Man, you are on a tear today Savage! Love the advice, agree with so so much of it, but couldn't help but notice the tone - cranky!

CAEM should go to seminary and kill two birds with one stone...

Dan, thank you very much for your advice to CAEM. People have been making up their own religion since religions have existed. I love to reference the bible as the "Big book of pick and choose". Gays are bad but you can't sell your daughters? Why follow one of those and not the other?

Also, as a heads up to CAEM - your religion clearly isn't a "rock in a time of storm" right now.

Nice job on the religion smackdown, esp. re: CAEM's letter! As a militant atheist with lots of deeply religious friends, I have always tried to be tolerant of belief systems. However, over the last few years I have become more tuned into all the harm that religion does to the world and think that the world would be better off without it. I'm glad there is a widely read advice columnist out there who is willing to tell it like it is: Religion is useless.

@ Brandon G.

Immaculate Conception: Most christians believe that Mary was conceived/born without sin -- helps lend credibility to the Jesus' mother thing. Remember that they believe that everyone, at birth, inherits Adam and Eve's original sin that the committed by listening to the 'talking snake' as Bill Maher irreverently refers to it. The "immaculate conception" gives Mary a loophole so that Jeezus isn't born with sin too. Make sense? Not really? Bingo.

Virgin birth: this is where JC is born to Mary without her having "known" a man. Don't laugh, it happens. Look up the term parthenogeneis and the lizard genus Cnemidophorous as an example. It doesn't happen in HUMANS, but it happens.

oops, typo: that's "parthenogenesis"

Wow--I'm an anti-religious homophobophobe, yet I thought that first response was stupidly harsh. Maybe there's missing info, or did Dan assume this guy is gay, simply because the guy wrote him specifically? There are actually religious groups that act like it's a huge sin to even have sexual thoughts of a hetero nature. Or how do we know the guy isn't fighting his desire to have sex with dogs? Dan needs to learn tricks from the sneaky christians; if the hell-bound heathen peeps in and says "Hi, I have a problem..." smile and welcome him and slowly brainwash him. They're smart enough to know not to fling poo, why isn't Dan?

What if CAEM is a pedophile? or something similarly disgusting? I find it hard to believe that he wouldn't admit to being gay to DAN SAVAGE in an anonymous letter. I think he's worried about something else.

Also, I'm sick of all this crap from religious folks for whom religion is therapy, or has use value - his religion is his rock in times of trouble? Whatever. How about believing out of conviction rather than need, rather than weakness, rather than desire for community? You can get similar help by joining a book club.

ok 1st of all CAEM is most definitely queer... I am big fat cunt munching dyke that was born a scared little catholic school girl who was voted most likely to become a nun... 10 years ago CAEM's letter could have come from me... and at that time even if I had be GUARANTEED anonymity I would not EVER have typed or spoken or whispered the word lesbian... it makes no sense so don't try to make sense of it... but let me tell you (especially CAEM if he reads this) my life has been 100% better since I jumped off the cross, and dove into my wife's bed.

Actually, there HAVE been documented virgin births...but only if you define "virgin" as "no vaginal intercourse."
The most hilarious one was reported in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology and related the case of a young woman with congenital absence of the vagina who was stabbed in the stomach by a jealous suitor who caught her giving head to someone else.....and was delivered by C-section 9 months later. Apparently semen in a stomach with a stab wound can travel through the abdomen to the ovaries. Astonishing but true -- you can look it up.

Another was documented in British law in an aristocratic divorce. Lady X accused her husband of impregnating her via "Hunnish practices" and produced a doctor to testfy that her hymen was intact at her delivery. Her marriage was annulled on grounds that it was never consummated.

Very funny this week on the column and the podcast!

I recommend if anyone wants to laugh until they cry/pee themselves/literally ROTFLtheirAO to listen to the call and response from this week's podcast where the guy calls in about the dog licking the cum off his hand. That has to be the funniest thing I have ever heard.

I would reccomend the website www.gaychristian.net for anybody trying to reconcile conservative christianity with being gay. It's not very liberal, but I think liberal gay christians have an easier time finding fellowship, because they can just go to the nearest unitarian church.

Thank you #17, I think we've all learned something there. That may be my all-time favorite post on this site.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and predict that one day in the future we see CAEM and TS's brother-in-law on the youth pastor watch.

CAEM is almost certainly not gay, he identifies "certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have." There's only one desire that almost all 20-year-old males have in common, and that's to stick their junk into 20-year-old vaginas.

whoa
I enjoyed the theme as well, but that first response was a little on the harsh side. Not that I don't think what was said needed to be said, but couldn't it have been said in (at least in the start) a slightly more gentle fashion. Clearly Dan likes to vent, and just as clearly we all like to read/listen when he does, but I have to believe that helping the person asking for advice is a goal in there somewhere. I can't see this advice bringing anything but despair. I'm willing to believe that CAEM (gay or not) is going to have to suffer some despair before he finds happiness (don't we all?), but I think that fact could have been delivered with a little more empathy or at least sympathy. Sure, maybe he's hurting because he's being pigheaded, but it's not entirely by choice, and anyway who cares? He's hurting. Don't people who are hurting and reach out for advice in such a polite and careful manner deserve a little compassion?

