yummychuckle I despise this.
its an instant turn off, too. Theres this guy I was getting to like very much until he said,
"that guy is a fucking fag"
and i said "its really not a good thing to use that word at all, or just support discrimination like that...its not right..."
and he goes
"i fucking hate fags. its just GROSS!! i think we should send them all to an ait, they don't deserve an island..." and by then i stopped listening and my ears had steam coming from them and i just shook my head in disgust and decided
fuck robert, he's an asshole.
Mateo Thts just another way of directing anger, no better and no worse than any other. 020301
silentbob except it goes into this whole entire thing of being insecure with your own sexuality and if a person is so quick to get angry if someone gay is even in eyeshot, they have a serious problem, and need to , like, counsel themselves out of it. psychologists say it means they are gay themselves, but that couldn't be true in EVERY case, could it? 020301
Saint the territory of religious fanatics and closet_cases, mostly. 020301
misstree and those who have an overload of testosterone and need to show it to the world.
strange that this is an almost exclusively male activity...

i love to start hearing people gay bash. means i get to leap upon them and tear them to shreds, shatter their reality for a while.
carne de metal I am gay and I enjoy gay bashing 020302
carne de metal thanks for the support though. 020302
Ivonne H. definition: gay people bumping into eachother. 020305
Saint that's a swordfight, hehe 020305
eklektic i hate gay bashing and gay bashers. i hate discrimination. this is probably one thing that will make me so angry i actually cant think of anything to say. 020514
little wonder my two friends, that i have known since we were 5...last year they just went off about how much they hate gay guys, but lesbians are ok.

and i just sat there and i almost cried. because these are two people i've known almost my whole life. two people that i'm friends with, and they've turned into this.

all of the other girls just sat around and didn't say anything, even though i knew they were mad too. they just fucking sat there though.

i screamed and i didn't know what to say because i was so angry and i couldn't comprehend why people do that and why they think it's ok and why they didn't hear a goddamn word i said.

i went to bed pissed off at everyone that night, at the boys for being assholes and at the girls for ignoring it all.

the next day i left the weekend for the first time in 16 years because i couldn't be around them.

i wish it could just be third grade again, we had enough complications when we were 9.
Kate I dislike hearing people bash others and I try not to bash people. Usually I bash people b/c I don't like them or b/c I'm secretely jealous of them, not because they are gay. No, nevermind. I have to apologize for bashing Mark. Mark is very conceited and he appears to be very very gay. I don't think that there is any jealously fueling that bashing though. 020515
silentbob sometimes i bash people i am jealous of, but for deserved reasons. if they deserve what they have i am not bashful.

huh huh get it? bashful
Syrope homophobics are people too!, couldnt resist. i hate gaybashers too. i live with a house full of them, and although i'm straight, its still just not right that they banned me from seeing my best friend when they found out he was gay. then after that i started dating, and they were like "i'm not sure you should be goin out with such-n-such" and at one point i finally said "you didn't like me hanging out with a gay guy, so i'm going to go hang out with a straight guy now, be happy."
we havent discussed it much since then...
gay gizmo I bet most straight people would never believe that it is actually possible for a gay person to be homophobic. But it happens.
Before I became comfortable with my sexuality I hated it and hated myself for it. So I would do what everyone else did and call people fags and call things gay. but now that I've grown up and realized who I really am, its so immature it doesnt really phase me when people call me that. They can call me what they want...just like I will call them what I want.
I guess being gay has given me more insight into the importance of free speech and the freedom to be who I am without persecution, even though it may come in many forms. and it works all ways, gay bashers have the freedom to be gay bashers just as I have the freedom to be gay.
The homosexual culture as a whole has come along way and fought long and hard for equality, yet it seems more and more we are getting special treatment. Such as hate-crime laws. If I'm murdered because I'm gay, is it any worse than if someone is murdered becase they were working at a 7/11??? I dont know. I dont think so. Why should my killer be treated more harshly than anyone else's?? Am I the only one with a problem with this?
bethany they say the only reason people are homophobic is that they have not admitted their own homosexual tendencies 021001
Carne de Metal "In the garden of Eden it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve"

I saw that on a photo of some nazi anti-gay protest in the land of freedom.
oldephebe Well, I mean isn't that the sole province of extremists, and especially those religious right types who through inbreeding and lead poisoning and lives of exteriorization and uncritical thought have becom the fodder and flock for demagues and thier "catchy slogans"

bashing anyone, gay, female, hetero, black latino white male or whatever soley on the basis of some bigoted broadbrushed idea of relegating an entire group of people to some inferior exert pressure upon them to put on thier corsets buckle thier boots and march stoically to the beat of!!!

"march stoically to the beat of homoganaeity.." HAH! 050615
oldephebe I mean I'm a Christian and everything, but there is NO way that I or anyone can ever live up to the LAW, the ten commandments and some of the other moral imperatives etched in stone by God's tongues of holy fire. I am hetero-sexual sure. I have some moral reservations about homo-sexuality, that is personally and spiritually, however this does not entitled me to construct, to fraudulently construct and direct a campaign of persecution and slander against a group of people soley because thier sexual preferance differs from mine. The religious right types!!

I mean constructing an epistomological framework around what is basically the equivelent of tar and feather tactics and then wrapping in the robes of some kind of moral terrorism or civic lynching or statutorial stricture shares a unique atavistic relationship with evil and deception and ruthlessness. If Satan is the Father of Lies then grandstanding politicized preachers who exploit the fathomless reach of the media and prey, and I mean prey upon the unsophisticated moralism and perspectives of an albeit sincere but really parochial easily manipulated citizenry of the mid-west - these demagoues who wreath personal aggrandizement and private fears with the cause of evangelism and the injunctions of Christ to the Church are in thier own way just as insidious.

