Being gay and having a religion

Bougeoir

Hey all,

I'm new here and I'm doing a survey on LGBT people practising a religion whilst being LGBT (opening or secretly) or if any changed religions due to your particular religion's stance on LGBT issues. Or did you reject a specific religion and feel it's not really important in your life.

Myself, I was raised Catholic but my parents only did it out of family tradition and are not religious at all and have no problem with my homosexuality. But I really dislike the church for the most part and their stance on homosexuality annoys me so I subscribe to pagan Wiccan beliefs instead because there is generally no issue being pagan and homosexual as it is an unorganised religion without any governing body and a lot is left up to the individual. Also, many covens have a number of gay members.

Anyway I want to hear your experiences and views because it's something which I'm interested in a lot.

Nevyn

Bougeoir wrote: »

Hey all,

I'm new here but was just wondering of many LGBT people practise a religion whilst being LGBT (opening or secretly) or if any changed religions due to your particular religion's stance on LGBT issues. Or did you reject a specific religion and feel it's not really important in your life.

Yes I did change religion and yes the one I am in suits me just fine
and I am not closeted in either of those areas of my life.

Bougeoir wrote: »

so I subscribe to pagan Wiccan beliefs instead because there is generally no issue being pagan and homosexual as it is an unorganised religion without any governing body and a lot is left up to the individual. Also, many covens have a number of gay members.

Eh actually you need to go and read your Wiccan history.
Gays were forbidden orginally and traditionally from being part of the priesthood of Wicca as it is a fertility cult. Including such people was one of the many 'crimes' which were laid at Alex Sander's door
and him being bisexual was oft sited as making him unfit to be a initiated HP of Wicca
even as the founder of the Alexandrian tradition.

It's not that long ago in this country that when a '******' applied to
join a well known coven that several of it's members left including
the person who was the coven maiden at the time.

Yes paganism is an umbrella term and pagan communities are with out any governing body
but Wicca has it's structures even with coven's having a certain amount of autonomy.

There are plenty of witchcraft traditions which are not Wicca such as the
reclaiming tradition which have always embraced queer witches and
then there are people who are working eclectically with out a proscribed tradition
and the support structures which go with that.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Anyway I want to hear your experiences and views because it's something which I'm interested in a lot.

Personally it was the sexism in the catholic church which rankled from an early age
rather then it's stance on homosexuality.

shay_562

I'm an atheist because of my general personal beliefs; I don't think the Catholic Church I was raised in telling me I'd burn in hell for being who I am (while merrily ignoring any Old Testament passages that they don't feel like enforcing any more) didn't help, but I reckon I'd feel the same way about the existence of a higher being, or lack thereof, even if I were straight.

rainbow kirby

Raised Catholic, but I've been an atheist since I was 12.
LGBT issues didn't come into my opinion on religious matters when I was younger (wasn't out to myself or others until my early 20s), but the general Christian stance on homosexuality irritates the crap out of me. The rampant sexism of pretty much all organised religion was a bigger dealbreaker.

Tricity Bendix

I would come from a Catholic family, but none bar maybe my dad would go to church on a regular basis. I went through a religious phase in my late teens, attending mass most weeks but also visiting services of the Anglican and Methodist faiths. In the past few years I've found it difficult to square some of the more glaring contradictions, so I've knocked it on head. I've got quite a spiritual side, but I'm still looking for a way to express it in a way that doesn't grate with my logical side.

Cabbage Brained

I was brought up going to the Church of Ireland, but I have had a lot of exposure to the Catholic Church too. The Church of Ireland sickens me a little less than the Catholic Church, but all in all I'm pretty disparaging about any religion. I really genuinely find it extremely hard to see how somebody can believe in God. Honestly, I find Santa Claus and the Fairy Godmother as believable, and I'm not joking. I really can't see past it being merely a psychological crutch, and I genuinely feel sorry for people who "believe".

All that said, I'm very respectful of others and rarely voice my opinions. A couple of my good friends are quite religious, and they probably don't know quite how I feel about it as I don't think it's my place to impose my beliefs on them, as they don't impose their's on me. If they tried to though, they'd find out pretty quickly. Overall I'm fine with religious people as long as they don't try to convert me.

And regarding the Catholic Church's stance on homosexuality: LOL, just LOL.

dny123456

Born and brought up Catholic - quickly realized that god had way too much in common with Santa. I rather would have preferred they told me god was the made up one and Santa was real. He's far more fun.

Cabbage - I agree completely. The unfortunate thing, although this is changing, they have so many unthinking people following their preachings, that we cannot just ignore and 'lol' at the teachings of the catholic church.

Goodshape

I went for the 'non-religious' option.

I'm an atheist in the sense that I don't believe in a God. And non-religious in the sense that I don't subscribe to any one particular set of beliefs.

At the same time, I have a lot of respect for the teachings and practices of Buddhism -- but see no point in limiting myself by adopting any sort of "I am a Buddhist" label.

I also have, or have had, an interest in Paganism, Wikka, Magick, Discordianism and good ol' scientific reason. There's just far too many interesting ways to think and look at the world, imo, to limit yourself to any one "faith". Maybe when I've tried out a few more I'll make some sort of educated (hopefully) decision about it.

None of these choices has much to do with my being homosexual (I was poking holes in Christianity (like everyone else in Ireland I grew up with that one) long before even I realised I was gay)

Nevyn

Non religous but spiritual ?

Goodshape

Thaedydal wrote: »

Non religous but spiritual ?

Pretty much, yeah. Also not a fan of labels

Most of the better spiritual teachings and ideas I've read seem to be different interpretations of the same things, which I find really interesting. When science is able to provide a clear and proven answer to these things, I do tend to favour that interpretation. But science is a progressive thing -- theories are put forth, proven and disproven, and new theories arise all the time. At the very least it can be a lot of fun to explore other ('spiritual') ways of looking at that which we don't yet fully understand.

Bougeoir

Thaedydal wrote: »

Yes I did change religion and yes the one I am in suits me just fine
and I am not closeted in either of those areas of my life.



Eh actually you need to go and read your Wiccan history.
Gays were forbidden orginally and traditionally from being part of the priesthood of Wicca as it is a fertility cult. Including such people was one of the many 'crimes' which were laid at Alex Sander's door
and him being bisexual was oft sited as making him unfit to be a initiated HP of Wicca
even as the founder of the Alexandrian tradition.

