From: "Dan" 

On Mar 29, 10:21 am, carte...{at}gmail.com wrote:
> On Mar 28, 5:09 pm, ChapelMouse  wrote:
>
> > No, it's because it's been done already and done to death.
>
> The it shouldn't be much of a problem for you to provide me to a
> citation to a thread where this dicussion took place. Please do so.
>
> > It isn't?  You can read his mind?
>
> Of course not! I can read his words. This apparently is more than you
> can do.
>
> > Oh -- so there is one one "straight lifestyle" and all straights
> > have opposite-sex lovers?  Strange, I know a number of
> > straight people who don't have that "straight lifestyle."  Guess
> > they aren't really straight.  Maybe they're Martians?
>
> You simply don't get it. When he said 'a gay lifestyle' he simply
> meant engaging in homosexual acts. I was more explicit when I say
> 'having a sexual relationship outside of marriage.'
>
> > > A homosexual person who abstains from immoral sexuality for
> > > all practical pruposes isn't gay. For such a person to 'come out'
> > > would be tantamount to a rejection of Christianity.
>
> > You are an idiot, and a stupid, bigoted, and ignorant one.
> > You should know better -- you've been told often enough
> > by people who do know, but, as I say, you don't listen.
> > This paragraph is nothing more than the foaming of
> > a brainless homophobe.
>
> You say this because I suggest that homosexuals can life a life free
> from sexual sin. It strikes me that you might be the idiot, and a
> stupid, bigoted, and ignorant one at that.
>
> > Gay people don't come out to those they don't trust.
> > That doesn't mean they aren't gay.  Would a Jew in
> > Nazi Germany go around telling every passing SS-man
> > "I'm a Jew; please persecute me?"  No more do gay
> > people want people like the two of you to to know they
> > are gay.  It's a matter of fear, and obviously, that
> > fear is warranted in your case.
>
> There is a big difference. We don't have identity cards with our
> sexual preference specified.

This is not strictly true. There is a segment of the gay population whose
identity is pretty obvious to one and all. In men, this is usually because
of what most people would characterize as effeminate behaviors. There is
good reason to believe that this is often not a matter of choice. These are
the people who have been and who are most vulnerable to discrimination and
abusive treatment. They are a "visible minority".

>We don't live in ghettos. We don't have
> distinctive names. We have the ability to practice our sexual habits
> in the privacy of our bedrooms. None of this applied to Jews in Nazi
> Germany.
>
> >  rest of boring repetition of garbage.
>
> Which was, and I quote:
>
> >>>See I John 1:9. 'If we confess our sins ...' The trouble with people
> >>>like Imogene Robinson is that he has no concept of sin.
Either TEC has
> >>>changed its theology that sex outside of marriage is sin, or it has
> >>>changed its theology that we no longer need to confess sins ... or
> >>>Imogene Robinson is an unconfessed and unrepentant sinner.
>
> >>>Go ahead. Make the argument that sex outside of marriage is not sin.
> >>>Or the argument that we no longer need to confess sin. Go
ahead. Like
> >>>Clint Eastwood, you'll make my day.
>
> By your silence, I take it you agree that sex outside of marriage is a
> sin and that we should confess our sin and repent of it. In this case,
> you will no doubt agree that 'Bishop' Robinson should be inhibited in
> the performance of his duties until such time as he confesses,
> repents, and seperates himself from his unmarried lover (in a physical
> sense).
>
> CC

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag