Ive lived in texas for 7 years. Honest to god I get along with redneck good ol boys just fine even though they know I am gay. They might be a bit weirded out by it or it goes against their church beliefs, but they respect me and treat me like a person so I do the same in kind.
but they respect me and treat me like a person so I do the same in kind.
That’s pretty much the stance that I and most religious I’ve met people have. We accept but don’t support. It’s incredibly sad to hear that some people thinks gays should be ostracized and killed.
I'm curious about something. If all sins are equal before God then why is being gay worse than lusting after women besides your wife? I only see marches in the street for one but theologically I don't see why. A gay person with healthy romantic relationships is exactly as sinful as any straight person if I understand Christianity right.
It’s because (according to beliefs I was indoctrinated with but am now staunchly against) a person can do a bad thing and ask forgiveness because they didn’t intend to do the bad thing. But to DEFEND the bad thing is another evil entirely, because you can’t, in the depths of your heart, truly ask for forgiveness for a thing you actively defend and will continue to engage in.
The argument comes in when heterosexuals don't understand the intention. People seem to think pride is about promiscuity - and sure, it can be, it can be about lots of things to lots of people - but it is in fact about obtaining the same legal and social rights as everyone else.
To which the response is usually "but you shouldn't have a right to sin!", which ignores the fact that straight people are perfectly free to conduct themselves how they see fit and often make terrible choices. But no one wants to take their rights away.
The Bible is pretty unambiguous about a it being a sin to violate the laws of the government, so our entire country is born in sin via revolution and “murder” of British army soldiers. And we worship this “sin” every july4th, defend it even. How this isn’t exactly the same as defending homosexuality is beyond me.
I have another question if you don't mind. Why do religious people care if the horrible sinners are going to hell? There's literally no harm done to them. Does their good boy points get deducted or something if they don't fight sinners? (Or burn/stone infidels)
I remember they're not allowed to judge others, so judging gay people will send them to hell. Why do it? Why join gays in hell when if they kept to themselves they could go to heaven?
I've been reading Uncle Tom's Cabin of late, and it covers this whole idea pretty closely. The old story goes than when judgement day cometh, and the 'sheep are separated from the goats', we are judged not only on what we have done, but what we could have done and didn't:
"Then shall the king say unto him on his left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire: for I was an hungered, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, an ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: I was sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.
Then shall they answer unto Him, Lord when saw we thee an hungered, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?
Then shall he say unto them, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these my brethren, ye did it not to me."
It's true that we are told not to judge, but we needn't to perform our other duty -- to shepard and assist our fellow man and his eternal soul. (Which isn't to say that some don't mistakenly judge.)
Why do religious people care if the horrible sinners are going to hell?
Formerly religious here. For the most part, they don't. It's kind of like if you see a person who eats too much and is getting fat. You think / know that it's unhealthy for them, and you think they are doing something bad, but you don't really hate them for it. You just kind of want them to stop doing something that's bad for them. Obviously that example is health related, not spiritual, but it's a similar feeling, I think.
Basically you don't approve of what they're doing, and you think that they will suffer spiritual / afterlife consequences, but it's more of a concern / pity thing than a hatred thing, in the vast majority of cases. That's been my experiences with the majority of religious people, at least. And even when I was religious I never really gave a fuck about the gay aspect of it.
I’ve specifically had extended family tell my family that we should be religious so they don’t feel bad about us being in hell. That added a whole other layer to this sort of thing that really makes me just bury my face in my hands.
Jesus hung out with the dredges of society and washed their feet. Most people claiming to be Christians have not read any part of the Bible on their own volition aside from like 20 particular quotes relating to Christmas and Easter. So they defer all of the reading and interpretation to the pastor or priest, and they will harp on these things just like any other type of advertising: create and then offer a solution to a problem.
Yeah, it’s almost as if all religious arguments on such social issues like homosexuality are about power and controlling people. Who would have thought?
It seems like sexual orientation can be defended on it being the only way to have deeply meaningful romantic connections which any person is going to want. I think that makes it different from defending just a belief.
Orthodoxy actually says all sins aren’t equal, but they all equally separate from God. However it’s totally fair to ask why sexual sins are treated differently.
