I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

Thanks for posting, BD!

I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

Thanks for posting, BD!

I don't know how many of us could enter the debate without setting ourselves up for criticism on how well we spoke, but that is beside the point. Carrie is only one in a long list of people (self included) who have misused the language.

On the change in the meaning of words – specifically the word “gay” – I think it far less important to lay blame than to recognize the fact that the word can hardly be used in its traditional sense of being lighthearted and happy due to the cultural hijacking that happened. The “new” connotation of the word is meant to imply the original definitions apply to the homosexual lifestyle – I don't buy that for one nanosecond.

Thanks for posting, BD!

He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.

So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, “Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?”

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!

Thanks for stopping by Casey!

He called out the people who were being hypocrites, but usually when He did so it was simply to help them realize the error in their ways. He also taught us that the world would hate us because it first hated Him. He also taugh us to love (agape, the same love that He has for us) even our enemies.

So I think that whatever Christians do to 'stand up' we must be driven by the question, “Does what I am doing open a door for conversation with those who don't agree with me, or does it drive a wedge even deeper in that relationship?”

Thanks for sharing your thoughts Kara!

Thanks for stopping by Casey!

And why do they want to call their relationships “marriage”? It's not marriage. Marriage has a definition, and the only way to call their relationships marriage is to redefine the word. The only reason I can see for pushing for the right to “marry” instead of the right to enter into a “domestic partnership” is that they want to force people to accept homosexual behavior as normal.