Thank you for your thoughtful comments. I agree with much of what you say. I realize that withdrawing from the public square is not something you advocate for people of faith, but I must confess that I don't have the energy (or maybe even the courage?) to struggle against those who oppose people of faith and those within the faith who see and respond to all of life from a dualistic (and legalistic) point of view. I suppose, I hang my hope and model my public engagement on Paul's counsel to the Thessalonians: "Make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, to mind your own business and to work with your hands, just as we told you, so that your daily life may win the respect of outsiders" Shalom.

Ummm, where is the part where Christians warn homosexuals that their "identity" is a sin against the holy God of heaven, and that eternal condemnation hangs over their heads? Where is the part where we urge them to flee to the cross of Christ in faith and repentance? Does anyone seriously think that some uber-nuanced approach to homosexuals is going to make that message any less hated? (As if most who chose to tip-toe around the issue ever actually get to the point of preaching the gospel).
Also, one does not have to hold that America has a special covenant with God in order to believe that the prevalence of homosexuality in any culture brings the Lord's displeasure and judgment upon that culture.

You wrote: "I confess to you that in many ways I feel unqualified to address this topic."

As I read this, I thought you were being humble. Well before I finished the essay, I realized you had convinced me your statement is absolutely correct.

And by the way -- "stupidity" is not a synonym for cleverness. And as for drivers behind Newsweek's Year of the Evangelical -- did you know the president-elect that year is an evangelical?

"We are reaping what we have sown."
Wow, you and Jeremiah Wright with "chickens coming home to roost..." The victims are the perpetrators switch-a-roo. The terrorists are freedom fighters masquerade. Because they call Christians haters, we must have done or said something terribly wrong?

No, Skye, they are deceivers and liars taking their cues from the Father of lies. Don't be a sucker for their ruckus accusing us. You don't need to feel guilty for yourself or the rest of us.

Are you saying that if believers were more passive and appeasing in the battle for truth and justice in public life, we would be better off?

"Whose identity is welcomed into the public square?"
Already it seems you have bought the lie that LGBT is an actual identity such as being male or female, black or brown or white. Do you no longer know the difference between posturing and actuality?

"But we can, and should, demand that everyone share our freedoms."
How do you suggest sexual perversion and bazar-ness (to put it lightly) has rights to be considered normal - the rights we have?
Will you offer the same for the movement for sex with children or animals as having rights to normalcy?
It's all part of the same package. You know that.
LGBT will soon be LGBTPB.

Please give me a Biblical basis for why gross perversion of human kind should be given the same rights as the rest of human kind - that there should be zero distinctions made for anything?

Does loving the LGBT mean pretending they are all normal?

They don't want to talk civilly in the public square. They will only posture civility, like Obama, when they calculate it is temporarily necessary.

"Please give me a Biblical basis for why gross perversion of human kind should be given the same rights as the rest of human kind - that there should be zero distinctions made for anything?"

If you think that homosexuality is a "gross perversion of human kind" then you, sir, have no clue as to what you are speaking of...I have seen "gross perversion of human kind" and I can tell you...Homosexuality isn't it. Sure, it's a delusional testament to our species ability to convince ourselves of anything...but when it comes to gross perversion of human kind...that ain't it.

"Does loving the LGBT mean pretending they are all normal?"

What is this mystical, magical "normal" you speak of?

"They don't want to talk civilly in the public square. They will only posture civility, like Obama, when they calculate it is temporarily necessary."

They're not SAVED, so what did you expect?

Richard, you wrote: "Ummm, where is the part where Christians warn homosexuals that their "identity" is a sin against the holy God of heaven, and that eternal condemnation hangs over their heads? Where is the part where we urge them to flee to the cross of Christ in faith and repentance?"

Do you think that warning will be heeded if they don't listen to it? And do you think they will listen to that warning if we as Christians have not taken the effort to build relationships with them where we demonstrate God's love to them and they believe we sincerely want the best for them?

Remember the conversation Jesus had with the Samaritan woman in John 4. Jesus was very intentional about connecting with someone with whom a devoted Jew would have nothing to do. And he did this relationship-building BEFORE confronting her with her sin.

Jesus declares in that same Gospel of John, "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life." Truth is not abstract. Truth is ultimately a PERSON. Implication: truth is inherently relational. Unfortunately, it seems that too many of us are too willing to divorce truth from its relational context. The result may SOUND like truth, because it uses the right words: sin, condemnation, faith, repentance. But absent Jesus, and absent relationship, it is not truth at all. Not in any meaningful sense. Not in any sense that will actually transform the person you seem very eager to "warn." It will not do them any good.

Sure, you're conscience may be artificially comforted. Hey, at least you gave them the "truth." You did your part. You even feel good that they rejected it, for after all, didn't Jesus say we would be rejected?

But the question is, do you really LOVE those of the GLBT community, as Christ commands us to? Do you really desire their salvation? Or are you simply interested in "doing your part", without any concern for whether the Truth is received or not?

Sheerahkahn brings up an excellent point. So often I hear people complain, "Why should we be so concerned about being civil and respectful, when those on the other side aren't civil or respectful?"

The bigger question is, why are we Christians so eager to adopt the debating tactics of the unsaved?

Sheerahkahn brings up an excellent point. So often I hear people complain, "Why should we be so concerned about being civil and respectful, when those on the other side aren't civil or respectful?"

The bigger question is, why are we Christians so eager to adopt the debating tactics of the unsaved?

I appreciated the article for two reasons. First was the emphasis on America not being The Chosen Nation. The church is God's chosen and so much bigger than this nation." Once (read if) we get over ourselves and the idea that Christianity rises and fall on America, we will be much better off. I, for one, see more ugliness and unchristian conduct in our national past than so many.

Secondly, I liked the idea of bringing the issue of homosexuality into perspective. Most (if not all) discussions of homosexuality is found in a list of sins. It is rarely put in bold print or held out is the gross perversion of humanity. It is sin. Like lying, stealing, adultery murder, and the like.

