142 thoughts on “Living in the Tension”

1. HUGE LOL!!! How about ministering to those whoo are simply not a part of your ‘one true faith’? Do you have instructions explaining how to minister to Catholics? Muslims? Hindus?
   Or do you set homosexuality aside as a single target, just ’cause you feel like it?

   • Hi Pink. As you likely know, gay marriage was recently legalized in the state of Washington, where many a pastors at the conference call home. Also, our culture is changing rapidly related to this issue. More so than related to any other issue or religion, I would say. So is it any wonder that pastors might want to discuss how to approach this issue with truth and sensitivity? Perhaps when every public classroom is donned with signs that say “Safe place for Shudras and their allies,” “untouchables” become a protected class, and congressmen swear oaths on the Vedas, the conference will have a session on “ministering to Hindus.”

     • Good try- except you completely avoided the Catholic vs. Protestant question. Which is actually monumentally larger than the gay issue population-wise.

       • I don’t have any comments about ministering to Catholics. Let me check with my Catholic friends who minister to my heart and get back to you about ways that I could better minister to them.

         • Again, great side-stepping. I see you choose to focus on easy scapegoating, which is very clever. Historically speaking, that’s how the religious have extorted money from the populace most successfully!
           Just look at the then Pope’s many encyclicals during the Garibaldi era.
           You choose an easy target and the rest just falls into place. Excellent business plan.

         • Isnt scapegoating about blaming people. Where in this post did she scapegoat?

2. I SO needed this!!! As a “new-er” Christian, I find myself in a very interested spot. One of my BFFs, that I always accepted with open arms and complete understanding is lesbian. I defended her with my whole heart, but sinfully and incorrectly. That has me in a bit of a jam now… wanting to share my Godly wisdom while not wanting to push her away. Thank you for your honesty. You are a breath of fresh air and a wealth of information.

   • Thanks girl!! So grateful for your encouragement. Don’t let the mess stop you for engaging with all your heart. 😉

   • Great indeed! When your Muslim friend’s husband says you should be stoned for not wearing a veil, you’ll hopefully have the same enthusiasm for his religious integrity!!! Because obviously, his view of his religion and how he can make other people subject themselves to it is just as reasonable as how you want to subject others to your religion!

     • So let me get this straight… You visit a Christian blog, disagree with that is being said, and respond by verbally attacking a person that has commented? What exactly are you looking to accomplish here? Angry arguments don’t usually convince people to see the other side. You’d probably get further with some kind of an intelligent, kind, rebuttal vs what you’re trying here.

       • Don’t confuse sarcasm with anger… 😉

     • I don’t see anything in Stephanie’s remarks that remotely comes close to “making anyone subject” to her religion. Seriously, my dear Pink. While you seem to have a solid grasp on Islamic ideology and methodology, I think you are picking bones with the wrong Christian girls.

       • Really? You don’t see the difference between applying an ideology to one’s own life versus making other free citizens apply it to theirs?
         Here’s an example: Orthodox Jews don’t eat pork products (imagine a life without bacon?). By not eating pork products they’re applying their tradition to their own life. If they start having meetings about how to get other people to stop eating pork products, they’re interfering with other people’s freedom of religion.
         It’s actually a very simple concept.
         The same would be true of divorce for Catholics. By not getting a divorce a Catholic is following the tenets of their religion, by attempting to prohibit anyone else to get a divorce catholics would be attempting to force others to follow their religion.

       • Why are you referring to Christian women as girls? Does that denote their age or the fact that you are all immature? When girls grow up, they become women.

         • Looks like Pink called for backup?

         • I’ve read your rules of engagement where you ask for discussion and debate. I don’t think it is unreasonable of me to ask, why you refer to adult women as girls? If I am wrong and you are indeed all schoolgirls, then i apologise for my mistaken assumption.

           So was there a reason for not answering my question but instead replying with a totally irrelevant question? Which I would also suggest is bordering on breaking your own rules of engagement, by insulting two commenters at once (nice move).

           The answer is no. Blogging is not a playground where someone says ‘Hey, please pile in and help me out.’

           Nor am I anyone’s back-up. I chose to comment of my own free will about some references in the comments that puzzled me. No more no less.

           If you wish people to abide by your rules, don’t you think it would be courteous of you to do the same?

         • Rough Seas, welcome to askthebigot. Forgive me for not giving you the proper welcome earlier.

           I am more concerned with “what is” than what you call it. A quick scan of how Tisha, Stephanie, and Kayla have maintained their composure and refrained from adolescent personal attacks while offering relevant content in their remarks to Pink (who has struggled to do the same) reveals their maturity level. If there are examples of strong women, you have found them, my dear. If my use of the term “girls” in what I hoped would bring an amicable tone to the discussion has offended you, please forgive me.

       • Interesting attempt to manipulate opinion. I called no one for back-up. No one at all. I don’t need any back-up. No one has yet been able to answer why they believe they’re entitled to dictate to other free citizens how they should conduct their private sexual/contractual lives. Particularly why Christians should be able to do that while at the same time avoiding that any other group tell them how to live.
         It’s the ultimate in psycho-social narcissism and hypocrisy and displays an absurd and entirely unconstitutional notion that your religious beliefs supersede every other citizen’s rights to freedom of religion.

         • When I make a case against same-sex marriage, which is what I assume you mean by “dictating to free citizens how they should conduct their private/contractual lives” it is not on the basis of religion. I’ve got 99 posts on this blog. Please peruse and find an example of when I have used religion as a basis for my arguments on that subject.

           Once upon a timed congress stated “…at bottom, civil society has an interest in maintaining and protecting the institution of heterosexual marriage because it has a deep and abiding interest in encouraging responsible procreation and child-rearing. Simply put, government has an interest in marriage because it has an interest in children.”

           If marriage was only about “how citizens conduct their sex lives” then this blog would not exist. I recognize and respect the rights of consenting adults to couple, triple or quadruple with whoever they choose. The problem is, as regularly pointed out by another European at http://englishmanif.blogspot.com/, is that marriage policy is directly tied to children’s rights. Children have a natural right to be known by their mother and father, statistically do best with them, and experience pain when one or both of those relationships is lost. I reject incentivizing any family structure that necessitates loss for a child so that the adults can fulfill their desires.

           You mention down the thread a ways, the “freedom every citizen has NOT to follow your group’s vision about anything.” That’s exactly what you will find in this country. It seems that you are not satisfied with that arrangement however. It seems that the “freedom” you seek is to never have to hear a contrary opinion, especially of a religious nature. You would rather have my freedom of speech curbed so as not to be offended. That, my friend, is not tolerance. Rather it is a genuine “manipulation” of others because of your opinion.

         • Are you be terribly disingenuous or outright dishonest? Your motivation is religion. The arguments you use are parroted from anti-gay propaganda, most of which was debunked long ago.
           Even your link is highly questionable. The Manif pour Tous group in France was exposed by a number of newspapers as a Catholic led effort that peddled and faked a wide range of information. They even created fake associations to ‘join their movement’ as to have a longer list to present to the media. Non-religious you say?
           Government’s interest in marriage is not being impeded. A gay person marrying doesn’t stop a heterosexual person from marrying. Unless your proposition is that gay people should lie to themselves and others and enter into a marriage with a person of the opposite sex who they do not love. I’d venture to say that’s hugely irresponsible.
           Childrens rights are not affected here. What the fraudulent manif group fails to mention is that in much of Europe single men/women are able to adopt independent of sexual orientation. Interestingly they (nor American groups) created groups to oppose that- or to stop unmarried people from having children, for that matter.
           And as we’re there, let me make one thing very clear. Any family unit that works towards the same goals is good for society. Whether it’s a war widow who lives with her parents and they help raise her child; Or a single mother who adopts an unwanted child- or any other of the many configurations.
           My partner and I aren’t married, yet we’ve been together for 13 years. That’s not bad in today’s world. We’re not married by choice. Civil unions have been legal here since 99, and full marriage since 2005. We feel no need to do it, but that doesn’t mean that our family life isn’t family life. When my brother-in-law was in a messy divorce, the children came to stay with us. When my mother-in-law developed vascular dementia, she came to live with us. We’re childless and financially comfortable, living in a huge house, so we were the best option. I cared for her, bathed her, dressed her, and she died in my arms (convinced I was her husband). That, my friend, is family. Real family. Not a contract. Not Britney Spears’ 24 hour Las Vegas marriage, but real family. And that has a tremendous social value. It’s absolutely in the interest of the government that as many people as possible form stable relationships and familial units. And the sex/gender of the participants has nothing to do with anything.
           I’ll go even further and say that my relationship and family unit have benefitted society considerably more than many heterosexual unions. Whether it was because we were here for our nephew and niece when they needed it or that we could help pay for their college. Or simply that we’re educated, professional, contributing members of our community. So don’t give me the “I’m worried about the children” line when all the evidence known thus far points to the contrary- except evidently the magnled propaganda peddled by the Christian right.
           And as for the manif, I’m sure you’ll be glad to know that despite their despicable campaign of fraud and manipulation, France remains one of the world’s most respectful countries in regards to people’s sexual orientation: http://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/

           As for tolerance- forget the word. It’s ridiculous. Who is one citizen to tolerate another? Try respect. You’re free to practice whatever you want. Wanna sacrifice a chicken? Light candles to saints? Bob up and down? Pray 5 times a day? Be my guest- but don’t think for a moment you have the right to dictate the private behaviour of others.