Great column. I appreciate (and share) your view on religion. Though I must say, I do have some problem with gays (or adulterers, or whoever) who insist on reconciling their Christianity with their lifestyle. The truth is, the bible is pretty explicitly against these things, so I think the honest thing to do is decide whether you want to believe the bible and forgo your lifestyle, or indulge in your natural desires and reject the faint consolation of organized religion. The religious gays I have met seem almost pathologically unhappy--like the Jew that's desperately trying to parse Mein Kampf so he's not left out of the Nazi community. Seems to me that Christianity + Homosexuality= Misery, though I feel for all those born into situations where they must make a choice.

Mr Me (25), the Bible is not exactly clear on gays. There was no word for gay back then and the words used in the ancient Greek and Hebrew text have no equivalent word today, even if scholars all agreed on exactly what the word meant. Most of the anti-gay passsages are modified to suit the purposes of the translators, who had their own axe to grind. King James was more interested in pretty words than exact translations and it's gotten worse since then.

Granted, most fundamentalists/Mormons/Catholics/JW/whoever I'm leaving out have to have someone to hate and vilify, but they're not getting it from the Bible, just their own translation and hate-infused lens.

Oh, STFU, Deleanore @ #3. "Cranky"?? WTF?? When he's dealing with the kind of shit that has oppressed men and women for thousands of years, don't you think Dan has the right to adopt any kind of tone he wants? Besides, it's his f*cking column. Got a problem with his tone? Then -- duh! -- don't f*cking read his columns, dumbass!

Why do some people assume that anyone who is religious is therefore also a weak, stupid, blind, narrowminded sheep? That's an extremely intolerant and divisive generalization.

I am a Christian. I was born in NY, but live in the south. I go to a Baptist church down here that is filled with ... gasp ... liberals, homosexuals, environmentalists, and feminists. I know, right? Jesus is totally going to firebomb the place.

Dan, religious people ARE NOT ALL THE SAME. Yes, some of us are jerks. You know what? Some of us aren't. Stop being so willfully ignorant. And you have no more proof that there is no God than I do that there is. It's an opinion based on faith or the lack thereof.

CAEM - God made you and God loves you. God gave us these bodies and these hormones and these minds. Jesus never said one word about homosexuality and didn't say much more about heteroseuxal sex. Jesus talks about love, compassion, unselfishness, and joy. You can enjoy sex. You can enjoy your body. Don't use sex to hurt people or control people. Don't use sex to forget God. Keep praying, but don't pray for God to remove your desire ... He won't because He loves you.

Guess you had a choice to either go gently on him and read him the errors of his ways, in the hope he would draw his own conclusion, or give him the harsh truth! Still not sure how I would have responded, but loved the pope angle. I'd have mentioned how the Borgias used sex, adultery, nepotism, cunning, intrigue to get their family members promoted to bishop, cardinal and pope! Or mentioned Pope Julius III 17 yr old 'Ganymede'... So much for "fates too grotesque to mention."

On second thought, I'd have given plastered him as well!

Attitude Devant [sic]: please provide citations for your claim. I am unable to find a record of a woman with MRKH conceiving through a stomach wound. That seems extremely unlikely to me, since (a) I don't think sperm would survive the extremely acidic stomach conditions, since only the hardiest bacteria can do so; (b) any wound extensive enough to provide a pathway between the stomach and ovaries would lead to such massive internal bleeding, infection and trauma that, even if the mother survived, it's hard to see how she could possibly bring a child to term; (c) I fail to see how such a horrific event could possibly be considered "hilarious," even if mother and child both survived it.

While conception resulting from anal sex (through an EXTERNAL pathway; semen can drip) is not unknown, it seems at least as likely that Lady X simply paid off the doctor, or fooled him with a false hymen, as women have been taking advantage of male ignorance of female sexual anatomy by doing for thousands of years.

@CAEM If you believe in a personal God then there's two possibilities.

1) God made you the you are and loves you that way. If you're Christian, you'll see that God doesn't have much to say about who you love, only how you approach love. It's his followers that have something to say about who. But, frankly they're a bunch of judgmental, fearful, powermad humans and you don't have any particular obligation to listen to them. If you're not acting on your desires in a way that hurts others, if you're doing so being mindful of a need to treat your partner as you would want to be treated, and if you are acting with love, you should be cool with God. It's up to you to decide whether you have a religious obligation not to celibacy but to testifying to your fellow believers about the faultiness of their assumptions.

2) You and your religious authorities are right, and God made you and some other people in such a way that you desire love and intimacy but only in a way that you're forbidden to express. If that's true then...that's incredibly, pointlessly cruel. I don't think a being like that deserves my love and loyalty, or yours. And if you're worried about torments too grotesque to mention...the other option is doing what the bully wants and then spending the rest of eternity at his side watching him throw a fit and punish anyone like you that didn't cut themselves off from love. I don't know about you, but that doesn't sound like any paradise I'd want to be a part of.

@Shoshannah - false hymen?? Explain, please!

I find the alternative more likely, since I work at Planned Parenthood, where we've had girls with intact hymens come in pregnant through dry-humping, for lack of a better term. And in one case, where the girl's religion made it important for her to have an intact hymen before marriage (I know, I know - tampons, horseback riding, but it was still her request) the doctor was able to perform the procedure without disturbing that sacred little flap-o'-skin. Not trying to say anything about the Virgin Mary now...

@15, if CAEM is a ped, that might not necessarily be at odds with his religion. Homosexuality, on the other hand...

