When the Bible does not promote or condone, then what?

[micatala]

This thread is prompted by the often-made statement.

I have asked you to provide any evidence "from the Bible" (since you have offered that you are a priest), where sodomy/perderasty-homosexuality-Gay, is celebrated, supported, condoned, promoted, or preached as acceptable, anywhere in the New Testament

The implication is that, since the Bible nowhere promotes, condones, or 'celebrates' homosexuality, this is further indication it should be condemned.

Question for debate:

Is this a valid conclusion?

Are there other examples of behaviors, views, etc. that are not promoted, condoned, or celebrated in the Bible, but that Christians typically do not condemn?

[1John2_26]

I thought Grumpy's thread was designed narrowly.

The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. It is impossible to rebut my opposition if I am not allowed to write the words necessary to do so.

How is a debate to be undertaken if the words and positions necessary to do so, are corralled to fit through such a narrow gate?

Moderator Warning
These are examples of inflammatory language. These words are loaded words detestable, indecent, corrupt or lascivious and are not empirically applicable to the situation.

1John2_26 wrote:
No such thing exists outside of detestable practices of the peoples of the Bible that were not Israelites.

1John2_26 wrote:
If gays win their war against decency, you can bet Christians will not be in their celebration parades.

1John2_26 wrote:
My talent needs recognition. And, denigration doesn't pay the bills.
1John2_26 wrote:

We could make billions just selling good blood to all of the needy people living in corruot societies celebrating lascivious licentiousness.

[Wyvern]

The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. It is impossible to rebut my opposition if I am not allowed to write the words necessary to do so.

I really don't think omitting such types of language should affect getting across your points, it always seemed to me that you used words such as those in place of cursing. Additionally using such words causes others to see you as hateful, so if you do not want to project such an image you should automatically abstain from using such emotive loaded language.

How is a debate to be undertaken if the words and positions necessary to do so, are corralled to fit through such a narrow gate?

The gate isn't all that narrow, the english language contains some 750,000 words, I bet you can find a few that will say exactly what you want without being too offensive.

[McCulloch]

The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. It is impossible to rebut my opposition if I am not allowed to write the words necessary to do so.

The trick is to slow down and make no assumptions. Rather than make sweeping unsupported statements break it down into logical steps, one following the other so that other debaters can see how you get to your conclusion.
"The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. " This statement is by itself not offensive.
However, what you have failed to do is to show that modern adult consentual homosexual behaviour is necessarily indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious. Showing that some homosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious is not enough. Some heterosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable and lascivious.
By all means use these words. But apply them only to behaviours that can be shown objectively to fit the definition.

[1John2_26]

How can I not feel like I am taking the bait in replying to this:

1John2_26 wrote:
The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. It is impossible to rebut my opposition if I am not allowed to write the words necessary to do so.
The trick is to slow down and make no assumptions. Rather than make sweeping unsupported statements break it down into logical steps, one following the other so that other debaters can see how you get to your conclusion.

The very lifestyle, behavior and choices made by people determine their ability to be defined in the New Testament definition of what it is to be a believer, or, follower. In the case of homosexuality, it has been created as a new and distinctive Culture and Community "based on" non-Christian peoples. Why are Christians called the bigots? They have not altered or refused to follow the Bible. It seems easily proveable that the anti-Christians are the bigots.

There is the right to call someone a "true" believer. Just as there is pure qualifications for claiming to have a degree from Harvard. You must prove that you do, and only Harvard can back up your assertion. The Harvard graduate can only come from Harvard. They can reject their Harvardness by rejecting to do what they are taught.

Getting an education at Harvard and yet violating what they embraced. A law degree used to swindle poor people for example. That would violate the teachings of Harvard law schools (I'm assuming) and cause Harvard to reject the swindler as "being what it means to be a Harvard Graduate."

"The Bible does promote or condone indecent, corrupt, detesable or lascivious acts. " This statement is by itself not offensive.

Only presented in such ambiguity that poster "JohnDoe123" cannot udersatnd that he has just been called a liar? You cannot be a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection, but there are people that openly declare that they do not believe in the resurrection and are "Christians." It is corrupt and indecent to claim to be a Christian and be a liar.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, so that . . ."

