Round 4 *ding*
Another, more thoughtful, exchange:
Hi Again,
Thank you again for continuing this conversation. I too have been anxious in the gaps between our exchanges.
Well, if your asking this in a religious context then, the church says it isn't. From what I understand, one of the requirements for marriage is that you're open to life. (Not forcing you to have children, only to be open to it, if it happens). Regarding those who can't produce, I'm not sure if there's a comparison between the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union. With those that are unable or sterile there is still a possibility of engendering new life. In the homosexual act, however, sterility is not accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the act, which is infertile by nature.
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
I'm not sure what you're asking by that. Can you reword it in another way?
I did ask in a religious context, but I'm more curious about your opinion in a secular context. Also, only half the group in "unwilling or sterile" provide the possibility of new life. I mean sterile in the literal "I have no viable/functioning ovaries or testes" sort of way. What I was getting at with the question above is that "possibility" of engendering new life, it seems from your answer, love doesn't come into it at all, really. You say you're not sure of the distinction "natural sterility" and "unnatural sterility"; neither am I. In either case, what is required is not possible. Unless of course, you could accept something like "being open to raising a family" which I certainly am. I would still ask, why such a requirement for children isn't part of the redefinition of marriage?
The desire to act on it is also biologically wrong. BUT, it is NOT A SIN.
Admittedly, you don't have any personal experience of gay sex, or of a homosexual libido. Saying it's biologically wrong just doesn't make sense. Biologically wrong would be to say something like "most humans give birth through their noses." Such a statement would be factually wrong. Biology isn't about about subjective, moral, notions of right and wrong, or even of how tings are "supposed to be". Like any science, it is about facts, merely "what is," perhaps even "what is possible." To say that something is biologically wrong is to say it doesn't exist, it would be better phrased as biologically incorrect. Maybe you argue that the biology isn't being used as intended, but that is still an argument of faith, not fact. I exist. I, in the entirety of my experience, believe that I was created as I am. It's more detail than I'm sure you're interested in, but I assure you, gay sex works just fine. If it didn't, I and many others wouldn't care about it.
Saying it's biologically wrong just doesn't make sense. If you assert that gay sex will produce children, that is certainly incorrect. But to make such a general statement as "biologically wrong" is going too far. There are several other reasons to have sex. Pleasure, giving pleasure to one's partner, emotional closeness. While under your doctrine, these may not be the chief reasons to have sex, they do still exist. Only one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory. I exist. I get biological pleasure from sex. What's more, sex is a very emotionally involved thing for me. Also, there are many forms of safe and healthy heterosexual sex that could never produce children. Even if the Catholic Church doesn't condone them, none of these are legislated against (at least, not since 2003, when the US Supreme Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment).
Given that the Supreme Court has said that it is not "wrong" (nothing about sin, just in the secular sense, not a crime, or even objectionable), how can you argue that you exercising your faith in this way isn't interfering with my rights?
Homosexual act is wrong, yes.
Because if it's wrong, then you have your duty to uphold it, whether I like it or not, because what I have or do is not wrong just for you or wrong just for myself, but for everyone.
Statements like these confuse me. The act itself is a sin, right? Perhaps this is the crux of why I don't understand your position. You would seem to be ok with something like "Domestic Partnerships", but then you can turn around and say that the lifestyle (a caring, committed, probably sexual, relationship) behind such an arrangement is "wrong" and you have a duty to prevent "wrong" things, and to prevent other people, whether you know them or not, from doing them. How could you condone same-sex Domestic Partnership, given that it is so morally reprehensible?
For a third time, I'll ask: What of "separate but equal"? Do you think it right that the State should create a separate but nearly-the-same institution to grant me the rights and privileges of my straight countrymen? It probably wouldn't mean separate drinking fountains, but I suppose it may mean different schools for my children, whether they're straight or not. Or, given the vote, would you take that away too?
Now I'm wondering what you require of me.
Let me try to state plainly what I'm struggling with. You would have me believe I am welcome in your home and family, as a gay man, even in the context of being part of a gay couple (indeed, if I weren't dating Vinse, we would probably never have met). You would have me believe you respect my choices and lifestyle. It's as though I were to say to you, You are welcome in my house, I can see past the fact that you are horridly Vietnamese. That I could not condone the union of a Vietnamese person and a Korean person, but you and Sun are still invited to the party on Saturday. Given that I don't hold the same values as you, it's hard for me to see past such hurtful language.
