>As a patriotic American whose gay brother graduated from the United States Air Force Academy and subsequently served his country for five years at Vance Air Force Base in Enid, and at Randolph Air Force Base in San Antonio, as an instructor pilot in the United States Air Force, I was extremely offended by the comments of Oklahoma lawmaker Sally Kern who called homosexuality "the biggest threat our nation has, even more so than terrorism or Islam." > >While Kern reminds us that she, too, is guaranteed freedom of speech by the US Constitution, I would remind her that my brother, and other gay members of the US Military, put their lives on the line every day to defend Kern's right to free speech. I would also remind her that, because of homophobic regulations ("dont ask don't tell") our military has dismissed any number of gay linguists specializing in Arabic, who might help warn us of another terrorist plot similar to 9/11. > >"The biggest threat our nation has"? Really? Worse than comments like Kern's that might embolden the next generation of hate crime perpetratorss, or the another Timothy McVeigh waiting in the shadows to commit his sordid deeds? I believe Representative Kern should be censured for her comments and that she owes my brother and other gay members of the US Armed Forces an apology.

Representative Sally Kern was 100% correct and the firestorm of hatred that the Oklahoman has poured gasoline on is proof that everything she said is the truth.

Did or did not Kern use the word AGENDA? It is not about what people do in private. It is about the agenda.

the Queen of Hate's words are as inhumane and hateful as Osama bin Laden's ... as a terrorizing religious conservative, Sally bin Baptist is forcing many to monitor and respond to her bully Agenda daily. Beware the adult Bully - she's big and she's mean. She will pay a long time for her Evil. We will NEVER FORGET her hate!

Bravo, Sally Kerns -- Stand your ground. As Christians and believing God's word to be the truth, the scriptures definitely teach against homosexuality as a sin. Many homosexuals are very good people, but their political groups as a whole "DO HAVE AN AGENDA" and it is to basically make us accept them as "being born that way" when they were not and if their agenda is not stopped it will lead to the deterioration of our families and nation. There sin is no worse than other's sin, but God can and does forgive all sins.

I am embarrassed by Kern's statement. Whether it is her belief or not, it is offensive to her constituents, and they should campaign to remove her from public office. One may hold ridiculous beliefs of any kind, and may speak these silly thoughts, but when one is elected to office, one has the responsibility to respect and represent all of ones constituents. If she has even one gay constituent, they should work with all their might to remove her from office.

Sticks and stones will break my bones but words will never hurt me. I'm a happily married straight male and I am blown away with how sensitive you are! Sure what she said was wrong, but instead of whining about it why not get out and prove her wrong! Who cares what a person says about a 'group' of people.

hmm. it is the most righteous and, those who support them, or accept ideas that are inane, that cause the most violent damage. Hitler was a democratically elected official who committed some of the worst crimes against humanity. dramatic? ridiculous? check the history books. Appealing to the ignorance of a segment of the voting population and manipulating them is the most base way to earn votes; though it is a sure way to be elected. Let's hear it for the majority, the nationalistic, the mainstream...those who wish to use the instruments of government against their fellow citizens. the fact is that our local, state and federal governments should treat us fairly; all of us, regardless of race, religion, color, creed, orientation, or veteran status..to name but a few...why do we have these laws and ordinances? because in a civil society one must still protect a minority from the tyranny of the few or the dominant point-of-view. Protecting the minority is one of the cornerstones upon which our nation is founded. It is called federalism. if anyone wants to say that we should should respect a person's point-of-view, simply because they have chosen to voice them, then i say wrong. first, you have to accept that i am a citizen with the same rights as you- all of them. otherwise, you are, and will always be my adversary, and wrong. anyone who quotes a religious document to justify his or her political point-of-view has no place at my table- and I refuse to sit at his.

This topic is about to expire. I leave it with a comment that fits so many here;"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." As a pastor once said, "Hope that God blesses you because that's the one that counts." Good night and good love.

Goodnight all. And goodnight, Sally, if you are reading these blogs or if an aide is. Speaking only for myself, if you truly feel you were justified in what you said, then don't back down. Like C, I commend you for taking a stand, whether I or anyone else thinks you are right or wrong. I won't apologize for my beliefs and I don't think you should have to apologize for yours. God bless us all and forgive us our sins.

