Pedophila isn't a crime!?

[Smellin Coffee]

There are two aspects of marriage, one in a covenant relationship in which God "joined together" and the other involving the legality of the state. It is discriminatory to forbid the state-sanctioned gay marriage based on religious belief. It is not really that complicated.

It is complicated, because we're not only dealing with civil law, we're dealing with definitions.  Although I agree with you in principle that there should be some civil union equivalent for gays if they want it, I still think we should have two different terms for marriage vs. gay civil unions. 

Why?  Because words mean things, or at least they should.  The example I always use is, if gays want to redefine "marriage" to include same-sex couples, then I want to redefine "lesbian" to include heterosexual males.  What do you think would be the reaction of the gay community if such an effort actually gained traction?  They'd be outraged, I'm sure, because they wouldn't like to have their term changed into some mushy catch-all definition that co-opts the word "lesbian" for uses other than how it was intended. 

I would argue the same if there was some national movement to allow the religious term "The Trinity" to include the possibility of it referring to two pigs and a goat.

I would not oppose there being a difference of terminology as long as the rights, liberties and benefits remain the same as those in traditional marriage roles.

 

[Tarheel Baptist]

Has it been mentioned here that liberals are intolerant, hypocrites?

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/04/26/gay-businessman-who-hosted-cruz-event-apologizes/?_r=1

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As has been stated before, gay marriage isn't just about gay marriage...it's the latest club with which to discriminate against and violate the rights of evangelical Christians!

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/27/todds-american-dispatch-franklin-graham-defends-christian-bakery-persecuted-lgbt

And here would be a response from the other side of the ledger:

The anti-gay right seem to be painting a portrait of victimhood in anticipation of further progress by the LGBT community and the goal is most likely to stop this progress.

But I have one question.  How in the **** can anyone forget how we got to this point? I mean really.

For decades, anti-gay organizations and their supporters have portrayed the LGBT community as child molesting, diseased, sexually aggressive miscreants whose sole desire is to cause chaos before being sent to the lower pits of hell after we die for our supposed sins. Through lies, distortions, and bad science, anti-gay groups made it difficult for laws to be passed to protect our interests, health, and families. They created and repeated ad nauseam the false mantra that  we are a "public health hazard" and our lives are fraught with pain, sadness, loneliness, and early death.

But suddenly, as if they are recreating the famous scene from the 1978 Superman motion picture in which actor Christopher Reeve soared through the air and flew backwards to alter history, anti-gay groups are attempting to rewrite the so-called culture war.

They want the world to forget all of the ignorance they exploited, the lies they told, and the tactics they undertook to dehumanize the LGBT community.

They want us to forget the times when folks like Anita Bryant accused LGBTs of "recruiting" children to "refreshen" our ranks.

They want us to forget the officials in the Reagan Administration who kept the president from adequately addressing the AIDS crisis in its early days.

They want us to forget the names and faces of people whose lives were destroyed via homophobic violence or suicide most likely spurred on by the nods of societal homophobia

They want us to forget all of the times when we fearfully hid in the closets, while being attacked by purveyors of junk science during Congressional hearings or had the quality of our lives reduced to fevered sexual fantasies on a day-to-day basis.

And most of all, they want us to forget that all of this was done either directly by them or through their tacit approval.

Sorry guys, you are not victims. You never were.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/christian-right-bigots-destroyed-lgbt-lives-decades-now-they-claim-be-victims

 

[subllibrm]

As has been stated before, gay marriage isn't just about gay marriage...it's the latest club with which to discriminate against and violate the rights of evangelical Christians!

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/27/todds-american-dispatch-franklin-graham-defends-christian-bakery-persecuted-lgbt

And here would be a response from the other side of the ledger:

The anti-gay right seem to be painting a portrait of victimhood in anticipation of further progress by the LGBT community and the goal is most likely to stop this progress.

But I have one question.  How in the **** can anyone forget how we got to this point? I mean really.