Thomas Aquinas argued that "reason, not sensual desire, directs a person toward an end." This is what you mean when you say the desire "is NOT A SIN", right? As I understand the teachings, to think about committing a sin, is in itself a sin. We cannot overtly control our sexual desire, but we can control what we think about doing. Some people possess the gift of lifelong celibacy; most do not, I certainly don't. To have it forced upon you is a condemnation, not a gift. The sin then, is the intellectual choice to want to share that desire with someone in a meaningful way. That I should want a partnership of any sort that comes out of that sensual desire, that is a sin in reason, even before such an act is committed, right? The assertion that any potential relationship I may ever have is a sin is offensive to me. That it should be legislated against is to tell me directly that I am sick and wrong, even beyond my personal convictions. If you would say these things to my face, I could hardly accept you as respecting my (or Dan & Michael's) "lifestyle choice" (loneliness, despair and anguish being the alternative lifestyle choice, for those of us gays not so fortunate as to possess the gift of celibacy).
... really accept a gay couple into my circle of friends and family, but I already have.
Again, only with the proviso that we not mind being second-class citizens. Or at least that you would vote in favor of our being second class citizens. I think the only reason it's worked so far is that it hasn't come up in polite conversation. You don't see it this way, but we (the collected "gays") do. It may be possible to suspend such an insult, but it certainly isn't easy. Frankly, I'm still surprised you don't seem to see how such a position would be terribly insulting.
Have I ever treated you differently from any f Sun's friends?
No.
I disagree. You have voted to revoke my right to marry a person I love. You have not done that for any of Sun's heterosexual friends. To tell them their libido is similar to "greater tendency to violence, or addictions" is also something you do to Sun's straight friends.
Would I go? I don't know. L I want to affirm that you love Vinse, and he you, but (blah, blah, blah here I go, like some broken-record player) would that make me affirm the homosexual acts?
To me, one of the most important aspects of a formal marriage is the public commitment it represents. To be joined in one's community, to ask that community for support when it's needed. Indeed, this is why one asks those closest to them to participate in the ceremony. To be part of that community, yes, you would be called on to affirm the relationship. No, of course you don't have to think about us having sex. But you would have to think about us in the same way you would think about any other couple that may be going through a rough time, whatever form that takes. And you'ld have to see us kiss when prompted by the priest. :)
So I told you how what you can do to get me to accept you…nothing
It's funny. I can read this two ways: "of course you accept me in who I am", though "of course you would never accept who I am" seems more what you intended. It's getting harder to believe that you could be respecting my choices.
homosexual marriage, that would mean homosexual acts as an expression of love.
Exactly. I'm not asking you to endorse it (though I would prefer it), I'm just asking you not interfere with my expression of love.
-John
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:11 AM:
John,
First off I'm sorry for the long delays between replies. It's only because I've been busy and not because I don't care. In fact, it causes me grief that I don't get to reply right away because all day I think about what I'm going to say to you; how to explain my convictions without offending you (I know, I'm probably naïve for thinking that's possible, but I'm being sincere).
Secondly, if only all people can be articulate and patient as you, I know there would be much more peace. Thank you for putting up with me as I try to put into words how I feel, and where I'm coming from. I appreciate you not writing me off as a blind follower of beliefs that would upset others. The act of truly listening is an act of love. Anyhow, I'm sorry you had to ask twice, but you said..
…why should it be ok for people who are unable or unwilling, to be wed?
Well, if your asking this in a religious context then, the church says it isn't. From what I understand, one of the requirements for marriage is that you're open to life. (Not forcing you to have children, only to be open to it, if it happens). Regarding those who can't produce, I'm not sure if there's a comparison between the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union. With those that are unable or sterile there is still a possibility of engendering new life. In the homosexual act, however, sterility is not accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the act, which is infertile by nature.
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
I'm not sure what you're asking by that. Can you reword it in another way?
Let me see if I understand you properly:
1) Homosexual sex is wrong, and is never condoned, endorsed, or supported. The desire to act on it is also wrong.
2) well... that's pretty much it? right?
