And people wonder why I call it the False Witness Union?

I mean, let's consider. I proposed something which I thought was fairly reasonable: the idea that any Christian, gay or straight, was advocating for celibacy in a non-marital relationship was, to my way of thinking, a good thing, and an excellent example of witness. Moreover, I noted that in the end, whether it's a gay couple or a straight couple doing it, any form of sexual activity outside of marriage was wrong.

Because of that, if it is wrong for a gay person to expose himself to the temptation to sin by going on dates, the it must also be wrong for a straight person to expose himself to the temptation to sin by going on dates, no? Yes, a straight person can eventually marry, and so engage in sexual acts in a morally licit manner...but marriage is a long way off at the onset of dating. The attraction, however, is there in the immediate.

And straight men are no more immune from sexual temptation then are gay men, at least in my experience. And in the end, regardless of who sleeps with who, sex outside of marriage is wrong. If exposing yourself to the temptation to engage in sex outside of marriage is also wrong, and should be avoided, then heterosexuals should no more go on dates than homosexuals.

Seems to make sense, right?

Yet somehow, someone managed to miss that point.

The funny thing is, "Where's The Fruit D?" does not see any difference in a male dating a male and a male dating a female. He thinks that both are acceptable to the Lord.

I've heard more than a few Christians argue that dating at all is unacceptable, now that I think about it, but this wasn't really the point I was driving at. The point I was getting at is that if the members of the CWU really want to oppose Theo personally, they shouldn't attempt to do so by making generalized statements. Gay or straight doesn't really matter when the issue at hand is the sexual temptation that accompanies dating: being heterosexual doesn't make you immune, or in any way preserve you, from that temptation, nor does it preserve you from sin if you give in to it.

I might even suggest that a gay couple in a committed, celibate relationship is actually doing a better job of living out God's law than a Christian couple who, though unmarried, have elected to engage in a sexual relationship (as far too many do).

Apples to apples, celibate straight couple compared against celibate gay couple, I'm really not sure where the line is to be drawn. Arguably, a gay couple who elect to co-habit whilst remaining celibate are not actually committing any sinful act, are they? Indeed, they almost parallel a certain story in the early Old Testament (that of Ruth). Almost.

That's really the issue, though: where is the sin in all of this? Is the sin in the sexual acts? If so, then celibate homosexuals are not sinning. Is the sin in the sexual orientation? That's not defensible from Scripture, nor does it reflect reality. Is the sin in the act of dating? Then it doesn't really matter who is going on the date, does it -- any date which gives rise to sexual temptation in unmarried persons must be declared sinful, which means that all pre-marital dating is probably sinful.

Is it too much to expect consistent thought from people these days?

And, of course, they have to make it personal again:

Considering the history of the rampant homosexuality and pedophilia in the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, and the devastation that that has visited on hundreds of thousand of innocent children, one would think that he would understand God's plan regarding males and females and the dangers of ignoring God's Word.

I love this polemic, because it is one of far too many examples of where militant atheists and "fundamentalist" Christians find common cause.

But more to the point, it's not exactly true either. Even the best statistics available put the number of abused children in the tens of thousands, and while that's still grossly high, one notes that it is about a tenth of the figure given above.

Equally, it should be noted that Catholic priests are far less likely to abuse children than are schoolteachers (in fact, teachers are about 100 times more likely to abuse kids in their charge). Protestant and evangelical ministers, meanwhile, are at least twice as likely to commit acts of sexual impropriety as are Catholic priests. In some surveys, evangelical pastors seemed to be as much as 10 times more likely to offend in this way.

So really, who has inflicted the most "devastation" on their respective flocks?

But more importantly: what does this have to do with the issue at hand? This is a smokescreen, a distraction, and a bit of sleight of hand intended to distract from the core issue here: the mistreatment of Theokhoth which was perpetrated by, among others, a CWU members, around whom the wagons are now being circled.

If such people as this would accuse Theo of giving poor witness, they might do well to look at themselves first. Dealing with the mote, whilst ignoring the log, is not the proper way to go about things.