Sermon opposing gay marriage may lead to church eviction

[Just_A_Guy]

So a kids' sports league has more priority in society than a religious organization?

No; but my experience is that kids' sports leagues tend to use school fields which - at least where I've lived - tend to be open to the public anyways. It's not like the actual school building, which (again, in my experience) are locked up and keep vacant once the students go home.

Government has the right to determine this?

I think that once we agree that a specific parcel is and should be public property, it inevitably and undeniably becomes government's prerogative to impose time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of that public property. Under existing jurisprudence those restrictions can't discriminate against certain "protected classes" (14th amendment) and must come off as "content-neutral" (1st amendment) without either endorsing or discriminating against a particular religions group (also 1st amendment). That leads to a rat's nest of possible fact scenarios that inevitably results in confusing "why-can-they-do-this-but-I-can't-do-that" situations, and I think it might be better policy--at least, with regard to schools--to avoid the entire discussion.

I mean, imagine two second-graders (one of whom is a congregant of yours) talking over lunch one day:

"Where do you go to Church?"

"I go to the Pentecostal Church on 35th Street. How about you?"

"I'm a Wiccan. I go to church right here on Sundays."

Can you really tell me that you'd be 100% comfortable with your young parishoner hearing this?

Edited July 27, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Vort]

In my defense, Vort, I believe your earlier post used the word "never".

Yes, but not about sex. My "never" was with respect to the idea that religious people somehow sought to prevent homosexuals from loving others. This is simply false.

[Just_A_Guy]

Yes, but not about sex. My "never" was with respect to the idea that religious people somehow sought to prevent homosexuals from loving others. This is simply false.

Most of our society would say that you cannot fully express love--at least, romantic love--in a non-sexual relationship. That may be more a condemnation of our society than it is of you. Nevertheless, the semantic problem is what it is.

[Vort]

Most of our society would say that you cannot fully express love--at least, romantic love--in a non-sexual relationship. That may be more a condemnation of our society than it is of you. Nevertheless, the semantic problem is what it is.

That was more or less my point. Homosexuals use semantic nuance to advance their false argument. Their real argument is, "Homosex should be normalized in society and taught to children as acceptable and wonderful." But they can't come right out and say this, because even today, most people would still balk at it. So instead they (mis)use words to pretend they are fighting for something else: "We just want the right to LOVE the person of our choice!"

I think it's perfectly fair and honest to point out that what they say is nonsense, unless you think you have to have sex with your infant son or your mother in order to love them.

And it is not sex per se; that battle was already fought and won (or lost, depending on your viewpoint) in favor of the homosexuals. They can have sex, in private, with any consenting adult of their choosing, with no fear of reprisals. But again, that is not sufficient.

This is not about "rights", regardless of what the homosexual lobby claims. This is about normalization, pure and simple. This is about putting legislation into place that will force society to embrace homosexuality as normal and good.

[Just_A_Guy]

I agree with your overall point about the objectives of gay-rights advocacy being more about the right to engage in the behavior uncondemned rather than the right to engage in the behavior per se.

That said, I still think that in this day and age it's reasonable, in a secular discussion about marriage, to use the verb "love" on the understanding that it includes the expression of that love through sexual intercourse.

Even in the religious sphere, I think the Church has acknowledged (though not in these terms) the role that a fulfilling sex life plays in a healthy marriage.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[carlimac]

The issue with the smoking comparison is invalid though. It's not gays wanting to get married in your church, it's them getting married period. If you take your smoking example it's like the churches banning smoking all together. Smoker do complain about the more and more limits of where they can smoke that have been coming for the past number of years. The issue with marriage is you aren't just keeping it in your church, you are directing people outside of your church as well. Trust me if the church made a push to outlaw smoking all together they'd face some pretty strong resistance i think.

I'm not sure i agree that christians have "never " tried to stop homosexuals from openly loving their partners, and with the push in the past and resurgence from some pulpits of trying to criminalize homosexual behavior or to create separate "camps" for homosexuals and the resistance from some in the religious right to even offer simple protections to homosexuals in general i'm not sure i can feel the way you think we should feel.

