42 responses

  1. Ben in Oakland
    June 2, 2010

    “And once those advancing homosexuality have successfully framed these debates in this way, those holding to traditional morality are helpless. They are easily portrayed as cruel, discriminatory, hateful bigots unwilling to extend the rights they want for themselves to others who are not like them.”

    He certainly got THAT right. Stopped clocks and all that,

  2. Hazumu Osaragi
    June 2, 2010

    Can transgender please be included in this? To a rabid anti-gay, I’m just a super-effeminate male who’s too ashamed to be a garden-variety gay man, so I went and got my ‘manhood’ lopped off…

  3. Lynn David
    June 2, 2010

    You nailed it, Timothy. Many a time I have seen the attempt made at these tired and well-worn arguments and more and more I am seeing them fail on message boards among straights themselves.

  4. Neil D
    June 3, 2010

    Tim had me nodding my head up until he said discrimination was unChristian.

    “Praise be to Allaah.

    Firstly: The crime of homosexuality is one of the greatest of crimes, the worst of sins and the most abhorrent of deeds, and Allaah punished those who did it in a way that He did not punish other nations. It is indicative of violation of the fitrah, total misguidance, weak intellect and lack of religious commitment, and it is a sign of doom and deprivation of the mercy of Allaah.”

    And from our Jewish friends:

    “As human beings and fellow Jews, individuals created b’tzelem elokeem, in the image of God. Judaism may disapprove of homosexual activity, but not of the homosexual himself. “He is as beloved in God’s eyes as any other Jew, and is as responsible as any Jew is in all the mitzvahs,” according to Rabbi Shraga Simmons of Aish HaTorah.

    Nobody’s perfect; we all sin — and when we do, we are expected to do teshuvah, or repentance. The same holds true for this particular variety of sinner. “He need not feel irreparably and irretrievably stigmatized,” wrote Rabbi Barry Freundel of Congregation Kesher Israel in Washington, D.C. “Above all, he need not feel excluded from the community.”

    The dynamic might change, however, if the individual insists on taking a public, activist approach that seeks to legitimize inherently unacceptable behavior. In that case, he would run the risk of distancing himself from the community — as would, for example, any Jew who publicly and explicitly promotes, say, the desecration of Shabbos or the wanton violation of other Jewish laws.”

    Now certainly there are Christians, Jews, and Muslims who might disagree and say that our behavior is not sinful. It’s pretty clear, however, that a significant part of all the major religions consider our behavior sinful.

    I think we should stop pretending its possible to be gay and religious.

  5. Neil D
    June 3, 2010
  6. Timothy (TRiG)
    June 3, 2010

    Discrimination against gay people is neither un-American nor un-Christian. It is, however, immoral, unethical, and unjust.

    TRiG.

  7. DN
    June 3, 2010

    This line from the ONN piece is a good one too:

    “A person’s natural state is that of male or female. From there, people choose what kind of sexual behavior, if any, to participate in.”

    I’m sure he meant to say “from there, people choose whether or not to engage in sexual behavior.” But he didn’t. He said – in those exact words – that everyone chooses their sexual proclivities. It’s a sad cliche of a question, but when do we think straights choose to be straight?

    Anyhow, as soon as I read that, I knew this guy was a lightweight. The fact that he hosts an AM talkshow in Kokomo, Indiana doesn’t lend him any credibility either :)

  8. Paul in Canada
    June 3, 2010

    Neil D – are you on crack? Holy wackadoodle, dude!!!

    Timothy – “The more that they ratchet up the rhetoric, the less their positions are given credibility.”

    uh… yup!

  9. Jason D
    June 3, 2010

    “I think we should stop pretending its possible to be gay and religious.”

    Tell that to the unitarians, buddhists, pagans, wiccans, MCCs, Quakers, and other groups who embrace gays and lesbians as ordinary members, not as sinners in need of fixing.

    It’s not “pretending” to admit reality. There are gay religious people.

  10. Swampfox
    June 3, 2010

    Yes, they are losing the argument. Good.

  11. Priya Lynn
    June 3, 2010

    Neil said “I think we should stop pretending its possible to be gay and religious.”.

    Roughly 70% of American gays are Christians so its obviously possible.

  12. Regan DuCasse
    June 3, 2010

    To add to DN’s point, this is something I don’t understand and never will.

    For the most part, we are dealing with people who are giving the impression they are well read, experienced and have carefully thought through the issue of homosexuality.

