I know there is going to be *diversity* of opinion on this issue, but I just had to post an enthusiastic "Oooooh yeah!" over the fact that two old ladies who have loved each other for 51 years were issued a marriage liscense from City Hall in San Fransisco yesterday. Suddenly, it feels exciting to be alive! Someone took a stand and that's courageous, as well as inspiring.


Phyllis Lyon, 79, and Del Martin, 82, hold up their marriage certificate.

Link to story: Same Sex Couples Marry in San Fransisco

Rock on! I wonder which one stood on the left and which one stood on the right at the alter, if you know what I mean.

… But what if I like it in Lexington?

See the following for more details:
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Primetime/U...s_040205-1.html

I found it particularly interesting that they debunk the whole Idea that all homosexuals stand in the same liberal line. Catholic. Pro-life. Pro-Marriage… <Gasp>… Republican.

Good news! (although Del doesn't look like she's so happy about it) I only hope the "renegade" licenses actually stick.

Seems like they're bashing each other's brains out over this issue on the Senate floor in Boston.

All across the nation
Such a strange vibration
People in motion...

(I miss Papa John)

Del doesn't look too happy, does she?

Good old progressive Ohio just passed one of the most restrictive anti-gay marriage laws in the country. Never mind that they were already illegal here. I found it amusing that the local tv stations were saying the new law takes effect on (whatever day). Which is kind of silly, because it's not like gays & lesbians can all run out & get married before the law goes into effect anyway.

Stupid politicians...

Even though this move has raised an uproar in the anti-gay marriage community, I'm so glad that so many couples are able to make a huge move toward equality of rights. There were so many same-sex couples lining up to be married in San Francisco and also, SS couples in other states renewing efforts to acheive their rights on their home turfs...With so many people speaking out in favor, how long can the conservatives keep their blinders on?
I also applaud the entertainment industry for developing media such as movies and TV programs that give welcomed exposure to alternative lifestyles.

Shows like the new one on Showtime "The L word" are wonderfully written, IMO, and are becoming mainstreamed into our TV viewing. Likewise Six Feet Under has won awards for being so well written. Alternative lifestyle is here to stay....Thank goodness.
T xo

Yeah, but the pizza lives on.

i think it's great that so many otr fans feel this way. i just wish more people did too...

Welcome to the message board, spacedog26!

(or I guess I should start calling it The Orchard now...)

Time for a celebratory update anyway...

Vermont, Toronto, San Franscisco, New Paltz, NY, Nyack, NY, Portland, OR (Multnomah County)

And today, hundreds of gay couples are protesting at City Hall in New York, NY (which, remember, now has a liberal mayor--yes!) and demanding Bloomberg order clerks to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. It's over guys. The watershed is here, and I believe it's only a matter of time. Woooohoooo!

I also read thsi National Review article and here's a beautiful quote, from a conservative opponent (who is shaking in his boots--yes!):



In this time, when it's so embarrassing to be an American, it feels good to see this real America fighting back. Kudos and congrats to all the newly and justly married couples.

It does my heart good to see that OTRhine fans are generally a little more open-minded. I've been on other message-boards that are linked to more shall-we-say conservative bands, and any mention of this topic launches an all-out riot that takes over the boards. I hate when that happens, because no one EVER ends up changing anyone's mind on anything.

I am thrilled to see social change finally happening in this area, and I hope it continues. OTRhine does pull the most interesting cross-section of fans... Having been at Cornerstone Festival for years and years now, they definitely have a religious fan base sprinkled heavily in amongst the masses. But at the same time, artists of their amazing ability are going to pull a big folky artsy liberal crowd too. It makes for an interesting mix.

I used to take great pleasure in mixing these crowds up... I had been to C-stone perhaps a dozen times and seen OTRhine there during a more fundamentalist phase of my life. Now, I'm more likely to get married in Massachusetts, if you catch my meaning, and for a while I would invite all my friends to their shows at the Ark. So, you'd have this pack of my friends, conservative Christians and screaming queens all in the same place, and I just sat back and watched everyone figure out what the heck to say to each other. It was most enjoyable.