Christ told us to LOVE one another. I think that was his LAST commandment. The compassion, the egoless unqualified compassion of Christ dictates, and yes i mean dictates that Patience, understanding compassion and gentleness be our response to an infallible world. But these well fed, ornately coiffed and rapacious engines of ecclesiastical, civic , political excess are merely conjuring up another pretext to fuel the fathomless maws of thier own ambition and the financial exigencies of a global media, ministry machine.
blech! 050705
oldephebe I mean god! Every thing is suspect. We are saturated in a semiotics of superficiality and deception. 050705
anne-girl oldephebe, you rock
is continually awed by your words
Lemon_Soda The way is only difficult for those who pick and choose. 050706
Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture
(Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)
by Joseph P. Gudel

P.O. Box 7000, Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Web: Tel: 949.858.6100 Fax: 949.858.6111

Wed Jul 06 17:33:05 2005

Homosexuality in Society, the Church, and Scripture
(Part Two in a Two-Part Series on Homosexuality)
by Joseph P. Gudel


The gay rights movement does not just want the right to privacy and to be left alone. Attempting to promote their cause as a civil rights instead of as a moral issue, they want special legal protection for, and cultural acceptance of, their lifestyle. Even many Christian churches have condoned or are sympathetic to homosexuality, ignoring the Bible's teachings concerning our sexuality. In the Old Testament we find heterosexuality to be proclaimed as God's natural order of creation, a teaching Jesus upheld in the New Testament. Biblically, homosexuality is described as both an "abomination" and "unnatural." God calls us to reject sin, but to love and value all people.

How can anyone dare to speak out against another person's lifestyle? Especially within the church, are not Christians called to be loving and inclusive? Does not the Bible itself tell us that we are to reach out to people instead of being judgmental and self-righteous?

Questions like these come up whenever the Christian or the church takes a stand on a moral issue, especially homosexuality. I realize that it is not "politically correct" to speak critically concerning any person or group. Nonetheless, true Christian love does not ignore immorality and the lives ruined by it, but speaks out in the hope of helping those individuals.

This is particularly true when militant pro-homosexual groups, both within society and the church, have attacked the traditional Judeo-Christian understanding of this important issue. Thus this article is written, not as an attack on homosexuals, but in defense of the biblical teaching on this topic and to help those ensnared in this lifestyle.


In Part One of this series (Summer 1992) I went into some detail showing that even from a secular perspective the unbiased reader is forced to admit that homosexuality is neither a healthy nor a natural lifestyle. However, over the past 20 years or so there has been a growing gay rights movement within America. This movement has been militantly demanding not just the homosexuals' right to do whatever they wish to do behind closed doors, but, more importantly, that society fully accept their lifestyle as both healthy and normal, even demanding special rights and legislation as an "oppressed minority."

Concerning the demands of the gay rights movement, gay spokesperson Jeff Levi in a 1987 speech to the National Press Club in Washington stated: "We are no longer seeking just a right to privacy and a protection from wrong. We also have a rightas heterosexual Americans already haveto see government and society affirm our lives."1

As far back as 1975, in an article entitled "Gays on the March," Time magazine quotes gay activist Barbara Gittings: "What the homosexual wants, and here he is neither willing to compromise nor morally required to compromiseis acceptance of homosexuality as a way of life fully on a par with heterosexuality."2 In response to this, Time wisely reflected: "It is one thing to remove legal discrimination against homosexuals. It is another to mandate approval....It is this goal of full acceptance, which no known society past or present has granted to homosexuals, that makes many Americans apprehensive" (emphasis added).3

In view of their stated goals, it is extremely significant that today there is legislation pending in the United States Congress which proposes to do just what the gay rights movement has demanded: fully legitimize homosexuality as an acceptable and sanctioned alternative lifestyle. The Senate version, sponsored by Senator Edward Kennedy, is bill S. B. 574. The House version, sponsored by Representative Barney Frank (an openly avowed homosexual), is measure H. R. 1430.

For most Americans it is shocking simply to have a bill like this being considered in the halls of Congress.4 What is even more amazing is that already it has approximately 140 congressional sponsors, as well as the full support of President Bill Clinton.5

If passed this bill would make it illegal for any organization, including Christian businesses and churches, to refuse employment to practicing homosexuals. It would legalize same-sex "marriages," something not now recognized in any U.S. jurisdiction. Homosexual "couples" would have the right to adopt children. And every school system would have to include homosexuality as a positive alternative lifestyle in any sex education course offered.

Concerning the radical gay rights agenda now being advanced, Fr. John F. Harveya nationally known professor of moral theology at De Sales School of Theology and someone actively involved in counseling homosexual persons for over thirty years — writes:

Homosexual activists...are not requesting merely the right to live their lifestyle in private, to be left alone; to use their own words, they want to convince all elements of societyeven childrenthat "gay is as acceptable as straight."....I think that gay-rights legislation would harm children at an impressionable, malleable, and gullible age. There is plenty of evidence for the position that homosexual propaganda can sway young people into homosexual activity and, perhaps, permanent orientation in that direction.6

As evidence that influencing children at a very early age is part of the gay rights agenda one need look no further than New York City's public school curriculum. Included in the curriculum materials are four pro-homosexual books aimed at very young children.

One, Heather Has Two Mommies, is a children's book about a lesbian couple having a child through artificial insemination. Another book, Daddy's Roommate, describes a boy with divorced parents who visits his father and his father's new male roommate (obviously his lover). In a third book, Gloria Goes to Gay Pride, part of the text reads: "Some women love women, some men love men, some women and men love each other. That's why we march in the parade, so everyone can have a choice."7

The rationale for these books is found on page 145 of the city's "Children of the Rainbow" first-grade curriculum which states that teachers must "be aware of varied family structures, or lesbian parents," and "children must be taught to acknowledge the positive aspects of each type of household."8

In an article describing this, John Leo writes in U.S. News and World Report: "A line is being crossed here; in fact, a brand new ethic is descending upon the city's public school system. The traditional civic virtue of tolerance (if gays want to live together, it's their own business) has been replaced with a new ethic requiring approval and endorsement (if gays want to live together, we must 'acknowledge the positive aspects' of their way of life)."9

It is clear that the gay community wants much more than simply the right to privacy. But what about their civil rights? Are new laws really essential to protect those in the gay community? In answer to this Roger J. Magnuson, a nationally renowned trial lawyer, states: "Homosexuals have all of the same rights heterosexuals do. They are protected by the Bill of Rights, by federal and state statutes, and by common-law decisions. They have the same status before the law as do other citizens....The issue is not whether rights have been infringed. The issue is whether new rights, not previously recognized, should be created."10

There is no question about the homosexual's right to practice whatever deviations he or she wants to in the privacy of his or her own home. There are many questions, however, about their attempt to codify their behavior as acceptable and good, to force their lifestyle on the rest of society, and to influence those too young to understand the moral implications of this issue.

