A Letter from a Gay Christian Conservative

Wonderful post Dennis !

I hope it will be well recieved by our readers and well considered by those on the other side.

I made a black lesbian friend at church yesterday, and it really makes you realize that gay rights are not about ideology but real people's lives, who are oppressed by our society. While we are not like Iran, there are still many roadblocks to equality.

I really go off when I hear the Christian right talk about homosexuality as a disease that can be cured through prayer.

Thanks for a very thoughtful post Dennis.

I wish everyone who is still clinging to their petty prejudices against gays would read this letter.

I think the fact that Jesus has nothing to say about homosexuality pretty much takes the steam out of anyone using Religion to justify bigotry. I can understand the arguments that Churches shouldn't be forced by government to recognize a marriage they disagree with. I can also understand the argument that we should be careful when making changes to something as important as marriage. However, either of those points can be made without the level of spite that I see on the right.
BTW just because I can understand the above points doesn't mean I agree with them. Neither point would justify outlawing civil unions. I have been blessed to be in a happy marriage for 18 years. I can't imagine my life without my husband. To tell others that kind of happiness is off-limits forever is simply cruel.

I recommend a visit to the Faith in America website:
http://www.faithinamerica.info/

reading their book, CRISIS http://www.crisisbook.org/

seeing the movie 'For the Bible Tells Me So'
http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/indexd.htm

Good post Dennis.

But I wonder why you're surprised by the reaction.

Conservatives aren't exactly welcoming of the suggestion, "Let's do something new!"

Dennis thanks for your remarkable post. It's spoken from the very vulnerable, human perspective and it speaks to me.

We had a marvelous opportunity to attend a choral concert last night by Conspirare, an Austin-based professional ensemble performing a Christmas concert. My wife, Aunt and Uncle, their daughter, their gay son with his spouse of 10 years (officially married, not recognized in Texas,) and a room-full of celebrating, happy people listening to beautiful music together.

I'm not a "believer." And yet, if I'm allowed a conceptual "heaven," it would be a community of diverse, non-judgmental, happy human beings just enjoying each others' company in the setting of the beautiful voices, a warm building, and with no pre-conceived notions of some division of "the world" versus "the saved."

Here goes the dissenting view...

I have two teenage kids who are like bloodhounds when it comes to sniffing out hypocrisy. They know and were taught what mammalian sexuality evolved for: to procreate young with more diversified DNA and therefore an enhancement to evolution. They learned normal sexual behavior is between adult members of the opposite genders within a species.

Asking them to accept deviation from that description, in order to legitimize seeking pleasure with someone you feel very deeply for is opening pandora's box for pleasure seeking outside the norms of bodily function. In another debate on another board a poster brought up examples of deformaty and destruction of the anal tissues in older gay men...leading to bleeding and inability to control bowel movements. You see, my kids have heard of that too...

And the problem arises when I try to tell them "It's OK for you to do this to the human body in the name of seeking pleasure with someone you love, but not OK to smoke dope to seek pleasure with someone you love." The kids aren't going to buy the hypocrisy...and hence the problem with legitimizing something that isn't.

Kids aren't stupid.

And further, should we teach children that "no matter what you love, you may try to have sex with it?" I've loved members of the same gender very deeply. I never confused that love with the need to hump them. I think there is no little confusion within the gay community, who, also believe themselves that gayness is an aquired state. Many members of the gay ranks think of recruiting straights to be gay as "sport". "Twinkies" is a gay term for young impressionable adolescent males who can be enticed into gay sex by an older man.

Just another problem I have with gay's seeking legitimate status to marriage [an implied sexual relationship].

Now, do I think we should descriminate against them? No. Sexuality, once it is imprinted around preadolescene and adolescence is pretty fixed in stone. So because they were molested or inappropriately enticed to fixate in a certain deviant sexual preference, being young and impressionable themselves, they should receive compassion and not be descriminated against in day to day life.

But letting them seek "legitimacy" for a foisted deviance is going to upset our example to our youth. We could be playing with some serious fire in opening that pandora's box. Humans learn socially and teenagers aren't dumb.

So because they were molested or inappropriately enticed to fixate in a certain deviant sexual preference, being young and impressionable themselves, they should receive compassion and not be descriminated against in day to day life.

