Praying for them is part of the process, so to speak, but voicing disapproval is also part of it.
I just don't want to voice or rather display disapproval in any way or form that comes off as if the people participating in these parades actually know what they're doing, as if they can help themselves, as if they are celebrating a true freedom, as if I believe I could let myself be like that but choose to abstain. The scriptures tend to paint the mentality of the Pharisees as self-righteous and legalistic blind leaders of the blind who will all fall in a ditch. My actions must reflect the narrative of a Gospel where righteousness is counted as a gift from God, so that it's His grace and goodness that leads a man to repentance.
To further my point, when the Pharisees questioned why Jesus would sit and eat with sinners, I feel the sentiment of that question was insinuative towards Jesus as being pro-sin. To that, Jesus responded by explaining that it is the sick who need a doctor, and that God desires mercy and understanding rather than sacrifice. And this incident is what I would see as an example of a mentality that can confuse being complicit with having compassion.
People often misinterpret Matthew 7:1–2 as a prohibition on judging others. It does warn that judgment should be charitable and aimed at guiding others to redemption, however.
Matthew 7:1-2 is telling me to resist being judgmental because I will be judged according to my judgment of others, which coincides with love others as I would want to be loved, perseverance, longsuffering, return good for evil, love and pray for your enemies, the merciful will receive mercy, turn the other cheek, etc.
But as an internal spiritual battle in maintaining a pure source of humility, I would use Romans 2:1, because it is the summation of Romans 1, which shows me that as a flesh being I am no better than homosexuals. Which is to say that when I show contempt for sinners, I am not esteeming God as God, the Eternal power.
2 Peter 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
The fact that many gay people are disgusted by it should reveal that these activists and hedonists don't even really represent these groups accurately to begin with, which is why the activists should be denounced. Yet, we see so much of society bend to their will.
The devil is cunning. As both a tempter and an accuser, he plays both ends against the middle. That's why I believe God was telling me don't let these parades push my buttons. We do not war against flesh and blood but spiritual powers in high places, and these activists should not be recognized as the threat. Denouncing these people/activists in the Name of Christianity will just muddy the waters, the Name of Christ Jesus, and the Gospel in general.
When it comes to sinfulness in mankind, I feel that denouncing or announcing my approval or disapproval in the public arena will only end up promoting the false premise that it should be handled as a matter of public opinion. I think it actually helps the powers of darkness behind these activists, when Christians are moved to react as if God, The Eternal Power, needs to be defended. We should be talking as if we understand what depraved looks like.
It is true that government is separate from God, and while a government policy can't restore virtue (as you said), it can certainly limit how much a vice is promoted.
It seems to me that the writers of the U.S. constitution felt it was wise to acknowledge God, and therefore presumptuous to think government can be given authority to speak for God. I can agree that a government can limit the promotion of vice, but if the impetus is coming from a political spirit of self-righteousness, using terms like sin to subliminally assert God's authority and all opposed as politically pro-sin, then it's not Love and it's not Christ, and I think it will end badly.
