Are there any more around here? i grew up Baptist in a small town in Indiana... i'm no religious freak but i find that compared to the gay community and a lot of my friends i'm way more tradtional and conservative than i had realized... any other guys like that too?

Hey MileHi, you may be surprised by the variety of folks on this site. I'm always surprised where diversity and conservatism show up, so stick around and find out. I think of myself as pretty liberal, but when it comes to one-to-one issues, I rank pretty traditional. I wonder which topics are close to your heart when you ask these questions?

Hey Milehi... try on growing up church of Christ on for size. I'm much more open-minded about a lot of things than during my upbringing. It's funny you would ask such a question since a friend and I last weekend discussed that we would love to "settle down with a nice Christian young gay man" which sounds hysterical at first.

I did not grow up in a religious household, but sprituality has always been very important to me. I am not a regular attender of church services, but I am always trying to embrace the spiritual aspects of life. In that regard, I do wish I knew a greater number of gay men who were somewhat more in touch with that part of their lives.

It is funny. I am a fairly liberal person when it comes to issues of humanity and how much more important people are than money or political power. I believe that people have the right to make their own decisions about important issues in their lives (like abortion, divorce, etc.). I certainly lean Democratic in the voting booth.

However, I am more traditional when it comes to interpersonal relationships and love. I would like to meet a guy whose values and beliefs are the same as mine. Someone who feels that monogamy is the only type of LTR. Someone who would like to have children and build a family together. Someone who wants to be a part of my family and wants to share theirs with me. Someone who is willing to consider our joint welfare, rather than simply making decisions for himself. I don't think that he has to be Christian per se, but I do think he needs to be in touch with his spiritual beliefs and personal values.

It has been interesting for me to see the number of men who think they want the same things as me, but who are surprised when put in the position of embracing that in their lives. Both men I have dated, as well as men I am friends with have seen the potential to have all this, and took off in the other direction.

I don't think that men always try to visualize what a real, intimate, mutual relationship is all about. They think about what it is like to spend time with someone, to do romantic things together, to have sex regularly, and play like it is a relationship. However, when they actually see it before them, they freeze up and in many situations fold under pressure they put on themselves. That is often disappointing and sad. (I once dated a man who said I was everything he wanted, but that he should have "been careful what he wished for" because he just wasn't able to deal with his insecurities about the relationship. How sad is that.)

So, yes it would be nice to find a cute guy who is in touch with his spirituality and beliefs. Someone who believes in honesty, and working through things like normal people. Someone who is confident enough to weather the bumps, because he knows that he will be okay no matter what happens. Someone who respects me and expects to be respected, because in the end love is not the thing that gets you through the tough times. There are some days where your love for the man in your life will be challenged and in doubt. Respect, communications, and an ability to empathize are all the qualities that will allow the love to survive.

ME _ I find that I am still a religious, thrifty ,optimistic midwesterner. :cool: Being gay is ONE aspect of my personality but I am not going to become an amoral slut just because I like guys. Not to knock amoral sluts but I still know that God loves me ( gay or straight)and I try to be the best most loving person I can. My life is better WITH God than without. So on Sunday morning ytou will find me at church. There ARE gay friendly ones - but you have to look.

Interesting topic. And I thought I was the only Christian here.

Actually I may be a lone wolf in one respect: my belief is that homosexuality is not what God intended. Though I haven't been able to cross that huge gulf from homosexual orientation to heterosexual functionality, I have been able to live a relatively full life. Don't imagine there's going to be real closure in this life. It's still a struggle every time I lock eyes with a goodlooking, masculine man. Torture. But God often reveals Himself to me through pain and unmet needs.

Lucid1, far be it from me to tell you how to live and where to find life's rewards, but God (whoever, whatever that means) does not intend our life to be suffering. I really believe life is intended to be full and happy. I have been reminded this week of my favorite scripture, one I keep around for it's inspiration, not particularly because it is from the Bible:
"God has not given us the spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" 2nd Timothy 1:7 I find great strength in this passage.

Conservative Catholic here, checking in on what appears to be a largely Protestant thread. How conservative am I? I'm a convert to Catholicism. I wasn't born directly into it. And converts to any faith tend to be the most orthodox.

Actually, in the years I've been hanging out here with the outsports.com on-line crowd, I've been pleasantly shocked at the number of conservative, or at least dogmatic, Catholics who post here. Something not the norm in the relatively conformist, and anti-Christian, "out" gay culture.

***WARNING **** WARNING **** WARNING **** WARNING **** WARNING***
------------Heavy religious message to follow below------------

I do want to correct what I perceive to be a misapplication of Christian doctrine, your perception that your homosexuality is not what God "intended." Your homosexual orientation is innate. You were hard-wired that way by the divine Creator. You are exactly who and what God intended you to be. Don't ever think otherwise.

Now, whether you actually act on those innate feelings is, however, a matter of free will. And you will be judged by the actions that choose to do, not on your innate nature. Am I saying God made you to be a slutty whore right out of a "Frankie Goes to Hollywood" video? Not at all.

The afterlife that is possible for all of us is a truly wonderful place, fantastic beyond all human comprehension. We have to show we are worthy. The fundamentalists are dead wrong (my unalterable opinion) when they say all you have to do is loudly proclaim your acceptance of Jesus. You have to earn your reward.

I may be diverging from Catholic doctrine on this, but my belief is that God gives us all tests. (You might even think of it as "crosses to bear.") For example, you might have a violent temper. That might be your test. But you must use your free will to keep your temper under control. Other people might be put to test with temptations such as stealing, or pedophilia. These sins are stronger temptations for some than they are for others.

Is our homosexuality our test? And, if it is, what's the passing grade? Full chastity? Or sexual relations only/mostly within the context of an intimate, loving, committed relationship? I'm still working that out. And maybe it's not the same answer for all gay men. I'm pretty sure it's not acceptable for me to have the sex life of a porn star. (Even if it were biologically possible.) And that's true for straights, too, who definitely don't have a special license for full-throttle promiscuity either.

I definitely don't agree with the simplistic notion that God made us to have fun, so go grab the gusto. Life is more than fun. That's way too self-centered of an agenda. We're here to serve others. Enjoy the limited time we got. Make the world better. Do the best we can with what we got. And I do pray, with all of my heart and all of my soul, that at the end of my days, when God is judging me, he is grading on a curve.

[ February 08, 2003, 01:39 PM: Message edited by: Charlie in the Trees ]

While I was raised in a strict conservative Catholic family that was nevertheless Democrat, and though I still go to mass on occasion because it can be a nice spiritual experience (provided the priests don't launch into anti-abortion tirades, as they tend to do with annoying regularity), Deism had always made the most sense to me, the belief that God set things up and let them go their way while he watches events transpire until we die and take our place with him - or elsewhere. (I'm big on punishment and rewards in the afterlife, too! wink ) I think that the moral and ethical codes of most religions are necessary and helpful towards keeping us from each other's throats, but beyond helping to preserve order, I don't feel that religion has any claim over our lives. Thus, I resent proselytizing of any kind, having been subjected to it intermittently as a kid, and think of my relationship with God as 1 on 1 (or 3 if it matters), played out on marble courts according to the rules laid down by Christ and the other Judeo-Christian Fathers of antiquity - which means nothing since c.1400 counts.

GREAT POST, CITT! I agree with your take on the cross-bearing theme and do believe that being gay is one of my own crosses I'll carry throughout life. As far as your ideas on sex go, they mirror both mine and those that are directed to straights in the latest Catholic catechism. I too reject the "easy come, easy go" simplicity of some sects, (surely Roger Williams would never have it so!), and believe that one's place in heaven must be earned in deed, not just in thought alone. And yes, I hope it's a curve too - and thank whoever it was who came up with idea of Purgatory as a sort of remedial class in Paradise 101.

[ February 08, 2003, 03:24 PM: Message edited by: gmginsfo ]

Hey Bradmphs, nice to see another Southern Church of Christ boy on here. Obviously we can't keep to that same doctrinaire stance or else we couldn't be "actively" gay, not to mention a million other things. Ours had to be the most strict religion I've heard of, I even went to the a church of christ college (ACU) at which we could not wear shorts, had to be in bed by 11 p.m. and had to go to church every day. They also taught us we were the only ones going to heaven. That sort of stuff is really hard to break from and can easily affect one's self esteem when you've heard from such an early age that homosexuals all go to hell. But I still think I can apply a variation of my faith in a workable and less judgmental fashion which is quite helpful and essential to me.

That sort of upbringing was also nice in a way in that it teaches you how to "make your own fun" as they used to say. It's so easy to be entertained by going out to eat and the movies with friends and playing games and watching tennis on tv without ever thinking I'd be missing something by not being at some club until 4 in the morning doing X. Comes in handy now when I'd look silly being there anyway dancing on some speaker at 40 years old. I'll wait till I'm 50 to do that!

