Can’t We All Just Get Along?
I had to say it at least once. I received some pretty mean email from gay Christians. Just as I have called out Steven Anderson several times for being mean, off-base and just plain wrong, I simply called out the billboards that were posted around Dallas for misrepresenting Scripture.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I’m not anti-homosexual and I’m not a person without unconditional love and grace and mercy. Is it not humanly and spiritually possible for me to love and welcome a gay person to my church without agreeing that their lifestyle is not a sin?
Do I really have to compromise my view and understanding of God and Scripture in order to not be called anti-homosexual or homophobic? I’m not anti-liar, anti-thief, anti-adulturer, anti-gossipper, anti-glutton, anti-pride – or any sin you want to pick. BUT, though I love, accept and see them with eyes and a heart of grace, I lovingly encourage them to, as Jesus said, “Go and sin no more.” He didn’t preach, shame, ridicule or punish. He simply said “Go and sin no more” (to a woman caught in adultery).
Can I not look a gay man or woman in the eyes and say I love you even though I don’t agree with your lifestyle? Do I really have to condone what one is doing to be seen as loving? I have friends that struggle with pornography (most men, if not all, have looked at porn at some time in their life – women, too). Can I not hang out with, love, accept and be a good friend to my friends that struggle with porn and still encourage them to keep pure eyes and day by day give it over to God?
As to those that emailed me about the 2 billboards referencing the Roman Centurion and the Eunuch. Let’s make a HUGE leap of logic and historical understanding of those passages and say that both the Roman Centurion’s servant and the eunuch were gay – that’s a a big “IF”. But let’s say they were, all that implies is that Jesus healed a gay servant (I don’t think anyone Jesus healed was sinless or perfect) and that Philip baptized a gay man. We don’t have to clean ourselves up to come to Jesus, as we all know.
So, if we go along with their interpretation of Scripture, a gay servant got healed and a gay man got baptized. Neither case affirms their lifestyle. You can be gay and get healed and you can be gay and accept Christ and get baptized. That doesn’t mean that “Jesus affirmed” them as the billboard says.
However, when the Bible does speak up on the issue of homosexuality (not leaps of logic or guessing or assuming – really speaks) – it’s crystal clear on it’s view of homosexuality as a sin (in both the Old and New Testaments).
Hear me: if a gay person said “Let’s go hang out… watch a movie… go bowling… catch a Texas Rangers’ baseball game… watch the Cowboys” — you name it. If a gay person wanted to be my friend, they could with no problem whatsoever. They would know my view of Scripture and that I didn’t approve of this one area of their life and would love to see them live a pure and holy life before God – but, it wouldn’t keep me from hanging out with them and being their friend.
I am a person FULL of grace. I have been forgiven much in my life. I do NOT have it all together. I sin all the time. I screw up. I blow it. I need grace and mercy in my own life, therefore, I freely give it to others.
Ask me to be your friend, love you, pray for you, be there for you – whatever – just don’t draw a line in the sand and say if I don’t cast aside Scripture and believe that your lifestyle is okay before God, we can’t be friends or I’m anti-homosexual – that’s being intolerent and not respectful of my personal beliefs.
I want to hear from all of you, but especially the gay Christians that don’t agree with me. I don’t delete comments on here unless they’re spam or vulgar. If you have something to say, say it. If you want to email me, email me. If you want to meet me in person (leaders from the 5 DFW churches), then meet me. Do you think of me as antiquated or mean because I hold to one understanding of Scripture? Have I not made myself very clear that I would love you and treat you with respect? Is that enough?
September 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
I hate that people like yourself have to write this over and over. I blame that on the many evangelical Christians that distort Jesus' teaching and act like there are certain sins that grace cannot be extended to. But homosexuality isn't the only thing that the reaction is that you have to accept my lifestyle/view/etc. in order to not be considered a hateful person.
I'll pray for your correspondence's, I'll pray they are healthy, respectful and productive. Jesus did not turn away sinners, and neither should I…scratch that…Jesus did turn away me, so far be it that I turn away anyone.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:10 pm
Thanks, Trae.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
Greg,
When I read your first post on this topic, I was discussing these scripture interpretations with one of my small groups and made the same statement you said…that IF their interpretation is true, it still does not condone homosexuality. Thank you for your heart, compassion, grace, but also conviction on scriptural accuracy. I feel the reason that this particular issue is such a touchy, hot subject is that it is a fundamental, spiritual attack on God's design for the family. But we must hold to the truth of God's Word. And as Francis Chan said in his One Prayer message, there are going to be times when we will just look stupid in life because of our beliefs. But I'm praying that God gives me the strength to be ok with that so that I might please Him.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:07 pm
Good word. Thanks for sharing that.