So all homosexuals are the result of childhood molestation, or evil enticement eh?

Kids aren't stupid, but this statement certainly is.

So which is it Dennis? Were you molested, or simply enticed by some evil serpent?

"And further, should we teach children that 'no matter what you love, you may try to have sex with it?'"

So promoting gay marriage means that, because I love my cat I can/should have sex with it? Is there some sort of bestiality legislation being proposed here?

And how is "seeking pleasure with someone you love" different between heterosexual and homosexual couples? Or are you suggesting that sex be preserved solely for procreation, and shouldn't involve pleasure?

Oh boy, Silhouette, you are quite a piece of work. I think you managed to point out every single disgusting homo-bigot lie I've ever heard. They're coming for your teenage boys(oogy boogy!!!)? Check. Mammals are for procreation only (let's outlaw senior citizens and the infertile from marriage!) ? Check. Beastiality comes next (because two consenting adults in love are EXACTLY like me and my horse gettin' it on!) ? Check. Homosexuality is "deviant" or "unnatural" (besides the fact that roughly 8% of every mammal population tries to copulate with those in the same gender)? Check. This was my favorite: it stretches out your anus! Haha! That is so thoroughly debunked, and so over-the-top offensive, I don't even mind saying something I normally wouldn't: that after a few kids most heterosexual women are looking less than shiny and new from that angle as well. Wait...how many kids do you have? Bummer to be you, if only you hadn't had all that hetero sex.

So that makes zero dissenting points of view that make any bit of sense. So we're all in agreement then.

Hey, OK. I'll be fair and run your replies by my kids. I can kindof walk the tenuous fence between the concepts. But kids aren't so generous.

And that's what's important...legitimizing things for kids to see that open justification for other behaviors...

Saying "these two people love each other, as much as any other couple" is very different than saying "Butt sex is awesome!!! Go do it right now!!!" When you meet a married couple, does your mind immediately jump to their particular mattress behavior? Statistically, 1 in 4 of your straight couple friends engage in back-door fun. Do you need to run that by your kids in order for their marriage to be legal? You wouldn't start teaching your kids about marriage by letting them watch a straight porn movie. You'd probably talk about falling in love and building a life together. My point: this is about love, not about sex. If your kids can't understand that, you've got a bigger problem on your hands than all the leather daddies trying to lure your teenaged sons into a life of man-boy-love.

The comments made by Silhouette are reflective of a common ideology regarding heterosexual marriage that I find extremely disturbing. The idea that the purpose of marriage is for making power alliances, trading the burden of supporting dependant females used for breeding from father to husband, and to establish legitimate paternity (if not actual) for the purpose of making heirs is an ancient one. It is, however not a Christian one. Christianity has struggled with marriage from the beginning because Jesus disposed of the old roles of women and men, claimed that every person is our brother, sister, and child and deposed Fatherhood from it's all-powerful role by claiming that we have only one legitimate father - GOD. By the 13th century the Church had begun to demand that civil marriage wasn't good enough for Christians. Christians must take vows of committed love and devotion to each other the way Same-Sex covenants did. Yes, Virginia - same sex unions predate heterosexual wedding ceremonies. (See John Boswell, "Same Sex Unions In Pre-Modern Europe" Vintage Books)

The suggestion that committed, egalitarian, romantic/intimate love between 2 mature adults could have anything in common at all with the mindless humping of objects, people reduced to masterbatory tools or animals used the same way is beyond repugnant. That heterosexuals could confuse gay couples with a box of kleenex is no reflection on homosexuals. It does say worlds about some heterosexuals however, and it can be no surprise that their marriages are doomed. Marriage devoid of love, in the presence of fast - easy divorce will die, and deserves to.

Heterosexual lovemaking should be just that. Lovemaking. Not humping and bumping uglies with someone who you barely know but practically own with the hope of impregnating. Without birth control the average healthy, heterosexual human female will be gravid about 12 times in her life, although it's rare that she'll actually give live birth to that many babies. Humans are sexually available constantly. Sex in the human animal is clearly more about socialization than procreation. Consider the average fish who has sex only once in it's life, produces 10's of thousands of fertile eggs and then dies. We are nothing like that, and those who continue to argue that we "should" be are hardly what I'd call conservative. It's radically bizarre and one cruel, ugly design for what could be the kinds of relationships Jesus and his followers envisioned as described in the Gospel of John.

