Can someone be Homosexual and Religious?

In a recent comment on another post, someone who is Christian and questioning their sexuality asked the million dollar question:

“Can someone be Homosexual and Religious?”

Oh, that hurts me.  Right in my gut, I feel it.  If someone can be addicted to Porn and religious, a gossip and religious, be cheating on their spouse Saturday night and still preach with conviction Sunday morning- how is homosexuality different?  “But wait, Lindsey”, I can just hear someone say.  “Those people are clearly not all that religious, or they wouldn’t be guilty of such obvious sin.”

Oh, Really?

As long as there has been faith, there have been flawed people of faith.  As long as there has been sin, there has been sinners.  And as long as there has been Jesus, there has been God’s love poured out on a weak and undeserving people.  Who was it that said that thing about healthy people needing no doctor?  Who was it that said, “he who has not sinned…”  When we start to put prerequisites on faith we abolish the need for it entirely.  Broken and hopelessly flawed people have to be able to live out religion, it’s they that need it!

Now, to continue on to some of Renegade’s other questions, we will go on a journey together.  It starts with conception and birth.  God is weaving together all of the fine strands that make the potential for who a person is.  He weaves A with B even though A and B mean “gay”.  Do you think he meant to?  I think he probably did.  Now we can argue about whether or not this is “unnatural” or whether God meant it as permission or a test all day long.  Some people contest that Homosexuality is not found in nature- they are wrong.  I’ve seen very nice, cuddly, obviously gay dogs that prefer to sniff the underparts of other boy dogs more than girls.  (Whether or not that is a fair comparison to human sexuality is another post entirely.)

Is the act of homosexual sex inherently sinful?  I’m not a scholar, so I will refer you to a wonderful page on, which discusses in depth the meaning and intent of passages used to describe homosexuality as sinful.  This page, “The Bible and Homosexuality“, makes a far better argument than I would expect to on my own.  I will repeat the words of that site’s founder and simply say, “Christian and Gay?  It’s not a contradiction, and neither are you.”

I realize that not everyone agrees.  Some Christians will say that homosexual feelings are not sinful, but acting them out is.  Or they would say that the feelings are sinful.  They would say that we must “unbend” our sinful nature and return to the straight and narrow that God intended.  Perhaps this is what you, oh commenter, feel.  Perhaps it is not.

This is what I would suggest:

Find a quiet place.  Sit down, and center yourself with God.  Pray.  Ask these questions:

  1. God, do you see me struggling with this?
  2. What was your intent in giving me this burden?
  3. Who do you want me to be?
  4. Should I be gay, straight?  Stranded in between?
  5. Am I sinning?

You may not hear an audible answer right away.  You may spend days, weeks, months, even years continuing to ask these questions of God over and over.  But trust in the fact that when we ask in sincerity God always answers.  It may not be the answer you expect, I expect, anyone expects, and it may not come in a form that is easily recognized.  But the answer is out there.

In the meantime, rest in Christ’s love for you.  Rest in the people who love you.  Rest in the knowledge that you will be cared for, and your needs will be met.

You will find love.

God is love.

You will be held by God.


100 thoughts on “Can someone be Homosexual and Religious?

  1. For me anyone can be a Christian it doesn’t matter who they are or what they are… Sin is rather a transgression against fellow man or yourself, how is being homosexual (hate labels) in anyway harming… my response to that question is always “Can a racist be a Christian?” seems to stop people in their tracks for some reason. Great post as always, I really enjoy reading your point of view!

  2. Here is where I begin. There have been literally billions of people created before the Creator decided to creat me. I believe that was purposeful in creating me. His design has (clearly) not been my “walking it out”. Where have I fallen short? It is almost overwhelming to sit and ponder the Creator of the Heavens and the Earth thinking about what characteristics to use in forming me.

    Sin is sin. Holy Scripture is very clear about that. Although there are some Scripture that may lead one to believe that “sins of the flesh” grieve God more. (the body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit, etc.)

    It is my beliefe that homosexuality is sin. Some of the nicest people I’ve ever met are homesexual. But Jesus the Christ did not call us to pick up being nice. He called us to pick up our cross and follow Him.

    Why do some people have this cross or that? Perhaps one day we shall all know.

    True Christians are not called to condem but to love. Judging is okay as long as you read the scripture that follows. That which you judge you shall be judged.

  3. As in many of your posts, you are not afraid of hitting the hot issues! Thank goodness for that!
    Can someone be homosexual and Christian? All I know is that I am and I know others who are.
    In grad school, I was taking “human sexuality” back in 2004 when the Portland gay marriage was a hot issue. The professor addressed the issue this way: he asked “what is the ratio in the Bible of references to homosexuality vs. references to how God expects us to treat the poor?” There was a long pause, and a few guesses. He finally said “700 to 1. So, until we get it right concerning how God expects us to treat the poor, I have no right making a judgment on this issue” (homosexuality). He didn’t get any more comments on the issue after that.

  4. And just as a quick aside regarding being “religious”. The scribes and pharasees were the religious people of their time.

    John 5:44

    “How can ye believe, which receive honor, etc.—The grand obstacle to the salvation of the scribes and Pharisees was their pride, vanity, and self-love. They lived on each other’s praise. If they had acknowledged Christ as the only teacher, they must have given up the good opinion of the multitude; and they chose rather to lose their souls than to forfeit their reputation among men! This is the ruin of millions. They would be religious, if religion and worldly honor were connected; but as the kingdom of Christ is not of this world, and their hearts and souls are wedded to the earth, they will not accept the salvation which is offered to them on these terms—Deny thyself: take up thy cross, and follow Me. It is no wonder that we never find persons making any progress in religion who mix with the world, and in any respect regulate their conduct by its anti-Christian customs, maxims, and fashions.”

    They too were called to deny themselves.

  5. I absolutely believe that one can simultaneously be gay and religious or even Christian for that matter.

    Quite plainly, the God I worship doesn’t make MISTAKES! It is that simple. All of my gay friends are not gay by some whimsical choice or some preference to homosexual sex. As one of my lesbian friends likes to say of me “I love PolitiPornster, he’s one of my favorite people to hang out with, but I don’t want to F**K him!” As a quick aside, that stings just a little bit, you know what I mean fellas.

    Anyway, I couldn’t ever imagine this lesbian friend of mine being anything other than lesbian, just as I couldn’t imagine an Asian friend or Black friend being anything other than what God intended them to be.

    God creates, God doesn’t indulge this task for futility. Be what God intended, not what someone thinks the Bible intended. As children of God we are all called to walk with Christ.

  6. Brian, SanityFound, Lesbiansaidwhat, PolitiP and wep601: Thank you for commenting, and for your honesty.
    Renegade: I hope I could be of some aid to your journey.
    M54: You’re very right in that we don’t always live according to our design. And one could bring up genetic defects and other such problems- if they are in the “design”, did God intend for us to suffer? Which is where the argument of “fallen-ness” enters in. That we are helpless against the fallen nature of the world, and thus we suffer under the curse of illness, the curse of separation, the curse of futility. And didn’t Jesus sacrifice that we might overcome those curses?

    This is where it gets sticky, because up until that point I find myself unable to argue against the rationality of such a claim, as the Bible seems clear and the logic holds water.

    But… Then we come to the place where we say, “yes, but-” But people still die from cancer. People still toil futilely. We are still not fully one with God. While Jesus’ sacrifice was perfect, we are not yet to the place where God’s kingdom has fully come.

    I have SEEN, with my own two eyes, and FELT, with my own two hands, the tears and anguish of a young boy who plead and bargained and screamed for God to take away his feelings of homosexual attraction. I saw him as he struggled to stop feeling like he was condemned to hell. I heard his grief as he talked about how he felt abandoned by God. I saw his faith ultimately fail as he couldn’t “make” himself heterosexual.

    This is what we must live with. We must live with the fact that another gay man I know has been married to a woman for over ten years but still is totally gay. They can’t unbend whatever kink in the knitting makes them who they are, just as a cancer patient can’t faith their way away from death. It’s not sufficient. For whatever reason, it’s not sufficient.

    So if they are gay, always gay, unchangingly gay, what do we do? I say we love and keep them and continue to pray for their salvation, that we pray for them to be convicted of the sins they are being called away from. We still go to their weddings, as we go to the weddings of our hetero counterparts even when they continue to sin, and we support them in their walk and hold them accountable to that which they feel the spirit calling them from, and we simply accept them.

    Accept them, show them tolerance, and remember the planks in our own eyes.

  7. Lindsey: Regardintg birth “defects”. I believe they are defects in our eyes but designs in God’s eyes. Hard to wrap our minds around I know but there is another cross.

    I used to attend a church with over 2k members. My wife and I would attend the 9am serevice and work the toddlers nursery every Sunday for the 11am service. One Sunday this family comes in with a child that was profoundly disabled. Although he was around eight years old his gnarled and twisted body was not much larger than a four or five year old. Matthew had a special stroller/wheelchair deal. He did not like noise. He and I hit it off immediately. I would rub his little head and he would twis his little neck around with that mouth of his and all of those mis-aligned teeth. In addition to his mom and dad Matthew had three other siblings who loved their little guy unconditionally. Last year I attended Matthew’s funeral… it is difficult for me to write now. His mom and dad were happy for Matthew. Saying that now their little boy could run and play like the other children. I told them how sorry I was for their loss and they thanked me. Thanked me because I had reached out to their little boy and had given them such peace that they could go into service knowing that their little boy was well cared for.

    I know that the God of the Universe doesn’t make mistakes.

