Robert when you oppose a core feature of a person you hate the essence of that person. Yes I hate Neil/Bob just as I hate anyone who harms innocent people. I am a rational person and that qualifies me to question your motives.

Robert said “Furthermore, who determines what is a harmless perversion worthy of mandatory acceptance? NAMBLA members think their actions are harmless, but the vast majority of people disagree. Is it what the majority of people think is harmless? Minority groups decry the “tyranny of the majority” so I doubt that this would be the accepted standard.”.

We rely on mental health experts and the medical profession to determine what is a harmless “perversion”. All major mental and physical health organizations agree that gayness is harmless and that pedophelia is harmful. What qualifications do you have to require that your opinion supercede their’s?

Robert said “We’re supposed to love mass murderers.”.

Christians like you have bastardized the meaning of love. To love means to get deep pleasure out of someone’s pressence, to feel joy from their personality. Christians don’t in any true sense of the word love mass murderers, that’s just Christianist BS. What you refer to as “love” is not love, it is a desire to command and control.

Robert said “If a child steals a piece of candy, the mother does not condone it. The mother will even punish the child. But this does not mean that the mother does not love the child.”.

This idea that our actions are divorced from who we are as people is more christianist BS. Our actions reflect a part of who we are. If a mother does not condone a child’s action then she does not condone part of who that child is. There may be other aspects of the child that the mother love but make no mistake about it, she hates that aspect of the child that gave rise to the theft.

Some advice: Arguments in favor of freedom have merit. But the moment you dredge up NAMBLA you lose all credibility and are just written off as a hater. It’s pretty much the same as a gay person bringing up Fred Phelps.

You may want to keep that in mind for further consideration. Because once I got to your NAMBLA mention, I realized that you were not here to discuss issues of merit but just to declare your contempt for others.

Furthermore, who determines what is a harmless perversion worthy of mandatory acceptance? NAMBLA members think their actions are harmless, but the vast majority of people disagree. Is it what the majority of people think is harmless? Minority groups decry the “tyranny of the majority” so I doubt that this would be the accepted standard.

I agree that justice requires acceptance, but only from the governmental standpoint. It does not mandate it upon a free people who would otherwise disagree. That’s tyranny.

Consider the opposite: I don’t want to photograph your commitment ceremony because you’re a same sex couple (regardless of my religious views). The government says I have to work because my basis for my discrimination is not a valid reason. Thus the government would be forcing me to work in a situation that I don’t want to. Isn’t that a violation of the 13th amendment? Isn’t that involuntary servitude?

The use of two different names in an effort to appear as though you are two persons with the same viewpoint does not lend credibility to your argument.