What Do You Really Think About Homosexuality?

Listen to this 'Talk of the Nation' topic

 

As the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace is the highest ranking military official in the country. So, when he speaks candidly, people listen ... and not just those in the military. When he called homosexual acts "immoral," he prompted outrage, protests, and support. His statement propelled the debate about what straight Americans really think about gays and lesbians, and how attitudes have changed. We're not going to rehash the debate over what Pace did or didn't say ... this will be a frank and civil conversation about what Americans really think about homosexuality, and how those attitudes have changed over the years.

Scott Cameron

1:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007 | permalink

 

Comments (Send a comment)

I have same sex attraction, but dont practice homosexuality because I chose to have a family. I am not sure I am hated, I think people are not educated on this issue that is hard to understand for people that dont have same sex attraction. I think the same sex attraction is not inmoral. I think the homosexual activity is actually not accepted by the God of Israel.

Sent by mario delitur | 2:14 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have no concerns about homosexual individuals and believe that society should in general avoid interest, comment or proscription on their lives. If a citizen or resident alien wishes to serve in the military, the clergy or other service he/she should do so. As a longtime married person, I feel absolutely no problem with marriage between two loving committed individuals.

Sent by Jocelyn | 2:15 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a heterosexual woman who stands in complete support of the gay community and care nothing about the dogma of the Bible. I have always felt the homophobic's argument that being gay is a "life style choice" to be utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone choose to be part of a group that is vilified, ridiculed, beaten and murdered? I thought we were all God's children? Gay people were born gay, it's in the DNA. Besides, how can two people who care about each other be wrong? What are they so afraid of?

Sent by Laura from Portland | 2:15 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It seems that much of the negative attitude towards homosexuals is that some people believe that it is an active choice that is made. Many of us (homosexuals), especially during our teenage years, wished that we could 'become' straight, and only after several years of this internal struggle did we realize that this is simply who we are. If a heterosexual person were asked if they ever chose their sexuality, the answer would most probably be no; they are simply who they are. People must understand that this is not a choice, and perhaps there would be more understanding.

Sent by Mark | 2:16 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Nothing fires up some of our bloggers more than the gay bashers who write in. There comment justifying their bigotry is that "The Lord commands it." It so reminds me of that infamous excuse that camed out of a defeated Nazi Germany: "I was just obeying orders."

Sent by Jacob Maus | 2:18 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have a family member who was married for 20 years, has 2 teenage children and has recently gotten divorced and has become a lesbian. I think living a lie for the past 20 years and turning the lives of your children upside down is much worse than being gay. How do the guests feel about people who do this? I still love my relative, but am not close to her and feel that I don't really know who she is.

Sent by Leslie Bauer | 2:20 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I wish npr would stop using the expression "opposition to homosexuality." It's like saying racists don't hate black people, they're just opposed to dark skin. It just provides bigots with a semantic cover.

Sent by Douglas Benson | 2:21 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The discussion of religious acceptance or intolerance of homosexuality is separate from the political/legal recognition that we seek. I often ask people to have the conversation with me on a purely constitutional and legal level; void of religion and the Bible. They cannot. We are asking, no...demanding, our government to grant us full rights of citizenship. I will have the discussions of religion with my church leaders, separately. If we keep the two discussions separate then we can begin the healing. Additionally, I am no scholar, however; I know the Bible also says, "Judge not lest ye be judged." I think a lot has been lost in the evolution of the translations of the Bible. My God doesn't place a hierarchy on sin or grace...what right (spiritually) does any human have to speak on behalf of God by quoting a book written by humans?

Sent by Mel Monette | 2:22 PM ET | 03-21-2007

What is truly the criteria for being a homosexual. To me, it all relates around the sexual act. Otherwise, loving someone of the same sex is not immoral. Who is the gatekeeper on homosexuality?

Sent by Chuck in MN | 2:22 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I appreciate the discussion because it is an important one. The hatred of homosexuals is sadly alive and well, as General Pace demonstrated last week. The current president of this country has even used anit-gay legislation attempts to gain votes. Comparing gays to adulterers, for example, is unfair and misguided. One of the fundamental questions is this: If I marry another man, pay taxes, own property and contribute to my community, how does that adversely affect straight people? It just doesn't hurt anyone!

Sent by Kevin Mork (Portland, OR) | 2:23 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Most arguments against homosexuality are couched in religious terms. The 1st Amendment to the Constitution mentions Freedom of Religion, which implies that the beliefs of any particular religion may not be forced on the People.

Sent by Kirk Maser | 2:23 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am not a gay man but I am an atheist. Can either of your guests tell me why homosexuality is wrong without quoting scripture?

Sent by John Anthony | 2:24 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I'd be a little more impressed with Christians, if they were as adamant about homosexuality as they are about the other things their bible preaches against. Of course it's really only important to play by the Christian moral code if you are a Christian and want to get into Christian Heaven. I'd like to remind Christians that we are free to practice what ever religion we choose in this country, that might just mean that people from other religous backgrounds have morals that are equally as "right" and "valid". I'm not a christian nor do I accept that I have to conform to that moral code so long as I don't cause harm to anyone.

Sent by Fred Greatorex, Portland Oregon | 2:24 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Much comment is refers to the Bible. We never hear anything about the Islam condemning homosexuality. Much of the radical Muslims hatred to United States is because of our nation's tolerance.

Sent by Duane | 2:24 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Why do Christians believe they can impose their religious beliefs, in a nation that is pluralistic? If a Christian believes homosexuality is wrong, then they should not live a homosexual life, but why try to impose it on me?

Sent by Joe | 2:25 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Why focus only on the views of The Bible when other faiths decry the same concerns about homosexuality? People talk about Christians who bash gays, has anyone ever seen an openly gay Muslim? Is there such a one, within the true orthodox community outside of a free America?

Sent by Mark | 2:25 PM ET | 03-21-2007

There are some things the Isrealites were told to follow in the Law of Moses such as not eating some things were done away with when Jesus Christ came to Earth. Homosexuality noted in both the old and new testiments. Jesus and His apostles carried on the doctrine.
I am learning to approach homosexual individuals with respect, but do not want homosexuals' agenda to be forced upon me.

Sent by Laron | 2:25 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Regarding the biblical stance that supposedly condemns homosexuality, I would like to point out that the bible condones slavery in a number of references. Shall we go back to slavery because the bible says its okay? This just shows how fundamentalists are using a double standard. I do not believe that their interpretation of the bible is more correct than mine which emphasizes that we love our neighbors as ourselves. I am a Christian who embraces the progressive values that Jesus taught us in the New Testament.

Sent by Kelly Hattel | 2:25 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find it quaint that the guest Mao believes in hell and uses arbitrarily chosen passages from the bible to support his anti-gay stance. Let's get beyond the antiquated texts that have led to such world-wide suffering and violence and begin to live as an intelligent, thinking and loving species.

Sent by Bradley Layton | 2:26 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Setting aside what people believe the Bible says about homosexuality, what do heterosexuals feel homosexuals should do with their feelings? As a homosexual I am very tired of the insensitivity and inability of homophobic people to place themselves in my shoes. What would you REALLY do with your life if you felt the way I do? Would you REALLY be a life-long selibate?

Sent by Nick | 2:26 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Ask yourself this question:

Is sexuality innate or learned behaviour?

Sent by Francis Gilbert | 2:27 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I would say that Christianity has evolved over the ages and grown better in so many ways. I know that it is hard for the older generatins to come to terms with this issue but then so does God which is why he has us die to make way for the youger generatin and thier newer ways .

Sent by S.Hunsberger | 2:27 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Where is the groundswell of support for other commands of the Old Testament such as:
Death penalty for disrespectful children, Banning the eating of rare cooked meat, and obligating the man who rapes a virgin to buy her from her father and marrying her?

Sent by Christian Naught | 2:27 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The rigid moral rejection of all homosexual behavior have left homosexuals in America with no moral choices to make. While a straight person may, for example, choose to not engage in premarital or extramarital relations, the outight moral rejection of gay behavior recognizes no moral choices in gay behavior such as, fidelity and monogamy.

Sent by Carolyn Phillips | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

There are over 32,000 verses in the Old and New Testaments of the King James version of the Bible. Only 7 scriptures can be pointed to as "anti-homosexual." In the 4 Gospels, Jesus never mentions the subject. So truly, how important is this to God?

Sent by Robert Schafer | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a Lesbian professional in her 30s. I would like to see the discussion get away from religion and talk about the prejudices that are perpetuated by negative stereotypes. It easy to hide behind religious dogma when spouting ideals, however underlying prejudices are never addressed. Please for once put religion aside and address this topic from a human angel.

Sent by Brittany | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find it ironic that a General of war would describe homosexuality as an abomination. Compared to what military practice?

