i've read suggestions that we separate marriage into recognition in the civil arena and recognition in the church arena.
a church should not be made to marry gays if they believe God frowns upon it, and law shouldn't move to punish them for the stances they take.

all that said, i personally have wrestled with calling the union 'marriage': 'marriage' in my mind means a man and a woman. it's like the word 'parent' - a 'parent' is an individual with a child. now, some call their pets their 'children,' but this view doesn't make them parents from my perspective (but i will act to make my four dogs and three cats dependents on next year's tax return, if someone starts working on legislation...).

so i'm more in favor of civil unions, and their recognition by society, governments, businesses, etc.

obviously, some see the need to 'contend for the faith' and work to get this repealed as they would any issue they believe contradicts biblical doctrine. and while i disagree with that view (imagine that...), i certainly can understand their position. there are many biblical issues that divide believers.

but i don't believe gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it (and we feel fine). of course, a lot of this comes down to whether or not one believes being gay is a choice or something more defined genetically. i personally have come to believe the latter, and i believe science is finding more evidence daily. but this will always be like evolution and creationism (even though that argument is more two sides passing without really discussing the possibilities for both), with one side arguing science as revelation and the other arguing it as a tool of satan.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

of course, a lot of this comes down to whether or not one believes being gay is a choice or something more defined genetically. i personally have come to believe the latter, and i believe science is finding more evidence daily.

Mike, I'm not sure if you ascribe to the belief in Original sin or not, but I have argued extensively on my blog and at several message boards that because of Original sin the idea of a genetic predisposition to homosexuality is not a problem for orthodox Christians. The curse of sin on the earth and on the human race causes death and perversion to occur everywhere, so why should we assume that this excludes our chromosomes?

but i don't believe gay marriage is the end of the world as we know it (and we feel fine).

I am prepared for the outlash this will receive, but I am going to tell you one of the biggest concerns that I have with state sanctioned gay marriage and that is that it will lead to an even larger move towards gay adoptions. I know that homosexual, as well as single parent adoptions are already practiced, but I completely disagree with this and I am certain that if we legally recognize "marriage" in a gay couple then we will be further pushed to afford them with the "right" of having children.

The thing that kills me on this is that we use the adoption system as a way of satisfying the wants of adoptive parents. This is sick. The point of adoption is to care for the child who does not have a loving mother and father to raise them. And, no matter what source you look to, either religious in the Bible, or secular in psychology, you have to come to the conclusion that the healthiest environment for a child to be raised in is that of a loving, devoted heterosexual couple. When we allow single parent and gay adoptions we are saying "Everyone should be allowed to have a kid" and not "We should give every child the best possible home." Is this the mind-set we should have here?

Okay, I've said my piece, now unleash the deluge.

todd - i doubt there will be a deluge about what you wrote. i'm not sure where the actual numbers sit, but i bet we're pretty evenly split here on issues like this.

it's just that people who like to see their names in print (like you and me :) ) dominate the discussion.

anyway, again i see a bit of selective logic being applied. we want to say "Of COURSE there's a God - just look at Creation around you!". and yet THEN we want to say, "Yeah, ok, so it IS screwed up pretty bad. That's the result of original sin." so which is it - a beautiful Creation reflecting God, or a monstrous mixed-up mess with death, destruction and spiders who keep their prey alive to feed on them for a few days?

i guess that, somehow, i should see the diversity in how humans are made and say Creation is a great feather in God's cap - testifying to his 'power and eternal Godhead'.

or, i should say well, no, of COURSE not - not EVERYTHING reflects God. and if you want to know which ones don't, ask Moses.

or, well, me.

you make a good point that we don't get licenses to steal even if we have a genetic predisposition to things. from a personal perspective, i've always had a problem believing that there are genetic underpinnings to alcoholism. because of my baptist downfall - er, uh, upbringing, i've always been much more comfortable wielding the club and beating myself up as a worthless, sinful failure.

maybe there's a lesson there.

finally, on adoption: i believe pragmatism has to guide us. yes, the mom/dad family is perhaps structurally best (although it still comprises two humans in lead roles).

but the single mom - or a gay couple - wouldn't you agree that these options are much better than an orphanage?

this is a much hotter topic than the God Bless America thread from a couple of days ago - witness the few comments here today. and even though i enjoy the mike-and-todd-show (it's kind of like 'Crossfire', without the ratings...), i'm hoping others will boldly go where two men have gone before and add to the discussion tomorrow.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

what continues to baffle me is that this is such a multi-sided issue. it encompasses sex and creation (a long standing issue), church and state (a revived issue), and care for orphans/poor/widow (en vogue since Deuteronomy).

