Friday, February 24, 2006

Cowboys (Or: Learning To Be A Man, part 1)

"Institutionalised in sports, the military, acculturated sexuality, the history and mythology of heroism, violence is taught to boys until they become its advocates."
- Charles Dickens

I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy.

At church some months ago, during a discussion about gender, a middle-aged man gruffly said, “I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy.” I don’t want to read too much into what he meant by this statement, but I haven’t been able to get the sentiment out of my mind. It represents a thought that can and should be echoed by so many boys and men; by those who were supposed to be cowboys, but turned out not to be, or by those who became cowboys only to discover they no longer wanted to be, by those who have discovered the emptiness of the masculine baggage we’ve been handed. I wish someone told me I didn’t have to be a cowboy. I want to write those words in ash and tears on the altars of our churches, on the hearths of our homes, and on the gates of our schoolyards.

I grew up in the South, in the land of football and cheerleaders, of debutantes and good old boys, of macho men and dainty women. Women have a place (the dirty secret: so do men). I remember Texas in the 1980s, a time of blue eye shadow and platinum hair for my mother, a thick mustache and a police uniform for my father. I was dressed in cowboy boots from time immemorial (though I always managed to pull them off so I could run around barefoot in the warm Texas dirt).

Dad, you see, was (and is) a lover of John Wayne and all things War and Western. She Wore a Yellow Ribbon. They Died with their Boots On. Gunga Din. Ft. Apache. McClintock. Bridge on the River Kwai. He refused to watch Rock Hudson movies, though I could never understand why. (I finally understood when I learned that Rock Hudson had died of AIDS; or was the problem not so much the AIDS as the penetration that preceded infection?). Though he also enjoyed the occasional Cary Grant romantic comedy, or even one of Jimmy Stewart’s weepy performances, Dad typically stuck with guns and horses, tanks and valor, cowboys and Indians and women waiting for their soldiers to come home.

I started playing football when I was six, baseball when I was five (I would eventually play football until I was sixteen and baseball until 17. Not a short run.). I wasn’t bad at either sport, and I could have been considered an above average first baseman. My father, like many fathers, seemed noticeably more proud when I scored the winning run than he was when I received perfect scores on my report card. And I think he was proudest when I shot and killed my first deer at the age of 7. Violence and victory and tackles and touchdowns were ways to prove my worth as a boy, it seemed.

Being a boy in my family, and in most other families I encountered, meant certain things. Don’t cry. Play rough. Win. Fight dirty if necessary, but never run away. Don’t hug too much, especially not another man. Above all: don’t cry. Oh, yes, and: don’t cry. I learned these lessons over and over. Sometimes I was taught subtly: I was rewarded for good grades with a fishing pole or a new bat; I received more than one gun as a gift. Other times, the training was more, shall we say, overt.

I have focused on my father, but he was only one of my trainers. I remember a day my mother took me to the dentist. One of the perks of visiting Dr. Connor was that, after the cleaning, I could pick out any toothbrush I wanted (not a small deal to a young child). At the end of this particular visit, I picked out a pink toothbrush, which prompted the following discussion with my mother:

“Boys don’t use pink.”
“Why?”
“They just don’t. Pink is for girls. Do you want blue?”
“No, I don’t like blue.” (I did, in fact, like blue, but I couldn’t pick the same color as my little brother.)
“Take green then. Your father will be upset if you bring home a pink toothbrush.”

So, pink was out. And so (I would later learn) were flowers, dolls, all things that sparkle, long hair, boy bands, doing the dishes, and cooking. And let’s not forget crying.

Gender, it seemed, made a lot of difference. Though he loved us all, I had a different kind of value to my father than did my sister and younger brother, or so he told me. I couldn’t understand what difference it made that I was his firstborn son; I was, after all, the middle child – he had a daughter before me and another son (whose age was so close to my own that we were practically raised as twins during our younger years).

I was also learning that gender made a lot of difference in church. Only men preach. Only men make decisions. Only men pray (They told us that women pray too, they just do it silently. I couldn't be sure at first.). I, as a male, would one day be expected to protect, to teach, to pray, to preach, to lead. My sister, for her part, would learn to follow, to submit. We would both learn that the husband was the head of the wife. We each had our burden. I would learn to pray and be strong; she would learn to cook and to mother.

