Liberals Redefining Hatred
FREEDOM TO OFFEND
There are only 7 defenses for liberalism in America. They have nothing to do with the benefits of liberalism, rather they are charges against conservatism, going on the old war philosophy, "The best defense is a good offense." Xenophobe, Islamophobe, homophobe, racist, sexist, intolerant, bigot. Conservatives should know how simple it is to answer liberal attacks against Christianity and conservatism. If the liberal can't distort the facts without somebody on your side keeping them straight for them, then they are reduced to screaming names at you. It would be a simple matter to match name for name, but that just is not who we are. Xenophobe could be answered with America hater, and Islamophobe could be answered with traitor, homophobe with pervert, etc., No, that would only result in new names that have to be answered with other new names. We'd rather burrow down into the issues and really have a dialog on what is best for our country. No really, we've been pretty quiet about a lot of things for a long time and now with the liberal agenda to indoctrinate us in our workplaces and our kids in state run schools with diversity training, and an absolute lunatic fringe in control of one of only two major political parties, we the conservative base are mobilized and have decided to get educated on the topics the liberals want changed so badly. So let's go over the charges one by one.
Xenophobia: defined as fear and hatred of strangers or foreigners or of anything that is strange or foreign
Liberals use this charge against the conservative stance that we want to retain our heritage and have a national language. It is also often used to suggest that we are stingy with national resources like emergency health care in our hospitals. Hospitals are financially untenable when required by law to treat anyone and everyone who shows up. They are closing down due to financial strain and so the entire community is losing their services because illegal aliens are overburdening the system and not paying for the services rendered. Studies have proven that any group that does not integrate into a society suffers from that lack. When Spanish speaking children are accommodated with Spanish speaking teachers, they don't learn the language of the land. Therefore they have difficulty finding jobs and integrating into the culture they've migrated to. There is also the issue of fairness to those who've entered the country through legal avenues. It is unfair and encourages further disregard of our laws to give preference to the illegal immigrants over the legal variety. While diversity of culture is fine for pride of heritage, it is not beneficial as a line of policies designed to help them maintain separateness. In fact these policies tend to keep that group estranged from the larger society as exampled by the language accommodation. So the conservatives desire integration, not isolation as suggested by the charge of xenophobia.
Islamophobia: an exaggerated usually inexplicable and illogical fear of Islam or its followers.
I had to go to phobia's definition and amend it to the subject of Islam because there is no such thing as irrational fear of Islam. By definition, a rational fear is not a phobia and Islam has given us legitimate reasons to be feared and the liberals think we make this stuff up and attribute the very real threat of Islamic extremists to our own presidential administration simultaneously giving aid and comfort to our enemies. 9/11/01 conspiracy claims, war for oil, etc., Which sounds more rational to you, Bush orchestrated the fall of the Twin Towers or that Osama bin Laden orchestrated multiple attacks on U.S. interests, again? I didn't find Bush-phobia either, but I'm pretty sure it needs to be added to the dictionary.
Homophobia: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
Most religious institutions have ministries to homosexuals who want to leave the lifestyle. If we had irrational fears of homosexuals how could we target ministries to serve people who have those tendencies? We condemn the activity, not the practitioners. Its summed up in the phrase, "hate the sin, not the sinner." We have a legitimate fear of the gay agenda being legislated to indoctrinate us and especially our kids. Normalizing and legitimizing destructive behavior can only lead to increased numbers of practitioners. This is harmful to our society on several levels. Starting with the facts of shortened life spans, increased health costs, decreased procreation rates, and increased sexually motivated criminal activity for those who self identify as homosexuals.
Racist:
1 : a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race
This is the racism practiced by Hitler and the Nazis and the KKK and all conservatives of any stature condemn it. This is also the racism practiced by Reverend Wright of Barack H. Obama's church wherein Reverend Wright claims superiority of blacks over whites. Barack condemned the statements "G-D America" but refuses to separate himself or his family from the teachings of this racism based church. If black Democrats would bother to study the history of their party they might be shocked to learn that it was predominantly Democrats who fought freeing slaves and equal rights for blacks and to this day, still harbor soft racism in the form of 'they can't make it on their own' affirmative action.
