Stereo Subversion RSS Feed
 

On the Occasion of a Christian Rock Chick’s Coming Out

“I know they’ll bury me/ Before they hear the whole story”
-Jennifer Knapp, “Inside”

It was bound to happen: Girl finds God. Girl lifts guitar. Writes songs. Finds fame. Plays the nascent Lilith Fair. Garners awards, sells a million. Raises a million eyebrows, incites a riot of expectations. And catalyzes a litany of rumors about her subsequent hiatus from performing and recording.

Well, the former Christian folk-rock singer Jennifer Knapp has emerged from her self-imposed hermitage Down Under. She’s making music after nearly a decade away, has a new album called Letting Go, is playing Lilith again after more than 10 years, and a day after her 36th birthday, came out as a gay woman.

Then the deluge.

CNN came calling. So did Christianity Today and The Advocate. (The former’s a Christian mag, and the latter’s the foremost ‘zine covering gay culture.) Knapp’s been something short of crucified on Christian sites and radio stations since April 13 when she fessed up. They’ve done everything from damning her to hell to trying to marginalize and belittle her previous status in the Christian industry. “A minor Christian celebrity,” scoffed one Christian publication, as if a lot of music acts actually sell a million in that market.

Meanwhile her Facebook fan page has seen a considerable spike in members and attention, but, predictably, about 1 in every 6 comments posted there since her admission has been a variation on themes of “Read this Bible verse” or “Praying for your repentance” or, bizarrely, “You’ve really hurt me by this.”

Here’s the thing: No one knows her life. Maybe not blood, but certainly sweat and tears have been shed in Knapp’s road to reconciling her sexuality and her spirituality. And you can’t confuse her journey with your journey.

It’s groundbreaking, what she’s doing. She is opening doors. After posting just a couple comments on her Facebook page, I found myself greeted with a dozen “friend” requests on that social media behemoth. And as another singer, Matthew David, a self-described gay Christian active on Knapp’s Facebook page, put it to me via personal message, “Now that I’m in the music business I am meeting a lot of other artists, including closeted Christian musicians, quite a few of them! They’ve told me that the Christian music industry is teeming with gay people. Had I known that so many of these people I was listening to were actually gay, I may not have been so depressed and suicidal as a teen. Now I’m doing my part to encourage these guys to come out.”

Herein lies the heart of the matter: For a group of people who sing of their God’s love being deep and wide, a heap of scorn and judgment has been piled on Knapp’s shoulders since the news broke. Much of it is thinly veiled or passive-aggressive or opportunistic, couched in verses posted to her, ahem, fan page, verses that would condemn her. Sad but true. Well-intentioned poison is still poison.

As a music lover, one who listened to Knapp’s stuff more than a decade ago, and as the one-time son of a pastor and (gasp) a gay man, I say this: Jennifer Knapp’s anti-fans can go to heaven.

And may they find themselves utterly surprised by who they find beside them there.

Christian believers are told in their own religious text to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. People would do well to let Knapp be Knapp, and to tend to their own. It’s not between them and her. At the end it’s between her and this God. No human has a stranglehold on the truth. Putting on that one does is pride, and pride comes before a fall. One is to remove the beam from his own eye first, before tending to the speck in another’s.

Truly, there is nothing new under the sun.

All philosophical and theological ruminations aside, those who oppose gayness or Knapp’s life and music because of her very being, her person are faced with the burden of proof here: Homosexuality appears to be the sole “sin” in which no one is hurt.

Knapp has reconciled these facets of her life, and for that anyone with a heart and a soul should be thankful. She apparently doesn’t harbor self-hate or bitterness. She is becoming “wholly human,” in her own words. We should all aspire to that. She is in a committed relationship of eight years now with her girlfriend, and she’s happy. She says she’s joyful. And yet some would dispel that readily because it doesn’t fit into their worldview. Doesn’t jibe with their rigid holdings about what is right and pure and true. What is love.