Typical of my Texas fundamentalist upbringing, the Bible played an important role as I learned “what it means to be a man.” The first chapters of Genesis taught me that Adam was formed first, and then Eve formed from him. Paul reminded me that this order of creation meant that the husband was the head of the wife, just as Christ was the head of the Church. Women were to be silent. You know the rest, especially if you were raised in a Church of Christ.

********

Much of what I have described above is often seen (perhaps rightly) through the lens of the ‘subjugation of women’ in the culture of the American South and in Churches of Christ. But that is not what I want to focus on. Though the treatment of our daughters is shameful, I want, instead, to focus on the way our boys are trained to be men. I was taught that I had more value than my sister, both at home and at Church (I after all, could pray in front of the congregation and at the dinner table; she could not). This elevated place in the church and the home, though, relied in large part on my ability to swing a stick in a baseball game, tackle a foe in a football game, injure someone in a fistfight, to hide my emotions, to be hard and unyielding. I had value only as long as I eliminated everything Soft about me. If I didn’t fit the mold (if I wasn’t a Man) then, since I wasn’t a woman, I had no place in either the home or the church. My place in the world and in the church depended on my decision to buy into the violent and kyriarchal training of my youth.

Maybe my focus is off; maybe I should focus on the way my sister was treated. But I will leave that to the feminists among us, and I will wish them luck. I want now only to make this point: someone should have told me, just once, that I didn’t have to be a cowboy. Someone should have told me that I didn’t have to be ashamed that I didn’t fit the mold. Someone should have told me that it was acceptable to just be, well, me. No one ever did, especially not at church.

We need to train our boys what it really means to be a man. We need to teach them that violence is bad, not good, and that domination is to be avoided, not lauded. We need to teach them that there is neither male nor female in Christ. We need to teach them to learn from the women in their lives. We need to tell them it is not shameful to cry, that it is not shameful to express love and affection for those around them, that intimacy (whether sexual or not) is a gift from Above. We are failing our sons by trying to make them something they don’t have to be. We do it everyday at home and at school. And, saddest of all, we do it every Sunday at Church.

54 Comments:

Blogger Jared Cramer said...

Good stuff.

Thanks.

11:02 AM, February 24, 2006  
Anonymous krister said...

GR-

This is an excellent post; you get at the real root of the matter regarding gender expectations and gender training. People used to wonder if maybe I was gay because I enjoyed hanging out with girls more than boys and because later in life I spent time with people who told me they were gay. There is something about queering the expectations of people that really gets under some people's skin.

I will never forget going to a Men's Retreat that was based solely on John Eldredge's Wild At Heart (I would have turned around and ran out of the building but I had been given a ride and was fifty miles outside of town). The next two days were spent talking about how we needed to fulfill this "heroic" role to rescue our women, etc. and were shown rather violent and sexually suggestive film clips to reinforce these teachings (all starring or directed by Mel Gibson strangely?).

I felt completely dumbfounded that everyone around me was nodding in agreement. We had somehow equated the gospel with fulfilling the gender expectations of our culture. Your post underlines this well. I'm currently reading a book from a couple thanotologists called Men Don't Cry...Women Do: Transcending Gender Stereotypes of Grief. It's an excellent read so far.

Thanks again for taking the time to speak truth to these issues. Your writing is truly a gift.

12:56 PM, February 24, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I happened across your blog today...being a gay teen being raised similarly to how you were, it's truly a gift from God to have come cross the GR today. I cannot fathom how many have achieved some kind of inspiration through reading your immaculate blog.

8:58 PM, February 24, 2006  
Blogger JTB said...

Thanks for getting my brain cranked up on this. I've been thinking about posting something on gender expectations & childhood as I ponder yet another of the myriad questions imminent parenthood swamps me with...I will be re-reading this post as I try to organize my own musings. (And I am really looking forward to part 2.)

10:03 PM, February 24, 2006  
Blogger jocelyn said...

GR,

It's my first time to comment on your blog, though I have read many of your posts in recent weeks. I appreciate this candid glimpse into your childhood and some of the experiences that have shaped who you are.

