Tuesday, February 27, 2007

They Don't Know Me

Christian fanatics have a lot of time and money on their hands. Maybe all that self-denial and repression frees up your schedule. Every time I turn around some hateful Christian is running off to court to try and eliminate other people’s rights (Yet, they are also the first ones to claim that they hate “activist judges” and courts that decide social issues).

Where do they find the time? I don’t have a spare moment to contest a parking ticket. Yet these folk spend all day long in court. Don't they have jobs? Who is taking care of that gaggle of kids they keep churning out irresponsibly?

Most recently, a federal judged dismissed a case brought by the mean-spirited David and Tonia Parker and Joseph and Robin Wirthlin. These “parents” sued a Lexington, Massachusetts school because the teacher had the nerve to tell second-grade students that (*gasp*) gay people exist in the world and (horrors!) they have the right to marry in this state. These Christian parents argued that the school infringed on their right to force their children to be hateful monsters. The core of their argument suggests that their children have no rights and must unthinkingly adopt a religious doctrine like their parents. From this Christian perspective, children are their property and should not be allowed exposure to any other viewpoints – or the reality of human diversity.

In particular, the parents got all tied-up over the children’s story King and King. In this fairy-tale, a young prince, under orders to marry, interviews a number of princesses. Ultimately, though, he finds that the person that he loves is another prince.

Well, there was the problem right there. Love? We know how much Christian fanatics hate love. Nothing makes them more angry. Marriage isn't supposed to be about love. Marriage should be as God intended it: unhappy, filled with remorse, and about one person owning another.

It did get me to thinking. Fanatical Christians like the Parkers and Wirthlins must have very little idea about what my personal life is like as a gay man. Gay men and lesbians are just abstractions that they use to avoid thinking about how empty and wasted their own lives are.

They must conjure a very peculiar view of what daily life is like for us queer folk. Here is what I imagine they think that gay men do with our days:

    9:00-10:00 am: Wake up, Urinate on New Testament

    10:00-10:45 am: Seduce unsuspecting heterosexual Christian preachers. That’s what keeps us gay men looking so youthful.

    10:45-11:15 am: Burn down a children’s hospital.

    11:15-11:45 am: Undermine a heterosexual marriage. Our goal is to end civilization as we know it, but we can only do that by undermining one hetero marriage at a time. Eyes on the prize.

    11:45 am-12:45pm: Lunch, consisting of Cottage Cheese and pineapple.

    12:45-1:15 pm: Dress as Cher

    1:15 – 1:30 pm: Infiltrate public schools – Arrange a curriculum that contains almost no information about heterosexuality. Teach children that the only authentic expression of love occurs while wearing a leather mask.

    1:30 – 2:00 pm: Orgy with a Roman theme – Precipitate the collapse of the U.S. Empire

    2:00-2:30 pm: Take a person-to-person call from Satan.

    2:30- 3:30 pm: Compete in the regional softball tournament that pits gay men against lesbians.

    3:30 – 4:00 pm: Go to a local church and replace the holy water with sulfuric acid.

    4:00 - 4:30 pm: Write and produce all of the news and entertainment currently available in the United States – ‘cuz we are so well represented in the mainstream media.

    4:30 – 5:00 pm: Show up in Tim Hardaway’s locker room and just, you know, linger.

    5:00 – 5:30 pm: Canvass the neighborhood passing out informational literature in efforts to recruit people to be gay. Borrow strategies from both Christian missionaries and Avon. Have you heard the word? The good word of man-on-man sweaty action? Now in shimmering Sunset Rose!

    5:30 – 6:00 pm: Break into heterosexuals’ houses in order to redecorate them.

    6:00-6:45pm: Sensible dinner.

    6:45 – 7:15 pm: Go to a local bar and just arm wrestle for half an hour.

    7:15 – 7:30 pm: Style somebody's hair.

    7:30 – 8:15 pm: Sing karaoke.