September 21st, 2009 at 1:44 pm
Thank you for writing this! It's exactly how I feel but didn't know what to say! I don't want to condemn anyone, because that's certainly not my job, but I don't have to accept that a sin is not a sin in order to be a loving individual. Well written, thank you.
September 21st, 2009 at 4:23 pm
You're welcome. Thank you.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:40 pm
At some point, your contention that the Bible clearly labels gay and lesbian partnerships as sin must be challenged by reading the clobber passages in context. But to answer your present questions:
The problem is that non-gay Christians tend to stereotype gay Christians by making statements like,
"I believe the gay lifestyle is sinful."
To be honest, there is no such thing as the gay lifestyle anymore than there is a heterosexual lifestyle.
A 2008 Barna poll reveals that 38% of unmarried evangelical heterosexuals under age 25, admit having sexual relationships outside of marriage.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/16-teen...
Would it be loving or honest to characterize Christians in general as living a sinful "heterosexual lifestyle" because of Barna's 38 per cent?
Of course, it would not be fair to draw that conclusion. Yet that is precisely what is done time after time to gay and lesbian Christians.
The point is that while non-gay Christians profess to love us and want to be our friends, they continue to say and do immensely hurtful things which, if the situation were reversed and non-gay Christians were on the receiving end of such treatment, would not be regarded as friendly.
My experience has been that most gays and lesbians want to be friendly, even with Christians who disagree with us and consider us to be living in sin because we are gay or lesbian.
Yet many of these same Christians who tell us they want to be our friends then support using the power of government against us, by voting to make it illegal for our committed partnerships to have the protection of law.
We are told, in effect, 'We want to be your friend but we believe you don't have the same right we have, to spend your life with an orientation-compatible partner.'
There are over 1000 legal protections in federal and state law, which protect heterosexual married couples and their families but which do not protect homosexual married couples and their families.
Many gay couples have biological children yet even though they are in committed same sex partnerships, their biological children are not legally protected, in the event of the death of one of the same sex partners, if the surviving spouse is not the biological parent.
In the case of a serious illness, even when the gay partners have legal papers giving each other the legal right to make medical decisions for each other, some hospitals refuse to honor those legal papers.
What you believe about me as a gay man can greatly affect my freedom if what you believe about me causes you to vote to take away my freedom.
Its easy for non-gay Christians to intone, "Hate the sin but love the sinner" and think they've said something profound.
Yet their actions, like voting to prohibit gay marriage or voting to prohibit gay couples from inheriting each others earned pension and real estate or voting to prohibit gay couples from adopting children, even when the children are the biological children of one of the partners, contradict the "love the sinner" part of the equation.
"If gay people were in the majority and we organized to vote to take away your heterosexual right to marry your heterosexual spouse and to vote to take away your right to legally parent your children and to vote to take away your right to allow your spouse to make medical decisions for you in the event of catastrophic illness, would you believe our offer of friendship was authentic?"
September 21st, 2009 at 5:54 pm
So, in order for you to believe that we are loving and striving to be Christ like we have to vote to allow gay marriage? Am I getting that right?
So we have to then be 'enablers' going against our own personal views in order to prove ourselves to you.
Wow. The irony.
September 21st, 2009 at 5:53 pm
Just a correction – I incorrectly referenced the Barna Poll as being about evangelicals. It was not. It is about the under 25 crowd in general.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:04 pm
No Cindy – I'm making an honest observation which you carefully avoided answering.
If gay people as a group treated you like Christians treat us, would you feel our protestations of love and friendship for you were authentic?
Many gays and lesbians are not "feeling the love" because your actions – using the power of government to take away our civil rights – gives the lie to your assertion that you love us and want to be our friend.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Hey Rick. Thanks so much for sharing and commenting on here. I appreciate your heart and viewpoint. I do, however, have to side with Cindy on this. I don't think we should have to vote a certain way in order to show we "love you and want to be your friend." You are asking us to change our belief in Scripture to be seen as loving. I know it's cliche', but it seems like you're drawing a line in the sand instead of allowing us to "hate the sin, but love the sinner."