Sent by Joseph Wentland | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Today, I a gay divorced father of two teenagers sent off my daughter's fees for college. I purchased a book for the other daughter. I had a banana for breakfast. I paid my cell phone bill and then came to work. I held several meetings and sat in a training so far. I have a couple hours left to read some vital documents for my work. Tonight I'll attend a reception, go home, have a snack, probably popcorn, call my partner who is on travel and catch up on the day. I'll brush my teeth, crawl into bed, read a book or surf the Internet and then fall asleep. What of my life is so much different and needs fearing from that of "straight" Americans?

Sent by Mel Monette | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Sex in Life through Evolution is quite open ended, though continence of species relies on replication. Man???s sexuality brings nothing new to nature and life itself, despite the comments being offer on the radio.

Sent by Roy D. Schickedanz | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a 69-year old gay man and a professional church employee for 54 years, I can honestly state that what the "church" (and the "church" is not monolithic) has to say about homosexuality has absolutely no application to my life. Morality is not dependent upon religion, and I deeply resent the co-opting of this topic by the conservative religious right!

Sent by Charles Frischmann | 2:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

First of all, Hello to Dr Mouw from a former member of Bates Street CRC. It is refreshing to hear this discussed with respect.

I am a 38 year Christian woman. I believe that living a homosexual lifestyle is sinful and is contrary to God's will. But please do not put me in a category because I believe that. I am a sinner in need of grace, just as is every other person in this world. My husband and I are raising our children to distinguish between right and wrong, but perhaps more importantly to show the love of Christ to each person they encounter. It is not our job to change people.

Sent by Arlene Borgdorff DeKam | 2:29 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The problem I have with your discussion is its basis in the bible.

That is not the basis of our secular democratic republic and should not be the basis of what Americans think about homosexuality.

I don't care what the bible says.

I care what the constitution says about equal protection under the law.

Sent by Jeffrey Willsey | 2:29 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Perhaps the Bible should be read as a work in progress. Various synods arbitrarily decided what the contents of the Bible would be, at a time when the religion itself was in flux. Perhaps we have reached a point when homosexuality should no longer be considered an abomination. After all, Christianity is no longer struggling against a monolithic force such as the Roman Empire and is no longer in need of soldiers for the "cause." We have entered an era of live and let live. Scripture should be updated to reflect this fact. "What would Jesus do" is a valid question here. It was Paul, not Jesus, who spoke out against same-sex love.

Sent by Alan Hickman | 2:29 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Am I the only one to find it odd for a man representing the military, currently killing occupants of a foreign nation in a war that we started, commenting on the "morality" of consenting adult's sexual preferences? Cluster bombs are moral, but homosexual relationships are not? Pretty selective definition of morality... someone apparently missed that "thou shalt not kill" commandment.

Sent by Doug | 2:29 PM ET | 03-21-2007

This is concerning Biblical references. In Leviticus, your guest is correct to point out, there are many proscriptions against various behaviors. These including handling a 'pig skin' as a violation of the Sabbath. This certainly puts thousands of men into deep sin who play NFL Sunday football. The text in Romans is best read in context of Paul's concerns over a variety of 'Roman' social behaviors including the practice of 'pederasty', a form of pedophilia common in those days where older men kept young boys as concubines or sex slaves. No where in the Gospels does Jesus mention homosexuality in the midst of his attacks on all kinds of other forms of human abuses and sinful actions
( those things which separate us from God)...
Rather, if God created us and all things and 'saw that is was good', how can a gay person be guilty of anything more than what God created him or her to
be...? What happened to Jesus' new commandment to Love our God and our neighbors as ourselves....?

Sent by dave weber | 2:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Through high school and college, I had several friends who my group of friends knew were gay, but they were struggling to fight their nature. After years of unhappiness, failed relationships with members of the opposite sex, and much self-hating, they came out and live happy lives with healthy same-sex relationships. Ultimately, shouldn't happiness be all that we wish for one another? Homosexuals, if allowed and encouraged to let their feelings and sexuality grow naturally as heterosexuals do, aren't hurting anyone. To the woman who commented earlier about her relative: think about how difficult the past 20 years have been for her. If she had been accepted for her feelings and inclinations when she was a youth, perhaps the entire situation could have been avoided. As another listener commented: homosexuality is not a choice and to discriminate against homosexuals is akin to racism. No one chooses the color of their skin and no one chooses which gender they'll love.

Sent by Jess | 2:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I'm a little unclear about what "rights" are being denied to homosexuals. I think too often advocates are confusing "rights" with "privileges". Studies have shown a child should be raised by a loving mother & father to be better well rounded. Adoption is not a right but a privilege.

Sent by William Babcock | 2:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It seems to me that it's fine for anyone to have the view that homosexuakity is wrong, but who are we to try to regulate or discriminate anyone's sexual preferences.

Sent by Roman P. | 2:31 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Leviticus 19:22 is NOT a condemnation of homosexuality. When one translates the Hebrew literally, it says: "Do not rape a man as one would rape a woman (i'e. against his/her will).... Thus stipulating a man should control his sexual urges when in an exclusively male setting. Marking this verse as anti-homosexual is approving of the anti homosexual translation of this verse

Sent by Rabbi Michael Solomon Boekstal | 2:31 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It frightens me that some Americans conveniently forget about our separation of church and state laws when it comes to gay marriage and civil unions. Personal religious beliefs cannot be the basis of national legislation on the civil rights of citizens. I also wonder why the discussion is focused soley within a Christian paradigm? Many Americans are not particularly religious, and many Americans like myself are religious, but do not come from a Christian background. And some of these non-Christian Americans are also homophobic and their points of view warrant some discussion.

Sent by Sara | 2:32 PM ET | 03-21-2007

First thing we are a nation with a constiution where one has freedom to choose a religious path other than Christainity. Not being of this path but of the path of Light and Sound of God I find that my spiritual path is considered by many Chirstains as totaly wrong and that there is no other path but Juses.
It is with this in mind that I state that the old testament is Jewish Law. And Jesus never said anything but homosexuality.
Many sects of Christainity today support homosexuals as equals as does the Constituion of the United States.

Sent by Terry W. Schneider | 2:32 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a gay man, I am so tired of a de facto legal equivalencly between civil law and religion/theology.

I do not belong to a church, and I am not subject to any of the restrictions that they CHOSE to impose upon themselves as a consequence of their faith.

Your conservative commentator seems to assume that he has some sort of jurisdiction over me... I want to assure him that he does not, and I refuse to allow to him exercise that false authority.

I find his arrogance infuriating.

Sent by Tim Wright | 2:33 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Christian disagree on the issue of homosexuality because recent research has shown that in fact, the Bible says nothing about the issue of homosexuality as we understand it today. The issues being delt with in the Bible were entirely different that the issues we are discussing.

Further, Evangelicals claim that Jesus is the Author and Finisher of their faith. But Jesus NEVER said a word about this issue. In fact, there is evidence he healed the lover of a Roman Centurian.

If all Christians honestly read the Bible in the context of a sound translation and in the context of the culture in which it was written, they may come to a very different conclusion.

Sent by Jean, Oak Park, IL | 2:33 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a child, I was raised with the fundamentals of basic Christian morals; however I was also raised with to think open-mindedly and with compassion for other people's practices different than my own. Raised by an extended family with a homosexual member and other homosexual family friends, I was never even aware of the controversy that existed about homosexuality. When I learned of the discriminations and strong feelings against gay people, much later in my high school years, I was extremely disturbed by the fact that these people are not "valued" or accepted by everyone, especially Christians, in our society. It is my feeling that gay people are not in anyway hurting anyone by their sexual preferences and no matter what someone believes or does, as long as it does not physically harm anyone else, why is it not a Christian conviction to accept and love people for who they are, despite their differences among one another? I have to admit, that because of these strong values within the organized Christian religion, I have chosen in my adult life, not to practice the Christian belief system as my religion.

Sent by Aubrey Garcia | 2:33 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Many think Christians are pushing their values on everyone else. Let's take a look at the flip side. Are you telling me a child of Christian should learn about homosexuality if the parents oppose it? If you say yes, then someone else's opinion is being pushed on a Christian's family.

Sent by William Babcock | 2:34 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a Christian. I am a member of the United Church of Christ. As Christians we are accepting.

We find that we can't get our ads on the major networks because we have had a gay couple or two portrayed in the ads. This is due directly to the Bush administration.

As a Christian, I want my GLBT brothers and sisters to know you are a part of my human family, you have been, you always will be, and I welcome you into my life and so does God.

Sent by Don Slaughter | 2:34 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Dr. Mouw speaks very gracefully about how socially progressive he can be; however it is very evident that he himself could use a theological update on the interpretation of scripture in general and that of the New Testament in particular. Stop reading the Bible as a historical document!

Sent by Ordained in MN | 2:34 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I challenge those with biblical objections to homosexuality to review the context and interpretation of these scriptures in the light of not being adamantly anti-homosexual but rather as anti-sexual harrassment.
Most of the biblical references prohibit someone in authority from forcing someone with no authority into sexual relations. Does this translate into a prohibition for consenting adults?

