Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

[Bruce Geerdes]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html

Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.

On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable, something paralyzing.

Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.

So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”

She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought about it every day.

More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken. That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.

Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.

Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay newspaper.

Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD, Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.

It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage (“Don’t Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians (“Following Her Dreams”).

Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr. Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,

Would He only love the ones

Who looked the same as me

Would He only offer hope

When He saw similarity

Would He leave the others waiting

Like a stranger at the gate

Would He discriminate.

These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act, Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.

“When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I want, and that opened up the floodgates.”

One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr. Boltz’s Web site. He sent her each demo, just guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”

Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”

Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.

Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry King Live” last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker. Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.

Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.

“I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”

E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org

[Johne Cook]

I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a
single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still
love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the
death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't
get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an
abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his
gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell,
I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief
of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active
with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me
to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving
in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting
mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What
a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own
decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow
and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based
around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre
to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.


johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html
>
> Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a SecretBy SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
>
> FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
>
> On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a
> Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a
> family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with
> two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like
> “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable,
> something paralyzing.
>
> Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation
> and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was
> the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a
> guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had
> brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.
>
> So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about
> certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent
> interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
>
> She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something
> else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought
> about it every day.
>
> More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final
> months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the
> Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken.
> That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that
> even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
>
> Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and
> he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and
> indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he
> could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his
> early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who
> and what he was.
>
> Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son
> Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the
> truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by
> the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions
> were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly
> disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay
> newspaper.
>
> Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD,
> Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay
> man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco
> Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
>
> It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> (“Don’t
> Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative
> claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians
> (“Following Her Dreams”).
>
> Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr.
> Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In
> “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
>
> Would He only love the ones
>
> Who looked the same as me
>
> Would He only offer hope
>
> When He saw similarity
>
> Would He leave the others waiting
>
> Like a stranger at the gate
>
> Would He discriminate.
>
> These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti
> serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride
> celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from
> Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act,
> Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
>
> “When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent
> interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started
> writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if
> anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I
> want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
>
> One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr.
> Boltz’s Web site <http://www.rayboltz.com/>. He sent her each demo, just
> guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she
> put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
>
> Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently
> object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones
> that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and
> “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
>
> Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain
> why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision
> threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious
> culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their
> income.
>
> Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry King<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/larry_king/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Live”
> last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described
> his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/the_new_yorker/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
> Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of
> emerging from it so punitive.
>
> Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful
> e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role
> model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the
> Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian
> age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
>
> “I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the
> interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be
> disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new
> belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
>
> E-mail: <sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org>sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org
> *
> *
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Ronald Hatton]

I find myself in agreement with you here, Johne. To me, fidelity, loyalty, are more in the forefront here. I have made a commitment to celibacy: it wasn't an easy choice, and still isn't easy to live, but I could never see myself now as going back on that promise, no matter who comes into my life, what the temptations.
-Fr. Ron

On May 15, 2010, at 2:06 PM, Johne Cook wrote:

> I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.
>
> That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell, I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.
>
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html
>
> Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
> By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
> FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
>
> On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable, something paralyzing.
>
> Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.
>
> So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
>
> She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought about it every day.
>
> More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken. That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
>
> Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.
>
> Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay newspaper.
>
> Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD, Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
>
> It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage (“Don’t Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians (“Following Her Dreams”).
>
> Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr. Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
>
> Would He only love the ones
>
> Who looked the same as me
>
> Would He only offer hope
>
> When He saw similarity
>
> Would He leave the others waiting
>
> Like a stranger at the gate
>
> Would He discriminate.
>
> These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act, Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
>
> “When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
>
> One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr. Boltz’s Web site. He sent her each demo, just guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
>
> Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
>
> Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.
>
> Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry King Live” last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker. Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.
>
> Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
>
> “I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
>
>
> E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.  I know I'm not in that guys shoes but I believe that the thing we would be commanded to do was to remain faithful to our spouses, even if that meant not having sex with them.  You would hope that your spouse would have the grace to live in a sexless marriage.  But abandoning your family can never be the right thing to do, especially when it is basically for physical gratification.  It also smacks of a "it's easier to asks forgiveness than permission" mentality.

That being said I think that the church has done a lousy job distinguishing between orientation and action.  It is not sinful to be gay and we ought to be embracing those that are with the love of God and His family. 

Mike F.    




________________________________
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06:16 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell, I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he
preached.


johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html
>
>Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN
>FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
>On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable, something paralyzing.
>Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.
>So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
>She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought about it every day.
>More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken. That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
>Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.
>Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay newspaper.
>Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD, Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
>It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage (“Don’t Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians (“Following Her Dreams”).
>Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr. Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
>Would He only love the ones
>Who looked the same as me
>Would He only offer hope
>When He saw similarity
>Would He leave the others waiting
>Like a stranger at the gate
>Would He discriminate.
>These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act, Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
>“When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
>One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr. Boltz’s Web site. He sent her each demo, just guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
>Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
>Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.
>Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry King Live” last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker. Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.
>Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
>“I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
>E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org
>
>
>--
>dadl-ot mailing list
>http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Johne Cook]

Well said, Mike.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org>wrote:

> FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about. I know I'm not in that
> guys shoes but I believe that the thing we would be commanded to do was to
> remain faithful to our spouses, even if that meant not having sex with
> them. You would hope that your spouse would have the grace to live in a
> sexless marriage. But abandoning your family can never be the right thing
> to do, especially when it is basically for physical gratification. It also
> smacks of a "it's easier to asks forgiveness than permission" mentality.
>
> That being said I think that the church has done a lousy job distinguishing
> between orientation and action. It is not sinful to be gay and we ought to
> be embracing those that are with the love of God and His family.
>
> Mike F.
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
> *To:* DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
> *Sent:* Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06:16 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
> I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a
> single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still
> love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the
> death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't
> get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an
> abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.
>
> That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his
> gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell,
> I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief
> of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active
> with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me
> to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving
> in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting
> mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What
> a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own
> decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow
> and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based
> around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre
> to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.
>
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html
>>
>> Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret By SAMUEL G.
>> FREEDMAN
>>
>> FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
>>
>> On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a
>> Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a
>> family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with
>> two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like
>> “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable,
>> something paralyzing.
>>
>> Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the
>> isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading,
>> after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a
>> teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana
>> hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for
>> their four children.
>>
>> So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about
>> certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent
>> interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
>>
>> She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something
>> else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought
>> about it every day.
>>
>> More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final
>> months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the
>> Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken.
>> That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that
>> even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
>>
>> Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and
>> he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and
>> indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he
>> could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his
>> early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who
>> and what he was.
>>
>> Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son
>> Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the
>> truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by
>> the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions
>> were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly
>> disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay
>> newspaper.
>>
>> Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD,
>> Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay
>> man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco
>> Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
>>
>> It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> (“Don’t
>> Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative
>> claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians
>> (“Following Her Dreams”).
>>
>> Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr.
>> Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In
>> “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
>>
>> Would He only love the ones
>>
>> Who looked the same as me
>>
>> Would He only offer hope
>>
>> When He saw similarity
>>
>> Would He leave the others waiting
>>
>> Like a stranger at the gate
>>
>> Would He discriminate.
>>
>> These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti
>> serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride
>> celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from
>> Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act,
>> Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
>>
>> “When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent
>> interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started
>> writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if
>> anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I
>> want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
>>
>> One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr.
>> Boltz’s Web site <http://www.rayboltz.com/>. He sent her each demo, just
>> guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she
>> put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
>>
>> Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans
>> vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web
>> site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc
>> immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
>>
>> Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain
>> why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision
>> threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious
>> culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their
>> income.
>>
>> Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry
>> King<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/larry_king/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Live”
>> last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described
>> his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/the_new_yorker/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
>> Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of
>> emerging from it so punitive.
>>
>> Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful
>> e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role
>> model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the
>> Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian
>> age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
>>
>> “I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the
>> interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be
>> disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new
>> belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
>>
>> E-mail: <sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org>sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org
>> *
>> *
>>
>>
>> --
>> dadl-ot mailing list
>> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
>> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.

I guess that's the angle we were all thinking about! I was wondering
how this was much different than a hetero having a mid-life crisis and
running off with another woman. How many men who have done that have
said they would've been living a lie otherwise?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

I don't care about the gay / hetero aspect of it. I care about abandoning
one's family, about the betrayal of a trust, about the breaking of a vow.

I /know/ it's tough to stay married. I was arrested once long ago when my
wife was afflicted by something that seemed to me like PMS on steroids when
I felt she was dangerous and was threatening our daughter in her rage over a
relatively small thing. While trying to calmly talk her through it, I
physically intervened by grabbing her shoulders to try to settle her down.
It was a humiliating moment for me, being cuffed and hauled away and
fingerprinted and mug-shot. It was the low point in our relationship. But I
kept my vow and we worked through it and she received the attention of a
doctor and we emerged stronger than ever. I know it's hard, and I have the
war wounds to show for it. But I stand on the cusp of 25 years of marriage
together this December, and am content by and large, and believe God has
blessed us for remaining true in a relationship that isn't completely
perfect. Nobody said it would always be easy, but I've kept the faith, and
my vow. If I can, anyone can.

(btw, fwiw, Linda's never broken her vow, either. We very well might not
have made it if she had. I'm not saying that everyone can work it out. We
both worked on it hard, and we made it. I know of dear friends who did their
best, but staying together was taken out of their hands. I get that.
However, I'm only responsible for me, and I never allowed myself the option
of breaking /my/ vow. That's the difference as I see it. He was less
concerned with his vow than with his 'needs.' Bah!)

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.
>
> I guess that's the angle we were all thinking about! I was wondering
> how this was much different than a hetero having a mid-life crisis and
> running off with another woman. How many men who have done that have
> said they would've been living a lie otherwise?
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Karl]

Johne,



Thanks for sharing that perspective.



k



From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Johne Cook
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:50 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



I don't care about the gay / hetero aspect of it. I care about abandoning
one's family, about the betrayal of a trust, about the breaking of a vow.

I /know/ it's tough to stay married. I was arrested once long ago when my
wife was afflicted by something that seemed to me like PMS on steroids when
I felt she was dangerous and was threatening our daughter in her rage over a
relatively small thing. While trying to calmly talk her through it, I
physically intervened by grabbing her shoulders to try to settle her down.
It was a humiliating moment for me, being cuffed and hauled away and
fingerprinted and mug-shot. It was the low point in our relationship. But I
kept my vow and we worked through it and she received the attention of a
doctor and we emerged stronger than ever. I know it's hard, and I have the
war wounds to show for it. But I stand on the cusp of 25 years of marriage
together this December, and am content by and large, and believe God has
blessed us for remaining true in a relationship that isn't completely
perfect. Nobody said it would always be easy, but I've kept the faith, and
my vow. If I can, anyone can.

(btw, fwiw, Linda's never broken her vow, either. We very well might not
have made it if she had. I'm not saying that everyone can work it out. We
both worked on it hard, and we made it. I know of dear friends who did their
best, but staying together was taken out of their hands. I get that.
However, I'm only responsible for me, and I never allowed myself the option
of breaking /my/ vow. That's the difference as I see it. He was less
concerned with his vow than with his 'needs.' Bah!)

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:37 PM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.

I guess that's the angle we were all thinking about! I was wondering
how this was much different than a hetero having a mid-life crisis and
running off with another woman. How many men who have done that have
said they would've been living a lie otherwise?

--

dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Well actually a lot. They would say they have been unhappy for years,
either with the particular person or with marriage in general.

Many people in their mid lives undergo a shift (one book believed it was
hormonal) and look at new options in many facets of their lives. People in
their 50s who dramatically shift careers, or leave apparently perfectly
happy marriages.

I am really hesitant to say a lot on any of this, the fact is that no matter
how you approach it, it is far more complex than many seem to want to make
it.

K

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:38 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.

I guess that's the angle we were all thinking about! I was wondering
how this was much different than a hetero having a mid-life crisis and
running off with another woman. How many men who have done that have
said they would've been living a lie otherwise?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

I don't know how many but every one is a scumbag.

Mike F.

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Bruce Geerdes" <bruce-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 5:37 PM
To: "DADL (off topic)" <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

> On Saturday, May 15, 2010, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> FWIW, this is exactly what I was thinking about.
>
> I guess that's the angle we were all thinking about! I was wondering
> how this was much different than a hetero having a mid-life crisis and
> running off with another woman. How many men who have done that have
> said they would've been living a lie otherwise?
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sat, 15 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> But abandoning your family can never be the right thing to do,
> especially when it is basically for physical gratification.

Wow.

Look, I'm as traditional in my view of sexual ethics as the next guy, but
I would never say that people switch genders, partner-wise, simply for
"physical gratification". There is a psychological and spiritual element
to gender as well, and if Boltz finds being in a long-term relationship
with a man more fulfilling than being in a long-term relationship with a
woman, then I don't think it's because of "physical gratification".

[Johne Cook]

If he's exchanging fulfillment with (anyone other than his spouse) for
fulfillment with God, he's doing it wrong.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:08 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Sat, 15 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
>
>> But abandoning your family can never be the right thing to do, especially
>> when it is basically for physical gratification.
>>
>
> Wow.
>
> Look, I'm as traditional in my view of sexual ethics as the next guy, but I
> would never say that people switch genders, partner-wise, simply for
> "physical gratification". There is a psychological and spiritual element to
> gender as well, and if Boltz finds being in a long-term relationship with a
> man more fulfilling than being in a long-term relationship with a woman,
> then I don't think it's because of "physical gratification".
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
> If he's exchanging fulfillment with (anyone other than his spouse) for
> fulfillment with God, he's doing it wrong.

Um, well, you're assuming that God is only on one person's side here.
The Boltzes apparently feel otherwise.

Of course, part of the reason homosexuality and the acceptance thereof are
becoming so prevalent in the evangelical community is because Christians
have dropped the ball in other areas already, such as divorce.

Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but he *did* speak out pretty
strongly against divorce and remarriage, yet Christians by and large don't
make that big a deal of it any more. And again, if we're going to talk
about Christian musicians, we can point to all sorts of people who have
married, divorced and remarried and more-or-less "gotten away with it".

One of the highest-profile examples of this would be Amy Grant, and what's
interesting there is the justification she gave at the time: She said
that God made marriage for man, not man for marriage. Now that's an
interesting, and admittedly clever, variation on what Jesus said about the
Sabbath -- though I'm not sure it works, really. (Quite frankly, I think
God *did* make people for marriage, rather than vice versa.)

But in any case, I'm not at all surprised that more and more Christians
might be inclined to apply that logic to other things as well.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

I, also, think God made people for marriage, which Ray discarded. Ergo, my
strong feelings against his decision.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:46 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
>
>> If he's exchanging fulfillment with (anyone other than his spouse) for
>> fulfillment with God, he's doing it wrong.
>>
>
> Um, well, you're assuming that God is only on one person's side here. The
> Boltzes apparently feel otherwise.
>
> Of course, part of the reason homosexuality and the acceptance thereof are
> becoming so prevalent in the evangelical community is because Christians
> have dropped the ball in other areas already, such as divorce.
>
> Jesus said nothing about homosexuality but he *did* speak out pretty
> strongly against divorce and remarriage, yet Christians by and large don't
> make that big a deal of it any more. And again, if we're going to talk
> about Christian musicians, we can point to all sorts of people who have
> married, divorced and remarried and more-or-less "gotten away with it".
>
> One of the highest-profile examples of this would be Amy Grant, and what's
> interesting there is the justification she gave at the time: She said that
> God made marriage for man, not man for marriage. Now that's an interesting,
> and admittedly clever, variation on what Jesus said about the Sabbath --
> though I'm not sure it works, really. (Quite frankly, I think God *did*
> make people for marriage, rather than vice versa.)
>
> But in any case, I'm not at all surprised that more and more Christians
> might be inclined to apply that logic to other things as well.
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Mike Findlay]

>> But abandoning your family can never be the right thing to do,
>> especially when it is basically for physical gratification.
>
> Wow.