It's not that long ago in this country that when a '******' applied to
join a well known coven that several of it's members left including
the person who was the coven maiden at the time.

Yes paganism is an umbrella term and pagan communities are with out any governing body
but Wicca has it's structures even with coven's having a certain amount of autonomy.

There are plenty of witchcraft traditions which are not Wicca such as the
reclaiming tradition which have always embraced queer witches and
then there are people who are working eclectically with out a proscribed tradition
and the support structures which go with that.



Personally it was the sexism in the catholic church which rankled from an early age
rather then it's stance on homosexuality.

Yes I was brought up Catholic also like many people in this country and I just don't agree with their stance on many things including homosexuality. Well actually I did read up on homosexuality and Wicca but there isn't so much clear cut information on it because there really is no governing body like the way the Catholic Church is. Of course I know that there exist certain covens like Gardnerian coven. Apparently Gerald Gardner was homophobic though and certain more traditional covens aren't the most accepting of LGBTs. Although I'm not into joining covens tbh as I feel I've really had enough of organised religion and all these rigid structures and all that. Rather, my friends and I practise Wicca together and we are all LGBT. I won't claim we are "experienced" or "professional" but I feel I'm much happier being Wiccan this way. New covens are set up all the time and some are orientated towards LGBT or are at least accepting. Apparently the Feri Tradition is open towards all sexualities and the Dianic Tradition welcomes lesbians. There is also a tradition set up recently (2004) in America by gay men known as the The Brotherhood of the Phoenix. I am aware that perhaps some homophobia did/does exist within Wicca but for the most part it is a hell of a lot more open to it that say Catholicism or Islam.

Bougeoir

Oh by the way thank you everyone for contributing to this thread keep it up! The results are rather as I expected but some people have some interesting views.

Nevyn

I am sorry if the mods of this forum see this as going off topic but I am compeled to make a few points:

Bougeoir wrote: »

Yes I was brought up Catholic also like many people in this country and I just don't agree with their stance on many things including homosexuality. Well actually I did read up on homosexuality and Wicca but there isn't so much clear cut information on it because there really is no governing body like the way the Catholic Church is.

There are rules and guidelines but the are for those who are initiated and who are Wiccan and if you wanted to know you would have to be working towards an initiation other then that they don't apply to anyone other then
those who have been initiated.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Of course I know that there exist certain covens like Gardnerian coven. Apparently Gerald Gardner was homophobic though and certain more traditional covens aren't the most accepting of LGBTs.

You have to consider the social constructs of the day as homosexuality was consider to
be a mental illness back then.

Traditional covens will exclude people on a wide range of reasons and some times it just comes down
to a person not fitting or gelling with the group which can appear to be pretty insubstantial
but then again so is magic it's self at times.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Although I'm not into joining covens tbh as I feel I've really had enough of organised religion and all these rigid structures and all that.

Believe me not all covens are organised or have rigid structures,
yes Wiccan covens can be but it seems to be need for the training of
those who are initated to do thing in the proscribed Wiccan way.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Rather, my friends and I practise Wicca together and we are all LGBT.
I won't claim we are "experienced" or "professional" but I feel I'm much happier being Wiccan this way.

What is a coven ?
I would say it is a group of witches working to get focused on the one goal
so it could be that your collective is or is becoming a coven.

Wicca is not a catch all word for Witchcraft.
Not all witches are pagan.
Not all pagans are witches.
Not all pagan witches are Wiccans.

All Wiccans are pagan and witches.
All Wiccans have proper Wiccan Lineage given by cross gendered initation.

Wicca is an Oathbound, Lineaged, cross gendered Initatory, Experiential, Mystery, Fertility Cult of Clergy who are Pagans and Witches.
You can't 'do' Wicca unless you have been initiated and trained to do so.

You can be pagan and worship and celebrate and preforum rites and magic
and it is a spiritually filling and valid as Wicca but it's not Wicca.

Bougeoir wrote: »

New covens are set up all the time and some are orientated towards LGBT or are at least accepting. Apparently the Feri Tradition is open towards all sexualities and the Dianic Tradition welcomes lesbians. There is also a tradition set up recently (2004) in America by gay men known as the The Brotherhood of the Phoenix.

All of which are wonderful that people are finding thier own way but that doesn't make them
or what they are doing Wicca.

Bougeoir wrote: »

I am aware that perhaps some homophobia did/does exist within Wicca but for the most part it is a hell of a lot more open to it that say Catholicism or Islam.

Wicca and paganism has had quiet the intresting history over the last 60 years and
there has been a lot of growth and change over that time.

What has been intresting is the way that queer paganism is looking to the old tribal traditions
in where there was a place and accpetance of those who were 3rd sex or gender be it anyone who id as LGBT.

One of the terms used for that is two spirit people.

http://www.denvertwospirit.com/index.php

Two-spirit is a universal term we have adopted. In the early 80s, there was a group of Native Americans who wanted to change the perspective of what two-spirit meant. It used to be known as "berdache" in academic communities, and Two Spirit was a new word that could be accepted. That's where the two-spirit term came from. Two spirit people did exist within our cultures and we want to go back to that. It's about going back and relearning traditions. Some of the native communities didn't support two-spirit people within the communities. Many of the two-spirit people would leave the reservations and flee to the cities. Two Spirit is different than gay or lesbian.

Two Spirit is life. Before I had a word for it, it's me. Even as a kid I was a mediator between the sexes, between genders. I was raised--I can lay cement and shingle a roof with the best of them. I can also wear a suit and high heels with the best of them. Tradition says that we have been touched by the grandfather, the great spirit, to be who we are. This is not something we chose. It is a deep responsibility. It's not something that is taken lightly. It doesn't mean that some of us don't identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender.

Two Spirit people exist everywhere. We were the people who held the community together. We were more concentrated on the community--carrying on the songs, the stories, the cultural ways.

jady88

I'm openly gay and I read and sing at mass roman catholic that is.

Bougeoir

jady88 wrote: »

I'm openly gay and I read and sing at mass roman catholic that is.

Oh really? that's interesting. Do people generally have an issue or the priest or anything? And do you think that being gay and Catholic (Christian) is a problem, like what's your view on it? I'm just curious. Sorry if I'm badgering you with questions! lol

Bougeoir

Thaedydal wrote: »

I am sorry if the mods of this forum see this as going off topic but I am compeled to make a few points:

There are rules and guidelines but the are for those who are initiated and who are Wiccan and if you wanted to know you would have to be working towards an initiation other then that they don't apply to anyone other then
those who have been initiated.

