Southern Baptists change their tone but not their substance on homosexuality (COMMENTARY)

Print More
Matt Boswell leading worship at the first ERLC National Conference.

Photo courtesy of Rocket Republic, via ERLC National Conference

Matt Boswell leading worship at the first ERLC National Conference.

Active RNS subscribers and members can view this content by logging-in here.

WASHINGTON (RNS) The Nashville conference was remarkable for two notable shifts: a change in tone -- call it a kinder, gentler opposition to homosexuality -- and a pragmatic concession that the fight over gay marriage is largely lost.

  • Pingback: Southern Baptists change their tone but not their substance on homosexuality | Laodicean Report()

  • Ben in oakland

    ” Though they do not believe civil law should recognize gay or lesbian unions as marriage, the conference acknowledged that there are many, graver threats to marriage and family life in America than same-sex marriage.”

    I have yet to hear ONE SINGLE TRUTHFUL– i.e., based on fact, logic, and experience– statement as to why my marriage is a threat to marriage, family, children, heterosexuality or ANYTHING. I hear plenty of lies, lots of reviling, zillions of fear-mongering threats, untold amounts of let’s-scare-ourselves stories, and more outright bigotry than anyone should have to stomach…

    but truth is in very short supply.

    If this statement is anything remotely resembling a direct quote from anyone, not one thing has changed. It certainly isn’t kinder and gentler, it’s just PR.

    and as long as they are willing to let civil law recognize divorce and remarriage, quite contrary to scripture, it is just kinder, gentler hypocrisy.

  • Pingback: Southern Baptists change their tone but not the...()

  • Doc Anthony

    If Dr. Russell Moore, or any of his friends or acquaintances, are reading this RNS article, I urge them to bring Moore’s attention IMMEDIATELY to the following extremely-well-written response (on the Christian Post website) by Chelsen Vicari.!

    This article will explain exactly what went wrong — very seriously wrong — with an otherwise semi-reasonable ERLC conference. It also points to what must be done to right that wrong.

  • Ben in oakland

    Because nothing– not feeding children, not our interminable wars, not peace, not feeding the poor, not families, not marriage, not spreadingthe word of jesus…


    is as important as maintaining antigay bigotry. It appears to be the central message of your type of Christianity.

    And I suspect, “Doc”, your cash flow, and the cashflow of all of the people who gain power, money, and dominion by demonizing gay people, lying about us, and doing everything in their power to maintain an ancient, vicious, and durable prejudice.

  • Neon Genesis

    What part of it was “well written?” That article was a load of bigoted hogwash. I’m a gay man and I most certainly was not sexually abused and I find it offensive that you support this idea that homosexuality is caused by abuse. That is not an idea supported by the vast majority of actual research into the causes of homosexuality or mainstream psychological groups. Ex-gay therapists and their advocates most certainly should be dismissed and ridiculed to the dustbins of history and you ought to be ashamed for your lies which last I checked was a sin in Christianity.

  • rob

    what there saying is even lesbians CAN NOW teach Sunday school in their churches,,

    There going down the same road as the Northern Baptist and American Baptist Presbyterian USA and elca.. there MEMBER’S JUST HAVENT added up 2 plus 2 equals 4 yet..

    THE SCRIPTURE verses warning about the danger of hell for homosexuals never says ——–never mind as long as you remain celibate

  • Ben in oakalnd

    It’s not a sin to lie if you can claim you’re lying for a good reason. That’s not lying, it’s “proclaiming the truth in love.”

    Now don’t you feel better about all of the lies they peddle?

  • Ben in oakalnd

    They be been adding 2 and 2 for a number of years. They just don’t understand why it never comes out to four.

  • Ben in oakland

    Well reasoned?

    It’s nonsense, beginning to end.

    Where are these THOUSANDS of people who have been healed by Freud or Jesus? Why don’t we see them?

    Christopher doyle, an admitted child molester of girls? He’s a credible source? His organization is a fraud.

    Where is the evidence that Reparative therapy works?

    None present. It all assumes its conclusions, beginning to end. It’s as much a fraud as Exgay therapy.

  • Billysees

    @ Ben in oakland

    “I hear plenty of lies, lots of reviling, zillions of fear-mongering threats, untold amounts of let’s-scare-ourselves stories, and more outright bigotry than anyone should have to stomach…….but truth is in very short supply.”

    How true and well said, especially when applied to those who worship scripture verse. This helps puts scripture in its place, 1 Cor 4:20 plus Rom 14:17 —

    “The ‘Kingdom of God’ is not in “word” (scripture verses), but “power” (Spirit of God in us)………’s not food and drink but “righteousness” (good works and deeds) and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit”.

