Dear Evangelicals, Please Reconsider Your Fight Against Gay Rights

A journalist and longtime observer of American religious culture offers some advice to his evangelical friends.

To my evangelical friends,

Getting to know you has been one of the best experiences in my writing life. Through numerous columns for USA Today and over the course of researching and writing my book The Evangelicals You Don’t Know, I have had the privilege of consorting and conspiring with many of you to tell a new story about the evangelical faith in a time of profound cultural shifts — a story of brave humility, generous service, and idealistic commitment to the common good.

Many of you have become my friends — which is surprising when you remember that I’m a progressive and, for the most part, secular. We’re supposedly on opposite sides of some impenetrable barrier. I guess we’re proving ‘em wrong.

In the spirit of this friendship, I want to let you in on what I’m sensing these past couple of weeks as I’ve followed the World Vision drama and the episode of the Mozilla CEO who got ousted because of his past support for California’s gay-marriage ban. Things are getting nasty out there, and these debates are producing pain, anger, and bewilderment among many of you. So I want to convey some observations that I hope will be helpful — even if they are unsettling.

You may feel you’re the victim of harsh intolerance. But outside of the conservative evangelical sphere, you will not find many sympathetic ears.

We all recall what happened a few weeks ago when the Christian relief agency World Vision announced it would begin allowing married gay people on staff and then, two days later, amid a firestorm of criticism and threats to withhold funding, reversed the decision.

Those of you with a more traditional view of homosexuality were the driving force behind World Vision’s reversal. As some of you asked, how was it right for a Christian organization of this quality and stature to endorse a sinful lifestyle choice and the annihilation of centuries of one-man-one-woman marriage? Could World Vision even call itself Christian anymore?

No surprises there; I’ve been around these arguments for years. Nor was there anything surprising about the now-customary counter-argument you heard. You were told it was so sad, so wrong, that you harbored such unchristian contempt for your gay fellow citizens, your gay fellow Christians.

What did surprise me, though, was what I heard from some of you in response to that: You felt aggrieved by the flak you received. You felt misunderstood, mischaracterized, and mistreated by those accusing you of being mean to gay people.

Was that your experience? If so, I’m afraid you’re going to have to get used to it. Increasingly, this is what you’re in for when you exclude gay people. You may feel unjustly castigated. You may feel you’re the victim of harsh intolerance. But outside of the conservative evangelical sphere, you will not find many sympathetic ears. Outside your own circles, you sound like you will do what you can to exclude gays from marriage and certain other institutions. And you want to get off scot free for doing so. Disdain for gays? You don’t harbor any of that. You love the sinner! And you deeply resent the punishment you receive for opposing gay rights.

Lots of people aren’t buying it.

[B]eing opposed to gay rights is rapidly becoming just as detrimental to your good standing in public as being labeled “racist.”

I affirm that there must remain a sizeable space in our shared public life for people who have deep religious faith and who are not as quick as other groups to embrace certain forms of social change. It’s not as though believers with a particular understanding of a sacred, centuries-old scripture are all going to shrug it off and quickly “get on board” with the rest of us when a cultural tide shifts. On the whole, this commitment to principle is a profoundly positive social asset. I would urge my secular compatriots to consider, for example, the role of Christianity in the development and maintenance of human dignity.

Yet I’m worried for you. I see the day approaching when gay rights, in most mainstream circles, will enjoy the same elevated status as race-based civil rights. Science and the testimony of our gay fellow citizens are largely refuting the notion that homosexuality is a choice. More and more, it’s understood as who someone is. And as “gay” evolves into an identity rather than a lifestyle, those who oppose LGBT rights will risk the same pariah status as those who stand against equal rights for racial minorities. So being opposed to gay rights is rapidly becoming just as detrimental to your good standing in public as being labeled “racist.” Given what we now know about homosexuality, that’s probably how it should be.

I am not sure of a solution other than the one that I admit comes too easily to most of us liberal non-evangelicals — you know, the “get on board” solution. But I want you to know this is where I see things heading. Increasingly, these labels — “anti-gay,” “homophobic,” and “hater” — will be slapped on anyone opposing the inclusion of LGBT people in the mainstreams of American public life.

It’s nothing I would want for my evangelical friends. Especially when you are up to so many other awesome and uplifting things.

Tom Krattenmaker
Written by

  • apieceofthat

    “[B]eing opposed to gay rights is rapidly becoming just as detrimental to your good standing in public as being labeled “racist.”