No wait a minute . . . Jesus is a myth. If anything he was just some guy. And certainly wasn't executed and no way came back from the dead.

Now, seriously there are things that disqualify a person from being able to "use" the word "Christian."

Ignorance may be bliss but not once a person has removed the excuse by reading the Bible. And there is far more eveidence that the normal orthodox view of the Bible is more believable than this new liberal presentation. Being skeptical is a far cry from practicing refutation in the words you speak and the actions you undertake.

I can claim to be a Canadian but I can fight to return the land called Canada back to the scattered Inuotes that lived there before being conquered and subjugated by Europeans. (Of course we all know that the native inhabitants of what is now called the country of Canada do not consider a new definition applies to them culturally. Just somewhat politically and socially when benefits are handed out.) I don't think the Canadians would appreciate my dismantling of their beliefs "of what it is" to be a Canadian if I put my words into actions and return the land back to what it was. The Canadians would oppose my attacks. They would consider my "changing" Canada not appropriate. So, searching back in time for what is and what isn't a qualifier is needed. I'm sure the peoples that lived before our modern Canadians do not hold to the definition of the New Canada on what it means to "be" a Canadian.

Modern words can corrupt as easiliy as bring enlightenment. In the case of native inhabitants, like within Christian life, new words have been lethal.

It is actions that define a person. No one can be a Christian without actions. And certainly those actions can be within a quiet heart, but are put there by actions.

How many sexual slaves in Roman times were performing for their pederastic owners and were absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing? Probably all of them.

There is no way in the world to actually promote lascivious behavior and "be" a Christian that does not have to repent of these actions or leave the body of Christ. I didn't write the New Testament. I just agree with its logical assertions.

However, what you have failed to do is to show that modern adult consentual homosexual behaviour is necessarily indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious.

I have many versions of the Bible at my reach and all condemn homosexual acts exactly the same way. It is only in today's world, that homosexuality, as weare "now" being forced to debate it, that has forced a corrupt teaching about its acceptance within the Church. It is indecent what homosexuals are doing "against" Christians, that hold to a sensible reading of the New Testament.

Showing that some homosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious is not enough.

A person claiming to "be a homosexual" is doing so by sex acts. Trying to wipe away the clear meanings of the condemnation of living a life defined by sexuality not approved of in the Bible is presenting detestable practices as acceptable. There is no Biblical support for accepting the people that promote detestable practices be called "Christians." Once an examination is undertaken, purity and holiness is the path sought and proclaimed by Christians. Not implementing cunning and conniving decpetion to promote a different Gospel. The warnings about these kinds of people are the reasons for most of the letters in the New Testament.

When you grasp the "family" aspect of the homosexual Cultute and Community (Their labels not mine), you see such a corrupted and altered view of the concept of "family." That, so firmly justifies the use of corrupt and indecent, as words that do qualify to be used in context, of dissenting of homosexualizing Christians anywhere the Bible is believed. It is only seen as improper use of a concept to those "being" indecent, to label indecency as corrupt behavior. Any Christian welcomes a brother and sister trying to get them to repent. That is a supreme act of love, as forgiveness is such a theme of God to His people.

Some heterosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable and lascivious.

And proven so by facts. By actions, declarations, and activism. To see homosexuality as corrupting and corrupt is a very logical way to think.

Poor pitiful me-ism's, do not repentance make. Though that kind of statement is on the lips of many convicted felons. Even humans do not buy into selfishness, or choosing to make a mistake as an "excuse."

By all means use these words. But apply them only to behaviours that can be shown objectively to fit the definition.

That cannot be done within an R- Rating. Homosexuality "its behaviours" only presents us with the reasons why XXX porn is "labeled" with the two other X's. It is ad hominem and un-intellectual, to accuse people that have a problem with homosexuality are obsessed with sex or are secret homosexuals not liking themselves.

If that is the case, than every atheist literally Worships Christ Jesus.

No, dissent can be just logical and rational disapproval of actions that contradict assertions. Don't many atheists pride themselves in being "ex" Christians? Then certainly the debached individual choosing a more moral life, is the voice we should listen too? Why not hold out those that didn't or don't choose to be corrupted by sexual acts that literal are actions? Paul's advice to Timothy is great and logical. Only leaders that are not screwed up need to be supported and promoted. Sounds like we all try to implement that advice no matter what stances we hold huh?

