All Comments (95)

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

http://estadium.ya.com/prjkd/ sex toys

I think we're in understanding, Thankful. Too often , people make claims that gay relationships are inherently 'unhealthy,' ....constantly saying they're 'inferior' cause they can't result in (often unwanted) children. Or children had for the wrong reason. Just as a lot of gay men and transgendered women join the military in hopes it'll make them 'masculine' like they're 'supposed' to be... so to do queer women end up getting married, entering the wrong straight relationship, and having children in an attempt to 'force' themselves to feel like they're told they should... to avoid the stigma.

It results in marriages and children that are all there for the *wrong reasons.*

The negative things we're all taught about queerness in general can also notoriously result in people newly-out-to-themselves still *seeing* others, not as real people, but as 'gayness' ... objectifying others in the same way as those who treat us as walking sex acts do, only in this case to 'fill holes' in our lives that come of being told all our lives that as queer people, we aren't *complete or healthy* people.

Right now in the news, there's a long-closeted and anti-gay Republican senator from Idaho... Caught soliciting anonymous sex in an airport bathroom.

Would a man of that social standing and economic class be seeking relations with anonymous body parts in toilet stalls if on some level he weren't taught that's what his attraction to men *is?*

If you treat people and relationships *as* 'sin' and dysfunction, well, that's what you'll get.

Being true to yourself *and* a partner is not as simple as obeying or bucking the gross and clinical prohibitions of a Bible, based on the sex of said partner, and the presumption that 'These people do these acts and these acts are unclean.' 'These people are messed-up. These people aren't as 'healthy' as the model straight relationship that we insist is stable and good, but in fact often results in broken homes and abuse, which we don't consider while trying to force everyone to *outwardly* conform.

My straight sisters are all divorced. On the other hand, I've been in a number of relationships that had to end for externally-imposed reasons. Economicss, health care... where we could get housing together... Jobs that would take us. Occasionally homophobic families doing everything they can to make life miserable for us and each other... There may be some strength in adversity, but also... stress and difficulty.

And sometimes you just get beat by unfair circumstances.

Not that all my relationships with women have been perfect, or with men all bad, but all in all, I find that where queer things don't work out, it's at least as often about social stigma and the practical effects thereof, as about things actually not working out.

Now, Wicca definitely sees marriage and relationships differently than does Christianity and particularly the LDS: we simply don't believe a relationship has to be lifelong or eternal in order to be a good thing: especially in the urban tribes where life's more unpredictable, we've embraced the ancient Irish tradition of Tailtiu marriages: these are for the duration of 'a year and a day,' ...symbolizing a completion, (and in ancient times a practical one, when you really wouldn't know what you were in for when you went to live in a new town with new relatives and new strangers, ...in modern times, it's a good way to be sure the practicalities and commitment work out: if things go well, well, another year or a lifelong contract is entered into at that time.

If it doesn't, well, merry part, and no harm done.

We take oaths very seriously, and this, to us, is often a better option than making ones we can't keep, just because of an *idea* that marriage is perfect completion by one other person for life or eternity. (Way to put stress on things, before orientation even gets *involved) ...If it is, it is, and blessed be, but it's not something you can *force.*

While I'm not saying this is 'superior,' we find it very useful and harmonious.

Maybe something our Christian friends could learn a little something from. If you presume from the start that something must be 'perfect and eternal' (even just to have sex or companionship) ...you begin behind the eight-ball, and have every incentive to delude yourself about both your partner and yourself, as well as the relationship between.

There is a serious problem with prescribing a singular, monolithic model of human life: everyone is *trying to be something* instead of *being what they are.*

When people start saying, or seeming to imply, that 'This is better or that is better...'

They aren't seeing clearly.

Christians often say, like it means something, 'If everyone was gay, the human race would end!'

Not gonna happen. Only the idea 'For something to be OK, everyone must do it,' leads to that ridiculous fear.

We're all just living.

Always have.

Blessed be.

Right Thing:

**Would Ms. Thistlewaite discriminate in the case of a "good minister" guilty of child sexual abuse? If so, then she does favor discrimination within the Church - she only differs from those she criticizes with respect to which particular discrimination criteria are acceptable.**

There is a HUGE difference between a consensual relationship betwen adults and the rape of a child. One does no harm, the other does massive harm. Can you honestly equate the two with a straight face?

It is true that good ministry can proceed from a minister who is a sinner, but that does not negate the sinfulness aspect.
God loves the sinner and hates the sin. We are commanded to do the same, not to love the sinner and regard the sin as a morally-neutral, personal proclivity.
Would Ms. Thistlewaite discriminate in the case of a "good minister" guilty of child sexual abuse? If so, then she does favor discrimination within the Church - she only differs from those she criticizes with respect to which particular discrimination criteria are acceptable. If not, then I fear for those who may be affected directly or indirectly by her views influence.

To Arminius and The Moderate,

In the midst of this fray, I have been grateful to experience your kindness and fairmindedness. You have both been great examples to me that I will remember and try to emulate.

Best to you both

Thankful

Hello again PaganPlace,

I found myself a little edgey at work tonight after the exchange we've had during the last couple of days. It is no fun to be on the defensive. It helped me to appreciate perhaps more why this topic has made you edgy too.

I'm glad you've shared a little more about your life and your relationship and the struggles you are encountering without legal rights. I am supportive of civil unions for many of the reasons you have shared and I think if you shared these kinds of difficulties more often that would be more helpful than anything.

