From: ChapelMouse 

cartercc{at}gmail.com wrote:
> The reason you don't respond to the substance of the conversation is
> because you can't.

No, it's because it's been done already and done to death.

> On Mar 28, 12:00 pm, ChapelMouse  wrote:
>>  >  So homosexuals led by the Spirit would pray to the
>>> Lord for strength to stay away from such sexual behaviors, and not
>>> accept a "gay lifestyle" (with all that entails) as correct.

>> Pure ignorance.  There is no "gay lifestyle".  There are many
>> different gay people, living their lives in many different
>> ways, no different than straights.

> THAT'S NOT WHAT DANIEL MEANT!!! (And you know it.)

It isn't?  You can read his mind?

> What he meant, and
> said pretty clearly, was that the practice of sexuality outside of
> marriage is sinful, and people truly led by the spirit would pray for
> strength to resist sexual relationships outside of marriage.

I agree.

> He used
> the indefinite article 'a' and surrounded the words 'gay lifestyle'
> with double quotes. This might not have been the most articulate way
> of expressing it, but it's clear that he wasn't singling out a
> particular 'gay lifestyle' to disapprove in distinction to others he
> might approve, but referred in general to the practice of having a
> sexual relationship with a gay lover. In this regard, the same can be
> said for straight lifestyles, that is, having a sexual relationship
> outside of marriage with a straight lover.

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?

> Why don't you repsond to what he was saying -- which was that
> committed Christians resist falling into sexual temptation, whatever
> their sexual orientation, and try to remain abstinent if they are not
> married?

I agree.  I do.

>>> If the State wants to
>>> allow same-sex unions and give homosexuals marriage rights, that's not
>>> going to affect me or anyone I know.
>> Probably it does affect someone you know.  We are indeed
>> everywhere.  They just haven't come out to you.
>
> Which is why this isn't like the civil rights struggle. If a person
> doesn't 'act' gay, he isn't for all practical purposes.
> By the same
> token, the only way for him to show his sexual identity is for him to
> 'act' gay. 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.

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.

>> Maybe you would be less ignorant if you made an effort to
>> get to know someone whom this *would* affect.  Like a real
>> gay person, perhaps. That's what "listening" is all about.
>
> As opposed to a fake gay person?

As opposed to his ( and your ) ignorant stereotype.

 rest of boring repetition of garbage.

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag