I think middle ground exists.

Gay people are no different from straight people in their humanity. We have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God, for which reason God sent his one and only son as the propitiation for our sin. He LOVES us! We are fearfully and wonderfully made - regardless of our sin struggles, pains, abuses, pasts and current lives.

God wants our hearts, and He wants us fully. For this reason, that God desires all of us, He has given us instructions on how best to live. The God who created us and knows all shares with us what is right and what is wrong because He desires wholeness for His people.

God has condemned works of the flesh, including:

1 Corinthians 6:9-11
Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. 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.

You see, as human beings made in the image of God, we have all struggles with sin. "And such were some of you." As God grabs hold of our person (He is a radically inclusive God - He desires that all men come to knowledge of the truth. He is slow to anger and compassionate, abounding in steadfast love and faithfulness), He transforms us … profoundly. That means anything internal or external that keeps us from intimacy with Christ, God seeks to uproot so that we can have LIFE and have it abundantly.

We have perverted marriage in our culture. Period. However, God clearly states that man and woman alone are meant to be joined in the covenant of marriage. Is homosexuality a sin? Yes. It is not God's best for the Christian.

So why would Christians fight against legalizing same sex marriage if it's really just between God and the person? Because God set up a morality and enacted rules because He knows best. When we surrender our lives to Him, He give us more life, more hope, more love, more joy. The GREATEST and most profound living happens when we follow God's law.

And we shall never do it perfectly. The point is not to approach gays judgmentally; far be it from those that know Christ to ostracize others who struggle with sin. If we have fallen, if we know the meaning of the Cross - that the Son of God truly took on our sin and imparted to us His righteousness when we were still dead in our transgressions - how can we not extend the grace that has to us been extended?

Gay marriage is not God's best. I will in love speak to my dear friends who are gay if the subject ever comes up that I do not think God meant marriage for SS couples. But in the same breath, I will share with them how I have at times abandoned my marriage. God is not mocked; He is grieved by all sin. But to not stand for Truth in our country that has been deceived by a host of lies is foolishness. We must stand for Truth, as unpopular as it is today - and we must do so winsomely, in love, as we have been first loved.

Anthony it is to bad you can't stay. You might in fact learn something and that is worthwhile. Have a good time.

Anthony the purpose of having an open mind is to close it when something solid gets in.

I'm sure there was a post in here somewhere - *THUNK* Ow! *There* it is! Oooh . . .

Gina, you originally asked how people were handling the SSM issue with their Christian friends who were capitulating to it. Apparently your answer as found in these comments is that some people fold under peer pressure, some argue the issue, and some become SSM's greatest defenders. I am sure there are others who keep silent.

Among the arguers, some press the pragmatic issue of paying *more* in benefits at a time when the 99% are still trying to occupy. One wonders if the shortfall in tax revenues from all those SSM couples getting the marriage deduction on their taxes will be made up for by raising interest rates on federal student loans. Or perhaps we'll just borrow more money from the Chinese, and then have no way to respond when the Chinese government violates the human rights of its people.

Others argue the social aspect of the breakdown of the family unit. It does appear to be undeniable that many LGBT have troubled family histories, so it's curious that the solution would be to experiment further.

Finally, some argue that homosexuality is sin, and the government shouldn't condone it. This seems to miss the point that the government (unless it is a totalitarian form) expresses the will of the people. If the people condone something, then shouldn't the government follow suit? And if it's sinful, well, God will warn such a nation as he did with Israel and Judah via the prophets, and deal with such a nation as He did via the invading armies. (I understand that many Mexicans do not want to live in Mexico, Islam would like to destroy decadent Western culture by instituting sharia law, and China has a shortage of women . . . )

So to sum up, some people fight, some people surrender, and some stay out of it. We, the church, are indeed a house divided on this issue, as you said.

Personally, I handle this by praying, and by responding to each situation individually. I don't think there's one technique that fits all my relationships.

"Anthony, there's a LOT in your most recent post that I think is off base, but I'll restrict myself at this time to your erroneous assertions regarding the KKK poster scenario."
-And there are alot of things in your post I think to be off-base as well, and yet somehow...life goes on. By the way, your accusation that I tried to brush off the question is even more of an epic fail - I answered the question, I simply failed to answer correctly. If I were going to just "brush it off", I would have ignored the question.

After some thorough research I did after I got home from work tonight, I found that you are correct. I will always be the 1st to admit that I am wrong in any situation where I've been proven wrong. So you have my apologies. I hate to break the news to you, Kevin, but I'm not perfect. I may have been created in God's image, but I'm still not perfect. I certainly wouldn't make a huge spectacle about it if I had somehow proven you to be wrong about something.