         • Pink, I have yet to meet a child who has lost a relationship with a parent who hasn’t suffered and wished for a healthy bond with that parent. Kids whose parents were abysmal failures/abusive and who were taken in by aunts and uncles or grandparents. Despite what they suffered under that parent, they still long to be known by them. Another girl who was raised solely by her rockin’ single mom, but who always wished to know the man who had the fleeting relationship with her mother. Finally he said he wanted a relationship over the phone and it broke her heart when he couldn’t even call every month. Children who suffered divorce and slowly, whether it because of custody arrangements or the dad moved away or just got involved in his “new” family, became disconnected with one parent. The adopted child who loves her parents but decides to make the pilgrimage back to China to see if she can find any shred of her biological roots. The children conceived of artificial insemination and born to lesbians who tried to maintain a relationship with the sperm donor until he nearly killed one of the children in a reckless snowmobiling accident and they ceased contact. The other children of lesbians who call my friend “daddy” when they go on camping trips with him because somehow that is an innate phrase for them even though the guy is with his own wife and kids. The three boys being raised by their father and his partner because he divorced the only mother they’ve known so he could “be himself.” Hearing stories of the five of them jockeying for alpha dog because it is the most non-diverse household (no woman to bring peace/nurture) you could ever conceive of kills my heart. The Anonymous Us project begun to support adult children conceived through third party reproduction as they share their loss and brokenness over not knowing one of their parents and the impact it had on their life. My friend who has spent her life in search for the mother she lost at age 7 in a bicycle accident- a role that none of her father’s girlfriends or current wife could fill. The kids whose mother is keeping the guy on the side and they don’t know why she is emotionally distant but they interpret it as a rejection of them.

           Should all these above scenarios be legally permitted? Yes. (With the exception of third-party donation.) Should any of these arrangements be promoted/incentivized by government? HELL NO.

           Are children from broken homes doomed? No. Is the deck more stacked against them? Yes. Are there crappy heterosexual couples? Yes. Do homosexuals have the capacity to parent well? Yes. (I have the best example of that.) Is gender a real phenomenon? Yes. Can a father be a mother? No. Can a mother be a father? No. Do children need both? Yes. Should government promote a family structure where children will always be denied a mother or father. NO.

           I am against same sex marriage because I am a realist. I’ve witnessed too much life to say that the loss and disadvantage children experience (and to which scores of studies testify) due to the effects of death, divorce, third party donation and abandonment of birth parents magically disappear when the child is place with a same sex couple. That my God- who found me in a world filled with my own loss and misbehavior- has taken such great pains to ensure that no child enters into this life without a mom or dad, who desires a life-long relationship between spouses, who hates divorce, and who condemns adultery just gives me one more reason to love and trust His laws and design.

           You have your relationship with your partner, and certainly the commitment that you share has outlasted many a heterosexual couple. My mother and her partner could put on a clinic on commitment and fidelity. You have your family- and certainly your bond, sacrifice, and generosity are in no way inferior to those of heterosexual couples. Individually and as a couple you, like every other unique being on the planet, have much to give. I am not advocating that your relationship be “outlawed.” I am saying that government should do what it was made to do- and that is protect the rights of those who cannot protect their own. I am stunned that some gays and lesbians feel that to accomplish their goals and establish their “rights” they have to tell children that father and mothers are interchangeable and disposable, as long as it’s what the parents want. France had its largest demonstrations EVER over this issue because, as it should be, marriage law and adoption/fertility law was synced up. They knew that the issue with both was not simply adult fulfillment but the meaning of parenthood and the rights of children.

           I think I shall take my cue from Kayla and invite you to have the final word here. Pink, I wish you well. I’m sure I’ll be seeing you again.

         • You’re confusing things. One is gay unions, another is IVF, another still is adoption. You’re (dishonestly) using an alleged opposition to one to attack the others. I don’t like oranges so let’s prohibit citrus? It’s illogical.
           A bit like Hewho’s ad-hoc(kery).
           He/she began by saying offspring are universally raised by parents. When that was disproven, they changed it to male/female parental roles. When that was disproven, they changed their proposition to say the evidence didn’t count because those were minority cases.
           France did have its largest demonstrations ever; And as many French people, I was thoroughly embarrassed to see it was the first time since the Nazi occupation that a group of people chanted “Jews Out” on the streets of Paris: http://pinkagendist.wordpress.com/2014/02/08/they-chanted-dehors-les-juifs-and-it-wasnt-1940-blood-on-the-leaves-and-blood-at-the-root/
           The people who told themselves this was about gay marriage or children have been realizing how this is puppetry by people like Marine Le Pen and other extremists bent on filling their coffers. Fortunately, the more they show their colours, the more the population turns against the class of hate-mongering they’re peddling.
           France has always had an extremist percentage of the population. They supported the monarchy, they supported the nazi regime, later they supported Petain, now they organize to protest the rights of fellow citizens yet again. And as has always happened, they majority of the population will reject their calls and stand by liberty, equality and fraternity.

         • Askme: Heartfelt, personal, eye-witness, loving and right on the money. Great reply my friend!

         • Thanks Tisha!

3. Askme: another terrific blog…way to go, girl

   Pink: Forgive me if I’m wrong, but it seems as if you are largely interested in being derogatory in the same old All You Religious stereotype which is as useful as the All You Black/Jewish/LGBT/Conservatives/Liberals conversations out there with people who want to yell at others but aren’t willing to engage in honest and respectful dialogue about beliefs. If you want to sneer at Askme and accuse her of side-stepping the issue, be sure you’ve actually RAISED the issue first. What is your comment or question regarding the Catholic-Protestant “issue”. You stated that this issue is larger than the “gay” issue. How so? Engage, Pink, instead of lobbing quip bombs and you might find that you have to re-adjust your stereotype….at least by one person, anyway. You might even find you change hearts yourself.

   Stephanie: BTDT and it didn’t go really well. Not crash and burn, but not where I want to be. How’s it going for you? I love reading Askme’s blog and I get a lot support and understanding from it.

   • I did engage and gave a very reasonable example. No bomb at all.
     The gay issue is one where (some) Christians are asking people to forego their individual freedoms and not just adopt a specific view but apply it to their lives. The veil is a perfect parallel. A Muslim has the right to wear a veil, but no right to make any other free citizen do so.
     A Christian has the right to follow the specific regulations of any of the particular sects they’re a part of, but once they start pushing other people to do the same, they’re interfering with other people’s freedom of religion.

     • How exactly does sharing your views with your friend, as Stephanie explains, “interfere with other people’s freedom of religion?”

       • It’s not just sharing a view. I thought my comments would have made that clear enough already.
         The line is between applying an ideology to one’s own life, or asking that another apply it to their life.
         The second a religious person asks all of society to follow their interpretation of their religion, they’re interfering with everyone else’s right to freedom of religion.
         It’s a very simple notion.

     • “they’re interfering with other people’s freedom of religion.”

       When the fire department recommends that you pay careful attention to your wiring and to keep a fire extinguisher in your house, are they violating your freedom to live as you choose? When your doctor urges you to get an annual checkup, is s/he violating your right to make your own health decisions? When your teacher urges you to go to college, is s/he interfering with your right to drop out of college? No. They are giving you information that may save or vastly improve the quality of your life in ways you haven’t even thought of, but with which they have experience. When a Christian urges you to accept Christ or to add or subtract things in your life, it does not interfere with your freedom of religion…it is a recommendation made to help you. Take it or leave it.

       “I did engage”
       I beg to differ. From this end, your remarks appear snide (“do you set homosexuality aside as a single target, just ’cause you feel like it?) and antagonistic (“Historically speaking, that’s how the religious have extorted money from the populace most successfully!”). Was that your intent? If not, what was the intent behind your remarks? Put another way, why DID you choose a Christian blog to read when you are aware that they hold views contrary to your own? Why did you choose sarcasm as the vehicle with which to engage others on a topic widely held to be “touchy”?

       “The gay issue is one where (some) Christians are asking people to forego their individual freedoms and not just adopt a specific view but apply it to their lives”

       Which “individual freedoms” are you referring to?

       “A Muslim has the right to wear a veil, but no right to make any other free citizen do so.”

       A veil is an outward sign of an inner conviction. To the best of my knowledge, no Christian group is attempting to force others to wear religious symbols or to show compliance with a certain dress code. The analogy doesn’t seem to fit, here.

       • The Fire Dept. is a public authority. Your particular sect has been conceded no such authority over the population.
         If you don’t get my humour or tone, that’s okay with me.
         The comparison to the veil isn’t about the object itself. It’s about a religious group enforcing their dogma/traditions on people who are not a part of the group.
         The individual freedom I speak of is FREEDOM OF RELIGION. Or more specifically, the freedom every citizen has NOT to follow your group’s vision on anything, from homosexuality to whatever else.

         • Pink: Even if you were to remove my analogy to the fire department (which has the authority to mandate certain actions, but can only recommend others), my other analogies stand. There are, literally, thousands of people/agencies/organizations/religions/political parties, etc that make recommendations to you to accept their view. This is not a violation of your rights, it is an expression of theirs to use freedom of speech/expression. Your rights mean you have the freedom to take their recommendations or leave them without penalty. So, too, with the evangelization attempts from Christians.

           Although this seems obvious to me, it’s possible that your experiences are different. So, then, I am curious as to why you feel your freedom to practice, or not practice, religion is violated and how you are “subjected” and forced to follow the doctrine of Christianity. How does this manifest itself in your life that you feel strongly enough to make the comments you have made?

         • I have never heard of anyone in the LGBT community being interested in how you think anyone should live their lives.
           It’s that simple.
           It would be EXACTLY the same as Muslims or Jews trying to influence/force Christians to adopt their customs.
           Which part of that do you find hard to understand?

           The forced/subjected aspect is the very loud opposition, including LEGAL, many Christians have to gay unions of any kind. If Christians believe in freedom, as you say, then there’s no need to seek legal bans.

4. No worries, Pink can’t stomach a real argument or debate without playing the bigot/hater card, or just throwing his toys down in the sand and walking away.

