Social Issues

yes, you hate me: Christians and homophobia

[content note for bigotry and homophobia]

If you’re anything like me, this is a conversation you’ve probably had with your parents:

“Ugh! I just hate her! She’s so awful!”
“Samantha, don’t say ‘hate.’ Hate is a strong word.”
“Fine, then, I strongly dislike her.”

I always felt like I was being particularly witty, since “intense or passionate dislike” is the dictionary definition of hate. Colloquially, hate does have a connotation that “intense dislike” just doesn’t encompass, but Christian culture has bent and twisted the word hate until it’s practically meaningless. When a Christian looks me in the eye and says “of course I don’t hate you!” what they actually mean is something akin to I don’t personally want to assault you with my bare hands. To a conservative Christian, unless they’re actively and personally wishing you —personally– harm, than you can’t possibly accuse them of hating you.

That’s how Thabiti Anyabwile and the people who agree with him can say this:

Return the discussion to sexual behavior in all its yuckiest gag-inducing truth … In all the politeness, we’ve actually stopped talking about the things that lie at the heart of the issue–sexual promiscuity of an abominable sort … I think we should describe sin (and righteousness) the way God does. And I think it would be a good thing if more people were gagging on the reality of the sexual behavior that is now becoming public law, protected, and even promoted in public schools

That sense of moral outrage you’re now likely feeling–either at the descriptions above or at me for writing them–that gut-wrenching, jaw-clenching, hand-over-your-mouth, “I feel dirty” moral outrage is the gag reflex.

… and then infuriatingly believe that their explicit perpetuation of an active and intense dislike isn’t an act of hatred. They can do it because they’ve intentionally forgotten that hatred is “intense dislike” with just slightly more oomph– the oomph of thinking “I feel dirty” or “those people are so sick!” They can do it because they’ve lost their sense of communal responsibility. To your average evangelical Christian, sin is personal and it is individually committed. They are blind to systems, to institutionalized hatred. They blatantly refuse to acknowledge how every single one of their homophobic actions and beliefs feed into a system of hate.

It leads to these, which are just a handful of the awful comments on Rachel Held Evans’ post where she reminded us that “there was a body count before Sunday”:

facebook comments

Or these, from Jen Hatmaker’s post where she said “We cannot with any integrity honor in death those we failed to honor in life”:

facebook comments 2

“It’s not hate, it’s a disagreement.”

They say it over and over again and are just so utterly baffled when I choke on rage, frustration, and despair. They’re just so very confused when they look at me and say “I disagree with your very existence because of my pet biblical interpretation, but that clearly can’t be hate. If I hated you, I’d want to punch you or something. Since I don’t want to punch you in the face, that must mean what I’m saying is loving!” and all I want to do is rip my skin off and gnash my teeth at them.

Believing that I don’t have the right to exist exactly as I am is hatred. Fighting against my civil rights is hatred. Believing that Romans 1 applies to me and that I’m therefore “worthy of death” is hatred. Referring to my existence as an abomination— which has happened to me multiple times over the last few days– is hatred. One man on my public facebook page told me I was abomination, that my existence was just as evil the eyes of God as mass murder, but then two comments later said that he “loved” me and “mourned the deaths in Orlando”!

IT rage gif

Not only have they twisted the definition of hatred into something so deformed it’s beyond recognition, they’ve done the same thing to love. Here’s the thing, though: when Jesus said they shall know you by your love, it comes with the pretty basic assumption that your “love” should be recognizable to people who don’t share all your pet theories. If people who don’t share your interpretation or your faith look at your actions and say “that looks an awful lot like hate to me,” your response shouldn’t be “oh, it only looks that way to you because you’re not a conservative evangelical like me!” It doesn’t make any sense.

On top of that, Jesus also said this:

You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘You shall not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell.

Raca literally means “to spit.” It’s a reaction of disgust, of revulsion– in the words of Thabiti, it’s the “gag reflex” at work. And Jesus compares that reaction to murder. John, later, makes the connection explicit for anyone who might not have gotten it:

Anyone who hates a brother or sister is a murderer.

I’ve seen hundreds of Christians over the last four days protesting against the connection that my LGBT community has been making: this is on you. You’re responsible for creating him and the homophobic culture he breathed in every single day of his twenty-nine years. You weren’t the gunman, but you’re the culture that built him. You’re the bullets in his gun.

To be honest, I never really, viscerally, understood Jesus’ indictment of hatred until Sunday. I understood the larger point of the sermon on the mount, that sin isn’t a matter of rules and regulations but begins in the hearts and minds of men. I understood that he was reorienting a culture away from their preoccupation with the Law and focusing them on their beliefs and perhaps deeply-buried motives. But saying that anger and disgust and revulsion were on par with murder seemed so extreme–surely this is one of those times Jesus was speaking hyperbolically?

I don’t think he was. I think he was talking about systems. He was talking about the creation of a system where Robert Dear could walk into a Planned Parenthood clinic and open fire while shouting “no more baby parts!” and then declare “I’m a warrior for the babies!” The hatred that stirred the “Center for Medical Progress” into slander prompted Robert to commit murder. Just a little bit ago James Dobson practically begged for someone to shoot LGBT people, trans people in particular, with a desperate plea of “Where is today’s manhood? God help us!” Thirteen days later someone in Florida decided that he was enough of a man to actually pick up the gun and go do something about those abominations.

You have hated us for years. You have been killing us for years. Now, it’s time for you reconcile yourselves to us, to seek diallassoa change of mind, a change of heart.

Photo by Julien
Previous Post Next Post

You Might Also Like

  • Lee Hauser

    Samantha, I love you. I love that God made you bi. I love that you’ve found the courage to be and say what you are. I love that the God I believe in loves queer people as they are (because how could God not love them, having made them?). I love your writing, and your anger, and your courage.

    I’m a straight, white male, so I can never be more than an ally. But an ally I am, for what it’s worth.

    • BigGaySteve

      Don’t be a beta orbiter. If you don’t know what that is search the term with “Vox Day”

  • KellyLynne

    I’m so sorry that you’ve gotten the brunt of so much hatred. I try, for what it’s worth, to explain to people how their “disagreement” actually harms people, and for the most part it’s ignored. I think people believe that as long as their intentions are good and they’re doing what they believe God wants them to, the actual end results don’t matter.

    • Kevin

      Like the old saying says, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions” or C. S. Lewis’s observation that what people do out of good intentions can do more harm than that done out of spite, since the conscience approves of good intentions.

      • KellyLynne

        Absolutely. That’s one of the CS Lewis quotes I really love.

    • BigGaySteve

      No STR8 white church going man hates gays as much as jewish lesbians hate STR8 white men.

  • Thank you for calling this out. I would agree more specifically, but I’m already thinking of the ways I let myself off the hook by allowing myself to hate people just because I’m not actively working to cause them harm. There’s a lot of personal application packed into this article.

    I will say, though, the whole “I don’t hate you, I just wish you didn’t exist” reminds me of Stewie’s bit from Family Guy, “I don’t want to kill Lois. I just don’t want her to be alive anymore.”

    • Lucy Moore

      Yup. autistic people get that too, in the form of “I don’t hate my loved one with autism, I hate their autism”; they also hear “autism is just a small part of who so-and-so is”. This is ridiculous because autism affects every aspect of an autistic’s personality. Even if they hate the fact that someone has a condition caused or exacerbated by the autism, the fact that they don’t aim that “loving hate” SPECIFICALLY at those things, or else the condition they name is something harmless, like hand flapping, or else easily redirected into other, safer forms of play, like feces smearing (and yes, that can be redirected into things like shaving cream play and making mud pies. A “high-functioning” autistic person I know who smeared feces as a little kid ended up making mud pies by the creek when they were older. One who can’t teach themselves to do stuff like that could always be encouraged to do so). Also, some of these haters are only pretending they hate one or two aspects of the condition, and they use it as an excuse to hate their kid (usually it’s their kid) for not being the person they wanted.
      If they really don’t hate their kid, they will be able to frame annoying habits as just that, annoyances. And, they will be willing to acknowledge exactly WHAT aspects of their loved one’s autism cause them the most worry, and willing to accept those aspects, however grudgingly, if that is the only way to ensure that person is as healthy as possible. They will also be willing to listen to the input of actual autistics on how to help their autistic loved one deal with those issues.

  • I’ve been trying to explain this the past few days, but you’ve done it beautifully. Thank you. <3

    • BigGaySteve

      All of the media has been blaming STR8 white church going men for the Afghani moslem shooting 102 gays, why would you have a problem with it.

  • Kathleen Margaret Schwab

    You’ve just explained to me why I felt hated by men in the church. They would argue that women shouldn’t vote, that laws against marital rape dishonored God’s plan for marriages, they would ask me to engage in discussions about how far should Paul’s directive that women shouldn’t speak in church be taken. And I felt hated, I felt viscerally threatened, because I knew that issues like voting and marital violence come down to whether and how much women can be tormented with impunity by men. They claimed it was about honoring God, but I knew the reality. But because of the church climate, I felt I had to be quiet, and not push too far. They were talking about my very survival, my physical and psychological safety and integrity, but they had set the rules so that they could threaten me and I had to be careful and controlled about any response, because the blame would be mine.
    I felt hated, that’s exactly what I felt.

    • larrymotuz

      Yes, if one has no regard for the physical and psychological safety and integrity of women or anyone else … and preaches and practices that consequences on earth don’t matter … then one has no respect for them as persons. One cannot claim to be loving them while complaining or lamenting that their very humanity itself as problematic or sinful .

  • Anne Stark

    Just curious,

    Is there a way to privately disagree or disagree in a way that is not hateful? Personally, I fall on the affirming side and stand as an ally to my LGBTQ friends, and while I’m completely with you that some forms of disagreement that are indeed hateful and harmful, aren’t there some expressions that are not?

    The reason I ask this is because I want to find ways to build bridges between myself and those I disagree with without also telling them they must conform to my current convictions about these things. So, pragmatically speaking, what would it look like for a person who does not agree from a “biblical” (I hate that word) perspective to disagree in a healthy, respectful, and loving way?

    Does that type of disagreement exist in your mind?

    • Beroli

      That word “disagreement” makes me twitch, and I’m only an ally myself. What does “disagreement” look like?

      1) “I think LGBT people are sinners who should be stopped from sinning.”
      2) “I think LGBT people are sinners, but I oppose using force to stop them; we should shame them until they stop.”
      3) “I think LGBT people are sinners who should stop themselves, and I share this belief with anyone who I think needs to hear it, which is LGBT people most of all.”
      4) “I think LGBT people are sinners who should stop themselves; I don’t shove this in the face of every LGBT person I ask, but I don’t go out of my way to hide it either.”
      5) “I think LGBT people are sinners who should stop themselves. I keep this hidden from nearly everyone.”

      Only the last one there doesn’t scream NOT LOVING to me–it still says it though, just quietly.

      • I agree that 5 is the closest you can get to “not hateful”, but even as I read this…I wonder how genuine it can really be. Good insight. Thanks.

        • larrymotuz

          In a civil society , 5 can be considered an ethical stance if and only if it is practiced in a manner that respects the human dignity of all persons and supports them in maintaining our common human rights.

          Ethical behavior requires this. And if one’s morality conflicts with ethical behavior towards others any of the time, then there is something seriously amiss with one’s sense of morality.

      • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

        I thing homosexual behavior is sinful. But I also think what someone privately is their own business. I object to the movement to FORCE people of faith to affirm and applaud sinful behavior. At one time we had the ability in this country to freely associate. All the push is coming from the LGBT side and some are pushing back.

        • I think it’s sinful for negroes not to be enslaved. I object to the movement to FORCE people of faith to become abolitionists. At one time we had the ability in this country to freely associate. We had the Missouri Compromise. All the push is coming from the abolitionist side and from the negro, and some people are pushing back (ie: lynchings are just what you should expect for daring to think you deserve equal rights and protections under the law with whites).

          THIS is what they’re saying. Don’t you let anyone pretend it’s somehow different.

          • Beroli

            It occurs to me that “all the push is coming from the other side and some are pushing back” is a way of spinning “I’m on the wrong side of history and my position gets less widely acceptable every day” so that it looks like the people pushing for rights, for equality, for justice are somehow in the wrong simply because what they’re pushing for is a change.

          • Kevin

            Or, “whaaaa! They wuz[*sniffle*] mean to us! [*sniffle*] They won’t let us have preferential treatment! [*sniffle*]; uh, we mean, [*sniffle*] all we want[*sniffle*] is to just Love Jesus[TM]” *puts on angel, innocent face*

          • BigGaySteve

            Gays have driven 2 states to buy pizza from the place that wont cater gay weddings. Apple CEO Timmy Cook sells apple watches in Saudi Arabia where gays get executed but not in Indiana. Leftists are importing 3rd world savage moslems and putting them on welfare like the Boston marathon moslems who had 3 gay jew neibhors that got beheaded on 9-11-2011 but cops were too cucked to profile.
            When gay/lesbians complain about one clerk in KY when they can go to every other KY clerk, the stories about the CA lesbian clerk who wont give a US special forces man a sheriffs approved concealed carry permit, while 3rd world moslems are being imported onto welfare around him are put into perspective.

          • Beroli

            Huh. Possibly a bot. Not a troll, a troll would care more about coherency and less about hitting all the slogans. (I especially liked the random MRA bit in the middle of the whine about the police not using religious profiling.)

          • Laurie Higgins

            Some questions about your convoluted mess of an analogy:

            Are you saying that the government banning slavery = the government, for example, compelling bakers to bake cakes for celebrations of homoerotic unions? If so, the analogy fails because there is a difference between the government preventing an action and the government compelling an action. in your analogy, were you suggesting that it’s legitimate for the government to compel slave-owners to become abolitionists? There is a huge difference between abolishing slavery and compelling people to become abolitionists.

            Even more problematic, in the case of Christian owners of wedding-related businesses, the government is compelling them to make a product they have never made before for an event that violates their religious convictions. Marriage has a nature central to which is sexual complementarity and without which a union is intrinsically non-marital. A same-sex wedding is the anti-thesis of a true wedding. It is an anti-wedding.

            Although the government can pass laws that recognize homoerotic unions as “marriages,” the government can no more turn same-sex unions in reality into marriages than it could turn whole persons into 3/5 persons. Law cannot change reality.

            So, what homosexual couples are demanding are anti-wedding cakes, which are products that many Christians bakers have never made. The issue at hand is not whether Christian bakers and florists should be forced to serve PERSONS. In fact, the bakers and florists who are being sued served homosexual persons happily for years. The issue is whether they should be forced to provide a product or service for a type of event that violates their religious convictions.

            So, should the government be permitted to force Christian bakers to provide cakes to celebrate a commitment ceremony between polyamorists if such a ceremony violates their religious convictions?

            Also, are you suggesting that the refusal of Christian-owners of wedding related businesses to serve, facilitate, participate in or profit from a type of event that violates their religious beliefs, their push back is the moral equivalent of lynching blacks?

            Racists promoted the false belief that blacks and whites were ontologically different (and whites superior). “Progressives” today are promoting the false belief that homoeroticism is morally equivalent to heterosexuality.

            Is your larger point that because some Christians used the Bible to justify sinful actions, all moral prescriptions and proscriptions found in Scripture are false? If that’s your argument, then bestiality, incest, drunkenness, theft, murder, and gossip are not moral actions that the government can force all Americans to facilitate and serve.

            While leftists exploit race as an analogue to homoeroticism, they fail to identify what points of correspondence race per se shares with homoeroticism. Whereas race is 100% heritable, in all cases immutable and has no constituent behavioral features, homoeroticism is not 100% heritable, is not in all cases immutable (i.e., “sexual orientation” is fluid), and is constituted centrally by subjective feelings and volitional activity that is a legitimate object of moral assessment.

            You said, “Believing that I don’t have the right to exist exactly as I am is hatred.” You do, indeed, have a right to exist exactly as you are, and the holy God who made you and me and every other fallen human has the right to judge us as worthy of entrance into his eternal kingdom or not.

            Knowing how deceitfully wicked are the hearts of men, in his mercy, God gave his son to die a gruesome death for us so that Christ’s perfect obedience could be imputed to us. All we need to do is accept his substitutionary work on the Cross and then in thankfulness strive with the help of the Holy Spirit to obey his commandments–many of which call for self-denial.

            One last question: Which volitional behaviors are humans able to express moral disapproval of without being labeled hateful?

          • Beroli

            That’s a lot of words being twisted, a lot of unsupported assertions, and a lot of “are you saying…” to say that you’re a raging (in at least two senses) bigot and ironically call a much shorter, clearer comment a “convoluted mess.”

          • Laurie Higgins

            What are my unsupported assertions?
            What’s wrong with asking Samantha to clarify her analogy?
            What did I say that suggests I’m a “raging bigot” And how do you define “bigot”?

            “Progressives” claim to honor diversity and dialogue. The also claim to oppose name-calling. Your response suggests a commitment to none of those.

          • Beroli

            If you really don’t know what you wrote, what on earth would be the point of my telling you? You can scroll up and reread your own comment probably more easily than anyone else here, who doesn’t share your assumptions.

            It never works, even to score points, to say “[group I think you belong to] wants X and I’m declaring what you said contrary to X].” But set that aside, just for the moment. If you actually think your snide load of bullshit assertions and “are you saying…?” pseudo-questions constitutes dialogue, by any definition except the “they’ll have to listen to you as long as you claim to want dialogue, that’s a (spit) progressive’s Kryptonite!” definition, that’s yet one more word you should probably look up the actual definition of before you try interacting with actual people.

