Did Jesus Speak About Homosexuality?

From Kelsey Rae on May 3rd:

Why is this always such a heated debate? Why is this always seen with such a negative light? There are many things that ARE talked about specificaly in the bible as being wrong or being a sin, and yet, there are still people out there that do them. Why are those not such heated topics?

Let those without sin be the first to throw a stone!

From Mark Alexander on May 3rd:

Jesus also did not speak about pedophilia or bestiality for much the same reason he did not speak directly to the issue of homosexuality. So do liberal theologians conclude these perversions are also acceptable. I direct you to a comprehensive essay on this subject I wrote some years back, which has helped many Christians sort through this issue. "Gender Identity, The Homosexual Agenda and The Christian Response" at http://patriotpost.us/alexander/2006/12/29/gender-identity-the-homosexual-agenda-and-the-christian-response/

From Erik on May 3rd:

I guess Jesus didn't know that this would be a big issue in the future.
So if Jesus was primarily addressing the Jews of his time maybe his other sayings are not applicable to us either?

From RickY on May 3rd:

Kelsey, the reason it is a heated debate is because those promoting complete acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle are the ones stirring up the debate. The main hot-button issue is gay marriage. Most Christians would be okay with civil unions and full rights for gay partners, but that's not good enough for the homosexual community. They want the word marriage. There is a concerted effort to marginalize and silence anyone who thinks marriage should be between a man and a woman. Look at what happened in California. They claim Christian's are intolerant, when there's certainly no tolerance on the other side. http://thisismarriage.wordpress.com/gay-marriage/prop-8/

In short, there is an agenda that has played out over the last thirty to forty years. Just look back at the changes that have occurred over that time. Look at what's being taught in public schools. Look at what's on TV. You would think 50% of the population is gay, when it's more like 6% or less. If there were small groups out there with an agenda to promote activities like pedophilia, adultery, or shop lifting, we'd be speaking out about that, too.

From RickY on May 3rd:

One other thing, Kelsey. The bible DOES specifically state that homosexuality is wrong. It's called an abomination in the Old Testament, which is a very strong condemnation. You can also read about it in the New Testament in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 and Romans 1:26-28.

From Christina on May 3rd:

Ricky, why would most Christians be ok with civil unions if they believe homosexuality is an abomination? I hardly think it's fair to say that gay rights activists are stirring the debate. There would be no debate if it weren't for religious fundamentalists.

From Harry Pittman on May 3rd:

Thanks for a great work of true devotional thought.
Rev. Harry D. Pittman

From Kelsey Rae on May 3rd:

To continue my comment from earlier....
I did not mention anything about homosexuality being right or wrong. I also didn't say anything about civil unions vs. marriage for same sex partners. My question is...Why does this issue get more attention then all of the other sins in the world?

I guess my real issue with this post is the hatred and the anger that this topic stirs in people. Why does anyone (gay or not) have the right to get that angry or judgemental toward another human being? We are not supposed to be the judgers, we are supposed to teach and spread the LOVE of jesus. He accepted everyone, because we're all sinners!

From RickY on May 3rd:

Christina, when I say "okay", I mean the government can set that up if homosexual couples want equal treatment under the law. It would not be the huge thing it is without the homosexual agenda that has played out over time that's eroding the sanctity of marriage. By the way, if by "religious fundamentalists" you mean those who follow the teaching in the bible, then that's probably true.

Yes, Kelsey, Jesus accepted everyone, and we are called to do the same. We're not to expect non-believers to behave like they are believers. It's also true that we're all sinners. Those of us who are followers of Jesus are called not to sin. We can't do that perfectly, but we are to repent of our sins and do our best not to sin in the future. If someone were actively participating in and promoting a sin, then they obviously have not repented from that. By the way, while we should be careful about judging others, we are called to confront sin within the church. Read Matthew 18:15-17.

From Christina on May 3rd:

Before we start blaming another group of people for our problems why don't we first fix the problem of marriages ending in divorce or marriages not happening at all? Those are the real threats to the sanctity of marriage. It's a lot easier to just blame someone else.

From Kelsey Rae on May 3rd:

Ricky what about Matthew9:13 Where is your mercy? Why are you so angry about this issue? That was the point of my original post. It seems that there is so much anger surrounding this issue, and I don't understand why. I read the link you posted earlier and although I felt the article was incredibly biased, it demonstrates the anger.

Matthew 18:15-17 calls you to confront sin in the church, but then tells you to walk away and treat them as pagans and tax collectors. So why are there so many groups out there that claim to be 'doing god's work' but are driving minors to suicide because of their anti-gay harrassement (article in Rolling Stones) or trying to boycott stores that create jobs but have promotors that are gay (Ellen Degeneres).

