DISQUS

By "us" I meant the readers of your blog.

While I appreciate your private email, and myself prefer private confrontation to public scolding, I guess I wonder why you asked

Brady - do you know of anyone in the pro-gay tolerant crowd denouncing this behavior toward Hutch? I would look for it but I don’t have time at the moment. Do you think they should denounce this rude behavior?

After an individual booed Ken Hutcherson (something obviously less flagrant than advocating violence).

It is my impression that the perceived "silence" of gay-affirming voices was inappropriate, or possibly even that it constituted acceptance or indifference.

If there is a difference, could you please clarify for us.

Amen Ellie!

I went to school and SoCal, they claim it's a different state up there but I found my visits rather enjoyable whenever I made the trek up the coast. Enjoy the scenery!

I couldn't really make out much from the video, but "Oy!" nonetheless. Iran is a scary place to be Christian and/or gay.

A science teacher might not give a quiz on Christian beliefs, but a religion teacher might. And in my Montgomery County, Maryland public high school, they did just that. Likewise, a health class, a sociology class, an anthropology class..., might discuss gay people/relationships/families in a matter-of-fact way while a religion class might discuss the differing theories of morality on the subject within various traditions.

Mike, I'm also thinking about what is best for the children. And studies have consistently shown that TWO PARENTS (not "one mother and one father") is what is best for a child. I think what you're referring to is studies that have shown a child with a mother and a father is better off than being raised by a single-parent.

What is best for a child is to be raised in a stable house, ideally but not necessarily by two parents, and not trapped in the foster care system or in group homes. I think that parents--gay or straight, Christian or non-Christian--who can provide a safe and secure family and are capable of raising children should be allowed foster and adopt. That is what is best for children, even if it doesn't suit an anti-gay political agenda.

Interestingly, this "comes at a time when there is a chronic shortage of foster parents" in many US states which prohibit gay couples and/or individuals from fostering and adopting. It's too bad such legislation is "affecting other peoples lives" here in the US.

It's hard to take this complaint seriously (even if it has some merit) when anti-gay groups (such as Exodus) continue to aggressively advocate against equality for LGBT families... which in turn negatively affects the children most at need in our society.

It shouldn't matter, but I wonder how many UK foster/adoptive parents would become ineligible if they were governed by the anti-families law that restrict the ability of suitable gay parents to adopt.

I guess the question is: why should sexual orientation be an acceptable litmus test but not attitudes towards other citizens? Where is the consistency there?

Might banning any mention of homosexuality and/or gay people in the classroom similarly "isolate and embarrass" students either are gay, have been taught to respect a diversity of sexual orientations, and/or have come to the conclusion that being gay is morally neutral?

I feel you on that one! I wonder if a third party is something that needs to be built from the ground up or the top down. Is it possible for a third party to successfully win the presidency? Much to think about, much to do...

Oh, a friend (and Obama supporter) sent me this when I inquired about Barack Obama's leadership experience: http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives...

While I'm a small-government, limited Federal (esp executive) powers, strong domestic policy, secure international affairs type of person which would generally classify me as a Republican, I do appreciate the message Obama presents and presents compellingly.

Yes we can take care of the poor. Yes we can rebuild the Gulf coast. Yes we can build allies abroad. Yes we can make our nation secure.

I think, if I had to consider everything, that I would take a "Republican" approach to many aspects of policy and social concerns, but I'm not sure if the current crop of Republican candidates are adequately addressing the needs of America in a way that connects with Americans. The idea that the private sector can best address the needs of the country only works if the private sector is willing to rise to the occasion. I hope that Obama will use his position not just to influence political change but also to influence cultural change.

Yes we can change the course of this country, and it will take every single American to make that happen. I'm glad that he is calling us to it and I think I can get behind that vision for America.

I find I'm most attracted to blogs where I find both agreement and disagreement. Discussion and disagreement often leads to greater understanding for all parties involved. I talked recently with a group at my church about how often relationships are *stronger* after they have been gone through troubling times and been mended. I doubt I would find a place in a blog where all I ever said was "I agree." Though, I'd probably feel alienated if I *never* found common ground.

That being said, I'm not sure what else there is to add here. It's a tragic story and I hope that the parties involved can deal with it privately, where healing is most likely to occur.

In other posts, I'll make sure that I pipe up more often in support!

Randy, Maybe because we agree with you in the main substance of this post?

That it is devastating for this man's partner.
That it is a betrayal of age, trust, and influence.
That we too are praying for all parties involved.

And though you attempt to conflate sex abuse with gay relationships (or the lack thereof), link abuse with orientation, and turn "public sex, ,ephebophilia, and random sex" into a discussion of gay monogamy ... to harp about those things would be to do a disservice to the boy and miss the main issue: "a fifteen year old boy was molested…. that is who should be the primary focus."

Like you, I'm not going to lose sight of that.

Randy, you mention "bitter activists" but I'm unclear about the use of the adjective "bitter". Are the activists you refer to (ostensibly those who facilitate GSAs) trying to create activists who are bitter or activists, who by their very nature, are bitter? Is it possible to advocate for LGBT equality without being bitter? I'm not sure what you meant and the phrasing, for me, was confusing.

Thanks (in advance) for the clarification!

Who is the one-time Muslim?

I'm glad to hear that you're taking it all in stride and that you've got friends to help keep you in check. Those type of friends really are a blessing, aren't they?

Best of luck with getting back into a healthy stride!

Could you clarify what you mean by "the inclusive crowd" which you were once a part of? Do you mean liberal Democrats? Gay-affirming Christians? Pagan environmentalists? Something else? All of the above? I'm interested to know which group exactly you saw yourself as a part of / which group exactly you are generalizing about.

I can definitely agree with you that I have seen supposedly "open minded" people be very closed minded when it comes to people of faith. But I have also seen many Christians who accept gay and transgender relationships as equal to straight ones be very understanding of those Christians with a different theology--and who definitely still consider those Christians as "in" with God as you put it.

So yeah, just wondering exactly whom you are talking about. For me, it's important to be specific in my language, especially in my criticism.

Wow. Great post. And thanks for the link to that other blog... I'll check it out.

As a gay person, I can agree with you as well that it's not all positive, it's not all perfect. But I think every single one of my straight friends would echo that sentiment. Life is not all positive, and certainly not perfect.