Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, January 19, 2009
Savage Love Savage Love Letter of the Day
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 2:06 PM
In your response to "Faithful Obama Girl" you refer to Rick Warren as a "gay-hatin', right-wing Christian bigot." I found this confusing. I can understand that he represents a political/social faction which has an agenda opposed to your own. I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine how any criticism of a gay lifestyle takes a sinister aura when it has a religious basis. However, is it accurate to describe Warren this way? Certainly, he does speak against the gay lifestyle, but would you say that anyone who does this is a hateful bigot? Is there a difference between the beliefs of Rick Warren and those of Fred Phelps?I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps. I would disagree but differentiate between that description and the one you gave.
A Biblical Christian
Rick warren is Fred Phelps plus 100 pounds and a smile.
You can speak against the gay lifestyle without being bigoted. There are certainly aspects of "the gay lifestyle" that trouble me, and I'm as gay guys get. You'll certainly find examples of me taking gay men to task if you read through the "Savage Love" archives. But a person can't insist that people shouldn't be gay, or that gay people shouldn't have relationships, or that gay people shouldn't be parents or adopt, or that being gay is a sinful choice, without being considered a bigot.
Imagine if I told you that I only hated "the Christian lifestyle," and not, you know, actual Christians. Hey, nothing personal! I know and like tons of individual Christians, and I've broken bread with Christians, and I've had Christians over to my house. But I nevertheless think that Christianity—just the practice, not the people—is immoral and that no one needs to be Christian—it's a lifestyle choice, and Christians can change! Indeed, I was a Christian once. And while I have great affection for Christians I also believe that no one who is Christian is fit to parent, that Christians should not be allowed to marry or adopt, and that Christians aren't going to heaven because my God condemns their immoral lifestyle.
Oh, and I also believe that Christians being allowed to marry infringes upon my right to, um, live in a world where Christians do not enjoy that right.
Would you consider me an anti-Christian bigot then? I expect you would, ABC, and you'd be right.
2
It's sad that this is the debate we're still having: The Christians argue they "hate the sin, not the sinner," which is really just a way of reinforcing their supposition that being gay is a "lifestyle." Yes, there may be a "gay lifestyle," but that's certainly distinct from homosexuality.
3
"I could understand if you described Warren (or myself) as a dangerously deluded Christian fanatic because you believe that our beliefs naturally lead towards the hateful bigotry of Phelps"
Well, you both believe in some god figure that doesn't exist and no one has been able to prove exists. So I think that does make you a fanatic and probably mentally ill.
Well, you both believe in some god figure that doesn't exist and no one has been able to prove exists. So I think that does make you a fanatic and probably mentally ill.
4
Well said, Dan. I wish it was more understood that "hating the sin, but not the sinner" is indeed a form of bigotry.
Also... am I the only one who doesn't understand the writer's 4th sentence ("I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine...")?
Also... am I the only one who doesn't understand the writer's 4th sentence ("I can also imagine that I can not even begin to imagine...")?
5
I don't think that any of us have any trouble jumping on those in the past who used the Bible to support slavery and subjugate women. And let's be honest, the Bible supports those positions writ large. I say this as someone who re-reads the Bible every two years and the Christian parts one a year, "For the Bible tells me so!" is no excuse.
Warren goes further, though, and this should trouble all Christians very much. I understand that he has stated that resisting Homosexuality is central to Christianity. I'm sorry, but that is not the good news of God in Christ. Even if you could hold that it is a part of Christianity it would be far from central. Anyone who will so twist the Gospel is anathema.
Warren goes further, though, and this should trouble all Christians very much. I understand that he has stated that resisting Homosexuality is central to Christianity. I'm sorry, but that is not the good news of God in Christ. Even if you could hold that it is a part of Christianity it would be far from central. Anyone who will so twist the Gospel is anathema.
6
To be fair, as a non-believer, I really don't think it's fair to judge the Bible for much. Like fortune-telling, it's easily interpreted in different ways to suit the purposes of the both the person interpreting and the person being interpreted to. In other words, the responsibility lies with people, not the non-existent eternal truth they afford to the book. Religion's not the problem, people are the problem.
7
Well said. No ones faith, including mine, should be used to withold or eliminate the rights of others. Hence, why there is supposed to be a separation between church and state.
Many believe the Bible is "without error" or "infallible," but lack the humility to remember that human understanding is incredibly prone to error because we're fallible.
Besides, the Bible is a book about God--not a book about human sexuality. Dan's a better source if you have question about sexuality.
Many believe the Bible is "without error" or "infallible," but lack the humility to remember that human understanding is incredibly prone to error because we're fallible.
Besides, the Bible is a book about God--not a book about human sexuality. Dan's a better source if you have question about sexuality.
8
A very wise teacher of me, and Roman Catholic Seminary washout, once put it this way. The Bible is one big Rorschach test. What people tell you it says tells you more about them than it does about the Bible.
When I walk young people through that collection of books I make several things really clear. The first one is that everything you have been told about what it says is a lie.
The trick to it is, and what people tend to miss, is that the thing is recording a conversation. The voices agree, disagree, tell stories, tell jokes. If you attend to any one voice you miss the whole conversation.
When I walk young people through that collection of books I make several things really clear. The first one is that everything you have been told about what it says is a lie.
The trick to it is, and what people tend to miss, is that the thing is recording a conversation. The voices agree, disagree, tell stories, tell jokes. If you attend to any one voice you miss the whole conversation.
9
The difference between Warren and Phelps is that Phelps attacks and insults straight people who even indirectly support gays (protesting at soldiers funerals, etc., etc.). Warren is just obnoxious to gay folks, therefore he is considered acceptable.
In other words, if you just beat up on faggots, you get an invite to the inauguration. If you beat up on dead straight dudes, you're anathema.
In other words, if you just beat up on faggots, you get an invite to the inauguration. If you beat up on dead straight dudes, you're anathema.
10
The difference between Warren and Phelps is only that of style. Phelps has raised 'crass' to an art form. Warren is marginally more polite, but is no more interested in gay rights than Phelps is.
Fuck them both.
Fuck them both.
11
ABC, forget the concept "gay lifestyle" and get to the point. You personally do not approve of men having sex with men or women having sex with women. Your only choice in a free society is to refrain from having sex with another person of the same sex. You will not prevent any of us from doing so and we will fight for all of our rights including marriage and adoption. Christians need to get over themselves. You represent one religion and none of them have the right to call the shots for all of society. This is a secualr nation with secualr laws. We are free to reject your ten commandments and still enjoy the same Constitutional rights that you do. You can follow your beliefs, but for me it is not my book and it is not my god and you and I are equal citizens even though I partake in homosexual acts.
12
Here is something interesting from the American Heritage Dictionary that links the term "bigot" directly to religious belief:
Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
Bigots may have more in common with God than one might think. Legend has it that Rollo, the first duke of Normandy, refused to kiss the foot of the French king Charles III, uttering the phrase bi got, his borrowing of the assumed Old English equivalent of our expression by God. Although this story is almost surely apocryphal, it is true that bigot was used by the French as a term of abuse for the Normans, but not in a religious sense. Later, however, the word, or very possibly a homonym, was used abusively in French for the Beguines, members of a Roman Catholic lay sisterhood. From the 15th century on Old French bigot meant "an excessively devoted or hypocritical person." Bigot is first recorded in English in 1598 with the sense "a superstitious hypocrite."
13
Religion is the problem, not the solution. In fact, religion is behind all the worst inhumanity in history and would have continued to be so if it were not for secular government. The Nazis were all raised in good "Christian" homes. They were taught to hate early on. It isn't so hard to see how this can be the source of bully's and violence against gay people and Jews and even black people.
14
I doubt Dan actually reads these, but-
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1…
[Update]: Obama: We'd always intended for HBO to broadcast Robinson:
"We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson’s invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday’s program. We regret the error in executing this plan – but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event." -- PIC communications director Josh Earnest "
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1…
[Update]: Obama: We'd always intended for HBO to broadcast Robinson:
"We had always intended and planned for Rt. Rev. Robinson’s invocation to be included in the televised portion of yesterday’s program. We regret the error in executing this plan – but are gratified that hundreds of thousands of people who gathered on the mall heard his eloquent prayer for our nation that was a fitting start to our event." -- PIC communications director Josh Earnest "
15
The Bible is mythology, like the Bhaghavad Gita and the whole of science fiction. It is full of all sorts of fascinating and useful information about archetypal interactions and psychospiritual "mechanics." It is NOT a fortune telling device, an accurate account of scientific history or even a very effective moral blueprint for the kinds of emotional and intellectual problems contemporary human beings find themselves faced with.
Using the Bible to reinforce your own cultural bias against entire other groups of people is a symptom of spiritual immaturity at best, and Machiavellian cynicism at worst. But in this case, the bigotry doesn't actually cut both ways. The "hatred" that Christian fundamentalists most often display is borne out of fear and ignorance; Dan's "hatred" of Christians is reactionary, coming from his experience of oppression.
Ultimately, we are the ones with the capacity to see both sides of this issue, and so we are the ones who need to help lead our fundamentalist brothers and sisters out of their spiritual wilderness. There is no need to hate the sinner or the sin; as the fundamentalists have shown us, hatred is utterly unproductive. (Incidentally, I think Barack Obama knows this, and I think he also knows exactly what he's doing with regards to Rick Warren).
Using the Bible to reinforce your own cultural bias against entire other groups of people is a symptom of spiritual immaturity at best, and Machiavellian cynicism at worst. But in this case, the bigotry doesn't actually cut both ways. The "hatred" that Christian fundamentalists most often display is borne out of fear and ignorance; Dan's "hatred" of Christians is reactionary, coming from his experience of oppression.
