Skip to comments.Christian 'Glee' Star: Acceptance of Homosexuality Not a Contradiction to Faith
Posted on 09/10/2011 7:14:38 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Actress Kristin Chenoweth is a self-identifying Christian who has sparked controversy by speaking out about her support of the gay community in an interview with lesbian and gay publication The Advocate.
The LBGT publication asked the TV and theater star: "What would you ask people who cite Christianity as their justification for passing laws that discriminate against people?"
Chenoweth replied, "I would ask, 'What would Jesus do?' It sounds so cliché and Pollyanna-ish, but I have a feeling if he were on the earth today, he wouldn't be walking around saying, 'Youre going to hell' and 'You're wrong, you're wrong, you're wrong.' I think he'd be accepting and loving."
Chenoweth is best known for her theater and television roles such as Glinda in "Wicked" and April Rhodes on "Glee." The actress is also releasing her fourth studio album Some Lessons Learned on Sept. 13.
Chenoweth is not new to controversy over her conflicting beliefs. In 2005, she was fired from a "Woman in Faith" concert for her support of gay rights.
Analysts for Focus on the Family refer to pro-gay Christians as a part of a larger movement called "Pro-Gay Revisionist Theology." Leaders of this movement claim Christians' prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality.
Christian Research Institute's Joseph P. Gudel says, "I realize that it is not 'politically correct' to speak critically concerning any person or group. Nonetheless, true Christian love does not ignore immorality and the lives ruined by it, but speaks out in the hope of helping those individuals."
Contradictions are not Chenoweth's concern, however. "I don't judge you for your opinions, so please don't judge me for mine," the actress said in response to critics.
"I read my Bible and I pray and all of that I really do," Chenoweth told The Advocate. "But at the same time, I don't think being gay is a sin. Period."
We oppose all forms of... GOVERNMENT ENFORCED... homosexualism...
Hopefully Jim Robinson will clarify the meaning of his statement. My reading of it is that the "government enforced" modifier is applicable to "atheism".
I base my contention of this interpretation on the fact that Free Republic is unabashedly pro-God. Thus, it seems to me that opposition to homosexuality in any form harmonizes with the goals of Free Republic.
As stated in my initial posting, I humbly submit to correction if my understanding of Jim's statement is flawed.
IMHO, few people forget about the concept of purgatory. I will admit that I am catholic, and it is primarily a Catholic thought, but I personally feel that most people don’t do something serious enough to merit truly being cut off from the glory of God forever, which is a really long time, even if someone did something wretched to someone in such a short life, however, purgatory does, at least to me, exist as something sensible from God.
Again, for someone who feels that someone is living the wrong life, whether it’s cohabitation, homosexuality, being a member of an incorrect faith, talking about hellfire is among the last things you should ever do, in any of those situations, IMO, people who wish to talk about hellfire need to realize that all of these people are far more, for the most part alienated than gain interest in changing their course. What’s even worse, in my view, is personally my own concern that playing around with talking about what’s really only God’s job.
Not sure quite what you mean. You don't think homosexuality is normal and you don't believe in gay marriage.
Well, that's the position of 99% of the folks who are on FR. The Gay Lobby would label you as having a "problem".
>> I am against the act NOT the person. Folks be very very careful telling people they are going to Hell for you are not the judge.
>> I may get flamed for this too.
Maybe so, but not by me: you have Holy Scripture on your side, and it’s very clear.
This of course does NOT meant that homosexual *behavior* is to be accepted without speaking out against it, or otherwise condoned; the scripture is *very* clear on that point, as well. And we are admonished in Scripture *not* to accept sin among us.
However, as you point out, it is *not* for any of us to judge the fate of anyone’s eternal soul. Even Jesus does not claim that role, although He could (Ref John 8:15,16); instead, He serves as an advocate for all of Christendom before the Father. I pray I will *never* sin by usurping the power of the Almighty by judging another in that regard. To be fair, I must pray for forgiveness, because I have in fact done just that on occasion, and it is very much *not* my role to do so.