For decades, anti-gay organizations and their supporters have portrayed the LGBT community as child molesting, diseased, sexually aggressive miscreants whose sole desire is to cause chaos before being sent to the lower pits of hell after we die for our supposed sins. Through lies, distortions, and bad science, anti-gay groups made it difficult for laws to be passed to protect our interests, health, and families. They created and repeated ad nauseam the false mantra that  we are a "public health hazard" and our lives are fraught with pain, sadness, loneliness, and early death.

But suddenly, as if they are recreating the famous scene from the 1978 Superman motion picture in which actor Christopher Reeve soared through the air and flew backwards to alter history, anti-gay groups are attempting to rewrite the so-called culture war.

They want the world to forget all of the ignorance they exploited, the lies they told, and the tactics they undertook to dehumanize the LGBT community.

They want us to forget the times when folks like Anita Bryant accused LGBTs of "recruiting" children to "refreshen" our ranks.

They want us to forget the officials in the Reagan Administration who kept the president from adequately addressing the AIDS crisis in its early days.

They want us to forget the names and faces of people whose lives were destroyed via homophobic violence or suicide most likely spurred on by the nods of societal homophobia

They want us to forget all of the times when we fearfully hid in the closets, while being attacked by purveyors of junk science during Congressional hearings or had the quality of our lives reduced to fevered sexual fantasies on a day-to-day basis.

And most of all, they want us to forget that all of this was done either directly by them or through their tacit approval.

Sorry guys, you are not victims. You never were.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/christian-right-bigots-destroyed-lgbt-lives-decades-now-they-claim-be-victims

Revising history for fun and propaganda.

The Reagan administration wanted to deal with the AIDS outbreak like communicable disease had been for 100+ years. Quarantine those that carried the host virus until there was a way to control it medically. But that would be violation of "privacy" and who knows what else. No one ever went to court when the polio signs went up. You stayed home and did as you were told. Why did I have to get a blood test for STDS (which would have been reported had I tested positive) but a brand new, poorly understood virus mercilessly killing people had to be cloaked in secrecy?

So while the fire burned out of control and the the gays spread the virus (yes it did eventually make it into the hetero/drug world) with impunity. They were more concerned about not being able to have some anonymous sex than actually stopping the thing. It went so far as they had special "infected" nights at the clubs for those who were already HIV positive. Eat ,drink and boink the guy on the next stool, for tomorrow we die. The effort of the gay lobby was to keep on, keeping on and blaming a "slow" response that they fought at every turn. Keep the target moving and then complain that the government wasn't hitting it.

Bah

 

[Smellin Coffee]

As has been stated before, gay marriage isn't just about gay marriage...it's the latest club with which to discriminate against and violate the rights of evangelical Christians!

http://nation.foxnews.com/2015/04/27/todds-american-dispatch-franklin-graham-defends-christian-bakery-persecuted-lgbt

And here would be a response from the other side of the ledger:

The anti-gay right seem to be painting a portrait of victimhood in anticipation of further progress by the LGBT community and the goal is most likely to stop this progress.

But I have one question.  How in the **** can anyone forget how we got to this point? I mean really.

For decades, anti-gay organizations and their supporters have portrayed the LGBT community as child molesting, diseased, sexually aggressive miscreants whose sole desire is to cause chaos before being sent to the lower pits of hell after we die for our supposed sins. Through lies, distortions, and bad science, anti-gay groups made it difficult for laws to be passed to protect our interests, health, and families. They created and repeated ad nauseam the false mantra that  we are a "public health hazard" and our lives are fraught with pain, sadness, loneliness, and early death.

But suddenly, as if they are recreating the famous scene from the 1978 Superman motion picture in which actor Christopher Reeve soared through the air and flew backwards to alter history, anti-gay groups are attempting to rewrite the so-called culture war.

They want the world to forget all of the ignorance they exploited, the lies they told, and the tactics they undertook to dehumanize the LGBT community.

They want us to forget the times when folks like Anita Bryant accused LGBTs of "recruiting" children to "refreshen" our ranks.

