I read it all. That was my reply.
No, that was a repetition of the point to which I was responding. To wit:
Are you as outspoken against divorce, lying, greediness, drunkeness, lusting, etc., as you are about homosexuality?
I would just like to see some consistency. Homosexuality is considered an abomination to many here, but I don't see any outspokeness for other sins.
No rebuttal, just reiteration.
No one on the conservative(-Christian) side would stand blithely aside if drunkards demanded special legal protections for their behaviors. Ditto liars and sluts, even though the latter enjoy a special place in my heart.
If you believe this is not the case you're welcome to point why that might be so; otherwise the less ego-driven response would be to admit, "Golly! Maybe they are consistent."
Please feel free to point out where these Christians have ever gave shrugging acceptance adultery, fornication, drunkenness, theft, fraud, murder, violence, etc etc etc. If homosexuals draw the most political opposition it is because homosexuals are the most politically active. If you know of a national adulterers advocacy group that has been overlooked please feel free to point them out.
But let us assume--arguendo--that they have turned a blind eye to adultery to hold the line against homosexuality: how does that invalidate their opposition to homosexuality?
If this is where they believe the most pressing intrusion into their liberty and social order resides then they are free to set aside other concerns to deal with that which they consider the greatest threat.
I'm sure were I to poke about long enough I could find inconsistencies in what you advocate.
Of course, it should be pointed out that if/when Christians were to speak out against adultery et al the first response from the Left would be, "Jesus Christ! Where's the God-damned separation of church and state!"
It's a good thing your sort weren't around during the days of the abolitionists; religiously motivated meddlers that they were.
Or would that be YOUR inconsistency?