    Yet, if confronted with some very basic questions of ethics towards another human being as an individual or group.
    The historical context of religious abuse against people regardless of genetic attributes.
    That should put them off being so eager to abuse gay people and isolate them to the extent that the truth is harder to reveal.

    And most of all, the fact that homosexuality and homosexuals have been a part of all mankind, regardless of background, would tell anyone thinking about it, that it’s NOT a behavioral issue, but one of biological origin.

    Another challenge is for people like Heck to try and think about what it would take for HIM to not be heterosexual. What disciplines or sacrifices would he have to make? What about living in a world of affectionate, supported and intimate adult couples, then being coerced into personal denial of ALL of that for himself. That he should live his life not even having the luxury of a kiss or hand holding in public.

    Why would anyone like him think this is a healthy way to live, when every credible mental and medical health professional will say that being isolated, love deprived and held to standards your biology contradicts isn’t healthy.

    I’m done with the people who demand that gay people BE sacrificed and make all the sacrifices. Respecting homosexuality and homosexuals as part of a two of the same thing among human sexual orientation doesn’t require that he make much of a sacrifice, if any, at all.

    So why DO people like Heck, Maggie Gallagher and so on, posit such equal standing as if they’ll be victimized by it, rather than the reality that with each attack, with each shove against gay people, gay people MUST defend themselves.

    It’s like a bully who finally sees that the laws and public have to stop them, then they whine about how unfair it is that they can’t continue to hit their target.

    Even a public vote on gay lives is essentially an unfair advantage. And they know that too, while crying how unfair it is, that they don’t get to have that advantage.

    They aren’t simply trying to keep gay people from being sexual, because, as Tim pointed out, a sex life doesn’t have to be in evidence for discrimination and bigotry to deny inclusion in the workplace and other situations.

    I wish I could laugh at how absurd straight people look arguing the issue of sexuality being chosen.

    Don’t these people ever look around at the natural world and all it’s VARIATIONS and DIVERSITY?
    Who else would live in the midst of all this and say: there is only ONE ideal sexuality, and God says so.
    Someone not interested in being honest, or…unselfish.

  13. Richard Rush
    June 3, 2010

    With Super Christians, it’s always ALL about THEM, isn’t it? THEY must be satisfied and pleased with how everyone else is conducting their lives. THEY are uniquely qualified to set the standards that the rest of us must live by. THEY have special insights about the nature of homosexuality. THEY deserve to be satisfied by women’s reproductive choices. THEY assume the authority to decide what others read or view. THEIR religion deserves an official designation as superior to all others or none. THEY have been given divine authority to mandate that public schools teach Intelligent Design Creationism as the best explanation for life. THEY are the final arbiters on all moral questions. And THEY expect government to help THEM achieve the satisfaction and pleasure that THEY so richly deserve.

    But if anyone dares to challenge THEIR authority, then it is THEIR religious freedom that is being infringed. It was several years ago when I finally had the epiphany wherein I realized that the Super Christian definition of “religious freedom” is literally THEIR divinely ordained freedom to have dominion over everyone else. So, as long as the rest of us accept THEIR notion of religious freedom, we can all coexist quite nicely.

  14. Richard Rush
    June 3, 2010

    And I’ll add that people, such as Peter Heck, think THEY are being perfectly reasonable in asking us to choose to live lonely loveless sexless lives in order to please THEM. Apparently, a perfectly fine choice would be to please THEM by deceiving an unsuspecting op-sex partner into a marriage so we can live a scripted fairy-tale lie of a life. After all, living a lie to please THEM is preferable to an honest life.

    Remember, it’s ALL about THEM.

  15. Mark F.
    June 3, 2010

    “I think we should stop pretending its possible to be gay and religious.”

    I love it when atheists tell religious people how to be religious. The no true Scotsman fallacy…

    No true Christian is pro-gay!

  16. Jason D
    June 3, 2010

    Richard, and of course, they do all this and take ZERO responsibility, throwing it all at God’s feet saying, “He told me to!”

    Our society makes you responsible for your own choices.

    Several serial killers have said that God made them do XZY and nobody says their religious rights were trampled. They still get arrested, tried, and convicted of multiple murders.

    God’s an easy target, as she/he is conveniently too busy to stop and correct the wild claims and commands attributed to him.