I am afraid that our culture has marred masculine identity into a strange mixture of strength and idiocy. Not only are men supposed to be tough, they are also seen as buffoons. Men are supposed to be complete imbeciles when it comes to romance, cooking, grocery shopping, raising the children. Our culture has emasculated men, teaching them that they are only men if they fit into a particular ideal that is actually less empowered than they'd like to believe. A man who is good at cooking or who has the ability to be intimate or the desire to fully parent his children, to me, is more powerful than any man whose identity is found in dominating other people.

I think your comment about your sister's value plays a huge role in this discussion. As a feminist, I cannot separate the value of women from the value of men. The picture is incomplete without the other. So while I understand your desire to focus on the development of your masculinity, that development has huge ramifications for women as well.

I guess I say all of this to applaud your self-disclosure and to encourage you to continue to explore your own gendered development and to share it with the rest of us. Because your experiences shape our experiences and your voice strengthens the voices of so many others to find the courage to speak out of the margins and into the center, proclaiming that we will not be silent any longer.

Blessings.

9:16 AM, February 25, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well you can't blame your parents for you becoming gay, that's something you're going to take responsibility for. I'm sure your parents did the best they could but there's nothing wrong with them wanting you to be a cowboy.

5:20 PM, February 25, 2006  
Blogger Gay Restorationist said...

Anonymous,

I suggest you read the essay again before you comment further. Nowhere in the post did I assert that I am gay because of my parents. Nowhere in the post did I even mention the fact that I am gay.

Jocelyn,

I appreciate your comment, and I hope you will keep reading and sharing your thoughts. I couldn't write the story through my sister's eyes (though I wish I could). Though many would consider me a feminist, I wasn't aiming for a feminist critique here. Instead, I think I'm aiming for more of a queer analysis of several aspects of my past, my family, and my church.

Certainly, the title of this post reveal something: If I am talking about learning to be a Man, then I am, at least partly, talking about learning not to be a woman. I think both sides have to be fleshed out: we not only have to talk about how my sister has been marginalized, but how my father (and my brother and I) have learned to marginalize her. Why do we do it? Who taught us the way? Will we teach our sons to do the same?

JTB,

I'm actually interested to read part 2 as well. I'm not totally sure I know where I'm going: this essay certainly ended differently than I had anticipated. I guess we all must stay tuned for the rest of the story.

6:25 PM, February 25, 2006  
Blogger Casey said...

As a former Southerner and a member of the Church of Christ, I greatly appreciate your thoughts. When I was in college, I was allowed to go to Campus Ministry Seminar as I was considered a leader among the women in the group. There in one of the sessions, we were split into men and women and told we were going to discuss our roles in campus ministry. We learned from the men in our group that their session was about overcoming sexual temptations and was barely about campus ministry. In my session I found myself and three other women in our group surrounded by the wives of campus ministers. We, instead of discussing the value of women in churches and ministry groups, were told of the sacrifices we would have to make if we were going to be good wives to good ministers. We would have to give up our privacy and let students into our homes. We would have to be understanding of the time it required of our husbands. And we would, most likely, have to home school our kids. I still don't understand why.

I have since left the South and become a member of church that allows me to participate freely without being a wife to anyone. My opinions are respected and my gifts are valued. I have become my church's unofficial poet laureate. And this has been such a tremendous blessing to me. Being allowed to participate fully in a church has given me a greater understanding of God and has increased my faith by leaps and bounds. I do believe that by limiting us in our participation, we are being limited in our faith.

12:04 AM, February 26, 2006  
Blogger Jamie said...

This was a great post, GR.

I grew up in the midwest, in southern Indiana. Most of my friends growing up were engaged in sports, hunting, and other assorted "masculine" activities. I was never very good at sports, though I tried baseball, football and soccer. Don't get me wrong--I enjoyed my share of pretend violence, but I never wanted to find myself in a fight, and part of my distaste with sports was the competetive tit-for-tat. I enjoyed reading, drawing and music, and pursued those activities throughout junior high and high school. I was lucky to have parents that didn't force me into a particular gender role. Mom taught me to cook and clean--sometimes it was even expected of me. My parents thought that if I was to grow up to be a good man/husband/father, I should know how to serve my wife/kids/friends.

Dad was more interested in how I was doing in school than if I could play ball. Even though he owned guns and had been known to hunt with his friends when he was younger, he only took me rabbit-hunting a couple times.

