Lgbt Group Will Pay Bsa $50,000 To Lift Ban On Gay Adult Leaders

[Stosh 3452]

Does this not take Paul's letter out of context?

 

It was written to the early church in Rome prior to Paul's planned visit. It was not intended for other people. And that has to be seen within the context of Roman culture. Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ie a loving relationship of equals between two people of the same sex. Instead it  was all about an expression of what they saw as masculinity. A man was allowed and indeed encouraged to have sex with younger men in order to show his dominance over them, specifically taking the dominant role. It was not about an expression of love but an expression of strength.

 

This is not that different to the whole Sodom and Gomorrah issue. There are an awful lot of theologians that will tell you that this was not about homosexuality but actually about gang rape.

 

Not only is this of course in itself something that I think anyone would oppose but needs to be seen in the context of the Roman empire being the enemy of the early church. Any actions that associated the early church with Roman culture would have to be opposed.

 

What people forget about the Bible in general is that with the exception of the first 5 books it was not ever conceived as one text. It is a series of books of history, of law, of letters, poetry and preaching all written seperately and every one of the texts has to be seen in the context of who wrote it and why.

 

Interesting argument and interpretation.... with that reasoning the whole of Scripture is out-of-date and irrelevant to today's world.  Otherwise, it sounds a bit like cherry picking according to one's agenda.  Either way, such practices are pretty much a waste of time and energy.  

[Peregrinator 85]

Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ie a loving relationship of equals between two people of the same sex. Instead it  was all about an expression of what they saw as masculinity. A man was allowed and indeed encouraged to have sex with younger men in order to show his dominance over them, specifically taking the dominant role. It was not about an expression of love but an expression of strength.

Nero, according to Suetonius, entered into two homosexual unions, once playing the part of the husband, the other time the part of the wife.

 

 

This is not that different to the whole Sodom and Gomorrah issue. There are an awful lot of theologians that will tell you that this was not about homosexuality but actually about gang rape.

And that is why we refer to gang rape as "sodomy" even to this day.

[Eagledad 2777]

I am still unsure what is 'unmoral' about being gay ? Yeah the old  'man should not lie with man like he does with women' bit is in the bible, but so is lots and lots and lots of other random passages from not being allowed to wear two types of fabric, women being teachers etc that don't relate to the modern world. I'm sure if Jesus would be around today he'd be hanging out with the gays, as he hung out with prostitutes  (and thats from an Atheist)

My response to Tyke was fair to his point and respectful of him, Moose. 

 

Barry

[moosetracker 132]

Not without trying to figure out what your interpretation of that saying means, because Jesus did not say "Go and sin no more, for if you do not you will be demonized by society and me and we will shun you, judge you, and condemn you, especially if you become a homosexual.."

 

"Go and sin no more" in and of itself, does not explain a) Why homosexuality is considered an unforgivable sin that makes a person unqualified to be a leader, while others are no longer even considered sinful..

 

"Go and sin no more" in and of itself, does not explain b) Why if Jesus hung around with the sinners, a homosexual is to be shunned unless he converts to being straight or promises to spend his life celibate..

Edited May 6, 2015 by moosetracker

[Eagledad 2777]

Not without trying to figure out what your interpretation of that saying means, because Jesus did not say "Go and sin no more, for if you do not you will be demonized by society and me and we will shun you, judge you, and condemn you, especially if you become a homosexual.."

 

 

Then ask, but you didn't do that. You went off on your merry way to be condescending and deceptive. I'm told by a few that your style of presenting your opinion is the way of folks in Maine and I need patience before judging their bad actions. Is that being fair to people of Maine?

 

Barry

[moosetracker 132]

Sigh, and all this angst because this comment I made:

 

Here is an example of what I was saying about what your religion chooses to highlight..  Eagledad quoted on line from John 8 as if this is the main point of the story.. Another religion would look at the whole story in it's entirety.

 Which never interpreted what it is you think is so meaningful of the verse, it just states this verse in other religions is not the important point of the story at all.. The do not judge others is..