It is simply an emotional ploy to attempt to portray this issue as involving civil rights for an oppressed minority. No one would ever say it is a sin to be black or Hispanic, just as no one would say it is a sin to be female or to be physically handicapped. But God's Word does say it is a sin to engage in homosexual behavior, as we shall see below.


Very few churches today come right out and affirm homosexuality as official church teaching. There are a few, though, which do. Foremost among these is the Metropolitan Community Church, founded by Troy Perry in 1968, largely for practicing homosexuals.

The only mainline denomination that has actually called for affirming and fully accepting homosexuals is the United Church of Christ (UCC). As far back as 1975 they voted to end any "discrimination" based on sexual preference and left it to individual UCC congregations to decide for themselves what they believed on this matter. In 1983 the UCC General Synod passed a resolution stating that "a person's sexual orientation is not a moral issue."11 Finally, in 1991 the UCC General Synod approved the call for its congregations to "boldly affirm, celebrate, and embrace the gifts for ministry of lesbians, gays, and bisexual persons."12

Many other denominations are close to this view. Some, such as the Episcopal Church, have openly practicing homosexual clergy, with the full knowledge of their church's governing bodies. Others, such as the United Methodist Church (UMC), have officially rejected homosexual practice as incompatible with the Christian faith. However, at least 44 UMC congregations "have formally opened their doors to homosexuals" and called on their bishops to bless "same-sex union ceremonies."13 Similarly, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America's 1991 study guide on sexuality affirms that "no absolutistic judgments can be drawn" concerning homosexuality.14 However, the guide then goes on to promote "committed" homosexual relationships.15 A new gay magazine which describes itself as a "journal for gay and lesbian Christians" has a 10-page listing of "Christian" churches and organizations that "welcome gays and lesbians into full membership and participation."16

Very few Christian denominations today have remained faithful to the Bible's clear affirmation that homosexuality is a sin. Among these would be the Roman Catholic Church, the Southern Baptist Convention, the Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod, and the Greek Orthodox Church.


The Authority of Scripture

It is extremely revealing to note that almost every pro-gay group within the church shares one thing in common: they reject the Bible as being fully the Word of God. Of the above mentioned denominations which have accepted homosexuality or are sympathetic to it, none of them believe that we have God's inerrant Word in the Old and New Testaments. Likewise, the many pro-homosexual books that have come out almost all rejector even ridiculethe church's historic stance on the inspiration and authority of Scripture.

Three different lines of attack on Scripture are found in the various pro-homosexual literature. The first is simply to ignore the biblical writers on the grounds that they were men who oftentimes made mistakes, and thus to reject what Scripture says as being morally authoritative. Thus John Barton states that "the Bible is not a code at all; it is a big baggy compendium of a book, full of variety and inconsistency, sometimes mistaken on matters of fact and theology alike."17 And elsewhere, in John Boswell's widely cited work, we find: "In considering the supposed influence of certain biblical must first relinquish the concept of a single book containing a uniform corpus of writings accepted as morally authoritative."18

A second attack relates to the firstthat is, the biblical writers were ignorant about homosexuality. They did not know all that we do today, it is argued, and so we must judge and interpret the Bible with our modern understanding of biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. "With the quantum leaps that have been achieved in biology, psychology, and sociology, minds in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries must subject traditional religious arguments about nature to more thorough and critical analyses."19

It is not within the purview of this article to give a detailed defense of the inspiration and reliability of the Bible.20 However, the simple response to these attacks is that both Judaism and Christianity have always held to the full authority of Scripture, as did Jesus Himself. In speaking of the Old Testament, for example, our Lord succinctly declared: "Scripture cannot be broken" (John 10:35). Parts of Scripture cannot be accepted while other parts are rejected. And in speaking of the guidance His apostles would receive, including guidance on their future writings (i.e., the New Testament), Jesus told them: "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you" (John 14:26; cf. 2 Tim. 3:16).

It is ludicrous to believe that the Creator of the universe, in guiding the biblical authors, was ignorant concerning the things we now know about homosexuality through modern biology, psychology, sociology, and so forth. To deny scriptural statements about homosexuality on these grounds is to completely deny God's superintendence in the authorship of Scripture.

A third type of attack is to state that it really does not matter what heterosexuals think the Bible says about homosexuality, because homosexuals must interpret Scripture in view of their own experiences. Hence, in the book Building Bridges we find the statement that "the scriptures contain some insights that can be made known to the Christian community only through the testimony of lesbian and gay people." Thus homosexuals must "interpret the scriptures in the light of their own experiences."21

The problem with this is that a person could justify any type of behavior by saying that Scriptures pertaining to a particular behavior can only be understood by those who engage in such behavior (e.g., incest, adultery, fornication, and even bestiality). Those who believe this should remember the words of our Lord: "Therefore take heed that the light which is in you is not darkness" (Luke 11:35).

Human Sexuality

Genesis 1-2

For those who believe that statements of the Bible are normative for our daily lives, the most important question to consider regarding homosexuality is: What was God's purpose in creating human sexuality? The answer to this question is more important than any other area of discussion.

From the very beginning of His revelation to humankind, God has revealed His order of creation, especially as it relates to sexuality. In Genesis 1 we are told that one purpose in creating the two sexes was procreative — through the sexual union of male and female we could reproduce the race: "Male and female He created them. Then God blessed them, and God said to them, Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it" (Gen. 1:27b-28).

More detail is provided in Genesis 2, however, where we are told that in addition to procreation, there is a unitive function of sexuality that has to do with fulfilling our need for companionship: "And the Lord God said, 'It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him'" (Gen. 2:18). Then, after God created Eve and presented her to Adam, Adam rejoiced in his God-given companion. The chapter concludes: "Therefore a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and they shall become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24-25).

In this second chapter several items emerge. First, man has need for companionship: "It is not good that man should be alone" (Gen. 2:18); second, God makes provision to meet this need: the creation of woman (2:19-23). Concerning this, Samuel Dresner, Visiting Professor at Jewish Theological Seminary, states: "Woman is formed and becomes his partner. In her, man finds completion."22 And third, God ordains the institution of marriage. We are told that the man would (1) "leave his father and mother," (2) "cleave to his wife," and (3) "they shall become one flesh." Thus we find that heterosexuality is proclaimed to be God's natural order of creation.

In the New Testament, whenever the subject of sexuality comes up, the heterosexual norm of marriage is always upheld. For example, Jesus, in answer to a question, quoted Genesis 1 and 2: "Have you not read, that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate" (Matt. 19:4-6).

