Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I have two rather long documents that I've mentioned to the moderators
    that I can enter on this topic.
    
    The first is a sermon by a Rabbi in California. The second is over
    1000 lines of exegesis on the scriptures relating to homosexuality.
    The second should probably be extracted and printed rather than
    being read in place.
    
    Bonnie

    
    This text was sent to me, but I no longer have the original author.
    I do have permission to enter it in other files.
    
    BJ
    ______________________________________________________________________
    
    The following is a sermon presented to the congregation of Beth Chayim
    Chadasim in Los Angeles by their Rabbi, Janet Marder after about a year
    with the congregation. 
    
    Although she's straight, married, and has two little girls (boy did the
    fundies go crazy when they saw her, her husband, also a Rabbi, and
    girls in a float in the Gay-Freedom parade in 1985!), Janet has been a
    god-send for BCC with her tireless committment to teaching and
    contributions to the congregation.  She recently accepted a position as
    head of some city-wide Jewish relief agency in L.A. and BCC is
    frantically trying to find a replacement.  I will miss her and her
    sermons.  They should be compiled into a book. 

    /MeV/    

    
    	Congregation Beth Chayim Chadashim
    	Sermon of 7-Sep-1984

    	� by Rabbi Janet Marder
    

        If any of you are native New Yorkers, or if you've spent any
        time with a native New Yorker, you know that you can take them
        out of New York, but you can't take New York out of them.  New
        Yorkers are afflicted with a peculiar lifelong delusion that
        would be funny if it weren't so pathetic: they are convinced
        that New your is superior to any other spot on the planet --
        especially L.A.  It's for this reason that I approached our
        family's vacation in New York with trepidation.  My husband,
        Shelly, is a native New Yorker.  Four years in Los Angeles had
        started to wean him away from his fanatical New York
        chauvinism.  But I was afraid to take him back to the Big
        Apple, afraid that the whole ugly love affair would start all
        over again, that once again I'd have to listen to endless
        sneering comparisons of New York's bagels and L.A.'s bagels,
        New York nightlife and L.A. nightlife, New York bookstores and
        L.A. bookstores, New York museums and L.A. museums, New York
        drinking water and L.A. drinking water, but especially the New
        York _Times_ and the L.A. _Times_.

        Well, as it turned out, seeing New York in the flesh only
        reminded Shelly why we'd left.  But did rekindle his love
        affair with the New York _Times_, and as been buying it every
        day since we got back.  And I must say, it has been
        instructive to compare the two newspapers.  For example, the
        New York _Times_ completely ignored one of the L.A.  _Times'_
        major stories of this week: Michael Jackson's press
        conference.  Do you why he called a press conference?  The
        _Times_ called an unprecedented effort by a celebrity to
        publicly proclaim his heterosexuality.  It seems that Michael
        Jackson has been upset by stories in the tabloid press
        asserting that he's gay, particularly upset because he sees
        himself as a model for young people.  He explained in his
        statement to the press that he's a practicing Jehovah's
        Witness, and therefore forbidden to engage in either
        homosexual acts or premarital sex.  The _Times_ also reported
        what it called a "poignant plea" by Jackson's mother, who said
        "They...say Michael is gay.  Michael isn't gay.  It's against
        his religion.  It's against God.  The Bible speaks against
        it."  [L.A. _Times_, 6-Sep-1984]

        Ordinarily, I don't give a lot of attention to what Michael
        Jackson or his mother have to say.  But statement deserves
        some close attention.  Listen to it again.  Says his mother:
        "Michael isn't gay.  It's against his religion.  It's against
        God.  The Bible speaks against it." Jehovah's Witnesses, of
        course, are free to believe anything they like.  But Mrs.
        Jackson's statements provoke me to ask a few simple questions:
        Is homosexuality against _our_ religion?  Is it against God?
        Does the Bible speak against it? 

        I want to point out, first of all, that this is the first time
        I have directly addressed these questions in a sermon --
        although I have discussed them informally with some of you.  I
        have waited for two reasons.  The first is that I wanted time
        to learn about you, and from you, before I was ready to take
        questions of such sensitivity and crucial importance.  The
        second reason I have waited was to _show you_, indirectly,
        what I believe about the Jewish legitimacy of this
        congregation.  By devoting myself during my first year
        seriously to teaching Judaism, I wanted to demonstrate to you
        my conviction that this a full and authentically Jewish
        congregation.  My actions, I thought, would convey the most
        powerful message about my beliefs.

        But it is time now for me to explain my beliefs, my
        understanding of how this congregation fits into Jewish
        tradition and the Jewish people.  For one thing, I have been
        traveling all over the city bringing this message to other
        synagogues and Jewish organizations.  It's about time you
        heard it, too.

        Let's take up, first, the question that is both simplest and
        most painful.  Does the Bible speak against homosexuality?
        Many month ago I received an anonymous letter, a very angry
        letter, from someone who had been listening to me speak and
        had concluded that I was presenting a biased version of the
        Jewish attitude towards homosexuality.  The writer of the
        letter wanted to know why I had ignored positive depictions of
        homosexuality in the Bible, such as the stories of Ruth and
        Naomi or David and Jonathan, why I was giving such a negative
        picture.  I am sorry that the writer chose to remain anonymous
        so that we would never have a conversation about this.  So my
        answer will have to be public.
        
        There are people who believe that the Bible does have some
        good things to say about homosexual relationships.  I am not
        one of them.  My study of the Bible leads me to only one
        conclusion: whenever the Bible explicitly takes up the subject
        of homosexual acts, it denounces them clearly and unequiv-
        ocally.  The Bible does approve of loving relationships, which
        is the way I view the relationships between Ruth and Naomi and
        David and Jonathan [Rabbi Marder has since revised her view to
        include the possibility that these relationships were more
        than just loving--MeV].
        
        But of course there is now way of knowing for sure anything
        about the sex lives of Biblical characters.  And in fact it
        doesn't matter.  What does matter is that Jewish law --
        Biblical, Talmudic, medieval, and modern -- has always been
        absolutely clear in its denunciation of homosexuality.  And
        this conclusion -- that Jewish law rejects homosexuality -- is
        held by every reputable Jewish scholar today regardless of
        their personal view of homosexuality.  If you're interested in
        articles summing up the Jewish legal position, I can refer you
        to several.  Let me simply cite one statement that is repre-
        sentative of many.  Wrote Azher Bar-Zev in the _Reconstruc-
        tionist Magazine_: "In essence, the Jewish position is that
        homosexual _behavior_ (as differentiated from fantasy or
        thought) is not licit behavior and is to be rejected by
        society as an abomination" ("Homosexuality and the Jewish
        Tradition", 1975)  Bar-Zev gives two reasons for this Jewish
        abhorrence of homosexuality.  He says that homosexuality was
        practiced by the ancient Egyptians and other pagan peoples;
        therefore Jews were to shun it.  And more importantly, he says,
        homosexuality violates the "'natural, biological order of
        things' as the Jewish tradition observed and interpreted this
        order."  That is to say, men and women were created to "cleave
        together and be one flesh."  As Rabbi David Feldman puts it,
        "Evolution is programmed for procreation, not for homosexual
        activity" ("The Limits of Sexuality," _Proceedings of the
        Rabbinical Assembly (1974) .36:38-42).  Or, as one letter
        writer in last week's Jewish Community Bulletin sums it up:
        "The Torah clear states that homosexuality is a violation of
        God's law.  To be an observant Jew is not to be a homosexual
        and to be a homosexual is not to be an observant Jew!  The two
        are contradictory."
        
        Why am I repeating these disturbing statements?  Because, in a
        sense, there is truth in them.  It is true that Jewish law
        rejects homosexuality, regards it as unnatural and a violation
        of God's law.  To pretend otherwise is self-deception.
        
        What, then, are we doing here?  How can this congregation
        exist?  Is it some kind of joke?  Or, worse, is it an
        organization of sinners who band together explicitly to
        violate God's law?
        
        Let me assure you at the outset that I do not intend to build
        my career on a joke, or on a foundation of sin.  Here is how I
        answer Michael Jackson's mother -- Orthodox opinions I've
        cited:

        Yes, the Bible speaks against homosexuality -- and so do the
        Talmud and later Jewish texts.
        
        But, no, homosexuality is not against our religion.
        
        And most important: No, God is not against homosexuality.  In
        other words, I accept the fact that Jewish law and Jewish
        tradition condemn homosexuality.  But I disagree.  I think the
        Bible and generations of rabbis who have viewed homosexuality
        as sinful are wrong.
        
        How can I say these things?  You should know that much of the
        time when I make assertions, orally or in print, I am accused
        of rationalizing unpleasant truths, or of doing violence to
        our sacred heritage.  I'll quote our letter writer in the
        Jewish Community Bulletin again.  She says that one cannot
        "sift through [God's] commandments and follow only those
        commandments that are comfortable for oneself."
        
        This sermon is not really about homosexuality.  It is about
        being a Reform Jew.  I want to convince you tonight that my
        acceptance of homosexuality as a Reform Jew is neither casual
        nor frivolous.  It does not come from laziness.  It does not
        come from a flippant disregard for Torah.  I don't reject the
        prohibition of homosexuality it is uncomfortable or
        inconvenient.
        
        I take Jewish texts seriously.  And I do believe that God gave
        Torah -- which means "teaching" -- to Israel.  What makes me a
        Reform Jew is this: I don't believe God gave "the Torah" to
        Israel.  That is, I don't believe God dictated the Five Books,
        word for word, to Moses.  I believe that human beings,
        reaching towards God, created the Torah.  Some of these human
        beings were spiritual geniuses who apprehended divinity.  And
        so divinity is reflected in the Torah.  But the Torah also
        reflects human fears, human flaws, human limitations.
        
        Now the big question facing any liberal Jew is this: who is to
        decide which parts of the Torah reflect divinity and deserve
        our love and reverent obedience, and which parts do not?  And
        the answer is: I decide.  And you decide.  It's a decision
        each one of us has to make for ourself.  What gives us the
        right to do that?  Well, here is the second thing that makes
        me a Reform Jew.  I believe that Torah -- Godly teaching --
        continues to be given in every generation.  It goes on today,
        when we observe the world, think about it, study, ask
        questions, talk with on another.  A person with a questing
        mind, a questing spirit, can receive Torah today.  In other
        words, as a Reform Jew I respect the operation of human
        intelligence.  I respect the human freedom to make moral
        choices.  And so, as a Reform Jew, the _final_ authority must
        always be the individual human conscience.  As a Reform Jew, I
        respect the right of all Jews to interpret the Torah according
        to the dictates of their own conscience, and to act in
        accordance with their beliefs.  Some people are lazy or
        Jewishly ignorant, and I may not think much of their choices.
        I may not think they have a true idea of Torah.  They may
        think the same about my idea of Torah.  As far as I'm concern-
        ed, the "best" Reform Jew is the one who makes thoughtful
        choices based on study and reflection.
        
        Here is what my study and reflection lead me to conclude about
        homosexuality and Judaism.  One of my teachers in this area
        has been Hermann Cohen, the great 19th century philosopher of
        Judaism.  Cohen believed that the essence of Judaism was its
        ethical teachings.  And he asserted that whenever a Jewish law
        conflicts with Jewish ethics it must be rejected.  He gives an
        example: the Talmudic teaching that one may violate the
        Sabbath in order to save the life of a Jew -- but not a
        Gentile.  Cohen says that this law contradicts Jewish ethical
        teaching about the unity of humankind, and is therefore
        unacceptable.
        
        This is how I view Jewish legal prohibition of homosexuality.
        It is not merely an "uncomfortable" or "inconvenient" law.  It
        is an unethical law, not consistent with the ethical values
        that are reiterated over and over again in our texts.  Ideas
        like: All men and women are made in the divine image, which
        entitles all to be treated with dignity.  God loves all
        created beings.  Jews are commanded to love and protect the
        stranger, the one who is vulnerable, the one who is different.
        To sin is to make a free choice to desecrate the image of God
        in ourselves or in others.  I believe that these ideas
        reflect divinity.  They are, as it were, God's word and God's
        law. But a law that says the homosexual is an abomination and
        deserves to die does not reflect divinity.  In fact, as far as
        I'm concerned, calling such a law the word of God is a kind of
        blasphemy -- a smear on God's name.  I can't believe that God
        speaks with the voice of Jerry Falwell.  Why not?  Well, in
        the end, my conscience tells me that -- and conscience, I
        believe, is the spark of God implanted within us.
        
        And so, if Michael Jackson or his mother were to ever ask me,
        I'd tell them that our religion, our essential and eternal
        religious values, are not against homosexuality.  Judaism
        stands for loving, respectful, and responsible human relation-
        ships -- wherever and between whomever they occur.  And yes,
        Michael, God loves you and thinks you're okay, even if you
        _are_ gay.

    This material was also entered originally in a different file
    and I received permission to repost it.
    
    __________________________________________________________
    
    
    
              -< HOMOSEXUALITY AND THE BIBLE - by Walter Barnett >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    	Most Christians are still uneasy about homosexuality.
    Even Gay Christians themselves often share this uneasiness,
    because we have all been brought up in the same Christian
    tradition.  There are many causes for the uneasiness; but the
    one cause which seems most important in the minds of all is
    the conviction that the Bible condemns homosexuality, in itself
    and in all its manifestations.
    
    	In recent years a slow change has begun to occur in Christian
    attitudes towards homosexuality and homosexual persons.  Some
    Christians, while maintaining the traditional attitude for
    themselves, have become prepared to admit that it is not necessary
    in secular society to punish homosexuals for behavior which
    is permissible to heterosexuals.  On this basis, most Christian
    churches have now made formal statements supporting the right
    of homosexual people to protection against discrimination.
    
    	Some Christians have gone further and acknowledge that
    the particular virulence with which some people have attacked
    and condemned homosexual acts and homosexual persons is totally
    unjustified, if a caring person weighs the relative importance
    given to homosexual behavior in the Bible, and especially if
    he or she respects the attitudes appropriate for a Christian
    when dealing with fellow human beings.  Some theologians and
    a number of Gay Christians, working from a growing understanding
    of the biblical texts, have come to the conclusion that the
    Bible does not exclude homosexual people from the Christian
    fellowship, within bounds analogous to those applied to
    heterosexuals.

    	The Bible does mention homosexual behavior in extremely
    negative terms in a handful of widely scattered verses, but
    modern research has turned up considerable evidence casting
    doubt on the traditional interpretation of these passages
    -- an interpretation that had borne tragic consequences for
    homosexuals throughout almost the whole of Christian history.
    The purpose here is to examine this evidence, together with
    some of the light science has shed on the subject of psychosexual
    development, in the hope that it will lead to a more informed
    appraisal.
    
    	The critical fact generally unknown to or overlooked by
    heterosexuals is that homosexuality is something quite distinct
    from homosexual behavior and even from homosexual desires or
    lust.  Homosexuality is an emotional and affectional orientation
    towards people of the same sex.  It may or may not involve
    sexual acts, though of course it usually does.  On the other
    hand, homosexual acts can be and are performed by BOTH homosexuals
    AND heterosexuals, and homosexual desire or lust is probably
    experienced occasionally by most heterosexuals.  (The most
    common instances of extensive homosexual behavior by heterosexuals
    occur in those situations such as prisons where heterosexual
    partners are unavailable.)  This is why those who possess this
    same-sex emotional orientation abjure the term homosexual and
    call themselves by their own slang word Gay.  The word homosexual
    for them overemphasizes the specifically sexual element in
    their feelings.  Because it was coined by the scientific community
    to label them, it also carries overtones of clinical pathology
    which they reject.  Since 1974 the American Psychiatric
    Association and American Psychological Association have both
    officially disavowed this implication of the label, but the
    Gay community continues to reject the word.  So even in general
    usage "Gay" is replacing "homosexual" just as "black" or
    "Afro-American" has replaced "Negro."
    
    	Most people grow up to want and seek an intimate and loving
    relationship with a person of the opposite sex.  Gay people
    on the other hand are those who have discovered that they want
    and seek such a relationship with a person of the same sex.
    Why and how this variant occurs is not now and probably never
    will be the subject of any pat explanation because it is the
    consequence of a wide range of factors, some of which are
    environmental and some possibly hereditary or physical.  What
    is important, though, from the point of view of sin is that
    most Gay people have no conscious recollection of ever having
    chosen this orientation any more than the ordinary heterosexual
    ever consciously chose to want the opposite sex.  It is simply
    a given in their emotional make-up, an integral part of the
    personality.  And they sense that nothing on earth will ever
    change this, just as the ordinary heterosexual cannot imagine
    changing into a homosexual.
    
    	Some people are truly bisexual; they find both sexes equally
    interesting and attractive.  These however are few and far
    between.  The orientation of the great majority is fixed and
    definite, towards either the opposite sex or their own.  This
    is not to deny that many people engage in some experimentation
    on both sides of the fence before they know for sure which
    side is home, but it is a mistake to conclude from this fact
    that all people are basically bisexual.  It is equally a mistake
    to conclude that all people are basically heterosexual and
    a few are lured away into homosexuality by seduction.  The
    truth rather seems to be that human sexuality is initially
    free-floating and unattached, that an emotional interest in
    one sex or the other develops very early in life, and that
    this interest then comes increasingly to the fore as puberty
    and adolescence bring on explicitly sexual fantasies and behavior.
    
    	The reason therefore why Gay people seek out others of their
    own sex and engage in sexual behavior with them is not that
    they are incapable of bridling their lusts or are perversely
    determined to disobey God but simply because the option open
    to the rest of humankind -- a heterosexual relationship and
    specifically marriage to a partner of the opposite sex -- is
    not open to them.  Legally of course it is open, but emotionally
    not.  It would for them be living a lie -- a sin against their
    partner as will as themselves.  Such a relationship does not
    perform for them the function it is meant to perform -- to
    satisfy, to recreate, to replenish.  Unlike the heterosexual
    they feel completed only by a person of the same sex.
    
    	This is not to say that Gay people are incapable of
    heterosexual behavior.  Many can perform heterosexual coitus
    just as many heterosexual people are capable of engaging in
    homosexual acts.  But if given the choice they will prefer
    a partner of the same sex, not out of mere perversity but because
    it is only a partner of the same sex who satisfies them
    emotionally.
    
    	Now in order for anything to be a sin there must be a
    possibility of a moral choice.  Where there is no choice there
    can be no sin.  So if one's sexual orientation is not a matter
    of choice, it cannot be a sin to be a homosexual.  True, it
    may be admitted, but one does have the choice of committing
    or not committing homosexual acts.  This boils down to saying
    that whether or not homosexuality -- the orientation -- is
    a sin, homosexual behavior invariably is.
    
	The cruelty of this position is that it leaves only one
    option open to Gay people who take their relationship to God
    seriously -- the option of total and complete lifelong celibacy.
    Because as already noted the option open to the rest of the
    world -- heterosexual marriage -- is immoral and unethical,
    yes SINFUL, for a Gay person.  But the Church would never dream
    of imposing such a burden on heterosexuals.  Even the Roman
    Catholic Church which requires celibacy of its priests has
    always admitted this to be a special calling for those select
    few to whom God has given the ability to accept it; it is not
    for everyone.  Heterosexual Christians should beware of doing
    like the Pharisees of old, laying on the backs of other people
    a yoke they themselves would find impossible to bear.
    
    	Actually the Bible appears to unequivocally to condemn
    only three things: (1) homosexual rape; (2) the ritual homosexual
    prostitution that was part of the Canaanite fertility cult
    and at one time apparently taken over into Jewish practice
    as well; and (3) homosexual lust and behavior on the part of
    heterosexuals.  On the subject of homosexuality as an orientation,
    and on consensual behavior by people who possess that orientation,
    it is wholly silent.  The orientation as such was apparently
    unknown to or at least unrecognized by the Biblical authors.
    If we may assume that the Biblical authors were themselves
    all heterosexual this would not be at all surprising.  For
    that matter it has only been since about 1890 that the science
    of psychology began to recognize homosexuality as a distinct
    entity.
    
    	In the first place homosexuality and homosexual behavior
    are never anywhere in the Bible mentioned either by Jesus
    Christ himself or by any of the Old Testament prophets.  If
    it really were a sin in God's sight surely he or they or both
    would have inveighed against it.  This fact should be of cardinal
    importance to the thinking of any person who purports to follow
    Jesus.
    
    	The story of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis 18 and 19 has
    traditionally in Christianity been thought to demonstrate God's
    condemnation of homosexual behavior.  All this because the
    Hebrew word meaning "to know" in Genesis 19:5 had been interpreted
    to mean "have sexual intercourse with."  "They [the townsmen
    of Sodom] called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you
    tonight?  Bring them out to us, that we may know them.;"
    
    	In the story God informs Abraham that these two cities
    will be destroyed because of their great wickedness, but the
    wickedness is never specified.  Abraham persuades God to spare
    the cities if even ten righteous men can be found in them.
    Two angels then come to Sodom to investigate and are given
    hospitality by Abraham's nephew Lot.  All the townsmen both
    young and old surround the house and demand to "know" the two
    strangers, but Lot refuses to surrender them up and offers
    instead his two virgin daughters.  When this offer is rejected,
    the angels pull Lot inside and shut the door, striking the
    townsmen blind so that they grope about in darkness.  The angels
    than urge Lot and his household to flee the city to escape
    its destruction.
    
    	Actually in the Bible this Hebrew word "to know" rarely
    means sexual intercourse.  Apart from this story and the
    counterpart tale in Judges 19, it has that meaning in only
    about fifteen instances out of more than 900, and in all those
    few instances it denotes HETEROSEXUAL coitus (as, for instance,
    in Genesis 19:8).  Some scholars believe that here, because
    of the circumstances, it has only its usual meaning of "become
    acquainted with."  Lot himself was a resident alien in Sodom,
    and for such a person to harbor two other foreigners within
    the city's gates could well rouse suspicion that they were
    spies looking for weaknesses in its defenses that a potential
    enemy could exploit.  The townsmen therefore had a perfectly
    justifiable excuse for demanding that the two strangers show
    themselves so that their identities and the purpose of their
    visit could be ascertained.  Lot's reaction however indicates
    at least that there was some serious mischief afoot, and his
    offering the townsmen intercourse with his two virgin daughters
    to keep them from doing anything to his guests does seem to
    support the notion that the mischief was specifically sexual.
    
    	Even if the sexual interpretation is correct, the sin of
    Sodom does not necessarily lie in homosexuality or homosexual
    behavior.  Rather, this wicked thing that Lot enjoins the townsmen
    not to do is rape pure and simple, and gang rape at that. 
    Rape is not a sin peculiar to homosexuality; it occurs far
    more often in a heterosexual context.  Its sinfulness lies
    not in the context, whether heterosexual or homosexual, but
    in the victimization of the nonconsenting partner.
    
    	In our reading today of this story we overlook a little
    known fact -- that in the entire ancient Near East hospitality
    to sojourners and travelers was not seen to be, as with us,
    merely a voluntary option but was rather a sacred religious
    duty.  See Leviticus 19:33-34; Matthew 25:35, 38 and 43.  Thus
    whatever the townsmen intended, any kind of mistreatment or
    indignity inflicted on Lot's guests would be a sin.  It would
    violate the sacred obligation of hospitality.  And indeed this
    latter is the sin or wrong Lot's own words indicate in verse
    8 -- "Don't do anything to these men, FOR YOU KNOW THEY HAVE
    COME UNDER THE SHELTER OF MY ROOF."  (Emphasis added.)  This
    interpretation is further buttressed by the fact that the story
    presents in such marked contrast to the behavior of the Sodomites
    the elaborate hospitality shown the angelic visitors by Abraham
    and Lot.
    
    	Finally it is worth noting for future reference that sexual
    intercourse between humans and angels -- two different orders
    of creation -- would in itself have been wrong in the eyes
    of Jews, who would remember that in Genesis 6:1-8 the disaster
    of the Great Flood comes hard on the heels of a charge that
    the "sons of God" (presumably angels) took to wife the daughters
    of men.
    
    	The idea that the Sodom story is not an indictment of
    homosexuality is no new-fangled interpretation.  Most later
    Jewish commentary on it both inside and outside the Bible does
    not make out the sin of these cities to be homosexuality or
    homosexual behavior.  According to Isaiah 1:9 and ff. and 3:9,
    it was a lack of social justice; according to Ezekiel 16:46-52
    it was disregard for the poor; and according to Jeremiah 23:14
    it was general immorality.  Though ancient Rabbinical literature
    -- the _Talmud_ and _Midrashim_ -- often refers to Sodom in
    connection with the sins of pride, arrogance and inhospitality,
    it contains only one mention of anything homosexual, namely
    a _midrash_ emphasizing rape and robbery of strangers.  ("The
    Sodomites made an agreement among themselves whenever a stranger
    visited them the should force him to sodomy and rob him of
    his money.")  It is primarily among Jews heavily influenced
    by Greek and Roman culture, namely Philo of Alexandria and
    Josephus, that we find the homosexual interpretation, and it
    is probably from Josephus that the interpretation eventually
    found its way into the Christian Church.

    	In the New Testament two passages -- 2 Peter 2:4-9 and
    Jude 6-7 -- refer to Sodom and Gomorrah as examples of God's
    judgement on the wicked in such terms as apparently adopt a
    sexual interpretation.  The former refers to the townsmen as
    licentious or "unprincipled in their lusts," and the latter
    says that they gave themselves to fornication and went after
    different flesh.  Neither passage contributes anything more
    than this on the subject.  But it is important to bear in mind
    that both authors may have been thinking not of homosexual
    intercourse but of intercourse between different orders of
    creation (humans and angels).  Both authors refer to God having
    likewise judged the angels who sinned, and Peter refers to
    the story of the Flood.  Consequently both were probably only
    reiterating the view found in some Jewish writings from the
    same general period, namely the Testament of Naphtali 2:4-5,
    and Book of Jubilees 7:20-22, 16:5-6, and 20:5-6.  The view
    found in these other writings is that the Sodomites were cursed
    for having changed the order of nature by running after angels
    just as the angels had been cursed at the flood for having
    gone a-whoring after the daughters of men.
    
    	Jesus himself mentions Sodom and Gomorrah but only to say
    that they will be judged less severely than the towns that
    rejected his disciples or refused to repent even after witnessing
    the works he performed (Matthew 10:14-15 and 11:20-24.  Luke
    10:10-12 and 17:28-29).  None of these passages tells us his
    interpretation of the Sodom story, though the fact that he
    linked the name of Sodom with refusal to welcome his disciples
    may give us a hint.  And the parallel to the Sodom story reported
    in Luke 9:51-56 in which James and John the sons of Zebedee
    beseech Jesus to call down from heaven destruction by fire
    on an inhospitable Samaritan town provides at least some
    confirmation that Jesus and his disciples held to the more
    prevalent view within Jewish tradition that the son depicted
    in the Sodom story was inhospitable treatment of travelers
    rather than homosexuality or homosexual behavior.
    
    
    	The story in Judges 19 of the outrage at Gibeah is very
    similar to that of Sodom and Gomorrah, and some scholars consider
    the one derived from the others.  Here again the Hebrew word
    "to know" is used (Judges 19:22), and the host's offer of two
    females as diversion implies that it is to be taken in a sexual
    sense.  In this story, however, the male guest pushes his
    concubine out the door, and the townsmen of Gibeah "know" and
    abuse her all night long, as a result of which she dies.  Yet
    this story goes on to say explicitly (Judges 20:4-5) that the
    townsmen's intention was to KILL the male guest.  So the mischief
    that was afoot here was not merely sexual, even homosexual
    rape; it was murder.  And it ended in a heterosexual gang-rape
    that took the woman's life.
    
    	Even if the original intent of both the townsmen of Sodom
    and those of Gibeah was homosexual rape, obviously both stories
    are about heterosexual males who indulge in it as a sport.
    Otherwise the offer in both stories of females as a diversionary
    sexual object makes no sense.  To extend such an offer to
    homosexual males would be pointless because it would hold no
    interest for them.
    
    	In Deuteronomy 23:17-18, in 1 Kings 14:24, 15:12 and 22:46
    and in 2 Kings 23:7 and in Job 36:14, there are references
    to a _kadesh_ (singular) or to _kedeshim_ (plural), which literally
    mean "holy man" and "holy men."  Some translations of the Bible
    render these terms by the English word sodomite(s).  The passage
    in Deuteronomy forbids Israelite men to become such, and likewise
    forbids an Israelite woman to become a _kedeshah_ -- the same
    word in the feminine gender.  Modern Bible scholars believe
    these terms refer to priests and priestesses of the Canaanite
    fertility cult, and evidence outside the Bible supports the
    inference that both types of cult functionaries engage in sexual
    intercourse with male worshipers as part of the ritual.  Indeed
    the Deuteronomy passage by poetic parallelism appears to equate
    _kedeshah_ with the Hebrew word of a female prostitute (_zonah_).
    The 38th chapter of Genesis and Hosea 4:12-14 also support
    this equation.  thus the better translation of _kadesh_/_kedeshim_
    would be "male cult prostitute(s)."

    	Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 enjoin the men of Israel not
    to "lie with a male as with a woman," for which the latter
    verse invokes the death penalty.  It is stated to be _to'ebah_.
    This Hebrew word, generally translated as 'abomination' in
    English, is used in the Old Testament to refer to idolatry
    and to practices associated with idolatry.  and indeed the
    whole context of these injunctions is a polemic against the
    Israelites imitating the defiling practices of the Canaanites
    whom they displaced in Palestine.  Thus again, the prohibition
    is probably directed against the practice of ritual homosexual
    prostitution as found in the Canaanite fertility cult.  In
    any event the intent cannot be to condemn all homosexuality
    and homosexual behavior because there is no prohibition whatever
    in Leviticus against women having sexual relations with other
    women.  This can hardly be explained as an oversight or on
    the basis that what women do is never of any consequence, because
    these chapters do contain explicit prohibitions against BOTH
    male AND female intercourse with an animal.  So if homosexual
    behavior is supposedly such an evil in god's sight, why does
    Leviticus forbid it only to males and not to females?
    
    	Apart from the association of MALE homosexual acts with
    Canaanite idolatry, the answer probably lies mainly in a concern
    for the "seed" of life rather than a concern about homosexuality
    -per se-.  The Hebrews like other ancient peoples had no accurate
    knowledge of conception.  They did not know that women produce
    eggs which the man's sperm fertilizes, but apparently thought
    that the seed came solely from the man; when "sowed" in a woman
    it would grow into a new being just as seed from plants will
    sprout and grow when sowed in the earth.  They likewise did
    not know that matings between different species are sterile.
    Thus men must not expend their seed in other males where it
    would be unproductive, or in animals where it might result
    in a "confusion" such as a centaur.  Women are forbidden to
    receive seed from an animal for the same reason, but because
    presumably they have no seed, what they do among themselves
    is inconsequential.
    
    	Also, in the patriarchal society of the ancient Hebrews,
    the status and dignity of the male was held to be inviolable,
    so much so that even the women of the house must be sacrificed
    to preserve it if need be, as in the Sodom and Gibeah stories.
     In the ancient Near East it was not uncommon for the victors
    in war to rape vanquished kings or warriors as a mark of utter
    subjection and contempt.  The Hebrews unlike the Greeks may
    thus have associated male homosexuality with disrespect and
    debasement of the male sex and viewed it as intolerable for
    that reason.  Moreover, any society that exalts the male sex
    over the female may tend to associate male homosexuality  with
    effeminacy.  It therefore becomes tabooed to keep the dominant
    sex from being assimilated to the status of women.
    
    	Even if these Levitical injunctions are to be read as an
    absolute prohibition against males engaging in homosexual behavior
    under any and all circumstances, it is worth asking why this
    should be deemed binding on Christians when so many other
    injunctions of the Pentateuch are not.  For instance these
    same chapters of Leviticus make punishable by banishment the
    sin of a man having intercourse with his wife during her menstrual
    period (Leviticus 18:19 and 20:18). Leviticus also forbids
    the wearing of cloth made of two different kinds of fibers,
    say for instance cotton and polyester! (Leviticus 19:19). 
    And what about Exodus 22:18, requiring that witches be put
    to death?
    
    	The only three remaining Biblical passages that conceivably
    touch on homosexual behavior are found in 1 Corinthians 6:9,
    1 Timothy 1:10 and Romans 1:18-32.
    
    	In 1 Corinthians 6:9 Paul asks his readers, "Do you not
    know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?"
     He then proceeds to list certain categories of people as examples
    of those who will not inherit the kingdom.  In this list two
    of the Greek words, namely _malakoi_ and _arsenokoitai_, have
    usually been rendered in English translation by a single term
    such as "homosexuals," "sodomites," "sexual perverts," or
    "homosexual perverts."  And in 1 Timothy 1:18-11 Paul says
    that the Law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless
    and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy
    and profane, and he then proceeds to list specific examples.
     In this list again appears the Greek word _arsenokoitai_.
     Actually in neither case to we know whom Paul meant by these
    terms, because he does not elaborate.
    
    	There was no Greek word corresponding to the English word
    "homosexuals," because as a rule ancient Greeks who practiced
    homosexual intercourse were at the same time married and therefore
    heterosexually involved as well.  Ancient Greek did have common
    words for such people who indulged in homosexual intercourse
    -- for instance, _paiderastes_, _pallakos_, _kinaidos_,
    _arrenomanes_ and _paidophthoros_.  If Paul had  really intended
    to refer to such people he would probably have used one of
    those terms, but he did not.  Instead he used two terms that
    are not plain references to such people.
    
    	The word _malakoi_ is the plural of _malakos_ which literally
    means "soft."  In the moral context _malakoi_ would therefore
    signify people who were "loose," "dissolute," "morally weak"
    or "lacking in self control," and this is the sense accorded
    this word in the King James Version and in J.B. Phillips's
    and Edgar J. Goodspeed's translations.  (The word "effeminate"
    in the King James Version did not mean to English-speaking
    people in 1600 what it means to us today.)  Some have claimed
    that there is support in ancient Greek literature for applying
    this term to the passive partner in sexual intercourse between
    males -- hence the Jerusalem Bible's translation 'catamites.'
    As already noted we have no way of knowing for sure which
    of these two possible meanings Paul intended, because he does
    not elaborate.
        What Paul meant by the term _arsenokoitai_ is even more
    difficult to ascertain.  It is a relatively rare and obscure
    word -- a compound of _koitai_ (literally, "those who engage
    in sexual intercourse") and _arseno_ (literally, 'male' or
    'masculine').  We do not know whether the prefix _arseno_ refers
    to the subject or the object of the intercourse.  If the subject,
    then the meaning is "males for sex," that is, male prostitutes.
    And this rendering ("male concubines") is the one given this
    word by the most scholarly ancient translator -- St. Jerome
    -- in his translation into Latin of the late 4th Century A.D.
    known as the Vulgate.  If on the other hand _arseno_ refers
    to the object of the intercourse, then the meaning is "those
    who have sexual intercourse with males."  Modern lexicons
    refer to some usages in ancient Greek that support the meaning
    "the active partner in anal intercourse."  Thus they conclude
    that Paul used _malakoi_ and _arsenokoitai_ to denote,
    respectively, the passive and active partners in homosexual
    anal intercourse (hence the Jerusalem Bible's rendering
    'catamites' and 'sodomites').  But if this be the case it is
    odd that the early Greek fathers of the Church such as St.
    John Chrysostom did not so interpret these terms.  They found
    no reference to homosexual behavior in this passage of 1
    Corinthians.

    	Whatever Paul meant by these terms they are in no event
    either so clear or so all-inclusive as to encompass the entire
    class of people we describe today by the English word "homosexual"
    or the slang word "Gay."  These two passages can therefore
    hardly supply a reliable basis for condemning all such people
    as sinners.
    
    	Paul does speak definitely about homosexual behavior in
    the first chapter of Romans.  But he is not primarily addressing
    himself to that subject but to the sin of idolatry and its
    consequences.  He states that because men exchanged the glory
    of the immortal God for idols they were delivered up by God
    in their lusts to unclean practices and disgraceful passions.
    "Their women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural,
    and the men gave up natural intercourse with women and burned
    with lust for one another.  Men did shameful things with men,
    and thus received in their own persons the penalty for their
    perversity.  They did not see fit to acknowledge God, so God
    delivered them up to their own depraved sense to do what is
    unseemly" (Romans 1:26-28).
    
    	In the case of the men, the plain meaning is a reference
    to heterosexuals giving up intercourse with the opposite sex
    and turning in perverseness to homosexual lust and behavior.
    The passage says nothing about people whose orientation is
    homosexual and who therefore are in no wise perverting their
    nature as they perceive it.  (In this connection it bears noting
    that most such people discover their orientation in childhood,
    before they know it has a name or that the adult world considers
    it to be a moral issue.  And many of these were then and still
    are deeply religious.  To hold that this passage in Romans
    was meant to include all such people is to give it a coverage
    that the thoughts, language and context will not bear.)
    
    	In the case of the women, this passage, which is the only
    one in the entire Bible that could conceivably refer to sexual
    relations between women, does not clearly bring homosexual
    intercourse within its purview.  The statement that "their
    women exchanged natural intercourse for unnatural" does not
    necessarily refer to homosexual intercourse.  It may just mean
    that the women exchanged coitus for heterosexual fellatio or
    anal intercourse.  We have no way of knowing what Paul considered
    to be 'natural' or 'unnatural' in the way of heterosexual
    behavior.  Only on the supposition that the statement about
    women was intended by Paul as a shorthand parallel to the more
    explicit statement about men is sexual intercourse between
    women included.  And even if it is included, the plain meaning
    if the passage is that the women exchanged one for the other
    (heterosexual for homosexual).  It therefore says nothing about
    lesbians -- those women who like the Greek poet Sappho see
    beauty and desirability only in other women and have always
    felt that way.
    
    	It is worth noting that the adjectives Paul uses when he
    is speaking specifically of these sexual consequences of idolatry
    are "unclean," degrading," "disgraceful," "shameful" and
    "unseemly."  It is only when he gets to the nonsexual consequences
    such as greed, envy, murder, deceit, gossip, slander, insolence,
    boastfulness and mercilessness that he uses the word "wickedness"
    and "evil."  Which is some indication that in his mind even
    the sexual perversion he is describing is more properly classified
    as a disorder than as a sin.  He likewise states that it is
    unnatural and dishonorable for a man to wear his hair long
    (1 Corinthians 11:14), but few today would conclude therefrom
    that men who wear their hair long are sinning.  Nor would Samson
    and other ancient Hebrew Nazirites.
    
    	Finally, even if we take it for granted that Paul considered
    homosexuality and homosexual behavior a sin, we cannot avoid
    asking whether this attitude of his is God's own or whether
    it may not be merely the result of the cultural conditioning
    of his time and place in history together with his own personal
    predilections and prejudices, like his attitude towards long
    hair on men.  This question is especially needed because when
    dealing with this subject it is easy to forget that there are
    other attitudes of Paul which many Christians today are convinced
    did not come from God.
    
    	Let us look at Paul's view of marriage first.  Although
    he consistently denied that anyone who chooses to marry is
    thereby sinning, he says that those who choose not to marry
    do better; that marriage brings troubles, which he would spare
    his readers; and that it diverts attention from the business
    of the Lord to the pleasing of the spouse (1 Corinthians 7:25-40.
    See also 1 Timothy 4:1-3, where the forbidding of marriage
    is called a demon-inspired doctrine.)  In this he admits (verse
    25) he has no command from Jesus, but he still asserts he thinks
    he has the Spirit of God in these counsels.  Though he says
    that sexual intercourse is the right and duty of both parties
    to a marriage (verses 3-5) he prefaces this with the remark
    that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" but because
    of the temptation to immorality each man should have his own
    wife and each woman her own husband (verses 1-2).  And he follows
    it in verses 8-9 with the counsel that the unmarried would
    do well to follow his own example in remaining single if they
    can do so without burning up with passion.  Even allowing for
    Paul's belief that the end of the world was imminent, these
    statements betray to the modern reader a real lack of appreciation
    of the enormous benefits and blessings of marriage.  Few
    Christians today would agree with Paul that marriage is merely
    or even primarily an antidote to the temptation to fornicate,
    is a bag of troubles, or is a hindrance rather than a help
    in serving the Lord.  And most would reverse his assertion
    about touching so that it would read instead, "It is good for
    a man to touch a woman and vice versa!"

    	Paul often seems to equate sin with obedience to the body's
    desires.  See Romans 6:12, 7:21-25, 8:13 and 13:14.  He expressly
    inveighs against fornication or otherwise refers to it as a
    sin no less than seven times in his letters (1 Corinthians
    6:9, 6:12-20; 1 Corinthians 10:8; 2 Corinthians 12:21; 1
    Thessalonians 4:2-8; Ephesians 5:3-5; Colossians 3:5-7; 1 Timothy
    1:10).
    
    	Jesus on the other hand had very little to say about sex.
    Matthew makes it appear that Jesus, like Paul, urged celibacy
    for those who could manage it.  In Matthew 19:1-12, in response
    to his disciples' comment that it is better not to marry if
    in God's sight marriage is indissoluble, Jesus is reported
    to have said that "not all men can receive this precept, but
    only those to whom it is given.  For there are eunuchs who
    have been made eunuchs by men, and there are eunuchs who have
    made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven.
    He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."  But
    neither of the other synoptic gospels mentions this saying,
    though both recount Jesus's teaching about divorce of which
    Matthew makes it a part.  See Mark 10:1-12 and Luke 16:18.
    And Paul, who is plainly aware of Jesus's teaching on divorce
    (see 1 Corinthians 7:10-11), seems unaware that Jesus ever
    urged celibacy on anybody.  See 1 Corinthians 7:25.
    
       	For Jesus the word "sin" does not appear to have had,
    as it seems to have for us today, a primarily sexual connotation.
    He himself was apparently accused of having been the product
    of fornication (see John 8:41), and he mentions fornication
    only once, including it along with adultery in a list or catalog
    of various sins to illustrate that what defiles a person are
    the things that proceed from the heart rather than those that
    enter the stomach (Matthew 15:19; Mark 7:21).  Apart from this
    catalog, he touches upon the sin of adultery in only three
    contexts, and in all three his primary concern is not with
    adultery itself but with something else that he must have felt
    was much more important.  In one -- the Episode of the woman
    caught in adultery -- he saves the "sinner" from being stoned
    to death by reminding her accusers that they, being sinners
    too, have no right to judge her (John 8:2-11).  In another
    his concern is with divorce.  He undermines the entire practice
    of divorce by, in effect, forbidding as adultery any remarriage
    of either party (Matthew 5:31-32 and 19:3-9; Mark 10:2-12;
    Luke 16:18).  In the third context his concern is with those
    who pride themselves on their own righteousness by pretending
    that sin lies solely in acts and behavior rather than in the
    attitudes of the heat.  He says in effect that the man who
    looks at another woman with heart full of lust is just as guilty
    of adultery as the one who goes to bed with her (Matthew 5:27-28).
    
    	Christians sometimes seem to think and act as if sexuality
    were not one of God's most glorious gifts to us but a snare
    and a trap.  They seldom stop to ask themselves how a good
    God could make us so sexual and sexual activity so pleasurable
    and then condemn us for enjoying it.
    
    	Another area in which Paul's attitudes and emphases are
    rejected by many Christians today is the status of women. 
    His assertions about women speak for themselves.  In 1 Corinthians
    11:3-15 he says that woman's head is her husband; that man
    is the image of God, whereas woman reflects the glory of man;
    and that man was not created for woman's sake, but woman for
    the sake of man.  Again elsewhere he adheres to the notion
    that marriage is a subordination of the woman to the man in
    all things rather than an equal partnership (Ephesians 5:22-33;
    Colossians 3:18-19; Titus 2:5).  Finally, in 1 Corinthians
    14:34-35, he says that women are to keep quiet in all the
    congregations, that they are not permitted to speak, and that
    it is shameful for a woman to speak in church.  This attitude
    is repeated in 1 Timothy 2:11-15:  "A woman must be a learner,
    listening quietly and with due submission.  I do not permit
    a woman to be a teacher, nor must woman domineer over man;
    she should be quiet.  For Adam was created first, and Eve
    afterward; and it was not Adam who was deceived; it was the
    woman who, yielding to deception, fell into sin.  Yet she will
    be saved through motherhood...."
    
    	Paul expresses no inkling of the enormous evil of human
    slavery.  Instead of urging Christian masters to free their
    slaves, he only counseled them to treat their slaves fairly
    and the slaves to obey willingly and not to seek their freedom
    (Colossians 3:22, 4:1; Ephesians 6:5-9; 1 Timothy 6:1-2; Titus
    2:9-10; and Philemon).  Yet there is perhaps no Christian alive
    today who does not believe human slavery to be absolutely and
    fundamentally opposed to the will of God at all times and in
    all places.
    
    	A last example is Paul's attitude to civil authority. 
    He tells Christians to submit to the authority of the state,
    for there is no authority except from God, and those that exist
    have been instituted by God.  So that whoever resists the
    authorities resists what God has appointed and will incur
    judgment.  For rulers are not a terror to good conduct but
    to bad (Romans 13:1-7).  See also Titus 3:1.  All this rings
    hollow to people who in the 20th Century saw Hitler and his
    Third Reich inflict the Holocaust on millions of hapless Jews,
    Gays, Gypsies and others and the Second Word War on countless
    millions more of innocent victims.  Jesus on the other hand
    was under no such illusions about the power of the state. 
    He realized that political power is in the Devil's keeping
    (Matthew 4:8-10; Luke 4:5-8).

    	To some people all analysis of the Biblical texts relative
    to homosexual behavior is pointless.  For them it is plain
    as day that God made people male and female, and for good reason.
    In the oldest account of creation -- the Yahwist -- the purpose
    is said to be companionship; God creates woman to be  be a helper
    fit for man (Genesis 2:18-25).  In the later Priestly account
    (Genesis 1:26-28), the purpose of reproduction is emphasized.
    In any event, so the argument goes, God intended each sex for
    the other; therefore, homosexuality is beyond the pale of God's
    plan for the creation and _ipso facto_ sinful.  This is a point
    of view that must be faced, but before doing so it is necessary
    at least to show that the Biblical passages that touch explicitly
    on homosexual behavior do not, except by special prejudicial
    interpretation, condemn either homosexuality or consensual
    sexual behavior between Gay people.
    
    	What then of the view that God made male and female for
    each other?  As someone crudely put it, if God had intended
    homosexuality to be normal we would have had Adam and Bruce
    instead of Adam and Eve.  This misses the whole point.  The
    point is not to deny that God had a plan in making people into
    males and females.  The point is that it does not follow from
    this that homosexuality is a sin.  God may very well have intended
    the male-female relationship to be the general plan without
    at the same time meaning to condemn as sin every variation
    from that plan found in nature.
    
    	Nature as it actually exists is full of variations from
    the apparent overall design.  Some people are midgets.  Some
    are albinos.  Some are sterile.  Some have peculiar allergies
    that the rest do not have.  Some are left-handed.  It used
    to be commonplace before the advent of modern science to attribute
    all such extraordinary conditions to sin, as in the gospel
    story of the man born blind (John 9:1-2).
    
    	In the sexual sphere itself one has only to read a scientific
    treatise like John Money's and Anke Ehrhardt's _Man and Woman,
    Boy and Girl_ to discover that there are quite a few people
    in this world who are neither male nor female but somewhere
    in between.  Yet surely these intersexes are not condemned
    to choose between celibacy and sin merely because they do not
    fit into the male-female dichotomy.  Some such anomalies occur
    because of unusual genetic combinations that arise in nature
    like an XXY or an XO sex chromosome rather than the usual XX
    (female) or X (male).  Others occur because of hormonal
    imbalances during the period of gestation.
    
    	Robert Stoller's _Sex and Gender_ depicts yet another
    variation in psychosexual development -- transsexualism.  The
    transsexual is a person who physically is a normal male or
    normal female but who through an unusual early childhood
    environment develops the self-image or identity of the opposite
    sex.  Once this gender identity becomes fixed, usually about
    the age language is acquired, it is well nigh irreversible.
    If these people are then compelled by society or by the medical
    profession's devotion to "natural law" to live as the sex their
    physical make-up dictates, they suffer untold and unending
    anguish.  Thank God human compassion is now leading many doctors
    to throw all their preconceived notions of what is natural
    to the winds and change the body to fit the mind!
    
    	The point is that homosexuality, like hermaphroditism and
    transsexualism, is and always will be a minority variation
    in sexual development, physical and emotional.  So far as we
    can ascertain, none of these variations is unique to our own
    culture or to our day and age; rather, they are universal.
    They occur not because of sin or the fallen condition of humanity
    but simply because nature is not uniform.  Moreover, sexual
    orientation like gender identity is a component of personality
    universally acquired in the process of growing up.  Once so
    acquired, it is extremely difficult if not impossible to alter,
    because nobody can go back and re-live that growing-up process
    differently.  What has occurred is similar to the phenomenon
    of "imprinting" that we observe in birds and animals.
    
    	So to assert that homosexuality is normal means only that
    it is a variation universally found in nature, like
    left-handedness.  Unfortunately many people confuse the word
    "normal" with the word "normative;" they interpret the assertion
    to mean that everybody should be Gay, that homosexuality is
    competing with heterosexuality for everyone's allegiance, which
    is nonsense.

    	The norms of conduct found in the Bible are addressed to
    the generality of humankind.  Its failure to address the specific
    situation and problems of many minorities does not mean that
    those minorities are excluded from God's kingdom unless and
    until they somehow conform.  This is obvious in the case of
    left-handedness or albinism.  Nobody pretends that these
    minorities are abhorred by God simply because they run counter
    to the general pattern and the Bible does not recognize their
    existence.  But what of the minority who are sexually sterile?
    They certainly disobey the commandment of Genesis 1:28 to
    be fruitful and multiply and there is plenty of evidence that
    in Biblical times this was taken as cause for reproach.  See,
    for example,  Luke 1:25.  Today, largely because science has
    taught us that sterility just happens and because in an
    over-populated world we no longer see much need for procreation,
    the judgement of Christians is more compassionate.  We do not
    consider sterility a sin nor do we condemn sterile people to
    a life of celibacy.  And the judgment should be the same in
    the case of homosexuals.  And perhaps would be, if homosexual
    behavior and desire were confined to the category "homosexuals."
    The fact that it is not so confined accounts for what little
    the Bible has to say on the subject and likewise muddies people's
    perceptions considerably, to the extent that many refuse even
    to admit there is such a category.  They see in every practitioner
    of homosexual acts only a willfully perverted heterosexual.
    
    	It would be far more in keeping with the spirit of Jesus
    to open our eyes to the diversity in the world around us and
    rejoice in it rather than decry it.  Surely God does not condemn
    any body merely for being different from the majority.  God
    takes each of us as we are and, in the framework of who and
    what we are, then calls each of us to renounce evil and live
    a life full of goodness and love.  And it is just as possible
    for a person to be Gay or transsexual or an intersex and to
    follow in this pathway of Jesus Christ as for the ordinary
    male or female heterosexual.  None is required to give up sex
    in order to qualify, though any one can choose voluntarily
    to do so.
    
    	The lack of specific Biblical norms addressed to the
    homosexual minority does not mean that Gay Christians, unlike
    heterosexual Christians, are free from all ethical constraints
    on their sexual behavior.  What those constraints are in view
    of the absence of the institution of marriage is a whole issue
    in itself.  The purpose here is only to reappraise the traditional
    view that homosexual genital acts are always and for all people
    everywhere a sin.
    
    	Some have argued that although Jesus was silent on the
    subject of homosexuality and homosexual behavior he nevertheless
    implicitly condemned it.  They point to his teaching that God
    from the Beginning made people male and female and for this
    reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined
    to his wife and the two shall become one flesh (Matthew 19:3-9;
    Mark 10:2-9).  This, they say, together with his disapproval
    of fornication and adultery, confines sex to the relationship
    between husband and wife thus outlawing homosexuality.  But
    this is building a very important case -- condemnation of
    homosexuality -- on a very slim reed.  In the one teaching
    all Jesus was doing was quoting the Genesis accounts of creation
    as proof texts for his assertion that marriage is indissoluble.
    And in both it and the others he is actually talking only
    about heterosexual relationships.  To use them as evidence
    of another intent -- to disapprove homosexuality -- is stretching
    a point too far, because it is quite possible for any person,
    including Jesus, to hold to these teachings of his about
    heterosexual relationships and still be convinced that homosexual
    acts are not a sin for homosexuals.
    
    	In fact, Jesus plainly states that heterosexual pairing
    is not an integral part of the spiritual order.  In response
    to a riddle of the Sadducees designed to show up the foolishness
    of belief in the resurrection, he says flatly that in the
    resurrection people neither marry nor are given in marriage.
    And if his answer was intended to be responsive to the
    circumstances posed in the question, it also means that marriages
    contracted in this life do not carry over into the life hereafter
    (Matthew 22:23-33; Mark 12:18-27; Luke 20:27-40).
    
    	The Sadducees' riddle points up a significant contrast between
    Judaism and Christianity.  There was a strong emphasis in Judaism
    on immortality through procreation.  A man lives on after death
    through his children, grandchildren, and other descendants.
    Thus in Deuteronomy 25:5-10 the law of the Levirate marriage
    to which their riddle refers prescribed that if a man died
    childless his brother must take the dead man's wife as his
    own and produce a son for him to bear his name, so that the
    dead man's name would not be blotted out of Israel.  Jesus'
    answer to the riddle as Luke reports it shows that even in
    his mind the institution of marriage exists because of human
    mortality, so that with the absence of death the need for it
    will disappear (Luke 20:36).  Barrenness was viewed as such
    a curse that any male whose testicles had been crushed or whose
    penis had been cut off was excluded from the assembly of the
    Lord (Deuteronomy 23:1).  Yet Isaiah prophesied, "thus says
    the Lord:  To the eunuchs who...hold fast my covenant, I will
    give in my house and within my walls a monument and a name
    better than sons and daughters...an everlasting name which
    shall not be cut off" (Isaiah 56:4-5).  With the coming of
    Jesus Christ personal immortality through the resurrection
    replaced immortality through procreation, and Isaiah's prophecy
    was fulfilled as God's Spirit reached out through Philip to
    bring the Ethiopian eunuch into the kingdom (Acts 8:26-40).

    	The last verse of Isaiah's prophecy reads, Thus says the
    Lord God, who gathers the outcasts of Israel, I will gather
    yet others to him besides those already gathered" (Isaiah 56:8).
    Is it not possible that today God's Sprit is reaching out
    again in fulfillment of the prophecy, this time to gather into
    the kingdom another outcast -- the homosexual -- who like the
    eunuch was previously excluded for sexual reasons?  The two
    are in fact close kin.  For both, sexual intercourse is inherently
    nonprocreative, and eunuchs in the ancient world were widely
    associated with homosexual activity.
    
    	Implicit in all the discussion so far is the assumption
    that sin and evil are synonymous, that evil is what is hurtful
    to others or to oneself, and therefore nothing is a sin which
    hurts nobody.  Consensual homosexual acts between Gay people
    are therefore not sinful because they hurt no one.  The basis
    for these premises is Jesus' own assertion that the Law and
    the Prophets can be summed up in one command -- always treat
    others as you would like them to treat you (Matthew 7:12; Luke
    6:31).
    
    	On the subject of Jesus one other matter deserves attention.
    There is no evidence whatever in the New Testament that Jesus
    had a sexual relationship with anybody, male or female.  But
    it is incontestable that he experienced deep love for a member
    of the same sex.  The whole Gospel of John purports to embody
    the recollections of an eyewitness who is referred to only
    as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." (John 21:20-24).  Church
    tradition has inferred that this disciple was John the son
    of Zebedee, but the gospel itself makes no such identification.
    Whoever he was, he was a man, and the clear implication is
    that he was especially beloved by Jesus, because the same gospel
    states that Jesus also loved his other disciples very much,
    for instance Martha and Mary and Lazarus (John 11:5) and those
    present at the Last Supper (John 13:34, 15:9 and 15:12-13).
    
    	Other indications in the Gospel of John bear this out.
    At the Last Supper this disciple is lying close beside Jesus,
    and when Jesus announces that one of the disciples will betray
    him Simon Peter, instead of querying Jesus himself, signals
    to this disciple to ask Jesus who is meant.  It is stated then
    that this disciple leaned back against Jesus' chest and asked,
    "Lord, who is it?" and Jesus vouchsafed the answer only to
    him (John 13:21-30).  The incident makes clear that an emotional
    relationship existed between Jesus and the disciple close
    than that which existed between him and any other, including
    Peter.
    
    	On the cross Jesus sees his mother standing nearby together
    with other women and this disciple he loved.  He tells his
    mother that the disciple is her son, and the disciple that
    she is his mother, almost as if to say that this man now stands
    in his stead.  And the gospel states that from that time onward
    the disciple took her into his care (John 19:25-27).
    
    	That Jesus should entrust his mother to the care of this
    disciple is particularly noteworthy when it is remembered that
    he had brothers and sisters, any one of whom to our minds would
    seem a more likely candidate.  Indeed, these brothers together
    with his mother apparently were part of the believing community
    in Jerusalem after the Ascension (Acts 1:14), and one of them
    -- James -- later became its president and remained so until
    his martyrdom about 62 A.D.
    
    	This disciple Jesus loved is the first to reach the empty
    tomb upon Mary Magdalene's report and the first to believe
    in the Resurrection (John 20:1-10).  He is also the first to
    recognize the risen Jesus in the appearance at the Sea of Galilee
    (John 21:1-7).  Indeed it came to be believed that Jesus had
    wanted this disciple to live on until he came again and had
    therefore in effect predicted that this disciple would not
    die, so that the resulting misapprehension had to be laid to
    rest by a careful explanation of the incident that gave rise
    to it (John 21:20-23.  All this presumably because the disciple
    had in fact died by the time the Gospel of John was published.)
    
    	All this is said not to argue, as some have done, that
    Jesus was himself homosexual.  We do not know enough either
    to affirm or deny such a statement with certainty.  Bur this
    we can say:  he is universal -- not the exclusive property
    of any group.  Rather, the purpose is to make two much more
    important points.  The first is that anybody who, like him,
    has openly and deeply loved another person of the same sex
    cannot possibly lack sympathy for and understanding and acceptance
    of homosexuals.  He would be bound to know and comprehend their
    plight.  Any among them then who seeks a true friend can be
    sure of finding one in the greatest friend of all -- Jesus Christ.
    
    	The second point is that he calls us all to a life of love
    -- love blocked or bounded by no barriers of any kind, whether
    of nation, race, religion, social status or sex.  In Christ
    there is neither Jew nor Greek, neither slave nor free, neither
    male nor female (Galatians 3:28).  We are commanded even to
    love our enemies.  In the light of this gospel of Jesus Christ
    -- the supreme Prophet of Love, the Messiah who demonstrated
    that God IS love -- how can we, any of us, shut ourselves off
    from loving others of the same sex through fear of being branded
    homosexual?  For many people in our culture do precisely that,
    especially men.  In this as in everything else, Jesus points
    the way through the example of his own life to the ideal humanity
    towards which we are all called.  He plainly loved people of
    the same sex as well as people of the opposite sex.  Gender
    was no barrier for him.  It should not be for us either.  And
    if for some people loving others of the same sex carries a
    sexual component, there should be no cause for reproach. 
    It is just a consequence of the God-given diversity of humankind.
    
