There is no biblical interpretation that can allow you to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is approved by the Judeo/Christian God. It's laughable to hear Christians actually try and believe in this book, while trying to be "tolerant" of the Gay lifestyle. Either the bible is true, and God does not approve of Gay relations...or the whole thing is a bunch of crap. Take your choice, but please stop doing mental gymnastics trying to change the actual words in this book to make faith in it seem to be kinder and gentler.

Posted by: FH1231

I completely agree with your analysis. Despite the fact that scripture does not condone homosexuality, christian can find tolerance in his/her mind. Nothing need prevent them from doing so. I do not see people going around requiring that criminalizing not praying or making graven images, etc, etc.

Think of it this way – about 2% of the adult male population is gay. This is a cross-cultural constant, now and to the beginning of history. There have always been gay men, regardless of how society accepts or oppresses it, it’s there and it’s always been there. Only a genetic cause can create that pattern. So being gay has always been natural, because it has a natural cause, and abnormal, because it’s relatively rare. But it has always been there, just like the dreaded scourge of left-handedness. So they’re here, they’re queer, let’s figure out the best way to deal with it. Posted by: ZZim |

I actually go one further, even if homosexuality is a choice, explicitly made. Is there any law that says i Cannot wear a striped shirt on a plaid trousers? Is there any law, any more, against inter-racial or inter-religious marriages? Is there any law that two fat people cannot fall in love with each other? In fact there can be a case made in terms of public health against two fat people having sex. It is matter of m choice, to wear white trousers after labor day. In the same way person sexual affinities should be outside the realm state laws. The fundamental religious bigots need to get over it. Just the same way they do not persecute people of other religions in the western liberal democracies.

There is no biblical interpretation that can allow you to believe that the homosexual lifestyle is approved by the Judeo/Christian God. It's laughable to hear Christians actually try and believe in this book, while trying to be "tolerant" of the Gay lifestyle.

Either the bible is true, and God does not approve of Gay relations...or the whole thing is a bunch of crap. Take your choice, but please stop doing mental gymnastics trying to change the actual words in this book to make faith in it seem to be kinder and gentler.

So often we are told it is NOT a choice. However, NO ONE has found a gay gene that determines that choice. All we have is the assertion of nature over nurture. So much for basing our society in scientific consensus.

Posted by: jonswitzer

= = = = = = = = = = =

Naw, it’s there. Just because we haven’t deciphered the entire genome yet doesn’t mean it’s not there.

Think of it this way – about 2% of the adult male population is gay. This is a cross-cultural constant, now and to the beginning of history. There have always been gay men, regardless of how society accepts or oppresses it, it’s there and it’s always been there. Only a genetic cause can create that pattern.

So being gay has always been natural, because it has a natural cause, and abnormal, because it’s relatively rare. But it has always been there, just like the dreaded scourge of left-handedness.

So they’re here, they’re queer, let’s figure out the best way to deal with it.
.

you admit what many in the Progressive world usually deny with shamefilled defensiveness. The progressive agenda has always appeared to have wholly secular roots and no legitimate appeal to people of faith. It has always felt like the progressive agenda attempts to appeal to Christian compassion and morality are after thoughts not central tenets. The true agenda instead seems to be specifically to throw off any vestige of religious morality in society; to somehow recreate society absent God. More French Revolution than American Revolution.

Anyhow, I appreciate your honesty. It's a breath of fresh air.

Posted by: jonswitzer

Jonswitzer, my post is not a statement or a case on the progressive side to abandon morality. On the contrary it is a case for a more expansive morality. It is definitely a challenge to the bronze age morality of the ignorants and the megalomaniacs. The religious morality is very vile and only involves in-group nepotism, and out-group hostility. The so called ten commandments are nothing but horrible pieces of trash. The first four being just a megalomanaical nonsense. Then the 5th one is a bribery for respecting parents. The so call false witness is a blatant case of in-group nepotism and out-group hostility.

There are quite a few christian progressive, who may be mistaken in thinking that there was some support for progressive morality in scripture. Insofar as as that there is no support for progressive morality in any scripture you and I are on the same page.

"So often we are told it is NOT a choice. However, NO ONE has found a gay gene that determines that choice..."Posted by: jonswitzer | November 9, 2010 5:05 PM

With respect, jon, want to know whether or not being gay is a choice?

Simple. Ask me.

I am gay.

I didn't "choose" to be gay. Indeed, if ever there were a human being who "chose" to be heterosexual, that would have been me, but it apparently doesn't work that way.

I spent decades of my life in a sometimes desperate effort to change my sexual orientation. But it didn't change at all.