Now as mentioned earlier, yes this is a two way street and there are gaps coming from both side. No one side is completely at fault and there are groups on both sides that have made extreme efforts to find a better way of trying to coexist.

I do have one question though? you say not to flaunt a same sex relationship in your face? what does this mean? if i can openly love my partner just like you say christians aren't trying to stop...when does it become being in your face? What is acceptable and what isn't and are you just as willing to hold the exact same criteria to others who are just showing their love.

Oh pooey. (Can I say that on this forum?) I don't know what to do with this post. You've put words into my mouth that I never said and you have missed the point of other things I've said.

The smoker thing does work in my mind. Those who can't give up smoking (or drinking or drugs or what have you) are plain and simply denied full blessings within the church. They have to deny themselves the pleasure of those vices if they want acceptance. You never hear them as an organized group complaining that they are rejected or that their "rights" are being denied. They know and accept that their habits ore offensive to many. Sure they can go out and smoke or drink in their own homes or vehicles or in designated areas but that's it. No whining and fussing. They just keep it to themselves. Do we reject them as people? NO. They can come to church and associate with us. Some of my best friends drink, lived together before marriage, and one lady I visit taught was a smoker. Loved her to bits!! She just couldn't hold a temple recommend. Do I accept their habit or inclination. Nope! I detest it. But I love them. I enjoy their company and would feel sad if they rejected my friendship. Why is it so hard for gays to accept love from us without us fully embracing their sexual preferences? I'd like an honest answer to that? Why is that so offensive to gays and lesbians?

I never said " Christians never tried to stop homosexuals from openly loving their partners. I'm sure some Christian churches are very vocal about it. But our church isn't like that. We preach free agency. You can do whatever you want to do but there are consequences. Involve yourself in a same gender sexually intimate relationship and you get booted from church membership. It very cut and dried. You can come to church, participate in activities and worship to your heart's content, but keep your sexual preferences and activites under wraps,especially at church. We can't stop what you do at home.

The gay marriage thing goes WAY beyond what you do in private. It affects the health and strength of our community environment (not all that unlike smoking affects everyone around). It affects the children. I believe that a society that accepts gay marriage will be harshly judged by Heavenly Father. It's just not His way and He's the boss.

Maybe flaunting isn't the right word I'm looking for. I think what I get so very tired of is the defiant "we don't give a **** what you think" attitude. "We're going to do it anyway even if it grosses you out. And we expect you to like it or we're going to sue you. So there." It's just very childish and annoying. There are those who try to make it a grown up issue by throwing in the equality and rights aspects. But boil it down and it just sounds like whining by spoiled selfish and self centered children. That's what I mean. Go ahead and do whatever but buck up and accept the consequences of society not approving. Don't cram your personal life down our throats. That's what I mean by don't flaunt it. I can accept gays holding hands in public and even a quick peck kiss. But I don't even want to see hetero couples making out. I DON'T want to know what their sexual preferences are.

Edited July 28, 2012 by carlimac

[Vort]

I agree with your overall point about the objectives of gay-rights advocacy being more about the right to engage in the behavior uncondemned rather than the right to engage in the behavior per se.

But this is the point: Not uncondemned by law, but uncondemned by society. They are attemping (rather successfully) to use government to force a religious change.

That said, I still think that in this day and age it's reasonable, in a secular discussion about marriage, to use the verb "love" on the understanding that it includes the expression of that love through sexual intercourse.

So mothers have sex with their sons, daughters have sex with their fathers, and siblings have sex with each other? Granny and grandson go at it because, hey, they love each other? If you love your dog, then your dog gets some luvin'?

No way.

I think you are still missing my point: Homosexuals argue (dishonestly, IMFO) that it's all about "love". But it is not. It is not even all about homosex. It is all about societal change (read: RELIGIOUS change). Homosexuals want everyone to acknowledge that homosexuality is great and wonderful, and many would love to criminalize any expression of disgust with or distaste of homosexuality, much less preaching that it is sinful.

This is the whole point of "we just want to LOVE whom we choose", and then pretending that "to love" means "to have sex with". JaG -- THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT. It is not enough.

Why do you suppose homosexuals want "marriage"? Even when presented with the legal virtual equivalent, many still insist on MARRIAGE. Why would that be?