   • Says the anonymous figure who can’t lay out a logical argument…

     • Says the man who ran away when the going got too ruff, or logical. Still haven’t answered my question have you? Oh, and I am so sorry your parents named you Pinkagendist.

       • And your parents named you Hewho? LOL. How old are you, 11?
         Which question would you like answered?
         I didn’t run anywhere. Not my style.

         • Regarding our debate on VW’s site. Question you left unanswered, do they mate and raise children in male female pairs, yes or no?

           One anonymous person questioning another one’s validity based on said anonymity? and you are the paladin of logic eh?

           For the record I’m 12.

         • I missed the question and who’s VW? Does who mate and raise children male/female pairs? It depends on the species. In primates that varies, and that includes human beings. It’s been different in various cultures.
           In upper-class European cultures boys were sent to all male boarding schools which means they were primordially reared with no female influence. Girls remained at home (or went to all female convent schools) and were reared by the mothers.
           Various tribes have had various different methods including group living, matriarchy, polygamy- there isn’t a single model.

         • And by the way, I’m not anonymous. My blog states my name and has many pictures of me and my life…

         • Note the unanswered question in the last comment on the post noted below. Specifically “So for clarity do the cultures you referenced raise children within a male female parental core or not?” As you did not comment further and did not answer the question, and as you’re argument was flawed, I assumed you ran away. As you have now clarified that running away from a debate is not your style there must be some other explanation. Something of the “you’re too dim-witted to debate with and you’re full of hate” kind of answer I’m sure, however I would love for you to prove otherwise.

           http://violetwisp.wordpress.com/2014/01/30/how-safe-are-our-children/

         • I missed the question, my apologies.
           As I already explained in my previous answer to you, there is no single model of rearing children in primates. If you read about the Mosuo you’ll see very interesting differences in regards to what we consider ‘normal’ in the West.
           Fathers don’t really participate in the rearing of their offspring, they also don’t live with the mothers. Their view of marriages/relationships/sexuality is also very different. There’s no focus on “monogamy for life”. In many cases the mother may not know who the father is at all. This sort of culture has been observed in many tribes around the world.

         • You’re dodging the question. Specific to the post, “Do the cultures you referenced raise children within a male female parental core or not?” all facts say they do so what is your answer?

         • No they do not. I’ve explained that several times. Which part did you not understand?

         • With all facts to the contrary your answer is no. At least you finally answered.

         • Which part of Mosuo life are you not understanding? Of course the answer is no. As I’ve already explained the answer is/was also no in the case of European/UK upper classes. Genders were reared separately.
           That’s evidence. Again, which part of it confuses you?

         • I understand Mosuo life perfectly. They raise children in male/female pairs. These pairs may not be the biological father and mother, often the uncle and mother but a male and female parental core. They also are not an example of a naturally occurring social structure as their way of life is a result of oppression by an elite class, not a natural reaction to their environment. So to be clear, your Mosuo example is A) in error, and B) irrelevant, as it is not an example of a society formed as a natural reaction to its environment. If you are going to argue that there are natural examples of social structures that deviate from the male female pair parental core, these examples should be natural and actually ones that do deviate.

           As to the other small tribal cultures you originally referenced, there was no support for your claim there either, but I’m sure you realize that now.

           As to upper classes in Europe sending their children to boarding school. This is a dead-end for your argument. Their parents are still a male/female pair that send their children to school for periods of the year. This in no way is a group of children that identify their school faculty as their parents, and the faculty does not identify the students as their children. Nor does the faculty have any of the rights the parents do in regard to the children. In addition, as I have said before, even if this point was actually relevant, it is a very small percentage of population and a very limited period of time.

         • Your comment begins with an ABSOLUTE FALSEHOOD. So I suggest you go back to the books and try again.
           Are you implying that an uncle/mother pair is the same thing as a father/mother pair?
           That’s a non-starter.

         • Yes I am sure your personal experiance is the definitive example. Again, small percentage of population and limited period of time, and not a natural reaction to natural environment, unless you consider statism born of Feudalism natural. your experience sounds sad, have you ever thought about how this deprivation from a male female parental unit could have contributed to your psychological issues leading to them manifesting as Homosexuality? Your own experience could prove the point that homosexuality is a psychological issue. Doesn’t make you bad or evil, so save that response for someone else, just makes you someone with a disorder.

         • What you’re doing is intellectually dishonest.
           It’s called the ad-hoc argumentation (you can read about it here: http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#AdHocRescue )
           You began by saying offspring are universally raised by parents. When that was disproven, you changed it to male/female parental roles. When that was disproven, you changed your proposition to say the evidence didn’t count because those are minority cases
           Let me clarify it for you. All of your propositions were wrong. The evidence demonstrates that and by going the ad-hoc way you’re only deceiving yourself.
           There is no ‘natural’ for the human condition. Cultures change, evolve, adapt to circumstances. As an example Mormons adopted polygamy. Is it natural? As natural as any other system created by human beings.
           You’re trying to invent a natural that has nothing to do with science or biology.
           Elephants will always adopt an orphan baby, meanwhile black eagles kill their siblings (instinctively) as to not share resources. Which is more natural? They both are. So is brood reduction, killing offspring etc… etc… That’s real biology. If it exists in nature: It’s Natural.
           Despite your failed attempts, you cannot create a monolith for human experience.
           My experience wasn’t sad at all. It was the same experience of most of the people I know, including my partner. Like everything, there are advantages and disadvantages.
           We learn independence very early. How to function in the world, how to interact socially without the usual molly-coddling that’s popular these days.
           We learn to focus on education, to budget- a million things.
           Is that better or worse, more or less natural than living at home until 18? There’s no single answer. It’s different in every culture. For someone with my personality, it was ideal. On the other hand some people hate it. In Italy children tend to live with their parents until they’re married. In France they leave for university and become independent earlier. Which is natural? Both.
           Connecting a certain type of schooling with homosexuality is absurd. The vast majority of my classmates are straight, and they lived the exact same experience. There you go again, trying to create an artificial scenario to fit in with your religious dogma.
           That’s the problem with people with religious minds. There are no parameters of reality. So no matter how many times a point is disproven, you’ll pluck another one out of the air.
           I’ll go as far as to say I couldn’t have hoped for a better life; Both as a child and now. As I deal with people like you I wonder what could have happened to me if I wasn’t born to educated people? What if I had been relegated to the backwoods of ignorance and mysticism?
           I complained a lot about life as a teenager, but every day that goes by I’m more able to recognize how incredibly fortunate I was and am. Grateful for the life, for the education, and definitely for the opportunities and lessons that made me able to maintain a successful 13 year relationship and a career where I make more than the vast majority of the population can fathom. How’s that for a disorder? I’ll take it over yours any day of the week.

         • I’m saying, as I always have, that the ideal should be what we strive for in regard to raising children. A male female parental core, be they the actual biological parents or not, is superior to a same sex parental core. so yes it is a ‘starter’ as you can’t just call a logical argument a non-starter and make it so by the power of your will. Again you are wrong on your own terms on your own playing field and by the examples you presented. No evidence of predominitly same sex parenting, no evidence of deviation from male female parental core and no evidence of accepted homosexuality, not even in your grossly misrepresented depiction of Mosuo society.

         • The problem with arguing is when people don’t know what they’re saying.
           If mother/uncle is equivalent to progenitors (which was your first proposition before your ad-hoc). Then are you saying that a Lesbian who has a brother who participates in the child’s life is hunky-dory?
           I’d reccommend more time reading about logic, otherwise you’ll keep putting yourself into corners like that…

         • When this debate began between us, I commented the following so we could begin with clarity in regard to my positions. I fail to see where I have deviated from what I wrote below from February this year –

           What I actually have stated, for the sake of clarity in any debate going forward.

           1, Homosexuallity is an error as it is not aligned with our species primary imperative of survival and continuance via procreation. This does not mean however, that I have any fear or hate for homosexuals. Nor does it mean I believe they should be excluded from, or prevented from, exercising any actual rights.

           2, A right cannot be dependent on it being provided by another, therefore no one has a right to a child they can not naturally create. This includes heterosexual couples and individuals.

           3, A male female couple is the ideal root structure for a family unit.

           4, As same sex couples do not meet the criteria of the ideal structure they should not be seen as equal to a mixed sex couple in regard to adoption, as the primary purpose of adoption is for the well being of the child.

           5, To force the false right to a child for those who can not naturally produce one (heterosexual or homosexual) will create a modern day slave trade.

           I also, in the same comment, said – I’m not a Christian or follower of any other faith. And as I have studied absolutely zero anti-gay propaganda, or anti-gay information of any kind it would not be possible for me to parrot whatsoever. This is all assumption on your part, based on you own bias.

           Your rambling again noted my religious argument, again a failure to either pay attention or a failure to embrace reality. Or maybe you simply have one short playbook with a myopic focus on faith. Also, next time can you throw in some derogatory comments regarding snake charming, moonshine drinking, speaking in tongues at midnight rambles and other Appalachian holly roller events? Oh and throw in some shotguns.

           Your argument so far has been a failure, a thousand word rambling rant does not change this or the facts. The tribes you referenced DO raise their children in a family structure that has a male female pair at its core. As you can see from my original position points this is in no way a change on my part. I ADDED, after proving it wrong, that your argument regarding the Mosuo was irrelevant as it was the result of outside human effluence. Your argument seems simply to be “Black is white because I say so”. That’s not logic or rational thought, that’s delusion.
           And I doubt you are truly content, satisfied, fulfilled and happy or you wouldn’t wast your time debating the point of your lifestyle with those who disagree, you would just be busy living your life. But hey! Fake it until you make it right!

