Much appreciated!

Thanks!

:)

Andy, I don't normally reply here, but since the article was more personal it seems appropriate to weigh in. I use certain terminology because I'm speaking to a wide audience of people, many of whom would not listen to a word I was saying if I used other terminology. (I have friends and colleagues who differ with me on this, of course.) Since in my mind "gay" doesn't convey "happiness" to the average American today but rather "homosexual," I'm comfortable using that terminology. Should there be terms that offend my conscience or that I felt were misleading, I wouldn't use them. Again, we may differ here, but that's my reason. Thanks, for the gracious words in other posts here!

Joe, always nice to hear from you! I pray that God Himself will whisper in your ear and that you would come to know the Father's love.

Thanks, Chries. I was being sarcastic of course (and self-effacing), but I'm glad you'll be listening today. The show actually airs two hours daily but most local radio stations carry only one of the two hours, but both can be listened to online (live or by archive).

Chries, oh yes, I'm sure you'll be counting the minutes eagerly. :)

Folks, I'll be talking about this on my radio show today from 2:00-2:30 if you care to listen in. I've reached out to some of the people making the accusations mentioned in this column, so hopefully one of them will call in. Either way, we'll have some fun with this today! (And to all critics, the phones lines are open!) Online links and station listings: http://bit.ly/IREljv

Not so. Marriage has always been the union of a man and a woman -- not just two people -- with many reasons for that. To make it simply the union of two people is to radically redefine it. As for expanding eligibility requirements -- your words, not mine -- how far are you willing to take that? How egalitarian are you willing to be?

For a host of reasons, marriage is the union of a man and a woman, not the union of two people, and we will not redefine it based on your romantic and sexual attractions. You are free in our society to pursue whatever relationship you want (that doesn't break the law), but you can't expect society to change to sanction your desires. And when I married my wife, Nancy, 36 years ago, I didn't do it for tax benefits or society acceptance. As for thoughts, Jesus is speaking about giving place to thoughts, and we can control that too.