I think this will be my last post here. I want to once agian clarify some of the things you have assumed from my posts.

YOu attributed this way of thinking to me: 'Your life is inferior to mine cause I "changed."

You also said "I still saw plenty of condescension and condemnation of an entire class of people based on her claims it was 'good for her.' "

PaganPlace, do you think my life is inferior to yours because you are a Wiccan or because you have remained "true" to your bisexuality and you believe this is good for you? I imagine not and the same goes for how I see you. I am very happy with my life. I think others would be happy this way too but I do not see others as inferior because they choose something else.

In referance to my statements you also said "I do not believe that 'femininity' is conferred by being with a man."

I want to say I agree. To clarify further, for me it was difficult not to be looking outside myself for a sense of connection to femininity while seeking a same gender relationship -- with say a woman I was attracted to being right there and giving me validation. So for me, seeking a same gender relationship was something of a distraction to that end. Dating or being with a man did not include that distraction so there was something very liberating about that for me as much as I missed that connection at first. And though I do not think my husband by any means confers femininity on me, I know he really appreciates that aspect of me so I think his attitude nurtures my feminity and has helped me feel even more comfortable in it and I love that.

Well perhaps that clarifies a bit more. Best of luck to you Paganplace. Maybe I'll see you around some other time.

Thankful

As for beliefs, though, Thankful, you say you believe *this:*

" Because of my faith I do not beleive that companionship will continue into the next life and that is why I have chosen differently."

To be honest, this is not a relationship based upon 'eternities.' It doesn't have to be. It's a good thing, in our real lives, right here, right now, and it may well be for the rest of, well, *my* life. I actually worry for my dear one what might happen when I'm not around.

I worry for me, too, if anything happened to her, cause we *don't* have the legal right even to see each other in the hospital, not even if I die, ...cause we can't be *legally* married.

As it stands, either of our families could take everything we own and have built together.

Cause a lotta Christians think we don't deserve legal rights.

I'm especially-vulnerable because nothing's in my name. If, Gods forbid, anything happened to her, I'd be on the street in a week.

Straights can be married in Vegas without even a breathalyzer test and enjoy 3400 statutory rights and protections.

I can't necessarily have my sweetie see me on my deathbed.... if *one* Christian candy-striper decides it'd be too 'sinful' for us to be together at that moment.

It's not about 'eternity.' It's about life.

Speaking of loading relationships with the idea of 'perfectly completing' another, you speak of some *forever,* and we live month-to-month, year to year, with the effects of Christian (And Mormon) agendas in our way at ever turn.

I had to leave said *stepdaughter* cause I was *supposed to be dying.* Cause it would have compromised her future if our family had to pay out of pocket for any end-of-life care.

Kinda did croak, actually, as it turns out.

Is that 'love?' 'Femininity?' 'Good parenting?'

Or is it something else.

"That my feminity could have been developed in such a relationship I do think would have been possible but for me such got in the way."

I do not believe that 'femininity' is conferred by being with a man. Or fulfilling a certain 'straight lifestyle' that only the rich can afford.

I do not believe it's even an end of itself.

I do not believe it's even *understood* in Paul's book terms, or Joseph Smith's book-terms.

I say, if you can't be 'feminine' while defending your home and kid and dignity,

Then something's wrong with your 'feminine.'

Andraste. :)

PaganPlace,

My whole argument is that Thankful is trying to put across words that try to make others understand. I see the pain and compassion there, even if I don't always agree.

You seem defensive and angry. Why is it I can talk to Lep and Wiccan peacefully, but not to you?

I strongly suspect that I have not read all the posts carefully enough. My bad, and all that. But I don't think we will ever reach a common ground. Let us just agree to disagree, as the trite saying goes.

Keep talking. We seek the same goal, just by different paths.

No, Arminius, that's how you choose to see it.

Yes, I get angry when I see people generalizing about how 'Your life is inferior to mine cause I "changed." '

I get angry when people *do in fact* say that if you're not straight, you're 'unfeminine' or 'dysfunctional' or 'Damned.'

I noticed how you *flipped out* when I said, "So, you're saying you were a lesbian and forsook your own feelings in order to be a breeding animal.*"

Whether or not that's what she did, and I accept her clarification that that's not what it meant to her, I still saw plenty of condescension and condemnation of an entire class of people based on her claims it was 'good for her.'

We've both talked a bit about our actual lives.

My assertion is that being 'straight and Biblical' is *not* what makes one 'feminine' or 'happy' or 'a good parent.'

It's often quite the opposite.

If for whatever reason she was not dealing with women as if all were mature adults, well, no wonder it didn't work out... but that's not about orientation or changing orientation.

I'd say, in strong terms that, much like people being 'straight' when that's not where their hearts are, that was about *using* people, or at the least, being *needy.*

These things are not dependent upon or defining of, anyone's sexuality.

It's just *people.*

It's not about what sexuality is 'blessed' or what is *stigmatized* by a religion. It's not about who can breed and who is "feminine."

It's about people, and it's about heart.

If you're with *anyone* for the wrong, or for untenable reasons, ....if you're with *anyone,* as an unwilling substitute for Mommy or Daddy or God or Jesus or Mary or Virtue...

Doesn't matter what sex they are.

It's about divorcing yourself from your humanity.

Neither straights nor gays nor bis, not Christians or Jews or Pagans are immune from this.

As a Pagan bisexual, I simply say that it's about *the humans, not the ideologies.* You, me, anyone else.