My sentiments exactly in reaction to people defending his actions.


> Look, I'm as traditional in my view of sexual ethics as the next guy, but
> I would never say that people switch genders, partner-wise, simply for
> "physical gratification". There is a psychological and spiritual element
> to gender as well, and if Boltz finds being in a long-term relationship
> with a man more fulfilling than being in a long-term relationship with a
> woman, then I don't think it's because of "physical gratification".

Has he remained celibate after leaving his wife? Unless he has physical
gratification has a whole lot, if not everything to do with it.

I don't know what vow he took when he got married, I just know mine didn't
say I could blow it off if I found someone with whom I would be more
"fulfilled". Anyone could find someone with who we felt more "fulfilled"
with after 20 years of marriage. That he found someone of a different
gender than his female wife suggests to me that physicality has everything
to do with it.

Love is much more than feeling fulfilled.

Mike F.

>

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> I don't know what vow he took when he got married, I just know mine
> didn't say I could blow it off if I found someone with whom I would be
> more "fulfilled".

Ah, but what about the bit in Western weddings where the pastor says
something like "If anyone knows any reason why these two should not be
married, let him now speak, or forever hold his tongue..."?

One *could* argue that being gay is just the sort of thing that might
invalidate a wedding. And yeah, if Boltz felt that way at the time and
declined to speak up, then that *is* a pity.

But again, how aware was he, *really*, of his options there?

> That he found someone of a different gender than his female wife
> suggests to me that physicality has everything to do with it.

Only if you think gender can be reduced to mere biology. Christians of a
more traditional hue (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and others who don't
ordain women, for example) might disagree with you.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

From: "Peter T. Chattaway" <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 8:50 PM
To: "DADL (off topic)" <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

> On Sun, 16 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
>> I don't know what vow he took when he got married, I just know mine
>> didn't say I could blow it off if I found someone with whom I would be
>> more "fulfilled".
>
> Ah, but what about the bit in Western weddings where the pastor says
> something like "If anyone knows any reason why these two should not be
> married, let him now speak, or forever hold his tongue..."?
>
> One *could* argue that being gay is just the sort of thing that might
> invalidate a wedding. And yeah, if Boltz felt that way at the time and
> declined to speak up, then that *is* a pity.

I was thinking more of "to have and to hold, better/worse, sickness/health,
death do us part", etc. One of those should have covered it.

I know full well that it is easy for me to hold this position when I'm not
faced with what he was. But I still can't give the stamp of approval, (that
is a very inartful way of saying what I'm trying to say - I fully
acknowledge that it is between him and God), or look at that situation and
say he did the right thing. I'm trying to get at the distinction between
"judge for yourself what is right" and "judge not lest ye be judged".

And I agree that being gay and not telling your spouse about it would be
grounds for annulment. For the spouse though, not the one who didn't fess
up. Whether he knew he was gay or decided later that he was it is wife who
has the grievance and who is the victim. I feel for what must have been a
struggle for him but he made the choices that is wife has to live with.

>> That he found someone of a different gender than his female wife suggests
>> to me that physicality has everything to do with it.
>
> Only if you think gender can be reduced to mere biology. Christians of a
> more traditional hue (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and others who don't
> ordain women, for example) might disagree with you.

We are talking about attraction and the feeling of romantic love aren't we?
While maleness and femaleness may be more than just body parts, those body
parts, or more accurately physiology, are the determining factor for gender
in human. Boltz has declared that he is not attracted, in a sexual way, to
women and that he is attracted to men. I'm not trying to be flippant but
what else is there to saying "I'm gay", or "I'm straight" for that matter.
Either of those claims are primarily a declaration of physical preference.

I think I can believe that gender is more than mere biology and that a
choice to act on one's sexuality is primarily, if not entirely a physical
thing. That isn't a contradiction, even if on some levels it may be
paradoxical. In any event, the statement I made carries with it the
implicit presumption, (rebuttable, of course), that he left his wife so that
he can have sex with another individual. Since he now says he is gay, (out
of the closet), we know it isn't to have sex with another woman. If sex
wasn't a factor why break the need to break the vows?

It all gets down to how we have perverted the real meaning, or more
precisely, action of love. Or, to analogize from your gender analysis; love
can't be reduced to mere emotion. And that is what I think Boltz has done.

Mike F.




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> I was thinking more of "to have and to hold, better/worse,
> sickness/health, death do us part", etc. One of those should have
> covered it.

Yes, but only if the marriage was "valid" in the first place. If, as I
pointed out, one of the parties to that wedding was already married and
had never been divorced, then none of the vows said at that new wedding --
by *either* party -- would have had any force whatsoever.

What we are dealing with these days is a situation in which people who
identify as "gay" believe that it would be, in essence, "invalid" for them
to marry someone of the opposite sex -- even if they had not yet fully
come to terms with their gayness at the time of those weddings.

> And I agree that being gay and not telling your spouse about it would be
> grounds for annulment.

Hmmm. I'm not sure what a traditional Orthodox or Catholic approach to
that would be, actually, since the very notion of "being" gay is a
relatively new concept.

>>> That he found someone of a different gender than his female wife
>>> suggests to me that physicality has everything to do with it.
>>
>> Only if you think gender can be reduced to mere biology. Christians of
>> a more traditional hue (such as Catholics, Orthodox, and others who
>> don't ordain women, for example) might disagree with you.
>
> We are talking about attraction and the feeling of romantic love aren't
> we?

Among the other things that people look for in a life partner, sure.

> While maleness and femaleness may be more than just body parts, those
> body parts, or more accurately physiology, are the determining factor
> for gender in human.

I would say they are *evidence* of gender, but not necessarily
determinative. Leaving aside the fact that some people have *both* sets
of genitals (or otherwise occupy a biological grey area), there is also
the fact that some people who are physically either male or female tend to
identify in every other way with the opposite gender -- which, in the
modern age, means they sometimes change their body accordingly. Hence,
Chastity Bono is now a guy, and Walter Carlos is now a girl.

> I think I can believe that gender is more than mere biology and that a
> choice to act on one's sexuality is primarily, if not entirely a
> physical thing. That isn't a contradiction, even if on some levels it
> may be paradoxical.

Sexuality is a mystery, to be sure.

> In any event, the statement I made carries with it the implicit
> presumption, (rebuttable, of course), that he left his wife so that he
> can have sex with another individual.

Um, *did* he leave her for a specific other individual? *Was* there
anybody waiting in the wings for him when he left his wife?

> It all gets down to how we have perverted the real meaning, or more
> precisely, action of love.

I dunno, tell that to the woman whose husband is now telling her that he
never found her *that* attractive (not for any personal reasons, but
simply because she's a woman) or that every time he had sex with her it
was out of an abstract sense of religious duty or whatever. What's the
"real meaning, or more precisely, action of love" *there*?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:35 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> It all gets down to how we have perverted the real meaning, or more
>> precisely, action of love.
>
> I dunno, tell that to the woman whose husband is now telling her that he
> never found her *that* attractive (not for any personal reasons, but simply
> because she's a woman) or that every time he had sex with her it was out of
> an abstract sense of religious duty or whatever.  What's the "real meaning,
> or more precisely, action of love" *there*?

Now it's my turn to say, "wow". I don't see a husband not finding his
wife *that* attractive "not for any personal reasons, but simply
because she's a woman" any more valid than any other reason. Why don't
we throw in "wife has become overweight", "wife has had cancer",
whatever. I'd say continuing conjugal relations can be quite the
action of love under some circumstances.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>>> It all gets down to how we have perverted the real meaning, or more
>>> precisely, action of love.
>>
>> I dunno, tell that to the woman whose husband is now telling her that
>> he never found her *that* attractive (not for any personal reasons, but
>> simply because she's a woman) or that every time he had sex with her it
>> was out of an abstract sense of religious duty or whatever.  What's the
>> "real meaning, or more precisely, action of love" *there*?
>
> Now it's my turn to say, "wow". I don't see a husband not finding his
> wife *that* attractive "not for any personal reasons, but simply because
> she's a woman" any more valid than any other reason. Why don't we throw
> in "wife has become overweight", "wife has had cancer", whatever. I'd
> say continuing conjugal relations can be quite the action of love under
> some circumstances.

Possibly. But probably not if the person conjugating with me is lying
about the nature of our conjugation, or full of self-loathing at the time
the conjugation is taking place, or whatever.

[n***@public.gmane.org]

But this is not about a sexless marriage. It troubles me that people who do not have any struggle with a same sex attraction presume that it is this simple. You are not calling Ray to remain in a sexless marriage. You are calling out that he should remain in a marriage from the kind of love you still get to share with your spouses.

Maybe you should consider his wife's feelings on the issue before presuming this is all about "loyalty":
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/




Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down




-----Original Message-----
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret


I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell, I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.


johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html


Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN

FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable, something paralyzing.
Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.
So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought about it every day.
More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken. That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.
Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay newspaper.
Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD, Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage (“Don’t Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians (“Following Her Dreams”).
Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr. Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
Would He only love the ones
Who looked the same as me
Would He only offer hope
When He saw similarity
Would He leave the others waiting
Like a stranger at the gate
Would He discriminate.
These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act, Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
“When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr. Boltz’s Web site. He sent her each demo, just guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.
Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry King Live” last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker. Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.
Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
“I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”


E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org






--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

What, so if he is gay he can no longer actually love a woman? In 30 years he never loved her at all? I am as conflicted as everyone else, but at the same time I think love is bigger than that.







From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf Of nezmik-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Saturday, May 15, 2010 10:48 PM
To: dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret






But this is not about a sexless marriage. It troubles me that people who do not have any struggle with a same sex attraction presume that it is this simple. You are not calling Ray to remain in a sexless marriage. You are calling out that he should remain in a marriage from the kind of love you still get to share with your spouses.

Maybe you should consider his wife's feelings on the issue before presuming this is all about "loyalty":
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down





-----Original Message-----
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell, I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.


johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html




Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret


By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.

On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable, something paralyzing.

Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.

So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”

She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought about it every day.

More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken. That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.

Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who and what he was.

Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay newspaper.

Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD, Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.

It is called “True,” and its songs talk about <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> same-sex marriage (“Don’t Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians (“Following Her Dreams”).

Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr. Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,

Would He only love the ones

Who looked the same as me

Would He only offer hope

When He saw similarity

Would He leave the others waiting

Like a stranger at the gate

Would He discriminate.

These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act, Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.

“When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I want, and that opened up the floodgates.”

One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate <http://www.rayboltz.com/> Mr. Boltz’s Web site. He sent her each demo, just guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”

Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”

Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.

Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “ <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/larry_king/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Larry King Live” last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a February profile in <http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/the_new_yorker/index.html?inline=nyt-org> The New Yorker. Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it so punitive.

Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.

“I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”

E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot



--






dadl-ot mailing list






http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us






http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

She doesn't address the situation she's actually in to any satisfaction:

> I'm not sure there can be any more hurt when a beloved spouse reveals to
> his or her mate that they are gay. Somehow it seems worse than "just"
> having an affair, because there is *nothing* that can solve the problem.
> No amount of prayer, counseling, or trying can change one's sexual
> orientation. Confronting this truth made me even doubt that any love God
> has for me must surely be shown in strange ways, since this isn't the life I
> expected when I said, "I do." Other women and men shouldn't have to
> experience this "discovery," nor the pain of such a hopeless secret that has
> no *fix.*
>
> So, is there a solution? I think there is. The solution is to accept ALL
> people, and to realize that gay people should not have to pretend to be
> straight, and should not marry straight ones without FULL information and
> consent. My hope is that just like it helps other closeted gay people when
> someone comes out, I need to be "out" as a straight spouse. I have nothing
> to hide, and I'm not ashamed. Sharing my story? I'm OUT, I'm proud, and
> I'm honest.
>

She's trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't address that
he married her, he presumably made a vow, and then he broke it. If he was
born gay, he shouldn't have married her and given her his vow at all.

Attraction seems akin to temptation, and I believe one's will trumps one's
desires. Otherwise, as people age, we would be forever trading in the older
model for younger models, which is a slap in the face of what marriage is
supposed to be, with all its 'leaving' and 'cleaving.'

You're saying he shouldn't have to honor his commitment to his wife and to
his kids when his preference for sex changed. I'm saying it doesn't matter
what his preference for sex was, that it's possibly to love and honor one's
spouse as a married celibate and still keep one's vow. It's not easy, but
it's possible (and, yes, I know whereof I speak). Divorcing his wife was a
frankly selfish act, and the pain of that abandonment is apparent in her
post. Furthermore, for him to exercise his 'gift' as an ambassador for God
is ludicrous. We were never called to break our vow if our preferences
change. I've broken many promises but never a vow. He broke his vow, and I
hold him responsible for that.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:48 AM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>
>
>
> But this is not about a sexless marriage. It troubles me that people who
> do not have any struggle with a same sex attraction presume that it is this
> simple. You are not calling Ray to remain in a sexless marriage. You are
> calling out that he should remain in a marriage from the kind of love you
> still get to share with your spouses.
>
> Maybe you should consider his wife's feelings on the issue before presuming
> this is all about "loyalty":
> http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
> "I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen
>
> "We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
> be."~Angel, Deep Down
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
> To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06 pm
> Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
> I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with
> a single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still
> love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the
> death. And having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't
> get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an
> abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.
>
> That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his
> gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell,
> I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief
> of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active
> with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me
> to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving
> in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting
> mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What
> a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own
> decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow
> and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based
> around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre
> to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.
>
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
>
> On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html
>>
>> Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a SecretBy SAMUEL G.
>> FREEDMAN
>> FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.
>> On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a
>> Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a
>> family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with
>> two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like
>> “Thank You” and “The Anchor Holds,” Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable,
>> something paralyzing.
>> Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the
>> isolation and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading,
>> after all, was the life they had set out on together way back when he was a
>> teenager with a guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana
>> hometown. That life had brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for
>> their four children.
>> So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. “If I tell you about
>> certain things I’m going through,” he told her, as she recalled in a recent
>> interview, “you won’t love me anymore.”
>> She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something
>> else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought
>> about it every day.
>> More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final
>> months of his tour. He was promoting an album called “Songs From the
>> Potter’s Field,” and many of them described the sensation of being broken.
>> That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that
>> even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.
>> Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and
>> he had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and
>> indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he
>> could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his
>> early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who
>> and what he was.
>> Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz’s son
>> Phil asked, “Daddy, what’s wrong with you?” This time, Mr. Boltz told the
>> truth: “I’m gay.” His wife and his children, startled though they were by
>> the revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions
>> were not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly
>> disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay
>> newspaper.
>> Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD,
>> Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay
>> man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco
>> Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.
>> It is called “True,” and its songs talk about same-sex marriage<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_marriage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> (“Don’t
>> Tell Me Who to Love”), bias crimes (“Swimming Hole”), and conservative
>> claims that there is a political “agenda” for gay men and lesbians
>> (“Following Her Dreams”).
>> Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr.
>> Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In
>> “Who Would Jesus Love,” the lyrics ask,
>> Would He only love the ones
>> Who looked the same as me
>> Would He only offer hope
>> When He saw similarity
>> Would He leave the others waiting
>> Like a stranger at the gate
>> Would He discriminate.
>> These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti
>> serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride
>> celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from
>> Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act,
>> Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.
>> “When you start to live an authentic life,” Mr. Boltz said in a recent
>> interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, “you stop pretending. When I started
>> writing these songs, I didn’t know if it’d be for a record. I didn’t know if
>> anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I
>> want, and that opened up the floodgates.”
>> One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate Mr.
>> Boltz’s Web site <http://www.rayboltz.com/>. He sent her each demo, just
>> guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. “When I hear these songs,” she
>> put it, “I hear Ray’s heart.”
>> Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans
>> vehemently object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web
>> site, the ones that say, “We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc
>> immediately” and “Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?”
>> Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain
>> why so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision
>> threatens, virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious
>> culture that nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their
>> income.
>> Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on “Larry
>> King<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/larry_king/index.html?inline=nyt-per> Live”
>> last month that she is a lesbian. And the young gospel star Tonex described
>> his process of coming out in a February profile in The New Yorker<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/the_new_yorker/index.html?inline=nyt-org>.
>> Still, the Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of
>> emerging from it so punitive.
>> Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful
>> e-mail messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a “role
>> model of honesty” and thanking him for being “instrumental in me finding the
>> Lord.” One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian
>> age 52, recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.
>> “I don’t believe God hates me anymore,” Mr. Boltz said during the
>> interview. “I always thought if people knew the true me, they’d be
>> disgusted, and that included God. But for all the doubts, there’s this new
>> belief that God accepts me and created me, and there’s peace.”
>> E-mail: <sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org>sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org
>> *
>> *
>>
>> --
>> dadl-ot mailing list
>> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
>> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>>
>
> --
>
>
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[n***@public.gmane.org]

>She's trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't address that he married her, he presumably made a vow, and then he broke >it. If he was born gay, he shouldn't have married her and given her his vow at all.

