Homosexuality & Christianity

[BeachOfEden]

Rev said in another thread here,

 

"Most Christians -- even the conservative, fundamental Christians -- have nothing against the person of the homosexual. It is the lifestyle we do not condone. Personally, I have had a number of friends who are homosexuals. I enjoyed their company and their friendship, however, I am strongly against their way of life. Biblically, it is wrong. God never intended people to mate with the same sex. Just as He never intended people to mate with fish, horse or tree."

 

When it comes to such a topic or subject I have usuallywithdraw from commenting..mostly cause I am not sure how to respond or what to say or where to begin. I have two great male friends who are gay. One is my nephew who is 3 years younger than me and we have been great friends since we were little and the other has been more of a challenge to me because we have been like best friends and we also grew up together. All three of us were raised Jehovah's Witnesses. Since then all three of us are NOT in JW anymore and all 3 of us now consider ourselves Progressive Christians. I had no idea that this other freind of mine was gay untill two years ago when he and I were driving back from a concert and he said to me, "What do you think of gay people?"

 

In the beginning, when he first told me that he was gay..he showed me this article online wrriten by the gay man who discribed himself as a gay man who was not against gay being with gays sexually..but that 'he' was convinced that it was NOT being gay that God was/is against but rather that God is against anal sex for BOTH gays and straights because, he said, medical facts prove that anal sex is thee number one way that AIDS and Hep B is spread.

 

He said that straights often are hyprocrites cause they tisk-task gay men for having anal sex but then the straight condeming them for this also have anal sex with women, which he claimed is equally dangerous and unhealthy, and yet these str8's see nothing wrong with this.

 

I read indepth everyhting this gay man had to say on his issue not against gays or even gay having sex but rather simply anal sex. I study indepth his findings on scriptures and Greek and Hebrew words and their meanings and after all this I have concluded that I DO believe that anal sex is a bad thing for EVERYONE..that is..BOTh gays AND straights.... Beyound this?

 

I have not completed my whole view on this whole issue as of yet. One thing I DO know, though..is I feel strongly that it IS WRONG for straights to try and sweet-talk gays people into trying to force themselves be attracted to the opposite sex. I feel strongly that this is wrong and NOT ethical. It is impossoble for an individual to change what gender they are attracted to..and in this way it is like being born left handedght handed.

 

One thing also is that many gay men, including both of these friends of mine, have told me that many gay men don't like anal sex and will not take part in this act..So if a straight were to base their condemation of gays based on this alone...it would surely shoot down their foundation of biast...and it would also force them to also have to condem many staright people for the same reason.

[BeachOfEden]

I would greatly be interested in hearing everyone's view on this. Also I'd be happy to cutNpast that one gay man's view on all this on here if you all would like.

[irreverance]

I have some thoughts to share. But first I would like to hear what the gentleman said whom you refered to. Please X+P the text.

[ArmadilloUCC]

I'm not going to go into which sexual positions are wrong. But it's a good point about how people judge one group of people for an act that they themselves do. For example, NC still has a "crimes against nature" law on the books. In outlaws anal and oral sex for everyone. Straight or gay, married or single, men or woman. It's interesting that until recently, (US Supreme Court case Lawrence V Texas) people would point out how this is a good law because homosexuality is an abomination. And all the time it was illegal for them to get oral sex from their wives.

[BeachOfEden]

Ok..here's that article written by that gay man who calls himslef a G0y and his website is:

 

www.G0ys.org

 

(I have cleaned up his use of terms)

 

This is what he had to write...(keep in mind this is written by a gay man)

 

GAY" has, in many social circles, been made almost synonymous with "DISEASE". Now why do you suppose that would be? Let's take a look at the CDC's figures on AIDS infection (for example) in the US for a clue:

 

AIDS Cases by Exposure Category (2002)

 

Following is the distribution of the estimated number of diagnoses of AIDS among US adults and adolescents by exposure category. A breakdown by sex is provided where appropriate.

 

Exposure Category (CDC figures) Male Female Total

Male-to-male sexual contact 420,790 - 420,790

Injection Drug Use 172,351 67,917 240,268

Male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use 59,719 - 59,719

Heterosexual contact 50,793 84,835 135,628

Other* 14,350 6,519 20,869

 

* Includes hemophilia, blood transfusion, perinatal,

and risk not reported or not identified.

 

The first line should be a wake up call! Male to male contact: 420,790 cases! This is as much or more than all other causes of infection combined (& please notice that the 3rd leading cause is a combination of [male/male sex -or- IV drugs])! But, is the phrase "male/male sexual contact" accurate? Not really. Why? Because there is a form of male/male sexual contact particularly good at spreading HIV (article). Ironically, it's also a major vector for AIDS spread by male/female sexual contact. If you want to spread disease, & really let it explode into society in epidemic proportions, - anal "play" is the sexual fetish to participate in:

 

You'll notice that the gender of the person on the receiving end of this act is not disclosed in the picture. This is because the gender is irrelevant. In the chart above: 135,628 cases of AIDS were attributed to "HETEROsexual" contact. What you are not told is the FORM the "Heterosexual contact" took. People may assume, because of the label "HETEROsexual", that it was penile/vaginal sexual contact. This is unlikely for (2) reasons. 1) More men are likely to use a condom in penile/vaginal sex to prevent pregnancy; And, 2) contrary to misconception , the vagina is fairly hostile to HIV taking hold, where as the anus will welcome it readily! Most women infected by HIV became so by participating in anal intercourse, or repeated unprotected vaginal sex with an infected partner (who almost always contracted HIV via anal intercourse or *IV drug use). The playground acronym for AIDS: "Anally Injected Death Sentence" is not inaccurate in this respect! AIDS is seldom spread in other ways.

 

Today's lesson: Being gay does not spread AIDS. Anal "sex" does. It does so +400% more often than the next statistical bullet!

 

(No-Stigmas?)