Like I said, many of my friends were involved in male-dominated activities, and I couldn't relate very well to their experiences. I simply had no interest in hunting/killing animals (shooting a bird with a bb gun when i was 10 was a bit traumatic). I wasn't good at sports and didn't enjoy watching them. So, though I was supported by my parents in the activities I chose to engage in, I did feel some disconnect with my peers, as though I missed out on something. But that feeling was really only the feeling that just about everyone gets when you realize that you don't share much in common with people you interact with often.

Thanks for great insight and thoughtful reflection on growing up a guy.

3:57 AM, February 27, 2006  
Anonymous angie said...

You go, GR! I am so with you on this! Don't you think this type of mindset is more heavily perpetuated in the South? I love the South... I grew up in a small, rural Church of Christ setting. Actually, I left Mississippi as fast as I could after HS, but 15 years later and now I'm back. I am enjoying re-connecting, but in some ways it's like stepping back in time. I'm astonished at the general lack of openness to diversity and the things that are considered "issues" with folks here.

Anyway, I'm so glad a friend recommended your blog. I was wondering... do you have any other friends who are gay who choose to remain in Churches of Christ? I would think it's a hard road & lonely at times. I know you probably find support from lots of friends, but wow... you are a pioneer of sorts to me!

I guess I feel kinda drawn to you b/c similarly I don't feel that TOTAL connection with my local CoC. I don't feel like I am fully free to be myself with them - for lots of reasons as well as b/c I have a deep love for people who have lived with and struggled to make peace with their same sex attractions. But I do love my heritage in the CoC and still carry that strongly within me... but you'll find me at a Baptist church on Sunday mornings. I still fight the same things there, but this group of believers will at least think and reason and admit when they've missed the mark... I just couldn't get past that in my CoC. So I bailed. And you stayed. I really admire you and thank you for sharing your thoughts on this blog!

10:46 AM, February 27, 2006  
Blogger grace said...

GR,
Oh my...I so enjoy the paradox of our faith....

How do you perceive your mom, grandmom, or the other women in your circle reacted to the way they were "treated" within our tradition?

Did they feel marginalized? Did they unquesioningly/or willingly submit to the authority of the men within our tradition of faith?

I know that people can be marginalized...and yet...sometimes people are not marginalized simply because they do not allow themselves to be. This is the way I personally have felt about being a part of the CoC tradition. But maybe I'm just weird. Totally plausible.

Any thought about all of that?
grace

11:45 PM, February 27, 2006  
Blogger JTB said...

Just had to share this:

all them saddles and boots

9:17 AM, February 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only reason the Church of Christ or any of the many denominations out there teach that women are to be silent and men are the leaders is because it's in the Bible. I don't know of any religious body that just made this up on their own. If mankind made up the rules things would most definately be different than how God has set things up. Maybe you and your readers see it as some kind of oppression, but I have to admire people for at least trying to obey even if they don't understand, and doing their best anyway. There are many women who desire to be leaders and many men who shy away from it, both wanting their own will be done. My hat's off to anybody who sets their own will aside and acts in faith and humility to obey what the Word instructs.

9:23 AM, March 02, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I wish you a pink sparkly toothbrush.

12:41 PM, March 02, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

The only reason the Church of Christ or any of the many denominations out there teach that women are to be silent and men are the leaders is because it's in the Bible.

Really?

The Bible also seems to say that people shouldn't eat shrimp or catfish or wear clothes made out of two different kinds of fabric, and that women should have long hair, and never wear jewelry, and always pray with their heads covered.

Why do your admirable Church of Christians pay attention to the bits about women leading and ignore the bits about head coverings and crustaceans?

9:22 AM, March 03, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought you were the church of Christ member, being there is so much reference to them here. The three places of worship I have subscribed to (Baptist, Methodist and Catholic), at least those where I have attended, are all in agreement that the scriputures teach 'women silent, men lead' as I assume your denomination also does. The two fabrics, shrimp and catfish idea of the Old Testament was done away with, no? The New gives us freedom to eat anything. In my understanding, the references to women having long hair and no jewelry is trying to tell women to not put their focus on the outward person, but the inward and not does not mean a 'Thou Shalt Not'. To this day I don't understand the bit about head covering, ya got me there. I don't think the Churches of Christ have cornered the market on these ideas.