    8:15 – 9:30 pm: Organize and star in a Broadway Musical

    9:30 – 10:45 pm: Sex with random strangers. I mean, come on, we don’t bother to look at the guy’s face.

    10:45 –12:00 am: Hide under Christians’ beds until they fall asleep.

This must be what the bizarre Christian folk think of my days. That is just so unfair. Really, I can only accomplish 30 or 40 percent of this on any given day. Plus, have you seen the price of sulfuric acid these days? And those Roman orgies don’t just spontaneously happen. There’s a lot of planning that goes into one of those. A Roman orgy isn't a daily event with that level of work. You need to block out a whole weekend for that. Renting that donkey can be a hassle.

Of course, the big thing that separates fanatical Christians from me is that I mostly don’t care about this list. Even the things that the Christians fear most seem like pretty small potatoes. Well, except maybe the hospital thing. Probably burning them with acid would be extreme too – probably.


Bill Schlimme said...

Jeepers, would that I had that kind of energy! Clearly I've missed something important by not having pineapple and cottage cheese for lunch.

sammuel said...

finally someone who understands my hectic schedule. personally i skip lunch to buy kimonos and fans for my nightly production of madame butterfly.

tornwordo said...

What about the endless preening in front of the mirror? And where is the time for hanging out at public restrooms to turn the straight men? I need to rearrange my schedule.

Steve said...

Our schedules look eerily similar. It's no wonder I never have any 'me' time! Being a full-time homo is hard work! Actually, being atheist (MY MOTTO: It doesn't make me evil. Honest!), I have a real problem with these people as they constantly want it both ways, and when they can't have it both ways, they're the first to scream DISCRIMINATION. I'm a live and live kinda guy. If you want/need to believe in a super sugar daddy that lives in the sky and an ancient book of fables to guide your life, fine. It's not for me. However, until the day I die, it's my life's mission to shut-down and mock these delusional lunatics when they attempt to push their oh, so moral instruction and continue their never-ending quest to set people back, yet cry discrimination when someone with a view opposite of their own seeks a fair shake. GOD! (That's just a figure of speech.) These people piss me off.

Sarah L Boyd said...

As a Constant Reader, I can honestly say: Favourite. Post. Ever.

vuboq said...

I forgot to urinate on the New Testament!

God damn it. My day is RUINED.

Cooper said...

Yesterday I fell behind schedule and missed my usual homo-lunch ... plus I didn't have time to style anyone's hair either. I did, however, go shopping and buy myself a couple cute tops. Life is just endless Oscar moments for us, isn't it?

I "heart" you GayProf.

Earl Cootie said...

I can't afford the Cher outfits; the best I can do is early Madonna. Must I turn in my gay card?

marlan said...

Yes, you have a hefty schedule. The only notable one I've been able to cross off my list is the preacher seduction thing. I could tell you a few stories....hehe. Oh and it also involved the disintegration of his marriage--but that was his call.

We all do our part for the cause.

GayProf said...

Bill: Pineapple has to be the queerest fruit.

Sammuel: Just remember to submit your receipts for those kimonos and fans to central office for reimbursement.

Torn: Oh, the preening. I just assumed that we were doing that through each of these activities. What's sex without mirrors?

Steve: I agree they have the freedom to believe what they like. I don't see, though, why the rest of the nation needs to adopt or protect their mythology about the world.

Sarah: Hail, Amazon Sister!

VUBOQ: Well, once you lead a good Christian down the path towards damnation, your day will pick up.

Cooper: I am assuming those were tube-tops. Also, did you remember to apply your chemical bronzer?

Earl: Well, Madonna will do in a pinch. We have a mutual aide society, however, that will provide Cher costumes to the needy.

Marlan: I am just gonna guess that his desire for man-on-man action probably meant that marriage was never quite right from the start.

Chad said...

I don't know about you, but my week isn't complete until I've made out or made love in front of a pre-adolescent child.

Bigg said...

I would personally like to say that burning them with acid is NOT too extreme. Not at all.

seekeronos said...

Hmm. Looks like the hatred meme works both ways.