  • Diogenes

    There are certainly wholesale risks to marriage as traditionally understood, that need to be addressed in the heterosexual Christian community; it is pointless to merely argue with those outside the Body of Christ; within the Body of Christ however, there is no biblical warrant to affirm homosexual marriage…it just isn’t there. It requires a ‘rending of the scriptures’ to produce a biblical argument for homosexuality. If you’re outside the Church do what pleases you…inside the body of faith live the life of obedience that God has called you to.

  • Frank

    There are only two responses to SSA: Either they believe same-sex erotic expression is a sin and commit to a life of celibacy, or they can give in to their impulses, thus living in willful rebellion against God.

  • Fourth Valley

    Uhhhh… all the scripture verses on that subject deal with sexual ACTION not ATTRACTION. Can you provide one that says otherwise?? Or do you just not read scripture??

  • Ben in oakland

    I absolutely agree with you 100%. Within YOUR church, believe whatever you like. But for those of us who are not members of YOUR church–that is, your particular church, as you simply don’t speak for all cChristians– please stay the hell out of our lives.

    Simple, isn’t it?

  • Ben in oakland

    The bible is an idol, and those who worship it are beloved by Satan.

    See how easy hat is?

  • CarrotCakeMan

    We know why anti-gays hear “gay sex” when we say, “marriage equality.” Scientists have proven that:

    “Homophobia is apparently associated with homosexual arousal that the homophobic individual is either unaware of or denies.”



    An agency of the federal government, the National Institutes of Health, publishes a supporting study:


    Here’s a video that illustrates that study:

    How about a You-tube SONG that explains this?

  • Ben in oakland

    Yes the same thing could be said about the 2/3 of the world that thinks the Christian story is nonsense.

    The same thing could be said about the half of Christianity that doesn’t believe in your particular, peculiar version of God, who just not surprisingly sees things the same way you do.

    The same thing could be said about half of Christianity that’s is left from that half who think that christianity is not really about homosexuality at all.

    Isn’t it amazing how many people are in rebellion against God? and of course, as jesus specifically warned others about the two great laws to follow, about not judging others, about those who would bar the gates of heaven to others, it sounds like YOU may be in rebellion against God.

  • Josh M

    Christians aren’t interfering in peoples lives. I can only assume your talking about certain political polices and views which are either, backed by a majority of Christians, or bills which are written by Christian politicians.

    As long as Christians are citizens of this country, we have the right to be represented in our political system. We also have the right to speak our minds, to fight back against laws we don’t think should get passed, and fight for laws we think should get passed. And that is a right which both the Jew, Gentile, theist, atheist, secular humanist, moral nihilist, moral objectivist, liberal, moderate, conservative, democratic, poor, rich, black, white, and progressive, have. Just to name a few. And ALL groups try to legalize morality. They just different views on what is morale or not.

  • Josh M

    edit: “And ALL groups try to legislate morality, they just have different views on what is morale and what is not”

  • Frank

    How embarrassing for you.

  • Josh M


    and if you read the other passage, Jesus main point wasn’t “do not judge other”, he was actually talking about how we should judge; he was teaching not to judge hypocritically.

    It really frustrates me when atheist comment on the Bible. Especially when most of what say is simply taken verbatim from some atheist blogger or some “angry atheist” on youtube.

  • Larry

    “We also have the right to speak our minds, to fight back against laws we don’t think should get passed, and fight for laws we think should get passed”

    If your reasons are entirely religious, in that they lack any rational and secular purpose, then you do not have a right to give such views color of law. Laws which lack rational and secular purposes are always a form of discriminatory action.

    “God says …” will NEVER be sufficient cause for a law to be passed or opposed. Religious freedom means never having to be compelled to accept the dogma and sectarian beliefs of others by force of law. I never have to care what you think God wants on a given legal subject and you can’t make me.

    Your religious beliefs never entitle you to speak for people outside of your faith. It is never an excuse to cause deliberate and malicious harm to others.

  • John

    So if the language, jokes, and attitude sincerely changes in the church, yet the position of homosexuality as sin remains, will the LGBT crowd be satisfied? Or is the only acceptable end game a complete reversal of belief to one that biblically affirms gay marriage and homosexuality?

  • Larry

    I guess you will use any excuse you can come up with to justify malicious uncivil behavior towards others. There is “Christian Morality” for you. Any act is considered OK if you can claim “God says so”.

  • Josh M

    So you’re saying that unless religious people express secular views, then they don’t have a right to express their views on laws that should be passed? Even though they would be beholden to those laws?

