Within a few short years, homosexuals have gone from persecuted to persecutors...

[emilynghiem]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. It was considered Christian to allow people to speak their minds without reprisals. If you imagine that it was Christians who beat up "gay" in bars, usually, Christians wouldn't frequent bars nor bathhouses,

The Amish are a very good example of Christian behavior. They will share their beliefs but mostly they want to be left alone. I cannot help it if most people would rather live next to a church or in a "Christian" community than live next to a X Rated Book Store or some "club"...

Dear LittleNipper
As many Christian's as NonChristian's "hurt people" because no one is perfect. The difference is whether we blame the fault on a person based on what group they are labeled as, or whether we realize the fault is universal and can and has happened to anyone of any group. The key issue is forgiveness, and willingness to correct wrongs regardless whose fault it may be. As many Christian's have difficulty forgiving as NonChristian's, the few who truly seek healing and restoring relations between the oppressors abusers and victims of Injustice are indeed very rare. These who truly believe peace and justice are possible through civil democratic means are rare in any group including Christian's. So if you are going to start blaming groups for hurting others, none are blameless and all have contributed to conflict suffering and war. Likewise all contribute to solutions as well. Christian's may do harm like any other group but also do great good that often surpasses the pain and wrongs that Christianity seeks to heal and make right. In the end the good outweighs the bad, as the message and faith behind Christianity

 

[LittleNipper]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

Number 1> Society thousands of years ago was based on indentured servitude. It was like a mortgage. To get what one wanted, one often enslaved himself for a contractual time to pay the debt. The Bible provide guidelines to follow. The southern plantation owners didn't follow these rules and regulations --- they did what the government would permit and rarely though anything about it (certainly not those they enslaved). They were really not any different than the pagan ancient Romans.

Interestingly, Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson apparently took advantage of his slaves for personal pleasure and did not free them ---- but Democrats love him just the same....

People have hurt other people to get what they want and not because the Bible said to do it! Hitler is a prime example. He needed money to run his war machine and so he stole it from Jews and had them annihilated. Oh, he said he was a Christian, but then he had Christian schools closed (so he could control what was taught). He had priests and minister thrown in prison (so he could silence any form of decent).He had non-Germanic music and books destroyed (so as to selectively propagandize the citizenry without their full knowledge).

2nd, I hardly feel that propositioning anyone (particularly casual acquaintances) for sexual favors/excitement is worthy of anyone. Such is totally undesirable behavior. Such behavior is a danger to everyone by spreading disease and pestilence. Such behavior is an assault against sex. And frankly, if all it takes is a handsome face to get a person to request sex, it would seem that such behavior is very superficial indeed!

3rd, Houses of "heterosexual" prostitution were also a target in most family oriented communities. It would seem that only through sexual favors were sexual "pleasure" palaces of any sort allowed to remain somewhat unhampered while the "authorities" winked!

Sorry, I personally feel that homosexuality is an affront to children and real friendship, as true love becomes more obscured and confused/laced with sexual overtones --- fostering suspicion in every word and deed.

This is even more apparent as society becomes more engrossed with the material world and loses sight of spirituality. In other words, children and students care more about their sexuality than they do for where they will spend their eternity.

 

[Syriusly]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

Number 1> Society thousands of years ago was based on indentured servitude. It was like a mortgage. To get what one wanted, one often enslaved himself for a contractual time to pay the debt. The Bible provide guidelines to follow. The southern plantation owners didn't follow these rules and regulations --- they did what the government would permit and rarely though anything about it (certainly not those they enslaved). They were really not any different than the pagan ancient Romans..

Number 1- 'society' was not based on indentured servitude. Some societies- especially Roman society was based upon forms of slavery. Early Jewish and Aramaic societies were not primarily based upon slavery though it existed. When Paul spoke of slavery in the Bible- he was speaking essentially to the Roman audience- which did have slavery.

Paul told slaves to obey their masters.

Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to curry their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

The Baptist Church during the pre-Civil War era- used the words of the Bible to justify slavery- actually to preach that slavery was the natural condition.

And the slave owners were very different from pagan Romans in several significant details- most significantly is that the slave owners were not pagans- they were Christians.