If I were in San Fran, I'd grab my Bible, some posterboard, and go down to SF city hall and wave a sign that proclaimed... "God bless your new marriage."

It's fun being both a Christian and a quasi-liberal (another discussion for another day) artsy folk-music loving sort of guy (and an exiled Buckeye, to boot). Confusing at times, and often I find that no one's entirely comfortable with me, but that happened to the Good Lord too... so, if nothing else, I'm in good company.

It was sad in Portland the day that SS got passed. Not because it was passed (i've personally decidedc to stay nuetral on this issue), but because of the protestors. I kind of wonder if those who protest such things actually do more harm than good (epsecially when their comments consists of things like "God hates you, stupid moronic fags!"). And of course, they rose one of the guys who was unjustly hauled away by the cops to martyr status, but then again the cops do that to ALL protestors. They'll even pepper spray children. They're equally unjustust to all. Anyway, sorry for the rant.

I'm curious: how do you as a Christian justify your support of homosexuality, despite the portions of the Bible which directly speak against it?

Wow, this is a really cool post, pizzacutter. If ssm comes to your area, I sincerely hope you will do just that. There are not enough Christians standing up like that IMHO. It' so refreshing to see someone who might actually participate in that endeavor. Good on ya. And I'm sorry your alienated by people of any kind who just don't get it.

Liberation party, while I'm pretty familiar with the NT, I can't seem to recall or find a single instance in the Gospels where Jesus had any comment on homosexuality or even the proper definition of marriage. Can you cite something I might be overlooking? Thanks.

please oh please oh please oh please don't let this turn into a debate. it's a no-win situation. can we all just agree to disagree from the outset? or if we want to debate we should do it via personal emails. i hate to sound stifling, but EVERY time i've seen this topic debated on messageboards it goes nowhere and everyone just gets mad. i'd hate to see that happen here.

For my part I will simply recommend a book I read:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detai...=books&n=507846

It's food for thought if nothing else.
Regards to all,
JP - born-again and out-&-proud

Who says I'm disagreeing? I live in the gay village, for crying out loud. The Bible's evident stance on homosexuality is one of the quibbles I have with Christianity, despite having been Christian for much of my life. I'm truly curious as to how you have managed to reconcile the two.

Kentuckianna, I know there isn't a single instance recorded in the Bible of Jesus condemning homosexuality (which makes it all the more ludicrous when nut jobs go waving "Christ hates fags" placards at Pride), but there is still a smattering of verses, including a couple in the New Testament, mentioning it in a negative light. They include Leviticus 18:23, Romans 1:24-27, and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10. The latter reference goes on to say "And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctioned, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God," but it would suggest that homosexuality - an enormous part of several of my friends' identities - is considered sinful.

Help?


(Edited to move an apostrophe. Multiple friends, not multiple personalities!)

lol, sorry... i shouldn't assume. you just wouldn't believe how often i've been avalanched with propaganda when this topic comes up, and then the otherwise civil boards become misery to visit. and everyone just yells at each other... sigh...

glad you're on our side.

as for how i reconciled it? that book I mentioned really answers a lot of questions i struggled with, and sheds light on how the bible may not be as gay-unfriendly as people think. I know it seems like a cop-out just to reference the book, but the pro-con case is a bit too complicated to paraphrase sufficiently.

In a nutshell gay relationships as they exist today have no true equivalent in Biblical times. There was no real concept of being "gay" back then. In fact the word "homosexuality" wasn't even coined until 1869 by the German doctor Karl M Kertbeny. Isn't it amazing some versions of the Bible include that word in their translations, when it clearly didn't exist until 1869? Anyhow, the gist is that something culturally specific to that time period was being addressed in the old testament, and doesn't really correspond to modern gay relationships... it's a rather drawn out thing... you really need to read the book I mentioned, if you're interested.

