[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Adam K

I do know that their are a lot of negative aspects to an acceptance of a homosexual lifestyle, at least when it comes to issues of entitlement.

Interesting you should say that... I read an article recently from the New York Times which took a look at views on the effects of same-sex marriage in the Netherlands, where gay marriage has been legal since 2001.

Dutch Views on Same-Sex Marriage - Motherlode Blog - NYTimes.com

If you read the article, I think you'll find some of the results surprising, but the "negative aspects" you're describing don't seem to be apparent anywhere through that.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by TravisR

I have always been this way. I believe that God knew I would be this way before I was even born and that he made me this way. In that sense, my sexuality is not independent of who I am. If I weren't gay, I wouldn't be the same person and so I thank God that I am gay because I like who I am and God loves me as I am!

This business of being made in a certain way, of being born with a sexuality seems entirely irrelevant.
Depression runs in my family, and is inevitable in my life. Anger runs in my family, I have a "short" temper. God, I suppose, you would say, made me this way. Does that mean that it is aceptable to give in to the sins which may result from either one of these conditions? Does this deem these "maladies" as good?

I think that we must ultimately remember the reality that the "fall" plays in the theology of us as believers. The fall of humankind has affected our reality, our humanity. We are not archetypes of the True Human, Christ. We encountered a shift after the interruption the fall created, and we are not perfect; all of reality groans because of this sin.

We, as Christians, do not operate under a Islamic theology when it comes to sin. For them the fall is not a reality. We all have the ability to do good. There was no shift.


So, the fact that you were born gay, if you were, does not seem to have any effect upon the issue. The fact of the matter is that this can be attributed, as other shifts in the true nature of things as they should be (the world is not how it should be, and there is a better world than this one) to the fall.

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Thrash

This business of being made in a certain way, of being born with a sexuality seems entirely irrelevant.
Depression runs in my family, and is inevitable in my life. Anger runs in my family, I have a "short" temper. God, I suppose, you would say, made me this way. Does that mean that it is aceptable to give in to the sins which may result from either one of these conditions? Does this deem these "maladies" as good?

I think that we must ultimately remember the reality that the "fall" plays in the theology of us as believers. The fall of humankind has affected our reality, our humanity. We are not archetypes of the True Human, Christ. We encountered a shift after the interruption the fall created, and we are not perfect; all of reality groans because of this sin.

We, as Christians, do not operate under a Islamic theology when it comes to sin. For them the fall is not a reality. We all have the ability to do good. There was no shift.


So, the fact that you were born gay, if you were, does not seem to have any effect upon the issue. The fact of the matter is that this can be attributed, as other shifts in the true nature of things as they should be (the world is not how it should be, and there is a better world than this one) to the fall.

I don't disagree with you - I just don't believe that homosexual behavior (within the context of a monogamous, committed, loving relationship) constitutes sin.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by TravisR

I don't disagree with you - I just don't believe that homosexual behavior (within the context of a monogamous, committed, loving relationship) constitutes sin.

Why or why not?

I'm honestly wondering.

[BillSPrestonEsq]

Originally Posted by TravisR

I don't disagree with you - I just don't believe that homosexual behavior (within the context of a monogamous, committed, loving relationship) constitutes sin.

But that is unbiblical as Aaron has well demonstrated. I could also demonstrate that was what was understood in the first century as well because the Didache actually makes the clarification between what Bryan was arguing and bars both homosexuality, and the sex with a young man and an old man. Both words are used.

Furthermore, the standard of the Bible for sex has never been monogamous, committed, loving relationship. If you believe that, you have mistaken American cultural practices for scripture.

Scripture is clear, from before the giving of the law, that a man is to leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Jesus quotes this, and the fact that it is male and female is mentioned.

But don't pretend the Bible allows for Gay sex. It very clearly doesn't. The word of God does not shift because you want it to be easier on your temptations. The Bible very clearly disallows my temptations, even sexual ones. The Bible views us as corrupt, totally depraved beings whose wishes and desires are at war with God's. Every last one of us.

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

Why or why not?

I'm honestly wondering.