          • I’m kind of amused that you tried to dispute that anything you’ve said thus far makes you a “raging bigot” and then you ramp up your bigotry in subsequent comments.

            Wait, no, not “kind of amused.” Extremely disgusted.

          • BigGaySteve

            Moving goalposts the current definition of bigot is Someone who will not have sex with a guy he knows is HIV+. Yes I am.

          • BigGaySteve

            Bigot- current definition- Someone who will not have sex with a guy he knows is HIV+

          • Kevin

            Concerning the “anti-“wedding cakes, I had a discussion with a conservative friend on this. While he has traditional views on marriage he says “Bake the cake”, as you’re just providing a cake, and what they do with the cake is none of your business.
            Concerning the government banning the activities you listed, these are banned to protect everyone’s rights. Gossip is not proscribed by the government; drunkenness is restricted so people don’t drive drunk and put people in danger; theft and murder violate other people’s right to property and life, respectively; concerning bestiality and incest, the issue is informed consent — none of these are relevant concerning opposition to homosexuality or rejection of LGBT. Since views concerning opposition to homosexuality are religious in nature, the government’s job is to pass laws the least restrictive to the least number of people as possible. Remember rights are restricted to safeguard others’ rights.

          • Laurie Higgins

            Actually, if the homosexual couples had come in to the bakery and just picked up a plain, pre-made cake, the bakers would have sold it to them, just as they had sold other baked goods to homosexuals on many occasions. But that’s not what happened. The bakers and florist in question were asked to bake a wedding cake specifically for a homosexual faux-wedding.

            Similarly, Christian bakers would be happy to bake a birthday cake for the child of polyamorists, but they would be unwilling to bake a cake for a commitment ceremony of five people of assorted sexes.

            I never said anything about the government proscribing gossip, drunkenness, theft, murder, incest, bestiality, or incest. Read that paragraph more carefully. I said that if Samantha believes that because some Christians twisted Scripture to defend slavery, all biblical prescriptions and proscriptions are wrong, then so too are biblical proscriptions of gossip, drunkenness, theft, murder, incest, bestiality, and incest. (As an aside, incest between consenting adults is, well consensual.)

            The government shouldn’t be passing any laws requiring business owners to make products or serve events that violate their religious beliefs. No homosexual has a “right” to demand that bakers bake anti-wedding cakes. The issue has never been about serving homosexuals. All these bakers did serve homosexuals. In fact, the elderly florist in Washington who is being sued by a petulant homosexual had sold flowers to him for nine years, knowing full well that he was homosexual. She considered him a friend. She was unwilling to make floral arrangements for a type of event that the God she serves abhors. The issue is about forcing Christians to provide a product they have never made for a type of event they have never served.

          • Beroli

            The bakers and florist in question were asked to bake a wedding cake specifically for a homosexual faux-wedding.

            No, they were asked to bake a wedding cake for a wedding. Your sad delusion that your church gets to define what a wedding is matters not a jot to anyone outside it. After that, a number of other things happened which aren’t being mentioned in your church; if you actually wanted to know rather than to have a club with which to beat your political enemies, it would be worthwhile for you to find out the details (from a source other than your church), but of course that’s the exact opposite of what you want.

            I don’t think you even realize that every word you post here validates the post you’re commenting on, because you really don’t understand that your church doesn’t define reality: you think saying “anti-wedding” must sear the souls of every homosexual who sees it with its truthiness rather than getting annoyed eyerolls. And for that inability to understand why you’re not convincing anyone rather than just annoying them, I just realized, I pity you.

          • Guanting Zhou

            Your alleged wedding is your business, you shouldn’t be able to force others into doing labor for you if they don’t want to. An atheist baker should be free not to bake cakes celebrating Jesus too. You are the one using violence to make others beholden to your will in this scenario, you don’t get to call us the bullies. And while it’s true that the church doesn’t define reality, neither does the state. Just because the state declares marriage now means something different than it did a decade ago doesn’t mean they can magically make it so, any more than the Roman emperors declaring themselves gods actually made it so. Christians will continue to view such relationships as illegitimate. Those who view the state, rather than God, as their ultimate authority, will accept gay marriage.

          • Beroli

            An atheist baker should be free not to bake cakes celebrating Jesus too.

            Lovely thought. Wish I believe you’d have come out with it had it actually been an atheist baker quoting extensively from The God Delusion when asked to bake a cake with a graven image of Jesus on it.

            Christians will continue to view such relationships as illegitimate.

            Your belief that you own the definition of “Christian” is as much of a joke as your belief that you own the definition of “marriage.” You’re commenting on the blog of a Christian who doesn’t agree with the beliefs of your fundamentalist sect. Yes, petty bigots will continue to be petty and bigoted, and as they lose more and more of their power to force others to listen to them and it becomes ever more clear that that coercive power was the only reason anyone ever did, they’ll also be increasingly frantic. Have fun!

            Marriage is a legal institution which predates Christianity and has been redefined many times over the millennia. According to the Bible, it’s been between one man and 700 women. It’s been between one man and his teenaged rape victim. Is there any morality to your claim that your religious sect owns the definition, or is it pure appeal to authority? Either way, you’re free to declare that marriages you don’t approve of aren’t marriages, that humans can fly like birds if they want, or that fire isn’t hot. If you expect anyone else to care that you’re making those assertions, though, you’ll be disappointed.

            Those who view the state, rather than God, as their ultimate authority,
            will accept gay marriage.

            Is that supposed to be an exhaustive list? What about those who view Athena as their ultimate authority? Or those who don’t believe in ultimate authorities?

          • BigGaySteve

            .”This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.” http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/05/22/there-is-no-appeasing-a-fascist-mob/

          • Kevin

            Here’s an example to explain what Beroli is saying: there is a Muslim section called Salafi. This is a Fundamentalist sect that actively seeks to convert people to Islam, like a Muslim version of street preachers. Now if they came to you and told you that you’re committing shirk(partners with Allah) because of your views on Jesus(peace be upon him) and accepted the prophethood of Muhammad(peace be upon him) you’d burn in hell, would you at that moment recite the shahadah(there is no god but Allah and Muhammad is Allah’s messenger) in Arabic? If no, that’s how, I am guessing, you come off to people here.

          • BigGaySteve

            The moderate moslem wants the normal moslem to behead you.
            Moderate moslems fear backlash from tomorrows terror attack.(that they know about)

          • Dom Saunders

            The government shouldn’t be passing any laws requiring business owners to make products or serve events that violate their religious beliefs.

            The fact that I don’t have to sit in the back of the bus so white people can sit in the front, that I can get a job with white people, and that I can go to any store I want, means they already have done that. What you mean to say is “the government should cater to Christians because we say so.”

            No. No they shouldn’t.

          • BigGaySteve

            In the 90s Forbes magazine posted that the cost to the US for affirmative action was 4% of the GDP, which is more than is spent by the dept of education. Today 70% of the US population gets affirmative action.
            Even the journal of blacks in higher edu, has a chart showing the most successful blacks from families earning over $200,000 a year have an average SAT score of 981, while the poorest white trash from families earning under $20,000 a year have an average SAT of 978 basically a rounding error difference. IQ is mostly genetic.

          • The words “homosexual faux wedding” are extremely hurtful! Our love is not “faux”! Congratulations, you just turned this gay person off to your message.
            The bakers also endangered that couple AND THEIR CHILDREN by revealing personal info online. That is why the settlement was so big. Are you okay with endangering children, because of their parents’ sins?

          • BigGaySteve

            Feminists so destroyed marriage that no one in their right mind would engage in it. You could get all the benefits with none of the drawbacks via legal documents. Only 2 weeks after the supremes ruling a gay divorce/alimony law firm opened up.

          • If you truly love us, and don’t want to hurt us, and want us to listen to you, you had better find out how not to to hurt us, and how to not say or accidentally imply that our feelings are not as valid as yours. Do you care whether you hurt us or not? I want to know.

          • BigGaySteve

            Nope see this example.”This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.” http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/05/22/there-is-no-appeasing-a-fascist-mob/

          • BigGaySteve

            Any custom made works take up a lot of time. Also a Canadian jeweler did such good work for a lesbian couple they recommended them to friends, only to demand refunds when they found out they supported trad marriage http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/05/22/there-is-no-appeasing-a-fascist-mob/

          • Honest moment: I’m probably not going to respond to this comment in any detail for a while (if ever) because it was badly written.

          • Dom Saunders

            You’re not missing out. It’s bad point followed by yet another bad point.

          • Dom Saunders

            “Anti-wedding” cakes? You pretty much lost your argument after that. Christians, and by extension, religious people, don’t own marriage. Marriage is government-sanctioned and is a civil contract. The fact that it often happens in a church is ceremonial at best, but it’s just as valid and binding if carried out at a town hall by a government official. That’s how it’s always been done in this country. As for your incorrect statement on how “homoeroticism” works, learn to read. What you mean is “homosexuality.” Homo-eroticism refers to depictions in various medias of art that can imply gay relations between two people portrayed in it. You can’t use the word to define it as a whole. Not like I needed any hints to tell you’re illiterate, but as the case stands, you’re incorrect. Also, sexual activity =/= sexual orientation. The only “volitional” thing in that equation is trying to change one’s sexual activity. No matter how many women a gay man sleeps with, he’d still be as gay as the day he was when he was born. Instead, you’d prefer if he’d either die or at “best” change his “activity,” which never mind the fact that it has nothing to do with you, but would only cause him long term issues as a result. Rather than do the right thing and just accept him for who he is, especially if he’s not hurting anyone (and the vast majority of us aren’t), you’d rather he’d conform to your rigid belief. What you essentially believe is that it’s easier to force a square into a triangle than to accept the fact they’re two different shapes. I know you don’t get even the simplest of analogies, so I used one that even a kindergartner would get. I hope your brain didn’t explode trying to understand that one.

            If that’s your argument, then bestiality, incest, drunkenness, theft, murder, and gossip are not moral actions that the government can force all Americans to facilitate and serve.

            No, no. Slippery slope logic is slippery. Never mind that in spite of your Scripture and government laws, it tends to be the case that religious people still regularly break those laws. Never mind that all of those actions save for gossip (up to a point) do actual harm to actual people, Scripture also makes a bunch of other ridiculous things illegal to the point that it’s bizarre, like eating shellfish, wearing mixed cloths (which I know you’re doing right now), playing around with pig skin, and working on Sundays. All of these are just as illegal along with the aformentioned crimes that are actually harmful, yet for some reason they all get a pass, even if they were just as condemned as homosexuality was within the same portion of the text (OT), if NOT more so. The moment you entertain that, you’re outing yourself as a hypocrite, which doesn’t surprise me in the least because in order to be a modern Christian today, you’d just about have to be. Taking the Bible too literally would literally have you end up in prison for murder.

            Sin, and the obsession with it, is a religious construct that really doesn’t exist. That’s more for a philosophical discussion I’m not willing to have with you because I don’t have the patience to discuss such deep topics with children (and even then, there are plenty of children who could talk circles around you with the lack of logic you’ve displayed thus far), but suffice it to say, there are good things and there are bad things; good things that serve to help other people and promote our survival, and bad things that don’t. And before you accuse me of going all Darwin on you before you drop your “argument” that gay people can’t have kids so it’s bad for survival, understand that that is false, because last I checked, we have things like surrogate pregnancies and, even less complex, adoption. You know, when straight couples abandon their kids and leave someone else to raise them? Yeah, gay people can raise them too, thus they’d still be doing their part in promoting our survival. Studies have also proven that gay couples are, surprise surprise, just as likely to make capable parents as straight people, with the only real difference being slightly elevated levels of stress with the gay parents. You can take three guesses as to why and I’m sure even you could catch why, which only proves that the issue is on the end of the dissenters, not with the people they make out to be some Big Bad that they’re not.

            As for your last question, that depends, really. Sanctimonious Christians have a tendency to hate plenty of things that don’t deserve it, from music to dances, to just about anything that allows regular people to be happy. So it’d understandably be a troublesome question to consider, but only if you’re a dyed-in-the-wool Christian. And before you can start talking about moral disapproval of anything, consider the fact that the Pope of all people has yet to outright condemn his clergy and preachers from touching kids, that many of your preachers do advocate and condone murder and abuse of not only LGBT people, but also of women if they step out of what they treat as the “norm,” disobedient kids, to the point you’ll have them kidnapped and shipped off to faraway locations to be “treated” for everything from simply being gay to having mental disorders, yet treat both as if they’re not conditions but rather as a personal failing, thus making the individual suffer even more, and it’s hardly a surprise many white supremacist groups also tend to identify as Christian as well.

            So if anything, the only people who really need to re-organize their priorities on which behaviors to deem either moral or not are those who insist that they’re the most moral in spite of all the actual evil they regularly ignore or outright support from those of their own camp. That problem lies with religious people, particularly Christians, not anyone else.

            Now that that’s been all explained, please have a seat. Preferably in a place that doesn’t delude your intelligence to the point of oblivion. Because quite honestly, reading that whole thing from you was insulting, and not just because you threw LGBT and people of color under the bus to prove a point (and failed while doing so), just the fact that someone can be so stupid and backwards in their ideology is insulting to me and pretty much any other literate human being.

            Have a good day, sis.

          • Brian

            “in the case of Christian owners of wedding-related businesses, the government is compelling them to make a product they have never made before”

            They never made cakes?

          • You’re writing as jf the bakers were forced to go into business. They weren’t. They went into business voluntarily, which means they agreed to abide by the laws governing businesses. If they don’t like those laws, then they can close shop.

          • BigGaySteve

            Even if they comply it wont appease fascists..”This Christian jeweler agreed to custom-make engagement rings for a lesbian couple, knowing that they were a couple, and treated them politely. But when they found out what he really believed about same-sex marriage, even though the man gave them polite service, and agreed to sell them what they asked for, the lesbian couple balked, and demanded their money back — and the mob threatened the business if they didn’t yield. Which, of course, he did.” http://www.gaypatriot.net/2015/05/22/there-is-no-appeasing-a-fascist-mob/

          • BigGaySteve

            Just like gays complain about the one KY clerk that wont marry them they also seek out bakers that wont make a cake for them. Steven Crowder did a hidden camera video showing every moslem owned bakery he could find refused to bake gay cakes but leftists had no problem with it. If you want a realistic view of this instead of cucked churchianism check out Gay Patriot.

            The definition of bigot is now someone who will not have sex with a guy he knows is HIV+. The goalposts keep moving.

          • Jeanette: “I think homosexual behavior is sinful. But … what someone does privately is their own business.”
            Samantha: “I think it’s sinful for negroes not to be enslaved.”

            Although I do not think the same as Jeanette, this comparison is terrible. To think a particular behaviour (whether it is pig-eating, or homosexual intercourse, or eating on a fast day, or putting an albino elephant to work) is not compatible with your religion, is different from believing that all people of a certain group should be slaves their whole lives. Especially if the one with the religious idea actually believe that people should be free to choose the behaviour you dislike.

          • Beroli

            To think a particular behaviour (whether it is pig-eating, or homosexual
            intercourse, or eating on a fast day, or putting an albino elephant to
            work) is not compatible with your religion

            Stop the bus. Jeanette didn’t say “is not compatible with my religion”; if you think she considers that only members of her particular Christian sect (or even only Christians) have an obligation to stop themselves from being LGBT, that’s a very charitable to her (and correspondingly uncharitable to every LGBT person) reading. But try this way of looking at it.

            Assume that, to the speaker, “black people should be enslaved” is so baseline it’s not even worth debating. No, what’s sinful, is for while people to be abolitionists. They’re free to choose that sinful belief and oppose proper order privately, but they shouldn’t try to actually make any steps toward society upholding it. Does the comparison still seem worthy of immediate dismissal to you? If it does, well, I suspect an irreconcilable disagreement.

          • Yes. You cannot compare a sexual activity some people want to engage in to an act of conscience, done to improve life for a whole class of people.

            I can understand that most of us do not see homosexual activity as sin. But to compare it to philanthropy – to devoting your life to helping others – is indeed an irreconcilable disagreement.

          • Beroli

            “A sexual activity some people want to engage in”? Did you read a single word of the post you’re commenting on? 49 people were just killed for being LGBT, and for you to boil their being LGBT down to “they wanted to engage in a sinful sexual activity,” is nauseatingly cruel. Your spiritual ancestors were just as offended by the idea that forcing freedom on a people manifestly unsuited for it and demanding Good Christians go through a ridiculous pantomime of pretending black people could be their equals, could be compared to genuine philanthropy.

          • I accept that we disagree on Samantha’s comparison. Whatever I wanted to say on that I already said, but I do disagree with your opinion of me. (“Me and my thoughts” is the one subject on which I know more than you.)

            1) I do not boil “being LGBT” down to “wanting to engage in certain sexual activities”. I do, however, regard the sexual activities as the only issue regarding homosexuality a Christian could possibly, even by their proof texts, regard as “Biblically” wrong. Being gay, so my own blog say to Christians, is bigger than that and include positive aspects of which I mention examples there.

            2) While you may disagree with me on many things, you cannot speak for me. You cannot say a certain group is “your (my) spiritual ancestors” – you do not know where I come from, and which parts of the religion they learned my actual ancestors rejected and did not teach their children. Just like someone who grew up a Christian and then became an atheist does not spiritually descend from Christians (his spirituality does not come from Christianity), I reject any notion that I spiritually descend from pro-slavery people. You probably assume I descend from people in the US who held slaves, but I am from Africa.