Anyhow, on a more lighthearted note... this "letter to Dr. Laura is relevant to this topic I think...


Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have
learned a great deal from your show, and I try to share that knowledge with
as many people as I can. When people try to defend the homosexual lifestyle,
for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to
be an abomination. End of debate.

I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the specific laws
and how to follow them:
a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
pleasing odor for the Lord (Lev.1:9).The problem is my neighbors. They claim
the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in > Exodus
21:7.In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her
period of menstrual uncleanness (Lev.15:19-24).The problem is, how do I tell?
I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

d) Lev.25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female,
provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine
claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why
can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him
myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination (Lev.11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I
don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev.21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a
defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around
their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How
should they die?

i) I know from Lev.11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev.19:19 by planting two different crops
in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different
kinds of thread cotton/polyester blend. He also tends to curse and blaspheme
a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the
whole town together to > stone them (Lev.24:10-16)? Couldn't we just burn
them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep
with their in-laws? (Lev.20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can
help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and
unchanging.


On a similar note...


Top 12 reasons homosexual marriage should not be legal:

1. Homosexuality is not natural, much like eyeglasses, polyester, and birth control.

2. Heterosexual marriages are valid because they produce children. Infertile couples and old people can't legally get married because the world needs more children.

3. Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

4. Straight marriage will be less meaningful, since Britney Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage was meaningful.

5. Heterosexual marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are property, blacks can't marry whites, and divorce is illegal.

6. Gay marriage should be decided by people not the courts, because the majority-elected legislatures, not courts, have historically protected the rights of the minorities.

7. Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

8. Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

9. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

10. Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why single parents are forbidden to raise children.

11. Gay marriage will change the foundation of society. Heterosexual marriage has been around for a long time, and we could never adapt to new social norms because we haven't adapted to cars or longer lifespans.

12. Civil unions, providing most of the same benefits as marriage with a different name are better, because a "seperate but equal" institution is always constitutional. Seperate schools for African-Americans worked just as well as seperate marriages for gays and lesbians will.

Lib Party,

Fair question. Just so everyone's up to speed, I assume that you're referring to passages such as Leviticus 18:22, "No man shall lie with a man as with a woman. Such a thing is an abomination." (It's re-stated in various forms in a few other books of the OT... same basic idea.)

You may also have read, 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God."

On the surface, it sounds pretty damning. Let's look deeper though. The word used in the original text in Hebrew for "abomination" is "zimmah." Hebrew was a very precise language when it came to matters of morality. There were words aplenty to mean "sinful", "immoral", etc. Zimmah best translates into "disgusting" or "ewww, gross" as a purely visceral reaction, in the same way that you might react to coming upon roadkill.

I can appreciate that the writer may not have liked the thought of two men having sex. (Strangely, two women, no problem... there is a Talmudic verse that addresses that subject in the Jewish tradition.) Lev 18:22 is located in a string of admonitions about having sex with one's daughter, sister, mother, mother-in-law, etc. (Basic message: don't.) The point of the passage is that the family relationships have to be protected. In a society that lived in a clan system and valued family relationships and preserving the order those relationships, it throws everything off-balance if someone is at once my sister and my wife/consort. In the same way, what exactly does it mean when two men have sex? That threw a lot of people for a loop in the 9th century BCE. (Actually, replace that with 21st century, and it's still a valid statement.)

Incestuous relationships, to this day, are taboo for many of the same reasons, and also because of what we know concerning an increased risk for certain genetic disorders, plus the fact that they're most often exploitive in nature. However, marrying one's cousin, for example, is perfectly acceptable in some places without any impugnity. It's the difference between "making people uncomfortable" and sinful.

