It was meant to start a conversation, perhaps a conversation on the merit or lack thereof in mixing politics with religion. Iran seems a perfect example of a country that might otherwise be a proud and productive member of the community of nations if it were not for the unfortunate influence of an exceptionally stupid religion on their government.
What about "The Islamic Revolution" and "The Islamic Republic" do you forget? That religion was explicitly chosen as a bedrock of governance.
I'm assuming everyone participating in this thread agrees that Iran should not execute people for being gay.
I don't find that policy, in statement and as I understand it, in practice, to be in harmony with my idea of a good law.
I think this policy of a nearly major nation should serve as a warning to those in America otherwise inclined to vote for Party of Jesus candidates.
I see. You appear to claim that there is a party in the US that is the equivalent of the Islamist faction that got the Islamic Revolution underway, sucessfully overthrew a government, and that will radically restructure the Constitutional Republic we live in to where the wiring diagram looks something like this.
Whether a person is afflicted with religious beliefs or rational, keeping government and religion at arms length from each other is in their best interests, IMHO.
So is keeping hyperbole out of a discussion, if one wishes to have ones points considered with any gravity.
Your Party of Jesus sound byte, and your attempt to draw a parallel with the Islamists of Iran, are a stretch. Elastic.
Chicken Little, get yourself an umbrella.
I wasn't sure if your call for action might involve a suggestion that W and the gang attack Iran in order to save the homosexuals from repression. I see you were not going there, which is a good thing.
To whom can those folks in Iran look for succor, one wonders, and in what form?
DR
Leave Yahyavi alone! 