To clarify....Judie, I was fortunate...My father did strive to follow Christ's example...he was benevolent, merciful and gracious. It was easy to embrace the loving Father God when my own was an example of a most kind and loving earthly father and was committed to our heavenly Father.

Amen, judie, amen!

C., you and I are definitely on the same track with all this. I can't believe she was being hateful to anyone, simply stating what she believed to be threatening to the core of our society, family values. To me, family values means something entirely different than it means to her, and she might feel I am being deceived by the devil. That is her right. I truly believe that when it is all said and done and we face the day of judgment, God will evaluate how we lived according to what we truly believed was right or wrong. In other words, He will judge our hearts, not our actions. The God I worship is a benevelant, merciful and gracious Father, the kind I wish I'd had in human form.

After all is said and done, it seems there is something good to be said about Rep.Kern in spite of her position on this issue and whether or not a person agrees with her in regard to it. Obviously, she is not a hypocrite. Some politicians appease with words, but the words are not sincere. Rep. Kerns has not waffled or denied her statement ...she has not tried to cover her remarks with slick rhetoric or posturing. She has not denied her beliefs in spite of intense and widespread criticism and numerous threats. That quality seems to be a rare commodity in the world of politics today.

Judie...strike "poor choices." Make that simply____ "choices."

Judie, if this were not "today" and if children still were allowed the innocence to which childhood truly should entitle them, this would not become a problem for a long while. However, children today are rushed into life. Society today is guilty of aiding and abetting the "Hurried Child' syndrome (I don't know if syndrome is the correct term). (Incidentally, I believe the books which I spoke of earlier also strip children of some of their innocence...and push them into the acknowledgement of things that should not yet be of concern to them.) ________At the time which your granddaughter might normally be curious about having a half sister so close to her own age, it would likely cause her to feel some sense of betrayal. It might affect her ability to trust men...if her father was so inclined to abandon, at least to a certain extent, her and his proper role in her life in pursuit of a relationship which produced a sibling with someone other than her mother when she was still in the crib...most likely not even able to sit up by herself, I think feelings of betrayal and abandonment would be appropriate and normal. Today? I am not sure that would be the case. I think we feel that we should let it all hang out even at early ages. In doing so, I think we expect too much. I don't feel a very young child should have to deal with that knowledge. For one thing, if we offer it as a norm, we send the wrong message. If we "convict" the father of the "sin," we teach the child a negative response. When a child is old enough,he/she can make that call and without our judgement or decree. That seems best to me. Yet, it may be troubling. Still, in life we must learn to cope with the cards we are dealt and make the best of them. Lemonade from lemons might be trite...yet it is a good thing to do. ____ Some will say that I am wrong.....that children should be protected from negative emotional responses whenever possible. I agree. However, I think it is wrong to teach them that the behavior of a parent is appropriate when it is/was clearly not. At some point, the child can figure that out. I understand that there must be some way to span the time between the innocence of childhood and the discovery of some harsh truths. _______ Obviously, I feel that your granddaughter's dad was derelict in his responsibility to both his daughter and to her mother. I don't feel that the situation should be glossed over. No matter how much it might hurt, your granddaughter should not be expected or forced to cut him any slack in this regard. She should know the truth when she is old enough to understand and process it and she should be allowed the emotions that result and she should be comforted and reassured that it was not her fault and she is not responsible for the poor choices of her father. Her self esteem should be affirmed and reaffirmed....and she should be assured that her worth and value were never contingent upon the poor choices of her father...it is he who was at fault. She should be allowed to reconcile her feelings in her own time. She should not accept responsibility for his failure. She must be ready to understand that there are consequences to choices and actions. Her father may suffer the consequence of his poor decision in that she may not be able to establish a close relationship with him due to his poor choice. I think it is important for her to know that is not her fault. If she cannot respond to him in a father/daughter relationship, so be it. It was his doing, not hers. Many people fail to do the right thing, but must suffer the consequences. She is innocent, but she should not allow this injustice and unkindness to settle within her and fester. She is not required to have relationship with him. Yet, using the torch of faith I feel you will surely pass on to her that at some point when she is ready, hopefully, she will be able to forgive him his mistakes...but she has no responsibility to do more.__________Well, that didn't answer your question...did it? For one thing...this is today...and so my rationale is probably not the norm or the way things will play out. (judie, I still believe that the family unit is a huge part of Rep. Kern's concern...but I don't have any way of knowing if I am right. That is all that makes sense to me.....but I realize I may be wrong. I may be cutting her too much slack in regard to her choice of words. However, I doubt she intended her words to become so public....had she known that was going to happen, maybe she would have refrained from such kind of talk. I do not say that to defend her. It just seems reasonable to me...but I know that I can't really make that call with any validity.)