Sent by a listener from St Louis, MO | 2:34 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The bible states what is sin and what is not.

Not honoring my body as temple is a sin. So if I choose to smoke, or drink alcohol in indulgence or do drugs, I am choosing to not honor my body as temple. I am sinning. Does this hurt anyone else? No, it just hurts me and my relationship with God.

It is the same with homosexuality. If you choose to be with a person of same sex, then you are sinning. Just as I am when I choose to smoke. Your sin only hurts you and your relationship with God, it doesn???t hurt anyone else.

So???because you are not hurting anyone else by committing this sin, doesn???t disqualify it as a sin.

Sent by B Taylor | 2:35 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Sex in Life through Evolution is quite open ended, though continence of species relies on replication. Man's sexuality brings nothing new to nature and life itself, despite the comments being offer on the radio.

Man's morality is based on society's position and understanding of its own needs and concerns. It moves to codify that position, accepting those values as terms of reality.

Sent by Roy D. Schickedanz | 2:35 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Nathaniel spoke about the purpose of marriage. One clearly is to procreate and produce children, and biologically, we're equipped for this as male and females together. He somehow forgot to mention that.

Sent by Rick Knox | 2:35 PM ET | 03-21-2007

In citing biblical reference in support of an immoral view of homosexual behavior, its important to differentiate between "words of God" (as in things Jesus said) and "words about God" = theology (I.e. what we think God wants) and doctrine and polity, that is words about how we think you should act if you are going to follow the teachings we believe tell us what we think God meant (theology). fter the first four books of the new Testament, its all theology, doctrine and polity. Paul, most instrumental in spreading early Christianity came on the scene long after Jesus death. Many of his pronouncements are as much a matter of polity for the early church as they are doctrine. Of course, he would find lying with the same sex (thus not producing children, i.e. new members) as morally questionable. Did Jesus say homosexual behavior was an abomination? That is did God Incarnate directly in his one clear opportunity to preach in person to His Created Images tell those created Images not tohave sex with those who happened to be of the same gender? Can't find it in my Bible.

Sent by Dan Redick | 2:35 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Although I fall into the 'older' category, I was fortunate enough not to be brought up with any world view regarding homosexuality. Another person's sexuality is really none of my business; I'm much more concerned about how they treat others. Those who follow the laws, contribute to society, and treat others with dignity and respect deserve the same. A committed, loving relationship between two people should be treated the same by government no matter the sex of the people. If we want to allow everyone to be the best he/she can be, the whole anti-gay fervor is cruel and wasteful, and doesn't contribute to the betterment of our society.

Sent by Lee | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Gen. Pace's perspective on homosexuality is important, but why isn't the media asking him if starting a war based on the lie that Iraq was involved in the 9-11 attacks and killing hunreds of thousands of people is immoral?

Sent by Brian Hulse | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Isn???t there ENOUGH in the world to CONDEMN???.

WHY do we continue to CONDEMN two people that LOVE each other??? Shouldn???t we, as humans living in a violent world, ENCOURAGE LOVE??


"STRAIGHT woman in Syracuse, NY"

Sent by Kimberly Benedict | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I didn't catch the name of your speaker who is quoting the Bible, but as a Baptist pastor, I have to correct him: there is no ONE model of sexual relationship in the Bible. Solomon and David had concubines (sex OUTSIDE of marriage), Paul preached celibacy, Abraham had one wife (Sarah), and a concubine. He's way off base saying that the Bible is CLEAR about this.

One more thing: for every scripture about "homosexuality," there are hundreds more about inclusivity, excepting one another as brothers and sisters, NOT judging.

David (caller) is RIGHT. Being who you are as a gay man or lesbian woman is not an expression of brokenness. Your speaker is using words like "openness" and "love," while spouting out the worst kind of hatred.

Sent by Rev. Cindy Weber | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

This is apiritual issue basically. Any sin is equal to this issue. This has only surfaced because of the gays pushing it on us. God is not partial to sin, The wages of sin is death period and it doesn't matter what the sin is, you either walk in a Christ like manner of you fall short.

Sent by Mark Aldrich | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Richard Mao may or may not be glad to hear that the slippery slope concern has no legal significance. The state can make laws regarding who can marry who so long as those laws are supported by a rational basis. There are clear distinctions, economic, familial, and otherwise, that apply to three party marriages that do no distinguish marriages between homosexuals and heterosexuals. As far as NAMBLA is concerned, if there were any indication that homosexual relationships were any less consensual than heterosexual ones, we would not even be having this debate.

Sent by John | 2:36 PM ET | 03-21-2007

In my quest for God back in the seventies, I asked myself many questions. I was raised Catholic but do not practice today.
I believe that many years ago when the bible was created, that the human race was and is to this day so violent, that we had to be told how to act and think.
But with or without the bible, many groups of people have created laws so that they could survive. I realize that no human being on this planet can tell anyone with certainity what God is or is not. We all have opionions, ideas and to each one of us it is reality.

I believe that God does not care what we do with our genitals or with whom. The idea that God is interested in whom we are having sex with or how is actually quite comical. I believe that as human beings we need to get that we need to respect one another, mind our own business, take care of our planet and each other. Being different does not make us bad, immoral or lost to the imagined purgatories or hells of religious people.

Sent by Maria H. | 2:37 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Mr. Muow threw out a real red herring with his slippery slope argument. What basis would we have for fearing that it would be gays or lesbians who seek a "three-way" marriage? In fact, though I personally find it distasteful, it's true that non-homosexuals have been involved in polyamorous relationships throughout history and have at times even codified them in religion, as in early Mormonism. Why would we worry that it would be gays pushing for this right, rather than a man and two women, which seems statistically more likely given that homosexuals are vastly outnumbered by heterosexuals?

This gentleman's arguments are based on nothing other than personal discomfort and individual religious views that are not shared by a majority of people in our nation and thus should not be codified in law.

Sent by Michelle Moon | 2:37 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The issues need to be clarified. The issue of marriage is a religous issue. The issue of married people having more rights in society is a civil rights issue. The issue of gays who are serving in our military as not having the same rights is also civil rights issue. As a gay man, I don't want to be "married" but rather see myself and my partner of 20 years have the same rights as a straight married couple. For my gay brothers and sisters in the military, I want to see them have the same rights as everyone else who risks their lives for our country. I believe the opponents of gay rights believe that by mixing these two together they maintain confusion to the issue.

Can your guests comment on why we don't seem to be able to seperate these issues into civil versus religious issues? Something our country was founded on!

Sent by Neal Thompson | 2:37 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Our government should NOT discreminate between "married" and "single" people at all. If we are indeed "all equal", there should be NO status differentiation at all.

Sent by Paul R McHan Jr | 2:37 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The Bible is often cited as determining attitudes about moral behavior such as homosexuality, but it's a guide for personal behavior, i.e. the person who believes it, not as a guide to judge others. If your guests don't want to be homosexual, then they shouldn't, but it's none of their business if someone else does. Richard Maow is asked if he thinks homosexuals will go to hell. It's not his decision to make. All he needs to worry about is his own behavior and if he thins what he does will send him to hell.

Sent by Jerry | 2:37 PM ET | 03-21-2007

In our country of many beliefs there are many religions and Christian churches that support same sex marriage and gays and lesbians. Why do certain churches and their particular doctrines get to dictate the laws of our country?

Sent by Ann Parker | 2:38 PM ET | 03-21-2007

we seem to be able to legislate against polygamy, and age of consent with heterosexual relationships why is it different with gay relationships - talk about a redherring.

Sent by chuck | 2:38 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I live in Michigan where a recent ballot initiative not only wrote prohibitions against same-sex marriage into our state constitution, but also according to a recent Appeals Court ruling forbid state employers from offering health benefits based on domestic partnership. This directly threatens access to life saving medical care by godson who is struggling with leukemia. It also means one of his moms may not be able to stay home to care for him. I don't understand how this can be in keeping with a principled religiously based stand in any way. If your guest feels this is not in keeping with his views why are he and others in his view not standing up vocally against such discriminitory measures?

Sent by Michael Falk | 2:38 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Homophobia is very profitable for churches: it puts butts in the seats and bucks int he collection plates!

Sent by Bela Dornon | 2:38 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The argument of "Where do we draw the line?" in regards to same-sex marriage is ridiculous. It loads the question. We live in a country now where hetero-sexual marriage is legal and encouraged, yet you don't hear people arguing that male/female marriage should be outlawed because it opens the door to hetero-sexual polygamy.

Sent by Toby | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

THANK YOU for this show! I am a straight christian woman who has always felt that I do not fit in politically in any party! I have described myself as a "crunchy conservative" b/c I support issues that the conservative right do not, such as the environment and civil unions for Gay and Lesbians.

I often feel like I would like to vote for 50% of one candidate and 50% of another. Where are you suppossed to turn to help in this matter?

