Scott Yang's Playground

I am a High church Anglican and I agree with Scott Yang. As a Christian, we read in the Bible that Jesus loves sinners, but hates the sin. This does not mean that Christians do not sin.. but alteast have to try hard not to sin and gain victory after victory. Homosexuality like every other form of adultery (or any sin for that matter) is an abomination to the living God. God punished homosexuals of the cities of Sodom and Gommorrah. St. Paul clearly points out that it is wrong Romans 1 :26-28. If it is wrong, and if a would be Bishop states that he had committed sin (every one does now and then), and has not repented of it and has not forsaken it, then what right has he (or any one who revels in any kind of sin) to take holy orders? The Anglican church seems to be throwing overboard all of the important life boasts to save the sinking ship. Sin is sin, whether myself, or my neighbour or the Arch bishop or the pope or an aethist commits it! I thank God for strong Christians like Rt. Rev. Peter Akinola, who have stood for the truth, and I believe that the devil must be thanked for Williams and Harris and others. Unless God changes the rules, it cannot be changed. Not by any Arch Bishop or any other Judas Iscariot.

The above was written by a redneck Baptist, not an Anglo-Catholic. If it were not for Homosexuals there would be no church.

Homosexuality is WRONG. God who created us says so! The moral majority of us agree. How can anyone justify this perverse and wicked sin? I agree with Sam Stephen above. God indeed loves the sinner, but hates the sin. Not just homosexuality, but ALL sin. Being gay is not a genetic problem,or a hormone imbalance, or a disease; it’s a sinful choice. With regards to the gay bishop, how can a man of God claim to be holy and give proper guidance to others when he is gay? That’s as ironic as a fireman advising children not to play with matches, then setting a fire! There is good news…God loves all of us and forgives us when we ask Him. He can help us turn from our sins and lead a life that is pleasing to Him. The Bible says He has a plan for our lives. Be certain, that plan does not include being gay.

Renee,especially — I’m terribly glad you are so informed about what being gay is and is not. Regrettably, you are wrong. Just as it is natural for you to be attracted to the opposite sex, it is equally natural for those of us who are gay, to be attracted to the same sex. Tell me, could you find yourself attracted to the same sex? Could you find yourself wanting to fall in love with someone of the same sex? You’d find it unnatural, and uncomfortable, and you would always be tempted by the opposite sex. That’s natural — for you. You should follow your nature. For those of us who are indeed gay, it is also natural. I follow my lord, just as you follow yours. I trust that they are the same. Mine is Jesus.

We all make choices, as well. While I am attracted to members of my own gender, that does not mean I give in to those feelings, or even consciously acknowledge them. Just as you might pass an attractive man on the street, and have fleeting thoughts about him, or think he is nice to look at, I have the same thing. I do not act on every animal impulse I experience. No one does. It is natural to feel those things. But acting in a way that is contrary to the nature God gave you is as wrong as acting on every impulse you might have.

I lived for 14 years with a woman to whom I was not attracted. She is a wonderful person, with many qualities. She is still my dear friend. I also am a very nice person with wonderful qualities. I have two lovely children. I was forced into that by those who believe as you do that being gay was wrong, was evil, was an immoral choice. As a result, that lovely person has spent 14 years with the wrong man. Being gay is neither wrong nor immoral — for me. By listening to those of you who have no experience with this, who assume they can understand and dissect it, many like me are hurt, and in turn hurt lovely people by trying to live a life that is unnatural for them.

Keep in mind, that not too long ago, people assumed that the town drunk suffered from a lack of moral fortitude. We now know there is a medical reason for alcohol addiction. It is natural for some to crave alcohol, and their moral character is not involved at all. Keep in mind that women have been kept “in their place” for years by similar thinking about what they can do or should do — or not do.

Perhaps you could take a fresh look at something — the New Testament. Jesus replaced the old with the new, and admonistshed us to love one another. The Old Testament has been used to justify terrible evils in the world — slavery, intolerance, murder. Just as the Koran is being used by radical Muslims today. The New Testament has no such irrational judgements in it. Are you a radical or are you truly a Christian? Are you guided by the Old or the New? I pray for you.

First I have to comment on the statement that claims “God loves the sinners but hate the sin”. However, from the Bible, both Old Testament and New Testament, we see that God hates both the sinners and their sin, as sinners and their sins bounds together. Note that God can love and hate at the same time, as God both loves the world as it is his creation, but hates the sinners for the sins that they have commited. If God only hates the sin but not the sinners, why is there a final judgement where everyone will be condemned? Only because sinners and sin are inseparatible.

And to Craig, your argument is clear in your last paragraph – Bible is not something that you need to take serious note about. There are New Testament verses that claim homosexuality is wrong. As Sam has noted above in Romans 1 as well as 1 Corinthians 6:9, we see that homosexuality is a sinful act that “cannot inherit the kingdom of God”. If you are a true Christian, you should be guided by the Bible – both the Old Testament and the New Testament, but you would read the Old Testament in the light of the New. Or are you guided by your own instinct? If you are a Christian, would you acknowledge what you have read in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6, those writings of Paul, are God’s word as well? We should indeed think seriously about what his word is trying to say and how does that imply us.

