Disappointed By My Gay Male Peers

[I Broke Free]

I belong to gay men’s social-support group in Concord, New Hampshire. We meet every Friday evening for 90 minutes and then head out to a nearby restaurant for a late dinner. Last night we had about 35 men (average age is about 40) in attendance. It was “Open Topic Night” and anyone could bring up any issue they wanted. I had decided earlier that if no one had any pressing issues I wanted to bring up how being gay has shaped our faith.

 

Coming out as a gay person in a religious family or environment undoubtedly forces the individual to reevaluate their faith and I wanted to hear about this process. I started the discussion by telling about my own experience. I explained that during the process of examining my Christian faith I eventually decided that there was nothing supporting it and that it should be dumped in the trash heap. I wanted to convey to the group that I was glad I was gay because it was the issue that caused me to examine my faith in the first place.

 

I was not sure what to expect, but I was hoping that a few others would have shared my experience and discuss it with the group. What I found were some thirty-odd men desperate to mold Christianity in their own image. (Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised after all.) The entire discussion broke down into a pathetic attempt to make anti-gay Bible versus palatable. No matter how hard I tried to dig deeper into the validity of Christianity itself, no one would take the bait. Everyone who shared last night spoke of how they have come to understand that the Christian God loves them just they way they are, and that Jesus died for their sins. They expressed that other evil Christians were not reading the Bible ‘correctly.’ Apparently they alone held the true message of Christianity. None of them seemed to recognize the hypocrisy in their position.

 

Needles to say I was disappointed last night. I was hoping to make contact with at least one other person who shared my conviction that Bible-verse-twisting to come up with a faith you can live with is an exercise in hypocrisy, and that the better approach is to dump your faith in Christianity and start from scratch. I suppose last night was not a total loss. I did learn that the Christian Meme is powerful enough to entangle even those most likely to reject it.

 

IBF

[♦ nivek ♦]

IBF,

 

Not just a gay man's group problem either.

 

My world of Second Amendment and Right to Keep and Bare Arms (RKBA) there are hundreds of assorted kindred sorts.

 

From nuts like me who live to rapid fire to the slow fire Fudds who can't stomach more than a round a minute down range, and tons in between.

 

In every major group discussion there seems to be an inverse of Goodwin's Law.

Start talking about a tyrannical regieme and end up making it into how "God has a plan".

 

Frustrating to start at politics and end up having to try and take a verbal scapel to the god_squaddies to S them TFU about things unrelated to their molding of policy according to the biBulll.

 

Understand some of your frustration while trying to keep a discussion topical and having the assorted meandering sides slide the entire conversation in to a hubbub of god_sprecche..

 

After a bit, I go for the coffee and meeting of friends, generally let the folks who want to "be the social leaders" do so, knowin' that I am one of the "True 90%'s.."

 

kL

[pandora]

LOL I am not laughing at you, I promise... but that sounds so familiar to me. I was invited to several gay support group meetings when I lived with a gay guy. The topic of discussion was often that. He was still a Christian, but had read the "What the Bible Really says about Homosexuality" book and like your friends, used that to cling to their Christian faith. He was a member of a specific denomination who's whole purpose is keeping gays within the church: Jesus Metropolitan Community Church. Everyone in the group,except for a few, were attenders or members at the congregation in Indy.

 

I don't get it either. If anything, even reading that book would wake me up to the way religion/the Bible can be twisted and no longer useful as a guide. To each his own, I guess... but yes, it bothered me a lot, even though I was in my "liberal" Christian phase.

[Ex-COG]

I have a gay relative who is still involved with Christianity, though he has (of course) switched from the fundamentalist church he was raised in to a very liberal United Church of Christ. He must find some reason for staying. Certain people, gay or straight, feel the need for organized religion and/or a belief system. Maybe it's too ingrained in our culture for them to abandon church totally?