Honesty and sharing is honesty and sharing.

Perfect love and perfect trust, Wiccans might say.

To say or imply that only one model of life *is* right or honest or functional or 'divinely ordained or permitted' ...well, Thankful may just have a great life, now.

That doesn't mean it's about 'changing orientation' or 'following the Bible.'

She's only one person.

We come in all kinds of flavors and combinations.

That's the reality of it.

I dunno about you, Arminius, since it seems to be your mission to try to spin me as an 'intolerant Pagan,'

But, Think we begin to understand each other, Thankful?

Thankful,

I hear through your words your humanity and your compassion.

PaganPlace does not hear that. She pursues her own agenda. She can be logical and reasonable, but she will eventually descend into ranting and us-and-them grouping, and, worse, ad hominem attacks.

Ok just read your second post. I don't have much time to respond but I think if we are going to dialogue much further with any degree of understanding it would be helpful for you to ask me what you think I am implying instead of assuming it. You keep lumping me with stereotypes fundamentalists Christians which I am not. You continue to attribute additional motives to my posts. I am a pluralist my friend. A woman who feels strongly about her ideology and is happy to offer it others while respecting differences and thier rights to decline. WHen I speak boldy about my life I mean it but that is not to infer I am castagating everyone else. Does that make sense. This is not the best envirnment to maintain a respectful dialogue when I have read the bigotry all over other threads. Perhaps I am lumped in with this. Please discontinue that and just ask if you want clarification on something instead of assuming.

Now i really have to go

Dear PaganPlace,

Like most decisions, my decision not to pursue a same-gender relationship had many factors. For me Begining to see that desire as a very codependant one is something I did not see until I was in the middle of change and could start to see some differences. It motivated me to keep moving forward. Also, I never stated anything about the Bible in my motivations to change but based much of my choices on LDS theology as I stated previously -- which has a much extended cannon beyond the Bible.

I don't think the capacity to have children is a trivial one. It was not a huge motivator for me in choosing not to have a same gender relationship but now that my husband and I share a daughter, it is one of those things that pleases me about the choices I've made. I never would have known how wonderful that is for us to share and raise a child together.

I did not choose my husband for breeding capabilities. THis continues to be one of the most obnoxious assertions. I chose him based upon my love for him and his for me and the capacity within LDS ideology for us to be eternal companions as husband and wife. There is great meaning for us in buidling an eternal marriage and family.

I am glad you and your partner have a supportive relationship and am sorry to hear you have experienced prejudices for it. Because of my faith I do not beleive that companionship will continue into the next life and that is why I have chosen differently.

That my feminity could have been developed in such a relationship I do think would have been possible but for me such got in the way.

I realize I am one person. I have owned my experience repeatedly as my own since I began posting here.

I wonder Paganplace if you realize your experience is but your own as well...

I'm off to work. Perhaps we shall chat some other time.

And, for the record, I'm not saying there's necessarily a 'lack of integrity' in your relationship. But you sure described it that way when trying to hold it up as an example of 'Lesbians can and should change, and bisexual women should leave their loves in favor of a 'healthy, Godly, breeding-capable mate.'

The implication was that it's people who don't do like you've tried to do who are 'dysfunctional' and 'lack integrity,' now are 'unfeminine,' and 'codependent.'

I've actually known a number of children, even, a long time ago, been stepmother to one, who were children of gay people who entered bad straight relationships early in life an attempt to 'do it right' as you suggest... Because they were taught that ignoring one's real feelings and needs in order to 'be feminine' by breeding would be a good idea... that it would make the stigmatized 'queerness' 'go away,' like everyone says.

...something that can turn into a nightmare for all involved. Particularly the kids.

I ended up a mother for a while, after all: Something *I'd* been taught to never figure on, at the time wanting nothing to do with men ever again, after some... bad experiences. With a wonderful, brilliant, loving kid who was hurt and neglected by the abuse in a bad and forced straight relationship with both parents trying hard to meet the husband's Biblical model.

All the time, I hope that she remembers me kindly.
Gods, was I not ready for that. :) But,
at the time, she thought the world of me, and frankly, it was *her* confidence in me that kept me going, when *I* was struggling with internalized ideas of 'I can't do this.' It's more like *she* adopted *me* than the other way around.

(And, yes, to all appearances she's *quite* straight and has always been quite the femme, if a fierce one. )

You can't say it's about the gross biology or sex or sexuality of people involved. It's human variation. And how we treat each other about it.

You can't just claim it's all so tidy as 'Follow these rules and the good thing happens.'

Life doesn't work that way.

A little girl taught me that.

"For me my attraction to women was almost like looking for a mother in a very enmeshed codependant kind of way instead of learning to take care and love myself."

Well, Thankful, that's a very different thing than what you said about 'choosing' to be in a straight relationship because the Bible said it was the superior way to be... because of the idea that only straights can procreate or take care of children.

The implication being that people in lesbian relationships should abandon real loves and lives for someone to breed with. That *does* insult and trivialize real people's lives.

Now, you say, your lesbian relationships were dysfunctional. And that you're happy in your straight one. Well, only you can say, but you can't extend that to say all lesbian relationships are so, or that, in fact, you or anyone made a 'choice' of orientation.