And about how natural one can be homosexual – yes I believe in you. At the same time, one can be a natural sinner. In fact we all are – it is just so natural that we will reject God and run the things our own way. But feeling natural about certain things do not mean it can be justified. A mass-murderer can feel natural killing innocent people, but that does not make his act okay. Something natural to you does not make it right in front of God’s eyes. So you ended up with 2 choice – either repent and confess that what you were doing is wrong, or reject God and his words in the Bible all together. Sadly many people today choose the later…

However we also need to note in 1 Corinthians 6 that homosexual is just one of the sin, and it is no worse than adultery, greed, etc that many people today also think they are okay. They too also cannot inherit the kingdom of God. So before we condemn, we too also need to look at ourselves to see whether there is something we need to confess. But you were washed. But you were santified. But you were justified. These words in 1 Corinthians 6:11 – aren’t they comforting!

And Craig, I see you were married with 2 children – what will they feel if you choose to leave this family? How can a father not teach the children with the instruction of the Lord, as commanded in Ephesians 6:4? That again shows how homosexuality does not work in a family dedicated to God…

I pray for you.

Hi Craig, if you really follow Jesus as your Lord, and are guided by the New Testament, then you should know that homosexuality is wrong. I believe that you might be naturally attracted to the same sex, but that doesn’t mean that its is a right thing to do. For us who are attracted to the opposite sex, we naturally might attracted to pornography, but we know that its wrong and choose not to. I believe that you can do the same, choose not to live according to your natural desire, but live under the Lordship of Jesus, even if its a hard thing to do. Remember that “you were taught, with regard to your former way of life, to put off your old self, which is being corrupted by its deceitful desires; to be made new in the attitude of your minds; and to put on the new self, created to be like God in true righteousness and holiness.” (Eph 4:22-24)

First, Scott and SIU — thank you for actually giving my comments thought. Too many people are far too afflicted with the “ick factor” concerning homosexuality that they dismiss anything other than outright repulsion. I will, therefore, do more research and read the passages you have referenced. It is easy for me to also jump to the conclusion that the references are a carry over from Old Testament teachings, but that’s far too easy an answer. Thank you for the guidance.

Scott — please re-read my comments about animal instincts — there is a range of acceptable behaviors, social norms if you will, to which any civilized society must adhere if it is survive. Mass murder, even if it “feels natural,” must by definition be wrong; it is a crime with victims. Realistically, you must also realize that the example, is, as you intended, quite stark, rare and extreme.

SIU and Scott:

Please keep in mind here that what I am describing to you is every bit the basic, survival instinct (and I chose that work carefully), that you feel toward the opposite sex, and which is clearly intended for survival. This puts it in a far different category than pornography or thievery. While homosexual acts do not propogate the species, the difference in my makeup is still that strong, that basic. We’re not talking about coveting a piece of property, or choosing not to do violence. Advancing that a bit, and putting it in a more contemporary societal setting, most of us believe that we were meant to meet someone, fall in love with them, settle down, and share our lives with that person. That is a large part of God’s plan for the vast majority of the population. That is what I want as well. It is simply and very clearly, for me, that that person is another man, not a woman.

My personal beliefs and values do not extend to promiscuity, and I do not support an agenda with multiple partners simply to satisfy a sexual urge. But most of us who want to be part of the flock feel as I do that we want what you want: to be accepted, with the flaws and the foibles and the limitations inherent in us all. It is no different in character than many of the flaws and shortcomings you can identify in yourself and in those around you.

Scott – regrettably, I am no longer — at least legally — married, and have not been for a number of years. It was not fair to either of us to continue to live lies. The children, who live with me, are aware of the situation, and love my partner as a step father. My former wife has remarried, and is living her life with someone who loves her deeply.

My sexuality — which I view as one of my gifts from God — is something that is, for all practical purposes, impossible to ignore or abandon. I do not have the strength of will to devote myself to a celibate, solitary life. Nor do I feel God has called me in that direction. Many gay men are promiscuous — as are many more straight men. Neither is right.

The movement to begin to accept natural limitations in one’s peers, even if one disagrees with the perceived choices that are made, is a solid and couragous step in the direction away from judgement. Just like you, I must accept the conseqences of what I do and fail to do in this life. Just like you, I will do wonderful and terrible things. Just like you, my faith will be my salvation.

To exclude people like myself from the community and forcing that underground is the same kind of approach that brough us prohibition — an “if I don’t see it, it isn’t there” approach.

The only “choice” I made was to stop deceiving myself and others. Would it be better if I lied? Would those less informed rather I present my partner as a “roommate” when that is blatently untrue? Perhaps those less informed would rather I not commune with the church at all. We all sin, we all seek salvation. The church should be open to all, and we all need to remember that, as well.

Hi Craig,

I’m sorry that sometimes people like us are too quick in judging something that we ourselves might not understand (like attractiveness to the same sex), but let me assure you that we are by no means trying to exclude you from the community. I have written something about this issue in my blog: http://sui.focuser.net/archives/000432.html maybe you want to check it out.

Once again, I thank you for demeanor and approach to this emotionally charged issue. I have read your blog, and I am continuing to meditate on it.

The real sticking point for me, in all of this, is that, in actuality, we tend these days to be devoted in what I will call “small” ways. By that I mean that few of us (at least few of us not doing missionary work in what some would call “backward countries”) are called on to make large sacrifices. We sacrifice financially, and time from personal affairs. We sacrifice such base pleasures as drinking, gluttony, sloth or adultery. We devote our time, as much as we can, to do God’s work. But we rarely have to give up our lives. We rarely have to sacrifice a limb. And for those of us who dedicate themselves exclusively to a spiritual path, as in the priesthood, that is a voluntary sacrifice, a choice, filled with rewards that far outstrip what was given up. I am not downplaying sacrifices made, merely putting them in perspective, and comparing them to those who died for their beliefs.