No offense meant hear... but you have no understanding of this issue, that much is clear. I agree, in an ideal world, gay people wouldn't get married to heterosexuals. But the truth is, many gay people marry someone they like, believing they will be able to change. Or for fear of what people would think. The fact is, even now in America? Being and out gay person is far more likely to get you beat up or killed than, say, being a Christian. For as much as Christians try and point this country as some sort of gay friendly Utopia? You will find far more incidents of gay people being physically assaulted by straights than the reverse (Which is what makes some the opponents of repealing DADT who have argued that allowing gays to serve openly will result in tons of soldiers getting raped by gays so funny-yeah, the only thing keeping gays from a raping rampage is DADT). Many gays make the vow of marriage for the image people expect of them. To be treated as normal. To hide a part of themselves they are told is perverse and evil. Many thought that, over time, they could become straight. When those things didn't pan out, it's not making the situation better pretending that the issue is not there.

By the way, you are treating this as something Ray did to his wife-not something he and his wife agreed to. She didn't beg him to stay and he cast her aside, but that is exactly the way you seem to be talking about this. "He should have". But she didn't seem to keen on continuing a marriage where her husband's love was merely a platonic friendship. A marriage vow is not one sided. It's a vox two people make and you need to acknowledge that Ray and his wife agreed to end their marriage and end their vow. It was two people.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Mike Findlay]

>No offense meant hear... but you have no understanding of this issue, that much is clear.<
 
I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of us.  You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral ground, is offensive to me. 
 
And at this point I'm going to do my best to back out of this one.  
 
Mike F.   

[n***@public.gmane.org]

>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral >ground, is offensive to me.


This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz. Which I find equally offensive.

I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians play confounded that gays think they are hateful.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 3:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
> you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
> of the denomination) does so badly with this topic.

Ack, didn't know I was writing off anything. I acknowledge Boltz's
difficulties and, who knows, may have done exactly the same in his
shoes. Doesn't mean I think it's right.

> And then Christians
> play confounded that gays think they are hateful.

Disagreement does not equal hate.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing,
and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is
reprehensible to me.

Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the
adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think
it is frankly sin.
I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my
emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced,
and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.

I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making
them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my
book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have
strong feelings in this regard.)

Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he
shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and
have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as
both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family.
Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked
away from them. From my perspective, defending *him* seems cavalier with
regard to *them*.

Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or
bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.

It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies.
Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility
for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been
so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a
gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I
care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about
the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the
reason. Call that what you will.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> >I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most
> of us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral
> >ground, is offensive to me.
>
>
> This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over
> Boltz. Which I find equally offensive.
>
> I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that
> this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a
> sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms
> with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
> you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
> of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians
> play confounded that gays think they are hateful.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
> "I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen
>
> "We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
> be."~Angel, Deep Down
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Mike Findlay]

Yes. 

The vow is the thing, not his orientation.  Peter brought up Amy Grant in a previous post.  I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do Boltz's.  They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal fulfillment.  Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under difficult/sacrificial circumstances.  Most assuredly it woudn't have been the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.

Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a lesser of two evils kind of thing?  Have we really reached the point where leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?   

Mike F. 




________________________________
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing, and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is reprehensible to me.

Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think it is frankly sin.
I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced, and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with. 

I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have strong feelings in this regard.)

Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family. Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked away from them. From my perspective, defending him seems cavalier with regard to them.

Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.

It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies. Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the reason. Call that what you will.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <***@aim.com> wrote:

>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of us.  You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral >ground, is offensive to me. 
>
>This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz.  Which I find equally offensive.
>
>I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground.  I was trying to say that this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms with himself over years.  And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless of the denomination) does so badly with this topic.  And then Christians play confounded that gays think they are hateful.
>
>
>
>Thom
>http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
>http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
>http://www.in-one-ear.com
>_______________________________________
>"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen
>
>"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down
>
>
>--
>dadl-ot mailing list
>http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
>http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Karl]

Well the gay community says yes, because his vows were part of a lie.



But I am not saying he is saying that.







From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 4:10 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



Yes.



The vow is the thing, not his orientation. Peter brought up Amy Grant in a
previous post. I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do
Boltz's. They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal
fulfillment. Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under
difficult/sacrificial circumstances. Most assuredly it woudn't have been
the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.



Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where
leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?



Mike F.



_____

From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing,
and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is
reprehensible to me.

Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the
adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think
it is frankly sin.
I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my
emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced,
and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.

I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making
them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my
book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have
strong feelings in this regard.)

Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he
shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and
have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as
both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family.
Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked
away from them. From my perspective, defending him seems cavalier with
regard to them.

Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or
bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.

It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies.
Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility
for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been
so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a
gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I
care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about
the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the
reason. Call that what you will.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com <http://raygunrevival.com/> |
http://phywriter.com <http://phywriter.com/>



On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of
us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral
>ground, is offensive to me.




This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz.
Which I find equally offensive.

I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that
this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a
sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms
with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians
play confounded that gays think they are hateful.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com <http://www.in-one-ear.com/>
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Peter T. Chattaway]

I would just like to say that I love everyone here. I really do.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Ronald Hatton]

Not that I ever get any replies to my posts, but I thought I say, at any rate, that when Ray and Amy and all the rest who claim to be Christian, when they made their vows at their marriage, they made that vow in the presence of God and made a vow to God. So, they lied to God as well as lied to their spouse. I have had annulment cases where one of the parties was homosexual; since, at their pre-marital investigation, they stated that they understand what Catholic marriage entails, and, under oath, that they are not keeping any secrets from their intended. In essence, they out-and-out lied, and the annulment is pretty much just a procedure. This is where I'm coming from in my attitude towards the topic at hand.
-Fr. Ron

Sent from my iPad

On May 18, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Yes.
>
> The vow is the thing, not his orientation. Peter brought up Amy Grant in a previous post. I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do Boltz's. They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal fulfillment. Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under difficult/sacrificial circumstances. Most assuredly it woudn't have been the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.
>
> Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?
>
> Mike F.
>
> From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
> To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
> Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
> Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
> I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing, and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is reprehensible to me.
>
> Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think it is frankly sin.
> I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced, and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.
>
> I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have strong feelings in this regard.)
>
> Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family. Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked away from them. From my perspective, defending him seems cavalier with regard to them.
>
> Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.
>
> It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies. Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the reason. Call that what you will.
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> >I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral >ground, is offensive to me.
>
>
> This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz. Which I find equally offensive.
>
> I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians play confounded that gays think they are hateful.
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
> "I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen
>
> "We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Lance McLain]

On May 18, 2010, at 7:07 PM, Ronald Hatton wrote:

> Not that I ever get any replies to my posts,

But rest assured, they are definitely read and appreciated!

echoing Peter's post...I love you guys! All of you!

regards,
-Lance


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

Father Ron, I rarely reply because I usually am in agreement with you and think that adding to what you say would be pointless since you have said it so succinctly.

Like Lance, I read every one of your posts and am always the better for it.

Mike F.




From: Ronald Hatton
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:07 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret


Not that I ever get any replies to my posts, but I thought I say, at any rate, that when Ray and Amy and all the rest who claim to be Christian, when they made their vows at their marriage, they made that vow in the presence of God and made a vow to God. So, they lied to God as well as lied to their spouse. I have had annulment cases where one of the parties was homosexual; since, at their pre-marital investigation, they stated that they understand what Catholic marriage entails, and, under oath, that they are not keeping any secrets from their intended. In essence, they out-and-out lied, and the annulment is pretty much just a procedure. This is where I'm coming from in my attitude towards the topic at hand.
-Fr. Ron

Sent from my iPad

On May 18, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:


Yes.

The vow is the thing, not his orientation. Peter brought up Amy Grant in a previous post. I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do Boltz's. They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal fulfillment. Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under difficult/sacrificial circumstances. Most assuredly it woudn't have been the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.

Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?

Mike F.




------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing, and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is reprehensible to me.

Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think it is frankly sin.
I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced, and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.

I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have strong feelings in this regard.)

Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family. Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked away from them. From my perspective, defending him seems cavalier with regard to them.

Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.

It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies. Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the reason. Call that what you will.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral >ground, is offensive to me.


This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz. Which I find equally offensive.

I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians play confounded that gays think they are hateful.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down



--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot



--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Concur. Father knows best.



J



From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:24 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



Father Ron, I rarely reply because I usually am in agreement with you and
think that adding to what you say would be pointless since you have said it
so succinctly.



Like Lance, I read every one of your posts and am always the better for it.




Mike F.







From: Ronald Hatton <mailto:rjhatton-***@public.gmane.org>

Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:07 PM

To: DADL (off topic) <mailto:dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>

Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



Not that I ever get any replies to my posts, but I thought I say, at any
rate, that when Ray and Amy and all the rest who claim to be Christian, when
they made their vows at their marriage, they made that vow in the presence
of God and made a vow to God. So, they lied to God as well as lied to their
spouse. I have had annulment cases where one of the parties was homosexual;
since, at their pre-marital investigation, they stated that they understand
what Catholic marriage entails, and, under oath, that they are not keeping
any secrets from their intended. In essence, they out-and-out lied, and the
annulment is pretty much just a procedure. This is where I'm coming from in
my attitude towards the topic at hand.

-Fr. Ron


Sent from my iPad


On May 18, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

Yes.



The vow is the thing, not his orientation. Peter brought up Amy Grant in a
previous post. I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do
Boltz's. They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal
fulfillment. Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under
difficult/sacrificial circumstances. Most assuredly it woudn't have been
the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.



Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where
leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?



Mike F.




_____


From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
Sent: Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge thing,
and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason, is
reprehensible to me.

Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the
adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think
it is frankly sin.
I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my
emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced,
and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.

I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making
them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my
book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have
strong feelings in this regard.)

Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he
shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and
have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as
both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family.
Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked
away from them. >From my perspective, defending him seems cavalier with
regard to them.

Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or
bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.

It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies.
Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility
for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been
so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a
gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I
care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about
the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the
reason. Call that what you will.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of
us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral
>ground, is offensive to me.




This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz.
Which I find equally offensive.

I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that
this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a
sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms
with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians
play confounded that gays think they are hateful.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
be."~Angel, Deep Down




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot



--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

_____

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

fwiw, I agree with Tony in this post.
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2010/04/tony-campolo-loving-people-who-are-gay.html

He says that when people find out that friends or loved ones are gay, they
change their attitudes, because it is not the abstract caricature painted by
somebody else. He said they get to know the real person, hurting. And where
somebody is hurting, there is Jesus. I get that. This is not a gay issue for
me. It's an obedience issue. Ray, the Christian man, left his wife. They
divorced because of his situation. I don't see anything in scripture that
supports his decision, a decision that forced her to make her own decisions.


It's clear that Ray's decision rocked Carol. It seems like his decision made
her question whether God loved her.

I'm not sure there can be any more hurt when a beloved spouse reveals to
> his or her mate that they are gay. Somehow it seems worse than "just"
> having an affair, because there is *nothing* that can solve the problem.
> No amount of prayer, counseling, or trying can change one's sexual
> orientation. Confronting this truth made me even doubt that any love God
> has for me must surely be shown in strange ways, since this isn't the life I
> expected when I said, "I do." Other women and men shouldn't have to
> experience this "discovery," nor the pain of such a hopeless secret that has
> no *fix.*
>

Her pain there is palpable, and while her heart goes out to Ray, my heart
goes out to her.

It appears to me that her campaign is to educate people, to make sure that
people don't engage in heterosexual marriage if there are homosexual
leanings. In other words, that people don't get married based on a lie. I
can buy that. I'm not sure that being gay isn't a sin. With that said, I'm
also not sure it is any worse a sin than something like gluttony, a
contemporary and prevalent and accepted American practice that I have
wrestled with all my adult life. (I'm not going to blame the food supply - I
make choices of what I eat, and how much, and whether I want seconds.) So,
again, for me this isn't a gay issue, it's an obedience issue, it's a
betrayal issue. If Ray knew he was struggling with homosexuality when he
married but he did that anyway because he thought he was doing the right
thing, well, that's something I'll have to think about. Ultimately, we
shouldn't engage in lies at all ever. If he knew (or suspected) he was gay,
and married Carol anyway, he still carries culpability in my mind for not
talking about that with her then. So no matter how you slice it, he has
things to answer for in my opinion.

I tried to put my finger on my intense anger against Ray in the car on the
way home. I'd try to mince my reaction, but we're all mature men here, so
I'll just tell you what I thought, raw and unedited:
I was angry that Ray was such a pussy. I struggle with my own desires for
fulfillment, but trust that God's commands for me as a married Christian man
are crystal clear. There is no adultery in our relationship, and any lack of
desire from my mate goes back to someone who mis-used her before we met. I
married her thinking that things could change. They never did. My thinking
at the time was that she was damaged goods, but someone should be able to
love her, and that I thought I was up to the job. I naively thought that if
I did everything correctly, my selfless love could heal her, restore her to
the whole person she was before. That was arrogant on my part. Healing
occurs, when it does, on a one-to-one path between God and the person. I
could do my best to assist, but ultimately, that's a journey she has to walk
with God on her own, and she simply never has, and likely never will. And
that impacts me. I didn't enter the marriage blindly. I knew what I was
getting into, and naively thought I could restore her. That's not in my
power. All I can do is all I can do. I really love my wife. She makes me
laugh, she makes me crafts, she gives me so much freedom to be geeky and
techy and nerdy and...

But I'm rambling. Getting back to the topic, I, too, feel like I'm living a
lie, the happy, well-adjusted Christian man married for nearly a quarter
century, who never looks at other women, who forever is trying to confine
his desire for his mate alone. To know that I have so much desire for her
alone that she doesn't have for me in return, for whatever reason, is
wrenching. But there's more to life than sex, and to be honest, the rest of
our relationship is very good. It hasn't always been thus, but I've been
faithful and have trusted God for 25 years, and he has rewarded me with a
rich, if celibate, relationship. She's very happy to be married to me (and
why shouldn't she? I give her everything she wants and request of her
nothing she doesn't want). And that's why I felt so angry toward Ray. He
could have sucked it up and been a blessing to his wife, could have trusted
God to make the best of an awkward situation, but he didn't. So, yeah.
Pussy.

But now I'm being selfish. I want to punish Ray because he didn't make the
choice I did. It's just that it might be easier for people like me if people
like him were candid while obedient, instead of being candid while
disobedient. And I am open to God's healing and leading, and am willing to
be persuaded when my attitude is incorrect. I am persuaded by Tony's words
there that my default position should be one of love, and that my anger
towards Ray is out of place. Ultimately, Ray sinned against God, not me, and
I have my own sin to be responsible for.