 

You have me totally confused now.. Didn't you say :

It wasn't an answer to Tykes question, it was a completion of the of the scripture he was using for an example. My quote (without any interpretation) only provided the scripture as a whole. The real shame is that you used your misinterpretation of my quote as well as your own interpretation to disparage those who use the bible as guidance in this moral issue. As I asked before, are you capable of holding an opinion without denigrating those you disagree? Can one be respectful and still disagree? 

 

Barry

And then when I pointed out that Tyke mentioned no bible passage let alone John 8 but rather he asked as simple straight forward question..  Was not your reply:

 

My response to Tyke was fair to his point and respectful of him, Moose. 

 

Barry

 

Now with this statement, are you saying that it is in answer to Tyke's question, and does need interpretation in order to  make sense of it in light of the question?

 

Then ask, but you didn't do that. You went off on your merry way to be condescending and deceptive. I'm told by a few that your style of presenting your opinion is the way of folks in Maine and I need patience before judging their bad actions. Is that being fair to people of Maine?

 

Barry

 

By the way, most of the Maine people I have met are very nice... I am in good company, so whoever told you that, you can thank them from me for the complement..   

 

So, sure, if it will make you feel better you can interpret this passage for us.. After all, I didn't attempt to.. I just pointed to how it is escalated as more important then the rest of the story.. Then maybe we can put this to bed seeing that it has been carried over since page 2 of the thread.

 

Considering your total huffing and puffing over this fairly minor statement which you misinterpreted to begin with..  I think I should escalate my being insulted over your totally deceptive and condescending and inaccurate statement that my religious belief boils down to planning to be forgiven for all my sins when I die..

[LeCastor 641]

I think this is an excellent time to stand up, stretch our legs, take a deep breath.  Let's sing a Scouting song:

 

"We're on the upward trail

we're on the upward trail.

Singing a new song.

Scouting bound.

 

We're on the upward trail.

We're on the upward trail.

Singing, singing.

Everybody singing.

Scouting bound."

 

Ok, now please have a seat and let's get back to talking about Scouting.

Edited May 6, 2015 by LeCastor

[packsaddle 753]

...waking up...what? Huh? Was someone singing? I'm hungry.

[JoeBob 606]

Considering your total huffing and puffing over this fairly minor statement which you misinterpreted to begin with..  I think I should escalate my being insulted over your totally deceptive and condescending and inaccurate statement that my religious belief boils down to planning to be forgiven for all my sins when I die..

Nice hyperbole.

Wait, you meant this to be taken seriously?

[AZMike 173]

Whatever the link was it comes up with an "HTTP 404 Not Found" error.

 

Let me ask you, Why do you think members of the church do not have the right to pressure change within their own churches? Why do you think churches have yearly or bi-yearly conferences to propose changes? How do you think churches changed their position towards blacks, women or inter-racial marriages over the years? My answer is simple, it is healthy for churches to make changes in their policies, but the changes should not come from any outside influence but through what the members of the church want..

 

People can and will advocate for all sorts of changes - the Tridentine Mass, marriage for priests, denying the Eucharist to pro-abortion politicians, etc. The Catholic Church is not a democracy (more like a monarchy with Christ as the King), but it has procedures where Catholics (and even non-Catholics) can advocate and make their voices heard for various causes - such as the synodal process. Rome then makes its decisions with this input. Certain teaching cannot change, such as marriage being between a man and a woman and priesthood being reserved for males, certain teachings possibly could as they are considered "disciplines" - such as eating meat on Friday or allowing priests to marry.

 

But again, this is not the issue at hand. It is whether COs (including non-religious ones - VFWs, American Legion, and even religiously-affiliated COs that are not actually "religions," like the Knights of Columbus or an Evangelical church's PTA - will lose the protection that the current program affords them, and whether the kind of mob-mentality that we have seen directed against individuals and businesses will force them to act against their principles.

 

You have totally and purposefully misquoted both Packsaddle and I in this comment  (should I accuse you of doing so to advance your personal agenda?)

 

Pretty sure all agendas are personal, Moosetracker. 

 

You said, and I quote, The Pizza joint is a place of business open to the public not a church, therefore if they sponsored a BSA unit, when it goes to local option, they will probably be pressured to change.. What a bummer... But, I would imagine they have learned a lesson and will not see an angry mob and cheerfully welcome them to direct all their anger at them.. Packsaddle wrote " I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it."   