September 21st, 2009 at 6:11 pm
Here's the Link I should have referenced instead of the Barna Link.
According to, Christianity Today, July 31,2009:
"Indeed, over 90 percent of American adults experience sexual intercourse before marrying. The percentage of evangelicals who do so is not much lower.
In a nationally representative study of young adults, just under 80 percent of unmarried, church-going, conservative Protestants who are currently dating someone are having sex of some sort.
I'm not suggesting that they cannot abstain. I'm suggesting that in the domain of sex, most of them don't and won't."
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2009/august/1...
September 21st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
This argument or point seems irrelevant. Two wrongs don't make a right. Just because 90% of American adults may experience sexual intercourse before marrying doesn't mean that I would support or agree with them either. I would love and accept them and offer them grace, but challenge them to stop. Their doing wrong doesn't affirm homosexual relationships. I don't see the point you're making.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:22 pm
I'm not saying it makes it right Greg. You mentioned "the gay lifestyle."
I'm saying that in spite of the almost 80% of conservative Protestant singles who have sex outside marriage, it would be unfair to stereotype Christians in general as having a sinful "heterosexual lifestyle."
Yet you cite the "gay lifestyle" as if it is an objective fact which proves your point.
I'm saying that many gays don't fit into your lifestyle claim just as many Christians wouldn't fit into a claim about the sinful "heterosexual lifestyle."
If we're going to be friends, we have to be honest with each other and that honesty has to be based on objective truth, not subjective opinion.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:28 pm
Maybe you're assuming something that I'm not saying. Just maybe. By the "gay lifestyle", I don't mean sleeps around a lot, has multiple partners, etc. I mean in a relationship with someone of the same sex – even if they're monogamous.
September 21st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Greg wrote: "By the "gay lifestyle" … I mean in a relationship with someone of the same sex – even if they're monogamous."
Okay – I did misunderstand what you were saying.
Now that I understand where you're coming from,
you also stated:
Greg wrote: "However, when the Bible does speak up on the issue of homosexuality (not leaps of logic or guessing or assuming – really speaks) – it's crystal clear on it's view of homosexuality as a sin (in both the Old and New Testaments)."
Can you provide one or two verses which, IN CONTEXT, describe committed, faithful, same sex partnerships as sin?
September 21st, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Here is a powerful essay about the 7 passages commonly used to condemn homosexuality. I have been wrestling with this directly since a married woman in a former small group at a former church came out to us as a lesbian. She and her husband intend to stay married.
http://www.soulforce.org/pdf/whatthebiblesays.pdf
September 21st, 2009 at 7:10 pm
Just for the record, the Soulforce document mistakenly says there are one million verses in the Bible.
There are NOT one million verses in the Bible. The King James Bible contains 31,102 verses.
Most "modern" bibles have fewer than 31,102 verses because their translators left out up to 137 verses.
http://wwwbiblebelievers.com/believers-org/kjv-st...
September 21st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
This latest finding and statement from the APA goes against what the guy from Soulforce says. http://www.citizenlink.org/turnsignal/A000010715….
September 21st, 2009 at 8:47 pm
This article from Exodus says what I was trying to say in this blog post – about hating the sin, but loving the sinner. http://exodusinternational.org/content/view/317/8...
September 28th, 2009 at 10:43 pm
Be very very careful linking yourself to EI. All else aside, there are many survivors of the Ex-Gay Industry who attest to the psychological abuse trained and meted out in Exodus programs. The entire goal of their program is to take money and psychologically cripple people. (Not to mention that their 'science' is debunked from beginning to end.)
September 21st, 2009 at 8:53 pm
I just found this ministry to homosexuals based out of DFW. This would be good for you to check out if you're in DFW and have confusion or questions about this issue.
September 21st, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Woops -here's the link to that DFW ministry: https://livehope.org/
September 21st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The Jones-Yarhouse Study did not report any homosexual who actually became heterosexual.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/09/17/785
15% (11 of the 72 participants who completed the study) reported successful change which to them, meant: substantial reduction in homosexual desire and addition of heterosexual attraction and functioning.
None of the participants became heterosexual. They simply modified their thoughts and behavior during the study.