My comments were not originally ment to take sides, and I still don't plan to. I think BOTH SIDES are angry. What about John 13:34-35, 2 Corinthians 13:11, and Hebrews 10:24? Where is your love for one another?

From RickY on May 3rd:

I'm not angry, Kelsey. I was simply answering your question as to why this is a big deal for me and other Christians. It's not because homosexuality is being singled out as some kind or worse sin. It's about the agenda to try to make everyone, including Christians, say that it is a normal lifestyle that should be embraced (and that includes the marriage issue). We don't think that's the case because it is specifically called a sin and it's against our beliefs. We should be able to state our opinion, and yes, that opinion comes out more frequently when we are challenged as to why we are not embracing it. We don't talk about pedophilia like that, because no one is trying to make that an acceptable behavior (yet). Yes, we should not discuss this in an angry way. We should also love others, regardless of their sin. Unfortunately, there are some who claim to be Christians that don't do that.

People today don't understand the correct meaning of the word tolerance. They think that means you accept everything as okay. That's not tolerance. You tolerate people you don't agree with. If you agree with someone, there is nothing to tolerate. There is no tolerance on the other side for Christian beliefs. We can't have a differing opinion without being called intolerant.

From Jerry on May 4th:

Ricky, you have done an excellent job of defending your views, (and mine also) but this view is quickly being deemed as hateful and will very soon be concidered illegal. No, we are not the judge of these people but when we tell them what their judge (God)will declare, they go crazy. I have family members that chose to live this life and I love them dearly but I am concerned about their eternal destiny, we knoe the Bible teaches that people who practices this sin will not go to heaven, I tolerate their wanting to flaunt the life style but I do not accept it as being Godly, and this also gets their blood to boiling. If the militants who keep pushing it in our faces would back off then we could have more time to concetrate on witnessing to people who commit other sins. I believe it boils down to the fact that they do not believe God's word is real at all, so to this I say, then roll the dice and see if you win, in the end. I don't want to take any chances. Have a blessed day Brother.

From Gunk on May 5th:

For Goodness Sakes:

If you ain't Doing it?
Don't worry about it. There are plenty of Sins our own Lives to live up to.

What are you going to say? "Lord I wasn't?"

Didn't Paul say "And such were some of you?" But you were Washed?

There are more people screwing around in the Church now than Ever...What is the Difference? What is the Moral Difference?

Guys and Gals Sex is Way Over Rated...You depend on that for Validation outside of Marriage?

You are Bound and Determined to be Under-Rated.

John H.ome One Best Guys I ever Met. Totally Gay but he was still a Guy's Guy.;

Heck Guys...I've seen some of my Other Best Friends fall for Drag Queens at The Limelight.

And they were Highly Trained Military Types!!!

No Sex Outside of Marriage Period...That is The Deal/G

From Grant on May 5th:

I have people I love that have the same sin problem, Jerry. They tell me it's natural for them. I agree. My sin nature makes a lot of things natural for me that are offensive to God. We all have our struggles. We all deny that some of them are "wrong or sinful".
My biggest problem is dealing with how disgusting I find it. I'm sure people found me disgusting when I was a slave to the booze, too. None of this is easy.

From Paula on May 7th:

Kelsey Rae,

There are many sins discussed by Bryant Wright in these devotions, yet I have never seen a comment from you or Christina. Seems to me You are the ones choosing to give it “attention” and making it into a “heated debate”.

Furthermore, the only people uttering and clinging to the words “hatred” and “anger” are again, You.

But that’s typical and very much part of the rhetoric of the anti-religious Fundamentalists.

From Gunk on May 8th:

There are just as many Gay Gals as there are Gay Guys...

No Sex outside of Marriage--That includes all those Married Folk who get a little on The Side.

You know...one of the most Intrusive Activities against Marriage are Sites like Facebook? Internet Chatrooms? Porn Sites? Sunday School Classes?

If we engage in Deliberate, Self-Absorbed, Anti-Husband/Wife Activities in those Forums?

We may as well Open the Front Door and allow those People into our(your)Marriages.

I don't have it to do all over again--too Old at 57. But I can tell you this Gals...You want to Tear your Marriage Apart?

There are Plenty of People in the Church and on the Internet which will give you all the Assistance possible.

Draw a Circle around that Relationship if you are Married and don't let any other Person in.

Save your Marriage--Only Two People can do That.

From Paula on May 9th:

Gunk, the sin discussed here is homosexuality which is fundamentally wrong, but I agree with most of what you say. However, I don't think anyone who practices adultery is helped by media or other people. It's simply a choice that person was going to make sooner or later with or without Facebook. People make all sorts of excuses, but it's just about making a choice. Just like homosexuality.

From Gunk on May 9th:

Jesus Saves--Facebook Don't.

Now that sounds Ridiculous doesn't it Paula...however, you should see some of the Stuff that is out there with the People I know in Real Life.