Shoshannah (@32, and sic to you, too!) the case was published in the letters section of BJOG in the 80s and was required reading in my residency. The hilarity came from the details of the case which took place in rural South Africa, and appears to have been treated in a matter-of-fact way by all concerned. Indeed if memory serves the young woman ended up marrying one of the young men (in Africa childbearing cements a family union), and there was an exchange of livestock between the three families to settle any hard feelings. I'll try and dig up the actual citation, but it's going to be a hard slog, given their computerized data base is of recent origin.

Since you know the acronym of the mom's condition, then surely your knowledge of anatomy will demonstrate you that one or two stab wounds to the belly, anterior to posterior, could perforate a full stomach without damaging an artery. As to whether or not sperm could survive stomach acid, that's the wonder of the story---apparently they did (but then the author makes it clear that they weren't in the stomach long before she was stabbed). BJOG at one time was a great source for weird and wonderful stories like this.

As for the British case, of COURSE she could have lied. That is, in fact, my point. What makes you think people aren't lying about Mary too? On the other hand, I have treated a pregnant woman, a Saudi, with an imperforate hymen, not FGN, so there you are: life is truly stranger than our textbooks let on.

p.s What's with the "sic?" Unfamiliar with ballet? Google it!

I'm not sure what in CAEM's letter implied he was gay; I know quite a few people with such conservitive upbringings (I live in the bible belt) that ANY expression or feeling of sexuality brings on personal guilt and fear of damnation. After all, he did say they were "desires that almost all 20-year-old males have." I presumed CAEM was assuming almsot all 20-year-olds have heterosexual desires rather the homosexual ones. Your advice still stands, though, its good advice for repressed, overreligious straight guys, too.

The British case is fairly famous:
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/articl…

The South African case is elusive: because it is old, and because the Journal's search engine relies on title words (there are not titles to the Letters).

Still working on it...

@37 - if he doesn't act on his [insert horrible inclination], he's ok in christianity, even as a pedophile. I'm no theologian, but I don't think pedophilia is that different o a hardcore christian from homosexuality. Anecdotally, haven't we heard plenty of "believers" say "gay marriage?! what next, marrying kids?"

Yeah, a little harsh on CAEM there. If he wants to keep on believing (the nice parts) about what he's believing, he should check out the United Church of Christ. I'm Unitarian, born and raised, and as much as I enjoy it I don't know that someone with lots of God-faith will immediately take to it. UCC seems to be about as liberal as you can get before you transition into a congregation mostly comprised of practicing agnostics/atheists. Sky Papa love without centuries of bullshit.

@Octopodes, but mostly Rei:

Do you honestly think that upon learning of someone's devotion to a violent, divisive, and largely intolerant cult-dogma that I should be welcome to their opinions about how I should be living my life? Have you considered that because of the endless persecution and accusations of immorality projected by christians and other religious devotees, people such as myself make snap-second decisions about emotional and social profiles? You can gasp in shock that I would not want to get into a discussion about morality with a christian all you want, but it's a reaction to a lifetime of bearing witness you YOUR people's self-righteous bigotry. I am just as happy to ignore you and your delusional D&D land of make-believe.

in re: the stabbing-virgin birth case, all I can offer is a passing reference to it in Morton Stenchever's farewell editorial in Obstetrics & Gynecology (July 2003, Vol 102, p.5-6). He reports that the case study was submitted to him but rejected for publication, since he felt the case was of limited relevance to American readers but notes "The case report later appeared in another journal."

I quote here (since you cannot access this journal without a subscription): "It was submitted from an African developing country and reported on a pregnancy that occurred in a young woman with agenesis of the vagina who was having oral sex with a man who was not her usual partner. As the man climaxed, her usual partner arrived and stabbed her in the abdomen. Her stomach was lacerated and its contents spilled into the peritoneal cavity. The author reported that a pregnancy ensued, several pigs and cattle were exchanged to secure a marriage, and a birth by cesarean delivery later occurred."

Now Shoshannah, I will grant you that as a woman I find violence against women indefensible (Hell! I find violence against people of all genders indefensible)...but...can you think of this case without even the tiniest bit of mirth?

@32--BTW what in the world do you mean "even if both mother and child survived?" It's how she got pregnant---there was no baby at the time. As I'm sure you must know the peritoneal cavity is one big spaghetti bowl. Whatever gets in there (in this case via a stab wound to the stomach) floats around like marinara sauce. Of course sperm swim, so this is marinara sauce with a propulsion device....

A life of celibacy does not mean solitude. It's troubling that CAEM can't talk about this with the other members of his spiritual community. What kind of spiritual community is that?

He says he gets solace from his religion, it's a rock, a home, and a source of strength. Dan, don't be so quick to dissmiss this side of it. But if this strength comes at the cost of his inner being, then it's not religion, it's an addictive drug, offering the same old anxiety/relief cycle as any other addiction.

Perhaps he could separate the religion from the community? Maybe it's the community that's his rock, not the belief system itself. Even if he's Catholic, there are many diverse groups within Catholicism which may be more accepting of his feelings - even if they might guide him not to act on them fully. He needs a way to meaningfully participate in this great spiritual community of his.

The Catholic notion that even thoughts are "sinful" is so pernicious I can't even begin. We don't have much control over the thoughts that bubble to the surface of our consciousness, although we do have control over how much we choose to consciously entertain those thoughts once they're recognized. Most of the thoughts I fight against are tendencies towards harboring excessive resentment - not sexual fantasies.

A better spiritual practice is one that accepts one's inner thoughts but which encourages "right action" - whatever that may be. Right action for me would include honesty, courtesy, responsibility, etc. So I can think inside my head "You are a bitch" but as long as I don't say it, I haven't done anything to regret. If I go home and brood about it all evening, that's not so great. And this can be done by atheists who only believe in psychology, just as well as by deeply devout religious believers.

