The Discrimination Against Homosexuals in the Christian Church

Emily Holland


Religion is one of the most important aspects of today’s society. The majority of people participate in religion of some sort, whether it is Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, paganism, or otherwise. Given this, the church has enormous power to tell people how to live their lives. Historically, the church is famous for either causing persecution or being persecuted against. Catholics and Protestants fought an ongoing war in England. Hitler attempted to annihilate the Jews. The Bible was used to promote slavery (Price, 1993).

The list goes on. Next to these grand causes, the discrimination against homosexuals that the Christian religion condones might seem to be a small matter. But the persecution against them is widespread and deeply rooted. It contributes to anti-gay violence (Tatchell, 1998). It gives gays and lesbians more reason to stay in the closet and hide their sexuality (House, 2000). It adds another factor to consider in the high suicide rate among adolescent homosexuals (Bower, 1999).

Heterosexism is receiving a great deal of attention as homosexuality becomes more and more open in our society, and religious authorities are one of the greatest perpetuates of homophobia. They have many reasons, and the way that this prejudice comes out is shown in many ways.


Biblical Justification


Most devout Christians, when tackling the issue of homosexuality, turn almost immediately to the Bible. It cannot be argued that the Bible does state specifically that homosexuality is not acceptable in God’s eyes. “Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.” (Leviticus 18:22). Paul also makes a statement against homosexuality in the New Testament, stating that “Neither the sexually immoral nor idolators... nor homosexual offenders... will inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-10.) However, it is possible to debate the passages in Corinthians as a warning against the exploitation of young boys (Myers, 1999).

Clearly, it is possible to use the Bible against homosexuals. The story of Sodom is often used for this purpose. However, the translation of this specific passage varies. The New International Version makes the men demanding to see the angels plainly intending to commit homosexual acts. They ask, “Where are the men that came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we can have sex with them.” (Genesis 19:5). Different Bibles give a more mild interpretation, asking that the angels be brought out “so we might know them.” (Piazza, n. d.)

In general, Christian groups consider that it isn’t sinful to be homosexual; it is merely sinful to act upon your homosexuality. Most people endure sexual temptation every day, yet do not act on it. God condemns only the act of homosexual sex, not the urges towards it. However, some believe that the inclinations themselves are a ‘spiritual disorder’ (Packer, 2003). This becomes even more ironic when considering Kinsey’s results, which indicated that less than fifty percent of males surveyed and sixty percent of females had had exclusively heterosexual experiences (Kelsey & Kelsey, 1999).

The holy laws of Leviticus are the most blatant condemnation of homosexual acts. However, many of these laws are broken daily, by people who would consider themselves devout Christians. For example, Leviticus 19:27 states: “Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip the edges off your beard.” By this standard, any clean-shaven Christian has broken one of the holy laws. Similarly, Deuteronomy 22:5 forbids women from wearing clothes intended for a man or vice versa (Price, 1993). Though some Christian factions might use this verse to condemn men cross-dressing, it is never used on a woman who is wearing pants.

Given these contradictions, it is important to remember to take the Bible in the context of the times and culture in which it was written. Several of the laws of Leviticus were intended for hygiene or health purposes. The prohibition against eating shellfish, for example, was chiefly because there was no way to keep it from spoiling and being harmful (Piazza, n. d.). Much of the code of Leviticus has simply gone out of style, and is no longer used. For example, the practice of lesbianism isn’t mentioned in Leviticus at all, yet it is just as condemned by Christians. Only in one place in the entire Bible, Romans 1:26, is this even obliquely mentioned when Paul writes “Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones.” (Packer, 2003).

Interestingly, although Paul condemns homosexuality in the New Testament, Jesus himself never mentions it. It can even be extrapolated from certain sections that he would have had no problem with it. For example, Jesus heals Centurion’s servant. In the original version, the word used for this servant was ‘pais’, which often indicated that the person involved was the lover of an older or more educated man. However, Jesus seems to have no problem with this, and heals him regardless (Piazza, n. d.).

