#but that the bible explicitly condemns homosexual relationships

[curiosityschild]

Anyone else feeling absolutely unhinged this fine Sunday evening? Or is it just me

[what-even-is-thiss]

could you share your thoughts on Christianity and the lgbt community? Not in a like "'oh yeah well how are you this and that if you're REALLY Christian"' kind of way, I'm asking from the perspective of someone who's been struggling with their spirituality because I don't know how I can believe and god and also be gay. Feel free not to answer this though, you shouldn't have to explain yourself to random people every time you mention your religion

There’s not a lot of mentions of what we would consider to be homosexuality in the Bible. Paul mentions it most explicitly but there’s some important things to remember about Paul. First, he’s just some guy. He did important work spreading the religion but that doesn’t mean that he’s right about everything. Second, his only exposure to homosexuality likely came from the Roman elite. And the way they did it usually involved raping slave boys and hiring young prostitutes. They didn’t usually have same sex relations in the way we think of them now. Men didn’t generally have romantic relationships with each other into adulthood and a full adult citizen being passive during sex was considered to be scandalous. Any actual romantic relationships between adults of the same sex were likely kept secret or at least weren’t talked about loudly. So Paul is living in this environment. And people aren’t completely separate from the environments they live in.

For the most part stuff in the Bible that’s translated as condemning homosexuality is referring to certain cultural practices common in the Mediterranean at the time that we also wouldn’t like today. Such as pederasty, also known as a romanticized form of pedophilia that even people at the time in cultures that practiced it heavily criticized. Consenting adults often did have romantic or sexual relations together but they weren’t commonly open about it.

Overall, the Bible just doesn’t have much to say about liking someone of the same gender if you look at instances outside of things alluding to some of the worse stuff the Greeks and Romans did. So if the Bible doesn’t say much about it, that leaves it up to us to logically deduce our personal feelings about it.

Okay. So what are the two main commandments Jesus gives us? Love your neighbor as yourself, and love god with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength. Basically: love God, love others, love yourself. These are said to be the rules that all other commandments stem from and supersede all other commandments in terms of importance.

So. Does being queer stop you from loving God? Loving others? Loving yourself?

Science is real. It helps us learn more and more about the universe God created all the time and science has proven time and time again that being queer isn’t a choice and that people are happier when they live more authentically.

God made you the way you are. You cannot control whether you’re queer or not. So it’s not a mistake in you that can be “fixed”. If humans were made in the image of God, you too are an image of God. So some tiny part of God, however small, looks like you. All of you. Including the queer parts.

So then. Are you loving God? Including the parts of God that are like you? Are you loving your fellow humans? Including your fellow lgbt humans? Are you doing your best to love yourself? Every part of yourself?

I don’t take the Bible fully literally. You can’t. It contradicts itself constantly. But even if you did, the world it was written for and the society that made the oral traditions it was based on no longer exist. At least not in the exact same way they once did. What the Bible does have in it is stories that can give us examples and have informed the formation of our culture as Christians. Christianity has changed a lot over the last 2,000 years. Many forms of it have come and gone. Ultimately it’s up to us as modern Christians what kind of world we want to be apart of and contribute to and what culture we want to make among ourselves. I can’t pretend to know the true nature of God but I do know that God inspires me to reduce suffering and speak up for injustice where I can.

Ultimately your interpretation is up to you. But I personally don’t see needless self flagellation over something you can’t control as an act of justice or love. Just a form of self torture that’s ultimately not adding much to the world. Adding some of your own happiness to the world in my opinion isn’t a problem.

If you want to know how being queer has affected my faith, I’ve never doubted for a second that being lgbt+ is fine. To be honest I’ve been more afraid of secular society not accepting me than God. God and I have wrestled before, but almost never over that. I am how I am and if God didn’t want me to be this way he probably wouldn’t have flipped the gay switch in my brain.

[davonati]

I was thinking a lot about 1 Samuel 20:30 today (I was sort of already thinking about it, and then I listened to Shame from Beloved King and it got very in my head)

Saul flew into a rage against Jonathan. “You son of a perverse, rebellious woman!” he shouted. “I know that you side with the son of Jesse—to your shame, and to the shame of your mother’s nakedness!

I have believed for a long time that this verse indicates that Saul knows (or at least thinks) that Jonathan and David have a sexual relationship and is condemning Jonathan for it. (For the record, not because it’s a homosexual relationship, but because Jonathan is siding with the enemy. In fact nothing in the David-Jonathan narrative ever suggests that they would be condemned being two men in a romantic and/or sexual relationship.)

“But Vee, why do you think that? Saul doesn’t mention anything about sex here.”

Well, in the Hebrew Bible, nakedness basically means sex. Sometimes it can be taken more literally (as in Genesis 9:22-23, where it might mean rape or might mean simple embarrassment over being seen nakedness) but most of the time it means sex, especially illicit sex. This is most well-known from Leviticus 18, where one is commanded not to “uncover the nakedness” of one’s family members. This chapter also includes several examples of “[Person A]’s nakedness” being used as a stand-in for sex with a relative of Person A, rather than Person A themselves. For example: “Do not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is the nakedness of your father.” This indicates not that sex with your father’s wife is literally sex with your father, but that this is a sexual act that will bring shame upon your father, mainly because the wife’s sexuality is under the father’s protection.

I posit, then, that when Saul mentions “the shame of your mother’s nakedness” he is referring to a sexual act that Jonathan has done which will bring shame upon his mother, that somehow relates to his relationship with David. Why does having sex with David bring shame upon his mother? Well, honestly, I think Saul is kind of projecting and means it brings shame upon Saul himself (or both parents together).

I also think that Saul referring to David as the “son of Jesse” is interesting here — perhaps because David’s sexuality is still under his father’s protection? Well, admittedly David is already married here, but assuming that a man’s sexuality can’t be under his wife’s protection his father would still be his authority. And you know, it would also be Jonathan having sex with his sister’s husband — this isn’t explicitly mentioned in Leviticus, but “uncovering the nakedness” of your brother’s wife is prohibited, so I think you could extrapolate brother’s wife -> sister’s husband, it is the nakedness of your sister -> your sister’s nakedness is the nakedness of your mother. Or something like that!

Now, there is a much more common interpretation of this verse that I want to present. This says that “[Jonathan’s] mother’s nakedness” is a reference to Jonathan’s birth, or specifically Jonathan’s conception. Basically, Saul is cursing that Jonathan was ever born (or along those lines). Combined with the first half of the verse — “son of a perverse, rebellious woman” — you can see this as Saul basically calling Jonathan “son of a bitch”.

I think this interpretation holds a lot of water, though not necessarily more than my interpretation. However, when I was looking more into this interpretation I found a really interesting midrash in the Tz’enah Ur’enah (old Yiddish Bible+commentary, kind of, you should just look into it) that seeks to expand on why Saul is insulting Jonathan’s mother (his wife!!) and how he’s comparing the two of them. The gist of the midrash is more or less that Achinoam (Jonathan’s mother) asked Saul out, rather than waiting for Saul to approach her as was proper. The midrash therefore says that Jonathan is too much like his mother: “[Achinoam] was brazen at the dance and you [Jonathan] are also brazen to me [Saul]”. Ok… I can see what they were going for, but why compare Achinoam’s immodest sexuality to Jonathan’s supposed political opposition?