Some "choice", huh?

I don't know what determines sexual orientation. But I know it isn't something I got to "choose".

What scientists are debating isn't "choice". Rather, it's the mix of genetic, other biological and environmental chemical(for example hormonal)influences, and so on.

But "choice"? Not really.

That's not really a relevant question for the biologists. It's a question for those of us who grew up and realized we were gay.

All that said, I am not sure I know why it really matters.

We all do have choices to make in life, of course. I try to make good, moral and responsible choices in my life.

I think that, generally, I do pretty well.

Given that I was gay and that, apparently, it was pretty well fixed at an early age, I chose to live my life with integrity and honesty and yes, with companionship and love and intimacy-- those are human values which most of us cherish.

Those values don't suddenly become unimportant just because of sexual orientation.

I didn't marry your sister or your daughter in order to "prove" I was something I was not. That would have been wrong of me.

I also chose not to be a monk. That's not something that many people, of any sexual orientation, freely choose.

Instead, when I did fall in love with someone who loved me, we committed our lives to one another, before our friends and families and before God.

I am pretty sure that was a moral choice, a good choice.

It's certainly a choice that has brought me immense happiness and good fortune.

I am blessed.

What do I wish for you and others?

Only that you too find as much commitment and love in your life as I have in mine.

Peace.

Ricklinguist

fr ucfenger:

>...You can embrace homosexuality if you wish, but by doing so, you reject Christ and his teachings....

NOT true. There are THOUSANDS of glbt Christians all over the world. My wife and I are two of them. Get a clue.

So often we are told it is NOT a choice. However, NO ONE has found a gay gene that determines that choice. All we have is the assertion of nature over nurture. So much for basing our society in scientific consensus.

Secular,

you admit what many in the Progressive world usually deny with shamefilled defensiveness. The progressive agenda has always appeared to have wholly secular roots and no legitimate appeal to people of faith. It has always felt like the progressive agenda attempts to appeal to Christian compassion and morality are after thoughts not central tenets. The true agenda instead seems to be specifically to throw off any vestige of religious morality in society; to somehow recreate society absent God. More French Revolution than American Revolution.

Anyhow, I appreciate your honesty. It's a breath of fresh air.

It is always funny to me to hear the tortured logic used to try to prove the Bible does not proscribe homosexual behavior. What part of "men giving up natural relations with women and becoming inflamed with lust for one another" is confusing? What part of Men should not sleep with men is confusing?

Furthermore, we are told that we "cherry pick" scriptures from the Old Testament. This is a fabulous lie. Those who promote it simply don't understand Christian teaching. Jesus did not change the law rather he fulfilled it. What that means is that it is still wrong to do the things proscribed. However, when we fail to do so and confess our sins to Jesus asking for forgiveness, His death on the cross covers our sins (hence the reason why you don't see anyone stoning adulterers any longer). Dietary laws were also not applied to "gentile" Christians after the Acts 15 council.

So, to describe Christians as inconsistent on this issue is to be the "cherry-picker" not the full counsel of scripture guy.

Sorry.

Straight Christians who support homosexuals are consistently those who have, for about a hundred years or so, changed their interpretations of the Bible in the name of "modernity". These "liberal" Christians find much in common with Obama's "many roads to God".

Posted by: jonswitzer

The secularists, & the liberal Christians, Jews, Muslims bear in mind jonswitzer is 100% correct. When you appeal any decrypt scripture you are out of luck. All progress is only possible when you do not appeal to scripture. Take slavery, civil rights, human rights were only possible when you made secular appeals. The innate fairness of most people will prevail. Those who do not have that will fall in place after a generation or two. Nothing tangible is achieved, without safeguarding the progress made with utmost vigil for a few generations. The secularists must launch a two pronged strategy.

1) We need to proselytize for the progressive agenda, using secular arguments only. If we have to throw a bone once in a while to the liberal religious crowd we should. But the emphasis is secular arguments of fairness.

2) We need to erode the credibility of scripture all the time, incessantly. The goal is to relegate religion to the dust heap of history. This has been done before several times and successfully too. Each and every time one religion has replaced the another. In the past it has been a religion replacing another and mostly by force. This time it has to be religion & superstition replaced by reason.

it amazes me that sane , educated humans can still say this stuff. you cannot be both.

It amazes me that sane, educated humans can believe that their's is the only sane, educated opinion on controversial issues.

No, it is NOT a choice and Christians in particular need to grasp this one and stop operating in misconceptions.