This is my wish for heterosexuals whose latest failure rate for marriage is 65% with 50% ending in the first 5 years; The love between couples is holy. It comes from God and it exists to spread love from the couple outward to inspire love in everyone who's lives you touch. There is nothing more important in the life of those who've been joined together in a love-covenant than each other - joined by God/Love. Christian love is about caring for others as much as you care for yourself and caring for yourself as if you're caring for God. Yes, that sentance is as valid read backwards as forwards. In Christ there is no North or South, slave nor free, male nor female....we are all connected, we are all equal, we are all valid. There is no list of exceptions after the word "All". Jesus did not come to validate the old misunderstandings about God, he came to blast them away forever and replace them with the New Covenant. That New Covenant does not value heirs, or property, or households, or biology. It values only love because only love lasts forever - being eternal as God. Society will not teach you this and bigotry against love has shut the mouth of most current Churches. If you don't want to be another statstic, if you're amazed at how many gay couples seeking civil marriage have already been together 2-3 times as long as most straight marriages then don't be satisfied - begin your search. You might start with the book, "Jesus Family Values", by Deirdre Good. With love couples can survive anything - even if you're 2 men who if found out as lovers will be put to death. Without love no amount of civil benefits, community approval, Church blessings, conventions and traditions will hold you together. Even in times when divorce was impossible people found ways to erect barriers and seperate.
Chose life for love and you chose God for yourselves.

Ah, Silhouette, I am surprised that you are bringing up the "what about the kids" argument. The problem is you are assuming that sexual behavior is strictly a choice and we have to live in fear of homosexual recruiters. Yes kids have instinctive reactions, that doesn't mean that as adults we are have to have a society that is based on those reactions. You might believe that the ability to recognize and deal with the complexity of humans and human society is hypocrisy. I see it as maturity.

I'll tell my kids that if something they do with their body gives them feelings of euphoria and pleasure, even if it has nothing to do with normal bodily functions, such as gay sex that distroys anal tissues, it's OK as long as it feels good.

Now I'm going to have a hellof a time trying to keep them from smoking. What makes the lungs more sacred than the anus? They both are necessary to a healthy functioning body?

What to do?

So, anal sex, like cigarettes, causes lung cancer, heart disease, and addiction? I never knew. ;)

I don't know if the lung are more "sacred" than the anus but I know that you can indeed live without an anus, or even without an entire colon. You sure can't live without your lungs.

You are aware that there are forms of sex that gay men can perform that don't invovle the anus at all? And that for lesbians the anus isn't even a concern?

Did you ask this poster from another board how he/she knows that older gay men experience long-term damage to the anus?


Have you asked yourself, why this fixation on the anus?

Oh, Sil.....

"They know and were taught what mammalian sexuality evolved for: to procreate young with more diversified DNA and therefore an enhancement to evolution. They learned normal sexual behavior is between adult members of the opposite genders within a species.'

So, are you saying that you only believe in sex for procreation? Do you time your periods and only engage in sex with the expectation of bearing a child? Do you not believe in sex as pleasure? If you believe that sex is only for procreation... you're saying that kissing is bad since it doesn't lead to procreation? Are you also saying that it's a sin to enjoy sex? And do you believe that once someone is past child bearing age that they shouldn't engage in sex because sex is only for procreation?

So if you say that you have sex for reasons other than procreation, than why deny that (or judge that) same behavior in others?

As far as your analogy between smoking and anal sex.... There are plenty of sexual activities that straight people can engage in which would cause physical damage. My point being that sexual injury is not limited to "older gay men". Like all things in life, one has to be careful. Michael Phelps might be able to swim 10,000 meters with no problem, but I wouldn't want my 82 year old mother to try (and she's in great shape for her age!)