In addition, the apostle Paul reaffirms the norm of heterosexuality in several of his letters, also quoting the Genesis passages (e.g., Eph. 5:25-33; cf. 1 Cor. 7:2-3, 10-16; 1 Tim. 3:2, 12). And while some protest that we cannot take Genesis 1 and 2 as modern scientific treatises,23 these chapters nonetheless teach us spiritual truths concerning God's intended order for His creation.

It is only in the heterosexual union of marriage that we find the fulfillment of God's intended order, both procreative and unitive. However, pro-homosexual writers argue that while homosexual activity in and of itself cannot be procreative it can still fulfill the unitive role of Genesis 2. In response to this Harvey writes:

Consider the three common forms of sexual activity between homosexual persons. Mutual masturbation in no way constitutes a physical union.... Among female homosexuals some form of genital massage is used to bring the partner to orgasm, but this is not a physical union. In anal or oral intercourse between males the intromission of the penis in an opening of the body not meant to be used for the genital expression of sexuality cannot be called a true physical union....By way of contrast, the heterosexual union aptly symbolizes the psychological and spiritual union that ought to exist between a man and a woman.24

One does not need a Ph.D. to realize that homosexuality is anatomically aberrant; that is, there is a created biological order intended in our sexuality. As an editorialist at Harvard's Peninsula journal writes: "How can (homosexual) people be happy when they're persistently deceiving themselves, believing that it is just as natural for sperm to swim into feces as it is to swim into eggs?"25

"The true religious goal of human sexuality can be seen, not as satisfaction, but as completeness."26 This fulfillment is unattainable in homosexuality.

Now that we have considered God's positive purpose in creating human sexuality, we are ready to look at biblical texts which explicitly address homosexuality. Space precludes a detailed response to pro-homosexual interpretations of these passages. The interested reader can check the resources listed in the endnotes for further reading.

Leviticus 18 and 20

You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. (Lev. 18:22)

If a man lies with a male as he lies with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall surely be put to death. (Lev. 20:13)

Although these prohibitions explicitly condemn homosexuality as an abomination before God, we are told that they are not relevant today. Why? First, the pro-homosexual interpretation is that since these condemnations are contained in the "Holiness Code" of Israel, they were only applicable to ancient Israelites, to keep them separate from the pagan practices of their neighboring tribes.27

Second, parts of this code are not kept today. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott assert that "consistency and fairness would seem to dictate that if the Israelite Holiness Code is to be invoked against twentieth-century homosexuals, it should likewise be invoked against such common practices as eating rare steak, wearing mixed fabrics, and having marital intercourse during the menstrual period."28

Much effort need not be expended answering these objections. First, God did not condemn certain behavior for the Israelites only because Israel was to be kept separate from Canaanite practice. Otherwise, if the Canaanites did not practice child sacrifice and bestiality, would these then have been all right for the Israelites? Of course not! Having sexual relations with an animal and killing one's child are inherently wrong and evil, even when they are not related to pagan worship; they are abominations before God. And yet, these specific prohibitions also are listed in this passage, both immediately before and after the condemnation of homosexuality (Lev. 18:21-23).

Other prohibitions listed in Leviticus include incest and adultery (Lev. 18:6ff; 20:10). Were these too only condemned because of the Canaanites? To argue in this fashion is dishonest and denies that there are eternal moral absolutes.

What of the fact that other parts of the Holiness Code in Leviticus are not kept today? Again, the answer is simple. The Holiness Code contained different types of commands. Some were related to dietary regulations or to ceremonial cleanliness, and these have been done away with in the New Testament (Col. 2:16-17; Rom. 14:1-3). Others, though, were moral codes, and as such are timeless. Thus incest, child sacrifice, homosexuality, bestiality, adultery, and the like, are still abominations before God.

Romans 1:18-27

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Rom. 1:26-27)

If there were no other passage than this which condemns homosexuality, those engaged in this lifestyle would still be, in Paul's own words, "without excuse" (Rom. 1:20). Paul's intent in Romans 1 - 3 is to show that all have sinned, Jew and Gentile alike, and turned from God. It is not an accident that the apostle begins his argument with a reference to the Creator and His creation (1:16-20). His Jewish/Christian audience would immediately have connected this with Genesis 1 - 2, which, as we have seen, tells us not only about God's created order, but also about the complementary design of male and female within that order.

In his catalogue of sins (Rom. 1:18-32) Paul lists homosexuality and lesbianism first after idolatry

not because they are the most serious sins, but because they are warning signs that a violation of reason and nature has occurred. Men have inverted God's order by worshipping the creature rather than the Creator, and as a signal of this error, like the blinking red light on the dashboard of a car which is functioning improperly, God has given them up to "dishonorable desires" in the inversion of their sexual roles.29

Two main arguments are raised against the historic understanding of this passage. The first is that Paul was not referring to true homosexuality here because he stated that they exchanged "the natural function for that which is unnatural." It is argued that for those with a true homosexual orientation, that is their "natural" sexual expression. Hence he could only mean heterosexuals who were leaving their heterosexual relations for what was against their natures.30

This argument involves an amazing anachronism. That is, those saying this are attempting to place a very recent twentieth century understanding of homosexuality back into the first century mindset of Paul. People in the first century did not think in terms of "sexual orientation." It is inconceivable for Paul to have even attempted to make a psychological differentiation such as this. Concerning this, Richard Hays writes: "The idea that some individuals have an inherent disposition towards same-sex erotic attraction and are therefore constitutionally 'gay' is a modern idea of which there is no trace either in the NT or in any other Jewish or Christian writings in the ancient world."31

The second attempt to refute Paul's clear condemnation of homosexuality argues that his words "unnatural" or "against nature" do not refer to a certain created order, but rather use "nature" in the sense of "current convention" or "current custom."32 While "nature" is sometimes used in this fashion (e.g., 1 Cor. 11:14), the context of Paul's argument in Romans 1 clearly is that of creation and the natural order established by the Creator Himself (Rom. 1:20, 25). Thus Paul is asserting that homosexuality is a gross violation of God's natural design for His creation. In addition, it should be noted that the phrase "against nature" was used in connection with homosexual intercourse by both Philo and Josephus, contemporaries of Paul.33

1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10

Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders... (1 Cor. 6:9, NIV)

