I find this thread to be fascinating, Gina, even as I'm distressed by it - both because I don't like it when people argue, and also because I know it takes a toll on you personally to have to step in and tell us to behave, and I'm bothered by the thought of your distress.

I don't want to try to start a thread-within-a-thread here, but I was struck by something Chuck Colson said in his "Socrates in the City" talk: "You really can't have a conversation unless you have some common standard about what you believe to be true." Compare that with the main page masthead for this blog: "Welcome to the BreakPoint Blog; A conversation on current events and Christian worldview." Quite a while ago Alan said that few unbelievers engage in this blog, and ever since I've felt guilty, wondering if anything I've said has driven them away. But Chuck's statement makes me wonder if perhaps they see no point in engaging with us, since we have no basis on which to converse.

Chuck also had a brilliant paragraph in his "Socrates" talk, about how you can know that your soul is maturing when other people become more important than you. Furthermore, that the absence of this maturity - self-absorbed personal autonomy - is why we can never agree on issues like gay marriage; all we do is yell at each other.

Chuck also had something brilliant to say about how the very meaning of "tolerance" has been distorted. It has a great bearing here, but I want to keep this comment at least *somewhat* short.

And I know that your schedule is overwhelmingly busy - AFastTalkingBostonian was replaced by AFastTalkingNewYorker ("Why, oh *why*, Lord, couldn't he have been from Texas?") - so I'll completely understand if this doesn't happen for a while, but I think it would be very fruitful to have the "meta-discussion" about how we can converse with others with whom we disagree, instead of always finding ourselves in shouting matches.

Such a "meta-discussion" might do us all a world of good (it certainly would be good for me), and you could let your YOD be at rest for a while longer. That would be a very good thing, in my humble opinion.

So let me ask you Anthony. What do you consider the qualifications for marriage should be, assuming it is adjusted to allow for gay marriage?

"That was not meant to belittle you and I am sorry you took it that way"
-Don't worry about it Jason...it's really easy for me to just shake things off and I now have a better understanding of what you meant. Although I have a big mouth and I always seem to speak my mind, I try to live life as peacefully as possible and little things like that don't bother me Apology accepted, and I apologize for my tone of voice.

And Gina, I don't care if he calls/called me by my last name. I didn't take it to be rude at all, considering how many people call me "Loreno" anyway.

I apologize Gina.

Jason, please calm down (and don't call people by their last names, it's rude).

If we can't get the tone of this thread under control, I'm shutting it down.

As for the "You might learn something" remark, that was a while back, but I doubt I meant "Loreno is ignorant and should be blessed by the wisdom of our online aura." If I did I apologize. What I probably meant was,"Conversation, even hostile conversation with the opposing faction might be beneficial, however straining." I regularly talk to people many of whom, are pro-choice, most of whom are philosophical materialists, one of whom is a socialist, one of whom is an anarchist, one of whom is a pro-palestinian, and one of whom is even a third reich-apologist, though they have the saving grace that all of them are Role-playing game fans.

That was not meant to belittle you and I am sorry you took it that way.

Loreno, you said that "attraction" was non-sexual, did you not? What else is there that makes gayness, what it is? If it's just being "attracted" to other members of the same sex, well bowling would suit. That is my whole point. Lots of members of the same sex are "attracted" to one another. That does not make them gay.

And where did you get the idea that anyone has the right to "happiness" and "blessedness", pray tell?

And what makes you say LGBT have the same rights as those who "identify" as straight? What does that mean? How many people "identify" as straight. I identify as, Christian, American, Occidental, Anglo-American, Nairn, Jones, Taylor, intellectual, male, librarian, historian, sci-fi fan, coffee drinker, a bibliophile and a host of other things. Oh, yeah, I am mini-heterosexual and sometimes not so mini. So what? I do not "identify" with what my reproductive system wants to do because that is a rather boring thing to identify with and anyway, with no way to appease it properly I often wish it would just shut up and leave me alone. In any case, why would I want to "identify" with ninety-five percent of the world?

As for patronizing, nobody is patronizing you. We are arguing with you.

Mr. Loreno, you write, "So if I have come off as patronizing, it is because I have had to deal with it myself." Dare I point out that other people's wrongs do not justify your following the same path? This is a Life Principle (possibly even a Life Principal), I think.