    	In any case, it is no exaggeration to say that the 
    persecution of Gay people that had been characteristic of Western
    culture almost since the time of Constantine must be laid directly
    at the door of the Christian Church, and this evil record of
    malevolence and bigotry is hardly compatible with the life
    and teaching of the one that Church claims as Lord and Savior.
    HE was a friend to those who were despised by all the nice,
    decent people of his day, namely the prostitutes and tax
    collectors.  The gospels say that this was because it is the
    sick (sinners) who need a physician (Jesus), but it seems likely
    that he consorted with them because he preferred their company
    to that of people like the lawyers and Pharisees who reduced
    the righteousness God requires to a little rule book of "Do
    this" and "Don't do that!", thus consigning to oblivion goodness
    and love and honesty and justice and mercy and generosity and
    kindness.  It was for Pharisaism and legalism that Jesus reserved
    HIS righteous indignation.  According to him justice and
    lovingkindness are the "test" fruits of the Spirit of God,
    not propriety and conformity.  So stop and think about it.
    What on earth do goodness and love and honesty and justice
    and mercy and generosity and kindness have to do with whether
    or not a person prefers the opposite sex to his or her own?
    
    	Few heterosexuals who do not have a Gay friend or relative
    have any comprehension of what it is like to grow up Gay in
    America.  Imagine how it would feel to be constantly despised
    and jeered at by your peers and told by both church and society
    that your desire for love is sick and a sin and a crime.  With
    such pervasive stigma to face, most Gay people end up hiding
    their orientation for years.  They absorb the hurt and the
    pain rather than be honest and risk exposure.  Many do their
    best to turn themselves into heterosexuals, even going to the
    extreme of marrying a person of the opposite sex and having
    children, only to discover that the experience changed them
    not one whit and succeeded only in spoiling other people's
    lives as well as their own.  Many have spent countless hours
    and dollars in fruitless efforts to change themselves through
    psychotherapy.  The assertion that all these people are
    deliberately bucking the current and _choosing_ to be Gay is
    just not credible.
    
    	If the Church of Jesus Christ were really seeking to follow
    his leading it would see that its traditional stance on
    homosexuality has caused and is still causing far more evil
    and suffering for homosexuals than they through their supposed
    sinning have ever caused, and would stop hurting them and set
    out instead to relieve their suffering and right their wrongs.
    Since 1969 more and more Gay people in America have stopped
    lying and come out of the closet and taken up the struggle
    to obtain legal safeguards for the basic human rights denied
    them for two thousand years -- the right to life, to liberty,
    to love and enjoy each other, to employment, to housing, and
    so on.  The Church is faced with a choice.  Either it will
    seek to make amends for the evil it has done them in the past
    or it will continue to encourage those who would hound and
    persecute them in the name of God.  This is exactly what the
    Church's traditional stance on the sin question does.  It supplies
    the persecutors with precisely the fuel they need for their
    fires, because nothing strengthens prejudice so much as having
    some way to ascribe it to God.  It also forces Gay Christians
    to lie and hide in order to remain within the Church.
    
    	Heterosexual Christians, who are and certainly will always
    remain by far the great majority in the Church, need to ponder
    whether on this question of sin the two-by-four may not be
    in their own eye and only a speck of sawdust in the eye of
    their homosexual brothers and sisters.  If they must insist
    that homosexual genital acts are a sin for themselves, let
    them do so.  They have some Biblical warrant for that.  But
    who are they to judge homosexual acts to be a sin for homosexuals
    -- people whose emotional make-up and whose inner struggles
    they know nothing about?  Leave the judging to God.  God's
    own Spirit within each of us is capable of doing whatever
    convicting of sin needs to be done.  As long as heterosexual
    Christians keep on asserting that they know all there is to
    know about God's will in this matter, they will only succeed
    in accomplishing two things for sure -- fanning the flames
    of persecution and driving more and more people away from Jesus
    Christ.
    

Perhaps this is better asked directly to Peter,but it seems that we should
all be aware of this discussion.

What is it that you have in mind, Peter, for this discussion.  You don't
evidently want to debate the nature of homosexual acts (whether or not
they are sinful) since that is the focus of the discussion in Christian.
What is it that you do want to do?

I think it's very reasonable to say, "let's not do this".  What I see
happening is that assumptions and/or explicit claims will be made in
this topic which you would prefer not be open for discussion (because
the discussion would be long and extended).  Therefore, this will be
a SRO (supportive replies only) topic.  Is that what you want?

I want to respond (or not respond) within the guidelines that you set
up.  However, I'm not sure exactly what those guidelines are.  That is
what prompts this note.

Collis

    re: .3, Bonnie
    
    Would you consider posting this in GOLF::CHRISTIAN?  Someone else
    posted it there recently but didn't have permission and so it had
    to be set hidden.  There were several responses to it, and it seems
    to me that, with proper permission for posting, it should be back
    there.  I think it is string 27, but I'm not sure.
    
    Nancy

Thanks for the thoughtful questions, Collis.

I really have no preconceived notions for any discussions here. I do 
understand though how you could see my request for not duplicating the
discussion from CHRISTIAN as possibly a request for a SRO topic. 

Given that this topic is currently a very provocative one in the modern
Christian world and that (although there have been occasional mentions
of it in this conference) we didn't yet have a topic devoted to it, I
thought I would start one.

As for "boundaries", other than asking people not to repeat the discussions
from the various volumes of CHRISTIAN and some reminders as to word choice 
and language, I would not limit the discussion.

/peter

    I would also remind C-P participants of Digital's Policies and
    Procedures which will take precedence.
    
    Richard
    Co-Mod

    Re  .3  Bonnie,
    
    That was a very beautiful article.  Thanks for posting it.  I was
    particularly moved by the last 200 lines.  I think Jesus himself may
    be wondering to himself, when he looks around and sees a large number
    of Christians foaming at the mouth these days about the evils of being 
    homosexual, "What's the big deal?"  That some people can reduce this 
    major component of the human race to one simple line, "Hate the 'sin' 
    but love the sinner," really boggles the mind, and usually inadvertently
    causes more harm than good, one that proliferates more hatred that
    love.  It is a stance that abounds in misinformation and ignorance.  
    If you haven't already posted this article in GOLF::, please do so.  
    Thanks.
    
    Paul
    

    Paul
    
    I tend to stay out of golf:: and I don't want to come over there
    as a hit and run noter.
    
    However, I got blanket permission to repost this years ago,
    I think the original poster in now dead.
    
    So anyone else who wants to put this in golf:: should feel free
    to.
    
    Bonnie

    
    I doubt that a 'conservative' Christian perspective would fit within
    DEC guidlines as it would be necessary to present what is Scripturallly
    sinful, thereby potentially offending somebody. So I will withhold my
    perspective on this issue. Even CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE does not provide
    the forum for openness of all opinions.
    
    Jesus may be wondering to himself, when he looks around and sees a
    large number of people who call themselves Christians, calling what is
    evil otherwise. This in addition to his amazement/sorrow at the reaction
    to these people by his own Church, casting stones in order to deny their
    own disgrace.
    
    Jamey

    Jamey
    
    Does it make any difference to you that the definition of 'scripturally
    sinful' may be an error in interpretation, such as the discussion
    in .3 suggests?
    
    Or can you consider the issue from the point of view of the rabbi
    in .4?
    
    Bonnie

Re:  91.8

  >I think Jesus himself may be wondering to himself, when he looks around 
  >and sees a large number of Christians foaming at the mouth these days 
  >about the evils of being homosexual, "What's the big deal?"  

I, for one, do not see the evil of being gay.  However, I do see the
evil of committing sexual acts outside of scriptural boundaries.

I guess it depends on how you look at it if this is an encouraging or
supportive reply.  :-)

Collis

Re:  .11

  According to some (most?) in this conference, the definition of "saved by
Jesus Christ" is wide open for interpretation.  This, of course, is
discussed in much more detail than homosexual acts.

  That many people question what Scripture means does not an error in
interpretation make.  Although Jamey, I and others are certainly open to
make mistakes, sufficient reasons have not been presented to convince
us that we have made a mistake on this issue.

  For some of those reasons, feel free to refer to Golf::Christian.

  I expect that I, like Jamey, will have only very limited input into
this particular topic.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Since people are either born gay/lesbian due to a combination of hormonal
    and genetic factors, or are predisposed that way due to a combination
    of hormonal and genetic factors and become gay/lesbian due to an
    interaction of same with psychological/sociological conditions at
    a very early age, does this mean that gays must either (as the
    article in .3 points out) either remain celibate for life or
    sin?
    
    Bonnie

    Collis,
    
    so God has created a whole group of people that are sinners
    if they experess their love sexually with the type of person
    they are attracted to?
    
    Bonnie

    .10  Jamey,
    
    Personally, I don't like censorship, so I would urge you to share your
    opinions on this subject with everyone who participates in C-P.  A lot
    of people here would be interested in what you have to say.  Most
    everything in this conference must offend someone at one point or
    another, and I know your intent is not to offend anyone, so please
    speak up.  That doesn't mean I won't correct you every step of the way.
    ;) ;)
    
    You and I, as friends, have privately debated this subject, among many 
    others.  And the contents of 91.3 essentially articulate -- better than 
    I ever could, and I'm supposed to be a writer -- my views about the human
    condition, state of being, called homosexuality.  While I agree with you
    that the "human condition" in general -- our physical bodies, physical
    environments, physical/materialistic needs, and so forth are not
    in alignment with the Spirit of God, which is eternal and everlasting
    -- earthly hungers and thirsts, for example, are part of the human
    condition, things that Jesus pointed out were unreal/uncessary in the 
    kingdom of God -- I essentially disagree with you when it comes to 
    choosing one part of the human condition -- humans who are homosexual -- 
    and labeling it as "evil," while simultaneously choosing other parts of 
    the human condition -- people who are born as dwarfs, giants, sterile, 
    albinos, deformed, retarded, and so on and so on, as not being evil.  It 
    is all part of the natural world, which God created.  It seems homosexual
    people are treated in the 20th century the way mentally-ill people and
    black people were treated in the 18th and 19th century.  With scorn and 
    contempt and ignorance that denigrates them into something less-than-human. 
    Much of it in the name of Jesus.  Then and now.
    
    Since homsexuality is a sin in your eyes, do you think that gays
    ought not fall in love and should remain celibate till their hour of 
    death?  That is, assuming that God doesn't "cure" them?
    
    Paul

    RE: .12, Collis,
    
>I, for one, do not see the evil of being gay.  However, I do see the
>evil of committing sexual acts outside of scriptural boundaries.
    
    It seems to me that you are inconsistent.  If you admit the accuracy of
    the term "*being* gay" then it follows, IMO, that you admit that gay
    people are *born* gay.  It also follows, IMO, that if God creates
    someone gay, with the loves and longings of a gay person, and then
    say, "Huh-uh, mustn't touch; mustn't love!" then there is something
    rather questionable about the character of God!
    
    Of course, if you *are* saying that "being gay" *is* evil, then you
    have an entirely different kettle of worms...
    
    Nancy

Well, Bonnie, people change.

I was born a sinner.  I'm still a sinner.  Guess I haven't changed enough! ;-)

To give an example which in some ways is *not* analagous (i.e. I'm not
trying to put down gays but find some similarities in this example),

  If I was either born or acquired a desire to have sex with many
  women (assuming for the moment that I'm a man - which I am, believe me :-) ),
  does this mean that I must either have sex with only one woman who
  is my wife all my life or live a life of sin?

I would answer "yes" to the above question.  Even if the other women
agreed to have sex with me.  Even if my wife approved of me having sex
with other women.  The reason?  I don't set the standard.  My wife doesn't
set the standard.  God sets the standard.

There are many desires which individuals are either born with or acquire
which are sinful.  The Bible clearly teaches that people have a fallen
nature and that everyone sins.  This is *not* an abberation.  This is the
way we are.

So to say that someone has a tendency to do something (for whatever reason)
has no bearing on whether it is sinful or not.  From your question, it
seems that you think it does have a bearing.  But since people are as
likely (more likely, in my opinion) to have sinful desires than to have
non-sinful desires, having a desire itself is *no* help in determing whether
what is desired is sinful.

Hope this is clear.

Collis

P.S.  By the way, you left out the third option.  That is, people can
and do change.  In fact, Jesus Christ offers the most important change
that can happen to a person as a free gift.  But there I go again, sharing
the gospel.  :-)

    re .2 
    
    	Just for the record, despite all the previous hoopla, Michael
    Jackson isn't one of Jehovah's Witnesses anymore.  He dropped out on
    his own accord (and also had it announced in the press).  What that
    indicates is anyone's guess.
    
>        Yes, the Bible speaks against homosexuality -- and so do the
>        Talmud and later Jewish texts.
>        
>        But, no, homosexuality is not against our religion.
    
    Just speaking for myself, I find the above to be rather contradictory,
    since homosexuality clearly was 'against the religion' of the authors
    of those early writings.
    
>        And most important: No, God is not against homosexuality.  In
>        other words, I accept the fact that Jewish law and Jewish
>        tradition condemn homosexuality.  But I disagree.  I think the
>        Bible and generations of rabbis who have viewed homosexuality
>        as sinful are wrong.
    ...
>        And so, if Michael Jackson or his mother were to ever ask me,
>        I'd tell them that our religion, our essential and eternal
>        religious values, are not against homosexuality.  Judaism
>        stands for loving, respectful, and responsible human relation-
>        ships -- wherever and between whomever they occur.  And yes,
>        Michael, God loves you and thinks you're okay, even if you
>        _are_ gay.
    
    	It seems to me that this rabbi isn't just arguing with Michael
    Jackson's mother, or even just Jehovah's Witnesses (or other religions
    in Christendom as well); but with generations of Jewish writers from
    times past.
    
    	The way I read it, her argument is based mostly on her personal
    feelings and attitudes (which she is within her rights to hold); and
    the basis of her argument seems to be the strength of her personal
    conviction (and not the fundamental sacred writings of her religion
    itself).  I don't see (yet) that she's proved Mrs. Jackson wrong.
    Mrs. Jackson said, "The Bible speaks against it," and Rabbi Marder
    seems to have actually conceded this point in her sermon.  What have I
    missed here (... but yes, I haven't read the next reply carefully yet
    ...)?
    
    							-mark.

    
    Bonnie,
    
    >Does it make any difference to you that the definition of 'scripturally
    >sinful' may be an error in interpretation, such as the discussion
    >in .3 suggests?
    
    I do not believe that I have misinterpreted. If I did, I would
    certainly have modified my thinking to reflect this. As it is I do not.
    Do you think I ought to change my beliefs because you think I should?
    Although I might think it, I don't think I have asked that of you.
    
    re .14
    
    This is stated as fact, when it is actualy theory. Even if it were fact
    that gays were genetically predisposed, that would not mean that it was
    not sinful. Although most would not agreee, I would add repentence and
    deliverance to the choices of celibacy or sin. I.e., change, like the
    rest of us have had to from our sinful ways.
    
    Jamey
    

Re:  .17

Nancy,

First, I did not admit that people are born "gay".  There is (in my mind)
conclusive evidence that this is not the case for all people who
consider themselves gay.  For example, many more people coming out of
maximum security prison cells are "gay" than people going in.  (Does
this mean all the non-gay ones were murdered?  No, guess again.)

On the other side, the (secular) evidence that non one is born gay is not 
conclusive, in my opinion.  (The Biblical evidence gives an indication
that this is a result of turning away from God in Romans 1, but I don't
think this is conclusive either.)

Let's assume for a moment that someone was born "gay".

I was born a sinner.  Does that mean that it is right to sin?  I'm
serious here.  I was born with a predisposition to disobey God and to
do what I want.  Does this make it right?

If it does, all my confessions have been in vain.  No, it does not make it
right.

In the same way, regardless of how we are born (or what circumstances we
find ourselves in), we are responsible for our actions.  We are to follow
God (Jesus) using His love *and* His commands as our guidelines.

You talk about "mustn't love".  Please define love.  Are you talking about
sexual acts?  If so, let's not use the word "love" which has so many other
meanings that trying to add this one to it is confusing, if nothing else.

Collis

    re .16
    
    Nice try Paul, but I am certain that DEC policy would interpret what I
    have to say as a no no.
    
    Jamey

    re: .21, Collis,
    
>You talk about "mustn't love".  Please define love.  Are you talking about
>sexual acts?  If so, let's not use the word "love" which has so many other
>meanings that trying to add this one to it is confusing, if nothing else.
    
    No, I am not limiting love to only sexual acts; but I am speaking of
    the kind of love which seeks expression through sexual acts.
    
    I don't expect to pursue this; I know your line of reasoning, and I
    strongly disagree.

  >No, I am not limiting love to only sexual acts...

It is helpful to use two words for two points, rather than one word for
two points.  Using the word "love" for both a feeling and an act, particularly
when there may be different responses to one or the other, only adds to
confusion, not understanding.

A question for you, Nancy.  Is it ever inappropriate to "love" someone
the way that you are suggesting a gay person love someone?  (I'm talking
about the feeling (or commitment) rather than a sexual act.)

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Your separation of the state of being gay from following through,
    taking action on, this state of being makes no sense to me, either. To
    say that the state of being is OK, not a sin, and in the next breath
    say that a gay person who falls in love and has sexual relations with a
    member of the same sex is evil, strikes me as silly.  IMHO, you cannot 
    separate the two.  Homosexuality -- or a desire for one gender or the 
    other -- is not an "act," rather it is a way of being that people don't 
    have much choice about, a way of being that permeates just about 
    everything in one's life.  Your analogy of loving one woman, as opposed to
    many, doesn't hold much water.  It's not the same thing at all.  The fact 
    that you, Collis, find fulfillment in this earthly life by, in part, being
    *able* to love a woman -- any one woman -- is very different than telling 
    homosexuals that they have to completely shut down their similar instincts
    for fulfillment in this manner, that they cannot have a loving, mutually 
    satisfying monogamous relationship of their own, like yours.  Why do you 
    think tens of millions of gays enter marriages that are frauds/shams?   
    Because they are bombareded by the message, by religious as well as 
    secular circles:  Who and what you are is bad.
    
    Jamey, please send me private mail and tell me what is so outrageous about
    what you would like to say on this subject.  I can't imagine that you
    would say anything here that would cause the company to charge you with
    hurting/intolerating people.
    
    Paul 

    in re .20
    
    no I'm not asking you to change you mind, just wondering if
    getting a different perspective on the subject might make you
    more accepting of gays and lesbians.
    
    and in re .21
    
    Collis
    
    you are of course aware that all leading researchers on the 
    subject of human sexuality agree that it is not something
    that a person chooses, but is is something that is established
    either before birth or early in life. So you are free to
    believe personally that people are not born 'gay' but your
    belief is counter to what those who study the subject have
    found.
    
    and we are all born sinners, I agree, but it does seem strange
    to me that God would create about 10% of humanity that is denied
    the chance to form a warm loving bonding one on one relationship
    with another human being, or else if they chose to do so are
    automatically sinners, unlike the other 90% of humanity.
    
    Bonnie

    Some people would have us believe that gay sexual activity is
    "contrary to nature".  Who's nature?  God's...???  Science has
    determined that approximately 10% of any given human population
    will be gay, indicating a pre-dispostion to that way of being.
    
    It is also well known through the study of the animal kingdom that a
    good deal of sexual activity that takes place is homosexual in nature. 
    In dolphins for example, homosexual activity constitutes the majority
    of sexual activity.  So if God didn't want homosexual activity, why does 
    it exist so prevelantly throughout the animal kingdom?
    
    Oh, and if the line of reasoning I've presented here that compares 
    human's sexual activity to that of other animals offends anyone, that
    is not my intention;  but you had better consider who and what we really 
    are if you do find that reasoning offensive.
      
    	Why are white people so afraid of the homosexual?  In Native
    	American languages we don't even have a word for the homosexual.
    	In fact, it is well known among us that the most spiritual people
    	are often homosexuals and these people have often been counselors
    	to our greatest chiefs.
    
    		-- Jose Hobday
    
    Karen                     

    
    I believe Collis has made some very good observations.
    
    The Bible says (in paraphrase) and supports what Collis has said.
    
    	"No temptation is uncommon to man".
    
    This is, in my mind, a wonderfully liberating truth that tells those
    that want to please God but are having difficulty in their walk of
    God-ordained holiness that there is nothing that people experience that
    is uncommon.  No temptation to sin is beyond what is a normal
    experience - and this includes homosexuality.  Therefore,  we are able
    to avoid sin through God's grace by resisting the temptations that we
    experience.
    
    What is our purpose here anyway (from God's viewpoint)?  Is it merely
    to have loving sexual relationships?  Or as Hank Williams Jr. says
    "Good friends, good whiskey and good lovin'"?   These are secular,
    humanistic viewpoints, IMO, which must be diminished completely in the
    light of spiritual growth and eternity.
    
    jeff

    
    It is absolutely false that one must fear homosexuality to speak
    against it.  I'm frankly tired of seeing this in print and hearing it
    from gays and their supporters.
    
    Are there not good reasons, outside of fear, for rejecting beliefs?
    
    jeff

Note 91.28

>    The Bible says (in paraphrase) and supports what Collis has said.

Thank God, Christ is not the same as the Bible.

Thank God, Christ is greater than the Bible.

Thank God, the Bible was never deified, though some may treat it as if it were.

Peace,
Richard

    Jeff,
    
    I've seen no where in this string where it was written "that one 
    must fear homosexuality to speak against it," as you claim.  
    However, you've heard and seen this claim before and you're tired 
    of it?  Frankly I'm tired too, *very very* tired of the intolerance 
    and condemnation shown toward gays and their friends and the efforts to
    unify humanity as the one family they truly are.
    
    Karen

    RE: 14
    
    It has been said that "criminal tendencies" are inherited as well,
    along with psychological/sociological conditions at a very earyly age,
    does this mean that "born criminals" must be allowed to commit crimes
    or be sympathized with?  "Ye must be born again of the Spirit".

    Playtoe,
    
    Being born gay is far more like being born black than being
    born with 'criminal tendencies'. Further I've heard no reputable
    social scientist make a claim that people are born 'criminals'.
    
    
    It used to be considered okay to enslave blacks because they
    were born inferior, should we still believe this?
    
    Bonnie

    Playtoe .32,
    
    > does this mean that "born criminals" must be allowed to commit crimes
    > or be sympathized with?
    
    I see a *large* difference between two people of the same sex loving 
    and supporting one another than the relationship that is established 
    between a rapist or murderer, etc. and victim.  
    
    Karen

    .32  Play toe,
    
    Are you making some connections between homosexuals and
    criminals?  If so, what are they specifically?
    
    Paul
    

    Re: 17
    
    Just think, God created man with free will and put him in a Garden with
    a beautiful tree and told him he could eat from all but it!  Do you
    also consider that "questionable" of God's character?  How arrogant? 
    It seems to me regardless what God does, that we don't understand or
    readily accept and believe, we have no authority to "question" God's
    motives or intent.  IMO, if your interpretation law has the slightest
    indication that something is a sin, that is enough to cause one to
    avoid such behavior.  I don't think it serves any good purpose, to try
    and bend God's Word, or persist in certain behavior because we aren't
    clear or in agreement on interpretation.  What happens in a court of
    law?  What is an "injunction"?

    .32   Before you answer .35, please keep in mind that a lot of people
    still believe in the findings of Dr. Shockley, that black people are
    genetically inferior, intellectually.  I think that theory is baloney,
    but sadly it is used to put blacks in their "place," similarly to the
    many ways people try to put gays in their "place," secularly,
    religiously.
    
    Paul
     

    .36  
    
    If you don't believe in questioning God's motives and intent, then
    perhaps you shouldn't challenge God as to why he made the human
    species, as well as other parts of his creation, black and white and
    yellow and red, why he made creatures that crawl, walk, swim, and fly, 
    *as well as* cretures that are homosexual and heterosexual or both or
    neither ... these things always have been part of nature and always 
    will be.  
    
    Your reference to the "Word" of God is merely your interpretation of
    words written in a 2000-year-old book, transcribed and translated by 
    men, based on THEIR interpration of God.  Therefore, in my eyes, your 
    personal opinions do not equal the "word of God."  
    
    Paul    

I'd rather only have a limited role in this topic.  Therefore, I will
wait until someone answers my question before continuing.

Collis

    
    Karen,
    
    Respectfully, you quoted an Indian I believe who said "...why the white
    man is afraid of the homosexual..." didn't you?
    
    That is what caught my attention.  This is a recurring theme
    (homophobia) among the gay community.  I'm sure there are some people
    who truly fear homosexuals.  However, most people do not fear them.
    
    Somehow, gays believe that all objections to their lifestyles are based
    on fear and if the fear of gays can be abolished then gays may live in
    peace.  But it is not a fear of gays in the population that prevents
    them from living in peace.  And it is not a fear of gays that creates
    rejection of their lifestyles.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    The exact words of Jose Hobday are: "Why are white people so afraid of
    the homosexual?"  Homophobia is alive and well Jeff, amongst more
    people than I think you realize.  If you and others that you know 
    do not experience homophobia, that is well and good.  However, many
    people do.  
    
    In the study of the human psyche, it has been determined that a majority 
    of the population (both men and women) periodically have feelings/
    fantasies involving homosexual activity.  Granted many people do not act 
    upon these feelings.  But if they don't understand such feelings and
    know that they are occur naturally among human beings, they get repressed 
    and then internalized in the psyche as "I'm bad, I'm sinful, maybe 
    I'm... a homosexual?"  Fears can and do result from this, and they are
    most often manifested in distrust, oppression, and in acute cases, in the
    perpetration of physical violence toward those who express the type of
    behavior one is trying so desperately to deny in oneself.
    
    I do agree that all objections to homosexual lifestyles are not based
    on fear, Jeff, but a great many are. 
    
    Karen      

    
    Karen,
    
    I clearly said that some people are motivated by fear Karen.  But from
    my experience among a large number of people across the spectrum of
    "types" it is *not* the primary factor why people reject gays.  The
    meat of my objection is that homophobia is not the be-all and end-all
    of rejection of gays.  And that gays use this theme under almost all
    circumstances when the validity of their lifestyle is questioned
    is what I'm "tired" of.
    
    Specifically, New York's Cardinal's are constantly being called
    "homophobic" when in fact they reject gay claims on Scriptural basis. 
    I guess Jesus would be considered homophobic too if He were to come
    back to earth and condemn homosexuality.  
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Our primary difference, as I see it, rests in our perception 
    of what is sourcing the majority of people's negative response to 
    homosexuality.  I agree with you that homophobia is not the be-all
    and end-all of the rejection.  It just comes close to being it, imho.
    :-)
    
    I understand your point and why you are tired.
    
    Thanks; I appreciate your thoughts.  
    
    Karen 
    

    Does anyone wish to actually adress the long exegesis in .3 that
    indicates that we may well be mistaken in our undrestanding of
    what scripture says about homosexuality? Or are we just going to
    keep on saying 'scripture condems it'. After reading .3 I don't
    accept that answer.
    
    and Jesus ate with taxcollectors and prostitutes. I have a feeling
    that he'd be more loving to gay/lesbian/bi people than many
    Christians are today.
    
    Finally, no one has really adressed the issue of the innate nature
    of being homosexual, that it is not a choice, any more than being
    heterosexual is. 
    
    Condeming a person as a sinner because they are a homosexual is
    like condeming a person as a sinner because they are born blind
    or blue eyed, or they grow over 6' tall. 
    
    It makes no rational sense.
    
    Bonnie

    Hi Bonnie,
    
    Simply because you have adopted the belief that homosexuality is innate
    does not make it so.  It is not proven, nor will it ever be, IMO.
    
    To reject the scholars' conclusions over thousands of years in favor of .3
     makes no sense to me whatsoever.  Considering .3 in light of history,
    the Bible and the large body of scholarly exegesis over millineums
    is like reconsidering that the earth may be flat after all.
    
    jeff

Re: .45 Jeff

Don't you have it backwards?  Wouldn't it be like deciding that the world
might be round after all?

Bonnie: I admit that I skipped over .3 because of its length.  However, I've
just printed it out, and I'll read it over lunch.

				-- Bob

    Jeff
    
    and just because you reject the evidence of the leading researchers
    on human sexuality (which is where my evidence comes from) doesn't
    make their conclusions false.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    A few things,
    
    First, it seems to me that the level of tolerance for 'fudamental'
    Christian beliefs here is pretty low. I don't mind the questioning and
    disagreeing with them, but the spirit seems to be more derision than
    anything else, something many of you accuse the participants of
    CHRISTIAN of. I find the label of intolerance offensive, lightly
    bantered about in condemnation of those who do not accept 'liberal'
    positions on this and other issues. The lip service to valuing others
    beliefs is shallow and hypocritical. Tolerance of others and one's own
    beliefs are two separate issues. Most here really do not want to hear
    the 'fundamental' Christian viewpoints and sit in judgement of them.
    
    The second is that a huge leap is made from the fundamental Christian
    beliefs about homosexuality to the practice of intolerance. Though this
    does and has happened frequently, it is nonetheless an invalid
    assumption to make. There are many who consider homosexuality sinful
    who do not hesitate to reach out to them just as any other sinful
    person, fully realizing that they themselves are sinful.
    
    Third, (I can count) is that it seems that proving that one is born
    homosexual by nature somehow validates it as moral. Tied into this is
    that God certainly wouldn't create somebody with a predisposition to
    do something evil. This is completely opposite traditional Christian
    belief which is that since Adam, *all* men are born with a
    predisposition to sin, whether that be sexually or otherwise. Proving
    that homosexuality is an inborn character trait is actually supportive
    of the sin nature doctrine of traditional Christianity. 
    
    Fourth, it is precisely this nature, and the resulting behavior, that
    Christ redeemed in his death. This is what born-again is all about, a
    seed of Christ's nature that will transform the old nature into His
    nature, bit by bit. The seed is planted as one first realizes his
    nature and his thoughts, words, and deeds and turns from them and
    believes in Jesus to save him from this nature and the resulting deeds.
    
    It really makes little difference if some person or another can create
    another interpretation of Scripture to support their particular sin, we
    all are completely and totally sinful until the new life of Christ is
    within us.
    
    Now, for a list of red herrings:
    
    - YOU compare a murderer to a homosexual (gasp)? Yes and no. Yes, both
    are a result of sinful nature and behavior inherent in all of us. No,
    although both are a result of spiritual death in at least part of one's
    life, the effects manifest quite differently. Both need people to care.
    
    - YOU would condemn a homosexual to a life of lonliness, void of love
    and companionship, just because he has a different sexual preference?
    The desire and need for human companionship does not justify the means
    by which it is acquired, the basis upon which it is formed, or the
    actions carried out within the relationship. 
    
    - What about true, monogomous homosexual relationships based upon real
    love? I will phrase it as a hypothesis. *If* homosexuality is a sin,
    then a loving homosexual relationship is an oxymoron, regardless of
    what human standards measuring love are applied.  
    
    
    Jamey

Note 91.44

>    and Jesus ate with taxcollectors and prostitutes. I have a feeling
>    that he'd be more loving to gay/lesbian/bi people than many
>    Christians are today.

Jesus spoke of the "good" Samaritan.  To the faithful of Jesus' time,
there was no such thing as a "good" Samaritan.  To them, it was an oxymoron.
The "good" people, the supposedly holy and righteous ones, refused to get
their hands dirty and possibly endanger themselves.  They were faithful
to their Law and to their Lord.

Within the last 12 months, in another conference, I spoke of a Christian
homosexual who is in a faithful lesbian pairing.  The matter was treated
as though such a thing could not exist.  It was as though I had stated an
oxymoron; a contradiction in terms.  Again, many of the recognizably faithful
chose to shield their vision, to reject and to deny, and do so in the name of
their Lord.

Peace,
Richard

>    Does anyone wish to actually adress the long exegesis in .3 that
>    indicates that we may well be mistaken in our undrestanding of
>    what scripture says about homosexuality? Or are we just going to
>    keep on saying 'scripture condems it'. After reading .3 I don't
>    accept that answer.

    Well I for one do but unfortunately I do not have the extensive
    library required to do so. My father does and when I visit him next 
    I plan to take advantage of it. Still the author of the work in
    .3 does not have the established credibility of the people who
    translated the copies of the Bible I have. Is there a second (or
    better yet 5th source for the interpretations in .3)? If so I'll
    start to feel some urgency to take it seriously.

>    Finally, no one has really adressed the issue of the innate nature
>    of being homosexual, that it is not a choice, any more than being
>    heterosexual is. 

    I think people have addressed this, even before Jamey's excellent
    point three (reply .48). All people are sinful by nature. That
    somethings happens "naturally" does not mean that God approves
    of it. We don't usually say "the baby was born with that defect
    so God approves of it and how dare we correct it" do we? Even
    if homosexuality is innate and not a choice that does not mean
    that having homosexual relations is not a sin. Any more then
    heterosexual teenage boys wanting to jump every nubile girl they
    see means that premarital sex isn't a sin. And I don't believe
    your rational for homosexual sex being ok is signifigantly different
    from a rationalization for premarital heterosexual sex.

>    Condeming a person as a sinner because they are a homosexual is
>    like condeming a person as a sinner because they are born blind
>    or blue eyed, or they grow over 6' tall. 

    Actually all blind, blue eyed people over 6' are sinners. No one
    is saying that people are sinners just because they are homosexuals.
    In fact I don't believe being a homosexual is a sin. Having homosexual
    sex though appears to be a sin. The note in .3 not withstanding there
    seems to be little evidence that it is not a sin. 

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    What if homosexuals were allowed to marry then. Would their
    relations be sinful?
    
    Bonnie

Jamey  .48

    First, it seems to me that the level of tolerance for 'fudamental'
    Christian beliefs here is pretty low. I don't mind the questioning and
    disagreeing with them, but the spirit seems to be more derision than
    anything else, something many of you accuse the participants of
    CHRISTIAN of. I find the label of intolerance offensive, lightly
    bantered about in condemnation of those who do not accept 'liberal'
    positions on this and other issues. The lip service to valuing others
    beliefs is shallow and hypocritical.

Look at yourself.  Your words here might mean something if you
practiced what you preached.  Whenever you run up against
viewpoints that you find alien, you *yourself* go beyond
"questioning and disagreeing" with them, to a place where you
blatantly question the motives and intentions of the persons
generating such viewpoints.   Go back and read your words in
topic 80.  Instead of addressing the subject matter, you accuse
your brother/sister of "redefining" God and taking "shortcuts to
God" and inventing his/her own God -- all in an effort to satisfy
Self, rather than God.  You also have a proclivity for writing
off the spiritual lives of others, the other person's
relationship with God, as simple demonic possessions.

   Tolerance of others and one's own beliefs are two separate
   issues. Most here really do not want to hear the 'fundamental'
   Christian viewpoints and sit in judgement of them.

I want to hear them!  Say what you have to say, Jamey.  However,
it seems you are not ready to handle many of the responses, in
reaction to your viewpoints.  In terms of judgement, again, look
at yourself before you tell anybody else he/she is "sitting in
judgement."  At one point, in topic 80, you told me point blank,
"You don't know God."  Is this what Jesus wants you to say?

    The second is that a huge leap is made from the fundamental Christian
    beliefs about homosexuality to the practice of intolerance.

Well, it seems to me, the things I see and hear regarding the
ways in which Christian organizations treat homosexual
parishioners strike me as quite humiliating and degrading, and
usually devoid of the love, compassion, and forgiveness found in
the life of Jesus.  Please feel to correct me if I am wrong.

    There are many who consider homosexuality sinful
    who do not hesitate to reach out to them just as any other sinful
    person, fully realizing that they themselves are sinful.

OK Jamey.  How do you "reach out" to homosexuals in your church,
in your life?   Be specific.  My guess is that a lot of closeted
gays would definitely hesitate to come out to you, and others
with your point of view, for fear of getting reprimanded,
scolded, and humiliated.  Given your comments about gays below,
I have a hunch that you would frighten a lot of people off,
rather than draw them closer.  
    
    Third, (I can count) is that it seems that proving that one is born
    homosexual by nature somehow validates it as moral. Tied into this is
    that God certainly wouldn't create somebody with a predisposition to
    do something evil. This is completely opposite traditional Christian
    belief which is that since Adam, *all* men are born with a
    predisposition to sin, whether that be sexually or otherwise. Proving
    that homosexuality is an inborn character trait is actually supportive
    of the sin nature doctrine of traditional Christianity. 

What other "flawed" inborn character traists -- things that are
part of God's creation, part of nature -- do you consider "evil"? 
Are albinos evil?  Are dwarfs and giants evil?  Are mentally
retarded people evil?  How about people born sterile? Or with
cycle-cell enemia?  Where do you draw the line as to what parts
of nature are innately evil and what parts are not innately evil? 
If you want to say the material/physical world, as a whole, is
not aligned with the true nature of the Spirit of God, I'll agree
with you. But to say that being born homosexual is evil, while
being born mentally retarded -- or even with hungers and thirsts
for food/drink that is of this physical world, not of the eternal
bread/water found in God's kingdom -- is not evil strikes me as
hypocritical.  Where do you draw the line?  Where it is
conVENient?  ;)

    Fourth, it is precisely this nature, and the resulting behavior, that
    Christ redeemed in his death. This is what born-again is all about, a
    seed of Christ's nature that will transform the old nature into His
    nature, bit by bit. The seed is planted as one first realizes his
    nature and his thoughts, words, and deeds and turns from them and
    believes in Jesus to save him from this nature and the resulting deeds.

Then give up your wife and children, your sexual desires, your
desire for emotional/physical companionship, and your material
possessions and go live as Jesus did, if you truly want to transform
your nature into Christ's nature.  Jesus never lusted or married
or shopped at Sears or had a house in the suburbs, according to
traditional Christian ways of thinking.  That you can deny
homosexual people love/companionship throughout the entirety of
their lives, yet snatch it for yourself, believing it is OK, is
uncanny.  Actually, Jesus had more love/companionship in his life
with men, than with women.  Nevertheless, IMHO, the nature of God
is neither male nor female, has no physical lusts, and so forth.

    It really makes little difference if some person or another can create
    another interpretation of Scripture to support their particular sin, we
    all are completely and totally sinful until the new life of Christ is
    within us.

Complete with your female compansionship and your dog and your
cat and your material possessions and your home in the country.
You wanna really be like Jesus?  Go all the way.  Otherwise stop
telling others they can't enjoy the physical world around them
the way you do.
                                                  
    Now, for a list of red herrings:
    
    - YOU compare a murderer to a homosexual (gasp)? Yes and no. Yes, both
    are a result of sinful nature and behavior inherent in all of us. No,
    although both are a result of spiritual death in at least part of one's
    life, the effects manifest quite differently. Both need people to care.
    
    - YOU would condemn a homosexual to a life of lonliness, void of love
    and companionship, just because he has a different sexual preference?
    The desire and need for human companionship does not justify the means
    by which it is acquired, the basis upon which it is formed, or the
    actions carried out within the relationship. 
    
    - What about true, monogomous homosexual relationships based upon real
    love? I will phrase it as a hypothesis. *If* homosexuality is a sin,
    then a loving homosexual relationship is an oxymoron, regardless of
    what human standards measuring love are applied.  
    
And this is your way of reaching out to gay brothers/sisters?
By aligning them with murderers?  By telling them they can't have
love or companionship?  Or worse, by telling them they are not
*capable* of manifesting true love and companionship?  Perhaps
Jesus would question your methods of reaching out to people.
Again, I think this sort of thing will only serve to scare off
gays, humiliate them, rather than draw them closer to you and/or
to God.

Paul

Paul,

Re:  91.52

  >Where do you draw the line as to what parts of nature are innately evil 
  >and what parts are not innately evil? 

What God says.

Collis

>    What if homosexuals were allowed to marry then. Would their
>    relations be sinful?

	If the Bible supported such a marriage it would not be sinful but
	it does not. What is your point? Secular marriage? If rape was
	legal would it be a sin?

			Alfred

    My point is that your objection to homosexuality appears to
    be because it is similar to the sin of fornication, sex outside
    of marriage. If homosexuals were able to form pair bonds blessed
    by the state and by what ever churches find their behavior
    not to be a sin, then would you still object?
    
    I don't equate homosexual behavior with rape btw by any stretch
    of the imagination.
    
    Alfred, I'm a biologist and I look at what scientific evidence
    is available. I find it very hard to believe that God created
    a class of people who are by their very nature doomed to sin
    or be celibate. Yes I know we are all born sinners, but to accept
    this view of gays, is to my mind, to have the dice loaded against
    them from birth for something that they have no choice in.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Paul,
    
    .53
    
    I apologize if I have gone beyong questioning and disagreeing. I will
    try to be more careful.
    
    .52 makes it obvious that you have not interest in understanding what I
    believe, merely refuting it.
    
    Jamey

    Alfred, Jamey,
    	if you would like, I could put you in touch with a loving,
    monogamous gay couple and a similar lesbian couple. Both have been
    together for at least a decade. All four individuals are very nice
    people and fully integrated in society. None stands out in a crowd as
    being strange - well, one is fairly tall and another rather rotund, but
    so what - and none is, to my knowledge, ashamed or obsessed about their
    sexuality. I promise that they will not preach to you or attempt to
    convert you or try to seduce you - or worse. They might, however, take
    offense if you are openly critical of them.
    	Not all homosexuals/gays/lesbians/bis are like these people, some
    can think of nothing more joyful than shocking folks and some are as
    full of raging hormones as a teenager in full rut. Still, these people
    are not that atypical, either. 

    
    Dave,
    
    I get back east once in a while and would love to meet them, as well as
    a bunch of you noters. 
    
    I don't believe that I have implied anywhere that homosexuals are
    necessarily obsessed, nor that I expect them to preach to me, convert
    me or seduce me. Nor did I question that they might not be 'nice'
    people. Hmmmmmmm. Somebody has some preconceptions around here.  ;)
    
    Nor do I believe that I have espoused being openly
    critical of them or anybody else. I have shared what I believe in
    response to direct questions or open discussion on the topic. 
    
    Jamey
    

<              <<< Note 91.21 by XLIB::JACKSON "Collis Jackson" >>>
< For example, many more people coming out of
< maximum security prison cells are "gay" than people going in.  (Does
< this mean all the non-gay ones were murdered?  No, guess again.)

Where do you get this information?  What is your definition that these
people are gay?  The Romans section that you mention in your note aligns
with how I interpret this paragraph - that some folks have sex with 
people of the same sex when they themselves are *not* gay.  I imagine
that you are saying that some people (men?) in prison have had sex with
others of the same sex who had not had homosexual sex before prison.
I know this happens with some men in prison.  This does not make them gay.  

       Carol

"An investigation by gay Catholic priests concludes that 40 to
60 percent of the Catholic clergy in the United States is
homosexual - up to 70 percent of young seminarians.  Wouldn't it be
more honest to ask churches whether they should drop the hypocrisy
of pretending they do not ordain homosexuals?  Or the hypocrisy
of exhorting secular society to oppose discrimination against
homosexuals, while allowing the church to remain a bulwark of
racism, sexism, and bigotry?"

Tom Hanks, quoted in _Circular Letter_, Apr 8, 1990

(note: I used the term homosexual instead of gay in order to duplicate
 the quote exactly.)

Richard

    Be it known that some Christians consider no gay person
    to be sinful on account of their gayness.
    
    Be it also known that some heterosexual Christians embrace gay and
    lesbian Christians as full brothers and sisters in Christ.
    
    Richard

    Richard
    
    Add me to that list.
    
    Bonnie

    Jamey,
    	I did not intend to suggest that you had stated any such fears, or
    even implied their existence. These are common fears, though, held by a
    number of people who either have had bad experiences with perverts (not
    homosexuals, perverts) or who are unfamiliar with homosexuals. Many
    people claim they don't know any when actually they just are not aware
    that some people they know ARE "them". There are also other
    misconceptions floating around. Give me a warning of your next visit
    and I'll see what I can arrange. If nothing else I'll show you around
    the Arlington Street Church, a hotbed of religious liberalism with a
    significant homosexual membership.  ;-) just promise not to try to
    convert everybody ;-) Then again, it might be entertaining. };-D>

Re:  .60

Carol,

I got the information from one of Chuck Colson's book (although it was 
mentioned just in passing).  *I* am the one that found this to be highly
informative regarding modifying desires from heterosexual to homesexual.

Collis

	RE: .60 There are homosexuals (one WR1FOR::BILLJA active in
	SOAPBOX to name one) who seem to be trying to make a pretty 
	strong case that anyone who has any homosexual relationship
	at any time is atleast somewhat a homosexual. I don't believe
	I agree with that in the least. 

			Alfred

>    My point is that your objection to homosexuality appears to
>    be because it is similar to the sin of fornication, sex outside
>    of marriage. If homosexuals were able to form pair bonds blessed
>    by the state and by what ever churches find their behavior
>    not to be a sin, then would you still object?

    I guess I did understand your point. I also guess you missed mine
    though. What the state "blesses" and what other churches "bless"
    has no authority to overturn the Bible. For example, there are
    churches and governments that approve of and support racial 
    discrimination. I think that is wrong and is sinful. Just because
    a government and a church "bless" it does not change it's nature.
    I was not trying to equate rape with homosexual behavior before.
    Nor am I trying to equate homosexual behavior with discrimination
    here. I am trying to make the point that I do not and can not
    base my idea of right and wrong on law or on religions that I am
    not a part of. I you can then you have to accept apartide or be
    inconsistent BTW. :-)

    BTW, I'm still waiting to hear, if anyone knows, what the opinion
    of churches that do allow homosexual marriage is on homosexual sex
    outside of such marriages. Anyone know?

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    My feeling is that sexuality is more or less on a skewed  bell
    curve, representing the Kinsey scale of 1 (entirely heterosexual)
    to 6 (entirely homosexual). Societial conditioning results in
    most people expressing their sexuality heterosexually, but
    people who fall in the mid range of Kinsey's scale are at least
    potentially bisexual and would include the people you mention
    who have had a single or a few same sex experiences.
    
    For those who would like to know more about current research
    on sexuality. Go to Pear::soapbox and read in note 400 some
    of Jim Bill (Billja)'s postings from medical research (you'll
    have to wade through a lot of other stuff so I'd recommend you
    do a dir of the note string.)
    
    Bonnie

.57  Jamey,

    I apologize if I have gone beyong questioning and disagreeing. I will
    try to be more careful.

Thank you, friend.  Apology accepted.
    
    .52 makes it obvious that you have no interest in understanding what I
    believe, merely refuting it.

Sorry for giving you the impression that I have no interest in
understanding you.  I have GREAT interest in understanding you,
where you are coming from.  If I am painting an inaccurate
portrait of Jamey Nordby, then set me straight -- no pun
intended.  ;)  Understanding where you're at is one of the main
reasons I've spent so much time corresponding with you.  It's
just that many of the things you say press my buttons, just as
things I say press your buttons.  I sincerely would like to know
how you feel about the points I brought up in .52, specifically: 
How do you reach out to gays in your life and in your church?

If your accepting of an offer to visit with, talk with, and
get to know, and attempt to understand gay couples in
Boston (or anywhere else) is part of your repertoire of reaching
out to gays, then I admire you very much and will admit that I
was wrong about you in many ways .... and I'll even take back all
the nasty things I said about you ;) -- well, not everything. ;)

If you are serious about rapping with gay couples, I know some
here in New England who would be happy to share their life
experiences and thoughts with you; they also would be happy to
hear about your perspective.   Let me know if that interests you.  


Alfred and Collis,

Regarding the source you use to categorize homosexuals as "evil,"
permit me to remind you that the Bible has been, and continues to
be, used as a convenient vehicle through which oppression of
certain groups of people is justified.  The Bible has been used
to oppress and demean blacks and women and many other groups.  
(Look at Platoe's comments about Jews.) In my eyes, it is 
being used as a way to oppress homosexuals as well.  When is
all this emphasis on divisiveness, in the name of Jesus, ever
going to stop?  When is emphasis on love, in the name of Jesus,
ever going to begin?  I would ask you the same question I've
asked Jamey -- how do you reach out to and relate to and
communicate with gays in your life and your spiritual circles?   

It's funny how the extreme left and the extreme right seem to
always come full circle, often joining hands.   Fidel Castro, the
Cuban communist leader, considers homosexuality a crime against
the state.  That's how he oppresses gays in Cuba.  The religious
right in America -- politically ultra conservative in nature --
considers homosexuality a crime against God.  (Jesse Helms is
fighting for his political life in N.C., and his way of
campaigning against his opponent, of course, is to begin every
speech with "The evil homosexuals ...")   Funny how Jesse and
Fidel, and others like them at opposite ends of the spectrum,
often find themselves in bed together.

Paul                                 

re:.48

> "*If* homosexuality is a sin, then a loving homosexual relationship is
an oxymoron."


 Allow me, Jamey, to turn your "if..then" proposition around.

 If loving, homosexual relationships are not oxymoronic, then homosexuality
is not a sin.

And let me assure you that there are many, many gay couples who love and
care for each other in the same manner that heterosexual couples do.

Let me add, Jamey, that as someone who is deeply devoted to my partner, I
find the implication that my relationship is somehow absurd to be rather
mean-spirited and demeaning.

/peter

    Hi Paul,
    
>How do you reach out to gays in your life and in your church?
    Paul. You know how I reach out to people. How I have reached out to you, 
    even when we have utterly disagreed at a fundamental level. I don't
    pick out people or types of people to reach out to. I take the one He
    gives me. At the moment, most of my time is spent with victims of
    sexual and other abuse and those involved in crisis pregnancy or post
    abortion syndrome. To be honest, I don't believe I have had the
    opportunity to know any gay people. I also expect that to change in the
    near future, it this topic is any indication of what the Lord is
    preparing me for. (I also spend an inordinate amount of time with
    demon-possessed NA buckwheats).
    
    
> I was wrong about you in many ways 
    You ain't seen nothing yet  ;) ;) ;) ;)
    
>If you are serious about rapping with gay couples, I know some
>here in New England who would be happy to share their life
>experiences and thoughts with you; they also would be happy to
>hear about your perspective.   Let me know if that interests you.  
    As I responded to Dave, I would be happy to meet and get to know these
    people. I hope that their being gay is not the only reason for getting
    us together, perhaps they have other interests as well ?  ;)
    
    Jamey
    

    Peter, .69
    
    This is what I wanted to avoid altogether. Although I have the
    capability, I intended no meanness or anything else. I am trying to
    share what I believe to be true from my perspective, which is *a*
    Christian perspective. 
    
    I agree wholeheartedly with your hypothesis, and you agree with mine.
    We simply disagreee about which parts are true and which are false.
    Please don't make the jump from what I believe to the assumption that I
    am mean, demeaning, or condemning. 
    
    
    Jamey
    
    

>Regarding the source you use to categorize homosexuals as "evil,"
>permit me to remind you that the Bible has been, and continues to
>be, used as a convenient vehicle through which oppression of
>certain groups of people is justified.  

    True. Is that grounds for throwing it out though? Hammers have
    been used to kill people, shall we through them out?

    >all this emphasis on divisiveness, in the name of Jesus, ever
>going to stop?  When is emphasis on love, in the name of Jesus,
>ever going to begin?  I would ask you the same question I've
>asked Jamey -- how do you reach out to and relate to and
>communicate with gays in your life and your spiritual circles?   

    With all due respect I don't understand your use of the phrase
    "emphasis on divisiveness". I do not find any attempt at divisiveness
    here. No one is saying, at least I'm not, that homosexuals are
    worse then anyone else. Or even basically any different than anyone
    else. 

    Secondly my emphasis is all things *is* love in the name of Jesus.
    I am quite capable of loving people I disagree with. To insist
    that I must approve of something or define me as not loving is
    grossly unfair and in fact encourages divisiveness.

    Thirdly I believe I relate to and communicate quite well with
    my gay friends. I treat them no different then I do any of my other
    friends. They trust and help me and I trust and help them. My
    policy in all things is that my friends know where I stand and
    what I believe. That they agree or disagree matters very little
    to me in terms of keeping them as friends. In fact some of my
    friends (Bonnie to pick on one) agree with me very seldom.

    		Alfred

    Jamey,
    
    From what little I know of you, I certainly don't believe you to
    be heartless.
    
    However, statements such as what you imply in .48, that Gay people
    are somehow incapable inherently of loving relationships, are to my
    ears (and I'm certain to others') denigerating. If you do believe
    that Gay people are unable to love one another, you are mistaken in
    your belief. Gay people are every bit as human as you are, with the
    same foibles and capable of the same nobilities.
    
    At the very least, making such statements without qualification, shows
    a lack of sensitivity towards Gays.
    
    Don't assume that I agree with your hypothesis, and don't assume either
    that the contraposal hypothesis that I constructed is one that I
    believe.
    
    I *do* appreciate your input here. I know you didn't mean to hurt me.
    
    /peter

    Jamey  .70,
    
              "You know how I reach out to people.  How I have reached out
               to you even when we have utterly disagreed at a fundamental
               level..."
    
    "Fundamental" is right!  ;)  You have reached out to me in friendship.
    Thank you.  However, when I, as a friend, try to share my spiritual
    life/interests with you, you seem to invariably gravitate toward
    suggesting (on more than one occasion) that demons, not God, are
    primarily influencing me in a spiritual way.  That hurts.  
    
    If you were to make friends with gays, the situation, I think would be
    different.  Someone's entire way of being/living would be exposed to
    you.  That's why I am curious to see how you would relate to such
    friends.   If you go telling your future gay friends the same
    things you brought up previously in this topic -- I listed them again
    in .52 -- I am convinced your comments would hurt them.  I think Andrew's
    reaction attests to this.  I mean, really.  Telling homosexuals that
    they and their partners are not experiencing or are capable of
    experiencing "true love."  Maybe God believes this, maybe God doesn't.
    It will all come out in the wash.  Let God worry about that.  For you, 
    a mere human, to go around measuring the capacity of millions of 
    brothers/sisters to love and be loved, only serves to cause more harm 
    than good, IMHO.  What purpose does that serve?   I know, I know, I asked 
    you what you thought.  But you say your real goal is to reach out to 
    people. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't these type of comments 
    defeat your purpose?
    
    Paul    

Re:  91.68

Paul,

  >Regarding the source you use to categorize homosexuals as "evil,"...

I don't remember making such a statement.  I believe I have never made
such a statement.

Unless by "evil" you mean "sinners"?  But I am a sinner as well.

Collis

    correction.... I called Peter Andrews "Andrew" instead of "Peter" in my
    last reply.  Sorry about getting your name messed up, Peter!
    
    Alfred, you're right.  Just because the Bible (and other things with a
    double-edged sword) can be used as a weapon, doesn't mean we should
    throw it out.  That's not what I meant.   Also, I never said or meant
    to imply that you are not capable of love.  Everyone is capable of
    great love (even homosexuals ;).  However, from my experience with 
    Christianity in general, it seems there is too much dogmatic emphasis on 
    the negative, what is allegedly "wrong" with people, and not nearly enough 
    emphasis on Jesus's teachings on love.  If GOLF:: is any sampling of what 
    is important doctrine to Christianity, then love, as taught by Jesus, 
    appears to be on the back burner in terms of priorities, the exception 
    rather than the rule.  I would like to see Christianity, of all 
    perspectives, shift gears a bit.  That's all.
    
    Regards,
    Paul

    Paul,
    
    >However, when I, as a friend, try to share my spiritual
    >life/interests with you, you seem to invariably gravitate toward
    >suggesting (on more than one occasion) that demons, not God, are
    >primarily influencing me in a spiritual way.  That hurts.  
    I am sorry it hurts Paul. I am not hurt by the blunt judgements you
    have made about my beliefs and Christianity as a whole. But you also
    know that you asked point blank for my position. I have no intention
    of hurting, but if you will be hurt by the potential answer (and do not
    want to be hurt), then don't ask the question.
    
    
    >If you go telling your future gay friends the same
    >things you brought up previously in this topic -- I listed them again
    >in .52 -- I am convinced your comments would hurt them.  
    The point I have tried to make again and again is that there is a wide
    canyon between what someone believes to be right or wrong and the way
    they treat other people. Some condemn, some deride, etc. If a gay
    friend asks me point blank what I think, should I lie? Should I change
    my thinking/beliefs? Would you? If somebody sincerely wants to know a
    conservative Christian perspective as I know it, then they should be
    prepared to hear it. What typically happens is that I am simply told it
    is wrong for any number of reasons. Sounds kind of like the criticism
    many here launch at 'another conference'.

    >For you, a mere human, to go around measuring the capacity of millions of 
    >brothers/sisters to love and be loved, only serves to cause more harm 
    >than good, IMHO.  What purpose does that serve?   I know, I know, I asked 
    >you what you thought.  But you say your real goal is to reach out to 
    >people. Correct me if I am wrong, but don't these type of comments 
    >defeat your purpose?
    
    This is what I mean by the hypocritical attitude in this conference.
    Perhaps you are right, perhaps not even participating here would be
    more productive. If you really want to know what I think, fine. If you
    don't want to hear it, sorry. If this is a place to share Christian
    perspectives, then I have one. All are welcome to disagree, but the
    general tone, as you say, usually goes beyond that. 
    
    The alternative is to pull my perspective from this conference 
    on this (I told you I didn't want to)  and other topics. Do you or do you
    not want to know? Are *all* Christian perspetives really welcome here?
    As you probably read, one noter is even ashamed of my and others'
    attitude. 
    
    This has been enlightening if for no other reason to see how both ends
    of the spectrum clothe self-righteousness and holier than thou.
    
    
    Jamey
    

    .77  jamey,
    
    Sheeesh!  ;)  
    
    Yes, I am interested in what you have to say; however, I am only human,
    and some of the things you say cause me to react in certain ways.  And
    one of those ways is *NOT* trying to censor you!
    
    I'm *not* trying to shut you up.  For example, I had no idea that one of 
    your ways of reaching out to gay persons was to seek them out (in different
    parts of the country no less) and get to know them as friends.  Based on
    what you said in .48 -- which is something else I didn't want to censor 
    -- I didn't think this was possible.  I learned something.  I came to the
    wrong conclusion.  
    
    One of the things you said was that you believed in reaching out to gay
    people.  I honestly couldn't understand how the type of comments found
    in .48 could possibly bring people closer to you and/or God.  Do you
    say these things only when asked?  I don't know! ;)  So I honestly wanted
    to know whether or not you considered the possibility that these type
    of comments might defeat your purpose, which is apparently bringing
    gay men/women closer to God.   Censorship is not my goal. 
    Understanding where you are at is.  I admit I am confused because, your
    comments in .48 and your objective of "reaching out" to gay people,
    including your very thoughtful trip to New England in which you will
    expose yourself ;) ;) to gay people, seem to be at odds with each
    other.  That's why I am confused.  Please relieve this confusion.
    
    Paul                                 

    Jamey, I have seen nothing self-righteous in Paul's notes.  He is not
    judging your own relationship to God; he is merely asking you, in
    remarkably restrained and polite tones, not to condemn *his*.  I don't
    happen to think that is is self-righteous to ask others not to insult
    them.  After all, Paul has never told you that you are incapable of
    loving relationships, or that you don't know God simply because your
    relationship to God is different than his.

    -- Mike

    
    OK, Paul,
    
    Did Jesus stand against sin and immorality? How did he go about doing
    this. He went to dinner with them. Not a pity trip, mind you. A genuine
    sit down and get to know you kind of dinner. Probably not even
    mentioning sexual immorality to the prostitutes at the table. Neither
    would I even bring up sexual morality in most cases until I got to know
    somebody very well (and even then I probably would not bring u pthe
    subject). I am genuinely interested in knowing people you know. Not
    because I want to tell them about their morality, but because I want to
    see what kind of fly-brain would hang around with you  ;)
    
    Now Jesus would probably be a little more clever (i.e. render unto
    Caesar), but if directly asked: Is murder a sin? He probably would have
    answered. No, I am not comparing murder and homosexuality, nor am I
    implying that Jesus and I have the same wisdom and moral standing. But
    he would have answered the question and then gone to their house for
    dinner. Jesus spent a lot of time with people who didn't share his
    beliefs.
    
    Jamey
    
    

 When Jesus spoke about "sexual morality", divorce and adultery, he also
addressed another subject.  Many Gay Christians look to these verses as
being related to them. I would appreciate hearing your thoughts.


