"Oh, why can't these annoying ignorant right-wing religious hillbillies just surrender and accept whatever us secular humanist elites shove at them? Don't they understand that we are more intelligent, more sophisticated and know what's best? I mean, really, why don't they just go play their banjos or something..."

The "Mainstream" Media: By liberals. For liberals.

these church leaders talk about it so much because we are inundated with it in our daily lives.  You can't turn on a TV or radio without being scandalized.  You can't even open your email.  I live in DC and I can't drive to work and look at the billboards or ads on public transportation without being subject to it.  What's worse, is that the sex she and her like-minded ilk peddle is far from good.  If it were, then why all the warnings: use condoms, get yourself tested, etc.  But, yeah, it's our fault; we're hung up on sex.

How would it affect your life, your spirituality, if the gay couple next door were married by a pastor, priest or rabbi? If your church were served by gay and straight people? Can you share a pew with someone who sees these issues differently? 

Let's see...my faith teaches that marriage is a sacrament reserved for a man and a woman as a lifelong bond designed to be open to life.  My faith also teaches that there is such a thing as Heaven and Hell and that - at the end of our lives - we will have to make an accounting of our behavior (according to God's laws and teachings) and spend eternity in one of those two places as either reward or punishment for our behavior.

I don't care if the Methodist Church down the street marries gay couples.  I don't care if Episcopalians have gay clergy.  That's for them to hash out.  If Catholics are all for it, they're free to leave the Catholic church for one that suits their ideologies.  Whatever.  I believe the First Amendment is serious when it talks about no laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion - even if I think other religions are lacking or incorrect.

But this isn't what it's about.  It's not about what happens in other parishes because the radical gay rights movement never seems satisfied that X, Y, and Z groups cater to their needs.  They are somehow "entitled" to have A, B, and C do so as well - even if it goes against the personal beliefs and free religious expression, and even if it means bringing the tyranny of the government down on A, B, and C.

THAT'S what this is about.

So, to answer your question Ms. Grossman, it would affect my life by denying me - and the others who share my faith - the guaranteed First Amendment right to free expression of religion.  I have freely chosen to be a Catholic because I believe it to be theologically sound, morally correct, and the fullness of relationship with God.  I go to Mass every Sunday, celebrate the sacraments, serve as lector and extraordinary minister, and teach religious education.  In other words, my Church is a BIG part of my life.  I also work for a parish in communion with Rome.  So my financial well-being would also be impacted.

It would deny my spirituality by forcing us to condone or endorse behavior that is intrinsically evil (and remember that word - "behavior" - that's what sin is all about and what we'll be judged on at the end of our lives or time), thereby putting in peril my eternal salvation and the eternal salvation of all - especially those living with SSA who choose to be chaste and follow religious teachings.I wish to live with God for all eternity in Heaven and, while I'm not perfect, every day is an opportunity for me to grow in that relationship and deepen my faith.

Does that answer your question?

Everyone else here is exactly correct.  The reason churches talk so much about sex is because our culture is obsessed with it.  They tell us it's normal, good, and worthy to not only treat sex so casually, but to explore and embrace alternative sexualities that are physically, mentally, emotionally, and spiritually harmful.

The role of good clergy is to guide their congregants through life by following a standard, consistent moral teaching - not the whims of the pelvis.

Liberals hate that.  As I've said before, the complaints are never about, say, the Rosary - but always about sex.  It always comes back to sex.

But don't expect us to condone, accept, or tolerate what we believe to be wrong.  We will defend our faith and our rights.

Aut viam inveniam aut faciam

Ken,

The sad thing is that it is the Liberal churches like the United Church of Christ, talk about sex at their synods. They are pushing the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender) point of view. The Liberal mouthpieces bring up "Open and Accepting" positions for votes, which pass. The message then goes out to local churches to be "Open and Accepting" of all who are LGBT and that if you aren't accepting, then you are not as valued because you are judgmental. Somehow they get confused with the difference between loving all God's people and accepting unnatural acts performed by people.

The one nice thing about belonging to the UCC, is that each local church functions independently based on congregational vote. Unfortunately the extreme Liberal positions of the National UCC has driven off good Christ loving people and churches. Even sadder the current President, Rev. John Roberts, has been an apologist for Rev. Wright of Trinity Temple in Chicago during this past year.

--How would it affect your life, your spirituality, if the gay couple next door were married by a pastor, priest or rabbi? If your church were served by gay and straight people? Can you share a pew with someone who sees these issues differently? --

It would effect (not affect) it because, first, as a Christian who takes the Bible seriously and literally, such actions are clearly forbidden by the Bible. If they are compromising on this, then likely they are compromising on other religious things.

And when I look at those who make arguments like this writers, I see that such is true. Behind their 'christian' rhetoric, liberal Christians are only all too ready to jettison biblical standards in pursuit of cultural relevance. One need only look a the writings of such liberals as Borg, Crossan, or Spong to see how much they hate what the Bible says, and how they try to make it say what it doesn't say.

And keep in mind, this argument only cuts one way for such as her. How would it effect her spirituality if she the pastor/rabbi/spiritual leader of a church didn't believe that gay marriage was right? No doubt, she would pull out the usual lib labels of "hate" and "discrimination" and "oppression" to label that person, not giving his religious reasons any credence.

And finally, we may ask if it's not such a big deal, why are their people trying to force the church to acknowledge, accept, and even condone those lifestyles?

"Thoroughly worldly people never understand even the world; they rely altogether on a few cynical maxims which are not true."

Chesterton, Orthodoxy 

Grossman: "Can you share a pew with someone who sees these issues differently?"

I don't care if the person next to me is struggling with alcoholism, a short temper, pornography, drug addiction, or same gender attraction. To me they're all human weaknesses.  The question is, do we fight our weaknesses or do we embrace them?  EVERYBODY has weaknesses.  Everybody falls short of God's will.  But those who pass the test of life are those who resist the natural man, and endure it for their entire lives.

That said, I don't want a pastor who is fully engaged in homosexual behavior any more than I would want a pastor who is having adulterous affairs.  I would expect my Christian leaders to be the types who resist and control the urges of the flesh rather than embrace them.

"How would it affect your life, your spirituality, if the gay couple next door were married by a pastor, priest or rabbi?"

Just  more work to do. Especially prayers for the so-called clergy to regain their sight.

"If your church were served by gay and straight people?"

Won't knowingly happen re: homosexuals.

But most of our heterosexual folk are gay and full of joy.

"Can you share a pew with someone who sees these issues differently?"

I can, but how long can they? My guess is that they will not willingly come to the church I attend nor will I go to theirs.

But the probability of them being drawn to a church like the one I attend, where the Word of God is preached, not this New-Agey pablum or racially separatist junk of Jeremiah Wright's is issued, is high.

That's because, ultimately, the truth is more attractive than lies.

"Marriage is frequently used in the Old Testament as a picture of God's covenant with Israel. The New Testament uses similar language to show marriage as a picture of the covenant between Christ (the groom) and the church (the bride) and to compare a wife's submission to her husband in marriage to Jesus Christ's submission to God the Father."

And both of those marriage covenants are blood covenants, made by God Himself. There can be no blood covenant in marriage if both participants are male or both are female.
None of this will affect my marriage, my faith or my spirituality or my relationship with Jesus. But how about it being just plain wrong? How about two men standing before an alter of God being rebellion before God and blasphemy? Will God bless a "marriage" that is outright rebellion? I doubt it. God never blessed rebellion, either in the OT or the NT. And He never made a blood covenant with homosexuality either.

"I dont need to read a newspaper to know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber."

Walter Brennan, The Colonel, Meet John Doe, 1941