2 : racial prejudice or discrimination
This is the discrimination that is currently legislated into law as Affirmative Action and rather than help those it is intended to provide opportunities for, it has cast a shadow over those who've achieved on merit rather than preference. This is just as immoral as the first version but liberals view good intentions as valid as good results that actually help. The same can be said of the Welfare System which has succeeded only in creating a greater dependence on government and bankrupted the Social Security program that was raided to fund the Welfare System. So based on the facts that conservatives prefer programs that actually help instead of hinder minorities, we are charged with discrimination against minorities.
Sexist:
1: prejudice or discrimination based on sex; especially : discrimination against women
This is discrimination that needed to be corrected back in the 1950's and has been. The differences in income between the genders today is more to do with the numbers of part time workers and those who've taken large leaves of absence from the workforce to raise their families. This is elective and that means freedom. In terms of pay per hour on average, women have higher rates of pay and are getting higher positions based on education at college level where women out number men as much as 3&4 to 1. The needs have been answered but the programs are still in place. Like all outdated programs, they don't retire, they expand to levels of absurdity. The use of the word rape has lost all meaning because of this program. Today, rape means if a woman 'regrets sex.' One well known speaker for women's issues claimed 'all sex is rape.' This is eliminating all responsibility from women for sexual conduct and reveals moral vacuity.
2: behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex
In terms of gender bias, there has been a cultural war on masculinity since the 1970's which has resulted in greater numbers of fatherless homes, greater numbers of working mothers, and a much higher rate of broken homes to the detriment of the children. Misogyny is the practice of objectifying women (sex objects to serve a man's sexual needs) but it is the liberals who defend this as part of our right to free speech. So, between the liberal agenda to equate men and women's roles and make them interchangeable and to defend pornography as free speech, they have managed to alienate the man's roles in the family by denying his nature and objectify the woman's roles in society. I have great respect for women and I believe in equal work for equal pay, but the claim that women are a minority is astounding. Have any of you looked at the latest census, or any census for that matter? Not every woman wants to enter the business world, and of those who do, many are now finding their lives unfulfilling because men and women are different. One isn't less than the other, but they have a very different makeup and find fulfillment in different ways. Thank God for the freedom to choose and re-choose our destinies in life. Traditional roles are fast becoming more popular among women.
Intolerant:
1: unable or unwilling to endure
Well, yes, I am intolerant of many things and this is just plain good common sense. The liberals are just as intolerant and I don't fault them for that, why should they fault us for the same? This is blatant hypocrisy, but because it invalidates any debate on the real issues they'll make it anyway. As long as they can call you a name, they don't have to answer with reason any longer. While they are intolerant of fighting or even naming evil, we are intolerant of indoctrination into the normalization of the homosexual lifestyle, especially of our children in state run schools. There are many other issues we can point to, but these will serve as a prime examples.
2 a: unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters
Where do I start? This country was built on these freedoms and done so by very religious Christians. We are open to discussion of religious matters, but WE ARE BEING KICKED OUT OF THE PUBLIC ARENA!! We also have the right to express our opinions in any forum afforded any other religion or non-religion or political affiliation. We are being systematically silenced by the politically correct within our schools, within our courts, within our entire society. And you have the hutzbah to call us intolerant? You've made your cases in court, you've made your cases on the radio and TV air, you've controlled most of the college campus' and now you try to legislate a fairness doctrine to get equal time on the one medium left to conservatism? People are leaving your mediums in droves (newspapers, mainstream TV news, etc., to find a balancing viewpoint that you won't provide) and you want to force your way onto our last free venue of speech with equal time for your say? When you grant equal time on your venues and in all those colleges and in all those papers, we might talk about it. Ours is the first country to include freedom of religion in its founding documents. Ours is the government that has held this faithfully throughout its history. And ours is a country founded on Christian principals that provided these rights and freedoms. Yes we have some stains, but they were corrected primarily by us, the Christians in the name of Christ.