And now you know far more about me that you ever wanted to. I'll stop now.
;)

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> Concur. Father knows best.
>
>
>
> J
>
>
>
> *From:* dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Mike Findlay
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:24 PM
>
> *To:* DADL (off topic)
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
>
>
> Father Ron, I rarely reply because I usually am in agreement with you and
> think that adding to what you say would be pointless since you have said it
> so succinctly.
>
>
>
> Like Lance, I read every one of your posts and am always the better for
> it.
>
>
>
> Mike F.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Ronald Hatton <rjhatton-***@public.gmane.org>
>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, May 18, 2010 7:07 PM
>
> *To:* DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
>
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
>
>
> Not that I ever get any replies to my posts, but I thought I say, at any
> rate, that when Ray and Amy and all the rest who claim to be Christian, when
> they made their vows at their marriage, they made that vow in the presence
> of God and made a vow to God. So, they lied to God as well as lied to their
> spouse. I have had annulment cases where one of the parties was homosexual;
> since, at their pre-marital investigation, they stated that they understand
> what Catholic marriage entails, and, under oath, that they are not keeping
> any secrets from their intended. In essence, they out-and-out lied, and the
> annulment is pretty much just a procedure. This is where I'm coming from in
> my attitude towards the topic at hand.
>
> -Fr. Ron
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>
> On May 18, 2010, at 7:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> Yes.
>
>
>
> The vow is the thing, not his orientation. Peter brought up Amy Grant in a
> previous post. I felt/feel pretty much the same about her actions as I do
> Boltz's. They both sacrificed their vows on the alter of personal
> fulfillment. Heaven forbid you get fulfillment by keeping your vow under
> difficult/sacrificial circumstances. Most assuredly it woudn't have been
> the easy thing to do, but it would have been the right one.
>
>
>
> Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
> lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where
> leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?
>
>
>
> Mike F.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From:* Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
> *To:* DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>
> *Sent:* Tue, May 18, 2010 5:54:56 PM
> *Subject:* Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret
>
> I established my bona fides right up front - to me, loyalty is a huge
> thing, and divorcing his wife and taking a gay lover, for whatever reason,
> is reprehensible to me.
>
> Am I cavalier about Ray Boltz? Insomuch that part of the definition of the
> adjective is 'disdain,' yes, I have disdain for what he did because I think
> it is frankly sin.
> I see no virtue in breaking his vow. Whether Ray is gay or not isn't my
> emphasis. My emphasis is on the vow he gave to his wife, whom he divorced,
> and his responsibility to his family, whom he no longer is with.
>
> I don't hate Ray Boltz, I hate how he betrayed his wife and family, making
> them pay for his fulfillment at their expense. Such a male is no Man in my
> book. (I trust this language is not too ambiguous to understand. Yes, I have
> strong feelings in this regard.)
>
> Thom, you seem concerned for Ray Boltz. My concern is for the family he
> shrugged off and left behind. You are (as far as I know) both single and
> have no arrows in your quiver. I have nearly a quarter century experience as
> both a husband and father. I've sacrificed very much for my wife and family.
> Forgive me if I lean toward those who remain when their protector walked
> away from them. >From my perspective, defending *him* seems cavalier with
> regard to *them*.
>
> Ironically, when used as a noun, a cavalier is one having the spirit or
> bearing of a knight, someone who is gallant. Oops.
>
> It is a question of priorities. I've established where my priority lies.
> Anybody who has a responsibility to a family and sheds that responsibility
> for their own gratification burns me up. I have dear friends who have been
> so burned, and I am not so mature as you in this regard. Indeed, it is a
> gigantic effing hot button for me. But let me be clear; it is not that I
> care so little about his new relationship, it is that I care so much about
> the relationship he willfully and deliberately sundered regardless of the
> reason. Call that what you will.
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:41 PM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>
> >I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of
> us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral
> >ground, is offensive to me.
>
>
>
>
> This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over
> Boltz. Which I find equally offensive.
>
> I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that
> this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a
> sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms
> with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
> you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
> of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians
> play confounded that gays think they are hateful.
>
>
>
> Thom
> http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
> http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
> http://www.in-one-ear.com
> _______________________________________
> "I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen
>
> "We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
> be."~Angel, Deep Down
>
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> ------------------------------
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:28 PM, Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> If Ray knew he was struggling with homosexuality when he married but he
> did that anyway because he thought he was doing the right thing, well,
> that's something I'll have to think about. Ultimately, we shouldn't engage
> in lies at all ever. If he knew (or suspected) he was gay, and married Carol
> anyway, he still carries culpability in my mind for not talking about that
> with her then. So no matter how you slice it, he has things to answer for in
> my opinion.
>

Don't disagree with that. In saying it wasn't necessarily just down to
whether or not Ray would stay, I'm not suggesting that there's necessarily
choice involved for Carol. Ultimately, both of them would have had to
choose to sacrifice to keep their marriage... but Carol was the one
betrayed. Also, I was (probably not clearly) driving at the conditions of
their wedding being what mattered in any sort of judgement -- how much Ray
knew about his sexuality and why he chose to get married in spite of it --
as that's ultimately when the moment of betrayal was.

Given it was 30 years ago, I guess I was going with the assumption that he
didn't have anyone to turn to and thought he was doing the right thing.

I tried to put my finger on my intense anger against Ray in the car on the
> way home. I'd try to mince my reaction, but we're all mature men here, so
> I'll just tell you what I thought, raw and unedited:
>

That does sound like quite a sacrifice. Can't think of how to write that so
it doesn't come off as trite... I mean it sincerely. I hope your
relationship continues to be otherwise rich.

James.

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
> lesser of two evils kind of thing?  Have we really reached the point where
> leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?

It wasn't just his decision.

"Gay husband? No thank you."
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

This is hardly a resounding rebuttal. As Christians, we /are/, in fact,
called to denial of self. I was write my own treatment of this, but realize
Alan had already covered what I was going to:

However, as I began to pray about it, I realized that we, as Christians, are
> indeed called to a life of denial, and as such I should not despise
> something the Lord commands of me nor should I get angry when someone calls
> me on it. Those who reject the concept of self-denial haven’t reaped the
> joys that result from it.
>

As Rich Mullins observed, we were never called to happiness (which is
contentment in favorable circumstance). We were called to obedience (taking
contentment in God, who alone gives peace and joy).

These are the contortions Ray has forced upon her. Faced between loving the
man she married and calling his betrayal what it is, she's forced to defend
his actions and her justifications with reasoning that isn't Biblical. She
shouldn't have to make that choice.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to
> a
> > lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point
> where
> > leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?
>
> It wasn't just his decision.
>
> "Gay husband? No thank you."
>
> http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Ronald Hatton]

This is one reason why I am glad that the Epistle reading for weddings in the Eastern Churches is Ephesians 5:22-32 - I make a point of showing how Paul tells the bride and groom the sacrifices that they are to make regarding one another. The women get hung up about "the whole submission thing," but the men are told to love their wives /just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for her./ Not a lot of wiggle room for people to seek "fulfillment" outside their marriage, and thus not to enter into marriage unless they are committed to staying true to their Christian calling.
The Body of Christ really does have to decide fully how to treat homosexuality, though. The Catholics, for their part, state that they are not so much against homosexuals as against homosexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, any activity is seen in the same light as any activity outside of marriage. Some churches have decided to tread the path of "homosexual love is no different than hetro," some damn the sinner with the sin. Tradition has been that anything outside of heterosexual activity between a married couple is considered sin. And amorous love is part of that equation, if one considers "being in love" as part of the mechanism that leads to marriage. Of course, tradition is not exactly the style in modern society, and the age of tradition does not necessarily mean it is correct, in our society. Thus the problem.

Oh, and by the way, thanks y'all - I'm done pouting! :-)
-Fr. Ron

On May 18, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Johne Cook wrote:

> This is hardly a resounding rebuttal. As Christians, we /are/, in fact, called to denial of self. I was write my own treatment of this, but realize Alan had already covered what I was going to:
>
> However, as I began to pray about it, I realized that we, as Christians, are indeed called to a life of denial, and as such I should not despise something the Lord commands of me nor should I get angry when someone calls me on it. Those who reject the concept of self-denial haven’t reaped the joys that result from it.
>
> As Rich Mullins observed, we were never called to happiness (which is contentment in favorable circumstance). We were called to obedience (taking contentment in God, who alone gives peace and joy).
>
> These are the contortions Ray has forced upon her. Faced between loving the man she married and calling his betrayal what it is, she's forced to defend his actions and her justifications with reasoning that isn't Biblical. She shouldn't have to make that choice.
>
> johne cook - wisconsin, usa
> | http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com
>
>
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> > Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
> > lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where
> > leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?
>
> It wasn't just his decision.
>
> "Gay husband? No thank you."
> http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

Doggone it! Another post I'm not going to respond to. ; - )


I have heard so many times in the churches I grew up in that if men would love their wives the way Christ loved the church their wives would be falling all over themselves to submit to their husbands. It never quite satisfied me, (I never wanted a woman who would submit to me, just one that realized I was always right), but the older I get the more truth I see in that.

Mike F.


From: Ronald Hatton
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 8:44 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret


This is one reason why I am glad that the Epistle reading for weddings in the Eastern Churches is Ephesians 5:22-32 - I make a point of showing how Paul tells the bride and groom the sacrifices that they are to make regarding one another. The women get hung up about "the whole submission thing," but the men are told to love their wives /just as Christ also loved the Church and gave Himself for her./ Not a lot of wiggle room for people to seek "fulfillment" outside their marriage, and thus not to enter into marriage unless they are committed to staying true to their Christian calling.
The Body of Christ really does have to decide fully how to treat homosexuality, though. The Catholics, for their part, state that they are not so much against homosexuals as against homosexual activity. Since homosexuals cannot marry one another, any activity is seen in the same light as any activity outside of marriage. Some churches have decided to tread the path of "homosexual love is no different than hetro," some damn the sinner with the sin. Tradition has been that anything outside of heterosexual activity between a married couple is considered sin. And amorous love is part of that equation, if one considers "being in love" as part of the mechanism that leads to marriage. Of course, tradition is not exactly the style in modern society, and the age of tradition does not necessarily mean it is correct, in our society. Thus the problem.


Oh, and by the way, thanks y'all - I'm done pouting! :-)
-Fr. Ron


On May 18, 2010, at 9:16 PM, Johne Cook wrote:


This is hardly a resounding rebuttal. As Christians, we /are/, in fact, called to denial of self. I was write my own treatment of this, but realize Alan had already covered what I was going to:


However, as I began to pray about it, I realized that we, as Christians, are indeed called to a life of denial, and as such I should not despise something the Lord commands of me nor should I get angry when someone calls me on it. Those who reject the concept of self-denial haven’t reaped the joys that result from it.


As Rich Mullins observed, we were never called to happiness (which is contentment in favorable circumstance). We were called to obedience (taking contentment in God, who alone gives peace and joy).

These are the contortions Ray has forced upon her. Faced between loving the man she married and calling his betrayal what it is, she's forced to defend his actions and her justifications with reasoning that isn't Biblical. She shouldn't have to make that choice.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to a
> lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point where
> leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?


It wasn't just his decision.

"Gay husband? No thank you."
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html

--

dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:16 PM, Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> This is hardly a resounding rebuttal. As Christians, we /are/, in fact,
> called to denial of self. I was write my own treatment of this, but realize
> Alan had already covered what I was going to:
>
> However, as I began to pray about it, I realized that we, as Christians,
>> are indeed called to a life of denial, and as such I should not despise
>> something the Lord commands of me nor should I get angry when someone calls
>> me on it. Those who reject the concept of self-denial haven’t reaped the
>> joys that result from it.
>>
>
> As Rich Mullins observed, we were never called to happiness (which is
> contentment in favorable circumstance). We were called to obedience (taking
> contentment in God, who alone gives peace and joy).
>
> These are the contortions Ray has forced upon her. Faced between loving the
> man she married and calling his betrayal what it is, she's forced to defend
> his actions and her justifications with reasoning that isn't Biblical. She
> shouldn't have to make that choice.


Did some article/post I haven't seen say that he made the decision to leave
and never offered to stay anyway?

Even if they both decided for him to stay, it would have to be *both* of
them deciding. For him to go on hiding it would be dishonest.

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 12:11 AM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Did some article/post I haven't seen say that he made the decision to leave
> and never offered to stay anyway?

I don't know if they've shared all the details, but I read in another
article that the Boltzs went into counseling and came out of that with
the decision to lead separate lives.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Power-Play-Over-Immigration-Law-94251079.html

[Bruce Geerdes]

"If, however, you find that the City Council lacks the strength of its
convictions to turn off the lights in Los Angeles and boycott Arizona
power, please reconsider the wisdom of attempting to harm Arizona’s
economy."

Sounds fair to me.


On Wed, May 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Power-Play-Over-Immigration-Law-94251079.html
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

> http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Power-Play-Over-Immigration-Law-94251079.html

Heh. Gotta love it.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Translated as “Hey! Boycott THIS!”

From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On Behalf
Of Mike Findlay
Sent: Wednesday, May 19, 2010 1:49 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: [DADL-OT] Hardball

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Power-Play-Over-Immigration-Law-942
51079.html

[Peter T. Chattaway]

FWIW, Ojo Taylor and a few other CCM veterans have been linking to the
latest issue of Down the Line on their Facebook walls; it includes
interviews with Ric Alba (Undercover, Altar Boys), Sean Doty (Veil of
Ashes) and Dug Pinnick (King's X), talking about their homosexuality.

http://www.downthelinezine.com/2010/05/21/special-issue-on-homosexuality-god-and-the-church/

Meanwhile, I have a question re: the limits to which anyone here would
place loyalty to one's vows above all other concerns. Imagine, if you
will, a scenario in which two men marry each other, not merely in the eyes
of the law but also in the eyes of God, as they understand it. (Let's say
the ceremony took place in the Metropolitan Community Church, or in one of
the more liberal Anglican/Episcopalian churches.) Now imagine that,
several years down the road, one member of this relationship converts to a
more traditional or conservative form of Christianity, which regards
homosexual relationships as essentially illegitimate. Now: Should the
gay convert divorce his partner? If so, why? If not, why not?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

I'm a huge fan of dUg Pinnick / King's X. They're pretty much my favorite
band this side of DA, like 1 and 1A. I have everything they've ever done,
and think I have all the solo and side project stuff from all the members.

Setting aside the very definition of marriage (one man to one woman), if two
gay people took vows to each other, I personally would feel better if they
honored the vow and stayed together. However, I know that flies a bit in the
face of current Evangelical thinking which says that homosexuality is sin. I
don't like breaking vows for any reason. If one pledges onesself to another,
I'd prefer they honored the pledge, regardless of the genders involved.

btw, all of this discussion this week has changed the focus of the short
story I'm writing for Digital Dragon magazine. I wrote a story for them last
year called Blessed Are the Peacemakers about a former Space Marine turned
Terran diplomat named Tenerife. This time around, Tenerife is promoted to
Ambassador dealing with the Garconne, a humanoid species who have three
genders; male, medium (or neuter), and female. A fire-and-brimstone Senator
things they're an abomination, but our hero thinks there's something else
going on and has to get to the bottom of it before the Senator unleashed the
entire Sixth Fleet upon the peaceful Garconne. The clip that really
challenged my thinking on all this was the Tony Campollo clip, where he says
that our default posture as Christians should be love...

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sat, May 22, 2010 at 7:13 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> FWIW, Ojo Taylor and a few other CCM veterans have been linking to the
> latest issue of Down the Line on their Facebook walls; it includes
> interviews with Ric Alba (Undercover, Altar Boys), Sean Doty (Veil of Ashes)
> and Dug Pinnick (King's X), talking about their homosexuality.
>
>
> http://www.downthelinezine.com/2010/05/21/special-issue-on-homosexuality-god-and-the-church/
>
> Meanwhile, I have a question re: the limits to which anyone here would
> place loyalty to one's vows above all other concerns. Imagine, if you will,
> a scenario in which two men marry each other, not merely in the eyes of the
> law but also in the eyes of God, as they understand it. (Let's say the
> ceremony took place in the Metropolitan Community Church, or in one of the
> more liberal Anglican/Episcopalian churches.) Now imagine that, several
> years down the road, one member of this relationship converts to a more
> traditional or conservative form of Christianity, which regards homosexual
> relationships as essentially illegitimate. Now: Should the gay convert
> divorce his partner? If so, why? If not, why not?
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sat, 22 May 2010, Peter T. Chattaway wrote:

> FWIW, Ojo Taylor and a few other CCM veterans have been linking to the
> latest issue of Down the Line on their Facebook walls; it includes
> interviews with Ric Alba (Undercover, Altar Boys), Sean Doty (Veil of
> Ashes) and Dug Pinnick (King's X), talking about their homosexuality.
>
> http://www.downthelinezine.com/2010/05/21/special-issue-on-homosexuality-god-and-the-church/

Oh, and FWIW, if you never really listened to any of those bands (I, for
one, never really did, except for Undercover -- but Alba was only with
them for their first album, I think), then here's one connection that you
might find interesting. It's from the bit in Ric Alba's interview where
he talks about releasing his solo album (about coming to terms with his
sexuality) on a label run by Steve Hindalong and Derri Daugherty:

How did you get hooked up with Steve and Derri from The Choir?

