You may also like...

44 Responses

  1. Jean says:

    Rainbow of PROMISES! I actually get little sad when I see something like that writing on sign. God doesn’t hate the person but hates the sin. That sign implies that God hate the person. Equal rights as in food, shelter, clothes, and friends. yup. Including the need of salvation of Jesus Christ.

  2. Gary says:

    Being born Gay is NOT a sin. I am sick to death of hearing that distortion of God’s character thrown at the gay community. The real perversion is not same sex orientation, it is the corruption of the ancient biblical texts turning them into the bigoted versions we have today.

  3. David says:

    Jean
    Why do Christians always roll out the hate the sin not the sinner rubbish. Being gay is not a sin, gay sex is not a sin. Does your god have a hierarchy of sins, number 1 being gay sex, what’s number 2? Are fat gluttonous Christians always sinning as they have no self control and keep eating? In the Christian faith a sin is a sin is a sin. Bad thoughts are also sins so who sins more a gay person in a loving relationship or a preacher who has regular lustful thoughts? what’s happens to your belief in grace? I no longer believe and one of the main reasons is the veiled hatred Christians spout.

  4. Renny says:

    Being gay is NOT a sin. I agree with Gary, assuming there is a God.

  5. Cindy says:

    @Jean

    I assume your need to clarify that we gay folk should have partial equal rights ( how’s that for an oxymoron?!) is meant to voice your opinion that we aren’t worthy of things like love, marriage and family. How very big of you. You must be proud of your enlightened self. Imagine how different you would feel if you actually hated me instead of just my sin. Oh wait, it wouldn’t feel any different except that maybe you wouldn’t need to compartmentalize your feelings to stay so sanctimonious. Strange how that works…

  6. Christine says:

    To add, Jean, are you assuming that there are no gay people who have been saved by Jesus? Or would we all instantly be turned straight. Is that it – we have an equal right to be forced into being just like you?

  7. VanPastorMan says:

    Everyone is under the wrath of God because we have all sinned before a Holy God. This is why Jesus died, to provide the atoning sacrifice through His blood, so that people who are under the wrath of God might find forgiveness and justification, not by their works, but by faith.
    Homosexuals are under the wrath of God just like everyone else. They are not a certain class of sinner, they are sinners who need Jesus. The question is will they come to Jesus and have their sins washed away?

  8. Godfrey Rust says:

    VanPastorMan, I wonder that so many Christians feel that God the Father’s defining characteristic is anger and judgment (or to give it its more sanctimonious name, “wrath”). Jesus elsewhere compares us as poor parents to God (“how much more…”) in our love and generosity. I suppose in a similar way we must be lacking in wrath against our children if we are to model God as Father faithfully. I haven’t wished to banish my sons eternally to Hell for their messy bedrooms for, oh, at least two days now. I need to get my act together. I bet God’s angry at me for it too.

  9. Gary says:

    VanPastorMan,

    Your statement appears to presume that homosexuals hove NOT “come to Jesus and have their sins washed away”.

    I genuinely hope such profound judgment was not your intent.

    Oh and BTW – thanks to the cross of Christ we most definitely are not “under the wrath of God”. I still struggle with this perversion of grace.

  10. I thought I’d left a comment here, but I guess it didn’t take. I like your drawing a lot, David. Folks from Fred Phelps’ church in Kansas picketed our church, and one of their signs said exactly that and was greatly in need of painting over with a rainbow.

    God made us and called us “good”. No one is outside the circle of God’s love. No one.

  11. Christine says:

    To add, VanPastorMan, are you assuming that there are no gay people who have come to Jesus to have our sins washed away? Or would we all instantly be turned straight. Is that it – we are under wrath until we are forced into being just like you?

  12. VanPastorMan says:

    Godfrey, The Scripture is clear. God is love. This is the reason why He was motivated to send His only Son to die the death of a sinner, so sinners can be saved. God is love, but He is also Holy and righteous. We have to understand this about God because if we don’t then we don’t know what our true problem is. Our problem is that this Holy and Righteous God has set a day in the future where He will judge sin. For those who have been washed clean by the blood of Jesus it does no harm. But what about those who have never trusted in the blood of Christ for the salvation? Only by faith in Christ can a sinner be cleansed. In the Old Testament, they looked forward to the promise of, “the seed of the woman” Gen 3:15.