But as for the Christians, if they were really obeying the spirit of Christ's commands... they would spend more time winning souls for Christ than in court litigating over strange books.

Of course, the parents could easily sit thier kids down and refute whatever the school teaches, or remove thier kids to a private school if they felt so badly about it.

On the other hand, in a school district with a majority "christian" population, it might not be unreasonable for that school district to _not_ teach about homosexuality to a second grade class.

Personally, I do not think that any subject matter touching on sexuality should be taught to second graders. I mean, it's not like they need it...

...when I went to 2nd grade some *cough*30*cough* years ago, most boys and girls think the other gender had cooties.

The sexualization of pre-adolescent kids in general is kind of sad... seeing a gaggle of 13 y.o. girls at the mall all slutted up is not very flattering at all.

Chris said...

Oh, crap. I've been defacing the wrong Testament.

And, to seekeronos:
I don't think reading a children's book which presents gay characters is teaching "sexuality" or "sexualizing" anyone. Saying different people love different things isn't what is leading to the prostitots tramping around the mall.

MaggieMay said...

You mean it's *NOT* like that...? [Insert sad, disillusioned Maggie-face here]

B. said...

You forgot to mention how homosexuality leads to bestiality, or is that why you're renting the donkey?

Seeker Onos said...


The gay fairy-tale (sic) book and other particular thing may not lead to the "prostitots" (clever neologism, have to remember that one)... but I can't say that I'd be that enthused about "sexual diversity" being taught to a second grade class.

It might very well be appropriate for a middle-school setting, but trying to politicize things in grade school?

I'd say that those 2nd graders needed that as much as they needed to hear a sermon about salvation through Christ alone.

Heh, I bet if someone tried to bring a Baptist preacher to preach a sermon in assembly, the Christophobes would have a melt-down.

Bruce said...

The following is a quote i have taken from "Seekeronos'" website:

How much longer will it be until we Americans wake up and clearly see that Islam is our enemy, an implacable foe which will not tolerate dissent…?

I guess we fags are next on Seekeronos' list. Apparently, hating one group isn't enough for him.

Cooper said...

Seekeronos: I think sexual diversity should be taught and integrated from birth. Heterosexuality is not something which needs to be "taught". It is affirmed and ingrained daily. We read the "Once upon a time there was a prince seeking a beautiful princess" fairytales to second graders, so why not King and King where a prince seeks his prince? Why is one okay, but not the other? Affirming sexuality is not teaching kids sex technique. It is simply trying to teach them to value and respect diversity. It also helps affirm for budding gay children that who they are is okay and normal. Reaching children as young as possible is the only real way we will create fully mature and integrated adults who accept and understand that gender and sexuality are not limited.

Roger Green said...

Golly, gee, I feel left out...

tkkerouac said...

Great read and thumbnail!

GayProf said...

Chad: For many Christians, simply holding hands is making out.

BIGG: Now, now -- We don't advocate violence -- most of the time.

SeekerOnos: I agree with Cooper's response. Children are taught all the time about heterosexuality as if that is "normal:" Prince Charming falling in love with Sleeping Beauty; Snow White singing about her love coming to find her, etc. Acknowledging that their other types of loves is not the same as giving a tutorial on anal sex.

Also, you are right that I wouldn't be amused by a Baptist preacher coming into a school and giving a sermon. I, however, have no problem with a school telling students that Baptists exist in the world.

Chris: I agree, the prostitots (good turn of phrase) really seems to be rooted in unexamined issues about heterosexuality and gender that this society isn't interested in discussing.

MaggieMay: It's mostly like that. Feel better?

B.: Well, I figured Rick Santorumn would cover the direct and obvious line that we all take from men to dogs.

Bruce: The problem of how the left can engage with these perspectives is tricky.

Cooper: As I said above, I totally agree with you.

ROG: Anybody can join the party.

