http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2009/01/19/savage_love_letter_of_the_day Comments On: Savage Love Letter of the Day by Dan Savage en-us Copyright 2009 The Stranger. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, The Stranger readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact The Stranger. webmaster@thestranger.com (The Stranger Webmaster) Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0800 Mon, 23 Nov 2009 05:15:00 -0800 Foundation http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss
Thanks for the good discussion. I guess it would be as good as any to call it. I certainly agree that the church (as seen on tv) overemphasises the importance of homosexuality. If it weren't for tv I don't think the topic would come up more than twice a year at the Biblical churches I go to.

As for the actual gay hating people out there all I can say is that they do not represent the God of the Bible. I tend to think they are merely demagogues interested in non-religious agendas. That certainly is the impression I have gotten of Phelps... but not Warren.

In conclusion, yes I think homosexuality is a sin, but Christianity (and Jesus) is about saving people from sins not condemning sinners. We are called to be born-again not born-against.

In Christ's name,
Mikey G

btw feel free to keep up on my blog if you want
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:12:44 -0800 The Stranger
Either or both of you may be interested in reading Justin Cannon's study,"The Bible, Christianity, & Homosexuality". It's a study of biblical Greek and Hebrew and their English equivalents. You can find it at Amazon.

Best Wishes,
k
Posted by kim]]> Fri, 23 Jan 2009 13:18:15 -0800 The Stranger Posted by anti-christian bigot]]> Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:51:38 -0800 The Stranger
MikeyG,

I appreciate your thoughts and your heart. Thank you for sharing.

k
Posted by kim]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:22:29 -0800 The Stranger
Steve,

Well said. I could not have said it as beautifully.

k
Posted by kim]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:17:12 -0800 The Stranger
Thanks Mikey. I'm discouraged that if I can't convince an obviously thoughtful, humble and compassionate person such as yourself that love and sexuality in all its forms should be accepted and embraced, I have no idea how I'm expected to convince those that would go further than you in their condemnation.

Still, perhaps the best that I can hope to achieve is to ask you to classify any vote in favour of a legal restriction on same sex relationships, or in favour of those who would promote such a restriction, as equivalent to the condemnation, of which, you pronounce yourself as unworthy.
Posted by steve]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 18:27:28 -0800 The Stranger
I think that using the expression "to believe the Bible literally" to describe those who believe the Bible is God's Word would be a poor use of language. It might have been used that way and this is just the first time I have heard it done so. My best understanding of the common fundamentalist position would be either the strictly literal or the historically literal interpretation of the expression.

I am hesitant to go further because I do not know the acceptable expectations of blog. I am going to go further and if we get too much out of sexual politics and too much into theology hopefully will someone will thoughtfully let us know.

Certainly the view of God as presented by the Bible is not socially acceptable. I have struggled with various Biblical principles. To quote Lewis again (A habit of mine) "the difference between God's requirement concerning sexuality are so contrary to our nature that either there is something wrong with the commandments or our nature. The Christian believes the problem is with out nature." But my apprehension and difficulty does not mean I throw away what I do not understand. That would be making my own reason my highest authority. If I believe in God and God's Word it would naturally follow that I would seek to grow in understanding rather than settle for my current level of understanding.

I certainly believe that a Christian's relationship with God is through Jesus Christ, but I would be apprehensive about only giving the red letter words authority. This would be especially troublesome if you consider many of Jesus' words were quoting Old Testament scripture as if they had authority. But even if that were our starting point there are some times when the gospels quote Jesus warning against sexual immorality.

But much much more to the point is that as a Christian my primary job is not to condemn sin or sinners. I am not worthy to throw that stone. But if a person asks me if homosexuality is a sin how could I honestly say it is not?

And how this whole thing started is my continual belief that this in itself does not make a person "gay hating."
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 17:54:51 -0800 The Stranger
Ok, Mikey G, I can appreciate that your belief in the bible as the word of God is based, in part, on spiritual faith. As a person of faith myself (in God, rather than in the notion of the bible being his literal "word"), I realise that I am unlikely to dissuade you of that belief.

By the way, when I refer to "literal" interpretation in my post above, I'm not referring to literal belief in the sense of Lewis's example. There are numerous levels in which the bible can be said to be interpreted literally. There are the obvious metaphors (such as Lewis's example) and the allegories (such as the parables), which not even the most fundamental of pentacostal Christians would interpret literally. Beyond that there is what I would describe as bible mythology, such as the creation stories in Genesis. Some do interpret these stories literally, and that is, I think, the sense in which you refer to literal interpretation in your post. Yet there are at least two other levels. The first is the acceptance as literal fact of the stories presented in the bible as historical accounts, as distinct from mythology (for example, the books of Samuel and Kings etc, and even the nativity stories in Luke and Matthew). The second, which is the sense in which I have used the term in my post, is the acceptance of the bible, literally, as the word of God.

