it's His followers I could live without

[BVS]

And it does no good when one thinly veils contempt within the guise of "love and kindness." As far as I'm concerned, not only does that negate the "love and kindness," but you're also bearing false witness.

 

[AEON]

I have certainly been more than patient.

Melon

I think I tend to agree with you on this. Considering how sensitive the issue is.

And it does no good when one thinly veils contempt within the guise of "love and kindness." As far as I'm concerned, not only does that negate the "love and kindness," but you're also bearing false witness.
Melon

I do not have contempt for you Melon. I promise. I have a tremendous amount of respect for you (as much as one can have in a forum relationship). You are obviously very bright and very witty. Even we I disagree with your conclusions - it doesn't cause me to have any ill-feeling or disdain for you.

We have agreed on other things, from Shoegazing music to pointing out the need for a reform of the current election process. However, when we do disagree - you 'seem' to take it personal, and I wish it wasn’t like that. I am sorry I have offended you – I didn’t mean to.

Sounds like my anger was appropriate then.

Melon

It's very tough as a Christian to know when we should get angry. Personally, I try to default to "never" - since Christ was angered so rarely. It just seems like the safest bet. (I can’t say I actually pull this off – it is simply the target)

 

[yolland]

Unfortunately it's also true that online settings by nature tend to amplify the acrimonious tones of anything said in anger. In real life outbursts tend to be mitigated somewhat by the fact that you can see the person's upset, which makes it easier to relate; we all know what it's like to be thrown off-kilter by something and understand how that fans the flames all by itself. Or perhaps in real life you know the person talking and are aware that s/he talks to everyone like this when they passionately disagree, whether it's a coworker or their brother. Or perhaps while their language is blunt, their tone is quiet and their facial expressions calm. In cyberspace, all that context is gone and the nasty stuff gets pushed to the fore.

Same thing with sarcasm or condescension--in real life these things may be mitigated a good deal by the presence of an affectionate smile or a scowl that clearly reflects on the abstract situation being discussed, not on you personally. Or defensiveness--there's another emotion that often comes across more like hostility when you can't see the person's facial expressions and body language, or hear their tone of voice.

It is possible to compensate for these shortcomings to a significant degree by taking extra care in how you word things and adding a few words of reassurance or the like, but it does take some extra work.

 

[indra]

Of course in real life you are also more likely to get shot in the course of a heated argument than you are online. Tired and irritated is a whole lot better than splattered across the room.

Leave it to me to come up with such pleasant thoughts.

 

[AEON]

Of course in real life you are also more likely to get shot in the course of a heated argument than you are online. Tired and irritated is a whole lot better than splattered across the room.

Leave it to me to come up with such pleasant thoughts.

I don't know why I laughed when I read this...there is some scary truth to it...

 

[AEON]

Same thing with sarcasm or condescension--in real life these things may be mitigated a good deal by the presence of an affectionate smile or a scowl that clearly reflects on the abstract situation being discussed, not on you personally. Or defensiveness--there's another emotion that often comes across more like hostility when you can't see the person's facial expressions and body language, or hear their tone of voice.

It is possible to compensate for these shortcomings to a significant degree by taking extra care in how you word things and adding a few words of reassurance or the like, but it does take some extra work.

Agreed. And reading through the NJ thread, I see that I definitely could have brought up the points I was trying to make with less sarcasm, especially in the beginning.

We all know that I tend to use an extreme example to make a point. At first, I didn’t understand why some of the comparisons I was making offended some people. Looking back, I can understand – even tough it wasn’t my intention.

Great insight, Yolland. As usual…

 

[melon]

It's quite true. Those few people here who have met me in real life can attest that I'm pretty much the exact opposite of my online persona here. In fact, I don't particularly like talking about politics.

Now writing is a whole other story...

Melon

 

[melon]

However, when we do disagree - you 'seem' to take it personal, and I wish it wasn’t like that. I am sorry I have offended you – I didn’t mean to.

There is only one subject that I take personally. That's because it's the only subject here that refers to a part of who I am.

I'm sure that a thread that veered off into racism or anti-Semitism would solicit similar reactions from those affected too.