As I’ve indicated earlier, being a homosexual is a basic, primal item (for me and my ilk), on par in many instances with the need to eat and sleep. I cannot recall a day in which I was not aware of my homosexuality. That is not to say I was lusting after men around me, or daydreaming about them. All I mean to communicate is that this is, after all , inherent in my overall makeup. It is present in everything I do. It is as natural a thing to me as breathing. Few are called on to voluntarily give up breathing.

Let me share something with you that you may find surprizing. There have been some number of people (primarily men) I have met over the years who appear, to me anyway, to have actually chosen this way of life. Those shy with women. Those more unattractive than the norm. Those who are ruled by the need for sex. These are people whom I suspect take what is almost an easier path, and pursue looser men, when it is not natural for them, but rather less work, less effort than following a committed path with a woman. Rather than facing their shyness or their fears. There are the curious who simply wonder what it would be like, or those who drank too much and simply wanted sexual relief. For these people, if I am correct in what is admittedly a judgement of my brothers, homosexuality is indeed a sin. It is an excursion either into lust or away from being uncomfortable. I believe that kind of person to be the vast majority of those few who purport to have been “cured,” a claim of which I am dubious. Further, I believe much of what the Bible speaks of to be this kind of act. Another example: those sailors on ships who seek sexual relief with men when no willing woman is available, are an example of the sin of homosexuality. It is the sin of lust, which takes it’s form in same-sex activity.

For the rest of us, however, it is another story altogether. And, while it is not always handled with the degree of sensitivity you have, siu, the message that is being conveyed when gays are excluded from the church is something akin to: We think we know that it ‘might’ be an integral ‘instinct,’ we think we know it is your life you are sacrificing, but we don’t feel it, and we don’t experience it. We have our “normal” lives, and we think they’re fine, and we think it should be fine for you, too. So, just stop being so silly, and get with the program with the rest of us. Then you can worship with us; then you can live and work with us. Then you can be part of our church family. Then you can love. A woman. Or no one.

As I’ve said earlier, I have not found the strength to live a life alone, and I have not found the strength to continue to live a lie, after my 14 years of doing so. What I have found, is the profound assurance that I am loved, just as I am. By the man at my side. By my children. By the woman I wronged for 14 years by marrying her. By my lord. If he has called me to change my ways, and to sacrifice what is my life, I haven’t heard it. Perhaps I am being deceived. Perhaps satan is whispering those words of comfort to me. I do not believe it to be so. But even if that’s true, there are others being whispered to every day. There are those who sit next to you in church with their secret sin. There are those who do not try to resist, and they are all basically good people. The kind of people who try to devote themselves to the church and to God. They are accepted. Unquestionably. Undeniably. I am not.

Homosexuals today are the adulterers, alcoholics, divorced of yesteryear. We are the blacks of Mississippi in the 1950′s. We are those who are not welcome. We are those who chose to marry outside of the faith. We are those who, by virtue of their lack of virtue, cannot be a part of the church. Those older in your church will recognize the cruelty and injustice done to those poor souls I mentioned during those trying times in the churches. These are attiutdes that modern Christians, by and large, have rejected as inappropriate for the children of God. When will the community see that this is another example of over-piety at work, and allow the support of gay Christians in their church? When can the work done outstrip what occurs in a bedroom? When will those who do not understand accept us for the people we are and the works we do, and the beliefs we do share in common? that is the question that vexes.

Craig,

I think that homosexuals have certainly been wronged by the church throughout history. I think homophobia is almost a natural instinct, just as you say that homosexuality is yours. I think homophobia has no place in the church, and many of us have to repent of it, but neither does the practice of homosexuality have any place in the church. Nor does adultery, lust, greed, deceit, and so on. All of these are instinctive to us because of our fallen nature, but wrong in God’s eyes. Even so, the church still needs to welcome the adulterer, the greedy, the liar, and the homosexual who repents, because the gospel is a message of grace and forgiveness.

We mustn’t throw sinners out of the church otherwise our churches would be empty. But we mustn’t condone sinning either. Don’t mistake us for the former when we are trying to do the latter.

Ultimately it comes down to whether God says this is right or wrong, not whether you feel comfortable about it. The Bible clearly states God’s position on the practice of homosexuality. Go search the Scriptures yourself. I do not pretend to understand how difficult it must be for you, but if Jesus endured the cross for our sake nothing is too small to sacrifice for him.

We all have our own struggles against our sinful nature and our own weaknesses. Pardon my harse words but I think you would be presumptous to say that you are justified to live in sin simply because your struggle is more difficult than ours.

My heterosexual desires for attractive women are as natural to me as breathing. But I must struggle against my desire to entertain thoughts of sexual immorality while I live my single life every day. Sometimes I fail, in which case I repent and cling to the forgiveness that is in Jesus. I can’t simply stop struggling because it is easy.

I also encourage you to read the book “What Some of You Were” [http://secure.fellowworkers.com/cgi-bin/mmstore/wsyw.html]. It’s a collection of Christian homosexuals’ testimonies and their failures and successes in their struggle.

Well, Craig, from what I understand from the Bible homosexuality is a type of sin in itself, and not part of “the sin of lust” as you said. Having said that, if God really made you the way you are now, then it must be really hard for you to deny yourself and pretend to be something else. However, Jesus calls us to deny ourselves if we want to follow Him (Mat 16:24). Therefore I pray that He will give you strength to do that.