In my study of the scriptures, I have found that truth isn't quite as black and white as we sometimes think. We often believe things not because they are true or because we've arrived to these conclusions on our own, but because that's what we've been taught. We don't really question it and we allow everything we encounter in life to filter in through our preconcieved notions about what ought to be rather than simply what is. It's difficult to be objective about things when we work that way. Now, I don't claim to be above that - but I have spent a lot of time and put a great deal of effort into studying the Bible and earnestly seeking God's will. In reading the scriptures and through prayer, God has given me a peace that transcends my understanding (or lack thereof) and now I'm just moving forward with my life. I've never felt so close to God. I've met other gay Christians and have literally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit working through them. I know that God is doing something in the GLBT community whether the church is ready for it or not and I'm excited for it. To answer your question, I guess just my collective experience of all of these things has brought me to that place where I believe that gay sex is permissible within the confines of marriage.

If you're more interested in the Biblical aspects of how I have come to believe, I could spend a great deal of time writing things out, but I fear that would be redundant because Bryan has already referred to a few of these scriptures. I will say, however, that my views are pretty well summed up in an essay written by Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network, which you can read here.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

But that is unbiblical as Aaron has well demonstrated

I would not agree that Aaron has "well demonstrated" this idea as being unbiblical. It occurs to me that Aaron's argument is centered around the idea that the Apostle Paul was in fact quoting or alluding to Leviticus 18:22 when he coined the term "arsenokoitai" in 1 Corinthians 6:9, and while I find the argument that he makes here to be compelling, it is less than conclusive. First, I want to point this out: Though Paul would obviously have been well-versed in the scriptures and Mosaic law, it doesn't make sense to me that he would be quoting a foreign law to Gentiles. I imagine these Corinthians would be little familiar with Leviticus and find it doubtful that they would even get the reference, if that indeed was Paul's intent. It seems more likely to me that if Paul were trying to describe homosexuality to the Corinthians, he could have used another word more familiar to them, such as "paiderastes." Instead, he chooses to use this word "arsenokoitai", and interestingly, he used it right next to the word "malakoi", often translated as "male prostitutes." The word "malakoi" is also taken to mean "soft ones", and many believe that it refers to the young men who would perform sexual favors for the older men, the "arsenokoitai." This type of occurence was common and well-known in Greece during this time period and it makes sense that Paul's readers would get that connection. I'm actually taking a philosophy course right now and it was funny because the other day during a lecture, this exact topic came up. As I've been made to understand it, you would essentially have someone who was a "master" of his trade (often an older, married man) who would take on an apprentice of sorts to teach him the trade, and the younger man would be expected to "service" the master, making room in my mind for the idea to come about that he was a "boy prostitute." This was publically practiced for centuries! I thought this was funny, my professor pointed out that if the young boy was percieved to be enjoying the act, he was thought of as being disgraceful or disgusting. It brings up an interesting point, though, because even in a case like this, it's clear we're not talking about people who are (presumably) actual homosexuals, but merely people who are engaging in some kind (cultural/ritual?) homosexual behavior and I think that distinction is important to make. Also, I believe that I mentioned this in one of my last posts, but in the NIV, that same word "arsenokoitai", is translated as "perverts" in 1 Timothy 1. If Aaron is right, and Paul was obviously quoting Leviticus, than why is there this distinction? Why hasn't the word been translated consistently even within the same translation of scripture?

I should also like to point out that the first reference we have to "arsenokoitai" after its appearance in the New Testament is in Aristedes (125 CE) where it is used as a reference to the story of the rape of Ganymede by Zeus. Interesting stuff! If people in the first few centuries really took arsenokoitai to refer to homosexuals as we think of them today, why do we have this constant association with older men raping young boys?

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

I could also demonstrate that was what was understood in the first century as well because the Didache actually makes the clarification between what Bryan was arguing and bars both homosexuality, and the sex with a young man and an old man. Both words are used.

I am not familiar. Please, enlighten!

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Furthermore, the standard of the Bible for sex has never been monogamous, committed, loving relationship. If you believe that, you have mistaken American cultural practices for scripture.

You'll have to forgive me! I suppose I'm as ethnocentric as the next guy.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

Scripture is clear, from before the giving of the law, that a man is to leave father and mother, and cleave unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. Jesus quotes this, and the fact that it is male and female is mentioned.