People seek surrogate parents in relationships, all the time, ...there's a lot that's childlike about most men, particularly. I think it's both part of the charm and endlessly-frustrating. :)

(in fact, my last straight relationship seemed to have elements of me being a surrogate mother on some disquieting levels. It quite rapidly took a turn for the abusive, in fact.) This is simply a facet of human psychology, straight, gay, or bi.

It's about the individuals involved, not whether or not they're male or female or breeding-capable, for that matter. (My health wouldn't be up to it in the first place.)

A lot more people are bisexual than we're led to believe, in my experience. There are gays, and lesbians, and straights, and there are the rest of us.

Some people believe it's 'ultimately right' for all people to try and force themselves to conform to a breeding-capable pairing, (Or, really, the appearance of one) regardless of the reality of either their orientations or the quality of their actual relationships.

I wonder if this isn't exactly why the 'straight' divorce and domestic and child abuse rates are so high.

Love cannot be forced, and we deny it at peril of creating great misery, for ourselves, others, and even our children.

My partner and I live a pretty quiet and sedate life, and complement each other quite well... as adults and former children both. We've been through a lot in our lives, and together, mostly at the hands of the prejudices of Christians, actually.

"Femininity" isn't dependent on who you're partnered with, any more than is how maturely you deal with psychological needs.

I'm glad if you're happy, Thankful.

But you're just one person.

My words *I would happily and whole heartedly reccomend my choices to others though I did not come here to preach to anyone.**

Lep's response "There is no policy change that would make you want to leave your relationship., yet you wholeheartedly encourage those whose relationship paradigms don't follow yours to change them so that they do. In other words, yours is the only Right Way, and everyone else's is wrong. That's what garners the hostile reactions."

I want to address this more directly. My point in making that statement is to say that the path I have chosen is a legitimate one that I do not regret nor do I have any problem being an option for others. I have never once asserted that mine is the "only Right Way" and that is evidenced clearly in my previous posts. ANd yet my life's choices have been attacked despite never attacking anyone else's only asserting that mine has been both different and positive for me and can be for others if they likewise choose. Can everyone change? this I don't know, but for those who would like to attempt to do so, they should be respected.

"Not justifications for repeated ad-hominem attacks from Ms Place." -- this is directed at Pagan Place. Not you Lep

Lep,

I have not attacked anyone else's relationships. But I have stated that the path I have chosen has been a positive and self affirming one that any homosexual should be respected if they so choose. I am asserting it is a legitamite one.

I agree that anyone who is looking for someone else to make them whole is headed for a troubled relationship. Such was a powerful component of my homosexuality and when I took it out of the equation, the motivation to pursue a same gender relationship dropped immensely eventually to the point of disinterest. I have owned this as my experience completely. While on the other hand Ms. Place has continued to take liberties in asserting a lack of integrity within myself and my relationship.

Again I have not attacked anyone's relationship and expect the same respect in return. Not justifications for repeated ad-hominem attacks from Ms Place.

Thankful:

**But this is my truth and I look upon my attraction to women as much like a drug that kept me from developing my true and whole self. I wanted a woman to make me feel secure, feminine, healed, whole and loved. When I took that out of the equation, I gave myself permission and found room to develop these things in myself -- instead of looking for them in someone else and in the end always still feeling empty and insecure.**

Anyone who is looking for another person to make them whole is destined for disappointment, regardless of orientation. If I were not whole without my husband, I could not be whole with him. If there is not a complete, Me and a complete You, then any Us we form is going to be full of holes as well. My husband and I don't complete each other - we overlap and intertwine parts of our selves with each other while maintaining parts that are separate. It's one of the reasons that I don't advise marrying young and I do advise cohabiting with a person before marrying them.

**THere is no societal or religious policy change on homosexuality that would remotely persuade me to abandon who I have become or my love and commitment to my husband.**

And no one is asking you to, nor will anyone ever require you to.

**I would happily and whole heartedly reccomend my choices to others though I did not come here to preach to anyone.**

There is no policy change that would make you want to leave your relationship., yet you wholeheartedly encourage those whose relationship paradigms don't follow yours to change them so that they do. In other words, yours is the only Right Way, and everyone else's is wrong. That's what garners the hostile reactions.

**But I will stand up for my integrity and the integrity of my relationship.**

Which is as it should be. But don't be surprised when other people take the same stand for the integrity of their relationships, especially when total strangers blithely categorize them as dysfunctional.

I read all these posts last night. I woke up this morning thinking about my clients. I am in the business of change. I'm a drug and alcohol counselor. My degree is in social work. Every time I go to work, I ask, encourage, persuade, educate, and empower individuals to make a more significant life overhaul than most people ever make in a lifetime.

I ask them to change who they sleep with, who they hang out with, where they go, how they think, how they react to stress and thier emotions. I ask them to closely examine why they were using and explore how they might meet those needs in other more healthy ways. I ask them to experiment with finding new things to do that makes thier lives meaningful, I ask them to take greater responsiblity for thier lives path. I ask them to look past the grief they naturally experience in so largely abandoning the lives they were leading. Essentially I ask them to change everything over a period of time.

It is an arduous but empowering proccess that I love. I love it when an individual makes a small change as much I love it when they have progressed enough to have created a life that is so fullfilling, looking back on the former finally is seen as empty and undesirable. It is seen as a counterfeit to the happiness they have discovered exists beyond that world.