To be honest, Kevin, I don't really care if you walked into a print shop owned by Muslims and decided to print off a bunch of different Christian posters. I feel like if you had walked into a print shop and you saw that it was run by Muslims/Buddhists/whatever to begin with, you would have enough sense to stop and think, "Hey, maybe they won't do this" and turn around and walk back out. I certainly wouldn't recommend to any same-sex couple to go to any given conservative or religious adoption agency, or wedding planner, because of how the outcome would turn out. Maybe these gays are forcing these organizations/businesses to realize that being gay isn't...........bad?

I've noticed that organized religion can blind people - that's why I broke away from my Catholic upbringing and sought out a REAL relationship with Christ. A relationship I've come to cherish and keep dear to my heart. If God really had a plan for me, if He already knew how my life was going to pan out, then wouldn't He have known I was going to be a gay-loving, anti-discrimination, pro-equality, outspoken but affectionate, caring individual?

One of the commenters on here (but not on this particular post that Gina created) once accused me of not being a "real friend" to the gays in my life. Encouraging people not to adapt to "social norms" and to rather be themselves and not hide from themselves instead of living a lie just to please others is something a real friend DOES do. I have had friends come out to me, and in response, I tell them nothing has changed between us, nothing is different, and I'm PROUD of them for coming to terms with something this heavy and deep that only they can really, truly understand. I can't say I understand 100% of everything about homosexuality, but I can definitely say with how much of it I've been exposed to, I understand a lot more than any of you do. Talk to gay people...listen to what they have to say about what they've been through. You probably won't, and if you do, you'll just tell them they are wrong, even though possibly many of you may have never experienced what it's like to be gay. None of my views came from knowing my first gay friend in college and countless others after that - I've always felt it was wrong to discriminate against anyone. After all the pain I've experienced, all the suffering I've been put through, I'm grateful to have had the wonderful, loving friends (as well as my amazing family, and Jesus) I've had over the years and the ones I have now to get me through. They just happen to like the same gender instead of the opposite. And to me, that's OK.

So with that being said, I'm making this my last post on BreakPoint. I wasn't on here to try to bring the entirety of the site over to my side - I see no point when closed minds really are closed for good. I don't feel I've wasted my time trying to argue with any of the posters on here, I have just decided to channel my energy into something more worthwhile - and that, for me, is standing up for what I believe is right, just as all of you feel you are doing the same. I will continue to attend pride week events where I live, and I will continue to fight for the rights of my LGBT friends/brothers and sisters. Regardlesss of what you believe, whether you feel I'm wrong about this or not, God gave me, just like everyone else, a purpose. And for me that purpose is spreading love. Good night.

Conservatives think about gay sex only because the "love that dare not speak its name" has become "the love that won't shut up" (I can't claim credit for that line).

Christ's teaching on sexuality is clear: "Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh’?" (Mt 19:4-5) As a biological fact, a same-sex couple cannot become one flesh (male and female uniting can accomplish conception, which neither can do alone, and which no same-sex couple can do).

He didn't need to separately address homosexuality because it was a non-issue in Jewish society. Paul addressed it very explicitly because it was an issue in Roman society where he preached.

Anthony, there's a LOT in your most recent post that I think is off base, but I'll restrict myself at this time to your erroneous assertions regarding the KKK poster scenario. No, it is NOT illegal to print KKK posters or to promote racism of discrimination. Some forms of ENGAGING in discrimination are illegal, but as far as advocating for such things, the First Amendment protects all of that.

So now that your attempt to brush aside a difficult question has failed, why not actually, seriously consider the question? Suppose you are a printer and the Klan tries to get you to produce material for them. I trust that you find the KKK and what they stand for to be despicable. Should you be forced to take part in something you find morally repugnant?

This issue really irks me, as "live and let live" has not been enough for some gay people who have tried to legally force business owners to violate their consciences.

Suppose I'm looking to get some strongly Christian posters produced. I walk into a printing business and tell them what I want. It turns out that the owners are Muslim and what I'm asking them to do makes them very uncomfortable, so they understandably refuse. Now, I suppose I could pursue a religious discrimination case, but why would I want to do that? What kind of jerk would try to force these Muslim proprietors to do something that they in good conscience cannot?

The position of gay lobbiests seems to be:

1. Marriage is a contract between two parties affecting and being affected by no one other then said parties. Other definitions are automatically illegitimate.

2. Marriage, defined as 1, requires the recognition of the state to be meaningful.

3. Same sex attraction is implanted by nature, is unsought, is definitely definable and is irrevocable. There is no ambiguity to SSA.