    This is by definition discriminatory. When you say to religious people “express secular views, or be silent” you’re saying that don’t shouldn’t have a seat at the political table. But if they don’t have a seat at the political table then they aren’t being represented. Are you saying that in our Representative Republic, that one group of citizens shouldn’t allow to be represented because of their religious views? Because that’s what it sounds like. And that is extremely discriminatory.

    Besides, who said that laws can only serve secular purposes? Laws are created to serve the will of the people. Imagine this: imagine there were only 2 atheists in the entire United States (population of 317 million). By your rationale, all of our laws should only serve the purpose of those 2 people. Even if the other 316,999,998 people were all Evangelical Christians, all laws in this country should be secular. How does that serve the will of the people? Also, you should have mentioned that to our founding fathers, who after the constitution was written, used federal dollars to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Oneida Indians; who had the bible taught to children in public school; who prayed to God before a session of congress; in a country in which 9 of the original 13 states had state churches long after the constitution was ratified.

  • Josh M

    Any excuse? No. I would even say that there is no excuse for malicious uncivil behavior. What I would say is that there is no malicious uncivil behavior coming from the anti-same-sex marriage side. Changed my mind, the Westboro Baptist church is extremely malicious. Ironically, the Westboro Baptist Church is a topic where both Evangelical Christians (at minimal, me) and secularists actually agree: they are a hateful bunch of bigoted people.

    However, if we look at the fight over same-sex marriage, the opposition has no malicious intent or views behind it. They say that the government doesn’t have the authority to redefine the word marriage. They would claim that the traditional marriage law applies equally to both straight and gay people, thus there is no in-equality in the law. They say that one state shouldn’t have the authority to impose their laws on another state which has an opposing law. And they would also say that the government has an invested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage and should not be promoting homosexual coupling between its citizens.

    None of these claims are religious in nature (they can, and have, been used by secularists also). And these are rational points to be made. None of these are irrational; they don’t violate any know laws of logic. So these arguments would fall under your “rational and secular” requirements.

    I think the biggest issue with the fight on same-sex marriage, is this false notion that all arguments on the opposition are, and can only be, religious in nature. Most people are entirely ignorant of any secular arguments given in opposition to the same-sex marriage issue.

  • Larry

    “So you’re saying that unless religious people express secular views, then they don’t have a right to express their views on laws that should be passed? Even though they would be beholden to those laws?”

    No, but if misrepresenting what I said makes you feel better, who am I to judge? 🙂

    What I am saying is that if religious people want their views given the power of law, to be adopted by all people regardless of their faith, there must be a rational and secular purpose behind the law. Or a rational and secular purpose behind repealing an existing law. The establishment clause demands such criteria in order to prevent sectarian discrimination. Simply saying, “God says so” will never be sufficient in of itself for passing or repealing a law.

    If the goal and the ends are entirely religious, lacking in any rational or secular purpose, then those people are really just asking discrimination in their favor. If you want our laws to reflect your religious views and there is no other purpose or ends behind it, then it doesn’t deserve to be taken seriously as a matter of law. It is merely a call for discrimination. A request to violate the separation of church and state.

    “in a country in which 9 of the original 13 states had state churches long after the constitution was ratified.”

    Our religious freedoms did not come from the requests of states with officially recognized churches. It came from the 2 whose charters and policies opposed such things. Separation of church and state as a concept predated the Constitution by a century.

    Nothing stops you from expressing your views as a religious person. However, there is no necessity for our laws to give them power. Our religious freedoms demand that we cannot use our laws strictly to favor any given sect or faith.

    “Imagine this: imagine there were only 2 atheists in the entire United States (population of 317 million). By your rationale, all of our laws should only serve the purpose of those 2 people.”

    Every discriminatory law is passed by majority rule. It doesn’t make them constitutional or justified. Just because a minority group is small, it doesn’t mean they are without rights and basic guarantees under the law. Might makes right arguments undermine any pretense you have of caring about the nature of personal liberties. You don’t want freedom. You want license and control over others.

    “Also, you should have mentioned that to our founding fathers, who after the constitution was written, used federal dollars to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ to the Oneida Indians”

    You really should stop referencing David Barton websites. The man lies openly about American history and constantly fabricates quotes and citations.

  • Ben in Oakland

    No? what do you call e very anti-marriage law, funded and manned by so-called Christians? What do you call fighting laws that forbid discrimination on the basis of religious belief? When sodomy laws were getting toss3ed out, it was ALWAYS the religionists who were at the forefront saying that we need to have these laws because GAWD.

    And on and on and on.

    You absolutely have the right to believe what you wish. When you want to force your purely theological views on people who don’t share them, using the law the governs all of us to do so, you are in fact interfering in my life. when you want a constitutional amendment to prevent my marriage, thereby preventing my ability to protect my love, life, family, children, faith, and assets, you are absolutely interfering in my life.

