quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Dave, I appreciate your taking the time to respond and clarify.

Most of your statements are your opinion -vs- my opinion. You simply hold a different opinion than I do, and since I already clarified my opinion abundantly, I won't repeat myself again.

I'll just add comment to these points:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

If I was a career criminal, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? Of course. Could I be married in a church? Sure.

If I was a drug abuser, would I be allowed to be a practicing Christian? You bet. Get married in a church? Yep.

If I was a disgraced politician, would the Church close its doors to me? No, it would not let me down. Could I get married in a church? No problem.

So, the Church will accept a sincere oath of marriage from criminals, drug addicts, and betrayers of the public trust, but it will not accept the same sincere oath from gays?


The key point is that these previous 3 situations you list are for forgiven PAST TRANSGRESSIONS.

Nope. Only one of those examples is intended to be a "past transgression". You can be a practicing criminal, or an on-going drug abuser, and still get married in a Chritian church by giving a solemn oath to God.

quote:


Christianity doesn't condone someone who continues to do the same anti-Biblical behavior ongoing, while attending church. Whether it's gay sex, heterosexual sex, political corruption, drug abuse, murder, or whatever.
I think Captain Sammitch already quoted above from the new testament gospels, where Jesus saved a prostitute from being stoned and then said "Go, and sin no more."
But the Bible (and Christianity) doesn't condemn ongoing immorality.

I hasten to add that a reformed homosexual can attend church, and marry a spouse of the opposite sex.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

Homosexuality has no victims. It is on the same level as being black or white, a Pistons fan or a Lakers fan, a drinker of beer or of wine. You can choose to love a man, or a woman, or both. There is no harm to anyone. I know gays who have contributed to society in many positive ways, who are successful in their fields, who are leaders in the community.


Homosexuality subtlely does have victims, as a result of its insideous corruptive nature.

This sounds very subjective. Lets look at your sole example of "insidiousness" or "corruption":

quote:


Contrary to attempts by the gay-supporting liberal media to say otherwise, homosexuality still accounts for an overwhelming percentage of AIDS/HIV cases in the U.S.
I read an article two weeks ago in the Fort Lauderdale Sun-Sentinel newspaper (the major Fl Lauderdale area newspaper) that in Florida, about 80% of AIDS cases can be traced back to a gay or I.V. drug using sex partner, or the combination of the two.
Nationally, that goes up to 83%.
It's not that heterosexuals don't get AIDS too, but the numbers are overwhemingly gay men. Women most often get AIDS from a secretly bisexual partner.

HIV/AIDS is a disease. There is nothing more morally insidious or corruptive about contracting HIV/AIDS than there is than being diagnosed with cancer.

quote:


And as I laid out at length in previous posts here, gay ideology seeks to re-write the Bible to suit its needs, which is inherently a corruption of Christianity.

As I've said, aspects of the Bible have been properly overlooked (I'm referring to slaver again, here), so I see no reason why condemnation of homosexuality cannot also be overlooked.

quote:

Heterosexuals who commit premarital/extramarital sex don't pretend their behavior is condoned by the Bible, and try to create traditions and ceremony that change/corrupt the meaning of Christianity. Homosexuality does attempt to re-write the Bible.
( As I believe Big Ol'Willie said above, if gays would not try to give Christian legitimacy to gay rights, they would no doubt meet far less resistance. )

To say nothing of the destructive nature of gay ideology, that condones their homosexual obsession, and prevents them from pursuing a normal heterosexual life, and instead to devoting their lives to fighting for their right to be corrupt and live a gay lifestyle.
If I was prevented from dating or marrying someone of African or Oriental decent by law, because they belong to a slave culture and slavery is condoned by the Bible, I'd be fighting for my rights to do so tooth and nail. Or if I was prevented from teaching evolution in a school, even though Occam's Razor shows that it makes more sense than the Bible, I'd be protesting loudly. What is the difference in position with gays asserting their rights?

And your sole example of the corruptive nature of homosexuality - with respect, such as it is - does not automatically lead to a designation of the term "corruption" .

I think you have in mind the misconception that perverted gays corrupt youths, some sort of anal rape which forever turns the poor innocent over to the sordid path of homosexuality. But anecdotally, I've never met a gay man so inclined. It just doesn't work like that. Gays make a choice in this day and age. From what I understand, again anecdotally, its a very difficult decision because it runs counter to societal expectations - get married to someone of the opposite gender, have a family, that sort of thing.


quote:


In a democratic society, it is their right, I guess. But I don't agree with it, and I don't have to.

Christianity that is true to the Bible is not "closed minded". It is fighting for the best interests of society and mankind, and for the laws our creator gave us, and told us never to change or corrupt.
There is absolutely no way you can convince me that homosexuality is not self-destructive and corrupting. The evidence of its corruptive and destructive nature, to individuals and to our society, is overwhelming as far as I'm concerned.
But you haven't given me any examples of its destructive or corruptive nature, other than HIV/AIDS, which even you concede is capable of being transmitted by straight people, and obviously people who use needles or have unsafe blood transfusions.

Is it destructive to a culture? Our cultures revere the ancient Greeks, their philosophers, their history, their military victories, all factors leading to Ancient Greece being considered a golden age. And yet they were a bisexual society: Socrates regarded homosexuality as quite ordinary. The bravest and toughest of them all, the Spartans, were the most flagrantly homosexual.

Richard the Lionheart, who was the flower of English chivalry, was openly homosexual.

You've debated me to a standstill on other issues, Dave, and I've been hard-pressed to match some of your well-thought out arguments. But, again with respect, your views on this issue lack cogent rationale.