4. Fulfillment of sexual desires is an inalienable right. If said sexual desires involve SSM then this is an inalienable right.

5. Anyone who does not accept all of propisitions 1-4 is guilty of generalized malice toward those with SSM

6. Those with SSM who do not accept propisitions 1-5 are not only guilty of malice but are in fact guilty of treason and heresy. This includes those who did not know they had SSM, or had only vague hints of SSM in their adolescence when their sexuality was newly forming. It also includes those who wish to pursue a relationship with one of their own sex that does not in fact involve sex.

6. Again, denial of anyone of these is proof of malice toward those with SSM hereafter referred to as "homophobia".

7. Homophobia is an absolutely unforgiveable sin.

"People on this site condemn straight people for their behavior all the time Anthony."
-Yet straight people are still allowed to get married...why do we judge and condemn people again? Is that why we were put on this earth? I always thought someone called "God" had that authority. Not us.

"And is perhaps the idea that their behavior is "part of them" genetic as well? Where did that idea come from?"
-No, just like with straight people, acting on one's same-sex desires is the choice here. It doesn't mean though we are to pass judgement on them. I don't disapprove of how gay people have sex - and believe me, I've gotten my fair share of information about that particular topic over the years. I honestly can't say it "grosses me out" or repulses me in any way whatsoever.

People on this site condemn straight people for their behavior all the time Anthony.

And is perhaps the idea that their behavior is "part of them" genetic as well? Where did that idea come from?

"The fact that you don't see a moral difference, and deny that I can legitimately think otherwise, is imposing your morality on me and my family, and is a violation of my freedom."
-Because you haven't imposed your morality anywhere...on me...in any of your posts. Nope, not at all. And who are you to tell me I'm "illogic"? I don't recall in any of my posts where I called you, or asserted that you were were, in any way, anything of the sort. Denying people the right to marry (or at least voting for and supporting those who do) is a violation of their freedom, and is to me considerably "illogic". I also don't recall the saying "All men are created equal" leaving out a select group of people.

"Should a bookstore be required to stock Penthouse if it stocks National Geographic? Should a printer have to print KKK posters?"
-Only if they're sold in the clear plastic covers so they can't be read in-store.
-Printing KKK posters, last I checked, is promoting discrimination and racism, and race is a protected class under federal law.

"Why should churches be treated differently from other not for profit organizations? Saying that churches shouldn't be tax-exempt means that churches should be uniquely DISadvantaged in the tax code."
-Exempting churches/temples/mosques/anything having to do with any kind of religion is a violation of church/state separation, which is clearly spelled out in the constitution. I love it when the conservative right tries to play the "religious freedom" game with Christianity when they seem to be the ones imposing THEIR religion on the rest of those who have differing beliefs. Are you aware that Christianity is not the only religion practiced in the US?

"But clearly that doesn't explain the totality--no studies of twins have shown more than a 50% likelihood of both being gay, and some studies are sharply lower. "
-Some studies have also shown that the more boys a woman has, the more likely the latter-born will be gay. Increased steroids in her womb increase the odds of her daughter being a lesbian. I've even found in my research over the years that more gay people are born left-handed (which is funny, 2 of my best friends, a couple, are both left-handed).
I have talked to more than one friend over the years regarding environmental factors. They feel environment played a role in when they discovered their sexuality, but that genetics played the bigger role in how they were born. But what do they know...

"But a claim that it's all in-born is a faith statement in defiance of the evidence. (A Lady Gaga song is not evidence.)"
-No, it's not. But it's a great song (thanks to the gays, it's stuck in my head all the time now and I know every word. It's catchy!)

"However, gays almost without exception will not; they claim that to condemn homosexual behavior is to condemn them, because their behavior defines what it means to be gay, and in their view defines their humanity as well."
-Alot of the gays I know (and believe me, I'm surrounded) view homosexuality as a PART of who they are, and condemning their "behavior" is a way of condemning them. I have yet to hear one person condemn straight people for their "behavior".

"I have no problem with accepting a celibate man or woman with same-sex desires as someone who is faithful to what the Bible teaches;"
-Of course...because you go by the laws of a book written thousands of years ago. I'm still waiting for the person that can tell me what CHRIST HIMSELF said regarding sexual orientation/SSM/gay rights in general.

