To be fair, this type of article points out that even Baptists have their oddballs. We can disclaim all we want about that not being representative of all Baptists, but shouldn’t that be the case with any denomination. Just because there are goofs in a denomination doesn’t mean those should be used to characterize the entire denomination.
They should be distinguished from those denominations that actually accept homosexuality. So, if United Church of Christ, Disciples in Christ, the ELCA, and the PCUSA all have rewritten Christianity to suit themselves and are advocating homosexuality, we should be honest about that and distinguish them from any denomination that rejects homosexuality and has some oddballs in the mix. And we can distinguish even more those denomination that are in a pitched battle against a homosexual movement and those that have tight enough control that their homosexual problem really is only a few goofballs.
I was just asking the OP to stop with the "cutsie" words and state what he meant, and what kind of a discussion he was trying to start on FR, which is a discussion Forum.
If he/she wants to argue that some, or many, or all Baptists are represented by the subject of the article, he should gird his loins and say so.
If he wants to argue that this kind of perverted thinking regularly, or also (i.e., it's not just our religion that does it) does these things, spit it out in simple English, and let the discussion begin.
I read his second post, and I still don't know what his purpose in posting is/was.
Since he/she won't tell us, we're left to draw our own conclusions.
At this time my conclusion is that it was "trolling".