    I suspect that you wouldn’t like it one bit if your faith was outlawed, your ability to protect your family was compromised. This is most emphatically NOT a matter of morals, except in your opinion. And htat is indeed the problem.

  • Ben in Oakland

    “What I would say is that there is no malicious uncivil behavior coming from the anti-same-sex marriage side.”

    Obviously, you’re not paying the slightest bit of attention.

    The antim,arriage people have consistently called my marriage a threat to heterosexuality, morality, marriage, family, children, faith, freedom, and western civilization.

    They have called it an offense to god.

    Cardinal Geroge has compared my marriage ot the ku- klux klan, and has also stated that my marriage means I am losing touch with my humanity.

    I am repeatedly called a child molester, a pervert, a threat to all that is good and holy, a tool of satan, and a monster.

    I could go on and on. But you’re not really interested. If you don’t know that these things are being said all of the time, then you simply don’t wish to know it.

  • Larry

    Except the Evangelicals actually agree with the WBC’s position. They just don’t like the way WBC carries itself in public. Your position is really no different.

    The opposition to marriage equality is ENTIRELY based on malice and animosity. Its about treating a group of people as undesirable under color of law for alleged religious reasons. You are lying very badly here.

    The argument over “redefining marriage” is a sham position. It merely begs the question and deliberately misstates the role of the government. Marriage definitions under the by their nature are subject to the government’s control. “Tradition” without justification is not an end unto itself. Marriages by their nature are recognized across state lines for the purposes of equal protection under the law.

    Now its obvious these opponents are not ignorant of such things. They know their arguments are bogus. They just chose to pretend otherwise for their arguments. Willful lying to support an agenda they are too cowardly to discuss in public.

    Why shouldn’t the government redefine its civil laws concerning civil marriage to include SSM? What rational and secular purpose is served by a gay marriage ban? None. Simply a desire of Evangelical Christians to feel superior to gay couples.

    “None of these claims are religious in nature (they can, and have, been used by secularists also). ”

    None of those claims are rational either. The “inequality” argument is nonsense best encapsulated by this quote by Anatole France:
    “In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.”

    There are no rational and secular arguments opposing marriage equality. All you have shown me is how dishonest you can be in support of a position.

    ” Most people are entirely ignorant of any secular arguments given in opposition to the same-sex marriage issue.”

    I have yet to see rational or honest ones given. 32 court cases and counting and still people like yourself can’t cough up anything to that effect.

  • rob

    LARRY Your right ABOUT SOME THING finally but it still does not work that way .. It goes by votes if there is a over whelming majority of votes
    even if the fellows voted for were cannibalistic
    They could appoint to offices other cannibals
    and if you liked it or not some day you would be on the what’s for dinner tonight list..

  • Howard R Truman

    So the homosexuals want to pretend to be married, like the heterosexuals. How quaint. They do say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Homosexuals pretending to marry is no threat to the real institution of marriage any more than the special Olympics are a threat to the real thing.
    While we’re throwing around the terms “hypocrisy” and “truth”, what would you call someone who knows what true marriage has always been (a union between a man and a woman), but calls something else marriage and attempts to force everyone else to call that lie “truth” and “justice” and “equality”?

  • rob

    @ ben in Oakland

    Lutherans don’t mind if some one says were even worshiping what God says others may run from it but not us .. because we know Jesus is Gods word manifest.

  • Larry


    ” It goes by votes if there is a over whelming majority of votes
    even if the fellows voted for were cannibalistic”

    Please tell me you don’t vote.

    You have no clue how democracy works. The system is better off without your input.

  • Josh M

    Ben, you probably right. I am ignorant of all those things you had to go through, and I’m sorry you’re going to through all that. Even if all those things are coming from evangelical Christians, I would make the charge to them that they are acting in disobedient to God’s will and commands. And if they are Christians then they should take that charge seriously.

    @ Larry
    You made the same mistake I warned against: thinking that all opposition to SSM is religious in nature. I don’t think you would disagree with me on this point: “A religious person may make a secular claim or hold to a secular belief” To defend this point: I myself am an evangelical Christian, and I belief that there should be absolutely NO federal income tax. I believe that the only taxes should be state income tax and sales tax. This is not a religious claim; I don’t reference any scripture in support of this; I don’t claim “thus sayeth the Lord God…no federal income tax.” So even though I am a Christian, I can hold to secular ideas and have secular support for them.

    In the same way, my view and argument against SSM is secular. Now I understand you have a big problem with this but your reasoning comes really close to a straw man argument. This is my take on this issue.