JimRob as the owner of the site and our host here is, of course, welcomed to correct me, but I think “homosexualism” refers calling evil “good” in regard to homoerotic behavior, particularly when that vile position is expanded into a political program.
Reddy was not doing that. (Note the scorn quotes around “problem” in his post.) He was reminding us that other temptations can lead one to sins and sins unrepented of lead to the wages of sin, which is death. And yup, gluttony, of which drunkenness is also a variety, is there on the list of the seven deadly sins, and the longer list us Orthodox prefer of the eight grievous vices, along with lust, of which homoerotic lust is simply an exotic variety.
It is salutary to remember that, while unrepented homoerotic acts will lead one to hell (as St. Paul reminds us), so will unrepented anger, pride, gluttony, avarice, envy, sloth, or ordinary heterosexual lust, or the corresponding sins of falling off the “royal road on the right side”, false meekness refusing to resist evil, false humility that is really a form of pride, abstemiousness about food (which FReepers rightly savage when the left tries to tell us not to eat meat — I think it falls under “wacko environmentalism” in most cases), and so forth.
I trust that JimRob opposes and will oppose all political movements current or futures that call “good” what traditional Christian morality knows to be evil, even as I, and I trust you do. We just don’t happen to face an obnoxious in-your-face demand that we all accept gluttony as an untrammeled good, replete with speech codes in defense of it, glutton-pride marches and the like, the way we do vis-a-vis sodomy. (Or maybe we do, denunciations of “lookism” applied to the obese turn up on college campuses from time to time, it’s just not as energetic or odious as homosexualism. And guess, what, FReepers uniformly mock and oppose such rubbish, too.)
>> Actually, he’d have no problem telling the homosexual he or she is wrong, as he did with the woman caught in adultery (John 8). Jesus did not condemn in that passage, but, being holy, Jesus abhorred sin. As with the woman caught in adultery, Jesus would suggest to Chenoweth and anyone else that the homosexual must repent of that sin in order to enter the Kingdom of God. So yes, he’d say “you’re wrong”. Being God, Jesus could do no less.
An excellent exposition of that Scripture. Very useful. Thank you!
Because society automatically thinks that if someone is young, beautiful and talented that they must have a great many other positive qualities, too. Who knows, maybe this chick is just playing the showbiz game and saying what the entertainment degenerates want to hear, but being Christian and bearing false witness is a dangerous game.
I was just reading Matthew chapter 7, studying the part about all the miracle workers and prophets that *won't* get to heaven. After reading what this chick said I think I finally understand that verse.
Placemark for pingout.
Well said, and I agree.
Thanks very much for a thoroughly interesting and obviously thoughtful post.
Focusing on Conservatism, I am of the strong opinion that homosexuality is counter to its core values. I'll go so far to state that a "Gay Conservative" is a contradiction in terms. I personally see organizations such as GOProud and the Log Cabinites as a fifth column undermining Constitutional Conservatism.
On the other hand, there are certainly sins (and make no mistake, sins they are) that don't preclude one from being an authentic Conservative. Although gluttony is by no means a laudable trait, I think it is possible for one to be an Obese Conservative and even be a Conservative who drinks to excess. (And this comes from a non-drinker).
I had a private PO box when I lived in the SF Valley.
There was always a big stack of The Advocate in the box area, that where there for the taking.
I made sure that I took everyone of them every time I went in.
I put them in the dumpster where they belong.
Why would a kid want to be bullied his whole life? That is my only problem with you post. The other is what do you do about the 3 year old boy who is gayer than gay? Luckily I have four “normal’ children but dang I feel for these parents who are raising them right and the kid at 3 really shows serious signs of being gay. I am not talking about the dumb parents who dress their kids in weird dresses because they want to. I am talking normal parents having a not so normal child. Just two simple questions.
If you are going to tattle on someone, shouldn’t you give the entire post that she wrote and not just bits and pieces to suit your agenda. She said she was not a proponent of changing marriage. She is just not going to kill a homo.