  17. Neil D
    June 3, 2010

    Here is an excerpt from a letter the USCCB (catholic bishops) recently sent to congress:

    “The Catholic Church makes an important distinction between actions and inclination. While the Church is ardently opposed to all unjust discrimination on the grounds of sexual inclination, whether homosexual or heterosexual, it does teach that all sexual acts outside of a marriage between one man and one woman are morally wrong. The Catholic Church’s teaching cannot, therefore, be equated with “unjust discrimination,” because it is based on fundamental truths about the human person and personal conduct. Homosexual conduct is categorically closed to the transmission of life, and does not reflect or respect the personal complementarity of man and woman. In contrast to sexual conduct within marriage between one man and one woman—which does serve both the good of each married person and the good of society— heterosexual and homosexual conduct outside of marriage has no claim to special protection by the state.”

    http://www.americamagazine.org/blog/entry.cfm?blog_id=2&entry_id=2923

    My point in posting this commentary from the most popular religions in the world is to help you understand the nature of your enemy. You seek approval from these people and I think that is a waste of time. It is right, I guess, to create your own religion where gay sex is not “morally wrong” and I wish you good luck with that.

    It seems to me that you demand the rest of us put up with your need for acceptance and we, frankly, pay a price for it. I’m kind of tired of that.

  18. Joe Carlin
    June 3, 2010

    These are also people who claim both A) Being gay and a choice and B) They can’t figure out why anyone would choose to be gay. And yet somehow their heads don’t explode!

  19. Timothy Kincaid
    June 3, 2010

    Neil,

    You have a grave misunderstanding of both the intentions and desires of religious gays and of the broad variations in religious beliefs.

    There is no need to create one’s “own religion”. Supportive religion already exists.

    The largest branch of Judaism in the United States is active in its support both of gay people and of gay rights.

    Several Christian denominations fully accept and include their gay and lesbian members as equals and do not teach that gay sex, per se, is morally wrong. They include the United Church of Christ, the Episcopal Church, and many congregations of the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, the United Methodist Church, the Presbyterian Church (USA), the Friends (Quaker), American Baptists, Disciples of Christ, and many many more.

    You can hunt for intolerance and find it easily. But that does not discount those who are supportive. And it is both inappropriate, intolerant, and obnoxious to insist that everyone agree with you.

    I suggest that it is you who are putting demands on “the rest of us”, not the other way around.

  20. Richard Rush
    June 3, 2010

    Neil D,

    I can’t speak for others, but I don’t “seek approval,” however, I do seek civil equality under the law as a U.S. citizen.

    When you say you, “frankly, pay a price for it,” and you are “tired of that,” what exactly is the price you are paying? Is it that you just cannot coexist with people who refuse to live according to your dictates?

    It’s all about YOU, isn’t it: YOUR need to feel satisfied and pleased with how everyone else is conducting their lives. How YOU are uniquely qualified to set the standards that the rest of us must live by. And how YOU would feel more comfortable if only gays would live a lonely loveless sexless existence, or at least restrict their relationships to dark back alleys so that you (the good people) don’t have to be offended.

    And as far as “approval” is concerned, I don’t approve of your religion. But I don’t seek to deny you civil equality. However, I would like to roll back some of the special rights accorded to religion.

    So, once again, what is the price you are paying?

  21. Timothy (TRiG)
    June 3, 2010

    Religion is, fundamentally, not really a choice. Religious affiliation may be, but religious belief isn’t. I could no more choose to believe a god exists than I could choose to believe the sky is green. And religious people too cannot simply choose to stop believing. And, frankly, I’d be suspicious of anyone who simply chose the beliefs that suited them.

    I was brought up religious, and I think I stayed with the Witnesses longer than I would have done if I wasn’t gay. I wanted, you see, to be sure that I was leaving for the right reasons. I wanted to be sure I wasn’t leaving simply because it suited me to leave. So I hung around, until I was sure.

    I agree with you that gay people should leave religion. So should everyone else. Religion is a mistaken belief about the world, and it does far more harm than good (not least by teaching that “faith”, belief in the absence of evidence, is a virtue). In Utopia, everyone is rational. We don’t live in Utopia.

    But people should not — emphatically not — leave religion because it doesn’t suit them. To do so is unethical. People should leave religion because it’s untrue.

    (That said, I hope that if I truly believed in the Calvinist God I would have the courage and moral fortitude to spit in his face.)

    TRiG.

  22. Neil D
    June 4, 2010

    Richard Rush – I fear you misunderstand my position. I am in agreement with TRiG. I’m gay and certainly wish for you a happy healthy life full of friends and family.