As I noted before- at the same time the Bible was being used to rationalize slavery- and enforce slavery- the abolition movement was also being led by Christians- who used the Bible as a rational against slavery.

I think it is completely fair to recognize that Christians were behind the abolition movement- but not fair if you don't also recognize that Christians in the United States were also behind the movement to ensure the perpetual slavery of African slaves.

 

[Syriusly]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

Interestingly, Washington freed his slaves upon his death. Jefferson apparently took advantage of his slaves for personal pleasure and did not free them ---- but Democrats love him just the same.....

It is interesting that Washington freed his slaves upon his death. I could point out that he didn't do it while he was alive- but is it necessary to nit pick Washington's action?

Jefferson is an even more complicated- and frankly perplexing case. Jefferson wrote a great deal about freedom- but when it came down to the choice between his families personal fortune and the freedom of his slaves- he chose his families fortune. Though- he did free some of his slaves on his death.

Do I love either Washington or Jefferson because they owned slaves? Of course not- but I respect each of them for their other accomplishments.

What about you- do you 'love' either Washington or Jefferson? Do you despise either Washington or Jefferson?

Do you think it is only Democrats that 'love' Jefferson- even though he was a slave owner?

 

[Syriusly]

Libtards have absolutely equated sexuality with race. They won't talk about homosexuality without equating it with a race. This is where they get their self-righteous authority to impose their morality on others.

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

2nd, I hardly feel that propositioning anyone (particularly casual acquaintances) for sexual favors/excitement is worthy of anyone. Such is totally undesirable behavior. Such behavior is a danger to everyone by spreading disease and pestilence. Such behavior is an assault against sex. And frankly, if all it takes is a handsome face to get a person to request sex, it would seem that such behavior is very superficial indeed!
.

I have no idea what your post has to do with anything I said.

So you are against casual sex. There are more heterosexuals having casual sex in the United States than there are homosexuals- just because there are that many more heterosexuals.

I don't know what that has to do with the either the 200 years of Christian persecution of gay Americans- or some Christian snowflakes feeling like they are victims now that they- in a few states- have to follow the same laws that says a Jew cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to Christian.

 

[Syriusly]

[
3rd, Houses of "heterosexual" prostitution were also a target in most family oriented communities. It would seem that only through sexual favors were sexual "pleasure" palaces of any sort allowed to remain somewhat unhampered while the "authorities" winked!.

Yes- Organized Christian religions often targeted prostitution too. Generally not the 'johns'- usually the prostitutes.

Organized Christianity in America has often sought to impose its religious beliefs regarding sex on all Americans.

• Prostitution
• Adultery
• Censorship of pornography
• Persecution of gays.
• Censorship of any mention of gays
• Laws against oral and anal sex even between a married couple
• And laws preventing not only the sale of contraceptives- but even discussing contraception.

And to think- some Christians feel like they are being persecuted now?

 

[Syriusly]

[
Sorry, I personally feel that homosexuality is an affront to children and real friendship, as true love becomes more obscured and confused/laced with sexual overtones --- fostering suspicion in every word and deed..

Sorry, I personally think that you are amazingly wrong. As a happily married husband and father- I have several close homosexual friends- who not only have close enduring friendships- but are in loving relationships with great partners.

That you end up suspicious of every word and deed is just a reflection of you- not of homosexuals. My wife, myself and my kid have no such suspicions- they are no different to us than our straight friends are. They just happen to be attracted to- and in love with- persons of the same gender. That doesn't change the fact that they are just great human beings- and wonderful friends.

 

[Montrovant]

Next you'll be telling us that Christianity started before Christ.

Ha! Ha! Ha! You're a funny man!

The Muslim philosopher Ibn Arabi said: A Muslim is a person who has dedicated his worship exclusively to God...Islam means making one's religion and faith God's alone.

Laugh it up with Wikipedia; take the matter up with them:

Muslim, paragraph two.
Lexicology>Meaning>Used To Describe . . . .

Muslim - Wikipedia

Oh, well, since you have provided one quote with no context from a scholar quoted on Wikipedia, people of any belief can be Muslims, and Muslims have been around for longer than the religion of Islam has existed. /sarcasm

 

[LittleNipper]

It's a blatantly racist argument that they persist in making—suggesting that being a morally- and psychiatrically-defective sexual pervert is equivalent to being of an ethnic minority.