This growing group, that Asserts that anal-sex-play is "gAy. It's not "gAy" as much as it simply doesn't give a dAmn about the recipient of this outlaw form of pseudo-sex. Furthermore, the it will stop at nothing to spread participation in this fetish to the ends of the earth. The ad images shown are examples of mass e-mail marketing, - several e-mails that a junk mail account set up specifically to monitor "gAy" e-mail collects daily. Look & you'll that that every such e-mail promotes a single theme: Anal "sex" = "GAY". They" will even expend energy combating the simple truths this website shares with others! They will call us "oppressive" because we point out that anal sex is indirectly killing people. TheyT will call us "homophobic", despite the fact that we don't limit the message about the dangers of anal sex to "gAy" men. They will try to obfuscate & minimize the dangers of "anal sex" -- despite the fact that the figures on the chart above won't budge for them. Such people talks about "condom education campaigns", but it becomes obvious over a decade into such campaigns that either the campaigns do not work, or the fact that condoms DO fail (& that people don't always use them), - accounts for the 2002 figures on AIDS charted above! AIDS may be the ultimate bane of anal sex, but the fact is that "anal intercourse" (if it can even be called that), is a leading vector for virtually ALL sexually transmitted diseases & at levels many times higher! The mental spectre created in the public mind by images like the ones discribed here are the reason why g0ys do not adopt the "gAy" personna, label & do not want to be Associated with that culture. : Many people do not know to draw a distinction between "gay" & "anal.

 

 

 

Isn't it Romantic? - N0T!

 

Here's a number for you: According to the CDC, condoms fail about 2% of the time during anal sex. Since it only takes (1) failure to spread HIV, that's 1300% overkill. Last time I saw an overkill factor like that it was tied to the nuclear weapons program. Have 1/14th of a nuclear war & everyone is still dead.

 

Soft Personalities:

 

In psychology, people are sometimes classified based on their willingness to accept a suggestion. In the minds of susceptible people, a slogan repeated enough times is taken as truth: "The earth is flat", etc. Lacking either the willingness or faculty to question blanket statements about reality, these people live in a world made of gossip, myth & half truth; -- And they cannot understand why the people around them succumb to the likes of HIV.

 

Ask any gay guy who's over 49 where most of his adolescent 'friends' who came out as "gay" after Stonewall are now. Ask those still alive why they didn't become HIV+ too (the answers will all have 1-thing in common: an avoidance of anal penetration).

 

 

 

If we g0ys don't act, then the only thing these awesome younger dudes are gonna find are the disease ridden lies of a culture all dead except for a few statistical long-shots.

I for one love these younger dudes, - & many g0ys themselves have kids whom they want to be comfortable to live a life more open & honest, -- & without the stigmas associated with being "gAy". If you could read some of the private feedback to this site! There are lots of younger dudes in serious pain -- not because they are hott for other guys ... but because they HATE what mainstream "gAy" media portrays men who love men as being.

 

But, at the pinnacle of this open detest is the practice of "ANAL-PLAY"; -- And whether done by M/M or M/F couples -- g0ys abhor it. The good news is that it's so easy to stop that particular practice! Ignorance does form a foundation for excuse -- at least as far as the matter of "intent" is concerned.

 

 

G0YS.ORG is a site devoted to men who love men, but who want nothing to do with anal-penetration or the stigmas associated with it.

[irreverance]

BoE, thanks for the X+P. It's certainly an interesting take. Personally, I believe that the issue of holiness in all relationships has to do with the quality of relationship. It has been argued that what we call a committed homosexual relationship today was not a social issue in ancient days. Then, issues of power were woven into sex acts in ways to enact social dominance. Therefore, a major factor in the current debate has to do with the extent to which the biblical texts (which translated the Greek to "homosexual," and is thus a contextual mistranslation) are helpful today given that they are addressing a different situation and different issues.

 

Personally, I believe that the texts were meant to speak at that time and by their witness help us to discern in our own. The texts point us to the character of Jesus' Spirit which is alive in our midst. When we look at the way that Jesus interacted with people, we see that he constantly championed quality, justice-oriented, compassionate, self-giving, inclusive relationships. If we are to be a holy community (one conformed to his image as his body), then we need to be living out those characteristics. Admittedly, those values will constantly be struggling with one another for center stage, and this is where debate comes in. When I look at the character of Jesus (how many times does he stress the importance of relationship over textual decree?), I do not believe that he would be as concerned with the form a relationship took between a committed couple, but rather would be more interested in how the form liberated the fullness of love to blossom and grow.

[BeachOfEden]

Because I am not a guy...I can not really say my opinion on what this guy said. I guess I think that whether one is gay or straight to aim to keep ones relationships healthy should be a prime goal. What I DO know is I feel that the United Church of Christ was postively right to run those ads on tv and that we should not turn people away. Not just physically turn them away but I mean we should never even act or make facial expressions of disaprovel of someone regardless of their sexual orietation, gender or race and obviously as Progressives would agree, we should never try and judge someone's approvel in God's eyes because I agree with TCPC that The Golden rule should surpass any and all doctrines...and that is what differs us from fundamental Christianities. :)

[Ani-man]

Hi BeachofEden,

 

Interesting posts!

I was on the UCC forums for a while but left for a few reasons, one being a troll repeatedly changed names with new accts and posted anti gay bogus or biased "statistics", comments, political statements about gay people in all caps in the subject lines etc etc

 

The admins would eventually remove him but almost all of his vile posts remain, I just got tired of posting and then reading his immediate reply below mine or other posts condemning gays, onserting links to two shady "non profits" who alleged they can "convert" gay people etc

At one point I ran some financials on the two groups and posted the dismal facts showing they were rubbish, and one likely being run by one individual on a PC at home- total income for the year was under $26,000 in donations. The other wasn't much better and it's an International group

 

I thought the UCC all welcome theme and commercial was good and was the main reason I joined that forum- to support that, I wasn't planning to stay long but in the process I met a few really good friends I keep in contact with via email instead of the board

I was raised Catholic as a kid but I am agnostic, and a devotee of a fairly rare alternate sexual practice, I have a few problems with religious concepts, scriptures, people using selective parts of scriptures as a weapon, and then hiding behind the text when challenged by stating; "It's GODS word"

hypocritical people who say homosexuality is a sin, but convieniently ignore that "sin" includes adultry, divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, stealing of ANY kind, cursing one's parents and muiltitudes of things that occur daily everywhere.

They cite that homosexuality is sin, but then ignore the written directives to stone to death children who curse their parents, adulterers, abortionists etc.

So I don't know...every religion has it's books, scriptures, beliefs, history, characters and Gods, I don't believe any single one is 100% right over all the rest to the exclusion of the others. AFter all, Muslims for example believe the same sort of things Christians do and call all other religion followers the unbelievers who won't get to "heaven"- just as we claim they and other non believers won't

 

Thats it for now I guess, just call me "Thom"

Edited January 15, 2005 by Ani-man

[BeachOfEden]

"I was on the UCC forums for a while but left for a few reasons, one being a troll repeatedly changed names with new accts and posted anti gay bogus or biased "statistics", comments, political statements about gay people in all caps in the subject lines etc etc."