The very term "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. No human society throughout history, EVER (until the late 20th century), recognized homosexual marriage. Not the American population, who supposedly thought of homosexuals as "other-spirited". Not the ancient Greeks, who were so infatuated with homosexuality that they incorporated it into the fabric of their society and actually trained boys to be homosexual from childhood. NO ONE recognized "homosexual marriage", because it does not exist. Marriage, the institution itself, exists as a way to create society through the intercourse (social and physical) of men and women.

So if homosexuals can convince everyone to let them "marry", they will have achieved the complete normalization of homosexuality. Which is their goal.

Not "love".

Not "sex".

Normalization. Period.

[carlimac]

No; but my experience is that kids' sports leagues tend to use school fields which - at least where I've lived - tend to be open to the public anyways. It's not like the actual school building, which (again, in my experience) are locked up and keep vacant once the students go home.

I think that once we agree that a specific parcel is and should be public property, it inevitably and undeniably becomes government's prerogative to impose time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of that public property. Under existing jurisprudence those restrictions can't discriminate against certain "protected classes" (14th amendment) and must come off as "content-neutral" (1st amendment) without either endorsing or discriminating against a particular religions group (also 1st amendment). That leads to a rat's nest of possible fact scenarios that inevitably results in confusing "why-can-they-do-this-but-I-can't-do-that" situations, and I think it might be better policy--at least, with regard to schools--to avoid the entire discussion.

I mean, imagine two second-graders (one of whom is a congregant of yours) talking over lunch one day:

"Where do you go to Church?"

"I go to the Pentecostal Church on 35th Street. How about you?"

"I'm a Wiccan. I go to church right here on Sundays."

Can you really tell me that you'd be 100% comfortable with your young parishoner hearing this?

I think that if a government building is going to lease or rent their property to a church, during the church services the building essentially becomes a church building. The meeting is from 10-11 AM and during that time, the building IS a church. So the pastor can preach whatever he believes. The church is paying for that privilege. It's not like they are teaching the school children religion in their classes. It's not during school hours.

If a wiccan congregation wanted to meet and they weren't doing anything illegal like ...whatever Wiccans might do that is against the law ( I can't even imagine) then I wouldn't have a problem with them meeting there.

[carlimac]

It's ironic isn't it that homosexuals tend toward the liberal end of the spectrum. And it's mostly liberals who don't think marriage is necessary. Mind you, I'm not saying all liberals don't think marriage is necessary. I'm saying ...Hollywood celebs for instance are more likely to not feel it necessary to marry and they are also more likely to be liberal. So why then do they push so hard for gay marriage being legal if they don't even think it's important enough for themselves? Just doesn't make sense.

Edited July 28, 2012 by carlimac

[Just_A_Guy]

So mothers have sex with their sons, daughters have sex with their fathers, and siblings have sex with each other? Granny and grandson go at it because, hey, they love each other? If you love your dog, then your dog gets some luvin'?

No way.

I just assume, in an argument about marriage, that people will instinctively understand the difference between the kinds of love ancient Greeks described as storge, agape, eros, and philia (even if they've never seen it articulated in that way), and that they will assume we're talking about eros. I've not yet seen a gay rights advocate honestly suggest that they've ever been legally denied the right to share (as Lewis defines the Greek terms) "affection", "unconditional love", or "friendship" with others of the same gender, and so I'm willing to give gay rights advocates the benefit of the doubt on this one. Quite possibly you've seen more than I have and are no longer willing to be so trusting, which would be perfectly logical. I'm just not at that point yet.

I think you are still missing my point: Homosexuals argue (dishonestly, IMFO) that it's all about "love". But it is not. It is not even all about homosex. It is all about societal change (read: RELIGIOUS change). Homosexuals want everyone to acknowledge that homosexuality is great and wonderful, and many would love to criminalize any expression of disgust with or distaste of homosexuality, much less preaching that it is sinful.

I understand that perfectly. I 100% agree with where you're going; I'm just quibbling (a little) about one of the roads you're taking to get there.

This is the whole point of "we just want to LOVE whom we choose", and then pretending that "to love" means "to have sex with". JaG -- THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT. It is not enough.