         • Yes, we’ve been through your unscientific hogwash before. It’s neither biology nor logic. Which makes me wonder about your education level.
           If at this point in life you still don’t understand biology is neither simplistic nor reductionist- you’ve got a serious problem in reasoning.
           1. Had you educated yourself, you’d know that sexual interaction in many species isn’t just about procreation. In fact only 3% of sexual interaction in humans is procreative. The other 97% are social. Mostly intended for pleasure/strengthen bonds. There is NOTHING in science that supports this ridiculus reductionist view that sex os ONLY for reproduction. In the same vein, the palate isn’t JUST for identifying bitter taste as to prevent the consumption of poisonous substances.
           2. Gays and Lesbians can have children naturally. Many do.
           3 & 4. Ideal is a fantasy. The real world has real lives. That means death, illness & imperfection. It means soldiers die at war. It means there are mothers who are alcoholic. It means some people abuse and even kill their children- yes HETEROsexual people do all that. The best we can do as a society is examine individual cases and find the best option for each individual. I’ve twice been given the care of children over a number of heterosexuals. There’s probably a very good reason for the choice- and that’s that sexual orientation doesn’t impact an individual’s capacity for care. After all, Ariel Castro was a heterosexual, was he not? So was Casey Anthony. Ideally HETEROsexual.
           5. Gays can produce childre, already answered that. So I imagine you’ll be dropping any objections for gay men and lesbians who decide to have children together.
           Yes you do say: “’m not a Christian or follower of any other faith. And as I have studied absolutely zero anti-gay propaganda, or anti-gay information of any kind it would not be possible for me to parrot whatsoever. This is all assumption on your part, based on you own bias.”
           Which is a most shameless lie. Your ‘natural’ argument isn’t based in biology. It’s the Christian version that was first invented by the Catholics in writings on their alleged ‘natural’ law which has nothing to do with nature.
           As for your last comment: “And I doubt you are truly content, satisfied, fulfilled and happy or you wouldn’t wast your time debating the point of your lifestyle with those who disagree, you would just be busy living your life. But hey! Fake it until you make it right!”- I’m debating because I think what people like you do is shameful and harmful and has devastating effects on young lgbt people. When they read garbage, I want them to see there’s another point of view.
           I don’t need to ‘fake’ anything. That’s part of your compensatory-narcissistic fantasy that your god loves and if you follow X rules, your life is worthwhile even if your day-to-day feels like rubbish and you’ve never accomplished anything of value in your life. When a young LGBT person reads this I want them to know that I also am an LGBT person. I’m Édouard Barlatier de Mas e Coutinho. My partner of 13 years is a well known Royal Shakespeare Company actor. I have the career of my dreams, and no matter how many under-educated, compensatory narcissists want to sleep better at night at the expense of LGBT people, people like me are proof that all of the anti-gay propaganda is garbage.
           You’re not today, nor will you ever be, half the man I am. Not half the character, not half the education and certainly nowhere near my intelligence or contribution to society. So crawl back into the hole whence you came and return to your ‘little’ existence of peddling mythology, ignorance, misinformation and hate.

         • And don’t even waste your time with the European model. I’m a part of it as were my parents and grandparents. Contact with parents is incredibly limited. Children are relegated to the care of employees. So you obviously have NO IDEA what you’re talking about.

         • Pink that was truly awesome! I have an image of you raising a sword at the end there, am I accused of killing your father and should I prepare to die?

           Again you descend into ad-hoc. Funny, I thought you didn’t go in for that. Making false and general accusations as to what I have said and what I think. I am not a person of faith but you accuse me of lying about that. You return to points that have already been logically refuted and attribute points of argument to me that are not mine and then you just fall back on insults and pontification. And after that rant you call me a narcissist?

           As to the insulting questioning of my intellect and education, I couldn’t care less what you think of my intellect or level of education, however in your case “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind. Your partner can help with the reference. I’m sure I’ll run into you some day at a Mensa event.

           1. “There is NOTHING in science that supports this ridiculus reductionist view that sex os ONLY for reproduction” And this is a view that is not shared by me, as I have clearly stated in previous comments from the Violetwisp blog to which I earlier provided a link. However its (sex) primary and superior purpose IS reproduction and there is no logical rational argument to the contrary, but please do try and provide one.

           2. “Gays and Lesbians can have children naturally. Many do.” While this has nothing to do with my position on the privilege of adoption, you are correct, they can and do and good for them. What’s your point?

           3. and 4. The ideal structure, as the goal to strive to achieve, is not a fantasy. The mythical ideal pair of parents is however, but that has never been my point. Do you understand the difference between the two?

           5. I think you should read my fifth position again as you may have missed the point. It is about what falsely calling adoption a right will do to the institution of adoption. However yes, I do not object to homosexual men and women making and raising children together. I wish all who want children would choose THIS path. If they did we could stop this argument and go have an appletini. With your vast means, you of course would buy.

           As to the question of my faith or lack of faith, clearly there is nothing I can do to make you see the truth in what you have decided to see as a lie. All I can say is your wrong. I am not a person of faith and none of my positions or arguments come from faith or any religious teaching.

           Now, do I need to buy a sword, or are you not in the practice of attacking half-wit half-men?

         • I guess you forgot wordpress includes your IP with comments, which means I know your comments are a sham.

         • “I guess you forgot wordpress includes your IP with comments, which means I know your comments are a sham”

           You have my IP address and this makes my comments a sham? Oh please DO TELL what you think you know! Produce this smoking gun! I can’t wait, answer now please!

           Now be carful not to make a fool of yourself. As I know there is nothing in knowing my IP address that has any relevance to the truth and validity of my comments, you may be in danger of doing so. I have truthfully and honestly represented myself and my positions. You have been duly warned as I am a good sport.

           Now please, produce the smoking gun!

         • Sham altogether. Fake comments designed to create controversy and traffic on a blog. The smoking gun came from your last answer.

         • Are you drinking? You are the one adding traffic and controversy to this blog. Or was I also in a disingenuous way adding traffic to Violetwisp’s blog when our debate began there? Am I a sham traffic generator for both sides? Or maybe I’m a blog traffic generator for hire and both VW and Askme are paying me vast sums of money, that must be it.

           You aren’t really going to walk away with a false accusation of me being a sham. I thought you didn’t throw your toys down and walk away, it isn’t your style right?

         • Don’t waste my time with faux-controversy. This isn’t a genuine debate.

         • And there you have it, the sound of toys hitting the sand again. A debate does not stop being a debate when you are loosing. Hold on tight to whatever you think you know from ferreting out my IP address as it gives you the illusion of a legitimate reason to run away.

           Pink you’re a thuggish bully and that is why I engaged you in “debate”. No grand conspiracy to build blog traffic. Do I know Askme? Yes, my wife is her editor. So yes, I watch her blog and occasionally blogs that cut and paste her posts on to their blog in order to mock her with their bullish hate filled friends. That is how I ran into you. Again I just don’t like bullies who are horribly wrong in their thinking, but my argument, comments and everything I have said has been absolutely truthful and honest.

           You obviously have deep-seated insecurities about yourself or you wouldn’t waste your time coming to this, and other blogs like it, to rant. If you actually were interested in debate and actually convincing people your position was correct, which would be logical as you claim an oppressed person status, you would try good honest discussion and not the angry hate filled ranting in which you do engage.

           Now are the toys staying in the sand? Can you play nice? Can you open your mind? Can you let go of your hate? Can you engage in actual honest debate that could provide benefit for all involved?

         • You wanna be the next Anne Coulter- good luck to you. I’m playing no role in helping your dog-whistling.
           I don’t need to convince anyone I’m right. Facts are facts and human dignity is human dignity- and finally the law in the developed world is beginning to acknowledge that.
           You want to continue fighting against that and promoting mythology, go right ahead. It’s a shame you can’t find a way to make a life or a living without doing it at the expense of other people.
           Exposing your charade isn’t being a bully, it’s just exposing your charade.

         • Probably for the best that you no longer take part. I myself also have better things to do, like finish the frame-up on Anwar Ibrahim, so fragile these alliances with muslum extremists, it really needs my full attention. Then there is that little trouble I started in Crimea, extending Russian anti-homosexuality laws will be a delicate exercise, but hey! That’s what they pay me for. Then of course the mothership lands in April, Merlin and I have a whole week of mystical havoc to wreak upon the LGBT community world wide.

           All jest aside, I truly wish you all the best and lot’s of luck, methinks you will need the luck.

           P.S. I accept your surrender.

           Cheers!

         • Delusional people are like this… Creating fantasy worlds to be comfortable in their existence.
           I’m not the fabricated internet troll. I’m the established and successful professional- certainly not the one who needs ‘luck’. Now get back to your pathetic life.

         • Say what you wish, but who is delusional and proven for the hateful small minded and emotionally unstable person they are, with only ad-hoc argument while comically accusing others of the same, is clearly shown for all to see in your comments to me and others on this blog.

           So please keep going. it only further proves the point. I however have decided, in order to make this somewhat interesting and entertaining for me, that going forward I will only respond to you predominantly using the lyrics of openly homosexual musical artists. Unless of course you command me once again to return to my hole or some such nonsense. I bit overly authoritarian don’t you think?

         • Don’t you have more fake online identities to create? What’s next, a Nigerian 419 Scam?

         • You’re hell bent for leather, but your hate is like the Crimson flare from a raging sun, I can hear you screaming for vengeance, but there’s many who tried to prove that they’re faster, but they didn’t last. If you think I’ll let this go you’re mad, you’ve got another thing coming.

         • Get a real job, scam artist. Do something productive, you disgusting little piece of trash.
           Proper people do real work and pay taxes and don’t depend on fomenting hate to make a living.

         • It’s quite peculiar in a funny sort of way
           You think it’s very funny everything I say
           “Get a load of him, he’s so insane”

           But what is it in your conscience that you’re after
           That compels you to steal another glimpse of the madman across the water?

