Was it necessary to repeal DADT?

[James Griffin]

Then it sounds as though you are pretty much in concurrence with what has been proposed.

And I respect you feeling that you could not attend, it is reasonable.

I also believe it the better course to tell a friend the Bible does not support your lifestyle, but I love you anyway.

Neither course is unreasonable nor unscriptural, but I believe if and when the time comes when they want to discuss salvation the latter course is more likely to open doors - than love to be there but the thought makes me ill.

Once again Abi if that is your conviction follow it.

But, I would follow Smith's path in that particular scenario.

[Jason B]

Dan your selectively taking portions of my posts to make it seem inconsistent. And in so doing you lose the context and fail to make the distinction between federal law and the Mosaic law. You're (for you MS) much smarter than that which causes me to wonder if you are not purposely mudding the waters. Ok now I'm out for the night.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

You seem to be backing off....for which I'm happy.

You annoy me when you make statements like that. It makes me want to dig in my heels and throw mudpies at your head. Anything but *back off.*

The unconditional love you would feel for your children would be the identical kind of unconditional love I would show to friends. I am at a loss as to how attending a gay person's wedding would be approval of their lifestyle.

Maybe I take the ceremony more seriously than you. I've always been of the mindset that all those attending are sort of participants in the covenant and support of the couple's union. If you don't view it that way, then we apparently have different perspectives on the ceremony itself. I'm not interested in shunning homosexuals; I'm also not inclined to support their weddings for the reasons I stated.

If it makes you feel better, the wedding was very awkward for me and I struggled profusely with it. But never in my life have I felt more like Christ than when I stood there that day. I know that will freak some of you out, but I have never felt like I was standing in Christ's stead than in those moments.

I can appreciate this, considering the special circumstances, and the fact that they were no doubt aware of your discomfort and your show of friendship in spite of it.

Your intention of expressing the love of Christ doesn't freak me out, even if I disagree with you on the necessity of expressing It in the form of wedding attendance. I can appreciate motivation without agreeing with your application.

I still don't think I could attend a homosexual wedding. Even with the best of intentions, and the most compassionate of motives, I can't think of any circumstance when this would be possible for me. I called up a scenario in my mind of one of my girlfriends attaching themselves to a female partner and declaring their new *union* to the world with a wedding. I think I would be a distraction, were I to attend, with tears and sobs and handkerchiefs and puffy eyes, and no doubt my presence wouldn't be requested again. (This wouldn't be a purposeful spectacle, you understand; I just know how emotional I am and I'm quite sure that I would be very emotional and upset to witness a "dear friend" enter a homosexual union.) For the participant to be one of my children would only exponentially multiply the sorrow. And tissues.

[DAII]

Originally Posted by Jason Badejo

Dan your selectively taking portions of my posts to make it seem inconsistent. And in so doing you lose the context and fail to make the distinction between federal law and the Mosaic law. You're (for you MS) much smarter than that which causes me to wonder if you are not purposely mudding the waters. Ok now I'm out for the night.

You're kidding right ... thou shalt not murder ... Mosaic law?
Thou shalt not lie ??? Mosaic law

Thou shalt not commit adultery? Mosaic law.

Surely the OT speaks of homosexuality ...

You claim the Bible is the authority for our laws ... and that the Declaration of Independence is proof positive of this ...

The Declaration of Independance recognizes that GOD (the creator) is the source and authority of mens rights, and that he has given to all men the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The Bible is the authority, and defines who has rights and who does not.

You rely on a deist and a document that is not the law of the land to make such an appeal .. and even appealed to Holy Writ which is not the law of the land ... Brought it all into this discussion, bubba ... The muddying is your handiwork.

I will also point out that Paul in Romans speaks of a law during Abraham's time ... pre-Mosaic ... if you have your timeline handy.

Do you want to go this route? The same bible that states we have no rights before a holy God ... not one ... none of us, righteous?

Our rights to life and liberty come through Jesus Christ not law abiding in any sense of that word ... but rather abiding in the Word/Logos.

