However, I have my doubts that true bridges can be built with fundamentalists in any meaningful way. I do not believe fundamentalists can truly reconcile with gays any more than they can with legitimate science.

For example, one cannot be LGBT supportive and still call my relationship “sinful”. Just as one cannot say they are pro-science and believe the earth is only a few thousand years old. There is no coherent way to square such circles.

The true answer is for fundamentalists to lose their religion or change their religion. But, the thought of the Bob Jones crowd one-day embracing or accepting gays without changing beliefs is far-fetched, in my view.

Andrew says that a question like “is homosexuality a sin” is a non-starter and conversation stopper. Maybe this is true. That, however, does not mean that every conversation should not start and end with this key question. If it ends, then so be it.

There is real substance to our disagreements with fundamentalists and socially conservative evangelicals. These points of conflict cannot simply be papered over without addressing the core of the disagreement.

Gays have done nothing wrong. Evangelicals have long attacked an innocent group of people for simply living as who they are. Thus, the aggressor must not only apologize for the past. But, it also must change its ways and flat out say, “homosexuality is not sinful and it has caused enormous harm to say that it is sinful.”

Until this statement is made, Marin’s work, even if well-intentioned, will only float around the periphery of the problem.

For example, imagine a Catholic trying to build a bridge with Jews saying, “the Jews slaughtered Jesus, but we should embrace them.”

Such as statement would not solve the problem. Only a substantive, unambiguous statement such as, “The Jews are not responsible for killing Jesus” would end hostility towards Jews.

To be truly effective, Andrew must sell the message that “homosexuality is NOT A SIN.” Anything short of this perpetuates the damage and is rhetorical window-dressing.

Churches that are truly welcoming and affirming toward gay people don’t speak in terms of “building bridges,” they simply accept them as they would anyone else. The purpose of a bridge is to cross over a gap, but the gap is still there, and everyone knows it and can see it.

Over twenty years ago British journalist Terry Sanderson wrote a book entitled “How to be a Happy Homosexual”. In it he warned people to be on their guard against those who make statements which sound supportive, but which are qualified with an “if” or a “but” which, as he put it, “turns the whole thing inside out.” For instance, he said, “Your local vicar may say that gays are children of God just like everyone else. Make sure that he’s not attaching some condition like ‘but they should resist the temptation to engage in homosexual acts’.”

You say, “What matters is that he is trying to help out.” Help whom to do what exactly?