I just keep wondering "*Why* do you want to belong???"

A little reflection could probably answer our question in this matter. I'm guessing it's because they believe in Christ, not because they want to belong to a Christian organization. Not being Christian, I sometimes forget that there's a difference between those two things.

I'll go read the link Meatballman provided and see if it sheds any light.

Well, I'm guessing that a lot of them choose not to believe that part of the Bible. I consider myself a Christian, but there are quite a number of things in the Bible that I struggle to believe or just don't believe at all.

In my personal opinion, this statement is about the truest thing said in this whole thread. Unfortunately, for religious/irreligious people alike their beliefs are the premises by which they view right and wrong, and this influences what the state views as legal/illegal...

I'll confess that there are days when I wish I were built in such a way that I could adopt some religion. I think it could make it a lot easier to construct a personal moral philosophy out of some fundamental building blocks. Of course, that cuts both ways and there are folks who draw on some building blocks that I find pretty scary.

To Laura's point, I don't know if church and state can ever be totally separate, but that seems like almost a semantic distinction. What I do know is that if I place the country in which I reside on the "Netherlands-Saudi Arabia Church-State Separation Scale" I am so happy that we are much closer to Holland! (OK, somebody shoot me if I haven't picked the right countries for the poles ofthis scale...)

I'm sure there probably isn't a person on this board who doesn't have at least on major qualm with some state sanctioned law based on his or her beliefs.

I'd agree, though I'll also confess, as I think my last comment suggested, to feeling some disadvantage of not having religious/supernatural/institutional underpinning to those beliefs. They are I guess secular and along the lines of "I believe people should have health care" and "I believe the war on drugs is a waste of time." Not very awe-inspiring, eh? Often not as black-and-white as I'd like. Oh, well. I guess I do have some hard-core beliefs that are residuals of Christian tradition like "Though shalt not kill".

The best the state can do is not throw people in jail for observing their own beliefs and practices and beyond that I suppose majority rules.

That sounds pretty good ...so long as correct observation of those beliefs doesn't involve shooting folks or pouring poison gas in the subway!!

Well, I'm guessing that a lot of them choose not to believe that part of the Bible.

Reading the arguments that Meatballman linked above, it appears as though the root of the issue becomes translation from ancient hebrew. Their claim is that in most cases, the original words referred to a generic cult prostitute, and that only in later translations did the words take on meaning which referred specifically to homosexuality.

I think that digging down to the original root meaning like that is an important thing. If you've got an entire culture based around words in an ancient text, it would make sense to be sure you know what they really meant when they wrote it.

Whether or not their arguments about those particular translations are valid isn't critical to me, since I don't adhere to that text anyway (regardless of its translation). I was just curious where the philosophical justification came from, and that link has answered this curiosity to my satisfaction.

A little reflection could probably answer our question in this matter. I'm guessing it's because they believe in Christ, not because they want to belong to a Christian organization. Not being Christian, I sometimes forget that there's a difference between those two things.

My personal bewilderment aside, no, I don't really expect that it is that complicated and I'm probably being a little, what, pedantic?. It does seem, though, like a lot of these folks really *do* want to belong to the organization, have the organization change so that they can be accepted and belong. I guess it is just my own inclination that I think I would start my own church or fire up a schism. 'Course, some of the subgroups that have sprung up in the RC church might be considered micro-schisms. I haven't paid that much attention.

FWIW, I do have memories of packed, snowy-night Christmas Eve midnight masses and the resonance of Gregorian chants. Pretty heady stuff. There's a lot of rich ceremony there that you wouldn't necessarily get if you opened your own schism church.

how can a person be both Christian and gay

It's long been my personal belief that Paul was gay. Also that he was schizophrenic. And remember that today's Christianity is much more Paul-based than Jesus-based.

You know the common caricature of the man-hating dyke? I believe that Paul was a woman-hating fag. It's certainly well documented that he was woman-hating (this is probably largely where the decreed celibacy of the Cathoic priesthood comes from), and there are many passages in the Bible that can easily be read as implying homosexuality and that he was ashamed of it (which may further explain priesthood celibacy decree).

But that's just my 2 cents.

Damn that was the biggest load of BS I've seen in a while. They conclude that Paul saying "thorn in his flesh" refers to a penis, and that since Paul was never married and never said he was a virgin then he must have been gay. Of course, i have no idea whether or not he ever putted from the rough, but it is a very weak argument they present.

Gotta sneak that Good Will Hunting quote in there

Lost amid societies rampant pursuit of political correctness the word "tolerance" is almost without value. Gone is the more classical view of tolerance equating closely (but not precisely) to "civility" and instead we find it taking on the meaning of "intolerance." That is to say the so-called "tolerant" of today are actually intolerant of those who don't agree with their definition of tolerance. How ironic.

