Are you or are you not arguing for the side of "teaching your kids morals"? You brought up this entire thing that teaching your own morals to children is perfectly fine, whether they hold a bigoted point of view or not. I'm referencing 'you' in terms of the argument. People who teach their kids that being gay is wrong as a 'moral'  is what I'm arguing about, whether you do it personally or not.

Youth suicide is a serious thing. To say that provoking people towards suicide is nothing less than murder is rather insulting. No, that murder part was not hyperbole. It was completely justified. If you wish to argue this, you realise you'd only be seen as someone who regards the life of a homoesexual as less than another's...

Many see 'reaching out' as a chance for indoctrination, and you need to understand that. I had a friend who made friends with a Jehovah's witness, and found that every subtle thing being done was an attempt at trying to turn him away from homosexuality, until it became an all-out confrontation in the end. The result? This guy is now too afraid to to open up to ANYONE who openly classifies themself as Christian, for fear of something similar happening, or thought that any such friend has a hidden agenda. I know it's not the right way of thinking, but once bitten, twice shy.

Jesus was a good man, and not a bigot. Jesus also never spoke at all on homosexuality. So, why do a majority of his 'followers' do?

I believe in teaching my kids to live a life that would reflect that of Jesus. The most important of those is the way they would treat others, regardless of any other factors. Every parent attempts to teach their child some sort of right and wrong, or morals. I don't believe the 'morals' are the be all and end all, as many things are open to discussion and interpretation... the core message is loving others and treating others as you would like to be treated.

Of course youth suicide is a huge thing, and suicides in the gay community are an especially horrible tragedy. I agree 100% with you there, but the 'murder' comparison was a stretch because I wouldn't in any way advocate anything that would provoke people towards suicide, nor do I believe anybody else here would.

I understand that, which is why I told you my definition of 'reaching out'. It has to be without agenda and only for the good of the other person.

I agree with you. I also have massive issues with people who preach that homosexuality is evil, hate gays, or any of the other things you reference. There is a group of so-called christians near where I live that at times stand out with horrible, offensive signs about gays, this makes me more angry than anything I've ever seen. This is vastly different than what I'm talking about, it's on a personal level and would never seek to call out somebody else or be used in a judgemental way. I honestly think that some view homosexuality as somhow worse than anything they've done simply because they don't understand it (or because they themselves are gay in some cases).

If everyone truly lived that way, then there would be no bigotry at all, and we wouldn't be having this argument. However, I think you're underestimating the effects that such morals can have on young minds. Some question them; some accept them, and some let it well up inside them until later when it comes out in one expression or another (sometimes suicide). The latter are the ones that I worry about the most. I place it in the same category as bullying. Sure, you can ignore the things that others say, but it CAN get to some people, and unfortunately a lot of teen suicides are also attributed to bullying.

I'm not implying that you would personally advocate something towards provokation to suicide, but please understand that there are many out there whose teachings of such morals can be a direct provocation towards such measures. 

I agree with the definition of 'reaching out'. Unfortunately for my friend, this whole traumatic incident has closed him off moreso than anything. It's more of a knee-jerk response to an action, creating a kind of partisan rift. Before this incident, he was open to everyone.

If you do what you say you do, then you're one of the good ones. However, I don't agree with your stance on the morals thing, because some morals taught to impressionable youth can be damaging in more ways than originally intended.

I agree with you on that, teaching morals as the way to be 'good' and 'acceptable' to a higher power is foolish because nobody can live up to that standard (perfection). Morals are not the main focus of my faith, not even close. It really also depends on the reaction the parents have to their kids' shortcomings (every human being has faults, that's a given). As an example, my 4 year old hit her sister in the face yesterday (obviously not a good thing for her to do). As a consequece we put her in a time out for a few minutes. After this, I went over and gave her the same talk I always do, told her "you know when you hit your sister it made her sad. I'm not mad at you, and I always love you no matter what you do, but you need to say you're sorry and not do that again because it hurt her". That's a simplistic approach because she's 4, but the message is always the same, I love her no matter what she does, and there's nothing she could ever do to change that. I hammer on this far more than I do on her behavior. A lot will change when she's older and able to make her own decisions, and obviously I won't always be able to 'tell' her what to do forever (when they're 4 it's a little different), but the love and acceptance always has to be there no matter what.

Yes there are, and that is not acceptable.

I've seen this method of reaching out, and it's more for selfish purposes of the person doing the so-called reaching out in that case.

I can certainly understand your point on that, and I agree with you up to a point. Teaching morals alone is a surefire way to set your kids up for failure and rejection. That being said, I can say from my own personal experience that there is another side to this that is actually incredibly freeing. This hits close to home for me - I had suicidal thoughts as a teen because I was in a family that, at the time, was somewhat like what you describe and I could never 'live up' to their expectations (my parents have turned the corner and 'grown up' in a lot of ways, so my youngest brother had it much better than me). If I see 'sin' as some 'bad' thing that makes me unacceptable, it's terrible and like prison, however, if I see it as something everybody struggles with, as well as believe there is grace and forgiveness for my faults, that is an incredibly freeing thing. It takes away the natural shame I would feel - without any outside influence - for my own shortcomings (such as the fact that I can be a terrible Jerk if I don't watch myself as one of many things I struggle with). This is a two sided coin, the forgiveness/grace/acceptance aspect of the message too often gets left out even though it's the most important part. That oversight is what leads to judgementalism and bigotry not only against others, but against oneself, sometimes leading to suicide as you said. I can look at my own faults and forgive myself for them, they're just not a big deal, so neither are anybody else's faults. I also understand that I'm not on my own, and that every single person has faults, so the faults are really not a big deal.

