Add new comment

I am glad to hear you describe Mr. Mouw as intelligent, compassionate and thoughtful. What I take issue with is not with your homosexuality as much as you believing that he should not have been given a voice on the show (or at least at this time). Have you considered it timely instead.
You said, "... civility in the political and religious arena is such an important topic! I wish it had been explored in a way that didn’t highlight one man’s disapproval of gay marriage. I long to be respectful of other folks’ beliefs, struggles and communal aspirations. Regrettably, it is impossible for anyone who believes in equality to reconcile Mr. Mouw’s beliefs on gay marriage. How is it civil to deny someone his or her right to marry the one he or she loves? An on-air apology to your gay and lesbian listeners would be most welcome."

The church views on gay marriage and homosexuality are not radical. They are long standing traditions. I do not feel that an apology is warranted. Furthermore an apology would be a step backwards i the conversation. Here is why.

I found that he placed his understanding that homosexuality sin on par with the sin of remember the sabbath and keep it holy or not bear false witness against your neighbor, nor covet your neighbors wife. He also expressed that as any other sin, it is near impossible to acheive for humans. That all sinners are to be embraced, not punished.

Is it important to you that he must agree that homosexuality is accepted BEFORE you can have a conversation, of course not.
The reasonable outcome is not that all people everywhere embrace homosexuality as the norm, nor is it reasonable that all gays go into a closet. There will be disagreement for our lifetimes and that is point of continued civility and compassion on both sides. Mr. Mouw has extended that compassion toward you, can you see that? I felt his love for all humans come through. I did not feel you return the favor.