The essence of tolerance revolves around how we treat people we disagree with and not how we regard ideas which we do not ourselves hold. Much more could be said, and this seemed to be an opportune time for clarification of this point. (I hope I did...)

Overall Jeff, I would agree 100% with your response in this thread.

Tim

Lost amid societies rampant pursuit of political correctness the word "tolerance" is almost without value.

I'm starting to feel like "political correctness" is becoming some sort of "argumentum ad dymo" -- apply the label and whatever you stick it to is supposed to look cheesy. I'm not 100% sure of the point you are trying to make, but I did click over and look at the two items you referenced. What I saw, well, I think I detected some weaknesses in each that I think are maybe worth spending some time trying to deconstruct....except that I have to get up at 5AM to go away for 2 days (I'll try to pay some attention to those when I return).

In the meantime, I guess I could put this to you: I'm an atheist and I probably meet most folks' broad definition of a "liberal", while I'm guessing that, on both counts, you are probably not. Looking at those Kessler/Beckwith pieces, I could perhaps be led to believe that I am the guilty party from a tolerance perspective. So, I ask: In what ways could I be more tolerant in a fashion that would help remedy your seeming complaint that tolerance ain't what it used to be?

Unfortunately, his argument is not terribly well presented, and, in fact, I don't agree with a few of his points. However, his thesis more-or-less equates to mine, and, in fact, I didn't find that page until I needed a reference. I have held that belief for many years. However, the refutation also contains some good arguments.

Regardless, it makes a lot of sense to me. If you don't agree, that's fine. However, it could be said that Paul invented modern Christianity (he certainly came up with most of those dogma -- I don't believe that Jesus ever said anything about homosexuality, for example) and he was obviously feeling a lot of guilt about something he was doing. And since he came up with those rules, he could have just changed them. Which leads one to the conclusion that he wanted to feel guilty, which could be at least a part of a possible explanation for why a gay person might want to be part of a Christian organization. (And I don't mean to offend any gay folks out there. But there are a large number of people who do things that they think are wrong, but have no desire to change, and I, personally have no explanation for that, but it seems to fit some sort of psychological taxonomy.

Interesting. As the reverend said, it's hard to separate marriage from religion because the state recognizes it as a religious institution (despite us patting ourselves on the back about separation of church and state). I see the dilemma.

i don't buy into this. marriage may have started as a religious institution (in our western society, as someone pointed out), but it really has been overshadowed as a civil institution. you can go to a justice and be legally married. the clergy is now acting as an agent of the government ("by the power vested in me...") in performing marriage, not the other way around.

That's true. My dad, as a member of the priesthood in my church, has to be licensed by the province (in Canada), and state (in the US) to perform marriages that are to be recognized by the government. In addition to that, there is a very specific phrasing that he has to use during the ceremony.

As for my experiences with how homosexuality and gay marriages has been perceived by the various communities I've lived in, well, it's essentially been as varied as the communities I've been in. Out on the prarie provinces, it didn't get much mention, and was largely kept under the carpet. Then AIDS became big news, and all of a sudden the homosexual aspect of society got exposure, and, needless to say, a lot of bad press. Then I went to a university that had a very large, and very vocal gay/lesbian support structure -- so much so that every incoming student had to sit through the 1-in-10 speech (which was more entertaining for the guy pulling a condom over his head to demonstrate that "I don't use condoms 'cuz my dick is too big" is not a viable excuse for not using condoms). After university, I moved to Toronto, and ended up living a couple blocks from the rainbow flag district. Quite the education, that was. Everyone knew where it was, and it didn't attract much attention from anyone, except perhaps for the curiosity seekers. The pride weekend is a huge event, and has some major streets blocked off for a parade. Last year, the (non-gay) mayor joined in the parade. The event gets a little bit of negative protest, but less so about the homosexuality than the nudity. IIRC, gay marriage has come up a couple times in various provincial/national legislature, but I don't remember whether or not they were ever legalized. I think there might have been a discrimination case about it in the Canadian Supreme Court. Either way, it's definately being discussed.

On to my current experience -- my current neighbour is a gay black male that grew up in Oakland. From conversations with him, it seems to still be a non-topic much of the time, since the people asking for it are a small minority of a small minority. As for the promiscuity bit, he admitted to having done the whole bathhouse/anonymous bar sex thing, and said that the prevailing attitude seemed to be "since we're already outside the sexual mores of society, why should we confine ourselves to the sexual morality that society establishes as being proper," mixed with a healthy dose of "it's not like we're getting anyone pregnant." It makes sense to me.

canuckInLA, this really isn't a reply to you just replied because I just wanted to throw my 2 cents in and didn't know where to start.

