There is a point in time where the believers in the Episcopal Church will have to obey this command

Come out of her, my people, so you will not take part in her sins and so you will not receive her plagues (Rev 18:4 NET)

Christians will look back on this controversy with shame in 50 years.

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns loving same-sex committed relationships between consenenting adults who are homosexual. Where same-sex acts are mentioned in the Bible it is tied to abuse, power, violence, force or idoloatry, not love and "marriage."

There is nothing in the Bible that condemns loving same-sex committed relationships between consenenting adults who are homosexual. Where same-sex acts are mentioned in the Bible it is tied to abuse, power, violence, force or idoloatry, not love and "marriage."

Talk about a distortion of Biblical Theology.

Jesus condemned homosexuality in Mat 5:17-18. Paul condemned it in Rom 2 and in I Cor 9? and Gal 5?

Jesus also condemned ANY sexual activity outside of a marriage btwn one man and one woman(Mk 10)by using the word "pornea."

I get the "consent" argument, but it's incomplete. What if a 12 year old girl consents to sleeping with an adult male? What if a woman consents to having multiple husbands? These people are, simply, consenting to acts of sin.

Parelli, Peterson, I don't buy your argument that "violence" or "idolatry" is what makes homosexuality sinful.

Food for thought:

There is a difference between state marriage and religious marriage -- religious marriages are not recognized by the state unless state documents have been signed.

If we Christians are going to criticize same-sex marriage, we need to also criticize non-Christian marriages; according to our doctrine, marriages are only real if they are Christ centered.

If God is love, and we cannot judge another persons heart, and a same-sex couple says they are in love; we cannot judge their relationship. Were judgment is to occur, let us not play the role of God, but do as God says and love each other unconditionally.

"Homosexuality" is not a sin. It's not condemned in the Bible. It didn't exist until Victorian times, and was largely unknown in America until the 20th Century. People who say that homosexuality is sinful, are by now, activists in a hate movement that wants a soft sort of genocide of the Gay community.

Posted by: Gregory Peterson at July 26, 2009

Homosexuality was indeed understood and it existed in Paul's day...

The first recorded marriage between two men occurred during the reign of the infamous Emperor Nero, who is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. However, both of them were eunuchs and much can be read into his mental state by the fact that he made them up to look like Poppaea, his deceased wife, who he was presumed to have killed by kicking her in the stomach until she miscarried bloodily. Also known for his decadence and zealotry, Elagabalus, who may have been transgender,[citation needed] is also reported to have married a man in a public ceremony held at Rome.

Same-sex marriage was outlawed on December 16, 342 AD by the Christian emperors Constantius II and Constans. This law specifically outlaws marriages between men and reads as follows:

When a man marries and is about to offer himself to men in womanly fashion [quum vir nubit in feminam viris porrecturam], what does he wish, when sex has lost all its significance; when the crime is one which it is not profitable to know; when Venus is changed to another form; when love is sought and not found? We order the statutes to arise, the laws to be armed with an avenging sword, that those infamous persons who are now, or who hereafter may be, guilty may be subjected to exquisite punishment. (Theodosian Code 9.8.3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

And the verses in Romans were all about lust.. Paul gives absolutely no indication that the homosexual relations were in any way related to pagan rituals...

Romans 1:26 That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

Romans 1:27 And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved.

Romans 1:28 When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done.

Opposing unrepentant homosexuality has nothing to do with a feeling of superiority, nor a desire to accumulate homosexual jobs, property etc... Nor a desire to bring them physical harm...

It has everything to do with biblical integrity and sound doctrine..

So once again Gregory.. You're selling... I'm not buying...

Unrepentant homosexuality and Christianity are not compatable...

Leviticus 18:22 "Do not practice homosexuality; it is a detestable sin.

Leviticus 20:13 "The penalty for homosexual acts is death to both parties. They have committed a detestable act and are guilty of a capital offense.

1Corinthians 6:9 Don't you know that those who do wrong will have no share in the Kingdom of God? Don't fool yourselves. Those who indulge in sexual sin, who are idol worshipers, adulterers, male prostitutes, homosexuals,

1Timothy 1:10 These laws are for people who are sexually immoral, for homosexuals and slave traders, for liars and oath breakers, and for those who do anything else that contradicts the right teaching

.

If we Christians are going to criticize same-sex marriage, we need to also criticize non-Christian marriages; according to our doctrine, marriages are only real if they are Christ centered.

If God is love, and we cannot judge another persons heart, and a same-sex couple says they are in love; we cannot judge their relationship. Were judgment is to occur, let us not play the role of God, but do as God says and love each other unconditionally.

Posted by: Samantha at July 27, 2009

I disagree, I do not believe that Jesus taught that there should be no conditions attached to our associations with others...

Matthew 18:15 "If another believer sins against you, go privately and point out the fault. If the other person listens and confesses it, you have won that person back.

Matthew 18:16 But if you are unsuccessful, take one or two others with you and go back again, so that everything you say may be confirmed by two or three witnesses.

Matthew 18:17 If that person still refuses to listen, take your case to the church. If the church decides you are right, but the other person won't accept it, treat that person as a pagan or a corrupt tax collector.

Paul also taught that we are not to intimately associate with those who are unrepentant...

Galatians 5:9 But it takes only one wrong person among you to infect all the others--a little yeast spreads quickly through the whole batch of dough!

And Paul also set down directives for dealing with those who are unrepentant in regards to sexual immorality...

1Corinthians 5:9 When I wrote to you before, I told you not to associate with people who indulge in sexual sin.

1Corinthians 5:10 But I wasn't talking about unbelievers who indulge in sexual sin, or who are greedy or are swindlers or idol worshipers. You would have to leave this world to avoid people like that.

1Corinthians 5:11 What I meant was that you are not to associate with anyone who claims to be a Christian yet indulges in sexual sin, or is greedy, or worships idols, or is abusive, or a drunkard, or a swindler. Don't even eat with such people.

1Corinthians 5:12 It isn't my responsibility to judge outsiders, but it certainly is your job to judge those inside the church who are sinning in these ways.

1Corinthians 5:13 God will judge those on the outside; but as the Scriptures say, "You must remove the evil person from among you."

.

In regards to the above posting of Romans 1:26

The post reads: Romans 1:26 Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other.

My comment: "and instead indulged in sex with each other" is a bogus rendering. It is an interpretation of what the women MUST have been doing, not a translation of the text which does not tell us what their "unnatural" sex acts were. Nowhere in the Bible is same-sex sex of a woman with a woman condemned. Lesbian sex is not condemned anywhere in the Bible including this verse, Romans 1:26. Romans 1:26 DOES NOT SAY what the "unnatural" sex was that the women were doing. We assume from Romans 1:27 that the "unnatural" sex must have been woman to woman. However, the unnatural sex that the woman were having was, according to some scholars, oral or anal sex WITH MEN. So, now I ask straight men who have anal or oral sex with their wives -- are they having sex "against nature?" So then this verse becomes a condemnation of certain sex acts that heterosexuals do as a married couple. So, men can NOT have sex with men (if you take the traditional view), but women can have sex with women and still be biblical; so the Bible doesn't condemn homosexual acts ENTIRELY (if you take the traditional view that the Bible condemns male with male sex).