They want us to forget the officials in the Reagan Administration who kept the president from adequately addressing the AIDS crisis in its early days.

They want us to forget the names and faces of people whose lives were destroyed via homophobic violence or suicide most likely spurred on by the nods of societal homophobia

They want us to forget all of the times when we fearfully hid in the closets, while being attacked by purveyors of junk science during Congressional hearings or had the quality of our lives reduced to fevered sexual fantasies on a day-to-day basis.

And most of all, they want us to forget that all of this was done either directly by them or through their tacit approval.

Sorry guys, you are not victims. You never were.

http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/christian-right-bigots-destroyed-lgbt-lives-decades-now-they-claim-be-victims

Revising history for fun and propaganda.

The Reagan administration wanted to deal with the AIDS outbreak like communicable disease had been for 100+ years. Quarantine those that carried the host virus until there was a way to control it medically. But that would be violation of "privacy" and who knows what else. No one ever went to court when the polio signs went up. You stayed home and did as you were told. Why did I have to get a blood test for STDS (which would have been reported had I tested positive) but a brand new, poorly understood virus mercilessly killing people had to be cloaked in secrecy?

So while the fire burned out of control and the the gays spread the virus (yes it did eventually make it into the hetero/drug world) with impunity. They were more concerned about not being able to have some anonymous sex than actually stopping the thing. It went so far as they had special "infected" nights at the clubs for those who were already HIV positive. Eat ,drink and boink the guy on the next stool, for tomorrow we die. The effort of the gay lobby was to keep on, keeping on and blaming a "slow" response that they fought at every turn. Keep the target moving and then complain that the government wasn't hitting it.

Bah

Whether it is true or not, it is the realistic perception of many in the gay community. It is a wall that love has to break down/through. I don't see how going to battle through the governmental restrictions against their "pursuit of happiness" (actually for some, their physical and emotional well-being) is the effective way of bringing Jesus into their lives. Gays have been treated in a derogatory fashion for decades if not centuries in this country. High school kids being bullied to the point of suicide. Lifetime partners being denied health care. Feelings of abnormality by society for feelings that cannot be controlled. They are being labeled by their sexuality so they turn it into a positive within their community and celebrate coming out. A similar example is the black community dealing with their feelings about a racist society (where perceived or real) and call one another the *N* word.  They take the negative and by using it within the subculture, turn it into a sense of pride in an effort to combat those opposed to them.

In no way can I understand that subculture. Neither can I truly empathize with them as I have no idea what it is to be in a minority sect that has been denied legalities by our society. Because of this, though I may not agree with the feelings of some, I can give them some space and grace in allowing them to feel it and hope that love can break down the walls to let Jesus shine through and do His thing.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

There are two aspects of marriage, one in a covenant relationship in which God "joined together" and the other involving the legality of the state. It is discriminatory to forbid the state-sanctioned gay marriage based on religious belief. It is not really that complicated.

It is complicated, because we're not only dealing with civil law, we're dealing with definitions.  Although I agree with you in principle that there should be some civil union equivalent for gays if they want it, I still think we should have two different terms for marriage vs. gay civil unions. 

Why?  Because words mean things, or at least they should.  The example I always use is, if gays want to redefine "marriage" to include same-sex couples, then I want to redefine "lesbian" to include heterosexual males.  What do you think would be the reaction of the gay community if such an effort actually gained traction?  They'd be outraged, I'm sure, because they wouldn't like to have their term changed into some mushy catch-all definition that co-opts the word "lesbian" for uses other than how it was intended. 

I would argue the same if there was some national movement to allow the religious term "The Trinity" to include the possibility of it referring to two pigs and a goat.

I would not oppose there being a difference of terminology as long as the rights, liberties and benefits remain the same as those in traditional marriage roles.

Then we agree.  Freedom should apply to everyone in this Country (although it doesn't, and minorities aren't the only ones who lack freedom).