Ultimately, we are the ones with the capacity to see both sides of this issue, and so we are the ones who need to help lead our fundamentalist brothers and sisters out of their spiritual wilderness. There is no need to hate the sinner or the sin; as the fundamentalists have shown us, hatred is utterly unproductive. (Incidentally, I think Barack Obama knows this, and I think he also knows exactly what he's doing with regards to Rick Warren).
16
It's true. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death: Crusades, Spanish Inquisitions, slavery, apartheird, segregation, Hitler's Third Reich, Holocaust, to oppose medical science, to condemn interracial marriage, to execute women as witches, to support the Ku Klux Klan, to pass Prop 8.
17
Actually, one's religion is more arguably a "lifestyle choice" than one's sexual orientation. I know many, many ex-Christians who live their lives completely free of the temptation to fall back into their old Christian ways, whereas every "ex-gay" I've ever heard of seems to expend a great deal of energy suppressing their unwelcome urges.
18
So according to Dan, you can't love someone and dislike one aspect of that person. So the only identity that a gay person has lies in that persons gayness? So if Warren hates gayness he denies the intrinsic value of of gay people? Actually no. And that's the difference between Phelps and Warren- Phelps thinks that gays are worthless human beings. In a way, Savage is more like Phelps than Warren is- Phelps and Savage both see a gay person as only a gay person. Warren sees the gayness as one aspect of that person, an aspect that he doesn't like.
19
Actually, I do think you can believe all those things about Christians without being a "hateful bigot". It might be difficult -- though not impossible -- not to qualify as a "bigot", but "hate" is certainly not necessary.
And I don't see what inborn disposition has to do with it, on either side. Given what we now know about genetics and neuro-anatomy, it would be hard to argue that many criminals don't have an inborn dispostion toward violent sociopathy. But most people -- at least most people who aren't sociology majors -- believe that it's possible to regard them as sinners whoose behaviors should be censured by society without being a "hateful bigot".
Full disclosure: I am not a "biblical Christian". I hold neither the writer's opinion of homosexuality, nor Dan's ostensible opinion of Christianity. I'm just interested in the logic of the argument.
And I don't see what inborn disposition has to do with it, on either side. Given what we now know about genetics and neuro-anatomy, it would be hard to argue that many criminals don't have an inborn dispostion toward violent sociopathy. But most people -- at least most people who aren't sociology majors -- believe that it's possible to regard them as sinners whoose behaviors should be censured by society without being a "hateful bigot".
Full disclosure: I am not a "biblical Christian". I hold neither the writer's opinion of homosexuality, nor Dan's ostensible opinion of Christianity. I'm just interested in the logic of the argument.
21
The Bible, Christianity and religion aside there is wide scope for criticism of homosexuality.
The biologist would recognize that sodomy (practiced by hetero or homo) is a perversion of biological function and carries an adverse physical cost.
The epidemiologist would recognize that sodomy (again no matter who is doing it) is likely to produce a host of diseases (as bacteria are put in places nature never intended them to be).
He would also note that non-long-long-term-monogamous sexual behavior also is sure to spread a host of diseases.
The social scientist would recognize that sexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage creates a host of social ills.
He would also note that long term stable heterosexual relationships that produced children create the most emotional satisfaction of any relationship type.
The psychologist would recognize that rejecting the core attraction to the opposite sex that has a biological component introduces a host of complications in the psych.
There is never a debate on the advisability of homosexual behavior; the conversation is always framed in terms of "I should be free to do whatever the hell I want".
If a rational debate were held one would find many concerns about the toll homosexuality takes on the individuals and societies that harbor it.
The biologist would recognize that sodomy (practiced by hetero or homo) is a perversion of biological function and carries an adverse physical cost.
The epidemiologist would recognize that sodomy (again no matter who is doing it) is likely to produce a host of diseases (as bacteria are put in places nature never intended them to be).
He would also note that non-long-long-term-monogamous sexual behavior also is sure to spread a host of diseases.
The social scientist would recognize that sexual behavior outside the bounds of marriage creates a host of social ills.
He would also note that long term stable heterosexual relationships that produced children create the most emotional satisfaction of any relationship type.
The psychologist would recognize that rejecting the core attraction to the opposite sex that has a biological component introduces a host of complications in the psych.
There is never a debate on the advisability of homosexual behavior; the conversation is always framed in terms of "I should be free to do whatever the hell I want".
If a rational debate were held one would find many concerns about the toll homosexuality takes on the individuals and societies that harbor it.
22
You'd be less of a bigot for disliking the "Christian Lifestyle" as Christianity _is_ a choice, at least once you're past 18.
23
How can these people justify their own rhetoric? "Hate the sin, not the sinner" is not only the creed of a true bigot, it's intellectually dishonest.
I need someone to explain this to me because I don't understand it: do fundamentalist Christians think it's wrong to be gay, or only to have gay sex? Is it ok to be gay and fall in love with people of the same sex ( and want to have sex with them) so long as you don't actually have sex with them? Or is the very fact of being gay (and falling in love with people of the same sex) a sin? If so, how does that fit with the "hate the sin, not the sinner" creed? Is there not a point where the "sin" and the "sinner" merge? If so, doesn't require a logical abandonment of hatred of the "sin"?
I need someone to explain this to me because I don't understand it: do fundamentalist Christians think it's wrong to be gay, or only to have gay sex? Is it ok to be gay and fall in love with people of the same sex ( and want to have sex with them) so long as you don't actually have sex with them? Or is the very fact of being gay (and falling in love with people of the same sex) a sin? If so, how does that fit with the "hate the sin, not the sinner" creed? Is there not a point where the "sin" and the "sinner" merge? If so, doesn't require a logical abandonment of hatred of the "sin"?
24
"He would also note that long term stable heterosexual relationships that produced children create the most emotional satisfaction of any relationship type."
What The FUCK?
"The psychologist would recognize that rejecting the core attraction to the opposite sex that has a biological component introduces a host of complications in the psych."
Does this "science, anyone?" person genuinely believe that gay people are "rejecting" some real, hidden attraction to the opposite sex?
This comes straight from the old arguments that everyone should just precisely follow mainstream prescriptions for daily living.
Golly, life is hard for bi-racial kids, so couples of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry. Some people participate in irresponsible sexual behaviors, so only monogamous sexual relationships should be permitted. I have a certain definition for "emotional satisfaction," so I demand that everyone else only be permitted to pursue that particular satisfaction.
"Science, anyone?"'s social scientist and psychologist don't exist today in the mainstream. The removal of homosexuality and BDSM from the DSM prove that those professionals DON'T believe that there is only one means toward "emotional satisfaction."
And also? Fuck you and your fucking psycho-babble attempt to call for "rational debate" on people's lives. It's not about doing "whatever the hell I want." It's about my being free to live and love in the way that will bring ME and my loved ones emotional satisfaction, not YOU.
What The FUCK?
"The psychologist would recognize that rejecting the core attraction to the opposite sex that has a biological component introduces a host of complications in the psych."
Does this "science, anyone?" person genuinely believe that gay people are "rejecting" some real, hidden attraction to the opposite sex?
This comes straight from the old arguments that everyone should just precisely follow mainstream prescriptions for daily living.
Golly, life is hard for bi-racial kids, so couples of different races shouldn't be allowed to marry. Some people participate in irresponsible sexual behaviors, so only monogamous sexual relationships should be permitted. I have a certain definition for "emotional satisfaction," so I demand that everyone else only be permitted to pursue that particular satisfaction.
"Science, anyone?"'s social scientist and psychologist don't exist today in the mainstream. The removal of homosexuality and BDSM from the DSM prove that those professionals DON'T believe that there is only one means toward "emotional satisfaction."
And also? Fuck you and your fucking psycho-babble attempt to call for "rational debate" on people's lives. It's not about doing "whatever the hell I want." It's about my being free to live and love in the way that will bring ME and my loved ones emotional satisfaction, not YOU.
25
@21,
Why do you people always conflate homosexuality with it's (sometimes) sexual expression?
"Sodomy" (I hate that word - it's so weighted with moral judgment) is not a synonym for "gay".
You don't see gay guys criticising heterosexuality based upon the dangers of ingesting bacterium through cunnilingis.
Why do you people always conflate homosexuality with it's (sometimes) sexual expression?
"Sodomy" (I hate that word - it's so weighted with moral judgment) is not a synonym for "gay".
You don't see gay guys criticising heterosexuality based upon the dangers of ingesting bacterium through cunnilingis.
26
24
Political Correctness and Radical Liberal Humanist Theology insure that rational study does not take place, as your rabid rants illustrate.
The posts speculates what the outcome would be of a dispassionate study untainted by social prejudices and political pressures.
The truth can set you free, if you embrace it.
Don't fear the truth.
Political Correctness and Radical Liberal Humanist Theology insure that rational study does not take place, as your rabid rants illustrate.
The posts speculates what the outcome would be of a dispassionate study untainted by social prejudices and political pressures.
The truth can set you free, if you embrace it.
Don't fear the truth.
27
@21 - You don't get to just make up stuff and put it into hypothetical scientists' mouths. You have to put forth peer-reviewed research, of which there is NONE to support your bigotry. You have just demonstrated you don't understand the first thing about science.