You have to consider the social constructs of the day as homosexuality was consider to
be a mental illness back then.

Traditional covens will exclude people on a wide range of reasons and some times it just comes down
to a person not fitting or gelling with the group which can appear to be pretty insubstantial
but then again so is magic it's self at times.

Believe me not all covens are organised or have rigid structures,
yes Wiccan covens can be but it seems to be need for the training of
those who are initated to do thing in the proscribed Wiccan way.

What is a coven ?
I would say it is a group of witches working to get focused on the one goal
so it could be that your collective is or is becoming a coven.

Wicca is not a catch all word for Witchcraft.
Not all witches are pagan.
Not all pagans are witches.
Not all pagan witches are Wiccans.

All Wiccans are pagan and witches.
All Wiccans have proper Wiccan Lineage given by cross gendered initation.

Wicca is an Oathbound, Lineaged, cross gendered Initatory, Experiential, Mystery, Fertility Cult of Clergy who are Pagans and Witches.
You can't 'do' Wicca unless you have been initiated and trained to do so.

You can be pagan and worship and celebrate and preforum rites and magic
and it is a spiritually filling and valid as Wicca but it's not Wicca.

All of which are wonderful that people are finding thier own way but that doesn't make them
or what they are doing Wicca.

Wicca and paganism has had quiet the intresting history over the last 60 years and
there has been a lot of growth and change over that time.

What has been intresting is the way that queer paganism is looking to the old tribal traditions
in where there was a place and accpetance of those who were 3rd sex or gender be it anyone who id as LGBT.

One of the terms used for that is two spirit people.

Oh ok I get it now! Thanks for taking your time to clear that up for me! So you can only ever be a Wiccan if you're initiated into it and have Wiccan linage. So I'd then be better off calling myself a witch or a pagan then? It's interesting - I know a good number of lesbians who are interested a lot in paganism and have these all lesbian pagan groups and stuff. Are you Wiccan or pagan/witch?

Nevyn

Bougeoir wrote: »

Oh ok I get it now! Thanks for taking your time to clear that up for me![/.quote]

Your welcome.

Bougeoir wrote: »

So you can only ever be a Wiccan if you're initiated into it and have Wiccan linage.

Yup.

Bougeoir wrote: »

So I'd then be better off calling myself a witch or a pagan then?

Well there's no honour in claiming titles and ranks which aren't yours to claim it how I have looked at it.

Bougeoir wrote: »

It's interesting - I know a good number of lesbians who are interested a lot in paganism and have these all lesbian pagan groups and stuff.

That would not surprise me at all.

Rev Hellfire

Bougeoir wrote: »

So you can only ever be a Wiccan if you're initiated into it and have Wiccan linage. So I'd then be better off calling myself a witch or a pagan then?

Call yourself what ever you believe yourself to be. If that's a catholic, wiccan, Buddhist or whatever its for you to decide not others.
Religion is a private thing and if you're comfortable with yourself and what you believe the views of others are irrelevant. Your sexuality doesn't even feature into it.

Talliesin

Thaedydal wrote: »

Eh actually you need to go and read your Wiccan history.
Gays were forbidden orginally and traditionally from being part of the priesthood of Wicca as it is a fertility cult.

Gardner was quite definitely homophobic, but then at the time so was everyone.

It's worth also adding to the history that at the time homosexuality was still often thought of as a mental disorder. Mental disorders would definitely weigh against making someone a priest, not absolutely but it could certainly make it a bad idea for both the tradition's sake and for the individual in question.

Most of the commentary at the time though had no real theological basis, it was just plain old homophobic bigotry and as society changed generally so did the Craft. There are now a very large number of gay and lesbian practitioners, including 3rd degree's running covens.

The fertility cult aspect of the Craft does still have one effect. While it doesn't preclude gay participation (gays and lesbians after all come into this world through fertility and eat food that does so too, every male lover I've had got here the same way as every female lover I've had, so I have to thank fertility for them [especially those men who had some training in massage, thank you fertility!]). It does mean that there is a heterofocal aspect to Wiccan practice that while it doesn't preclude gay or lesbian participation may not chime with some gays and lesbians (for that matter, it may not chime with many straights either).

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Call yourself what ever you believe yourself to be. If that's a catholic, wiccan, Buddhist or whatever its for you to decide not others.

Eh, no. You can't be a Catholic unless you are baptised Christian and you can't be a Catholic Priest unless you are ordained one. Likewise you can't be a Wiccan unless you are initiated one, can't be a Muslim unless you perform the shahada and so on.

And well, if you were Catholic you would believe that was a rule for being Catholic, if you were Wiccan you would believe that was a rule for being Wiccan, and if you were Muslim you would just perform the Shahada. No?

Rev Hellfire

Talliesin wrote: »

Eh, no. You can't be a Catholic unless you are baptised Christian and you can't be a Catholic Priest unless you are ordained one. Likewise you can't be a Wiccan unless you are initiated one, can't be a Muslim unless you perform the shahada and so on.

And well, if you were Catholic you would believe that was a rule for being Catholic, if you were Wiccan you would believe that was a rule for being Wiccan, and if you were Muslim you would just perform the Shahada. No?

Who says you can't call yourself a catholic if you believe yourself to be one?
Baptism for example is symbolic thing as much as a rite, the water is not required simply the will. At one time to become a jew you simply had to declare yourself to be one. All the little additions are just limitations others put in to make their little clubs more exclusive.

I'm assuming that what ever religion they profess to be they're following as they understand it not simply saying they are for reasons of fashion. True it would be better if they interacted with others of the same faith to get a clearer understanding and new insights into it, but ultimately its between them and whatever they feel the need to bend knee to.

And if they say they're Christian, wiccan, Buddhist, Jewish or whatever then that's good enough for me. Sure others might say if you're not doing X,Y or Z or believe A,B or C you're not allowed in the club, but we've all seen enough of religion to know that these are artificial boundaries, and hardly consistent within the various faiths. But I guess this is all somewhat of the topic.

Ultimately to the OP just follow your own conscience and if you're honest with yourself you'll not go wrong.