We were already buds from the road and worked together on earlier
projects. By then though, I was keeping myself out of reach to everyone
except my ex-wife. But there was Drew Jaya (Chef's Hat Boxing), and Bert,
who were long-term fixtures in the technical crews of some of the bands,
who found me and hung around. I like to think maybe Bonnie, for my sake,
made sure they could contact me. Bert played my demo for Steve and Derri
and arranged a meeting. If I remember it right, and I'm open to rebuttal,
their primary question was simply if I wanted to do it. I was prepared to
say, "By the way I turned out gay" but they spared me by saying, "By the
way, we heard you were gay," like I'd taken up an interesting new hobby. I
volunteered that I was, but I was getting help and I had no plans to
present myself as a gay and proud Christian singer. They nodded
affirmation, though I don't remember them actually requiring any of that
from me. But I'm sure we all knew what the Mothership Christian industry
of that time -- those above the small labels, and control mainstream
distribution and promotion -- might have done to any of her native sons
outing himself publicly with head held high, thinking he'd still have a
place at the big family table. I wasn't going to do that anyway, still
trying to fend off my own sexuality. I knew I was interviewing for a job I
already held forever, but the one who came to that meeting unsure about my
qualifications because of sexual orientation, was me. It was one of those
make-or-break moments that came and went for me like a gentle breeze, but
it hits me to know there are meetings at other labels under that giant
ship that go very differently, and people in my same situation come away
feeling far worse than anything I had the stones to risk back then.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[pcg]

> Oh, and FWIW, if you never really listened to any of those bands (I, for
> one, never really did, except for Undercover -- but Alba was only with them
> for their first album, I think), then here's one connection that you might
> find interesting.  It's from the bit in Ric Alba's interview where he talks
> about releasing his solo album (about coming to terms with his
> sexuality) on a label run by Steve Hindalong and Derri Daugherty:

I had that album ("Holes in the Floor of Heaven," I think? Or maybe
that was just a song from it.) I remember being shocked at how
different it was from the Altar Boys' stuff, and impressed by the
songwriting. Of course, I haven't heard it in 15 years or more, so I
don't know how it would hold up.

This was a fascinating interview.

--
-pcg
pcglenn-***@public.gmane.org

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

In answer to the gay divorce question:

First of all, I believe that gay marriage can never be the same as straight marriage.   Two people of the same sex can never become one in the same way that people of opposite sex can.  That is not to say that two people of the same sex can't be committed and love each other, but there is fundamentally something mystical about the joining of a man and a woman, both physically and spiritually that isn't there with two of the same sex.

That being said I would say the vows take priority.  If one becomes convinced that homosexual activity is sinful then they may be required, (or believe they are required), to abstain from sex, but there was a promise and I believe it should be kept.  

And I think we ought to start amending the wedding vows or at least offering alternatives.  If a couple contemplating marriage acknowledges the possibility that they might get divorced then the vows should read something to the effect:  I take this man/woman to have, hold, etc. for as long as I feel fulfilled by them. 

Obviously there will be situations where people say they would never get divorced and end up doing so, but I've talked to numerous people who when talking about marriage say things like "you never know what will happen", "you could end up growing apart", etc.  If you have that mindset going into marriage you have no business making promises that you've already acknowledged you may break.  The whole point of the vows is to commit to the spouse *in spite* of what unknown things may happen.  

Another reason why the govt. should get out of the marriage business.  Everyone should be able to get civil unions from the govt. - basically a contract that has out clauses or can be mutually abrogated.  If you want the church to sanction the union that should be between you and the church of your choice.

And for those who think that the Boltz type divorce is ok, permissible, allowable, (I'm trying not to suggest anything so please choose whatever term you think fits), where do you draw the line.  How about a spouse who receives a severe injury that leaves them incapable of any sexual activity, something like becoming a paraplegic?  Obviously any physical intimacy you could have is gone forever - it is a fundamental change in the circumstances that you didn't bargain for when you entered into marriage.  To make it more analogous imagine that such incapacity was the result of a disease/condition that was present when the marriage took place but took years for the symptoms to show up. 

Or what if it went even further and the spouse was in a coma or vegetative state which they would continue to live without life support, (not a Terry Schiavo situation), but they would never recover from, or even a brain injury/stroke think resulting in severe retardation and/or a dramatic personality change.  In such a case intimacy, physical or otherwise, would be possible. 

Are either of those situations a sufficient excuse to break your vows?
  

Mike F.

[Karl]

Another reason why the govt. should get out of the marriage business.
Everyone should be able to get civil unions from the govt. - basically a
contract that has out clauses or can be mutually abrogated. If you want the
church to sanction the union that should be between you and the church of
your choice.





***hear hear. I have been blogging that same idea for a few years now.





And for those who think that the Boltz type divorce is ok, permissible,
allowable, (I'm trying not to suggest anything so please choose whatever
term you think fits), where do you draw the line. How about a spouse who
receives a severe injury that leaves them incapable of any sexual activity,
something like becoming a paraplegic? Obviously any physical intimacy you
could have is gone forever - it is a fundamental change in the circumstances
that you didn't bargain for when you entered into marriage. To make it more
analogous imagine that such incapacity was the result of a disease/condition
that was present when the marriage took place but took years for the
symptoms to show up.



Or what if it went even further and the spouse was in a coma or vegetative
state which they would continue to live without life support, (not a Terry
Schiavo situation), but they would never recover from, or even a brain
injury/stroke think resulting in severe retardation and/or a dramatic
personality change. In such a case intimacy, physical or otherwise, would
be possible.



Are either of those situations a sufficient excuse to break your vows?





***being twice divorced now, I have, you may have noticed, taken no position
on the vow aspects. Who am I to offer anything substantive? But I have to
say that the examples you just gave all crossed my mind when debating on how
some people continue marriages with unfulfilled intimacy. They do it
because love is greater.

[Peter T. Chattaway]

Another mucho delayed reply.

On Sun, 23 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> That being said I would say the vows take priority.

Just wondering: What if there are no vows? The Orthodox wedding
ceremony, for example, has no vows. But I think D and I are just as
married -- and just as compelled to stay that way -- as anyone who was
married with vows in the Catholic or Protestant traditions.

> If one becomes convinced that homosexual activity is sinful then they
> may be required, (or believe they are required), to abstain from sex,
> but there was a promise and I believe it should be kept.  

It's not that homosexual activity would be deemed "sinful", but that it
would be deemed "unnatural" and contrary to the nature of marriage in the
first place. If married partners discovered sometime after the wedding
that they were siblings, or parent and child, would they legally continue
to be married? I suspect not; I suspect the state would rule that their
marriage vows, however innocently said, do not apply. And I'm not even
sure that we could call marriage between siblings "unnatural" in the same
way that Christian tradition says same-sex activity is "unnatural".

(Yes, there are laws in Leviticus against marriage between siblings (or
half-siblings), but Abraham and Sarah weren't judged for it as far as we
know, and even in King David's day -- centuries *after* Leviticus was
written -- marriage between half-siblings was apparently a possibility.)

> And I think we ought to start amending the wedding vows or at least
> offering alternatives.  If a couple contemplating marriage acknowledges
> the possibility that they might get divorced then the vows should read
> something to the effect:  I take this man/woman to have, hold, etc. for
> as long as I feel fulfilled by them. 

FWIW, I recall that one of the Star Trek comics once imagined that people
would enter into five-year marriage contracts. Renewable, of course, but
you couldn't *assume* that they would be renewed.

> And for those who think that the Boltz type divorce is ok, permissible,
> allowable, (I'm trying not to suggest anything so please choose whatever
> term you think fits), where do you draw the line.  How about a spouse
> who receives a severe injury that leaves them incapable of any sexual
> activity, something like becoming a paraplegic? . . .
>
> Or what if it went even further and the spouse was in a coma or
> vegetative state which they would continue to live without life support,
> (not a Terry Schiavo situation), but they would never recover from, or
> even a brain injury/stroke think resulting in severe retardation and/or
> a dramatic personality change.  In such a case intimacy, physical or
> otherwise, would be possible. 

Heck, for an even less dramatic variation on this theme, check out this
video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6601253n&tag=api
http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/early-alzheimers-and-a-husbands-choice.html

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sat, Jul 3, 2010 at 11:12 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> That being said I would say the vows take priority.
>
> Just wondering:  What if there are no vows?  The Orthodox wedding ceremony,
> for example, has no vows.  But I think D and I are just as married -- and
> just as compelled to stay that way -- as anyone who was married with vows in
> the Catholic or Protestant traditions.

I heard an interesting comment on that, that the Orthodox don't say
"until death do us part" because we don't believe we *are* parted at
death. Don't know if I completely grok that, but it's something to
ponder.

> Heck, for an even less dramatic variation on this theme, check out this
> video:
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6601253n&tag=api
> http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/early-alzheimers-and-a-husbands-choice.html

You know, I understand the situation and the hardship, but I gotta say
that if I was in the same situation I hope I would be able to do that
right thing. In any case, my church family wouldn't let me shack up
with someone.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Well, vows or not, do you have any doubt that the marriage is to be a life
commitment?

I mean, the ceremony has to have some element that confirm that aspect,
doesn't it?

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Saturday, July 03, 2010 10:12 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] more gay ccm artists, and a question re: loyalty

Another mucho delayed reply.

On Sun, 23 May 2010, Mike Findlay wrote:
> That being said I would say the vows take priority.

Just wondering: What if there are no vows? The Orthodox wedding ceremony,
for example, has no vows. But I think D and I are just as married -- and
just as compelled to stay that way -- as anyone who was married with vows in
the Catholic or Protestant traditions.

> If one becomes convinced that homosexual activity is sinful then they
> may be required, (or believe they are required), to abstain from sex,
> but there was a promise and I believe it should be kept.

It's not that homosexual activity would be deemed "sinful", but that it
would be deemed "unnatural" and contrary to the nature of marriage in the
first place. If married partners discovered sometime after the wedding that
they were siblings, or parent and child, would they legally continue to be
married? I suspect not; I suspect the state would rule that their marriage
vows, however innocently said, do not apply. And I'm not even sure that we
could call marriage between siblings "unnatural" in the same way that
Christian tradition says same-sex activity is "unnatural".

(Yes, there are laws in Leviticus against marriage between siblings (or
half-siblings), but Abraham and Sarah weren't judged for it as far as we
know, and even in King David's day -- centuries *after* Leviticus was
written -- marriage between half-siblings was apparently a possibility.)

> And I think we ought to start amending the wedding vows or at least
> offering alternatives. If a couple contemplating marriage
> acknowledges the possibility that they might get divorced then the
> vows should read something to the effect: I take this man/woman to
> have, hold, etc. for as long as I feel fulfilled by them.

FWIW, I recall that one of the Star Trek comics once imagined that people
would enter into five-year marriage contracts. Renewable, of course, but
you couldn't *assume* that they would be renewed.

> And for those who think that the Boltz type divorce is ok,
> permissible, allowable, (I'm trying not to suggest anything so please
> choose whatever term you think fits), where do you draw the line. How
> about a spouse who receives a severe injury that leaves them incapable
> of any sexual activity, something like becoming a paraplegic? . . .
>
> Or what if it went even further and the spouse was in a coma or
> vegetative state which they would continue to live without life
> support, (not a Terry Schiavo situation), but they would never recover
> from, or even a brain injury/stroke think resulting in severe
> retardation and/or a dramatic personality change. In such a case
> intimacy, physical or otherwise, would be possible.

Heck, for an even less dramatic variation on this theme, check out this
video:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6601253n&tag=api
http://blog.beliefnet.com/roddreher/2010/06/early-alzheimers-and-a-husbands-
choice.html


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Karl wrote:
> Well, vows or not, do you have any doubt that the marriage is to be a
> life commitment?

Yes. But the marriage cannot be based on false premises. It cannot, for
example, be considered valid in our culture if one of the parties is
already married to someone else, or if the would-be spouses in question
are siblings or similarly closely related. In situations such as those,
the vows are absolutely irrelevant and the commitment is null.

So when two men or two women *say* that they are married to each other, a
traditional Christian might say, "Well, no, you're not, because you
fundamentally misunderstand the nature of marriage. Marriage, whether by
divine decree or the natural course of evolution, is fundamentally
supposed to reflect the union of male and female. So anything different
from this that *calls* itself marriage simply *isn't* marriage, and
therefore, the two men or two women in question are not required to
continue living with each other no matter what their 'vows'."

If, on the other hand, you believe that marriage is fundamentally about
vows -- a point I do not grant, as some cultures (including my own!) don't
have vows in their marriage ceremonies to begin with -- then you might
tell these same-sex couples that they are required to stay together simply
because they may have taken part in a ceremony that did have some vows.
And, apparently, you might even say this despite the fact that you believe
same-sex relationships are wrong. But to say that vows trump all other
considerations is essentially to concede too much of the argument.

What's at stake here is not the *morality* of same-sex relationships, but
the *nature* of sexual relationships, including marriage. And if you
stipulate that marriage is fundamentally about the stated vows and
intentions of the partners involved, and not about the coming together of
two genders, then you are half-way to endorsing same-sex marriage.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

You didn't have a marriage vow as part of your wedding?

Johne Cook
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://authorculture.blogspot.com |


On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 9:45 AM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Karl wrote:
>
>> Well, vows or not, do you have any doubt that the marriage is to be a life
>> commitment?
>>
>
> Yes. But the marriage cannot be based on false premises. It cannot, for
> example, be considered valid in our culture if one of the parties is already
> married to someone else, or if the would-be spouses in question are siblings
> or similarly closely related. In situations such as those, the vows are
> absolutely irrelevant and the commitment is null.
>
> So when two men or two women *say* that they are married to each other, a
> traditional Christian might say, "Well, no, you're not, because you
> fundamentally misunderstand the nature of marriage. Marriage, whether by
> divine decree or the natural course of evolution, is fundamentally supposed
> to reflect the union of male and female. So anything different from this
> that *calls* itself marriage simply *isn't* marriage, and therefore, the two
> men or two women in question are not required to continue living with each
> other no matter what their 'vows'."
>
> If, on the other hand, you believe that marriage is fundamentally about
> vows -- a point I do not grant, as some cultures (including my own!) don't
> have vows in their marriage ceremonies to begin with -- then you might tell
> these same-sex couples that they are required to stay together simply
> because they may have taken part in a ceremony that did have some vows. And,
> apparently, you might even say this despite the fact that you believe
> same-sex relationships are wrong. But to say that vows trump all other
> considerations is essentially to concede too much of the argument.
>
> What's at stake here is not the *morality* of same-sex relationships, but
> the *nature* of sexual relationships, including marriage. And if you
> stipulate that marriage is fundamentally about the stated vows and
> intentions of the partners involved, and not about the coming together of
> two genders, then you are half-way to endorsing same-sex marriage.
>
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
> You didn't have a marriage vow as part of your wedding?

Nope.

- - -

http://www.oca.org/QA.asp?ID=125&SID=3

[ snip ]

In general, however, the Orthodox wedding ceremony follows this outline:

The Rite of Betrothal, in which rings are exchanged as a sign of
commitment and devotion to one another.