C, I just had to add something kind of pathetic. When you said the grandmother is basic to the family unit, it made me wonder about that unit. I'm curious how my granddaughters father is going to answer her when she gets old enough to wonder about how she could have a half sister only four months younger than herself. I can't wait to hear this.

Danny, I know you weren't talking to me, but Floyd is a gentleman and truly believes in what he preaches and believes he does God's will. He is not a windbag or a hypocrite. Floyd and I are part of the same generation, but we percieve the world quite differently. What I don't accept is disrespect because someone holds a belief different than yours. Floyd would never disrespect you that way and neither will I. If you want to view other people as hateful that is your perogative, but I can assure you Floyd was not using his religion as a hateful tool, and neither was Sally Kern. BTW, I am an activist for Gay Rights.

by the way, floyd. wind bag. hypocrite. ooh, sorry. i don't know know you and can't make these judgments...neither could my government. being gay is not a sin; not accepting yourself as God has created you is. way to wear your religion as a badge...as a bat...as a hateful tool.

What a week in Oklahoma. First the homophobic fear-mongering from Sally Kern, and now the incident at Tinker with Rev. Phelps and his fanatics from Westboro Baptist Church. What do they both have in common? Their fear and disdain for homosexuals. I wonder how many people who supported Kern are prepared to do the same for the Westboro bunch in the name of Free Speech? The only difference between them is that Sally didn't desecrate a flag....

You have indeed done a favor for surviving inheritors. Thanks, Floyd.

Dennis, I agree with Toby. With all due respect, your comment of "under WHO?" made it appear to everyone who read your post that you were trying to remind us that the pledge of allegiance has "GOD" in it, therefore our country must be a Christian country. That's why I answered in the manner I did. Obviously you think the emphasis is on "under GOD" but I think the emphasis is on "with liberty and justice FOR ALL".

Paula, I have been reading the posts and see I missed answering you a couple of times and wanted to let you know I agre with something you mentioned. You asked if I thought YOU are good. On that I can only answer as Christ Himself said when He was called "good". He asked, "Why do you call me good? There is only one that is good." The Master said,"The Father and I are one." The family of God is call Elohim. So any member of the family of God seems to be good as I understand it. When one is baptized, according to Peter in Acts, in the Son's name, they receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not "tabernacle" in evil. As for the way I understand, according to the Messiah in Mark 1:15 when He said "The time of the Kingdom has come. Repent now and believe the Good News." He was opening up salvation so when you die, IF you have accepted Him as your personal Saviour, "In the twinkling of an eye," you will awake in the New Heaven on Earth and be clothed with all the good things (including foremost, love) you did in this lifetime. So my answer to your question depends on your relationship first-with the Father and Son, and 2nd with your fellow man. Your LOVE for your fellow man is obvious. On that my answer is you are good. It is very personal between you and your Creator. Only you and the Creator really know what is in your heart. As for civil unions; I favor them 100%. I was, in fact the one that started the end to the estate tax, with the help of the Grange(farm organization), and then US senator Henry Bellmon who got a watered down bill through Congress. Had it done as I wished, when my little brother died who was also my best friend and full business partner, I would not have had to pay an enormous tax which was so high I had to sell land and much of my farm equipment which meant I could no longer farm and had to rent out, then sell ALL my property. We could not incorporate since there was just the 2 of us. A civil union could really have been a blessing. When man-woman married couples get older there is little if any sex in so many marriages, yet the civil union protects the spouse thanks to my legislation.

Goodnight, C, and sleep tight. I imagine we'll lose this sight tomorrow thank God. It's been fun, but my daughter thinks I have become obsessed. Maybe she's right. I miss my crusader days. Guess I'll just go to bed and dream about them.