1:55 PM, March 03, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

In my understanding, the references to women having long hair and no jewelry is trying to tell women to not put their focus on the outward person, but the inward and not does not mean a 'Thou Shalt Not'.

Why do you interpret these passages as merely a suggestion, but passages about gender (men lead, women silent) you interpret as commands?

The two fabrics, shrimp and catfish idea of the Old Testament was done away with, no?

Then why haven't we done away with the regulation against male homoeroticism? I mean, it shows up in the same set of laws as the catfish and shrimp.

1:55 PM, March 06, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Your comment might be valid if it were not for New Testament verses like 1 Corinthians 6:9.

9:31 PM, March 06, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

11:21 AM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

ok, but you skipped the more important question:

Why do you interpret the (braided hair , pearls and head covering) passages as merely a suggestion, but passages about gender (men lead, women silent) you interpret as commands?

11:23 AM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger Hobart Hobo said...

GR

Wow, I really appreciate your honesty and willingness to be vulnerable in such an open forum. I think you are tracking right on about unnecessary stereotypes about Men, all in all I am just glad for your voice. I do have one question, and again, it is small in comparison to everything else that you said. I want to know if you think there is ever a time when violence is okay? You may have not been speaking in black or white terms when you said "violence is bad" so I want to hear what you mean by it. I must say that the way our cultur champions violence is disgraceful, but is their a time for violence?

11:58 AM, March 07, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

From the NIV. This verse teaches us to get our beauty from the inside, not to put all a person's value on the outside adornment. I don't see where it says to not braid your hair, just don't put your heart on what's outside a person.
1 Peter 3:3
Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

This verse gives a command to women to keep silent. I don't think it means a woman can't open her mouth to sing or yell at her kids. As I understand submission, it's all about attitude. This verse must mean something, no? Otherwise, why was it included in God's Word? What was he trying to tell us?
1 Corinthians 14:34
women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

Some women want to lead, some men don't want to. God put things in a certain order for a reason, maybe we will never understand it. Why not keep it simple and follow the order God put us in rather than struggle to wriggle out of it? Few seem happy to do things God's way.

7:16 PM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Anon, I'm not sure i understand your response. Are you saying one of the following is a command and the other not?

1. Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

2. women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the Law says.

9:31 PM, March 07, 2006  
Blogger TKP said...

I just want to say, I think you're great. And I can't wait for the next installment.

8:02 AM, March 08, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Matthew, Are you saying that, although the Old Testament condemns homosexual sex, that the New Testament does not? And you are using examples like planting hybrid crops, growing different crops in the same field, crossbreeding cattle, wearing blended fabrics, eating catfish and shrimp as proof that if these things are no longer sin that homosexual sin is no longer sin? Peace

9:42 AM, March 08, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Anon, not really. I'm trying to get you to clearly state how you determine what in scripture is a command and what is merely a suggestion or description.

It would also be helpful to know how you think we should interpret the epistles ... I mean, if I got a letter written to my good friend, I would assume that at least some of the things in those letters didn't apply to me. The two issues are related, I think.

So I'd still like an answer: why is the first passage merely a suggestion, while the second is a command?

4:51 PM, March 09, 2006  
Blogger Will said...

Found you via GASB Forever. While it seems you and I generally agree on very little, I'm definitely glad you're out there writing.

On my own blog I've posted what's not so much a rebuttle as my own musings on similar topics, prompted by this post. It can be found at
http://pulchersentio.prwdot.org/002908.html.

10:04 AM, March 13, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The issue of not braiding your hair, wearing gold, expensive clothing etc, if taken literally, would mean we should not even wear clothes, so this must not be taken literally, but figuratively. The issue of abstaining from homosexual sex is literal, clear in it's exact meaning.

8:44 PM, March 14, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as braided hair and the wearing of gold jewelry and fine clothes.

The issue of not braiding your hair, wearing gold, expensive clothing etc, if taken literally, would mean we should not even wear clothes, so this must not be taken literally, but figuratively.

No clothes? Really? Has the church ever interpreted this verse to mean "you must not wear clothes?" Please explain how you get from the verse above to a divine mandate for nudism.