         • Yep… your IP is just a strange coincidence. Not only are you a con, but a shameless one.

         • So you think you can stone me and spit in my eye?

           Kill joy, Bad guy,
           Big talking, Small fry

           Talk like a big business tycoon,
           But you’re just a hot air balloon,
           So no one gives you a damn,
           You’re just an overgrown school boy

5. “we cannot bend God’s truth about marriage and sexuality.” The Bible clearly states that promiscuous homosexual sex is as sinful as promiscuous heterosexual sex. So I agree that for those following your religion it would be as wrong as getting a divorce to have promiscuous homosexual sex. Hopefully everyone embarrassing and insulting their gay friends will ‘speak the truth’ as consistently to their divorced friends.

   However, in the interests of not making up, or bending, the alleged words of God from the Bible when it comes to same sex marriage, can you please point me to the passages where this topic is specifically discussed?

6. violet: the bible, in the form of the New Testament, is the eternal Word of God. However, it was written at a finite place in time. Same-sex marriage was not an issue during the time of Jesus and The Apostles…it was not a part of their “schema”, so to speak, and so you will not find the words “same-sex marriage” in the Bible. Neither will you find the word “twerking” in the Bible. However the Bible IS clear that both homosexual activity and lewd behavior are contrary to doctrine (Rom 1:26-27; 1 Timothy 1:9-10;1 Corinthians 6:9-10). If an action (in this case same sex activity) is condemned, then it follow that that which celebrates and legalizes it is inherently disordered.

   Again, Askme makes the point, never ceasing to emphasize, a mentality of “love the sinner, for there too are we, but speak the truth in that love”. And she makes that point because it contains in it the essence of His message.

   • But what’s your implication? That everyone ‘must’ follow your scriptures?

     • May I interject here? For a Christian, religion is not something we like to subscribe to. For us, it’s truth. It’s 100% fact. And the need for a Savior is essential for entering Heaven after life on Earth. Otherwise, we believe a human will spend eternity in Hell.

       No one has any agenda to “make everyone follow OUR Scriptures.” We don’t believe they are “OURS”. We believe they belong to every Human on the planet.

       And if we indeed believe it’s true…. our mission is to share that truth with others so that they have a chance to understand it and make a decision for themselves. We can’t force a decision, nor is anyone here trying to force anything.

       We’re hoping that through loving our homosexual friends and family members and staying completely engaged in their life no matter what they choice as truth for them, that the truth in us will still be visible if they ever decide to come to Jesus too.

       I understand your argument about making sure we spend time witnessing to everyone, and not just homosexuals. But keep in mind that you’re on a specific blog with a specific purpose.

       Just like everyone has a job in life…. we don’t all focus on the same tasks at the same time to function as a human race. If you are flipping burgers at McDonalds, no one is over you screaming “why aren’t you assembling that steering wheel on that Honda Civic?” Or “Why isn’t your signature on that document yet?”

       In the body of Christ, we believe we all have spiritual gifts and ministries so we can all work together to get everything done.

       ASKME has a very specific ministry here…. it’s unfair to stand over here sarcastically punching her with “why aren’t you addressing every issue, every minute of the day, with every post you write.”

       You don’t have to come to Christianity. I won’t force you. And I can’t make you. However, I’m still going to keep hoping you do… because it’s not my religion, it’s my truth – and I love you and I want you in Heaven too.

       • Great thoughts Kayla. Thanks.

       • Consider the fact that many want to have nothing to do with your religion: And please don’t dissimulate. Proselytism is part of Christian doctrine. So is using prohibitions to induce all of society to follow your religion.
         That’s a violation of individual citizen’s rights. Clear and simple.

         • Consider the fact that some of us want nothing to do with same sex marriage. And prohibitions about what we can and can’t do/say/and participate in or boycott is a violations of individual citizen’s rights.
           Clear and Simple.

           You want to remove our rights for yours. Who’s talking hypocritical now?

         • You DON’T HAVE TO HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH GAY UNIONS.
           Who is forcing you to become a lesbian or get gay married?
           Ever considered living your own life and leaving other people to live as they please.
           Or are you open to other people telling you who you should sleep with and how?

         • I’m open to God telling me who I should sleep with and how. That’s all I’m suggesting anyone else to consider. I’m not asking anyone to listen to me and my rules, just to Him.

           And don’t forget my original point. I believe scripture is truth. If that means someone doesn’t know the truth I know, they spend eternity in Hell.

           What if I had the cure for cancer which means life for millions — and I decided to mind my own business and keep it to myself???

           I believe I have the truth to the cure for sin which means eternal life for millions. And you want me to keep it to myself?

         • Darling, don’t say god as if you’ve got his phone number. very little sect has their own little interpretation.
           Are you ready for the FLDS god to tell you that your husband can have a second wife? If he doesn’t you’re defying their god’s will.

         • When the government threatens to make that a law in America… we’ll tackle that issue then.

         • PS – Proselytism is the act of converting. It’s not enough for us to disagree… you want me to agree with you. Sounds a lot like you want to convert my mind set.

           And to think… Christianity is so offense to anything “the rest of the world” would stoop to.

         • I don’t want you to agree with anything. I want you to mind your own business.
           Whatever your neighbours do in their beds with consenting adults and whatever contracts they sign are absolutely nothing to do with you.
           Worry about your own sex-life and your own contracts.

         • Yes you do. You want me to behave how you feel I should behave.

           Why is it your business how I love my neighbors?

         • Love? You don’t love by entering their bed uninvited. It’s creepy. Get your nose out of other people’s underwear, it’s seriously disturbing.

         • In your own words… nice side-step. Again, how is it any of your business what I do? If what I do doesn’t directly affect you… as you claim that what they do doesn’t directly affect me, then stop commenting.

           I see you’ve resulted to tack-less humor to try to put a smack down on me.

           Notice my slight smirk when I say… you’ve made zero points with this comment.

           I never said I want to enter anyone’s bedroom. I actually never once said that I would even tell any of my homosexual friends to stop sleeping with each other.

           A real Christian doesn’t take on the job of the Holy Spirit.

           A real Christian is honest about truth, but let’s the holy spirit work in a person’s life however He deems fit.

           I don’t know a real Christian that walks up to a homosexual and says “can we discuss what you do in the bedroom?”

           Hardly.

           If you’ve seen me interact with a homosexual and find that I’m unloving, forceful and cruel to them… we can talk further. Until then, don’t tell me how creepy and unloving I am by saying that I believe in God and want every human to go to Heaven when they die.

           If it offends you that I believe in God,(because you said “don’t act like you have his phone number… which shows contempt for my beliefs) it sounds more like you’re personally offended with me – and not really how I behave toward anyone.

         • Pretentiousness abounds. What in the world makes you think that any lgbt person is concerned with what you think of their private consensual relationships or the contracts they sign?
           Are you the ‘realest’ Christian around? Is that the game? You get to create this artificial self value at the expense of other people?
           You follow 25.5 rules and that means you’re a super-duper person and anyone else who doesn’t follow your version of the rules isn’t? What a fantastic system!
           Delusion, my dear, delusion. The amount of consensual sex someone had last night and whether they signed or didn’t sign a contract with their partner has no effect whatsoever on the individual’s capacity for honesty, kindness, generosity, good-will, charity or any other characteristic we associate with morality or ethics. If you’re labouring under the fantasy that following archaic mythology that was popular amongst middle-eastern camel herders makes you ethical, let me disabuse you of that notion. It does not.
           Whatever you think your god has to say about sexuality is only of interest to those who follow your particular sect. And every time you open your mouth to say something about it think of Muslim women being persecuted for not wearing veils.
           May your god grant you the curiosity to spend a bit more time learning about ethics and what the meaning of life really is. I, for one, can say that your time would be much better spent pursuing positive endeavours like helping the poor or feeding the hungry.
           Dedicating it to policing the private sex/legal lives of others is, at the very least, in bad taste.

         • You write to me like I’m spending every waking moment of my life hunting for someone who might be homosexual and then screaming at them my beliefs and attempting to force them to agree with me.

           I’ve never done anything like that. And your accusations of the like are what is truly bad taste.

           And please do not speak for the entire human race… you have no authority, nor their permission.

           Someone shared their beliefs with me, and that’s how I came to the faith. Everyone who has ever come to Christ was led by someone else. And for all of them, they are so thankful someone took the time to share the truth of Scripture with them.
           Even previous humans who were actively living a homosexual lifestyle who are now born again believers.

           There are millions out there who do care, they have open hearts, and they appreciate someone taking the time.

           If you don’t. Fine.

           And I’ll give you the last word with your next comment, because I understand – it feels somehow like you win when you’re the last one to speak.

           I don’t value winning. Winning for me is honoring God and putting truth out there for those who do want to hear it.
           It seems like winning for you is insulting my beliefs, my God, and making wild accusations about the way I live my life and what I do and don’t invest my time in.

           Just so you know, we sponsor a boy in south America who is poor so he can have food, clean water and get an education every year. And we give regularly to the homeless shelter and the food pantry.
           But, you seem to already know everything about me and that I am not investing in those endeavors.

         • Insulting your beliefs is the last thing on my mind.
           My message is: Everyone should work for positive goals. Meddling in the sex/legal lives of other doesn’t accomplish that- in the slightest.
           We’re all wasting time on this silly debate (and I include myself) when we could and should actually be working together to do something that’s more worthwhile than checking who followed 3 versus 6.5 rules of a (any) religious book.
           There are serious problems in the world. Do you know how many homeless CHILDREN there are in America?
           Two adults signing a contract is hardly a real issue.
           I’ll go first and put out my hand, tell me what your cause is and then tell me how I can help, and I’ll put my money where my mouth is.