    I call bullsh*t. This is EXACTLY what the gay agenda wants you to believe. They want you to believe that standing up for traditional marriage and speaking out against homosexuality is akin to racism. But it’s not. You know it’s not. Oh they’ve tried desperately to stand on the history of racial discrimination as if it were their platform. But don’t fall for it. How dare homosexuals even TRY to compare themselves to the discriminations blacks have endured in our country. Puhleez! Don’t listen to this drivel from a blogger with an obvious agenda. It’s just plain crap. This is exactly what’s going on in the church today. Too many are believing that it’s “unchristian” to stand for those very things Christ stood for. The Bible is very clear, folks. NEVER, EVER, EVER is marriage referred to as two people of the same sex. NEVER. Yes, Old Testament laws have some confusing things to say about marriage but one line it never crosses–anywhere in Scripture–is the same-sex line.

    And the word “rights” turns my stomach here too. Look at the title. “…Your Fight Against Gay Rights.” Yuck. Gays aren’t asking for rights, they are asking for special privileges. But calling them “rights” sounds so much better in their propaganda. Who could possibly want to take away someone’s “rights?” Every American has a “right” to marriage as it’s been defined for centuries. Gays have the same rights as every other American. Gays aren’t asking for rights, they’re asking for laws to be changed to accommodate their lifestyle decisions. That’s not a right. That’s a privilege. Call it what it is. When less than 4% of the population creates a propaganda campaign to convince you that they need to change the laws for their own desires, they aren’t asking for rights…they are asking for privilege.

    And notice how this writer tells you you’re already fighting a losing battle:

    “Yet I’m worried for you. I see the day approaching when gay rights, in most mainstream circles, will enjoy the same elevated status as race-based civil rights.”

    Again, this is the gay agenda’s tactic of telling you to give up. They do it all the time. “Oh, the world is changing. You need to catch up.” They use words like “enlightened” to make you feel like you’ve somehow missed out on this new age of understanding that only few have achieved.

    This post is crap. This agenda is crap. This idea is crap.
    Dear fellow evangelicals, don’t fall for it.

    • Evan

      Dear writer of this comment,

      It really saddens me to see people become so angry over the notion of someone they don’t know gaining emotional fulfillment from someone else. When you say things like, “How dare homosexuals even TRY to compare themselves to the discriminations blacks have endured in our country,” I become morally obligated to tell you that you clearly have no understanding of current and historical events regarding society’s treatment of gays. I have personally received two death threats from people I did not know or have any contact with, merely because they discovered I was gay. My friend was jumped in the street and had his neck snapped while two men called him faggot in the name of Jesus and beat him unconscious. Do you really have the audacity to say you know everything about someone’s struggle when you clearly don’t know a gay person yourself? The Old Testament says a lot of silly things. Take 2 Kings 2:23-24 for example. Elisha is called a “baldy” by a bunch of boys, so he curses them in the name of the LORD and has a bear maul and kill 42 of them. Do you really believe that is something that happened? Do you have such low regard for your scripture that you take it literally? If you believe in God, you should believe he’s more creative than having a book that is to be taken literally and blindly. Don’t go eat shell fish or shave your beard or wear polyester clothing if you want to be a real Biblical literalist.

      There are so many other things Christians should be worked up over than people being happy. Take the sex abuse problem in the Catholic Church or the completely un-Christlike treatment of poor people by the US government (Republicans in particular). There’s a lot more worrisome things to worry about. Even the current divorce rate shows that people really don’t value the institution of marriage like they used to. If your God is love, you sure are a poor banner man/woman.

      • apieceofthat

        Christians aren’t “worked up over…people being happy.” You’re trying to redefine marriage, a God-created institution, and bastardizing it for your own immoral lifestyle. But there goes the gay agenda twisting of messaging again…”you’re against people being happy.” NO. Nice try though. It’s not about you being happy. It’s about you expecting special privileges, demanding laws change for your own desires, it’s about inflicting your disgusting, abnormal, unnatural, sinful lifestyle on a Christian institution and trying to call it your own. The government gave gays “civil unions”, “life partners” and “same-sex unions”…but that wasn’t enough. That didn’t attack the church nearly directly enough. “No, dammit, we want marriage!”
        So no, there aren’t more worrisome things to worry about. When you attack my religion, that’s the most worrisome thing there is.