    As I was writing about Matthew I was thinking about someone who was homosexual. I’m not crazy where I am (currently). But here I am, still thinking that the ACT of homosexuality is a sin. God will have to peal another layer layer of the onion I suppose.

  8. The example of the ratio of homosexuality references to how we’re to treat the poor is a weak one. Just because something didn’t get as much attention in scripture as another issue doesn’t mean that the rarely referenced issue is unimportant. The few mentions homosexuality got in the Old Testament usually has a death sentence attached to it. Not that it is to be treated the same under the law of Christ, but it is condemned as wicked in both the OT and the NT.

    Can a person live as a homosexual and call themselves a Christian. No. Just as people who live in sinful heterosexual relationships can’t call themselves Christians. Those who persist in living in sin are not worthy of Christ’s name. We are to be dead to sin, not living in it.

    People are born with all kinds of sinful inclinations. What tempts me most may not tempt you at all. To try and excuse my temptations would be wrong. Is it wrong to feel an attraction to the same sex sinful? No more so that those who constantly feel lustful toward the opposite sex. The problem comes in when we say, “oh, God will accept me just as I am” and we give in to our sins. The biggest problem with homosexuality is that it is a lifestyle. Living the lifestyle of a liar, a fornicator or a thief is no different from homosexuality. They are all wrong and to be avoided.

    The argument of “homosexuality doesn’t hurt anyone” can apply to fornication as well. It is just 2 consenting adults, so who is hurt? Well, apparently God is because he forbids both.

  9. M54: You make a very, very good point. I’m glad that family had you as a friend.

    coreydavis: Is heterosexuality merely a “lifestyle”? Don’t you feel that your relationship with your wife, the intimacy you share, the attraction you feel towards her, the world you have built together is a huge defining part of who you, as a person, are? Scientific studies have shown that homosexuality goes far beyond a “preference”, there are physiological and psychological differences between those who are gay and those who are straight. Most gay people will self-identify as having “always” felt different, “always” been odd or somehow not the same as their heterosexual peers.

    Something that ingrained in a person’s psyche isn’t easily overcome.

    Now, you compared it to a heterosexual couple living in sin. Let’s say a heterosexual couple who is in sin come to your church and express an interest in learning about Christ. Do you kick them out and tell them to get married if they want to attend? No, you bring them in and through your good example demonstrate to them the benefit of a holy lifestyle.

    Extend the same grace to the gay people, and accept that just as the heterosexual couple may take years (or never) be fully won to Christ, the gay man may take years or may always remain gay, just as you yourself will certainly continue to struggle with sin.

    We are all a broken people, and we need each other. It is that simple.

  10. Lindsey- Great post and a very heartfelt response. I think many people see the struggle that one has with their sexuality and the need to belong at the same time. It’s heart wrenching at times.

    I thank God for your powerful voice.

    M54-I enjoyed your story, thank you for sharing. I also agree that the ACT can be a sin IF one has the wrong motive in their heart. Whether they be heterosexual or homosexual.

    I believe you’re also right when you say “God will have to peel another layer of the onion”

    I believe HE will for anyone who allows Him to.

  11. Lindsey,

    Yes, I feel that my heterosexuality is ingrained in me. However, I made the decision to marry my wife. I make the decision to have sex with her. No one is commanded to marry by God. No one is commanded to have sex by God. The Apostle Paul never married, and considering his devotion to God, he probably died a virgin. There is nothing wrong with not having sex. Homosexual feeling may be ingrained, and thereby not a choice. To have sexual intercourse is always a choice (with the exception of rape of course).

    As to your second point about taking them in and waiting years to win them over, that is counter to Biblical teachings. In 1 Corinthians 5 we are told not to even eat with one who lives a sinful lifestyle. Verse 13 says “remove the wicked man from among yourselves”. This is not to say that we don’t make an attempt to convert them and teach them the truth, but if the person is unwilling to change, then when are to no longer associate with them in hopes that it will shame them to repentance. Jesus went to the sinners, not the righteous, but he commanded them to “sin no more” (as with the woman at the well). He didn’t say “sin a little more if that is what you really want.”

    When we continue to accept their sinful lifestyle we do two terrible things:

    1. We give them the impression that we are okay with their sinful lifestyle.
    2. We bring shame upon the church in that outsiders see us as accepting of sin.

    We are all broken. We do all need one another. More importantly, we need Christ. Christ expects repentance and change to be more like Him. It is not wrong to insist that we flee from sin and cling to Jesus.

  12. stephanie: thank you for your comment, I always appreciate your point of view.

    coreydavis: I do agree, we need Christ far more.
    The verse you quoted was from 1 Corinthians 5 and was specifically dealing with a kind of immorality condemned by the Old Testament, that is, a young man who took his father’s wife.

    I think we can both agree that one shouldn’t consummate with one’s stepmother?

    The verse was actually asking them to apply old Testament law, in fact, the words “expel the wicked man from among you” are from the Old Testament, word for word from the OT law dealing with marriage. Yes, it is wrong to put up with purposefully immoral behavior, but isn’t it different when people are not intentionally sinning? A young boy who finds himself with homosexual urges doesn’t mean to sin, and you are right that consummating such urges is a choice. Of course it is. I never “accidentally” have sex with my husband, either. I always mean to!

    But we are forgetting ourselves, a little. We can’t put law as a prerequisite to faith, as law without faith is without meaning. We must bring people into the body and allow them the chance to feel called to holiness.

    You never answered my question about a heterosexual couple living in sin: would you give them entrance?

    I’ve seen churches reject gay boys who have never acted on their feelings based solely off the fact that they weren’t straight. Isn’t that wrong?

  13. Lindsey,

    So many things to address…

    First, 1 Corinthians 5 is not just dealing with one specific thing – taking your stepmother as your wife. It is dealing with sinful lifestyles of all types. Paul is simply bringing forth the OT command to expel the wicked man in our midst. The principle is still valid under the law of Christ. Paul also says that the church is to judge the church in the same chapter. Certainly he isn’t saying only to judge and remove the wicked only in the case of those who take their step-parents as spouses.

    As to your question about the heterosexual couple, yes, I would give them entrance (by entrance I mean they can come and learn the truth, not just begin worshiping there as if nothing was wrong). If they wouldn’t right their situation, then just like a practicing homosexual, they would have to be put out in hopes they would come to repentance. We’ve had this exact situation at my congregation and the couple was asked to leave until they repented.

    I will say this – just getting married doesn’t equal repentance for the heterosexual couple. They should still show repentance for the time they lived in sin. They should publicly denounce their public sin. Marriage shouldn’t be a “quick fix” as too often it is seen as.

    A congregation that rejects a person because of their feelings is one that is wrong in the eyes of God. Will they reject the lustful heterosexual? Will they reject the man who struggles with covetousness? Will they reject the woman who has a hard time avoiding gossip? Where do they stop? It is only when the person is openly living a sinful lifestyle that they bring shame on Christ’s church and need to be removed (and then only in the hopes that they will correct their ways and come back to God).

  14. coreydavis:

    1 Corinthians 5:9-11 I have written you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat.

    Now, in your comment earlier you’d said that the Bible was clear that we aren’t to eat with sinners, but in this context I’d say instead that the Bible is clear we’re not to eat with hypocrites. A gay person, a person who is openly questioning their sexuality and the righteousness of their actions (as the person for whom I wrote this post is) is not guilty of hypocrisy- not so long as they operate in meekness and humility, not pretending to be better than anyone else, and boast not in their own righteousness but in the mercy of Christ.

    The only reason I could see for expelling such a person from the congregation would be the moment at which they claim to have “achieved” righteousness and are no longer willing to be held accountable for their actions. As I said, I know a gay man who has been married to a woman for ten years.

    He’s still gay.

    He doesn’t sleep with other men, but he’s still gay.

    It is too much to ask these people to simply cease being that which they are.

  15. You could throw hypocrites in the mix, since he’s talking about immoral people, but not specifically hypocrites. All of those things Paul listed are (again) lifestyles. Not just sins, but ways of living.

    The gay person is not a hypocrite for questioning their righteousness. They are a hypocrite if they call themselves followers of Christ and then live a manner of life the Bible calls sinful.

    The man you described sounds noble to me. He chooses not to have sex with men even though he is attracted to them. That is the very essence of self-control that all Christians are called to have. I would have to admire anyone who is able to master sin like that, rather than be mastered by sin.

    I’m not saying those people need to somehow change so that they’re suddenly attracted to women or never have the urge to be intimate with someone of the same sex. I’m saying they should all be like the one you described, practicing self-control, knowing that being with God in heaven one day is more valuable than some sexual act.

    If we ever get to the point where we say, “this is just who I am. I’m a homosexual. I’m lustful. I’m covetous. I’m a drunkard.” On and on I could go. The point being that when we say “this is just who I am” and we don’t attempt to control our urges we are not Godly. Homosexuality is not a special sin with special privileges. All sin is to be avoided, no matter how hard we struggle with them.

  16. You know something Lindsey, I think I am finally starting to see why you feel the way you do concerning this subject. I think your last comment here summarizes it:

    It is too much to ask these people to simply cease being that which they are.

    I am studying to become a psychotherapist, and recently I discovered a growing number of therapists who are turning away from labels such as alcoholic when they no longer apply. Think about AA, where people sober for 20 years still get up to speak and start with, “My name is John and I’m an alcoholic.” I never really thought about it before, but it’s starting to make me question the need for the reinforcement: Why DO they keep calling themselves alcoholics if they’re sober? It almost makes me think, “When will they feel free if they keep calling themselves that?”