Similarly, Paul in the Corinthian letters was writing to a city that was over-run by sinfulness and idolatry. Paul begins chapter 6 by chastising a particular group of believers in the city who were conducting shady business deals with each other and cheating and swindling each other. He says better that you appoint the ungodly to judge your disputes because if we, who are supposed to be Christian, are taking advantage of each other, all is lost. In verses 9-10, he compares that group of folks to some of the evildoers in the city of Corinth. Key words: "in the city of Corinth."

Corinth was a typical Roman province in that it had plenty of temples to the official Roman gods. It also had a good following of Mithras, a competing cult in those times. Some of the temples practiced the tradition of temple prostitution (curiously, Paul leaves out the female prostitutes... sounds like that's OK...) including male prostitutes, whether they be heterosexual or homosexual. There's no way of knowing directly, but some elements of the Christian community may have adopted those practices, or some who were converts still held on to the prostitution element of the old religions.

The prohibition here is from taking on the habits of the idolators, the worshipers of false gods. That means refraining from adultery, thievery and dishonesty, being drunk, greedy, and slanderous.

You may also be familiar with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah (Genesis, chapter 19, for those interested). In it, two angels are sent by God and welcomed by Lot into his home. A mob gathers outside and wants to forcibly rape the two angels. Lot tries to protect them, according to the custom of hospitality, and because (shocking here...) rape is wrong. The crime of the Sodomites is that they were inhospitable, rapists, and were mistreating the very messengers of God.

As a Christian, I see a group of people who are begging society to let them become families. Contrast that with couples who cohabitate with no intention of marrying, because they like the sex but not the commitment. We have people who want very much to commit their lives to each other. That's a wonderful thing, and it's perhaps the closest thing that we as humans get to understanding what the bond between humans and God can be like.

I believe that, consistent with Christian teaching, they should be chaste until marriage, their relationships should be based on genuine love for each other and total giving of self to the other (a 100-100 relationship: I give 100% of myself, you give 100% of yourself.) No adultery, violence, or false pretense. These, btw, are the same rules I'd apply for heterosexual marriage. They will hopefully honor God by the way that they live their lives together.

That's why I say, "God bless your new marriage."

JP,
Thanks so much for your post.
It really tells it like it is.
I would love to read that book.
I'm glad you're here in the Orchard.
T xo

That was a hilarious post, JP.


I have actually seen this argument employed as a rationale for not legalizing gay marriage on another board.

Thanks kindly. It's a fine line to walk. Some Christians are turned off by my liberal reading on some issues. (Not all of them, and by that I mean not all Christians, and I'm not liberal on all issues.) Some liberals are turned off by the fact that I have no shame in saying that I am a Christian, and that it's an amazing wonderful thing to be a Christian. (Again, in fairness, not all liberals.)

Right now, I'm exiled from my beloved Ohio (I actually DO know Ohio like the back of my hand) in Chicago. Mayor Daley has recently been quoted as supporting SSM, and may actually allow for it. If it happens, I'll grab my Bible and posterboard and head down to the Cook County admin building, or city hall, or wherever one gets a marriage license around this place.

"I have actually seen this argument employed as a rationale for not legalizing gay marriage on another board."


Yeah, me too. It's always the "slippery slope" argument. Ah, the tried and true catch-all excuse for anything we don't agree with. They dust off that little chestnut whenever it suits them. "If I have no valid logical reason to oppose something, I will simply generalize about slippery slopes."

I heard that argument too, "next thing you know Polygamists and Pedophiles will want rights." As if there's somehow ANY correlation between SSM and those things.
So, basically they want to deny me my right to marry my partner because we're afraid of what the Mormons or whoever might do? How absurd. The old slippery slope... tried and true, and as intellectually disingenuous as ever.

I want everyone to read this again:



Ok, Please help me.

I am no exegetical seer, nor am I anything but a sinner myself. The whole “sin” angle toward SSR (same sex relationships) absolutely needs to be out the window. We are all sinners, unworthy of the gift that Jesus gave us. Nor can we legislate religion. In other words, long term committed unions should be fairly recognized both for straight and gay folk. But here is where I am hung up, and where maybe I can get some clarification: I can not find anywhere in the Bible where Marriage, between humans, is meant to be anything besides, or even slightly implied to be besides, being between a Man (Husband) and a Woman (wife).