Sent by Jennifer Pedley, Milford MI | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Homosexuality is sin. That's not the question. What other sin is promoted as right by those guilty of it?

Sent by J Gruba | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I was married and have two children. It has been 3 years since my divorce and coming out and my children don't think that there lives have been turned upside down. They know that I love them and that is all that matters, not who I am dating.

Not wanting to live a lie is not narcisism. It has been better for myself and my family, becasue I now live a more authentic life.

Sent by Al Flemming | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The focus on homosexuality and abortion is hurting true Christianity. If all the law is summed up in love, then maybe that should be the focus. The statement by St. Paul that homosexuality isn't natural is denied by the natural world. Science has shown that. I think Christianity, Jesus' message is not about dos and don'ts but about grace and love.

Sent by Carol Ashley | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Could someone please explain to me why this is a government policy issue to discuss? Anti-homosexuality exists because the bible says it it immoral. Separation of church and state is a founding principle, Why are biblical issues even discussed. It is not the role of our government to decide such issues. The purpose of government is to protect and serve it's constituents

Sent by jenee mccaleb | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As I can not explain my hetrosexuality as a lifestyle-it is just the way I am-how God created me. So too-those who are homosexual-just the way God created them. As a medical community we are not able to fully understand everything about everything at this point in time. One day, I pray this discussion will be like those 40 years ago during the Civil Rights movement. Thanks to all who are talking about this topic!!!

Sent by Suzanne Strathman Alma, Missouri | 2:39 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The right-wing, anti-gay argument has always been that the Bible says homosexuality is a sin. But if I remember back to Sunday School lessons, isn't judging people a sin as well? The basis of Christianity is that you should "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." I can't think of anyone who would want to be treated the way that much of America has treated the gay community for so long. There are so many other "sins" that we are all guilty of; who decided homosexuality was at the top of the list for condemnation here lately?

Sent by Amy | 2:40 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Many homosexuals have their sexual orientation from birth. It is not something they choose. If a genitic test could determine a fetus was destined to be homosexual would abortion of the child be acceptable to the Christian right?

Sent by liz farmer | 2:40 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Neil -

As a member of the LGBT community this discussion is really tiring. Neil, it's really insulting right at the top of the show when you used the description "the gay lifestyle." Can you please explain what "the gay lifestyle" is? Here's my "gay lifestyle" today: my partner got up at 6:30 a.m. to get our two teenage daughters out the door to the school bus. We get a phone call at 7:30 a.m. from the younger one. She forgot her homework binder. I take a shower, get dressed and take the binder to school. My partner is a self employed medical writer who works at home. At lunchtime, we take one of the cars to the shop because of a curious noise. We go to lunch, drop off the drycleaning and start listening to this show.

That's our today up to now. It's so gay, isn't it?

We do not care so much about acceptance as much as we need EQUALITY.

Sent by Nancy Daby | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The Christian right's position on the absolute immorality of homosexuality strikes me as absolutely un-Christ like

Sent by Bruce Ito | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I just heard the comment from one of the hosts regarding the "slippery slope" argument. I think it is logically flawed and unfair to same sex marriages. Marriages between a man and a woman have been accepted as long as we can remember. Will anyone argue against straight marriage because one fears that the next thing is marriage between an uncle (male) and a niece (female)? Or a 30 year old woman marrying a 12 year old boy? These issues are NOT AL ALL related to sexual orientation. Rather, one is called incest. The other one is called sexual abuse of a child. It is absolutely unfair and illogical to apply this "rationale" to argue against same sex marriage.

Sent by Barden | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

This is in response to the caller, asking the mic should be given to those who oppose homosexuality: As a gay man myself, I think as long as so many people have a problem with gays and lesbians, I think the worse we could do is not discuss it and try to silence those who oppose us. The problem is not homosexuality, but the problem is those who oppose the lifestyle, so we have to be able to let them speak if we are to attack the problem head on.

Sent by Alex, from Sacramento | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

One issue that seems troublesome to me is the point that all of us are sinners and that gay behavior???even, perhaps, gay identity???is but one type of sin. Assuming that God makes all of us as he (or she) wishes, how can we reconcile the notion that he would endow us with ???sinful??? or ???immoral??? urges with the belief that God is loving and benevolent? Simply to say that violent or aggressive impulses can also be natural and must be restrained is not enough: gay love, and expressions of that love, are not harmful in the slightest. Only a generation ago, many religious officials preached that interracial desire was immoral and not part of God???s plan. I suppose what I aim to express is that being gay and acting on gay desires is not immoral or sinful but, rather, has been defined as such at this time in history by people who wish to cloak their homophobia in religious teachings.

Sent by Ben Wagner | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Richards use of the slippery slope is entertaining. There is a reason such forms are considered a logical _fallacy_. In addition there seems to be no conclusion implied in it other than shock of very particular, contemporary, ethnocentric sensibilities. What is the reason that the state should regulate the relationships he mentioned (multiple partners, and intergenerational)? IT seems to lack any real justification other than 'eww-factor'.

Sent by z | 2:41 PM ET | 03-21-2007

If homosexuallity is a sin and doesn't affect anyone else outside of the relationship, then that is between the sinner and God. I for one could care less. I don't believe that I have the power to judge and neither do most people I know. Perhaps peolple should mind their own business

Sent by Robert | 2:42 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I want this voice to be heard also: I am straight, and a Christian, who talks the Bible seriously, and I believe that the Bible says far more about love, and justice than about any prohibited behaviors....many prohibitions which we totally ignore. GLBT persons should be granted all rights just as straight people are.

Sent by Ruth Shepherd | 2:42 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about gay rape, but yet it's been spun into being just against homosexuality. How do religious leaders know it was about being gay and not rape? Rape is illegal in our society, but homosexuality isn't, and doesn't that align more with the moral of the story?

Sent by Justin, Bay Area | 2:42 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Homosexuality like all human behavior is a function of both genetics and environment. When population densities become great in many primate species, homosexuality becomes more prevalant. There was even a recent documented case of self-fertilization in a Komodo Dragon presumably due to an extremely low population density.

Sent by Bradley Layton | 2:43 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Homosexuality is a life filled with discrimination, hatred and violence toward us. Do you really think someone would choose a life like that? I am an openly gay man and trust me, have prayed and begged God since the age of 9 to change me... God has not done that, so, one can speculate that God is fine with me just the way I am. Luckily, I am a member of a Church that does NOT condemn me. I am a member of Ray of Hope Church in Syracuse, NY.

Sent by James Ward - Upstate, NY | 2:43 PM ET | 03-21-2007

There is a very simple answer to the people who try to use the slippery slope argument against rights for gays: CONSENT.

In the instance of the NAMBLA example just given on air, the reason allowing gays to marry does not imply condoning pedophilia is that the young person is not capable of full and free consent. We do not allow juveniles to sign business contracts because they are not sufficiently mature to understand what they're agreeing to; why would marriage or sexual relationships be any different?

CONSENTING adults should have the right to whatever relationship they choose or feel called to.

Sent by Fiona Morales | 2:43 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I do not hate homosexuals, however I find the act aborhent. I also resent the fact that I am now forced to accept a lifestyle that I detest because it is politically correct. It is forced upon us by a minority of people who not only want to practice a life style but have an almost pathelogical need for acceptance. I do not give a damn what you do in the privacy of your own home, just don't force it upon me. I worked with a lesbian who constantly reminded everyone her "preference" and spoke about it at every opportunity in the work place. This is not like skin color or even religion which may have observable signs.

Sent by jerry fulcher | 2:44 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have never found a persons sexual preference and/or activity to be a basis on which to judge them. Never. Really - there's a good chance that at least a few of the many heterosexuals I know perform sexual acts that I would never consider - but I don't consider that any of my business either!

Sent by Meg | 2:44 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Sex outside of the coventant of marriage in any age has called suffering and the breaking down of the fondations of civilization. The untold and unimaginabel human suffering caused by leathel STD's as well as AIDS, illigitamate births of children who do not have parents to bring them up, the devestation of the family unit when one partner decides to act outside of covenant of marriage, the whole abortion issue would come to a holt, it would not be an issue. We continue to get burned by the fire and yet continue to play with it.

Sent by James Johnson | 2:44 PM ET | 03-21-2007

If homosexuals are interested in engaging in actual, political dialogue about this issue they need to stop making attacks on Christian beliefs. Every time a homosexual tries to shoot down Christian morality by citing ceremonial laws in Leviticus, etc. he/she only underlines their lack of understanding of the religion. When my religion is under attack, especially by such terribly uninformed theology, I am going to counter to point out that they???re wrong, and their theology is flawed. If you want to see gay marriage in your state, you are picking the wrong battleground by trying to stand on the Scriptures, go with the Constitution instead.