        • Evan

          Where did I attack your religion? Nowhere. My whole family is Christian and I am loved dearly by them and we get along just fine.

          I try to picture Jesus saying what you just said…. and I can’t. I just can’t. I hope you can’t either.

        • R.A.

          What about someone else’s right to call their union a marriage if it’s a part of their religion?
          Also, which scriptures do you ascribe to when dictating God’s intent for marriage?

          • TravisJSays

            “What about someone else’s right to call their union a marriage if it’s a part of their religion?”

            That ‘right’ doesnt exist, or at least was explicitly denied over 130 years ago when courts said US law could force mormons to stop being polygamists. People can call their situation a marriage, but it’s not legally binding in law as such.
            So are you saying this is wrong? That we have to accept polygamy and sharia law in the US just because some muslims practice that? (or for that matter some polygamist sects do as well)?

    • Evan

      I’d also like to note that your history of commenting is suspiciously almost always directed at articles regarding same-sex relations….

      • apieceofthat

        and your point is?

        I’m an evangelical who has had it with this gay agenda crap. You are the bullies of this century. How many people’s lives/businesses/careers have been ruined by the gay agenda who stomp on people who don’t agree with their lifestyle choice? “You must agree with gay marriage or I will boycott your business/drag your name through the mud, etc.” “We will label you with words like bigot or homophobe”

        I’m tired of it.

        And crap like this blog post, that tries to tell evangelicals that they are fighting a losing battle, and that disagreeing with homosexuality is the same as trying to “take someone’s rights away” are flat out lies.

        Not everyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral, wrong, unnatural, sinful is a homophobe. But that doesn’t stop the gay agenda from throwing around the word at anyone who disagrees with them. You’re bullies. And it’s time the evangelicals in this country stood up to the bullying.

        • Evan

          My point is that I did the same thing until I came out.

          • Rocky Is Cash

            So because he stands for right he must be queer? What a pathetic and moronic argument.

          • Evan

            In this particular case, that seems likely. Many big time homophobes are that way because they’re self loathing.

            “Pathetic and moronic.” Wow, more names I could definitely picture Jesus calling me. You win at Christianity.

  • http://www.SamJolman.com/ Sam Jolman

    Tom, can you share references (journal articles or books) for the science on the genetics of homosexuality that you mentioned? I’d love to read. Thanks!

    • Doug Wilkening

      I’ve looked into this a few times over the decades and have always found that the science is fragmentary at best (I’m a former medical research scientist and still have access to one of the world’s best medical libraries. I don’t need to limit myself to googling the public internet, I can also look up the real stuff, and I know how to interpret it).

      My feeling is that good researchers have been avoiding the question because it’s too politicized. There’s too much likelihood of getting tarred with some political brush and having your laboratory picketed by one side or the other simply for following the trail of evidence where it leads. One would have to be crazy to jeopardize his or her career that way. Maybe there will be more quality research once the politics is no longer such a hot button issue.

      But thanks for putting a bee in my bonnet for looking into this again. I haven’t done a literature search on it for a couple of years now.There’s gotta be something new.

      • http://www.SamJolman.com/ Sam Jolman

        Thanks Doug for your reply. Your research matches up to what I’ve come across in my research too (though I’m much more of the googling layman). I’ve never found conclusive work such as what Tom references in passing in this article. That’s why I was so curious what he’s read.

    • R.A.

      Our problem is we don’t know the causes for sexual attraction period. Homo or hetero. Once we find the cause for one, we’ll probably find the cause for the other.

  • Carstonio

    Krattenmaker may not acknowledge this explicitly, but his intended audience seems to ignore the principle of secular government. Any religion is free to set its own rules for members. But the religion shouldn’t expect these to form the basis for secular law. Some same-sex opponents like Mike Huckabee implicitly reject the existence of Americans who don’t share his religion, citing doctrine as though this settles the matter. Others try to put a secular gloss on sectarian teachings about “nature,” and without the teachings’ assumptions about gender roles, the arguments amount to gibberish.

    If your religion forbids you from being gay or taking a same-sex spouse, it shouldn’t matter to you that the law allows that choice for other consenting adults. The idea that same-sex marriage threatens the opposite-sex kind is ludicrous at best and fearmongering at worst, as If homosexuality were merely a tempting vice. It would make far more sense for evangelicals to take the position on same-sex marriage that the Amish take on modern technology, as something that they eschew for themselves but don’t begrudge in others. If the Amish followed the evangelical example, they would be campaigning for laws to disband Verizon or Dominion Power and make possession of a smartphone a crime.