Bougeoir

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Who says you can't call yourself a catholic if you believe yourself to be one?
Baptism for example is symbolic thing as much as a rite, the water is not required simply the will. At one time to become a jew you simply had to declare yourself to be one. All the little additions are just limitations others put in to make their little clubs more exclusive.

I'm assuming that what ever religion they profess to be they're following as they understand it not simply saying they are for reasons of fashion. True it would be better if they interacted with others of the same faith to get a clearer understanding and new insights into it, but ultimately its between them and whatever they feel the need to bend knee to.

And if they say they're Christian, wiccan, Buddhist, Jewish or whatever then that's good enough for me. Sure others might say if you're not doing X,Y or Z or believe A,B or C you're not allowed in the club, but we've all seen enough of religion to know that these are artificial boundaries, and hardly consistent within the various faiths. But I guess this is all somewhat of the topic.

Ultimately to the OP just follow your own conscience and if you're honest with yourself you'll not go wrong.

Yeah you're right actually because I used to be Presbyterian (was baptised catholic and actually got a defection). But when I was Presbyterian I actually asked the minister as to whether I needed to get baptised but she said it wasn't necessary. That if I had faith and declared myself Presbyterian that was all that was needed. In fact I came out as gay to many people whom I knew there and they were so welcoming and nice about it. No homophobia whatsoever. I didn't stick with it because I found myself not really believing in it and felt it really wasn't for me. I am ever so grateful to that congregation for welcoming me in like that and as far as religions go (and many people are quick enough to say bad things about it) I felt it was a positive example of true Christian spirit.

I'm happy now with my own beliefs which as mainly philosophical and pagan. My friend and I are deeply interested in many pagan practises and we have are own personal thing going on.

Talliesin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Who says you can't call yourself a catholic if you believe yourself to be one?

The Pope.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Baptism for example is symbolic thing as much as a rite, the water is not required simply the will.

Cite please.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

At one time to become a jew you simply had to declare yourself to be one.

Cite please.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I'm assuming that what ever religion they profess to be they're following as they understand it not simply saying they are for reasons of fashion.

Why assume that?

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

True it would be better if they interacted with others of the same faith to get a clearer understanding and new insights into it,

If you claim to be of religion X and religion X maintains that you must have such an interaction, then you are claiming to maintain that you must have such an interaction. If you don't, then you are calling yourself a liar.

Also, "faith" implies that religions are always a matter of what one believes, which isn't true.

The fact is that there are people who do just say "oh, I am X" and not only not don't abide by the way of X but are downright hostile to it. It's bigoted cultural appropriation.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Yeah you're right actually because I used to be Presbyterian (was baptised catholic and actually got a defection). But when I was Presbyterian I actually asked the minister as to whether I needed to get baptised but she said it wasn't necessary.

Pretty irrelevant since Presbyterians recognise Roman Catholic baptisms as baptisms, so in having already been baptised you were following their rules.

Bougeoir

Talliesin wrote: »

Pretty irrelevant since Presbyterians recognise Roman Catholic baptisms as baptisms, so in having already been baptised you were following their rules.

Oh I didn't know that. Explains. thanx

Rev Hellfire

Talliesin wrote: »

The Pope.

The pope is the head of the Roman Catholic church, but it is not for him to dictate who is or is not a catholic. For example he can excommunicate a person, but he can't 'stop' them from been a catholic. That authority belongs to god.

Talliesin wrote: »

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

Baptism for example is symbolic thing as much as a rite, the water is not required simply the will.

cite

Its my understanding of it as I have gleaned from speaking to various christians. As for citing I don't see any reason since I don't acknowledge any requirements.
Bear in mind Jesus never baptised anyone, which is why the Quakers for example don't believe it to be necessary.
But perhaps asking in the Christianity forum would offer a wide selection of differing views on the topic if OP is sufficiently interested. Its a topic which has come up before.

And that's the point, in religion there's no one set of rules which everyone agrees on, each have taken their own baggage and appended it as a set of 'requirements'.

Talliesin wrote: »

Rev Hellfire wrote:

At one time to become a jew you simply had to declare yourself to be one.

cite

Do some searches on Reform Judaism and the issues they have with the more orthodox requirements.

Talliesin wrote: »

I'm assuming that what ever religion they profess to be they're following as they understand it not simply saying they are for reasons of fashion.

Why assume that?

Why would I assume different ? Do you always assume people set out to deceive ?

Talliesin wrote: »

If you claim to be of religion X and religion X maintains that you must have such an interaction, then you are claiming to maintain that you must have such an interaction. If you don't, then you are calling yourself a liar.

Also, "faith" implies that religions are always a matter of what one believes, which isn't true.

The fact is that there are people who do just say "oh, I am X" and not only not don't abide by the way of X but are downright hostile to it. It's bigoted cultural appropriation.

I think this illustrates the major difference between our understanding of faith/religion. And I can understand why you might think so, but for me if I believe myself to be something and believe it not to be a self-deceit then I am that thing. The rules only apply if I believe them to be valid and true.
As I stated before faith in my view is wholly personal thing.

Talliesin wrote: »

Pretty irrelevant since Presbyterians recognise Roman Catholic baptisms as baptisms, so in having already been baptised you were following their rules.

That's because a baptism is not an entry into a particular church rather 'into' the Christian faith as a whole.

Talliesin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

As I stated before faith in my view is wholly personal thing.

I'll agree with you there. Faith is not the same as religion though. Depending on the balance between praxis and doctrine it might have very little to do with a given religion, or nothing at all.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That's because a baptism is not an entry into a particular church rather 'into' the Christian faith as a whole.

Doesn't saying that discount your argument?

Rev Hellfire

Talliesin wrote: »

I'll agree with you there. Faith is not the same as religion though. Depending on the balance between praxis and doctrine it might have very little to do with a given religion, or nothing at all.

Indeed I'd agree with you faith is not the same as a religion, but religion is just a collection of common beliefs and practices. For example many catholic par-take of pre-martial sex, excessive drink, etc all of which are against church teaching, but most would not see that as a reason for them not been catholic/christian. Its what they believe that's important, not the rule book.

Talliesin wrote: »

Doesn't saying that discount your argument?