“I’m quite comfortable to live with parts of myself that don’t make sense to you,” she has told those skeptics who, incredibly, do not know her but wish to pound the celestial gavel on their god’s behalf. Well, that’s no god worth believing in or praying to, let alone worshipping. May some kind of maddening mercy find its way to even their heads. That would be so God.

Jennifer Knapp deserves respect for her honesty and her realness. She’s been noble as a musician and a public figure to announce her news ahead of her album’s release so that, as she told a couple publications, people in the Christian market don’t snag her record and then find themselves disillusioned. Yea, let them be disillusioned without paying a dime.

The best thing Knapp and her defenders can do moving forward is to forgive those slinging verbal darts at her, for they know not what they do. And if they do know? Even worse. And they will get theirs. But ignoring the critics – yea, even showing them kindness – will, as the Good Book says, “heap burning coals on their heads.”

In the words of another, we’ll all float on all right.

Jonathan Scott

By , Tuesday, April 20th, 2010

Blogs Both comments and pings are currently closed.

45 Comments

  1. Well-writ, my friend.

    - robalan, April 20th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
  2. Seems to me that the Christian Rock scene is more about the religious beliefs than it is about the music. It's a genre that excludes anyone not sharing in the belief system. If you break the rules of the faith or the implied moral code, you will be ostracized. To me, this seems rather limiting, confining the artist to only address matters pertaining to faith. Music is music, it's an emotional conduit. An artist should be free to express themselves in any way they see fit whether its religious, sexual, or political. Jennifer Knapp would do well to function as a musician, and perhaps, not as a faith symbol. And as listeners, all we can do is listen with an open mind.

    - gregorybrown, April 20th, 2010 at 9:36 pm
  3. “Jennifer's anti-fans can go to Heaven”- I loved that line! As a die-hard Knapp fan, I am not surprised that she came out with this news. If you listen to her lyrics from her past albums, they deal with redemption and the fact that we are all wrestling with sin. The fact that she came out was not what disturbed me, it was the fact that everyone wants a part of it, or they want to put their two cents in about it that was disturbing. Thanks for this point of view.

    - Bre, April 21st, 2010 at 2:00 am
  4. “Jennifer Knapp’s anti-fans can go to heaven.
    And may they find themselves utterly surprised by who they find beside them there.”
    (nice)

    - Gina Deeming, April 21st, 2010 at 3:09 pm
  5. you're bad ass

    - Korie Broyles, April 22nd, 2010 at 2:11 am
  6. Nicely done, Jonathan. You're making me smile broadly. Thanks.

    - Jennifer Dritt, April 22nd, 2010 at 1:10 pm
  7. Jonathan Scott you have made your own god. It is so like the world and religion to worship and believe in a god that they themselves create. You made up a god that permits your sin,homosexuality.

    - Meilyn, April 23rd, 2010 at 11:43 pm
  8. Of course the Christian rock scene is limiting, that's why it's Christian rock and not just rock. If the artist is claiming to be Christian, you believe in what the bible says, and homosexuality is a sin.

    - Meilyn, April 23rd, 2010 at 11:56 pm
  9. Dear Johnathan, It is easy to pull scripture out of the Bible to suit the circumstance and yet not understand the context in which it was written. The truth is that the Bible is God-breathed and useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting, and training in righteousness so that every man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work (2Timothy 3:16-17). Our purpose on this earth is to serve God by serving others and I know that Jennifer has touched lives through her music. And it is, as you have stated, between her and God, but our ultimate hope should not be joy and happiness on this earth, it should be an eternity with God in heaven. And as Christians, we need to believe on the Cross and conform our lives to the truths of the Bible, and not attempt to conform God to justify the sin (and we are all sinners) in our lives.

    - Friend, April 24th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
  10. Lots of fine sounding words here…but still completely missing the point.