  13. VanPastorMan says:

    Christine, if you are asking me if homosexuals can be saved, the answer is yes. Jesus died for all sinners. It is very clear in Scripture that homosexuality is a sin. My point was that this is not the only sin. We conservative evangelicals somtimes make it look like if the, “gays will just give up their gaying ways they can be saved”. We do a lot of damage to the Gospel by taking like this.
    I’ve known men and women who were sexually active before they got married. After they came to Christ they still were participating in sexual activity, but I noticed it started to bother them. Is sex outside of marriage wrong? Most definately, from the Scriptures we see that fornication is a sin before God. These couples I mentioned began to understand and were convicted they were sinning against God and began to repent. I believe a homosexual can be saved, but the Holy Spirit will lead that person to holiness and to the Will of God. For the homosexual this should be seen as great news. Jesus will accept them as they are, but will not leave them as they are.

  14. Gary says:

    VPN – No where in scripture can you show that all sex outside of marriage is wrong. This is a church manufactured myth. I can of course show several examples of God blessing sex outside of marriage. And as for the clear admonition that homosexual sex is wrong…the scriptural case against such a notion is FAR STRONGER than any supporting it. Especially when one honestly looks at word studies and cultural norms. Do your homework…you have MUCH to learn.

  15. Gary says:

    BTW VPN – If my lack of belief in absolute inerrancy is the reason you choose to ignore my comments…you will soon find yourself talking in a vacuum in this forum as there are very few who accept that premise here.

  16. VPM, your preaching on your god of wrath, with, I presume, hellfire and damnation awaiting those of us who don’t follow the rules just as you decree, gives all of us who claim to be followers of Jesus a bad name.

  17. VanPastorMan says:

    Gary, I didn’t intentionally ignore you. Perhaps I felt like I answered your question when I answered another. I’m not sure. As far as homosexual practices and other hetero sexual sin, all you have to do is look it up. It’s in scripture. I suppose if you find a passage like Leviticus 18 that says to lie down with a man as you would a woman is sin in Israel, you might just say that this passage is one you don’t follow.
    Grandmere, I don’t have to do anything for people to be under the wrath of God. Their sin does. I have sinned, and you have sinned before God. Either we trust in Jesus or we don’t. If you are a true Christ follower, then you should know that the Gospel has to be preached. To tell people they are ok before God when they aren’t is about the most evil thing one could do.

  18. Gary says:

    VPM – “If you are a true Christ follower” is the the kind of rhetoric typical from fundamentalists who believe only their particular brand of Christianity is real and all who don’t agree simply are not genuine. It is ugly, it is arrogant, it is NOT the message of Christ.

    I teach the gospel everyday because I live it. Your silly notion of simply assuming I only ignore the passages that don’t fit my beliefs is also very typical of pharisees…er…fundamentalists. Great biblical scholars have and resoundingly do disagree with your God of wrath interpretation of the bible. And clearly you have not even begun to study the issue of homosexuality.

  19. Gary says:

    BTW VPM – I have a few questions pertaining to how well you follow passages from Leviticus. I suspect you simply regard these as ones “you don’t follow”.

    Do you cut your sideburns or trim your beard? If you do you are simply disregarding Leviticus 19:27.

    Do you plant more than one type of plant in your garden? If you do you are simply disregarding Leviticus 19:19.

    Do you sleep in the same bed as your wife during her period? If you do you are simply disregarding Leviticus 15:20-23.

    (We don’t need to go into how unclean you are when you ejaculate do we?)

    Do you like lobster, shrimp, clams, or other seafood without fins? If you do you are simply disregarding Leviticus 11:9-12. (Lordy I hope you don’t ever touch pork…;-)

    Of course I am sure you must practice burnt offerings, grain offerings, and sin offerings. If you don’t you are simply disregarding Leviticus 6.

    And of course you still celebrate the Sabbath year and the year of Jubilee. If you don’t you are simply disregarding Leviticus 25.

    Of course the very chapter you cite (Leviticus 18 as well as 20) would have required Abraham himself to be cut off from his people since he married his sister.

    A quick scan of the old covenant in various books will reveal many other interesting decrees and commands. A woman is forced to marry her rapist. Children are to be put to death for being disrespectful. (So much for the human race) You MUST have sex with your dead brother’s widow if she has no heirs. (Which is really interesting since the chapter you love said it is forbidden…weird huh?)

