[The Urban Sombrero]

As I have pointed out to you repeatedly, God created man that he might enjoy Him. But just as is the case in the institution of marriage, unless both sides are willing the union is unworkable. The choice man must make is not whether he will live or die, that is God's purview, though those outcomes are part of it. Man is here for but one reason, he must choose for or against God. If man chooses against Him, he must spend eternity separated from God and His love. Colossians 2:13 (KJV) 13 "And you, being dead in your sins and the uncircumcision of your flesh, hath he quickened together with him, having forgiven you all trespasses;" ----We are already dead in our sin, born dead from our youth, hence the need for men to be 'born again.' Thus the Church, or the saved, are referred to as The Bride of Christ. He chose us first by dying on the cross for us while we were yet sinners, and each of us then must choose to reject Him or worship Him as Lord and Savior. That is the union pictured in the Holy institution of marriage, mutual choice.

This is why the sin of homosexuality is so grievous, we are created in His image and to pervert that relationship and the picture of the Bride of Christ in the manner of the homosexual is an abomination. No man made law should ever be passed in support of such a grievous sin. So serious a sin is homosexuality, that God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah to make the point.

I know this will go right over your head again, but here goes anyway. God does not advocate, He judges. You are the one advocating while the homosexual, the subject of your advocacy, is in danger of eternal damnation. You would extend to him the validation he craves and the eternal suffering he should shun.

You who should be about pointing them in the right direction, would inexplicably much rather provide enhanced protection for them, because they already had equal protection under the law as they are and were denied nothing that I know of.

Back to your particular insanity. Essential liberty and freedom of conscience are the fictional inventions of liberalism, Christ denying extrapolations of two concepts on which liberalism is founded, themselves just as non-existent. First is the ridiculous notion that humans posses natural goodness, (essential liberty) and second, each man's right to be completely autonomous where his own life is concerned. (freedom of conscience) And though neither will ever be accepted in this world, they nonetheless reflect the desperation of those seeking to avoid the judgment apart from salvation. It's the 'if it feels good do it,' philosophy, which though absurd on its face, is all that remains if one is hell bound to reject the truth. THANKFULLY, the next 8 years will see tremendous loss dealt to the liberal/progressive cause, which makes your arguments even more pathetic. Especially when one considers the effort you put into homosexual advocacy. Thirteen days of darkness yet remain.

The part about God "advocating" was part of a rhetorical question. I wouldn't lecture about stuff going over people's head.

God, indeed, offered choice, and Man chose death.

It is clear that you do not distinguish between a desire to see freedom of conscience preserved and advocacy for a particular issue.

By "essential liberty" I am not defining as "natural goodness." That's pure straw and SO symbolic of how you debate.