As a recovering Catholic, I certainly don't define myself as a Christian - in some ways I think the term Christian no longer means a follower of Christ's, but rather describes adherents to specific forms of Christianity, who unfortunately tend to be unforgiving about other religions. I know the arguments about whether Catholicism was a Christian religion was a high point of my family's visits to our Southern Baptist relatives.

That said, I agree with Charlie in the Trees that merely declaring yourself to be a follower of Jesus Christ, and praying a certain way in a certain church, are not necessary and sufficient for getting into heaven.

As for the question of sexual morality, I went through my own period of trying to "resist" the "temptation" of being gay, until I thought about the whole situation in the terms of a moral dilemna (a wonderful religion teacher in HS required us to go through a sequence on moral dilemnas for force us to think outside simple religious slogans).

The Bible states that homosexuality is a sin, which leaves three choices for a gay person.

1. Have gay relationships (and I don't mean just random sex hook-ups, although I am sure I am more relaxed about those than some of the folks who have posted here on this thread), which is clearly sinful, according to the Bible.

2. Have straight relationships. For someone like me, a complete Kinsey 6 (never had an attraction to any woman), this requires lying to form the relationship. In addition, as a psych major I learned about the near impossibility of changing one's orientation (I say "near" to leave room for miracles). Clearly, basing a relationship on lying is sinful, not to mention unfair to the woman and children that might result, so that option is out.

3. Live celibate. I tried this one for several years, but was ultimately stymied by the loneliness. I also was aware of the health care research that showed the reduced life expectancy, lowered resistance to disease, and general malaise of those people without strong support systems. The strongest support system is in an adult, romantic, intimate relationship. I came to the conclusion that living celibate was tantamount to slow suicide, not to mention I was miserable. That life, I finally concluded, was sinful because of the slow suicide factor, and because it denied the joy in life, which I firmly believe is the best part of God.

So it is a classic moral dilemna - three choices, all bad, according to my religious teaching and thinking. There were two reasons I went with option 1, finally. The first was I figured if I am going to live a sinful life, at least I could try to be happy while doing it. But I also came to realize that having spent so much of my time praying and hoping to become straight that I forgot the basic teaching of prayer - God answers all of them, but the answer is often "No." I had to conclude God wanted me to be gay. And it is only a short leap to conclude option 1 is likely not sinful.

Maybe I am just rationalizing, but to use a corrolary of Charlie's thinking, I can't believe a loving God would condemn someone for acting in a way they truly believe is right.

Matt.... thanks for the insight. Like you, I attended a C of C college, with similar rules. It was Freed-Hardeman, aptly nicknamed "Freedom Hardly".

I'm glad that you have also come to incorporate some of the values of your upbringing with being gay. It takes a while to "detox" as I call it, but in many ways I feel quite grounded as compared to many gay men with whom I come into contact.

Thanks for everybody's replies... it's cool to see all the different backgrounds and responses. my experience with a lot of my gay friends who grew up in religious homes is that they either A) continue as adults to live under the shadow and guilt of their childhood upbringings, or throw off any religion whatsoever and adopt an opinion of "i dislike religion and it's not for me". i always thought both of those were unacceptable... i started at a pretty young age (between 17 and 19) researching homosexuality and christianity... i read everything i could get my hands on, conservative, liberal and all in between... ultimately i concluded after that research (and 2 years with a conservative christian counselor) that i was not going to change, that i could live an upstanding and moral life as a christian man who was openly and actively gay. and so that's the road i have pursued. it's been tough at times, in the sense that it's hard to find a church for example (the one i go to right now is way way too liberal for me, but better than the alternative i guess?). in other ways though it has not been hard. i have never doubted who i am and what i am... and i don't feel guilt for being me. being gay is really fine and enjoyable to me... if i were straight i'd hope i'd enjoy that equally... but i have no desire to change, nor do i believe i have the ability. i think the hardest part about the whole thing is that i'm 29, and i feel like i have my whole life before me, yet at the same time a lot of years have passed... and i really just want to find one person who i can connect with and settle down with... forever. and that's hard enough for non-religious people but i think it's even harder if you are looking for someone who shares some or most of your moral and religious beliefs. make sense? in the end i guess i have to really put my money where my mouth is and wait for this to happen in God's time. You guys are inspiring though in the sense that you also are so open and want to share... i appreciate it

- matt in denver

PS: my dad's dad, my "paw-paw" as we called him... was a church of christ minister... my dad grew up in that church... and my mom grew up church of the bretheren... so they became southern baptist when the married, sort of a compromise i guess... but i wanted to say i had a C of C connection too... it's very conservative for sure!

There are a lot of things the Bible says you should not do, and we do anyway, without the taint of sinning: touching the dried skin of hoofed animals(we play football), for example, or something close to that, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about. If one uses the Bible as a guide rather than doctrine, it is more rewarding and affirming.

Oh, MileHi, I too attended a Church of the Brethern and loved the services, thought the annointings and foot washings were very moving services even though I was too young to participate. Interesting to think back to those events.

[ February 10, 2003, 10:56 AM: Message edited by: shore ]

I grew up Pentacostal in rural southern Indiana and evolved through living in other good landscapes (Colorado included) and philosopies.

My fundamentalist upbringing gives me good insight into understanding conservative, fearful people and my later philosphical readings and travel gave me grouwth in alternatives and growth. I'm saying that I appreciate that past though it made maturing hard.

Regarding churches, I find typical churches a bit slow and gay churches too politically correct. [Why does someone think that just because I'm gay, that I'm liberal?]

I attended Quaker Meetings on and off, but usually spend my Sundays at sports training or play. Years ago I apologised to an older Quaker lady, saying I went tramping (backpacking to North Americans) rather than make meetings. She said that God was everywhere and I needn't expect it only in a meeting house (church).

[ February 11, 2003, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: Tom Brooks ]

I find the "God made me this way" statement (argument?) flawed -- that's exactly what any child molester/cannibal/beastiality guy (not sure of the correct term here) might also say. I also find using the term "christian" to denote goodness extremely prejudicial against Jews, agnostics, and atheists. I like the 12-Step saying: Religion is for those afraid of going to Hell. Spirituality is for those who don't want to go back.

I don't find this argument flawed at all... child molestation and cannibalism are both activities... whereas heterosexuality, homosexuality and bisexuality are states of being, orientations if you will... bestiality may also fall in the 2nd category, i'm not sure. At any rate, acting on the urge to molest children or cannibalize violates most societies' very base moralities. Sexuality however is something that takes place between consenting adults (or those who have passed through puberty). I have no problem saying "God made me this way".

As for religion... i have never used the term "Christian" to dentoe goodness or predjudice, but rather i have used it as a term to describe my religious or spiritual beliefs. I have no problem with Jewish people, or agnostics or athiests, but that's no reason for me to shy away from using the term "Christian" or "Religious" to describe myself or the potential partner i'm looking for in life.

It seems like those who are agnostic or "spiritual" enjoy describing organized religion as a "crutch" that they don't think they need. This makes them feel stronger and more intellectual i suppose. But in reality *any* belief system is a sort of support (ergo "crutch") and even agnosticism and athiesm are beliefs systems... even a belief in only oneself instead of an anthropomorphic God is *still* a belief system. in the end, we are all in the same boat in terms of hopes and fears and dreams, we just all find different paths to express that. Older and more traditional paths aren't wrong just because they are old and traditional.

[quote]MileHiHoosier:
[QUOTE]... in reality *any* belief system is a sort of support (ergo \"crutch\") and even agnosticism and athiesm are beliefs systems... even a belief in only oneself instead of an anthropomorphic God is *still* a belief system. in the end,... Older and more traditional paths aren't wrong just because they are old and traditional. [/quote]EXACTLY!__ Well put, Mile Hi.

Yo MileHi, I'm not getting your point. Being drawn to children (or barnyard animals) is an activity but being drawn to the same sex isn't? Sorry but if one is going to say God made me gay, someone else is going to God made me a molester. Your point about consenting adults has got to be the basis of gay acceptance and tolerance.

Also, I make no specific aspersions about anyone. Just as 'Kleenex' as become vernacular for a tissue, so has 'Christian' become vernacular for encompassing more than it should. There are many a creepy Catholic priest who I'm sure could argue they are good Christians.

My point about "religious" vs. "spiritual" was not accustaory at all. I was simply stating my own preference. Ultimately, all these words, Christian, religious, gay, spiritual are just labels, meaning different things to different people.