Regarding other type of sins that you mentioned (eg. adultery) its the same with homosexuality and there is no difference in front of God’s eyes. Although its true that those people might be treated nicer that you are, and I’m sorry for that. They are welcome to church (just as you are also welcome) but I’ll still call on them to repent, just as I’m calling you to repent.

Again, I thank you all for a reasonable approach to this highly charged subject. It is refreshing to express “my side” without being threatened to be burned at the stake! SIU, I would actually like to attend your church, but I would need to be there with my partner.

Let me bring something else into this discussion if I may. I am right-handed. Are those or you who are left-handed abnormal? Well, perhaps statistically, but I have to say “NO.” It is another variation of “handed-ness’ ; most are right-handed, some are left-handed. I don’t understand how or why they are lefties, and it is completely unnatural for me to do things left-handed, but it’s fine for them. It is equally difficult for them to do thing right-handed. It is their nature and neither is right or wrong (although the world is more difficult in some regards for lefties!). I do believe there is a Biblical reference to the evils of left-handed folk somewhere, but I’m not entirely certain of it; I am not a theologian. My sexuality is very like that; a variation of human sexuality, but neither right nor wrong.

Something else I need you to consider when dealing with gay folk. I understand what many of you have said about the need to repent, and that gay folks ‘who repent’ are welcome (please forgive the “Reader’s Digest” version of the statements). So, let me try a slightly different angle on the point I am trying to illustrate, and it ties in with the last entry.

I imagine that there are any number of divorced and remarried people attending your churches. Technically, those are adulterers (with the possible exception of those cases in which an annullment has happened). Yet, they, too are welcome in the church, and may be able to play an active role in the church. I’ll even presume that largely their status is essentially the same as anyone else in the church. But, if they are adulterers, as I am assuming you would have to say they are, if they have repented of their sin, they are still continuing to live an adulterous relationship. How can they have repented? Perhaps I am unclear on the concept of repentance. You do not ask them to “hide” their relationship, nor do you ask them to pretend that they are not still living in sin. You do not ask them to renounce their new marriage. Many of them even remarry in the church.

They continue, every time they are together sexually, to commit adultery. By that reckoning, what would repentence look like to them — and to me?

My guess is that you would first ask me to recognize that the scriptures tell me my nature is wrong. I do recognize that the scripture condemns gay acts (see my earlier assertions). I would also have to assume that you would do the same for divorced and remaried couples in your church, reemphasizing to them that they are adulterers.

My guess about the next step is that you would ask me to recognize the evil of gay acts, and that it is a sin. I have addressed that in some earlier entries, and for straight people to engage in gay sex is a sin. I would also, again, have to assume that you would do the same, though, for divorced and remarried couples in your church. That you would tell them that any sexual pleasure they derive from one another is a sin. They should repent(?).

If you ask them to repent, what would that mean to them? Would you need for a divorced and remarried man to give up his new wife? Would he be required to forego relations with his new wife? I believe I read a number of references that implied or stated that I would have to give up my life with and my relations with my partner in order to repent.

The point I am trying to illustrate here is that adultery, by my reading, is one the specific items God referred to in the Ten Commandments. Yet, in the church in which I worshipped as a “straight” married man, there were many people who were divorced and remarried, and were actively welcomed to the church. While I realize that churches are different from location to location, those I would have to call adulterers continued to commit adultery. Yet they were on committees, and held ministerial positions, and received all of the sacraments the rest of us received. A gay couple at that same church was told that they were free to worship “if they’d like,” but they were not welcome to be a part of the church life, including the donuts and coffee afterward!

I think that divorced and remarried people need a place and a space to worship with their community — even if they are on multiple marriages. They can read the Word as well as anyone can. They can develop music programs, and Sunday school programs, and teach the little ones. They can lead Bible study groups and minister to the less fortunate in the church community. No one asks them to give up their spouse. No one asks them to live a celibate life. No one asks them to change their lifestyle one bit. But a gay man can’t do the same?

So, what does repentance look like for an adulterer? What does repentence look like for a gay man? Why is it different? If it’s not different, why is it being treated differently? And do you apply the same standard to the lefties in the church?

Thanks!

sui, sorry about misspelling your name!

TO illustrate my point .. here’s an article demonstrating the poor treatment gays get at the hands of their christian brothers …

A Catholic pastor ordered two men out of the choir because they went public with their same-sex wedding, the men said. Michael Sabatino Jr., who has sung in the choir for 32 years, said he and his partner, Robert Voorheis, were confronted Sunday by Monsignor Edmund Whalen as they entered St. Benedict’s Church in the Bronx, N.Y. Between September 28 and October 5, the Yonkers men were profiled on the front page of The [White Plains, N.Y.] Journal News, featured in an article on gay marriage on ChristianityToday.com, and married in a United Church of Canada ceremony in Ontario that was announced in The New York Times. Whalen “told us he couldn’t have us in a public ministry after going public in the newspapers,” Sabatino told The Journal News. “He said, ‘I have parishioners who are complaining.”‘ When Sabatino and Voorheis asked Whalen for his decision in writing, Whalen told them he would “shut down the choir” rather than allow them to sing in it, Sabatino said.