Yet even if you believe in the bible as God's word and reject my submissions, surely you would agree that, in that context, there is much in the bible that is mysterious and difficult to reconcile with our understanding of God, and difficult to extend to contemporary society. I doubt that you would accept all the proscriptions in the bible. Given your understanding of God, as informed by Jesus, and given all the evidence of the sincerity, virtue and grace of love in all its forms, why not let intolerance of homosexuality rest in the crypt of the many other curious and erstwhile prohibitions in the bible?

As a Christian I believe that first and foremost we meet God through Christ. Does not the absence from the Gospels of any single clear expression of disapproval of same sex love give you pause?
Posted by steve]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:34:07 -0800 The Stranger You answered why many in the GLQT community do not believe statements of loving the sinner but hating the sinner. I can sympathize with those who do not believe Warren or other who say they love the sinner.

BUT my question concerns with the statement that any who hold that to love the sinner but hate the sin are necessarily, logically and in all cases bigoted. I can accept the statement that Warren is only pretending to not hate gays (though what little I know of Warren would not support that view). But the constant statement has been to say that a view to love sinners without denying the sin is in itself, necessarily and in all cases a hateful position.

My first question was for some support that Warren was covertly "gay hatin" but Dan's answer was that anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin is a hater even if they claim to love sinners. Politically that makes sense (why give the other side any virtue?) but logically still seems iffy to me.
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:58:33 -0800 The Stranger You answered why many in the GLQT community do not believe statements of loving the sinner but hating the sinner. I can sympathize with those who do not believe Warren or other who say they love the sinner.

BUT my question concerns with the statement that any who hold that to love the sinner but hate the sin are necessarily, logically and in all cases bigoted. I can accept the statement that Warren is only pretending to not hate gays (though what little I know of Warren would not support that view). But the constant statement has been to say that a view to love sinners without denying the sin is in itself, necessarily and in all cases a hateful position.

My first question was for some support that Warren was covertly "gay hatin" but Dan's answer was that anyone who believes that homosexuality is a sin is a hater even if they claim to love sinners. Politically that makes sense (why give the other side any virtue?) but logically still seems iffy to me.
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:56:21 -0800 The Stranger Steve, I appreciate your thoughtful and lengthy response.

I do not think that I am going to provide an answer that satisfies your intellect. I think we would agree that their is a lot of intellectual laziness concerning the Bible which is inexcusable if a person believes it is the Word of God or worthy of such authority. The Bible often describes itself as a sharp sword and it is naturally disturbing to any who believe this to see others using it so carelessly.

But I do not agree that believing by faith is anti-intellectual. Without the numerous Bible passages warning us to not trust our own understanding completely it would still be pretty clear that even the best thinkers sometimes fall into error which in retrospect seems inexcusible. I believe that reason is one of the tools to gain understanding and even truth but it is not the only or the best tool. I admit I do not understand by reason everything in the Bible and this understanding helps to keeps me in check, but I believe in God and His Word. It is not anti-intellectual for a person who believes in God to trust (have faith) in God and believe His Word.

As for those who read the Bible "literally" I fear they are actually reading the Bible very poorly. To steal from C.S. Lewis logically if we read the Bible literally we would have to insist that the Holy Spirit which descended on Jesus like a dove had feathers and laid eggs. The Bible is filled with poetry and literary devices (like foreshadowing) and if the reader does not use their imagination as well as their reading comprehension they are not reading the Bible well.

But for whether the Bible is the work of man or God. That is something that I believe by faith AFTER believing in God. There is plenty of rational support for the authenticity of the Bible, but by reason alone not enough to grant it the authority of God's Word. If God is real He would have to help us to understand that the Bible is His Word. Any rational defense of the Bible is icing on the cake of faith in God.
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:39:21 -0800 The Stranger We don't assume that homosexuals can't reproduce, in fact we know that is crap.
However if you buy the notion that homosexuality is what gays innately biologically "are" then it must follow that they would not be able to reproduce. Both notions are crap.
But Homosexual activist have staked all on that house of cards.
Not that 'science' is being put back on the throne look for the emperor to be exposed as a naked fraud.
Posted by it ain't going to be a pretty sight]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 07:38:26 -0800 The Stranger
"...how is it that the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" naturally correlate with bigotry? I do not understand the necessary connection between the idea and bigotry, could you explain it?"

