I make the case in my second novel, THINKING STRAIGHT, for the necessity of using our brains and not just our eyes and ears when we apply Christian scripture to life. The book tells the story of a Christian gay teen who is put into a deprogramming camp to straighten him out.

Recently I participated in a couple of amazon discussions around the general topic of Christianity's view of homosexuals. Many other participants referred to scripture as though it were absolute, once and for all. Often they quoted scripture in their arguments as though it would help, which reminded me of those who raise their voices as if that would help foreign-speakers understand their words.

So many people read or hear only the words of scripture and insist that's enough, despite the many ways in which scriptural instructions change from book to book, as time progresses and as different people in different situations are being addressed. We don’t even need to get into how many different copies and translations and versions have led to the current books today (particularly with the New Testament books) to see that the bible changes its moral instructions over time; even those who believe that the books of the bible are the inerrant, divine, immutable Word of God can see these changes.

I'm hoping for some thoughtful discussion of why so many Christians (not all, by any means) are so unwilling to consider the *context* of scripture. And why they don't allow that the differences between the context of thousands of years ago and that of today should be considered when trying to understand the nature of, and our relationship to, God. Because while the nature of God may not have changed, the ways in which we live – and the things we know about life – have changed radically. And the scriptures themselves changed as their audiences' lives changed. The nature of God is strategic; "thou shalt" and "thou shalt not" are tactical. And tactics are not absolute; they must fit the situation, or they're useless at best. The bible itself changed tactics as the situation changed over time.

Most of us would agree, I believe, that when reading literature, context is critical. Understanding is deeper if readers have some information about the historical period, about the writer, and about the writer’s audience when the work was written.

I know there are those who would say that the bible is not “literature.” But isn’t context even more critical when the writing is used by many as justification to condemn? As The Reverend Dr. Laurence C. Keene says, “You can have a fifth grade understanding of the Bible – if you're in the fifth grade."

Because I consider context to be critical to understanding, I think it makes no sense to condemn gays based on biblical scripture that was written for people with an ancient and flawed understanding of homosexuality.

Thoughts?

My thought is that people don't want to have to think for themselves, particularly when that might mean losing the pleasure of looking down on others. Many churches appear to insist that 'God's word is unchanging' and use that to mean that the Bible can be taken on face value. Scriptural exegesis is considered just a way of cheating.

i'm with alex. looking at the context, the original texts, the motivations behind the bible's various authors, not to mention that of the folks who formed the canon used today...well, that could shatter the foundation of faith for so many. christianity wouldn't have the social and political oomph it has today, if people had to consider all these things when making decisions about how to act in this world. it's so much easier to just have something handed down. the world is hard enough. there's just no reason to complicate it with thoughtful analysis when you can simply be told how to think and act.

You're absolutely correct, Robin. When you look at context there is really no case for an anti-gay Christianity, unless you are the kind of Biblical literalist who follows every regulation in Leviticus. (I have never met a Christian who does, although I've met many Christians who justify homophobia with Mosaic laws.)

Quite a lot of Christians and even whole denominations realize this. I even know gay Catholics. It's probably unfair to tar all 2 billion Christians with the same brush.

On the other hand, a lot of people do use Christianity as an excuse for homophobia, and Christianity legitimizes and reinforces homophobia for many adherents.

This conversation is wonderful. One of the most oft-cited sources against homosexuality in the New Testament is Paul in Romans. I am consistently surprised to hear Christians citing Paul as evidence of the bible's ban against homosexuality because mere paragraphs away, Paul argues against heterosexual marriage or any relationship that interferes with preparing for Jesus' return. And don't get me started on Deuteronomy. I have yet to meet a Christian who kept kosher or followed half of the proscriptions the way many conservative and orthodox Jews do. Pork is no longer verboten, but homosexuality still is.

I was reading the recent California Supreme Court case overturning the state's ban on gay marriage and thought the court dealt nicely with these issues. Like Lawrence v. Texas and Brown v. Board of Education, the opinion gives me goosebumps.

