Six Things Straight People Should Stop Saying about Gay People

A kind woman, who would never intentionally offend another person, writes: “I love gay people, I just cannot support their gay lifestyle.”

A pastor stands at the pulpit, holding an electric cord as a prop, and warns the congregation, “Don’t mess with God’s original design. Gay sex is not natural, the parts don’t fit.”

A man thinks he needs to “protect” his family from his Christian gay brother. He tells to his brother, “Homosexuality is a perversion, and until you change, I cannot allow you in my home with my children.”

Parents send their lesbian daughter to a program they heard about at church. The visiting speaker says he is no longer gay. The newly-encouraged parents plea-fully say, “We want what is best for our daughter and we know she can change her preferences.”

About their fellow Americans, some may say: “I don’t mind gay people having civil unions. I just do not want to redefine marriage. Marriage is not a civil right, and they want special rights.” 

Thinking they are pleasing and even defending God, moderate Christians assert: “I might be fine with gay people getting together, but it’s God and the Bible that are clearly against homosexuality. We love gay people and need to tell them the truth.”

I would have made every one of these statements a decade ago.

For the most part, people that make these comments believe themselves to be considerate and sincere, and would not intentionally participate in “hate talk”. Yet, each comments is unkind, flawed, ill-informed, or ignorant.

Well-meaning, reasonable people repeat phrases like these again and again not understanding the offense and discrimination their words support and encourage. Many of the statements are rooted in ignorance or based on gay stereotypes. As an advocate for the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community, in particular the Christian LGBT community, these may be some productive insights for those who no longer desire to participate in the unjust treatment of LGBT people.

The “gay lifestyle”

When communicating, it would be a major improvement to not use the term “the gay lifestyle.” What is a “gay lifestyle”? The manner in which LGBT people live their lives is as varied as the manner in which heterosexual people live theirs.

The gay and transgender people I know have “lives”, not “lifestyles”. If you feel compelled to condemn the way others express their sexuality, it might be more honest to stop using silly clichés. What many people really want to say is “I don’t like the concept and thinking about same-sex sex.” Simple, then don’t participate in it. And, if it bothers you to simply think about people having same-sex sex, easy, don’t think about it.

My “heterosexual lifestyle” is not the same as other heterosexual women. I have a life, not a lifestyle, and I conduct my own according to my faith, values and ethics. Likewise, it is also true with gay and transgender people. Grouping about 5% of the population together under one “lifestyle” umbrella is foolish.

Just as it wouldn’t be appropriate to reduce me to a sex act, the same also true for my gay and trans friends. We are each humans with beautiful diversity, that includes the way we express ourselves sexually, romantically, and emotionally.

Gay sex is not natural, the parts don’t fit.”

The follow-up statement to the “gay lifestyle” comment is often: “Gay sex is not natural; the parts don’t fit.” If the parts “didn’t fit”, then gay people wouldn’t be having “gay sex.” So clearly, the parts do fit.

Warning. warning.

If you are bothered by imagining or thinking about “gay sex,” skip the next eight paragraphs. However, if you bypass them, you may miss a primer on human sexuality that might be applied to your own “heterosexual lifestyle” for added enjoyment. 

In males, not just gay males, the prostate gland is adjacent to the anus. and upon stimulation, can cause an orgasm. So, evidently penile anal penetration can cause an orgasm for both participants in “gay sex.” And, for the record, there are plenty of heterosexual women stimulating their heterosexual partner’s prostate gland too.

Most people who are “offended by gay sex” have no problem thinking about, or rather fantasizing about, women having sex with women. (Just being honest here, folks.)

And how “successful” is the Part A into Slot B for women in heterosexual relationships? Interestingly, facts reveal that 75-80% of women are not having orgasms by inserting Part A into Slot B. However, with other types of clitoral stimulation, used by with women who participate in sex with women partners, the numbers flip. Almost 70% of women reach orgasm with external stimulation.

Putting it bluntly, the “natural way” of having sex which is highly satisfying for heterosexual men, is less sexually satisfying for women.

Evidently and statistically speaking, Part A into Slot B is not the only way that can brings enjoyment to the parties of a sexual union.

God, the Designer of Human Sexuality, sure did leave provision for satisfactory lesbian sex and gay male sex. How clever of Him to create the human body so that women have a fun center on the outside, and men have one on the inside!

The male plug and female adaptor electric cord analogy just has to go. It describes one type of sexual interaction; human sexuality is far more complex and beautiful than electricity.

Gay sex not only fits, it works.

Homosexuality is a perversion”

A perversion is something that is unnatural or abnormal. Sex between two people of the same sex may trip your “ick factor” switch, but it is not unnatural (see above). Although it may not be the norm, it’s not abnormal.

Forty years ago, it was medically determined that homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality. Unfortunately, during the indoctrination of the 1950s to the 1970s, people came to fear the “perverted homosexual.”

The American Psychological Association (APA) declassified “homosexuality” as a mental disorder in the 1973 Diagnostics and Statistical Manual (DSM) used in the mental health professionals’ field.

Still-popular urban, mostly Christian fundamentalist, myth is a story of “radical homosexual activists” storming and pressuring the APA to declassify homosexuality as a mental disorder. On the face of it, that is a mostly correct statement.

Out of frustration and the need to be heard and understood, gay activists did break into APA conference sessions during 1970-1972 and demanded to tell their stories. Finally, in 1973, before a packed room of his peers, a masked colleague answered questions, and told his story.

It took almost three years of pressure to finally be heard. The eventual declassification was the result of personal relationship and dialogue.

The head of the Nomenclature Committee, Robert Spitzer, witnessed the “normal behavior” of his colleagues in a gay bar one night after the convention. In a moment of beautiful humanity, Spitzer’s ugly biases were shattered, and he went directly back to his hotel room to rewrite the classification. In the next few months of 1973, homosexuality was deleted from the DSM.

Homosexuality is a normal variation of human sexuality. Using the words “perversion”, “sickness” and “abnormality” is not only medically incorrect, it is very hurtful to those intentionally targeted. LGBT people are expressing sexuality which is normal and natural to them. For them, to express sexuality in an opposite sex relationship, would be unnatural and abnormal.

Are gay people able to be sexual with members of the opposite sex? Of course, some can potentially be so. In the wise words of one of my friends, Michael, former leader of a you-too-can-be-heterosexual program and ex-husband of a woman, and father of two children: “With a whole bunch of fantasizing, you can do anything.”

Which leads into the next ill-informed statement.

People can change their orientation”

No, they can’t.

Sexual expression, whether it be heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual, is an orientation, not a behavior, not a preference, not an addiction or a lust. Sexual orientation defines the consistent emotional, romantic and sexual attraction a person has for the opposite sex, same sex or both sexes. Sexual orientation has three components: sexual attraction, sexual identity, and sexual behavior.

A simple way of looking at the complexities of human sexuality is the Kinsey Scale. It classifies people as exclusively opposite-sex attracted to strongly same-sex attracted on a scale ranging “0” to “6.”

Can a “6” become a “0”? No. Certainly, Christian circles have been lead to believe this is possible, probable, and even beneficial for almost forty years.

Exodus International was the largest Christian ministry in the world dealing with those with “unwanted same sex attractions.” For almost all of its 37 years, Exodus had been assuring “motivated” Christian people who “struggle with homosexuality” that prayer, finding the root of the dysfunction, and denial of natural sexual expression would create both a new creature and new sexual identity in Jesus Christ.

Exodus International admitted publicly in 2012 that sexual orientation does not change. President Alan Chambers, who also admitted he is still same sex attracted 20 years into the Exodus program, stated:

The majority of people that I have met, and I would say the majority meaning 99.9% of them have not experienced a change in their orientation or have gotten to a place where they could say that they could  never be tempted or are not tempted in some way or experience some level of same-sex attraction. I think there is a gender issue there, there are some women who have challenged me and said that my orientation or my attractions have changed completely. Those have been few and far between. The vast majority of people that I know will experience some level of same-sex attraction.

Families have been destroyed and gay people have walked away from faith communities in frustration and often, in shame.

Gay Christians and their allies have certainly heard this monumental news of the closing of the primary Christian reparative therapy mill, but the conservative church, in general, may sadly not hear it for quite some time. Another ministry group has stepped in to fill their void and amped up the rhetoric even higher. 

Unfortunately many in the conservative Christian church will continue to believe and advocate for the “you can change” message because it supports a prevailing dogma about gay people. The messages of: “try harder,” “pray more,” and the worst one, marry a member of the opposite sex to “fix” their “sexual brokenness,” will echo in a black hole of ignorance on this issue.

Sadly, gay people will continue to walk away from God because churches burden them with unachievable expectations and demands.

The biological ability to produce children does not mean a person is straight. Living within a heterosexual relationship doesn’t mean one is straight. People who define themselves as “ex-gay” have their own purposes as to why they not longer identify as gay. These may include, but not limited to: the desire to have a family, the weight of familial, religious, social, and professional pressures, personal fear of consequences, their own non-acceptance of their orientation, or the threatened loss of God’s love and acceptance.

I know, I know — some of you are thinking of Former Gay Slut Alcohol Zombie Drug-Using Joe who is now a “new creature in Christ” and may even be married. Lumping cessation of personally destructive behaviors in with apparent sexual orientation modification blurs the lines of what has actually changed.

The whoring, drugs, and alcohol may be gone. This scenario creates a temptation to also announce  a shift in sexual orientation. We each choose what to do with our sexual desires, but we cannot change sexual orientation.

In Christian-lingo, these paraded-about “ex-gays” got saved and God made him/her into a “new creature in Christ.” Unfortunately, this “new creature” is probably still gay, and in the “honeymoon” phase. A behavior change can be mistaken by onlookers as orientation change.

You will only hear praise and gratitude from this former miserable heterosexual screw-up for the great possibility of personal transformation in following Jesus. That Jesus-make-over, however, does not include sexual orientation.

Michael Bussee, former founder of Exodus Int’l & now on the Board of Canyonwalker

For every rising star and “ex-gay” poster child you cite that is “no longer gay,” I offer hundreds of stories of my friends, most of them Christians, who tried to conform, hide, deny, or live as a heterosexual until they ultimately chose truth and authenticity. Families, relationships, and people have been destroyed and forced into shame because they bought into the “change is possible” lie.

Conveniently ignoring the existence of bisexuals who are in the 2 to 5 range on the Kinsey Scale inflates the “success” stories of conversion as well. This is a regularly used ploy.

John Smid, author of “Ex’ed Out”

Former leaders of Exodus and other “help-fix-me-I-am-gay” programs admit they never saw one change in the orientation of clients in decades of work. Although well-intended, ex-gay programs have been ineffective, and in fact, they have been destructive. Still, pastors, families, and shamed gay Christians believe the long-held lies.

I don’t mind gay people having civil unions, but marriage is not a civil right.”

Married couples enjoy over 1000 civil, medical, and tax benefits which are not offered to non-married couples. Saying: “I have no objection to civil unions, just don’t touch marriage” may work nicely for those who enjoy the benefits of marriage for  their families, but don’t ever think civil unions are fair or equal for same-sex couples.

Marriage might well be a “sacrament” in your economy, but it in America, it is a legal contract providing protections for individuals, couples, and families.

Further, there is a strong misconception among heterosexuals that marriage itself is not a civil right. Well, it is.

Marriage has already been designated as “one of the basic civil rights of man” by the Supreme Court of the US. In the 1967 Loving vs. Virginia case that invalidated the miscegenation laws prohibiting black/white marriage, marriage was deemed to be a basic right for all people. The decision states, “The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.”

Marriage as a fundamental right under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment was again reaffirmed in the 1978 Zablocki vs. Redhail decision. That decision states “the right to marry as of fundamental importance for all.”

Civil rights should not be subjected to a popular vote; rights are evaluated and extended by close examination under the Constitution.  The Constitution interprets for American citizens what is fair and just.  Clearly, marriage is a basic right within our Constitution. Inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the right to marry is now legal in 35 states (updated 12/14).

The Bible is against homosexuality.”

It is quite common for people to use God and their sureness of their own interpretation and ownership of “His views” to justify ones own moral, cultural, and religious biases. Millions of words have been written on this issue. I’ve written many of those words on my blog and book.

All of us, all of us, approach verses in the Bible with filters created by our: experiences, the teachings we have heard and read, interpretations, interactions, cultural influences, and doctrinal and denominational stances. I even wrote a book dealing with this

Most commonly, eventually, relationships matter. When I went to a Gay Christian Network Conference in 2007 and stood amongst over 300 LGBT Christians, I was convicted of my own wrong judgments. Hearing professions of faith, testimonies of changed lives, and seeing the fruits of the Holy Spirit in gay and transgender Christians should challenge old paradigms. It challenged me.

Concerning the verses you’re confident that you know you know, the challenge is quite simple. Look at all (5 to 7, depending on your count) of the references to same-sex behavior in the Bible. In every instance, same-sex behavior is paired with rape, prostitution, abuse, lust, or worship of another god. None of those behaviors are pleasing to God.

************

Remember:

  • Gay people have lives, not “gay lifestyles.”
  • God is a clever designer. The parts do fit and work quite well for same-sex loving couples. 
  • Homosexuality is a natural expression of human sexuality.
  • People do not change sexual orientation.
  • Marriage is a civil right in the US.
  • The Bible is being wrongly used to discriminate against gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people.

We are guilty of oppressing a class of people because of our own ignorance and isolation. Be better than that. Get into relationships with gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people. Get informed.

And stop saying stupid stuff.

Comments

comments

Post Author

This post was written by who has written 180 posts on .

Stuart says:

(This was meant to show up as a reply following David’s posting on June 3, 2014.)

[Reply]

Stuart says:

“Homosexuality is a choice like any wrong thing.”
—No. Talk to a homosexual person about this, and you will be honestly told that the condition was a discovery, not a choice.
YOUR choice of thoughts and words, here, was a wrong thing.

“gay people cannot just live their lives privately. They want to convert everyone into their way of thinking because they feel it justifies their wrong choice.”
—Nonsense! They do NOT want to convert everyone to their way of thinking; they simply want to convert the haters into tolerators. (*That* kind of conversion is possible, although difficult. It can be damaging, though, to closed, bigoted mindsets.)

“far better than getting my arm stuck with a needle every six months and taking meds that cause you to have nightmares frequently.”
—Somewhat comparable here is chemotherapy. Note that neither cancer nor AIDS is gotten by choice, and that safer-sex practices greatly reduce one’s chances of contracting diseases.

“If I had a bakery and you asked me to decorate you a cake for your gay wedding I’d cram a pie in your face. If I owned a floral shop and you asked me to prepare flowers for your gay wedding I’d shove thistles in your face.”
—You need to read the Book of Matthew, chapter 22, which contains something you seem to have forgotten.
“Jesus replied: ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.'”

Pies or thistles in the face are not expressions of neighborly love. (If you ran a catering service, would you attack a heterosexual customer who ordered shrimp cocktail for a wedding reception? Shellfish and crustaceans are also forbidden under Levitical law, you know.)

“I stand ready to fight for what is right!”
—Love (as commanded; see above) and tolerance (also commanded) are what is right. Are you ready to fight for that?

[Reply]

Black says:

I don’t get why people are so mean to gay/lesbian/bi people. Hello it’s their choice not yours, aren’t they allowed to love people they love and what they should go to hell because of that. God made us this way you cannot change it, it’s who you are don’t let people judge you for what sex you love. Doesn’t matter if it’s female, male, or even both it’s your choice not theirs. I amazed why they hate them it’s not their fault and changing them to be straight well excuse me but they won’t change that much cause your going to hurt that person more. Changing someone cause it’s religion is not that smart cause they can’t but love that person, so people who hates gay/lesbian/bi wake up this is their choice not yours, you’re not that person so don’t even care it’s not even your dam business so don’t butt into their business cause they are like that. I support gay/lesbian/bi cause they are human beings as well not freaks.

Also even if your gay/lesbian/bi make sure the person you love will except you. I won’t mind if people hate me for this comment but this is what I think, were all humans and we should treat each other equally for who we are. People are mean to people who don’t believe that the same sex should be together, but before you do something stupid think to yourself

“Are they happy together? If I interfere with them what would happen? Should I even butt into their business? How is this interfering with my life?”

If you thought to yourself does it make some sense, people are stereotyping people who are gay/lesbian/bi. It doesn’t matter what would you get out of it anyway. It’s their choice not yours so don’t act stupid or rash to that person it’s he/she choice and it doesn’t even interfere with your daily life.

This what I believe, and not yours haters. You cannot change me, this is who I am. I’m not you and you are not me so think. (Sorry if my grammar or spelling is wrong, but this is what I believe. I’m a female and I’m straight. I support people who are gay/lesbian/bi.)

And finally if you guys hated gay/lesbian/bi why didn’t god just made it all disappear, why did he make them anyway (trying not to bad mouth god) if you thought of that and still judge the person then wake up and face reality.

[Reply]

Black says:

I don’t get why people are so mean to gay/lesbian/bi people. Hello it’s their choice not yours, aren’t they allowed to love people they love and what they should go to hell because of that. God made us this way you cannot change it, it’s who you are don’t let people judge you for what sex you love. Doesn’t matter if it’s female, male, or even both it’s your choice not theirs. I amazed why they hate them it’s not their fault and changing them to be straight well excuse me but they won’t change that much cause your going to hurt that person more. Changing someone cause it’s religion is not that smart cause they can’t but love that person, so people who hates gay/lesbian/bi wake up this is their choice not yours, you’re not that person so don’t even care it’s not even your dam business so don’t butt into their business cause they are like that. I support gay/lesbian/bi cause they are human beings as well not freaks.

[Reply]

Jennifer Smith says:

Dear Kathy

Perhaps I was rude in using that terminology. No offence was meant by it and I apologise if you were offended, I was merely making the point that it is blindingly obvious that the human body is not designed for same sex activities. I can quote and track down all the studies that point towards the fact that same sex relations are not as healthy and as happy as the gay community would have us think they are.

Honouring somebody would have connotations of maybe warning them if something is harmful to them, would it not? I have gay friends and I love them to pieces. I would not wish to see any of them contracting deadly diseases or doing something that is harmful to them so I have warned them accordingly as the statistics show. I have also warned them of God’s judgement on sin. As Christians we are called to warn others of sin and teach Jesus. The Bible says we are not to enable sin. I am concerned enough for the emotional, physical and spiritual health of my gay friends to warn them of the truth however unpopular that may seem. Call me a bigot if you want, I’m just doing what Jesus commanded all Christians to do.

Also I was under the impression that a public blog is open to debate regardless of the writers opinion on the matter? Free speech and all that?

Apologies again if you were offended.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

No perhaps about it — it WAS rude. The term is “cognitively disabled.” If you mean, “blindly obvious”, then type THAT. And it is NOT blindly obvious — if gay sex did not work, people would not be doing it. If that is not what YOU choose to do with YOUR body, then don’t do it.

I have many hundreds of friends who are quite healthy and happy. Go meet people and file your biased stats.

If you are someone’s parent, you have the authority to warn. Honoring people means treating them as adults. I suspect your tactics are pretty unsuccessful largely because they are emotionally unhealthy.

I would love to know what the gay friends that you “love to pieces” would think of your post. Read them your comments, and ask them if they feel loved.

As Christians, we are called to love and serve, not parent an entire class of people. You are not doing what Jesus commanded, you are being a busy body and a member of the morality (yours) police.

This is MY blog that I make public and I get to decide who posts here and what comments stand. I care about content and truth. If you want to reduce 5% of the world’s population to a sex act and post your stats about anal sex, then create your own blog.

And yes, I do think you are very guilty of prejudice and stereotyping — some would call this a bigot, I would call it horribly ill-informed. You are not doing it in Jesus’ name, you have whatever it is that your own needs are to fill. Two posts on the anal sex of others done “in love” says more about you than others.

Your posts will no longer be approved.

[Reply]

R.T. Reply:

It amazes me that people post these kinds of generic conservative arguments without really responding to anything you say. They also post Bible verses without addressing your commentary in your other posts. It’s mind boggling.

[Reply]

R.T. says:

Ms. Baldock has touched many lives, which is clearly evident by the innumerable posts on here thanking her. And I am one such person. Without her site, I’m not sure I would be as well as I am today.

Her works of love demonstrate the Spirit at work in her ministry.

Please consider whether or not Christ would approve of your post.

I hope you are well.

[Reply]

IhateDUMBbitches says:

Shut up Kathy. Your one of those dumb bit**es that need to have a knife shoved down your throat and die a slow painful death (like every gay should) and go to hell. In hell u can talk to all those gay bit**es.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

I read this to my Mom tonight. She told me “I am so proud of you, I wonder if his mother is proud of him?” Is she?

[Reply]

Jennifer Smith Reply:

These kind of posts are riddled with so many inaccuracies and lies it is laughable. Gay sex and lesbian sex is blatantly unnatural and you would have to be legitimately retarded to not be able to see why. Lesbian sex is obvious, if God had wanted woman to engage in sex together we would have had the sex organs to sustain that. Gay sex is pretty obvious too with even a children’s knowledge of biology. The anal passage of any human being is basically the municipal pipe of the human body, the muscle up there is not designed to have a human penis being rammed up it or else gay man wouldn’t need lubricant and ‘poppers’ (drugs that loosen up anal muscle) The human vagina has a pH more or less analogous to beer (around 4.5) and is designed specifically for intercourse on more than enough counts. One, the vagina is both self lubricating and self cleaning, a healthy vagina makes its own lubricant so it does not need additional lubricant. Two, it contains anti-microbial compounds that work together with the low pH to counteract introduced bacteria and sperm by the penis. Three, the musculature of the vagina contains several layers. It is designed to withstand the rumpy bumpy. Taking these factors into consideration, is it not logical to assume that God DID NOT design the human body for homosexual intercourse? Clearly if homosexual relations were ordained by God we would see the design of the anus would be naturally accommodating to another penis, no?

Biology aside, there is a plethora of scientific evidence that states that MSM is bad for the participants involved. HIV and other STD’s are significantly more likely to be transmitted between partners during anal sex than between heterosexual couples. Not to mention all the studies done point to homosexuals having far more mental problems on average than heterosexuals. This is true even when the homosexuals are from accepting societies such as the Netherlands. Do you not think that this is because homosexual acts are contrary to natural law? Or at least the law God placed in our hearts? Sin is the only thing which makes us unhappy, and as Paul wrote in ”Romans 1:25-27 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served the creature (themselves) rather than the Creator, who is blessed for ever, amen. For this reason God gave them over to their degrading passions; for their woman exchanged the natural (i.e: philosophically and morally correct) function for what is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire towards one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.’

Clearly Paul is referring to homosexual acts here, not the sexual orientation itself. In verse 27 it is plausible he is referencing STD’s such as HIV, but more likely is referencing the internal suffering that goes on inside the heart of a gay person as he wrestles to justify the sin he knows is wrong but doesn’t know why. Because, gay people are too created in the image of God, they have feelings and hearts an also God’s law within their hearts.

Homosexual orientation may well be biological, but homosexual behaviour is certainly a choice.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Jennifer — you certainly are focused on how other people have sex. This is your second post on the sexual intimacies of other people.
Perhaps you can work on a higher biblical calling of honoring others in general — that is the internal work that God asks us to do. “legitimately retarded” is a quite outdated term.
There are other sites that would warmly welcome you limited biological insights. This is not one of them.
Thank you for reading.

David says:

Homosexuality is a choice like any wrong thing. When you have enough bad consequences from wrong choices it is a good idea to turn your direction and go the way that is right. I made a voice to do the right thing and now I am becoming vindictive because gay people cannot just live their lives privately. They want to convert everyone into their way of thinking because they feel it justifies their wrong choice. I wife and children who love me would be far better than getting my arm stuck with a needle every six months and taking meds that cause you to have nightmares frequently.
If I had a bakery and you asked me to decorate you a cake for your gay wedding I’d cram a pie in your face. If I owned a floral shop and you asked me to prepare flowers for your gay wedding I’d shove thistles in your face. If you asked me to use my professional talents as a photographer and take photos at your gay wedding I’d show up with a embarrassing photo documentary showing all the filthiest crap you all really do. You cannot fool me. I have seen and experienced all this filth and it is the biggest mistake you will ever make.
However there is ONE who can repair All wrongs you have ever done and the relief you will experience will take away all your anxieties, worries and troubles. You know who I am referring to or will know soon. One day all creation will be on their knees giving him the credit he deserves.

You have no choice in that.

I stand ready to fight for what is right!

[Reply]

R.T. says:

Hello, Hans. I’m not as astute, well-versed, or intelligent as Ms. Baldock, but I thought I’d reply. I enjoy a good intellectual discussion.

“This is to be expected, but lessens the objectivity of the views presented.”

I don’t necessarily believe that having a relationship with someone who is gay lessens objectivity. But even if it did, it is the argument that must be rebutted not the character or reasons behind the argument. To me, this is a bit of an ad hominem since it deals more with intent or character and not with the argument itself.

“Paul, who was well traveled and well educated, would have almost certainly been aware that certain people were possessed of a homosexual “condition.” The fact that neither the term “homosexual” nor “orientation” was current DOES NOT mean that the ancient educated class didn’t have a rudimentary sense of what sexual orientation was. (And to say that Paul in his inspired works would not understand the difference is to dilute the concept of inerrancy.)”

To me, the burden of proof lies on those who claim Paul must have known about fixed sexuality. It must be proven through his writings. Otherwise, it’s conjecture, right?

In my view in light of Scripture, I believe Paul would have seen same-sex intimacy but not understood it as a fixed nature as we do today. While I agree that there probably were committed same-sex relationships, Paul, like most of his contemporaries, would probably have seen these men as simply behaving badly. No where in scripture do we get the sense that Paul knew he was addressing people who only had same-sex attractions. Despite the evidence of same-sex relationships in culture, Paul doesn’t make it clear that he has an understanding of a fixed, gay orientation. So we have to use the context of what Paul says, and with his mention of catamites and men exchanging the natural use of women (as if they had the biological ability to do so), I think Paul more likely saw what he thought were men who could procreate with women in contextually condemnable same-sex situations. Does that mean we can assume Paul would approve? I wouldn’t go that far. But if the scripture is silent on monogamous relationships, then we have to measure it against the commandment that fulfills the laws we as Christians must follow: loving God and our neighbors. And if neither God nor our neighbors are harmed, then I don’t believe we can condemn it.