It would if I believed you had to go through the baptism rite to become a Christian, but I don't. Its simply why baptisms are recognised by inter-Christian churches. Then again some born again sect, disregard infant baptisms because the child does not actively par-take. Which means theres a whole lot of unbaptised people walking about

Bougeoir

As this is on the LGBT forum, just want to pose another question to posters. Have any of youse gotten a defection from the catholic Church? I have myself because I didn't wish to be a part of an establishment which discriminates against LGBT. There was an article in a recent GCN about it actually. The author made a good point by saying that they get tax relief or whatever on the amount of people they have!

Talliesin

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

but religion is just a collection of common beliefs and practices.

Beliefs and/or practices. Some religions have just the latter. Many of both the beliefs and the practices concern membership.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

For example many catholic par-take of pre-martial sex, excessive drink, etc all of which are against church teaching, but most would not see that as a reason for them not been catholic/christian. Its what they believe that's important, not the rule book.

No, the fact is their rule-book does not state that they are no longer Catholic because they have done so.

Nevyn

Bougeoir wrote: »

As this is on the LGBT forum, just want to pose another question to posters. Have any of youse gotten a defection from the catholic Church? I have myself because I didn't wish to be a part of an establishment which discriminates against LGBT. There was an article in a recent GCN about it actually. The author made a good point by saying that they get tax relief or whatever on the amount of people they have!

You can ask to be struck off their records.
Personally I went the route of getting formally excommunicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

Rev Hellfire

Talliesin wrote: »

Beliefs and/or practices. Some religions have just the latter.

Now I wholly admit that I'm not familiar with all world religions, but of those I am all require an element of belief. That is where belief is faith in the existence of the unquantifiable, ie. the existence of deities and supernatural forces.

Though I am open to correction.

Bougeoir

Thaedydal wrote: »

You can ask to be struck off their records.
Personally I went the route of getting formally excommunicated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latae_sententiae

How did you manage that? Do I wanna know?! lol :P

So is defection not the same as excommunicaton then? Also would they excommunicate somebody on the grounds of being actively homosexual? Jst wondering...

Btw will ppl please try to keep this thread on topic? It is got to do with homosexuality and religion, not just religion and theology. Thanks.

Bougeoir

Just an update. The statistics are sort of what I expected them to be but it's still interesting that over half of the people who participated in the poll, chose "non-religious, atheism, secular". Just wondering if anyone here thinks that the fact that many religions formally are against homosexuality, bisexuality and transsexuality, that that may have an influence on many LGBTs rejecting religion all together? Although I do know many somewhat religious LGBTs.

LookingFor

I'm 25. Raised a Catholic, of quite traditional parents.

Certainly, the church's stance on homosexuality and on various other issues has caused me to question to divine authority it does or should have over people and people's lives. Any gay person fundamentally knows the church is wrong on this issue in a way others perhaps can't appreciate, and it does give gay people a perhaps somewhat unique perspective on the church's misguidance, if not also their (unintended?) malice. Asides from the gay issue, historically they have also been far too entwined with political agendas and so forth. I just cannot trust them to have accurately passed down 'the will of God' over all this time. I'm not sure if I can even trust the status of Christ as God, when you probe into that you see all sorts of 'politics' and manipulation of facts to suit.

I think religion and spirituality/faith are two different things, though, and I'm still searching for 'truth' in that respect. I think it'll be a lifelong search. If there really is a loving God out there, I'm sure he'll understand, if not respect, an active engagement with finding 'truth' beyond what was passed down to us as a matter of chance by our parents. I think he would far more appreciate a truly personal faith and journey towards that faith. The God that demands absent-minded acceptance/belief is a fabrication of humans on a power trip, IMO.

Nevyn

Bougeoir wrote: »

How did you manage that? Do I wanna know?! lol :P

I had done something which is on the list and was automatically excommunicated and when that occurs you are meant to go to the bishop and confess and be contrite and it is lifted. I got in touch and said that I did not want to confess and was not contrite and wanted the writ served on me.
It was eventually.

Bougeoir wrote: »

So is defection not the same as excommunicaton then?

No it's not, you can have your name struck but they still count you as one of thiers unless you can proved you under went induction rites to a different religion.

Bougeoir wrote: »

Also would they excommunicate somebody on the grounds of being actively homosexual? Jst wondering...

That would be a matter to discuss with a member of catholic clergy.

Marshy

On a somewhat related note, I was reassured to see this in today's Irish Times. Comforting to know there are some people within the church who aren't afraid to speak out against their own and the dogma they preach.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0207/1233867925087.html

LookingFor

A brave, commendable letter. Thanks for linking to it.

philologos

Marshy wrote: »

On a somewhat related note, I was reassured to see this in today's Irish Times. Comforting to know there are some people within the church who aren't afraid to speak out against their own and the dogma they preach.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/letters/2009/0207/1233867925087.html

Is it really speaking out against the dogma of the Church in particular, or speaking out against the Biblical text?

I agree with the author on what is said about other Christian churches not being faith communities at all, and about married priests as this is where the RCC has deviated from the Scriptures, but I do think that there are moral laws in the Christian faith to be followed, and abstaining from homosexual activity is one of them amongst many other sins.

LookingFor

It is a matter of church dogma in so far as church teaching picks and chooses from biblical text, taking some aspects very much to heart, ignoring others in light of subsequent 'revelation' and understanding.

Biblical texts were written by men thousands of years ago, when understanding of many issues was short of what it is now, or coloured by specific aspects of their context or culture.

The church has recognised that, discarding many or most of the same teachings enumerated alongside those (few) involving homosexuality, but has held dear to it.

It represents a continuing misunderstanding on the part of the church as to the nature of humanity and sexuality, that advances them little in understanding and knowledge of this issue beyond those men of 2000+ years ago.

philologos

I don't agree with you on that front. The interpretation of the Old Testament has been discussed by Christians for years. The main view of interpretation is that there are three types of laws in the Torah (Genesis - Deuteronomy):

1. Moral - concerning to ethics, rights and wrongs.
2. Legal - concerning restitution for crimes, penalties
3. Ceremonial - ritual uncleanness, dietary laws, atonement, festivals and so on

Legal laws involved the government of the Biblical State of Israel, and were only to be carried out by order of the High Priests in the Sanhedrin. In Christianity we deem Jesus to be our High Priest, so we follow His precepts in relation to how we view the Law of Moses. In addition to this, if we have received the mercy of Christ, we cannot judge the sins of others.

