>>While I fully understand your position, and agree with it, I am too easily frustrated by anyone who obviously has no intent to listen to other views.
>>
>>I became convinced that further discussion would be fruitless when I saw his answers to the questions I posed. To profess "love" for all I listed yet to 'know' that most of those listed are surely destined to Hell is not even close to my idea of a rational thought process.
>
>That must be one tough love... just like many revolutionaries loved all the mankind, but had trouble loving any single person.
>
>Or the abstract love, the love in general. I can always say I love everybody but then start making exceptions for telemarketers, insurance company managers, bank managers, drug dealers...
>
>>Many states once used the Bible to justify a ban on interracial marriage.
>>Many states now want to use the Bible to ban homosexual marriage. And the intolerant "Christian" crowd claim the word "marriage" as exclusively theirs.
>
>I wish they made up their mind once. First they were against mixed marriages. Now they are against non-mixed marriages. I think they're just control freaks (is that the proper expression for those who don't care how it turns out, just as long as everyone obeys their commands?).

I'm not sure it's so much 'control-freakiness'. I believe that's part of it, but in a large part it is also an oddball sort of selfishness. "I have something those perverts don't have, and I don't want them to have it too." Kind of like discovering something you really like before anyone else, and then being disappointed and maybe a bit let down when 'everybody else has to jump on the bandwagon'. I doubt there are many of us who are so pure as to never have had those feelings. The difference, of course, is that most of us don't take is so seriously that we feel a need to campaign for laws to hold others back. These people are a lot more selfish than most - not to mention that they are worried about something so trivial it beggars the imagination to try to understand it.