And such an argument only dilutes inerrancy if your position is predicated on the notion that Paul had to condemn homosexuality as we understand it today.

“In general, to this day, homosexual relationships are usually willfully monogamous only to imitate heterosexual commitments”.

I think many would find this offensive. I think LGBT strive for monogamy to do the best they can to honor their understanding of what God would want. It’s not to ape the heterosexual crowd.

“Many in the GLBT community admit that same-sex marriage in practice tends to be more “open”–in an intentional sense–than its heterosexual counterpart.”

I would like to see the statistics on this. Promiscuity is probably more common in the male half of the gay community because, like I’ve heard someone else say before, a monogamous relationship would be harder to hide. But I think this will decrease as the stigma of LGBT relationships becomes less an issue.

“Be that how it may, there is simply no sacred call for homosexual couples to remain faithful to one another. Without doubt and without fail, sexual fidelity will indeed improve their relationships. The embezzlement of a thousand dollars has far fewer consequences than the embezzlement of a million bucks. That fact doesn’t, however, make the embezzlement of the lesser amount somehow moral.”

The beginning seems to be an argument from silence to me. A lack of proof doesn’t cause the argument to return to a default position. This is an argument many atheists make. For example, there’s not proof of God, so he must not exist. We must appeal to the evidence we have to make an argument, not the lack of evidence. Let me give a counter example as to why traditionalists wouldn’t like to allow such arguments: Christ does not condemn homosexuality in his earthly teachings; therefore, he must not have seen it as an issue worth mentioning.

The analogy at the end is dependent on the premise that gay intimacy is as sinful as embezzlement; however, I don’t agree with that premise. :)

“If I held to your position, I would be seriously embarrassed by the monolithically negative record of Judeo-Christian history regarding homosexuality. Until the past few decades, there simply have been NO voices arguing for your position. How do you deal with that?”

It wasn’t until around the late 1800s, I believe, that the notion of a fixed orientation was born. And it wasn’t until the 70s that we began to see that it wasn’t a pathology. And now, as we see the colossal failure of ex-gay therapy to change that orientation, we are beginning to understand it might just be as immutable as the color of our eyes. So it’s no surprise that theologians haven’t delved too deeply into the subject when they simply thought it was a man who was behaving badly who should go find a good woman to marry and procreate with. How could theologians pre-advent of psychology comment on a fixed orientation they had no sense of?

“The Levitical prohibition on sex during a woman’s monthly cycle is at least in part abrogated by Christ’s willingness to touch (and heal) the woman with a chronic (hemorrhagic) menstrual flow. There is absolutely no abrogation of the historic Jewish condemnation of homosexuality even vaguely implied anywhere in the New Testament.”

I think the Hebrew Scriptures do not apply to Christians in a legalistic sense. Paul repeatedly battled his Jewish-Christian brethren who wanted to keep following the Mosaic Law. He even went so far to say that all who follow the Law are cursed (as the end of the Law says wild animals will kill whoever doesn’t keep the commandments) because they cannot keep it without erring.

“Plus, there are plenty of biblical verses which imply [slavery’s] far less than ideal status in the eyes of God.”

If you don’t mind, I’d like to see what verses you are referencing.

[Reply]

R.A. says:

Thank you. It’s sad how common these types of comments show up in discussion boards.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Malthus — quite sad. I will save you the trauma and block you.

[Reply]

R.A. says:

Does adultery not demean marriage? Spousal abuse? Etc.

“…we are not interested in anything about you.”

Not the most compassionate wording.

Also, please be careful with such statements. It is likely you have friends or family who are gay and not open about it.

[Reply]

Jack Gregory says:

Joseph – you require therapy. Possibly medication or hospitalisation. Perhaps a combination of them.

Your message is wrong on many levels. Wow. I can’t decide whether you border on fanatically stupid or sexually perverse.

I’m not debating anything with you – that would be useless – you’re far too alone on lala island. Pretty much every species of mammal knows you’re talking rubbish – not even including the 140 odd that have natural life-long same-sex mates.

Good luck – and sincerely – get help. Soon.

[Reply]

Joseph Jackson says:

Kathy, if you think that sexual acts for pleasure are healthy, then I suggest that you research the debilitating effects of sexual pleasures, like masturbation. Although sex with two people of opposite genders is necessary for making a baby, it is not healthy to do all the time because of the effects of the stimulation of your pleasure centers (your penis or vagina). Same-sex sex is another name for the masturbation of two people, and masturbation is not healthy because of the debilitating effects it has on your body like disfiguration. If you support masturbation, will you please tell me so that I may have a discussion with you privately concerning the reasons why God strictly forbids this act against him and why it is wrong to disfigure your body, or otherwise known as “the temple of the Holy Spirit”.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Honestly, is this an appropriate note to send me? If you can read it on the altar of your church in front of you congregation, it may post worthy on a public page. Private note on this? Are you crazy? WHY on earth would I EVER send you a private note about this. Get your head out of the trash and let people led their lives. Take care of your needs.

[Reply]

Hans says:

Thanks, Kathy, for the recommendations. I will try to pick those up when they become available.

I have already read (from your side of the fence) Bill Countryman and Tobias Haller and Daniel Helminiak. The first two are Episcopal priests, and the last, a Catholic priest (though inactive). All three are gay themselves. I’m guessing you’re quite familiar with Countryman (as he was in Berkeley for a long, long time). Helminiak is at the U. of West Georgia, teaching classes in human sexuality, sociology, and spirituality. Haller is in New York. He has an excellent blog entitled “In a Godward Direction.”

I spoke with Helminiak once, after a lecture. When he found out I did not agree with his stated thesis, he just about flew off the handle, but just as quickly softened. We had a very pleasant discussion, and he sent me some of his published articles. If you are not aware of Haller, I believe you should become so. He is a first-rate scholar and a gentleman to boot. His book, “Reasonable and Holy” is, I believe, probably the best treatment from your perspective.

I am familiar with Matthew Vines from his rather well-known youtube video. It is quite an impressive performance coming from a 21 year old (at the time)! Pretty much everyone writing from a “committed-Christian homophile” perspective is either homosexual him or herself or has a sibling or child who has come out as gay or lesbian. (You are perhaps the lone exception.) This is to be expected, but lessens the objectivity of the views presented. Of course, the traditional stance on things has similar problems. Mainstream (secular/academic) scholars usually take the tack that Paul is a Jewish man of his age, and thus sexist and homophobic. They have little motivation to prove your point that he never intended to be taken as anti-homosexual, but merely anti-excess and anti-lust.

I would be very surprised if you were not completely comfortable with your convictions (as I am with mine). But your contention that the biblical passages couldn’t possibly refer to committed relationships cannot stand. N. T. Wright, one of the leading New Testament scholars in the world, calls such a notion “enlightenment arrogance” and can easily point to the committed relationships of Achilles and Patroclus (and of Alexander the Great, who kept life-long relationships with both Hephaestion and Bagoas). Wright, who is noted for his encyclopedic knowledge of first-century Near Eastern culture, says that Paul, who was well traveled and well educated, would have almost certainly been aware that certain people were possessed of a homosexual “condition.” The fact that neither the term “homosexual” nor “orientation” was current DOES NOT mean that the ancient educated class didn’t have a rudimentary sense of what sexual orientation was. (And to say that Paul in his inspired works would not understand the difference is to dilute the concept of inerrancy. Divine revelation is hardly divine if it is limited in such a fashion.)

Absolutely no pagan relationships—homo or hetero–were restrictively monogamous at the time, so I’ll give you that one. In general, to this day, homosexual relationships are usually willfully monogamous only to imitate heterosexual commitments (all of your close gay friends with a reverence for Scripture would be a good case in point). Of course, some couples with a great deal of compatibility and love will remain monogamous no matter what. But this is hardly the norm. Many in the GLBT community admit that same-sex marriage in practice tends to be more “open”–in an intentional sense–than its heterosexual counterpart. This may not be true in gay Christian circles. Perhaps, if for no other reason than to prove a point, they are even more strictly moral in these terms than Evangelical heterosexuals, married and single alike. The bar isn’t set very high these days.

Be that how it may, there is simply no sacred call for homosexual couples to remain faithful to one another. Without doubt and without fail, sexual fidelity will indeed improve their relationships. The embezzlement of a thousand dollars has far fewer consequences than the embezzlement of a million bucks. That fact doesn’t, however, make the embezzlement of the lesser amount somehow moral.

If I held to your position, I would be seriously embarrassed by the monolithically negative record of Judeo-Christian history regarding homosexuality. Until the past few decades, there simply have been NO voices arguing for your position. How do you deal with that? The Levitical prohibition on sex during a woman’s monthly cycle is at least in part abrogated by Christ’s willingness to touch (and heal) the woman with a chronic (hemorrhagic) menstrual flow. There is absolutely no abrogation of the historic Jewish condemnation of homosexuality even vaguely implied anywhere in the New Testament.

(The Christian stance on slavery, on the other hand, went back and forth. Christendom was basically anti-slavery for the first fifteen centuries A.D. It took a major step backwards for the next four centuries after that, but it was Evangelicals and Quakers and Unitarians and a few Catholics who led the charge for a permanent abolition of the infernal institution. Plus, there are plenty of biblical verses which imply its far less than ideal status in the eyes of God. Slave trading, for example, is directly rebuked, and the practice itself is merely pragmatically tolerated for circumstances inherent in the ancient agrarian economic system.)

[Reply]

Hans says:

I can agree with substantial sections of your argument here. Evangelical Christians do indeed tend to be uninformed concerning homosexuality and, as a result, can often be bigoted and hateful in their communications with and about the GLBT community. I myself have at least attended both gay-welcoming and gay-led worship services though I admittedly still have much, much to learn. My interactions with homosexual colleagues and students and lecturers and acquaintances (and roommates and relatives) have been almost universally positive experiences. I do not recoil in disgust when confronted with details of their sexual activities: I do not have to overcome some sort of “ick” factor. (After all, C. S. Lewis spoke of the ludicrous and grotesque nature of “normal” heterosexual sexual activity…and then there’s Shakespeare’s description of it as a “two-backed beast” in Othello. Most of us are overweight and out of shape and wrinkled and blemished, and Hollywood will never come calling for us to do nude love scenes!)

However, as has always been the case, Evangelicals must stand from time to time against the prevailing culture. Current society is saying, with a voice growing louder by the day, that homosexuality must not only be accepted and tolerated…but advocated as normal and fully moral. To this last demand, Evangelicalism can never acquiesce without redefining itself. The stance that homosexuality is sinful in the eyes of God is an Evangelical shibboleth, just as a pro-life take on abortion is a shibboleth. To change these convictions is to cease to be Evangelical.

It doesn’t even matter if you can more firmly nail down your arguments tying apparent mentions of homosexuality in Scripture to cultic activities. Your basic argument—which I find to be peripherally possible but hardly convincing—is completely and utterly irrelevant. Scripture does not contain an exhaustive catalog of sins. Pedophilia, for example, is never mentioned, but that hardly makes it acceptable. Polygamy is winked at (indeed Sephardic Jews still find the practice biblically acceptable…and some Christian missionaries to Africa have had to make the difficult choice of either accepting a convert’s numerous wives or sending all but one of them off to certain prostitution, poverty, and abuse). Biblically, prostitution itself is often given but a slap on the wrist (e.g., Judah’s interactions with his daughter-in-law). Likewise, prostitution—and incest, for that matter, as well—is often tied to cultic practices. Such details do not ameliorate its status and change it into a moral profession.

If you can definitively prove that biblical examples of male-on-male sex are all cultic or tied to prostitution…if you can prove that the “unnatural” sex performed by women in Romans 1 is not lesbian in nature…it doesn’t matter a whit. You must prove the biblical ABROGATION of existing Second Temple Judaism’s mores, which did indeed condemn homosexuality. All forms of Rabbinic Judaism continued to condemn homosexuality, both male and female, until very recently. Orthodox Judaism still does…

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

I suggest Bible, Gender, Sexuality by Brownson, God and the Gay Christian by Matthew Vines out in two weeks and my Walking the Bridgeless Canyon — my book out in 6 weeks. I think all of us more than adequately address your concerns without going down the “cultic prostitute” path.
I am EXTREMELY comfortable in my stances. There is NO WAY possible that the Bible is referring to same sex monogamous, committed relationships. Rape, excessive lust and exploitive sexual use of others.The admonitions stand for all people.

[Reply]

Kari says:

I am praying for you all.

[Reply]

Ed says:

Well Harry I can tell by your rant that I hit a nerve! Homosexuality is still “Illegal” in 36 states, 31 of which passed laws right out declaring it “Illegal”. Do your home work. And contrary to what is and isn’t my business, any thing that may imply to the youth of this nation that homosexuality is an acceptable alternative lifestyle, well Harry don’t try and stomp om my first amendment rights, because my opinion seems to be with the still majority which is still the main stay of democracy. You’re looking to validate something that in your own manner of having a tantrum is conclusive to those of us who know the truth. You speak of my religion (laugh) talk about trying to put all naysayers in one basket, Harry I’m an
atheist. I don’t say hate homosexuals; not at all. My nephews one and he lives with a lesbian for “appearances. I love him as much as his two heterosexual brothers. What I’m saying is throughout history homosexuality has been frowned upon, and the forward actions of groups such as this tend to put all of the community at risk. Why, because it reverses the situation and puts anti-homosexuals in the closet and that my friend makes them more dangerous than we they were “out”. Further, as I had mentioned it causes even more radical minoritys to expect the same treatment. The man with the creature owns the creature, and the creature has no rights….just walk through a slaughter house sometime if you don’t believe it. And I bet your one of those who partake in the eating of those non-consenting animals. I do believe in live and let live and your right to do whatever you want behind closed doors. How many women get raped, or children get molested especially those society has allowed to be in a position of authority within the religious community and sports communities just to name two. Reality Harry is when legislation no longer adheres to “of the people, by the people, and for the people”. Democracy means majority rules and the further people are pushed away from this, the more chaos, civil disobedience and harm to our fellow men will happen. You neither have to like or agree with my humble opinion, but for the good of all open yourself up to all opinions so that you truly can make informed choices. You don’t want to one day say “I never thought something like this would come from what we few pushed through back then”. Let me give you a simple example of man/gov’ts way of justification of an issue. ” We are running out of fresh water. In so many years there won’t be enough for all the people on earth.” The truth is that we have as much water today as we had six million years ago. I mean where is going to go? It evaporates, it rains, we use it and flush it and the process starts all over again. Do we all die? Depends on your definition. When man is in the womb, he is alive and the womb is his world, When he is born, he “dies” of that world and is born into this one. I think when we die of this one that there is another one after. It may be totally different than this one but none the less, all of us who were ever here, are still here in one form or another. I hate to see people wasting their lives on an issue when they should be doing what we are all meant to be doing, and Harry that’s making happy memories. Why you might ask….well toward the end of this life, that’s all we truly have are those memories and we should do our best to make them happy ones. My time on the soap box is over. You’re going to do what you want any way, but please dump your anger and live your life your way without needing the consent or validation of anyone else. That sir is your right. Goodnight Harry.

[Reply]

Harry says:

“Just [your] humble opinion”? Really? There is nothing humble in your comment, sir.

Homosexuality is not illegal, because it takes place between consenting adults. The straw man argument you have set up is that illegal activity between an adult human and a creature, in either case, who is not capable of consent is not merely offensive, but also non-sensical.

No matter what you think of sexual behavior between consenting adults, it is NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. Your religion does not trump reality. And reality indicates that this change is tidal and unstoppable. Your view on the matter is irrelevant and ignorant.

[Reply]

KellyK says:

It’s not childish to refuse to engage in a pointless conversation, or to block or ban someone who is rude or verbally abusive. It’s actually a very mature, grown-up setting of boundaries. If you have different boundaries and want to encourage debate that veers into name-calling and mudslinging, you can certainly do that in your own space.

[Reply]

Brian says:

1 Timothy 1:10

The sexually immoral, men who practice homosexuality, enslavers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrin

1 Corinthians 7:2

But because of the temptation to sexual immorality, each man should have his own wife and each woman her own husband.

Leviticus 18:22

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination.

Mark 10:6-9

But from the beginning of creation, ‘God made them male and female.’ ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.’ So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

These came straight from the Bible. Homosexuality is wrong. I don’t care what any other person says in this world. I will never support gay marriage or homosexuality in general. Everyone on here can make me look like a fool if they want to.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

It is always helpful when reading the Bible to know something about the context, culture and words. Otherwise you fall into the trap you have and completely discount people in whom the spirit of God exists. GO visit and affirming congregation and meet your gay brothers and sisters in Christ, THEN revisit the Scriptures in context. you may be surprised.

Here are lists of churches near you. Be brave and get educated.

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/20969954490014969/“>

http://www.pinterest.com/pin/20969954490014967/

This man grew up in your area — maybe you can listen to him?

[Reply]

Joseph Jackson Reply:

You don’t read scripture and change it so you could benefit from it, you read it literally, and take for it what it says

[Reply]

R.T. Reply:

Hello, Joseph. How are you today, friend?

I disagree in that I don’t believe any of us take all scripture literally as it wasn’t meant literally. For instance, Jesus says if your hand or eye causes you to sin, cut it off or pluck it out. He also said he who does not has father or mother will not enter into the Kingdom. Do you see what I’m trying to say? I’m sometimes bad at saying things. :)

But I think you get that we can’t take all scripture literally without, like Ms. Baldock said, context. If we do, we can miss the whole point.

I hope all’s well.

Sun Tzu says:

I’m straight, married with adult children, and now have grandchildren. If you listen to themes in the media, you would think that a majority of the population is gay. The US is really one of the few places where political correctness and social pressure from liberals has leveraged support of gays and gay rights into a majority straight society. I don’t get it. I don’t like it. Over the years, television and movies have brought profanity, reduced family values, lust, greed, and alternate values (wealth and flashy lifestyle over substance/morals). My point, there is so much effort focused on getting me to change, and accept change. I am not going to change. My children might, but I doubt it, and I don’t see my grandchildren changing unless somehow they lose their parents after I am gone. I tolerate what is required by laws, workplace, and then pick and choose where to live, where to shop, what media to use. Dinosaur? Ha. Just sad about the loss of a way of life. If I were alone in my views, I wouldn’t change them. I guess I’m saying, these people are loving you because of your votes. Politics, the ultimate immorality.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Many of us are compelled by justice. That is enough reason to work to ensure that the minority is given the same rights. We do not need everyone to get on board with that. If you choose not to change, it is you that will lose out on the richness of growth that life offers.
Thank you for reading.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

I am not quite sure of what you are trying to convey. I think tonight I will block you because you asked to be blocked and you lose points for spelling.
I am actually heterosexual. I am also a wonderful person — no one refers to me as a “freak of nature.” I imagine this exchange would be a misuse of my valuable time.
Grace Fellowship in Christ Jesus in nearby to you. Go there and be brave. Confront your fear and your ignorance.
Yes, I have blocked you.

[Reply]

Gus says:

Oh my God Kathy you’re to funny gays are gays and you will never be equal and do you know why? BECAUSE YOU’R GAY. Just face it your a freak of nature and that’s that. Lmao watch you block me

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

You are correct, it is my blog and is a “restricted” public space. I decide if/when people go beyond reasonability or are offensive. also get to choose how I invest my time; this is choices adults get to make.

When people have patterns that I see as non-productive or abusive, I end it.

I see this as a common space that I invite people into. When they offend others or become attention-suckers and the conversation goes no where — OR when they hide behind identities, I end it . I have done this for MANY years and am quick to spot patterns. I DO NOT debate people behind icons. That is my policy. Again, this is adult behavior, not childish. We may not agree on definitions of what is healthy adult behavior and what is not.

You can disagree, that is okay. The final decision is mine. Since I invest time in monitoring the blog, non-productive comments waste my time. That is not how I choose to invest much of my 168 hours per week.

Thank you for visiting the blog. It is primarily a resource for education and not debate.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

You are correct, it is my blog and is a “restricted” public space. I decide if/when people go beyond reasonability or are offensive. also get to choose how I invest my time; this is choices adults get to make.

When people have patterns that I see as non-productive or abusive, I end it.

I see this as a common space that I invite people into. When they offend others or become attention-suckers and the conversation goes no where — OR when they hide behind identities, I end it . I have done this for MANY years and am quick to spot patterns. I DO NOT debate people behind icons. That is my policy. Again, this is adult behavior, not childish. We may not agree on definitions of what is healthy adult behavior and what is not.

You can disagree, that is okay. The final decision is mine. Since I invest time in monitoring the blog, non-productive comments waste my time. That is not how I choose to invest much of my 168 hours per week.

Thank you for visiting the blog. It is primarily a resource for education and not debate.

[Reply]

Nick says:

I want to preface this statement by making clear I’m in no way opposed to the homosexual community. Do not condone discrimination of any kind and any person should have the same basic rights regardless of orientation, whether that be race sexual preference ect. However I don’t condone your way of handling the opposition. Yes it is your blog and you’re free to act as you please, but banning and removing people who challenge your way of thinking is somewhat childish. People should be encouraged to debate and challenge each other, it’s how we grow as individuals and a society. All of this “I’m right no more talking from you” won’t educate anyone. In fact it just closes people up more. People on each side of this arguement keep an open mind, and try to learn from each other. Even if both sides walk away with unchanged beliefs, it’ll be much more productive than anger or the censorship of each other.

[Reply]

Victoria says:

Can you please send me an email. My heart is crying to talk to a person who has a son who is gay.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Please send me a direct email to Kathy@canyonwalkerconnections.com or friend me on FB and let me connect you to a group of mom of LGBT kids. That will help. https://www.facebook.com/CanyonwalkerConnections

[Reply]

Braedon says:

Overall, this is a terrible argument; it reveals that “marriage equality” is nothing more than a logical fallacy. The author describes arguments against homosexuality as “unkind, flawed, ill-informed or ignorant.” These are bold statements–with little evidence to back them up. Along with these statements, the author simply pushes her opinions as though they were facts.
——-

The author claims that straight people are unaware of the “offense and discrimination they are causing.” Is the author stating these people are personally responsible or that they are prompting action from other people? Either way, this argument reveals an appeal to equality fallacy.
——-

The author dismisses Biblical verses about homosexuality on the excuse that it’s the “bias” of the reader. Targeting opponents in this way is a form of ad hominem abusive. Why doesn’t she address the actual arguments presented? What gives the author more authority than her critics? No Biblical arguments as to why homosexuality is acceptable or amoral were presented in the article.
——-

The author uses an appeal to authority fallacy, by citing the Supreme Court. How can we be sure that the Supreme Court is in fact acting correctly regarding DOMA and same-sex marriage? The author merely assumes that the Supreme Court’s authority makes a position right.
——-

The author states, “Many of the statements are rooted in ignorance and based on gay stereotypes.” Using the author’s logic, I could argue that this statement is “offensive” and “discriminatory.” It also ignores an important question, “Is homosexuality wrong?” She doesn’t seem to distinguish reality from her prejudices against conservative Christians.
——-

By the way, Christianity is centered on what critics consider one of the most “radical figures” in history. Jesus declared, “I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me” (see KJV John 14:6). People who are not Christian have been offended when they hear that Jesus is the only way to be saved. So, by the author’s logic, I guess we should change Christian doctrines–because “someone, somewhere” might feel discriminated against.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

The author has been doing this work since you were in 4th grade and may know a bit more about this area than you could ever imagine.

The author has written on marriage equality elsewhere on this blog that contains almost 650,000 words. I use the Constitution and the rulings of the SCOTUS as fact, yes, I do.

The author is indeed asserting that most straight people are unaware of the impact of their discrimination.

The author has studied and written extensively about the Bible. Check the VERSES link and the VIDEO link.

The author submits to the laws under the Constitution. The author is a good citizen.

The author is very well in touch with the stereotypes and myths of the last 70 years hurled against the gay community. You might want to pick up “Walking the Bridgeless Canyon” this spring, authored by the author.

The author is a radical just like Jesus was and thinks Jesus might be pretty disgusted by your unjust, oppressive, unequal dogma.

The author also has inside information that an excellent researcher has been working with the bishops of your church for the past five years because they KNOW their stances have caused the suicides of LGBT children and they are seeking to preserve the lives of LGBT Mormon youth. Your leaders are finding a heart of compassion when faced with the facts. I hope you will follow in their path.

[Reply]

Quientin Reply:

Amen.

[Reply]

Melinda Kline Reply:

I love this :)

Rocio says:

Why are we constantly judging each other? We are all sinners, and we are no better than gays.. I don’t understand it.. I’m a housewife and a mother of two, my life is pretty busy but even when I have down time the last thing I want to use it on is judging others… one day we are all going to die and if you all believe in God we will be judged… like I said we are. all sinners.. if his gay, she is lesbian, that other one is fat (did we forget that is a sin) that one is vain…. ect ect goodness life is too precious and not long enough to be worried about other people’s sin.. let’s start paying attention to our own mistakes and maybe we start living better…. there.

[Reply]

S. Camden says:

Put God before everything else. You’re far too busy defending a group of people to see the truth. I would rather defend God and His Word over a group of people.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Thank you for reading the post and your comment. You seem to be making some fairly declarative statements about me and what I do. I think I might be better able to assess the worth and manner in which I live and interact and advocate. So, I will just leave it at “thank you.”
You might be brave enough to confront your own thinking by visiting an affirming church near you in Kansas. Here is a link. http://www.gaychurch.org/find_a_church/

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

“S” if you are going to be the messenger of God, please also have the integrity to use a valid email address. Your further posts will be blocked — I do not invest time in hidden people.

