Well, this post has scrolled off the homepage, so I should probably let sleeping dogs lie, but I keep feeling a spiritual nudge to respond. So here goes. Apologies if I ramble, Gina; you're only 36 and yet I keep worrying about ruining your eyesight by making you read too many of my words! I'll try to be concise.

Ben, dear friend, I believe LGBT in this country should be concerned about treatment of LGBT in Islamic countries because Islam is coming here. Gina just posted yesterday about a woman defense attorney submitting to Islamic dress codes for a trial in the USA, and asking that other American women also submit. The other stories of "creeping shari'a" are legion. You can tell me I'm being alarmist, but I remember being told I was alarmist back in the 1990s when we foresaw that eventually homosexuals would insist on their right to marry. So you can try to convince me that LGBT won't be forced back into the closet or face death, but you'll fail. (When opposed, the LGBT lobby uses threats, intimidation and vandalism to get their way. In similar circumstances, Islamic fundamentalists simply kill people. It's not hard to determine which one would win, in a contest between the two.) I think you should spend all the time with your gay friends that you can, while you still can.

What really disturbs me, though, is that the Bible describes some kind of behavior (and yes, we could argue what it is) and says it displeases God. It appears that many in your generation are more concerned about pleasing their gay friends than they are about pleasing God. Do you really think that institutionalizing gay marriage will make God happy? If so, on what do you base your thinking? Is the Bible simply a guideline, where we're free to choose the rules? Isn't that the very hypocrisy that Dan Savage challenges?

Another item that disturbs me is the apparent agreement with Dan Savage that Christians are under the Law, and not under grace. The Law said homosexuals should be stoned to death, while grace says they should be accepted as fellow sinners seeking reconciliation with God through Christ. (I'm seeing in my mind a video clip of the Brooklyn Tabernacle, where a gay prostitute accepted Christ, left his lifestyle, married a woman, then died of AIDS. Rejoicing, no less.) It seems that Dan Savage and those like him will not stop with their ridicule, threats, intimidation and so on until we finally declare that LGBT have no need of grace because what they do is not sinful. Can today's youth really look at Christ's suffering and death, and say it doesn't apply?

Ben, you're probably a decent guy and don't mean to be unaware of attempts to suppress Christian opinions on this subject. When I pointed out how one side is told it shouldn't be expressing its beliefs on these matters, you replied that I should "turn off the TV and close the newspaper (both of which are biased towards controversy and heavy rhetoric), and go talk to real people. I'd be surprised if what you just said is really reality."

So, you're basically saying I should disregard what is being said and done in the public square, the place where rules and policies are formulated? I don't find that to be irrelevant.

You probably think of us as rather insulated in regard to this topic. In reality, I'm not the only person here who has experience with a gay family member. A young gay relative of mine was put through a terrible ordeal over this by, of all people, his mother. Regardless of my thoughts about homosexual behavior, my heart ached for him. Rather than approaching this matter with love and sensitivity and heart-to-heart talks, she was downright cruel. No one should have to endure such horrible teenage years.

So, I know the difference between a genuine Christian approach and meanness. You and many people have seen the worst representations of Christianity when it comes to homosexuality. I'm sure you believe that the best representation would be for Christians to say that homosexual acts are okay. I say, let's disagree in a civil manner, which would include respecting the rights of others to express their beliefs openly, honestly and appropriately.

Now let me ask in turn Ben and Anthony, what would it take for me to say "I disapprove of bullying. Because frankly, I can't avoid feeling the suspicion that anything short of committing heresy through abject cowardice would in fact be considered bullying.

Now I can honestly say "I think Homosexual behavior is immoral" and not be bullying because in fact I do not consider Amish to be bullying me when they say warfare and computers are immoral. Nor do I think myself bullied because Moslems think I should say "There is no God but Allah and Mohammad is his Prophet." If in fact either of those went out of their way to bug me I would be annoyed. However as far as gays go it seems to me that the reverse is the case. Few are in fact suggesting anti-sodomy laws and as for me, I have never gone trolling on a gay website and I have seen enough gays trolling on Christian websites.

--"So what you are saying is that the Bible says that same sex attraction is a mental disorder sent by God as a punishment for people's sins?"

Nope.

Consider the logic that you're using here:
1. God used plagues as a punishment for wicked behavior.
2. Some countries are experiencing plagues right now.
3. Therefore, God must be punishing them.

