As someone who was raised as a staunch atheist, religion is confusing to me. I just don't get it. I fully agree with religious freedom, and believe that everyone should exercise their faith -- unless it infringes on the rights of others.

If Baptists believe (and they most certainly do) that homosexuality is a sin, that's fine. But part of their mission is to go out and minister to us and try to convert us to heterosexuality. This isn't just impossible -- it's an affront.

Personally, I find Landover Baptist absolutely hilarious. It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, only those denominations that take it upon themselves to transform society and government in such a way that people like me find it hard to live. They want homosexuality -- and hence, homosexuals -- to disappear. They deserve ribbing and worse for it.

Unitarians? No problem. MCC Churches? No problem. Episcopalians? Mostly okay. Catholic? Not on my list of favorites (vis-a-vis Bishops reading to congregations urging them to oppose gay marriage). Baptists? Assholes. If they want to believe that attempting to wipe out my way of life is "love", they can believe it. But I don't accept that. I don't accept them.

I think they'd get far less abuse if they'd just leave people alone.

This, of course, could turn into an argument of "Why do we have to have Pride parades then? Why can't they just leave people alone?" Well, for the most part we're not out to convert. Some small, highly-misguided souls think you can make straight people gay, but most of us know better. We're not saying, "Join us!" We're saying, "People have been trying to wipe us out for millennia, and we're still here!"

Christian persecution? Sure, it happens. But it happened when Christians were in power as well (witch trials, Inquisition, Crusades, etc.). Christianity is no better and no worse than other world religions when it comes to atrocities. Humans commit atrocities, and it doesn't matter what excuse they use: religion, ideology, or bare aggression.

Thanks Dean, you say it well.

Thanks, Dean.

John:

If Baptists believe (and they most certainly do) that homosexuality is a sin, that's fine.

"Baptists" believe all kinds of things. You're probably thinking of the Southern Baptists.

But part of their mission is to go out and minister to us and try to convert us to heterosexuality.

Also not true, either of "Baptists" or of Southern Baptists. Speaking strictly about the latter, many would be happy with celibacy, and I think few actually consider "heterosexual" conversion more important than, say, conversion to Christianity.

(I know, celibacy isn't much better. Still, inaccuracy is a major source of resentment.)

Personally, I find Landover Baptist absolutely hilarious. It isn't Christianity that I have a problem with, only those denominations that take it upon themselves to transform society and government in such a way that people like me find it hard to live.

Landover Baptist chides much more than attitudes towards homosexuality. Right now, for example, they describe "American Christian Heritage Month: The Lost Treasure of Slavery". Do you find that funny, too?

Christian persecution? Sure, it happens.

All of these crimes are serious, and deserve equal condemnation. No killings are stopped with a "sure, it happens" attitude, whether you're talking about Matthew Shepard or house churches in Saudi Arabia.

Horn-tooting time: I just finished writing an essay on divisions on my blog. Racism and sexism were the main motivators, but the argument applies equally well to this discussion. Who seeks to unite people, and who clings to their divisions?

I'll seek unity if you will, John. (Well, I'll do it anyway, but I can't be in solidarity with you if you don't want to be.)

Exactly right, Dean.

Calling someone a bigot is stereotyping them because of what they believe. Which makes anyone calling someone a bigot a bigot. Basically, everyone is a bigot. So what's the problem?

The dictionary defines "Bigot" as follows:

A person who regards his own faith and views in matters of religion as unquestionably right, and any belief or opinion opposed to or differing from them as unreasonable or wicked. In an extended sense, a person who is intolerant of opinions which conflict with his own, as in politics or morals; one obstinately and blindly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

If you're going to level this charge at someone, you've got to ask yourself if you're guilty of that which you accuse others of. I've asked myself that question many times in my life. I am not innocent of this sin.

I stand by my words here. Slander based on prejudice and ignorance is unacceptable, and rooted ultimately in bigotry.

Religion, which speaks to the human desire to become part of something larger than oneself, has been the source of much discord, and also of much that is very good.

In America, where religion is kept out of politics by custom and Constitutional constraint, the discord has been slight compared to the good works the religious have done. In other places and times, where churches have achieved temporal power, the ratio has been reversed. But the natures of the beliefs and churches involved have also been quite different.

Despite our supposed fidelity to "separation of church and state," we have not and will never achieve that condition. Many of the core beliefs that make a free society possible are religious in nature. For example: "thou shalt not kill" and "thou shalt not steal." There's no way to prove beyond all dispute that these rules are "right" in a factual sense. They arise from unprovable convictions about property rights and the worth of human life. However, the consensus around them, here in America at least, is very strong.

But let's imagine that the consensus around some other unprovable conviction were equally strong. How would we distinguish between the impermissibly religious and the tolerably secular, for the sake of maintaining our "separation of church and state"?

I mention this because many of the very same people who mercilessly deride Christians and other religious people for their beliefs are themselves members of churches, albeit not labeled thus, founded on equally unprovable propositions. The differences between them are:
-- the specific nature of the beliefs involved,
-- what those beliefs require of the believer,
-- what those beliefs demand of the non-believer.

Take any politically related word that ends with "ism" and study its connections. At its base you'll find beliefs about right and wrong, and about cause and effect, which the adherent must accept without requiring confirming evidence. That's the distinguishing mark of a faith.

Interestingly, some of those secular churches' core beliefs have been disproved, without reducing the loyalty of their adherents. That's the distinguishing mark of the fanatic. Some of the fanatics have adopted violence against others as the way to spread their faith.

By the way, I'm a Catholic, and I take it seriously. Yet I maintain that religious beliefs should be subjected to rigorous analysis, and the effects of their acceptance (or imposition by force) studied in an objective light. For a further rumination, go here.

I believe that the term "secular church" is a literal impossibility. I've been presented often with the argument that my personal philosophy, which involves no belief in a supernatural being or intelligent design, is a religion because I "believe" it, and belief requires faith.

This isn't the case. I have a skeptical view of philosophy: go with what you know, test it, and if it works, keep it. If it doesn't work, re-examine it. That isn't the same as adhering to a faith, even in the face of contrary evidence.

Regardless, the South Baptist convention recently adopted a resolution explicitly encouraging its "messengers" to try to lead homosexuals out of their lifestyle:

[quote]
A resolution approved by the 7,071 registered participants, known as messengers, from around the country called on Southern Baptists "not only to stand against same-sex unions, but to demonstrate our love for those practicing homosexuality by sharing with them the forgiving and transforming power of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

. . .

"We confront sinful behavior as Jesus did, lovingly and with compassion," the Rev. Joe Godfrey, president of the 1 million-member Alabama Baptist Convention and pastor of First Baptist Church of Pleasant Grove, said in an interview. "We want to pray for and minister to people caught up in that lifestyle."
[/quote]

That's a pretty clear message to me.

There is a difference between disapproving of something yet tolerating it (for instance, I disapprove of gambling but would never seek to make it illegal) and finding something so immoral that active steps must be taken to change it (for instance, I believe that physical abuse has no place in the home, because it harms children and families, and I support efforts to make it as rare as possible).

Southern Baptists and other anti-gay denominations have the right to do this within the context of their religion. However, attempting to influence legislation or other government regulations is tantamount to using the government as a weapon to infringe upon the rights of other citizens.

Homosexuality doesn't hurt people. Sexually-transmitted diseases do (gay and straight alike). Violence does (Matthew Shepherd was only one example of millions). Self-loathing does. Repressive legislation does (sodomy laws, for example).

I don't particularly want unity. Rather, I want good fences to make good neighbors. Don't want to be gay? Don't be gay. Don't want your kids to be gay? Give it a shot, but I'm afraid you probably won't be successful. I draw the line when people who don't know me, who aren't related to me, who have no stake in my life other than their religiously-informed picture of how the world should be, try to make the United States a country where I can't legally have a full life.

Am I bigoted against Southern Baptists, Pentacostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Catholics? I'll freely admit: I am to a degree. The gay issue is a make-or-break issue for me, much as abortion would be for some Americans. Do I laugh when I read Landover Baptist? Usually I smile and shake my head, because they're tapping into some very uncomfortable societal ideas that are -- from my own personal experiences with people -- quite alive and well. By bringing them out in such an unflattering light, they poke fun and inform.