[Vigile]

Wow, I'm really surprised. I would think that like you explained, being gay would cause you to take an even more critical look at faith out of necessity. It just goes to show what we already know about you Denis, you are special

[I Broke Free]

Wow, I'm really surprised. I would think that like you explained, being gay would cause you to take an even more critical look at faith out of necessity. It just goes to show what we already know about you Denis, you are special

 

I was hoping I was not so special as to be unique within our group. I was really hoping to meet someone who did more than just revamp their faith to accommodate their ‘lifestyle.’

 

One guy even accused me of being “angry with god,” and that is why I rejected Christianity. UGH!! I may as well have been at the Tribulation Forces website to get crap like that thrown at me. I nicely explained to him that I was never angry with god because it was impossible for me to be angry at something I do not believe exists. He still felt compelled to state that I had rejected a relationship with god.

 

Damn! What happened to that barfing little icon I wanted to use?

 

IBF

[Lorena Rodriguez]

Hi IBF,

 

I have a theory about why people defend bible-god even when they've gone stray.

 

I think people wish they had the will power to stick to the rules and regulations. They wish they could be as "holy" as the church people. But they can't. So they leave the church defeated thinking that one day, when they get their shit together, they will come back to church and join the "saints."

 

It is my opinion that most non-church goers are, in a weird sort of way, believers.

 

Just a theory

[All Gods Fail]

Hi IBF,

 

I have a theory about why people defend bible-god even when they've gone stray.

 

I think people wish they had the will power to stick to the rules and regulations. They wish they could be as "holy" as the church people. But they can't. So they leave the church defeated thinking that one day, when they get their shit together, they will come back to church and join the "saints."

 

It is my opinion that most non-church goers are, in a weird sort of way, believers.

 

Just a theory

 

Or it may be simply another version of the meme. Straight/gay, people still have that uncertain, guilty fear in the back of their minds that keeps them wishing for 'fire insurance'. Even if they aren't devout or dedicated, that believer mentality is hard to shake. Most straight non-churchies are pretty much the same.

[☆ TexasFreethinker ☆]

IBF, I have had similar experiences whenever I've tried to talk to my gay friends about christianity.

 

Not one of my gay friends seems willing or interested in openly talking about religion. One camp doesn't want to discuss religion at all, but they still consider themselves "Social Christians." The other camp consists of devout christians who have found some way to ignore what the bible and most christian groups teach about homosexuality. It's like you said - they have conformed christianity to fit their own beliefs and reality (just like every other christian I know).

 

I think you did the right thing - just bringing this topic up can lead to opened minds, even if it didn't happen immediately.

[I Broke Free]

Not one of my gay friends seems willing or interested in openly talking about religion. One camp doesn't want to discuss religion at all,

 

 

My partner is definitely in that camp. He has said NOTHING about me brining up this topic last night, and he did not contribute to the conversation. Even when I try and bring up the topic at home he just rolls his eyes like I am off and running about nothing again. I love that man something fierce, but it amazes me that he does not recognize just how serious this issue is to both me and the gay community at large.

 

IBF

[Vigile]

I have a few really good friends in DC who happen to be gay. I'm not sure that any are atheists, but none of them are xtians. Frankly, they are all just too wordly to fall into that trap. One in particular comes from a Penticostal background. His father died when he was 18 and he stayed in the closet until he was 18. Had his father lived longer, he would have stayed in the closet longer. It was obvious that it pained him greatly to have to hide who he was due to his parent's religious values.

 

When he was still a xtian he suffered a terrible amount of guilt for his gay tendencies. He even got engaged to be married as a teen thinking that he would force himself to be godly.

 

His sister is still an Ass of God (quite literally) and she refuses to let Tom visit his neice and nephew out of fear that he will abuse them; he is gay, not a child molester.

 

As a result he has rejected xtianity and since he found no baby in with the bath water, he threw it all out. For some reason I thought that Tom's reaction would be the norm with gays who grew up in church. I'm surprised to hear that this is not true.

[lothartx]

I wonder if they're clinging to xtianity is tied more toward the need for a father figure or parent? I've wonder if religion and belief in god fills the role left by our parents? If we had crappy parents, the need may even be greater. God will be there to bandage the skinned knee or take of us when were sick. Gay or not, you are still human and may, deep done, want re-asurrance some one will be there to pick up the pieces?