Fully concur. But I am suggesting that the kind of "love" gay marriage advocates are typically referring to is eros, and that as a matter of law that "right" was not guaranteed as recently as 2002.

Edited July 28, 2012 by Just_A_Guy

[Just_A_Guy]

I think that if a government building is going to lease or rent their property to a church, during the church services the building essentially becomes a church building. The meeting is from 10-11 AM and during that time, the building IS a church. So the pastor can preach whatever he believes. The church is paying for that privilege. It's not like they are teaching the school children religion in their classes. It's not during school hours.

If a wiccan congregation wanted to meet and they weren't doing anything illegal like ...whatever Wiccans might do that is against the law ( I can't even imagine) then I wouldn't have a problem with them meeting there.

*shrug* I would.

My opinion here is shaped a little by my own experience; because I remember as a kid we'd drive past the middle school where my siblings went, each Sunday on our way to church. A local Christian congregation rented the school for Sunday services (this was in central California) and I remember they'd put out a big canvas cover on the granite sign that had the school's name. My ten-year-old mind just assumed that that the middle school and church must have been ideologically sympathetic to each other, if not openly affiliated.

Quite possibly modern kids are smarter than I was.

[carlimac]

*shrug* I would.

My opinion here is shaped a little by my own experience; because I remember as a kid we'd drive past the middle school where my siblings went, each Sunday on our way to church. A local Christian congregation rented the school for Sunday services (this was in central California) and I remember they'd put out a big canvas cover on the granite sign that had the school's name. My ten-year-old mind just assumed that that the middle school and church must have been ideologically sympathetic to each other, if not openly affiliated.

Quite possibly modern kids are smarter than I was.

Well, just because some kid is confused, I don't think it's reason enough to cancel the lease. That kid isn't going to know what the preacher said unless he was there or if a school superintendent makes a humongous deal about it. If the kid was in the congregation, I suppose it's the parent's job to make the distinction for them. "This is what our church believes but this is church. You may hear differently in school. " Confounding conundrum for a kid? Yes but not any worse than all the other messages they hear from one end of the spectrum to the other day to day.

[annewandering]

But this is the point: Not uncondemned by law, but uncondemned by society. They are attemping (rather successfully) to use government to force a religious change.

So mothers have sex with their sons, daughters have sex with their fathers, and siblings have sex with each other? Granny and grandson go at it because, hey, they love each other? If you love your dog, then your dog gets some luvin'?

No way.

I think you are still missing my point: Homosexuals argue (dishonestly, IMFO) that it's all about "love". But it is not. It is not even all about homosex. It is all about societal change (read: RELIGIOUS change). Homosexuals want everyone to acknowledge that homosexuality is great and wonderful, and many would love to criminalize any expression of disgust with or distaste of homosexuality, much less preaching that it is sinful.

This is the whole point of "we just want to LOVE whom we choose", and then pretending that "to love" means "to have sex with". JaG -- THEY ALREADY HAVE THAT. It is not enough.

Why do you suppose homosexuals want "marriage"? Even when presented with the legal virtual equivalent, many still insist on MARRIAGE. Why would that be?

The very term "homosexual marriage" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. No human society throughout history, EVER (until the late 20th century), recognized homosexual marriage. Not the American population, who supposedly thought of homosexuals as "other-spirited". Not the ancient Greeks, who were so infatuated with homosexuality that they incorporated it into the fabric of their society and actually trained boys to be homosexual from childhood. NO ONE recognized "homosexual marriage", because it does not exist. Marriage, the institution itself, exists as a way to create society through the intercourse (social and physical) of men and women.

So if homosexuals can convince everyone to let them "marry", they will have achieved the complete normalization of homosexuality. Which is their goal.

Not "love".

Not "sex".

Normalization. Period.

I would go one more step, Vort. It is not just normalization. It is an attempt by satan to destroy marriage, period. By changing the meaning of the word marriage, they have changed to foundation of human society. It is a direct attack on Christianity. Even more, it is an attack on the Plan of Salvation, which, of course, is something satan dearly loves to do.

What do you suppose his next step will be?

[Vort]

I just assume, in an argument about marriage, that people will instinctively understand the difference between the kinds of love ancient Greeks described as storge, agape, eros, and philia (even if they've never seen it articulated in that way), and that they will assume we're talking about eros.