Jesus did say that! But it's important to note that he's not referring to homosexuality and he's not trying to make a statement about gay marriage. I feel that to infer too much from those words can be dangerous as it robs the actual intent from what Jesus was saying.

I'd also like to point out Galatians 3:28 which says "There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus", but this translation (NIV) overlooks part of what Paul said. He doesn't say "male nor female", he actually says "male and female." The New Living Translation gets it right: "There is no longer Jew or Gentile, slave or free, male and female. For you are all one in Christ Jesus." I believe Paul was quoting Jesus with that phraise "male and female", who in turn was quoting Genesis. There is no "male and female" in Christ! Interesting to think about. If you read the essay that I linked to above, you'll find this is mentioned in greater detail.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

But don't pretend the Bible allows for Gay sex. It very clearly doesn't. The word of God does not shift because you want it to be easier on your temptations.

It is an offense to me that you accuse me of "pretending" about what the Word of God says. This debate is not about me or about what I want - God always has been and will always be number one in my life.

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The Bible very clearly disallows my temptations, even sexual ones.

I didn't realize the Bible disallows temptations. What about Jesus, hmm? (Matthew 4:1-11, Mark 1:12-13, Luke 4:1-13) Quite the sinner, that one! Or should I assume you are referring to the indulgence of lust, rather than sexual temptation?

Originally Posted by BillSPrestonEsq

The Bible views us as corrupt, totally depraved beings whose wishes and desires are at war with God's. Every last one of us.

Oh, Bill (Can I call you Bill?), don't pretend you think yourself truly equal with homosexuals in this regard. At the end of the day, you get to go home to your wife, if for nothing more than to enjoy her companionship. But what is your answer for those of us who are gay? Do you advocate ex-gay ministries? Do you believe it's possible for a person to change their orientation? That if one prays hard enough, believes hard enough, perhaps by constant fasting and petition to God, that he will change it? Or do you believe that gays should just get over themselves and try to marry someone of the opposite sex, believing God will work it all out? Or do you advocate life long celibacy for gays? What do you believe? Or are you just happy that at the end of the day, this isn't your problem to worry about?


Psalm 37:4
Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

[redbaron]

Originally Posted by TravisR

IOh, Bill (Can I call you Bill?), don't pretend you think yourself truly equal with homosexuals in this regard. At the end of the day, you get to go home to your wife, if for nothing more than to enjoy her companionship. But what is your answer for those of us who are gay? Do you advocate ex-gay ministries? Do you believe it's possible for a person to change their orientation? That if one prays hard enough, believes hard enough, perhaps by constant fasting and petition to God, that he will change it? Or do you believe that gays should just get over themselves and try to marry someone of the opposite sex, believing God will work it all out? Or do you advocate life long celibacy for gays? What do you believe? Or are you just happy that at the end of the day, this isn't your problem to worry about?


Psalm 37:4
Delight yourself in the LORD and he will give you the desires of your heart.

I can't speak for Bill here, but all of us have our own daily battles to fight. Some are harder than others to be sure, but I don't see why that makes them less valid. Is it fair for me to be able to have a glass of wine when a recovering alcoholic may stumble into sin by having a drink? I don't think it's that easy or cut and dried.

I also think that if we're going to look at sin = sin the way God does, and say that they're all equally bad, then we can't elevate our struggle with sin as being more difficult, and thus making us more holy then the people who "have it easy".

Or I could really be missing what you're going after here.

[Skeeter]

Originally Posted by TravisR

In my study of the scriptures, I have found that truth isn't quite as black and white as we sometimes think. We often believe things not because they are true or because we've arrived to these conclusions on our own, but because that's what we've been taught. We don't really question it and we allow everything we encounter in life to filter in through our preconcieved notions about what ought to be rather than simply what is. It's difficult to be objective about things when we work that way. Now, I don't claim to be above that - but I have spent a lot of time and put a great deal of effort into studying the Bible and earnestly seeking God's will. In reading the scriptures and through prayer, God has given me a peace that transcends my understanding (or lack thereof) and now I'm just moving forward with my life. I've never felt so close to God. I've met other gay Christians and have literally experienced the power of the Holy Spirit working through them. I know that God is doing something in the GLBT community whether the church is ready for it or not and I'm excited for it. To answer your question, I guess just my collective experience of all of these things has brought me to that place where I believe that gay sex is permissible within the confines of marriage.