Absolutely you are right on the part about terms meaning different things to different people. because maybe to you "christian" might conjure up images of a pedophile priest, but to me "spiritual" may conjure up images of a new age whacko guru in the middle of a desert waiting for aliens to land.

Child molestation by definition implies the act(s) of molesting children and cannibalism implies the acts of eating human flesh, there is no term for someone who only has the "urge" to molest children or to eat human flesh. you must participate in these activities before you become these things. Homosexuality and heterosexuality however do not require having acted sexually on your impluses in order to be labeled these things. A nun or a 17 year old virgin girl for example can say with confidence "i am heterosexual" and have not even acted upon that yet. Sexuality is a state of being first, which may or may not then result in sexual acts. If i desire to eat human flesh and have never done so, i am not a cannibal, it's just a dirty little secret i have.

Also, we all have urges, some of them if acted upon produce immoral or illegal behaviors and some of them if acted upon do not. There is nothing illegal about homosexuality in almost every state and nation in the world (with noteable exceptions of course) and when it comes to morality it is a matter of personal conscience. There are different ways of understanding the Scriptures and theology on the subject, in the end Christianity truly only recognizes ones personal relationship with God and the conscience given to one by God as the authority on what one believes. Pedophilia and cannibalism are illegal and wrong in 99% of world societies and religions. Not only that psychologically they have been shown to either produce and/or result as an outgrowth of unhealthy psychological conditions. Homosexuality (and Heterosexuality) have not been shown to be unhealthy psychologically at all. I have no more problem saying "God made me this way" than does the average heterosexual.

In the end you will find much much more in common between the adult homosexual and the adult heterosexual than you will between a homosexual (or heterosexual) and a child molester or cannibal. it's like comparing apples and oranges. The first two are sexual orientations and the second two are psychoses. This is a matter of science, religion aside.

But at any rate, i can believe God made me a gay man, just as he made my father a straight man, perhaps he even gave someone the urge to eat human flesh... but what we really have to get down to is what you do and what you don't do... eating human flesh is sinful, having sex with the same or opposite sex may or may not be sinful depending upon the situation (commited relationship versus promiscuous sex for example). Gay Christians should be held to the same standards of morality as Straight Christians. Saying God made me gay is not a license for promiscuity or an excuse to act however i want.

There is something else to think about in the argument that homosexuality is similar to beastiality or pedophilia, an argument that "Christians" make all the time (I am referring to those who use Christianity to promote political, not spiritual ends). It may be true that for some pedophiles, the attraction to children is hard-wired into the brain, just as an attraction to the opposite or same gender is hard-wired into the brain. However, true pedophiles - those that only are attracted to children - do not have an attraction to one gender or the other - they only want children (Most molesters are not true pedophiles, they tend to have adult relationships and abuse children either because they were abused themselves or because they want to manipulate the child - I don't believe in the hard-wiring argument for these types of molesters).

In addition, homosexuality and heterosexuality are more than sexual attractions, neither pedophilia or beastiality can make that case. Homo- and heterosexuality involve physical, romantic, emotional and sexual attractions, and those feelings are strongest, and most long-lasting, when they are returned. Clearly that cannot be the case for either pedophilia or beastiality.

Thus, God may have made us all this way, but He also made sociopaths and schizophrenics and autistic children. Just because something is hard-wired does not make it positive, or negative. We must evaluate the hard-wired traits to see what their effect is on the individual and those around them. I see no reason not to base one's moral thinking on the notion that only those traits that increase happiness, love and joy in the world are the ones we should celebrate - and being gay clearly falls into that category.

Excellent points, MileHi and CPT. I think we agree more than not.

Does the Bible use the word homosexuality? Which scripture are you refering to?

Personally I consider myself a deeply spiritual person and am probably a Christian. However I do not assume that any denomination or practice that we currently call Christianity is anything like what Christ or God would have it be.

sportinlife, I was referring to the major denominations' interpretations of the passages that denote same-gender sex as sinful - thereby making homosexuality sinful (I for one don't buy the "love the sinner, hate the sin" garbage, because it is impossible to love someone but hate their emotions). If you believe in those denominations, which I once did - at least for Catholocism, you are left with a moral dilemna - as I noted in my earlier post, once I worked through the moral dilemna for myself, I was able to discount the "homosexuality is a sin" idea.

Here is a very cogent exposition of Genesis 19, one of the several passages in the Bible interpreted to condemn "homosexuality".

For me it makes it obvious that serious mistranslations of scripture have taken place over the centuries.