I actually believe quite the opposite. Words are tokens of meaning and form the basis of our thoughts. We have one word, "love", that covers a lot of ground, but the very commonality of that word builds an equivalency. We don't use four different terms; we normally just say "love".

Regardless, the fact remains that homosexuals can engage in homosex without legal repercussions. They most certainly can "love" anyone they choose in any reasonable definition of the word, including sex. The homosexual lobby has already won everything -- EVERYTHING -- that just a generation ago it claimed it wanted. Now it demands far more: The total societal acceptance of homosexuality and the actual illegalization of any dissenting expressions. And, frighteningly, we see exactly this in Europe and Canada, where a man can be punished by law for saying that homosex is perverse or that homosexuality is evil.

[Soulsearcher]

I actually believe quite the opposite. Words are tokens of meaning and form the basis of our thoughts. We have one word, "love", that covers a lot of ground, but the very commonality of that word builds an equivalency. We don't use four different terms; we normally just say "love".

Regardless, the fact remains that homosexuals can engage in homosex without legal repercussions. They most certainly can "love" anyone they choose in any reasonable definition of the word, including sex. The homosexual lobby has already won everything -- EVERYTHING -- that just a generation ago it claimed it wanted. Now it demands far more: The total societal acceptance of homosexuality and the actual illegalization of any dissenting expressions. And, frighteningly, we see exactly this in Europe and Canada, where a man can be punished by law for saying that homosex is perverse or that homosexuality is evil.

While i do get and respect some of what you say i do think you can miss the reality for some homosexuals. Yes with the lawrence verdict things became less legally restrictive, though i do find it funny that even though the verdict ruled anti sodomy laws unconstitutional there are states that have refused to take them off the books just waiting for lawrence to be over turned. That being said there are still issues. While you think of it as normalization some of us see it a bit differently and maybe it does come down to the same thing. Not long ago a lesbian couple was attacked and one or both of them killed, there was a lesbian woman attacked and words carved into her skin, and about 10 minutes from my home a young gay man was attacked. Where i live we still have the occasional group of guys who wander between gay bars looking for people to beat as they leave the club. While you might use the term normalization or acceptance as negative, and i see why you do, for as much change as you think the homosexual community has brought, there is still a level of fear and a real fear. I was out walking with my friend yesterday and, what has become usual for him, he asked how gay he looked to see if we could avoid the inevitable screaming of "fags" while we are out and about.(he tends to dress well and it quite masculine but can just give off a vibe). What many homosexuals want is to just avoid this. We want to be able to walk down the street or do everyday things with out fear of being ridiculed or assaulted. It may seem silly, or such a small worry that you dismiss the importance, but it can be a big thing. Yes we want the world to accept us, but to the point we don't have to live in fear of walking down the street. It's very showing when i walk down the mall alone and then when i walk down the mall with my friend and get completely different looks and reactions from people. There are reasons i still haven't come out in most of my life and why i even moved cities. So i guess you're right, it's not just about love, it's also about safety. One could argue i guess then "just don't look or act gay" In some ways that's fair though for many of the gays i know that would require such a constant effort that i'm not sure they could still really live their life to the fullest, but i then ask is it a fair request, and then of course there are the effeminate straights that get targeted as well just because of stereotypes. So while i do get where you are coming from i do also wonder if you do fully realize the environment that does exist out in the world for homosexuals and why it can be important to keep pushing for acceptance in certain ways. Yes the treatment and harassment is illegal but it would be nice if we could just make it go away as much as possible rather than just praying that the laws alone will stop it and we can feel safe.

[prisonchaplain]

I mean, imagine two second-graders (one of whom is a congregant of yours) talking over lunch one day:

"Where do you go to Church?"

"I go to the Pentecostal Church on 35th Street. How about you?"

"I'm a Wiccan. I go to church right here on Sundays."

Can you really tell me that you'd be 100% comfortable with your young parishoner hearing this?

It's a fair question. A few years ago I would have squirmed. Now that I have seen what NYC is attempting, yes I would. Far better to let Wiccans rent school space under the same conditions as Pentecostals than to declare any religious gathering unwelcome. Banning religious groups from renting sends all kinds of messages too.