I don’t really even want to post this, because the whole debate aspect of issues like these makes me uneasy. I did post it though, maybe if only to hear another perspective on the texts in the Bible related to what marriage is ordained to be. As it stands I think that committed long term relationships should have the same rights under the constitution no matter what is going on between the legs of the two involved, but am old fashioned and have a protective feeling towards the term marriage.

Hey I am just being honest about my feelings….

JP, I will definitely be reading that book. I would love to be able to honestly believe the Bible I grew up with doesn't consider my friends' relationships to be fundamentally sinful.

I try to ignore the apparent conflict most of the time. One of the reasons (most of them irrational) for my having departed from Christendom just over a year ago was The Debate. Two or three years ago, I would have been on the other side of the line petitioning the Quebec government to refrain from legalizing same-sex marriage (though civil unions have now been legal for a while). Then I moved out of my population-5000 hometown to Montreal, where I've (shocker of shockers) encountered other viewpoints, made new friends, and come the instinctual conclusion that there's nothing inherently wrong with same-sex relationships.

A friend of mine at Cornerstone had to interview a non-Christian for a recent research paper, which meant my current beliefs (or lack thereof) were scrutinized as I tried to articulate them. I've been trying to sort them out ever since. I really want to be able to believe Christianity is true. The fundamental question I have yet to answer is, do I feel incomplete because Christianity is what I was raised for, or what I was made for?

My stake in reconciling homosexuality and Christianity is admittedly smaller than yours, JP, but I still feel incredibly conflicted whenever I read arguments which try to (no pun intended) marry the two. What "pro-gay" arguments I've stumbled across online over the last couple of years tend to be built on hair-splitting, taking particular verses out of context before explaining them. Perhaps the fundamental facts of their arguments have been correct, but the authors have done a lousy job of showing the supporting evidence. Maybe I'm just not being impartial enough, having been raised as a PK and all. (My dad coincidentally resigned from the ministry just prior to my eighteenth birthday.) I may have been allowed to read and watch whatever I wanted when I was growing up, but I had my mother's running commentary in the background of the infamous lesbian wedding episode of Friends, piping in with "that's not true" and a couple of the verses quoted above when the minister on the show said "nothing makes God happier than when two people -- any two people -- come together in love."

Anyway. I've blathered on long enough. I'll see if they have that book in stock at Chapters and if not, I'll order it. If you have any further references to suggest, I'm all ears.

Hey Liberation party, thanks for clarifying. I appreciate and respect your honest soul-searching over this issue. If a once-fundamentalist-Christian-turned-apathetic-athiest may comment...

Paul was a bonehead, and probably the single most divisive Christian leader of his time. Every single comment in the NT regarding gay sex and the proper submissive role of women is penned by his hand.

You know how sometimes a person who has gone to AA and gotten treatment for their alcoholism will become self-righteous and preach the "truth" of their new morality to anyone who has even one drink? Well, I see Paul as being like that. Once he turned from his life of sin, changed his name and Jesus died, he went on one of those self-righteous rants and, unfortunately, much of it ended up the bible.

A good book to read that gives a lot of information on Paul and his writings is And God Said What?!? by Sr. Margaret Ralph Nutting. I had the pleasure of meeting her and she is a wonderful woman.

Great conversation going on in here...very cool.

Thanks for your input, Kentuckianna. I'll keep an eye out for that book, as well.

New Jersey! (Ashbury Park)

easynamed, don't apologize for your opinions, everyone's entitled to disagree, at least you were very direct and polite about it.

True, there are not necessarily any obvious examples of SSR in the Bible, but I have heard some interesting theories about Jonathan and David, Ruth and Naomi and the Centurion and his servant, whom Jesus healed.

