I’m very encouraged by the diversity of perspectives represented in this thread. I’ve been reading XGW for about 4 years (give or take) and have found it a wonderful place to get involved in some of the conversations surrounding the ex-gay movement. I appreciate the grace given to Andy, by some, in his efforts to act as a bridge between the broader LGBT community and the church.

As a gay man, as a Christian, I have found very few organizations, Christian or otherwise, that have been committed to the lives of LGBT individuals unconditionally. I know that Andy’s heart is completely and totally sold out to the unconditional, tangible expression of God’s love, especially toward the LGBT community. On the other hand, it’s not for myself to convince you of this in your mind or heart. I think sometimes we are more concerned with needing to be convinced of things than we are in actually living out a reality of love for our lives.

I noticed that there were comments that pointed at agreement and disagreement with where people stand specifically on issues related to the LGBT community and/or sexuality. For some, it’s important for someone to share concrete, black and white statements before relationship can be developed. For some, this process is an important filtering to keep themselves removed from “another hurtful situation” (Lord knows I’ve had them). What I love about Andy’s heart and about what I see in The Marin Foundation, is a desire to go beyond this. We are not on one shore, we are a bridge. Many have a problem with this idea because they’d like to know on what foundation we exist, on what belief system or theology. It’s clearly both shores. Whatever your shores may be, they are all different for each of us.

“I’ve seen the bridge and the bridge is long
And they build it high and they build it strong
Strong enough to hold the weight of time
Long enough to leave some of us behind”
(B. Taupin)

I had such a problem with the imagry of this lyric because it’s so accomodating, yet so uninviting. Yet, I believe that as Christians, this can often be the reality of our relationships with eachother, in disagreement, or in anything. The bridge is not here to judge, but to love.

“The bridge it shines, oh cold, hard iron
Saying, ‘come and risk it all or die trying’”
(B. Taupin)

The bridge is such an amazing thing, so drawing, so luring, but not all experience it that way. For some it’s cold, it’s distant, it’s harsh. I love that we are called to ‘risk it all or die trying’. I believe that is a critical focus with respect to the bridge.

The bridge identifies with both shores. Absolutely and without condition or compromise. Either shore boasts disidentification in their claim of having crossed the bridge.

I don’t believe we are meant to always live in this picture of the bridge, I’m not sure if that’s how God intended things to be and if that’s how things will always be, but it seems that this picture, this idea, is so close to the reality before us. Different shores, disagreements and we are free to move in, around and between. We can know each other or paint each other foe. Either way, we are called to love both.

I’m encouraged to continue with The Marin Foundation to bring this reality to two communities which have found great means to isolate themselves from each other.

Support those who want support, make laws that protect our human rights, love those who want to be loved. Teach those who want to be taught. This is the new paradigm. Pulling along the unwilling is useless wasted energy.

Banning mean mangey barn yard dogs is a sign of healthy boundaries.
Focus on the prize, the black sticky goo along the way only makes one’s part in the game difficult.

Marin immersed himself with socializing with gay people. I’ve maintained all along that what sets me and other straight allies apart from Christians who think themselves well meaning, is listening and empathizing. REALLY doing it, being there to see the damage, or triumphs, acknowledging the brain trust and what truly having a gay person’s love and seeing THEM loved really means.

People like LaBarbera aren’t the least bit interested in what gay people really think or say and he arrogates himself to speak FOR gay people in nothing but negative terms. I think I personally wouldn’t have been so soft on LaBarbera. I would have called him on his outright lies and misrepresentations.

LaBarbera isn’t the least bit concerned with the souls of gay people, he’s already PASSED judgement while taking advantage of certain 21st century media to assert Bronze Age principles on a SINGLE group of people.
At least Andrew Marin by now has experienced gay people in the diversified spheres they really live in.
LaB goes to sex and raunch drenched underground situations, and completely ignores the fact that heterosexuals do the same thing. At least he doesn’t report that this is so.
He’s not attending the “Power of Us” conference, for example. Or any PFLAG or COLAGE gatherings.
He’s free to attend and everyone is welcome.

Marin, would go. LaB wouldn’t.
The measure of these men for me is that they are NOT two sides of the same coin.
Marin sees gay people as human beings, as he is himself, as equals.
Peter LaB does not see gay people at all, because he never has wanted to experience gay people fully. EVER.
And he won’t.
LaB’s ONLY feelings are for himself and that is the difference. A big one.

Mr. Marin, you can tell me if I’m wrong, but I won’t cut LaB any slack.

This is certainly better than the current situation, but it begs the question:

Why on earth is this considered an important question to begin with? The world is vastly overpopulated to the point of unsustainability. People in Darfur are starving. North Korea has nuclear arms AND a nut job in charge. The salmon industry in California is ocllapsing. The dollar is losing ground and may become irelevant. There are multiple wars everywhere. Britney is a mess. This is just a partial listing.

compared to these, what makes the Colonel snap to attention is of no importance, at least in the reality based community (thanks, Pam), and is of aboslutely no consequence to anyone except myself and the snappee.

What the bible says about sexual morality in general and homosex in particular is highly debatable on many grounds, and doesn’t matter to me, because it is not my book. Nor does it apparently matter to the bulk of its adherents. Which way you go in “highly debatable” is dependant upon what you have already decided must be true, ar Mr. Marin acknowledges.

But “highly debatable” is what tells me that this is not about truth in any objective sense of the word, which means usually that it is about something else.

Mr. marin addresses the “something else” by saying let’s just all go to Jesus. That bridges to me and my question– why are different standards and authorities directed at gay people than at straight people. My belief is that the something else is the answer to my question– how much the very existence of gay people bothers some people, both straight and wish-they-were-straight-but-they’re-not.

But in this instance, there was a new dynamic, he was taking advantage of someone who would seem to be a friend of the Church as much as anything. Trust me, you won’t see his name here much.