The Gay agenda

[lastcallhall]

This is an article from Jim Daly on Foxnews and it looks like what a few of us conservative christians believe is the gay agenda moving forward to get marriage passed.

I am, naturally, personally opposed to the legalization of same-sex marriage for the simple but profound reason that it violates and contradicts the sacred text of the Bible, which I believe to be true and inspired. But on what basis should I expect people who dont believe as I do to likewise oppose same-sex marriage?

On the basis of logic, reason, common sense and the fact that preservation of traditional marriage is in the best interest of the common good, as evidenced by any number of factors, including reams of social science data and thousands of years of history.

Any discussion on the definition of marriage incites strong emotional reaction. And those of us within the orthodox Christian community understand that many in the culture see this issue very differently, and hold to very passionate views on the subject. We understand that on this matter, in some circles, that never the twain shall meet. Nevertheless, this difference of opinion does not preclude us the privilege of championing a principle we hold dear, especially since its our Christian faith that motivates us to support and defend what we believe to be Gods blueprint for human relationship. In the last half-century, progressives have exercised their own rights of cultural engagement, aggressively championing sweeping cultural changes on numerous levels. Although we may disagree with them, we certainly dont begrudge them the right to engage the process. But in this pursuit to redefine marriage, wouldnt it make sense to consider the outcomes of prior social reengineering efforts?

In the late 1960s, no-fault divorce promised to simplify, streamline and decrease the contentiousness surrounding marital breakup. Instead, it only encouraged struggling spouses to throw in the towel. Fathers abandoned their families in droves. Poverty levels skyrocketed. Prison populations increased at dramatic levels, a consequence of kids now growing up without a father in the home.

A few years later, in 1973, the Supreme Court legalized abortion in all 50 states. Supporters heralded a new era of responsibility, where every child would be a wanted child. Tragically, over 48 million babies have now been aborted and the beauty of life has been cheapened as a result, while child abuse has skyrocketed.

The expansion of welfare promised to alleviate human suffering. While in some ways noble in intent, it disincentivized work, undermined the family unit and created a perpetual cycle of dependency and poverty. Fathers were no longer needed to be an integral part of the family.

Cohabitation is yet another experiment which promised to liberate couples from the burden of marriage. The number of couples living together outside of marriage has increased ten-fold between 1960 and 2000. Over 12 million unmarried partners now live together in the United States. The result? Cohabitation not only decreases a persons appetite for marriage, it also increases the risk of divorce, should the couple ever tie the knot.

Further, a home with two unmarried partners has proven to be the most dangerous place for children in the U.S. Children who live with their mother and boyfriend are 11 times more likely to be sexually, physically, or emotionally abused than children living with their married biological parents.

In each example of social reengineering Ive noted, progressives promised good things. Sadly, the exact opposite has happened. However well-meaning the motivation, reengineering what God has designed is not only unwise, but radical and dangerous, too.

Without evidence of success to which to point, supporters of these ill-fated ventures are left with but one choice: If you cant change unfavorable outcomes, you change the minds of people as to what is considered favorable and good.

Here lies the last great frontier and the last gasp for those determined to re-engineer marriage. Those committed to this form of radicalism have systematically broken down the cultural barrier to same sex marriage by desensitizing people on the issue, stigmatizing those who oppose the movement and potentially criminalizing anyone who stands in opposition to them. The irony in our cultural discussion currently, is if you support traditional marriage, you are the one perceived by the cultural elite to be the radical.

Consider the case of a New Mexico couple who own and operate a photography business. When they kindly refused to shoot a lesbian marriage ceremony, they were summarily brought up on human rights violations by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission. They were fined for not accepting the job. While on the other hand, Christian organizations are now being singled out and suppliers are threatening to no longer supply them with critical support functions like computer technology because of their stand in opposition to same-sex marriage. Those in favor of same-sex marriage do not see the contradiction in these two examples. One group must perform the services and is fined for not doing so (in the name of human rights); the other is allowed to default on their contract because of alleged bigoted behavior on the part of the religious organization (with no regard for religious expression).