            PS: I notice there is a question in your last paragraph, but I do not get it. It is based on quoting a partial sentence which is not in the thing you respond to, so I don’t know what you ask.

          • Beroli

            I do not boil “being LGBT” down to “wanting to engage in certain sexual activities”.

            And yet you said it.

            I do, however, regard the sexual activities as the only issue regarding
            homosexuality a Christian could possibly, even by their proof texts,
            regard as “Biblically” wrong.

            Do you know the term “steelmanning”? Or alternatively “strawcastling”? Because that’s what you’re doing here: Their argument (which–again, did you read the post?–includes saying that a bisexual woman in a monogamous marriage to a man is an “abomination”) doesn’t make any sense, so you translate it into one that you consider more compatible with the Bible*, and get defensive on behalf of the argument you attributed to them.

            *Again: Do you think being LGBT is a sin? Preferably not quietly dropping the T?

          • I did not know the term “steelmanning”/ “strawcastling”, before looking it up. But I believe I reacted to a true form of the argument I reacted to. The disagreement I had is on the comparison between “homosexual behaviour” and “negroes not to be enslaved.”

            I read the post, and did not defend the (ridiculous) position “a bisexual woman in a monogamous marriage to a man is an “abomination”. I did not even defend Jeanette’s ” “I think homosexual behavior is sinful.” Nor would I, from my current understanding.

            ” you translate it into one that you consider more compatible with the Bible”

            I did not translate the “bisexual in monogamous marriage” argument into anything, I did not respond to that argument.

            Do you think being LGBT is a sin? Preferably not quietly dropping the T?

            No.

            I feel that your last two posts to me completely misunderstood what I said. But I appreciate you asking questions – that is how things get sorted out.

          • Beroli

            I think I just realized something. You’re not looking at connections, are you? You’re treating every new drive-by poster here as a spherical poster in a vacuum, so that Jeanette’s long comment has nothing to do with Laurie’s comments, nothing to do with any parts of the blog post that she didn’t specifically quote, nothing to do with that fellow who just tried to clobber Sam with one of the clobber verses. Do you see a connection between nightclub shootings and suicide rates, and a pastor standing at the pulpit and talking about “homosexual behavior” being a sin? Because that’s what Sam’s talking about, very explicitly–systems. If you don’t agree with the post’s premise, logically you’re not likely to agree with anything that follows from it.

          • Beroli, are you a man? Because it sure sounds like you are mansplaining. (Which is part of sexism, also a system of oppression.)

            If you say systems of oppression is important, we agree.
            If, however, you tell me that I am not looking at connections, you make assumptions about my mind. You do not know me. You do not know my 3 anti-oppressive-systems blogs, or my anti-oppression entries on my two general blogs in two different languages. But instead of apologizing for your previous false assumptions about me and my “spiritual ancestors”, you assume again.

            For that matter, I could have made assumptions about you, but I think we are better off being charitable than assuming the worst of each other, don’t you agree?

          • Beroli

            I asked you two questions in the comment you’re responding to (neither of which you directly replied to, though since they seem to have offended you I gather the answer is “no” at least to the first). If you felt like I was trying to convince you of anything, I apologize for that.

            In response to your earlier reference to your blogs and my inferring that you thought I should read them, I did look for what you had linked through your profile. I am afraid that, while I appreciate your commitment to gender equality, and while my reading was far from exhaustive, on other subjects I am more disturbed than impressed. Defending the recent anti-trans bills on the basis that you think the people behind them really are legitimately and validly afraid of bathroom predators–I’m only a believer in giving the benefit of the doubt when I see doubt.

          • I do not want to respond to your questions any more, as you use whatever I say, and whatever you think I say, to cast aspersions on me. For one thing, I have not, on any of my blogs, defended any bills about bathrooms. I do not even know what American bills say. Nor do I assume anything about the motives of the people making them, but I do know what I think is good for biological women, lesbian or straight. (And please, do not use the words “what is good for women” to make assumptions of what I think of trans people – no, I do not believe trans people should all use the bathroom of their AMAB sex, nor do I call trans people predators. But I don’t even want to explain – you are looking for excuses to believe the worst.)

            Do not even try to discuss me any more. You make false assumption after false assumption.

          • I don’t often downvote comments. But this is for the 2 lies that I (1) “defend[ed] anti-trans bills” (2) “on the basis that [I] think the people behind them really are legitimately and validly afraid of bathroom predators”.

          • Beroli

            And I hate to bring this here, but since you didn’t stick to not wanting to talk anymore:

            This isn’t specifically what I mentioned earlier, but it is considerably more comprehensive, in my opinion, so I’m quoting it. Let me add, also, that I wouldn’t go to look at someone’s blog and quote things from it here had the blogger not challenged me–in this case twice–to look at the blog.

            In short: The view that male and female is not about gender roles is on the opposite end of the spectrum from the transgender activist’s message. For
            transgender activists, male and female is not proven by bodies, but shown in gender (roles). For complementarians, male and female is about both bodies and gender roles. For Christian egalitarians like me, male and female is not about gender roles2. I (I may not speak for all egals) define male and female by biology. We could say that complementarians and transgender people agree on gender, and disagree on sex, as a basis for male and female. Egals disagree with both groups on gender, but – when they are like me – use “men” and “women” to refer to biological sexes.

            So:
            No, Owen Strachan, egalitarianism does not put anyone in a tension regarding homosexuality and transgenderism. Homosexual intercourse and women-limiting gender roles are unrelated, as far as Biblical explanation go. The relation between accepting transgenderism and women-limiting gender roles is that the messages of transgender activists reinforces those roles.

            From the article https://biblicalpersonhood.wordpress.com/2015/11/28/why-egalitarianism-is-not-a-slippery-slope-to-endorsing-homosexuality-part-2/ . Anyone can look at it and see that I am not distorting what it says and that I have been arguing with someone who, at least as of November of last year, considered it both true and positive that one can believe in gender equality without being any more likely to be pro-LGBT, and who directly quoted “a vagina does not make you a woman” to assert its wrongness.

            Sorry, Samantha. I’ll disengage entirely from Ms. Faurie now.

          • You do not apologies for your lie on bathroom bills, but bring up other things instead.

            “considered it both true and positive that one can believe in gender equality without being any more likely to be pro-LGBT”

            No – I said that they are unrelated “as far as Bible explanation go”.It does say we disagree with trans people on what gender means, but have room for people who does not live within societal gender roles:

            But egalitarians could more easily accept people whose personalities and talents does not fit into the gendered boxes Strachan & Co. sets for men and women. Thus, they have more room in their communities for Christians for whom gender expectations is hard to conform to (at least some of which are attracted to their own sex). And if knowing and loving people, while you both love Christ together, causes you to treat people differently, that is great.

            What I quoted is not only a part of the article, but the concluding sentence, the take-away I want people to have. And this is also one of my articles (from a blog not devoted to oppression, but which sometimes mention it:
            https://christianrethinker.wordpress.com/2015/08/01/i-wish-christians-would-stop-calling-homosexuality-a-sin/
            I tell the Christian world to think differently about homosexuality. That is just one example of my writings.

          • I like your last sentence, of your quoted article. You are referring to LGBT people, even if other Christians do not agree with them?

          • Yes.

          • The article you quote and misunderstand is written to an audience likely to be negative about gays and women, who will not instantly transform by being insulted. But I tried to subtly suggest that even though the texts on the two topics are unrelated, egals should be influenced positively towards them, and it is good if they are.

          • So…you are in favor of trans people using the bathroom they feel comfortable in? I’m trying to understand you here.
            In case you aren’t–you know that transwomen literally get attacked in men’s rooms, right? And that you/we/ciswomen have been using the bathroom with transwomen for decades now, and there aren’t a rash of men dressing as transwomen in order to rape ciswomen–right? Since there ARE attacks on transwomen, and not on ciswomen, I think transwomen’s safety is far more important than “our” comfort (though I wouldn’t be uncomfortable).

          • “Since there ARE attacks on transwomen, and not on ciswomen”

            Hhhmmm. The only way to assume attacks on trans, but not ciswomen (I am agender), but won’t complain that you left me out) is by double standards:

            Left-wing standards for cis women: Prove that (1)self-proclaimed transwomen (2)entered female private spaces (3) in an area where they could do so by law (4) in women’s clothes (5) and committing sexual assault – no other form of assault or voyeurism (6) and was found guilty by the law (7) to a statistically significant degree.

            Left-wing standards for transwomen: “You say you were assaulted in a bathroom? We believe you.”

            (If you really want to know my opinion on trans people and spaces assigned by sex, ask me on my own blog Christianrethinker at WordPress. My opinion is non-binary, but includes being perfectly fine with all the “passing” trans women who have used women’s spaces for years.)

          • That’s not what mansplaining is. Mansplaining is when a man talks about a woman’s experience in such a way that assumes that he knows more about that experience than a woman would by virtue of Men Know All Because They Are Men.

            It’s a specific term for a specific action, and not appropriate to throw around.

          • I know what mansplaining is. He was talking about my mind and what I was noticing: “You’re not looking at connections, are you? You’re treating every new drive-by poster here as a spherical poster in a vacuum”, and calling a group my spiritual ancestors – assuming he knows where I come from with my ideas.

          • I must say I am glad that you at least understand that being gay is not a choice, and therefore not a sin. But please see my other comments to you.
            No matter which way you slice your beliefs, my love is from the devil, and yours is from God. My love is inferior to yours, my feelings are not as valid and worthy as yours, and God plays favorites against me. Do you expect me and others not to feel inferior, with those beliefs? We sure are TREATED like we are inferior! Like I said, actions speak louder than words.

          • You and I know you are not just sex, your love is not just sex. But the only way people in church will know that, is to start by caring about you. Only when they start to see LGBT people as just people, will they rethink their understanding of gay sexuality. Therefore, I have written articles whereby I do not tell the church: “Hey! Change your view of gay sex, now!” Instead, the articles say: “Learn to care about gays as people, do not just think of them in terms of sex.”

            I am shocked at your idea that I allegedly find your love from the devil, or inferior. I do not even have romantic love though I want it, so I can’t compare mine to yours and find it inferior. No, God does not play favourites against either you or me, for you being gay or for giving me a mind that works differently (autistic).

          • Actions speak louder than words. You focus more on our activities, than on us as people. And we are hurt as people–not as people who have sex!

          • BigGaySteve

            Less than 1% of White US households owned slaves, while 50% of US jewish households owned slaves. Look up Farrakhan’s research on the matter.

          • You forget that this “sexual activity” is also an act of LOVE to some of us! Don’t over-sexualize us, and deny our very real and valid feelings!

          • BigGaySteve

            I am pretty sure there is no love going on in New Orleans grave yards. Gays in San Jose are now suing for the right to have public sex.

          • Also remember that people literally kill themselves for being gay. We don’t choose to be gay. We can choose, like anyone else, to find love and happiness, or not–but straight people are not punished for finding love and happiness, and neither should we be punished for it!

          • BigGaySteve

            Maybe that’s why so many gays are in favor of importing more 3rd world moslems.

          • larrymotuz

            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
            Yes!

          • Matt

            Samantha, I hope you don’t view this as hateful, but I think my issue with this is the word “think”. Either homosexuality is sinful or it isn’t… Either an unenslaved negro is sinful or it isn’t… Ultimately, it has nothing to do with us or our opinions and everything to do with God to make the decision on what is sinful and what isn’t.

            Now, where I do agree with you is that hate is never the answer. I think your post adequately clarifies this. Ultimately, even if I think homosexuality is sinful (due to my interpretation of scripture), is it my place to force my opinion on you? Is it my job to let you know that God hates your homosexuality? I don’t think so… I’d love to hear your thoughts on this!

          • I would say that unless a person is harming someone else, it is almost never your job to let someone know God hates their X. And it certainly never your place to force your opinion on someone else. If God hates something badly enough, then let God handle it.

            Whether it’s your place or job to force your opinion of what God thinks about X falls on this phrase “my interpretation of scripture.” Even if you are absolutely certain your interpretation is correct, it is still your interpretation. And you’re not God. I would hate to have to answer to God for making someone’s life more miserable because I took it upon myself to tell someone God hates X, only to find out God doesn’t really hate X. If what a person is doing does not demonstrably harm someone else (where I can at least point to something objective), we should all be humble enough to acknowledge our interpretation of scripture could be wrong.

          • Matt

            Definitely agreed with your post Timothy. It reminds me of Pacal’s wager. If I show love to homosexuals (whether or not homosexuality is seen to be right or wrong by God), I lose nothing. However, if I show hatred towards homosexuals and God is fine with it, then I’m going to be in major trouble…

            I would also add that any correction/spurring on to righteousness should be done only by those who are close to the person. If I see some random guy through my window watching something that would incite lust, it is a lot different than if a friend of mine comes to me and tells me he is struggling with lust.

            Unfortunately, the same thing is true of hatred. If I see some random guy posting hateful things online and I correct him about it, most likely it won’t go well. However, if I know the guy and can have a good conversation about it with him, most likely we can find some common ground.

          • Definitely agreed with your post Timothy. It reminds me of Pacal’s wager. If I show love to homosexuals (whether or not homosexuality is seen to be right or wrong by God), I lose nothing. However, if I show hatred towards homosexuals and God is fine with it, then I’m going to be in major trouble…
            —-
            I suppose it could be put that way. I prefer to look at it in terms of simple humility. Even if I’m 99.99% sure I’ve got it right, there is still always a chance I got it wrong. My duty then is to err on the side of love.
            ====

            I would also add that any correction/spurring on to righteousness should be done only by those who are close to the person. If I see some random guy through my window watching something that would incite lust, it is a lot different than if a friend of mine comes to me and tells me he is struggling with lust.
            —-
            I did think about noting there is a possible exception when it comes to like-minded persons in the same community of believers, akin to your “those who are close to the person.” I decided against at the time because I didn’t want to over-complicate the post. But even here, I would still exercise extreme caution. For all I know, the person is struggling, and correcting/spurring on to righteousness will do more harm than good. If they’re already struggling, the last thing they need is someone else coming down on them. I think the only time correcting/spurring on to righteousness may be useful is if the person is clearly ignorant. Otherwise, a better way would be to ask something like, “Is there something you need to talk about?” or “Do you need help?” or something similar.

            Certainly, if a person is struggling with something and they come to you, then they are inviting you to help them. To me, that means they obviously already know the standard and correcting/spurring to righteousness is probably not something they actually need. Encouragement that they can overcome, yes. Help to do it, yes. Empathy, yes. Coming down on them some more, no.
            ====

            Unfortunately, the same thing is true of hatred. If I see some random guy posting hateful things online and I correct him about it, most likely it won’t go well. However, if I know the guy and can have a good conversation about it with him, most likely we can find some common ground.
            —-
            Some random guy posting hateful things online is something I’m more likely to go ahead and jump in on. In my view, such people are causing demonstrable harm, if no other reason than they are contributing to a climate of hate that will eventually lead to real violence. Even if it doesn’t go well (and I no illusions about the likelihood of changing their minds), I am letting the haters’ target(s) know that they are not alone, that someone has their back. Moreover, interested but undecided lurkers are fed information as well. That’s a trade-off I’ll take any day.

          • There’s a lot of good things about your beliefs there. Just remember that you can love someone, and still accidentally hurt them, very deeply.

        • At one time we had the ability in this country to freely associate. All the push is coming from the LGBT side and some are pushing back.

          Right, it was the 1950s in Selma

        • Dom Saunders

          And crap like this is why you’re getting blocked. Save your stupidity for your pastor.

        • larrymotuz

          No one is forcing you to Associate.

          But they are forcing you to be ethical whether you want to or not.

          Ethics is about living peacefully together. If you can’t do that, then your morality betrays the very humanity you share with others.

        • Kathleen Margaret Schwab

          All the push is coming from the LGBT side? You don’t realize what you are saying. All of society pushes LGBT people to hide who they are, or face consequences. It is such a ubiquitous push that many perhaps don’t realize it is there. But LGBT people have historically been very careful of being identified as such because they face losing a job, a family, a church, standing in society, access to their children, ect, ect. Besides this, they fear personal violence. I do not know of any LGBT people killing or harming anyone, or ruining anyone’s livelihood or personal life in their quest to be safe and respected.
          Most of the pushing is coming from one side, but not the side you think.

        • BigGaySteve

          As long as one gay cake lay unbaked or one man in a dress is barred from the littler girls bath room the leftists fight against the 0.001% can wait. Gay Patriot covers realistic concerns. In common core physics the pendulum never swings back.

      • Kevin

        I found a 6) homosexual practices(and only the practices) are sinful, but not the attraction. Since this is a religious belief, it’s not the government’s job to CRAM it down people’s throats. Plus, LGBT shouldn’t be marginalized.
        This is what I read is the viewpoint of Lord Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, Chief Rabbi In the UK. Rabbi Shmuley, another Orthodox rabbi, has pointed out that there are 613 mitzvot(commandments) in the Torah, and we shouldn’t make a big deal out of people who don’t observe this particular “clobber” mitzvah, but realize they could be observing other mitzvot.
        Does this scream NOT LOVING, or say it?

        • Beroli

          At that point, I don’t know. I’d try to be supportive of the position of any actually impacted (that is, LGBT) person who accepted it or who was offended by it. If (as I’ve sometimes seen happen with similar borderline cases) two or more LGBT people started arguing over whether it was supportive or offensive, I’d stay out of it.