Homosexual act is wrong, yes. The desire to act on it is also biologically wrong. BUT, it is NOT A SIN. To be tempted is not a sin. Is homosexual desires something that is learned or is it something that one is born with? I truly don't know, but I'm taught that it is NOT a sin. Why are some people born with a greater tendency to violence, or addictions, I don't know, but I understand that the sin is in acting on it. I myself have a concupiscence or temptation to pornography and masturbation. Did I foster this sex drive or was I only born with it? There's no sin there. But it's is a sin when I act on it. (Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you accept my belief that masturbation is wrong. Though I would understand if you disagree. =^p)
… I would ask that you excuse me from the authority of your magisterium. …Could you say I am wrong to hold my beliefs?...Does it not feel like you are imposing your religious beliefs onto me?..Your definition of marriage comes directly out of the religious. Out of your religion.
Yes, my beliefs from my religion and I cannot expect others to believe in the tenets of my religion, nor would I ever want to force anyone to follow my religion. The incarnation of Christ, His Divinity, His Resserection, all religious issues. But the issues of homosexual sex, to me, is a moral issue. Morality being what laws are founded on. And since laws exist for the good order of society, it applies for everyone's good. And secular marriage being a public institution, would mean that society accepts what goes on in that marriage, and in a homosexual marriage, that would mean homosexual acts as an expression of love.
It's just as if you believe something, either through reason or through your church, that I am doing is wrong, you would prevent me from doing it, whether I subscribe to your beliefs or not. Because if it's wrong, then you have your duty to uphold it, whether I like it or not, because what I have or do is not wrong just for you or wrong just for myself, but for everyone.
Maybe I can phrase it this way, as I understand it, one of the traditional descriptions of marriage is as an expression or reflection of God's love. Victor Hugo wrote "to love another person is to see the face of God." I hold these ideas to be true.
I agree with you and your quote from Victor Hugo (Les Mis, btw an important book in my life). God gave us the institution of marriage as a foretaste of what heaven is like. But isn't our ultimate joy in heaven? To truly be with God, in His gaze upon his beatific vision (which is a wild notion, considering that we won't have eyes in heaven being a spiritual being and God, being pure spirit, how can He have a face? Which is totally a corporeal thing...) is what we desire. But I believe that sex has it's function (2 fold right?) and if we're not in marriage then we should live chastely in observance of our station in life. Not only is there is glory in choosing celibacy out of love for the Kingdom of Heaven, there is also merit in accepting the chastity that circumstances impose as a means of subjecting oneself to God's holy will. Which leads me to answer your question about…
Would you have me believe that my love for Vinse is more akin to prostitution and financial exploitation than say, the more pure love you and your penis have for Sun and her vagina?
Which is a no. One's love isn't measured by the type of relationship, is it? Just because I'm married to Sun doesn't mean that my love for her is measurably superior to yours and Vinse or vice-versa. The way we treat each other and the fidelity we hold to our loved ones decide that, right?
If Vinse and I were to be married, would you come to the celebration with Sun? I'm intentionally trying to make this personal.
That's fine that you make it personal, because this affects us personally. Would I go? I don't know. L I want to affirm that you love Vinse, and he you, but (blah, blah, blah here I go, like some broken-record player) would that make me affirm the homosexual acts?
Given these things, I think the "Dan and Michael" in that video are fantastical. If you "love the sinner and hate the sin" that is homosexuality, I find it hard to imagine you could really welcome a gay couple into your circle of friends and family, nor do I imagine they would be comfortable there.
I know you find it hard to accept that I could really accept a gay couple into my circle of friends and family, but I already have.
I've known you, Vinse, and Erik are gay, and have I ever avoided parties because I know you were there? No.
Have I ever withheld invitations to you guys to any parties that I have?
No.
Have I ever treated you differently from any f Sun's friends?
No.
I've held these beliefs, knowing you and Vinse and Erik were, are and continue to be gay. And it has NOT affected the way I treat you as friends, and it will not affect me now, and it will not affect me in the future. Because Sun loves you, I love you. Because Christ loves you, I love you. And knowing you more and more, I love you for the unique person God made you to be. So I told you how what you can do to get me to accept you…nothing. Whether you continue to intellectually and emotionally believe in your cause and/or actively go out and promote your cause, my acceptance of you is unconditional. That's what Christ wanted and that's what I want. That's what Christ did and that's what I will do.
Our friendship, though brief, is damaged for it. I too, wait with open arms for the day it can be repaired.
Now I'm wondering what you require of me.
With prayers to our same, Jesus.
~Your Friend
Hi Again,
Thank you again for continuing this conversation. I too have been anxious in the gaps between our exchanges.