Not trying to turn you into a Christian here, just trying to explain to you a little of what drives me and many people like me. I'm just as flawed as anybody else, and I certainly make mistakes and fall short of these standards pretty much every day.

I couldn't open you're message because you titled it ..., and when I click it I go to a random "not found" page.

However, why would anyone not look at homosexuality as a disorder similar to schizophrenea or autism? Just because the consequences aren't as extreme, doesnt mean that they are not disorders. They do affect an individuals normal life. Normal people have sex with the opposite gender because that's what were genetically programed to do. Evolution did not evolve homosexuality into our code, if you took any courses in bio, you would have learned that all evolutions only occur because of a corresponding increase in fitness. If there is a decrease in fitness, then those genes would have been weeded out long long ago.

If homosexuality were a gene, it would get weeded out because a higher % of homosexuals (or bisexuals) would not reproduce then a similar population of heterosexuals. This is the same logic as how pest resistance work (where eventually all pests become resistant because they are the only ones who have reproduced).

Homosexuality is a disorder, it might not be psychological because of political pressure, but that's just politics. Many scientists still think there are psychological reasons as to why people are homosexual. I prefer to beleive it's biological, but that's my opinion.

In the end, it's a random disorder, it affect random samples of the population just like schizophrenea, and there is no reason to see it diferently.

That said, the most important thing is that I don't hate homosexuals, or treat them any differently then heterosexuals. It' not their fault that they are gay, and I hope they do find a cure one day so that homosexuals who wish to be heterosexuals can cure themselves.

Simple as that, the matter might not be as pressing as finding a cure for autism or schizophrenea, but it's a valid disorder, which deserves a cure.

Homosexuals can get civil unions, which are like marriages, and show a commitment to one another. I agree with you about gay marriages, in Canada same sex marriage is legal, but it's the priests choice if he/she wants to perform a marriage. Most don't.

Also the bible does specificially state that marriage is a sacred ritual performed between a man and a women, but it doesn't condone homosexuality post marriage. So I can see why Christian homosexuals wish to become married.

What I do't stand is why don't homosexuals make their own sect in the Christian religion? Don't Anglican marriages allow divorce, and protestant marriages allow their preists to marry? Did King George the ___ not make the Anglican sect because he wanted to divorce his wife and marry a different women?

As for your last statement, I kinda agree. Civil Unions are like marriages in this way, but they don't grant the same power in all places as marriage does. Civil Unions should be renamed something more extravagent, and people who don't follow a particular religion, should just get these performed. Homo and Heterosexuals alike.

You are wrong. If you think about homosexuality as a gene you think homosexuals do have the gene and heterosexuals have not. But everyone could have the "homosexuality"-gene, but it is not expressed in every individual. Or there is a gene or combination of it for heterosexuality and if something is missing the individual is becoming homosexual.

Also you're wrong about the evolutionary aspect of it. Personal fitness is not the way to look at it. Yes, from the standpoint of personal fitness, the homosexual individual has a lower probability of reproduction. But personal fitness is near to no driving force in evolution. Individuals are killed by bad luck in nature. Based on personal fitness, altruism wouldn't be develop in evolution. The altruistic individual is at disadvantage. But the image changes if we look at a population. A population with altruistic individuals is in many situations stronger than one of egoists. That's why altruism is for many social animals something that develops in evolution. In the same way homosexuality of some individuals in a population could increase the fitness of this population. There are a lot of theories for this.

One thing is clear: as we discovered homosexual behaviour in many animals, a random mutation that is a disadvantage in evolution is highly unlikely. It would have removed from the population and it is highly unlikely that another random mutation has a similar effect. And in this case the mutation must have happened hundreds of times. So homosexuality is either an advantage in evolution or not inheritable. In the second case we need a good explanation, why it happens so often (relatively) in humans and animals.

Bible = word of God
Jesus = God
Thus Jesus speaks out against homosexuality in the following passages. Fordy the truth will set you free.
Matthew 19:1-8
Romans 1:18-32
1Cor 6:9-11
Galatians 5:19

Universe is 13,8 billion of years old, Homo Sapiense 1st emerged some 200 000 years ago. So if according to Bilble we accept that Universe was created for Humans... It kinda took God a long time to create Humans since they have been in Universe only for 0,0014 % of time.

Bilble just like "God" is the most racist, sexsit, violent, immoral.... of all human creation. It has caused to humanity more suffering than the existence of atomic bombs.

You honostly believe everything in history is true?