    - David G, April 24th, 2010 at 7:51 pm
  11. Saw her live about ten years ago with Bebo Norman, thought she was among the more enlightened of the Christian rockers. Glad to hear she has the guts to be herself. As someone who went to a Christian college for a year, I experienced how awkward it can be to be an “outsider,” since when I started listening to Christian bands, they were all the “wrong” ones, and I didn't worship as openly or as often as I was expected to. Maybe she'll bring about positive change in the world of Christian music, but at the very least she can make the music she wants to make, while helping young people see it's okay to be yourself.

    - kroessman, April 25th, 2010 at 12:07 am
  12. Well said, Friend. Thank you for speaking truth.

    - Krista, April 25th, 2010 at 2:18 am
  13. Jonathan, I appreciate your candor and I don't expect you to agree with me, but I have to speak what I believe is truth.

    This is very sad for me because my view on homosexuality is that it is sin as that's what the Bible says. And, we all struggle with sin and in this case Jennifer has lost or is for the time being losing the battle. As a Christian it is always sad to see another Christian fall.

    And, to your comment that this is a “sin” in which no one is hurt is just not true. The homosexual lifestyle is extremely unhealthy, medically speaking. Even more so with male homosexuals. I cannot post in graphic detail as to why, but I encourage you to research this. As for the people posting comments on Jennifer's FB page, while I have not read them myself, I can only figure that at least some of them are sincerely out of love for Jennifer as another human being and one that has captured their hearts through her music. If you saw someone you loved…even someone you didn't know headed down a destructive path or about to fall off a cliff, would not try and stop them?

    I know that Christians in general have done a bad job addressing homosexuality or in particular homosexuals. For some reason it is just something we don't know as a whole how to deal with. I love homosexuals and my heart breaks for them that they are settling for the temporary pleasures of this world instead of the awesomeness that their Creator has for them. No on can fill the void that we all have like He can.

    - Krista, April 25th, 2010 at 2:39 am
  14. Nifty throwaway line, no extrapolation. Your point?

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
  15. Nothing to say, really, to someone who hides behind a moniker, faceless. Own your words, “Friend.” It's typical to hear someone looking to the finish line (this heaven) and not embracing the road. The journey. Consider, “Friend,” whether it's impossible that you could be wrong in your reading of historical, translated texts, which were probably ingrained in you from birth. Think for yourself — and, again, work it out on your own, humbly and with fear and trembling.

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 5:51 pm
  16. Thanks for your ungracious comment. It's quite telling. And apparent that you have a vendetta. Try looking in the mirror, looking within. Likely a telephone pole sticking out of your eye where you'd remove the toothpick in another's.

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
  17. Agreed, Bre — really don't know why this is shocking to anyone with knowledge of her tunes, or common sense/intuition (aka gaydar).

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
  18. agreed, thanks for that — she's always been more real about life than others from that set, and now she's formerly of it, but there was no other way

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 5:52 pm
  19. Krista, are you a doctor? A nurse? Researched this years ago and have spoken to friends who are, and your comment is baseless. What you say is highly objectionable and offensive. Is heterosexual sex also a “temporary pleasure of this world” then? When you say “the homosexual lifestyle” and so on, that reveals a decidedly out-of-touch stance. Who calls it “the heterosexual lifestyle”? I respect your own candor and know you mean well and simply disagree. Vehemently.

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 6:00 pm
  20. Meilyn, good luck reconciling your take on the truth with the fact that there are, as said above, plenty of gays in Xian music. You are ace at playing judge.

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
  21. Nice post Jonathan, thanks for choosing people over ideology and for supporting Jennifer. I have written her a Parable on my site. Check it out: http://indiefaith.org/profiles/blogs/alabaster-…

    - John Martinez, April 25th, 2010 at 6:14 pm
  22. Yes, I am mad. I am mad because I feel used. I have loved JK for 10 years and waited and prayed for her return. I heard all the rumors and eventually came to terms with the fact that JK was living a new life and quite possibly was gay. When she announced her return, I assumed she was gay (because the rumors persisted so long). Fine. Still loved her, but prepared myself for a new sound/direction from JK. Wasn't sure how it would fit into my life, but was open and excited. She's back, touring with similiar artists than she toured with in the past, and I assumed I was wrong. I assumed if she was taking all of this in new directions she would be made that very clear. She didn't.