[Reply]

Joe says:

This is laughable Kathy, first of all you are wrong on the fact that the parts do fit and let me explain this. The human race was given both male and female private parts to procreate and urinate. The anus was made to excrete materials in the body, this is just simple biology and anatomy here. By this knowledge alone, the parts clearly do not fit, although they may be pleasurable. With this being said, I am not against anal, oral, or girl on girl intercourse, however, the parts do not fit and all I’m saying is you cannot use that as a thing that straights should not say to gays because it is TRUE. Also, you completely ignored my points on sexual behavior vs. sexual orientation. While you were going off on your rant about how I only see things from my point of view, you never explained why the points that I made were wrong. Please explain to me where my reasoning is false, I would like to know.
You may see me as someone who looks down on/belittles gays, however, I have no problem with people being gay, you can choose to be intimate with whoever you want and however you want, I could careless. It’s certainly not the lifestyle I would advise someone to live because it is not corollary to my beliefs, but I do not go out of my way to bash on gay people. The only thing that I do not get are these types of websites that are here to try and send sympathy to gay people. I feel as, if you need reassurance that what your doing from a sexual standpoint is alright in order to raise your self-esteem, is weak. Stop taking offense to what people say and live your own life as you choose, be confident in yourself and move on, there are much more important things to worry about.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Oh my goodness! Please do take a Human Sexuality class. I suggest you take your own advise and please, do move on. We disagree and that really is okay.
THIS is work I am called to do. It seems to becoming quite an obsession to you, unless, of course, you are called by God to stand against gay people. I would question that, but . . . you get to live out your relationship with God in the manner you see fit.
I LAUGHED out loud that you are “not against anal, oral, or girl on girl intercourse”. Predictable.
Please Joe, follow Titus 3:10 and go do good elsewhere. You have told and Retold me and RE RE told me.
Have a lovely holiday and reflect Him in your interaction with all, even His gay children.
I am blocking you.

[Reply]

I am the one Reply:

Why are you blocking him? There are plenty of Christian sites where homosexuals spout all sorts of lies and fanciful speculation but they are not blocked. Are you blocking him because you can’t handle the truth.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

This is not “plenty of sites” — this is MY site and I get to choose how I use and invest my time. I sure can handle whoever “him” is — I do not even know who you are talking about.

If it is not productive and the person and I are clearly not in alignment, and I can sense an obsessive pattern about to start or can see that the poster has a history of engaging on this topic, I make a decision to end it. I use my time in FRUITFUL endeavors for most of the hours of my day.

As a healthy person, I actually get to draw those boundaries and make those choices.

I hope that answers your concerns, that is the only answer you will get.

Miguel Copper says:

There is one thing that I am confused about.
Can a person believe in Darwinism / Evolution and still think that Homosexuality is passed on genetically.
Basically Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual’s ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. I can’t think of a trait that is less inheritable than the aversion to mate with the opposite sex. Therefore, if it was a genetic variation, it should die out within one generation. How can that trait ever be passed on?

[Reply]

Tiler says:

The practice of homosexuality continues to gain acceptance in many lands. A group in one church in the United States is calling for a reinterpretation of what the Bible says about homosexuality in light of “contemporary wisdom.” A pastor in Brazil who recently entered into a same-sex marriage also encouraged “taking a fresh look at the Bible,” so as to allow for his church’s contemporary view.

On the other hand, those who do not approve of homosexual acts are often tagged as homophobic or prejudiced. What does the Bible really say about homosexuality?

The Bible does not promote prejudice against people. However, its view of homosexual acts is clear.

“You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”—Leviticus 18:22.

As part of the Mosaic Law, this prohibition was one of many moral laws given specifically to the nation of Israel. Even so, the commandment expresses God’s view of homosexual acts, whether by Jews or non-Jews, when it says: “It is a detestable thing.” The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean. (Leviticus 18:24, 25) Did the Bible’s viewpoint change during the Christian era? Consider the following scripture:

“God gave them up to disgraceful sexual appetites, for both their females changed the natural use of themselves into one contrary to nature; and likewise even the males left the natural use of the female and became violently inflamed in their lust toward one another, males with males, working what is obscene.”—Romans 1:26, 27.

Why does the Bible describe homosexual acts as unnatural and obscene? Because they involve sexual activity that was not intended by our Creator. Homosexual acts cannot produce offspring. The Bible compares homosexual activity to the sexual relations that rebellious angels, who came to be known as demons, had with women before the Deluge of Noah’s day. (Genesis 6:4; 19:4, 5; Jude 6, 7) God views both acts as unnatural.

Some may wonder, ‘Would genetics, environment, or traumatic life experiences, such as sexual abuse, justify one’s giving in to homosexual desires?’ No, they would not. Consider this example: A person may have what some scientists consider to be hereditary tendencies toward alcohol abuse, or he may have been raised in a family where alcohol abuse was commonplace. Certainly, most people would be empathetic toward a person in such circumstances. All the same, by no means would he be encouraged to continue abusing alcohol or to give up his fight against alcohol abuse just because he may have been born with the tendency or he was raised in such an environment.

Likewise, while the Bible does not condemn those who struggle with homosexual p. 29tendencies, it in no way condones giving in to those tendencies, whether they are the result of genetics or they stem from some other source. (Romans 7:21-25; 1 Corinthians 9:27) Instead, the Bible offers practical assistance and encouragement to help individuals to win the fight against homosexual practices.

The Bible assures us that God’s will is that “all sorts of men should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.” (1 Timothy 2:4) Though the Bible disapproves of homosexual acts, it does not encourage hatred of homosexuals.

God’s view of homosexuality cannot be watered down. At 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, the Bible clearly states that “men who lie with men” are included in those who “will not inherit God’s kingdom.” But verse 11 adds the comforting thought: “And yet that is what some of you were. But you have been washed clean, but you have been sanctified, but you have been declared righteous in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ and with the spirit of our God.”

Clearly, those who sincerely desired to worship God on his terms were warmly welcomed into the early Christian congregation. The same is true today for all honesthearted ones who seek God’s approval—not by reinterpreting the Bible—but by bringing their lives into harmony with it.

What is the Bible’s viewpoint on homosexual acts?—Romans 1:26, 27.

Does the Bible discriminate against people with homosexual desires?—1 Timothy 2:4.

Is it possible to abstain from homosexual acts?—1 Corinthians 6:9-11.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Tiler, this is for you (and any others of like mind):

“The nations around Israel practiced homosexuality, incest, adultery, and other acts prohibited by the Law. Therefore, God viewed those nations as unclean.”
—Israel practiced those acts too; that’s why they were given laws against such things. God must have viewed Israel as an unclean nation too, therefore. (God is inclusively logical, right?)
– – – – – – – – – –

“Why does the Bible describe homosexual acts as unnatural and obscene? Because they involve sexual activity that was not intended by our Creator.”
—More to the point: because they, as you said, “cannot produce offspring.” But this is equally true of the heterosexual acts of a couple who happen not to be mutually fertile. Would you ban their lovemaking as “unnatural and obscene” too, SOLELY because they could not increase the population? Answer honestly, now.
– – – – – – – – – –

“Some may wonder, ‘Would genetics, environment, or traumatic life experiences, such as sexual abuse, justify one’s giving in to homosexual desires?’ No, they would not.”
—Traumatic life experiences do not induce homosexuality. Neither does the (social) environment; it’s thought to be a genetic and/or epigenetic thing, possibly the result of a non-usual hormonal change in utero. (It’s natural, in other words, not a mere choice.)
– – – – – – – – – –

“God’s view of homosexuality cannot be watered down. At 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10, the Bible clearly states that ‘men who lie with men’ are included in those who ‘will not inherit God’s kingdom.'”
—What about women who lie with women? Do they get a pass, then?
– – – – – – – – – –

“Did the Bible’s viewpoint change during the Christian era?”
—*Paul’s* viewpoint, characterized as it is by misogyny and other bigotry, does indeed represent a change from the love and tolerance commanded by his mentor (you know, Jesus). To use his attitude as foundational is un-Christian.
Note that he says to Timothy, in 1 Timothy 2:9:
“In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array…”

Do you know any woman who wears a gold wedding ring? Or who braids her hair? Both of these are objected to by Paul; should you regard such a woman as being un-Christian? Really? Answer honestly, now.
– – – – – – – – – –

“You must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing.”–Leviticus 18:22.
—But then there are other things in the Mosaic Law, such as:
Deuteronomy 22:20-22 “But if this charge is true, that the girl was not found a virgin, then they shall bring out the girl to the doorway of her father’s house, and the men of her city shall stone her to death because she has committed an act of folly in Israel by playing the harlot in her father’s house; thus you shall purge the evil from among you.
“If a man is found lying with a married woman, then both of them shall die, the man who lay with the woman, and the woman; thus you shall purge the evil from Israel.”

and

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 “If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.”

So: since you support Mosaic Law, you support the continuation of these practices:
—A woman who was not a virgin on her wedding night is guilty of a capital(!) crime and is to be brutally humiliated and executed.
—Adulterous lovers are to be brutally executed.
—A rapist can make up for the deed by “purchasing” the woman and keeping her as wife, regardless of what she feels.

(And then there are the various other “abominations”, such as pork, shellfish, mixed-thread clothing….)

You don’t get to pick and choose, in the “cafeteria Christian” style. You support the Law, and ALL of the Law, or you cannot honestly say that you are following the Word of (that) God. And if you’re not truly following Him, you have absolutely no business trying to say what other people should do in their bedrooms. As the Rev. Baldock said above, “stop saying stupid stuff.”

[Reply]

Jennifer Smith Reply:

Dear Stuart

The Old Testament quotes that you give were given by God to Israel at a specific time in the history of Israel, for a number of reasons. This was because Jesus was coming through the Israelite bloodline (more, specifically, the tribe of Judah) and God wanted as ‘pure’ as bloodline as possible for his son Jesus to enter the world.

All these punishments that may seem over the top were because at that time the Israelite people were to be an example of God’s love for the surrounding nations. In addition, some of the law were given to show the standards of righteousness a person must live by to please God, hence the sacrificial system that was in place for covering sin. The final reason God have these laws was because most of the sins listed in the Old Testament law are quite harmful to us if we commit them. Obviously these days, with our sanitary standards and freezing, we can enjoy our food with much less worry about poisoning. But back then they wouldn’t have had fridges and bear in mind that most of the animals that God prohibits are detritivores (they eat unpleasant things that would pass to a human and potentially poison us.)

With regards to the New Testament, even Jesus himself said that the law still stood when a man he healed thanked him and he told him to go an show himself to the priest of the temple in accordance with old testament cleansing laws. St. Paul (inspired by the Holy Spirit) later said that those who believe in Jesus, the law does not apply too. However, to unbelievers, the law very much applies too and this is the standard God will judge you by if you die in Sin.

God makes it clear also in the new testament, as Tyler so quoted, that homosexual ACTS are still considered sin by God, as are adultery, fornication, lying, murder, idolatry ect. The reason God gives these commands (I hope you are still reading) is not because he’s discriminatory or because he hates homosexuals (au contraire, he made them that way in the womb because God loves variety) it’s because he cares for us all and doesn’t want us to get hurt, a lot like a cosmic daddy.

In contrast to the biological argument put forwards by the maker of this page, there are a number of doctors who advise their patients against anally penetrative acts on the premise that it is damaging. Due to the promiscuity that SOME gay men engage in, they are obviously more at risk than the heterosexual population of having diseases such as HIV. Even if a gay couple are ‘married’ and having sex with only each other, they are still exposing each other to risks heterosexual couples are not exposed to.

The human vagina secretes lubricant to lessen the friction of the penis entering her and the vagina is protected by multiple layers of cells and muscle so there is significantly less chance of internal rupture. In addition, the pH of the female vagina is roughly the same as beer (4.5) this is quite acidic and this is to prevent the proliferation of potentially harmful bacteria. The human anus, by contrast, does not secrete lubricant and does not have multiple layers of protective cells or muscle, it does not have an altered pH, so every time a penis goes up there, there is a much greater risk of the anus getting ruptured, and because faecal matter is mostly bacteria anyway, for obvious reasons the risk of internal infection is much greater. Even if a condom is used, there is still the internal rupturing which may occur. Urine is mostly sanitary when it comes out of the body, faeces is most certainly not.

Also, Stuart, please know in mind that some of the verses said by Paul in the new testament pertain to situations that were going on in the early church at the time and the one which you quoted regarding women and hair and jewellery concerns the heart of the person aswell. In argument to your last (very logical) point about unfertile women and marriage, God created man and woman in the garden of Eden, not Adam and Steve. God is not concerned with the status of fertility of those getting married, he is concerned about the gender if those getting married.

I hope I answered some questions. If you have any more, email me at REMOVED

Also if you want me to find scientific evidence for anything I’ve said I can find that too (I’m a chemistry undergrad.)

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Jennifer — I am the “maker of this page.” First– not every same sex couple participates in anal sex. What shall we say about lesbian couples? Or heterosexual couples that have anal sex? Or penises in the vagina that cause infections that lesbians are free of? I wonder why any of us care about how others choose to have sex. Beyond that, I and not living under Law and I would suppose you are not living under the law. Hebrews tells us we are not living under the Law so let’s just forget about the rules that you would like to impose on others from the Books of Leviticus or Deuteronomy.

Next, I would strongly suggest you go to translations of the New Testament verses that existed before 1940. The cultural pressure to include the word homosexual or pervert after that time severely impacted the translation of the word. Any time before that, sodomy meant — any sex that was not procreative. I know I have participated in non-procreative sex. I don’t know if you’ve participated and I’m procreative sex, but that would’ve been called sodomy.

I would like to offer to you that you visit the website gaychurch.org and find a community near you and perhaps go visit and see that they are indeed lesbian, Gay, bisexual, and transgender Christians. Perhaps if you got into community with these people the Spirit inside of you would speak to the Spirit inside of them, and you would see that there’s a possibility that you might be wrong. All of this is being challenged now because gay Christians certainly do exist and they are in our faces and challenging our dogma. I hope you will let the presence and existence of the Spirit of God in LGBT Christians challenge you as well. I am removing your e-mail address from your post. If you choose to get in touch with people that is fine, but you will not do it on my blog, thank you.

Joe says:

Is your argument on parts fitting together a joke or is that serious, I’m a little confused. If you look at the structures and function of the parts being taken into account, a 2 year old could tell you that they don’t fit. Sure it may be pleasurable and people are free to do as they will, however, this list should be reduced by definitely 1 topic. Secondly, your saying that people are born into a particular sexual orientation and that only their sexual behaviors can change? This makes no sense, why would a person who’s sexual orientation that is homosexual start having heterosexual sex but still be considered homosexually oriented or vice versa, if you are not attracted to a particular sex you are not going to have sex with them, therefore if your sexual behaviors change, there has to have been a change in sexual orientation, it’s just logic. Overall, there are far more derogatory phrases in this world that should be addressed than the ones you have stated, if these are offensive to whomever it may apply to, I advise you to muster up a little self-esteem and be somewhat tough, it could be far worse than this.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Yes Joe, you do seem confused about the many ways in which people naturally participate in sex and what sexual orientation is. I would suggest you do one of a few actions to educate yourself. Take a class at a community college on human sexuality and pay attention to the information. Or, by a book on human sexuality and read it.

In using your uninformed logic to understand this issue, you are making wrong assumptions and statements. So, of course the way others live and act in ways natural to them makes no sense to you. You see how other SHOULD do things through your paradigm. People choosing to live authentically is part of self-worth and a healthy self-esteem. Your negating that is not a lack on their part for resting to wrong assumptions and name-calling, but rather a lack on your part for seeing sex as good and valid by what is natural TO YOU.

I advise you seek education and perhaps relationship with some gay people, although, with the above attitudes, I do not think you will find an open exchange coming back your way.

I would encourage you to read several other posts on this blog as a primer for insight. You could use some good information to counter your stereotyping myths.

Thanks for reading.

Here is a list of welcoming churches near near — go visit one and get to know your brothers and sisters in Christ and LISTEN a bit more. http://www.pinterest.com/pin/20969954489105541/

[Reply]

Joseph says:

I’m straight and I must say, straight sex was always great for me. I can’t imagine going un natural, ever! Thank you God for making me a straight man.

[Reply]

Harry Reply:

Thank god for NOT making me one. I might never know what it is to show simple affection for another, even asexually; I would be burdened with a hard yoke – the yoke of fear of even showing verbal affection for other men, even when it’s warranted and has no sexual feeling behind it. And all for fear of appearing gay. That is what this homophobia that society forced on you has wrought.

As for sex, I find straight sex to be as unnatural as you find gay sex – for myself. I do not try to force my feelings about sex between consenting adults on others who feel differently. Please do me the same courtesy.

And thank you to the author of this piece, but as you can see – people sometimes cling to bigotry with both hands, solely because they want to do so, or cannot bend their minds even a little, lest the massive morality maze they’ve built for themselves should crumble. Fortunately, they’re no longer the majority.

[Reply]

joe says:

I tried to kill myself twice because I felt incredibly disappointed that I couldnt change my sexual orientation, and damn it I tried and tried and tried. I am no longer ashamed of who I am, but don’t give me that “it’s a choice” rubbish because it really is not.

[Reply]

Josh says:

Organized religion is healthy for human beings on a whole, it provides social interaction and enrichment in a person’s life.

I believe that the bible condemns having more than 1 partner, polygammy, instead of homosexuality, unless used as a means of sexual perversion instead of legitimate feelings for the same sex.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Fortunately for those of differing opinions and backgrounds, social interaction and enrichment are possible—and actual—even in secular settings.

The Bible mentions several exceptions to the “monogamy rule” among the “Founding Fathers” of Judaism, such as Abraham (married Sarah; had Hagar as concubine), Jacob (married Leah *and* Rachel), and Solomon (700 wives and 300 concubines, allegedly). I read no condemnation of any of these arrangements; no mention of them as perversion.

[Reply]

Joseph Reply:

Josh,perversion of that nature is not un natural and it was God choice to not condemned those acts simply because they did not constitute an abomination like homosexuality. Homosexuality is un natural acts on the human body.This is God’s reasoning, law…not man. Don’t agree? Talk to God. I’m just his messenger.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

That which happens in nature is, by definition, natural. Humans are part of nature, so what humans do is therefore not unnatural. The word you should be using is “unusual”, which homosexuality certainly is. (But note that it is not extremely unusual; there are hundreds of other species in which it has been observed.)

A worthwhile God, IMHO, would not use such a careless messenger. Go talk to Him about that, OK?

Wayne says:

I have posted here in the past and I read every comment all of you make. I am broken hearted at all of the mean things that many have said about those of us that are gay. You can say what you want it is a free world , but you will never ever convince me that God does not love and care about gay people. He made us no doubt in my mind. I can tell you that I was raised in a very religious home, that I prayed to God for over forty years to make me not be gay. To make me normal. I never had any change of mind I have always liked other men. I enjoy a mans company and yes making love with them. I am not a pedophile I m not a rapist I am a kind loving gay man that’s it pure and simple. I do not go around hurting my fellow man like many of you suggest in your hateful messages. If you choose to hate me that’s ok I love you. If you choose to hurt me that’s okay too but I will never reach out to hurt you.
So many Christians quote Leviticus and ” men who lie with men are an abomination” So why don’t we just go ahead and stone people eating shellfish or mixing threads in garments. It just dosent work today does it. Why would stoning and hating me be okay. Do you honestly think I want to be gay if I had my way I would be a happy heterosexual man I can’t be I have tried I have prayed I have begged God I still am gay. Please be more sensitive gay people’s feelings. Wayne

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

“evil cannot produce good and good cannot produce evil because they both are unique and cannot possibly occupy the same space of control”
—True enough, but irrelevant to homosexuality.

“being gay or lesbian is a choice according to the person’s thought life.”
—False. Sexual orientation is innate. One discovers one’s orientation rather than choosing it.
(Think about it: who would simply CHOOSE a sexual mode that has often led to unwarranted hatred and bigotry, ostracism, vandalism, beatings, and even murder?)

“Nature is on the side of God and species of male and female.”
—Nature is on Nature’s side, no other. Note that homosexual behavior has been noted in many hundreds of other species—but condemned in only one.
Homosexuality is not unnatural—anything that occurs in nature is by definition natural—it’s just unusual.

“If a man thinks to have sex with any man, this is a thought not driven by nature but by that individual’s accepting an evil thought that goes against nature dealing with sex.”
—Again, false. See above.

“Being gay or lesbian allows the individual to accept abominated spirits who can only enter the physical body of the individual and take over that individual’s body after that individual accepts the invitation of thought for unnatural sex acts.”
—If there were evil spirits (for which, you should note, there is no evidence), waiting to pounce on people who think unapproved thoughts, then they wouldn’t have to specialize in those whose sexuality is unusual. There are LOTS of bad thoughts going around!

“(Note: if you are a born again Christian, you will be able to see unclean spirits in individuals through the individual’s eyes.)”
—If there were evil spirits, why would they show in the eyes? Eyes are simply receptors, not projectors or windows.

“I’m not God but God has set the laws that we must obey.”
—Which laws? The Ten Commandments, maybe? Or the OTHER Ten Commandments? (See Exodus 20:3-17 and Exodus 34:12-26.) Why would God change His mind about which ten rules were to be applied? If He knows as much as it is alleged that He does, He would have been able to specify the desired set the first time.

…And then there’s that other commandment, described as the second greatest of all by God Himself, in the person of His Son: “Love your neighbor as yourself.”
You must obey that one especially, according to God. Do you even try? Have you ever had a conversation with a homosexual person about his/her orientation? Give it a try—but bring an open mind with you. You’ll need one.

“I’m very glad that I know being straight is the way to go.”
—Unless you’re born different, of course.

“A time ago, I even lost a job because of a gay supervisor trying to hit on me and I told him about God’s law against homosexuality.”
—Amazing! Intolerance was deemed intolerable!

“This is why some turn to homosexuality because they couldn’t deal with realty being straight!”
—Nonsense. Go have that conversation I recommended.

“this is a country last I checked you could have freedom of speech.”
—Not unrestrictedly. There are proper laws in place against speech that is deliberately alarming or injurious.

“Among other sins, homosexuality were chief in that city.”
—You have quite a concern about other people’s private matters, such as their sexuality. Why is this?

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Joseph– please, go get an education on this issue. thank you and goodbye. I am blocking your IP

[Reply]

Net says:

I primarily disagree with your statements on “parts fitting”, and “marriage”.

I don’t think the parts “fit”. This is based on two things. First, if there is pain involved I don’t think it was meant to be used sexually. The hind hole in humans is pretty small and a penis is quite a bit bigger than a finger. I get the feeling many would disagree with me on this, but I honestly think that’s because most gay people are used to that kind of stimulation and so it easier for them. Same thing for straight couples engaging in prostate stimulation. I don’t think it was MEANT to be done. That said, there’s nothing anyone can do to stop you from doing it. Secondly, I don’t like how you are comparing gay sex to straight sex biologically. The prostate serves significantly different purposes than the clitoris, which is why it’s in a completely different area of the body. It’s not JUST a pleasure center. If something happens to it, it significantly limits your reproductive system. It can be used for similar purposes, but if the prostate was really meant for that kind of thing, I think access to it would be easier. I also dislike the tone of that section, as you seem to be implying that gay sex is somehow better than “normal” sex, which is simply offensive to straight people.

To clarify, this isn’t to say that gay sex is morally wrong or should be banned or stopped. Just because the parts don’t fit doesn’t mean you can’t force them together and have a good time.

Secondly, I disagree with marriage. Not gay people getting married, but the concept of modern marriage. It shouldn’t be a “civil right”. This isn’t directed towards gay people, this is everyone. This stems from my belief that marriage should be used solely to bond two people together who love each other. Not to give benefits. I do support gay people have the benefits that marriage provides, I just don’t believe that marriage should be the provider of those benefits.

In truth, I would rather marriage stay between a man and a woman, but not if it means that it actually makes life ridiculous and hard for anyone that is shut out.

[Reply]

Dante Reply:

As a now openly gay male i once had to hide my true sexuality which meant i was forced to have sex with a womanafter that horrific experience i came out and now i am in a relationship with another male and i know how it feels and believe me gay sex IS better than straight sex anbefore anyone makes the argument it’s different for women my sister agrees that lesbian sex IS beter than straight sex.

[Reply]

Net Reply:

Have you ever thought that gay sex may feel better for you because you’re gay? Which is why you also thought straight sex was a “horrific experience”?

[Reply]

Aqu Reply:

about the parts not fitting and there being pain when a woman has sex for the first time there is quite a bit of pain and blood and a womans genitals are small but they stretch to fit and it’s the same for guys however guys are smart so gay guys know to prepare their partner first instead of just ramming it in straight away and before you say anything about I’m a woman so i wouldn’t know anything about it for a guy my brother dante (he’s already commented) confirms there’s no blood at all for a guy his first time taking it. Sorry for the crudeness of my honesty

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Excuse me — could you please keep this on track? Your exchange is bordering on crude and will be banned. Thank you.
If you go further or continue, I will ban you. I try to keep my site accessible to all and when you go down this path, others escalate it.

