Actually, no one knows for sure what God really feels about homosexuality. My best guess is that God doesn’t give a rat’s ass about it any more than heterosexuality. That He wants anyone to behave responsibly no matter their orientation. And would NOT want a gay person to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Or perhaps this is one of those topics that God is going to let us mere mortal beings figure it out for ourselves. Pretty much like everything else.

Then you say “As far as the passage in Leviticus, Jesus freed us from the Holiness Code: “It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out of him.”” [Insert innuendo here].

So which is it? You seem to be saying “God doesn’t say it’s a sin, and Christ said it wasn’t a sin anymore!”

Ashpenaz, what evidence do you have that the Holy Spirit is at work in the mainline churches regarding, say attitudes on homosexuality, and ordaining of women. There is clear evidence that these changes came about because that’s what the people, and eventually, the clergy, wanted. Or is your point that, you agree with this, but this was the Holy Spirit’s doing?

As far as the passage in Leviticus, Jesus freed us from the Holiness Code: “It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out of him.” Paul said, “All things are permissible.” Jesus told Peter, “Don’t call unclean what God has called clean.”

Unfortunately, this can also be interpreted to mean that homosexuality, like adultery, murder, and other naughty things is still evil.

The Holy Spirit corrected that, why can’t She correct peoples’ ideas about homosexuality?

I suppose He (or She) could. But why did He wait for over 2000 years to attempt to do so? Also, why hasn’t He convinced the Catholic Church to ordain women?

As far as the passage in Leviticus, Jesus freed us from the Holiness Code: “It is not what goes into a man that defiles him, it is what comes out of him.” Paul said, “All things are permissible.” Jesus told Peter, “Don’t call unclean what God has called clean.”

It was only in the last half-century that major churches started ordaining women. For a long time, the Scripture was interpreted to exclude women from ministry. The Holy Spirit corrected that, why can’t She correct peoples’ ideas about homosexuality?

Actually I asked a Rabbi about the girl-on-girl thing. His reply was that the Torah is silent on female/vemale parings, but most interpret the passages in the Talmud to not be like the people of Egypt to include girl/girl parings. (Leah, Dan, can you correct my understanding of it if I’m wrong)

I told my mom that as long as she didn’t date an Egyptian chick, she was in the clear.

Of course two girls um, getting it on, wouldn’t risk as much damage as anal sex. (hetero or homo)

Seane-Anna,

You and I and Ash all have different understandings of the Divine. Pat is right in that we’re none without sin. Personally, I think Ash is confusing the will of the Divine with the PC of the people. But I declared myself a Heritic a long time ago, so I don’t care what the mother church does.

Seane-Anna, you have no basis for this claim at all. If your faith tells you that homosexuality is wrong, then you are free to maintain that belief, and I’d advise you not to engage in homosexual behavior as well. If your basis for your claim is the Bible, then I’m virtually certain that many of the activities you have engaged in has been declared evil by God as well. However, you selectively have chosen to declare that God has decided that homosexuality, out of all of the other things that God has deemed wrong, on a gay blog no less.

There are no words in OT Hebrew or NT Greek which are the equivalent of our modern understanding of homosexual orientation. There aren’t any words which clearly describe homosexual acts. There are no passages, in the OT or NT, which talk about lesbians. Not a one.

Ashpenaz, you’re correct that the word homosexuality was never used. However, doesn’t the famous Leviticus verse say something like, “a man shall not lie with a man as with a woman.”? Of course, we can get into a 2400 or so years debate about the interpretations and (mis)translations, but the way the verse is stated in most Bibles, God is clearly protrayed as not being a happy Camper when it comes to homosexuality.

There are no passages, in the OT or NT, which talk about lesbians. Not a one.

Yeah, it’s almost as if straight men wrote the Bible.

I believe that the Holy Spirit is working through them and other mainline churches to show God’s plan for full inclusion of homosexuals.

Better 2000+ years late than never I suppose.

The fact that some Christians read the Bible as condemning all homosexual behavior, everywhere doesn’t make it true. There are Christians who don’t read Harry Potter or eat meat or dance or play cards or listen to rock music or all kinds of things. That doesn’t make them right.

The Episcopal Church just elected its second gay bishop. I believe that the Holy Spirit is working through them and other mainline churches to show God’s plan for full inclusion of homosexuals. Are you going to say the Episcopal, ELCA, and UCC churches have rejected Biblical absolutes?

However, I think it is safe to apply such revealed absolutes as loyalty, fidelity, monogamy and honesty to homosexual relationships.

Ashpenaz, you’re lying to yourself and everyone here. You DON’T believe that “sexual morality…must be based on revelation.” If you did you’d accept the fact that the God you claim to believe in has already said, “Thou shalt not” to homosexuality. Don’t talk about moral absolutes and revelation when you are in rebellion against revealed moral absolutes that reject your sexuality.

I believe that the best literature, like Anna Karenina, Madame Bovary, Sister Carrie, etc., shows the consequences of going against this absolute.