Now, does that really make sense? Just because..."
------------------------------
OK, so you are saying it is a mental disorder that WAS sent as a divine punishment?
--------------------------------------
"to come to grips with it, you already have to decide to ignore the biggest sex-related teaching of your family and church. How much further of a leap is it to discard chastity as well? And in most of this country, being a gay male is treated as worse than being a promiscuous straight male... So: in for a penny, in for a pound. "
-------------------------
Having sex with someone of your own gender is automatically unchastity and therefore does not need to be discarded.

Jason asks,

--"So what you are saying is that the Bible says that same sex attraction is a mental disorder sent by God as a punishment for people's sins?"

Nope.

Consider the logic that you're using here:
1. God used plagues as a punishment for wicked behavior.
2. Some countries are experiencing plagues right now.
3. Therefore, God must be punishing them.

Now, does that really make sense? Just because God used something as a punishment in the past doesn't mean that *every* time we see it, it's a punishment.

Plus, God could just as much give someone over to heterosexual desires as to homosexual ones. I think it's the "being given over to carnal desires" that was the punishment, more than the homosexual nature of the desires.


Apologies, Kevin and Kelvin, for mixing you two up.

Kevin said:
--"... Which is why I differentiate between mean-spirited, harassing comments and making an honest, respectful statement of one's beliefs.

Unfortunately, those two are being lumped together by people who want to silence one side for alleged "bullying" and "hate speech." Yes, there is REAL bullying and hate speech, and I don't think very many of us around here support it."

Great! And, like you, I oppose either side being muzzled.

In this case, I'm not sure how you disagree with Dan Savage here. Did he say anything that led you to believe he was talking about *all* anti-homosexuality words, rather than just abusive ones?

--"What we don't appreciate is the current set of rules where one side gets to say pretty much whatever it wants to, while the other side is told that everything it says is out of bounds."

Sure. There are hypocrites. But turn off the TV and close the newspaper (both of which are biased towards controversy and heavy rhetoric), and go talk to real people. I'd be surprised if what you just said is really reality. Anthony and I are both here, from the "other side" - have we told you to shutup?


Kelvin said,
-- ((Ben said: "most Christians ignore plenty of other commands in the New Testament"))
"I won't disagree. I brought up the divorce issue myself in my post. There are varying interpretations or rationalizations to justify those actions; one can argue about the varying levels of legitimacy. "

Indeed! Just as about homosexuality.
For me, the proof is in the pudding. Say we're looking at some ambiguous or controversial activity, like homosexuality or divorce. Now, if we were to undertake that activity with the *most* attention to Christian principles that we can, would we see good or bad fruit?

- Homosexual marriage: Two people join together, raise a family, become part of a community, and have long, fruitful lives together. So, good fruit.
- Divorce: A family is broken up. Often, children are separated from parents and may develop issues regarding stable relationships. So, often bad fruit.

Can a bad vine bear good fruit?

If you have any gay Christian friends, I might suggest you talk to them about this.

--"The gay culture is almost inherently promiscuous, and encouraging that is damaging in many ways. (Some gay apologists will take issue with that characterization..."

Yah, I'll disagree with that characterization. Your study about 50-70% of gay men does *not* extend to gay women.. and moreover, if you're talking about the study that Chuck posted here, that study was in San Francisco, which is about the capital of all promiscuity in the US. So the study doesn't even really extend to all gay men.

In addition - you're confusing correlation with causation. I don't think being gay makes you promiscuous. If anything, it's the internal changes needed to come to grips with one's homosexuality. Think about it: To come to grips with it, you already have to decide to ignore the biggest sex-related teaching of your family and church. How much further of a leap is it to discard chastity as well? And in most of this country, being a gay male is treated as worse than being a promiscuous straight male... So: in for a penny, in for a pound.

Last, if you make it harder for people to have stable relationships, are you really surprised when there are fewer of those relationships?

"I won't disagree. I brought up the divorce issue myself in my post. There are varying interpretations or rationalizations to justify those actions; one can argue about the varying levels of legitimacy. "

Assuming Ben and Anthony are correct about this complaint which at least on this site they are not, there is a simple explanation. The reconquest of Minas Ithil is a theoretical priority when the orcs are banging at the gates of Minas Tirith and at the least the Witch-king should not berate his opponents for it.

""Assuming that to be true, that would not be a justification."
-Why not? If you tell someone over and over something is "wrong", they're probably going to start believing it."
---------------------------------------
Which is not a justification for the mistreatment of anyone with SSA who does not wish to identify as "gay". Why should they do so? Such people are treated by gays as threats to their subculture because they act differently then they are supposed to.
------------------------------------

"And for adults there is more "verbal abuse" by gays then against gays."
-Where did you get this from? Really? Have you been bullied or verbally abused for being straight? So people who call gays or people they perceive to be gay "faggots", or who throw in their face that homosexuality is "immoral", "deviant", and/or "wrong" are not verbally abusive? You can sugar-coat it all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that it's verbal abuse against someone.
-----------------------
I have received plenty of verbal harrassment for considering it immoral and so have quite a few others. And saying something is immoral is not "verbal abuse". And I have never in my life "thrown that in the face" of a homosexual who wasn't going out of his way to start an argument.