[Reply]

Kat says:

It’s apparent by reading the first few sentences of anyone’s comment which side they stand on. That should be a good thing, but it’s not. Why? Because the negativity and excessive use of the word “ignorant” reveal who you’re targeting in this tiresome debate. If everyone is ignorant, no one should be calling the next person an idiot because we’re all idiots then! At least it’s an equal playing field, isn’t that what you all want? No you don’t. As human beings, we all want special treatment, we think we have it the worst, we find endless excuses for our own issues. Blame it on someone else, take no ownership for your own life/lifestyle…CHOICES! Oh no, you’ve been offended, what could be worse?! I’m sorry, but when malnourished, sick, disabled, old, orphaned, widowed, abused, and slaughtered people here (I’m assuming you’re an American) and all over the world are perishing, the rest of you are complaining because you’re OFFENDED. I wish you all could hear the tone of my voice when I say that so satirically sharp. It’s not you people, but your complaints that make me sick. It’s sad to me that an issue like gay marriage has become apart of a political agenda. But that’s how things go in this pathetic 21st century, political is personal. To everyone including me: we need to learn that bringing the government into a social issue like this is like tattling on the other kid because you can’t handle it yourselves. How sad. Too late, however, we’ve involved legal issues and now we deal with it as such. I never voice my opinion on this issue, because it appears that no one from either side can speak from a position that isn’t emotionally charged. It doesn’t matter if you’re Republican or Democrat, if you’re a complainer, you make up America’s Butthurt Party. Today I feel confident to speak up after I just enjoyed a fun outing with friends (two of them being lesbians. They’re awesome people and I love them.) Just so you know, they’ve never gotten on my back about anything, or I theirs. I dated a guy who’s parents were gay and we had plenty of meaningful conversations. What I’ve come to learn from all of them (and yes, I’m referring to my gay friends) is that they are just fine saying that it’s their choice. And a choice is a choice, good or bad, it’s better than not making one. It probably pisses you guys off to know that. They believe they’re Christians, and something Christians believe is to take ownership for your own life. Liberty is having free will, it’s not free will if you’re victimizing yourself. I’ve heard this come from religious people, and atheists. It gets old. We as Americans were supposed to promote freedom, and yet you’re coming back to say you have no choice. I’m a “straight” female, and have other straight female friends, some who have, admittedly, felt romantic feelings for other females. But at the very least, people can appreciate other people’s beauty. What’s wrong with that? Does that make them gay, they don’t think so. Also, I don’t hate gay people, straight people, funny people, smart people, weird people or anything like that. If you believe you have choices in life for the things you can rationally change – be it your social status, your intelligence, how you treat people, who you love – then feel free. It’s your choice. I don’t condemn people in the slightest for making a choice, I truly don’t believe it’s my job. But God’s job to decide who’s a good or bad Christian, or who has their life together, or who’s loving the right person. Not everyone has to agree with you, and not everyone will. GET OVER IT! I’m not a pansexual advocate, but if you think you love someone then don’t blame your “sexuality” for who that may be, your personality/character is more of a factor. Whether right or wrong, take ownership. Sometimes relationships don’t work. Period. Sometimes people walk away and like someone else. It hurts. I feel it too. But don’t promote free love and then say you believe in loyalty. That’s foolish. If gay people are going to get married, I say let them. Christians, if they’re not Christian and don’t want to practice a Christian marriage, then don’t hold them to that standard. In the same way, the LGBT members and supporters shouldn’t ask for the church to marry them if they don’t agree. If church is separated from state, then you’re violating that law by asking them to do so. And honestly, IF (and I’m not saying you do) you don’t like Christians or anyone else of faith, then why would you want them involved in what you do? Chew on that. I don’t care what the gay people do. I don’t care what anyone does as long as it doesn’t hurt me or someone I hold dear. And I agree with President Obama in that I believe the states should decide, this is far too controversial for the feds to get involved. No one will be happy if that happens. With that in mind, your BEST way of expressing how you feel is through your vote. Your vote doesn’t have to say anything about you, and you don’t have to deal with hate criticism from knuckleheads like the one’s on the internet. I’ll repeat an earlier thought, I truly believe it to be unfair that gay marriage is treated like a political agenda. Whether you like it or not, there are people getting money for the sake of money for promoting your love life. That sucks, doesn’t it? But listen, whatever you believe you are, you are a far better person if you own up to your own life. You have the God-given right to strive, if being gay or straight makes you happy, don’t soil the gift of free-will by making excuses. It creates a pattern. And by the way, for everyone’s knowledge (and I know I’ll get some remarks for this) RELATIONSHIPS ARE NOT ALL ABOUT SEX SO STOP PROMOTING THEM LIKE THEY ARE. So very shallow. This is the last point before I bug out. Disliking someone else’s relationships (gay or straight) may be disrespectful, but it’s not bigoted unless you actually think yourself a better human being then they and that they should be under you. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t bigoted people out there, and bullies who mistreat others for ALL KINDS of reasons – I honestly feel for anyone who’s bullied for whatever the cause, and we all should stand up for someone being bullied. But I think that’s where everyone doesn’t understand the meaning of the word bigot. Just as much, you can dislike anything a person does, but that DOES NOT mean you can’t be friends. Here’s a good example of a bad example, my best friend in the entire world is dating a girl who doesn’t particularly work with him. They’re unhappy. She actually acts somewhat rude towards me and a few others, and no, I don’t approve of their relationship because of how she treats her friends. But whatever, I’m not going to end their relationship, keep them from being together, or stop being friends with my best friend. I love him the same and will keep trying to be friends to his GF, it may never happen. So treat LGBT folks the same. If you’re gay, why do you need to announce it? If you’re straight, you shouldn’t announce it. But if your identity is so wrapped into your sexuality and not the kind of great friend, brother or sister, coworker, or person you are. Then fine. We might as well say, “Hi my name is ‘Fred’s girlfriend.’ ” Instead of introducing yourself as who you are independently.

-From an Independent as far as Politics go, but also a Christian. An honest No-One just like you “Keep on Keepin’ on!”

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Well said, Kat, well said! Thanks for your input and insight.

I must contend with one point, though. You said,
“And honestly, IF (and I’m not saying you do) you don’t like Christians or anyone else of faith, then why would you want them involved in what you do?”
—Unfortunately, too many people of (alleged) faith *forcibly* involve themselves in what gay people do, by passing restrictive and unnecessary laws. The gay folks don’t want them involved in what they do, but the majority still rules. (Therefore the majority still needs educating, for which the Rev. Baldock is striving.)

[Reply]

kz Reply:

I respect your views, but I just wanted to tell you that it is not a choice for me. I’m not making excuses, I have tried and tried, but please do not tell me its a choice and I shouldn’t identify with it and whatnot. I tell people who I am if they want to know. its not like I am hiding behind it. I like who I am. I’m not flaunting it, I’m appreciating the fact that I can be different and the same. some things aren’t free will. if you are crazy and don’t like it do you choose to be sane? no. its not free will. if it was, I would be straight. so please try to see things from someone else’s perspective before attacking them. kudos on the great rant though. I agree with many things you said.

[Reply]

Stuart says:

No — not right. Bigots are wrong.

[Reply]

Devon Richards says:

You rock deb! God bless you! So right!

[Reply]

Desponyd says:

If I knew what needed to be explained, I would give it a shot (provided that I had an answer to give.) I am sorry but your post is largely incoherant, and I did not pay my telepathy bill this month. :P If you gather your thoughts and try again, I might be able to help.

[Reply]

Desponyd says:

Deb, sounds like you have your justification for bigotry down pat. Ever considered that Jesus said “Judge not, lest ye also be judged.”?
Also, does “I have sheep of other folds.” ring a bell?
Jesus was not merely tolerant, but accepting and encouraging to people who were different.
Your conception of what God is is so tiny and finite, and yet you seem convinced that your way is the only way.
Remember, a mind is like a parachute, it only functions properly when open. ;)

Just as an aside, since you seem to be so on about Ecclesiastical law. (which is where the prohibition of homosexuality originates in the Bible,) Why are you also not railing against the eating of shellfish, or the wearing of fabric made from mixed types of fibers? There are also Ecclesiastical prohibitions against these things, yet you do not seem to care about them. Could it be that you, like any other human, only try to curtail actions in others that you find personally objectionable, and that your religion actually has nothing whatsoever to do with it? I would peg that as a definate. Namaste.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Wow, guess you’ve got this all figured out. Thank you for reading. Your comments will not be approved from this point on. I think you have typed plenty.

[Reply]

Stuart says:

Deb:

“I don’t go up to gay people and bother with them. That’s what they do to me.”
—Change this to: “That’s what *some* do to me.” Unless you mean to state that *every* gay person you encounter comes up to you and bothers you. I consider this to be very unlikely, unless you are unfortunate enough to be in an area with a disproportionate amount of rude, pushy gay people. (If that’s the case, do what you can to avoid them, rather than mistakenly imputing such rudeness to the entirety of gay people.)

“You can’t tell them anything. They are equally as ignorant.”
—Ignorance is curable–if the recipient of the information is willing to accept it, of course. If you “can’t tell someone something”, that person is better described as stubborn rather than ignorant.

“Firstly, the truth of what is taught biblically is that EVERYONE has to change.”
—Then undergo a bit of change yourself, by realizing that the Bible is not the only acceptable guide to human behavior. To be intransigent here is to risk seeming to be as bad a bigot as you claim others to be.

“And the bible predicted that they would be that way too, saying they they won’t see what they are doing as wrong. It’s pretty accurate for an ancient book eh?”
—I think that it’s more general than that. As you note, *everyone* needs some change (in the sense of improvement).
The accuracy of the observation does not enhance Biblical authority here, since such observations were being made by humans long before there was a Bible.

“If you visit different countries you will see they have characteristics.”
—Every thing that exists necessarily has characteristics. Poor phrasing.

“When you go into different clicks of people, societies, islands, towns, cities, social groups, those people follow a pattern as well, usually characteristics.”
—You’re stuck in your misuse of “characteristics”, apparently. (BTW, the word you want is ‘clique’, not ‘click’.)
Of *course* people in various groups follow patterns! It’s part of being a social animal; no news here.

“What you’ll find with Christians is that they for example try to be kind to everyone, and this is because they really feel it.”
—Those Christians who are truly worthy of the name, yes. Unfortunately, FAR too many soi-disant Christians, throughout their history, have given the religion a bad name by indulging in actions that are in no way Christ-like. Including bigotry and other kinds of intolerance. (“Physician, heal thyself.”)

“Forcing people to accept them, or their behaviours with weak reasoning,brainwash and peer pressure and to accept their behaviour as normal.”
—Beware of weak reasoning, indeed–this goes for everyone! (Look up ‘brainwash'; I believe that you’ll find that you are exaggerating just a bit, here.)

“This is all because the facts are all against them, they are a minority!”
—I do hope that you are not equating minority status with inherent wrongness. Because that would be, well, wrong.

“Indeed to them, because they do their sexual acts all the time, they think of it as normal, but really it isn’t the norm.”
—It IS normal, for some people–heterosexual and homosexual alike–to “do their sexual acts all the time”. Personal tastes vary widely. There’s a scene in the movie _Annie Hall_ where the woman and the man are separately discussing their sex life, with friends. She says that they Do It “almost all the time–three times a week!” He says that they Do It “hardly ever–only three times a week!”
Just because YOU don’t like, or understand, something doesn’t make it wrong.

“Just like, I can go by flocks of geese, and the majority all appear that they are not gay…after all they are all walking around with baby geese.”
—Yes, heterosexuality is the norm in the animal kingdom. However, homosexual action has been observed in hundreds of species–though objected to in only one. (What occurs in nature is, by definition, natural. It doesn’t have to be the majority in order to be true.)

“I read your article and it’s all revolving about sex.”
—Since sex is one of the greatest drivers of human behavior, it has a lot of influence on what we think and do. This article is especially about how one group of humans acts with ignorance and oppression toward the sexual nature of another group.

“and the sex you describe isn’t wholesome sex, it’s sex all meant just to have an orgasm.”
—So, the only wholesome sex is that which can or does lead to procreation? If you believe that, then you are setting yourself up for a very deprived life. (I got news for ya: MOST sex is indulged in chiefly for the sake of its pleasures, including orgasms.)

“Did it ever occur to you that the meaning of a relationship isn’t all about having orgasms?”
—Did it ever occur to you that vast numbers of couples already know this?

“And what do these gay people do when they want children? Obviously there is no natural way to bear a child in a same sex relationship.”
—They can do what heterosexual-but-infertile people can do: adopt, or use donors or surrogates. (I hope that your question was just for rhetorical effect, rather than being born of ignorance. But if it was the former, it makes you look disingenuous; if the latter, it makes you look inexcusably ignorant.)

“After-all, what species treats sex like it’s there solely for the sake of itself or an expression of love? Only humans…”
—Ever read about bonobos? They too enjoy sex for its own sake (and for the social bonding that can result), not just for baby-making.

“Anyway, according to stats, the USA is only 2% gay. Only 2% but of that 2%, 61% responsible for the spread of AIDS.”
—What percentage of heterosexuals is responsible for the spread of syphilis, gonorrhea, chlamydia, and genital herpes?
(Carelessness about STDs is very old and very widespread, alas. Don’t focus too narrowly.)

“No you find them naked or half naked, proving nothing at all to anyone, and dancing provocatively. That’s all they like to exhibit.”
—Perhaps they are proving that they are not ashamed of being sexual entities, in defiance of centuries of repressive Puritanism?

“When it comes to attraction, there are married men who are still attracted to other women, but that doesn’t mean they have to go out and screw all the women!”
—You need to talk to a broader set of people. I know, and know of, many homosexuals who are monogamous and careful. You are, through your over-use of absolutes throughout your screed, seriously weakening your case.

“All God is asking for is some self control.”
—Tell that to various public figures, then, who have become infamous recently because of lack of sexual self-control. Even if you address just the heterosexual ones, you’ll have plenty of targets.

“It’s interesting that they have had the same bullyish, rude, forceful behaviour all the way since ancient times.”
—Quite the expert historian, are you?

“I myself have looked hard to find nice people in the gay community, They all start nice, but you are not “allowed” to dislike their gay behaviour.”
—I suspect that what is not “allowed” is blatant intolerance and bigotry. You wouldn’t want that applied to you either.

“the fact is, it’s written in gay’s humanistic foundation that they are targeting Christians, and had this planned a while ago.”
—Are you seriously claiming that there is an explicitly written (or at least affirmed) notion of targeting Christians? If so, then provide some support for this unusual claim.

“Christians aren’t attacking or bothering them.”
—So, the listing of homosexuality as a mental illness (until the revision of the DSM in 1974), by psychiatrists who were presumably largely Christian, was not an attack or a bother. And Fred Phelps (of the Westboro Baptist “Church”), with his assertion that “God hates fags”, is not attacking or bothering anyone. And enactors of restrictive laws, as in Virginia’s “Crimes against nature” section: “If any person … carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony…” are not attacking or bothering anyone, even consenting heterosexual adults. And….

“The gay community started it.”
—Simply wrong. See above.

“I wrote a paper on ethics, and in the middle of my research I found that gay people go on Christian blogs just to troll and harass them, and they even have the nerve to go into Christian churches to try and change their religion.”
—This is surely a minority action. Not defensible, no, but not as broadly occurring as you seem to be saying.

“It’s all plain to me. how God has made and designed man is clearly seen and being understood, so therefore men are without excuse.”
—This shows that you do not sufficiently see and understand humanity, then. What’s your excuse?

“The man represents Christ, and the woman represents his ecclesia.”
—Can’t have the notion that women can be strong, equal, or even dominant, eh? (Certainly not in an intensely patriarchal society such as the ones that gave us the Book(s) [Torah, New Testament, Qur’an]!)

“it isn’t a man with a man or woman with a woman.”
—Unless their prenatal development caused them to prefer man/man or woman/woman. As I said, what happens in nature is natural.

“What these people are trying to accomplish is to remove god, it’s part of the humanistic movement.”
—My perception is that they are trying to remove oppressive behavior that is based on one or another interpretation of what a god is alleged to have said. There are devout homosexuals, you know–or, you *should* know–who definitely don’t want to remove God. They just want to remove injustice done in God’s name.

“Also, notice the subtle smooth talk, with a very strong assumption of how orthodox religions repress sexual conduct. Name all those religions…or are you just referring the Catholicism and her daughter churches and Islam?”
—Catholicism and her daughter churches (including the Protestants, who are Christian despite what the Pope may say), and Islam, make up nearly 55% of the world’s believers. Sexual repression (against various hetero- AND homosexual behaviors) is an aspect of very long standing among these. (You effectively answered your own question when you mentioned them.)

“But repressing who? No one is telling you what you have to do. Choose what you want.”
—Unless you choose a position or technique that some prude has legislated as unacceptable, of course. See the above example from Virginia law.

“The gays are the bullies, and not the other way around.”
—Tell that to Matthew Shepard!

“In other words, gay people “assume” that everyone is slutty like them”
—While you, of course, would never dream of “assuming” that sluttiness characterizes all of a broadly diverse group of your fellow humans. Got it.

“Most people are so decent they probably don’t even find the laws to be restraining them!”
—Except in Virginia (and similarly benighted places), you mean.

“Put it this way, if you are gay, you won’t be able to follow Christ. Christ was in full obedience to God on all terms, and to be a Christian, you also have to follow Christ on all terms.”
—ALL terms? Including what He described as the second greatest of all His commandments? (“Love your neighbor as yourself.”) Considering the attitude that is indicated by your tone, you don’t really seem able to follow Him yourself.

“Thus to them, there are many patterns of good living, which can be exemplified, and none that is best or cohesively or exhaustively good. So they must feel very evil all the time since there is no good to them!”
—In one unjustified leap, you move from “there is no best way to be good” to “there is no good”. The fallacy of Non Sequitur. Fallacious statements cannot make a valid argument; start over.

“…there is no good in flesh.”
—My, what a cheerful and generous worldview you have!

“Religion is not irrelevant or relative. There is one answer. You can’t have many truths, there can only be one true while all else is false.”
—You need to read Saxe’s poem “The Blind Men and the Elephant”. Things such as religions are so complex that they can have *some* truth while not having all of it. Trouble arises from the fact that many religions claim to have The Truth, even though some of these Truths contradict others. Since contradictory assertions cannot be jointly true, some of these religious assertions are necessarily false. But which ones, please? (Note that you’ll get the answer of “Those other ones, of course!” from many different directions.)

“there is “1” combination for truth, and all others equal false.”
—It’s not that simple. See above.

“There is going to be one right religion out there.”
—Maybe. See above.

“They all can’t be right, and there should be one that is right.”
—Maybe. See above.

“Change is not essential to survival.”
—Tell that to a chameleon.

“what change does is cause stress and disillusionment.”
—Correction: what change CAN do is cause stress and disillusionment. But it need not be automatically so.

“No one has a right to their own tastes or opinions, if you don’t like gay people, you are completely terrible. WOW.”
—Much more correctly, it’s “If you can’t behave in a civilized manner toward gay (and other) people, you are completely terrible.”

“I’m sorry but, with all the archaeological, historical and scientific findings, too much evidence proves conclusively that the beginning chapters of the Koran and the Bible are no myth.”
—Including the part where “There was evening, and there was morning…” before there was an Earth or Sun whereby to define evening and morning? Including the two somewhat different creation sequences? Including the notion that carnivores weren’t carnivorous until after the Fall (or was it the Flood)? Including the notion that rabbits are ruminants?
Conclusive evidence, you say? Present it!

“statistics show that [gay people] are a danger to society, and they do hurt people though”
—Tell that to Matthew Shepard. Oh wait, you can’t tell him now–he was beaten to death by a dangerous subset of heterosexual society, for the crime of being different (in *that* way! gasp!).

“so technically, people shouldn’t accept them.”
—*I* refuse to accept alleged people such as Shepard’s murderers.

“Moreover their attitudes are not loving but highly rude.”
—The shoe hurts when it’s on the other foot, eh? (Not that I espouse rudeness; but remember the fable of the pot and the kettle.)

“It’s pretty inconsiderate and selfish hun.”
—There are many of us who need to take a good look in the metaphoric mirror, hun.

[Reply]

Liz Reply:

Wow. Stuart is able to express and rebut almost anything on here. He and Kathy are able to say all the things I’ve ever wanted to say to people, and quote the Bible right back at them. My family is very conservative and religious, although wonderful people about everything else, but I really agree that people shouldn’t be punished for wanting love and happiness for themselves. Discrimination against them causes inequality, and it doesn’t stop anyone else from having meaningful relationships when you allow others to do so (nvm that it isn’t our business in those cases). I don’t believe God would punish or stop loving anyone for love. I wish I had you guys with me to help me explain this as eloquently as you do, but I’ll just have to settle for using your points:P

[Reply]

Deb says:

I don’t go up to gay people and bother with them. That’s what they do to me. And for some reason the other day when I said flat out “I don’t like having sex with the same sex”, it doesn’t work like you say here, and then I said, “so therefore I am not doing that”, it was taken as discrimination. so don’t tell me that telling these people what I mean, helps. You can’t tell them anything. They are equally as ignorant. Firstly, the truth of what is taught biblically is that EVERYONE has to change. gay people are just more stubborn. And the bible predicted that they would be that way too, saying they they won’t see what they are doing as wrong. It’s pretty accurate for an ancient book eh? :) They don’t see their weakness of the flesh equal to any other weakness of the flesh. It’s not just gay people who have to change, but yes, everyone has to change. they are not excluded, that is, if they want to be in the Kingdom of God, instead of dead. But that’s their choice! You’ll find that people follow patterns. If you visit different countries you will see they have characteristics. When you go into different clicks of people, societies, islands, towns, cities, social groups, those people follow a pattern as well, usually characteristics. What you’ll find with Christians is that they for example try to be kind to everyone, and this is because they really feel it. Unfortunately they also have to learn not to be stepped on. The real true Christians anyway. The false Christians will have an evil character to them, that is pretty obvious to everyone. Every once in a blue moon you have one person out of the group who is different, sometimes in charge too. However, with these gay people, their character is following a pattern as well. Rude, victim culture, using people’s empathy to force their agenda. Forcing people to accept them, or their behaviours with weak reasoning,brainwash and peer pressure and to accept their behaviour as normal. This is all because the facts are all against them, they are a minority! They are aware of that, so, it has to be covered up. Indeed to them, because they do their sexual acts all the time, they think of it as normal, but really it isn’t the norm. Just like, I can go by flocks of geese, and the majority all appear that they are not gay…after all they are all walking around with baby geese. I read your article and it’s all revolving about sex. and the sex you describe isn’t wholesome sex, it’s sex all meant just to have an orgasm. Did it ever occur to you that the meaning of a relationship isn’t all about having orgasms? And what do these gay people do when they want children? Obviously there is no natural way to bear a child in a same sex relationship. After-all, what species treats sex like it’s there solely for the sake of itself or an expression of love? Only humans, but that’s because we have imaginations that go beyond reality. The reason we are attracted to each other is partly to find a partner, and the sexual attraction is so that we don’t go extinct. If it weren’t for that, and the love of a mother, we would never survive. Anyway, according to stats, the USA is only 2% gay. Only 2% but of that 2%, 61% responsible for the spread of AIDS. This isn’t anymore a worry about people who do whatever they want with their lives, it’s that the promoting of unbridled sex making it so that 41% are carriers of HIV and don’t know it…that’s dangerous to society! Oh you though being gay wasn’t harmful. Ok but gay people love to promote people to be sexual. That’s a key characteristic. Watch their parades. Are they walking around in modest clothing in a decent fashion? No you find them naked or half naked, proving nothing at all to anyone, and dancing provocatively. That’s all they like to exhibit.

When it comes to attraction, there are married men who are still attracted to other women, but that doesn’t mean they have to go out and screw all the women! All God is asking for is some self control. Anyway, both on a personal level, as well as knowing someone in the psychology field who studied 500 of them, unbiased and wanting to hear good things, as well as looking at other studies, indeed these gay people follow a pattern of being abusive towards Christians or people whom they think are supposed to accept them, as well as being depressed. They aren’t depressed over dis-acceptance though, statistically that was not found. They are depressed over their own relationships in the main. their relationships are highly disloyal and promiscuous. It’s sad. But also they do feel that they are not doing anything wrong…this was predicted in the bible as well.

Anyway, it’s not about feelings either. Feelings are the the discerner of morality. It’s interesting that they have had the same bullyish, rude, forceful behaviour all the way since ancient times. I myself have looked hard to find nice people in the gay community, They all start nice, but you are not “allowed” to dislike their gay behaviour. and all I find are attackers, seriously dangerous behaviour to society, and vipers (people whom, if you challenge them with the facts even in a nice way, they attack with vulgar, senseless and rude remarks such as what I experienced) All in all, I won’t allow gay people to oppress me. I’ll talk about it each and every time it happens. However, it doesn’t bother me that people who have this attitude get out of my life, and in this case, myself being a misunderstand Aspie works in my favor: the false impression you have in your head that I’m “not” nice (when actually I’d bend over backwards for anyone, including them) is working in my favour. I don’t need anymore abuse thanks for and enjoy going away. the fact is, it’s written in gay’s humanistic foundation that they are targeting Christians, and had this planned a while ago. Christians aren’t attacking or bothering them. The gay community started it.

I wrote a paper on ethics, and in the middle of my research I found that gay people go on Christian blogs just to troll and harass them, and they even have the nerve to go into Christian churches to try and change their religion. I’d like to see them try to change the Muslim religion and see how that turns out for them! lol. No seriously, remember how gay people say “if you don’t like same sex, then don’t do it?” Well guess what, if you don’t like Christian practices, don’t go to a Christian church. Just stay with people who like you, and leave others to have their own choices of friends. It is true though that gay people have had that character trait, since ancient times, to bully and harass people who are not gay to accept, support or join in with them. I am not going to join in allowing people to brainwash others that being gay isn’t godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth BY their wickedness. It’s all plain to me. how God has made and designed man is clearly seen and being understood, so therefore men are without excuse. The man represents Christ, and the woman represents his ecclesia. They are one, and it isn’t a man with a man or woman with a woman. It’s not about giving gay people a hard time, it’s the significance of this bond. Christians aren’t going to change it. Sorry to disappoint you, but it goes right to the heart of their belief. So, shut up and go away.