Melon

 

[maycocksean]

There is only one subject that I take personally. That's because it's the only subject here that refers to a part of who I am.



Melon

Very salient point. I think it's far too easy for some of us to take a loose and casual approach on some topics which for others are intensely personal and painful. It's good be aware of that.

 

[maycocksean]

It's very tough as a Christian to know when we should get angry. Personally, I try to default to "never" - since Christ was angered so rarely. It just seems like the safest bet. (I can’t say I actually pull this off – it is simply the target)

I don't know if I totally agree with this stance on anger, though I think I see what you're trying to say.

I believe that feelings are spontaneous, and thus cannot be "right" or "wrong." The decision to express those feelings and how we do so has moral weight since there is choice involved but the feelings themselves including anger cannot be considered to be right or wrong.

I think this what Paul is suggesting when he says in Ephesians:

"Be angry and yet do not sin. Do not let the sun go down upon your anger."

 

[AEON]

Maycocksean, at first glance, I see how you can think that this passage seems to condone anger. But I think you have to look at this passage in context with the ENTIRE Bible. What is the consistent, Biblical stance on this issue?

I found an article by a Catholic reverend that gives the verse you quoted some perspective. I am not Catholic, but I still think the reverend hits the nail on the head:

The Bible Condemns Human Anger In All Its Form
By Rev. Bill McGinnis
"Cease from anger, and forsake wrath;" (Psalms 37:8a KJV)


Those people who teach that we should sometimes be "righteously angry" are 100% wrong. This teaching is perhaps the greatest error in Christian thought. Anger, like judgment, is reserved for God alone.
Nowhere in the Bible are we instructed to be angry with anybody or anything. On the contrary, Scripture overwhelmingly teaches against human anger and wrath in all its forms.


List Of All Scriptures Which Advise Us About Human
Anger And Wrath


"Anger"

Psalms 37:8
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise
to do evil.
Proverbs 15:18
A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger
appeaseth strife.
Proverbs 16:32
He that is slow to anger is better than the mighty; and he that
ruleth his spirit than he that taketh a city.
Proverbs 27:4
Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand
before envy?
Ecclesiastes 7:9
Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the
bosom of fools.
Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil
speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
Colossians 3:8
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
Colossians 3:21
Fathers, provoke not your children to anger, lest they be
discouraged.


"Angry"


Proverbs 14:17
He that is soon angry dealeth foolishly: and a man of wicked
devices is hated.
Proverbs 22:24
Make no friendship with an angry man; and with a furious man thou
shalt not go:
Proverbs 29:22
An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in
transgression.
Ecclesiastes 7:9
Be not hasty in thy spirit to be angry: for anger resteth in the
bosom of fools.
Matthew 5:22
But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother
without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever
shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council:
but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell
fire.

NOTE: All modern translations I can find, from the
American Standard Version (1901) on, except the
New King James Version, omit the words "without
a cause." This means that whoever is angry with his
brother (for any reason) is in danger of judgment.
The words "without a cause" seem to be a clerical
addition somewhere along the way in the Textus
Receptus, which is the basis for the King James and
the New King James versions. We certainly have a
good reason to hate our enemies, yet Jesus tells
us not to hate them, but to love them (Matthew
5:44). So whom, then, should we hate, if not our
enemies? Nobody! And that is the point. Neither
should we be angry with them, for any reason.


Ephesians 4:26
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(SEE EXPLANATION OF THIS VERSE, BELOW)
Titus 1:7
For a bishop must be blameless, as the steward of God; not
selfwilled, not soon angry, not given to wine, no striker, not
given to filthy lucre;


"Wrath"