    She came back to adoring fans, who drive all over the country to see her in concert (which I would do gay or not and I know many others would too) and then TWO weeks before her album drops, she comes out. What great timing. Thousands of new fans who would NEVER had listened to her as a “Chrstian artist” flock her facebook page. She comes out and says nothing to acknowlage her fans (fans who are where she once was in terms of beliefs and wrestling with these issues) who have been there and are confused and feel used. Her facebook page immediatly goes into Lilith Fair Mode and ignores old fans. Gay or straight does not limit my music choices, but I thought more of Jen then to use something this important to capitalize on.

    - Shauna, April 25th, 2010 at 8:03 pm
  23. Beautiful. Thank you for sharing.

    - Heddysue, April 25th, 2010 at 8:22 pm
  24. brief and brilliant — thanks for sharing

    - Jonathan Scott, April 25th, 2010 at 10:35 pm
  25. I'd go so far as to say it's not even about religious beliefs. It's about keeping up appearances.

    - Joel, April 27th, 2010 at 5:31 pm
  26. Your Parable is incredible! Gave me goose-bumps.

    - VelocityJude, April 27th, 2010 at 5:46 pm
  27. so, sadly this is a mute point, because people who are SO set in their ways will not read a book like this that will actually challenge their beliefs, but for all of those who say 'the bible says homosexuality is a sin', i challenge you… i IMPLORE you to read the book 'what the bible really says about homosexuality' by D.A. Helminiak, PhD.

    bottom line is this, you can read the bible only two ways. there are ONLY two ways to read it. Literally, or Historically-Critically. If you are going to read it literally, than you MAY NOT pick and choose verses. you MUST support slavery, child-selling, avoiding shellfish etc. If you choose to read the bible Historically-Critically than you also MAY NOT pick and choose verses. you may however understand that though the bible is God inspired it was written thru the human medium, with context and cultural reference to that time.

    I wont waste my words explaining each 'supposedly homosexual' bible verse in the Historical-Critical context because, sadly, for those of you are not open minded to discussion- those of you not willing to accept that you may be looking at this wrong- will see this as an argument, not a discussion.

    Johnathan, thank you for your blog, it is much appreciated. for the supporters, thank you!

    for those who continue to mindlessly point out Romans 1:18-32 i say this… Paul uses the words 'against their nature' to mean 'out of the norm', not 'unethical or against the laws of nature'. In Paul's time, culturally, sex out 'of the norm' included; sex with a woman while menstruating, sex standing up, oral sex, sex between two men of the same social class (it was generally acceptable for men to sleep together if they were of different class -one a citizen one not, one an adult one a teen)…. and more that i wont go into here- pretty much anything except 'missionary style'. Paul is talking about the Jewish Code and social concerns, not ethical or moral ones. He actually uses the word para physin again in Romans 11:24 to describe God's behavior- and he uses it to mean 'atypical' – bc im pretty sure Paul wouldn't call Gods behavior 'unethical', yet he chose to use the same hebrew word for both references. He had words available to him in the Hebrew language that ment 'unethical' or 'sinful' and he uses them elsewhere in his writings, but he intentionally doesn't use them here. there is SO much more to this verse alone, but again i wont waste by words…

    so, long story short- pull your head out of your poorly translated Latin Based King James Version, do some real research in the Original Greek and Hebrew… then tell me if the bible says homosexuality- a loving monogamous relationship between two people of the same sex- is a sin.

    - ginny , April 29th, 2010 at 6:47 pm
  28. I'm having a hard time seeing where you stand. Are you a follower of Jesus? Some of your comments allude that you are on the outside looking in.

    I know their are people who have studied the bible longer than we've been alive and they tend to come to the same conclusion about some of the issues you attempt to approach.

    - njarcen, April 30th, 2010 at 3:30 pm
  29. Just don't bother with the bible or religion as a whole, is my advice!

