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

[RoadRunner79]

First, I think that your substitution of “blacks” for sinners is nothing but  sophism. There is no reason for it  And it doesn’t make anything clearer.

Second, I don’t think that warning about the consequences of sin, or a judgement of sin that most Christians would use the word “promoting” I don’t think it’s anything to be happy about. I don’t think it’s appropiate anymore, than to say that you are promoting the actions of those in the account just before the destruction of the cities. I see atheists complain about God allowing evil, but then they also complain when he judges and removes it. They will complain no matter what, perhaps, because they think they should be God.

I don't see how your first point addresses the issue at all.  Don't like my substitution of words?  Fine. Graham still said the things that indicated God (and therefore Jesus) kills gay people as punishment.

He referenced the destruction Sodom and Gomorrah, in regards to God not promoting sin. As I stated before, where I might disagree with some, is that Sodom and Gomorrah was only about homosexuality. If the account before the destruction of these cities is in anyway indicative of the sins that where said to be rampant through these towns, then I think that it is difficult to disagree with God stopping this. Jesus warned that the time is coming when all sins will be judged. He said to repent or you too will parish.

Your second point makes no sense what so ever. Graham literally used the word "promote".  I didn't put it in there, he did. I said nothing about "most Christians", nor is this topic about that.  It is about what one particular Christian said and believes.

Graham used the word "promote" in regards to Jesus not promoting sin. My contention with the word was in the way that you used "promote". It's a matter of context. As I stated before, I wouldn't use that word, because I don't think that it is something to be excited or happy about (in the way you used it).

Also, we don't complain about god allowing evil, we point out that it is a logical flaw in the claim of his supposed all goodness that means either he isn't all good, or he does not exist.

I notice that despite your wordy quibbling, you still support what he said, though.  You right here equate the evil referenced in the problem of evil (the murder of babies, wars, the deaths of innocents in natural disasters, suffering and illness of all sorts) to gayness. 

You are the perfect example of the loving Christian.  Well done.

There isn't a logical flaw, and most philosophers don't argue the problem of evil from a standpoint of logic. That said, especially if one is suffering, it's not always that easy from an emotional standpoint. I'm not equating "gayness" to anything, other than to say that homosexual activity is a sin, and fits into the category of sexual immorality. And I agree with Graham, that Jesus never promoted sin as well that God will judge sin. I think that you are either confused or being intellectually dishonest here and trying to twist what I am saying. And being loving, doesn't mean that one promotes or calls sin good either.