So here's a question for you: If one-ten-thousandth of a percent of the population wanted to sing praise to the goddess of frogs, and the remaining 99.999% of the population was unanimously and collectively opposed to it for reasons that it was threatening to their belief in the one true sky god, would it be OK or not OK for the frog worshippers to continue their practices?
Your use of falsity in arguing is getting rather tiring.
And your failure to argue logically is too. At the moment, I could really care less about your statements. I'd be happy with a single false argument from you. At least it would an argument.
Maybe you've read too much psycho-babble books, or too much Herbert Marcuse.
Maybe I don't so there.
P.S. I don't belong to a church.
At least you are a little more personalized from my perceptive. Are you married?
And you should seriously think about stone masonry. Verbiage gets in the way, and focusing on heavy stone and sharp tools would really help focus your mind on something other than itself.
Can I assume that you are a stone mason then? You seem to know a lot about the trade. Are you trying to recruit me?
The frog worshipers could continue such practice **BUT** they would not have the right to demand that anyone else acknowledge its legitimacy.
You said:
"So here's a question for you: If one-ten-thousandth of a percent of the population wanted to sing praise to the goddess of frogs, and the remaining 99.999% of the population was unanimously and collectively opposed to it for reasons that it was threatening to their belief in the one true sky god, would it be OK or not OK for the frog worshippers to continue their practices?"
A perfect example of false arguing. Not comparable at all. To make your argument useful, the frog goddess worshippers would have infiltrated the media, the government, the schools, the foundations, large corporations, many churches and religious institutions, the medical and psychologist professions, and the insitutions of higher education. The frog goddess worshippers would then make it mandatory for the non-worshippers to listen to lectures about the glories of such worship, would be condemned for pointing out its dangers (also for the analogy to work, frog goddess worshipping would have to entail unnatural, unhealthy practices), the non-worshippers children would be taught about it and encouraged to try it. Additionally, the frog worshippers would be proselytizing by way of media - entertainment and "news" that frog goddess worshippers are not only to be accepted as worthy members of society and should worship publicly but anyone speaking out against it is mentally ill and hateful.
But your analogy is worthless because worshipping a frog goddess is merely a silly fantasy, whereas homosexuality is a pernicious practice that violates the natural use of the sex organs, spread noxious disease at a rate not comparable to STDs spread between men and women, is associated with increased risks of mental illness and drug and alcohol abuse, partner abuse, and child molestation.
So your analogy is worthy nothing.
I think stone masonry would be good because you'd have to stop mentally masturbating and concentrate on something other than self-worship of your mind. One slip of the stone or the tool, and you'd break a bone.
BTW, I'm not going to "debate" with you any more. There are a lot of interesting discussions going on in which I can discuss with rational people.