Skye, thanks for the approach of love in this heated debate. It is a voice I greately appreciate.

When Jesus tells us not to judge, Matt. 7:1, he is speaking to our ursurping God's decision of our final state of being. A better word to use might be "condemn" which is just what we have been doing. And the "log" in our own eye is readily apparent to the world.

If instead, we approach the conversation from the vantage point of "loving our enemies and praying for those...", what bridges of understanding could we not build that brings healing to weary souls.

I thank you for your words.

Cancel my subscription to this rag!

Clearly, we have a long way to go before we can hope to transform the public dialog around this issue, because we cannot even discuss this civilly among the faithful. I'm saddened by the responses posted here, and more saddened by the realization that I'm not surprised by them.

@ "Anonymous"
You are concluding that *because* someone emphasizes the preaching of the gospel, *therefore* that person is not loving. And who said anything about not building relationships an important part of witness? Another unfounded assumption on your part.

I find it quite a stretch to characterize the approach of Jesus in John 4 as "relationship building," as if that is something accomplished in a short conversation with a complete stranger. It appears to me that the Lord was making a conscious effort to bringing this woman to the point where he would declare to her the truth, including, as you correctly said, confronting her with her sin.

So I repeat my original question: At what point do those agreeing with this article plan on confronting the homosexual with the utter sinfulness of homosexuality? Yes, we know that it is not the only sin, but it is the one that is enslaving them in condemnation. Just as the rich young ruler needed to be confronted with the sin of his greed and materialism, homosexuals need specifically to repent of their homosexuality. Bottom line, it is wrong for men to have sexual relations with men and for women to have sexual relations with women. Those guilty of such sin must come to the cross of Christ and plead for God's forgiveness through Christ, and for deliverance by the power of the Holy Spirit.

One more question for "anonymous" - Are you are as direct and to the point in declaring Christ to the lost (homosexuals and others) as you are making your point in this discussion? And shouldn't you build a relationship with me before saying anything?

Let's suppose for an instance that the gay issue is as simple as a person's choice. Let's also suppose that it is, in fact, a wrong choice.

Why do we continually harangue people over their choice of sexual orientation but ignore the other myriad wrong choices made? Why do we not expose gluttony for what it really is? Why do we not berate those of us who covet our neighbor's car? Why do we think it's okay to amass wealth for ourselves while millions of people around the globe suffer from malnutrition and lack a clean water supply? Aren't these moral issues as well?

It's funny how we pick and choose what God condemns while we ourselves parade around making our own poor choices each and every day, which of course, are excusable because they're not as bad.

It's also funny how those issues we like to elevate as worse or more immoral or more worthy of God's wrath tend not to be the focus of Jesus's teachings or the Bible as a whole. I believe the Bible speaks more about issues of money than it does about homosexuality. So then why are we not more concerned about our gluttony of stuff, our issues with greed, our selfishness?

Last time I checked the Bible has something to say about how our measure of judging others will be how we ourselves then are measured. I sure hope we all can live up to our own measuring stick.

I find this issue particularly challenging because we are addressing it on two completely different levels; in the aggregate as more of a public policy but also in the relational arena with real people we come into contact with in our everyday lives. My concern with this article is that I think it is very generous in its characterization of the public policy homosexual movement, and their intentions, goodwill, and desire to go beyond ensuring that homosexuals can enjoy non discrimination protections. I believe the more powerful forces in this arena have their sights set on much more robust agenda than is mentioned in this article. It is at this point that Christians need to ask some difficult questions about how much is too much in our secular give and take, acknowledging that we are governed within a pluralistic context. Exactly what "rights" should be accommodated from a Christian perspective? These are not easy questions as a believer, and we have a responsibility to be wise in discerning what the homosexual lobby is ultimately seeking. On the other hand we have this relational challenge because the average unpolitical person, be they gay or straight, that we are engaging in our day to day lives is trying to wrestle with the issue on a different level, as are we believers. I think it is here that we have an opportunity to show the love of Christ, regardless of belief systems and sexual orientation. But even then we should expect that this is going to be an ongoing struggle for both sides for a long time, and the result will probably not be very satisfying for either side. It seems in high fashion these days for Christian writers and speakers to loudly express their rejection of the attempts by Christian leaders of the last twenty years to speak passionately about issues like this that matter deeply to believers. It is too easy, and not wise, to do this, because these current leaders will also make mistakes in their approach, and the stakes might just be as high, and the outcome just as unpleasant. We should walk the very very fine line of discernment, wisdom, grace and seeking truth as we navigate this serious issue.

Sheer
"... you, sir, have no clue as to what you are speaking of...I have seen "gross perversion of human kind" and I can tell you...Homosexuality isn't it. "

I can almost guarantee that if I were to describe a homosexual act here, it would be axed for gross perversion. There are many gross perversions, and this is one of them.

"What is this mystical, magical "normal" you speak of?"
Nothing mystical, magical about normal. It's a rather obvious reality. Do you know any other part of human anatomy besides our sex organs that has an "alternative" identity given to it?

"They're not SAVED, so what did you expect?"
Unbelievers are fully capable of talking civilly. It seems when trying to convince people that something obviously perverted is actually normal, you have to talk with every element of speech exaggerated to give power to such a ludicrous assertion.

Nate
On what basis do you label what has been said so far as "uncivil"?

For those who think homosexuality is merely one sin equal to any other:
Are there any groups of liars or gluttons or money lovers seeking to gain normalcy and approval for their sins in the public square and carve out alternative rights for their sin and taught as virtues in public schools?

Have you heard of parades of liars, gluttons or money lovers graphically proclaiming their virtue down the middle of town?

Do you know of any political blocks of liars, gluttons or money lovers banding together to gain legislation to advance their advantage in the public square?