Yet CitizenLink cites Jones-Yarhouse as authority to make the astonishing claim that 67%
"either reported a change toward heterosexual orientation or were successfully continuing work toward that goal."
http://www.citizenlink.org/content/A000005482.cfm
Obviously, if Jones-Yarhouse could point to even one of their participants who became heterosexual, they would shout it from the rooftops. But they cannot report what didn't happen.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Exodus.html
September 21st, 2009 at 9:20 pm
The comment was…
"Can you provide one or two verses which, IN CONTEXT, describe committed, faithful, same sex partnerships as sin?"
My understanding is the sin in this is not the relationship. It is the action of same sex sexual activities. The only way I can compare this to the "heterosexual lifestyle" is this… I can have a relationship with a woman, that is fine. It is when I engage in any sort of sexual activity that it becomes a sin "adultery". I can own a computer and it is fine, it is when I you on the internet and look at porn that it becomes a sin.
The part of this conversation where things always get lost to me is around the "same sex relationships" argument. The sin is not having partnerships or friendships, it is the same sex sexual activity. This is where the bible draws the line. It does not say anything condoning same sex partnerships because that is not the sin.
Am I missing something? Wanted to post my thoughts and hear others.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:47 pm
I really like the way Pastor Andy McQuitty, pastor of Irving (TX) Bible Church, responds to this same question. Thoughts?
http://www.christianity.com/blogs/pritchard/13110...
September 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 am
That's a great letter and basically what I was trying to say in this latest post. Thanks for linking to that, Ben.
September 21st, 2009 at 9:59 pm
Ben-
Some of us gay Christians use the term "committed faithful same sex partnership" because in most of the USA, we are not allowed to legally marry.
A "committed faithful same sex partnership" includes an intimate sexual relationship but is much more than a sexual relationship, just like a heterosexual marriage is much more than just a sexual relationship.
I ask again:
"Can you provide one or two verses which, IN CONTEXT, describe committed faithful same sex partnerships as sin?"
September 21st, 2009 at 10:48 pm
I think the methodology behind these last two posts is something that I would be concerned about. It seems as though a black-and-white hermeneutic is being used to describe a technicolor issue. There are a few specifics that I'm most concerned with (as an ultra-conservative to my liberal friends and ultra-liberal to my conservative friends… I'm 'both-and').
Love the sinner and hate the sin. The worldview that this presents is that the two are not connected, or that somehow sin is this big bad thing attached to a person that we rebuke and kick out. It seems to rely on a worldview that there are "insiders" and "outsiders" and that if you are a *real* Christian, all your sin is outside the "insider" boundary, but you're ok because you're in. So we just have to sever the ties between you and the sin and you're alright. But the Christian life is a journey, not simply a destination. And sin is a part of that. Sin, when we trust something other than God to take care of us and our lives… rather than sin, a to-not-do list from the Bible. I don't think using "crystal clear" is really fair here, as it's an interpretive exegetical process. I've had gay people explain Romans 1 to me in such a way that supports homosexuality and relationships as refusing to "substitute natural for unnatural" – for them heterosexuality is wildly unnatural, and they feel they were corrupting the way that God made them. That verse is "crystal" clear to them.
It's also dangerous anytime the church starts saying that they have permission to "hate" anything. The scriptures list a few things that God hates, but most of them center around idolatry and false worship, wickedness and violence. Malachi also clearly mentions that God hates divorce, but the church has seemed to move towards accepting that as par for the marital course – sad, but acceptable.
I wonder how deeply a friend is going to trust a relationship that is conditional. As in, you can be my friend, but all the while questioning their judgment (over lifestyle or choices) and questioning their heart towards Jesus (if they happen to be a Christian). You mention pornography. But God seems to care about idolatry more than sexual sin. Would you be willing to tell someone from the getgo that you wouldn't be their friend unless they agreed to tithe or refused to use a credit card or some other financial matter? We have those accountability relationships with people, for sure, but they develop over time, and emerge with trust…not from the getgo as a condition to the friendship.
I think it's important to be true to who we are, but at the same time to recognise that it should be the light to which we affix our eyes rather than the darkness. Wouldn't it be better to affirm the ways in which people are moving closer to Jesus than confronting them on the stumbling blocks? Maybe a "day-by-day giving it over to God" could look more like a passionate pursuit of the One who we follow rather than simply an avoidance of things that are wrong.
I wouldn't call myself a relativist, but I think it's also important to realise that sin doesn't really have a crystal clear interpretation anymore since we've moved past the 600-some-odd Levitical laws. I don't think that Paul necessarily enjoyed writing that "everything is permissible." And yet, he does. Being governed by grace means understanding sin and grace in a new way – thinking of what is beneficial or community-oriented or part of a journey closer to Jesus.