 

[Biker]

Yet Jesus didn't condemn the GUILTY adulterous woman:
Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Yes true. At least there is something we can agree on. but how does that somehow say anything different than the half verse you provided in Romans 6,  well at least...in its entirety? It doesn't, as we expect. It just re-iterates it
Let's examine it
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Both verses acknowledge that the Sinner is now converted to a Saint due to accepting Christ as their personal savior. Both verses have the same qualifier, do not walk after the flesh but abide in the spirit or as Jesus said to the adulterous woman, "Go and sin no more"
The problem with you is you hate the qualifier which will be found in all of scripture. Because you cannot go committing sexual sin as a lifestyle and be saved, period. Walking in the spirit just doesn't allow for it.

There are two aspects of marriage, one in a covenant relationship in which God "joined together" and the other involving the legality of the state. It is discriminatory to forbid the state-sanctioned gay marriage based on religious belief. It is not really that complicated.

Untrue
A homosexual has the legal right to marry no matter his religious belief, at least here in the States. And per scripture or your covenant relationship (why not call it marriage as the bible does?) you are actually COMMANDED to marry so as to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh -it is not good to go around "burning" in lust says Apostle Paul. Better to marry than to burn

Again, LEGALLY. It IS a matter of human rights, the right to choose a sexual partner in which the government should have NO business intruding.

Untrue again. Our US government Nor the States intrudes upon ANYONE's rights to choose a sexual partner, male or female (of age and able to consent) why are you pushing all these untruths then trying to link them to homosexuals?

Then are you sorry enough to set aside your discriminatory views to help remove that marginalization?

You call my views discriminatory because they are equally fair to the person involved in homosexuality as those involved in fornication, adultery etc..they all have a legal right to marry. There is no prohibition in scripture which commands otherwise nor in the land of the law.

Will you stand up for their right as American citizens to marry legally?

No one asked my wife or I if we'd ever committed a homosexual act prior to our union. Nor if we were currently living the lifestyle. Nothings changed. If you are a homosexual, you can legally marry.

The US Government allows homosexuals to marry, as do ALL THE STATES.

Will any group in general be more receptive to those that support their views and then be taught the truth in love or will they be more receptive to those who attack their personal rights with perceived vitriol and anger?

Vitrol and anger need to be targeted to false teachers, Modern day Pharisees, per scripture. People feigning being Christians while pushing a Satanic agenda.

Have you ever lied? Then you are a liar
Have you ever murdered anyone, then you are a murderer
Have you ever....

We are defined by current and past sins...thief, fornicator, homosexual, slanderer, etc..all are sins. Tallied up for Gods Wrath to be unleashed.
We were Sinners
Upon conversion we become Saints. No longer defined by our past failures, the tally has been torn up. We start new and afresh abiding in him whom there is no sin because we walk in the Spirit. Thus no sin can be counted towards us because he paid that price for us, allowing us to abide in him, aka walk in the spirit (and you shall not sew the seeds of the flesh). There is no penalty, aka condemnation for those who abide in him

 

[Smellin Coffee]

Yes true. At least there is something we can agree on. but how does that somehow say anything different than the half verse you provided in Romans 6,  well at least...in its entirety? It doesn't, as we expect. It just re-iterates it
Let's examine it
Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

Both verses acknowledge that the Sinner is now converted to a Saint due to accepting Christ as their personal savior. Both verses have the same qualifier, do not walk after the flesh but abide in the spirit or as Jesus said to the adulterous woman, "Go and sin no more"

No. There is no record of the adulterous woman as "accepting Christ as her personal savior". She didn't come to him of her own volition because of guilt. She was dragged in shame to be a display case for the Pharisees. She was exposed to the world and maybe even feared for her life. She may or may not have asked for forgiveness and there certainly is no mention in the story about her "accepting Christ as Savior". Granted, He did take that role and saved her from the humiliation, pain and shame from the Pharisees and I am sure she had some kind of regret, but you are reading more into the story than is there.