Has anyone had any success discussing these issues with any textual literalists? I had debates about them a few years ago in law school, but find my circle is almost entirely full of those who have drunk the kool-aid and believe either in a less literal interpretation of the bible (like my fabulous little sis who is a very strong believer but also the biggest supporter of me and my relationship) or have eschewed Christianity entirely.

It would be an interesting conversation, especially if one could manage to have it without too much emotional investment or need to win every point. I don't think I could manage it. . .

I have had extensive conversations with Biblical literalists, and they tend to end with my opponents suggesting that I am possessed by demons. I assume by this that I succeeded in at least worrying them a bit.

But it immediately gets into the question of how you interpret the Bible, whether you should take into account the mores of the times when it was written and the possibility that it was filtered through the merely human minds of its writers, or whether you treat it as if it was dictated, in English, to people who wrote it down with 100% accuracy.

Literalists are trained *not* to think about the Bible. In my own Christian tradition we are trained *to* examine the Bible, and consider it part of our religious duty to figure out what it meant at the time it was written, and what that tells us about what it actually means. But the two traditions can't really talk to each other. The literalists regard thinking independantly about the bible as a temptation, so no matter how you try to persuade them, they have a duty not to be persuaded. It's pretty hopeless.

Context, Context, Context!!! Absolutely right. I hate when people (whether Christians or not) talk about how Sodom and Gamorrha were destroyed because of homosexuality. IF ( and I know that is a big IF) you read the whole story you will see that Lot was sent to find Righteous folk there. God and Lot argued about the number of righteous folk needed to be found but in the end not 1 righteous man was found. THAT is why the cities were destroyed not because gay guys and girls were "getting it on". all ya gotta do folks is read the story ...and yet how many times have YOU heard they were destroyed by the Gays ????

Scott -- Yeah, I love that seemingly deliberate misunderstanding about Sodom. And something most readers either don't see or choose to ignore is that when the rabble showed up at Lot's door and demanded that the strangers be sent out to them, what did Lot do? He offered up his two virgin daughters and told the crowd, "Do with them as you see fit."

!!!?!???!!! And God deemed Lot worth saving!

Now it's possible that in that day and age, this wouldn't have been frowned upon by society because women were, after all, barely above camels in terms of value of life. And everyone knew that all the essentials for a new human life were in male ejaculate; the woman was just an oven. (No joke; this was common belief in the Middle East.)

Hmmm... maybe THAT's why wasting one's seed was so bad? If you didn't put it into the oven, anyplace else was a sin, because you were essentially murdering! Outside the oven would include masturbation, oral sex, bestiality and... oh yes... sex between men. Small wonder that the Old Testament said nothing about female-female activity; no one (that is, no men, for men were people) cared about women at all.

IMHO, this speaks HUGELY to context.

Yes, one of the things I like about looking at the context is that it makes sense of why certain things were thought to be sins which are not thought to be sins now. If you were murdering an unborn child by masturbating, then of course it was wrong. You can suddenly see that the principle at work is one we would agree with - do not murder.

But also m/m penetrative sex involved making one man 'take the woman's place' - in other words they saw it as being an act which necessarily degraded one man. So it could never have been done in a way that was loving - degrading someone/wanting to be degraded and shamed - it's not a good thing.

You do have to value women as human beings before 'taking the woman's part' in anything becomes a non-humiliating thing to do for a man.

Right! In fact, the victorious soldiers in battles would usually rape the vanquished ones -- despite the edict against "wasting seed" -- b/c it was a powerful way of demeaning someone.

As Alex points out, there was no way to have m/m penetrative sex and have it be good, in the eyes of the OT writers and "readers." Not only b/c women were almost not even human to them, but also because by the time anyone was old enough to rub two gray cells together about whether he or she didn't really enjoy this mixed-sex thing very much, they were already married, and having as many kids as possible to take care of them when they got to be too old (like, 40?) to care for themselves any more. No social security, no health insurance, no pensions, no tax-sheltered annuities, no graduated health care facilities. So everyone was straight by default, and there was no concept of m/m or f/f committed relationships. So everything you see in any part of the bible that refers to same-sex anything is NOT talking about the same thing we are today when we speak of homosexual relationships.

