| The gay thing... |
[Jun. 15th, 2009|04:23 pm] |
So I posted a facebook status a few weeks ago asking "Can someone please tell me why I shouldn't I be able to marry my boyfriend of 4 years?". I got a couple of interesting responses from older Christian women who I used to go to church with. One of which I sought to engage further on the matter. This woman, Lynna Cox, shared a birthday with me and we were pretty close because we could both sing well. Anyway, here is the dialogue that took place between us. Let me know what you think!
Lynna posted the response of "I'll tell you why, but you're not going to want to hear it" on my facebook status.
I messaged her and told her that I would love to hear what she had to say.
She didn't respond so I sent her this e-mail:
Alright, so since I haven't heard anything back I'm going to assume that you were implying that because the Bible says that being gay is wrong I shouldn't be able to marry my boyfriend? If that is the case I would invite you to bring forward a passage of the Bible that directly condemns homosexuality that wasn't written directly to a specific cultural group of the time (i.e. Leviticus 18:22) which was written to the Levites as I'm sure you know. I'm also sure that you know that Christians don't practice most of those customs. As a matter of fact out of about 460 "commandments" in the first few books of the Old Testament, less than 20 are actually observed by modern day Christians. Some of the other passages that you may reference concerning homosexuality are likely written by Paul. These are interesting because of the blatant mistranslation of the word that Paul uses to describe the homosexual act. The word that describes a homosexual relationship between two men at that time was not used by Paul in any of his scripture; however, the word for male prostitute and male sexual abuser was used. This makes sense because Paul was pointing out the unnatural sex acts that would get you in trouble including fornication, adultery, etc... There is absolutely no instance in the New Testament (which is what Christianity is based upon) that states that a monogamous relationship between two homosexual men is wrong. If you disagree with me then I challenge you to do the research for yourself. A good starting point is to just look at all of the different translations of the passages in question in all of the different versions of the Bible. You probably don't know this but there are at least 3 high profile homosexual relationships in the Bible that have been watered down over time due to bad translation and Christians who were threatened by the truth of their relationships. Ruth and Naomi, David and Jonathan, Daniel and Ashpenaz were all involved in homosexual relationships with one another. These relationships are very evident in the original scriptures of the Bible, but some translations of the Bible such as such as the Living Bible are so threatened by the possibility of two men being in a relationship that they changed a passage where David and Jonathan kissed each other to just say that they shook hands!
You know for a fact that I was raised as a dutiful Christian. I was indoctrinated with all of the same things that you were. But here's the difference. I knew for a fact that I was gay from about the age of 5. I played the part though, and tried as hard as I could to be straight. I prayed to God for hours upon hours to make me straight so that I wouldn't go to hell. I was depressed and an insomniac from about the 6th grade on through high school. Every single plane that flew over our house on its loop from Dyess AFB woke me up in terror because I thought that the world was ending and I was going to burn in hell. The only reason that I did so many things in high school was so that I could keep my mind off of the fact that I was going to hell. Do you have any idea how scary it is to be a young kid going to church and doing all of the right things by God and still knowing that you are going to hell because of something that you absolutely cannot change? Why as Christians would you subject small children to this? Do you know that I tried to kill myself twice after going to college because I still couldn't be straight? I tried everything to make me straight. Didn't work.
Finally, after I tried to kill myself I decided that something had to change. I had been gay for 20 years and had never even touched another guy for fear that God would strike me down the very second that I did. You know what happened as soon as I did actually kiss a guy? I finally felt like I was myself. I finally didn't have to worry about being straight because I'm not. God didn't strike me down. In fact, as soon as I came out to myself and my family I stopped having chronic migraines and my depression finally lifted. At that point how could I still support an institution that drove me to the point of trying to kill myself just for being the way that I was born? And how could I support an institution that uses fear to scare little kids into not being themselves? Christianity is not and should not be about telling people that they are wrong. Especially in regard to homosexuality. Anyway, I digress.
Whether the issue is religious or not doesn't really matter though. There are laws in this country in place to protect people and their civil rights. What we have now is a textbook case of morality influencing the law. This nation was not founded as a Christian nation because Christianity is divisive. People should be afforded their rights free from the morality of an oppressive hate-mongering institution. By implying that I should not be able to marry my partner of 4 years you are directly supporting intolerance and supporting the continuation of a group of people being denied the civil rights that are owed them.
This was her response to me:
Cory: I apologize for the delay in my answer. I was asking the Lord for what He wanted me to tell you, and that is why I haven't answered until now. I appreciate your response. This is mine....
I believe God created woman for man and man for woman and that is the relationship He intended for humankind. I believe that each person is created in the image of God and that there is nothing that can separate us from the LOVE of God. However, I believe, regardless of what the behavior is ....adultery, lying, sexual relations outside the marriage covenant (fornication), lust, murder, taking God's name in vain, gossip, haughty eyes, or homosexuality, to name a few....these are behaviors that grieve God because they are sin. And I believe they can all be wrapped up under one term....rebellion. There's no degree of sin as far as God is concerned. Sin is sin. People assign degrees of sin...a little white lie isn’t as bad as killing someone, etc. The bible says when we hate someone it is the same as murder but to us, it isn’t remotely the same. Rebellion has been around since the very beginning. Eve rebelled against God by eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Adam rebelled against God by eating the fruit as well. Israel rebelled over and over and over again. The bible is full of examples of humankind's rebellion against the authority of God. I believe these stories are there to illustrate what a loving and forgiving God we serve. He kept on wooing his people, Israel, even when they chose Baals and idols over him. He continues to woo us even when we choose our “idols” this day and time. I may not have a statue of Baal in my living room, but anything I put before God is an idol, plain and simple.
I believe we each are tempted in different ways. You are tempted to engage in homosexual behavior. I'm tempted to other things. But it is my choice whether or not I choose to act on the temptation, whether it is sexual, physical, mental, or whatever. In I Corinthians 6:9-11 Paul talks about different lifestyles that are against God’s plan. You wrote: "This makes sense because Paul was pointing out the unnatural sex acts that would get you in trouble including fornication, adultery, etc..." You have said it for yourself—unnatural sex acts. Male prostitutes engaged in homosexual activity. There were also female prostitutes. The prostitutes referred to in this scripture were actually temple prostitutes that had sexual intercourse as part of religious observances to the various idols and "gods" of the times. People can prostitute themselves in many ways, thus committing adultery against God. He wants us to be faithful to Him. I Timothy 1:9-10 says ”Knowing this, that the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons, and if there be any other thing that is contrary to sound doctrine." The original Greek word here is arsenokoites, one who lies with a male as with a female, sodomite, homosexual. This is from Strong's Greek lexicon G733. This same word is used in I Corinthians 6:9. I believe Paul was talking about any homosexual act, whether it was between prostitutes or monogamous homosexual partners because in this context, he was not referring to the temple prostitutes.