Judging from everything I've read on the subject - and I admit I stopped concerning myself with the subject some time ago - all of the other passages supposedly condemning homosexuality are equally questionable translations.

Canabalism is the eating of human flesh. Isn't that what Christians do during the Eucharist? Catholics believe that the bread and wine are turned into the body and blood of Christ. Sounds pretty canabalistic to me.

A friend of mine back home went on a radio show--he's a columnist--and started describing the Catholic mass and asked the bible thumper on the other side of the microphone what his reaction was. Of course, he didn't tell him it was a Catholic mass but described it in pretty base terms--eating flesh, drinking blood, etc. The bible thumper started calling for the authorities to come and stop these practices until my friend told him what he was really describing. Shut the bible thumper up post haste.


As for being conservative, no good has ever come about by sitting back and waiting for it to happen. Get off your ass and make the change for yourself. The gay conservatives rode the drag queens, the hustlers and the other "dregs" of gay society to the position they have now.

I've always asked what good is a tax cut if I still don't have basic civil rights like the right to be able to live my life the way I see fit as long as it doesn't interfere with anyone else.

hey Teddys dad, why so inflammatory? The Eucharist is a symbol and a miracle all at the same time; maybe not one you appreciate, but nonetheless extraordinary to those who participate. No need to beat your war drums and cast such judgements.

sportinlife - I share your questioning of the translations of Biblical passages that condemn homosexuality. However, as a Catholic child, I was taught their interpretation of those passages, and that is what led to my own spiritual crisis. It was also the Catholic Church, in the guise of my very smart religion teacher, who taught me that religion cannot be black and white, good and evil, do this and not that. It was the Church that taught me to think for myself, and then turned around and told me that I came to the wrong conclusions.

Actually, only Catholics believe in transubstantiation, that is, the belief that the bread and wine actually become the body and blood of Christ. This belief comes from the Last Supper where Jesus held up the bread and wine and said "this is my body and this is my blood". But of course other denominations (Protestant) believe this was only a symbolic gesture... I don't personally believe that any bread or wine becomes any human flesh... i don't consider myself or any other Christians cannibals

As for gay conservatives... i don't think they "owe" the gay community so much that they must fall into line with liberal politics. There's a very dangerous line of thinking in many parts of the gay community that seems to resent the fact that there are gay conservatives and instead wants all GLBT people to be politcally correct and liberal as possible (and registered Democrats). Since when is it ever healthy for any community to be as non-diverse as possible? We all "owe" our predecessors in the gay community our thanks and gratitude but that does not mean we are required or beholden to share all of their political and social beliefs. Being gay and being conservative and/or religious does not make one self-loathing or a sellout. in fact we are making the voice of the gay community heard in forums (and around dinner tables) where it would otherwise never be heard. perhaps some people owe gay conservatives some gratitude as well?

Not all conservatives and republicans are anti-gay. and even some of the ones who disagree with the idea of being gay still believe in toleratance. Our community is wrong if it thinks that we must demand "acceptance". This is where the politically correct liberal thought police come in, trying to legislate acceptance when really what our society should strive for is tolerance. Libertarians and (in theory but not always practice) Republicans actually have a better grip on this idea than most liberals.

[ February 13, 2003, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: MileHiHoosier ]

I don't know, for me, to be tolerated implies that I'm doing something I know to be wrong, but you allow me to continure doing it.

1) It's not wrong
2) You're not allowing me to continue anything.

tol·er·ate ( P ) Pronunciation Key (tl-rt)
tr.v. tol·er·at·ed, tol·er·at·ing, tol·er·ates
To allow without prohibiting or opposing; permit.
To recognize and respect (the rights, beliefs, or practices of others).
To put up with; endure.

ac·cept ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-spt)
v. ac·cept·ed, ac·cept·ing, ac·cepts
v. tr.
To receive (something offered), especially with gladness or approval.

It doesn't necessarily mean to "allow" it also means to not oppose. would it not be just as hypocritical for us as a gay community to *demand* that the world "accept" (see above) everything about being gay as it is for us to reserve the right to disagree with the religious right. My guess is that none, or few, of us here would ever "accept" the religious right but would be willing to tolerate it. This is the American way. We should no more be discriminated against or outlawed than should they. Oppossing viewpoints and lives can exist within the same space... we just all have to learn tolerance first... and that goes for both sides...