Whalen referred questions to Joseph Zwilling, a spokesman for the Archdiocese of New York, who said, “I don’t know these individuals or the specifics of their circumstances, but in the church, if there is the possibility of what we call scandal and there would be a possibility that the teachings of the church would be questioned or people could believe that the teachings of the church on a certain matter had changed or were unimportant, a pastor has not only the right but the obligation to act.”

On June 22 both men received certificates from the parish, signed by Whalen, commending them for their “noteworthy participation” in the choir. When they told fellow choir members about their ejection, “it was a shock to the choir. There were a lot of tears,” said member Charles Koczka. Sabatino said he and Voorheis may join Zion Episcopal Church in Dobbs Ferry, which performs commitment ceremonies for gay couples.

Here’s another shocking story. I am at a complete loss for words over this autrocity …

An antigay Kansas minister is intent on erecting a monument denouncing Matthew Shepard, and he’s citing legal precedent to do it. To mark the fifth anniversary of Shepard’s murder, the Reverend Fred Phelps wants to put up a monument in a Casper, Wyo., park that would read, “Matthew Shepard entered Hell October 12, 1998, at age 21 in defiance of God’s solemn warning: Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind; it is abomination. Leviticus 18:22.”

Phelps, who led an antigay protest at Shepard’s funeral in Casper, claims that the presence of a Ten Commandments display in the city park means that all monuments must be allowed. He bases his contention on two decisions by the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver, saying that if municipalities allow one group to put up a monument in a public place, they must give equal treatment to other organizations.

The court rulings, in 2002 and 1999, came in lawsuits filed by members of the Summum religion who wanted to put up their own monuments on public property in Ogden, Utah, and Salt Lake County, where a Ten Commandments display was already installed. Both Utah and Wyoming are part of the 10th circuit.

Casper officials oppose Phelps’s proposal and are considering returning the Ten Commandments monument to the local Fraternal Order of Eagles, the service organization that originally gave it to the city, The Salt Lake Tribune reported. Salt Lake City civil rights attorney Brian Barnard, who represented Summum, said moving the monument to the Eagles’ private property would resolve the situation. “If they remove it and they say, ‘Henceforth, no one can put up public monuments,’ the city’s not obligated to consider the reverend’s horrific monument,” Barnard said.

But Phelps said removing the monument to private property won’t stop him. If that happens, he said, he and members of his Westboro Baptist Church would either file a lawsuit or buy land in Casper to display their monument. He said the granite display, which will cost about $15,000, will be completed in about a month and transported to Wyoming by trailer.

and finally, this for your consideration …

All together in Allentown
By Father Patrick Malloy

When people think of a gay-friendly Episcopal parish, they probably imagine a large liberal church with prosperous members and a catalog of well-funded programs. That’s not what we are at Grace Church in Allentown, Pa. This is not about gay guys going to church before they have brunch on Sunday. We are a poor inner-city congregation that tries to make a difference.

In everything we do there are gay people and straight people working shoulder to shoulder. Gay people clean the windows and wax the floors. They distribute bags of groceries to the clients of our food bank.

You’ve probably heard Billy Joel’s song about Allentown. It captures well what the death of the steel industry did to this city and its people. Faced with so much blue-collar pain, the people of Grace Church did not flee or barricade themselves behind stained glass. Instead, they served the poor. And they grew more, rather than less, open-minded. They have been willing to take tremendous risks—maybe because they’ve lost so much. They’ve accepted inevitable change, and maybe that’s why gay people are so accepted here.

I left a successful business career in Pittsburgh two years ago and moved here to be a part of Grace. When I was interviewed to become the church’s rector, the vestry asked me about my spiritual journey. I told them about my lifelong desire to be a priest; I told them about my exodus from the Roman Catholic Church; and I told them that I am gay. I knew that if I were to hide a defining aspect of myself from the very people I would be leading in a search for truth, we would fail. They responded with support, and that support continued when my partner, Mark Godler, began to come to church.

After I became their priest, my sexuality was not discussed until a reporter for the local paper asked if he could out me in a story. I said yes, and the vestry wrote a letter to the parish about it. Instead of a backlash, what I got was gratitude for my honesty, especially from our oldest members, and we had a surge in attendance.

The story that appeared in the paper was not what we expected. We thought it would be about Grace’s outreach and how I happened to be gay, but it was all about me. I realized there is no news in our providing a food bank or a school. There is no news in our giving help to people with HIV. But there is news in a place that accepts people for who they are.

On the Sunday after the Reverend Gene Robinson was confirmed as the first openly gay Episcopal bishop, we had almost twice as many people at Mass as the week before. While conservatives in the church are predicting doom, we are seeing just the opposite at Grace. There are people who are coming to our church because of Robinson’s election, and by no means are they all gay. Whether the trend will continue, I can’t say. But the resolve and inclusiveness of this parish certainly will.

There are many gay people in the Episcopal Church, and many of them are noncelibate clergy. That is not a recent development. But now the church has acknowledged the elephant in the room, and that can only lead to good. Holiness and health are nearly impossible in a community that keeps essential secrets and tells essential lies.

This has been coming for decades. For some Episcopalians, it is enormously uncomfortable, but for most, it is liberating. There is a strong backlash in certain places, but colleagues tell me that most of the people who occupy the pews are taking it in stride. In my parish hardly a thing has been said. That doesn’t mean that the people of Grace Church don’t care about the pain this is causing or the threat it poses to the unity of the Anglican Communion. It just means that sexuality seems not to be an issue for them.

