Here is Captain Sammitch's post I referred to, from the bottom of page 6:
quote:
Originally posted by Captain Sammitch:
I can't get free of this thread!!! [AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!] [AAAHHHH!!!]

Let's see...

You are a person.

You commit actions.

You are not your actions.

Therefore loving a person does not require condoning their actions.

And refusing to approve of a person's actions is not the same as rejecting that person.

I am reminded of a child stealing cookies from the cookie jar and getting caught by his mother. That child may have wanted those cookies, and that child will feel he is entirely right in his own eyes - in which case he will instantly conclude his mother must hate him because she didn't approve of his actions - stealing the cookies. But the child's mother knows better than the child, and she punishes him because she loves him. She opposes his actions because she knows his actions are potentially harmful to him in the short term, and would encourage patterns of self-destructive behavior in the long run.

The rules in the Bible aren't put there to justify social evils or to divide societies or to make people feel inferior. They're put there to promote people's mental, physical, and spiritual well-being.

The fact that the Bible stresses the importance of love and compassion in many places does not mitigate its statements on what is right and wrong. While you cannot pick and choose what passages of Scripture you want to believe without rendering the entire Book useless, you have to interpret any passage in the context of Scripture as a whole, which precludes attempting to justify a position specifically condemned elsewhere.

Homosexual acts are specifically addressed in both Old and New Testaments, and in both places they are addressed as sins. Not worse than any other sins, granted, but as I've been saying homosexuals are no worse than anyone else. The difference is this. In both the Bible and the laws of the United States - both church and state - we have laws against stealing (larceny), lying (perjury), murder (homicide), cheating (fraud), and so on. Now, you can nitpick about things like adultery and covetousness and so on, but... ummm... yeah, stones. [wink]

When Jesus spoke to the woman caught in adultery, He told her He did not condemn her - and in the very next sentence instructed her to 'go and sin no more.' Clearly, while God's love reaches out to a person despite their sins, it does not excuse the sin, nor does it mitigate any potential consequences.

Honestly, to push an argument through for gay rights, you'd have better luck dispensing with the Christian faith entirely - in which case I'd probably be out of your hair.

I'm not gonna pass judgment on people, just actions. I'm still your buddy, klinton - if you really feel like putting up with me. [nyah hah]