response 326 of 404:

Nov 23 12:46 UTC 1998

Apropos being seen with a gay friend:

I used to have lunch a couple of times a week with a gay friend
when I lived in NYC.  He was a "Village People" sort of gay, if
you know what I mean.  Very macho looking but *too* macho, what
they used to call a "clone."  No one looking at him would have
any doubt as to his sexual orientation in those days.  It never
bothered me to be seen with him -- he was a nice guy and an old
childhood friend of mine and we'd been buddies forever.  One day,
however, we were on our way to a restaurant, joking and laughing,
and out of the corner of my eye I noticed my ex-shrink walking past 
us.  He'd been staring openly at me and my friend.  This was a
man whom I'd regaled for almost a year with tales of heterosexual 
woe -- the breakup of my first marriage, several false starts on 
new relationships with New York women.  I'd terminated "therapy"
with him, which had consisted mainly of gripe sessions anyway, 
a few weeks earlier when I'd finally hit it off with a woman in 
my building, and I was still feeling slightly guilty about it.  
"Oh, shit," I said, "that guy was my ex-shrink."  My friend 
practically collapsed with laughter.  "I love it!  Now he's 
thinking, 'What did I do to that patient?!?'"

response 328 of 404:

Nov 23 20:41 UTC 1998

I should hope Kenton wouldn't be ashamed to be seen with a homosexual.  Or
else he'd have to be ashamed to be seen with a recovering alchoholic, or a
guy who cheated on his wife 15 years ago, or a woman who cheated on her taxes
last year, or just about every other member of the human race.

response 330 of 404:

Nov 24 03:40 UTC 1998

re #328: Reminds me of what a Christian friend of mine said to me at work.
She believes homosexual activity is a sin (as many Christians do), but then
she notes that we are all sinners.  If having homosexual sex is a sin, is this
sin therefore greater than other sins, as some claim?  And if this is so, then
should they be ostracized?  She doesn't think so.  Let me explain why I think
not, as well.

The Biblical accounts of Jesus of Nazareth state that he made friends that
were considered questionable.  They include the following:

1. Publicans, or Roman taxcollectors.  These poor souls were probably not paid
a living wage by the Romans.  They often overtaxed the people so they might
be able to have enough money to live on.  One could agree this was a dishonest
practice, so Jewish leaders considered them outcasts, besides the fact they
worked for the Empire.

2. Women who worked as prostitutes.  If a woman did not have a family or was
disowned, this was one of the few ways of making money.

3. Samaritans.  They were looked down upon by pious Jews because they had
married outside the covenant, and engaged in foreign practices, although they
kept the law of Moses to a substantial degree.

4. Other sinners.

This is interesting in light of the fact that Jewish leadership had become
less spiritual, or religious, and more political.  Interpretation of the law
had become quite ritualistic, and there were several factions in the religion.

Now I don't doubt that homosexuals were included in the list, but they are
not noted.  When the law was created, some homosexual practices were tied to
foreign religions, and it is very likely the practice was excluded in the
Jewish religion because of their outside influences.  In fact, it has been
noted that many of the Ten Commandments distinguish the Judaic faith from
religions at that time that threatened to consume it.  Another example is the
prohibition of graven images (or idols) that was common in Egyptian belief.

Even if homosexuality per se is contradictory to the principles of Judaism
and Christianity, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist and isn't a problem. 
Even though the glb community may dislike the writings of Paul, some scholars
have theorized that 'the thorn in his side' may have been his way of saying
he was homosexual.  Therefore, his advice of celibacy may have been
misinterpreted by early followers.  In any event, I understand that some gay
Mormons remain celibate to remain strong in the faith.  This has been
encouraged at times, and they have been compared to women who have not had
the opportunity to marry.

There are also Mormons who have been widowed, or have separated.  Widows and
widowers may choose to marry again, but not all.  Those who were sealed
(married for eternity) remain sealed to the spouse who has passed on.  Some
separate, but do not obtain a cancellation of sealing, or what is informally
known as a temple divorce.  Of course, one cannot remarry while the sealing
is still in effect, and I have never heard of those who obtain a second
sealing.  This is why Mormons tend to look at marriage as a one-shot deal.
Therefore, there are other singles who are abstinent, but are not gay.

Of course, this does not sit perfectly well with me, because I know of many
disgruntled g/l/b (mostly g/l; so sue us for het privilege) Mormons who leave
the church or discontinue their activity because of its policy.  One of them
is my sister, as I have said before.  I would rather hope that these people
would choose to commit to only one person of the same sex if that is what they
choose, thereby following very similar principles that constitute the LDS
(Mormon) definition of the law of chastity.  Therefore, such people would
remain faithful to their partners, and abstain from sex until they were
chosen.