  • Doug Wilkening

    Those who hope to fight homophobia by encouraging Christians to tweak the theology a bit are barking up the wrong tree. Homophobia such as described by contributor Evan in this section doesn’t proceed from theology, it proceeds from primeval recesses of the troubled human mind. In parts of America, the Christian Bible may be the convenient pretext and the excuse. In Egypt and other parts of the Middle East, Islam is the excuse. In Russia, well, they’re officially atheist and have been so for decades, so no theological patter there, no tradition of religion to blame; their excuse is “protecting the children from adult propaganda,” or some such nonsense. But in each case the beatings are the same and have the same effect on the victims.

    In my own church, my pastor refuses to preach on homosexuality at all because, as he says, too many itching ears are just looking for a theological excuse for their pre-existing bigotry. He’s right on the money.

    We won’t make any progress until and unless we try to understand the real source of the problem in human psychology. Barking at religion is pointless and a waste of time. Indeed, the case of Russia shows that changing the religion won’t change anything at all. Primordial minds will simply find another convenient pretext.

    • Calvin Bonner

      Doug, wouldn’t the fact that nonreligious societies like Russia, as well as diverse religious traditions are opposed to homosexuality suggests that there is actually an anthropological resistance to same sex unions? I personally feel that people should be allowed to marry whomever they choose, but I also feel that homosexuality is disgusting, unnatural and antithetical to life. Moreover, polling shows that most people feel that same gender sex is immoral and men in general have a visceral negative reaction to the thought of two men engaging in intimate acts with one another. It is not bigotry that causes this resistance but basic human nature and a predisposition toward self preservation (if everyone turned gay the human race would die in a generation).

      I have supported marriage equality for years, well before the current push by the Cabinet and other gay cadres to suppress straight people’s right to express their opinions, but I no longer openly support the issue because of the tone of the current dialogue. The so called “Gay Mafia” is attempting to shove their agenda down America’s throat. I have just as much right to say I think homosexuality is wrong as gays have to support it, but every dissenting voice is immediately and brutally silenced, though the majority of the populace is heterosexual. Is this not textbook repression and fascism?

      In addition, if a person makes the choice to pursue a gay lifestyle so be it, but it is incomprehensible that they would want to raise children. Nature determines that only heterosexuals are part of the perpetual life cycle. Straight people have children and pass on their genes and values; gay people stay childless and their genes and value system perish at their passing away. Deriding straight people as “breeders” while coveting the fruit of their “breeding” is hypocritical and a testament to the lack of practicality of their position.

      I, having agnostic leanings, in truth primarily attend church to appease my wife, but it is clear that anyone who believes in the literal interpretation of the Bible will never accept homosexuality, they are enjoined by their doctrine not to do so. It is therefore inexplicable that one can simultaneously support the right of gays to express themselves openly while disallowing people to speak publicly in support of their own beliefs when they oppose homosexuality. Are we to accept that a public figure openly professing his gayness is not only acceptable but courageous and commendable but vilify a figure of equal stature stating that his Constitutionally protected religious rights teach that homosexuality is a sin? The gay community is pushing too hard and is on the verge of causing a backlash, not only from traditional bigots who hate all-things-other, but from tolerant people who don’t like being bullied into silence by a well funded, unpopular and overly aggressive minority.

      • R.A.

        Hey, Calvin, a couple things.

        First, I agree that some people on the more progressive side do take things too far to squelch opposing voices. I don’t agree with the counter side, but I’d fight to the death to ensure their right to speak against my side.

        Also, how would it be taken if I said that interracial marriages were “disgusting” and “unnatural”? Offensive? Why? If I were to have a personal aversion in that case, am I justified ethically to speak as such?

        On another note, when did you choose to be straight? There’s no evidence to support the fact that heterosexuality is in any way genetic. So clearly it is a choice. Saying a gay person chooses a “lifestyle” is like saying a heterosexual chooses a “lifestyle”. Both really want the same things out of life, right?

        Nature also determines that some heterosexuals are not part of the perpetual life cycle. They are infertile from some sort of natural cause. Why do they have desires to rear children? Is that equally as ludicrous?