If you don't mind, aBC, I'll step in here with an easy way you might be able to answer this question for yourself:

Imagine if someone, or a group, or a wealthy and powerful instituition of religion with millions of followers insisted that heterosexuality were a sin, and then used their dollars, political clout and the legal system to restrict it. Then imagine if they said to you, 'but don't worry, we still love heterosexually inclined people anyway.' Would you believe them? Would you not find their actions oppressive and be tempted to assign them to bigotry?






Posted by Joffe]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 00:33:22 -0800 The Stranger Posted by Porkchop Sandwiches!]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:15:51 -0800 The Stranger
Nobody fully understands human biology or even what is most beneficial for human societies. The assumption that gay people can't reproduce is wrong and the assumption that gay people themselves must therefore somehow be "worthless" as a result (I guess the pinnacle of human achievement is therefore the hillbillies who pump out 15 kids) is unsupported and arrogant.

There are lots of ways people contribute to society - they work, they create and invent new contributions to human knowledge and culture, and they help and look after others who may or may not be their children.

Going up a floor higher on this shaky house of cards, the arguments about monogamy are also total bullshit. That is an orthogonal issue, like drug use or whatever else. I'm gay, I prefer monogamy, and so do most gay friends - they date just like everybody else.

The idea that gay men are all drug and STD addled whores is vile propaganda, pretty close to the height of bigotry. Rick Warren and those who assume that I and others are "harming" themselves and others (read: being dirty faggots) can go fuck themselves.
Posted by Tired of this "debate"]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 19:28:26 -0800 The Stranger
Mikey G, I agree with part of what you say. I don't think there's any way around the fact that the bible does, in several places, condemn homosexuality. Well meaning attempts to interpret it otherwise require a fairly tortured exegesis. That however, is not surprising when you consider everthing else in the bible that is similarly condemned. Some of the proscriptions in the bible are, to put it mildly, utterly bizarre. Some of the prescriptions are, to put in mildly, utterly pernicious. In that context, I wonder why so many Christians insist upon a literal interpretation of scripture, and I wonder what it says of their portrait of God?

I suppose it puzzles me to ponder why God, an omnipotent being, would choose such an obtuse and contorted means of communication as the bible. Why put us through the torture and pain of having to not only "wrestle" with it, but wrestle with each other in the process? To me the bible looks exactly as it would look if I were to imagine it, for the sake of the exercise, as a completely man-made collection of writings and reflections created over an enormous stretch of history. Such a collection would contain a large number of contradictions; it would contain confused theology; the character of God within the writings would alter over time; parts of it would reflect the evolving zeitgeist of the respective periods in which its constituent parts were created; it would mingle politics with theology; it would enlist God into parochial disputes; etc (I could go on and on). That explanation calls for no contortion of the texts, no stretch of the imagination, and no rational or intellectual struggle.

By contrast, to adopt the contrary explanation, much as I've tried, requires significant intellectual wrestling, contorted interpretation of the writings themselves, as well as the suspension of an unreasonable amount of disbelief. Frankly it raises questions that no-one has ever been able to answer to my satisfaction. The standard answer involves some fairly artful dodging of the question by replying with vague declarations about the mystery of God. Such a statement is a non-answer to the interrogatory. But then again, the questions demonstrably have no sensible answers.

One reason why the "church" invites so much criticism is its anti-intellectualism. The church almost seems to revere ignorance: unenlightenment is a virtue. We are actively encouraged not to demand answers to these questions, or if we do, to not subject the shadowy offerings we are presented with to direct scrutiny. I don't understand why so many Christians are so reluctant to apply critical analysis to these literal interpretations? Jesus invited Thomas to inspect the evidence, not to disprove his resurrection, but to prove it.

That is not to say that the bible is without virtue. On the contrary, I have no difficulty in accepting many of the writings in the bible as the distillation of generations of spiritual wisdom and thinking, not to mention the unquantifiable value of almost contemporary written historical accounts of Jesus' ministry. We meet God in the bible (the Gospels aside) in the same sense in which we meet God in Mozart's Requiem, which isn't the same thing as saying that God guided Mozart's hand in writing it.

I would encourage some of my brothers and sisters in Christ to release their grip on the literal meaning of scripture; to view the bible, not as the literal "word of God", but as the testimony of those who have perceived Him throughout history, infusing with their testimony their own beliefs and prejudices. Acceptance of a relationship with God does not require us to persist with the archaic beliefs and prejudices of those who have come before us.
Posted by steve]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 18:53:14 -0800 The Stranger
I believe that the same principle that allows me to love my sinful little nephew would also allow me to love the gayest gay man who ever did gay; even if his unbelievably gayness were an "intrinsic unchangeable part" of his gay gay gay self.