    I won’t go on but of course we both know I could for quite some time. The point is when you engage in such blatantly out of context proof texting you have already condemned yourself for any one who tries to enforce any part of the law is bound to all of it.

  20. Heh, heh. Thanks Gary.

  21. VanPastorMan says:

    Gary, all the passages you quote are ones where you have to understand two things. First, the culture in which it was written. Take your verse about marrying your dead brother’s wife. You might think this is weird and it doesn’t make any sense, but to those living in this day it made perfect sense. Land had to stay within families, and the brother taking his dead brother’s wife would keep it in the family. Also, since women didn’t work outside the home, if she didn’t have someone to take care of her and provide a home she would most likely starve. The second point to be made is that we have to ascertain which verses are for the nation of Israel and are not translated to the church, and those that are. I would suppose murder in the Law of Moses would be brought forth into the New Testament. But issues about dietary restrictions,hair, and clothing differntials are not brought into the New Testament because the Church is not the same as Israel.
    The issue of Homosexuality and Fornication are for both testaments because as Paul said 1 Corinthians 6:8-9 Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body.Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders.

  22. Beth says:

    That’s a convenient way of looking at things VPM. And I’ve heard it many times before regarding the OT laws. However, Jesus himself said he did not come to abolish the law. I know you will have a justification or twisted interpretation for that too and I’ve heard it before as well. And it has never made sense to me no matter how many times I’ve tried to squeeze my logical square brain into the vacuous round hole of literal, fundamentalist bible interpretation.

  23. Christine says:

    Well, VPM, good for you that context only matters when you think it does. And that you are deciding what the phrase “sexually immorality” means in otryong to demonstrate what counts as immoral sexually. Circular much? Hmmm….

    VPM, I turn the exact same reasoning back on you. I could go into why at the time with men and women having different roles, it was important they partner-up, or what types of homosexual relations prevailed at the time, but there’s no need. Leviticus clearly includes abstention from anal sex between men (no this is ONE sex act only) as part of the cleanliness code the church intentionally did away with. Let’s please rely on the Hebrew and the underlying premise of not mixing kinds to make such determinations, not what you personally find distastful. No? at a minimum, admit your “look it up” comment looks pretty ridiculous in light of Gary’s comment.

    As for “we evangelical Christians”, please speak for yourself. You also speak as though you are certain no gay people are present and that “we evengelical Christians” are talking amonst ourself about what an entire group of people deserve in terms of full inclusion and acceptance in society and the church.

    “I believe a homosexual can be saved, but the Holy Spirit will lead that person to holiness and to the Will of God. For the homosexual this should be seen as great news. Jesus will accept them as they are, but will not leave them as they are.”

    Wow – so you know gay Christians and their walk with God better than they do, huh? Well, here’s one out and proud lesbian Christians, saved 14 years ago and led by God only to come out of the closet and accept myself for who he made me. I felt plenty of that conviction with men, and never once with the wonderful woman I eventually married. I was led to holiness and God’s beautiful purpose for me.

    Nd for all those who have sought to chNge their orientations, the 99% of them that have been terribly scared by the attempt – the idea that God would love them too much to let them be gay was far from good news. You said, “To tell people they are ok before God when they aren’t is about the most evil thing one could do.” Well, I’d say there’s something worse: telling people who are just fine and are finding their path with God that God won’t let them stay that way.

  24. Christine says:

    VPM – I shouldn’t have to mention the blatant mistranslation of that Orinthians passage, where “homosexual” occurs in no translation before the 1960s…. you know, since you are so well versed on the issue…

  25. Cindy says:

    “I believe a homosexual can be saved, but the Holy Spirit will lead that person to holiness and to the Will of God. For the homosexual this should be seen as great news. Jesus will accept them as they are, but will not leave them as they are.”

    So, I’m not sure why you felt the need to single out homosexuals with this idea. You could say the exact same thing of all people. I’ve been a Christian much longer than I’ve recognized and accepted my sexuality thus allowing me to be led into the wonderful relationship I have with my wife. No conviction there by the way. Just a wee bit narcissistic of you to think that God leading people would mean leading everyone to be more like you or what you consider best. A little beyond narcissism that you would actually expect such a notion to be good news to people you know nothing about.