Courtney asked above if anyone had tried to have this discussion with a biblical literalist. I’d love the opportunity, but I don’t know very many. Perhaps I should have opened this thread in a different group! LOL

I have had an exchange, however, with a non-literalist Christian who condemns homosexuality based on biblical scripture, which is just bo-o-o-o-o-o-o-gus. (Bad enough that the literalists do it!) I was responding to a post on amazon where this person had said that the bible was against homosexuality b/c it was unnatural. To which I responded that it couldn’t be unnatural when it occurs in over 1,500 different animal species (and counting). He replied, “And animals eat their young. Should we imitate them?” So you see the non-literalists are capable of being just as irrational. I had to remind him that wasn’t the point; I had NOT used animal behavior to justify homosexuality, I had used it as supporting evidence of the phenomenon occurring in nature, being biological. He went off on some tangent, equally off-point. I stopped exchanging posts with him; he was obviously not using his brain, though he was convinced of the opposite. He was just responding from his gut and calling it scripture.

"In fact, the victorious soldiers in battles would usually rape the vanquished ones -- despite the edict against "wasting seed" -- b/c it was a powerful way of demeaning someone. "

And there you start to get into one of the good reasons why the act might have to be forbidden by a good God until people's other knowledge of the world caught up enough to make it safe to start adding qualifications :) If the command is being used to stop the soldiers of your army from routinely abusing their defeated opponents, suddenly it becomes clear why a good God would forbid it.

Just as you say, using that to justify banning loving relationships is using it in a way it was never intended to be used.

I love the discussion of "wasting the seed" as murder -- as well as the implications of one man taking the "female" role as the impetus behind the Christian Bible's ban on homosexuality. Especially when Robin said, "Small wonder that the Old Testament said nothing about female-female activity; no one (that is, no men, for men were people) cared about women at all."

I mean, I am sure if Ruth and Esther were actually "caught" in the act, they would have been stoned or some such thing, but otherwise, as long as they were behaving like appropriately dominated chattel, their sexuality was really irrelevant. Which brings up the theme of lesbians as historically invisible, but that's an entirely different topic.

Courtney said, "I am sure if Ruth and Esther were actually "caught" in the act, they would have been stoned or some such thing."

Possibly true; the biblical text doesn't provide much in the way of clues to that answer. But I think it's also possible that it would have meant nothing. In the bible's early days, it was customary for people (read "men") to own many wives, if the man's rank and wealth were high enough. And they probably knew what was going on inside the red tent and didn't care. It wasted no seed and affected no one. No people, that is.

When what they've always been told from the pulpit reinforces a social prejudice, people just won't hear you about context. It's just justifying your sin to them. People like that don't change unless forced to by a child or close family member coming out. You have to be jolted out of the sureness that you're right before you'll reconsider.

I have found that folks need to get to know me personally. It is much harder to put labels on people you know.

Lynne said: "it's harder for people to vote for and go along with prejudice when they have to realize that that prejudice affects the people they know, love, and respect."

Also, though I would never try to pull someone out of the closet (it's a personal decision in the ultimate, after all), I do think that the more people who are out, the more likely it is that heteros would learn to "get used to it." You can't get used to something that isn't there. But the more gay people heteros know, the less uncomfortable (or worse) they might be.

How many times have you heard someone say, "I don't know any gay people." Yeah, right...

I am in 99% agreement with everything Lynn, Robin and Lillian say. I feel that being out (in fact quite out) is both a personal and political decision for me and think it is REALLY important, for me, to be as open and honest about my sex o as possible.

But there is this 1% of me that thinks, sure, they may slightly change their mind because of me, but in the end, they will think, well, Courtney is a "Good" lesbian, not like the others who are . . . . much like people used to (and still do) categorize African-Americans into good and "them." In a fit of anger the other day, I referred to a former co-worker (only to my P, of course) as an "uncle tom lesbian" but I wonder if this parallel even works, but I sometimes fear it is out there.