"Even if same-sex attraction could be proven to be in-born, that wouldn't change the moral equation, at least for a Bible-believing Christian."
-And yet even though opposite-sex attractions are in-born, it's ok for heterosexuals to be allowed all the rights and luxuries of marriage and be allowed to call it just that, "marriage", but those with same-sex attractions should be denied because of the "moral equation". Greedy and selfish heterosexuals are allowed to get married under the law, but greedy and selfish homosexuals can't? (By the way, I struggle to name even one of the many homosexuals I've known over the last 7 years that would have been considered either one of those. However, I've met a considerable amount of heterosexuals that fit those 2 traits to a "T").

"And the fact is that people do have the right to make moral judgments based on their religious tenets; the gay agenda, however, is to intolerantly outlaw that where their sexual license is concerned."
-Not when it comes to legislating discrimination and intolerance because you believe being gay is "morally wrong". Again, church/state separation.
-I'm starting to believe that the conservative right thinks about gay sex more than gay people themselves think about it. I'll have to check in with the gay community on that one.

Anthony, your illogic and presuppositions are pretty thorough. I'll try to clarify them:

You essentially claimed in your first message that gay marriage doesn't affect the rest tof us. I describe multiple ways in which it does, and you blithely assert it doesn't matter. The fact that you don't see a moral difference, and deny that I can legitimately think otherwise, is imposing your morality on me and my family, and is a violation of my freedom.

Why shouldn't a business owner have the right to decide that he won't assist someone else in doing something he considers immoral? Of course you have no problem with it, but you don't consider it immoral. Should a bookstore be required to stock Penthouse if it stocks National Geographic? Should a printer have to print KKK posters?

Why should churches be treated differently from other not for profit organizations? Saying that churches shouldn't be tax-exempt means that churches should be uniquely DISadvantaged in the tax code. If a group of people get together to discuss philosophy, perform music, or teach children, they can be tax-exempt; but as soon as they call themselves a church, they'd be taxed. Can anything be more antithetical to the First Amendment?

I don't doubt that there is a genetic component to same-sex attraction in at least some cases. But clearly that doesn't explain the totality--no studies of twins have shown more than a 50% likelihood of both being gay, and some studies are sharply lower. Add the fact that GLBTs report a far higher rate of suffering child abuse, among other things, and there is plenty of evidence that sexual attractions are affected by environmental factors (which is not surprising; little if anything about human behavior can be tied to genes in isolation). I'm not claiming that it all comes down to a distant father or domineering mother, though there are clear indications that such factors can affect SOME children's orientation. But a claim that it's all in-born is a faith statement in defiance of the evidence. (A Lady Gaga song is not evidence.)

There are some ex-ex-gays who report bad experiences. I also know personally ex-gays who have truly left that life behind, and are thankful to have done so.

I am very careful to distinguish between an orientation and a behavior. However, gays almost without exception will not; they claim that to condemn homosexual behavior is to condemn them, because their behavior defines what it means to be gay, and in their view defines their humanity as well. I have no problem with accepting a celibate man or woman with same-sex desires as someone who is faithful to what the Bible teaches; and I'm not expecting anything of them that I didn't expect of myself during my single years (I didn't marry until I was 43, and never felt I had an assurance that I would "eventually" marry, so celibacy wasn't just a matter of "waiting" for me).

Even if same-sex attraction could be proven to be in-born, that wouldn't change the moral equation, at least for a Bible-believing Christian. The message of the Bible is that every one of us is thoroughly stained by sin (in-born). Some people are naturally greedy; probably all of us are naturally selfish; and as I believe John White put it in "Eros Defiled," we are all sexual sinners. But God's message to all of us is the same: Leave your life of sin, through the power of the cross.

Public policy, of course, should not be defined by religion. But there are rational arguments against same-sex marriage that do not rely on Biblical teachings; see elsewhere on this site for links. And the fact is that people do have the right to make moral judgments based on their religious tenets; the gay agenda, however, is to intolerantly outlaw that where their sexual license is concerned.

"If I own a business and hire a gay, I'll have to treat his partner like a spouse of a heterosexual marriage for benefits purposes."
-So?

"If my business handles weddings, I'll face discrimination charges if I decline to service a gay wedding."
-That would be arrogance on your part if you actually did decline to service a gay wedding. I know I would have no problem with it.

"If I teach my children that there's a moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual activity, the public schools will teach them that their parents are bigots."
-Except there isn't a moral difference...

"If gays are successful in making gay rights the "civil rights issue of the 21st century," then my church faces the potential of losing its tax exemption."
-Churches shouldn't be tax exempt period. They should be required, like the rest of us, to pay taxes. Denying people their basic equal rights should never exempt anyone. And using religion as a way to save money is just awful.

There is a difference between what you and others believe to be wrong and reality. Though no one has come out and actually reported that homosexuality is in-born (which I truly believe that it is), there is mounting evidence continuously supporting it. Of course, any evidence found, no matter how viable, is always going to be "liberal bias" to those on the conservative right.