Sent by Brian | 2:45 PM ET | 03-21-2007

A marriage is a contract requiring certain criteria. For example, the contract is only between 2 people - not 3 or more - only 2. There is an age requirement. Neither can be a minor. Neither can be a close family memeber. A father cannot marry his daughter, as this would be incest. Second cousins, however, can marry.
Now what's wrong with including, as a criteria, that each party must be of the opposite sex? Doesn't mean that those who don't qualify, can't have a "relationship" or even another type of contract. Marriage has a specific test that defines it. What's the big deal?
I do believe that any 2 people can make a "contract" which bundles certain legal functions - right of inheritance, power of attorney, etc. Immigration sponsorship should be excluded, as there is too much opportunity for fraud.

Sent by kerthialfad | 2:46 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It needs to be noted that St. Paul in his letter to the Romans was looking at a Rome which was accelerating into serious decadence, part of which was sexual and deliberately perverse.?? There was no question of marriage within the same sex in those relationships.

However St. Augustine, who had even more to with establishing the doctrine of original sin than St. Paul (and who struggled with his own sexual vigor without benefit of?? marriage for much of his life), laid out the general touchstone of Christian behavior of "Love and do what you will," that is, to trust that where there is true spiritual love is present, the Holy Spirit of God is present as well.

Perhaps we straight Christian thinkers need to measure our reactions, here and elsewhere, against the admonition of St Augustine to love before we act toward or judge our brother or sister, in which he followed directly the teaching of Christ.

Sent by Mia Shargel | 2:47 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have found that male gay nurses are generally more compassionate than female nurses. This world needs more compassion. "do unto others as you would do unto yourself" not "push your personal beliefs unto others"

Sent by mike miller | 2:47 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find it ironic that the scripture can and is used by those who call themselves Christians in a rather convenient way... only when it supports their argument. How about the ideas of "Judge not least ye be judged yourself" "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone." "Pull the beam out of your own eye before looking into your brothers" "Love your enimies as you would love yourself" The overarching theme of the Bible is Love and compassion for your brother not the ideas of "use this tool as it is convenient for you, your ignorance, and your fear". I often times do not feel that love and compassion as it applies to homosexuals and other moral issues. I only see judgement in its application.

Sent by Andy Robinson | 2:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

What I find disturbing is that people whom claim to love God and His word use biblical teachings and text to promote hate and separation among God???s people (Christian or not). Also, the religious opponents of same sex marriage use the same arguments for disallowing gay Americans their rights as they did to outlaw miscegenation. We also have to face the alarming historical evidence that the Bible was used as a rhetorical tool to support slavery. Why not focus on the teachings of Jesus that ask us to care for one another? Why not be responsible stewards for the gift God gave us and respect our planet? It seems that there are universal teachings Christians and non-Christian can benefit from in the Bible, why aren???t these more mainstream and relevant?

Sent by Mo | 2:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have found the discussion of homosexual attitudes interesting, but as concerns the governance of a nation we must first decide on what we will base our judgements. What basis will we use to decide acceptable and unacceptable and the appropriate response. Must we not first establish an authority to base our governance on. If we remove a historical base we must present a new basis for governance or we are simply inviting chaos and rule by strength. Might makes right has been shown to be disaterous as a basis of governance. Why do people want to go there by removing a base without legitament discussion as to the replacement. Anarchy serves no one. What new authority base for our law? We must answer this question before we can successfully redefine our society and its familial construction.

Sent by R. M. Talbott | 2:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I appreciate the basic rights, such as free speech, we have in our country and see the acceptance of these inalienable rights to mean free speech for the gay activists and for the religious organizations. It is a quite a contradiction to allow Gay rights groups to act on a moral conviction and not allow the same basic rights to religious organizations to act upon a moral basis as well. Just as a religion bias can harm the gay rights conviction, a gay bias can harm a religious conviction. It is unfortunate this country and generation has lost the ability to dialogue instead of pitting ourselves against one another. There is a difference in agreeing to disagree after honest, non hostile dialogue and moral relativism. We must learn to dialogue and shy away from moral relativism. If we accept moral relativism Gay discrimination against religious groups would violate moral relativism the same way it is conceived that religious groups violate gay rights today.

Sent by John | 2:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

i am thank goodness a heterosexual women, with a number of gay friends ..........not one would choose to be gay ...it is a difficult often lonely lifestyle...everything is more complicated and even in educated liberal milieus , ...gay men are not as often invited to "regular dinner parties" , not invited to join the "right clubs etc" all those i know even those in happy stable long term relationships had they been asked , would have chosen to be heterosexual. the point is mute.........homosexuals just are .....................should they be permitted to adopt ?..............i don't know , because the basis for adoption is not the right of gays, but the best placement for each child , case, by case .

Sent by e b | 2:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

What disturbs me most about this topic is not that there are people who disagree with or disapprove of homosexuality, but that those people seek to codify their religiously-based objections into laws that would apply to all citizens, even those that don't share their beliefs. And this doesn't only apply to homosexuality, of course, but any and all hot-button social issues.

Also, Laura from Portland wrote above "I have always felt the homophobic's argument that being gay is a "life style choice" to be utterly ridiculous. Why would anyone choose to be part of a group that is vilified, ridiculed, beaten and murdered?" This caught my eye particularly, because I've often had the same question asked of me- about my being Jewish. And my answer usually falls along the same lines, as well: "It's not a choice. I was born in a Jewish family. It's just a fact of my life."

Sent by Jess | 2:49 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I believe homosexuality is immoral, but when it comes to legislation my moral beliefs are irrelevant. We can't use law to dictate people's personal moral choices.

In the book of Exodus, the Lord declares "thou shalt have no other gods before me." Should we as a secular government make it illegal to worship any gods other than the Lord of the Old Testament?

Christ taught that we should give our physical wealth to the poor. Does that mean we should force communism on all American citizens?

As a Christian I believe that God gives us blessings when we choose to obey his commandments. If we're forced by law to obey, then there's no choice and therefore no blessing.

Sent by James Cragun | 2:50 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Neal,
I'm sorry to see our nation hasn't come farther since the civil rights movement. I'm straight, but my youngest brother and long-time best friend are gay, so gay rights issues hit close to home.
I can tell you without question that being gay is not a choice. It is not right to ask someone to be celibate and lonely their whole lives when it is a healthy, normal part of human existence to be in a stable, sexual relationship.
If a religion teaches its believers something, that's their right to believe as long as they don't act on their beliefs in a way that hurts someone. However, they have no right to say that gay people shouldn't be able to legally marry. Religious and legal marriage are two separate issues. Obviously, churches are private entities that have the right to set limitations on who they will perform ceremonies for. They may choose not to marry a heterosexual couple who is not of their denomination, hasn't gone through counseling, etc., just as they may choose not to marry a homosexual couple.

Sent by Amy - Outside of Chicago | 2:51 PM ET | 03-21-2007

A slippery slope argument was made against allowing gay marriage. What about the slippery slope of allowing the government to discriminate against gays because of conservative Christian doctrine? What other Christian precepts will be imposed on Americans - Christian or not? Can someone explain to me when it's "okay" for a nominally secular government to impose religion on its citizens and tell me why I shouldn't be concerned that our nation is on our way to becoming a fundamentalist state?

Sent by Angela | 2:52 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Please take care to discern between people who object to homosexuality because of true religious objection, or other conscience issues, versus homophobia. Phobias are irrational fear. Very different from religious or conscientious grounds.

A non-religious, conscientious issue could be how our culture is rolling downhill into all-out Hedonism. That is a slippery slope that no other culture has ever survived. Greek culture sanctioned men with little boys, even over the objection of the little boy.

Sent by Craig | 2:53 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find it very interesting that many "Christians" quote Paul's letter to the Romans chapter 1 as a defense for claiming that homosexuality is wrong. Especially since the very next chapter CLEARLY states:

"Therefore you have no excuse, O man, whoever you are, when you judge another; for in passing judgment upon him you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, are doing the very same things."

It's interesting that those people don't keep reading and find that really, Paul is talking to and challenging those who judge, not so much those who are homosexual.

And in regards to one of the first callers:
Just because something is written a long time ago, IN NO WAY is that a sound reason for its dismissal. Great, the bible was written by many authors thousands of years ago in a different locale and with different social orders and mind-sets, so was "Hamlet", "Don Quixote", "Phaedrus", "Metaphysics of Morals", "Antigone", "Agamemnon", etc. The idea that because something is old means that it can be brushed-off is evidence of the lack of respect for history and the past. There are very important reasons that something that old has lasted so long. Consider that.

Sent by Bronwyn | 2:53 PM ET | 03-21-2007

The Idea that a general,whose job it is to kill people as effective as possible could or should be talking about morals is ubsurd.Homosexual acts or ANY ACT by consenting adults are obviously the business of those involved and no one else.Bombing people that are not doing what this blood drenched empire wants them to do is without a doubt one of the most immoral acts in human history.Its as obvious as the nose on our faces but unspeakable in public as of yet.Morals...give me a break.