Based on these simple observations of the current extreme aggressiveness of LGBT people to normalize their perversion, is it possible that the sins of LGBT and the future LGBTPB sins are the Devils favorite sins to champion to destroy civilization and raise hell for God's people?

Richard, you wrote: "You are concluding that *because* someone emphasizes the preaching of the gospel, *therefore* that person is not loving." No, I'm not. I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote, but you misunderstood.

I did write: "it seems that too many of us are too willing to divorce truth from its relational context." But that does not imply that I believe the preaching of the gospel necessarily means the person preaching is not loving. They might be loving, they might not. The phrase "too many" does not mean that there aren't, in fact, those who do preach the gospel truth in its relational context. I know many who do. But I also know too many who do divorce the two. You're experience may be different. I can only comment out of mine.

You also wrote: "And who said anything about not building relationships an important part of witness?" True, it may have been an assumption on my part, but it was by no means unfounded. I based it on your apparent eagerness to get to the "warning the homosexuals" part and your use of dismissive phrases such as "uber nuanced approach to homosexuals" and "tip toe around the issue." Such use of language comes across, to me at least, as wanting to skip all of this "time-consuming, relationship-building stuff" and get to the "point." If I misread you, I apologize, and I stand corrected.

Regarding John 4, you wrote: "It appears to me that the Lord was making a conscious effort to bringing this woman to the point where he would declare to her the truth." And that is what I mean by "relationship-building." He was intentional about connecting with someone on the margins. It doesn't necessarily have to be very time consuming. In some cases it may not be. In other cases it may. Each person is different. But it does have to be intentional; and however much time it takes, that time must be put in before confronting the person with their sin.

In answer to your original question: "At what point do those agreeing with this article plan on confronting the homosexual with the utter sinfulness of homosexuality?" The simple answer is: At whatever point the person is open to receiving the truth. If we are intentional about building relationships with people, and if people know that what we tell them, we do so because we desire their good, that point will eventually come. We don't need to force it. You are right that there are many who do tiptoe around the issue and never confront the sinner; and that, too, is wrong. But confronting someone with their sin, when they are not open, is rather pointless. It doesn't do them any good.

And to answer the questions you directed at me: "Are you are as direct and to the point in declaring Christ to the lost (homosexuals and others) as you are making your point in this discussion?" Yes. To those who are lost with whom I have a relationship, and whom I know are open to what I have to say, yes, I am quite direct. Some of them respond positively. Some don't. But with all of them, for the most part, the relationship remains. Their response is in the hands of the Holy Spirit's conviction.

And: "And shouldn't you build a relationship with me before saying anything?" I could answer that one of two ways. I could point out that my comment was in response to your comment regarding the article. And I could turn the question around to you and ask you, "Well, shouldn't YOU build a relationship with the author before saying anything about his article." But that would be silly and pointless.

A second, and better response would be simply to say this: This is a public website, where people, by their own free will, chose to interact with the ideas presented by the articles and by each other. It is assumed that we have no relationships with each other, and by commenting we accept that assumption. And if we choose to comment, we also accept that others will interact with our comments.

By the way, that lack of relationships, as well as the limitations of communicating by written words alone, means that the risk of misunderstanding and being misunderstood is high; and while we accept that risk, we should also be willing to give each other the benefit of the doubt, and to work hard to understand what the other person is actually saying, not what we think they are saying. That is why earlier I told you that if I misunderstood something you wrote, I stand corrected.

These are just my personal thoughts. You are welcome to take them or leave them, for whatever it's worth. Makes no difference to me, either way.

Lets pray for the mercy of God for all of us, and preach the gospel of Jesus.

Tim, the reason there are no "groups of liars or gluttons or money lovers seeking to gain normalcy and approval for their sins in the public square" is because these sins have ALREADY gained normalcy and approval in the public square.

In fact, the "normalcy" of these sins can, in one sense, make them more dangerous.

If there is any one sin that is worse than any other, I would suggest that would be the sin, not of homosexuality, but of pride (also a "legitimate" sin). Pride is the sin that is most in contrast with the self-sacrificing nature of God.

Hi Skye,

I think that we would be incredibly naive to align ourselves to people who are out to destroy the family and then society as we know it.

A recent French law stated that the name of Mother and Father will no longer be used in any legal documents but will be substituted with the name parent.

Then you have the lovely PNVD political party in Denmark that seeks to lower the age of sexual consent to 12. It is a legitimate political party that does not have a deep following, but whats next.

How about people that want to have sex with animals, do they have a right to have sex with animals.

Once you open the gate, where does it end?

Tim

Tim asked: "Do you know of any political blocks of liars, gluttons or money lovers banding together to gain legislation to advance their advantage in the public square?"

Yes. They're called Wall Street bankers and they basically own our government.

I finished he book and therefore know how it ends. Those who humbly follow Christ win the final argument.
Those living in sin will never come to agree on scripture for if they are not serving God they are serving the enemy and are being influenced by Satan. I agree we need o love those in the GLBA as instructed by God's Word however as Penn Jillette asked " How much do you have to hate someone not to tell them about Christ if you truly believe He is the answer to eternal life?" So it is in love we need to speak out that the gay lifestyle is a sin and leads to eternal condemnation. Would you allow your child to play ball in a busy street rather than offending them. Unless we realize that our sin is offensive how can we ever turn from it seeking repentance? How does one know they are a sinner? through the revelation of the Holy Spirit as the gospel is presented.

Thanks Skye - this is one of THE BEST pieces I have read about this thorny issue. Well done.