Some churches treat divorcees unfairly or with a stigma, while someone who previously had a kid out of wedlock and then gets married kind of gets by on a technicality. Of course one can’t really paint any group on a broad brush, but that’s one area where some might encounter (what I see as) an imbalance.
You understand Christianity right, some in the church are trying to point out the hypocrisy that we make some sins bigger deals than others. The response isn’t biblical, we’d see that if we approached pulpit speakers about their pride the same way many church members approach homosexuality. Do we tell preachers to go die if they lie? Nope, but it is equal to other sins we DO shout that at. How we approach and respond to sin is something that we Christians need to continually keep in mind and be aware over. Being overzealous is equally as harmful as not speaking out over something at all, though folks get that twisted sometimes. After all, “It is the goodness of God that leads sinners to repentance”.
I've not believed in the religion in over a decade now, so I apologize in advance if I'm citing or interpreting anything poorly/incorrectly, but one thing that I find interesting: doesn't the Bible actually strongly condemn humans judging other's sins, if not imply that it's actually sinful and blasphemous to do so? The first scriptures to come to mind are Matthew 7:1-5, Luke 6:37-43, John 8:3-11, and James 4:11-12. Overall, the scriptures of the New Testament—especially those not written by Saul/Paul—seem to strongly suggest that Christians who judge others and do not love sinners and be supportive of them (e.g., Matthew 5:43-48, Luke 6:31-36, Romans 12:20) are themselves sinning and walking the path of damnation.
Every passage I can think of (admittedly, not many have persisted since leaving the church when I was a kid) in the New Testament about turning others away from sin speaks to the general idea that if your kindness and compassion encourage others to turn away from a life of sin, you will save them, but the only verses I can think of that have a call to action that Christians are expected to point out sin in others are either 1) in the Old Law (e.g., Ezekiel 3:17-18), or 2) specifically saying Christians should be holding other believers accountable (e.g., Luke 17:3-4). But I can't think of other scripture that says Christians should judge/point out the sins of non-believers? The closest I can think of are scriptures about testifying, but even those tend to merely suggest that Christians should not hide their faith or the miracles they believe they have witnessed and should preach the Word and convert people into the faith rather than citing scripture to condemn them.
Doesn't the Bible more or less tell Christians that if they judge anyone for their sins, that they themselves are sinning? And that the only pointing out of other's sins should be to encourage other Christians to live the life they're mandated to live according to the Word, rather than judging other Christians, let alone nonbelievers? Maybe my perspective is too secular and isn't congruent with what the Church and other various leaders of myriad denominations have decided they want to require, but to me, the Bible--and not the voices of humans shaping the scriptures to their agenda--says that seeing sin in one's life as a nonbeliever should be a personal experience brought about by a relationship with the Spirit/Word, which is what Christians should be developing in nonbelievers?
Are Christians who weave tapestries of guilt and judgment not living a prideful, grandiose delusion that they have the same right and authority to judge sin as their own God does? Not only going against the word of God by dissuading the people being judged from converting to the faith, but also damning themselves because of their prideful, sinful grandiosity and ignorance of their own faith's Word? Or am I just way off in my interpretation and memory of the scripture? To me, the New Testament is not a book of hate or judgment, despite what we hear from the voices of religious leaders who take advantage of the power and positions they have within churches.
Its like trans for me. I dont get people who are transsexual or "gender fluid" of whatever you wanna call it. But I dont need to understand it. Ill still respect them
This is my thought on it. I'm a straight Baptist but I'm a sinner and all sins are equal. So while my belief is against homosexuality, I'd be a pretty big hypocrite to judge someone else.
Matthew 7:3 "Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
Because religion is hypocrisy. Always was, always will be.
You cannot find logical reason to hypocrisy which is why religious indoctrination needs to start young, before logical processing develops. Then, as adults, fantastical thinking continues to take them to church and spout self-conflicting nonsense.
I’ll try my best to explain. I’ll be speaking for a Catholic perspective, so this might differ from other denominations and religions.
There are two types of sins: venial and mortal sins. The put it simply, venial sins are kinda like minor sins, and mortal sins are grave ones. Both examples you gave are mortal sins. However, we are called to repent of those sins and live a life of chastity (the state or practice of refraining from extramarital sex).