TKKEROUAC: Hail, Amazon Sister.

pdxprofessor said...

you know, what burns me about seekeronos' comments is that as gay parents of school aged children we have to hear the same sort of bigoted bullshit (pardon my french) from the parents of other kids in our son's first grade class. so what's the solution seekeronos? should we not take our son to school? should he not be allowed to talk about his family in order to spare someone else's tender religious sensibilities and even more tender grasp on the reality of religious and sexual diversity?

oh, but of course, we shouldn't have been allowed to adopt or even (*gasp*) be anywhere near children anyway. give me a break. i wish the bigots and the haters would wake up and smell the birdies. move on. you've already lost this fight. now you're just being poor sportsmen.

Rebekah said...

first off, thanks for saying "fanatical" christians. I get all annoyed when all Christians are lumped into one rotten bunch.

We are finishing up two weeks of "Diversity Focus" tomorrow with an assembly about Anne Frank. We've seen movies about Martin Luther King, had a Holocaust survivor come in and talk, had a quadrapalegic come in and give a presentation, and all kinds other passive activities for our students.

Did we once even mention tolerance or, god forbid, acceptance of homosexuality? nope.

What the hell? As if 10% of the population didn't exist? What's that saying to the kids who are struggling right now with who they are?

Damn it.

There's quite a difference in acknowledging something exists from "promoting" it as a way of life.

Some people need to pull their heads out of their asses.

Rebekah said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
seekeronos said...

I'll agree that the scope (of that particular book) was not sexually graphic. But I'm not so sure that kids of that age are really ready to grasp the idea of same-sex couplings.

There may be exceptions here and there, but for the most part there is a general lack of maturity (and regrettably, this often extend as much if not more so, to the parents).

This is probably where my conservative bent shows up: I think sexuality, and topics touching on it, are best taught at home, or within the structures of one's faith.

I know that "slippery slope fallacies" abound... but extending the politics of the LGBT movement to a grade school classroom by force of an activist judge's say-so?

Let the school boards have autonomy to decide what gets added into the curriculum beyond state-mandated coursework.

Similarly, issues of faith should be left out of public schools. Ideally, (imo) should be left to teach the basics - the 3 "R"s, history, life sciences, chemistry, physics, and perhaps some practical skills (outdoorsmanship, industrial arts [read: wood/metal shop], agriculture, and electronics.

Save the philosophy, art appreciation, and other advanced humanities for high school and college.


I have no intention on putting anyone on any sort of "list"... I just chose a particular religion to pick on.

I have nothing against particular muslims, so long as they do not threaten us; but the religion as a whole strikes me as pretty antithetical to most everything our representative republic is based upon.

Am I an "Islamophobe" ? About as much as many folks these days are "Christophobes".

In fact, I'd venture to say that there is in the West, a disproportionate amount of hatred toward Christianity than to any other one religion. Taken at face value, Christianity seems nowhere near as "bad" as Islam for the effects it has on its beleivers; which is not to say that some individual practioners have taken some thing in the Bible waaaaay out of context and gone rogue with it.

The Koran and the Hadiths on the other hand, are the foundation of Islam. Contained within those scriptures are a world of hurt toward anyone who would choose another way than Allah.

Some seem to have quite the grudge against Christianity; I find that Allah is exceptionally more repugnant than any other so-called god.

After all, if I recall correctly, Allah isn't exactly very LGBT friendly. :P

Doug said...

GayProf, I'll bring the pineapple if you'll bring the cottage cheese.

I'm waiting for the fairy tale that truly represents the world and includes blacks, whites, orientals, latinos, et al, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, et al, men, women, transsexuals, et al, young, old, et al, handicapped and not, et al, gay, straight, bisexual, et al, and any other subdivision or label or stereotype you can think of. I wish my name was Al.

The world is a big place with more than 6 billion individuals, each of them different. Teaching anyone at any age that there is only one way to live is, well, asinine.

When parents cry, "What will I tell my children?" when faced with a question about a gay couple shouldn't be parents. Easy answer: those two men are in love, just like your mommy and daddy are in love.

Marve said...