They Paint themselves up to be very Pretty--But they are really very Ugly like me.

It is absurd...one of the Gals I thought I might date after the Second Ex? Had over 600 Photos of Herself posted to that Website? Know what I did?(they tell you how many photos and stuff before you go to the Website)

Ignored Her...But when she sends personal Emails? I respond with as much Positive Stuff as I can because she really is a Great Little Gal.

And it is about Making a Choice--and I have made many Very Sorry Ones.

So we Agree but it always gets back to keeping our Pants On--One way or Another.

You know...I cannot imagine Crawling into bed with a Gal I don't love enough to Marry--that is Old Fashioned I know.

How can One have Sex with someone you don't Know? I have done many many Stupid Things but I know This: Any Real Christian who gets in a Sexual Bed outside of Marriage?

Is really going to Hurt Themselves...

From Paula on May 10th:

Gunk, if I understood everything you said correctly, I totally agree!

From Gunk on May 10th:

Sweetheart...It sure is Nice to have a Woman agree with me on Something for the First Time in About Two Decades!

Especially a Xian Woman...

Second Ex told me when she filed "Be Careful there are a lot of Sexual Preditors out there..."

I was too hurt and stupid to understand that at that Point?

But she was Right!

Now that I am Fat, Dumb Ugly and Broke?

It ain't a Problem to more!!!

:)

From Paula on May 12th:

Now Gunk, don't be too hard on yourself...I sometimes have trouble understanding you, but you are funny and almost as politically incorrect as I am (e.g."sweetheart"). To me those are good things!! Best of all, you are a follower of Jesus:)

From K. on May 14th:

LOVE the sinner, HATE the sin.

From Kelsey Rae on May 16th:

What about people who are born transgender? Do they get to choose which sex they want to marry?

From Paula on May 18th:

"Born transgender"?...Only in transgender fairytale books

From Gunk on May 18th:

Heck Paula:

Sometimes I think I was born Transgender--Then most of the Time just plain Old Fool.

I took my Son in to this God-Forsaken Place 5 Years ago...Before that I changed enough Diapers on he and his sister to Fill a Dumpster.

Put both of them through Elementary and Middle School while their Mom was out of the Picture...Flying or Remarried.

Try putting a Middle-Schooler with ADD/No Job/Support through one of the Toughest Schools in GA. And Graduate him with a 93 Average and First Alternate on the Upright Bass.

Heck: I made him a Better Mom than Both the Exes and My Mom to Boot!

Dads can be Good Moms too...Sexual Preference has nothing to do with Good Parenting.

Some of these Dads out there make Darned Good Moms/G

:)

From Kelsey Rae on May 21st:

Paula,

You haven't seen me comment before this post, because I just recently started to read the daily devotions here. I have been scared to comment because of the mean comments that some people leave, but I thought this could be a topic that I could weight in on. I'm used to this one being a fight, but I said nothing mean about either side. I didn't even comment about which side was right or wrong. I actually accused both sides. So why is it that you think you have the right to say that I'm wrong here?

I would have let it go, but your close mindedness became apparent with your "transgender fairytale" comment. I left it later, to not stir up too much arguement, but FAIRTALE! It is a medical issue in the same way that dwarfism or being born without a limb is. Are you really that blind?!?

I mean this comment not to be a personal attack on Paula (sorry if it seems that way), but a comment for everyone to realize that they need to open their eyes. Tolerance can go a long way for both sides.

From Paula on May 21st:

Kelsey Rae,

My right to express an opinion is exactly the same as yours. You do realize that, no?

So, with that in mind, you ought to go back and read your own statements. You were the one opening up this discussion with preemptive accusations. Ricky and others very well pointed out the inaccuracies in your viewpoints while thoughtfully responding to your prejudicial claims. Again, the only one clinging to notions of anger and hatred is you. This is typical of those trying to argue your kind of belief, which has no scientific defense or biblical support. You said it yourself - you are “used to this being a fight”, so this is certainly a theme you choose to pursue, and despite your declaration of neutrality, you clearly have taken a position.

I hate to break it to you but pedophilia, rape, and murder also assume claims of “medical issues”, should we then accept and be “tolerant” of all those acting on their urges?

This is nothing new -- those who do not share your views are “closed minded”, “hateful” and “intolerant”. How about you follow your own advice and “open your eyes” to the fact that you can choose to ignore what is clearly written , but others are equally free to choose otherwise.

From Paula on May 21st:

Gunk, my brother, when you put it that way I don't see how I can disagree!:)

From Kelsey Rae on May 22nd:

You are correct. I do tend to lean toward the side of supporting peoples right to choose, but my comment about transgender was unrelated. It is actually a medical issue, and I was actually asking...what happens then? When you are medically classified as a male and a female are you allowed to pick which one you identify with more? If this is the case, you will not be able to have children regardless of the choice you make, but you still need to choose.

