And there will be plenty more people who will support. Kindness and compassion and human decency WILL win and are winning. The bigotry is fading, and more and more as gay people who have been born into the most bigoted groups are revealing themselves to find more welcoming and safe communities. Not to say there's not plenty of pain and harm to go around, but I hope you'll find far more comfort than pain as your family makes its way. Hugs to you and your family. <3

Oh, I won't tell you that you should love everyone because you're a Christian. I know better. Christians don't actually do that any better than anyone else, or sometimes at all. They mostly just claim they do. :lol: Some of the scariest words I know are "I do/say this in Christian love." I appreciate your honesty, however repugnant I find it.

So... If I understand this analogy (and I'm not sure I do, really) marriage between one man and one woman is the red stop sign. If gay people get married then no one understands marriage anymore and then no one understands what it is (because it has turned into a sign with "no meaning"--actually, that's not true. It has become a sort of portmanteau of symbols whose meaning anyone with basic cultural literacy can recognize. The equality sign and rainbow were used to specifically point the finger at homosexuality as the danger) and everything goes to hell. Putting aside what the analogy means, is the fact that it's just ghastly in its execution as an analogy in general and it's a prime example of Slippery Slope fallacy. I'm going to try to create an analogy to express the evolution of "Biblical marriage" using traffic signs, but it's going to take me a while. Making a good analogy is not easy, as we can clearly see by this STOP sign example.

Yes. And? Of course social and cultural pressures can effect an individual's sexual lifestyle. :) One of my best friends in high school was from a Conservative Church of Christ (Her father was the preacher). She was a firm believer that anyone not of her church was going to hell, and we were as good a friends as a staunch Evangelical and a staunch Campbellite could be. Once she finished college and had not gotten married, her parents encouraged her to marry another preacher's son--a family they had known all of their lives. He was a CoC preacher too and my friend and he had know each other for years. The marriage didn't work out and they divorced after they had a child because her husband said she was gay. My friend insisted she wasn't (though I had had suspicions for years), honestly. She rebounded immediately to another man within 2 months of their divorce, hoping it would deflect the rumors of her homosexuality. I was dumbfounded, and wanted to ask her about her orientation--but I didn't. I had been dropping hints for years that I was accepting of gay people, but hadn't been brave enough to address it with her. They married and divorced within the year. Finally, she came out to me and told me she had a girlfriend, and they were living together and that she had never been happier. I could have cried with happiness for her. Her parents have cut her off, but now she can live a free life, and she finally feels like a whole person. right now, her relationship with her wife has endured longer than her marriages with both of her husbands combined. No, she's no longer religious. Here's the thing. She knew she was gay since she was young! She was terrified she'd go to hell for years and spent lots of time trying to get straight. She thought she could live as a straight person, but she was miserable. Did she have sex with men? Yes. "individual's sexual lifestyle" Was this influenced by her society and pressure around her? You bet. Did it mean she wasn't gay? Nope. She's gay. Do incarcerated straight people sometimes choose to have sex with same-sex partners? "individual's sexual lifestyle" Darn right. "social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born." Do I think some (particularly teens) "play gay" for a while for whatever reason (attention in some cases) or--maybe they're working out their orientation? "Individual's sexual lifestyle" "social and cultural pressures can still effect an individual's sexual lifestyle, no matter how they were born." Whether people have sex with one person, many people, people of different gender, people of same gender, yes, our "individual sexual lifestyles" are influenced by our culture and environment. My friend was having straight sex (lifestyle) but was gay (by nature). Ask gay celibate Christians if their sexual lifestyle (abstinence) is affected by their society and the environment around them (not to mention beliefs). Then, ask if they're therefore not actually gay if they aren't having sex. Are heterosexual people who don't have sex not actually heterosexual? I guess I thought we were talking about inherent sexuality though, not sexual "lifestyle."

I can't seem to quote either, but I want to reply to the person who said that she doesn't think that religious people should be expected to vote against their beliefs simply because the're religious in nature. Honestly, I don't think any that's what any nonbeliever here is saying. I can't understand how you get that from this conversation. I strongly believe in the separation of church and state. People can vote their religion all they want, but the government can't endorse or prohibit religion. Those 2 things aren't mutually exclusive. I have more I want to say on this point, but I'm terrible at typing on my phone, and that's what I'm reduced too for now 😉