Well, if your asking this in a religious context then, the church says it isn't. From what I understand, one of the requirements for marriage is that you're open to life. (Not forcing you to have children, only to be open to it, if it happens). Regarding those who can't produce, I'm not sure if there's a comparison between the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union. With those that are unable or sterile there is still a possibility of engendering new life. In the homosexual act, however, sterility is not accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the act, which is infertile by nature.
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
I'm not sure what you're asking by that. Can you reword it in another way?
I did ask in a religious context, but I'm more curious about your opinion in a secular context. Also, only half the group in "unwilling or sterile" provide the possibility of new life. I mean sterile in the literal "I have no viable/functioning ovaries or testes" sort of way. What I was getting at with the question above is that "possibility" of engendering new life, it seems from your answer, love doesn't come into it at all, really. You say you're not sure of the distinction "natural sterility" and "unnatural sterility"; neither am I. In either case, what is required is not possible. Unless of course, you could accept something like "being open to raising a family" which I certainly am. I would still ask, why such a requirement for children isn't part of the redefinition of marriage?
The desire to act on it is also biologically wrong. BUT, it is NOT A SIN.
Admittedly, you don't have any personal experience of gay sex, or of a homosexual libido. Saying it's biologically wrong just doesn't make sense. Biologically wrong would be to say something like "most humans give birth through their noses." Such a statement would be factually wrong. Biology isn't about about subjective, moral, notions of right and wrong, or even of how tings are "supposed to be". Like any science, it is about facts, merely "what is," perhaps even "what is possible." To say that something is biologically wrong is to say it doesn't exist, it would be better phrased as biologically incorrect. Maybe you argue that the biology isn't being used as intended, but that is still an argument of faith, not fact. I exist. I, in the entirety of my experience, believe that I was created as I am. It's more detail than I'm sure you're interested in, but I assure you, gay sex works just fine. If it didn't, I and many others wouldn't care about it.
Saying it's biologically wrong just doesn't make sense. If you assert that gay sex will produce children, that is certainly incorrect. But to make such a general statement as "biologically wrong" is going too far. There are several other reasons to have sex. Pleasure, giving pleasure to one's partner, emotional closeness. While under your doctrine, these may not be the chief reasons to have sex, they do still exist. Only one counterexample is needed to disprove a theory. I exist. I get biological pleasure from sex. What's more, sex is a very emotionally involved thing for me. Also, there are many forms of safe and healthy heterosexual sex that could never produce children. Even if the Catholic Church doesn't condone them, none of these are legislated against (at least, not since 2003, when the US Supreme Court held that intimate consensual sexual conduct was part of the liberty protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment).
Given that the Supreme Court has said that it is not "wrong" (nothing about sin, just in the secular sense, not a crime, or even objectionable), how can you argue that you exercising your faith in this way isn't interfering with my rights?
Homosexual act is wrong, yes.
Because if it's wrong, then you have your duty to uphold it, whether I like it or not, because what I have or do is not wrong just for you or wrong just for myself, but for everyone.
Statements like these confuse me. The act itself is a sin, right? Perhaps this is the crux of why I don't understand your position. You would seem to be ok with something like "Domestic Partnerships", but then you can turn around and say that the lifestyle (a caring, committed, probably sexual, relationship) behind such an arrangement is "wrong" and you have a duty to prevent "wrong" things, and to prevent other people, whether you know them or not, from doing them. How could you condone same-sex Domestic Partnership, given that it is so morally reprehensible?
For a third time, I'll ask: What of "separate but equal"? Do you think it right that the State should create a separate but nearly-the-same institution to grant me the rights and privileges of my straight countrymen? It probably wouldn't mean separate drinking fountains, but I suppose it may mean different schools for my children, whether they're straight or not. Or, given the vote, would you take that away too?
Now I'm wondering what you require of me.
Let me try to state plainly what I'm struggling with. You would have me believe I am welcome in your home and family, as a gay man, even in the context of being part of a gay couple (indeed, if I weren't dating Vinse, we would probably never have met). You would have me believe you respect my choices and lifestyle. It's as though I were to say to you, You are welcome in my house, I can see past the fact that you are horridly Vietnamese. That I could not condone the union of a Vietnamese person and a Korean person, but you and Sun are still invited to the party on Saturday. Given that I don't hold the same values as you, it's hard for me to see past such hurtful language.