If you're more interested in the Biblical aspects of how I have come to believe, I could spend a great deal of time writing things out, but I fear that would be redundant because Bryan has already referred to a few of these scriptures. I will say, however, that my views are pretty well summed up in an essay written by Justin Lee, founder of the Gay Christian Network, which you can read here.

I appreciate your response and I will certainly read that essay from Justin Lee.

My concern is this: if, say, I were a thief and I claimed that I was born a thief and every desire in my heart was to steal things and did so frequently, but then also claimed that I had earnestly prayed about my thievery and had been given peace beyond understanding from God about being a thief, such that I considered being a thief perfectly in line with being a Christian, you would most certainly call me out on it. Clearly, thievery does not line up with being a Christian.

At this point, if I claimed that every passage in the New Testament that speaks out against stealing was being horribly misinterpreted and that stealing was not a sin, you would sigh, shake your head, and stop debating with me because I had clearly abandoned the scriptures.

But the Bible speaks about homosexual offenders in the same breath that it talks about thieves:

I Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

How am I supposed to react to this? To me, the claims that you are making in this thread sound the same as if you had made the claims I outlined above. Honestly, I wish the Bible wasn't as clear about homosexuality as it is, because it would make this whole issue a lot easier. But I don't see the gray areas that you do, and I am legitimately concerned that you are accepting the arguments presented by the GLBT community because they make you feel better, rather than because they are correct.

I hope and pray that this post doesn't come out in an unloving manner, because I am honestly concerned as a fellow Christian about this issue.

[Bryan]

simple, consensual sex with the man that I am "married" to hurts no one, theft hurts the victim.

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by Skeeter

I appreciate your response and I will certainly read that essay from Justin Lee.

My concern is this: if, say, I were a thief and I claimed that I was born a thief and every desire in my heart was to steal things and did so frequently, but then also claimed that I had earnestly prayed about my thievery and had been given peace beyond understanding from God about being a thief, such that I considered being a thief perfectly in line with being a Christian, you would most certainly call me out on it. Clearly, thievery does not line up with being a Christian.

At this point, if I claimed that every passage in the New Testament that speaks out against stealing was being horribly misinterpreted and that stealing was not a sin, you would sigh, shake your head, and stop debating with me because I had clearly abandoned the scriptures.

But the Bible speaks about homosexual offenders in the same breath that it talks about thieves:

I Corinthians 6
9Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders 10nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

I'm glad that you brought this up, and the example of thievery is a good one! If a self-proclaimed thief came up to me and made all of the statements you described (very similar to my own) I would definitely be concerned. I would be concerned because the thief would be very obviously in error (which I imagine you believe I am), and what he would be claiming about God (giving peace) would not be consistent with who I know God to be or with my understanding of the scriptures. So at this point, I see that I have two real options. I could either believe that this guy is completely misguided/off his rocker and walk away, or pray for him, admonish him, etc. or I could try my hardest to listen to what he's saying, and realize that maybe I don't not everything I know is as I know it. After all, "Now we see but a poor reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known" (1 Cor. 13:12), right?

Now of course, that seems like an outrageous and silly example for a plethora of reasons that we really don't need to get into. But is the same true when it comes to homosexuality? As you mentioned, the Apostle mentions "homosexual offenders" in the same breath as thieves. He includes the sexually immoral, adulterers, "male prostitutes", "homosexual offenders", thieves, the greedy, drunkards, slanderers and swindlers all in this list of people who will not inherit the Kingdom of Heaven. What strikes me about this... is that we don't have people who try to excuse thievery. No one is sitting back saying "Man, I wish that stealing wasn't a sin, but it's right there in scripture!" Even if we didn't have this scripture or others which deal with stealing, it seems pretty clear that stealing is a bad thing. We agree on that. The same goes for greediness, drunkenness, slander, prostitution, etc. Nobody tries to excuse those things - they are clearly sinful. So why is it that that's not the case with homosexuality? Why is the church even having this debate? Why do good Christians who love the Lord and believe the Bible struggle with wanting to accept same-sex relationships but still finding that it is forbidden by scripture? I truly believe in my heart that it is because that scripture has been mistranslated. I think the rest of scripture comes together and the Spirit moves us but there is something deeper than the surface here, and we have to look into it. Even if there were no command against stealing, we would know that it is wrong because the entire law is summed up in that one command: Love your neighbor as yourself. I cannot steal from my neighbor if I love him as I love myself, that law has been written on my heart. (Romans 2:14-15) But if I fall in love with another man...? I don't believe that violates the commands to love God and love neighbor.