Here's an excellent (and somewhat fun, given the nature of it) article on sexual injuries ...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11624436/

So SIl, those people who point to a few older gay men who have some injuries during certain activities as reason why gays should not marry (or have sex, or whatever) are overlooking the fact that everyone on the face of this planet has accidents, injuries, pain from time to time. I'm sure that whatever it is that you and your partner do in bed (and it can be the most vanilla form of sex) would cause other straight people injury. I mean, haven't some people actually died of heart attacks during sex? I'd consider that much more grave than some deformed tissues in some older gay men. So perhaps we should stop having sex because we could all die from it! :) I mean there are these cases out there of people actually dying.... so if your standard is cherry-picked medical data to support your belief that gay men should not have sex (or that gay sex is wrong or destructive) than I have no choice but to tell you to stop having sex because it's proven that heterosexual sex causes death. :)

Sil, OK.. here's part 2.... "I've loved members of the same gender very deeply. I never confused that love with the need to hump them. I think there is no little confusion within the gay community, who, also believe themselves that gayness is an aquired state."

I'll ask this: Are you attracted to and want to have sex with every guy who walks around out there? I would think the answer is no. Just like some guys turn you on and some don't, why do you have a problem with who turns someone else on and why do you try to explain it? Attraction and sexual energy between two people are very subjective. Most people in the gay community believe that sexual preference is not a choice. Just like you can't always explain why you may or may not be sexually attracted to someone.

Besides your comment, " Many members of the gay ranks think of recruiting straights to be gay as "sport". "Twinkies" is a gay term for young impressionable adolescent males who can be enticed into gay sex by an older man" is particularly offensive.

If that were the case, if someone were turned gay because some older gay guy enticed them, then what about priests who molest boys? Priests entice young boys into sex with them, sometimes for years at a time, yet most of those boys grow up to be heterosexual (albeit with some issues). And what about all those teenage boys who do have sex with their male friends because they are curious, or want to experiment, or "it just happens"? Most of those kids grow up to be straight.... Most gay men want men to be men, not little boys.

Dennis, great post- thanks for sharing your journey and life with us.

I like this comment of yours, "The fact is, this kind of fear is devastating to the conservative movement. Gay marriage is not about destroying heterosexual marriage. It is instead about gays doing something most conservative, entering into a long-standing tradition. Traditions change over time, but they are still traditions."

I think the hypocrisy or irony is that the religious right people claim that gays are too promiscuous and don't (or can't) settle down. Yet when we try to do so- when we do find a partner we can share our life with and honor God with, then those religious right wingers (and others) try to hold us back. And in the case of Proposition 8 in California, where we had the right to marry and lead a monogamous life (for those of us who want to) the religious folks took that basic right away from us. But we continue to find our way against all the hate thrown at us. I'm confident that someday we will all be able to marry the man (or woman) we love and want to build a life with. You and Daniel are excellent role models and it is people like you (two) who bring love and hope to this world when hate is thrown our way. Thank you.

Reasons that heterosexual marriage should be banned:
1) Hetero sex often leads to childbirth, which can damage vaginal and urethral tissues in females, causing bleeding, loss of bladder control, and even death.
2) Many mixed gender couples, either through choice or infertility, have sex for reasons other than procreation.
3) Since roughly 1 in 4 hetero couples engage in anal sex, there is a high likelihood of one or both members ending up with leaky anuses as old people. Some other person on the intratubes told me so.
4) If straight people get married, this has an obvious correlation with my kids doing drugs. They'll say "hypocrisy", and I'll say "I don't know what that means."
5) Two opposite-gender people signing a contract that they will love and care for each other is just like someone signing a contract with their pet iguana. Because iguanas are allowed to sign contracts.
6) I've had platonic love for a member of the opposite sex, and I didn't think that meant I could have sex with him. Therefore, no straight people should get married.
7) Many members of the straight ranks think of trying to get people to sleep with them as a "sport". There are creepy old men ("cradle robbers") who go out to special pick-up joints (some call them "bars")just SEARCHING for young, barely-legal hot women to try to lure into their worlds of hetero sex. And sometimes, these young women go for it -- we call them "grave diggers" or "gold diggers". Again, this means that no straight people should marry.
8) Because some straight people were sexually abused as children, not only should this relatively small population of straight people be banned from ever finding love and happiness, but in fact ALL straight people should live their lives without these things.
9) When I told my kids about all the gross things that go along with penis in vagina sex, they said "ew!!!" So they have decided that hetero people shouldn't get married. And kids aren't stupid.

Don't you agree, Sil?

roro80: your reasons that heterosexual marriage should be banned is absolutely brilliant- thanks!