          • I’d go with trying not to hurt people, even if only some LGBT people were hurt by it.

        • KellyLynne

          I think that depends a lot on whether they’re aware that that theology drives gay kids to suicide. And what their reaction to that fact is.

      • Even when I did believe that gay intercourse is wrong, I would never have agreed with any of those 5 points. (Except in the general sense of “all have sinned” in which people, straight or gay or asexual, are sinners in some way.)

        I believed LGB people, like everyone else, has a propensity for sinning (not the same as being a sinner). I knew most unmarried straight people are not celibate, so I also believed most LGB people are not either.

        A gay sexually active person, in my mind, was no more of a sinner than a straight person sleeping with someone (s)he is not married to. And a celibate gay is not a sinner in any sense a celibate straight person is not.

        Without singling out gay people in any way, I still believe it is possible to think people are sinning, and to love them. Really love them, as in having their best interests at heart, caring about them, listening, liking them in many ways, encouraging them, being just towards them – while there is one thing about them you strongly disagree with. Too few people do it, and I am sorry for every time I could have spoken against the unloving behaviour, and did not. But I do not believe that it is impossible to love while disagreeing with a behaviour.

        • J.B.

          I know I’m late responding but another maybe less charged example would be: you (Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Atheist) do not believe what I a Christian do. Believe what you want in your own home but I will be internally judging you.

          Many of us strive to take the stance: believe what you want. It has meaning for you and I would like to hear more about your experience and hopefully share in the positives.

          I used to be uncomfortable with gayness, so I get that. In my case getting comfortable with the concept required meeting several people who were out and proud and even more just getting comfortable in my own skin. In other words, it was about me.

        • And yet…the thing you “strongly disagree with” about us, is not just sex. In many cases, it’s love–both an act of love, and the love itself.

          And it very much hurts, especially, coming from someone who is married, and presumably sexually active–or someday plans to be.
          There is nothing loving about “God plays favorites, and you’re not it,” or, “Do as I say, not as I do.” And that is the underlying message, whether you want it to be, or not.

          There’s nothing loving about “You must be alone for the rest of your life. Well, I’m going to go have sex with my husband now! I’m so glad *I* can find love!”

          Jesus did not like those who put heavy burdens on others, and didn’t lift a finger to carry those burdens themselves.

          We KNOW that while you hold that theology, you are secretly glad that you are not us, and therefore, don’t have to actually live it.

          • I am sorry you are hurt, by people who believe that even when you give love you are doing something bad. I know how it feels. Happens to me all the time. In my case, because my mind works on a different “operating system” (Aspergers) people constantly read bad things into my words. You see, my friendly words are not the words another friendly person will say. So people read something bad in it which I have not said either, nor meant. I don’t say this to be pitied, but just to help you understand. Perhaps you were not attacked again, by me. Perhaps in this case, I accidently said something triggering, in which case I am sorry.

            You were also triggering: About finding love, the worst thing about being autistic is wanting a partner (and children) and accepting it will most likely never happen. Your assumption that I am married rubbed in what I miss.

            I want people to find love – gay people included. I do not place that burden on you, or hold the theology you think I do. Nor do I have in life what you think I do.

            (On here, I am torn between a desire to explain – if people were hurt by things they read in my words, explaining may help them to feel better, and to just disappear – they are hating me for things I have not meant, I don’t need this hate. )

    • KellyLynne

      It’s going to depend on the individual LGBT person. To me, I think it’s about a basic respect for the person, which includes believing they’re a better witness to their own experience than you are, and acknowledging that they have prayed and thought about the issue. So, trotting out the 7 clobber verses as if they haven’t ever heard them before is not respectful.

      When I was much more of a fundamentalist than I am now and believed it was a sin to be gay, I think the thing that kept my gay friends from smacking me upside the head is that I didn’t think I had all the answers (at least not on that issue–I was in my 20s at the time, so there were certainly things I was a know-it-all about), and I didn’t expect people who didn’t share my beliefs to live by them. I was wrong, and I said some dumb things, but I *hope* I wasn’t hateful.

      • I really relate to this, Kelly.

        I used to be a part of a similar circle, and I hope to God I wasn’t as hateful…but I definitely think I could have been at times. Group think and pressure to believe alike is so strong in certain conservative communities, and you’re essentially threatened with being ostracized if /just one/ part of your theology doesn’t measure up.

        Anyway, I’m so thankful that I have been able to be rid of my blind spots in this area, and I’m hoping that it doesn’t take such a horrific tragedy to get Christian’s attentions in the future…that they’d begin to see something they see as harmless as “not attending a friends wedding” as the seed of hate that contributes to acts of violence like the shooting at Pulse.

        • KellyLynne

          Yeah, I hope so too. Though, I think for a lot of people, even this awful tragedy hasn’t been enough. They want to blame it on Islam rather than on homophobia.

          • BigGaySteve

            An afghani moslem walks into a gay bar calling 911 to pledge himself to IS IS, and you want to blame STR8 white church going Christian men. Under islam killing infidels not only absolves all sin but those you kill will be your slaves in the afterlife. This is why so many moslems party it up before they blow.

    • I guess that depends largely on what they think “disagreeing” looks like. If it’s actively opposing my civil rights or barring me from full church membership … nope. We’re just never going to be ok, and they don’t get to say that their “disagreement” is anything but bigotry.

      • Thanks for this response. And just to be clear, I totally agree with you.

      • Jackalope

        After I read this (“this” = this specific comment that I’m responding to, not the article), I was wondering what you would say about someone who didn’t do that sort of disagreeing. I’m thinking of a friend of mine who is a moderately conservative pastor who believes that a same-sex romantic relationship is wrong, but has said things in his sermons like, “Yes, of COURSE we need to vote against LGBTQ discrimination,” or “I believe that the legal right to marry should be extended to someone wanting a same-sex marriage, even if I disagree with it.” (I of course don’t know how he actually voted when it came up in our state, but given that he made these statements in a very public way, I tend to think he actually meant it.) How would you feel about that? I’ve had disagreements and discussions with him on this topic, but I’ve found him much less threatening than most conservatives because of this.

        • KellyLynne

          I like your pastor. Disagree with his thoughts on sin, but I like him. I think that if all the Christians saying “of course we don’t hate you” were like that, it would be believable.

          I still think it’s hugely important to *not* condemn a key part of someone’s identity as a sin. Let’s not downplay the fact that that can and does drive LGBT people to suicide. And I 100% support an LGBT person saying, “Yeah, it’s nice that you want me to have equal rights, but you still see me as less than, so I want nothing to do with you.” That’s not poison that I’m at any risk of absorbing, I don’t think (and I recognize that as a privilege), but a lot of people are. Or just don’t have time and energy for someone who views their relationship or potential relationship as wrong.

          For me personally, if this pastor were my friend, I’d probably want to keep him as a friend. I wouldn’t go to, or give money to his church, and if I had kids, I’d set a firm boundary that he doesn’t get to tell them that being gay is a sin, because the risk of effing them up is just too great.

          I’m bi, but I pass as straight because I’ve never dated women & I’m married to a guy. I think if I were married to a woman, and my real-life, deeply loving and committed relationship that has kept me sane, were viewed as a sin, then this would be someone I couldn’t be friends with.

          • That’s interesting. I’m bi and single, and I feel very hurt by these things. Especially when the person saying them doesn’t want to listen to me, but expects me to listen to them.

          • KellyLynne

            It’s totally reasonable to be hurt by that. It’s someone saying that who you are is wrong. And, regardless of the issue, if the person wouldn’t listen to me but expected me to listen to them, I’d be upset.

        • Kevin

          I’m sure he’s taken heat and been accused of “compromise”! A same-sex couple at Hillsong got married last year. The pastor has traditional views, but he decided to keep the couple on board. He got accused of compromise. Some of my friends(who have traditional views) were talking about it, since it had come up in church and Hillsong got denounced. My friends felt that even if you think what this couple did is sin, it’s wrong to utterly reject them and have nothing to do with them. (Around the same time someone talked behind my back against me for talking to bisexual feminists on Twitter.)

          • Dom Saunders

            When Christians start accusing people of “compromising,” as if that’s the worst thing anyone can do, that should be a sign telling them they need to rethink their priorities if they’re going to keep claiming they’re morally superior to everyone else.

          • KellyLynne

            Funny how the biblical literalism goes away on the topic of gossip, even though that’s more clear cut than any prohibition against same-sex anything. Seriously, if someone has time to sling mud over who you *talk to,* they need a better hobby.

    • I’ve thought of something that I think might be valuable:

      No person with a conscience today could even imagine condoning a plantation owner saying “Well, I disagree with you, slave. The Bible clearly teaches that I’m perfectly within my rights to own you.” It boggles the imagination, but that idea was commonplace. The vast majority of Christians for dozens upon dozens of years fully endorsed and practiced slavery as their God-sanctioned, God-given right.

      It’s horrific that, today, the same “biblical” support is used to oppress LGBT rights in both civic and religious areas. It’s horrific that our culture condones their attitude, and says that my assertion of their bigotry is the one that’s inappropriate, rude, impolite, out of place, or “political correctness.” I don’t have to “agree to disagree” with someone who believes they have the authority to deny me my rights as a human being.

      • Thanks. That is actually a really great way of expressing what I’ve been feeling as well. It’s often difficult to know how to respond to much of the Christian fragility I’ve been experiencing this week.

        • BigGaySteve

          Farrakhan showed that less than 1% of white households owned slaves but 50% of jewish households owned them. Jews also owned the slave boats & auctions which closed on jewish holidays. So no it wouldn’t be the bible slave owners quoted

      • BigGaySteve

        Lewis Farrakhan showed that less than 1% of white households owned slaves but 50% of jewish households owned them. Jews also owned the slave boats & auctions which closed on jewish holidays. So no it wouldn’t be the bible slave owners quoted.

    • Plutosdad

      The problem is every single objection was raised in the past against women, against black people, against asian immigrants, and against eastern and southern european immigrants. It’s just a long chain of bigotry, and I’m tired of letting people off the hook in order to make them feel comfortable.

      Instead stop them every time they speak up. Telling them they are wrong and it won’t be tolerated.

      Why? Because from studies I’ve read the ONLY thing that changes people’s minds is becoming friends with the “Other” class, and realizing “they are just like me”. Whether gay, black, woman, etc. No arguments in the world will change minds. And the only way they’ll realize they know gay people is if we create an environment where gay people feel safe to come out. And that will only happen when we do not tolerate anti LGBT speech.

      So. I think you shouldn’t even be pursuing that entire avenue or worry about building bridges.

      • flipperman75

        Ugh. I’ve tried this tactic. Doesn’t work. They get so offended when told they are hateful.

        “But I love you so much! That’s completely unrelated to the fact that I vote against you having basic human rights and think you’re dangerous to my children. I still love you! Have a big hug, see how much I love you! Oh but don’t hug my kid. Just me.”

        And then they turn it around. “How dare you say it’s hateful! You telling me it’s hateful is what’s really hateful! How can you tell me to be tolerant when you are so intolerant of my intolerance? You’re persecuting me for my dearly held mythical beliefs!”

        I don’t even bother anymore.

        • KellyLynne

          Ouch. “Don’t hug my kid”? I’m sorry they claim to love you, while being so passive aggressive and nasty. They probably think they really do love you, but what they actually love is the straight version of you that only exists in their heads, not the real you.

        • Kevin

          If you’re feeling really snarky, tell them part of the price of freedom is offense. (I said something like that when a couple of coworkers got offended due to depictions of LGBT on an award show.[The one guy said he doesn’t want his kid exposed to it.] I don’t think they liked it very much; they probably merely quoted the clobber passages. When I did stuff like this I often got labeled “liberal”, which in this circle was like Jesus being accused of casting out demons by Satan.)

          • Dom Saunders

            Pretty sure he doesn’t bat an eye to the countless amounts of heterosexual displays on television though, at least as long as it’s kid-friendly. Seriously, your coworkers may as well say they don’t want their kids exposed to the fact people exist. They’d sound just as stupid.

          • Kevin

            And he’d probably get mad if you said that and end the conversation(if I said it, he’d probably accuse me of trying to stir something up, even if it were in response to something he said). One thing he lacks is common sense. He thinks Salon is an anti-Christian site, he believes a lot of conspiracy theories(his wife is even worse), he has more of a persecution complex than the ones we know — he thinks people he knows are ganging up on him, even when he’s a jerk.

          • Dom Saunders

            Sounds like quite the piece of work. But hey, hypocrisy is as hypocrisy does. I’m just glad I don’t have to work with anyone like that because they’d hate me real quick. Entertaining BS is just something I can’t do.

        • I always say, “If you want me to believe you, when you say you don’t hate me, then you have to believe me, when I say I don’t hate you.” That usually stops them. They can’t play the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense!

        • I tell them that if they want me to believe them, when they say they don’t hate me, that they have to believe me, when I say I don’t hate them. They’re too old for the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense!

        • Mitch

          Oh give me a fucking break. I’m tired of your side claiming that your political stance is all high and mighty and truly stands for human rights, and that all the Christians are evil because of how they vote.

          People disagree on issues. People vote based on these disagreements. You don’t get to just claim that you are wonderful and I am disgusting because I vote one way and you vote another. I’m sorry, but there are some fucked up opinions that liberal people hold and factor into their voting, but I don’t go around crying that they are ‘forcing their views on me’ It’s the way democracy works. GET OVER IT.

      • I totally agree with this. So maybe the key to disagreement is holding a belief privately and only sharing it when asked rather than feeling a compulsion to change other people’s beliefs? Especially if the privately held belief does not promote equality…

        Thanks for your insight. I grew up in a fairly conservative circle, still love many of my friends from that circle, and want to find ways to keep those relationships if possible.

        • Kevin

          I like your thoughts — I, too, grew up in a quite conservative Christian, insular environment. At one point I came to view myself as one of the guys in the cave in Plato’s allegory. Fast forward: after getting a smartphone, I joined Twitter mainly to broaden myself beyond my bubble, something I’d long wanted to do. That’s a major reason I’m here; the whole us vs them mentalities got old fast. (My interest in other cultures no doubt made it easier to do this!)

      • “…the ONLY thing that changes people’s minds is becoming friends with the “Other” class, and realizing “they are just like me”.” …
        “…do not tolerate anti LGBT speech.
        So. I think you shouldn’t even be pursuing that entire avenue or worry about building bridges.”

        “Becoming friends is the solution.” “Do not be tolerant and do not build bridges.” Uuhhmm, I may be autistic and not great at the friend-making thing, but even I know not being tolerant and not building bridges is not the way to make friends.

        • KellyLynne

          I don’t think it’s the job of LGBTQ people to go out of their way to make friends with people whose words and actions harm them.

        • Tolerating their anti-LGBTQ speech is not the same as tolerating or befriending them. That said, I agree with KellyLynne completely; it’s not our job to befriend people who hurt us. I myself do not, because I have to take care of myself, first. I’ve been hurt too much by well-meaning, loving people like you!

      • BigGaySteve

        Actually most people believe in equality until they meet enough non Asian minorities that they realize they never meet one as smart (((as seen on TV))). In San Francisco queens clutched their pearls when the San Fran Gate published the demographics of bashings & crime.

    • Best way I can think of would be along the lines of, “I disagree, but you’ll have to ask to find out. You’ll never be able to tell from how I treat you.”

      Which admittedly sounds great, but might be a challenge when it comes to practical matters at times, like marriage equality.

      • Kevin

        The one way I can see it working out with marriage equality is recognizing that, though one may consider it wrong, other people have a right to disagree and act accordingly. (This is the approach of Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who told Christians to accept the SSM ruling, though the governor himself opposes it.)

    • larrymotuz

      Treat them with dignity and respect. If they do not respond in kind, then say “Bye”.

      But always call a spade a spade, and a WMD as a WMD.

    • I would tell them to respect my, and LGBT people’s, relationship with God, just as you respect theirs. And if they do something that crosses the line and seems disrespectful, to tell them so.

    • BigGaySteve

      Check out Gay Patriot if you want honest answers to this question instead of churchian cuck answers.

  • Plutosdad

    Excellent article. I think the only good thing to come out of this tragedy is LGBTQ people and allies are finally telling anti LGBT politicians, pundits, and preachers that yes, you are anit LGBT PEOPLE not just laws, that you can’t condone bullying (i.e. violence) among children, say “if I saw one of those in the bathroom i’d do xxx” , fight against anti-rape and anti-bullying laws and rules, and foster an environment of increasing hatred, and then wash their hands of violence and say “but I’m not the one committing violence I’m just stating my opinion”.

    Those are weasel words that unethical dishonest people use. Yes their speech is protected by law as long as they don’t actually command someone to commit violence. BUT we’re not talking about law, we’re talking about right and wrong, and taking responsibility for our actions, which includes what we say.

    • BigGaySteve

      The best thing that came out of this is that Pink Pistols quadrupled its membership. People are starting to accept reality.

  • wanderer

    That whole “it’s not hate, it’s a disagreement” thing I find incredibly disingenuous.
    Do those same people struggle so much with disagreeing with other people’s lifestyles when they have a friend or family member who is greedy or covetous or a gossiper?
    If they do, then how do they handle THAT situation? Do they endeavor to stop those people from having the same civil rights? Do they “gag” at that person’s life? I think not.
    Anyone who says they “disagree” with homosexuality (and I’m sorry, but stop with everyone supposedly having a plethora of gay friends and family who they love dearly while disagreeing) cannot possibly truly be trying to understand. If they were really trying, they would know that gay people are walking in shoes straight people can only try to empathize with, but will never know from experience.
    And that alone should make them stop talking and just listen.
    THAT is what love looks like to me. Listen. Look in people’s eyes and listen. Stop pretending you already know.

    • Kevin

      Concerning the same disgust at friends/family members who are greedy, covetous, or gossips, sometimes they are the ones like that! (Someone got an attitude due to my talking with bisexual feminists on Twitter, claiming demons will cause me to want to wear a dress — the guy who said this has a reputation for dishonesty; he actually told lies about a friend of mine!)
      I think people WILL care about the things you listed if 1) they were burned by the greedy, covetous, gossips; 2) aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid.

  • Jennifer Gates

    Thank you. I don’t know if I’ve ever commented before, but I have been reading your posts for a while now, and I so appreciate your voice. I’m bi/pansexual, cis, white, and Christian. I came out of a fundamental background, too. The only family to reach out to me since Pulse has done so to tell me my pain is wrong, because I pointed out that our culture made the gunman. Just, thank you for this.

    • Jessica G

      Are you and I twins that were separated at birth?!:)Seriously same story here lady. Light and love<3

  • Mackenzie Murley

    To me it makes sense, that disagreement and hatred don’t have to be the same thing. The problem is that many people actually do strongly dislike/”hate” people they disagree with, because they are either scared of people different than they are, or full of pride and self-righteousness. I don’t think people must all have the same opinion… but they could try to educate themselves on opinions different than their own, and remember that they aren’t rulers of the universe and don’t have everything figured out (in other words, be humble!). Sometimes, people are too eager to spout off their own opinion, without stopping to listen to what other people have to say.

  • Grasshopper

    Your opening story reminds me of when I was in 4th grade and we were doing a “get to know you” kind of assignment. We were each given a chart with the headings “love”, “like”, “dislike”, and “hate” and we had to list things that fit those categories for each of us. I raised my hand and whispered to my teacher that I couldn’t finish the assignment because I wasn’t allowed to use the word hate. We agreed that I could cross out “hate” and write “strongly dislike” instead.

    I really appreciate your thoughts on this topic – it’s something I’ve been thinking a lot about the past two days. I’m still wondering how the “Side A”/”Side B” Christians you mentioned at the GCN or GCC (not quite sure which the acronym was) fits into this. It’s one thing to tell straight people that their interpretation of scripture is harmful to the LGBT community and another to tell gay people that they’re hurting themselves, I guess. I’ll have to think about this more.

    • spacegal2003

      I think the whole Side A / Side B debate shows that it is possible to affirm LGBTQ persons as created in the image of God, whole, and fully able to participate in worship communities, and still disagree about whether or not it is moral to marry someone of the same gender. It counters the narrative that LGBTQ people insist that everyone agree with them.

      The difficulty comes when people try to make laws that follow their own interpretations of the Bible rather than deciding that the laws need to be written for everyone in society. I say this all the time – making something legal does not make it moral. There seems to be this fear that making something legal would somehow indicate that society approved of it. Adultery is legal, and that is doing much more harm to modern marriages than other people wanting to also get married.

      • Grasshopper

        That’s what I’m grappling with though. Until this point in my life, I believed it was possible to “hate the sin, love the sinner” (AKA Side B) even though I personally no longer believed same-sex sex and marriage were sins. The Orlando shooting has changed my perspective such that I think “hate the sin, love the sinner” is in and of itself harmful. I thought maybe it was just because the reactions I’m seeing aren’t successfully “loving the sinner”, but I think it’s more than that. I’m not even talking about the legality. I’m saying that within the church and as a culture, it’s harmful to call any aspect of being LGBTQIA immoral. I’m struggling to put it into words why but I found this post helpful.

        • I think you’ve expressed yourself quite well. “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is a perfectly good maxim, But like all proverbs, they really shouldn’t be applied in all situations. There are limits, and in the case of homosexuality, if it be considered a sin (FTR, I don’t consider it so, either), we’ve reached the limit.

          There is a certain sense we can love the thief and hate the theft. This is because stealing is not what someone is, but something they do. It is easy to separate the person from the act. But with homosexuality, you’re not dealing with what a person does, you’re dealing with who they are. To say one loves the homosexual but hates the homosexuality is absurd on its face. You can’t really separate the two.

        • Well…any way you slice it, we’re inferior. Their love is from God, while ours is literally from the devil. Their love is valid, while ours is not. Even our NEED for love is not valid, while theirs is! We are *treated* like we are inferior, and yet they expect us not to *feel* inferior.

      • I agree with most of what you said. However…I also know that Side B people are secretly glad that they are not us, and therefore don’t have to actually live out their beliefs in the very harsh way that we do. In their views, they are glad that they are one of God’s favorites. And we are second-class citizens in God’s kingdom.

  • Jesse Hake

    Samantha, here’s the real problem with the LGBT community and those who advocate for the Christian community to “practice what they preach”… but first, let me get something else off my chest.

    For the record, I am a man who once openly (and unashamedly) identified as a bisexual man and like you, I’ve had sexual and non-sexual encounters with both men and women… men being by far the most of all my encounters. Yet, even though I DO still struggle with sexual temptation and lust towards both males and females, I can no longer self-identify as being a “bisexual” male, any more. Theologically speaking, I’m sure you of all people understand the verse quite well which details how Christians are now a ‘new creation in Christ’ and that ‘it is no longer I that live but Christ who lives in me’. This is the central focal point of every single Christian and so even though I at one time proudly self-identified as being a bisexual male, to do so now, would be a bold lie.

    So, don’t think I don’t understand where you’re coming from as far self-identifying as a bisexual individual goes. That being said, the fact that you so boldly believe that you should be held exempt from being worthy of death as Romans 1 clearly indicates, speaks volumes VOLUMES to you own self-righteous and pompous attitude because what you’re clearly forgetting here is that every single human being from Adam all the way to the very last human that will be born into sin through Adam, deserves nothing short of death. Why? Well, if you actually consider the fact that God told Adam (who represents ALL of humanity) ‘… in the day that you eat from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, you shall surely die.’ Right there, God made it pretty clear that should Adam (and Eve) disobey His single command, that they would be worthy of what, Samantha???

    Death.

    Therefore, please get off your high-horse about you not deserving to die because in doing so you are claiming to be without sin and there is only One who was without sin and it’s neither you nor I, ma’am. -_-

    Finally, the thing that I hate (yes, hate, despise, revolts me, etc.,) the most about the LGBT community and individuals like you is the very same thing that I strongly, strongly believe God hates, as well:

    P-R-I-D-E

    If there is a single sin that the LGBT community has committed that is truly, truly an abomination before God, it is their outspoken pride which seeks to convince the entire world that “God made me this way.”

    “Some people are gay, DEAL WITH IT.” #bornthisway

    …I’d be extremely cautious, friend, about putting words in God’s mouth.

    Instead of blaming God for you sin, why don’t you address those things which clearly, clearly have affected you both emotionally, mentally, physically, and yes, spiritually along the way, the very things you even took the time to address in your page bio:

    “I grew up in a Christian fundamentalist cult, but escaped as a young
    adult. Now, I write about being a bisexual woman and abuse survivor,
    exploring inter-sectional feminism and liberation theology.”

    1. You believe you grew up in a cult and that may be so, quite unfortunately, and I’m sorry.
    2. You survived abuse. Clearly, this speaks volumes to your ability to both cope and recover, though.

    I think that once you truly, truly focus on the real issues, well, I’m not saying you’ll just decide that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, again, but at the very, very least, you’ll stop the pity party and most importantly, you’ll own up to your own sin and realize that it wasn’t God’s fault that you felt the need to self-identify as being bisexual, just as for me, the same, I confessed that it was ME who made that ultimate decision to self-identify rather than self-assess and self-reflect on the unfortunate choices I made along the way and the immature ways I chose to respond to others who had once offended me…

    Really, if you can reach the point where you learn not to become offended by others no matter how “bigoted” and “hateful” they may appear to be, then, you’ll be winning at least half the battle, no doubt.

    Perhaps, if anything, this scripture will help to remind you how to better respond to others, from now on:

    “A tender answer turns away rage,
    but a prickly reply spikes anger.” -Proverbs 15:1

    May you and I, both, Samantha, learn how to better apply this verse to our daily regimen.

    PS

    As a father, myself, I wonder how your own relationship is with your dad? A father has more of an impact on his children (especially, girls) than I think most are ready to admit. Learn to honor your parents and perhaps you’ll find your own heart learning how to better submit to the Lord… if you still identify with him.

    Believe me, once I was convicted of my own rebellious and disrespectful attitude towards my parents and repented, God helped to restore my relationship with both of them. Regardless, just a thought, is all.

    • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

      Bravo!

      • Jesse Hake

        Well, I appreciate your thoughts! I’m just concerned about my fellow Christians falling for her crap, is all. Very, very manipulative how she attempts to shame others into seeing things her way, no doubt.

        • KellyLynne

          It’s not manipulative to want people to stop treating you like garbage, or comparing you to a rapist or an adulterer. It is, however, manipulative, to come to someone’s blog pretending to love them and accusing them of all sorts of sins that you have no evidence for.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            We are calling out the crazy, it is NOT Christians who are attacking LGBT around it is the world it Islamic jihadists who are KILLING them; and it is the height of insanity to claim that people who believe in God given biological natural marriage what has been the norm for millennia or that men can NOT transition into women, are responsible for what Islamic jihadists do. What you are calling being treated like garbage is a simple disagreement. Get over yourself and grow up. Not everyone agrees with the LGBT but they aren’t massacring anyone.

          • I like that you say “it is not Christians who are attacking LGBT”, but yes, they are. They aren’t making the worldwide news as often because right now, Islamic violence is what sells in America. LGBT men and women are under attack constantly in Africa by religious and government leaders who have taken their cues from the American evangelical missionaries who taught them that homosexuality is an abomination – to be openly gay in many African countries is to court death from the Christian community. These deaths don’t make worldwide news, because someone who is Islamic did not perpetuate them.

            LGBT men and women are constantly beaten, harassed, abused, put in the hospital, or murdered by people who identify as Christians in the United States. The attempted-suicide rate for LGBT people raised in very religious households is insanely high.

            It’s a nice narrative to pretend that Islam Is Always The Bad Guy And Christianity Never Is, but it’s frankly not true, it’s a very recent story we’ve decided to tell ourselves so we don’t have to take responsibility for the violence and horror that Christian anti-gay rhetoric has led to.

            It is more honest to say, “People who follow Christianity AND people who follow Islam have been murdering LGBT people – what can we do to combat that?”

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            That is a big lie, homosexuals have more to fear from violence from other homosexuals than they do from strangers. And every time we read about some poor oppressed homoseuxal being “attacked” it turns out mostly to be a hoax. Occasionally homosexuals are victims of random crime by thugs (the know out game come to mind) bu those re NOT Christians. Your HATE (yes I said HATE) and your need to be a professional victim is blinding you to the truth.

          • “turns out to mostly be a hoax”

            [citation needed]

            “But those are NOT Christians”

            [citation needed]

            “homosexuals have more to fear from violence from other homosexuals than they do from strangers”

            [citation needed]

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ
          • None of those sources are proving what I asked for, though – I didn’t say that hoaxes never happen, nor that domestic violence doesn’t exist within every community including LGBT couples. I asked for citations that prove attacks on gay people aren’t done by Christians – also why would “black thugs” (which, hey, let’s not get into racism today, shall we?) not be Christian by definition, exactly? I asked for citations that prove that the LGBTQ community is subject to greater violence from within than without.

            I appreciate your sources, but they’re not answering the question. Like, if I said to you, “I’m sorry, but I need a source for your (hypothetical) statement of ‘All wild horses are eaten by bears” and you send me a source proving that a bear ate a wild horse, that doesn’t prove your point, only proves that the action in question happened at least once.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            There is nothing wrong with these sources here is another one

            Vernon J. Geberth, M.S., M.P.S. who is a former commander of Bronx
            homicide for the New York City Police Department stated in 1995
            regarding homosexual murders that homosexual
            murders are relatively common and these murders may involve male
            victims murdered by other males or may involve female victims who are in
            some type of lesbian relationship and they are murdered by another
            female

            http://www.practicalhomicide.com/Research/homoserial.htm

          • No, instead you just promote an ideology that incites hatred of LGBT people and thus contributes to violence against them.

            Don’t act like this is just Islam’s problem. It’s yours, too. There’s blood on your hands.

          • Jeanette Victoria ✓ᵛᵉʳᶦᶠᶦᵉᵈ

            I speak of Christian love in truth…..nothing about harming homoseuxla but to expose them to Gods way. That is not hate. But to someone like yourself unless we agree and celebrate what you do, it is the same as killing you. That is insane.

          • Oh. Honey.

          • Maybe try reading an international news source once in a while …

          • So murder is okay now, because Hitler killed more people? Their murder does NOT make you denying us legal rights, okay! Remember, it is a LEGAL contract; if you truly cared about biblical marriage, you wouldn’t allow divorced people to marry, either.
            “Not murdering people” is NOT what Jesus preached! And it does not mean you are not mistreating people, either. Only a bad person has to say, “At least I’m not killing people!”
            I would hate to hear what you think salvation means! 🙂

          • Jesse Hake

            Wait a minute… you just pointed out one of my MAJOR beefs with the LGBT community: hypocrisy. By that what I mean to say, is that, while the LGBT community (and their affiliates, etc.) do not wish to be judged, ironically, you (being a supporter of the LGBT minority) have the audacity to judge both rapists and adulterers by not desiring any comparison to them whatsoever, in the same breath. Whereas, when I look the rapist and adulterer, I am not ashamed to say that, I am sinner, like them, only that unlike them, I have been redeemed in Christ and that they have the same access to the same redemption as I do, in Him, alone. Yet again, the unabashed pride of the LGBT community, instead, places themselves on a pedestal above rapists, adulterers, child molesters, and murderers, just to name a few.

      • Jeanette Victoria has been banned from this discussion; please do not reply to comments from her.

        • Samantha, I’d like to apologize for my flippant comments to Jeanette, as I’m sure they weren’t helpful in this comments section, and I’m sorry that it only helped in forcing your hand in having to wade into the fray.

    • This comment is basically a dumpster fire.

      • Jesse Hake

        Fair enough.

    • misteriousveiwerwoman

      Zzzzz

      • Jesse Hake

        Dude, it’s not polite to fall asleep on your keyboard, c’mon now! 😛

    • There is literally nothing redeeming in this reply. What garbage.

      • Jesse Hake

        Another fair assessment, I suppose…

        • You wouldn’t know a fair assessment if it bit you in the ass. And no, I’m not even remotely inclined to be deferential with someone who asserts that pride — which is an equivocation in this context, but nevertheless — is a flaw in LGBT people. These are people who have been told by people like you that they are disordered, that their love is a false imitation of love. These are people who survived bullying and violence and self-hatred that people like you caused. They have every right to be assert that they are proud of who they are.

    • Heather ‘Cler’ Morgaine

      this comment is embarrassing

      • Jesse Hake

        It is as you say, then.

      • Helena Osborne

        Do you like how he has gone through here to ensure he’s gotten the last word on everyone’s comment, even though he’s saying nothing except passive aggressive snark? Totes adorbs.

    • A question for you, sir, since you bring up the story of the Fall. How would you characterize God’s reaction once Adam ate the forbidden fruit:

      1. Was he filled with righteous anger that Adam had disobeyed him?
      2. Was he filled with deep grief and sadness that Adam had sinned?

      I’m asking because I read your post, would like to respond, and therefore want to make sure I understand where you’re coming from.

      • Jesse Hake

        Wicker Gate… Of all the replies, yours seems to be the most thoughtful, so, let me answer this the best I can. I would say from the prospective of being a father, myself, both. You see, when my daughter disobeys me, I am filled both with righteous anger and deep grief that she would not trust my word and decided to go against my command.

        Any parent should be able to relate to this, though. Even so, God did not let Adam’s sin go unpunished as a direct result of his disobedience, God brought a curse upon His own creation. However, Christ was not an afterthought; it was actually God’s plan from the very beginning, or rather, in eternity past (that’s the best I can describe a timeless “before”, sorry).

        What’s more, as I’ve studied the scriptures I’ve come to the conviction that Christ’s death on the cross not only took away the sin of the world but that IF God had not foreordained His Christ to die at Calvary, the universe as we know it, would never have even been allowed to exist, for, God would not let a fallen creation exist without the ultimate plan of reconciling all things to Himself, though Jesus Christ. To me, that makes the death of Yeshua incomparable to any all other other events in our human history.

        I’m digressing, though.

        Like I said, the fact that God brings swift and lasting judgment to both Adam, Eve, and the serpent, testifies to His righteous anger and yet, His single act of killing an animal to cover their nakedness, also speaks of His immediate grace, mercy, and protection.

        I know that a lot of people on here will shoot me down because they think they understand where I’m coming from but quite honestly, I don’t let those negative voices distract me from both sharing the Gospel and rebuking others for their deep-seated pride, either. Yes, hate is a strong word, indeed, but if there is anyone one here who claims not to hate, themselves, I’d simply challenge them to give me their thoughts on rapists, pedophiles, murderers, and truly, truly hate-filled individuals who either fly a passenger plane into the World Trade Center or else randomly kill 49 Americans in a gay nightclub… tell me, please, that you don’t hate such individuals, yourselves, when you say such foolish and resentful things like, “there’s a special place in hell for such people”.