Terrible? Shocking? Offensive? Certainly, to some people. Yet those ideas are real, and they're out there. I'm glad it exists as a reminder.

I've been to the Landover site once or twice and sometimes it makes me laugh. Mostly when the parody consists of taking an extreme political stance based on flimsy or even ridiculous theological assertions. (Jesus wants you to buy a Ford...)The humor lies in the excess, the exaggeration. I know it isn't true, but it's sometimes funny to push a belief to its extreme.

But one thing no one has mentioned is power. Parody, as a genre or art form, is about questioning the basis for power in a society. While the content may look the same, the argument goes (and I'm undecided about this one) that mocking the powerful is a political act, while mocking the "powerless" (a loaded word, but used for effect) is just plain bigotry. In a sense, Landover Baptist is an early warning system. When something is said that sounds like it came from Landover Baptist, but instead was said as though it were true, I sit up and go "Uh-oh!"

On the one hand,I want everyone to behave by the same standards of decency. On the other hand, I acknowledge a difference between blackface (which was used by the powerful to portray the oppressed in humiliating and degrading ways) and Landover, which pushes a set of beliefs (which hold great power in this society) to its logical extreme.

John - what you said.

"If you honestly believe that he is representative of any significant form of Christianity, you've got an ugliness in your soul that you ought to clean out."

Unfortunately, Dean, his viewpoint is shared by way more than 100 people. Pointing that out doesn't make my soul ugly, it just makes your argument slippery.

"many would be happy with celibacy, and I think few actually consider "heterosexual" conversion more important than, say, conversion to Christianity. (I know, celibacy isn't much better. Still, inaccuracy is a major source of resentment.)"

At this level of absurdity, inaccuracy is the least of it.

I read this kind of stuff from Orthodox Jews too - at least they believe in keeping as many of the mitzvot as possible, so they have some kind of consistency, unlike the Christian fundamentalists, who pull out one rule from Leviticus they don't like, and ignore the rest. (And even us Jews later ruled that stoning errant children was a no-no - the halachic rules for overturning Torah commandments are very convoluted and interesting: I attended a symposium in the Jewish Conservative movement on the halacha of gay ordination and marriage and it's an ongoing discussion I follow closely. As Orthodox feminist Blu Greenberg said of women's roles in Orthodox Judaism: "Where there's a rabbinic will, there's a halachic way.")

I have met some Christians who were clearly filled with God's spirit and we bonded very well, partly because they weren't trying to convert me, we were just sharing. Real Live Preacher is obviously a God-filled human being, for example. I look forward to meeting more Christians like him.

Yehudit: very good point about picking and choosing in the Old Testament by Christians. There's no condemnation of gays in the New Testament, and if they are gonna rely on the Old for justifying anti-gay activism, I wanna see 'em not eat pork, marry their brother's widow, and follow the whole package.

But no, let's just focus on this one little bit out of a whole suite of 'laws' that we still like.

From Mark 12:
29: And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
30: And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31: And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

I see no disclaimer in that about 'unless they are gay'.

Revsparker: Good point about power, I was just having thoughts parallel to yours while thinking about the last thread on these topics. Let's not forget, people, that the US is the most religious and 'Church Going' first world nation, by a long shot. Yes, the average income of gays is higher, but that's because they aren't distracted by raising children. In the aggregate, Christians and their values are the power base of this nation. Nothing wrong with that, but when you are on top, you ARE a justified target for parody: more so than otherwise by dint of your influence.

Ditto those who suggest that Christianity is a primary cause of wars and other horrors in human history.

It's not Christianity per se, but religion. And, to be clear, Communism and socialism are religions.

As for the Landover Baptist Church site, you need to understand that it is not Christianity per se that is being mocked, or even Southern Baptists. What is being mocked is groups that espouse the sort of trash that LBC presents with such a straight face.

David:

I always smile when I read the verse from Mark 12:29-30. Jesus's answer is the answer you would expect from a good Jewish boy -- he is quoting the Shema, perhaps THE single most important prayer in Judaism.

Dean:

While most Christians are accepted in America, church burnings and vandalism are still not unknown.

Furthermore, I increasingly see situations where Christians are sneered at in polite company, just for attesting to their faith.

That's a weird leap you're making there -- from arson to callous sophistication -- as though the two were somehow equivalent offenses against Christians.

They're not.

And for the record, I thought the "burning churches" thing was a phony campaign ploy from a previous Presidential election campaign.

Other than the infamous firebombing of that church in Alabama in the early 60's that killed the four little girls, I can't recall any other such incidents.

If Baptists believe (and they most certainly do) that homosexuality is a sin, that's fine. But part of their mission is to go out and minister to us and try to convert us to heterosexuality. This isn't just impossible -- it's an affront.

From the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 18:

Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

According to the UN, you're being affronted by others' exercising their rights, even while getting incensed because (you think) they're affronted by you exercising yours.

However, this doesn't mean I think we should shove our beliefs down the throats of those who don't want to listen; I'm a Baptist, and I firmly believe that if someone doesn't want to hear what I have to say, I'm better off not saying it. I respect their wish not to hear my beliefs (which is also a much better way of making them think I might be worth listening to someday).

Some Baptists forget that, and can be very obnoxious in their evangelism. However, without SOME loud voices, some people might never know that their behavior is questioned. Intellectually, don't we owe everyone the chance to KNOW that their behavior is questioned, so they can investigate and make a decision for themselves?

SFT

Ara: One of the other girls at that Church in Alabama was Condi Rice: her best friend was one of the 4 who died IIRC.

Mark 12:29-30 is the essence of what I feel to be of the most value in Christianity.

Gary: Good point, LBC is lambasting those who wouldn't think it's parody, but a clear expression of 'Good Values'.

Jeff, from way up earlier: I personally find, in light of the fact that the Southern Baptist schism was specifically over the doctrinal point of slavery remaining legal, "American Christian Heritage Month: The Lost Treasure of Slavery" to be a guy buster.

That is WHY there is a Southern Baptist Church in the first place. Do they still advocate it? Of course not, but maintaining slavery was their entire raison d'etre: maybe if more blacks knew that, they'd switch denominations.

I find it remarkable how willfully blind people can render themselves to unpleasant facts, if those facts would require them to take a "politically incorrect" position.

"Homosexuality doesn't hurt people." It is to laugh.

Homosexuals, most particularly male homosexuals, are grievously afflicted by their sexual practices. Oxford University's International Journal of Epidemiology (http://ije.oupjournals.org/cgi/reprint/26/3/657.pdf) published the following statistics for the Vancouver metropolitan area:

If gay and bisexual men are 3% of the Vancouver male populace, then, at age 20 their life expectancy is 34.0 more years.
If gay and bisexual men are 6% of the Vancouver male populace, then, at age 20 their life expectancy is 42.6 more years.
If gay and bisexual men are 9% of the Vancouver male populace, then, at age 20 their life expectancy is 46.0 more years.
For all men in the Vancouver area, at age 20 their life expectancy is 54.3 more years.

If these statistics are accurate, then homosexuality, expressed in a man's sexual behavior, hurts him grievously. Even if homosexuals are as much as 9% of the male population of Vancouver, they live an average of 8 years less than heterosexual men do. Since the most reliable estimates of the male homosexual fraction in America is about 2.8%, the far worse figure of 54 years' total longevity -- a 20-year deficit in comparison to their heterosexual counterparts -- is more likely to be the correct one.

This has nothing to do with religious belief. It's about lifespan and the things we can do that would affect it.

If I had a son -- I don't -- and if he showed some inclination to experiment with homosexuality, I would regard it as my parental duty to discourage him. It would be for the sake of his life, not his soul. If I knew a homosexual who proselytized sexually to young boys and young men, I would regard it as my duty to oppose him with all the logic and evidence at my command.

Anyone who thinks there's no objective penalty for homosexuality is simply kidding himself. Yes, it's incumbent upon us all to exercise tolerance. If an adult wants to pursue some self-destructive course, and he hasn't been coerced or defrauded into doing so, it's his right. But this isn't about tolerance; it's about hard data.

There's no condemnation of gays in the New Testament, and if they are gonna rely on the Old for justifying anti-gay activism, I wanna see 'em not eat pork, marry their brother's widow, and follow the whole package.