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

2nd, I hardly feel that propositioning anyone (particularly casual acquaintances) for sexual favors/excitement is worthy of anyone. Such is totally undesirable behavior. Such behavior is a danger to everyone by spreading disease and pestilence. Such behavior is an assault against sex. And frankly, if all it takes is a handsome face to get a person to request sex, it would seem that such behavior is very superficial indeed!
.

I have no idea what your post has to do with anything I said.

So you are against casual sex. There are more heterosexuals having casual sex in the United States than there are homosexuals- just because there are that many more heterosexuals.

I don't know what that has to do with the either the 200 years of Christian persecution of gay Americans- or some Christian snowflakes feeling like they are victims now that they- in a few states- have to follow the same laws that says a Jew cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to Christian.

I want you to fully comprehend that percentage wise there are far more people who are heterosexual than homosexual (presently). That said, 100% of homosexuals engaging in casual sex is going to be less in number than say 50% of heterosexual doing the very same. However, I would not condone such behavior simply because the target is different! And then there are those engaging in bisexuality... It is the influence that is being exerted on the naive and impressionable to engage in sex of any sort (as being fine and fully acceptable) that is the extreme menacing danger! And this is pushing younger and younger children to become comfortable with premarital sex. The logical result is developmental confusion with the loss of innocence.

Who is writing these laws? Is it the people or the government? And if the government is Representative, then whom are they representing. What exactly is Christian persecution of "gay" Americans. 200 years ago "gay" meant carefree for the most part --- anyone could be "carefree". Most American kept their private affairs totally private. Outing was not the norm!

The "Founding Fathers" never meant for anyone to accommodate anyone else. People were expected to both disagree and shun those they found offensive. That is what protesting is all about. Just because people were/are encouraged to peruse happiness is no cart blanch to expect anyone else to assist in such pursuits. I suspect that a Jewish baker would not be expected by anyone to accommodate any Nazi celebration in either delivery or decoration of a cake. Even the Nazis themselves would likely not reciprocate --- seeing such accommodation as a weakness of one's personal convictions, and absolute proof of inferiority.

A honest Christian will consider a non-messianic Jew as a lost individual; however, an honest Christian would never suggest that being Jewish was akin to living sinfully -- only that the individual was unredeemed/lost. A homosexual seeking marriage to someone of the same sex is seeking to quench his thirst for perverse sexual activity totally contrary to what GOD clearly reveals throughout His Holy Word. To knowingly assist with such an endeavor places that person in a precarious situation of agreement and cooperation with the devil or worse yet --- accepting indifference as OK.

 

[LittleNipper]

[
Sorry, I personally feel that homosexuality is an affront to children and real friendship, as true love becomes more obscured and confused/laced with sexual overtones --- fostering suspicion in every word and deed..

Sorry, I personally think that you are amazingly wrong. As a happily married husband and father- I have several close homosexual friends- who not only have close enduring friendships- but are in loving relationships with great partners.

That you end up suspicious of every word and deed is just a reflection of you- not of homosexuals. My wife, myself and my kid have no such suspicions- they are no different to us than our straight friends are. They just happen to be attracted to- and in love with- persons of the same gender. That doesn't change the fact that they are just great human beings- and wonderful friends.

Love is not sex. And anyone who considers such one and the same is living a lie. There is nothing wrong with being friendly towards those one disagrees with or even caring deeply for any individual no matter what that individual does.

However, accepting any behavior as acceptable on the bases that no one else is hurt, is a disservice to one's own regard for morality and placing one's own children in a position of believing experimentation is acceptable and without ramifications. In other words you are not helping anyone including yourself.

 

[deanrd]

Why don't Republicans look into funding genetic research?

If they could find a gay gene, then Republicans could make an exception to their stance on abortion.

Think how excited the GOP would be. They could abort their enemies.

 

[LittleNipper]

Why don't Republicans look into funding genetic research?

If they could find a gay gene, then Republicans could make an exception to their stance on abortion.

Think how excited the GOP would be. They could abort their enemies.