How about Paul? I have always operated under the assumption that Paul was gay.

I am sure not everyone in the Bible is straight. David and Jonathan. Hell David was a major swinger. God loved him real good too.

My question is more about the actual term: "Marraige"/"Husband & Wife" vs. a terms such as "Civil Union"/"Life Partners". I think your rights should be the same as minem, But I think that the issue would be so much more comfortable for middle swaying righties if these terms were used.

In Fact... ...If Kerry campaigned using the term: "Civil Union" he would win over a lot of votes on this. Bush is trying to legislate religion which just will not work. There are only so many Baptists on the planet.

I think Gay folk don't want to be exactly like us straight folk anyways...

Oh Ya, GO AVS!!! BTW I did not put an AVS sticker on my truck when we moved to Livonia. That was a good idea huh??

Later skater

Gee whiz, easynamed, you are a hoot and a half! I can't answer your question, I'm sad to say. I'm familiar with just enough of the Bible to get myself in trouble. I just had to post how hilarious these two comments were, in particular.

I'm not sure what's sadder, easy, that you moved to Livonia, or that you're an Avs fan? Just kidding about the Livonia part.

The only objection I have to not calling it marriage is a simple one - that then it would be something other than marriage. And seperate is never equal, we'd still be 2nd class.

I'd be willing to cut the Government a deal though... keep SSM illegal... and I'll stop paying my taxes! With the money I'll save, I can move to Toronto and get married there! That way I can still have a REAL hockey team to root for.

Aw, but Montreal is so much more fun! Then again, every Canadian I know, whether Maritimer, Quebecois, or prairie spawn, loves to diss Toronto.

This is what I get for paying attention to the old Actwin list instead of the new orchard... I almost totally lose out on a great discussion... and the only I've seen that remained completely civil (and I'm including discussions hosted by Gay Christian websites!).

It truly is great to see the level of not just tolerance, but general affection demonstrated during this discussion.

Lib... I don't know if you've tracked down Helmeniak's book yet, but it is a tremendous resource. If you find, however, that it contains the same contextualizations and theological hair-splittings you've discounted (or at least had suspiscions about) in the past, keep in mind what requires a split hair to justify also usually requires a split hair to condemn.

I'd also recommend listening to the recording of a lecture/debate presented by Tony Campolo and his wife, Peggy Campolo on the responsibility the Church has to gays and lesbians and what role gays and lesbians should be allowed to have within the Church. You can find those recordings at gaychristian.net

what a great webpage. what a GREAT webpage. its not many places that people can go and voice their opinion and not get stoned in public because of it. personally, i think ALL marriage is stupid, and if gays and lesbians want to ruin their lives, more power to them. i lived in nyack for about 4 years and i am SO happy that things are changing there. things are changing everywhere. slowly. but its better than not changing at all. and someday i will be able to stand next to my lesbian friends and witness their marriage - NOT their union. and i can't wait until that day. anyway, i guess this is just my quick, pathetic way of saying thank you for having the orchard, where it (almost) doesn't matter who you are or what you think ...

I love the milieu here, as well.
I would like to ammend your gracious comment (if I may) by adding
it also matters very much who we are and what we think...
and happily all comments seem to be not only accepted, but WELCOMED....because they are added with respect.
I love the open feeling everyone seems to have here where intelligent discussions can take place, even with differences of opinion.
T xo

lib party, I've never been to Montreal, but should make the trip I know. I could see myself cheering for the Habs as well, especially since they have the cutest goalie in Hockey. *sigh*

As far as Paul being gay, I've not heard any real evidence. Of course, many people also asume that Walt William and Shakespeare were also gay. I guess it's one of those things we will never really know, eh?

One thing is certain though. Paul was against Marraige. It seems to me that he only favored it as a last resort in order to quell the raging lust that impassioned lovers tend to have in spades.

I have always thought of it (marraige) more in terms of a family. A mother, father, husband, wife.