Romans 1:26-27: "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.

Clearly, out of all of the writers of the Bible, Paul is of course the one we should most heed:

1 Timothy: 11: Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12: But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

[/dripping sarcasm]

Francis: correlation is not causation. Yes, I went to site you offered and waited for Acrobat to open it up. Not much to my surprise, you misrepresented the focus of the article. The factor that led to the death of these men immediately was HIV-caused disease. How do I know? The title of the article, for one thing: "Modelling the Impact of HIV Disease on Gay and Bisexual Men." Heterosexual people can get AIDs too, and they can get it from having sex.

The fact is, it's not the condition of being gay itself that shortens life. Would you be okay with your kid "experimenting" with sleeping around with many women (what was cutely known as "sowing wild oats") and then coming down with AIDs because one of the women he slept with had caught AIDs from sleeping with, say, a heroin addict who had been in the habit of sharing needles?

What you want to discourage, to beat a dead horse, is unsafe sex. If your son turned out to be gay, "discouraging" him from it wouldn't do a damn thing except drive him from your household. What you should hope for (and try to teach him) is that he practice safe or no sex until he finds a permanent partner.

And thanks for bringing up the old pedophilia canard. The majority of gay people are like most heterosexual people -- they aren't sexually attracted to children, they aren't fulfilled by anonymous one-night stands, and they want a long-term relationship with someone in their own peer group who loves them.

And Bryan, for as much as I respect the heritage Western Civilization has from Christianity, I will break with its adherents on issues such as this. I don't care what they thought about gays (or women, or eating pork, or whatever) two thousand years ago. You call it cherry-picking -- well fine, I don't have to eat the rotten cherries as well as the good, do I?

Heh, David, I started writing before your post appeared.

And whoops, Bryan wasn't the one calling it "cherry picking." In any case, I certainly hope that modern religious people "cherry pick" among the rules of their faiths, considering what following many of the old rules in what was thought to be "proper" way led to.

David, you're correct in saying that the Southern Baptist Convention supported slavery -- a point you've made in two threads thus far -- but as for whether that fact of history should cause African-Americans to leave the church (bear in mind that not all churches which call themselves "Southern Baptist" follow the edicts of the convention), you're also leaving out the fact that the SBC apologized for their role in supporting slavery in 1995, and that the convention has tried outreach to African-Americans since the 1980s, albeit with mixed success.

But the subtext of your point about the schism, which is that all Southern Baptists are racist because their heritage is racist, ignores the reality of a religious sect that is rapidly growing among Latinos here in the US and Asians and Africans abroad. And if heritage trumps all, you should find it ironic that African-Americans claim membership in the Democratic Party, yes?

Massively unworthy of you, Andrea. It casts doubt on your willingness to face an unpleasant fact.

Yes, the article I cited was primarily concerned with HIV / AIDS. Yet you'll notice that the table I culled does not restrict itself solely to gay men who've contracted AIDS. It compares all gay men in Vancouver to the general male population. So it is you who's misrepresenting the article, not I.

Quite obviously, AIDS is a serious, radically life-shortening affliction. Equally obviously, it's an affliction which disproportionately strikes male homosexuals. Apparently there are other, less serious physical problems that gay men suffer disproportionately as well. A survey of over 6700 obituaries drawn from gay publications over a 12 year period, published in 1993, resulted in a median age at death for male homosexuals of 42. Now, this is a statistic whose full significance is open to challenge, since not all gay men will have their deaths reported in gay-oriented periodicals. Nevertheless, it suggests that there's something very risky about the gay lifestyle.

Now, as to the "old pedophilia canard": this is especially unworthy of you. Indeed, it verges on slander, and I resent it bitterly. From the following statement:

"If I knew a homosexual who proselytized sexually to young boys and young men, I would regard it as my duty to oppose him with all the logic and evidence at my command."

...you inferred, most rashly and erroneously, that I regard all homosexuals as pederasts. I don't. It says a lot about your prejudices that you were so ready to jump to that conclusion.

In the future, perhaps you won't be so quick to put words in other people's mouths.

Matthew, yes, I find that bit about the Democrats ironic in the extreme.

Oh, the SBC appologized in 1995??? Took them HOW LONG to figure out that they'd pulled a boner and admit it? 130+ years?

Didn't take Nixon that long to say 'sorry'. Probably will take that long for the Clintons though.

It was precisely 150 years, actually; it was a formal apology to fully make amends on the SBC's 150th anniversary.

SBC resolutions condemning racism were made as far back as 1938, with the first resolution dedicated to the issue passed in May 1939.

Francis, there are problems with the data in that study:

1. It only dealt with Vancouver, a metropolitan area with a disproportionately-high population of openly gay men in an urban gay setting:

This urban centre, part of the third largest metropolitan population in Canada, was selected because it is known to have a large gay and bisexual population and one of the highest rates of HIV/AIDS mortality of any Canadian city.

2. It only dealt with openly gay men, i.e., men who would self-identify as gay for the purposes of the study.

Gay and bisexual men in an urban setting, much like heterosexuals, are more likely to have multiple partners, to engage in unsafe sex, etc., because of the urban version of the [laughably-titled] "gay lifestyle". Also, in an urban setting, gay and bisexual men are more likely to admit to being gay/bisexual, whereas in suburban and rural areas, more men are in the closet and would not participate in such a study.

Even in cities, the closet is prevalent, making it difficult to gather empirical data.

But I'm not going to argue studies with you, becuase your beliefs seem fixed, and you're only interested in studies that support your ideas. True, HIV/AIDS does affect gay men disproportionately -- but it's unprotected sex and not being gay that causes it. How else explain Africa?

As someone who came out early, I know it's hard for parents to deal with a gay teen. But you can't discourage it. It won't work. At best a child will marry heterosexually, only to cheat or divorce later -- else live a life of self-treason and misery difficult for any heterosexual to comprehend.

I know there are Christians out there who accept me and respect my committed relationship. I just want the government to do the same, so I can live a safe, secure life with my partner -- hospital visitation, inheritance, legal protections. I am willing to allow anyone their religious beliefs and their lifestyle (disagree with them as I may), as long as they don't try to take away mine.

Andrea and David,

For the most part, I have attempted to stay out of the debate except to correct glaring errors in fact. That is the reason I made the post above, because it was David who made the blanket statement:

There's no condemnation of gays in the New Testament, and if they are gonna rely on the Old for justifying anti-gay activism, I wanna see 'em not eat pork, marry their brother's widow, and follow the whole package.

If you're going to address the New Testament, at least address it accurately. Dripping sarcasm proves *nothing* when you make baseless claims about the material you are discussing (compare comments in this thread re: Jesus' words in red).

Furthermore, a roundabout address of homosexuality would be found in the New Testament commands for committed, monogamous, one man-one woman marriage (something that Jesus did address, as well as Paul). If any sexual relations outside of a monogamous marriage are considered immoral -- which would seem to be the case from Matthew 5:27-28 (sermon on the mount); Mark 10:5-9 (jesus teaches about divorce); acts 15:29 (instructions to Gentile believers); sections of the Pauline letters; and 2 Peter -- then the N.T. clearly discourages homosexual behavior as much as heterosexual behavior outside this commitment.

Now, agree or disagree, you can't just wash that away with blanket assertions.

Francis, I so did not misrepresent your words. They are right there for anyone to read. Just what "unpleasant fact" am I avoiding? And you know what you can do with your charge of me being prejudiced. That takes some gall after the things you just wrote, which everyone can read right here.

Then again, maybe I am prejudiced. Against bigots. And people who try to twist my words. Call me intolerant then.

Ok then, I'll just come out and say what I really feel, which is this: ALL organized religion is primarily a tool of power and social control, used for directing the masses and keeping them complacent.

And that goes for Christians, Muslims, Jews, Shinto, Buddhists, etc.

Everything you believe, is one more thing you don't need to think about.

It is inimical to free thought and liberty.

Rather than admit your false "beliefs" about christian sacred texts and that your "knowledge" might be less than full regarding these things, you resort to an end-game. "I'll just take my ball and go home."

