Dr. Bock, many of the statements made in this discussion have involved blatant untruths and distortions of the facts. It would be helpful in our attempts at being people of understanding, if provable and substantial truths are at least respected in the overall discussion. Whatever the ultimate belief that one is attempting to uphold on this issue, God is not glorified by any untruths spoken in His name. If one disagrees with this assertion, and believes the end justifies the means, then there is no point to this discussion.

Before I address just one of these distortions--i.e. the use of "partial truths" to create an "appearance" of something that is blatantly false, which is frankly how the devil functions--let me say that I agree with you that this can be a tedious and somewhat painful discussion. In many cases, including some of the statements of the Newsweek article writer unfortunately, provable truths are disregarded in order to make one's case. Grace and patience from the Holy Spirit is definitely needed in regards to this issue. I have no doubt that God has laid this issue upon His people in our day with His purposes in mind.

Let me also say that I can testify that it is a fact of life that some people were born with an innate homosexual orientation, as is evidenced and apparent in the very makeup of some gay people, and as many of the parents who raised these individuals can testify to. I personally don't believe it can be thought to be outside of God's divine plan for His family, whatever one believes should be the correct understanding of the issue of committed relationships, and He is examining the hearts of all people.

I would love to address Steph's comment that your reasoning is "entirely biblical," because while I don't consider your belief illegitimate, there is more to the Bible than what you are speaking about...but I'll keep my focus on one point. I would like to comment on Chuck's statement in particular, regarding "the homosexual relationship," "the gay lifestyle," and "the gay community." For convenience I'll repeat it here:

..."this issue goes beyond gay marriage to the subject of homosexual behavior itself. Over the years I've become friends with many men involved in the gay lifestyle, and have been offered firsthand testimony as to what they've both seen and experienced in the gay community. As a result I can affirm with great conviction that there is much value in resisting any attempts to establish the homosexual relationship as being on the same moral level as the biblical ideal between a man and a woman."

Frankly speaking, does anyone really have to explain that (1) the lifestyle of many gay people in the world does not represent the lives and hearts of all gay people, any more than citing the willful sins of Christians, today and in history, represents what Christianity is about? (2) Is this a just and righteous perspective, considering that many gay people love God and desire only a committed life-partnership? (3) Does it not defy reason to address the question of "gay marriage" by speaking of the individuals whose lifestyle shows that they are uninterested in commitment? Are the proponents of legal recognition and equal treatment in America speaking of these types of lifestyles? (4) Do the lifestyles of many heterosexual people not also have the characteristics of rebellion, unfaithfulness, inability to stay committed, violence, and promiscuity? Do these things represent heterosexuality?

Our God is a God of love and truth, but these truths have no bearing to Chuck, and to the many people who applaud and agree with his treatment of this issue. Bigotry functions on generalizations, and I trust that most people recognize that it is fundamentally unjust. Chuck speaks of "firsthand testimony," but what about the testimony of the tens of thousands of same-sex partnerships that are not described in the ways that his particular gay friends have educated him on? Chuck is using the lifestyles of people who do not regard God in the least to represent the nature of same-sex relationships in themselves, for the sake of dismissing the issue. It is simply untrue, and this is merely one example of speaking falsehoods in the name of God to make a case.

Is God pleased when His people go so far in making their case that they actually speak lies and distortions in His name, using godless people to falsely represent both the issue itself and the people whose lives are about love and commitment?

In response to Terry Scott's comment regarding being unconcerned with "more contempt for Christians," and characterizing the repulsion of some people to the Christian faith over their handling of this issue as "persecution" of Christians...this is not an example of persecution, or to be credited as such. Their repulsion to what they are hearing on this issue has absolutely nothing to do with the cross of Christ, His claims, or personal conservatism in the life of the believer, which are the only things that would constitute persecution.

I would like to get a response from both Darrell and Chuck on my comment, which only seeks to serve the truth in love.