If religious liberty is lost in America, we will cease to be the nation our Founders intended us to be. Our rights will no longer be derived from God but from man, and therefore, dangerously beholden to political despots. I dont think Thomas Jefferson intended that to be the outcome for our great nation when he wrote the famous Danbury Baptist Church letter which mentioned the separation of church and state. Contrary to conventional wisdom, President Jefferson was expressing a concern that the church needed to be protected from the state, not the state from the church. It appears his fears are now being realized.

Jim Daly is president and host of "Focus on the Family."


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2011/05/ ... z1NJdkc5AN


The questions I have for debate are:

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

[Darias]

No one is saying you can't hold your views. Except I believe it is false to assume that churches will be forced to promote tolerance and or acceptance of homosexuals and their loved-ones -- at least in this country. Case-in-point, Westboro Baptist. They are one of the more extreme, and they have no fear of their rights to preach being taken away from them. They're even given the freedom to protest funerals, so long as they stay a certain distance away from the grieving.

Right now I agree with you 100%, Westboro can spit out any sort of hatred they wish and there is nothing anyone can do. My concern, and I feel it is well founded, is if gay marriage becomes a federal law it will become a protected group and then churches will be forced to recognize it as a marriage.

There is no such thing as a protected group in America. Watch Southpark sometime if you think otherwise (I hate that show btw). If, with the dawn of a federal recognition of gay marriage, you are worried about decreasing numbers of congregates to fundamentalist churches, or an increase in membership in more liberal churches... well, that just comes with the cost of standing upon such a value system.

But the idea that preachers will be arrested for teaching against homosexuality and gay marriage, an idea which is repeated by many preachers who just want to be persecuted; it's silly.

Laws prohibiting hate speech are unconstitutional in the United States, outside of obscenity, defamation, incitement to riot, and fighting words.[36][37][38] The United States federal government and state governments are broadly forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution from restricting speech.
_____
SOURCE

Even if anti-gay sermons are ever deemed hate speech in a legal sense, such speech is still protected.

I don't think you have any evidence church will be forced to do anything by the government; any such action would be unconstitutional. I think you're just arguing in terrorem

It is your right to teach your kids what you believe to be true, and no one can take that right away from you.

However, I think it is dishonest to vote out the rights of other Americans for an exaggerated, immaterial fear that one's own rights will be at risk.

I don't think it is dishonest at all, in fact the Bible commands me to vote the Bible as Jesus said if I deny him before men he will deny me before the father. How should I vote and what can I base my vote on?

I'm not familiar with the "Thou shalt vote" commandment.

In all seriousness, I'd really like to understand how you equate denying Christ with allowing or supporting gay rights. Having to choose between these two extremes would be unthinkable for the countless gay Christians across America. For me, it's like saying "choose between your eternal salvation, and accepting scientific facts about the world." There's no choice there at all.

Besides, Jesus was celibate. He never talked about sex, that I recall. But if you think Jesus wrote Exodus, then I guess we are getting no where with that debate.

I just am not familiar with the "can't be gay/can't be gay-married" clause in Romans 10:9 -- but I guess people see what they want to see when they read the Bible.

No one is saying there aren't any problems with social security. But why are you more deserving of it than other Americans? I'd rather see an America where every American gets their fair share of crappy social security, than seeing all the benefits go to the inhabitants of the Bible belt.

I won't get into my view on social security but how can you deny all the "sister wives" survivor benefits? I don't think you can give gays all the rights and not polygamists

Well if you're gonna vote with the Bible, you might wanna work the legalization of polygamy into your religo-political beliefs, as the Bible firmly supports such cultural customs.

The thing is Social Security is not working and reserving it for some Americans rather than all Americans is just postponing the inevitable at the expense of others. And that is inherently un-American.