I speak only for myself when I compare my life's changes to this. I know some may find it inflamatory. But this is my truth and I look upon my attraction to women as much like a drug that kept me from developing my true and whole self. I wanted a woman to make me feel secure, feminine, healed, whole and loved. When I took that out of the equation, I gave myself permission and found room to develop these things in myself -- instead of looking for them in someone else and in the end always still feeling empty and insecure. For me my attraction to women was almost like looking for a mother in a very enmeshed codependant kind of way instead of learning to take care and love myself. Did I grieve what I gave up when I began to let go of all this. Yeah, terribly. But I have no regrets about my life's choices. I am confident about who I am, the reasons for which I am in my current relationship, and where I stand with my God.

THere is no societal or religious policy change on homosexuality that would remotely persuade me to abandon who I have become or my love and commitment to my husband. I would happily and whole heartedly reccomend my choices to others though I did not come here to preach to anyone.
Perhaps I would not speak on this so boldly if I were not so attacked. But I will stand up for my integrity and the integrity of my relationship.

The Moderate:

What I was thinking was, I'm awful tired of it being implied ...and legislated, like I'm an inferior being with no spirituality cause I'm not partnered with someone with testicles.

That most certainly *does* treat women like breeding stock. It treats *me* like breeding stock.

As for what abusive clergy do, and how they go about it, I happen to have seen firsthand. As kids, everyone knew, we even knew the adults suspected. But no one could report it, or they'd be subject to all the nasty stuff said about and done to gay kids.

As you'll find the victims of all sexual orientations said when they stood up as adults about it. This is systemic.

The odor of "a conventional blend of hypocrisy and feigned superiority with strong undertones of vitriol and a hint of disdain" is once again wafting through this forum. I think I know where its coming from.

Dear Thankful,

I am thankful that you have chosen to share your life experience with us.

This is a rough and tumble debating society, and as Paganplace showed, you are as likely to be met here with a brick bat as with the milk of human kindness. I must apologize for some of the behavior you have encountered.

I am most pleased to hear that you have made a good life for your self and found a deeply loving relationship. It is indeed true that we all have our crosses to bear in life. But then it is the dignity with which we bear our burdens that makes us human, and then redeems us.

Paganplace: WHAT WERE YOU THINKING??? What was that excrement about “breeding cow”??? You sound as bad, maybe even worse than, some of the extreme Christian fundamentalists you regularly condemn. Truthfully, I thought better of you.

It is unfortunate that the first problem with this column is a completely inaccurate portrayal of what the ELCA churchwide assembly in fact did. They did not "instruct Bishops not to discipline those in same-gender relationships"--the churchwide assembly wouldn't even have the authority to do that. They did approve a motion urging bishops to "demonstrate restraint in" or "refrain from" disciplining pastors who are "in a mutual, chaste, and faithful committed same-gender relationship." At the same time, the assembly decidedly refused to change the standards which preclude those persons from serving as pastors in the ELCA. What the action amounts to is "while we're still talking about this, be restrained in discipline"--characterized by Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson as a "sense of the house" resolution, nothing more. The standards have not changed, and bishops have not been "instructed" to ignore them.

But that's only the most obvious and objective of Ms. Thistlethwaite's misconceptions.

I usually never repeat myself, but in the case of the reflexive obsessive bible quoters like Pablo and others who are unable to find an argument for themselves outside of the bible, here is my observation:

They remind me of an extensive manual of a non-functional machine, and its inventors desperately quote innumerable paragraphs from the manual in order to persuade customers that the machine is functioning after all - in spite of the evidence of its malfunction.

Dear Paganplace,

"Homophobia and sexual repression are the *weapons and cover,* if not a pathological cause, of molesting clergy, ...not a protection from them."

Homophobia has nothing to do with child molestation. Perverts are the cause of child molestation.

Child molestation in the Catholic Church had to do with perverts not being weeded out aggressively when they were caught molesting children. The failing of the Catholic church was to move men who had proved themselves perverts around so that they got more chances with new and unsuspecting children. They should have been offered to the local prosecutors instead, or at least moved into monasteries where they would have no further occasion for sin.

By the way, the reviled Catholic Church had the most liberal policy on homosexual clergy of any in the second half of the twentieth century. It went like this: because Priests are celibate by vow, it does not matter what kind of sex it is the Priest does not practice. Their naive liberalism of believing that perverts could be slapped on the wrist, forgiven, and then would amend their ways, got them into a whole lot of trouble.

Dear Paganplace,

"Homophobia and sexual repression are the *weapons and cover,* if not a pathological cause, of molesting clergy, ...not a protection from them."

Homophobia has nothing to do with child molestation. Perverts are the cause of child molestation.

Child molestation in the Catholic Church had to do with perverts not being weeded out aggressively when they were caught molesting children. The failing of the Catholic church was to move men who had proved themselves perverts around so that they got more chances with new and unsuspecting children. They should have been offered to the local prosecutors instead, or at least moved into monasteries where they would have no further occasion for sin.

By the way, the reviled Catholic Church had the most liberal policy on homosexual clergy of any in the second half of the twentieth century. It went like this: because Priests are celibate by vow, it does not matter what kind of sex it is the Priest does not practice. Their naive liberalism of believing that perverts could be slapped on the wrist, forgiven, and then would amend their ways, got them into a whole lot of trouble.

I should add, that as for bisexuality, sure, that's actually a lot more common than it's given credit for. Certain religions call *that* a 'choice' between being a 'scorned and damned gay person' or being a 'blessed heterosexual.'

That's not how *bisexuality* works, either.