    First, we have to come to an understanding of who bears the burden of proof on this issue. Just like in law, there is a prosecution and a defendant. The burden of proof is always on the prosecution. Why is this? Let me offer this: it is because the prosecution is arguing against the status quo. The defendant is a “free” man. The prosecution is presenting a case as to why this man should no longer be “free”, but be “imprisoned.” In the same way, the supporters of SSM are trying to overturn the status quo. This is not lost on the SSM lawyers. They themselves take the role of the “prosecution” in these cases. And to their credit they do present arguments for their side.

    One of their arguments is “The marriage law is un-equal and thus violates the fourteenth amendment. Now, it is my claim that this argument is fallacious. The marriage right as it stands is:

    A man has the right to marry a woman. (and vice versa)

    The right is not discriminatory; it doesn’t differentiate between straight people and gay people. The easiest way to spot this is to write out the right with the orientation spelled out as such:

    “A straight man has the right to marry a woman.” Is this statement true or false? TRUE
    “A gay man has the right to marry a woman.” Is this statement true or false? TRUE

    Since both statements are true it follows logical that the right is shared equally between both straight and gay males. (This would be just as equally true for straight and gay women). Now the common objection to this is: “But gay men don’t want to marry a woman.” And to this claim, I agree. But preference is not a factor in determining equality. So to summarize my opposition to the unequal claim would be this: “Gay people have the same right to marry as straight people do, but due to their preferences they chose not to exercise the right that they do have.” But, and it can’t be overlooked, that they do have the same rights. In order to prove otherwise they will have to answer a question: “What right do straight people have, which gay people lack?”

    And about the France quote: let’s do the same thing:

    “The rich are forbidden to steal bread.” Is this true or false? TRUE
    “The poor are forbidden to steal bread.” Is this true or false? TRUE
    Therefore, the law is equal (which Anatole France would agree with). Now let’s change it:

    “The rich are forbidden to steal bread.” TRUE
    “The poor are forbidden to steal bread.” FALSE
    Now, since the answers to each of the statements are different, the conclusion follows that the law is NOT equal with respect to the rich and the poor. If someone in American politics tried to pass this, the courts would strike this down as a violation of the fourteenth amendment because it discriminates between financial classes. I wonder where you would stand on this. Would you be in support of a law so blatantly discriminatory? I sure hope not. And even though Anatole France would have issues with our fourteenth amendment, I don’t. And I don’t think a majority of Americans do either.

  • Larry

    “what would you call someone who knows what true marriage has always been (a union between a man and a woman), but calls something else marriage and attempts to force everyone else to call that lie “truth” and “justice” and “equality”?”

    Someone who understands civil law, the establishment clause and why religious based bigotry serves no purpose in civil society. 🙂

  • Larry

    No Josh. You are not ignorant. You are a liar.

    You gave a phony irrational reason as opposing marriage equality which masks another more obvious religious-based agenda. You try general solipistic answers rather than address the issues given.

    Your take on the issue is nonsense. Don’t try to pretend you know about legal arguments. When a law is challenged as a potential violation of equal protection under the 14th Amendment, it is the government who has the burden of justifying the law. They have to come up with a reason why a BAN on SSM is necessary. It is not the burden of the marriage equality proponents to justify their position.

    Marriage laws are permissive in nature absent rational and secular reasons for banning a given union. None exist against gay marriage. Complaints about “tradition” and “redefining” mean nothing unless you can justify why the definitions and traditions should be maintained.

    It is clearly obvious you are using a canned argument which ignores so many aspects of the subject it is not worth the effort of going point by point.

    So why must marriage be defined by law as only between a man and woman? What justification does it serve?

    You avoid the question in favor of half-baked spurious illogic spewing. Given the irrational nonsense you presented, the only conclusion to make is even you don’t really buy it. Its just a way to avoid giving your real justifications. To avoid the appearance of obvious bigotry.

    All you have shown me is that you don’t have an honest bone in your body. Lying for the Lord is OK with you.

  • Ben in oakland

    Josh: thank you, I guess, for your apology. but frankly, I don’t believe you. If I’m wrong about it, then I APOLOGIZE. But I don’t think I am. You certainly know enough on the subject, judging by your posts, to be aware of what is stated every day by the right wing and/or conservative Christians. If you don’t, then please educate yourself, because your ignorance on a subject of which you purport to have some authority to speak on should be embarrassing to you.

    I’m sorry if that doesn’t sound nice, but its true. Don’t apologize unless you are guilty of the same slanders. But do educate yourself.

    Violence, hatred, and outright lies, are preached every day against us EVERY SINGLE DAY. I say PREACHED because it is usually coming from the pulpit or a so called man of god. Fear-mongering is also a staple of these REVILERS (Cor. 6:9-10? Are you calling THEM on their sins, or do you just reserve that for gay people?)