Job 5:2
For wrath killeth the foolish man, and envy slayeth the silly one.
Job 19:29
Be ye afraid of the sword: for wrath bringeth the punishments of
the sword, that ye may know there is a judgment.
Job 36:13
But the hypocrites in heart heap up wrath: they cry not when he
bindeth them.
Psalms 2:12
Kiss the Son, lest he be angry, and ye perish from the way, when
his wrath is kindled but a little. Blessed are all they that put
their trust in him.
Psalms 37:8
Cease from anger, and forsake wrath: fret not thyself in any wise
to do evil.
Proverbs 12:16
A fool's wrath is presently known: but a prudent man covereth
shame.
Proverbs 14:29
He that is slow to wrath is of great understanding: but he that is
hasty of spirit exalteth folly.
Proverbs 19:19
A man of great wrath shall suffer punishment: for if thou deliver
him, yet thou must do it again.
Proverbs 21:24
Proud and haughty scorner is his name, who dealeth in proud wrath.
Proverbs 27:3
A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is
heavier than them both.
Proverbs 27:4
Wrath is cruel, and anger is outrageous; but who is able to stand
before envy?
Proverbs 29:8
Scornful men bring a city into a snare: but wise men turn away
wrath.
Proverbs 30:33
Surely the churning of milk bringeth forth butter, and the
wringing of the nose bringeth forth blood: so the forcing of wrath
bringeth forth strife.
Romans 2:8
But unto them that are contentious, and do not obey the truth, but
obey unrighteousness, indignation and wrath,
Romans 12:19
Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto
wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith
the Lord.
Romans 13:5
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also
for conscience sake.
Galatians 5:20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
seditions, heresies,
Ephesians 4:26
Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:
(SEE EXPLANATION OF THIS VERSE, BELOW)
Ephesians 4:31
Let all bitterness, and wrath, and anger, and clamour, and evil
speaking, be put away from you, with all malice:
Colossians 3:8
But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice,
blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God hath not appointed us to wrath, but to obtain salvation by
our Lord Jesus Christ,
1 Timothy 2:8
I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands,
without wrath and doubting.
James 1:19
Wherefore, my beloved brethren, let every man be swift to hear,
slow to speak, slow to wrath:
James 1:20
For the wrath of man worketh not the righteousness of God.



WHAT ABOUT EPHESIANS 4:26 AND PSALMS 4:4?
Some people will cite Ephesians 4:26, and Psalms 4:4 as two Scriptures which (in some translations) appear to authorize us to be angry under some conditions. Some translations consider Ephesians 4:26a to be a direct quotation from Psalms 4:4a. Others make no connection between the two verses.
Most major Bible translations render Ephesians 4:26 something like this:

"Be angry, but do not sin. Do not let the sun set
on your wrath."

This follows the translation of the Latin Vulgate


Original Greek, Spelled Out In Roman Letters

ORGIZESTHE KAI ME AMARTANETE


Jerome's Translation Into Latin

irascimini et nolite peccare


Typical New Translation

Be angry, but do not sin


This translation may appear to say that anger is encouraged, so long as you do not sin; but this is an incorrect understanding of the meaning of the words.
The more correct meaning of Ephesians 4:26 is this, as the NIV has it:

------------------------------------------------
"In your anger do not sin": Do not let the sun go
down while you are still angry
------------------------------------------------


Several other translations agree with the NIV. The Amplified Bible has it right: "When angry, do not sin;" The Williams translation has it right: "If you do get angry, you must stop sinning in your anger." Also the New English Bible has it right: "If you are angry, do not let anger lead you into sin." The New Living Translation improvises, but in the right direction: "And don't sin by letting anger gain control over you."
All of these agree that Paul is NOT teaching us to be angry. Rather he is recognizing the fact that we sometimes do get angry. (Anger is one of our human weaknesses.) And think, Christians, think! Why would Paul suddenly endorse anger here, when he condemns it consistently elsewhere?
Also, it doesn't make any sense at all to say "Be angry, but don't sin," and then to say, "But don't be angry any longer than sunset." If anger is acceptable to God, then what difference does it make if we are angry overnight or for a long period of time?
Regarding Psalms 4:4, there are some translations which do say, "Be angry, but do not sin." But other translations are completely different, having nothing at all to do with anger.

Psalms 4:4


KJV
Stand in awe, and sin not: commune with your own
heart upon your bed, and be still. Selah.

RSV
Be angry, but sin not; commune with your own hearts
on your beds, and be silent. [Selah]
NASB
Tremble, and do not sin; meditate in your heart
upon your bed, and be still. Selah.
NIV
In your anger do not sin; when you are on your beds,
search your hearts and be silent.

