How Did this Happen? Why Same-Sex Marriage Makes Sense to So Many

That is NOT what I said.

If you think to yourself "I wish I had my neighbor's car, or his house (or anything else that is his)", you have sinned.

One doesn't sin by merely thinking. Again, according to your definition of "thought sin," Christ sinned because he was tempted. In other words, he thought about sinning. But we know he lived a sinless life.

What you're missing is the extent to which one thinks about and dwells upon the act of sinning. To covet means to have an inordinate and wrongful desire. I can admire my neighbor's shiny red car and wish I had one without sinning. But if I desire my neighbor's car to the point that I become jealous of him and daydream about driving the car, then I am coveting (and sinning.)

Satan uses temptation to lure us away from God. God permits him to do so. Just because Satan puts a thought into your mind and you briefly consider it, doesn't mean you've sinned. God wouldn't allow Satan to tempt us if the mere act of considering the temptation was a sin.

The key aspect of "thought sin" is wrongful or lustful desire.

One of the most dangerous things in “modern” thought is that there is no such thing as absolute Evil and absolute Good. “Create your own reality” is a fast ticket to Hell.

Of course, those of us who do say there is Good and Evil are evil to them; they actually DO believe in Good and Evil, but reverse. They think Evil is Good, and Good is Evil.

So they are really absolutists, which they pretend not to be. Only they have it all wrong.

You keep bringing Christ in the wilderness into this. Satan tempted Christ, but Christ, being holy, was incapable of sin and incapable of giving in to temptation. However, you seem to be dismissing the comments Christ made to human beings like us about sin in one's heart. I do not see why you try to link the temptations of Christ to the temptations of sinful man. Why would Christ have made the statements about lusting in one's heart and showing anger at a brother if not to show that people who considered themselves righteous were anything but?

I only brought it up in the response to Yaelle because Yaelle was suggesting that Christians are self-righteous regarding homosexuals. I brought up the "sinning (lusting) in one's heart" to show that I believe all people sin all the time and are dead in their sins without the atoning sacrifice of Christ; and that we do not point at homosexuals as if they are the only people who sin or are worse sinners than anyone else. I see no point in arguing over this.

I have long respected your posts for many years, and so I, too, would like to apologize if I have misconstrued your intentions here.

That said, the problem I have is that you have stated your opinions about homosexuality as absolute fact; when in fact your opinions conflict with a great deal of the research. People are not just born that way. There are always other factors, some of them present from birth, but regardless of that, once a person realizes that he or she has these issues, there are choices to be made how to respond, just as any heterosexual youth, single adult, divorced person, widower or widow must make.

When I worked as an artist for several decades, perhaps half my friends and acquaintances were gay. And almost without exception, there were difficult emotional factors from childhood, including but not limited to: abuse, neglect, being orphaned and/or adopted, being in multiple stepfamilies, childhood seduction or rape, extremes of physical or emotional punishment, and timidity combined with bullying by others at school or in the home.

While some individuals may have a genetic predisposition to emotional or physical sensitivity or to depression and addiction that may influence their self-perceptions, there is no genetic determinant for gay attraction or behavior itself. One of the productive areas of study has been the study of identical twins, whose DNA and environment are nearly identical, yet one of them has same-sex attraction (SSA) and the other is straight. Objective studies of this type refute the notion that gay "identity" is inborn. Here is a recent one:

Latest Twin Study Confirms Genetic Contribution To SSA Is Minor

As for your implication that those who object to homosexual behaviors must necessarily be harshly condemnatory of gays as persons, I believe that for most families, those days are as far behind us as the days when having babies out of wedlock was always harshly condemned and the "sexual sinner" rejected from the family.

It is useful to consider that the narcissism associated with gay behaviors may lead a gay person to view any attempts to help as vicious personal attacks; when in fact those communications may be loving and concerned attempts to make the person aware of the dangers of such behavior.

Generally speaking, most people want to help in some way. There will always be people who express disgust, and the truly objective gay person will admit that the extremes of gay exhibitionism such as Folsom Street Fair, the gay lobby's constant pressures to remove any legal barriers to sexual relations with children, access to opposite-sex bathrooms and acceptance of cross-dressing in all public venues including schools are directly responsible for the disgust and anger felt by straights. Some straight natural parents have literally been persecuted by leftist public school officials for trying to protect their own children from indoctrination that gay is good and natural, promiscuity from childhood on is acceptable, sex practices are the province of public education and Judeo Christian beliefs are bigotry. Surely you have not been blind to these extreme provocations, which prompt many of the brief anti-gayness slurs which may be posted here.

Here is the web site of NARTH, (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), which contains a wealth of reports of scientifically conducted research, as distinct from personal opinion about the topic.

Here is the web site of PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays & Gays), which offers support for families in which this issue is being worked through.

Here is the web site of Exodus International, a large Christian organization which for 35 years has been helping those people who wish to leave the gay life behind, as well as helping pastors and congregatons to work with homosexuals effectively. This organization has often been attacked by gay activists, who organize loud protests and boycotts of hotels or meeting halls where Exodus events are scheduled.

In sum,
• Scientific studies have found no evidence that people are "born that way";
• Christian straights are more likely than secular straights to extend healing opportunities to persons with sexual identity disorder.

Meanwhile, in our day, the homosexual not only refuses to denounce his sin, he makes it the core of his being and insists that all men accept it.

Do you apply this universal rule to everyone who is drawn to their same sex, including 12-year-olds?

Meanwhile, in our day, the homosexual not only refuses to denounce his sin, he makes it the core of his being and insists that all men accept it.

Do you apply this universal rule to everyone who is drawn to their same sex, including 12-year-olds?