 

I drew the reasonable inference from those statements that you both feel it would be appropriate that local COs be pressured to conform to your set of beliefs. If that was incorrect, I apologize. But do you really feel that any CO that fails to conform to a demand to allow homosexuals as adult leaders in the BSA will NOT face that kind of pressure? Do we live in the same world, you and I?

 

I stated that CO's that are businesses would be pressured to change, but not "ALL" COs... I think Packsaddle is similar, but I know it also is not "ALL" COs.. I in fact stated that their would be no pressure from outside to get involved a churches youth organization, just as there is no outside pressure to force churches to perform same-sex marriages.. 

 

I have to disagree. As I showed, and I will be happy to provide you many more examples, Catholic schools, Catholic dioceses, Catholic fraternal organizations, and Catholic adoption agencies have all been pressured to change their policies to conform with a secular goal. It's not just Catholics, either. The Salvation Army has been the target of a gay boycott for years because they do not allow same sex couples to share quarters in their homeless shelters (the Salvation Army is an actual denomination, not simply a charity, and has mainstream Christian views on homosexual behavior.) A church isn't simply a building, it is all the practices of that religion, which can include charities, education, communal organizations. Secular LGBT pressure groups have and will attack the fringes as a way to attack the core. This is not in dispute.

 

As for Pope Francis, from all I read that was not a response to a question about a specific priest..

 

That last one was taken from "The Catholic World Report"..  So now you misquote the Pope?.. (again I ask, personal agenda?)

 

Your sources are incorrect. In context, he was responding to a question from a reporter about a specific priest, Monsignor Battista Ricci, Who had been the target of accusations as being a member of a "gay mafia" within the Vatican.

 

REPORTER: I would like to ask permission to ask a somewhat delicate question: another image has also gone around the world, which is that of Monsignor Ricca and news about your privacy. I would like to know, Holiness, what do you intend to do about this question. How to address this question and how Your Holiness intends to address the whole question of the gay lobby?

 

POPE FRANCIS: In regard to Monsignor Ricca, I’ve done what Canon Law orders to do, which is the investigatio previa. And from this investigatio there is nothing of which they accuse him, we haven’t found anything of that.

This is the answer. But I would like to add something else on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, they go to look for the “sins of youth,†for instance, and this is published. Not the crimes, alas. Crimes are something else: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, the sins.

But if a person, lay or priest or Sister, has committed a sin and then has converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is important for our life. When we go to confession and truly say: “I have sinned in this,†the Lord forgets and we don’t have the right not to forget, because we run the risk that the Lord won’t forget our [sins]. That’s a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. I think so many times of Saint Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin he was made Pope. We must give it much thought.

But, returning to your more concrete question: in this case, I’ve done the investigatio previa and we found nothing. This is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Goodness knows! So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gayâ€. They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.â€

The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem.

 

 

So, Pope Francis was speaking of the allegations made against one priest, and found that no evidence was found that he was gay by the investigation. He then expands that into a larger dialog, which he likes to do, and says that being gay - that is, having homosexual tendencies - does not mean one is cut off from religious life, and quotes the Catechism to show that this is a standing tradition of Catholic teaching. The same tradition recognizes that this is a cross to bear, as other people have other crosses to bear, and calls on those with a same-sex attraction to live a celibate life (even as a man who feels he can love only a woman who is already married is called to live a celibate life - we are not our attractions, we are children of God.) But one cannot heal a wounded person unless one first accepts them as a human being. He goes on to say that the "lobbying of this tendency" - i.e., groups that identify as homosexual - are wrong. So while one may accept that one has a same-sex attraction, one should not form pressure groups to advocate on behalf of homosexual behavior such as marriage - which is in contradiction to your point earlier.

 

He has made further comments to clarify the issue, if you'd like I can provide them to you.

 

Also the Pope actions other actions toward homosexuals since then has spoke volumes..  I do not see the Catholic church performing same-sex weddings in my lifetime, I am sure it is still a considered a sin in the church.. What is refreshing about the Popes attitude is just that... His attitude.. He does not raise homosexual sin as something worse then any other sin, and he knows all humans have sin.. Therefore he can treat homosexuals with the respect that they deserve. "Who am I to judge", is basically a take away from the John chapter 8 (as we have discussed).. Seems the Pope understands this story the same as I do..