From the gospel according to St. Matthew

Chapter 19,  Verses 10-12


  "His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his wife, 
it is not good to marry.

  But he said unto them, All cannot receive this saying, save they to
whom it is given.

  For there are some eunuchs, which were born so from their mother's womb:
and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be
eunuchs which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He
that is able to receive it, let him receive it."



/peter

    re  .81
    
    A more modern English translation of Matt. 19:10-12 would be ...
    
     "His disciples said to him, 'If this is the way it is between a man and
     his wife, it is better not to marry.'
    
     "Jesus answered, 'This teaching does not apply to everyone, but only to
     those to whom God has given it.  For there are different reasons why
     men cannot marry:  some, because they were born that way; others,
     because men made them that way; and others do not marry because of the
     Kingdom of heaven.  Let him who can do it accept this teaching.'"
    
    Paul

The Central Conference of American Rabbis - rabbinate for the 1.3 million-
member Reform branch of Judaism - recently agreed to admit openly gay
rabbis.                                                    ^^^^^^ ^^^
^^^^^^

"All rabbis, regardless of their sexual orientation, shall be accorded
the opportunity to fulfill the sacred vocation they have chosen."  The
move was proposed by a committee that studied Jewish teachings on
homosexuality, the experience of Christians struggling with the issue,
and research on sexual identity.

Reported in _The Other Side_, Nov-Dec, 1990.

    Richard

    .80  Jamey,
    
    Thank you.  That's basically all I wanted to know.  If I read .80
    correctly, I get the impression that you would be reluctant, even when 
    asked what you think by one of your hypothetical future gay friends, to 
    state what you said in .48.
    
    Regarding the "fly brains" I hang around with ... now that you bring
    up the subject ...  right, I do indeed tend to gravitate toward people 
    who are different -- people unlike Pat Boone and Howdy Doody and Ozzie 
    Nelson and Jamey Nordby other "wholesome" characters.  ;)  What do you
    got in your lunch box today, Jamey?  Wait, don't tell me -- a peanut
    butter & jelly sandwich, made on Wonder bread, a twinkie, and an
    apple.  ;)  Was I close? ;)
    
    Paul 
    
    P.S.  It would be interesting to hear your response to Peter's inquiry in
    .81, regarding the scripture quoted in both .81 and .82.  Thanks.      
      

    
    re .84
    Paul,
    
    I like whole wheat, thanks. I *hate* twinkies, though would not
    discriminate against anybody who liked them. PBJ is *way* down the
    list, I usually get leftovers from the night before. Freshly steamed
    veggies, chicken something, fruit salad, etc. 
    
    In any case, I am usually reluctant to tell somebody what I think of
    them, especially on a very direct subject. That is usually not really
    the question they want to ask and the answer is usually not one they
    want to hear.
    
    Jamey

    Peter,  .81

    I haven't spent much time thinking about these passages. I'll give you
    a first impression, though and would like to hear your ideas.
    
    	>"His disciples say unto him, If the case of the man be so with his 
    	>wife, it is not good to marry.

  	>But he said unto them, All cannot receive this saying, save they to
	>whom it is given.

	>For there are some eunuchs, which were born so from their mother's 
    	>womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and
    	>there be eunuchs which made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of 
    	>heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it."

    The context is taking about divorce and the disciples saying 'if this
    is what marriage is all about, why would anybody want to get married'. 
    
    Jesus reply seemed to indicate that some were able to commit their
    entire lives to God without the distraction of marriage and family, 
    some were formed in this same way by men to serve others such as in a
    kings servant (can't be having them distracted by family affairs ;),
    and some were born not to marry. In any case, Jesus taught that there
    were many reasons for men to remain abstinent, the highest of all was
    the kingdom of heaven. 
    
    Since the context is the discussion about divorce (and the possibility
    of remmariage to another women (verse 9), I don't see the tie in to the
    relationship between this and Gay christians. Help me out.
    
    Jamey
    

 First, I want to emphasize that I do *not* speak for all Gay Christians
and that I am not *the* representative for Gays in this or any other 
conference.  I speak for _myself_ in the same manner that other members
do.  This is merely _my_ take on these verses.

 I would characterize Chapter 19 as speaking to sexual conduct and family
matters, not solely to 'divorce' (which is most certainly addressed in the
beginning of the chapter).

 I would underline the admonition that these verses are not intended for
everyone.  Humankind has been told to be 'fruitful and multiply' these verses
indicate that _some_ people are not to be held to this directive.

 Of these people who not bound by this, there are those "which are born so
from their mother's womb."  The overwhelming majority of Gay people believe
that they are 'born that way.' 

 I hope this make the connection a bit more clear.

/peter

    
    Peter,
    
    Oh, I get it.  ;) 
    
    I don't dispute the fact that some might be born gay. The point of
    dispute, I think, is whether or not everything that we are born with is
    good. David in the Psalms (I think Jeremiah, too) mention that they
    were sinful from birth. I don't think that this is a support of sin. I
    know I was born with plenty of it, some of which I battle daily.
    
    Jamey

 from the Worcester Gazette, November 15, 1990, taken from the Associated
Press..edited

 "U.S. Roman Catholic bishops yesterday adopted their first comprehensive
guidelines on human sexuality...

  The 185 page document, called 'Human Sexuality: A Catholic Perspective
for Education and Lifelong Learning,' was developed by a special task
force, including authorities in various fields.

  Considerable debate came on a section dealing with homosexuality...

  The matter was put in a footnote, along with an explanation of the
distinction between the technical and personal implications.

  'Homosexual orientation, because it is not freely chosen, is not sinful,'
an added line said."

>  'Homosexual orientation, because it is not freely chosen, is not sinful,'
> an added line said."

The Catholic bishops seem to me to be on the vanguard of genuine Christian
understanding and love.

Peace,
Richard

>  'Homosexual orientation, because it is not freely chosen, is not sinful,'
> an added line said."

What did the bishop's say about acting on that orientation?

		Alfred

Re:  .89

Sounds like they have taken a stand on the nature of homosexual orientation
despite the lack of conclusive scientific evidence.  :-(

The Roman Catholic Church has often expressed it's opinion on 
homosexual sexual acts.

Collis

    I'm sorry, Alfred, but there was nothing more in the article than
    what I've already entered (nothing more that relates directly to
    your question).
    
    I was careful to include the title of the report, so that anyone
    who wished would be able to request it.
    
    /peter
    

>What did the bishop's say about acting on that orientation?

Alfred,

	Acting on *that* orientation might not be very different from
acting on *heterosexual* orientation, which, I am not ashamed to say, I
have acted upon a time or two myself. ;-)

Peace,
Richard

    The statement seems to be taken from a statement on Homosexuality that
    was written a while ago. It said, "while homosexual orientation
    is not freely chosen, the homosexual act is."


    Peace
    Jim

    re. 95
    
    Jim,
    
    We are *all* responsible for our own sexual behavior; even sexual love.
    Would you not agree?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re-96
    
     IMHO, we're responsible for behavior, not orientation.
    
    Peace
    
     Jim

Article          622
From: [email protected] (DAVID E. ANDERSON, UPI Religion Writer)
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.gays
Subject: Gay pastor asks for Methodist church appointment
Date: 2 Jan 91 18:28:41 GMT
 
 
	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- A ``self-avowed, but non-practicing'' homosexual
pastor is asking the United Methodist Church's Western Pennsylvania
Annual Conference for an appointment to a conference parish, church
officials said Wednesday.
	But other officials said the request could result in the dismissal of
the pastor from the church's clergy roster.
	The Rev. James Hawk, 26, a lifelong United Methodist, in a letter to
conference officials asking for an appointment to a congregation said, 
``Justice now demands that I be appointed to a local United Methodist
Church. ... It is time that the church act with reconciliation, justice
and a holy love toward lesbian and gay people.''
	Hawk, who holds a master of divinity degree from Vanderbilt
University in Nashville, Tenn., has been on a leave of absence from the
Western Pennsylvania conference for much of the past year after telling
Bishop George Bashore he was gay.
	The 8.9 million-member denomination, the second largest Protestant
church in the United States, officially considers homosexuality 
``incompatible with Christian teaching'' and prohibits ordination or
appointment of ``self-avowed practicing homosexuals.''
	It is that prohibition that could result in Hawk's dismissal but the
question of what constitutes ``practicing'' may well be subject to
intense debate.
	``We are trying to think through our view on this issue, knowing the
whole church is in a process of study,'' the Rev. Pat Albright, chairman
of the conference's board of ordained ministry, told United Methodist
News Service, the denomination's official news agency.
	The board postponed a meeting with Hawk originally set for Dec. 28
and will likely meet with him in early or mid-April, church officials
said.
	Last spring, the 780 pastors of the Western Pennsylvania conference,
acting in closed session, adopted a paper defining ``self-avowed
practicing homosexuals'' as ``persons who verbally acknowledge
themselves, to the board of ordained ministry, to be emotionally,
mentally, spiritually or physically practicing as homosexual, or persons
who willingly engage in sexual activity with a person or persons of a
same sex.''
	Homosexual issues, especially the question of ordination and
appointment, have divided the church for two decades and are likely to
be hotly debated again in 1992 when the denomination's top legislative
body, the General Conference, meets in Louisville, Ky.
	A special study committee on the issue has been at work for four
years and is expected to make its report to the 1992 General Conference.
	The 27-member committee has held five public hearings on questions
related to the issue and recently reported that a majority of those
testifying at the hearings favored liberalizing church policy.
	Mail to the committee, however, has been just the opposite, strongly
supporting the church's current prohibitions.
	A survey released last year by the denomination's General Council on
Ministries, chief program agency of the denomination, found 80 percent
of church members support the current policy.
	The special study committee is reportedly sharply divided on how to
understand and interpret what the Bible has to say about homosexuality.
	It is scheduled to meet again Jan. 31-Feb. 3, and officials said it
expects to produce a first draft of its report to the General Conference
at the meeting.

    	If 80% agree with the current policy to keep gays out of the
    ministry, all they need do to make it unanimous is throw the
    malcontents out. Voila, no more controversy. 'course, maybe 20% would
    object to that solution so you'd have to throw them out too, and then
    ... and then you'd have a consensus of one.

The leadership in the United Methodist Church has for many years been
considerably more liberal than the membership at large.  We'll see how
much of a say the members really have...

Re .100

Yes, it's true.  We in the UM minority are having a difficult time
remaining patient awaiting the majority to catch up with us. ;-)

I would reiterate that, as it presently exists, the rule regarding
"self-avowed, practicing homosexuals" applies primarily to candidates
desiring to become ordained clergy and ordained clergy in the United Methodist
Church.

Peace,
Richard

    I am about 50% through a course called _The Bible and Homosexuality_.
    Will share some of my learnings and insights upon completion.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I'm glad you're reconsidering your position, Richard.  :-)

    Who originated the course?

The course I'm taking was compiled from exhaustive research and is offerred
through only one other church in the United Stated (All God's Children
Metropolitan Community Church).  It was compiled by a woman of the
congregation who was deeply distressed by all the well-meaning people
she encountered who insisted on using the Bible for the purpose of
bashing her.

    Peace,
    Richard

Question 1: Exactly, what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

(hint: see Ezekiel 16:48-50)

Question 2: Had God planned to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the
            arrival of the two angels in the city?  And hence, before
            the events involving Lot and his household?

(hint: see Genesis, chapter 18)

Question 3: In what connection did Jesus speak of Sodom?

(hint: see Luke 10:1-12)

Question 4: What is the modern day equivalent of the sin of Sodom?
    
Peace,
Richard

  >Exactly, what was the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah?

God, who is extremely gracious and merciful, is not quick to cast judgment
on a people for a single sin.  Rather, judgment is usually shown for 
multiple sins.  Sodom and Gomorrah had many, many sins.

The primary sin, of course, was rejecting God.  It always is.  This
tends to lead to other sins.  (See Romans 1)

Collis

A more precise answer to question number 1:

Ezekiel 16:49-50a

'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were 
arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy. 
They were haughty and did detestable things before Me.'
(version uncertain, NIV maybe)

'Behold, this was the guilt of your sister, Sodom: she and her daughters
had arrogance, abundant food, and careless ease, but she did not help the
poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.'
(NASB)

Notice that nowhere here does Ezekiel even mention sexuality?  Accusations
concerning homosexuality are conspicuously missing!

IN REALITY, sodomy is the sin of being rich and comfortable, while neglecting
            -----------------------------------------------------------------
the poor and oppressed!
----------------------

It would be Scripturally more accurate to march with a sign that says
"SODOMY IS A SIN" in front of the White House than bashing gays with what
has come to be the popular definition and understanding of what sodomy is.

Peace,
Richard
    
    PS to Collis:  I'll be getting to Romans later.

The following is from the San Francisco Chronicle (1/11/91)
 
MILITARY MAY DEFER DISCHARGE OF GAYS
   Pentagon has 'operational needs' in gulf
      by Randy Shilts
 
In an abrubt policy shift on the eve of possible war in the Persian
Gulf, new Department of Defense procedures may allow openly gay 
personnel to serve in the military based on the services' 
"operational needs."
 
A Defense Dept. spokesman said yesterday that although regulations
barring gays from serving in the military still stand, the discharge
of known gay personnel may now be "deferred" until they are no longer
needed for the gulf operation.
 
The new procedures were established by the Pentagon's "Stop Loss
Policy," which permits the military to delay administrative separations
of service personnel unless they are involved in actual misconduct.
 
"Any administrative procedure is dependent on operational considerations
of the unit that would administer such proceedings," said Lieutenant
Commander Ken Satterfield, a Pentagon spokesman.
 
"Just because a person says they're gay, that doesn't mean they can 
stop packing their bags," he said.
 
The need to have fully staffed units will take precedence over 
enforcing noncriminal infractions, he said.
 
"This doesn't abdicate the rules," said Satterfield.  "You just 
have to establish priorities."
 
What Rules Cover
----------------
The "Stop Loss Policy" was put into effect for all the active-duty
and reserve components of the Army, as well as the medical corps 
of the Navy, on December 17.  The rules cover service personnel who
might normally be separated from the service for any number of 
reasons, ranging from end of enlistment to infractions of regulations.
 
The Pentagon policy statements have made no specific mention of 
homosexuality, and the possible application of these rules to gays
did not become apparent until this week.
 
But gay-rights lawyers say the new policy will have a dramatic impact
of gay servicemen and servicewomen, most of whom are discharged 
through administrative separations.
 
Past Policy
-----------
In the past, the Defense Dept. has strenuously maintained that the 
presence of homosexuals in the military represents a threat to the 
morale, discipline, security and recruiting potential of the 
armed services.  The military usually moves quickly to separate any
service member who says he or she is gay.
 
In recent weeks, however, The Chronicle has learned that when several
gay reserve personnel told commanders that they are gay, the commanders
have responded that they must first be sent to Saudi Arabia, although
they may be discharged when they return home.
 
On Wednesday, Reserve Support Specialist Donna Lynn Jackson of San
Diego became the first gay reservist to go public.  Although Jackson,
who serves with the 129th Evacuation Hospital unit at Fort Ord, said
she was eager to serve in Operation Desert Shield, she has also 
asked for Army assurances that she will not be discharged once she 
returns.
  
Lawmaker's Charge
-----------------
Representative Gerry Studds, D-Mass., the most outspoken critic of the
military's gay ban in Congress, said yesterday:  "It is the lowest form
of hypocrisy for the Pentagon to maintain that gays and lesbians are
unfit for military service while it sends them off to risk their lives
in the gulf.  And it is utterly inconceivable to me that these same
men and women, upon the loyal completion of their tours, will be 
kicked out of the service because they are gay."
 
Mary Newcombe, staff attorney with the Lambda Legal Defense and 
Education Fund, a gay advocacy group, said: "I'm ecstatic in that
this shows that the military knows that gay and lesbian soldiers are
extremely well qualified to serve in the armed forces."
 
Some gay reservists facing possible service in the gulf said they
fear that their homosexuality, which they had been able to keep 
secret during weekend reserve tours, could make them the subject 
of harassment once they are sent to the close quarters of Saudi
Arabia.
 
"I talked to a military lawyer, and he said the only way I could 
get out was if I was willing to become a court case," said one 
West Coast reservist whose commander intends to retain gays in 
his unit for the duration of the gulf crisis. 
 
"I don't want my face all over the front page," he said.  "What
would happen to me if I still had to go after all the publicity?"
 
A Pentagon spokesman, however, was not sympathetic.  "You have to
wonder about the ethics of people who sign up, take the benefits,
and then want out.  It's not right," he said. 

Question 2: Had God planned to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah before the
            arrival of the two angels in the city?  And hence, before
            the events involving Lot and his household?

Answer:
Anyone reading chapter 18 of Genesis can see that God had clearly
intended to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.  Abraham pleads with God not
to destroy the righteous along with everyone else.  After an extraordinary
exhibition of negotiation skills on Abraham's part, God agrees not to
destroy Sodom *if* 10 righteous men could be found.

The two angels were sent out to find 10 righteous men, while God stayed
behind and chatted with Abraham.

A few peripheral considerations:

1. When this passage says 10 men, it meant men, not persons.  It didn't
   matter how many righteous women there might have been.  That was the
   the culture, and that was the way it was.

2. 'Why was Abraham so concerned about the fate of Sodom?' you might ask.
   Abraham's nephew, Lot, lived in Sodom with his family.

3. Both Sodom and Gomorrah were large, metropolitan cities with an estimated
   combined population of 1 million.  Many non-semitic religions flourished
   in this region.  'Were there any New_Agers?' you ask.  I honestly do not
   know. ;-}

4. I think I'll save #4 until later, but it has to do with God's requirements
   about providing hospitality.

5. And most important to this topic:
   Homosexuality, in and of itself, is utterly absent as a reason for
   which God decided to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah.

Peace,
Richard

Re: .110  Richard

Remember last year's film "Glory"?  During the Civil War, an all-black
regiment won the right to fight in battle.  Many of them died, but they
gained an increased level of respect for black people everywhere.  Maybe
the same sort of thing will happen with gays in the gulf (not that I'm
advocating an all-gay regiment).

I think the reason for this change in policy is the fear that large numbers
of people in the armed forces might claim that they are gay in order to
avoid getting sent to Saudi Arabia.  Nevertheless, as Studds says, the
change in policy exposes the hypocrisy of the Pentagon's position.

				-- Bob

    Bob:

    (Re. All Gay Regiment)

      Alexander the Great had something along this line. I don't recall
    the name of the group, but it consisted entirely of gay couples.
    They were far and away the most feared of all his forces. Just the
    arrival of this unit on the battle field was enough to cause some enemy
    troops to flee in panic.


                                                               Mike

Re:  .108

Well researched, Richard.  I agree that these were certainly primary
sins of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Collis

    The Brotherhood (there was a longer title which escapes me) was indeed
    a much feared outfit. Essentially, only "married gay couples" were
    accepted into this group, and only after both proved themselves in
    other outfits. These warriors fought not only for themselves but for
    the loved one at their side. Failure was more than an inconvenience.

Question 3: In what connection did Jesus speak of Sodom?

	According to Luke 10:1-12, seventy two (or seventy, depending on the
manuscript) were sent out 2 by 2 to every town and place where the Lord was
about to go, to publicize in advance his forthcoming visit.  Jesus instructed
them not to take a purse or beggar's bag or shoes; and not to stop to greet
anyone on the road.  Jesus provided his publicists with further instructions
contingent on the reception they received.

	Jesus makes it clear that wherever hospitality was not provided,
eventual destruction would result:  "But, whenever you go into a town and
are not welcomed, go out in the streets and say, 'Even the dust from your
town that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you.  But remember that
the Kingdom of God has come near you!'  I assure you that on the Judgment
Day God will show more mercy to Sodom than to that town!" (verses 10-12,TEV)

	The connection to Sodom that Jesus makes is based upon the lack
of hospitality, the lack of charity, and the apathetic selfishness that
he suspected his followers might encounter.  This is irrefutable evidence
that Jesus understood the significance of God's ancient requirements
concerning the provision of hospitality to travelers and strangers.
(Remember peripheral consideration #4 in 91.109??)

	Why such a heavy emphasis on providing hospitality?

	Well, one reason is that in ancient times, when hospitality was
refused, it was like issuing the traveling stranger a possible death
sentence.  At one time, it was the custom of Jewish households to leave
a lit candle in the window, leave the doors unlocked, and leave a
nourishing dish near the fire.  That candle was a beacon of welcome to
the traveler in the night. It meant that a meal and a place to rest
awaited within.  How times, practices, and attitudes have changed!

	But here is the bottom line concerning this topic:

	The connection to Sodom that Jesus makes has absolutely *nothing*
to do with sexual orientation or behavior.  Please note that Jesus, in
referring to Sodom, neither condemned homosexuals nor homosexual behavior.

Peace,
Richard

Question 4: What is the modern day equivalent of the sin of Sodom?

If you cannot answer this question, you haven't been paying attention!

Please re-read 91.108, 91.109, 91.115; and be ready for a pop-quiz.
8-}

Peace,
Richard

You have analyzed well and true, Richard.  The emphasis on Sodom and
Gomorrah is certainly what you have explained.  The people were
certainly not following God and it is no wonder that only Lot and his
extended family were given a chance to be saved from the destruction.

The godlessness of those people kind of reminds me of Romans 1...  :-)

Collis

As you've probably guessed, I've completed the course I made reference to
in Note 91.102, _the Bible and Homosexuality_.

I'm sharing here some of the information and insights I learned through
the course.  I think the reader should be aware that I'm using my own
format and my own words, however.  The course didn't pose the questions
I posed in 91.106, for example.

Peace,
Richard

According to the book of Genesis, what was the *primary* reason God
decided to create Eve?

Yes, it does have something to do with this topic.  (I *will* be getting
to Romans later, Collis.)

Peace,
Richard

The Hebrew word which is translated "abomination" is "to'ebah".  Used
throughout the Old Testament, it is always (read ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS)
used to designate either idolatry or Jewish sins which involve ethnic
contamination.

It is painfully inaccurate to associate anything other than the foregoing
in connection with the term "abomination" as it is used in the Old Testament.

Peace,
Richard

The primary reason was clearly that it was not good for man to be alone
and that a suitable helper should be made for him.

Collis

    "suitable helper" ?  Was that intended to be male supremacist or did it
    just sound that way ?

Note 91.121

>The primary reason was clearly that it was not good for man to be alone
>and that a suitable helper should be made for him.

Collis is absolutely correct.  According to Genesis, God's purpose in
creating Eve was not primarily for the purpose of procreation.  Eve, it
says, was created to be a companion and partner, not simply for the purpose
of sexual differentiation.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    	"helper" bears significant differences in meaning from "companion"
    or "partner".  "Helper" specifies, among other things, a subordinant
    status while "companion" or "partner" strongly suggest, if not specify,
    equality of status.  I am not an expert in ancient languages and am
    ill-prepared to distinguish between the nuances of the original text.
    Could anyone support one or the other of these translations so that we
    might learn where this male chauvanism originated ?

Note 91.124

>    	"helper" bears significant differences in meaning from "companion"
>    or "partner".  "Helper" specifies, among other things, a subordinant
>    status while "companion" or "partner" strongly suggest, if not specify,
>    equality of status.  I am not an expert in ancient languages and am
>    ill-prepared to distinguish between the nuances of the original text.
>    Could anyone support one or the other of these translations so that we
>    might learn where this male chauvanism originated ?

	You're not gonna like the answer here, Dave.

	The words "companion" and "partner" are mine as *suggested* by
the actual verbiage in Genesis.  Old Testament practices were particularly
patriarchal (See peripheral consideration 1. in 91.108).  The culture of
the times dictated and reinforced the message that men were somehow a cut
above women in the natural order of things.  Hence, we have one of the main
reasons why homosexual acts between men were considered so disgraceful and
contemptuous to the ancients:  Because to them such acts caused a man 
to disparage himself, to denigrate his gender, to become "like a woman."

	In tacit confirmation of the prevailing notion, it should be
noted that nowhere in the Old Testament does there exist a corresponding
condemnation for sexual acts between women.

	My point in bringing up Eve was that, in the Genesis account,
she not created *primarily* for the sake of her gender.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    	I requested information and you supplied it. How could I "not like
    it"?  I do not approve of that attitude, true, but that wasn't my
    point. There is still, for some, a question of how that bias occured.
    For some of us it is obvious that this bias was intended by God or else
    God would have breathed a different wording and led the translators to
    the correct connotation. For others there are other answers, such as
    "it was the cultural bias of those who wrote the OT". Your answer rules
    out the answer "it was the bias of the translator". Thank you for the
    information.

    I have to admit that J's account of Adam and Eve always struck me as
    somewhat sexist, or at least more so than P's creation myth in the
    first chapter of Genesis.  I know that the authors of "The Book of J"
    argue that J was probably a woman, but I don't know what to make of
    that hypothesis.  I also realize that there are some rather interesting
    egalitarian interpretations of this myth (some Jewish rabbies, as
    described by Arthur Waskow in his book "Godwrestling", argued that the
    original "adam" was androgynous and was split into male and female).

    Anyway, I like the simple egalitarianism of P's description of the
    creation of man and woman:  

        So God created humankind in his image,
        in the image of God he created them;
        male and female he created them.  (NRSV)

    Even if you use "mankind" and "him" instead of "humankind" and "them",
    I still admire the simple message about men and women that is expressed
    there.

    -- Mike

According to John Boswell, Head Professor of the Department of History
at Yale University, none of the languages of the original manuscripts
- neither the the Hebrew, the Greek, the Syriac, nor the Aramaic - ever
contained a word corresponding to the English "homosexual."  Nor did any
language have such a term before the late nineteenth century.

Whenever homosexual acts are mentioned, Boswell observes, the acts
are always committed in a very negative context, such as adultery,
promiscuity, violence, or idolatrous worship.

Peace,
Richard

    Re .127
    
    Mike,
    
    	Good point.  The course to which I keep alluding did not go into
    the various theories of textual origin.  The brevity of the course and,
    to some degree, I believe, the fundamentalist Biblical posture present
    throughout the course inhibited delving into this consideration.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Many cite Levitical law to support their repression of homosexuality.

Some of the 636 laws referred to as Levitical Law or the Holiness Code
in the Old Testament, include:  Idolatry, beard trimming, tatooing,
wizardry, mentrual intercourse, wearing clothes made of 2 different
fabrics, planting more than one crop in a single field, the cross
breeding of cattle, and many dietary laws.

Ever wear any garments made of more than one fabric?  Do you enjoy
seafood which has no scales or fins (lobster, shrimp, clams, oysters,
squid)?

IF SO, YOU MAY BE PUTTING YOUR SOUL IN GREAT PERIL!!

But, wait!!  How does the New Testament address these largely peculiar
regulations?

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.130               Concerning Levitical Law
                          ========================
>But, wait!!  How does the New Testament address these largely peculiar
>regulations?

All quotes here are from Today's English Version - Good News Bible.  That's
just what I happened to have with me.

Romans 7:6
Now, however, we are free from the Law, because we died to that which once
held us prisoners.  No longer do we serve in the old way of a written
law, but in a new way of the Spirit.

Romans 8:1-2
There is no condemnation now for those who live in union with Christ
Jesus.  For the law of the Spirit, which brings us life in union with
Christ Jesus, has set me [some manuscripts have "you"; others have "us"]
free from the law of sin and death.

Galatians 2:21
I refuse to reject the grace of God.  But if a person is put right with
God through the Law, it means that Christ died for nothing!

Galatians 3:24-25
And so the Law was in charge of us until Christ came, in order that we
might then be put right with God through faith.  Now that the time for
faith is here, the Law is no longer in charge of us.

Galatians 5:4
Those of you who try to be put right with God by obeying the Law have
cut yourselves off from Christ.  You are outside God's grace.

Hebrews 7:11
It was on the basis of the levitical priesthood that the Law was given
to the people of Israel.  Now, if the work of the levitical priests had
been perfect, there would have been no need for a different kind of
priest to appear, one who is in the priestly order of Melchizedek, not
of Aaron.

Hebrews 7:18-19
The old rule, then, is set aside, because it was weak and useless.
For the Law of Moses could not make anything perfect.  And now a better
hope has been provided through which we come near to God.

	It seems fairly apparent that, according to the Bible, we
are set free through Christ from the strict observance of Levitical Law.
    
Peace,
Richard

	"Getting to yadha you,
		getting to yadha all about you"

	My apologies to Rogers and Hammerstein for obliterating the
lyrics to one of the most beloved songs from their classic musical
_The King and I_.  It was simply to make a point.

	Yadha.  A Hebrew word.  You probably already have a pretty good idea
of the meaning of the word from the way I've used it above.  How many times
do you suppose you'd need to see that word used before you were certain you
had a pretty good handle on its meaning?  10 times, maybe?

	How many times do you suppose you'd need to see the word in context
before you were fairly certain of all the subtle nuances and variations of
its meaning?  50 times?  100 times?

	In the Sodom account (Genesis 19:1-28), some versions of the Bible
have translated yadha to mean to "have sexual intercourse": "bring these
men out to us, that we may KNOW [yadha] them."

	The fact of the matter is that the Hebrew word yadha is found
**943 times** in the Old Testament!  Ten of those times, mind you, yadha
actually *does* refer to sexual relations.  But in each one of those ten
times, yadha invariably means "straight" sex!

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .132

Richard,

There is one time where yadha *obviously* refers to gay sex because of
the context.  Perhaps you can deduce which one.  :-)

By the way, where in the Bible does yadha refer to sexual relations?  Are
these references all (or almost all) in Genesis?  (Written, of course,
by Moses long before most of the rest of the Bible before the meaning
of the word "yadha" had changed.)

Re:  freedom from the law

Do you propose to make a distinction between the ceremonial and moral
law?  Or is all law simply law?

You are right, Richard, that we are free of the law when we are in
Christ Jesus.  You are also right if you claim that God's Word will
last forever and that Jesus did not come to abolish the Law but to
fulfill it!

To determine if this part of the Law should not be lived out today, we
would be wise to look at the New Testament teaching on this part of the
Law.  Hmmm.  It says the same as the Old Testament teaching.  Hmmm.

    RE:  .132 and .133
    
    I have to admit the Yadha context for Sodom is (to me) clearly
    referring to "gay sex".  Else why would Lot have so (to my
    sensibilities) outrageously offered his daughters as reasonable
    substitutes.  These weren't people who were interested in a pleasant
    t�te � t�te -- they were a mob intent on rape.  I cannot read the
    passage any other way.
    
    However, that still doesn't prove to me that Sodom's sins were gay sex. 
    Jesus clearly felt that they were guilty of inhospitality -- in this
    case rape.
    
    DR

    RE: .134
    
>    I have to admit the Yadha context for Sodom is (to me) clearly
>    referring to "gay sex".  Else why would Lot have so (to my
>    sensibilities) outrageously offered his daughters as reasonable
>    substitutes.  These weren't people who were interested in a pleasant
>    t�te � t�te -- they were a mob intent on rape.  I cannot read the
>    passage any other way.
    
>    However, that still doesn't prove to me that Sodom's sins were gay sex. 
>    Jesus clearly felt that they were guilty of inhospitality -- in this
>    case rape.
    
    Just a thought as I was reading this note. Based on your conclusion - why 
    would God have destroyed the victims of rape along with the rapist ?   
    The victim of rape hasn't sinned.

    Perhaps I missed something in this conversation ?

    Peace
    Jim

    
    
    >>Jesus clearly felt that they were guilty of inhospitality -- in this
    >>case rape.
    
    
    I don't know...somehow using "inhospitality" as a descriptive for rape
    *really* sends chill up my spine!  Not meaning that you see rape as
    mere inhospitality, DR, just the wording got to me.
    
    E Grace

It is an extreme twisting of scripture to state that the ending of 
observances of ordinances of the law, alleviates God's righteous judgement 
and unapproval of immorality.

A grave mistake to believe it, a severe consequence to teach it.

    RE:.137
    Collis,
    	  you've misunderstood me, I think ? I was asking how .134 could
    come up with the conclusion that the sins of Sodom were not gay-sex,
    but rape being that rape victims are not sinners.

    Jim

    re:  E Grace - brrrr
    
    I agree, in today's context, the wording is awful.  Sorry it got to
    you.
    
    No one, least of all myself, should today make such an equation as rape
    equalling inhospitality.  But I understand that in earlier times, the
    laws of hospitality would require you to take in criminals if they
    asked.  I was attempting to write for the society of the time, which it
    seems thought much differently than we do today.
    
    DR
    

Jim,

Since my comment was inappropriate (I certainly did misunderstand you),
I deleted it.

Collis

    Re. 134
    
    You know, I didn't fully understand Lot's action until recently, either.
    Will share with you what I learned before the week is out.
    
    Before I do, please, consider these:
    
    1. Women in those times were generally considered slightly above
    cattle in significance and value.  It is likely there were women
    in the crowd.  Their presence was not worthy of acknowledgment,
    however, anymore than would be a dog in the street.
    
    2. If it was gay-sex that was being demanded why would Lot try to
    placate the crowd with two females?
    
    (These two considerations, incidentally, have nothing to do with the
     answer which I intend to share later.)
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Note 91.133

>Do you propose to make a distinction between the ceremonial and moral
>law?  Or is all law simply law?

Hi Collis, :-)

I know how much you *love* to have Scripture quoted.  So here you are:

Matthew 22.34-40 (TEV)
"When the Pharisees heard that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, they came
together, and one of them, a teacher of the Law, tried to trap him with
a question.  "Teacher," he asked, "which is the greatest commandment in
the Law?"

Jesus answered, "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your
soul, and with all you mind.'  This is the greatest and most important
commandment.  The second most important commandment is like it: 'Love
your neighbor as you love yourself.'

The ***whole*** Law of Moses **and** the teachings of the prophets
depend on these two commandments."

Tell me, Collis, when Jesus said the ***whole*** Law, did he make a
distinction between between ceremonial and moral law?  Perhaps, it
somehow just got accidentally omitted from the Gospels? ;-}

Peace to you, my friend,
Richard

Re:  .144

Richard, you make your question sound like a trap.  :-)

Certainly, all of the Law and the Prophets depends upon these two
commandments.

Jesus made no explicit distinction between the ceremonial and moral
laws (does this mean you freely admit there are both? :-) )

I see no particular reason to make an implicit distinction (perhaps
you do?)

So, I conclude that the ceremonial law is also based on loving God and
loving your neighbor.  :-)

Collis

Note 604.27                  The Homosexuality Note                    27 of 444
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Do you hear what I hear?"         28 lines  18-DEC-1989 19:44
                      -< Is Lot a good example for us?? >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's talk about Lot.  Lot lived in Sodom.  According to Genesis, one day
two angels came to Lot's home and, though strangers, were welcomed in as
guests.  It seems that a rowdy bunch of Sodomites gathered outside his home
and started calling out to send the visitors out, because, as it is reported,
the men wanted to have sex with them.

This would have had some interesting results, as I have heard that angels
are genderless.;)  Can you imagine the expressions on their faces when they
found out?! %^}

But Lot, a perfect host, did not subject his guests to the rowdies.  Instead,
he did what any loving and righteous father would do.  He offered the unruly
Sodomites his virgin daughters to do with as they wished! &^}

Tangentally, an angel is traditionally a messenger.  The word 'angel' means
'messenger'.  Anybody know what the message was that the two angels
were delivering??

Later in the (still in Genesis) story our hero has sex with the very same
daughters.  Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but this smacks of *incest*.
Granted, it was his daughters' idea.  They got him drunk to do it.  Now I
don't know how liquor affects all men, but I know that too much liquor has a
most ungratifying effect on male sexual ability.;)  I tend to wonder how
just how drunk he was and how much of an objection he put up.:)

Love,

Richard

DR and company,

	It seems that the code of hospitality that the ancients were
expected to carefully observe had some pretty stringent requirements.

	The guest was always to be offered the best of everything that
the host could possibly offer.  No giving the sojourner yesterday's bread.
Lot had fresh bread baked especially for his guests, and a meal prepared
for them.

	The code of hospitality went as far as assigning the host full
responsibility for his guests' lives and safety while under his care.
It meant the host might be required to relinquish his wealth or to put
his life on the line in order to protect his guests from possible harm.

	Now, when I learned this, I thought it kind of extreme, as you
can imagine.  Then I remembered hearing a storyteller, an Iroquois woman,
this past Summer in Denver.  (Our own Nanci Vanfleet and Karen Berggren
were there and heard her, as well.)  She's attempting to keep her people's
customs alive through the telling of stories of times past.  It seems that
the Iroquois had customs very similar to the ancient Semites surrounding
hospitality.  In fact, the Iroquois has an observance analogous to Jubilee!
(Another topic!) :-)

	Mind you, the Sodomites had no such customs.  Lot was considered
a foreigner.  I concede rape may have been Sodom's intention.  Faithful
to his God, Lot yielded to the extreme of his God's code regarding
hospitality.  Lot made a valiant, through admittedly morbid, bid on behalf
of his guests by offering to send out his own daughters, so that his guests
might be spared whatever their intentions were.  (Sort of like the Abraham
and Isaac episode, eh? :-])

	This drastic bid may have been only Lot's first bargaining chip.
Lot may have supposed that his first offer would be refused.  We'll never
know.

The following Bible verses stress the importance of hospitality:
(You may look them up yourself.  But I strongly suggest that you have at
least 3 different versions in front of you, and as always, enter Scripture
prayerfully.)

	Romans 12:13

	I Timothy 5:10

	I Peter 4:9

	III John 8

	Joshua 6 - Jericho was destroyed.
	           Rahab the prostitute and her family were spared because
	           she offered hospitality to the messengers of Joshua.

Blaming gay people or "gayness" for the destruction of Sodom just doesn't
cut it.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard, I would have a hard time condoning what Lot is said to have
    done in this story, regardless of cultural circumstances.  I can't see
    how cultural norms can ever validate something so heinous as offering
    one's daughters to be raped.

    -- Mike

re Note 91.147 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Faithful
> to his God, Lot yielded to the extreme of his God's code regarding
> hospitality.  Lot made a valiant, through admittedly morbid, bid on behalf
> of his guests by offering to send out his own daughters, so that his guests
> might be spared whatever their intentions were.  

        It is not clear that God (or the text of the Scriptures)
        approves of "Lot's yielding to the extreme of his God's
        code."  The fact that Lot did it does not mean that one can
        infer that it's a good thing to do.

        The Pharisees of Jesus' time also taught practices that
        "yielded to the extreme of God's code" regarding many things. 
        While it is clear that the Pharisees' chief sin was not
        scrupulosity, it is also clear that their scrupulosity was
        not considered a virtue by Jesus.

        It is a common error, even to this day, to "yield to the
        extreme" to supposed scriptural codes.  Human beings were no
        more made for Scripture than they were made for the Sabbath.

        Bob

    Re. 148 & 149
    
    Your points are well taken.  Don't get me wrong.  I do not advocate
    doing what Lot did.  I'm certain I would not do it myself.  I was
    attempting to put the incident in the perspective that the ancient
    Jewish people would have readily understood, though it is not
    immediately apparent from the Biblical text.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 91.145

Collis,

>Richard, you make your question sound like a trap.  :-)

Unintentional, I assure you.

>Jesus made no explicit distinction between the ceremonial and moral
>laws (does this mean you freely admit there are both? :-) )

The import of the varieties and types of Law there may be evades me.

All I know is that the way of the Spirit in Christ supercedes the way
of the Law.  And so, I'll shall yield to the way of the Spirit in Christ,
rather than to the Law.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.133

>There is one time where yadha *obviously* refers to gay sex because of
>the context.  Perhaps you can deduce which one.  :-)

Yes, Collis.  You refer to Romans.  I doubt the the word "yadha" is used
there though, since "yadha" is a Hebrew word and, as I recall, Romans
was not written in Hebrew.  Memory says the oldest known manuscripts
are in Greek.

>By the way, where in the Bible does yadha refer to sexual relations?

I don't possess this level of detail in information.  I suspect that
one instance is where Cain knew his wife.  If it's *really* important to
you, I'll research it.  But, you'll have to do some real convincing to
get me to do it.  My dance card of life is kind of full right now. ;-)

Righteous regards,
Richard

Re:  91.152

     >>There is one time where yadha *obviously* refers to gay sex because of
     >>the context.  Perhaps you can deduce which one.  :-)

  >Yes, Collis.  You refer to Romans.  

Ahhhhhh, no.  Genesis 19 comes to mind...

     >>By the way, where in the Bible does yadha refer to sexual relations?

  >I don't possess this level of detail in information.  

I do not remember all the facts (although I have heard them).  I believe 
you will find that over half (maybe even all?) of the references are in 
Genesis.  In other words, "yadha" commonly meant "sexual relations" in 
the book of Genesis.

Collis

Re:  91.151

  >All I know is that the way of the Spirit in Christ supercedes the way
  >of the Law.  And so, I'll shall yield to the way of the Spirit in Christ,
  >rather than to the Law.

I choose to follow both Christ *and* the moral law - since it is
impossible for there to be a dichotomy between the two.

Collis

Re:  91.152

>Ahhhhhh, no.  Genesis 19 comes to mind...

Collis,

	Remaining unconvinced, eh?

	Oh well....

Peace,
Richard

    FWIW: it sounds to me like Romans 7:6 (?from 91.131?) is saying to
    adhere to the Spirit of the Law, rather than the Letter. The Spirit of
    the Law according to Christ. Thus, in those cases where the Letter of
    the Law and the Spirit of the Law seem at variance, there is
    justification for following the latter - for Situational Ethics. ;-)

	Moving right along, let us consider the Eunuch.

	The popular image of a eunuch is that of a castrated man.  However,
the Greek word "saris" had a broader connotation and generally meant anyone
who did not reproduce.  Eunuchs, though some were highly paid and lived in
relative luxury, were relegated to lives of very low social standing.

	In examining Matthew, verses 10 through 12, Jesus demonstrates his
immeasureable breadth of understanding of the human condition and his
encompassing love.  In verse 12, Jesus says of Eunuchs:

	-- some were born that way

	-- some were made Eunuchs by men

	-- some some made themselves Eunuchs for the sake of the
	   work of God.

	How might a gay person relate to this??

Peace,
Richard

Re:  91.155

  >Remaining unconvinced, eh?

Oh.  I didn't know that you had given an alternate meaning for "yadha"
in the Genesis 19 context.  Did you (and did I miss it)?  If so, what
was it?

Collis

Re: .159  Collis

Why couldn't it mean "know" as in "get to know someone"?  It's true that
the Sodomites' intentions were obviously not friendly, but they could have
been lying.

				-- Bob

Re.  .160

Well, Bob, this possibility should not be ruled out arbitrarily.  Does
this meaning fit the context well, or does a sexual knowing fit the
context better?

Collis

Re: .161  Collis

It's hard to say.  I'd always assumed it meant "know" as in "get to know".
The other meaning didn't even occur to me until I read notes here and in
CHRISTIAN.

From what I remember from reading the Old Testament, the only time "know"
obviously means "have sexual relations with" is in a phrase like "and XXX knew
his wife, and she conceived and bore him...".  I'm not in any way an expert on
Hebrew, though.

Since you seem to know something about this: how many times is the word for
"know" used in the book of Genesis, and how many times does it obviously mean
"have sexual relations with"?

				-- Bob

I think Richard has already stated that this is the meaning of yadha
exactly 10 times (excluding this reference, I guess).

Collis

Re: .163 Collis

I thought Richard said that "yadha" means "have sex with" 10 times in the
entire Bible not just in Genesis.  What I want to know is: how many times
does it have that meaning in Genesis, and how many times does it *not* have
that meaning in Genesis.

				-- Bob

Collis,

	I recall reading somewhere you were seminary trained.  Would you
mind sharing with us the name and location of that seminary?

Richard

         "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
         Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor
         idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor
         thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
         extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God."    [I Cor 6:9-10]

Another matter of mistranslation.

This time it is a mistranslation of the Greek word "Malakoi" and of the
Greek word "Arsenokoitoi," which appear in the above passage translated as
"homosexuals" and "sodomites," respectively.

The proper translation of malakoi is "soft".  Typically, it is applied
to the quality of a garment; an article of clothing.

The proper translation of arsenokoitoi is "low (male) sexual practices",
and is a term usually associated with male temple prostitutes.

Does anybody out there know of any other passages which lists the folks
who won't be eligible for the Kingdom of God?

Peace,
Richard

Re:  91.166

  >This time it is a mistranslation of the Greek word "Malakoi" and of the
  >Greek word "Arsenokoitoi," which appear in the above passage translated as
  >"homosexuals" and "sodomites," respectively.

  >The proper translation of malakoi is "soft".  Typically, it is applied
  >to the quality of a garment; an article of clothing.

From "A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature" by Bauer, Arndt, Gingrich and Danker:

malakos:  
  1)  of things:  clothes...soft clothes

  2)  of persons.  soft, effeminate, esp. of catamites, men and boys who
      allow themselves to be misused homosexually (Dionys.  Hal.  7, 2, 4;
      Dio Chrys.  49[66], 25; Ptolem., Apotel.  3, 15, 10; Vett. Val.  113,
      22;  Diog.  L.  7, 173;  PHib. 54, 11 [c. 245 BC] a musician called
      Zenobius ho malakos [cf. Dssm., LO 131, 4-LAE 150, 4].  Sim. a
      Macedon. inscr. in LDuchesne and CBayet...

Essentially, when this word is used of people, a primary meaning is
effeminate and willing partners to homosexual acts.  I fail to see
where the mistranslation is.  The NASV translates this word effiminates;
the NIV translates this male prostitutes; you quote a translation of
homosexuals.  These are all fairly accurate (none completely accurate
which is typically of translations).

  >The proper translation of arsenokoitoi is "low (male) sexual practices",
  >and is a term usually associated with male temple prostitutes.

arsenokoitAs, ou, ho 
  (Bardesanes in Euseb., Pr. Ev. 6, 10, 25. - Anth. Pal. 9, 686, 5 and Cat.
  Cod. Astr. VIII 4 p. 196, 6; 8 arrenokoitAs. - arsenokoitein Sib. Or. 2,
  73) a male who practices homosexuality, pederast, sodomite  I Cor 6: 9;
  I Ti 1: 10; Pol 5:3 Cf. Ro 1:27.  DSBailey, Homosexuality and the
  Western Christian Tradition, '55 M-M.*

It appears the proper definition is "a male who practices homosexuality".

Taken together, it appears that Paul is saying that either allowing your
body to be used for homosexual sexual activities or pursuing homosexual
sexual activities is wrong.  This is supported by two of the three
previous references being the other two types of sexual behavior that
the Bible clear labels as morally wrong - heterosexual sexual relationships
when single and heterosexual sexual relationships when married with 
someone other than your spouse.

Those abbreviations and numbers are the references so that the reader can 
look at the context himself or herself and determine if the definition 
given is accurate.  Did you or your teacher do this work and explain why
the commonly accepted definition of this term was in error?  There are
certainly cases where the definition supplied in Bauer is not the best;
but this is a very well researched and updated book used across the
board (conservative to liberal, that is) and is considered THE standard.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    	Genuinely, by the source that you cite, these words indeed
    could be translated into the very English terms you've indicated.
    And, as I've pointed out, and your source apparently confirms,
    they could also mean other things.
    
    	Allow me to take a modern word: wimpy.  I generally take this word
    to mean convictionless, fearful.  But doubtlessly, because of the way
    it is sometimes used, at some future time someone will connote the
    word "wimpy" to mean effeminate, limp-wristed, hanky-holding, and
    homosexual.
    
    	Mind you, not all gays are effeminate, and not all straight men are
    terribly masculine in the traditional sense of the word.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re. .168

Agreed, Richard.

I think to say that this is a "mistranslation" is too strong.  The best
that could be said is that there are possible related meanings to these
words.

Personally, I think that the translations are the best ones possible
because of the context.

By the way, the third word (idolaters) in the string of five words
also has sexual connotations.  Idolatry was often involved with temple
prostitutes (both male and female).

Collis

>I think to say that this is a "mistranslation" is too strong.
    
Perhaps "a questionable translation" would have been better.

The snag is that, in nearly all modern translations, as part of the process
translators will consult previous translations, in addition to the oldest
known manuscripts (the Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus).  In one
sense this is a benefit, like consulting a scholar from a previous age.
In another sense, I tend to wonder how much certain Scriptural passages
are skewed by the theological perspectives of past translators.

Actually, this particular passage from I Corinthians is a really interesting
one for the comparison of several different versions.  Such divergence!

>By the way, the third word (idolaters) in the string of five words
>also has sexual connotations.  Idolatry was often involved with temple
>prostitutes (both male and female).

So, I've heard.  And, according to the course I took, whenever anything
is exalted above God, it becomes idolatry, regardless of whether it is a
material thing or not.  In other words, lust is conceivably a form of
idolatry.  This concept, incidentally, is key to how I shall approach
the Romans passages later on.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 91.170 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> In one
> sense this is a benefit, like consulting a scholar from a previous age.
> In another sense, I tend to wonder how much certain Scriptural passages
> are skewed by the theological perspectives of past translators.
  
        And Scripture warns us against the "traditions of men" -- which
        is what this is.

        Bob

Note 91.166

>Does anybody out there know of any other passages which lists the folks
>who won't be eligible for the Kingdom of God?

I found out the answer to my own question!  (It's difficult working without
my concordance, which is out on loan at the moment.)  The verses I had in
mind are from Paul's letter to the Galatians 5:19-21:

	"What human nature does is quite plain.  It shows itself in immoral,
	filthy, and indecent actions; in worship of idols and witchcraft.
	People become enemies and they fight; they become jealous, angry,
	and ambitious.  They separate into parties and groups; they are
	envious, get drunk, have orgies, and do other things like these.
	I warn you now as I have before: those who do these things will not
	possess the Kingdom of God." (TEV)

Now let's compare this Scripture against the previously used Scripture:

         "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the
         Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor
         idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor
         thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor
         extortioners will inherit the Kingdom of God."    [I Cor 6:9-10]

I can see some parallels and some overlapping between these two statements
about who will not partake of the Kingdom of God.  Both are presumed to have
been written by the same individual; one Paul of Tarsus.  Both seem to identify
various selfish and malevolent behaviors.

Yet, the Galatians passage fails to specify homosexuals or sodomites.  There
are a number of possible explanations for this incongruency, not the least of
which is the possibility that what Paul was trying to say was not entirely
understood by his translators.

Peace,
Richard

After two years of gathering evidence, a special United Methodist
church-wide study panel has come down to grappling with one question:
"Should The United Methodist Church change its statement that the practice of
homosexuality is 'incompatible' with Christian teaching?"

Two proposals are part of a preliminary draft of a report by the Committee to
Study Homosexuality.  Both are based on admittedly "inconclusive evidence"
gathered by the committee.

Both proposals begin as follows:
	"We acknowledge with humility that the Church has been unable to arrive
	at a common mind on the compatibility of homosexual practice with
	Christian faith.  Many consider the practice incompatible with
	Christian teaching."
This wording is followed by:

Proposal that removes the current judgment against homosexuality:
	"Many believe it acceptable when practiced in a context of human caring
	and covenental faithfulness.  The present state of knowledge in the
	relevant disciplines does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which
	the Church can responsibly maintain a specific prohibition of
	homosexual practice."
OR:

Proposal that retains the current judgement against homosexuality:
	"Some believe it acceptable when practiced in a context of human caring
	and covenental faithfulness.  The present state of knowledge in the
	relevant disciplines does not provide a satisfactory basis upon which
	the Church can responsibly change its position.  Therefore we do not
	condone the practice of homosexuality and consider this practice
	incompatible with Christian teaching."

The proposals conclude with identical wording:
	"The Church seeks further understanding through continued prayer, study
	and pastoral experience.  In doing so, the Church continues to affirm
	that God's grace is bestowed upon all and that the members of Christ's
	body are called to be in ministry for and with one another, and to the
	world." 


Nancy Smith

    Thanks, Nancy.  I know this issue has been a difficult one for many
    people, UM's and others, to tackle.  I commend the efforts of the study
    panel, even though I'm not always in total agreement with their
    findings.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

I shall now address the last of the "troublesome" passages in the Bible
concerning homosexuality.  If I've overlooked any, please bring them to
my attention.

Romans 1:26-27 - (Interestingly, verse 26 is the only verse in the Bible
which appears to address lesbian relations.):

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women
exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men
also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received
in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

Now, in case it hasn't already occurred to you, you have got to wonder what
the "this" in "Because of this" is!  In order to understand verses 26 and 27,
you really need to absorb all of verses 18 through 32.

Romans 1:18-32 refers to the wickedness of the Gentiles.  Paul addresses
Jews and Gentiles in telling them that sin has alienated all people from
God.  No one is exempt from the need of the grace of God.

The bottom line is that anything loved more than God becomes an idol.  The
love bestowed upon any idol is an unnatural love; the differentiation is
properly called *lust*.

Three examples of lust (not love) in Romans chapter 1:

	1. Lust for the idol of wisdom (verse 22)
	   Result = foolishness

	2. Women allowing sex to be their god (verse 26)
	   Result = unnatural sexual activities.

	3. Men allowing sex to be their god (verse 27)
	   Result = unnatural sexual activities

It would be unnatural for me, personally, to engage in an erotic relationship
with a member of the same sex.  I can understand and appreciate, however, that
it would not be for someone else.  And, I can understand how it would be
unnatural for someone who is constitutionally homosexual to engage in an
erotic relationship with a member of the opposite sex.

If you are constitutionally homosexual, then it would be unnatural for you
to engage in heterosexual relations.  If you are constitutionally heterosexual,
then it would be unnatural for you to engage in homosexual relations.  Natural
is that which is according to your own individual nature.

Peace,
Richard

	Richard! That was WONDERFUL! :-) Would you be so kind as to post that
in the Christian notesfile or give me permission to post it over there? What
you have said really puts it in a nutshell. Thanks for putting it in. :-)



Glen

    re: .175
    
    Richard,
    	nothing in what you quoted specified WHY the relationship was
    wicked or unnatural. Your analysis might indeed be the correct one, it
    is certainly as obvious and supportable as any other. Might I also
    suggest that the wickedness of these affairs might stem (from God's
    view, not just man's) from their extra-marital nature ?
    
    BTW: I, too, appreciate this string of entries here. Keep it up,
    please.

    .176 You have my permission.
    
    .177 I guess you're right.  I implied it, but didn't say it outright.
    It seems that Paul may have been addressing heterosexuals engaging
    in homosexual experimentation or exploitation, which was not
    within their constitutional natures.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard,
    	sorry that I was unclear. The quotes seemed quite clear as to the
    general nature of the activities that were being disapproved of, just
    not WHY they were wrong. The quote did say that the (homosexual)
    actions cited were wrong, but did NOT say that homosexuality was wrong,
    although I know some who would infer the one from the other.

Note 91.177
   
>    BTW: I, too, appreciate this string of entries here. Keep it up,
>    please.

Thanks, but I'm basically done. 8-}

There were other portions to the course.  But, they dealt with more
generalized concepts such as forgiveness, unconditional love, promoting
a positive self-concept, God's promises of salvation, the origin and
growth of the English Bible, etc..

I will go on record as having been the host for the two gatherings.  Yes,
the course was held in my home.  I was the only heterosexual present.  The
rest of the class was composed of 4 lesbian women (including the instructor/
facilitator) and 2 gay men.

No orgies ensued.  My children were not molested.  I was not propositioned.
And, I'm certain, our household remains HIV negative.  The only cooties
we now have are the very same cooties that were there before these homosexual
people entered my home. &^}

There was a great deal of prayer, a great deal of searching Scriptures
and comparing various versions, a great deal of sharing of pain; pain
brought on by social pressures to keep their identities concealed.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .180

Thank you, Richard, for your constant efforts to remove the homosexual
stereotypes that are sometimes so wrongfully spewed out.

Collis

Re:  .175

  >"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts.  Even their women
  >exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.  In the same way the men
  >also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust
  >for one another.  Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received
  >in themselves the due penalty for their perversion." (NIV)

Now, it is important to understand what "this" is.  Fortunately, the
context defines it.  "This" is neither glorifying God nor giving thanks
to Him (v. 21) despite God having revealed Himself to them (vv. 19-20).

God gave them over to their SINFUL desires (emphasis mine) (v. 24) which
was specifically sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
one another (v. 24).  This was a result of their rejection of God (v. 25).

Paul defines natural relations as being with the opposite sex and condemns
unnatural relations with the same sex as "shameful lusts" (v. 26-27).
Because of their immoral sexual activities which resulted from their
rejection of God, these people will receive the due penalty for their
perversion (v. 27).

Collis

Note 91.182

>God gave them over to their SINFUL desires (emphasis mine) (v. 24) which
>was specifically sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with
>one another (v. 24).  This was a result of their rejection of God (v. 25).

The course taught the same thing as you are saying here.

>Paul defines natural relations as being with the opposite sex and condemns
>unnatural relations with the same sex as "shameful lusts" (v. 26-27).
>Because of their immoral sexual activities which resulted from their
>rejection of God, these people will receive the due penalty for their
>perversion (v. 27).

Actually, the only variance with what you've said here and what the
course taught is when naturally heterosexual people fall into unnatural
(for them) relations, and vice versa, of course.

I will certainly respect your disagreeing with this understanding.

Personally, I don't regard the writings of Paul to be totally without
error.  I also realize that when I'm reading the Pauline epistles, I'm
really reading someone else's mail.  This realization has a lot of
implications, just by itself.

When it comes right down to it, the absence of any erotic relationship was
the status of choice of both Paul and Jesus.  The monogamous, covenantal
relationship was merely a distant alternative outlet and safety net for those
who found the teaching of celibacy "too hard".

Peace,
Richard

    Re .173
    
Extracted from an article by Stephen Charles Mott, Professor of Christian
Social Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton,
Massachusetts, and a member of the Board of Church and Society of the
United Methodist Church:

".....we happily note that there is broad agreement that the Bible
does not condemn a homosexual orientation in itself.  There also is
agreement that the biblical passages that deal with homosexual rape
(e.g., Gen. 19) are not pertinent to the debate within the United
Methodist Church, which concerns the legitimacy of sexual relationships
between homosexual persons covenantally committed to each other."

Peace,
Richard

Re:  previous

Agreed:  The Bible links homosexual sexual acts with a rejection of God 

Conclusion A:  Homosexual secual acts are inconsistent with God's Will

Conclusion B:  The Bible does not discuss homosexual sexual acts that are
  accompanied by an acceptance of God.  These homosexual sexual acts,
  since not discussed by the Bible, must be assumed to be acceptable.

Conclusion A is consistent with all Biblical references on the subject
and directly supported by the Romans 1 passage.

Conclusion B denies passages such as the Old Testament prohibition
against homosexual sexual acts between men and then makes an *assumption*
that we are to assume that what is not explicitly declared to be wrong
should be considered right.  There are two problems with this. 

  1)  Homosexual sexual acts in and of themselves are explicitly declared
      to be wrong.

  2)  Assuming that what the Bible does not say is wrong should be considered
      to be right is an invalid methodology.  We are, in all cases, to
      lean to be as pure as we can be in order to avoid even the appearance
      of sin.  To assume that homosexual sexual acts are morally right
      despite, at best, grave doubts about what the Bible says on this
      matter, is inconsistent with seeking the best for ourselves and
      following God to the best of our abilities.

The argument is made that "natural" refers to "natural to them".  Well,
who is the "them"?  Paul tells us that the "them" is men and women.  To
read into this passage that the "them" is a select group of people is
misinterpretation of the worst kind.  Nowhere is this distinction made unless
you wish to make the distinction between believers and unbelievers.  But
this presents an insolvable problem of a different kind:  Why would
homosexual sexual acts between believers be acceptable in God's eyes
and the exact same acts be unacceptable between unbelievers?  It is
precisely because of this problem that this distinction, the only reasonable
distinction based on the text, is not made.  God does not change his
standards of morality based on whether or not you are a believer or an
unbeliever.  Both are held to the same standard (and both fail).