    - jakemay, May 1st, 2010 at 1:33 pm
  30. Dear Jonathan,
    No, I am not in the medical profession. I just have a deep-seated love and compassion for homosexuals. I don’t expect you to come to my perspective. Yet, I am convicted to speak the truth, to the extent that I know it, in love.
    So that we are not in disagreement based on different interpretations, let’s clarify “unhealthy” in this case. What I was referring to was the increased health risks to homosexuals. These risks include disease, mental illness, substance abuse, and suicidal tendencies. As an example, homosexual males have an increased risk of contracting HIV as well as other infections and damage to the colon over heterosexual males. And lesbian women have an increased risk of breast cancer. Here are some references:

    Center for Disease Control:
    http://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/Newsroom/msmpressrel…
    FDA: http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Blood…
    Gay and Lesbian Medical Association:
    http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.v…
    http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.v…
    http://www.glma.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=Page.v…

    You may have already heard of NARTH and may be against it even. But here is a link to their site which includes the above references and many more. http://www.narth.com/menus/medical.html

    When you say out of touch stance, could you explain what you mean? I’d really like to understand.
    Regarding sex in general, no, it is not inherently evil. It was designed by God. Can it be used for evil and is it ever an idol on people’s lives? Absolutely. Just turn on your TV, go on the internet or read/watch the news.

    I do not view homosexuals as bad or evil, but rather deceived. I view the Bible as truth and authority. I have been walking in my Christian faith for a little over 5 years now and continue to find truth and power in it as God’s word. I know you don’t view life this way, but this is my perspective and given all the severe risks and missed blessings of denying Him, I can’t keep quiet. No matter what we encounter in this life, pleasure or pain, His love outweighs it beyond what we can even think. “Because Your love is better than life, my lips will glorify You.” Ps 63:3

    - Krista, May 1st, 2010 at 8:05 pm
  31. njarcen – not sure how you can be confused on where Jonathan stands…Between the article itself and his comments attacking anyone who disagrees with him in the comments section, it seems to be obvious.
    I'm not going to get into a debate over this. I am not going to claim to have thoroughly researched every last possible scripture that might even remotely have anything to do with sexuality. Everyone who tries to defend their position will have their answers — “You are living in old, brainwashed beliefs”—”You're using the Bible to support bigotry and hate just like slaveowners did” —”You only have a modern corrupted Bible and don't truly know the original text” (as if they were standing there with Moses and David and Paul or something)—etc.
    It is humorous to me how people who preach tolerance are just as intolerant of opposing views as the people they are preaching to.
    So, if you want to say that homosexuality is not a sin, where do we draw the line? What about the man who just feels no greater connection than to a 13 year old? I don't recall Jesus saying anything about a legal age of consent for love and/or sex.
    What about the brother and sister who love and understand each other more deeply than anyone ever could? I mean, the story just came out about the 72 year old woman and her grandson lover who are expecting a child through a surrogate. That's perfectly acceptable, right?
    What about the lonely woman who has no other companion but her faithful dog? That's just Old Testament law. It doesn't apply to us anymore. Even if it does, that word in our current translation doesn't really mean what everyone thinks it does. It was a cultural issue, not an issue of actual sin.
    Ultimately, yes, we all work out our own salvation with fear and trembling. We all have sin in our lives. And I agree that homosexuals are ostracized from the Christian community more than any other group of sinners. The Church does need to show more of God's love than it has in the past. I know there is hate being thrown out by people who are supposed to love. But homosexuals won't even accept the love from people who are trying to love the sinner but hate the sin. Hate is usually returned in those situations.
    I feel like I could go on all day. But I'll just wait and see what hate-filled response I get from those who disagree with me and would preach love and tolerance.