And here, I posit again: Achinoam’s wrongdoing in this midrash is not simply being “brazen”, but going against sexual norms. “Approaching” someone who she shouldn’t approach, or in a way she shouldn’t have approached him. And now Saul is comparing Achinoam’s actions there to his mother’s? His perverse, (sexually) rebellious mother?? In a roundabout way, we come back to Saul accusing Jonathan of illicit sexual acts, somehow involving David…

Ergo, either way you spin it, Saul accuses Jonathan of having sex with David. And Jonathan doesn’t refute it!

[anamericangirl]

"No it doesn't. That's a common misconception people who don't know or understand the Bible have."

Considering the fact that the original Hebrew text of the Ordeal of Bitter Water explicitly mentions the plant silphium, a now extinct herb that was one of the most used natural abortifacients, yes it does.

The Bible explicitly states a method of how to inducing a miscarriage as a form of abortion in wives believed to be unfaithful.

Another case of a mistranslation mucking up your entire religion into believing bunk, the same way that the original Hebrew translation of Leviticus 18:22 said that a man should not lie with an apprentice/child as he does with a woman. An explicit condemnation of pedophilia and teacher student relationships that was purposely mistranslated to vilify homosexuality.

You are incorrect. The ordeal of bitter water does not explicitly mention silphium in the original Hebrew text and in fact that plant is explicitly mentioned nowhere in the original text at all. I don't know where you got that information but you've been misinformed.

Numbers 5 is not describing an abortion. The NIV is the only translation that uses the term "miscarry" and that's because everyone else thinks the NIV mistranslated the word. If you want to talk about the original Hebrew text, the Hebrew word they translated as "miscarry" is naphal, which means to fall, waste away or rot. It has an incredibly broad interpretation and the rest of the passage heavily implies it is referring not to a miscarriage or an abortion but to infertility. So if you want to pretend you know all about the Hebrew text and what was """"""actually"""""" meant at least be consistent.

Also, the popular talking point that every translation of the Bible mistranslated what, in Hebrew, was referring to pedophilia as homosexuality has been rebutted by scholars since it began popping up. Every actual theologian, biblical scholar, etc who have made careers studying this very thing all always come to the same conclusion that the word is a direct condemnation of homosexuality and not pedophilia (although pedophilia is absolutely condemned, just not in this particular passage). The word was coined by Paul himself. He created a compound word with two words that were widely known and would be understood, by the people he was speaking to, as an explicit condemnation of grown men having sexual relations with each other. There's literally no debate about it among scholars.

I know all you reddit atheists think you're biblical scholars and experts in the Hebrew text but there's no real debate on this issue outside of r/atheists.

[ray-moo]

So given that 'All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness' (2 Timothy 3:16-17), we can assume that the sexual morality that Paul is leaning on is not the sexual morality of the Greeks and Romans (with which he is fighting with in the first place), but the sexual morality of the Old Testament.

When we speak of 'natural relations' and 'relations contrary to nature', this might be a bit confusing and easy to interpret via cultural lens, but fortunately the Torah does provide a pretty exhaustive list of unlawful relations (Leviticus 18, Leviticus 20). Notably, male homosexuality is alluded to there, but female homosexuality is not.

So we don't know whether 'likewise' refers to the fact that women were engaging in homosexual relationships or that they were engaging in unnatural relationships, the unnatural relationships of the men just so happening to be homosexual in nature as well.

But there's good reason to believe it doesn't and not a lot of reason to believe otherwise. Firstly, there is no condemnation of female homosexuality ever in the Bible prior to Romans. It's mention is absent from the Mosaic Law. It is not mentioned in the list of sins committed by Israel in it's idolatry or it's neighbours. And from the structure of the verses itself, we would expect that homosexuality would be explicitly mentioned regarding the women first and then the parallel extended to men. Rather it is the unnaturalness of the women's relationships which is focused on first, which is then specified with the men to mean 'men committing shameless acts with men'.

A similar example to this would be if I were to say 'Just as Eve was a sinner, I am a sinner, giving in to fleshly desires to fall into an affair with my coworker'.

Does this mean that Eve had an affair, or that I ate from the Forbidden Fruit? No, it is the fact that we are both sinners that is being emphasized.

You say that you don't condone LGBT lifestyles and such, but what basis does the Bible have for condemning lesbian lifestyles?

Like, the others are much more contentious, but the Bible straight-up does not condemn lesbians.

Romans 1:26-27

English Standard Version

Chapter 1

26For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. For their women exchanged natural relations for those that are contrary to nature; 27and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in themselves the due penalty for their error.

[theboy-thebitch-thelegend]

So, I'd just like to say something, inspired by this post (great post btw, go read it).

In my particular experience, the whole "man shall not lie with man" "it's an ABOMINATION!!! the Bible says so!!!" is only half the argument made against homosexuality (and queerness in general).

Long story short, I came out to my parents when I really shouldn't have. My father has come to be something close to accepting, or at least permissive.

My mother is another story.

My father told her not to be too harsh on me, but, well- he goes off to work most of the week, leaving me with her.

She lectured me, cross-examined me, drove me to several anxiety attacks and even more arguments.

In the end, I got her to concede- using pretty much the same argument as in the post above, and additional research into similar verses- that yes, it's possible that the Bible doesn't actually condemn being gay.

(even still she wasn't entirely convinced. But it was still progress, right?)

However, she still had a rebuttal:

Even if it homosexuality is not necessarily condemned, the model of a proper, holy, God-centered marriage is presented as husband and wife; as modeled by, mainly, Adam and Eve, and later, Christ and the Church. Secondly, relationships that function as a marriage without actually being an official marriage, are not holy.

In other words, couples should not have an intimate relationship outside of a God-centered marriage, and since queer couples by definition cannot have a God-centered marriage, such relationships are still a sin, even if not explicitly condemned.

At this point, it had been almost a week of in depth arguing, researching, and cross-examining, and I was too tired to argue any further. We agreed to stop talking about it- she still thinks, to this day, that it is because she convinced me. She didn't; I just didn't know how to argue further.

If anyone has a response to this particular argument that still operates within a Biblical Christian framework, I would be very interested to hear it, for possible future reference.

I consider myself agnostic but absolutely cannot tell my parents so. I respect my mother's faith, but I feel somewhat obligated to try to change her views to be a little more accepting. If not just for me, then for all my little siblings. I don't want them to have to go through all of what I did if they turn out to be queer in any way.

I'm not planning to re-open this conversation/argument with her for another few years at least, but I'd like to be more prepared the second time around. So again, any thoughts are appreciated.

[reflectionsinchrist]

Should Christians be Pro-LGBT?

This is a spicy, controversial topic, but it should be discussed because it’s such a prevalent issue in our society. And I don’t care if I’m going to get absolutely flamed for this, but I’m not going to try to compromise what it says in the Bible. One could disagree or agree, it wouldn’t and would never change what’s written. 

If a Christian doesn’t know how to respond to this question, things will get messy, because now even the non-believers know a bit of scripture, and people know how to twist things. They will say Jesus taught to love all, and he would have supported the LGBT (especially on twitter), but don’t be deceived.

Now let’s make it clear - Yes, God does love everyone. He loves us all, through our weaknesses and imperfections, and He taught us to do the same. But he hates all sin. Homosexuality, is quite explicitly, a sin. He doesn’t specifically hate homosexuality. If a Christian were to commit adultery, it’d be the same.

Romans 1:26-27, 1 Cor 6:9, 1 Tim 1:10 and a lot more makes it obvious that God doesn’t like homosexuality. There is no other way around it. In the beginning was male and female, as God intended.

