[peteram]

Otherwise, to me, this guy comes off as a Socialist Theocrat that wants to pass more laws telling us what we can and can not

I think the main thing that the author was really upset about was the fact that this "church" was operating under the name of the Lord Jesus, and that this is major blasphemy.

Like you, I agree that if these people want to exert their free will and live like this, fine. But I draw the line at using the Lord's name to promote it.

[WyldKard]

I think the main thing that the author was really upset about was the fact that this "church" was operating under the name of the Lord Jesus, and that this is major blasphemy.

Yeah, I agree with you here. However, it's this part of the article that made me pause:

Friends, these sick and perverted "workshops" are not only going on in the Metropolitan Community Churches in California, but others around the country as well. Much of this chilling information is readily available right on the Internet.

So it's on the Internet. So what? Is the author now suggesting a complete Bowdlerization of the Internet? I didn't see how the statement was related. But as I mentioned before, maybe I just read too much into it and the paragraph that comes after it as a statement of: "We must not only eradicate educational Workshops from a Church, but must eradicate them everywhere we find them, no matter how private or secular the venue" And THAT is not exactly something I can get behind, as a Constitutionalist.

Like you, I agree that if these people want to exert their free will and live like this, fine. But I draw the line at using the Lord's name to promote it.

Yes, you do have a point. Okay, I'm sold. These folks shouldn't be letting them use their church for this sort of thing. However, taken to extremes, doesn't this mean that all things not immediately relating to Christ shouldn't be in the Church? (Bingo Night, etc etc?)