Gen 19 *is* relevant since is provides a part of the overall context
that the Bible portrays homosexual sexual acts in (a rejection of God).
By itself, however, it does not clearly teach that homosexual sexual
acts are wrong.

Collis

Re: .186 Collis

>Agreed:  The Bible links homosexual sexual acts with a rejection of God 
>
>Conclusion A:  Homosexual secual acts are inconsistent with God's Will
>
>Conclusion B:  The Bible does not discuss homosexual sexual acts that are
>  accompanied by an acceptance of God.  These homosexual sexual acts,
>  since not discussed by the Bible, must be assumed to be acceptable.

Conclusion C:  The Bible reflects the cultural biases of its authors.

				-- Bob

    Re: .186  Respectfully acknowledged.
    
    Re: .187  Agreed.
    
    Richard

Extracts from an article by Stephen Charles Mott, Professor of Christian
Social Ethics at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary in South Hamilton,
Massachusetts, and a member of the Board of Church and Society of the
United Methodist Church:
................
    
	"Romans 1:26-27 states that those who reject God are given up
by God to a perverted life that includes men and women committing with
their own sex shameless acts, which are against nature. (I Corinthians
6:9-10 and I Timothy 1:9-10 present similar issues.)  One challenge is
that *nature* here means one's own individual nature.  What is condemned
would include a person with a heterosexual disposition perverting it
in a homosexual relationship, not a person with a genuine homosexual
disposition.  Another challenge is that Greek homosexual practice was
pederasty - homosexual intercourse with boys.  This is what Paul would
have in mind.  The response to these two objections has been that
Jewish counterparts of Paul used *nature* to refer to the created order
and held that homosexual practices to be in violation of it.....

	Perhaps the most significant challenge has been that the issue
in the church today is different from what Paul addressed.  Paul linked
homosexual practice with idolatry and rejection of God.  Our issue
involves Christians in a loving and permanent commitment.  The response
has been that Paul condemned the act itself as being against nature
so that the motivation is irrelevant; furthermore, Christians should
not engage in a lifestyle characteristic of idolatry."

(I re-entered this note after realizing that I was doing an injustice
to the author and to conservative Christian understandings by omitting
the last sentence, which is now included.)

Peace,
Richard

    While I believe homosexuallity is wrong in both the ot and the nt, I do
    not hold to the idea that you can be pure by keeping commandments of
    men.  Paul warns us of that kind of doctrine.  It is the doctrine of
    the pharesses.  It is against God and His word to make up your own
    idea of what is right or wrong.  It becomes your idol.  It replaces
    God's commands.  It assumes that you know more about right and wrong
    than God does.  Beware of the leaven of the Pharesees!!
    
    
                               Marshall

Marshall,

	In light of what you've stated, what would you consider
genuinely Christian behavior when interacting with gay men and
lesbians, Christian and non-Christian?

In Christ,
Richard

    I would react the same as I would to one that commits any sex sin.   If
    they repent of the sin, then I would treat them as a Christian brother
    or sister.  If they do not repent after being warned of the sin, then I
    would treat them as an outsider of the faith.  When they knowingly sin
    against God openly they are waring against God.
    
    
                                    Marshall

    I believe the bible in both the ot and nt teaches that "un-natural use
    of the body" (KJV) is sin.  At the begining of .189 I stated that I 
    believe the bible clearly teaches that homosexual acts and to be
    efiminate(sp?) is sin.  In fact Paul teaches that it is the judgement
    of God.  
    
    
                                 Marshall

Re:  .187

  >The Bible reflects the cultural biases of its authoers.

Yes, indeed, Bob.  The conclusion that the Bible is not the express Word
of God is one that many people hold to and I was not careful to give
credence to in my response.  We certainly have to consider this option.

Collis

Note 91.191

>    I would react the same as I would to one that commits any sex sin.   If
>    they repent of the sin, then I would treat them as a Christian brother
>    or sister.  If they do not repent after being warned of the sin, then I
>    would treat them as an outsider of the faith.  When they knowingly sin
>    against God openly they are waring against God.

OK.  What are the practical implications to what you've stated?  Suppose you
had a son who was gay.  Would you not allow your gay son to visit your
household at Christmas (if he remained gay)?  Would you shun other members
of the family if they chose to maintain a close relationship with your son
(if he remained gay)?  Suppose this gay son prayed and prayed and tried his
very hardest to become a heterosexual, but failed to become one?

Suppose you had a sister who was a lesbian.  Would you refuse to attend
church with her and her lover?  Would you and your family join them for
a visit at a coffee shop or an ice cream parlor?

What I'm getting at is, precisely how do you treat someone as an outsider
of the faith?

Richard

    Marshall
    
    Do you believe that God creates people who are condemed to sin
    (above any beyond the fact that we are all sinners and have all
    fallen short) by their very nature?
    
    Modern research into homosexuality, has indicated that it is
    a part of a person's basic make up, like intelligence, height,
    skin color.... all things where there is both a genetic and
    an environmental component,  but neither are under the individual's
    conscious control.
    
    Saying that a person is a sinner because they are homosexual is
    the same - to me at least - as saying they are a sinner because
    they have light skin or are short.
    
    Bonnie

    I believe Romans 1:24-32 is the very word of God.  For me the word of
    God is always above modern research.  Read Psalm 119.  So that you may
    understand where I am coming from I use the KJV bible.  In verse 24
    we see that God's word states that people are given over, by God, to 
    the un-natural affection.  Also, in I Cor. 6:9 even being effeminate
    is a sin.  Effeminate means "Having qualities unsuitable to a man;
    womanish."  Websters Dictionary.
    
    I must go now.  I will answer .194 later.
    
    
                                       In Christ,
    
                                                  Marshall
     
    
    

re Note 91.196 by RAVEN::WATKINS:

>     I believe Romans 1:24-32 is the very word of God.  For me the word of
>     God is always above modern research.  Read Psalm 119.  So that you may
>     understand where I am coming from I use the KJV bible.  

        Might I observe that since you use the KJV, you allow very
        old research to influence your interpretation of the Bible. 
        Why the prejudice against "modern" research?

        Bob

Re:  91.195
    
  >Do you believe that God creates people who are condemed to sin
  >(above any beyond the fact that we are all sinners and have all
  >fallen short) by their very nature?

I don't understand the question.  You are asking if people are
condemned to sin by their very nature, other than the fact that all
people are condemned to sin by their very nature?

We are all condemned to sin by our nature.  How this sin manifests
itself differs for each of us.  As Jimmy Carter pointed out, almost
all of us (men anyway) struggle at times with lust.  Perhaps only
a small minority struggle with molesting children.  But sin is sin
is sin and it matters not how that sin manifests itself in terms of
defining it as sin.

Collis

    What if some of us were sinners just because we were short? or
    had dark skin (in the 17-19th centuries, people of color were often
    referred to as sinners just because of their skin color, and the
    Bible used to justify this). i.e. sinners because of something
    we have no conscious choice over.
    
    Given that all modern research into homosexuality has shown that
    people have as much 'choice' over their sexual orientation as
    they do over their height or skin color, it makes zero sense 
    for me for God to have created some 10% of all humans such that
    if they express their natural desire to bond with another adult
    in a love relationship, something the remaining 90% are encouraged
    and rewarded for doing, they are sinners.
    
    And saying that being homosexual isn't a sin but practicing it
    is strikes me as similar to saying that dark skinned people
    can redeam their sinful natures by being slaves (which again
    was actively preached in the time of slavery).
    
    Bonnie

      I do not hold anything against Modern Research unless it disagrees
    with the Bible.  Then I hold to the teaching of the Bible above modern
    research.  Again if you would read Psalm 119 you would understand.
    
    
                                   Marshall

Marshall,

	I read Psalm 119.  Sure is a long one.:-)
                                     ----
	I take it you feel compelled to observe Old Testament law, and
that is the reason why you will not accept a gay man or a lesbian as
a full brother or sister in Christ.

	What do you make of what Paul said about the law in
Galatians 5:14?

	Again, I am curious about the practical application, also.

Richard

Re:  .199

  >What is some of us were sinners just because we were short?

This is truly very hypothetical.  We know for a fact that this is
*not* true.  We know that *all* sin is a choice - a choice to be
obedient to God or to not be obedient to God.

Are you claiming that the attraction of men for men and women for women
is *so* overwhelming that they *must* respond to these desires in a
sexual way?  And that this is likewise *not* true for the attraction of
a man for a woman (and vice versa) outside of the marriage relationship?

No, you're missing the point.  Sin is in our nature (our makeup), but
it is a choice (not like height, color or even feelings).

Collis

    Collis:
            Maybe you can help sort this out, because there is something
    here I don't understand.
            It has been explained to me by a quite a few Christians,
    yourself included, that sinfulness is inherent in human nature.
    In effect we are born sinners and that humanity is a fallen
    species.
            Yet on the on the other hand you are saying and I have also
    been told by other Christians that all sin is by choice and is willful
    disobedience to what God desires from us.
            Do you think you could try to clarify these apparently
    contradictory positions for me ?

                                                               Mike

    Collis,

    What if homosexuals could contract marriage? Many of them do
    go through marriage ceremonies with their partner. If they
    marry in the church is their acting on their desire for each
    other still a sin?

    Sin implies a choice, a person is not a homosexual by choice any
    more than they are heterosexual by choice.

    Further, I've seen people argue, that, well, it is okay to be
    homosexual but not to practice it... "they" should be celibate.
    Yet in the Roman Catholic church where life long celibacy is
    asked of priests and nuns, celibacy is considered to always be
    a matter of choice. It is not something that is coerced or
    forced on someone. 
    
    To insist that a person who is homosexual as a result of genetic 
    or hormonal or psycological factors over which they have no choice 
    and no control, is to make that a coerced decision.

    My feeling is that sexual relations between unmarried persons
    be they heterosexual or homosexual should be regarded equally.
    If you feel that sex out side of marriage is sinful among heterosexual
    couples, then it is consistent to so regard relations between
    homosexual couples (but the latter shouldn't be regarded as *worse*
    than the former.)

    On the other hand, all adults should be allowed to form a God
    sanctified marriage with the person they have chosen for a life
    partner. 


    Perhaps a better analogy than saying that people are sinners because
    they are short would be to use skin color again. (I picked both
    of these examples because there are a wide range of heights and
    skin colors among humans and they can vary due to some environmental
    influences, which makes them at least somewhat analogous to sexuality.)

    Let us look back to the days when people of color were regarded as 
    being sinful by nature. Suppose someone proposed that it wasn't sinful
    to have the genes for dark skin, but if a person went out in the 
    sun and exposed their skin to the sun so it was darkened, i.e.
    they were 'practicing' dark skin, they would be sinners. Would you
    accept this as reasonable? This is fairly similar to how I feel about
    the arguments about homosexuality and sin.
    
    
    Bonnie

    Well said, Bonnie
    
    E Grace

Re:  91.204

  >What if homosexuals could contract marriage? 

Contracting to do what God has clearly forbidden (IMO) is not to be 
condoned but rather to be avoided.  A current analogy is to give
condoms to people in order to prevent the spread of AIDS.  Does
encouraging immorality please God?  Or would God propose a different
solution that does not encourage immorality?

  >Sin implies a choice, a person is not a homosexual by choice any
  >more than they are heterosexual by choice.

I have tried to be careful in my language, but sometimes I slip up.
I am taking about sexual actions, not feelings.  I am not condemning
anyone for their feelings.

  >Further, I've seen people argue, that, well, it is okay to be
  >homosexual but not to practice it... 

It is clearly right to not practice what is sinful.  Changing our
desires is something we sometimes have to give to God because we
can't do it on our own.  There are certainly some sinful desires I 
have that I cannot change on my own.  But I pray regularly to God
that He will change me into His likeness despite myself.

  >If you feel that sex out side of marriage is sinful among heterosexual
  >couples, then it is consistent to so regard relations between
  >homosexual couples (but the latter shouldn't be regarded as *worse*
  >than the former.)

The standard I use is not my feelings but rather the best interpretation
of God's revelation that I know.  On the issue of sex, it is quite
clear in many areas including all of the ones mentioned above.

  >On the other hand, all adults should be allowed to form a God
  >sanctified marriage with the person they have chosen for a life
  >partner.

I would say rather that all adults (and children) should strive to
follow God's Will for them both given as general guidelines (including
the Bible's clear directives) and individual guidelines (as God reveals
His specific Will for them).

  >Suppose someone proposed that it wasn't sinful to have the genes for 
  >dark skin, but if a person went out in the sun and exposed their skin 
  >to the sun so it was darkened, i.e. they were 'practicing' dark skin, 
  >they would be sinners. Would you accept this as reasonable?  This is 
  >fairly similar to how I feel about the arguments about homosexuality 
  >and sin.
    
I'm sorry, I can't follow the relevance of your hypothetical example.
Sin is about refusing to follow God; it is not about following what
"someone" proposes.

Again, we all have desires for "things".  Some of these desires
are good; some of these desires are neutral; some of these desires are
sinful.  Having desires gives absolutely no indication of the "sinfulness"
of the desire.  You seem to be arguing by analogy that desires are
sin-neutral.  This is not the case.

Collis    

    
    Collis, you just don't get it.
    
    Carole

    I don't usually note here, but I dropped in for a look.  I found this
    topic interesting.
    
    The way I see it the Bible is quite clear in what it has to say on the
    subject of homosexuality.  It says its a no-no.  Some of the revisionist 
    interpretations I read here are interesting, but not very credible.
    If you believe the Bible is the word of God and not the word of the men
    who wrote it then to be consistent you must believe homosexual acts are
    unnatural.
    
    I personally do not take that view.  I believe the Bible was written by
    humans within a cultural context.  Paul and others lived in cultures
    which did not condon homosexuality.  So Paul was a homophobe.  No
    surprise there.
    
    So this argument isn't really about what the Bible says about
    homosexuality, but about what people believe about the Bible.
    
    Anyway, I'm with Bonnie.  I believe that God's nature is within each of
    us - straight or gay.  To go against the nature within us is to be
    unnatural.
    
    Mary

    so Collis, you are telling me that a loving God creates about
    10% of all people who have biologically three choices...
    
    1. celebacy that is enforced and for which there is no choice..
    something that I've never seen as theologically defensible
    and something that the Roamn Catholic church rejects.
    
    2. marriage with a person of the oppositive sex for which they
    can feel no attraction, a marriage that is a lie, and a sin.
    
    3. to sin by expressing their love with the sort of person that
    they are by biology (not choice) drawn to.
    
    Sorry Collis, I don't believe in a God that would force people
    into those types of choices.
    
    as I said before, this makes as little sense as calling someone
    a sinner because of any other toss of the genetic dice. You
    might as well call me a sinner in the summer time when I go
    out side and let the sun show up my freckles.
    
    God made us, He made our natures, I don't believe He would play
    this sort of cruel joke  so many people.
    
    It is my belief that the (relatively few) anti homosexual remarks
    in the Bible are the result of the cultural biases and the biological
    ignorance of those who wrote things down. 
    
    Bonnie

| >What if homosexuals could contract marriage?

| Contracting to do what God has clearly forbidden (IMO) is not to be
| condoned but rather to be avoided.  A current analogy is to give
| condoms to people in order to prevent the spread of AIDS.  Does
| encouraging immorality please God?  Or would God propose a different
| solution that does not encourage immorality?

	Collis, this really shows how little you know about AIDS. The disease
would still be spread, still be in existance if every lesbigay in the world
STOPPED having sex. You see, AIDS is spread by more than just lesbigays having
sex. Maybe you should look and see just what are ALL the causes of AIDS and you
might find out a thing or two!

| >Sin implies a choice, a person is not a homosexual by choice any
| >more than they are heterosexual by choice.

| I have tried to be careful in my language, but sometimes I slip up.
| I am taking about sexual actions, not feelings.  I am not condemning
| anyone for their feelings.

	Are you telling us then that your heterosexuality is only a feeling?
Feelings can change ya know. Does this mean you could become homosexual? I
doubt it. Being a het or being a lesbigay has nothing to do with feelings.

| Again, we all have desires for "things".  Some of these desires
| are good; some of these desires are neutral; some of these desires are
| sinful.  Having desires gives absolutely no indication of the "sinfulness"
| of the desire.  You seem to be arguing by analogy that desires are
| sin-neutral.  This is not the case.

	Fine. We are in aggreance then. You see, being a lesbigay has nothing
more to do with desires as being a het does. So, I guess that means you agree
that we should have the same rights as you?


Glen

    To begin with it is not OT law only in the matter at hand.  It is also
    NT.  Romans 1  is what I stated also in my earlier point.
    
    
                             Marshall

    Marshall,

    One source of information about God, in addition to the Bible,
    is the world He created. How do you reconcile the fact that
    God created humans so that 10% are homosexual, with the
    Bible verses that some interpret to mean their condemnation?

    The evidence from researchers into human sexuality are quite
    clear about this. A person who is homosexual has no more
    'choice' in their orientation than a person who is heterosexual.

    In the past, Bible verses have been used to justify first
    the enslavement and then the second class status of persons
    of African descent in America. Other Bible verses have been used
    to justify making women second class citizens, forbidding them
    education, and making them chattels of their husbands.

    Today no reasonable person believes that there is any Biblical
    justification for such actions. We look back at the past with
    amazement, finding it hard to believe that people were able
    to so twist Scripture to subjugate other human beings. At the
    time however, persons who challenged the status of women or
    blacks were told they were going against Scripture and God's 
    law. 

    It is my hope that future generations will look back and regard
    this time as one when we stopped using the Bible to justify
    our all too human prejudices against 10% of humanity.

    Bonnie

	Great reply Bonnie. I hope everyone who feels that the homosexual act
is wrong will reply to what your last note. :-)


Glen

    I hold to the Bible as the authority in all matters in my life.  If you
    find that you do not hold to that authority then we will never agree.
    I have clearly stated my belief in this and therefore I see no reason
    to keep myself in this debate.  I hold no hard feelings toward anyone
    that has disagreed with me here.
    
    
                                        Marshall
    

    Marshall,

    As I said in my note, in the past people found authority in the Bible
    to subjugate women and blacks. Were they correct in their understanding
    of the Bible? Could people be mistaken today?

    Bonnie

Re:  91.207

Carole,
    
  >Collis, you just don't get it.
    
I understand completely (I think).  I strongly disagree for the reasons
mentioned.

Collis

Re:  91.209

Hi Bonnie,

  >so Collis, you are telling me that a loving God creates about
  >10% of all people who have biologically three choices...

We do you *insist* on ignoring the numerous sinful desires that
a "loving God" created *all* of us with.  Are you claiming that
people in general are not created with sinful desires?  It appears 
that you are.  

Two other points which are of interest (which are not directly
relevant to the Biblical position I am trying my best to express):

  1.  Research I have heard says that the 10% mark is very overstated.
      In actuality, only 3-4% of men describe themselves as homosexual
      at any given point in their life.  One of the reasons for the
      higher number is that people describe themselves differently at
      different points in their lives.

  2.  How much (if any) of homosexual desires is ingrained vs. learned
      is still very much debated and I doubt that we will ever learn
      definatively what the percentage is.  We just don't have the
      skills to know what is inborn and what is learned - not only in
      this area but in many other areas.

  >Sorry Collis, I don't believe in a God that would force people
  >into those types of choices.

I hear you.  I choose not to believe your reasoning but rather to
believe God's revelation as best as I can understand it.
    
  >as I said before, this makes as little sense as calling someone
  >a sinner because of any other toss of the genetic dice. 

I have said it before and I will say it now again.  Sin is a *CHOICE*.
This means that someone is *NOT* a sinner "because of any toss of
the genetic dice".  This totally misrepresents the issue.  One is
a sinner if and only if one chooses to sin.  

  >God made us, He made our natures, I don't believe He would play
  >this sort of cruel joke  so many people.

You don't believe it is possible that our natures have been distorted
by sin?  If not, why not.  The Bible expresses that this is in fact
the case.
    
Collis

Re:  91.213

  >The evidence from researchers into human sexuality are quite
  >clear about this. A person who is homosexual has no more
  >'choice' in their orientation than a person who is heterosexual.

I wish we did know.  But, alas, our methodology and knowledge is not up
to the level of "knowing" such facts from our human experience.  There
is information so that we can make somewhat informed guesses (which
various experts disagree on based primarily on their framework), but
true knowledge based on human research and observation is not likely
to come during our lifetimes.

  >In the past, Bible verses have been used to justify first
  >the enslavement and then the second class status of persons
  >of African descent in America. Other Bible verses have been used
  >to justify making women second class citizens, forbidding them
  >education, and making them chattels of their husbands.

Interesting to note that at the exact same time the Bible was
being used for these purposes, it was also be used to condemn the
enslavement and then the second class status of persons of African
descent in America; it was used to condemn the making of women
second class citizens; it was used to condemn the forbidding of 
education to them and the making of them chattels of their husbands.

In fact, it was exactly those who were most devoted to God and to
the belief that the Bible was God's Word who LED the movement both
in England and the United States to outlaw slavery and the slave
trade.  Please don't ignore this vital piece of information which
helps us to see that the Bible can and does inspire and indeed require
us to follow God's leading and not our own.

  >...finding it hard to believe that people were able
  >to so twist Scripture to subjugate other human beings. 

I find it easy to believe.  People have also twisted Scripture to
make it say what they want to hear and will continue to do this.
Today, the twisting is just done on different issues.

  >At the time however, persons who challenged the status of women or
  >blacks were told they were going against Scripture and God's law. 

And those who twisted the Scripture were told that they were twisting
the Scripture and condemned for that by these people.

  >It is my hope that future generations will look back and regard
  >this time as one when we stopped using the Bible to justify
  >our all too human prejudices against 10% of humanity.

It is my hope that we will be obedient to God and to His teaching
to us passed down by Himself through the prophets, through the
scribes and into our hearts and minds.

Collis

| >so Collis, you are telling me that a loving God creates about
| >10% of all people who have biologically three choices...

| We do you *insist* on ignoring the numerous sinful desires that
| a "loving God" created *all* of us with.  Are you claiming that
| people in general are not created with sinful desires?  It appears
| that you are.

	Collis, do you feel your heterosexual orientation is a desire or
something that is just there?

| 1.  Research I have heard says that the 10% mark is very overstated.

	Collis, by what means have you come to this conclusion? To tell you the
truth, the mark is very understated. I have a book at home that gives the
numbers on what % is predominantly gay, what % feel that they are bisexual,
what % have had feelings towards men but haven't acted on them, what % have had
fantasies about men and so on. I will type in the numbers tonight. If you can
tell me where you got your information though, I'd be happy. My information
comes from a study that was done by people, documented by people in the
psychiatric field.

| In actuality, only 3-4% of men describe themselves as homosexual
| at any given point in their life.  One of the reasons for the
| higher number is that people describe themselves differently at
| different points in their lives.

	Collis, again, where are you getting your information from?

| 2.  How much (if any) of homosexual desires is ingrained vs. learned
| is still very much debated and I doubt that we will ever learn
| definatively what the percentage is.  

	Collis, how much (if any) of heterosexual desires is ingrained vs.
learned? The truth of the matter is zip. I could no more make you believe that
you could choose a same sex partner for life (regardless of whether you were a
Christian or not), than you could make me believe that I could choose an
opposite sex partner for life. No one EVER came up to me and said, "Hey, let's
get together for life. I know, I know, we're the same sex, but it's ok. You'll
like it. Believe me!" It wasn't taught to me by society! They kept saying it
was bad! Lesbigays go for children, they will bring you into their ways! It's
sinful! You'll wear womans clothes! You'll never have a real lover as all they
want is sex! So, if I didn't learn it from society, never had an met anyone who
was gay, why was the sexual orientation that seemed to interest me the most be
the same sex?

| >as I said before, this makes as little sense as calling someone
| >a sinner because of any other toss of the genetic dice.

| I have said it before and I will say it now again.  Sin is a *CHOICE*.
| This means that someone is *NOT* a sinner "because of any toss of
| the genetic dice".  This totally misrepresents the issue.  One is
| a sinner if and only if one chooses to sin.

	Collis. Let me ask you something. Back in the days of old, when the
books were being written, did anyone have a clue that being homosexual wasn't
something that could be a genetic problem? Now, I know your answer already, it
was God who knew. But funny, how when mentioning homosexuals, He stated men and
women who would go against their natural orientation (opposite) were going for
the same. That has nothing to do with those people who have their natural
orientation as the same sex.

| >God made us, He made our natures, I don't believe He would play
| >this sort of cruel joke  so many people.

| You don't believe it is possible that our natures have been distorted
| by sin?  

	You don't believe it possible that our nature has been distorted when
interpreting the Bible?

	The Bible has been used to do a lot of things that today, we see as
wrong. It was used to justify slavery, to justify the Spanish Inquisition and
to justify the burning of witches to name a few. Do you feel God wanted this to
happen? I doubt it. Do you feel God had the power to stop these things from
ever happening? He does. But they still happened. Why is this? Free will of
humans. He loved these people who were wrongly being chastised, killed and 
burned just as much as He loved us back when the Bible was being written and
just as much as He does today. But things still continue on today. Why doesn't
He stop them from happening? Because of free will. If God has the power to keep
the Bible from ever having one word changed (which I do feel he does), why
doesn't He use that same power to stop the problems of today, or to stop the
misinterpretations of the Bible in the past? Because of free will. Could it be
that free will also played into the writing of the Bible? If not, are you
telling us that God loved the people back then MORE than He loves us today?
After all, doesn't he want us all to be on His right? Could it be that free
will will always play into everything that humans have done or will do?


Glen

    Bonnie, do you believe that God has created large numbers of
    people for whom sex outside of marriage is attractive? Do
    you believe such actions are prohibited by the Bible? Or do
    you believe that God would not be so unfair as to create teenagers
    who lust after each other and yet make them having sex a sin?

    On natural and unnatural acts. I know a number of people whose
    natural reaction to someone calling them a name is to hit them.
    Would it be unnatural and therefor wrong for the Bible, the
    law, or they themselves to stop them from hitting people? How is
    homosexuality different?

    On homosexuality and choice. Assume for a minute that one believes
    that one has no more choice about being a homosexual then about
    getting cancer. Should we then demand that no one work for a cure
    for cancer? I assume not. Now the next reply will say that there is
    a difference. Cancer is bad for you homosexuality is not. But if
    you believe the Bible to say that it *is* bad in that it is a sin
    then could one, who believed that, be considered caring if they didn't
    suggest that the search for a "cure" for homosexuality was an 
    reasonable thing to do?

    		Regards,
    			Alfred

| >The evidence from researchers into human sexuality are quite
| >clear about this. A person who is homosexual has no more
| >'choice' in their orientation than a person who is heterosexual.

| I wish we did know.  But, alas, our methodology and knowledge is not up
| to the level of "knowing" such facts from our human experience.  There
| is information so that we can make somewhat informed guesses (which
| various experts disagree on based primarily on their framework), but
| true knowledge based on human research and observation is not likely
| to come during our lifetimes.

	Same can be said about the Bible.

| >In the past, Bible verses have been used to justify first
| >the enslavement and then the second class status of persons
| >of African descent in America. Other Bible verses have been used
| >to justify making women second class citizens, forbidding them
| >education, and making them chattels of their husbands.

| Interesting to note that at the exact same time the Bible was
| being used for these purposes, it was also be used to condemn the
| enslavement and then the second class status of persons of African
| descent in America; it was used to condemn the making of women
| second class citizens; it was used to condemn the forbidding of
| education to them and the making of them chattels of their husbands.

	What did the majority of Bible going people believe Collis? That all of
the above things stated were true. It was a small minority that saw things as
they really should be. In time the movement grew. In time, the majority of
people saw that those things mentioned above were actually a misinterpretation
of the Bible. This sounds a lot like what we lesbigays are going through now.
Remember, there are Christians who back us now. I know, you call them
extremists. But what do you think the people from the past called these same
type people who broke the bonds to slavery, women being second class citizens,
etc...?

| In fact, it was exactly those who were most devoted to God and to
| the belief that the Bible was God's Word who LED the movement both
| in England and the United States to outlaw slavery and the slave
| trade.  Please don't ignore this vital piece of information which
| helps us to see that the Bible can and does inspire and indeed require
| us to follow God's leading and not our own.

	Yes Collis, please don't forget that.

| >At the time however, persons who challenged the status of women or
| >blacks were told they were going against Scripture and God's law.

| And those who twisted the Scripture were told that they were twisting
| the Scripture and condemned for that by these people.

	But you know Collis, the same could be said about people who don't
think that lesbigay's should do what they do.

| >It is my hope that future generations will look back and regard
| >this time as one when we stopped using the Bible to justify
| >our all too human prejudices against 10% of humanity.

| It is my hope that we will be obedient to God and to His teaching
| to us passed down by Himself through the prophets, through the
| scribes and into our hearts and minds.

	How do you do this when people in the past thought what they were doing
was right, but were found out to be wrong? It's being done today as well. 

Glen

| Bonnie, do you believe that God has created large numbers of
| people for whom sex outside of marriage is attractive? 

	I will speak for me. I can't speak for Bonnie. Yes, there are many
people who find sex outside of marriage attractive. As far as Him creating them
to be this way, it's possible. I think society has a lot to play with this as
sex for anyone is regarded as being cool. Kids are losing their virginity at an
earlier age all of the time. One would think that society's views and peer
pressure have a lot to do with this. I don't see society or peer pressure
playing a part in the life of a lesbigay.

| Do
| you believe such actions are prohibited by the Bible? Or do
| you believe that God would not be so unfair as to create teenagers
| who lust after each other and yet make them having sex a sin?

	Well, for one thing, lets not confuse lust and homosexuality. They are
at opposite ends of the spectrum. Yes, there is lust in a lesbigay
relationship, as there can be with a het relationship. The lust is the part of
the relationship that may be seen as wrong, not the relationship as a whole.
Someone who goes off and sleeps with anyone may be seen as sinning. BUT! If 2
people are in love, and can get married, then do so. We aren't allowed to be
married, remember? Don't you think people would if they could? I know people
that have been together for 6-10 years. They can't get married. They would be
if they could. But because humans interpret the Bible the way they do, we
aren't allowed. 

| On natural and unnatural acts. I know a number of people whose
| natural reaction to someone calling them a name is to hit them.
| Would it be unnatural and therefor wrong for the Bible, the
| law, or they themselves to stop them from hitting people? How is
| homosexuality different?

	To hit someone is an emotion. An emotion can be controlled.
Homosexuality isn't an emotion any more than being heterosexual. It's
there, no one knows why, but it's there none the less. 

| On homosexuality and choice. Assume for a minute that one believes
| that one has no more choice about being a homosexual then about
| getting cancer. 

	Now you're starting to get the picture. Let's change it a bit. Let's
say that no one has a choice about being heterosexual or getting cancer. You
will see that the two examples (yours and mine) are identical.

| But if
| you believe the Bible to say that it *is* bad in that it is a sin
| then could one, who believed that, be considered caring if they didn't
| suggest that the search for a "cure" for homosexuality was an
| reasonable thing to do?

	Explain how having cancer is the same as homosexuality? They are 2 
different things. One is a disease that can be cured. The other is not a 
disease. Or, are you telling us someday there could be a cure for your 
heterosexualness?


Glen

Glen,

I'm enjoying and supportive of your comments.  Glad you found C-P, Glen.

Thanks,

Ro

    Thanks Glen, you answered both Alfred and Collis much better than
    I could.
    
    Bonnie

    I'm currently working on a "cure" for heterosexuality. I've tried it
    out on myself and it seems to work fine, so now I just need a few more
    "volunteers" to make sure it wasn't just a 1 in 10 fluky chance, but
    that it really works!

    Thanks from me, also, Glen.
    
    I keep remembering that sex for any reason other than procreation is
    (supposedly) wrong.  sigh.   I'm damned!
    
    
    E Grace

    RE: .225 I'm very sorry to read your comment Bonnie. You seem to say
    that they is no answer to my questions. Glen answered none of them. I
    had hoped for more.
    
    		Alfred
    

    Alfred,
    
    What I am saying is that I feel that homosexual couples should
    be allowed to marry. and that further that laws banning relations
    between adult homosexual couples in marriage are unethical, that
    they are human laws out of human prejudice not God's law.
    
    Bonnie

>	I will speak for me. I can't speak for Bonnie. Yes, there are many
>people who find sex outside of marriage attractive. As far as Him creating them
>to be this way, it's possible. 

    You are sure that God made some people want to have sex with people of
    the same sex but you're not sure if He created others who want to have
    sex with the opposite sex? Or is is that you're just not sure if the
    unwillingness to wait for marriage is natural? I'm confused here.

>| Do
>| you believe such actions are prohibited by the Bible? Or do
>| you believe that God would not be so unfair as to create teenagers
>| who lust after each other and yet make them having sex a sin?

    Bonnie or someone, Please give this question a shot. It was neatly
    sidestepped in the earlier reply and I really want to know the answer.

    >	To hit someone is an emotion. An emotion can be controlled.
>Homosexuality isn't an emotion any more than being heterosexual. It's
>there, no one knows why, but it's there none the less. 

    No, hitting someone is clearly not an emotion. It is an action. Wanting
    to hit someone is and emotion. Being attracted to someone is an
    emotion. The question is is if it's OK to act on that emotion. See the
    difference?

>	Now you're starting to get the picture. Let's change it a bit. Let's
>say that no one has a choice about being heterosexual or getting cancer. You
>will see that the two examples (yours and mine) are identical.

    At this point I was hopeful. Yes, so far our examples are identical.

>| But if
>| you believe the Bible to say that it *is* bad in that it is a sin
>| then could one, who believed that, be considered caring if they didn't
>| suggest that the search for a "cure" for homosexuality was an
>| reasonable thing to do?
>
>	Explain how having cancer is the same as homosexuality? 

    Here you seemed to lose what I was saying. Is homosexuality biological
    in cause? Is cancer? If one of them is not biological ie one has a
    choice in the matter then they are different. 

    >They are 2 
>different things. One is a disease that can be cured. The other is not a 
>disease. Or, are you telling us someday there could be a cure for your 
>heterosexualness?

    If heterosexuality is biological then of course I believe that it
    could be "cured". And if you think it is a bad/sinfull/etc thing then
    you would be uncaring not to look for it. Right? I'm not asking you
    to agree that homosexuality is a sin BTW. Just that someone who did
    would have a moral obligation to help find a cure.

    Please try and be as open minded about this as I am. I'm looking for
    answers to questions that bother me. Why will no one help with the
    answers?

    			Alfred

re:221

Alfred,

I know you be a very rational being and very well aware of the laws
of logic and of inference so I won't comment on the spurious questions
that you pose since I assume that they are merely your attempt at
"chain-yanking".

I will comment on the notion of a "cure for homosexuality" since I've
personally known both men and women who have been incarcerated in 
mental institutions by their families in an attempt to "cure" them of
their sexual orientation. Let me assure you that the electroshock treatments
that these gay people were subjected to are not pretty. While the subject
may be an academic exercise for you, it is a grim and terrifying memory of the
'50s and '60s to many gay folk.

/peter

    RE: .229 Bonnie, I know that is how you feel. But that is *not* what
    I was asking. If you thought it was please help me understand how
    I mis presented my questions. Thanks.
    
    		Alfred

 >   1.... do you believe that God has created large numbers of
 >   people for whom sex outside of marriage is attractive? 

    yes, and it is regarded as a sin like coveting or not honoring
    the Sabbath or not honoring ones parents to do so.

>   2. Do you believe such actions are prohibited by the Bible? 

    see above, but such people are not prohibited from having 
    any sexual outlet, just not outside of their God sanctioned
    marriage.

>   3.Or do you believe that God would not be so unfair as to create teenagers
>   who lust after each other and yet make them having sex a sin?

    This is the result of social pressures and changes in society. We
    are biologically programmed to be ready to form partnerships
    and have children at a much younger age than we are socially capable
    of doing so. As a parent I feel it is my responsibility to teach
    my children to wait, ideally until they are married, but at a minimum
    until they are adults to engage in sexual activity. 

    But I'm not telling those teenagers that they have to be celibate
    and chaste all their lives, only to wait until the appropriate time.
    

 >  4.On natural and unnatural acts. I know a number of people whose
 >   natural reaction to someone calling them a name is to hit them.
 >   Would it be unnatural and therefor wrong for the Bible, the
 >   law, or they themselves to stop them from hitting people? How is
 >   homosexuality different?

    I dunno, Alfred, how is heterosexuality different? 

    I don't see that there is any relationship between the two situations
    at all.

    Why can't two consenting adult homosexual individuals marry? *why*
    must they be limited to the two choices of enforced life long celibacy
    or marriage to a person to whom they are as attracted (i.e. a MOS) as
    you would be to a member of your own sex?

>  5.On homosexuality and choice. Assume for a minute that one believes
>   that one has no more choice about being a homosexual then about
>    getting cancer. Should we then demand that no one work for a cure
>    for cancer? I assume not. Now the next reply will say that there is
>    a difference. Cancer is bad for you homosexuality is not. But if
>    you believe the Bible to say that it *is* bad in that it is a sin
>    then could one, who believed that, be considered caring if they didn't
>    suggest that the search for a "cure" for homosexuality was an 
>    reasonable thing to do?

    Why do you assume that homosexuality is a disease? Because you
    regard it as such? Given that it has existed in the human society
    for many thousands of years, and seems to persist at something
    around the 10% level, perhaps it is just an alternate form of
    expression of the human condition..

    would you like to be cured of being male? we might be able to do
    so, after all all fetuses start out as female, perhaps being
    male is a disease that can be eliminated...

    that makes about as much sense to me as comparing homosexuality
    with cancer.

    Further,  neither medical science nor pyschology have ever been
    able to 'cure' anyone of homosexuality, and there have been many
    tortured and damaged lives as a result of those attempts at cures,
    many of them people who wanted *desperatly* to be cured.

    Okay, was that better?

    Bonnie

>I know you be a very rational being and very well aware of the laws
>of logic and of inference so I won't comment on the spurious questions
>that you pose since I assume that they are merely your attempt at
>"chain-yanking".

    Chain yanking? No, please do not assume that I am doing that. I really
    am trying to fine tune my understanding of the issue. I'm 99.9%
    convinced that homosexuality is caused by biology. (Bonnies fault) It's
    the part about it being healthy and not sinful I'm trying to deal with.

    As for the methods used in the past to try and "cure" homosexuals I find 
    them repugnant and unscientific. I do not advocate any method of
    treatment as I believe that no viable treatment exists. I'm trying to
    get people to understand that saying that something is "good" just 
    because no treatment exists is not a credible argument.

    		Alfred

>>   3.Or do you believe that God would not be so unfair as to create teenagers
>>   who lust after each other and yet make them having sex a sin?
>
>    This is the result of social pressures and changes in society. We
>    are biologically programmed to be ready to form partnerships
>    and have children at a much younger age than we are socially capable
>    of doing so. As a parent I feel it is my responsibility to teach
>    my children to wait, ideally until they are married, but at a minimum
>    until they are adults to engage in sexual activity. 
    
    A simple "yes" would have been fine.
    
>    I dunno, Alfred, how is heterosexuality different? 
    
    The Bible says the hitting and the homosexuality is wrong. It says that
    the heterosexuality is right. My point is that being natural and being
    OK are not always the same thing.
    
>    Why do you assume that homosexuality is a disease? Because you
>    regard it as such? Given that it has existed in the human society
>    for many thousands of years, and seems to persist at something
>    around the 10% level, perhaps it is just an alternate form of
>    expression of the human condition..
    
    I assume it's a disease because *you* convinced me it is biological
    in nature and because the Bible says it's not a good thing. As for
    it being around for thousands of years so has murder, plague, rape,
    stealing, lying, and a host of other things I doubt you like and which
    the Bible condems. Should we say they are just alternate forms of 
    expression?
    
>    Okay, was that better?
    
    Much better. At least you're trying to understand my questions. Thank
    you.
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    Go back and read the sermon I entered by the Jewish rabbi, I think
    it is note 91.2
    
    I think that laws in the Bible against homosexuality are human laws
    not God's laws.
    
    Bonnie

Note 91.208

First of all, Mary: Welcome to C-P!

>    The way I see it the Bible is quite clear in what it has to say on the
>    subject of homosexuality.  It says its a no-no.  Some of the revisionist 
>    interpretations I read here are interesting, but not very credible.
>    If you believe the Bible is the word of God and not the word of the men
>    who wrote it then to be consistent you must believe homosexual acts are
>    unnatural.

	You are quite correct.  Where one stands on the nature of the Bible
seems to have a lot to do with where one stands on this particular issue.
Another discussion on this topic is taking place in another conference,
GOLF::CHRISTIAN, Note 27.***.

	I believe it was me who shared the revisionist interpretations.
I derived them from a class I took entitled "The Bible and Homosexuality"
offered by the Metropolitan Community Church.  I don't necessarily hold
the teachings I learned there as my own.  Personally, I find myself very
much in agreement with the Rabbi who Bonnie quoted in 91.2.

Peace,
Richard

    Alfred,
    
    I appologise for loosing my temper with you. I should have known
    you better. You were not really asking in the sense of wanting to 
    debate, and ask serious questions, rather than being closed minded 
    on the subject as some people have been. mea culpa. I've gotten
    a bit 'gun shy' of the 'The Bible says its wrong and I refuse
    to discuss this any further' point of view.
    
    I guess my answer is that sexual relationships between unmarried
    anythings is a sin, just as sexual relationshps between a married
    person and a person they are not married to is a sin. i.e. it is
    a sin like any other sin, and of less significance than failing
    to honor God or keep holy the Sabbath. It is about on a level with
    coveting our neighbor's possessions or not honoring our parents.
    
    It is something we should confess if we do it, and ask Gods help
    to not do it again. Just as we should confess the fact that we
    worked on the Sabbath, or didn't honor our parents or failed to
    control our desire for our neighbor's new car.
    
    But it is considered acceptable for heterosexuals to marry even if
    the union will be childless. So that is not an arguement against
    homosexual marriage (and homosexual marriages do produce children
    either by adoption or by artificial insemnation). 
    
    Again, the Roman Catholic church has long preached that celibacy
    must be a freely chosen vocation. By denying homosexuals the
    right to marry, we are offering them (in the absence of any sort
    of hypothetical cure, if you wish) two choices...
    
    1. enforced life long celibacy for which they have no calling 
    
    2. marriage to a person of the opposite sex for which they can have
    little or no desire... such a marriage would be a fraud, and the
    marriages of that sort that do form (and there are many) only cause
    pain and suffering to both parties.
    
    What other choices do you offer?
    
    Bonnie

    in re .236
    
    a simple yes wouldn't suffice, it wouldn't explain *why* we have
    the problem of teenagers whose bodies are ready for sex long
    before they are socially ready for the responsibilities.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  91.234

  >Further,  neither medical science nor pyschology have ever been
  >able to 'cure' anyone of homosexuality...

Do you believe that God has never 'cured' anyone of homosexuality
as well?

Collis

    >    The Bible says the hitting . . .  is wrong.
    
    Actually, Alfred, the bible also says that an eye for an eye and a
    tooth for a tooth is correct.  I guess it pretty much just depends on
    what page you open up to.
    
    
    E Grace

    Collis,
    
    There have been some very publicized Christian groups that have
    purported to 'cure' homosexuality by prayer. I have heard from
    a few homosexual people that these 'cures' are more assumed
    than real and many of them cause a great deal of pain and
    disfunctionality in the people so 'cured'. I'd have to ask
    some of the people who know more about it to answer that.
    
    Bonnie

    >I keep remembering that sex for any reason other than procreation is
    >(supposedly) wrong.  sigh.   I'm damned!
    
    Me too, thank God!
    
    Mary

    >I keep remembering that sex for any reason other than procreation is
    >(supposedly) wrong.  sigh.   I'm damned!
    
I remember someone saying, "If God created anything better than sex, she's
keeping it to herself!"

*<8+}
Richard

    Many of my dearest friends are women.  As a heterosexual married
    person, the issue of sexuality is always present for me and (one
    flatters oneself) also for at least some of these women.  At times,
    maintaining fidelity to Bonnie and also such friendships seem like
    driving at high speed on a mountain road, so close does one come to the
    abyss.  Yet I value these friendships; I do not cut them off because
    there is a possibility of disaster.  I pray a lot, too ....
    
    Is not relationship (Eros) a primal human need, along with the Logos? 
    Shall I tell my beloved I must put off love because I might sin?  Was
    there not a disciple whom Jesus loved, singled out repeatedly, 'though
    we know he loved all of them?  Did he withold that love because by it
    he might have fallen?  Doesn't the Greek word for sin mean something
    like, "Missing the mark."   We are talking here about human
    relationships of all levels, and how, perhaps, some are on target, and
    some are not.   Shall the archers put away their arrows because some
    may go astray, or shall they all seek perfection in the completeness of
    the relationships that come their way?
    
    DR
    
    DR
    

    Donald (.245),
    
    Thank you for your refreshingly honest open Christian reply (since I
    like to consider myself as being one of your 'dear friends', I find it
    especially endearing).  I do believe, also, that God wants us to take
    those feelings to him to be tramsmuted to a higher (more Divine) energy.
    
    Ro
    
    P.S.  Bonnie, you are a very lucky woman to have Dr (as he is to have
    you), but then you know that!   ;')
    

    Ro,
    
    yeah, um, blush
    
    thankyou
    
    Bonnie
    
    hi Don ;-}

re: Note 91.240 by Collis 

>                   -< It only takes one counter-example... >-

to disprove the statement that "neither medical science nor pyschology have 
ever been able to 'cure' anyone of homosexuality..." (from Re:  91.234)...

But what does that Prove, I wonder?

Suppose God HAS 'cured' someone of homosexuality.  What does That prove?

That all homosexuality is something to be cured?  Or that for that one person 
in the example, homosexuality was not what God had intended?

I have seen many debates on this, many interpretations and insights into those 
scripture that touch on this topic.  My question is NOT "who's right, who's 
wrong?"  I can only concern myself with what is right for me.

For those to whom scripture says "homosexuality is a sin", pray, then be
convicted of that.  Don't be gay.  (but be happy in the Lord! .-) 

For those to whom scripture does not say "homosexuality is a sin", pray, then 
be convicted that you follow Jesus, and be happy in the Lord.

For those who try to convict others I have little time.  


God, grant me Grace to accept with serenity the things I cannot change,
              Courage to change the things that need to be changed,
          and Wisdom to know one from the other.

Peace,

Jim

I suspect that it prove that the belief that homosexuality cannot be
changed is false.

I'd like to take a look at some of these issues apart from the Biblical
mandates.

I view homosexuality, heterorsexuality, whatever sexuality as a desire.
That is, if someone does not have a desire to be with someone of the
same or opposite sex, we say that this someone is not heterosexual
or homosexual or whatever.  If someone does have that desire, then
that someone is given that "label".

If this is truly an accurate description of sexuality (and as far as I
can tell it is), then we should look at desires in general and see what
they are like.

We have strong desires and weak desires.  We have some desires that are
innate (self-preservation, for example) and some desires that are
acquired (desire for a Mercedes-Benz for example).  The question is,
where does sexual desire fit on this scale of inborn versus acquired?

Knowing that people *do* change their sexual desires helps us to
better answer this question.  Knowing that this is often a very
difficult (and sometimes impossible) process also helps us to answer 
the question.

The other basic issue that is fundamental to this issue is, what is the
"rightness" of sexual desire?  Some here and elsewhere are arguing that
simply the existence of the desire argues for its rightness.  Others such
as myself believe that sexual desire, like most (if not all) other
desires, can be either right, wrong or neutral.

I question the analogy of a desire to an inborn charecteristic such
as height or weight because neither of those is a desire.  I accept
much more readily an analogy of the sexual desire to other desires
because they have much more in common.

Collis

>For those who try to convict others I have little time.  

    One reason that I phrase most of my notes in this topic as questions
    is that I am trying to come to my own conclusions. Because I have some
    already my questions may appear to be designed to convince others of that
    point of view. This is an unfortunate and undesirable thing but one
    which I have not found a way around.

    In my own search into this area I have run into alot of people who thought
    that my belief that homosexual activity is sinful to be sinful itself.
    The attitude of some of these people has been less charitable then my
    own attitude to homosexuals. If I were not already friendly with a
    number of homosexuals these other people would have made it harder for
    me to accept homosexuals as friends. There seems to be some idea that
    people who believe homosexuality to be a sin also believe that
    homosexuals are "bad people". And perhaps there are some like that but
    I a told someone, who knows I'm not it that group, "they're not my
    fault." I just wish that people who felt homosexuality was not wrong
    would be as accepting of me and my beliefs as I am of theirs and of
    homosexuals.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I (for one) would be less inclined to react negatively if you would
    address Gay people as "Gay people".  Without regard to how *you* feel
    about the use of the word (gay), it _is_ the way that gay people
    have (repeatedly) asked the majority to use in describing them.
    
    If you would glance at the base note, you'll see that I have asked
    writers to this topic to use what Gay people prefer (I feel that it's
    only courteous) which is "Gay" or "Lesbian and Gay".
    
    Or do you continue to use the words that you prefer when you speak to
    and about other minorities? 
    
    /peter

Jim!


	I think that what you put in note .248 is really great. Thanks!


| Suppose God HAS 'cured' someone of homosexuality.  What does That prove?

| That all homosexuality is something to be cured?  Or that for that one person
| in the example, homosexuality was not what God had intended?

	They could also be bisexual. Which would allow them to accept either
sexual orientation as their life long mate.


Glen

    /peter,
    
    I've had many lesbian women ask me *not* to refer to homosexual
    people as 'gay' people because they feel that refers to only
    men. I use homosexual in deference to that request. Would you
    rather I said lesbigays?
    
    Bonnie

    Glen,
    
    It is my feeling, too, that a person 'cured' of homosexuality was
    most likely bisexual. 
    
    I'm very cautious about the stories of cures... especially after
    all the publicity about the man who was offerning cures who was
    also 'hitting' on the people who came to him for cures.
    
    Bonnie

	The "I's" have it! :-) Collis, you have stated in each paragraph that
"I" believe this, "I" believe that. What facts do you have to back up the "I's"
that you are so freely using?

| I suspect that it prove that the belief that homosexuality cannot be
| changed is false.

	Why is that? Where in the Bible does it say this? What studies are you
going by? What statistics were given to you to make this conclusion?

| I view homosexuality, heterorsexuality, whatever sexuality as a desire.

	What does the Bible specifically say about this? 

| That is, if someone does not have a desire to be with someone of the
| same or opposite sex, we say that this someone is not heterosexual
| or homosexual or whatever.  

	I have never heard that one before. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist,
but it's new to me? Where did that come from? It was my understanding that
someone who didn't seek the same sex relationship was called a heterosexual.
When did this come about?

| If someone does have that desire, then
| that someone is given that "label".

	I agree. But to be heterosexual or homosexual or the 3rd catagory you
speak has nothing to do with desire. 

| If this is truly an accurate description of sexuality (and as far as I
| can tell it is), 

	Based on.....

| We have strong desires and weak desires.  We have some desires that are
| innate (self-preservation, for example) and some desires that are
| acquired (desire for a Mercedes-Benz for example).  The question is,
| where does sexual desire fit on this scale of inborn versus acquired?

	It doesn't. It's not a desire. You see Collis, you can desire to be
with a specific person. This is a true desire. But how do you desire to be with
a certain sexual orientation? That, my friend is something that you have
instilled inside you. It's part of your make up. Just like an arm or leg, it's
there. You see, I grew up in a small town. Homosexuality was almost
non-existant, and it was never talked about. The only talk about it was someone
calling someone else a fag because they were different. I used the word all the
time. I never associated someone who is seeking a same sex relationship. It was
a slang word for loser. Cruel, and I wish no one ever used it (including
myself), but it was there. So, with all of this non-talk about homosexuality,
all of this non-living by homosexuality, how did I become one? I knew at a very
early age that men interested me. I never had one, but they still did interest
me. How did all this happen when I lived in a town where this was almost
non-existant?

| Knowing that people *do* change their sexual desires helps us to
| better answer this question.  

	Can you be more specific? I don't mean for you to go into detail, but
to give a general idea as to what you mean by changing their sexual desires.

| Knowing that this is often a very
| difficult (and sometimes impossible) process also helps us to answer
| the question.

	Again, please explain what you meant by changing their sexual desires. 

| The other basic issue that is fundamental to this issue is, what is the
| "rightness" of sexual desire?  Some here and elsewhere are arguing that
| simply the existence of the desire argues for its rightness.  Others such
| as myself believe that sexual desire, like most (if not all) other
| desires, can be either right, wrong or neutral.

	I have to agree with most of this last paragraph Collis. I don't
understand what neutral means though. Can you explain that for me?

| I question the analogy of a desire to an inborn charecteristic such
| as height or weight because neither of those is a desire.  I accept
| much more readily an analogy of the sexual desire to other desires
| because they have much more in common.

	Hmmmm... I suppose you can believe this if you'd like, but I do
question why you would think that height and weight are any different from
sexual orientation. All three are not desires.


Glen

| 2B::THOMPSON

	I have to ask. It's a little side step, but I need to know. I'm a big
baseball fan (it's my favorite sport) and need to know something. Is your node
name (2b::THOMPSON) have anything to do with Robbie Thompson who plays second
base for the San Francisco Giants? I'm sure it doesn't, but I knew I had to
ask! :-)

| In my own search into this area I have run into alot of people who thought
| that my belief that homosexual activity is sinful to be sinful itself.
| The attitude of some of these people has been less charitable then my
| own attitude to homosexuals. If I were not already friendly with a
| number of homosexuals these other people would have made it harder for
| me to accept homosexuals as friends. There seems to be some idea that
| people who believe homosexuality to be a sin also believe that
| homosexuals are "bad people". And perhaps there are some like that but
| I a told someone, who knows I'm not it that group, "they're not my
| fault." I just wish that people who felt homosexuality was not wrong
| would be as accepting of me and my beliefs as I am of theirs and of
| homosexuals.

	Alfred. Well said my friend. You see, Christians have the rap of not
liking (to put it nicely) homosexuals. This isn't the case for ALL Christians,
but with quite a few. People tend to catagorize people into groups. I have done
it and it really is wrong. The rap that you have is simular to the one we have
with a lot of Christians. You must admit that there are a lot of Christians
that wouldn't give us the time of day. If you look at how things have
progressed (how Christians viewed lesbigays) from say, 20 years ago, you can
see that Christians, though not much more accepting of the lifestyle, have
begun to see that we're human just like the rest of them. And as that happens
more and more the stereotypes that others have put on Christians start to come
off. As our steroetypes of Christians go away, I can see the stereotypes that
all people have about lesbigays going away. Yes, it seems to be a VERY slow
process, but one that eventually will be met by most people of this world,
someday in the future. I am sorry if people have treated you this way, but
please, try to understand the other side of the coin as well. It can only help
you understand why they may be angry towards you. It doesn't make it any easier
to deal with, but at least you'll understand. :-)


Glen
| Alfred

    RE: .256 Actually 2B is not my node. It's a system a friend owns
    where I have an account that I use from time to time. 2B was, perhaps
    is I haven't checked lately, a cluster alias. It was made up of TBD
    (To Be Determined) and TBS (To Be Supplied) hence the To Be (2B)
    cluster.

    RE: Back a few regarding Homosexual vs Gay. I used homosexual in my
    notes because I was also using heterosexual. I thought the balance was
    fair. If you would prefer I could use Gay and Normal next time? Only
    kidding. But of course I do prefer normal to heterosexual. Obviously I
    wouldn't ask a gay person to use it as I'm sure they would be bothered
    by it. It is devaluing to gays and so I don't use it in polite
    conversation either.
    
      Comparing heterosexual with redskin for example is not a fair comparison 
    BTW. The alternative to Redskin, American Indian, is not intrinsically 
    devaluing or insulting to non Indians.  
    
      Gay, well, let's just say that using Gay is a serious concession on my 
    part as it implies negative things about heterosexuals. Not to you perhaps 
    but it has always bothered me. So I can't use it without feeling
    devalued. Though I do generally use it it does contribute to my being
    less then confortable with the people who insist on it's use.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    Your use of the word normal = heterosexual made me smile, because the
    word normal as defined by the American Heritage Dictionary is 
    conforming to a usual or typical standard.  I suspect that what I 
    consider normal in heterosexual sexual relationships and what a strict
    Bible adhering Christian might consider normal would vary greatly.  
    I might be a pervert to them, or they may be to me.  I'm sure there are
    many heterosexual couples where each ones view of 'normal' sexual
    desires is cause for many disagreements (or divorces).  Something as
    simple as ones view of the 'normal' standard of frequency.  
    
    Yes, I would say normal is a sticky word to use here to describe
    heterosexual!!!
    
    Ro
    

    
    Bonnie,
    
    I find it very difficult to believe that many lesbians (of
    your acquaintance) prefer you to use homosexual rather than
    gay. 
    
    Do the men have any say in this poll?
    
    My personal preference has no bearing in any of this. I'm
    merely pointing out that to refer to "lesbigay" people as
    homosexual is not the way that they refer to themselves and
    (to my knowledge) not the way that they prefer.

    Peter,
    
    	Your request has not gone unnoticed.
    
    	I have tried wherever possible to use "gay" as requested in
    the basenote.  The trouble is, I start having to make up words like
    "gayness," and "gayality."  So, for the sake of clarity, I have used
    the "h-word" as a default.  (I have even absurdly said: "lesbian
    women," as if a lesbian could be anything other than a woman.)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

The following is a variation of a letter published in Bay Windows, 1987:
========================================================================
Reverend Antigay,

	I am writing you to commend you on your diligent work to defeat
the Massachusetts Gay Rights Bill.  People who, like gay men, casually
break laws mentioned in the Bible should not be provided civil rights
protections.  Good work, Reverend.

	However, I am concerned that many people break other laws also
mentioned in the Bible.  I am specifically concerned about people who
break the law outlined in Leviticus 19:19, "Neither shall a garment
mingled of different fabrics come upon thee."

	Yet out on the streets every day you can see people shamelessly
wearing flannel shirts and wool sweaters, acrylic blended with cotton,
and other combinations straight from Hell.  It is this sort of disregard
for the Laws of God that is leading to the moral decay of our society.

	And what's even worse: they flaunt their perverse mixed fabrics
right in front of children!  We really should be doing a study on the
effects of mixed fabrics on children, though I am certain it has a
negative impact.

	Furthermore, there are people who eat bacon for breakfast, which
is outlawed in Leviticus 11:17 and Deuteronomy 14:8; rare steak for
supper, which is outlawed in Leviticus 17:10-14, and cheeseburgers for
lunch, which is outlawed in Exodus 23:19, Exodus 34:26 and Deuteronomy
14:21.

	Now there are so-called Christians who want to liberally "interpret"
the Word of God, and they pick and choose what they believe.  They say that
Jesus came to fulfill the law (Matthew 5:18) and that Jesus' message of
love is far more important (Matthew 19:19, Mark 12:30, Luke 10:27 and
I Corinthians 13:13) than mixed fabrics or cheeseburgers.

	To these people I must point out that there is a curse on anyone
who leaves out any part of the Word (Revelation 22:18).

	For the sake of Christianity and the children, join me in
restoring morality to government.  Only then may we be able to enforce all
the Biblical laws and directives!  (Like applying the death penalty for
adultery as Leviticus 20:10 mandates.)

Sister Polly Esther
Christian Coalition Against Mixed Fabrics
Boston, MA

	Ok, seeing I was the one who started using the term lesbigay to start
with (in this file, another person came up with the term in another notesfile)
why I was using it. 