Romans 1 talks about homosexuality, both male and females giving up relationships that God intended for vile affections/uncleanness. I heard a teaching on this passage one time that explained it like this. God wants to be in covenant relationship with his people....but his people have chosen the world over Him. He has done everything to cultivate this relationship, including the sacrificial death of his son, yet we continue to choose money, relationships, material wealth....the list goes on and on....over Him. The example of homosexuality is used, I believe, because it is the exact opposite of what God intended when he created man and woman in the garden. And when we choose every thing in the world instead of him it is the exact opposite of the relationship He desires with us. He offers an abundant life in Him, a free gift, and yet we choose the temporary things of this world over that gift. It's rebellion against God's authority and most people don't even see it. We have veils over our eyes. We trade a pure and holy relationship with a pure and holy God for an unclean (akatharsia...the impurity of lustful, luxurious, profligate living) life. The word uncleanness or akatharsia (Strong's Greek lexicon #G167) is used 10 times in the New Testament to describe mankind's choices to live against what God wants us to do.
You mention the Old Testament references and New Testament references being aimed at one set of people. The Levitical references were written as rules for the whole nation of Israel, not just the tribe of Levi or the priests. The first five books of the Old Testament, the Torah, were given to the Jews and that is the "bible" they still study today. I am not a Jew so I was not commanded to follow all of the rules and commandments written for the Jewish people. I can, however, learn from the stories of God's people, the Jews. As a Christian, I am a "grafted branch" and the Jewish culture is my adopted heritage. I worship with a group of people who observe the Jewish festivals. Knowing more about the Jewish heritage of Jesus has certainly enriched my faith walk. Jesus was Jewish, not church of Christ, and he observed and fulfilled all of the Old Testament festivals. References to Sukkot and Hanukkah are found in the New Testament as well as Shavuot (Pentecost) and Passover.
Where in the world did you read that Ruth and Naomi were lesbians? If they were, why did Naomi encourage Ruth to marry the kinsmen redeemer? Wouldn't she want to keep Ruth for herself? This whole story represents again the relationship God wants to have with his people. Boaz represents Christ in the story. Jesus is referred to as a kinsman redeemer. Ruth represents the people of Israel. I don't believe David and Jonathan or Daniel and Asphenaz were gay lovers. The Living Bible is a paraphrased version of the Bible....it is not a literal translation of the original scriptures. There are people out there that think most modern versions (including the King James, New King James, Revised Standard, NIV, etc.) have mistranslated much of the original manuscripts. Have you read the original texts in Hebrew and Greek? I haven't but I have done some study of various translations. The New American Standard version is supposed to be one of the most literal translations on the market today. I prefer the New Living translation or The Message but I also have the New American Standard. The website www.blueletterbible.com is a great reference tool for word studies and this is where I got the information I have cited here regarding the original Greek text.
The enemy (satan or whatever you want to call him) is very good at what he does. A 5-year-old does not know about sexual relationships and I don't believe you actually "knew" at 5 that you were "gay". I know you believe that but I don't agree. That would be like me saying I knew at 5 I was always going to lust after men or I knew I was always going to be a compulsive eater. I didn't even know what lust was at 5, did you? I am a heterosexual Christian woman who at 50 is still a virgin because I believe that it honors God for me to make that choice. The enemy likes to try and see if I really mean it though. I was in a relationship about five years ago that could have ended up with me having sex before we got married. But I chose not to. I made a conscious choice to say no. Yes, it would have been “natural” to go ahead and have sex with this man because God created our bodies to respond to each other but I believe he created the sex act between a man and a woman for the marriage relationship. When it happens outside of marriage, it is not God's best for us. I am very thankful that I said no from the beginning because the relationship didn't last. It would have been devastating to me to have given myself to someone, become one with them, and then have the relationship end. And, I know in my heart that even if I had gone ahead and had sex with him, it would not have changed the outcome of our relationship. The world, on the other hand, would hold me up in ridicule because I have deprived myself of something natural. I don’t look at it as “holding out” or deprivation because I believe God knows what is best for me and I trust Him with my life.
One thing I do know, the blood of Jesus covers our sin. He died once for all. I believe God wants to be in a covenant relationship with you as much as he wants to be in a covenant relationship with me and every other person that has ever lived or who will ever live. I cannot do anything bad enough to separate me from his love or good enough to deserve that love. I can accept the free gift of salvation and by accepting that gift, I can make the choice to live the life He has called me to live....not a life of rebellion against God and His standards. But there again, I can't live up to God's standards...praise His name for his grace and mercy that covers my sin. Paul talks about this in Romans 6. Great chapter. I also believe the verse that says "I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me." It says ALL things. That means that you can make a choice to live a celibate lifestyle and Christ will strengthen you to do it. You are right...you cannot do it on your own any more than I can stop overeating or whatever else that tempts me on my own. Willpower is just that....my will. I have to have self-control which is a God-given fruit of the spirit. You said you tried to stay straight but you just couldn't do it. I think that's a cop-out. The truth is...you want to do what you are doing and you are going to do it. I have known many people who have been in the place you are in now. Some have overcome.....some are still there. It's a choice.
Cory, I can tell you've done a lot of research into proving that you are justified in your choice to engage in a homosexual lifestyle. Research doesn't make it right or wrong. We can pretty much justify anything we want to if we work hard enough at it. Look at the abortion issue. Christian people rationalize and justify the murder of innocent children every day and then lambaste and condemn homosexuals. I used to think it was okay to get an abortion if you were raped, for example. But, isn’t it still killing a baby regardless of the circumstance of the conception? Yes. Like I said before, the enemy is good at lies. He has come to kill, steal, and destroy. He is very good at deception because he has been practicing deception since the beginning of time. Whether or not I believe or you believe that homosexual behavior is a sin really doesn't matter. I don't believe God is going to zap you for it any more than I think He is going to zap a Christian who lies on their income tax or cheats on their wife. I do believe it grieves Him though. And I believe one day we will be called before Him to account for our lives, the choices we have made, how we used the gifts he gave us, etc. I don't live my life in fear anymore because I have a better understanding of grace. I used to be scared all the time about going to hell, too. I could picture God writing my name in the book and then erasing it every time I messed up. I do not believe this now. There are a lot of people who have gone to church their whole lives who still fear going to hell because of one little slip up that they didn't have time to confess.