Getting back to questions posed of me by Ben and Anthony:

Ben...
> Kelvin says:
> "Who, exactly, are the pansies in all this?

Um, no, that was Kevin, not Kelvin. We're two different people, though people often think my name is Kevin (that pesky L seems to disappear)...

> Sure, but (1) the NT's proscription on homosexuality isn't that strong,

That value judgment probably depends more on your predisposition than on the text. Suffice it to say that there is not a breath of approval given to homosexual practice; any reference to it is negative. I agree that Jesus doesn't discuss homosexuality in the gospels; but he doesn't discuss other things which apparently weren't burning issues. (Since Jesus doesn't condemn incest, should we presume that's OK?) Paul's condemnation is explicit.

> (2) most Christians ignore plenty of other commands in the New Testament:

I won't disagree. I brought up the divorce issue myself in my post. There are varying interpretations or rationalizations to justify those actions; one can argue about the varying levels of legitimacy.

Anthony...
> -Damage? What damage? Same-sex marriage is now legalized and recognized in only a few states, so how much damage has been done

As one example, the Catholic Church has been forced to discontinue providing adoptions in Massachusetts because they will not service gay couples. This was very explicitly demanded of them precisely because in the state's eyes, a gay marriage is no different from a heterosexual marriage. Companies ranging from eHarmony to wedding photographers have been sued or cited by "anti-discrimination" authorities for refusing to provide services to homosexuals getting married (or, in the case of eHarmony, seeking romantic relationships). Colleges, both private and state-supported, have denied student religious groups the right to be religious--that is, to require their leaders to abide by the tenets of the faith they represent--when that faith prohibits homosexual activity. Businesses in the states with gay marriage (or civil unions/domestic partnerships) may be required to provide benefits on the same basis as heterosexual marriage.

Those are just the legal implications. Culturally, the public schools are now being commandeered to teach very explicitly that homosexual behavior is morally virtuous, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot. That affects every parent who still believes what was essentially universally agreed up until about 50 years ago. And even those who might accept homosexual behavior as acceptable adult activity may be uncomfortable with the push to get this re-education down all the way to the kindergarten level, which is long before kids should be bombarded with detailed sexual information. The oversexualization of our culture is only enhanced by the aggressive pushing of GLBT "awareness."

In addition, bluntly put, "marriage" doesn't mean the same thing to most gays as it does to heterosexuals. Research (by gay-friendly researchers) has shown that 50-75% of gay men in "committed" relationships engage in sexual activity with others, with the knowledge/permission of the other partner. There are no doubt a few "open marriages" among heteros, but the number is vanishingly small. If the "as long as my partner knows" ethos becomes part of the hetero culture, the damage to me and others is profound. The gay culture is almost inherently promiscuous, and encouraging that is damaging in many ways. (Some gay apologists will take issue with that characterization, but the fact is that virtually no gays have a single mutually monogamous partner for life; the number of heterosexuals who have a single partner for life has declined substantially in recent years, but is still sizable: 32% of married women and 19% of married men ages 44 and under report one partner in their lifetime, according to the CDC.)

Let me be clear: I do not defend bullying for any reason, be it sexuality, nerdiness (I was on the receiving end of that), religion, cooties, or whatever else. No Christian should. But "anti-bullying" should not be a cover for denying the First Amendment rights of any American, nor for bullying in reverse.

"Codgers? Watch it, whippersnapper, I'm only 36!"
-Kudos to Gina, for even she sees that in this day in age, 36 is still young...although she doesn't look a day over 30, in my opinion :)

Anthony, when you put a quotation mark after "in which I was raised," I assumed that what followed was your argument. I didn't realize you were still quoting Savage, which is why I thought it was you who made the ridiculous claim that Christians believe they should be allowed to bully.

It's interesting that you find Savage more persuasive than Coulter because he sometimes apologizes. I would think part of being a persuasive person would include minimizing the number of statements you need to apologize for. They both fall short in that regard.

Ben (and I'm Kevin, not Kelvin), you say, "Being sincere and 'loving' doesn't mean you're justified in saying whatever you like." Which is why I differentiate between mean-spirited, harassing comments and making an honest, respectful statement of one's beliefs.

