"Ellen’s comments present some troubling assertions — namely, that bullying is simply any moral judgment about another person’s behavior." Can you please tell me what the 11-17 year old kids' BEHAVIOR is that they are being morally judged by? Being a homosexual is not a behavior and Christians need to wise up on that. A 12 year old boy who comes out as gay is not making a proclamation that he has lost his virginity and is having daily orgies. Christians need to stop summing up gay humans as a sexual act. Its disgusting and shameful on Christians. How can you tell someone who comes out at gay, that they are going to hell? Or that they are sinning? HOW DO YOU KNOW? Being gay has nothing to do with any behavior.

When I heard about the string of youth suicides back in 2010, I cried. Look, I"m a Christian and I do know the verses often used to condemn homosexuality. However, I can't help but look at the ages of these kids. 12, 13 and 14. How can God look at this and condemn them? These surely aren't like the mend of Sodom that people often talk about. Do you seriously think they were condemend because they questioned their sexuality or agonisingly realised they were gay? It just doesn't make sense. Anti - bullying legislation MUST be introduced or there WILL be more children dying. That's the way I look at it anyway.

"I understand some of why folks are squeamish about anti-bullying laws as they add another layer of approval to homosexuality. Certainly having concerns about that is not giving tacit approval to bullying. Likewise, being concerned for the welfare of children in same-sex-parented families and desiring to preserve traditional one-man, one-woman marriage is not being unloving to gays." We already have anti bullying laws. We call them "laws". Sticking a video camera in someone's window to be a peeping tom is Burglary. Beating up a student because he is smaller is Assault and Battery. And if we are not to take this seriously, why should we take "anti-bullying" laws seriously? Or are we just fastidious about school bullies going to juvy for bullying? Then use the flat of a ruler in the old style. Or is that not PC either? Then it is not clear what the point of all this anti-bullying stuff is when it is obvious no one intends to do anything. Or do we think that bullies will be deterred by much speaking.

Christian Radio Host talks about lesbian (but not gay male?) nurses. http://www.wisconsingazette.com/breaking-news/christian-radio-host-warns-that-lesbian-nurses-can-make-kids-gay.html Here's a quote from the story: “(Let’s) say your 11-year-old has broken her leg rather badly and needs to be in the hospital a few days, which would you prefer: a nurse who’s proud of her lesbianism, who has rainbow identifiers on her work clothing, or a nurse who does not?” Let's change that for a second. “(Let’s) say your 11-year-old has broken her leg rather badly and needs to be in the hospital a few days, which would you prefer: a nurse who’s proud of her Christianity, who has crosses on her work clothing, or a nurse who does not?” or “(Let’s) say your 11-year-old has broken her leg rather badly and needs to be in the hospital a few days, which would you prefer: a nurse who’s proud of her home country, who has foreign flags on her work clothing, or a nurse who does not?”

"...how can we talk about all this when millions of innocent babies are being killed through abortion and we think nothing of their lives and what a shame it is that they are being killed???????????????????????" True. All other issues pale in comparison to this.

Yes, we are all sinners by nature, and yes, God loves the gay person as well as the straight. And yet there is a difference between those who are saved and those who are not. The "old" Dan wanted to carry out the desires of the flesh as listed by Paul in Gal. 5:21. The "new" Dan does not [II Cor. 5:17 "Therefore if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creature; the old things passed away; behold, new things have come."] A homosexual professing to be a Christian and yet practices same sex fornication is no more saved than a heterosexual who practices fornication. 1 John 3:4 "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." The operative word here is "practice". And Christians do not "practice" sin. See also Gal. 5:21; 1 John 3:8,9

As a Christian, I have to acknowledge that some of the loudest voices in the Christian church have really distorted the message. Our loudest voice should be shouting the good news. "Jesus loves you!" Jesus loves gays as well as straights. I do believe that the Bible speaks against homosexual behavior. It also speaks against heterosexual activity outside of marriage. It also speaks against the sins that most of us commit every day, such as pride, gossip, etc. Salvation is not dependent on our behavior, and is not dependent on our being sinless. We didn't receive salvation out of our own perfection, so why in the world do we expect that of others? And to tie this back more specifically to the topic of the post, it is a tragedy for anyone to commit suicide, whether they are gay or straight. As Christians, we need to challenge ourselves to make sure we are sending a message to the people around us that God loves them, and that they have an inherent value for that reason. We need to stand up against bullies for whatever reason. None of that is 'watering down the gospel', rather it is putting our behavior into a more Biblical proportion.