Sent by David Morley | 2:54 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It takes my breath away, here in the 21st century, that people think homosexuality is a choice, like a man or woman wakes one day and decides to make their lives hell. For those stuck in a religious frame of reference, what ever happened to "judge not, lest ye be judged" ? I clearly remember conversations decades ago with two gay friends who were devastated when they faced the fact they were gay..... Devastated not for the homosexuality itself, but for the horrors they'd face in our society for a situation over which they have no choice. Homosexuality is as "normal" as heterosexuality. Nature or nurture? I suggest only bigotry falls into the nurture column.

Sent by Mary Lee Stromquist | 2:54 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a Christian, I take the Bible seriously, but I take Christ more seriously. As [Martin] Luther suggested, I believe there is a 'canon within the canon.' All of the Bible must be interpreted through Christ who preached love above all things. While his followers were always trying to limit love, Christ preached, lived, died [and was raised from the dead] to expand love. The Gospels say nothing whatsoever about homosexuality. The church, instead of pointing to isolated passages in the Bible which support an anti-gay agenda, should be lobbying the government to legalize same-sex unions. I am married [and straight] but I have been educated by my gay friends. Why should otherwise law-abiding citizens be denied social support for their love and for their lifetime commitment to one another? There is nothing a gay person can do with his/her partner that a heterosexual person has not done with his/her partner. But heterosexual people have been denied the right to marry at certain times in history when they have been subjugated, such as during American slavery, in Nazi Germany and peasants in the Middle Ages [that is, until the church got involved].

Sent by Susan Davenport | 2:55 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find it puzzling that the so-called "Christian" right spends a significant amount of time and money in its efforts at maligning homosexuality when there are so many people in need that they could otherwise be devoting their resources to helping. If they truly care so much about the American family, as they define it, why aren't they involved in helping abused children, homeless families, or even single parents (if unmarried parents are deemed worthy enough)? If Jesus were here on earth today, I wonder where he would focus his efforts? The Christian right's agenda and movement brings to my mind a remark by a movie character after he had been watching televangelists. He said, "If Jesus could come down on earth and see everything that is being done in his name, he would throw up."

Sent by Sharon R | 2:55 PM ET | 03-21-2007

why do we continue to use the term "homosexual" when referring to the Bible. That word didn't even exist when the Bible was written. It was only in the last 50 years that it was added to the new translations of the Bible.

Sent by Rev. B | 2:56 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a long time pastor with more than a passing acquaintance of Hebrew and Christian Scriptures. Like many students I am impressed with the unfolding awareness among communities of faith to God's nature therein revealed. The revealed God of mercy in Hebrew Scriptures and the God of grace in Christian Scriptures makes it difficult to imagine that Spirit not being present in the committed love of gays and lesbians.

Sent by The Rev. Dr. John B. Hart | 2:56 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a 25 year old homosexual entering into the professional world. I was faced with the challenge of being gay at work. I have chosen not to hide my homosexuality but I also do not exhibit it. I act just as anyone in my work would when asked about my personal life. So far I have receive support from all my co-workers, but I am always afraid that I will be condemned for who I am. I believe the younger generation is more accepting than the older generation.

Sent by Alex, Denver, CO | 2:58 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am so glad to hear someone so clearly express the biblical view of homosexuality in a clear and compassionate manner. I think the biggest mistake science made was to say that homosexuality was "normal." The biological parts don't fit, however, people live with many physical conditions that aren't "normal" such as diabetes, heart conditions, etc. Marriage is for one man and one woman, but I believe there should be a legal manner (not marriage) to provide more people with some of the legal protections that marriage provides that are not related to sexuality. For instance, who can make medical decisions for you, inheritance rights, and others. I agree with the writer who indicates that God's priority is on how we treat the weak and poor, not who is sleeping with who and that, in fact, "all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." It is so hard to synthesize complex thinking on this subject down to one paragraph.

Sent by Joanna | 2:59 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Regarding the "slippery slope" comment...There is a slippery slope aspect to this discussion. The argument for same sex marriage seems to principally based on a view of individual and/or personal rights. Fine. The argument for same sex marriage is a really request to have the same legal rights and benefits afforded to opposite sex marriages. Fine. Then the issue is not so much about personal choice to be in a same sex relationship (little prevents that) but to be in a same sex relationship and have all the rights that government affords to opposite sex couples. The discussion then needs to turn to whether the state has a legitimate interest in reserving certain rights (under the tax code, probate code - whatever) to opposite sex couples in order to promote a beneficial societal end. Maybe there is, maybe not. But this is where the discussion needs to be. If it is simply about "my rights" then why isn't it my right to be in a 3 way relationship, homosexual or not, AND demand the benefits of the law for my "partners"? A better example is polygamy which, for folks such as Mormons, implicates another constitutional protected right - freedom of religion. If the basis for civilly sanctioned gay unions with all the rights of marriage is premised on the indivduals rights, then why not polygamy? The discussion cannot be only about about individual rights without a thoughtful discussion of the interest society as a whole has in promoting certain relationships over others and the benefits afforded by the laws to those relationships.

Sent by Jeff Nordholm | 2:59 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I'm tired of having my civil rights denied by others who use their literal interpretation of selected scipture to justify the tyranny of the majority. I choose to be a member of a church, the United Church of Christ, which takes the Bible seriously rather than literally. My church understands that God's revelation is found in but not limited to the Bible. Check out www.stillspeaking.com for examples of how God continues to speak.

Sent by Rev. Craig Hoffman | 3:00 PM ET | 03-21-2007

How is that I was allowed to get married to my husband without a religion, but homosexuals are not. And if being homosexual is a sin, and comitting adultery is a sin, then why don't we take rights away from those who commit adultery, like forbid them to adopt children or get married again. Why don't we take children away from couples who get divorced? It is a sin isn't it? Why do we who are not religious have to listen to anything the Christians in particular have to say about how we get married, whether we get married, or why we get married. I don't bother them with my non-religious views and I would appreciate if they did the same for me.

I keep hearing that we have to "protect" the institute of marriage and not let homosexuals get married, but could someone tell me what we are protecting it from? Could someone give me a none religious answer to this question. If you can't, then I can't take take your answer seriously because your religion is not my religion. In my mind it's as simple as that.

Sent by Ima | 3:01 PM ET | 03-21-2007

with regards to the "Slippery Slope" we have already established what marriage is a committed arrangement between TWO not 3,4,5.... people just ask the mormons about this one.
Howeverthe certificate that confirms a marriage gives inalienable rights this is what is most upsetting to the GLBT community. If a partner dies the benefits that are guaranteed to the surving dependant are forfeited thus a 60 year old is not given support. If you want to test this try and get social security payments for a child dependant, of gay parents under the age of 18.
Further more military benefits do not extend to a same sex partner of all people thos who die for our country should be allowed to choose where theier benefits should go.
So if you think that a relationship between two men or women is immoral christ never made this distinction. Last time I looked there are more GIRLS gone WILD than GAYS gone ABOMINATING, so the likleyhood that Sodom and Gomorrah was the result of homosexuality is just like saying straight porn was the result of gay porn.

Sent by David Touchstone | 3:02 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I love the show. The topic is moot. When did anyone get to dictate morality.

When did anyone get that moral upper hand. I'm tried of debating meaningless issues that as adults we have no need to have an opinion.

No one is asking anyone to switch sides. Talk about real issues that affect the country. Hmmmm first think that comes to mind. Ah WAR

Sent by Wayne Messer | 3:05 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I am a gay man. I was quite involved in organized christian religion for years. One practice of so many organized religions is that so many believe that their concepts of morality or right and wrong are right and their values must be inflicted on others. Whenever I hear something negative about homosexuality, it seems to be related to AN interpretation of the bible. Those same people usually do not even consider how the bible applies to their wrong doings. My question is how does the country decide which religion should dictate its values for the country? Why should I live by anybody else's religion? I think slavery is/was terribly wrong and yet the christian religions used the bible to justify it in the past. I think discrimination is wrong and immoral and yet they use religion to discriminate against me.

Sent by Tom Simpleman | 3:07 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I find myself wondering why all the gays, lesbians, transgender, whatever, can't just live there lives like I do. I don't run around saying I'm Straight, I'm Great!!! I don't need or demand acceptance from a general society that doesn't appear to like my more conservative views.

I wonder what is wrong with them that they engage in this behavior. And how far we have to go in accommodating a couple percent of the population.

Sent by Steve - Phx, AZ | 3:07 PM ET | 03-21-2007

There is of course a distinction to be made between old texts and antiquated ideas of old texts. The Bible and Newton's Principia Mathematica are both old, but the Bible, while it certainly contains sound passages such as the Golden Rule, really has little else to offer. Principia, on the other hand, contains a set of formulas that invite revisions that are based on newly discovered truths. Those who vainly search the Bible for truth are left merely confused, left only to their own whims as to which portions to "believe." If instead, we focus our efforts on understanding the physical nature of the universe and move past our hang-ups on what type of genital contact is occurring among our fellow homo sapiens, we will certainly all be better off in the very long run.