Also, equating our religion with Islam is ridiculous on its face. Christianity does not condone murder in the name of Christ whereas Islam does. I am speaking of today, but even if you did want to include the Crusades and the witch hunt and the Inquisitions, there is no comparison still. The Crusades were an answer to 400 years of Muslim aggression on Christian territories, the inquisition was 300 years of iron fisted control by a few members of the church resulting in around 2000 deaths and has been roundly condemned by the same church. The witch hunts in Salem took a grand total of 18 lives and has been roundly condemned by the same church. All of this took place hundreds of years ago. No such action has been supported by the church since. Yet, Islam proudly preaches from its pulpits before thousands of cheering believers they will rule the world by the sword and by terror, today. They kill Jews and Christians and every religion they encounter for not converting or submitting to their faith. They engage in ethnic cleansing wars all across the continent of Africa and the Middle East killing millions, many being Muslim of a different brand name. Its supported in their colleges and in their governments and even in their grade schools with military marches and drills. They are airing these doctrines on international TV. They are marching on our own streets with the same messages. What Christian doctrine today is killing homosexuals? What Christian doctrine is killing promiscuous men and women? What church doctrine is threatening to take over the world by force and killing people of other faiths for not converting? Yes, we speak against the practice of homosexuality, against Islam, against promiscuity, against pornography, against abortion, but violent conversion is universally condemned by the churches. Still to this day, Islam is free to practice their religion in this country and you are free to march in the street in your gay pride parades and your code pink shirts yelling nutty lies about our president. What conservative intolerance are you referring to? Normalizing and legitimizing perversity in our society? No one is arresting your behavior if kept private, we are simply refusing to accept it as normal and legitimate. That's not intolerance, that's protecting our children from destructive ideas.
b: unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : bigoted
Apparently this is shared with bigotry so we'll move on to Bigot.
3: exhibiting physiological intolerance <lactose intolerant>
Not applicable to our purposes here.
Bigot: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
How is it hatred to want homosexuals and jihadis and philanderers to turn from their self destructive ways and come join me in church where I found real purpose and joy? How is it hateful to want to protect my children from the influences of these same self destructive natures? This isn't hatred, this is love. I would suggest that standing by with life saving information and saying nothing while these people trot merrily hand in hand off to hell is hatred. Even without the Biblical description of hell, the consequences of these lifestyles is obviously detrimental to those who practice them, never mind the children they desire to influence.
CONCLUSION
It would seem the sin of 'offense' according to the liberal code of conduct is defined as hatred. I have purposefully offended gays, Muslims, feminists..... not to communicate hate, but to cause them to think beyond their emotions. This is not a tool of conservatism, this is a tool of communication. I have been purposefully offended by the haters of my faith, by the haters of my politics, by the haters of my race for 35 years; but the condemnation of conservatives on the basis of 'I'm offended' only goes to prove further double standards and dishonesty predominantly in leftist politics and ideological discussion. And now, Islam is launching a libel jihad in our courts to halt truth telling under the banner of hate speech. The level of discourse has degraded by one party reducing their arguments to name calling rather than meet in the arena of ideas and reason refusing to examine the evidence of history and consequence, refusing even to examine their own parties' polls and academic studies if they do not support their desired political ends. Its time to get off the name calling fringe political bus and get into the facts. Our society's success depends entirely upon what policies we instill in it, and what lessons we teach our youth about the exercise of our liberties. The legacy of freedom is always just one generation away from collapse if we are not diligent to perform these duties of passing on the values of our founding fathers and their willingness to sacrifice all for their continuance.
Comments
Reading the section on homosexuality, I was reminded of something that happened over 200 years ago. During the Enlightenment of the 1700s, some scientific researchers examined the differences between races. Using their skewed logic, they determined that Africans were physically and biologically inferior to the Western Europeans. This meant that the massive slave trade that was going at the time was morally justified, because the slaves were sub-human. If you fast-forward to present day, many similarities can be distinguished between the research of the African slaves and the "studies" that show that homosexuality causes"shortened life spans...and increased sexually motivated criminal activity". Perhaps you could use that logic to say that being male should be outlawed and/or discouraged because men have lower life spans (Why Women Live Longer).
Also, in your section on Intolerance, you act quite hypocritical in your description of America. You say that the media should not silence Christian voices, yet you (a member of the media) preach loudly against Islamics. I realize that there are many Islamic extremists that use their religion as an excuse to kill Christians and Jews, yet our country guarantees the right to freedom of religion. This means that until an Islamic man or woman violates a law in the United States he/she should not be prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way.
In another part of the Intolerance section, you state that Christian values shaped this country in the beginning. I would to respond to this with a special quote I found a while back.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."
This is one of my favorite quotes because it dispels any argument that Christianity formed our government. The lad that said this was not a blogger or a liberal columnist. It was someone that liberals and conservatives can all agree was a great man, Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the declaration that allowed us such great freedoms. One of his good friends, John Adams, also signed, as president, the Treaty of Tripoli which stated "the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion". I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with them on this issue.
-Sam
Right on,Judge!Every word in this post rings true,and you're right,
We should be able to voice Our opinions just the same as the liberal pinkos do,
and not be branded with foul names for doing so.I believe they call
that the 1st amendment!