You misspelled judgmental in your art. I make that mistake all the time and I'm studying for the bar.

I LOVE the acronym that 2nd letter used.

And on the first letter Dan - how did you know? ;-)

You're preaching tolerance to TS but showing CAEM nothing but intolerance. While yes, CAEM does seem terribly unhappy, there are those who's religion makes them happier than fulfilling the desires that go against it.

@#15 "Also, I'm sick of all this crap from religious folks for whom religion is therapy, or has use value - his religion is his rock in times of trouble? Whatever. How about believing out of conviction rather than need, rather than weakness, rather than desire for community? You can get similar help by joining a book club."

The post was complete and utter b.s. First, belief based on *conviction* (defined as "fixed or firm belief") is exactly why there's religious bigotry. Someone makes something up then tells others that what they think doesn't matter because the truth has been written down in a prophesy, treatise or catechism. It is in the *need* that the true God exists. Those who seek fulfillment for their personal *needs*; those who have the wherewithal to question, are often those who are wisest about faith and religion. Those who spoon up the dogmatic *convictions* of their elders are the belt-wielding, Bible-spouting bastards.

Second, after that nonsense was addressed, there are people out there for whom religion (i.e. faith in a supernatural benevolent being) is valuable, is a rock and a foundation. How in the world can believing in a God of Creation, who made you and *loves* you, not be valuable? There have been times in my life where I've thought that *only* God loves me. This is the rock of which CAEM speaks... that our Creator is not flawed and since He made us in His image, we are not flawed. Reconciling this *extremely* valuable message of love with his community's assertion that his sexual urges are fundamentally evil is what CAEM is trying to do.

CAEM, you were made in the image of you God. You were created out of His love for you. I spent years teaching Catholic Catechism and here are a few messages I've took from that on my journey of faith. First, nothing you hear and nothing you think is sinful; we may be surrounded by epitaphs of sin, but until you act, no sin has been committed. So, cut yourself a huge amount of slack for what you're thinking. Second, the only thing Christ ever asked of us where to keep the commandments holy and to remember his commandment of love: "Love one another, as I have loved you." Not "keep your dick in your pants," not "follow my purported messengers blindly," not "self-flagellate until you're black and blue." Simply, love. So, when you finally accept that what you're thinking is not sinful and you make a decision about how to act, the only thing God asks of you is that *what* you do is filled with respect for *yourself* and for your fellow man. Please note that first love has to come from yourself *to* yourself. If this ingredient is missing, you'll never be reconciled to who you really are. If this ingredient is missing, you'll behave like a bulimic coming off a starvation streak: gobble everything in sight and not come up for air until your self-loathing outweighs your temptation.

@57. Look, my position is simple: there is no God. And I despise conviction when it comes to religious matters. And CAEM and you agree with me, because you both admit that religion is about fulfilling a NEED. All the NEEDS fulfilled by religion are BETTER fulfilled by more supportive and understanding communities, such as: friends, book clubs, cooking groups, therapy etc etc etc etc etc. These ALL fulfill needs without resorting to the idea of a god that's so loving it will strike you for desiring people of the same sex.

Hey CAEM,

God gifted you with a brain, use it and start studying. You'll find that their is an incredible difference of opinion amongst denominations, theologians, and scholars. Your faith, your devotion, is to God, not to religious text, place of worship, or tradition. Your salvation is found in the relationship you have with God, it will always be deeply personal, unique, and tailored to the relationship you share. I'm going to assume that Savage is correct about your situation, as he has your actual letter and could confirm with you. While, I disagree with Savage, I believe God is real and there is both heaven and hell, I agree with him that you have this one life here and now. You must come to peace with yourself and live it with integrity. So, start reading. Here is two places you can start:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_bi…
http://www.soulforce.org/
You can read about Rev. Mel White (at Soul Force), his life story can offer you comfort.

Best wishes.

Re: my post 59. In case anyone should accuse me that my statement "there is no God" is equivalent to having religious convictions, I call BS on that. It's YOUR duty as religious people to prove to me that there's a basis for your affirmative convictions. It's not my job to prove that there's no Apollo or Yahweh or Allah. In the absence of any proof whatsoever, it's inevitable that I will be convinced, until proven otherwise, that the gods you invoke do not exist. But I'm willing to change my mind when you show my some, some, some fucking proof of your affirmative convictions.

So... CAEM, wake up and choose to be free, because you only have a few years left to live. Then there's a big nothingness.

Hey CAEM

Pick another God. There's plenty of them out there.

Post #2
Quit saying "first" like it's an accomplishment. You sound like an idiot, no matter what comes after.

Dan seems think he has all the answers, but he comes across as hateful and prejudice, which is ironic since that's what he rallies against...He seems to hate religion and women to such a degree that he can't even reasonably answer their mail. I think the only people who should write to Dan should be gay guys, because Dan can lovingly feed them the answers they so crave. Everyone else, he'll basically spit on. I'm not religious or a woman, by the way, but I notice blatant spite and snide comments towards writers who are relgious or women. I remember one column where a woman had a tiny bit of toilet paper stuck to her snatch from peeing, and Dan blasted her as disgusting and untouchable. Yet a dude leaves a big stinkin' streak of shit and it's supposedly normal...but if not normal, then somehow the woman's fault he didn't clean his ass (???). Dan's retarded.