    My point of saying that is this: whereas it appears you see homosexuals struggling with something that they ARE, I see people struggling with homosexuality. (I don’t even like the labels homosexual and heterosexual!) By continuing to say that your friend is gay, rather than struggling with homosexuality, how can he ever feel free?

    I don’t think this is semantics. Labels are powerful things.

  17. Coreydavis,

    I think I need some clarification here, so it is the sinning out in public that would get people kicked out of your church. So as long as they hid their sin, they would be welcomed.

    Okay, so as a lesbian I would be welcomed into the doors of your church if I only went out to the gay bars late at night and went back to their houses where no one knows me. But If I were in a long term, monogomous, loving relationship, then I would have to leave your church?

    A man who hides the fact he has sex with his daughter every night would still be welcomed but the man who lives with a grown woman without marriage wouldn’t be allowed? And what about any children this couple may have, are they too asked to leave the church? If not, how will they get there to hear about God, and if so; What sin are they being repelled for? They didn’t ask to be born. Oh I get it, they were born in sin and since they continue to live, they haven’t repented.

    And are all scriptures in the bible held to the same degree? So then in public there would be no drinking or swearing or playing the lotto. Speaking of gambling, that would also mean no scratch off tickets, bingo, 50/50 drawings or potluck dinners. (You gamble with your life when you eat at one of those.)

    Lindsey, in response to your original post. Can a homosexual be religious,Christian, muslim, jew,black, white, red, green, and purple? Yes. God loves all of his children and we are not mistakes nor accidents. Once again a thought provoking post.

  18. Rob V.: I’d say that if someone has ceased to “practice” homosexuality, and has sincerely sought out change for ten years, but still is attracted to men… it is what they are. It simply is. I say this not because it is my own opinion, but because I have yet to meet a single homosexual who was able to change any of the things about themselves which made them self-describe as homosexual in the first place. These are people who pleaded with God, who honestly sought change, who did everything that one does when trying to break free of a sinful habit. The few who felt that a past experience or sin was the root of their behavior were freed from the patterns which that sin birthed… but remained attracted to the same sex, remained somehow fundamentally different from heterosexuals.

    coreydavis: But now I am writing you that you must not associate with anyone who calls himself a brother but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or a slanderer, a drunkard or a swindler. With such a man do not even eat

    Did you miss the part where it says “who calls himself a brother”? It seems awfully clear to me. If you profess to be one thing, but behave in a way that belies your words, you are a hypocrite. People who come to the church seeking and have not yet found, are not guilty of such a thing. It is only when they begin to claim righteousness that they can be judged by the standard of righteousness. There can be no prerequisites to faith- faith has to come first.

  19. wvhillcountry: I’ll respond only to that part of your comment which was directed at me. Thank you. I’ve yet to meet a single person that God doesn’t passionately love. That knowledge ought to drive all of us to love as well.

  20. I’m going to keep my comments to a minimum here (yeah, I know what you’re all thinking ;-)), except to say that:

    I never have understood why religion and homosexuality (or bisexuality, or whatever) are viewed as somehow being diametrically opposed, though I’ve met a lot of people who think they are.

    for me, this does not at all equal the whole notion of moral choice. Homosexuality is morally neutral – it describes a state or condition. What someone of *any* sexual orientation chooses to do about any number of things that aren’t morally neutral is a whole different thing!

    I’m reminded of something that a counselor from a crisis pregnancy center related – that one of the girls who came to them was actually being made to sit in a separate pew from the rest of the congregation because she was visibly pregnant (and unmarried). The counselor was wondering aloud “Where are the special section for the guys who got the girls pregnant? And where’s the special pew for the people who cheated on their taxes – or their spouses??” – and so on.

    That made me think quite hard about a lot of things. (And yes, it’s a real situation that occurred within the last 10 years in a large urban area on the US’s East Coast.)

  21. One other thought: there really is no such thing as “THE homosexual lifestyle.”

    But I’ll leave further explication of that to those who are homosexual/bi/lesbian, because I’ve only observed this from the outside. (Well, maybe I’ll add gay men don’t *all* flock to the Castro for starters – in fact, they might be sitting in the pew, right next to you.)

  22. As for the homosexual lifestyle, I can only speak to my own.

    I get up each morning and get the kids ready for school. I get myself ready for work, I work all day to rush home to get the kids off the bus. I help with homework, fix supper, do dishes, wash clothes, let the dogs in and out in an endless cycle, call my girlfriend, get bath water ready, say prayers, tuck in the kids, call my girlfriend, get ready for bed, sleep, and do it all over again the next day.

    Yes the stereotypical “lifestyle” exsist, but it also exsists in the hetero bars and clubs. I think people would be surprised to know that most gay people are exactly like they are, the only difference is they fall in love with someone of the same gender.

  23. Yes the stereotypical “lifestyle” exsist, but it also exsists in the hetero bars and clubs.

    Ooh, I was hoping someone would make this comparison!

    I get up each morning and get the kids ready for school. I get myself ready for work, I work all day to rush home to get the kids off the bus. I help with homework, fix supper, do dishes, wash clothes, let the dogs in and out in an endless cycle, call my girlfriend, get bath water ready, say prayers, tuck in the kids, call my girlfriend, get ready for bed, sleep, and do it all over again the next day.

    I especially like the “endless cycle” part – it’s one of many reasons that I’ve opted to have a house rabbit rather than a dog. 😉

  24. e2tc, you may be a lot wiser than I am. When I divorced, I moved into my mom’s house that already had a dog and 4 cats and I brought with me 2 dogs and a House rabbit sounds nice, although I wonder how do you keep them from chewing electrical cords and such?

  25. I wonder how do you keep them from chewing electrical cords and such?

    You don’t – you cover them with chew-proof stuff, you block off “forbidden” areas, etc. – and you give them stuff that’s fine for them to dig, rip and chew. (Like cardboard boxes and such.) They’re naughty creatures in many ways, and very smart – to me, the “naughtiness” is part of their charm, though it can be a lot like matching wits with a smart, stubborn 2-year-old. 😉

    Check out the House Rabbit Society site for more:

  26. “Lifestyle”. Sounds like a dramatic T.V. show, like “Dallas” or something.

    Corey, what is the “lifestyle” to you? Will please explain to me what you believe this to be?

    Rob- You said……..By continuing to say that your friend is gay, rather than struggling with homosexuality, how can he ever feel free?

    I understand what you are saying about the labels, I use to lead a 12 step, Christ centered program myself, so I can relate to the whole labeling thing, which one can get lost in, if allowed.

    However, I also use to say that I “struggled with homsexuality”. I said this for quite awhile and still never felt freedom from it. Even with using the proper words, I was still gay.

  27. Lindsey,

    I think in many ways we agree, but in some ways we don’t. How do we know that those who Paul wrote of who call themselves “brother” weren’t sincere in thinking they were Christians? Perhaps they were, but they were still living a sinful lifestyle. Paul is saying that we have to show them the hypocrisy of calling themselves brother while living in such a way that they can’t be called “brother”. Anyone claiming to be a brother or sister in Christ but still wallowing in sin is not our brother or sister. Everyone should have the opportunity to be taught the truth, no matter what their sin. What they do with that knowledge is up to them.

    Stephanie – what do I mean by “lifestyle”? I mean a way of living. To live a homosexual lifestyle is to embrace the sin of homosexuality and make no attempts to control the sinful urges. The same might be said of the drunkard lifestyle. The person would embrace their drunkard status and make no attempt to flee their dependence upon alcohol or drugs.

    wvhillcountry – I can’t begin to address all of the things you posted, and I get the feeling you don’t really care what I say, but I’ll address one of the issues you touched upon.

    Public sins, like willfully living as a drunkard, a slanderer or a sexually immoral person are different from private sins. Public sins bring shame upon the church since those outside the church can easily see them. I think the private sins, those done hidden from the world are the most deadly because no one sees them and therefore no one can encourage us to leave them. There are biblical instructions on how to deal with a brother or sister who is sinning against us, or publicly. This involves other Christians confronting the individual or eventually having to remove that person so they may be encouraged to come to repentance.

    If your sin is done in private, or in secret, that only brings shame and judgment upon the individual – not the church as a whole. Those issues are solely between the individual and God. This is not to say that some sins are worse than the others, but they do have different consequences within the church.

    On a completely separate note, no one is “born in sin”. The prophet Ezekiel made it clear that the son does not bear the iniquity of the father, nor the father the son. We are not held accountable for the sins of others.

  28. Stephanie, e2tc, and wvhillcountry: Thank you so much for your contributions to the comment thread.

    coreydavis: One can be very sincere in one’s dedication to God and still be a hypocrite- after all, the pharisees lived to the letter of the law and felt themselves to be holy, but they were full of hypocrisy. When I say that I love all men and then allow myself the luxury of bitterness and cynicism, I make myself a hypocrite. I’ve been guilty of harboring grudges, namecalling, and judgmentalism. So in many ways I myself am full of hypocrisy.

    Yet I am very devoted to God, I try to live by his words, and I do every day make attempts to live in a way that demonstrates my love for all mankind.

    In the end, it is up to the congregation who they will and won’t accept and for what reason, there is no formula for who is or isn’t truly sincere and searching and who is not. We all bring shame on God.

    And I must submit my disagreement with your qualification of “private” and “public” sin and the shame therein. You may have heard of politician Eliot Spitzer’s affair with a prostitute. That was a very private sin that brought very public shame. The same with Ted Haggard’s affair with a gay escort. They were not publicly touting their failings, but they did end up in the public eye. Or the scandals with Catholic priests- those are private moments that bring public shame. A man who molests a girl should be called to judgment with far more vigor than a homosexual couple.