The problem with you is you hate the qualifier which will be found in all of scripture. Because you cannot go committing sexual sin as a lifestyle and be saved, period. Walking in the spirit just doesn't allow for it.

And here is the issue: I believe one can be gay and be monogamous or celibate.

Untrue
A homosexual has the legal right to marry no matter his religious belief, at least here in the States.

Not in every state and only recently in some states.

And per scripture or your covenant relationship (why not call it marriage as the bible does?)

First of all, marriage in the Bible consisted of multiple wives and allowable concubinage. A rape victim must marry her rapist. If a woman wasn't a virgin on her wedding night, she could be subject to capital punishment. So are you suggesting the US go back to "biblical marriage"?

you are actually COMMANDED to marry so as to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh -it is not good to go around "burning" in lust says Apostle Paul. Better to marry than to burn

Yep. He also says that having a wife is divisive in a man's service to the Lord.

Untrue again. Our US government Nor the States intrudes upon ANYONE's rights to choose a sexual partner, male or female (of age and able to consent) why are you pushing all these untruths then trying to link them to homosexuals?

Didn't say they do. I said it isn't their right to intrude if it comes to that.

You call my views discriminatory because they are equally fair to the person involved in homosexuality as those involved in fornication, adultery etc..they all have a legal right to marry. There is no prohibition in scripture which commands otherwise nor in the land of the law.

Fairness without discrimination would allow consenting adults to marry one another regardless of their sex and does not mandate marrying one of the opposite sex.

No one asked my wife or I if we'd ever committed a homosexual act prior to our union. Nor if we were currently living the lifestyle. Nothings changed. If you are a homosexual, you can legally marry.

But one cannot marry another of the same sex in some states.

The US Government allows homosexuals to marry, as do ALL THE STATES.

Again, not to marry each other:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/13/us/states-same-sex-marriage-ban/

Vitrol and anger need to be targeted to false teachers, Modern day Pharisees, per scripture. People feigning being Christians while pushing a Satanic agenda.

Then why are gay marriages in the secular being protested by Christians? Why the Phelps' (and the like) hatred?

Have you ever lied? Then you are a liar
Have you ever murdered anyone, then you are a murderer
Have you ever....

We are defined by current and past sins...thief, fornicator, homosexual, slanderer, etc..all are sins. Tallied up for Gods Wrath to be unleashed.
We were Sinners
Upon conversion we become Saints. No longer defined by our past failures, the tally has been torn up. We start new and afresh abiding in him whom there is no sin because we walk in the Spirit. Thus no sin can be counted towards us because he paid that price for us, allowing us to abide in him, aka walk in the spirit (and you shall not sew the seeds of the flesh). There is no penalty, aka condemnation for those who abide in him

I think you need to read more Jesus and less Paul.

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I think you need to read more Jesus and less Paul.
[/quote]

Jesus wrote a book?

 

[Smellin Coffee]

[quote author=Smellin Coffee]I think you need to read more Jesus and less Paul.

Jesus wrote a book?
[/quote]

Yeah, you got a point. I should have said for him to "read more of the recorded teachings of Jesus..."

 

[Biker]

No. There is no record of the adulterous woman as "accepting Christ as her personal savior".

Yes, there is the assumption between the adultery and her time with him that this occurred.But you know this, as it is re-iterated TWO TIMES
Only a Saint can "Go and Sin No more"

1 John 3:9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

She didn't come to him of her own volition because of guilt. She was dragged in shame to be a display case for the Pharisees. She was exposed to the world and maybe even feared for her life. She may or may not have asked for forgiveness and there certainly is no mention in the story about her "accepting Christ as Savior".

Yes, again, it is twofold. A SINNER can only sin
ONLY a Saint can " go and sin no more."
Does that mean they will never sin? No it means they are under no condemntation.
They walk in the spirit so it will not master them Meaning a saved person, aka Saint will not be living a homosexual lifestyle
There is no way, that is a Sinner. That is the unsaved. Don't try to pull the wool over everyone's eyes because you are way deep into this sin.
People cannot live that way and be saved, period. Walking in the flesh...