    Fear-mongering (God will destroy America because of the queers) is also a staple of these people. That way, when the violence or hatred they would advocate if they had any actual courage comes to fruition, their hands are, so to say, WASHED CLEAN.

    We are blamed repeatedly for every social ill, especially the ones we couldn’t possibly have a thing to do with. We are accused DAILY of every possible social crime, including wanting to destroy, marriage faith, the military, children, freedom, the family, heterosexuality, and western civilization.


    The rest of your arguments are just hogwash. They have been presented continually in court, and continually they have been shot down. They have no basis in facts, logic, or experience, no consistency except “gays are gonna get ya!”.

    “They say that the government doesn’t have the authority to redefine the word marriage. ” It’s not redefining marriage, it’s redefining GAY PEOPLE as no longer your moral, religious, familial, marital, social, and legal Inferiors. Are families and lives and faiths are every bit as important as yours. It is not the right of government– ANY MORE– to redefine our lives and children as of less worth than a certain fornicating, adulterous, thrice married former republican congressman with a god complex.

    “They say that one state shouldn’t have the authority to impose their laws on another state which has an opposing law.” EACH state has agreed to follow the constitution AND to honor the public acts of other states. Marriage is a public act.

    “And they would also say that the government has an invested interest in promoting heterosexual marriage and should not be promoting homosexual coupling between its citizens.” HERE IS YOUR BIGOTRY. Why do you get marriage, and yet you can reduce the lives of friends who have been devoted couples from 20 to 50 years and more to HOMOSEXUAL COUPLING? And why should the government be in the business of promoting heterosexual coupling, and what odes that have to do with MY life? The government has an interest in YOURE SEX LIFE? Really? Is that what you’re saying? And as long as you let people who cannot or will not reproduce get married, but prevent gay people with children– 70,000 in California ALONE– from the legal protections of marriage, I’m sorry I have to say even YOU don’t believe that argument.

    I could go on, but as I said, I don’t think I’m wrong. And so I doubt it is worth my while to try to educate you any more than you wish to be.

  • Ben in oakland

    False choice, buddy.

    Here is what we want. An end to legal discrimination against our lives, families, children, and faith. We wish to be treated the same as you. nothing more and nothing less.

    that’s the whole gay agenda.

    Believe whatever you want. I don’t care. Preach your sin sin sin agenda in your church to your heart’s content. Tell your fag jokes as you wish. Excommunicate anyone who dares say differently.

    But keep your religious beliefs, your purely theological beliefs, out of the law and out of my life, especially wen the only thing you have to justify your prejudices is your religious belief.

  • Jim

    If Southern Baptists mattered, I suppose this stuff would be news. Southern Baptists don’t matter. So who cares?

  • Dana

    I hope everyone takes the time to read the article you mentioned. I copied/pasted the website to a new tab so I could get back to this discussion easily, took the time to read it, I think that this hit the nail on the head.

  • Dana

    Actually, if you are a true, born-again Christian, you need to agree with scripture, not necessarily a “church”. Scripture states that homosexual behavior is a sin. What you believe does not stop the truth from being the truth.

  • Frank

    Porr carrotcake. Trotting out the same nonsense again and again. It’s wasn’t effective or factual the first time you posted it and it still isn’t.

  • Frank

    No because they need to be validated in their sinful choice. They know deep down its wrong.

  • rob

    I am Lutheran the only one I have to agree with, is The bible ..

    show me there where Christians are to stay out of others Christians lives.

  • rob

    @fourth valley——— lets stick to what the bible says

    the bible says

    being a homosexual and also a Christian is completely foreign to the bible.
    not only 1 CORINTHIANS 6:11

    tells us this but also
    2 Corinthians 5:17
    Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new.

  • Jack

    Ben, your post is Exhibit A on why the Southern Baptists should not even give the appearance of giving in. They are about to learn the hard way that the radical left in all of its manifestations, and on all issues, never plays fair or acts in good faith.

    Thanks for the reminder.

  • Jack

    Wrong, Larry. Freedom of expression includes freedom of religious expression….and people can also advocate for a policy for any reason they please.

  • Jack

    You do, Jim. Otherwise, why are you posting? Surely you have other things to do.

    Then again, maybe you don’t.

  • Jack

    Ben, quit lying. You will not be satisfied until there is not a single voice in public life that disagrees with you on anything. You are trying to tie that into your gay identity, but it’s obvious to all that even if you weren’t gay, you’d still be the same manipulative person who wants things your way or the highway.