I'm also curious about how you would react if some less-enlightened soul decided the literal interpretation of the passage was correct.

"The Bible says what it means and means what it says," he would mutter, and then he'd go off and start a church where nobody wears clothes.

What would you say to this guy? How would you react if he insisted you were going to hell unless you followed the literal interpretation of the Bible and converted to nudism?

3:44 PM, March 17, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Oh, and as you answer the question about the nudist church, keep in mind what you said earlier:

My hat's off to anybody who sets their own will aside and acts in faith and humility to obey what the Word instructs.

I will refrain from making the obvious joke about your hat being off. =)

3:58 PM, March 17, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey you two. You don't have to be a cowboy to be a man. That was the issue and it's settled. Heck, you don't even have to be a man to be a man any more.

5:06 PM, March 18, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey you two. The issue was you don't have to be a cowboy to be a man. That's settled, OK? Heck, today you don't even have to be a male to be a man. Everybody does just what they want to and won't listen anyway.

5:08 PM, March 18, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Everybody does just what they want to and won't listen anyway.

Then I'm sure you won't be offended if I ignore your suggestion.

12:48 PM, March 20, 2006  
Blogger Mark Elrod said...

Sorry I'm late on this but this is a great post.

4:43 PM, March 24, 2006  
Blogger Thomas J. said...

GR,

First of all, I applaud your candor and courage, embracing both your sexual identity as well as your cultural heritage. . .it is a strange mix of phenomena that make us who we are.

If you are not familiar with it, read some of the works by Robert Bly, particularly "Iron John: A Book about Men". Bly offers an enormous amount of insight into the toxic nature of the traditional patriarchial socialization of men and gives some interesting insights into a new male identity. It is a wonderful work that transcends age and orientation.

Look forward to hearing more from you and reading more of your blog. Keep up the good work!!

9:17 AM, March 26, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does the book also transcend the Book of Genesis where our creator gave the first people their roles?

1:08 PM, March 26, 2006  
Blogger Thomas J. said...

Well, anonymous, I am not sure what you mean. Like the author of the book of Genesis, Bly offers his BELIEF about the nature of human beings and human relationships. I offer the title as more data. The individual reader is welcome to juxtapose the two and make a decision for themselves what they believe to be more relevant, applicable, or "true".

8:11 AM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger Thomas J. said...

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

8:16 AM, March 27, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I found your blog through other Harding-related blogs. I am suprised to see that you are seeking to justify homosexuality. I do feel compassion for you, because I do believe "same sex attraction" feelings are legitimate and real. However, so are my sinful tendencies, such as lying, gossipping, etc. The difference is, I do not seek to justify those feelings. I recognize them as sinful and pray for God's help as I struggle to do the right thing. Our choice to be obedient to Christ is more than our FEELINGS, am I correct?

10:55 PM, March 27, 2006  
Blogger Chris Field said...

GR-

I would appreciate your take on something I wrote in my blog today.

chrisfield.blogspot.com

Thanks.

11:24 AM, March 29, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

Maybe I'm just bored over here, but I'm going to keep responding to all of our good HU visitors.

I am suprised to see that you are seeking to justify homosexuality.

First: please be more careful with your language. If we take "homosexuality" to mean "same-sex attraction", then you yourself justify it in your comment.

Second: what makes you think GR is "seeking to justify" homosexuality, homoerotic behavior, or anything of the kind? Perhaps he's given a lot of honest thought to the question, and arrived at conclusions that are different than yours.

4:03 PM, March 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

(from a different anonymous)

"First: please be more careful with your language. If we take 'homosexuality' to mean 'same-sex attraction', then you yourself justify it in your comment."

I'm going with the assupmtion that he means the entire lifestyle, sexual behavior and all.

"Second: what makes you think GR is 'seeking to justify' homosexuality, homoerotic behavior, or anything of the kind? Perhaps he's given a lot of honest thought to the question, and arrived at conclusions that are different than yours."

It doesn't take much reading of this blog to see that although he struggles with the church, he believes the gay lifestyle can fit within the bounds of Christianity. Although personally I find less "seeking to justify" and more condescending remarks towards those who hold the traditional view on what scripture has to say about the subject. He seems like a nice enough guy, but scripture clearly paints homosexuality a negative picture concerning homosexuality.