it's almost as if you have to parse the issue in sections:
1. Sex--homosexuality in practice is sin, monogamous or otherwise.
2. Church/State--the church is not beholden to the state (or shouldn't be) for its practices. So, gay marriage as a covenant with God is out, but civil unions are nowhere near the Christian definition (at least mine) of marriage. In fact, many seniors are taking advantage of civil unions because of the state/legal benefits it gives. We need to answer: what is marriage for and what are civil unions for?
3. Adoption--arrgh, this is tough for me. I've watched in the last two years some people who aren't fit to raise grass seed refuse to give their child to adoption and I've watched a single mom adopt two kids that it appears she is going to struggle to raise. I know there is an issue with unwanted children and a system that abuses (either physically or mentally) them and creates a downward spiral. Given the statements above, should Christianity raise a cry when a civil union gay couple adopts a child because we disagree with their lifestyle?

Let's put it this way: can we honestly oppose something good if not Christ-like if it's done by people we see as un-Christlike? Is this an issue of "Whoever is not against you is for you"? If there are organizations without a shred of Christian worldview who are actually taking care of the orphan/poor/widow/alien, what are we doing by opposing/legislating against that? Should adoption fuel the civil union debate? I know, I know, some might decry this as liberal/emergent/social justice/heresy, but frankly there's this little book called Deuteronomy that comes up frequently in Jesus, Paul, and the early church. I'm just saying...

At this point, I don't have answers as much as I have questions. I'm at the point where I don't object to civil unions because they aren't what I would define as "marriage"...I'm not sure that's a popular place to stand, but...that's where my feet are right now...

grace and peace

finally, on adoption: i believe pragmatism has to guide us. yes, the mom/dad family is perhaps structurally best (although it still comprises two humans in lead roles).

but the single mom - or a gay couple - wouldn't you agree that these options are much better than an orphanage?

Sorry, not to propogate the Mike and Todd show further, but I just wated to remark that the above situation you mentioned might be an issue if there were any shortage of heterosexual couples trying to adopt. As it stands, people are having to wait years to adopt in this country. Granted, I wish that people would more willingly adopt older children (in place of babies) but in the lines of adopting that we see now it is completely backed up.

Of course, there wouldn't be so much congestion in adoption if we encouraged adoption in place of abortion, but that's a whole 'nother bag of vipers, isn't it?

To Mike's point (Hi Mike) about absenteeism on this topic thread, I'd say there are numerous factors at play. What occurred to me, almost immediately after reading the original post, is that this is one of those issues where a sound-bite-sized response just will not do. This is a complex, multifaceted issue- under-girded with an onion full of various interpretive perspectives.

That being said, I kind of feel like one can't say much, without saying a lot...

But, let me try to offer a few points…

I agree with Todd, to some degree, that biological predisposition does not necessarily end the debate. I don't doubt that some very disturbed tendencies have some genetic factoring involved. But, of course, that doesn't give anyone a free license to behavior the society deems inappropriate.

I know the society doesn’t necessarily view homosexuality that way anymore (as a negative behavior), I’m just saying that there are plenty of behaviors that would not receive the “get out of jail free card” in our culture today – eve if they were to be, or are, understood as outworkings of genetic predispositions.

Perhaps a more pertinent question is: What should our response to a world full of (to use Scot McKnight's term) "cracked icons" be? In other words, even if we assume that the Creation exists in less than ideal, original form, what should our approach to it be? Surely we do not think it appropriate to legislate morality for those who don't even claim to know, or care to know, Christ? Christendom ended a long time ago folks.

Lastly, let me say that while Todd feels the issue is clear cut, covered under the implications of the Original Sin doctrine, its important to point out that plenty of Christian groups do not subscribe to this doctrine.

For my Mainline friends, for example, approaching the issue from this perspective is a non-starter to conversation.

So, that being said, how should we approach this? I don't think saying "Well, they just need to get their doctrine right and join the good and right guys" will suffice.

There are a few thoughts anyway... Like I said, just a beginning... And barely even that.