         • I said in my last comment that I wasn’t going to reply anymore, however, given the very last paragraph you wrote, I need to respond and make it clear that I would love to work together with you in an area where we can address something we agree on like hunger or poverty.

           However, there is a stipulation that always comes with me for one main reason.

           Of course I want to feed those who are hungry and give cloths and shelter to those who have none. But, understand that for me and my beliefs, if I gave them food and they lived 99 years on this Earth but I never shared the good news of the gospel… they would still spend eternity in Hell and hunger on Earth is nothing compared to eternal suffering in Hell.

           So, I purposely choose to support organizations that meet the common cause of feeding the hungry and giving shelter to the homeless, but also offer the good news too.

           They are always welcome to decline the invitation to Christ, but I always want it to be there, open to them if they ever change their mind.

           We can agree to disagree on all faucets of solving world hunger, but my money and time will always go toward the ministries that address the physical needs of others, while giving them spiritual options toward Christ as well.

           Ok, now this really is my last comment here.

     • “…what’s your implication? That everyone ‘must” follow your scriptures?”

       Actually, it’s just the opposite. Free will is enormously important to the Christian faith….in fact, I would even go so far as to say that Christianity could not exist without it. It is doctrine common to almost all denominations of Christianity that you choose to accept or choose to reject the Word of God. For all of us, it is ultimately a personal and individual choice that we can only make for ourselves.

       • You’re contradicting yourself. If free will is ‘the thing’, then why are you trying to push other people into subjecting themselves to your religion?

         • I see no contradiction. Your terminology is puzzling to me. I have never “pushed” someone to “subject” themselves to my religion. I’ve invited them to share in the good news of salvation through Jesus Christ.

           I am no more “pushing” others to “subject” themselves to Christianity than Tide is “pushing” you to “subject” yourself to their laundry detergent or Pepsi is “pushing” you to “subject” themselves to drinking their soda.

         • Pushing is when no one asks you. Can you cite an LGBT person who asked you for your views on homosexuality?
           How many LGBT people got together to ask extremist Christian groups to have seminars on how LGBT lives?

   • “If an action (in this case same sex activity) is condemned, then it follow[s] that that which celebrates and legalizes it is inherently disordered.”

     I think even Bigot acknowledges that same sex attraction is natural for gay people – the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexual sex when it’s not natural for the participants. Gay marriage does not celebrate the promiscuous homosexual sex of heterosexual people. It allows two people who naturally love each other to express their commitment to each other in the normal manner of their society. What possible harmful outcome would a benevolent being care about in this situation? You surely can’t believe your god randomly believes something natural with no harmful outcomes is ‘evil’. So why attempt to find that interpretation in the Bible when it clearly isn’t there?

     • violet: I didn’t say that same sex attraction was not natural….it is the inclination of one’s sexual centers of the brain. Most people desire opposite sex partners. A smaller number desire same sex partners. A desire in and of itself is usually not disordered, all things being equal. Acting on a desire is much different; it DOES contain an element of “right” and “wrong” (exactly because we DO have free will) if those are the words one chooses to use…I’m not super comfortable with them, but they are convenient.

       Gay sex is not natural because it prevents the natural purpose of the body parts involved. Simply put, a penis is made to go into a vagina and to expel sperm. The vagina is made to support (for a limited time) and propel the sperm toward the egg in order for both to fulfill their purpose–to form a zygote, to begin life. The “other sex organ”, the brain, is involved in the release of oxytocin, the “bonding hormone” which is what makes sex feel so good. This bonding is critical for the natural setting of child-rearing….the male-female partnership.

       Harmful outcomes to gay sex? Hmmm. Anal rupture, bacterial infections from oral-vaginal sex, PID. These seem negative to me.

       I’m assuming you’ve read the Bible pretty thoroughly since you said prohibition of same-sex marriage isn’t there. When I read the Bible, I DO see prohibition of same-sex marriage where you don’t. As stated before, it isn’t reasonable to expect to see “Thou shalt not approve same-sex marriage” in a document finite in age as well as culture. Also, none of the verses I cited linked homosexuality with promiscuity. In fact, in the Corinthians passage and in the Timothy passage, promiscuity and homosexuality are referenced separately. To ask you the same as you asked me, where, specifically, does the Bible state promiscuous homosexual behavior is wrong, but loving, committed homosexual behavior is appropriate? Also, by implication, the phrase “promiscuous homosexual sex when it’s not natural ” indicates that the Bible recognizes homosexual sex that IS natural. Again, do you have a specific reference for that?

       • “Acting on a desire is much different; it DOES contain an element of “right” and “wrong”” Agreed, it’s important to consider the potential outcomes of acting on our desires.. If mutually consenting adults want to enter into a loving relationship together, there is clearly nothing “wrong”.

         “Gay sex is not natural because it prevents the natural purpose of the body parts involved.” By that argument, chastity is wrong, as is any other kind of sexual contact other than penis in vagina.

         “Harmful outcomes to gay sex? Hmmm. Anal rupture, bacterial infections from oral-vaginal sex, PID. These seem negative to me.” A random list of occasional and avoidable side effects from selected activities that may or may not be practised by same sex couples. Really? This is about choice and love. There are side effects to heterosexual sex, there are horrific side effects to child birth. Activities we enter into as consenting adults all have physical consequences that we are aware of when we make that choice for ourselves. There is nothing intrinsically harmful about a committed homosexual relationship – there is more harm and pain in asking someone to spend their life in a sham relationship or alone, which is not something I believe any benevolent being would sanction.

         “Also, none of the verses I cited linked homosexuality with promiscuity.” I would disagree. They are not talking about committed, long-term relationships, as they dwell only on specific sexual acts. As Bigot points out in another of her posts, “Sexual behavior of all kind outside of the marriage covenant was punishable by death .. within that culture men and women would have sex only with their spouse.” Therefore, there wasn’t scope to view the harmless outcomes we see today. As there wasn’t scope to see the abolition of slavery or the scope to understand treatable mental illnesses being the cause of ‘demon-possession’ behaviour.

         If a benevolent deity exists, it would surely expect its creation to make sensible decisions based on logic and evidence, especially given that the written word left for consideration is so out of date. Suggesting that people should ignore mutual attractions for beneficial long-term relationships because 2000-4000 years ago people viewed promiscuous sodomy as abhorrent, really makes no sense – from a logical or empathetical point of view.

         • “mutually consenting adults”
           So, it’s okay for me to enter into a “consensual” relationship with my father? Maybe my brother? It’s fine for me to enter into a “loving” relationship with a married man? Love is a wonderful thing but it is not the sole thing that determines what is appropriate in a relationship.

           “chastity is wrong”
           No, chastity does not attempt to prevent the use of said body parts, it waits until the appropriate time to use them.

           “penis in vagina”
           For sex to be natural, the end product is penis in vagina. Foreplay is the appropriate time for other forms of sexual expression, but the end product of “natural” sex is the deposit of sperm into the vagina, as expressed in my previous post.

           “nothing intrinsically harmful about a committed homosexual relationship”
           Really? I disagree for the reasons I’ve stated above and also in other posts within this blog which you and I have both engaged in. I don’t think we are going to agree on this point.

           “as they dwell only on specific sexual acts”
           First, specific sexual acts occur within committed loving relationships, so it does not necessarily follow that they are not talking about specific sexual acts. I quoted three verses:
           Romans 1:26-27 speaks of “specific sexual acts”. 1 Timothy speaks of “the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners, for unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers,for whoremongers, for them that defile themselves with mankind, for menstealers, for liars, for perjured persons” and they even included a catch all “anything against sound doctrine”. This list goes far, far beyond specific sexual acts. The Corinthians verse mentions “the unrighteous, the sexually immoral, idolaters, adulterers, men who practice homosexuality, thieves, greedy, drunkards, revilers, and swindlers”. There is mention of a great deal more than specific sexual acts as well as mention of sexually immoral acts in general. The message, not only in these specific passages, but also in the bible as a whole, reads very clearly to me regarding many things, homosexuality being only one of them.

           “there wasn’t scope to view the harmless outcomes we see today”
           Again, I disagree. That sex outside of marriage was punishable by death in that culture is certainly true, however that does not mean that a. it didn’t happen and was widely known or b. that death was chosen in every instance of people caught in sex outside of marriage. Indeed, Jesus specifically forgave the woman caught in adultery and encouraged those who followed Him to show equal mercy to others. There were places and cultures within that time that were as licentious as we have today. I think the societal, psychological and physical effects of disordered sexual relationships (homosexual OR heterosexual) would have been well known.

           “so out of date”
           Yes the Word of God was written in a finite time and for a specific culture, but the truths contained within are timeless. It is as true today as it was in Jesus’ time and all the way back through recorded human history that man act in certain ways for his good and for the good of the society within which he lived. Lying, cheating, disrespect of authoritystealing, murder, adultery, child sacrifice (abortion), jealousy/envy (keeping up with the Jones’s) worship of false idols (consumerism), living for the good of oneself only….these things are death to any society, now matter when it appears along the timeline of human history.
           Honestly, I don’t think there’s any question that the bible considers homosexuality to be immoral,, as it does any sexual act outside of marriage. But as has been repeated on this blog constantly and appropriately, this is not a finger pointing exercise….this is an explanation of beliefs. I have my own sins to worry about before I go pointing fingers at anyone else. Because I am sinful, however, does not mean I won’t speak up when others tell me that sin is not sin.

         • “So, it’s okay for me to enter into a “consensual” relationship with my father? Maybe my brother?” I’m sorry you think this is comparable. There would be harmful outcomes to any such relationship if children were conceived. Also, sexual attractions to members of your own family are exceedingly rare (see Westermarck effect), and would be questionable in terms of exploitation and imbalance of power.