It would be far more profitable and free to reinstate the opening exercise of observable silent prayer and sponsored Bible reading in all Community/public school systems. All problems would be greatly diminished --- it not entirely eliminated (the world not being perfect presently).

Right now (for nearly 55 years) the "progressive" liberals have simply been trying to undermine all dissension of their ideology and authority... They cannot do such were a Higher Authority is revered.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That said, 100% of homosexuals engaging in casual sex is going to be less in number than say 50% of heterosexual doing the very same.

Really?You know that all gay people engage in casual sex?? How exactly do you know that??

 

[LittleNipper]

That said, 100% of homosexuals engaging in casual sex is going to be less in number than say 50% of heterosexual doing the very same.

Really?You know that all gay people engage in casual sex?? How exactly do you know that??

I firmly believe all homosexuals feel that they must engage in sex.They seem to see sex as their most important defining necessity --- their defining element. If one is celibate one cannot be homosexual in the true sense because they are not having sex with the same gender.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

That said, 100% of homosexuals engaging in casual sex is going to be less in number than say 50% of heterosexual doing the very same.

Really?You know that all gay people engage in casual sex?? How exactly do you know that??

I firmly believe all homosexuals feel that they must engage in sex.They seem to see sex as their most important defining necessity --- their defining element. If one is celibate one cannot be homosexual in the true sense because they are not having sex with the same gender.

And you are getting this tripe from where?? Sound like personal experience to me. Sexual orientation is not defined by how and with who you have sex . It is defined by who you want to have sex with. By the way, I am hetero and I feel like I must engage in sex also

 

[bodecea]

Why don't Republicans look into funding genetic research?

If they could find a gay gene, then Republicans could make an exception to their stance on abortion.

Think how excited the GOP would be. They could abort their enemies.

It would be far more profitable and free to reinstate the opening exercise of observable silent prayer and sponsored Bible reading in all Community/public school systems. All problems would be greatly diminished --- it not entirely eliminated (the world not being perfect presently).

Right now (for nearly 55 years) the "progressive" liberals have simply been trying to undermine all dissension of their ideology and authority... They cannot do such were a Higher Authority is revered.

So the christians can harass the students who aren't like them?

 

[Syriusly]

Dear Bob Blaylock
I find it's a case of the shoe being on the other foot.
For too long it's the Christians criticized for judging others and for projecting their beliefs on others and through govt.

Liberals and LGBT could not see how any of this was by good intent but imagined it was all for hatred.

Now when they are caught doing the same things with their LGBT beliefs, judging others and insisting on imposing their beliefs through govt, suddenly the tables are turned.


If their intentions are good, what about Christian's whose intentions are good? If Christian's aren't allowed to incorporate their beliefs expressions and rituals through govt, who are the LGBT advocates to take their beliefs and force everyone to comply through govt?

This is to give the liberals a chance to stand and walk in the same shoes of those they criticize. They can either learn how this happens even if the intent was good, or they can decide both cases are wrong and neither sides beliefs belong in govt / public policy but should remain private free choice of belief without govt endorsement regulation or other interference

I firmly believe that most fervent Christians have never acted in a way to hurt people. In general it was biblical influence that ended slavery. ...

You do realize that it was 'biblical influence' which was used to justify slavery also.

I certainly admire the Christian abolition movements prior to the Civil War- but at the same time that was happening there were mainstream Christian churches supporting slavery- citing the Bible.

And I don't know what you mean by 'fervent' in this context- but if you mean 'passionate' well certainly history is full of passionate Christians harming others- in the name of Christianity.

That is not to say that I believe Christianity is in and of itself bad- it means I believe lots of Christians have used their religion as an excuse to hurt, oppress, murder, or persecute people.

As in the 200 years of persecution of gays in America.

2nd, I hardly feel that propositioning anyone (particularly casual acquaintances) for sexual favors/excitement is worthy of anyone. Such is totally undesirable behavior. Such behavior is a danger to everyone by spreading disease and pestilence. Such behavior is an assault against sex. And frankly, if all it takes is a handsome face to get a person to request sex, it would seem that such behavior is very superficial indeed!
.

I have no idea what your post has to do with anything I said.