"There are other religions/beliefs (or lack-thereof) all around the world. What makes you think yours is correct, and that everyone else's is invalid?" That is indeed a LARGE question, but to say it is large does not say that there is no answer. There are any number of evidences as to the truth of the biblical world-view, both internal and external. Allow me to point to three: a. No fiction writer could EVER invent a character such as Jesus. Dostoevsky tried to portray a Christ-like figure in "The Idiot," but Prince Myshkin instead comes across merely as bland and 'nice.' But when you read the Sermon on the Mount, or look at the tension in John 8-- as C.S. Lewis said, either this is reportage, or novelistic fiction of a kind not seen again for sixteen centuries. b. Something happened, IN HISTORY, to cause a bunch of Saturday-worshipping Jews to become Sunday-worshipping Jews. Considering how intensely they adhered to the Sabbath, what could cause such a tectonic shift? c. The evidences for the resurrection of Jesus, IN HISTORY, are numerous and quite strong.

Note your outrage: "Gay people have the same rights as straight people in this country?" Now, read what I actually wrote: "no one here has suggested that gay people are not human beings, who have the same rights to happiness and blessedness as do straight people." Please note that I explicitly said 'the same rights to happiness and blessedness'; they do not have the right to re-define what is right and wrong, or what is healthy behavior, nor the historical and society-preserving definition of marriage.
Now, shall I get all outraged because you picked a fight my mis-representing what I wrote?

One of the ironies is that, by fighting straw men, your credibility suffers and your viewpoints decline.

"And what type of "attraction" does homosexuality refer to? Is it perhaps the desire to go bowling with the guys?"
-I thought I had made this clear enough...the attraction between 2 members of the same gender.

"Please, stop with this patronizing."
-I had and have no intention of patronizing anyone, Mr. Peet. I simply speak my mind and will tell you exactly how I feel and what I think. If I've been called out for any comments that may have been deemed "offensive", I have apologized sincerely. I myself, however, have been patronized all over this blog. When I left the blog the 1st time, Jason Taylor made the comment "You might actually learn something, and that is worthwhile." What are you trying to say, Jason? That I know nothing about what I'm talking about, because you're a conservative Christian and I'm a little more liberal in my beliefs? I am simply defending what I believe is right, just like you are, and I'm standing up for those whom I love and care about. LeeQuod also stated once (sorry I have to bring it up again, but I'm trying to make a point) that maybe someday I would be a "real friend" to my friends and not "shrug off their struggles". To me that is not only patronizing but insulting as well, since no one on here knows the type of friend I am to the people around me. Those are just 2 examples. So if I have come off as patronizing, it is because I have had to deal with it myself.

So much of the SSM/homosexuality debate is based on speculation (Are gays born that way? Are they entitled to the same rights as others? The list of questions goes on...). None of you hold the key to "absolute truth" any more than I or anyone else on this earth does. We BELIEVE we know what is right. I BELIEVE based on my research and from knowing an infinite number of LGBT citizens and keeping them close that homosexuality is inborn, that LGBT citizens have the same rights as those of us who identify as straight, and that there's nothing abnormal or abhorrent about homosexuality or homosexual sex. You BELIEVE, on the other hand, just the opposite. Just because it is something we believe, doesn't make it the "absolute truth". You also use the Bible as a way to justify all of this, but just because your religion preaches that maybe homosexuality is a sin, doesn't validate anything. There are other religions/beliefs (or lack-thereof) all around the world. What makes you think yours is correct, and that everyone else's is invalid?

"You seem to use this about every three posts, and yet so far as I can recall, no one here has suggested that gay people are not human beings, who have the same rights to happiness and blessedness as do straight people."
-Gay people have the same rights as straight people in this country? Is that why 31 or 32 states have amended their constitutions to ban LGBT citizens from marrying? Is that why only 6 states and Washington DC allow SSM? Is that why Penn State University refuses to allow LGBT employees to have benefits for their same-sex partners? Is that why straight people are shoving heterosexuality down the throats of homosexuals on a daily basis at every turn but then turn around and cry that homosexuals are doing the same thing? I didn't realize homosexuals had it so great in this country...I always thought it stunk to be gay in America.

And what type of "attraction" does homosexuality refer to? Is it perhaps the desire to go bowling with the guys?

"But what do they know...they're just, you know...homosexuals."

Please, stop with this patronizing. You seem to use this about every three posts, and yet so far as I can recall, no one here has suggested that gay people are not human beings, who have the same rights to happiness and blessedness as do straight people.

As for the 'mounting evidence' that being gay is genetic, I am sceptical of that. But then, I am also sceptical of the methodology itself in the soft sciences; too often, I am afraid they find what they expected to find.