    If it is obnoxious to point out that you are enabling your very own enemy by calling yourselves Christian, well, the “truth” hurts sometimes. Mr. Kincaid himself just posted a similar statement today saying, “It does appear that opposition to employment and housing discrimination against LGBT people may be becoming part of Mormon values.”

    So it is also true with the Catholic Bishops. The letter I linked to expresses their opposition to the Employment Non-Discrimination Act.

    There you go – there is the price I’m paying. Something we’re doing is generating a serious backlash among the major relgions. What is that? Don’t you even want to explore that? It’s wonderful that some sects have embraced us as full members. I wonder, though, if they would still condemn as sinful the behavior of some gay men who “hook-up” online for sex. Where do those sects stand on that issue? Do you dare ask.

    And why is it “inappropriate, intolerant, and obnoxious” for me to advocate for a position in the comment section to this blog? Isn’t that what we are all doing? Is there a list of acceptable political positions in your comment policy?

    Otherwise, it is truly facinating to see the angry responses. I must be hitting a nerve somewhere.

  23. werdna
    June 4, 2010

    “Otherwise, it is truly facinating to see the angry responses. I must be hitting a nerve somewhere.”

    Hitting a nerve doesn’t mean what you’re saying is right or worthy of being taken seriously.

  24. Timothy (TRiG)
    June 4, 2010

    Otherwise, it is truly facinating to see the angry responses. I must be hitting a nerve somewhere.

    Be careful, Neil. You’re beginning to sound like a gadfly.

    TRiG.

  25. Jason D
    June 4, 2010

    “Religion is, fundamentally, not really a choice.”

    I absolutely have to disagree with you on that. Exhibit A is the many converts to and from various religions.

    “Religious affiliation may be, but religious belief isn’t.”

    You’re splitting a hair here. Religious affiliation is based on what? Oh yes, Religious belief. One would not, for example, believe that Jesus was the savior of mankind yet choose to be a practicing Jew. People choose affiliation based on their chosen beliefs.

    “I could no more choose to believe a god exists than I could choose to believe the sky is green.”

    False analogy. The sky can be proven to be a color, the existence of God is still very much up for debate. There is no evidence that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, and none that confirms a lack of existence either. Remember, science cannot be used to prove a negative. The absence of evidence for God’s existence (at this time, given current technology and methods) is not evidence of absence.

    “And religious people too cannot simply choose to stop believing.”

    See Exhibit A above. People do in fact choose to stop believing.

    “And, frankly, I’d be suspicious of anyone who simply chose the beliefs that suited them.”

    Then you should be suspicious of a lot of people.

    For my own example, my parents tried to raise me Catholic for a number of years but I found the whole premise lacking and the whole experience at church to be mind-numbingly boring.
    Since then I have explored other avenues and have found zero of them a suitable replacement. I chose to be an atheist for awhile, but came to the conclusion that it was also lacking. Agnosticism seems to fit me best, as it makes the most sense.

    All the atheists I’ve ever met or read about have CHOSEN that belief simply because the evidence presented to them regarding the existence of God was not convincing. Being unconvinced, that chose to sever any religious affiliations and chose atheism.

    Faith, belief, all comes down to opinion. And our opinions are choices we make, to accept or reject what is presented to us. Religion is absolutely a choice.

  26. Timothy Kincaid
    June 4, 2010

    TRiG,

    First, I disagree about religion. One can choose whether to act on one’s beliefs, whether to be religious or not. Plenty of folks who never darken a church doorway believe in God.

    But I do agree to an extent that one cannot exactly choose to believe what one doesn’t. We are wired to accept our experiences (including what our parents tell us) as evidence of truth.

    But one does choose whether to question one’s beliefs, to seek evidence, to ponder the options.

    I have a great deal of respect for those who have chosen to ask themselves the hard questions and come to a conclusion. This includes those who have come to believe in a deity, those who conclude that there isn’t one, and those who conclude that they just don’t know (along with those who still have not come to a conclusion).

    My respect is also not diminished for those who choose not to question their beliefs, as long as they do no harm. Be they an ethical believer or nonbeliever, I feel no compulsion to insist that they allocate the time and resources to “really know, man, really know, ya get me?”

    The ones I do not respect are those who insist that they are right, be they religious or nonreligious, and that I must agree with them or live according to their beliefs. These often include folk who have never thought much about their position and have never questioned their assumptions. And much of their insistence that I adhere, I suspect, is based in the fear that if they really looked too closely that they’d come in for a shock.