Sort of like, well, fine, you like girls, but as long as you look, act, behave and generally ARE like us you are ok. But those lesbians in Massachusetts are different. Ellen is ok, but kd lang is "too gay."

Does this make sense? I am still working through it in my mind, so it may be jumbled. Plus I just quit smoking and I swear, not smoking has taken 25% of my brain functions with it.

LOL! I love it: "Uncle Tom lesbian." Courtney, I think I know what you're saying. And it's not very far away from the idea that critics of gays are less likely to criticize the ones they know and like. So the question is whether it's easier for these individuals to like gays who are not kd, not over the top (by their own definition, that is). Another way to put it might be that they're okay with gays who don't make them feel 'too' uncomfortable.

But I'm still hoping that the discomfort will lessen more and more -- with more and more exposure to gays -- and that eventually that line that separates the ones who are Ellen from the ones who are kd will shift further and further toward kd until even she doesn't make them so uncomfortable any more.

Tolerance is a word that comes to mind. Personally, I'd take tolerance over hatred, but who wants to be tolerated? You tolerate something you would rather not deal with because you believe it's going to end. I'll tolerate tolerance because I'm expecting it to end.

I think that one of the difficulties we GLBTQ folk face is our own internalized homophobia. The social, familial, religious pressures that we grew up with can lead us to question whether or not God really loves us and accepts us. I recall one person who I know really well, who has been in a loving relationship for over 30 years, asking me, do you really believe that God loves me and blesses my relationship? That question, I believe, came from a deep seated fear, rarely articulated for fear of experiencing rejection one again.

I LOVE this conversation.

Lynne, you said:

But (and you, of course, already know this) we have to get what we can, because truly *lives* are at stake, since there are still people killing themselves and being killed for being gay. We have to take what we can get and continue struggling for more!

And it hit me in the stomach because, for me, this is a big reason why I am so stridently out. I am not a woman who is tagged as obviously gay (which, I admit, kind of bums me out sometimes and results in me acquiring fun political shirts). I have been extraordinarily lucky to have extremely supportive and accepting friends and family.

My Dad took literally 17 seconds to grasp it, accept it and completely and utterly support me. My darling sister comes up with witty comebacks when I express extreme frustration at my doctor who, despite the fact that I have created a box marked partner on the intake sheet, put all of my P's information as my emergency contact, and told him three times I am gay, tells me we should do a pregnancy test just to be sure that isn't causing my stomach pain (ACH!). Her response: "My wife and I have been trying and trying, but I still don't seem to be pregnant."

But other than "don't be too gay" subtext my profession loves, it is easy for me to be out.
As a result, I feel it is my absolute moral obligation to be myself. To be out. At work. At play. At home. To introduce my P as my partner (and correct people when they say roommate or friend -- which irritates me to death).

And by god, to stick the HRC magnet and the little rainbow decal on my car even though I live in the suburbs in a neighborhood filled with 80 year olds and young families with kids(but my neighbors, even clearly knowing, still let/are thrilled to send their little boys over to dig in my garden and ask about my partner, so I think we have some progress!)

Given the support I have in all the other areas of my life, work was (and will be again) the place where I really try to be as myself as possible, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people (because I am not immediately identifiable and so there is often lots of surprise involved). And generally I get tolerance, albeit grudgingly. But as Robin so perfectly said:

Personally, I'd take tolerance over hatred, but who wants to be tolerated? You tolerate something you would rather not deal with because you believe it's going to end. I'll tolerate tolerance because I'm expecting it to end.

So I am going to be just a little teensy bit cynical about certain acquaintances'/colleagues' reaction to me or a little bit irritated when my former co-workers are more comfortable with the uncle tom lesbian than me. (which is SUCH a bratty thing to say, but I plead quitting smoking and years of vexatious lunches and professional encounters).

On the whole, I have had so many positive experiences being out, so many people from whom I expected tolerance and found acceptance that even my cynicism washes away. But more than that, I think being fully out is an act of personal and political courage and if one can/has the ability to do it a gift to a hopefully improving world.

