> But you're mostly proving that Christians generally agree that it's not something to legislate. But that doesn't mean they've changed their values. It just means they have a vision of "sexually kosher" that they'd like to practice and teach to each other without fear of hate or legal repercussion.

That's exactly it. Don't make it illegal to perform abortions or for gay people to marry. Believe whatever you want.

> Is it hateful to teach that the Bible is against open marriages? If so, is the Bible hateful? If so, is it hate speech?

1) No, if it's only teaching and not forcing it on other people. 2) Depends on who you ask, there's a large span of interpretations between and even inside of denominations. The King James version didn't help.

> California passed a law that is in front of the Supreme Court mandating that pro-life groups educate their clients on how to get abortions. They are also considering a bill that would outlaw certain kinds of speech about sexual morality and sexual orientation.

1) Withholding crucial information regarding advances in medical science and options available within your society is wrong. How that is dealt with is a tough question. This I hold true whether it's Jehovas witnesses or Islam, or any other belief. 2) Are you referring to "gay deprogramming", or education in school? If so both things should be illegal to "preach". Outside of that, do whatever you want.

> Finally, you say you're a Christian, but it doesn't sound like you talk to many Evangelical Christian Trump voters

It would be better if you approached what I actually say, because I don't understand what you mean here. I also don't understand what Shania Twain or Kanye has to do with the subject.

> And there are a lot of "Never Trump" pundits out there, for example Kevin Williamson. Anti-Trump conservatives are perhaps the majority of commentators in the National Review, The Weekly Standard, The Federalist, etc. I don't know why you'd assume none of them qualify as evangelical. Do you have to have tacky suits and claim the blood of Christ on bank accounts to represent evangelical views?

I never said there wasn't. Of course there is. But there is also a considerably sized portion of the other group I characterized previously, which you frankly barely address at all.

> > Anyone reacting differently to this should inform you whether they hold Christian values at anything closer than arms length, when it's favorable.

> I want to point out that these are instructions on how to judge Christians as good or bad. It's not the job of anybody [2] to judge Christians as good or bad, just like it's not the job of a Christian to judge atheists as good or bad parents or voters.

No it isn't. It's instructions on how to judge whether people take their proclaimed Christian views seriously or are just using religion as a cudgel to drive their more important views forward.

I don't judge any Christian who's hard line (or conversely very soft) on extramarital sex, overdrinking, taking the lords name in vain, or what have you, as long as they're not purely opportunistic about it. Because that's simply not [Christian|any belief]. There are of course Evangelicals in both political parties, but there's only one party courting some of those views when expedient, and not caring a whole lot about the teachings of Jesus when it's crunch time. It's an important voting block for them, which is a shame, because it shouldn't be politicized that way.

> Everyone should instead be learning how to be good neighbors. And they should be having real discussions about real issues, perhaps finding irreconcilable differences, but they should make detentes and compromises, not more political enemies. I don't see why a same sex couple in San Fransisco and a large Mormon family in Utah need to be enemies. On the contrary, it seems likely that they can leave each other alone, be colleagues, or even be friends.

Fully agree here.