 

That happens alot on the XJW Debate board. There's these hardcore Southern Baptists who pretend to also be XJWs but don;t know what the 'bleep" they are talking about and they try and trick all former JW's into joining their fundamental right wing campains. It gets very annoying.

 

"I thought the UCC all welcome theme and commercial was good and was the main reason I joined that forum- to support that, I wasn't planning to stay long but in the process I met a few really good friends I keep in contact with via email instead of the board."

 

I have this great childhood friend that I grew up with. He is gay and also XJW and we were thinking about checking out this Progressive Presbyterian church in Hollywood in the Spring...but while I DO greatly respect these moderate mainline churches for social justice..there is always the battle with the old school fundamentalist that want to take the church back to it's John Calvin days...and because of this I think these churches like United Methodists and Presbyterians,ect..maybe all the Progressives should just start their own Progressive non-denominational churches and just make sure they put these phrase, "A Progressive Christian Church," on the outside.

 

"I was raised Catholic as a kid but I am agnostic, and a devotee of a fairly rare alternate sexual practice, I have a few problems with religious concepts, scriptures, people using selective parts of scriptures as a weapon, and then hiding behind the text when challenged by stating; "It's GODS word"

hypocritical people who say homosexuality is a sin, but convieniently ignore that "sin" includes adultry, divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, stealing of ANY kind, cursing one's parents and muiltitudes of things that occur daily everywhere."

 

Yes, my friend has also spoken of this to me and I always reasure him that I agree..that is..that many Southern fired str8 fundamentalist point the blaiming finger at gays but can not see the log before their own eyes.

 

"They cite that homosexuality is sin, but then ignore the written directives to stone adulterers, abortionists etc. "

 

Again, I agree with you on all this.

 

"So I don't know...every religion has it's books, scriptures, beliefs, history, characters and Gods, I don't believe any single one is 100% right over all the rest to the exclusion of the others. AFter all, Muslims for example believe the same sort of things Christians do and call all other religion followers the unbelievers who won't get to "heaven"- just as we claim they and other non believers won't."

 

And I also agree on this. I find much in Native American beliefs that compliment my own Progressive Christian views.

[AletheiaRivers]

Hi Thom!

 

So glad to have you on the forum.

 

I feel like I know you since I've read so many of your posts over at UCC, although I only posted once there myself, in introduction to the board.

 

Just don't tell any of the "crazies" from over there about this forum.

 

Aletheia

[des]

Hi Animan,

 

I like your Avatar (thinking of putting up a doggie one myself-- as Matt Fox said "my dog is my spiritual director.She keeps me very grounded."). I told him about our little group, said it was a good place and everything that the UCC board was not. Ah yes, our "friend" over there.... I did look up those groups, found them unlikely to say the least. I didn't do any research on them, just read the stuff they posted. There are a lot of ex ex gays, turns out. I knew a gay guy actually got married. Not sure if the marriage was annulled or what. I think the so-called conversions result from more bisexuals chosing to live as straights and then there are actual homosexuals living as celebates. Of course, since in these groups the act is what is sinful, then if you are celebate its ok. Doesn't quite prove anything though-- just that people can live as celebates, but doesn't mean they are all happy about it.

 

>.but while I DO greatly respect these moderate mainline churches for social justice..there is always the battle with the old school fundamentalist that want to take the church back to it's John Calvin days...and because of this I think these churches like United Methodists and Presbyterians,ect..maybe all the Progressives should just start their own Progressive non-denominational churches and just make sure they put these phrase, "A Progressive Christian Church," on the outside.

 

There might be some truth to this. There are factions in every moderate to liberal Christian church that have fundie members who want to turn them into "Bible believin'". There is a faction in UCC that has been working on UCCs from inside. There is a big group in UMC.

You can actually find conservative UCCs which blows my mind. I belonged to a very liberal social justice church in Chicago.(I moved.) We still had a small group of conservatives, but they were conservative light and not much of an issue. But this church is famous or infamous, so no one would go to it if they weren't pretty liberal to begin with. I think they would be turned off in services were they say the Lord's Prayer "Our Father-Mother who art in heaven", for instance. How you'd actually be able to start the Progressive Christian Church though...

 

>hypocritical people who say homosexuality is a sin, but convieniently ignore that "sin" includes adultry, divorce, working on the Sabbath, eating pork, stealing of ANY kind, cursing one's parents and muiltitudes of things that occur daily everywhere."

 

Wearing multifabric material? That ones in Leviticus. Then you can own slaves as long as they live in neighboring states (like Canadian slaves :-)).

 

>And I also agree on this. I find much in Native American beliefs that compliment my own Progressive Christian views.

 

Certainly. I feel that since we are human we can never get the whole truth by ourselves, and that groups of people over times have elements that we don't have. For example, i might mention the respect/reverence for the Earth that Western religions lack (and at our peril). BTW, some Native American languages have no word for homosexual.

 

BTW, I really think UCC should pull their forum. It gives a really bad view of UCC. If you read the board first, you'd never go to a UCC church. It puts a terrible light on their organization.

 

Hey, you really are "welcome here". :-)

 

--des

[SweetTea]

I aggree with the idea that the actual state of homosexuality is not immoral, because how can love be immoral? But I do believe that sexual immorality is wrong. This means sex without love, sex that is medically or emotionally dangerous, and sex that involves children or other family members.

 

This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned. However, I believe that in a real, true, loving relationship (gay OR straight), sex is secondary to the spiritual bond that two people share. So I do believe that two gay men in a loving, committed relationship can glorify God with their love for one another, as long as they treat their bodies as temples, as we are called to do in the Bible, and refrain from engaging in risky sexual behavior (like anal sex and sex with multiple partners), thus avoiding "sexual immorality" and therefore, sin.

 

There's a disturbing double standard in this country.... Lesbianism is far more accepted than male homosexuality. I think that this is because we come from a patriarchal society which has largely associated women with sex and fertility, and any exploitation of that association is not only accepted, but encouraged. But are there any biblical or spiritual grounds on which to build this double standard?

 

To tackle this from a biblical perspective, it's hard to say whether oral sex is included as sexual immorality, but most lesbians I know (and I know a bunch) use vibrators and other sex toys with their partners. There are subtle references to sex with inanimate objects in Leviticus, and my definition of "sexual immorality" includes risky sexual behavior.... Like say.... Putting an electrical foreign object into your genitals..... Again.... This is something that even straight women do (just as straight men engage in anal sex with women), so again, none can really criticize this behavior on strictly (non-biblical) ethical grounds.