28
This is what I get from those I inquire from. They believe that a person who professes to be gay, is making a choice to be gay. Thus, they are enslaved to their sinful preference. They claim to love the sinner and hate the sin, because they think that with enough prayer and faith a person who is gay can renounce their sin. Some believe a gay person cannot be a true Christian, if they continue living the "gay lifestyle". Some churches, such as Saddleback, will permit homosexuals to attend but deny them membership if they are practicing their homosexuality (remember they believe its a choice). A homosexual can join Saddleback by either vowing celibacy or by becoming "ex-gay". (They apply the same rule to heterosexuals who are fornicating outside of marriage.) Saddleback believe that allowing homosexuals to attend their service, and thus hear the truth and repent of their homosexuality, that they are loving the sinner. So, cramming isolated scripture, for the purpose of saving someone from their sinfullness, is loving that person and hating the sin.
29
@24
"Does this "science, anyone?" person genuinely believe that gay people are "rejecting" some real, hidden attraction to the opposite sex?"
Homo Sapiens reproduce by heterosexual means. Homosexuals are evidently lacking a basic biological drive.
We shan't call it a defect but if everyone was so inclined the species would disappear in one generation.
"Does this "science, anyone?" person genuinely believe that gay people are "rejecting" some real, hidden attraction to the opposite sex?"
Homo Sapiens reproduce by heterosexual means. Homosexuals are evidently lacking a basic biological drive.
We shan't call it a defect but if everyone was so inclined the species would disappear in one generation.
30
This is what I get from those I inquire from. They believe that a person who professes to be gay, is making a choice to be gay. Thus, they are enslaved to their sinful preference. They claim to love the sinner and hate the sin, because they think that with enough prayer and faith a person who is gay can renounce their sin. Some believe a gay person cannot be a true Christian, if they continue living the "gay lifestyle". Some churches, such as Saddleback, will permit homosexuals to attend but deny them membership if they are practicing their homosexuality (remember they believe its a choice). A homosexual can join Saddleback by either vowing celibacy or by becoming "ex-gay". (They apply the same rule to heterosexuals who are fornicating outside of marriage.) Saddleback believe that allowing homosexuals to attend their service, and thus hear the truth and repent of their homosexuality, that they are loving the sinner. So, cramming isolated scripture, for the purpose of saving someone from their sinfullness, is loving that person and hating the sin.
33
@32 - You still don't get it. The burden of proof lies on the one making the claim, and you haven't offered any proof, so you don't have a leg to stand on.
34
I think if the survival of the species was at stake... I could blow a load in 50 beautiful girls and three ugly ones. At least.
38
Yes, and any "so-called" heterosexual could "choose" to suck my cock. But it wouldn't really be what he wanted to do, and he probably wouldn't be any good at it, it wouldn't result in a lasting, loving bond, and it would leave us both feeling diminished and dirty. But sure, any straight boy could, under duress, "choose" to suck my cock -- you know, like they do in prison.
But you can't believe that prison-style, doing-it-under duress relationships between closeted gay men and duped women will make anyone happy, can you?
Would Mrs. Haggard like to weigh in on this?
But you can't believe that prison-style, doing-it-under duress relationships between closeted gay men and duped women will make anyone happy, can you?
Would Mrs. Haggard like to weigh in on this?
39
Dear Science Anyone,
No, no, no, no, no, and no. Actual science does not support any of your claims, except perhaps the one that sex can spread disease, just like other desirable human behaviors, like, say, shopping in a public market.
No, no, no, no, no, and no. Actual science does not support any of your claims, except perhaps the one that sex can spread disease, just like other desirable human behaviors, like, say, shopping in a public market.
40
A great many people seek happiness down paths that will and can only disappoint them.
A great many people think they have happiness but find it was only a short term impostor.
A great many people know the path to happiness but are unwilling to follow it.
As humanity we have much more in common than not.
Some things in life are complicated but some are not.
Reproductive biology is not.
A great many people think they have happiness but find it was only a short term impostor.
A great many people know the path to happiness but are unwilling to follow it.
As humanity we have much more in common than not.
Some things in life are complicated but some are not.
Reproductive biology is not.
42
@40 - Is that so? I'll assume you're a straight guy. Could you get it up for any girl? If there are some girls you're more attracted to than others, why is that? Why is it that some guys find the same girls hot that you find unattractive? Why is it that some straight guys like me who have plenty of gay friends and totally would be fine with being gay don't have the slightest attraction to other men? If being gay is a choice, could I choose to be gay? Why haven't I, then?
43
42
Healthy whole Homo Sapiens is a heterosexual being.
Our lives' circumstances, challenges and choices take us down many different paths, and we react in different ways, and sometimes acquire different tastes. Not all acquired tastes are equally beneficial or valuable; and some are destructive.
Healthy whole Homo Sapiens is a heterosexual being.
Our lives' circumstances, challenges and choices take us down many different paths, and we react in different ways, and sometimes acquire different tastes. Not all acquired tastes are equally beneficial or valuable; and some are destructive.
44
@43 - still haven't seen you produce any evidence to back up your claims. You lose. Sorry, game over.
45
I'm not Mrs. Haggard, but I can share what family and friends who have been there have said. My best friend, and both my mothers-in law have been down that road. My best friend married her college sweetheart, a closeted Christian gay man. They had two great boys before he couldn't live the lie anymore. My husband's mother, was a teenage closeted lesbian when she had him and gave him up for adoption. She tried to identify as straight and has a 42 year old son as a result. My other mother-in law, my husbands stepmother (married his adopted dad after his adopted mom died of lung cancer), married and had my brother-in law and sister-in law before her first husband (a pastor's son) came out of the closet. Unfortunately, he died of AIDS in the 80s. Each relationship shattered and hearts were broken. I would not wish that sorrow on anyone. We have to be who we are.
46
I should say I am grateful, too. For all the pain being closeted brought people I love, it also resulted in my family. I will always be thankful for my husband, brother-in law, and sister-in law, my two children, my three nephews and one niece. Love is a beautiful thing. Family is a beautiful thing.
47
44
sorry you have to go,
is your mom calling you in for supper?
come back when you can stay up later.
sorry you have to go,
is your mom calling you in for supper?
come back when you can stay up later.
48
@21 - Besides the fact that "science" doesn't actually support the thing you claim, a big problem with your comment is that you're equated "sodomy" (anal sex) with being gay. Many gay men don't have anal sex, and most lesbians do not. And of course, plenty of straight couples enjoy "sodomy" as well.
You're also equating "non-long-long-term-monogamous sexual behavior" with being gay. And again, plenty of gay people don't fit that mold, and plenty of straight people do.
If what you'd like to argue against are sodomy, non-monogamy, and promiscuity, by all means do so. But none of those things are arguments against homosexuality.
You're also equating "non-long-long-term-monogamous sexual behavior" with being gay. And again, plenty of gay people don't fit that mold, and plenty of straight people do.
If what you'd like to argue against are sodomy, non-monogamy, and promiscuity, by all means do so. But none of those things are arguments against homosexuality.
50
Someone in California needs to start a proposition petition to ban Christian marriage. It would be an effective stunt.
51
Just a thought after reading all the posts here. "Science anyone" (post #21) puts up a good, logical argument against homosexuality, to which L responds (post #24) with obscenity, sarcasm, and name-calling. You're not making a good argument. I wonder if there's a good argument to be made. How can homosexuality be advantageous to a healthy society?
In all religions, God is known as a creator. Religion is a building block of society, it embodies the common beliefs of a people. Without those beliefs a society cannot exist, and if the beliefs of individuals differ too far from the core beliefs of the society, the society fractures. Religion sits apart in it's role from government. While our criminal code sets societies standards between 'legal' and 'illegal'; religion sets the standards between 'wrong' and 'right'. This is the "separation of church and state" written of by Jefferson.
When we walk away from our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship because we wish to define our own personal morality, we are not only acting in a most selfish manner, we are denying the codes of conduct that keep society together. When we encourage others to do the same, we are sewing the seeds of destruction within our own society. In simplest terms: Religion creates- immorality destroys.
Now, before you start responding with obscenity, sarcasm, or name-calling, I invite you to provide me with one example in history--just one-- where homosexuality created and a society instead of being considered as an atypical subculture.
In all religions, God is known as a creator. Religion is a building block of society, it embodies the common beliefs of a people. Without those beliefs a society cannot exist, and if the beliefs of individuals differ too far from the core beliefs of the society, the society fractures. Religion sits apart in it's role from government. While our criminal code sets societies standards between 'legal' and 'illegal'; religion sets the standards between 'wrong' and 'right'. This is the "separation of church and state" written of by Jefferson.
When we walk away from our churches, synagogues, mosques and other places of worship because we wish to define our own personal morality, we are not only acting in a most selfish manner, we are denying the codes of conduct that keep society together. When we encourage others to do the same, we are sewing the seeds of destruction within our own society. In simplest terms: Religion creates- immorality destroys.
Now, before you start responding with obscenity, sarcasm, or name-calling, I invite you to provide me with one example in history--just one-- where homosexuality created and a society instead of being considered as an atypical subculture.
52
Do you know any straight women who want to marry a closet case? Probably not. I know (of) a girl who wants to marry a gay guy (he's her high-school sweetheart). She lives in a very conservative area and has been brainwashed into believing you should save yourself for marriage. She lost her virginity to this guy thinking they were going to get married. He lost his virginity to her and realized he wished he'd lost it to a guy. He tried to let her down easy, but she didn't take any subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints he was gay and breaking up with her. He tried to tell her bluntly "I'm gay and I want to date men.", but she refused to hear it. Mentally & Emotionally, she stuck her fingers in her ears and went "la, la, la, la...I can't hear you!" every time anyone brought up "He's gay and he dumped you." She flatly refused to hear the truth. She wouldn't move out of their apartment or even out of his bedroom (and yes, he tried to make her go!). Each night she'd pop a sleeping pill, roll over, and go to sleep and Ex-Sweetheart (who got sick of trying to make her see reality) would bone his boyfriend in the bed next to her!