  • Jack

    Fran, that could well be the case in at least some instances. It certainly explains why gay marriage doesn’t seem to be enough for some people — why they’re just as angry and bitter as before it gained traction. Such people don’t just want it on the books in all 50 states….they want to force everybody to celebrate it with them. I suspect that even then, they will be quite unhappy.

  • Jack

    I see Larry is still trying to defend the indefensible — the circular argument that’s used to make the 14th Amendment a servant in redefining marriage — accompanied by predictable displays of faux-outrage whenever anyone has the temerity to refute His Highness.

  • Pingback: Flotsam and jetsam (11/3) | Everyday Theology()

  • rob

    lets use a clear bible passage that says

    being attracted to murder is sinful,, being attracted to stealing is sinful
    being attracted to the SAME SEX is sinful.

    lets look into Gods law ON THIS that makes the above clear that its sinful
    ..MATTHEW 5 :48
    “be there fore Perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”

    want to know how to be perfect like Lutherans are
    ask about the no effort on our part perfection that Lutherans know and are.

  • Ben in oakland

    You have to believe what you have to believe. There are people who are irretrievably poisoned by hate, fear, ignorance, paranoia, religion, lust for power and money, or their own personal demons. Nothing I could say will ever get through to them. That’s the definition of irretrievably.

    You have to believe what you have to believe. And what you have to believe is that I am like you. I’m not. But one thing I have definitely learned– antigay people, irretrievably poisoned as they are, are masters of projecting onto others their own dark Keats.

    Have a nice life.

  • Frank

    They fail to realize that it’s the sin that’s their enemy not those speaking the truth to them.

  • Larry

    Poor Jack, just flinging personal insults rather than try to make a cogent rebuttal to the points being made.

    “that’s used to make the 14th Amendment a servant in redefining marriage”

    32+ Federal judges didn’t seem to have a problem with doing so. The only 2 that didn’t intentionally applied old obsolete law. Nobody arguing the matter used such an argument as yours. They know its inherently stupid and incomplete.

    The whole “they are redefining marriage” argument is dishonest garbage. If you can’t explain why the definition of marriage requires it be heterosexual in a rational and secular argument, then it can be redefined at will. What you really want to say is “No gays allowed, because….Jesus” But you know that means absolutely nothing in a legal setting.

  • Larry

    You can always advocate for any policy for any purpose. But there is no compelling reason to give it color of law unless it has a rational and secular purpose.

    For example, I can say that my religious faith demands that I advocate all Southern Baptists should be barred from public positions and its clergy stripped of citizenship. But without a rational and secular purpose for such action, there is no reason to expect such things to be enacted as law.

  • Martin Rizley

    No one’s marriage is a threat to marriage. What is a threat to the values of Western civilization, however, is identifying something as a marriage that does not have the marks of true marriage, as God designed marriage to be– a relationship with a ‘head’ representing Christ and a ‘body’ representing the church (in other words, a husband and a wife). Retaining ancient, time-honored vocabulary while switching the dictionary can mean only one thing– the overthrow of Western civilization by the eradication of Judeo-Christian values from our legal system, and that leads inevitably to what we are seeing in America today, the “invasion of the freedom snatchers” (ask any photographer, baker, or florist who is facing lawsuits, fines, and imprisonment for clinging to Western civilization’s definition of marriage and therefore refusing to recognize a sexualized relationship between two men or two women as a “marriage,” or refusing to use their God-given gifts to support a ceremony celebrating such a relationship as a wedding– something no Christian in good conscience can do.)

  • Shawnie5

    x2, absolutely, Jack.

  • Jack

    Happy Election Day, Shawnie. Hopefully it will be a good day.

    It’s interesting how gay activists, just like other radical leftists on every other issue, try to make everyone who dares to disagree with them look like intolerant bigots. This tactic began decades ago, when some of these people were in college and doing battle against traditional liberalism (much the way radical Islamists do battle today against moderate Muslims).

    These people may be the establishment today, and look the part, but it is an establishment that is as unworthy of respect today as it was decades ago, when its members were bullying old-fashioned liberal professors and administrators and tearing college campuses to ribbons.

    It’s the same radical left, is as illiberal today as it ever was, and uses the same totalitarian bully-boy tactics it once used back in its infancy.

  • Jack

    You can repeat “rational and secular purpose” as many times as you like, but to use at as a battering ram against every sign of popular opposition in any state to the redefinition of marriage is truly laugh-out-loud nonsense. And nonsense remains nonsense, regardless of who is or who isn’t applying it.

    The burden of justification is on those who would sweep away the whole of human history regarding humanity’s bedrock institution. It is obviously not on those defending this human legacy.

    The burden is not on supporters to come up with some extraordinary reason to maintain it. The burden is on opponents to come up with some unique reason to throw it away.

