Shane Roach said:
Much of your post is aimed at trying to cast sexual perversion as perfecly healthy and normal. It is not backed with any facts. I have posted a plethora of studies and a review of an entire book that describes how the psychiatric community has, with eyes wide open and with full malice of intent, created this issue out of thin air for political and professional gain.
If by "sexual perversion" you refer to homosexuality, then yes, I do consider that perfectly healthy and normal. I don't happen to engage in it myself, but I do not believe consensual sex to be perverse. The APA does not consider it a perversion or mental disorder - what is your basis for doing so?
As for Gay marriage, the points against it have been repeated again and again. The typical response is to disagree or feign confusion. Marriage is what it is because of literally thousands of years of social evolution, all focused on how to deal with the issues that arise between men and women, their families, and the children they bear. Gays, whatever you think of the acceptability of their behavior, simply do not have these same issues, and should not be treated as if they do.
I'm not sure why you're addressing this, as my post did not mention gay marriage. But if that's what you want to discuss, fine. Yes, those points have been reiterated many times, and shot down. The way you define marriage, what you consider it to mean, is not the same as I define it or give meaning to it. Marriage in modern Western society specifically seems wrapped up mainly in the emotional feeling of love - a far cry from the historical meaning of marriage, or what marriage means today in other cultures. Thus, when you talk about marriage in modern Western world, you're talking about two people who are in love and want their togetherness sanctified, acknowledged, validated and/or documented. Furthermore, you're talking about a secular legal issue, not a religious one. Legally, we can't discriminate based on people's naughty bits. If a person with a penis wants to legally marry someone else with a penis because the two are in love, it seems archaic, even laughable, to insist said person must select a marriage partner with a vagina. If that is what you want to do in your church, freedom of religion plays a part. You can say no. You can also refuse to marry couples that don't share your religion. But legally, there is no basis.
And yes "gays" do have those issues. Homosexual people have families, want to form families and some want to have and raise children.
Shane Roach said:
As to your last couple of paragraphs, the distinction being made here is that the Christians get the hate crime and the civil rights rap used against them, whereas gays don't, even when invading a church. The double standard is obvious. In the meantime, "freedom of speech" is used to defend such filth as animated kiddy inappropriate content.
I see what you're saying, but I don't believe a double standard exists. I don't believe that when a "Christian" group is repeatedly arrested at numerous events, it's all a mistake or an anti-Christian conspiracy. I don't believe that people who quietly and sweetly attend with good intentions would repeatedly, at more than one event, be slapped with charges such as rioting, conspiracy, obstructing highways and reckless endangerment. Now, if that is what is really happening, then it is a disgrace and our legal system needs to be revamped. I just have not seen evidence that such things are actually happening. WND says so, but WND says so about everything, all the time, while reporting from a nation with a vast Christian majority.
I'm not sure how the topic of gay people in church came up. Can you explain?
We are in agreement that child inappropriate contentography does not count as authentic free speech.
Every criminal, every vagrant, every thief, every vandal, every single person who does something illegal, whether the worst violent felon or the lightest traffic violation, all of these people have family and friends who love and care for them. They all have lives that are plunged into disorder of some sort when they break the law. The point here is that the laws are being specifically fashioned to shape society by singling out the majority for harassment, and protecting minorities, in some cases even demonstrably criminal minorities (drug dealers and the like) from the legal sanctions that the people of this nation have expressed their desire to have placed into law.
Okay, I see what you're saying. You're saying that different laws such as the newer hate crimes laws are changing the way people in society are allowed to communicate and are limiting freedoms? I've heard a lot of complaints about the fairness act (I believe that's what it's called) but I haven't read it and really can't comment on it yet. But you're saying that laws are prohibiting Christians from speaking their minds on things identified Biblically as sins...while allowing those who practice the sins who have free speech and act out the sins publically? Am I understanding that right?
I agree with you that protecting drug dealers and bringing down laws to prevent crime are dangerous things. I don't agree that drug dealers should be protected from legal sanctions.