As far as your civil rights, I don't believe you should be discriminated against for your lifestyle choices when it comes to a job, housing, etc., no more than I should be because I’m a woman. And, I shouldn't be discriminated against because I am a Christian, either. This country was founded on Christian principles whether or not you believe it. Separation of church and state meant that we would not have an organized state religion not that God would not be a part of the country and its values. Democracy is such that the people elect other people to serve. The moral values of the people who are elected will influence how they serve because that is who they are. Is it wrong to have a country that bases its laws on moral principles like don’t kill, don’t steal, and treat people with respect? Is it wrong to teach children to respect others, to obey the laws of the land, to recognize authority and respect it, and to be honest and loyal? These are “Christian” values are they not? Are they oppressive? Yes, if you are rebellious. Are there are consequences of living in rebellion to the laws of the land just as there are consequences of living in rebellion against God? Yes, they only differ in their magnitude.
You are right, Christianity is divisive....because once you decide that God is God and you are going to follow Jesus...you will not fit into the world and what the world says is the right way to be. The bible says that even families will be divided over it because some will choose Jesus and others will not. You are not right, however, when you say that the “church” is an "oppressive hate-mongering institution". If you believe that I am an oppressive hate-mongerer, I am sorry. As a matter of fact, I can’t think of one of my Christian friends who is. That is just another lie from the enemy. If you choose to believe it, it’s up to you. I am your friend and your sister in the Lord. I love you and I want what is God’s best for you. I hope that you receive what I had to say in the spirit in which it was written. You are precious to me and I am here for you.
Lynna
And this is how I responded to that:
Lynna-
I do not think of you as an oppressive hate-monger, which is exactly why I find it so hard to believe that the same person who I shared such a bond with as a kid has such a closed mind about a part of me which has been there from the very beginning of me. I will address your reply in three separate stages (Personal, Biblical, and Legal) just so that I can be clear about each one. The first response that I sent to you was done hastily while at work and I don’t feel like I was fully able to express what I wanted to.
First of all I’ll address the personal aspect of my sexuality. Sexuality is a very physical phenomenon. What attracts us to potential mates is a combination of biological and environmental stimulus, and while no scientific evidence has been brought forward which shows that there is particular “gay” gene per se does not really affect the basis of my argument for having been born the way that I am. You stated that you don’t believe that I “knew” at the age of 5 that I was gay. That is a very strong assumption for someone who is not me. In the same way that science has not been able to find evidence that a “gay” gene exists, they have also not been able to scientifically prove that a soul exists. Some scientists argue that since there is absolutely no scientific evidence available to account for the fact that humans have a consciousness, then our “soul” must be one and the same—if you want to attach a religious connotation to it. This “soul” is what makes us who we are. It determines if we are to have a sense of humor, appreciation for music, etc. This is also the part of me that determined my sexuality.
There are absolutely no physical differences between the body of a heterosexual male and a homosexual male. This is also the case with every other species in the world that exhibits homosexual behavior such as elephants, dogs, dolphins, cheetahs, several different species of fish, several different species of birds—and I could go on and on. With the occurrence of homosexual behavior running so deep in nature especially in animals that are considered to not know the difference between right and wrong, how can anyone think of homosexuality as being unnatural? Because they read it in a book…? To further my argument, 1 in 2,000 babies that are born do not fit neatly into the category of either male or female—they represent to one degree or another some form of hermaphroditic traits. Because of this physical “anomaly” their parents must make a decision to either venture a guess as to what “sex” the baby actually will lean towards as they get older, or to simply leave the child how they were born and see if their “soul” will determine what sex they are..
What is to become of these children? How exactly should they be expected to conform to the so-called “divine mandates” in the Bible that instruct that we should only couple with a partner of the opposite sex? You would think that if this whole sexuality issue was really that important to God then maybe he would have tried to include a little side note somewhere to let all the misfits know what to do. This little oversight only helps my argument that most of those mandates that are in the Bible were added due to social standards of the time (such as the need for the Jewish people to increase their numbers), or they were added by translators who misinterpreted the original meaning of the verses.
Getting back to the personal aspect of my sexuality. I did indeed know that I was “attracted” to other boys at the age of 5. I also knew that the feeling I felt at that age seemed to be wrong because all of the other affectionate couplings that I would see were between a man and a woman. Oh, and I also had a lot of people teaching me in Bible School that when a man loves a woman they get married and yadda yadda. The feelings at that point weren’t sexual, but I did know that I craved a certain proximity to other guys that I knew wasn’t “normal” only because of my environment. These feelings gradually got stronger and stronger and I can definitely say by about the 3rd grade for sure I knew that I was sexually attracted to other boys. I have never once in my life been sexually attracted to a woman. When I did force myself to have sexual interactions with women I could never follow all the way through even though I really wanted to do so in order to prove to myself that I could be straight.
So believe me when I say that I am gay. It was absolutely not a choice and I cannot even fathom the arrogance of a person who would actually believe that they know better than I about who I am. I am an extremely introspective individual. The only person who may have the advantage on knowing me better than me is my boyfriend Raul. Speaking of Raul, he is the best man that I could ever have hoped to meet and settle down with. We fight for each other. We love each other absolutely. Both of our families are incredibly happy for us and support us because they have realized that we are indeed the best thing for one another.
Secondly I’ll address the biblical aspect of homosexuality: Your assertion that God created woman for man is indeed correct—at least in the case of Adam and Eve. However your next statement claiming, “this is the relationship that He intended for humankind” is not really universally applicable. One direct conflict with this claim is the relationship between Ruth and Naomi.