 

I have several gay Christian friends. They are wonderful people, and powerfully devoted to Jesus. I don't believe for one second that they are doomed to eternal hell or that God hates them OR their lifestyles, as they are possibly the most stable, devout, passionate Christians I know. But they hold themselves to the same standard that every Christian should. They live moral lives and do not perform lewd acts on one another. They just praise God for the gift of love that He chose to bestow on them, no matter whether the vessel of that love has a ###### or a vagina. They refuse to squander a gift that many of us never have a chance to enjoy. Do I think that's evil? Of course not! How could it be?

 

-Tea

[SweetTea]

There might be some truth to this. There are factions in every moderate to liberal Christian church that have fundie members who want to turn them into "Bible believin'". There is a faction in UCC that has been working on UCCs from inside. There is a big group in UMC.

 

Being a United Methodist from rural Virginia.... There are PLENTY of fundies in the UMC. But there are plenty of true progressives as well, who choose not to ignore the slogan "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" (like my father, who is pastor of a 4 church charge deep in "gay-bashin', bible-beatin', hellfire-and-brimstone" appalachia).

 

I was blessed to be able to speak with a bishop in London last summer who restored my faith in the International Methodist Church, but in the US, the last 4 General Conferences (I was at 2 of them) have seen a deep divide in the church. Many of the ordained clergy want to take a more hard line fundie route.... Getting back to the roots of the evangelical movement and riding the wave created by the religious right. They believe this will boost membership (and revenue). Most of the Lay delegates and many of the Liscenced (as opposed to ordained) clergy want to take the opposite route, opening the door for a more progressive and accepting church. Their motives are rooted more in the spiritual rewards of speaking to people who want to listen and really making a difference, the way Jesus wanted us to. The split is nearly 50/50, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better.

 

Thus far on the topic of Gay members, the UMC welcomes people from all walks of life into the fold of the Master's robe. Two lesbian ministers have had their ordination revoked, but there was quite an uproar about that among the laity in those conferences. I feel, based on my experience with the church, that the rules will change in favor of progressve ideals eventually, and the fundies won't win, but I also believe that the fundies have been very successful in stalling this process for quite sometime.

 

Just thought I'd add two cents on that topic.

 

-Tea

[Ani-man]

Hi Thom!

 

So glad to have you on the forum. 

 

I feel like I know you since I've read so many of your posts over at UCC, although I only posted once there myself, in introduction to the board.

 

Hi Aletheia,

 

Thank you for the welcome

Not to worry, I asked them to close my account and unbookmarked the site as well.

 

If it was my forum you can be sure that individual's ISP would have received a certified letter in mail from my attorney with a cease and desist from tresspassing, and the problem would have been taken care of immediately not allowed to go on for over 100 posts!

At least 3 people I know about left the forum over that person.

 

Hi again Des, nice to find you too

 

<Des>I think the so-called conversions result from more bisexuals chosing to live as straights and then there are actual homosexuals living as celebates

 

Bingo, I think very few gay people ever just "convert" to straight, they were either bi to begin with and "shut off" their gay half, or they are fooling themselves.

 

Groups? do you men those two "charities" the person posted several times about being so great?

 

Here is what I found on these two who claim they are SOOOO successful at converting gay people;

 

I did a little look-see into this Exodus charity, here's what I found, and I know somewhere I have bookmarked a search that kicks back more details such as SALARIES and overhead- in other words WHERE the money goes, but according to the finacial records, this charity only has a 50% deductibility limit, and in one search their income was less than $25,000 under one of their names;

 

'Exodus Global Alliance encompasses Africa, Asia Pacific, Brazil, China, Europe, Middle East, India, and Latin America with the International Office located in Toronto, Canada

 

Organization Name: Exodus Global Alliance

City: Canton, MI (Until December 2008)

Code: None - A public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation.

 

EXODUS GLOBAL ALLIANCE

CANTON , MI 48187

EIN: 20-0568425

This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000. It is a 501©(03) public charity.

 

Under another of their names- and by the way I'm wary of charities that do these peculiar sudden name changes and have multiple corp names... I find this for the latest figures- 2002, and their total assets are barely $82,000, expenses exceed income and liability is almost as high as their total assets- doesn't look like they are doing too well for an INTERNATIONAL world-wide charity;

 

Organization Name: Exodus International North America Inc.

Code: None - A public charity with a 50% deductibility limitation.

 

Fiscal Year Ending 2002

Revenue: $677,125

Expenses: $795,580

Assets: $82,017

Liabilities: $72,163

 

Exodus was apparently founded in 1973 according to their history page, so they are not new as an explanation for the poor financials- they have had 30+ years to "get it right"

 

Next I looked into this "NARTH" and they are even worse;

 

Parents And Friends Of Ex-gays Inc

Fort Belvoir, VA 22060

Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays(PFOX)is a non-profit organization dedicated to supporting the ex-gay community and those families affected by homosexuality.

 

EIN: 52-2120550

This organization is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because its income is less than $25,000. It is a 501©(03) public charity. Information in this report was supplied by the nonprofit organization within the last two years.

 

Fiscal Year ending 2003;

Revenue: $37,168

Expenses: $26,161

Assets: $19,746

Liabilities: $0

 

I wouldn't imagine a web site would be much of a liability, and their total assets are less than $20,000. That indicates they are likely run out of someone's house on a PC with a web site/answering service, no bricks/mortar offices. The "expenses" include salaries, overhead , and fundraising costs. Looks more like a cute little tax shelter to me.

 

Proof positive that a fancy web site with "success stories" "testimonials" photos of happy "clients" means little when you do some financials on these outfits and get the REAL story.

 

 

<Des> Re: sin,  Then you can own slaves as long as they live in neighboring states (like Canadian slaves :-)).

 

That is a real puzzle but says in the Bible a few things about owning slaves as though it perfectly acceptable. I'm wondering with the errors I found on dates, rabbits chewing their non existing "cud", insects having 4 feet and so forth, if this word "slave" might not have been mistranslated or has more meanings and maybe should have been something akin to an employee or domestic (paid) servant? What do you think? Someone like a maid, nanny etc would make more sense than owning another person to work for free and do whatever you say.

 

I agree with you on the UCC forum, it presents a poor image for them now with the 100+ posts

against gay people.