Originally Posted by Skeeter

How am I supposed to react to this? To me, the claims that you are making in this thread sound the same as if you had made the claims I outlined above. Honestly, I wish the Bible wasn't as clear about homosexuality as it is, because it would make this whole issue a lot easier. But I don't see the gray areas that you do, and I am legitimately concerned that you are accepting the arguments presented by the GLBT community because they make you feel better, rather than because they are correct.

If you read my reasoning above and find it unconvincing (which you very well may, that's okay), I just want you to consider what you've said here. I may be misunderstanding your intent in this, but you've said you wish the Bible wasn't so clear about homosexuality because it would make the issue easier. Does that mean that on some level you wish the Bible did approve of same-sex relationships? That perhaps in some way what the Bible says about homosexuality doesn't sit right with your spirit or with your understanding of God in the bigger picture? Maybe that's not what you mean, but if there's even a small part of you that feels that way, think about what I've said!

Originally Posted by Skeeter

I hope and pray that this post doesn't come out in an unloving manner, because I am honestly concerned as a fellow Christian about this issue.

You have been more than loving in your responses and for that, I appreciate you much!

[TravisR]

Originally Posted by redbaron

I can't speak for Bill here, but all of us have our own daily battles to fight. Some are harder than others to be sure, but I don't see why that makes them less valid. Is it fair for me to be able to have a glass of wine when a recovering alcoholic may stumble into sin by having a drink? I don't think it's that easy or cut and dried.

I also think that if we're going to look at sin = sin the way God does, and say that they're all equally bad, then we can't elevate our struggle with sin as being more difficult, and thus making us more holy then the people who "have it easy".

Or I could really be missing what you're going after here.

My point there was simply to get people thinking about what they expect from the gay community. Unfortunately, I think that in the backs of our minds, we do think "I'm glad that's not my issue." Out of mind, out of sight, right? I think the church itself is pretty divided and somewhat unorganized in how they feel about homosexuality. We've got churches like the MCC, the Episcopal church, Lutherans, etc. who are pretty accepting and then the majority of other churches which are less accepting to varying degrees. Even within churches there can be a wide range of opinions. I've met people who strongly advocate ex-gay ministries and preach "deliverance" from homosexuality while I've met others who have spent upwards of 10 years in ex-gay ministry and have been deeply hurt by the church. Others are tolerant of homosexuality itself but not in homosexual behavior. I assume these advocate either celibacy or mixed-orientation marriages. Still others condemn even the state of being a homosexual as something that is somehow sick, terrible wrong, unnatural, etc. But when all is said and done, if you're not gay... why should this be of major concern to you? That's a terrible line of thought and I don't feel that it is at all justified, but all-too many Christians are willing to ignore this issue or not give it the study that it deserves. Shouldn't it break our hearts that gay and lesbian teenagers are four times more likely than other teens to commit suicide? The church has been so busy signing petitions, putting millions upon millions of dollars into political campaigns to keep gay marriage illegal... but where is the compassion? Why aren't we reaching out and just loving people as God has called us to do? Why is it that Christians seemed to be the people most upset about passing the Matthew Shepard hate crime law which made it a federal crime to assault a person on the basis of their sexual orientation or gender identity? I don't expect everyone in the church to agree on this issue or for the answer to come falling out of the sky and for us to all agree - but can we really say that the church is doing everything we're supposed to be doing here? As I see it, the church doesn't have a real answers for gays and lesbians. The church is afraid of gays. The church doesn't want to talk about homosexuality. It's this big secret. It's happening in our churches and people won't say anything about it. And one day this issue is going to become too big and too pressing... it won't be ignored for long.

