> > "Jerome Delaney" <jerry-oila@worldnet.att.net> wrote:

> You once again are twisting the debate.

>

> We are rejecting the INSTITUTIONALIZATION of homosexual marriage, not

> suggesting that homosexuals not be tolerated.

>

> You perverts are free to act out your sick fantasies in private--what you do

> to each other in your homes does not concern me. When you demand that

> society undergo drastic and dangerous changes to accommodate you, that is

> where I draw the line.

Ah, so it is OK to "love the sinner, but hate the sin", huh?

CRAP! People are what they are. Do ask yourself if homosexual

people exist. If you say "no", then you should get out more, and

meet people who are not just "your own kind"...;-) If you say "yes",

how can you then justify on the basis of mere beliefs (rather than

with truth/facts, and not your obvious prejudices...) advocating the

limiting of basic human and legal rights (which you have done...) of

those people who are homosexual? Ah, you say homosexuality is

not inherent, but is just a "bad choice", and therefore to be

condemned (or hidden...) from the moral majority? Did you ever

ask yourself why anyone would choose to be homosexual, with

the obvious disadvantages of this choice being so evident (the

need to hide, the lack of legal rights associated with marriage, etc.,

or even the silly hoopla that might surround being honest about

yourself and also wishing to serve as a bishop) - and suffer the

abuse of such as you? And, BTW, why do you assume that

non-homosexual people do not engage in exactly the same sexual

practices that you find so abhorent - or that all homosexuals do

engage in those same practices? You assume FAR too much in

your writings, with FAR too little real knowledge displayed about

homosexuality. You would condemn people as a group for their

inherent characteristics - which is the definition of bigotry...

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com