A futile attempt...
This is a futile attempt to all of my conservative friends that I love and respect dearly to rethink their position on homosexuality. Regardless of my personal stance on the bible, I will use it for a starting ground and for the most part of my attempt at dialogue.
Let's begin with a little logic. A major argument against homosexuality is that the bible is against it. For a person that holds the bible as divinely authoritative this at face value is a good argument. However, it quickly falls apart once we look at other things the bible both prohibits and condones. They're the many prohibitions some expected others not, such as eating certain foods, a woman's menstrual cycle, touching a dead body, touching people with skin diseases, women teaching men, blood transfusions, wearing the opposite sexes clothing, farming with a donkey and ox on the same yoke, divorce, not making loans to someone inside their house, and no work of any kind on Saturday, any type of physical religious imagery, such as a cross. You are probably beginning to see the point, yet there are also many things the bible condone, such as women viewed as property, the rights of owning slaves, the right to kill children, and adults alike for certain offenses, polygamy, temple prostitutes both male and female so long as they are not from Israel, the killing of animals, child sacrifice, and etc.
However many of these things we now see as contextual to the date of which the bible was being written. Some of these things are referenced 100's of times in the bible. Yet homosexuality is only referenced at most, 7, in actuality it's more like 2, I will get to that later. It would seem that there is a pattern of misusing the bible to justify oppression. This is seen in very early on, in account of slavery (Gen 9:20). St. Augustine argued that slavery was justified because of the sin of the person enslaved. One might say that was over 1500 years ago. However just three hundred years ago, Stephen Haynes justified slavery by attributing it as a punishment for sexual sin, and assigning Ham the decedent of Noah as some one of dark skin. James Henly Thornwell in the 1800's declared that Christians supported slavery and atheist opposed it. Even post Civil war Robert Lewis Dabney defended slavery based on his interpretations of the bible, by saying: “Every hope of the existence of Church, and of State and of civilization itself, hangs upon our arduous effort to defeat the doctrine of Negro suffrage.”
However it would seem that another minority group had to suffer even longer, and were oppressed even greater using the biblical text, and in many mainline denominations are still oppressed today. It's not uncommon today to hear debates going on as to if a woman should be able or capable of pastoring a church or being president of a country. Aside from all the verses in the new testament that talk of women covering their head and remaining silently there is also the Genesis 3 account where very and all to often the woman is blamed for the fall of man kind. Which Christians are hung up on, although this seems ludicrous in itself if man had never fallen, then their would be no need of that redeemer you love so much. Moving on early church theologian Tertullian declared eve as the origin of sin, and women as the devil's gateway. Cotton Mather suggested that women should only express their views in private that the public realm was reserved for men. Foremost Princeton theologian Charles Hodge not only opposed women's suffrage, but public education and abolitionism. Theologian Robert Dabney argued god's curse on eve was applicable to women for all time. Now we see all of these theologians and pastors although they may have been using the bible, they were using it poorly and hardly perceiving the egalitarian message put forth by Jesus of Nazareth. If nothing else John Calvin got one thing right: “There are many statements in Scripture the meaning of which depends upon their context.”
Using this same logic that people were wrong about slaver, and women and the bible was misused to abuse and oppress these minority groups then it should be obvious that the same thing is happening again to the Homosexual community. However, it would appear once again to many people are relying on what has been told to them throughout the generations and not studying for themselves.
Let's move away from this logical argument of why we should accept homosexuality, and look at the biblical text. Perhaps it would be best to go through these 7 text chronologically. Let's begin with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, which for centuries it has been suggested the reason the city was destroyed was because of it's homosexuality. This is said to be because the towns people tried to rape the two angels'. Which really brings up the question of rather or not angel's even have gender. Regardless however if we do suppose these were men angels' there is still a lot more going on to these stories. This is not a story about homosexuality or even rape. Rape was a practice used by ones enemies to show dominance over that person, to show ones authority, it's a reflection of the misogynist society in which the bible was being written. But the real point of the story is about hospitality. It's contrasting Gen 18, this is why Lot offers his own daughters. A different version of this story is found in Judges 19, to which when the men are approached about his guest, re replies with do not act wickedly since this man is my guest, do not humiliate him, once again the emphasis being upon hospitality and the patriarchal structure of the society.. No where in the bible is the sins of Sodom related to homosexuality but rather: greed, injustice, inhospitality, excess wealth, indifference to the poor, even Jesus in Luke 10 and Matt 10 refers to the sins of Sodom as the refusal of hospitality to the traveling.
