Runner,

I acknowledge your opening post where you said you did not want to see homosexuality made a criminal offence. The fact is many Christians are not so tolerant.

Knowing Christians who have nursed homosexual AIDS patients is good to know, yes many others would not. (I probably wouldn't either. Simply because I do not have the knowledge or experience in this area).

Kipp,

Runner mentioned homosexual AIDS patients because that was what was relevant to the topic. They probably do also nurse hetrosexual AIDS patients.

For medical consequences of homosexual activity read below

http://www.familyresearchinst.org/EducationalPamphlets/MedicalConsequencesofWhatHomosexualsDo/tabid/73/Default.aspx

runner, you cite the 'family research institute'.

Please. When you find more propaganda in future, at least don't insult our intelligence by using this. At least do us the courtesy of finding a right-wing lobby group that has a more subtle name. Hell, even looking at the link is a clue that information is cherry picked rubbish to support an agenda.

By the same token, I could select any site on STDS and use it to warn of the danger of 'heterosexual' relationships.

Why is it runner, that this has been explained repeatedly to you yet you never acknowledge or rebut this - homosexual sex does not carry the risk of pregnancy, so participants are less likely to use condoms.

It is unprotected sex that's dangerous, not homosexual.

Rebut this, huh? Focus on the actual topic for once, and try something challenging, instead of parrotting the same rubbish over and over. That's how debate works - someone makes a point, someone else gives information and makes a point why it's false.

Can you move to point C, or is it too scary and do you need to huddle back at point A, together with the other fearful traditionalists at the 'family research institute'.

Whoa, hold your powder runner...

Fractelle calls me an “apologist” for you – there’s a clue. (there may be points of departure over scriptural interpretation if we boil it down; however, that is not the case in this thread).

Non-believers take offense to the very concept of sin, be they adulterer, liar or homosexual. Even though you and I acknowledge the fallenness of our state, and see certain human behaviors as aberrant / not normative / deviating from God’s intention for mankind, labelling homosexuality as a sin is seen as prescriptive.

It was only at the point of my conversion that I understood my “sinfulness” and need for repentance in the light of the price paid for my sin at the cross, courtesy of the Gospel of Mark. Bearing that in mind, I am not suggesting we give the lite version of the NT, just that we try to use a language that is accessible to non-believers.

Passy – where is this Christian Taliban you referred to? There is a huge range of Christian opinion on this forum, and we don’t always agree. If you are the author or this article, this expression lacks any journalistic integrity, and worse.

Fractelle, despite what you say, you do seem surprised when Christians behave like the “rest of us”, for the “rest of us”, the whole of humanity, includes the Anthony Hopkins’ of the world.

And I don’t agree:

“That there is a trend for both right-wing conservatives and fundamentalist religious to discriminate against gays and lesbians is demonstrated by politicians, media and religious leaders all the time.”

Actually, the pendulum has swung the other way.

So, DavidJS, the human rights battle is being won here. Gays and lesbians are stepping up to the full entitlement of rights (and responsibilities) available to every citizen of this secular democracy. Perhaps now, we can turn our minds to the truly disenfranchised, the powerless, the oppressed and the tortured, and our hearts to the reason for it all.

Runner. You quote an extreme rightwing religous organisation to make your point,even though "Dr" Paul Cameron and his analysis on homosexuality has been rebuked by his peers.

His book on relationships also puts into question what is thinking really is!

htt://www.splcenter.org./intel/intelreport/article.jsp.?=363

katie0: << where is this Christian Taliban you referred to? >>

Actually, I think that's a very apt term for some of OLO's godbotherers - indeed, I've used it myself to describe runner, Boazycarp, Gibo et al. Clearly, there are also plenty of sane and reasonable Christian members of OLO (like katie0, for example) who wouldn't warrant that description.

<< the human rights battle is being won here. Gays and lesbians are stepping up to the full entitlement of rights (and responsibilities) available to every citizen of this secular democracy. Perhaps now, we can turn our minds to the truly disenfranchised, the powerless, the oppressed and the tortured, and our hearts to the reason for it all. >>

Hear hear. That's more like it :)