Unfortunately, those two are being lumped together by people who want to silence one side for alleged "bullying" and "hate speech." Yes, there is REAL bullying and hate speech, and I don't think very many of us around here support it.

What we don't appreciate is the current set of rules where one side gets to say pretty much whatever it wants to, while the other side is told that everything it says is out of bounds.

"Assuming that to be true, that would not be a justification."
-Why not? If you tell someone over and over something is "wrong", they're probably going to start believing it.

"And for adults there is more "verbal abuse" by gays then against gays."
-Where did you get this from? Really? Have you been bullied or verbally abused for being straight? So people who call gays or people they perceive to be gay "faggots", or who throw in their face that homosexuality is "immoral", "deviant", and/or "wrong" are not verbally abusive? You can sugar-coat it all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that it's verbal abuse against someone.

"Not really. There are a lot of problems with the proscription, from a lack of context for the Greek words used, to the cultural context of the words in Romans. Romans, btw, says that God gives *idol-worshippers* over to base + homosexual desires"

So what you are saying is that the Bible says that same sex attraction is a mental disorder sent by God as a punishment for people's sins?

Ben, high schoolers "verbally abuse" each other for everything. And for adults there is more "verbal abuse" by gays then against gays.
No one is justifying "beating up", so it is hard to see your point.

- commandment not to pray in public, or make a show of praying in public: Matthew 6.
- prohibition of long hair on guys, or short hair on women: 1 Cor 11 (the prohibition is based, notably, on theological arguments about how God created man and woman, similar to those about homosexuality).
- command to not take a civil dispute between Christians to the civil government: 1 Cor 6.

"..and many others.. Commands against greed, gluttony, commands for modesty.."

The only one's of these I have heard neglected was gluttony. And commands for modesty horrify the same people that are horrified by commands against homosexuality.

Codgers? Watch it, whippersnapper, I'm only 36!

First off, and rather key, most of you are focusing on arguing with Savage about what the Bible says about homosexuality. But Dan Savage's comments were about using the Bible's words to justify violence or verbal abuse against homosexuals.
Regardless of the morality of homosexuality, do *any* of you think that this is justification for beating up or verbally abusing someone?

LeeQuod says:
"I'm concerned that this doesn't say "but it won't win **us** the culture war," yet I'm not too certain how much significance to attach to your choice of pronoun, Ben."

Nope. I'm part of the next generation, which is much more pro-homosexual than y'all old codgers.

--"Yet the Bible, and Christians, are always the target of gay activists like Dan Savage, in a country where the "beatings" come in the form of denial of benefits - not death. Why are gay rights activists so unconcerned about the lives of those like them in other countries who are denied not the right to marry, but the right to life?"

Oh, please. You're drawing some mighty big conclusions from not much. Do you want me to list all the social causes which I've never heard *you* speak about? Does that mean you don't care about them? Genocides in Armenia, wars in Africa (some by nominally "christian" groups), wrongdoings throughout the ages..
This is one of the worst of the most common arguments ever. No, it means nothing to say that you've never heard someone speak about some other issue.. particularly when it's the internet. Most of what we talk about is *controversial* subjects, so there's quite a bit of selection bias in there, between what you hear someone talk about and what they actually care about.
This is not a very well thought-out argument.


Jason asks:
--"May I ask two questions. One is how do you define bullying? Is saying "homosexuality is immoral" an example of bullying?"

It depends. How often do you say it? Do you keep saying it when the other person has asked you to stop? Are you badgering the person, or are you engaging in a two-way dialogue?
I think we can agree that there's a difference between public evangelizing (fine), engaging in conversation with someone who's shown interest (also fine), and 'evangelizing' someone who is an unwilling listener (i.e., you're in their house, their work, or their school). It's an issue of consent, but applied to conversation instead of sexual contact. If you're arguing with someone, and they want to stop, but you won't let them; if you come back, day after day and keep telling them they're wrong when they really don't want any interaction with you, then you're verbally harassing them.
Bullying can also includes other types of harassment, of course (jeers, pranks, violence, etc.).


--"In any case the proscribing of homosexuality is clearly repeated in the New Testament."

Not really. There are a lot of problems with the proscription, from a lack of context for the Greek words used, to the cultural context of the words in Romans. Romans, btw, says that God gives *idol-worshippers* over to base + homosexual desires. It's quite some strange logic to turn that into "therefore, all homosexual desires are wrong".
The fact that *you* find the NT proscription on homosexuality clear.. well, plenty of other people disagree with you.