Second, you have no desire to marry a man. So? Neither do I, but I still see a problem. It's a very poor argument. It's like saying "I'm not Black" in response to an argument about segregation.

Not the same thing, I believe homosexuality is a lifestyle being black is a race. Totally different as you can choose to not live the homosexual lifestyle. Blacks could not vote when whites could. I will again use the fact nobody can marry someone of the same sex so it is not singling out a race.

I am aware that sex, gender, orientation, and race are different things. I am not saying they are the same things. What I am saying is that discrimination for those reasons is wrong, and discrimination is the same whether its talking about gays, or women or anyone else.

Homosexuality is an orientation, an unconscious attraction for the same sex. Homosexual relationships and marriages are just as much of a lifestyle as Heterosexual relationships and marriages.

You cannot choose to be attracted to men in the same way that truly homosexual persons cannot choose to be attracted to the opposite sex.

No it's not singling out a race, but it is singling out a group -- and its the "singling out" that is wrong -- it's something I personally find to be immoral.

You desire to prohibit and constrain the right to a legally recognized relationship for gays, along with the 1,400-some rights and privileges that come with that on the basis that you are appalled by what they do in bed -- oh and so is Moses.

You are fine with all of this because you have nothing to lose. The only thing you fear is that your rights will vanish as soon as those same rights are granted to more people.

Yet, you are enjoying your rights now, and as I explained, are in no danger of losing them. And trust me, gays, if anyone, don't want to withhold anyone's rights from them.

Try, for a moment, putting yourself in their shoes and see if that gives you a different perspective to dwell on.

Actually your response illustrates the problem at hand. You are straight, you get all the rights and privileges that come with that. You aren't gay, so you don't care that gays don't have the right to visit their loved ones in hospitals across state lines, or adopt children, etc. And you take this stance all because of the fear that you have that somehow affording the same rights to gays that you have would make it illegal to voice your disgust with them.

Why can't they visit anyone they wish in the hospital? If you want a law to let anyone stay in a hospital room all night or help with decisions I am all for it. I don't think it is healthy for a child to be with two people that are the same sex.

Because same-sex marriage is not federally recognized, certain states do allow civil unions. However, if you were gay, and your partner happened to have an accident in a neighboring state -- say while on vacation (he broke a leg hiking?), the other state would not recognize you as being his spouse (having no state laws on gay marriage or civil unions), and as such you would be forbidden from visiting him...

...And as I am typing this I just learned that this has changed:

It's not gay marriage, but it's a small step in the right direction for same-sex couples. President Obama has signed a memorandum requiring hospitals to grant visitation rights and medical power of attorney to a same-sex partner. Before now, only blood relatives or legal spouses of patients were allowed to visit. Under the president's orders, the Department of Health and Human Services can no longer discriminate in hospital visitation, and the move will affect any hospital receiving Medicare or Medicaid funding. The decision will likely place Obama right in the middle of the same-sex marriage debate.
_____
SOURCE

Well there you go; this is no longer an issue. Only 1399 rights left to go then...


On another note, you prefer that children stay in foster homes than be adopted by loving parents because they are gay, and you believe that homosexual orientation can be "taught" to children, which is why having homosexual parents is "harmful." That's a nice theory but, if orientation was taught, we wouldn't have any homosexuals at all -- especially not so many from right-wing, evangelical backgrounds.

Right. The only difference is, gay children have been committing suicide because of bullying as well as because of religious teaching. Sunday-school kids haven't been jumping off bridges because of secular counselors, friends, and family. The same cannot be said for homosexual youth. Society's rejection of them is just too much, and I wouldn't want a counselor ignorant of this reality to impose even more mental and emotional distress onto one of these kids.

I don't want anyone to kill themselves but I don't think that is a christian counselors fault if a child does.

I would imagine that a Christian counselor, despite being extremely unwilling, who is forced to counsel a child struggling with orientation, identity, and bullying -- that it would do more harm for the child than good.