  26. Beth says:

    VPM and those like him are bigots, plain and simple. They just can’t see it.

  27. Gary says:

    Nope sorry VPM but that pig don’t fly. You don’t get to claim a cultural exclusion on only those passages YOU don’t intend to follow but ignore such on the ones YOU want to enforce. I mean seriously…this hypocrisy is the best ya got.

    I think it’s cute though…your attempt to educate us as if it were simply not possible that we have studied these bible passages (at great length in fact) for ourselves.

  28. VPM, my question is who decides which of the laws in Leviticus are for the culture of the time, and which are for today?

    I recommend that you read Reasonable and Holy by Tobias Haller. The author examines all the passages in the Bible that might possibly reference same-sex practices and concludes that loving, faithful, same-sex relationships are blessed by God. You may not come away from the book agreeing with Haller, but you will have a better understanding of those of us who see holiness in committed, same-sex relationships.

  29. VanPastorMan says:

    The greek word for homosexual was a word that was used by Paul in two places. Robertson’s Word picture points this out.
    Do not be led astray by plausible talk to cover up sin as mere animal behaviourism. Paul has two lists in verses 9,10, one with repetition of oute, neither (fornicators, idolaters, adulterers, effeminate, or malakoi, abusers of themselves with men or arsenokoitai or sodomites as in 1Ti 1:10 a late word for this horrid vice, thieves, covetous), the other with ou not (drunkards, revilers, extortioners). All these will fall short of the kingdom of God. This was plain talk to a city like Corinth. It is needed today. It is a solemn roll call of the damned even if some of their names are on the church roll in Corinth whether officers or ordinary members.

  30. VanPastorMan says:

    Christine, sure gays and lesbians can come to Jesus to be saved. That’s why he died. I would view them, if they continued their sexual practices, the same I would a man who was living with a woman outside of marriage. Does anybody on this board think living together without being married is sin? Maybe that’s been sanctioned too. Who knows.
    The bottom line, in my view is you can’t find one passage of Scripture which sanctions homosexuality. But, both Old and New Testaments call it sin.
    I want to be clear on something. I don’t enjoy telling people that they have sinned specifically against God. I know people won’t like me for it, but I have to say it.

  31. nakedpastor says:

    VanPastorMan: You can’t find one passage of scripture that sanctions lots of things.

  32. Cindy says:

    @VanPastorMan

    Bottom line, you can’t find one passage of scripture that sanctions the use of the internet, transmitter of evil that it is, so you really shouldn’t be using it since that clearly means that using it is sinful. That pathetic excuse for logic that you just read in my comment, that’s exactly what I see in yours.

    It is beyond ridiculous to claim that the ancient Greeks had a word for homosexuality since the concept of sexual orientation was the stuff of the very distant future. It is no more ridiculous than it would be to claim that the ancient Greeks had a word for the internet. You cannot transfer modern concepts back into antiquity.

    Even a cursory study of the Greek word in question (and by cursory study I don’t mean google who agrees with you) will show you that the meaning of arsenokoitai is (and has been for a very long time) the subject of great debate amongst scholars. Nobody can say with any certainty what the word means and anybody that claims otherwise has just decided that it means what they want it to mean. You can try and guess what it means, but given that we only have it in lists, good luck with that as you won’t be able to derive it from its context. The only thing we can say with certainty is it is something that Paul considered wrong. We can also say for certain that it wasn’t referring to a concept that neither Paul, nor the readers of his letters knew anything about. Now, if you want to take your favourite sin and insert it into the meaning, go ahead, but don’t expect anybody to be fooled by your assertions and don’t expect anybody to be convinced of your doctrine that you build on such a shaky foundation.

    Now then, shall we look at your assertion that both Old and New Testaments view homosexuality as sin. Do tell. I seem to have missed that. I am familiar with the Old Testament calling one specific act between two men what we have horribly translated as an abomination. Is this what you consider calling it sin? Leaving aside for a moment that as a woman I am not capable of committing that particular “abomination”, how did you get sin from that? Even a cursory study of the Hebrew word that we have translated abomination would at least lead you to compare it to the company it keeps. Shell fish are abomination. Does that mean that lobster is sin? How could a creature even be sin? Note that it is not the eating of shellfish that is abomination but the shellfish itself. An “abomination” as we have called it refers to something that is unclean, that makes no statement on its morality. Shellfish are not immoral but they were to be treated as unclean by the Jews. I have no obligation to follow Jewish purity codes. Not following them is not sinful. Do you follow Jewish purity codes? Read the story where the blanket full of unclean animals is lowered to Peter in a dream. Realize as Peter did that it wasn’t really about the food and stop calling God’s children unclean.

