Well, for starters, they are spelled totally different. Also, one of the subjects is a person while the other is a group. Even less notably, one of them is in jail for rest of his life for sexually assaulting a 12 year old and 15 year old girl. The other? They are a group adults who wish to be seen as equal in the eyes of the law, regardless of who they love or who/how they have sex. (Do you have any idea how many guys on this forum enjoy or wish their wife was into anal sex? Where's the uproar over that one?). "Diverse sexual ideologues" is nothing more than a crutch for people who need to justify their bigotry and/or self righteousness.
In short, the difference between the two is light years.
OK EJ. You lay it out pretty good.
The mantra I see a lot along that line is the libertine view that has been the case across millenia, from the legendary disrepute of Sodom and Gomorrah through the biblical era of say around 1000 BC down to 600 BC with the whole Baal thing with "sacred groves" on the hilltops set aside for fertility rites and sexual abuse of kids, including the Greek cults and the Roman practices for military units enhancing "cohesiveness" and "caring" between the soldiers, not to mention the women "camp followers" who serviced the troops:
consenting adults should be free to do as they please.
religion, to even be a religion, undertakes to advance ideals with a higher vein of moral direction, extolling either monogamous family virtues or something else deemed paramount.
For a religion to undertake to invoke a higher cause in what "consenting adults" or even some wonderful vision of unhinged free sexual embrace of homosexuality or anything else "consenting adults" can do in the privacy of their own lives, and claim it has significant benefits for the community at large, you not only have to reject the traditional moral codes of most religions, you have to replace them with a new moral code stating the high purpose and wonderful blessedness of the practices. . . . which for most people is just the "let's do this thing" impulse.
For the State to invoke the authority to preach these things is a violation of the principle of "separation of Church and State" which we sometimes fancy is a good thing.
For the United Nations or any nation to claim social and legal authority in the subject is a dangerous and in fact lethal abuse of society. Those who do this live in the same frame of mind as a Warren Jeffs.
A nation based on a perverse ideology imposed on a credulous populace, which claims for the leaders the absolute tyrannical right to dictate the thinking of everyone, is just going to fail bigtime. It would be inherently backed not by the prejudices and ideologies of a small group, but by courts and cops with all the impudent power of jackbooted thugs, and maybe a class of priestly authorities like psychologists, sociologists, and case workers. . . . .
The way things have been in our nation, it is a relatively less abusive government even if a lot of things in the "legal" framework are influenced by Christian values. You have always been able to live your own lives in private, and there has never been a police state hunting you down specifically as intolerable deviants, unless somehow you crossed the line and attempted to recruit minor children. . . . again, in the same boat with the Warren Jeffs of the land. . . .