Ceremonial involved animal sacrificing for atonement, which of course under Christianity isn't neccessary as our sins have been atoned for by Jesus Christ. Matters of ritual uncleanness refer to entering the presence of the Lord in the Temple, and as is well known the Temple no longer exists in Jerusalem. Dietary laws, in the New Testament Christ says what comes out from the mouth is what defiles a man, however, many Christians do keep to Biblical kosher laws out of preference. Ceremonial laws were a means of separating the Jewish people from the rest of the world, until the point at which the Gospel was to be proclaimed.

Finally, it is the moral law that has prevailed from the Torah, and has been repeated throughout the New Testament scriptures and the prophets. It is these that are held and professed by Jesus and the Apostles and what are binding for Christians and Jews. However, I would say that Christians should be primarily concerned with what is deemed to be moral or immoral, and secondly that they should consider the cultural laws that could prove beneficial to their lives from the Bible.

As for advancing, it isn't the role of the church to advance, it's the role of the church as people to be custodians to the Gospel and to uphold Biblical truth in the world today.

LookingFor

I'm gonna highlight some key words here from your post: interpretation, preference.

There is absolutely no universal agreement on those writings in the bible and their relevance. The teachings in the bible weren't neatly categorised. People have in hindsight interpreted them to suit their own world-view. That interpretation has changed and evolved over the centuries. Various groups have adopted various different interpretations

So what is considered relevant and applicable is a matter of individual or group belief, or in the case of the church, church dogma.

Jesus never himself addressed homosexuality, as far as I know.

Homosexuality at the time was not understood in the same way it is now. It was considered that homosexuality was an act between two people whose natural inclination was not toward homosexuality. It was not considered to be a state of being. Thus it was in defiance of 'nature' - their nature. It was thought that sexually everyone was the same, and thus homosexuality was a transgression against the 'normal' sexuality that everyone held. There were also political/cultural consequences at the time that compounded if not initially motivated those teachings, in tribes obsessed with their numbers and size.

We now know homosexuality is a natural human variation (well, indeed, it's a variation seen right across nature), that sexually we're not all the same. That one person's sexual nature is the not the same as another. Church teaching has caught up with that to the extent that they at least now acknowlege that homosexuals are created in the image of God, that it is not a choice to transgress against ones own actual nature, but beyond that, their teaching regarding the act of homosexuality and the 'disordered' nature of the homosexual state betrays an inhumane misunderstanding of sexuality and human relationships (and frankly, IMO, a contempt for God's creation).

Anyway, we're treading into dangerously off topic territory here. My main point is that as much as you may think there's an accepted 'truth' about biblical text, there simply isn't. Teachings derived from it are a matter of interpretation, and thus, dogma. And that's even if we can agree on a single translation/interpretation of original scripts, the translation and meaning or intended meaning of words, and even there, it seems, we cannot!

philologos

LookingFor wrote: »

There is absolutely no universal agreement on those writings in the bible and their relevance. The teachings in the bible weren't neatly categorised. People have in hindsight interpreted them to suit their own world-view. That interpretation has changed and evolved over the centuries. Various groups have adopted various different interpretations

In disagreement with you again, the vast majority of Christian churches are in agreement with this view of the Torah law, with exceptions being the Seventh Day Adventists who do keep kosher amongst other things, and again I welcome that if people are willing to live that lifestyle. Infact there are health benefits from eating in a kosher manner apparently.

As for interpretation on homosexuality in particular changing throughout the centuries, I would be interested in seeing if anyone could back up that point that sexual ethics from the Torah law and through Christian understanding has changed in the slightest in mainstream Christianity.

LookingFor wrote: »

Jesus never himself addressed homosexuality, as far as I know.

Indeed He didn't most likely because He was in agreement with the Torah scriptures on the matter. Most of the things that Jesus challenged was hypocrisy amongst the Pharasaic establishment in relation to loose divorce, the rigid laws of Shabbat, healing, forgiveness of sins and so on. We have no reason to suggest that Jesus deviated at all from the Jewish understanding on the subject. However, the subject of homosexual activity does raise itself in the New Testament Epistles (Romans, and 1 Corinthians respectively).

LookingFor wrote: »

Homosexuality at the time was not understood in the same way it is now. It was considered that homosexuality was an act between two people whose natural inclination was not toward homosexuality. It was not considered to be a state of being. Thus it was in defiance of 'nature' - their nature. It was thought that sexually everyone was the same, and thus homosexuality was a transgression against the 'normal' sexuality that everyone held. There were also political/cultural consequences at the time that compounded if not initially motivated those teachings, in tribes obsessed with their numbers and size.

You would need to cite that this is the view of Biblical authors, and you are in a sense performing Biblical exegesis on the subject which would deviate from the traditional views on the subject. You would need to cite references from the original Hebrew and Greek and from other sources to substantiate that in the Jewish world and the world of the Apostles at the time that homosexuality was viewed in this way.

LookingFor wrote: »

We now know homosexuality is a natural human variation (well, indeed, it's a variation seen right across nature), that sexually we're not all the same. That one person's sexual nature is the not the same as another. Church teaching has caught up with that to the extent that they at least now acknowlege that homosexuals are created in the image of God, that it is not a choice to transgress against ones own actual nature, but beyond that, their teaching regarding the act of homosexuality and the 'disordered' nature of the homosexual state betrays an inhumane misunderstanding of sexuality and human relationships (and frankly, IMO, a contempt for God's creation).

Well, all human beings are created in the image of God whether homosexuals or not, this isn't a matter of the Vatican to tell who is or who is not a child of God. We all sin and we all fall short of God's glory, I have sinned and I will probably continue to sin, but I'm striving to set myself right with God, however part of that process is realising what is wrong and right as a Christian.

LookingFor wrote: »

Anyway, we're treading into dangerously off topic territory here. My main point is that as much as you may think there's an accepted 'truth' about biblical text, there simply isn't.

How is this off topic. People are showing clear objections to the Christian view of morality and of sexual morality in particular. As such seeking to explain how people view the Old Testament and the Biblical law is crucial so that people can understand that Christians are only seeking to uphold what God has revealed to them in their personal lives, and through the Biblical text. I don't think that is too much to ask for a faith community to be able to do irrespective of external societal norms.

LookingFor wrote: »

Teachings derived from it are a matter of interpretation, and thus, dogma. And that's even if we can agree on a single translation/interpretation of original scripts, the translation and meaning or intended meaning of words, and even there, it seems, we cannot!