 

It was one of the reasons I got involved in xtianity. Pretty soon I realized god/dad was a bit of phsycho after reading his biography, aka The Bible.

[thunderbolt]

IBF

 

I don't know your history, but I am really interested in your story out of xtianity. Is there an old post with this?

[Mike D]

Yes, it's true, even many gay people need to believe there's a magical sky genie flying around in the sky who loves them unconditionally

 

I am beginning to think it's really just a small segment of the population who have the capacity to see this stuff for what it really is..... tripe.

[Onyx]

I'm a gay person but I'm not even involved with a gay teens support group yet I reject all of Christianity for the reason:If God created Hell so therefore if he is real, he is evil but I think he don't exist anyway. The antigay verses just was a stick in the fire so to speak.

[Amethyst]

It's peer pressure. I know so many people who would deconvert if everyone around them wasn't Christian.

[♦ ficino ♦]

I agree with Amethyst that a lot of the reason gays insist that the bible is not really anti-gay is peer pressure; they want to be part of the club. I also think it's a sense of standing up for one's rights. The logic of that is, "it's unjust for christianity to drum us out of the fold, we ought to be included, so now let's see if those anti-gay bible verses are really anti-gay." By the time the person reaches this point, he/she is already disposed emotionally to find the bible to be OK with gays.

 

I could never buy this. Friends urged that the OT prohibitions don't count now that Christ has set aside the Law; that "arsenokoites" in the epistles of Paul refers to gay prostitutes and not gay people generally; that the sin Paul condemns in Romans I is lust and not lesbian and gay sex. Amanda, I think you argued in ways similar to this, no? Do you still?

 

I was never persuaded. There is no definition of "arsenokoites," often translated as "homosexual" in various bible translations, in ancient Greek literature except in Christian sources, and its appearances in "pagan" literature are not accompanied by enough context to determine whether the word means "man who has sex with a man" or something much more restricted. In Christian circles (St. Basil, many others) it's a category of sinner. In Greek "arsen" means "male" and "koites" means "person who lies down." Some people say it refers to male temple cult prostitutes, as though only this narrow slice of the population is condemned in Paul's lists of sinners. Seems unlikely - look at the others on those lists. Nothing so restricted as this.

 

Since the Bible has always to be understood within tradition, as a Catholic I could never see the point of playing Bible bingo guessing at definitions of single words. Christianity inherited Judaism's hostility to homosexual acts. Anyway, I think Paul's argument in Romans I doesn't make much sense unless you assume he's using lesbians and gays as examples of the sin of worshiping the creature rather than the creator. If he's just generally condemning lust but not same-sex acts, he would not have brought in the whole same-sex topic. He's writing to an audience with a Jewish background, after all - how else is his audience supposed to understand his argument except as an example of the way gentiles ran off track? Gay and lesbian sex was a big item of difference between "pagans" and Jews. That's why Paul used it as an example of sinful gentile refusal to believe in what nature reveals about God - parallel to Jewish refusal to believe in what God revealed to the Jews. His "burn with lust" language is rhetorical embellishment intended to reinforce how evil the gentiles are when they do this. There's nothing in the text that justifies separating "lust" as condemned by Paul and "loving lesbian and gay sex acts" as not condemned. He knows of no loving lesbian or gay sex acts; let's not pretend he does. It's noteworthy that Paul repeats an argument used by Plato in the Laws, a work of Plato's old age, that sex is "according to nature" for procreation and should be lawful only for that purpose. I don't know if Paul is consciously using Plato or just picking up a mentality of "natural" and "non-natural" sex acts that Plato did much to spread around.

 

My conclusion is that the bible opposes gay and, less often, lesbian sexual acts absolutely.

 

The late Yale historian John Boswell's last book argued that medieval Eastern christians had a ceremony blessing a union of one man and another, which used language similar to a marriage ceremony. Boswell unfortunately did not show that this ceremony presumed sexual union of the two; it's consistent with a brotherhood ceremony between two believers. Monks and nuns did have sex with each other, but this was always condemned by the monastic rules. That's a chief part of the reason why "particular friendships" were strongly discouraged in religious orders.

