Wow. That was overwrought.

lol Mafiaalligator read Dan Savage's column this week... but lets stay on topic here... if gay sex is a sin, and polygamy is a sin... aren't you actually REDUCING your sin-load if you get married, and be a monogamous gay? Even if it's not "recognized" by God, you're still reducing your chances of burning in hell forever and ever. You'd think Christians would APPROVE of gay marriage.

Indeed I did. I do almost every week. But it's a valid point.

And yeah actually, people don't realize it but like back in the 90's and the late 80's gay marriage was the option that conservatives were pushing. Conservatives WANTED gay marriage, because the radical LGBTQ movement was gaining in strength and actually aimed to abolish marriage altogether, because they argued the institution was sexist and misogynist and heteronormative. It's interesting how they managed to do an about face in the intervening years.

(Conservatives that is, who did an about face, not the radical LGBTQ movement, they still want to abolish marriage, but they've not really gone anywhere because the mainstream gay movement has been swept up in the gay marriage debate.)

"if gay sex is a sin, and polygamy is a sin"

Polygamy is not a sin... have you read the bible?

I can't believe Santa buys into this crap about separating out sexuality from identity in a pathetic attempt to make the Bible less intolerant.

that "crap" which is accepted by queer studies historians everywhere.

I mean it's the same logic that undergirds the Rick Santorum line on gays in the military. "Oh I don't think we should kick you out, unless you're actually open about who you are".

actually it has nothing to do with each other. I was just pointing out how ridiculous your statement was.

Really, which ones would those be?

I would suggest George Chauncy's "Gay New York" which shows that despite what we consider "Gay" nowadays, as recent as the mid twentieth century there was no concept of a "gay man" there were "fairys" and "pansys," men who had long term emotional and sexual relationships and those who lived completely heterosexual lives besides the fact they had sex with men. There were identities, but those identities didn't revolve around the current dichotomy "If you have sex with men you are either gay or bi, not straight" there was no separation until the thirties and the forties when conservative forces forced the separation.

I don't think that's the point that Putin is taking issue with.

I would like to clarify I do not support or agree with the bible's understanding of gay sexuality. I also do not believe that their is no "real" gay community or that homosexuality is a social construction rather than a biological fact. But I do want to point out the fact that like all communities (Gay, Straight, Black, White, American, Christian, Jewish etc.) the gay community and the idea of a "Gay Person" is a construction, and to say that the Bible was written to persecute "Gay People" is as accurate as a right wing fundi saying the Quran was written to persecute Americans

What is he taking issue with then? That's all I said.

religion sucks.

I think that Putin read your statement that the bible only has rules against gay acts and not gay people was an attempt to make the bible seem gay friendly or tolerant.

Well Putin reads statements however he wants, you can't stop that.

Maybe because you make convoluted points.

I think you misunderstood the book's point. The fact that there were competing concepts for gay identity prior to the 1930s repression doesn't mean that there was no concept of a gay identity prior to that repression. The queers believed their attraction to men stemmed from their sexuality and the so-called fairies believed it stemmed from their effeminate gender identity, which is why the latter were more explicitly "deviant" from middle class norms while the queers sought to assimilate, which you interpret to mean lacking any "homosexual" identity. The same clash of ideas about what it means to be gay exists today, and yet no one would deny that both the so-called "flamboyant" gays and assimilationist gays both identify as gay.

You cannot separate being gay from so-called gay acts (homosexual is a disease term and should be discarded) any more than you can separate the identity of mothers from childbirthing and/or childraising. It's nonsensical. It doesn't even follow from the Bible because even the *thought* of adultery is considered adultery. So this effort to make the Bible non-repressive towards gays is completely ridiculous but not surprising, because any time rational people point to the atrocities and evil sense of 'morality' in the Bible there are efforts to stretch the meanings of words, translations and commands beyond their limits.

Wait, homosexual is a disease term? Correct me if I'm wrong, but its just greek/Latin for same sex preferring, right? I don't see how that's a disease term any more than heterosexual is... please explain further Putin.

acording to the bible gay are punished with stones untill death
i dont get it
if you are gay and your religion doesnt accept it
then dont be gay or dont be believer
i cant see how can you live in both worlds
and if i understand rigth if you stop the sin then god will forgive you
so....no hell for you

I'm neither gay nor a believer, I'm just trying to wrap my mind around this...

@taos - Please don't take the old testament out of context and think Bhristians believe people should be stoned for anything. That is an old Hebrew teaching. Jesus came to bring us a new commandment and a new covenant such that all the stonigs we should be owed were paid for with his death on the cross.

sorry then for my ignorance
new rules ahh.
so if there is not stoning to death we can live a life full of sins then go to hell for eternity?
thats heavier then stones
and if our sins(mine too?)are prepaid .whats the problem then? jesus loves you no mather who you are.

"please explain further Putin."

Homosexuality was listed as a disorder in psychology and is considered offensive. Which is why gay people have been calling themselves gay and lesbian since the beginning of the 20th century.

http://www.glaad.org/reference/offensive

@putin, not all gay/lesbian people consider that term offensive, some merely take it to be descriptive, and the meaning of language is defined by usage.

thus 'gay' has adopted a new meaning which has little to do with homosexuality. Whether homosexuality was used in the 20th century as a medical term doesn't matter if in the 21st century it is used as a neutral descriptive term, derived in part from greek, not medical text books.

As for the new rules, I believe Jesus said, let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Which implies only children may stone felons, right? (of those not born of eve, maybe some kind of non-human primate...hmm.)

why?
are we all siners since birth?
then i dont get it
there is no way to be a saint ,ok but then it means is ok to be siner because anyway we are all supouse to burn in hell(lost game from the start)
so jesus said that he is sacrificing himself so we dont burn in hell(winer from the start)
if there is no punishment so we are all ok

yes
now i can do what ever i want with my ashole and not feel bad

bah, Putin imo thats just PC bullshit. Just because it was listed as a disease term, doesn't make the description any less adequate and real. It's like complaining about the word "retard." It has come to be an offensive word, even though it does have a medical meaning. That's why I'm not afraid to drop the R bomb wherever I go, and heavily encourage you to do the same.

Anyways I've not yet met the gay person who seemed offended by that term, though thanks for bringing to light the possibility that they may be.

@ Yellowjacket - At no point has "retard" been a medical term. To be mentally retarded was, and the noun that went with that was "mentally retarded person". Retard has ALWAYS been pejorative. And because of that usage, retarded has become unusable. More importantly you can't just say "oh this is the definition of the word, therefore there's nothing wrong with using it" without considering the social context in which it exists. Retard and retarded are widely considered highly offensive, and so I don't think you should be terribly surprised when someone gets offended that you said that.
That said the feeling toward the word "homosexual" is, I think, not as widespread and universally agreed upon as with "retarded", but there are indeed people who find it offensive and really do prefer to be identified as gay. Then again arguing about specific identity issues is a favourite pass time among the especially intellectual elements of the LGBT community and there are those who feel that the word "gay" has a rather ugly connotation as well and prefer to identify as "queer" while yet others feel that "queer" is much more pejorative and should be avoided, leaving aside the issue that many feel that "queer" is a very different idea linked to ambiguities in gender identity. It's a ridiculously complicated issue and I'd try and be sensitive to how people feel about it.