There are two ways that one can view the Bible. If everything in it is taken literally, even most Christians deserve death by stoning, after which they will go to Hell. Like most works of literature, it is important to consider the time at which it was written, and its cultural context. The one lesson that many Christians seem to forget when they are hurling Biblical rhetoric is something Jesus said to prevent the stoning of an adulterous woman: “If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her (John 8:7).”


The Debate Over Ordination


Despite the Christian position that being homosexual is different from acting upon homosexual urges, there has been a growing controversy over whether or not homosexuals should be allowed in the clergy. According to Fuller (2002), gay men have historically been a valuable part of the priesthood. They have served both pastorally and in administrative positions. Given that celibacy is required among the priesthood, and that homosexual inclinations by themselves aren’t sinful, then there is no reason to ban gays from the clergy.

However, it is rapidly becoming general opinion in the upper echelons of the Catholic church that they should not be allowed to. They are not allowed to join the seminary, and if it is later discovered that they are homosexual, they cannot be ordained (Fuller, 2002). Recently, this issue has gotten more attention, due to the outbreak of molestations. In all reality, it is unlikely that the number of incidents has increased. The amount of press they have been receiving, however, has brought more victims to come forward.

Christians seem to feel that this problem is due to the number of gays in the ministry. Despite the fact that, statistically speaking, pedophiles are just as likely to be straight or bisexual. They are also likely to molest either gender. Pedophilia is not about gender; it is about the power differential between the perpetrator and his or her victim (Murray, 2000). However, this doesn’t stop Christian officials from blaming the problem on homosexuals. In fact, Byfield and Byfield (2002) go so far as to say that the “sexual availability of young teenagers serving as altar boys attracted more homosexuals to the priesthood.”

Some right-wing Christians postulate that the number of homosexuals in the seminary is keeping heterosexuals from becoming priests. Given that homophobia is rampant within our society and the recent society, this could be possible. Byfield and Byfield (2002) state that the inclination to avoid homosexuals is as natural as heterosexual inclinations. This is causing not only a shortage of priests, but the general public disgrace of the priesthood. Recently, there was a crackdown on homosexuality in the clergy. The Vatican held a meeting with the American cardinals. Apparently, an order was given that all homosexuals be banned from the priesthood (Byfield & Byfield, 2002).

However, even before this order, the prejudice was felt. Many priests or other members of the clergy feel it necessary to hide their homosexuality, or make attempts to change it. Some members were not fully able to realize their own sexuality until years after they went through the seminary (Fuller, 2002). There is also a growing movement to ‘cure’ homosexuality. Chuck Collins (1993) writes about his own experience about a gay Presbyterian minister. He experienced a great deal of prejudice when he was searching for an ecumenical position. Collins is developing a workshop to demonstrate the effects of heterosexism to local churches, and writes scathingly about the attitudes of Christians today. “I often think about the people we have lost. The many gifted people who could no longer stand the abuse of the church; our friends who have quietly died of AIDs... the young people who sense the hypocrisy of the church... Those in our church who do not grieve these losses would have done business-as-usual the day Christ was crucified.”


Church Policies


Examples of discrimination against homosexuals can be found frequently in different branches of Christianity. For example, the Mormon-run college Brigham Young University has a policy against homosexual students. As previously discussed, they don’t forbid students from being homosexual; only from acting out their homosexual urges. In March of 2002, a sophomore was suspended for this reason. They also requested that a male student withdraw for holding another man’s hand, with the option of a two year suspension if he did not withdraw voluntarily (“News of the Year”, 2002). Mormon groups are frequently outspoken against homosexuality; they recently published a pamphlet that stated homosexuality was a sin, and that sexual immorality in general was second only to murder (“LDS position on excluding gays”, n. d.). However, Brigham Young University isn’t the only school with such a policy. Bob Jones University, an evangelical school, banned an alumnus from their campus entirely because he was homosexual (“Excerpt from a letter”, 1998).

