The Quandary Christians Put Gays In

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My cousin married a closeted gay man. She said it was awful. He was a nice guy and treated her well, but she thought he was old school with sex after marriage. He had trouble on their wedding night and every time thereafter. In their 7 year long marriage they had sex twice.

It eventually ended in divorce. She finally got married again at age 36 and he came out of the closet shortly after the divorce. It did neither of them justice to get married. It was actually more unfair to her. Many anti gay marriage crowd members would be glad this gay man had a heterosexual marriage, regardless of how unfair it is to the straight member of the marriage!

I don't know how glad they would be, but your point about men living a lie by marrying a woman is well taken and addressed in the OP. Given the choice, we should always be walking in the light, in the truth, and being honest with ourselves and our fellow man. Same sex marriage achieves that, allowing people to openly marry the person they are truly attracted to and can remain committed to for life.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

 

[Seawytch]

What the Bible forbids is just as bad an idea today as it was back then. Men casually hooking up with men, drug and alcohol abuse, orgies, and all the consequences thereof including AIDS and other STD's. This kind of unbridled lifestyle we can be certain is wrong in the eyes of God. A committed same sex marriage and monogamous sex within that marriage is not what the Bible was addressing.

You forgot some...men casually hooking up with women and women casually hooking up with women. Why?

Actually, it only goes to reinforce what I'm saying, that what the Scripture forbids is the separation of sex and love, unbridled hedonism, and the consequences of it. Christian fundamentalists tend to see it all as the same, but it's not. Is a man faithfully married to a woman the same as men casually hooking up with women, committing acts of debauchery with women they don't intend to marry, and even getting into orgies, drugs, alcohol, and living a destructive lifestyle? God's laws are all motivated by love for mankind, to give us boundaries for our own protection and to give us the best chance at long term happiness and prosperity, keeping away from the very things that would rob us of it.

That didn't answer my question. Why did you leave them out? Do you or don't you see anything "hedonistic" about casual hookups that aren't two dudes? If you do, then why not say "people casually hooking up"?

What I'm saying, Mike, is that you're progressing, but you've still got some ways to go. Well done though

I think you're being combative for no good reason. I didn't leave anything out by focusing on a specific issue germane to the OP. And I did answer your question, whether you think so or not.

Nope...just pointing out you have a ways to go. Promiscuity is what the bible teaches against, period.

 

[Care4all]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

If the gvt called it civil union for all of us, all along, as it truly is a civil contract recognized by the State....none of this "changing the definition of marriage" fight would have occurred imo.... at least not with this fury.... because many see "marriage as a holy sacrament, performed by the church", and misinterpret "marriage by the State" as the same....but it was never the same...imo.

 

[Freewill]

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general? When a gay friend of mine got married, to the same gender, I congratulated them and wished them well. Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me. What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

 

[Seawytch]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

If the gvt called it civil union for all of us, all along, as it truly is a civil contract recognized by the State....none of this "changing the definition of marriage" fight would have occurred imo.... at least not with this fury.... because many see "marriage as a holy sacrament, performed by the church", and misinterpret "marriage by the State" as the same....but it was never the same...imo.

It was never the same. There were never the same rights, benefits and privileges associated with civil unions as there are with civil marriage.

Now, if we were to convert ALL civil marriages to civil unions making it a change in name only, that would be fine, but what all these anti gay folks want is for gays to have civil unions and straights to have civil marriage. Sorry, but we've already gone over separate but equal in this country, ya know?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general? When a gay friend of mine got married, to the same gender, I congratulated them and wished them well. Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me. What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

There are so many directions that this issue can go. On this thread I'm not addressing what the Supreme Court did and I'm trying to keep it focused on our attitudes. Had I not had close gay friends who are getting married this month, I might not feel as I do, but having those friends has tempered my perception of this issue and allowed me another perspective. And I think that what your friend is experiencing with the person he married goes well beyond a roommate relationship. You should hang out with him more, get to know how he sees it.

 

[Seawytch]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

 

[deltex1]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

Treat them as equals, they are, and all that goes away eh?

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

Why are so-called Christians pretending that the scriptures forbid same sex marriage?

I am not a so called Christian. I am a Catholic. So you will not hear me quoting scripture. I quote tradition, common sense and the natural law. All of those indicate that same sex marriage is like marrying a dead person. No procreation is possible. Lots of fun. Benefits for sure. But no creation.

I'm Catholic too, and very aware of Pope Francis's encyclical decrying the failure of the Christian Church to reach out to gays as Jesus would have done. Instead we are building walls, and by doing so congratulating ourselves for being about God's work. It doesn't matter whether you or I think that a same sex couple's marriage is worthwhile if they can't naturally produce children, the question is, do we deny them the same happiness that we enjoy? I love my wife dearly and I look at my friends who will marry this month and I truly pray they will have the same joy that I have being married to the person they want to spend the rest of their lives with.