I'm sorry, but I am way to orthodox to grace a such a "union" with the term marriage.
I think the real problem for the church is when homosexually active people come to the church seeking spiritual/scriptural/religious recognition of their..."unions."
I'm not sure how we can handle that situation in a loving manner without either sounding like a seminary professor lecturing a recaltriant undergrad who refuses to do the schoolwork and still expects to recieve a passing grade, or milksops who adopt a passive-aggressive position because they don't want to be viewed as hateful.

This is a tough one, and if children are involved...yes, even more difficult. No easy answers in this one.

Orignal Sin is a recent Christian construct in its current form. It has kept theologians and the church behind for so long.

The bible read in its social context establishes norms that in the context make sense for general survival. The rational from 8bce (leviticus) and 1AD(Paul) in no way applies to the current US context. Now if the a communion chooses to withold marriage based on its polity and praxis so be it. But lets not try to justify our prejudices in the bible.

We are left however with a dilemna because we have people who have partners in our Church's. My advising to those I have ministered has been this. All the expected norms for any other couple will apply here. Being faithful and upholding each other. Raising children through adoption. Regular attendance and participation in the community. Most important is to be open and honest with everyone. We can't truly live out Christlike acceptance without challenging our personal bias. Aside from that the oaths before God are that oathes.

As a person that strives to uphold Judeo-Christian values I must say I was saddened when judges in California decided to take it upon themselves to decide boundaries of morality for the citizens of California. I believe that according to scripture homosexuality is sin, however, I have never struggled with same sex attraction and have a compassion for those who do. Jesus himself many times showed mercy, grace, and forgiveness to people caught in different types of sin, however he did add "Now go and sin no more." Scripture warns us against letting anyone deceive us into believing it is alright to live in any kind of sexual sin, which entails sexual relations outside of the boundaries of heterosexual marriage. Having said that I believe that everyone has the right to be treated respectfully as a person and a human being regardless of whether you or I agree with their lifestyle or not. May God give us the courage and wisdom to continue to speak the truth in love and turn the tide for next generation!
Deborah Solomon
Independence, MO

I could go on and on about this subject, but to save you all the drama I'll try to keep this short.

I know a lot of gay people. I have close relatives who are gay. I have loved many gay people before I was a Christian, and after. I have yet to have a gay friend...a friend that I have a loving relationship with...NOT eventually confess that their lifestyle is a choice. Some of these people confessed it as a choice early in our relationship. Some on their deathbeds while they were dying of AIDS. But...they all (and some even after years of forcefully arguing that it was biological)admitted eventually that it was a choice.

Just my 2 cents.

Lastly, let me say that while Todd feels the issue is clear cut, covered under the implications of the Original Sin doctrine, its important to point out that plenty of Christian groups do not subscribe to this doctrine.

For my Mainline friends, for example, approaching the issue from this perspective is a non-starter to conversation.

I appreciated your response here, but I wanted to make an additional comment about the passage that I have highlighted above. The use of the Original sin argument here is only used in view of the argument against the sinfulness of homosexuality which says it can't be wrong if it is genetic. Personally, if these people put enough faith into science on the one side (which, at this point, is still not conclusive to this finding anyways) then I would seek as much faith in a doctrine which they can try out themselves. Besides, there are a lot of doctrines and beliefs which come up and we just have to press them regardless of what a person says (think, the reality of God to an Atheist).

However, I believe there is enough evidence in Scripture that homosexuality is a sin that this shouldn't be an issue, and if people are questioning God's commandment based on what science has now told us (since apparently God was not privy to that information when he inspired the writings) then there are a lot bigger problems we must address besides not holding to Original sin.

I don't think the people who insist that homosexuality is genetically predisposed have thought the whole thing through. Are they saying it is a condition of genetic deficiency in the way that we think of Down's Syndrome? It is a sad fact that Down's babies are being aborted at ever increasing rates as prenatal detection becomes more common.

Homosexual advocates would say: no, a person is born homosexual in the same way they are born with blue eyes. But what if there were a prenatal test that could tell if a person would be born straight or gay? What if you could know early in a pregnancy that your child would be homosexual? Right or wrong, many parents would either choose abortion or some kind of preventive if there was such a thing and it is the mother who decides because in our society now, no one can tell her what to do. And don't think that there could never be such a test or a preventive. We have tests and magic pills for all kinds of things.