Dan
Vox should something that is way beyond "this is good." This post is awesome! It is excellent! It is whatever superlative beyond good one can think of.
The problem is I have to admit in the intellectual realm I get steamed with Liberal provocative comments based on inaccuracy and downright deception. I have to admit I have fallen into the low brow tit for tat exchanges you have described.
Your post hopefully will enable me to reach a higher plain of blog/comment exchange.
Your response to the media bias as it concerns Christians is curious also. You wrote:"I realize that there are many Islamic extremists that use their religion as an excuse to kill Christians and Jews, yet our country guarantees the right to freedom of religion. This means that until an Islamic man or woman violates a law in the United States he/she should not be prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way." And I have to ask, "When have Muslims been denied their right to express themselves, or their religion? When have their rights been violated? As a matter of fact, the politicians in this country bend over backwards to try and avoid offending Muslims. But, Christians are fair game. Islam has earned every bit of bad rap from Americans and other nations. It is the Islamic followers of Jihad who are murdering innocent people world wide, and oppressing citizens of any society in which they have great numbers. And what do the so called "moderate" Muslims do about it? Aside from some protest from a handful of Muslims, NOTHING. Their silence speaks volumes. But is we Christians who are not waging war, or terrorizing, or murdering, that are always getting media bias to the negative. Damn right we are screaming for Islam to stop the killing, and stop the terrorizing. But when we do, we get responses like yours. Why do think we should remain silent and invisible? Until the Muslim population, who supposedly are peaceful, and against killing, speak up and admonish their brothers and sisters, they too deserve to be taken to task. As Christians we would not tolerate murder in the name of God. And yet we are the ones the media wants to banish and silence. THAT is hypocrisy my friend.
Finally,
Thomas Jefferson also wrote: " God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift from God? ... I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that his justice cannot sleep forever."
This country was founded on Christian principles. Our country is saturated in the history of biblical principles. Fought and paid for by the blood of patriots. It is the liberal agenda that is the real threat to America.
I would also like to add, if Sam wants the Christians removed, silenced as he seems to think they should be, who will be there to help him when the jihadi's come after him and all of those he loves.
Sam - the liberals will be the first the jihadi's will go after under Sharia Law. The liberals lifestyle and agendas are everything they hate and they've brutally murdered millions for far less!
You all must think appeasing them will get you cudo's. It will not, it will get you used until they are through with you and then death.
http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality#Homosexual_Murders_and_Brutality
This is a definitive article on the topic replete with links to a multitude of research done from all sorts of references like medical journals and main stream news agencies.
The way Christians treat the topic of homosexuality is hardly comparable to the way slaves were treated. This is dishonest comparison and redirection from the main topic. (redefining hatred)
[Perhaps you could use that logic to say that being male should be outlawed and/or discouraged because men have lower life spans (Why Women Live Longer).] Now that appears to be comparable on the surface, but come on. Gay men have lower life spans compared to straight men based entirely on unhealthy behavior patterns.
[You say that the media should not silence Christian voices, yet you (a member of the media) preach loudly against Islamics.]
That's right, I say speech should not be silenced and I preach loudly against Islamic calls to silence criticism with violent threats and threats of monetary ruin via libel suits in our courts. I also call for a reaction to the attempt of Islam to inject their religious law into our legal system. Laws that entail dual standards, and corporal punishment and no go areas in our free country. I am for corporal punishment, but on an equal basis under universally accepted system of law. I am not calling for a close of their right to free speech, well except for their illegal calls for violence against the rest of us. It would be hypocritical if I preached for their universal silence, instead I am calling for them to speak against the ruinous actions of their own. Once again, you fall back to calling a name (hypocrite) based on false charges.
[prosecuted or have his/her rights violated in any way.] and what prosecution have I called for? Once again, I am calling on Muslims to use their free speech to do the right thing instead of the wrong thing. Currently, the vast majority are using it to do nothing unless its the wrong thing. That's not silencing, that's a call to credibility.
["Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law."]