The "Crowning," in which crowns or wreaths [customs vary in each parish]
are placed on or held above the heads of the bride and groom. This
signifies that in marriage there is a certain amount of sacrifice,
especially in the area of "give and take." It also signifies that in a
certain respect the bride and groom become the "king and queen" of their
own "kingdom," or family, which is an integral part of the Kingdom of God.

The sharing of a common cup of wine, which signifies that in marriage all
things are shared equally.

The procession around the sacramental table, during which the priest leads
the couple three times as they take their first steps together as husband
and wife.

The removal of the crowns and the final blessing, in which all gathered
wish the couple many years of blessings.

There are no "vows" in the Orthodox ritual, as found in other confessions.

[ snip ]

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Lance McLain]

> There are no "vows" in the Orthodox ritual, as found in other
> confessions.

I seem to recall reading that "vows" are considered too legalistic and
a result of the western view of marriage as contract rather than the
eastern view of marriage as sacrament.

regards,
-Lance

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Lance McLain]

On Jul 5, 2010, at 12:01 PM, Lance McLain wrote:

>> There are no "vows" in the Orthodox ritual, as found in other
>> confessions.
>
> I seem to recall reading that "vows" are considered too legalistic
> and a result of the western view of marriage as contract rather than
> the eastern view of marriage as sacrament.

But that view is likely recent Orthodox propaganda justifying their
view over encroaching threatening western thought, I have no idea the
historical or theological history behind it.

regards,
-Lance



--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[n***@public.gmane.org]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
>> You didn't have a marriage vow as part of your wedding?

>Nope.

I am wondering if marriages vows-as we know them now are a "newer addition" to the marriage ceremony?

Jesus recommends not making vows in general, I cannot see why it would be different in the case of marriage. So, I could see where they early Church might not have them.

Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Mike Findlay]

>Jesus recommends not making vows in general, <
 
 
in what context?  Maybe I'm thinking of a different passage.  I recall the "let your no be no....etc.", but that had to do with swearing, (not cursing but the "swear to god" kind of thing), and was an admonition that you should be true to your word.  I'm drawing a blank on any recommendation not to make vows.
 
 
Mike F. 

[n***@public.gmane.org]

>in what context? Maybe I'm thinking of a different passage. I recall the "let your no be no....etc.", but that had to do with swearing, (not cursing but the "swear to god" kind of thing), and was an admonition that you should be true to your word. I'm drawing a blank on any >recommendation not to make vows.

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Oath's and vows are inter-related...heck, one of the definitions of oath is to "make a solemn vow."


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Mike Findlay]

Nothing against oaths or vows.  Only an instruction not to swear by God or anything else.  Simply be true to your word, no need to promise to tell the truth - you should always speak the truth or honor your commitments. 

I've seen this used as a religious reason not to take an oath to tell the truth in court, (in which case you are merely asked to affirm that you will tell the truth.  But I'm sure there must be a historical context to this passage that has nothing to do with the vows one does or doesn't make in marriage.   I have a hunch that folks were using the lack of a swearing to or oath as an excuse to be faithless in a commitment - IOW, "I didn't swear to it so you can't hold me to it"  And Jesus is calling people on that.  If you make a promise, say something, commit to something, etc. you should be true to it and no oath should be required.      

I suppose if you want to apply it to a marriage vow you could say that we should say "I swear to god I do", but it is not at all an admonition not to say "I do".   

Mike F.




________________________________
From: "nezmik-***@public.gmane.org" <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org>
To: dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Mon, July 5, 2010 2:17:16 PM
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] more gay ccm artists, and a question re: loyalty

>in what context?  Maybe I'm thinking of a different passage.  I recall the "let your no be no....etc.", but that had to do with swearing, (not cursing but the "swear to god" kind of thing), and was an admonition that you should be true to your word.  I'm drawing a blank on any >recommendation not to make vows.

"Again, you have heard that it was said to the people long ago, 'Do not break your oath, but keep the oaths you have made to the Lord.' 34But I tell you, Do not swear at all: either by heaven, for it is God's throne; 35or by the earth, for it is his footstool; or by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the Great King. 36And do not swear by your head, for you cannot make even one hair white or black. 37Simply let your 'Yes' be 'Yes,' and your 'No,' 'No'; anything beyond this comes from the evil one.

Oath's and vows are inter-related...heck, one of the definitions of oath is to "make a solemn vow."


Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can be."~Angel, Deep Down

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2010, nezmik-***@public.gmane.org wrote:
> I am wondering if marriages vows-as we know them now are a "newer
> addition" to the marriage ceremony?

As I understand it, marriage ceremonies in general are a fairly late
addition to the church's rituals. So it wouldn't surprise me if the
Western and Eastern churches had evolved their marriage ceremonies quite
separately.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

>>It wasn't just his decision.

>>"Gay husband? No thank you."
>>http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html


How old were the kids?

What else is she supposed to say? Do you think she had a real choice in the
matter? You don't read between those lines the hurt and rejection she must
have felt when she learned he was gay? When she learned that she had been
married to, and slept with, a man for many years who now says, in essence,
he was repulsed by having sex with her -

"Now, please, does this sound like the kind of husband any straight woman
would want to keep? No, thank you.

As much as one might love their gay spouse, it does nothing to know that
your husband is in his own world of self-denial just to make love to you!
Even the level of emotional intimacy will be shallow, no matter how much
effort is put forth. It just isn't fair to the straight spouse OR the gay
person. To live with the idea that one is in continual, daily, self-denial
might be martyrdom to some, but it is not honest, loving, or freeing, nor is
it anything but desperation to try to be something and someone that you're
not. "

I can't read that and believe she had any choice in this. She is doing and
coping the only way she can.

After reading that I am more convinced than ever that Boltz is a selfish
piece of shit. He is no different than some asshole who reaches middle age
and dumps his wife for a trophy wife. Those guys make the same arguments to
justify their actions.


Mike F.




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

It was his decision first, and that's the one I'm holding him accountable
for in my reasoning.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 7:53 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:09 PM, Mike Findlay <mdfindlay-***@public.gmane.org>
> wrote:
> > Is anyone even maintaining that Boltz did the right thing, as opposed to
> a
> > lesser of two evils kind of thing? Have we really reached the point
> where
> > leaving your spouse and family has become the *right* thing to do?
>
> It wasn't just his decision.
>
> "Gay husband? No thank you."
>
> http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:53 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> It wasn't just his decision.
>
> "Gay husband?  No thank you."
> http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2009/07/gay-husband-no-thank-you.html

Again, it comes down to the sex life?

"As much as one might love their gay spouse, it does nothing to know
that your husband is in his own world of self-denial just to make love
to you! Even the level of emotional intimacy will be shallow, no
matter how much effort is put forth."

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

I resent that you feel any of us is cavalierly writing this off. No one is.



I am doing just the opposite, I am saying that this is far more complex than
Boltz and others are making this by the manner in which they are treating
it.



I am saying that the entire argument hinges on something we still do not
understand and that is frankly rooted in what could be seen as a self
serving definition.



To put bluntly, how do we know he has always felt gay? Because he said so?
So what? Why exactly must I accept that?



To say that puts him in the superior position, of following who he is, but
since no one know what drives homosexuality who knows if that is sophistry
or real?



This also dismisses that gay men can love a straight woman since love
transcends all barriers, so just because he has no more sexual passion, does
not mean he never loved her nor can he. The marriage relationship is far
more than sex, otherwise some couples would never survive.



What is cavalier is how some (not you) are making this sound almost noble by
him sadly stepping away and moving on to this new and honest phase of his
life.



The whole topic is massively complex and the gays are the ones who are
insisting on reducing it to a baseline so low that gender and gender roles
become trivial. If we accept that we accept that gay straight or bi are all
a matter subject to change.



They are redefining the human race and I see no reason to sit back and
accept that cavalierly. I have questions I want answered.





k



From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of nezmik-***@public.gmane.org
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 2:42 PM
To: dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



>I'd say, from what he said, that Johne has more understanding the most of
us. You're failure to acknowledge that, and claim some higher moral
>ground, is offensive to me.




This is ironic, as the list seems okay claiming a higher ground over Boltz.
Which I find equally offensive.

I wasn't trying to claim a higher moral ground. I was trying to say that
this is a really tough situation, and two heterosexual struggling with a
sexless marriage is not the same thing as a gay man trying to come to terms
with himself over years. And frankly, to write it all off as cavalierly as
you, John, Karl and Bruce have done reminds me of why the church (regardless
of the denomination) does so badly with this topic. And then Christians
play confounded that gays think they are hateful.



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
be."~Angel, Deep Down

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I am doing just the opposite, I am saying that this is far more complex than
> Boltz and others are making this by the manner in which they are treating
> it.

Having read back a fair way on Carol's blog, I really don't think
she's simplifying things at all.

> To put bluntly, how do we know he has always felt gay?  Because he said so?
> So what?  Why exactly must I accept that?

Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
situation, given it's between him and her. What else has Boltz done
to make you think he's a liar? Why does he have to justify himself to
you?

> To say that puts him in the superior position, of following who he is, but
> since no one know what drives homosexuality who knows if that is sophistry
> or real?

Much that anyone says could be sophistry. You've got to trust people
at some point, don't you?

> The whole topic is massively complex and the gays are the ones who are
> insisting on reducing it to a baseline so low that gender and gender roles
> become trivial.  If we accept that we accept that gay straight or bi are all
> a matter subject to change.

Again, Carol treats it as a complex issue on her blog. While you may
disagree with her, I suggest reading more.

> They are redefining the human race and I see no reason to sit back and
> accept that cavalierly.  I have questions I want answered.

How are they redefining the human race? Is homosexuality that new?
Or is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?

James.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> I am doing just the opposite, I am saying that this is far more complex
than
> Boltz and others are making this by the manner in which they are treating
> it.

Having read back a fair way on Carol's blog, I really don't think
she's simplifying things at all.

**perhaps

> To put bluntly, how do we know he has always felt gay?  Because he said
so?
> So what?  Why exactly must I accept that?

Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
situation, given it's between him and her. What else has Boltz done
to make you think he's a liar?


***according to him lied about him self his whole life, making him, I dunno,
a liar?

Why does he have to justify himself to
you?

***We put it up for discussion here, I am not asking him to answer to me, I
am discussing the issue.



> To say that puts him in the superior position, of following who he is, but
> since no one know what drives homosexuality who knows if that is sophistry
> or real?

Much that anyone says could be sophistry. You've got to trust people
at some point, don't you?

***why? Seriously, why do I have to trust anything or accept anything at
all?


> The whole topic is massively complex and the gays are the ones who are
> insisting on reducing it to a baseline so low that gender and gender roles
> become trivial.  If we accept that we accept that gay straight or bi are
all
> a matter subject to change.

Again, Carol treats it as a complex issue on her blog. While you may
disagree with her, I suggest reading more.

***I will

> They are redefining the human race and I see no reason to sit back and
> accept that cavalierly.  I have questions I want answered.

How are they redefining the human race? Is homosexuality that new?
Or is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?


***You didn’t understand it before so I will repeat it. They are taking
gender and gender roles and redefining them at will. No wonder confusion
reigns.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
> situation, given it's between him and her.  What else has Boltz done
> to make you think he's a liar?
>
>
> ***according to him lied about him self his whole life, making him, I dunno,
> a liar?

Touché. :) So why would he lie and say he was lying to himself about
this? You don't think his depression was real?

>  Why does he have to justify himself to
> you?
>
> ***We put it up for discussion here, I am not asking him to answer to me, I
> am discussing the issue.

Took your language in the wrong context.

>> To say that puts him in the superior position, of following who he is, but
>> since no one know what drives homosexuality who knows if that is sophistry
>> or real?
>
> Much that anyone says could be sophistry.  You've got to trust people
> at some point, don't you?
>
> ***why?  Seriously, why do I have to trust anything or accept anything at
> all?

You don't, but that sounds like a pretty miserable and paranoid existence.

> How are they redefining the human race?  Is homosexuality that new?
> Or is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?
>
> ***You didn’t understand it before so I will repeat it.  They are taking
> gender and gender roles and redefining them at will.  No wonder confusion
> reigns.

Are they the ones redefining gender if that's how they are (i.e. if
it's not a choice)?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 5:49 PM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
> situation, given it's between him and her.  What else has Boltz done
> to make you think he's a liar?
>
>
> ***according to him lied about him self his whole life, making him, I
dunno,
> a liar?

Touché. :) So why would he lie and say he was lying to himself about
this? You don't think his depression was real?

***shrug. Again, how should I know. Bottom line other than as an abstract
discussion this is none of my business. He and Carol made it our business
in a way.


>  Why does he have to justify himself to
> you?
>
> ***We put it up for discussion here, I am not asking him to answer to me,
I
> am discussing the issue.

Took your language in the wrong context.

***Well that is not to say some will not hold him accountable.

>> To say that puts him in the superior position, of following who he is,
but
>> since no one know what drives homosexuality who knows if that is
sophistry
>> or real?
>
> Much that anyone says could be sophistry.  You've got to trust people
> at some point, don't you?
>
> ***why?  Seriously, why do I have to trust anything or accept anything at
> all?

You don't, but that sounds like a pretty miserable and paranoid existence.

***what a skeptic? Not really. I generally take thinks at face, but I am
also realistic enough to point out when the situation contains elements of
self interest that could cast doubt on aspects of it.


> How are they redefining the human race?  Is homosexuality that new?
> Or is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?
>
> ***You didn’t understand it before so I will repeat it.  They are taking
> gender and gender roles and redefining them at will.  No wonder confusion
> reigns.

Are they the ones redefining gender if that's how they are (i.e. if
it's not a choice)?

***Ah, you said it yourself. IF.

***the entire debate to redefine our social fabric rests solely on IF...


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Tue, 18 May 2010, James wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Karl wrote:

>> To put bluntly, how do we know he has always felt gay?  Because he said
>> so? So what?  Why exactly must I accept that?
>
> Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
> situation, given it's between him and her. What else has Boltz done to
> make you think he's a liar? Why does he have to justify himself to you?

I haven't read Carol's blog much, beyond the first post or two (by which I
mean the posts that were most recent when I first saw the blog a month or
two ago), but for what it's worth, something else to consider here is
whether Boltz had fully understood or come to terms with his homosexuality
such that he could have said he "felt gay". Maybe he had certain feelings
but didn't know what to call them because he didn't have the frame of
reference for them. It's kind of hard to say that someone "lied" about
their orientation when they didn't even know how to state the truth.

I realize I may be replying to a bunch of posts simultaneously here and
not just (or even primarily) to the posts quoted above. Sorry about that.

>> They are redefining the human race and I see no reason to sit back and
>> accept that cavalierly.  I have questions I want answered.
>
> How are they redefining the human race? Is homosexuality that new? Or
> is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?

Let's just say that Karl's comment brought to mind a line from the mighty
movie Trainspotting: "In a thousand years, there will be no men and
women, just wankers, and that's fine by me."

We as Christians believe that God made the human race male and female --
and while, yes, there are cases where things aren't so clear-cut in this
fallen world of ours, Christianity still holds that there is something
essentially male about maleness, something essentially female about
femaleness. The trend over the past few decades, however, has been to say
that maleness and femaleness are basically bio-chemical accidents --
accidents of anatomy, or accidents of hormones, or whatever. And in this
regard, being gay is no more accidental than being straight, etc.

[Karl]

Well they take it beyond that point such that even gender is trumped by
gender identity.

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Peter T. Chattaway
Sent: Tuesday, May 18, 2010 6:17 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

On Tue, 18 May 2010, James wrote:
> On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Karl wrote:

>> To put bluntly, how do we know he has always felt gay?  Because he
>> said so? So what?  Why exactly must I accept that?
>
> Carol's trust of him in that statement matters far more in this
> situation, given it's between him and her. What else has Boltz done
> to make you think he's a liar? Why does he have to justify himself to
you?

I haven't read Carol's blog much, beyond the first post or two (by which I
mean the posts that were most recent when I first saw the blog a month or
two ago), but for what it's worth, something else to consider here is
whether Boltz had fully understood or come to terms with his homosexuality
such that he could have said he "felt gay". Maybe he had certain feelings
but didn't know what to call them because he didn't have the frame of
reference for them. It's kind of hard to say that someone "lied" about
their orientation when they didn't even know how to state the truth.