I am all for reaching out...not reaching around.

 

[Freewill]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

It is an issue of force because the issue was decided by forced compliance.

What is it that you have to "comply" with? Are you saying that you disagree with the Supreme Court ruling in Loving v Virginia? 80% of the country was opposed to interracial marriage when they ruled in 1967. 60% of the country supports gays getting civilly married. Where is this "forced compliance" that is soooooo egregious that folks want to set themselves on fire?

Doesn't the RCC still oppose gay marriage and homosexuality in general?

All the candidates for President do. They are out of step with the rest of the country on this and other issues. And?

Since the issue of children won't arise it is hardly different then when I used to have room mates of the same gender, so them being married isn't really a big deal to me.

Same-sex couples were raising an estimated 200,000 children under age 18, of whom 30,000 are being raised by married same-sex parents. LGBT individuals who are not part of a couple are raising between 1.2 and 2 million children – a wide variable due to the range in estimates of adults who identify as LGBT.

Of the 1.6 million adopted children in the U.S., 65,000, or 4 percent, are being raised by gay and lesbian parents. About 14,000 foster children, or 3 percent of all foster children in the U.S., live with LGBT parents.

​

What irks me is that twisted logic of some and states being forced to comply.

That's what happens when laws you pass violate the United States Constitution. I'll put it to you this way...would you agree if the SCOTUS said California could not ban, by people's initiative or legislation, the private ownership of handguns?

What also concerns me is that I believe that not all, but some, are born "that way."

Wait...which one concerns you, that some people are born with same sex attractions or that men on submarines let other dudes suck their dicks?

Once again, Loving was an issue of marriage between a MAN and a WOMAN.

You smear on submariners is well taken.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough.

You first.

The Bible is mute on civil marriage.

You should do the same.

My point stands unrefuted.

Civil marriage is none of religion's business.

Marriage is Gods plan. Civil marriage is Caesar's plan. Render unto God the things that are Gods And unto Ceasar the things that are Caesars. Thus the controversy goes away. You could not stand that!

We could "stand that" just at fine...if ya'll straight folks could. Civil unions for ALL is great.

Unless you have an institution that included 1 man and 1 woman, the polygamist and the same sex siblings must be included.

All your SSM arguments would fit just as well for them.

Read an interesting op-ed today that addressed this, and I thought phrased the situation very well.

Why Two The Question Gay Activists Can t Answer - Michael Brown - Page 1

If marriage is not the union of a man and a woman, then why should it be limited to two people (or, for that matter, require two people)? Why can’t it be one or three or five? What makes the number “two” so special if it doesn’t refer to the union of a male and a female?

If “love is love” and “marriage equality” is the mantra, then why can’t any combination of loving adults form a “marriage”?

If you say, “But marriage has always been the union of two people,” that is patently false, since polygamy has existed for millennia (and still exists in scores of countries) and, more importantly, throughout history, whatever number of people were involved, the fundamental requirement was not two people but a man and a woman.

If you say, “But polygamy is harmful to women and society,” that is irrelevant, since if the people want to enter into marriage love each other (remember, love is love, right?), they should be allowed to.

Plus, polygamists have the ability to reproduce naturally and then join the children to their mother and father, which homosexual unions cannot do. And, speaking of harm, gay relationships are, statistically speaking, less stable than heterosexual relationships, while specific acts of homosexual sex, especially among males, have increased health risks.

Ironically, gay “marriage” advocates like Jonathan Rauch fail to see the irony of their position when they argue that “Polygamy Isn’t the Next Gay Marriage,” since their redefinition of marriage is far more radical than that of the polygamists.

As cultural analyst Robert Knight remarked, “The term ‘marriage’ refers specifically to the joining of two people of the opposite sex. When that is lost, ‘marriage’ becomes meaningless. You can no more leave an entire sex out of marriage and call it ‘marriage’ than you can leave chocolate out of a ‘chocolate brownie’ recipe. It becomes something else.”
And when it becomes “something else” it can become virtually “anything else,” which is why polyamorists (along with polygamists) are also clamoring for their relationships to be legally recognized. As US News and World Report noted just three days after the Supreme Court ruling, “Polyamorous Rights Advocates See Marriage Equality Coming for Them.”

To repeat, if your mantras are “Love is love” and “I have the right to marry the one I love,” and if you really advocate “marriage equality,” then why can’t any number and combination of consenting adults join together in “marriage”?
If you say, “But that’s not marriage,” you have just shot yourself in the foot, since marriage has never been the union of any two people but rather the union of a man and a woman.