In Genesis 2:14, after God had created Adam and Eve the verse states that, “Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh”. This same verbiage can be seen between Ruth and Naomi in Ruth 1:14, “And they lifted up their voice, and wept again: and Orpah kissed her mother in law; but Ruth clave unto [Naomi]”. The word clave or cleave is the word of significance because the same Hebrew word dabaq is used to describe how a husband should feel towards his wife and also how Ruth and Naomi felt for one another. Another distinct parallel is that both women were leaving their families to be with each other. The significance of this fact may sometimes be overlooked, but according to social customs of the time the only reason to leave your family was if you were getting married. Their decision would likely have been seen by most people as a death wish. Any woman who became a widow was expected to either marry again right away (most often the brother of her late husband), or return home to her family so that they could provide for her. Any widows who did not adhere to this routine were often subject to starvation and begging.
The particular passage referenced above as I’m sure you know comes right before the passages most commonly used in wedding ceremonies to describe how husbands and wives should be devoted to one another. The vows that Ruth made to Naomi are not representative of the relationship that God wants to have with his people, but the example for the relationship that spouses should have with one another. The fact is that this love was shared between two women. Their vows have been recited for centuries at heterosexual weddings. However, if two women were to stand up in front of their congregation in today’s society and pledge this type of love to one another before God and everyone they would be ostracized. It is beyond ridiculous to recognize every aspect of this story without coming to the logical conclusion that the two women were in a committed relationship whether sex was involved or not—and let me be the first to tell you that relationships, whether gay or straight, are not built around sex—at least not the good ones.
In response to the question of why Naomi would encourage Ruth to marry her kinsmen redeemer: You are correct. Ruth did eventually marry a much older man; however, the book of Ruth is pretty clear in pointing out that this marriage was one of convenience (New Living Translation Ruth 4:5)
“[to Boaz] Of course, your purchase of the land from Naomi also requires that you marry Ruth, the Moabite widow. That way, she can have children who will carry on her husband's name and keep the land in the family”.
In fact there is never one mention of Ruth’s feelings or love for her husband. Even when she eventually has a son the text focuses on Naomi’s reaction to the news. The father is not even mentioned, (Ruth 4:13-17)
So Boaz married Ruth and took her home to live with him. When he slept with her, the LORD enabled her to become pregnant, and she gave birth to a son.
And the women of the town said to Naomi, "Praise the LORD who has given you a family redeemer today! May he be famous in Israel.
May this child restore your youth and care for you in your old age. For he is the son of your daughter-in-law who loves you so much and who has been better to you than seven sons!"
Naomi took care of the baby and cared for him as if he were her own. (In other translations it actually says that she laid the baby upon her breast and he nursed).
The neighbor women said, "Now at last Naomi has a son again!" And they named him Obed. He became the father of Jesse and the grandfather of David.
It’s pretty difficult to deny which relationship is the most significant in the book. At the time this type of relationship was breaking with custom in a huge way, yet the two women were celebrated! They raised a child together. They made a plan for Ruth to seduce Boaz who was a much older and richer man, and not even the obvious choice for a kinsmen redeemer as there was a kinsmen redeemer who was more closely related. After the marriage and conception of Ruth’s son, Boaz is not mentioned again save for being applauded for providing a son to Naomi.
Now for David and Jonathan: There are several parallels between the stories of Adam and Eve, Naomi and Ruth, and David and Jonathan. First there is the merging of the two souls which with Adam and Eve as well as with Ruth and Naomi is represented by the word dabaq or cleave. With David and Jonathan the merging of their two souls into one soul is spelled out a little more clearly for us (1 Samuel 18:1-4):
And it came to pass, when he had made an end of speaking unto Saul, that the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul.
And Saul took him that day, and would let him go no more home to his father's house.
Then Jonathan and David made a covenant, because he loved him as his own soul.
And Jonathan stripped himself of the robe that [was] upon him, and gave it to David, and his garments, even to his sword, and to his bow, and to his girdle.
You can see the parallels very clearly here. The two men loved each other and became one soul. David no longer returned to his father’s house. They made a covenant to love one another. And then Jonathan completely disrobed before him. Not many covenants of followed up with disrobing in front of one another, but one such covenant—the covenant of marriage does. With Adam and Eve it’s the same story (Genesis 2:23-25):
And Adam said, This [is] now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
And they were both naked, the man and his wife, and were not ashamed.
Another point of interest is that Jonathan and David made a covenant of their love in front of Saul. Whether this relationship was actually consummated in a sexual way is not really the matter of importance. David had several wives and even an extra-marital affair with Bathsheba; however, he is never quoted as saying that he loved any of them—only Jonathan. Although, other passages from Samuel do indeed point to a physical relationship between the two men (1 Samuel 20:30-31):
Then Saul's anger was kindled against Jonathan, and he said unto him, Thou son of perverse rebellious woman, do not I know that thou hast chosen the son of Jesse [David] to thine own confusion, and unto the confusion of thy mother's nakedness?
For as long as the son of Jesse liveth upon the ground, thou shalt not be established, nor thy kingdom. Wherefore now send and fetch him unto me, for he shall surely die.
The Bible often references a parent’s nakedness to point out a sexual relationship. Saul is angry that Jonathan has blatantly chosen David over his own father. He hurls a spear at him and acknowledges that for as long as David is on the earth Jonathan will not be able to produce an heir to the throne.
Another clue that Saul recognized the significant relationship, indeed maybe even a marriage of sorts, between David and Jonathan reveals itself in 1 Samuel 18:21 where Saul states, “Thou shalt this day be my son-in-law a second time”. David was marrying Saul’s daughter Michal, but Saul made a specific reference that this would be the second time that David would be his son-in-law. The only other child of Saul’s that David had been in a relationship of any kind with was Jonathan.
The last reference that I’ll use for David and Jonathan is from 1 Samuel 20:41 after Jonathan has been killed in battle. David cries out, “I am distressed for thee, my brother Jonathan: very pleasant hast thou been unto me: thy love to me was wonderful, passing the love of women”. The main point of interest is that David compares his love from Jonathan with the love received from women. David again was no stranger to women. He had several wives and such, but still valued the love from Jonathan more than any.
Moving on, I am very familiar with the concept that all sins are created equal. As for your contention that all sin can be wrapped up into the neat package of rebellion…okay I’ll go with you on that. The problem arises with your classification of homosexuality as a sin. I still have yet to be presented with a scripture that thoroughly convinces me that a monogamous relationship between two homosexual men is a sin. You misunderstood what I was getting at with my explanation of what qualifies as an unnatural sex act, so I will explain in a little more detail.