    - RSM76, May 2nd, 2010 at 3:09 pm
  32. She came out on April 13, a day after her b'day, and *4* full weeks ahead of her album's May 11 release, not 2wks. Let's get the facts straight before writing the so-mad bluster. She writes on this new record from her faith stance. Of course her website and FB page “go into Lilith mode,” as that tour's kick-starting and she's on it. And, if you've read anything she's said since returning, no one can feel more “used” than JK did, with respect to how she told label execs in 2001 that she needed a break, and the response was always, “Sure, right after you do this one thing…” She's been humble and gracious in interviews, and I really don't think she owes anything to anyone. Her answers and explanation (and it's sad that she has to offer them) are in her songs and in her Q&As. Hence they are linked above.

    - Jonathan Scott, May 3rd, 2010 at 3:27 pm
  33. I am intolerant of those opposing views, RSM76 (are you a robot?), because you are attacking a person's very core and identity. If people have always been gay, you are basically describing a defect in them. But God knit them together in the womb, knew them then, and they're “fearfully and wonderfully made,” if the Bible's to be believed (and taken literally at all times).

    You seem to be all too happy to get into a debate, or you wouldn't write paragraphs on it here. And when you bring in adults having sex with children and bestiality, it renders the debate futile. It clouds the matter. A monogamous, loving, consenting, long-term relationship between adults is starkly different. And to add “love the sinner, hate the sin” here — what to even do with tired tropes like that?

    Finally, if you think I'm going to let a girl hop on here and proclaim gay sex to be extremely medically dangerous, well, think again. It's not wise to speak to something one knows nothing about. Yes, I will answer those detractors, and strongly. At least I'm willing to own my words by putting my name and face here.

    Is this response sufficiently “hate-filled” for you? Have I fallen short of the gory of blog?

    - Jonathan Scott, May 3rd, 2010 at 3:35 pm
  34. Well said, Ginny. It's quite difficult to wield verses as indisputable, inerrant truth in the matter when they've been translated over centuries with new words implemented that don't fit the original languages. “Homosexual” was not a word until the 1700s. It didn't make its way into a Bible in the English language until ~1950. And it's hardly the only word in the Greek/Hebrew Bible that hasn't translated properly. The Bible is chock-full of contradictions and yet a worthy historical document, to be sure.

    “Rest assured you've created a god in your own image when he hates all the same people you do.”
    -Anne Lamott

    - Jonathan Scott, May 3rd, 2010 at 3:43 pm
  35. I'm a believer, despite what's been said and done, and to me, in this life. I don't end the vertical relation to God despite the horizontal relations with fellow humans who seek to belittle, condemn, hate, or guilt me and fellow gays into submission/assimilation. I can separate God and belief from the works, for good and for ill, of his creations. We're all God's children, and worthy of love, of agape and eros both. There's hardly consensus in the theological community on these issues. They'll be debated for ages.

    - Jonathan Scott, May 3rd, 2010 at 3:45 pm
  36. There are perhaps two artists I still listen to from the whole CCM crowd- Rich Mullins and Jennifer. So thrilled to find out she's coming out with another album, and upon listening to the samples, I'm so glad that it seems she's only gotten better during her break. Can't wait.

    - askthesky, May 4th, 2010 at 4:48 am
  37. Ooh, way to distract by making fun of my screen name, then using the, how do you say, “tired trope” of “at least I own my words by putting my name and face on here.” {yawn}
    So, if I believe that homosexual sex is a sin and tell someone so, I am attacking their very core and identity? Does that mean when someone wants to know who I am, I must answer with, “Scott. Heterosexual”?
    For the sake of argument, I'll grant you that you were born homosexual. Does that mean if someone is a pathological liar and they can't control it, I am attacking their core if I inform them that lying is a sin?
    Why is my bringing up the other things rendering the debate futile? How does it cloud the matter? (I guess incest didn't cloud the issue for you) Should I have made the child 16 or 17? Because one of the big arguments frequesntly brought up by homosexuals is that you can't control who you fall in love with. And that was the argument I was making. Say a 22 year old falls in love with a 16 year old and they are monogamous, consenting, loving, long-term, etc. Legally this is wrong. But for centuries, all over the world, that 16 year old would have been married off and starting a family by now. Shoot, in some countries it is still expected.
    Admittedly I tried to be extreme in my examples. But the point is, if homosexuality is a sin (I know you don't think so, but just if) where do we draw the line on relaxing things we believe the Bible says.
    I'm sorry that you think “love the sinner, hate the sin” is a tired trope. I guess you prefer “what you're doing is wrong and I hate you for it.”
    So, are you saying anal sex is not riskier than vaginal sex? Maybe the girl that brought it up doesn't practice anal sex. That doesn't mean it is not risky. Yes, vaginal sex is risky as well. And now they are saying oral sex is leading to increased cases of throat cancer. But everything I have ever read or heard talks about anal sex being the riskiest form of sex for various reasons. But if it's a heterosexual doctor does that mean he doesn't know what he's talking about unless he likes to engage in anal sex?