Friends ask me why I would want to work in the “dead” center of a struggling city. After all, I am 47 and have a Ph.D. I tell them it’s because Grace Church has a heart for the marginalized and the courage to take risks. A number of priests in this diocese have said how much they wish they could be here. That tells me something about the community this parish is creating—gay and straight. Maybe we are having an impact on the rest of the church.

Hi Craig,

we as christians are not perfect (before Jesus returns) and I’m sorry for the double standard that we have in church. Thanks for letting us know what you feel about the treatment that you (and other gay christians) received over the past years. I think as a church we need to reflect on this and make necessary change.

However, keep in mind that homosexuality is a sin (Rom 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9-10) and God is angry with those who sin against Him. Having said that, I have no right in throwing stones at you, as I myself am a sinner and need to repent day by day. Remember the story about Jesus and the woman who was caught in adultery (John 8:1-11)? The Pharisees asked Jesus whether they can stone the woman based on the Law that Moses gave them. But Jesus said: “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her”. After a while they all left Jesus and that woman alone. ‘Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on SIN NO MORE.”‘(John 8:10-11 ESV, with my own emphasis added)

I think all that needs to be said has been said, let us all reflect on this and live according to the way God wants us to live.

October 25, 2003 NY Times
Gay at Birth?
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF

ome people say we should settle gay rights disputes on the basis of the Old Testament. I say we should rely on blinking patterns.

In case you’ve misplaced your latest copy of Behavioral Neuroscience, there’s a fascinating article about how people blink. It turns out that when males and females are exposed to a loud noise, they blink in somewhat different ways — except that lesbians appear to blink like men, not like women.

The study (peer-reviewed but based on a small sample) is the latest in a growing scientific literature suggesting that sexual preferences may be not simply a matter of personal preference but part of our ingrained biology. Indeed, some geneticists believe that sexual orientation in men (though not women) may be determined in part by markers in the Xq28 chromosomal region.

One needs to be wary of these kinds of studies, partly because researchers drawn toward this field may have subconscious biases of their own. Moreover, many of the studies on the biological basis of homosexuality are flawed by small numbers or by the difficulty of finding valid random samples of gays and heterosexuals.

Still, while the data has problems, it is piling up — there are at least seven studies on twins. If there is a genetic component to homosexuality, one would expect identical twins to share sexual orientation more than fraternal twins, and that is indeed the case. An identical twin of a gay person is about twice as likely to be gay as a fraternal twin would be.

Earlier this year, the journal Personality and Individual Differences published an exhaustive review of the literature entitled “Born Gay?” After reviewing the twin studies, it concluded that 50 to 60 percent of sexual orientation might be genetic.

Many studies also suggest that sexual orientation may be linked to differences in brain anatomy. Compared with straight men, gay men appear to have a larger suprachiasmatic nucleus, a part of the brain that affects behavior, and some studies show most gay men have a larger isthmus of the corpus callosum — which may also be true of left-handed people. And that’s intriguing because gays are 39 percent more likely to be left-handed than straight people.

Now look at your fingers. Men typically have a ring finger that is longer than the index finger, while in women the two are about the same length. However, two studies have suggested that lesbians have finger-length ratios that are more like those of men than of women.

Studies suggest that ring-finger length has to do with the level of androgens in the womb, and that may help explain another puzzle of homosexuality: a male is more likely to be gay if he has older brothers. It doesn’t matter if he has older sisters, but for each older brother he is about 33 percent more likely to be gay. Some scientists speculate that a woman’s body adjusts the androgen level in her womb as she has more sons, and that the androgens interact with genes to produce homosexuality.

O.K., these theories are potentially junk science until the studies are replicated with much larger numbers. But we also shouldn’t ignore the accumulating evidence.

“There is now very strong evidence from almost two decades of `biobehavioral’ research that human sexual orientation is predominantly biologically determined,” said Qazi Rahman, the University of London researcher who led the blinking study. Many others don’t go that far, but accept that there is probably some biological component.

Gays themselves are divided. Some welcome these studies because they confirm their own feeling that sexual orientation is more than a whim. Others fret that the implication is that homosexuals are abnormal or defective — and that future genetic screening will eliminate people like them.

For me the implication, if these studies are to believed, is different: It is that something is defective not in gays, but in discrimination against them.

A basic principle of our social covenant is that we do not discriminate against people on the basis of circumstances that they cannot choose, like race, sex and disability. If sexual orientation belongs on that list (with the caveat that the evidence is still murky), then should we still prohibit gay marriage and bar gays from serving openly in the armed forces?

Can we countenance discrimination against people for something so basic as how they blink — or whom they love?

Can we countenance discrimination against people for something so basic as how they blink — or whom they love?

No.

Can we encourage our brothers and sisters to stop doing something so intrinsic to us as sin — or sexual immorality?

Yes.

I think craig got it right. If you don’t discriminate against the divorced and remarried, who are in fact choosing to be adulterers, how can you discriminate against gays who may be genetically designed to be that way? Why is one, the choice, OK when the other, the nature, is not OK? Get the planks out of your eyes before you worry about my splinter

Hi craig

I am one of the men who was ousted out of the choir a few back. To those who quote the bible about homosexuality being a sin.

ponder these
1. When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a
> > pleasing odor for the Lord – Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors.
> > They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?
> >
> > 2. I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in
Exodus
> > 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for
> > her?
> >
> > 3. I know that I am allowed no contact with any woman while she is in
her
> > period of menstrual uncleanliness – Lev.15:19-24. The problem is, how
do
I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

4. Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and
female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend
of
> > mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you
clarify? Why can’t I own Canadians?
5. I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2
clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to
kill
him myself?
6. A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an
abomination – Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than
homosexuality.
I don’t agree. Can you settle this?
7. Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have
a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does
my
vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?
8. Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair
around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.
19:27. How should they die?