He's left (their) town with his boyfriend and she's still planning a wedding. She plans on following him (and his boyfriend who's existence she refuses to acknowledge) and move in with him (them). She still thinks they're going to get back together.
She's bat-shit crazy....much like all the other people who actually believe in the Ex-Gay movement.
Only gay men should marry gay men and lesbians should only be marrying other lesbians.
He's left (their) town with his boyfriend and she's still planning a wedding. She plans on following him (and his boyfriend who's existence she refuses to acknowledge) and move in with him (them). She still thinks they're going to get back together.
She's bat-shit crazy....much like all the other people who actually believe in the Ex-Gay movement.
Only gay men should marry gay men and lesbians should only be marrying other lesbians.
53
I think the "hate the sin, love the sinner" Christians don't really have any sort of essential grasp of what "gay" is about. This is indicated by their use of nebulous and meaningless phrases like "gay lifestyle" What the fuck is that? Brunches every Sunday?
These people think that being gay is kind of a hobby, a pastime. They don't realize that a gay person's gayness, while not our whole being, is almost always a part of the central core of a gay person's identity. After all, sexuality is a pretty central aspect of humanness; I think we and some apes are the only species that experience sex as pleasurable. Actually, I think that's a big, big part of why the Christians have a problem with the gay thing: it's just part of their overall anti-sex philosophy.
They need to figure out that sexuality, homo-, hetero-, & bi-, are all equally gifts from God.
These people think that being gay is kind of a hobby, a pastime. They don't realize that a gay person's gayness, while not our whole being, is almost always a part of the central core of a gay person's identity. After all, sexuality is a pretty central aspect of humanness; I think we and some apes are the only species that experience sex as pleasurable. Actually, I think that's a big, big part of why the Christians have a problem with the gay thing: it's just part of their overall anti-sex philosophy.
They need to figure out that sexuality, homo-, hetero-, & bi-, are all equally gifts from God.
54
@46,
I'm grateful too Kim for the existence of your husband and the love of your family, although you're mother-in-law might still have had a son had she been out all along, if only same sex couples had civil rights equal to those of opposite sex couples.
You shouldn't feel that you need to disclaim your condemnation of anti-gay bigotry with a shout out about your husband's conception. I agree that love and family are beautiful things, which should be available to all of us, gay or straight.
Ps. Thanks for your response @28 to my question by the way. I suppose what it comes down to is that the people you're talking about don't seem to accept that gay is real. They seem to think it's a flight of fancy that you (they) can eradicate?
I'm grateful too Kim for the existence of your husband and the love of your family, although you're mother-in-law might still have had a son had she been out all along, if only same sex couples had civil rights equal to those of opposite sex couples.
You shouldn't feel that you need to disclaim your condemnation of anti-gay bigotry with a shout out about your husband's conception. I agree that love and family are beautiful things, which should be available to all of us, gay or straight.
Ps. Thanks for your response @28 to my question by the way. I suppose what it comes down to is that the people you're talking about don't seem to accept that gay is real. They seem to think it's a flight of fancy that you (they) can eradicate?
55
@51. You imply that there is no morality without religion, which is a pretty naive and childlike belief (oops, sorry, the might have been name-calling -- you're on Slog, get used to it). I am a non-religious person, yet still manage to have a strong sense of morality. My "personal morality" does not equate to "doing whatever I want". I'd be willing to wager that my morality is "stricter" than your religious morality in some ways and "looser" in others.
And @21's "argument against homosexuality" was certainly an argument, but it was not against homosexuality and it certainly wasn't good nor logical, at least if you are capable of critical thinking.
The challenge in your last paragraph is somewhat nonsensical. If homosexuality is, factually, a minority occurrence (<10% of the population), then they are always going to be a minority subculture, unless they all go off and band together on an island or something like that. Probably the closest thing to what you're looking for is homosexuality/bisexuality in ancient Rome, where in certain eras and provinces.
And @21's "argument against homosexuality" was certainly an argument, but it was not against homosexuality and it certainly wasn't good nor logical, at least if you are capable of critical thinking.
The challenge in your last paragraph is somewhat nonsensical. If homosexuality is, factually, a minority occurrence (<10% of the population), then they are always going to be a minority subculture, unless they all go off and band together on an island or something like that. Probably the closest thing to what you're looking for is homosexuality/bisexuality in ancient Rome, where in certain eras and provinces.
56
Hey Steve @ 54,
I am going to go reread my comments. I am not who you may think I am. It's true I am a Christian, but it is also true that I believe sexuality (gay, straight, bi, trans) are gifts of God. I believe love and family should be available to all. I'm pro gay marriage, gay family, etc. I'm the Christian who argues with the Christians who don't accept that gay is real.
I am going to go reread my comments. I am not who you may think I am. It's true I am a Christian, but it is also true that I believe sexuality (gay, straight, bi, trans) are gifts of God. I believe love and family should be available to all. I'm pro gay marriage, gay family, etc. I'm the Christian who argues with the Christians who don't accept that gay is real.
57
55
Homosexuality is a deviant (in the literal, not pejorative, sense of the word) behavior that inflicts emotional and/or physical harm on the individuals that practice it and social damage on the society that harbors it.
Otherwise healthy societies can survive small doses of homosexuality but the more pervasive it becomes the weaker the host society becomes.
Widespread homosexual behavior and acceptance is always accompanied by other social pathologies and is usually present when societies finally reach the tipping point to (self) destruction.
You won't see the percentage of homosexuals in a society exceed a fairly small amount because the society dies before the percentage can get bigger.
Like a virus that kills its host when it becomes numerous enough.
Homosexuality is a deviant (in the literal, not pejorative, sense of the word) behavior that inflicts emotional and/or physical harm on the individuals that practice it and social damage on the society that harbors it.
Otherwise healthy societies can survive small doses of homosexuality but the more pervasive it becomes the weaker the host society becomes.
Widespread homosexual behavior and acceptance is always accompanied by other social pathologies and is usually present when societies finally reach the tipping point to (self) destruction.
You won't see the percentage of homosexuals in a society exceed a fairly small amount because the society dies before the percentage can get bigger.
Like a virus that kills its host when it becomes numerous enough.
58
Hey Steve @54,
Well I did reread all my posts (7, 16, 28, 30, 31, 35, 45, 46 and 56). I'm not sure how I came across as anti-gay bigotry. I am very sorry if I offended you. If you don't agree with me, its okay. We can agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
Well I did reread all my posts (7, 16, 28, 30, 31, 35, 45, 46 and 56). I'm not sure how I came across as anti-gay bigotry. I am very sorry if I offended you. If you don't agree with me, its okay. We can agree to disagree.
Best wishes.
59
Hi Kim @ 56,
So sorry, I know all that and I didn't read your posts that way at all. I wasn't arguing against you, but with you. Sorry if my post came out the wrong way.
Your post about your husband gave me pause, because I thought, "well, maybe something good came out of this particular closet", but then I realised that if only we all had equal rights, gay and family wouldn't be mutually exclusive, and your mother-in-law wouldn't have had to be closeted in order to have your husband.
But yes, I know that you think that too. I suppose I was just preaching to the choir. Sorry for the confusion. :(
S
So sorry, I know all that and I didn't read your posts that way at all. I wasn't arguing against you, but with you. Sorry if my post came out the wrong way.
Your post about your husband gave me pause, because I thought, "well, maybe something good came out of this particular closet", but then I realised that if only we all had equal rights, gay and family wouldn't be mutually exclusive, and your mother-in-law wouldn't have had to be closeted in order to have your husband.
But yes, I know that you think that too. I suppose I was just preaching to the choir. Sorry for the confusion. :(
S
61
@57. Link? Proof? Science? Anything other than baseless opinions and bloviation?
Alternate explanation: homosexuality does not exceed 10% because it is a condition present at birth, caused by a combination of genetic, brain structure, and/or in utero hormonal factors. There are numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles on this topic - some collections/summaries can be found here and here.
Alternate explanation: homosexuality does not exceed 10% because it is a condition present at birth, caused by a combination of genetic, brain structure, and/or in utero hormonal factors. There are numerous peer-reviewed scientific articles on this topic - some collections/summaries can be found here and here.
62
@51 - Religion certainly has a role to play in establishing norms and moral conventions within a society, but the ubiquity of basic human decency in all cultures, no matter what religion, puts the lie to your assertion that a single religious tradition, or any religion at all, is necessary for morality. Religion is a means of codifying social mores, but it necessarily changes over time as the demands of society change. American Christian religious leaders used to endorse slavery, or opposed women's suffrage, because they believed the Bible backed them up. Now very few would say we should go back to those days. Religion has changed as society has changed, as it must.
As far as gays having a constructive impact on society, try starting with Alexander the Great, Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Benjamin Britten, Lord Byron, Caravaggio, John Maynard Keynes, Michelangelo, and quite likely the Apostle Paul. Now how about giving us an example of out (non-closteded) gays who've had a negative impact on par with George Bush. Straight people have done far more damage to society than gays ever could.
As far as gays having a constructive impact on society, try starting with Alexander the Great, Samuel Barber, Leonard Bernstein, Benjamin Britten, Lord Byron, Caravaggio, John Maynard Keynes, Michelangelo, and quite likely the Apostle Paul. Now how about giving us an example of out (non-closteded) gays who've had a negative impact on par with George Bush. Straight people have done far more damage to society than gays ever could.