In both 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10 the apostle Paul states that those guilty of sexual immorality will not inherit the kingdom of God. At the time Paul wrote his letters there was no word in classical, biblical, or patristic Greek which corresponded with our English term "homosexual." Instead, homosexual behavior was described (e.g., Rom. 1:26-27). The words Paul uses here — malakoi ("male prostitute") and arsenokoitai ("homosexual offenders") — have been translated in different ways. Because of this those condoning homosexuality have tried to lessen the impact of these verses, saying that all Paul was condemning was either homosexual prostitution or pederasty (i.e., men having sexual relations with boys).34

Virtually every Greek lexicon, however, including all of the standard English ones, has understood these words (especially arsenokoitai) to be referring to homosexuality.35 Arndt and Gingrich's lexicon says malakoi refers to persons who are "soft, effeminate, especially of catamites, men and boys who allow themselves to be misused homosexually."36 Likewise, arsenokoites means "a male homosexual, pederast, sodomite."37

We also find these terms in classical Greek literature (e.g., Lucian and Aristotle) "sometimes applied to obviously gay persons."38 As well, if Paul were only condemning certain types of homosexuality he would certainly have specified this. Instead, he used a term directly based on the Greek Septuagint translation of the prohibitions against homosexuality in Leviticus:

meta arsenos ou koimethese koiten
gynaikos (Lev. 18:22)
koimethe meta arsenos koiten
gynaikos (Lev. 20:13)39

Paul, a rabbi thoroughly trained in the Torah, was certainly mindful of these Levitical condemnations and the Septuagint translation of them when he chose his wording in 1 Corinthians and 1 Timothy.

Law and Gospel

Is homosexuality natural and healthy, as the gay rights movement wants us to believe? The answer from Scripture is no, and as Christians we must not be involved in homosexuality nor be among those who, as Paul warns, "approve of those" who are engaged in it (Rom. 1:32). The Roman Catholic church is correct in stating that homosexuality is "an intrinsic moral evil."40

At the same time, though, we must reach out to all people with the love of Jesus Christ and His gospel, which alone has the power to change lives. And we must speak out against hatred and violence directed toward any group, remembering that we are all sinners, worthy only of God's judgment. We all have sin in our lives, and we are all tempted in different ways (whether it be toward homosexuality, adultery, incest, greed, violence, pridefulness, or whatever else).

Paul used the Law to show us, his readers, our sin and the fearful judgment awaiting us. But then, to those who truly desired to follow after God, he announced the good news of the Gospel: "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life, through Jesus Christ our Lord" (Rom. 6:23).

For all who accept this gift, including homosexuals, there is reconciliation to God, regeneration as His children, and "grace to help in time of need" (Heb. 4:16).

Joseph P. Gudel is a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod pastor and a long-time JOURNAL contributor.


1 Jeff Levi, in William Dannemeyer, Shadow in the Land (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989), 86.
2 "Gays on the March," Time, 8 Sept. 1975, 43.
3 Ibid.
4 In a 1991 Gallup Poll 61% of Americans believed that "tolerance of the gay lifestyle has been bad for society." Nightline, ABC News, 8 September 1992.
5 Gregory Bray, "Where Are Dems on Family Values?" The Augusta Chronicle (Georgia), printed in the Oshkosh Northwestern, 22 Aug. 1992, 6.
6 John F. Harvey, The Homosexual Person (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1987), 114-15.
7 Nightline.
8 John Leo, "Heather Has a Message," U.S. News & World Report, 17 Aug. 1992, 16.
9 Ibid.
10 Roger J. Magnuson, Are Gay Rights Right? updated edition (Portland: Multnomah Press, 1990), 78.
11 "UCC Admits Gay Church," The Christian Century, 30 May-6 June 1990, 563.
12 "Bar Homosexual Clergy, Conservative Disciples Say," Religious News Service, in The Christian News, 30 Sept. 1991, 11.
13 "UMC and Gay Unions," The Christian Century, 27 June-4 July 1990, 626.
14 Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, Human Sexuality and the Christian Faith (Minneapolis: ELCA, 1991), 44.
15 Ibid., 41-46.
16 Christus Omnibus, premier issue, front cover and 18.
17 John Barton, "The Place of the Bible in Moral Debate," Theology 88 (May 1985), 206.
18 John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1980), 92.
19 Jeannine Gramick, "What Is Natural?" in Building Bridges, ed. Robert Nugent and Jeannine Gramick (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 1992), 46. Cf. Letha Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1978), 71.
20 See Norman L. Geisler and William E. Nix, A General Introduction to the Bible (Chicago: Moody Press, 1968).
21 Jeanine Gramick, "Lesbian/Gay Theology and Spirituality," Building Bridges, 190-91.
22 Samuel H. Dresner, "Homosexuality and the Order of Creation," Judaism 40: 3 (Summer 1991), 309; cf. Richard F. Lovelace, Homosexuality and the Church (Old Tappan, NJ: Fleming H. Revell, 1978), 102 ff.
23 Ralph Blair, Homosexualities (New York: Ralph Blair, 1991), 13.
24 Harvey, 101.
25 R. Wasinger, "If You're Gonna Call Me Names..., " Peninsula 3:2 (October/November 1991), 25.
26 R. T. Barnhouse, Homosexuality: A Symbolic Confusion (New York: Seabury Press, 1977), in Natalie Shainess, "HomosexualityToday," Judaism 32: 4 (Fall 1983), 414.
27 Boswell. 100-106.
28 Scanzoni and Mollenkott, 60-61.
29 Lovelace, 92.
30 Boswell, 109ff.
31 Richard B. Hays, "Relations Natural and Unnatural: A Response to John Boswell's Exegesis of Romans l," The Journal of Religious Ethics 14:1 (Spring 1986), 200; cf. David F. Wright, "Homosexuality: The Relevance of the Bible," Evangelical Quarterly 61:4 (1989), 291-300.
32 Boswell, 110ff.
33 Philo, Spec. Leg. 3.39; Josephus, Against Apion, 2.273.
34 Boswell, 106-7.
35 Ibid., 341-42.
36 Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. William F. Arndt, trans. F. Wilbur Gingrich (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1957), 489.
37 Ibid., 109.
38 P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament," Bibliotheca Sacra 140: 560 (Oct.-Dec. 1983), 351.
39 Wright, 297ff.
40 Joseph Ratzinger, On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons (Boston: Daughters of St. Paul, 1986), 2.
Ephraim God’s Plan for the Gay Agenda
by: John MacArthur


If you’ve been watching the headlines over the past six months, you may have noticed the incredible surge of interest in affirming homosexuality. Whether it’s at the heart of a religious scandal, political corruption, radical legislation, or the redefinition of marriage, homosexual interests have come to characterize America. That’s an indication of the success of the gay agenda. But sadly, when people refuse to acknowledge the sinfulness of homosexuality—calling evil good and good evil (Isaiah 5:20)—they do so at the expense of many souls, perhaps even their own.