 

I also think gays give aid and comfort to their oppressor when they support christian churches that refuse to allow that GLBT people AND THEIR WAYS OF MAKING LOVE are OK. I think opposition to those churches is the better political act. Some churches may step out of biblical orthodoxy and just say the bible fails to address historical circumstances of today's gays and lesbians. Some churches may say that biblical condemnations of lesbians and gays are irrelevant because the bible reflects ancient concern with acts apart from understanding the nature of the gay or lesbian or bisexual person. That's cool in my book. But then, why retain a core of Christianity at all if big pieces of it are going to be set aside as historically conditioned? That's my problem with liberal christianity.

[Vigile]

I also think it's a sense of standing up for one's rights. The logic of that is, "it's unjust for christianity to drum us out of the fold, we ought to be included, so now let's see if those anti-gay bible verses are really anti-gay."

 

This is kind of weird logic for me. On the surface I guess I can understand and even empathize. Xtianity is so tied up with patriotism, being a good person, being normal, belonging, that I can see why gays don't want to be left out. On the other hand it's kind of like a black person twisting the charter for the KKK because he doesn't want to be left out.

[Loren]

My partner is definitely in that camp. He has said NOTHING about me brining up this topic last night, and he did not contribute to the conversation. Even when I try and bring up the topic at home he just rolls his eyes like I am off and running about nothing again. I love that man something fierce, but it amazes me that he does not recognize just how serious this issue is to both me and the gay community at large.

 

IBF

That sounds heartbreaking, Dennis! Frustrating is such a poor word for it. Deeply and very personally disappointing, perhaps. I know you have a wonderful relationship with him in so many other ways. I imagine that that area of life with him must feel something like a pit which swallows everything you throw into it, giving nothing back. An ongoing heartbreak.

 

It also seems very strange to me that an intelligent gay man would not be fascinated by talking with someone who has done his homework on the many, many reasons one of the biggest and oldest of gays' institutionalized oppressors is completely lacking in the authority it claims. Even if his attitude toward religion matches my attitude toward football, I would still think he'd be very interested for political, social justice reasons!

 

I know you've spoken often of the many wonderful qualities your dear partner has and I would expect and hope (it seems reasonable) that in time, he will come to understand why the issue is important in our culture and more importantly, why it's important to you. He's an intelligent and sensitive man. It only seems reasonable that he'll get there eventually.

 

 

Sad for your sadness. Here's to hope.

 

Loren

[pandora]

I agree with Amethyst that a lot of the reason gays insist that the bible is not really anti-gay is peer pressure; they want to be part of the club. I also think it's a sense of standing up for one's rights. The logic of that is, "it's unjust for christianity to drum us out of the fold, we ought to be included, so now let's see if those anti-gay bible verses are really anti-gay." By the time the person reaches this point, he/she is already disposed emotionally to find the bible to be OK with gays.

 

I could never buy this. Friends urged that the OT prohibitions don't count now that Christ has set aside the Law; that "arsenokoites" in the epistles of Paul refers to gay prostitutes and not gay people generally; that the sin Paul condemns in Romans I is lust and not lesbian and gay sex. Amanda, I think you argued in ways similar to this, no? Do you still?

 

I was never persuaded. There is no definition of "arsenokoites," often translated as "homosexual" in various bible translations, in ancient Greek literature except in Christian sources, and its appearances in "pagan" literature are not accompanied by enough context to determine whether the word means "man who has sex with a man" or something much more restricted. In Christian circles (St. Basil, many others) it's a category of sinner. In Greek "arsen" means "male" and "koites" means "person who lies down." Some people say it refers to male temple cult prostitutes, as though only this narrow slice of the population is condemned in Paul's lists of sinners. Seems unlikely - look at the others on those lists. Nothing so restricted as this.