You epitomize and embody INCONSISTENCY IN THIS THREAD.
How long have you been promoting Deism and theocratic rule (an odd pairing), Champ?

Yes, I've read the drivel.

[MissBrattified]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Then it sounds as though you are pretty much in concurrence with what has been proposed.

Generally speaking, I wouldn't classify myself as a homophobe by any stretch of the imagination. I have at least one very close friend who is overwhelmingly effeminate, and IMO a closet homosexual, although he hasn't ever admitted it. I have a gay cousin; no one shuns him or acts hateful to him. I know a particular preacher who *came out* of the closet, and I probably struggled with his admission more than I would have an unbeliever who just happened to be gay. That aside, I still have comfort levels that vary with the circumstance at hand, and I certainly understand, for instance, why men would feel very uncomfortable showering with homosexuals. Whether those men are particularly interested in the specific men in the showers is a moot point, since they appreciate the male form, and the possibility is there. I feel fairly comfortable being undressed in front of some of my girlfriends, but if I found out that one of them was gay, I would suddenly want to be covered up in front of them. (Even if they said they weren't attracted to me.) The possibility causes the discomfort, just as I wouldn't be comfortable being undressed in front of heterosexual men. It doesn't matter one iota that they might not find me attractive; the possibility of being ogled is there, therefore so is my discomfort.

And I respect you feeling that you could not attend, it is reasonable.

I also believe it the better course to tell a friend the Bible does not support your lifestyle, but I love you anyway.

Neither course is unreasonable nor unscriptural, but I believe if and when the time comes when they want to discuss salvation the latter course is more likely to open doors - than love to be there but the thought makes me ill.

Once again Abi if that is your conviction follow it.

But, I would follow Smith's path in that particular scenario.

I wouldn't call it a conviction; I would call it a preference. I don't feel that anyone is in danger of hellfire simply by attending a ceremony. I do feel that they will answer to God if they purposely show any support for sin. Whether you define something as support for sin is up to individual interpretation, I suppose.

[James Griffin]

Originally Posted by MissBrattified

I wouldn't call it a conviction; I would call it a preference. I don't feel that anyone is in danger of hellfire simply by attending a ceremony. I do feel that they will answer to God if they purposely show any support for sin. Whether you define something as support for sin is up to individual interpretation, I suppose.

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Jason I appreciate your zeal, but it would be nice if you read posts before responding.

I have repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly said it is an ungodly lifestyle and a sin that will lead to hell. I have not seen a SINGLE post where Smith ENDORSED acceptance. Not one. It does seem to be yourself which cannot separate the sin from the sinner.

I think both Mr Smith and myself have made it abundantly clear there is no support for the sin, only love for the sinner.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

Then it sounds as though you are pretty much in concurrence with what has been proposed.

And I respect you feeling that you could not attend, it is reasonable.

I also believe it the better course to tell a friend the Bible does not support your lifestyle, but I love you anyway.

Neither course is unreasonable nor unscriptural, but I believe if and when the time comes when they want to discuss salvation the latter course is more likely to open doors - than love to be there but the thought makes me ill.

Once again Abi if that is your conviction follow it.

But, I would follow Smith's path in that particular scenario.

Love and respect can still be shown without supporting the wedding.

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by James Griffin

You guys seem to have a firm death grip on hate the sin.

Much much to learn what it means to love the sinner.

Did John the baptist hate herod for reproving him for his unlawful marriage? Was he wrong?


33.Ephesians 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

35.2 Timothy 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine.


Is Paul a not love the sinner type by instructing Timothy to reprove/rebuke?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by Mr. Smith

Nope, that's where I believe you're completely off-base. Their sin is exactly the same as yours.

Would you attend a wedding of a couple founded off adultery? If they both were married before had an affair then divorced to marry each other?

[Truthseeker]

Originally Posted by DAII

And probably have a lifelong consequence of bitterness and estrangement... of course ... justified in tough love.

Righteoussness is higher priority then children.