In addition to that, though, even if they are born gay, that does not in itself justify the behaviors. I am born a sinner (Ps. 51 and elsewhere), and yet that does not justify the sins which I commit. I have known several gay Christians, and seen in a certain way, their struggle is identical to mine: how to maintain fidelity to our Savior and celibacy while having the desire to be intimate and in a physical love relationship.

"When are we going to look past the sex part of it? What is there past the sex part of it?"
-The actual ATTRACTION between members of the same sex. Like heterosexuality, it's not all about sex.

"That is how they choose to define themselves."
-They define themselves by their ORIENTATION, not the "acts" themselves. As I've stated on here in prior posts, the homosexuals I've known and still know now consider homosexuality to be a PART of who they are. But what do they know...they're just, you know...homosexuals.

"How do you have something past the sex part of homosexuality?"
See above.

When are we going to look past the sex part of it? What is there past the sex part of it? That is how they choose to define themselves. How do you have something past the sex part of homosexuality?

Sorry, I forgot to address this one as well...

"In our pro-homosexual culture, a company that defends traditional morality is the true rebel which explains why Exxon stands out"
-Well first, I refuse to click on the link you provided because I know for a fact that NOM is the National Organization for Marriage and complete 100% conservative bias. Since I just ate lunch, I have no intention of viewing anything that could potentially make me sick. Second, despite the growing acceptance of homosexuality, I cannot agree that we are in a "pro-homosexual" culture. Everywhere I go, I see ads, TV shows, movies, books, and magazines that shove heterosexuality into the faces of homosexuals on a daily basis. Conservative "Christian" pastors are calling for the deaths of gays from the pulpit (and you may not support what they say, but these are the people representing your "conservative values"). Conservative politicians are legislating their religious beliefs and telling everyone all the same things you've told me. A few ads/billboards depicting gay and lesbian couples, as well as a handful of movies and TV shows and several companies hardly make the Unites States a "gay culture".

"Decades ago, the "experts" convinced the Black people that tolerating the fatherless homes (read: alternate families) would not negatively impact their communities."
-We're not talking about "fatherless homes", we're talking about children being raised in homes that contain TWO parents, regardless of gender. What you seem to be referring to is single parenthood, which is obviously vastly different from 2 adults raising a child, whether it's a mother and father, 2 fathers, or 2 mothers.

"JCP endorsing homosexuality is hardly an act of rebellion since many companies do so."
-I never said it was...I simply pointed out that OMM's boycotts appear to be an epic failure.

"The problem has gotten so bad that even Democrats like Bill Cosby and Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia admit that family breakdown is in some ways more devastating to Black people than slavery, the KKK or Jim Crow."
-It's not a "breakdown" of the family if there are 2 adults raising a child or children...I graduated with 2 guys from high school, both of whom were raised by same-sex parents. The son of 2 dads graduated from my high school with high honors, graduated from Penn State in 2009 with a degree in Business Finance (or something very similar to that), and now works in Chicago for some financial company where he makes a excellent wage (I just talked to him last week). My other friend came from 2 moms (adopted) and also graduated with honors, graduated from PSU with a degree in Kinesiology (sp?), and is a physical therapist and living comfortably where we grew up. Would you say that these children turned out horribly?
Also: http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/news/20051012/study-same-sex-parents-raise-well-adjusted-kids
^Although I have a feeling you'll be labeling this study as "liberal bias"..

"Like selfish Black adults from decades ago, two homosexual men who adopt are putting their lust ahead of the well being of the children they adopt."
-When are any of you going to look past the sex part of all this? I will re-iterate: there is more to homosexuality than just "lust" and intercourse. Show me proof where ANY homosexual parent put their "lust" before their children. I certainly haven't seen it, and I've been around homosexuals/homosexual parents a LOT for the last 6-7 years.

Anthony, I am well aware that homosexuals are "different and unique" in their own way. But if it pleases them to tribalize a vice, should they not be treated as a tribe? How is gathering in a crowd and chanting slogans "expressing individualism"(whatever that is).

@Anthony Loreno

First, I will concede that competition could have played a role in JCP's declining sales. However, it would not surprise me if JCP hiring Ellen gave some customers added incentive to shop elsewhere.

Second, JCP endorsing homosexuality is hardly an act of rebellion since many companies do so. It's frankly conformist. In our pro-homosexual culture, a company that defends traditional morality is the true rebel which explains why Exxon stands out:

http://www.nomblog.com/23904/

Finally, regarding two dads being sick, I stand by my statement. This is due to my experience as a Black man.

