“Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no salvation. When his breath departs he returns to the earth; on that very day his plans perish,” Psalm 146:3,4

Men, who may stir up exaggerated esteem in us, are simply not worthy of the trust we can place in God. Men and women, even at their best, should not be revered as we revere God. Men can possess great charm, enjoy popularity and esteem and be exalted by their peers, yet be corrupt in character. Their corruption may lie hidden while you follow them and confide in them, to your own peril {Matt. 7:15; Phil. 3:2}.

Things are very confusing these days, people say the bible’s a book of lies, some advocate murder, others immorality, corrupt ministries, churches and governments all have hidden agendas – i don’t know whether being gay or straight is a choice but i know that abstinence is a virtue – for the corruption cannot infiltrate a heart which is only used to love, not ‘make love’.

It’s something like fighting a large fire. You don’t try to fight it at the center where it is raging most fiercely. You work from the outside and move inward.

RATs such as Peter LaBarbera and Matt Barber are not likely to be persuaded by anything we say. But they may be a little bit rattled by hearing a prominent evangelical make statements that show some shift in position regarding gays, as Richard Cizik did (and got himself thrown out of the National Association of Evangelicals). Recently Peter and Matt seem to have become even more shrill, hysterical, and hyperbolic in their writings. And I seem to notice more Bible references, as well. I think they sense they are losing the battle, and so their response is to try harder. I think the RATs will become irrelevant long before they are persuaded – sort of like a fire that is well under control, but still burning in a contained area.

I agree that the debate will not always be on our terms, and that in many cases our best hope is to appeal to compassion and basic human decency, and hope that this will override dogma.

However, I don’t think we should let the debate be on their terms either. If we concede that rationality is not an essential ingredient of a civil discussion, then we have already lost the argument over the larger question of how disagreements are resolved — and indeed of whether society should be free or beholden to some particular ideology.

If a religious leader can use the Bible to convince his followers to hate gays, then he can use it to convince them of anything he wants. If we grant him the right to do so, then the disagreement ceases being a civil debate about what’s right or reasonable and has become essentially a power struggle. In that philosophical environment, gays are more useful as handy scapegoats (like Jews, Muslims, or Gypsies in various historical settings) than as human beings, and we have church-based feudalism instead of a free society.

I think you’re wrong about the numbers, though. My understanding is that they don’t vastly outnumber us — if by “us” we’re talking about “people who think there’s nothing wrong with being gay and are willing to defend that belief” — although it may seem that way. They just out-shout us, and are more violent. As I understand it, we are gaining ground and are probably in the majority (witness Obama’s election on a firmly gay-supportive platform, as a shining example).

If their type of thinking is allowed to claim legitimacy, though, it could easily rise once again to the highest levels of government in some future election. Civil rights cannot survive in that kind of society; I should think the last 8 years was an eloquent demonstration of this.

Appeal to decency and compassion, yes — but be careful not to concede too much philosophical ground when attempting to build such bridges, or the lords of ignorance will storm through right behind the kindly-but-devout grandmothers.

Sorry if this comes across as a bit of a rant, but that’s how it looks from here.

I have to disagree completely.
Some things turn me on, some things disgust me — but it’s not an either or situation. There is a third option with me, and with a lot of the people I’ve met. There’s a whole gray area in between. Things that neither turn me on nor disgust me. I’ve had partners who had desires in that gray area, and I’ve been more than happy to oblige them because ultimately, turning my partner on — turns me on. It’s what advice columnist Dan Savage calls GGG – Good, Giving, and Game.

You make the mistake of assuming that the debate will be on your terms. But I can state without hesitation that Christians are not going to debate the existence of God with you.

You will say, “…your point being” and they will say, “homosexuality is a choice and its a sin”. Argument over. The next step is when they all march to the ballot box to vote against the heathen homosexuals who choose to defy God.

The only way we can possibly win our rights from those who vastly outnumber us is to appeal to their decency and their faith and to do so on their terms. And because their objection is to what they believe to be sin and because “choice” is the basis of sin, we have to address this issue.

We only harm ourselves when we decide that we just don’t have to deal with their objections.

If you know they are a Christian, you can even say “Well, being Christian is also a choice, but I’m not trying to outlaw that.”