 

You are correct in that the Pope is a compassionate man whose goal is the evangelization of marginalized classes, that he continues the Catholic tradition that all people should be treated with the respect due their inherent human dignity. and that the Catholic Church will never perform homosexual marriages and will continue to catechize against homosexual behavior, just as we should treat alcoholics with compassion but not normalize their behavior. The Church accepts homosexuals just as it accepts all us other sinners, but it calls them (as us) to confession and repentance, not celebration of their problems.

[AZMike 173]

Rome didn't have a concept of homosexuality as we have it today, ie a loving relationship of equals between two people of the same sex. Instead it  was all about an expression of what they saw as masculinity. A man was allowed and indeed encouraged to have sex with younger men in order to show his dominance over them, specifically taking the dominant role. It was not about an expression of love but an expression of strength.

 

This is an argument one hears often - that the condemnation by the early Church specifically related to pederasty, and not to the sort of loving, mutually supporting same-sex relationships between males or female adults.

 

That is spurious, however.

 

Roman males, including some quite powerful ones, entered into sexual relationships with other males of a similar status. Nero's homosexual dalliances were previously mentioned by Peregrinator. Julius Caesar's homosexual relationships with other powerful men (as well as women) was not only known, it was the subject of ribald gossip and poetry. He was "Every woman's husband and every man's wife" according to Curio, as described by Suetonius. Nicomedes, King of Bithynia ,was Caesar's most famous boyfriend, and the ditty about him ran "Whatever Bithynia and her lord possesed, Her lord who Caesar in his lust caressed!"

 

Same-sex marriages did occur in classical Rome between adults, and both Martial and Juvenal reported them with disapproval. Roman law did not recognize same-sex marriages, but Juvenal worried that the increasing number of gay marriages could lead to official recognition - plus ca change, eh? 

 

Nero celebrated two marriages, once playing the feminine role (with a freed slave, Pythagoras [not the mathematician]) and once in the masculine role (with Sporus). There may have been another wedding where he played the role of bride.

 

The Emperor Elagabalus also married his male partner. This prompted other members of his court to marry their partners, to honor and/or imitate him.

 

Aside from marriage, there was a very active gay ("cinaedus") subculture in Rome that had its own districts, bathhouses, dinner parties, recognition signals, etc.  

 

Many of the emperors, including Caligula and Tiberius (the emperor at the time of Jesus' crucifixion), were involved in both adult and child sex with other males.

 

The Jews, and one would presume Jesus, were aware of all these things happening, and would have considered them anathema, whether they involved teens or adults. 

 

So no, the argument that SSM would not have been familiar to Jesus or the apostles is nonsense. 

 

In addition, about 2/3 of all Christians in the world hold that the Bible is not the sum total of Jesus' teachings - there was a Church before there was a Bible, and there was an deposit of oral teachings from Jesus to the apostles (as even the Bible states) which can be found in the early documents of the Church (such as the Didache) and the writings of the early Church fathers. Those traditions which originated from Jesus, condemned homosexual behavior and specifically homosexual marriage (as Eusebius did), whether it involved adults or boys, so a sola scriptura argument or arguing from Jesus' apparent silence for homosexual behavior or marriage won't fly.

[packsaddle 753]

@@AZMike

"Packsaddle wrote " I know of an informal boycott in which a very successful businessman has been driven to ruin merely because he publicly disagreed with a government decision regarding a construction project. He knew the score and felt it was worth the risk to be able to express his opinion. He paid the consequences. It's not a Brave New Word at all. Welcome to real life and a very old world of business. If you pretend to serve the public, it would probably be good business to actually DO it."   

 

I drew the reasonable inference from those statements that you both feel it would be appropriate that local COs be pressured to conform to your set of beliefs. If that was incorrect, I apologize."