        I rest my case.

        Thank you, once again, for your thoughtful inquiry, Wicker Gate! 🙂

        • See, I would say that God’s immediate response was neither anger nor grief, but deep and overwhelming compassion. The Bible notes immediately after Adam and Eve ate the fruit, that God went looking for them. “And they heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden in the cool of the day, and the man and his wife hid themselves from the presence of the Lord God among the trees of the garden. But the Lord God called to the man, and said to him, ‘Where are you?'” (Genesis 3:8-9). That’s not anger, that’s not grief, that’s more, “You don’t need to hide from me.”

          The heart of the gospel isn’t that our sin separates us from God and that he must therefore provide a substitute; it’s that when we want to hide from God because of our shame. he pursues us and makes our shame his own. Think of the example of the prodigal. The father was looking for his son and saw him while he was still a long way off, and then covered his son with his finest clothes. I’m a dad myself. I’ve told my kids time and again that nothing they do could ever make me love them less, make me ashamed of them, or drive a wedge between us.

          And you know something? I’m fairly certain that one of my daughters is either gay or bisexual. I can honestly say that when I look at her, I don’t think, “This is my gay daughter” or “I love her so much, if only she weren’t gay” or “It is such a disappointment to me that she is gay.” All I see is one of the brightest stars that shines in my sky, and my heart swells so much that I feel like it could burst. Would my daughter be considered unseemly proud for being confident that I love her the way she is?

          Now I’m sure you can point to the six places the Bible refers to homosexuality just as easily as I can. Rather than hash them out here, let me say that I (and I presume our hostess) have a different understanding of those passages than it appears you do, based on the character of God, as I understand it in Christ; and based on the historical, cultural and literary context that those passages come from, as well as based on an awareness of how their interpretation has shifted through the ages. It’s not that they “don’t apply,” it’s that the eternal principle expressed one way 3,000 years ago across an ocean and in a premodern society, is going to express itself differently in our contemporary society, much as we don’t worry about clothing made of two fabrics or I don’t have to go around ringing a bell because of my psoriasis.

        • Hate isn’t real, man. It has no eternal life. It’s a lie from the ‘prince of this world’. More than anything, the lie likes for us to hurt each other. And come up with bogus self-justifications (and self-deceptions) for doing so.

    • Alicia

      Apparently you would NOT be “extremely cautious about putting words in God’s mouth.” You also seem to forget that condescension is a kind of “P-R-I-D-E,” which is weird, considering how extreme the condescension is here. (In another sense, that plank is a completely predictable element of this kind of judgmental/overly certain eye.) I am forced to assume you don’t know the difference between acting like a decent human who knows better than to stop attempting to parent other adults, and being a jerk who uses comment sections as soapboxes for his own neuroses and mansplainings. Yeesh. Glad I’m not involved in any way with you, sir.
      Feel free to carry on about your business feeling superior in that particular way that the “I’m certain about my religious convictions and feel compelled to force them to be your convictions as well because I secretly don’t believe God can handle that without me and/or I enjoy being judgmental and this is as good an excuse as any to indulge in that” attitude will allow for a person.

      • Jesse Hake

        Be that as it may, I comment in the hopes that any fellow Christian on here will not read her blog and actually think she has a point. That’s what caused me to type up what I did because I actually has a friend on Facebook agree with her, ugh! Seriously, I could care less how “condescending” this comes off as because all I care about is shielding other Christians from being deceived by her well-thought-out statements. It’s just like Matthew Vines who goes around the country to church-after-church-after-church spewing his manipulative lies about how the Body of Christ “needs to to embrace homosexuality” and that “homosexuality is not a sin”.

        Unfortunately, because others won’t speak up, Christians continue to fall for this garbage and so, because of the unique position I’m in where I chose to come out of the closet, no embracing my sin, but rejecting it, instead, I have an obligation to speak up and call out deceit and manipulation just like Samantha is attempting to do here.

        Do I hate her? I don’t know, I guess if you construe “hate” as resenting her for wallowing in her own self-pride and doing what she can to shame others into buying her BS, yes, then I guess I hate her… even though I tremble for her thinking of how she’s rejected the grace of God and traded the truth for a lie. Listen, I don’t wish eternal separation on even my worst enemy and deep down inside, I hope she realizes that the fear of the LORD is the beginning of both knowledge and wisdom. He is a self-existent eternal Being and I even tremble, myself, to think of what it will be like to one day stand before His holy (set-apart) presence because the amount of power that God has to both be self-existent and create/sustain our entire universe is just, mind-blowing! So yeah, pretty crazy stuff.

        • But if even you don’t want eternal separation from your worst enemy, then why does God?
          People can say He doesn’t, it just had to be that way, but no, that is an excuse, since if He is God, He created the world that way.
          Why create it that way, if He doesn’t want it? Free will? Hmm, that also seems fishy. I love giving my cats freedom, but if they wanted to dive into an open road rather than stay with me, I’d lock them up with me because at least then they have the chance to change their mind. Am I more loving towards two kitties than God towards me? That God cannot be worthy of worship.

        • Kevin

          You say you typed this to save your fellow Christians from deception, and you called Vines and Sam liars. Maybe you have actually considered their strongest points but found them lacking, but I’d like to remind you that the Bible praises the Bereans for diligently searching the scriptures to see if what St. Paul was saying was right. The Bible also urges us to “test everything; hold the good”; this means that we should not just drink the traditional Kool-Aid, but see if what they’re saying is right or wrong. Only when people question (but not necessarily reject) traditional interpretations can we be “rightly dividing the Word of Truth”.

        • Dom Saunders

          So you don’t want readers to read her blog and learn from this that Christianity does preach hatred against LGBT people, always, have, and that Christians need to get over themselves if we’ll have any positive growth? That’s fine, because honestly, they don’t even need to read this to come to that conclusion. I’m a bi guy too and I was Christian for a grand total of a week before I read the Bible cover to cover and figured out it was all allegorical at best, and fictional at least.

          I wasn’t even ten yet.

          So don’t come in here trying your condescending act, then plead with those who you offend not to do the same in criticizing your faith. That’s the things many Christians don’t understand. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t consistently preach hate and throw people under the bus for the sake of your beliefs, then say we should be cautious in how we clap back. Gay Christians confuse me the same reason religious black people do, but I wouldn’t have an issue with either if you’d all just keep the sanctimonious preamble in your homes, as your own text (Matthew 6:6) says you should. Then you wouldn’t have to read blog posts from people like Samantha.

          But because many of you stay overreaching and condemning people to the worst place anyone can imagine, simply for being who they are, and insist on doing so even in spite of the worst tragedy our community has faced yet, no, you’re going to take the criticism you’ve earned.

    • “…I’d be extremely cautious, friend, about putting words in God’s mouth.”

      Ironic since you did that. Putting words in God’s mouth by twisting scripture out of its original context in order to continue to condemn others for not living how YOU think they should live. Here’s a nice link that shows there isn’t really anything in the Bible that condemns LGBT folks: http://www.whosoever.org/bible/

      But I suspect you won’t read it because you view your interpretation as superior as if your thoughts on this is the equivalent of God’s. You also engage in ad hominen attacks, probably because you can’t find any decent argument to refute the truth in Samantha’s article. So you attack her as a person, which is not a loving action at all.

      Also, telling us that we need to tolerate hateful acts? Fuck that shit. 50 LGBT folks of color are DEAD because of hateful acts. And you’re saying basically they are deserving of it because we’re all sinful. Spoiler: that’s a hateful thing to say.

      Also, saying everyone is worthy of death is also not a loving action. But then, you don’t seem to remember the verses where Christ said to love your neighbor (Matthew 22:36-40). Also you seem to have forgotten the verses where it says God is Love (1 John 4:8), and that Love does no harm (Romans 13:10). But then, why care about that? You got to condemn and judge another person and entire group of people, so you can feel self-righteous and superior.

    • If you truly care about us, then I would suggest, above all, that you listen to us when we say that some things are hurtful, and, as far as you can, NOT HURT US! That would be a very good start.

      For example, don’t insist on using “abomination” when you don’t like the word “homophobe.” You don’t get to totally ignore our preferences, and also insist upon your own.

      Don’t compare us to the worst of sinners, rapists like pedophiles and those who practice bestiality, when we’re not raping anyone.

      Don’t use the “I know you are, but what am I?” defense when we say you sound hateful. If you want us to believe you, when you say you don’t hate us, then you need to believe us, when we say we don’t hate you.

      And most of all, listen to us! And as far as you can–DON’T HURT US!

      Thank you.

  • keefanda

    Here’s some food for thought on the Bible and sexual orientation and sexuality, including lust:

    Here are some resources, some more academic but all saner than the usual conservative stuff:

    http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/resources-on-the-bible-and-homosexuality/

    http://www.patheos.com/blogs/exploringourmatrix/2010/05/the-bible-and-homosexuality-resources-for-sunday-school-discussion.html

    A HETEROSEXUAL JEWISH RABBI LOOKS AT THE BIBLE’S VIEWPOINT ON HOMOSEXUALITY
    http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html

    Quote:

    “As a result of this serious research, Rabbi Steinberg-Caudill is completely convinced that THE ORIGINAL HEBREW TEXTS OF THE TORAH (the Hebrew Chumash – the Five Books of Moses) HAD ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO SAY CONCERNING HOMOSEXUALITY AS WE UNDERSTAND THE TERM “HOMOSEXUALITY” TO MEAN IN TODAYS WORLD!”

    Ruth loved Naomi as Adam loved Eve
    http://www.wouldjesusdiscriminate.org/biblical_evidence/ruth_naomi.html

    The following article shows that conservative scholarship that is honest to some degree should yield some results that are progressive to some degree:

    Are lesbians treated the same as gays in the Bible?
    http://www.gaychristian101.com/are-lesbians-treated-the-same-as-gays-in-the-bible.html

    Quote:

    “Author of the 3 volume, 3000 page resource, Leviticus: A New Translation With Introduction and Commentary, (Vol II), Dr. Milgrom presents 8 interesting reasons why lesbians are not mentioned in Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 or elsewhere in the Old Testament.”

    All those conservatives who claim that such activity as lesbianism is sin and that the Bible as it is literally written is the final authority don’t actually believe this. We can see this by granting their premise that the Bible as it is literally written is the final authority and then from that premise yield results they find unacceptable, such as lesbianism is not a sin, which in turn causes them to deny the given premise:

    There are many specific sex-related activities literally listed in the Bible as acts that require a “blood sacrifice” – the death of a human or animal to atone for the act, along with a literal instruction as to which human or animal was to be killed. But there are many that are not, many of them not listed at all – not even as merely an act that makes one “unclean”. Among the many that are not even listed as making one “unclean” is lesbianism. Other acts not literally listed include the activity related to lesbianism of a married man with more than one wife or concubine having sex with more than one of his women at a time while also enjoying them having sex with each other. In the New Testament, Paul may have said that lesbianism is “unnatural”, but don’t forget that he was a former Pharisee who retained much of that former belief system after his conversion. Even so, he did not literally add lesbianism to the Old Testament list of acts requiring a “blood sacrifice” even if he believed that it required such. And so, if an act is a sin *only if* it has an explicit and literal listing in the Bible as requiring a “blood sacrifice” to atone for the act, then lesbianism is not a sin. Conservatives find this result unacceptable and claim lesbianism is a sin anyway, and in so doing they add to what is literally listed there as requiring a “blood sacrifice”, and in so doing, they deny their own premise that the Bible as it is literally written is the final authority. If, as an attempted out, they claim that an act that is *merely* “unnatural” or makes one *merely* “unclean” (meaning there is no listed requirement for a corresponding “blood sacrifice”) is a sin that requires one to go to Hell if Jesus did not die for that sin, then every last woman deserves to go to Hell simply for the “sin” of bleeding each month. A conservative who has a conscience that has not been seared to death should find that consequent unacceptable.

    (See Leviticus 15 for some “important” distinctions here as to what is literally listed as requiring a “blood sacrifice”: A woman bleeding each month is not enough to generate the “need” for a blood sacrifice to atone for that “act”, but it is enough to consider her “unclean”. It’s “only” the “act” of bleeding longer than normal during her period or bleeding at a time other than a regular period that is considered so “bad” that it requires a “blood sacrifice”, the killing of two birds, to atone for it…..Wow. So understanding.)

    We must never forget that the writings collected into the Bible were written by ancient men (some of whom were evidently scared little boys, terrified of women’s bodies – Freud would have had a field day) in an ancient man’s world for the benefit of men as they saw things.

    And so we must never forget that we have some very good reasons to question the whole idea of what “sin” actually is, and to ask such questions as “Who says?” when we hear claims that such and such is a “sin”.

    Finally, this on “lust”:

    In the Bible, “lust” is actually not a sin. The terms in the original languages that sometimes have been translated to “lust” in English have no sexual connotation whatsoever (any associated sexual connotation would have to come from the context in which the term is embedded), and on top of that, these terms are used throughout the Bible perhaps roughly twice as often in a positive way than in a negative way. For more academic or sane approaches to the issue than the usual conservative stuff, here are some resources:

    “Whoever Looks at a Woman With Lust”: Misinterpreted Bible Passages #1
    http://www.jasonstaples.com/bible/most-misinterpreted-bible-passages-1-matthew-527-28/

    Christian Myths: Lust
    http://www.thechristianleftblog.org/blog-home/christian-myths-lust

    • Jesse Hake

      Another Matthew Vines, I presume? Listen, once we start dictating that what the bible has deemed to be sin as no longer being sin, where do you draw the line? First it’s homosexuality is not a sin. Then it’s lust is not a sin. Pretty soon adultery will no longer be considered a sin, either. Before, too long, even idolatry will no longer be considered a sin, I suppose. Yeah, thanks but no thanks.

      • KellyLynne

        I assume, then, that you refrain from eating bacon and shellfish, lending money at interest, and wearing mixed fibers, and that your wife covers her hair in church.

        • And never wears jewelry.

      • Beroli

        Your “argument” seems to consist of “you know I’m right.” You’re not actually responding to anything the article says, you’re just repeating that it’s wrong over and over, and using “Matthew Vines” as an ad hominem. People point out your hypocrisy in charging someone else with “pride” when you’re not even trying to convince, just to dictate, and with “putting words in God’s mouth” while that’s all you’ve done here, and you simply ignore them. That’s a truly massive beam sticking out of your eye.

      • We could draw the line at ‘do unto others as you would have done unto you’ but that would probably be too radical and Christlike …

      • DO NOT compare me to adulterers! I am not betraying anyone’s trust, by simply wanting love!
        I also am not interested in what you are saying, if you’re not committing to lifelong celibacy, too. You want sex, I am certain of it. So I’m not listening to a horny hypocrite whose theology is literally “Do as I say, not as I do.” Jesus did not like people like that–like you.
        And also, you did not provide any evidence to the contrary. Pathetic. Come back with something more than hurtful assertions.

  • Wow. Excellent post, as always.

    I have never ever heard an interpretation of the Matthew 5 anger passage which wasn’t “you should feel shame for having emotions.” Wow. This is mind-blowing.

  • Jesse Hake

    I would also like to mention to you, that, upon reading some of your other blog posts (namely your review of “I Kissed Dating Good-bye”) you’ve got tons and tons of underlying bitterness and hatred issues, yourself, to deal with it. Regardless of how you interpret the word “lust” in the Greek (which, if you haven’t ever studied Greek then you should probably refrain from making scholarly remarks in the future) the main underlying sin of any and all lust is… is… is…??? I-D-O-L-A-T-R-Y. Now, please explain to me how you can become so upset for Josh’s reaction to those homosexual (gay) men lusting after him? It made him feel uncomfortable just as a child feels uncomfortable when a pedophile lusts upon them, too.

    (Wait, did I just compare pedophiles to gays and lesbians?! Interestingly enough, if you or anyone gets offended by that then you also simultaneously judge the pedophile in your own hypocritical repulsion and disgust, though. Yes, the very fact that someone does not want to be mentioned in the same sentence with the word ‘pedophile’ means that they have already self-righteously judged him or her despite the fresh log sticking straight out of their own eye-socket. The road goes both ways, after all.)

    So, again, Josh felt violated by these men because it was for him a very unnatural gesture towards him.
    Just as apparently it’s entirely unnatural for me to be attracted to my lesbian friend who rejected me merely because I have a penis. It left me completely dumbfounded that she would date me without a penis but as a biological man, she detested me, I guess. Either way, your self-righteous anger and disgust towards Mr. Harris was a bit uncalled for, methinks. I’ve actually read the book, myself, and though his approach was a bit radical for me, the part where he wanted to protect the heart of any girl’s future husband (and her heart, as well) to the point where that husband would say to him, “thank you for guarding and defending my wife’s heart”, I mean, that pretty much had me in tears the amount of selfless love that would take to put the woman he dated before himself rather than look at them as just another notch on his belt like some men do…

    Well, I really wish you’d also stop shaming/guilt-tripping others for not embracing your LGBT family.
    I don’t embrace nor do I support the LGBT community especially after reading the book “After The Ball” by two gay activists (Hunter Madsen and Marshall Kirk) written in 1989 where they lay out pretty much the ultimate gay manifesto for others to bring about the very gay movements/agendas that are gradually increasing in our nation/world like at no other time in previously recorded history.

    Here’s just a sample of the brainwashing techniques the gay community has utilized in the last several years to both blind and indoctrinate the American public and many, many others along the way:

    • Wow, no one has ever accused me of bitterness before!