Ach! I hope this makes sense. Sorry for the length!!

courtney said:
To introduce my P as my partner (and correct people when they say roommate or friend -- which irritates me to death).

not only do i agree, i ranted about it quite recently.

and i would comment more on all the other issues y'all have brought up, but i have to get to work. i just want to say that even though i'm mostly lurking, you guys are intellectually stimulating in the best way possible and i hope you keep talking for a long time. :-)

Heather, I LOVE that you included a link to your rant in your post. GENIUS! Off to read and then to run new kitten we rescued from the conservation trail to the vet. We hope she is a she and if so her name will be Idgie Reepacheep. If she's a boy (which will be chaos because we have two young boys already) her name will be Ziegfeld Reepacheep. But she pretty much responds to Idgie. So we may have some feline gender issues to address in the future.

Ach! Must run. But I have made another important victory by getting my vet (its a cat only clinic) to admit that 4 out of 5 cats prefer lesbians. (I maintain that the other 1/5 prefer gay men, but I suspect some cats do love their straight owners, lol).

-Good Day-

Acceptance = allowing everyone to live as they wish without others judging how they choose to live their life to exclusion of hateful/illegal/morally unjust actions. This includes speaking with derision regarding the "uncle tom lesbian". You do not know people's background and shouldn't judge how they choose to live their life - some people aren't necessarily comfortable living as you choose to live. Fight for the right to allow people to live as they choose - even if they choose to live it in the closet.

Scott -- Good point, and I apologize if I've offended anyone. Also, I do hope that I made it clear in a previous post that I would never try to pull/push someone out of the closet. That's their decision and no one else's. It's just that the more people who are out, the better it will eventually be for all.

Courtney said: "I really try to be as [much] myself as possible, no matter how uncomfortable it makes people..." I support this attitude, with a caveat. It is not Courtney's (or anyone's) job to make others comfortable; that's up to them. This is especially true in being true to oneself, and it seems Courtney is true to herself. Kudos! And courage.

That said, I think there's little to be gained through aggressive extremeism. (Courtney, I'm NOT saying this is you; I don't think it is. I just want to express a position and use a non-LGBT example.) I'm part Irish, and yet one day in traffic when I saw a bumper sticker that read "God Made the Irish #1!" it made my hackles rise. It was like, what's the rest of me -- chopped liver?

For the person driving that car, this bumper sticker feeds the tribal, primordial part of the brain that needs to feel better, stronger, superior, and more righteous (in the case of religion, for example) than others. (Ironically, it also feeds a trible need for homogeneity.) But the number of people who read that sticker and who feel good about it are a few grains of sand on an eternal beach, compared to those who, like me, bridled. If someone wanted to think of the Irish (and I don't, BTW) as a bunch of dirty potato-eaters, that bumper sticker gives them a good excuse. And if someone was trying NOT to think of the Irish that way, it will push them in the wrong direction.

So while I love "We're here; we're queer. Get used to it!" at an HRC rally, for example, I don't recommend it as a bumper sticker that would be read indiscriminately by an audience over which I have no control. I'd rather appeal to the reasoning, cerebral cortex part of people's brains if I can reach it, than to the non-rational, non-verbal, non-thinking lizard brain (officially, the R-25 complex, where R=Reptilian) that knows only knee-jerk, gut-instict reactions independent of the human part of who we are.

And I really think that the lizard brain response plays a HUGE part in the issue with which I opened this thread: the refusal of some people to listen to reason, or to use their own reasoning powers, when it comes to God's take on homosexuality. Anyone with half a brain can see -- if they put their lizard brain behind them and engage their cerebral cortex -- that homosexuality per se DID NOT EXIST in biblical times. Any biblical times. So anything we read in the bible about it was talking about something else. Oh, there were gay people -- the same percentage that there are today, no doubt -- but they didn't have the luxury of thinking about what would make them happy/unhappy, so they led the lives they had to lead so they could survive day to day. But homosexuality, as we know it today, did not exist. Even the word did not exist until the late 19th century, so when it appears in the bible it's a modern translation of something else.