I understand some believe this is fruitless because society has not accepted
a concept of gay marriage, and some gay Mormons are probably quite upset that
they cannot attend LDS temples or hold the Priesthood.  But I would think that
it would be easier to continue to attend an LDS congregation and remain true
to their core beliefs, rather than denounce some of them (besides the ones
they aren't allowed to participate in) to fit in to another Christian
congregation that is tolerant of g/l/b lifestyles.  Despite the fact that
homosexual sex is not accepted in the LDS Church, it has been made quite clear
that they are loved and accepted.

Other options have diminished.  The Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter-Day Saints, a splinter church that formed after the death of founder
Joseph Smith, has been accepting of homosexual couples (who likely followed
principles I described above), but has recently denounced the Book of Mormon
in order to receive money from Christian organizations.  The church has been
bankrupt for years.

I would bet that many gay Mormons who have left their church practice serial
monogamy, and have changed some of their standards almost in retaliation. 
Most, I am sure, do so very quietly.  In any case, this saddens me.

If you'll forgive my tangential wanderings, my point is that even the most
conservative and outwardly pious people have problems that effect their
happiness.  Let me suspend the word 'sin' for a bit.  Alcoholism,
homosexuality, and mental illness are just a few of the things that are not
sins-- but are conditions that may impinge on people's happiness.  Anything
out of moderation can fit this category, too.  Everyone's got problems and
perceived imperfections.  Rarely, if at all, are these imperfections portrayed
in ways that are beneficial, and much of the time, they are seen as things
that make people inferior or harmful.

In any interest group, you have radicals and conservatives.  Radicals are
always pushing for change, and conservatives try to keep things as they are.
Believe it or not, both groups are beneficial.  Conservative g/l/bs are rather
invisible because they either aren't heard or don't raise their voice.  Garry
Trudeau's portrayal of Mike's politically conservative boyfriend probably
isn't a myth, but you don't guess these folks are gay.  Most probably stay
in the closet, or carefully hide themselves.  But it's a shame their views
don't get heard much; stereotypes probably wouldn't be a prevalent if they
spoke once in a while.

I'm fairly moderate myself, and I do think that the medium is rather happy
at times.  It puts me in a good negotiating position, and it is easier to see
opposing ends of an argument, for me, sometimes.  I'm fairly mellow, too, so
I rather enjoy talking a subject out.  I wouldn't doubt there are a lot of
people in this category.

In terms of sexuality, most people are said to be moderate, too.  As we said
earlier, Kinsey's proposal that most people are bisexual is puzzling sometimes
when so many identify as heterosexual.  But then, people are still really
uptight about discussing sexuality, as has also been said, especially if it
contradicts what is said to be the norm.

<ramble set= off>

response 332 of 404:

Nov 24 06:16 UTC 1998

Re #330: one sure does get tied into knots when one has to follow an
accumulated contradictory batch of tenets, and spend time worrying about
what other people do in their private lives. The knives that would cut
those Gordian knots are tolerance, acceptance of everyone as just human
beings, and only being concerned about *criminal* behavior that threatens
ones life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sexuality is not the
business of anyone not directly involved. 

response 334 of 404:

Nov 24 16:47 UTC 1998

I for one have had quite a few homosexual freinds, doesn't mean I condone
their lifestyle.  

response 336 of 404:

Nov 24 21:43 UTC 1998

Re #334: it is not your business to condone or not.
Re #335: but he hasn't tried, so what he says may not be true.

response 338 of 404:

Nov 25 03:13 UTC 1998

yeah and my daddy can beat up yours.
sheesh........

response 340 of 404:

Nov 25 07:40 UTC 1998

Right! I think I have more right to tell someone they have no business
condoning or not condoning things that are not their business than they
have in telling me that I should not tell people that it is not their
business to condone (or not). Condoning/not-condoning is sticking one's
nose into other people's business, making them nosy parkers, if that
is clearer.

response 342 of 404:

Nov 25 18:47 UTC 1998

Glad I made myself clear...  8^}

response 344 of 404:

Nov 25 20:11 UTC 1998

I find it amusing, but confusing.

response 346 of 404:

Nov 25 22:41 UTC 1998

re: last debate-- I would suppose the idea seems ridiculous if you're not a
religious person.  But if you are, then refusing to condone might be an issue.
We're all for religious freedom here, and some of the major religions still
do not accept homosexual practices (sex, that is) in their tenets.

But that doesn't ban the homosexual from continuing to worship in that
religion.  Re: #332, yes, it is a Gordian knot sometimes, and I, for one, am
in one somewhat, but shessh, I chose my priorities.

However, I'll admit that it's really ultimately a private matter, and between
you and God or whoever your higher power is.  My beliefs are my own, so I keep
'em, however fandangled and tied up they may be.

I just hope folks would learn that no one can force you to do anything, nor
can they deliberately corrupt you or steal your soul.
(nope, neither God nor the devil nor anyone under the sun)

response 348 of 404:

Nov 26 00:21 UTC 1998

WHO THE FUCK IS BEING DEFENSIVE????????????

heh heh. sorry =}

response 350 of 404:

Nov 26 00:43 UTC 1998

<i chuckles>