 

<SweetTea>This means sex without love, sex that is medically or emotionally dangerous, and sex that involves children or other family members.

 

This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned.

 

I agree and have read on the other forum some good posts about this having meant the condemnation was against loveless sex where the other person is objectified, prostitution, rape and so forth. I don't have a problem with family members (incest between cousins etc) provided they are adults in a consentual thing, I even found a news article of an arrest of two people recently for incest, both are adults and lived together for years, their undoing was forgery of some papers to obtain a marriage license...

 

Anal anything is gross to me, it's not something I ever liked the idea of or wanted to engage in, the smell, the bad bacteria like Ecoli, Hepatitus etc. The person on the other forum seemd to think gay people ALWAYS engage in this as he kept bringing it up, but I believe it's not as common as oral is. I know gay people who DON'T do anal anything with anyone.

 

Our forum pest on the other forum ignored the FACTS that HIV is growing and at epidemic proportions NOT among gay men in the USA but among HETEROSEXUAL WOMEN in AFRICA!!

Bush just spent $500 million on vaccines for African women so as to help reduce the numbers of INFANTS born with HIV. It's also growing big time in Europe.

 

The forum pest also kept claiming UCC churches were closing at a much higher rate after accepting gay people than before, he seemd to ignore that facts I presented showing churches of ALL denominations closing world-wide at higher numbers- the lawsuits closed many and are closing more, dwindling memberships in huge older buildings that now need expensive repairs, handicap retrofitting, asbestos abatement etc are combining into one building and closing one.

 

A church not far from me was in the news as closing down because they can't find a pastor, it's a tiny town of maybe 100 people and no one wants to move there to pastor a little church with at best 40 people in it.

Other churches are closing and being demolished for stadium parking lots, urban renewal etc, I can provide the proof of how many are closing- a quick browse of web stores for any of half a dozen church salvage outfits will show HUGE warehouses full of pews, stained glass, tabernacles, carved wood, statues, marble memorials, credence tables, furnishings, altarware, whole altars, sanctuary lamps and more;

 

 

www.kingrichards.com

They have photos of their sales store;

 

http://www.kingrichards.com/store/index.ht...l?section=store

 

Photos of them stripping a number of churches here;

 

http://www.kingrichards.com/projects/index...ection=projects

 

more;

 

http://www.churchantiques.com/

http://www.church-furnishings.com/

 

I read that 10,000 churches in the UK have closed, I didn't think there were that many in the entire country...

 

http://property.timesonline.co.uk/article/...34613_2,00.html

 

CHURCH SALVAGE

A large proportion of salvage comes from ecclesiastical buildings. During the 20th century about 10,000 churches and chapels were sold off by the Church of England, Catholic and Methodist authorities, and approximately 70 churches are still put on the UK market every year. Large city churches get turned into flats while small rural ones frequently change into family homes

Edited January 16, 2005 by Ani-man

[des]

>Hi Aletheia,

 

Thank you for the welcome

Not to worry, I asked them to close my account and unbookmarked the site as well.

Hi again Des, nice to find you too

 

Well or Jimmie to you. :-P Yes Animan and I have been emailing. At least I feel I got a friend out of the deal.

 

>Groups? do you men those two "charities" the person posted several times about being so great?

Here is what I found on these two who claim they are SOOOO successful at converting gay people;

 

Yes, as I said I didn't research them. I don't believe them even if they were really real charities-- as it sounsd like they aren't. They have no way of tracking people that didnt' stay "straight". From what I have heard there are lots of ex ex gays, and they are pretty angry.

Your info is VERY interesting. Sounds like high overhead, which goes, no doubt to line certain pockets. For groups too poor to file IRS forms, they certainly are spending a lot of money! I'd imagine some have large advertising budgets (for their size) to advertise the no. of gays they have "saved". (No doubt the same stories over and over.)

 

>if this word "slave" might not have been mistranslated or has more meanings and maybe should have been something akin to an employee or domestic (paid) servant? What do you think? Someone like a maid, nanny etc would make more sense than owning another person to work for free and do whatever you say.

 

I seriously doubt the word slave was mistranslated. Perhaps there are multiple meanings, but my understanding is that back when it was considered ok to have slaves. (Scripture was used often to justify slavery in the US before the civil war.)

 

>The forum pest also kept claiming UCC churches were closing at a much higher rate after accepting gay people than before, he seemd to ignore that facts I presented showing

 

First of all, not all UCC have signed the dotted line saying they are open and affirming. The church I now go to is, but it took roughly two years. Their problems with it were that of course we are open and affirming but isn't that the whole point of being Christian. Second, I don't actually think that UCC is closing faster than other protestant demonations, it's just that they can survive a cut in members less than some others (like Episcopal say). The other thing that the ad campaign which showed (apparently) a gay couple, caused an increase of attendance at UCC churches of about 20%-- so if people were so appauled what was the appeal??

 

>churches of ALL denominations closing world-wide at higher numbers- the lawsuits closed many and are closing more, dwindling memberships in huge older buildings that now need expensive repairs, handicap retrofitting, asbestos abatement etc are combining into one building and closing one.

 

You're right. The big church buildings built in some cases a hundred years ago, are really ill-adapted to the 2000s. Our church in Chicago, was constantly undergoing renovations, etc. and it was never enough. It was hugely expensive. They are energy hogs, etc. This church gave about 1/4 of it's income to social justice organizations but I think had to lower the amt. to just keep going.

 

I also think that progressive/liberal churches are less good at doing "evangelizing" or simple "getting in the customers". They aren't comfortable with it. The fundamentalist churches have a lot of "user friendly churches" (I can't think of the actual name which my sister told me). They don't say what demonanation they are. It will be something like Willow Street Church. They tend to draw people in because people have had a bad experience with church and see this church that isn't heavy liturgical. They actually have programs to teach people how to welcome you. Funny thing though when UCC did that, with the recent Still Speaking campaign they were heavily criticized by, you guessed it, fundamentalists.

 

--des

[BeachOfEden]

This is very intersting and informative, what you are all telling us about this UUC forum. When I saw that ad on tv I felt glad and for a brief moment I considered maybe I should check UUC out....But what you guys are saying about UUC is much what I gather from the United Methodist Church and D of C church in my city that I visted. I don;t mean about the gay issue nor women's equality...I don;t know I just got this feeling that the younger generation wanted to change so as to draw more types of people and I got this feeling that the older conservative people did NOT were not a bit interested in this.