63
I just wanted to add a word about separation of church and state. The "Plymouth Rock" Pilgrims, who kind of started the government as we know it, were keen about democracy and separation of church and state a) because they saw that the Bible advocated for it, and b) because they wanted to prevent abuses of either towards the other. One of my favorite quotes from their religious leader John Robinson is as follows:
"No difference, or alienation in religion how great soever, either dissolves any natural, or civil bond of society; or abolisheth any the least, duty thereof. A king, husband, father, &c., though an heathen, idolater, atheist, or excommunicate, is as well, and as much a king, husband, or father, as if he were the best Christian living: and so both oweth, and hath owing unto him reciprocally the duties and offices of that state, in which he is set, by an inviolable right: which they that deny, are monsters amongst men, and enemies to human societies." (Robinson, Allen, Waddington, Ashton, 1851, v. 1, p. 39)
No one has said it better.
"No difference, or alienation in religion how great soever, either dissolves any natural, or civil bond of society; or abolisheth any the least, duty thereof. A king, husband, father, &c., though an heathen, idolater, atheist, or excommunicate, is as well, and as much a king, husband, or father, as if he were the best Christian living: and so both oweth, and hath owing unto him reciprocally the duties and offices of that state, in which he is set, by an inviolable right: which they that deny, are monsters amongst men, and enemies to human societies." (Robinson, Allen, Waddington, Ashton, 1851, v. 1, p. 39)
No one has said it better.
64
@51: "How can homosexuality be advantageous to a healthy society?"
How is heterosexuality "advantageous to a healthy society"? Just because children are born into a home with a mother and a father does NOT mean that something "advantageous" has occurred. It is simply what happens when a sperm meets an egg. Biological imperative, sure. We have to continue the species, blah blah blah. What an old way of thinking about the world. Let's face it, we're not running out of people here. And love and relationships are way too complicated and complex for anyone to understand. How do you know what God (may have) had in mind when He (may have) created the universe? Look. You can think whatever you want about the "lifestyles" of my wonderful, loving, beautiful gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered friends. It's cool with me. You are missing out. Just don't ask that the laws of this country conform to your every belief. You go your way, we'll go ours.
Your claim that either sexuality is more "advantageous" is shaky. What makes an attribute "advantageous to a healthy society" depends on a whole host of factors. And I'd also ask you to define what you mean by "advantageous." Do you mean disease-free? Do you mean that someone ends up becoming a voice for peace in the world? I think that all kinds of sexuality are "advantageous" and "healthy" because they add to the dischordant beauty of our world and culture. I prefer to see the world a little differently than you, 51, but that, again, is your prerogative.
And also, I TOTALLY object to the idea that it is somehow Christian to "disagree" (i have harsher words for it, but we're all making compromises) with the gay "Lifestyle" (I call it "biological imperative," but again, we're trying to get along). My family go to church every day, sing in choir, go on trips to build houses and do service all over the world, and they reserve all judgment about sexuality, love and marriage because they realize that the world is complicated and complex. There are many different ways to be Christian, just as there are many different ways to be in love. Don't assume that the choices you have made are somehow superior to others'. They are, simply, your own.
More...
How is heterosexuality "advantageous to a healthy society"? Just because children are born into a home with a mother and a father does NOT mean that something "advantageous" has occurred. It is simply what happens when a sperm meets an egg. Biological imperative, sure. We have to continue the species, blah blah blah. What an old way of thinking about the world. Let's face it, we're not running out of people here. And love and relationships are way too complicated and complex for anyone to understand. How do you know what God (may have) had in mind when He (may have) created the universe? Look. You can think whatever you want about the "lifestyles" of my wonderful, loving, beautiful gay lesbian bisexual and transgendered friends. It's cool with me. You are missing out. Just don't ask that the laws of this country conform to your every belief. You go your way, we'll go ours.
Your claim that either sexuality is more "advantageous" is shaky. What makes an attribute "advantageous to a healthy society" depends on a whole host of factors. And I'd also ask you to define what you mean by "advantageous." Do you mean disease-free? Do you mean that someone ends up becoming a voice for peace in the world? I think that all kinds of sexuality are "advantageous" and "healthy" because they add to the dischordant beauty of our world and culture. I prefer to see the world a little differently than you, 51, but that, again, is your prerogative.
And also, I TOTALLY object to the idea that it is somehow Christian to "disagree" (i have harsher words for it, but we're all making compromises) with the gay "Lifestyle" (I call it "biological imperative," but again, we're trying to get along). My family go to church every day, sing in choir, go on trips to build houses and do service all over the world, and they reserve all judgment about sexuality, love and marriage because they realize that the world is complicated and complex. There are many different ways to be Christian, just as there are many different ways to be in love. Don't assume that the choices you have made are somehow superior to others'. They are, simply, your own.
65
61
If homosexuality is a condition present at birth it would be a defect rendering its owner incapable of reproducing. A drone that mother nature does not want passing its DNA on to future generations.
Of course that is not true.
Homosexuality is a behavior people choose to engage in.
If you start blaming homosexuality on a genetic defect people may think you're homophobic, Julie.
If homosexuality is a condition present at birth it would be a defect rendering its owner incapable of reproducing. A drone that mother nature does not want passing its DNA on to future generations.
Of course that is not true.
Homosexuality is a behavior people choose to engage in.
If you start blaming homosexuality on a genetic defect people may think you're homophobic, Julie.
66
@65 - Not the case. There are lots of congenital defects besides homosexuality that are passed on. It's basic genetics: a recessive trait can show up that has some positive effects but when expressed to an extreme renders one incapable of reproducing. The fact that gays can't reproduce doesn't prove anything. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominance_r…
67
66
What "fact that gays can't reproduce"?
All can and many do at some point in their life.
Get real.
What "fact that gays can't reproduce"?
All can and many do at some point in their life.
Get real.
70
@21: Replace 'homosexuality' with 'hypocracy' and you're about right. Or at least a lot closer to the Gospel. And if you're concerned with 'sodomy', why not start with saddlebacking Christian teenagers?
71
Let me round off the debate with a haiku:
Fundy bigots suck
Especially Rick Warren
And of course Fred Phelps.
Quite poignant really...
Fundy bigots suck
Especially Rick Warren
And of course Fred Phelps.
Quite poignant really...
72
Hey, people want some peer-reviewed journal articles on how homophobia is detrimental to people's health and how gays and lesbians are not any different from everyone else? Here's a bunch:
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht…
http://psychology.ucdavis.edu/rainbow/ht…
73
@ 65
Several studies in animals have shown that lineages with higher amounts of homosexuality also have higher amounts of female fertility. The gain is net INCREASE in fecundity, so a few incidental homosexuals here or there are still more than worth the "evolutionary price" because the increase in total number offspring. That would certainly explain why homosexuality never 'died out.'
So far one study reports similar findings in human lineages as well - it only came out last year and several other pending studies are testing the hypothesis now.
Your question of 'choice' is an interesting one. I would say that a person can choose to be homosexual the way a leftie chooses left-handed behavior. Certainly, every time we reach out with our hands we are CHOOSING which arm to operate. With enough pressure, you could shame and pressure a left-handed child to always use their right hand or a straight person to have (bad) homosexual sex.
That doesn't mean that this reflects their natural condition, or that it's a reasonable or decent thing to expect someone to do.
Several studies in animals have shown that lineages with higher amounts of homosexuality also have higher amounts of female fertility. The gain is net INCREASE in fecundity, so a few incidental homosexuals here or there are still more than worth the "evolutionary price" because the increase in total number offspring. That would certainly explain why homosexuality never 'died out.'
So far one study reports similar findings in human lineages as well - it only came out last year and several other pending studies are testing the hypothesis now.
Your question of 'choice' is an interesting one. I would say that a person can choose to be homosexual the way a leftie chooses left-handed behavior. Certainly, every time we reach out with our hands we are CHOOSING which arm to operate. With enough pressure, you could shame and pressure a left-handed child to always use their right hand or a straight person to have (bad) homosexual sex.
That doesn't mean that this reflects their natural condition, or that it's a reasonable or decent thing to expect someone to do.
74
@57: wow, I haven't seen a comment so fucking dumb in a while.
Maybe it's not homosexuality that "inflicts emotional and/or physical harm on the individuals that practice it", but the irrational bigotry of people like you.
Homosexuality has been present throughout history. In some societies it was widely accepted; in others it was punishable by death. Guess what? No society/empire/state lasts forever. Homosexuality has little to do with societal health.
By your retarded logic, Christianity has been responsible for the corruption and disintegration of more societies than homosexuality. After all, the ostensibly Christian empires of Rome, Byzantium, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Britain, and France are no longer with us. I blame the Bible.
Maybe it's not homosexuality that "inflicts emotional and/or physical harm on the individuals that practice it", but the irrational bigotry of people like you.
Homosexuality has been present throughout history. In some societies it was widely accepted; in others it was punishable by death. Guess what? No society/empire/state lasts forever. Homosexuality has little to do with societal health.
By your retarded logic, Christianity has been responsible for the corruption and disintegration of more societies than homosexuality. After all, the ostensibly Christian empires of Rome, Byzantium, Spain, Portugal, the Netherlands, Sweden, Britain, and France are no longer with us. I blame the Bible.
75
Frankly where I'm from, most Christians don't live a "Christian lifestyle", at least not like Rick Warren or even Bill Donohue would define.
76
The ex-gay movement has been mentioned in this thread. I came across a video that shows someone who once was ex-gay and now he accepts that he is gay. In the video he outlines the many reasons why he decided to do it. He assumed at first it was simply because of his faith, but in the end he had to concede that so many other factors were involved.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMPnxqmuq…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMPnxqmuq…
77
I walked out of the vile, repellent Christian lifestyle decades ago. And I've been healthier and happier ever since.