  27. Priya Lynn
    June 4, 2010

    Trig said “But people should not — emphatically not — leave religion because it doesn’t suit them. To do so is unethical.”.

    I’m not following you at all here. There is nothing unethical about leaving religion because it doesn’t suit you.

    Trig said ““Religion is, fundamentally, not really a choice.”.

    Yes it is. Many years ago I found myself falling in love with a deeply religious woman. I seriously considered converting to religion to be closer to her.

  28. Jason D
    June 4, 2010

    “But I do agree to an extent that one cannot exactly choose to believe what one doesn’t. We are wired to accept our experiences (including what our parents tell us) as evidence of truth.”

    Tim, I’m not following you here. Could you elaborate?

    My parents tried until I was about 12 to get me to accept what they told me as evidence of truth and I just did not accept it.

  29. Priya Lynn
    June 4, 2010

    Jason, many scientists believe that accepting what your parents tell you is an evolutionary adaptation. Like most, if not all such adaptations it isn’t an absolute and only works in general. That the religion one believes is geographically dependent is strong evidence that in general children unquestioningly accept their parents religious beliefs.

  30. Jason D
    June 4, 2010

    Priya, are these scientists ignoring the years from 13-21 wherein children rebel and or have personal experiences that negate their parents influence?

  31. Priya Lynn
    June 4, 2010

    No, I don’t think so Jason. I’m not real familiar with the scientific thinking on this issue but its my impression that the belief is that the stage of unquestioning acceptance is early childhood, before the age of perhaps 11 or so and that its acknowledged that in the teenage years children may rebell against their parents and their beliefs. If religious belief isn’t firmly implanted in you as a very young child of perhaps 4 to 8 I don’t think it is surprising that you might choose to reject it as a teenager.

  32. Timothy Kincaid
    June 4, 2010

    Jason,

    Priya Lynn provided more useful information, but to add further clarity on my comment:

    Your parents tried to instill a certain belief system in you. It didn’t work.

    The reason it didn’t work probably was due to other influences: a lack of evidence in favor of the belief, perhaps other folk whom you respected who didn’t believe, maybe peer pressure, or even that you didn’t respect your parents or their opinions very much.

    But something in your experiences caused your mind to identify a conflict between Catholic teaching and that which it observed as “true”.

    Others may have found agreement, it is based to a great extent on what we experience. Folks who have had what they describe as a religious experience tend to believe in a deity or in the divine more easily.

    And as we age and grow we may come to translate or interpret our experiences and come to different conclusions. Or we may choose not to inspect them very closely at all, opting instead to appreciate what comfort, community, and structure they bring.

    Does that help clarify my comment?

  33. Richard Rush
    June 4, 2010

    The discussion of “choice” is fascinating. I suppose that some of the answer to this question is how we choose to define choice. ;-)

    The older I get the more I lean toward believing that many choices we make may have some inevitability about them. Imagine that you could press an undo button and take yourself back to the moment of birth, or better yet, to the moment of conception. Then imagine that you go through your life journey again with every biological trait and external influence EXACTLY the same. Would your choices along the journey be different? The obvious big problem with this imaginary scenario is that if you make one different choice, everything necessarily changes moving forward.

    But anyway, I think there is an enormous amount yet to be learned about the nature of choices. Going forward, I suspect that evidence will show movement in the direction of more things being viewed as non-choices, than vice-versa. We all seem to recognize that the combination of all our life experiences plus biology determine who we are, but at the moment of a decision we characterize it as a choice. But how much inevitability is there in that choice?

    Religion (particularly fundamentalism) has certainly always lagged way behind in the acknowledgement of evidence concerning the reality of almost everything. Maybe that’s part of why fundamentalists cling to the notion that people choose to be homosexuals, although the more rational ones (if there is such a thing) have shifted the notion to mean the choice of acting in accordance with one’s orientation. But I’ve always suspected the fundamentalists chose to present the propaganda of homosexual choice because it is virtually required politically. But did the fundamentalists really choose, or is it just part of the hard-wiring compelling them to promote their beliefs by any means at their disposal?

  34. Jason D
    June 4, 2010

    Timothy, yes, you and Priya definitely clarified.