[BeachOfEden]

"This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned. However, I believe that in a real, true, loving relationship (gay OR straight), sex is secondary to the spiritual bond that two people share. So I do believe that two gay men in a loving, committed relationship can glorify God with their love for one another, as long as they treat their bodies as temples, as we are called to do in the Bible, and refrain from engaging in risky sexual behavior (like anal sex and sex with multiple partners), thus avoiding "sexual immorality" and therefore, sin."

 

"To tackle this from a biblical perspective, it's hard to say whether oral sex is included as sexual immorality, but most lesbians I know (and I know a bunch) use vibrators and other sex toys with their partners. "

 

I can neither prove nor disprove that..but I just got a gut feeling that oral is not on the same level as anal..for whether gay or str8. But it might it might rank second to health risk but likely matural masturbation is likely the safest for all couples, gay or str8, male or female, or if gay or lesbians then liely front to front sex.

 

 

"my definition of "sexual immorality" includes risky sexual behavior...."

 

Yeah, I agree. If the medical established publsihes FACTS that one particalr form of sex is THEE highest or higher than all others for sonstantly spreading AIDs or Hep B and C..then I figure that it doubles as spiritually inccorect as well.

 

(just as straight men engage in anal sex with women), so again, none can really criticize this behavior on strictly (non-biblical) ethical grounds."

 

I agree with here here 100%! Stra8's who do this kind of dangerous sex and then slammed gays completely "Bleep" me off!

 

"I have several gay Christian friends. They are wonderful people, and powerfully devoted to Jesus. I don't believe for one second that they are doomed to eternal hell or that God hates them OR their lifestyles, as they are possibly the most stable, devout, passionate Christians I know. But they hold themselves to the same standard that every Christian should. They live moral lives and do not perform lewd acts on one another. They just praise God for the gift of love that He chose to bestow on them, no matter whether the vessel of that love has a ###### or a vagina. They refuse to squander a gift that many of us never have a chance to enjoy. Do I think that's evil? Of course not! How could it be?"

 

That is great! You just discribed my nephew! My nephew is a gay 33-year old man. He is dedicated to help his fellow gay friends in A/A. I am so proud of him. This group of A/A gay and lesbians do everything in their power to encourage each other and everyone around them to live, safe, healthy and responsible lives. I just pray that my other gay guy friend, the one who is also XJW, does the same! I constantly am concerned for him. On one hand..he agrees with what you guys are saying..but on the other....he is pulled to engadge in risky behavior and I pray think he will choice the healthy and positive path!

 

There might be some truth to this. There are factions in every moderate to liberal Christian church that have fundie members who want to turn them into "Bible believin'". There is a faction in UCC that has been working on UCCs from inside. There is a big group in UMC.

 

"Being a United Methodist from rural Virginia.... There are PLENTY of fundies in the UMC. But there are plenty of true progressives as well, who choose not to ignore the slogan "Open Hearts, Open Minds, Open Doors" (like my father, who is pastor of a 4 church charge deep in "gay-bashin', bible-beatin', hellfire-and-brimstone" appalachia).

 

I was blessed to be able to speak with a bishop in London last summer who restored my faith in the International Methodist Church, but in the US, the last 4 General Conferences (I was at 2 of them) have seen a deep divide in the church. Many of the ordained clergy want to take a more hard line fundie route.... Getting back to the roots of the evangelical movement and riding the wave created by the religious right. They believe this will boost membership (and revenue). Most of the Lay delegates and many of the Liscenced (as opposed to ordained) clergy want to take the opposite route, opening the door for a more progressive and accepting church. Their motives are rooted more in the spiritual rewards of speaking to people who want to listen and really making a difference, the way Jesus wanted us to. The split is nearly 50/50, and it doesn't seem to be getting any better."

 

Yes, they have been keeping us informed of this turn of events here on the TCPC board. I fear that UMC, and these other mainstream churches are loosing the moderate and Progressive battle...if it keeps going from 50%/50% to 50%/75%..and so on then the best thing to do is SPILT.

 

"I feel, based on my experience with the church, that the rules will change in favor of progressve ideals eventually, and the fundies won't win, but I also believe that the fundies have been very successful in stalling this process for quite sometime."

 

I don;t want to freak any body out..and maybe UMC is luckier then others to begin with but believe it or not I have heard individuals from my own JW background say this about JW. I have also heard catholics say this and Southern Baptists. I used to actually think this when I used to still be in JW. I thought surely, in time a moderate/Progressive element would raise...But JW, like SBC is ran by and has always been ran by old white str8 men ONLY. Man, I wish that there WAS a Progressive alternative to each and everyone of these groups. But I think if there was..the Progressives should take a different name because the fundamental will ruin it's meaning anyways with time and they'd likely try and sue anyone else who uses the church name anyways.

 

"I feel like I know you since I've read so many of your posts over at UCC, although I only posted once there myself, in introduction to the board."

 

Yeah, me too! We have learned alot from you about UCC and we learn alot about Campus Crusade For Christ from Aletheia, lot alot Catholic from others here and i hope the verity of differetn faith backgrounds here keeps expending because we keep learning more and I LOVE it!

 

 

 

QUOTE

<SweetTea>This means sex without love, sex that is medically or emotionally dangerous, and sex that involves children or other family members.

 

This is an interesting point, because I DO believe that anal sex is immoral, for the medical reasons aforementioned.

 

"Anal anything is gross to me, it's not something I ever liked the idea of or wanted to engage in, the smell, the bad bacteria like Ecoli, Hepatitus etc. The person on the other forum seemd to think gay people ALWAYS engage in this as he kept bringing it up, but I believe it's not as common as oral is. I know gay people who DON'T do anal anything with anyone."

 

I am so glad to hear from a gay guy who also feels this way about it. It sounds one-sided if a str8 person says this but when the gay men also say this then it does not seem one-sided and it gives me hope that both gays and str8's can avoid this health risk.

 

"The forum pest also kept claiming UCC churches were closing at a much higher rate after accepting gay people than before, he seemd to ignore that facts I presented showing churches of ALL denominations closing world-wide at higher numbers- the lawsuits closed many and are closing more, dwindling memberships in huge older buildings that now need expensive repairs, handicap retrofitting, asbestos abatement etc are combining into one building and closing one."