78
Rick Warren is absolutely worse than Fred Phelps.
As I, or any other woman can tell you, the subtle kind of sexism that you can never be certain whether or not you're the victim of (Am I getting paid less because I'm a woman? Did that customer immediately ask for a supervisor because he hoped he would have a man to help him?) is much worse than blatant misogyny. Subtle sexism makes you doubt yourself, not your accuser, while a loud, obnoxious jerk is easy to hate.
The same is true when comparing vocal racists to non confrontational ones, although you don't have to take my word for it ...
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (Letter from a Birmingham Jail)
So yes, ABC, I would say that not only are you and Rick Warren on par with Fred Phelps' in terms of your ignorance and intolerance ... you surpass him. At least Fred Phelps isn't afraid of his bigotry, he willingly admits it. He performs a public service, by giving those of us who believe equality should be extended to all people, something to rally around in opposition to.
More...
As I, or any other woman can tell you, the subtle kind of sexism that you can never be certain whether or not you're the victim of (Am I getting paid less because I'm a woman? Did that customer immediately ask for a supervisor because he hoped he would have a man to help him?) is much worse than blatant misogyny. Subtle sexism makes you doubt yourself, not your accuser, while a loud, obnoxious jerk is easy to hate.
The same is true when comparing vocal racists to non confrontational ones, although you don't have to take my word for it ...
"I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection." - Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., (Letter from a Birmingham Jail)
So yes, ABC, I would say that not only are you and Rick Warren on par with Fred Phelps' in terms of your ignorance and intolerance ... you surpass him. At least Fred Phelps isn't afraid of his bigotry, he willingly admits it. He performs a public service, by giving those of us who believe equality should be extended to all people, something to rally around in opposition to.
79
ABC, consider this:
First, that a large part of the point of Jesus' life and death was that God was making a new, gentler covenant with man and essentially abridging the old law. Therefore, toss out anything in the Old Testament that condemns gays.
Second, consider also that Jesus lived among and picked his friends not from the righteous religious conservatives and supposed upright citizens of the day, but from among the parts of society most condemned by those people: prostitutes, those considered unclean, and so on. This is meant to teach you something. If there's a Second Coming, Jesus isn't coming to your megachurch. He's going to be with the junkies or illegal immigrants or big flaming homos in the Castro.
First, that a large part of the point of Jesus' life and death was that God was making a new, gentler covenant with man and essentially abridging the old law. Therefore, toss out anything in the Old Testament that condemns gays.
Second, consider also that Jesus lived among and picked his friends not from the righteous religious conservatives and supposed upright citizens of the day, but from among the parts of society most condemned by those people: prostitutes, those considered unclean, and so on. This is meant to teach you something. If there's a Second Coming, Jesus isn't coming to your megachurch. He's going to be with the junkies or illegal immigrants or big flaming homos in the Castro.
80
Fred Phelps is very skinny. I would say Warren is Phelps plus 200 pounds, actually.
Anyway, assholes come in all shapes and forms.
Anyway, assholes come in all shapes and forms.
81
61 66
Mother Nature must be cruel, or quite a prankster, if she gives homosexuals attraction to their own gender but no equiptment to go with the desire. It seems she would have given gay men a vagaina if she intended for them to have sex with other men. Maybe she forgot.
Mother Nature must be cruel, or quite a prankster, if she gives homosexuals attraction to their own gender but no equiptment to go with the desire. It seems she would have given gay men a vagaina if she intended for them to have sex with other men. Maybe she forgot.
82
21
You might add that the demographer would be concerned about a birthrate that mantains the society at sustainable levels. Many societies are having trouble producing enough babies and having a segment of the population sit out reproductive activity is a luxury they may not be able afford.
The posts following #21 bear out the assertion that a rational study of the biological, emotional and social implications of homosexuality is unwelcome by many and socially charged.
You might add that the demographer would be concerned about a birthrate that mantains the society at sustainable levels. Many societies are having trouble producing enough babies and having a segment of the population sit out reproductive activity is a luxury they may not be able afford.
The posts following #21 bear out the assertion that a rational study of the biological, emotional and social implications of homosexuality is unwelcome by many and socially charged.
83
Regardless of whether you think God is against homosexuality, or think that it is biologically wrong, (posting on a web blog is biologically wrong. Driving a car is biologically wrong. Marrying is biologically wrong. Yet, here we are doing things that are completely unnatural. Homosexuality however is found in the natural world.) It's still YOUR opinion, and you don't get to force everyone else to live by YOUR opinions.
No one is going to force you to have gay sex, or marry someone of the same sex. You don't have to live that way if you think it's wrong. Why do you think it's okay to force us to live as you do? It's my opinion that gay people trying to live as straight people is wrong. Would you marry someone who said they are an "exgay"
You can believe that being gay is wrong for whatever reason you want to fabricate. (The people posting this crap still have yet to post one shred of evidence to support their opinions.) Fine, don't have gay sex. My opinion, and that the medical/psychological community http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/ar… is that homosexuality is a normal biological variant in behavior. It is expected that a certain percentage of the population will be homosexual, and the efforts to force gay folks to make themselves heterosexual is far more harmful than their just accepting their homosexuality.
No one is going to force you to have gay sex, or marry someone of the same sex. You don't have to live that way if you think it's wrong. Why do you think it's okay to force us to live as you do? It's my opinion that gay people trying to live as straight people is wrong. Would you marry someone who said they are an "exgay"
You can believe that being gay is wrong for whatever reason you want to fabricate. (The people posting this crap still have yet to post one shred of evidence to support their opinions.) Fine, don't have gay sex. My opinion, and that the medical/psychological community http://www.apahelpcenter.org/articles/ar… is that homosexuality is a normal biological variant in behavior. It is expected that a certain percentage of the population will be homosexual, and the efforts to force gay folks to make themselves heterosexual is far more harmful than their just accepting their homosexuality.
84
Dan,
Your thoughtful observations on which attitudes do and do not constitute bigotry are valid only if homosexuality is an innate charachteristic that individuals have no control over.
That has not been demonstrated to this point.
To the extent that homosexual behavior is subject to choice it is also fair to subject it to analysis, study, comment and even criticism.
Activist like yourself work hard to shut the door to such analysis and critique by declaring that it is bigotry to question those aspects of homosexuality.
Political activism and heated rhetoric are poor foundations for sound public policy, however.
And using accusations of bigotry (or heresy, against accepted liberal dogma) to stifle debate and discussion takes a page from the Dark Ages.
Your thoughtful observations on which attitudes do and do not constitute bigotry are valid only if homosexuality is an innate charachteristic that individuals have no control over.
That has not been demonstrated to this point.
To the extent that homosexual behavior is subject to choice it is also fair to subject it to analysis, study, comment and even criticism.
Activist like yourself work hard to shut the door to such analysis and critique by declaring that it is bigotry to question those aspects of homosexuality.
Political activism and heated rhetoric are poor foundations for sound public policy, however.
And using accusations of bigotry (or heresy, against accepted liberal dogma) to stifle debate and discussion takes a page from the Dark Ages.
85
At the risk of posting a religious opinion in this forum, and getting smeared for daring to have a religious opinion....
I'll just point out that for at least one major branch of Christianity, the very notion of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner" makes no sense at all. That is, Reformed Christians (the strain of Protestant Christianity derived from Calvin, et. al., which does not include Baptists, Methodists, or Episcopalians, but does include most evangelicals, the very folks who recite this non-Biblical "hate the sin, but love the sinner" crap) do not believe that we can separate sin from sinner. After the fall, sin became not just part of our lives or something we do, but part of who we are. We are all (including those who point fingers and judge) not just sinful (ie. an aspect of something we do), but sinners (an aspect of who we are.)
So, not only does "hate the sin and love the sinner" go against every impulse of human behavior (tell me, how many people do you know who can actually hate someone's actions, but love them anyway? Hate the child abuse, but love the child abuser? Please.) but it also goes against the evangelical understanding of humanity after the fall. In other words, for the people who repeat this cliche, it isn't even Biblical and merely goes to show how ignorant they are of their own religion. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" may sound like pretty words, but, as I think most people realize who are on the receiving end of that hate, they're full of shit.
(And, of course, not every Christian actually thinks sexual expression is a sin anyway, but that's a whole different argument.)
Anyway, I just thought some may be interested to know that when a Christian says "hate the sin and love the sinner" that Christian has just identified themselves as ignorant of the basic theology they claim to believe.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled anti-religious flame fest, already in progress... ;)
More...
I'll just point out that for at least one major branch of Christianity, the very notion of "hating the sin, but loving the sinner" makes no sense at all. That is, Reformed Christians (the strain of Protestant Christianity derived from Calvin, et. al., which does not include Baptists, Methodists, or Episcopalians, but does include most evangelicals, the very folks who recite this non-Biblical "hate the sin, but love the sinner" crap) do not believe that we can separate sin from sinner. After the fall, sin became not just part of our lives or something we do, but part of who we are. We are all (including those who point fingers and judge) not just sinful (ie. an aspect of something we do), but sinners (an aspect of who we are.)
So, not only does "hate the sin and love the sinner" go against every impulse of human behavior (tell me, how many people do you know who can actually hate someone's actions, but love them anyway? Hate the child abuse, but love the child abuser? Please.) but it also goes against the evangelical understanding of humanity after the fall. In other words, for the people who repeat this cliche, it isn't even Biblical and merely goes to show how ignorant they are of their own religion. "Hate the sin, love the sinner" may sound like pretty words, but, as I think most people realize who are on the receiving end of that hate, they're full of shit.