Just like one might view race or ethnicity as something sacred, we view gender/sexuality as sacred. Discrimination against race is forbidden, and violating it is not allowed. Marriage is one of the most important sacred relationships, and we can’t violate it. We can’t approve and support such things, as it says and Romans 1:32

Alright, then how should Christians view homosexuality?

First of all, we are called to love all. So we treat them like our brothers and sisters. Nothing less. Just because you disagree with someone doesn’t mean you go around condemning them, because we aren’t any better than them. We are all sinners, all the same in the eyes of our Lord.

Homosexuality is just like any other sin. Lusting for another gender or lusting for  the same gender, it’s all the same in God’s eyes. Yes, some people feel it as natural, some people are born with such tendencies. These tendencies are okay, but it’s about whether or not you act on them. Just like how some people naturally have a temper, or some have gambling/alcoholic tendencies. Some  are born with these tendencies, it’s part of us and our weaknesses. Being gay doesn’t make you a bad person. 

It’s tricky because it sounds like such a pure and natural thing. It’s love! Why would you not want to support love? Who could possibly be against love?

But to Christians it’s simple. Our standards are based on the Bible. The Bible says no, so it’s no. We can’t use our own standards or what we perceive as morally correct because then everything would be right, depending on perspective.

So then what are they supposed to do? 

Well, what did Jesus say to the woman who had committed adultery and was about to be stoned by everyone?

“Now go and sin no more.”

So don’t worry about it because “you’re born this way”, because it 2 Corinthians 5:17 it says, “Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.”

[blessedarethebinarybreakers]

So in several places it is talked about how in Romans Paul is condemning the exchange of natural relationships for unnatural ones and how it could very likely mean abandoning ones spouse in favor of someone of the same gender when you are not gay as going against your heterosexuality would be the unnatural thing. My question is what about bi people then? Are they saying it would be wrong to be in a same sex relationship with someone because you could be in a opposite sex relationship instead 1/2

2/2 or do you think that is just internalized biphobia at work? Ps. Thanks for the resources and stuff. It has helped a lot.

______

Hey there! Great question. For a TL;DR, i’m going to sum this post up by saying that according to that interpretation of Romans, a bisexual person is acting within their personal nature in a relationship with someone of their own gender or with someone of another gender. Thus it is not wrong to choose to be with someone of the same gender! Either is fine :)

Okay, now for my long-winded reply. 

____________

The argument about “nature”

For anyone reading this post who is unsure what @crazynerdandproud is referencing, unless i’m mistaken they are talking about people like Matthew Vines in God and the Gay Christian and the creators of hoperemainsonline who respond to Christians who claim that Romans 1:26-27 condemns same-sex activity by arguing that no, Paul is not claiming that such sexual activity is unnatural for everyone. Before explaining that a little further, here’s Romans 1:26-27 – 

“For this reason God gave them up to degrading passions. For even their females exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the males, leaving the natural use of the female, burned in their lust for one another, males with males committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” 

In a lecture he gave on “The Bible and Homosexuality,” Matthew Vines uses the viewpoint mentioned in this ask to explain his interpretation of what’s going on with this term “natural”: 

‘The women, [Paul] says, “exchanged” natural relations for unnatural ones. And the men “abandoned” relations with women and committed shameful acts with other men. Both the men and the women started with heterosexuality—they were naturally disposed to it just as they were naturally disposed to the knowledge of God—but they rejected their original, natural inclinations for those that were unnatural: for them, same-sex behavior. Paul’s argument about idolatry requires that there be an exchange; the reason, he says, that the idolaters are at fault is because they first knew God but then turned away from him, exchanged Him for idols. Paul’s reference to same-sex behavior is intended to illustrate this larger sin of idolatry. But in order for this analogy to have any force, in order for it to make sense within this argument, the people he is describing must naturally begin with heterosexual relations and then abandon them. But that is not what we are talking about. Gay people have a natural, permanent orientation toward those of the same sex; it’s not something that they choose, and it’s not something that they can change. They aren’t abandoning or rejecting heterosexuality—that’s never an option for them to begin with. And if applied to gay people, Paul’s argument here should actually work in the other direction: If the point of this passage is to rebuke those who have spurned their true nature, be it religious when it comes to idolatry or sexual, then just as those who are naturally heterosexual should not be with those of the same sex, so, too, those who have a natural orientation toward the same sex should not be with those of the opposite sex. For them, that would be exchanging “the natural for the unnatural” in just the same way. We have different natures when it comes to sexual orientation.’

Vines goes on to discuss how our modern concepts of sexual orientation did not exist in Paul’s day and what that means for his argument, which i appreciate. You can everything he says about Romans 1:26-27 and its context in the link i made above the excerpt. 

_____________

Bi people’s nature

So yeah to sum that up, for people who agree with Vines’ argument around Romans 1:26-27, a straight person abandoning their inherent orientation for a person of the same gender goes against their nature, and it follows that a gay person abandoning their inherent orientation for a person of the “opposite” assigned binary gender goes against their nature. 

Vines does not take the time to keep going through all the various sexualities humans can have (as far as i know; perhaps he does somewhere that i’ve not seen), and i really wish he did. Because i agree with you, @crazynerdandproud – without it being explicitly stated, it might be difficult to extrapolate what someone like Vines thinks about a bisexual person’s nature – or an asexual person’s, or a person with any of the other numerous sexualities beyond homosexual and heterosexual. 

But based on what he does say, i’m pretty sure that scholars who argue that Romans 1:26-27 can be interpreted as a condemnation not of all same-sex activity but of any individual going against their personal nature would say that bi people can be with someone of the same gender or another gender and still be acting within their own nature. 

For a bi person, any option would be “the natural thing” – you can be with a man or a woman or nonbinary person and still be acting according to your own nature.  

________

A same-sex relationship is just as good and holy as any other relationship

Here’s the final thing i wanna say at last!

In asking this question, i feel like you might still be struggling to unlearn an insidious message that society feeds all of us: that same-sex/LGBT/queer relationships are less valid, less legitimate, and otherwise inferior to cishet relationships / a relationship with one cis man and one cis woman. (Or you may have found a resource that implies this and don’t believe it yourself.) 

i have heard people express support of gay people being in a same-sex relationship because “they don’t have any other options” / “they don’t have a choice”; while withholding support of bi people who are in a same-sex relationship because “they could choose to be in a straight relationship.” Pardon my french, but that’s total bullshit.

Just because a bi person “can” end up with someone of the opposite binary sex does not mean that they have to. Any relationship founded on mutuality and love can be affirmed by God and used to bear good fruit. Same-sex relationships aren’t “okay” just because the people in them “can’t help it” – they are good and holy because they cultivate love and respect and mutual support and growth!

i hope this helps! Let me know if i totally misinterpreted your question or forgot to answer part of it. 

[xiaq]

Nothing like the rude awakening of seeing a pastor you previously loved and respected posting on FB about the “cancer” of queer individuals in the church.  The United Methodist Church leaders are meeting in St. Louis this weekend to decide whether to lift a ban on LGBTQ clergy and same-sex weddings. At the moment, it seems this ban might actually be lifted, with a potential majority of leaders pushing for the “One Church Plan” which calls for entirely removing language from the Methodist Book of Discipline that upholds restrictive teachings on sexuality. I, among others, have been watching this process and feeling cautiously optimistic. 

And now, a Facebook post by someone who I thought was one of the “good” ones decrying this progress as an abomination.