Sent by Bradley Layton | 3:10 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Presuming the Bible IS the Word of God, God's Words were delivered to a tribe of illiterate Bronze Age shepherds. Conditions are a bit different 5000 years later, but the Words of God haven't been updated.

God, isn't it time for a sequel, or at least a rewrite for the 21st Century?


Sent by Gregor | 3:10 PM ET | 03-21-2007

To answer one caller's opinion about who wrote the Bible; God wrote the Bible using the hands of many men over several centuries. Next to reply to the idea that homosexuals are hated by Christians; simply not true, christians love everyone, it is their goal to spread the Great News of Jesus Christ to all. We love every individual, but we abhore, disdain, are repulsed by, and reject acts described as sin by the Word of God. If we are asked to vote on matters of marital rights, we must answer in good conscience according to the teachings of the Bible. To vote in favor of such things is to condone them, which we can not do. This is not hate directed toward an individual but toward a conduct. Murder, thievery, and lying being other conducts that fall under this category. That does not mean that we hate the perpatraitor of such conduct. In fact we only seek to teach them that it is wrong and will undermine moral society over time.

Sent by Chris Adams | 3:11 PM ET | 03-21-2007

It's too easy (although perhaps not academic) to say that racism is a "settled" issue. While the open expression of racist sentiment may be socially taboo, racism is still (tragically) a heavily institutionalized part of all strata and functions of American life. But, because white America has learned to draw a line, racist language is no longer largely tolerated in public conversation (although, that too is only a marginal truth). Unfortunately, homophobia and heterosexism are still acceptable topics for "debate". I quibble with the idea that the very existence of glbt men and women is the stuff of relevant public discourse. I reiterate that this is not academic; you are debating the validity of people's core selves. As far as I can see, no forms of popular discrimination in this country are "settled", and Talk of the Nation has done its part today to ensure that these "debates" remain open.

Sent by Ericka Meyer | 3:12 PM ET | 03-21-2007

To understand the opposition to homosexuality by organized religion, follow the money. Money is the current base of power. The gathering of homogeneous groups was the base of power in pre-monetized societies. Organized religion or any organization exists via the maintenance and control of power. Procreation of homogeneous groups grants a larger and attractive power base for organizations. Monogamous relationships are the best way of producing these groups hence defined marriage. Other sexual relationships are counter to the goal of procreation devoted to certain religions. Morality as defined by religions has its roots in control, of then, groups, currently capital. Morals dictate that people or capital flow through the conduit of organized religion.

Marriage defined by statute rather than religion was a loss of control that resulted in high divorce rates as divorce is granted by government as opposed to restricted by the church. Re-marriage is a method of maintaining membership hence the acceptance of high divorce rates by the church. The realization by organized religion that gay marriage will result in increased membership and flow of funds will occur once its current membership base opposed to homosexuality is worth less than courting homosexuals. Follow the money.

Sent by Greg | 3:14 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a Christian I don't feel that it's right to condemn homosexuals to hell. In my heart I really feel that it isn't my decision or place to make that judgment. I have or have had friends that are gay and I love them just as much as my heterosexual friends. Over the years of thinking and praying about this very subject I really believe that somehow we've got it wrong or at least should be open to hearing some other perspectives about the Bible and Christianity. One thing that I feel strongly about as a Christian is that God intended for us to question, study, and explore the Bible with a thoughtful mind.
4 years ago my high school friend came into town and we visited. During our discussion we talked about her homosexuality. At the time I was new to Christianity but I knew that the Bible condemned it ferociously . I was under the impression that her orientation could be a choice that she made. On other hand she felt deeply that she was born that way and how could I not believe her? That was the beginning of my doubting that homosexuality is a choice. Really I just think it's important to be informed and not just rely on one person's education on the origins of the Bible and what it means.


Sent by Jessica Powell | 3:26 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Leviticus 11:9-12 tells me I should not eat shrimp. Am I going to hell because I ate at Red Lobster last night?

The conservative commentator on your show produced no compelling evidence or reasoning against gay marriage. He seems to think that this debate is about child marriage, or polygamy.

This boorish behavior is to be expected fundamentalists. They would rather discuss fringe sexuality issues than things like divorce, because complaining about someone else's lifestyle requires no introspection at all. Why fix the problems in your own life when you can spend your time blaming others for your problems?

All this reminds me of a quote: "If you find God hates the same people you do, you may have created Him in your own image".

Sent by JG in NC | 3:28 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I encourage all to read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. In this recently published book, Dawkins carefully lays out several arguments as to how humans came to develop their beliefs in a supernatural power in general, and over many generations happend to formalize these beliefs into a monotheism. As is evident today, these codified beliefs did indeed provide a selective advantage to their members in the same way that patriotism provides a selective advantage to citizens of this country. This type of religious mindset, if adopted by enough people, then becomes self-propagating: the more members a given religion or cult can aquire, the more powerful it becomes. What the religious need to begin considering is whether their might be genetic and environmental forces that drive them towards religion, in a similar way that we all are driven towards homosexuality, heterosexuality, or asexuality. Religious followers need to ask themselves whether they are following a belief system purely to gain a type of social security for themselves and their children or if they are acting out of a sense of fear of their own mortality, or some other force that they have not begun to consider.

Sent by Bradley Layton | 3:42 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I believe that we have an easy way out of this whole arguement. Both sides will have to give in a little, but both sides will also win. My thought is that we make all "legal joinings" between two people, Heterosexual or Homosexual, civil unions. Instead of "Marriage Licenses" we will have "Certificates of Civil Union". Change the laws so that all rights under state statutes and federal law regarding spousal rights refer to "Civil Unions". Finally, make the term "Marriage" a purely religious ceremony. That way we take politics out of the arguement and let move to the church, which is where most of the anti voice is preaching from anyway.

Personally, I support the gay community in their struggle for equality, but I also support the religious in their right to believe what they feel is God's Law. That's why we should separate the two arguements.

Sent by Terrence DeGrenier | 4:04 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Get rid of the soothsayers and make the world a better place. We need to deal with facts and science and not myths.

Sent by Buster | 4:21 PM ET | 03-21-2007

First off I believe there are many misconceptions and understanding of the homosexual issue. From all that I've read it appears to me that the whole gay community believes that its either you hate gays, you don't, or you just don't care. And thats not wholly true. I for one do not believe or agree with homosexuality; but, that dose not mean I hate homosexuals. Hating a person for who he is is one thing, disagreeing with what the person does is totally different. Just as you may love your children but disapprove of their disobedience and hate it if they're lying or being deceitful.

As for what the Bible as to say about homosexual it is very clear. God regards it as an abomination. That does not mean that all gays are destine for hell. All who practice wickedness and perverse acts with no repentance are doomed to spend eternity in hell whether it is sexual immorality, murder, adultery, or stealing, etc.

And as for who wrote the bible, that all depends on who you're talking to. If you're talking to a non believer to make a point for your argument, then it's irrelevant. But if you're making your argument with a Christian, then you should understand that all Christians believe that the bible has only one author. That is God, who inspired man to put in on paper. Just as a business CEO would dictate his message to more than one secretary. Doesn't matter how many secretary wrote it down, the CEO is still the author.

Sent by Stunlock | 4:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

If NPR is screening for pro homosexual comments only, then NPR should make it clear to all the readers for the sake of fairness. Don't post pro homosexual comments only to give the impression that 100% of all readers are pro homosexuals. Not only is it unfair, it is also an insult to people's intelligence. This Blog is a joke. LOL

Sent by NPR-bias | 5:15 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I would like to know why Homosexuals play the I'm hated card as they provoke hatred?

I've seen so many claim that they're abused when they're the ones provoking a confrontation.

I want all abuse to stop, there is too much violence and lying and distortions of meanings, and the twisting of words to clutter and confuse our minds with garbage. The worst part is that this teaching of this agenda promoting pornography is being taught to children in the school systems.

Sent by Gary | 5:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I have begun to get more educated on the subject of same sex attraction disorder. I've been reading text by individuals who have lived a gay lifestyle for years and have not found true happiness or satisfaction in that experience. They were educated to believe that they had no choice...."born that way". As the result of deep soul searching and therapeutic work many have found that they were sold a "bill of goods". Their homosexuality was a symptom rather than an innate part of their being. The causes---many could be listed but they can include lack of bonding with the same gender (various reason--disabilities, poor body images, greater sensitivities, abuse, stereotyping, etc)So their same sex became to them the mystical opposite or represented to them what they felt a lack of....down the road this can get misconstrued as sexual, etc. Really, though, a need to fill unmet requirements for love and bonding. Hey, this happens with many people in many ways.....drugs, alcohol, promiscuity, etc.
Then this group of individuals becomes hated, persecuted, excluded to the point of rising up and taking a political view that this is about Civil Rights.
Nobody should be persecuted-in this day of working to drop off labels we sure are quick to label someone that's a little different from us. This persepctive can contribute to the very problem we are facing.
We have gone from the extreme of hate to the politics of acceptance. There is actually another approach that includes support to overcome the misconceptions one holds about themselves and others and work towards healing.
If one person heals from homosexuality then it becomes in the realm of possibility for others. Are we all ready to do this kind of work together? Sometimes when one feels so identified with a position they'll defend it to the end....but at what cost?

