Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faul

Just because you don't remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. The conversation needs more specification here. Are we talking about the US? Europe? I'm not faulting your comment, the whole chain seems totally mixed up. Like the Bible has been brought into it, but in a weird way---just because something is condemned somewhere in the Bible doesn't tell us the teaching for Christians. The rule about wearing of mixed fibres has an underlying symbolism and purpose. Christians are exempt from most dietary laws in the Bible. Adultery is technically punishable by dishonourable discharge in the modern US military (idk how often it's enforced). They don't seem to worry about fornication now, but in some places and times that debate has been had. Allowing "fornicators" to adopt children is probably very new (and even difficult still). I am commenting just to express my confusion at this change and to say that I think there is a coherent way to make an argument based on Christian tradition and teaching which is not sunk by the supposed inconsistencies pointed out here. If you want to fight the idea that some of the opposition is truly religious (as opposed to some underlying disorder), it would be more interesting to fight a stronger argument. [edit: change --->charge].