When dealing with "behaviours" the New Testament is not ambiguos at all.

Yet the opposition to Christians, demands that the Christians not be able to present truth and facts anymore. Words have been altered from meanings that mean anything anymore. Homosexuality is no longer sodomy, detstable practices and an abomination, and sodomy is no longer indecent and corrupt, because: the new powers that be have declared it so.

Ever notice that STD's do not care what a person "says?"

"I love you" does not defend against consequences that indeed can be the very antithesis of "love?" The very opposite of truth?

Can the new definers of truth even understand that?

[melikio]

However, what you have failed to do is to show that modern adult consentual homosexual behaviour is necessarily indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious. Showing that some homosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious is not enough. Some heterosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable and lascivious.
By all means use these words. But apply them only to behaviours that can be shown objectively to fit the definition.

1John, the above is reasonable and true.

The fact that you see it "differently" through YOUR "Christian" perspective, does not make your view THE absolute mirror of "reality".

The "limit" (that you and others will not accept), is NOT EQUAL to the actual limits (authority) of The Creator God (if He exists as many believe). And that limit also entails that you must allow others the freedom to perhaps be "wrong"; even if YOU see it as being absolutely so.

You are TOTALLY free to apply the Bible and associated belief systems to YOUR OWN LIFE, but there is a REAL LIMIT to the amount of "effect" you are allowed to project upon others. There are spiritual, moral and legal LIMITS to what YOU (or other believers) can actually cause to BE, in the name of God, Bible or anything else. In effect, that is what most of this argument is about.

It is ultimately incumbent upon YOU (the accuser) to PROVE what the heck you are radically claiming. If God is on your side (truly) then some overwhelming and unimpeachable form of PROOF of what you say will come forth in due time. YOU have NOT presented that, as much as you are vehemently against what you say. In fact, by a "Christian" standard, you have indicted yourself many times, by not being a model for Jesus Christ. That is, not saying you aren't a "Christian", but reminding you of the very fact that you aren't SO RIGHTEOUS that you can indeed stand in judgement and condemnation of SO MANY other human beings on this planet... in the name of God or according to the Bible.

NO ONE is going to force you to see what I have said above; no one. But reality is not going to shift and conform itself to YOUR VIEWS (unless God is 100.00000000000000000000% aligned with your them). In the interim, there are "limits" you how absolutely "correct" you can be, and also to the level of "control" which you (or any other "Christian") might impose upon others for the sake of your "religion".

The U.S. Constitution says the same things I've said, in an amazingly eloquent fashion as well.

-Mel-

[Wyvern]

There is the right to call someone a "true" believer. Just as there is pure qualifications for claiming to have a degree from Harvard. You must prove that you do, and only Harvard can back up your assertion. The Harvard graduate can only come from Harvard. They can reject their Harvardness by rejecting to do what they are taught.

Once an alumni always an alumni, you can reject and deny whatever you want but it wont stop the Harvard Alumni Association from calling you from time to time asking for donations.

Getting an education at Harvard and yet violating what they embraced. A law degree used to swindle poor people for example. That would violate the teachings of Harvard law schools (I'm assuming) and cause Harvard to reject the swindler as "being what it means to be a Harvard Graduate."

Nope, once you are an alum you are one for life, if you do something unethical in your professional life your professional licensing organization(ABA, AMA, APA et.al.) will be the one that will take action, once you get your degree the school no longer has a voice in your actions.

Only presented in such ambiguity that poster "JohnDoe123" cannot udersatnd that he has just been called a liar? You cannot be a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection, but there are people that openly declare that they do not believe in the resurrection and are "Christians." It is corrupt and indecent to claim to be a Christian and be a liar.

Many if not all christians and people in general lie from time to time, it's part of human nature. Yet another case of the only way to get into heaven is to reject your own humanity.

Modern words can corrupt as easiliy as bring enlightenment. In the case of native inhabitants, like within Christian life, new words have been lethal.

Words themselves cannot be deadly. What they can do is give justification to those that already want to kill. Next time theres an execution in Utah check out how long the volunteer list for shooters is.