Just food for thought.

rdm,

i'm not following your logic. Are they saying it is a condition of genetic deficiency in the way that we think of Down's Syndrome? calling it a 'deficiency' is making a judgment call on it but, yes i think science is making claims based on an ever-increasing body of evidence that homosexuality is as genetically based as any other trait.

you then go off on a who-do-we-abort-in-the-womb tangent. i suppose there are some who abort diseased or deformed babies, just like some societies abort based on gender. and it wouldn't surprise me that some being-gay-is-an-abomination-to-God Christians might just choose to abort babies having the genetic disposition to homosexuality. but i'm not seeing how that's relevant here - essentially, women may have abortions for any reason or even no reason at all.

in any case, the person to be feared in your example is not the person with the genetic 'difference'; it's the person who would elect to kill them based on this difference.

mike rucker
fairburn, georgia, usa

This whole discussion demonstrates the deeply problematic nature of arguing "from nature".

Mike

My point is be careful what you wish for. If we conclude that homosexuality is genetically predisposed, there will be those who will seek to eradicate it in the womb and it won't be Christians. Just like Christians aren't generally the ones aborting Down's babies.

I'm trying to make a practical point about unintended consequences.

Well, I'd say that what RDM is warning us of is no doubt well on its way. Within 10 years parents-to-be will be made of aware of a wide range of potentialities in their children, and will be asked to make choices based on preference.

Of course, many will argue that this is "playing God". But of course, that's an argument that's been evolving right alongside developing science for over 200 years now. Expect the scale to keep on sliding.

As Christians we'll have to do our very best to make a judgment as to where the line should be drawn. But make no mistake... that line will not be where Christians placed it in the 1950's.

And I'm not saying this is a bad thing. Its just the nature of contextual reality.

To me one key point in arguing that we should abort children who we know will carry "undesirable" traits seems to contradict another argument for pro-abortion lobbies, namely that it is not a person. If we are making decisions based on what type of person the fetus will be how can we argue that it's okay to kill it because it is not a person?

The whole seller for the abortion lobby anyways is in being able to dehumanize the unborn child. That is why they are so against ultrasound equipment being used to show a mother her child before she makes the decision to kill it. As long as we can make a person less than human than it is okay to do whatever we want with them. So, saying, "Well, your child is going to not be a real human because they will have . . ." is just the next line in doing this. It seems like the pro-abrotionists just keep movng further and further towards Margaret Singer's original goal of one day having parents aborting their children because they carry the "negative" trait of being black!

it is of interest to note that there is disagreement in the scientific community on this. Two former presidents of the American Psychological Association and one former president of the American Psychiatric Association, have written books in the last couple of years. All three of these individuals are very liberal. All three of them totally support gay rights. All three of them say that the mental health/scientific community has lost a lot of credibility because they have such a pro-homosexual agenda when it comes to interpreting "scientific research". I think the church has fallen into the trap, however, of debating whether homosexuality is sometimes predisposed or not. If one really looks at human behavior, many things are predisposed that are not seen as being positive contributions to society. The Bible is very clear homosexuality is sin. I agree with the original sin poster and the corruption of creation. I would not personally try to control the behavior of non-Christians in society. However, it is of interest that as soon as homosexual marriage was made legal in Massachusetts, that the schools started teaching about it in affirming ways in early elementary school. When confronted, the supt of schools said it was legal in the state and the schools were just reflecting society. A big topic with lots of ramifications.

A very civil discussion about what has been a very nasty civil debate. The majority of Christians have been on the unloving side of these social issues for a long time. It used to be Negros now it is gays. In the states that have passed anti-gay marriage or definition of marriage laws what has been the positive benefit? Civil marriage sanctioned by the state is far removed from Covenantal Marriage. The desire to have state laws identical to Gods laws has resulted in a debasement of the perception of Christian morality among secular folk. You can make nice arguments but the public just thinks Christians hate gays.

I think when we look at issues we need to be consistent. The people who will argue for same sex unions are often the same people who will argue Darwin's theory of evolution as fact. Darwin, however, recognized homosexuality as an aberration as there could be no reproduction. Homosexual animals or humans, would by their very nature, die out.

But now the same people want to have their cake and eat it too. Grant approval for same sex unions AND let them adopt children AND, by all means, keep teaching them evolutionary theory.

The whole thing is absurd. God created all living things male and female and set up reproductive laws and then gave them the command to 'be fruitful and multiply'. Even Darwin accepted the necessity of reproductive laws in science.

If evolution was accepted by all, the whole idea of 'same sex unions' would be moot. This argument goes back to the first sin and lie of Satan. "You will be like God, knowing good from evil." Thousands of years later we are still believing that lie and believe we know so much more than our Holy, Righteous Sovereign.