I agree with what this writer has said on many points. Jesus has commanded us that His greatest commandment is to love. We don't have to agree with a person's lifestyle or their values. This was not a values war at all but completely in identity. Many Christians I feel now a days are so caught up on being better than everyone else and having it their way or the highway, but really how many people are you advancing to God's Kingdom that way? I have many LGBT friends and they all know that I am a Christian and we both listen to each other about our values and identities. I have led some to Christ even because I feel that I am loving them as Christ has commanded. I believe that Christ meets us where we are at, and that includes if a person is homosexual. Christ wants us to call out to Him and sometimes that it is not easy especially if people are being brought up in a world where they feel they are not accepted for who they are. I believe that Jesus meets people exactly where they are and that He can make radical changes in peoples' lives. Who are we to judge what Christ can do? I do feel that most Christians now are hypocritical and homophobic because they say one thing and completely live another or they won't even address homosexuality saying that it is just wrong, but never hearing anyone out on it. I don't even outright say that I am a Christian and when people ask me what is different about me than others or what my beliefs are I simply state that I am a follower of Jesus.

I am tired of reading and hearing about GLB's in and outside the church. The practice is a sin that is all we need to know. As Jesus said to the woman caught in adultery, 'go and sin no more,' end of!

An observation. As I write this, there are 25 comments attached to this post from Skye (mine is #26). They are definitely from all sides of the issue, and many are quite verbose.

As of this morning, a new Out Of Ur post noted the rise in the population of people identifying their religion as "none". Now, granted the post just went up no more than 10 hours ago, but I'm willing to bet that by the time 10 hours had passed on this post, there were at least 10 responses. At least.

That might be one reason why the "nones" are growing.

Kevin, well, I don't know at what time this post went up, but the time between the first comment and the second was almost twelve hours. The 10th response came a couple of days after the the first. So I guess it's a good thing you didn't actually put up any real money!

Still, I think you're overall point is well taken. This issue probably does get more attention, proportionally, than it merits. And it wouldn't surprise me if many of the "nones" are turned off by how much we major in the (relative) minors.

Anon
"Tim, the reason there are no "groups of liars or gluttons or money lovers seeking to gain normalcy and approval for their sins in the public square" is because these sins have ALREADY gained normalcy and approval in the public square.

This is not a thoughtful response, rather it is very shallow. While these sins are common, no one, I am aware of, is teaching these things are normal and should be decriminalized or praised as due approval.

Ethan
"Yes. They're called Wall Street bankers and they basically own our government."

Also shallow and thoughtless response. If the market place was as dishonest as you suggest, it would collapse. The Wall Street system is not just a few that show up there to trade. It is a large percentage of our country, possibly including you, if you are one who works and saves for the future.

I'm still hoping for a substantive reply to my point on the political hysteria to normalize gross sexual sin such that is taught by public schools to "enlighten" and "evolve" children and create hate crimes for those who refuse to normalize it. There is nothing enlightened or evolved about it since it was known to plague civility at the beginning of recorded history.

There is something cross wired when ones' faith gives in to the claim that there is actual identity involved in LGBT. Skye, what is the basis for your faith at this point? You gave none in your article.

" Where this freedom exists, not only are religious and gay communities more likely to coexist in peace,..."

So, Skye, from what philosopher did you get this? The scripture is clear that light and darkness will never coexist in peace. They are at war, both internally inside us all and in the public square. You are so full of capitulation of truth hoping evil will like you and talk to you. Shake the dust off your feet with them. Don't give pearls to swine. They are a religion of evil. Some of them call themselves believers and walk in a church door somewhere. We've been told about false teachers and wolves. There are plenty of unbelievers around the world for you to talk to who are not wholesale pushers of evil. Jesus rejected many audiences for their rejection of true faith. Work it through a little deeper.

Tim, I'm not sure that seeking to live peaceably with those whose views differs from ours as a "rejection of the faith." No one is saying that we abandon the teachings of Jesus. Rather, it seems that Skye is attempting to live out the way of Jesus through love to our enemies. The gay community knows how most Christians feel about that particular lifestyle. We have gone above and beyond the call of duty in making that abundantly clear, I think. So our job isn't to keep hammering on them just to make sure they know they're "not in." Jesus' message brings love to those in the margins. We're called to follow that path. Grace and Peace.

Tim, I'm not sure that seeking to live peaceably with those whose views differs from ours qualifies as a "rejection of the faith." No one is saying that we abandon the teachings of Jesus. Rather, it seems that Skye is attempting to live out the way of Jesus through love to our enemies. The gay community knows how most Christians feel about that particular lifestyle. We have gone above and beyond the call of duty in making that abundantly clear, I think. So our job isn't to keep hammering on them just to make sure they know they're "not in." Jesus' message brings love to those in the margins. We're called to follow that path. Grace and Peace.

Anonymous, I am humbled by your attention to detail. But thanks for recognizing the overall point.

Kevin, thanks for recognizing my tongue-in-cheek reply! After I posted it, I began to worry it might have come across the wrong way. Sometimes, we take ourselves a little too seriously, here. A little absurdity can bring us back to real life!

Tim, who made you the judge for which comments are substantive and which are thoughtless and shallow? "Jesus rejected many audiences for their rejection of true faith." Jesus also rejected many for their lack of humility. You are entitled to share your point of view. You are entitled to believe you are correct in your point of view. But you might want to avoid acting like you're so much smarter than everyone else in the room. Pride will get you into hell just as easily as will homosexuality.

And for the record, yes, I do believe that the Bible is quite clear in condemning homosexuality. But the article was not about whether the Bible allows or prohibits homosexuality. It is about the fact that civil rights must not be denied to anyone--even to people who choose to engage in sin. Otherwise, there will be the danger that civil right will be denied to everyone.

And to clarify my original response: No, no one is TEACHING that lying, gluttony, or money-loving should be normal or due approval. But, C'MON!! Society as a whole LIVES as if these things are normal. Society as a whole APPROVES these things, implicitly, if not explicitly. How many people think nothing about cheating on their taxes? How many people in this country are obese? How many people are heavily in debt because they buy things they want but they can't afford? I don't know what rock one would have to live under not to see this!