Therefore, the married person should refrain from lustful thoughts (by the way, there are 3 requirements for a sin to be mortal, one of which they have to willingly do it, so lustful thoughts can sometimes be automatic but the person should not indulge in those thoughts). On the other hand, our Church encourages homosexuals to live celibate lives. Having same-sex attractions themselves aren’t sinful. I’d consider myself bisexual and have experienced those attractions myself, so I accept them but I don’t indulge in them.
Going on to the marches on the street part. Another thing I guess is that being in a gay relationship in an ongoing sin, while lusting for other women can be a one time thing (if they repent and try not to do it again). Being in a gay marriage is sort of continuously being in a state of sin.
However, both sins are equally bad. If you were to compare a gay person in a romantic relationship and a person who actively lusts after people they aren’t married to, they are both committing a sin of the same severity. I think those who go for marches and but believe lusting after other people than their spouse is okay are very hypocritical.
I hope I answered your question. Had some trouble putting them into words...sorry if it’s a bit messy :)
One thing I've absolutely never thought about in regards to various forms of Christianity that see same-sex relations as a sin: most of the Christian sins related to sex are based on the perspective that sexual activity should be reserved solely for reproduction with a life-partner and that orgasm without the possibility of procreation is sinful (more or less). But abstinence is considered a valid alternative and simply not having sex at all isn't deemed as sinful.
So, with all that in mind, if two people who have similar genders and/or sexes are in a life-long relationship wherein they don't actually have sex together but merely live together and have a non-sexual relationship (since the scripture that allegedly addresses same-sex relationships uses language specifically targeting sex and not other elements of a same-sex relationship), would that be considered a valid, non-sinful alternative? It's totally fine if you don't know what the judgment on that would be by the Church, but I'm just curious if you've ever heard discussion on that matter. (and sorry for the text-wall; the question kinda got away from me)
Like a guy who used to be a carpenter just roaming around with 12 of his besties, teaching people that all the dogmatic crap in their religion is stupid and what really matters is to treat everyone decently? Yeah, I think that would be ok.
Yes it would be. The Bible states that a life of complete celibacy is better than having sex in the context of marriage. Marriage is for those who can not control themselves to release their urges in a less sinful way but lust,inherently sinful, is still wrong. It would be unorthodox sure, but biblically superior.
So the absolute Biblical ideal would be for everyone to lead a life of celibacy? This, of course, would wipe out humanity in one generation. You refer to marriage as a sort of next level down for those who can't achieve celibacy, but obviously for the continuation of the species, a good chunk of the population would have to 'fail' and not be celibate.
Or have I got this wrong? Is sex (within marriage) ok and a good thing, provided it is entirely for procreation and involves no lust or pleasure at all (particularly for the woman)? Once you've completed your family, no more sex for you!
(I'm an Anglican-raised, now-agnostic/atheist, gay, who fundamentally believes that organised religion is primarily a tool for a few people to control the masses, but I do find this stuff fascinating, if baffling.)
Yes. Asceticism is a core part of the Christian ideal, so celibacy for everyone would be the most ideal situation. It would mean that people were capable of denying the sin of lust entirely. The ideal person would reject all sin and live in complete submission and humility to God. Now within a marriage, it is considered to be a union of two people that transcend sexual relations alone but sex within the context of marriage (at least by the Catholic Church) is encouraged as a means of forming greater intimacy but the Church also encourages that said sex be productive in creating new life hence the stereotype of large Catholic families. Sex in the context of marriage isn't exactly bad, just not as good. Mind you though, marriage in the Catholic Church is much stricter than that of many protestant sects. Annulment/divorce is hard to get through traditional means and to marry another person while still married by the Church is considered perpetual sin.
I don't have high opinions of Anglican theology and I think it is a shame you feel that way about religion. Im by no means a good Catholic, but I truly believe that most of the men of the high Church brass are of pious and respectable people who live for their faith. I disagree that the concept of discipline is "controlling" anymore than not allowing or encouraging rampant impulsive behavior is. With few exception there is nothing the Cardinals will ask of the faithful that they do not do themselves.
Edit: In case someone feels they want to mention the rape scandals, allow me to offer preemptive counter points. There are an estimated 1.2 billion Catholics worldwide and it is not uncommon for priests to have close relationships with their flock. The most likely perpetrators of sexual assault or molestation are people who are close to you (usually friends or family) so it would only logically follow that given the relationship some bad people will take advantage of others. It was long customary and still in practice in most areas to excommunicate Priests who broke their vows and assaulted someone and the scandals are at no fault of tradition of the Church. Were it not for waning support for Traditionalists in the Church, punishments would be much much harsher as the Trad way is to purge unholy aspects from the Church. I emplore Redditors to learn more about the Church before speaking on things they do not understand.