I find that people who misquote sacred texts before actually attempting to understand them, use those texts to further their agenda, and then mock people who point out the utter incompetence of their understanding to be highly inimical to free thought as well. I certainly hope your kind of "free thought and liberty" isn't spreading anymore than that of the reconstructionists (look it up).

Do you *believe* that "ALL organized religion is primarily a tool of power and social control, used for directing the masses and keeping them complacent"? I guess that's one more thing you don't need to think about, either.

Wow. Go have a real life for awhile, and look what happens. More later, perhaps, but I did want to say this:

John:

I hadn't heard about that SBC statement, though I probably should have. That's too bad for the SBC. I believe that the Christian message should be first and foremost about Christ, and not whatever sin is hot this month.

Regardless, I share your disagreement with it.

David:

ALL organized religion is primarily a tool of power and social control, used for directing the masses and keeping them complacent.

Hmm. Everyone has their own dogma, I guess.

It does explain a lot of your posts, though.

ALL organized religion is primarily a tool of power and social control, used for directing the masses and keeping them complacent.

Welllll, that's one way to look at it. Of course, I could make exactly the same statement about government of any kind, and for that matter, I could make the same statement about CULTURE, ethics, morals and the Boy Scout Creed. And in all cases, it would be as accurate, and irrelevant, as your statement.

The human race is predisposed to "religious" behaviour. People want to believe in something intangible, whether it is God, UFOs, or Marxism. People WANT to get together in groups to pursue a common goal, whether it is winning a bowling trophy or entry to an afterlife.

Religion is part of being human.. Religions (including government) prescribe methods of dealing with various problems, and, unfortunately, an awful lot of people view homosexuals as a problem. Church rules, or government regulations don't treat homosexuals as a problem because GOD SAYS SO, but because THE PEOPLE say so. Sometimes they turn to God, or the Bible, for an excuse to justify thier hate. Sometimes they turn to statistics about fags in Vancouver.

But it's not the religion that is at fault, it is the humanity. Another part of being human is GENETIC predisposition to view those who are "not like us" (not members of OUR tribe) as different and potentially dangerous. THIS is what drives bigotry of all kinds, whether it be against people with lighter skin than our own, or those whose sexual preferences are more enlightened than our own, or just Democrats.

Hate is instinct. If you want to be ruled by your instinct, to be no better than a chimp, go right ahead.

Sidebar:

If I run across the link again, I'll come back and post it here. Meanwhile, recent results from the Human Genome project have shown that men are more closely related, genetically, to male chimpanzees, than they are to women. Women are more closely related to female chimpanzees than they are to men.

Homosexuals are dating within thier species, the rest of you are practicing rishathra.

Gary, I think your perspective about humans as a species is spot-on (i.e., subject to species-level behavior like competition over resources, social hierarchies, group vs. group dynamics), but as a life-long homosexual (there's no other kind, I'm afraid) I don't think it's any more enlightened than heterosexuality. There are only two differences between heterosexuals and homosexuals: most heterosexuals can breed without assistance, and there are more of them. Apart from that, our lives, tendencies, geography and relationships are strikingly similar.

Unless a strong genetic component of homosexuality is discovered, I'm still happy with the idea that we're all one species. However, within our species, there are those who would use whatever texts available (Bible, Torah, what have you) to justify their belief that X tribe is a threat and needs to be wiped out. It's an intrinsic part of our deepest reptilian brains: aggression and dominance.

If only we could come to a more enlightened agreement on what really does comprise a threat to humanity -- or on what humanity is in the first place.

To disagree with John (well actually I disagree a lot with John, but I want to bring this one area up):

I do not believe that Bible, Torah, or holy books are very often used, at all, to justify the belief that X group needs to be wiped out. In fact, I think that it is an extraordinarily common historical ignorance that leads people to believe such things.

At least so far as the Bible and the Torah goes, if you look at the last 5,000 years of human history, it is in fact quite rare for people to be killed over those texts or anything that's in them. If you look at the histories of one people wiping out another, or one group being repressed over another, holy books and religions are one of the less common excuses used for such things.

The most common excuses usually involve the quest for power, or the quest for resources, or the quest for status.

Yes, there are stories of cases where the Catholic Church, in its 2,000 year history, became oppressive and warlike. But for the majority of its history it was not like that, and it is no longer like that. And when was it repressive? Well, basically, when it was being run as a politically powerful ruling force, like a government. And thus it was acting just like any other powerful political entity did when its power was in any way threatened: with violence. That was a cause of much of the war in Europe for a couple of hundred years.

It happens to be the case that rigidly secular governments in the 20th century killed far more people than Christians did. Those killings were over insane ideologies, or over what has easily been the most typical cause of such things: the quest for power.

Probably the #1 myth that I would like to dispel in this country today is that religion itself is or ever has been the primary cause of oppression in humanity. This is baloney. It's particularly baloney in the case of Christianity. That so many people accept assertions to the contrary in an unthinking, reflexive way, speaks very poorly of our educational system today. It is not the case that religion is a primary cause of human oppression, at all. It has been, in some times and places, and some religions more than other. But the real cause has far more often been the same: the quest for power.

The question becomes, where is the separation between religion and the quest for power? Individually, spirituality (as well as other non-religious belief systems) is a means to navigate life, to make decisions, to sustain hope and optimism, sometimes in the absence of all evidence. On a community level, religion is a shared system of belief, passed down with various traditions, from generation to generation. Here the repressive element comes in: straying from one's familial religion is often a difficult thing to do, resulting in outcomes ranging from disappointment to exile. I'd rather have my partner's Catholic family know that I'm a gay guy than an atheist. On a societal level, organized religion can become repressive in two main ways:

1. Peer pressure for/against various life choices that may conflict with individual beliefs / needs;

2. Political pressure through the pursual of legislation that would codify behavioral proscriptions specific to a religion.

When an individual chooses to live by a set of values, those values can be balanced against the rights of others, and a civil society can result. An individual's freedom of religion may not infringe upon the liberties of another. A religion's freedom to exist may not infringe upon any other religion's freedom to exist, or with any individual's right to exist.

Nowhere do I say that religion is the only force of repression in society. Repression can happen politically and economically as well -- for instance, totalitarian regimes and government-controlled economies that reward class, ideology or religion instead of supply or demand.

But religion has been the source of repression, and it is still a source of repression, wherever religion is not constitutionally separated from government. Does this mean religion is evil? I don't believe so. I don't believe religion is evil, though I reject the notion of divine intervention or any other mystical beliefs. I think that the quest for power over others is evil, and I believe that organized religions as organizations engage in this type of behavior just like any other organization does in a permissive environment.

Which is where my question pops up again: what is the difference between a religious organization attempting to legally proscribe behaviors they find morally objectionable and any other corporation / government / militia attempting to use the apparatus of government to repress expression / behaviors / identities they disagree with?

I think you're talking about spirituality on the personal level, something I have no problem with. I'm talking about organized religions, which take on many of the characteristics of governments, corporations and other organizations.

Make no mistake: I am not pro-religion. But I don't want to outlaw it. Many religions are anti-gay, and want to outlaw it. I see a clear difference between my own strong ideas, tempered by liberalism, and anti-gay religious beliefs, stoked by fanaticism.

I repeat something I said earlier: as far as tools of serious repression go, religion is generally the least common one, not the most common, throughout history.

It should also be said: many, many of the values we hold dear spring from religious traditions. Including the equality of different people, civil rights, ending slavery, ending racism--these, too, are all cases where religiouis groups imposed their will on others, for the good. Most of our rules against murder and rape and theft also come from religious origins. Indeed, I would suggest that without religion, most of these things would have taken much longer for humanity to develop. Indeed, without the intervention of Christianity in particular into Western politics, slavery might still be with us, and the Civil Rights movement of the 1950s might well never have happened at all.

This fear of religion is counterproductive, and the source of too much paranoia and prejudice. The question should not go toward religion being involved in politics. In any free democratic society, religion will always be involved in politics. Which is exactly as it should be, because anything else would be repressive and anti-democratic.

The question, therefore, is, how do we bring about civil discourse in a free and liberal society, finding compromises that everyone can live with?

Righteous rage brought the gay community a far way, but there comes a point where it becomes counterproductive. Indeed, I would suggest that we have already reached that point. Angry name-calling, in my experience, goes a lot less far with those "Baptist assholes" you have so much contempt for than reasoned arguments and civility do.