And the fact that most people--even Christians--don't think twice about these "sins", they don't even think of them as sinning--THAT is what makes them more dangerous.

So, was that substantive enough for you?

Tyler
"Tim, I'm not sure that seeking to live peaceably with those whose views differs from ours qualifies as a "rejection of the faith." No one is saying that we abandon the teachings of Jesus. "

Skye is not merely seeking to live peaceably with LGBT, he is affirming their bogus claim to an identity. He is affirming that being LGBT is no different than being a race. This is a complete cave on simple facts of life for political rhetoric to justify perversion as normal. He is not seeking to reframe anything other than than to pander to LGBT claims of authenticity so they will talk to him. If they don't want to talk to believers unless we give up the facts of sexuality, then that is their problem. It is not our job to throw out the design of God for connectivity. That is what Skye has said when he claims they have an identity.

Anon
Your inability to make simple observable distinctions does not give you a basis to suggest (possibly judge - what you condemn) that I am arrogant, headed for hell, or live under a rock. You are dragging the quality of this conversation down.

"It is about the fact that civil rights must not be denied to anyone--even to people who choose to engage in sin."

You have been a sucker for the LGBT lingo, along with Skye. They don't just want rights. They have all the rights I have and more. They want claim to normalcy and jail for those who suggest they are perverted. Even though they reject the Bible's statements on their choices, they want to tie into what it says on marriage - a Biblical term with Biblical meanings. They are not content to use another term. They have more rights than believers do already. They want all children taught their religion in the public school. They have that one already in many schools.

"No, no one is TEACHING that lying, gluttony, or money-loving should be normal or due approval."

Thank you for acknowledging my statement. LGBT are seeking that for their perversion. Your clinging to your rationalization that there is no distinction here tells me you have a hope of some Disneyland reality on this issue.

" Otherwise, there will be the danger that civil right will be denied to everyone."

That is already happening with those who will not pander to LGBT unnaturalness. Have you recognized that reality?

Skye
"He is telling us not to devalue a person as irretrievably guilty or condemn their identity as worthless. We are to believe that all people, including our LGTB neighbors, are made in the image of God and are inherently worthy of his love and ours."

You have selected what I would call straw man words here to depricate believers you would disagree with.

"devalue as irretrievably guilty"
No believer considers any sinner irretrievable, nor consider them less created in God's image as ourselves. You are making a false accusation here. You are lowering the bar of conversation with this straw man.

"condemn their identity as worthless"
I don't know anyone who thinks they can condemn anyone. I know people who articulate that God has condemned everyone who rejects Him. I know there are those who accuse believers of condemning others, or who claim they feel condemned by other people. I know lots of believers who mark LGBT as contrived and perverted and unnatural. I know lots of believers who recognize that LGBT is not an actual identity, it is a deceived and contrived claim to an identity. It is a tragic part of this corrupt world that steals away much of a persons worth by distracting from their true worth. I don't know anyone of whom you speak. You are making a false accusation here. You are lowering the bar of conversation with this straw man.

"We are to believe that all people, including our LGTB neighbors, are made in the image of God and are inherently worthy of his love and ours."
I have never read a statement of anyone that reflects anything different than this. (You have no examples of any of your claim. Your college example did not portray this.) I know of many accusations being made that someone meant hatred, but it wasn't. Already I have been accused of many evil things by those on your side of the coin.

Based on what I have said so far, do you think I am now unable to love an LGBT individual?
If I am actively involved in exposing the lies of LGBT, am I thus unable to love an LGBT individual?

Skye
"Their flyers called students who did not support gay rights to “wear a shirt on Thursday.”

The battle lines were drawn. The silliness of the GBLA’s scheme was matched by the stupidity of the Christians’."

1. You don't have a sense of humor. This is a funny way to expose the ruse.
2. You label the believers stupid and the GLBT's silly? Neither of those two adjectives fit the behaviors of either.

Do you think your wording is helping to frame things better? It sounds like you are forming a battle line yourself with much of your wording so deprecating against believers complete with straw men. Do you expect saints to respond in the Spirit when you write what sounds like the flesh? Start over with this thread please. You are not "irretrievably guilty nor do I condemn you for hype."

The 'Gay' posts are getting more and more frequent at this site. They all say exactly the same thing - Christians are unpopular because they oppose homosexual marriage. This drumbeat will continue until everyone gives in or gives up. The homosexuals will never give up. They will never be satisfied until there is not one voice or eyebrow lifted at their behavior.

"Unbelievers are fully capable of talking civilly. It seems when trying to convince people that something obviously perverted is actually normal, you have to talk with every element of speech exaggerated to give power to such a ludicrous assertion."

Tim,
Do you realize what you wrote?
A lot of people engaged in homosexual behavior are..."unbelievers."

Also, describing to me homosexual acts doesn't make for a gross perversion....perhaps this will help you understand what I'm getting at...

Gross perversions are decisions made by a person without thought or consideration to anyone else, or even to The Law of Unintended Consequences.

This person, regardless of age, gender, religion, social status, or sexual orientation makes a decision to do something that...if they had thought it out...they would not follow that course of action.

Like the mother and her three children who were t-boned by a drunk driver...all that drunk driver had to do was decide, "I'm too drunk to drive." But instead, he made the decision to drive, got into his car, and sent four people to a deep hole, and left a father to stare heartbroken at four empty seats at the dinner table for the rest of his life.

Or on a grander scale...

war...good G-d, the horrors of that endeavor.../sigh...I will not go into it.

Or, on a small scale...

A child, more a teenager, so stricken with grief, inconsolable because his father didn't show any love towards him or talked to him except to yell at him for the smallest of things...hangs himself from the rafter of his parents porch rather than face what he was sure to be his fathers wrath because...he thought he "might" be "gay." And now the father crys unceasingly because he rightly feels responsible for his now dead son's fear of him, and he so wants to turn back the clock...but like everything else I listed, it's too late.