    It is this sort of inconsistency of value that brings shame on Christianity. How we tolerate one thing and shame people for others, as if there truly is sin which God finds “worse”. The most vivid language in the Bible is not reserved for homosexuals or the adulterers, it’s for the lukewarm that God “vomits” from his mouth.

  29. “I’ve yet to meet a single person that God doesn’t passionately love. That knowledge ought to drive all of us to love as well.”

    Perhaps one day you can touch on what you believe is the meaning of “God’s passionate love.”

  30. Lindsey,

    If you noticed, I said that private sins are probably the most deadly. Look at what happens when one of those private sins becomes public. Just like you said, they are incredibly devastating. However, once they come to light they are no longer a private sin but a public one.

    Notice that Paul wrote that homosexuals and adulterers will not inherit the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor 6:9-10). I would say that is pretty terrible and vivid language. Our hope is in that, just like the Corinthian church, just because we were once some of those things we can be made free of our sins in Christ (verse 11).

  31. coreydavis: True, true… that list in 1 Corinthians also includes the greedy and slanderers… then there’s the question of what was meant by “the Kingdom of God”. I would suggest the writings of NT Wright to get perspective on what a Jew of that time would have perceived the phrase to mean.

  32. coreydavis: I applaud your knowledge- many Christians falsely assume it means a classic definition of Heaven. And it is true, that people who sin without remorse are not truly part of Christ’s body, is it not?

  33. That is true. In Acts 17:30 Paul says that God commands all of mankind to repent. Those that will not are not a part of God’s kingdom, the church.

  34. coreydavis: I would guess that at the end of the day you and I are closer in beliefs than we appear. For wouldn’t you agree that membership in the Body is divided not along lines of “those who sin” and “those who do not” but instead along the line of “those who seek holiness” and “those who do not?”

    I extend grace to the homosexuals not because I feel that there is no call to repentance for them (what I do truly feel on that issue not being a part of this argument) but because we all struggle with sins that seem insurmountable, and the blood of Christ covers a multitude of imperfections. It is my belief that we should allow such people membership, allow them the benefit of being mentored and discipled and having a hand to hold, and give God time to bring conviction where he feels necessary.

    If they remain gay, but are freed from anger and spite and gluttony and pride and any number of other things, haven’t you done a good thing?

  35. Corey, you made a comment to wvhillcountry that you thought she didn’t really care about what you said. I don’t really believe that is true.

    However, I’m sure, like me, she gets a little frustrated when someone comes along and tries to sum up our lives in one word-SIN.

    Corey, my partner and I are deeply in love with one another, we care about one another tremedously. It is not a lustful thing, it is true, genuine love. We are in a relationship, dedicated to each other. We serve one another and we are faithful to each other. I couldn’t imagine being with someone else.

    We have two beautiful litte girls, we homeschool, we are involved in the church, the one with fours walls and the one without. We love God, we worship God, at times we struggle to make God first in all we do and at other times we are falling on our faces, thanking God and learning humility again.

    My partner is finishing seminary within the next two years and will be a pastor. We will continue on caring for those in need, feeding the poor, sheltering the homeless and sharing the gospel with those who care to listen. Not just with our mouths, but with our lives and hearts.

    One would have to ask if this lifestyle is one of a drunkard. I would also think we would have to ask ourselves if this lifestyle is one that is producing fruit.

    I don’t beleive this is the homosexaulity that is talked about in the bible and is so easily condemned by other Christians.

  36. Lindsey – yes, we agree on your first point. None of us are righteous on our own, it is only through Christ we can be called righteous. I agree the difference is between those who seek righteousness and those who do not.

    As to your second point, it is God that grants membership into the church (Acts 2). We are to judge the congregation in that we try to prevent it from blemish, but ultimately, it is God who grants access into the body of Christ. I also agree that we must give people time to learn and to see that we are there to help them.

    As to your last point, I agree in a way. Yes, it is good if we help people turn from some of their wicked ways. However, I can’t pick one sin that I’m going to hold onto. Giving up most of my wicked behavior is not true repentance. I think we all tend to have at least one sin that is very difficult to turn from, but to accept it and expect God to accept it, is wrong.

    I think of Paul’s admonition that we move on to perfection. While we will never gain perfection, at least not as Christ did, we are to strive for it. If I decide to turn from some of my sins, but not all, I am not striving for perfection.

  37. Definitions. Labels. Doomed to failure.

    Your post is good, but asserting that dogs too can be gay is just full of holes and really detracts from your argument.

    First of all, dogs sniff each other like that to get an identifying scent. They do this to people, too. There is nothing inherently sexual about it that research on animal behavior would expressly indicate. It is also stated in such research that what would appear to be anal copulation is a behavior done as a display of dominance.

    Bonobo chimps might be a better example, but from what I have read, it seemed more that they dealt with many social interactions in an overtly sexual manner.

    Now, about this whole thing with identification:

    Scientific studies have shown that homosexuality goes far beyond a “preference”, there are physiological and psychological differences between those who are gay and those who are straight.

    The psychological differences are generally accepted– although I know even that is debated. Physiological differences? No, that is most definitely inconclusive.

    To boot, the context in which such scientific studies are quoted in are far too political to have any objectivity at all. I also question whether the studies are honestly driven by any interests that are free of political bias.

    Time and time again, among the scores of media articles I have read– newspaper, magazine, TV, Internet, radio, etc.– this is fundamentally a civil rights issue. A majority of the statements really do boil down to that. It is never a simple matter of “is homosexuality an unalterable trait”– it is always a matter of validating sexuality as identity, and therefore ending perceived discrimination, or further perpetuating it.

    I agree with Rob’s perspective, although I am not completely sure how widely it is shared. But I do see identification being used as a political tool. This seems odd because I read (or hear) arguments that would suggest sexuality is only part of who a person is. This argument is made by gays and ex-gays alike, although some in both groups choose to use the identification strongly.

    It is said that bisexuals are most known to reject labels of sexuality– in fact, in some societies, such sexual expressions do not carry a label at all. But I would hesitate to say that all people who primarily view their sexuality as homosexual are therefore more inclined to embrace identification. No, I would say that labels are used as a rallying point.

    I spoke of dichotomies some time ago in another post. People really are inclined to describe themselves by “I am this” or “I am not this.” I would say much of the structure of politics is based on such dichotomies.

    Rare is the person I see who attempts a unique definition: “I am who I am– examine me, and see.” Hmmm… wait a minute– does that sound familiar? In like fashion, people try to bind the Divine by dichotomies. “The Divine is this.” “The Divine is not this.”

    Science is inherently neutral. At best, it is fairly limited to what the scientist can perceive by the natural five senses. Things beyond that are the domain of philosophy (especially metaphysics), theology, sociology, and so forth. I’m sure that you have read repeatedly that faith cannot be described well by scientific constructs.

    Therefore, these discussions remain sociopolitical at their core. Use a scientific explanation in such, and the discussion is no longer scientific. It’s like history: whoever is writing the books, and has the power, defines the history. Power and control is not the domain of science, and most good scientists will not use their research as such. They often prefer to stay out of such debates. Those that do not should be suspect– indeed, whether the research is being used to support homosexuality or not.

  38. jaklumen: Your opinion is (as always) welcome here. And I agree, any scientific evidence is subject to scrutiny as it is almost solely based off of intent, and not neutral inspection. But the fact remains that the truth of “why” people are gay is still up in the air. No one knows the answer to that question or the extent to which it is ingrained into someone’s being. I personally choose to fall on the side of caution and say that since we don’t know, I can’t definitively tell people that they can or can’t change.

    You see, I’m just some girl. I haven’t walked out the walk that you’ve walked, I don’t truly know how it feels or how you feel where you are now. So how could I tell someone else, “Jak has experienced life thusly, and therefore…”

    Can’t do it.

    You can, though, and good for you!

    As for my mention of dogs weakening the argument, perhaps, but the reflexive response to most of these posts is that homosexuality is unnatural/not found in nature. I figured I’d put it out there preemptively and see if anyone bit. Ha. You’re the first. 🙂

    Truthfully, I think the whole “not found in nature” argument is inherently foolish, as we don’t know how self-aware animals truly are, and if they sexually identify the way humans do. Do dogs have finely developed sexuality based off of generations of sexual interaction? Do they inherit gender roles from mother and father? Develop taste? Have sexual needs bound into their emotion and spirituality?

    Why, then, do we give a flying fart if homosexuality is found in nature? Shouldn’t we deal with what is found in humanity as we can turn to the rest of humanity and just ask them how they experience their sexuality?

    Egads. This is turning into a post. I’ve got to shut myself off.

  39. Lindsey, at the risk of threadjacking, I’ll just mention that the whole notion of bringing 4-legged animal behavior into the argument/discussion about homosexual attraction in humans strikes me as specious, no matter who’s throwing that one onto the table. Animals have their own reasons for doing what they do, and it’s all too easy for us (as jaklumen points out) to impose our interpretations of certain behaviors for the sake of convenience.

    I’ve only recently become a pet owner (2 years ago), and the longer I spend with my rabbit, the more aware I become that she is highly intelligent but very, very different from me – sort of like ET in bunny clothes.

    So… the more you learn, the more there is to learn. Our one and only go-round on this earth isn’t nearly enough to absorb all the wonders found in this world.

    [/end threadjack]

  40. Shouldn’t we deal with what is found in humanity as we can turn to the rest of humanity and just ask them how they experience their sexuality?

    Well, see, that was more or less my point– that it’s possible sexuality is a uniquely human concept.