What these people are trying to accomplish is to remove god, it’s part of the humanistic movement. Here is what was stated in the humanists foundations which clearly states that their agenda is to target Christians right off the top, and discriminate against them! “In the area of sexuality, we believe that intolerant attitudes, often cultivated by orthodox religions are puritanical cultures unduly repress sexual conduct.” then they go on saying people should be permitted to express sexual proclivities and pursue their life-styles as they desire. Notice that the gay people use the word “life styles” to describe themselves, and here you are telling us that’s not what they want you to see it as? Ok well, whenever you want to make up your minds what you are. Also, notice the subtle smooth talk, with a very strong assumption of how orthodox religions repress sexual conduct. Name all those religions…or are you just referring the Catholicism and her daughter churches and Islam? I agree that Catholics repress just about all sex, but not all Christian churches do that. But repressing who? No one is telling you what you have to do. Choose what you want. Most of all, since these churches aren’t even repressing gay people at all, you are free to do what you want, you just won’t be acceptable to God, but in your books that’s ok!

I think this plainly proves that they are using a tactic that Hitler used: Blow up a building in the name of another person and then you will get people against them and supporting you. You are saying that Christians repress you, and they do not…because right from the top, right out of your own foundations, and agenda the gay people are targeting these beliefs. The gays are the bullies, and not the other way around.

Those churches, are allowed to have their beliefs and have their people who choose it for themselves. IT’s their “right”. Remember, everyone has a right to their religion, under humanism? Hello, We don’t care about your rights system, God doesn’t, but you don’t know how to follow your own precepts! Gays want to change the laws basically to suit their own unbridled promiscuity. Another quote: “While we do not approve of exploitative, degrading forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction behaviour between consenting adults. the many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered evil” In other words, gay people “assume” that everyone is slutty like them, so they want to loosen up the laws assuming everyone else is slutty too, so that it suits their own sluttiness. It also sounds like they want to change the laws also so they don’t feel guilty (evil).

Ok whatever! it’s only important to gay people, no one else really seems to feel a need to be promiscuous and have everyone approve of it. Most people are so decent they probably don’t even find the laws to be restraining them! So, there these gay people are again, a minority pushing around the majority. Put it this way, if you are gay, you won’t be able to follow Christ. Christ was in full obedience to God on all terms, and to be a Christian, you also have to follow Christ on all terms. It is impossible to follow Christ on any other terms, and the humanist finds acceptance of such terms a violation of himself and his whole “experience”. But that’s what sacrificial love is, duhh, and that’s what all Christians have to do. The gay person’s rejection of Christ is therefore categorical: he can do no other. There is no supreme exemplar of humanist ethics, because, on humanistic assumptions, there is no summon bonum, no chief end of all action, no far-off crowning event to which all things move and for which all things exist. They live for the here and now. Thus
to them, there are many patterns of good living, which can be exemplified, and none that is best or cohesively or exhaustively good. So they must feel very evil all the time since there is no good to them!

Actually they got that right. All flesh is grass, and there is no good in flesh. That doesn’t exclude gays folks! But anyway, Religion is not irrelevant or relative. There is one answer. You can’t have many truths, there can only be one true while all else is false. see: 1 == 1 1!= 0 0 + 0 !=1 Basic logic. there is “1” combination for truth, and all others equal false. So if that never occurred to gay people, it should. There is going to be one right religion out there. They all can’t be right, and there should be one that is right. It’s not a moral dilemma. There is no “values voting” or “situational ethics”. you can’t pit values against values as a proof that no one has the right values either. Gay people seem to want to push chaos, and disorder and corruption for the whole of society just for the sake of feeding their own sexual appetite. All they are proving is their messed up logic. and making a grand fool of themselves. We don’t need your weird “change culture”. Change is not essential to survival. what change does is cause stress and disillusionment. If you want change culture, then you will have endless consultation, self management and empowerment workshops. All part of the voice of the people. the voice of the majority isn’t always sane.

In this case, the voice of the people is the spirit of madness. Gay people cannot sit still until they have forced everyone to be mad, like them. I say “them” instead of “their behaviour”, because apparently their behaviour = them. Ok, so gays are forcing friendships through bully tactics. Ok. No one has a right to their own tastes or opinions, if you don’t like gay people, you are completely terrible. WOW.

Well, I’ll be honest, Christians DO love gay people. There, feel better? We love you, every part of you, and hope you can join us with the change culture that doesn’t bring stress, but a reward. the change culture where we change ourselves to be acceptable to God where we don’t feel violated, because that is what we picked. I’m sorry but, with all the archaeological, historical and scientific findings, too much evidence proves conclusively that the beginning chapters of the Koran and the Bible are no myth.

First of all though, gay people are not condemned by people. They are condemned by God. statistics show that they are a danger to society, and they do hurt people though, so technically, people shouldn’t accept them. Moreover their attitudes are not loving but highly rude. I think the gay argument falls right on it’s face. All the facts are against it, so all they have left is peer pressure. Really, the only one pro about it is they are happy. No one else matters to them though. The rest is a whole slew of cons for the rest of society. It’s pretty inconsiderate and selfish hun.

[Reply]

InTheCloset says:

All the anti-gay people who argue that the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a disorder fail to consider that ALL mental health institutions in virtually EVERY country actively oppose treating homosexuality as a mental disorder. So even if this one organization succumbed to pressure, virtually all other mental health organizations in the world consider homosexuality to be a normal variation of human sexuality.

[Reply]

Deb Reply:

goody. but it’s not true that it is the norm. They are 2% of the US population. the norm would be 98%.

[Reply]

Marc says:

Here is my reply to the six things:

1. The “gay lifestyle” It’s an orientation. And it’s none of your business.

2. “Gay sex is not natural, the parts don’t fit.” There are many types of gay sex and in fact many gay people do not have anal sex. And it’s none of your business.

3. “Homosexuality is a perversion” That’s your opinion. And it’s none of your business.

4. “People can change their orientation” Really? Straight people can learn to be gay? And it’s none of your business.

5. “I don’t mind gay people having civil unions, but marriage is not a civil right.” This doesn’t influence your own marriage and the US Supreme Court will decide if it’s a civil right. And it’s none of your business.

6. “The Bible is against homosexuality.” Irrelevant. Not everyone must subscribe to your religion. And it’s none of your business.

– A Libertarian

[Reply]

ali Reply:

Did you even read the article?

[Reply]

Paul says:

speaking of Gay people, i can see with so many Gay Women that are out there nowadays why us straight guys have trouble meeting a good woman today. i really can’t blame myself at all since there are many women that like to curse at us men when we will approach them to start a conversation with the one that attracts us. i never ever expected to get cursed at, and this really has happened to me. and i know other men that had the same thing happened to them as well. now why in the world are there so many women that act this way today? i really wonder if they had been very badly abused by men at one time, and that will explain it. there are so many women that really hate us men these days, and what did we do so wrong to begin with? all i ever want is to meet a good woman to have a relationship with, especially when i see so many very blessed straight men and women that have met one another and have a family just like many of us other straight men would have certainly wanted as well. not to much to ask for, is it? i would say so since there are many of us very lonely men that would want what is normal today. then again, God could certainly be punishing us for some unknown reason since he forgot about us.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Paul, this sounds like a personal issue and this blog is not a dating site nor it is a place for relationship advise.

[Reply]

Mike4Chess says:

Perhaps if those straight men were also “good men,” they could also meet “good women.” I have many straight friends, and the majority have had no trouble finding good spouses. If you’re not in the running, perhaps you’d better do some self-examination.

[Reply]

scotty says:

I wouldn’t consider my self closed minded. More like Bible minded and yes I did grow up in the church so of course that’s what I was tought but I still make chooses from what I believe and understand as I read the bible and since that’s Gods rule book to mankind that’s what I live by and the Bible provides God’s blueprint for marriage and for His good gift of sex in Genesis 2:24. The gift is only to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman. There are no exceptions suggested, such as homosexual partnerships. From Genesis on, the Bible praises the marriage of a man and a woman, but it speaks only negatively of homosexual behavior whenever it is mentioned.The Old Testament states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The New Testament agrees, listing “homosexual offenders” among a list of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” unless they are cleansed through Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Other passages are Genesis, chapter 19; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude, verse 7. However, it is important to note that the Bible speaks only of homosexual behavior (which would include lust—choosing to fantasize about behavior), not unchosen feelings. God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.Sometimes it is said that the Bible does not record any words of Jesus about homosexuality, and therefore it must be acceptable to God. However, the Bible does not record sayings of Jesus about a number of other specific sins either. When people asked Jesus about marriage, He told them to remember what Genesis said about God’s plan for marriage (Matthew 19:1-12). So, in this sense, Jesus did have something to say about homosexual partnerships. God only blessed sex within the committed marriage relationship of a man and a woman. Some have tried to reinterpret what the Bible says, in an effort to approve homosexual relationships.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

“God only blessed sex within the committed marriage relationship of a man and a woman.”
—So God did NOT approve, then, of King Solomon’s vast number of wives, since it’s supposed to be one-man-one-woman.
Strange, then, that Solomon’s activities were generally supported by God, eh?

“Some have tried to reinterpret what the Bible says, in an effort to approve homosexual relationships.”
Some have tried, though it’s much like trying to educate a brick wall, to make more *complete* what the Bible says. Without complete knowledge, we are liable to error.

You say that the Bible is God’s rule book to mankind, as if it were the only such book (or the only one worth paying attention to). You may or may not be closed-minded, but your view is certainly overly narrow-minded!
Employ critical thinking. As Thomas Jefferson noted, “Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.”

[Reply]

scotty says:

I wouldn’t consider my self closed minded. More like Bible minded and yes I did grow up in the church so of course that’s what I was tought but I still make chooses from what I believe and understand as I read the bible and since that’s Gods rule book to mankind that’s what I live by and the Bible provides God’s blueprint for marriage and for His good gift of sex in Genesis 2:24. The gift is only to be enjoyed within a marriage between a man and a woman. There are no exceptions suggested, such as homosexual partnerships. From Genesis on, the Bible praises the marriage of a man and a woman, but it speaks only negatively of homosexual behavior whenever it is mentioned.The Old Testament states, “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable” (Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13). The New Testament agrees, listing “homosexual offenders” among a list of people who “will not inherit the kingdom of God” unless they are cleansed through Christ (1 Corinthians 6:9-11). Other passages are Genesis, chapter 19; Romans 1:18-32; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; and Jude, verse 7. However, it is important to note that the Bible speaks only of homosexual behavior (which would include lust—choosing to fantasize about behavior), not unchosen feelings. God will not judge a Christian guilty for his or her involuntary feelings.Sometimes it is said that the Bible does not record any words of Jesus about homosexuality, and therefore it must be acceptable to God. However, the Bible does not record sayings of Jesus about a number of other specific sins either. When people asked Jesus about marriage, He told them to remember what Genesis said about God’s plan for marriage (Matthew 19:1-12). So, in this sense, Jesus did have something to say about homosexual partnerships. God only blessed sex within the committed marriage relationship of a man and a woman. Some have tried to reinterpret what the Bible says, in an effort to approve homosexual relationships.

[Reply]

SoMuchTrue says:

well i can certainly say that the Lesbian population has increased so very rapidly since many of us straight men can’t meet a good woman anymore to share our life with.

[Reply]

scotty says:

9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.10 And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.11 And the man that lieth with his father’s wife hath uncovered his father’s nakedness: both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.12 And if a man lie with his daughter in law, both of them shall surely be put to death: they have wrought confusion; their blood shall be upon them.13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.14 And if a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you.15 And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.16 And if a woman approach unto any beast, and lie down thereto, thou shalt kill the woman, and the beast: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.17 And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness; it is a wicked thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity.18 And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.19 And thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy mother’s sister, nor of thy father’s sister: for he uncovereth his near kin: they shall bear their iniquity.20 And if a man shall lie with his uncle’s wife, he hath uncovered his uncle’s nakedness: they shall bear their sin; they shall die childless.21 And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is an unclean thing: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless.22 Ye shall therefore keep all my statutes, and all my judgments, and do them: that the land, whither I bring you to dwell therein, spue you not out.23 And ye shall not walk in the manners of the nation, which I cast out before you: for they committed all these things, and therefore I abhorred them.24 But I have said unto you, Ye shall inherit their land, and I will give it unto you to possess it, a land that floweth with milk and honey: I am theLord your God, which have separated you from other people.25 Ye shall therefore put difference between clean beasts and unclean, and between unclean fowls and clean: and ye shall not make your souls abominable by beast, or by fowl, or by any manner of living thing that creepeth on the ground, which I have separated from you as unclean.26 And ye shall be holy unto me: for I the Lordam holy, and have severed you from other people, that ye should be mine.27 A man also or woman that hath a familiar spirit, or that is a wizard, shall surely be put to death: they shall stone them with stones: their blood shall be upon them. Laviticus 20 9-27 KJV. pay close attention to verse 13. I’m not judging anyone but I’m not going to stand up for my religion. So I posting this bible verse it pretty cut and dry on all sexual sins and the price to be paid. Sin is sin in Gods eyes from the liar to the thief and murder to the adulter. God is the only judge and he states that all sins are forgivable if your ask and turn from your wicked ways.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

@scotty:

Since we’re citing Bible verses, try these (Deuteronomy 21:18-21; KJV):
“18 If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:
“19 Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;
“20 And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.
“21 And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.”

So, stubbornness/rebelliousness in the young is to be treated as a CAPITAL crime. You agree with this, and with the barbaric nature of the execution? (You must, since you support the Old Testament laws. Can’t pick and choose, now; “gotta catch ‘em all”.)

You said:
“…pay close attention to verse 13. I’m not judging anyone…”
—Even though it strongly looks that way, eh?

and:
“God is the only judge and he states that all sins are forgivable…”
—No, He does not. “Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” (whatever that might consist of) is declared unforgivable by God Himself, in the person of His Son:
(Mark 3:28-29, KJV):
“28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:
“29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation…”

and:
“I’m not going to stand up for my religion.”
—Beware of typos, sir…and while we’re on the subject of correct & complete texts, note what I’ve posted here before.
The Bible scholars agree that the prohibition in Leviticus 20:13 was not against homosexual behavior in general; it was against such behavior as practiced by male temple prostitutes in neighboring, competing cultures. “Don’t do as the outsiders do, lest ye become like them and stray from the True Path!” was the general notion. It was couched in extreme terms so as to hammer it home in the minds of the “sheeple” of the time.

Don’t be part of the sheeple. Learn to read better, think better — and LIVE better. Love thy neighbor (2nd greatest commandment).

[Reply]

scotty Reply:

I’m not judging I’m just pointing out the verse that deals with the subject at hand. But proverbs 20-13 look pretty cut and dry. If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman both of them have committed an abomination. And I agree with the unforgivable sin being “Blaspheming against the Holy Spirit” but how can God forgive someone who doesn’t believe in him. And your verse is also true if we lived by those rules there would be a lot less school shooting or crime in general for that matter. And very true on the typos that could be bad.

[Reply]

scotty Reply:

Laviticus 20-13. Not proverbs speaking of typos hahs

Stuart Reply:

“I’m just pointing out the verse that deals with the subject at hand.”
—But you’re using the form of the verse that is, alas, the usual: the form that omits the cultural context. (The context was known to the people of that time and place, but is not sufficiently well known here and now.)
Why did you just repeat the verse, without (apparently) thinking about that context that I supplied for you? Within that context, remember, male-male homosex was NOT generally prohibited. Stop acting as though it was.
Please reply, after giving the matter due thought. (Do not bother to repeat the verse again; tell me what YOU think. Please don’t just say something like “That’s what I was taught, and I’m going to believe it no matter what anyone else says!” If you do, it will simply be more evidence of a closed mind. To paraphrase Galileo: God gave us inquiring minds, but did not expect us not to use them.)

Natalie says:

Can’t really top that reply, sir.

[Reply]

Natalie says:

Delaney,
I’m speechless.
You describe gay people as parasites on a dog?
May God help any child of yours who ever realises they are gay.
May God intervene to help any gay person you ever interact with.

People don’t “get” being gay. They do “get” bigotry.
I will take the necessary spiritual precautions against bigotry.
Again, I’m speechless.

Dear Jesus, help us all.

[Reply]

delaney says:

Where is the fear of God, in these rebuttals, if a dog who has flees and tickes, come in contact with dogs, who is tick and flee free, doesnt it endanger the other dogs of getting these parasites, same with being gay, we must guard our selves and love ones from the para sitical ideas of being openly infected with parasites that wasn’t originally created within the dog, So if you openly have these parasites i openly refuse to be a partaker of them, and will take the necessary spiritual precautions to guard my mind and desires to stay with Gods will with his intended design for my lives and for those who He has gave me responsibility for, SO I OPENLY CAST AWAY EVERY SIN(PARASITE) THAT WILL IMPOSE ITS SELF TO HINDER MY WALK IN CHRIST…ITS YOUR CHOICE TO BE FREE OF SIN…

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

“Where is the fear of God, in these rebuttals…”
—I would fear (but not in the way you think) any god who thought along the same lines as you do, be assured!

“…if a dog who has flees and tickes…”
—Are you studying Middle English, perhaps? These spellings are certainly not modern — if they were EVER correct.

“…we must guard our selves and love ones from the para sitical ideas of being openly infected with parasites that wasn’t originally created within the dog…”
—I get your (ugly, bigoted) meaning, but you are wrong when you imply that homosexuality “wasn’t originally created within”. It was. Just ask a gay person — go ahead, it won’t hurt; homosexuality is not contagious — when he/she discovered the orientation. The usual answer will be “as far back as I can remember; it was always this way.” It is not a choice, therefore it is not a sin.

“…[I] will take the necessary spiritual precautions to guard my mind and desires to stay with Gods will with his intended design for my lives and for those who He has gave me responsibility for…”
—I understand what you’re saying (even with your mangled English — do work on improving that, OK?). I understand it to be equivalent to: “My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts. I’ve decided that a narrow (and inadequate) interpretation of the Bible is good enough, DESPITE the commandment to love and support others (“whereby you did these things to me also”). I will wrap myself in self-righteousness and will close my ears — and mind — to anything that might make me uncomfortable … or more educated, and thereby more tolerant.”

May your God have mercy on your shriveled soul.

[Reply]

Lauren says:

Wow. After skimming the comments, I just wanted to say I really wish I had Kathy and Stuart on my side whenever I argued with people on this subject! You guys are awesome.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

I thank you, Lauren. I try to do my part to do battle with the “Demons of Ignorance” that plague the world. (For the ‘demons’ reference, see the delightful book “The Phantom Tollbooth”, by Norton Juster.)

[Reply]

Jason says:

Why do you crazy christians always go straight to incest, beastiality and necrophilia as your comparisons when talking about gay people? I think it says way more about what’s happening inside your heads than it does about gay people. I’ll give you necrophilia, but the rest of that crap is just mean!

[Reply]

Dude says:

It is my authority on marriage, just as it is my authority on how I act, behave, and believe. Without it I might as well start believing/saying:
Incest… well, I would not do it, but it hardly affect me now, right?
Rape, hm, seems to me that there are rapists that only have desires for forcing woman/men to have sex, why stop them, just as long as they ignore me since I do not like it.
Bestiality, well, an animal CAN express sexual desire for other creatures besides an animal of the same kind/species, and I know there are animals that express the same for people… so… I best not judge them either.
(Stick anything here that you disagree with, but other people enjoy)

Adam lived for hundreds of years and he and Eve had many children (as written in the first book), so how does that “condemn” masturbation and other sexual relations because of “time restraints”? People today typically live MAYBE to a hundred, we have WAY less time that people used to. Masturbation and other sexual relations were condemned because they were outside the fitting God made for a perfect world, the time period has nothing to do with it.
Studies show that we are producing LESS than needed for a stable population than before, things look “okay” now, but if we continue at this rate, we are hurting ourselves population wise.

Homosexuality is not “natural”, normal, yes, but not natural. Does it happen in many species? Yes. Does it provide a way for the population to increase? No. Do the parts “fit” together the way they were intended? About as much as they do when you try to fit a “man” inside a female or male donkey.
Whether we condemn animal behavior is pretty silly to mention, I might as well ask you this:
a. Do you condemn male animals showing dominance by “having their way” with a female intruder?
b. Do you condemn animals eating their young?
c. Do you condemn animals abusing other animals?
d. Do you condemn animals having “harems”?
e. Do you condemn animals having sexual relations with close relatives?

Using animals as an “argument” is useless unless you argue the same for allowing rapists, murderers, etc. the same thing. Animals seem to get along just fine without having laws against those. And all of those are very NORMAL, natural, no, NORMAL, yes. Are you against those happening in the human population? Why or why not?

Your perception of Paul’s words is not quite right. The part of “being silent” is that woman are not supposed to be putting themselves at the head of the church, they are not to be pastors or leaders. Such things were giving specifically for men. Later on, Paul talks of what woman ARE allowed to do, can they speak in church? Certainly, just not allowed to preach.
A woman is not called to “bow down” to her husband or any man and a man is not called to “subject a woman to whatever means he desires”. The relationship is that of completion. The man completes his wife and the wife completes her husband. They are called to love and respect one another, but a man is called to rule over his house as God rules His people.

Why are you apposed to ANY relationship that people want to enter? Why are such relationships only limited to two men, two woman, and a man and a woman? Since when is “consent” and “love” a requirement for marriage? Tell me, where is your support for such things? Other than what other people tell you or your own feelings?

I NEED someone to tell me what is wrong. A fellow sinful being is useless in this matter for many reasons (just tell me why you are not following my “words of wisdom”?). The Bible explains everything that is wrong in the world and it tells me that I am a horrible, sinful being, but I have been save, just as every sinful being on this planet. Homosexuals can enter heave, just as rapists, pedophiles, and any Christian. They just need to believe that Jesus Christ is there Savior who died and rose again for their sins.
No fellow sinful human being can save my sins and I would only get confused when going for “my feelings” when determining right and wrong. After all, I will always deny one group their beliefs. I have as much reason to believe in the curse of the human world as I do in following a serial killers guide to why murder is okay.

[Reply]

Dude Reply:

Sorry, this was meant for Stuart (April 24th, 2013 at 3:49 pm), but the comment thing messed up.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Dude:
“[The Bible] is my authority on marriage, just as it is my authority on how I act, behave, and believe. Without it I might as well start believing/saying: Incest…Rape…Bestiality…”
—So, the Bible is the only possible guide for your action, behavior, and belief? (Already I hear you saying, “It is the *best* possible guide, so, yes!”) There are other holy books, you know, and even many secular books, that offer quite good guidance. Don’t be parochial. Besides, some of the Bible’s instructions are outdated, in the light of modern food-storage technology; or barbaric, such as the commandment that unruly children were to be stoned to death by the family and neighbors. Or that a virgin who was raped must marry the rapist.
Do you truly wish to pattern your life after the whole of this book?

“Adam lived for hundreds of years…”
—Or so some claim. It would require magic, or sufficiently advanced technology, to do this.

“Masturbation and other sexual relations were condemned because they were outside the fitting God made for a perfect world, the time period has nothing to do with it.”
—So why was Onan killed by God?

“Studies show that we are producing LESS than needed for a stable population than before, things look “okay” now, but if we continue at this rate, we are hurting ourselves population wise.”
—Go look in Kolkota (Calcutta), Bangladesh, etc. and tell me that a decreasing population (for a while) would not be a good idea.

“Homosexuality is not “natural”, normal, yes, but not natural. Does it happen in many species? Yes.”
—Therefore it is natural. Anything that happens in nature, by definition, is natural. Check your dictionary; the term you want is ‘unusual’, not ‘unnatural’.

“a. Do you condemn male animals showing dominance by “having their way” with a female intruder?
“b. Do you condemn animals eating their young?
“c. Do you condemn animals abusing other animals?
“d. Do you condemn animals having “harems”?
“e. Do you condemn animals having sexual relations with close relatives?”
—No, no, no, no, and no, respectively, because they are chiefly constrained by instinct. Humans, however, are not as constrained, since most instinct-level behavior has faded away. We have the ability to *choose* not to indulge in these behaviors, and in general, we do so choose. Homosexual orientation, however, is not a mere matter of choice.

“Using animals as an “argument” is useless unless you argue the same for allowing rapists, murderers, etc. the same thing.”
—The Slippery Slope fallacy. No good.

“Are you against those happening in the human population? Why or why not?”
—As I said, we can choose from among the multitude of behaviors of which, in our seemingly unique way, we are capable. We tend to choose those which provide the greater good for ourselves and/or our societies. (This is not to say that there are not those who choose the path of evil; but they are perversions, not the norm.)

“Your perception of Paul’s words is not quite right. The part of “being silent” is that woman are not supposed to be putting themselves at the head of the church, they are not to be pastors or leaders. Such things were giving specifically for men.”
—Which is expectable in an intensely patriarchal culture. Do you think that such a cultural mode is proper nowadays? (And, if you do, are you prepared to defend that notion to the various strong, accomplished women who can be found in great numbers today?) The Bible was written with a strong patriarchal bias; OF COURSE it gives all the “goodies” to males. Do you think that this is a fair way to build a society — with half of all people marginalized?

“They are called to love and respect one another, but a man is called to rule over his house as God rules His people.”
—See above, re: marginalization.

“Why are you apposed to ANY relationship that people want to enter?”
—I didn’t say that I was.

“Why are such relationships only limited to two men, two woman, and a man and a woman?”
—Historically, they have not always been limited to these ways. Remember Solomon, whose *700* wives were apparently OK with God?

“Since when is “consent” and “love” a requirement for marriage?”
—Consent is a requirement in *my* book, sir. Otherwise it’s a chattel condition, which is not right. (Remember the 13th Amendment?)
Love is not a technical requirement for marriage; consider the various dynastic pairings in human history, where the feelings of the spouses were considered irrelevant in the light of the political advantage to be had. Love is a highly *desirable* condition for a successful marriage, however.

“I NEED someone to tell me what is wrong. A fellow sinful being is useless in this matter for many reasons (just tell me why you are not following my “words of wisdom”?).”
—So your parents, being sinful beings, were not qualified to teach you right from wrong when you were young? When they told you not to hit your sister/neighbor/etc., were they being useless? When they taught you to behave politely — because excessive unruliness causes unnecessary unhappiness — were they useless?
Now that you are grown, do you still NEED someone to tell you what is wrong — or can you figure some things out for yourself? (Do you *want* to declare that you can’t? That you are incompetent as a judge of right and wrong, and are no better than a sheep in this regard?)