If you want to allow them the excuse of “God hates gays“, then consider how many hurdles this claim has to clear:

* That “God” is an actual being rather than metaphor or myth
* Which, if any, works are reliable and accurate descriptions of God’s stated opinions at the time of writing
* That those writings unambiguously show God’s disapproval of teh gays (the Bible gives mixed signals on this issue)
* What specific actions God advises taking
* Why God advises those actions
* That those opinions have not changed since they were set down (many centuries ago, in most cases) — or, in other words, how we know that this advice given to ignorant desert nomads should still apply to us in a modern, educated civilization
* why those opinions have not changed, in light of the discovery that gays do not in fact destroy civilization
* (And finally) That it is in humanity’s best interests to act on this negative opinion

Those are all legitimate issues of personal belief within the sphere of religion, so who is any Christian to insist that any one of them is unquestionably resolved?

The reason that choice is such a HUGE issue is because of the notion of sin. In Christian theology, sin can only be the result of choice. Thus, ‘no choice’ means ‘no sin’.

(Yes, yes, I know. You don’t believe in sin or God or theology or whatever… but the majority of Americans do. And they vote.)

Catholics get around this by saying that the condition is not sin necessarily, just objectively disordered. As long as you don’t engage in behavior, you’re more or less OK. (But just what OK means seems to be left up to whoever is Pope at the moment).

I think ultimately this is a losing argument for the Church because it relies on a god who assigns rules arbitrarily and capriciously – a position that flys in the face of the principles that Americans love to believe that they value: fairness and equality.

Protestants, on the other hand, aren’t as likely to parse desire from behavior. They are inclined to see them as degrees of the same thing. A chaste gay person is not much better than a pig-slut because behavior is less important than attitude. “Embracing sin” is the real problem, not what one does about it.

That’s why we see Exodus making increasingly bizzare statements about ‘Christ identity’ and ‘the opposite of homosexuality is holiness’, etc. Really, their efforts to be heterosexual are less based in changing sexual desire than they are in finding some way to make homosexuality about choice.

Given the conundrum of believing that God considers homosexuality to be sin, combined with the knowledge that they did not choose their own desires, they get creative. They “choose” to identify with Christianity rather than with homosexuality. And by so “choosing”, they avoid the sin of being gay.

But recognition that orientation isn’t choice is also the reason why liberal Protestants are getting over their anti-gay stuff. If orientation is independent of choice, it is therefore not condemned by God. (The same conclusion found by Catholics). However, they take the next step and say, “If being gay isn’t a sin, then how should a gay person live?”. And that question is gradually driving liberal Christianity towards inclusion.

So when we talk about choice with Christians (as about 75% of the population so identifies), we need to remember that what they are really discussing is whether homosexuality is sin. When talking about choice, they are less concerned with social outcomes than with religious taboo. And frankly, religious taboo can often be a more powerful contributor to decisions than an appeal to reason – even for those who don’t consider themselves particularly religious.

So it is vital that we continue to explain that orientation isn’t chosen and that it appears in most instances to be immutable. Yes, some will then leap through logical gymnastics to come up with ways to keep an innate characteristic as sin, but many more will say, “No choice, no sin, no problem”.

And I don’t want to think about hetero sex, thank you very much.

But, when I see a straight couple walking down the street holding hands, my mind does not immediately jump to the (to me) slightly disturbing image of the two of them in bed. Why should it? I don’t want to think about hetero sex, and, by and large, I don’t think about hetero sex.

And what if a gay couple walk down the street holding hands? Why do some straight people’s minds immediately jump to the (to them) disturbing image of the couple in bed? Is it just that gay pairings are rarer?

TRiG.

To which I would respond by asking: why can homosexuals be so effectively demonized? Is it as simple as we’re different?

This is an important question, and one that I was trying to address by suggesting:

1. that many non-gay people have a somewhat “squeamish” reaction to the idea of gay sex

2. that “squeamishness” is something which can be either overcome or worsened by environmental factors — exposure to positive gay role models tending to the former, and exposure to anti-gay rhetoric tending to the latter

3. that religious leaders of a certain type (to overgeneralize a bit) stand to gain from the latter but not the former, and have sufficient power to exert the necessary influence.

(n.b. I remember having a strong “ewwww!” reaction to the idea of heterosexual sex when I first heard about it as a kid, as I suspect many kids do at first — it sounded really nasty, and who would do something so gross?! — so the squeamishness factor isn’t something unique to gay sex; it’s just that our culture says hetero sex is sometimes okay, so we get over it.)

Yes, I’m sure this is an oversimplification, but it seems to me that these are the broad brush strokes of what is at work here — and indeed with many con-lib clashes. The cons take the worst elements of human nature and work to enhance them for the benefit of “strong leadership”, while libs work to overcome them in the interests of everyone getting along and getting on with life.

I think this does explain the fervor, and why it keeps burning despite being a minority view and despite the widespread efforts to quench the flames. Further study would seem to be a good idea, of course — and this mechanism suggests a direction for such study.