There are some people out there that "feel" that they were born the "wrong" sex, but I am only asking about those that are medically born as both. How do you handle that decision? This is no FAIRYTALE. This is a real world problem.

From Paula on May 24th:

Kelsey Rae,

You are confusing a chromosomal anomaly that leads to a severe birth defect (gender ambiguity), with an individual who makes a choice to lead a sexual life outside of boundaries of what’s established both by the laws of nature and God (who established them).

He gave us the ability to choose to follow His commands or not. It is entirely your choice to accept homosexuality. Mine is not to accept it.

From Hazel on May 28th:

I have thought long and hard about this situation, I have read the bible several time front to back and it definately says that homosexuality is a sin. Why do we have such a hard time say what is sin ful and what is not? It's either a sin or not. I sin, I have done some very awful things in my time but I have confessed them and continue to confess and strive to not sin. I think the issue here is that governments etc are telling people that this particular sin is normal and that it should be encouraged. This muddies the waters in my opinion. God loves every thing that He made even those who practice homosexuallity but God hats sin, all sin. Jesus said that if anyone breaks any of the laws of God they have broken all of the laws of God. It's up to us who know this to tell them so that they can be brought to Jesus and be saved for heaven.

From Sandra Dee on Aug 4th:

Hello all.

Love the sinner. What does that mean? It means treating each woman as if she was your daughter, and each man as if he was your son. (As a mother, I personally have a closer bond with my children than I do with my siblings, but that is just me!)

Now, imagine that your daughter has homosexual urges. That means that she is gay. She is struggling with those urges, especially because many Christians consider all gays to be sinners - failing to distinguish between the sexual act and the identity.

Now imagine trying to guide your daughter in her relationships with others. She tries to date boys, but feels no attraction for any of them. She develops close female friendships, and feels great intimacy and love and desire to build a life with one of her friends. They are not having a sexual relationship, in fact her friend is heterosexual. Your daughter feels so alone in her urges and weaknesses, which no one else around her seems to share. She asks you, "Why did God make me this way? Why did he make me have to be alone and sad, for all of my life?"

You know your daughter. You know her relationship with God, and you know with all of your heart that she is a good person and wants to do only the best for herself and for God. It breaks your heart to see her hurting so much.

Now imagine two realities. One, where gay marriage is legal - meaning that we insist that everyone must treat gay couples with respect and dignity (love the sinner), even if we believe that they are living in sin and that their marriage is not blessed by God. The other option is if gay marriage is not legal - meaning that some people feel they have the right to treat gay people with disgust and disrespect, putting up signs like "God hates Fags." (hate the sinner).

I do believe that in this fight about gay marriage - which is just a word, it does not alter the religious definition as we know - we are hurting people.

Now imagine that your daughter's friends at school find out that she has homosexual desires. How do they treat her? What do they say about her? Does it make a difference if gay marriage is legal - are other students more likely to be kind, even if they disagree? I think the answer is yes.

Looking around, there is a war being waged. I believe in a God of peace and love. I know that children are being bullied in schools for having a gay appearance, for having gay tendencies, for walking or talking a certain way. This has gone far, far beyond people "choosing" to sin.

I would rather allow gays the word "marriage" merely to encourage all of us to discuss this in a civilized, loving way. The law is not the method for us to express ourselves. The law is not the way. GOD is the way. Let's get politics out of marriage.

In fact, I wouldn't mind getting the government out of marriage altogether. Maybe we can just give benefits to people who commit to take care of one another - whether a grandparent and a child, a brother caring for an elderly father, or two men who might be gay or who might be brothers. I don't know how it would work.

But you know what - I don't want to know what happens between the sheets for any couple. I don't go inspecting my neighbor's bedsheets when I suspect infidelity, particularly if my neighbor does not share my religious beliefs. I would rather not know, I would rather not be involved.

So much of the gay debate seems plain old rude to me. When we see two men hugging one another or holding hands, affection is NOT a sin. Those might be signs of sin, but on the other hand, they might not be. In some cultures, affection between men is considered more appropriate.

Unless and until I walk down the street with my children and see the sin (the sex act), I will turn a blind eye to indications that my neighbors "might" be sinning. I will live in peace, and express my views, but treat everyone with love.

From Sandra Dee on Aug 4th:

Not to mention which - some Christians truly believe that God condones homosexuality, and that it is only a sin when it occurs outside a committed marriage.

http://onfaith.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2010/12/what_did_jesus_say_about_homosexuality.html

If we let the government have a law against gay marriage (by giving the government the right to define "marriage" for all of us), that means we are allowing the government to interfere with religious doctrine.