“The Bible explains everything that is wrong in the world…”
—According to some. But with its datedness and bias, I take it with several grains of salt.

“…and it tells me that I am a horrible, sinful being…”
—What an uplifting and affirming thing it is, then. (It sounds a lot like an exclusive club: “You’re not one of us, so you’re unworthy; you don’t get the goodies that we get. BUT — if you decide to follow all of our rules, and no one else’s, we’ll let you in.”) Exclusivity and tribalism are what is wrong with many parts of today’s world. I recommend better, more inclusive behavior.

“Homosexuals can enter heave, just as rapists, pedophiles, and any Christian.”
—That’s kind of you.

“No fellow sinful human being can save my sins…”
—I hope that no one has made any different claim.

“…and I would only get confused when going for “my feelings” when determining right and wrong.”
—Like a sheep, then? (See above.)

“After all, I will always deny one group their beliefs.”
—And other groups will (try to) deny you yours. When thinking about the various holy books in the world, note that they ALL claim that the others are wrong. Therefore they cannot all be completely correct. Perhaps NONE of them is….

[Reply]

Joey1013 says:

The difference between homosexual and straight people? Homosexuals push it in your face and expect you treat them normal. You can’t go to a parade without them striping down in front of kids and do sexual acts.
Actually homosexuality was never supported by Jesus or talked against by him. Apparently no one read the bible start making stuff up.
As for homosexuals and Atheists, your the most hateful people around. Once someone like Rosie O’Donnell come out of the closet they show their true colors. Atheist like communists torture and kill people all the time. Atheists are just anti Christian as a matter of fact. I never saw a promotion by Atheists try to take a smack at Muslims or Jewish people. Hmm scared??? Christians too humble to take your punches? Yeah Atheists are nice, I se them talking crap all the time. Constitution gave freedom of religion not freedom to hate religious people.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Joey1013, are you trying to set a new record here for being wrong and bigoted (you know, very un-Christian)?

Let’s do some rebutting.
“The difference between homosexual and straight people? Homosexuals push it in your face and expect you treat them normal.”
—*Some* homosexuals, who do their cause no good thereby, may “push it in your face”…just as much as *some* heterosexuals push their own “proper” sexuality in the faces of homosexuals. Some of them even push their fists or other weapons into faces, bodies, etc. Some even murder their targets. I have yet to hear of a single case where “homosexual zealots” attacked, much less killed, a heterosexual on account of his/her orientation. (Doe the name Matthew Shepard ring a bell?)

“You can’t go to a parade without them striping [sic] down in front of kids and do [sic] sexual acts.”
—Nonsense. While there may have been some slight amount of this behavior — though I’ve never heard of any — it would be far from the norm. Provide credible sources for this outlandish claim, or else retract it.

“Actually homosexuality was never supported by Jesus or talked against by him.”
—And since God Himself, in the person of His own Son, did not speak out against homosexuality, it must not have mattered very much to Him. So why does it matter to you?

“Apparently no one read the bible [sic] start making stuff up.”
—Sorry, you’re getting incoherent here. Does this mean “Apparently, no one read[s] the Bible start[s] making stuff up”, or “Apparently, no one read the Bible [but] start[ed] making stuff up”? Or something else? (If you want to be seriously considered when you post, make sure you use correct language.)

“As for homosexuals and Atheists, your [sic] the most hateful people around.”
—Again, nonsense! I know some homosexual and/or atheist people whom I esteem highly, who are quite thoughtful and loving people. You must be hanging out with the wrong crowd (a crowd which includes hateful people, such as bigots).
Also, the word in your sentence should have been “you’re”, not “your”. There is an important difference; learn it.

“Atheist [sic] like communists torture and kill people all the time.”
—Laughable nonsense. While there are likely *some* atheists and communists represented among torturers and killers, and *some* torturers and killers represented among atheists and communists, the sets are essentially disjoint. Your error here is called the fallacy of the Unrepresentative Sample (Some A are B. Some B are C. Therefore some A are C.).

“Atheists are just anti Christian as a matter of fact.”
—No, atheists are anti-theist in general. They do not believe in ANY version of a god, not just the Christian version.

“I never saw a promotion by Atheists try to take a smack at Muslims or Jewish people. Hmm scared??? Christians too humble to take your punches?”
—In the USA, at least, the majority of the population professes some stripe of Christianity. So if an atheist tries to “take a smack at” a religious person, that person would most likely be a Christian. Just because you haven’t seen an atheist oppose a non-Christian doesn’t mean that it doesn’t happen. (Most atheists that I know of, by the way, have no interest in taking a smack at religious people. They simply prefer that the religious refrain from pushing religion into atheist faces.)

“Yeah Atheists are nice, I se [sic] them talking crap all the time.”
–You’re seeing a small, dark subset of them if so. This is the fallacy of the Illicit Minor.

“Constitution gave freedom of religion not freedom to hate religious people.”
—The Constitution gives freedom to hate anyone, regardless of religiosity (and regardless of how antisocial and un-Christian is the behavior). But remember: The “freedom OF religion” also includes “freedom FROM religion”.
Express your distaste for the non-religious if you wish (while keeping in mind the restrictions against hate speech) — but you must then accept expressions of distaste for the religious by the non-religious.
You have the freedom to be a bigot, and to behave in ways that show that you reject the teachings of Christianity — do you really want to?
speech, however, does not extend to deliberate attempts to

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Had a typo there — please ignore the “speech, however, does not extend to deliberate attempts to” bit at the end, since I can’t edit it out.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Joey– you are a Religious Program Specialist with the Navy??? WHAT!!!??? You do realize that the military that you work for has deemed that a homosexual orientation is a normal variation of sexual orientation??
“Atheist like communists torture and kill people all the time.” WHAT!!???
It is scary that you hold the position you do. It might be time to move on for the benefit of those you do not serve.
YIKES!!!

[Reply]

Travis Tuttle Reply:

Wow, Joey, just WOW! Kathy and Stuart pretty much said it all here. I sincerely hope that you are a troll, because the thought of someone like you taking themselves seriously is a pretty mind blowing concept.

[Reply]

Dante Reply:

Joey excuse me but please tell me how many wars were fought and innocent people slaughtered in the name of atheism? None. How many slaughtered in the name of religion? Millions maybe billions throughout time. So don’say anything about atheists and homosexuals being violent

[Reply]

Eshto Reply:

The parade is largely a response to decades of having to hide who we are, being threatened and killed for who we are, and being denied legal rights.

It happens once a year and a lot of us don’t even go to the parade. Would you like me to start judging all straight people based on the antics that go on at Mardi Gras?

So, not sure what your problem is. I don’t go around resenting the straight families at the grocery store for appearing in public with their spouses and children (which, EWWWWWW, they had to have SEX to make those!). I don’t sit around obsessing over what they do in bed, or wishing they had fewer legal rights than me. It seems easy not to hate other people, I’m really not sure what your deal is Joey but you have my pity, I guess.

[Reply]

Wayne says:

You are so right Stephen. I struggled for years with my bisexuality . However I came to the realization that I am who I am. I have acted on my desires and it is the best thing I have ever done in my life. Haters will destroy themselves with their hate.

[Reply]

stephen says:

As a bi guy who has gone to church, I respect God’s word and believe in asking His forgiveness of sin. Does that mean I’m still going to hell for having gay feelings? I can’t help having them. Those haters/ignorant “Christians” need to be told “how would you feel if I told you you couldn’t love this person? That’s exactly how I feel.” God loves everyone, and that’s how He created me, and all the other gays/lesbians/bis/trans. These feelings have been in my head for years, ever since I was a kid. I am so sick of all the ignorance. These people have a right to love whoever they want. Sometimes I wish I could be 100% straight but I’m not. I am panicking that if I ever act on it, I’ll go to hell. I’m scared to death some days, but I’m not constantly freaking out about it every minute. Life’s too short. There’s so many other sins to commit, like lying, stealing, and jealousy/envy, murder, rape . . . why is homosexuality always being ripped on? And at least in my state, gay marriage is legal. Can they repeal it since there’s still many people in my state who are against it? Yeah I may get flamed but this is all stuff people have said, and how I feel. I’

[Reply]

Silas Reply:

Stephen, you are right by saying that God loves everyone. You said you respect God’s word and believe in asking for forgiveness of sin by what Jesus did for us (John 3:16-17). That is great. To say that God created you as a bisexual alongside other gays/lesbians/bis/trans makes God contradict Himself when His word speaks against it, and we both know that God does not contradict Himself. So what is the problem. According to God homosexuality, lying, stealing, murder, rape and a whole lot of other things are sins and they are not normal regardless of whether people engage in them or not. But when it comes to homosexuality, gays/lesbian/bis/trans wants it to be accepted as normal. (God says it is not normal vs. Man says it is normal) That is the problem. Another thing you said was that people have the right to love whoever they want. Infact throughout the Bible, we have been commanded to love our neighbour’s as ourselves. So loving others is not a choice but a command. But from your perspective of love, it seems to be a kind of love that leads to a romantic kind of relationship between 2 people. Now let’s think about this and another problem homosexuality will tend to bring in the near future if we follow this logic. At first homosexuality was not legal but right now some states have permitted because they consider individual rights and other factors like nobody gets hurt and your assumption that you can choose to love whoever you want. Have you ever considered for a minute what will also become of INCEST in the near future. When you think about this, your assumption that people can love whoever they want won’t hold. Father’s can sleep or marry their daughters likewise mothers and sons, uncle’s and nieces, auntie’s and nephews, grandfather’s and grandchildren and brothers and children. You see the same way Incest is illegal, for a time to come people are going to fight for legalization because they love the person they want to be with and nobody is going to get hurt.
You mentioned that you have gay feelings and you are afraid that you will go to hell. If you believe that Jesus Christ died for your sins, you are saved. Having those feelings is like other people having thoughts about murdering, raping, stealing, lying but yet haven’t committed them out. I feel for you and I know that you can come out of it if you are willing to come out of it through the power of God. But the key thing is that you must be willing to come out of it. God knows your heart and if you are sincere, He will gladly guide you. It may take some time, days and even years to come out of it but I know that surely you come out of it if you pray seriously about it and then avoid things that adds to the gay feelings. With God all things are possible. God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Take care.

[Reply]

jan Reply:

if you are going to quote the Bible, you need to not make some kind of spaghetti thing. keep the reference.
when God says love your neighbor, it means AGAPE love.
look that up and read it.
if you do not know the Bible, read it. don’t quote it unless you have read it and KNOW it, not just glanced at it.
thanks

[Reply]

Love.Laugh.Bloom. says:

From Birth to a Child and a Adult I have always been a
sweet loving soft spoken calm Mellow soul.

I have never liked the sin but never in my life
Have I hated anyone and nor will I start I have always showed love and Kindness no matter
if they are gay or not I was protected from all that as a child but I wasn’t taught to hate them nor
to Beat them up at all I am not a Hateful soul either.

Personally I won’t cry over someone not liking me You can love me or hate me and we are not here to be people pleasers but not everyone is going to be pleased with us if I dwelled on everyone that didn’t like me life would be depressing and am a happy person
I like cheering others up I stay around the positive and not the negative.

But one’s that follow god they are to show love and I am not saying how a gay person
lives their life is right as far as relationships or what ever.

my life wasn’t the greatest but I grew stronger
from all I was put through I was made fun of and called names and I did nothing to deserve it I was a sweet child and I am the same sweet
soul but as was Jesus but for him it was even worse. My God is Bigger than the problems I face.

And in the olden times they had to Sacrifice animals to repent of sins
and go to the priest so they could be pure again but now you don’t do that now, it is Jesus you
repent and confess your sin’s to him.

But I am not going to preach you can believe what you like every one always see’s
me as giving loving and caring and I will be until I die my son has learned this also
as he has same views on gays as I do but he does not hate either them or no one
so understand Just because a person seems like they have not endured any pain in life we all have
or don’t like how they live don’t mean they don’t understand and doesn’t mean they are hateful.

And we all are responsible for our actions all of us gay people Bisexual, straight people whom ever
I was raised to live Moral and Modest respect and trust is earned if someone shows respect towards me and they are
Modest Humble Respectful when it is shown I will return respect back I ignore anyone that is
rude but I never had to deal with it that much I just pay no mind to rude people most time I don’t cause it they just want the Attention so I ignore it .

One thing I can’t stop showing is love being caring and kind.
My Child see’s how I live my life I show Love, Strength, Respect towards
others and myself as I dress Lady like Modest and Modern and I have Manners.

I see one’s saying she said or he said. or shut up this in that if any one says a rude
comment to me I will just Ignore it and give it over to god.

I have a friend that doesn’t agree with the same beliefs as I do
we were raised in different homes Her father was Abusive and
she would come to my house to get away and be safe but besides
us not having the same beliefs in some things she knows how loving
and caring a person I am and understands me and doesn’t get offended
by me we are very open when we talk we have known each other for years.

Walk a day in someone else Shoes for a day. Don’t Judge a book by it’s cover.
what my mother has Taught me My mother made me who I am today. a very strong
woman. what doesn’t Kill you makes you stronger. so I am not pointing any fingers
but not everyone is Cruel and mean and not every one is the same my friend thought
when she first met me I was one of them Pretty girls that was mean and was a snob
cause of how I looked I said nothing to Imply I was snobby never been that way than she got to know me and learned she was very wrong and we
Became Great friends and still are she saw my real heart the real me.
Look with your Heart not your eyes this is a favorite Quote of mine one I use a lot
and I don’t look with my eyes I never have,
meaning you don’t look at what’s on the out side
you look at what’s on the inside, another one I love The heart see’s
what the eye’s can’t
if you look with the eyes your seeing what you want to see,
Look with love is what it is saying look with the heart not the eyes.

Hope everyone Has a Beautiful and Blessed
Memorial Day.

[Reply]

Wayne says:

I am so happy to have found your writing here on gay relationships. For many years I have lived the life of a bigot saying all these horrible things about gay people. And why? Because I am gay or at the very least bisexual. And I covered up my desires by demeaning the very people that I desired to be like. I am so ashamed of myself.
I have been married to my wife for over forty years and never once acted on my desires. Why did I marry a woman knowing that I should not have? Because of the very restrictive religion of hate that I grew up in and stuck with for all of that time, fearing that God would surely kill me for what I desired. And that the time in which I was raised being homosexual was severely frowned upon.
I am not proud of myself but in the last year I have acted on my desires feeling that I am so close to the end of my life that I could not possibly die without knowing what I had missed. I know that many people will say I did the wrong thing doing it but that is your opinion and I alone have to face the consequence for my choice.
Again I appreciated your blog so much. You my dear are the epitome of what love and acceptance is about.

[Reply]

Peter Lombard says:

I have to admit this is a lovely set of arguments and it has impressed the impressionable no end however these arguments can be used just as strongly in favour of pedophilia and beastiality – after all the parts fit and God is no fool. Indeed! I would suggest a re-read of the bible without skipping the unfavourable bits. Oh I do love a good debate – all will be accepted in the end, it is human nature after all and all the bits do fit!

[Reply]

David Reply:

Peter, the only answer one needs to this comment is “consent”. These acts are considered rape by any clear thinking person of any religion, race, or sexuality. Even an adult child is in an unbalanced/disadvantaged relationship. A consenting relationship between two adults has no relationship whatsoever to bestiality or pedophilia and any clear thinking adult should be able to see the difference without a debate.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

And from the start . . . ditto dear, ditto.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

I do know what the Gospel is. I do not believe that ANYTHING I answer would satisfy you that what I believe could possibly be Christian principles. We differ in what “all” means. I do not believe a homosexual orientation is a disqualifier to Christianity.
And since MY calling is education, encouragement and engagement between LGBT Christians and the church, THIS is what I will be faithful to.
Check out congregations there in Halifax. The way the majority of people will come to some level of understanding and compassion on this issue is RELATIONSHIP.
A back and forth is rarely productive. Go invest YOURSELF and invest in people that you clearly discount. I am VERY comfortable in my beliefs. Do some reading to understand what I believe if that is your goal.
I can probably write the script for the next dozen exchanges if I were to enter into the stream, but I won’t. I do not perceive that you seek understanding, but rather desire to “tell”.
I am beyond those types of engagements. There are productive ways to use my time and I sense this will not be one such productive investment. Thank you for reading and I hope you will continue.
There are a dozen churches on that list — go meet people and then go to God.

[Reply]

Kathy Reply:

you see that is disappointing because you have already put limits and restrictions on our relationship and you don’t even know me yet. :)

[Reply]

Kathy says:

You didn’t directly answer my question. So are you saying the Gospel is equality and justice? just wondering.

[Reply]

Kirby Reply:

I’m certainly no expert in the Gospel, so please be gentle, but I’d almost agree that the Gospel is equality and justice. Didn’t Christ make two final commandments, love God and love your neighbor? With these two commandments in place in the New Testament, don’t they, in essence, negate the ten commandments of the Old Testament? (If you love your neighbor, you won’t kill him, you won’t steal from her, you won’t covet his possessions, etc.)?

If that’s the case, I’d say that certainly counts toward equality, since it is every person’s duty to perform these two commandments. It doesn’t matter what race a person is or what their sexual identity is, so long as they uphold those two commandments. Am I far off-base?

[Reply]

Kathy says:

The centerpiece of your viewpoint seems to be the LGBT cause and not Jesus so I have been reading with interest and wondering what you think the Gospel is and why you never talk about it ?

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Your reading on my site must be quite limited. I care about equality and justice BECAUSE I am a follower of Jesus. It is interesting that in your viewpoint you do not notice my centering on Christ; it seems to me that you do not want to see that. It is quite evident to most who visit here. I imagine you do not want to see that a devout believer can hold these views.
I know who I am and Who it is that called me and Whom I serve. I encourage you to read more if you do care to see what motivates me.
I would encourage you to visit an affirming community of believers and ask them if they think equality in Christ and in society is a Christian issue. http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/foriegn_nations/Canada/canada_Nova_Scotia_NS.htm

[Reply]

Heather says:

I think I have to disagree. Show me a heterosexual equavalant to the gay street parties in San Francisco?

And even if you could find one….. show me one that is put into a law as an exception to that law, to specifically accommidate heterosexuals.

San Fransciso just passed a law on public nudity, but then exempted gay street fairs.

Why is it one particular sexual preference needs an examption to a public nudity law……….?

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Disagree with what specifically? All six points? One point? I did not mention anything about public nudity, so your point is unclear.
Public nudity laws are not just for people of one particular sexual orientation, you know that right? And “sexual orientation” is the correct term, not sexual “preference”. If you can recall when you choose to be heterosexual, you might be tempted to call it a preference however.
ALL the laws, marriage included, accommodate heterosexuals, and THAT is the point– time to share.
Have you been to San Francisco during Gay Pride? I have– seven times perhaps. I would think that might make my opinion on this subject a fairly good one. Gay Pride is about 30% heterosexual now, most pried events are. The largest BDSM festival in the US is also in SF–the Folsom Street Fair and I would estimate that at about 40% heterosexual. The ONLY sex I have seen in the streets there is heterosexual sex.
Surely you have heard of Mardi Gras in Brazil–heterosexual or Spring Break in FLA–heterosexual. Even in my college days, the bar scenes then were pretty raunchy.
It might benefit you to investigate why YOU hold a bias against a class of people and deal with the reasons why. Get to know LGBT people on a personal level and listen to them.
Here is a list of welcoming churches where you might pick one and go be brave and confront your prejudices. The world is changing around you; most of us are learning that a homosexual orientation is a normal variation of human sexuality.
http://www.gaychurch.org/Find_a_Church/united_states/us_massachusetts.htm

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

I have NO ability to say the Bible affirms directly same sex marriage. It is IMPOSSIBLE for any Bible author to have understood same sex relationships as we do today. All we can do it apply principles and arcs towards justice, fairness and the value of relationship.
The Bible is not a treatise on human sexuality. We did not start understanding sexual orientation until the 1970’s, so it is ABSURD to think Paul commented on it, at all.
I would like for LGBT people to be able to commit in the confines of marriage but MAN has stopped that. I admire those that do in absence of the legal ability.
And you are right, it is not up to humans to condemn, so try and resist. Do give this video a watch, listen and consideration. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezQjNJUSraY&feature=share

[Reply]

Dude Reply:

What makes you say it is impossible for any “Bible author” to not understand the sexual relationships that occur today? What proof do you have of this?
Homosexual relations have occurred since around the time of the Fall, they are attractions and actions that go against God’s original design. To me, it seems that you are implying one of three things about homosexuality in the Bible:
a. homosexuality never really existed in Biblical times
b. homosexual relationships were ONLY those that were purely for fun and sexual release without any “real emotion” or commitment
c. the “homosexual” relations were basically equivalent to pedophilia, therefore, the relationships were not really “consensual” or had any “love”

ALL sexual relations outside of the man-woman relationship are regarded as sinful, immoral, wrong, and perversions, which include:
a. sex between a man and woman not married
b. sex between a man and woman where they are married, but not to each other
c. sex between a person and an animal
d. sex between a man and another man
e. sex between a woman and another woman
f. sex with one’s self
g. sex when one person forces sex upon another

I believe they understand exactly what was wrong with ANY relationship outside of a marriage (DEFINED Biblically as the union between one man and one woman). Homosexuality is nothing new and while we may not have provided an “understanding” of how homosexuals worked before the 1970s, I highly doubt that there was any relationship difference for those practicing homosexuality.

Saying two man can “marry” is like saying that a man can be a woman or that a 16 year old is really 39 with a castle in Brazil. There are QUALIFICATIONS for getting married or being a certain sex or a certain age. For marriage it only requires that a man unite with a woman. You know what it does not require?:
a. both people being in love
b. both people having known each other for more than a second
c. both people having had children
d. both people having experienced sex before choosing to actually be “committed”
e. both people desiring children
f. both people having their reproductive organs functioning correctly so that they can have children after having sex

However, the point of marriage is to provide multiple things, among them being:
a. children
b. stable place for children
c. sexual gratification

People are attempting to change the definition of marriage to mean “oh, as long as they are in love, nothing should stop them”. Since when does being in love have to do with anything?

Biblically love is: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud”. Now does that sound like sex? Can sex result from two people loving each other? Sure. Does it have to? I really hope not, otherwise, my parents are not really loving me.

Love IS something that God requires, He requires a woman to love and respect her husband AND He requires the man to love and respect his wife. The union between one man and one woman is mentioned so much, it should OBVIOUSLY say that any relationship outside this is wrong, which even includes the polygamous marriages that SINFUL people brought. The Bible speaks out sin everywhere, polygamous marriage was the result of sin and there is good reason for why many Christians are against it just as they are for homosexual relations. I bet many polygamous relationships are loving and prosperous, but that should NOT mean that they are okay.

[Reply]

Monique says:

When it comes to marriage, the bible clearly states in every scripture Regarding marriage beginning in Genesis when God saw that Adam was Lonely, he put him to sleep, and out of his own rib he created WOMAN for him and God wanted them to be fruitful and companions for the rest of their lives. Paul gives specific instructions how husbands (male) and wives(female) are to treat each other. Attraction to the same or opposite sex is lust. It should be contained until marriage because pre marital sex is sin. Please provide 1 scripture in the Bible that allows for homosexual marriage or companionship to be blessed be God or Jesus Christ while on earth? It is not up to Christians to condemn or act hateful as that too is sinful. But just as Jesus became angry at the merchants who were defiling His Fathers house and stood up for what is righteous in Gods Eyes, Christians will fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage just as Jesus did for his Father God.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Monique, consider a few points here:

“When it comes to marriage, the bible clearly states…”

OK, since when is the Bible the principal authority on marriage? Recall, this is a secular society with careful Constitutional controls on the influence of religion.
– – – – – – – – –

“…when God saw that Adam was Lonely, he put him to sleep, and out of his own rib he created WOMAN for him and God wanted them to be fruitful and companions for the rest of their lives.”

Now recall that this was written in a time and place where life (human life, at least) was generally short and difficult. It was very important to be able to have children so as to maintain the population in such circumstances. So, various sexual behaviors that could not produce children (masturbation, onanism, homosex, etc.) was condemned in strong terms.
Well, times have changed. There is no longer such a pressing need for children, considering the current world population.

Also, consider that homosexuality is quite natural — it occurs in many other species as well. (Do you condemn it in other animals too? Why, or why not?) “Unusual” does not automatically mean “wrong”. Consider that, in the USA, it is unusual (well less than the majority) to have dark-brown skin and curly black hair. But you don’t say that THAT naturally-occurring situation is wrong, do you? Think about it.
– – – – – – – – –

“Paul gives specific instructions how husbands (male) and wives (female) are to treat each other.”

Paul also misogynistically instructs women to be silent and meek, obediently following men’s will. Do you, as a woman, think that that is how you and your sisters should act?
– – – – – – – – –

“[lust] should be contained until marriage because pre marital sex is sin.”

According to some holy books, or interpretations thereof. Not all. Which should be preeminent? (I know that you would say “the Bible”, but why? Support your position, in other words.)
– – – – – – – – –

“It is not up to Christians to condemn or act hateful as that too is sinful.”

But you are appearing to be condemnatory nonetheless. (“First remove the plank from your own eye….”)
– – – – – – – – –

“Christians will fight to preserve the sanctity of marriage just as Jesus did for his Father God.”

The sanctity of marriages such as Britney Spears’s first effort, maybe? (That one lasted all of 55 hours.)

Why are you opposed to two loving, consenting adults establishing a committed relationship and having that relationship treated fairly and equally (the way you would want YOUR relationships treated)? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you….”