Don’t forget we are all going to hell anyway because we sure do love lobster and other shellfish. Oysters I guess should be banned. That is DEFINITELY in the Bible. We sure are getting a bible study tonight. Which is a perfect time since it is 9/11. Thanks for giving that info out. It is useful.
Back in Junior High (the 1950's before the term Middle School became widespread), there was a classmate who was somewhat effeminate. In those less-sensitive, non-PC days, he was subjected to a lot of ridicule and what I'll call "tough love" after school. He changed his behavior and he didn't turn out to be a homosexual. In this case, some bullying did good in my opinion.
The other is what do you do about the 3 year old boy who is gayer than gay?
I can't speak from personal experience on that since none of my children or grandchildren are sodomites. I would suppose that diligent prayer and Christian counseling ought to be applied in such a situation. There are thousands of well-documented cases of homosexuals being restored to normal through the redeeming, restorative Power of God. Since homosexuality is not innate but is a learned behavior and lifestyle choice, it can be corrected.
Just two simple questions.
And those are my two answers to the queries you posed. I'll grant that I do take a very hardline stance on the issue of homosexuality but that it's a recoverable state. I have enough faith in God's Unlimited Power that even somewhat like, say, Barney Frank can be restored to normal.
For this reason, the man who lives by God's standards and not by man's, must needs be a lover of the good, and it follows that he must hate what is evil. Further, since no one is evil by nature, but anyone who is evil is evil because of a perversion of nature, the man who lives by God's standards has a duty of "perfect hatred" (Psalm 139:22) towards those who are evil; that is to say, he should not hate the person because of the fault, nor should he love the fault because of the person. He should hate the fault, but love the man. And when the fault has been cured there will remain only what he ought to love, nothing that he should hate. (14:6, Penguin ed., transl. Bettenson)"
C.S. Lewis and I agree with you.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their consciences.
And yet the irony is that you are expressing a moral view that you seek to impose yourself.
You find those who wish to have a ‘right to representation’ on issues of right and wrong in thier communities for the good of all to be ‘tyrants’ thus you find them to be immoral.
So you would have it that they should not have this right being that to utilize it would make them tyrants in your eyes and thus they must then live in torment without end having no say or representation on things they find are corrupting their community.
A five-skill player. Although she's flirting with damnation.
>> ‘What would Jesus do?’
Not give govt the authority to dictate sexual conduct?
Your feelings versus the Word of God? I’ll go with the Word of God, thank you. No, I seriously doubt that Jesus would accept their lifestyle. Would he love the homosexuals? Yes, He loves everyone, but He also carried that torturous cross on his beaten, bloody body to a hill called Mt. Calvary, where He took the sins of the world upon himself, so that we wouldn’t have to.
Jesus actually talked more about hell when HE was on earth, than He did heaven. He had no problem explaining the sinner’s destiny if they continued in their sinful lifestyle.
So, I have to admonish you for your post. People only see one side of God, and that is His loving side. He is also slow to anger, but, the Bible says, it’s a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.
As Christians, we don’t walk by feelings. We walk by faith, and that faith comes from being obedient to the Word of God. In no way would Jesus tell homosexuals, adulterers or anyone living in sin, that he accepts their sin.
“I think a big consequence of homosexual marriage (along with polyamory) is shacking up by heterosexuals.”
In all truth, the hetero shacking up has been going on for a LONG time, long before one ever heard the concept of homosexual “marriage”.
This really all started with no-fault divorce.
That is when the concept of marriage ceased to be what was good for children, good for the family and good for society and became all about “self-actualization”.
The Democrat party that your mother adhered to, is NOT the Democrat party of today. Most grew up believing the DEMS were for the working people. (unions drummed this into their heads).
If a person continues to live their life as a homosexual, they are already judged and on their way to hell. Hell is the destination of all who don’t repent of their sins. It isn’t being judgmental - just factual. Jesus had no problem calling people liars to their faces, or telling them they were taking people to hell with them.