        Like I said, I support everyone’s right to free speech, but that doesn’t mean that all speech is ethical. And all speech comes with consequences, agree with them or not. I can’t speak openly about what I believe in my community or I’d be fired. Do I still have free speech to say it? Sure. But I also have to accept my employment termination should I do so.

        I’ve enjoyed the discussion, my friend. I hope all is well.

        • TravisJSays

          “Also, how would it be taken if I said that interracial marriages were “disgusting” and “unnatural”? Offensive? Why? If I were to have a
          personal aversion in that case, am I justified ethically to speak as such?”

          Yes, you are. As someone in such a marriage, I would know and state you are wrong, but “I’d fight to the death to ensure their right to speak against my side” prevails.

          “There’s no evidence to support the fact that heterosexuality is in any way genetic.”

          On the contrary, there’s plenty of evidence for the biological drive for procreation based on the need for survival of the species. We know why men and women are attracted to eachother, because without it, the next generation wouldnt be made.

          As for the argument that seems to validate all urges and desires – there are many unhealthy and disordered compulsions out there, from
          pedophia to obsessive-compulsive disorder. homosexuality was once considered such a disorder, now merely a different sexual attraction.
          But

          “Both really want the same things out of life, right?”
          No, different people want different things and even if they did, they act differently. For example, a philanderer and a monogamous man may want the same things, but they channel it in different ways.

          • R.A.

            Hello, Travis, welcome to the conversation. I hope you are well.

            I was not insulting interracial marriage or insinuating a personal aversion to such. I was using it to draw a parallel. I argue it is unethical to call a gay relationship disgusting. I was trying to point out that someone with a personal aversion to interracial relationships might feel similarly to someone with a personal aversion to same-sex relationships, but it would be unethical to label either pairing “disgusting”.

            It’s true we see the results of sexual attraction, but I am speaking of the causation. We don’t know what gene or chemical causes a man to be attracted to a woman. So it’s unfair to place a burden on gay people to prove the cause of their sexuality when the causes of heterosexuality are equally unknown.

            In my post, I believe I argued that a biological urge to do something does not make said action moral. However, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia is like comparing heterosexuality to a desire to rape. They are not able to be equated due to the disparate measures of harm.

            Also, most psychiatric organizations removed homosexuality from the list of psychoses because it had no bearing on anyone’s propensity to live a healthy, normal life. Homosexuality also poses no potential for harm, unlike pedophilia or a propensity to rape.

            The majority of people in life want the same things: a home, a spouse, perhaps children, social and economic stability, etc. This is what most gay people want, too. I was simply speaking against the idea that gay people somehow live totally obscure, bizarre lives. True, some gay people are promiscuous, but the same is true of heterosexuals. But a promiscuous lifestyle is a far cry from the dream of a family and home.

            I hope my points are a little clearer. Have a great day.

  • Charles Perry

    Thanks for this. I was raised evangelical, and while my family still is, I no longer am. The problem I run into when trying to hash this issue out: the more “the world” insists that gay people deserve the same rights as everybody else, the more they feel led to protect what they call traditional marriage as “Bible believing Christians”
    called to stand against the values of a morally bankrupt world.

    This line of thinking is awe inspiring and radical and transcendent when applied to what I would consider a truly Biblical notion, like loving your enemies. And with regard to gay people, it’s being so cruelly misapplied. (As is often the case, they live in a vacuum sealed community without almost any people of other races, religions or sexual orientations.) So arguing that evangelicals need to get on board with the gay rights movement because otherwise they’ll be labeled bigots isn’t going to work on many of them. They’ll need to be convinced through theological argument. Or, we can just be patient and wait for the next generation to take over. But I’d rather not, if we can help it.

    You’re an accomplished writer and reader in this space–can you point me toward any arguments that extending full rights to gay people is the moral, Biblical thing to do?

  • Loving My Neighbor

    Denying the Son of God and His Word is not an option, even if it is the majority opinion. Truth is not confirmed because the masses say it it is. Can still love someone and not agree with their behavior (including myself).

    • R.A.

      Sure you can love someone despite them doing something you disagree with. But I disagree when it comes to labeling a scriptural interpretation as objective truth. It’s not a matter of forsaking scripture. Instead, it’s a matter of reading a text differently.

  • http://www.awaypoint.wordpress.com Valerie Tarico

    I think a lot of genuinely decent, smart compassionate people are trapped by bibliolatry and fear.

  • Rexton Sennette

    Tom, you and those who agree with you need to listen very closely to what I’m about to say.