    - RSM76, May 6th, 2010 at 12:27 am
  38. Consider why gays have an increased risk for substance abuse and suicidal tendencies and so on. It's because they are looked down upon and condemned by social and religious communities — yea, even some of their own families.

    NARTH? You've lost me.

    Consider that NARTH board member George Rekers is presently suspected of taking a gay prostitute on a trip to Europe:
    http://www.narth.com/menus/officers.html
    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20004264…

    And “reparative therapy” is a nonsensical, oxymoronic misnomer. You have no idea of the sheer numbers of people who have been hurt by the alleged “promise” of such therapies only to be drastically, tragically disappointed.

    You show in your wording that you are out-of-touch with respect to this issue. (Those “practicing the homosexual lifestyle” are “deceived.”) We have heard it all before. There are scads and oodles of gay believers, and for them sex is not an idol anymore than some supposed Christians seem to worship their own theological prowess or intelligence or even the Bible itself more than their God. On the contrary, I do find there to be some mighty truth and power in the Bible. I have not thrown baby Jesus out with the bathwater, but we should all really admit there is that bathwater in Christendom. You note that you are a young believer in the Christian faith. I wish you well on your road and would recommend being “slow to speak” about matters like this. Gays, as well as straight folk, are people, not projects. Please remember this when showing your love and compassion to gays. I trust that your holdings on homosexuals are truly your own, in your head and heart, and not what's been fed to you at church in your young, impressionable belief.

    - Jonathan Scott, May 6th, 2010 at 4:36 pm
  39. As I said in my original commentary piece, being gay (homosexuality) is the sole supposed “sin” in which no one is hurt. Being a pathological liar: quite different. As you admitted, your examples are extreme. Talking about consenting *adults* here, as said above. Not kids! And I reiterate that your screenname is unfortunate. I maintain that, if you're going to speak about volatile subjects and argue like this, you best be owning your words. You are escalating this. Your motive here is as mysterious as your name. Quite done.

    - Jonathan Scott, May 6th, 2010 at 4:41 pm
  40. agreed on both artists!

    - Jonathan Scott, May 6th, 2010 at 4:42 pm
  41. What about masturbation? Plenty of Christians would call that a sin…no one gets hurt there. If you mean that beinbg attracted to a member of the same sex hurts no one, I completely agree. And that, I would argue, is not a sin. If you say gay sex (i.e., anal sex) is completely harmless, I and many doctors would disagree. And, I would argue, that it is a sin.
    I'm sorry that apparently I need a pic or a link to my facebook so you can know more about me just to be able to have an opinion here. I apologize that my real name was taken so I used my initals. I guess that invalidates my opinions. But at least it gives you an out for not actually disputing most of what I said.
    You seem stuck on the kids thing. What if I move the hypothetical to ages 18 and 17? Legally, it's wrong. Or, better yet, what if it is two homosexual teenagers? Is that wrong because they are not consenting *adults* there?
    Whatever. You don't want to discuss it because you don't like my screen name or my extreme hypotheticals. That's fine. I'll leave you alone. But I believe my hypotheticals are getting less extreme with each passing generation. I knew the teenager and the bestiality examples would get you stirred up. I thought the incest one would too. Silly me.
    Anyway, sorry to *escalate* things.