Imagine if your counselor didn't want to counsel you because something about you deeply offended her. How pleasant do you think such sessions would go? If you were depressed and sensed this disgust, what would you do? A child would be even more unpredictable.

This is why I am completely opposed to making counselors do their jobs for gay kids if they can't handle the idea of understanding what the kid is going through. I could only imagine what people like that would say to the kids. "Now now Jimmy... whenever you tell bobby that you love him, it makes Jesus cry... you don't want him to cry do you?"

Oh you mean the guy who was found "not guilty?". There's a win for free-speech. As long as he doesn't directly cause violence, more power to him.

Yes he finally was, thank God. It is a bad sign that he would even have to defend himself in court.

Well, it's important to keep this in perspective. America is not Sweden and our laws on freedom of speech are pretty well grounded.

[lastcallhall]

Well if the only justification you have for something being illegal is that your religion says that that it's somehow bad...well, then it shouldn't be a law. It'd be unconstitutional. What if someone else's religion condones it? Do we go on the majority? No, not in a constitutional democracy. Certainly not the US which stops the oppression of the minority.

We are a country that have checks and balances. If a law is passed by the people the supreme court can say it is unconstitutional, they did that in Roe Vs Wade. I try to vote the Bible and support things that I feel God wants me to. If I try my best and support laws and people who will support my views that is all I can do. If the courts don't side with me I have to deal with it but I will one day answer to God not the supreme court.

And what about loving thy neighbour or loving thy 'enemy'?

I do love on people but I hate sin.

And you don't think this is insane? This is why you need a constitution.

For example, in the UK, the religious are pretty much a minority now (it's in the borderline transition period). If, for instance, someone was to create a poll on the abolition of churches, period, and the majority say 'Yeah, let's get rid of them'...what say you? You just accept it?

They could and if I did everything I could do to stop it I would have to accept the law. I would break the law and worship Jesus anyway. Homosexuals can live any life they want now I am not stoping them and if they reject the Bible that is their right but I do not have to support laws so they can sin openly.

You needn't force any religious institution to marry two gay people. In the UK we don't have that. If the couple want to get married in a church, they go talk to the minister/priest and see if they will let them. If not...get one in a civil environment.

The UK has civil unions if I am correct and gay marriage would be different. They would be a protected class and I feel the state could force the church to hire or accept gays.

When I was at school (not THAT long ago) we were just taught that some people are gay. That's it. What on earth is wrong with that?

Nothing pointing out there are people out there that don't live by God's word. I teach my children about all sin but a school will promote it as a normal acceptable lifestyle.

Should keep people totally ignorant of homosexuality? That is to the detriment of all society (ignorance breeds hatred) and to the detriment of those who are homosexual but aren't old enough to fully understand it yet. You were lucky to grow up as a heterosexual. You had it easy. I know personally how hard it is to come to terms with a sexuality that the majority of society thinks is weird. I can't even imagine how hard it is for kids in the USA where hatred is even higher and education even poorer.

I have my own sin that I struggle with, the difference is I accept that I sin homosexuals don't believe they are living in sin.

Jesus said virtually nothing on the topic of sexuality...so why is that not covered under 'grace'? And didn't Jesus say he came not to abolish the law, but to enforce it?

Jesus said to turn away from sin and yes he did not abolish the law which is clear that the homosexual lifestyle is sin in the old testament

[Meow Mix]

I also wanted to comment on how none of these arguments are based on any sort of real respect for civil liberties.

For instance, imagine a country where Christian marriage was shocking and deeply offensive to some people. In this country, it currently isn't legal to be married in a church in the name of God -- but it's legal to be married in, say, a vineyard in the name of some other god.

The Christians would say, "This isn't fair -- we can't get married to our loved ones but other people can. We can't see our loved ones in hospitals because we can't get married; we're denied about 1,400 rights that other people have just because of who we love (other Christians)."