No apology needed for me! But I meant it as an example of how this sort of thing happens pretty much anywhere anytime. It's just exercising the freedom of speech in a different form, along with all the associated costs. I don't draw any conclusions about local COs but rather for the larger organization. I guess a local CO might experience pressures of different kinds for a variety of reasons. I know of one church that was shot at after it embraced gay marriage and another that...OK, I think they might have just been after the copper for that one. 

Local COs are closer to the local community in terms of both membership and communication. I suspect that if there was local pressure, it would most likely be proportionally small pressure, compared to something at the national level. Even more likely, the CO membership would merely decline.

Edited May 6, 2015 by packsaddle

[moosetracker 132]

AZ Mike - I will break up you comments in unnamed quotes as otherwise, it gets really messy.. I have been dumped out and had to start over twice now.

 

But again, this is not the issue at hand. It is whether COs (including non-religious ones - VFWs, American Legion, and even religiously-affiliated COs that are not actually "religions," like the Knights of Columbus or an Evangelical church's PTA - will lose the protection that the current program affords them, and whether the kind of mob-mentality that we have seen directed against individuals and businesses will force them to act against their principles.

 

If the VFW, American Legion and others are private organizations who disfranchise homosexuals already based on religion, then this will fall under the umbrella of their private organization.. If they are funded with tax dollars, offer a public service, or are a business that offers services to the general public, then the general public has a right to weigh in.. I love how you are all concerned about being forced to act against religious principles if it apply to YOUR religious beliefs.. But don't give a darn about forcing other religions to act against their religious principles if they follow BSA rules, or act against other religious principles of not following the rules because human treatment of people is considered the more important principle.. Also for some reason you think forcing all of us to follow your religious principles somehow gives you more strength to fend off an attack, when that is the untrue, because with the current situation you have to fight off external & internal attacks, and the external/internal groups working together against you. If the local option is given, then we are more apt to defend your right to religious freedom if you in turn respected ours.. Until then, you know what they say about a house divided..

 

I drew the reasonable inference from those statements that you both feel it would be appropriate that local COs be pressured to conform to your set of beliefs. If that was incorrect, I apologize. But do you really feel that any CO that fails to conform to a demand to allow homosexuals as adult leaders in the BSA will NOT face that kind of pressure? Do we live in the same world, you and I?

 

 

Yes, I do.. Churches especially.

 

I have to disagree. As I showed, and I will be happy to provide you many more examples, Catholic schools, Catholic dioceses, Catholic fraternal organizations, and Catholic adoption agencies have all been pressured to change their policies to conform with a secular goal. It's not just Catholics, either. The Salvation Army has been the target of a gay boycott for years because they do not allow same sex couples to share quarters in their homeless shelters (the Salvation Army is an actual denomination, not simply a charity, and has mainstream Christian views on homosexual behavior.) A church isn't simply a building, it is all the practices of that religion, which can include charities, education, communal organizations. Secular LGBT pressure groups have and will attack the fringes as a way to attack the core. This is not in dispute.

 

You are in the murky waters where religion collides with businesses that serve the public and take tax dollars.. Again when that happens the public has the right to weigh in, but as we have seen in some cases the religious organization win, and sometimes they loose.. Simply muddy waters, personally sometimes I back the religion and sometimes I do not..

 

Your sources are incorrect. In context, he was responding to a question from a reporter about a specific priest, Monsignor Battista Ricci, Who had been the target of accusations as being a member of a "gay mafia" within the Vatican.

 

REPORTER: I would like to ask permission to ask a somewhat delicate question: another image has also gone around the world, which is that of Monsignor Ricca and news about your privacy. I would like to know, Holiness, what do you intend to do about this question. How to address this question and how Your Holiness intends to address the whole question of the gay lobby?

 

POPE FRANCIS: In regard to Monsignor Ricca, I’ve done what Canon Law orders to do, which is the investigatio previa. And from this investigatio there is nothing of which they accuse him, we haven’t found anything of that.

This is the answer. But I would like to add something else on this: I see that so many times in the Church, outside of this case and also in this case, they go to look for the “sins of youth,†for instance, and this is published. Not the crimes, alas. Crimes are something else: the abuse of minors is a crime. No, the sins.