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Yes, I think, mockery is a useful tool. Let's mock terrible ideas. Let's mock willful ignorance and--honestly--people who choose to be willfully ignorant who flaunt their ignorance. I've got no problem with that. And if someone mocks me for farting above my own butthole about something I don't know (a French expression I quite enjoy), I deserve it. Maybe I'll have some humility and learn something. I think cartoons can be a great example of this. I don't think calling someone ignorant is hateful. I'm ignorant about a lot of things. If I pretend that I'm not, and I try to degrade other people who actually know something about an issue and marginalize them, and someone calls me on it, they're not necessarily being hateful. They may simply be defending themselves. Using disliked variations of names? Are you talking about albeto. using "xian". I think mommaduck has explained this myriad times that this is a Christian construct. It's only took on a pejorative when Christians forgot that and decided that it was persecution ("Taking the 'Christ' out of Christmas). If you're talking about something else, I'm afraid I don't know what. If someone called Christians zombie-worshipping delusional cannibals (zwdc), yes that would be ugly, and I would speak out against it. Similarly if someone referred to gay people by something rude. As it is "xian" shouldn't be considered any more mean-spirited than the words "str8" or "gay".

It is up to the uneducated to educate themselves, particularly when the evidence is clear. Gay people exist. They're not trying to mess up the world. They're not trying to hurt you or me. They're trying to have families and live and love. How is that a threat? We haven't yet pinpointed exactly what causes homosexuality (or heterosexuality--or what makes some people prefer some sex acts but not others), but we're doing our best, and going as fast as science will allow. I really do hope you mean to actually look into it; it would be wonderful. If the uneducated continue to oppress other people in their ignorance, and refuse to become educated, then I think mockery is fine. Mockery of a powerful group does them much less harm than allowing them to legislate against a minority.

Have they located a "straight" gene? Why do you think this is located on a specific gene? (In fact, the most current evidence suggests homosexuality in men may be linked to chromosomal variation, not perhaps as specific as a particular gene. Did you know this? Did you think to research it at all before you spouted the old "no gay gene" canard?) What evidence do you have that people are "straight" other than the fact they know they are so, feel straight, and are attracted to people not of their own gender? If you can accept this from straight people, why can't you accept this from gay people (other than your holy book). People still convert to all sorts of religions every day. Ba'hai, Mormonism, Scientology, Janism, Buddhism, Hinduism. That people convert to these religions, in spite of potential persecution and familial and social stigma doesn't mean that they're real. Same goes for Christianity. The difference between homosexuality and religion (including Christianity) and homeopathy is that 1. homeopathy is unscientific. Homeopathy is nothing more than placebo affect, when it works at all. Plenty of scientific research has been done on these claims, and it's complete hogwash. (Please feel free to do your own research.) 2. religion is unscientific. It's not scientific. It's a way of "understanding" the world that is distinct from science. 3. Plenty of science is being done on homosexuality, as it exists in the realm of what science can suss out, and it is becoming clearer and clearer that homosexuality is really a "thing". To flop these around is a false equivalence of the most embarrassing type. (P.S. There's plenty of evidence indicating homosexuality is just as natural as heterosexuality, but if you're not willing to educate yourself *shrugs* you should be honest enough to admit that you're just working on your biases) http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10443/20141118/homosexuality-genetic-strongest-evidence.htm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biology_and_sexual_orientation http://news.sciencemag.org/biology/2014/11/study-gay-brothers-may-confirm-x-chromosome-link-homosexuality

Here are a series of quotes from our Founding Fathers who insisted that they were not building a Christian nation, and some of whom were quite down on Christianity. http://www.americaisachristiannation.com/ You might say that in some respects they used cultural Christianity as a uniting point (such as on the Liberty bell--in a quote that doesn't even refer to a deity), but as the founding basis of our nation, I think they would be appalled at this statement today.

Exactly. And allowing gay people to be married to gay people lets them follow their hearts and consciences (and belief?). Allowing straight people to be married to straight people lets them follow their hearts and consciences (and belief?) as well. Disallowing either one of them to happen because of the fears and biases of the other is unjust and not an American ideal. That's how we show respect for humanity and belief in the US. I'm sorry for your fear that everything is on the way to doom--but it's not because of gay marriage. I'd like for you to point out in your holy book where you see that. The Bible says that the Christian deity is coming to destroy and punish eternally (or unto destruction) everyone who doesn't cow properly, and I don't see that this is specifically related to gay marriage. Presumably people like you will go on to eternally bliss forever. See, isn't that ok? Isn't that perfection in the end? Fear not! Your god is going to get us and the icky gays, right? You win! Why don't you just let them have their joy for now instead of driving them further away from your supposed loving deity? I find it strange how the genocide of millions doesn't bring immediate judgment of your god, but letting people love and protect their families and children outrages a deity to destroy the world. Clearly different values in play here.