Whether homosexuality is or is not a choice is irrelevant. The Bible condemns sexual immorality. In fact it specifically references homosexuality and adultery (which is arguably more of a biological impulse than homosexuality). You can embrace homosexuality if you wish, but by doing so, you reject Christ and his teachings.

@Potaboc--it amazes me that sane , educated humans can still say this stuff. you cannot be both. PLEASE check out my blog and realize that repeating lies and misconceptions does not make them true.
www.canyonwalkerconnections.com and thank you for the read in advance. You really do need to check out another POV--you present yourself as ignorant with your rhetoric.

The church needs to be educated on the issue of sexual orientation. The NUMBER ONE factor that can predetermine haw someone feels about equality is the is being gay a choice issue.
No, it is NOT a choice and Christians in particular need to grasp this one and stop operating in misconceptions.
I am a straight advocate to the church and blog at www.canyonwalkerconnections.com
Check out the newest post on Sexual Orientation.

It was said here:
"It's true Jesus never said anything about homsexuality directly. Instead he said, "I have NOT come to deny the law but to fulfill it."
The evidence that Jesus said any of the quotes attributed is hear-say. In other words it has no standing outside the realm of rumor.
There is also no evidence Jesus could read or write.
The above quote comes from the Gospel of Matthew written circa 60-65 AD.
The phrase "Jesus said", which is used ad nauseam by both sides of arguments, must always for the sake of accuracy and honesty, be preceded by the words "It is said."
Faith that rumor\hearsay is truth\fact leads ever increasing forks in the road of a debate,in the end going nowhere!

What makes that tough is that Christians that loudly self-identify as "straight" seem to invariably be closeted self hating gays.

Could we apply the same logic to liberals? That would mean that Keith Olberman is really a "closeted, self-hating" Republican.

What makes that tough is that Christians that loudly self-identify as "straight" seem to invariably be closeted self hating gays.

Pretty much anybody whose attitude towards gays is anything but "who cares?" is a self loathing closeted gay Christian.

It is true people do not choose their sexual orientation. It is equally true that they choose how they act upon their orientation. To say one is oriented toward a particular sexual behavior does not mean one should act upon it. How many would say one whose sexual orientation is toward six year olds should feel free to act upon that orientation? Unless you are willing to permit such behavior on the basis that one is oriented toward it, ask yourself how strongly you feel sexual orientation should sanction sexual behavior.
Posted by: potaboc
**************************************************************************************
Do you really see no difference between aromantic/erotic relationship between consenting adults, and the sexual abuse of a child by an adult?

I really enjoyed this article. As a practicing Catholic in an "enlightened" parish, we proclaim just what is stated in this article.

Being Gay is not a choice...it is inborn..no one chooses to be Straight or Gay. Period.

GLADERUNNER:

Thank you for your service to our country.

Someone just said, "Jesus NEVER said one negative word about homosexuals."

It's true Jesus never said anything about homsexuality directly. Instead he said, "I have NOT come to deny the law but to fulfill it." Then he redefined it more tightly than ever saying, "if you even look on a woman with lust in your heart you have already committed adultery." Trying to use Jesus as a pro-homosexual advocate is to have not read him seriously.

Read it for yourself:

Matt 5:17-19 "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Anyone who breaks one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.
(from New International Version)

I grew up in Washington DC where there was always an alliance (if shaky) between black churches and the gay communities. Recent antics have shattered any hope of that alliance continuing.

Posted by: mcroriel

= = = = = = = =

Excellent news, Mcroriel, thanks for reporting it.

.

It is always funny to me to hear the tortured logic used to try to prove the Bible does not proscribe homosexual behavior. What part of "men giving up natural relations with women and becoming inflamed with lust for one another" is confusing? What part of Men should not sleep with men is confusing?

Furthermore, we are told that we "cherry pick" scriptures from the Old Testament. This is a fabulous lie. Those who promote it simply don't understand Christian teaching. Jesus did not change the law rather he fulfilled it. What that means is that it is still wrong to do the things proscribed. However, when we fail to do so and confess our sins to Jesus asking for forgiveness, His death on the cross covers our sins (hence the reason why you don't see anyone stoning adulterers any longer). Dietary laws were also not applied to "gentile" Christians after the Acts 15 council.

So, to describe Christians as inconsistent on this issue is to be the "cherry-picker" not the full counsel of scripture guy.

Sorry.

Straight Christians who support homosexuals are consistently those who have, for about a hundred years or so, changed their interpretations of the Bible in the name of "modernity". These "liberal" Christians find much in common with Obama's "many roads to God".

When I was in the US Army, I was in denial of my sexual orientation.