Judie, you are willing to accept and justify the publication of a storybook/storybooks which actually do target the two year old child. Not everyone will be able to accept or make that same justification. People have different levels of perception in regard to most things. ______BTW, I have a hunch your grandchildren are very well adjusted and need no such book about Mommy living with Grandma (after all, the role of grandmother is very basic to the family unit. Think of the Waltons..ha!) ...but I bet you would be a good author if you are so inclined. =) Goodnight, judie!

Thanks, C, but I'm sure that book was written to make children feel more comfortable about alternate life styles and different kinds of families, much like Marlo Thomas did years ago. My five year old granddaughter probably needs a book titled, "Mommy lives with Grandma because Daddy is a hetero two-timer."

Dennis....just for your curiosity sake, I recited it with 300 other people last week at a convention in OKC. I guess it was your emphasis on "WHO" that had me confused as to where you were going. You'll be happy to know that everyone including myself got all the words right too.

Judie, here's another title, "Daddy Has A Roommate"....ages 2 to 5.

toby...very simply, I was curious when the last time might be anyone had recited The Pledge of Allegiance. And with all due respect, neither you or Paula need give me a history lesson.

Dang Paula, you beat me to the punch on the submit button LOL.

Dennis, what was the point of your last post? Was your intent to remind everyone that we are a Christian nation? Or are we back to the topic that God and christians abhor homosexual behavior? I'm not quite sure where you were coming from. As Paula correctly posted earlier, this country was not founded on christian values. Jefferson wasn't even a Deist. In todays lexicon he would have been labeled a full blown atheist. As I'm sure you must know, when the original Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892, the "under god" clause wasn't even in it. It wasn't added until the 'red scare' of the 1950's. Maybe once this whole gay/lesbian issue with Sally cools down, she can go back and try to write some more legislation to introduce Intelligent Design to the science classrooms instead of evolution.

Dennis, the words "UNDER GOD" were not added to our pledge until the 1950s. The pledge was written by Francis Bellamy, who was a Christian Socialist. And I think you've missed the point of the pledge; it's not to promote religion or a specific deity. It's "with liberty and justice... FOR ALL." There are no exclusions in the pledge of allegiance.

Judie, don't hold your breath! I doubt Sally will respond to your question. =) ...I don't know the answer, but I am aware of some children's story books which present the concept. One is "King and King." There are others. I don't know the target ages for that book or any of the others. I don't know any other titles to offer. I have never held the book in my hand to peruse it. I have seen the book and heard its review several years ago on TV.....it may have been in the Edmond library. I can't remember, but it's a moot point anyway for I can't answer for Sally. I certainly don't want to assume that responsibility. What I said was just FYI for you, judie...in case you wish to check it out further. I don't plan to do that.

For the last time, Sally, where are these two year olds that are being targeted by gays?

Fifty years ago, anyone in this state that believed in integration was afraid of saying so because they felt they would be ostracized by the majority of the population. Fifty years from now, it will be the same with homosexuality and our country will still be strong, and there will be a new target, probably the rights of robots.

OFF TOPIC: Dennis, thanks for your understanding. It seems to me that none of us have any way of verifying that one of us is who we say we are...in fact, someone could have responded and it might not have been me...but they could have pretended to be. Now, you know that if someone did, it wasn't me. I do understand. Floyd explained what was up with that. You were kind to honor his request. With respect,

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all...one Nation under WHO?

Chris - you should work on fixing yourself and stop commenting on why you THINK others should fix themselves. I PROMISE YOU...You are not accomplishing anything.

The social mores of a culture will likely always enter in when it comes to what is deemed appropriate and acceptable in a society. Whether one likes it or not, it seems reasonable to assume that folks are likely to oppose the relaxing of certain standards and principles if they feel that doing so will diminish the well being of said culture.....no matter WHAT the issue.

principal = principle

Most of the founding fathers believed in God, but they didn't use the bible as the root of their beliefs. They were mostly Freemasons and Deists; they used their experience, not biblical texts, as the base of their faith. There is not one word condoning homosexuality, but there is not one word condemning it either. The United States is a country that was founded upon the principals of liberty, NOT Christianity. In fact, if you read the Treaty of Tripoli, you'll see where our founding fathers in 1796 and 97 explicitly stated that this country was not founded upon Christianity.

I currently reside in Downtown Okla. City and the “so called Christians” of this state embarrass me.