      • KellyLynne

        If you’re not letting people abuse you, clearly you’re bitter. :/

    • Jesse Hake has been banned from this discussion; please don’t continue replying to his comments.

      • Kevin

        I just saw this; my apologies for replying to a previous comment — I didn’t realize he was banned.

      • Okay, I need to stop commenting as I scroll down. Sorry about that.

      • Missed this. Need to scroll down more! Glad to hear as that was such a hateful post. I’m sorry you had to deal with that.

      • Jesse Hake

        Ban me from this discussion? Just because I struck a nerve, perhaps? Because I’m pretty much sick and tired of individuals like you making blanket statements about Christians and then when I turn around and do the same thing, you can’t tolerate it? Whatever happened to freedom of speech, huh? You don’t seem me reporting anyone’s comments that I don’t agree with to be deleted, though. The truth is that unless I agree with you then I’m the enemy, no-two-ways-about it. Yet, I can’t and I think you already know why. You complain about all the “hatred” from the Christian community and yet, look at your own sarcastic and resentful comments, yourself? The road goes both ways, you know. Interestingly enough, I haven’t made any kind of threats against anyone or anything else that would warrant banning me or possibly even reporting me to law enforcement, either. Here’s the thing, though: perhaps I’ve been wrong in ever considering that you were ever a Christian in the first place? I’m mean, sure, you could “know” the bible inside out word-for-word and still not have anything remotely close to being an authentic conversion. True, you seem to have a lot of head knowledge about the scriptures but when it comes to personally application, I don’t see any evidence, at all… current or prior, even.

        • Jeff

          I’m an occasional reader here and have commented a few times. Like you, my general impression is that Samantha doesn’t handle dissent especially gracefully, and like you, I think her post here is in error. But, for whatever it’s worth, I would encourage you, and all fellow conservatives, to refrain from the “you must not have ever been a Christian!” stuff. Samantha is, right now, a Christian, as are Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, and a bunch of other people that conservatives don’t tend to agree with. You’re doing exactly the same kind of mind-reading that Samantha is engaging in with posts like these, and that we object to when progressives do to us. We can’t say on the one hand, “uh, no, please don’t tell me what I actually think about [race/LGBT/etc]; pay me the courtesy of assuming I know my own mental state better than you do”, and then fail to extend that same courtesy to her and to those with whom we disagree.
          Saying that someone must not really be/have been a Christian is the rhetorical equivalent of progressives calling conservatives racists or bigots. It’s an appeal to emotion, which is logically fallacious, and something we should all try to avoid.

    • wanderer

      What a strange response. How could you possibly know what another person (I’m assuming you’ve never even met Samantha) has “underlying”? Are you psychic? Bizarre thing to say.
      Also, I don’t follow what you’re talking about with your lesbian friend (you kind of seemed to jump into the middle of a topic there with no background). Were you saying you’re attracted to someone who is a lesbian and she is not interested in you and that hurt?
      (One might say you sounded bitter about that, but I’m not going to go there).

    • CamasBlues

      yawwwwwwwwn

  • Love this post. Love. I’ve been so irrationally full of rage at all the Christians with their “Oh, how terrible, we’re all AMERICANS HERE” and the way they have stomped on the LGBTQ people saying, “Well, why weren’t we all Americans when we wanted to get married, or buy a cake, or literally just stand next to each other in public? Why do you only care when someone who is not you murders us, but you look the other way when it’s people just like you killing us every day?”

    Evans’ “There was a body count before Sunday” was so piercingly true – and the commenters on that post worked so very, very hard to ignore that.

    Jen Hatmaker’s statement was… I had a hard time with it. Because we’re talking about someone who “made a stand” on being against the legalization of gay marriage after the horror of the World Vision fiasco and the hundreds of people who chose to punish impoverished children rather than deal with the idea of maybe having perfectly loving, compassionate LGBT Christians in World Vision’s list of staff.

  • *puts on moderator hat*

    This is a moderated comment section. Read my comment policy [http://samanthapfield.com/comment-policy/] before posting or replying to comments.

  • Rockon

    The definition of “homophobia” that Samantha is putting forth here is not a scientific term and has no scientific or psychiatric origin. It comes from homosex activists and actually started in a pornographic magazine called Screw. 2 homosexual activists, Jack Nichols and Lige Clarke first used the term in the pornography magazine Screw, edited by Al Goldstein, a porn hustling pervert. In their article, the authors used the term “homophobia” to describe a person’s fears that others might think they were homosexual. The authors postulated that “homophobic” fears limited the experiences of males from involvement in poetry, art, movement, and same-sex touching. This is more socio-political fiction.

    Postulated in a pornographic magazine…means the term “homophobia” as commonly used today has no legit scientific or psychological foundation whatsoever. A “phobia” denotes irrational fear.

    A principled stance or view point based on Biblical principles or moral precepts (medical, scientific, psychological, sociological, socio-economic, philosophical, ethical) is not and can not be re-defined as irrational fear or even “fear” in general.

    http://www.spcs.org.nz/the-term-homophobia-its-origins-and-meanings-and-its-uses-in-homosexual-agenda/

    If Christians are doing what this author claims to guise their hatred, then what about agnostics and atheists who disgree with homosexual practice. How are they guising their hatred?

    • You’re completely wrong. The first time the word “homophobia” appeared in print it was in an issue of Time Magazine– their cover story, actually, called “The Homosexual in America” which rain in October 1969, and was a largely unflattering piece following the Stonewall Riots.

      After that, it appeared in the work of a clinical psychologist named George Weinberg, in his book Society and the Healthy Homosexual.

      Sources:

      http://www.grammarphobia.com/blog/2013/02/homophobia.html
      The Oxford English Dictionary
      Quotes
      from the Time article:
      http://thestarryeye.typepad.com/gay/2012/10/time-magazine-reports-on-the-homosexual-in-america-102469.html

      Also, this whole “homophobia can’t be real unless it’s a clinical diagnosis” argument (a term I use generously) is a load of shit, and you can fuck right off with that. That is not how language works, and linguists have acknowledged for a long, long time now that a word ending in “phobia” can also include “hatred toward” in its definition.

      Have a nice life. You’re done talking here.

    • Would saying “anti-gay bigotry” instead make you feel better?

  • Marlene Lund

    Thank you so much for this post! As the mom of an amazing daughter who identifies as queer, I have been emotionally all over the map this week, swinging between intense grief, fear for my daughter’s safety, and such anger and frustration as I have seen how so many of my Christian brothers and sisters have responded to this horrendous event. I can’t tell you how many responses just like the ones you copied in your post I have seen this week! If I hear the word “lifestyle” in connection with condemnation of my daughter and the entire LGBTQ community one more time, I’m going to have to break something. We Christians have to do so much better.

  • Jackalope

    Just wanted to say (finally! My week has been so crazy I haven’t been able to comment much) that the quote you put up that angers me the most is about our gag reflex. Now, I don’t want to say that we shouldn’t listen to our responses to things around us, because our gut can tell us a lot of useful things about the world if we listen to it. But as I once heard someone say (in response to this particular article), our gag reflex tells us more about what we personally respond to rather than what is moral or immoral. I imagine that if someone told the author that they had a gag reflex kick in when around someone with severe leprosy, or a homeless person who reeked from the lack of access to showers and laundry facilities for several weeks, the author would say that the person in question needed to overcome that reflex, not use it to ostracize the person who was causing the strong response. In a perhaps more relevant example, people used to feel that way about mixed race relationships or children, about women wearing pants, or all sorts of other things. Some cultures have that response to eating fish, and I’ve heard that they consider someone who eats fish to be morally deficient (not naming any specific cultures since I don’t have hard facts to back that one up). Whatever the example might be, while we shouldn’t ignore the gut responses we have, that doesn’t mean they always get to win.

    On a happier note, I wanted to share the response of the PCUSA Presbyterian church’s missions agency that they posted on their website. I especially appreciated that they openly faced both the violence of the attack and who it was specifically targeted against: “Your LGBTQ people… [who] are our sisters and brothers, our parents and children… [y]our children, enjoying an evening of music and friendship”. I found it a bit emotional to read, but a good prayer and response.

    http://www.presbyterianmission.org/story/prayer-nightclub-shooting-orlando/

  • Hi Samantha. I found this post so interesting that I couldn’t resist the temptation to comment on it.
    Given our unfortunate past interactions, I wouldn’t take any offence if you were to just suppress my comment, though.

    To a large extent, I share your feelings towards the Conservative Evangelical community, even though I think that liberals are far from being perfect either.
    I believe that the Bible speaks with conflicting voices and that self-righteous bigotry and failing to care for the poor are FAR MORE often linked to hellfire than being engaged in a same-sex relationship.

    I base my theology on God’s perfection and think (as you rightly pointed out) that God cannot be any LESS loving than the best human love we can conceive of. Therefore, I also don’t think that God would arbitrarily forbid us things which do not harm us spiritually and physically.

    Since I believe that a lifelong committed gay relationship isn’t harmful, I don’t believe it goes against God’s will. I think I am 99% heterosexual and maybe 1% homosexual, as far as my orientation is concerned. I don’t completely close myself to the possibility of finding true love in someone of the same gender, even though I consider it rather unlikely.

    I feel really sorry about the bigot saying YOU are an abomination as a person. If anyone should worry about not entering the kingdom of Heaven, it should be him first.

    That said, I don’t agree with your (apparent) basic assumption that hating homosexual behaviour (kissing and so on) is one and the same as hating homosexuals themselves.

    If a Conservative Evangelical tells you that people attracted to the same gender shouldn’t exist, he or she is being hateful.
    But if he tells you that people attracted to the same gender ought to resist these impulses, he is not being hateful.

    Suppose that my neighbour has a strong tendency towards alcoholism and drug abuse owing to his DNA.
    I might very well consider his behaviour as abominable while sincerely loving him as a human being and hoping he would completely give up his sinful habits.

    I don’t know pastor Anyabwhile, but as far as I can tell, he was just talking about BEHAVIOUR and not sexual orientation.
    In other words, if another Conservative Evangelical were to go to him and tell him
    “Dear Thabiti, you’ve got to help me. I feel romantically and physically attracted to other men all the time but I don’t want to act accordingly” then I don’t think he would call him an “abomination” for being the way he is.

    You’re right that the killer of Orlando was driven by anti-gay hatred. You’re right that Christian fundamentalists can be violent too.
    But is Christian homophobia as violent as Muslim homophobia?

    In Europe, LBGT people in Conservative Evangelical communities don’t generally fear for their lives. But the existences of many LBGT folks with a Muslim background is constantly threatened.

    So, as far as the well-being of homosexuals is concerned, there is arguably more work to do within the Muslim than within the Christian community, and the same could be said about sexism.

    Finally, I think that Jesus’ radical call to love one’s enemies aims at dismantling the distinction between in-groups and out-groups.
    Conservative Christians should learn to really love Gay people and abortionists despite their convictions that their behaviour is morally wrong.
    Liberal Christians should learn to really love Conservatives who are against same-sex marriage because they follow their conscience.

    Best wishes.

    • But is Christian homophobia as violent as Muslim homophobia?
      I’m only going to cut you a little bit with this pretty little dagger. That guy over there? He has a much bigger knife! Aren’t I better and nicer than him. That guy over there is your real problem. Nevermind that me and mine are the majority of the population, here – and we all carry pretty little daggers. That guy, wow. BIG knife.

    • KellyLynne

      The thing about “just talking about behavior” is that the desire to love and be loved is a deep human need. And frequently the answer to “change the behavior” leads to horrible things. We wouldn’t torture alcoholics to get them to stop drinking, but reparative therapy camps torture gay kids. We wouldn’t tell an alcoholic guy that if he just marries a nice Christian girl, and doesn’t tell her he’s an alcoholic, that God will take away his desire to drink. And yet the church encourages gay people to pretend to be straight, marry someone of the opposite sex and keep their “sinful” desires hidden. Never mind the fallout when those lies are revealed.

      I also think that it’s not real love to only care about someone if they accept your definition of their beliefs and are trying to make themselves into what you want them to be.

      • I completely agree with you about these camps “torturing” Gay kids. Indeed, it is one of the reasons that convinced me that a committed gay marriage is NOT sinful.

        And yes, real love accepts EVERYONE even if they believe things you hold to be wrong. Except, perhaps self-righteous bigots .

        I think that if these fundamentalists were to focus on the OVERALL message of the Bible (beyond its contradictions), they would start resenting the RICH and their shameless oppression of the poor. That would turn American into a much more human country.

  • I’ve finally reached the end of the comments section, heh.
    While I understand that asexuality isn’t persecuted in the way homosexuality is (asexuality is more about being disbelieved or considered ‘broken’), I’ve struggled for years to accept it about myself. Often because of the notion that I was going against God’s will for my life simply by existing as myself – refusing to marry, to ‘be fruitful’. To reciprocate affection/love through sex (ergo I’m selfish, prideful, etc).
    And I really, honestly, cannot torment myself with this junk anymore? I just want to opt out of sexuality, forever. Can I please just never? In the name of Jesus, even. Please. Never.

    I feel like the virgin birth is a good reminder that human sexuality is not actually necessary for God to work His will, but it seems like there’s almost some cult of compulsory heterosexuality going on. It makes me really sad. Jesus said there wouldn’t be marriage in heaven, so why do we get so bent out of shape about it on earth?

    • I never made it to the end. Just seeing the whole awfulness with that Jesse thread was enough to make me wince at how the Christians came in droves to prove Samantha’s points. Figures.

    • Kevin

      Jesus DID mention that some are born without the desire. I’m allo myself, but one of my followers on Twitter once suggested I may be ace.(I did wonder when I saw a confusing meme on Twitter concerning the subject.) In my purity culture circle marriage was not encouraged. It was not technically forbidden, but with the rules and control it was really hto find anyone outside the bubble and for those inside the bubble they had to Drink the Kool-Aid. It was insisted that couples be “Dead in Christ”(TM, Gal. 2:20), with some couples taking as many as 10 years before being allowed to marry.

  • You speak such truth here. Thank you. I’ve struggled to say these same words before.

    What gets me is politicians in power in conservative states, where a few months prior they talked about how LGBTQIA folks are better off dead or should be killed and other horrible things. And then Orlando happened and these sick folks dare to say “prayers and thoughts to the families” and then in the same sentence refuse to acknowledge it was LGBTQIA folks of color (specifically Latinos) who were killed. These same politicians then use an act of hate against LGBTQIA folks to fuel more hatred against innocent Muslims. NO. How dare they use our deaths to fuel their hateful agenda. No.

    What really bugs me is when these Christians who condemn LGBTQIA folks claim to be “showing love” to us. No, that’s not love. I don’t know what sort of distorted idea of love they have, but it sure as heck isn’t real love.

  • I have good reason to be very sceptical of religious claims on gay activities and will not try to teach you any “Biblical” advice on sexual activity. But find the “Christians say …I disagree with your very existence” misleading. Let us compare what you said about that to something else:

    Left-voting people disagree with right-voters. Theoretically right-voters could say that lefties does not want them to exist: They will be glad if their fellow humans vote differently, thereby stopping to exist as right-voters. But those on the left, for the most part, does not want right-wingers to drop dead. The same is the case for almost any activity people disagree on.

    And Christians disagree with unwed straight couples living together. Would they want unwed cohabiting men and women to stop existing? Yes, but not in the sense of wanting both partners dead. They would like them to marry or seperate, thereby not existing as unwed cohabitors.

    It is possible to disagree with an activity (voting for a certain party, cohabiting, gay intercourse), while still loving the person. I am sorry about all the times Christians/ “Christians” do not act in love, but still believe that it is possible to love someone and disagree with some of the things they do. If it was impossible, I would have to say my mother do not love me: She disagrees with my attitude towards home neatness and would want the sloppy person inside me to stop existing.

    • Beroli

      One of your examples is trivial, the other identifiably hurts people (one can disagree on the results, but clearly there are results, with no need to appeal to it being unprovably harmful in the afterlife). Neither is a good analogue for being LGBT.

      Further, this is what she said:

      Believing that I don’t have the right to exist exactly as I am is hatred.

      Someone who believes that it should be legally compelled to vote the right way wants a fascist society. If your mother believed that you, as an adult, should be forcibly reeducated to be neater that would be highly alarming to say the least.

      • KellyLynne

        Yes, this is a huge point. Wanting legal prohibitions in place to force the people you “disagree” with to act differently (or hide, or give up and kill themselves) is more than simple disagreement.

    • KellyLynne

      Being gay or bi isn’t an “activity,” though. And the way that “loving” Christians try to “disagree” with gay and bi people is harmful. It’s harmful to tell someone that an innate part of them can be changed, and that if they don’t change, they aren’t trying hard enough or don’t really believe in God. LGBT kids commit suicide, get kicked out of their homes, get sent to harmful “reparative therapy” camps.

      I’m also not sure your analogy about unwed straight couples works. My husband and I lived together for most of a year before we got married, and we heard not one word of criticism. Not from my conservative grandparents, not from Facebook friends, not from anyone. And yet, if two women walk down the street holding hands, odds are good that they’ll have slurs shouted at them. Every same-sex couple I know is extremely careful about gestures of affection in public. Who’s watching? Is it safe? Is someone going to scream at us or physically assault us? Straight cohabiting couples are highly unlikely to lose their jobs or their homes, or have their kids taken away if people find out. And the very same people who push for those abuses to be legal are the ones claiming not to hate LGB people.