[norah63]

As Christians we must be willing to take a stand for what we hold most dear.

Renting a school for a church meeting just means you use the building, and you don't surrender your principles.

Jesus always says fear not, and that is wonderful good news.

[annewandering]

Where we used to live, a jewish synagogue burned down. Until another was built they met in our building. Not sure how this ties in but it feels like it does for some reason.

[carlimac]

I remember how LDS church buildings used to be used for voting venues but they aren't any more. Not sure how this ties in either. Does it?

[carlimac]

While i do get and respect some of what you say i do think you can miss the reality for some homosexuals. Yes with the lawrence verdict things became less legally restrictive, though i do find it funny that even though the verdict ruled anti sodomy laws unconstitutional there are states that have refused to take them off the books just waiting for lawrence to be over turned. That being said there are still issues. While you think of it as normalization some of us see it a bit differently and maybe it does come down to the same thing. Not long ago a lesbian couple was attacked and one or both of them killed, there was a lesbian woman attacked and words carved into her skin, and about 10 minutes from my home a young gay man was attacked. Where i live we still have the occasional group of guys who wander between gay bars looking for people to beat as they leave the club. While you might use the term normalization or acceptance as negative, and i see why you do, for as much change as you think the homosexual community has brought, there is still a level of fear and a real fear. I was out walking with my friend yesterday and, what has become usual for him, he asked how gay he looked to see if we could avoid the inevitable screaming of "fags" while we are out and about.(he tends to dress well and it quite masculine but can just give off a vibe). What many homosexuals want is to just avoid this. We want to be able to walk down the street or do everyday things with out fear of being ridiculed or assaulted. It may seem silly, or such a small worry that you dismiss the importance, but it can be a big thing. Yes we want the world to accept us, but to the point we don't have to live in fear of walking down the street. It's very showing when i walk down the mall alone and then when i walk down the mall with my friend and get completely different looks and reactions from people. There are reasons i still haven't come out in most of my life and why i even moved cities. So i guess you're right, it's not just about love, it's also about safety. One could argue i guess then "just don't look or act gay" In some ways that's fair though for many of the gays i know that would require such a constant effort that i'm not sure they could still really live their life to the fullest, but i then ask is it a fair request, and then of course there are the effeminate straights that get targeted as well just because of stereotypes. So while i do get where you are coming from i do also wonder if you do fully realize the environment that does exist out in the world for homosexuals and why it can be important to keep pushing for acceptance in certain ways. Yes the treatment and harassment is illegal but it would be nice if we could just make it go away as much as possible rather than just praying that the laws alone will stop it and we can feel safe.

This must be hard. No one should feel afraid to walk down the street or through the mall. I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. Maybe LGBTs jumping straight into the marriage controversy before gaining more general acceptance was putting the cart before the horse. Just too big a jump too soon.

I thought Canada was way more accepting than the US. I've never heard anything of the sort where I live. (Gays being beat up) Maybe you should move to Idaho.

[annewandering]

If there are many gays here they arent very open. I remember a couple of friends of a friend in college, UoI, and one other maybe. Maybe they are here but more likely they moved?

edited to add I just remembered a cousin was gay. Was, because he died, of natural causes.

Edited July 28, 2012 by annewandering

[Soulsearcher]

This must be hard. No one should feel afraid to walk down the street or through the mall. I'm genuinely sorry you feel that way. Maybe LGBTs jumping straight into the marriage controversy before gaining more general acceptance was putting the cart before the horse. Just too big a jump too soon.

I thought Canada was way more accepting than the US. I've never heard anything of the sort where I live. (Gays being beat up) Maybe you should move to Idaho.

lol for the most part canada is pretty accepting and people do tend to try and put the ignorant or violent in their place. When the guy was beat up not far from my place a group of people jumped into help him. Most of the stories that really worry me are in the states and spread out through a lot of different states. When i went to the gay clubs in SLC i was quite worried to be honest, but everything went fine and one of the clubs even had a great deal of security on site which made me feel a lot better. Even when i was working security for clubs myself i'd never seen that level inside and out.