    I have a tendency to really ramble, and e2tc articulated the thought much better than I did. It truly is a human concern.

    Now, the other point I made– which got rather muddled– well, I *do* maintain it is rather a civil rights matter. Therefore, we are indeed stuck with labels, still, and scientific causes aren’t scientific causes– they are political weapons.

    See, we can look at race alone. Picking a fairly noticeable example– “blackness”. African Americans, as viewed by many native Africans, are actually considered “white”. Rap and hip-hop culture are sometimes considered unwelcome “white” music.

    Why white? Well, there is that uncomfortable history of slave owners siring children– some African Americans are just now coming to terms with that, in say, for example, that they might be descendants of Thomas Jefferson. American “blackness” encompasses many shades of complexion, and perhaps native Africans choose more to look at the “white” side.

    Considering that, “mulatto”/”biracial”, “passing for white”, and such really are social constructs. How then, honestly, is “gay”, “lesbian”, and “bisexual” that different?

    “Passing for white”, especially, seems about as thorny as “ex-gay”. But there is NO doubt that some have done it. Even more so– those from Cape Verde have skin as brown as the soil and yet they still consider themselves white. (I am drawing from PBS’s “African-American Experience” series.) So then, shall we tell the Cape Verdan “no, your skin is brown, you can’t be white” as we should tell the ex-gay “Oh no no, your vibe, your mannerisms, the attractions I see in you… you must call yourself gay [or bisexual, or whatever the case may be]”?

    Scientists say that race is a social construct– genetically, we are all the same– at best, there may differences in the age of a group of genes. Yes, we do have genetic counseling– because race and ethnicity exists, we do have concerns with genetic defects. But why should sexuality be that much different? It is for the matter of civil rights, and going back to dichotomies– “I am this,” “I am not this.”

  41. Jaklumen: Points that are very well taken, but it’s an incredibly complex thing. While I’m tempted to say, “leave it to the individual to self-describe as they see fit”, when discussing with the larger church body how to (or not to) treat gay people, I am befuddled at what language to use. If a man can choose to live a straight life style and to even self-identify as straight, but his mannerisms and base attractions remain the same, what language do we use to describe that man? Especially for me, when pointing out the fact that we can’t simply expect someone to cease having those attributes that society at large identifies as “gay”?

  42. Wow, this is a hard topic.

    You made a statement that God crossed A with B and made someone gay.

    Ok I can live with that. No problem.

    God made me with the potential to lust after women.

    Should I sleep with as many women as I desire because God made me attracted to women?

    A homosexual person needs to resist the desire to engage in homosexuality.

    A child molester (following your A and B example) needs to resist the desire to engage in child molestation.

    How are they to do this? By DEPENDENCE on GOD. Burying themselves in the work of God. By focusing on God, the desires of the flesh are greatly reduced.

    Are we to love them? Absolutely!! What is the best way to love these people??

    Get them involved with God! Get them engaged with God, focused on God and learning about Him. Celibacy is not a bad thing. I personally think many nuns and priests in old times were probably homosexual and would rather take a vow of celibacy.

    I can tell you this, a single person (gay or straight) that has given their life to God’s ministry can do much more for God then a married person or a person with children. My own wife and children limit the time I can spend with God. Because I share my life with them, I LOGICALLY have to pull that time from somewhere.

    It could actually be a blessing to be “gay” as you could devote 100% of your energy to pursuing God. Is that hard? HECK Yes. Is it hard for a straight man to avoid lust and extramarital affairs. HECK Yes.

    2 Cor 19:9 “My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness.”

    God Bless,


    We have to minister to those that are wondering about their sexuality. Minister to their fear, doubt, loathing (if they have it), hate, anger. We have to be ministers – those that reach out to others in care and compassion.

    Show them what God says and show them their options I think.

    Obviously you wouldn’t put a child molester working with children. Or a homosexual with an all mens ministry (perhaps a women’s ministry?? – It could work)

    But they have to remain celibate if you believe that an active homosexual lifestyle is a sin. (Which I do)

    God Bless,

  44. Chris: I’m not going to disagree with you, as nowhere in my post did I say, “homosexuality is not sin.” I said, “being homosexual and also a Christian is not a contradiction”, because in as much as homosexuality is defined by psychosexual characteristics and not the act of sex with a same-gendered person there is no inherent contradiction. The Bible never says “a lack of sexual attraction to people of the opposite gender is sin.”

    The question for me, as a Christian, becomes one of if our (Christianity’s) attitude towards homosexuality actually becomes a barrier to ministering to homosexuals, and I think that it does. Even in your own comment you mainly addressed the sinfulness of consummating a homosexual relationship, not solely the topic of my post (If a young man questioning his sexuality can in fact still consider himself a Christian).

    Does God love the gays? YES. Does he want to be united with them? YES. Are they an important part of the body? YES.

    There is a deeply rooted hypocrisy in the American church’s attitude towards homosexuals. I’ve seen religious leaders engaged in extramarital affairs welcomed back with open arms, and young boys questioning their sexuality outright rejected. Why?

    I appreciate your willingness to allow a gay man to engage in Ministry, and your open heart towards ministering to young boys with questions. Thank you for that.

  45. Lindsey,

    I wasn’t really arguing with you. 🙂 Although I thought maybe the whole thing about animals messing around with other animals was intended to be the “act of homosexuality”.

    Just felt like I should clarify that.

    If the Church was as dogmatic about lust, pornography, adultery, as they are about homosexuality, we’d have a lot more empty churches *sigh*

    I’m creating a post on this now, though it probably won’t be up until tomorrow. Its a little bit of a twist so I’ll comment here when it is up.

    God Bless,

  46. I have read and reread this post and responses and somehow I think the point was missed. Maybe I am wrong, and if I am I apologize, but I thought the original post was to give support to one who is struggling. Not condoning or condemning anything about that person, but sending them to quiet themselves and ask GOD.

    But then that begs the question, what if God’s answer is different than our beliefs? Do we automatically discount the answers given to one person because they disagree with our own thoughts and opinions? Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are worng. Maybe we all just need to pray that GOD’S truth will be shown to us all.

    In the mean time, Coreydavis, yes I am interested in hearing your thoughts and answers. And I do apologize that I came across as being a smart alec or confrontational. It is just sometimes I get very frustrated when I see blanket statements applied to any group. It doesn’t matter if it is all gays go to hell or all jews are stingy or all african americans are lazy. So for my frustration I apologize but not for my point of view.

    Open dialogue is the first step to reconcilliation or at least understanding, so yes I am interested in what you have to say.

    Lindsey, Sorry for the thread jack, but I felt an apology was due.

  47. wvhillcountry: Threadjacks aren’t a problem as long as they serve a good purpose! And you are right, my point with this post was not to give definitive answers but to encourage thought and to bring all of these questions to God. And as much as it hurts, there are a lot of Christians and a lot of Homosexual Christians who have asked the same questions and felt different answers.

    At the end of the day, right or wrong, we still need each other. And isn’t that what matters most?

  48. Hi Chris Taylor,

    I understand what you’re saying in your first comment above and although I have a different view and opinion on much of it, I can respect that this is the way you feel about the subject.

    I do want to share this though. When talking about such a sensitive topic as this one, saying things like…….

    “Get them involved with God!”

    “Get them engaged with God, focused on God and learning about Him.”

    It’s not fair to assume that we aren’t involved, engaged and learning about Him. Maybe some of us aren’t but it doesn’t mean all of us. It’s these types of assumptions and generalities that can cause barriers and a sort of alienation.

    I’m gay, I love God, I’m involved and engage with our awesome, loving Creator daily. I would like to think I know much about God, but I don’t want to make that statement too boldly because there is so much to know about Him.

    God bless Chris!

  49. Stephanie,

    True or false – The majority of homosexuals are not involved in a Christian church? (Your opinion, true or false)

    Because I say “Get them involved”, is that to imply that I think ALL of “them” are not involved? Of course not. I think everyone knows that blanket statements are used for the perceived “majority” and that within any group there are those that are different.

    (If I’m not part of that group, is it acceptable to say “them”? I hope so because I do not mean to imply “us vs. them”).

    I’m sorry you thought I was being unfair, but honestly that was your own experience that caused you to see something in my remarks that was not intended 🙂

    God Bless,

  50. Hey Chris,

    Yes, it has been my experience and the experience of so many others that generalities are unfair.

    You said-“True or false – The majority of homosexuals are not involved in a Christian church? (Your opinion, true or false)”

    Hmmmm…. I can’t really answer that question and be honest about it. I don’t think we can assume either way.

    There are a lot of factors to consider here really.

    After honestly searching things out, I have found a plethra of gay folks who are involved in the Christian church, again-the one with four walls and the one without.

    I have also found a lot of open and accepting Chrisitan churches that allow gay folks to be a part of the body. There are a lot of gay folks involved in the Christian church there.

    Also, I know there are gay folks who are inlvolved in Christian churches that are not open and accepting about sexuality.

    If you are involved with one of these churches, then I think many times, for many different reasons you would not know who these folks are. Not only do we all have many different looks, as I’m sure you know, but some gay folks just aren’t comfortable sharing that they are gay with folks.

    Another thing I think we have to consider is we don’t know how many gay people there REALLY are. I don’t take the current stats seriously because mainly because I don’t think everyone was asked and I don’t think everyone answered. I didn’t.

    So those are just a few factors that came to mind when attempting to answer your question.

    What is your opinion to your question?

  51. I apologize for the spelling/extra word error in my comment above. I know it can be a bit hard to read something when that happens. I hit the reply button before I could proof what I wrote.