9. I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes
me
unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

10. My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two
different
crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of
two
different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to
curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the
trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? -
Lev.24:10-16.
Couldn’t we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we
do
with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)
ms

A large segment of the christian population has conveniently short memories, as you have pointed out here. They are quick to judge — yes, judge — those they believe are sinning. They have no knowledge of it. They no no such “sinners,” but they seem to know everything about it. Then they find scripture to back up their narrow-minded point of view because it’s easier than really reaching out.

I’m gay, too. And if that’s a sin, that’s between me a God, not me and my neighbor. Our job is to love and to teach and to witness.

Sorry to post something so lengthy again, but — as I said, it’s like being left-handed or blue eyed. It’s not a choice, and it’s not a moral issue.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/printedition/chi-0311130145nov13,1,1016364.story?coll=chi-printnews-hed
Homosexuality may be issue of brain chemistry
By Ronald Kotulak
Tribune science reporter
November 13, 2003

In the ongoing effort to determine whether sexual orientation is hardwired, University of Chicago scientists have used high-tech imaging to confirm that the hypothalamus–the sex center in the brain–functions differently in gay men than in heterosexual men.

Scientists have searched for ways to determine if sexual preference is a matter of choice or biology. Still, they have failed to develop convincing evidence one way or the other. Genes once touted as prompting homosexuality, for example, have fizzled out and studies of hormonal influences during fetal development are inconclusive.

Since scientific evidence has been lacking for a biological cause of homosexuality, many politicians, religious leaders and others maintain it is a purposeful choice.

As acceptance of homosexuality has increased, however, so has acceptance of the idea that it is not a choice, but some heretofore unseen cues–either psychological or physical or both–that set sexual preference.

Although the new U. of C. findings suggest male sexual response is regulated in large part by genes or neurochemistry, the results are preliminary and need to be replicated in other studies. And there surely are other factors, both biological and social, that influence the sexual response.

“I don’t think homosexuality can easily be conceptualized as just one thing–a phenomenon that is due to one particular developmental pathway,” said Heino F. L. Meyer-Bahlburg, Columbia University professor of clinical psychology who was not involved in the research. “Like most behavior, homosexuality has multiple pathways. We’re at the crude beginning to understand all of this. This [the U. of C. study] is a promising development and a very exciting one.”

The U. of C.’s Howard Moltz, professor emeritus in psychology, headed the team showing that sexual orientation in men appears to be connected with brain metabolism. The report was presented Wednesday at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience in New Orleans by Leann Kinnunen, a U. of C. psychology graduate.

Variations in brain activity

Using positron emission tomography (PET) to monitor the neurochemical function of the hypothalamus in eight exclusively heterosexual men and eight exclusively homosexual men, Moltz found a significantly greater level of activity in straight men compared with gays. The hypothalamus is thought to regulate sexual response and behavior, according to animal studies.

“Whether this neurochemical difference is the cause of, or a consequence of, or something that accompanies this kind of heterosexuality and homosexuality is yet to be determined,” Moltz said. “But it’s the strongest research I know to suggest that it might be hardwired.”

How the hypothalamus functions in lesbian and straight females was not studied, but it is likely that they have patterns of activity that are similar to those of males, Moltz said. “I would expect that a neurochemical difference would show up in lesbians as it did in our exclusively homosexual or heterosexual men,” said Moltz, who said he plans to conduct similar studies with women.

Meyer-Bahlburg said the importance of the research was in the use of new technology that provided clear-cut differences.

“The results are stunning because these are very extreme groups, and he finds these pervasive differences that are lighting up on his brain scans that involve a large part of the known sexual circuitry that we know from animals,” he said.

Dr. Fred Berlin, a Johns Hopkins School of Medicine psychiatrist, said that the U. of C. findings need to be replicated, but even then they may reflect the current functioning of the brain and not pinpoint the cause of homosexuality. “The important point in terms of the cause of homosexuality, or heterosexuality for that matter, is that it isn’t due to choice,” he said. “None of us as little children sat down and said to ourselves, `When I grow up do I want to be attracted to men or to women?’

“We simply discover in growing up who it is we’re attracted to,” Berlin said.

Numerous studies in animals show that the hypothalamus mediates sexual arousal and sexual behavior, but its role in human sexuality has been little studied. And although the hypothalamus may play an important role in human sexual response, other parts of the brain, especially the thought-processing neocortex, are likely to also exert considerable influence.

Gay men were selected for brain scans if they said they had never been aroused by a woman and straight men were chosen if they said they had never been aroused by a male.

Jibes with other data

“This report fits in with an increasing body of data suggesting that sexual orientation has a biological basis,” said Simon LeVay. In 1991, while at the University of California, San Diego, LeVay found in autopsy studies that the front section of the hypothalamus of heterosexual men was larger than that of heterosexual women and that the size in gay men was also small, nearly the same size as females.

Another team of scientists last year reported that rams that copulated with other rams had a smaller hypothalamus than rams that copulated with ewes.

Moltz said that other studies on living subjects failed to show significant differences in brain function between gays and straights probably because their samples included men whose sexual preferences included both males and females.