There’s a reason I haven’t been to church regularly in years and that reason is that I have 15 years of a private Christian education, followed by four years of enough religious undergraduate study I could have minored in it, and I cannot respect a religious organization that condemns homosexual individuals --for which there is No Explicit Mention in the Bible, while allowing divorce--for which there is Very Explicit Mention in the Bible. I cannot respect someone who takes a translation of a translation of a translation of a passage that, in Latin or Greek, is not about a queer individual or about a consensual, adult, homosexual relationship, and treat it like it’s a divine edict condemning all modern queer people.

The Bible was written by human beings. Compiled by human beings. Edited (heavily) by human beings. Translated by human beings. There is a reason that divorce (while explicitly condemned dozens of times) does not result in stoning or expulsion from the church in the present day. Because the Bible is a man-made historical document and it should be treated and interpreted as such, within the context of its history. Why the fuck then do Christians get so damn hung up on something that, by comparison, is so incredibly vague/minor?

[davidthetraveler]

How did you discover your sexuality, tell your story? - For the ask thing you posted

2.  How did you discover your sexuality, tell your story?

Well, that’s a bit of a long story.

For the sake of you guys’ feeds, I’m putting it behind a cut.

But in case anyone else would like to, feel free to send me one (or more) of these LGBT+ Asks.

To start off, I need to be perfectly honest with you.  I wasn’t always such a staunch proponent of the LGBTQ+ community.  In fact, for the better part of my first 28 years, I was just as much of a passive homophobe as the rest of my family.  I would never seek to condemn another person to their face, but then you can always secretly judge them in your head from afar.

It wasn’t until after I started getting into Thomas’ videos and becoming a part of the famderdom that I started easing up on those old beliefs.  I started listening to what others had to say about their genders and sexualities.  I really started paying attention to the dangers these people, people I was starting to call my friends, were in.

And then, it happened.

I… developed some… unexpected feelings.

I’m not sure at what point it started, but I began to develop a romantic attraction to another guy in the famderdom.  (For the sake of his privacy, as well as my own, I won’t tell you his identity.  Some of you already know anyway, and I’m pretty sure a few of you have already guessed who he is.  I haven’t exactly been the most subtle about it.)  How I figured out I was feeling this way is a rather interesting story in and of itself.

As I’ve mentioned before, I often use writing, and in particular my character David the Traveler, to help me better process my experiences and emotions and figure things out in my life.  And I’d already started working on an idea for a story that would see him meeting up with Thomas and his sides.

But then one day, while I was considering possible plot points for this story, my character decided that he was secretly in love with Thomas.

I was taken aback.  I’d never expressed any sort of romantic interest in another man at this point.  Why would my character, a glorified self-insert turned useful concept explorer slash fun plot device, be interested in another guy?  And that’s when it hit me.  I’d developed feelings for another guy, and was expressing it through my character.

But why?  Why me, and why now out of nowhere?

It took me several long weeks of self-reflection to come to terms with the matter.  During that time, I went back through every romantic fantasy I’d ever had, considered everything I’d ever desired in a relationship, examined every romantic thought I’d ever expressed, whether out loud or internally.  And that’s when it hit me.

One of the things I’d learned about as I became more aware of the LGBTQ+ community was the often overlooked Asexual subcommunity.  I understood the basic concept, that it was about a lack of desire for sexual activity, but I didn’t give it too much thought.  Until my self-evaluation revealed that the one thing most of the world says you’re supposed to want in a relationship is the one part of a relationship I never had any real interest in.

It was a strange sort of revelation.  I mean, I had certainly always wanted kids, and therefore such activity was technically part of all of my fantasies.  But looking back, I’d realized I’d never put any emphasis on those acts.  They happened, but other than that acknowledgement they played no part in my romantic dreams.

Not to mention the fact that most of my older stories, even those with explicitly romantic relationships, were mainly focused on more platonic relationships, such as between my stand-in characters and those of my best friend Blake.  (The fact that so many of those stories involved our stand-ins ending up in long term very close friendships, or one of us being a girl and getting together, is fairly conclusive evidence that my subconscious desires for our relationship were probably not as platonic as I would have been willing to admit at the time.)

But even if I could be romantically attracted to guys, I still felt like I was romantically attracted to girls too.  And maybe perhaps those other nonbinary genders that I was still trying to wrap my head around.  I was still very confused about the different labels people were using, and wondered if there was a term for me.

I don’t know when exactly I found it, or what led me to find it in the first place, but one day I came across that label.  That perfect label to describe how I was feeling.

Asexual Biromantic

In my case, it refers to the fact that I have little to no interest in sex (except for the purpose of producing children), but that I am still interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with someone, and it doesn’t matter if they are a girl or a boy (or something else).

So, now I had a fancy label to stick on myself.  But there was still the matter of coming to terms with and accepting the fact that I wasn’t straight.  And that’s where my family’s upbringing really held me back in this process.

I am a Christian.  I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was nine.  I firmly believe in the Christian teachings of sin and forgiveness and all that stuff.  And as part of all that religious upbringing, I was taught that homosexuality was a sin.

But now I was stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I couldn’t lie to myself and say that I was just imagining these feelings.  They weren’t exactly the most pleasant, considering the guy I liked barely knew I existed, not to mention the many other reasons a relationship between us was highly unlikely.  To feel like this about someone and know that there is almost no chance that they could reciprocate those feelings is not fun.  If it was a matter of choice, why in the world would I choose this sort of emotional pain over being “normal”?

But I also couldn’t just up and dump everything about my Christian beliefs either.  So much of what I’d been taught I’d accepted as unfailing truth.  Not to mention the many religious experts who spent so much time trying to prove that the Bible truly condemns people like this.  Reading their arguments was definitely not good for my psyche at the time, even with reading counterarguments concerning mistranslations helping to bolster my hope during that period.

In the end, I fell back on the most important truth of them all:  that God loves me.  That he made me specifically the way I am.  And that there was no logic, no reason, for Him to make me something that would be condemned by Him just for existing.  That’s not how God works.  God Is Love.  And He loves me, despite the many mistakes I’ve made in my life.  And that was good enough for me.

In the end, I finally accepted myself for who and what I was.  I came out to my new famder family on my 29th birthday.  They were all so supportive of me.  Over time, I’ve even been comfortable enough telling them more of my struggles with these sorts of things, including my ongoing feelings for this guy, and every single one has been nothing but loving and encouraging to me.  This famderdom truly has been one of the best things to ever happen to me.

But this isn’t the end of my story.  You see, I’m still not out in real life.  I’m afraid to tell my family.  I may have changed my views on the matter, but they all remain firmly attached to their passive homophobia.  I’m honestly legitimately concerned about what they might do to me if they knew.

But I still have hope.  Hope that someday I’ll be in a place where I feel safe enough to tell them.  Hope that I’ll be able to meet and make friends with people in real life who are in the community.  Hope that someday I’ll be able to openly be myself without fearing what others might say.  And hope that I’ll finally find someone I’ll love who will love me back and who will build a life with me.

And I guess that’s all any of us hope for.  To be loved for who we are and not to be afraid.

Here’s hoping that day will come soon.  For all of us.