Now to approach possibly the most common text used when condemning homosexuality and homosexuals, the Dueteronomistic and Levitical codes also known as the holiness codes. Which I will deal with collectively considering they pretty encompass the same passage. It is important to understand how the holiness codes function and it's contextual understanding. The underlining purpose was to be different from the Egyptians from whom they had just escaped from and to not mix with the Canaanites who land they had now overtaken through mass slaughter of the Canaanite people. The over all purpose was that Israelites should not have intermarriage with non-Israelites, however they understood this as no mixing of any kind, hence why we get passages forbidding two different garments intertwined together. Another point, illustrated by Victor Paul Furnish of Perkins School of Theology is that engaging in homosexual behavior was punishable by death because it mean in this patriarchal society that a man was being passive rather then dominant, passivity being the role assigned to women, so by mixing genders a cultural boundary had been crossed. It is also important to look at the word typically translated as Abomination: the Hebrew word transliterated as toevah, pointed out by many theologians and anyone who has had ancient Hebrew, the word refers to something that makes a person ritually unclean, such as eating shrimp, planting two different seeds, a women's menstrual cycle, wearing cotton and wool, having intercourse with a woman while she is menstruating. Abomination is a violation of ritual codes, not moral codes. This ritual purity was necessary to distinguish the Israelites from their pagan neighbors and the Egyptians. However this is not what Jesus seemed to be concerned with: “Listen and understand: it is not what goes into the mouth that defiles a person, but it is what comes out”, “What comes from the mouth proceeds from the heart... but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile” (Matt. 15). So as we understand Jesus as a fulfillment of the law (Matt 5:17) we understand that our challenge is not meticulously to maintain culturally conditioned laws, by means of proof-texting, but rather, with Jesus, to love God and love our Neighbor (Matt 22). People who pick and chose verses from the Old Testament with today standards, fail to understand the ancient cultural conditioned code that is not applicable to them today and their circumstances and they oppress a great many people, such as those with mental and physical illnesses, disability, women, children, and homosexuals.
To move onward to the New Testament one should have a small understanding of linguistics and the koine Greek language. Both in the Greek and in the Hebrew there is no word for homosexual. In Corinthians 1 the words transliterated as Arsenokoites, and Malakos both occur, and in Timothy 1, the word aresnokoites recurs. The word aresnokoites is a compound word, arsen, meaning male, and koites meaning bed. Which would imply a translation of a man who goes to bed, otherwise known as a male prostitute hardly does this imply homosexuality. Prior to this the word arsenokoites can not even be found. To say that this compound word has to do with homosexuality seems to be about as absurd as suggesting the English word “understand” was to deal with being under something and/or standing. Dale Martin as Greek scholar, after analyzing many Greek text both secular and Christian concludes that the term probably dealing with some type of economic exploitation by sexual means such as rape, or sex by economic coercion, prostitution, or pimping. This is supported by the next verse that speaks of slave trading once again exploitation. No one should conclude at face value that this term means homosexual. The word Malakos which is found much more frequently is much easier to understand. It literally mean soft and connotes a type of effeminacy. So to assume that this is in reference to homosexuality is quite a stretch of the imagination. For example, what does a high school coach call his young athletes, “girls”, “sissies”, “ladies” none of the boys on the team are such a thing, however it is to break them down and humiliate them. Which is essentially the same thing happening in the text. Contemporary scholars would be rightly embarrassed to invoke effeminacy as a moral category today. This is once again merely a reflection of the culture in which the bible was being written hardly is it politically correct. One last verse in the New testament to deal with Romans 1. Here once again we find the Pauline writer making statements that seem unfounded when looking at todays technology and science. Many theologians conclude that Paul's major concern in this verse is not what is natural to man as we might understand it. Natural which for Paul is synonymous with unconventional, the writer is not talking about a violation of the order of creation. The Greek word used for nature is physis which is hardly a synonym for ktisis, the Greek word for creation. So when Paul speaks of Natural he is speaking of what was conventional for the Hellenistic Jewish cultural. Although I'm not certain of the weight of this argument. I believe However I have a more sufficient one, perhaps Paul is just wrong due to his lack of technological resources and absence of biological science. Before you get so upset, let's think about it, it's not that radical once again the Pauline writer was wrong about women being inferior and unable to teach men, and he was wrong about slavery.
