From a Gay Christian: 2. Is Love a Sin

For confidentialities sake, let's call him Flynn. Flynn and I shared a bed, but we did not have sex. I was naked. He wore boxers. This was not the only time we shared a bed. We shared a bed often, (although not as undressed as we were that time). It was one of the best moments of my life. I will always have a soft spot in my heart for Flynn.

There was another man who I had a similar encounter with. We shared a bed, but we did not have sex. This time, we were both naked. It wasn't as great because this other man kept saying, "You can F me if you want." What I wanted was for him to stop saying that. I was having a wonderful time with him and doing everything I wanted. I didn't want him encouraging me to do what I didn't want to do.

I am attracted to men. I think the male body is wonderful. I want to look at it. I want to touch it. However, I don't want to stick my penis inside it. Nor do I want someone's penis inside me. I also don't want be required to have an orgasm. So no anal, no oral, no mutual masturbation but I love to cuddle. If any of you remember the hanky code, I bought myself two small teddy bears to display on both back pockets to communicate that I love to cuddle and be cuddled.

If I was looking for an orgasm, I can orgasm at home, by myself, a lot more easily than I can with someone else. It might be more enjoyable to orgasm with someone but it often leads to frustration as you have to meet their fantasy. If the guy has a foot fetish, you have to let him smell your feet. If the guy has a spanking fetish, you have to let him spank you. I really don't want to have to play these stupid fetish games since orgasm isn't even the goal for me. Relationship is the goal.

In the cultural war, I wind up in the no man's land. On one side, the hyper-religious crowd lines up to condemn me for my attraction to men. On the other side, the hedonistic crowd condemns me for being too vanilla. The hedonists claim that they are "making love" but the truth is, when fetish fantasies are involved, it is not synonymous with love. Perhaps two people who already have love can engage in a fetish and remain in love but the fetish doesn't create love, it doesn't "make love".

In fact, in many cases, fetishes are the opposite of love. I have seen over and over again how most fetishes involve some form of death, humiliation, objectification, or some other destruction. If people are honest, most of their fantasies are some form of revenge. That's why gay people often fantasize about raping homophobes or straight people often fantasize about domination. Where did we even come up with the idea of a top or a bottom except as a way to blind ourselves into thinking that domination is a form of making love. The tops want power and the bottoms feel a need to be purged of their guilt but neither knows love.

Does the Bible condemn love? Absolutely not. Many homosexuals ask why Christianity condemns love. Christianity does not condemn love. Some false Christians who pretend to be Christians so they can gain power, they condemn love but the Bible does not. David and Jonathan loved each other. Jesus and John loved each other. But we need to be careful that we don't confuse love with fetish fulfillment. David and Jonathan did not have anal sex, oral sex or mutual masturbation. Jesus and John did not have anal sex, oral sex or mutual masturbation. However, they might have loved each other in the same way Flynn and I loved each other: sharing a bed, kissing and being naked together. This kind of love is not condemned. When the Bible speaks about sin, it is specifically referring to the fetishistic, fake love.

Those controversial verses in Romans 1 speak of trading natural affection for unnatural affection. Many false Christians assume that means that all affection must be between a man and a woman to be natural but that is not what the Bible means. It is really about trading the natural affection between men who love each other for an unnatural affection or fetishistic fantasy fulfillment between two people (hetero or homo) that use each other.

On the one hand, I defend homosexuals because it is Biblical for men to kiss each other. The Bible says so at least five times. You want to share a bed, fine with me. You want to get naked, fine with me. You want to make love, fine with me. No one should be oppressed for having such God given desires.

On the other hand, I do question why homosexuals insist on gay marriage. Is that what you really want or is that just a fetishistic fantasy. Do you really love the man you want to marry or do you just want to use him to get that white wedding with all the pomp and ceremony.

What do you want? Do you want to be able to declare him as the beneficiary of your life insurance policy? I'll support you on that. Do you want to live together under the same roof without housing discrimination? I'll support that to. Do you want to shove your marriage in the church's face out of some fetishistic fantasy to get revenge on someone who called you names? Is that love?

I have mixed feelings about gay marriage. If it truly is for love, then I support gay marriage but so far, all I've seen is a bunch of angry people specifically targeting homophobes in order to force homophobes to perform wedding ceremonies. If it truly was about love, why would you want homophobes to have any form of involvement at all? Why not take your business elsewhere and boycott those businesses that refuse to serve you? Why target homophobes as if you were bloodthirsty hunters looking for someone to devour? If gay marriage was truly about love, I'd make your wedding cake. (I'm not talented at making wedding cakes so you are free to choose someone else). But I don't appreciate strong arm tactics trying to legally force me to make a cake.

The point of this letter is, let love abound but be careful that what you do, thinking you do it for love, it might actually be rooted in bitterness, vengeance or a thirst for power instead.