And we all see this and more every day...but because it's so "normal" it doesn't register as a gross human perversion...and the reason for that is because we call it, "life."

Tim, you wrote: "Your inability to make simple observable distinctions does not give you a basis to suggest...that I am arrogant."

Perhaps so. Unfortunately for you, your comments and overall attitude themselves provide enough of a basis to suggest you are arrogant. You're own words condemn you.

I don't mind if you disagree with me. I do take offense that you label me as thoughtless and shallow for disagreeing with you, without ever actually having taken the time to engage with what I was trying to say. Had you done so, you would've realized that you and I actually agree on much. Who knows? Maybe you and I both would've even learned something new! But you are convinced in your own mind that you are right, and you automatically dismiss anything that may look at this issue from a different perspective. And yes, that is arrogant.

"You are dragging the quality of this conversation down." No, you had already done that before I showed up.

I liked you better when you were a one-hobby-horse poster. The only time you used to comment was when criticizing the "institutional church." Even though I agreed with much of what you wrote then, you still came off pretty arrogant. Unfortunately, as your repertoire has grown, so has your arrogance.

So, since you are so much smarter than me, and since my simple, thoughtless, and shallow comments are so much beneath your intellect and are dragging the quality of this conversation down, then I will leave this conversation. You are free to elevate this conversation again, free of my stupidity.

I know where I'm not wanted. You don't have to worry about me anymore.

Hey, maybe if you try hard enough, you'll be able to run off everyone on this board who disagrees with you...

Anon
"I don't mind if you disagree with me. I do take offense that you label me as thoughtless and shallow for disagreeing with you, without ever actually having taken the time to engage with what I was trying to say."

I engaged with what you said. Read it again. I was trying to come up with a word that conveyed some degree of lack of thinking when you insisted on equating the commonness of an evil with actively demanding rights, parading as positive, being taught to children in schools as normal, claiming an alternative identity, and a whole slew of other expectations regarding evil. Evidently I picked too harsh a word. I was not challenging your character, motives, or eternal state with those words. It should be okay to give an opinion and a basis that you think someone is wrong. I was not tagging everything you have ever said, just that comment.

Ah, if only we Christians were so virulent about attacking and condemning every other sin.... Why don't we have people going crazy and picketing idolators? Why don't we have people losing sleep and coming down on those who are gluttonous? Shall I go on?
I do believe homosexuality is a sin. But for those who seem so intent on confronting the LGBT folks, what about everyone else? Why just pick on them? Oh, and isn't there something about the log in your own eye, first?
I see no love. I see no grace or mercy. I see no righteousness or justice. I see no Jesus.

Sally
"Why don't we have people going crazy and picketing idolators?"
Nobody goes crazy picketing anyone except maybe the floats at an LGBT parade. Are you asking hyperbole or just being sarcastic? The question does not sound honest.

"...what about everyone else? Why just pick on them?
Now I sense lower level of sarcasm except no one is trying to "pick on" anyone. I think I gave an answer to this one above. Here it is again.

For those who think homosexuality is merely one sin equal to any other:
Are there any groups of liars or gluttons or money lovers seeking to gain normalcy and approval for their sins in the public square and carve out alternative rights for their sin and taught as virtues in public schools?

Have you heard of parades of liars, gluttons or money lovers graphically proclaiming their virtue down the middle of town?

Do you know of any political blocks of liars, gluttons or money lovers banding together to gain legislation to advance their advantage in the public square?

Based on these simple observations of the current extreme aggressiveness of LGBT people to normalize their perversion, is it possible that the sins of LGBT and the future LGBTPB sins are the Devils favorite sins to champion to destroy civilization and raise hell for God's people?

"I see no love. I see no grace or mercy. I see no righteousness or justice. I see no Jesus."

I see it all. There is lots of room for improvement. The saints who are getting attacked the most by the LGBT are probably the ones showing the most Jesus to them. I don't think a lot of LGBT folks are interested in any of these realities, not even Jesus. Not everyone who names Jesus or postures Him is necessarily interested in Him. Jesus didn't spend much time with those who despised Him and His people. Maybe you should tell us specifically what these things would look like from your eyes. Your version of love... and Jesus maybe merely whats right in your own eyes or maybe it's right on track. Tell a story how you are living it.

Sally
"Why don't we have people going crazy and picketing idolators?"
Nobody goes crazy picketing anyone except maybe the floats at an LGBT parade. Are you asking hyperbole or just being sarcastic? The question does not sound honest.

"...what about everyone else? Why just pick on them?
Now I sense lower level of sarcasm except no one is trying to "pick on" anyone. I think I gave an answer to this one above. Here it is again.

For those who think homosexuality is merely one sin equal to any other:
Are there any groups of liars or gluttons or money lovers seeking to gain normalcy and approval for their sins in the public square and carve out alternative rights for their sin and taught as virtues in public schools?

Have you heard of parades of liars, gluttons or money lovers graphically proclaiming their virtue down the middle of town?

Do you know of any political blocks of liars, gluttons or money lovers banding together to gain legislation to advance their advantage in the public square?

Based on these simple observations of the current extreme aggressiveness of LGBT people to normalize their perversion, is it possible that the sins of LGBT and the future LGBTPB sins are the Devils favorite sins to champion to destroy civilization and raise hell for God's people?

"I see no love. I see no grace or mercy. I see no righteousness or justice. I see no Jesus."

I see it all. There is lots of room for improvement. The saints who are getting attacked the most by the LGBT are probably the ones showing the most Jesus to them. I don't think a lot of LGBT folks are interested in any of these realities, not even Jesus. Not everyone who names Jesus or postures Him is necessarily interested in Him. Jesus didn't spend much time with those who despised Him and His people. Maybe you should tell us specifically what these things would look like from your eyes. Your version of love... and Jesus maybe merely whats right in your own eyes or maybe it's right on track. Tell a story how you are living it.