How should you respond to the success of the gay agenda? Should you accept the recent trend toward tolerance? Or should you side with those who exclude homosexuals and decry the sin? The Bible calls for a balance between what some people think are two opposing reactions—condemnation and compassion. Really, the two together are essential elements of biblical love, and that’s something the homosexual desperately needs.

Homosexual advocates have been remarkably effective in selling their warped interpretations of passages in Scripture that address homosexuality. When you ask a homosexual what the Bible says about homosexuality—and many of them know—they have digested an interpretation that is not only warped, but also completely irrational. Pro-homosexual arguments from the Bible are nothing but smokescreens—as you come close, you see right through them.

God’s condemnation of homosexuality is abundantly clear—He opposes it in every age.

In the patriarchs (Genesis 19:1-28)

In the Law of Moses (Leviticus 18:22; 20:13)

In the Prophets (Ezekiel 16:46-50)

In the New Testament (Romans 1:18-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10; Jude 7-8)
Why does God condemn homosexuality? Because it overturns God’s fundamental design for human relationships—a design that pictures the complementary relationship between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:18-25; Matthew 19:4-6; Ephesians 5:22-33).

Why, then, have homosexual interpretations of Scripture been so successful at persuading so many? Simple: people want to be convinced. Since the Bible is so clear about the issue, sinners have had to defy reason and embrace error to quiet their accusing consciences (Romans 2:14-16). As Jesus said, “Men loved the darkness rather than the Light, [because] their deeds were evil” (John 3:19-20).

As a Christian, you must not compromise what the Bible says about homosexuality—ever. No matter how much you desire to be compassionate to the homosexual, your first sympathies belong to the Lord and to the exaltation of His righteousness. Homosexuals stand in defiant rebellion against the will of their Creator who from the beginningmade them male and female” (Matthew 19:4).

Don’t allow yourself to be intimidated by homosexual advocates and their futile reasoning—their arguments are without substance. Homosexuals, and those who advocate that sin, are fundamentally committed to overturning the lordship of Christ in this world. But their rebellion is useless, for the Holy Spirit says, “Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10; cf. Galatians 5:19-21).

So, what is God’s response to the homosexual agenda? Certain and final judgment. To claim anything else is to compromise the truth of God and deceive those who are perishing.

As you interact with homosexuals and their sympathizers, you must affirm the Bible’s condemnation. You are not trying to bring damnation on the head of homosexuals, you are trying to bring conviction so that they can turn from that sin and embrace the only hope of salvation for all of us sinners—and that’s through faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Homosexuals need salvation. They don’t need healing—homosexuality is not a disease. They don’t need therapy—homosexuality is not a psychological condition. Homosexuals need forgiveness, because homosexuality is a sin.

I don’t know how it happened, but a few decades ago someone branded homosexuals with the worst misnomer—“gay.” Gay used to mean happy, but I can assure you, homosexuals are not happy people. They habitually seek happiness by following after destructive pleasures. There is a reason Romans 1:26 calls homosexual desire a “degrading passion.” It is a lust that destroys the physical body, ruins relationships, and brings perpetual suffering to the soul—and its ultimate end is death (Romans 7:5). Homosexuals are experiencing the judgment of God (Romans 1:24, 26, 28), and thus they are very, very sad.

First Corinthians 6 is very clear about the eternal consequence for those who practice homosexuality—but there’s good news. No matter what the sin is, whether homosexuality or anything else, God has provided forgiveness, salvation, and the hope of eternal life to those who repent and embrace the gospel. Right after identifying homosexuals as those whowill not inherit the kingdom of God,” Paul said, “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God” (1 Corinthians 6:11).

God’s plan for many homosexuals is salvation. There were former homosexuals in the Corinthian church back in Paul’s day, just as there are many former homosexuals today in my church and in faithful churches around the country. Do they still struggle with homosexual temptation? Sure they do. What Christian doesn’t struggle with the sins of their former life? Even the great apostle Paul acknowledges that fight (Romans 7:14-25). But former homosexuals sit in biblical churches throughout the country praising their Savior, along with former fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, thieves, coveters, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers. Remember, such were some of you too.

What should be your response to the homosexual agenda? Make it a biblical response—confront it with the truth of Scripture that condemns homosexuality and promises eternal damnation for all who practice it. What should be your response to the homosexual? Make it a gospel response—confront him with the truth of Scripture that condemns him as a sinner, and point him to the hope of salvation through repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. Stay faithful to the Lord as you respond to homosexuality by honoring His Word, and leave the results to Him.

© Copyright 2004 by Grace to You. All rights reserved.

Grace to You (Monday, August 23, 2004)


Brought to you by

More Articles can be found at:
erin and harry It is wrong to bash gays. But it is wrong to bash Christians too.

Also, saying people are "discriminating" or "bigots" or "phobic" about a thing they feel is wrong, is an error and missing the point.

This is not about "my" sexuality, this is about the facts of right and wrong.

It is not about me being identified by my sexual actions, but by those actions defining or not defining me.

Anyone who calls gay bashing a thing to be equal with not agreeing with such "life"styles is really mixing up two things and making a very great error.

My not agreeing with an action or way of living does not make me anymore "bigoted" " or "hateful" or any more "phobic" than your disagreeing with a thing makes you that thing, or "hateful" "bigoted" and "phobic" about it.

It just means you don't agree. And there are real and important reasons why many don't agree with what is happening in the world today when it comes to these topics.

It's cool to have your own opinions and insights, but the moment you label me and my heart because of my opinions, by imagining you know my inner world, because I disagree with you, is the moment your argument fails on one more point.

Also, there is much more to life than "feelings"..
akuma aoi if you base your approval or disapproval on a group of people based on the notion that it is a purely chosen or voluntary behavior when more and more studies seem to suggest otherwise, then, well, i can't sympathize.