Regardless, I would never consider a Gay Marraige second rate. Only different.

You mean Walt Whitman?
Yes, he was gayer than the Christmas goose.
Shakespeare, I can't remember. I think the jury is out on that one.
Even Abraham Lincoln had a live-in "friend" with whom he shared a bed for years. Hmmm...
We're everywhere!

Muahaha.

I do hope you make it to Montreal sometime. I'm not sure why I feel so irrationally proprietary over this city I haven't even known for two years, but I love it more than any other place I've visited, roots or no roots. I'm convinced that everyone would love it.


BradCav, I haven't managed to get my hands on the book yet. Most of the bookstores in Montreal are owned by the same conglomerate, and my search of their stock lists didn't turn it up. I'm now trying to figure out whether it would be cheaper to order it via chapters.indigo.ca or Amazon. Thanks for the word of caution; I will try to keep it in mind. I'll check out that link, as well.

i haven't been to church in a while. i go to christmas service with my parents because of the "tradition" of it. my dad freaked when i quit taking communion. i tried to explain to him that i do believe communion is a sacred ritual, and for me to take it just to go through the motions of it is...just not the right thing to do.

at any rate, regarding the verses you mentioned - remember that there are also verses that say women shouldn't leave the house when menstrating because they're unclean, that slavery is a-ok, that people can't mix two types of animal fur to wear as clothing, that sacrificing animals is common practice, etc. etc. i feel like people who cite all the anti-gay parts of the bible are skimming over the other "non-applicable" parts as they relate to life today.

i'm sorry, but i don't know how to "reconcile" the bible's guidence with modern life. but i think once homosexuality is proven genetic, it may help?

related to this thread - ohio recently passed the "defense of marriage" act, and even went a step further than any other state by specifically denying domestic partner benefits to public employees.

"and it's sad to see your story end..."

Wow. It's strange to read through all of these posts and have confirmed to me that I'm one of the only conservative, Republican (I know, I know; as of now, I am damned to a hell of only Toby Keith-esque music) Over the Rhine fanatics (well, besides some of my friends here at school).

Nothing against any of you, I'm sure we'd actually be friends if we met. Music is quite the common bond... However, I have to voice my opinion, disagreeable though it may be.

I see homosexuality as a pretty clear-cut sin in the Bible. I don't know where some of you have gotten your theology (Paul was gay?! What?) but most of the theologians I respect and admire (some of my friends, professors, pastors, grad school students, authors, etc.), no matter where they stand on the secular aspect of legalizing gay marriage, agree that homosexuality is certainly a sin. I'm the first to admit that I am a terrible sinner as well, and that is why it is all the sweeter to cling to the sacrifice of Christ (on a side note: the reason I cried so much during The Passion of the Christ was because I recognized that it was my sins driving those nails) and the grace given.

So I guess, all of that to say, I have to disagree with many of you, my fellow enjoyers of good music and art. Perhaps I will be condemned as a close-minded bigot, but to me, sin is sin, be it lying, cheating, infidelity, or an active homosexual lifestyle. Grace and peace,

A simple college student (who manages to simultaneously listen to Radiohead and vote Republican...)

I wish I could respect your POV, but unfortunately, I can't. No hard feelings on that--we can still be friends and agree to disagree. And I'll defend your right into forever to hold whatever POV you want. However, I want to also offer my opinion on what you've written.

It seems to me that if there is a God and Jesus really is his Son, at Its (I refuse to presume or assign any gender to any diety) the right hand, they could agree--or at least Jesus could convince It--that love is love and it is always a good thing, no matter how it's expressed--and remind that it is the cornerstone of his mission on earth, God's idea, btw. As far as the genetic theory, if God is fueling evolution as a means to keeping his creations going--a sort of continual work of art, if you will--wouldn't it stand to reason that homosexuality is part of God's plan? Finally, I have to agree with spacedog--it's ironic and at least mildly hypocritical that some Christian belivers completely disregard every single one of the verses (which are all rules of some sort--reasons for God's judgement) surrounding the verses that object to homosexuality. In my considered opinion, in the face of that little fact, the argument is hollow and it does not follow logically--or even faithfully.