Doug: that sounds like a challenge. :) But just how large could you make the cast of a fairy tale before it got too hard to keep track of everyone?

pdxprofessor said...

ahhh, seekeronos, i think it's time for you to brush up on your religious history. not that it does anyone any good to compare the evils committed by people in the names of their respective gods, but from where i sit, the devastation wreaked on the world by say, the holy roman empire is pretty much analogous to any wreaked on the world by the ottoman empire. it's not really about the religion, it's about imperial aspirations. greed makes people do despicable things, things that are easily masked by conveniently blaming it on some god or another.

and your whole line of thinking about islam being antithetical to everything our representative democracy stands for? i challenge you to articulate what exactly you mean by that and how you've come to such a patently absurd conclusion. i've been studying and teaching islam for well over two decades now and i can't even imagine what you've been reading. come take my intro to islam course. i'll get you all straightened out. or better yet, buy a copy of marshall hodgson's "the venture of islam" and read a piece of real scholarship about the subject. i'd start with volume 1. walk before you run.

for the record, what translation of the bible have you got? the god of the hebrews and the god of paul isn't exactly a warm fuzzy kind of figure. and as i recall, he doesn't much like the gay either. just ask an african anglican.

seekeronos said...


I prefer to use the King James version, and I reference to the Geneva Bible, along with the New American Standard Bible (NASB) for textual aids; I also make heavy use of various lexical aids to the help discern the Greek and Hebrew (Vine's Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, Strong's Concordance, etc).

Most importantly though, is an attitude of prayerful seeking through God's Word, while asking Him to grant me to have a teachable heart to hear what the Holy Spirit is saying.

You mentioned the Holy Roman Empire - which (for its namesake at least) was something of an oxymoron - never being particularly Roman, nor especially Holy (if one holds it to Biblical standards - but to be fair, very few earthly governments could really begin to come close to that standard) and somewhat mediocre as an "Empire". In fact, for most of its duration (without considering the later Wilhelmine Kaiserreich from 1860s~1918) it was at best a collection of squabbling principalities, dukedoms and a few (Hansa League) Free Cities.

This is not to say that people don't "do bad things" in the name of thier particular gods; the Teutonic Knights were no saints, nor the Knights Templar, or the Knights Hospitalers. They were military men, first and foremost; and given the age they lived in, probably not terribly well-read (for the most part) or willing to spend much time "searching the scriptures to see whether these things were so" as they heard "teachings" from their preists and chaplains.

However, as knowledge of the Word of God (the Bible) increased and spread beyond the realm of monks and "learned" men, people who truly sought for God learned what it is that Jesus was really after: Salvation through Him alone (not by "good works", because no matter how hard we strive, our "good works" cannot pay off the debt of sin we owe), and in turn, by believing in Him, He is able to transform us from our dark, generally wicked way of thinking toward the things which are spiritually pleasing to Him.

If I had to distill the essence of God's Word down to a single word, I'd say that one word is "Love".

Compared to what I have seen in the Koran, and heard from the bleivers in the Prophet Mohammed, there is no measure of love, but rather, compulsion.

Do not think me deceived in the matter that there are hypocrites a-plenty who call themselves "Christians"... the litany of would-be professors of Christ who still do not give themselves to immitate Christ's example, and yet hold others to an unreasonable standard is staggering.

My point is that with Christianity vs. Islam, each is a path, with its own guidelines.

Christianity (when practiced as Jesus taught) offers redemption from sin, eternal life, peace, and is based on God's love shed about through His Holy Spirit.

Islam, when practiced as Mohammed and his successors/Caliphs commanded in the Koran and the Hadiths, is binding, legalistic, and quite lacking in the mercy which exemplified Jesus's dealings with sinful men. Commands to kill heretics/apostates; the general misogyny with woman's testimony being worth only half that of a man's, the bordello Paradise which is centered around a fleshly reward , yet the muslimah woman is not even guaranteed a decent chance of Paradise.

And if Islam is so benign, then why the cartoon furor where so many people were ready to shed blood over a few pictures of Mohammed?