(and trust me, some of the kids grew up with who i knew as far back as kindergarten didn't surprise me at all when they "came out" - there were literal physical and visual cues that marked them pretty early on as being more feminine than the rest of the boys)

you seem unaware that some people used to (and some dumbasses still do) cite a passage in Genesis as a justification for racial discrimination, claiming that dark skin was god's curse on the descendents of Noah's son Ham.

what kills me is that, if you listen to so much of the rhetoric in a lot of debate over the issue is that somehow, "Christians" - especially the more dogmatic, conservative type seem to regard any infringement on their attempts to persecute others as a form of persecution unto itself.

Christianity has held a position of influence if not outright hegemony in Western culture since the Conversion of Constantine back in the 4th Century, so this "poor us" mentality seems more than just a teensy bit ironic.
oldephebe God. and I'm using that not as an invocation of his diety or anything but just as a baleful kind of you know really pneumatic discharge...I'm frustrated. I have to admit I just scanned the blathes after mine. The wrong people were offended. 'Kay?!!!

I mean again I qualify my remarks by acknowledging that they are being made w/o reading through the reams of moral indignation and really impressive and rigorous pasting of what appears to be an epistemological framework for bashing gays over the head with the "straight stick"

How many of them, the lost the "differently sexually oriented" the sexually dysphasic have ever heard about Christ's unqualified Love. Who can hear Christ's gentle tender voice with all the condemnation and civic and statutorial sallying forth to scour America of the insidiousness of post-modern malaise and holy jerry falwell (lapsed, adulterous, and multi, multi mastabatory trysts with a harlot and now spavined and arthritic but reformed and still makin' a nice dollar Jerry Falwell circa 1985...I remember sitting in the tv lounge at west va tech listening with some incredultiy at his bombast and his possibly chemically enhanced ecclesiastical magic. God!! All the exagerated choreography, all the feigned moral and spiritual ardor all the stock and staple homiletic and theatrical tricks of the trade. I know of what i speak. I was for a time a young teen preacher and i did a little in my early 20's, I been behind the curtain...I seen the wiz up close and the picture ain't pretty. I smelt the burbon on the breath of Elder?Bishop/Doctor so and so after Communion Sunday...Breaking the body of Christ with a nice burbon chaser...I sat in thier ornate offices being a given a pass to see what goes on behind the show. They figured this kids gonna be me in 15 25 35 years so might as well relax and let it all hang out. My emotions?

Being a musician and having a singing voice that sounded like it never changed beyond Jr.High..1st tenor I can hit high b pretty cleanly, but its not very manly though, i can sing in the operetic style okay but i'm much cleaner in my natural voice singing pop, jazz, alternative fugues and the voice is still way too emotional, waaay too gushing...i've sung in musicals and all that and every now and then, well i'm currently being harrassed by some neighboors and thier family about my suspect sexual preferance...On nay given day and in any of various moods i can sound like the late luthor vandross to babyface, to that guy of Creed to Toni Braxton to sammy davis a really young frank sinatra w/o the burbon and scotch rasp and w/o his brilliant phrasing so i guess i don't sound like frank...maybe like Mel Torme but you know..Placido Domingo, and then there's this spanish tenor guy what's his name..not i've got a real sore spot...I'm probably one of the few hetero-sexual men whose been harrassed since the age of 13 or so for being hmmm...a little to...wh y don't you just put on the party wig and the drag and don't make my drag you out of the closet kinda thing too..yoou fucking faggot..sooo...just the tambre of my voice...but being thin and artistic I got persecuted as a fag or homo, queer because of some sartorial flair (hey i was a singer and a jazz muscician..women seem to dig it they say You have a beautiful voice and gush and dudes and even some women you know don't really hold back as far as what they think my or someone's sexual preferance is simply because the dude didn't ruin his voice by smoking or drinking scotch all night...other 1st tenors i've known who were hetero and had very attractive steady girl friends but were well artistic..kind of slender with very thin wrists and slender fingers...All i gotta say is the ladies don't mind us cooing in thier ears...but really that was tedious and waaaaaay to garrulous for a guy with my big brass belt buckle and ford truck credentials so....

What am I saying?

How in God's name can someone hear that God loves you. He may not approve of your sexual preferance, he may not approve of Jim there having pre-marital and extra-marital hetero-sexual sex but He loves Jim and John (let's say John is a bound for hell with the rest of the sodomites alternative "Lifestyler" I don't think god hates hetero-sexual or homo-sexual sin any more or less than the other? What? I mean I think God is willing and ready to forgive the fornicator and adulturer and rapist equally. Everytime they fall Christ will be there to pick them back up. And yes God's love is not a liscense to engage in sinful and self-destructive behavior. There are consequences..adverse consequences associated with unacceptable , thoughtless impulsive sexual acts that destroy lives. Sometimes several sets of lives. I guess eventually I'll go read those really well written and much more linear and coherent and theologically sound and or homiletically sound treatises. I'm certainly not capable of writing a secular or theologicall acedemic or even a well structured and informed discourse such as those. I admit it. I'm facile. I'm waaaaay too undisciplined. I like the music my own mouth makes. but I'm sincere and geez there are excesses on both sides of the aisle. SURE!! I just think that If Christ, that ragged carpenter with the strong rough hewn hands that changed the world with his gentleness and humility i think if He were to come back or wear a disguise and rech out to the hetero-sexual and homosexaul communities who are are flawed and exhausted and in need of redemption and restoration i think He'd go about it a little differently. I've offended some people. I'm sorry. God just lift me a little Higher so I can see you a little clearer, so I can hear something besides all of the hate and intolernace that is so much a part of all of our lives. Show us a better way to reach out to peopel, to those who really are searching..who are really are aching for something REAL to give thier lives and hearts and souls to.


They are ALL unacceptable and sinful acts but the commission of the sin does not render the flawed man or woman unacceptable. 'Cause Christ took care of all that. God would want those who are involved in homo and hetero sexual impropriety or sin to that they are redeemed by christ's sacrifice. If they reall yaccept christ as thier redeemer and friend that thorn in the flesh may not ever go away but heck Calvary is a mighty big crutch to lean on when your feelin' weak.