Even if it is not our religious doctrine that the government is interfering with (this time), that is a dangerous step. I do not want the government to be able to place some religions (or lack of religion) above others. If some churches want to perform gay weddings, they should be allowed to do that. If other churches want to discuss gay sin, they should be able to do that. Zero government interference with religion would be best.

From Sandra Dee on Aug 4th:

Here is what my dear Christian friend says about homosexuality, although I do not share her beliefs:

In the Bible, homosexuality is only mentioned as a Biblical sin because it was rare, and in those times the only way it was visible was as a sin. (Free sex, without selfless love or monogamy or commitment or true faith in God, and often with disease.)

I do believe that SOME parts of the Bible are influenced by the history and culture of the times. Reading the parts of the Bible that discuss sexual sins, to me they seem to speak against selfish sexual acts, and sexual acts without love and commitment, rather than specific types of sexual acts.

For example, it is much more acceptable now for a married couple to experience a joyful and loving sex life than it used to be. Christian couples are more willing to indulge in certain sexual acts as a monogamous, heterosexual, married couple, and that is more acceptable now than it was in Biblical times.

Isn't it possible that it's not the actual sex act that is a "sin," but the lack of love, monogamy, and family values that the people of that time believed naturally accompanied such "sins"?

What changed my mind on this was getting to know some loving, dedicated, monogamous, and very CHRISTIAN gay couples with great family values and ideas about sinful sex (non-loving, non-monogamous), who are raising good Christian children too. When there are families like that in our society, calling the sexual component of that loving, monogamous, Christian relationship a "sin" seems overly judgmental and I worry that it will turn more families away from Christianity and do more harm than good.

From Paula on Aug 4th:

Marriage is a divine institution. The fact that the Bible states Marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman (not two men or two women, not one man and several women, not one woman and several men) is not an intellectually honest debate.

People’s choice to follow that command or not, is what’s at stake. By and large the only individuals who speak of “hate” and “intolerance” are the gay marriage proponents because that’s part of the bullying tactics to advance their agenda.

Again, people have 2 choices: to follow or not to follow God’s word.

From Sandra Dee on Aug 4th:

Paula,

People should have the choice whether or not to follow God's command. That is what free will means. It should not be the GOVERNMENT's decision to require people to follow God's command.

From Paula on Aug 4th:

Government is not mandating anyone to get married or “follow God’s command”, but it absolutely has the right to regulate marriage. Marriage is a foundational institution of society with far reaching legal and moral implications. Are you then prepared to accept any definition of marriage say between 10 women and a man, or between a 10 year old and a 50 year old, or between siblings, or why stop there, how about between humans and others species?

From Gunk on Aug 4th:

There is no such thing as Free Will...We are all Bound to Sin.

The Issue is This(now guys I am a nobody)The Guy and the Gal must leave Mommy and Daddy to Truly become One Flesh. And Yes, that One Flesh will continue to increase the Sins against each other if they Listen to Mommy and Daddy.

You know what Guys? I may be Fat Old Dumb Ugly and Broke?

But the Best Marriages I've ever Seen?

Were the Ones where the Wife and Husband stayed Married...

From Sandra Dee on Aug 5th:

Paula, there are laws prohibiting people from having sex with children or with animals because that is considered abuse. We don't need to worry about whether "marriage" includes those groups.

The definition of marriage should be given to us by God and the church, NOT by the government. For example, I believe people should not have premarital sex. That doesn't mean I want the government to make premarital sex illegal. I believe people should get married and stay married, but that doesn't mean I want the government to make divorce illegal. Why is the government so involved in defining a positive relationship?

Seems to me the government should prohibit behavior that actually hurts other people, but not behavior that is merely self-destructive. (Unless it's suicide, obviously). People need to learn from their own mistakes. Plus, decision are not meaningful if they're forced on us.

From KelseyRae on Aug 6th:

Thank you Sandra Dee. That was a very well thought out and descriptive argument. I agree with you on almost everything you said, and I hope that one day government will not be involved in this debate. It is the church and the bible that has defined the definition of marriage that so many people are defending, not government.

From Paula on Aug 6th:

I think there are 2 distinct issues here. If you believe, as you seem to have indicated before that homosexuality is acceptable to you, I am not quite sure continuing this specific discussion will help because to me that is purely the position of someone who is rejecting the Bible as an infallible revelation from God to humans. To promote gay marriage would just be a natural progression in your mind. The fact is that not only homosexuality is condemned but marriage is clearly defined in the Bible which is why the argument of government then surfaces.

We should be opposing the idea of government mandated religion. This is not to say that just because it’s based on Christian doctrine we should eliminate the ability of government to regulate such a critical and consequential foundation of our society, one which is a primary source of stability, protection of children and the very perpetuation of human race. If we follow your logic then what else should we deregulate? I’m thinking it's just about everything.