[meandmybigmouth]

Four Things You Didn’t Know About God and Same-Sex Marriage 1. There are few biblical verses that address homosexuality at all, and most of those are not directed at homosexuality per se. Opponents of same-sex marriage routinely cite seven verses in the Christian Bible as condemning homosexuality and calling it a sin. But when taken in context, these lessons speak not against homosexuality itself, but rather against rape, child molestation, bestiality, and other practices that hurt others and compromise a person’s relationship with God. 2. Jesus never said one word against homosexuality. In all of his teachings, Jesus uplifted actions and attitudes of justice, love, humility, mercy, and compassion. He condemned violence, oppression, cold-heartedness, and social injustice. Never once did Jesus refer to what we call homosexuality as a sin. 3. The Bible never mentions or condemns the concept we call same-sex marriage. Although opponents of same-sex marriage claim that lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender unions violate biblical principles, no verses in the Bible explicitly address gay marriage or committed same-sex relationships. 4. Those who claim a “biblical definition of marriage” as a model for today ignore various marital arrangements in the Bible that would be illegal or condemned today. The Bible is filled with stories of polygamy and husbands taking concubines. In accordance with the culture and laws of the past, women were often treated like property that could be traded or sold into marriage. Today we understand that these examples of marriage reflect the cultural practices of the time rather than a spiritual model for today.

[theprideful]

hi I'm an ex-christian, and I've been where you are. but sex is not a sin or else god would be condemning humans for procreation, which makes no sense at all; so given that sex isn't sinful, jesus therefore would not have sinned by engaging in sexual activity. it is an act of love, and jesus was loving and caring, especially for his disciples. furthermore, being gay is not a sin either. i don't know why so many Christians refuse to acknowledge mistranslation, but in the original text, homosexuality is not mentioned. like, at all. the verse everyone always quotes is leviticus 18:22, which has been translated to "man shall not lie with man as with a woman; it is an abomination". but the original line says "man shall not lie with child as with a woman." this is explicitly about pedophilia, which is obviously wrong for many reasons. this mistranslation was purposeful; it was to enforce gender roles and keep women submissive and subservient. men were to be sexually dominant over them. male intimacy was seen as a rejection of gender roles, and the church (particularly the male leaders) took great offense to this. so homophobia is closely related to misogyny, and both are intrinsic to the church as of the 19th century. before then, christianity was much more accepting of same-sex relations, and it was actually common practice for male preachers and pastors to openly discuss or even publish writing about same-sex desire or relationships. and this shaming people for being in same-sex relationships and condemning them to hell was and is a fear tactic meant to keep people compliant in an unjust patriarchy.

sorry to tell you, but your bigotry is unjustified, and I'd really appreciate it if the facts you were spreading were true 🙃

oh, and by the way- no one is attacking you or your religion. the only ones "twisting" your religion is other believers. this was a calm discussion about historical events that aren't or shouldn't be offensive to anyone, so if you feel attacked or like my correcting misconceptions about the bible is "tearing christianity apart," you should really consider why and how your views on christianity and homosexuality distort the lens you're looking through, and why you're so adamant about rejecting lgbtq equality and representation in religion and defending bigotry, because that's pretty ahistorical and un-Christ-like.

here is an article for more reading if any of you are interested

Hi, I saw you mention in a post that Jesus and his disciples were gay, and I was wondering if you have any evidence or things to argue with against people who believe otherwise? I have a feeling I'm going to need that sometime soon irl. I hope you have a lovely day/night!

here is a link for a preacher's account on jesus's homosexuality

as for myself, from what I gathered growing up religious and reading the bible as well as hearing theology students' findings, it can be sufficed to say that jesus was queer, whether he was bisexual or gay (or, in other interpretations, aroace). his disciples were all men, and he had deep, personal relationships with them. he would spend most of his time with them, often alone in privacy. their emotional connections crossed the platonic boundary many times, with intimate actions like "washing each other's feet," which is recognized as a metaphor for sex. it's likely he was polyamorous, but if he were in a monogamous relationship with any of them, it probably would have been John, whom he was closest with. all in all, these men were devoted to each other in body and soul, and were in a sense practically married. given the facts, this virtually debunks any semi-logical notion that Jesus was heterosexual, and rather a polyam gay man.

[asinglebulb]

Tastes just like cherry cola

I’m going to try and write down some of my thoughts regarding this whole Methodist mess. Messodist. Ha. 

Every conservative Christian I know purports to love their LGBT brothers and sisters. They love them, they affirm them, they welcome them into their congregations. They just can’t let them get married or be ordained or do a whole load of other things that their hetero counterparts are allowed to do. This is because the Bible states clearly that their lifestyle (God, I hate that word) is a sin and, therefore, is in opposition to Christian beliefs and values. 

I do not argue that the Bible provides a clear statement condemning homosexuality. The most well-known examples are found in Leviticus, chapters 18 and 20.

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

If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination; they shall be put to death; their blood is upon them. (20:13)

So. Pretty cut and dry. Here’s the thing, though. There are a couple of different camps concerning the reading of the Bible. Either you believe that the Bible was written during a certain time period for a certain audience in a certain context, and it’s important to update our own interpretations based on a modern audience and context. Or you believe that the Bible is the inspired, inerrant Word of God and can therefore only be interpreted in one way, and that is to the letter. (Spoiler alert: everyone in the second camp is wrong.)

If you happen to be among the folks who believe that every statement in the Bible requires immediate and unqualified acceptance, more power to you. It’s definitely a way to live. I imagine it’s safe to assume that, after reading this entry, you’ll be emptying out your checking account and 401k, selling your home, and giving every penny to the needy. We are commanded to do this, and a number of other uncomfortable things, repeatedly throughout scripture. 

When Jesus heard this, he said to him, “There is still one thing lacking. Sell all that you own and distribute the money to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; then come, follow me.” (Luke 18:22)

Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal; but store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal. For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also. (Matthew 6:19-21)

So we’re all agreed to go ahead and update our understanding of the Bible for a modern audience, right? Good. This leaves us with the possibility that, even in a modern context, the Bible still argues that homosexuality is a sin. Let’s unpack that.

The aforementioned Book of Leviticus is, for the most part, a code of conduct dictated to Moses by God on Mt. Sinai. It’s basically ��Ten Commandments: The Director’s Cut.” In reality, it’s a list of rules, written down over a very long time, governing things like hygiene and societally acceptable behavior. Throughout the text, it’s made clear that this code is to prevent the Israelites from behaving as the Egyptians and Canaanites historically had. This behavior included fertility rites consisting of sexual rituals. During these rituals, whole families, including husbands, wives, mothers, fathers, sons, daughters, cousins, aunts and uncles would sometimes have sex. Also included was sex with temple prostitutes. In short, every kind of sexual practice imaginable was performed at these rituals, including homosexual sex. They liked to party.

Historians have concluded that, in Canaanite culture, long-term homosexual relationships did not exist. A tribal culture where there were strict divisions between men’s and women’s work, and offspring were considered essential for survival, simply would not have allowed for that sort of development. It’s unreasonable, therefore, to believe the author of Leviticus intended to prohibit a form of homosexual relationship that did not exist at the time. When read in textual and historical context, the "abominations” mentioned in Leviticus 18 and 20 are clearly directed at homosexual temple prostitution, and that is how they should be interpreted.

So maybe the Bible doesn’t specifically condemn homosexuality as a lifestyle (that damn word again, ugh), but does that mean it’s explicitly supported? Fortunately for us, there is scriptural evidence to answer this question, unlike, for example, abortion, which has no material whatsoever for reference, meaning the right-wing evangelicals arguing a pro-life case based on religion have no Biblical leg on which to stand. But I digress.