I am strongly in favor of gay marriage. I am also in favor of churches making the choice of who they will and will not marry. No church should be forced to marry anyone they are uncomfortable with. I mean, look at it this way...the Catholic church won't marry a couple who are both non-Catholics, the Mormon church won't marry non-Mormons, etc. Same thing for gay folk.

Does anyone here believe the Bible is the Word of God? Do you believe the Word is infallible, inerrant, eternal? I make mistakes but God does not.

About science: Well educated and respected scientists continually disagree about many things if not everything. Why do we place so much faith in what they propose to be fact or truth if it disagrees with God's Word, especially when they disagree with each other.

God has revealed to us that we have an enemy, known as Satan. It is the enemy's purpose to deceive, confuse, distract, subvert and mislead. That's only the tip of the "iceberg". The scriptures describe in detail the devices of Satan. If we want to know the Truth, it's not hard to find. It's in the scriptures. It's in the Word. It's in Jesus.

According to the current issue of Endocrine today, there are 1 in 4500 babies born with some sort of "problem" of a gender association/imbalance etc. There are babies born with both sets of sex organs , there are babies with hormone disturbances. It is fact that cannot be argued with. How are they classified? What do they do? What if the wrong choice is made as an infant? To ignore that is to be totally unrealistic. I am a conservative Christian and I believe in an inerrant Bible, but there are things such as birth defects of which this is one and must be acknowledged. At what point does it stop becoming genetic?

"yes i think science is making claims based on an ever-increasing body of evidence that homosexuality is as genetically based as any other trait"

I know the media beat up many things as having the potential to show being gay is genetic but the goods are never delivered.

The fact that people change orientations either due to circumstance or intervention contradicts a genetic inevitability.

The bases for developing a same sex attraction are well known. Recent research has clearly demonstrated that people with pretty lengthy gay histories can spontaneously develop heterosexual attractions when they leave the lifestyle. In the Jones et al study I think the average age was late 30s.

I was fortunate enough to be a product of circumstance at a reasonably early age although I didn't understand what happened until very recently and made my own rationalisations (I thought increasing testosterone levels made me straight). I was blessed. Most people don't have it so easy.

For the record anything is a choice but we aren't talking about choosing what to wear. Due to the early onset and current politics (including the 'born that way' garbage) without a solid Christian belief I don't hold much hope that people will choose to leave the homosexual lifestyle nor to even believe that they can.

I would like to say how happy I am to read a discussion centred around such a delicate topic being conducted in a respectful way. I have recently read discussions of Christian articles relating to e.g. evolution, that have been quite shockingly unloving in the contributors' comments towards each other.

I personally believe that active homosexuality is a sin as laid out in the Bible, but haven't got much further than that as to be honest I am scared of the whole topic area due to having gay and liberal secular friends and not being sure of how to deal with the issue of homosexuality.

I know that our integrity as Chrstians is accountable to God alone, but we are also taught to be loving and gentle towards others. So does anyone have any advice as to how to communicate this particular biblical truth to those who would find its message repellant, if at all possible without being seen as self-righteous and prejudiced?

No Church should be forced to marry Gay people.God's law should always rule over man's law.Dare to be a Daniel.You here of Gay Pride there is no such thing.How often do we here Straight Pride.I think there should be a Straight Pride Parade where we celebrate Family.

What do you guys do with the individual who is born with the innate tendency to sexually abuse children. Many from that camp feel they are hurting noone. When does that get legalized? Not long, I fear, in a society that is tending to excuse anything and everything. Certainly not, you say. That is absolutely wrong! No question about it! But not to those who practice such behaviors. Those of us who think that to be evil are simply narrow minded "Christians" believing in a book that no longer holds any revelance for our society!

This entire issue of sexuality in our culture and the present "crisis" can be laid at the doorstep of the Church. Western Christianity has for over a thousand years had a dualistic approach to the Christian life. Protestantism repudiated monasticism which for many generations was a spiritual alternative for those who did not feel called to marriage. Also the Church capitulated to the State on the issue of marriage/divorce so that for a very few exceptions every denomination not only winks at divorce and remarriage among their laypeople but also among the ranks of their clergy. Likewise, Marriage as a sacrament was repudiated by Protestantism and seen only as a contract. For the first 1500 years of Christian Faith marital fidelity and consecrated celibacy were seen as means of grace. No more. When the Church began to repudiate its Apostolic and Patristic heritage then little by little its influence on society was frittered away and replaced with materialistic prosperity. Likewise a full gospel, dedicated not only to forgiveness of sin but also transformation of the person was replaced by an instantaneous "born-againism" and revivalism. The Church needs to minister to fornicators while clearly decrying the soul-destroying consequences of fornication and minister to the homosexual with the same message. We must be intentional and not reactionary.