It is actions that define a person. No one can be a Christian without actions. And certainly those actions can be within a quiet heart, but are put there by actions.

It is more than just actions which help define a person.

How many sexual slaves in Roman times were performing for their pederastic owners and were absolutely innocent of any wrongdoing? Probably all of them.

You have said even one homosexual act makes you a homosexual. Does the above statement now mean you have abandoned this stance? The biblical evidence you have provided gives no qualifiers regarding such behavior.

Homosexuality is no longer sodomy, detstable practices and an abomination, and sodomy is no longer indecent and corrupt, because: the new powers that be have declared it so.

Homosexuality never was what you claim it to be. This is the base of your problems, your inability to see this simple fact. After all given this definition lesbians are not homosexuals.

[Grumpy]

1John2_26

The very lifestyle, behavior and choices made by people determine their ability to be defined in the New Testament definition of what it is to be a believer, or, follower.

And if you left it to the NT or OT to DO the defining , not your interpretation of them, we would not be having a problem with the posts you send.

WHO GAVE YOU THE AUTHORITY OR THE KNOWLEDGE TO DEFINE FOR OTHERS THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH GOD???

You cannot be a Christian and NOT believe in the resurrection

Sure you can, I do not buy the supernatural aspects of the Bible, that is just superstitious nonsense added by organized(and not so organized)religions(much like the misunderstanding of the story of Sodom). Yet I follow the teachings of Jesus, therefore I am a Christian. Buddists have no problem with this concept, Budda himself blocked the idea that he was divine, or that a separate god existed(In Buddisms purist form) though organized religion has corrupted his original thoughts in some sects.

It is corrupt and indecent to claim to be a Christian and be a liar.

And it is not you who will determine whether another's claim is a lie, moreover it would be your business to insure you are correct in YOUR OWN behavior and to keep your opinion of others behavior:

Romans 14 22 So whatever you believe about these things keep between yourself and God.

No wait a minute . . . Jesus is a myth. If anything he was just some guy. And certainly wasn't executed and no way came back from the dead.

No, Jesus was a man who taught the greatest lesson ever, which can be summed up(as most of the eloquent truths can be. IE E=m/c2) in one sentence. "Do unto others as you would have done unto you, Love your neigbhor as thyself, As you have done to the least of these(even homosexuals) you have done to me."

"As you have done to the least of these, you have done unto me."
So when you say that all gays are child molesters, you have called Jesus a child molester. Not only is it a lie, but, if your version of heaven and hell are correct, I would not want to be in your shoes!



The Pharasees and Sagesees made a deal with the Romans to get rid of him because he was interfering in the sacrifice trade"money changers" and the Romans killed him the way Romans were won't to do at the time.

The resurrection?? Hocus pocus added to the story to make Jesus out to be more than human. But many god figures were killed and resurrected in various religions of the time, why did Jesus's story outlast them??? IT IS THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS THAT ARE SPECIAL and the fact that a mere man was capable of such insight and intelligence is even more astounding than if it had come from on high!!!

And there is far more eveidence that the normal orthodox view of the Bible is more believable than this new liberal presentation.

Well, we are asking you to provide that evidence without also calling us names and disparaging our motives!!! That's called debate.

A person claiming to "be a homosexual" is doing so by sex acts.

That is just not true, Are you defined by the sex acts you perform with your wife??? No? Well neither is a gay person, who can be celibate but will still be gay. Stop posting obvious untruths and lies.

Trying to wipe away the clear meanings of the condemnation of living a life defined by sexuality not approved of in the Bible is presenting detestable practices as acceptable.

Believe what you want, but the original Greek words used in both the old and new Testaments DO NOT REFER(anywhere in the Bible)TO HOMOSEXUALITY(As we define it today) in their condemnations, as I have shown.

When you grasp the "family" aspect of the homosexual Cultute and Community (Their labels not mine), you see such a corrupted and altered view of the concept of "family." That, so firmly justifies the use of corrupt and indecent, as words that do qualify to be used in context, of dissenting of homosexualizing Christians anywhere the Bible is believed. It is only seen as improper use of a concept to those "being" indecent, to label indecency as corrupt behavior. Any Christian welcomes a brother and sister trying to get them to repent. That is a supreme act of love, as forgiveness is such a theme of God to His people.