When he entered Capernaum, a centurion came to him, appealing to him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying at home paralyzed, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and cure him.” The centurion answered, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only speak the word, and my servant will be healed. For I also am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and the slave does it.” When Jesus heard him, he was amazed and said to those who followed him, “Truly I tell you, in no one in Israel have I found such faith. I tell you, many will come from east and west and will eat with Abraham and Isaac and Jacob in the kingdom of heaven, while the heirs of the kingdom will be thrown into the outer darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you according to your faith.” And the servant was healed in that hour. (Matthew 8:5-13)

A quick lesson in Greek vocabulary: there are two words used in the original translation of this scripture that are noteworthy - pais and doulos. Doulos is a generic term for “slave”, which lines up with the English translation used above (NRSV, for anyone curious). Pais, however, has three different meanings. It could mean “son or boy;” it could mean “servant,” or it could mean a particular type of servant - one who was “his master’s male lover.” When the centurion referred to this particular slave, he used the word pais. When referring to any other slave, he used the other term, doulos, as if to draw a distinction. The clear implication is that the sick man was no ordinary slave. And when pais was used to describe a servant who was not an ordinary slave, it meant only one thing — a slave who was the master’s male lover. Jesus knew this and still healed the man, taking time to remark on the exemplary faith displayed by his lover. 

Then they wept aloud again. Orpah kissed her mother-in-law, but Ruth clung to her. So she said, “See, your sister-in-law has gone back to her people and to her gods; return after your sister-in-law.” But Ruth said,

“Do not press me to leave you    or to turn back from following you! Where you go, I will go;    where you lodge, I will lodge; your people shall be my people,    and your God my God. Where you die, I will die—    there will I be buried. May the Lord do thus and so to me,    and more as well, if even death parts me from you!”

When Naomi saw that she was determined to go with her, she said no more to her. (Ruth 1:14-18)

A Hebrew lesson this time. The word translated into the English “clung” was originally dabaq. There’s another place in the Bible that word is used.

And the rib that the Lord God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. Then the man said,

“This at last is bone of my bones    and flesh of my flesh; this one shall be called Woman,    for out of Man this one was taken.”

Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and clings to his wife, and they become one flesh. (Genesis 2:22-24)

That’s Adam and Eve, by the way. A man clings - dabaq - to his wife. The very same way that Adam felt about Eve, the same way a husband is supposed to feel about his wife, is the way Ruth felt about Naomi. That love is what led her to proclaim, “Where you die, I will die - there will I be buried.” 

But he said to them, “Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)

Last one, promise. Although I could do this all day. This particular passage is Jesus’ response to the permissibility of divorce. Hi answer is, more or less, you’re not allowed to get divorced - another thing that folks who argue strict Biblical adherence might struggle with - but clarifies these three groups as people who should not marry women. What’s a eunuch, you ask? The short version is that it’s a man who has been castrated. Generally, we assume this castration is a physical act, but in this case, historical context implies a more symbolic meaning.

In reverse order: eunuchs who "have made themselves” eunuchs. It stands to reason that there aren’t many people out there who would castrate themselves, so we’re meant here to understand that these are men who have foregone marriage in order to better serve God. Sort of like Catholic priests. Well, the non-creepy ones, anyway.

Next, eunuchs who were “made eunuchs by others.” Yeah, that’s... that’s a regular old-fashioned castrato. Ouch.

Finally, eunuchs who “have been so from birth.” In ancient Jewish culture, “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior, not unlike modern gay men. I’m not saying the stereotype is accurate, just that it exists. Moreover, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire. Jesus would have been well aware of this common view, yet states in no uncertain terms that some people are just born that way. You’re welcome, Lady Gaga. 

Finally, my favorite piece of evidence that the Bible doesn’t really give a shit who you love: There was no word in Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek for "homosexual" or "homosexuality." These words were invented near the end of the 19th century when psychoanalysts began to discover and understand sexuality as an essential part of the human personality in all of its diversity. Consequently, it cannot be claimed that the Bible says anything at all about it. The writers of the Bible had neither the understanding of it nor the language for it.

There’s a church here in town, part of the Evangelical Presbyterian Church, with the following statement on their website:

The Scriptures clearly proclaim homosexual behavior as contrary to God's will and therefore sinful. The EPC affirms a life-changing gospel which can heal and transform even such a deep-rooted and serious deviation as homosexuality. A position paper on homosexuality is available.

This is wrong on so many levels, and I don’t even really want to tie it into the rest of this post, but it makes me so angry every time I think about it that I couldn’t not include it.

The United Methodist Church’s brand promise, since 2001, has been:

Open hearts. Open minds. Open doors.

However, they have just made it clear to the world that members of the LGBT community are second-class citizens. They are not worthy of marriage or ordination. Pastors who officiate same-sex weddings will be stripped of their titles. Churches that do not certify adherence to this position will be removed from the denomination. Time to find a new slogan.

Almost all Christians claim to love everyone, gay or straight, black or white, you name it. But claims and actions can be very different, and any belief which serves to diminish other people is clearly not born from love. Homosexuality is not a lifestyle, it is an important part of a person’s identity. Any position which states that God loves LGBT people but disapproves of this aspect of their identity is misguided. I don’t know much, but I know this: God created everyone, that creation was intentional, and it was deemed to be good. It is not possible, then, for God to disapprove of or consider sinful a fundamental part of this creation.

Bearing all of this in mind, I’m left with just one belief: “Christians” - and I use the quotes there with the maximum amount of snark available - who hold themselves in opposition to homosexuality or any other group on the gender or sexuality spectrum, do not do so out of any legitimate religious belief. Instead, these positions are rooted in a misguided morality and then justified via deliberately misinterpreted scripture. It breaks my heart to know there are so many who would pervert my faith to assuage their fears and increase their comfort. I mourn for my LGBT brothers and sisters, and I hope for a day when we can all agree that hatred has no place in the Kingdom of God. 

For I am convinced that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height, nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:38-39)

[loving-toriel]