Try starting with this: "Okay, you think I'm a sinner. But will you believe me if I tell you I don't want to convert your children, and that all I want to do is live my life unmolested? I can live with that if you can."

I never said that religion was the most or least common form of repression historically. I know you're drawing from other sources; but it would be inaccurate to say I'm one of them.

I don't deny that historically, religions have been a source of many values that liberals hold dear: equality, civility, freedom from rape, murder, theft, etc. But -- at the risk of sounding flip -- so what? It's true, and it's a good thing, but from my perspective, it doesn't make religion any better or any worse, and does not engender any feelings of gratitude or reverence. Religion is a tool, like a screwdriver: you can use it to fix a light fixture or you can stab someone in the head with it. It all depends on who's holding it.

As I've said before: I don't want to bring Southern Baptists or any other anti-gay denomination over to my side. I simply want to live my life, as you say, unmolested. It is difficult -- unproductive, in fact -- to attempt dialogue with someone who has hardened his/her heart, who have latched onto their version of truth and are not interested in letting go. These are people who know gay marriage exists, who know gay people are born into every conceivable type of family, who know the pain of discrimination and lonliness and rejection, but who won't budge and even dignify our existence.

Let me say good things about religious people: Unitarians are fantastic -- easygoing, live-and-let-live, non-judgmental. Many Episcopalians and Orthodox Christians I've met are similarly liberal with their tolerance. Even some Catholics have grown beyond the dogma of the church they were born into and recognize the steps America has yet to take in recognizing the full citizenship of gay Americans.

There are lots of people on board. Churches are becoming part of the solution. Religion is on our side as well as against us, just like America is.

But I'm not interested in starting a dialogue with Southern Baptists. Civility? They have shown none. They have made very clear what their intentions are.

It's not like I spend my time ridiculing them. If they'd just leave us alone, I think they'd be better treated in gay circles. Do black people need to start a civil dialogue with the KKK? Why dignify beliefs that are patently ridiculous?

Healing can only come after peace. Southern Baptists and their ilk have been engaged in an active war against gay Americans for years. They need to stop. Then we'll talk civility.

Actually, a number of them have made efforts to show civility, John--even the most hated among them, Jerry Falwell, has at least tried. Your prejudices are getting in your way methinks. Gay marriage is still opposed by a majority of Americans, and you're not going to get anywhere comparing some religious groups who disagree with you on this issue to the KKK.

When you say that it is unproductive to try dialogue with someone who's hardened his heart, the fact is that you seem like you're talking about yourself more than anyone.

I think that moniker easily goes both ways, between we who villify anti-gay Christians and the anti-gay Christians who villify us.

To give you insight into the emotional aspects of the dynamic, imagine you've been beaten by a parent your whole life -- or verbally and emotionally abused at the very least. Your self-esteem, your identity, your very existence is something you've had to fight for your entire life. Every action was questioned, every atribute was criticized; no opportunity to undermine your feelings and aspirations was passed up.

This isn't hyperbole -- it's how some people grew up.

Upbringings like this tend to create a lot of hostility toward the abuser on the part of the abused. Hatred, anger, frustration, betrayal -- it's a real miasma of negative feeling.

This is how I feel toward anti-gay Christians. They talk about the perverted gay lifestyle, how we spread disease and threaten the stability of the country, how we victimize the young and attempt to recruit others into our ranks. From your perspective, these are a vocal minority of Christians, distasteful but not representative of the faith. It's very much the same way I feel toward, say, NAMBLA. They have a extreme viewpoint that doesn't represent the mainstream of gay experience.

Could there be a civil dialogue with NAMBLA?

Nowhere have I said that all religion is bad, or that all Christians are anti-gay, or that all Christians think the way Jerry Falwell thinks. (I don't agree with you that he's reaching out to us. He's only reaching out to us to lead us away from our "lifestyle". He likens our affections to alcoholism. This is not a style of reaching out I think most gay people are interested in.) There are billions of religious people who exercise their faiths without trying to take away my liberties. My only qualm is with the minority you speak of -- except that they aren't a minority.

As you said, the majority of the nation doesn't believe that same-sex couples should be allowed to marry. However, my concern is not with the majority. It's with what's right, and the right thing to do in a country like ours would be to allow same-sex couples to marry, regardless of popular sentiment. The majority in this issue are a tyranny, and while we can continue to make our case (and we are), and while we will need to persuade the majority to attain our goals, in reality the majority have no right to dictate the terms of marriage to us. It's in their power to do so, but it isn't their right to do so. It isn't just.

You're right -- there's anti-Christian sentiment in this country. I think it's a cultural backlash against the Moral Majority and that period in our history when conservative Christians attempted to take over the cultural agenda of the country. Understandably, some of us felt threatened by that, and we still do.

I must respectfully say that while you're right that I have strong feelings and prejudices in this matter -- being an atheist to whom beliefs based on sacred texts are incomprehensible, and being of the opinion that homosexuality is in no way immoral and that gay marriage is a right we are being forcibly denied in this country -- you also have prejudices regarding this issue. It seems like your experience with anti-Christian sentiment puts you in the position where we are the attackers and you are the defenders.

It's frighteningly like Israel and Palestine, where who started it scarcely matters anymore.

I'm sure that most Southern Baptists and other anti-gay Christians honestly want to reach out to me with compassion and love. However, I have no interest in them. I only have interest in living my life without hindrance from people who, for religious reasons, seek to deny me my rights.

That does not require any dialogue whatsoever. It just means they have to stop trying to make my identity, my relationship, and my family illegal.

Touching on your point re: religious participation in government. I believe that, of course, religious persons should participate in government, just like all Americans should, without hindrance. However, when we come to a point where governmental laws cater to specific religious causes and work against others, that's cause for concern. Government must not interfere with religion, but it must not fund it, either. Faith-based initiatives, abortion and sodomy laws, and any government-led religious activities in schools are examples of such a breach.

The reason that I liken Southern Baptists regarding gay Americans to the KKK regarding race is simple: the KKK wanted to maintain the supremacy of white people (whatever that means), and Southern Baptists want to maintain the supremacy of heterosexuals. The KKK wanted to keep non-whites "in their place". The same is true for Southern Baptists.

If your deepest assumption is that being gay is wrong, then any discouragement of homosexuality will seem reasonable. If your deepest assumption is that being gay is right, then any discouragement of homosexuality will seem monstrous.

My question in a "civil dialogue" with an anti-gay Christian would be, "If I honor and respect your right to have your opinion on homosexuality, to live by it in your home life, and to express it, would you respect my right to get married anyway?"

If your deepest assumption is that being gay is right, then any discouragement of homosexuality will seem monstrous.

If who you're sexually attracted to is the "deepest" anything in your life, then whether you're straight or gay, you have a bit of a fixation problem.

This is part of the problem in the dialogue; many homosexuals assume we esteem sexual feelings as much as they do. I had a conversation with a homosexual once who got furious at me, because he said hating homosexual behavior was the same as hating him. That's not the case; I don't see his sexual behavior or feelings as the epitome of his existence, or mine, or anyone else's. Many Baptists feel the same, and that's why they feel like they should be able to criticize homosexuality. Homosexuals who think we hate who they are only think so because they esteem sexual feelings more than we do, and they should at least acknowledge that from our perspective, sexuality ain't everything.

The problem of rights---inheritance, hospital visitation, what have you---is also a pride problem on the parts of both parties, involving the word "marriage." Now, I don't think any Christian is going to say that a homosexual should be barred from visiting his partner in the hospital, even if he disapproves of the partnership. But use the word "marriage" and it's a whole new ballgame, because we believe marriage is something deeper than just a guy and a girl who love each other. If that were the whole definition of marriage, it wouldn't be a problem with us. But to us, marriage directly and practically involves Jesus and our relationships with him (in ways I won't bother to ramble about). I daresay most homosexual "marriages" don't have that aspect.

The problem is that "marriage" is used with all shades of these varying definitions. For, say, inheritance or hospital visitation, the "two people who love each other" brand of marriage should be quite sufficient. For adopting and raising children, we Christians would say that that definition of marriage would not suffice.

