Less Shouting, More Talking

First we have to get pass some fundamental differences. I am a 56 yo gay man. I was raised in a fundamentlaist church. I was never molested, touched, or recuited by a gay person. Looking back I now know that my earliest sexual erotic feelings were directed toward men from sex play as a child through puberty and homosexual wet dreams and into early adulthood. To deny who I was I married a fundamentlist Christian woman when I was 24 yo. It lasted one year. I realized who I was.

The first problem with your article is that you put normalized same sex marriage in parathesis. What that does is say that you conder me and my relationships "abnormal." First we have to get pased the fact that you chose your evangical religion freely. I did not chose my sexuality, I was born that way. And until the religious world understands that and accepts it there is no room for discussion. For me and my homosexual brothers and sisters will always be abnormal to you. So how can we have a dialogue under those conditions? I ask you? When you can answer that you will understand how I feel and how I was made by God. TF

First we have to get pass some fundamental differences. I am a 56 yo gay man. I was raised in a fundamentlaist church. I was never molested, touched, or recuited by a gay person. Looking back I now know that my earliest sexual erotic feelings were directed toward men from sex play as a child through puberty and homosexual wet dreams and into early adulthood. To deny who I was I married a fundamentlist Christian woman when I was 24 yo. It lasted one year. I realized who I was.

The first problem with your article is that you put normalized same sex marriage in parathesis. What that does is say that you conder me and my relationships "abnormal." First we have to get pased the fact that you chose your evangical religion freely. I did not chose my sexuality, I was born that way. And until the religious world understands that and accepts it there is no room for discussion. For me and my homosexual brothers and sisters will always be abnormal to you. So how can we have a dialogue under those conditions? I ask you? When you can answer that you will understand how I feel and how I was made by God. TF

Help me understand why a committed couple of whatever configuration should not benefit from all advantages of marriage like spousal equivalence to obtain health insurance, and those of joint property ownership. Otherwise they are simply second-class citizens.

What is the world is he saying?

Yes, Mr. Mouw, we can talk. While neither an evangelical or politically conservative, I would like to think that there are enough level-headed, civil people in society that a few of us can sit down and discuss our concerns. When we do, I think we may realize how much we secretly have in common.

I agree that a civil discussion should be something that we are capable of, however this case is so tied to emotions I don't think we ever will. I personally disagree with both sides. If the argument against gay marraige is base on the Bible, why is it included in the government? What happen to separation of church and state? I believe that any two consenting adults should be able to get the same rights and priviledges under the law as everyone else (as we are all created equal) and therefore I believe that both gay and straight "marraiges" should be civil uniions in the eyes of the state with all the rights and priviledges that come along with a marraige. If you want to get married, leave that to tthe various religions to decide, as the I believe that in a church a marriage is between a man and a woman, but that should not impede on the rights of American citizens.

Just consider for a moment how substituting the words gay and lesbian with:

person of a different race
person of a different religion
foreign
disabled

makes your statement sound. Would these be acceptable limitations? If not, why not? I suggest it is because we have progressed (what you call the slippery slope) beyond the narrow thinking that allowed government to make it illegal ,for example, for people of different races to marry.

What is your opinion now, Mr. Mouw? Can you defend any other prejudice except the one regarding gays and lesbians? I contend that you are the on the slippery slope. If the government can enact laws regarding marriage between same-sex couples, what stops this same government from prohibiting other unions?

And using the Bible to defend your position is tricky -- you are picking and choosing your passages. Please refer to stonings, slavery, child labor, etc and let me know how they fit into your religious phiilosophy.

Teaching your children that you are right and others are wrong is NOT saying 'can't we talk?' It's saying 'let me decide for everyone according to my beliefts.' I

One final point -- do you get to legislate everything you disagree with? Where does your right to disapprove/disagee intersect with another person's rights?

I realize now that you are not ON the slippery slope, you are at the very bottom of it -- I'm sorry for you.

I am with Mr. Mouw on this issue; especially with regard to the counterintuitive statement made by the Newsweek editor - "anyone who tries to make a scriptural case against same-sex marriage is guilty of the worst kind of fundamentalism!" Such a remark could only be made by someone who holds only a superficial understanding of scripture! The whole problem with the world, including we humans, is that it groans under the weight of human sin which has thrown the created order out of kilter. Homosexuality is just one manifestation of this disorder. God's restoration project, in Jesus Christ, is specifically one that deals with restoring and reestablishing the created order to the world. This theme of restoration of the created order runs from Genesis to Revelation. The new age to come - the "new heavens and New earth," will be noticibly absent of homosexuals as it will also, thieves, liars, adulterers and so on. This does not mean that repentant homosexuals are not able to enter into the population (the saved), who will inhabit the new world any more than repenant crooks, murdereres, liars, adulterers and so on, but scripture is absolutely clear that nobody who actively and without remorse "practices" such things, will enter that population. Thus the Newsweek editor who wrote those words would be advised to gain a better understanding of Biblical doctrine, before making any further outrageously ignorant statements.

Mr. Mou: you state here "What is it about people like me that frightens you so much?" I am frightened by your success with Prop 8 in denying family rights regarding two committed people raising children, making medical decisions, and dealing with such emotionally difficult but necessary issues like inheritance. I have no objection to you raising your children to believe what you do, and worshipping with others who believe as you do. However, I strongly object to your personal beliefs being enshrined in law and hurting same sex couples. I'm a heterosexual but I care about all families, those led by same sex and different sex couples. Your concept that one man/one woman is "traditional" is interesting becuase the bliblical tradition of the old testament was for multiple wives and concubines. It was also traditional for a woman who was widowed to marry her husband's brother. You may not be facing it yourself, but you are using "tradition" as an excuse to deny full rights to other humans, and I see nothing christian about that.