You read the scripture just as I do. And don't bother next by...taking verses about the unsaved trying to apply them to the saved, doesn't work.
If you want to go to hell because of homosexuality, that is your choice. I
t is NOT your choice to get so knee deep into it, memorizing the lingo in order to push sin onto us as you are doing. Again, you will suffer consequences upon even just the lightest homosexual act of even touching. Even if it doesn't seem like it now. You dishonor your wife.

Granted, He did take that role and saved her from the humiliation, pain and shame from the Pharisees and I am sure she had some kind of regret, but you are reading more into the story than is there.

I doubt she had regrets. The two largest sexual sins I've ever committed in my life I am greatful for, one I was instantly greatful for upon being delivered that moment from it. Being saved. It's hard to be ungreatful for something which is responsible for your new and re-newed life. very hard. Broken people are broken for various reasons, sexual sin is a huge player in people getting saved
Romans 10:11 For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.

Jesus fulfilled this^^ perfectly with the adulterous woman who acknowledged him as Lord. She was not put to shame
I am reading exactly what the verse says.Between the time of her homosexual lifestyle and being brought to the Pharisees, she was saved. We know because she acknowledged him as her LORD. Commanded accordingly, as a saved individual, to go and sin no more. To abide in him so she can suffer no penalty for her sins. Only a Christian has their sins covered, not the unsaved. Being saved doesn't mean turning yourself into the law to be stoned. That is a past life, that person is already dead.

And here is the issue: I believe one can be gay and be monogamous or celibate.

I don't know what BEING GAY means.
GAY is not in the bible but I will replace it with homosexual

"I believe one can be homosexual and be monogamous or celibate"

To be a homosexual, you must be involved in a homosexual act.
Celibate is a word not found in the bible yet it so far, has a clear definition of meaning to abstain from sex. So I can address that. You cannot say someone is having sexual relations while in the same breathe, say they are abstaining from it. This is how the world turns the truth of our Holy GOD into a lie. This double speak.

Not in every state and only recently in some states.

Tell me what State disallows homosexuals to marry?
Cause that is a lie.
BIG BROTHER does NOT ensure that we are not homosexuals prior to marrying.

First of all, marriage in the Bible consisted of multiple wives and allowable concubinage.

But it doesn't allow it now. And I am not going to debate the OT, the OLD Covenant since it isn't what we live in.
That is not marriage per scripture FOR US

you are actually COMMANDED to marry so as to not fulfill the lusts of the flesh -it is not good to go around "burning" in lust says Apostle Paul. Better to marry than to burn

[quote ]Yep. He also says that having a wife is divisive in a man's service to the Lord.
[/quote] This is not a rebuttal to his commands that they marry as to not fulfil the lusts of the flesh. I am not sure why you included it but it is of course, divisive as God commands us to fulfill our duties to our wives. Meaning God commanded us to care for our wives FIRST. Sure that is divisive as it is time taken away from HIM

Didn't say they do. I said it isn't their right to intrude if it comes to that.

To my knowledge, that is not part of the last days

Fairness without discrimination would allow consenting adults to marry one another regardless of their sex and does not mandate marrying one of the opposite sex.

So you are trying to vie for rights for their abomination, cause this is not a marriage.
Read your bible. There is NO MARRIAGE between two of the same gender because that is NOT A MARRIAGE. Quit lying to say it is.
HE is the AUTHOR OF MARRIAGE, HE is the creator of the very thing!

And when they decide I can marry a 5 year old girl, it won't be marriage either.
And when the world decides I can marry my dog, that wont be a marriage either
We know the bible defines marriage, as our LORD CREATED US AND THE UNION FOR US. I cannot keep up on when the world chooses to re-define everything. I have one truth. THE TRUTH

But one cannot marry another of the same sex in some states.