But even if you do not accept that example how is it that the idea of "love the sinner, hate the sin" naturally correlate with bigotry? I do not understand the necessary connection between the idea and bigotry, could you explain it?
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 15:57:39 -0800 The Stranger
Thanks for responding back. I love that you like me, study the Bible. I am not convinced that the Bible condemns homosexuality, as we would define it in 2009. I comprehend it (in regard to male/male sexual interaction) to condemn rape, pedophilia, and sexual prostitution for worship purposes.

So, we are going to have to agree, to disagree.

Best wishes.
Posted by kim]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:47:47 -0800 The Stranger
Take a good look at the Greeks. While they did have religion and whatnot, homosexuality was somewhat commonplace, and the Greeks are considered one of the finest historical cultures you could care to discuss. They advocated Humanism, a stress on human acheivement due to the fact that if there were gods, they were so capricious and selfish they didn't even focus on humanity. Therefore, goodness and civilization were inherent to humankind, not to religion.

To the topic:

"Hate the sin, not the sinner."
I honestly think this makes no sense whatsoever. To hate the sin is to inherently hate the sinner when their so-called "sin" is an intristic, unchangeable part of the self. That is why people who flap their mouths with this argument (like Warren) are just as bigoted as Phelps.
Posted by Arrow]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:03:42 -0800 The Stranger
I agree that Dan answered my concern well. But I still do not understand why the belief that homosexuality is a choice is hateful. Certainly if it is a choice or not it would be defined as "sinful" but that is a technical term only useful for those who believe in the Bible. Is it the belief that it is "sinful" that is hateful or the belief that it is a choice that is hateful?

#115 Kim, I put a lot of time and serious effort to understand what God intends to say through the Bible. I study historical relevance and carefully listen to thoughtful opinions; I use every faculty of reason I have available to understand what the Bible says and what it means. Granted I have only been doing this for about eight years, but up to this point I am lead by my best reading through out all of the Bible that it consistently teaches that homosexuality is a sin on par with pre-martial sex, extra-martial sex and bestiality.

I do not expect people who do not believe in the Bible to care what it says, but as far as reading comprehension goes it seems pretty clear what the Bible says.

I don't know if it makes a difference if a person is born with the inclination towards homosexuality. I might have been born with a natural inclination towards pride or I might have learned it socially or I might be making a practiced decision to imagine myself superior to others but in all three examples it is still technically a sin and something I must struggle against.

#116 J (and many others), I tend to agree that the sociological/cultural/scientific/pseudo-scientific arguments against homosexuality tend to fall flat. I do believe that "boy-meets-girl" is ingrained in my psyche but I wouldn't swear it is necessarily natural to me or anyone else.

Mikey G, a Biblical Christian
Posted by a Biblical Christian]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 12:12:38 -0800 The Stranger When I said "It is pointless to argue because more than 90% of the population will always be heterosexual" I meant "It is pointless to argue that homosexuality is bad because if everyone were gay, there would be no children, because more than 90% of the population will always be heterosexual." Sorry if I was confusing.

BTW, I am straight and married, but have never had the slightest desire to produce a child. Does this mean I should be stripped of my right to marry?
Posted by J]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:47:21 -0800 The Stranger
Re: #95
If "Mother Nature" doesn't like anal sex, why does she produce humans, sheep, dolphins, and plenty of other mammals who like to take part in it? One theory is that homosexual behavior (whether it's bighorn goats having anal sex or female chimpanzees enjoying frottage) strengthens friendships between animals that help the whole troupe's survival.

I am getting tired of posts on this thread and others by those who profess to understand biology but really don't. Perhaps they studied science at unaccredited bible colleges?
Posted by J]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 08:40:44 -0800 The Stranger
Thank you for writing. I applaud your desire to live your life according to your beliefs and with kindness. I think Julie sums it up well in post 112.

I'm a Christian like you and I believe the Word of God is infallible, but I don't believe my understanding of the scriptures, or any other humans understanding of the scriptures, is without suspicion of error. Humans are fallible, even the Apostles Paul and Peter had to be corrected on their understandings. Plus, like Julie (@112), I believe sexual orientations are God given, thus innate and not a sin to be repented of. The Bible is God's story and His invitation to all. Thus, I find the use of scripture to condemn people and to be used as a justification to sow seeds of hate, and to deny a segment of the population their rights under the constitution amoral. Especially, when there is a good chance that those same scriptures taken out of their historical context, and out of their original language could very likely be misinterpreted. Afterall, sowing hate isn't a biblical command, but loving your neighbor as yourself is. To love is to understand what hurts someone. To love is to stand against oppression. It's to love mercy, to love justice, and to walk humbly with your God.

Best wishes.
Posted by kim]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 07:30:39 -0800 The Stranger Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:53:27 -0800 The Stranger Posted by violet_dagrinder]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 05:48:23 -0800 The Stranger