Mr. Noerper has recently repeated the now very tired, old liberal line that Jesus said NOTHING about gays and, so, people who claim to be His followers should say nothing about gays as well. To be sure, it is very true that Christ said nothing about gays, but He unequivocally defined marriage (Mark 10:6-7, Matthew 19:4-5) as the union of a man and a woman, and, as Mr. Noerper surely knows, court decision after court decision has established beyond any reasonable debate that such a definition of marriage is utterly irrational, that the only motive to define marriage according to sexual difference is animus against gays and lesbians, is to exclude them from the institution of marriage and thereby to condemn them to lives of intolerable loneliness and despair.
Nevertheless, when Christ explicitly uses this heterosexual definition of marriage, Mr. Noerper thinks He is being silent about gays and Lesbians.
Yet, when His followers define marriage in the same way that Christ did, that marriage is the union of a man and a woman, Tom Noerper does not say that this constitutes silence about gays and lesbians. Rather, Tom Noerper agrees with the conclusions of our courts and would accordingly call this definition of marriage vile, hateful homophobic bigotry. He clearly considers such a definition to be the very opposite of silence about gays and lesbians.
But this is hardly consistent, is it? On the one hand, when Jesus defines marriage heterosexually, He is being silent about gays and lesbians, but when His followers do the EXACT SAME THING, they are saying that gays and lesbians are somehow less than human and are, therefore, giving voice to very hateful bigotry against them.
Mr. Noerper, which is it? Is defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman being silent about gays and lesbians? Or is it instead a most hostile and bigoted homophobic animus? You have to choose one or the other, Mr. Noerper; the principle of non-contradiction won't allow you to hold both.