 

Since the Bible has always to be understood within tradition, as a Catholic I could never see the point of playing Bible bingo guessing at definitions of single words. Christianity inherited Judaism's hostility to homosexual acts. Anyway, I think Paul's argument in Romans I doesn't make much sense unless you assume he's using lesbians and gays as examples of the sin of worshiping the creature rather than the creator. If he's just generally condemning lust but not same-sex acts, he would not have brought in the whole same-sex topic. He's writing to an audience with a Jewish background, after all - how else is his audience supposed to understand his argument except as an example of the way gentiles ran off track? Gay and lesbian sex was a big item of difference between "pagans" and Jews. That's why Paul used it as an example of sinful gentile refusal to believe in what nature reveals about God - parallel to Jewish refusal to believe in what God revealed to the Jews. His "burn with lust" language is rhetorical embellishment intended to reinforce how evil the gentiles are when they do this. There's nothing in the text that justifies separating "lust" as condemned by Paul and "loving lesbian and gay sex acts" as not condemned. He knows of no loving lesbian or gay sex acts; let's not pretend he does. It's noteworthy that Paul repeats an argument used by Plato in the Laws, a work of Plato's old age, that sex is "according to nature" for procreation and should be lawful only for that purpose. I don't know if Paul is consciously using Plato or just picking up a mentality of "natural" and "non-natural" sex acts that Plato did much to spread around.

 

My conclusion is that the bible opposes gay and, less often, lesbian sexual acts absolutely.

 

The late Yale historian John Boswell's last book argued that medieval Eastern christians had a ceremony blessing a union of one man and another, which used language similar to a marriage ceremony. Boswell unfortunately did not show that this ceremony presumed sexual union of the two; it's consistent with a brotherhood ceremony between two believers. Monks and nuns did have sex with each other, but this was always condemned by the monastic rules. That's a chief part of the reason why "particular friendships" were strongly discouraged in religious orders.

 

I also think gays give aid and comfort to their oppressor when they support christian churches that refuse to allow that GLBT people AND THEIR WAYS OF MAKING LOVE are OK. I think opposition to those churches is the better political act. Some churches may step out of biblical orthodoxy and just say the bible fails to address historical circumstances of today's gays and lesbians. Some churches may say that biblical condemnations of lesbians and gays are irrelevant because the bible reflects ancient concern with acts apart from understanding the nature of the gay or lesbian or bisexual person. That's cool in my book. But then, why retain a core of Christianity at all if big pieces of it are going to be set aside as historically conditioned? That's my problem with liberal christianity.

 

I know people hate it when people say this, but I have to say it...

 

I completely agree with you! Well said. I think that the Bible condemns homosexuality too. Liberal Christianity is pathetic sometimes... the "scholarship" they do to excuse the Bible is laughed at by many of my professors (such as Spong, etc...).

[Antlerman]

I was not sure what to expect, but I was hoping that a few others would have shared my experience and discuss it with the group. What I found were some thirty-odd men desperate to mold Christianity in their own image. (Maybe I shouldn’t have been surprised after all.) The entire discussion broke down into a pathetic attempt to make anti-gay Bible versus palatable. No matter how hard I tried to dig deeper into the validity of Christianity itself, no one would take the bait. Everyone who shared last night spoke of how they have come to understand that the Christian God loves them just they way they are, and that Jesus died for their sins. They expressed that other evil Christians were not reading the Bible ‘correctly.’ Apparently they alone held the true message of Christianity. None of them seemed to recognize the hypocrisy in their position.

It might be a thought to point out that all religions are created and sustained by cultures, and are nothing more than a reflection of those values. Christianity is always evolving because societies evolve, if it doesn't it looses relevance and will be abandoned.

 

Christians who read the bible as anti-gay are doing so because it reflects their cultural values. Those who read the bible as neutral on the subject are doing because it also reflects their cultural values. These are not biblical controversies, these are cultural controversies. Those who argue the bible is final and authoritative are the ones who in their hearts are the most resistant to cultural changes. Fundamentalism is not making our society, our society is feeding fundamentalism. When society evolves and accepts change, fundamentalism will diminish.

 

The Bible does not create these views. People create and adopt these views about a version of God that reflects who they are inside. It's not about religion; it's about people and culture. It is all nothing more than this. God is us. We are God. "In the beginning, Man created God in his own image."

