Does the majority have the right to deny rights to a minority? Especially if that minority does nothing that really affects the majority except offend the sensibilities of some of them? That strikes me as a very bad precedent to set.

"It's their followers who come after them who insist upon faith labels and exclusivity. Their followers take a message of universality and turn it into a message of exclusivity!"

Exactly my point.

I'm not naïve. I'm fully aware that suggesting that Christian churches should follow the teachings of Jesus is tilting at windmills.

I know a great deal about the beginnings of the Christian church, and this includes the fact that within less than a century and a half after Jesus' crucifixion, there were some eighty-two "bishops," all claiming to be "spiritual descendants" of the original twelve apostles—and rather than following the "love one another" injunction, because of strenuous disagreements on minor points of doctrine, they hated each other's guts and were "excommunicating" each other right, left, and center.

Their excommunications didn't carry much weight because this was before the founding of the Catholic Church. There was no one central body. That took place when the emperor, Constantine, became a Christian (more for political than religious reasons), said "Dogma is what I say it is!" and gave religion the force of secular law. He also set up the conference at Nicea, out of which grew the Nicene Creed, to essentially bring an end to the bickering bishops and unite the Church under one head.

And where was Jesus in all this? You might well ask. . . .

By the way:    In my opinion, the matter of the validity of religious views of homosexuality falls into the same category as the validity of Creationism and its insistence that the universe came into existence no earlier that 4004 B.C.—the disagreement between Biblical literalists and modern science.

There is considerable scientific evidence that homosexuality is not a matter of choice at all. One comes wired that way. While discussing this with a gay acquaintance of mine some years ago, he said, "From my very early teens, I had girl friends but I felt no physical attraction to girls and women. I did feel physical attraction toward some men. It was not a matter of choice. I did not decide to be gay. After all, considering the prejudice that gays face, not to mention the times one is called 'fag' and 'queer,' and is sometimes actually physically assaulted—who in his right mind would choose to be 'gay'? I had no choice in the matter!"

I see little difference between denying rights to a gay person, man or woman, and denying rights to someone because their eyes are pale blue, or their hair is red, or their skin is dark brown, or their eyes are differently shaped.

Nor do I see that what the fellow who comes to our writers' group and his partner do in the privacy of their own apartment a half-dozen blocks from here has any effect whatsoever on Barbara's and my marriage.

Lots of churches regard homosexuality as a sin. In days gone by, Christian churches believed being Jewish—or anything but Christian—was a sin (some still do). Some Muslims believe being anything but a devout Muslim is a sin. Pick a human activity. Or pick a belief! Somebody somewhere is going to believe it's a sin.

Can anyone give me a rational reason why it's anybody's business?

Don Firth