So, while your mother was a saintly, loving person, if she didn’t warn others of their destiny, she didn’t really love them. Love is wanting others to escape the fiery depths of hell prepared for the devil and his angels. Not sitting by condoning everything others do in the name of love and acceptance. This is another heretical myth being perpetuated by today’s church.
What would you consider appropriate legislation/penalties for engaging in homosexuality?
I know shacking up has gone on for a long time. I agree about the bad consequences of no-fault divorce.
But homosexual marriage, sanctioned by government, celebrated by the media, makes things much worse. Homosexual marriage tells the young that society has no more religious scruples about our most important institution — marriage. Anyone can do anything without fear of God. The guilt is gone.
Says the MTV generation, if gays are heroes, and can have 20 partners a night, what’s wrong with me living with my girlfriend?
You are sadly confused.
Tax the Church..
There are many sects of Christianity.
None are uniform in their beliefs.
I will not be ruled by Kings or Priests.
“It may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to unsurpastion on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded agst. by an entire abstinence of the Gov’t from interfence in any way whatsoever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect agst. trespasses on its legal rights by others.”
“James Madison on Religious Liberty”
“What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.” Madison- “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, 1785
“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries.” Madison -1803 letter objecting use of gov. land for churches
John Adams The second president of the United States was John Adams, lawyer and diplomat. Adams’ public career lasted more than 35 years. He was second only to George Washington in making a place for the young United States among the nations of the world. In his devotion to the country he was second to none. He laid his thoughts out clearly...
“The priesthood have, in all ancient nations, nearly monopolized learning. And ever since the Reformation, when or where has existed a Protestant or dissenting sect who would tolerate A FREE INQUIRY? The blackest billingsgate, the most ungentlemanly insolence, the most yahooish brutality, is patiently endured, countenanced, propagated, and applauded. But touch a solemn truth in collision with a dogma of a sect, though capable of the clearest proof, and you will find you have disturbed a nest, and the hornets will swarm about your eyes and hand, and fly into your face and eyes.”
- letter to John Taylor
“The question before the human race is, whether the God of Nature shall govern the world by his own laws, or whether priests and kings shall rule it by fictitious miracles?”
You see TBI...I am a deist. It is an insult to those of of of a different religion then you for you to claim that your creed only is superior.
“. . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.” Adams
“This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.”...Jefferson
“The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”
And George Washington?
“Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792
Many, perhaps most of the Founders of this country were Deists. Your dominionist views are at odds with what this country was built on.
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear. Jefferson - letter to Peter Carr, Aug. 10, 1787
It is you who are sadly confused being that you had to assume that my views were dominionist when I am not even Christian nor a part of any religion at all.
I simply support equal representation for all world views in government in making legislation within their communities and for all worldviews to have the equal right to be freely expressed in the public square.
Your view though in the post I responded to was much more aligned with a dominionist point of view being it is you who seek to deny rights to representation to people being that you deem their desire to live in communities with laws that reflect thier morality to be ‘tyrannical’ as you put it. Thus you find them immoral and want to impose this moral viewpoint of yours.
“Celebrities - is there ANYTHING they don’t know?”
I dont know of any exact legislation or penalties that might be the most appropiate. There have during more days of a more moral society though been such laws on the books that should be reconsidered as to their worth.
My point though is that there should be legislation that starts to deter the corruption of homosexuality in society. It is not harmless being that it is known to increase the spread of disease and to damage lives and also to spread further corrupt behaviors along with it.
Analysts for Focus on the Family refer to pro-gay Christians as a part of a larger movement called “Pro-Gay Revisionist Theology.” Leaders of this movement claim Christians’ prejudice against homosexuals leads them to misread biblical texts about homosexuality.
What part of “abomination” do we misinterpret?
Oh and I missed the other line of yours being that your post is intermixed between unsourced quotes and then your own words to me.
It is you who are insultive being that you make assumptions claiming that I am something I am not. Your psot is also not even a response to my post that it claims to be and you never even address my statement but instead you just make up a position and attribute it to me instead.
Your post seems to be more one that is trying to make the case for the leftist policy of ‘Seperation of Church and State’ and supports anti-religious bigotry.
