged natural passions for unnatural ones” – because I have never had the supposed-natural passions.
Ever.
I have FAKED them; I have lied about them. But nope….never. So, I tell them, that dawg just won’t hunt on these grounds.
I’d say you hit the nail on the head with that one. And in most of those scenarios you mention, it is usually called “rape.”
I’d say you hit the nail on the head with that one. And in most of those scenarios you mention, it is usually called “rape.”
Hi Freda—
The Bible makes no claims that it is anything akin to God's dictation. What it does say is, "All Scripture (OT and NT) is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;"
It is certainly subject to interpretation and even with the help of the Holy Spirit that gave men the inspiration to impart Scripture, it is still a matter of us figuring out how to fit it into shaping our own personal relationship with God. There again, the Holy Spirit is essential. Just picking up a BIble and acting according to our own personal take is what I would qualify as knowing just enough to be dangerous. Owning a BIble and going to church doesn't make me a Christian any more than owning a Chevrolet Mechanic's Manuel and sleeping in the garage makes me a Corvette. If our relationship with God is in order, Jesus encourages us that all else falls effortlessly into place. All of the turmoil in the world and the church should attest that we still need to remove the beam from our own eye before we start effing around with the speck in someone else's
While I agree with the spirit of this comment, it is worth noting that there was neither OT nor NT when the verse was written and its subject is more ambiguous than that.
The Septuagint existed and though the Tanakh wasn't fully canonized until well after the time of Paul's 2nd epistle to Timothy, scribes had begun copying those texts (Scriptures) as early as 200BCE. So while the OT (as we have it today) didn't technically exist when Paul expressed the verse I referenced, it's well documented that the verses of the Tanakh and Septuagint did exist. No ambiguity as far as I can see.
Tim, bless your heart – a kindly and well meant comment and thank you for it.
BUT I do agree with Don. Our Bible is a composite of different writings/books that were compiled at the agreement of a certain group of men. It's not like Moses got the 10 Commandments AND a fully complete Bible to take to the masses.
If the Bible has no authority, what does?
I mean, if we suspect the process of verifying 66 books written by 40 inspired writers, spanning 1500 years as being conspiratorial, I'd like to know by what logic we could come to that conclusion. The Dead Sea Scrolls (dated to before the time of Christ) contain large portions of the Tanakh (with the exception of Ester). That discovery in the mid 1900's supports the claim that the Bible's contents were not altered by the councils of Laodicea or Carthage. While that does not prove that the Bible is "correct" or "true" is still left to faith.
Sorry, I meant to say the "Hebrew Bible's contents were not altered"…If the OT was delivered intact, why should we have suspicions that the NT wasn't?
I see continuity between the two. The Old Testament is the New Testament concealed. The New Testament is the Old Testament revealed. In my opinion, one verifies the other.
Well done, Tim. I agree with your assessments. You've dug into the very root of this whole issue, the veracity and authority of Scripture.
"If the Bible has no authority, what does?"
Good question. The answers usually given around these parts are, "emotions and good feelings," "human reason," and, "culture/society."
1 2 3 … 5 »