_____________________________________________________________


Once again, just as in Ephesians 4:26, even if it does say, "Be angry, but do not sin," that is NOT an instruction for us to be angry. Rather it simply recognizes our human weakness regarding anger. It is a concession, not an instruction. Furthermore, why would David tell us to "be angry" in Psalms 4:4, and then contradict himself in Psalms 37:8 which says, "Cease from anger and forsake wrath?"
It is not clear that Ephesians 4:26 is even quoting Psalms 4:4. The original Greek has no quotation marks, so it is always speculation when a modern translation inserts quotation marks where the translator thinks they should have been placed!
BUT DIDN'T JESUS, HIMSELF, SOMETIMES GET ANGRY?
Yes, Jesus became angry one time (Mark 3:5), maybe twice, if you include the episode with the moneychangers in the temple. But He's allowed to be angry. He is God. We are not. Was He angry when He was unjustly beaten and nailed to a cross to die? No, He was not.
Yes, Moses became angry. And once, his anger led him to murder, which is exactly what can happen when we are angry. His anger was a flaw, not a virtue.
On balance, Scripture speaks out even more strongly against anger than it does against sexual immorality. So if you allow yourself to become angry, you do so at your own peril! Similarly, if you preach against sexual immorality, you should preach even more strongly against anger. (All finger pointers, please take note. You know who you are.)
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE SAYING, "LOVE THE SINNER, HATE THE SIN?"
There is a saying, "Love the sinner, hate the sin." If we are supposed to "hate the sin," then shouldn't we become angry against it?
First, we need to understand that "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is not Scriptural. It is a doctrine of man, first formulated by St. Augustine and later affirmed by Martin Luther. So it got into Catholic teaching and then was transferred intact into Protestantism. But it never was based on Scripture, and it never was true. Sorry. Nowhere does the Bible instruct us to "hate" sin. Search it yourself, in any Bible version you choose. It's not in there!
We are instructed to "turn away" from sin and be repelled by it. We are instructed to detest sin and abhor it. We are instructed to flee from sin. But we are never instructed to hate sin or become angry because of it.
The danger in "hating the sin" is that we usually begin to hate the sinner, as well. It is very difficult to separate the two in practice. In fact, hatred itself is specifically condemned as a "work of the flesh," no matter whom or what the object of the hatred may be. Those who have hatred in their heart cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.

GALATIANS 5:19-21 (KJV)

_____________________________________________________________

19
Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these;
Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,
20
Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath,
strife, seditions, heresies,
21
Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like:
of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in
time past, that they which do such things shall not
inherit the kingdom of God.
_____________________________________________________________


Jesus gives us an example of another way for us to respond to sin: sorrow, not anger or hatred. As He approached Jerusalem for the last time, He knew the sins of the people and the destruction that would come to them later, at the hands of the Romans. What was His reaction? He wept for them!


LUKE 19:41-44 (KJV)

41
And when he was come near, he beheld the city, and wept
over it,
42
Saying, If thou hadst known, even thou, at least in this
thy day, the things which belong unto thy peace! but now
they are hid from thine eyes.
43
For the days shall come upon thee, that thine enemies
shall cast a trench about thee, and compass thee round,
and keep thee in on every side,
44
And shall lay thee even with the ground, and thy children
within thee; and they shall not leave in thee one stone
upon another; because thou knewest not the time of thy
visitation.


So don't let yourself become angry about anything, ever, because THE BIBLE OVERWHELMINGLY CONDEMNS HUMAN ANGER IN ALL ITS FORMS.
Anger is the exact opposite of love, and to love is what we are commanded to do.

_____________________________________________________________

For the whole law is fulfilled in one word, "You shall love your
neighbor as yourself." (Galatians 5:14 RSV)
_____________________________________________________________


Blessings to you in Jesus Christ our Lord,
Rev. Bill McGinnis

 

[Scarletwine]

This follower or should I say leader seems to fall into the type
I've always thought those that scream the loudest are often those the most afraid of themselves.