Your fundamental problem seems to be that we aren’t teaching gay people to keep it in their pants until some sort of gay marriage I guess? Or until they reach 18? Maybe you should define your terms I’d have a better position to argue them. Should we all be in exclusive monogamous relationships our whole lives? Are the slutty gays the bad ones? Would you consider polyamorous relationships? I’m just trying to get the perspective here, since it seems that is what the post is based off of, your disagreement that we should be offering alternate views of sexual relationships.

Actually this is a discussion which impacts more than just gays, but straights as well. It is the culture spawned by the Sexual Revolution, not necessarily some of the goals of that movement, which many conservatives balk at today. We can probably name a number of benefits from that movement, but also quite a list of ills our society is suffering as well. Now, if your intent is to defend non-monogamous or polyamorous relationships let me just say that the embrace of these is what has hurt gay rights almost as much as religious bias has. Western culture settled this a long time ago that monogamy is the ideal and anything other than this is harmful to individuals and society as a whole. A “if it feels good, do it” mentality isn’t going to get you very far and IMO is detrimental. Now since I can hear you itchin’ to talk about “rights”, let me agree with you that you have every right to live as promiscuously as you please, just don’t be stupid enough to whine when most everyone else looks down upon such behavior.

Oh and btw, the first sentence in the quote from GLSEN’s is exactly the issue here:

“All BookLink items are reviewed by GLSEN staff for quality and appropriateness of content.”

If the staff of GLSEN truly believe this material is appropriate for children, this only calls their judgment into question.

I agree with the comments of Amy, Lori, Leah, and ThatGayConservative. These books promote the worst stereotypes of gays and lesbians and do indeed hyper-sexualize the classroom. We need to take a long look at GLSEN, its mission, its funding, and the people who run the show there.

And what really angers me is that this organization is perceived by the media and the world-at-large as THE voice of the LGBT community on the issue of gay youth and education. It’s time to change that.

Thanks for responding. I was trying to get away from the regular “oh liberals are crazy sex attacks and pedofiles” thing you guys have going here. Forgive me, I know it’s a good mantra, but it’s getting sort of stale.

[Huh? What? In this blog? In my posts? Where? Please provide links to things I have written. Thanks.]

I think a far better discussion, since this is also a gay blog, would be to look at why you think monogamy must be the ideal that is taught. Your fundamental problem seems to be that we aren’t teaching gay people to keep it in their pants until some sort of gay marriage I guess? Or until they reach 18? Maybe you should define your terms I’d have a better position to argue them. Should we all be in exclusive monogamous relationships our whole lives? Are the slutty gays the bad ones? Would you consider polyamorous relationships? I’m just trying to get the perspective here, since it seems that is what the post is based off of, your disagreement that we should be offering alternate views of sexual relationships.

[Tim, don't tell e what my fundamental problem is until you take the time to actually read my posts. Did I saw that we should teach gay people to keep it in their pants until they're married? No. Go read my posts before asking questions which only betray your ignorance. I believe that monogamy is the ideal and don't take seriously any gay marriage advocate who refuses to discuss monogamy or wants to dispense with it as a part of marriage. That said, I understand that monogamy may not be for everyone and have said as much on this blog.]

I know when your readers email you waiting for more shrieking about “porn” and gays, you feel the need to jump on it and rehash the same line. But I think it’d be a far better discussion to look actually examine the scarlet A’s you are branding on people and why. Just assuming monogamy and branding anything else pornography really isn’t a far assessment of the situation, and it doesn’t add much to it.

[The very tone of this paragraph suggests a prejudiced attitude toward my readers. None were shrieking. All, and yes, I mean all, were merely curious, wanting to hear my thoughts on this, so I gave them. Please show me the "scarlet A's" I'm branding on anyone. Amazing your narrow-mindedness of that last sentence as you assume I think everything must be either monogamy or pornography. It just goes to show that no matter what I saw, people like you will just see what they want to see. In your narrow view, it doesn't add much to the debate, but, well, if you actually read my post before offering your interpretation, you might see that I recognize the complexity of our sexuality--an issue I have addressed numerous times on the blog, but you demand I provide some answers for you which you could find for yourself if you merely read my archives--or even the post to which you attach your comment.]

Maybe it’s too much to think a gay conservative blog would do more than parrot shrieking calls for denouncement of current events and actually facilitate analysis of all these complexities that going into homosexuality, our society, politics etc. Hopefully not.

[Parrot "shrieking calls"? Huh? Why don't you actually read my post and note the word I use three times in the text above, "context," a word I used in my reply to your previous comment. And after you'd read my post and see where I differentiate my views from most conservatives addressing this issue, I do trust you'll acknowledge the hasty evaluation you made of the piece and the errors of judgment you made in commenting to it.

Your intolerance amazes me--Dan]

The three guys are of similar age (the oldest of the three does become sort of a big-brother figure at times, but definitely not a father-surrogate, let alone a pederast in search of a catamite). And unlike in E.M. Forster’s Maurice, there are no British class-chasms involved. (At least, none that I can recall noticing as an American reader.)