Jesus was all about love. And he warned that there would be people who say they are with God but are not. And how will we know those people? They won't be all about love. They'll be about hatred and judgement and divisiveness and accusation and isolation and knee-jerk reations to things they don't understand.

Sorry for the rant; sometimes I just can't help myself...

Scott -- your point is completely well-taken. The meaning, if I may be so bold, behind my reference to an "Uncle Tom Lesbian," which I really meant as an aside about something I shared with my P after a really frustrating lunch, has nothing to do with the closet. This woman is quite out as is her fiance/partner and they are pretty well known about town as a fabulous lesbian couple.

I only used the term because I had recently adopted it in a very personal conversation with my P and meant to use it to illustrate a point, which was my cynicism over the hetero view of good gay and bad gay. Why I referred to her that way is another matter entirely and perhaps too personal to share. Suffice it to say, I used the term in a very personal way to my partner to point out one woman's extreme hypocrisy.

More on this later, must get some oxygen and have a nice walk with my P. But please do not think I am trying to tell anyone how to live her life.

I came back to these posts this morning and Lynne, I have to say that your description:

But my partner is *constantly* having to come out, again and again, every time she meets someone knew. And not just in the "release" way I "come out", but in the full-blown "No, I'm actually gay. No, really. No, I have always been. Well, yes I dated men for awhile, but it wasn't right for me. I know I don't look gay but.." and so on. I *never* have to do all that! And I can understand why that would be very frustrating, and even wearying, to deal with. I can also understand the need for obvious signs and symbols to tag one's self with, to assist with the "pre-outing" us folks who are "obviously" gay get naturally :)

is making me cry. It is so exactly me and honestly, I have spent this huge amount of time pondering my sexual orientation (in a way my P hasn't in years) because I find this process so exhausting and it makes me question every thing. Funny how, I know myself but because I look girly and cannot, no matter how much I might want to cut my hair or change my look (which I don't, I like how I look) appear obviously gay, I question myself. Hence the small rainbow sticker, the small equality sign and the penchant for symbols that bolster my strength.

And otherwise, yes, everything else you said was pitch perfect

hey lynne, happy almost-anniversary! a month ago min and i celebrated 12 years. goes fast.

i know we're tangenting but i'll never forget the summer after i came out to my parents. i had been away at school, and got my hair cut right before. i told my mom on the phone and she said, you didn't cut it ALL off did you?

and i just knew from her tone (plus her asking that, which she'd never asked before) that the impetus behind that was "now that you're gay, do you think you need to chop your hair short".

i just rolled my eyes and said no. my parents are also very cool now--that was a long time ago.

i'm also glad i've never felt like i needed to conform to the Dominant Lesbian Paradigm, if you will. i'm just me, and me means medium length hair and staying true to my me-ness. :-p

Happy belated anniversary to Heather and Min and h happy almost anniversary to Lynne and her partner!

And I have to say, if anyone HASN'T read Heather's blog, I suggest you open a new webpage and read away. It was one of the best, most incisive rants I have read in a LONG time and perfectly encapsulates my feelings on the topic. So I bookmarked it. And the next time anyone but a stranger (all my elderly grandparents have passed) pulls out the friend, I am emailing the link.

And amen to me-ness and not conforming to the dominant lesbian paradigm, be it femme, butch, or anything in between. I think I will struggle with this, being late to the party and all, but generally, Courtney wins and my shoulder length, multi-color, curly haired, girly but tough self soldiers on.

We just got back from Milwaukee for their Pride and the thing that struck me the strongest was how different everyone was. It was like a wash of cool water on a hot day and SO unlike my daily forays in hetero-land. Yes, there were many lesbians sporting the sporty girl look, but there were plenty of women who looked like my Mom used to (sort of a mix between Laura Ashley, Emily Saliers and Doris Day), girls like me with pigtails and pink hats (AND my fabulous specially made DOB shirt!!), girls working the L Word look (of various characters) and gay men in all shapes, sizes and ages. Moreover, there was more kindness, openness and general, hey I'm so glad you are here from everyone that it was like a giant hug. So, while we have all these dominant pressures amongst ourselves, its pretty freaking cool to see a whole slew of us free to be ourselves notwithstanding the pressure.