The otherworlders (who are the equivalent of Christians in this universe) would say, "Don't be silly. I can't marry a Christian either, so what's the big deal? We obviously have the same rights, can't you see? Don't be upset that our beliefs are oppressing you, we're just following our own beliefs after all. We deeply believe that marrying Christians is sinful so of course we're going to try to put it into law that you can never get married. Sorry, why not just marry a nice Pagan instead?"

Can you see the disparity here, lastcallhall? Can you see the unfairness? Can you see how it isn't REALLY respectful towards civil liberties, and how it's really just a thinly veiled agenda towards oppression of those different from you -- even if they aren't harming you?

[lastcallhall]

Fair enough. For the moment, let's accept that is accurate.

Lets put a new spin on it then. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against women as men are allowed to marry women but women are not. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against men as women are allowed to marry men but men are not. As such, banning same sex marriage is not merely gender discrimination, and thus illegal, it is double gender discrimination and thus illegal.

I see your argument but I still do not think this is unconstitutional

[Abraxas]

Fair enough. For the moment, let's accept that is accurate.

Lets put a new spin on it then. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against women as men are allowed to marry women but women are not. Prohibitions against same sex marriage discriminate against men as women are allowed to marry men but men are not. As such, banning same sex marriage is not merely gender discrimination, and thus illegal, it is double gender discrimination and thus illegal.

I see your argument but I still do not think this is unconstitutional

How not? How are same sex marriage laws any different than miscegenation laws?

You said it isn't discrimination because nobody is allowed to marry same sex. By that reasoning miscegenation laws aren't discrimanatory because nobody is allowed to marry a different race under them. The courts struck that down as unconstitutional because they do not accept your line of reasoning.

[EconAtheism101]

1. Is what happened to the New Mexico couple proof that gay marriage will threaten christians and the church from living our faith?

2. If gay marriage is legal in the entire US would churches be forced to recognize gay couples and be forced to hire gay people to positions even if that would be against our beliefs?

I'm prepared to defend the position that churches SHOULD be forced to accept gay appointments and gay couples against their beliefs, although I do so in the knowledge that this will not happen and that on balance it probably shouldn't. However, by defending the position we can touch on the core argument a little more robustly.

And it's this:

The actions of a private organisation have unsolicited costs to third parties, and legislation must take this into account.

In a secular framework, which is what any sane government operates under no matter how religious its populace, we want to have social institutions and a society at large that is pluralistic, respectful and accommodating of difference. When powerful private organisations operate in ways that institutionalise and propagate the exact opposite, their actions have a cost on wider society in the sense that norms form a key role in defining how society works. By having norms that discrimate, churches impose their discrimination indirectly on society. In a society with strong churches, their is a strong argument for preventing discrimination.

Now the reason I make this argument is not to demand that churches be forced to cowtow to draconian legislation about what they can and cannot do, who they can hire etc, but to illustrate the point about how a decent government should be operating, and to justify the stance secularists take on this matter. Government has a responsibility to prevent socially harmful actions, from littering to discrimination. It's a good and debate worthy question to ask whether that should extend into the private sphere and how far. But the public sphere should be religion and sexuality neutral, no question, and a good government would robustly defend that principle.

[Meow Mix]

How not? How are same sex marriage laws any different than miscegenation laws?

You said it isn't discrimination because nobody is allowed to marry same sex. By that reasoning miscegenation laws aren't discrimanatory because nobody is allowed to marry a different race under them. The courts struck that down as unconstitutional because they do not accept your line of reasoning.

I don't think it's really about having a rationale that things are "already" equal. I doubt anyone truly believes that, even if some might briefly and feebly make that argument. It seems to me to be more about hiding the fact that it's just straight up civil inequality that's desired -- American values be damned if it's a group that the Bible condemns.

After all, this whole freedom and civil equality thing is just tongue in cheek anyway since God is the ultimate arbiter of truth and morality. Just because this nation is built on civil liberties and equality amongst its people that doesn't mean we should let sinners sin openly, even if they're not causing any harm to anyone.