As you stated the word arsenokoites is the word that Paul commonly uses to describe the “unnatural” sex act that is prohibited. What is interesting is that there were indeed several words in several languages during Paul’s time that could have been used to denote a consensual homosexual relationship, but he did not use any of them. The word arsenokoites in itself is somewhat ambiguous because of its limited use (in fact according to most theologians he made it up). Most all appearances of this word in literature correlate with lists of sins. If all of the lists that use this word are examined it is quite evident that arsenokoites does not refer to mutually respecting gay relationships, but to a powerful aggressor subjugating a weaker individual (whether in the context of rape or slave trading) to a perverse sexual act. This begs the question, why wouldn’t Paul actually use a word that described a consensual homosexual relationship if such a word did indeed exist?
Stretching the meaning of a word to include what you or Christianity in general believes that it means doesn’t make it true. The word itself may be somewhat ambiguous but the point of the matter is that the words that do actually denote monogamous consensual homosexual relationships were not used—only words describing perversions and abuse of sex whether it is heterosexual or homosexual are included. So if we are indeed inferring, then it should be inferred that because monogamous consensual homosexual relationships are not mentioned then they should not be included in the list of sins. Because they aren’t there! The only reason that they have been added to the list is because of mistranslation and conservative Christian agenda.
In Romans 1, Paul is referring to heterosexuals who were punished by God and made to go against their “natural” inclinations towards the opposite sex. The key here is that these relationships were “unnatural” only because the people’s “natural” inclination was to be heterosexual. A distinction has to be made because not all human’s natural inclination is to be heterosexual. There are those of us who are very naturally homosexual. This conclusion is supported by my previous argument regarding homosexuality running deeply throughout all of God’s natural creatures.
There is again no mention of consensual homosexual relationships in the Romans 1 passage. As with most all of Paul’s letters we must also take into account that more often than not he was responding to congregations who had questioned him about certain issues relating to their faith and the various culture that they lived in. It’s awfully convenient for Christians to use Paul and his words as their main argument against homosexuality when it’s pretty much the same as trying to teach life lessons from a one-sided phone conversation.
Going back to the condemnations against homosexuality in the Old Testament, again we can agree that Christians are not bound by these social laws. I am aware that the first five books of the Bible are called the Torah and that they are still very important to the Jewish religion. I also know that the Church of Christ is part of the Judeo-Christian classification, and is obviously a “grafted branch” of the Jewish faith. The only matter of significance to me; however, is that Christians commonly use the passages from Leviticus that condemn homosexuality in their attacks against gay people. It is beyond hypocritical for a person to spout these passages condemning a certain behavior whenever they don’t even follow the commands written before and after that specific one.
In answer to your question of whether I have read the original Greek and Hebrew texts of the Bible; I have not. I have; however, done a great deal of research and compared specific passages of the Bible dealing with homosexuality to their original Hebrew and Greek translations. From there I have done even more research as to the uses of the specific words in other works of literature as well as throughout the Bible. I, like you, am not a Greek or Hebrew scholar. I rely upon my research skills in order to divine meaning from passages. Most people don’t do any of that and just take the Bible at face value. This is ignorance in its greatest form. It could be compared to reading the Cliff’s Notes version of A Tale of Two Cities and calling yourself an expert on Dickens and his views.
The last topic that I will discuss gets us back to the original question that started all of this in the first place. Why should I not be able to marry my boyfriend of 4 years? First of all I should clarify. I am fighting for a civil marriage to Raul, not a religious one. Even if we were able to get a civil union, there are over 1010 rights that are included in marriage that are not included in a civil union. Can you honestly tell me that I shouldn’t be afforded the right to be able to fill a joint tax return, visit Raul in the hospital, include him as the beneficiary for my social security, jointly own a home and still be entitled to half that home if we split up, etc…just because you think God says it’s wrong?
This is the problem. Even if we can never agree as to whether being gay is a sin or not, it should not come between me and my civil rights. The 14th amendment states:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Therefore, it is indeed unconstitutional for any state to prohibit my access to the same rights as a heterosexual man and woman. I’m not asking for my union with Raul to be approved by God. I am asking for a legal contract. Any church in the United States that prohibits this should indeed be corrected; however, a slight majority of the voting population doesn’t see the divide between their moral views and the rights of an entire group of people that are being denied. Christians can keep their “marriages”. I don’t want a Christian marriage. They should; however, keep their marriages in a church where they belong. Churches don’t have any business dictating what marriages take place in a civil arena.
Democracy, as you state, is such that the people elect other people to serve. You also go on to say that the people who are elected let their moral values influence them. That is all well and good, and I also wholeheartedly support a government that tries to do the right thing by people. There are a great deal of teachings in the Bible that could influence an elected official in a great way to make good decisions and uphold the United States as morally superior in the world; however, these elected officials are sworn in under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.
This oath of office is taken by all of our elected officials. The original oath of office was something like, “I swear to support the Constitution”. After the Civil War, President Lincoln initiated the current oath of office so that each member of congress would have to recognize the new amendments (14th in point of fact) and fully support them in regards to their voting decisions. This will eventually have to be upheld in regards to gay marriage. If a national amendment banning gay marriage is ever brought in front of Congress they will either have to vote it down, or it will be repealed by the Supreme Court. Right now time is the only thing standing between myself and the marriage that Raul and I deserve.
The Christian principles such as not lying or stealing or killing are more than just Christian principles. You, like a lot of Christians, seem to forget that there were other religions around for thousands and thousands of years before Christianity. In fact the specific principles that you named are specifically Jewish commandments. Buddha and other prophets have been preaching the virtues of good behavior for a hell of a lot longer than Christ or Christians. So no, these are not inherently Christian values. They are at this point common sense. I don’t need the Bible to tell me that I shouldn’t kill. In fact, I think that the “Golden Rule” sums up all of that other stuff quite nicely.
Your question of, “Is it wrong to teach children to respect others, to obey the laws of the land, to recognize authority and respect it, and to be honest and loyal,” has already been addressed. You should consider that the laws of the land (which is the Constitution) are actually not being carried out right now though because if they were I wouldn’t have to ask why I can’t marry Raul—we would already be married. Also, honesty and loyalty may be Christian values, but they didn’t invent or patent them.