Different churches, naturally, have different policies. In general, Roman Catholics disapprove of homosexuality but do not discriminate. There is a support group called Dignity which is an independent support group for gays, lesbians, bisexuals, and transgendered members of the Catholic church. Their mission statement reads “We believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered persons can express their sexuality in a manner that is consonant with Christ’s teaching.” Another small support group, Courage, has the official approval of the church. Their purpose is to help gays and lesbians lead celibate lives (Robinson, 2002).

The Vatican issued a catechism in 1992 that stated that homosexuality is not a matter of choice, but rather a trial for people to endure. This catechism advised against unjust discrimination against homosexuals, but it also delineated a distinct difference between just and unjust discrimination (Robinson, 2002). Areas in which is was acceptable to discriminate were that of family and adoption, the employment of educators, and the military (Gramick & Nugent, 1995). However, in the year 2000, the Pope condemned the World Pride march, saying that it was offensive to Christian values (Russell, 2000). A similarly interesting contradiction is that although one may receive absolution for a single homosexual act, they are denied absolution and the right to receive communion if they are involved in a permanent and monogamous relationship (Robinson, 2002). Although the church most likely did not intend it, this sends the message that occasional promiscuity is acceptable, but stable relationships are not. Cobb (1999) supports this theory. According to him, brief relationships are not openly questioned in church communities. However, an open, long-standing homosexual relationship would be a scandal. “The dominant effect of church teaching is to encourage secret, temporary liaisons without commitment and to discourage long-term fidelity.”

The Anglican church has proved to be more open towards matters of homosexuality. In 2000, it was ruled that a male vicar would be able to keep his position as a priest, even though he was planning to undergo gender reassignment surgery. The discussion went as high as the Archbishop of Canterbury (Russell, 2000). At a meeting of the domination, the church affirmed all monogamous, committed unions. However, it did not specifically mention same-sex relationships (“Episcopal Leader”, 2003). In 2002, the bishop of New Westminster was authorized to come up with a service to bless same-sex unions. This decision caused a large amount of controversy; however, it was not repealed (Packer, 2003).

Other denominations, such as the United Church of Christ (UCC), also have liberal policies. The Old South Church in Boston, for example, advertises openly that it is gay and lesbian friendly. The UCC has ordained many lesbian and gay ministers, and has been doing so for over thirty years. Inside the church, along with pamphlets on architecture and stained glass windows, the church issues a flyer on its gay and lesbian Fellowship. The Senior Minister at Old South Church is quoted in this pamphlet as having said “Their [homosexuals within the ministry] contribution to the mission and ministry of our church is imaginative, creative, compassionate -- in some cases far more so than many of us who are heterosexual... If what I witness be a so-called ‘gay lifestyle’, then our public and private institutions could use a great deal more of it (“The Lesbians, gays, and friends fellowship”).”

Certainly, not all churches are so friendly to homosexuals. One of the most outspoken groups against homosexuals is in Topeka, Kansas. This clergy, run by Fred Phelps, recently picketed a high school for having a gay-straight alliance. They are well-known for their messages of hate and crude language. Their website, entitled “God Hates Fags”, even goes so far as to have a counter stating how many days Matthew Shepherd has been in Hell. Phelps’ group made a name for itself when it picked Shepherd’s funeral in Wyoming. In general, the group is disparaged even by other clergy members. Rev. Tim York, who was heading the protest against the GSA in Kansas, decried Phelps’ message of hate, stating that he disagreed with his approach (James, 2002). Attempts have been made to ban gay-straight alliances in many other places, however; particularly Mormon Utah. In 1996, the school board in Salt Lake City attempted to ban them from public schools (Freiberg, 1998).

Lawsuits are becoming more and more prevalent in our society, particularly on this topic. Catholic schools have been sued by both students and teachers. Recently, a Catholic school student named Marc Hall sued the school because they would not allow him to bring his boyfriend to the prom. The judge ruled in Hall’s favor, issuing an order that he be allowed to go with his date as scheduled (Hunter, 2002). Hall went on to sue the school for damages. The decision in his favor sparked a wide controversy in Canada, where the case took place. A Toronto broadcaster stated that “Roman Catholics no longer have the right to be Roman Catholic (O’Neill, 2002).”