It would be dishonest to deny the inevitability that a redefinition of marriage today gives way to any future redefinitions. You could not logically refuse any scenario whatsoever. What’s considered abuse today may not be so tomorrow. Marriage or any other aspect of how to live in society is then determined on the basis of opinion and ultimately could be anything one decides.

Not to mention the idea of legally sanctioned persecution of religious individuals and organizations which do not support the new officially endorsed redefinitions.

Divorce and premarital sex are not a foundational institution of society. They are a harmful consequence of the erosion of God’s design for the union of a man and a woman with purpose and intent through marriage. It’s important to think about that as you defend yet another subversion (and such impactful one) of that sacred institution.

From Sandra Dee on Aug 6th:

Hi Paula,

I am not defending homosexuality. Please re-read my posts. Maybe you read my quote of my Christian friend (who does believe it's acceptable), but I disagree with her. I guess I am kind of into deregulation in a lot of arenas, so you're right - it's not just marriage that I want the government to be less involved in. The government is also too involved in school, healthcare, etc . . . but that's another conversation! :)

From Sandra Dee on Aug 6th:

For the record, I am VERY concerned about the redefinition of family that I see in society. People having children outside of marriage and getting divorced is a big source of poverty and emotional problems. High school students think premarital sex is normal. People think self-discovery is more important than family, and are failing to put others (and God) first.

That's partly why I want to discuss with everyone I meet what family values DO mean to me - God's design for a loving couple, in my mind a man and a woman who are above all committed to God, to each other, and to their family, through thick and thin.

The political arena gets dirty so quickly, I think we sometimes forget that first you have to change peoples' hearts and minds. Only then do laws and behavior change too.

The whole Chik-fil-a thing, for example . . . I fully support Christian businesses and Christian values, and think it's terrible that politicians are trying to use their clout to shut out religious businesses.

However, as a Christian, I personally am ashamed that Cathy said he might not serve gays at his business - that it would "depend on the circumstances."

I fully believe that only through calm, loving conversation is it possible to change peoples' minds. And in the meanwhile, we welcome all sinners into God's loving embrace . . . and into our businesses, as well.

All are welcome in God's house. I want gay people to feel comfortable and loved among Christians, so that they will feel encouraged to walk into that Church on Sunday morning!

From KelseyRae on Aug 7th:

Sandra Dee, Once again you are much better with words than I am. Thank you for your well written posts.

Paula, why are you so sure that these "snowball effects" will occur if the definition of marriage were to not be regualted by the government? I am trying to understand where your motivation for your statements are coming from. Are you married? Do you have children? What do you do for a living? You don't need to answer. I am just curious. I think you make very valid points and I think you present your arguments very well. I just wonder what gets you to your conclusions.

From Paula on Aug 7th:

Sandra Dee,

I do agree with you on many points including limiting government interference in several practical aspects of our lives. In fact I was a libertarian for some time until after some soul searching I realized I was being short-sighted, probably selfish, and could not reconcile it with the core teachings of my faith. Definitely a whole other (interesting) conversation.

I am curious. Why would you quote your friend if you don’t agree with her?

So, let’s assume that you do concur that homosexuality is a sin. Consequently you do not condone gay marriage. However, you do not want to prevent gay marriage simply because it’s government “interference”? We’ve already gone through all that but again it is the basic fiber of our society that is at stake here, not the ability of adults to satisfy their sexual urges. The long term legal and moral implications are extraordinary and crushing at best if we are to subvert the definition of marriage. I also think that as a convicted Christian you would consider the core teachings of your faith to be the guiding map to liberating not only yourself but others as well. Therefore it would follow that you seek to share and advance those values. That is not to say that you would want to use government to impose your religious beliefs but you should equally prevent government from using it‘s power to undermine them, in particular as we consider the ramifications.

I agree with treating people with “dignity and respect”. That does not mean it’s wrong pointing out that homosexuality is sinful behavior by not condoning their marriage or speaking out against. Should we then accept the sin as if it’s not occurring? How are we to fix something we don’t acknowledge to be broken? Absolutely love the sinner, but still battle the sin. That includes the sin within us.

It is my understanding that the CFA CEO never said he would not serve gays, the company does not have an official position on gay marriage, nor do they discriminate in hiring. I am not sure what your sources are but be careful if you rely on the Washington Post, they are notorious for crude editorializing of the news. As a matter of fact CFA employees were out serving free water etc to gay protesters.

God Bless!

From Sandra Dee on Aug 7th:

God Bless you too, Paula. :)

Here is the video where Cathy supposedly said that - type "chick-fil-a would depend on the circumstances" into google search and it's the first one.