But, married heterosexual men and heterosexual men with girlfriends or fiancees back in the USA chose to go on R&R to places where prostitution was legal. When they came back, they didn't wait for you to ask what they did on a 6-day R&R, they BRAGGED ABOUT IT. And not only that, many of them had explicit pornographic proof of themselves "doin' it!" And they made sure that you saw those pictures because they stuck them in your face.

Also, a couple of the "straight" guys in Company 8, 8th Support Battalion, 196th Light Infantry Brigade in Vietnam had 16mm movie projectors and they only used them to show pornographic movies in their hooches (living quarters).

And, officers in the company showed up watch them, too. When they hung up a sheet on the wall to show their porn, I went outside in the company area until the trashy movies were over.

NOTE TO POTABOC: Don't you know the difference between sexual orientation and the paraphilia of adults being sexually attracted to children?

It has been federally document that close to 98 percent of all people who sexually molest children are exclusively HETEROSEXUAL in their sexual orientation. Pedophilia (real Greek word should be "pederastia," sexual activity wit boys) is a mental disorder and is about control and not innate sexual orientation.

The original Greek word "paraphilia" literally means NORMAL human fondness/love for boys. Misuse of the word in English has ruined the word just like the Greek word, "philandria" (normal human love for men) has been misused in English as the root for "philanderer." English speakers makes it into a man who uses women for his own benefit.

Hipshot.
“But don't ask don't tell is still the best policy for the military.”
FWIW, I served ten years in the military, I stood upon your wall. So did a lot of fine men and women. Some of them were gay, some of them had red hair, some were left handed, and some were not even U.S. citizens.
The uniform is an equalizer. Regardless of the race/creed/color/gender preference of the individual, the uniform and the duty is exactly the same. If the duties can be performed, which is in fact the case regardless of orientation, then why deprive any able-bodied volunteers the privilege of becoming cannon fodder for the American way.
The arguments against gays serving openly in the military are exactly the same arguments that were made against blacks and women, yet women and blacks now serve openly and proudly in the ranks and have brought great honor to the institution.
DADT is a sham, a farce, not a credible policy. Clinton instituted it so he could sit on both sides of the fence at the same time. It is a policy born of political pandering, not of measured consequence.

Please forgive me for cyber-yelling here, Steve McSwain; but, your "Dr." title should not be used as a part of your name.

On to the screaming at the top of my lungs, so to speak:

THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO CONDEMNATION OF HOMOSEXUALS IN A TRANSLATED IN CONTEXT FROM THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES BIBLE!!!!

Jesus NEVER said one negative word about homosexuals. And, when the context of Paul's writings are understood, he never mentioned homosexuals either.

In a properly translated from the Hebrew Scriptures, the residents of Sodom are NEVER called "Sodomites." Where the KJV word "sodomite" appears, the context is about the religion of the Canaanites, the people who lived in Canaan. Besides, the city-state of Sodom wasn't even in Canaan; it was on the opposite side of the Jordan River where the Original Country of Jordan is located. The "West Bank of Jordan" used to be a part of the Country of Canaan.

A special word to African American Christian ministers. Your new found homo-phobia is especially offensive.

You sat by while gays (black & white) renovated the very neighborhoods where your churches stand and did nothing for the communities (except collect money). Now these same ministers protest the establishment of a gay restaurant or bar in that neighborhood. A neighborhood that has received millions of dollars in equity to the benefit of it's long term residents through increasing property values and lower crime rates.

You've neglected your gay sons and forced them on the "Down Low" where shame and self loathing have driven HIV in African Americans to new highs.

You've protested our right to marry, while for years gay communities in urban areas were the primary tax base paying for your children's education.

We've fought for your rights for decades now you deny us ours taking your own sons and daughters down in the process.

I grew up in Washington DC where there was always an alliance (if shaky) between black churches and the gay communities. Recent antics have shattered any hope of that alliance continuing.

African American ministers, it's time to wake up and come back to Jesus.

For those that use the bible to condemn homosexuality, where is your outrage against adultery?

If Dr. McSwain was calling on the media to giva an "equal voice to the Christian community that stands in solidarity" with the aldulterous Christian community, I would be equally outraged.

Dr. McSwain, regarding this statement:

"This matters. And, if you're like me, you're ready to take your stand with all people. You're tired of the judging of others and the division it causes. You want, as I do, to practice living like Christ who said, "Judge not," (Matt. 7:1) and "Do to others as you wish them to do to you," (Matt. 7;12);

I suggest you read further in Matthew to Chapter 10, where in verses 34-36 Jesus says:

"34 “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I have come to turn

“‘a man against his father,
a daughter against her mother,
a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law—
36 a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household."