           “there wasn’t scope to view the harmless outcomes we see today” I mean there was no scope to view a range of open and committed same sex relationships. Understanding of the outcomes was clouded by fear of what seemed unnatural and the associated deviance tag that came with it. We now all know perfectly stable and committed same sex relationships that cause no harm to the people involved or the community around them.

       • Tisha am interested only in one thing and that is your understanding of freewill.

         • In this context, free will is the choice every human is given by God to choose Him or to reject Him. Free will may, or may not, extend to physical actions that reflect that orientation toward God or away from God. A person may be prevented from, say, attending specific worship services. Indeed, s/he may be forced to participate in acts that directly violate her/his belief in God and God’s commands. Even in this, however, s/he has the free will to comply (knowing that any unwilling but compulsory act is not sinful) or to resist, up to and including sacrificing one’s own life.

           Free will is NOT, in my understanding, the freedom to do anything you choose or to refuse to do anything you choose. I do not have the freedom to shout “fire” in a crowded public place and I also do not have the free will to nail shut the doors of an abortion clinic because I am pro-life. I do not have the free will to refuse to pay taxes, although I may believe my government supports immoral acts with my tax dollars. I do not have the free will to refuse to treat a professed atheist if I am a professed Christian doctor.

           Free will is extraordinarily complex, IMO, and a simple answer on a blog will not cover all nuances or situations, but I think the above at least starts to explain my understanding of free will

         • I have a follow up question before I can give a detailed response to what you have said above.
           1. Do you think your god has freewill and in what sense?
           2. Can morality be used in reference to your god?

     • Hi Violet. Thanks for your comments. Same-sex attraction can certainly be naturally occurring. But just because something feels natural (my desire for self-glorification, tendency to exaggerate, inclination to retaliate, snap at my children- just to name a few personal examples) does not mean that it is condoned by God. On the contrary, many of the attitudes and behaviors that Christians are instructed to shun arise “naturally.”

       “…the Bible condemns promiscuous homosexual sex when it’s not natural for the participants”
       Wrong. The bible condemns homosexual behavior categorically. Every occurrence of homosexual sex is condemned in scripture. When you can find an explicit example of God endorsing a same-sex sexual relationship you can make a case here. Until then, let’s not rehash this discussion again.

       “What possible harmful outcome would a benevolent being care about in this situation?”
       God has taken great pains to ensure that each child will have a mother and father because He views both as indispensable. His views on sex are not solely based on the adult’s fulfillment but because He cares about children. (Malachi 2:15) The “harm” is that for the same-sex couple to fulfill their desires for children, they must deny their child(ren) a relationship with one or both natural parents. The parents get what they want at the expense of the child’s rights. Again, let’s not go over this objection. Again. New critique please.

       • “But just because something feels natural (my desire for self-glorification, tendency to exaggerate, inclination to retaliate, snap at my children- just to name a few personal examples) does not mean that it is condoned by God.” You’ve listed a range of negative behaviours that have harmful outcomes. I’m not clear why you think these are comparable to following through on desires that result in loving, committed relationships consisting of consenting adults, as opposed to individuals left to loneliness, natural longing, depression and self-disgust.

         “When you can find an explicit example of God endorsing a same-sex sexual relationship you can make a case here. Until then, let’s not rehash this discussion again.” Fair enough. When you can find an explicit example of God condemning same sex marriage you can make a case.

         “The parents get what they want at the expense of the child’s rights.” Firstly, not all same sex couples want to be parents. Secondly, let’s live in the real world and accept that every non-religiously affiliated (ie unbiased) professional care body in the western world has examined the evidence and accepted that same sex parents give just as supportive, loving homes as heterosexual parents. I agree that it’s tedious to have to reiterate this.

         • What evidence have you been looking at, exactly? Because most of the so-called “evidence” has been studies that have been proven to have had major flaws. I don’t mind civil unions for gay couples, but I do not agree with them raising children. Every child needs a mother and a father. Children do best when raised by both biological parents who are in a low-conflict, committed relationship.

           If you want to argue with me, argue with the guy who writes posts for the blog http://www.englishmanif.blogspot.com He is a bisexual man who was raised by two lesbian mothers and now fights for children’s rights to a father and mother, and he has collected testimonies of other children who were raised by same-sex parents. Any good argument I have will have already been written by him, so I won’t bother reiterating his words.

         • Hi Ada, thanks for the link, but I’m afraid I have enough problems trying to keep up with WordPress conversations, and won’t be adding any Blogspots to the list. The embarrassing thing about all this is that I could list just as upsetting reasons why Christians shouldn’t be allowed to raise to children, but I’m not deluded about the existence of ‘perfect’ parents and I wouldn’t stoop to insult my own parents who, like everyone else, did their best. There is nothing inherently wrong about same sex parenting. But yes, there are individual children who will seek to blame characteristics of their parents that they feel are lacking. That’s life. Here’s a link to a useful summary of research that Pink found, if you’re interested: http://journalistsresource.org/studies/society/gender-society/same-sex-marriage-children-well-being-research-roundup

         • Violet, we’ve had this disagreement on numerous posts. You can have the final word. In the future if you choose to comment, please initiate a discussion on a separate objection or *gasp* perhaps something you see that we agree on.

7. Reblogged this on The Narrowing Path and commented:
   A helpful, thought-provoking and humorous post from a sister who knows what she’s talking about and shares Christ’s love with sinners (yep, that’s all of us) daily.

   • Thanks for reblogging!!

8. What a coincidence that the day you posted this, I also got this article in my inbox: http://www.charismanews.com/opinion/43109-when-two-lesbians-walk-into-a-church-seeking-trouble It brought me to tears. We really need to remember just how loving Jesus was (and still is!) to sinners and try to be an (imperfect) example of that. We need to love our gay loved ones and pray fervently for them on a regular basis. We need to show them that no one can love them more than a Christian (except, of course, for Christ himself!)

   • Oh. My. Goodness. Ada! Thank you so much for sharing that link. What a sweet reminder of the power of accepting the person even if you disagree with them. Thanks so much for reading and commenting.

     • You’re welcome! I noticed some tension on this particular post (interesting, considering the title) so I thought I’d lighten the mood as a note of how us Christians are supposed to be loving towards others. 🙂

9. All the railing, posturing and (I am sure in their opinion) out-intellecting. How rewarding the self back slapping must be. All the time spent trolling sites of those who disagree for another opportunity to throw bombs and impress their little sycophant circle. There must be some youth involved here because only the young or those suffering from arrested development would spend so much of their precious time on such futile pursuits. On the bright side at least these dissenters spend time here instead of actually doing something productive with their time because I am certain what they consider productive, I would see as destructive.

   • “another opportunity to throw bombs and impress their little sycophant circle” I’m glad you brought this up because I expect sometimes it can seem like that. I contribute to these discussions because I have gay friends, past and present, who have suffered as a result of conversations like this. Askthebigot presents such a loving front that I cringe at the thought of confused gay people or their confused Christian friends reading these posts and being sucked in. Being gay is nothing to be ashamed of, nor is being in a gay relationship. All progressive interpretations of Christianity who care more about loving people, rather than looking for ways to judge and hurt people, have recognised this.

     • VW where do you buy your facts?

       • Hewho, I’m not clear what you mean by this.

     • violet: I get that you have different views and I respect (and would fight for) your right to hold them. But comments such as this ” I have gay friends, past and present, who have suffered as a result of conversations like this” and “I cringe at the thought of confused gay people or their confused Christian friends reading these posts and being sucked in” are directly disrespectful to the writer of this blog, namely AskMe, who has been extremely caring and gracious to you while you villify her struggle at every turn. Additionally, although I realize you are convinced of your “rightness” (as are we all, for sure), I’m going to point out that you are just as judgmental, and hurtful, in your comments to Christians who are expressing their honest and painful struggle to reconcile their enormous love for their friends and family as you accuse AskMe and others of being in their treatment of gays. You might not like what she has to say, but at least AskMe and several of the posters on this blog are honestly struggling with how to love others through hard circumstances. I really want to ask you to step out of your own comfort zone as Askme has done and make a concerted effort to give enough of a care about others to be loving to them; even when they don’t share your views.

       I think we are all very clear that you support gay unions and have a problem with what AskMe is posting. Perhaps you can include dialogue and support information on your own blog for confused Christians and gays. They are as likely to read your blog as they are to read AskMe’s. You can try re-blogging to this post and see if it’s okay with Askme.

       I have the feeling that you may take offense at this post and let me apologize in advance for that. I certainly can be direct, I know that. I’m not sure how else to put it, though. If it does offend you, let me know, as you have done before, and I will try to express it in a way less offensive to you without sacrificing my message. At least then, I’ll be doing the work to try and be as loving to you as I’ve asked you to be to us.

       • Thanks for your thoughts Tisha. I’m afraid I don’t understand why anything I’ve stated would be offensive to Askme. She publicly encouraging the general public to believe that same sex people shouldn’t express love for each other or be parents. I’m publicly expressing she’s wrong, and giving reasons why. As far as I can see, I’ve not been rude in any of my comments, but I do apologise if I’ve caused offence.

         • violet: I already explained, and quoted to you, those parts of your post I feel are offensive. Please refer to same.

           Your argument is that Askme is wounding people intentionally with the expression of her views. I find that disrespectful to the person who has bent over backwards to AVOID hurting others and has done so only unintentionally and as a result of the unyielding nature of truth.

           You accuse Askme of putting on a “loving front”. By those words, you are stating that AskMe is intentionally deceiving those she ministers to. That she is dishonest and does so for the harm of others. That is fairly rude, IMO.