[/end talking around the owner of the blog]

6:20 PM, March 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bad editing on that last part.

Scripture cleary paints a negative picture concerning homosexuality.

6:22 PM, March 30, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Part of the problem, I think, is that people, uncomfortable on some level with homosexuality, take the relatively few scriptural items that seem to deal with the subject and latch onto them, and make a huge deal out of them. They are more familiar and comfortable with the sinful tendencies that exist within themselves-- lust, greed, hatred, coveting, whatever-- and consequently don't feel there's as much of a problem with these things. This is despite the fact that these things have far more biblical verses addressing them. Homosexuality is a tiny gnat compared with the grossly diseased oversized camels that many Christians seem prepared to swallow today.

Gay people are not responsible for the difficult state the country and world are in-- at least, not simply because they are gay. They are scapegoats. They are the victims of much heterosexual and Christian sin. No amount of going on about "scripture says The Gay is evil" will help this problem.

12:45 AM, April 01, 2006  
Blogger Matthew said...

GR, are you just letting the comments dribble in? Seems like it's about time for part 2. =)

I'm going with the assupmtion that he means the entire lifestyle, sexual behavior and all.

"The entire lifestyle?" What exactly does that lifestyle entail? I mean, I think you'd be hard pressed to define "the heterosexual lifestyle", and to invoke "the homosexual lifestyle" is just as meaningless.

Scripture cleary paints a negative picture concerning homosexuality.

This is not as plain as you make it out to be. Have you tried to evaluate scripture outside of any prejudices that you might have inherited from your church, family or culture? If you want a study guide, btw, you might consult my blog. ;)

12:14 PM, April 04, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"The entire lifestyle?" What exactly does that lifestyle entail? I mean, I think you'd be hard pressed to define "the heterosexual lifestyle", and to invoke "the homosexual lifestyle" is just as meaningless.

THANK YOU!
As a gay man myself, I ask, what is this "lifestyle" supposed to be? A lot of people mistake me for heterosexual. My "lifestyle" is fairly boring. I raise a child and do all the parenting things that entails; I go to family gatherings; I go hiking, swimming, or watch TV; drink coffee in the morning. I sometimes fret over the bills. Ho hum. In the meantime, I'm supposed to be living this odd or decadent lifestyle that is, for the most part, indistinguishable from that of many of the straight people around me. If somebody can tell me what the lifestyle is I'm supposed to live, please do... I never received my brochure on the subject.

11:49 PM, April 04, 2006  
Blogger TKP said...

Hey, I hope you are doing well. Can't wait for the next update!

9:56 AM, April 07, 2006  
Blogger Jason Hughes said...

Great blog--love almost everything you've posted!

9:30 AM, April 14, 2006  
Blogger Keith Brenton said...

I'm with Teresa ... what's up in your life, bro?

7:58 PM, April 16, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am truly sorry that the church of Christ was even mentioned in this blog. The name of Christ was not only disgraced but drug through the mud. If some of yall actually believe that there is room for homosexual relationships in inspired scripture (keep in mind that we are to abide by the laws of the land and avoid fornication) than do us all a favor and branch off and create some other religion...some other cult...some other sect. Don't call yourselves children of God.

2:15 PM, April 28, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I appreciate the sentiment. I am a cowboy (not really, I'm more of a Christian outlaw biker), and have treated my sons as such, when they wanted that. But, when they want to cook or do crafts, I encourage that too. If they turn out gay, I will take that as a failure on my part and will probably kill myself.

3:28 PM, April 28, 2006  
Blogger Patrik said...

That's a strong text there. I hope you have the strength to keep answer these stupid questions you have no doubt answered hundreds of times already. It's amazing how people can keep refusing to get into their heads that the bible was written in a very different culture...

2:21 PM, May 04, 2006  
Blogger Aaron G said...

Check out my recent post on Major League Baseball players using pink bats. I ask, "Do baseball and gender typecasts go together? Are the Mother's Day bats a publicity stunt or an emblem of bigotry?"

1:04 AM, May 12, 2006  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What about part 2, GR? I hope this silly debate didn't scare you off.

Keep blogging!

11:41 AM, May 12, 2006  

Post a Comment

<< Home