I quoted my friend because I deeply believe in religious freedom. I was trying to make the point that some religious people believe that homosexuality is acceptable, and I'm not comfortable with the government defining marriage instead of individual churches and religions. The government is never going to define marriage the way I do (regarding divorce and infidelity as well as homosexuality), so I would rather kick the government out of marriage issues altogether.

Right now, gays have children, civil unions, same work benefits (in many states), and anti-discrimination laws (in many states). In my city, it truly would just be the word "marriage" that is different. Gay couples are everywhere. So from my perspective, it seems like whether or not the law permits gay marriage, it essentially already exists.

Some of the religious people I hear who are most upset about the word "marriage" give me examples of Christians acting in an un-Christian way, and then complaining that their religious rights were abridged. (For example, business owners refusing to serve gay couples who are not behaving in an overtly sexual manner, which would be grounds to kick anyone out of a restaurant.)

Many of the new "marriage" laws in states are actually not nearly as important, legally, as the proliferation of "anti-discrimination" laws. That's actually where most of this fighting is happening. The word "marriage," and all of its attendant legalities, is mostly private. It's the "anti-discrimination" laws - which do NOT rely on marital status, and actually often prohibit discrimination on the basis of marital status - that we should be watching out for.

What we really need to work on is getting lots of "religious exceptions" built into these laws. For example, exceptions for any industries related to the wedding industry - no photographer should have to celebrate a civil ceremony with his or her artwork in order to avoid anti-discrimination lawsuits.

It gets very complicated very quickly. Which is why I want the government to stop butting in . . . and maybe if people had a little more room to breathe, and stopped feeling attacked and defensive (on both sides), we could all talk and behave nicely to each other. I have faith that in a calm, kind, loving conversation, God's word wins!

From Paula on Aug 8th:

Sandra Dee,

The video never shows CFA’s CEO saying he would not serve gay couples. In fact it is all about allegations made by a liberal democrat who has denied CFA (a legal American business) the ability to open a store in his district in a clear violation of freedom of religion and speech. There is no evidence whatsoever of discrimination by the CFA Corp. or that it refuses to serve anyone. As I previously mentioned, their employees were out offering refreshments to the “kiss-ins”. This video absolutely shows a precursor of what I said regarding the inevitable religious persecution for not holding government approved standards which will occur if gay marriage is officially sanctioned. Case in point is Obamacare vs. Catholic Church.

Because your friend or some Christians choose to compromise their faith, it doesn’t make it right or justifiable. Equally, the sheer existence of gay couples doesn’t legitimize gay marriage. The fact that NAMBLA exists doesn’t confer their notion of “sexual freedom” any more validity.

It just seems to me that we have different visions of both the importance of marriage and our responsibility as Christians to help build an environment that reflects our Father’s will. I don’t believe faith is fulfilled for a few hours on a Sunday, while the rest of the week is spent espousing an ideology of “de-regulation” and freedom from religious traditions which happen to be long standing basic tenants of society across racial, cultural and religious spectrums. I prefer to attempt to live my faith everyday, and to me there is a great difference between respecting other religions or secular points of view and accepting them as equally valid or enabling them to undermine my own.

Would you have wanted the government not to regulate marriage i.e. marriage be dismantled and not a legal affair at all, just left at the will of individual interpretation, if gays did not push their agenda? The argument of government seems like a cop-out. It’s a good compromise to avoid conflict now in hopes of changing the situation later. But I don’t remember Jesus walking in the temple and saying “oh well they are already here so let’s just make it official and we’ll come up with something later”.

Do you believe that the introduction of liberal divorce laws has reduced the number of divorces? Or that legalization of prostitution and drugs results in less drug addicts and prostitutes with all the impact those decisions have on society in general? The impact of dismantling the critical institution of marriage would be far greater to say the least.

The gays’ demand for marriage has never been about rights. They have the right to do whatever they want (I defend that myself) and there are enough legal avenues in place to protect their assets and relationships such as wills etc. This is about subverting a religious tradition and ultimately a religious doctrine in the interest of self justification. No more, no less.

This is a good article on the legal implications:

http://www.cpjustice.org/stories/storyReader$1178

From Kelsey Rae on Aug 9th:

I read the article that you mentioned Paula. It was pretty good. Here is a quote from it. "For thousands of years, marriage law has concerned itself with a particular kind of enduring bond between a man and a woman that includes sexual intercourse—the kind of act that can (but does not always) lead to the woman's pregnancy. A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.." It then continues to talk about how redefining a marriage to include homosexual relationships will then allow any relationship to be redefined. It even gives the example of a "mature mother and son, or father and daughter" asking for their sexual relationship to be called a marriage, but doesn't the definition given earlier imply that their relationship could easily be a marriage? It is a sexual relationship between a man and a woman that can potential lead to the woman getting pregnant.

