quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave:

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.
I highly doubt this scenario, Dave. This borders on a charicature of Christianity, and resembles true Christian marriage in no church I've attended. A pastor in any church I've attended meets with couples and counsels them to see if they're ready for marriage. A criminal or drug user would be advised to delay marriage until he/she has proven stable enough to reasonably commit to marriage.
But that's at the discretion of the pastor, not a dictat of the church. There is nothing to prevent a known gangsater from getting married in a church.

A devout Christian homosexual is more deserving than the straight gangster.

quote:



quote:
[qb]


[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.


I strongly disagree. Being black or Asian is not the same.

Being gay is not a racial trait that one can be singled out for and harassed for.
Like choice of religion and ethnicity, sexual preference is something people are singled out for and harassed for. But that is a minor point.

quote:


And besides, the argument has been made by any number of politicians and political groups that gays have a higher average income than any minority or group, including white heterosexual males. So much for persecution.
Many Jews have a higher than average income, but have been subject to persecution for centuries. Wealthy Chinese are the target of discrimination in places like Thailand, and wealthy Asians are the target of discrimination in Australia. Income earning potential does not equate to an immunity from persecution.

quote:


Some gays are noticeably effeminate, many are not. Some heterosexual men are effeminate, but are not homosexual. Many who have admitted to me they are gay, I would never have guessed it. Unless a gay person makes known that they are gay, it would be very difficult to discriminate. But regardless, they are not a bonafide minority.

Being gay is not a racial or otherwise easily distinguishable physical trait. It is a behavior. As I said, it is an obsession. I would compare it most closely to being a foot fetishist, or having a fetish for women's stockings, women's underwear, for lingerie, for cross-dressing, being a compulsive gambler, or an alcoholic, or to use another sexual example, a pedophile.
It is a behavioural choice. A choice by adult individuals to engage in homosexual behaviour should not be the subject of discrimination.

You suggest it is a compulsion, some form of procreative misprogramming?


quote:

It is an obsession. And you don't give someone special minority status for a compulsion or sexual behavior.
( I can envision special minority status for men who wear women's underpants. Robin can be their poster-boy. [biiiig grin] Break out the green panties... )
But you are according gays a special minority status: a disadvantageous one, rather than an advantageous one. The disadvantage is no ability to have a church marriage. If it is a mere obsession, and that it has no victims, then where is the harm?

Many people have a compulsion to buy full-ruins of comics, irrespective of their literary quality: such a compulsion does not hinder their religious freedom.

Does it make a difference that it is sexual?