We've been down this road already. We are debating marriage, this is not it. Start a new topic then

The US Government allows homosexuals to marry, as do ALL THE STATES.

Of course they can marry each other. Homosexuals can marry each other. I was a homosexual when I married, as was my wife.
She was a homosexual. We are happily married.
I was a Sinner when I got married. Everything I did in my entire life was tallied against me for the day of wrath, including any inappropriate touching that took place which was sexual in nature--all which is OUTSIDE of marriage, the holy union between a man and a woman. They only way that can take place is within the holy institution of marriage.

Then why are gay marriages in the secular being protested by Christians? Why the Phelps' (and the like) hatred?

Marriage is not being protested by Christians. It never has been. That is your lie

I think you need to read more Jesus and less Paul.

You need to believe scripture and not expect Jesus to re-iterate every command. The book would be the size of a hundred football fields if your personal requirement was heeded
You need to get saved and leave the homos alone. You have nothing to offer them but condemnation and vice versa

And stop trying to tell me homosexuals cannot get married to each other when in fact, that is EXACTLY what my wife and I did. Nothings changed since

 

[subllibrm]

And here is the issue: I believe one can be gay and be monogamous or celibate.

I will grant you celibate because that is the standard for all who are not married.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

And here is the issue: I believe one can be gay and be monogamous or celibate.

I will grant you celibate because that is the standard for all who are not married.

 

[Biker]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

 

[subllibrm]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

So now it is totally incomprehensible? 

 

[Smellin Coffee]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

No need for me to respond as you choose to continue to misrepresent me.

However, this is an interesting read from the former Exodus and Focus on the Family (Love Wins Out) employee whose ministry was to help others get out of homosexuality.

I remember I was told by my Christian mentor that one thing I needed to do to increase my sense of masculinity was to quit my job as a chocolatier because I was surrounded by too many women. My mentor suggested I get a job in the business world where there were more men.

I did what he said, but that only increased my struggle over being around men.

And that, secretly, was always my biggest problem. I had decided to renounce my gay identity but there was still an ache in my heart for male love and companionship. I so wanted to be and to feel “normal.” I would look at men at the checkout counter wearing wedding rings, and I’d want to be one of them. I thought, if I’m straight I’ll feel normal. In those early days after my conversion, the temptations to be among my gay friends and once again be part of the gay community were so strong that I would kneel down in my bathroom and beg God to help me not be gay.

And so even as I pursued this career as a professional ex-gay man, and raised a family and loved my wife, I was in utter torment. I struggled off and on with addiction and wanting to take my life. I knew I was living on the inside as two people. I wanted to believe it was true so badly that not only did I lie to other people, I primarily lied to myself. I wanted my homosexuality to change, but the truth is: For all my public rhetoric, I was never one bit less gay. Behind closed doors, many of us in the “ex-gay” leadership at Focus on the Family would even admit this to each other — and we had this conversation many times: “We know our orientation
hasn’t really changed. What has changed is our behavior. Our way of life. How we see ourselves. Our sexuality has not changed.”

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/life-as-ex-ex-gay-paulk-108090.html#.VT-2rs5ax5d

 

[Biker]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

So now it is totally incomprehensible? 

You expect anything different? 

 

[Biker]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

No need for me to respond as you choose to continue to misrepresent me.

Quit lying then. Funny, years on the FFF message boards and I never once considered you a liar but instead, a man of integrity
How sad for you and others around you

 

[Biker]

Love Won out seeks to change a behavior, it doesn't work

They need to focus less on the behavior, as it is just watering the sin by placing emphasis on it, and more on getting the person saved.

 

[Smellin Coffee]

finally finished modifying the above post whew...

No need for me to respond as you choose to continue to misrepresent me.

Quit lying then. Funny, years on the FFF message boards and I never once considered you a liar but instead, a man of integrity
How sad for you and others around you

I wasn't lying. You are choosing to misrepresent me so feel free to believe and say what you want. Whether I am respected or not by an anonymous poster really makes no difference to me anyway.