Other groups, though not officially religious, have discriminated against homosexuals for religious reasons. The controversy over the decision of the Boy Scouts of America, for example, has become famous, even making it into popular media as a joke. In 2000, the Supreme Court decided on the side of the BSA, stating that to take away their choice to discriminate was to violate their constitutional rights (Russell, 2000). In 2002, the Salvation Army faced an unfortunate shortage during the holiday season. Their Western chapters had offered benefits to same-sex partners of their employees, but the national leaders revoked this offer. A new policy was subsequently passed that took away regional rights to give benefits. Outraged, gay and lesbian friendly organizations launched a boycott against them (“New of the Year”, 2002).

A controversy arose over a recent act passed by President Bush, in which federal funding was given to religious or faith-based social service organizations. Lesbian and gay associations argued this decision, saying that it would increase discrimination against homosexuals. According to Dahir (2001), this violates the basic Constitutional separation of church and state and states that President Bush is “pushing open the door to religious discrimination as a weapon against gays and lesbians seeking social services.”

Perhaps the most telling comment about religious authority’s views on homosexuality came from the eminent, and somewhat infamous, Reverend Jerry Falwell. Shortly after the terrorist attacks on September eleventh, 2001, Falwell stated that Americans themselves were to blame, for secularizing America. He lists gays and lesbians in the groups that were the ‘cause’ of the tragedy. “All of them who have tried to secularize American-- I point the finger in their face and say, ‘You helped this happen.’” (“News of the Year”, 2002.)

Certainly not all Christians view this issue in the same light. There is a growing amount of literature on the acceptance of homosexuals. Smedes (1999), a theology professor, encourages that the most morally responsible way for homosexuals to accept their sexuality is in committed, long-term relationships. He acknowledges that celibacy is not necessarily a reasonable option for all people. Rohr (1999), a Franciscan pastor, agrees with this view. He believes that God would ask homosexuals in relationships for the exact same things he asks of heterosexuals: fidelity, truth, and forgiveness. Although traditional Christians believe that sexual activity is only for the purpose of bearing children, thus making all homosexual activity immoral, very few Christians hold this belief any longer. Given this change, Smedes (1999) states that committed relationships are the “best moral option available.”

According to Cobb (1999), homosexuals are the population most oppressed by the Christian church. Although they are not the most oppressed group in society as a general whole, they are singled out by the church. Where the church has protected and supported other oppressed groups, they lead the opposite way in this particular issue. Although homosexual men have been murdered because of their sexuality, the reverse has never been documented to have happened (Smedes, 1999). Although some Christians can quote Leviticus whenever the issue of homosexuality comes up, they seem to have forgotten about Jesus’ most important teachings: that of loving your God and your neighbor as yourself (Rohr, 1999).


The Elusive “Cure”


The treatment of homosexuality has been loudly extolled by Christians, but its original basis was in the field of psychology. Homosexuality was listed in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as a mental disorder until 1973. Since then, there has been an ongoing debate over whether or not it is ethical to use “conversion therapy” with homosexual patients (Haldeman, 1994). There is growing evidence that homosexuality is caused by biological and chemical reasons (Myers, 1999). One of the largest problems with these programs, from a psychological perspective, is that sexuality is not an either/or concept. It also cannot be measured solely on behavior, as many conversion programs are wont to do. There are numerous kinds of sexuality, ranging on a continuum, and many ways to express them (Haldeman, 1994, Kelsey & Kelsey, 1999). Despite the controversy in the psychological field, the ability to “cure” homosexuality has been loudly praised in the church. These programs come about from religious people struggling with both their homosexuality and their need for acceptance by their religious community. These two things can be very difficult to reconcile (Haldeman, 1994).