Skeptika,
Thou dost protest too much. Sounds to me like you've run into one kind of religion and decided they're all like that. To so easily dismiss a belief that something out there is bigger than you, that you (even YOU) don't know absolutely everything, well, you just stay with your beloved book club. Enjoy the challenge of reading something someone else says and then attacking it because you know better. Me, I'm going to allow myself to believe, even if I don't understand it and it doesn't match up to rational thought. Much more interesting.

*standing ovation*

Oh, just to be clear--that standing ovation was for Dan's excellent column.

Thanks for stickin' it to the hypocritical religious types, Dan.

"The truth is, the bible is pretty explicitly against these things..." Hardly. The Bible says these things are unnatural, but the word used meant "not in the custom of" not the way we mean it today. It was also in the context of when gay sex was punishment meted out to losing armies, not love, and when a tribe needed to push reproduction. It's hardly a full condemnation and besides, do you really think people should adopt it's antibaconcheeseburger / cottonpoly blend rules with equal vigor? No one does. Agreed in that the most rational thing is to laugh at the Bible.

Well telling CAEM there is no God isn't going to help him beleive that he can have God and still be who he is. I think it might be better to give him some religious sources that are affirming of who he is. I'm ex-catholic, now a member of the United Church of Christ, and I think having a church family who supports you can be good for people who are religious. http://www.ucc.org/lgbt/.

While that might help in the short term, in the long term everyone would be better off not believing in God, gods, or other superstitions.

Skeptika-you're responding as if someone is trying to proselytize you. No one here cares if you're an believer of atheism or a believer of God. And you adamant and fervent statements are a conviction: "All NEEDS are BETTER fulfilled..." Well, I'll lay the BS card on that one. Book Clubs, Cooking Groups and Friends are human people. Rich and fulfilling their company may be, but they are flawed as humans are. An argument, a disagreement, a misunderstanding with even one person can alienate you from the whole group. No argument is too heated, no disagreement too wide, no misunderstanding too torrid to separate God's love for us. Even disbelieving in Him, denouncing Him and rejecting Him causes not His love to flee and He mourns the loss of a soul if one dies before reconciliation. (Nota bene: Catholics and other organized Christian religions do acknowledge that if one dies in this spiritual state then they can never be connected with God.)
Anyway, though, I'm not trying to convert or convince you of MY truth; my main goal is to show you that people of faith are not wasting their time; that a relationship with God is one of the most important relationships a person can have. I can see how atheists would reject that idea, but look at the rate of divorce, and how often you've ever broken up with your "best friend", and how often parents alienate their children for some perceived slight and tell me that believing in unconditional love from any quarter isn't BETTER.

PS and a therapist is paid to be sympathetic... not really better than someone (anyone!) who truly feels empathy for you.

The whole Old Testament anti-gay theme. People, it was two passages out of the whole 2,000 pages. Soddom and Gomorrah were blasted because the people were wicked and seditious (def. as rebelling against God). (Remember, out of two towns Abraham couldn't find even 10 good people to save the villages.) It wasn't until the Middle Ages that their evils turned into sodomy and *that* was a political statement against by the Church to keep a French prince in line. Are we to believe that every man, woman and child in those villages practiced sodomy? No, a reasonable person could see that the charges against the villages were changed, mid-stream historically. The second passage was in Deuteronomy along with how to properly stone your adulterous wife and how many goats a rapist had to give the girl's father for his crimes. These passages were written by the Hebrews after God had spoken to Moses in an attempt to clarify only ten rules and impose their culture on these rules. Deuteronomy is not divinely given, so I say... are you Jewish? Then forget about Old Testament's statements on homosexuality, and listen to Jesus' command to LOVE!

@65. Sorry, snowbird, spending my morning defending the right of gay people and atheists to EXIST, on several non-English language forums filled with "believers", makes me rather shrill. If they were like you, I wouldn't bother. But I'm afraid you are part of a tiny minority.

@30: "And you have no more proof that there is no God than I do that there is. It's an opinion..."

Um, it may be "opinion" if you're talking about a God that watches and takes no part in the events of the universe. Don't imply that the "exist" / "doesn't exist" opinions are equally probable, however, just because the improbable hypothesis cannot be tested.

As for a God that intervenes, well, we've seen plenty of evidence that miracles, Zeus' lightning, etc are in fact easily explainable. There's no good evidence for any miracles, really... or the Bible stories... and if one wants to believe God directed the big band and evolution and the bible is just made up, well, one wonders why God took so many billions years and extinctions and false starts to get to humans, then waited hundreds of thousands of years to let them in on the secret, then could only redeem them by torturing and executing his "only child" (he should see a fertility specialist!)... well, I guess then its an opinion that I'm not made of antimatter.

Face facts: everyone is an atheist about ALL religions or about all but the one they favor--and if they came around and finished off that last 1% or so we'd all be happier.