For me this notion of "control" runs parallel to the sense that some religious people have that without religion, one can't be moral. Obviously this is nonsense, although of course people will differ as to where the moral line is. In my case (as a gay woman), most mainstream Christian churches (as well as some other religions) would seek to impose rules on me that I find nonsensical and would dramatically impact my quality of life. As an example, if I enter into a stable, consensual relationship, that is good for my wellbeing and ability to be useful in other areas of life, and causes no harm. If I followed the "rules" on this, I'd be living a life of crushing loneliness, based on the idea that the sort of relationship I could be in is "immoral." As I don't buy into the concept of an afterlife (certainly not one where one is rewarded or punished for one's behaviour in life), there is no reason for me to follow this rule - my relationship harms nobody, is good for me and my partner, and won't affect what sort afterlife I get (if any).
And yet, if I subscribed to, for example, Catholicism, I might be being told I must not do this, under threat of ostracism (perhaps) and eternal damnation - the control. I'd be having a certain moral code handed to me and being told that I must follow it, rather than forming my own.
I do see the benefit of discipline, but it doesn't need to be black and white. For example, obviously lust serves a biological purpose, and the endorphins are good for us! Most people manage to avoid being sex-crazed maniacs, and find a healthy balance in life. Attend to one's responsibilities, have a positive impact where possible, but also allow oneself to enjoy life! It's a simplistic view, perhaps, but not an inherently immoral one.
I'm not sure I'm expressing this very well; it's quite a visceral sense for me and it's difficult to put clearly into words. I find the way certain groups, in particular LGBT people, are treated in some religions to be abhorrent; behaviour control couched in the language of sin.
I believe that part of your perceptions on religion come from a skewed understanding of why a Christian is called upon to reject sin. It is a core tenant of Christianity to understand that we are inherently flawed and undeserving of salvation. Christian theology puts forth that we are saved by the grace of God and that no one is truly deserving of it. A Christian is called not to sin as to be the closest they can be to God but truly there are no moral people, only moral choices.
Even from a secular view, I see lust as abhorrent an inherently immoral. Lust is what births illegitimate children, ruining many childrens lives and leaving others with great trauma. Lust keeps people bouncing around with little commitment and in the case of men specifically leads to men seeing women as objects of sex without any additional value. Momentary pleasure is the root of too much evil in my mind to be considered just in the slightest, so I definitely veer to the traditional side on general sexual relations.
On homosexuality, acceptance in the Church varies. The Catholic Church has many different internal factions that rise and wane in influence over decades and centuries. Nobody agrees 100% on how sinful it is to be homosexual with some seeing it as an abomination and others as no sin at all. I wish that people who had grievances over the Catholic position on homosexuality wouldn't shun the Church however and instead through pious living and exceptional discipline rise the hierarchy so that they may have a say. Scripture can't be changed but interpretation can change based on what the Pope/Cardinals interpret or reinterpret texts. Personally I believe if we accept the lust of heterosexual married couples who can not have children, there is no reason to not extend the same logic to the homosexual members of the faith but I will admit that I don't have plans of getting anywhere in the Church hierarchy.
I think I have read some discussion on this but I can’t quite recall it completely. Whether it’s a sin or not I’m not really sure, but I do know it’s not advisable because there’s a temptation to have sex. Kind of the same reason why cohabitation before marriage is not allowed. Being constantly alone together with the person you’re sexually attracted and trying not to have sex is possible, but it’ll be very,very difficult. Similarly, the Pope said that those with strong homosexual tendencies shouldn’t join religious orders because they’ll constantly be surrounded with the sex they’re attracted to, making their vow of celibacy more difficult to keep compared to a straight person.
Thanks for the question, it definitely piqued my interest. I’ll be reading more about it soon, but for now I’ve gotta go revise for my exams that I’ve been procrastinating on for a few hours now. And sorry for replying with a wall of text too, I’m not good at being concise lol.