(And, of course, not every Christian actually thinks sexual expression is a sin anyway, but that's a whole different argument.)
Anyway, I just thought some may be interested to know that when a Christian says "hate the sin and love the sinner" that Christian has just identified themselves as ignorant of the basic theology they claim to believe.
Now, back to your regularly scheduled anti-religious flame fest, already in progress... ;)
86
82
That's right. The peer-reviewed research cited in the comments after 21's is all a product of the vast homo conspiracy to destroy the white race.
That's right. The peer-reviewed research cited in the comments after 21's is all a product of the vast homo conspiracy to destroy the white race.
87
@83
Psychologist used to classify homosexuality as a mental disease. What will the shifting winds produce tomorrow? If you shop around you can find studies and groups to endorse any point of view you wish.
Gays are trying to force an unwilling public to accept their pseudo-science and personal religious interpretation of marriage.
Keep your religion out of state law.
Psychologist used to classify homosexuality as a mental disease. What will the shifting winds produce tomorrow? If you shop around you can find studies and groups to endorse any point of view you wish.
Gays are trying to force an unwilling public to accept their pseudo-science and personal religious interpretation of marriage.
Keep your religion out of state law.
88
87, as time goes by, medical/psychological disciplines gain more knowledge. I provided a link to the APA, not some politically, or religiously biased group. You are welcome to link to something as well, but you didn't.
Gays are not trying to force anything on anyone. You can continue to be against gay marriage. You can still believe that God hates fags, etc. You won't have marry someone of the same sex or go to a gay wedding, just like you don't have to go to eat kosher, or go to a kosher luncheon. Are Jews who eat kosher forcing their religion on you? Should we ban all things kosher because the majority of people in this country are not Jewish?
We are talking about a legal right to marry, not a religious one. You are the one who wants to use the government to force your religious views on others. We are not asking that you get married to a gay person, yet you want to force use into straight marriages to get the same benefits as you.
Gays are not trying to force anything on anyone. You can continue to be against gay marriage. You can still believe that God hates fags, etc. You won't have marry someone of the same sex or go to a gay wedding, just like you don't have to go to eat kosher, or go to a kosher luncheon. Are Jews who eat kosher forcing their religion on you? Should we ban all things kosher because the majority of people in this country are not Jewish?
We are talking about a legal right to marry, not a religious one. You are the one who wants to use the government to force your religious views on others. We are not asking that you get married to a gay person, yet you want to force use into straight marriages to get the same benefits as you.
89
@83
Society constantly sets standards for what is considered acceptable behavior; covering everything from how we drive to how we pay employees to, yes, how and who we marry.
Sorry but one can't opt out of society's standards, muttering darkly that no one is forcing OTHERS to engage in whatever behavior we want leave to engage in.
It's called 'civilization'.
Society constantly sets standards for what is considered acceptable behavior; covering everything from how we drive to how we pay employees to, yes, how and who we marry.
Sorry but one can't opt out of society's standards, muttering darkly that no one is forcing OTHERS to engage in whatever behavior we want leave to engage in.
It's called 'civilization'.
91
89, Society once set the standards that slavery was okay, and that women shouldn't be allowed to vote. Was that okay too?
92
90, Do you believe that there is a "Mother Nature"? Much of what people do isn't natural. Posting on a blog isn't natural. Flying isn't natural. So what.
95
83
I don't think the phrase 'biologically wrong' has validity.
There are behaviors that are biologically unwise, however.
Living organisms are adapted to function ideally in certain environments and in certain ways. The organism may be abused to its detriment.
Jumping from a 30 inch platform is not dangerous for a healthy human. Jumping from a 30 story building exceeds the capacity of human legs etc and will result in injury.
Eating vegetables, fruits, grains and meat in moderation and getting moderate exercise will allow a human body to function well. Load the diet with processed sugars, add 200 extra pounds and a sedetary lifestyle and diabetes will cripple the person.
Heterosexual activity with one faithful partner over a lifetime carries virtually no risk of STD. Promiscuous sexual behavior of any type virtually guarantees STD. Anal sex involves employing body parts in ways they are not biologically designed for and also carries disease risk.
Heterosexual behavior reproduces and mantains the species. Homosexual behavior does not. Some may take the continuation of the species for granted but be assured that Mother Nature pays huge attention to that aspect of existance.
Mother Nature is clever, we ignore her at our peril.
I don't think the phrase 'biologically wrong' has validity.
There are behaviors that are biologically unwise, however.
Living organisms are adapted to function ideally in certain environments and in certain ways. The organism may be abused to its detriment.
Jumping from a 30 inch platform is not dangerous for a healthy human. Jumping from a 30 story building exceeds the capacity of human legs etc and will result in injury.
Eating vegetables, fruits, grains and meat in moderation and getting moderate exercise will allow a human body to function well. Load the diet with processed sugars, add 200 extra pounds and a sedetary lifestyle and diabetes will cripple the person.
Heterosexual activity with one faithful partner over a lifetime carries virtually no risk of STD. Promiscuous sexual behavior of any type virtually guarantees STD. Anal sex involves employing body parts in ways they are not biologically designed for and also carries disease risk.
Heterosexual behavior reproduces and mantains the species. Homosexual behavior does not. Some may take the continuation of the species for granted but be assured that Mother Nature pays huge attention to that aspect of existance.
Mother Nature is clever, we ignore her at our peril.
96
Civilization is about progress and change and improvement, not stasis.
The world's population is exploding, not plummeting.
"Mother Nature" does not exist, does not think, does not plan, does not care. For better or worse.
Love, desire, and bonding existed long before marriage. These are forces that cannot be reasoned with. Marriage was created to accommodate them, not the other way around.
Every human society has always had homosexuals, left handed people, sterile people, people with extra wisdom teeth, and other statistical variants. They aren't going away.
Fred Phelps is actually a little braver (crueler? crazier?) than Rick Warren, because he simply does not fear what anyone thinks about him. Warren couches his opinions in layers of nuance, and contradicts prior statements when it serves him.
The world's population is exploding, not plummeting.
"Mother Nature" does not exist, does not think, does not plan, does not care. For better or worse.
Love, desire, and bonding existed long before marriage. These are forces that cannot be reasoned with. Marriage was created to accommodate them, not the other way around.
Every human society has always had homosexuals, left handed people, sterile people, people with extra wisdom teeth, and other statistical variants. They aren't going away.
Fred Phelps is actually a little braver (crueler? crazier?) than Rick Warren, because he simply does not fear what anyone thinks about him. Warren couches his opinions in layers of nuance, and contradicts prior statements when it serves him.
97
By the way, the lesbian population has a lower incidence of stds than the heterosexual population. Did you forget about them?
And, homosexuality may help continue the species after all. See 73 above, or check out this link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3685…
And, homosexuality may help continue the species after all. See 73 above, or check out this link.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,3685…
99
95, Driving cars by far kills more people than homosexual sex. Does that make driving, an unnatural activity, wrong? Are you suggesting that if we allow some people to be homosexual, everyone will become homosexual? Somehow, allowing gay marriage will end procreation?
Homosexuality is found though out the natural would, so it must be part of the adaptation of all living organisms. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't make it any more wrong than watching TV, or playing video games.
Homosexuality is found though out the natural would, so it must be part of the adaptation of all living organisms. Even if it wasn't, that doesn't make it any more wrong than watching TV, or playing video games.
100
Only someone incapable of logic and reason would suggest that because something does not continue the species or goes against evolutionary biology or doesn't result in the most emotionally satisfied children, it must be immoral. Not having sex? Immoral. Choosing not to have children? Immoral. Sterility? Immoral. Working mothers? Immoral.
@82 - Absolutely wrong. The causes and effects of homosexuality is a much studied topic in science (in peer reviewed journals, no less). These studies and discussion of them are certainly not unwelcome -- we are the ones citing them in our discussions and using them to inform our point of view.
@82 - Absolutely wrong. The causes and effects of homosexuality is a much studied topic in science (in peer reviewed journals, no less). These studies and discussion of them are certainly not unwelcome -- we are the ones citing them in our discussions and using them to inform our point of view.
103
Maybe it's a correct interpretation? Maybe we should trash the myths of a bunch of nationalistic goat herding middle Easterners from 2000 years ago and try to deal with reality using our current knowledge and reasoning skills?
It's true. Historically, people's misinterpretation of the Bible has left a trail of suffering, bloodshed, and death: Crusades, Spanish Inquisitions, slavery, apartheird, segregation, Hitler's Third Reich, Holocaust, to oppose medical science, to condemn interracial marriage, to execute women as witches, to support the Ku Klux Klan, to pass Prop 8.
Maybe it's a correct interpretation? Maybe we should trash the myths of a bunch of nationalistic goat herding middle Easterners from 2000 years ago and try to deal with reality using our current knowledge and reasoning skills?
104
@51 In many ancient Greek city states, it was common practice for older men to engage in sexual relationships with young men. In fact, it was encouraged. Women married in their early teens, but the average age for men to marry was 30. These societies valued female chastity, and so men were encouraged to sleep with other men until they were married. This is one example of a society that encouraged homosexual acts. Furthermore, your claim that religion is required for morality is false. I'm an atheist raised by agnostics, and yet, even without a religious upbringing or religious convictions, I've somehow managed to refrain from murdering anyone, stealing anything or intentionally misleading my country and engaging in a completely unnecessary war, which is more than I can say for some religious people.
105
ps please note that i finished making my fucking point before i started in with the sarcasm, obscenity and name-calling, you ignorant ass.
106
104
Sparta institutionalized homosexuality as you have described. Their society was based on violence and enslaving their neighbors.