Psalm 140:1-5 "O Lord, save me from the plots of evil men..2 The plan evil and stir up trouble so they can start a war. 3 Their tongues are like those of a deadly snake; there's poison in every word they say. 4. Protect me, Lord, from the power of the wicked and keep me safe from violent men who are determined to overthrow me. 5 Proud men are trying to trap me even in my own home. They have laid their snares to trip me and spread their nets to catch me."
Psalm 140:6 But I have cried to the Lord, "You are my God; please hear my plea for help. 7. O Lord, my God, you are the only One who can defend me. You've protected me many times...."

Holy Matrimony can never occur between members of the same sex, so these are simply civil unions and therefore outside of church law. Jesus commands us to love our neighbor without exception and those who have chosen to follow Jesus, which is to be under church law, must follow that command. So, instead of wasting our efforts with legislation, which only causes bad feelings, we should prayerfully and compassionately try to reach the lost. We are all sinners and the line separating us from homosexuals is only our belief and profession of faith.

It’s a shame that we can so easily become obsessed and snared by particular issues, this is likely a trap set by the evil one to distract us from what we should be doing. What’s worse, is that each of us is blind to our own ‘pet-issues’ and without the fellowship and help of other believers who are honest enough to lovingly give us correction, we will be lost to our own peevishness. I pray that we all will have compassion for our neighbor regardless of his faults and try to guide him to the Lord, in Jesus name, Amen.

so, josh, in denouncing any claims to a biological basis for homosexuality as "garbage," can you tell us what your degree is in? genetics? biology? medicine? psychiatry? forensic science? the medicinal benefit of blood-letting and leeches?

i've sat and listened to people who barely graduated high school go on and on about how evolution is a fraud, arguing that certain dating methods are bogus, that creation science is hard fact, etc. i watched ted haggard tell richard dawkins that he (dawkins) 'must not know much about evolution.' (and whether or not you believe evolution happens, there are certainly few people who know as much about it as dawkins.)

the arrogance of people speaking dogmatically on things outside their realm of knowledge and expertise would be laughable if it didn't happen so much.

mike r.

i've sat and listened to people who barely graduated high school go on and on about how evolution is a fraud, arguing that certain dating methods are bogus, that creation science is hard fact, etc. i watched ted haggard tell richard dawkins that he (dawkins) 'must not know much about evolution.' (and whether or not you believe evolution happens, there are certainly few people who know as much about it as dawkins.)

Mike,
Yes, but in defense of Josh, Richard Dawkins speaks an awful lot about theology and why Christianity and Judaism are obviously incorrect, when if anyone with a modicum of religious training listens to him he sounds like a fool more often than not. Point being, we all take some information on the credibility of other people simply because none of us can be an expert in everything we talk about. The key is doing good research into the credibility of our source before regurgitating their conclusions.

I support gay marriage completely. It's not a religious issue. it's a civil one. Grown adults have the right to decide how they should live. I am not gay and I won't be with a man but the idea that heterosexual marriage is sinless is a joke. It's just as sinful as gay marriage. The only real difference is that we like to demonize one group over the other.

Let's look at some of the more sinful and blessed heterosexual unions in scripture. Abraham married his half sister Sara, and four other wives, and concubines. David committed adultery, killed a man and stole his wife. I can keep going here. But the idea that heterosexual marriage as portrayed in the bible is some holy standard doesn't hold up to actual scrutiny. We are all sinful and when we enter into marriage that sin doesn't go away.

I also think that it is odd how some pick and choose which parts of the bible are applicable to now. The bible says kill your children if they are disrespectful and other ancient things. But none of us would do that. Paul says greet your brothers with a kiss, but if we did that in today's culture it would not work especially since those kisses tended to be open mouth.