    A little humor.
    I think boredom was the x factor. Honestly. As a child, church bored me to tears. Stand up, sit down, kneel, stand, kneel, sit, stand, kneel. Pray, sing, etc, etc, etc. Why are we doing this? Why am I here? Why does that kid get to bring a book? That kid has toys! No fair! This guy is boring, he talks like he’s bored. People are singing like they’re bored, too. I think I owe Church some credit for my wonderful and active imagination. It was my only escape. The Catholic Mass became so predictable, no matter where we lived(we moved a lot) that I could do all the standing, and sitting, and kneeling while paying zero attention to content.

  35. Priya Lynn
    June 4, 2010

    I can relate to that Jason. My parents forced me to go to church every Sunday and Catechism every Wednesday. Beyond that they never talked about religion and to this day although there were many “lessons” in Catechism I can’t recall a single thing we were supposed to have learned. They were both just a tedious thing that capricious parents forced on unwilling children.

  36. Burr
    June 4, 2010

    It’s wonderful that some sects have embraced us as full members. I wonder, though, if they would still condemn as sinful the behavior of some gay men who “hook-up” online for sex. Where do those sects stand on that issue? Do you dare ask.

    Uhh.. you do realize they would condemn that as sinful for heterosexuals to do also, right? WTF is the point of this? Your hook up habits have nothing to do with your orientation.

  37. Neil D
    June 5, 2010

    Burr – of course I realize they would identify hetero hook ups as sinful. I’m just curious if gay christians are ready to condemn their sexually active (outside of marriage!) brothers and sisters for leading that lifestyle. Is that what you are suggesting? For me, sex with friends, partners, dates, or even strangers is right and beautiful.

    This thread is probably dead, but I’ll leave you with one more cautionary tale about a gay catholic. It’s really sad to see a gay christian condemn the rest of us. This is another price we pay.

    “As the hundred or so daily readers of eve-tushnet.blogspot.com, and a larger audience for her magazine writing, know by now, Ms. Tushnet can seem a paradox: fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life.

    “The sacrifices you want to make aren’t always the only sacrifices God wants,” Ms. Tushnet wrote in a 2007 essay for Commonweal. While gay sex should not be criminalized, she said, gay men and lesbians should abstain.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/05/us/05beliefs.html?hpw

  38. Burr
    June 5, 2010

    For me it’s not necessarily a problem either unless you’re hurting people in the process of your exploits, but frankly I could care less if people are condemning others sleeping habits as long as they aren’t trying to put the force of law behind it. Certainly there is room to discuss and recommend some kind of voluntary code to adhere to, whether justified by spiritual or pragmatic belief. I don’t consider myself oppressed by people saying it’s not a good idea to be sexually active.

    As for Tushnet, she’s advocating against our equality, so she’s already crossed the line into using the force of law. If she just wants to close up shop and tell other people to do that, fine. It’s rather ridiculous and sad but go for it.

  39. Richard Rush
    June 5, 2010

    From NYT about Ms. Tushnet: “While gay sex should not be criminalized, she said, gay men and lesbians should abstain.”

    Obviously, Tushnet thinks it is perfectly reasonable to declare that gays should live loveless sexless lives in order to please HER. So the duty of the rest of us is to live our lives in a manner that provides HER with comfort and satisfaction (which presumably includes providing her with some validation of her views).

    Personally, I think Tushnet is a loon, but in general I can coexist well with loons as long as THEIR pursuit of happiness doesn’t require control over MY life to provide THEM with fulfillment. But for millions of people, that’s the way it works, doesn’t it?

  40. Neil D
    June 5, 2010

    “Certainly there is room to discuss and recommend some kind of voluntary code to adhere to, whether justified by spiritual or pragmatic belief.”

    Now we’re getting somewhere. I was hoping that my comments would lead to this. Perhaps Mr. Kincaid would like to open up a nice gay christian/conservative discussion about a “voluntary code” so we can explore this in more detail.

  41. Ben in Oakland
    June 5, 2010

    ” fervently Catholic, proudly gay, happily celibate. She does not see herself as disordered; she does not struggle to be straight, but she insists that her religion forbids her a sex life. ”

    so she’s a nun?

  42. Ben in Atlanta
    June 6, 2010

    “Now we’re getting somewhere. I was hoping that my comments would lead to this. Perhaps Mr. Kincaid would like to open up a nice gay christian/conservative discussion about a “voluntary code” so we can explore this in more detail.”

    There’s plenty of that on the Internet already. Why bring it to Box Turtle? It would seem to exclude those in non-Abrahamic faith traditions. The “Mission Statement” doesn’t mention any exclusivity.

Leave a Reply

 

 

 

Back to top
mobile desktop