Does anyone know where I can find a rainbow doormat for outside? It seems like the cheeriest thing in the world to me and it has been suggested that my current "Come Back With a Warrant" mat doesn't set the right tone. :)

Heather, "tangent" all you want. I'm so glad I opened this thread, and I hope we'll talk more about the initial idea, but I absolutely love how inclusive and open and honest everyone seems to be, whatever the most recent layer is.

Courtney, thanks for pointing us toward Heather's blog; I haven't read it but will do so very soon. I also hope anyone who has a few minutes will read mine. I'm writing an open letter to humanity entitled "The Case for Acceptance." It's kind of fiction, since I'm writing from the POV of a gay man (which I am not), but my intent is to demonstrate through logic, physical and social sciences, psychology, and -- finally -- religion, that the only thing wrong with being gay is how some people treat you when they find out.

So you can see it on my goodreads profile page in the "Robin's Writings" section, or you can go to my blog at http://www.robinreardon.blogspot.com. I'd love to how what you think of it so far. There will be ten installments in all; three are available now, with a new one each month.

I'd like to say again how delighted I am at the integrity of this group of people for this discussion. So many times you see rancor, anger, nasty language -- so unnecessary. Anyway, thank you all!

Hey, Courtney -- If you go to google, click on the shopping button, and search for rainbow doormats, you'll find them at Aqua Superstore in three different sizes. Here's the link for the 18x30 one:
http://www.aquasuperstore.com/detail.asp...

Have fun!

Thank you Robin! I thought I had tried that before, but must have missed the Aqua Superstore. I am definitely going to get one. Will go so well with all the violets in my front yard (until the heat gets them, of course!)

And thank you for the link to your blog, I have it bookmarked and cannot wait to read it. I am so inspired by everyone in this discussion.

well thanks courtney and robin for the blog kudos/visits! i was just sharing, but validation is nice. ;)

robin i've put yours in my bloglines, so will be catching up with you!

and lynne's comment:
I found that conservative churches seemed to be fueled by "loving-hate", but that liberal churches seemed to be fueled by the *same* loving-hate, just run in a different spirit.

made me remember something i heard on the colbert report the other day. he was interviewing a guest, who said "political parties are just a way of organizing our hate." i think quite a few churches work off the same premise. churches splinter over clashes of what's right or wrong, with each group thinking the other is somehow evil or misled...and therefore encourage love the sinner, hate the sin-type mentality.

i suppose this is just borne of our need to belong, to feel secure and that we are right in our beliefs but... i don't know, it's sad.

Coming from a born again Christian family who disowned me, and MUCH WORSE, this concept sounds difficult for me to grasp.

My boyhood boyfriend killed himself when the pressure to live in this Christian stranglehold was too much for him. It's a religion lost now for years from its original intent.

CAConrad
http://CAConrad.blogspot.com

CAConrad: what concept is difficult to grasp, specifically?

i'm sorry to hear about your boyfriend, that's horrible. religion is a powerful tool, and unfortunately, any tool can become a weapon.

If it's the idea of a gay Christian group that sounds odd, Conrad, do you know of this website:

http://whosoever.org/index.shtml

Whosoever Magazine - it's a group for GBLT Christians. As a straight person I didn't have personal tragedy to get over, but I also didn't see how I could possibly remain in a faith that was institutionally homophobic. Whosoever saved my faith, and I'm certain that it has saved lives too.

oh, thanks for posting about them, alex! i found them a very long time ago, then apparently forgot. lots more there now--looking forward to checking it out!

As well as Gay Christian Network (www.gaychristian.net) I'm there a lot!