         • If people are going to question my motives for participating in the conversation here, then I will give reasons. I didn’t start this thread, I was just responding to the suggestion that I do it for fun. My opinion on the potential harm Bigot’s opinions cause is a motivational factor and therefore relevant. Her blog talks a lot about love but always includes the sucker punch of “gay relationships are wrong”. The attractive “front” (ie first thing people see) is love and the judgement comes couched in “loving” language in the middle. She’s not dishonest as far as I can tell, just sneaky. I don’t think she’d find that rude.

         • violet: I’ve explained to you several times now what my issue is/was with what you wrote. You aren’t going to change my mind….I think you are often rude and insulting rather than fair and considered and I think when it’s pointed out you want to talk it away instead of acknowledging that. You (as far as I can tell from our exchanges) seem to feel you are providing a service to the LGBT community by “outting” the sneaky, deceptive Christian. At this point, I think we’re at a dead-end. I’ll see you in the next post.

         • Violet, devoting a blog to answering common questions that come up in the gay marriage debate and doing so in a manner that addresses the in-depth aspects of this issue is the antithesis of sneaky. It is public, open to all, honest and non-simplistic. It seems that you cannot conceive of someone who can simultaneously love those who are gay while disagreeing with gay relationships, but those people exist. In fact, I would venture that most people who oppose gay marriage also have people in their life that they love who are gay. And if you would like to talk about “harm” I would love to see you respond to Motherhood’s comment to you on this post: https://askthebigot.com/2014/03/14/why-are-christians-obsessed-with-homosexuality/

10. Golly! who broke the rules?

    • Pink was making a degrading comment about someone’s intelligence. He has edited and resubmitted the comment without the despairing remarks.

11. That was a great post and I think you very nicely presented your point.

    • Thanks for reading and commenting. You’ve got a great blog, by the way.

12. Pink: I’m still confused by what Catholic-Protestant question is and what it has to do with ministering to the gay people in your life as a Christian. Could you explain?

13. Askme: Pink made a reply to one of my posts, but there was no reply button under it, so I will reply in a “new” post….this probably reflects something really obvious that I am overlooking. Feel free to point it out and have a laugh and my cluelessness 🙂

    Pink: 1. “I have never heard of anyone in the LGBT community being interested in how you think anyone should live their lives.
    It’s that simple.
    2. It would be EXACTLY the same as Muslims or Jews trying to influence/force Christians to adopt their customs.
    Which part of that do you find hard to understand?

    3. The forced/subjected aspect is the very loud opposition, including LEGAL, many Christians have to gay unions of any kind. If Christians believe in freedom, as you say, then there’s no need to seek legal bans.”

    1. Really? Then we have different experiences. I know several from the LGBT community who are not only interested in why we believe what we do but who also agree with the viewpoint. In fact, a quick search of the blogosphere will reveal several blogs concerning disconnect between the LGBT lifestyle and Christian views. Their blogs are as valid and legitimate as yours is, which I would guess holds a somewhat different view. It seems to me that it’s not as simple as you want to make it out to be. In fact, I think the opinions of the LGBT community on Christianity are probably as varied as they are in many other communities. Alternatively, you feel very free to come on a Christian blog and try to influence Christians to accept “gay customs”.

    2. Again, I ask you: how does my right to evangelize my faith (which, btw, is just as equally applied to Jews/Muslims/etc) FORCE you to be a Christian? Could you please just answer the question? If I were to imprison you, beat you, torture you, harass you or kill you then you might have a case that I’m imposing my religion on you, but this is not the case.

    3. So, if I believe in freedom, I don’t have the right to voice opposition to the actions of others? Really? If I believe in freedom, I can’t fight, legally, for what I believe to be right or, alternatively, to fight, legally, to prevent what I feel is wrong or detrimental? No, of course neither of those statements is true. If you want to fight for gay marriage, go for it. I’ll fight for traditional marriage. Neither of us is outside the expression of our rights in this case.

    Of COURSE there is a need to seek legal bans on certain behaviors. What society in the world lets all people commit whatever actions they want to? It is precisely BECAUSE you and I live in a free society that we can even have this conversation. Things not going your way, legally or otherwise, is not a restriction of your freedom.

    • You’re confusing a number of things. First, that anyone doesn’t already know the many different positions of the many different Christian sects. Each one pushing their own version of doctrine.
      Everybody knows certain sects of Christianity have a problem with homosexuality, others do not.
      Where you get it terribly wrong is talking about your interpretation of mythology as if everyone should take your particular version over anyone else’s. It’s just interpretation of mythology/religion.
      In the free world, where people can decide for themselves, there’s no reason for anyone to take your sect’s word for it. And if you want to push it, be prepared that other people push their doctrines on you.
      In a civilized society adults are free to make their own way, believing what they want and applying it to their lives. Your proposition is that people not do that and that our sect gets to dictate how or with whom people should marry. Sorry, that’s not the case.

      • Pink: You’re just wrong, here. There are plenty of people in the world who don’t know about Christ, including some in the LGBT community. I’ve posted with, talked with, written to and communicated with all kinds of people, including people within the LGBT community, who had no idea what Christ was about. They only knew the shallow misinformation spread by those who hate and are threatened by Christianity. So, no, not everyone knows even basic Christian principles.

        “interpretation of mythology”
        Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a viewpoint they believe is right. That is true of me, it is true of Christianity, it is true of religion, of politics, of philosophy etc. I have the right to my “interpretation” and you have the right to reject it or accept it, just like you have the right to accept or reject a political point of view, a philosophical point or even a TV ad. Trying to single out Christians as the only ones who have a viewpoint and use that viewpoint to drive their beliefs, votes, actions and support or lack of support for issues is just untrue.

        “other people push their doctrines on you”
        No, they don’t. You have no power to push your doctrine on me, just as I don’t have any power to push my doctrine on you. I haven’t forced you to be a Christian and you haven’t forced me to be homosexual. The difference is, you came onto a Christian blog, expressing Christian beliefs and then you cry “you’re trying to make me be like you”. Don’t go looking where you know people have different views then you then claim they are trying to oppress you by exercising their freedom of speech. That is dangerously close to promoting suppression of speech.

        “how or with whom people should marry”
        If your agenda is gay marriage, then I re-state what I said before….you are seeking, in a free and democratic society, to be granted a right you haven’t previously been granted. I have the right to support your wish or oppose it. You have the right to do all you can to get it passed into law . That’s how our society works. I am not pushing Christianity on you any more than you are pushing gay marriage on me.

        • There are also people interested in the Hindu gods, or the Muslim god. How should they tell you your lifestyle is wrong?

          • On their blog, I suppose.

        • And as for gay marriage, you’re just wrong. It’s already legal in various parts of the world. There are a number of historical precedents, if you want them- although history isn’t the best way to choose precedent as slavery was part of most of history as were many other terrible things.

    • I almost forgot:
      “Of COURSE there is a need to seek legal bans on certain behaviors. What society in the world lets all people commit whatever actions they want to? It is precisely BECAUSE you and I live in a free society that we can even have this conversation. Things not going your way, legally or otherwise, is not a restriction of your freedom.”
      Yes, dear- that’s what we call the law and it applies to the good running of society. What consenting adults do in bed is irrelevant to the good-functioning of society. I neither know nor care what you get up to in your bed. It has no bearing on my life whatsoever. The legal contracts you sign with your husband also have no bearing on my existence.
      Did you sign a pre-nup? Post-nup? Doesn’t matter. Nothing to do with me. And that means that when Christians try to use the law to affect the PRIVATE behaviours of others, they’re interfering with freedom of religion.

      • You can get up to whatever you want to in bed and out of it with as many people as you want. That’s your choice. But don’t ask me to give it legal recognition or to consider it equal to a male-female parenting situation, because that goes against my beliefs. That’s what this boils down to, Pink. You’re mad because I won’t do those things and you are using a combination of bigotry, twisted logic, insults and (dare I say it?) pushing because I don’t fly your flag. What you don’t get is that it isn’t personal and I don’t WANT for you to be denied the things that make you happy. But neither am I able to honestly support things that I don’t believe.

        If gay marriage becomes legal in my state, then good for the LGBT community in my state, if not the children. I don’t bake cakes, make favors, preside over wedding ceremonies, sell religious items, perform in the wedding entertainment industry, take pictures or sell flowers, so I don’t have direct involvement with it (but gay marriage only affects the couple involved, right?). I hope all gay couples find the happiness they think gay marriage will bring them. But I don’t give support to something I don’t agree with. And I would venture to guess that you don’t, either.

        So, that’s pretty much my stand, as I’ve said over and throughout this thread and in other threads on this blog. I don’t think there’s much else to say. I have plenty of responsibility elsewhere and I’ve done due diligence here, I think.

        Good luck to you, Pink. I hope that your life brings you the peace and happiness we all seek.

14. Askme – looks like you had quite a day yesterday. I just wanted to say, regarding the original post, how much appreciate your ability to see both sides and not generalize to make a point. I think it is a testimony to your honesty and credibility. You do a fine job speaking of the love and sovereignty of Christ.

    • Hi Cliff. Thanks so much. If Jesus is our Lord, we will outdo everyone in terms of love and sacrifice for our gay neighbors and we will be “patient in affliction” even during long, drawn-out blog threads. 😉

15. I have a question for those who are atheist + pro-gay. If natural selection does exist, then humanity cannot be allowed to be homosexual. The reproductive system only works with one man and one woman. If homosexuality existed ever since the universe began, we wouldn’t have the right amount of mates that are able to reproduce.

    I probably sound kinda jerkish, but I’m really a nice person in real life. I do not, by any means, hate homosexual people, but instead hate the act. I have a friend (not mentioning names) who is gay, and he is one of my role models. Obviously, I don’t follow in all of his footsteps, but I do get advice on life questions from him. I love him like a brother and hate the sin, not the other way around.

Comments are closed.