Dave,

I still feel that, whether deliberately or by misinterpretation, you have not accurately portrayed my views in your counterpoints.

I keep seeing interpretations of what I've said that contradict what I've actually said many times in multiple posts. based on that, I don't feel compelled to explain any further. If you want, you can review what I've already written. Because the points you keep raising are ones I've already answered, and I keep repeating what I've already said, which is frustrating because you keep misinterpreting what I said, and paraphrasing it in terms that I think oversimplify or otherwise reinterpret innacurately what I've already said. It's crystal clear what my position is on the points I've answered (again, my parenthetical examples above, for openers, as examples.) I sincerely feel re-reading what I posted previously would be equally productive to my repeating myself.

On a minor point:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
OK, so non-repentant homosexuals and non-repentant promiscuous heterosexuals are EQUALLY not permitted to get married in a church? This is the concession I thought we had.
Gays can get married to persons of the OPPOSITE sex, once they give up sexual immorality, and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.

Heterosexuals who have engaged in premarital/extramarital sex can marry in a church, once they give up sexual immorality and change to a Bible-based Christian lifestyle.

I paraphrased only slightly, but what I've said is exactly the same as in many of my posts where I answered the same question previously. I fail to understand what is so difficult to grasp in this stated position.

You seem to imply each time that they're forever banned by their past or present behavior. Whereas I think it's clear in each time I've posted that once someone changes to a Christian lifestyle, all is forgiven.

And in this hypothetical scenario, I'm speaking of the official view, not what really occurs. Real-life Christian practice is a bit more complicated, in any individual or church. No doubt many in church are having sexual affairs (hetero or homo) and in other ways violating Christian standards.
For some, church is just a social event, and they have no second thought about their extra-Christian sex life.
For others they are having a temporary lapse, and become devout again later.
Some began as devout, and lose faith completely, and leave the Church.
Or possibly just leave spiritually, but still attend for social reasons.
Some are coming from a decadent lifestyle (by Biblical standards), and continue having illicit sex for a while, but eventually become devout, and completely leave their past extra-Biblical life behind.
Which may sound like an unnecessary and common sense thing to point out, but I feel it's relevant to say that I know "faithful" and "unfaithful" is not so cut and dry. There are fluctuations and inner conflicts of right and wrong that each individual has to sort out, and only God can judge fairly.
It's not for me to say "This one stays, this one goes..."
We're speaking hypothetically and ideally about certain isolated specified situations, and what the Bible/Christianity specifies as the appropriate Christian standard for conciliation with God and the Church.

But recognizing that daily struggles with religious purity by any given individual can have many lapses, and that said person, after many mistakes, can still be faithful in the end, shouldn't be a rationalization for just letting slide someone's daily immorality, over days, years, or a lifetime. There have to be standards to adhere to, or why have Christian faith at all? I advocate the standard and the ideal, while recognizing the reality.