[ Jesus actually talked more about hell when HE was on earth, than He did heaven. He had no problem explaining the sinners destiny if they continued in their sinful lifestyle. ]
The entire bible talks very little about Heaven or Hell..
Jesus came to make All religion obsolete... AND did..
Currently all religion is obsolete.. What a nice man...
One cannot be an authentic conservative if one wants to rewrite traditional morality to suit one’s own besetting temptations, be they temptations to gluttony, sodomy, adultery, avarice, . . . Authentic conservatives don’t “move the boundary markers of their fathers.”
On the other hand, not expecting moral perfection from conservatives in order to be considered conservatives, I don’t see that falling into any particular sin, provided one repents and does not try to call evil “good”, prevents one from being an authentic conservative. The groups you decry are trying to “move the boundary markers”, and it is that, not the particular sin they are trying to justify, that makes them not conservative.
Great idea! I did the same thing for Jehovah Witnesses’ The Watchtower when I find them in hospital waiting rooms.
“Focusing on Conservatism, I am of the strong opinion that homosexuality is counter to its core values. I’ll go so far to state that a “Gay Conservative” is a contradiction in terms. I personally see organizations such as GOProud and the Log Cabinites as a fifth column undermining Constitutional Conservatism.”
Indeed. Check #26 of the Goals of Communism, put in the U.S. Congressional Record back in 1963 by an anti-communist Democrat(when such a creature existed)-
“ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
Great post. God bless your mother.
The condemnation of homosexuals or of ANYONE does NOT bring them closer to the Lord. Every single FReeper probably has someone in their family with a disorder....alcohol, eating, neurosis, etc. Telling someone to “go and sin no more” doesn’t help anyone (not you in your witness nor the person you are purporting to change through condemnation...) Loving them, praying for them and being a Godly example does much more good.
Good post. God loves us. ALL of us.
Did you feel that my post was so over the top and against what FR stands for that you had to tag JR?
I was not promoting homosexuality. The article, imo, is an actress’ view of how homosexuals are treated by the Church. I was replying to the article with my opinion that homosexuals should be treated just like anyone with a disorder....not with wagging fingers or declarations of “go and sin no more”, but with love.
If that is disallowed on this website, then I am surprised, and I am also surprised that you felt you had to tattle on me.
Thank you, you said my thoughts much better than I! :)
Great post, but I have to add that I think that this side of Heaven there is very little possibility that even Church discipline will reach the level to what God has called it... in other words, the Body of Christ is fallible. We all have a sinful fallen nature and thank God- literally, that He provided a way through His Son, Jesus for us to become Sons of God. Through the Holy Spirit we can do His will and become more like Him- BUT in the meantime we have this flesh that we must deal with daily. All that to say that although the Church can follow God’s Word as far as discipline it doesn’t always turn out as planned. I was in a Church where a couple got divorced and the husband was allowed to remain on the worship team, even though he treated his wife horribly. I have every confidence that the Pastor and Elders were Godly men trying to do God’s will, but this happened anyway. The Pastors and Elders were NOT God, therefore they were fallible.
So although we have the Bible to guide us, we are all going to go off the path at one time or another. That’s been happening since Adam and Eve. And will continue to happen until Jesus returns.
“Love is wanting others to escape the fiery depths of hell prepared for the devil and his angels. Not sitting by condoning everything others do in the name of love and acceptance. This is another heretical myth being perpetuated by todays church.”
I think the early Church preached Jesus and salvation.
Not sure how much harvest there would be if the message was “Jesus loves you (if you don’t sin).”
And all religions agree that same sex acts are abominable, sinful, wrong and not to be accepted, celebrated or even tolerated.
Freepmail wagglebee to subscribe or unsubscribe from the homosexual agenda ping list.
Be sure to click the FreeRepublic homosexual agenda keyword search link for a list of all related articles. We don't ping you to all related articles so be sure to click the previous link to see the latest articles.
Add keywords homosexual agenda to flag FR articles to this ping list.