@Laura modern-day convenience of contraception Actually, that's a bit inaccurate. The spermicidal properties of acacia gum (still used in spermicidal lubricants) have been known since Ancient Egypt. Moses-ancient, not Cleaopatra-ancient. The plant Silphium's prpoerties as a contraceptive have been known since the days of Hippocrates; it was so popular it drove the plant to extinction two or three centuries BC. The Talmud states "there are three women that may cohabit with a sponge: a minor, a pregnant woman and one that nurses her child". So no, contraceptives aren't exactly a modern-day convenience. Just an observation. @Tim Finn I have to agree with Dan here. By your logic, barren and older (post-menopausal) couples would also be barred from sex. On the other hand - your earlier point about abortion does ring true. I think that is another important battle for Christians.

"...difficult to resist cookie dough ..." Hey, I resemble that comment! ;-d But seriously, I don't think Paul thought marriage was a second best alternative. He believes you should do what God has called you to do. I Cor. 7:17 "Only, as the Lord has assigned to each one, as God has called each, in this manner let him walk." The question is: "What has God called me to do?" God ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman (Gen. 2:18-24; restated by Jesus in Matt. 19:4-7; and Paul in Eph. 5:22-33). Nowhere in those passages did God ordain/condone homsexual behavior. Nor are homosexual relationships used as a metaphor for the church, the Bride of Christ, as Paul so brilliantly points out in the Eph. passage.

I do understand the 1 Cor. 7:5 "point" you make. But we must also see this in light that 1)Paul considers all marriage a second-best alternative, necessary concession for those who can't control themselves. In this instance, no; it's not best for these people to deny each other lest they don't have the self-control to not start harboring extramarital desires (the reason for many affairs is supposedly because the woman won't "put out.") 2)I'm not quite sure how disconnected procreation and simply fulfilling desires were before the modern-day convenience of contraception. It's difficult to understand how one could have dismissed the former as a likely, perhaps presumably objective, result of the latter. I think it's funny how popular it is in our culture to combat gluttony (fad diets) and sloth (gym memberships) but repressing sexual desires is prudish. We even joke about how sad a man is to neuter his dog when the only thing that seems to bother the canine after the procedure is that big plastic collar around his neck! Again, before contraception, combating lust was as easy as not wanting to have twenty children. Today, it's a little trickier, but still worth the battle. I say this with unfortunate experience that I wish so dearly I could take back and may make me a bit biased and jaded, but sex is often how men/women, men/men control and take advantage of each other. If we could all liberate ourselves from this stuff, women wouldn't be so objectified, men wouldn't be consumed with the pursuit, homosexual people wouldn't feel so left out, picked on and confused in their own ways... I don't mind if I still come across as prudish. I have yet to understand this marriage business, but my grandmother assures that one day I will - we'll just have to see ;) For now, our romanticism of turning a natural relationship into a marriage in order to be sexually satisfied appalls me. Especially when, at the same time, we tell homosexuals "tough toenails." It just seems unfair to me. No analogy is universally applicable, but let's compare it to gluttony. What if we all laugh about how much we enjoy imbibing copious amounts of beer (not too far from the truth, haha) despite the fact it's pretty unhealthy, but a select minority of people who find it difficult to resist cookie dough are insulted and told that eating cookie dough is a sin? Sounds absurd in our culture because we do not really discriminate when it comes to how we choose to harm our bodies with food and drink. I would just like to know why we're okay, but homosexuals have a lot they have to fight and miss out on. We all have a lot to fight when it comes to sexuality, if you ask me.