Thomas Aquinas argued that "reason, not sensual desire, directs a person toward an end." This is what you mean when you say the desire "is NOT A SIN", right? As I understand the teachings, to think about committing a sin, is in itself a sin. We cannot overtly control our sexual desire, but we can control what we think about doing. Some people possess the gift of lifelong celibacy; most do not, I certainly don't. To have it forced upon you is a condemnation, not a gift. The sin then, is the intellectual choice to want to share that desire with someone in a meaningful way. That I should want a partnership of any sort that comes out of that sensual desire, that is a sin in reason, even before such an act is committed, right? The assertion that any potential relationship I may ever have is a sin is offensive to me. That it should be legislated against is to tell me directly that I am sick and wrong, even beyond my personal convictions. If you would say these things to my face, I could hardly accept you as respecting my (or Dan & Michael's) "lifestyle choice" (loneliness, despair and anguish being the alternative lifestyle choice, for those of us gays not so fortunate as to possess the gift of celibacy).
... really accept a gay couple into my circle of friends and family, but I already have.
Again, only with the proviso that we not mind being second-class citizens. Or at least that you would vote in favor of our being second class citizens. I think the only reason it's worked so far is that it hasn't come up in polite conversation. You don't see it this way, but we (the collected "gays") do. It may be possible to suspend such an insult, but it certainly isn't easy. Frankly, I'm still surprised you don't seem to see how such a position would be terribly insulting.
Have I ever treated you differently from any f Sun's friends?
No.
I disagree. You have voted to revoke my right to marry a person I love. You have not done that for any of Sun's heterosexual friends. To tell them their libido is similar to "greater tendency to violence, or addictions" is also something you do to Sun's straight friends.
Would I go? I don't know. L I want to affirm that you love Vinse, and he you, but (blah, blah, blah here I go, like some broken-record player) would that make me affirm the homosexual acts?
To me, one of the most important aspects of a formal marriage is the public commitment it represents. To be joined in one's community, to ask that community for support when it's needed. Indeed, this is why one asks those closest to them to participate in the ceremony. To be part of that community, yes, you would be called on to affirm the relationship. No, of course you don't have to think about us having sex. But you would have to think about us in the same way you would think about any other couple that may be going through a rough time, whatever form that takes. And you'ld have to see us kiss when prompted by the priest. :)
So I told you how what you can do to get me to accept you…nothing
It's funny. I can read this two ways: "of course you accept me in who I am", though "of course you would never accept who I am" seems more what you intended. It's getting harder to believe that you could be respecting my choices.
homosexual marriage, that would mean homosexual acts as an expression of love.
Exactly. I'm not asking you to endorse it (though I would prefer it), I'm just asking you not interfere with my expression of love.
-John
On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 5:11 AM:
John,
First off I'm sorry for the long delays between replies. It's only because I've been busy and not because I don't care. In fact, it causes me grief that I don't get to reply right away because all day I think about what I'm going to say to you; how to explain my convictions without offending you (I know, I'm probably naïve for thinking that's possible, but I'm being sincere).
Secondly, if only all people can be articulate and patient as you, I know there would be much more peace. Thank you for putting up with me as I try to put into words how I feel, and where I'm coming from. I appreciate you not writing me off as a blind follower of beliefs that would upset others. The act of truly listening is an act of love. Anyhow, I'm sorry you had to ask twice, but you said..
…why should it be ok for people who are unable or unwilling, to be wed?
Well, if your asking this in a religious context then, the church says it isn't. From what I understand, one of the requirements for marriage is that you're open to life. (Not forcing you to have children, only to be open to it, if it happens). Regarding those who can't produce, I'm not sure if there's a comparison between the natural sterility of a married couple and the unnatural sterility of a homosexual union. With those that are unable or sterile there is still a possibility of engendering new life. In the homosexual act, however, sterility is not accidental. It stems from the very physiology of the act, which is infertile by nature.
Is there some exception made for the love that could in some other reality have yielded a child?
I'm not sure what you're asking by that. Can you reword it in another way?
Let me see if I understand you properly:
1) Homosexual sex is wrong, and is never condoned, endorsed, or supported. The desire to act on it is also wrong.
2) well... that's pretty much it? right?
