[A.J.Armitage]

A person cannot morally approve of something that is wrong.

Absolutely right. But not reacting to something with violence (which is what prohibiting it is, since it involves the threat of punishment and that punishment either is itself violent or is imposed by the threat of violence) isn't moral approval. In fact, reacting with violence to something which isn't by nature a crime (and not all sins or wrong acts are crimes) is itself wrong and no person should morally approve of it. In fact, since such is itself a crime, violence against a homosexual should be threated criminally.

Homosexual sodomy is a form of murder since it destroys both the soul and the body.

Have you been smoking something?

[Cultural Jihad]

I fully understand your point but do not agree with it one bit. Sometimes we see arguments eschewing any use of police force against many such crimes and misdemeanors. "Do you want to go so far as murdering someone who smokes crack?! 'Cause that's just what will happen if the crack smoker refuses to comply with the police: they kill 'im! You want that?! You prepared to do that?! To go that far?!" It's really a non-argument. Smoking crack, as an example, is not an automatic death-by-cop sentence. Everyone is responsible for their own actions, as conservatives believe. Only whiney liberals try to excuse every evil act as the supposed fault of society somehow. By that argument all manner of civil infractions would have to be excused, from jaywalking to littering to any of the misdemeanors and even non-capital felonies.