I see a major difference with this comparison. I don't know if Lincoln can be said to have been in favor of slavery at any point in his life. Perhaps he was, but I've not heard or read that. What his position on the subject was did not reflect his personal opinion on slave owning, but on what should be done about slavery in the states where it existed. Even in Chapman's piece, it implies that Lincoln felt the institution would die out on its own without gov't forcing the issue. Thus, there's nothing to suggest that he ever hoped to support it or defend it. Obama, on the other hand, had stated his support for it, then changed and now has changed back to where everyone, on both sides of the political divide, knew he was the whole time.

I'm sure a decent orphanage would have been better for you, as well. But you can't compare parents of different character and claim the comparison is a good argument. Would you not have preferred a heterosexual couple who loved and fed you to those drunks who raised you, or only a homosexual couple? I would agree that a homosexual couple that proper vetting found to be (otherwise) good for a child in need would be better than any other couple of any persuasion that would be harmful. But we really need not consider such a scenario until no other possibilities are available.

What difference is it which is the greater sin if both are sins? If you want to make comparisons, a closer one would be the committed homosexuals you mention compared to committed heteros living together without the benefit of marriage. OR, serial cheaters of either "orientation". Whichever, neither reflects the ideal set for us by God.

Chapman uses time frames that don't really give a good indication of the direction of the country, morally speaking. Compare moral issues between now and 50-60 years ago and we are still on the wrong side of the equation. It's not only teen pregnancy, but just how young the teens are who are pregnant, how many of them there are compared to years ago. There is also the issue of STDs and the how young some people are who contract them. And indeed, it is not only a matter of what someone says he believes or how many times one attends church, but how truly committed one is to the doctrines of that church.

There has never been an attitude that laws should allow religious practices that are harmful to others or one's self.

Two examples: A New Mexico photographer sued for refusing to record a lesbian wedding. A bed & breakfast proprietor facing legal action for refusing to rent a room to a homosexual couple. Both defendants acted on their moral beliefs, on their consciences, and were forced to spend money defending their right to do so.

Christians are obligated to abide the law and the legal authorities. That we cannot navigate through the entire body of laws does not mean we are falling short, being that we are saved. That we render unto Caesar what is his does not mean that Caesar uses what we render appropriately. We've done our part in the rendering and in the support we give to candidates that will work to change such heinous practices as using our tax dollars to support infanticide.

It is that very condition that is supposed to be protected, that one cannot be compelled to suppress their religious convictions. This would seem to be particularly true in gov't jobs, where gov't, as I am constantly reminded, is on the other side of that wall that separates it from religion. That wall is breached if one is denied a job due to one's faith.

Indeed. Scripture itself speaks of reason in defending the faith.

...without ever addressing the morality or psychological aspect of those behaviors. Christians, as well as people of most religions, view the behavior as immoral. Thinking people can readily see that the attractions that compel the behavior is abnormal. These correct views are being denied a voice by the tiny minority who pretend their personal preferences trump the rights that protect expressing those views and living according to them.