I find it hard to realise that Jesus was made into sin – and died to it – and raised from it, and we are to follow Jesus. What does it mean that Jesus became sin and how do I follow Jesus with that?
But as a cornerstone issue for the church in the 21st century, I think we're really falling short of the dreams and vision that God had for the church. Why don't we respond to the materialism and credit crisis of wealth and pride gone horribly awry with the same passion? Why are we so focused on what a "biblical family" ought to be, that we've forgotten the families of the Bible are horrifically disfunctional – and God chooses them anyway.
Sorry to write a mini-novel, but these are the thoughts that keep me in ministry, that keep me evangelical, and keep me in theology.
September 21st, 2009 at 11:03 pm
Thanks for the post. It makes perfect sense. This is a very hard subject for me to even suggest an opinion on. I am glad to read the way that you responded and the thoughts you shared. I try my very best to love people for who they are and where they are at, because I hope for the same for me.
I have many close friends who are gay, and others that struggle with other sins, but to me they are not in separate categories. I don't say here are my gay friends, here are my friends that struggle with lust, etc, etc. I do think it is wise to not try and define sin. At least for me anyway. I was more trying more to offer a point of view to discuss than to pass a judgement.
I say we move forward acting like Jesus did. At least that's my plan. Besides, I can barely even manage my own life at the present. That is all from me.
September 22nd, 2009 at 4:27 pm
Greg,
You messed me up!
Why? Simple. This is an issue I've kinda swept under the rug: let someone else handle it. But I was wrong.
I'm not gonna into too much deatil because I just finished a post about this issue…so you should be seeing the trackback.
But I did want to thank you for having the gall to deal with this…and the wisdom to deal with it well.
Be blessed!
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:51 am
Thanks, Michael.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:36 am
Greg,
I think this was an eloquent, well-thought out post and I appreciate that you came out and stood for what you believe is right.
Since no one seems to want to dignify Rick's question with answer. I figured I'd offer a response. Not because I think it will give Rick an answer he wasn't expecting, but because I know Rick already has a theological position on these Scriptures and will give us his interpretation (which he will make clear is the "right" interpretation) and explain how we are taking Scripture out of context. I suppose I'm curious as to the arguments, though. Here are a few Scripture references to homosexuality:
Genesis 19:4-11
Leviticus 20:13-16, 18:22-24
Romans 1:18,26-32
I Corinthians 6:9-11
One more thing: there is a site I came across a few months ago. It was a community site for "Christian homosexuals", and it had to very long articles written by individuals involved with the site. One on why he believe practicing homosexuality was wrong (Scripturally). Even though heis gay, he chooses to live a celibate life. The other came to a different conclusion and explained what he believed were misinterpreted Scriptures. I can't find the site, but if someone knows it, please post as a response. I recall it was a very interesting read on the topic.
September 23rd, 2009 at 3:37 am
Sorry, had "two" very long articles…
September 23rd, 2009 at 4:03 am
Josh-
Thanks for your kindness in making the effort. Concerning Genesis 19:4-11, a few comments from anti-gay evangelicals.
Bob Davies, former Executive Director of Exodus International, says in his biography, Coming Out of Homosexuality:
"Pro-gay theologians are correct in saying that this passage (Genesis 19) does not provide a strong argument prohibiting all homosexual acts."
Dr. Richard Hayes, author of, The Moral Vision of the New Testament, in which he defends the anti-gay viewpoint, says the Sodom story
"is actually irrelevant to the topic." (of homosexuality).
According to Dr. Hayes, the attempted gang rape in Genesis 19 shows the depravity of the Canaanite people who lived in the cities of the plain but:
"there is nothing in the passage pertinent to a judgment about the morality of consensual homosexual intercourse."
Dr. Hayes quotes are from an article he wrote about a gay man who died, entitled, "Awaiting the Redemption of Our Bodies."
Dr. Robert Gagnon, the MOST prominent anti-gay evangelical today, wrote the best anti-gay book ever published, the 520 page, The Bible and Homosexual Practice.
Yet on page 71 of his book, Dr. Gagnon admits about the Sodom story:
"However, to the extent that the story does not deal directly with consensual homosexual relationships, it is not an "ideal" text to guide contemporary Christian sexual ethics."