God does indeed love lgbt+

 The term “homosexual” didn’t exist until 1892. Some modern Bible translations say that “homosexuals” will not inherit the kingdom of God, but neither the concept nor the word for people with exclusive same-sex attraction existed before the late 19th century. While the Bible rejects lustful same-sex behavior, that’s very different from a condemnation of all gay people and relationships.Sexual orientation is a new concept—one that the Christian tradition hasn’t addressed.Many Christians draw on their faith’s traditions to shape their beliefs, but the concept of sexual orientation is new. Until recent decades, same-sex behavior was placed in the same category with gluttony or drunkenness — as a vice of excess anyone might be prone to — not as the expression of a sexual orientation. The Christian tradition has never spoken to the modern issue of LGBT people and their relationships. Celibacy is a gift, not a mandate. The Bible honors celibacy as a good way of living — Jesus was celibate, after all — but it also makes clear that celibacy must be a voluntary choice. Requiring that all gay people remain celibate is at odds with the Bible’s teachings on celibacy, which are grounded Scripture’s core affirmation that God’s physical creation is good. Condemning same-sex relationships is harmful to the LGBT community. Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount that good trees bear good fruit, while bad trees bear bad fruit. The church’s rejection of same-sex relationships has caused tremendous, needless suffering to the LGBT community—bad fruit. Those harmful consequences should make Christians open to reconsidering the church’s traditional teaching. Sodom and Gomorrah involved an attempted gang rape, not a loving relationship.It’s commonly assumed that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah out of his wrath against same-sex relations, but the only form of same-sex behavior described in the story is an attempted gang rape — nothing like a loving, committed relationship. The Bible explicitly condemns Sodom for its arrogance, inhospitality and apathy toward the poor — not for same-sex behavior. The prohibitions in Leviticus don’t apply to Christians. Leviticus condemns male same-sex intercourse, but the entire Old Testament law code has never applied to Christians in light of Christ’s death. Leviticus also condemns eating pork, rabbit, or shellfish, cutting hair at the sides of one’s head, and having sex during a woman’s menstrual period — none of which Christians continue to observe. Paul condemns same-sex lust, not love. Like other ancient writers, Paul described same-sex behavior as the result of excessive sexual desire on the part of people who could be content with opposite-sex relationships. He didn’t have long-term, loving same-sex relationships in view. And while he described same-sex behavior as “unnatural,” he also said men having long hair goes against nature, and most Christians read that as a reference to cultural conventions. Marriage is about commitment. Marriage often involves procreation, but according to the New Testament, it’s based on something deeper: a lifelong commitment to a partner. Marriage is even compared to the relationship between Christ and the church, and while the language used is opposite-sex, the core principles apply just as well to same-sex couples. Human beings are relational. From the beginning of Genesis, human beings are described as having a need for relationship, just as God himself is relational. Sexuality is a core part of what it means to be a relational person, and to condemn LGBT people’s sexuality outright damages their ability to be in relationship with all people — and with God. Faithful Christians are already embracing LGBT brothers and sisters. Mainstream denominations like Presbyterians and Episcopalians now ordain openly gay clergy, and there are seeds of change in evangelical churches as well. This November, the Reformation Project will host a training conference for up to 900 LGBT-affirming Christians in Washington, D.C.—and the movement for change in conservative churches is just getting started.

There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female,for you are all one in Christ Jesus.

Do not use my lords name to fuel your hatred .

[davidthetraveler]

David’s Bio-Monday:  With Pride

Hey guys.  I know it’s been a while since I did one of these.  Sorry about that.  But after getting a Pride Ask from @mandeebobandee about how I figured out that I wasn’t straight, I also realized that it would make for a great new addition to this neglected series.  And since Mandee agreed to let me use it, I’m going to do so.  So, in honor of Pride Month, here is the story of how I figured out I wasn’t straight.

Just to be clear, this story mentions both Homophobia and Internalized Homophobia.  So those of you sensitive to these topics should be cautious when proceeding.  It’s not mentioned a lot, but both are central to my story, so please be careful and take of yourselves.

To start off, I need to be perfectly honest with you.  I wasn’t always such a staunch proponent of the LGBTQ+ community.  In fact, for the better part of my first 28 years, I was just as much of a passive homophobe as the rest of my family.  I would never seek to condemn another person to their face, but then you can always secretly judge them in your head from afar.

It wasn’t until after I started getting into Thomas’ videos and becoming a part of the famderdom that I started easing up on those old beliefs.  I started listening to what others had to say about their genders and sexualities.  I really started paying attention to the dangers these people, people I was starting to call my friends, were in.

And then, it happened.

I… developed some… unexpected feelings.

I’m not sure at what point it started, but I began to develop a romantic attraction to another guy in the famderdom.  (For the sake of his privacy, as well as my own, I won’t tell you his identity.  Some of you already know anyway, and I’m pretty sure a few of you have already guessed who he is.  I haven’t exactly been the most subtle about it.)   How I figured out I was feeling this way is a rather interesting story in and of itself.

As I’ve mentioned before, I often use writing, and in particular my character David the Traveler, to help me better process my experiences and emotions and figure things out in my life.  And I’d already started working on an idea for a story that would see him meeting up with Thomas and his sides.

But then one day, while I was considering possible plot points for this story, my character decided that he was secretly in love with Thomas.

I was taken aback.  I’d never expressed any sort of romantic interest in another man at this point.  Why would my character, a glorified self-insert turned useful concept explorer slash fun plot device, be interested in another guy?  And that’s when it hit me.  I’d developed feelings for another guy, and was expressing it through my character.

But why?  Why me, and why now out of nowhere?

It took me several long weeks of self-reflection to come to terms with the matter.  During that time, I went back through every romantic fantasy I’d ever had, considered everything I’d ever desired in a relationship, examined every romantic thought I’d ever expressed, whether out loud or internally.  And that’s when it hit me.

One of the things I’d learned about as I became more aware of the LGBTQ+ community was the often overlooked Asexual subcommunity.  I understood the basic concept, that it was about a lack of desire for sexual activity, but I didn’t give it too much thought.  Until my self-evaluation revealed that the one thing most of the world says you’re supposed to want in a relationship is the one part of a relationship I never had any real interest in.

It was a strange sort of revelation.  I mean, I had certainly always wanted kids, and therefore such activity was technically part of all of my fantasies.  But looking back, I’d realized I’d never put any emphasis on those acts.  They happened, but other than that acknowledgement they played no part in my romantic dreams.

Not to mention the fact that most of my older stories, even those with explicitly romantic relationships, were mainly focused on more platonic relationships, such as between my stand-in characters and those of my best friend Blake.  (The fact that so many of those stories involved our stand-ins ending up in long term very close friendships, or one of us being a girl and getting together, is fairly conclusive evidence that my subconscious desires for our relationship were probably not as platonic as I would have been willing to admit at the time.)

But even if I could be romantically attracted to guys, I still felt like I was romantically attracted to girls too.  And maybe perhaps those other nonbinary genders that I was still trying to wrap my head around.  I was still very confused about the different labels people were using, and wondered if there was a term for me.

I don’t know when exactly I found it, or what led me to find it in the first place, but one day I came across that label.  That perfect label to describe how I was feeling.

Asexual Biromantic

In my case, it refers to the fact that I have little to no interest in sex (except for the purpose of producing children), but that I am still interested in pursuing a romantic relationship with someone, and it doesn’t matter if they are a girl or a boy (or something else).

So, now I had a fancy label to stick on myself.  But there was still the matter of coming to terms with and accepting the fact that I wasn’t straight.  And that’s where my family’s upbringing really held me back in this process.

I am a Christian.  I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior when I was nine.  I firmly believe in the Christian teachings of sin and forgiveness and all that stuff.  And as part of all that religious upbringing, I was taught that homosexuality was a sin.

But now I was stuck between a rock and a hard place.  I couldn’t lie to myself and say that I was just imagining these feelings.  They weren’t exactly the most pleasant, considering the guy I liked barely knew I existed, not to mention the many other reasons a relationship between us was highly unlikely.  To feel like this about someone and know that there is almost no chance that they could reciprocate those feelings is not fun.  If it was a matter of choice, why in the world would I choose this sort of emotional pain over being “normal”?

But I also couldn’t just up and dump everything about my Christian beliefs either.  So much of what I’d been taught I’d accepted as unfailing truth.  Not to mention the many religious experts who spent so much time trying to prove that the Bible truly condemns people like this.  Reading their arguments was definitely not good for my psyche at the time, even with reading counterarguments concerning mistranslations helping to bolster my hope during that period.

In the end, I fell back on the most important truth of them all:  that God loves me.  That He made me specifically the way I am.  And that there was no logic, no reason, for Him to make me something that would be condemned by Him just for existing.  That’s not how God works.  God Is Love.  And He loves me, despite the many mistakes I’ve made in my life.  And that was good enough for me.

