Free Republic

Well, I’m gay (though I appreciate the warning, Yaelle). I joined FR years ago because I though my perspective might add a valued perspective to discussions of this topic. I quickly learned that I was mistaken, and I no longer post here because any opinion I might express on this subject of obvious interest to me would result in a quick zot.

But since you asked, I (a man) can report that, though I appreciate the beauty of women, I have never been sexually attracted to them. I was aware — long before puberty — that I preferred the looks of a handsome man to those of an attractive woman. I am not, to my knowledge, recognizably effeminate. I have always enjoyed a good and close relationship to both my parents — neither distant nor overbearing. I have never been molested, nor was I ever “recrutited.” I have been happily (and legally) married to a man for many years. So there’s your anecdotal evidence, which you may take or leave.

Your heartening post has inspired me to do something I have not done in years -- make a post of my own on Free Republic.

For a while back at the start of this decade, I would post here occasionally to make an argument I hoped would change some minds -- namely, that the causes increasingly being adopted by the gay movement (e.g., seeking participation by gays in bedrock "conservative" social institutions such as the armed forces, the boy scouts, and most prominently marriage) signified a growing conservative tendency among gays, and a turning away from the "new left" inspired gay liberation movement of earlier decades. This, I urged, presented an opportunity for gays and political conservatives to engage in a dialogue that might, conceivably, benefit both. Though I was never banned from this site, my argument, not surprisingly, was met mostly with opposition and disbelief.

But I was not dissuaded from making my argument(which I believed then and believe to this day) until I observed, in the years following the Supreme Court's Lawrence v. Texas decision, that Free Republic had become receptive to only the most vituperative and outrageous calumnies against gay people --including allegations that we (I'm gay) were inveterate enemies of conservative society, who sought to participate in traditional insitutions such as marriage only as a way to subvert those institutions. Though I felt such charges to be tragically mistaken, I became disheartened about the use of arguing against them, feeling that making even good-faith arguments to the contrary here would be like spitting into a gale-force wind.

I guess I still feel that way, which is why I don't plan to actively post here again anytime soon. But I'm regretful, because I once hoped (naively, I guess) that there was some possibility of a rapproachement between at least the more conservative-minded segments of the gay community and the more open-minded segments of the political conservative movement.

Anyway, I just wanted to say that your post cheers me to the extent it shows that thoughtful, open-minded persons still exist among political conservatives, even if their voices are currently drowned out by the more doctrinaire. Your post gives me some hope that someday we'll be able to speak to one another in a civil manner on this subject. We're all Americans, after all.

I did not say that the Sheppard murder was "worse" than the Dirkhising murder. I don't think one was "worse" than the other.

What I said was the Sheppard murder was what is known as a "hate" crime, i.e., a crime motivated by the victim's social status. The Dirkhising murder was what is known as a "sex" crime, i.e., a crime committed in connection with a rape. Therefore the appropriate comparison of the Dirkhising case is to other sex crimes against children.

But maybe you're right: Let's use the sexual orientation of the perpetrator as the classification for comparison. But then we end up with a whole heap of murders committed by straights, and a much smaller number of murders committed by gays, don't we?

I know this will shock! everybody here, but I see no reason why the Sheppard and Dirkhising cases should be compared (more than any two, randomly chosen murder cases should be compared).

The contention in the Sheppard case was that he was killed because he was homosexual. That is why the media made a fuss: It was supposedly an example of the virulence of homophobia in our society, etc., etc. Therefore, it makes some sense to compare the Sheppard case to the murder of James Byrd, where the motivation for the killing was apparently the victim's minority status (in Byrd's case, as a black man).

As far as I know, no one has ever claimed that Dirkhising was killed because he was straight. (I don't know that it's ever even been established that he was straight.) Therefore, the Dirkhising case does not serve as a counter-example of the virulence of gays' hatred of heterosexuals, and so is not a useful comparison to the Sheppard case.

In fact, I can't think of any useful comparison to the Sheppard case, i.e., an instance when a couple of gay men beat a straight man to death because he was straight.

Nevertheless, it might make sense to compare the Dirkhising case to the many recent cases in the news where presumably straight men violated, then killed, little girls. In all those situations, the victim was killed in connection with a (twisted) sexual act.

But, of course, if we were to compare the Dirkhising case to the recent rapes/murders of little girls, it wouldn't be as satisfying would it? After all, the ratio of gay rapist/murderers to straight rapist/murderers wouldn't be one-to-one. So that wouldn't serve the "agenda" of the Reismanites.

Jesus told us not to cast our pearls before swine -- the meaning fitting this exact situation. If you truly wish to learn where you err, I will help. If you continue on your current path, I'll tell the Lord that I have done what I could, and move on.

Excuse me if I'm mistaken, but did you just call me "swine"? Oh, well, I've been called worse.

Anyway, as to your kind offer of "help," thanks but no thanks.

I feel, to be polite, that I should offer to reciprocate and "help" you convert, but we gays don't really go in for that kind of thing.

For the last time: Christians, believe what you will. And feel free to say that self-professed Christians who disagree with your church's doctrine are not "real" Christians. But in this country at least, the Cathedral of Hope has a right to call itself Christian equal to that of any other church.