    There is no such being as a “homosexual Christian.” The willful, conscious, and intentional practice of homosexual acts automatically disqualifies the practitioner from the sphere of the grace and redemption provided by Jesus Messiah. Period.

    You are an advocate of Homosexualism, and I am a proponent of Biblical Christianism. These two worldviews are diametrically opposed to each other, and all the dialectics of today’s logicians can never, never, ever reconcile them. Homosexualism and Biblical Christianism can never co-exist. The former is inspired straight from the mind of Satan, while the latter is the direct inspiration of God.

    Therefore, the mission of Biblical Christianism is to extirpate Homosexualism and all of its attendant consequences.

    As the author of the Apostolic Epistle, 1 John, wrote: “Dear children, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, just as He is righteous. He who does what is sinful is of the Devil, because the Devil has been sinning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was to destroy the works of the Devil.” (1 John 3: 7, 8/NIV)

    As the ultimate expression of “the Devil’s work,” Homosexualism is destined to join both Nazism and Marxism-Leninism in the garbage dump of human history. And the
    goal of Biblical Christianism is to see that this happens as soon as possible.

    Therefore, you cannot denigrate my Evangelical worldview by dubbing it “a more traditional view of homosexuality.” And don’t insult my intelligence with your wishful
    thinking about “…the day approaching when ‘gay rights’ …will enjoy the same elevated status as race-based civil rights.” Without a doubt, such “progressive” nonsense causes Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., Malcolm X, Booker T. Washington, Marcus Garvey, Charles Clinton Spaulding, and John Merrick all to turn over in their graves.

    Oh, yes, and that “supposition” about you and I being on “opposite sides of some impenetrable barrier”? That’s one hundred per cent spot on, with regard to Homosexualism, to so-called “homosexual rights,” and to so-called “homosexual marriage.”

    Finally, my clear and Scripturally-rooted convictions have nothing whatsoever to do with my own “pain, anger, and bewilderment”—which are
    merely figments of your imagination—and everything to do with my knowing the consequences of engaging in behavior that humanity’s Creator despises.

    You can call this “hate” or “homophobia” all you want. Those types of empty, “politically correct” buzzwords come from people who do their thinking with their emotions. These people believe that if they continue to litigate within the court system, while hammering Biblical Christianists with the “Hater!” and the “Homophobe!” labels, they will succeed at persuading low-information citizens of the validity of the Homosexualist Cause. But nothing could be further from the truth.

    • James Izen

      Rexton,
      Are you saying that there is no such thing as a Christian who continues to sin? If so, I fear we are all lost…. I do think homosexuality is sinful. So what? They have their sins, I have mine. The difference is that I have embraced a Savior who frees me from the consequences of that sin. If a homosexual accepts Christ, is he not also forgiven? Our Savior admonished us not to judge our brothers and sister, lest we subject ourselves to His judgement. Why do you call God’s judgement upon yourself? Repent, brother! (And I say that with the utmost sincerity, in case any of the readers here might think I am being facetious.)
      In Christ,

      • Rexton Sennette

        Repent? Repent for identifying the evils and the falsehoods of the Homosexualist agenda and argument, and for clarifying why Homosexualism will ultimately be defeated by those who make a stand for God’s originally-intended pattern of human sexual love? Not on your life, brother! And I say that with total authenticity and earnestness.
        Where did you hear me say that “Christians don’t ever sin.”?
        On the contrary, I stated with utmost clarity that an individual who avowedly practices homosexual behavior and who engages in homosexual acts–with no intention whatsoever of transitioning to heterosexuality–while simultaneously demanding to be recognized as a disciple of Jesus Messiah, is an individual who is a liar, and who is manipulating, simply to suit his/her own purpose(s), the Thought and Practice exemplified by Jesus.
        A homosexual who is pro-actively and intentionally seeking to make the transition from homosexual behavior to heterosexual behavior, and who is doing so with a firm commitment to become the kind of heterosexual person/disciple whose lifestyle honors God and Christ, can most assuredly be called a “Christian.”
        If you sincerely believe that I–by pointing out how Biblical Christianists need to respond to the specious arguments of the Homosexualists and their “Progressive” comrades–am “calling God’s judgment upon myself,” then I must question the accuracy of your understanding re the Scriptures.
        And as for “judging our brothers and sisters,” surely you are smart enough to recognize that Jesus doesn’t want you to shut off your brain and to cease using it for discerning right from wrong. Instead, He teaches you to use wisdom in order to judge accurately: “Stop judging by mere appearances, and make a right judgment.” (John 7: 24/NIV)

        • James Izen

          “Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother’s eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? (Mt 7:3)

          Did I encourage you to repent for exposing truth? No, I told you to repent for judging your brother. You can point out the truth without condemning the untruthful; to do so does not win any converts. See R.A.’s comments below.