Sent by GG | 5:30 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I refuse to treat a segment of our population as second-class citizens, or see that sort of treatment sanctioned by the State, based on an interpretation of writings created by Bronze Age peoples.

Sent by Mike A. | 6:43 PM ET | 03-21-2007

There actually is a PRO-gay marriage perspective that comes from the Bible. The Institute for Progressive Christianity has an excellent paper on the topic, Otis Gaddis's "The Kingdom of God and the Witness of Gay Marriage" (http://instituteforprogressivechristianity.org/joomla/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=47&Itemid=2). On the side bars you will also see other commentaries (i.e. "Jesus in Favor of Gay Marriage?") proposing that intolerance of homosexual people and hypocrisy around sexual norms is what should be understood as immoral and not an attempt by two committed people, regardless of sexual orientation, to form a committed and loving union.

Sent by Zeus Yiamouyiannis | 7:06 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Having a sexual attraction towards someone is not immoral. We are human and cannot help having such desires. Acting upon thse urges, however, IS immoral. We don't choose to be gay or straight, but we DO choose to partake in sexual misconduct. There are two aspects to sex: reproduction, and manifestation of love sanctified by God by marriage. These two go hand in hand, and should not exist independently of one another. I hold these standards to every human being, but as you see, sex between two members of the same sex neglects that first part (reproduction). Similarly, unmarried heterosexual couples are engaging in immoral activity when they have sex out of wedlock. So please don't compare me to a Nazi. My views here have nothing to do with discrimination against sexual orientation. My views on this issue are universal, and I hold all to the same standards.

Sent by Mary | 7:55 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Equality for all. Nothing else should have to be said. I totally sympathize with the comment that the anti-gay commentaries should have no further forum. I am waiting for that day. Neil Conan could try harder to get us to that great place that must lie ahead if our country is to fight off this pull toward ignorance.

Sent by Jean Kayser | 9:26 PM ET | 03-21-2007

My prejudice is not against marriages of gays, but of any person engaging in unclean acts, e.g. anal sex, within or outside of marriage. If the prevalence of homosexuals to perform such acts is much greater than heterosexuals , then I would think such prejudice has a basis. Additionally, I believe it is presumed that homosexual persons are more likely to have sexual relationships outside of marriage than those joined in straight marriages. Underlying this is the understanding that anal sex and oral sex has a substantially larger probability of spreading diseases such as aids, syphilis, and other STDs to the detriment of our society. The foregoing reasoning I think underlies teaching in religious documents of many faiths.

I have no idea about what I propose are that "facts" in this arguement and would be interested to hear on NPR about well documented evidence on the "truth" of such matters. I would then be ready to change my views or not, as the facts substantiate.

Sent by Richard | 9:31 PM ET | 03-21-2007

In the discussion on homosexuality and the Bible, why was there no discussion of the University of Oregon's study about "Biology Behind Homosexuality In Sheep???"? http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/03/040309073256.htm

Also why was there no discussion of the intersexed --those born with both male and female genitalia?

Unfortunately, preachers usually don't know as much about their Bible as they profess. The prophet Jeremiah recognized that the "pen is scribes made it into a lie." (8:8) If Jeremiah regarded it as a lie, shouldn't contemporary Christians? That ought to be warning enough.

Much of the Apostle Paul's letters are interspersed with forgeries that it's doubtful that what he allegedly said about same sex activities are really his.

If loving one's neighbor as oneself is Paul's, then there's nothing in the love command to judge and condemn one's neighbor.

If Paul wrote that there is neither Jew nor Greek, bond nor free, male or female that we are all one in Christ, then there's be no place for rejecting another.

Paul also rejected the Old Testament. He called it "crap" -- human and animal excrement. He also said it's passing away because we have a new and better covenant. So why are Christians even citing the Old Testament?

In any event both the Old and New Testaments were written by men with a political agenda.

Why was there no discussion about American values such as liberty and justice for all?

Why was there no citing of Leviticus 25:10 -- "Proclaim liberty throughout the land to all the inhabitants thereof"? That's the inscription on the Liberty Bell. It was the contribution of American Puritans.

"All" means all. There are no exclusions.

Sent by David Dunn | 10:27 PM ET | 03-21-2007

One of the voices that has not been heard in this discussion is that gay people instead of being immoral are actually a reflection of God and God's beauty in the world. The Institute for Progressive Christianity discusses this Christian understanding in their papers at www.instituteforprogressivechristianity.org

Sent by Otis Gaddis III | 10:34 PM ET | 03-21-2007

As a straight man who thinks that there is nothing wrong with any sexual activity conducted lovingly, discreetly, and safely between consenting adults, I'm amused by the biblical justifications given for the hatred of gays by Christians. One of your speakers talked about Moses and his alleged Ten Commandments. I wonder if he has read Numbers chapter 31, where Moses was enraged that the Israeli army took captives during a genocidal raid on the land of Midian. Moses directed the army to "slay, therefore, every male child and every woman who has had intercourse with a man. But you may spare and keep for yourselves all girls who had no intercourse with a man." So, while the bible prescribed the death penalty for homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), it also prescribed genocide, child murder, and the rape of young girls, as long as the victims were not Jews. Clearly, the bible is deeply flawed and is not an acceptable moral guidebook for modern life.

Sent by Mike | 11:29 PM ET | 03-21-2007

My underlying question is where do you put the stop as to what is moral and what is immoral? Today homosexuals argue that it is not immoral. I am not a religious person or anything. I dont even go to church or any temple. but if you say today that homosexuality is moral, why cant tomorrow people argue that polygamy or prostitution or having sex with a minor is moral as well. homosexuality as defined by people who are one of them, is that it is their natural inclination and not a choice. And for many people having many wifes would be their natural inclination and a minor who consentually has sex with a older person his/her natural inclination is to have sex. And for prostitutes it is their natural inclination or means of way to earn their money. so why ban all of these then? Why do you draw a limit there? If you do say those are immoral, to me, homosexuality should also be considered immoral and a law should be passed to condemn it.

Sent by Ron | 11:48 PM ET | 03-21-2007

I agree with one of the callers that The gay questions is such a non-issue but for different reasons. Why the conservatives are labeled as 'homophobes' is the reason why. The gay community itself doesn't worry me, but thier propaganda does. All i hear is a comparison of thier chosen brand of "sin" with other people's sins. Compare as they might, they overlook the very simple fact that it is still, In accordance with the bible "a sin". Most will not acknowledge that thier Chosen alternate life style is a sin, or that it is immoral according to the bible. Does that make it any worse than adultry, drinking excessively or any of the other sins, perhaps not, and that is why its a non-issue, but to have them try and force acceptance of an overtly sinful lifestyle isn't a bright idea in a country mostly founded on Christian principles. There is no hate here, no bashing, no homophobia, its strictly going by the bible, what God says in it and not allowing one particular group to try to taint American minds into acceptance of thier particular sins. The same could be said about a group of murderer's wanting the same acceptance. Its a sin, if they just got over thier agenda of trying to down play thier personal choice, there should be peace. I can just as fairly talk about the Christians that try to bash such people down with the bible as well, instead of accept them as fellow human beings and approach them with the love and understanding Jesus has commanded of them, for we have all fallen short. That having been said, the only people I have problems with are the obnoxious and activist gays.

Sent by Roger | 11:54 PM ET | 03-21-2007

Shame on you, Neal! To broadcast this discussion across the nation without having the voice of an openly gay advocate on the panel to stand up to this religious bigotry is appalling. I'm ashamed of you for turning this forum into a church meeting and sermonizing. I plan to complain to KPCC since I don't think your shows really serve our Southern California community, which is a little more advanced than the audience this seems to be aimed at. NPR in general has shifted further to the right since the 2004 elections ("This I believe?" Come on.), maybe in fear of the Republican-controlled congress or maybe to appeal to more more listener/donors. What will the next topic be? Free speech rights for Holocaust deniers? What's so bad about white supremacy? I doubt you're brave enough to offer that up on the airwaves.
cc: KPCC

Sent by Tim Bryant | 12:01 AM ET | 03-22-2007

Having grown up in the 90s, I was actually kind of shocked to find out that so much of the country had such a deep problem with homosexuality. I watched a ton of MTV because, back then (a whole 10-15 years ago!), the message was all about acceptance and fair treatment for all humans. At the same time, I was learning about the difficulties that women, blacks