 

I agree. The decline of the moderate/mainline churches began declining LONG BEFORE they started welcoming gays. I think it happened when they refused to agree with the fundamental's interpreations of hell and they rejected their "left behind" movement. The fundi churches have a great zeal to do whatever it takes to win the younger generation. This ZEAL to 'appear' "SEEKER-SENSITIVE"...REALLY is genereated from FEAR> Fear of what? Hellfire threats and "Left behind" threats. This also connects to a elite savation mentality

[Ani-man]

<BeachofEden>

I am so glad to hear from a gay guy who also feels this way about it. It sounds one-sided if a str8 person says this but when the gay men also say this then it does not seem one-sided and it gives me hope that both gays and str8's can avoid this health risk.

 

Hi, forum seems to load S L O W right now for some reason, I should mention from the start that I am not gay (tho I had gay contacts in my teens) I am in a whole other rhelm most people don't understand.

But I'm a Les/bi/gay friendly who feels the Govt, church, and busy-bodies should stay the heck out of people's bedrooms period end! I don't care what people do in private it's not up to me to judge them or tell them what they should or shouldn't do.

My hetero dad married 50 years same woman owned two gay bars in the 70's in midtown Manhattan and all I ever heard from him growing up was how his gay customers who worked for fortune 500 companies and major corps had to hide because coming out was basically fatal to their jobs/careers.

 

When he introduced me to customers on the occasion I happened to be there before opening and someone stopped by, it was always "son, this is my good friend MR <name>" I also worked for a couple of gay employers, never any problems.

[Ani-man]

Hi Jimmie, last post before I crash for the evening

 

Re: charities/groups, the forum pest posted an URL to an anti gay site, I won't post the clickable URL and give them traffic but it had "amazing foon..." in it. The post was edited out or deleted but not before I went to look.

I was appalled, typical of such sites- they cite the 1/10th of the WORST cases as examples representing the other 99.9%

It is like highlighting rapists and convicted child molestors and their stories to show and make the claim that all men are like them.

They went so far as to put up photos of colon cancer tumors with the claim that these were caused by gay anal sex and that this is why the whole homosexuality act is bad!

But gee, women and heterosexuals get colon cancer too, it's very common, common enough too there's a whole industry built up that sells colostomy equipment

 

 

As if thats not bad enough, another subpage there not only cites but links to an anonymously created informal "survey" conducted years ago by someone on an alt.sex usenet newsgroup who in no way has ANY medical, mental health or any other credentials or training! He simply posted questions for people to respond to and then created charts and graphs and extracted dubious numbers from about 100 people. Some of the interest includes were ridiculous at best, and entered as a joke at worst- sexual interest in such outlandishly improbably things as Dolphins, whales, lions and bears, these were added to the charts and graphs by the way.

This would be like you putting up a question survey in here about the planet Mars and it's internal composition and atmospheric makeup, extracting the responses and then publishing them on your web site claiming this is how Mars was originally formed, and then someone quoting text off your site and linking to your page saying this is how Mars was formed!

 

Bed time!

Edited January 16, 2005 by Ani-man

[des]

>This is very intersting and informative, what you are all telling us about this UUC forum. When I saw that ad on tv I felt glad and for a brief moment I considered maybe I should check UUC out....

 

Well I'm not sure I would let the attitudes of some jerkoffs (excuse) from the UCC board let them stop you. I think some of them weren't really UCC anyway and forum f***-up was from a self-proclaimed (says so right on the webpage) conservative UCC (kind of an oximoron imo.) There is a *splinter* UCC group that is trying to get the church to go conservative, afaik it has had zero effect.

 

>But what you guys are saying about UUC is much what I gather from the United Methodist Church and D of C church in my city that I visted.

 

Well all the UCCs have been Open and Affirmign (ONA) but they decide this congregation by congregation, so you can check out by the Ucc.org or (some are listed in the yellow pages) to see if they are. They will list it. So it isn't like the UMC which has a standard that it wishes congregations to go by, it is congregational in the sense that each congregation decides this for itself. (Which stands to reason as one of the congregations that is part of UCC was/is the Congregational church. Some like ours retain Congregational in the name.) So I would look over there and see if it says that, as if it does it will be. The congregation goes thru a process. You'd be surprised that sometimes the older members have no problem with it at all. These are afterall, people who aren't exactly Southern Baptists. OTOH, I think Methodists are a more mixed group, in terms of who is conservative or no. I think in my old church in Chicago, there was a far bigger question of whether to use inclusive language than to be Open and Affirming. But anyway the ONA is a real thing, the congregations actively consider it and debate it. At my current church the big deal was whether they actually had to say that--- I mean we are supposed to be that aren't we?

 

Anti-gay sites:

>But gee, women and heterosexuals get colon cancer too, it's very common, common enough too there's a whole industry built up that sells colostomy equipment

 

This is true or bladder infections from heterosexual sex! Or all manner of STDs of AIDs in Africa or Asia. I tend to agree with the www.G0ys.com site. At least I think it has some interesting thoughts and so on. I was not quite prepared with how graphic it is. VERY. :-)

BTW, www.g0ys.com was quite adament that straights engaged in anal sex too. They had photos of porn directed at straights. I'm sure it is high risk behavior. Though the safest sex is no sex. But even though the Bush administration is trying to get this taught as the only option for teens, reality wins out all the time.

 

Yes I found the above sites shocking with all sorts of mis and partial truths, and some downright lies. Where they get their success rate is one. They say it is higher than Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers (which by itself might mean success isn't so good!!), but I really doubt it is that good. I think what they mean is that of the people that have gone in for these programs such and such a percent has had change. What they don't say is what kind of change and whether they go back again, which I imagine many/most do. The complete denial of a state of homosexuality--- just is sex acts, is crazy.

[BeachOfEden]

"This is true or bladder infections from heterosexual sex! Or all manner of STDs of AIDs in Africa or Asia. I tend to agree with the www.G0ys.com site. At least I think it has some interesting thoughts and so on. I was not quite prepared with how graphic it is. VERY. :-)

BTW, www.g0ys.com was quite adament that straights engaged in anal sex too. They had photos of porn directed at straights. I'm sure it is high risk behavior. Though the safest sex is no sex. But even though the Bush administration is trying to get this taught as the only option for teens, reality wins out all the time.

 

Yes I found the above sites shocking with all sorts of mis and partial truths, and some downright lies. Where they get their success rate is one. They say it is higher than Jenny Craig or Weight Watchers (which by itself might mean success isn't so good!!), but I really doubt it is that good. I think what they mean is that of the people that have gone in for these programs such and such a percent has had change. What they don't say is what kind of change and whether they go back again, which I imagine many/most do. The complete denial of a state of homosexuality--- just is sex acts, is crazy."