I'm not sure i disagree with what you say about jumping in too early on the marriage debate, but i also see some reasons why they might have. First off it's a big issue that made sure people would start taking notice. While it might have been too big it started to force people to look at things they'd been avoiding. Even the LDS church really didn't start supporting equal protection laws until after the marriage push started making noise. I'm not saying this is why they did but all of a sudden a lot of what had been kept in the dark was forced quickly and loudly into the spot light. A lot of these issues i mentioned were always there and no one really seemed to think it was wrong. The fear, the anxiety ect was always part of the community, and retribution against gays was common place. All of a sudden a massive blitz made people start looknig and saying "well i don't like the idea of them being married, but ya i guess they really are people to."

Second reason being as we've seen on this site to some degree committed homosexual relationships don't tend to mean much to straights and more so religious straight people, it's almost a joke to them. Can't have kids, doesn't line up with what we believe, two guys or two girls, it's pretty much worthless to a lot of straight people, notice i don't say majority, just the term a lot. It's one thing to be told you are sinning and all the other stuff, but to be made to feel the relationship you have with the person you're willing to devote your life to is nothing but one liner material to others does have an effect. As has been discussed before, promiscuity can be an issue for homosexuals there are any number of reasons but two i've see happen to be fear of being caught with a long term partner because they become harder to hide(this is my case for this weekend, the friend i really like and my parents meet this weekend, and we are both trying to figure out how to keep me in the closet) , and second is a lot of gays have pretty much been programed not to really value serious relationships on some level because a lot of people in their lives see no value in those relationships( i will not that some progress has been made to better these issues). A push to make those long term committed relationships into something tangible under the law take a large step in validating the feelings and commitments in those relationships. Yes it created a bigger fire storm but i also can't fault people for not wanting their relationship being the punchline of someone's joke all the time.

In a perfect world it shouldn't have really taken a movement to get people to treat people like people, but we know for a fact that anything that isn't like the majority or those in power tends to need a little kick start to get the ball rolling and many times it's something dramatic, not sure if it's the best way but it does seem to work.

[Soulsearcher]

If there are many gays here they arent very open. I remember a couple of friends of a friend in college, UoI, and one other maybe. Maybe they are here but more likely they moved?

edited to add I just remembered a cousin was gay. Was, because he died, of natural causes.

It's possible they moved or the just keep it very quiet. Before i moved 5 people in the city i spent most of my life knew and not one close friend or family member was part of that number, just 3 guys i tried to date and two of their friends. When i finally let some people close to me know their reaction was so bad i stopped telling people i knew and moved away.

[norah63]

Everyone in this world is looking for acceptance. Many from people, and some from God.

My Heavenly Father longs for everyone He and His Son sent here.

The price has been paid, the Word is forever settled in heaven.

We just establish it here on earth. That is our part.

Living away from the word is a road for sadness. And no amount of other peoples acceptance can sooth the hurts. Because they are not really coming from other people. Call on Jesus when you hurt. I do that, and always find comfort and caring and peace within.

Depression such as Hemingway suffered with, can afflict any who go there. Don't go there.

There is pure joy in the salvation that Jesus gives. And life everlasting.

Blessings to all on this beautiful Lord's day.

[Traveler]

Everyone in this world is looking for acceptance. Many from people, and some from God.

My Heavenly Father longs for everyone He and His Son sent here.

The price has been paid, the Word is forever settled in heaven.

We just establish it here on earth. That is our part.

Living away from the word is a road for sadness. And no amount of other peoples acceptance can sooth the hurts. Because they are not really coming from other people. Call on Jesus when you hurt. I do that, and always find comfort and caring and peace within.

Depression such as Hemingway suffered with, can afflict any who go there. Don't go there.

There is pure joy in the salvation that Jesus gives. And life everlasting.

Blessings to all on this beautiful Lord's day.

The idea of acceptance is a most interesting notion. Because of propaganda we are all aware of how un-accepting many non-homosexuals (heterosexuals) are of individuals that once thought of themselves as heterosexuals; becoming or behaving as homosexuals. What is missing in that propaganda is how much more un-accepting MANY homosexuals are of of individuals that once thought of themselves as homosexuals as becoming or behaving as heterosexuals.

The Traveler