    • R.A.

      Hey, Rexton, I have a couple thoughts. Do with them what you will.

      1) You demand respect for your views, yet call homosexuals the Devil’s work, compare them to Nazis, and say they cannot be Christians. This seems to be asking for a treatment that is not demonstrated. The Golden Rule, my friend.

      2) While I appreciate you feel the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, such degradation is unnecessary. Simply lay out your exegetical arguments for such a position and leave out the belittling since it runs counter to your purpose. Ad hominem attacks are not evidence for a claim. In fact, they offer nothing to an argument since, despite the fact that Satan himself may be presenting them, personal attacks do refute the logic behind the argument. For instance, I can call Satan the Father of Lies all day, but if he says 2+2=4, his argument is still valid.

      3) When one says the Bible is “clear”, we must not forget the interplay of interpretation upon the text. For instance, Christ said that he who does not hate his father, mother, sister, brother cannot enter the Kingdom. He also “clearly” (i.e. Literally) says that one must sell all possessions to gain eternal life, per the story of the rich young man. Christ also says if your hand causes you to sin then cut it off. Paul in 1 Tim. 2 says women are saved, the same word used in regards to salvation, trough childbirth. Paul also says women should have their heads covered when praying, and that they may not wear “costly” apparel or jewelry in church. I could go on, but the point is that none of us take scriptures literally. And even if we do, that in itself is an interpretational choice.

      I respect your interpretation. And your right to speak what you wish. But your tone is unnecessary, friend.

  • TravisJSays

    Message to Christians… ” You felt misunderstood, mischaracterized, and mistreated…. I’m afraid you’re going to have to get used to it. ”

    Wow, a total ‘suck it, losers’ type of attitude. No grace, conciliation or common sense.

    ” So being opposed to gay rights is rapidly becoming just as detrimental to your good standing in public” is thuggish, fascistic and threatening, along the lines of “If you know what’s good for you, step in line” … Doubt me? two words – Brendan Eich. Ruining people’s lives for their sincere beliefs is the farthest you can get from being for ‘rights’.

    Never mind that it’s not ‘gay rights’ that is even opposed by Christian – gays have been able for some time to live their ‘lifestyle’ as they wish – what is opposed is the social and governmental imposition that denies even the possibility of difference between normal one-man-one-woman couples who can procreate naturally from homosexual couples who cannot. This goes far beyond mere rights to the imposition of a definition of equality that defies human history, cutural common sense… and religious standards.

    Tying this up with the whole identity of being ‘gay’ is bizarre. Did you know that the leader of the French movement to keep traditional marriage intact … is gay? The plain fact is that homosexuality is a behavior and as an ‘identity’ is as self-chosen as being a blonde, a drunk, or a skydiver. Gay people have enough brains to acknowledge that same-sex couples are not the same as traditional ones – It’s bad history and insulting to blacks to compare the situation of gays, who
    have above-average incomes, with the history of the treatment of blacks under slavery and segregation.

    Dear gay advocates: Please reconsider your war on Christians and other people who simply have another opinion on gay marriage. You are acting like fascists when you threaten Christians like this.

    • Rexton Sennette

      Your contribution is greatly appreciated, TravisJ.
      The idea that we Evangelicals should just morph into doormats, so that the Homosexualists and their “Progressive” comrades can march right over us to the goals they crave simply defies common sense. They know that what they are calling for is absolutely wrong. But they push onward,simply in order to see just how far they can go in their quest to bring down heterosexual civilization.
      Homosexualists’ militant agitation, advocacy, and litigation must be confronted squarely by Biblical Christianists who display backbone and commitment, forged with knowledge and conviction. And we have the Apostle Paul to inform us: “For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ. And we will be ready to punish every act of disobedience, once your obedience is complete.” (2 Corinthians 10: 3-6/NIV)

    • R.A.

      “Wow, a total ‘suck it, losers’ type of attitude. No grace, conciliation or common sense.”

      I agree. It’s a little harsh. A better turn of phrase would have been more effective.