I adamantly oppose your view that this country was “founded” on Christian principles. There is actually quite a lot of historical evidence to prove the exact opposite. Our forefather’s were very careful to word our constitution in a way that leaves God totally out of the picture. The U.S. government derives from people (not God), as it clearly states in the preamble: "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union...." The omission of God in the Constitution did not come out of forgetfulness, but rather out of the founding father’s purposeful intentions to keep government separate from religion. They were very clear that religion and government did not belong anywhere close to one another.
In conclusion, after having gone into this whole debate I should confess that it doesn’t actually matter to me what the Bible says about homosexuality. I did a lot of this research whenever I was struggling with accepting myself as a homosexual. I have since moved past that phase of my life. I was indoctrinated with a set of beliefs as a child. Those beliefs were hammered into my head and repeated to me at least three times a week. I’m sure it was the same for you. At the time I accepted all of this as the truth because it was all that I had been exposed to. But the simple fact of the matter for me is that it’s not the truth. There is not some big jealous, selfish God floating up in the sky somewhere who wants everyone to worship him and devote their lives entirely to him. He is a story in a book that has been handed down for about 5,000 years. Millions upon millions of people have died in his name. Millions upon millions of people spew hate everyday in his name. Millions upon millions of people convince themselves that they are doing the right thing, the Holy thing, the Christian thing…but even in that they fail. If Christians were to truly adhere to the teachings of Christ they would spend a lot more time spreading the love around to all mankind, rather than focusing on everyone else’s sin. Christ was a prophet. He had a good message. I am sure that he would be extremely sad to see that the religion founded in his name has gone so far left of the mark that they can’t even see the target anymore.
I am not rebelling. I live my life the best that I can, and I try and be the best person that I can every day. I help others whenever I can and I try not to judge people for their decisions. If I do judge I usually keep it to myself. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an atheist. I do believe that there is a God. I believe that there is a reason for all of this madness that we call existence. I just don’t think that our only reason for being here is to spend our short lives in service of a deity on an ego trip with an anger problem. |
|
|
| Hey |
[Jun. 9th, 2008|11:40 pm] |
|
Just thought I would let you guys not that I'm alive and well here in Vegas. I worked 6 days last week. 9 to 10 hour days. Hopefully it will slow down soon and I'll be able to write some more. Hope all of you are doing well. Jessica...take some pictures of Brayden's arts and crafts projects for me. I want to see what I'm missing out on. |
|
|
| AMAZING |
[May. 15th, 2008|12:45 pm] |
| [ | mood |
| |  giddy | ] |
The Supreme Court in California just struck down the same-sex marriage ban in California! This means that when me and Raul move to Vegas that we can go and get married in California...legally...if we want to. We've talked about it some, and we are definitely headed in that direction. Even if we got married legally in California our marriage certificate still wouldn't hold up in Nevada, but if I ended up getting a job in California after my training we could actually be recognized as husband and husband. It's a small step in the right direction, but it's a step that will be heard across the nation. Hopefully more states will follow suit in the coming years. |
|
|
| Vegas Bust |
[May. 12th, 2008|03:57 pm] |
|
So, the trip to Vegas was a little bit of a bust. The day before I left for the trip I found the perfect little duplex in a not-so-bad part of town. It had the cutest little yard and tile floors and really cool colored painted walls and was being rented out by a single owner instead of a property management group. I went and looked at it on Friday and put a deposit down. Everything seemed great...and then on Saturday when I went back to get a receipt for my deposit the owner informed me that he would be leaving a big huge bedroom suit in the second bedroom. This thing is monstrous. It has shelves and drawers and takes up an entire wall. Plus...it's ugly. So I told him that wouldn't really work since we had a treadmill, weight bench and twin bed that needed to go in there. He said that would be fine...we would work something out. Then he informed me that if anything went wrong with anything in the house (appliance, plumbing, electric, etc...) that we would be responsible for the repairs. The was not cool with me either. On Sunday I heard from him again and he informed me that the bedroom suit would indeed have to stay. So I called him today and told him to go shove the deposit check up his ass (...and then shred it) because we were going to find something else.
Overall, I think that I'll like Vegas, but I'm glad that I'll only be there for a few months. Probably about 75% of the city is really trashy and ghetto looking. The other parts of the city are gated subdivisions with condos, homes, and apartments. This is hopefully where we'll be able to find a place. Nebraska Book Company will pay for us to live in an extended stay hotel for up to 15 days after we get into town, so that should give us time to find a place after we get there. I like this idea anyway because I'll have a little time to earn some money on my salaried pay before having to come up with $950 for our first month's rent with the $12.50/hr that I make right now. Also, we are going to have to get rid of Zoe. Since I can't find anybody who can take care of her for the 7 months or so that we'll be in Vegas, I'm probably just going to have to find new owners for her...which breaks my heart. Her and Boomer are so in love. They spent a good hour last night laying on the floor with Boomer's arm over Zoe and making out. It's totally weird to watch.
I met all of the manager's at Rebelbooks, where I'll be working. The General Manager is Jeanne. She is a smoking hot grandma. She has jet black hair and doesn't look a day over 40, but apparently is almost 60. She looks like Mary Steenburgen, but hotter. If you don't know who that is look it up. The general merchandise manager is Toni Rucci. She's about 28 and hot. The assistant manager is Shayne Valdez. He's probably close to 40. He's a short little cute latino guy, and probably the nicest first impression that I've gotten from anybody I've ever met. I think I'm going to fit in really well. Also, I will actually probably only be working about 40 hours a week, unless it's a book rush. Those only happen for about a week at the beginning and end of every semester. So I'm totally excited that I'll actually be able to spend a good amount of time with Raul.
Las Vegas Pros and Cons---
Pros:
No mosquitos
No humidity
Very little allergies
Tons of things to do and see (Concerts, Musicals, Shows, Magicians, etc...)
Tons of places to eat...for CHEAP! (Sizzler has all you can eat steak and shrimp everyday for $9.99)
Relatively light traffic for such a big city
Surrounded by mountains so the views are really pretty
The economy is still in great shape even though the rest of the country is in the shitter
There are tons of natural wonders to be seen in the area (Grand Canyon, Death Valley, Mojave Desert, etc...)