Regards,
Anna Belle

I just wanted to point out, for fear of being misunderstood, I view hypocisy like you do sin; everybody is a hypocrit at some point, most of us serially. It's human nature.

I also wanted to clarify that my "every single verse" comment is directed at the old testament. I understand that some of Paul's directives are practiced by the faithful still, and follow from Jesus' teachings. I do not, however, believe homosexuality is one of the directives that has any relation to Jesus' teachings. I think its inclusion is due to a) Paul's personal prejudice and B ) a sign of the times, a backlash against the what they percieved as the "decedant" culture that they lived in.

Finally, I want to make clear that I would not and do not consider you a bigot, huskerboy.

............

All I honestly believe and trust is that, in my heart, I know that being gay is not a sin. And I cannot explain it any other way than that.

Part of the reason I started to shy away from the church (I am a lifelong Methodist) was because I grew weary of the whole "love the sinner, hate the sin" philosophy. To me, this statement implies an instant judging of a person -- deeming him or her worthy of love while condemning any wrongdoing. As if any of us are qualified to judge, or are without sin ourselves.

The scriptures I remember are the ones that said to love your neighbor. Love one another. I do not remember anything about hate.

Anyhoo, just a few of my thoughts on the topic. I am a Christian; I believe in God. I also believe in miracles; I know I have seen at least one in my lifetime (38 years and counting).

Regarding gay marriage: Maybe I will throw out some thoughts on that, as well, if the thread comes 'round that way again ... for now, I will just say, why not allow 2 consenting adults who love one another to make the formal commitment of marriage, even if they both happen to be of the same sex? How could this possibly threaten the "institution" of marriage? (I could see it strengthening that institution, actually!)

........

Why not? He was against marraige. He was celibate. He was not married when he was Saul. There seems to be no evidence he was straight. Maybe he liked girls,
but what if he liked boys? Paul talks about his own sin with such ferocity it makes one believe there are skeletons in his closet.

anyways, please disprove my theory. although, there is something comforting about the belief that Paul could have been gay.

Hmmm...I think we just learned talked about this in Philosophy class--it's called the appeal to ignorance (e.g. "Since electrons are impossible to see under a microcope, they must not exist since there is no hard evidence proving otherwise). Sorry, just a slight logical flaw I thought I'd point out.

And I think you're misconstruing Paul, and specifically these verses (please correct me if I'm wrong): 1 Corinthians 7:1-9 (where verse one reads: "Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. (NIV)) My Bible has a note that says that "marry" can also be translated "sexual relations." Anyway, I don't think Paul is saying that marriage is bad, only that it can detract from a relationship with God and lending your body as a temple to the Holy Spirit (see all of chapter 10). However, Paul recognizes that we are sexual beings, and notes this in verse 9 (if they ("talking of the "unmarried and widows") cannot control themselves, they shoud marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion." In other words, marriage can get in the way of a relationship with God, but becuase we are sexual beings and God knows this, marriage was established as a holy covenant to aviod sexual immorality (which, along with adultery, homosexuality, theivery, drunkenness, slandering, swindling, and idolatry is defined as "wickedness" (1 Cor. 6: 9-10)). Anyway, I don't normally like to even present the possibility of being labeled a "bible-basher," but in this situation, you asked me to elaborate...

Oh, and a note on what I said earlier: Basically I said that sin is sin, whether it is lying, infidelity, or an active homosexual lifestyle. I also wanted to add to that list: holding signs that say "God hates fags." Or any sign that says "fag" or has the word "God" and "hate" in it (unless the word directly following is "sin" or "unrighteousness.") The people who are doing that are misrepresenting Christ to the nation, and are just as guilty of sin as the people they are judging.