Wow, 8 slanderous and completely false characterizations in one paragraph, yet not one shred of evidence to support these lies.

It is ad hominem and un-intellectual, to accuse people that have a problem with homosexuality are obsessed with sex or are secret homosexuals not liking themselves.

Actually there is quite a bit of scientific evidence supporting the"I hate myself" source for Homophobia, as I said in the OP. We can discus this evidence if you like(but you won't like the implications if we do), I'll leave it up to you.

Grumpy

[micatala]

The very lifestyle, behavior and choices made by people determine their ability to be defined in the New Testament definition of what it is to be a believer, or, follower.

Paul says we are justified by faith, not works (e.g. behavior, lifestyle, etc.). Jesus the paramount law is love God, and then to love others as you love yourself. The works a person do might give clues as to the 'heart', but they do not determine whether a person is Christian or not. THis is called justification by faith and is clearly Biblical and in line with most Protestant theology, both conservative and liberal.

In the case of homosexuality, it has been created as a new and distinctive Culture and Community "based on" non-Christian peoples.

This is not correct. Some homosexuals consider themselves part of a 'group culture' but certainly not all. Also, homosexuality is not 'based on' non-Christian peoples. Homosexuals typically self-identify through their perceived orientation towards people of the same gender. Some homosexuals are professed Christians. SOme are not. I know and know of several Christians homosexuals, some who are quite conservative.

There is the right to call someone a "true" believer. Just as there is pure qualifications for claiming to have a degree from Harvard. You must prove that you do, and only Harvard can back up your assertion. The Harvard graduate can only come from Harvard. They can reject their Harvardness by rejecting to do what they are taught.

The faculty decides who gets a degree from Harvard. It is not up to the other students who gets to be a Harvard grad or not.

The judge of who is a 'true believer' is no one else but the Lord. This is not up to other believers to decide. This is Biblical.

Believers can certainly have opinions about other believers. If believer A has issues with some of the beliefs or practices of believer B, then they are still asked to act in love toward B, and to leave the judgment of believer B's walk with God to the Lord. Again, this is clear Biblically speaking.

Believer A can encourage, offer correction, suggest repentance, etc. but claiming that B is not a believer when B professes to B is not endorsed anywhere in the NT that I have seen.

If believer A feels that he cannot in good conscience associate with believer B, especially if A is concerned such association might be detrimental to A's walk with God, then A is free not to associate with B. However, the Bible does not endorse the notion that A can persecute B, speak untruths about B, disparage or denigrate B, etc.

However, note that Jesus does associate with basically anyone in the Bible, even those identified as sinners. If A spurns B because he considers B 'beneath him' or 'unworthy' or out of pride in his own righteousness, then A is not following Jesus' example.[/i]

[1John2_26]

Mel, is it not reasonable to just find another belief system when obviously the Bible is a done deal?

The Bible is clear on what it condones and wants celebrated.

Quote:
However, what you have failed to do is to show that modern adult consentual homosexual behaviour is necessarily indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious. Showing that some homosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable or lascivious is not enough. Some heterosexuals are indecent, corrupt, detestable and lascivious.

By all means use these words. But apply them only to behaviours that can be shown objectively to fit the definition.

1John, the above is reasonable and true.

And no matter Grumpy's attempt to accuse and convict me of some newly invented wrongdoing, I use the words (as always) in context. Especially as consistently as I have done with the Gay Culture and Community.

The fact that you see it "differently" through YOUR "Christian" perspective, does not make your view THE absolute mirror of "reality".

I "see things" through the uncorrupted texts of the New Testament. I agree with Christ Jesus, Peter, Paul, James, John and Jude. And of course Luke too.

The "limit" (that you and others will not accept), is NOT EQUAL to the actual limits (authority) of The Creator God (if He exists as many believe). And that limit also entails that you must allow others the freedom to perhaps be "wrong"; even if YOU see it as being absolutely so.

I couldn't care less about other people willingly choosing to do wrong, but I start caring when they demand that I support and encourage them and others to spread their wrong actions by force. I have proven that heretical groups like Soulforce are attacking Christians. Why liberals do not disagree with those that openly discriminate against Christians is odd.