Moving onward from the biblical text I suppose it is time to look at some hard science. Most Christians try to hide the fact that in 1993, the Gay gene Xq28, was discovered. Well regardless of what your Sunday school teacher and pastor tell you the majority of biologist and scientist will tell you that in fact this gene does exist and over 70 percent of Homosexual's have this gene. This becomes quite problematic for the typical pragmatic argument from Christians and other conservatives that this is a life choice rather then innate. With the discovery of this gene, it seemingly refutes any notion of being gay being a choice. However I'll play fair and point out that they still leaves 30 percent of homosexuals that do not have this gene, so what does this mean to your practicality though. That all homosexuals should be tested for the gene to see if they actually are sinners or not. The absurdity of this is astounding, but where do we draw the line. I'll even go a step further and point out that some people who have been tested for this gene do not participate in homosexual behavior and are self proclaimed as heterosexual. However this hardly seems to refute anything considering many of our genes remain dormant, until a certain age, and some times until death, such as genes associated with cancer and tumors. For one to conclude that homosexual is not natural, they are seemingly ignoring all the animals in nature that participate in homosexual activities: black swans, mallards, gulls, penguins, dolphins, bison, bonobo, elephants, giraffs, macaque, lions, polecat, sheep, hyenna, dragon flies, lizards, fruit flies, and etc.
Lastly I suppose I'll explore the soft sciences, such as psychology and sociology. There is all types of studies done on birth order, twins, the absences of the fathers, antigens, and antibodies on feminization of the fetus, penis envy, that all support homosexuality as not only something is not a disease or mental illness, but as something that is innate to human nature. Although perhaps this is getting to long of which I will just point out a few psychological and sociological organizations that do not believe homosexuality is a myth or a choice: The American medical association, the American psychiatric association, the American psychological association, the American psychoanalytic association, the American academy of pediatrics, the national association of social workers and etc. All these groups oppose attempts at reparitive therapy and support the notion that homosexuality is not a choice that can simply be changed through therapy.
To tie things up, I'll leave on a quote of a well know Christian philosopher and theologian: “the bible is the word of god, speaking through the words of human beings speaking through the idioms of their time, and the richness of it is that we don't take it as literally so.” - Desmund Tutu.

Do you remember what it was like to find out that their was not a Sata Clause? I do, i remember who told me. I remember sitting in the 1st grade and this kid telling me he did not exist that he was made up and our parents did all the "christmas miracles", with the gifts under the trees and such. I also remember being upset and feeling as though i was lied to. I went home and asked my mother if what this boy said was true. Her response was innocent enough, i suppose. She asked me if i believed in Santa. I wanted to so badly, so i told her i still believed, but it was to late i had seen the light been informed and no longer had my child like faith. Maybe she had a point that if we believe something strongly enough or with enough faith that it is or will be true, at least on some pyschological or primordal level. This note isn't going to be about Christmas.
To all my Christian friends and family, this note will be about you, your savior and me. If you like me remember what it was like to loose faith in Santa Clause then you might have a SLIGHT understanding of my journey that changed me forever. And although at times you might wish you still believed in Santa you are also happy that you are informed because in knowledge their is enlightenment. If you are reading this and don't know me well, i am not an atheist i am not a agnositc, i am very much so a theist. My journey of loosing faith was not in some cosmological force that interconnects all humanity, i very much still believe that. It was merely christianity that i lost faith in, the manner in which it happened is long and if i went through it no one would read this, and if you did, i might would feel responsible for destroying something very vital to someones existence. That is not my job my task or my duty, every must work out their own path or their own salvation as bible might put it. I don't want to make people doubt something they are not ready or willing to doubt it. Even if i tried it would be invain, unless they were ready. Although somethings i would point out would be empircial proof, they would still not believe it because people simply believe what they want to believe.
Once i put together through hours of strainous studying, painstacking thinking, and heartbroken disbelief, the facts that i could no longer claim myself to be a christian, i could not go back. I had come to far, and although i wanted to at times, the truth that i had obtained the knowledge that i had found was to pure. It cost people very dear to me their jobs, and i was a better person for it, for their sacrifice alone i could not just pretend that this information was untrue or bias. But beyond that the inner feeling that i had was amazing. I was raised pentecostal and it was very much different than that of my emotional upbringing. It was their to stay, with out having to go back weekly for a renewed source. However, I once agian felt lied to, but by a much larger source, and the people doing the lying, were so good at, because for the most part they believed it, relentlessly, to the point of martyrdom.