People have dipped crosses in vials of urine, and called it "art" (and even received government funds for it!) and nobody threatened to blow up those museums that showed those particular works. Lots of protests and phone calls/letters to the NEA and various editors and politicians, but no burning of cars etc.

Given the human rights abuses of modern Islamic governments, and the less monitorable but still offensive speech made by radical Islamists ... given the demands by some Islamists to have special accomodations made for them so that they can perform the wudu ritual washings and such in public schools, and special accomodations for the Muslim prayers 5x daily in schools ...

... if these things were by Christians, the outcry by most liberal people would be heard on Mars.

Yet, radical Muslims do it, and mum's the word. As for the so-called preponderance of "moderate" Muslims - I'd call them to task for not speaking up against the radicalized brethren who are acting in a way most lacking in civility.

This comes full circle though, when you come back to the source document that governs Islam.

To be truly obedient to Islam, one needs to wage jihad against the unbelievers; be it the hard jihad of blood and bomb-laden belts on buses, or the subtler jihad of lies , obfuscations, and other deceptive practices allowed under the principle of "al-Taqiyya".

The moderate muslim who does not embrace all of these things is probably not very willing to step out of line to oppose this, because he might well - and correctly, according to the Koran and the Hadiths - be branded an apostate or an heretic for preaching disopedience to the Koran and the Hadiths.

A case in point is the recent story about Jamal Miftah, a moderate Muslim who challenged his co-religionists to examine thier views on jihadism and some of those thornier issues of Islam. He was quite thoroughly removed from the mosque, with some physical threatening.


The true Christian on the other hand, who obeys the Bible, and is truly born again not of flesh, but of God's Holy Spirit - he walks in love toward his fellow humans and seeks to do God's will by sharing His plan for salvation - as well as the material needs of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, visting widows and orphans in tier distress, and etc.

I say again, lest we be tempted to look at fallible man's faults:

Look at both messengers and thier respective message, and tell me again if Islam isn't threat (in its current form) or not.

I'd be thrilled to see more moderate Muslims oppose the jihadist strains of thier religion, but all things being equal, I find that there are a lot more people who lean to the radical extremes of Islam, and I also notice that there is a general lack of concern in the middle and on the supposedly "liberal" Islam that contests it openly.

Conversely, the true lunatics who call themselves Christian (the "Identity" folks which gave rise to Timothy McVeigh, or the cult formed around David Koresh, or other such groupings) are radical, but are also very marginilized; true Bible believing Christians will be among the first to refute such people.

Finally, on the gay issue -- although much ado is made of the famous Leviticus passage "no gays and no shellfish" restriction, I'll say this:

No (truly obedient, Christ-loving Christian) is going to kill someone over thier sexual preference. Jesus, nor Paul, nor anyone else commanded it.

That bit in the Old Testament has a very narrow scope, being confined to the tribe of Levite priests in one instance, and I beleive in another, to the people of Israel in general, in a time where reproductive and sexual purity may have been important to the preservation of the Israelites to accomplish God's will in that ancient time, as well as to be a "light for God to the Gentile Nations". At that time, the nations surrounding Israel (Edom, Philistia, various Hittite, Amorite, Amalekite and etc. groups) were in a state of extreme spiritual darkness, indulging in some heinous practices that would make the Folsom Street Fair look Baptist Revival Meeting. Things like passing thier firstborn children through fires to Molech, ritual pederasty and cultic prostitution, genital mutilations, and much more. Stuff that was so vile and detestable, that when records of it were discovered some 2800 years later, it made those archaeologists ill.

Hence God's command for the Israelites to wage war against those peoples; and since those peoples were destroyed long ages ago - while those commandments are not active and binding upon us as Christians today, they do serve to show us how God values sexual purity.

The Law (of Moses) along with the many sundry laws regarding sexual morality in the Old Testament are provided, according to Jesus, to show us that it is impossible for us mortal men to completely accomplish and live according to God's will.