I guess I'll never resolve that to being the same thing. I just don't see sexuality and religion choices to be the same thing. I'll tolerate religious differences, tolerate because each person has made that choice. They should accept my sexuality, because I didn't make that choice. in fact, I tried to years to change in order to conform to the religious right.

Here's my take on the tolerance vs. acceptance issue - to tolerate, in my experience, has meant more along the lines of "to put up with" rather than "to recognize and respect" at least as far as this country is concerned.

I certainly do more than tolerate conservative religious types - I accept that their views form a moral/ethical framework for them to live their lives. What I emphatically do not accept, and will not tolerate, is their attempts at codifying their moral/ethical framework as secular law, or otherwise forcing me to live under their precepts.

The Religious Right, on the other hand, preaches a "tolerance" of - don't do violence to gays and lesbians, but don't "promote" them as normal and healthy. They are unable or unwilling to accept that my belief system, informed by my experience as a gay man, is in fact the moral/ethical belief system that I follow, and that it is a valid moral/ethical framework for me. Whether this means they don't accept me or they don't tolerate me doesn't make much of a difference.

In addition, the Religious Right in this country practices dubious "science" in order to sway others to their form of "tolerance" and prevent gays from being full members of society. They have every right to speak against gays, and believe what they want, but they have NO RIGHT to lie about me and my kind of people in order to sway others.

you can't *force* acceptance, you just can't... there are people who will always feel that being gay is wrong. i agree with all of you that i wish they felt differently and i also struggled with it and am *over* their beliefs now. but we shouldn't need their acceptance anyway. and their freedom of religious beliefs *IS* enshrined in law, whether it's a choice or not. but i also agree with you that sexuality is not a choice and must be protected by law. many people in the religious right would love to legislate morality but many others simply seek to influence public policy. and yes, they do lie at times... but unless they are under oath they actually really *do* have the right to lie, we all do in fact. in this country after many decades of fighting for some level of social and legal acceptance we find that the public tide really is turning our way fortunately. we are lucky becuase in most places we cannot be thrown in jail for who we are, but we have to keep fighting until it is that way everywhere and so that we don't live in fear of losing our jobs. it is very important though that we do not swing the pendulum the other way and rectify a wrong with another wrong. it would be wrong to outlaw religious belif or freedom of relligious speech even if that speech and belief is homophobic or even racist or sexist. we have to rely on the public mood and popular opinion to sway opinions and beliefs. not on legislation which is based on limiting freedoms. as ugly as it can be at times, this is what makes america so so so very unique compared to the rest of the world.

There are lots of circumstances in which we DON'T have the right to lie, even when we're not under oath. There are laws covering fraud and libel. Are libel laws specifically written to only allow for individual suits? (I don't know the answer, just curious). I'm not saying that would be a good approach to the problem, but it is questionable whether they do have a legal right (let alone a moral right) to lie.

And by the way, freedom of speech is hardly unique to the U.S.

[ February 14, 2003, 06:01 AM: Message edited by: JC ]

This thread has taken a bit of a turn from what it was originally about. So, I wanted to chime in again with some thoughts about the new topic that has developed.

I, too, do not want gays and lesbians to be "tolerated", but "accepted". However, I do recognize that I say this based on my personal perceptions of what these words mean. Tolerate is a word that connotates something negative to me. I tolerate working for a company that does not respect its employees, and has bad business practices. I tolerate people who say uneducated things about gay people without stopping to think about how much it offends me.

I accept people who are different than me, but demonstrate a respect and understanding of our differences. Someone who listens to my viewpoints, offers legitimate observations about my thoughts on life, and who is open to having people different than themselves participate in their life.

I agree that not all gay people have to be liberal thinkers who support only liberal causes. There were times in the past where I agreed more with Republican stances on certain issues.

However, my personal belief (which I accept is not shared by all gay men and lesbians) is that being gay is one thing about us that impacts every other aspect of out lives. It can be used against us in an employment situations. It can be used against us in a personal safety situation. It can harm our economic well-being. It can prevent us from getting housing, proper medical care, etc, etc, etc. If you are gay in a small community, or you do not have a great income, or are not otherwise in a position where you have access to lots of options -- being gay can be used against you by people providing you with goods/services/assistance.

It is for this reason that I wish gays and lesbians put our civil rights at the top of the priority list. I am not saying they have to, I am saying I wish they would. So much of what happens in our lives happens (consciously or subconsciously) as a result of being gay/lesbian. Being gay is not the only important aspect of our lives, but it is very central to our lives.