I'm not opposed to gay marriage... I don't have a problem with anyone being gay. I do have a problem with the stupidity of the whole PC thing. For instance here in northern VA 10 miles outta DC gays cannot be married, but in an effort to make everything all PC and what not if you have a "same sex partner" you can claim them on some insurance policies. But myself, I don't really claim a religion (don't really believe in organized religion) and never really thought marriage was necessary (I think it's kind of a religious legally binding type thing which never really appealed to me or my "opposite sex partner) but because my partner is of the opposite sex, we can't put her on my insurance policy, because we're not married. Why not? She's my partner?? This bugs me... people in this country put waaay to much into a persons sex, sexual preference, color, religion and ethnicity. I think in a perfect world we'd stop using all this PC BS to dance around things that make us uncomfortable, accept things, deal with it and move on. But I could rant on stuff like this for hours so I'll stop.
Back to the whole gay thing.... do what makes you happy... thats how I feel. But my views are shared by few in this area of the US.

I am currently in a long term relationship with a golden retriever.

Now I understand why my wife has run off with my best Boxer.

if you have a "same sex partner" you can claim them on some insurance policies

That reminds me -- my company's benefits plan provides insurance for partners -- same or opposite sex -- who have been living together for a certain number of years.

MCC's views #1 and #2 are contradicting each other. The first argue how they accept being gay and in the second tell how Paul was *struggling* with the sin of homosexuality.
Just a little thought to ponder over...

And just why do you find it unusual to notice self-contradicion in religious doctrine?

First, the top of the article about how Paul might have been gay says:

In presenting this article, I am NOT saying that I, or any member of the Universal Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches, agrees or diagrees with it. I am presenting because it is interesting.

Second, just because the MCC doesn't think it's a sin doesn't mean that Paul didn't, either. It's one's own views on something that make it a sin to oneself, not the rest of society's, and certainly not those of a society that exists two thousand years later on a different continent.

General arguments about the sexuality or lifestyles of biblical characters are terribly confusing to most people due to the drastic differences between individual views of scripture. Most Christians believe scripture is anywhere from mostly trustworthy to completely reliable. For those it is incomprehensible to think of Paul as gay since he makes statements against is with such seriousness. But in these cases it is not really homosexuality or Paul that is at issue, but rather inspiration and good historical research.

I don't mean to come across as an idiot, and I'm not trying to be a jerk, but I don't understand your last two sentences. And I mean I don't understand the words' meanings, not that I disagree with what they're saying.

Did you mean ``... he makes statements against it...''? If so, people need to realize that these people, even though they lived many, many years ago, have the same foibles we do today. I'm sure many of us do things that we think are wrong, but we can't help ourselves, whether it be overeating or doing heroin or having gay sex (not that I think there's anything wrong with that, but Paul did).

And I don't know which ``cases'' you're referring to, and generally don't understand the rest because of that, I think. I'm so at a loss that I can't quite figure out how to ask what you're saying, other than to just ask you to rephrase it. Sorry. I'm sure I'm just being a moron here.

As far as believing the scripture, I view most of the old testament as history by way of metaphor and allegory. But most of the non-Gospel New Testament I believe, as it's mostly personal correspondence and almost diary-entry-type stuff, but it's obviously frought with personal bias, as it's mostly Paul telling other people what they should be doing.

I think all he was trying to say is that anyone who attempts to prove that Paul was a homosexual probably:

1. Does not believe that the Bible is the wholly-inspired, inerrant word of God. (in which case you may as well throw the whole thing out if you are going to "pick-n-choose" what is truth.)

2. Is not being historically responsible with the known facts of Paul's life as well as early church history.

Sorry... my post should read....
For those (people who believe the bible is mostly to completely reliable), it is impossible to belive Paul to be gay.
As to his ability to be tempted, you are quite right that biblical characters should never be seen a super heroes. However, sinful as He was the chances of homosexual acts is quite low. First because Paul's language in the passages about homosexuality is always from a third person perspective, even though he quite frequently deals with his own sinfulness in an open way. Second, Paul's alleged indiscretions would have ruined him with the Jewish converts and led to his demise much earlier than he died (regardless of the two dates possible).

My original point, flawed as it was in presentation, was that individuals who argue about the sexuality of biblical characters, whether it be Jesus, Paul, David, or whoever, are usually so dramatically different in their definition of inspiration that dialogue is tense, aggravating, and better spent on theories of inspiration or biblical trustworthiness.