actually this is proven as incorrect. relations between same sex partners is not listed in the bible at all, the bible only mentions community rape. the people who initiated the anti-gay movement were the same people who initiated the anti-sex movement. the catholic ruler in Rome that started the march against sex period which has since included homosexuality in recent years as his values have been carried into the modern church for those who are fanatic fundamentalists. its an idea rather then actual doctrine. this is just like the concept of angels having wings, this concept came from early paintings rather then actual doctrine.

I plan on writing something about this at some point soon. But in the meanwhile:

I recall my reaction when Alberto Kenya Fujimori won the Peruvian presidential election. It felt odd, something was out of place.

Was it because I hate Japanese people? No. It wasn’t even an underlying bigotry relating to the Japanese.

It was because I held prejudices about who “should be” president of Peru. It was supposed to be someone who was a “real Peruvian”, that is, someone Latino.

Now, it didn’t take long to get my head around the idea that “real Peruvians” come in many ethnicities and, of course, Peru’s voters can elect whomever they want. But my first response was flavored by a prejudice of which I was never even aware.

My point is that we should be cautious to assign the motivation of “hate” to what may be nothing more that a prejudice that has not been fully examined.

We all have prejudices, folks. It’s what we do with them once we recognize them that matters.

Yeah, I have a hard time with that one too.

But in a certain respect I think there might be a bit of validity.

I’m sure there were plenty of men who treated women like Goddesses and respected them sincerely — they just didn’t think women should vote or own property.

I’m sure there were some slave owners back in the day who treated their slaves nicely, like one of the family, like people — they just didn’t think they should be free.

I’m sure there were some white folks who didn’t have anything “personal” against black folks, they just didn’t want them voting, or going to school with their kids, or marrying white people.

Except I have an issue with that.
How can a person, have an opinion about other persons and have it not be personal?

Guess what, I’m on the side of marriage between a man and a woman. BUT I don’t think that’s the only possibility. SO I support straight marriage AND gay marriage. It’s not the support of “traditional marriage” that’s the issue it’s when that’s the only thing on the menu that’s the problem.

“They don’t think I deserve the same rights as them, but it doesn’t mean they don’t like me!”

Uh huh…

It reminds me of a Mafia protection racket. But at least the Mafia doesn’t want anything more than your money.

LOL, yes, right, accept this “free” “gift” or face eternal torture.

If you studied the Rabbinical writings and the Oral Torah you would see that the Gospels have painted us as stereotyped obsessive fundamentalists.

The practice of singling out ones enemies and describing them in the most negative terms is not a new one.

When the gospel writers spoke about those whom they saw as oppressors and enemies, they weren’t complementary. Just as we here do not always use complementary terms to describe those on the Christian right who lead the cause to deny us our rights.

And just as it can sometimes appear that we are condemning all Christians (and some sites do conflate all Christendom and call it homophobic), so too do can the gospels appear to an ignorant reader as a stereotyping of all Jews. Readers of the gospels need to remind themselves that in a large part these were communications from Jews, to Jews, and about Jews. And that rants against one particular sect are to be understood to be biased, just as a Baptist writing about Catholic beliefs is biased.

You make some very intersting points. But I do want to quibble with one:

I would suggest to you that Christianity is a vehicle for many things mostly from the Ancient World. Christianity’s core- the argument about Sin and Salvation- is conservative, containing a low assessment of human goodness and no actual grounds to expect the improvement of the world or mankind over time.

I think that you are mistaking Sin and Salvation with it’s predecessor, Sin and Punishment (what Paul called “the law of sin and death”).

I would agree that Sin and Punishment was a very ancient and very conservative concept and still sits at the heart of much of the theology of many Christian denominations. But Sin and Salvation is a radical, wildly liberal concept (please recognize that I use “Sin” cautiously here).

If we recall the origins of Christianity, it was presented as “good news”, unlike the religions around it, you weren’t facing punishment or penalty for your errors or flaw but instead forgiveness for free. Even the word “salvation” serves as a reminder that one is “saved” from having to pay a penalty or serve punishment.

Radical.

But, of course, 2000 years of word games now presents Christianity, for many, as a religion based on “follow me or go to Hell”. We are all “sinners in the hands of an angry God” deserving of eternal fire and only granted by our desperate clinging to a somewhat tenuous grace that gives us even the slightest hope of redemption.

Not so radical.

As I see it, the extent to which one holds to either punishment or to salvation (or, as stated above to domination v. liberation theology) informs which response one will have when faced with a religious conundrum such as homosexuality.