Oh, yeah, them. I jusst figured from the way you’ve been describing them that they were trying out for the Ray Bolger role in summer stock revivals of The Wizard of Oz. 
I’ll grant you the second question is different in degree, but it is, as I claimed, of the same form. All of the questions are petitio principii arguments which assume the hypocrisy of the subject groups in order to show that that those groups are hypocritical.
Your argument does this as well. You’ve assumed the Christian tradition of ministry to the needs of the poor has ceased (or lessened) because it “seems to” have done so. This, to me, seems like the same argument as those I listed. If you never go into madrasas or interact with Muslims, it’s easy to see a disregard for terrorism or an acceptance of religiously motivated violence if you’re inclined to look for evil in that religion. (For the offenderati among us: I’m not accusing Measure for Measure of this inclination.) If you don’t pay attention to black political actions, it’s easy to miss the marches, sermons and educational efforts of black leaders targeting violence, drug use and other problems experienced by poor and minority communities, especially if you’re inclined toward white persecution complex. (Not accusing Measure for Measure of racism.)
And if you pay attention only to those religiously based lobbying efforts which get deep cover by the news media, it’s easy to see a Christian emphasis on homophobic and antichoice legislation, and a shift away from core doctrinal concerns, because you’re only seeing the noisy conservative evangelical groups who exploit existing fear and loathing to gain political power. You may feel as if mainstream Christian concerns aren’t being translated into serious political activism, but you seem to be basing this on shallow and arbitrary criteria. -That their efforts aren’t as visible as those of the demagogic religious right is no indication that their efforts are fewer or less enthusiastic. The same association of Catholic bishops now publicly and wrongheadedly whinging about contraception and “abortifacients” in mandated health plans have been steadily lobbying for universal health care in the US for at least the last thirty years, and have been at least as effective in their efforts as any particular politicians (up until our current President).
But your charge is that mainstream Christians have moved away from core doctrinal concerns, not that their effectiveness is necessarily limited. Your hypothesis explains the latter without supporting or illustrating the former.
Indeed. And they are aided at every turn by purists who reject attempts within the Christian community to reclaim the brand, or even to espouse basic tenets of humility, care and fellowship.
So you can show us how the guy providing the platitudes is hypocritically persecuting gays on the side, right?
ETA: I mean, not in your imagination, or because you ‘know what he really thinks,’ but actual evidence that the target of this pit thread is a homophobe.
Whatever. Enjoy your recreational outrage over a piece of harmless glurge. In fact I’ll join you in a good old growl. On 3:
one…two…three, “GRRRR!ARRGH!”
Some loving, tolerant christians in action here.
Bunch of cunts.
Der Trihs…how DOES he freaking think?
A small minority. Not The Real Christians. Why are you censoring someone by disagreeing with them, you fascist? You should give them a medal for not hitting you in the head with a shovel. You sound abrasive so I’m going to side with delusional psychotics to teach you a lesson. Prove to me that this is anti-gay.
Did I about cover it?
It’s a miracle!
Your message to us is:
There are assholes in this world who will use their opinion of The Way Things Ought To Be Run to condemn you for loving whom you feel led to love, even if you personally have never done anything to them, to conflate you and people like you with a group of clear sociopathis.
My message tp you is:
Stop being one of them.
Like magnets! Or the tides!
You are a remarkably stupid person.
Nobody is arguing that those people do not exist, or are not assholes. I won’t even bother denying they are Christians (as much as I would like to). But can you understand that they do not represent all Christians any more than al Queda represents all Muslims?
What percentage of Christians would you say believe homosexuality is sinful? What percentage of Muslims would you say are involved in terrorism? Would you like to reconsider your analogy in light of the answers to these questions?
Percentage Calling Gay/Lesbian Relations “Morally Acceptable” as of May, 2010
Protestant: 42%
Catholic: 62%
Other non-Christian: 84%
No religion: 85%
Looks like some of your broad brushes need to be retired.
So your contention is that somewhere between 38 and 58 percent of Muslims are members of al-Qaeda?
Remarkably stupid.
No, my contention is that not all Christians are out to get you, that close to half are fully accepting, and that someone preaching / teaching / witnessing Christ’s admonition to love one another is a good thing.
It is also my contention that your focus on a bit of glurge is counter-productive if you want to reduce the amount of anti-gay sentiment and behavior.
Finally, it is my contention that on this subject you continue to be dumber than a bag of hammers.
Wow I am confused, that’s easily done though.
So I am a christian and I was a best man at a gay wedding in a christian church.
What does that make me?
A bad Christian. A better person, but a bad Christian.
You do not get to pronounce that. Neither do I, nor do any other Christians, by the way.
From the brief description sisu gave, I’d say there’s pretty strong evidence for “good friend of the gay groom”, but that’s as far as my powers of deduction take me…