To Sally Kern, concernig an apology! We God fearing folks hope you stand your ground. The liberals and the gays tend to write more letters and e-mails, but us God fearing folks vote. We elect people like you. I pray you fight to protect our society from homosexuality.

Paula, Have you ever researched how much our founding fathers relied on God's standards of morality as they shaped our country and it's constitution. There is not one word condoning homosexuality. The liberals of this world have fought gallantly to have God's will and authority silenced in this country, which was formed by brave God fearing men. A nation cannot stand when it rejects God's authority. Consider Babylon, Greece, and Rome. All of these societies became ravaged by homosexuality as well as heterosexual misconduct, and fell from within.

Sally, Homosexuality is un-natural behaviour, as defined by God's word. I think the religious folks were probably concerned with the behaviour, because all true and sincere Christians pray for the homosexual to repent (CHANGE and SUBMIT to God's authority).

Again, God does not make the laws of this country. You can have whatever rules you wish for your religion, but the government of this country is secular, not theistic. Therefore, equality under the law shouldn't be granted only to those who are of a certain religion.

Todd, We Christians do not hate homosexuals. We just adhere to God's authority. Those who do not conform to God's authority will understand, someday! Again, please read Romans 1.

I realize that much of God's word was devoted to love, but I also remind you that the Bible holds numerous warnings to all sexually immoral people. All the verses in the Bible concerning love multiplied by 10, do not override Romans Chapter 1 and other passages, which defines God's attitude toward homosexuallity and other sexual depravity very well.

Humanity's first responsibility is to God's standards. Christians do not hate homosexuals they do however recognize the immorality of their conduct.

As I scanned several earlier comments, it horrified me that several jokers tried to justify homosexual practices with animal conduct examples. I might remind you that dogs, monkeys, etc. do a lot of things that are repulsive. That is because they are animals. We humans are accountable to GOD!

This has nothing to do with God, Chris. This has to do with the laws of this country, which ALSO have nothing to do with religion. You are free to practice whichever religion you believe in, and discriminate against whomever you wish to discriminate against within that religion, but the government is not allowed to do that. Or at least they shouldn't be. It hasn't stopped them from doing so. The difference between our sides is that gays aren't trying to get Christians to stop being Christians. Gays aren't trying to get laws passed outlawing Christians. Gays aren't going around saying that Christians are more of a threat to our country than terrorists or comparing Christians to a cancer. In fact, many gay people are also Christians themselves. (And yes, I realize not all Christians feel this way about gays, so those who don't, my words weren't directed at you.)

Why are those who side with God concerning sexual misconduct considered bigots?

The only thing that matters is what God thinks. In the end, the ones who practice or condoned sexual misconduct of any will find that out.

I think sex and sexuality in general is less restricted with the younger generations. I'm 35 and I know people from both mindsets in my generation; some see nothing wrong with it, some want nothing to do with it. Those younger than me are generally even more relaxed about it. That's not to say they are inappropriate about it, just that they see it for what it is - a natural human drive that people are curious about. I think it stems from better communications between parents and children than in the past. I'm not saying anything bad about parents of previous generations, I have the utmost respect when it's deserved. But I think people are more open with their children now. My teenage son knows the basics of my transgressions and my experiences with peer pressure, substances, intimacy, etc. NO details mind you, but he knows I wasn't perfect by any means, and therefore I don't expect him to be perfect. We discuss these issues before they arise, and then he's better prepared to make informed decisions. He won't (and hasn't) always made the best ones, but even then he still has very few hangups about coming to me when that happens. It's this kind of discussion, at least I think it is, that allows us to better understand the human condition and the falliable nature of humans. Those who understand this will be less hard on themselves when they inevitably make poor decisions and won't get hung up in the guilt trap that only serves to deepen feelings of self-loathing and disappointment. I'm rambling now, sorry.

I understand that we live in the United States of America, and that we all have the right to say what we want when we want and that is why I love the USA, but when an elected official goes on a bigoted rant it is embarssing for all Americans. That is the reason that the rest of the country is looking at Oklahoma so starngely. It seems odd that a mother of a gay man would say that she feels that her own flesh and blood is a bigger threat to our great country than terroists, who's goal in life is to terrorize. Homosexuals are trying to get the rights that are due to them. It is completely backwards and the "good go fearing" people of Oklahoma should read a the bible once more, becaues "Thou shalt not judge", THIS MEANS YOU!!!!!!!!!!!