So we can do one of two things---get over our pride, let homosexuals use "marriage" and then have arguments over which definitions apply to which rights. OR, ask homosexuals to get over their pride, use a term other than marriage, and then decide which rights need to have terminology adjustments.

Either way brings up more arguments, but at least they're arguments about the problem instead of the word.

SFT

Follow-up: I did mean to mention that there are many Christians, Baptists included, who DO esteem sexual feelings too much. I don't think Jerry Falwell et al are among them, though. But yeah, many Christians do have sexual fixation problems, and Christians do just as good a job of cheapening the word "marriage" as anyone else. That's why my choice is probably to let homosexuals use the word and sort the rest out later.

I don't even care that much about gay marriage, being bisexual and engaged to a woman.

I don't even care if most of the people in this world believe in silly fairy tales, that's their right. I can't recall one instance in my life where I've ridiculed a religious person for their beliefs where I initiated the topic, and the exchange.

But when they stand on the street corner screaming that I'm going to hell, or that the woman I'm walking with is a whore, or that I'll get re-incarnated as a snail, etc. I'm gonna give them a piece of my mind, and have.

I don't go stand by Churchs calling folks nasty names: but try getting in or out of a gay bar when there's a rally trying to 'save' you.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Forcibly doing good to someone is one of the most insidious things there is.

The Vatican glossary defines gays as being "without any social value." Unlike Fred Phelps, the Pope has a congregation of approximately one billion people.

I don't how me telling religious people they're wrong is any more "baiting" than you telling your racist and homophobic friends that they're wrong.

It's perfectly insulting for you to compare my atheism with a bunch of false, superstitious, sky-god babytalk beliefs. It's like comparing astronomy to astrology. They aren't remotely on the same plane.

You simply haven't examined atheism in the way that I have examined theism. You're the one who's prejudging things.

You're the bigot.

John,

as a life-long homosexual (there's no other kind, I'm afraid) I don't think it's any more enlightened than heterosexuality.

Sorry, that remark was a reference to my earlier post (perhaps I said it in the other homosexuality thread) in which I said that both homosexuals and heterosexuals were bigots and that BIsexuals are the only rational ones. "Enlightened", as it were, to the idea that sex doesn't need to be related to gender.

The Vatican glossary defines gays as being "without any social value." Unlike Fred Phelps, the Pope has a congregation of approximately one billion people.

Most of whom don't pay any particular attention to him. Especially in THIS country, where the average Catholic uses birth control, divorce lawyers, and sometimes, even abortionists. (And where way too many priests violate thier vows of celibacy on a routine basis.)

The Pope doesn't have much of a grip on America, and no one really cares what he thinks about gays. Worldwide, I doubt that there are very many people who look to the Pope to make decisions for them.

Another point....

If you hate all Southern Baptists, or Catholics, or what have you, because SOME of them advocate cooking fags over a low fire, you're no better than they are.

NO religion is monolithic, and certainly not Christianity, which comes in so many flavors I can't begin to name them all (even with help from Google).

If you want to hate the guy on the corner who says you'll burn in hell, go ahead. But you're wasting time and energy on someone of no consequence.

You've all heard the statistic that 50% of the population is of below average intelligence. The guy on the corner is a prime example. Don't be a statistic yourself.

Actually Gary, I'm in the top 1/1000 of a percent, which is probably why I see most religion as soothing fairly tales. But hey, TV is much better at sheep herding than religion ever was.

Not that the workers paradise fairly tale pimped out by the misled followers of Marx is much better, it's arguably much worse.

Oh, and "CULTURE, ethics, morals and the Boy Scout Creed" aren't generally in the business of telling the ignorant that "you'll do what we say is right, else SUFFER ETERNALLY!" and beat that into people's heads with appeals to authority.

I'm sure the point that religion is a voluntary association, but whatever faith you're born into WILL generally attempt to coercively program you, typically through your parents, often with them exacting petty, arbitrary pain under the flag of 'sin'.

When except for a very few universals (don't murder, rape, steal or lie), it's all arbitrary social programming. Beyond those few values above, I view most attempts at social control, and most especially organized religious control, as perverse power plays.

Can I get a link to that Vatican Glossary? Because I'm a cradle Catholic who's never heard of such a thing. Do you mean the Catechism? Yes, Church teaching calls homosexuality "disordered" in the sense that it is "not normal" ie, "not the statistical norm". Did you mean to say that? Because, again, the "no social value" 'teaching' is new to me.

Kathy, Here's a link to a story in the Guardian about it back in April.

Click here for google's results of a search on it, which is how I found the above story just now.

I'm a bit skeptical of the story and the existance of the "glossary" without more proof than a story. Considering the paper of record can't it's crap straight - how do we know the Guardian can? Any other proof besides a news story?

I'm a Catholic and I've never heard of this - and I'm pretty well read...

David:

With an I.Q of 183 - do I rank up there with you? ;-)

I wanted to respond to SFT's comments about "sexual feelings". I think there's a misconception among some people that homosexuality (yes, "sex" is in the word) is only about sexual feelings and that we equate sexual feelings with our identity. This isn't wholly accurate.

While gay people do have a physical attraction toward some members of their own sex, that's only the tip of the iceberg. The identity part of my "gayness" doesn't involve what sexual behaviors I want to engage in. It involves who I feel affection for, emotional attachment to, with whom I share deep and lasting commitment. I call being ay an identity because it influences who I will want to spend my life with, make a home with, perhaps even raise children wtih.

The sting of disapproval has nothing to do with my sexual proclivities. It has to do with my relationship, my partner, my family. When an anti-gay Christians says that they disapprove of my sinful behavior, but not of me as a person, what I hear is that my relationship is reduced to sinful sexual behavior, that my partner becomes a depraved act, that my family is invalid.

If I said to, say, Jerry Falwall, "Your marriage is immoral and against the will of my [hypothetical] God, but I still love you as a brother" would he not have the right to feel indignant that I was essentially devaluing the fundamental relationship in his life, something that was a holy covenant for him?

Food for thought.

Yes Rosemary, you're up in the thin air of the top 1/1000 of a percentile.

Congratulations!

As seems to be the case from your postings here, you seem to have had an interesting life so far, which is about all that can be said with any certainty of those of us gifted/cursed with such.

Isn't life maddeningly beautiful?

Hmm. If anyone had actually looked at a few of those links in the Google search, they would have found one with a rebuttal. According to at least one person, homosexual acts are what have no redeeming social value. Which, if you think about it, is entirely consistent with a belief in the sinfulness of homosexual acts.

So, it might behoove people to fact-check that quote before using it, no matter how much of an elite you think your IQ makes you.

Anyone got a copy of this dictionary we can check? We need an official English version; the Guardian article seems to rely on an unofficial English translation of unknown provenance from an Italian original.

Actually Gary, I'm in the top 1/1000 of a percent, which is probably why I see most religion as soothing fairly tales.

Not far enough above me to matter then. But I see something more in religion that soothing fairy tales. (And you could too, if your mind weren't already made up.)

Oh, and "CULTURE, ethics, morals and the Boy Scout Creed" aren't generally in the business of telling the ignorant that "you'll do what we say is right, else SUFFER ETERNALLY!" and beat that into people's heads with appeals to authority.

Neither are churches, generally. There are certainly exceptions, but there are exceptions in the others too. CULTURE is certainly a powerful force in telling people what is right and wrong, and being a cultural leader is certainly a route to power (ask Marth Stewart). Ethics likewise have power to direct people, as to moral codes, and the Boy Scout Code. And if disobeying the Boy Scout Code will not send you the HELL, it will certainly send you out of the group, and a great many youth think being an outcast is hell on earth. The same applies to those who are cultural, ethical, or moral outcasts.

The majority of the people who take eternal damnation seriously are from below the 50th percentile. Religion had more power in historical times, but so did fraternal orders like the Masons and the Moose and Elk and Oddfellows.

Religion, ANY religion is just another form of fraternal order, more effective in that it offers more answers to more mysteries, but it is a matter of degree, not a matter of kind.

I'm sure the point that religion is a voluntary association...

That may be your point, it is certainly not mine.

but whatever faith you're born into WILL generally attempt to coercively program you, typically through your parents, often with them exacting petty, arbitrary pain under the flag of 'sin'.