Los Angeles is only 3 hours away
Cons:
It's brown and there isn't much plant life other than palm trees in most parts of town
It's hotter than hell in the summers-- 120 degrees is not uncommon (rain evaporates before it hits the ground)
A lot of the city has really high crime rates
Hard to find a house that will allow large dogs
It's the desert
My last day at work in College Station is May 27th. We will probably head out that afternoon and crash in Anson overnight so that I can bid farewell to the family.
That's all I've got for now.
|
|
|
| Vegas Baby! |
[Apr. 28th, 2008|04:12 pm] |
|
I got the job in Las Vegas. I start June 1st!!!!!! |
|
|
| FUCK! |
[Apr. 25th, 2008|01:14 pm] |
Oil prices move higher on supply tensionsLONDON (AFP) — Oil prices climbed towards this week's record peaks on Friday as traders fretted over threats to global energy supplies in Britain and Nigeria, analysts said. New York's main oil futures contract, light sweet crude for delivery in June, rallied 1.68 dollars to 117.74 dollars a barrel. London's Brent North Sea crude for June rose 1.57 dollars to 115.91 dollars. This week, prices rocketed to historic highs as investors seized on mounting supply worries and the weak US currency, which makes dollar-priced crude cheaper for foreign buyers and tends to encourage demand. New York crude jumped close to 120 dollars, hitting a record high 119.90 dollars on Tuesday, before dipping in line with the strengthening US currency. Brent crude, meanwhile, set a high of 116.87 dollars on Thursday as fears grew over a looming strike at Grangemouth, one of Britain's biggest oil refineries. In Nigeria on Friday, the most prominent armed group in the southern oil-producing region sabotaged a supply pipeline belonging to Anglo-Dutch energy giant Shell. "Crude futures recovered (on Friday) ... after news emerged that Nigerian rebels attacked a pipeline in the Niger Delta," said Sucden analyst Andrey Kryuchenkov. "The Movement for Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) has once again announced that it sabotaged an oil facility belonging to Royal Dutch Shell, following a series of attacks started at the end of last week." In an e-mail to AFP, MEND said it had "successfully sabotaged a major crude oil pipeline located at Kula river in Rivers state of Nigeria operated by Shell Petroleum Development Company" on Thursday. Several supply pipelines owned by Shell and Chevron have been destroyed in recent weeks. Shell officials could not immediately confirm the latest attack. On Tuesday, Shell announced a production loss of 169,000 barrels per day following earlier attacks on pipelines in the region. Royal Dutch Shell, Nigeria's largest oil operator accounting for around half of the country's 2.1 million barrels per day output, has seen a wave of attacks on its facilities in recent months. Overall, violence in the Niger Delta has reduced Nigeria's total production by a quarter in the past two years. In Britain, meanwhile, workers at Grangemouth, west of Edinburgh in Scotland, are refusing to work on Sunday and Monday in a row over pensions. As a result, British energy giant BP may have to close the Forties pipeline, that brings in oil from the North Sea and delivers a third of the country's daily output. "A potential strike at Grangemouth refinery in Scotland should help to underpin the market in the near term," said Kryuchenkov. "The 48-hour planned shut-down is scheduled to start on Saturday and market participants fear that BP could be forced to stop pumping around 700,000 barrel a day through the Forties pipeline system, as the pipeline relies on power from Grangemouth." The industrial action has sparked widespread concerns over potential shortages of motor fuel in Britain. BP was expected to make a decision on whether the pipeline will have to close on Saturday, while the Grangemouth facility could take up to two weeks to get fully up and running after the strike. |
|
|
| Las Vegas or Bust! |
[Apr. 24th, 2008|11:57 am] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | Work | ] |
| [ | mood |
| |  anxious | ] |
| [ | music |
| | Hummm of embroidery machine | ] |
Okay, so we're making slow but steady progress on the Las Vegas job. I have had a total of 3 interviews now...all of which have been excellent. I have my next to last interview tomorrow at 11 with the head of the Manager Trainee Program. If all goes well there my regional manager will announce my canadacy to the VP of Operations - Western Division, and then they will fly me to Vegas to check it out for myself. This is too much damn work for a job with the starting pay at only $32,000... But soon after my year of training I'll be eligible to earn up to that in bonuses per year too, so that ain't too shabby. |
|
|
| HOT ASS OF THE DAY! |
[Apr. 21st, 2008|08:15 am] |
Scottish Rugby Player in their annual Dieux De Sade nude promotional calender.
 |
|
|
| FUCKING REDICULOUS! |
[Apr. 17th, 2008|12:43 pm] |
|
Two teens, 18-year-old Melvin Blevins and 16-year old Angel Dailey have been charged with corrupting/endangering a child in Pataskala, Ohio, after police say they forced a toddler (age 2!!!) to smoke pot and videotaped the whole thing. Authorities learned of the tape after a Columbus, Ohio, pawn shop dealer found it in a camcorder. Police received the video of the toddler on Monday. According to the report, the toddler inhales and then chokes on the pot in the video. After that, the video shows 'a man' who we assume to be Blevins, mimicking the toddler's coughing.
These fuckers need to be thrown in prison NOW! |
|
|
| Another |
[Apr. 17th, 2008|12:41 pm] |
Okay, so three hot asses were needed. BTW...hot ass doesn't technically have to be an ass. It could just be a hot piece of ass as well. And I think this on qualifies.
|
|
|
| Hot Ass of the Day! |
[Apr. 17th, 2008|12:37 pm] |
|
I think I want to start doing a hot ass of the day too. Most of them will be men...but I might throw a girl in there every once in a while. I decided to put two hot asses for the first post...
|
|
|
| Gay Stuff |
[Apr. 17th, 2008|12:15 pm] |
|
Okay, so being the only gay person that you guys really interact with, I kind of feel like it is my duty to keep you up to date on our current struggle. In case you didn't know gays are discriminated against more and more (Since Bush took office), and we're on the verge of a huge human rights crisis that has been compared to segregation. One of the hot topics for this year's presidential election is whether or not that the Military should do away with Don't Ask, Don't Tell. This policy was started under Bill Clinton as a way for Gays to serve in the military, however once Bush took office the policy has turned into a wichhunt to find gays and kick them out. Some of these gays that are kicked out have served in Iraq and Afghanistan, but when it is found out that they are gay...they are dishonorably discharged. This means they no longer receive veterans benefits and disability etc... Here's an article that talks about it just a little.