In the end, I finally accepted myself for who and what I was.  I came out to my new famder family on my 29th birthday.   They were all so supportive of me.  Over time, I’ve even become comfortable enough telling them more of my struggles with these sorts of things, including my ongoing feelings for this guy, and every single one has been nothing but loving and encouraging to me.  This famderdom truly has been one of the best things to ever happen to me.

But this isn’t the end of my story.  You see, I’m still not out in real life.  I’m afraid to tell my family.  I may have changed my views on the matter, but they all remain firmly attached to their passive homophobia.  I’m honestly legitimately concerned about what they might do to me if they knew.

But I still have hope.  Hope that someday I’ll be in a place where I feel safe enough to tell them.  Hope that I’ll be able to meet and make friends with people in real life who are in the community.  Hope that someday I’ll be able to openly be myself without fearing what others might say.  And hope that I’ll finally find someone I’ll love who will love me back and who will build a life with me.

And I guess that’s all any of us hope for.  To be loved for who we are and not to be afraid.

Here’s hoping that day will come soon.  For all of us.

***********************

Well, that’s about it for now.  I’ll see you all next month (hopefully) for another thrilling installment of David’s Bio-Monday.  In the meantime, if you’d like to be added/removed from my Tag List for this or any other regular post type on my blog, feel free to let me know.  Until next time, friends.

General Tag List:

@ultimate-queen-of-fandoms2

Bio-Monday Tag List:

@rose-gold-roman @alexthechaotic

[rainisrainnoshining-blog]

How to Understand and Support Your LGBT Teen

This is a very complex and possibly controversial topic. Hence, I would like to break it down into smaller chunks. It is easy to feel lost after your teenager opens up to you. This article is meant to show you how to support and become closer to your LGBT teen. After that, I will address some common questions that parents have. Ideally, you will want to be understanding and supportive, and want to have as much information as you can get. Let's begin. herman Miller stock

To start with, you should not try to "convert" your LGBT teen. They came out to you because they trusted you and felt that it would be helpful. So, honour that trust; don't break it. Doing so will only serve to distance you from your teenager. Also, you must understand that there is no way you can change them. Being an LGBT teen is a part of who they are, or even a part of their genetic make-up.

Next, you need to understand why they came out to you. They probably came out to you because they need a shoulder to lean on, or they just felt tired of "sneaking around". Whatever the reason, you need to figure it out. If they came to you because they need help, offer them help. If they came to you for the latter reason, then be understanding and act like a mature adult.

Let them know it is OK to be who they are. Nothing hurts more than being a disappointment to your parents. If you don't let them know that it is OK, explicitly, than there is a very real chance that they will think they are a failure- even if they aren't. If you aren't OK with them, then don't say so. If you do, you risk causing undue psychological damage. Remember, there is nothing you can change. So, if you telling them that you aren't OK with their sexual identity isn't going to help anyone, and is going to serve no purpose, then why do it? In fact, it is going to hurt more than help.

Understand their sexual identity. While you may think you know all about their identity, you'd be surprised about how much you don't know. Did you know that gender can differ from sex? Gender has to do with your identity, while sex is the gender you were assigned at birth. Did you know that homosexuality occurs in nature? Homosexuality has been observed in over 450 animals, while homophobia has only been observed in humans. If you are having a difficult accepting your teenager's identity, understanding their identity is the first step to acceptance. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say you come home to see someone drilling into the side of your house. Flustered, you start yelling at them to stop. When they do, you give them an earful, not allowing them to give their side of the story. What you don't know is that they are drilling a wire into a box at the side of your house and upgrading your internet cable for free. When we have more information, we are naturally more able to be accepting.

Understand that their identity isn't hurting anyone, because it isn't. It's their right to decide how to live their life, and being gay or transgender or really having any other sexual identity is not going to kill anyone. I don't mean to be harsh, but the sooner you understand this, the easier you will find it to be accepting.

Don't treat them any different. Treating them different would mean that you see them differently, which shouldn't be the case. All they did was let you know something that you hadn't previously known about them. They haven't changed. If you treat you LGBT teenager differently, it might send a message that your relationship has been negatively impacted, and they won't like that.

Have a mature conversation. Some people find it easy to get things straightened out by having a conversation after your teenager comes out, just to ask any questions. Generally, questions you might want to ask are, "When did you find out?" and, "Do you have a partner?". You should respect their answers, as well as their right to privacy. If there are questions they don't want to answer, don't push.

Allow them to participate in the LGBT community. Understand that it will be healthy for them to associate with people who they can relate to. Being a part of a community of like-minded people who share an interest in hobbies or past times can be helpful for a lot of people. Sexuality is no different. Having a minority sexual identity can be confusing, and it is easy to feel alone and unsupported. Being an active member of the LGBT community can solve both of these issues. Having people to share your experiences and worries, and receive unbiased feedback in return, can be helpful on so many levels.

Don't talk about their sexual identity behind their back. No matter how liberal you think your friends are, blabbing to them about you teenager's sexual identity is betraying their trust. Likewise, If you are freaked out or think negatively about your teenager's identity, and are going to your friends with the primary goal of venting, you need to either find a different outlet, or learn to be more accepting. It is extremely hurtful to find that your parent or parents have broken your trust. Even if you think your teenager will never find out, what if they did? Is it really worth risking your relationship because you need someone to vent to? Remember, teenagers are very resourceful and observant, just like adults. They aren't kids anymore.

Don't get worried. Some people fear that being a part of the LGBT community is a slippery slope to dangerous behaviour. This couldn't be farther from the truth. LGBT people have the same amount of sexual partners as heterosexual men and women. Drug use is not more prevalent in LGBT teens than in heterosexual teens. Where this misconception came from, I'm not completely certain. I believe, however, that this is another myth cooked up by people who are biased against the LGBT community.

Questions

Why did they complicate our relationship by telling me?

Most likely, they didn't want to complicate your relationship. Instead, they were most likely seeking to improve your relationship with them by coming out. That, and they wanted your support. Actually, in a lot of cases, they NEED your support. By giving them your support, you will better your relationship and make their life easier.

Why did they keep this from me for so long?

Practically the polar opposite of the previous question, this too is quite common. The reason they didn't want to tell you their sexual identity is because- yes, you guessed it- they didn't want to complicate your relationship. Often, I hear LGBT teens tell me it is just easier to keep their sexual identity private. They are probably afraid of parental rejection and wish to simply keep that part of their life to themselves. They weren't trying to be dishonest, they were just scared.

Did I do something wrong?

In short, no. Being LGBT isn't a fault. The only reason some people view it as such is because of religion and the fact LGBT people lie in the minority. Both of these can be ignored (look at the next section for an explanation). How can you have done something wrong if nothing bad happened?

My religion condemns being LGBT. Does this mean I will have to change their sexual identity?

Not at all. Ultimately, this comes down to you. Your teenager can make a lot of decisions themselves, and religion is one of them. You no longer have the right to enforce your religion onto them. That being said, how you treat your LGBT teenager IS your decision. Many people are choosing to ignore the sections in their set of religious doctrine that condemn homosexuality because they believe it was written in a time with very different customs and views. Basically, the sections in the bible or any other religious text that oppose homosexuality simply aren't relevant in today's society. With this in mind, do you really want to treat you teenager poorly and make things difficult between you, when you can choose to support them, help them, and keep a great, sustainable relationship?

I hope this article will help you and your teen grow closer after they come out. The real key to making things work is understanding and acceptance. If you accept them for who they are, your relationship will be an awarding one.