@69: what long term are you talking about? Like, in the hospital about to die, that's the best time to realize that your simply going to decay, rot and dissolve into the lining of your hermetically sealed coffin and concrete crypt?
How about, instead, thinking of faith as a way of life; as a way to respect others and respect yourself. A way to love your spouse (whichever sex either one of you may be) and raise your children to respect other people.
People seem to have this messed-up idea about God, that he's some parent on high ready to come down and give us the spanking of our lives if we don't toe the line. Maybe that's how the Hebrews wrote about God, but Christ had a different message. Since *plenty* of my atheist friends can argue morality outside of the religious box and secular humanism until they're blue in the face, atheism shouldn't be an excuse to live an immoral life. I can only think that the fervently religious and atheists alike seem to only be concerned about what, if any, is that "final reward" as if living a good life isn't reward enough.
Are you worried that you'll believe your whole life in a God, then die and say WTF!?! where's my harp and cloud? First, do you really think there's some magical dimension that houses simpering and insipid people in a state of spiritual bliss? Do you think that you get to keep your consciousness after you die? The answer is, no. Our souls are borrowed for the extension of our life and return to God at the end of it. There isn't any sort of embodiment of who you are after death (the first big divorce from my faith in Catholicism here). Second, don't worry, because whether I'm right or the atheists are right, you'll never think a thing and you lived a good and valuable life.

jab2009, it sounds like you speak to God (how else would you know his thoughts?). May I have His #? I am a doctor and would like to find a cure for cancer.

Beyond that--you are right that relationships wax and wane all the time including those people have with God. And you seem to believe he tosses you in the garbage if you happen to get hit by one of his lightning bolts on an off day, but you fly to loving heaven if you choose a movie over golf because of the threatening weather, and reconcile the next day? What of the millions that died before the God of the jews revealed himself? Children who die at birth and can't know him? Hmm? They get pardons?

Do you WANT to believe in this kind of a system? But hey, at least you have a positive attitude.

@76: "And you seem to believe he tosses you in the garbage if you happen to get hit by one of his lightning bolts on an off day, but you fly to loving heaven if you choose a movie over golf because of the threatening weather, and reconcile the next day?"
Did I say this? No, I said: "Even disbelieving in Him, denouncing Him and rejecting Him causes not His love to flee and He mourns the loss of a soul if one dies before reconciliation. (Nota bene: Catholics and other organized Christian religions do acknowledge that if one dies in this spiritual state then they can never be connected with God.)"

What I said was He continues to love even those who disbelieve (or even hate) Him, not that He tosses them in the garbage. What I said was a lifetime of rejection will be forgiven in even a moment of reconciliation.

*GOD* never turns his back on us; *We* turn our back on Him. The reasoning behind the dogmatic belief that those who chose to disbelieve God don't go to "heaven" is that they've never turned toward the God that will give it to them before they died. (We were given free will, remember?)

But I never said I believed in heaven either, did I? I said, "Our souls are borrowed for the extension of our life and return to God at the end of it. There isn't any sort of embodiment of who you are after death (the first big divorce from my faith in Catholicism here)." Which is clearly derisive of that dogmatic belief there's clouds, harps and halos or fire, brimstone and torture soon after we die.

Criminy, read my posts before flaming me. I was raised Catholic and even taught Catholic Catechism. I went to a Catholic College and took extensive religious studies classes. I'm a devote believer in the God Christ describes and it makes me a better person. I have absolutely no issue with atheism or atheists. That's between you and your (non)God. It doesn't hurt me any if you disbelieve. What I take issue with is you virulently disagreeing with me without proper facts of the issues (i.e. a basic knowledge of Christianity outside of the fundementalist hoo-ha you were fed since birth) and without proper reading comprehension.

octopodes @30 and Rei @36, there's a lot of confusion about atheists just as there is a lot of confusion about Christians (separate denominations of which number in the thousands). One of the complaints that is frequently expressed by the more liberal sects is the amount of voice that's been given to the conservative faiths. For this we have, amongst other things, the Clinton and Bush administrations to thank, but one of the consequences is, as krf demonstrates (one of many), the amount of prejudice in the populace that all Christians are intolerant, literalist, dominionist and hypocritical.

The fact that we have a tendency to remember the finger pointers who threaten us with Hellfire doesn't help. Similarly the fact that we remember atheists who decree that God is impossible, doesn't help the tendency to presume that atheists are as unreasonable (or rather dependent on faith) as the religious. Regarding this later issue, let me clarify the common atheist position:

Firstly, there's no such thing in the physical world as proof, or rather prove beyond doubt, which are reserved for abstract sciences such as logic or mathematics. But even gravity which seems certain, or the solidity of electromagnetism, are proven only beyond reasonable doubt. These are theories that are honored as laws since the evidence of their certainty is overwhelming, the models of them we use to predict outcomes work with unerring accuracy. So proof of God's existance or non-existence is impossible; evidence of God's existence, while possible, remains fruitless to this day.

That said, Atheism is really about skepticism, though interestingly, this is the one unforgivable sin in Christianity, which is why they tend to be at odds. Rape, mass murder, torture, unjust warfare, all are forgiven by the Christ, but doubt is not. That said, atheism is about not accepting any explanation of events or phenomena without some evidence to support it; it's the principle of Occam's Razor; we associate events with causes already seen unless those too defy explanation.

And we're not afraid to say we don't know.

Concerning the appearance of artifice in the universe, As Richard Dawkins put it, cranes, not skyhooks; we look for how they could have developed within this manifold before we seek explanations outside of it.

This is why I clarify my own position as that of naturalism, not the belief that God does not exist, but that God does not exert influence upon this world. To date, no evidence has challenged this hypothesis. And upon new evidence that cannot be reasonably justified any other way, I'd rethink my position. In actuality is the way of atheism.

Uriel-238- :-*
One of the best-written and intelligent posts yet to explain, define and defend atheism.
I'm not going to proselytize or defend my position; I just wanted to say that respectful, intelligent discussion where neither tries to change the other's mind but instead tries to explain and convey their position to achieve mutual understanding should always be goal when two people of a dissimilar mind should meet.
Thank you.