Many of these people pray for me nightly of that i'm certain, and much appreciated. Rather or not these prayers are heard or answered or even accomplish anything but self-rightoussness, i'm uncertain, but if they find some satisfaction out of it, some type of happiness then, i'm glad for them.
At times i have so much anger and animositiy toward those people of the christian faith, at times it seems all they do is bring oppression and heartshed. They abuse god's power and his name in order to get what ever they desire, its truly disgusting. These power thirsty people are vile and nothing more then manipulative sons of bitches. But other times i see people who are truly trying to be a moral ethical person, and although they are niave i can't help but to feel sorry for them, but at the same time happy for them and their blissfulness. And to those people i am truly sorry for the times i come off as oppressive to this religion that you hold so strongly on, i know you believe you are doing the best thing.
But this is where it all breaks down, even these people the most kind and gently people on earth, such as my own mother believe that God will punish every "sinner" whatever that mean, for essentially just not believeing in him. What if santa was like this, what if not only did santa give lumps of coal to those who were bad, but also those who don't believe in him, or better yet those who believe in him but don't believe in his wife, what if it didn't matter how "good" the person was and what other holidays they celebrated such as hanukah or what if they believed in santa but they believed him to be black instead of white, or indian, and these moral people didn't get presents either. Our out look on santa would probably be much different. In fact one might say that he was a pompace arrogant narccassist.
If this is the case how do we make god look when we attribute such things to him except instead of a lump of coal you are going to suffer, and instead of it being for one day all eternity. Less suppose i do belief that god had a son that was him and that god sent him/self to earth in order that everyone could be forgiven and have eternal life. If everyone is forgiven then why is it deemed that the Jews, Muslims, atheist and etc have to suffer, aren't they in fact forgiven. Is god suppose to be love? How can you love some one if you watch them suffer and do nothing about it?
It's late, i don't know why i wrote this, i think it's an apology...

I work in the resturant industry and like many of my co-workers i detest Christians. Obviously they don't only come in on sundays, and obviously everyone who comes in on sundays are not neccessarily christian. But you can always spot christians, or at least i can after devoting the majority of my life to such a religion. I have many reasons to detest the christian movement, logical, rational and reasonable reasons. That's not what this is about, it's to blow off steem.
Christians shouldn't be allowed to eat out, maybe they shouldn't be allowed in public. DOn't get me wrong, i have several friends and family that proffess christianity and i love them dearly, this is generalizations. They come in, and annoying, much more so then the drunks. Make corney jokes, always try and talk their way out of paying for something someway, pray these pharisee prays so that everyone sees them, takes note that, "oh these people are christans, therefore they must be morally superior." They usually do this right at the time the server approaches the table. Either co-incident or perhaps so that he server knows as well, that way she/he won't temp them with alcohol. Lastly they only tip 10% or less. My father is the cheapest person i have ever met, i'm been going to college for 5 years and he has only ever giving me 20 dollars for it, and yet he tips 12%. OH and it might be interesting to note he is not a Christian.
I worked this last sunday and all of these things happened. I had 400 dollars in sells and only made thirty five dollars, i should of made 80, yet it was a sunday and all my tables prayed to Jesus Christ before they ate, and gave their other 10% to God at Church before they came out to eat. Needless to say i was pissed. I went home to cool off then went out for some ice cream with Cauprice. We get there and they are these annoying peope who just got out of church, and were complaing because they believed that they had been charged to much, despite the fact that they had gotten two things for free, one for a kid and one with a coupon. Meanwhile Cauprice and I were looking toward each other in disgust as i had explain to her and vented to her earlier about my day with the Pharisees. The church people sat down, taking up all the seats and me and cauprice head home. THen my car doesn't start, the battery is dead.
Well the christians come over to lend a hand they give me a boost and my car starts right up. As i'm getting into the car, i'm thinking to myself and am about to tell cauprice, that perhaps i should retract some of my negative statements from the day. However then as i get in, with the motor running, these men, have the audicity to take this as an oppurtunity to wittness to us, to save our soul from eternal damnation. So they inquire, by this i mean yell at us, as we have gotten into the vehicle, "Do you go to church?" I'm livid buring up on the inside but i play nice. Although in my thoughts they did not. Why couldn't they have just done something nice out of the goodness of their hearts? NO they have to use it with some alterior motive. They wanted to make Jesus prayed and earn that heavenly cown. So they became pharisees... I have many Christian friends, family and loved ones, i beg of you do not behave in such a vile and despicable manner.