[Reply]

d says:

atill….i dont have to like gays, no matter how you spin it webjockey

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

No one says you *have* to like any particular group.
Decent society, however, says you have to be mature about tolerating difference. Those who are different from you are not “more” than you nor “less” than you — they’re just…different.

But so is someone with a different hair color, or eye color, or [gasp!] skin color, and you don’t say “I don’t have to like [blondes], [green-eyed people], [insert ethnicity here] people.”
(At least I presume that you don’t say such things.) So what’s up with you and other people’s sexuality?!

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Don’t bother Stuart, Waranger/Phill is now going to spam.

[Reply]

Warangel says:

The argument about gay rights is just another attack on the creation of god and his order of things. Simple as that. Being gay is a person choosing to live opposite from what god created them to be. Who would want to live as a pig when they’re obviously designed to live as a bird? Homosexuality is NOT a birth defect, fact is it’s a condition of 2 things. 1. the thought of being gay first (the bible “King James 1611″ says we “ALL” are controlled by THOUGHTS of good and evil). 2. Realize that in this world, there are spirits of good and evil. Now lets put it together to give you the answer for why we behave the way we do. Let’s breakdown the human body and name the makeup of the total human being. First the human body has to have the following in order to live. 1. flesh, 2. blood, 3. Able to breath in air and breath out air. 4. food STOP THERE! At this point, the human body doesn’t need anything else to live (vegetable state). Next in order for the human body to perform functions such as, walk, talk, run, jump to name a few, the human body will need a SOUL (which would come from god). The human soul consists of the mind, will and emotions Next, the human body will need a driver to operate these body functions and this is called a SPIRIT (which also came from god). Our natural spirit is unreliable, wandering in this or that direction, thirsting for some satisfaction that will last, but finding that “all is vanities”. So the direction and values of the soul are determined by the spirit within us which brings the question as to what spirit we as humans allow in us and we do have a choice as to what spirit we host inside of us will determind our behavior towards other. To sum it up, there are really evil spirits of every kind, including the popular homosexual spirit. A clean spirit from god will operate as god tells it to. God says homosexuality (gay and lesbian) is an abomination. We all know what the word ABOMINATION means right? Keep in mind an evil spirit cannot function without entering a fleshly living body specially a human one.
These are things straight people should tell gay people…the truth. The truth cannot be a lie and a lie cannot be the truth.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Phill Comeaux–please do cite the verse in the Bible where this dreaded “popular homosexual spirit” might be listed or named. There are EIGhT forms of marriage ordained by God in the Bible, are the other seven okay? And finally, WHY to you even care what I say? You have decided that women leaders are evil and a sign that “satan has entered the church”. Start with the 51% of the population that you hold in distain. It does not matter WHAT I respond to you, I, being a woman, will be wrong anyway. No more posts from you will be allow. Your input is not constructive to a dialogue of reconciliation or understanding.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

This is wrong in SO many ways…I can give a point-by-point rebuttal/elucidation if anyone would like me to, but I fear that it would be as effective as trying to educate a brick wall.
(“My mind is made up; don’t confuse me with facts.”)

[Reply]

Stuart says:

in response to various bits of Wendy’s missives…

“Oh dear, I’ve met people like you before who can’t analogize. Shall we make it more simple then?”

And I’ve met people like *you* who stoop to disingenuousness and condescension instead of rational argument. Do you, perhaps, need this point to be made more simple?
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“If gay marriage is okay – then so is adult consensual incest and adult consensual polygamy.”

This is an example of the logical fallacy of “Accident” (where “a generalization is applied when circumstances suggest that there should be an exception”). See this website for a very good treatment of many of the classic logical fallacies: http://onegoodmove.org/fallacy/toc.htm

1) Incestuous relationships are frowned upon in most societies. Not because they are inherently “unnatural”, but because of genetic reasons that should be obvious. Biologists have observed that there is a strong preference for exogamy in various animal species, because diversity of genetic information has shown itself to be quite successful overall.
If not for the genetic risks, there would not need to be an instilled aversion to incestuous sex.

2) Adult consensual polygamy has been practiced in various times and places. Society did not descend into chaos because of it.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“The line has to be drawn somewhere and that line is called “normal”.”

Ah, but “normal” is not an unalterable thing. To use a political analogy, it was once “normal” for American women to be forbidden to vote. This condition was eventually, and much too late, recognized as foolish and unacceptable; the 19th Amendment was the result. “Normal” got redefined to better reflect the complexities of modern social life.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Normal is what is needed to maintain society because without adherence to “normal” we get chaos.”

This is the fallacy of the Slippery Slope (“a series of increasingly unacceptable consequences is drawn”).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“I guess everything that happens on earth is “natural” because if it wasn’t “natural” then we wouldn’t be doing it and animals certainly wouldn’t be doing it….”

This much is true. A hydroelectric dam is just as natural as a beaver dam, because humans (and therefore their activities) are just as much a part of nature as are beavers (and their activities).
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“So raping must be “natural” as it occurs in ever[y] culture and yes, it even occurs among the animal kingdom….”

Unfortunately, it is indeed natural…but the crucial difference is that humans are able to realize that such behavior goes against the grain of a stable, peaceful society — as do various other crimes — and can take steps to curb it.
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“As long as it is consensual and natural – then [incest] must be “okay”.

Humans do find it okay, at least when manipulating animal and plant breeds. See above about possible different attitudes about it in humans, if genetic risk is avoided via contraception. (NOTE: by this I am not advocating the relaxation of the general human-incest taboo. I just want to broaden your thinking a bit.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Every single time any of you call me, or people like me, who have an opinion that differs than yours – we are labeled hateful and stupid, etc…”

Not every single time, no. For instance, I’m not labeling you hateful, just intolerant. I’m not labeling you stupid — which means truly uneducable — because I believe that you can (as can most people) be educated. This is not a personal attack, of which you have accused some of us; it’s just an observation that your data set is incomplete, and that you have the power to expand it.
You could start by addressing certain conflicting statements you have made here, such as “I don’t hate gay people, I don’t fight gay people, I don’t make fun of gay people…” vs. “Your next argument stating that gay sex is not a perversion is also wrong.”
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“I also disagree with your statement that people cannot change their orientation. There are some people who cannot change their orientation and there are others who can.”

Then let those who can (and wish to), do so — but also let those who cannot, pursue their own natures with the consenting adults of their choice* — just as YOU feel you have a right, and societal approval, to do.

*incest possibly excluded
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“Marriage is a sacred (not in a religious sense) union between a man and woman – no matter how society defines marriage, the only true marriages are between men and women.”

Ah, but how many men, and how many women? Remember Jacob, for instance, with his wives Leah and Rachel? Are you willing to be a “co-wife” with some man and woman?
What about Islamic marriage, with its allowance of up to four wives per man?
What about the tradition-sanctioned practice of buying a bride (in exchange for money, livestock, etc.)? (Never mind, of course, that SHE might not want to participate in the arrangement.)

Why do you say that one-man-one-woman marriages are the only true kind? By whose criteria? (Support your claim, in other words.)
– – – – – – – – – – – – – –

“To me, being offensive means that you intentionally are trying to hurt someone’s feelings through aggression, insult, abuse, verbal attack and verbal assault. If I have the personal opinion that gay sex is unnatural – and I state that opinion – then I’m not being offensive to anyone.”

Perhaps not by intent — but remember the concept of “sins of omission” in contrast to “sins of commission”. You could easily give *unintended* offense by thoughtless action, even if you think that you are being accepting/tolerant/virtuous. Go get a (figurative) mirror and do some more self-examination.

[Reply]

Warangel Reply:

That was in the old testament. We live in the NEW TESTAMENT! One man, one woman equals one marriage in the eyes of god!

The word of god tells us to lean not unto OUR own UNDERSTANDING (of this world system of things) but god’s word. For god’s word is holy and just. God is NOT the AUTHOR OF CONFUSION.

[Reply]

Im Gay and a bishop Reply:

All forms of sexual action is incest my son. How do you expect the world to be what it is without adam and eves children populating our world. We are all gods children.

[Reply]

RikG says:

For the Christians keep saying,” I will pray for you”. Fine, so be it. But, if you pray for me, be prepared for me to pray for you, that your eyes and hearts and souls be open. You Christans think you have all the answers, and that your path is the only one that matters.Sigh, sad really. Do you not understand, that when Christ was at his last supper, and supper was ended, he (Jesus) took the cup, again he gave thanks, and said,”this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant, it will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.” Guess it means nothing. So, aside from some stories, what good is the old testament? Jesus’s law was to love thy brother, not spew hatred. And, Jesus himself never said anything that is recorded in the bible in regards to homosexuality. Now, if I understand correctly, all the others were “Prophets”, not the “Son of God”. In my mind, Jesus’s words are the only ones that matter. Oh, and since they were not written by the man himself, how can you say he truly said those things. And, how many of you can translate the original writings from Aramaic, Greek, or Latin? It has been over 2000 years since a lot of those stories were written. What, you don’t thing that stories were “Mistranslated”, or twisted to fit the moral ideology of the time. I know King James had some work done to rewrite the bible to fit his beliefs, therefore, was not an “original” author of the original stories. I don’t hate christians, in fact, many of my good friends are christian. I just do not care for the lifestyles the live! Maybe when the tides have changed, and the churches actually start accepting LGBT people, then, maybe will I come back to the church. Until then, I will gladly dance and sing, and worship whom I chose, for they have accepted me for who I am.

[Reply]

KATHY BALDOCK says:

MY COMMENTS IN ()

I have to disagree with your opinions. And they are just that – opinions (just like mine are). Just because someone feels attracted to members of the same sex doesn’t mean they have to act upon it.
(Sexual orientation is a normal variation of human sexuality, just like heterosexuality)
Just like an adult who is attracted to animals or prepubescent children doesn’t have to act on it. This is what the gay “lifestyle” denotes – that someone is attracted to the same sex AND they are acting on that through sex and/or relationships. ( Lifestyle is a VERY badly used term — gay people haves LIVES not lifestyles) So, there is no variation in a heterosexual or homosexual “lifestyle” – either you are actively participating in it or you are not. Of course, this is not “reducing” your whole person to a “sex act” – it’s more of like stating that someone is either “male” or “female”. I am a female and that doesn’t “define” me, just like someone else can be participating in the “heterosexual lifestyle” and that doesn’t define them as a whole person either…but either the moniker applies or it doesn’t. As far as gay sex not being natural, the par
ts don’t fit… your argument against that also doesn’t appear to be valid. (Honey, the parts DO fit, read the post) Humans can have orgasms with animals, but that’s not natural. It is obvious from biology/procreation that men were naturally meant to have sex with women and that anything else would be unnatural even if they can have orgasms in other ways. Your next argument stating that gay sex is not a perversion is also wrong. You write that a perversion is something that is “unnatural or abnormal” – and you state in your first paragraph that homosexual sex “although it is not the norm, it is not abnormal”. Isn’t “not the norm” the very definition of “ABNORMAL”? ( No, not the norm means not the average on a bell curve.) I also disagree with your statement that people cannot change their orientation. There are some people who cannot change their orientation and there are others who can. Sexual orientation can be fluid among a lot of people depending on their personal circumstances. Science also validates this.(No, even Exodus, the number one “reparative therapy Christian org. in the world admits, after 35 years in the biz, 99.9% never change, Read the links.) As for marriage, the US doesn’t have a consensus
on whether gay marriage is a civil right yet.(58% approval of Same sex marriage as a civil right IS consensus and DOMA WILL be stricken) Personally, I believe that no matter what the government says and no matter what laws are passed, marriage can never truly exist for gays. (Marriage is a civil right in the US Constitution, Loving v VA and Zablocki v Redhail) Marriage is a sacred (not in a religious sense) union between a man and woman – no matter how society defines marriage, the only true marriages are between men and women. As far as the bible being against homosexuality – I don’t believe in the “bible”, it is a self-conflicting book that was written by man – and the bible’s words can be altered to fit one’s agenda. I don’t see any purpose in bringing the bible into the “mix” when it comes to accepting homosexuality on the terms you would like us to accept it in. I’ve known gay and transgendered people myself. And the ones I’ve known have been really nice and are normal everyday people living their normal everyday lives. I don’t respect them for their choices; but I do respect them as human beings. What I don’t have to agree with is the
ir choice to live a gay “lifestyle”. I don’t have to pretend that it’s “normal” to live a gay “lifestyle”. I don’t have to support same-sex marriage laws. I don’t have to believe that it’s “good” for society as a whole to support the gay lifestyle. I don’t have to believe it’s “good” for the family unit to support the gay lifestyle. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t fight gay people, I don’t make fun of gay people, I don’t encourage others to to alienate gay people…. I think your blog article is very biased and slanted and unrealistic ( I would assume that I have far greater wisdom and experience in this arena than do you, so it is pretty realistic, you might want to learn from my insights?) – especially since your arguments fall apart once they are analyzed (by you). I think your blog comes across as insulting and offensive to others who believe like me. I think you might want to reexamine the word “offensive”. To me, being offensive means that you intentionally are trying to hurt someone’s feelings through aggression, insult, abuse, verbal attack and verbal assault.(I am not intenting to OFFEND– just giving my insights which clearly you do not agree with and that is okay) If I have the personal opinion that gay sex is unnatural – and
I state that opinion – then I’m not being offensive to anyone. You may disagree with me, but that doesn’t mean I’m being offensive.(agreed and your lack of education on the issue is a deterrant to equal rights for other humans and THAT IS offensive.) Just because you disagree with someone’s opinion doesn’t make that other person “offensive”. That’s the problem with being politically correct – the definition of offensive has been obliterated by the PC movement.

(THANK YOU FOR THE EXCHANGE, I hope this satisfies you. I will not be answering any more of your posts. I guard my time carefully.)

[Reply]

Wendy says:

I have to disagree with your opinions. And they are just that – opinions (just like mine are). Just because someone feels attracted to members of the same sex doesn’t mean they have to act upon it. Just like an adult who is attracted to animals or prepubescent children doesn’t have to act on it. This is what the gay “lifestyle” denotes – that someone is attracted to the same sex AND they are acting on that (through sex and/or relationships). So, there is no variation in a heterosexual or homosexual “lifestyle” – either you are actively participating in it or you are not. Of course, this is not “reducing” your whole person to a “sex act” – it’s more of like stating that someone is either “male” or “female”. I am a female and that doesn’t “define” me, just like someone else can be participating in the “heterosexual lifestyle” and that doesn’t define them as a whole person either…but either the moniker applies or it doesn’t. As far as gay sex not being natural, the parts don’t fit… your argument against that also doesn’t appear to be valid. Humans can have orgasms with animals, but that’s not natural. It is obvious from biology/procreation that men were naturally meant to have sex with women and that anything else would be unnatural (even if they can have orgasms in other ways). Your next argument stating that gay sex is not a perversion is also wrong. You write that a perversion is something that is “unnatural or abnormal” – and you state in your first paragraph that homosexual sex “although it is not the norm, it is not abnormal”. Isn’t “not the norm” the very definition of “ABNORMAL”? I also disagree with your statement that people cannot change their orientation. There are some people who cannot change their orientation and there are others who can. Sexual orientation can be fluid among a lot of people depending on their personal circumstances. Science also validates this. As for marriage, the US doesn’t have a consensus on whether gay marriage is a civil right yet. Personally, I believe that no matter what the government says and no matter what laws are passed, marriage can never truly exist for gays. Marriage is a sacred (not in a religious sense) union between a man and woman – no matter how society defines marriage, the only true marriages are between men and women. As far as the bible being against homosexuality – I don’t believe in the “bible”, it is a self-conflicting book that was written by man – and the bible’s words can be altered to fit one’s agenda. I don’t see any purpose in bringing the bible into the “mix” when it comes to accepting homosexuality on the terms you would like us to accept it in. I’ve known gay and transgendered people myself. And the ones I’ve known have been really nice and are normal everyday people living their normal everyday lives. I don’t respect them for their choices; but I do respect them as human beings. What I don’t have to agree with is their choice to live a gay “lifestyle”. I don’t have to pretend that it’s “normal” to live a gay “lifestyle”. I don’t have to support same-sex marriage laws. I don’t have to believe that it’s “good” for society as a whole to support the gay lifestyle. I don’t have to believe it’s “good” for the family unit to support the gay lifestyle. I don’t hate gay people, I don’t fight gay people, I don’t make fun of gay people, I don’t encourage others to to alienate gay people…. I think your blog article is very biased and slanted and unrealistic – especially since your arguments fall apart once they are analyzed. I think your blog comes across as insulting and offensive to others who believe like me. I think you might want to reexamine the word “offensive”. To me, being offensive means that you intentionally are trying to hurt someone’s feelings through aggression, insult, abuse, verbal attack and verbal assault. If I have the personal opinion that gay sex is unnatural – and I state that opinion – then I’m not being offensive to anyone. You may disagree with me, but that doesn’t mean I’m being offensive. Just because you disagree with someone’s opinion doesn’t make that other person “offensive”. That’s the problem with being politically correct – the definition of offensive has been obliterated by the PC movement.

[Reply]

KATHY BALDOCK Reply:

“Wendy” I tried to email you back and your email is not a valid one. It concerns me when people do not use a true identity to communicate. I will not answer any more comments. Integrity is a currency in which I deal.

[Reply]

Darr Sandberg Reply:

Wendy

What an arrogant, vicious and depraved post.

“Just because someone feels attracted to members of the same sex doesn’t mean they have to act upon it. ”

And just because someone feels attracted to the opposite sex doesn’t mean they have to act upon it either. But the fact that people can survive without sex does not give you the right to malign and slander millions of people.

“. Just like an adult who is attracted to animals or prepubescent children doesn’t have to act on it. ”

Let’s start with some facts – most pedophiles and zoophiles self-identify as heterosexual, so your comparison of homosexuality to raping children and animals, works even more strongly against heterosexuals.

More importantly though, it proves to everyone one else that you have absolutely no moral foundation whatsoever.

See, pedophilia and bestiality are intrinsically acts of rape, and yet you compare consensual intimacy between two people of the same gender to rape. That shows all of us that you either do not understand consent, or worse, consider it irrelevant. And it shows that you do not understand the concept of harm.

What you have actually taught us here is that you, Wendy, cannot ever, ever, be trusted alone with any other living thing – for you cannot distinguish between rape and consent.

” This is what the gay “lifestyle” denotes”

No, it does not, but then, you’ve already proven yourself to be completely without moral compass, so of course, you lie.

“As far as gay sex not being natural, the parts don’t fit… ”

Again, you’ve already proven yourself to be a liar, and now you lie about something millions of people know from direct experience to be false. The parts fit, Wendy. Your lies do not change reality. Homosexuality occurs in nature, in thousands of species. It is natural. But the computer you used to slander us is not natural. Neither is written language.

“Humans can have orgasms with animals, but that’s not natural. ”

Are you posting from personal experience, or just demonstrating again your inability to recognize consent?

“There are some people who cannot change their orientation and there are others who can. ”

No, Wendy, there are no people who can change their sexual orientation. You are more than just confused, you are asserting lies about the lives of millions of people.

“Marriage is a sacred (not in a religious sense) union between a man and woman ”

Your sick fantasy betrays a completely irrational mindset. Sacred is a religious concept, to begin with. And frankly, since you do not understand consent and harm, and are vicious enough to equate the loving relationships of same-sex couples to raping animals and children – you clearly do not understand the concept of marriage or sacred either.

” To me, being offensive means that you intentionally are trying to hurt someone’s feelings through aggression, insult, abuse, verbal attack and verbal assault.”

And that is exactly what you have done here. Your post is vicious, depraved, and endangers the lives of millions of humans beings for the sole, sadistic purpose of exalting your evil ego at the expense of human beings.

[Reply]

Desponyd Reply:

Darr Sandberg, you said all of what I found wrong with ‘wendy’ and then some. Such a person has no business, ever, expressing such inherently hateful views. Wendy, you are not a Christian. Jesus said, “Judge not, lest ye also be judged.” You have proven yourself far from his Grace with the slanderous opinions you expressed here.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

Wendy, I did inform me that you would be banned and you write with a different fake email from the same IP– honey, you are banned. I am not interested in sparring with you.

[Reply]

Richie says:

Why would God make you gay and hate you for it? Don’t we all agree on an all-loving, forgiving, merciful God? Isn’t God perfect? Since when did God make mistakes? God NEVER makes a mistake.

Besides, what makes you homophobes think that you know God’s plan for OUR lives? You don’t. You also cannot speak on God’s behalf, you simply do not have the authority. Besides, you should butt out of OUR lives and take care of yours, just like how we don’t try to control every aspect of YOUR lives. I will deal with myself and I don’t want your “help”.

[Reply]

briank says:

This is an excellent summary. I’ve been looking for this kind of thinking! Very well done website. Far too often Christians appear as angels of death to homosexuals. As a straight Christian “coming out” as a full gay rights pacifist, I say it is time to change that image.

[Reply]

Michael Faber says:

The articles’ report that the GLBT community is having a revival of sorts gives me hope. Of course the Holy Spirit can change lives in this community, and individuals can be saved and enjoy the new life that Jesus has to offer. That is separate from the question of whether the act of homosexual sex is a sin. The Bible is clear on this. However, it is also clear that God hates divorce, yet, many divorced people can be and are Christian. Jesus says having impure thoughts and lust is a sin. Something I am guilty of, yet still claim to be a Christian. We all sin. We seek forgiveness, we get up, we walk with God, we fall, we confess, we get up, etc. There is no requirement to be a heterosexual to receive the forgiveness and grace of God, through faith in Jesus Christ. I agree that you cannot change your orientation. You can control how you act on that orientation. Just because you are gay, doesn’t mean you HAVE to have gay sex. The same is true of heterosexuals. This is a thorny issue, especially now that it has taken on Civil Rights aspects. You may have a right to do something, but that doesn’t make it right. I think it would be great if churches stopped fixating on homosexuals in their diatribes and give them about as much attention as they give to the issue of divorce and remarriage.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

@Michael Faber

“…the question of whether the act of homosexual sex is a sin. The Bible is clear on this.”
—-It is clear, as I have said, that *certain kinds* of homosexual sex were declared sinful. Not all kinds; not even most kinds.
Also, so what if *your* holy book disapproves? There are other books, with other viewpoints — and NONE of them should be used as components of civil law!

“Just because you are gay, doesn’t mean you HAVE to have gay sex. The same is true of heterosexuals. … You may have a right to do something, but that doesn’t make it right.”
—-Translation: “I am one of those who finds the thought of gay sex icky, so I’ll be most comfortable if you eliminate that behavior and I don’t have to think about it. This is regardless of the fact that humans are very strongly sexual beings, so much so that to deny or repress our sexual nature is the true perversion.”

Now, speaking of rights: what other civil rights would you say that people have, but that it’s inherently still not right to exercise them? Can you defend such a notion (with logic, not simply with emotion)?

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

I could only hope that I will one day see the kind of revival in the non-gay community. NO, I DO NOT believe being homosexual or having committed, monogamous, long term homosexual relationship is sin. The Bible is clear on this, to me. You are using your experience and relationships this far in life along with YOUR interpretation of a translation to arrive at YOUR conclusion. I have arrived elsewhere.
I wish churches would appropriately focus on this issue with serious scholarship and relationship and resolve the mess, which in them they will. And in the meantime, lives and families, more and more of them , will be destroyed.
I would challenge you to go visit my dear friends at Freedom in Christ Evangelical Church on Ellis and Franklin at 4:30 on Sundays. Lay your golden calf at the door and see what the Holy Spirit says to you. I would encourage you to dig a bit deeper and experience compassion as you enter relationship with your gay and transgender Christian brothers and sisters. You may be surprised as I was 7 years ago. Be brave and confront your own bias, you could actually be very wrong on this. The Bible is NOT clear.

[Reply]

SimonSays says:

@Colin Simpson: I do recommend that if you’re going to be patronizing about people’s approach to biblical scholarship and act as if your examination of the Bible is so much more detailed and knowledgeable (“When I hear people trying to debate and be scholarly, I think it’s nice and I like the effort”), you should at least make sure your writing is devoid of typos and grammatical errors. It kind of undermines your implied claims to superiority in the close reading of a text when you can’t even be bothered to make sure your own writing is carefully presented.

[Reply]

Bob A-B says:

Re: the parts don’t fit. While it might seem to play into those who refuse to hear the truth, there is a way to see how well and beautifully the parts DO fit. Watch some gay porn. I know. Bad advice. But, 2 males REALLY fit well together!

[Reply]

Rita Ann Serpa~Leid says:

I have read most of this article; enough to say ‘KUDOS’ to YOU Kathy. I am simply amazed @ your insight into this crucial part of our world’s population! I will direct others to this article.

To the Bible quoting Christians: I have just one question, it is a question I ask EVERY person, who insists on quoting Biblical rhetoric to me; most especially on this subject: do YOU LIVE the Bible, and God’s edicts, in your personal lives, DAILY? Think, before you answer this, because, you MUST take EVERYTHING into account!

Shopping on Sundays; lying; cheating; the wife being submissive to her husband; children being raised by the rod; reading your Bible, daily; treating your body as a temple; giving @ least 10%;
helping the less fortunate, with your money, deeds, etc; get it now? Because, you see, if YOU do NOT live exclusively by those rules, then, how can YOU spout out certain ones for the rest of us to live by? That’s NOT REALLY FAIR, is it? I am happily a heterosexual woman; but, I am a proud cousin to one of the sweetest, most loving and compassionate women, I have ever met; and an aunt to one very loving and caring young man; both of these are homosexuals. If I had to choose with whom to spend any time with, I would pick either of them, over some ‘mighty fine Christians’ that I have had the displeasure of sharing a pew with!
With much love and many blessings, to one and all here; and may you, that need it, be granted God’s wisdom & compassionate hearts!

[Reply]

Floyd Miller says:

One of the dumbest is “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”. I used to laugh at its cleverness, but upon further reflection, maybe a Steve would not have fallen for the snake’s deception.

