Dear HereNow,

I didn't claim (or think) that the religious would actually be hurt by that - only that the "gay marriage" people do it because they [incorrectly] believe that it would hurt the religious.

Down the road, however, having discovered that their aim was not achieved, they will continue to devise other ways to hurt the religious, then at times they might be successful.

Dear Yuyustu, if gay rights is being used by those who have an agenda against Christianity specifically, or against religions as a whole, I won't be too suprised. I've seen as much in other things and have recoginized a growing trend of hostilities towards Christianity specifically and against religions as a whole. That hostiality has to come from somewhere and goes into action somewhere else.

But that said I don't think the magority of homosexuals are part of that conspiracy. Some might be swept away with it in agreement with it, but for the most part I think people are just trying to get their fair share of things. Homosexuals included. I know some are gay and struggle with it in combination of their faith. But they don't try to give up their faith. So if issues of homosexuality are used to harm the faith, I don't think those who are homosexual are guilty of the same conspiricy. Even if they support the issues they hope on to provide something they want.

Hi HereNow. Religions (for the most part) hold standards to live by. If the religion doesn't do this, to try and advocate the people to be better then they were before, then I'd call that religion pretty worthless and warn out. (Not just false but literally of no value). Condenention of criminals is not frowned upon, or else the justice systems applied world wide would be in as much an uproar as some would like religions to be in. Having a standard that condemn "those not like them" (those who fail the standard) is something I hope you would not critize when applied to terrorists, murder, rape, or torture. Some crimes are terror able enough the vast magority are right to condemn those who don't uphold at least that much of the standard.

Just a hole or two in your perspective. Consider it and move on.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

I completely agree that homosexuals are not to be blamed - it's got nothing to do with them, the issue is with the "gay" movement.

Most homosexuals are not gay about it, they just live their life.
If they want to marry, then they just marry; and if they want their marriage to be before God, then there are already priests and ministers who are happy to marry them. The only thing they "miss" is this infectious piece of paper from the state which heterosexual couples cannot rid themselves of (other than by being quarantined from each other for over a year).

On the other hand, most members of the gay movement are not homosexual and would never consider sexual contact with a member of their own gender in their private life: being gay is a political orientation, not a sexual one.

Equality at any cost = "It's unfair: why have you got hepatitis and I don't?"

Dear Yuyutsu,

You say that most homosexuals are not part of the gay movement. I don't know the numbers behind that, but from what I've seen it's a rare thing to be homosexual and not support the gay social movements. (I don't know enough gay people though to have a reliable finding, but from what I've found it seems a rare thing). That said I'll keep the idea in mind and consider it. Expecially the part that most members of the gay movement aren't actually homosexual. That does make it a politics thing, so thanks for that observation.

Dear Not_Now.Soon,

«it's a rare thing to be homosexual and not support the gay social movements.»

This is called "silent majority":

I have a relative who is homosexual. He has a very respectable job, he is in a steady relationship for many years with two boys who live with him and his partner. The boys are full brothers as he had them with the same lesbian lady, who is also in a stable relationship, thus those children have two loving fathers and two loving mothers, who see them regularly. My relative never attended a "gay" parade or spoke about those things; and he doesn't need a certificate from the government because the family accepts his relationship anyway and his partner as one of us.

Not_Now.Soon,

To prevent any possible confusion, I should inform you that Yuyutsu sometimes invents his own definitions for words.

In this instance, he has altered the definition of the word 'gay' to mean 'a political advocate, or political advocacy, for anything relating to homosexuality that he sees as a threat'. Only when he says 'homosexual' (or any of its parts of speech), does he mean anything everyone else would interchangeably label as 'gay'.

--

Yuyutsu writes: "Equality at any cost = "It's unfair: why have you got hepatitis and I don't?""

Nice reductio ad absurdum there, Yuyutsu.

http://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/151/Reductio-ad-Absurdum