Gay escort claims sex tryst with preacher
By Charlie Brennan, Rocky Mountain News
November 2, 2006
A former gay male escort is going public on the eve of Colorado voting on two ballot issues relating to gay marriage, claiming a three-year sexual relationship with a prominent Colorado Springs pastor who has been an outspoken opponent of same-sex unions.
A Denver resident identifying himself as Mike Jones said he had a sexual relationship with Ted Haggard, founder of the 14,000-member New Life Church and president of the National Association of Evangelicals.
During an appearance today on the Peter Boyles show on KHOW 630 AM radio, Jones said "After sitting back and contemplating this issue, the biggest reason (for exposing it) is being a gay man all my life, I have experience with my friends, some great sadness of people that were in a relationship through the years" and were not able to enjoy the same rights and privileges as a married man and woman.
"I felt it was my responsibility to my fellow brothers and sisters, that I had to take a stand, and I cannot sit back anymore and hear (what) to me is an anti-gay message."
KUSA Channel 9 spoke to Haggard yesterday outside his Colorado Springs home, and he told a reporter Jones was lying.
"I’ve never had a gay relationship with anybody, and I’m steady with my wife. I’m faithful to my wife," said Haggard.
Jones on Thursday said that the denial is a lie.
"Yes he is (lying)," said Jones. "He had a relationship with me. We had gay sex."
Jones also said during his appearance with Boyles that he was paid money by Haggard, who made frequent trips to Denver for sexual liaisons, that he has recorded voicemails and a letter from Haggard, and that he had also witnessed Haggard use methamphetamine.
Jones offered to take a polygraph examination concerning his claim, and Boyles said that will occur Friday during his morning radio show.


WOW

 

[AEON]

I've always thought those that scream the loudest are often those the most afraid of themselves.

I guess according to this logic - outspoken leaders for social justice like MLK, Ghandi, Desmond TUTU are actually afraid they are in some way perpetrators of the same social injustices the oppose.

I don’t follow your reasoning with this statement.
And I do my best not to confuse the messenger with the message…(of course I don’t always succeed)

 

[BVS]

I guess according to this logic - outspoken leaders for social justice like MLK, Ghandi, Desmond TUTU are actually afraid they are in some way perpetrators of the same social injustices the oppose.

I don’t follow your reasoning with this statement.
And I do my best not to confuse the messenger with the message…(of course I don’t always succeed)

There's a difference between screaming and speaking loudly with conviction.

 

[Scarletwine]

No, they didn't strive to put down or defile anyone.

 

[martha]

No, they didn't strive to put down or defile anyone.

Or keep anyone in the margins.

 

[tommyvill]

Well you shold really love them, because it's the only way you actually can reach God.
But please, don't get me wrong, I'm saying that if you really love God, you should Love every single creature He made, regardless their actions and their fanatism and their dumbness or whatever. If you love God, you should love EVERYTHING, whatever their flaws are...do you remember? "If you love the ones that loveth you, what would be your merit at all?"

 

[coemgen]

John 3:17
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

If we're supposed to be Christ like, and Christ didn't even come to condemn, why the heck are we doing it?
(Yes, I'm a Christian)

 

[80sU2isBest]

John 3:17
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him."

If we're supposed to be Christ like, and Christ didn't even come to condemn, why the heck are we doing it?
(Yes, I'm a Christian)

Are you condemining anyone? No, I haven't seen you condemn anyone. So why do you say "we"?

Come to think of it, I'm not sure I have witnessed any Christian in this thread condemning anyone.

My Bullinger's Lexicon gives the translation of the verb "condemn" in John 3:17:

"to judge, ie: to form or give an opinion after separating and considering the particluars of a case"

You might well say that some of us Christians are condemning certain actions, but none of us have condemned the people who perform those actions.

Do you think there's anything wrong with condemning actions which you believe are wrong? If you knew your friend was cheating on his wife (and no, I'm not comparing homosexual acts to cheating on a spouse - I'm just using it as an example) would you not have the right/responsibility to tell him his actions are wrong?

 

[coemgen]

Take a chill-pill there, 80sU2. I wasn't talking to you. I was making a comment about Christians in general. The thread is about the problems us followers have, which is a valid thread to post here.