    What do you have a left? One passage in Romans that you think calls homosexuality sin? Read it again. And here’s a hint, the book of Romans wasn’t written in chapters and verses. It was a letter. Read and see what Paul was really trying to convey. Don’t stop at the end of chapter one. Chapter two is very important. It is the continuation of the thought. Give it some thought.

  33. Christine says:

    I’m pretty much out of things to say. I would echo everything Cindy said. A few of my reactions, though:

    “The greek word for homosexual…”

    LMAO. How about you give us the Koine for “flying saucer” while you’re at it. I think this really says it all about your level of knowledge on the subject. You’re not even looking at alternative translations or concordances, or even anything about the same-gender sexual practices of ancient Greece/Rome, let alone the epistemologists and cultural anthropologists. You have no sense of where the debate lies – you just read the one guy.

    But even that one guy isn’t addressing the crux of the debate. Who’s justifying things on the basis of “animal behaviouralism”? Certainly no one here. And talk about bias – “this horrid vice”? damnation? (not what falling short of the kingdom even means there) – not exactly a scholarly analysis. Where did you even find him?

    “I would view them, if they continued their sexual practices, the same I would a man who was living with a woman outside of marriage.”

    No, you don’t. Because you think those people living together want something beautiful right and good, and are just jumping the gun. Viewing the gay person’s relationship as sin is viewing them as being seriously disordered. They aren’t just a ceremony removed from being eh-ok, but a full 180 degree shift in all of their sexual norms. The fact that you can even think this amounts to the same thing shows you do not understand the issue.

    ” I know people won’t like me for it, but I have to say it.”

    But, do you? Seriously? You aren’t telling anyone anything they do not already know – you aren’t bringing us the gospel, here. Instead, you are judging other people’s sin, which I’m not sure does put you on very solid ground in terms of claiming you have no choice. If we are so vile you can’t stand us, fine – but do it quietly. If you want to be our friends and “save” us, it’s friends like you that keep us from needing enemies.

  34. Mad =^..^= (AKA ccws) says:

    God hates hate. And when i count my blessings, the list includes some pretty AWSUM gay Christians.

  35. Gary says:

    I tried to warn you VPM…there be scholars here. I am afraid you are in a bit over your head. ;=)

  36. VanPastorMan says:

    Christine, Robertson is considered a classic scholar, which is why I chose him. If you think about it today we use the work sodomite (I am not saying I do) in culture to indicate people who perform certain sexual practices. And we use the word sodomy for those practices themselves. Paul is doing this as well.
    Gary, I never claimed to be a scholar, but I truly believe anyone who honestly reads the Bible will have to come to the conclusion that it is saying that these practices are sinful.
    To all here, I am not sure you can believe this, but it is possible to be kind and loving while the same time believing people are sinful. My sister lived with a man for 9 yrs without being married to him. She ended up paying a huge price for it contracting Hep C. Did I stop loving her? No!!! Did I validate her lifestyle? No!!!! You will have to take my word for it, but most people consider me to be a pretty loving fellow. I’ve got beliefs and standards, but I am not judgmental. I let God’s Word do the judging.

  37. Gary says:

    “Gary, I never claimed to be a scholar, but I truly believe anyone who honestly reads the Bible will have to come to the conclusion that it is saying that these practices are sinful.”

    VPM – This is why you fit the description of a Pharisee so well. You don’t even realize you are doing it…but you just accused us of dishonesty because we have come to a different conclusion than you have. You truly are blind to your own blindness.

    And is spite of what your church has taught you…God has blessed many sexual unions where marriage was not involved, and a great many more beyond the church notion of one man and one woman for life. It is not about the old covenant law VPM – It is about the only law remaining…the law of love. When this is followed NOTHING else matters…not even marriage.

  38. Beth says:

    “I let God’s Word do the judging.”

    VPM, you let God’s word be your weapon.

  39. nakedpastor says:

    which “Robertson” VanPastorMan? can you give a reference?