I did say I was sorry. But I believe I was dead on, bleeding bullseye right! There are sincere evangelical movements out there who reach out to the homo-sexual and hetero-sexual communities of unbelievers with sensitivity and respect. But then c'mon some of you guys KNOW there are sharks out there exploiting those big push button causes to turn the world spotlight on them. Thsoe movements are advesarial. They DON"T place Christ at the forefront of thier message or ministry. I wonder sometimes with all these boycotts and and belligerant posturing and advesarial movements within the christian faith...will Christ even recognize the Church that he's coming back or? Will we recognize Him? He wore sandals, he walked every where, He would have rather rode a donkey then to be sat upon a thoroughbred and clothed in the regalia of a Kind or Celebrity. When I read Christs words I see this really patient, gentle loving persona...and by God the world is looking for Him amongst the tele-evangelists, amongst the store-front churches, amongst the nice lutheran, presbyterian, unitarian, churches of suburbia....We're, they looking for Gods heart, and we can't find it because His gentle voice is being drowned out by all the agendas, all the blaring egos...even possibly by some pathos ridden blatherer who just a tad too emotional at times...dramatic. Yeah You know you're a little dramatic. It's been said to me and about me many times. But..I mean the World is wringing its hands, I mean if we tried to look for Christs Heart amidst the din and dazzle we'd need a magnifying glass the size of a steel drum, or a big base drum to see it.

He LOVES us. He loves us. With all our flaws and various personalities and predilictions and sores and perfect skin and tsunami tossed hair and geezzz HE loves us and He came a long way to spend some times for us. And the only place that God wants to be is right there inside the human heart. That's where He longs to be. Why can't we tell the world that without banging it over the head all the time.

Why can't I tell my kid how much I adore him, how much i love him how much i treasure our time together, why can't i tell him i'm concerned about him w/o nitpicking and nagging.

Geez. I didn't mean to rile so many folks up. He loves the straight the gay the bi-sexual the gender-dysphasic the un-sexual, the rapist, the wife beater the repeat and I mean serial adulterer, He LOVES LOVES LOVES us SO freakin' mcuh and I don't think the world will ever find out about it. Not really. Not in the way that He really wants us to know. God wants to connect with us, He wants, He finds His rest, His REST in the human heart. I mean that is so amazing and He came from such a long way just to BE WITH US!!!!

He is the lover of our souls!! Can't we find some way of telling people that without scaring them off? Without hurting thier feelings?

Maybe I am just totally having a bi-polar moment. Maybe I am just so tired of Hate. Of the taste of antipathy on everyones breath, seeing how it scars all of our faces.

And even those who hate, those who hurt, even they are scared and hurt and are so tenacious and afraid to let go of thier hate because if they do they think they will vanish, you know become smoke. hate is malic and persecution is all they know. Some of them CAN"T..GOD they are just too DAMNED afraid to stop, to let go. They think thier minds , thier lives will unwind.

Even those who hate me. And don't care that I'm NOT gay and what does it matter because hate is hate nad even THEy deserve my prayer, they deserve to touch something holy, something REAL, something that once it wraps its arms around them won't let go. Not ever.

God's perfect love. In the end mine or yours or thiers its the only thing that will be left. Unconditional LOve man. Just think about putting down all those placards and agendas and just give folks ('cause thier dying to hear it, even if they can't admit it) the simple message of Christ's Love. We don't have to do this way ya'll.
oldephebe Uh..

I forgot Episcopalian.

Hey anne-girl!

You love my words?

Hell. I can't even spell most of them.

thanx though.

I don't think I can pull off the "you rock' thing but you SO do have such an authentic 'not ready for rehearsal
'cause it's SO g damned REAL it can shatter the grim silent surly masks most of us stretch over our pinched little faces so as not to be too blithely/brusquely swept aside or Beneath
by the undertow of a collective gunmetal gray moan,'! the collective sighing of so many ghosts in this vastness of superficiality..I mean even the Statues we built to its honor are crying...

Well you know what? I'll just come right out and say it. I want my idylic romance with the spired castle. You look into the eyes of the people who used to be your closest friends to find that the people you once knew aren't there..aren't THERE any more.

Jesus Christ holding a corn dog!

Sorry God.

OK anne, (do you mind the anne w/o the "-" and the "girl?") I'll let you get back to your "how to make someone's day manual by utilizing the simple, selfless efficasy of ebbulience"
J.C. visiting the grocers freezer aisle it's OK, 'phebe...

corn-dogs are good, so long as they're Kosher.
exuding horror at my emotional excess Oh riiight. I forgot.

egger omg.
this will be a project to look through.
but i will, dangit!
*shakes her little fist at the angry stars*
Em homophobia is GAY 050710
RIC Someone: Ahem, ah oldephebe, that was another excersise in needless dramaturgy.

Someone Else: Oh 'phebe, your words brought me to a full boil once again.

Curmudgeon: Well I'm not going to drop to one knee and weep just because you've thrown your frail song upon the bleak air. I'd like to see more iron in you.

oldephebe: Well, I mean this is the sound...

Still yet Another voice: Oh why don't you just go to your gaudy death already?
laurah how many times have you heard that phrase
"adam and eve, not adam and steve"

well who cares, just because they were the first doesnt mean it's the only way
andru235 really makes you love the world to be on the receiving end of this sort of thing - gay or otherwise


and it never seems any more palatable when it comes from other gay guys. it just seems like secretly they still hate themselves.

solipsistically, i have never found myself deliberately spreading around hate (for fun or otherwise) when i was feeling ok about myself.


i have now been out for about 1/2 my life, and gbshn bothers me no less now than it did then ... it just bothers me differently.

next world, please.

the end My mom is a lesbian, and they have been together since before i was born. My father is a sperm donor.
I just told my best friend yesterday. She's been my best friend since grade 7, i didn't tell her because i was afraid of her disliking that. I was relieved to hear her say that she thought it was cool.
And now to tell her i have a girl friend.
And that she is currently packing to go to the psych ward.
Goddammit i'm going to miss her..
the end oh and my half brother is homophobic. I thought i should mention that. Sorry for not thinking it thoroghly through, i guess i can get somewhat conceited. Anyway, he won't go anywhere with our moms. He'll go with one of them only.
Its probably because he has this huge ego because hes extremely popular at his school, or thinks hes is, or really wants to be. He wants there to be no suspition of this.
He jacked off in the middle of a phone conversation with his male friend.
Im pretty sure he's gay.
That and a lack of girlfriends..
and alot of girls like him too.
Hmm, what a shame.
what's it to you?
who go