The most outspoken organization is Exodus International, which sponsors over eighty counseling centers for gays and lesbians who want to change. They claim that hundreds of homosexuals per year are “cured.” However, they do not say where this number comes from, or what they judge to be “cured”. Exodus combines traditional psychotherapy with prayer and classes on the Bible. Their results range from those who cease giving in to their homosexual urges to those who actually become heterosexual (Sheler, 1998).

Another popular course to cure homosexuality is the “Living Waters” program, which is part of Desert Stream Ministries. Desert Stream is one of the largest “ex-gay” ministries (Miller, 1998). They claim that the success rate for a lifetime change is at sixty-five percent and purport that more secular therapies such as psychotherapy cannot possibly cure homosexuality entirely. The Living Waters program is thirty weeks long, and consists mostly of study and prayer. It is used to treat more than homosexuality; it is also offered to people with problems with promiscuity, abuse, and other compulsion problems (Woodard, 1995).

Living Waters recently received a great deal of publicity, due to the Catholic school teachers and counselors that were in attendance. The program offered a course for these educators to be trained in the counseling of teenagers suffering from “sexual brokenness.” The theory behind this was that during adolescence, sexual identity is not yet established, and it is important to give teenagers the guidance they need. The people at Living Waters believe firmly that homosexuality is a choice (Woodard, 1995).

These programs have received wide publicity in recent years. A conservative group called the Center for Reclaiming America, had an advertising campaign. At first it was on a print campaign, featuring a minister who has been ‘cured’. In May of 1999, the advertisements were put on television. They were rejected by many major networks, and showed on a UPN affiliate (“Far Right”, 1999).

However, many people do not believe there is any good in conversion therapy. Many people, both psychologists and religious leaders, agree that not only does it not help, it can actually cause psychological harm (Sheler, 1998). The Human Rights Campaign has committee to monitor these organizations. Most of the organizations are closely watched from within, but the smaller ones are not. Due to the fact that they are religiously based, they also operate free of the rules that traditional therapists and counselors have to follow (Miller, 1998). The U. S. Surgeon General, David Satcher, has public announced that there is no evidence that sexual orientation can change, no matter what the desire on the part of the individual (“News of the Year” 2002). In the field of psychology, it is now believed that conversion therapy almost never helps, and frequently harms, the client. Dr. Welch (1998), an official in the American Psychological Association, has stated that “no scientific evidence exists to support the effectiveness of any of the conversion therapies that try to change one’s sexual orientation (as cited in Schreier, 1998).”

Other problems in ethics have arisen. Colin Cook, a minister, founded a counseling program called Quest. This later developed into Homosexuals Anonymous, a fourteen-step program that is similar to that used by Alcoholics Anonymous. Homosexuals Anonymous is the largest conversion counseling program in the world. However, when fourteen of his former clients were interviewed, not only did none of them report no change in their sexuality, but twelve reported that Cook had had sex with them. Guy Charles, the founder of Liberation in Jesus Christ, was also charged with sexual misconduct. It is possible for people to use these programs to find homosexuals who are in vulnerable states of mind, who can be more easily persuaded to sex, in much the same way therapists can sexually abuse their clients (Haldeman, 1994).

In addition to the problem with ethics, many people think that the attempts to cure homosexuality has a political facet to it. Miller states that by offering to help homosexuals rather than outright condemning them, they open themselves to more support from the public. Conservative politicians are invested in this financially as well as politically. Although most supporters of the policy to cure homosexuals deny any ulterior motives, it is impossible to deny that one of the large ad campaigns aired about a month before November elections.

Despite the possibility of these motives, many homosexuals agree that the treatments simply don’t work. Miller (1998) himself tried four different therapies, and eventually came to the conclusion that it was a lost cause. The therapy would have cost him thousands of dollars before he could even expect to see any results, in some cases. Miller was deeply suspicious of the motives of these counseling programs that charged so much money to ‘help’ homosexuals. Many Christians might say that Miller wasn’t applying enough effort to the process, and that he did not want to change. Even such advocates as John Paulk, author of the book “Not Afraid to Change”, admits that he is not firmly heterosexual. In an interview published in 1993, Paulk states that he doubts he would ever have “the intensity for sex with women that straight men” have (Miller, 1998).