[Reply]

alice, battle creek says:

Kathy, I thank you from the bottom of my heart. This is a peace-giving truthful… well, ‘healing’ piece of work. I am one of your readers who is very grateful, and I admire your understanding and your giving of it.
Sincerely!

[Reply]

Chris says:

The only issue I have with this piece is the part about the APA, and understanding it requires some thought to the DSM and its role in psychiatry. The DSM is a billing tool. Psychiatrists use it to code their billing. Seriously. Practitioners were getting patients in the 50’s who were having some pretty serious issues with being gay, and they required, well, a therapist to talk to. There’s nothing inherently judgmental in that. The decision to include ‘gayness’ in the DSM was an avenue for psychiatrists to take these patients. It doesn’t have to be any more sinister than that.

[Reply]

Tim A says:

May I suggest you continue reading Romans. Romans 2:1 “Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.”

Taking a look at the cultural and historical background the Bible was written in, one cannot justify condemnation of homosexuality et al.

[Reply]

A. Loewen says:

Interesting essay. Humanistic, Christian only as it applies the name to it, but I have two theology degrees and to say the Bible does not condemn same-sex unions is sheer ignorance or willful blindness.

You wrote, “I know from experience that a verse battle DOES NOT WORK.” You’re right because if you know the cultural and historical background in which the Bible was written, you can’t justify your arguments.

What you need to say in order to retain any intellectual integrity is something along these lines:

“Yes, the Old and New Testaments condemn homosexual activity, but the Bible no longer carries any weight with me at all. I am reinventing my own type of Christianity, creating my own church with rules that make me comfortable, and I willingly accept the consequences.”

THAT I can respect even though I disagree with it.

Now admittedly at that point I would encourage you to join the Unitarian/Universalist Church because they already have said the same thing and there’s really no sense in reinventing the wheel.

Good luck with it all and remember that if someday you discover Romans 1:32 wasn’t written in a vacuum, take responsibility for your actions and comments.

[Reply]

Stuart says:

“No matter what someone’s own interpretation of it is, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it was said to be shameful.”

Said by some, yes. Said by some others, no. “One Size Fits All” … doesn’t fit.
————-

“I believe God does have a plan for [infertile couples], but does NOT justify homosexuality because of one couple’s infertility.”

You weren’t being asked to justify homosexuality based on this, but you were being asked if “non-procreatability” were, by itself, a valid reason to condemn homosexuality. Do you think that it is? If so, please support your notion.
————-

“I saw the whole ‘lifestyle’ thing, but I ignored it.”

Ignoring a difficulty does not make it go away.
————-

“I do not think people are born homosexual.”

Then you haven’t talked, in depth, with homosexuals. They’ll tell you that they *discovered* their orientation; they didn’t *choose* it. (Besides, why would anyone choose a sexual mode, in an enduring way, that could get them ostracized, denigrated, outlawed, judged insane, beaten, tortured, or murdered?!)
————-

“Yes, training a child to not lie about stealing a gummy bear is different than homosexuality, but you understand the principle I’m trying to present.”

The principle you’re trying to present (IMHO) is one that you were taught, at a young and uncritical age, to believe: that homosexuality is icky. This principle was passed down by various others who thought it icky, and made sure that their followers and children thought so too. I was taught the same thing — but I got over it as I matured and developed my critical-thinking faculties. I learned, rather than just dogmatically clinging to someone else’s under-informed ideology.

Have you seen this statement by Galileo?
“I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by them.”
————-

“I also believe that God would not let the bible be written against his will, but with his grace. That’s part of my faith for me.”

God evidently let King James order the modification of bits and pieces of the Bible to suit himself. Many other editors and translators (such as Martin Luther, and others) have left their personal marks on the Bible too. Were all of these changes to the original sense of God’s Word done in accordance with God’s will and grace?

[Reply]

Dave says:

What if gay christians offered to send pastors to the gcn conference?

http://www.gaychristian.net/conference/

[Reply]

Janet C says:

I knew my son was MAYBE gay early on in his life, so when he finally “came out” it made no difference to me. I love him as he is and proud he is not living a lie. Also, as you said he does not have a “gay lifestyle”. He and his partner enjoy their own activities that include most things I would do, and I am hetrosexual.

[Reply]

Jessie says:

I was in a ten year on and off relationship with the father of my two beautiful kids. In those years when ever i went to pray I felt convicted of my sin, because living unmarried with a man you are not prepared to marry for whatever reason is a sin. I dont know how people can be Christians when they are not dying to themselves. If Christ has called you then he has called you away from yourself and away from the things that tempt you. We all have our weak spots. No one weak spot is greater than the other, we all have to deny ourselves things we desire. Its not easy. When I finaly over come one thorn God shows me another and he begins to deal with it, and he expects me to let him, not to explain my sin away and justify it. He cant work with that.
As a mother i have to give my kids rules and boundries. They not only need them they want them. God has done the same for us; certain things that are bad for us, whether we understand them or like them or not is irrelevant. (because my kids sure dont understand or like some of my rules) but they are there for our protection and safty.
The world has a belief that it is okay, even good, to do whatever feels good. Christians are not guided by that belief and if Christians are promoting it i am going to be bold enough to say they are following a different Jesus. We are to take the narrow road. I say this with love, I am still learning to deny myself certain things every day but i am not giving into them and I am not fighting them alone.

[Reply]

Bob says:

I stopped believing in God when I realized all the things I would have to give up to be accepted into “Heaven” after I died. Then, I realized that life is much more important than what happens after, to me, because I’m living it right now.

So, I gave up religion because I think it’s all make-believe and stupid. If it turns out I’m wrong, who cares? But don’t think you are superior – you believe in a man who lives on clouds who is able to have sex with his own mother in order to be born, then tell stories about himself, get killed by people who know he’s full of crap, only to come back as a Zombie and tell more stories. But don’t worry, you have millions and millions of other idiots who believe you.

Scientology makes more sense than Christianity, and it makes for a decent sci-fi movie.

[Reply]

Allan says:

I suspect the acronym DOMA doesn’t stand for ‘defense of marriage act’
It stands for, “DENIAL of marriage act.”

[Reply]

I will not deny that you have talent when writing, especially considering your obvious ability to sway readers in your direction of thinking. That being said, what you’re saying is simply not biblically based. I realize you used scripture… In a way. I find it funny that you have to acknowledge that you read scripture, because it certainly wasn’t integrated into your essay. And to the person that said “homosexuality” was a word invented in the 19th century”, so it’s condoned by the bible because scripture is somehow out-of-touch:

Romans 1:26-27: “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error.”
Notice that “homosexuality” is not used once, it’s about reading in context. It’s also not “grouping with other sins”. You ignored this, plain and simple.

Your mention of knowing many homosexuals is a gripping way of getting people to follow you. Sure, when you make it sound like gays and lesbians are simply looked on the wrong way when they are really beautiful people, you create a bandwagon for people to jump on where what we really start to ignore is the bible itself. It sure is harder to speak of the sinful nature of a homosexual person when looking straight into their eyes, but this is all about emotion, it should not decide your religion. And yes, they are great people, but Satan still has a purpose.

God said we had to go THROUGH the valley of death, not over it. Preaching to our friends and neighbors about issues that hit home is hard, but it’s the call we have. And no one said it would be easy.

As for the “Parts A and B” argument, I see where you come from. But at the end I see you desperately clinging to your own understanding, while never proving that it was right by the biblical standards.
Genesis 1:27-28 says “So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. And God blessed them. And God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”
Yes, God made our bodies so that sex among homosexuals would “feel good”, but procreation, and maintaining man-and-woman relationships in his image are his call for us.

I understand that when we disagree with other’s views on this, it’s easy to say that we’re not interpreting issues or that we’re reading out of context or that such-and-such phrase wasn’t created until such-and-such a time that clearly was way AFTER the bible’s initial creation. I think you’ll find that if you read the scriptures for what they are instead of trying to read through the lines that you yourself provide, it gets clearer to see the vision God has called us to share.

Don’t take me to say that I’m condemning homosexuals, I am not. Many of my peers are gay and bisexual and I would say hello and be friendly to them just as I would to everyone else, but just because they are nice people I am not to pretend that they are living by the light of God. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10: “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” Still not using the word “homosexual”.

Your obvious denial of deliverance from the sin is based, again, on the fact that many have been unsuccessful with their plight with perversion and idolatry. It can not be ignored as you have ignored it, because the bible says in 1 Corinthians 6:11: “And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God”. God tells us there is deliverance, and I firmly believe this to be true, as it is clearly laid out in scripture.

To the person that wondered someone-like-me’s view on divorce and interracial marriage in the bible if I am such a “religious bigot” in this area, here it is.
Divorce: “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, and marries another woman commits adultery.”
The bible tells us that a marriage should be sacred. Not fleeting, not transient.
Even though this is not a topic addressed in the essay, it speaks to the arguments one may have when reading my response to it.
Interracial marriage: God did condemn marriages/covenants among the members of other nations who worshiped idols and supported unholy lifestyles. He knew that if his people were to intermingle, they would begin to do the same things. The bible often reminds us of the importance of marrying those who can keep us on the right track with God.

The world around us is diverse, and it’s ever-changing. It causes us to move forward into the less-than-biblical, yet highly-supported lifestyles of those around us. But let us not forget the call God gave us, which is laid out very simply for you in scripture. I fear people become to accepting, and forget that even great people deal with sin. I have heard many stories of the deliverance that can occur when we turn to God and lay our lives down for him, and many have been delivered from perversion. It’s also important to remember that the bible is not out of touch with today, God is all-knowing, fully aware that the world would be changing and evolving at a rapid pace, but certainly not always for the best. Put faith in God, not your own understanding. And remember, I’m teaching redemption, not condemnation.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker Reply:

I am not sure you REALLY read this or at least you went into this wanting NOT to understand. I specifically linked the VERSES I use and am not ignorant or them, at all. On the verses alone, I have written about 50K words. I know from experience that a verse battle DOES NOT WORK.
Phrases like “Your obvious denial of deliverance from the sin” intrigue me. What did I write that caused you to assume that? At the ROOT, I DO NOT believe sexual orientation, any, is sinful.
We do not agree, and that is very okay. I was not affirming AT ALL a decade ago either.
Thank you for reading and thank you for your comments.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

(reply to Colin Simpson)
You said, when discussing interracial marriage, “He knew that if his people were to intermingle, they would begin to do the same things. The bible often reminds us of the importance of marrying those who can keep us on the right track with God.”

So, by this, you are saying that loving and marrying someone of the “wrong” color will put one off the “right track with God”? The mildest response I can put is: nonsense! Since when does one’s color affect one’s ability to have a proper relationship with God?
——————–

And:
“But let us not forget the call God gave us, which is laid out very simply for you in scripture.”

Unfortunately for your way of thinking, the way things are laid out in scripture is NOT the complete story; there were additional implications based in the culture of that ancient time and place.
What Biblical scholars wish more people knew about the Levitical prohibition of male-male sex (interesting that female-female sex was not addressed, no?) is: that the Jews were being admonished to not practice male-male sex … in the manner of male temple prostitutes belonging to rival tribes and religions! That more complete statement, with its (possibility of) conveying sufficient understanding, is what you were (apparently) unknowingly addressing when you wrote: “He knew that if his people were to intermingle, they would begin to do the same things.”
——————–

And:
“Yes, God made our bodies so that sex among homosexuals would “feel good”, but procreation, and maintaining man-and-woman relationships in his image are his call for us.”

So, heterosexual but infertile people should not conduct sexual relations, because they can’t procreate? That’s a logical (but not defensible) extension of your statement.
Further, regarding procreation–I recall a bumper sticker, written about 1 billion people ago: “Six billion ‘little miracles’ is ENOUGH!”
——————–

As a Christian friend has mentioned to me: when he was involved with his church leadership, and some policy dispute arose concerning their interactions with various people (non-white, non-heterosexual, non-whatever), he would remind them with a simple but profound question: “What is the *loving* thing to do?” He says that it helped a lot.

Do think about it, sir.

[Reply]

Colin Simpson Reply:

I did not mean God condemned marriage of different races. You left out the part about idol-worship, which was the key part of what I was trying to say. God shows the importance of having a covenant with someone of the same faith as you, so when he condemned marriage with other nations it was for that reason.

I understand that “homosexuality may mean something else entirely”. But the scripture laid out is absent of that word entirely. I won’t pretend to understand the temple prostitute argument that Christians are divided on agreeing with, but the simple fact stands that the key scriptures we use to determine about our opinions on such matters does not always contain this word. “Men committed shameful acts with other men”, now I don’t know about you, but that scripture doesn’t really leave me much room for imagination of what those two men could have been doing.

I know the argument about about infertile couples is popular, but I don’t see it any different as when someone important to you dies. It’s hard to imagine it being a part of the almighty God’s plan. Those are always instances that I refer to Jeremiah 29:11, because it reassures us that God DOES have a plan. Which I would also add to your “six million little miracles” statement, because we’ve all seen a catchy bumper sticker. But I wholeheartedly disagree with it.

Love the sinner, hate the sin. That’s my view on your last question. I don’t want to sound heartless and I know that’s how I’m being made out to be, but I don’t think that just because you are nice to a person you have to support their lifestyle. My answer is simple: I’m just as nice to a gay person as I am to anyone, because I’m not full of hatred towards them as it’s made out to sound, but consider their sexual orientation that which only comes from sin.

[Reply]

Stuart Reply:

Colin Simpson:
“I did not mean God condemned marriage of different races. You left out the part about idol-worship, which was the key part of what I was trying to say.”

Sorry if I misinterpreted; what you wrote was not entirely clear about your feelings on interracial couples. Not associating with people from cultures of which one disapproves is understandable (though perhaps a bit too broad-brush an approach); not associating with people *just* because they wear a different color is not. (I do hope that you did not mean that the latter (racist) position was OK!)
————

“I understand that ‘homosexuality may mean something else entirely’. But the scripture laid out is absent of that word entirely.”

Scripture refers to that condition, and those acts, whose *modern* name is “homosexuality”. Don’t think that because the earlier English translations predated the existence of the word, that its *meaning* was not present, or not intended.
————

“I won’t pretend to understand the temple prostitute argument that Christians are divided on agreeing with”

Why won’t you even pretend to understand it? It’s not incomprehensible, just not well known.
————

“‘Men committed shameful acts with other men’, now I don’t know about you, but that scripture doesn’t really leave me much room for imagination of what those two men could have been doing.”

The meaning is easy to get, but keep in mind that the term “shameful acts” can cover a LOT of ground! Whether an act is shameful largely depends upon whom you ask.
(This reminds me of the joke: “Why don’t [members of uptight religious denominations] have sex standing up? —It might lead to dancing!”)
————

“I know the argument about about infertile couples is popular, but I don’t see it any different as when someone important to you dies. It’s hard to imagine it being a part of the almighty God’s plan.”

Do you truly mean to say that a reasonable interpretation of God’s plan is: that infertile couples should abstain from sexual relations, *just* because they can’t procreate?!
————

“I don’t think that just because you are nice to a person you have to support their lifestyle.”

As noted above: it’s not a lifestyle. Homosexuals cannot help what happened to them in the womb, when the usual “wiring plan” with respect to sexual orientation did not go as usual. It’s not fundamentally different from being born with genes for shortness, for musical aptitude, etc. (This means: homosexuality is, therefore, NOT A SIN — any more than is being born blind, or with a liking for broccoli, or….)

The ancient people of the Middle East (and elsewhere) had tough living conditions. The life expectancy, even in adulthood, was rather low compared to that of modern, developed nations; and childhood mortality was high. It was therefore important for people to bear largish numbers of children, in order that enough might survive to continue the local tribe. This importance led to the condemnation of sexual practices that could not result in offspring — remember the story of Onan? He wasn’t just disapproved of, for refusing a certain procreational attempt; God killed him!

Likewise, other sexual practices — such as male-male sex — that could not yield offspring were greatly disapproved of. Nowadays, when we have far too many people (in some parts of the world), the need for lots of offspring is not nearly so great. So the despisers of non-procreational sex need to give up such antiquated notions. MUCH more easily said than done, of course! :-(
————

“My answer is simple: I’m just as nice to a gay person as I am to anyone, because I’m not full of hatred towards them as it’s made out to sound, but consider their sexual orientation that which only comes from sin.”

Your answer is not merely simple, it’s simplistic — and too much so. See above, about what sexual things “need” to be considered sinful. Also remember that the definition of sin varies with the god(s) involved. Just because a god has a large following, doesn’t mean that everyone must go along with her/his/its wishes.

Colin Simpson Reply:

God condemned interracial marriages when the people worshiped other Gods because he didn’t want his people to do the same. My point in saying this was that God had no problem, as well as I, with interracial marriage outside of this. But some would like to say that I’m a hypocrite because God condemned all interracial marriage and so I don’t follow the bible or something.

I understand the concept, I just don’t agree. What about “Sodom”? It’s literally meaning is all sin revolving around sex, and it has gone without translation/change in meaning. “Temple prostitute”, as the word is said to mean, could be a valid argument. But the bible DOES talk about prostitution as a separate entity.

No matter what someone’s own interpretation of it is, it doesn’t take away from the fact that it was said to be shameful.

I absolutely do not mean that couples who are infertile should not have sex. God gave sex, I believe, to a man and a woman, to do however they want. It does not have to be only for procreation. I said that even if they can not procreate, I believe God does have a plan for them, but does NOT justify homosexuality because of one couple’s infertility.

I saw the whole “lifestyle” thing, but I ignored it. I’m aware it was there. I do not think people are born homosexual. And if they were… Some people are born with tendencies towards violence, does that make it okay for them to go out and murder someone? This is no different than a child who in their first couple years, disobeys their parents. They are not naturally gravitated towards being obedient, but are trained to over time. Yes, training a child to not lie about stealing a gummy bear is different than homosexuality, but you understand the principle I’m trying to present. I see a very unsound argument in saying that male-male sex etc. is okay now because we now have a big enough population. I understand your argument about why homosexuality was condemned because it needed to be used only for procreation, but I also believe that God would not let the bible be written against his will, but with his grace. That’s part of my faith for me. When I hear people trying to debate and be scholarly, I think it’s nice and I like the effort. However, when I see it I can not help but think of 1 Corinthians 3:19, and then James 3:15. I view it all as just trying to make the bible accommodate the your beliefs, instead of the other way around.

I understand that many people have different views than me on homosexuality, and especially so with the differing of or the absence of a religion. However, I am not going to read the scripture I believe to be written with God’s grace, and then turn around and condone homosexuality. That is simply not moral to me. I’m not going to go out and break up a gay couple or protest a wedding, but I thought it necessary to put my thoughts in on this essay.

Desponyd Reply:

Colin Simpson, I find it cute that you insist that a book that, at it’s most recent, was penned two thousand years ago has anything whatsoever of relevancy to offer our culture. Sure, the ideals are nice, but the social mores offered therein are of no more relevance to our present culture than the gladitorial pits from the Roman empire would be. The poetry is beautiful, the message is beautiful, but the way that it is interpreted in today’s world begets hatred and grief. Jesus would be ashamed to call you His follower.

[Reply]

Bindy says:

The Episcopal Church welcomes you.

[Reply]

Nanette M says:

I think there are a lot more things that people need to quit thinking, saying and believing about gay individuals. But this was a great article to read and I really appreciated how you have backed everything up with fact.

[Reply]

Wow, like everyone else said, this is really well-written. It’s definitely giving me a lot to think about.

[Reply]

Alex says:

I’m guessing that most of the time you hear things like that, they’re coming from men. It really seems to be a sort of unconscious way of saying that they’d really hate it if gay men treated them the same way as they treat women, in terms of unwanted advances and attention.

[Reply]

Lea says:

While I don’t support the LGBT “cure clinics” or programs in the least, I think it’s important to remember that sexuality is fluid. The Kinsey scale can be helpful, but where someone falls on the spectrum isn’t always set in stone. People discover new things about themselves all the time, and a change in preference can happen in many people’s lives more often than you might think.
That being said, I enjoyed reading the points you have made here. Very well thought out, and something that needs to be said!

[Reply]

Aaron Saltzer Reply:

I agree. People’s sexuality may change naturally.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Why look at something we can see or prove right now. Easiest thing is to look at what you CAN see–the lives of glbt Christians. Clearly God is putting His Spirit in them. If God has no issue with it–what would make it illegitimate? Medical associations have deemed homosexual as a normal variation. For me, the question is NOT the one you should be asking with the info we have right now.

[Reply]

Michael says:

A statement I hear all the time is, “I have no problem with someone being Gay, just as long as they don’t try to impose there Homosexuality on me.” There are several variations to this as well.

Do these folks actually think there are LGBT people out there on a covert mission to “score” with Heterosexuals? That’s just silly.

Also, with a red face and bowed head, I must admit that I, too, used your examples in the distant past. I have also been guilty of saying all Blacks have rhythm and all Jews are greedy. I am so very, VERY glad I grew up!!

Thanks for a good reminder and a “booster shot” of common sense!!

[Reply]

Jane Meredith says:

Thank you for your further insight/information on how the Bible verses regarding same sex activity are couched. It was always enough for me to just go to Jesus’ two commandments:
“Love the Lord Thy God… and love thy neighbor as thyself,” said in answer to an argument about whose rules to follow. That says to me that these two laws incorporate all that is important in previous and future lists of laws and standards of behavior. I knew that the Old Testament verses occurred along with such things as how to treat one’s slaves and such bizarre (to us) directions as not wearing together two different kinds of cloth (and stoning those who do). That pretty much discounts a literal application of part of those verses and not the rest. But it is very helpful to have the further analysis that ALL of these references mention the sexual behavior in the context of violent and abusive behavior. That identifies the WRONG in question as ABUSE AND VIOLATION, not loving and consentual human behavior.

[Reply]

Steven B says:

One of your best essays ever Kathy!

[Reply]

Roberto Q. says:

I wonder, what if sexual orientation is not innate. Does that make homosexuality “illegitimate” in any way?

[Reply]

shelley Laysi says:

Great educational and informative in plain and simple real language that all should be able to comprehend. I have family and a couple of really close lifetime friends who are GLBT and I too have used the word gay when speaking in general terms not knowing. I don’t know that I would have much need to use it with or around them directly because we have been friends for over 25 yrs. So our conversation is naturally automatic. However, during my work as a manager etc. having to address certain policies during employment orientations or other situations in the work place, it has been mentioned and there is no one that has mentioned some of the things here. I am now able to incorporate the knowledge learned here into my professional and personal vocabulary as needed. I am glad I stumbled upon your blog, it would be so very wonderful if this is shared beyond all boarders so that smart and respectful terminology becomes common knowledge for all, how cool that would be. Thanks a million for sharing the knowledge.

[Reply]

Tom Weller says:

One of the discussions I had in my first book was the difference between “life style” and “style of life”. We all have life styles. Makes no difference what “sociological marker” we place on them. What is in contrast to life style however is “style of life”. And as members of humankind, with all our bias and defense of our own selves, we feast on the contrasts of the “style of life”. “Well you are bad because you do this; you are good because you live this way and not that way”. Bottom line is to judge another is just not our job as humans or Christians. The “S” word is a factor in style of life, and therefore easy for us to “judge”. Be it our own insecurities about the word/act , or the mental pictures it conjures up, it is still the easiest of the style of life issues to address. And for little c christians it is just soooooo easy to grab good ole number 7 out of our bag of tricks and blast away at someone different than ourselves. I don’t see differences; I see uniqueness! My first exposure to same gender relationships came about in 1968, so I’ve been at this awhile. Just as I am drawn to members of the opposite gender, several folks with whom I went to school were drawn to members of the same gender. And we are still friends today!

Thanks Kathy for your article; one which I feel should be required reading by all.

[Reply]

Dawn Witter says:

Awesome resource! Wonderfully written. Thank you so much! Sharing with everyone!

[Reply]

Jeff says:

Great essay. What you say is equally applicable to Jews and traditional Jewish myths, stereotypes and discrimination against LGBT people. Thank you.

[Reply]

Patrick Lynch says:

Wow …. as an evangelical christian for almost 30 years who only came out as gay 8 years ago, I was blown away by your article. It was one of the best written articles on the subject I have read.

After all those years in church, prayer, counselling etc I could never change who I was. I ultimately came to the point where I saw taking my life as possibly the only escape. Thankfully that didn’t happen but it was at that point and by abandoning the church after 30 years and meeting others who could accept me for who I am, that I finally found the hope to live my life.

Thanks again, Patrick

[Reply]

Jesse says:

Thanks so much for this article, Kathy. It was well worth the wait. I think that the overarching theme that I’ve noticed in talking to people who are not affirming of the LGBT community is the focus on sex, but also I sense a lot of fear that the minority (LGBT) is taking control of the majority (Evangelical Christianity). It’s difficult to explain to people that loving us LGBT people is not a competition over who has the “right” answers or who can shout the loudest, it’s about LOVING other people with unconditional agape love. I know that the biggest reason that many churches are unwilling to change is not because of theology, but because they are afraid that if they start becoming inclusive, they are going to start losing members. Two Sundays ago, the priest at the Episcopal Church I attend, said that maybe it was a good thing that TEC is losing members because they are standing up for what they know is the right thing to do–loving others as themselves. Isn’t that what we are supposed to be doing?

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Use the argument–simple and confounding. I was thinking about it while hiking last week and it seemed so REASONABLE.

[Reply]

Kathy | Canyonwalker says:

Having been “raised” in the faith in the Evangelical Church– I said and believed them all and interact with these comments weekly. These are STRONG beliefs. Sadly. And–GOOD FOR YOU—I should have met you a decade ago!

[Reply]

Heather M. says:

I am a progressive Christian, and I never said, or even thought ANY of these things. Christ’s actual values are not what is being touted as “Christian” these days

[Reply]

Bex says:

I’m an atheist. Organised religion is silly to me, but you have got the rest of your head screwed on pretty tight. Youve given me hope for Christians :3

Also great arguments against the bible verse quoters. I never know what to say to them. :)

[Reply]