You're just bisexual: you don't get to 'choose' who you're attracted to or compatible with, any more than straights or gays do. Just so happens that what genitalia and the like are involved aren't the prime concern certain readings of Scripture are taken to think are the only important part.

It doesn't mean you get to 'choose' who you're attracted to, today, and believe it or not, the contents of their dungarees aren't the first concern.

It's *possible* to consider yourself a stigmatized gay person till you find an 'acceptable' mate, if someone demands that of you.

That doesn't make it right, good, natural, or 'spiritual.'

I find it coarse and base, as well as asking for abuse.

Fact is:

No one gets to choose.

Only choice is, do you respect yourself and others, or not.

Do you let someone tell you to pass on love for breeding, then denigrate others who didn't 'settle' for what's 'holy?'

Being bi is probably *more* confusing for people, since the language we speak of these things is in terms of 'straight or gay' ...even as it's shown that those who are 100 percent gay are real, this still doesn't grant dignity to the lives and loves of those who *do* maybe have that one chance out of a hundred or a thousand or a million of finding a suitable heterosexual mate...

Frankly... Christian thinking tends to be that no amount of human misery would be too much ....for someone else to face for your abstractions of how everyone 'should' be. Love is not something you can shut off partway for an agenda.

If you can't be honest with yourself about loving a woman, you can't turn around and be 'honest' about loving a man. Your heart (and nose) is open and aware, or it isn't, you can't actually be half-honest. Not with yourself. Certainly not with a mate.

Doesn't work.

From context, Arminius, no, I don't think it's out of line.

Compared to what's said about the character of those of us who *don't* make that 'choice,' no.

I don't think it's out of line at all.

I think it *denigrates* the love of one soul for another to make it a matter of gross biology, actually.

To what, say I should leave the woman that actually loves me... we being *real people in a real life, *

....for a hypothetical man that merely feels *entitled?*

I mean, I like men just fine... Just if you hadn't noticed, it's a long time between good ones that have their stuff together, (that aren't taken,) to be charitable.

To say that a man's capacity to impregnate me gives him special spiritual rights over me... is actually pretty virulently-insulting.

Not to mention a justification for certain abuses that still smart, thanks very much.

We're talking about someone marrying *testicles* cause *religion* said that was better than her heart.

Certainly, not in my religion, buddy.

PaganPlace,

You said to Thankful,

Are you saying 'faith' made you, a lesbian, 'sacrifice' yourself to being a 'breeding cow' for a 'righteous' man you don't love or want?"

That was WAY out of line. I am disappointed in you. Take a lesson from Lep about acceptance.

Hi Antaes,

Thanks for your response as well. I'm really glad to hear that you've recovered from the childhood abuse you experienced and are happier now. I think no matter which route individuals with same-sex attraciton choose, it is such a difficult thing to be faced with and I'm always so glad to hear when people have come to greater spirituality and self acceptance.

For me it would be probably be more accurate to say that I forwent a lesbian relationship to live my faith and also discovered I was eventually able to develop genuine attraction to some individuals of the opposite gender. My homosexuality caused me to question and explore my faith a lot too and my own experiences in the LDS Church led me to convictions that it was true.

lepidopteryx:

Thank you for your kind words. I have blogged about this once before and I think because of people's preconcieved ideas about homosexuality and change, assumptions are usually that I must either be faking/forcing heterosexual attraction or I must have been bisexual all along. For me niether of these are true. In my teens I tried to have relationships with men and it never did anything for me so for this reason I assume I was not besexual all along. But I guess that term might fit me now.

There are recent studies now demonstrating that highly motivated individuals do have some success in change so I guess I'm not alone. Is that to say that I think everyone can change? No, not neccessarily and obviously many people continue to attest to that.

All the best to you both!

Thankful:

Did you ever consider the possibility that you could be bisexual with a stronger attraction to women than to men, and that the spiritual aspect of it simply helped you to focus more on men? And I am glad that you found love.

Thank you, Thankful, for your answer. I think what you are saying is that, for you, your spirituality was more important to you than your sexuality, and you were therefore gradually able to force yourself to stop showing any symptoms of being gay, and even to eventually have a heterosexual relationship.

I can understand how this is compatable with being a Christian, though it would never have worked for me--I had too many other issues with Christianity as well involving way too much inforcement of that "spare the rod and spoil the child" scripture when I was younger. I am actually thankful that my gayness brought to a head my confrontation with Christianity as otherwise I may have struggled with it a few more years before rejecting it.

But I know there are others out there who want to remain Christian _and_ practice a Gay lifestyle, and I guess I just don't see why that is worth the trouble.

Oh, well, I suppose I should just be happy that I am fulfilled in my own spirituality and not worry so much about others, as long as they are happy in _their_ spirituality.

Many Blessings to you all.

Dear Pagan Place,

In your vitriolic remarks display ignorance of Mormon belief and intolerance for Mormons generally. It seems you save the tolerance you preach for those you agree with. I hope you just posted in fit of frustration that we all go into when we encounter a "repugnant other" and their creeds and now regret your remarks. I hope that your rational self now recognizes the hypocrisy of your words and want to rescind them, even though it might be hard when you are dealing with something you feel so strongly about.

I can assure you most Mormons reading your post would heartily forgive you, for we all let our words run away with us from time to time.

Maybe we can be friends after all.

Best to you!

Jd1

Paganplace,

I'll try to ingore the condesending stuff and just answer your questions and correct the false assuptions you've made about me and my religion.