And the sight of gay, self-professed Christian church-goers is going to change opinions, whether you deign to recognize them as true Christians or not.

Far sider, I gave a lengthy reply to reborn22's post, because I was upset with this blatant racism. After reading it again, I am furious!

I should resist, but I can't help but point out that opinions on interracial marriage were (quite recently) nearly universal among conservatives and were backed up with -- you guessed it -- citations to the Bible.

Yes. They were.

And to anticipate the obvious (and I'm sure outraged!) question: Yes, that is a comparison between racism and discrimination against gays.

Fethiye asserted one could be a Christian and unashamedly live a homosexual lifestyle and still please God. Fethiye has attempted to infest the Gospel with a vermin claim.

This is a misrepresentation. I have not made any claims about how Christians should view homosexuality. At most I have been critical of others who argued that all "true" Christians must adopt their own particular church's position on the subject.

Instead, my consistent subject has been increasing church-going by open gays, and the vociferous opposition that phenomenon inspires among some conservatives.

Conservatives who, one might hope (naively, I guess) would be supportive of that and similar trends toward traditional values among gays.

I hope your friend, and his friends, find the happiness they seek, whether in the Cathedral of Hope or in your church. But I also hope that they don't marry women (or men) and have children unless they are quite sure they know themselves well enough to make that commitment.

You know, being disqualified from marriage has one (and only one) upside -- it reminds you that marriage is a precious thing, not to be toyed with.

I don't think Fethiye is a woman philman.

Well, Fethiye, what's the sticky with the wicket? Inquiring minds and all...you know how it is.

Since you asked, I'm a man.

It's tres hip to be with a Muslim in the lefty world, so fethiye is with one. His boyfriend.

Grlfrnd, we may disagree on whether my marriage deserves legal recognition (and whether I deserve to be able to call it a marriage). Fine. But you're out of line when you disparage the sincerity of the relationship by labeling it "tres hip." Really, you know next to nothing about me, as I of you. But I would not think of being so presumptuous as to slight your feelings for those you love.

I would expect you to apologize if you have any common courtesy.

Seriously, Goldhammer, would either of those guys look any better with his arm around a woman?

No, I'm not a Christian. But there is much of Christianity I admire.

I'm not a Muslim or a Turk either. But my husband is.

I gather from your perjorative citation to the "Cathedral of Dope" that you disagree with this sermon. To be consistent with my previous posts on this thread, I will say that I don't think a minister of the Cathedral of Hope has any place telling Catholics what to believe. But as a sociological (i.e., non theological) critique of what's behind the pedophile-priest scandal, I think there's a lot of wisdom in what Piazza says.

Jorge, we're talking past one another. I think you know I wasn't claiming that Christian sects had persecuted one another over the issue of homosexuality. I was, quite clearly I think, referring to disputes over other theological issues (once seemingly so important, now barely noticeable). And yes, there is a well-documented history of Christians killing one another over disputed points of doctrine. Thank God, not much in the U.S., where the state refrains from defining religious truth.

And once again, I haven't, and won't, take any position on how Christians "should" view homosexuality. That is between them and their God.

Now if you want to talk about the political implications of increasing numbers of openly gay church-goers, that I'm more interested in.

You misread. The "long history of rather bitter disagreement" to which I referred was quite clearly that concerning "whether one or another body of professed believers is 'really' Christian." You remember, when Catholics burned Protestants at the stake, and vice versa, over doctrinal differences that today inspire considerably less enmity?

Maybe one day other churches will recognize that their differences with the Cathedral of Hope on the issue of homosexuality are, likewise, nothing to get overly bothered about.

In any case, the point of my post, which you ignored, was that I take no position on bibilical interpretation. I do not claim to know who is right on such questions.

Rather, I posted this article to show how increasing numbers of gays are leading lives in which they celebrate traditional values such as religiousity and marital commitment. And that too many conservatives reject these trends out of hand, clinging instead to outmoded visions of gays as rebels and enemies of tradition.

But my hope (and what would reconfirm my belief in the American political process) is that both sides will gradually achieve accomodation, in which gays increasingly accept traditional values, and conservatives increasingly accept gays who do so.

Oh, my mistake! I had not realized that absolute Christian truth is knowable, now that we have www.biblesearch.com.

I take no position on the interpretation of scripture, or on whether one or another body of professed believers is "really" Christian. There's a long history of rather bitter disagreement on that subject, in which, as I recall, none of the disputing factions came out looking especially good.

Nowadays, most churches seem to respect one another, while recognizing their doctrinal differences. Unless, as always, those churches are gay.

So a church with gays in it isn't "really" a church, and a city in Texas with a gay church in it isn't "really" in Texas. And if you stick your head in the sand, none of this is "really" happening.

You seem to know so much about christianity please point out our errors using the bible. Show the contradictions.

I didn't say you'd made "errors" in interpreting doctrine. Maybe you're right. Maybe the Church described in this article is right.

I'm just thankful to live in a country where neither I, nor anyone else, is required to accept a particular interpretation of scripture in order to be considered a true Christian.