["the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"]
OK, first, I don't claim that Christianity is supposed to be common law or that the government was or should have been founded on Christian religion. What I claim is that the government is run and was formed on the values of the Christian religion. There is a huge difference here even if you want to believe they are essentially the same thing. Now since you like quotes so much, why don't you look at any, and I do mean any other quote from the founders and presidents about the application of these values in government, in the nation's populace and military, and try to explain away every intent from George Washington to George (who can hate him most) Bush? It takes quite a lot of research and a whole lot of twisting to get the message you want out of their letters and documents. What is the source for the legislation of separation of church and state being translated as meaning protecting the government from the church? Is it the Constitution? achack... Was it a record of Congressional debate? achack....It was a private letter sent from France to Washington criticizing the fact that they hadn't ensured the rights of the people. (prior to the amendments) This is why Conservatives had to regain control of the courts. They were trying to redefine our founding fathers' intentions. This Supreme Court is finally confronting the rough interpretation lower courts have given to the 2nd amendment.
No, you don't agree with the founding fathers, you agree with your interpretation of the founding fathers and that based on somebody else's information of what they said. Let me recommend a new book for you. Its called "Under God"
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/0764200089/ref=_dp_top?%5Fencoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
I have no argument with you on that. I think the editors of the dictionary include the term because it is used the most in English to communicate the definition they gave and I quoted. I used the term only because that is the term used by Liberals to charge Christians with some huge moral sin. According to the Liberal thought process, we are judgmental and that's wrong, against gays and that's wrong, justified by faith in a made up religion and that's wrong.
Look up the meaning of "Common Law" and learn about its history. Common Law has nothing to do with the Constitution. Common law is best written as "common sense law". Common law was the means whereby the judiciary would judge in matters not specified by written law. It was judging on matters of "moral common sense". It is a centuries old method traced even as far back to the Magna Carta. Steal a farmer's cow, then you owed him a cow and society a recompense for the immoral act. The Constitution was intended to prevent the judiciary from doing what Jefferson feared they would do, and that is legislate from the bench and make up or change common law. The three branches of government were made equal to prevent tyranny of the other branches, including the judiciary. The Constitution was also to prevent the government from organizing its own national religion. It says nothing about belief in God or religion in general having to be separated from the state itself. The various symbols and such of the early government attest to the fact there was not such thing as a "separation of church and state". It was only that the state could not have its own church (ala: the Church of England or a "Church of America"). The Constitution never denies the existance of a divine being, it just makes sure you had the freedom to worship one (or not to) in any way you deemed fit.
It is conservatives that do not want judicial tyranny and judges making up laws and "rights" because someone cannot get them made laws or rights legitimately done though the legislature or populace. The judiciary was never intended to be what liberal appointments have made it. The Constitution was always intended to be concrete and sure, not a "fluid document" as liberal judicial tyrants claim it to be (Ruth Ginseberg for example).
The judiciary was never intended to be a means of making law nor a business for making money which the ACLU has turned it into. The federal government was never intended to be a surrogate caregiver. In fact, the purpose of the revolution was to get the tentacles of government out of the people's pockets and lives. It was only to be there to protect from an enemy, make sure local governments didn't tyranize, promote (not control) the common welfare of the nation, in other words find ways to help and inprove commerce and freedom. The preamble of the Constitution gives the sole purpose of the federal government. Yet, it's the liberals that just can't keep their hands out of other people's pockets and lives.
Liberals don't like the idea of morality or moral laws. They think it holds them back. They deny the fact there are obvious con sequences for immoral actions, and that no amount of denial (or demanding new "rights") is going to change the fact. Immorality brings sorrow, broken families, can lead to disease, lost childhoods, lost educational opportunities, unhappiness, loss of self-respect, loss of respect of others. Simply a life of unhappiness due to the consequences of immoral choices.
Moral laws don't hold you back or limit you as most liberals try to convince others of. They are the way to happiness and more freedom. Moral laws are like a string to a kite. A liberal would argue that the string is holding back the kite and limiting its freedom. The conservative knows the string is what is allowing the kite to soar even higher by giving it direction and self-control.
Who's happier?
The drug addict getting free needles, or the person who either didn't do drugs in the first place or the one that cleaned their lives of the habit?
Who's happier?
The woman that has sex with just about everyone that says their cute and wonders why their life is unhappy and men don't respect them, or why their husband left them because they could always find someone willing to put out? OR.. The woman that had high moral standards and not only insisted on a chaste relationship before marriage, but chose a man that did as well, both treated pro-creation as a sacred power and not an animal urge that had to be satisfied with just a little booze to get them started, and they had a family and taught their children the same respect for themselves and a future spouse. How many truly happy divorcees do you really know?
Consequences for immoral actions can be:
* Venerial disease or worse.