In one scathing commentary on the value of conversion therapy, Tim Kerslake (n. d.) has posted a straight-to-gay conversion program. This four-step program is designed to do the exact opposite of what Christian therapy is supposed to accomplish. He recognizes that this is a joke, stating that “it is not guaranteed to work at all. In fact, I can pretty much guarantee that it will not work.”


The Consequences


The rejection of homosexuality is blatant in the church. Suicide rates among homosexuals are higher than that of heterosexuals or of the general population. In large part, this can be attributed to societal influences (Bower, 1999). This trend is even more pronounced among adolescents, struggling to find their place in society. Attempted suicide rates are two to three times higher among homosexual teenagers. In fact, it is the leading cause of death among homosexual adolescents (Riddle, 1996).

Perhaps the most telling story that has gotten public attention is that of Stuart Matis, a gay member of the Mormon church. He committed suicide at the age of thirty-two, closely followed by his gay best friend (Miller, 2000). This story was published in a Newsweek article, gaining public sympathy for the cause. However, it is telling how much the church affected Matis’ decision. He was accepted by his family, and had a close friend who understood his problems. Yet despite this social support, he took his own life.

The Mormon church believes homosexuality to be one of the worst sins. When Matis saw a church therapist, he was instructed to either go through one of the many programs to change his sexuality, or to suppress it entirely. Just before Matis killed himself, the church was loudly promoting a proposition that would ban same-sex marriages in California. Those who knew him agree that this did contribute to his suicide. It is agreed that disapproval strikes particularly hard at Mormons, because their morals are so strict. In a letter Matis wrote, he stated that “straight members have absolutely no idea what it is like to grow up gay in this church.” That religious rejection was the main factor in his tragic death (Miller, 2000). In fact, a survey done of homosexual Mormons in 2000 revealed that fifty-seven percent of them had either attempted suicide or seriously considered it (Baldwin, 2003).

The church’s rejection of homosexuality affects many people. Not only do they face rejection from their friends and family, but they face condemnation. Many worry that they will go to Hell. Those homosexuals who have grown up very religious have difficulty reconciling their sexuality with their faith. The clash between these two things can be psychologically damaging, and the way the church reacts only makes matters worse. This is perhaps best summed up by Dahir (2001) in Lesbian News, when say writes “the ugly truth is that as a general role in America, religion is still mostly used to attack and hurt gay people, not to help or heal them.”




References

Baldwin, J. T. (2003). Queer Mormons - between a rock and a hard place. Retrieved 4/20/03 from PrideDEPOT. [http://www.pridedepot.com/features/oped/Jbla_qmormon.htm]

Bower, B. (1999). Social factors make gay men suicidal. Science News, 156(17), 261.

Byfield, T. & Byfield, V. (2002). The Catholic problem isn’t pedophiles but gays, andcleaning it up may mean breaking the law. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 29(13),58.

Cobb Jr., J. B. (1999). Being Christian about homosexuality. In W. Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith (89-93). Minneapolis: FortressPress.

Collins, C. (1993). One voice of experience. Network News, 13(5), 8-9.

Dahir, Mubarak. (2001). What in God’s name has he done? Lesbian News, 26(8), 21.

Episcopal leader says church has confidence. (2003). Christian Century, 120(3), 15.

Excerpt from a letter to a gay alumnus: Christian university bans visits by its gay alumni. (1998, October 25). New York Times, p. 40. In S. Plous (ed.), Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination, (380). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Far right. (1999). Advocate, 787, 18.

Freiberg, P. (1998, December 18). Gay issues come to the forefront in heavily Mormon state [electronic version]. Washington Blade. Retrieved 3/09/03 from http://www.sodomylaws.org/usa/utah/utnews07.htm

Fuller, J. (2002). On ‘straightening out’ Catholic seminaries. America, 187(20), 7-9.