You are TOTALLY free to apply the Bible and associated belief systems to YOUR OWN LIFE, but there is a REAL LIMIT to the amount of "effect" you are allowed to project upon others.

I can't understand your position here. This is a debate website. We are to debate or at least discuss our differences. I do at least represent a lot of Christians. This disapproval of homosexuality is widespread.

There are spiritual, moral and legal LIMITS to what YOU (or other believers) can actually cause to BE, in the name of God, Bible or anything else. In effect, that is what most of this argument is about.

I just the orthodox position that opposes what liberals and atheists and the clubmembers are presnting.

It is ultimately incumbent upon YOU (the accuser) to PROVE what the heck you are radically claiming.

Your position is not valid or logical. It is the garden-variety liberal that accuses "age-old" Christian beliefs as being wrong. They are wrong but they do it for an ulterior motive and I understand that aspect of the accusations against Christians.

If God is on your side (truly) then some overwhelming and unimpeachable form of PROOF of what you say will come forth in due time.

It already has. It is called the New Testament. I just agree with it.

YOU have NOT presented that, as much as you are vehemently against what you say. In fact, by a "Christian" standard, you have indicted yourself many times, by not being a model for Jesus Christ.

That may be a fair charge against me. I just do not know how to cal a liar a liar withour calling them a liar. The facts and truth I have posted is seen as an afront to anti-Christians because know matter how you say "you are lying" it comes across loud and clear.

That is, not saying you aren't a "Christian", but reminding you of the very fact that you aren't SO RIGHTEOUS that you can indeed stand in judgement and condemnation of SO MANY other human beings on this planet... in the name of God or according to the Bible.

I have proved that "I" do not judge anyone. Their own words and actions testify against them. Just like you just did to me. I am not a little lamby Christian. That does not disprove that heretics are heretics. In fact my evidences and facts are always there to be seen.

NO ONE is going to force you to see what I have said above; no one.

I saw that you were right that I am sometimes mean and witty at the same time. It is a flaw in my persoanlity that I call a liar a liar. I guess you are claiming that Jesus never did that. Of course the Gospels prove your position is not correct but, I guess, you have the right to hold it.

But reality is not going to shift and conform itself to YOUR VIEWS (unless God is 100.00000000000000000000% aligned with your them).

Since "I" agree with God, God doesn't have to do anything toward my views. I have proven that I am the one not changing the Bible. Even for example, if we go with the liberal view of Sodomite rapists, you still have to deal with the facst that these homosexual rapists were not reating women and their children in a decent manner. "The cry of it," reaching God. No matter which way you want to twist Sodom, it does not bode well for homosexualizing Christians to take on not caring for widows and orphans while seeking a lascivious licentious and haughty lifestyle. You can even see this in todays world. Just visit any inner-city or juvenile hall. I actually do several days a week.

In the interim, there are "limits" you how absolutely "correct" you can be, and also to the level of "control" which you (or any other "Christian") might impose upon others for the sake of your "religion".

It is reasonable to see your position as not being supported by Biblical texts.

The U.S. Constitution says the same things I've said, in an amazingly eloquent fashion as well.

It says that no laws can stop Christians from implementing anything and anyway they want to practice their faith.

It seems that some anti-Christian activists will not allow the Constitution to stand as it was written. It seems that the Constitution must be altered as well.

[melikio]

Mel, is it not reasonable to just find another belief system when obviously the Bible is a done deal?

This "done deal" you perceive, is likely the effect of the closed-mindedness your worldview tends to exude upon your own thinking.

Me a "liberal"? (Whatever; I don't care about the labels at this point.)

The Bible is clear on what it condones and wants celebrated.

It is also "clear" (enough) that you and no other believer has the power (or moral authority) to enforce your will upon others (even those who you may view to be heinous "sinners"). I give you the exception of controlling violent criminals who leave victims in their wake, but your militant opposition to homosexual people is something (itself) to be opposed.

Folks, please go here and share your views with your representatives:

http://capwiz.com/au/issues/alert/?alertid=8902026

The argument over whether the Bible approves of X thing or not, is more of a philosophical exercise than a major issue (this will always be argued). However, I can't help reminding people that many political actions stem from the very question being entertained here. Please make sure your voice/opinion is heard where it really counts.

-Mel-