 

[Cecilie1200]

My cousin married a closeted gay man. She said it was awful. He was a nice guy and treated her well, but she thought he was old school with sex after marriage. He had trouble on their wedding night and every time thereafter. In their 7 year long marriage they had sex twice.

It eventually ended in divorce. She finally got married again at age 36 and he came out of the closet shortly after the divorce. It did neither of them justice to get married. It was actually more unfair to her. Many anti gay marriage crowd members would be glad this gay man had a heterosexual marriage, regardless of how unfair it is to the straight member of the marriage!

Um, no, there's no reason to believe that any of us are in favor of being dishonest to people, other than your desire to smear us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

[

I basically agree. But why isn't a civil contract enough. Live together. Love together. Benefit together. But leave marriage intact. Perhaps your friends don't push the political agenda...but the political left does...and it has little to do with concern for gays.

It's a civil right that was denied because a bunch of religious people who have always been the worst gay-bashers didn't want it. Now the christian right is acting like an oppressed victim, maybe if they had been a little less hateful and oppressive for the last two thousand years someone would give a shit.

I disagree. Everyone deserves happiness. But this created a legal paradox that can't be addressed easily

Marriage is now a right. Denying that right is discriminatory.

As previously defined, between a male and a female, not too closely related kept polygamy and many relationships traditionally considered incestuous out of government sanctioned marriage.

Now it would be arbitrary to deny several individuals from that dignity and happiness (polygamy) as well as banning to heterosexual same sex siblings, same sex homosexual siblings from marriage.

And if you can't come up with a reasoned legal argument against the above, you are then arbitrarily discriminating against opposite sex siblings.

Marriage excluded male/female siblings the right to keep bloodlines pure, when the couple is same sex, that argument is nonsense.

This will be a mess

Which is why the manner in which same sex marriage came about, by judicial fiat, is a mistake. In no way am I defending the Supreme Court's decision because, as you point out, now the states are disempowered to put any restrictions on marriage, no matter how ridiculous people make marriage. Polygamy? Marrying one's son to avoid an inheritance tax? Marrying a pet, a car, or even a battery operated vibrator? And this is just the beginning.

The decision should have been made by the states, but on a personal level, I'm asking what moral right that happily married heterosexual couples have to say, "Bliss for me, but not for thee." As you see from the OP, I'm approaching this from a very personal perspective that involves close friends of my family. I cannot justify denying them the happiness I've found in being married to my wife in the eyes of society.

Well, part of your problem is that you've accepted the leftist redefinition of terms and resetting of parameters. You've bought into the whole "if you don't have a license, you're not married, so conservatives are stopping people from getting married" line. It's not true. That license doesn't convey a relationship, or "bliss" (and if you think marriage is bliss, you clearly haven't done it), or anything else of that nature. All it says is whether or not society in general is going to recognize your relationship by a certain definition for legal purposes. That's it.

No one is suggesting tracking down homosexual couples and dragging them away, kicking and screaming, to force them to live separately. No one cares what they do in their personal lives. We'd actually be mightily obliged if they'd keep it personal, instead of insistently putting it on display and demanding that people applaud it.

And frankly, I'm deeply disappointed in you and this newfound subjective morality - "I know someone who does it, therefore I have to approve to be a nice person and feel like I love them". You should know better. I have gay family members, and I love them very much, and I genuinely have no horse in the race where their personal relationships are concerned. It in no way obligates me to think that public policy should be changed to make them feel "accepted" and "approved".

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gay marriage was never denied because it never was no matter how the left howls.

Of course that changes now because of 5 old men and women.

I just wonder where the gays will go to be victims now that their status has changed.

I am thinking they will be victims of churches to which they can't force themselves upon.

One thing we can be sure of is that they will find a way to stay the victim.

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

And what is your "bridge" going to accomplish, exactly? What is it you think Jesus was accomplishing with all this "bridge-building" you think He was doing?

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gays put themselves in their own quandary. I agree with Deltex, civil unions were good enough, give them the benefits of marriage but leave traditional marriage alone. It's all part of them wanting to appear normal.

Marriage was dead long before gays got to join in.

Get ready for multiple, overlapping "marriages".

I know many couples who's marriages are strong, invariably the ones that are strong are couples with a firm belief in God.

What if ten years from now same sex marriages prove to be more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual? That's a point that can't be underscored enough that heterosexuals are not the paragon of what marriage should be either, with our divorce rate well above 50% and the effect divorce has on children. My own marriage was on the rocks for a while and we temporarily divorced and then remarried.

And same sex couples can also have a firm belief in God. The women referred to in the OP certainly do..

If homosexual relationships had the capacity to prove more strong, stable, and enduring than heterosexual relationships, then they should have done so BEFORE demanding that we assume they are.