I realize I may be replying to a bunch of posts simultaneously here and not
just (or even primarily) to the posts quoted above. Sorry about that.

>> They are redefining the human race and I see no reason to sit back
>> and accept that cavalierly.  I have questions I want answered.
>
> How are they redefining the human race? Is homosexuality that new?
> Or is there some other aspect of the issue you're referring to?

Let's just say that Karl's comment brought to mind a line from the mighty
movie Trainspotting: "In a thousand years, there will be no men and women,
just wankers, and that's fine by me."

We as Christians believe that God made the human race male and female -- and
while, yes, there are cases where things aren't so clear-cut in this fallen
world of ours, Christianity still holds that there is something essentially
male about maleness, something essentially female about femaleness. The
trend over the past few decades, however, has been to say that maleness and
femaleness are basically bio-chemical accidents -- accidents of anatomy, or
accidents of hormones, or whatever. And in this regard, being gay is no
more accidental than being straight, etc.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[James]

On Tue, May 18, 2010 at 6:17 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> I haven't read Carol's blog much, beyond the first post or two (by which I
> mean the posts that were most recent when I first saw the blog a month or
> two ago), but for what it's worth, something else to consider here is
> whether Boltz had fully understood or come to terms with his homosexuality
> such that he could have said he "felt gay". Maybe he had certain feelings
> but didn't know what to call them because he didn't have the frame of
> reference for them. It's kind of hard to say that someone "lied" about
> their orientation when they didn't even know how to state the truth.
>

That's a good point. I know people for whom the discovery was like that --
didn't really have a frame of reference to start with.

[Karl]

". Somehow it seems worse than "just" having an affair, because there is
nothing that can solve the problem. No amount of prayer, counseling, or
trying can change one's sexual orientation. "



But the thing is we don't know that do we? The whole thing about sexual
orientation is the worst kind of speculation.



He says he has suppressed it for years. Let's assume he is right. What
about people who change at a whim, the bisexuals? What if we accept the
theory that all people are subject to change? What's the point then?



I don't think anyone actually knows what drives the feelings, and whether it
is inborn or not, and which level of it is inborn?



Regardless, I pity all involved, for this is a huge mess, and one getting
more and more common. We have muddled the roles of people to the point
where it is subject to change.



From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Johne Cook
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 12:59 AM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret



She doesn't address the situation she's actually in to any satisfaction:

I'm not sure there can be any more hurt when a beloved spouse reveals to his
or her mate that they are gay. Somehow it seems worse than "just" having an
affair, because there is nothing that can solve the problem. No amount of
prayer, counseling, or trying can change one's sexual orientation.
Confronting this truth made me even doubt that any love God has for me must
surely be shown in strange ways, since this isn't the life I expected when I
said, "I do." Other women and men shouldn't have to experience this
"discovery," nor the pain of such a hopeless secret that has no fix.

So, is there a solution? I think there is. The solution is to accept ALL
people, and to realize that gay people should not have to pretend to be
straight, and should not marry straight ones without FULL information and
consent. My hope is that just like it helps other closeted gay people when
someone comes out, I need to be "out" as a straight spouse. I have nothing
to hide, and I'm not ashamed. Sharing my story? I'm OUT, I'm proud, and
I'm honest.


She's trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, but doesn't address that
he married her, he presumably made a vow, and then he broke it. If he was
born gay, he shouldn't have married her and given her his vow at all.

Attraction seems akin to temptation, and I believe one's will trumps one's
desires. Otherwise, as people age, we would be forever trading in the older
model for younger models, which is a slap in the face of what marriage is
supposed to be, with all its 'leaving' and 'cleaving.'

You're saying he shouldn't have to honor his commitment to his wife and to
his kids when his preference for sex changed. I'm saying it doesn't matter
what his preference for sex was, that it's possibly to love and honor one's
spouse as a married celibate and still keep one's vow. It's not easy, but
it's possible (and, yes, I know whereof I speak). Divorcing his wife was a
frankly selfish act, and the pain of that abandonment is apparent in her
post. Furthermore, for him to exercise his 'gift' as an ambassador for God
is ludicrous. We were never called to break our vow if our preferences
change. I've broken many promises but never a vow. He broke his vow, and I
hold him responsible for that.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 12:48 AM, <nezmik-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:




But this is not about a sexless marriage. It troubles me that people who do
not have any struggle with a same sex attraction presume that it is this
simple. You are not calling Ray to remain in a sexless marriage. You are
calling out that he should remain in a marriage from the kind of love you
still get to share with your spouses.

Maybe you should consider his wife's feelings on the issue before presuming
this is all about "loyalty":
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/



Thom
http://thomwade.wordpress.com/
http://www.cafepress.com/Thomwade
http://www.in-one-ear.com
_______________________________________
"I have seen the future brother: It is murder."~Leonard Cohen

"We live as though the world were as it should be. To show it what it can
be."~Angel, Deep Down





-----Original Message-----
From: Johne Cook <johne.cook-***@public.gmane.org>
To: DADL (off topic) <dadl-ot-***@public.gmane.org>

Sent: Sat, May 15, 2010 1:06 pm
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

I'm always torn when I read these things. I have much less a problem with a
single guy making a choice that I don't personally agree with. I can still
love the guy. But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the
death. And having, and then walking away from, a family-that's what I can't
get my arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an
abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of his
gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his family. Hell,
I'm a married man and regularly go without the regular pleasure and relief
of sexual congress, physical one-ness. I'd love to be more sexually active
with my mate. The fact that her desires don't match mine is no reason for me
to up and leave. I love her deeply and we are completely normal and giving
in every other way. Who am I to throw that away because I'm not getting
mine? God blesses me, and I have to think God could have blessed Boltz. What
a selfish loser. Yeah, I'm struggling with this. My own sacrifice is my own
decision, and I willingly accept it. But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow
and obey God and be blessed, so, to, could somebody whose career is based
around singing God's praises. It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre
to exploit. Too bad he wasn't able to practice what he preached.


johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com



On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 11:18 AM, Bruce Geerdes <bruce-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/15/us/15religion.html




Christian Singer Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret


By SAMUEL G. FREEDMAN


FORT LAUDERDALE, Fla.

On the cusp of summer in 2004, more than a year into his latest tour as a
Christian pop star, Ray Boltz took a break for what was supposed to be a
family vacation. All through the previous months, plying the country with
two semi-trailers and a dozen musicians and crew members, playing hits like
"Thank You" and "The Anchor Holds," Mr. Boltz had felt something unbearable,
something paralyzing.

Carol Boltz, his wife of 30 years and his best friend, sensed the isolation
and yet could not reckon its cause. The life Ray was leading, after all, was
the life they had set out on together way back when he was a teenager with a
guitar at a Christian coffeehouse near their Indiana hometown. That life had
brought awards, gold records, a comfortable home for their four children.

So she gathered herself and asked him what was wrong. "If I tell you about
certain things I'm going through," he told her, as she recalled in a recent
interview, "you won't love me anymore."

She told him nothing could change her love. But then she asked something
else. Was Ray thinking of hurting himself? Yes, he answered, he thought
about it every day.

More depressed than ever, Mr. Boltz returned to the road for the final
months of his tour. He was promoting an album called "Songs From the
Potter's Field," and many of them described the sensation of being broken.
That was a standard enough theme in Christian music, because it implied that
even the shattered could be made whole by Jesus.

Only Mr. Boltz knew the specific kind of damage he meant. He was gay, and he
had been trying not to be gay since his teens, and he had inhabited and
indeed thrived in a fundamentalist Christian culture that instructed him he
could pray to be delivered from his affliction, his sin. By now, in his
early 50s, he had stopped believing that godly intervention could change who
and what he was.

Around Christmas 2004, in the midst of a family dinner, Mr. Boltz's son Phil
asked, "Daddy, what's wrong with you?" This time, Mr. Boltz told the truth:
"I'm gay." His wife and his children, startled though they were by the
revelation, told him they still loved and supported him. Such emotions were
not exactly echoed by his fans, especially after Mr. Boltz publicly
disclosed his homosexuality in a 2008 article in The Washington Blade, a gay
newspaper.

Now, after more than five years of self-imposed absence from stage and CD,
Mr. Boltz has reached a musical and religious destination. As an openly gay
man, living in a gay-friendly part of South Florida with his partner, Franco
Sperduti, he has released his first album since coming out.

It is called "True," and its songs talk about
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/s/same_sex_mar
riage/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier> same-sex marriage ("Don't Tell Me
Who to Love"), bias crimes ("Swimming Hole"), and conservative claims that
there is a political "agenda" for gay men and lesbians ("Following Her
Dreams").

Most indelibly, several of the songs aim to reconcile the gay identity Mr.
Boltz has acknowledged with the Christian faith he refuses to disavow. In
"Who Would Jesus Love," the lyrics ask,

Would He only love the ones

Who looked the same as me

Would He only offer hope

When He saw similarity

Would He leave the others waiting

Like a stranger at the gate

Would He discriminate.

These days, Mr. Boltz performs just with his guitar, while Mr. Sperduti
serves as booking agent. His recent gigs have included a gay pride
celebration in Long Beach, Calif., and liberal Christian churches from
Anchorage to Austin. Both his producer, Joe Hogue, and his opening act,
Azariah Southworth, are Christians who have come out.

"When you start to live an authentic life," Mr. Boltz said in a recent
interview at home in Fort Lauderdale, "you stop pretending. When I started
writing these songs, I didn't know if it'd be for a record. I didn't know if
anyone would even hear these songs. But I realized I could write whatever I
want, and that opened up the floodgates."

One of the earliest listeners was Carol Boltz, who continues to operate
<http://www.rayboltz.com/> Mr. Boltz's Web site. He sent her each demo, just
guitar or piano and voice, as an e-mail file. "When I hear these songs," she
put it, "I hear Ray's heart."

Mrs. Boltz also realizes better than anyone how many former fans vehemently
object. She fields the e-mail messages that pour into the Web site, the ones
that say, "We will be destroying all your cds cassettes etc immediately" and
"Instead of converting to man-love, why not goat love?"

Such wrath, much of it couched in fundamentalist theology, helps explain why
so few Christian musicians have dared to come out. That decision threatens,
virtually promises, to estrange them from both the religious culture that
nurtured their art and the loyal audience that provided their income.

Jennifer Knapp, a Christian singer-songwriter, did announce on "
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/k/larry_king/ind
ex.html?inline=nyt-per> Larry King Live" last month that she is a lesbian.
And the young gospel star Tonex described his process of coming out in a
February profile in
<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/n/the_new
_yorker/index.html?inline=nyt-org> The New Yorker. Still, the
Christian-music closet remains a crowded place, the cost of emerging from it
so punitive.

Mr. Boltz, though, can attest to what is gained. Amid all the hateful e-mail
messages that he receives, there also come ones calling him a "role model of
honesty" and thanking him for being "instrumental in me finding the Lord."
One correspondent, who described himself as a conservative Christian age 52,
recounted nearly committing suicide before coming out.

"I don't believe God hates me anymore," Mr. Boltz said during the interview.
"I always thought if people knew the true me, they'd be disgusted, and that
included God. But for all the doubts, there's this new belief that God
accepts me and created me, and there's peace."

E-mail: sgf1-WLbs8XpHrcb2fBVCVOL8/***@public.gmane.org




--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot



--







dadl-ot mailing list






http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us






http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[James]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 8:33 AM, Karl <karldswenson-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> “. Somehow it seems worse than "just" having an affair, because there is
> *nothing* that can solve the problem. No amount of prayer, counseling, or
> trying can change one's sexual orientation. “
>
>
>
> But the thing is we don’t know that do we? The whole thing about sexual
> orientation is the worst kind of speculation.
>
It's clear enough. Plenty of people have seriously tried and gone through
those "ministries" that purport to help people change and not had it work
*at all*.

http://www.documentaryfilms.net/index.php/for-the-bible-tells-me-so/
(review/overview
of a documentary that looked at some of this; admittedly taking one side on
the issue).

He says he has suppressed it for years. Let’s assume he is right. What
> about people who change at a whim, the bisexuals? What if we accept the
> theory that all people are subject to change? What’s the point then?
>
Well, he's not bi, so how does that relate at all? There are many
homosexuals, especially in the church, who go through agonizing times when
they'd give anything to be able to chose to be heterosexual.

Did you read Carol's blog post? "I knew that if anyone could have "changed"
from gay to straight, it would have been my (ex-)husband."

I don’t think anyone actually knows what drives the feelings, and whether it
> is inborn or not, and which level of it is inborn?
>
Plenty of other people think they know it's inborn.

Regardless, I pity all involved, for this is a huge mess, and one getting
> more and more common. We have muddled the roles of people to the point
> where it is subject to change.
>
Muddled the roles of people?

[James]

More on change:
http://myheartgoesout-carol.blogspot.com/2010/04/do-gay-men-ever-really-change-to.html


*Do gay men ever really change to heterosexual?*

Exodus International was formed in the 70s, and one of the
co-founders was Michael Bussee. ...

Michael Bussee is no longer affiliated with Exodus International, and he has
made sincere apology for the harm he caused by promoting the hope and false
possibility of change. Most recently, he has made several very calm and
honest videos. Thanks to youtube.com, we can see ALL of these videos and
become educated. It's better to hear "from the horse's mouth" than to
listen to those who merely make theological claims.

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Did you read Carol's blog post?  "I knew that if anyone could have "changed"
> from gay to straight, it would have been my (ex-)husband."

This seems to assume that some sort of sexual relationship is
necessary. As Johne has pointed out, there are plenty of married
people that stick it out without one. There are plenty of singles that
stick it out without one.

Maybe I've just become a fuddy-duddy, but I've see the purpose of
sexual attraction as being for the bringing together of husband and
wife to have kids. I think Christians beyond child-bearing age (or
gays) should really try to devote themselves to the church rather than
marry. I guess St. Paul says as much, giving an exception to young
widows to keep them out of trouble. (Maybe "young" means child-bearing
age?)

Yes, there can be intimacy and enjoyment, but that's peripheral.
Nowadays for most people, the latter is paramount.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Karl]

Yea, I agree here fwiw. For 30 years was there only a base hetero
relationship? Were they never partners in other areas?

-----Original Message-----
From: dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org [mailto:dadl-ot-bounces-***@public.gmane.org] On
Behalf Of Bruce Geerdes
Sent: Sunday, May 16, 2010 3:54 PM
To: DADL (off topic)
Subject: Re: [DADL-OT] Ray Boltz Resumes Career, Relieved of a Secret

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 3:01 PM, James <torpesco-***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Did you read Carol's blog post?  "I knew that if anyone could have
"changed"
> from gay to straight, it would have been my (ex-)husband."

This seems to assume that some sort of sexual relationship is
necessary. As Johne has pointed out, there are plenty of married
people that stick it out without one. There are plenty of singles that
stick it out without one.

Maybe I've just become a fuddy-duddy, but I've see the purpose of
sexual attraction as being for the bringing together of husband and
wife to have kids. I think Christians beyond child-bearing age (or
gays) should really try to devote themselves to the church rather than
marry. I guess St. Paul says as much, giving an exception to young
widows to keep them out of trouble. (Maybe "young" means child-bearing
age?)

Yes, there can be intimacy and enjoyment, but that's peripheral.
Nowadays for most people, the latter is paramount.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> Maybe I've just become a fuddy-duddy, but I've see the purpose of sexual
> attraction as being for the bringing together of husband and wife to
> have kids. I think Christians beyond child-bearing age (or gays) should
> really try to devote themselves to the church rather than marry.

Wow.

You're starting to sound like Augustine, Jerome and others who believed
that the righteous man doesn't actually *enjoy* eating or having sex, he
just does those things because without it survival would be impossible
(whether on the personal level, a la eating, or on the species level, a la
sex). (There may be Easterners who said similar things, but for now I'm
willing to imagine that this was more of a Western thing.)