That turns out not to be the case. You may be in the top 1/1000 of a percentile, but you're still clearly capable of prejudice if you really BELIEVE that.

When except for a very few universals (don't murder, rape, steal or lie), it's all arbitrary social programming. Beyond those few values above, I view most attempts at social control, and most especially organized religious control, as perverse power plays.

Pshaw! Some people seek power, some don't. WHERE they seek power is circumstantial. One may seek power through government, another through charitable organizations (Red Cross, etc), another through the corporate world. Seeking power is a perfectly normal and natural human activity, and religion is just one more venue where power may be sought, gained, exercised, refined and HELD.

The power of the Archbishop of New York is much less than that of the Mayor of New York, and I would argue that it is less perverse. The Governor of New York controls more money, and has more employees and a hell of a lot more DIRECT power than the Pope will ever have.

And the power the Pope cares about is not power over his congregation, but power over his priests and bishops and cardinals. Politics, politics, politics, it's all politics, and parishoners are just taxpayers to the Catholic Church. (What, you say I'M being cynical? Imagine that. :)

The church has power over YOU only to the extent that you imagine it does. If the Pope calls for your PERSONAL death by crucifixion, do you think it will happen? I don't.

It wouldn't happen today, but there was a time when it would have happened, because there was no separation of Church and State. I'm thankful we have it in this country at this time.

I'd argue that, indeed, it's difficult to deviate from the religious mores of your family. I've seen dozens of people struggle with it, often losing their parental relationships as a result. It's real and it happens -- whether or not it happened to you.

It's real and it happens -- whether or not it happened to you.

Sure it does. And it happens with other things than religion, think of the farm kids who move to the city. Or white suburban kids who want to marry blacks. There are LOTS of reasons for maturing children to have conflict with parents, and those conflicts often lead to breaking of relationships.

Divorce is real, murder is real, bigamy is real, AIDS is real, Downs Syndrome is real, bankruptcy is real. And so is religious indoctrination by parents. But it is not universal or even nearly so. Religion just doesn't have that power ANY MORE and hasn't for a couple of generations now. (In the Free World, that is.)

John,

I don't think Falwell would get too indignant if you said that to him, because his marriage isn't the fundamental relationship in his life; his relationship with Jesus is. Marriage is a big part of a Christian's life, but it's entirely contained within his relationship with Jesus.

Of course this is what I say, and what I thoroughly believe Falwell would say. Would all Christians say this? No, many (read: most) Christians never think that much about it. They don't see those relationships as having anything to do with their faith, and so you can compare any aspect of their relationship with that of a homosexual relationship. In fact if you want me to be really fundamentalist about it, I daresay those relationships are equally sinful.

The problem is, we're not fit to judge what kind of faith a heterosexual couple has, but we do have this belief that blankets all homosexual relationships as wrong. From my perspective, it's not the gender of those involved that makes the relationship wrong; it's the KIND of relationship.

So just as I said people esteem sexual feelings too much, I also believe they esteem human relationships too much, and the same logic applies.

Again, most people don't think through it that much. If you're talking to someone who thinks his marriage is the be-all end-all of the universe, I suppose you have a right to get indignant when he criticizes yours. But maybe if you don't get indignant, and instead treat his position with the same intellectual rigor with which you wish he treated yours, you could at least help him think his way to a less hypocritical belief..

SFT,
who's far more annoyed by the arguments of those he agrees with than those of those he doesn't

I'd argue that, indeed, it's difficult to deviate from the religious mores of your family. I've seen dozens of people struggle with it, often losing their parental relationships as a result. It's real and it happens -- whether or not it happened to you.

Ah, but Stephen, I've seen it happen this way:

A mother desperately wants a relationship with her son. She does not castigate him for his homosexuality. She is friendly to his lovers. She wants to stay in steady contact with him. She does not pressure him to change.

But she believes homosexuality is sinful and when asked says she wishes he would try therapy to become straight.

He tells her her beliefs are shit, treats her like dirt, ignores her, sometimes calls her names, and will often go months without speaking to her. Just because she refuses to give up her convictions of what she feels is right in her heart.

She loves him desperately, and wants to be part of his life, and doesn't reject him. Too bad. He doesn't respect her beliefs.

So. Who's the one lacking tolerance or decency there?

You shouldn't underestimate how difficult it is to accept that your parents believe, on a fundamental level, that your romantic life is immoral. It's similar to the old "living in sin" thing, but with homosexuality it's deeper; because with homosexuality the only way to stop sinning is to contradict your own nature. Most of us can't do that. Most of us wouldn't try.

This isn't "I don't like your music," or "I'd rather you were a doctor." This is, "Your primary relationship, the foundation of your own family, is sinful, and deep down I wish you'd change." To my ears, that is so indescribably sad. It makes me so sad. Parents and children lose each other over things like this. I've lived it.

You seem to have so much sympathy for the mother who loses her son. Do you have sympathy for the son who is cast out by his family? Should he respect their beliefs and do whatever it takes to stay in their good graces? Why is it that anti-gay Christians are entitled to integrity, but we are not?

By the way, I am not interested in tolerance from anti-gay Christians. I'm interested in non-interference. Disagree, disapprove, even do so vocally. I don't care. Just don't try to hinder me from living my life.

with homosexuality it's deeper; because with homosexuality the only way to stop sinning is to contradict your own nature. Most of us can't do that. Most of us wouldn't try.

The pedophile has to contradict his natural feelings to stop; the adulterer has to contradict his natural feelings to stop; the murderer or the kleptomaniac or the serial rapist has to contradict HIS natural feelings to stop.

I'm not equating homosexuality with any of those things, I'm just saying that in talk about what's right and what's wrong, natural feelings don't typically enter into it. Why should they here?

SFT

I hate to dive into these things, but sometimes I can't help myself. But SFT, right after comparing homosexuality to pedophilia et al goes on to say he isn't comparing them. Gets to have it both ways. I hear a lot of that from people trying to justify using a religious belief to say we can deny rights to some people we give to other people. Nobody, homosexual or hetero, is allowed by law to molest a child. Heterosexuals can get married, homosexuals can't. Both cases involve consenting adults deciding to live their lives together, but one group can do so by law and the other specifically by law cannot.

Are there any churches in America that believe gay marriage is OK? I'd be pretty surprised if there were not. The Constitution forbids the government from advocating one religion over another. I'm at a loss to understand who the government is protecting with a Constitutional basis by denying homosexuals the same rights heterosexuals have. Well, I suspect they're protecting Christians who think gay people are icky. That isn't a good enough reason to deny a minority group the same rights as the majority enjoys. That's why I'm against the church on this issue; not as a religious enemy but a political one.

SFT, right after comparing homosexuality to pedophilia et al goes on to say he isn't comparing them. Gets to have it both ways.

There was no comparison of homosexuality and pedophilia; there was a comparison of John's defense of homosexuality and a hypothetical defense of pedophilia. To compare debate tactics is NOT to compare the things being debated.

You compared controlling the impulses of a child molester to controlling the impulses of a homosexual. Sure looked like equating the two.

I'm still trying to figure out the justification for government prying into what consenting adults do in their bedroom (sodomy laws) and for one group (heterosexuals) being allowed to marry and another not.

Also,

Heterosexuals can get married, homosexuals can't. Both cases involve consenting adults deciding to live their lives together, but one group can do so by law and the other specifically by law cannot.

As stated earlier, the people who have a problem with homosexual marriage believe that marriage is more than two consenting adults deciding to live their lives together. As stated earlier, some uses of the word marriage refer to that deeper meaning, some do not. And as stated earlier, one or both sides are going to have to get over their prideful attachment to the word "marriage", and agree to all or part of the other side's definition, to make any headway.

Of course, this probably won't happen because we keep trying to define what marriage IS by who's involved, and will continue to pretend that the word magically means whatever we want it to wherever it's used in laws and rules etc, when in fact it means totally different things in different places.

Now, some like Senator Santorum seemed to suggest the answer for him would be to outlaw adultery and heterosexual fornication. At least that would meet the constitutional standard for sodomy laws by forbidding the behavior to everyone. Watch how fast that political policy passes. A little too much alliteration there, sorry.

You compared controlling the impulses of a child molester to controlling the impulses of a homosexual. Sure looked like equating the two.