Lawrence J. Korb, Senior Fellow at the Center for American Progress and Assistant Secretary of Defense from 1981 to 1985, strongly criticized the Bush administration's policies in Iraq and Afghanistan with regard to the U.S. military and told the House Committee on Armed Services that not allowing gays and lesbians to serve is endangering troops and the military as a whole.  Said Korb:
"The Army and Marine Corps cannot afford to place unnecessary obstacles in the way of qualified men and women who want to serve. Over the past 10 years more than 10,000 personnel have been discharged as a result of ['Don't Ask, Don't Tell'], including 800 with skills deemed 'mission critical,' such as pilots, combat engineers, and linguists. These are the very job functions for which the military has experienced personnel shortfalls. General John M. Shalikashvili, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1993 when the 'don't ask, don't tell' policy was enacted, no longer supports the policy because he now believes that allowing gay men and women to serve openly in the military would no longer create intolerable tension among personnel and undermine cohesion. A recent Zogby poll supports this view. It found that three-quarters of Afghanistan and Iraq veterans were comfortable interacting with gay people." Yesterday, Box Turtle Bulletin made note of the growing list of public servants who have publicly opposed the flawed "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy. |
|
|
| Got Wood? |
[Apr. 14th, 2008|02:40 pm] |
Tree man: 'I want to get married'Monday, April 14, 2008  Dede Koswara says he hopes to get married again A man dubbed 'iTree Man of Java' is planning to get married after 4lb of bark were cut away. Dede Koswara, 37, says he plans to get hitched now that he can use his hands and walk without pain. Speaking from an Indonesian hospital, he told the Daily Telegraph website: "What I really want first is to get better and find a job. But then, one day, who knows? I might meet a girl and get married." Dede's first wife left him and he lost his job because of his bizarre affliction. At one point to feed his two children he joined a freak show with other victims of peculiar diseases. But now, following a series of operations to cut away the tree-like growths, he can see the outline of his toes for the first time. He has also become a sudoko addict now he can hold a pen. He said he hopes that he will resume a normal life after two more operations to graft undamaged skin onto his hands, feet and face. Since Dede cut his knee as a teenager, strange roots have been growing out of him. A small wart developed on his lower leg and spread uncontrollably. But last year US dermatology expert Dr Anthony Gaspari took up his case. He concluded Dede's odd affliction was caused by the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV), a fairly common infection usually causing only small warts. But in Dede's case he had an extremely rare immune system deficiency, leaving his body unable to contain the warts. |
|
|
| Friday Five |
[Apr. 4th, 2008|01:49 pm] |
Okay, so here's a fun tradition that I used to try and do on Friday's with some of my Livejournal buddies...and I think we should bring it back. I'm going to resurrect this old one because my answers were pretty funny. Copy and paste and answer on your own LJ's my friends.
Friday Five!!!
Crushes
1) Who was your first crush? (Celebrity or average)
I would have to say He Man. I blame my mother for this because she took me to see a real life He Man when I was like 5 years old. Let's just say that a big huge muscled man in a red speedo is enough to turn any little boy gay...especially gay ones.
2) Who do you currently have a crush on now?
Milo Ventimiglia from Heroes. There's just something about facial deformities and speech impediments that turn me on.
3) Have you ever become so obsessed with a crush, you went to extreme measures to find out everything about him/her?
Umm...no
4) Has your crush ever turned out to be your future girlfriend/boyfriend?
Seeing that I've only every actually had one real relationship that was consumated (more or less) the first night I met him...I'm gonna say no to that one too.
5) Did a best friend ever turn into more than just a friend?
Yes, in high school there was this busty Iranian girl named Elizabeth Shokoui. We "dated". It was weird. Our first date consisted of 30 minutes of a movie and then rushing her to an ER because she wore a really fuzzy sweater and had just gotten her navel pierced. Fuzz enteres puss fill wound...infection follows...gross swelling and more puss results. Fun first date. I broke up with her because she wouldn't let me touch her boobs. |
|
|
| Las Vegas bound??? |
[Apr. 2nd, 2008|09:42 am] |
|
So I had my job interview yesterday which went really well, except for the fact that the job I though I was interviewing for was in San Antonio. Little did I know that the San Antonio job, due to developmental issues, will not be available until October or as late as December. However, there are jobs available right now in Las Vegas and Phoenix. After talking with Raul we have decided that I should pursue the Las Vegas job. If I end up getting it I will be moving to Las Vegas probably around the third week in May...that's 6 weeks away!!! Obviously I'm a little scared, anxious, and excited about this new opportunity. So keep your fingers crossed that everything works out! |
|
|
| Wish me luck! |
[Mar. 31st, 2008|10:22 am] |
|
Okay guys, I have my OFFICIAL interview for going into the manager trainee program with Nebraska Book Company tomorrow at 3. Wish me luck! Hopefully I'll finally find out if I do indeed get to move to San Antonio in June like I've been planning to do. |
|
|
| Friday Five on Friday!!! |
[Dec. 15th, 2006|10:26 am] |
| [ | Current Location |
| | work | ] |
| [ | mood |
| |  calm | ] |
| [ | music |
| | my dripping nose | ] |
Crushes
1) Who was your first crush? (Celebrity or average)
I would have to say He Man. I blame my mother for this because she took me to see a real life He Man when I was like 5 years old. Let's just say that a big huge muscled man in a red speedo is enough to turn any little boy gay...especially gay ones.
2) Who do you currently have a crush on now?
Milo Ventimiglia from Heroes. There's just something about facial deformities and speech impediments that turn me on.
3) Have you ever become so obsessed with a crush, you went to extreme measures to find out everything about him/her?
Umm...no
4) Has your crush ever turned out to be your future girlfriend/boyfriend?
Seeing that I've only every actually had one real relationship that was consumated (more or less) the first night I met him...I'm gonna say no to that one too.
5) Did a best friend ever turn into more than just a friend?
Yes, in high school there was this busty Iranian girl named Elizabeth Shokoui. We "dated". It was weird. Our first date consisted of 30 minutes of a movie and then rushing her to an ER because she wore a really fuzzy sweater and had just gotten her navel pierced. Fuzz enteres puss fill wound...infection follows...gross swelling and more puss results. Fun first date. I broke up with her because she wouldn't let me touch her boobs. |
|
|
| navigation |
| [ |
viewing |
| |
most recent entries |
] |
| [ |
go |
| |
earlier |
] |
| |
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
cory_07's journal