So you are against casual sex. There are more heterosexuals having casual sex in the United States than there are homosexuals- just because there are that many more heterosexuals.

I don't know what that has to do with the either the 200 years of Christian persecution of gay Americans- or some Christian snowflakes feeling like they are victims now that they- in a few states- have to follow the same laws that says a Jew cannot refuse to sell a wedding cake to Christian.

What exactly is Christian persecution of "gay" Americans. 200 years ago "gay" meant carefree for the most part --- anyone could be "carefree". Most American kept their private affairs totally private. Outing was not the norm!.

Are you happier if I say 200 years of Christian persecution of Homosexuals in America? Or are you going to want to argue about what homosexual means also?

When America was 'founded'- i.e. during the Revolutionary era, and the Constitutional writing era, America really didn't care too much about laws regarding sex.

But somewhere around 1820 there was a "Great Awakening"- a Christian 'revival' movement that swept America and as part of that there was an effort to impose the moral values of those Christians on all Americans.

So that was when American communities started passing laws against consensual sodomy(irregardless of whether it was heterosexual or homosexual), censorship of anything that might even infer sex or homosexuality- up to an including contraception. Laws were also passed then to specifically criminalize male/male homosexuality(women weren't even thought to be having sex together because to the Conservative Christians sex didn't happen unless a penis was involved).

That began what was an ebb and flow of sexual repression in America- as a wave of Christian conservatism swept America, there would be a wave of legal sexual repression.

Certainly homosexuals were not the only ones targeted- but they were a specific target of the Conservative Christians of the time.

 

[Syriusly]

[Q I suspect that a Jewish baker would not be expected by anyone to accommodate any Nazi celebration in either delivery or decoration of a cake. .

There is not a law in the United States which would require any baker to bake any cake for any Nazi. That you bring up such bullshit just shows how influenced you are by the partisan right wing talking points.

But the very same laws which tell any baker (in some states) that they have to bake a cake for a couple- regardless of their sexual orientation- also tells Jewish bakers that they have to bake a cake for a Christian couple- and that Christian bakers have to bake cakes for Jewish couples.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Sorry, I personally feel that homosexuality is an affront to children and real friendship, as true love becomes more obscured and confused/laced with sexual overtones --- fostering suspicion in every word and deed..

Sorry, I personally think that you are amazingly wrong. As a happily married husband and father- I have several close homosexual friends- who not only have close enduring friendships- but are in loving relationships with great partners.

That you end up suspicious of every word and deed is just a reflection of you- not of homosexuals. My wife, myself and my kid have no such suspicions- they are no different to us than our straight friends are. They just happen to be attracted to- and in love with- persons of the same gender. That doesn't change the fact that they are just great human beings- and wonderful friends.

Love is not sex. And anyone who considers such one and the same is living a lie. There is nothing wrong with being friendly towards those one disagrees with or even caring deeply for any individual no matter what that individual does..

Wow- love is not sex.

Thanks for sharing that. Of course I didn't mention sex in my entire post and I don't know why my post made you think of sex.

 

[Syriusly]

[
Sorry, I personally feel that homosexuality is an affront to children and real friendship, as true love becomes more obscured and confused/laced with sexual overtones --- fostering suspicion in every word and deed..

Sorry, I personally think that you are amazingly wrong. As a happily married husband and father- I have several close homosexual friends- who not only have close enduring friendships- but are in loving relationships with great partners.

That you end up suspicious of every word and deed is just a reflection of you- not of homosexuals. My wife, myself and my kid have no such suspicions- they are no different to us than our straight friends are. They just happen to be attracted to- and in love with- persons of the same gender. That doesn't change the fact that they are just great human beings- and wonderful friends.

However, accepting any behavior as acceptable on the bases that no one else is hurt, is a disservice to one's own regard for morality and placing one's own children in a position of believing experimentation is acceptable and without ramifications. In other words you are not helping anyone including yourself.

I taught my kid to never judge any person based upon how they look, what race they are, what religion they are, how much money they make or what house they live in- but to judge a person based upon the persons words and deeds- is the person good to others? Is the person good to themselves? Does the person speak well of others- or does the person speak poorly of others?

If my kid were to meet you- how would you be judged?