Christian agree with Muslim

Ironically the Christian thing to do is accept gays!

Well yes, that's true, it's not to be confused with exalting homosexuals. Merely accepting them, yet still holding that they're in the wrong.

It's not wrong if it doesn't affect or harm others, especially if it has no bearing on those that rally against the condition of being gay!

Tell me, are you in any position to make such a bold morality claim?

It doesn't affect me if some poor guy is dying on a street, yet I should still do something about it.

What kind of position do I have to be in to make a claim about morality?
I would think that being human is position enough!
If you don't like to see people or animals suffer that is fine go ahead and help them.
But hating on someone that is fine with doing things that don't harm themselves, anyone or anything, is none of your business, as it is none of mine!

I think you missed the part where I said "accepting them" and turned "holding that they're in the wrong" into "bullying them because they're obviously wrong"

If that is the case, you are committing the strawman. I'm not hating on anybody, simply holding that they're wrong.

Well simply holding that they are wrong, is wrong if you accept them, because that means you have not truly accepted them. It's like telling someone who you see as doing something dangerous, that they are wrong to do it. As long as they are willing to take the consequences it is right for them. It may not be right for you, or you just may not want to suffer the consequences, either way it doesn't concern you unless you have a vested interest in the outcome of their actions.

Can I not love and accept my brother even though he is drunk all the time and on drugs?

Depends what you mean by love and what you mean by brother, just because you don't like to see someone drunk or on drugs all the time doesn't mean you have the right to try to change their behaviour without their permission, whether you love them or not, whether they are your brother or not. Being homosexual is not the same as being drunk or on drugs but the morality in dealing with those deviations is the same. Being gay doesn't ruin a persons life, being ostracized is not anything anyone wants imposed on them, gay or straight. Being impaired is a choice at least at first in some cases where addiction is concerned. Alcoholics have to want to change and want stay sober, if they are to be helped. If they don't choose to be sober nobody can help them.

Exactly. That is what I am saying. The claim that I'm making is that being drunk is immoral, not that I have to force the drunkard to stay sober or shame him.
In the same way, I'm claiming that it's immoral to be homosexual. A person can't argue against my point by committing the strawman and saying that it means I am oppressing homosxuals.

Now that that's out of the way, we can worry about whether homosexuality is morally right. We'll have to define what you believe makes something morally right to do that. Are you Utilitarian? A Hedonist?

The problem with morality is that it is subjective and defined by the eye of the beholder. It means something different to different people and different societies. Before Hawaii was discovered the natives lived there for hundreds if not thousands of years and it wasn't immoral to have sex with whom ever, they didn't have a word for adultery. It wasn't immoral to drown disfigured infants, in fact it was the moral thing to do and there were reverent ceremonies for the purpose and to deal with the grief. When the Islands were discovered they found the most beautiful and happy people living there. At least that's what I heard and read about Hawaii!

Okay then what does the "agree with a Muslim" mean? Most Christians say that it's wrong to be homosexual, but those people who are wrong should still be respected.

I think the Muslims say that "the LGBTQ+ community should be uplifted..."

"oh that's nice–"

"on top of a building and dropped off."

What a bunch of Hamas freedom fighters.

You think if Christians had as much power as Muslims in Muslim countries that they would not be banning gays?

The only reason Christians are against Sharia law is that they don't want Muslim religious law. They want Christian religious laws.

Oh, really? If Christians only want Christian religious law in their country then they should really be caring about the atheists’ absolute domination of the law. It’s going downhill from here. Over time, America will fall further and further into sin.

The reason Christians are against Shariah law is because it calls for things that they cannot agree with, like marrying multiple women at the same time and intense Muslim focus.

The Bible calls some things in the Quran ridiculous, so how can a Christian accept Muslim law? The Bible also says that homosexuality is evil, so how can they support that either? They can respect other people who are in sin, but that doesn’t mean they can’t disagree with them too.

If I was king, I would strongly discourage homosexuality. I don’t think I would completely illegallize it but I would discourage it.

You do realise that the existence of gay people is a product of heterosexual activity. Gay people don't make babies without help from the opposite sex!

Yes, I am quite aware of that fact. But what does that got to do with the price of corn in Ohio?

If all the corn in Ohio was gay it wouldn't regenerate. So by their nature gay people are a dying demographic, its like the Darwin Awards in slow motion!

You completely missed the point of my expression. I was saying that your statement is unrelated to my own.

Also, there's no such thing as gay corn, even in Ohio.

No.... you confirmed that you are aware of how gay people are conceived, and you didn't say my point was unrelated. You asked what my statement had to do with the price of corn in Ohio!
I did not use AI to generate this reply, but when I put "gay, corn and Ohio" together with the knowledge I possess, I have references you may not relate to!
Do you know that "corn" is a synonym for old comedy? Corny humor refers to jokes, puns, or comedic situations that are old-fashioned. Did you know that the character "Klinger" in the sitcom "MASH" was from Toledo Ohio and that Toledo Ohio, had a notable and active, though largely hidden, LGBTQ scene in the 1950s. I did!

Bro. It's an expression that asks you how that has anything to do with my point. Who are you to tell me what my own expressions mean?

OK, now we are getting somewhere!
Who are you to tell anyone what the expressions are of any character in the Bible let alone a god!
You do not have the same knowledge as any of them may have had!

Yes, we are inferring what people mean in the Bible when they say this. Your argument doesn't really have much of a base.

What happened between us is that I made an expression and you then misinterpreted it. If you didn't misinterpret it, I wouldn't have a problem with you interpreting my expression because you'd be interpreting correctly. I have a problem because I'm saying this, and you're telling me, "no, you're actually saying this..."

This kind of thing can happen in the Bible. James, for example, says, "faith without works is dead", to which people are saying, "well, he's saying that we are saved by works." He never said that!

Here's the comparison between your accusation and my defense:
My defence: You're telling ME what I mean,
Your attack: I'm also telling HIM what that other guy means

The fallacious thinking that you've found is not really fallicious.