	I have heard from lesbians that have said they aren't gay, they are
lesbians. This is fine. I know I'm gay. Then there are those that are bisexual.
When I talk of the gay community as a whole, to include everyone the term
lesbigay was used. Mainly because it encompassed the community as a whole. And
seeing the community is known as l/b/g, the term was chosen. Sorry if I
offended anyone. I just remember when I first came out people told me to not
refer to lesbians with the word gay. It's understandable. :-)

	One other note, the christian notesfile has write locked note 27
(homosexuality). I have asked the moderators to send me mail as to why this has
happened. I'll keep you informed to what is going on. 


Glen-who-wonders-why-it-was-locked

Re: .262  Bob

>	One other note, the christian notesfile has write locked note 27
>(homosexuality). I have asked the moderators to send me mail as to why this has
>happened. I'll keep you informed to what is going on. 

This comes as no surprise to me.  There is a long history of censorship in
that conference.  If anything it's surprising that the topic lasted as long
as it did.  (Disclaimer: I deleted CHRISTIAN from my notebook a few weeks
ago, so I don't know how heated note 27 might have become.)

				-- Bob

    Peter
    
    I got very thoroughly 'told off' for using 'gay' to refer to men
    and women, by more than one lesbian.
    
    Bonnie

re Note 91.263 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> Re: .262  Bob
> 
> >	One other note, the christian notesfile has write locked note 27
> >(homosexuality). I have asked the moderators to send me mail as to why this has
> >happened. I'll keep you informed to what is going on. 
> 
> This comes as no surprise to me.  There is a long history of censorship in
> that conference.  

        While I still read golf::christian, I tend to skip over that
        particular note, so I don't know why it was locked, and
        neither do you, Bob.  Absent the facts, it could just be for
        a cooling-off period rather than an attempt at censorship. 
        Let's give them the benefit of the doubt.

        Bob

        P.S.  Note .262 was not written by a "Bob" but by Glen.

    Bonnie,
    
    We are both (I think) well aware of how contentious the Lesbigay
    community can be, so it doesn't at all surprise me to hear that
    some Lesbians object to the use of Gay to describe them. I wouldn't
    even be surprised to hear that some members of the community would
    actually prefer to be called homosexuals.
    
    However, I think you are very well aware that the community does
    indeed use Gay to refer to itself...witness the various names of
    the community's organizations; Gay Men's Chorus, Parents and Friends
    of Lesbians and Gays, National Gay Task Force, Gay Community News,
    ...etc. I know of *no* national or local group that calls itself
    the Homosexual anything.
    
    In no way am I insisting that you or anyone else use Gay to refer
    to members of the lesbigay community. 
    
    regards,
    
    Peter 

        Ya know I really find labels depressing. Couldn't we just
       call people, well....people ? 
        It is so much easier to remember and it certainly appeals to
       my egalitarian side.
         Or how about names ? Yeah we can call people by their names.
       A bizarre concept I realize, but I come up with them every
       now and then.

                                                   Mike

	I received mail this morning about note 27 being locked. They said it
doesn't seem to be now. They thought maybe the authors of the notes had done it
(as I had tried to reply to the last 2 notes). They said that if it were
locked, there would have been a note added at the end of the string explaining
just why it was locked. 

	I am still wondering though just what happened (as I sent another
message to the mods). I tried to reply, it wouldn't let me, it said it was
write locked. I extracted the note I wanted to reply to and did a REPLY NOTE.
(NOTE. = the name of the file I extracted.) It still said it was write locked.
I then did a WRITE NOTE. and it worked fine. I can't explain it, but hopefully
they can. I'll keep you posted.


Glen

Re: .265 Bob (really this time!)

>Absent the facts, it could just be for
>        a cooling-off period rather than an attempt at censorship. 

That's what I said in my disclaimer.  I stand by my remarks about the long
history of censorship.

>        P.S.  Note .262 was not written by a "Bob" but by Glen.

Oops!  I really was trying to write "Glen, but somehow my fingers typed "Bob".

				-- Bob

    Topic 27 over there is not locked right now. I just checked. BTW, the
    easiest way to check is to read a note and issue the SHOW NOTE command.
    There have been replies there today.
    
    		Alfred

| Topic 27 over there is not locked right now. I just checked. BTW, the
| easiest way to check is to read a note and issue the SHOW NOTE command.
| There have been replies there today.

	As my notes stated, it was write locked last night. It's fine now. They
don't know why it happened. They either suggest that there was a problem with
that specific note (a bug) or maybe the origional author had it write locked.
So, Richard, did you write lock that topic?


Glen

I have to confess, I was visiting GOLF::CHRISTIAN last night.  I entered
3 notes in the string of 27.*.  I may have somehow caused the NOWRITE
condition you experienced there, Glen.  (This same kind of thing has happened
to me before.  It might help if I knew what I was doing when I enter
commands in Notes. &^])

Richard

Note 91.267

>        Ya know I really find labels depressing. Couldn't we just
>       call people, well....people ? 

Actually, labels are quite useful in communication.  Difficulties seem to
arise when inflexibility sets in; in other words, when there is a "hardening
of the categories." ;-}

Richard

    Hi, I'm popping in for my CP Notes "fix" as I haven't had a chance
    to catch up in days (or at least it *seems* that way).  So I have
    a conglomeration of things here:
     
    1) Does the Bible say that cancer is bad?  We can tell that cancer is
       bad and evil because people die from it.  People don't die from
       being gay or lesbian.  If allowed the same rights that heterosexuals
       have in our society, I doubt that their need for counseling would
       be any greater (proportionately) than for the rest of us... Even
       the American Psychsomething-or-other no longer considers
       homosexuality a disease, and while I acknowledge that "the Bible
       says" in some places that homosexuality is a bad thing, I don't 
       believe there remains any basis for calling it a disease.
    
    2) Sex or sexuality is not a garden-variety desire.  It is much more
       than that -- a biological urge or instinct.  Comparing it to any
       desire other than basic biological desires is not appropriate.
    
    3) I always have problems calling people what they want to be called.
       (For one thing, I have an awful problem just keeping *track* of
       what they want to be called!)  I don't much like the fact that the
       word "gay" now has a *specific* meaning rather than the general 
       meaning "happy and carefree" that it had when I was a child.  
       But I'm willing to let it be a "reserved word."  And I try to 
       remember to include "and lesbian" when I use it in reference to a
       group of men and women.
    
       But I'd appreciate it if you'd explain why the word "homosexual"
       is a no-no in the gay community?  I can't see how it is a devaluing
       word; it seems to me to have a very specific meaning, just as
       "heterosexual" has, so I just don't understand!
    
       And my own pet peeve -- which I haven't seen in any recent notes,
       thank goodness, but just so you'll know -- is to be referred to as
       "het"!  (Yuk)
    
       Oh well, I *do* try!
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    I'll try 'n explain a little, but really talking with some
    gay friends might help more.
    
    A little history...from Toby Marotta's "The Politics of
    Homosexuality" [Boston : Houghton Mifflin, 1981] in referring
    (in 1969) to the choice of the name for the new political
    organizations formed after Stonewall...
    
      'Gay Liberation Front -- each word in that name was selected
    with organizational as well as political considerations in mind.
    Unlike _homosexual_, the clincal term bestowed by heterosexuals,
    and homophile, the euphemism coined by cautious political fore-
    runners, _gay_, which homosexuals called each other, was thought
    to be the word that would most appeal to homosexuals who were
    thirsting to be known as they knew themselves.'
    
    
    
    
     

 Re.273
    
    
   Richard:
             Perhaps labels are useful for communication. Sometimes
   they water it down a bit. Your "hardening of the categories" comment
   is very much on the mark and that is the problem I have with labels.
             Once we attach a label to someone then they start to become
   a [ fill in the blank ] rather than a complex human being with all the
   strengths and weaknesses that humans have. It is that first step in
   setting them apart, segregating them from the rest of humanity. Once
   that is done it becomes much easier to treat them as "them" and
   not "us".
             The opposite also has it's problems. Once we attach a 
   label to ourselves then we often begin to act through the filter
   of the label we have assumed. We begin to deal with others as a 
   [ fill in the blank ] and less at person to person level. The label
   becomes a kind of suit of armor that we use to segregate ourselves
   from the rest of humanity making others one of "them" and not one
   of "us".
              As a matter of courtesy I'll refer to people by their
   preferred label. But deep down inside I really don't like labels
   very much at all. 

                                                          Mike
             
 

    RE: .275  (oops, missed your first name, sorry :( )
    
>    I'll try 'n explain a little, but really talking with some
>    gay friends might help more.
    
    Frankly, I am hesitant to ask my lesbian friends many questions for
    fear of hurting or tiring them.  (And I don't know many -- if *any* --
    *openly* gay men personally - it must be more difficult/dangerous in
    our society for gay men to come out than for lesbians to? - I'm *not*
    intending to start an argument or rathole on this one; just a
    conclusion I've drawn myself and may be wrong!)  Most of what I've 
    learned is through notes (and sometimes mail to Richard! :-) ).  
    
    Gays and lesbians who dialogue in notes files *usually* are willing to
    answer questions.  But sometimes they say that the "same old questions"
    either hurt them or make them angry!! As a woman who has experienced
    similar feelings when combatting prejudice, I sympathize with the
    energy depletion that such questions often require.  
    
    Then, in some notes conferences, when someone responds to 
    questions with "Get used to it! I'm not here to educate you!" -- well,
    technically they are right and I tend to back off.  And I don't want to
    hurt my friends my asking them potentially painful questions in person.
    So questions that don't get answered in notes are ones I just keep 
    puzzling over.
    
    >    Unlike _homosexual_, the clincal term bestowed by heterosexuals,
    
    So the term homosexual isn't in and of itself disparaging but is
    disliked because it was assigned by the powerful group to the
    unpowerful group?  I mean I could understand not liking f*g, etc.,
    but I just couldn't see anything *de facto* negative about homosexual.
    Nevertheless, as I said before, I try to use the preferred words
    whenever possible (though I agree with Richard's (?) explanation of
    why gay doesn't always work as a "root word").
    
    Well, just don't call me "het!"  But I've been "boy-crazy" ever since
    I can remember (even before first grade).  I remember as a very little
    girl telling my mother that I liked "old men" (meaning gray-haired,
    grandfatherly types), and she responded "You just like *men*!"  It
    was a startling response, but I realized she was right!  Lots of my
    girl friends didn't get "boy-crazy" till they were much older, and I've
    often wondered if it's the same with gays and lesbians -- some discover
    their attraction later but others remember being "xxx-crazy" from the
    age of 5 or so... Any comments?
    
    Nancy

| 1) Does the Bible say that cancer is bad?  We can tell that cancer is
| bad and evil because people die from it.  People don't die from
| being gay or lesbian.  

	Well said Nancy! :-)

| If allowed the same rights that heterosexuals
| have in our society, I doubt that their need for counseling would
| be any greater (proportionately) than for the rest of us... 

	Oh Nancy! You seem to have infinite wisdom! :-)

| Even
| the American Psychsomething-or-other no longer considers
| homosexuality a disease, and while I acknowledge that "the Bible
| says" in some places that homosexuality is a bad thing, I don't 
| believe there remains any basis for calling it a disease.

	Thank you VERY much Nancy. It isn't a disease and never should have
been called one. After all, that would mean that being heterosexual is a
disease! ;-)

| 2) Sex or sexuality is not a garden-variety desire.  It is much more
| than that -- a biological urge or instinct.  Comparing it to any
| desire other than basic biological desires is not appropriate.

	They will only compare it to the Bible, a book that was God inspired,
but maybe not without some human factors added in.

| 3) I always have problems calling people what they want to be called.
| (For one thing, I have an awful problem just keeping *track* of
| what they want to be called!)  

	You and me both!

| I don't much like the fact that the
| word "gay" now has a *specific* meaning rather than the general
| meaning "happy and carefree" that it had when I was a child.

	MY mother has trouble with that. She sees them on tv trying to stand up
for their rights and then she turns around and says, "Why do they call
themselves gay? They're never happy!" Sigh.... mothers will be mothers... :-)

| But I'd appreciate it if you'd explain why the word "homosexual"
| is a no-no in the gay community?  I can't see how it is a devaluing
| word; it seems to me to have a very specific meaning, just as
| "heterosexual" has, so I just don't understand!

	My guess, and it's only a guess, is that most people feel that the word
homosexual is more male oriented. That's the impression I have received from
several lesbians. So to include everyone in on the conversation, we usually use
lesbian or gay. If someone is talking about me, it doesn't matter if they use
that "H" word! ;-) A word I like to use is lesbigay as it included lesbians,
bisexuals and gays. It was a word I saw in another conference that a friend of
mine had put in. I really like that word as it includes the "whole" community.

| And my own pet peeve -- which I haven't seen in any recent notes,
| thank goodness, but just so you'll know -- is to be referred to as
| "het"!  (Yuk)

	Sorry. I know I've been using that a lot. I'll refrain from using that
again! :-)

Glen

| >    I'll try 'n explain a little, but really talking with some
| >    gay friends might help more.

| Frankly, I am hesitant to ask my lesbian friends many questions for
| fear of hurting or tiring them.  

	It is kind of funny. For you, the questions are on a first time wanting
to know basis, and for the people with the answers they have probably heard
them asked again and again. But on the issue of what to call someone, I would
think (I don't know for sure) that there wouldn't be a problem. Just like you
were so kind to let us know you dislike the "het" (opps, I said it) word.

| (And I don't know many -- if *any* --
| *openly* gay men personally - it must be more difficult/dangerous in
| our society for gay men to come out than for lesbians to? - 

	You know, that's an interesting question. I really don't have an
answer, but it will be a good topic in another file.

| Gays and lesbians who dialogue in notes files *usually* are willing to
| answer questions.  But sometimes they say that the "same old questions"
| either hurt them or make them angry!! 

	I have noticed that, but it seems like its more geared towards a
question of stereotypes or something they have gone over again and again (this
is the case for me anyway, others views may vary). The end result should be,
IMHO, the questions should be answered. We can't change others views of us
until they have been educated. True, it still doesn't mean they will change,
but at least the "facts" have been laid out on the table. But, we are human and
there will be times where we may tire of hearing the same questions. When this
does happen, try to bring up the how will others stop viewing you this way
phrase. I don't know.... I appear to be rambling.... ;-)

| Then, in some notes conferences, when someone responds to
| questions with "Get used to it! I'm not here to educate you!" -- well,
| technically they are right and I tend to back off.  And I don't want to
| hurt my friends my asking them potentially painful questions in person.
| So questions that don't get answered in notes are ones I just keep
| puzzling over.

	Ask away. I can only speak from my own perspective, but at least that's
one part of the puzzle (with millions more to go!). Ask here or send me mail.

| Well, just don't call me "het!"  But I've been "boy-crazy" ever since
| I can remember (even before first grade).  I remember as a very little
| girl telling my mother that I liked "old men" (meaning gray-haired,
| grandfatherly types), and she responded "You just like *men*!"  It
| was a startling response, but I realized she was right!  Lots of my
| girl friends didn't get "boy-crazy" till they were much older, and I've
| often wondered if it's the same with gays and lesbians -- some discover
| their attraction later but others remember being "xxx-crazy" from the
| age of 5 or so... Any comments?

	I knew in my senior year that I was gay. I can remember rating guys
ever since I was a tike. I never put the 2 together until my senior year in
high school. I have heard some people who have known since they were 5 (my
roomate). 


Glen

    I seldom have any problems refering to my "non-heterosexual" friends.
    They generally let me know what they want to be called and it's usually
    something like "Susan", "Allison", "Sandy", "Bob", or "Chris". Makes it
    easy. The ones that I usually interact with are "low-profile" and
    apolitical - their sexuality is their business, for the most part. Of
    those that Geri and I call "friend", not one would shy away from a hug
    from either of us. We seldom, if ever, discuss sex; we respect each
    other's orientation and privacy. Am I missing something ?

    Dave,
    
    I agree that it's not so much an issue in terms of personal
    relationships.  You have *friends*, some of whom are
    couples or partners or SOs or whatever.   The "labels" become
    an issue when you try to accomplish something politically or try
    to discuss the subject!  Then you have to call the subject *something*
    and you need a term or terms to refer to the group whose rights
    you are trying to protect.
    
    And, as I keep being reminded by some of *my* friends, being gay or
    lesbian is much more than one's sexual activity.
    
    Nancy

Re:  91.274

  >Does the Bible say that cancer is bad?

As I understand the Bible (and I do not have a specific verse),
I think it indicates that disease is a result of the fall.

  >Sex or sexuality is not a garden-variety desire.  It is much more
  >than that -- a biological urge or instinct.  Comparing it to any
  >desire other than basic biological desires is not appropriate.

I agree in some sense with what you are saying.  However, the comparisons
of desires I made ran the gamut from "wholly" learned to "wholly" 
instinctual and one of the main questions I was raising was, "where
does sexual desire fit on this spectrum?"  I think the question was
perfectly appropriate in that context.

A change in hormones can completely change the sexual desires of some people.  
This is also important evidence to consider when determining if a desire is
fixed at or before birth.

Collis

    It seems there is a tendency to be overly simplistic here at times.
    For example, you don't die from homosexuality. True, can one conclude
    from that that there's nothing wrong with it? Apparently some do.
    Could one also conclude that people don't die from killing people
    so there is nothing wrong with murder? Obviously not, that's too
    simplistic.

    As for me and this topic I need a break from it. Either I'm not
    making myself clear or people are deliberately twisting what I'm
    saying. If I stay I'm afraid I'll conclude the latter.

    		Alfred

    Forgive me for jumping into the middle of this discussion but
    I've been following it and I would like to see the general
    points in .284 explored...

    I've often reached a point in debate on this topic where I have 
    agreed to disagree over the meaning and validity of Scripture.  However, 
    given that we live in a pluralistic society, I think there are times 
    when we have to consider more than Scripture.

    I get the impression from some of the notes entered, that some people 
    believe there is something wrong with homosexuality beyond or in addition 
    to the alleged threat to the soul.  I know from experience what some of 
    the popular myths are but I don't think that is what we are dealing with 
    here in this topic.

    For example, I don't think that .284 is equating homosexuals with
    murderers by asking; "Could one also conclude that people don't die from 
    killing people so there is nothing wrong with  murder?"  but I do think it
    is a poor analogy with which to try and reach an understanding.

    Perhaps it would be easier for those of us who do not believe there is 
    anything wrong or harmful with homosexuality, for those who do to explain 
    precisely what the problem is?

    /Greg

    
    RE: .284:
    
    >It seems there is a tendency to be overly simplistic here at times.
    >For example, you don't die from homosexuality.
    
    I believe I am the one who made that statement -- solely in terms of
    someone else having compared homosexuality to cancer!  My point was that
    homosexuality is not an illness, like cancer is, and so that that
    analogy was unwarranted.  In fact, it is that analogy (that homosexuality 
    is like cancer) that is simplistic!
    
    >True, can one conclude
    >from that that there's nothing wrong with it? Apparently some do.
    
    No, my logic isn't *that* faulty!! I was criticizing only the analogy.
    Whether or not homosexuality is a sin must be argued on a different
    basis than by comparing it to cancer.
    
    I happen to believe it is *not* a sin, but I do *not* base my belief
    on the fact that homosexuality doesn't kill people.
    
    I hope this clears up any confusion.
    
    
    Nancy
    

| A change in hormones can completely change the sexual desires of some people.
| This is also important evidence to consider when determining if a desire is
| fixed at or before birth.

	What do you base this on? I'm curious......


Glen

(from my note .248)

�re: Note 91.240 by Collis 
�
�>                   -< It only takes one counter-example... >-
�
�to disprove the statement that "neither medical science nor pyschology have 
�ever been able to 'cure' anyone of homosexuality..." (from Re:  91.234)...
�
�But what does that Prove, I wonder?
�
�Suppose God HAS 'cured' someone of homosexuality.  What does That prove?
�
�That all homosexuality is something to be cured?  Or that for that one person 
�in the example, homosexuality was not what God had intended?

re: Note 91.249 by Collis 

�I suspect that it prove that the belief that homosexuality cannot be
�changed is false.

Collis, the thrust of my questions was to explore the stance that given your 
one counter-example, does that mean that ***ALL*** homosexuality is something 
to be "cured", or that for that one specific example homosexuality was not 
what God had intended?  Perhaps that wasn't clear.  I don't read .249 as 
making any differentiation there, so please, if you will, what does a single 
counter-example prove in this framework of understanding?

Personally, if my Christian faith were attacked by a single counterexample 
citing say, a prominent Christian leader who turned from God, I would think it
silly argument at best, more likely specious. 

I think Glen has done an admirable job here and elsewhere of holding up such a
mirror and saying in effect, "if I judge you by these (your) standards it
seems pretty silly, doesn't it.  So by those same standards, your judgements
seem pretty silly." 


In closing, re *my* note .248

�For those who try to convict others I have little time.  

I apologize.  For the *practice* of convicting others I have little time.
For people, I have all the time I am given to try and be an instrument of 
God's Peace.

Jim

Re:  91.288

  >Collis, the thrust of my questions was to explore the stance that given 
  >your one counter-example, does that mean that ***ALL*** homosexuality 
  >is something to be "cured", or that for that one specific example 
  >homosexuality was not what God had intended?  

The point I was disputing was the claim made that all homosexual
desires (or urges :-) ) are determined once and for all at birth.
That one counter-example disproves this claim is all that
I was saying in that sentence.  No more and no less.

  >I think Glen has done an admirable job here and elsewhere of holding up 
  >such a mirror and saying in effect, "if I judge you by these (your) 
  >standards it seems pretty silly, doesn't it.  So by those same standards, 
  >your judgements seem pretty silly."

Certainly some of what Glen says has value.  He raises many legitimate
questions.  However, his tactics actually hinder, in my view, the
legitimate answering of those same questions which is why I have told
him that I am not choosing to answer his questions for a while.

Collis

| >Collis, the thrust of my questions was to explore the stance that given
| >your one counter-example, does that mean that ***ALL*** homosexuality
| >is something to be "cured", or that for that one specific example
| >homosexuality was not what God had intended?

| The point I was disputing was the claim made that all homosexual
| desires (or urges :-) ) are determined once and for all at birth.
| That one counter-example disproves this claim is all that
| I was saying in that sentence.  No more and no less.

	If being homosexual were a desire, then I think it could be changed. It
would fall into the same catagory as alcoholism, smoking, drugs, etc. All of
these are desires. Homosexuality is not. Unless you feel that your
heterosexuality is a desire. That is something that is instilled in us. What I
wonder though, is a lot of Christians keep calling this a desire. What I don't
understand is how you came to this conclusion? I have first hand knowledge of
this and can disagree with you whole heartedly. I know the Bible states it as a
desire, but only in the instance of men who give up their normal relations with
women for their desires with men. I never had any normal desires for women. I
tried to force them, and with God's help at that. It was what I thought at the
time was right. All I was doing was lieing to myself. I can't force something
that's not there.

| >I think Glen has done an admirable job here and elsewhere of holding up
| >such a mirror and saying in effect, "if I judge you by these (your) 
| >standards it seems pretty silly, doesn't it.  So by those same standards,
| >your judgements seem pretty silly."

| Certainly some of what Glen says has value.  He raises many legitimate
| questions.  However, his tactics actually hinder, in my view, the
| legitimate answering of those same questions which is why I have told
| him that I am not choosing to answer his questions for a while.

	Hmmmm.... I don't recall you mentioning that you weren't going to
answer any of my questions, but I have noticed that you haven't.

	As far as my tactics go, just what are you referring to? Send me mail,
I'm curious.

Glen

RE: TACTICS

	Oh, I forgot. You can put your reasons in here Collis, it doesn't
matter to me either way. :-)



Glen

Re: .290  Glen

>	If being homosexual were a desire, then I think it could be changed. It
>would fall into the same catagory as alcoholism, smoking, drugs, etc. All of
>these are desires. Homosexuality is not. Unless you feel that your
>heterosexuality is a desire. That is something that is instilled in us.

Wait a minute there, Glen.  Heterosexuality *is* a desire.  That is to say,
people can and do suppress their heterosexual urges for various reasons (not
the least of which is lack of opportunity ;^) ).  To some extent I'd even say
that heterosexuality is "instilled" in that there is social pressure to date
and eventually marry people of the opposite sex.  On the other hand it's also
something that to a large extent we are born with.

Wouldn't you say that some people are more pre-disposed than others to become
alcoholics, drug addicts, etc.?  That doesn't mean that alcohol abuse, drug
addiction and the like aren't "desires" or that alcoholics shouldn't *try*
not to drink, drug addicts shouldn't *try* not to use drugs, etc.

The real question is whether homosexuality is so wrong that gays and lesbians
should *try* to become straight, or at least try to abstain from sex.  Now for
me the answer is pretty clear: I don't see anything inherently wrong with
homosexuality.  It's more difficult for someone who has a literal belief in
the Bible.

For conservative Christians the best argument I can come up is this: Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.  Don't take the mote out of your
brother's eye until you have taken the log out of your own.  Out of all the
sin in the world is homosexuality one of the most serious sins?  If your answer
is "yes", can you justify this belief biblically?

				-- Bob

    Well, I was going to stay out of here, but *I* can't let this one go:
    
    >	If being homosexual were a desire, then I think it could be changed. It
>would fall into the same catagory as alcoholism, smoking, drugs, etc. All of
>these are desires.                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    
    No.  Sorry, Glen.  Alcoholism is a disease, not a desire.  Trust me. 
    Who do you know that *desires* to vomit on themselve on a regular
    basis?
    
    E Grace  

    I don't see heterosexuality or homosexuality as a desire per se, but as
    an *orientation* that determines the direction in which sexual desire
    expresses itself.  A given desire can be heterosexual or homosexual in
    nature--but the orientation itself is not a desire.  Sexual orientation
    is a kind of rudder that steers the desire, as it were.  My orientation
    may be directed toward women as a sex; but my *desires* would be
    specifically directed toward *individual* women.  An orientation is
    generic; desire expresses itself towards specific individuals.
    
    It is the orientation, and not any individual sexual desires, that are
    believed to be determined at birth.

    -- Mike
    

| >	If being homosexual were a desire, then I think it could be changed. It
| >would fall into the same catagory as alcoholism, smoking, drugs, etc. All of
| >these are desires. Homosexuality is not. Unless you feel that your
| >heterosexuality is a desire. That is something that is instilled in us.

| Wait a minute there, Glen.  Heterosexuality *is* a desire.  That is to say,
| people can and do suppress their heterosexual urges for various reasons (not
| the least of which is lack of opportunity ;^) ).  

	Bob, could you be more specific? I am curious as to why someone would
suppress their heterosexual orientation. I understand why homosexuals do this,
mostly social and religious reasons, but why would heterosexuals do the same?

| Wouldn't you say that some people are more pre-disposed than others to become
| alcoholics, drug addicts, etc.?  That doesn't mean that alcohol abuse, drug
| addiction and the like aren't "desires" or that alcoholics shouldn't *try*
| not to drink, drug addicts shouldn't *try* not to use drugs, etc.

	I see what you mean by this, but alcohol abuse, drug abuse have one
thing in common that homosexuality does not. That tie is the above 2 will
usually end up hurting someone innocent. It could be one, or many people. When
2 people are in love, it shouldn't matter what the genders are that are
involved (f/m, f/f, m/m). One is for love of the item that can hurt someone, 
the other is based on love for another, where no one gets hurt.

| The real question is whether homosexuality is so wrong that gays and lesbians
| should *try* to become straight, or at least try to abstain from sex.  Now for
| me the answer is pretty clear: I don't see anything inherently wrong with
| homosexuality.  It's more difficult for someone who has a literal belief in
| the Bible.

	I see your point Bob. Someone with a literal belief in the Bible do
seem to not agree with the homosexuality issue.

| For conservative Christians the best argument I can come up is this: Do unto
| others as you would have them do unto you.  Don't take the mote out of your
| brother's eye until you have taken the log out of your own.  

	Gee Bob, if this were to happen (for all of us), wouldn't we be able to
get to the issue of love?

| Out of all the
| sin in the world is homosexuality one of the most serious sins?  If your answer
| is "yes", can you justify this belief biblically?

	Good question Bob. Thanks for asking. I'd be interested in the answers.



Glen

| No.  Sorry, Glen.  Alcoholism is a disease, not a desire.  Trust me.
| Who do you know that *desires* to vomit on themselve on a regular
| basis?

	You are so right. Sorry E Grace! The word I should have used is
drinking. There is a big difference between the two, as you have pointed out.
Thanks for doing so! :-)


Glen

RE: NOTE .294

	Mike, good note. I think it says it all. :-)


Glen

The question is, is homosexuality a desire?

A good way to answer the question, I think, is to ask the following
question:  Would I say that someone is a _________________  person if they
did not have a desire for _______________________.

The first blank can be filled in with the appropriate word such
as homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual.

The second blank can be filled in with the appropriate activity/feeling.

Personally, I would not think the label of "homosexual" is appropriate
if the person did not have a desire to love another person of the
same sex in a sexual way.

Likewise, I do not think the label of "heterosexual" is appropriate
if the person did not have a desire to love another person of the
opposite sex in a sexual way.

As I said in my original statement, this has nothing to do with the
Bible.  (At least, I did not consciously take this from the Bible.)
I am simply using my reason.  Take it for what it's worth.  :-)

Collis

Re:  .294

But can you have an "orientation" which has no forthcoming desire (in
the generic sense, not the specific sense which you have defined).

I think that "desire" can be for something generic (e.g. food) as well
as for something specific (e.g. ice cream sundae with nuts on top,
whipped cream and a cherry).  I see the "orientation" that you are
talking about as being desire.  I ask myself, "does someone have
an 'orientation' if they do not have specific desires to match that
'orientation'?  The answer I get is no.  In other words, having a
desire is a necessity to have an orientation.  Without a desire, we
would not claim that someone had an orientation.  The reason for this,
as I see it, is because orientation is a desire and not something
different than a desire.

Collis

    I don't think you can have an orientation that directs one's desires
    without having desires to orient.  That was inherent in the definition
    that I presented. The desires we are talking about here would, I
    believe, include the desires for love, romance, companionship, and sex. 
    The orientation defines to which sex an individual is capable of
    directing those desires.  The desires can exist for either sex,
    depending on one's orientation.

    The question is whether homosexuality *is* a desire, or if instead it
    *characterize* one's desires.  I would argue that the latter is a
    better definition.  An orientation is a kind of template, or filter,
    that steers one's desires for erotic love to a particular sex.  I may
    be attracted to certain women, but not necessarily every woman; I do
    not "desire" Woman as a generic entity, but rather individual people
    who are, because of my sexual orientation, women.  I have a fondness
    for women in general, but this is not the same as my particular erotic
    desires for any specific woman or women.  Because I am heterosexual,
    the people I fall in love with are female.

    But if I am not experiencing desire for any specific individual, then
    what desires do I as a heterosexual man have?  If I am alone and yearn
    in general for a relationship with a woman, it is because of my self
    understanding about my sexuality.  As it happens, many gays and
    lesbians, before they come to realize that they are not heterosexual,
    may also yearn for a relationship with someone of the opposite sex,
    because of the cultural pressures and assumptions of heterosexuality. 
    It is only once they realize that heterosexual relationships are not
    satisfactory or fulfilling for them, and that homosexual relations
    *are* real and legitimate in the same way heterosexual relationships
    are for most of the population, that they come to the self knowledge
    about their sexuality that can then then affect the lifestyle they
    choose to lead.  A lifestyle that does not jibe with one's orientation
    is a prescription for unhappiness.  Until gays and lesbians come to
    terms with their sexuality, desires for "women" or "men" as a generic
    entity may have more to do with conforming with society than with their
    inner orientation.  Thus, I believe, desire and orientation are *not*
    the same thing.

    The point is that this orientation--the sex to whom one is most likely
    to be steered when experiencing erotic attraction--is generally beyond
    the control of an individual, if it is indeed determined at birth (by
    factors that we may not yet understand).

    -- Mike

    Collis,
    	When I have a sexual desire, the object of my interest is a member
    of the opposite sex, a woman. This is what makes me a heterosexual. If
    my desire were for a member of like sex then I would be a homosexual.
    Lacking in desire I would be neither, indiscriminant in desire I would
    be bi-sexual. These classifications are not desires, they are
    orientations based on the objects of the desire. It is not the desire
    that differs, merely the object of the desire.
    	Sexual desire is not like the desire for food that is hunger.
    Hunger will accept substitutes. A vegitarian could be convinced to eat
    an egg or cup of yogurt - maybe even meat - if their hunger were great
    enough. Could you be convinced to accept a substitute if you were horny
    enough ?  I don't believe that I could feel sexual desire for another
    man, though many women attract me. Perhaps you are different. But then
    you would not be a heterosexual male.

As I see it, at the heart of the problem lies fear, ignorance, and a
chauvinistic devotion to less than 10 passages in a compilation of ancient
and God-breathed Scripture, some of which are of questionable translation,
and which are nearly always cited without benefit of cultural context and
other considerations.

The fires of fear are easily fueled by the rantings of the likes of Pat
Robertson and Jerry Falwell identifying gays as a real and present threat
to the traditional American family, to time honored Christian values, and to
everything that is good and pure and decent in life.  The fall of the Roman
Empire is frequently held up as an example.  However, most historians will
tell you that the Empire crumbled, not because of homosexuality, but largely
because of the dissent and resistance to conformity of a sect called Christians.

Peace,
Richard

Mike,

We agree that orientation is only definable by desires.  If there was no 
desire, would there still be an orientation?

Since it is only definable by desires, whether or not an "orientation"
exists apart from desires which controls what the desires will desire
and what they will not desire is, as far as I can tell, speculation.
It could be that way, but there is no reason to believe that it is
that way.  

I use the word "orientation" in the more generic sense of meaning
that this person exhibits these desires.  It is not above desires,
rather it is defined by the desires and is a summary of what the
desires are.

Collis

Hi Collis,


	My orientation has nothing to do with desires. My eye color has nothing
to do with desires (otherwise they would be blue ;-), my hair color has nothing
to do with desires, my height and weight have nothing to do with desires. They
are all something that are instilled from birth.

	Now, I can prefer a specific person. I may prefer to have different
color eyes, hair, whatever. Those are desires. 



Glen

Re: .295 Glen

>	Bob, could you be more specific? I am curious as to why someone would
>suppress their heterosexual orientation.

I wasn't saying that someone would suppress their heterosexual orientation,
but that they would suppress their heterosexual desires.  For example, a
heterosexual priest sees a beautiful woman and suppresses his natural desire
for her.

>	I see what you mean by this, but alcohol abuse, drug abuse have one
>thing in common that homosexuality does not. That tie is the above 2 will
>usually end up hurting someone innocent. It could be one, or many people. When
>2 people are in love, it shouldn't matter what the genders are that are
>involved (f/m, f/f, m/m). One is for love of the item that can hurt someone, 
>the other is based on love for another, where no one gets hurt.

That's a good point -- that's why I don't think there is anything inherently
wrong with homosexuality.

Re: .304 Glen

>	My orientation has nothing to do with desires. My eye color has nothing
>to do with desires (otherwise they would be blue ;-), my hair color has nothing
>to do with desires, my height and weight have nothing to do with desires. They
>are all something that are instilled from birth.

Don't you think that desires can also be instilled from birth?  A newborn baby
has a desire for milk, for example.

				-- Bob

| >	Bob, could you be more specific? I am curious as to why someone would
| >suppress their heterosexual orientation.

| I wasn't saying that someone would suppress their heterosexual orientation,
| but that they would suppress their heterosexual desires.  For example, a
| heterosexual priest sees a beautiful woman and suppresses his natural desire
| for her.

	OK, let me ask you, do you find all women attractive? You used the word
beautiful woman, which is a type of woman. I can be attracted to specific types
of males, but not all. My natural orientation is a male as a lifelong partner. 
But I have specific types of males that I desire. It doesn't mean I'm
surpressing anything, as seeing someone I'm not attracted to doesn't make my
orientation go away for any short period of time, it just means they aren't an
object that I'm desireing. Does this make sense?

| That's a good point -- that's why I don't think there is anything inherently
| wrong with homosexuality.

	Cool! :-)

| Re: .304 Glen

| >	My orientation has nothing to do with desires. My eye color has nothing
| >to do with desires (otherwise they would be blue ;-), my hair color has nothing
| >to do with desires, my height and weight have nothing to do with desires. They
| >are all something that are instilled from birth.

| Don't you think that desires can also be instilled from birth?  A newborn baby
| has a desire for milk, for example.

	Is it a desire? I had always thought that the baby was hungry, and it's
fed. It is something instilled in them to survive. To eat that is. What they
eat is up to what they are capable of handling. Milk is one of these things.
Can you see my point or am I confussing you? 

Glen

Re: .306 Glen

I think a major source of confusion is that you seem to have your own personal
definition for the word "desire".  Maybe if you defined your terms I'd
understand you better.

				-- Bob

Glen,

I hear the claim.  Do you have any proof of this (that your "orientation"
has nothing to do with "desires")?

Collis

RE: From the previous note, written by memory (excuse it if it's not exact. The
context is still there.)

|maybe you have a different view of desire

	Maybe we also have a different view of orientation. Please read on and
maybe we can come to a conclusion.

| I hear the claim.  Do you have any proof of this (that your "orientation"
| has nothing to do with "desires")?

	For now, Collis, I will base it on my own experience. I will go out and
see what others have had for experiences. I will also look for any material
that will also back this as from what I can see, they don't know why someone is
that particular orientation, but it's something that many feel happens at birth
(like the eye color and such).

	My experience:

	When I was a kid, the town I grew up in, had almost nothing said about
homosexuality. I can always remember that men really interested me. Particular
men. This was based on looks, or as you would put it, desires. There would be
mostly a, "Wow! Look at him! I'd rate him a 9!" That is a desire. But, when you
break it down to what really matters, you are looking past the desire. I find
men more attractive in a lot of areas other than just looks. For *me*, they are
just what I'm looking for. For *me*, they have what it takes in the following
areas:

kindness
understanding
talking about anything
warmth
doing things with

	These things are what I find about all men to be qualities that I seem
to be comfortable around. I feel so much better being around a man because they
make me feel more comfortable. This works with men in general, but gay men more
often. This I think is because I can be me, and not have to hide anything.
If I want to give someone a hug, I do so. I prefer to hug a male as oppossed to
a female. Same goes if I want to give someone a kiss (a kiss of friendship, not
one of lust or of love). This is my orientation. There is no desire involved.

	Now, when I find someone whom I would like to spend some time with to 
get to know, I usually will see someone who's outside package is nice, and then
attempt to make conversation. If the person is responsive, then it can lead to
exchanging phone numbers and more. At this point, this person becomes an object
of my desire. This is a specific person whom I would like to get to know
better. Desire, according to the dictionary, states the following:

1) To wish or long for; crave
2) To ask for; request - n.
	1) A longing; craving; yearning.
	2) A request; wish
	3) Something desired
	4) Sexual appetite; passion

	To me, anyway, it tells me when I want a specific person, that is, with
out a doubt, desire. When I feel more comfortable being around one particular
sex for the reasons listed above, then that is orientation. Can you see the
difference? Yes, I do agree that desire does play in both the heterosexual and
homosexual worlds. But, at those particular times, it is an specific person
that becomes the object of ones desires. 

	I hope I've helped clear things up. :-)


Glen

	Hmmm... I also would like to point out that I don't hate women. When I
read my last reply, I noticed this is how some could take it. I have many women
friends, some lesbian and some straight. I hope I didn't offend anyone. I
didn't mean to.


Glen

    Glen
    
    I didn't think from your note that you hated women, what you
    were talking about to me was 'chemistry'. 
    
    You weren't talking about the kind of people you would be
    friends with, but the kind of person who could potentially
    arouse feelings of wanting to bond with.
    
    and this sort of thing is what I believe is innate in a person
    just as a heterosexual person doesn't decide in puberty which
    sex they will be attracted to, neither does a gay or lesbian
    person. I think it is 'hard wired' into a person very early on.
    
    Perhaps the confusion comes from those people who are bisexual.
    They are aware of their attraction for *both* sexes and choose
    to direct their romantic feelings toward the socially and religiously
    correct people. It may well be that they assume that gays and lesbians
    had the same 'choice' and chose to 'sin' in the face of temptation.
    
    I really don't know. 
    
    Bonnie

	The Christian notesfile has write locked the note dealing with
homosexuality. Anyone interested in the reasons why, see note 27.811.


Glen

Re: .309  Glen

>I can always remember that men really interested me. Particular
>men. This was based on looks, or as you would put it, desires. There would be
>mostly a, "Wow! Look at him! I'd rate him a 9!" That is a desire.

Agreed.

> But, when you
>break it down to what really matters, you are looking past the desire. I find
>men more attractive in a lot of areas other than just looks. For *me*, they are
>just what I'm looking for. For *me*, they have what it takes in the following
>areas:
>
>kindness
>understanding
>talking about anything
>warmth
>doing things with

Aren't those also desires?  You have a desire for kindness, a desire for
understanding, etc.  Desire doesn't mean just sexual desire.

Maybe we're just arguing over definitions, but I find it hard to follow some
of your arguments because you seem to be using the language in a different way
than I'm used to.

				-- Bob

    To me, saying that sexual orientation is nothing more than the (after
    the fact) sum of one's sexual desires begs the question, since most
    people's sexual desires are clearly not randomly distributed among the
    population.  For most people, the specific individuals to whom they
    feel romantic and sexual desire throughout the course of their lives
    tend to come from one sex or the other (the exception presumably being
    bisexuals).  More specifically, vast majority of people repeatedly
    experience these desires for individuals of the opposite sex.  A
    smaller number of people repeatedly experience these desires for
    individuals of the same sex.  It seems to me that most people are
    predisposed to experience their erotic desires during the course of
    their lives for individuals of either one sex or the other; this
    appears to be for reasons beyond their conscious control.  Bisexuals,
    of course, have much more ability to steer their lifestyles in one
    direction or another, although the individual attractions that they
    feel may nevertheless be distributed across both sexes.

    It is this predisposition to feel desires for one sex or the other
    (which I have been calling an "orientation") that I distinguish from
    those desires per se.

    -- Mike

| > But, when you
| >break it down to what really matters, you are looking past the desire. I find
| >men more attractive in a lot of areas other than just looks. For *me*, they are
| >just what I'm looking for. For *me*, they have what it takes in the following
| >areas:
| >
| >kindness
| >understanding
| >talking about anything
| >warmth
| >doing things with

| Aren't those also desires?  You have a desire for kindness, a desire for
| understanding, etc.  Desire doesn't mean just sexual desire.

	Actually, I enjoy these things. It isn't something that you can get
from every person. It's not something I look for in every person. Some people
are just work oriented friends, some are friends from outside of work and some
are special friends. I find that these qualities come out to me more when I'm
with my orientation. I don't know why, but it does seem to be that way. If
these things can happen, then that's great. If they don't, that's ok too. I
don't need all of these things to have a friendship, or a working relationship.
If they are there (and like I said, when I'm with my orientation I notice it
more, as I can just be myself. If I want to hug or give a friendly kiss, I can)
that's great! It is not a desire.

Glen

Re: .315  Glen

So you enjoy those things but they aren't desires?  I'm sorry, but I just
don't understand you.

				-- Bob

This talk of defining desires reminds me of some correspondence I shared with
a friend several years ago about the difference between wants and needs. 

This is cleaned up a bit, to remove identifying names and occurances, and 
extraneous verbiage...

Take what works for you...

Peace,

Jim


Hi 

Good morning.  Whew.  Sorry to hear how your trip planning is going, but I do
hope you'll both be able to enjoy yourselves.  Um, you asked for thoughts and
words, here's what I can offer.  We may have talked about this before, so it
may sound familiar...here's what goes through my head.  I can share only what
I have known.  If there is wisdom here, it is a gift from God. This is my
prayer for you. . . 

I see three persons going on this trip, you, your husband, and you&him.  All
three of you should (deserve to) enjoy yourselves.  But you have been
blossoming lately.  You are recognizing yourself, your needs, your wants, your
talents, your gifts more and more.  And that may call for some perspective,
some ordering of priorities. 

There are things that MUST be so, to meet your needs.
There are things you would LIKE to be so, to satisfy your wants.
There are things you can OFFER of your talents.
There are things that COME FROM GOD THROUGH YOUR NATURE, your gifts.

What also comes in growth is the ability to distinguish wants from needs,
talents from gifts. 

Wants can be compromised, bartered and bargained for.  
Needs have to be met or bad feelings, depression, hostility results.
Talents can be meted out, gifts are of the Spirit and not controlled by people.
If one can withdraw their love from another, that love is a talent.
If one cannot help but love another, that Love is a gift.

These aspects can be confused by illness; mental, physical, or spiritual.

Needs can go unrecognized and unmet.
Wants can be confused for needs, needs that make unfair demands on others.
Talents can become obsessive needs to perform.
Gifts can be buried, twisted, hidden, burning inside.

And the lists go on...

Of course EVERYBODY has needs, wants, talents and gifts, recognized or not, 
confused or not.  You have needs, wants, talents and gifts.  Your husband has
needs, wants, talents and gifts.  When several different sets are brought
together they can mesh together in love or grind together in illness.  When
one is changing, even for the better, seeing their needs, gifts, etc. more
clearly, the interactions will be painful if there is illness and not love. 

You say you cannot release yourself...but God can.  It's happening now!
You say you can't change.  I think you *have* changed.  Otherwise all this 
probably wouldn't be happening.  As you change your relationships with other 
people change as well, and that can be difficult.  Think of all the people and
relationships who are changing:  you, you and your husband, you and me, you 
and your co-workers...that's a lot of growth and change in the world!

You say you can never give him enough.  Books have been written about that
kind of pattern in relationships.  Remember your gifts and talents.  If you
allow your gifts to flow from God through you and it is not enough, then there
is nothing more *you* can do.  If you have exhausted your talents, then
stretching yourself further will make you sick. There is nothing more you can
do. 

Finally you say he needs constant reinforcing.  Possibly he *wants* constant 
reinforcing, and that want has been distorted into a need because he does not 
know how to reinforce himself, how to reinforce himself with God?

Joy, Hope, Love and Peace,

Jim

Re:  .309

Glen,

I see you're giving a specialized meaning to "desire" that I have never
given.  I prefer to stick with the American Heritage definition

  1.  to wish or long for; crave;

  2.  to express a wish for

Collis

Re:  91.314

  >To me, saying that sexual orientation is nothing more than the (after
  >the fact) sum of one's sexual desires begs the question, since most
  >people's sexual desires are clearly not randomly distributed among the
  >population.  

Likewise, claiming that there is an "orientation" independent of
desires begs the question as well.  Why is the "desire" for a generic
woman or man and "orientation" and the "desire" for a specific woman
or man a desire?  Isn't it possible to have a "general" desire for
food or for love or for cars or for books without the specific desire
of ice cream or a mate or a Ford or an Isaac Asimov robot story?

  >It seems to me that most people are predisposed to experience their 
  >erotic desires during the course of their lives for individuals of 
  >either one sex or the other; 

Could this be because of their desires?

Collis

| I see you're giving a specialized meaning to "desire" that I have never
| given.  I prefer to stick with the American Heritage definition

| 1.  to wish or long for; crave;

| 2.  to express a wish for

	Collis, you left out one (I'm using the doubleday dictionary)

3.    Sexual appetite; passion

	I don't have a sexual appetite for everyone I meet. I know this is one
misconception that a lot of people have about lesbigays, and I don't know if
you feel this way or not, but it really is that, a misconception.



Glen

Re .320

Actually, Glen, I left out all definitions after the two main ones 
I entered for a reason - they were not what I was trying to say nor
were they the most common definitions.

Collis

    Yes, Collis, it is possible to have a general desire for food or for
    love or for cars or for books.  Heterosexuals, homosexuals, and
    bisexuals all have a desire for romantic love; the class of individuals
    to whom they are likely to direct their desire for love is determined
    by which sex they are most attracted to.  As a result, heterosexuals
    (for example) desire people of the opposite sex.  It is this tendency
    to be attracted to one sex or another (i.e., to channel one's sexual
    desires in one direction or another) that I am referring to as an
    "orientation".  If you want to call this predisposition to orient one's
    sexuality in one direction or another a "desire", then we will have to
    agree to disagree.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .321
    Collis,
    
    In the context of *this string* it certainly seems reasonable to use
    the definition of "desire" that Glen is using rather than to limit
    the definition to either of the first two given in the dictionary.
    
    I also agree with .323 re: "orientation." 

Re: .320  Glen

>	Collis, you left out one (I'm using the doubleday dictionary)
>
>3.    Sexual appetite; passion

OK, Glen, that's reasonable: you're using the third definition of the word
"desire".  However, I still have to question whether you are using this third
definition *consistently*.  For example, in reply .304 you wrote:

>	My orientation has nothing to do with desires. My eye color has nothing
>to do with desires (otherwise they would be blue ;-), my hair color has nothing
>to do with desires, my height and weight have nothing to do with desires. They
>are all something that are instilled from birth.
>
>Now, I can prefer a specific person. I may prefer to have different
>	color eyes, hair, whatever. Those are desires. 

Unless I'm mistaken I'd say that your orientation has a *lot* to do with sexual
appetite or passion.  You are sexually attracted to (some) men.  So when you
said "my orientation has nothing to do with desires", which definition of
"desires" did you have in mind?

Maybe it would be clearer if instead of "desire" you wrote "desire(1)",
"desire(2)" etc.

				-- Bob

| >	My orientation has nothing to do with desires. My eye color has nothing
| >to do with desires (otherwise they would be blue ;-), my hair color has nothing
| >to do with desires, my height and weight have nothing to do with desires. They
| >are all something that are instilled from birth.
| >
| >Now, I can prefer a specific person. I may prefer to have different
| >	color eyes, hair, whatever. Those are desires.

| Unless I'm mistaken I'd say that your orientation has a *lot* to do with sexual
| appetite or passion.  You are sexually attracted to (some) men.  So when you
| said "my orientation has nothing to do with desires", which definition of
| "desires" did you have in mind?

	You're right. There are some men that I SEXUALLY desire. I like being
around men, but not all men I hang around with do I desire and I don't always
have to hang out with JUST men. For *me*, I feel that my orientation has to do 
with who I'd rather be with, non-sexually. For *me*, I feel that whom I want 
to be with SEXUALLY becomes a desire. I am attracted to all aspects of men, not
just physical appearence. There are so many more qualities that men have OTHER
than just physical appearance. These are things I find in most men I have met,
but I don't desire most of whom I meet. They all can have some, many or all of
those qualities, and I still may or may not desire them, but will want to be
with them as friends. Can you see this?

	If you take orientation out of the dictionary....

1) The act of orienting, or the state of being oriented

2) The determination or adjustment of ones position with reference to
   circumstances, ideals, etc.

	Now, orient is (seeing they used it for one of the definitions, I
thought it should be placed here)....

1-2 consist of the far east.

3) To adjust the physical position of

4) To adjust or adapt according to first principles or recognized facts.

	I don't see the word desire listed here anywhere. When I looked up the
word desire in the Thesaurus dictionary, none of the words listed above were
under 'desire'. 


Glen

Re:  .322

Mike,

Yes, we can agree to disagree (on this as well as other issues :-) ).
However, I still have not seen any evidence of any kind that there
is an "orientation" that exists apart from "desire".  This does not
mean it does not exist - but it also does not mean that it does exist.

Collis

Re:  .323

O.K. Nancy, we will include the use of the "sexual desire" definition.

In regards to this definition, I view it as simply a narrowing of the
more general "desire" definition to the area of sex.  In this sense,
it is already included in the first two definitions (i.e. it is a
subset of the first two definitions).

Collis

    Gee, I sure do *experience* desires for hot fudge sundaes, sport
    cars, and *sex* as being qualitatively different!  Doesn't everyone
    else?????
    
    Nancy

    I dunno, Nancy.  Sometimes combining all three into a single activity
    can be rather fun.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

Nancy,

Is there any desire you would compare with a sexual desire?  Why? (or
why not?)

Collis

    See .274 (2)

    	Well, we have now argued about the terms "desire" and "orientation"
    in more depth than we have many other entire strings in this
    conference. And solved nothing. Are we going to put this nit-picking to
    rest or continue to chase it in a circle until the whole conference
    collapses ?
    	It seems to me that Collis's argument is supportable in other
    applications but not accurate in this one. My impression, correct me if
    I'm wrong, is that Collis needs to have this use of "desire" apply to
    the condition of homosexuality (sorry if the wording offends) in order
    to support his contentions regarding the Biblical approbation of
    homosexuality. If the term "desire" does not apply then the Biblical
    passages he has quoted may not apply or might not be interpretable as a
    condemnation of homosexuality. Glen, on the other hand, seems arguing
    both FOR a more accurate description of the condition and AGAINST the
    use of a term which might also be accurate but which would support the
    Biblical condemnation of homosexuality.
    	For Collis to agree to Glen's more precise terminology he would
    have to re-examine his understanding of much of the Bible, re-interpret
    much of what he thought he knew. He would have to re-evaluate a
    significant portion of his beliefs according to subtly different
    understandings of what is being said in the Bible. I can understand why
    he might be reluctant to allow himself to be put in such a position.
    	For Glen to agree with Collis's definition he would have to agree
    that love is a sin for him and for those he loves. His choices would be
    narrowed to a life without love or condemnation to hell. Hell in either
    case, in my opinion. I can understand why Glen might be reluctant to
    concede any point in the discussion. 

    a-HEM!!!!!
    
    
    Michael, you may recall that I don't eat ice cream!
    
    
    
    
    
    So.  Just who did you have in mind?
    
    
    E Grace

    believe it or not, dave..
    
    this nitpicking about "desire" vs "orientation" also takes up
    considerable disk space in other conferences as well. there's some
    support among gay people for the theory that gay people are just as
    non-gay people are except for the sex of their partners. there's also
    support for the idea that gay people are constitutionally different
    from non-gay people.
    
    i think some of what Fox writes in the reply that follows is relevant.
    the part that says we can't look to see what our sexuality is..turning
    away from self-knowledge and self-discovery.
    
    peter

    
    This past summer I had the privilege of teaching with Sister Jose
    Hobday, a Franciscan siter and a Native American. One day she took me
    aside with great seriousness and said she had a question she had to put
    to me a representative of white society. "I cannot understand," she
    began, "the hang-up in white culture and Church toward the homosexual.
    In our native traditions we don't even have a word for 'homosexual.'
    And it is well known among us that often the homosexual was the most 
    spiritual member of a tribe, who played powerful roles as counselours
    to some of our most important chiefs." She went on to explain how in
    her ministry of retreat-giving, the people she encountered who were
    "the most beautiful Christians of all" were very often homosexual men
    and women. This had been my experience as well.
    
    Obviously, what Sister Jose was experiencing as an outsider in the
    white person's world was homophobia. If we lived in a society or a
    Church that was not homophobic we would need no article on the topic I
    have chosen to write on and no book like the present book. If our
    society and our churches accepted the homsexual for what he and she is
    there would be no wagging of tongues and lifting of eyebrows about
    "Homosexuality and Spirituality." In itself the homosexual's
    spirituality is not different from anyone else's --however, here lies
    the rub. All spirituality is incarnational, i.e., grounded in the
    locality of subcultures and culture. Sadly, churches can become too
    much like the world and can fall into sins like homophobia in bending
    over to imitate the world and its ways. For this reason the experience
    of the homosexual in Western culture and most Christian denominations
    has indeed affected his or her spirituality or way of life. It has, for
    example, profoundly affected such a person's self-image. It has
    profoundly affected his or her relationships -- how many many
    homosexuals, for example, have felt the need to either (1) keep the
    "deep, dark secret" from their parents and siblings, thus introducing a
    basic dishonesty to ones's family relationships; or (2) had to, by
    coming out, cut ties altogether with parents or other family members;
    or (3) hide their own sexual orientation even from themselves until
    after marriage, thus hurting other innocent people? Self-knowledge and
    self-discovery is the first step along the spiritual way according to
    the teachings of the mystics, yet self-discovery regarding one's
    sexualtiy has seldom been endorsed in the churches.
    
    from "The spiritual journey of the homosexual.."
    
    which is a part of "A challenge to love : Gay and Lesbian Catholics
    in the Church" --New York : Crossroad Publishing, 1984.

    peter,
    	and are those other conferences any closer to agreement than we ? 
    I would expect a "yes" only if the conferees were so like-minded that
    they were nearly in agreement prior to the discussion. There is little
    chance of that here.
    	I did not write .333 in order to stop the discussion, the nit
    picking. It was my intent to show the two opposing viewpoints what the
    other must face - and what they are facing. I do not think that many
    sane lesbigays can be convinced that the Bible is correctly interpreted
    to damn them to hell - either in life or after. I don't think that many
    conservatives will DARE to question their theology even enough to
    acceed to a possible variant in the interpretation of a contestable
    word - it would weaken their entire faith system. The differences
    between the two are irreconcilable. The only ones who can really learn
    from such a discussion are those who are not yet convinced, and I don't
    believe that includes anyone here. We may not be in agreement, but I
    believe we have all taken sides from which we are unlikely to budge.

    
    dave,
    
    i'll readily admit to thinking and saying many of the very same
    things...the differences are just too great between the two sides
    here..gee, it's bad enough just among us, let alone them!
    
    still, don't we have some obligations to interact with each other
    despite the fact that no resolution is reached? 
    
    peter

    peter,
    	I agree with the analysis in the Fox article. I feel that
    homophobia is an unreasoned, unprovoked, failure to love. And Christ is
    love. And the only way to heaven is through Christ. Guess who won't be
    getting to heaven. Or maybe they will, and it will there be made
    subservient to the homosexuals they were so unkind to while they lived. 
    	In case you missed it, I attend the Arlington Street Church in
    Boston. ASC used to house Dignity, a lesbigay group of disenfranchised
    Roman Catholics. The current minister, Kim Crawford-Harvie, is an
    avowed lesbian. A significant minority of the congregation is lesbigay.
    Were I homophobic I would need another church, I think.

    	Seen in the paper this weekend was a piece about a man who has
    AIDS. He claims he has been faithful to his wife for a couple of
    decades, and impotent with her. He is not an IV drug user or member of
    any of the other groups likely to get the disease. He attends church
    regularly. So, how did he get AIDS ?  He has admitted to regular,
    weekly, bouts of gay-bashing. Seems one of those gays got a very final
    sort of revenge. God seems to act in passing strange ways, yes ?

    
    dave,
    
    did i give you the impression i thought you (or really anyone else
    here) was homophobic??
    
    i caught that you attend Arlington St Church (I've been to a (Gay)
    Tenth Wedding Anniservary party there).
    
    peter

    peter,
    	I wasn't sure and I wanted you to be sure. I have enough faults and
    failings without having anyone mistakenly believe I have even more.

    
    i think maybe enough Light shows thru..so you shouldn't worry
    about it, Dave

	What the controversy seems to be about is whether a person is
gay primarily due to intrinsic, and therefore uncontrollable, factors
or primarily due to internalized, and therefore conceivably more
controllable, factors.

	Unfortunately, I don't think we're going to find a conclusive
answer that will settle the question permanently for all of us.

Richard

I am posting here a note which I consider a four star (****) classic.  It comes
from the CHRISTIAN_V1 archived notesfile.

I do not have the consent of the author.  I somehow suspect the author,
the late Dick Martel, would grant me permission to post this here were he
alive to ask.

Because of its length I shall split it into 3 entries.