Also, the article seems to focus on the ability to get pregnant in a relationship as being the defining difference between a heterosexual and homosexual relationship. There are many different statistics out there, but this article, http://www.ccainstitute.org/why-we-do-it-/facts-and-statistics.html states that there are 423,000 children in the US and 163 million children worldwide without permanent homes (orphans). Wouldn't it be great if we could put them in a loving home because the "potential for pregnacy" wasn't our main concern?

There are so many things in the world to fight for and about. Why is this such a heated debate? I know I started this crazy train of posts with this same question, but I still don't feel that I have an answer. Everyone has made valid points on both sides and for the most part it's been civil. I want to thank everyone for humoring me in my quest for understanding, but I guess it just it's time for me to understand it yet.

Thanks everyone and God bless!

From Paula on Aug 9th:

I am glad you read it Kelsey Rae!
It approaches this issue from a purely legal perspective.
The final paragraphs are particularly important and underscore the inevitable chain of chaos as you absolutely could not logically refuse any scenario whatsoever:
…“If this happens, we will need to pay close attention to the consequences. Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married. Which means that there will no longer be any basis for distinguishing legally between a heterosexual union and a homosexual relationship. Which means henceforth that there will be no legal basis for restrictions against a homosexual couple obtaining children in any way they choose, for such restrictions would constitute discrimination. And it will mean that when a mature mother and son, or father and daughter, or trio or quartet of partners come to the courts or to the marriage-license bureau to ask that their sexually active relationship be recognized as marriage, there will be no legal grounds of a non-arbitrary kind to reject the requests. Because if it is now arbitrary and unjust to recognize heterosexual marriage as something exclusive and different from homosexual relationships, then it will be arbitrary and unjust not to grant the request of other partners to call their sexually intimate and enduring relationships marriage.
But, of course, since legal declarations cannot turn reality into something it cannot become, a variety of conundrums, contradictions, and anomalies will inevitably arise. And the only way to resolve them will be to revise the law so it squares with, and does justice to, reality. If, that is, anyone is interested in crafting the law to do justice to reality.”

However with all that said, we as Christians have a responsibility to seek to preserve traditional marriage not only because it is essential for a healthy society but it is also a primary tenant of our faith. It is so important to God that it really is the first institution He created.

That is why it all is such a heated debate!

I hope this helps and I am done discussing it. Hopefully God will do the rest. It’s been a pleasure though, and I would like to see some “girl brain power” if you will, put to work on this matter. I think we could accomplish great things.

From Paula on Aug 15th:

Sorry, that should read "tenet" not tenant.

From toundide on Jan 11th:

Fascinating debate and I agree with much of what's been said. However let's cut to the chase on this matter. God has blessed marraige and those of us who can stay in that union remain under that particular blessing. The issue for Christians is what happens to those who decide to opt out of that blessing? In other words, those individuals who decide not to marry but have sex, those who have sex before or outside of marraige or are in a same sex relationships? Those people have simply chosen to opt out from under God's blessing of marraige and its spiritual benefits.They have not damed themselves to hell or committed spiritual suicide. That said I do believe there are inherent dangers when stepping outside of God's blessings for our lives. God has made himself clear on the subject of marraiage. Only marraige between a man and a woman carries the weight of God's seal and approval. The focus for Christians then shifts to what Christ recognised as acceptable behaviour and acceptable lifestyle and as such its bride (the church)should behave accordingly. Our Lord showed us how to behave, what is the truth and how to obtain eternal life. As we know not everyone accepts that as the template for living but the church must. We have all sinned and fallen shot of the kingdom of heaven, only Christ holds that key to that door. The issue of homosexuality is not about heaven or hell but about lifestyle and blessings. The choice is yours.

From Brian on Mar 8th:

Jesus didn't realize it would be an issue in the future? Uhh, Jesus was GOD. How could he not have known it? He knows ALL. Of course he knew what was (and still is) to come.

From Gunk on Mar 9th:

And I can tell you guys there is nothing better than just sitting down with your Husband or Wife and Talking things out.

He doesn't "Meet Your Needs"...Well there is probably a very good Chance you are coming up a Little Short on your "Needs Meeting" side of the Equation as well.

True Story...Met a Gal down in CRM Training who looked me straight in the Eye and said: "Well, I felt like I had a right to Divorce him--He lost his Job."

You cannot possibly be Serious with that kind of Thinking...In a CRM Training Class with that kind of Attitude?

What are you going to do? Hang out with all the other Frustrated "Thinkers" and make up more Excuses for this kind of Reaction?

Look I know I am about Half Crazy but Darn Guys! You have a Marriage--That is Special--Preserve it--Don't go to Training and think that is something which will make you a Better Person when proceeding to "Put Away" your Husband or Wife.

You will do nothing but make yourselves look like Clowns in the Eyes of God and Man...