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> On Sun, 16 May 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
>>
>> Maybe I've just become a fuddy-duddy, but I've see the purpose of sexual
>> attraction as being for the bringing together of husband and wife to have
>> kids. I think Christians beyond child-bearing age (or gays) should really
>> try to devote themselves to the church rather than marry.
>
> Wow.
>
> You're starting to sound like Augustine, Jerome and others who believed that
> the righteous man doesn't actually *enjoy* eating or having sex, he just
> does those things because without it survival would be impossible

Except that I said, a sentence or two later:

> Yes, there can be intimacy and enjoyment, but that's peripheral.
> Nowadays for most people, the latter is paramount.

That is, I don't think God created sex primarily to be enjoyable. Just
as, yeah, he didn't create eating to be *primarily* enjoyable. Primary
purpose of sex: procreation. Primary purpose of eating: nourishment.
Are they enjoyable? Of course. But I think enjoyment of these can
become an unhealthy focus.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

>>> Maybe I've just become a fuddy-duddy, but I've see the purpose of
>>> sexual attraction as being for the bringing together of husband and
>>> wife to have kids. I think Christians beyond child-bearing age (or
>>> gays) should really try to devote themselves to the church rather than
>>> marry.
>>
>> Wow.
>>
>> You're starting to sound like Augustine, Jerome and others who believed
>> that the righteous man doesn't actually *enjoy* eating or having sex,
>> he just does those things because without it survival would be
>> impossible
>
> Except that I said, a sentence or two later:
>
>> Yes, there can be intimacy and enjoyment, but that's peripheral.
>> Nowadays for most people, the latter is paramount.

Yes, you said this, but in doing so, you marginalized enjoyment, almost to
the point of suggesting (as Augustine, Jerome and others did) that it
might even be a distraction and therefore undesirable. Saying that there
*can be* enjoyment, in this context, almost sounds like saying that
enjoyment is one of the occupational *hazards* of sex.

> That is, I don't think God created sex primarily to be enjoyable. Just
> as, yeah, he didn't create eating to be *primarily* enjoyable. Primary
> purpose of sex: procreation. Primary purpose of eating: nourishment. Are
> they enjoyable? Of course. But I think enjoyment of these can become an
> unhealthy focus.

Well, so can procreation, if what I hear about fertility treatments etc.
is even remotely accurate. There is more than one way to feel "used".

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>>> Yes, there can be intimacy and enjoyment, but that's peripheral. Nowadays
>>> for most people, the latter is paramount.
>
> Yes, you said this, but in doing so, you marginalized enjoyment

So saying enjoyment is not the primary purpose of sex is marginalizing
it? Is the opposite true? Does saying that procreation is not the
primary purpose of sex marginalize *it*?

> Saying that there *can be*
> enjoyment, in this context, almost sounds like saying that enjoyment is one
> of the occupational *hazards* of sex.

Or it can mean what I meant, that not everyone has an optimally
enjoyable sex life, and not having one does not necessarily mean
something is wrong and needs to be changed.

>> But I think enjoyment of these can become an unhealthy
>> focus.
>
> Well, so can procreation, if what I hear about fertility treatments etc. is
> even remotely accurate.

Oh, certainly! It amazes me what some "Christian" couples will do to
get kids, even to the point of creating and destroying embryos. Leave
it to God, people.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Bruce Geerdes wrote:
> So saying enjoyment is not the primary purpose of sex is marginalizing
> it? Is the opposite true? Does saying that procreation is not the
> primary purpose of sex marginalize *it*?

Quite possibly. I'm inclined to say that sex has *two* primary purposes,
rather than to say that one or the other is "the" primary purpose.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> Quite possibly.  I'm inclined to say that sex has *two* primary purposes,
> rather than to say that one or the other is "the" primary purpose.

Reminds me of the workplace joke of the manager assigning an underling
two "#1" priorities. ;)

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Lance McLain]

On May 16, 2010, at 11:47 PM, Bruce Geerdes wrote:

> On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 10:44 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
> <petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
>> Quite possibly. I'm inclined to say that sex has *two* primary
>> purposes,
>> rather than to say that one or the other is "the" primary purpose.
>
> Reminds me of the workplace joke of the manager assigning an underling
> two "#1" priorities. ;)

That's not a joke, that's reality!

regards,
-Lance

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[pcg]

This is such a difficult subject. I was in a sexless marriage for
about eight of our ten years, and as difficult as that was, it never
seriously occurred to me to leave. Perhaps there is a grace that
accompanies such situations, or perhaps its just that apathy settles
in after a while. Either way, keeping my family together felt more
important than turning my kids' world upside-down for my own sake.

That said, being now in a healthy, normal physical relationship has
made me realize how truly miserable I was, and how much happiness and
fulfillment I was missing out on for so many years. It's completely
changed how I feel when I wake up every morning, how I feel about
myself, how I perceive the world, etc. The difference in my life is
like night and day, and I can't believe that's something that's
neither here nor there, nice if you can have it, but not really
essential.

However, I think a big part of the gay issue isn't just the sex, but
the fact that these people are ultimately beaten down by the strain of
living a lie day after day. I guess we all do it to a certain extent,
but sexuality is such a fundamental part of a person's identity, that
I can't imagine pretending to be something you're not, year after
year.

I've told the story here before, but I remained very close with my
youth pastor after I left for college, and he remains one of my best
friends to this day. Several years ago, he became severely depressed,
a habitual drunk, and eventually tried to kill himself. One night,
after breaking down in front of me, he admitted that he was gay. He
was shaking so badly, the guilt and shame was such that I thought he
was going to physically burst before he could get the words out. This
guy hasn't felt the touch of another person for 30 years, and has
lived a life of emotional isolation because he wanted nothing more
than to be used by God in ministry (while never accepting a single
dime for it). To this day, he's believing God for his "deliverance,"
but it's made an unbelievable difference in his life just to have
someone with whom he can be transparent. For someone in a traditional
Christian situation, admitting this out loud is akin to admitting that
you're a monster, or a child-molester.

So, here's the thing: it's very easy for me to imagine him having
gotten married at some point. He dated a few girls over the years,
because he desperately wanted to believe that when he accepted Christ,
he was "made new," and his attraction to men was a thing of the past.
If he *had* gotten married during one of those times, he wouldn't have
been able to ever admit the truth about himself without essentially
destroying his family — and then what? That secret would never have
been let out, and I imagine it would have eventually destroyed him.

It's a sad situation with no easy answers, but I find it difficult to
"blame" anyone in particular, or judge Boltz's actions. All I can do
is shake my head and thank God that I wasn't born into that
predicament.

--
-pcg
pcglenn-***@public.gmane.org

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Karl wrote:
> Regardless, I pity all involved, for this is a huge mess, and one
> getting more and more common. We have muddled the roles of people to
> the point where it is subject to change.

No argument *there*.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
> If he was born gay, he shouldn't have married her and given her his vow
> at all.

Well, fine, but now you have to consider the culture he was raised in, and
the degree to which it encouraged teenagers like them to get married
(whether they were ready for it or not), and whether it would have even
*permitted* him to think of himself as gay at the time, etc.

> You're saying he shouldn't have to honor his commitment to his wife and
> to his kids when his preference for sex changed.

Did his preference actually change, or did he just stop fighting it?

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Johne Cook]

However you want to look at it, it's clear he stopped fighting /for/ her. He
took his eyes off God and his mate and put them on himself. I'm not entirely
unsympathetic to the stresses in his life that persuaded him to make that
decision. I /am/ saying I've had my own stresses and never gave in to them,
and I'm not exceptional in any way.

johne cook - wisconsin, usa
| http://raygunrevival.com | http://phywriter.com


On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 6:12 PM, Peter T. Chattaway <
petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:

> On Sun, 16 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
>
>> If he was born gay, he shouldn't have married her and given her his vow at
>> all.
>>
>
> Well, fine, but now you have to consider the culture he was raised in, and
> the degree to which it encouraged teenagers like them to get married
> (whether they were ready for it or not), and whether it would have even
> *permitted* him to think of himself as gay at the time, etc.
>
>
> You're saying he shouldn't have to honor his commitment to his wife and to
>> his kids when his preference for sex changed.
>>
>
> Did his preference actually change, or did he just stop fighting it?
>
> --
> dadl-ot mailing list
> http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot
>

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
> However you want to look at it, it's clear he stopped fighting /for/
> her. He took his eyes off God and his mate and put them on himself.

I really don't know what to make of this. I mean, we can say he's
supposed to be more giving to his wife, more giving to his wife, more
giving to his wife, etc. ... but what exactly is he supposed to give her?
*Himself*. So he *has* to put his eyes on himself at some point.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sat, 15 May 2010, Johne Cook wrote:
> But loyalty is a huge hot-button with me. I'm loyal to the death. And
> having, and then walking away from, a family—that's what I can't get my
> arms around. There's a betrayal of a vow there (for starters), an
> abandonment, all so you can be sexually happy.

This may not be the best analogy, but what if, for example, you discovered
that the woman you had married 30 years ago had already been married at
the time of your wedding, and had never gotten divorced? What if you
discovered that you had been living in an essentially bigamous
relationship for the past 30 years, and that your wedding was what the
Catholics might call "invalid"? (I'm approaching this from the point of
view of Boltz's wife, more than Boltz himself. But still.)

The point I'm making here is that "loyalty" is not, in and of itself, the
sort of virtue that trumps everything else. Your loyalty could very
easily be based on a lie or directed at something wrong. (Would we ask
the guys who work for mafia dons to place loyalty above all else?) You
could very easily have feelings of loyalty for someone who "ought" to be
unavailable to you. But would those feelings necessarily be right?

> That strikes me as supremely selfish. So I'm not sitting in judgment of
> his gayness, per se, but I /am/ struggling with him abandoning his
> family.

If his wife still runs his website and reads all the fan mail and hate
mail he gets, I don't think he's "abandoned" them, necessarily.

> But if I, Joe Sixpack, can keep my vow and obey God and be blessed, so,
> to, could somebody whose career is based around singing God's praises.
> It seems to me Boltz found a lucrative genre to exploit. Too bad he
> wasn't able to practice what he preached.

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here: Do you mean he exploited
a lucrative genre *before* or *after* he came out of the closet? I don't
get the sense that he was simply conning people out of their money the way
that, say, Mike Warnke used to do. And as for his career post-coming out,
well, let's just say that, based on what I've heard, Boltz's style of
music doesn't have anywhere *near* the cross-over appeal that Jennifer
Knapp's has. Coming out of the closet hasn't been very "lucrative" for
him and it is unlikely to become so, even with his new album.

[Karl]

Sorry, I'm not sure what you're getting at here: Do you mean he exploited a
lucrative genre *before* or *after* he came out of the closet? I don't get
the sense that he was simply conning people out of their money the way that,
say, Mike Warnke used to do. And as for his career post-coming out, well,
let's just say that, based on what I've heard, Boltz's style of music
doesn't have anywhere *near* the cross-over appeal that Jennifer Knapp's
has. Coming out of the closet hasn't been very "lucrative" for him and it
is unlikely to become so, even with his new album.

***Actually, I think we are almost seeing the birth of a new genre, gay
Christian rock. Knapp came out, and We're all Angels are making waves. Now
Boltz. This may be the start of a new sub industry. At the least, the LGBT
community will support them.


--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Peter T. Chattaway]

On Sun, 16 May 2010, Karl wrote:
> ***Actually, I think we are almost seeing the birth of a new genre, gay
> Christian rock. Knapp came out, and We're all Angels are making waves.
> Now Boltz. This may be the start of a new sub industry. At the least,
> the LGBT community will support them.

Well, maybe. But I've heard that Boltz's style of music (at least during
his CCM days) doesn't have much appeal in the gay subculture, whereas
Knapp's definitely does (a la Indigo Girls or Melissa Etheridge, etc.).

BTW, I recently found out that Ric Alba, a bassist with Undercover (in its
early days) and the TST-produced Altar Boys, is gay. I don't know if he'd
consider himself Christian these days (his Facebook page says "Where do I
start" under "Religious Views"), or if he'd have any interest in "gay
Christian rock", or indeed if he even plays music any more, but anyway.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Bruce Geerdes]

On Sun, May 16, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Peter T. Chattaway
<petert-LOVM4QxV+tDq6eQxt3vRmLDks+cytr/***@public.gmane.org> wrote:
> If his wife still runs his website and reads all the fan mail and hate mail
> he gets, I don't think he's "abandoned" them, necessarily.

I can see that. I believe there is a biblical basis for separation.
Maybe the couple will never get back together again. I more have a
question about re-marriage, in Boltz's case co-habitating.

--
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot

[Mike Findlay]

> VWell, vows or not, do you have any doubt that the marriage is to be a life commitment?<

>Yes.  But the marriage cannot be based on false premises.  It cannot, for example, be considered valid in our culture if one of the parties is already married to someone else, or if the would-be spouses in question are siblings or similarly closely related.  In situations such as those, the vows are absolutely irrelevant and the commitment is null.<

A illegal marriage, (would you agree that it is a type of contract ie exchanged promises -whether spoken or not?), would be void ab initio.  And so would the vow - it would be an illusory promise - you can't promise something you can't promise.  So it wouldn't just be that the vow was irrelevant; in a sense no real vow would ever have been made.  These may be semantic differences but I think they are important ones.     


>So when two men or two women *say* that they are married to each other, a traditional Christian might say, "Well, no, you're not, because you fundamentally misunderstand the nature of marriage.  Marriage, whether by divine decree or the natural course of evolution, is fundamentally supposed to reflect the union of male and female.  So anything different from this that *calls* itself marriage simply *isn't* marriage, and therefore, the two men or two women in question are not required to continue living with each other no matter what their 'vows'."<

Yes the definition of marriage is at the heart of the same sex marriage issue.  But weren't the people we have been talking about married in Christian ceremonies with the very traditional view of marriage you set forth?  The length of time between replies may have blurred what that tangential point being discussed, so I'm not certain I'm on point here.

But the above view of marriage, (which I tend to accept but have become unwilling to have tangled up with govt. approval), doesn't help anyone trying to get out of, or into, a marriage does it?  If you were married in such a fashion you knew, or should have known, (I'm big on the should have known - personal responsibility and all that), what you were getting into and you don't get to change the rules after the game has started.  Likewise if you don't fit into that definition, (same sex union), than you can't expect people who do accept that definition to grant you an exemption from the rules.   


>If, on the other hand, you believe that marriage is fundamentally about vows -- a point I do not grant, as some cultures (including my own!) don't have vows in their marriage ceremonies to begin with -- then you might tell these same-sex couples that they are required to stay together simply because they may have taken part in a ceremony that did have some vows. And, apparently, you might even say this despite the fact that you believe same-sex relationships are wrong.  But to say that vows trump all other considerations is essentially to concede too much of the argument.<

"Fundamentally about vows" is a loaded phrase I think.  Marriage isn't fundamentally about vows, but getting married certainly is.  Or if that is too much, and back to my previous question, isn't their a promise or commitment, (choose your synonym), that is fundamentally involved when you enter into the relationship of marriage with another person.  Ceremonies may differ among denominations/traditions but at the heart of it aren't you pledging yourself to the other person when you say "I do", or whatever is said depending on the tradition? 

 
>What's at stake here is not the *morality* of same-sex relationships, but the *nature* of sexual relationships, including marriage.  And if you stipulate that marriage is fundamentally about the stated vows and intentions of the partners involved, and not about the coming together of two genders, then you are half-way to endorsing same-sex marriage.<

I disagree.  It appears to me that you are taking to binary a view of the thing.  It isn't an either or proposition is it?  If marriage were only the coming together of two genders than bigamy shouldn't be a problem.  Neither should adultery or fornication for that matter.  And I realize that there is an argument that regardless of one's intentions if you have sexual intercourse with a woman, (speaking as a man), you are married to her.  While ideally I tend to believe that is the preferred/optimum case, I don't think that every person who is not a virgin when married is committing adultery by not marrying the first person they had sex with. 

Mike F.