      Also, changing from a cohabiting straight couple to a married straight couple is a very different thing than never having another relationship again, or finding someone of the opposite sex and pretending to be attracted to them so you can have a socially acceptable relationship.

      And unless your mother has told you you’re going to hell for being sloppy, I don’t think that’s the same either.

      Yes, you can believe that any sex outside of a one-man/one-woman marriage is sinful without trying to legally enforce that on others, without trying to get them kicked out of your church or your workplace or trying to take their kids away from them. But that’s pretty rare. Most Christians who “disagree” with gay people view their right to legal discrimination as an inherent part of that “disagreement.” I think the other reason that it’s rare is that once you view LGBT people as people, and once you listen to them about their experiences, it’s very hard to continue believing that who they are is sinful, and that they should be celibate for life, or should enter a sham marriage. If the disagreement is really just disagreement, rather than hatred or disgust masked as disagreement, then even the disagreement tends to fade over time.

      • That is a very good comment, and the kind of thing I want other Christians to read. Because many believers who read Samantha’s entry will think – correctly – that to dislike what someone does is not in itself hate of a person. And “being gay” is comparable, while thinking that, to “being attracted to someone you cannot get of the opposite sex” – everyone has desires they should not act on.

        Your comment shows there is more to it than that. Few Christians you and me know think over gay sexual activity the same way they do over other things they find sexually sinful, over being gay the same way as over being straight and desiring men or women you are not married to. (Nobody should be so naive as to say that any straight person who does not like celibacy could just marry – marriage is unattainable for many people for many reasons. But it is true that no gay person – under that set of values – can.)

        Those are the truths those believers need to face when accused of not loving. To merely point out where they speak badly of gay intercourse does not, in itself, show any of the ways in which they fail to distinguish between the person and the act. If it stopped there, they could have reasoned more or less the contents of my previous comment.

  • MichaelGC

    Matthew 19:4-6 New International Version (NIV)

    4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

    Does that make Jesus a hater?

    • How come no one seems to keep reading this chapter all the way to the end?

      Also, if someone wants to take an overly literalist approach to Jesus’ life, they’re going to have to find a way to deal with the fact that one way or another, Jesus was a sexual minority.

      In this hermeneutical approach, Jesus couldn’t have had XY chromosomes, making him a person born, “genetically”, a woman. Making him a trans man.

      Either Jesus was LGBT or this overly literalistic approach to scripture doesn’t work, friend.

      • MichaelGC

        Good job. When you can’t explain it away, just make it up as you go.

        • I think the “if you take everything poetic and remove the poetry, you’re left with some very interesting conclusions” is a pretty true statement.

          One thing I loathe about the literalism movement is how it systematically removes the beauty of language use in the Bible. Both Old and New Testaments repeatedly utilize metaphor and poetry.

        • “For there are eunuchs who were born that way; others were made that way by men; and still others live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”
          What is the plain meaning, here? Inquiring minds want to know.

        • wullaj

          Enjoy your ignorance.

      • Grasshopper

        Legitimately curious: why could Jesus not have had XY chromosomes? I’ve found some explanations through googling but I can’t tell from your comment how you are coming to that conclusion.

      • spacegal2003

        I’m not sure I buy this reasoning. I mean, we’re talking about a miracle of a virgin having a baby. The Holy Spirit could have come upon Mary with a Y chromosome just as easily as an X.

        • I don’t buy the reasoning, either, which was sort of the point? To highlight how ridiculous this hyper-literal hermenuetical approach is.

          I think it’s a interesting notion for Jesus to be a trans person, but I’m not the one with the interpretive lens that requires me to make dogmatic, universal, blanket assertions about Scriptural passages limited to their time and place. I’m not the one taking “that one time Jesus said something about men and women getting married” so literally that it must mean “ZOMG JESUS CONDEMNED GAY MARRIAGE ARGH”.

  • Jesse Hake

    “Have a nice life. You’re done talking here…”

    This is the attitude that I’m talking about, people. The prideful “my way or the highway” mindset.

    Let me be clear about one thing, though:

    “Is the Christian community guilty of hatred against the gay community?” A resounding, YES.
    “Has Christianity singled out homosexuality as the cardinal sin of sins?” Once again, YES.
    “Do Christians wrongfully make blanket statements about the LGBT community, as well?” YES

    So, obviously, the Christian community has it’s own sins to come to terms with and I think any Christian that denies this is either ignorant or self-deceived. Unfortunately, a LOT of this stems from cults like West Boro Baptist “Church” who provoked public outcry when they very foolishly decided to protest funerals and the like holding up cardboard signs with bigoted, hateful, and violent messages against the gay community. What’s worse, however, is that the Christian community stood in silence for so long that Fred Phelps and company were able to then seemingly make a case for “silence is consent” when in all reality, most of the Christian community totally disagreed with both their method and theological doctrine.

    I honestly feel that the Church will have to answer for this in time as the mere allowance of West Boro Baptist Cult to spread their antichrist message most assuredly hindered the authentic Christian message of love, mercy, grace, forgiveness, restoration, salvation, and redemption. Now, I’m not denying that there are others in the Christian community who have, likewise, done serious damage to the witness of the Church, however, it is quite apparent to me, that, America’s negative reaction to the Gospel stems quite a bit from the irrational and hate-filled message that Fred Phelps helped to indoctrinate to all of his followers prior to his own eventual demise….

    A few years ago, I lost a good friend named Todd Ruhter and quite unfortunately before he passed away from complications with HIV (a diagnosis I would find out about much, much later, though) I ended up having a very, very disrespectful and bitter conversation with him via FB after he publicly mocked the God of the bible and consequently, my resentful and angry words caused him to unfriend me, thereafter.

    Yet, each time I saw him on the street out in town, I longed to reconcile with him and tell him that I was sorry for my bitter response to him. I even sent him a private message on Facebook, too… one that he never made an effort to either read or respond to, though. Then came the news seemingly out of nowhere that he had passed away and it was only through network inquiry that I would come to find out he had acquired AIDS, in the end. I can’t begin to tell you how devastated I was and I wept bitter tears of regret knowing that I would never again get the chance this side of eternity to apologize to him and be reconciled to him!

    Why do I share this? Because I desire for anyone reading this to understand something that I think perhaps pertains to the LGBT community as much as it does the Christian community:

    Not all Christians are the same just as I’m beginning to slowly come to the understanding that not all LGBT individuals are pursuing some kind of hidden agenda, either. Yes, for the most part, the LGBT community does have both political and social agendas to carry out but I also fail to grasp the reality that not all LGBT people are genuinely set out to corrupt the world… some are, indeed, but not all of them.

    That being said, perhaps, just perhaps, I was a bit to hasty in my personal assessment of Samantha ?

    I guess, I just wish she would cease painting all Christians as being the same just as, we… I, too, have painted all non-Christians in the same exact context and category…

    Love your neighbor as yourself, right?
    Well, something along those lines, I suppose.

    • J.B.

      I’m not clear where you think Samantha is painting all Christians as intolerant jerks? I’ve certainly seen plenty of non Christians use “Christian” as a shortcut to describe intolerance and judging against LGBT(etc), and myself tend to use “Evangelical” that way. Samantha spends a lot of time talking about systems in place in IFB churches as her background and darn if those systems don’t have a scary impact on the wider world and political movements. I think that if tolerant Christians want to take back the label “Christian” they need to be out doing good works with no judgement.

      • I don’t think the problem is that tolerant Christians aren’t out there doing good works without judgment. They do, but they are less likely to wear it on their sleeves. And in a sense, they can’t. If they are following Jesus, they’re really not supposed to be tooting their own horns.

      • Kevin

        I didn’t see the the comment you’re referring to, but based on your reply, I can say this: Sam can’t be calling all Christians intolerant jerks because she’s a Christian herself. I wonder if tolerant Christians may actually shun the label.

  • Peg Healy

    This is a very thoughtfully written article, Samantha. I think you’ve put a finger on something very important and systemic. I am sorry for your pain. — Perhaps your wisdom can help me in a different situation with a related issue, about hate and dislike. How am I supposed to feel about a brother who has hurt vulnerable people, and who might/will probably hurt more vulnerable people? “Hate the sin and love the sinner?” Can I believe in his remorse and reformation? I have a definite gag reflex here, a sense of abhorrence about what he’s done and what he is and what he might do again. And I am floundering with it. How am I supposed to love him? And yet he is who he is, even if that feels like
    manipulative and insecure and twisted. — Like I said, a different situation, definitely not involving the behaviors of consenting adults. Long past the statute of limitations. In a different state.

  • Bailey Bergmann

    I’ve been thinking about this post for days. Very well-written and thought-provoking. I’m appalled at the kind of hatred disguised as love coming from the Christian community.

    I’d love your thoughts on this: Are you implying that it’s impossible for someone to love another person yet find their actions (not their personhood, but their actions) repulsive, or are you speaking solely in the context of LGBT+ issues? I’m in a situation where someone I love committed a horrible sexual crime against someone else I equally love. I am viscerally repulsed, horrified, and angered by their crime….but I still love them. I would like to think that’s a possibility, because I cannot condone, excuse, or sweep away their abominable behavior, but I also cannot abandon my love for that person. I do not at all mean to compare LGBT+ behavior to sexual assault; that’s not my intention at all; the two are not comparable. I’m genuinely curious whether you would consider it impossible, in any situation, to deeply love someone and be deeply appalled by their behavior in a way that does not abhor their existence. Apologies if this is off-topic!

    • My reaction to your comment is, to be fair, not entirely to *your* comment, but to the category of comment it belongs to. You certainly seem like a lovely person, so please don’t take this as a scathing indictment of your character:

      I resent this comparison. I’m a bisexual woman, happily married. I think our life is pretty great, and is a partnership that I believe has helped a lot of people in emotional and physical ways. Most notably, being married to my partner enables me to write this blog. Without them I wouldn’t have the emotional fortitude to push through everything that gets slung my way.

      In the context of your specific comment: my love doesn’t rape or assault anyone. My love, my ability to have a life-giving relationship with someone else is not a crime that strips someone of their bodily autonomy and can cause them to experience PTSD episodes for the rest of their life, like I do as a rape victim.

      I know you said

      “I don’t at all mean to compare LGBT+ behavior to sexual assault; that’s not my intention at all; the two are not comparable”

      But the problem with that is that you just did. You wrote this on a blog post that is talking about the LGBT+ community and the suffering we’re enduring. There are a lot of blog posts out there that talk about rape– but you left it here. By leaving it here you forced us to make the comparison. And while you’re with your mouth saying “I know they’re not the same,” you’re asking me as asuffering LGBT person to please explain to you how to best love your rapist of a friend/family member “in spite of what they did” because somehow, I as an LGBT person, am the best person to answer that. Like being LGBT means I have some sort of experience with telling family members how to “love a rapist while condemning their sin.”

      My love for my partner is nothing like raping someone for FUCK’S SAKE. I don’t know how to answer that question, because I’M NOT A RAPIST, and would never do anything LIKE that to another human being.

      If you were asking me as a rape victim, this would be a different question, but you’re not asking a rape victim. You’re asking a bisexual woman.

      Just … no. No.

      • Bailey Bergmann

        I am deeply apologetic my comment was offensive. I only asked this question to you on this post because I appreciated your thoughtfulness, respected your opinion, and was wondering if you had thought further about this issue in another, off topic context. Please forgive me for asking my question on an improper forum. Blessings to you and yours!

        • I appreciate the apology.

          I honestly don’t know how to answer your question, either. I’m a rape victim. If people I cared about looked at me and my rapist and said “well, I still love them and care about them, they’re family!” I’d have to fight the urge to slap them so hard their teeth bleed.

          If someone asked me how I thought they should treat my rapist, I’d be hard pressed not to ask them why they’re ok having a relationship with a man who’s raped multiple women with impunity.

          I don’t understand your situation, though. Maybe the rapist you know is repentant and committed to unlearning his misogyny and entitlement and has demonstrated that. If he’s still the kind of man who hurts people and takes what he wants regardless of that other person’s autonomy … we shouldn’t tacitly endorse behavior that hurts others.

  • These are such tough, strong words… but the point really needs to be drilled down openly and not sugar-coated.

  • Guanting Zhou

    Just because you have urges to do something doesn’t mean you should, and just because people tell you acting on your urges is wrong, doesn’t mean they hate you. You twist the sermon on the mount beyond recognition. Jesus says looking on a woman with lust is committing adultery. What then would a man looking at a man with lust, or a woman looking at a woman with lust be to Jesus? Following your line of reasoning leads to having no standards.

    Did you know that there are people in the world who identify as zoophiles, and believe that having sex with animals is just an expression of love? And no, I’m not saying bestiality is equivalent to homosexuality, or saying acceptance of one inevitably leads to the other. The point I’m making is all of your arguments could be used to say we must accept the actions of those people. I mean most people have a visceral disgust for bestiality, does that mean they are headed for hellfire?

    God has standards which He’s laid out for us to follow. Those standards don’t revolve solely around consent and love. No one is saying you don’t have every right to exist exactly as you are. They’re saying you shouldn’t follow every urge you feel. What you like to do to get yourself off is not who you are. And, hey, you have the right to do those things anyway. Nobody is trying to take your legal right to have sex with who you want away. They’re just informing you that God doesn’t approve of it, as you’ll find confirmed in both scripture and church tradition.

    I would have a lot more respect for you if you would just stop applying the Christian label to yourself. In every article you seem to revile the teachings of scripture. You don’t seem to hold a confident belief in any traditional Christian doctrine. I doubt you really believe the resurrection occurred or believe there is a personal God or afterlife. So why do you cling to the title Christian?

    There’s only one possible answer. You’re trying to ruin Christianity for everyone else. It’s very insidious. You know that you don’t believe in it any more, but rather than just leave Christians alone to their own devices and enjoy your life of Godless sapphic hedonism, you have to destroy it for the rest of us. You can’t stand that anyone else goes on believing what you once did, so you creep in like a wolf among sheep, calling yourself a Christian so you can stealthily inject your anti-family doctrines into the minds of the innocent. You won’t be happy until wives turn against husbands, sons and daughters turn against mothers and fathers, and every traditional Christian belief is jettisoned. You want churches to become secular humanist self-help philosophy centers with a thin veneer of Christianity.

    I’m a live and let live type. While I’d prefer you were a Christian, I would much prefer you go about your life as an atheist/agnostic polyamorous intersectional bisexual and leave us Christians alone, rather than roleplaying as a Christian so you can drag others down with you. Show some intellectual honesty for once in your life. There’s no point in being lukewarm, you’ll get spit out anyway.

    • “Someone who intellectually chooses to affirm a specific and totally arbitrary list of assumptions, beliefs, interpretive lenses, and theological positions” isn’t my definition of Christian. My definition of Christian is “someone who chooses to follow Christ and apply his teachings to their life.”

      Granted that’s a pretty big disagreement, so by your definition, most people probably aren’t Christians if they don’t hold to your “traditional” beliefs (which, what the hell are those, really? Protestants and Catholics and Greek Orthodox can’t even agree on some pretty basic theological tenets and creeds, so are you saying only *one* of those groups are properly Christian, you know better than thousands of people about what “true Christianity” is and everyone who doesn’t hold to your particular arbitrary list is just “trying to ruin it for everyone”?).

      The hubris in this comment is incredible.

      And dude I’m not poly. If you want to throw what you think are accusations around, at least try to be accurate?

      Like “sapphic hedonism” is supposed to mean something to me. lol.

      • I read this comment to my partner. His notes: “Sir, you are the least self-aware person I have ever interacted with.”

    • Nicole Chase

      “There’s only one possible answer. You’re trying to ruin Christianity for everyone else. It’s very insidious.”

      OH MY GOD DUDE WHAT IS WRONG WITH YOU

    • Nicole Chase

      “You won’t be happy until wives turn against husbands, sons and daughters turn against mothers and fathers…” gee, that sounds familiar…

      “For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” – Matthew 10:35

      “The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.” – Luke 12:53

    • Actually, no. The only reason one might argue for compassion, kindness, and love is NOT that one hates Christianity and wants to tear it down. Maybe she just, you know, wants to see gay people and trans people and all sorts of other people to not be oppressed and hated and destroyed by Christianity anymore?

      Good Lord, you’re full of yourself. You see someone trying to make life better for others who are different than you, and all you can think is that she wants to hurt you in some way!?!

      The god you believe in is a petty, vindictive bully. He makes people with the capacity and the need to love and then forbids them to love. He makes people one way and demands they be another way–or pretend all their lives to be another way. He refuses to answer prayers of these people when they want to change. He promises eternal, conscious pain and torture for those who don’t comply. If your god is real, I will probably go to hell. I cannot bring myself to pretend to love such an evil entity.

      • Beroli

        If Hell exists, then all the best people will be there.

  • Nicole Chase

    I am so, so thankful for your writing. This needs to be shouted from the rooftops of every church until people GET it. <3

  • D1

    Found this blog post, looked at the comments section. One side needs to be more sensitive and realistic, one side needs to be a bit more thick skinned and discerning. I’ll let you all figure out which side is which.

    • Beroli

      They’re both you. That was easy.

  • BigGaySteve

    Blaming STR8 White Church Going Christian Men for the afghan moslem shooting 102 gays is CrackHoeLiscous. I have never meet a STR8 White Church Going Christian Man who hated gays as much as jewish lesbians hate Christians. For the most part they simply want to avoid us or not pay for the $1500+ per person per month for Truvada Prep.

  • Ysolde

    Just catching up on old posts, but so very true.