Though I do want to say I have a hard time understanding why my finding happiness in a heterosexual relationship and in my faith engenders such a vitrialic response? What is your goal with all the animosity and rudeness and taking such libertys in all your negative assumptions?

"hetersexuality being naturally ordained" are your words not mine and not the words of my faith either.

LDS theology holds that gender is an eternal characteristic which was and will be part of the premortal and postmortal existence of each soul.

But sexual orientation in our mortal lives is not something the church tries to explain but rather teaches the doctrine that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God and any sexual behavior outside of such marriages are considered sinful.

I don't think I was "born unnatural", again these are your words and labels. As I mentioned, the more I read up on the actual research on this topic, the more I can identify with the APA childhood diagnosis of Gender Indentity Disorder which is associated with the development of same-gender attraction later on. While homosexuality is no longer in the DSM4, GID is. From everything I've read on it recently, this scenario describes me to a T.

But even if a was "born this way" it's no different than any other inborn tendency that others inherit biologically or genetically in the eyes of my faith. Perhaps like genetic links to alcohol, genetic or biological links to homosexuality in my faith are acknowledged as possible but cannot be used to justify following thru on the behavior just as LDS' don't drink alcohol.

You said "You're saying that your religion requires you to be alone, unloved, or possibly used by someone you can't love back in fullness, by someone who says that your sufferings will be repaid in an afterlife you won't share any more then than you do now..."

No, please re-read my post I've said nothing of this. These are your projections onto my words.

You also said "Are you saying 'faith' made you, a lesbian, 'sacrifice' yourself to being a 'breeding cow' for a 'righteous' man you don't love or want?"

Forgive me if this question comes off to me as convuluted. Can you rephrase it minus the breeding cow stuff because in case you've forgotten in this forum of virtual anonymity, I am a fellow human being.

All the best

Oookay.... Where did *this* come in:

"By the time I began college however, I became fairly convinced that I might be able to have a hetersexual relationship and on my own I began to systematically catch all my same gender attracted thoughts and avoid entertaining them. I went on a same gender attraction diet of sorts, not lookin and not entertaining anything that would foster them."

If 'heterosexuality is naturally-ordained,' why would you have to do this?

Do you think this experience really means you were 'born unnatural,' or does it mean that people *lied* to you about what your natural feelings *mean?*

And, whichever turned out to be deceit...

Would your 'God' punish you forever and ever for not going on the appropriate 'diet?'

Funny the metaphor... I've met a lotta Mormon and other forms of Christian anorexics who wanted very badly to die.

"Within LDS theology, which I had come to my own convictions about, I decided it was much more preferable for me to seek an eternal companion of the opposite gender than an earthly companion of the same gender with whom I would part ways with in the next life and I figured people were people. That was my youthful logic."

But, sweetie, even these books Mormonism is based on say that souls are actually sexless in the first place, ...even the angels...

In the case of Mormons, they say that the mates you find in life are eternal... not that you get some after you die.

Lookit this:

"Even if I hadn't married, my plan was to remain an active member of my faith as a single and celibate woman. For me what I gained from living my faith outwieghed leaving it to pursue a same-sex relationship."

You're saying that your religion requires you to be alone, unloved, or possibly used by someone you can't love back in fullness, by someone who says that your sufferings will be repaid in an afterlife you won't share any more then than you do now...

Are you saying 'faith' made you, a lesbian, 'sacrifice' yourself to being a 'breeding cow' for a 'righteous' man you don't love or want?

This pleases or appeases your God?

I thank the Bright Lady he don't actually rule.

And I'm very sorry.

Danny B - Hi - nice to see you here.

Tim, No, you don't need a degree in biology to know that anal sex is unappealing to you. Many people feel that way, but a lot of people don't like anchovies either. But some people love them, even though they stink. Nothing in the Bible against that, as far as I know.

Homosexuality is much more than anal sex, just as heterosexuality is much more than penis/vagina sex (which you hopefully have noticed). And of course, for lesbians, it's vagina/tongue sex, which isn't stinky and which many heterosexuals enjoy, as well. I don't think there's anything about it in the Bible either.

What about heterosexuals who find that they can't have children? Should they stop having sex? What about a married couple past child-bearing age? Should they stop having sex?

We all sin -- Jesus took care of that on the cross. God understands our problem with sin and is faithful in His promise to forgive them if we will repent, turn away from them.
Now there are people that say they truly love God but refuse to turn from sin in their lives. In so doing they, in their own heart, issue a unilateral freewill decree declaring independence from His sovereign authority in their lives.
Through the Evangelical Lutheran Church same sex couples seek to ratify their independence from Gods word. They not only desire theirs to be a sin sanctioned by the Church, they are seeking a divine sanctification of it from God himself.

As gay-lesbian Christians strive to be accepted they must understand the debate is not with their earthly sisters and brothers. They must let God be God and reason with Him only, honestly listening to and hearing His voice, also obeying it.

John the apostle gives us a simple method to test our love of God. The apostle plainly states ~ If you love God you will obey Him. If you say you love Him but ignore His word you are a liar and the truth is not in you. ~
Nowhere in scripture are same sex unions accepted, nor is lying stealing murder etc.etc. Sin is sin, all need to come to terms with that.

On the other side there are many who profess to be Christians whose lives are marked by a habitual hatred of gay lesbian people.
Again the Apostle sheds light on this lifestyle when he wrote ~ He who says he is in the light (in Christ), and hates his brother\sister, is walking in darkness (walking with satan) ~.
Hatred towards fellow humans is sin too.