Gramick, J., & Nugent, R. (1995). Voices of Hope. As cited in: A summary: The teachings of the Catholic Church on homosexuality. Retrieved from Soulforce. [http://www.soulforce.org/dc_nugent.html]

Haldeman, D. C. (1994). The practice and ethics of sexual orientation conversion therapy. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 62(2), 221-227.

House, J. (2000). Pocatello, Idaho. Advocate, 814, 76-77.

Hunter, I. (2002). We have reached the point where churches, if they vanished entirely, would scarcely be missed. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 29(12), 16.

James, M. (2002, December 19). Anti-gay church to picket Boyd County High School. The Daily Independent. Retrieved 3/09/03 from http://www.dailyindependent. com/localnews/276588688477640.php

Kelsey, M., & Kelsey, B. (1999). Homosexualities. In W. Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith (63-66). Minneapolis: FortressPress.

Kerslake, T. (n. d.) Straight-to-gay conversion therapy. Retrieved 3/11/03 from http://www.dogwomble.worfie.net/stgct/index.shtml

LDS (Mormons) position on excluding gay youth/adults from BSA. (n. d.) Retrieved March 9th, 2003, from http://www.bsa-discrimination.org/Gays-Top/Sponsors/ Religions-gay/LDS-top/lds-top.html

The lesbians, gays, and friends fellowship: at the Old South Church in Boston. (n. d.)

Miller, M. (2000). To be gay -- and Mormon. Newsweek, 135(18), 38-39.

Miller, S. (1998). Peddling the cure. Advocate, 773, 42-53.

Murray, J. B. (2000). Psychological profile of pedophiles and child molesters. Journal of Psychology, 134(2), 211-225.

Myers, D. G. (1999). Accepting what cannot be changed. In W. Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith (67-70). Minneapolis: FortressPress.

News of the year. (2002). Advocate, 854/855.

O’Neill, T. (2002). There goes freedom of religion. Report/Newsmagazine (Alberta Edition), 29(12), 24-27.

Packer, J. I. (2003). Why I walked. Christianity Today, 47(1), 46-50.

Piazza, M. (n. d.) Homosexuality and Christianity. Retrieved 3/10/03 from Cathedral of Hope. [http://www.cathedralofhope.com/homosexuality/index.htm]

Price, D. (1993). Biblical verse: Is it a reason or an excuse? In S. Plous (ed.), Understanding Prejudice and Discrimination (381-382). Boston: McGraw Hill.

Riddle, B. (1996). Breaking the silence. Independent School, 55(2), 38-45.

Robinson, B. A. (2000). Homosexuality and religions: Policies of non-Christian religions. Retrieved 3/08/03 from ReligiousTolerance.org [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_chur3.htm]

Robinson, B. A. (2002). Roman Catholic church and homosexuality. Retrieved 3/08/03 from ReligiousTolerance. org [http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_rom1.htm]

Rohr, R. (1999). Where the Gospel leads us. In W. Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith (85-88). Minneapolis: FortressPress.

Russell, K. (2000). News bytes. Lesbian News, 26(1), 13.

Schreier, B. A. (1998). Of shoes, and ships, and sealing wax: The fault and specious assumptions of sexual reorientation therapies. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 20(4), 305-310.

Smedes, L. B. (1999). Exploring the morality of homosexuality. In W. Wink (ed.), Homosexuality and Christian Faith (77-82). Minneapolis: FortressPress.

Sheler, J. L. (1998). Faith-based therapies aim to ‘cure’ gays. U. S. News & World Report, 125(4), 30.

Tatchell, P. (1998). Catholic Homophobia. Retrieved 4/20/2003 from Outrage! [http://www.outrage.org.uk/catholic.htm]

The Holy Bible: New International Version. (1984). Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House.

Woodard, J. (1995). Curing the queer compulsion. Alberta Report/Newsmagazine, 22(32), 29.