Peace,
Richard
================================================================================
Note 409.44                       Homosexuality                         44 of 55
INDY::DMARTEL "Let go, and let God!"                113 lines  14-APR-1987 17:21
                   -< NOT the bible, but Jesus of Nazareth! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    RE: .43
    
    	I'll go this far.  The New Testament writings are WITNESSES
    to the faith of the early church.  I will follow the church only
    insofar as it seems to be following the religious teachings of Jesus
    of Nazareth.  The teachings of Jesus of Nazareth may be taken as
    the inspiration for much of the writing in the New Testament.  At
    the same time, much of the writing in the New Testament seems to
    me to consist of INFERENCES drawn from the teachings, or even from
    the very existence, of Jesus of Nazareth.

    	The rest of my acquaintance with this Person called Jesus comes
    from certain teachings, writings, and witnesses in the church down
    through the ages.  My ability to distinguish the authentically
    Jesus-based from the non-Jesus-based is an act of faith based on
    the supposition of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit.  I have, in
    short, met some very holy people, living and dead (I've 'met' the
    dead through their lives and works), whose example teaches me more
    about the Person of this Jesus of Nazareth.  Some of my examples
    have never called themselves Christian, by the way (Albert Camus,
    Lawrence Durrell, Oscar Wilde, e.e.g).

    	I accept no code or list of instructions or scriptures as absolute.
    God is absolute within Himself, and truth is absolute.  I can apprehend
    only the reflections of this metaphysical absolute, for my mind
    is limited and its scope bound by the human-all-too-human.

    	If Christianity consists only of adherence to a Book, then it
    has no more claim to being special than any other religion (e.g.
    Islam) founded on a Book.  If it is a list of codifiable precepts,
    divergence from which means damnation, then we have advanced not
    one step from the religion of the Pharisee whose condemnation at
    the hands of Jesus we can accept only because we can see it is just.

================================================================================
Note 409.44                       Homosexuality                         44 of 55
INDY::DMARTEL "Let go, and let God!"                113 lines  14-APR-1987 17:21
                   -< NOT the bible, but Jesus of Nazareth! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	What makes Christianity THE religion of the world and its history
    is the incomparable figure of Jesus of Nazareth.  He has chosen
    to call us friends, and no longer servants; we may dare to believe
    we can get to know Him as He is in His human nature, for we are
    human also.  But we must develop our humanity to the fullest to
    do it.  My humanity is intimately bound up with my PERSONALITY.
    God knows and loves each one of us down to the last fiber of our
    being, down to the least aspect of our personalities.  Hence,
    since we will all see Him with different eyes, we must be prepared
    for different descriptions of Him from our brethren.  The injunction
    to "be fruitful and multiply" refers not only to raw multiplication
    of human bodies on the planet but to the fruitful multiplication
    of many different personalities all living and working the Christ-like
    life in pluralism and diversity.

    	I reject stale orthodoxies, as did Jesus.  When I cite passages
    from scripture, they are in illustration of a point I am making.
    You must hear this well.  I think that we too often talk past each
    other:  there are two kinds of reasoning.  One is persuasive, the
    other conclusive.  I think that when fundamentalists quote scripture
    they do so with the headset of one who cites a statue or an ordinance
    of law.  I don't cite scripture that way.  My citations are
    illustrations of what I am thinking of when I reach this or that
    conclusion.

    	Also, I am, sometimes, mischievous, and I will sometimes quote
    knowing perfectly well that I'm quoting something that you will
    think is a mandate or an order.  I often state thereby,  "But if you
    think 'X' is absolute, then I have a statement, 'Y,' here which,
    BY YOUR OWN REASONING must be absolute also."

    	One day, you too may write what even I consider a Holy Book,
    Vince.  I will quote it with all the relish with which I quote the
    Bible -- but with as little legalism, too.  If I find that the sayings
    and presentation of, say, C.S. Lewis help me to understand some
    point in my spiritual life better than the sayings of Paul in
    Galatians, then I will quote C.S. Lewis as my 'authority,' but my
    authority only in the sense that my understanding of the matter
    is closer to his than to Paul's.

    	Please try and understand that, while we are sometimes reading
    the same pages, we are mostly not even reading the same book.  You
    may pick it up looking for infallible instruction.  I will pick
    it up looking for how Paul thinks of this or that, or seeking to
    remember what Jesus said (or is reported to have said) when x or y 
    happened.  After I find out what these people had to say, I will 
    think and pray and meditate.  I then come to my own conclusion,
    based on MY life, authenticated by MY experience.
    
        That some scripture reads, "Go forth and do X" does NOT mean to
    me that I should go forth and do x.  It represents what Paul or
    Jude or Matthew THOUGHT about x in the context of their spiritual
    life as Christians.  They are my brothers, not my masters, not my
    judges, nor my jailers.
    

================================================================================
Note 409.44                       Homosexuality                         44 of 55
INDY::DMARTEL "Let go, and let God!"                113 lines  14-APR-1987 17:21
                   -< NOT the bible, but Jesus of Nazareth! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	As to my reluctance, my so-called 'self-sufficient' privacy,
    please reflect.  I have opened my mind to many.  I am far from
    sufficient unto myself.  I need instruction from people's hearts
    and minds and from the deeds of their own lives.  I get this
    instruction in full measure, and strive always to improve my conscious
    contact with this God of my understanding.

    	But not here, Vince.  There are too many Pharisees here, and
    if I ask for bread, I am afraid I will be handed a stone; if I ask
    for an egg, I fear lest they put a scorpion in my hand.  They will
    not go in themselves -- crying out their "unworthiness" for others
    to hear -- nor admitting those who are trying to enter.  I speak
    only of a few:  most here are pilgrims like myself.
    	
    	I will say this here and I will say it clearly:  I am not my
    own authority -- I merely judge with the judgement God gave me.
    Some have judged a Book to be the Way; for my part, I have chosen
    the Person, and I hear His voice.  I have no absolute answers for
    myself or for you.  I have NEVER claimed to be an authority, nor
    anyone's teacher, nor a guide.  I merely say what I believe from
    my heart.  It's not "inconsistency" but the organic growth of the
    human person.  What I think today I may not think tomorrow, and
    the standard by which I judge a thing today is not the standard I used
    yesterday.
    
    	
       I hope this answer suffices.  And when someone comes along and yells
    triumphantly, "Aha! I TOLD you he was no one's authority but his
    own!!" remember that I told you first.  And remember that I am not
    even my own authority.
    
    Dick Martel

    Richard

    Dick when he was alive freely gave permission to copy his writings
    on the subject of Christianity and homosexuality to those who asked.
    I doubt he'd have reason to complain of your resurrecting his words.

    Bonnie

    
    
    Thanks for entering those notes Richard.
    
    Carole

    Thank you, Richard. Dick was an impressive writer/philosopher/scholar.
    I have long been in awe of him. 

Dave,

Your analysis is very reasonable.

However, at least in your interpretation of my motivations, I think it
misses the mark.  My point in this string for the last 40 replies or
so has nothing to do with the Bible.  Admittedly, there is certainly
a lot of influence the Bible has on me and will continue to have on me.
But, in this string on desire, I have not attempted to prove or disprove
what desire is by the Bible in any manner, shape or form.  Likewise, I
have not picked a conclusion and tried to shape the argument (although
this certainly may have been a subconscious goal).

What I have done is look at the evidence around me.  I see a lot of
people with a lot of desires.  Some are strong; some are weak.  Some
change easily and some change only with great effort, if at all.

Some people here and elsewhere claim that some of these "desires" should
be viewed differently than other desires.  A few (not many) distinctions
have been made (such as some are "sexual" desires, some are not) - but
reasons for why these distinctions are significant have been lacking.

A model that puts desires as a subject of something else (orientation)
has been proposed - but there is no objective evidence that I am aware
of that shows that this is the correct model.  This does not mean it
could not be correct - actually I think that it is possibly based on the
evidence we have that either model could be correct.

However, if the model of orientation/desire is correct, then should not
this model be true for desires in general?  I would expect this to be
the case - yet those who claim this model for sexual desire/orientation
do not generally claim it for all desires.

As a sidenote to .343

Richard,

Actually, I don't see the orientation/desire discussion has any relevance
to whether or not homosexual sexual activity is sinful or not.  I believe
(going back to the Bible for a moment) that the Bible makes it clear that
we have a sinful nature.  Whether that sinfulness includes an orientation
to homosexual sexual activity or a desire for homosexual sexual activity
does not change the sinfulness of the activity as declared by the Bible.

In other words, no matter what model we end up using, it in no way
defines the sinfulness of homosexual sexual activity.

Collis

    re: .91, Collis:
    
>Some people here and elsewhere claim that some of these "desires" should
>be viewed differently than other desires.  A few (not many) distinctions
>have been made (such as some are "sexual" desires, some are not) - but
>reasons for why these distinctions are significant have been lacking.
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Do you really see no difference in basic biological drives (for food,
    water, rest, sex) and desires for cars, etc.???

Re:  .351

A point well taken.

Yes, I do see agree that that are biological drives that include sex.
However, I don't see it as black and white.  I see it on a continuum.
For any given desire, there is some amount (possibly 0) which is part
of the biological drive for that desire.  It's not clear to me at
what percentage of "biological drive" that we should use the
orientation/desire paradigm over the desire alone paradigm.

Another interesting question is, how much of a "biological" drive
is "ingrained" and how much is simply the chemicals that the body
releases?  In other words, can some of these "biological" drives be
totally changed by changing the body chemistry?  If so, is it really
accurate to talk about these drives as "ingrained".  (When I think of
"ingrained", I do not think about chemically caused drives but rather
something intrinsic which will happen regardless of the chemistry.
Perhaps that's a lack in my thinking.)

Collis

    re: .351, Collis -
    
    I'm not sure I'm making myself clear.  My point about bio. drives
    is *not* aimed at the orientation/desire paradigm but only at
    your insistence on grouping sexual desires in the same category
    with other,"more mundane" desires.  I keep raising the bio. drive
    point and you keep saying that you see no reason to separate
    sexual desire (i.e., sex drive) from a desire to buy a car.  (At
    least I *think* you grouped them together many notes ago!)
    
    (Hope your wife doesn't know... :-)  )
    
    

| Another interesting question is, how much of a "biological" drive
| is "ingrained" and how much is simply the chemicals that the body
| releases?  In other words, can some of these "biological" drives be
| totally changed by changing the body chemistry?  If so, is it really
| accurate to talk about these drives as "ingrained".  (When I think of
| "ingrained", I do not think about chemically caused drives but rather
| something intrinsic which will happen regardless of the chemistry.
| Perhaps that's a lack in my thinking.)

	Well, I know they can reduce someones appetite with diet pills. But too
much of that and you will end up hurting yourself. The natural instinct to eat
still remains. You can gain more mass by taking steroids, but the end result
isn't a good one. You can end up doing more damage than good. The end result is
if something is biological by nature, then to try and change that could cause
problems down the road. If something is a disease, then you're combating that
one particular aspect of something that doesn't belong in the human body.


Glen

Note 91.350

> I believe
>(going back to the Bible for a moment) that the Bible makes it clear that
>we have a sinful nature.  Whether that sinfulness includes an orientation
>to homosexual sexual activity or a desire for homosexual sexual activity
>does not change the sinfulness of the activity as declared by the Bible.

Collis,

	This is something that's always been kind of absurd to me.  My
fundamentalist friends and foes all tell me we all are born with a sinful
nature.  Fine.  I don't buy it, but fine.  Now that makes *everyone*
a sinner; I'm a sinner; you're a sinner; *all* God's chillun are sinners
and have fallen short of the glory of God; the heterosexual, who is
constitutionally drawn to the opposite sex, is a sinner just as much as
the person who is constitutionally drawn to the same sex.

	Okay, so we're all sinners.  Regardless of this doctrine, it seems
like *some* of us sinners get some sort of irresistible charge out of
calling other people sinners.  (I'm not saying this is you, Collis).
It just seems absurd, like twins who call each other ugly!

Richard

    Collis,
    	I was not trying to describe your motives. Those are known only by
    you. My attempt was to describe, to Glen and others, at least part of
    the problems you would face were you to concede the argument. Nor was I
    trying to describe Glen's motivations to you, only the problem he would
    face were he to concede the argument.
    	Yes, it is possible to present the most reasonable argument,
    supported by reams of documentation/citations, and still be wrong. And
    I didn't even present supporting proofs, so my analysis is even more
    likely to be wrong. Do with it as you will.

I'm enjoying the friendliness of the discussions here.

    Re: .357
    
Collis,

	I get the hint.  If I came across as harsh and unfriendly, I
apologize.

	I can't speak for Dave, who now is gone.  Dave frequently put
things in a way that sounded terse.  It took me a while to realize that
that was Dave's way.  Dave's were the first notes (and only notes so far, I
believe) to be SET HIDDEN.  And, it wasn't so much for what he said, but
the way he chose to express it.  As Carole said, "Dave had a way of stirring
the pot."

	On to the topic, you have made it clear that you believe that people
who engage in same gender, sexually intimate expression are sinning, and that
you base this belief on the precepts of the Bible.  Personally, I believe
that it is contrary to the "higher law" of Christ Jesus to condemn a genuinely
loving, fruitful and faithful dyadic bond between mature individuals.

	I could be wrong.  And, perhaps I am.  But, I know it will take some
mighty powerful convincing to get me to change my mind.

Peace,
Richard

I think you misunderstood me, Richard.

What I meant was what I said.  I am appreciating the friendliness of
the discussions here.

Collis

DENVER - An ethicist on United Methodism's Committee to Study Homosexuality
says that people who use the Bible to justify their belief that homosexual-
ity is sinful should be consistent in their application of their biblical
passages to contemporary issues.

To be consistent, said the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, people should not allow
women to teach men and should stone idolators.

(from the Religious News Service)

Peace,
Richard

>To be consistent, said the Rev. J. Philip Wogaman, people should not allow
>women to teach men and should stone idolators.
    
    Sounds fair. I really don't understand why the Methodists ordain women.
    Perhaps that's an other topic though.
    
    			Alfred

  >To be consistent...should not allow women to teach and should stone 
  >idolators.

The level of Scriptural understanding that this statement shows is small,
IMO.

    Re: 217.1
    
Interesting question, Alfred.  I'm afraid I'm not qualified to provide
a definition which would truly encompass the full import of the term.

To me, homophobia is a prejudice; a pre-judgment.  The homophobic person
extends their esteem and general regard towards an individual based on the
gender the individual is attracted to as an intimate.  Mind you, one's
sexual orientation has no correlation with the content of one's character.

Homophobia is also a fear which often expresses itself in irrational anger,
resentment and even violence towards any and all gays, lesbians and bisexuals.
Homophobes are threatened by the mere existence of people who are erotically
oriented toward the same sex.  Homophobia seeks to suppress and oppress.
Some of the more mildly homophobic persons will tell you, "Yeah, I guess
it's okay if that's how they really feel, but I just don't want to know
about it."

This is an unsatisfactory solution.  It asks the secret to go on being
perpetuated.  Shamefulness and secrets feed each other.

Further, I have learned that one's sexuality, including heterosexuality,
affects *everything*, every aspect of one's identity and being.

Allow me to share with you how subtle homophobia can be.  I am a member of
a church which is predominantly gay and lesbian.  When I was picked up at
my home last Sunday by a fellow church member, who came by to drive me, he
remarked that I looked very nice.  Then I felt kind of weird that he had said
that.  Yes, I thought I was dressed and groomed nicely myself.  But, I have
*never* had a male say anything to me about my appearance, except if it was
something crummy or critical.  And, it occurred to me that probably very few
males have had other males compliment them on their appearance, and that this
behavior was probably due to the fear (homophobia) of seeming to be gay.

Richard

    You know, that's something I've been thinking about lately.  I've been
    trying to think through what the fear might be, its root, etc.  But
    then I realized that I can't think of any other us-against-them type of 
    term that inclues the "phobia" root.  (Racism, sexism, mysogeny...)
    
    I'm interested in what others have to say about this.
    
    Nancy

(Religious News Service, continued)

Dr. Wogaman is professor of Christian social ethics at Wesley Theological
Seminary in Washington.

In a recent lecture at Iliff School of Theology in Denver, Dr. Wogaman
also questioned whether the few negative passages about homosexuality
"express timeless moral truth" or merely express cultural understandings
at the time the passages were written.

Peace,
Richard

| You know, that's something I've been thinking about lately.  I've been
| trying to think through what the fear might be, its root, etc.  But
| then I realized that I can't think of any other us-against-them type of
| term that inclues the "phobia" root.  (Racism, sexism, mysogeny...)

	Nancy, how about this. If you're walking down the streets of your
favorite city and a group of (insert your favorite ethnic group) is 
walking towards you talking and laughing loudly, do you have any fear towards
them? Is this fear justified? It's kind of like homophobia. In a sense that
people have their own ideals about people, things that they may have been
taught by their parents. Society definitly plays a BIG part in it. The end
result? People are wrongly feared and sometimes even beaten just for being who
they are. People assume that because one person does something wrong, then the
whole group must be like that. Hopefully someday EVERYONE will be able to be
truly free. :-)


Glen

| You know, that's something I've been thinking about lately.  I've been
| trying to think through what the fear might be, its root, etc.  But
| then I realized that I can't think of any other us-against-them type of
| term that inclues the "phobia" root.  (Racism, sexism, mysogeny...)

    Lots of us-against-them things have a basis in xenophobia. The fear
    of those different from them. Perhaps most do. I do fear that the use
    of the work homophobia works against reconciliation between
    heterosexual people and homosexual people. It forces many people,
    especially men because of their upbringing, to a defensive mode. People
    can accept that they hate unreasonably easier then they can accept
    charges that they fear. I personally view the word homophobia as more
    then an attack of an opinion but of a persons whole being. Thus
    people who use that term to describe that I don't approve of
    homosexuality are less likely to be listened to. Why? Because it shows
    a lack, not only of understanding, but willingness to understand my
    position. It blindly assumes that I react unthinkingly out of fear
    rather then with a well thought out opinion of long standing. I know 
    others who feel the same way. Inject the word "homophobia" into a
    conversation only with people who already agree with you or to whom
    you wish to show disrepect.
    
    			Alfred

    			Alfred

| It forces many people,
| especially men because of their upbringing, to a defensive mode. 

	I have noticed this too. Women that I have come out to have been much
more open about it than the men I've come out to. I've always wondered why, but
never found an answer. 

Glen

    RE: .369 I was using that sentence to refer to the term "homophobia"
    rather then to gay people. To tell a man that he is afraid, which is
    what saying he has homophobia is, is generally considered a serious
    put down because men at taught that fear is weak. And I don't think
    that homophobia is a fair word either. I have a number of friends who
    are gay. We have a good relationship and neither fears the other. They
    know my beliefs and we have an honest relationship. That's why I get
    quite upset at the use of the word homophobia to describe my opinions.

    As for women being more relaxed about gay men coming out to them then
    men that's what I would expect. When a gay man comes out to a woman
    she no longer sees him as likely to hit on her. For a man, all of a
    sudden he has to consider the possibility of getting a come on from a
    very unexpected direction. Now I know that the possibility is rare but
    I think we're dealing at a somewhat subconscious level here. It also
    involves the socialization process that people go through as well. I 
    believe that many women who take a gay man coming out in stride react 
    less well to lesbians coming out to them. And for the same reason some 
    men have a problem with gay men coming out to them.

    			Alfred

I have a theory why men are more threatened than women.  It has to do
with power and control, and also the potential for losing power and control.
It has to do with prestige and one's social identity.  When a Marine
sergeant addresses you as "Lady," it's a blatent put-down, an insult.  From
a very young age, males in our culture are socialized to stay as far away
as possible from being in any way "like a girl."

Women, because of the phenomenon called "scripting", do not have as great
a challenge to their personal identity as men in our culture do.  You'll
notice there exists no feminine counterpart to the concept of "Machismo."

I think what Alfred stated in .368 is not without merit.  However, I can't
think of a "workaround" to confronting homophobia at the moment.

Richard

| As for women being more relaxed about gay men coming out to them then
| men that's what I would expect. When a gay man comes out to a woman
| she no longer sees him as likely to hit on her. 

	Can we get a womans view on this? The reason I ask is everyone that I
have come out to (women) were just my friends to begin with. We knew from the
beginning that this was how it was going to be. So they knew there was no
threat from me "hitting" on them. That's why I wonder about this analogy.

| For a man, all of a
| sudden he has to consider the possibility of getting a come on from a
| very unexpected direction. Now I know that the possibility is rare but
| I think we're dealing at a somewhat subconscious level here. 

	I have to agree with you on this Alfred. It does seem silly (for the
most part) but it's something that does at least go through the minds of a lot
of men. Not all, but a lot. I think that has to do with people view the gay
male as someone who will sleep with every other male, straight or gay. In some 
cases this is true, but you have those same cases with heterosexuals (but only
with other heterosexuals). It really would be nice if stereotyping would go 
away, but I fear we're a long way away from that right now. So all we can do 
is to try and set things straight (sort to speak ;-). Good point Alfred. :-)

| It also
| involves the socialization process that people go through as well. I
| believe that many women who take a gay man coming out in stride react
| less well to lesbians coming out to them. And for the same reason some
| men have a problem with gay men coming out to them.

	Again, can we have a womans point of view? I agree with what Alfred
says, as it does seem to make a lot of sense, but don't really know for sure 
as I'm not a woman. So any help from the females out there would be greatly
appreciated.



Glen

    I've had two different responses when gay men have come out to me.
    The first is "Oh, okay, that's fine and I appreciate your sharing
    that with me."  In that case I did feel our connection deepen on a
    plutonic level and felt comfortable knowing that that would be the
    exact nature of our relationship.  No hitting on me.  Yeah, that's
    good.  The relationship was more clearly defined.
    
    The second was different.  I was attracted to that man. :-) So I felt a
    twinge of disappointment that I *wouldn't* be hit upon, and that it
    probably wouldn't be appropriate for me to hit on him either!  ;-) :-)
    
    Either way I'm very comfortable when a man comes out to me.  And
    conversely when a woman has come out to me I'm equally as comfortable. 
    I don't worry about her hitting on me.  I feel that if she's attracted
    to me we'll talk about it and take it from there.  
    
    In any instance with either a gay man or lesbian, I feel most comfortable 
    relating with a person who I know cares about me and respects me as a 
    human being first, beyond my partnering preference, enough to hear me 
    and respect my feelings and then to share themselves as genuinely as 
    possible with me in the same way.  That to me is the basis of any 
    healthy relationship.
    
    Karen

	Karen, that was soooooooo cool. I really like the way you put your
response. I had to highlight the last part of what you said. If we could think
this way about everyone, then most of the problems in this world that deal with
fear and hate would disapear. GREAT insight! :-)


				< insert anyone >
				^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
| In any instance with either a gay man or lesbian, I feel most comfortable
| relating with a person who I know cares about me and respects me as a
| human being first, beyond my partnering preference, enough to hear me
| and respect my feelings and then to share themselves as genuinely as
| possible with me in the same way.  That to me is the basis of any
| healthy relationship.

	Words to live by! :-) 



Glen

    Glen,
    
    > If we could think this way about everyone, then most of the problems
    in this world that deal with fear and hate would disapear. <
    
    I agree 110% Glen!  We'll keep working at it and living this way of
    being, and oneday I feel the dream will come true. :-)  It's worth
    *every* ounce of effort.
    
    Blessings to *you*,
    Karen

Amen!

Jim

[Posted with permission]

                         Definition of Homophobia

   Homophobia affects all people -- men and women, gays, straights and
   bisexuals; children adults, elders. While out definitions refer to men
   and women, we only try to speak about our own experiences as men.

   Homophobia is 1) the fear and hatred of gays and lesbians, 2) the fear
   of being perceived as gay or lesbian, 3) the fear of one's own sexual or
   physically attraction for other men or other women and 4) the fear of
   being gay or lesbian.

       When I feel close to another men, I am often afraid to touch him. If
       I like my arm in his, will he think I am "coming on?" What if other
       people make comments - or even attack us! Does my urge to touch and
       hold him mean that I'm gay too?

   1. "Homophobia is the fear and hatred of gays and lesbians."

   Gay and lesbian people live in constant fear of assault and harassment.
   Gays and lesbians are regularly attacked for no other reason than their
   assailants' homophobia.

       During the summer of 1984, a gay man was attacked by three high
       school students in Bangor, Maine. He was beaten and thrown off the
       road into the river below, where he drowned. A recent National Gay
       Task Force study reported that 96% of the gay men surveyed had
       experienced verbal abuse because of their sexual orientation; over
       40% experienced physical violence.

   Most people act out their fears of gay people in non-violent ways.
   People often shun their gay neighbors. Relatives turn away from their
   gay family members. Co-workers are distantly cold to a gay employee. Gay
   and lesbians are considered dangerous to children and denied access to
   their own children.

       Officers of a local bank are encouraged to become active in
       community affairs. When one was elected president of the local
       chapter of Dignity, the organization of gay and lesbian Catholics,
       the bank learned of his gayness and fired him immediately.

   2. "Homophobia is the fear of being perceived as gay or lesbian"

       In a third grade classroom, there are many times when a cuddle or a
       hug is just what a child needs. I am very careful not to touch my
       students---especially the boys---for fear that I will be accused of
       being gay and lose my job.

   Gay people are forced to stay in the closet for fear of suffering the
   prejudices described above and further pain. All men---straight,
   bisexual and gay---are hurt by homophobia. WE are afraid to ask for and
   to express the physical caring and emotional intimacy we feel for one
   another for fear of being thought "gay." Men often place demands on
   women to provide the nurturance, touching and affection they can not
   seek from one another. Many are so scared of anything having to do with
   homosexuality that the words "gay" and "homosexual" are taboo.

       Riding home on the train from the conference, I told my traveling
       companion about attending the Homophobia workshop. I found myself
       whispering, lest other people hear me say "gay" out loud.

   3. "Homophobia is the fear of one's own physical or sexual attraction
   for other men or other women."

   It is natural to be attracted to or turned on my other men. We do not
   have to choose to act on those feelings; not do we have to suppress them
   or try to run away from them.

       In college, I had fantasies about my roommate. To make sure that
       nothing ever happened, I left early in the morning and came home
       after he was asleep. We started out as friends, but the friendship
       fell apart since I was always trying to avoid being together.

   4. "Homophobia is the fear of being gay or lesbian."

   On average, one person in ten is gay. Amongst your family members, your
   friends, your co-workers, the public figures you admire - one in every
   ten is gay. While some have been embittered by society's prejudices, the
   vast majority of gay people lead diverse, well adjusted, satisfying
   lives. Gay people are proud to be gay. They are proud of having learned
   the truth about themselves despite societal oppression and lies. Gay
   people are proud of their efforts to be granted their full civil and
   human rights. Gay people are proud of their homes, the families they
   have build and of the creative ways they lead their lives.

       When I finally admitted (after years of lies) that I was gay, I
       cried a lot... But since then I have come to accept who I am and my
       friends and family love and support me. I am joyful that I am out of
       the closet. I am happy as a person and I am proud for many, many
       reasons that I am gay.

    Wow, that was *good* Richard, and very comprehensive imo.
    
    Thank you very much for entering it.  It triggered a deep
    sadness for me as I read it, for it reminded me again what 
    fear 'inspires' people to inflict upon one another.
    
    May we heal through the pain.
    
    hurting,
    Karen   

ditto, what Karen said.  Many thanks.  Well said, well illustrated, and too, 
too sad.

Jim

    
    
    especially noteworthly (i think) is that gay people themselves
    recognize that they are liable to homophobia just as non-gay
    people are...this self-hatred is one of the most insidious
    forms that it takes.

| especially noteworthly (i think) is that gay people themselves
| recognize that they are liable to homophobia just as non-gay
| people are...this self-hatred is one of the most insidious
| forms that it takes.

	Peter, I know someone who fits this description. It is really sad.
Hopefully someday he'll see just what he's doing.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    I think that most, if not all, gay people have to deal with some
    form of internalized homophobia.  Part of the coming out process 
    involves refuting Western societies' teaching that we are
    sick and/or sinful.   One example of internalized homophobia
    (and sexism, in my opinion) is that many "straight-appearing"
    gay men are disdainful of effeminate gay men, and feel
    superior (e.g. "I may be gay, but at least I don't act like
    a fairy.").  I heard a quote recently that homophobia and sexism
    walk hand in hand (or something like that), with which I agree
    strongly.
    
    Perhaps the definition of homophobia could be expanded to
    include the belief that it is sinful to be homosexual and engage in
    homosexual behavior.  (I understand that some Christian
    faiths, including the Roman Catholic Church, accept as "unsinful"
    homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual sex).
    
    Richard

| I think that most, if not all, gay people have to deal with some
| form of internalized homophobia.  Part of the coming out process
| involves refuting Western societies' teaching that we are
| sick and/or sinful.   

	Gee, I know what you mean. :-)

| One example of internalized homophobia
| (and sexism, in my opinion) is that many "straight-appearing"
| gay men are disdainful of effeminate gay men, and feel
| superior (e.g. "I may be gay, but at least I don't act like
| a fairy.").  

	Richard, I have seen this a lot. It shouldn't matter if you're straight
acting or effeminate. You're still the same as anyone else, a person. 

| I heard a quote recently that homophobia and sexism
| walk hand in hand (or something like that), with which I agree
| strongly.

	How so Richard? I'm interested. :-)

| Perhaps the definition of homophobia could be expanded to
| include the belief that it is sinful to be homosexual and engage in
| homosexual behavior.  (I understand that some Christian
| faiths, including the Roman Catholic Church, accept as "unsinful"
| homosexuals who do not engage in homosexual sex).

	Hmmmm....... interesting. Seeing that homophobia is based on the
beliefs of others, that should fit in nicely!

Glen

    Well, Glen, I think someone (Richard Christie) entered a note
    earlier in this string, about how gay men are reviled in
    part because they are seen to be more like women. So, if
    it's bad to be like a woman, that's sexism, so homophobia is
    connected to sexism, in that particular way.  Does that make sense?
    (the same theory may not hold true about lesbians, but society
    in general has less problem with lesbianism than it does
    with male homosexuality, in my experience and opinion).
    
    Richard

    RE: .382

>    Perhaps the definition of homophobia could be expanded to
>    include the belief that it is sinful to be homosexual and engage in
>    homosexual behavior.  (I understand 

    	Please tell me you're not serious. I don't believe that people
    who desire an open and honest dialogue should even jest about including
    other peoples well thought out and honestly believed religious beliefs
    in the definition of a term that is otherwise used to describe 
    irrational beliefs. 

    	I have already said, and I believe to be true, that the over use
    of the word homophobia is a major stumbling block towards mutual
    understanding. Please don't build the wall higher.

    			Alfred

    I also like Karen's reply, and I'd like to add, that while
    the 'not hit on her' theory for women responding to men may
    be true for some women, I also think that there may be a 'nurturing'
    role there, esp for older women (like me) for much younger men.
    The one time a much younger man came out to me (in the town library)
    it was because I was the mother of one of his hs friends. I was
    positive to him, in part because, I imagined how rough this must
    be for him, and how much he needed a person to be supportive.
    
    in re women, I've not ever felt, to my knowlege, that I  was worried
    that a woman I knew who came out to me would 'hit on me' tho
    I do admit to doing a little mild teasing at parties with
    lesbian freinds, that was more like the way I'd ordinarily tease
    a good close male friend.
    
    Bonnie

    I suppose it depends on which side of the issue you sit, as to
    whether you believe the term "homophobia" is appropriate or
    overused.  From where I sit, *any* fear of or revulsion towards
    homosexuality, whether it's based on psychological or moral
    beliefs, is homophobia.  It also seems to me that much of
    the fear and disgust aimed at homosexuality stems from
    Judeo-Christian teaching.  If you're told you're sinful
    simply because of who and what you are, not just what
    you do, what do you expect from gays?  Surely not
    acquiescence...
    
    You have a belief system, to which you have every right to
    defend, but should it go completely unquestioned? However
    well-thought or honest your beliefs may be doesn't
    make them automatically right for everyone else.  Tell us
    why it bothers you to have homosexuality = sin called
    homophobic.  If a religion (or church) is made up of people, isn't
    it up to the people to change religious teaching and practice?
    Can't Christianity survive a change in attitude towards
    homosexuality?
    
    I'm not building walls, I think this discussion is aimed
    at tearing them down.  To carry the metaphor, I guess
    it depends in which side of the wall your belief system
    rests.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    Richard

To have a rational, God-given belief labelled "homophobic" abuses both
the meaning of "homophobic" and the love of God.

Collis

    Re:  388
    
    Rational and God-given are not words I'd apply to the same concept.
    
    DR

    Thank you Collis. I think you now have some idea of how 
    gays feel abused by some Christians (disclaimer: this
    conference has been free from the kind of abuse I mean).
    
    Is it possible to have a rational, God-given belief (oxymoron
    or not) that homosexuality is not sinful?
    
    Richard

Kb

Thank you and thank you.  I couldn't agree with you more!

Nanci

re: Note 91.390

Hi Richard,

My answer to your question
    
>    Is it possible to have a rational, God-given belief (oxymoron
>    or not) that homosexuality is not sinful?
    
is YES.  

Jim

The question more suited to this conference is

  Is it possible to have a rational, God-given belief that homosexuality
  is sinful?

Collis

DR,

Why insult God by saying that what He says is not rational?  I don't 
understand - unless you feel that you are above God.  Do you consider
yourself a Christian?  If you do, what would possess you to make a
statement like that (in .389)?

Collis

>From where I sit, *any* fear of or revulsion towards
>    homosexuality, whether it's based on psychological or moral
>    beliefs, is homophobia.  

    	This does not, however, equate to the belief that homosexuality
    is a sin. As that is neither fear or revulsion.

>    You have a belief system, to which you have every right to
>    defend, but should it go completely unquestioned? However
>    well-thought or honest your beliefs may be doesn't
>    make them automatically right for everyone else.  

    	People have a right to question any belief. I don't dispute
    that. And of course I do not believe that my beliefs are right for
    everyone just because they are well thought and honest. There are
    other reasons.

>Tell us
>    why it bothers you to have homosexuality = sin called
>    homophobic.  

    	I did. I'm afraid that your even asking the question makes me
    very frustrated. Did you eaither not see or not understand what I
    said earlier?

>If a religion (or church) is made up of people, isn't
>    it up to the people to change religious teaching and practice?

    	Only if you believe that the people created the religion. I do
    not believe that my religion is people developed and so neither do
    I believe I have a right to change it.

>    I'm not building walls, I think this discussion is aimed
>    at tearing them down.  

    	This is not a true statement. You most clearly are building walls.
    As long as people insist on calling 'the belief that homosexual activity
    is a sin' "homophobia" I remain convinced that those people have no
    desire to remove walls and promote understanding.

    			Alfred

    Collis -
    
    I'm talking about the difference between thinking and KNOWING.
    
    Rational thought is an extraordinary achievement of our culture, but it
    is late in coming to humankind, and it has its limits.   God, on the
    other hand, is Limitless Love and Truth. I am a Christian, and I don't
    feel I'm above God.  I just think -- no, that's too weak -- I truly
    believe that rational thought is junior to the Spirit, which bloweth
    where it listeth.  WE try to catch up with our minds, occasionally
    using our rational minds to try to explain the inexplicable. 
    
    The rational mind would like to set itself up as God; in my opinion,
    mind is the idol of this century.  How many times have you thought you
    were acting rationally, when come to find out you had "rationalized"
    your way 'round to whatever it was you wanted to do in the first place?
    
    DR

    RE: all
    
                 Without a doubt, this topic is the most difficult for me
    and for a variety of reasons.  I believe that Homosexuality is a sin
    but I refuse to condem any person for it.  Thats God's job if he/she is
    so inclined.  I'll not judge it.  *AND* like any other sin it is wrong
    against God....so is this one worse than my own variety of sins?  No, I 
    don't think so.....of course this is IMHO. 
    
    Dave

    There is a story I remember. 

    It seems that there was a little old lady sitting in the back of the
    church while the preacher was going to town on some "sins." He railed
    on on the evils of strong drink. And the little old lady yelled "Amen".
    He railed on on the evils of cigarettes. And the little old lady
    yelled, "Amen." Then he started on the evil of snuff. And the little
    old lady got real upset and yelled, "Watch out! Now you've gone from
    preaching to meddling!"

    There is a tendency of people to regard their actions as "all right".
    Other people are sinners not them. And if you call what they do a sin
    you've gone too far. That seems to be what I keep hearing in this
    topic. I can believe what ever I want but if I believe that the Bible
    says that homosexual sex is a sin then I will be called bad names.
    Well, guess what? Calling me bad names is not going to change my mind.
    But it will get in the way of dialoge.

    			Alfred

DR,

  >Rational and God-given are not words I'd apply to the same concept.

Well, you've totally lost me.  I don't know how your statement relates
to "the difference between thinking and KNOWING".  What it still
says to me is that what is God-given is not rational and what is
rational is not God-given.  I guess this is not what you meant,
but that's the only meaning I get out of your statement.

Collis

    Re:  .399 -
    
    When I say I think something is true, I admit that my thoughts are
    imperfect in logic, not to mention subject to my emotions.  Knowing is
    not rational.  It comes from inner conviction, to which one can arrive
    by a rational route, but that is NOT the prior condition.  
    
    God gave us the potential for developing rational thought.  We have
    developed it, 'though rather less than we think we have, in my opinion.
    However, it is HUMANS who think rationally.  God's thoughts are beyond
    rationality.  
    
    If we go much further with this line of reasoning (or non-reasoning?),
    then we might wish to pursue it outside of the context of this string.
    A worthwhile avenue to pursue is G�del's Theorem, which speaks to just
    this issue.
    
    DR

    In one of Paul's letters to the Corinthians, he says God chose
    the foolish to confound the wise, did he not?
    
    Richard

    Might I suggest starting a new topic on rational thought as it
    applies to Christianity?
    
    Richard

| The question more suited to this conference is

| Is it possible to have a rational, God-given belief that homosexuality
| is sinful?

	Does that question really suit this conference or just your view of the
subject?


Glen

Re: .398
    
    Alfred,
    
    	I believe it was me who brought up the term "homophobia" in this
    conference.  I have not used the term to accuse you.  Nor have I
    witnessed anyone else use the term to accuse you.
    
    	In fact, in an example I used (a man complimenting my appearance),
    I admitted a bit of homophobia I recognized in me.
    
    	I recognize that your Christian perspective is that a sexual
    relationship between persons of the same gender is sinful, regardless
    of whatever other circumstances might exist.  I acknowledge that your
    perspective is based upon certain passages of Scripture as you understand
    them.  Yours is probably the most broadly accepted perspective of all
    those shared within this file thus far.
    
    	My Christian perspective is not in agreement with yours.  There's
    no point in denying that.  Though I cannot affirm your Christian
    perspective, I do acknowledge it.
    
    Richard

    RE: .404
    
>Nor have I
>    witnessed anyone else use the term to accuse you.
    
    Then perhaps we view .382 differently.
    
    			Alfred

Hi Collis,

Re: your question in .393. . . My answer to Richard's question in .392 was a
reflection of my own reasoned faith. (Shades of Nancy's old personal name...) 

Knowing you through notes, I'd have to say that you seem to be rational (well, 
usually... .-), and certainly display a belief in God, so I am tempted to say, 

  "Well, I guess it's possible to have a rational, God-given belief that 
   homosexuality is sinful, I think I know somebody who does." 

But that is a secondhand statement.  I would rather hear from someone who can 
answer it directly...

...and I will accept the answer as honestly given...

...and ask the next question...

Where do we go from here, working together in Love for the glory of God?

Peace,

Jim, (who was once solicited for soup labels thusly:  "my brother's wife's 
mother's sister is collecting them to get a globe for her school library..."
now THAT'S second hand!)

    Alfred, and others,
    
    It appears we'll have to agree to disagree on definitions of
    terms. Just as it appears that people here have different
    expressions of faith, we will have different definitions
    of homophobia.   If faith being "irrational" (i.e., belief in
    a God whose existence cannot be proven) is not a pejorative
    statement, I have attempted to take the definition of "homophobia" out
    of the pejorative realm (you may disagree, that's your right).
    
    When I say that the belief that homosexuality is sinful is
    a form of homophobia, all I am questioning is the interpretation
    by men of "God's word" that homosexuality is sinful.  If
    you accept 2000-plus year-old scripture as God's word (interpreted
    by men), how can you be so sure that the word of God is not
    being written by men (and women) today who have equal (or better)
    knowledge and understanding of God's plan than 2000 years ago?
    
    Richard

Re:  .407

Richard,

But labelling the belief that homosexuxal sexual relations are sinful
as "homophobia" goes way beyond questioning the beliefs of those who believe 
that the Bible teaches this.  It, in fact, takes a stand on the correctness of
these beliefs (if homophobia is indeed something negative).  

Perhaps you are arguing that homophobia may be positive as well?  But, in that
case, there is certainly no need to modify those aspects of homophobia
which are positive.  Are there?

Collis

    I appreciate the attempt to understand what I'm saying, however
    badly I articulate my thoughts.  I know it's not easy to see that 
    identification of "homophobia" can be positive; it may only be positive 
    as an empowerment tool for gays.  If my definition of homophobia is that 
    it is a *false* belief that homosexuality is perverted or sinful,
    I understand that it questions people's belief systems (i.e.
    faith).
    
    I know it's difficult to question people's faith, or to make
    them question it of themselves, which is why the discussion
    of Christianity and gays causes so much difficulty.  I don't
    mean to offend, honestly.  If my questions and statements have
    offended, I apologize.
    
    Richard

| But labelling the belief that homosexuxal sexual relations are sinful
| as "homophobia" goes way beyond questioning the beliefs of those who believe
| that the Bible teaches this.  It, in fact, takes a stand on the correctness of
| these beliefs (if homophobia is indeed something negative).

	Collis, you're not going to believe this, but I agree with you. If
someone feels that what they perceive to be a sin (in this case homosexual
acts), then that's not homophobia. 

	Now, if one were to use this (the so called sin sin) as a reason to 
shun someone, to avoid someone, to think of them as a lesser person, to fear 
them, then not only does that become homophobia, but you also do just what God 
doesn't want you to do, to love everyone with your whole heart. Anyway, can 
you see where I'm coming from? Would you agree that at this point it does turn 
into homophobia?

| Perhaps you are arguing that homophobia may be positive as well?  

	I can't see where it would be helpful. There is one instance, but that
would require something bad to happen first. Take for example someone slashed
a lesbigays tires because they (the slasher) were homophobic. People
(non-lesbigays) may see this and think this is stupid, and then realize that
they shouldn't have any ill feelings for a lesbigay just for there sexual
orientation. This is a mild case, but we'll use this one. Anyway, you can see
where this isn't really a good way to get something positive out of homophobia.

| But, in that
| case, there is certainly no need to modify those aspects of homophobia
| which are positive.  Are there?

	Unless you know of any examples of homophobia being purely positive, I
think there is plenty of room for modification.


Glen

Re:  91.410

  >Now, if one were to use this (the so called sin sin) as a reason to 
  >shun someone, to avoid someone, to think of them as a lesser person, to 
  >fear them, then not only does that become homophobia, but you also do 
  >just what God doesn't want you to do

I agree that going from a belief that homosexual sexual behavior is
sinful to any kind of rejection of the person that is not in accordance with
God's Will is homophobia.

Collis

    RE: .410 and .411 It is from such apparently small agreements that
    good understanding is created.
    
    			Alfred

    
    	Just a note:
    
    	Today the evening news announced that Digital/Colorado Springs did
    not 'see the need' for an 'equal opportunity' act, which contained 
    language against discrimination because of sexual orientation which has
    been voted on by the local city council.
    
    

                         COUNCIL AXES GAY RIGHTS PLAN

            Commission told to strike provision or risk replacement

                  Colorado Springs Gazette Telegraph 4/24/91

The Colorado Springs City Council scrapped a controversial gay rights measure
Tuesday, warning members of a city advisory panel to do the same or lose their
jobs.

On an 8-1 vote, the council adopted a resolution that directs the city Human
Relations Commission to remove "sexual orientation" from a broader
anti-discrimination law it has proposed.

The council stopped short of killing the broader law, even though a majority of
council members already said they want to scrap it, too.

The commission, a 15-member panel appointed by the council, will meet May 9 to
decide whether to follow the directive.  If not, council members have indicated
that they would appoint a new commission.

The panel still plans a May 21 hearing on the broader anti-bias law, which would
ban discrimination based on race, religion, age, gender and handicap. The
proposed ordinance also would create a city agency to investigate complaints.

Some members of the city's Human Relations Commission are undecided what to do,
despite the council's threat to oust them from their unpaid positions.  Chairman
Mike Sanchez said his instinct is to stand behind the gay rights proposal.

"I'm torn",he said, "I've go to do some soul searching.  If we have
discrimination against just one person, all of us have a problem".

But, Sanchez added, he can't do anything to promote passage of the broader
anti-discrimination law if he's booted off the commission.

Several other commission members either had no comment or said they were
undecided on the council's directive.  One member, Marvin Adams, said he would
vote to kill the measure because the council has decided that it's unneeded.

Council members heard Tuesday from opposing sides on the gay rights measure.

Attorney Robin Miller, member of Citizens for Human Rights, criticized the
council for bowing to pressure to scrap the measure.

"If any one of you votes to surrender to the fanatics, if any of you votes to
capitulate to the storm troopers, if any of you vote to align yourselves with
the forces of hatred and bigotry, you will forever mark yourself wholly unworthy
of governing this diverse community of ours", she said.

But David Noebel, president of Summit Ministries in Manitou Springs, said the
gay rights proposal would force churches to hire gays and lesbians.  "This is
just bad, bad news for the religious community", he said.

Councilwoman Mary Lou Makepeace cast the lone vote against scrapping the
measure, arguing that the commission should be allowed to continue and solicit
comment on the measure.  "In a democratic society, process is as important as
outcome," she said.

	Fortunately, Digital's Equal Employment Opportunity, Affirmative
Action and Valuing Differences policy, which was signed July 1, 1989, by
Ken Olsen, already includes "sexual orientation," and therefore, presently
exceeds the human rights requirements of Colorado Springs.

	The religious and political climate of Colorado Springs is
profiled in 66.21.

Peace,
Richard

The following is a portion of an open letter printed in the May issue of
the journal _ACTIVE FOR JUSTICE_:  (used with permission)

OPEN LETTER

Editor's note:  While the persecution of gay and lesbian people does not fall
under the heading of racism, but rather homophobia, much of the craziness in
our city lately about who does and who does not "deserve" basic human rights
uncovers this issue as one that is closely related to the May racism theme.
Unlike the opinion-makers at the _Gazette Telegraph_, we do not believe that
homosexuality is a choice, but rather, like race, is a gift one is born with,
and so we share the following with you.

	'In Centennial Hall Wednesday Night, April 17, Colorado Springs saw
the facade of "Christian" piety crumble.  It saw the same fierce, spitting
hatred that Ruby Bridges responded to in New Orleans thirty years ago.  A
little eight year old black child asked asked the question that must be asked
now - "Why do they hate me - they don't even know me?"  Ignorance, fear and
willingness to follow manipulative, slick, control-oriented "leaders" fueled
the rage and consistent refusal to follow to norms of political discourse
we saw April 17.

	It is not too exaggerated to say that I heard the crash of glass on
Chrystal-Nacht in Germany of 1938.  Is this the message you want in Colorado
Springs?  Is this really the Christian message?  Do most of you who do not
subscribe to the fundamentalist world view really believe that you are immune
this sort of implacable assertion of righteousness?  This self-appointed role
as everyone else's morality police?'

    RE: .416  Richard,
    
                       Wow...that was interesting.  Our "homophoba" toward
    gays could very well be due to our (society's) miss handling of sex. 
    Rape is almost an unforgivable sin in many churches and I believe its
    because that church doesn't understand God's will about sex.  This very
    problem carries over to the homosexual and lesbian population.  The
    church seems *MUCH* quicker to judge sexual aberations than almost any
    other common problem.  Its so bad that many churches won't let a
    divorced man become a preacher or even a deacon.  
    
                       Though I personally have some problems with the gay
    community, God *COMMANDS* me to love them and for that fact *ALL*
    people.  
    
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    	Could you elaborate on what you mean when you say, "the church doesn't
    understand God's will about sex?"
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .418   Richard,
    
                         Since God invented sex, I don't believe he thought
    it was bad.  Yet, many in the churches were raised to believe that sex
    was a "chore" that must be put up with instead of viewing it as a
    beautiful part of a marriage relationship.  Many disfunctional
    relationships stem from one or both partners thinking that sex is
    "dirty".  Believe it or not this *STILL* happens today with more
    couples than you might think.  Church, in ignorance, fosters many of
    these ideas.  Very few Pastors or preachers or ministers will go into
    the pulpit and preach that sex is good under God's laws.  Its a
    forbidden subject to many churches.  As a church member, this no-preach
    rule just reinforces that sex is a "forbidden" subject.
    
    
    Dave

    
    re: 417
    
    Dave,
    
    Although I have my own problems in relating to and most especially
    forgiving the Straight community, I also understand that God intends
    for me to love them.
    
    Peter

    We recently had a series of forums in the Episcopal church I attend on
    sex and the non-married person (single, divorced, widowed, gay).  
    It was lovingly and beautiful handled by the rector, Father Odie.  
    He stressed repeatedly that sex is a beautiful, Divinely-created 
    joyful act and that God created us a sexual beings.  There was much
    discussion on whether the Church needed to change its position on
    non-marital sex.  Very interesting and though-provoking series.
    
    Ro
    

    RE .420   Peter,
    
                     I guess the feelings go both ways.  I hope this file
    could be a file that helps bring us closer together.
    
    
    RE: .421  Ro,
    
                   I congradulate you on going to a very progressive
    church!
    
    
    Dave

I've often heard the claim that there are a number of churches that
teach (in various ways) that sex is in and of itself bad, dirty or
wrong.  

In my short lifetime and small number of churches (as well as teaching
heard on Christian radio and in seminary), I have never once heard this
explicitly taught and have never heard of consenting sex between a married 
man and woman referred to negatively.  In fact, the teaching has always
been exactly the opposite - that sex (like everything else God created)
is good and that we should enjoy it within the boundaries that God has
defined for us.

On the other side, I certainly have heard the testimony of others who
state that they grew up believing that sex was bad. 

Collis 

Re:  .417

Dave,

I think that the church *should* be much quicker to judge sexual
aberrations.  I think that this position comes from the Bible's emphasis
on the need of a pure sex life.  I think that this emphasis is due to
God's recognition that sexual desire is such an incredibly powerful
force in our life which needs to be tightly controlled - or else.

Collis

re Note 91.423 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> I have never once heard this
> explicitly taught and have never heard of consenting sex between a married 
> man and woman referred to negatively.  In fact, the teaching has always
> been exactly the opposite 

        I would agree with you, Collis.

        I think that the "problem", and I'm not sure that it is even
        a real problem, comes from the fact that most people go
        through a lengthy initial period of their lives not married,
        and they get the message loud and clear that for them sex IS
        sinful, ugly, and greatly to be avoided (even though it might
        be wonderful for some other people).  Which impression is the
        stronger, more lasting one?

        Bob

    RE .424  Collis,
    
                      Well I guess I disagree.  Soloman had 150 concubines
    and God didn't have a problem with that portion of his life.   Yes, the
    Church must deal with aberrations in a persons sex life but I don't see
    it as a "larger" sin that anything else.  Sin is sin and for a Church
    to take one of them and be "quicker" to judge it is,IMHO, wrong.  I
    also see it as a symptom rather than a problem.  It, again IMHO, is a 
    life not totally committed to Christ.  
    
                       I also don't "like" that word "judge".  God tells us
    not to do that.  By not judging, it makes it easier to love everyone.
    
    
    Dave

    Re: .418 through .426
    
    See new note 229.0 "Christianity and Sexuality."

| RE: .0 Please define homophobia. Does that mean fear of gay people

	That's one form.

| or disapproval of gay sex?

	This isn't an issue about homophobia unless it makes someone do
something wrong (ie gay bashing) because they would rather not deal with
it in an intelligent manner. But if you just disaprove, that in itself isn't
homophobia. I guess just don't use it to hurt anyone. :-)


Glen

I came across a word today in _Newsweek_ that I don't remember seeing before:
heterosexism.  I think this is a more accurate term in most cases than
"homophobia" because it doesn't imply that people who discriminate against
gays and lesbians are afraid of them.  It concentrates on the objectionable
behavior (i.e. actions that demean or attack gays and lesbians) without
speculating about the reason for that behavior.

				-- Bob

	On February 2, 1991, United Methodism's first and only official
committee to study homosexuality voted overwhelmingly that it could *not*
support the present Social Principles' unqualified position that the
practice of homosexuality is "incompatible with Christian teaching."

Richard

    re -1
    
    		Yea!!
    
    Karen

    God made some people homosexual tho.
    
    Bonnie

Bonnie,

Just like God made people with sexual lust?

Collis

    yup, and blue eyes, and brown skin, and with musical talents, and
    all the other diverse things that make up the human race.
    
    Bonnie

| Bonnie,

| Just like God made people with sexual lust?

	Collis, sexual lust has nothing to do with love. Lust is something that
the homosexual and the heterosexual are very capable of doing. 

	Now, love is also something that both the homosexual and heterosexual 
people of this world are capable of having.

	If you find someone physically attractive, and build a relationship on 
looks alone, then what happened to the love? Both homosexual and heterosexual 
people are capable of doing this. 

	To love someone with your whole heart to me anyways means that you love
everything about that person. There will be good and bad qualities for this
person (and visa versa). The two of you work through the good, the bad and the
ugly and you come out with one heck of a relationship. Love doesn't draw
boundries on sexual orientation, true love doesn't purposely hurt someone, and
true love shared by 2 people is something I wish everyone could find! :-)


Glen

Bonnie,

Good.  I must have mistaken your comment for a value judgment.  :-)

Collis

    Nope, I meant it as a statement of fact, :-)

    Glen, perhaps when a married Bible-believing Christian couple engage in
    sexual activity, they don't feel any lust for one another whatsoever;
    instead, for them, it is a purely spiritual and dryly intellectual
    exercise.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

re: Note 91.439 by Mike "The Church of All that is Weird." 

>    Glen, perhaps when a married Bible-believing Christian couple engage in
>    sexual activity, they don't feel any lust for one another whatsoever;
>    instead, for them, it is a purely spiritual and dryly intellectual
>    exercise.  :-)
    
This reminds me of a limerick I wrote years ago...

		The playwright's last theme was dynamic
		Unrequited love on a scale astronomic
		   An intellectual high,
		   But sexually dry--
		He then had to take a play tonic.

Well, they can't all be winners...

Jim      more .-)s

| Glen, perhaps when a married Bible-believing Christian couple engage in
| sexual activity, they don't feel any lust for one another whatsoever;
| instead, for them, it is a purely spiritual and dryly intellectual
| exercise.  :-)

	Mike, that was great! I roared at that one. :-)


Glen

	God or genetics?  Providence or fate?  Nature or nurture?  Environment,
experience, education?  Socialization, preconceptions, intuition?  Other
variables?  Other unknowns?

	I don't believe any of us totally understands why we are the way we
are.  I know some people are straight (heterosexual) and some are gay
(homosexual).  Still others are bisexual (bisexual) ;-}.

	It appears that some can actually change, or at least, change just
enough to satisfy the basic requirements of society.  Some cannot.

	My concern is for the ones who cannot.	The message I most commonly
hear is <paraphrased>, "Don't cut them any slack.  They're unrepentant
sinners.  The things they do are an abomination in the eyes of God.
Therefore, they're unacceptable to the body of Christ and they should be
excluded from Christian gatherings and communion."

Peace,
Richard

    Re: .439
    
    -- Mike,
    
    I have known some, claiming the name Christian, of whom it could
    be truthfully said, "They're lacking totally in lust."
    
    ;-)
    Richard

    
    	Re. .439
    
    	Mike,
    		That is a pretty hairy generalization.  Are you saying
    that if you believe the Bible that you can't have an 'enjoyable'
    sexual relationship with you spouse?

Re:  91.442

  >My concern is for the ones who cannot.  The message I most commonly
                                  ------  (i.e. unable)
  >hear is <paraphrased>, "Don't cut them any slack.  They're unrepentant
                                                  unwilling!  -----------
  >sinners.  The things they do are an abomination in the eyes of God.
  >Therefore, they're unacceptable to the body of Christ and they should be
  >excluded from Christian gatherings and communion."

Being unable to change is not the issue, Richard.  The issue is being
*unwilling* to change.  After all this time, I still hear you
distorting the issue.  <Sigh>

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I regard changing one's sexual orientation somewhat akin to changing
    one's height or skin color. It could be possible with extreme
    surgery or biochemical treatment, but that doesn't make a person
    who was born that way a sinner for not being willing to change.
    
    I think this is a fundamental difference in how you and some other
    Christians view homosexuality versis the way people like Richard
    Jones-Christie, or Glen or I do.
    
    I believe that people no more choose to be homosexual than they
    choose to be tall or short or light or dark skinned. Environment
    plays a part in how the trait is expressed but it is still
    something that is part of a person's basic make up and is
    not ipso facto sinful.
    
    Bonnie

RE: Bonnie


	Nicely said! :-) I couldn't agree with you more.


RE: Collis


	Collis, could you cure yourself of your heterosexuality? No, you can't
force what's not there. It always burns me when people who have never been a
lesbigay can walk around and say all you have to do is be willing to change and
you can do it. Coming from someone who has tried again and again, and is
through trying to change what he is so others will accept him, it can't be
done. 

	Something to think about. I will get some more information on this from
a few of my friends. A member of another conference sent me mail telling me how 
he has changed. That it can be done. He did it, why can't others? Through our 
many conversations I found out a lot of things. He still finds men attractive, 
but just doesn't act upon it. This is fine. He also 
said that he enjoys having sex with his wife (and has a few kids ta boot) and
loves her very much. I REALLY think that this is great! He's happy and that's
all that matters. But I do have to wonder if he wasn't bisexual to begin with.
I have talked to many people who have fought off being gay for most of their
lives to please others. They all haven't been able to. The only ones who seem
to be able to date people of the oppisite sex, love them truly without any
barriers are bisexuals. I guess what I'm getting at is this. Does anyone have 
any information on these saved people? I'm looking for the following.


Number of people who went to change their lives.

What % came out and stayed changed.


	I believe the numbers will speak for themselves. Why do I think this?
One reason is the person who did change his life told me that the numbers are
small. I think you'll find them very minute.

	Then I would guess you would have to ask yourself is it we humans who 
are trying to force a change that isn't possible in most people? Once you see 
the numbers, I think you will agree.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    I recall articles I've read by psychitrists who teated gays back
    when homosexuality was classified as a disorder. They spent years
    working with men who *despirately* wanted to change and found
    that there was no 'cure'. This was the major force behind the
    National Psychiatric organization's statment some years back that
    homosexuality was not a psychiatric disorder.
    
    Bonnie

	Thanks Bonnie!



Glen

Note 91.445

>Being unable to change is not the issue, Richard.  The issue is being
>*unwilling* to change.  After all this time, I still hear you
>distorting the issue.  <Sigh>

Collis,

	Okay, if it'll make you feel better, I'll grant you that there
are some who are *unwilling* to change or even consider changing.

	Now, are you willing to acknowledge that there are some who
*cannot* change no matter how willing they might be?  Or, after all
this time, shall I continue to hear you distorting the issue?

	And, if you are willing to acknowledge that some who cannot
change, what do you suggest would be the most Christ-like response to
them?

	I submit that not being able to change *is* the issue.  As
I have shared elsewhere, I am a quadriplegic.  Is it also your thinking
that I am the way I am because I am unwilling to change?  Because, if
it is - Man, have you got the wrong number!!