Dr. William Gilmer, a Houston neurologist and past president of the Gay and Lesbian Medical Association, said that there is a growing understanding that “gay and straight brains are wired differently. Sexual orientation is no more a choice for a GLBT [gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender] person than a straight one.”

“This study adds more evidence to the common belief of both gay and straight people that their basic sexual orientation is something they were born with,” Gilmer said. “Most gay and straight people know what they think is attractive from their earliest sexual feelings, and those basic feelings don’t change much through their lives.”

Someone suggested that I am a baptist. For your information, I am an Anglo-catholic, who still holds on to the book of common prayer.

I had seen a couple of comments that had mentioned “scientific discoveries”. Has any of it been even accepted by the reviewers of any reputed internationl scientific journal with a high impact factor, for publication? I can post thosands of web links to sites which claim alien abduction, the return of Elvis, etc.

I have normal interactions with homosexuals, in the work place and in the neighbourhood. The society is democratic and we have to respect other’s rights as long as they don’t infringe on others, as long as we live in a democratic society. Fair enough.

But the church of England is not a democratic insitution. It is based on laws given by God, through Christ. And these laws don’t change. Someone had quoted a lot of leviticus laws. Well, Christ changed the laws in that now He gives the punishments, not us. The maximum of eye-for-eye has been changed into show-your-other cheek. So we(who are all sinners in one way or other) are to welcome homo and heterosexual sinners into the church. But under no circumstances whatsoever, can any one who believes in the Bible, allow any individual who lives in open sin (either homosexual or heterosexual) to become an office bearer in the church of God. That is agianst God’s laws!

If we start to carry on with this sort of “accomodation”, there will be no end. Then why should the church of England stop with appointing just homosexuals into key positions? Why should the paediophiles be left out? Afterall, some other “scientific” study will prove that ” they too know what they think is attractive from their earliest sexual feelings, and those basic feelings don’t change much through their lives”. The church can issue a ” neo-affirmitive action policy” and start appointing swindlers, mass murderers, racists, etc as bishops. Poor loosers like Hitler, Genghis Khan, presidents Jackson,wilson,truman etc of USA, most of the turkish sultans, etc etc all missed their chances to become bishops: well, we can still rectify this. We can invite Osama Bin laden to become the next Achbishop of Canterbury! He will fit in well, he has already got a beard like Rowan williams.

I wonder if those who so desperately cling to a belief that being gay is a choice have befriended and know gay men and lesbians. I say that knowing that many do not really know (truly know) any gay men or lesbians because they are now a part of what I will call the Christian Ghetto (all their friends are Christian). I say that knowing this because I once as well was a part of the Christian Ghetto as well as most of the people I knew.

Now I know being a Christian myself that I once held on to a belief a faith that God was against homosexuality. I was once gay and now had become a born again Charismatic Christian who looked at scripture literally and saw that God said homosexuality was sin (Rom 1, I Cor. 6 etc..) I lived the straight life and was content in dating women and being very active in Church life and ministry. I was even on staff of an ex-gay ministry and ministered to men and women desiring not to be in the “gay lifestyle”. But after 20 plus years I realized that I was still attracted to men.

I as well studied scripture and saw that the words that were used for homosexual were far from that and in fact did not say homosexual (check out the Greek). As well I even looked at even the OT story of Sodom and saw a truer picture of what the story was about (men who were viewed as either criminals or enemy spies being molested to humiliate them. Besides all the men of Sodom could not be gay could they). I had to rethink and reevaluate my life on the truth I was receiving.

I knew in my heart I was gay and that was never anything I had chosen to be or do. For whatever reason only God knows I was and I had to come to terms with that from a biblical/moral stance as well as a personal one. This was in light of all the prayer, deliverance, intercession, teaching (a lot of the teaching on ex-gay work is more psychological than biblical), confession, accountability that I had lived and worked on the last 20 plus years.

Not an easy road to follow for now I was a double Samaritan. I say that because we gays are the new Samaritans of certain segments of the church and as well I was a Christian and some pastor said I was an oxymoron. Not accepted by the conservative church that I was a part of and loved and misunderstood by the gay community because so many had been rejected by the church and their families because of their homosexuality.

But life does indeed go on and my hopes and prayers are for those brothers and sisters who so desperately cling to a false biblical belief system about homosexuality. How far removed it is from the God, the Jesus of Scripture. One day we will view gay men and lesbians with the eyes of God and see them made in His image not their sexual preference/anatomy. We will see like the church has seen in the past dealing with slavery, women’s rights, inter-racial marriage that this will not destroy the family. In fact there is nothing wrong with it from an ethical, biblical, sociological or psychological viewpoint. We will come to understand that there is no “gay agenda” and being gay is not a “lifestyle” but just a part of the human condition that we all share in. One day…

whats wrong with people.the scriptures do condemn homosexuality whether you want to gloss over it or not.God did destroy sodom and gommorrah for their sin.in leviticus it says that if man lies with man and same for women they shall surely be put to death.now you can shut your eyes now and pretend to be blind but its there.its filth.but God said also that you have the same holy spirit that will help you to abstain from your ways.if you want to but let this be assured that you will not enter the kingdom of heaven if you carry on the way you are.you has well has me do not have to sin.but it our chosing for whatever we do.so those with the tendencies of homosexuality ,turn from your ways and turn to the Lord for he will forgive has long has one stops from his evil ways.and thats where the spirit helps you.dont forget Christ had the same spirit also so he did not use his divinity.God be with you