I too consider that Fractelle, Cj and StG have said whatever I would have said.

I'm also glad you chose to share, knowing that you would inevitably get some adverse reactions. Looks like you have sussed out that the general feeling here is not represented by the one or two most voiciferous commentators.

All the best.

There sure has been a huge number of losses in society... since the permissive society latched on.

People wandered away into all kinds of traps....to become victims as they became blinded by spirit powers.

One loss is what the Holy Bible says that is actually going on in the spirit world.

"For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms..." Ephesians 6:12.

As time passed and people got further away from the truth of Gods Word much was lost about how the enemy goes about deception.

Gay and lesbian folk, at some time or other, made the free will personal choice to be gay.
The 'powers' that touched the victim got a victory when the victim decided that it was a good idea to do what his/her conscience had told them not to do.

Its then that the misery beins... as has been told in the story above.

The solution:
Once again we need to teach what the Holy Bible says about spirits and deception.
...and about how submission to God through Jesus Christ will, not can, but will set the victim of the free of unnatural desires and the misery that goes with those desires.

Much prayer likewise saves the day.

Yes indeed [as to Gay Concerns] I agree the actual battle to save the word has been lost. To quote [some dude]:

Elsewhere in New Words For Old Howard has what should probably be the last word in any argument about whether the battle to "save" gay has been lost.
Writing in 1977 he said: "It would be difficult today to use the 19th century nursery rhyme as it was used in the House of Lords in 1948 to congratulate Princess Elizabeth, as (the Queen) then was, on the birth of the Prince of Wales:
The child that is born on the Sabbath day,
Is fair and wise, and good and gay."

But there are 2 ways to skin a cat, so we now have those that hate the original hijack [eg me] who have now hijacked the hijack [see, I too can "nounify" as queers do by saying "a gay"] word to mean "a total Drongo" [see Carman in SouthPark]

So all's fair in love and war, but homophobia?

like I am afraid of queers? - give me strength - THAT is no doubt a Don Watson Weasel Word

I've got many gay friends, and most had a rather tortured schooling experience, adolescence and coming-out period. But once they left school and discovered the gay community their lives dramatically improved.

A young gay man needs comrades, friends, people with similar experiences. (Not to mention lovers.) I suspect and hope that the worst is over for your nephew and that life will take him in all sorts of new, fulfilling directions. He may need to submerge himself in that world for a while in order to enjoy the understanding of his peers, which his life has so far lacked.

A close family is a precious thing. I'm so glad for him that his family is supportive. You may have already discovered it, but if you haven't, PFLAG is an organisation for parents, family and friends of gay and lesbian people. http://www.pflagaustralia.org.au/

As others have said, there's nothing to do with the fire and brimstone types but ignore them.

Fractelle says:

"The prejudice against gay people is as illogical as it is hurtful."

The problem is.... that 'prejudice' is wrongly directed. The issue here should always be 'behavior'.

I am very prejudiced against all immorality, including my own. When I deviate from the straight and narrow as revealed in Scripture, I hate what I DO....not what I "am".

When serving in Asia as a missionary, we had a number of single lady missionaries. Most, but not all, experienced a degree of sexual frustration without an outlet for that desire. They COULD have gone in any number of directions to satisfy that craving that we ALL experience...but from my observation, with the support of loving colleagues and Church.. they did not.

The issue with 'being' gay... is not the being but the DOing.
Homosexual behavior is about having sex with a person of the same gender. Let's repeat that -SEX!

So.. hear of situations like this one in SPKOUTs post.. then face the question "how can anyone believe they have a CHOICE"... I simply ask myself "Are their not many situations in life where we know our desires are against the morality of society...and do we not always face a CHOICE about whether we ACT on those desires"?

I believe a person who believes they are, or is (depending on the outcome of science) should remain celibate from anything which is against the clearly expressed will of God.

But I can only speak for Christians, what those who don't name Christ as Savior decide....is up to them.

Dr Roy Clements is one prominent Christian who's tapes I've listened to.. but then abandoned his position on this and declared he is gay.
Looking closely at his testimony/story about this, it boiled down not to love, but sex!
http://jmm.aaa.net.au/articles/8075.htm

If we hold the position that a gay person MUST be able to fulfill his physical desires.. what then do we say of ? ... you can guess.

Just following up on this, John R.W. Stott is a single Christian who is revered by the world Christian community... he is a bachelor and not gay.

Roy Clements had a wife and family. He walked out on them..for the 'right' kind of sex. I think that it's a disgrace to put your family on a lower priority than such a thing.

<<His wife, Jane, and family, are terribly upset and crushed by what has happened. They need our prayers. A number of friends have sent messages to Roy Clements, but at present he appears intent to sever links with all who knew him.>>

No kidding?!

Dr Stott and Dr Clements exchanged some letters.. found here.

http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:akKahDj_tC4J:www.ecwr.org/thecable/02summer.pdf+evangelical+alliance+roy+clements&hl=en&gl=uk&ct=clnk&cd=21

In this he (Clements) says:

<<Let me begin by saying that I agree with you when
you assert that neither the possible existence of a homo-
sexual gene nor the experience of falling in love with
someone of the same sex ipso facto provides a moral justi-
fication for gay relationships.>>

Then further he says:

"Changing behavior is a matter of the will alone."

So... on the BEHAVIORAL level... how is justifying gay sex any different to justifying any 'other' types of unusual or degrading or illegal sex? The only thing which declares some types of sexual activity illegal is the law...and there are plenty of people not only ready but active in trying to change that!

Stott says of himself:

"The gift of singleness is more a vocation than an empowerment, although to be sure God is faithful in supporting those He calls.