Decades ago, the "experts" convinced the Black people that tolerating the fatherless homes (read: alternate families) would not negatively impact their communities. In 2012, we see what a lie that was. Tolerating fatherless homes soon lead to traditional Black families like mine being the exception instead of the rule as Black adults put sexual lust ahead of parental responsibility. It also led to social collapse with record levels of poverty, crime, teen pregnancy, suicide, high school dropout rates, etc. I've seen some of the problems up close, and they're worse than you can imagine.

The problem has gotten so bad that even Democrats like Bill Cosby and Mayor Nutter of Philadelphia admit that family breakdown is in some ways more devastating to Black people than slavery, the KKK or Jim Crow. It also explains why Black people overall defend marriage so fiercely or develop ministries to rebuild the family.

This is why many Black people are baffled how White people are hellbent in repeating our mistakes instead of avoiding them. Like selfish Black adults from decades ago, two homosexual men who adopt are putting their lust ahead of the well being of the children they adopt.

That is sick.

I've made a few observations of my own regarding this entire situation (JCPenney, OMM, ads):

1.) OMM took down their Facebook page about a week or so ago.
2.) OMM only seemed to have 30-50,000 supporters. Not quite 1 million. Not even close.
3.) JCPenney doesn't seem to be the only gay-friendly corporation in the USA...Starbucks, Gap, Target, Microsoft, just to name a few off the top of my head. None of these, as far as I know, have given into OMM.
4.) JCPenney didn't seem to sink financially because of Ellen or their same-sex ads...I have 2 different friends who are both managers at 2 different JCPenney stores. When I asked them both the same question at different times, what the cause of JCPenney's financial decline was, both (straight women) answered with the same reason: customers preferred getting their bargain discounts over "consistently low prices". So...2 JCPenney managers or a speculating conservative columnist...who am I to value as a reliable source?

"Like One Million Moms which started a anti-JCP boycott, I suspect growing numbers of customers were concerned that the hiring of Ellen would lead to JCP launching sick homosexual dads ads."
-We must have differeing opinions on what is "sick", because I currently have the 2 dads ad as my cover photo on my Facebook timeline.

"This the challenge of Christians in post-Christian America: how to show love and compassion to homosexuals without sacrificing our principles and our kids' well being?"
-Well, you could start by not using the word "sick" to describe an ad presenting 2 homosexual dads and their kids. How would you like it if someone looked at your family (if you have one)and told you that all of you look "sick"? If you're really about being "loving and compassionate" to homosexuals, you may not want to say something that could drive a huge wedge into what you're trying to accomplish...

"Really? So that's why you take part in gay parades and write for a column called Gay Voices and make every other aspect of your life about being part of the gay crowd? Because you want to be looked at as an individual?"
-The "gay crowd"? Homosexuals aren't a clique...like straight people, they have many many social circles and are different and unique in their own ways. I've been to 2 gay pride parades in my life, and to me they not only are a way of showing that gay people aren't going away no matter what the conservatives do, but they're also about expressing individualism. I saw SO many different kinds of people there: black, white, asian, latino, short, tall, fat, thin, muscular, the list goes on. They're trying to come together as a group to not only unite but to also tell those that don't seem to get it that each person is created differently and uniquely.

"Even the gay couple in the catalog is likely not so much about taking a principled stand as it is a calculated move designed to capitalize on which way they see the wind blowing."
Then heterosexuals must do it too - how many ads and tv shows and movies and books blatantly shove heterosexuality into everyone's faces? A few gay people decide to put themselves out there, too, but nope, their motives are clearly for bad, not for good...

Oh yeah, I guess I couldn't stay away.

@Kevin V

If JCPenney was motivated by money to pick Ellen as spokeswoman, it was a bad bargain. The New York Times reports the retailer suffered a big loss in sales in its first quarter:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/16/business/retailers-hit-profit-mark-but-sales-fall-short.html

Unlike the secular press, the Christian site Onenewsnow asks if maybe some customers were turned off by a homosexual activist like Ellen:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Business/Default.aspx?id=1601822

Like One Million Moms which started a anti-JCP boycott, I suspect growing numbers of customers were concerned that the hiring of Ellen would lead to JCP launching sick homosexual dads ads.

This the challenge of Christians in post-Christian America: how to show love and compassion to homosexuals without sacrificing our principles and our kids' well being?