Now, how do I (as someone who has previously identified as gay) reconcile that to God?

I cannot justify it - what I've done was wrong in God's sight. The very fact that He has made me aware of my sin, and opened up my long-unbelieving eyes to His grace and forgiveness, that He loved me enough to die for my sin...

...is enough for me (by His grace) to leave the former way of life which I had embraced.

Jesus is not concerned with who slept with who or why... He is concerned that we come to Him and receive the forgiveness for our sins (sexual and otherwise).

Once we accept His gift of forgiveness, then He starts His work of cleaning us up from the inside out.

seekeronos said...

that link was:


Mike said...

I know that "slippery slope fallacies" abound... but extending the politics of the LGBT movement to a grade school classroom by force of an activist judge's say-so?

The judge made a ruling because an "activist Christian" brought the case before him. Just because the decision goes against all your "faith" allows doesn't make him an "activist judge." The alleged Christians in this case were the ones at odds with prevailing sentiments in their community. They were trying to establish a sectarian Christian ethos onto a liberal school district that didn't want it. Lexington is home to Jews, Unitarians, Catholics and Asians with differing religious views than the Southern Baptist Convention that thinks its the official religion of the United States.

I'd comment on other parts of your post, but that would take six more pages.

Mike said...

Now, how do I (as someone who has previously identified as gay) reconcile that to God?

I cannot justify it - what I've done was wrong in God's sight. The very fact that He has made me aware of my sin, and opened up my long-unbelieving eyes to His grace and forgiveness, that He loved me enough to die for my sin...

...is enough for me (by His grace) to leave the former way of life which I had embraced.

So seekeronos, you're an "ex-gay" then? Is that what you're telling us?

Ed said...

One cannot be an ex-gay. There is no cure for being gay. From the religous point of view. It is NOT a sin to be gay. Proof? It is written: Jesus was tempted to sin in ALL ways that man is tempted to sin. You mean Jesus was tempted to have sex with another man? Or if it is not a sin then he was not tempted to have sex with a man. Which is it? More proof? Two men were laying in a bed and one was taken and the other left behind. If it was a sin they both would have been left behind. Also, the old testament laws were for the jewish people only and done away with after Jesus rose form the dead. Jesus said: Whosever will may come and drink of the water of life freely. He didn't say whoa not you gay guys. He also allowed John to call himself THE disciple whom Christ loved. Not worrying about shunning all appearances of evil. so Jesus didn't consider being gay evil or a sin. So relax. What about the so called Christians? It is written: Let God be true and every man a liar. So if God says I made these people gay then man cannot condemn them. Those who judge shall be judged. Those who are perfect can judge. Who is perfect among us? Jesus only and he said neither do I condemn thee. Live and let live. Love and do not hate. God is love. All you need is love. Love thy neighbor as thy self. Even thy gay neighbor. Greater love hath no man than this; that he would give his life for his friends. Anyone who says he loves God, and hates his fellow man is a liar. How can you love God who you have not seen if you hate man who you have seen?

Seeker Onos said...

Ed & Mike:

I would not consider myself to be "ex-gay" in the sense that it is something that I can turn on or off on a whim.

Nor do I take any stock in that "reparative therapy" or much of the other hocus-pocus used to supposedly "cure" gays.

"Being Gay" is not the thing which needs curing.

Rather, I am a sinner who has received God's grace which was toward the forgiveness of my sins - everything from stealing the 5 Deutschemark coin when I was a six year old boy (at the time, 5.- DM was enough for a bit of a daytrip around southern Germany on the bus/streetcar system, but I digress)... all the way to some other things I did which fall under the "old way of life" I was redeemed from.

Rather, I am convicted by God's Word and by His Holy Spirit which lives in me that sleeping around with other men is wrong.

Really, it is sin regardless of the gender of the person I am with, but since we are relating this to my former walk, I'll stress that God has shown me that erotic love between men is not in accordance with God's will.

Certainly, there can be love between men - and if I may narrowly skirt a pun here, some Greek is in order...