It is for this reason that the current wave of Republican control of our government is so alarming. The progress made during the previous eight years was so important to "normalizing" the concept of being gay. To say that this progress has not receded substantially is naive. The "religiosity" (using a friend's word) of the administration in the White House brings a new focus to transplanting the morality of the religious right for the morality of our society. And, as the discussion has demonstrated already, this sense of morality calls into question whether gays and lesbians are a normal population or some transmutation of God's intended purpose.

Several years ago, I had a dear friend who had a very frank discussion with me. She is a religious person, and some of her friends were questioning her about "having a gay friend". I asked her how they could be so unaccepting. After all, God made me this way, I have to respect God's decision for me to be this way. She said that many in the religious community feel that being gay is a disruption to God's original plan, and that we are considered a mutation by many in the religious community. I thought that was a rather clever way of them side-stepping God's will. It was then I realized how important it was to put being gay at the forefront of my life. How can I ever truly accept and love myself, if I let others call me a mutation?

At any rate, under oath, libel and fraud aside, the average person, on the street or in a church or wherever they are, has a right to say *whatever* they want as long as they do not make physical threats against a person or entity (the supreme court has defined these as "fighting words"), this includes lying. And i realize that many other countries offer freedom of speech, however, in most countries it is not enshrined in an actual written bill of rights and constitution the way it is here. And it is debateable to what extent this freedom is offered in other places since there are examples even of the high courts in the European Union silencing their press for example.

I think i mostly agree with you charlie, but the one thing that i think is very important is that even if we continue to fight for our civil rights we have to realize that we can't *stop* others from saying or believing what they wish about us, so "letting" someone tell you that who you are is a mutation may not be an option, and anyway my whole take on it is that true self-love and true self-confidence allows criticism and animosity to pass right through you. In other words, i'm strong enough and love myself enough that i don't care what the church down the street is saying about me, as long as they have no legal right to physically harm me or interfere with my liberties they can say or believe whatever they like. The temptation to silence critics and others' beliefs to me is always an indication that i'm not comfortable in my own self-esteem.

I do also take exception to the idea that large setbacks have been dealt to gays in the time that Bush has been president. I do agree that the *climate* is less accpting and i think we have to continue to push Bush on that, this is why it is good to have gay conservatives because they have Bush's ear (for what that's worth... LOL). Even if the administration would like to repeal advances in gay rights (and i'm not convinced they would)they would be hard pressed to do so given the ruling of the supreme court in 1996 on colorado's amendment 2 and given the supreme court's likely imminent overturning of bowers v. hardwick and also given the number of states which have and are overturning sodomy laws and advancing workplace discrimination laws. Even Vermont now with a Republican legislature *and* governor has shown no inclination to overturn its civil unions laws. I think the majority of conservatives (especially secular conservatives) are interested in allowing some sort of place at the table for gay americans. we just disagree with them on where that place is and we will continue a healthy dialog with them on this. Tolerance can have a negative connotation only if we let it. I prefer the tolerance of an intelligent and respectful person to the acceptance of someone who does not value liberties and free speach anyday.

[ February 14, 2003, 09:03 AM: Message edited by: MileHiHoosier ]

Hi! I'm the new guy on here!!

Okay, growing up in Elkton, South Dakota, I went to church A LOT. I thought, one day, I would become a Methodist minister. I loved going to church, Bible school in the summers and Sunday School. I never thought that the thoughts about guys was a sin. I wasn't a Bible thumper - I believed that science and religion went hand in hand.

My faith began to wane in Youth Group. The teacher was also the church choral director. She wanted me to be in choir. I was already active in school and I did not have time. I told her that and she embarrassed me in front of the class for not being in choir. I stopped going to Youth Group and I was promptly kicked out.
Also, the day after my grandfather died, there was a congregation meeting about getting rid of the church I grew up in. Only two of us spoke up - myself and another girl. We held our own against the church hierarchy, however, they voted to close it down. I have not gone back to that church since I graduated from high school.

Coming out, I was told that I could not believe in God. That was by my ex-boyfriend. I didn't understand that. I believe God made me this way for a purpose - Allen in Technicolor. I do know that if I have God in my heart, He loves me for me. And sometimes, whenenver things are going wrong in my life, it helps to know that.

In case you are wondering, I decided not to be a minister because it wasn't me being gay. It was the fact I could not stand being nice 24/7 to church goers and I know I would not be the right person.

Allen