Well, it involves seeking the most accurate Biblical view on a subject, in terms of the Hebrew and Greek words that were used in particular passages, and I'm quite happy to hear a theologically and historically formulated argument if sound to suggest that homosexuality was permissable in Ancient Israel under Jewish law, annd that it was permissible in the early church.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

In disagreement with you again, the vast majority of Christian churches are in agreement with this view of the Torah law, with exceptions being the Seventh Day Adventists who do keep kosher amongst other things, and again I welcome that if people are willing to live that lifestyle. Infact there are health benefits from eating in a kosher manner apparently.

As for interpretation on homosexuality in particular changing throughout the centuries, I would be interested in seeing if anyone could back up that point that sexual ethics from the Torah law and through Christian understanding has changed in the slightest in mainstream Christianity.

I didn't say teaching on homosexuality had changed through the centuries, but various teachings of the church have changed.

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed He didn't most likely because He was in agreement with the Torah scriptures on the matter. Most of the things that Jesus challenged was hypocrisy amongst the Pharasaic establishment in relation to loose divorce, the rigid laws of Shabbat, healing, forgiveness of sins and so on. We have no reason to suggest that Jesus deviated at all from the Jewish understanding on the subject.

We don't, but I wouldn't like to presume.

Jakkass wrote: »

You would need to cite that this is the view of Biblical authors, and you are in a sense performing Biblical exegesis on the subject which would deviate from the traditional views on the subject. You would need to cite references from the original Hebrew and Greek and from other sources to substantiate that in the Jewish world and the world of the Apostles at the time that homosexuality was viewed in this way.

Hmm. I think it's written right there. First of all, there is an obvious (and understandable) preoccupation with descendancy, fertility, lineage etc. expressed in the bible. There's was a tribal culture, numbers were important. It's not difficult to see how homosexuality, if viewed as a distraction from one's own natural sexuality, would be a threat to that. Second, there is a naivety in some of the texts regarding it, that suggest it was against one's own nature - which to me implies there was an understanding that sexuality was universally heterosexual as a matter of nature, and homosexuality were acts conducted by heterosexuals in transgression of their own nature (e.g. to paraphrase 'to lie with a man as with a woman' etc.) This is my interpretation of the text, this is just my thinking on the matter, and trying to get into the mind of the typical jewish person of the time (particularly with regard to the point on descendancy etc.), but I don't think it's such an outrageous suggestion. That kind of thinking still runs right up to the present day, where some people think homosexuality is a choice, a choice to transgress against common heterosexuality we all have.

My point is, efforts have been made to contextualise various teachings in order to brush them aside - that x was in the context of y, and thus is no longer relevant - and I think that's all fine and good. But the same drive to contextualise attitudes towards homosexuality doesn't seem to be there. People file it under a heading of 'Moral' and thus say it's not up for debate. And a part of me says that this is simply because homosexuality is not a relevant issue for 9x% of people. Things like wearing mixed cloths or not having sex while a woman is menstruating etc..it seems a little conveniently coincidental to me that those things affect far more people, and were changed. But the church won't move on homosexuality because it's not in the interests of enough people, and it probably suits them (as it does any society) to have a margin, a set of 'others' in order to keep the masses together in line and feeling good about themselves. Despite our understanding of sexuality having changed completely since the bible was written, and it pertaining to something so fundamental, and the general attitudes associated with it having had some very inhumane consequences.

Jakkass wrote: »

How is this off topic.

It's off topic because it really doesn't matter which aspect of a religion the teaching comes from - biblical text or 'truth', if you think it as such, or church teaching. Either can be as alienating or as wrong as the other. The topic is asking about the attitudes of gay people towards religion, their experience with it..in terms of attitude and experience with Catholicism of Christianity, I don't think it matters a toss to most gay people which aspect of the religion relevant issues stem from. It's not like I can come in here and say "well, it's from biblical text", and expect a chorus of "that's ok then!".

philologos

LookingFor wrote: »

I didn't say teaching on homosexuality had changed through the centuries, but various teachings of the church have changed.

I would contend that the Church originally deviated from the true message of Jesus and the Prophets just as the Pharisees did beforehand. It is only now that we are giving the text true linguistic considerations based on the languages and it is only now when theologians and churches are discussing what the Bible really means for us in the 21st century. Most are concluding the Bible is of as much worth and value in terms of morality than it was at the time it was revealed.

LookingFor wrote: »

Hmm. I think it's written right there. First of all, there is an obvious (and understandable) preoccupation with descendancy, fertility, lineage etc. expressed in the bible. There's was a tribal culture, numbers were important. It's not difficult to see how homosexuality, if viewed as a distraction from one's own natural sexuality, would be a threat to that. Second, there is a naivety in some of the texts regarding it, that suggest it was against one's own nature - which to me implies there was an understanding that sexuality was universally heterosexual as a matter of nature, and homosexuality were acts conducted by heterosexuals in transgression of their own nature (e.g. to paraphrase 'to lie with a man as with a woman' etc.) This is my interpretation of the text, this is just my thinking on the matter, and trying to get into the mind of the typical jewish person of the time (particularly with regard to the point on descendancy etc.), but I don't think it's such an outrageous suggestion. That kind of thinking still runs right up to the present day, where some people think homosexuality is a choice, a choice to transgress against common heterosexuality we all have.

Indeed God does say to Abraham that his descendants will be as many as the grains of sand on the seashore, however there is more than just this if we are taking the revelation from the Jewish people and the Christian epistles on the same note. Your point may have been true of the Israelites under Moses and even then that is at a stretch, as if it was based on fertility and seeking to reproduce on such a scale in Christianity there wouldn't have been such value placed on marriage, and one a man leaving his family and becoming one with his wife. Surely if the people were so focused on population in Christianity, there would be no such provision of marriage. Surely the best way to increase the population would be through allowing promiscuous hetereosexuality. However, this isn't the case, and as such it would seem that this was more a law of ethics rather than a law of neccessity.

Also I really do not see a text as being "naive" if it doesn't hold to the same viewpoint as you do, or are you the pinnaccle of maturity?