But if a person, lay or priest or Sister, has committed a sin and then has converted, the Lord forgives, and when the Lord forgives, the Lord forgets and this is important for our life. When we go to confession and truly say: “I have sinned in this,†the Lord forgets and we don’t have the right not to forget, because we run the risk that the Lord won’t forget our [sins]. That’s a danger. This is important: a theology of sin. I think so many times of Saint Peter: he committed one of the worst sins, which is to deny Christ, and with this sin he was made Pope. We must give it much thought.

But, returning to your more concrete question: in this case, I’ve done the investigatio previa and we found nothing. This is the first question. Then you spoke of the gay lobby. Goodness knows! So much is written of the gay lobby. I still have not met one who will give me the identity card with “gayâ€. They say that they exist. I think that when one meets a person like this, one must distinguish the fact of being a gay person from the fact of doing a lobby, because not all lobbies are good. That’s bad. If a person is gay and seeks the Lord and has good will, who am I to judge him? The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains this in such a beautiful way, it says, Wait a bit, as is said and says: “these persons must not be marginalized because of this; they must be integrated in society.â€

The problem isn’t having this tendency, no. We must be brothers, because this is one, but there are others, others. The problem is the lobbying of this tendency: lobby of the avaricious, lobby of politicians, lobby of Masons, so many lobbies. This, for me, is the more serious problem.

 

Yes, you will have to provide more, because although I see that my readings were condensed.. I see from what you had provided I did bold underline on the passage that shows the Pope was off the subject of the Monsignor Ricca, and basically dealing with the general question of gays.. I also don't see the Pope stating what you added for him, that a homosexual must be celibate or the church will shun them.. 

 

You are correct in that the Pope is a compassionate man whose goal is the evangelization of marginalized classes, that he continues the Catholic tradition that all people should be treated with the respect due their inherent human dignity. and that the Catholic Church will never perform homosexual marriages and will continue to catechize against homosexual behavior, just as we should treat alcoholics with compassion but not normalize their behavior. The Church accepts homosexuals just as it accepts all us other sinners, but it calls them (as us) to confession and repentance, not celebration of their problems.

 

 Fine, I am fine with treating the homosexual as a drunk.. So that means we get local option on deciding if a homosexual makes a good scout leader, same as with a drunk..

 

I am not looking for your religion to celebrate their problems.. Just treat the sin the same as any other sin rather then escalating it to being worse then any other sin.. Liar, cheater, thief, living out of wedlock, conceited,, jealous, disobedient, drunk etc..

[moosetracker 132]

PS. AZMike, since it seems by the way you talk that you are Catholic, I was a UC for a Catholic church, just after the vote to allow in gay youth passed, I had a talk with the church's pastor...  I do not know if this decision was regional or national but he assured me that the Catholic church had already discussed this issue at a conference.. Not only did the church have no issue with the homosexual youth, but WHEN the BSA passed the local option the church would have no issue with that either..  And that is how he worded it, emphasis on WHEN..

[Stosh 3452]

Gotta love the arguments and justification processes at work here.

 

We don't want homosexuals leading our boys because their lifestyle is "sinful".

 

But adulterers are okay.

 

Same for those who gossip about others.

 

Somewhere deep inside of me says that I really don't think murder, pedophilia, homosexuality, adultery, gossip, lying, kleptomania or any other types of vices are "okay".   There are those who go to great lengths to try and justify their positions on these issues, and that's an okay thing for them to do.  We have all been given free will to make our own choices.  Just don't try and impose those justification on others.  

 

So the homosexual couple move into their new home in a nice neighborhood, but the Muslim neighbor doesn't bring over a plate a cookies, he comes over and kills them.  The Christian police show up and take him before a Jewish judge who sentences him to the death penalty which is no big deal to the Muslim because he's gong to be martyred for his religion and this is a good thing.

 

So explain to me how nicely this works out for the homosexual couple.

 

Now if the people moving into that house were adulterers, none of this would have ever happened....  Or if the couple didn't want kids and aborted their unborn child, no one would have lost any sleep over that one either.  One isn't going to amass huge rallies when a white man gets gunned down on a public street by a black cop.  

 

It just depends on what the sin du jour happens to be politically whipped up at the moment..  True justice is only an opinion, too.