  52. I am not sinful; I am openly lesbian, in a committed relationship for 12 years, and because the civil law of our state will not allow us to marry, we cannot have our relationship legally sanctioned. However we are totally committed; we love God, we help our fellow citizen; and we try to make the world a peaceful, better place.

    We live a lifestyle of a family household; fix dinner, go to soccer and dance rehearsal/practice; mow the grass,build forts with our kid, take the dog for a walk. We don’t have some “clandestine” lifestyle that represents how the majority of gays and lesbians live. We are simply living our lives, in the most honest and loving way that we know how. WE ARE NOT SINNERS. I respect the beliefs of all that are here, but I have the need to be heard as well. I have to be willing, as a gay person, to acknowledge that the way that I view the Bible verses always cited as wrong; but none of you who cite the Bible to me ever are. How is that right or just? God made me JUST THE WAY I AM; loving and human and flawed; but being gay is not one of the “sins” that I need to repent. Being gay is not about my behavior, IT IS ABOUT WHO I AM AS A PERSON. The problem that often presents itself when I come out is based in the fact that many individuals believe that being gay is only defined by sexual acts….. it is about so much more than that, so much deeper than just sexual intimacy. It is about loving another person, committing with that person to care for one another, to make a difference in the world. Sorry to be so lengthy, but I have grown tired of being devalued simply by the fact that I love whom I do, and I am darn proud to say that I love another woman; there is no shame in that. Vanessa

  53. I think the point is not whether homosexuality is a sin according to the bible – Even if the bible said it was without a doubt a sin I think that deep down you simply disagree.

    You’ve come to the conclusion yourself that you don’t see it as a bad act (which in my opinion, it isn’t either).

    I think any sane person would eventually come to that same conclusion if they thought about it logically without any prejudice. With all the misery, hatred, racism, fear and violence in the world, how can acts of compassion, love, and desire be read as a source of evil? Regardless of the two genders involved.

  54. Pingback: Some uplifting words… « Gay Catholics

  55. While I don’t fully agree with your conclusions, this is a very thoughtful post. Thank you for sharing it.

  56. “DYKES FOR CHIRST” Bumper stickers available, T-shirst, coffeE mugs, dental dams all ready to sell…contact me for more information. “DYKES FOR MOSES”, “HINDI ACCEPTS ALL” and more.

  57. Religion has been the source of more murder and genocide in this world since it was introduced.

    It’s a source of contention for most because people can’t stand it that others won’t follow. I believe Jesus Christ was a well intentioned apostle of God who got carried away with who he was.

    I do believe in God however, and I don’t think God gives a hoot about what goes on here. If he really does, he’s either an idiot, or is sadistic by nature.

    You can be gay, be a christian, be muslim….it only matter to you, and those who care to make it an issue.

    Insecurity abounds in this world which explains why so many of us need other’s approval to do as we wish. If no one is injured…go for it.


  58. Vanessa: Thank you so much for your thoughtful comment.
    goldnsilver: Yes. Thank you.
    Barry Lauterwasser: I don’t see how you can say “Religion has… since it was introduced“. Hasn’t religion always been here? Long before Gods had names it was the sun and stars and elements that were worshiped. The point isn’t the intrinsic flaws of worship (since the sun, stars, and elements themselves have no morals) but the flaws of the worshipers.
    Alessio: To address your question- It wouldn’t change my faith. Not one bit. I have a hard time with the concept of God as inherently male or female, and while Jesus was a man, well, he was just as human as the rest of us as well as being divine.

    • Of course you don’t see how I say “Religion has…since it was introduced”You don’t understand it the same as me. Who’s right/wrong, I don’t care. It makes no impact on my life. For all I care, I could be wrong…But there’s fact that religion has been the source of more murder and genocide than about anything I can think of…the former are my beliefs…that I can neither prove nor disprove…they’re simply beliefs…which is all any of us have…and until god pokes his head out of where it is and tells us the facts…well…beliefs is what we’ll work with… 🙂

  59. No no and no.
    Just as light does not mix with darkness.
    You cannot be one and be the other. There is no room for homosexuality with religion. I will not descriminate against them but will only show Love and try to point out the truth. A man was created for a woman and vice versa there is no other equasion that fits in. Anything apart from this is considered SIN.

  60. Fortunately for us believers, true or otherwise, we’re all human beings, and as such, we’re equally accepted by God universally, no matter what we do. God’s opinion of us is, also fortunately, quite simply: if you’re human, you’re loved by God, and you’re universally accepted by God, no matter who you are and what you do — from the day you’re born to the day you cross over to another plane of existence. There cannot be any other way for a God that is infinitely good.

    “Labels” come just from people, not from God 😉

    Of course, let people define who is “a good Christian” (instead of letting God doing that!), and the answer will immediately be quite different! As it has constantly been happening in the past millenia, who dictates the “rules of behaviour” is hardly God, but just us silly humans with all our faults, misconceptions, and prejudice. We can’t blame God for what us humans do with His message.

    For me, thankfully, I listen only to what God says to me, not to what the “true believers” dictate 😉

    And for the record, I’m not gay!

  61. Can someone be a homosexual and be religious? Yes –but it depends on the religion…

    Can someone be a homosexual and be a Catholic? No. Why? Because it does not matter what YOU think. It matters what the Church thinks, because it matters what God (the One who calls Himself I Am)thinks. Calling yourself a member of the Church, does not necessarily make you a valid member. One also cannot cherry pick rules to live by as a matter of convenience, and still be considered valid as a member.

    It isn’t up to man to judge men –it is up to God (the One who calls Himself I Am), and judge He will. We have the Church and Faith, because we trust in God’s will, and homosexuality is not part of God’s will.

    I’m not sure how to make it any clearer for you to understand.

  62. what language do we use to describe that man?

    Excellent question. The answer my faith came up with was “SSA” (same-sex attracted). Some of the general leadership have decided to use “SGA” (same-gender attracted) recently, but the former remains widely used.

    It’s back to a dichotomy, however. The language is specifically used because “gay” carries political connotations for many people. To be more specific, “gay” would remain describing one in a homosexual relationship, but “SSA” or “SGA” would be used to describe a man or woman living as you described.

    I am not in a position of leadership, and so I can’t really make a judgment call here, but there is nothing I can think of that would forbid a homosexual couple from attending LDS services. But as they would not be allowed to hold a position, their participation would be limited. This would hold true even if the bishop had stopped persuading them to change and the congregation was free from scorn. Because of that, I doubt that the couple would elect to remain very long; most situations I know of or have heard of, the decision is to stop attending services, or to actively end membership.

    I must agree with Brent that the Church (depending on your point of view, this definition may vary) cannot be expected to allow homosexual relationships. One cannot alter their principles and then claim they have remained true to them. But there is no denying that this creates divisions– it is causing a schism with one denomination, and seems to be creating splinter groups with others.


    I’m not sure how to make it any clearer for you to understand.

    I find such words condescending and insulting. It implies blindness and ignorance, which you sir, cannot justifiably perceive here.

    I think Lindsey deserves the benefit of the doubt, and I also find such a comment accusatory and rude. I perceive some of your emphasis is similarly aggressive, and I don’t think such posturing is necessary.

    I would consider recanting such aggression if you want at least me to take you more seriously. You make very good points, but this is not the “reprove betimes with sharpness” I learned in my faith, particularly as the rest of the verse ends with “afterwards showing an increase of love, lest [the person] esteem thee to by thy enemy.”

  63. Brent: I don’t know if this was your intent, but when I read your comment I heard a very loud voice and the sound of fists pounding wood. You take this topic very seriously and take holiness very seriously, and that’s good. And you’re right: it’s not up to the individual to force belonging, it’s up to the greater body.

    The problem with that is that if we as Christians don’t give these people a safe place to belong, they will go out into the world and be lost to us. We tolerate people whom we know to be drinking, smoking, and indulging in elicit heterosexual relationships. We extend forgiveness and tolerance to the porn addicted and the weak willed and the gossip… Why do we feel the need to bring the hammer down when it comes to heterosexuality? If you read my blog at any length you will find that I never quibble over Christianity at larges contention that the act of homosexual sex is a sin. What I do say is that we must extend forgiveness, love, and tolerance to homosexuals in the same measure we do to all other sinners.

    It is our calling.

    Jaklumen: well said, well said.

  64. Great post oh nameless one. IMHO, the word of God is final. The word of God is, you will not participate in homosexual activity. Nowhere in any bibles I have read (many religions) are there words that indicate God’s word as debatable or up for discussion or anything but final. Question his word, fine, question his authority, fine, that’s each persons decision to make.

    Making the analogy that just because there are some animals in animal nature that appear to conduct homosexual behavior is comparing apples to oranges. Human beings are sentient beings, aware of our own mortality and aware of our self. This was intentional as God gave human being free will and the ability to exercise their free will, not animals.

    Applying human traits and human reasoning to animals makes no sense what-so-ever. We are different for a reason.

    Is being gay non-Christian? I don’t believe so as the road to heaven is paved with sinners and believers. Is it a sin? yes. Does it keep you from the kingdom of God? no. Heaven is not an exclusive club of the sinless.

  65. Rocket: Thanks for the comment, and I wasn’t saying that homosexual acts are acceptable because they are found in nature, I was simply pointing out that those who say “it’s not found in nature” must not have been looking very close. I edited the post to better reflect what I was trying to say and edited in a link to a previous blog post that discusses the issue at more length.

  66. Okay. Let me rephrase. If you are a Catholic, then you study and believe in the Scriptures of the Bible. Go and read what it says about homosexuality, and sexual sin in general.

    That’s my basic point. You are trying to justify what is a sin in God’s eyes, with “tolerance”, and completely omitting what is said in the Bible, which is what matters to Him (the One who calls Himself I Am).

    Please understand the difference between tolerance and permissiveness. Huge difference. To tolerate means to not hate, and to be permissive, means to accept it as equal to that which you know is right and good.

    If it goes against the will of God, how can you say that it is right and good? This does not mean that it is okay to hate gays, or that it is acceptable to hurt them, but acceptance is altogether different.

    As a humble Catholic Christian who follows the Faith, I do not get to say what is acceptable or not in the Church. I’m just trying to explain it to you, not to suggest you are ignorant, but after reading the post, something tells me that you are not a person who practices Christianity the way it is intended to be practiced as a religion.

    I say, if you have a problem with gays, just ignore them. If you are a Catholic or a Christian in general, chances are they hate your guts to begin with.

  67. Brent: You may want to get to know me a little better before suggesting that I do not practice Christianity “the way it is intended to be practiced as a religion” (something that is really open to interpretation, by the way.)

    I pray every day. I study the Bible with regularity. I teach my Children about God. I attend a Church every Sunday (not Catholic, but part of an association affiliated with the Mennonite faith). Not only do I attend church, but I tithe to my church body, am part of the leadership team, run a woman’s ministry and the toddler ministry. I am active in many of my church’s outreach programs with include bolstering our immediate community through acts of service.

    I live very small. I don’t acquire a lot of wealth or possessions and I give out of what I have.

    I believe in praying for the healing of the sick, visiting the infirm, and taking care of my brothers and sisters in Christ as well as all of the people around me.

    What, exactly, should I be doing to practice my faith as it is “meant to be practiced” that I am not already doing?

    If you are referring to my implied “permissiveness” when it comes to homosexuality, again, you need to get to know me better. I believe that judgment and conviction are borne of God, not men. I believe that before you can call someone to repentance they need to be a part of your church body and actively being discipled, and even then the call to obedience needs to come from someone in close relationship with them. I do not believe that anyone who wants can call to repentance, as this is something that needs to be done out of love and knowledge.

    So, no, I don’t believe that following the Bible when it comes to homosexuality is a prerequisite to having faith, I think that when (or if) conviction should come about, it will be AFTER faith is established. How else could it POSSIBLY work?

    Compassion first.

  68. something that is really open to interpretation, by the way

    Thanks for making my point more clear. This is completely wrong.

    It is not up to interpretation. It is what it is, and it is Truth. God is Truth. See the connection? It isn’t up to you to decide based on interpretation.

    When you follow the Faith, you follow the Faith.

    I don’t want to get into an argument with you over this. I’m just trying to make you understand where I’m coming from. Since you are so defensive, I can see that there is no getting through…I won’t give up.

    I believe that judgment and conviction are borne of God, not men.

    Didn’t I already say that?

    Compassion first.

    The fact that you do not put the Word of God first, tells me that you have been tricked by the Deceiver (the one who lies). When you put your full Trust in the Word, compassion, along with many other things come naturally. Put the Word first if you are serious about practicing Christianity as it is meant to be practiced. You do not get to decide that, except for either putting your entire trust in the Word, or not. There is no “in-between.”

    What good is believing and having Faith, if you do not trust in it’s Truth?

    Nowhere in the Bible does it mention that the Word is up for debate based on interpretation. It does say that God (the One who calls Himself I Am) demands you to obey the Word.

    What is your god’s name? Mine calls Himself I Am.

    As far as the way the Faith is meant to be practiced, I am referring to the way that God demands it to be practiced.

    My keen instincts tell me that you do not truly believe every word of the Bible. But that is the way that is was meant to be practiced, according to the Laws of God (the One who calls Himself I am).

  69. By the way, I forgot to ask you something.

    I think that when (or if) conviction should come about, it will be AFTER faith is established.

    Are you suggesting that only those with Faith are judged, if ever at all? God judges everyone of all faiths –even the phony ones.

  70. Brent: Jesus Christ himself said that all the law hinges on two things: love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, and mind, and love your neighbor as yourself.

    So by putting Compassion first, I AM putting God first, as in 1st John 4 it also says that “God is Love.” and “those who do not know love do not know God” as well as “he who says ‘I love God’ but hates his brother is a liar”.

    Don’t you DARE imply I don’t read my Bible. I read it EVERY DAY. I happen to prefer the Gospels so I can read about Christ, and I happen to prefer the Johns so I can read about Christ from the disciple “whom he loved” so I probably have a woeful lack of knowledge of Biblical law, but don’t you DARE use such a tone with me when it comes to the Bible.


    You will make me angry.

    You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.

    And as for “are you suggesting that only those with faith are judged?” No. I would never suggest something so ridiculous. But attempting to put conviction on someone with no faith or trust in God is fruitless. Why would they listen? If their heart is closed to God, how will he communicate with them? Jesus demonstrated compassion to the woman caught in adultery and the woman at the well before he called them to repentance.

    I choose to follow HIS example. You know, the one who said “I AM the Son of Man.” That guy.

  71. You are talking in circles. Again, this comes back to my previous comment. You DO understand the difference between loving someone and having compassion for them, and accepting their behavior, correct or not? Jesus Christ says to reject ALL evil. Never did I suggest that you not love homosexuals, because that would be contradictory to the Word. However, it is also contradictory to the Word, to accept evil behavior — and by evil, I mean that which is defiant of God’s will.

    Yeah, God (the One who calls Himself I am, is Jesus Christ (the Son). They are one in the same.

  72. Brent, I am a Christian, I am a lesbian, and in no way do I hate Catholics. Just a friendly piece of advice, beware that the deceiver can use blind arrogance and disguise it as truth just as easily as interpretation.

  73. How am I accepting evil behavior? I never once “condoned” homosexuality or said it was a “good” thing. I simply said that being a homosexual, that is, being attracted to one of the same gender, is not necessarily contradictory to God’s word. I have a friend who is a homosexual and has been married to a woman (and not having sex with men) for ten years. He is a homosexual. He is a devoted Christian. These things are not contradictory.
    People who are questioning their sexuality should be taken in by the church and demonstrated (by our good example) the benefits of a holy life. Yelling at them and telling them that they are bad (especially when they aren’t engaging in sexual activities) becomes an impediment to discipling them.

    And, by the way, the word translated “love” in such passages as “love your neighbor” and “faith, hope and love” could also be translated as compassion or charity. In fact, in the King James Bible it is translated charity.

  74. I simply said that being a homosexual, that is, being attracted to one of the same gender, is not necessarily contradictory to God’s word.


    Leviticus 18:22
    Leviticus 20:13
    1 Corinthians 6:9-10
    Romans 1:26-27

    You are clearly ignorant of what the Bible says and means on this topic.

    God gives us free will. He does not have to “accept” us. We must “accept” Him. It really is that simple.

  75. I’m not arguing over whether or not the act of sleeping with someone of the same gender is sin, simply the act of being attracted. No one can control who they are attracted to, it is a function of hormones. Now, indulging in the attraction to the point of fantasy and actually engaging in acts is clearly condemned, for both homosexuals as well as heterosexuals– but simple physical attraction? Really? Are you that hard-hearted?

  76. Who says that an attraction is the same thing as the practice? Being a homosexual, implies that you are sexual.

    So I’m not talking about those who are confused about their sexuality necessarily. I am speaking of those who are clearly defiant of God’s will, that’s all.

    However, let’s define the word attracted. There is a stark difference between being attracted and having lust. Lust is a sin. You can look at someone and find them physically appealing without wanting to engage in sexual acts with them. If you do fantasize about sex with someone other than your spouse, you are lusting, which is a sin. If I say, gee Lindsey, you look pretty today, that does not imply that I want to have sex with you. I just happened to notice that you are pretty. Huge difference. I think my Mom and my sister are both pretty women too.

    I’m also not in any way suggesting that homosexuals are automatically condemned to Hell. That’s why Christ sacrificed His life –for we, the imperfect sinner. I’m sure that after a couple of thousand years in Purgatory, God’s mercy will allow them to enter into the Kingdom.

    Again, I’m not the one who is saying that homosexuality is wrong. I am only repeating what the Word says about it.

    I don’t think I am hard-hearted, whatever that means. I just do not fear being honest. Some people hate my honesty, but that is not going to keep me from being honest. It makes it perfectly clear that I am doing what is right, when it irritates those who lie.

    I appreciate our conversation/debate.

  77. What is your problem, dude? (Yeah, you, Brent.)

    Are your feathers so ruffled that you missed the parts where people said they actually agreed with what you’ve said?

    It’s not WHAT you are saying, it’s how you are saying it.

    Let me reiterate what I said earlier. Put another way, there is nothing wrong with stating the truth and even being blunt about it. But if you use hostile and negative tones, and leave no room to express love and compassion, people WILL assume you are just attempting to pick a fight.

    Granted, the quote I made is not from the Bible itself. It’s from another book of LDS scripture. Yet I would say most would think it agreeable to the Sermon on the Mount and the Golden Rule. If someone had condemned you harshly, wouldn’t you wish them to say that despite their disapproval, they still loved you?

    To be honest, I’m not defending Lindsey simply for her sake– if you came to my blog and were rude like that, I’d tell you to get out and not come back. I’m not so nice. You don’t have to agree with me– but if you can’t play nice in my space– well, I send you home.

    What’s stopping you from extending her some common courtesy?

  78. Brent: Does Heterosexual then mean only people who have sex as well? Shall we come up with new terminology with which to refer to virgins? Because in the dictionary both hetero- and homo-sexual are defined as referring to attraction.

    And attraction and lust ARE different, which is why in my comment I made a distinction between feeling attraction and engaging in fantasy, something on which the Bible is clear.

    I draw a line between people’s base level attraction and the acts they engage in. Someone can be homosexual and live quite happily with someone of the opposite gender, something I have witnessed. There is no reason to discriminate solely based off of one’s orientation (read: the gender to which one feels the most attraction.)

    I also agree that one can appraise physical features without engaging lust. Angelina Jolie is a beautiful woman and I am most assuredly NOT gay.

  79. Brent-

    You said-“I say, if you have a problem with gays, just ignore them. If you are a Catholic or a Christian in general, chances are they hate your guts to begin with.”

    No Brent, being a follower of Christ, I don’t hate your guts and I’m gay.

    I am very curious though, what is your motive here?

    I hope because I’m gay, you as a Christian don’t ignore me.

  80. You are sexual when you engage in sexual activity. Can I call myself a surfer, even though I have never surfed?

    God commands that no sexual activity EVER occurs outside of marriage –no exceptions.

    I never said anything about myself and being discriminatory against gays. You did. Your argument asks, can gays be religious? I said yes. Does the Church recognize gays as members? No. Why? Because of the Bible verses in my above comment that command otherwise.

    This is obviously not getting through. I’m not questioning your faith of the Word, but I do have to question your understanding of it, since you suggest that it is up to interpretation (or as arguable). You are preaching false doctrine when you say that, and I hope you are aware of how God condemns it.

    Not to twist politics into this too much, but you are clearly left of center, I can tell, and so it makes sense why you have this position. Liberals often tend to redefine Christianity, Patriotism, among other things, in order to make them fit into the template of their own personal agenda. God does not care about your agenda. He cares about His.

    This isn’t about what I tolerate. It’s about what God tolerates. Anything other than His Will, He does not tolerate.

    I encourage you to read 2Peter and 2Timothy. It’s all right there.

    If you read the Bible everyday, how come you deny that the Word demands to preach Doctrine? You said yourself that you are not an evangelist, even though the Bible commands it : 2 Timothy 4:2-5.

    You are falsely preaching the Word of God, which I highly recommend not doing if you are going to call yourself a Christian. Please read the Bible, not in the context of seeing how it applies to your life, but rather how your life applies to it.

    Nothing that I have said is rude, and if it offends you, then I am afraid you have been lead astray from the Word, and have been manipulated by the doctrine of devils.

    May God be with you.

  81. The dictionary defines homosexual thus:
    having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
    Sexual Orientation is defined as:
    The direction of one’s sexual interest toward members of the same, opposite, or both sexes.

    Thus, a homosexual is someone who is attracted to a person of the same sex.

    NOT someone who is sexually active. This is not me: this is the way the word is defined.

    And as for me saying that the Bible is open to interpretation. Well, it is in another language. That language is one that needs to be studied and understood from a perspective other than one of a 21st century white American. We ALL interpret it, you included. How can you know with absolute certainty that the way YOU read (and interpret) the Bible is the correct way? Show a little bit of humbleness. Quit pretending that you are somehow superior to me- someone you barely have knowledge of.

    I have no problem with the Catholic church not accepting people who are openly in homosexual relationships as that is against Catholic doctrine. I do, on the other hand, have a problem with discrimination based solely off of sexual orientation- a thing that people cannot control.

    You seem incapable of making that distinction, so this conversation is over.

    You have every right to your beliefs.

  82. NOT someone who is sexually active. This is not me: this is the way the word is defined.

    By man or by God? Which matters?

    I suppose here is where you and I disagree. Sexual orientation IS a choice. Homosexuals choose to give in to their urges and lusts, just as those who commit other sexual sin do.

    THAT is the distinction that you fail to grasp.

  83. Pingback: Isobel não foi coroinha! « gray is so……

  84. Brent: Believe what you wish.

    I am no longer discussing this post with you. Should you choose to comment on other posts I will listen to what you have to say, but this topic as far as I’m concerned is closed.

  85. “Homosexuality Is Not Hardwired,” Concludes Head of The Human Genome Project
    By A. Dean Byrd, Ph.D, MBA, MPH

    The scientific evidence seems to show that tTo engage in homosexual acts is a CHOICE. No one is born such that he or she HAS to engage in it.

    Homosexuals need our care and concern. We mus not judge them But we MUST judge what they do. If they commit sin (such as homosexual acts), then we must condemn the sin but still love the sinner.

  86. Maddog: There is a lot of distance between “it’s not hardwired” and “it’s a choice.” While I agree that one always can choose to or not to engage in sexual acts, I simply do not believe there is any conclusive evidence that people have complete control over their sexual orientation. If anything, people’s experiences seem to show that there is NOT a conscious choice. If it were a choice, why would young boys “struggle” with their sexual identity? They would simply choose it.

    Do I think this means that you should change your personal morality to condone homosexual acts? No. But you ought to be compassionate with people as they struggle.

  87. Ah yes, Dean Byrd. I am familiar with that name.

    Quite an interesting article. I was not aware that someone had claimed a “God gene”– which seems to indicate there are extremes in either direction. The gist I gather is that there are far too many variables to objectively conclude any sort of human characteristics or behavior is a sure thing.

    In a matter of speaking, I follow the “ex-gay” path, so yes, I’ve heard of Dean Byrd, and NARTH (who published the article). I would that people would consider both sides of the issue without fear.

    Lemme tell you, it’s quite a dilemma when you find yourself in the middle of it all. I shouldn’t have to “pick sides” as it were. Loud voices on one side cry “Sin! Abomination! Look at what they do!” and loud voices on the other cry “Hate! Hypocrisy! Look at the mistreatment!” and then there is an unspoken expectation of “choose us, not them” from both.

    Even the slightly more moderated voices are still divided. “Hate the sin but love the sinner” has begun to be trite and cliche, if not hollow and dogmatic. There are also voices that say “I really want to follow my faith more closely, although it seems I cannot in this area…” and they are often not heard.

    I really do think people are divided mostly on the dichotomy of gay vs. straight, as I’ve said before. The whole point of the post, as I see it, is the assumption that religious devotion is most certainly on the side of “straight”. That’s too pat an answer for those of us who aren’t straight but still try to live our faith as best we can.

    I have a heterosexual relationship, and choose to submit to the principles of my faith as best I can, although… well, there are still some things to be worked out yet. But I realized I’d look pretty silly to claim I have no attractions to the same sex, for that is just not so. What I do know is that my wife is most certainly my soulmate, and I see God as a part of my marriage relationship; I made promises to that effect.

    That said, I don’t much like the dichotomy, period. I’m not “gay” and I’m not “straight”. I generally refrain from using the label “bisexual” because I don’t want that to be misconstrued as an advertisement.

    I can only speak from my experience, and at most, what I observe with friends who walk the path of change– whether they feel attractions to the opposite sex or not. (There are some that work from an emotional attraction to their opposite sex spouse, and go from there– and manage to have it work.)

    Now, where was I? Oh yes. I rather like the analogy of church being a “hospital for sinners”– everyone is there to recover and get well. I also try to live by “for what measure shall you give, it shall be given to you again”, or “if I judge, I expect that by judgment in equal measure shall I be judged.” Quite a yin-yang thing, really. The further interpretation I was given was “if you must judge, judge righteously”, implying, “if you want to be judged fairly, judge fair yourself”. The balance MUST be between justice and mercy. What has been emphasized here is that we extend mercy as Christ has extended to us.

    In a perfect world, as far as I can tell, we would have the judgment of God: for we would be living with God and leave the judgment to God. That perfect world is not yet, and we live in a fallen world where sometimes we must have the judgment of humans. But in a church context, I’d say that really lies with church leadership. Therefore, someone who comes barging here and basically implies “I judge for God, and I judge for the Church” looks presumptuous. (I speak for earlier comments, not the most recent few ones.)

    Personal witness/testimony has its place. But such blanket statements– especially when one can’t even prove they lead in their own denomination, just seems contentious.

    “Behold, this is not my doctrine, to stir up the hearts of men with anger, one against another; but this is my doctrine, that such things should be done away.” (3 Nephi 11:30) The LDS faith therefore teaches against contention, so I myself measure my words carefully.

    For a reference likely more familiar to you all, Paul says: “Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be discouraged.” (Colossians 3:21) I am sure there are more fitting New Testament verses, but I hope such will suffice for now.

  88. Maddog, thanks for furthering what I said.

    I never said to hate gays. Jesus call on us to love everyone –even our enemies. I do not consider gays my enemy. I love all people, including gays, but there is a difference between loving someone and agreeing with someone. Or to put it better, there is a huge difference between hating someone and condemning their behavior. You can condemn what someone does and still love them. Jesus loves evil people, but he absolutely condemns their behavior.

  89. There’s a far bigger distance between being born gay and realizing that being gay is not hardwired. Many radical homosexuals like to perpetuate the myth that people are born gay and that there’s nothing that can be done about it. The facts, however, do not support the myth, and in fact undermine it.

    As I said before: hate the sin, love the sinner. The contrary is not implied in any other part of my message.

  90. tzugidan said 6 days ago:
    “But there’s fact that religion has been the source of more murder and genocide than about anything I can think of…”

    I suggest we get the historical facts straight on this one. Far more people have been killed in the name of “freedom” or “liberation” by the communists in the 20th century than ALL religious wars combined in all of history. Does that now mean we should reject “freedom” and “liberation”?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s