"Tim, it's true that Jesus didn't spend much time with those who despised him and his people."

Actually, you both are wrong.

Y'shua was constantly engaged with the people who despised him, and hated him as much as he was with his disciples.
They were always there.
And so, why let an opportunity pass him by.
so...
He was constantly challenging them, he was always in their face, forcing them to confront the truth of who he was...to make a decision...which later they did.

The fact is, how Y'shua positioned himself is this...His very presence, his very nature, his healing, his love was an affront, a threat to the religious establishment's parliamentary and social cred that they had spent hundreds of years establishing...and there, right there that upstart, know it all CARPENTER FROM GALILEE! of all places was upturning their apple cart. The audacity of him not to know his place...if you guys really read the bible the way it was written...it is one blunt piece of biography with no punches pulled, and no sweet talk. Geez, Y'shua is even called a bastard right to his face...well, in a round about way that left nothing to the imagination.

So, like Y'shua, our very presence is an affront to the world, we're outsiders, we're traitors, we're dangerous foreigners...and yet, there is something odd about a follower of G-d...something different...something that calls out to the lost.

G-d has given the world permission to judge us as his followers...they, the world, decides whether we're a follower of G-d, or a pretender.

From the comments here, it is obvious that bigotry and hatred are two characteristics that are very difficult to extricate from the minds of Christians. Will we ever grow in the wisdom of God and exhibit the "fruits" of the Spirit? We have a long way to go. Why are we so afraid to let God's Spirit change us?

"From the comments here, it is obvious that bigotry and hatred are two characteristics that are very difficult to extricate from the minds of Christians."

WEW,
I took the liberty to correct one mistake in your post.

"From the comments here, it is obvious that bigotry and hatred are two characteristics that are very difficult to extricate from the minds of people."

Christians are still people, just as the people engaged in homosexuality are still people, and your statement, while true, pins the onus of two judgements on one subset when in fact all people exhibit those two traits, bigotry and hatred.

To emphasize my point...

I have met people who are not Christian and have shown more charity and love than Christians; and I have met a lot of people who are not engaged in homosexual behaviors who are more open and flamboyant than the most flaming of gay men.

In short, you're just as guilty as the rest of us in wanting to label particular subgroup with a set of behaviors you find offensive.

Pigeon holing people is what we do best as people, and in this culture of "you must belong to a generalized identifiable group so you can be labeled" is one of the things that just isn't right. period. If there is one thing I think Christians need to change is stop pigeon holing people, and accept them for who they are and let G-d change them into HIS new creation...not into OUR creation. One of me is enough in this world.

Sheerahkahn, the example I was thinking of when I wrote the statement you quoted was where it says that Jesus left a village without doing many miracles except for a few healings, because most of the people lacked faith. I was just trying to establish a point of agreement with Tim before presenting a counter-argument. But, of course, I agree with what you wrote in your response. The very fact that Jesus came to dwell among sinful and rebellious humanity is proof that, in that sense which you describe, Jesus did in fact spend time with people who despised him. My wording could've been different, and your point is well taken.

So, rest assured, I'm not wrong! Just misunderstood. :) Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my point.

Introducing the concept of “identity” changes the discussion in a strange way. Never, or at least very rarely, has an action (doing) usurped or been elevated to the role of identity (being).

What is especially disturbing is that this particular “doing” has been, over millennia, universally accepted as a deviant (not normal) behavior in nearly all cultures is now being fiercely demanded to be accepted as identity.

A much larger percentage of the population has a strong leaning toward adultery (another doing), yet there is no movement to establish the concept of “adultery” as an identity issue that should become universally accepted and practiced. Please replace the word “adultery” with any of your favorite, or not so favorite deviant behavior: drunkenness, lying, theft, laziness, gluttony, greed, etc. No one would ever want to elevated such things to core identity concepts.

As often experienced, the most humble person presenting a deeply held belief that is directly contrary the belief of another will be attacked as a hateful bigot. Unfortunately there are truly immature people who cannot present their beliefs without sounding, or actually being, hateful bigots. The judgment of bigotry, however, is not the basis by which one discovers or judges the truth. A person can be a bigot, but not the Truth.

Introducing the concept of “identity” changes the discussion in a strange way. Never, or at least very rarely, has an action (doing) usurped or been elevated to the role of identity (being).

What is especially disturbing is that this particular “doing” has been, over millennia, universally accepted as a deviant (not normal) behavior in nearly all cultures is now being fiercely demanded to be accepted as identity.

A much larger percentage of the population has a strong leaning toward adultery (another doing), yet there is no movement to establish the concept of “adultery” as an identity issue that should become universally accepted and practiced. (Please replace the word “adultery” with any of your favorite, or not so favorite deviant behavior: drunkenness, lying, theft, laziness, gluttony, greed, etc. No one would ever want to elevated such things to core identity concepts.)

As often experienced, the most humble person presenting a deeply held belief that is directly contrary the belief of another will be attacked as a hateful bigot. Unfortunately there are truly immature people who cannot present their beliefs without sounding, or actually being, hateful bigots. The judgment of bigotry, however, is not the basis by which one discovers or judges the truth. A person can be a bigot, but not the Truth.

KWC-

I find your comments helpful in that it clarified one particular problem I had with the article: using the term "identity" to describe a behavioral choice. We do see this in other areas of sin (particularly drunkenness and gluttony) these days...the idea that we can't help it, we're just made this way. I think this idea is a fundamental restructuring of how God has revealed that our lives actually work. My only allowance for Skye here is that he was using this language because that's how those stuck in their sin see themselves, but even in that case the language is problematic.