    Your entire premise is based on the notion that gay marriage was the norm until the big, bad Jews and/or Christians suddenly emerged and slammed the door shut on it. Even you know that’s patently false. Gay marriage was unknown to any civilization — secular or religious, polytheistic or monotheistic.

    It is both reasonable and sane for any person, theist or atheist, straight or gay, to oppose such a radical departure from the unanimous prior verdict of civilizations, going back to the dawn of recorded history.

    And to the extent that the manufactured drive for gay marriage is a fraud and a sham, begun in the same radical-left precincts where marriage of any kind had s been uniformly mocked, vilified, and at best minimized as “just a piece of paper,” to oppose it is to push back against dishonesty and lies.

  • Pingback: A Come to Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth | A Come to Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth | Social Dashboard()

  • Jack

    Words have meaning, Larry, including the word, “marriage,” and this fact has obvious legal implications. If laws, statutes, and amendments reflect one meaning of a word, then obviously you can’t apply them to a different meaning of it. You first have to redefine that word through some official action such as passage of a statute or amendment. The alternative is something out of Alice in Wonderland.

    The idea that suddenly, over the past 10 years, we have discovered that the 14th amendment renders the normative definition of marriage unconstitutional is judicial activism on steroids.

    This takes judicial activism to a surreal new level. But as anybody who knows anything about the history of it realizes, two can play the same game. What one set of judges might do today to advance their own political or deeply personal agendas, another set of judges might do tomorrow to advance an opposite agenda.

  • Jack

    Ben, enough with the bogus pity party. In a society where marriage of any kind is becoming less and less the norm, where a critical mass of heterosexuals believe that living together without marriage is just fine and that marriage is antiquated and a mere formality or piece of paper, and where the laws reflect this relaxed understanding of couplings, your whine is just not believable. This is not Victorian England, and your pretending that it is shows either a neurotic need to mimic it or a profound lack of honesty about the facts on the ground in our current society.

  • Jack

    Ben, you don’t seem to have learned a thing, either about yourself or about others, in any of these discussions. What’s particularly revealing is the way you’ve treated others, who, while disagreeing with you, did so in an exceptionally kind way. Tellingly, you took that as a sign of weakness and went on offense.

    I suspect they learned a lesson from that, one that I could have told them long ago, but you have learned nothing, mostly because you have no interest in doing so.

  • Pingback: A Come to Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth | CauseHub()

  • Pingback: A Come to Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth - Social News Dashboard()

  • Pingback: Duped by the Media on Pope Francis, Progressives Wonder How Republicans Get Elected | Christian Reforms()

  • steveKarper

    “”the radical left”” – your going nuts over the fact that the religiion of slavery and segregation is changing

    you would be much happier in commie russia or saudi land – the home of 15 of the 19 9-11 people where gays wont marry for a millenium at best

    Have a nice day. preach your bible thumping in the public square in Riyad and see what happens to your neck

    btw movement in the right direction from the most conservative american relgiion

  • steveKarper

    preparative therapy – for youth about a 40% suicide rate For adults the drive total self hatred into them and the self hatred comes out as eg

    gays support the westboro baptists because it brings them sypathy

    Doc anthony – probably a doctor of divinity of the southern baptists whose history includes justtifying slavery per the bible and a spin off of the old dutch church of apartehid in south africa

    “Gays support the westboro baptist church because it brings them sypathy” your kind are going nuts as almost certainly scotus will drive gay civil law marriage nationally

    as for your church etc – relgiious freedom, you can even throw off or allow on its property any one for any or even no reason

    Prepare to be embarrased in a couple mos.-scotus

    bBTW last year Exodus collapsed and alan chamber appolgized for all the

    CA, DC, MA NJ have banned this BS fix gays baloney, and soon others

    the founders of Exodus was Michael Bussey – when MA passed mar. = he and his…

  • steveKarper

    wait till scotus makes gay mar national

  • steveKarper

    Evangelical xtians have been marrying gay people for a decade in relgiious ceremonies even if they couldnt get a marriage license, which of course is their right as a religion

    Also most american baptists churches – who split off from the southern baptists over the issue of ordination of women

    tthe kooks seem to have given up on castigating the Presby usa church for nationally supporting and doing gay relgious marriagges

    Right wing xtian groups also believe that women should be silent in church, kept barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen and used as baby factories

  • Pingback: A Come-to-Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth | Brynn Tannehill()

  • Pingback: A Come to Jesus Talk on Transgender Youth | Brynn Tannehill()

  • Pingback: How The Nonreligious ‘Nones’ Are Driving LGBT Equality in the U.S. | Brynn Tannehill()