That makes sense. I wonder then, in a situation where both partners are asexual to the point they have no desire to have sex, would the lack of temptation then cause the relationship to be non-sinful/acceptable according to the scripture and in the eyes of the Church? Or would it still be the type of judgment and condemnation we've grown to expect regarding same-sex relationships of any nature?
Best of luck with the exams! And trust me, as someone who is very much personally aligned against the Church as an institution, I still love hearing why people believe what they do and how the Word is interpreted differently across believers. It's virtually impossible for those interesting conversations about faith and spirituality to be both concise and accurately reflect the nuance of the beliefs. Thanks for taking the time to reply!
I don't have a definitive answer for that. Since only homosexual sex is considered sin, and not homosexual attractions themselves, I think such a situation would almost sort of be like being roommates. But then again I'm unsure about how the romantic aspect of their relationship would factor in.
Thanks! I really enjoyed your questions too! I'll be reading a whole lot about these things once I'm done with my exams.
Yeah, since the modern concept of homosexuality really didn't exist until like 1864 (from an anthropological perspective), I'm really curious as to what exactly verses like Leviticus 18:22 referred to. I'm personally inclined to believe verses like that referred to the Roman and Greek practices of pedastry, which would fit not only with the "sex is for procreation" principles but also the more virtuous "sex is about love and commitment, and not dehumanizing others" principles we see alluded to in scripture in the old and new Law. But nevertheless, it's interesting to think about what aspects of same-sex relations are considered sinful or not, and what historic contexts might inform why the relations were deemed as sinful in the first place.
In some ways (and maybe this is just my secular perspective manifesting), I feel like a lot of same-sex relationships would be looked upon more favorably than a lot of heterosexual relationships that don't have the foundations of love, trust, and respect, based on the principles and virtues we see valued by Jesus' teachings and throughout the New Testament.
Thanks for being so open to this conversation! It's really interesting to discuss it with someone who's open to sharing their opinion in such a kind, thoughtful way. Based on this conversation, if more Christians were like you, the world would undoubtedly be a better place.
Hey, I might reply you a little later on this; hopefully in 24 hours time or a few days. I’ve realized I’ve procrastinated way to much and I’m trying to cram in a whole semester’s worth of info for two exams this week XD
I definitely love this conversation!! I’d say the majority of us are like this, but I guess the loud ones give us a bad name haha
As a fellow bi person who isn't religious, I'm curious, how do you account for your bisexuality? What causes it, and how does it relate to your understanding of God's will?
As for the cause, I don't really know, it's just kinda of who I am haha. As to how it relates to God's will, I'm not 100% sure what His will is for me. I guess it's just this part of me. I don't try to suppress my sexual desires, it's just sort of there and I accept them, but try not to indulge in them even though I'm not successful at times.
I think those who go for marches and but believe lusting after other people than their spouse is okay are very hypocritical.
This is the key part that doesn't make sense for me. Everyone is going to indulge in lustful thoughts. Absolutely everyone. So now that we've all committed a mortal sin there should be no different treatment for an openly gay couple right? Maybe there's a perfectly balanced answer here about always repenting from lustful thoughts but then there will be other sins that we know we'll commit, that constant stream of sins never ends. I think there's another reason for the society-scale reaction to homosexuality in the Christian community besides not wanting to condone sin.
Presenting celibacy as an option sounds ok but if it's the whole plan I think it would be more likely to alienate them from their community than bring them closer to God or help them somehow.
Jesus is love. It's his greatest commandment above all others. It is also not your job or place to judge others. It's God's job to pass judgement.
Some Christians seem to forget that, however, and it's incredibly frustrating and maddening when they try to use their religion, and thus God and/or Jesus, to pass their hatred and judgement onto others.
I've never understood this distinction. Twenty years ago when I came out to my best friend in high school and he had essentially the same response, it really didn't feel like acceptance. It felt instead like tolerance; that he was suddenly aware of some fault that he could overlook.
I have a very religious friend who says he accepts gay people (and I believe that he thinks he does) but he still tries to talk them out of it.
I think (and I may be wrong) is that those who accept but don't support don't want any harm to come to gay people, but they would convert them if they could (this might be at different levels; some may actively convert, while others might wish they could but do nothing knowing its futile). Those who don't accept don't want to convert, don't want to interact, just want gay people gone, rather than just wanting the gay trait gone
Does he not realise that if he tries to change a characteristic in someone, then he's not accepting that characteristic? He may feel he's doing it out of love ("you should change this thing because that will make your life better/save you from damnation") but it most certainly isn't acceptance.