  40. VPM, I’m sorry your sister contracted Hep-C from her partner of 9 years, but you are aware, I’m sure, that a marriage license doesn’t protect anyone from STDs. Thus, I’m puzzled as to why would you’d use your sister’s situation in your argument, for it adds nothing to help you make your case. What’s important in a relationship is fidelity, with or without a marriage license.

  41. Christine says:

    VPM – You made the critical, but all too common, mistake of equating homosexuality with particular sexual practices. First, as Cindy’s comment indicated, homosexuality applies to people of both genders and women cannot be “sodommites” and lesbians generally do not have anal sex with men. Mose importantly, however, is that “homosexuality” refers to sexual *orientation*, NOT sexual practice. The terms applies as much to people who are vigins/celebate as it does to those who are sexually active. As the ancient Greeks and Romans did NOT have a concept of sexual *orientation* (an idea on a couple of centuries old) the word arsenokotai cannot possibly refer to homosexuality. At most, some who are sexually active could be informally seen as having “prefernce” akin to liking blondes over brunettes. The idea of someone, even someon not sexually active, being hard wired with exclusive attractive to the same sex would not have been considered.

    That is about as definitive as that can get.

    Now, the question of whether the word arsenokotai here is refering to those who participate in a particular sexual practice is a different, much more technical question. Indeed, it is certainly possible, but again, we have no real context for the word, other than finding it is lists of bad adjectives, so we can’t know. If it does refer to a particular sexual practices, there are a number of (and perhaps much more credible alternatives) than to viewing it as all anal sex between men (i.e. “sodomy”). One particularly interesting analysis I read concluded that malokai was likely the male temple protitues and arsenokotai were the clients of those prostitutes. This was a particularly common practice at the time which violated Christian norms against idolatry, and so would certainly have been worthy but treatment by Paul. But, even if the word DID refer to men who have anal sex with other men (which was quite common including among people we would clasify as predominantly straight by our modern standards), due to its relationship with Levitical law (which, again as mentioned before, was a ceremonial restriction only), it would not preclude other sex acts between men or any sex acts between women, none of which were ever prohibited in the OT.

    Your Robertson does not write like a scholar, so I too would be interested in a reference. But even he seems to know (based on the quote you provided) that the word in question cannot be translated as refering to sexual *orientation*. So, not only does his analysis seems to be horridbly lacking, but you have further miscontrued what he said as you do not understanding the meaning of even the English words in question. Considering this, perhaps you should take a step back and wonder whether you really understand the issues at hand.

  42. Christine says:

    I would add, VPM, that a very many people, some of them skilled scholars, some of whom without even a personal investment in the issue, invest themselves in the study of the bible in good faith and with the purest of intentions and deepest commitments to honesty, and come away either concluding that the bible does NOT say anything regarding committed same-sex relationships, or that we cannot possibly determine conclusively whether or not the bible does address this and that this is therefore insufficient ground upon which to marginalize an entire group of people. The fact that you have come to the conclusion you have (without, mind you, having demonstrated any understanding of what homosexuality even is) does not permit you to call these people dishonest. That IS certainly judging.

    I am also somewhat puzzled as to how not getting a marriage certificate gave your sister hep C. I do want to express my condolences. However, I fail to see how getting hep. C and a divorce would have been any better. In either case, your sister’s medical condition shines no light on Greek etymology. I take it simply that you meant that even while you felt your religious views were reinforced by your sister’s STD, that you showed her love even though you felt she had brought her illness on herself.

    First, that hardly sounds loving – once you equate her lack or marriage certificate with her hep C you have judged her responsible for getting ill when the mariage certaificate would have done nothing to prevent it. Second – I can assure you that what you are doing to gay people is not loving, because it has horrible consequences in the lives of gay people. Marriage (for gay and straight) can be a beautiful and positive thing. Denying marriage and encouraging epople to fight their sexually orientation has been conclusively shown to be exceptionally harmful.

  43. Gary says:

    Christine you and Cindy both are such a joy to know. We are truly privileged to have you be a part of David’s blog.

  44. Christine says:

    *slight blush* Awww… Gary. So sweet. 🙂 And you know, of course, we feel the same way. It’s been an absolute pleasure to get the benefit of your views here and elsewhere.

Daily Cartoon & Reflection!

PLUS: Sign up & get my FREE eBook "Two Sizes Too Small"!