[I Broke Free]

IBF

 

I don't know your history, but I am really interested in your story out of xtianity. Is there an old post with this?

 

Yes I do have anti-testimony post, you can find it here...

 

 

 

http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=818

 

IBF

[Mike D]

I completely agree with you! Well said. I think that the Bible condemns homosexuality too. Liberal Christianity is pathetic sometimes... the "scholarship" they do to excuse the Bible is laughed at by many of my professors (such as Spong, etc...).

I not only think the Bible condemns homosexuality, but I think the Bible is clear on how Jehoover feels about it (Leviticus 20:13) when he says gays should be violently murdered.

 

I agree liberal Christianity can be pathetic because it contradicts common sense, but fundamentalism is equally pathetic because it contradicts objective reality. Lets see as a liberal Christian i'll believe it's ok to have gay sex in the context of "love" (yeah right), but as a fundamentalist Christian i'll believe in a magical fantasy world where donkeys can talk, sticks can turn into snakes and horses can fly. What's worse?

 

The bottom line is modern sane adults should stop trying to model their lives around ancient mythology written by a band of primitive delusional desert dwellers who thought invisible people were real and that hearing multiple voices in your head was sign you were blessed instead of a sign you were ready to be carted of to the nearest mental hospital

[Reach]

Damn! What happened to that barfing little icon I wanted to use?

 

IBF

 

Is this what you are looking for?

 

Here's one for special occasions:

 

Seriously, Dennis, I feel for you. I don't want to repeat what has already been stated but I can sense and relate to the feeling of being isolated from one's partner when the two of you don't share the same passionate feelings toward the same burning issues. I agree with Loren wholeheartedly; I believe that your partner will come around to see, in time, what "all the fuss is about" regarding your position on Christianity. I think he will gain a deeper understanding in time.

 

In the meantime, I am really surprised to read what you and TF spoke about concerning your peer groups. I am likewise saddened and hugely disappointed but I do believe that this will change in time. Are we not still in, roughly speaking, the first generation of American gays and lesbians that have come out of the closet?

 

I am most hopeful that time will solve this unsettling conundrum and that a future generation will cut, once for all, the binding tie with Christianity. Chains are normally cut, one link at a time.

 

Until then, at least you've got us.

-Reach

[I Broke Free]

Thank you all for your posts. Each of you has brought up issues and presented discussions that have helped me get a better grasp on what happened at the meeting last Friday.

 

The gay men’s group meets at the local Unitarian Church (very liberal) and one of the men is actually a member of that church. I know this man well; he is a very spiritual man but he does not describe himself as a Christian. Of all the members present last Friday, he was the only one besides me who challenged the other members’ beliefs and biblical interpretations.

 

When I began the discussion I had no idea that many of the men were currently active members in the liberal Christian churches that are common here in New England. They seemed pleased to announce just how welcoming their church was to gay members and even tried to encourage other men to join them the following Sunday. (That is certainly not what I was hoping to happen.)

 

The absolute worst thing that happened was that I began to feel hypocritical about some of the posts I made here. I have always suggested to people here that they have just as much right to their opinion as any Christian and should speak up in defense of their beliefs even to close friends and family. Well last Friday I learned just how hard that is. Outside of the relationship I have with my partner, these people represent ALL of my close friends. As a gay man in rural New Hampshire I don’t have many other resources to make friends. When I began to see that my challenges to their faith were not at all welcome, I backed off. They were telling me that they found a group of Nazis that welcomed Jews, and I sat back and let them hold on to their little victory.

 

As I mentioned before, my partner was completely silent during the meeting. He never even mentioned the topic on the long drive home. It has been two days since the meeting and he still has not brought up the issue or given me any indication that his either pleased or angry about it. I know religion and spirituality are two issues he finds either too boring or too personal to discuss. Believe it our not I don’t know what my own partner really feels about religion, he just won’t discuss it. The topic of religion holds as much interest with him as football does, none.

 

I am still in a mild shock over what happened on Friday; I witnessed a room full of grown intelligent men acting like an abused child clinging to an abusive parent. Is it my job to open their eyes, or do I just let them live in their fantasy?

 

IBF