No, I compared using "uncontrollable impulses" as a defense in either case. The original post was

the only way to stop sinning is to contradict your own nature.

This was said as though it's unique to homosexuality. I'm saying it's NOT unique to homosexuality. That's all.

Sorry then.

I still think the churches which try to enforce their morality on gays into law are wrong because what they espouse is unconstitutional. They can believe what they want; but the Constitution is about protecting everyone. That's why I'm equally for protecting the church from government intervention.

I still think the churches which try to enforce their morality on gays into law are wrong because what they espouse is unconstitutional.

Whether it is unconstitutional is a matter of opinion.

They can believe what they want; but the Constitution is about protecting everyone.

No it's not. The Constitution is about limiting/controlling the power of the Federal Government.

And in any case, the Constitution has no control over churches, and thus does not speak to thier right to agitate for laws that enforce thier beliefs.

(A law that says everyone must be Baptist would be unconstituional, a law that says that married people are not allowed to have sex with anyone other than thier spouse is not only constitutional, but common. See the difference?)

SFT:

The pedophile has to contradict his natural feelings to stop; the adulterer has to contradict his natural feelings to stop; the murderer or the kleptomaniac or the serial rapist has to contradict HIS natural feelings to stop.

I'm not equating homosexuality with any of those things, I'm just saying that in talk about what's right and what's wrong, natural feelings don't typically enter into it. Why should they here?

If you weren't interested in comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or rape, then you should have compared homosexual urges -- adult, consensual urges -- with heterosexual urges. Instead, you listed homosexuality with a laundry list of coercive, violent, unlawful behaviors. I can't help but believe your own feelings about the morality of homosexuality are in play here.

I submit to your argument: desire justifies nothing when it comes to morality or to law. What separates homosexual desire from the desire to molest children or to steal lottery tickets or to sexually violate a man or a woman is that the homosexual desires I speak of, the physicial and emotional and, yes, spiritual attraction between members of the same sex is a union entered into voluntarily. Both parties want it. Both parties welcome it. Both parties voluntarily engage in it. This union is as beautiful and sustaining, and as hurtful and destructive, as are the mainstream continuum of heterosexual unions.

Not just unions, but marriage. Many Christians cringe when gay people refer to their relationships as marriages, because to many Christians, a marriage cannot exist without God, without Jesus, without what have you, and traditionally and Biblically, marriage is a union of one man to one woman under God.

There is, however, a different kind of marriage. My parents, for instance, were lawfully married for over thirty years, yet as atheists, they never entered a church. Their marriage was a common-law marriage, ordained by a judge, and while their marriage endured they enjoyed all of the legal protections that all married persons enjoy. To many Christians, perhaps they weren't married; yet that never concerned them, because in the eyes of the law, their marriage was real.

There are some Christian churches who ordain and honor same-sex marriages. To these churches, the marriages are real and valid. Yet the government doesn't recognize them.

From my viewpoint, a marriage is not real unless the law says it is. From many Christian viewpoints, a marriage is not real unless the church (as proxy for God) says it is. Who is right and who is wrong? Both. Neither. It doesn't matter.

What matters is that religion has no place in government, and in handing out marriage licenses, the government may not treat any religion preferentially over another. While Christian persons may question the validity of any number of state-recognized marriages (inter-faith, inter-race, etc.) and be fully within their rights, the religious definition of marriage (which caters to specific religions) may not sway the governmental definition of marriage (which caters to no religion).

If your religious definition of marriage is the sticking point that would prevent my partner Matt, who is loyal and true and supportive and the very bedrock of my life, from being my husband, then by the same argument my parents were never married and I am a bastard.

To Gary Utter: the reason the Constitution limits the power of the federal government is in the interest of protecting individual liberties, founded upon the belief that the government is of, by and for the people. I am an American citizen, and using your own argument, I would like to limit the power of the federal government from impinging upon my right to free association.

Constitutionality is a matter of opinion. Morality is a matter of opinion. People point to books and claim absolute truth, but books were written. Eventually, in all matters of religion, it all comes down to faith. I will not have the parameters of my life dictated to me by faith.

If you weren't interested in comparing homosexuality to pedophilia or rape, then you should have compared homosexual urges -- adult, consensual urges -- with heterosexual urges. Instead, you listed homosexuality with a laundry list of coercive, violent, unlawful behaviors. I can't help but believe your own feelings about the morality of homosexuality are in play here.

Again, the original post said

the only way to stop sinning is to contradict your own nature.

...and I was listing things immediately recognizable as sins to make the point that homosexuality isn't unique in the regard of contradicting one's own nature. Indeed, there are many MANY heterosexual relationships that I believe are wrong in exactly the same ways as homosexual ones. That's not what my "laundry list" addressed, however; I was merely answering the claim of the original post, and to infer any further meaning is to take my statement out of context.

There is, however, a different kind of marriage. [etc etc etc etc]

Wow, I'm glad you pointed that out. It's a shame no one else has talked about different definitions of marriage in this thread. I'll have to consider that in the future.

SFT

I think we're touching on the real crux of the debate: does the government's view of marriage co-exist peacefully with the various religious views on marriage? Inasmuch as non-religious people can and do get married, and inasmuch as Americans of non-Christian religions can and do get married, the answer seems to be yes.

I think that if you asked most same-sex couples if they wanted to force churches to marry them, the answer would be no. They might be disappointed that the churches they were born into wouldn't marry them, and they might choose to leave the church of their birth in favor of a church who would marry them; but I doubt that they'd be in favor of any law that might force a church to perform a marriage in violation of its core beliefs.

For the sake of argument, would it make the case for gay marriage any more appealing if it were made very clear that what gay and lesbian couples are seeking is not a re-definition of religious marriage, but an inclusion in the common-law marriage already available to non-religious persons? If the law doesn't care what religion you are, can a case be made that it shouldn't care whether the marrying couple is same-sex?

I would argue yes. I don't seek to re-write the Bible or to violate anyone's religious beliefs. I do, however, seek to be included under a body of law that will allow me to establish financial and legal interdependence with another man, the way I would be allowed to do so with a woman.

I have long wondered if the road we wouldn't wind up going down would be to simply stop having the government recognize marriages at all.

I'm not sure if nothing would make me more happy or less happy. On the one hand, marriage is a legal concept that grew up alongside the religious concept. The religious aspect is about a sacrament of one kind or another, but the legal aspect is about protection of property, of loyalty, and of responsibility. If legal marriage went away, I would hope it would be replaced by something that would guarantee things like survivorship benefits, hospital visitation, inheritance and child custody, and so on.

I see religious marriage as a way to put family in a larger spiritual context. I see legal marriage as a way to legally protect families. I certainly consider my partner to be family; and if he dies I want a say in where he's buried. If he's in the hospital I want to see him. If I die I want him to get all my stuff. I want us to be legally represented as a single financial and familial unit.

Can it be done without marriage? I'm definitely open to it, as long as all [whatever it's called]'s are equal under the law.

Gay marriage is wrong in all aspects. My father taught me long ago that homosexuals choose to be gay because they are attempting to rebel against society. Most gay men molest young children and attempt to convince them to become gay as well (i.e. they recruit others to their sick life). Gay men also live a "gay lifestyle." Their entire life revolves around their sexual habits and most contract HIV very soon after they make the decision to be gay.
I am a devoted servant to the Lord Christ Jesus and work proactively to help confused young men find Jesus and escape the dark obsession of homosexuality. I regret that no laws exist that would make legal persecution of homosexuality permissable, however I can say this: if my son ever chose the gay lifestyle, he would no longer be a member of my family. I must draw the line somewhere...and such a sick choice would be the line.

God bless,
Jerry Teel
Opelika, AL

My father taught me long ago that homosexuals choose to be gay because they are attempting to rebel against society. Most gay men molest young children and attempt to convince them to become gay as well (i.e. they recruit others to their sick life).

You, sir, are a sadly misnformed individual who has accepted a lot of hatemongering codswollop. That is the nicest thing I can say to you: you are ignorant and misniformed. Badly.

I am a devoted servant to the Lord Christ Jesus...

Hypocrite! Pluck the beam from your own eye before worrying about the splinter in your brother's.

And learn not to embrace hateful and demeaning stereotypes while you're at it.