Peace,
Richard

    I was a bit annoyed when I wrote what follows.  I hope it doesn't
    offend anyone...that certainly wasn't my intention.   It was and is
    my intention to in some small way make the world a better place for
    everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation.... In any case,
    I have no desire to be "accepted" by any church, so perhaps some
    might think this note doesn't belong here.  Maybe it doesn't.  But
    I saw someone write the problem is that gay people are "unwilling"
    to "change" (into what?) and I guess it struck a nerve....
    
    
    						Optimistically yours,
    
    
    
    Yes, there are some unwilling to change.  I am unwilling to change.  I 
    went through a lot of pain and anguish to get to the point where I really 
    like who I am and I'll be damned if I'm going to just toss that in the 
    garbage to satisfy the demands of intolerant people, some of whom seem 
    *unwilling* to even let me live in peace, let alone accept me as an
    equal, productive member of society.  

    Oh, at one time I was *VERY* willing to change.  I was  disgusted 
    with the fact that I found men attractive and loathed "fags." I hated 
    myself.  I wanted so desperately to be "normal" (what 13 year old kid 
    doesn't want to be normal, I ask you?) I would have tried anything, up to 
    and including a bizarre form of self-inflicted brainwashing I read about 
    someplace that did nothing but give me migraines. The desire for 
    normalcy led to secrets and lies.  Lies told to my family, to my friends 
    and to myself.  It led to hours and hours in the library looking for a
    "cure" and hours and hours on my knees in church, praying for
    deliverance. Failure to rid myself of my attraction to men led to feelings
    of depression, isolation, and thoughts of suicide.

    I wish I could explain how it was I went from a feeling of complete
    hopelessness to one of peace.  I do know that it was due in large part
    to the wonderful people I met in the gay community at Digital, and an
    insightful philosophy professor who helped me open the door to
    independent thought.  In any case I am perfectly happy being gay and I
    wouldn't want to be any other way, thank you very much.

    I don't claim to have all the answers, but I can tell you that some of
    us have tried to change.  Some of us have felt the full brunt of societies
    hatred of homosexuality (some didn't live to tell about it - that may
    sound overly dramatic...until you look at teen suicide rates and gay
    bashing statistics).  Some/many of us even internalized that hatred and
    for a while agreed with it! (and some of us, noting right here in this
    topic still do).  Well, now some of us have gotten through all that.
    We've managed to find our way to a place where we can be happy.  I'm
    not going to give up this place.  And I'm going to do whatever I can to
    make it easier for others to get here.  I wish everyone could lend a
    hand...

    /Greg

    Greg,

    It is testimonies from people like you that first lead me
    as a straight women who knew no out gays to start standing
    up for gay/lesbian  rights.

    It is my understanding from all I have read, that homosexuality
    is just as much an innate part of a person as heterosexuality.
    It is a combination of genetics, hormones, early life experiences,
    etc...


    But just as much as I did not *choose* to be attracted to men
    sexually, you did not *choose* that either. I suppose that you,
    like I, could imagine situations where you would find a woman
    attractive, but it would be a very small percent of the women
    you meet.

    When we choose to lie, or fornicate, or dishonor the Sabbath
    or disobey God, or steal, those are choices, things we do
    consciously with our minds, we *choose* do disobey God's law.

    If we are born women (once considered sinners by the basis of
    our sex) or non white (once considered sinners by the basis of
    their skin color....we are no longer considered sinners. Yet
    there were those who used the Bible to *prove* that women and
    people of color were sinners by nature. It is my hope that in
    the future, that 'perverted desires' will come to mean forcing
    a person who is naturally homosexual away from their natural 
    desire.

    I'd like to see gays and lesbians allowed to marry. I think that
    if this were allowed, that a lot of the 'promiscuous life style'
    that is still used to tarnish them as a group would disappear.


    To me, discrimination against gays/lesbians, is like being
    prejudiced against my daughter Jessica. If she goes out in the sun
    she gets deeply tanned and looks Black (her father's race).
    But is she stays inside, she looks white.

    One might as well call her a sinner for getting a tan.


    Bonnie
    
    
    p.s. love to you Greg

    RE: .452  Greg,
    
                      Many of us in this file "hear" you.  We don't pretend
    to understand all that you might have gone through.  But please, also
    understand us.....This subject emotes *very* strong feelings for those
    of us who have lived our lives in a society that has, until this very
    moment and may continue to do so, hated the person that was not normal
    as we defined it.  Yes, I agree that we *NEED* to do better and we want
    to but changing is a process and takes both time and enormous effort.
    Help us...calmly and constructivly....put that way and I think that
    more will respond than you might think.
    
    
    Dave

    Dave,
    
    what a *super* response...
    
    Bonnie

Re: .451

Greg,

	I don't see your note as tangental at all.  It was someone who had
a similar background whose quote I used in another note...

"I'd rather go to your Hell with my God shining brightly within my soul,
 than to your Heaven of judgment and finger-pointing."

	A lot of people do not understand how difficult our society makes it
to be gay and, at the same time, have any sense of self-esteem.  It is an
appallingly oppressive situation.  It is an outrage.  It is un-Christlike.

	Yes, there are folks I know who've arrived at the point where, even
if tomorrow they could take a pill and become straight, they would choose to
remain the way they are.  It has been my experience, also, that these folks
usually have no desire to have any part of the so-called Christian fellowship
or the church.  I suspect it is because they have been brow-beaten and
Bible-beaten so many times by people who claim to represent Christ and
the church.

	It going to be difficult for some Christians to explain, come
Judgment Day, their sin of driving so many so far away from Christ and
the fellowship of believers, their sin of contributing to making someone
else's life a living Hell, their sin of failure to love unconditionally.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    you speak  to where I am coming from
    
    love
    
    Bonnie

Re:  91.450

  >Okay, if it'll make you feel better, I'll grant you that there
  >are some who are *unwilling* to change or even consider changing.

Not quite what I asked for, but I'll take it.

  >Now, are you willing to acknowledge that there are some who
  >*cannot* change no matter how willing they might be?  Or, after all
  >this time, shall I continue to hear you distorting the issue?

Richard, are you implying that I have claimed that anyone who wants to can 
change their sexual orientation by choice?  Really, Richard.  This is a TOTAL
distortion.  I have never made this claim implicitly or explicitly.

  >And, if you are willing to acknowledge that some who cannot change, 
  >what do you suggest would be the most Christ-like response to them?

who cannot change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Or their sexual
actions?

No one is condemned for their sexual orientation (although one orientation
is "natural" and another is "unnatural").  We are condemned for our
innapropriate actions.

  >I submit that not being able to change *is* the issue.

To change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Not a sin.  To change their
sexual actions?  Now we're getting to the nub of the issue.  It sounds
like you want to claim that there are people who cannot stop themselves from 
performing immoral (according to the Bible) sexual acts and that because 
of this we should accept their actions.  Is this the Biblical response to
sin?  No.  Neither is it mine.

Collis

Re:  91.451

Greg,

It is so sad to read testimonies like yours.  Indeed, our society does a
very poor job of encouraging and supporting those who have homosexual desires
and want to refrain from homosexual sexual activity.  So do our churches.

I regret that the only way you can find peace is to encourage your
homosexual feelings.  There is another peace that is available, a peace
that passes all understanding.  I'll pray that this is the peace that
you will someday seek.

Collis

Re:  91.455

It going to be difficult for some Christians to explain, come
Judgment Day, their sin of driving so many so far away from Christ and
the fellowship of believers, their sin of contributing to making someone
else's life a living Hell, their sin of failure to be obedient to God's 
revealed Will.

Collis

Re: .451

Thanks for your note, Greg.  Whether you're gay or straight, I think it's
important to be comfortable with who you are and not let other people tell
you how to live your life.  You're a valuable person!  I'm a valuable person!

To some extent I can respect the beliefs of Christians who sincerely believe
that homosexuality is wrong; however, we each have to be true to our own
beliefs.

				-- Bob

| >Okay, if it'll make you feel better, I'll grant you that there
| >are some who are *unwilling* to change or even consider changing.

| Not quite what I asked for, but I'll take it.

	Collis, the main reason people won't consider changing is because they
can no more change how they are (being a lesbigay) than you could change from
being heterosexual! If we all kept telling you that you should become gay
because we didn't feel it was right for you to be straight, would you? I doubt
it. In fact, I doubt that anyone could convince you of that just for the fact
that you don't find the same sex compatable for a life long partner.

| >Now, are you willing to acknowledge that there are some who
| >*cannot* change no matter how willing they might be?  Or, after all
| >this time, shall I continue to hear you distorting the issue?

| Richard, are you implying that I have claimed that anyone who wants to can
| change their sexual orientation by choice?  Really, Richard.  This is a TOTAL
| distortion.  I have never made this claim implicitly or explicitly.

	Can you explain what you meant?

| >And, if you are willing to acknowledge that some who cannot change,
| >what do you suggest would be the most Christ-like response to them?

| who cannot change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Or their sexual
| actions?

| No one is condemned for their sexual orientation (although one orientation
| is "natural" and another is "unnatural").  

	Collis, you are absolutely correct in what you just said. Lesbigays are
the unnatural sexual orientation...... for a heterosexual person. Just as
someone who is heterosexual is unnatural in the eyes of a lesbigay.

| >I submit that not being able to change *is* the issue.

| To change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Not a sin.  To change their
| sexual actions?  Now we're getting to the nub of the issue.  It sounds
| like you want to claim that there are people who cannot stop themselves from
| performing immoral (according to the Bible) sexual acts and that because
| of this we should accept their actions.  Is this the Biblical response to
| sin?  No.  Neither is it mine.

	According to the Bible it NEVER states that lesbigays CAN'T get
married. Humans free will and wrongful interpretation has said that.


Glen

    Thanks for the supportive responses, all.  Bonnie and Richard, you are
    truly wonderful people.

    RE: Dave Dawson(?)  I do not expect the cultural and spiritual norms
    of many people to change overnight, but I am encouraged by your
    response.

    RE: Collis - it is my firm belief that those persons who have a natural
    attraction to members of the same sex are *harmed* by attempts to
    change that attraction.  Further, I believe repressing normal human
    desires for (in my opinion) arbitrary reasons having nothing to do with
    the health, safety and well being of the individual and/or his/her 
    partner, is also harmful.  I think that to be truly healthy physically,
    and psychologically, we must accept who we are as individuals and learn
    to embrace all of the positive aspects of our personalities. I realize it 
    is spiritual health that is of concern here and I can only say that there 
    are other paths to peace besides the one you have chosen.  So you see, 
    there is nothing to "regret." I am quite happy and satisfied with my 
    choice, I assure you. I trust you are happy with you own.

    /Greg

    Re 457

    Collis:
            Could you define your use of the word "unnatural"  for
    me ? I ask this because it is normally used to mean that something
    does not occur in nature and this is not the case with homosexuality.
            Homosexuality is found in a very wide range of species. This
    is particularly true with birds and small rodents. Then of course
    there are humans, they are part of nature and a percentage of humans
    apparently prefer homosexual partnerships. 
             As homosexuality is found occur in a quite a number of
    species on this planet I do not believe it be truthfully said that it
    is "unnatural". If fact it occurs quite regularly in nature.


                                                               Mike  
             

    P.S.  I just realized my personal name is a bit "flippant" in the
    context of this notesfile.  Well, Father Dunn always gave me the
    impression that humour was a necessary  part of the church, so I
    just want to say my P_N is part of a joke.  In a monolouge on
    being raised Catholic, a commedienne quipped "...and sister Theresa
    always had an interesting sense of humor.  She used to come to class
    wearing a button that said 'Have a Nice Judgement Day'."
    
    :-)
    
    /Greg
    

Re: .453

	Because I have observed in other conferences the distressing
habit of some noters contributing nothing to the discussion beyond,
"Well said," or, "I agree," I deliberately try to avoid doing it
myself.

	I'm going to make an exception in this case, however.

	**Well said, Dave!**

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .464

Mike,

Sure.  I use unnatural in the exact same sense that it is used in
Roman 1:26-27.  "Because of this, God gave them over to shameful
lusts.  Even their women excahnged natural relations for unnatural
ones.  In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women
and were inflamed with lust for one another.  Men committed indecent
acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their
perversion."

Collis

Note 91.457

>Richard, are you implying that I have claimed that anyone who wants to can 
>change their sexual orientation by choice?  Really, Richard.  This is a TOTAL
>distortion.  I have never made this claim implicitly or explicitly.

Really, Collis(!?).

>who cannot change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Or their sexual
>actions?

Funny, you seemed to know the what in 'change what?' when you wrote
Note 91.445.  In fact, this was how you replied:

>>Being unable to change is not the issue, Richard.  The issue is being
>>*unwilling* to change.

>Now we're getting to the nub of the issue.  It sounds
>like you want to claim that there are people who cannot stop themselves from 
>performing immoral (according to the Bible) sexual acts and that because 
>of this we should accept their actions.  Is this the Biblical response to
>sin?  No.  Neither is it mine.

Your Biblical response doesn't seem very Christ-like to me.  I take it that
it's not deliberate on your part.

I suppose I've answered your questions as well as you have mine.  Blessings
to you.  This is not a perfect medium for communication.

Richard

PS  I find your accusations of distortion as unsubstantial as a smoke screen.
Most unworthy of you, Collis.

Note 91.460
    
Ray,

	I hear a great deal of pain and disillusionment in your note.
I also hear your bitterness and your unbearable aching.

	What you've said is quite true.  No grouping or classification
of people is exempt from people who are ingenuine, exploitive, and unloving.
We risk rejection and disappointment with every human encounter, do we not?

	What disturbs me most about your note is your apparent self-contempt.
I hope it is only a temporary condition.  You are no less worthy of the love
of God and the love of people than I am.

Richard

Re:  91.468

     >>Richard, are you implying that I have claimed that anyone who wants 
     >>to can change their sexual orientation by choice?  Really, Richard.  
     >>This is a TOTAL distortion.  I have never made this claim implicitly 
     >>or explicitly.

  >Really, Collis(!?).

Really.

     >>It sounds like you want to claim that there are people who cannot 
     >>stop themselves from performing immoral (according to the Bible) 
     >>sexual acts and that because of this we should accept their actions.  
     >>Is this the Biblical response to sin?  No.  Neither is it mine.

  >Your Biblical response doesn't seem very Christ-like to me.

Are you implying that Jesus would accept sinful actions?  And that this
is the Christ-like response?

No.  Jesus accepts people, but not their sinful actions.  That is why
he said, "Go and sin no more".  Sin is *never* acceptable to Christ and
is *never* accepted by Christ.  Please defend your position (if you have 
any defense) from the life of Jesus.

  >I find your accusations of distortion as unsubstantial as a smoke screen.
  >Most unworthy of you, Collis.

You may see it as a smoke screen, but that is certainly not how I meant
it.  I meant exactly what I said.  The discussion in this topic continues
to slide.  One thing is plainly said and that another is responded to.
I say that the issue is willingness and someone responds that they are
unable.  I say that sin cannot (and will never) be accepted by God and
the response has to do with accepting the person.

Do you see why a meeting of the minds does not take place?  Perhaps
some people don't see a distinction between the issues, a distinction which
is critical and has been pointed out time after time after time.

I thought it was time to respond to what I say happening again in a
strong manner, Richard, because you really did credit me with something I have
never said or implied.  (Now, perhaps you thought I had said or implied
this because of your general understanding of what I believe, but in that
case you were simply wrong.)  I am surprised (and disappointed), Richard, 
that when it was (strongly) pointed out to you that you have incorrectly 
stated what I believed that you did not correct yourself but rather passed
it off as my attempt to cloud the issue.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    
              It is my understanding and belief that Jesus took sin upon
    himself at the cross.  So in that way, yes, he acceps sin.
    
    
    Dave

    Collis,
    
    You are saying then, that a homosexual has no choice but to be
    celibate?
    
    It is my understanding that the Roman Catholic church which
    has celibate clergy preaches that celibacy is something that one
    must be called to, and never forced on someone. It has to be
    freely chosen.
    
    Yet by saying that a lesbi/gay cannot marry as a heterosexual
    can. This is the same as enforced, non chosen celibacy.
    
    Bonnie

RE: 91.457  Collis


>who cannot change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Or their sexual
>actions?

>No one is condemned for their sexual orientation (although one orientation
>is "natural" and another is "unnatural").  We are condemned for our
>innapropriate actions.

Collis, how can you possibly expect someone to give up their sexual
expression if their orientation is homosexual?  This makes absolutely
no sense to me, and it is argument like this that keeps traditional
Christianity at arms length from me.  You say that you are not asking
homosexuals to change their orientation but only their expression of it.
Can you change the expression of your heterosexuality and still be the
human being God made you to be?  

>>I submit that not being able to change *is* the issue.

>To change what?  Their sexual orientation?  Not a sin.  To change their
>sexual actions?  Now we're getting to the nub of the issue.  

The 'nub of the issue' is that if homosexuality is no different than
heterosexuality in that it is something you are born with, than I do 
not see sin in this.  Healthy expression of heterosexuality is not 
considered a sin - healthy expression of homosexuality should not be 
either.

Carole

Re:  91.473

  >You are saying then, that a homosexual has no choice but to be celibate?

If, in good conscience, a person does not think that a one man one woman
marriage relationship is appropriate for him/her, then I do understand 
the Bible to say that one should not be engaging in sexual activity.
    
Collis

Re:  91.474

  >Collis, how can you possibly expect someone to give up their sexual
  >expression if their orientation is homosexual?

How can God possibly expect me to give up my sexual expression in my
orientation is heterosexual?  And yet I did for many years.  The Bible
was quite clear about what was proper (moral) and improper (immoral)
sexual behavior.

How can God possibly expect Mary Ann to give up her sexual expression?
(Does it matter what her orientation is?  Does it matter why?)  What
matters is whether or not that sexual expression is being used in the
way that God designed it to be used and that God acknowledges as
appropriate and right.

Why is it that people (Carole, you are one of many) keep claiming that
homosexuals face decisions that a vastly different than heterosexuals
when, in fact, the issues they face are extremely analogous and often
then same.  (Note I did not say every issue is analogous.)

The homosexual and the unmarried heterosexual face exactly the same
issue here.  Even the possible "marriage later" issue has some similarities
since some homosexuals DO change and later marry.  (Let's not get carried
away with this one statement.  But I thought I mention it.)  But what I 
continue to hear is that homosexuals have unique issues that are either not
addressed by the Bible or have been wrongly interpreted for years
from the Bible.

Well, they are addressed and they are clear enough that interpretive
mumbo-jumbo need only be done by those who don't like the obvious
meaning (speaking as one who likes interpretive mumbo-jumbo  :-) ).  We 
ALL have desires that are not godly.  The fact that some of these have to
do with sex with the same sex does not single these out as acceptable (as
has often been argued here) just like sex with the opposite sex does not
single these out as acceptable (it's only acceptable within well-defined
boundaries). 

  >The 'nub of the issue' is that if homosexuality is no different than
  >heterosexuality in that it is something you are born with, than I do 
  >not see sin in this.

You are assuming I am "born" with no sinful desires?  That everything that
exists at birth is perfect and good?

Collis

    RE: .476

    > How can God possibly expect me to give up my sexual expression in[if] my
    > orientation is heterosexual?  And yet I did for many years.

    You did not give it up.  You simply put it off, knowing full well that 
    there would come a time when you could fulfill your desires with the full 
    and unqualified support of your church and your family and your god.  You 
    can't possibly know what it is like to have a future where NO expression 
    of your inherent sexual desire will EVER be tolerated.

    Yet you can claim it is the same as avoiding numerous other "ungodly" 
    desires.   

    With all due respect, I don't believe you have the experience to know what 
    it is like at all.

    > The homosexual and the unmarried heterosexual face exactly the same
    > issue here.

    I disagree.  The fact that the heterosexual has the option of
    later marriage while many/most homosexuals do not can not be glossed
    over.  I will grant the "change ministries" may have some success 
    with bisexual individuals who are capable of sustaining an emotional
    and physical relationship with the opposite sex (in addition to being
    physically attracted to the same sex) - but you either assume this is
    possible for all gay and lesbian people, or simply insist their only 
    option is to remain celibate.   

    You yourself have singled out sexual desire as an extremely powerful
    force that justifies strict rules on how it is to be expressed.
    Your position leaves NO outlet for this extremely powerful force in
    those individuals attracted to the same sex.   It is not the same as
    a heterosexual suppressing a desire to commit adultery or even the
    desire to fornicate since, in your view, heterosexuals *DO* have an
    acceptable recourse.   Homosexuals have none.  You mention we all have
    "ungodly" desires.  Well it seems to me these desires have to do
    with exceeding pre-defined limits (i.e. you can eat but don't be a
    glutton, you can like yourself but don't become too proud, you can
    disagree with your parents but don't be disrespectful, you can have
    sex but you must be married first).  So where do gay and lesbian 
    people fit in?  We don't.  We don't even have strict and narrowly
    defined conditions under which we can express our physical *love* for one
    another.  We are prohibited from doing so under *any* circumstances, for 
    *any* reason.  I submit this is cruel and inhuman punishment for gays 
    and lesbians who had no choice in the development of their natural sexual 
    orientation.

    And for what?  To support a few controversial passages in a 2000 year
    old book?  Passages that are not central to the tenets of the faith,
    that are arguably the result of cultural bias or even (in the case of
    St. Paul) the personal biases of one man, and that could easily be 
    ignored without diminishing the value and importance of Christianity 
    at all?  
    
    It simply does not make sense to me.

    /Greg

	John Boswell has uncovered new evidence that the early catholic
church celebrated same-sex marriages centuries before it did heterosexual
ones.

	While heterosexual unions were neither conducted in church nor
considered sacramental before 1215 AD, same-sex unions were affirmed in
religious ceremonies emphasizing the love and devotion of the couple to
God.

	Boswell found services for same-sex marriages in old Vatican
volumes of officially sanctioned rituals.  Some historians now say the
tradition of celebrating same-sex marriages was well established from
the sixth through the thirteenth centuries.

	John Boswell is currently head of the history department of Yale
University and a widely recognized author and lecturer.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.475

>.........I do understand 
>the Bible to say that one should not be engaging in sexual activity.
    
Collis,

	Does the Bible say this outright?  Or is it an inference you
are making?

Richard

| How can God possibly expect me to give up my sexual expression in my
| orientation is heterosexual?  And yet I did for many years.  

	Many years does not equal a lifetime. Think about it, could you give it
up for a lifetime?

| Why is it that people (Carole, you are one of many) keep claiming that
| homosexuals face decisions that a vastly different than heterosexuals
| when, in fact, the issues they face are extremely analogous and often
| then same.  (Note I did not say every issue is analogous.)

	I agree with you Collis. Most of the decisions we face are the same.
Most of the things we do in our lives are either simular or the same. There are
some that differ though, and this issue is one of them. Where do they differ? A
heterosexual woman/man will have a very good chance of marriage. Unless a
lesbigay is bisexual, the chance is very minute. At some point in time a
heterosexual can enjoy sex without any recourse from anyone, where the lesbigay
has to put up with others telling them what they do is wrong. The heterosexual
can walk down the street without too much fear of getting beaten up for who
they are, while a lesbigay has a far greater chance of this happening. I wonder
if God would want it this way? The heterosexual can have full spousal benifits
while the lesbigay can't. I could go on, but would it really matter?

| The homosexual and the unmarried heterosexual face exactly the same
| issue here.  Even the possible "marriage later" issue has some similarities
| since some homosexuals DO change and later marry.  (Let's not get carried
| away with this one statement.  But I thought I mention it.)  

	Again Collis, you are correct. Some do change and get married. But I
would have to say that almost all who do aren't even changing, because they are
bisexual to begin with. They are attracted to both sexes.

| But what I
| continue to hear is that homosexuals have unique issues that are either not
| addressed by the Bible or have been wrongly interpreted for years
| from the Bible.

	You know how I feel about the Bible.

| Well, they are addressed and they are clear enough that interpretive
| mumbo-jumbo need only be done by those who don't like the obvious
| meaning (speaking as one who likes interpretive mumbo-jumbo  :-) ).  We
| ALL have desires that are not godly.  

	But we aren't talking about desires. We're talking about love.

Glen

    Re.467

    Collis:

            Well, I am not really sure this explanation clears
           much up. You have just quoted someone else using the
           the word unnatural. 
            I still maintain that homosexuality is natural in that
           it regularly occurs in a many species, including humans.
           It is found in nature and therefore should be considered
           natural.
            Flying elephants on the other hand, I would consider to
           be unnatural. There is no evidence that they currently exist
           or have existed in the past. This being the case one could 
           accurately state that flying elephants are unnatural.
            I guess I'll repeat my question. What is meant by the use
           of the term unnatural as applied to homosexuality ? It would
           seem that it is possible to argue it's morality relative to
           a religious belief system, but not it's being a naturally 
           occurring form of relationship between living beings.

                                                               Mike
             
     

    RE: .480

>| How can God possibly expect me to give up my sexual expression in my
>| orientation is heterosexual?  And yet I did for many years.  
>
>	Many years does not equal a lifetime. Think about it, could you give it
>up for a lifetime?

    Sure. I honestly don't understand what is so hard about a lifetime of
    celibacy. I never understood why my peers found it hard to wait until
    marriage. I don't understand why people who are away from home for
    periods of time can't remain celibate during that time. And I don't
    understand what the big deal is about remaining celibate. Mature people
    can handle it. People who want to be taken seriously don't suggest that
    it's as hard to give up sex as it is food. One doesn't die from not
    having sex.

    			Alfred

    RE: .473 Perhaps homosexuality is one way God announces the "call"
    to be celibate? Maybe not but it is at least an interesting and viable
    theory.
    
    
    			Alfred

    
    RE: .482
    
    Alfred...first, peoples' sex drives vary.  It would be much more
    difficult for some people to give up sex for their entire lives 
    than it would be for others.  Second, in the case of homosexuals,
    fundamental Christianity says 'you can be homosexual, but just 
    don't express it sexually'.  It's a forced situation with the
    punishment of hell attached.  With the heterosexual in fundamental
    Christianity, at least there is the support of marriage and a
    healthy sex life available.  You are not punished for your
    sexual expression.  The homosexual can never be free of that
    in fundamental Christianity's eyes.
    
    So let's be serious here for a minute.  What most of the discussion
    here has been pointing to is that homosexuality is as natural as
    heterosexuality, and science is close to affirming that.  What will
    Christians do the day they find out that people are born homosexual?
    Continuing in that vein, no one can ask one group of people to stop
    being who they are by not allowing them to express in healthy sexual
    ways.
    
    I don't think it is healthy to repress sexual expression and make it
    'bad'.  All we have to do is look around our world and see what that
    has gotten us.  Things are the way they are because of repression
    and judgement, *not* because of healthy expression!  Many of our 
    problems, IMO, stem from sexual repression.  We have cut ourselves
    off from our place in nature by suppressing our own natures, which
    were created by God to be exactly as they are.  Humanity is paying
    a major price for this.  I think Christians should just get out of
    the way and allow God to love His/Her children fully and completely.
    
    Carole

    Re: 484

>    So let's be serious here for a minute.  What most of the discussion
>    here has been pointing to is that homosexuality is as natural as
>    heterosexuality, and science is close to affirming that.  What will
>    Christians do the day they find out that people are born homosexual?

    Every single comment I have made here recently ASSUMES that people are born
    homosexual. I'm not 100% sure I believe that but for the sake of this
    discussion I have tailored comments to fit that assumption. Your assuming
    that people will accept things counter to the Bible because "they are
    natural" is as naive as someone else assuming that people will stop
    doing something just because the Bible says it's a sin.

>    I don't think it is healthy to repress sexual expression and make it
>    'bad'.  All we have to do is look around our world and see what that
>    has gotten us.  Things are the way they are because of repression
>    and judgement, *not* because of healthy expression!  Many of our 
>    problems, IMO, stem from sexual repression.  We have cut ourselves
>    off from our place in nature by suppressing our own natures, which
>    were created by God to be exactly as they are.  Humanity is paying
>    a major price for this.  I think Christians should just get out of
>    the way and allow God to love His/Her children fully and completely.

    Looking for areas of agreement first. I agree that healthy expression
    is good. I believe that Christians should stay out of God's way.

    On the other hand I believe that homosexual sex and heterosex out of
    marriage is *unhealthy*. I also believe that it is not sexual
    repression but an over abundance of unhealthy sex that is a major
    source of problems in the modern world. I think that humanity is paying
    a price for raising sex to the level of religion and otherwise giving
    it an unhealthy exaggerated importance. I also believe that few
    Christians are getting in the way of who God loves. To think that
    people have any influence on who God loves is to misunderstand God.

    		Alfred

Re:  91.477

    > How can God possibly expect me to give up my sexual expression in[if] my
    > orientation is heterosexual?  And yet I did for many years.

  >You did not give it up.  You simply put it off, knowing full well that 
  >there would come a time when you could fulfill your desires with the full 
  >and unqualified support of your church and your family and your god.  

That is simply not true.  I am not a mindreader, a psychic or a prophet.
I do not know what the future holds for me (in terms of sexual fulfillment
in my present life).  My wife could die today and I could go through the
rest of life unmarried.  There is *NO* guarantee that I will ever have
the opportunity for marital sexual expression ever again.

And there are people just like me who never do get married.  Did they
just "put it off" - knowing full well that they could fulfill their
desires at a later time?

And what about the strong desires for other types of sexual behavior,
for example sex with a women other than my wife.  Can I just "put that
off", too, knowing that someday I will have the opportunity to experience
that with the approval of those around me?

This argument totally misses the boat.  You are right in one thing and
in only one thing.  We all can have the hope of sexual expression in
a one man one woman relationship.  For some, this hope is deemed meaningless
or irrelevant.  For others, it only provides constant agony (because it
is never fulfilled).  For some, it becomes a reality which turns into
a nightmare (for various reasons).  And for others, it becomes a dream
fulfilled.  To claim that those with homosexual sexual desires are totally
different than others just doesn't wash.

  >You can't possibly know what it is like to have a future where NO expression 
  >of your inherent sexual desire will EVER be tolerated.

Can the pedophile?  After all, this is his/her inherent sexual desire.
Ah, but that's wrong, isn't it?  Therefore, it's not a "valid" comparison.

  >With all due respect, I don't believe you have the experience to know what 
  >it is like at all.

With all due respect, there are many sexual desires that I have faced
over time which I have NO hope of ever living out.  The difference is
that I recognized that they were inappropriate.

  >I submit this is cruel and inhuman punishment for gays and lesbians who 
  >had no choice in the development of their natural sexual orientation.

Then it is also cruel and inhuman punishment for heterosexuals who never
have the hope of marriage (and some of those certainly exist too).  Yet
the Bible is clear about what is appropriate for them.  Your entire
line of reasoning is proven irrelevant if only ONE heterosexual can be
found who faces the same issues as the homosexual and it is found that
it is inappropriate for that person to perform sexual acts outside of
the one man one woman marriage relationship.

Collis

Re:  91.481

  >Well, I am not really sure this explanation clears much up. You have just 
  >quoted someone else using the the word unnatural.

Let me expand on this.

I quoted a prophet of God, specially called by the LORD Jesus Christ.

The quote was specifically about sexual behavior between members of the
same sex, whether they be women or men.

The prophet claims that such behavior is a result of denying the true
God and submitting to their own lusts for that which is inappropriate.

You are, of course, free to reject what God's prophets say.  I choose
to accept and believe them.

Collis

Re: .486  Collis

>  >You can't possibly know what it is like to have a future where NO expression 
>  >of your inherent sexual desire will EVER be tolerated.
>
>Can the pedophile?  After all, this is his/her inherent sexual desire.
>Ah, but that's wrong, isn't it?  Therefore, it's not a "valid" comparison.

Yes, the pedophile can know this.  Unfortunately the kind of sex desired by
pedophiles harms other people, so it's immoral for pedophiles to express their
inherent sexual desires.  This is not true in the case of gays and lesbians.

>  >I submit this is cruel and inhuman punishment for gays and lesbians who 
>  >had no choice in the development of their natural sexual orientation.
>
>Then it is also cruel and inhuman punishment for heterosexuals who never
>have the hope of marriage (and some of those certainly exist too).

Yes, it certainly is cruel.  So why should these people live by your rules?

				-- Bob

    RE: .485 Alfred


    >Your assuming
    >that people will accept things counter to the Bible because "they are
    >natural" is as naive as someone else assuming that people will stop
    >doing something just because the Bible says it's a sin.

    No, I never underestimate what people will do ;^).  As far as being
    naive....perhaps and perhaps not.  The Bible is mis-used far more
    often than it is a beacon of light.  As has been said before, it was
    used to subjugate women and blacks and pagans and heathens.  It is
    being used to subjugate homosexuals.  I don't know about you, but the
    Christ spirit that is blossoming in my heart does not come from that
    place.


   >> Looking for areas of agreement first. I agree that healthy expression
   >> is good. I believe that Christians should stay out of God's way.

     Wow!! ;^)

   >> On the other hand I believe that homosexual sex and heterosex out of
   >>marriage is *unhealthy*.  

     I know you believe this.  But you equate homosexual sex with 
     (so-called) heterosexual adultery/fornication, and I don't see that
     they equate.  Homosexuals in committed relationships (remembering that
     they are not allowed to marry) should be no different than any other
     couple.  

    >Ialso believe that it is not sexual
    >repression but an over abundance of unhealthy sex that is a major
    >source of problems in the modern world.  I think that humanity is paying
    >a price for raising sex to the level of religion and otherwise giving
    >it an unhealthy exaggerated importance. 

    There is an old saying - "What you resist persists".  Sexual repression
    goes back a long time.  If it was just allowed to be from the beginning
    I don't believe we would have the exaggerated importance.

    >I also believe that few
    >Christians are getting in the way of who God loves. To think that
    >people have any influence on who God loves is to misunderstand God.

    Maybe so, but I believe that Christians get in the way of people knowing
    that God loves them just the way they are, because that is how He/She
    made them.


    Carole

    
    RE: .486 Collis
    
    You refer to pedophiles as if they were the same as homosexuals.  I
    believe pedophiles are a result of the repression of normal sexual
    expression or sexual abuse.  I could be proven wrong, but that is
    what I believe.  I also believe that human beings are born as
    heterosexuals, bisexuals and homosexuals.
    
    Carole
    
    

re Note 91.480 by JURAN::SILVA:

> 	Many years does not equal a lifetime. Think about it, could you give it
> up for a lifetime?
  
        Well, there were the Shakers.  They're gone now, of course.

        Bob

    Re.484

    Carole:
            What you have written about cutting ourselves off from
      nature by denying our sexuality is part of the argument that
      Nietzsche uses in presenting his belief that Christianity is
      is immoral. You have used the exact line of reasoning and almost
      the same words in a couple of places.
            If you are interested in the rest of his reasoning you
      might take a look at "Human. All Too Human". You might not 
     be in agreement with his conclusions, but he has a lot to say
     about the result of embracing ideas that lead to self-alienation.

                                                               Mike
             

    
    Thanks for the pointer Mike.  I just might check it out!
    
    Carole

Re:  91.488

  >Yes, the pedophile can know this.  Unfortunately the kind of sex desired by
  >pedophiles harms other people, so it's immoral for pedophiles to express 
  >their inherent sexual desires.  This is not true in the case of gays and 
  >lesbians.

Well said, Bob - assuming what you're trying to prove.

  >Yes, it certainly is cruel.  So why should these people live by your rules?

You already know the answer to that, Bob.  They aren't my rules.

In love,

Collis

Re: .494 Collis

What do you think I was trying to prove?

				-- Bob

  >>You did not give it up.  You simply put it off, knowing full well that 
  >>there would come a time when you could fulfill your desires with the full 
  >>and unqualified support of your church and your family and your god.  

>That is simply not true.  I am not a mindreader, a psychic or a prophet.
>I do not know what the future holds for me (in terms of sexual fulfillment
>in my present life).  My wife could die today and I could go through the
>rest of life unmarried.  There is *NO* guarantee that I will ever have
>the opportunity for marital sexual expression ever again.

 My fault.  I used the word "knowing" when I should have used "expecting."
 I am talking about expectations in the real world, not theoretical 
 possibilities.  For example, a heterosexual teenager of modest intelligence 
 is capable of understanding that his/her desires can and will be fullfilled 
 in an acceptable, moral way when he/she meets a compatible partner of the 
 opposite sex and gets married. That is a perfectly reasonable expectation 
 for any heterosexual teenager and does not require inhuman feats of
 prophecy.  I maintain that is fundamentally different from a gay teenager 
 who is constantly reminded his desires will *always* be "forbidden."

    Gay people are not just told that specific sexual acts are wrong
    by the way.  We are not allowed *ANY* type of physical affection.
    Holding hands while walking down the street, putting your arm
    around your partner while sitting on a park bench, giving your
    SO a kiss goodbye at the airport - it is my impression these are
    things that heterosexual people can take for granted (do you even
    give them a second thought?).   Now imagine having to be *constantly*
    aware of any action that might "give you away."
    
    And this you equate to a guy who wants to cheat on his wife?
    
>And what about the strong desires for other types of sexual behavior,
>for example sex with a women other than my wife.  Can I just "put that
>off", too, knowing that someday I will have the opportunity to experience
>that with the approval of those around me?

 No, for as you are well aware, adultry exceedes the pre-defined limits
 of the *allowed* expression of heterosexual sexuality.

>This argument totally misses the boat.  You are right in one thing and
>in only one thing.  We all can have the hope of sexual expression in
>a one man one woman relationship.  For some, this hope is deemed meaningless
>or irrelevant.  

 How can one have such "hope" if it immediately deemed irrelevant?  What
 kind of hope is that?  

 I do not think the situation is the same because I do not see gays and
 lesbians as heterosexuals with "deviant sexual desires."  I see gays and
 lesbians as complete individuals with, among other things, completely 
 normal (for them) sexual desires that are in all ways deemed inappropriate
 by society.

 This is a very difficult concept to articulate.  For the most part, gay
 and lesbian people are just like anyone else.  Their sexuality is just a
 part of the whole person.  For some, sex is a minor thing that they could
 do without.  For others it is more important.  But on the whole, telling
 an entire class of people that it is wrong for them to express their
 physical love for one another is like...cutting out a part of their soul.

 >>You can't possibly know what it is like to have a future where NO expression 
 >>of your inherent sexual desire will EVER be tolerated.

>Can the pedophile?  After all, this is his/her inherent sexual desire.
>Ah, but that's wrong, isn't it?  Therefore, it's not a "valid" comparison.

 I'm insulted by the comparison.  You do know that a pedophile's desires are 
    wrong because to act on them would harm other people, right?  Further,
 you are aware that it has been established that such desires are the result
 of some kind of mental disorder?  Pedophiles are sick people.  It has been
 known for some time that homosexuals are not.

>With all due respect, there are many sexual desires that I have faced
>over time which I have NO hope of ever living out.  The difference is
>that I recognized that they were inappropriate.

 No, the difference is that you had an option that *IS* appropriate.
 Presenting an "option" to someone who has NO interest is not really
 presenting an "option."

>Then it is also cruel and inhuman punishment for heterosexuals who never
>have the hope of marriage (and some of those certainly exist too).  

 I don't think you can equate a person who for physical or psychological
 reasons has no hope of marriage, to a completely ordinary gay or lesbian
 person who has the opportunity to form a loving relationship but is
 nevertheless denied the right to express that love completely.

>Your entire line of reasoning is proven irrelevant if only ONE heterosexual 
>can be found who faces the same issues as the homosexual and it is found that
>it is inappropriate for that person to perform sexual acts outside of
>the one man one woman marriage relationship.

 You have yet to show me such a person.  Further, even if you do, it 
 doesn't mean my line of reasoning is irrelevant.  It simply means there
 are exceptions.  Exceptions aren't going to render the position of
 millions of people, irrelevant.

/Greg

    okay, here is one such person, for the debate....
    
    should a mentally retarded person be allowed to have sex,
    allowed to marry?
    
    my son Steven is mentally challenged, yet he is capable of
    understanding communion, and very possibly being confirmed.
    He loves his niece very much and may wish to have his own
    child. I don't think he should be a father, so any marriage
    he has, will, or should be, childless. 
    
    Is such a marriage, for love, and companionship, and sexual
    fufillment, any different from one of a lesgigay couple?
    Would Steve be a better father as a mentally challenged
    heteroseuxal, than some one like Carol and her partner?
    
    I'd give custody to Carol of any child of mine before I'd
    give it to Steven.
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .495

Bob,

What I was asking was, "Why is there a moral difference between one
type of sexual expression and another?"  What you answered was,
"because one is moral and the other is immoral."

Re:  91.496

  >My fault.  I used the word "knowing" when I should have used "expecting."

O.K., let's talk about expectations.

Two points.

  1)   There are *many* heterosexuals in the world who do NOT expect to
       ever be married and be sexually active in a one man one woman
       marriage relationship (for any number of reasons).  Therefore,
       homosexuals are not different from many heterosexuals in that
       respect.

  2)   What do expectations have to do with morality anyway?  Are you
       claiming that a particular expectation or lack of it makes
       an otherwise immoral action moral?  On what (moral) basis?

  >And this you equate to a guy who wants to cheat on his wife?

Please don't take my words out of context.  You have been arguing that
homosexual sexual acts are right in part because of the strong desires
that homosexual experiences.  And yet you have not adequately dealt with
the strong desires that heterosexuals experience that you do not approve
of.  Every possible sexual expression needs to be carefully considered
and an internally consistent standard applied.  It has been my experience
that those who participate in discussions such as this tend to avoid doing
this because they don't have an internally consistent standard which they
can apply.  They have reasons which seem right for them, but which give
conflicting results when applied to other similar situations.

I'd much appreciate it if you would like to explain your internally
consistent standard, if you believe you have one.  Then we can go from
there and see if it applies across the board to sexual expression.  I
have done this in the past and found it lacking.  (One prime counter example
from the Biblical perspective [since this is Christian-Perspective]
being the inappropriateness of a non-married man-woman couple who
are clearly forbidden by many prophets of God including Jesus to
engage in sexual acts.)

  >No, for as you are well aware, adultry exceedes the pre-defined limits
  >of the *allowed* expression of heterosexual sexuality.

Agreed.  But my question goes beyond that.  Why?

  >How can one have such "hope" if it immediately deemed irrelevant?  What
  >kind of hope is that?

Good point.  The hope that is not deemed irrelevant or meaningless is
to trust in God with whatever struggles you face.

Those who face the issue of homosexual desire tend to portray a "This
problem is unique to homosexuals and no one else can understand"
attitude.  (I'm not saying you do this; I have noticed it at other times.)
But I did want to comment on this attitude.  Because it is an extremely
common feeling among people who are struggling with an issue.  That's
the reason that support groups are often times an extremely effective way
of dealing with most *any* problem.  Because people now understand that
they are not alone, that many others face the same or similar struggles.

The point that you raise is one of a larger scope.  What hope is there
for *anyone* dealing with *any kind* of problem that there doesn't seem
to be a satisfactory (to them) solution for?  There are so many problems
that look exactly like this to those experiencing them.  Are we to say
that the issue of homosexuality is essentially different from these?  No,
not when some of the exact same issues are raised (i.e. What hope is there
then when I don't want the possible solution that is offered?)

  >I do not think the situation is the same because I do not see gays and
  >lesbians as heterosexuals with "deviant sexual desires."  I see gays and
  >lesbians as complete individuals with, among other things, completely 
  >normal (for them) sexual desires that are in all ways deemed inappropriate
  >by society.

I read them as deemed inappropriate by God.  What society says about them
is, to me, irrelevant (in terms of morality).

  >I'm insulted by the comparison.  

Feeling insulted is always the first reaction.  The analogy was NOT made
to insult anyone - I seriously want you to respond with your ethics of
why one is right and the other is wrong.  Thank you for doing that.

  >You do know that a pedophile's desires are wrong because to act on 
  >them would harm other people, right?

Not in the eyes of all pedeophiles or all people.  What if the child is
willing?

I happen to agree with you that these actions harm others.  However,
I also believe that homosexual sexual actions harm others.  Who is
to judge when something harms others and when it doesn't?

  >Further, you are aware that it has been established that such desires are 
  >the result of some kind of mental disorder?  Pedophiles are sick people.  
  >It has been known for some time that homosexuals are not.

I believe you are not talking about a specific physical disease.  Rather
you are talking about a mindset.  Defining what is or is not a "mental
disorder" is extremely difficult and little agreement among the professionals
exist.  I wouldn't count on the opinions of "experts" in this field.  Just
look at the founder - Freud - and the off the wall theories that he not
only proposed but are still taught as basic psychological "truths" in
many classrooms today.  It's nice to know what some "experts" think,
but I certainly wouldn't use it as a main support for my reasoning.



     >>With all due respect, there are many sexual desires that I have faced
     >>over time which I have NO hope of ever living out.  The difference is
     >>that I recognized that they were inappropriate.

  >No, the difference is that you had an option that *IS* appropriate.

This doesn't necessarily change the sexual desires that I feel that are 
inappropriate.  Deal with this please.


>Your entire line of reasoning is proven irrelevant if only ONE heterosexual 
>can be found who faces the same issues as the homosexual and it is found that
>it is inappropriate for that person to perform sexual acts outside of
>the one man one woman marriage relationship.

  >You have yet to show me such a person.  Further, even if you do, it 
  >doesn't mean my line of reasoning is irrelevant.  It simply means there
  >are exceptions.  Exceptions aren't going to render the position of
  >millions of people, irrelevant.

This one person renders your arguments irrelevant since many of your arguments
are based on the supposed difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
If that difference does not truly always exist, then this is not strictly
a homosexual issue and any arguments you have that a priori exclude
heterosexuals are null and void.  Doesn't this make logical sense?

Collis

Re: .498  Collis

>What I was asking was, "Why is there a moral difference between one
>type of sexual expression and another?"  What you answered was,
>"because one is moral and the other is immoral."

No, that's not what I said .  I said "because one has a victim and the other
does not".  My argument was not circular, even if it was based on a premise
that you don't agree with.

				-- Bob

Re:  .500

You're right, Bob.  Of course, part of what I'm also saying is "Why
does one have a victim and the other not?"  :-)

Collis

| You're right, Bob.  Of course, part of what I'm also saying is "Why
| does one have a victim and the other not?"  :-)

	I guess when two consulting adults make a decision where neither one of
them is getting hurt, no one else is getting hurt because of their actions,
then it becomes victimless. 



Glen

Re:  .501 Collis

>You're right, Bob.  Of course, part of what I'm also saying is "Why
>does one have a victim and the other not?"  :-)

When the pedophile has his preferred form of sex the victim is the sexually
abused child.  When two lesbians or gays have sex, as part of a committed,
loving relationship, say (so we can concentrate on one issue at a time) who
is the victim?

				-- Bob

    RE: Collis 
    
 I am not trying to claim that expectations make an act moral or immoral.
 I was attempting to show a difference does exist between the expectations
 of heterosexuals *in general* and those of homosexuals.  You apparently
 disagree there is any significant difference.

>Please don't take my words out of context.  You have been arguing that
>homosexual sexual acts are right in part because of the strong desires
>that homosexual experiences.  

 Actually, I don't really wish to argue that such acts are right because
 a desire for them exists.  I argue that they are right when they are
 the voluntary actions of adults and do not infringe on the rights of
 other people. But I don't think emotion can be discarded from this
 discussion.  If nobody wanted to engage in "inappropriate" acts, this
 entire topic would be accademic.

>And yet you have not adequately dealt with
>the strong desires that heterosexuals experience that you do not approve
>of.  

 If the strong desires harm other people, I am opposed to them.

>Every possible sexual expression needs to be carefully considered
>and an internally consistent standard applied.  

 Why? 

>It has been my experience that those who participate in discussions such as 
>this tend to avoid doing this because they don't have an internally consistent 
>standard which they can apply.  They have reasons which seem right for them, 
>but which give conflicting results when applied to other similar situations.

 I don't believe anyone has a *perfectly* consistent standard that they 
 adhere to in all situations.  I try to base my decisions on right and wrong
 on the effects of the action in question.  Does it harm other people?  Is
 it a violation of someone's rights?  Was it forced against a person's will?
 *Why* was it done? (punishment harms people and is against their will but
 it is in response to the criminal's willful disregard for the rights of
 others - you have to figure social cohesion into the equation at some
 point.  Not at *any* cost however).  This type of personal "philosophy"
 seems to work pretty well for me.  In most respects the decisions I reach
 this way are consistent with those developed thru many other methods of 
 establishing right from wrong.  It leads me to believe stealing and murder 
 are wrong for instance.  It certainly isn't perfect though.

 Do you have an internally consistent standard?  How does it work?  For
 the record, it seems to me that God isn't always consistent.  I could
 never understand for example, how on the one hand God can be compassionate 
 and loving and forgiving, and on the other be up in arms over some holy war.

 If your standard isn't perfect nor perfectly applied, then are you really
 in a position to judge mine? (not that you have done this.  Yet.)

  >How can one have such "hope" if it immediately deemed irrelevant?  What
  >kind of hope is that?

>Good point.  The hope that is not deemed irrelevant or meaningless is
>to trust in God with whatever struggles you face.

 If one has no faith that God even exists, how can one find hope in
 placing trust in Him?

>  >You do know that a pedophile's desires are wrong because to act on 
>  >them would harm other people, right?
>
>Not in the eyes of all pedeophiles or all people.  What if the child is
>willing?

 A child isn't emotionally of physically mature enough to determine
 whether a particular action may be harmful.  

>I happen to agree with you that these actions harm others.  However,
>I also believe that homosexual sexual actions harm others.  Who is
>to judge when something harms others and when it doesn't?

 I'd like to know how voluntary homosexual acts between adults "harm"
 anyone.  Please explain what this harm is.

 Physical and psychological harm can generally be established by those
 trained in their fields.  They don't always make the right decisions,
 but I'd rather place my trust in people with some knowledge and experience
 than in the words written in an ancient manuscript.

>I believe you are not talking about a specific physical disease.  Rather
>you are talking about a mindset.  Defining what is or is not a "mental
>disorder" is extremely difficult and little agreement among the professionals
>exist. 

 Far more agreement exists than you imply.  The AMA says homosexuality 
 isn't a mental disorder.  They didn't decide that on a whim.

>I wouldn't count on the opinions of "experts" in this field.  Just
>look at the founder - Freud - and the off the wall theories that he not
>only proposed but are still taught as basic psychological "truths" in
>many classrooms today.  It's nice to know what some "experts" think,
>but I certainly wouldn't use it as a main support for my reasoning.

 As I said, they make mistakes.  Everyone does.  I am not overly concerned
 about it.

>     >>With all due respect, there are many sexual desires that I have faced
>     >>over time which I have NO hope of ever living out.  The difference is
>     >>that I recognized that they were inappropriate.
>
>  >No, the difference is that you had an option that *IS* appropriate.
>
>This doesn't necessarily change the sexual desires that I feel that are 
>inappropriate.  Deal with this please.

 If you take sexual desire as a whole, you have an appropriate option.
 A homosexual does not.  If your desire for your "appropriate" partner
 lapses, then you have a problem.  You still have the option of getting
 a divorce and marrying the person who you believe will fulfill your
 desire, right?  Or is divorce not an appropriate option?  (I get confused
 because some churches seem to allow divorce and some do not).

>This one person renders your arguments irrelevant since many of your arguments
>are based on the supposed difference between homosexuals and heterosexuals.
>If that difference does not truly always exist, then this is not strictly
>a homosexual issue and any arguments you have that a priori exclude
>heterosexuals are null and void.  Doesn't this make logical sense?

 If my *only* argument were based on the differences between the two
 orientations, then you might have a point.  Might, that is, if you
 could truly show such differences don't exists.  And you have not
 shown this, you've only said things like "a heterosexual who wants
 to commit adultery is the same as a homosexual who wants to engage
 in a committed sexual relationship - both sexual desires are 
 inappropriate."  But your belief that both desires are inappropriate
 doesn't make the experiences of the people involved the same.  
 
 /Greg

Re:  91.504

Thanks for your responses, Greg.  The differences between the two of
us are getting clearer.  Ultimately, of course, the difference is that
my standard is what God has revealed to us primarily through his prophets
and your standard is based on your thoughts of what seems right.

Regarding divorce, what did Jesus say?  (Did you say that you should
divorce if your desire for your partner lapses?  Or did he say that you
should not divorce?)  You don't have to figure out what the various
churches say.

Collis

>    should a mentally retarded person be allowed to have sex,
>    allowed to marry?

    Before I comment, assure me that the issue is related by explaining
    that since the condition is normal and natural that it would be wrong
    to change the person and that you would not suggest that a cure for
    mental retardation be looked for. I think this is too separate an
    issue.

    			Alfred

    
    pardon me for getting between you and Greg, Collis...
    
    but the difference between these "standards" is that..
    
    Collis bases his on what he *believes* to be true as a result
    on his faith..
    
    Greg bases his on what he *deduces* to be true as a result
    of experiential data..
    
    
    peter

>>    should a mentally retarded person be allowed to have sex,
>>    allowed to marry?

  >  Before I comment, assure me that the issue is related by explaining
  >  that since the condition is normal and natural that it would be wrong
  >  to change the person and that you would not suggest that a cure for
  >  mental retardation be looked for. I think this is too separate an
  >  issue.

   > 			Alfred
    
    
    thanks Alfred, for picking up on my note, I thought I'd been
    ignored....
    
    I think that homosexuality is more normal and natural than retardation,
    and has less reason to be censured, in re marriage, etc...
    
    and yes, I think that a cure for mental retardation should be actively
    looked for, but I don't think that mentally retarded or mentally
    chalenged adults should be denied the chances to do what they 
    are able to do, even if that means marriage and children. So if 
    you are going to look on homosexuality as a birth defect, then,
    okay, look for a cure, but don't deny the full civil rights of
    those alive who are lesbigay anymore than you would deny them to
    black people, or short people, or near sighted people, or
    etc.... we all have some genetic defects you know..
    
    Bonnie

Re:  .507

Peter,

Actually, Peter, I base my beliefs on what I have seen, experienced,
deduced and acknowledged as well as what I believe.

I am not a Christian who says that much needs to be left to "faith".
Not at all.  Indeed, I strongly believe in logically testing everything
and it was this testing that indeed resulted in totally changed beliefs
regarding Scripture.

Hope this helps set the record straight.

Seeker of truth,

Collis

    RE: .509 Collis,

    >Actually, Peter, I base my beliefs on what I have seen, experienced,
    >deduced and acknowledged as well as what I believe.

    So then, what experience and knowledge has contributed to your
    "beliefs" regarding this topic?

    In essence, if it were not for Scripture, what reasons would you
    have left for your position?

    I know this is purely an academic question.  In previous conversations
    with conservative Christians (is that accurate?) I have been faced
    with any number of horrible stereotypes and accused of engaging in 
    outrageous activities, etc, etc, etc...  This discussion has been
    refreshingly calm, reasonable and free from such hateful rhetoric.  All
    of which leads me to speculate that your only reason for objecting to
    same sex relationships is that they are presumably condemned in the
    Bible.   I'm curious to know if this is true.

    /Greg

Greg,

I spent considerable time studying the Scriptures to determine their
validity.  The evidence, in my mind, is overwhelming that they are indeed
true and that what we have today is a very accurate record of the orignal
autographs.

It is indeed true that before I was a Bible believing Christian that I
viewed homosexual relationships as just another lifestyle.  I think that
there is other evidence other than the Bible for the belief I now hold
that this is not the case, but you are quite right in saying that it is
because of the Bible's clear (to me, anyway) stance on this issue that
I hold the position I do.

Collis

    Thanks for your response, Collis.  It has only been through discussions 
    with people such as yourself, who are generally free of the bigotry and 
    homophobia found in others who object to gay sexuality (or, more commonly, 
    gays in general), that I have been able to get a clearer view of the 
    foundations for Christian disagreement on this issue.

    This is especially important to me, for in the past when I've discussed 
    this, I've heard the obligatory Scriptural references and then been 
    bombarded with "reasons" that have nothing to do with religion or the 
    Bible or anything else (except myth and fear and hatred).  I'm sure you 
    can understand how such interactions can lead one to question the sincerity
    of those spouting such nonsense.  It's almost enough to lead me to become 
    bitter and resentful of Christianity.  For some, it often is more than 
    enough.  For example, I believe it's one of the direct causes of the 
    attacks on the Catholic church by groups like ACT-UP.  I'm not saying that 
    Cardinal O'Connor in NYC *personally* backs up his rejection of 
    homosexuality with derisive attacks on gays (and I certainly don't 
    condone the actions against the church by groups like ACT-UP).  However, 
    a history of confrontations (quite unlike the one here) between gays and 
    Christians can be quite traumatic - for both sides.  Understanding the 
    nature of such conflicts can help us deal with them in a more constructive 
    manner.

    I remain unconvinced that being Christian *requires* one to renounce 
    same sex relationships (which is a bit comforting should I ever be 
    overcome with a strong desire to return to the church), but I now have a 
    better understanding of the thought processes surrounding the support 
    of those controversial Biblical passages.

    Thanks again, Collis, for your contributions to this discussion.

    /Greg



    /Greg

Collis,

Your interpretation of Romans is by no means the universal Christian
interpretation of that passage. It has been argued, convincingly (to me at
least) that the issue is one of what is natural for the individual, rather
than heterosexuality being what is natural for everyone.

I would be careful about leaning too much on your own learning, and pride,
rather than opening your heart.

	-- Charles

    RE: .514 Interesting question. I'm not sure that in the US homosexual
    activity should be outlawed. On the other hand I do believe that recent
    court rulings and legal activity have placed the government in a
    position of destroying religious freedom. And also other freedoms
    that the Constitution was designed to protect. Clearly the Founding
    Fathers did not intend for the 1st amendment to prevent public
    functions from having religious prayer. If they had intended that
    they themselves would not have so often had religious prayer at
    public meetings. Congressional chaplains are as old as the
    Constitution.

    So I have no great faith in the Constitution protecting my rights
    but I digress. I think that homosexual people should be allowed
    to have sex under the law. Since I do not trust the 1st amendment
    to protect politically incorrect I will not hypothesis here what I
    think should be outlawed. Suffice it to say that things harmful to
    the common good, which consentual sex may not be, should and could
    realistically be prohibited.

    			Alfred

	There are some who seem to be saying that it is okay with them
and with God if you happen to be gay or lesbian with the provision
that you refrain from engaging in gay sexual acts.

	I submit that if this is your paradigm, you've yet to squarely
face the heart of the issue.  There are other prohibitions to consider.

	I may hold my spouse's hand or put my arm around her waist, and
do other things in public which define us as a couple.  Except for the
fact that I am in a wheelchair, society and the church seems to smile
upon such behaviors.  However, in most places, gay or lesbian couples
are at risk if they publicly do the same kinds of things.

	I may decorate my work area with pictures and remembrances of
my loved ones.  However, again in most places, it is less acceptable
for a gay or a lesbian to do the same thing.

	I may publicly comment about how attracted I feel towards a member
of the opposite sex by making such statements as, "You look absolutely
radiant this evening," or, "I noticed that you have really gorgeous legs,"
and so on.  However, gays and lesbians frequently feel prohibited from
making similar remarks when attracted to members of the same sex.

	Please note that I can do all of these things and receive all
the blessings of social acceptance even if I chose to be celibate, because
I would still be demonstrating heterosexual behaviors.

	What I'm getting at here is that someone who is openly gay or
lesbian, even though not engaging in sexual relations, must still contend
with a huge social stigma and possible ostracization simply for being of an
orientation other than heterosexual.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .516

Richard,

You are quite right.  There is much more to this issue than simply sexual
acts

Collis

Greg,

You're very kind.  Indeed, I do want to be "reasonable" in the sense of
knowing and be able to espouse the reasons for whatever I believe.  It
is not my intention at all to create barriers, but rather to discern
truth.  (However, be aware that discerning truth *will* create barriers
since people, including my, often times don't like the truth.)