Unfortunately in English, we have only one word to describe the four words used in Greek to denote the variations of love.

They are:

"PHILEO" - or better rendered as "friendly affection"; this is typical of the strong bonds we might have with close friends and some family. It can also extend to loyalties to particular members of a community, such as the bond shared by soldiers in the same military unit, especially one in combat. Almost never used in the context of mate-pairing.

"STORGE" - or family love, especially parent-child relationships. Generally, it is restricted to this context.

"EROS" - as it implies, this is the more sensual/sexual aspect of love. The "love at first sight", or merely the physical attraction of that hottie you just saw. This is usually the start/basis of mate-pairing love.

"AGAPE" (pronounced ah-gah'-pey) is the the most altruistic, self-sacrficing form of love. It is the "love with which Jesus first loved us", and indeed it is the love that Christ had toward that particular "disciple" He loved.

Biblically, it is not used in any sexual sense. It is rather, a love that requires no return -- unconditional love.

The other forms require a mutual give-and-take to various degrees:

The "phileo" of soldiers or co-workers requires mutual acknowledgement and respect; two lovers in thier "eros" must have (at first) a mutual sexual attractiveness; over time, this may grow into both eros and "storge", the sort of thing where love is expressed by a mutual shared glance over a dinner.

The parent-child love might start out at first in a way that mimics "agape", but in practice, and over time, the parent will expect that the child return the parents' love through obedience and some degree of affection back.

But with God...

...if we step back to consider how truly vile we are as humans day-by-day in the sight of a pure, holy and perfectly righteous God...

...How else could He love us but with a perfect, unconditional, and sacrificial love?

A love that sent His only begotten Son, Jesus... to die a horribly painful death as the penalty for our sins.

Coming back to the item Ed mentioned about "one being taken away, and the other remaining" where two men are in bed....

.... this is at best a very weak "explanation" to try to write homosexuality into the Bible; in the Middle East, from ancient times even until today, it is not uncommon for two or more men to share a bed - particularly in the case where extended family members lived under one roof.

That parable however, has more to do with people who hear and submit to God's word vs. those who do not... and the way God shall judge people in the End.

(Personally, I do not believe in the "rapture", or at least as it is taught by many Christians who have taken a particular 18th century teaching and made into a dogma)

But in the end, what it comes down to what you choose to do with Jesus's Words -- if we hearken to them, and believe them, then we shall have life, as it is written: "Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" (Romans 10:17).

As I think I may have said earlier... salvation is not about "gay or not gay".

It is about being saved or unsaved.

God doesn't care about what you did in the past after He redeems us from every lawless deed; but He does call us to repentance.

For me, this meant leaving a lifestyle which was not pleasing to God.

tornwordo said...

Oh my god, chad's comment had me laughing so hard. I was literally crying. And then I kept giggling about it as I skimmed through the bs pissing contest which followed.

Chad said...

Glad to be of service!

ZFiasco said...

Can I be a gay man, please? Here's a peek at the daily lesbian schedule, according to the rad right:

6:30-7 am: Move cats off bed.
7 am - 8 am: Check rechargeable power tools; castrate neighbor with Makita saw.
8 am - 8:15 am: Beer for breakfast.
8:16-8:17 am: Smash breakfast can on head.
8:18-8:19 am: Beauty preparations for work (i.e., brush and/or insert teeth, comb mullet)
8:20 am: Rev up Harley and head to construction site.
9 am - 5 pm: Use pneumonic penis replacements at work; ogle straight girls.
5 pm - 5:30 pm: Remove unfiltered Camel from rolled-up plain flannel sleeves, light with Zippo, hand to unsuspecting underage girls walking by queer bar on way to Catechism.
5:30 pm - 9:30 pm: Play pool or, weather permitting, softball. Rant about men.
9:30 pm: Head home on Harley.
9:45 pm: Six pack of Bud for dinner, followed by either (a) anonymous sex or (b) no sex, ever.
10:00 pm: Feed cats. Recharge power tools, including giant dildo.