 

I agree with you 100%. The G0y site, which, again, for our viewers at home, is ran by a gay man who holds a passionate belief against anal sex for ANYONe, gay or str8 based on medical/health reasons, and he also ads his bibical views. The problem is that this guy belives he MUST use shocking graphic pictures and sometimes offensive street terms for sexual acts or certain types of people that i believe very well. more often than not, offend BOTH liberal gays and straights as well as conservatives alike.

 

While 'some' gay guys might like this approuch, i think the greater majority will end up thinking that one of their own is attacking their own community...kinda like how the fundamentalists call us "CULTS".

 

A second issue with his site is while he lists some valid points medically and some interesting possible Scriptural views....He has this one page called, "But How Do You Know That he is Straight?" Where he tells step-by-step how gay guys can get their str8 buddies drunk so they can sexually take advantage of them and act like it was just all in fun. This not ethical. I mean if a str8 gay was to give this advice to other str8 guys on how to trick the female freinds they think are hot into sex...I think they'd call that date rape.

 

So, while I acknoweldge his good points I see that his bad points and ideas counter act the positive. That was my take.

[Ani-man]

Y I think what they mean is that of the people that have gone in for these programs such and such a percent has had change. What they don't say is what kind of change and whether they go back again, which I imagine many/most do.

 

I would guess than anyone so disturbed and upset as well as unhappy enough they feel the need to enter an expensive program akin to Alcoholics Anonymous or a drug treatment program, they are probably far enough gone downhill they are willing to do most anything- up to an including castration, sex change surgery, testosterone killing drugs and so forth.

 

Were they openly accepted there wouldn't BE this stigma and all that pain...

As it is now, they see headlines like

 

"Gay Bishop confirmation threatens to split Episcopal church, hundreds protest, some congregations threaten to leave.."

 

"Gay pastor defrocked for violating doctrine against practicing homosexuals in the church"

 

I knew an organist/music director who when it was discovered he was gay, found a note on the console informing him his services were no longer needed and thanks.

 

What kind of message does that send?

 

Gay people NOT welcome!

Edited January 17, 2005 by Ani-man

[Ani-man]

Here is an article which should give some pause;

 

 

Wednesday, November 06, 2002

Sheep may provide clues about homosexuality, scientists say

 

Gay sheep that mate only with other rams exhibit different brain structures from "straight" sheep, a finding that may shed light on human sexuality, U.S. researchers said Monday. The differences are similar to those seen in some gay humans but probably go only a small way toward explaining the causes of different sexual orientations, according to the team at Oregon Health and Science University. "We are not trying to explain human sexuality by this study," Charles Roselli, a professor of physiology and pharmacology who led the study, said in a telephone interview. "Whether this is a big component of what contributes in humans, that's still debatable."

 

Working with a team at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Sheep Experiment Station in Dubois, Ida., Roselli's team studied 27 sheep--10 ewes, nine rams that mated only with other rams, and eight rams that mated only with females. The "gay" sheep are strongly homosexual, Roselli said. "They don't pair-bond," he said, "but they are [gender] exclusive. They don't court or mate with females. They only court and mate with males."

 

 

First the scientists watched the sheep to be sure of their behavior--something that cannot be done with humans. Then they took apart their brains. "There had been reports in humans that a certain area of the hypothalamus, the preoptic area...was usually larger in males than females," Roselli said. This area was also found to be larger in heterosexual humans than in homosexual men.

 

But the researchers had studied the brains of men who had died of AIDS complications, which meant that the disease or the drugs used to treat it could have had an effect on the brain. "With an animal model you can be more selective and do more controlled studies," Roselli said.

 

The sheep had similar differences in their brains, the researchers told attendees at a meeting in Orlando, Fla., of the Society for Neuroscience. "In a sense we confirmed what been found in humans," Roselli said. The brain cells in this area also manufactured greater amounts of an enzyme called aromatase in the heterosexual rams. Aromatase is involved in the action of testosterone, the so-called male hormone.

 

This does not mean the gay rams had less testosterone in their brains, Roselli stressed. "It is not necessarily the activational effect of the hormone," he said. Other types of neurons are probably active--they just have not found them yet. No differences in testosterone relating to sexuality have been found either in the sheep or in humans, he said. "It's not that gay men have lower levels of testosterone," he said. "And it's not the case with these sheep." Roselli believes that exposure to hormones while still in the mother's womb may affect a fetus's brain and cause eventual differences in sexual preference and that more experiments will aim to show whether this is true.

[Ani-man]

I thought this case was interesting;

 

 

http://www.britwitch.com/pages/history/theweirs.html

 

The Weirs of Edinburgh

 

At first no one would believe old Major Weir, when, in 1670, he told them that he had committed incest with his sister Jane from the time that she was sixteen until she was fifty, "when he loathed her for her age," and with Margaret Bourdon, the daughter of his dead wife; fornication with his serving maid Bessie Weems, over a period of twenty years; and bestiality with mares and cows, especially with his own mare; and finally, that all his adult life, he had practised witchcraft.

 

There were reasons for this disbelief. Weir was a respected member of a very strict Presbyterian sect, and recognised far and wide as a religious man. At the same time, the members of this sect had every reason for wishing to avoid the terrible scandal in which they must become involved if his stories got abroad, and particularly if they were proved in the courts. But despite their sympathy with him in his affliction – they believed him mad, as he undoubtedly was he would not cease from his self-accusation; and the matter was taken out of their hands when one of their own ministers, distracted by the imminent danger with which the sect was threatened, somewhat foolishly sought the advice of The Provost of Edinburgh, Sir Andrew Ramsay, Lord Abbotshall. The Provost too could not believe that any human being could be guilty of the crimes of which Weir accused himself, and like so many others concluded that the Major must be mad. Sensibly, therefor, his first act was to send physicians to examine Weir. It was when they returned and reported that the Major was sane that the Provost could not avoid taking legal action.

[AletheiaRivers]

Here is one love story that I particularly appreciate:

 

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c...MNG3N4RAV41.DTL

 

New York -- Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called "ecstatic behavior": That is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins.

 

When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

 

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly, and a chick, Tango, was born.

 

For the next 2 1/2 months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Gramzay is full of praise. "They did a great job," he said.

 

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

 

The rest of the article is at the above link.

 

I have a gay cockatiel for a pet.

 

Aletheia