Each time the apostle John's words are read I understand why Jesus nicknamed him
-Son of thunder- His words hit hard and startles my consciousness in an upward direction.

sincerely

Hi Antaeus:

"But my real question was, WHY would a gay person want to remain Christian? I fully realize there are some who DO, I just can't understand their rationale for doing so."

Perhaps I should not be answering this quetion as Latter-day Saints AKA Mormons are often booted out of the Christian catagory by our fellow Christians. But I suppose like everything else here people can take it or leave it...

I wasn't going to comment on the thread but your question seemed to be asked with genuine curiousity which I appreciate.

TO answer your question:

I don't know if I was born a lesbian (the more I read, I think perhaps not) but like you I can remember being attracted to my same gender since I was 7. I prayed a lot about it in my teens and not a whole lot changed. LDS theology does not emphasize hell (hell is a temporary thing in Mormon afterlife for unrepented of sins) but it does emphasize heavily the idea of eternal families. The idea of eternal families is that a husband and wife remain married for eternity, can even have children for eternity and are able to continue on in a progression to become like God in the next life. SO for me, I forever worried I would never have an eternal family because of my sexual orientation. I stuck it out with my faith though. For me my spiritual inclinations where as strong as my sexual inclinations and for a while they were running parallel in my adolescent development.

By the time I began college however, I became fairly convinced that I might be able to have a hetersexual relationship and on my own I began to systematically catch all my same gender attracted thoughts and avoid entertaining them. I went on a same gender attraction diet of sorts, not lookin and not entertaining anything that would foster them.

Within LDS theology, which I had come to my own convictions about, I decided it was much more preferable for me to seek an eternal companion of the opposite gender than an earthly companion of the same gender with whom I would part ways with in the next life and I figured people were people. That was my youthful logic.

Gratefully, the female sexual response, I believe allowed me to make this transition easier than if I were a guy. And what I mean by that is that Woman are less visually stimulated than men and more emotionally stimulated. Hence, I fell in love with my now husband by love at first chat. We really connected and my sexual attraction to him grew out of that surprisingly very naturally. Also, what has become completely natural is the habits I began back in college to not seek out or entertain homo-erotic thoughts. I'm sure that this is key to why my situation works as having an ongoing same-sex fantasy would really be something my hubby could never quite fit and would probably really hurt our relationship.

Even if I hadn't married, my plan was to remain an active member of my faith as a single and celibate woman. For me what I gained from living my faith outwieghed leaving it to pursue a same-sex relationship.

Well now I've rambled on and maybe shared more than what you were looking for so my apologies. Hope this answers your question.

All the best to you!

Antaeus:

"But my real question was, WHY would a gay person want to remain Christian? I fully realize there are some who DO, I just can't understand their rationale for doing so."

Well, Antaeus, it does sound like 'begging for the short end' to me. But people do that.

Who knows, some might have faith in it.

Or, maybe they been subjected, in some previous life, to, 'If you think you know what being queer's about, why don't *you* try it next life.'

Not the kind of thing that works itself out overnight. :)

They're on their own time, as long as and to the extent that they don't hurt anyone.

There's stuff worth learning in there, ...if not teaching. It's just when it gets aggressive and shame-based that it hurts people.

As for being Pagan, well, did you know that Aphrodite wasn't 'above' putting on a beard to seduce gay guys She fancied?

The Paphian One being that kind of Goddess.. what She represented being about more than... physiology, ...this wasn't even a big deal in the way some would make of it today. (there was another lesson to that story, I think.)

Maybe bout sneaking some Love into what at the time was kind of a macho thing.

Good blessings, there, you know. :) Maybe your namesake's Mom would agree, in different ways. :)

"In contrast, I implore this: EDUCATION to you and everyone else who suffers from the same misconceptions as you do."

Well said E-Favorite!

Tim,

I would like to hear about your experience in deciding you were heterosexual. Since you claim that sexual orientation is a choice, I would like to hear how you made yours.

I'd also like to point out, that by your logic, you must have considered being gay at one point. Did you make a pro/con list? Just how is that done?

I did not CHOOSE to be heterosexual, so what is wrong with me, and how did I manage get so "lucky" as to having the "correct" orientation without CHOOSING?

I can't believe I never learned about this in Health Class!

Tim: If I made a conscious decision to be Gay it must have occured before I can remember. While I didn't realize/recognize the fact until I was 14, looking back I know that as early as 8 I was more interested in looking (in the Funk and Wagnell's encyclopedia) at the pictures of the statues of Hercules and Apollo than I was at the Venus de Milo.

But my real question was, WHY would a gay person want to remain Christian? I fully realize there are some who DO, I just can't understand their rationale for doing so.

And, just for a correction, since I do not believe in your concept of "God", I do not claim that "God" made me the way I am. I _do_ believe that I was born the way I am, and while I could spend my entire life repressing and denying a basic and intrinsic part of myself, I shall instead embrace it with joy like I do all other aspects of myself, and I have found a faith that fulfills all of my spiritual needs quite completely, thanks.

It is always dangerous for a priest to teach something that is not contained in the Bible because you never know how much of what is being taught is actually sanctioned by God.

But today we have a group of people who want to teach something contradictory to what is in the Bible, but that’s not enough. The revisionists insist what they do comes with God’s blessing.

I do not know if what the Bible says about homosexuality reflects how Go