Hey, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot" (to quote yourself). You jumped to conclusions and displayed intolerance and abusiveness to CAEM based on your dubious assumptions. If your response reflects the opposite of religious piety, it failed to present an attractive alternative. It was a huge turn-off.

It's not clear that CAEM is gay. As others have commented, he says he has "certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have". I assumed he was referring to masturbation. Your jaded self is bombarded with letters describing arcane and bizarre sexual practices, so you may not have considered how normal masturbatory urges could torment CAEM. Masturbation and enjoying sexual fantasies are considered sins by the Catholic church.

I don't think anyone would dispute that most men, especially young ones, are "tempted" by masturbatory impulses, fantasies and desires for sex regardless of marital status.

CAEM asks, "How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude?" Why do you assume his "shameful" secret is homosexuality? He refers to you as a " so-called expert on sex and sexuality," not homosexuality.

Since he hasn't discussed his sexual desires with any clergy or co-religionists, he may have a very distorted view of healthy sexual impulses ("healthy" not implying either sexual preference).

What a hypocrite you are! You exhibit the black-and-white thinking you condemn. Religion and sexual enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. God's first commandment to Adam & Eve is "Be fruitful and multiply". Hello! And contrary to the inferences made by some pious folk, I don't recall a wedding ceremony in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not particularly religious, but I found your response offensive on many levels. Insulting others' religions - unless they pose a direct threat to me or others - is rude and unnecessary. To quote you again, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot".

Hey, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot" (to quote yourself). You jumped to conclusions and displayed intolerance and abusiveness to CAEM based on your dubious assumptions. If your response reflects the opposite of religious piety, it failed to present an attractive alternative. It was a huge turn-off.

It's not clear that CAEM is gay. As others have commented, he says he has "certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have". I assumed he was referring to masturbation. Your jaded self is bombarded with letters describing arcane and bizarre sexual practices, so you may not have considered how normal masturbatory urges could torment CAEM. Masturbation and enjoying sexual fantasies are considered sins by the Catholic church.

I don't think anyone would dispute that most men, especially young ones, are "tempted" by masturbatory impulses, fantasies and desires for sex regardless of marital status.

CAEM asks, "How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude?" Why do you assume his "shameful" secret is homosexuality? He refers to you as a " so-called expert on sex and sexuality," not homosexuality. Since he hasn't discussed his sexual desires with any clergy or co-religionists, he may have a very distorted view of healthy sexual impulses ("healthy" not implying either sexual preference).

What a hypocrite you are! You exhibit the black-and-white thinking you condemn. Religion and sexual enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. God's first commandment to Adam & Eve is "Be fruitful and multiply". Hello! And contrary to the inferences made by some pious folk, I don't recall any wedding ceremony in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not particularly religious, but I found your response offensive on many levels. Insulting others' religions - unless they pose a direct threat to me or others - is rude and unnecessary. To quote you again, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot".

Hey, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot" (to quote yourself). You jumped to conclusions and displayed intolerance and abusiveness to CAEM based on your dubious assumptions. If your response reflects the opposite of religious piety, it failed to present an attractive alternative. It was a huge turn-off.

It's not clear that CAEM is gay. As others have commented, he says he has "certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have". I assumed he was referring to masturbation. Your jaded self is bombarded with letters describing arcane and bizarre sexual practices, so you may not have considered how normal masturbatory urges could torment CAEM. Masturbation and enjoying sexual fantasies are considered sins by the Catholic church.

I don't think anyone would dispute that most men, especially young ones, are "tempted" by masturbatory impulses, fantasies and desires for sex regardless of marital status.

CAEM asks, "How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude?" Why do you assume his "shameful" secret is homosexuality? He refers to you as a " so-called expert on sex and sexuality," not homosexuality.

What a hypocrite you are! You exhibit the black-and-white thinking you condemn. Religion and sexual enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. God's first commandment to Adam & Eve is "Be fruitful and multiply". Hello! And contrary to the inferences made by some pious folk, I don't recall any wedding ceremony in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not particularly religious, but I found your response offensive on many levels. Insulting others' religions - unless they pose a direct threat to me or others - is rude and unnecessary. To quote you again, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot".

Hey, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot" (to quote yourself). You jumped to conclusions and displayed intolerance and abusiveness to CAEM based on your dubious assumptions. If your response reflects the opposite of religious piety, it failed to present an attractive alternative.

It's not clear that CAEM is gay. As others have commented, he says he has "certain desires that almost all 20-year-old males have". I assumed he was referring to masturbation. Your jaded self is bombarded with letters describing arcane and bizarre sexual practices, so you may not have considered how normal masturbatory urges could torment CAEM. Masturbation and enjoying sexual fantasies are considered sins by the Catholic church.

I don't think anyone would dispute that most men, especially young ones, are "tempted" by masturbatory impulses, fantasies and desires for sex regardless of marital status.

CAEM asks, "How does one prepare for a life of celibacy and solitude?" Why do you assume his "shameful" secret is homosexuality? He refers to you as a " so-called expert on sex and sexuality," not homosexuality.

What a hypocrite you are! You exhibit the black-and-white thinking you condemn. Religion and sexual enjoyment are not mutually exclusive. God's first commandment to Adam & Eve is "Be fruitful and multiply". Hello! And contrary to the inferences made by some pious folk, I don't recall any wedding ceremony in the Garden of Eden.