[Thrash]

Originally Posted by TravisR

. What strikes me about this... is that we don't have people who try to excuse thievery. No one is sitting back saying "Man, I wish that stealing wasn't a sin, but it's right there in scripture!" Even if we didn't have this scripture or others which deal with stealing, it seems pretty clear that stealing is a bad thing. We agree on that. The same goes for greediness, drunkenness, slander, prostitution, etc. Nobody tries to excuse those things - they are clearly sinful.

The problem I have with this argument is that:
The excuse that we"don"t have people who try to excuse theivery" is extremely weak. How do you know we do not? Especially as a westernized Chrisitianized American it seems that we operate under an idea of ethics in our country which my not proceed past our middle class excuses when it comes to the poor in Africa or Asia. My dad has been doing missionary work in Belize and he has been swindled out of money and lied to by many people, I am sure for the greater good. As in, it will be better for that person in the long run and my dad won't notice or find out, so it is ok, and SHOULD be ok.

Second problem i have is that you are basing this all on the idea that we can objectively see that all these other sins are harmful, and yet for some reason homosexuality rises above the other sins mentioned in the saem sentence. I don't think this holds much water.

Why is drunkenness wrong? If I am drunk in my own home, not hurting anyone why is wrong? I still love my neighbors, hell, being drunk may make me love them even more, so why not?
What about prostitution? We live in a free world, we live in a free market economy. I am not harming anyone by meeting with a prostitiute, am I? In fact, if I am a lonely person, perhaps this will give me a better disposition throughout the day, to know that at the ned of the long hard work day I can go relax and have sex with a woman who doesn't care that my back it hairy, doesn't mind my coffee breathe, who accepts me for a few hours and lets me be myself because it is her job.

Slander? What if truly done for the greater good?
Murder? What if I had the opportunity to murder Hitler when he was a small child so that all that ☺☺☺☺ in WWII didn't happen?

Ok, these all may seem like bad examples, but the point is that from a subjective point of view, they do work. Maybe not objectively, but subjectively they do.... and it seems to me that you are putting the idea of homosexuality into the subjective category, saying that it clearly is not sinful in a monogamous relationship because it hurts no one. Everyhting else is lumped into another category because they clearly hurt people and their basic nature is that of harming.
Subjectively, not everything is harmful! Prostitution (I know, I suck at example, but I think the principle still holds) is not objectively bad, and doesn't objectively harm.


But then, why is something that is not objectively harmful (harmful in all situations) listed as sinful?

Because our ethics do not come from an objective morality which supersedes YHWH. Our ethics are not a modern conception, or should not be. God is not held down by an arbiter of truth, or justice, or the American Way. God is not held down by Kant's categorical imperative, or Mill's Utilitarian mindset.
Morality, for the Christian, is dictated by God.
If not, and if this was based upon what sin hurt others, and what didn't, then believe me, I would spend my nights looking at porn, because that is the bane I carry.

Forgive the grammatical errors, I am a horrible typist.
If you take anything I said the wrong way then it is your own fault. The end.

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by TravisR

As I see it, the church doesn't have a real answers for gays and lesbians. The church is afraid of gays. The church doesn't want to talk about homosexuality. It's this big secret. It's happening in our churches and people won't say anything about it. And one day this issue is going to become too big and too pressing... it won't be ignored for long.

And it is killing the church. You've got husbands who are gay but decide to play it straight, get married, have kids, and build a family. Until one day he is just tired of living a fake life and either start cheating
on his wife or divorces her completely, destroying the family. Then the church practically exiles those men. And you wonder why gays have issues with the church?

[Sean]

Originally Posted by Bryan

simple, consensual sex with the man that I am "married" to hurts no one, theft hurts the victim.

When did "does it hurt someone" become our basis for right and wrong?

[Bryan]

Originally Posted by Sean

When did "does it hurt someone" become our basis for right and wrong?

since Jesus said "Love your neighbor as you love yourself."