As it happens, this is - by and large - a hypothetical along the lines of "What if the moon turns to really be made of green cheese". It's not going to happen. All that's going to happen is our society's expectation of marital behavior is going to continue to erode until virtually no one is able to make it work long enough to be of any benefit to anyone, let alone society in general.

The point that can't be underscored enough is that you don't fix the problem with heterosexual marriages collapsing by redefining the whole concept into something even less stable and reliable, and conducting some grand social experiment on an already shaky institution with absolutely zero evidence beyond your warm, fuzzy "feewings" to indicate that it will work. You want to repair and restabilize marriage? Go back to when it last was stable, and figure out why that was.

By the way, the divorce rate is not 50%. That's a bullshit number arrived at by conflating to completely unrelated statistics.

Can't imagine what "I believe in God" has to do with anything. Lots of people profess to believe in God. It's easy to do when you just make God up as you go along.

 

[Cecilie1200]

What makes you think they have to go anywhere? Blacks and women were given equal rights a long time ago, and it hasn't stopped THEM from claiming perpetual, caterwauling victimhood.

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Why don't all Christians have gay friends? Maybe cause at 2% of population they aren't exactly everywhere.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.

Furthermore, you keep blithering on about "building bridges". This is a very vague catchphrase, and I would very much like you to clarify it. What sort of bridge? Bridge to where? What bridges do you think Christ built, what do you think He accomplished with this alleged "bridge-building", and what do you actually think His purpose and goals that YOU should accomplish are?

Please don't assume that because you've suddenly discovered the wonderful world of flexible morality, those of us who don't join you haven't "sought out another perspective". That's leftist-think. We've considered it. Then we rejected it as being incorrect.

There are homosexuals in my husband's firm, we're not really close friends with them but we entertain them in our home like we do all the associates. With that said they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some gays act. It's the militant types doing their cause more harm than they realize.

Thanks for mentioning your experience.

I am good friends with quite a few Christians- actually they are amongst the friends I have known for most of my life. I have attended their weddings, visited them, cheered on their children- just like I do all of my friends.

With that said, they are not vocal or militant about their lifestyle, in fact a few times they have denounced how some Christians act- the ones who seem to forget what Christ's two greatest commandments are.

Its the bigoted Christians that are doing their faith more harm than they realize.

And yes- I am speaking of Christians just like you.

 

[Syriusly]

The difference in my opinion and why comparing blacks to being gay is wrong.

Blacks can't keep their color to themselves. Its out there for all to see. Not so with the gays, there is nothing that says they have to announce their pride in poking their friends where the Sun doesn't shine. Doing so, in my opinion, is there business but nothing to be proud of.

The difference in my opinion on why your opinion is wrong is because you are obsessing about how others have sex.

Homosexuals were not targeted for arrest or for being fired or for being beaten up or murdered because of their 'pride in having sex'- they were targeted because they were different- and because they were attracted to the 'wrong gender'

Targeting people for abuse, in my opinion, is nothing to be proud about.

And it's in stark contrast with what Jesus taught us to be. It seems this message is being lost, that the Bible says Jesus did not come into the world to condemn the world, but that through Him, the world might be saved (John 3:17). Jesus built bridges and taught his disciples to build bridges......so why to Christians today build walls and think by doing so they are good followers of Christ?

My family and I are building a bridge with two very dear ladies who are tying the knot this month. That bridge will be sturdy and enduring and will hopefully be but one of many as Christian embrace what Jesus really taught.

I would not have guessed you were a Christian. Thank goodness you are because I sure hate when liberals have to borrow someone else's faith to make their point.

I am glad that the couple you mention have a good friend such as you, good for them. But why is the forced compliance of anyone else so important to them?

I am exactly as I represented myself to be in the OP, a Catholic man married and with 4 children, and having two close friends who are gay women getting married. It's very personal to me and it's an opportunity to see another perspective that I think all Christians should seek out. Why don't all Christians have close gay friends? Could it be because we're better at repelling and condemning them than we are at building bridges as Christ taught us to?

And the better question is, why are we making it an issue of force?

Maybe a lot of Christians don't have gay friends because homosexuals avoid Christians, rather than the other way around. Have you thought of that? Hell, I know a lot of gay people who actually have almost no close friends who aren't also gay (clearly, I know them from some other context than being close friends with them). If they're repelled because they feel that anything less than universal approbation is "condemning" - and they do - then that's THEIR problem, not mine. They need to grow up and learn what the rest of us did: life occasionally sucks. Wear a helmet.
.

Or it could be because Conservative Christians often condemn homosexuals for being homosexuals, and people tend to avoid people who do that?

On the other hand- if you live in a particularly conservative part of the United States, there is a reasonably good chance you have a gay friend that you just don't know is gay. We have a close friend who lives in the South that only a few friends know he is gay- certainly not his family or church- because he believes if they did, they would reject him- and cast him out of their lives.

Which is really sad.