      ” So being opposed to gay rights is rapidly becoming just as detrimental to your good standing in public” is thuggish, fascistic and threatening, along the lines of “If you know what’s good for you, step in line” … Doubt me? two words – Brendan Eich. Ruining people’s lives for their sincere beliefs is the farthest you can get from being for ‘rights'”

      World Vision, a Christian outreach organization, recently attempted to extend recognition to employees who had same-sex unions. Due to the outcry from many donors who threatened to stop giving money to impoverished children in response to the policy change, World Vision reversed their decision within the course of a few days. The sword cuts both ways, my friend. I agree that Eich should not have been fired for his personal belief. However, is the reverse not equally unethical? Doesn’t the case of World Vision also demonstrate a group of people strong-arming another group based on religious belief?

      “Never mind that it’s not ‘gay rights’ that is even opposed by Christian – gays have been able for some time to live their ‘lifestyle’ as they wish – what is opposed is the social and governmental imposition that denies even the possibility of difference between normal one-man-one-woman couples who can procreate naturally from homosexual couples who cannot.”

      The reverse is also true. Some traditionalist groups also define marriage then impose that definition on others. I believe some politicians a few decades back attempted to say that supporters of interracial marriages were equally redefining marriage. If we are to be “equal” in rights to define what we believe marriage is, then both sides must have the religious freedom to do so.

      “This goes far beyond mere rights to the imposition of a definition of equality that defies human history, cutural common sense… and religious standards.”

      Such arguments were also made for slavery. Slavery had been around for millennia. It was common sense, even to Aristotle, that some men should be slaves. It was in the Bible that slaves should obey their masters. As you can see, the fact that it had been around for millennia didn’t make it right. Common sense didn’t make it right. And particular biblical interpretations didn’t make slavery right

      It hasn’t even been 200 years since we finally got enough sense to abolish slavery. And yet we want to claim that history, “common sense”, and a particular biblical interpretation define what is right?

      “The plain fact is that homosexuality is a behavior and as an ‘identity’ is as self-chosen as being a blonde, a drunk, or a skydiver.”

      When did you choose to be straight? After all, there is no “straight gene”, so it just be a choice. As mentioned in the post below, there is no genetic proof to prove that people are straight, either. It’s a logical fallacy to assume that a lack of proof insinuates that a default position must be true. It’s the same argument some atheists make against God. There’s no proof, so God must not exist. Do you see why this argument doesn’t work? A lack of current proof doesn’t mean there is none

      Additionally, would you feel comfortable telling others what it was like to be a woman? How would that go over with the majority of ladies in the world? Is it then fair you speak for what it’s like to be LGBT when you are not?

      “It’s bad history and insulting to blacks to compare the situation of gays, who have above-average incomes, with the history of the treatment of blacks under slavery and segregation.”

      I don’t think gay people are saying they have it worse than black people. But history does show that LGBT people were/are a persecuted minority. Some 25,000 gay people were killed in the Holocaust. Gay people are killed throughout this country on a regular basis. Gay people can be and often are fired for their sexuality. Gay teens are at a disproportionate risk of suicide compared to their heterosexual peers. Discrimination is discrimination, no matter the basis. It’s true, there is still racial inequality and discrimination. But gay people suffer discrimination, too.

      “Dear gay advocates: Please reconsider your war on Christians and other people who simply have another opinion on gay marriage. You are acting like fascists when you threaten Christians like this.”

      I know many gay Christians. (I know I’ll get angry responses for saying that.) They’re not waging a holy war. And I really wish both sides would stop saying this is some sort of war. It only adds rage and fear into the discussion. A difference of religious opinion does not give grounds for hostility. Both sides have played dirty, so why can’t we all just….get along?

  • http://404err0r.com/ Henry Park

    As a gay person…. Thank you for putting my thoughts into nicer words then what would’ve came out of my mouth if I were to articulate the same thought.

    I don’t care if you think I am gonna go to hell or I am an abomination. I’m already going to hell for being an atheist anyways.
    So let me live in piece, I’ll enjoy this life and pay my price if that is what I have to do.

    Honestly though, if being gay was a choice, I’d have chosen to be straight. That way my parent’s wouldn’t be so hurt by who I am.

    • R.A.

      I’m sorry for what you’ve been through, Henry. Not all Christians are like that. Not all Christians believe being gay is a sin. Hugs, brother.