Dr. Mark Allan Powell, of Trinity Lutheran Seminary, on p. 23 of the book, Faithful Conversation – Christian Perspectives On Homosexuality, says about Genesis 19 and Judges 19:
"Such stories reflect a mindset that regards the rape of men by other men as abhorrent, but with regard to current questions concerning homosexuality, these texts have little to offer.
The stories speak only of the sin of homosexual rape and say nothing at all about consensual relations between persons of the same sex."
Just for the record, all of the above quoted men are heterosexual and all of them view ANY same sex activity as sin. Yet all of them agree that the Sodom story in Genesis 19 does not provide a sound argument against committed, faithful, same sex partnerships.
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Sodom.html
September 23rd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Thanks, Rick. Concerning that particular Scripture I actually agree. I figured you respond something like this. The simple fact is that the bible doesn't speak concerning homosexuality being right or wrong in this passage – only that the men were about to gang rape other men. I can only assume it would have been just as detestable had Lot actually offered his daughters and the men took him up on it. This was simply one of my references in which the Bible talks about homosexuality.
I'm no theologian by any means, but I will point it out that I find it odd that specifically this was a homosexual advance and NOT a heterosexual advance. In fact, as I mentioned, they turned down two virgin women. This entire passage sets up the wickedness of Sodom for its ultimate destruction, does it not? I can't help but wonder if this was a way to show the wickedness of Sodom as an example – that is, assuming one is on Greg's side of Scriptural interpretation that the actual act of sexual intercourse between same sex partners is unnatural and a sin. Of course, it is no more or less "sin" than fornication or adultery. I actually agree with your "casting the first stone theology", but as Greg said, that doesn't make it "right".
September 23rd, 2009 at 5:05 pm
Josh-
The Sodom story was not a homosexual advance. Using a story about attempted rape to "prove" that homosexuality is wrong is not rational.
The Sodom story was an attempted gang rape, by human men, of angels. Jude references this fact when he points out that they were "going after strange flesh." -Jude 7
The Greek word Jude used is heteros, meaning "not one of the same nature, form, class or kind, strange, different, other."
If the sin of Sodom was homosexuality and the men of Sodom made a homosexual advance, as you claim, Jude could have used the Greek word, homoios (the first word in the Greek text of Jude 8).
Homoios means, same, and is the word from which we get our English word, homosexual. Of course, Jude did NOT use the Greek word, homoios, to describe the men of Sodom or their activity.
So, what about Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13? Are God and Moses really prohibiting homosexuality or are they addressing the problem of shrine prostitution?
http://www.gaychristian101.com/Shrine-Prostitutes...
September 23rd, 2009 at 6:11 pm
You're one of the most compassionate, caring people I know. You represent Christ well in you love for the marginalized. I have not seen or heard you say anything but to the opposite. I agree love covers a multitude of sin. Keep loving, keep speaking truth.
September 25th, 2009 at 3:35 am
Thanks, Brett.
September 28th, 2009 at 10:28 pm
There are a few issues that you probably haven't taken into account because, well, you haven't needed to.
First, being gay isn't 'just one area' of our lives. The definition of a gay person does not start and end with sex, but seeps into other areas that wouldn't seem to touch on romantic or familial love. Try to separate your wife and children from your work life or sports fan life. It doesn't work.
I took the liberty of looking at your twitter feed, and the most recent tweet includes information about your your three kids (who I hope feel better, by the way). Last Friday you congratulated someone on his wedding anniversary, another artifact of a heterosexual lifestyle, and talked again about your children.
And that's just online. Do you have a picture of your wife and kids on your desk at work? Do you wear a wedding ring? Do you talk about buying your wife the perfect Christmas present or share funny stories of when your child said something funny? When your wife calls you at work, do you call her 'honey' or some other term of affection? Do you get excited when your daughter hits a home run or your son gets an A on his spelling test? Have you talked to anybody about your last big family vacation?
Note that I'm not saying any of this is a bad thing. Quite the opposite! It would be terribly unhealthy if you never mentioned the dearest ones to you unless they were in the room. Well, the same is true for us. I can no sooner split my life (not lifestyle) into separate pieces than you could.
And when you ask me to do that, with respect, you aren't being respectful or accepting, even though that's clearly your intention. What you're saying is "It's okay for you to be gay as long as you keep it as hidden as possible and acknowledge the inferiority of your life and/or love to mine." Even though that's not the message you intend to send.
Finally, I really, really, really ha—don't like "Love the sinner hate the sin." Hating sin is God's job, not ours.