Robin,

I've only read your original post here and I'm sure others have covered the point I'll make, but I was so glad to see your sensible thoughts. One thing that people forget is that what we now call "The Bible" or "the canon," is a compilation of a wild variety of texts written and edited and re-combined at different times (over about 1500 years) for different purposes and with competing claims. Even one given book is made up of various influences from different parts of the "community" of interpretation and is developed over time and molded to meet the needs of the community as they change. Thus, the prophets contain words of challenge and judgment when the rich are getting richer and the poor are being left behind, and words of comfort when the people are in exile, all has gone to hell and the people are on the brink of despair. Look, too, at the clear difference in thought and language about Jesus in the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) compared with John, which was written later and has more of a constructive theology to it.
Also, the concept of homosexuality did not exist before the nineteenth century, not in the way we think of it. There were only sexual behaviors, and in the Biblical texts they often had to do as much with pederasty, prostitution, and violence against others (as in the Sodom and Gomorrah). What the Bible did not have that we do is a more informed understanding of human sexuality and identity. The Bible has very little to say in support of what modern Christians consider to be healthy marital or sexual relations anyway, unless you think that women should always defer to their husbands, that a womean's sexuality belongs to the males in her family, and that a woman should not serve food to the husband when she is menstruating! What we take from the Bible about relationships is based on our interpretation of language about love and integrity respect and dignity of the individual and responsibility within the community, etc., etc. It's not texts lifted from some portion of the Bible to give us a recipe for how to do it.
All of this does not make the Bible less meaninful to me, but more meaningful, as we struggle to understand ourselves, God and the important things in life we are continuing a conversation that is millenmia old. IN that context, there is plenty of room for gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender people in the conversation.

Arlie -- EXACTLY! The word "homosexual" didn't even exist until the late nineteenth century, which tells you that the lifestyle, or the idea of someone who identified according to this description, couldn't predate the year 1800 by much, let alone make sense to the writers (or original readers) of biblical scripture.

People in biblical times, and for quite some time thereafter, didn't marry for love; they married out of necessity. They needed children to take care of them in their old age (you, like, 35), so they married very, very young. And they didn't have time to sit around navel-gazing to figure what would make their lives fulfilling; they just survived. So by the time someone figured out they were gay, they were already married with kids.

Plus, the OT -- especially in the early books where we see same-sex relations condemned -- was written in large part to purify and then expand the Jewish tribes. And they believed that male ejaculate contained all the necessities of human life, which meant women were merely ovens. So a man who wasted seed in ANY way was a murder. God killed Onan for spilling his seed upon the ground rather than have mandated sex with his brother's widow.

You won't find anything about woman/woman relations in the OT, either; women didn't matter. Neither did homosexuality, except that it wasted seed, in effect killing an unborn Jewish baby.

So there were homosexuals, but no homosexuality. It couldn't have existed. And the condemnation is against adultery and wasting seed and prostitution and violence and pederasty. Not same-sex relations per se.

I wish that those who try to use the tactics in the scriptures as though they were themselves absolute would go and study the way Jesus spoke to the scribes and pharisees. He yelled at them for treating the law as though the law itself were sacred. It is not. He told his followers, in essence, love God, and love each other; these are the two greatest commandments, and all the law depends on them.

Hello all; I am waaay late to this thread! But Lynne's comment really resonated with me:

"I found, though, that while my sexual (and gender) orientation wasn't "approved" or safe in conservative churches, my theology wasn't "approved" or safe in liberal churches. I found that conservative churches seemed to be fueled by "loving-hate", but that liberal churches seemed to be fueled by the *same* loving-hate, just run in a different spirit."

This has really been my experience in trying to fit in to any church or spiritual community over the past fifteen years; either I'm too gay or too Christian, too liberal or too conservative, too much of something or too little of something else. Without jettisoning or suppressing huge chunks of my personality/self in order to be a good sheep (a new ewe), I wasn't accepted. At some point, I had to stop trying to force my creative, trapezoidal peg into the square hole. Which isn't to say that I don't want to be in a spiritual community; I do. It's just become too tiring to continue to look for one (for now). The word "Church" no longer inspires fear or excitement, just fatigue. Does anyone else feel that way?

Graeme, You took the feelings right outta my soul/words outta my mouth. It does get tiring, and trying,to find a place to fit. And that statement comes from a guy who tried for 5 years into brainwashing himself straight by going to Bible college. I think it is just part and parcel of the times we live in everyone is obssessed with labels and where other people fit into their grand schematic.