I'm not particularly religious, but I found your response offensive on many levels. Insulting others' religions - unless they pose a direct threat to me or others - is rude and unnecessary. To quote you again, Dan, "Get over yourself, faggot".

I commend Uriel, Kim in Portland, and Jab2009 for their wonderful posts. Just like not every Muslim is a terrorist, very few Christians are actually against homosexuality... just the bigoted uber ones that give the rest of us a bad name, the ones who never actually READ the Bible or use their God-given brains. (CAEM, I really suggest you read the Song of Psalms and see that sexuality and sexual impulses are not in and of themselves sinful. They are beautiful, natural, and given to man by God.)

Uriel, your post was beautiful and intelligent. We may not agree on issues of spiritual belief (and frankly, I was raised in my church to believe that my faith is between me and God alone, and the same goes for everyone else... only God can read a man's heart, the rest of us should STFU), but I respect and applaud you. Thank you.

I know a guy who went to seminary - an ultra-Catholic seminary in Germany where they conduct all the services in full high-church Latin - instead of coming out.

He's still in his mid-20's, but my guess is that by 35 he'll have realized that what he really wants to do is poke his brethren, and then leave the church. I dunno. We'll see.

Hi Uriel-238,

That was well said.

I have only one thing to add, and that is from my personal up bringing in the church and personal study. So, there are likely many who disagree with me. Doubt isn't the unforgivable sin, it's blasphemy against the Holy Spirit (Matthew 12:31). Jesus, is gentle with his disciples, especially Thomas, when they doubt and takes pain to help them overcome their doubt. The question then becomes, for me, when I doubt can I humble myself to ask for the faith to believe. Perhaps, this is what jab2009 is referring to when he speaks about turning our backs and there is a burden upon upon us to ask for help with our doubt.

Anyway, I enjoy your posts, and am grateful for the way they stretch me.

Good Lord, Urleen, you must not be a regular reader or listener of Dan.

Good lord, Urleen, you must not be a regular listener/reader of Dan's.

I think Dan's assumption/conclusion that CAEM is gay is a good one - assuming he's not in some extreme asexual cult, or into little kids or something he wouldn't be talking about "praying away" his desires, living a life of "celibacy and solitude", or not being able to "talk about (it) with other members of my spiritual community" if he was just talking about wanting to jerk off or have regular straight sex.

I think Dan's assumption/conclusion that CAEM is gay is a good one - assuming he's not in some extreme asexual cult, or into little kids or something - he wouldn't be talking about "praying away" his desires, living a life of "celibacy and solitude", or not being able to "talk about (it) with other members of my spiritual community" if he was just talking about wanting to jerk off or have regular straight sex.

I have to say, Dan: you've got some hypocritical, intolerant nerve to rip CAEM a new one over his faith and accuse The Schismatic of intolerance *in the same column*.

For those (like CAEM, perhaps) who are actually interested in exploring how Christian faith and healthy homosexuality can coexist, I highly recommend the documentary "For the Bible Tells Me So." (Website here: http://www.forthebibletellsmeso.org/inde…)

As others have mentioned, for those LGTBQ seeking a religious community, it's worth checking out the Unitarian Universalists. They're one of the few denominations out there that happily accepts all folks into their fold regardless of who they rub body parts with. In fact, that support is a part of what caused one very messed-up guy to walk into a UU church in Knoxville and start shooting.

Re Mr Me's comment that it's ridiculous for gay believers to try to reconcile their sexuality to their Christianity:

It's not so hard, I don't think, *if* the attitude you take toward the Bible is that it is a historical text created by imperfect and culturally situated human beings in an effort to reach out to and comprehend the divine, which is impossible to do perfectly since the divine is so very different from the human. Even in texts written with divine inspiration, there's inevitably going to be some human elements creeping in there. Taking that attitude toward the Bible (or any other religious text) means you can shift through it with an eye to what might be an artifact of historical human composition and what might not be, and keep the stuff that's of value while dropping the stuff that made it in there because of prejudice or dated cultural norms. Whether they would articulate it in this way or not, most moderate Christians probably take this sort of approach, I suspect. Where you get into trouble is in insisting that every part of such a text is true on a literal level. If you take that attitude, then there is no way to reconcile any number of accepted modern attitudes and practices with scripture in most religions out there. (I'd say there's also no way to reconcile complex texts like the Bible with themselves, when reading literally, though people do seem to be champs at rationalizing away the evident contradictions.)

I think this is worth pointing out because, whatever the New Atheists would like to see happen, religion is not going away for the majority of humans in the world any time soon. Not for centuries at the earliest, I'd say, if at all. So encouraging moderate forms of religion is more productive in the long run, I think, than insisting that people have to throw the whole thing out entirely. If that's the choice you give people, most people will choose not to throw it out because they need it. They are simply not going to look into the void, no matter what.

I'm Catholic, and I don't believe in every little thing written in old scriptures. (i.e. the idea of hell for anyone not baptized, or being gay as a sin--give me a break). Thank you for telling the last reader to tolerate the religious best man--he probably has good intentions and just wants them to have a healthy marriage, shown by giving them a loving book. (He didn't throw it in their faces...)

Also, I have a friend with a little Mexican single mother who didn't come out to her until he was 29--instead, he moved to Seattle, hours away from his mom, and lead his life. Unfortunately, it made them grow painfully apart and by the time he told her, she admitted she "always knew", and accepted him in love. So TELL her, I agree Dan.

Great Column as usual.. loved the first one the best.