All-

Let me share something of my personal experience here: before I was a believer in Jesus Christ (that is, before God radically restructured/replaced my heart and mind through new birth), I saw Christians as judgmental, hateful bigots. Why? Because I wanted them to approve of my sin-filled lifestyle. That said, their positions did not win me to Christ, Jesus did. Hearing and experiencing His story. Wrestling with God. After this transformation it was like I could hear Christians for the first time. Not only that, but as I read scripture I realized they were not inventing hateful words for me, they were only letting me know what God had revealed about true life through the Bible. I was thankful for their faithful witness.

All that being said, two scriptures nag at me on this issue:
1) "Instead, speaking the truth in love..." (Ephesians 4:15)

This came to mind when Skye said "...causing Christians to act contrary to a true and biblical one--the call to love our neighbors." While I agree with Skye on America being "chosen" I have a hard time understanding how not telling someone the truth of their condition is an act of love.

2) "... but also approve of those who practice them." (Romans 1:32)

Without this verse I might be very inclined to 'live and let live', seeking to find a peaceful solution, but does this not give us pause that we ought not to be seen as "approving" of things that God claims are detestable? BTW, I agree that this goes for the whole list of sins, not just homosexuality. And I agree that all sinners (myself included) want nothing more than for their sin to be moved to the "approved" list. I thank God that is has not!

"So, rest assured, I'm not wrong! Just misunderstood. :) Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my point."

Micheal,
I hope you didn't think I was coming down on you and Tim hard...I was just being blunt, nothing ill intended on my part, and no double ententes either.
But if I did come off a little harsh I do apologize.

Sheerahkahn, no apologies needed! The internet is notorious for being a difficult place in which to communicate, so it's good to give each other the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure you meant no harm, and nor did I!

Reading these various comments, one can see the real issue - We as Christians are supposed to make up Christ's church, and we can't even agree on what that looks like. Not to pick on anyone, but even some of you who quote God's Word have it misunderstood - I'm no scholar, but I am a student of God's Word, and I interpret it through exegetical thought - someone wrote they stay out of the debate because of Paul’s advice to the Thessalonians “make it your ambition to lead a quite life, to mind your own business…” Paul is telling them to lead a quite life before God – to “listen” to “be still and know that I am God”. Paul meant we can’t truly know God until we quite ourselves, and listen for His reply or directive. When Paul tells them to “mind their own business”, he does not mean that every individual is to mind his own business in such a way that all are to live apart from one another and have no concern for others, but simply wants to correct the idle triviality which makes men open disturbers of the peace. Continue reading Thessalonians – all of it – put the verse you isolated into the context of the whole book – 9 verses later, Paul tells them “While the people are saying Peace and safety, destruction will come upon them suddenly”. The unexpected nature of that day will be a tragedy for the unbeliever. They will be lulled to sleep by political and economic conditions, but they will be rudely awakened. They will hear the frightening verdict “they shall not escape.” Which leads me to my second point: the author of this piece seems to want to persuade us Christians to approach people who live in sin, not just sin, but continuously LIVING in sin by actively sinning, with a “passive and understanding” approach. The understanding part I agree with – Jeremiah in his prayer (Jeremiah 1) confesses the sins of all his people as if they were his own, because Jeremiah understands, but for the grace of God, he could be committing the same sins, and more importantly, he has the propensity of committing those sins himself, just as easily as those who are committing them. And we all have sin in our lives, and God doesn’t distinguish between sins, He hates them all. The difference is, should be, that we are trying to not sin by embracing the cross, and relying on God’s strength, not our own, to accomplish this. As believers, we have God, and we have salvation – not through our own actions, but through Christ’s. Those knowingly living in continuous sin, need God’s salvation too. It is our calling, our duty to tell them, and witness to those who are lost…THAT THERE IS ANOTHER WAY. This is where I part with the author – I don’t care if I hurt anyone’s feelings, if my heart’s true intent is focused on their salvation. When Christ came to us the first time, it was to save us – the second time; He is coming to judge us. He will not be passive. He will be brining wrath with Him, and personally, I don’t want to have to say “well Lord, yes I heard your commission to “go into the world and preach the gospel to ever creature”, but I didn’t want to offend anyone”. We shouldn’t have to apologize for our faith, and YES we should want everyone to believe the way we do, because we know our way is the way to everlasting life, and the only true way. I myself had a long battle with alcohol, and I was knowingly living a life of sin, but society justified it for me – but once I really embraced the truth of the Gospel, I got down on my knees and asked God to remove the temptation from me, and He did. Alcohol is a powerful addiction, and abuse of it is a sin – so I imagine is an attraction to the same sex, or drugs, or idolatry, etc. (a powerful addiction – I know they are all sins) – but if God can remove my desire for alcohol, I know He can remove another person’s desire for (fill in the blank with a sin). Now, with the knowledge in mind that that “filled in the blank” sin could keep a child of God (because we all are children of God, created in His image) from God for all eternity, should I passively and patiently try to tell them about the work of Christ on the cross, and the power His blood possesses, or should I yell it from the mountain tops as loudly as I can? I personally do not care how I’m perceived in the “public” square, and neither does God from what I can tell. All I care about is the souls of others, and that caring does equate to love at its highest level. One day I pray to stand before our Lord, and hear Him say “well done good and faithful servant”, and in order to hear that, I may have to upset a few people. I’m ok with that. Jesus didn’t coddle the man at the well, He told him to "Get up! Pick up your mat and walk.” Jesus is LOVE Himself – but try to tell me that Jesus was always nice, and concerned about how He was perceived in the public square. Loving doesn’t equal passive. Thanks for reading my opinion. I will leave you with one last thought from a great man: “We must show our Christian colors if we are to be true to Christ. We can't remain silent or concede everything away”. C.S. Lewis

Homosexuals want others in society to think like them (and behave like them?). They are working hard to change moral, social, and political opinion to be more in line with what they want. They are not content to be what they want to be. They want others to accept them. They want others opinions to change and conform to their ideology and behavior. What gives them the right to try and change society into what they want it to be?