Collis

    The following is cross-posted from another conference with permission.
    =====================================================================
                             LEVELS OF HOMOPHOBIA

               Developed by Dr. Dorothy Riddle, Tucson, Arizona


NEGATIVE LEVELS OF ATTITUDE

Repulsion

  � Homosexuality is seen as a "sickness, a sin or a crime."  Anything is 
    justified to change "those people."  Prison, hospitalisation, negative 
    behaviour therapy, including electric shock, are all justified.
  
Pity

  � Heterosexual chauvinism.  Heterosexuality is assumed to be more mature and 
    certainly to be preferred.  Any possibility of becoming straight should be 
    reinforced and those who seem to be born "that way" should be pitied, "the 
    poor dears."
  
Tolerance

  � Homosexuality is viewed as just a phase of adolescent development that 
    many people go through and most people "grow out of."  Thus, Lesbian and 
    Gay people are seen as less mature than straights and treated with the 
    protectiveness and indulgence one uses with a child.  
  
  � Lesbians and Gays should not be given positions of authority, because they 
    are still working through adolescent behaviours.
  
Acceptance

  � Still implies that there is something to accept, characterised by such 
    statements as "You're not gay to me, you're a person."  "What you do in 
    bed is your own business."  "That's fine as long as you don't flaunt it."
  
  � Ignores the pain of invisibility and stress of closet behaviour.  "Flaunt" 
    usually means say or do anything that makes people aware.
  
  � Denies social and legal realities with which Lesbians and Gays live.
  
POSITIVE LEVELS OF ATTITUDE

Support

  � Works to safeguard the rights of Lesbian and Gay people.
  
  � Aware of the climate and the irrational unfairness of attitudes and 
    realities.
  
Admiration

  � Acknowledges that being Lesbian or Gay in our society takes strength.
  
  � Willing to truly look at themselves and work on their own homophobic 
    attitudes.
  
Appreciation

  � Values the diversity of people and sees Lesbian and Gay people as a valid 
    part of that diversity.
  
  � Willing to combat homophobia in themselves and in others.
  
Nurturance

  � Assumes that Lesbian and Gay people are indispensable in our society.
  
  � Views Lesbian and Gay people with genuine affection and delight.
  
  � Willing to be Lesbian/Gay advocates.
  

    RE: .519 My guess is that you'll react to this note about the
    same way I reacted to .519. In other words, you will not be 
    impressed.
    
    			Alfred
    
                             LEVELS OF NAZIPHOBIA
			  (Irrational fear of Nazis)


NEGATIVE LEVELS OF ATTITUDE

Repulsion

  � Being a Nazi is seen as a "sickness, a sin or a crime."  Anything is 
    justified to change "those people."  Prison, hospitalization, negative 
    behavior therapy, including electric shock, are all justified.
  
Pity

  � PC chauvinism.  Not being a Nazi is assumed to be more mature and 
    certainly to be preferred.  Any possibility of becoming changing people
    should be taken and those who are Nazis should be pitied, "the 
    poor dears."
  
Tolerance

  � Nazism is viewed as just a phase of adolescent development that 
    many people go through and most people "grow out of."  Thus, Nazis
    are seen as less mature and treated with the protectiveness and indulgence 
    one uses with a child.  
  
  � Nazis should not be given positions of authority, because they 
    are still working through adolescent behaviors.
  
Acceptance

  � Still implies that there is something to accept, characterized by such 
    statements as "You're not a Nazi to me, you're a person."  "What you do
    is your own business."  "That's fine as long as you don't flaunt it."
  
  � Ignores the pain of invisibility and stress of bigotry.  "Flaunt" 
    usually means say or do anything that makes people aware. 
  
  � Denies social and legal realities with which Nazis live.
  
POSITIVE LEVELS OF ATTITUDE

Support

  � Works to safeguard the rights of Nazis.
  
  � Aware of the climate and the irrational unfairness of attitudes and 
    realities.
  
Admiration

  � Acknowledges that being a Nazi in our society takes strength.
  
  � Willing to truly look at themselves and work on their own anti Nazi
    attitudes.
  
Appreciation

  � Values the diversity of people and sees Nazis as a valid 
    part of that diversity.
  
  � Willing to combat naziphobia in themselves and in others.
  
Nurturance

  � Assumes that Nazis are indispensable in our society.
  
  � Views Nazis with genuine affection and delight.
  
  � Willing to be pro Nazi advocates.

Alfred,

I'm sure you know how the Nazis treated gays.

				-- Bob

    
    i think everyone here is well aware that someone might
    CHOOSE to become (or follow the principles of National Socialism)
    a Nazi...but
    
    that Gay people do NOT CHOOSE their sexual orientation...
    
    Alfred,
    
    your little parody is meaningless given this very important
    distinction

    RE: .521 & .522 My little parody is indeed worthless. But so is
    .519. The point I was making is  that you can dress bigotry up but
    that still doesn't make it right. .519 is no less bigotry of thought
    then .520. .519 is an obvious attempt to degrade people whose beliefs
    are different. It is offensive. No less so then .520. Both notes are
    a bunch of pretty words and attractive (if you don't read too closely)
    logic. Neither of them is valid but one is politically attractive and
    one is not.

    		Alfred

    Alfred:
            Really, I've come to expect better of you. 
          What gay people do takes place between consenting adults.
         I don't recall gay people having marched off millions into
         death camps. Quite the contrary, they were among those who
         were marched off into the camps.
          To try and equate the two is not only offensive to gay people,
         but serves to cheapen the horror of the holocaust.
          I can well imagine the uproar if someone were to write what
         you have using "Christian" instead if Nazi and they would be 
         completely justified in doing so. 
           I found your little exercise to be in very poor taste.

                                                               Mike 
            

    Alfred,

    	At first glance, your objection to .519 seemed reasonable to
    me (although I found the analogy to Nazism blatantly offensive).
    After all, it could be read to imply that anyone who objects to
    homosexuals for *religious* reasons, is obviously a bigot.  I
    don't believe that people who object to homosexuality for religious
    reasons are necessarily bigots (though many are).

    But then I thought a bit about what you and other "conservative"
    Christians have argued in this topic and I realized the argument
    I *think* you are using, doesn't wash.  At least not based on what 
    I think you have said previously.

    If I recall, you have stated that you have gay friends and acquaintances
    and that you don't treat them any differently than straight people.
    Which says to me that your objection is to homosexual acts as opposed
    to *people* with a gay or lesbian sexual orientation.  If this is
    indeed true, then your objection to .519 doesn't make any sense.

    .519 argues for the inclusion and nurturance of different *people* in 
    society.  It doesn't say you have to value and admire what they do 
    in bed.

    If you'd care to elaborate on this, I for one would appreciate it.
    I'd like to know where you are coming from.

    /Greg

    P.S.  I don't believe one *chooses* to become a bigot myself.
    	  I believe people are taught bigotry.  Are you implying that
    	  gays are taught to be gay?  You realize there is quite a
    	  bit of evidence for the former and little-to-none for the
    	  latter.  I don't think it is a valid comparison.

    
    Alfred
    
    please show me where I wrote that your reply (your parody) was
    "worthless"...
    
    you seem to be have a way of twisting things...
    
    i wrote that it has no meaning...given the analogy you were presenting
    ...you apparently are inclined to place some kind of "value" to
    it...i was commenting on the lack of logic and consistency...
    
    please don't place words in my mouth..
    
    and yes i, too, am offput by the suggestion that gays are nazis but
    then i remember that you are the person who presented the idea
    that gay people should be "cured" and i consider the source..
    
    peter

>          To try and equate the two is not only offensive to gay people,
>         but serves to cheapen the horror of the holocaust.
    
    And I made no attempt to equate the two. That you think that I did
    in not understandable to me.
    
>          I can well imagine the uproar if someone were to write what
>         you have using "Christian" instead if Nazi and they would be 
>         completely justified in doing so. 
    
    Hum, If I'd thought of using "Christian" I would have. If you think
    the roar over that would be justified then how can you accept .519?
    
>           I found your little exercise to be in very poor taste.
    
    	As I found .519. So we agree that .519 is in poor taste?
    
    		Alfred

>    .519 argues for the inclusion and nurturance of different *people* in 
>    society.  It doesn't say you have to value and admire what they do 
>    in bed.

    Perhaps that is the intent of .519 but I had trouble getting beyond
    being labeled unfairly in the very first section of it. 

>    P.S.  I don't believe one *chooses* to become a bigot myself.
>    	  I believe people are taught bigotry.  Are you implying that
>    	  gays are taught to be gay?  You realize there is quite a
>    	  bit of evidence for the former and little-to-none for the
>    	  latter.  I don't think it is a valid comparison.

    I am not implying that gays are taught to be gay. I wasn't really
    trying to compare being gay to being a bigot either. But I believe
    that the natural state of man is to be a bigot. People are taught,
    generally, who to be bigoted against but even if they were not they
    would develop as bigots anyway. I believe that not being a bigot
    must be taught and is seldom if ever learned naturally.

    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I know you to be a kind and thoughtful person.  I hope you will
    consider how hard it must be for anyone who has suffered as much as
    Jews, gays, gypsies, and others who suffered and died at the hands of
    the Nazis to see a parody such as the one you published.  Is this where
    insistence on "The Law" brings us?
    
    Love and Truth are Infinite.  
    
    DR

>    please show me where I wrote that your reply (your parody) was
>    "worthless"...

    Sorry, you said meaningless and that's what I meant. Typo on my part.

>  i was commenting on the lack of logic and consistency...

    	Exactly! The logic and consistency of .519 and .520 are the same.

>    and yes i, too, am offput by the suggestion that gays are nazis but

    Well then it's is a good thing that I did not suggest that gays are
    Nazis. And I do not see how anyone could reasonably think I did. Saying
    or suggesting that I did makes it very hard to believe people have
    any interest in giving anything I write a fair and open minded reading.

    		Alfred

re: Note 91.528 by Alfred "Semper Gumby"

>	...I believe
>    that the natural state of man is to be a bigot. People are taught,
>    generally, who to be bigoted against but even if they were not they
>    would develop as bigots anyway. I believe that not being a bigot
>    must be taught and is seldom if ever learned naturally.

Alfred,

I'm curious how you view this with respect to people being created in the 
image of God, and then falling.  It sounds to me like you are saying that the 
natural state (i.e. "before the fall"?) is to be bigoted, is that right?  That 
a clear image of God is to be a bigot?

I don't really think that's what you mean, but that's what it sounds like to 
me.  Could you please clarify this a bit?  Perhaps it is simply my 
interpretation of what you've said.  I'm not trying to cast any aspersions.

Thank you.

Peace,

Jim

    Alfred, .520 directly following .519 was at the very least
    in extremely poor taste.   Couple the proximity of the 
    replies with the fact that gays who are at all vocal about
    their orientation are routinely accused of being no different
    than Nazis (i.e. evil), and I think you wind up with a 
    very reasonable objection to your posting.  
    
    Certainly closer inspection of .520 reveals that you did not "equate"
    gays to Nazis, but closer inspection revealed that .519 doesn't
    actually say what you first thought either, did it not?
    
    Perhaps we all need to think a bit before posting if we wish
    to avoid being unintentionally offensive.
    
    /Greg

| I am not implying that gays are taught to be gay. I wasn't really
| trying to compare being gay to being a bigot either. But I believe
| that the natural state of man is to be a bigot. 

	What are you basing this on?

| People are taught,
| generally, who to be bigoted against but even if they were not they
| would develop as bigots anyway. 

	How, I'm VERY curious to how this comes about. 

| I believe that not being a bigot
| must be taught and is seldom if ever learned naturally.

	I guess I can address this issue once you have answered my questions.
I'm sure you have a reason Alfred for saying peoples natural state is to be
bigots. I'd just like to hear it.


Glen

    Alfred,
    
    	I'm with the DR (91.529) on this one.
    
    Richard

    Glen,
    	   I tend to agree with Alfred that our natural state
    (maybe our "uneducated state" would be more palatable) tends
    to be bigoted - towards our own group/family/tribe/nation and
    against "others."   Any reading of history will reveal this.
    
    My guess is that a point is trying to be made.  Something about
    moral values being required to teach that bigotry is wrong .vs.
    the claims that homosexuality is "ok" because it is natural and
    therefore morals don't enter into the picture (not something I 
    argue, BTW). 
    
    /Greg
    
    

>I'm curious how you view this with respect to people being created in the 
>image of God, and then falling.  It sounds to me like you are saying that the 
>natural state (i.e. "before the fall"?) is to be bigoted, is that right?  That 
>a clear image of God is to be a bigot?

    No, not before the fall. Natural state after the fall. I believe that
    hate, violence, and bigotry are all after the fall "natural" states.
    Part of sin entering the world.

    			Alfred

    re:  .530
    
>    Well then it's is a good thing that I did not suggest that gays are
>    Nazis. And I do not see how anyone could reasonably think I did. Saying
>    or suggesting that I did makes it very hard to believe people have
>    any interest in giving anything I write a fair and open minded reading.

>    		Alfred
    
    
    No, you didn't suggest gays are Nazis, but the context is often
    crucial, especially in this case.  Could anyone read the two in
    succession and not come away with some sort of correlation?
    
    Listen to your heart, dear brother.
    
    DR

    RE: .533 Bigotry is, I believe, sinful. Sin is man's natural state
    since the fall. Also as a sociologist by training I saw bigotry in
    all societies I studied. Coupled with the fact that I've read 1,000s
    of time (or so it seems) that the key to overcoming bigotry is
    education I appears to be a logical conclusion. I don't know of
    evidence that bigotry is unnatural.

    		Alfred

My observation of human nature is also that we tend to be bigots as
well as to have problems in a number of other areas.  We are indeed
all sinners (Romans 3:23).  Personally, I agree with Jonathon Edwards
that we are all stained by original sin and that this is the primary
cause of our bigotry (and other problems as well).

Collis

Maybe I'm a little dense, but I read the two (.519 and .520) and it never
occurred to me that being a homosexual was being identified as the same
as being a Nazi.  Perhaps this is why I, in the past, have done things
such as Alfred did and been surprised when the conversation veers off of
what I was trying to say and into the comparisons that were "obviously"
there that I never thought of.

Collis 

    sorry, Alfred
    
    but i won't accept the characterization of being not being
    reasonable...that is, i think that it is quite reasonable to
    assume from what you wrote that you ARE equating Gay people
    to Nazis...
    
    didn't you merely substitute one for the other? and then you want
    me to believe that you're not?
    
    in reference to my comment about the "logic and consistency"...i
    was refering to the lack of it in your analogy...excuse me, if i
    wasn't clear...the equation that you are proposing does not work
    because Nazis CHOOSE to be Nazis (among other things that clearly
    distinguish from Gay people) while Gay people do NOT CHOOSE their
    sexual orientation...
    
    i do not have the advantage that some people do here...i do not
    personally know you, Alfred...i merely have what you have written
    here 
    
    peter

    RE: .519 & .520
    
                       To tell ya'll the truth, I agree somewhat with
    Collis....When the notes were written, I didn't see the problem.  Maybe
    I have "blinders" on.
    
                       Now....after reading the following 21 notes, I have
    changed my mind.  I think that Alfred's note was not ment to "hurt"
    anyone, but to make a point.  Without a doubt it was a *poor* choice in
    light of history.  
    
    
                      Seeing the obvious hurt and anger at gay's being
    equated with nazis, I think we all should back up a minute and look to
    our "higher power".  If we *all* could look at *all people* with the
    Love that has been shown to the world, then maybe we could eliminate
    the kind of "bigotry" that, in times past, has so ruled our society.
    In light of salvation, bigotry is such a waste of time!
    
    
    
    Dave

>    No, you didn't suggest gays are Nazis, but the context is often
>    crucial, especially in this case.  Could anyone read the two in
>    succession and not come away with some sort of correlation?
    
    I've been thinking about this for hours and am affraid I do not see
    how people came to that correlation. Perhaps my mind works differently.
    Or perhaps I understand too well what I was trying to communicate. But
    I do not understand peoples response to .520.
    
    		Alfred

    I am surprised amazed and quite confused at the reaction to .520.
    Perhaps it would help if I explained what I expected the reaction
    to be?

    I expected people to read my note and say "that's absurd. Those
    classifications are arbitrary, unfair, and ridiculously worded for
    maximum propaganda value." I then expected people to see that except
    for the nouns it was identical to .519. I expected that this would
    help people see how unfair .519 was. I perhaps expected too much.

    What I also expected was for someone to try and make a case that
    the logic in the two notes was different. Except for one person
    that has not been done. And even that reply misses my point I think.
    At this time I do not believe there are many here who are able, even
    if willing, to hear what I have to say. This is unfortunate. It may
    perhaps be my fault. I wrote .520 while hurt and angry. I am expected
    to understand the hurt others feel. And I do understand that I have
    caused some. That was not my intent any more then Richard intended, at
    least I don't think he intended, to hurt and insult me.

    I am sorry if .520 offended or hurt anyone. I am however more sorry
    that the understanding I intended to give was lost. To me it would be
    a sad world if a lot of people believed the parody in .520. It is also
    sad if people believe .519. You could at least try and see the
    falsehoods and distortions in it though. You could at least try and
    see how it degrades and insults. How it attempts through cleaver word
    play to lay on guilt and self doubt. Some of you have tried and not
    seen it. If that is the case for you then perhaps you can understand
    how I don't see what you claim is in my replies.

    			Alfred

    RE: .545  Alfred,
    
                      Well, join the club! :-)  I can't tell you how many
    times I have written something only to have it taken different than I
    meant it.  I saw .519 showing both ends of the spectrum.  Most of us
    reside somewhere in the middle.  
    
    
    Dave

re: Note 91.536 by Alfred "Semper Gumby" 

>    No, not before the fall. Natural state after the fall. I believe that
>    hate, violence, and bigotry are all after the fall "natural" states.
>    Part of sin entering the world.

Thank you, Alfred, I understand a little better now.

Peace,

Jim

    Re: .538, Alfred
    
    >since the fall. Also as a sociologist by training I saw bigotry in
    >all societies I studied. Coupled with the fact that I've read 1,000s
    
    Could that not be that bigotry is learned and passed down,
    generation to generation?
    
    >of time (or so it seems) that the key to overcoming bigotry is
    >education I appears to be a logical conclusion. 
    
    Perhaps "re-education" would be a more precise description of
    the process to eliminate bigotry.
    
    >I don't know of evidence that bigotry is unnatural.
    
    This is a very sad view of the human condition, in my opinion.  Perhaps
    true, but sad nonetheless.
    
    re: Naziphobia vs. homophobia
    
    By definition, a phobia is an unreasonable fear of something.
    Homophobia has been defined as an unreasonable fear of
    homosexuality (and homosexuals).  That definition has
    been broadened to include loathing, disgust and repulsion.
    
    Considering the history of National Socializm, unless one
    is of "Aryan" heritage, I don't think that it's fair to
    say that "Naziphobia" is a valid term.  Fear of Nazis
    is based on some very real and frightening events.
    Fear (and loathing) of homosexuality is based on religious, moral,
    social, and psychological principles.  I would have though the 
    distinction would be obvious. Perhaps it would be best to delete 
    .520, and re-write it substituting "Christian" for homosexuality to 
    make your point, Alfred.
    
    Most of the social and psychological arguments against homosexuality 
    have been debunked.  We're still working on the religious/moral ones.
    This topic is an excellent forum for education.
    
    Sincerely,
    Richard

    fwiw,
    
    I don't feel bigotry is a natural human behavior.  I think it stems
    from fear of differences, from fear of the unknown.  I tend to think 
    fear of the unknown is learned behavior.  Look at children and how they
    gleefully and unabashedly explore the unknown, until they are taught
    otherwise.  
    
    Some of these teachings are beneficial - they help ensure
    physical survival of the growing person, and ready them for 
    socialization.  But some of these teachings are...well...to put 
    it nicely, counter-productive to physical, emotional, mental, 
    and spiritual well-being.
    
    Karen  

Alfred and all others,

	I did suspect that .519 would be provocative.

	I expected .516 to be much more provocative.  A miscalculation.

	I never expected to see the parallel created in .520.

	I know Alfred through his notes to be a thoughtful, considerate
and sensitive individual.  He and I rarely share completely congruent
perspectives, but that's okay.  I am richer for Alfred's input here and
elsewhere.  I believe Alfred genuinely intended no deliberate malice.

	Conversely, it was never my intention to malign Alfred by
posting .519, or to have him take it as a personal affront or accusation.

	In fact, to me, the really fascinating part of .519 is that a
lot of people seem to believe that they're entirely free of homophobia
when, according to the scale offered in .519, they're only half way through!

	Before sharing my thoughts, I wanted .520 to run its course.  I hope
I'm not premature in doing so now.

	As many noters have come to realize, notesfiles are an imperfect
medium for communication.

Peace,
Richard

Don Jackson

DACHAU FOR QUEERS                
            

Just north of Santa Barbara, California, travelers on U.S. Highway 101 
pass what appears to be a beautiful school, its neatly chopped lawns, 
unobtrusive cyclone fence and majestic location giving it an air of
tranquility.

It is, in fact, Atascadero State Hospital, a maximum-security facility
designed to treat "sex offenders, sociopaths and cultural deviants".
Most of the "patients" are plain ordinary homosexuals who, having the
misfortune of being at the wrong place at the wrong time, were selected
by the lottery called "morals law enforcement" to fall into the clutches
of the doctors of Atascadero.

For years, disturbing rumors have circulated about what supposedly happens
behind the walls of Atascadero -- rumors of atrocious medical and surgical
experiments similiar to those of the Nazi concentration camps, of patients
being turned into vegetables with experimental brain surgery, of torture
and other gothic tales of horror.

Officials of the California State Department of Mental Hygiene and staff
members of Atascadero have repeatedly denied the rumors, either in whole
or in part.

Still the reports continue to come. They come from patients, former patients,
staff members, mental health professionals, legal experts, even from doctors
who have worked there.

All of the patients at Atascadero were "committed" there under the Mentally
Disordered Sex Offenders Act, a California law which provides that any
person who a judge feels is likely to commit a sex crime can be incarcerated
in Atascadero until he has been "cured".

In many rural counties, it is the practice to commit all suspected sex
criminals to Atascadero. The MDSO law provides that such persons can be
sent to Atascadero for ninety days' observation. They need not be convicted
of a crime, or even arrested; thus the state avoids the "inconveniences"
of a trial and preparing evidence. Once committed, the person loses all
legal rights and can be kept in the hospital for life, used for medical
and surgical experiments, perhaps even murdered.

Dr. Paul E. Braumwell, research chief at Atascadero, frankly summarized
the Department of Mental Hygiene's view of the legality of the "treatments".
"These men have no rights: If we can learn something by using them, then
that is a small compensation for the trouble they have caused society."

Dr. Grant H. Morris, professor of law at Wayne State University, visited
Atascadero and witnessed the experiments being performed. Morris had a
different view of the legality of the experiments. "The experiments were
conducted in apparent violation of the Nuremberg Code, the Declaration
of Helsinki and the AMA's 1966 ethical guidelines for clinical investigation,"
he said after his visit. 

The first definite evidence of dubious happenings at Atascadero came in the
spring of 1970, when a monograph by Atascadero staff members was published.
The monograph, by Dr. Martin J. Reimringer, chief psychiatrist et al, told
of their experiments with a drug which produces acute death panic.

According to the monograph the drug was tried out on at least ninety
unwilling patients at Atascadero and at least sixty more at the Vacaville
Medical Facility (the state prison for gays). The drug sucinylcholine
(anectine) was forcibly injected into the patients. It causes instant
paralysis of all muscles, including those needed for breathing. The patient
is literally taken to the brink of death and kept alive only through 
mechanical devices.

The purpose of the experiment or "exploratory study" was to see if the
drug was "effective as an agent in behavior modification". The criteria
for selecting men for the experiment varied, but included "deviant sexual
behavior and lack of cooperation".

The patients lost control of their bodies but retained consciousness.
Respiration stops. The "patient" is convinced that he is going to die.
Dr. Walter Nugent, chief psychiatrist at Vacaville, wrote "The sensation
is one of suffocation and drowning. The patient feels as if he had a
heavy weight of his chest and can't get any air into his lungs. Then a
technican commences to brainwash the patient, telling him how wicked
he is. The doctors believed that the "patient" might connect the behavior
with the feeling of dying and so refain from such behavior in the future.

When the accounts of succinylcholine's use first appeared in San Francisco's
_Gay Sunshine_ the story brought a flood of letters from readers many of
whom were former inmates at Atascadero. Many complained that the story
concentrated too much on succinylcholine, noting that it failed to inform
the reader of the other "treatments" in use at the hospital. Several letters
were from former patients who had been subjected to electro-convulsive
shock (sending a high-voltage electrical current through the brain. Often
the victim can't remember his name, his age, or where he went to school).

One letter said that patients including the writer were often forcibly
"choked unconscious, then dragged to the treatment room and tied down to
the bed". It is important to note, he went on "that treatment is not given
for any medical reasons but as a punishment for violation of ward rules".
He described the treatment as follows:

  "They hit you with the first jolt, and you experience pain that you would
never believe possible. At the same moment you see what what could be 
described as a flash of lightning. You cannot breathe, and they apply oxygen.
During all this you are in convulsions. This last only a few moments, but
it seems like a lifetime. A few seconds after that the pain is so severe
that you pass out. About three months before I left the hospital, they made
us (by threatening us with shock treatments) sign a paper syaing tht we have
agreed to let them test drugs on us."

Figures as to how extensively electro-convulsive "therapy" was used are
obscured by the veil of secrecy tht shrouds Atascadero. But a hint came in
January of 1972 when Dr. L. J. Pope, medical superintendent at Vacaville
reported to the _San Francisco Examiner_ that the use of electro-convulsive
shock had been greatly reduced, and was used on "only" 433 of the prison's
1400 inmates in 1972.

[continued]

    RE: .551   MEMORY::ANDREWS
    
                       Well.....I thought I had "heard" just about
    everything under the sun...it appears I was wrong.  
    
                       If true, and I have to say if because I have never
    heard of this before which isn't surprising, I cannot even *express* my
    anger and total abhorrence for this supposed hospital.  
    
                       All right Christians.....you want a reason to be
    rightously angry?  Here's your chance.  I wouldn't treat *ANY* living
    creature this way, let alone a fellow human being.  The similarties
    stated between the Nazis during world war II and this is frightening!
    I didn't think I could be this disgusted.
    
                       Thank you for sharing this and further information,
    with specific corroboration would be greatly appreciated.
    
    
    
    Dave 

In 1971 Gay activist Leo Dallas wrote a story about his experiences while
incarcerated at Atascadero. Dallas had been committed to Atascadero for
kissing another male in public, which the California Penal Code defines
as "lewd and lascivious conduct", a felony punishable by one year to life.
His eyewitness account of what goes on in Atascadero was published in
"I Am", a gay newspaper published by Emmaus House in San Francisco.

In his story Dallas tells how Atascadero doctors tried to "cure" him of
his homosexuality by means of electric shocks administered to his penis.
He writes that technicians showed him erotic material -- "but the catch
is they connect an electronic device to your gentiatls and when you get
an erection, they give you a shock to make you lose it."

Three weeks after the article was published, Dallas was arrested again
for kissing a male in public -- this time as he was participating in the
Christopher Street West Parade in Hollywood -- and he was sent back to
Atascadero.

Shortly after, Professor William B. Chambliss of the University of
California at Santa Barbara took his class to visit Atascadero. Chambliss
was so shocked by wht he saw that he immediately wrote an article, published
in the July/August issue of _The Humanist_.

In his article Chambliss describes what the doctors called "The Errorless
Extinction of Penile Responses Therapy". The treatment consists of showing
the "patient" pornographic slides. Each time the patient gets an erection
he is given an electric shock through a device attached to the penis; after
a time the man will no longer have an erection when he sees pictures that
had previously caused him to be sexually stimulated. Chambliss quotes 
Atascadero Research Chief of Staff, Dr. Paul E. Braumwell as saying that
the treatment is a form of aversion therapy similar to classical Pavlovian
conditioning. Other doctors maintain that the electric shocks simply damage
tissue thus destroying the ability of the penis to erect at all.

Chambliss responded to Braumwell by saying, "I don't know what patients and
staff are like when they are not in the institution, but judging from their
behavior there, I would feel a great deal more secure about the world if the
patients went home at night and the staff stayed locked up."

Among the reader mail in response to the first Atascadero story was an 
unsigned letter postmarked "Atascadero". "They don't use succinylcholine
any more," it read, "because they have found something more horrible. It's
called prolixin."

Officials at Atascadero deny that any type of aversion-therapy drug is
used there. However, Dr. L. J. Pope, medical chief at Vacaville, told
a press conference that prolixin was administered to 1,093 of the 1,400
inmates there during 1971.

Dr. Philip Shapiro, a psychiatrist, describes prolixin as a "personality-
altering drug that acts on the hypothalamus." He says that prolixin has
caused irreversible brain damage resulting in Parkinson's syndrome, a
condition in which the sufferer has continual, uncontrollable twitching.
One large dose of prolixin is sufficient for three weeks of terrifying
delusions, mental confusion and extreme pain.

One inmate reported : "It seems like it's (prolixin) destroying your mind.
You can't concentrate. If you're thinking three things at the same time,
all those thoughts explode. If you're thinking of spaghetti, for example,
the spaghetti blown up in your mind to the size of large tubes, snaking
another every which way. Your thinking is slowed down."

"It seems like your breathing is stopped. Your eyeballs move funny -- feel
like you're dying. The doctors tell you you're dying, and without the
antidote, you die. You can't move anything. You're like a vegetable. You
sweat. They tell you if you're ever caught having sex in here again, you
won't get the antidote and you'll die."

Atascadero and Vacaville are the only two institutions for homosexuals in
the western United States. The law permits the doctors at Atascadero to do
as they wish with their charges. Their records are secret. However, late
in 1971, Dr. Walter Freeman told a press conference that he had "severed
the frontal lobes" of a number of homosexual inmates at Atascadero. Dr.
Hunter Brown of UCLA Neuropsychiatric Institute volunteered his services
free to the state in exchange for their permission to use homosexual 
inmates of California prisons and mental institutions for his experimental
psychosurgical "cures" for homosexuality. Brown admits he is already 
performing such surgery but he refuses to say where. 

Several California state psychiatrists indicate that they believe the
theory that homosexuality results from a defect or injury to the 
hypothalamic nucleus of the brain. In Germany, psychosurgery is in widespread
use as a cure for homosexuality. The German operation consists of inserting
an electronic probe into the sex-behavior center of the brain; then it is
coagulated with an electrical charge. The operation "cures" the patient of
all sex drive.

"There is not doubt," says one doctor, "that homosexual tendencies can be
removed by surgical procedure in the region of the sex-behavior center...
4 to 6 percent of the male population is infected with homosexuality. As
a matter of public health policy, the treatment of such patients is at
least as important as the treatment of those with organic neurological
disease or neurosis."

In a better world, those "doctors" would be sent to prison for life.  Or
perhaps they could be condemned to spend their lives on an island where they
could experiment on each other...

				-- Bob

from a book of interviews with gay and lesbian people, 
"Word is Out" -- this is Rick's story



P: Why do you think you got married if you were basically gay?

R: Peter, I think probably one of the reasons - if not the principal
reason - why I got married was that I hadn't received any support for my
gayness at all. My folks didn't give me support. There was no support
from the Church. There wasn't any encouragement for my making it with the
young man that I had already loved, or for trying to find some other man.
Everything around me told me that ordinary little boys grow up to meet
ordinary normal little girls and get married. That's the way it's done.
There isn't any other alternative.

Then when this gentle woman came along whom I liked very much, and liked
her family .. I guess it was a sign of relief - I really am normal after
all.

P: So she thought she's cure you? Do you think that ever works?

R: Oh. you may have some people who have enough of a component of bisexuality
in them so that, if it's encouraged and developed, the person may be able 
to sublimate the homosexual aspect. In that sense, I think, a person may be
"cured". But if you're basically homosexual, as I seem to be, there's just
no way. The only thing you could do is deny it, pretend that it's not there,
convince yourself that you're just not going to have any sex life. In that
sense, one can be cured. I question, though, the cost of the "cure".

But I think my wife began to realize that despite her beliefs about marrying
me, it wouldn't work. At that time, my father-in-law found out I was gay,
and he couldn't cope with it. He was a very strong man who had never had 
a son, and I was "his boy"; I was the son he had wanted all those years.
He had all of the hopes and expections that I would eventually take over 
the corporation. He had great difficulty with the fact that his "son" liked
other boys, so they were looking for a doctor who would cure me. It all 
wound up with my mother- and father-in-law going to my parents and telling
them that unless they signed papers to have me committed to the mental
sanatorium, they would have me committed to the state mental hospital-the
insane asylum, literally. When I first went to see the doctor in the 
sanatorium, he told me, "Well, we could castrate you, but let's try some
treatments and see what can do there." It's a frightening thing to have a
man you're going to as a doctor lay that sort of trip on you.

P: So then what happened in the mental institution? How old were you?

R: I must have been about twenty-three then. I underwent a fairly lengthy
series of shock treatments. That was a very frightening experience-
ah, that's the understatement of the year. I mean it was a terrifying
experience. You would wait for maybe an hour or two for your turn, and
then I remember, with utter terror, how the clock would go, and you'd
have people- some would call the individuals, and you knew when your turn
was coming.. and how each time you hope against hope that it wasn't your 
turn yet, that there would be one more time before you had to go into the
little room. Your would go into a fairly small cubicle which had a gurney
-a bed-in it, lay down on the bed, and at that time they were Ambytal or
Nembutal-my recollection was most clearly of their using always the left
arm...lying on the back with the left arm extended, and the nurse would come
in her little white suit-uniform-and give you a shot.

About the same time that she was giving you the shot, the little machine
would be wheeled into the room from where it had been used in some other
room on some other person. And this little brown box was a frightening,
terrifying little thing. It's a little innocuous box with a couple of
wheels on it and lots of dials. And I remember the nurse playing with
the dials at the same that the shot is beginning to take effect, and I'm
about to go out. That would be the last thing I would recall ...just 
spinning wildly out of control until you lose consciousness. And you
are aware constantly of this little box over there and what it's going
to do to you after you go out. I just can't tell you what an utter feeling
of terror it was to have that wheeled in and know that they were going
to do something you that you had no control over while you were asleep and
out. 

P: How many did you get?

R: I really don't know, Peter. It would be somewhere between ten and
fifty- probably twenty-five somewhere along in there-and again I'm not
certain of the number.

P: What were you hoping to get out of this? Were they hoping they
would make you a heterosexual?

R: At the time, I don't think I had any hopes. I wasn't my idea to go
through all of this. But at least during the periods of treatments,
I was cooperating to the utmost. I tried to block out attractive men,
to be unaware as I walked down the street that there were men who were
nice to look at, who might be interesting individuals to get to know.
To some degree I succeeded-literally blocking them out, not being aware
that my world had these people in it, too.. But a realization-I'm not
sure exactly what caused it-made me suddenly say, "What are you doing to
me? And what's the price that I'm paying? what am I supposed to get out
of this, for blocking out what's positive, pleasant, and a delightful
part of life? And what are you giving me in return?

    RE: 91.551 & 91.554   MEMORY::ANDREWS
    
    
                      I am really not sure how to approach this so I guess
    I should just come out with this.  
    
                      As these two notes were *SO* horrendous, I decided to
    approach a friend of mine who "should" know something about this.  At
    this time I would rather not say this persons name.  I was told that
    these two notes were "fiction".  From my own expierence in the Navy, I
    can well believe that they are true, however, if there is someone else
    out there that can corroborate these accusations, I would *GREATLY*
    appreciate it.  If nothing else, for my own peace of mind.
    
    Dave

    
    dave,
    
    i would suggest that your friend produce some evidence of his
    own to support his claim that these notes are "fiction". there
    are plenty of citations contained within this piece to reputable
    publications; the San Francisco Examiner, the Humanist, the
    San Francisco Chronicle just to name a few. 
    
    of course, there are people who claim that the Holocaust never
    happened either...perhaps your friend also subscribes to that
    theory.
    
    peter

    
    Peter,
    
                  Please don't think I was casting any aspersions on you or
    your sources.  To tell you the truth, I am beginning to wonder if my
    source really looked into it...I suspect that this person didn't...
    the answer came back too quickly.  
    
                 I would like much more information because I am doing a 
    "slow burn" on this and I thank you for bringing this information to
    us.  Without a doubt, these are *VERY* serious charges and it is beyond
    me why something hasn't already been done.
    
    
    Dave

    
    dave,
    
    these things happened 20 and more years ago. unfortunately, given
    the climate of the times treatments like electro-shock were routine.
    and it isn't as if it wasn't exposed in the local newspapers of the
    time and although i can't be certain i would imagine that things 
    changed radically after some of this came out.
    
    certainly things have changed since then..
    
    dave, let me reiterate something i wrote to this topic a while ago.
    i am old enough and have been a part of the gay community long enough
    to personally know and have spoken with individuals who have been
    subjected to electro-shock and other treatments to cure them of their
    homosexuality. while i wouldn't say that it was common, it was in no
    way unusual and it was the same throughout the country not just in
    California. 
    
    peter

    
    Peter,
    
                 The gentleman I talked to is a very close friend and has
    his doctorate is child phsycology.  He works for Texas Tech and I take 
    care of his computers.  He did remember that "some" time ago there was 
    some work done in this area but couldn't remember where or exactly when.
    He did say that those kinds of work have been universally condemened.
    
    
    Dave

    
                Well I guess I "blew" it!  Apparently I got some facts
    wrong and misunderstood what was said. :-}    So I *DO* appologize
    to you Peter and to the rest of the noters here.  I will be sure to
    *fully* understand an answer before I express a concern again.  
    
    
    Dave

Article 1505 of clari.news.religion:
Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.gays
Subject: Lesbian ordained as Episcopal priest
Date: 6 Jun 91 11:58:05 GMT
Lines: 31

	WASHINGTON (UPI) -- The Episcopal Diocese of Washington has ordained
into the preisthood a woman living in an open lesbian relationship,
defying the national Episcopal Church's opposition to homosexual clergy.
	Elizabeth Carl, 44, was ordained Wednesday night in a traditional
ceremony at the Church of the Epiphany.
	While the Episcopal Church does not forbid the ordination of
homosexuals, it passed a resolution in 1979 saying it is ``not
appropriate to ordain practicing homosexuals or those engaging in sexual
relations outside marriage,'' said Jeffrey Penn, a spokesman at the
church's U.S. headquarters in New York.
	He said such a resolution did not carry the same moral authority as
church canon, but should be used by practicing Episcopalians to
determine how they should act.
	But the bishop of Washington, Ronald H. Haines, said Carl's
ordination was an attempt to acknowledge that clergy were sometimes
homosexual, even if the church heirarchy did not acknowledge it.
	``Before, there was a tacit approach. There was an understanding that
a (priest) was gay but it just wasn't said ... and no one asked,'' he
said before the ordination ceremony. ``Now, we would rather be truthful
from the beginning.''
	He said he was determined to ordain Carl to eliminate ``an overlay of
deception that was painful and causing problems.''
	Earlier in a statement, Haines said Carl ``has for a number of years
lived in a loving and intimate relationship with another woman.''
	Carl, a native of Houston, was raised a Methodist. She received a
graduate degree in library science from the Catholic University of
America and has worked at the Library of Congress for 16 years.
	She graduated from the Union Theological Seminary in New York in
1990. Before her ordination, she was assistant minister at Church of the
Epiphany.

Article         1530
From: [email protected]
Newsgroups: clari.news.group.gays,clari.news.religion
Subject: Methodists oust gay minister
Date: 14 Jun 91 21:14:46 GMT
 
 
	GROVE CITY, Pa. (UPI) -- An openly homosexual minister who has been a
lifelong member of the Methodist church was stripped of his credentials
at a meeting of the Western Pennsylvania Conference of the United
Methodist Church.
	But the 600-member conference, which represents 11 church districts
in western Pennsylvania, also agreed Thursday to redefine what
constitutes a self-avowed, practicing homosexual -- a move that could
allow celibate homosexuals to serve as ministers.
	James Hawk, 26, who now lives in Nashville, Tenn., was dismissed as a
deacon in the church more than a year after he confessed his
homosexuality to church elders.
	Hawk initially said he was celibate but in December told church
officials he could no longer vow to remain so.
	Church officials said about 99 percent of those attending the
conference voted to dismiss Hawk during a closed-door session at Grove
City College.
	Hawk said the ruling came as no surprise, but it was not without
pain.
	``It's very sad,'' he said, ``to have grown up in the United
Methodist Church and to have known these people all of my life and loved
them, cared for them -- and they loved me and cared for me -- and today to
realize they really don't love me like they say they do.''
	Hawk had challenged the conference to assign him a church in
Pennsylvania. He said he believes that other homosexual members of the
conference did not speak out about their own sexuality for fear of
losing their own ministries.
	Bishop George Bashore said there was no choice but to dismiss Hawk,
because church laws clearly state that self-avowed, practicing
homosexuals cannot be ordained.

Re:  91.564

  >``It's very sad,'' he said, ``to have grown up in the United Methodist 
  >Church and to have known these people all of my life and loved them, 
  >cared for them -- and they loved me and cared for me -- and today to
  >realize they really don't love me like they say they do.''

Love says that the UMC has to have him as an ordained minister?  I
feel said that he blames their moral stand on a lack of love.  It makes
me think he doesn't have a clue as what real love is (which showers
affection as well as discipline on others).

Collis

Well, I disagree, Collis.  I think it's the UMC (as an organization) that
doesn't understand what love is.  Makes me glad I left.

				-- Bob

    My apologies for the length of this article (it is longer than 100
    lines):
    
Article        44807
From: [email protected] (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: My bishop's text on lesgay issues (BBC)
Date: 16 Jun 91 15:39:41 GMT
Sender: [email protected]
 
 
Wed 29 May, BBC2, 10.20pm. Fifth Column: Bishop John Spong of New Jersey
arguing that Christian disapproval of homosexuality is outdated.
 
This is a complete, but unofficial, transcript. 
 
Louie Crew (via uk.motss)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Presenter:
  "John Shelby Spong comes from North Carolina, where he was brought up as a
Christian fundamentalist.  He was ordained after graduation and became a bishop
of the Anglican Church in the United States in 1976.  He is now Bishop of
Newark, NJ.  He has three children and is married to an English woman.
 
  "The Church of England so far has not accepted the idea of homosexual
priests.  The Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr George Carey, acknowledges this as a
problem . He would like the Church to look into the question further, as there
are those in its congregation who find the matter one of great offence.  Bishop
Spong believes that gays and lesbians are entitled to full inclusion in the
life of the Church and that their loving relationships should be honoured in
the same way as those of heterosexual couples."
 
Spong:
 
  "I was born in and nurtured by the conservative evangelical wing of the
Anglican church in the United States.  Today I am a bishop of this communion,
known as a liberal thinker.  I advocate the ordination of women and the full
inclusion of gay and lesbian people in the life of the Church.  This is the
story of my journey both from this conservative background and into an ever
deepening relationship with my Christ.
 
  "Growing up in the Southern part of the United States, I'm not sure that I
had ever heard the word "homosexual".  Oh, I can remember shouting "you queer"
on the schoolground to someone who seemed to deserve my insult.  But I did not
know what that meant.  When I did learn about homosexuality as an adult I
simply accepted the generally held view that homosexuality was either a
sickness or an example of moral depravity.  If anyone questioned these
conclusions, I would simply appeal to definitive quotations from the Bible.
There was the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, the condemnation in the Book of
Leviticus, and St Paul's negativity in Romans.  That was quite enough for me.
 
  "So my prejudices continued unchallenged as my career as a priest developed.
Hardly anything else however in my conservative Christian background enjoyed
that unchallenged status. My education would not allow my literal
interpretation of Scripture to endure. Thinkers like Copernicus, Galileo, Isaac
Newton, Charles Darwin, Albert Einstein and Sigmund Freud presented me with
knowledge of which the writers of the Bible knew nothing.  Then the American
Civil Rights movement made the Bible's easy acceptance of slavery not just
quaint but wrong.  The women's movement made the Bible's attitude towards women
archaic and even evil. Each of these tides I rode.  And though the claims that
the Bible was the unchallenged Word of God died for me, the Bible itself did
not die.  I believe that the essence of Scripture can be separated from the
literal words, and I continued to feel the Bible's inspiration.  Yet I never
raised the gay or lesbian issue.
 
  "By this time I had become a bishop in the New York area.  I was 43 but in
many ways my education was just beginning.  Gay and lesbian people were very
obviously part of my new world. Most of them were quite alienated from all
forms of the Christian church. Most, but not all.  Indeed, I discovered that
some of my priests were gay.  They were closetted, but they were gay.  My first
inclination was to retreat into ecclesiastical hypocrisy.  "It's OK," I
proclaimed, "so long as their homosexuality is not practised."  I spoke of my
intention to love the sinner but hate the sin, a threadbare clich'e but one
still used in high places.  But if sexual activity was part of the life of a
gay priest, then I felt that the integrity of my office required me to purge
the ranks of such offenders.  How I grieve now, for those I hurt.  I claimed to
be even-handed.  "No heterosexual priest," I asserted, "can live with his lover
in a rectory either."  "But Bishop," a gay priest countered, "a heterosexual
priest has the option of marrying his lover.  I do not."  That disturbing seed
of truth entered my consciousness and never went away.
 
  "In time I came to know gay and lesbian clergy willing to entrust their
stories to me.  Against incredible odds these people had formed loving and
life-giving partnerships even in hiding which had lasted 10, 20, and even 25
years.  Their lives were beautiful, sensitive, and caring.  It was harder and
harder for me to see sin in such love.  More and more what I observed did not
fit the judgment of my moral views, the condemnation of the Bible or the
official stance of my church.  So I opened myself to learn.
 
  "I read extensively, I became aware that many members of the scientific
community see homosexuality as biologically given not morally chosen.  It is,
they believe, a perfectly normal expression on the spectrum of human sexuality.
Homosexuality is also present among some mammals who do not think or choose.
Once the Church assumed that to be different was to be evil. Even left-handed
people were victimised.  It occurred to me that we were doing the same thing
now, but with homosexual people as the victims of our ignorance. How many
heterosexual people can remember choosing to be heterosexual?  I certainly can
not.  I only remember awakening to the realisation that not only could I
tolerate girls but I really liked to have them around.  I wonder why a
heterosexual majority continues to assume that the homosexual minority chooses
their sexual orientation.  If homosexuality is part of the identity of some 10%
of the population as many scientists today state then every one of us must have
someone close to us who is gay or lesbian.  We love them, but we do not know
them. They live hidden, certain that if we did know them we would cease to love
them. What a heavy burden that must be to carry.
 
  "Last year, I buried a gay priest. He died of AIDS.  I did not know he was
gay until a month before he died.  He had a perfect closet.  He was married,
the father of a son, and divorced.  But he told me he had been gay all his
life.  He lived hidden from his family, his congregation, his bishop. But when
death was upon him, he asked me to tell the world at his funeral, of the real
Ray Roberts, to allow him to be honest in his death in a way that he had never
been honest in his life.  I did that, and in many ways that funeral was the
final step in my conversion.  The Church has gay priests in far greater numbers
than most imagine. I think it is time to admit that, to accept them, openly,
and allow their deepest commitments to be publicly acknowledged and blessed.
 
  "Of course homosexuality can be lived out destructively.  So can
heterosexuality. I think the Church should oppose promiscuous sex, predatory
sex apart from love and commitment.  These activities are wrong, whether they
are heterosexual or homosexual, because they dehumanise both aggressor and
victim.  But loving, life-giving, tender, faithful relationships among gay or
lesbian people must, I believe, be honoured recognised and blessed as they are
among heterosexual people.  Surely those priests who are gay and whose
relationships with their partners exhibit the marks of holiness should not be
barred from continued service?  Nor should homosexuality alone be a barrier to
ordination.  Eight of the clergy of my diocese have come out of the closet.
Seven of the eight live openly in vicarages with their partners. They are known
and loved in their churches and communities as couples.  They live with no fear
of being exposed.  They are in my opinion competent effective courageous
priests whose lives I honour and whose friendship I treasure.
 
  "So this is my witness. I still value my evangelical Christian roots, but the
experiences of my life have called me out of my homophobic prejudices and into
a deeper understanding of all humanity.  I offer this vision to my brothers and
sisters in the Anglican communion.  I also urge the Archbishop of Canterbury
who, like me, was nurtured by the conservative evangelical wing of our Church
to lead our communion, so that the public hypocrisy of our church might be
banished and the private practice of our Church might be lifted from the
shadows and homosexual persons might be recognised accepted and honoured and
their life-giving relationships blessed.  We Christians worship a Christ who
invited us all to come unto Him just as we are without one plea.  For the sake
of this Christ, surely the time has come to open the doors of the Church and
publicly to welcome and love gay and lesbian people."
 
 
 
 
    Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]
    Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . [email protected]
    Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147
    Rutgers:  The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h
    P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5434 o
    Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  201-648-5700 FAX
 
                    Only a dead fish floats with the current.

<sigh>  So close, and yet so far away.  As a former United Methodist,
as still on very good terms with the United Methodist Church in the
Pikes Peak region, I am disheartened, but not surprised, by the events
outlined in Note 91.564.

The truth is that there are many gays and lesbians serving as Christ's
ministers.  In most cases, their ministry goes unacknowledged and
unappreciated by the church at large.  But, God knows of this ministry
and God will reward these servants. (Matthew 6.1-4)

Peace,
Richard

    
    i wasn't sure where to put this...
    
    Richard (who girded up his loins and went to Colorado Pride)
    
    so how was it? did you have a good time? were there lots of
    people? was the weather fine?
    
    peter

while this isn't a Christian Perspective on gay people, it does show
    that in other cultures it is possible to have a positive and spiritual
    view of being gay. Winkte is a Lakota term.
...

Terry Calling Eagle's story

  I have always filled a winkte role. I was just born this way, ever since
I can remember. When I was eight I saw a vision, of a person with long grey
hair and with many ornaments on, standing by my bed. I asked if he was female
or male, and he said "both". He said he would walk with me for the rest of my
life. His spirit would always be with me. I told my grandfather, who said
not to be afraid of spirits, because they have good powers. A year later, the
vision appeared again, and told me he would give me great powers. He said his
body was a man's, but his spirit was a woman's. he told me the Great Spirit
made people like me to be of help to other people.

  I told my grandfather the name of the spirit, and Grandfather said it was
a highly respected winkte who lived long ago. He explained winkte to me and 
said, "It won't be easy growing up, because you will be different from others.
But the spirit will help you, if you pray and do the sweat." The spirit has
continued to contact throughout my life. If I practice the winkte role 
seriously, then people will respect me.

...
  this is taken from "The Spirit and the Flesh" published by Beacon Press
    
    

    Thanks very much peter, I really appreciate reading these 
    words of wisdom.
    
    Karen

    	It was a hot and sweaty Summer afternoon.  Shade sure felt good.
There just wasn't a whole lot of it.  There were in excess of 200 people at
the outset of the parade, many of them with colorful flags and banners.  There
also were approximately 18 police officers on duty, mostly motorcycle mounted,
to escort the procession.

	Just before the parade began, a small contingent of opposition arrived
carrying a large, white, wooden cross and shouldering the hardware of an
offensively loud, portable, public address system.  Over the loudspeakers
we were warned, criticized, condemned, and generally assaulted by the
bewailments of this group throughout most of the parade route.  It was
a really unique experience for me, being addressed a "Sodomite" and an
"abomination to God."

	The parade proceeded peacefully and without incident, however, ending
at a downtown park.  About 100 people were gathered there to greet us.  I
later learned that an organization calling itself "Colorado for Family Values"
had waged a campaign urging thousands to stay away.

	At the park bandshell, a few brief, spontaneous remarks were shared
by organizers.  My pastor then tried to lead us all in prayer.  He was drowned
out by the greater gain of the opposition's equipment, which ceased only at
the orders of police who were carrying out some sort of a restraining order.

	Digital's own Carol duBois (who looked absolutely stunning in a flowing
teal-blue dress) led the gathering in singing the Holly Near song, "Singing
For Our Lives," as nearly everyone interlocked arms in a demonstration of
support and solidarity.

	As the rally ended, our Bible-wielding friends quickly seized the
bandshell and resumed their exhortations.  Carol, Shelley, Evan and I
regrouped at a nearby ice cream parlor, at which time my delightful company
shared with me many of the events of their recent trip to Boston.

	It was a good day.  I'm glad I went.  Thank you for your prayers.

Peace,
Richard

    The Portland, Maine Friends meeting recently approved a minute
    concerning same-sex marriage.  I am reproducing here part of a report,
    followed by the actual recommendation:
    
**************************************************************************

         This was part of the report submitted by the ad hoc committee
         on same gender relationships of the Portland Friends Meeting.


         ...In the meantime, the Ad Hoc Committee encourages every
         Friend to engage in a reframed question/dialogue:  How has
         homosexuality touched our individual and collective lives? 
         Are we as a community able to reflect on these experiences? 
         How can we honor and support these parts of our experience? 
         What is the quality of our individual and collective
         relationships within our meeting?  Is our Friends Meeting
         truly an open community celebrating our diversity and supporting 
	 that of God in every person?


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

                     PROPOSED MINUTE ON SAME-SEX MARRIAGE

		Ministry and Counsel has been looking at ways Portland 
         Friends Meeting can be a more inclusive community.  We have been
         helped by a group of lesbian and gay attenders and members who
         (met) with us to discuss their experiences and their desire 
         to be fully part of our meeting community.

         	One point of division is represented by our marriage
         practice, which so far has only been open to heterosexual
         couples.  And yet the notion of two people seeking Divine
         assistance in their deeply committed relationship actually
         has little to do with sexual preference.  It is about sharing
         and nurturing love, and about holding couples -- as we hold
         individuals -- in the Light.  We have had to ask ourselves
         "How fully can we accept and nurture loving relationships
         that have a spiritual basis?".

         	We have learned how many meetings in New England
         Yearly Meeting have opened their practice of marriage to
         include any two people involved with their meeting who want
         to be united as partners in a spiritual union.  After several
         months exploring our own feelings and experiences, we now
         recommend that Portland Friends Meeting take this step.  But,
         in approving the following minute, we did not want the meeting
         to rush into quick outward acceptance without enough inward
         understanding.  Our meeting as a whole may need to go through
         a process that mirrors the journey of members of Ministry and
         Counsel as we learned how to listen, to discuss, and to
         learn, before we could eventually accept and affirm.


         	This minute is also an affirmation of our concept of
         marriage as something that happens *within our community*. 
         We have regularly refused requests for marriage under the
         care of meeting from couples not connected with the meeting,
         or where the meeting cannot offer continued support.

         	In using both the terms "marriage" and "celebration of
         commitment", we wish to affirm that all the joy, love, and
         support of the meeting community can be available to all who
         join with us.

         	At our meeting on October 3, 1990, Ministry and
         Counsel passed the following minute:

         	
         		A same-sex couple requesting marriage 
         		or a celebration of commitment under 
         		the care of Portland Friends Meeting 
         		should be considered in the same way
         		we would consider such a request from
         		a heterosexual couple.

                                 15th ANNUAL
                          QUAKER LESBIAN CONFERENCE
	
	For Quaker women or women familiar with Friends who are Lesbian, 
	Bisexual or moving toward a Lesbian lifestyle.

                                  Camp Howe
                                  Goshen, MA
                         August 22 - August 25, 1991

********************************************************************************
                NAMING, CLAIMING AND CELEBRATING OUR DIVERSITY
********************************************************************************

There is more diversity among us than we often recognize.  In addition to more
obvious differences of age, ethnicity, and race, there is variation in class
background, health status, education, physical size, etc.  These differences
sometimes leave us feeling isolated or misunderstood.  They can also enrich and
challenge us.  During the weekend, we will endeavor to let go of some of the
assumptions of who we are so that we may get to know each other and the Spirit
more fully.  Workshops related to this theme are especially encouraged.


ABOUT THE CONFERENCE:

	The annual Quaker Lesbian Conference is a time for spiritual renewal,
worship and sharing.  This is a wonderful time to gather with other like-minded
Quaker women to share in Meeting for Worship, support concerns, excitement and
fun.  Program usually includes daily Meeting for Worship, worship sharing,
interest groups and workshops, and evening fun (games, folk and Contra dancing,
story telling, singing, poetry reading, etc..).  Please think about workshops
you would like to plan and lead, or ones you would like to see offered, and
include them with your registration.

COST:

	We want women to be able to attend QLZ.  Sliding scale for the
conference is $70 - $95.  The cost for children will be pro-rated.  women are
encouraged to seek scholarship from your Meeting, yearly Meeting, or women's
group.  If you need financial help or can pay only part of the fee, let us know
EARLY.

REGISTRATION:

	Registration fee is $30/adult, $10/per child.

	Send deposit and self addressed stamped envelope to:

                                 Polly Atwood
                               159 Hancock St.
                             Cambridge, MA 02139

	Please register early, by 7/28 at the latest.

	There are cabins, or you can bring a tent.

	Vegetarian meals are available - please indicate that you wish
vegetarian meals on your registration.

	Directions, etc., will be mailed in August.

 

    Here is a Quaker organization that might be of interest:
    
	Friends for Lesbian & Gay Concerns
	Bruce Grimes - editor
	Box 222
	Sumneytown, PA 18084

Newsgroups: clari.news.religion,clari.news.group.gays,clari.news.group.blacks
Subject: Episcopals meet to consider ordaining homosexuals
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 91 21:10:42 EDT
 
	PHOENIX (UPI) -- More than 10,000 delegates from Episcopal churches
throughout North America and the Pacific opened their triennial
convention Thursday trying to decide whether to ordain sexually active
homosexuals.
	``We have to decide what is homosexuality and how it fits into the
Christian community,'' said Presiding Bishop Edmund Browning. 
``Homosexuals have made important contributions to our church and we
should face up to their place in our ranks.''
	Spokeswoman Nan Ross said the church had no policy barring celibate
homosexuals from the ministry. She said the United Church of Christ was
apparently the only major U.S. denomination that ordained practicing
homosexuals.
	The delegates are from the United States, the Caribbean, Central
America and Micronesia, making up one of 22 separate national churches
in the worldwide Anglican Communion.
	Another major issue at the 10-day convention will be the church's
attempts to end racism both within the church and in society. The issue
came to the fore because the church decided to go ahead with plans to
hold the convention in Phoenix despite a refusal by Arizona voters to
grant state workers a paid holiday honoring slain civil rights leader
Martin Luther King Jr.
	A group of opponents to the decision began forming an organization
called, ``Present Under Protest.''
	Browning said the church agonized over the decision, but decided, 
``Phoenix should not be penalized for lack of a holiday.''
	``Racism is the most serious issue facing us and the church,''
Browning said. ``Racism is rampant in our society and the church and it
must be dealt with. We need to rid as much as we can any vestage of
racism in the Episcopal Church.''
	He denounced President Bush's recent decision to end trade embargoes
against South Africa.
	``I have talked to (Anglican) Archbishop Desmond Tutu (of South
Africa) who agrees with me that this is the wrong time to lift those
sanctions and I was hopeful the president would delay those actions,''
Browning said. ``We will take a position on that at this convnetion as
well.''
	About 12 percent of the members of the Episcopal Church are black.
	The 70th convention will make policy for the church for the coming
three years. Proposals must be approved by two branches of the
convention, a House of Deputies and a House of Bishops.

    Tut tut.  UCC is the only one ordaining "OUT" practicing homosexuals.
    
    DR

    RE .577....Hi Doc!
    
                         Wouldn't it be nice when we grow to the point when
    a persons sexual preference is no longer an issue?  When we wouldn't
    even have to ask....just look at a persons qualifications.
    
    Dave