No, I don't see a problem with telling people they may be going down a destructive path. That, in fact, is love. Along those lines though, what good does it do to just point people's sins out — especially when they don't even see things through the lens of the Bible like we do. It's worthless. I think we as Christians should be talking more about how we're all guilty of sin, and we all need forgiveness through Christ. In other words, I know this thread was probably started in reaction to Christians' comments on homosexuality. As Christians, what should grieve us more: the fact that someone practices homosexuality, or the fact that someone doesn't know the love of Christ?

 

[80sU2isBest]

Take a chill-pill there, 80sU2. I wasn't talking to you. I was making a comment about Christians in general. The thread is about the problems us followers have, which is a valid thread to post here.

You said "we", so I assumed you were talking about those of us (including yourself) in this thread. If that was not your intention, that's good. However, I am getting weary of people accusing us of doing things we haven't done - and none of us are condemning anyone.

No, I don't see a problem with telling people they may be going down a destructive path. That, in fact, is love. Along those lines though, what good does it do to just point people's sins out — especially when they don't even see things through the lens of the Bible like we do. It's worthless. I think we as Christians should be talking more about how we're all guilty of sin, and we all need forgiveness through Christ.

Actually, most of the time, we do say that all sin and are in need of forgiveness. We are often accused of not admitting our sin, but se do.

In other words, I know this thread was probably started in reaction to Christians' comments on homosexuality. As Christians, what should grieve us more: the fact that someone practices homosexuality, or the fact that someone doesn't know the love of Christ?

Aeon and I both have said that the reason we point out sin is to show people their need for the Savior, Jesus Christ.

 

[BVS]

You might well say that some of us Christians are condemning certain actions, but none of us have condemned the people who perform those actions.

Really?

Come on, pushing for a law against one "sin" and not doing anything about all the others? Why is this the case?

Because if CCs were consistent and they pushed for laws against divorce, obesity, adultery, not honoring your mother, etc they'd be making laws that would effect them.

That inconsistency is condemning, no matter how you slice it.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Really?

Come on, pushing for a law against one "sin" and not doing anything about all the others? Why is this the case?

Because if CCs were consistent and they pushed for laws against divorce, obesity, adultery, not honoring your mother, etc they'd be making laws that would effect them.

That inconsistency is condemning, no matter how you slice it.

I didn't say we weren't condemning, did I? In fact, I admitted that we are condemning certain actions.

You are yet to show me how we are condemning people.

 

[AEON]

Or keep anyone in the margins.

What do you mean by this phrase?

 

[BVS]

I didn't say we weren't condemning, did I? In fact, I admitted that we are condemning certain actions.

You are yet to show me how we are condemning people.

I just showed you, if you can't see that that's condemning people then I'm sorry.

 

[anitram]

I didn't say we weren't condemning, did I? In fact, I admitted that we are condemning certain actions.

And why not other actions? Why not lobby for the criminalization of divorce?

In the name of self-interest?

 

[martha]

What do you mean by this phrase?

I'll be sorry I responded.....



Legally marginallizing people who are different than you. That's what you were advocating in the New Jersey thread.

 

[AEON]

And why not other actions? Why not lobby for the criminalization of divorce?

In the name of self-interest?

Anitram,

I have said many other times in various threads, we ALL legislate morality. Each and every one of us.

Criminalizing murder is an example. Protecting innocent children from sexual predators is another example.

I vote my conscious and according to what I think is the best chance to build a stable, moral society in the eyes of God, using His standards as a guide and not moral relativism.

I would also like to note – I didn’t see anyone advocating the criminalization of homosexuality. What I read were arguments to not legally endorse homosexual marriage. There is a difference.

 

[AEON]

I'll be sorry I responded.....



Legally marginallizing people who are different than you. That's what you were advocating in the New Jersey thread.

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[anitram]

I would also like to note – I didn’t see anyone advocating the criminalization of homosexuality. What I read were arguments to not legally endorse homosexual marriage. There is a difference.

Fine if you want to play semantics, then let's not legally endorse heterosexual divorce.

Seems to me that's the biggest threat to the sanctity of marriage.