T'was just a question about whether or not we should go out beating up gay people. I know there are people who think we should (and there are people who do), so when I hear things like the above, I get a little concerned. True, what was wrong in the good ole days is wrong now, but when was beating up gay people ever right? What is isn't always what is right, and what is right isn't always what is. I'm sure you know that.
Yes, I think it's wrong to go out and beat up gay people - but I think it's wrong to go out and beat up anyone, regardless of their sin. The reasoning given was that is is "nasty and unsanitary." Nasty is, I believe, relative. I think broccoli is nasty, but I don't beat people up over their eating it. And unsanitary . . . well, sex is generally supposed to be messy. Unsanitary, I think, is inaccurate. Sex between gay people isn't necessarily going to be any more unsanitary than sex between straight people. Regardless, either of those two reasons being used to justify the beating of others is using pretty flawed logic.
At least one thing in the post is factually incorrect - numerically, more heterosexual people have HIV or AIDS. Percentages may be higher among gay men, but given the lower percentage of gay people in this world, the numbers are still higher for hets.
My personal view is that homosexuality is not sinful, and sex between members of the same sex may or may not be sinful, just as sex between members of the opposite sex may or may not be sinful. I distinguish between identity and practice, certainly, as should we all. I find that I fall in with the more liberal Christians on this issue.
My political view, on the other hand, is completely different. Don't do it in the streets and frighten the horses - consensual crime should not be prosecuted in secular society.
But either way, I don't think going out and beating people up is an acceptable answer, nor is vehement speech particularly effective. It's good for preaching to the choir, but that's about it.