How curious. Do you think it's just the Australian gays that want to push a personal agenda by being married? How many gay couples do you know personally that have gotten married in order to push an agenda? Did they tell you that was the reason? What do you have as actual evidence? I know 4 separate gay couples (all of whom have been together for over a decade) and they've just been able to get married and have done so in the past year or so. Not one of them was on TV or giving interviews or pushing some agenda as far as I could tell. The only agenda they appeared to have was to have their relationships solemnized in their faith tradition (if their faith tradition allowed it--only true in 2 cases), to celebrate with loved ones, and to exchange vows of love and fidelity. That it also gave their relationship legal standing was a perk, but it seemed pretty clear they got married for the same reasons straight people got married. Granted, anecdotes don't equal data, which is why I'm asking you to share some of your experiences with gay couples and marriage in Australia. Perhaps things are different in Australia than in the US.

I know the author. I'm going to tell her to watch her blog hit stats on that piece. :) I'm so glad it's starting to go around. ;)

I'd love to see the fur fly if I could get the guy from the defunct one4thechild (a Christian site which insisted that you were married to the first person you ever had intercourse with, and anything after that was illicit--even if the first experience was rape) and this fellow from biblicalgenderroles. Doug Wilson on top of it? Truly amazing. Anything can be excused with the right doctrine. :( Anything can be condemned in the same way. That said, the abuser in this situation was already supposed to be in jail for life. When is he going to pay? Looks like never. When will someone protect this baby?

All of our family get it. Parents and kids. We're all generally healthy.

Ohhh, Tim Tams. Ooooohhhhh. *faints*

I'd eat Oreos in my sleep! I love Oreos. What the *bleep*?! :)

You might be interested to read the blog on this site: www.biblicalgenderroles.com Many of the ideas horrific, but Wilson would agree with many of them. They're from a very conservative Christian "complimentary genders" perspective. (Now, I don't know Wilson's feelings on polygamy, but this writer doesn't have any objections to it, so long as it is done in a Biblical manner. Perhaps someone else will have an answer.) Other fascinating tidbits. Josh Duggar only owes God an apology for his behavior, just like King David when he was with Bathsheba. (The only reason Josh Duggar might apologize to his wife now is because he made a modern, secular vow to only have sexual relations with ONLY her. If he hadn't done that, he wouldn't owe her any sort of apology under God's rule.) Women always owe their husbands sex. Always. There is no such thing as marital rape. It's a woman's job to provide sex whenever a man wants it. ETA: The latest entry is called "How Much Pain Would You Endure to Have Sex With Your Husband?"

So sad. I remember when that couple got married under Doug Wilson. So, so sad. :(

The act of marriage makes a family all by itself. It isn't reproduction that does it. I'm sure many of my childless-by-choice friends would be surprised to know their marriage doesn't count or is essentially worthless--or that they aren't actually a family!--because they haven't produced offspring.

The "truth of what marriage is?" By whose definition? If you think that your "one man, one woman for life" is and has been the "truth" of marriage since forever, then I can see YOUR confusion. Here's an excellent article by a professor of Ancient Near East studies who discusses marriage in ancient Greece and in some Native American societies. (The writer is of a Northern US tribe). Really fascinating. http://awomanscholar.blogspot.com/2010/12/how-early-church-redefined-marriage.html Also, a quick look at Wikipedia will show that your understanding of marriage is pretty limited and rather hubristic when taking into account cultural understandings of marriage throughout the world and time.

Praise be! 60 years ago, we identified a "newly-discovered right" to marry people who were outside of our racial background. Isn't it lovely how we can move past bigotry and into a more positive, loving experience of life for more people?

Luanne, I know it's important for you to work for the cause of Christ, but I think you do much more to harm it than you know.

I learned to drive on a stick shift, drove a stick-shift pickup for years, and still love to drive them. Unfortunately, our last vehicles have been automatics. I have no idea how my kids will learn to drive one, but I want them to know how. Stick shifts are just more fun. :)

You may wish to go back to your daughter and say that you're glad she came to you with that question and ask her if there's anything else she wants to know. Tell her you'll answer any question she has and tell her you'll do your best to answer. Be grateful your daughter is coming to you . If she's not getting answers from you she WILL get them somewhere else, particularly sonce she's asking questions. If you won't provide them, others will. And hiding this information makes it frightening and dirty and she will learn its not something you'll talk about with her. It's not too late to do a good job with this. Be a brave, honest, gentle mommy🌷

Try harder. Think of it as really cold yogurt. :D