Thanks for your kindness.

I agree that it has been pretty much PROVEN that sexual orientation is NOT found in the genes. I guess since science is not quite there then, that we can disagree whether it’s “somewhat” hardwired by uterine environment, which is what I tend to believe for now. But even when homosexuality is influenced by post-birth environment, as you believe, I think we can both agree that the little child so influenced is INNOCENT.

And of course they are simply CHILDREN. Their attraction to the activities and toys of the opposite gender is within them, and it’s not a “fault.” I am hoping you are with me so far, whatever the origin.

And then of course IF IF IF at 12 or so, they are attracted to the same gender (some kids who like toys of the opposite gender turn out hetero, of course!), they are still INNOCENT. They do not deserve condemnation. Don’t you agree?

And what is to become of these young people? Society today would have them popping OUT of their closets and joining glee clubs, practically put them in the laps of older gays...

This is where my concern lies. What alternative do these confused kids have?

Separate issue: The indoctrination and sexuality introduced early in public schools, to promote homosexuality: I despise this. My children are homeschooled. Don’t worry - I am on your side re gay agenda, marriage, etc.

Why I take on you brilliant people sometimes, on these threads, is only when some of you offend me by the crude condemnation, including statements like “they are wasting oxygen,” when children who are this way cannot help it and it makes me very upset, as if the posters were saying this about kids with other disabilities. I’m currently pregnant and very tender hearted about the kids! :)

You asked me to explain the difference between temptation and sinning in one's heart. I believe I've done that through citing Scripture and a real-world example of coveting.

Satan tempted Christ, but Christ, being holy, was incapable of sin and incapable of giving in to temptation. (...) I do not see why you try to link the temptations of Christ to the temptations of sinful man.

I link the two because the Bible does.

Hebrews 2:17-18 (NIV) For this reason he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.
Hebrews 4:15 (NIV) For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.

Christ was fully human in every way. He was tempted in every way but chose not to sin. If Christ was incapable of sin and incapable of giving in to temptation, why did He suffer when He was tempted. What was the purpose of Satan tempting Him when He was very weak and hungry if doing so was a futile effort?

Why would Christ have made the statements about lusting in one's heart and showing anger at a brother if not to show that people who considered themselves righteous were anything but?

Mark 7:20-23 (NIV) He went on: "What comes out of a person is what defiles them. For it is from within, out of a person's heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person."
Romans 13:10 (NIV) Love does no harm to a neighbor. Therefore love is the fulfillment of the law.
Matthew 22:37-40 (NIV) Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

Christ's point was that evil comes from the heart and begets sin. And that when your heart is pure and full of love, you are keeping His commandments.

I'm not arguing your point that we've all sinned and fallen short. I was disputing your claim that merely thinking about sinning is the same as sinning. It isn't. Being tempted to sin doesn't make one a sinner. If it did, then Christ was a sinner. But we know He was blameless. Sinning in one's heart requires a wrongful desire to sin not simply a cursory consideration of sin.

The Sermon on the Mount was primarily about hypocrisy, the selfish work of acting a role, or seeking worldly praise. I don’t know what to call some of the judgements I am making, but I doubt these kinds of “judgements” are actually all that bad.

I choose to vote for a candidate who is the more decent of the two, or more if we are talking the primaries.

I would discipline my child for doing something wrong, such as damaging the home.

I would break off a relationship with a girlfriend if I felt the relationship was not properly progressing or were not encouraging me to live the proper chaste way while dating her.

In all of these “judgements” I don’t consider them part of what would be bad according to the Sermon on the Mount, because it’s not just some judgement a radio pundit or a politician makes for the second of fame, it’s a judgement that concerns my own good, or the good of the other person(s) as well.

I agree with you, I fully expect myself and others to be judged by our universal creator. However, I also care for the good of some people enough to enocourage them to get on better terms with their creator by getting off some of the bad and improper courses and more on the way God expects of us, because I do not want to see someone be condemned or fall short of their potential to join in the Glory of Heaven. As far as liberalism, this talk about judgement is a farce, as they judge us for their own image, praise reasons all the time!

A Radical Individualism

I quit reading. More crap about how "radical" it is to want to keep your own money, or to keep your guns, or to tell the gummint to just get out of your face.

“If you want freedom from all religious principles, you really should find a nice atheist country like the PRC or North Korea.”

You’re inviting me out of America because I prefer a stronger separation of church (and mosque, and temple) and state? How stereotypically, provincially, rednecky bigoty of you. Can you not see the principle involved? All created equal, none held over the other? No special treatment for minorities, and none for the majority either? Or are you just another mob-rule, tyranny-of-the-majority liberal, ruled not by laws, but by the current traditions, whims and fashions?

Wow, I hope you have a bib on for the froth.

Our country was founded on moral principles founded on religion. The Constitution guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There are countries that guarantee freedom FROM religion. Ours does not, although the atheist/secularist/humanist/leftists are doing their best to destroy the Constitution to destroy our freedom OF religion.

Of course, conservatives don’t view it as the gummint’s job to prevent people from hurting themselves. That’s lefty nanny-statism.

ITA 100%

And I think it was done methodically.

I blame feminism in part. Who was it that said get rid of sex roles and move towards androgyny? That babies are bad and women should focus on careers like a man would? Pushed abortion? Who did that? That men and women are interchangeable? If men and women are interchangeable, what’s the big deal about two men or two women marrying each other and starting a family?

And who talks about the horrors of body complementarity (that is, of having different male or female bodies)? Who complained that marriage was preventing female solidarity???

And don’t forget feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice.

O and if I’m not mistaken, feminism went along with gay rights in Germany around the time of Magnus Hirschfield & friends.