Christians are not called to stand with all people, we are called to stand with God.

For those that use the bible to condemn homosexuality, where is your outrage against adultery? Talk about hypocrisy ... it's selective reading of the bible in order to reinforce your skewed, fearful, and hate-filled view of the world

Dr McSwain, Matthew 7:1-4 reads:

"1 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.
3 “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye."

In context, it would seem less a call against judgement and more a call against hypocrisy. Furthermore, when you read Paul's writings in 1 Corinthians 5:9-11:

"9 I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— 10 not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 11 But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister, but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people. 12 What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside? 13 God will judge those outside. “Expel the wicked person from among you."

it is clear that the Church is called to judge it's members. Now, you may argue that "sexually immoral" doesn't include homosexuality, but you would be hard pressed to support that positon Biblically.

Lt. Weinberg: Why do you like them so much?
Galloway: Because they stand upon a wall and say, "Nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch."

A Few Good Men - 1992

But don't ask don't tell is still the best policy for the military.

Hipshot.

POTABOC:
“To say one is oriented toward a particular sexual behavior does not mean one should act upon it.”
What defines ‘should’?
If I enjoy a certain method/style occasionally, frequently, or even exclusively and I have a consenting adult partner that does not object or even shares those proclivities, where’s the ‘should’ or ‘should not’? Who’s to judge that? (You?)
Pedophilia and bestiality are NOT homosexuality any more than they are heterosexuality.
Nice try, but they just ain’t the same thing. An argument for one is NOT an argument for the other. Sexual behavior among consenting adults is benign and perfectly legal. Non-consensual sex is NEVER okay regardless of the M/F headcount in the situation. Same with children and animals, they cannot GIVE consent, ever.

Hipshot - the label doesn't matter so much as the rights do. So, lets stop using the word "marriage" in all laws and keep the word "marriage" exclusive to religious organizations who want to convey the blessing of their faith on a civil union. Under the law, there would only be civil unions, straight or gay couples.

Our military is much more capable of behaving as adults than we seem to think they are. There have always been gays in the military, sleeping in the same barracks with straights, protecting their buddies backs in a fight, and killing the enemy. DADT is a way to perpetuate a lie - that gays are not in the military. DADT is dishonorable on its face - requiring a person to lie, or at least to deceive. How can we ask those who do us the honor of protecting us to behave dishonorably?

Potaboc: I don't care and don't want to know about your sexual behavior - unless it involves a child or coercion of an adult. Why are you interested in the sexual behavior of consenting adults?

There are many other Christians who agree with Dr. McSwain - Jesus loves us all. They also believe that the issue of tax breaks and other legal (civil, world of Caesar) benefits of marriage/civil union should be available to committed couples of any various combination of the sexes.

The real difference we need to observe is that civil benefits of marriage exist in a civil world of freedom and equity under the law.

Hipshot:
“On the other hand, for gays to insist that the label "marriage" be used on their unions is quite selfish”
Why? Is it not ‘selfish’ to want to keep a thing for yourself to the exclusion of others, as you are doing? It’s just a word. They want to share it, not steal it.
“The military issue is separate. The public concept of civil rights doesn't necessarily apply” It doesn’t necessarily NOT apply either. There are gays in the military, there have been for as long as there have been militaries. There is simply no reason to continue pretending that there aren’t.
“But I would not want to share a dorm room with one.”
Why? Are you afraid of rape? Are you afraid of being turned? Why do you fear these people?

"what we presumed was normal--being straight--from abnormal--being gay."

= = = = = =

Being gay IS abnormal. So is being left-handed. Both lead to difficulties in life like shorter life-spans. Both have certain advantages having to do with being different. Both have a history or persecution and forced conversion.

It's abnormal, get over it. We can all get along.

.

Christians should leave the final judgment to God. I see nothing wrong with admitting that the Bible says "no", but leave it as a personal matter and preach against persecution. On the other hand, for gays to insist that the label "marriage" be used on their unions is quite selfish. The military issue is separate. The public concept of civil rights doesn't necessarily apply. Furthermore, I have lived in the same house with gays and we all got on quite well. But I would not want to share a dorm room with one.

It is true people do not choose their sexual orientation. It is equally true that they choose how they act upon their orientation. To say one is oriented toward a particular sexual behavior does not mean one should act upon it. How many would say one whose sexual orientation is toward six year olds should feel free to act upon that orientation? Unless you are willing to permit such behavior on the basis that one is oriented toward it, ask yourself how strongly you feel sexual orientation should sanction sexual behavior.