Kelvin says:
"Who, exactly, are the pansies in all this? Might it be the people who are trying to silence even the most sincere and loving Christian statements about homosexuality, because even that hurts their tender feelings?"

A moot point. Being sincere and "loving" doesn't mean you're justified in saying whatever you like. Just ask any married couple. =p
As they say, "there's a time and a place..."



--"If this were really the only thing out of Leviticus that Christians pay attention to, and if Leviticus were the only place where homosexual activity were condemned, I might consider it a good point. But of course, both parts of that are false. "

Sure, but (1) the NT's proscription on homosexuality isn't that strong, and (2) most Christians ignore plenty of other commands in the New Testament:
- prohibition on divorce, Matthew 19. What's the divorce rate in the US among Christians?
- commandment not to pray in public, or make a show of praying in public: Matthew 6.
- prohibition of long hair on guys, or short hair on women: 1 Cor 11 (the prohibition is based, notably, on theological arguments about how God created man and woman, similar to those about homosexuality).
- command to not take a civil dispute between Christians to the civil government: 1 Cor 6.

..and many others.. Commands against greed, gluttony, commands for modesty..
Not that all of these commands are crazy, like some of those in the Old Testament. But still, Savage was quite right to point out the hypocrisy of Christians regarding Biblical morality.

Sorry for the name calling. I just get fed up with being the constant target of self-righteous bigots (is that name calling?) And the context of Matt. 5:22 is "brother." I was thinking more along the line of Psalm 14:1 and Psalm 53:1.

""In any case, Ben, could Mr, er, "Savage" please explain if he intends to justify the absolute viciousness of gay lobbiests toward anyone with same sex attraction-or who they think has this-who does not wish to identify with "gayness"?"
-Maybe they don't want to identify with "gayness" because there are some people out there that are (falsely) telling them it's "wrong"..."

Assuming that to be true, that would not be a justification.

Sorry I'm so late to comment back...I just got home from my first night at my new job and they had me there until....forever.

"Anthony, can you show me a pattern of Christians demanding that anti-bullying rules contain an exception allowing for bullying motivated by religious faith? If not, you employed a classic straw-man argument."
-I don't believe I've run into that ever, to be honest with you...it still doesn't make it right to bully (or even make a statement to) someone because of their same-sex attractions or the idea of acting on them using Christianity/the Bible/ANY religion as an excuse or to justify it. And where did I employ any "argument" to begin with? I simply 1.) Pointed out that he had apologized and that he explained the meaning behind the things he said, 2.) Stated that I agreed with him, and 3.) Mentioned that I met him, that he was kind to me, and that I liked his style.
I never did say that I agreed with him using profanity with high-school students. I stated that I agreed with his statements, and I like how Ben W. phrased it better. Also, I was taught to stand up to bullies, for myself and what I believe in, not walk away. There could have been a better word for those that walked out, but I agreed with what he meant.

"You say you like Savage and the way he makes his points. Tell me, Anthony, do you find Ann Coulter persuasive?"
-I do not, because unlike Dan Savage, she doesn't bother to apologize or make any attempt to.

"And our divorce culture is at least as damaging to the institution of marriage as "gay marriage" is. That's not to say that we should ignore the gay challenge."
-Damage? What damage? Same-sex marriage is now legalized and recognized in only a few states, so how much damage has been done Are you married, Kelvin? I'm not attacking you or trying to make this personal, I simply ask because I'd like to know how same-sex marriage is actually affecting your own right now.
Oh, and what is the "gay challenge"? I always saw them as ordinary human beings, just trying to get by in this world (and life) like this rest of us.

"In any case, Ben, could Mr, er, "Savage" please explain if he intends to justify the absolute viciousness of gay lobbiests toward anyone with same sex attraction-or who they think has this-who does not wish to identify with "gayness"?"
-Maybe they don't want to identify with "gayness" because there are some people out there that are (falsely) telling them it's "wrong"...

Actually, I'm not so sure we do. (Matthew 5:22)

At any rate, we prefer that you not throw around terms like "moron" and "fool" here. Criticism is fine, but not name-calling.

Seriously, can anyone who has any knowledge of the Christian faith, the Bible and history take seriously what this moron says? It's really heroic in modern America to berate Christians and their faith, isn't it? Radical secularists hate Christianity (not Islam), because they know in their hearts it's true. As Paul says they are enemies of God, with hearts of stone, dead in their sins.

This Savage, and people like him, also hate Biblical morality because it condemns them before God. As Romans 1 says, they suppress the truth, and Paul uses an extremely un-PC word, by their wickedness. We Christians are no better than Mr. Savage, because we are saved by God's grace, by his choosing. But we have every right to call this man a fool.