[lastcallhall]

I also wanted to comment on how none of these arguments are based on any sort of real respect for civil liberties.

I disagree, like I have said I can't marry another man so I don't have that option either. It is different than telling a black man you can't ride the bus but I can.

For instance, imagine a country where Christian marriage was shocking and deeply offensive to some people. In this country, it currently isn't legal to be married in a church in the name of God -- but it's legal to be married in, say, a vineyard in the name of some other god.

The Christians would say, "This isn't fair -- we can't get married to our loved ones but other people can. We can't see our loved ones in hospitals because we can't get married; we're denied about 1,400 rights that other people have just because of who we love (other Christians)."

The otherworlders (who are the equivalent of Christians in this universe) would say, "Don't be silly. I can't marry a Christian either, so what's the big deal? We obviously have the same rights, can't you see? Don't be upset that our beliefs are oppressing you, we're just following our own beliefs after all. We deeply believe that marrying Christians is sinful so of course we're going to try to put it into law that you can never get married. Sorry, why not just marry a nice Pagan instead?"

Can you see the disparity here, lastcallhall? Can you see the unfairness? Can you see how it isn't REALLY respectful towards civil liberties, and how it's really just a thinly veiled agenda towards oppression of those different from you -- even if they aren't harming you?

You seem to think the entire christian community that is against same sex marriage are evil people who are just looking to trample your rights. I don't care who you live with and what you do but what I won't do is vote for something that is against what I believe is the ultimate truth. I believe with everything in me that the Bible is God's word and that Jesus will judge me for everything I do in this life. So obviously I must believe that God is against gay marriage or why else would I be against it? Muslims think I am going to hell, do I care, not in the least. They think by me worshiping Jesus it is a sin against Allah and I will spend eternity in hell. Am I offended, not at all. My point is if you reject christianity that is fine but then unfortunately for you more people in the US accept christianity and the laws will lean that way. If I lived in the middle east it would be different for me as a christian and I would have to deal with it. I am sorry if I offend you I am sure you are a very nice, caring, and descent person who feels like the world is against you, I would probably feel the same way if I was in your shoes. I just think truth is an absolute and I seek the truth.

[lastcallhall]

I don't think you're hateful. You're a stand-up guy who is arguing for what he believes. It just so happens to be that what you believe would deprive me of equal rights. It's tragic. There are those who believe rights should be equal and those who don't -- some who even go to the point where they will concoct arguments that rights really are equal. ("Neither of us can marry the same sex" is this type of "argument.")

This is all that I meant. It becomes apparent when someone is not one who values others' liberties over their own agenda when they hope and wish for the oppression of others in order to satisfy their personal bias -- even if the others aren't causing them harm. That isn't hateful, it's just ignorant. That's only my opinion -- I'm not trying to insult you. I'm sure you're a great guy. It just so happens that your ideals would oppress me if given the power, and that's tragic and horrible.

I hope that you never find yourself in a situation where you're unable to have the same rights as other people or to enjoy the same things with the person who utterly completes you -- the love of your life, your "soulmate" -- just because other people don't like it. I truly hope that never happens to you, and I truly hope you appreciate your ability to enjoy what your ideology denies to me. Please don't ruin that you get to enjoy that since there are some of us who can't.

"Pure democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." Hopefully we sheep will have the power to overturn oppressive ideology so that we can enjoy freedom in the near future. I'd fight for that, and I'd fight against anyone turning around and oppressing the original oppressors in turn.

Thank you for the kind words and I am glad that you don't view me as a hateful person. I definitely don't view you as hateful and you seem to be very kind. I wish we could agree on this and I my ultimate hop, of course, is you find Jesus because when it comes down to it that is all I really care about for anyone. Not to go off subject. What I think it comes down to is you can't ask a christian to support something that we can't. I think our biggest difference is I think your heart can lead you astray, I know mine would. I use and trust the Bible to be my guide.