    - RSM76, May 6th, 2010 at 11:56 pm
  42. I'm stuck on the kids thing? You went on a tangent about kids marrying in other countries, over the centuries and now. Give up the ghost, man. I repeat, what is your motive here? Of course your exhausted example of bestiality irked me. A partner is not a dog. And you are hardly sorry. You are a pathetic person hiding behind a silhouette and some C3PO name, opining on a music site where you take the matter to incest and the like. For shame. There's no point in disputing what you say when you drum up some of the most ridiculous, worn-out arguments revolving around the matter. Gayness is not a slippery slope to man-child relations or people sexing their horses. Grow up.

    - Jonathan Scott, May 7th, 2010 at 2:14 pm
  43. You're right. I am hardly sorry. I said that sarcastically because I thought it was humorous that I was “escalating” things by posting my opinion to a commentary. I didn't know I couldn't opine on a music site. But wait…what is your commentary? Oh yeah, opinion. I keep forgetting that when you preah tolerance, you don't have to tolerate opposing views. Just the ones that fit neatly with yours. Otherwise, you shoot them down as hateful, ridiculous or just avoid them, either by not acknowledging them or saying something to distract from the fact that you have nothing to say.
    On that topic, how come you only bash the pictureless posts that disagree with you? There are several posts on here that agree with you that do not have pictures and do not use their full name. Again, my name was taken so I went with my initials (which were also taken, so I added my birth year). I wa unaware that that would make me pathetic. Do I really need to post a pic of myself and a link to my facebook for my opinion to matter? If so, I find that pathetic. I stumbled across this commentary and after reading some of the comments felt compelled to post. I don't intend to be a long-time member. In fact, it's doubtful I'll post again unless there is something I feel the urge to reply to.
    My motive here? I guess it started out as frustration that your comments after the commentary seem just as close-minded as the people you bash. You tell me to grow up, but I don't know that I have many replies you have made on here to a differing opinion that didn't seem childish. What is your motive here?
    By the way, I'm glad we can rest easy since you can predict the future. You have assured America that there is no way we are on a slippery slope to some of these things. Never mind the recent news story about the grandmother/grandson couple expecting a child. Siblings in Germany are fighting anti-incest laws. There is even a name for their “condition” —Genetic Sexual Attraction. There will NEVER be a movement to accept incest in America.

    - RSM76, May 8th, 2010 at 8:34 pm
  44. You seem to be simply flame baiting, good sir. The thing is that those arguments people use about the bible condemning shellfish, polyester, etc…and propping up slavery are all true. People did used to use the bible to justify slavery, which was a horrific crime against humanity. If you don't believe me, there's plenty of text and opinion piece remaining from the 1800s and prior to back that evidence up. Yet you do not address this and instead go down the cliched “would you let a dude marry a horse” route. You've yet to say anything of substance.

    Also, I propose this in opposition to your smug sulking about intolerance. Why exactly SHOULD a gay man be tolerant of your views or those who share your views? What has the anti-gay crowd done to deserve tolerance from the gays when they would show little in return? Why shouldn't you be bitterly opposed when your ultimate goal is the elimination of homosexuality and the further marginalization of homosexuals as “inferiors” “sinners” or “untouchables”? Should a Jew be tolerant of a neo-nazi or a black man tolerate those who don't believe in mixed marriages? Of course, widespread systemic violence isn't the same as simple religious and social ostracizing, but maybe your “slippery slope” logic says differently.

    Sorry, I don't see opposition to your views as hypocritical behavior. I see it as appropriate response.

    - Anthony Saggese, May 9th, 2010 at 4:59 pm
  45. We agree with Anthony's assessment and are closing further comments. Every opinion has been shared on the surface and we thank everyone for their input.

    - Stereo Subversion, May 10th, 2010 at 4:53 pm