Sparta institutionalized homosexuality as you have described. Their society was based on violence and enslaving their neighbors.
109
I really wouldn't equate what the Greeks and Romans had to modern gays. Theirs was mostly based on misogyny and power, not love (I guess sorta like their straight relationships can't be compared to modern straight love).
Also, religion necessary for a moral life? A lot of our ethics and philosophy comes from the Greeks, and they lived in a society that had imperfect, flawed deities. Zeus was a rapist.
Also, religion necessary for a moral life? A lot of our ethics and philosophy comes from the Greeks, and they lived in a society that had imperfect, flawed deities. Zeus was a rapist.
110
I love Dan Savage, but I really think this analogy fails to hold water.
For one, religious participation is a willfully chosen behavior, and it's perfectly fine to like or not like willfully chosen behavior to your heart's content.
Second and following from that, it's a willfully chosen behavior that, in practice, affects others. "Practicing" homosexuality doesn't affect the people around you or those who live in your polis. As a religion based on the notions of exclusive truth and evangelizing, and with its total imbrication with civil law, Christianity does affect even those who don't practice it, who disagree with some of its tenets, who don't want anything to do with it. That means, to me, that it's not just OK to judge its worth/effects/desirability in your community: it's imperative.
But in casting such a wide net around the idea of "bigotry," Dan Savage basically defines as bigoted any negative opinion or judgment about shit people do. I think that's frankly crap. We judge behaviors -- again, willfully chosen behaviors -- all the time, not because we can't seem to stop ourselves but because that's incredibly important to our mutually satisfactory, relatively free social life. We revile murder -- a willful, socially harmful act -- while we create a legal category for its non-willful counterpart, manslaughter, and understand that there are circumstances in which somebody's constrained and the judgment of "murder" doesn't apply the same way. We split these hairs not because of the bible, but because of a shared, utilitarian investment in a socius that provides the maximum of protection with the minimum of intrusion. What kinds of things are less fair game for intrusion, social judgment, and legislation? Well, nonelective behaviors, traits and affiliations, as well as behaviors that don't materially impact anyone else. What's the purpose of "protection" in this model (the one on which our Constitution was designed)? Protecting those whose behavior or traits fall into the above categories from a majority that may differ. What's fair game for intrusion, social judgment, etc? Willfully chosen behaviors, particularly those that impact others in the community.
Homosexuality and Christian adherence just don't line up here. I'm sorry.
More...
For one, religious participation is a willfully chosen behavior, and it's perfectly fine to like or not like willfully chosen behavior to your heart's content.
Second and following from that, it's a willfully chosen behavior that, in practice, affects others. "Practicing" homosexuality doesn't affect the people around you or those who live in your polis. As a religion based on the notions of exclusive truth and evangelizing, and with its total imbrication with civil law, Christianity does affect even those who don't practice it, who disagree with some of its tenets, who don't want anything to do with it. That means, to me, that it's not just OK to judge its worth/effects/desirability in your community: it's imperative.
But in casting such a wide net around the idea of "bigotry," Dan Savage basically defines as bigoted any negative opinion or judgment about shit people do. I think that's frankly crap. We judge behaviors -- again, willfully chosen behaviors -- all the time, not because we can't seem to stop ourselves but because that's incredibly important to our mutually satisfactory, relatively free social life. We revile murder -- a willful, socially harmful act -- while we create a legal category for its non-willful counterpart, manslaughter, and understand that there are circumstances in which somebody's constrained and the judgment of "murder" doesn't apply the same way. We split these hairs not because of the bible, but because of a shared, utilitarian investment in a socius that provides the maximum of protection with the minimum of intrusion. What kinds of things are less fair game for intrusion, social judgment, and legislation? Well, nonelective behaviors, traits and affiliations, as well as behaviors that don't materially impact anyone else. What's the purpose of "protection" in this model (the one on which our Constitution was designed)? Protecting those whose behavior or traits fall into the above categories from a majority that may differ. What's fair game for intrusion, social judgment, etc? Willfully chosen behaviors, particularly those that impact others in the community.
Homosexuality and Christian adherence just don't line up here. I'm sorry.
111
I think most people sort of missed the point of my letter. #19 best summed up my actual concern. I wasn't trying to argue the value of Warren's view (though I did not hide my beliefs) but rather felt that there was a logical difference between someone who believed that homosexuality is a bad choice and those who believe homosexual people have no value.
I felt Dan answered it pretty well. Though I am not certain why the belief "being gay is a sinful choice" makes one a bigot or hateful. It seems like a pretty strong word. Still his counter example when associated with the general prejudice I have seen against homosexuals is effective.
My answer is that I know some people who think pretty hard things about my faith and I hate it, but I try to focus on proving them wrong with my good actions. Still, I still distinguish between those who believe Biblical Christianity ought to be illegal and those who would enjoy seeing Christians killed by a lions. I still wouldn't consider it right to label Warren as "gay hatin.'"
As for the many many legitimate (though off topic) criticisms against Christianity, meh, fair enough. I hope to prove you wrong with the life I live.
Mikey G
a Biblical Christian
I felt Dan answered it pretty well. Though I am not certain why the belief "being gay is a sinful choice" makes one a bigot or hateful. It seems like a pretty strong word. Still his counter example when associated with the general prejudice I have seen against homosexuals is effective.
My answer is that I know some people who think pretty hard things about my faith and I hate it, but I try to focus on proving them wrong with my good actions. Still, I still distinguish between those who believe Biblical Christianity ought to be illegal and those who would enjoy seeing Christians killed by a lions. I still wouldn't consider it right to label Warren as "gay hatin.'"
As for the many many legitimate (though off topic) criticisms against Christianity, meh, fair enough. I hope to prove you wrong with the life I live.
Mikey G
a Biblical Christian
112
ABC - Glad to see you respond. But, I couldn't help but be struck by the fact that the number of people who actually think Christianity should be illegal or that would enjoy Christians being killed by lions is virtually nil.... not so for homosexuals.
I think Dan (and others) understand that you weren't trying to argue the value of Warren's view. And we also recognize, in fact, that there is a difference between someone who is upfront about their hatred of gays and someone of the "love the sinner/ hate the sin" variety. But, Dan's primary point is that both of those things can be labeled as hateful bigotry (one, obviously moreso than the other).
Believing that being gay is a sinful choice is, to me (a straight, married woman), a bigoted and hateful thing to believe. I thought Dan's counter example of being Christian (a personal choice) was a good one... but, in my mind, since I think that homosexuality is an innate trait for most gays, a better example would be for you to think that it was sinful to be black or hispanic. Which is, of course, pretty illogical and ridiculous.
I think Dan (and others) understand that you weren't trying to argue the value of Warren's view. And we also recognize, in fact, that there is a difference between someone who is upfront about their hatred of gays and someone of the "love the sinner/ hate the sin" variety. But, Dan's primary point is that both of those things can be labeled as hateful bigotry (one, obviously moreso than the other).
Believing that being gay is a sinful choice is, to me (a straight, married woman), a bigoted and hateful thing to believe. I thought Dan's counter example of being Christian (a personal choice) was a good one... but, in my mind, since I think that homosexuality is an innate trait for most gays, a better example would be for you to think that it was sinful to be black or hispanic. Which is, of course, pretty illogical and ridiculous.
114
And listening to people who believe in an omnipotent imaginary friend appeal to logic and science in order to justify their idiotic religious beliefs about queerosity is some really brainbending good times.
115
Hey ABC @ 112
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.
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.
116
Re: Post #82: Yes, some societies have negative birth rates, thank the goddess(es?)! They are more than offset by high birthrates in places like Nigeria, Palestine, India, etc. I have lived in Eastern European countries with low birthrates, and let me tell you they don't result from an epidemic of homosexuality, but from people feeling they don't have enough economic resources to have more than one or two children (plus the effects of migration to wealthier countries). It is pointless to argue that homosexuality is bad because if everyone were gay, there would be no children (even if that were true, which it isn't...many gay people have the urge to reproduce even if they aren't thrilled by heterosexual sex. Just like many women who have been genitally mutilated want to have children despite getting no joy from sex). It is pointless to argue because more than 90% of the population will always be heterosexual because that's how the human race has turned out--a small percentage has the biological imperative to be gay, most to be straight, bisexuals might arguably have a "choice."
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?
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?
117
Clarification:
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?
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?
118
#112 Julie, certainly I recognize that the number of Americans who believe Christianity ought to be illegal is practically nil, but I was testing the principle of the logic rather than the political repercussions.
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
More...
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
119
@52
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.
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.
120
Hey Mikey G,
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.
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.
121
#52 Arrow, You said that the idea of hate the sin, not the sinner "makes no sense whatsoever." I have two nephews and sometimes the older one will try to bully the younger one. I hate it. I mean I HATE it... but no way do I hate my nephew. I love him to death. Does that make some sense?
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?
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?
122
@118,
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.
More...
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.
123
One thing that annoys me about this "debate" is the implicit assumption that homosexuality, which is obviously a biological reality, has to jive with ignorant armchair conjecture.
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.
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.
125
@ 121 said:
"...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?
"...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?
126
123
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.
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.
127
@122
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.
More...
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.
128
@125 Joffe,
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.
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.
129
@125 Joffe,
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.
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.
130
@ 127,
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?
More...
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?
131
@130 Hey Steve,
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."
More...
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."
132
@131,
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.
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.
136
Hey MikeyG and Steve,
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
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
137
Yeah everyone,
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
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
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
Slog Bible Study: Deuteronomy 21:10-14 by Goldy
-
The AP Is Reporting That Whitney Houston Is Dead by Paul Constant
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (137) RSS