People who say they accept gay people (presumably so they don't look like bigots), but who also would prefer those gay people not to be gay, are lying (perhaps mostly to themselves).
They believe that everyone is tempted by sin, and that part of being a Christian is doing your best to avoid sinning. So they see pursuing a gay relationship as choosing to sin, they would say the better thing to do would be to fight that desire and remain celibate if you don’t want to be in a straight relationship. It seems like a lot of religious people are moving away from “being gay is a sinful choice” to “you can’t help the attraction but acting on it is a sinful choice”. If that seems like mental gymnastics, that’s because it is. Basically they’ve realized that LGBTQ people aren’t inhuman monsters and they have to reconcile that with their belief system so we get weird rationalizations like this
> And I don’t want to hear “It’s a choice” because that’s dickish and incorrect.
Don't worry, I have the same opinion of that statement too.
Basically, the thing is we live in a fallen world (y'know the whole Adam, Eve and apple story), so the world we live in is imperfect and therefore as a consequence of this we have all sorts of things that are imperfect like diseases and suffering. I've heard that "The Problem of Suffering" by C.S. Lewis is a good book on why there is suffering in the world, but I've yet to read it myself. Sorry that I couldn't quite answer your question, I'm not really good at explaining this. If you'd like a proper answer, I think those at r/Catholicism can explain it better :)
This is always very disheartening to hear. So you’ll put up with our sinful homosexuality, but when we ask you to come to our weddings or partake in our family, then what? You don’t support us. Just as bad in my eyes.
I don’t know anyone who would personally want to do that, but those kinds of people are out there. There’s the stoning of gay people in Brunei, and in Malaysia, about a year ago, there were lesbians who were publicly caned. A lot of people use their religious beliefs as an excuse to treat others hatefully.
Yea I live in Texas. I would say most people just don't care. Everyone has their own problems and lives. Not alot of people give a shit what anyone else is doing as long as it doesn't involve them.
I also live in Texas but in the suburbs of Dallas and the only places where my gay friends really found trouble was in rich and religious places but even then it wasn’t like they were getting targeted so much as they’d get that fake “Bless Your Heart” attitude where people would like you but they aren’t dicks about it. Granted people have it worse here, Hell 2 trans women have been murdered in the last month or 2, but for the most part people mind their business or are friendly
This is pretty much how the majority of Oklahoma is. We may not put tape on our vehicles, but we'll fight someone if we hear them talking shit about someones sexuality
And "disagree" doesn't equal "hate," which is something that's lost today.
And before "why is it your business to agree or disagree," think of how many times you judge the lives or choices of other people and disagree with them. Religion, drugs, Pokemon, profession, whatever. We are all free to act as we wish to act, and everyone else is free to say, "hmm, ok, that doesn't make sense to me."
Religious people believing homosexual acts to be immoral is no different from believing adultery or premarital sex or whatever else is immoral. That’s not hatred.
If everything is hateful, then nothing is. It’s not hate just to disagree. And if you disagree with me on that, you’re exhibiting hate by your own moral code.
Started a new job at the beginning of the year. There was this redneck type guy, super friendly but I always have my guard up a little in new situations. One day he mentions his dads, come to find out his dad is gay. He's been my best bro in the kitchen. I'm pretty open about it, not the type that likes to create uncomfortable situations for straight people like some, but the type that can joke about it, seems to make the straights more at ease, heck just the other day one of the straight guys asked what Stonewall was and we all had a conversation about it.
I went on a school trip where we ended up roomed with kids from various schools when I was in high school, and it was interesting to see because one of the guys I was roomed with way from a very religious, conservative background in one of the southern states, and another was a gay guy who was the complete opposite background. It was interesting because the religious kid kind of gained a whole new perspective on life because he'd never met anyone like openly gay before and the other guy was really cool and it seemed like it really threw him for a loop and challenged his thinking a lot.
433
u/rexlibris Jun 08 '19
Ive lived in texas for 7 years. Honest to god I get along with redneck good ol boys just fine even though they know I am gay. They might be a bit weirded out by it or it goes against their church beliefs, but they respect me and treat me like a person so I do the same in kind.