Homosexual behavior is unnatural, unhealthy, and every monotheist religion in the world, and even those that are not such as Buddhism and even Taoism, hold same sex acts in abomination. Not only are such acts disgusting, anyone who is attracted to them has mental problems - ie, is mentally ill. Add to that, the homosexual agenda is wholely anti-freedom, anti-Constitutional principles, and from its inception has been clearly revolutionary; its intent is to destroy societal norms and morality including the natural family.
It's really quite simple, and anyone whining about people condemning others to hell is missing the point. Anyone going to hell or not going to hell is solely based on how each person lives their life -it's between each person and God. But it is also simple that anyone who flagrantly and unrepentantly engages in vile sexual transgressions that are condemned in every single religion does not have a happy future (or present).
I mentioned his name in a post and thus I pinged him per FR etiquette. In my response, you'll also note that I was aiming to get a clarification of the statement from the founder expanding on FR's opposition to all forms of homosexuality. FReeper UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide later contended that my interpretation was too broad and was applicable only to government enforced homosexualism. And that's why, once again, the boss was added to the recipients -- to get a ruling (as it were) to define the extent to which Free Republic stands in opposition to homosexuality. In fact, if I'm wrongly taking a hardline stance, I'll humbly submit to Mr. Robinson's correction (and thus am "tattling" on myself).
I was replying to the article with my opinion that homosexuals should be treated just like anyone with a disorder....not with wagging fingers or declarations of go and sin no more, but with love.
I personally take a zero-tolerance stance with regard to homosexuality. Sodomites do not suffer from a disorder. A disorder is something which an individual has no control over, such as muscular dystrophy. Instead, sodomites deliberately and through their own free will disobey the will of God. Sodomites (and they certainly aren't "gay" in my lexicon for they are actually sad and miserable) need to make the decision to correct their wicked ways. Those that do can be redeemed and restored to normalcy through the Infinite Power of God's Healing.
I'll also add that I personally think Conservatism is diametrically opposed to homosexuality in all forms. Therefore, I think that advocates of a "big tent" policy inclusive of sodomites do Conservatism only harm. Fiscal Conservatism and Social Conservatism are harmonious and are inseparable, IMHO.After all, even if the governments of Sodom and Gomorrah were structured with low taxes, I doubt that God would have taken that as a mitigating factor when He Righteously and Justly smote them.
I can tell you take a zero-tolerance policy with homosexuals. I personally think that is sad. They are people.
And we will have to agree to disagree about homosexuals “deliberately and with free will” disobey the will of God. No one knows what causes homosexuality, but I have learned through simple observation that some children have homosexual tendencies at a young age. Maybe they were abused? Maybe there was a chemical imbalance in the womb? At this point, no one knows for sure what the underlying cause is, but the point is that no matter what the cause we are to love the person.
The article that was posted wasn’t about a CONSERVATIVE’s view of homosexuals, it was a Christian’s (the actress) view of homosexuals. So that is what I addressed.
“But it is also simple that anyone who flagrantly and unrepentantly engages in vile sexual transgressions that are condemned in every single religion does not have a happy future (or present). “
Isn’t that true of anyone who flagrantly and unrepentantly walks around with any other disorder? Don’t all religions condemn alcoholism? Overeating? Cheating? Shoplifting? Those people don’t have a happy future (or present), either. The article talks about how Christians should respond to homosexuals. And I am saying that response should be with love.
I do believe our Republic is in trouble because of homosexual marriage, but I don’t believe that we can win the debate on it by calling people sodomites to their face and telling them to go and sin no more.
So Jesus wasn't showing love to the woman caught in adultery when he told her "Go, and sin no more"? You think people engaging in some of the most vile sinful behavior should not be told to "sin no more"? You say God loves everyone, and this is true. Does a parent love a child who's gone wrong? Committed crimes? Of course. Does the parent love the crimes? Of course not. Ever heard of "Tough Love"?
God loves us but He doesn't love our wrong behavior or mentality or hearts polluted with lust, greed, anger or envy. He wants us to change, not stay sitting in our filth.