The real reasons why many gays are so angry.

I dont think i ever met any gay person that was angry.. actually ive experienced the exact opposite with them :/

He said 'Careful analysis MIGHT find one or two points'. 

Your reading comprehension is poor.  No wonder you can't understand the Bible. 

blade.. Is there anything I can do to help you not think about homosexuals so much?

I would very much like to help you suffer less.

Such as?

Not so far.

Certainly the premise of the article - that gays are, as a group, "angry" people, is entirely unsupported by evidence. And appears to me to be simply flat wrong. I've known many gay people in my life, and whilst of course they have all experienced anger in their lives (who hasn't?), I don't recall ever meeting one that I'd call an angry person.

Given the absurdity of the premise, the reasoning supporting it naturally has to be nonsensical, and it generally is. The author writes from the point of view that homosexuality is inherently bad or wrong, and therefore states that gay people are essentially angry because they want to live lives based on wrongness. But that homosexuality is bad or wrong is mere presumption on his part, rather than the basic truth he appears to think it is. Again, this presumption is never supported in the text - it's merely taken as a given.

The suggestion that god smote New Orleans with a hurricane because of gays is, of course, so ridiculous that it barely merits discussion. As does the idea that god destroys societies because of the presence of homosexuality.

He does say "gays are people first". He uses it in the sense of "...so don't treat them badly because they are so evil", though, so I couldn't call it an honest sentiment as such. But I can get behind that statement if one took it at face value.

Similarly, he says "And we should have compassion on anyone who is having a problem in this life." Again, he means it in the sense of "gayness being their problem", which makes the statement false. But I would agree with the sentence as a literal statement of truth.

He goes on to support the existence of "ex gay" people and "gay conversion". The first is imaginary and the second is one of the active evils of the world which harms many thousands of people.

So honestly, no, I cannot find a single element of truth in that entire article. Just a couple of sentences here and there that one could take as true... if, and only if, one interpreted them to mean something other than what the author means by them.

I answered that in the post you quoted.

"So honestly, no, I cannot find a single element of truth in that entire article. Just a couple of sentences here and there that one could take as true... if, and only if, one interpreted them to mean something other than what the author means by them."

I read them and understood that you were baiting for outrage...

... or you were too dim to understand he was incorrect and needed input from greater acumen.


Which is it?