Homosexual act is wrong, yes. The desire to act on it is also biologically wrong. BUT, it is NOT A SIN. To be tempted is not a sin. Is homosexual desires something that is learned or is it something that one is born with? I truly don't know, but I'm taught that it is NOT a sin. Why are some people born with a greater tendency to violence, or addictions, I don't know, but I understand that the sin is in acting on it. I myself have a concupiscence or temptation to pornography and masturbation. Did I foster this sex drive or was I only born with it? There's no sin there. But it's is a sin when I act on it. (Let's just say, for the sake of argument, that you accept my belief that masturbation is wrong. Though I would understand if you disagree. =^p)
… I would ask that you excuse me from the authority of your magisterium. …Could you say I am wrong to hold my beliefs?...Does it not feel like you are imposing your religious beliefs onto me?..Your definition of marriage comes directly out of the religious. Out of your religion.
Yes, my beliefs from my religion and I cannot expect others to believe in the tenets of my religion, nor would I ever want to force anyone to follow my religion. The incarnation of Christ, His Divinity, His Resserection, all religious issues. But the issues of homosexual sex, to me, is a moral issue. Morality being what laws are founded on. And since laws exist for the good order of society, it applies for everyone's good. And secular marriage being a public institution, would mean that society accepts what goes on in that marriage, and in a homosexual marriage, that would mean homosexual acts as an expression of love.
It's just as if you believe something, either through reason or through your church, that I am doing is wrong, you would prevent me from doing it, whether I subscribe to your beliefs or not. Because if it's wrong, then you have your duty to uphold it, whether I like it or not, because what I have or do is not wrong just for you or wrong just for myself, but for everyone.
Maybe I can phrase it this way, as I understand it, one of the traditional descriptions of marriage is as an expression or reflection of God's love. Victor Hugo wrote "to love another person is to see the face of God." I hold these ideas to be true.
I agree with you and your quote from Victor Hugo (Les Mis, btw an important book in my life). God gave us the institution of marriage as a foretaste of what heaven is like. But isn't our ultimate joy in heaven? To truly be with God, in His gaze upon his beatific vision (which is a wild notion, considering that we won't have eyes in heaven being a spiritual being and God, being pure spirit, how can He have a face? Which is totally a corporeal thing...) is what we desire. But I believe that sex has it's function (2 fold right?) and if we're not in marriage then we should live chastely in observance of our station in life. Not only is there is glory in choosing celibacy out of love for the Kingdom of Heaven, there is also merit in accepting the chastity that circumstances impose as a means of subjecting oneself to God's holy will. Which leads me to answer your question about…
Would you have me believe that my love for Vinse is more akin to prostitution and financial exploitation than say, the more pure love you and your penis have for Sun and her vagina?
Which is a no. One's love isn't measured by the type of relationship, is it? Just because I'm married to Sun doesn't mean that my love for her is measurably superior to yours and Vinse or vice-versa. The way we treat each other and the fidelity we hold to our loved ones decide that, right?
If Vinse and I were to be married, would you come to the celebration with Sun? I'm intentionally trying to make this personal.
That's fine that you make it personal, because this affects us personally. Would I go? I don't know. L I want to affirm that you love Vinse, and he you, but (blah, blah, blah here I go, like some broken-record player) would that make me affirm the homosexual acts?
Given these things, I think the "Dan and Michael" in that video are fantastical. If you "love the sinner and hate the sin" that is homosexuality, I find it hard to imagine you could really welcome a gay couple into your circle of friends and family, nor do I imagine they would be comfortable there.
I know you find it hard to accept that I could really accept a gay couple into my circle of friends and family, but I already have.
I've known you, Vinse, and Erik are gay, and have I ever avoided parties because I know you were there? No.
Have I ever withheld invitations to you guys to any parties that I have?
No.
Have I ever treated you differently from any f Sun's friends?
No.
I've held these beliefs, knowing you and Vinse and Erik were, are and continue to be gay. And it has NOT affected the way I treat you as friends, and it will not affect me now, and it will not affect me in the future. Because Sun loves you, I love you. Because Christ loves you, I love you. And knowing you more and more, I love you for the unique person God made you to be. So I told you how what you can do to get me to accept you…nothing. Whether you continue to intellectually and emotionally believe in your cause and/or actively go out and promote your cause, my acceptance of you is unconditional. That's what Christ wanted and that's what I want. That's what Christ did and that's what I will do.
Our friendship, though brief, is damaged for it. I too, wait with open arms for the day it can be repaired.
Now I'm wondering what you require of me.
With prayers to our same, Jesus.
~Your Friend