"I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!"

Wow...I guess now you know what it feels like for some women.

Gay men can be aggressive in their advances as much as straight men. It has nothing to do with sexual orientation but personality and/or lack of respect.
To generalize all gays being this way is ignorant..but whatever helps justify discrimination.

TTM... I explained why I was there mate... I was about 19 freshly out in the big wide world of my first Air Force Posting and in my section there was this married bloke who decided to 'show us the world' in Kings Cross. We thought that would be a bit of a lark :) so ..off we all trotted.

I had enough sense to STAY AWAKE during our return trip at about 2.00am in his Morris Cooper S and lucky I did because he went to sleep at the wheel about 3 times ! ! !

NIC... I don't think generally heterosexuals are 'that' aggressive are they?
-any women wish to comment?

NIC...you are actually demonstrating the sad secular blinkers in that you only recognize discrimination for gays..as if they are the only ones discriminated against or vilified.
Ever seen the Gay mardi Gras in sydney where Fred Nile and Catholic Nuns are portrayed 'less than positively' ?

I think some of you live in a kind of social 'maze' where you never get to see what happens to Christians.

"NIC... I don't think generally heterosexuals are 'that' aggressive are they?
-any women wish to comment"

I worked in a bar for 2 years, being 18 and happy seems to mean that obviously I was ready for the picking. So yes, hetero men are equally aggressive when they are looking for action.
Don't get be wrong, this wasn't an everyday occurrence but neither is that behavior in gay bars.

"NIC...you are actually demonstrating the sad secular blinkers in that you only recognize discrimination for gays..as if they are the only ones discriminated against or vilified."

Would a catholic church allow jewish prayer...or is the church for catholic people.

I am not denying that Christians don't have it tough sometimes, but in this instance, I call bullsh@it on the discrimination claim.

The following was part of my first post in this thread, I urge you to read it.

"The pub is creating a comfortable environment for GAY MEN to socialise among other gay men, without threat of abuse or violence (which the pub has a history of toward gays). The headline of "Gay pub can bar heterosexual drinkers" is misleading because the info given in the article suggests that lesbians aren't welcome either.

So really it isn't discrimination against heterosexuals, but other homosexuals too?
To me that suggests gays aren't discriminating against straight people, but they want an attack free environment from ALL to socialise with each other.

How dare they.

It is like having a lez bar where only other lesbians are allowed entry. Is that ok because they are women or would that be equally discriminatory.
Or for instance a church denying employment to gays.."

Dear Nic
I think I should share with you one of the reasons for my concern.

Please have a look at this link

http://www.christian.org.uk/news/47000-fine-for-bishop-sued-by-homosexual-youth-worker/

If you doubt how incompatible the idea of a 'gay' youth worker is for a Church (an evangelical one at least) you would do well to read Pauls words in Romans 1 (seriously..if u've never read them.. please for your own information do so this time)

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+1&version=NIV

Verses 18-32

It would be possible to draw a superficial conclusion from those verses that "Christians believe gays should be killed"..however, if that is the impression you get from those verses, please allow me to provide some further commentary on the meaning in the bigger context.
If you don't find that kind of meaning there...then alls good :)

Gays and Socialists (many of whom are gay anyway) seem to find the law to be a very convenient battering ram or chunk of 2x4 with which to 'bash' Churches. The problem is, the 'law' means one thing to a conservative (objective) magistrate and another to a progressive 'activist' judge. Hence the growing problem for us.

An objective magistrate will take the law as it stands and apply it equally to all. The 'progressive' magistrate will come up with some kind of amazing convoluted reason why white is in fact black.

Here is one such example. (page 7)

http://www.acrawsa.org.au/ejournalFiles/Volume%204,%20Number%202,%202008/O%27Connell%20Pinned%20Like%20a%20Butterfly%20FINAL.pdf

"I've rarely been so intimidated in my life... as a hetero. My bum was pinched.. legs rubbed... that was just walking to a table!"

Al, welcome to the world of women. :)

Errr... sorry, Boaz, could you run that past me again?

>>It would be possible to draw a superficial conclusion from those verses that "Christians believe gays should be killed"<<

The verses in question being, I take it...

"They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them."

Please, which part of this is metaphorical, and which should be taken literally? It seems particularly prescriptive to me.

But what do I know?

"...God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death"

>>An objective magistrate will take the law as it stands and apply it equally to all.<<

So, your "objective" magistrate would look at the godly instruction you have pointed us to, and said... exactly what?

Objectively speaking, that is.

Have I mentioned before, Boaz, that I consider your selection of verses from the various religions' scriptures to be highly... convenient, shall we say?

Not to mention blindly self-serving.

I think I may have.

Once or twice.