I feel sorry for those that have fell for the ploys of such organizations as "Exodus Int'l." NARTH, as well as other "ex-gay" "ministries". They are only hiding who they are and getting shoved back into the closet and feel as though they have to live this "straight-laced" life when all they are doing is living a lie. If you're gay, you date/settle down/sleep with/marry a member of your own gender. If you are straight, you do some/all of the preceeding with a member of the opposite gender. My orientation is of the latter. That doesn't mean everyone else is the same, or has to be. I have known a couple of "ex-ex-gays" and they've only told me horror stories of what they went through with the ex-gay movement. It disgusts me that people even encourage this sort of "therapy".

"The problem with the civil rights comparison is that it's equating race with behavior. No less a progressive than Dr. King sought to distinguish between skin color and character. It seems a lot of people today are incapable of making that distinction."
-It's not equating race with "behavior", it's equating race with sexual orientation. BIIG difference there. Why can't anyone see past the sex part of all this?

Anthony, I would agree that it is easier to oppose people you don't know. We are social creatures, and it's a lot harder to say something on, say, a website, than to someone's face, particularly if it's someone you know and like.

But that's true with lots of issues where the truth is not in any doubt. Christians, for instance, generally agree that drunkenness is a sin. But it's a very different matter to confront a habitual drunk with, "John, you've got a drinking problem."

I have known a number of gays (I put primarily it in the past tense because I moved states a few years ago, and I'm now in a very different circle of contacts)--I was active in music, and the reality is that gay men are disproportionately represented in the arts, both for esthetic reasons and because it's easier to do things like that when you don't have kids taking up your time. During my time there, I counted a number of them as friends. But that didn't change my conviction that, though they're nice guys, allowing them to claim the title of "married" is damaging to society.

That doesn't mean I want to return to pre-Stonewall days when sodomy could result in a prison sentence. As a society, we've clearly decided that we're not going to prevent, or even discourage, adults from engaging in consensual sex (as long as no money changes hands), and I don't see a reason to treat private homosexual activity differently from heterosexual nonmarital activity. But marriage is not a private activity; it has enormous public implications, not merely religious in nature.

"Against gay marriage? Don't have one" is a cute saying, but like most cute sayings, it misrepresents the reality that it purports to address. If I own a business and hire a gay, I'll have to treat his partner like a spouse of a heterosexual marriage for benefits purposes. If my business handles weddings, I'll face discrimination charges if I decline to service a gay wedding. If I teach my children that there's a moral difference between homosexual and heterosexual activity, the public schools will teach them that their parents are bigots. If gays are successful in making gay rights the "civil rights issue of the 21st century," then my church faces the potential of losing its tax exemption.

Do you still think gay marriage doesn't affect me, and people like me?

Fred, thank you! In view of the upcoming election, Gina's title for this entry may be prophetic.

David, yes - it seems "Against gay marriage? Don't support one." is not an option for us taxpayers. Imagine the pension benefits to "spouses" of federal and state workers alone . . .

The real problem, is we will be forced to stay silent or even support SSM. Otherwise, I'd just say do what you want - you will anyway.

Gina,

My Christian friends and relatives, who are mostly Black and Democrat. Their views on counterfeit marriage (i.e., SSM) are interesting, especially when contrasted to White evangelicals.

Yes, there are Christian friends and relatives who argue that counterfeit marriage is a "civil right." However, many Black Christians reject this view based on the Bible's clarity on this subject, preserving the Black family, and/or how unlike White homosexuals their ancestors endured REAL oppression by being denied constitutional rights for centuries. This column by Tara Wall further delves into this point:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/nov/18/a-marriage-mandate/

This is remarkable considering how many high profile Black figures (Oprah, Al Sharpton, etc.) promote counterfeit marriage and are aggressively promoted by the liberal media.

So, the response to Obama "coming out" for counterfeit marriage was hardly shocking. Members of my church have expressed disappointment and even disgust over Obama throwing away his Christian principles to be PC.

Black Christians outside my church have been equally blunt:

* One Facebook friend announced he's now a REPUBLICAN because of Obama condoning sin. (You know how hard it is to get Black Christian Democrat to switch parties?)

* My mother is sitting out this presidential election over Obama selling out to get homosexual activist money. My mother NEVER sits out an election since her generation fought to hard to convince the federal government to defend Black people's constitutional right to vote.

* According to another friend, the number of Black Christians in Maryland supporting the petition to vote on marriage has skyrocketed since Obama's "evolution."

As I said, very interesting.