It may be a generational thing, porn, I mean. My 22 year old granddaughter tells me she sees nothing wrong with it as long as it's in your home and there are no young children around. She brought this up to me because she asked me to babysit her 2 year old one night so they could go to the movies. I found out the movies were in a friends house and it was a porn party. She's a registered nurse, and really quite a decent girl in all other respects, but this really surprised me. Not that I thought she was an angel, but that she said that most of the people in her age bracket watch hard core porn regularly and see nothing wrong with it. Maybe that accounts for the reason porn rentals are three times greater than theatrical releases.

When I was a child I moved to a farm in Okla from a city in Wis. Starting out, Dad only milked 2-3 cows, raised pigs and chickens and sold eggs. What surprised me was the hens. Without a rooster around it is not all that uncommon for a hen to start crowing and it's comb would grow longer and it's sex would change. With the honey bees. The workers who were all female, would feed a special honey to larvae to make one of them, or a few, into queens. Sure cows will mount other cows but generally just when one is in heat. When we would get semen from bulls for artificial insemination a cow or steer would be put in a shoot and we would grab the bulls working part and direct it into a heated tube with a vial on the end. I really do not recall bulls in a pasture trying to make out with one another. It was always just fighting. I never was curious as to do any studying on the subject, I just grew up hardly paying attention

To clarify my comments, I know I'm a girl, I just meant that most ladies don't like porn period. I don't like that!

Judie most men go for that, but as long as it's with a woman it's ok in their eyes. Paula that is an excellent point; me ncan watch 2 women together in porn and it's "hot" but 2 men and it's "disgusting". I look at all porn the same; disgusting. But then I'm girl I guess.

Let me clarify: I don't think it was a double standard that they wanted to watch 2 women and didn't want to watch 2 men... I think it was a double standard that they always asserted that being gay was wrong, but they changed their tune when it came to women. THAT'S the double standard.

Judie, yours is definitely not the only one. I've known many men who were obsessed with that sort of thing. I've also known many men who were obsessed with watching two women together but were repulsed by the idea of two men together. Double standards, I'd say.

Don't straight men enjoy anal sex with a female partner or was my husband the only one? My gosh, was I married to a deviant for 46 years? Did he lie to me when he said all guys do this? Since he was my only sexual partner ever, I have no way of knowing (no, I don't watch porn).

That's funny you should bring this up, Paula, because years ago when we were raising dogs, I tried in vain to breed my French poodle, but she wouldn't have anything to do with the stud. When I took her to the vet, he said she was probably homosexual, which happens frequently in dogs. We eventually has to artificially inseminate her to get our puppies.

Also Mike "How can we think as crude as it sounds that a man would insert himself into a place I can't believe was ever intended to have something inserted." All you have to do here is......DON"T THINK ABOUT IT! Problem solved for everybody.

SORRY - Mike said this below....NOT RANDY.

Randy says " I don't ever want to see two men having sex.. sorry.. nor two women." What you are saying is "gay porn is bad, straight porn is good?" Sex is a private thing sir...Where would you ever "see" 2 men or women having sex but on porn?

Actually humans are far from the only species that exhibit homosexual behavior. Some species have even partnered with a same-gendered animal in a long-term manner. Yes, it does happen in nature. It's not unnatural. Yes, studies have shown there are biological differences between gay men and straight men, between lesbians and heterosexual women. Your future sexual orientation is most likely determined by hormones you are exposed to in the womb. It's not necessarily hardwired into the brain or in a gene that can be clearly identified, but it is an innate part of who a person is. Put it this way: if someone told you to stop being straight, could you do it, or is it just a part of who you are?

I for one have never denied Sally Kern's right to have her own opinion. I did question her judgment in stating that gays are trying to indoctrinate 2 year olds to be gay without showing proof. I thought this was irresponsible and that she should either show the proof, apologize, or be censured. I believe that is true of anyone that goes on a public forum, including myself, and makes accusations that can potentially be taken as truth by many gullible readers. I think we all have an obligation to only state as fact what we can prove as fact, or simply say "in my opinion (maybe we need to use IMO)." One doesn't have to approve of anyone elses lifestyle to treat the other person with respect and decency. I am purposely leaving out any mention of religion or scripture because to me this is simply an issue of human decency.