LookingFor wrote: »

My point is, efforts have been made to contextualise various teachings in order to brush them aside - that x was in the context of y, and thus is no longer relevant - and I think that's all fine and good. But the same drive to contextualise attitudes towards homosexuality doesn't seem to be there. People file it under a heading of 'Moral' and thus say it's not up for debate. And a part of me says that this is simply because homosexuality is not a relevant issue for 9x% of people. Things like wearing mixed cloths or not having sex while a woman is menstruating etc..it seems a little conveniently coincidental to me that those things affect far more people, and were changed. But the church won't move on homosexuality because it's not in the interests of enough people, and it probably suits them (as it does any society) to have a margin, a set of 'others' in order to keep the masses together in line and feeling good about themselves. Despite our understanding of sexuality having changed completely since the bible was written, and it pertaining to something so fundamental, and the general attitudes associated with it having had some very inhumane consequences.

My point is that this isn't the case. Even if you look to Pauline theology which was emerging amongst the Gentiles in the 1st century AD, this view of the moral law was already being formed amongst them and indeed it is the basis of the Christian view of Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial. Even if we exclude the Torah, which is what you are complaining about, there are other references in the New Testament which are binding on all Christian men concerning homosexual activity. As for the law concerning not having relations with people while menstruating I do think that comes under moral law as well. Anyhow, the relationship between Old Testament and New Testament texts is clearly explained in the writings of Paul, and in the book of Acts. I think one should actually research the origins of Christian views on the Old Testament (they come straight from the Apostles) before one dismisses them as if people have twisted it.

LookingFor wrote: »

It's off topic because it really doesn't matter which aspect of a religion the teaching comes from - biblical text or 'truth', if you think it as such, or church teaching. Either can be as alienating or as wrong as the other. The topic is asking about the attitudes of gay people towards religion, their experience with it..in terms of attitude and experience with Catholicism of Christianity, I don't think it matters a toss to most gay people which aspect of the religion relevant issues stem from. It's not like I can come in here and say "well, it's from biblical text", and expect a chorus of "that's ok then!".

Gay people are perfectly entitled to worship at any church, nobody will close the door on them. The idea that Christians hate homosexuals couldn't be further from the truth. I personally would welcome homosexuals to take part in Christianity and to seek Christ's truth like anyone else, and I think that if Jesus were around He would be calling homosexuals just as He called the tax collectors and the sinners and just as He called me leading to me casting aside various things that were opposed to the Christian message (something I am still in the process of doing more and more each day). This is something that all people have to do when they accept Christianity, and it's not just a prejudice that we apply to certain demographics, we are asked to put aside our sins, and try to strive for Biblical ethics in our daily lives, it isn't something of hatred. If a Christian hears that you have an objection to the Bible, it is not ours to change, the message for us has come from God Himself.

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed God does say to Abraham that his descendants will be as many as the grains of sand on the seashore, however there is more than just this if we are taking the revelation from the Jewish people and the Christian epistles on the same note. Your point may have been true of the Israelites under Moses and even then that is at a stretch, as if it was based on fertility and seeking to reproduce on such a scale in Christianity there wouldn't have been such value placed on marriage, and one a man leaving his family and becoming one with his wife.

There's a significant difference, with regard to descendancy etc., between promoting heterosexual promiscuity, polygamy or whatever, and teaching against homosexuality. Just because they did not encourage heterosexual promisicuity does not mean they were not concerned with tribal population, and population growth, or the 'threat' of homosexuality in that.

Jakkass wrote: »

Also I really do not see a text as being "naive" if it doesn't hold to the same viewpoint as you do, or are you the pinnaccle of maturity?

Absolutely not, but I don't have to hold myself out as a pinnacle of human understanding or maturity wrt sexuality to consider biblical teaching in that regard to fall short in the context of an absence of understanding. Any more than considering the creation stories to be naive makes me consider myself 'the pinnacle of maturity'.

Jakkass wrote: »

My point is that this isn't the case. Even if you look to Pauline theology which was emerging amongst the Gentiles in the 1st century AD, this view of the moral law was already being formed amongst them and indeed it is the basis of the Christian view of Moral, Ceremonial and Judicial. Even if we exclude the Torah, which is what you are complaining about, there are other references in the New Testament which are binding on all Christian men concerning homosexual activity. As for the law concerning not having relations with people while menstruating I do think that comes under moral law as well. Anyhow, the relationship between Old Testament and New Testament texts is clearly explained in the writings of Paul, and in the book of Acts. I think one should actually research the origins of Christian views on the Old Testament (they come straight from the Apostles) before one dismisses them as if people have twisted it.

The thing I see is though...by virtue of their proximity to Paul, you don't see the possibility for that being 'twisting'? Or perhaps a little more specifically, for them to have cherry-picked and contextualised as it suited them? That they were already doing this early on in the life of Christianity does not mean how they did it was correct, or that there has been no further evolution since.

Appealing to the age of this teaching doesn't really do much for it. It doesn't matter when the contexualisation or cherry-picking happened..my point challenging why homosexuality was treated one way vs another is as relevant then as it would be now, or at any point in the history of the Church.

Jakkass wrote: »

Gay people are perfectly entitled to worship at any church, nobody will close the door on them. The idea that Christians hate homosexuals couldn't be further from the truth. I personally would welcome homosexuals to take part in Christianity and to seek Christ's truth like anyone else, and I think that if Jesus were around He would be calling homosexuals just as He called the tax collectors and the sinners and just as He called me leading to me casting aside various things that were opposed to the Christian message (something I am still in the process of doing more and more each day). This is something that all people have to do when they accept Christianity

I can understand that. And I do understand that it's not the role of the Christian to hate anyone, and that those who do so upon the basis of their religion are twisting it. But on your last note, this thread is partly, I guess, about the challenges gay people have faced in making such an acceptance (be it of Christianity or another religion). Those difficulties, I think, are what we're discussing, and I think they're perfectly legitimate and very challenging difficulties for any gay person. As I said earlier, gay people kind of have a rare enough perspective on the fallibility of religion with regard to human understanding. As a straight person, I can understand why you might not see how or why a church or a religion is wrong on this, because you don't have the experience of being gay. So you don't really know who to trust, perhaps, to relate the nature of that experience to you accurately. But as a gay person, you don't need the church to relate to you the nature of that experience, because you know it first-hand. And when it's at odds with what the church tells you, that's an error you see that's very difficult to overcome if one is trying to accept religion x/y/z.

Stark

Okay, this has become a discussion for the Christianity forum.