[Meow Mix]

You seem to think the entire christian community that is against same sex marriage are evil people who are just looking to trample your rights. I don't care who you live with and what you do but what I won't do is vote for something that is against what I believe is the ultimate truth. I believe with everything in me that the Bible is God's word and that Jesus will judge me for everything I do in this life. So obviously I must believe that God is against gay marriage or why else would I be against it? Muslims think I am going to hell, do I care, not in the least. They think by me worshiping Jesus it is a sin against Allah and I will spend eternity in hell. Am I offended, not at all. My point is if you reject christianity that is fine but then unfortunately for you more people in the US accept christianity and the laws will lean that way. If I lived in the middle east it would be different for me as a christian and I would have to deal with it. I am sorry if I offend you I am sure you are a very nice, caring, and descent person who feels like the world is against you, I would probably feel the same way if I was in your shoes. I just think truth is an absolute and I seek the truth.

This is why I agreed you're probably a really great person at the end of the day. You're genuinely just following what you believe to be true -- it's not done out of malice, I can tell that. But at the end of the day, I still can't visit the love of my life in a hospital if she were dying because of your ideology. Is that fair? Can you tell how deeply that can hurt someone in the worst possible way when it has to do with someone they love with a big "L?" What if because of someone else's opinion you couldn't visit your wife? How would you feel about that?

I don't care about the word "marriage." I don't care about the rituals involved with it. I just want our bond to be respected by the law of the land such that we have the same inheritance, visitation, etc. rights as other couples.

I don't think you've really thought this "we're already equal" argument through, anyway: like Abraxas brought up, this same argument could have been used for interracial marriage.

Can you please respond to Abraxas's post? I'd really like to see how you think the argumentation is different at all. If blacks aren't allowed to marry whites and vice versa, couldn't the bigots of the day have said "Oh, but we're already equal: I can't marry a black person either?"

Regardless of your intentions, at the end of the day it just seems like you're grasping at straws to try to justify what is obviously on its face a dose of plain ol' school bigotry. "What those people do is icky to me so I don't want to allow them to do it."

I get that you feel the Big Guy is looking over your shoulder. But didn't the Big Guy say to render unto Caesar his due? Doesn't that include following the American ideal of equality and justice for everyone? You're not endorsing homosexuality if you just ignore homosexual equality legislation. But you sure are causing a lot of harm -- a lot of genuine, heart wrenching, tear inducing suffering in a lot of good people when you actively support legislation aimed to diminish our rights and oppress us into 2nd class citizens just because we love someone that you find icky.

Don't think for one minute that supporting anti-gay legislation is harmless or Godly. It hurts people. A lot. It hurts people at their core. It hurts badly. That's why I've genuinely said -- and meant it -- that I hope no one ever tells you who you can love or not. I hope no one ever tells you, "Oh, I know you love that person but that's fine. But I don't believe you should have the same rights as married people, sorry." I hope no one trivializes your feelings like that, even if they might disagree with who you love. I hope they never reduce you to the point that you're less free than your brethren and sisters just because, well, your brethren and sisters don't think you should have the same rights as them because what you're doing is "icky" to them. I hope that never happens to you, or you will feel our pain -- and I bet you won't like it any more than we do.

I bet you would know how it feels to be told that you have to wait outside of the ICU because you aren't family or spouse, wondering whether or not the person who lights up your life will ever be able to talk to you again -- just because your relationship isn't recognized by people who don't like it, even though it doesn't harm them. That would be real torment -- so, luckily for you, you're part of the wolves and not the sheep.

Wouldn't it be a great world, though, if the wolves in this case -- just like they did with interracial matters back in the day, and to women's suffrage -- said "hey, I may not agree with this but who am I to step in and oppress these people?" As long as your ideology persists, though, there will still be a lot of tears and heartache from people like me. I can only hope that when we win our equality -- which we will -- that no one ever retaliates against such ideologies as Christianity in the future. (Again, if they try, I'll be fighting with the Christians against it. It's so sad that I can't say the same for some Christians today about my predicament, though!)