* Alcoholism
* Drug addiction (seriously, not many happy people choose to do this)
* Broken families. Broken families breed broken kids, and usually many have anti-social and even criminial behavior. Children need stability not be at the whim of selfish people who complained about THEIR needs not being met.
* Mental disorders (beyond the scope of this post).
* Loss of childhood. Suddenly Susan has a baby, or Johnny can't go to college any more as he has mouths to feed.
* Interference with other lives. Susan's mother can't retire as now she has to help raise two children now.
* Should abortion come into play, the life long psychological and emotional consequences of such a cruel act. The "choice" is exercized at conception, not just because you can find a doctor that knows how to suck a fetus out of your uterus.
* Leads to selfishness. Ever met anyone who commits immoral acts not thinking about themselves? The act itself, in the way it's so calously done, is selfish. It's only for their pleasure, and when they can't get enough they move on to the next victim.
My own brother is gay. I have never seen so much selfishness in my life until I saw his downward spiral. First there was the usual manifesto telling eveyone he knows why he is right and you (and everything you believe in) is wrong, being his parents and brothers and sisters, and his wife (yep, I said wife). He just absolutely had to have a mans penis in one of his orifices every day that it didn't matter what happened to his children or his now rejected wife. He changed not her. He made a point of ridiculing everything she held dear and what she thought he did when they got married. Nevermind the fact he made a promise and that he had five great kids. No, oh no, to let the world know he was gay had to be done now, it was the only thing to make HIM happy.
You see, had had already made choices and commitments in marriage, and even took on the greater responsibility of children. Now, he doesn't want to fulfill his promises or responsibilities of giving his children a stable home with a mother and a father. No, he's under the dillusion he's getting what he wants now and that only that way can the family be happy.
A real man would have kept his mouth shut, raised those kids in a loving home, and then when they were grown he could go off the deep end all he wanted. Nope, he came first. So, simply said, he was selfish. His selfish desire to have an immoral relationship just for himself alone. Nothing benefitted those kids. They now are confused (learning conflicting moral standards), have troubles in school, and yet he can't understand what the problem is. He thinks he's a good father.
Morality is a protection not a limitation.
Jesus spent most of his time teaching the prostitutes and "others of grievous sins" because they simply were not happy, not just because they were "sinners". His analogy that a doctor needs to help the sickest first still holds true. Jesus never berailed the sinners, he always expressed love and kindness to them and always told them to change their ways. The ones he "chewed out" were those using their authority to usurp the people's freedom for gain and power (by making up rediculously limiting laws), and those blaspheming the sacred (like the temple). For example, there was a time when the leaders wanted to catch-22 Jesus and brought a woman before him caught in the act of adultery (where was the man?). They slyly asked him what should be done, knowing the law said she was to be judged and stoned to death. Jesus taught them a good lesson (one many militant anti-gay activist Christians fail to remember). He said, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone at her." Shame and realization saved her from her accusers. Nevertheless, Jesus asked her where her accusers went and if the accusation was true (it was obvious), she, didn't deny it, he didn't stone her himself, nor did he chew her out nor threw her out of her house and home, nor did he put a scarlet A on her to wear. He simply said "...go and sin no more", meaning don't commit adultry ever again.
Far too many so-called "Christians" try to force judgements on people they have no right to do so. They are suppose to give opportunities to teach (not tell everyone they are going to hell), but remember everyone has the freedom to make bad choices and not listen to their message. On the other side of the coin, just because you may not wish to aknowledge homosexuality or other immorality is a sin, doesn't give you the right to force that point of view down the throats of my children through government sanctioned control or intervention. That my liberal friends is the establishment of your liberal religion by the government and forced upon me and my family.
For a Christian (and many other religions),
Adultery is a sin.
Fornication is a sin
Homosexuality is a sin
Any sexual act outside of marriage is a sin.
There are serious and real-life consequences resulting from immorality.
The sexual act, inside marriage, is sacred (not a sin as is misunderstood by non-religious types) and to be used with love, imagination, and respect with your spouse. It is fulfilling God's first and foremost commandment "Be fruitful, multiply, and replenish the earth".
That being the case does not mean a Chrisitian conservative with those beliefs, is any sort of bigot or homophobe. To them it's a matter of right and wrong, not fear of the unknown, which bigotry tends to be fueled.
Bigotry usually ends up being directed to those that are religious, not the other way around, and history demonstrates that. All a result of misunderstanding and misinformation, and fear stirred up by those enjoying power.
Jewish people can tell you something about this, as wel