"Jesus would rather kill, not marry, gay people" - Franklin Graham

[Amarok]

Thank you for the very clear examples of mischaracterizations, red herrings, and straw men arguments that you beat up on.  If you are incapable or don't care to even understand the other side, this automatically makes you ineligible to be part of the conversation. You are just unproductive/destructive noise. This is what is wrong in society today!

There is nothing to understand there is no other side just screeching horde of regressive bigots waving a book around

No one is trying to stop people from doing anything behind closed doors. The current issue is the redefinition of marriage. Given the belief structure of Christians (God ordained the relationship right from the beginning and everything that follows), you really can't see why they (as a group) have a problem with redefining the word 'marriage'? You could just disagree with this point, but no, that won't do. You want to characterize it as Christians trying to control what's going on in the bedroom because that's a straw man you feel you have a strong argument against. Another disingenuous trick is to find extreme view and then label everyone else with that view.

Yup because dictate in your big book of nonsense thus we don't care .And gays should not have to do it" behind close doors" And your opposition is ideological  bigotry and of story and there is no disagreement because not an opinion .

---

I'm editing this because the distinction is important. Homosexual orientation is not a sin.

Same difference if gays are not permitted to express those feelings or marry the person they love it might as well be a sin .

---

1. You want to dismiss the OT because we can eat shellfish today? You are failing to distinguish between moral laws and laws for managing a theocracy. Sodom and Gomorrah were centuries before any theocracy/laws. No moral laws of the OT have ever been set aside/abolished/sunsetted.
2. Your assumption that Paul and the OT writers had no sense of homosexuality as an enduring sexual orientation has no substance. There were whole cultures where such things were common. Sodom and Gomorrah obviously had wide open ideas on this issue. The reason it does not warrant a mention is that there are a hundred different ways to be oriented toward sin--which was clearly the focus and reason for the NT. What makes this one special? 
3. The divorce analogy is very weak. You can find millions of people that think divorce and remarriage is morally wrong. Personally I think unless there is infidelity or abuse, remarriage violates the command of Jesus. If you find examples of special pleading, take it up with that person/group. The Bible does not special plead. 
4.  Why would Jesus single out chattel slavery in the Galilean countryside while speaking to the poor and working class?  Slavery has multiple definitions and cultural/social aspects to unpack and is a red herring. "...and love your neighbor as yourself for all the laws hang on these..." seems pretty clear you can infer the morality of thousands of things that didn't apply to the audience or haven't been invented yet. The difference is that homosexual acts were singled out in the OT and the NT. Christian's can't ignore it, because a cafeteria Christian undermines their own system of belief--even if they don't realize it (as you are pointing out). 
5. I don't like many contemporary Christians. They have piss-poor theology and made a mess they can't reconcile.
6. Reminder: everyone is a sinner. Homosexual acts don't have a special place. 
7. An appropriate Christian response is to love the sinner, don't compromise on the sin, but let God deal with it--it's not our job to change people's lives. 

If you want to focus in on one or two responses for more discussion, NP, just let me know.

Long rant of excuse making for Steve's ideological bigotry