My point is that one has to use common sense when reading the bible and not be dogmatic. I am not an evangelical (there are three other orthodox traditions that are older and more mature.) But I think we can all agree that discrimination is wrong. Gay couples deserve the same rights. They are Americans. But they don't have to be married in my church and I don't know a single gay couple that would even want to marry in a conservative church.

c

18. For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
19. For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.''
20. Where is the wise? Where is the scribe? Where is the disputer of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21. For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe.
.......................................
25. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

todd,

you missed my point. but to yours, i'd say dawkins is just as guilty in his caricature of Christianity as haggard was in his knowledge of evolution.

and as josh was in discarding the biological basis of homosexuality.

josh wasn't defending or criticizing dawkins. neither was i. the example was that haggard, like josh, was speaking - no, making dogmatic statements - outside of his field of knowledge.

something, of course, that you and i would never do... :)

mike r.

It is undeniable reality that sexual unions (i.e. male-female)are distinctly different from asexual unions (male-male or female-female). For courts to require the people of a state to deny reality and say that both are the same "marriage" smacks of brain-washing double-think. But apart from that, at least in California, there is a more sinister aspect: the principalities & powers are working to silence Christians and capture the minds of their children. The Supreme Court recently ruled that parents do not have the right to determine the content of what their public schools teach their kids regarding sex. Once gay 'marriage' is enforced as the norm in the school books, Christian kids will be silenced or marginalized if they dare question the State-enforced view of reality. Christian media will be next, as it is in Canada, and then the churches will be cowed into supporting the homo-a-sexual lifestyle in hiring, etc. all in the name of "civil arights". As Jefferson said, the natural tendency is for liberty to decrease and government to increase: Christians, Look Out!

I lived the "lifestyle" for 22 years. I did so by choice. I never believed that it was genetic and may I remind everyone that close and a proven gene are two different animals. I have many friends who are gay; knowing their stories I can say that everyone I know is gay due to their environment, usually but not always their childhood. Most generally the relationship with the same sex parent is the culprit.

Christians need to rememeber that it doesn't matter whether homosexuality is considered a sin or not. God has defined marriage and any act of sex outside of God's boundary is sin. If I am sleeping with someone outside of marriage it doesn't matter what gender's are involved - it's still sin. At the same time, gossip, slander, murder, assault is all sin and equally sinful.

We all fall short of the glory of God. But we serve a God who heals the broken. 7 years ago, I was healed of my early childhood issues. Homosexuality was only the symptom - not the root issue. When I embraced my brokeness and dependency upon the Trinity my life radically changed.

I have not arrived nor am I fully healed. I have many character flaws to overcome - like pride and not loving people well. This life is a journey where those with a little healing reach out to share with others.

Our churches need to love those that consider themselves homosexuals just as we love those who gossip, cheat and steal or everyone else in the pews. We are called by Jesus to love - we are not loving the sin but the sinner.

I've lived this life, and I've been hurt by Christians. I have received incredible healing and my life with Jesus is so sweet and precious. He is the Great Physician and He has been sent to release the oppressed and free those in bondage. It's real.

Blessings to all!

Richard Dennis Miller, what a refreshing post you made with the Scriptures.

Everyone of us is flawed, sinful, from birth. It is the Truth that sets us free from the chains of sin. The idea that we are better judges of right and wrong than Jesus is deception. How can anyone who truly loves Jesus say homosexuality is ok? No one can know the Way without Jesus. By the scriptures, neither a homosexual nor heterosexual who practices sin can truly say Jesus is their Lord. I've never been tempted by same sex attraction but certainly have experienced temptation for the opposite sex. I do not act upon it outside of marriage because my love for Jesus and desire to please Him above all others is greater. I am tempted to lie, but do not for the same reason. His Holy Spirit reminds me, when temptations come, that God is bigger than all my temptations and His presence is much more precious than all the pleasure this world could afford. Only God is perfect, and only He can make us perfect in His sight through Grace. With God, all things are possible. He said, "Resist the devil and he will flee from you."

People who practice homosexuality are living in bondage. They are to be loved with a Godly love which will help them to see the Truth that will set them free. Luke 9:23 -26. 1 John 1:7. Romans 12:1-3.

Thank you to all for the opportunity to enter this discussion. rick

Here in this account is God Almighty's plain view of the way human feelings are, with His attempt to warn Cain about anger, which stems from & leads to, more self indulgent nature... living his way NOT God's way ! Gen. 4:6 reads
"The LORD said to Cain, "Why are you angry, and why has your countenance fallen ?
If you do well, will you not be accepted ? And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the door; its desire is for you, but YOU must master IT."
Sin is so deceitful, like the father of all lies !