we ignore the lessons learned over millenia at our peril, note the high rate of aids.a healthy dose of christian morality would do more to fight all std's than any amount of drugs.the Bible defines homosexuality as sin, God is not accepting of sin.we are not to judge each other as we are all sinners in one way or another, and the bible teaches that one sin is like another.education about sexuality must include Biblical teachings as well as secular information so that the individual has as much information as possible.if people would adhere to the ancient moral laws aids would die out in one generation! let's see medical science do that! people misinterpret Christians as being judgemental instead of caring for each other. if you see someond about to do something harmful to them selves wouldn't you help them ? when we Christians see our civilization going an immoral and harmful way we will speak out against it. to do less would be inhuman.

tonycamas

Interestingly, you did not state whether you would support polygamy and, if not, why not?

traditional marriage between a natural male and female is primarily for raising children in love and safety. there are no butt babys, therefore two man marriage is not needed and is not in any way a positive thing, see above diseases.on the other side, i have yet to learn of any 8lb crying tongues.
as far as the right to keep and bear arms, this is so our own government cannot do away with the constitution, the law of the land.by the way bombs are notoriously hard to aim with precision and usually bulky.
and by the way marriage is not and has never been "jist a piece of paper". if one homosexual wants to leave his partner his worldly posessions there is always a will.

I infer from your non-responsive reply, that you would deny the right for someone to marry more than one other person at a time. Why are your rights superior to those of a serious polygamist?

The vile rhetoric is not confined to the Christians. The intolerance is not confined to the Christian. The homosexual advocates are very skilled in their invective and pejorative comments against people who believe that homosexuality is a sin and immoral.
You make reference to God. I don't know if you do so because you hold some religious beliefs. The Christian Bible condemns homosexuality among other behaviors. Do you believe that God made a mistake when He condenmned homosexual behavior but not all of the other immoral behavior such as murder, stealing, adultery, swindlers, etc.? If, truly, you "are humbled by God", then why do you intentionally disobey his teachings on this subject?

And, by the way, I would appreciate it if you took note of the people who are addressing you, because the "non-responsive reply" you referred to was not from me, it was from somebody else, and I believe it was not so much a reply to you as it was a reply to someone else and a general comment. I know "we liberals all look alike," but...

God will forgive sin but requires repentance(that means STOP doing it.yahoo user has chosen to embrace sin and expexts everyone to think it's o.k. the Bible teaches "as a man thinks in his heart, SO IS HE.this is a promise, in other words you have the ability to cause yourself to be whatever you want (free will) but expect to be judged thereby.judgement by any man is neither here or there, it is judgement by GOD HIMSELF that you should be concerned with.Jesus died on the cross as the last blood sacrifice, and the only one that could obliterate any sin. you are either for God or against Him, there is no middle ground!modern society has done a disservice by teaching that there is a middle ground. there isn't! you cannot embrace sin and expect God to accept you as is.the word Christian literally means Christ like, Jesus forgave sin He did not accept it. all sinners(me too) are required to abandon sin.

jillpixy
i recently had some interesting meetings with some 7th day adventists. they are convinced that the kosher laws apply to them. i am less sure to this end. those laws were given to a specific group, it seems certain that if God wanted all peoples to observe these specific laws He would have made sure all peoples had access to them. my people hail from the other side of the globe and could not possibly have learned of this info for some thousands of years.God is just and therefore could not condemn the whole rest of the world for trying to stay alive. it seems likely that those laws were given to those people specifically to prepare for the messiah, so that He could be literally pure(free of any genetic mutations from parasites etc.)in ancient times a sacrifise had to be without blemish-as Jesus was,
a 2nd thought-the critters that they weren't supposed to eat(bottom feeders)may be considered to be part of Gods cleanup squad. we know today that shellfish contain harmful levels of toxins(heavy metals etc). possibly we are doing harm to the environment by eating the things that are ment to keep the land and oceans clean.

science supports homosexuality as a genetic, biological condition, whether people want to believe it or not. it has always been a part of human kind, since the beginning. i do not understand this sort of "moral" discrimination. i do not accept the government imposition of christian morality on me. people should be allowed to marry the person whom they love, and receive the benefits that are legally theirs as citizens of the U.S. and no, this does not mean they should be able to marry their donkey.

finally, i am encouraged to see that some evangelical christians are acting as christians, which, by definition, is behaving as Jesus would.

To those who asked if Jesus, Himself, condemned homosexuality, I know of no scripture reference that He did. But God, speaking through the apostle, Paul, clearly, condemned homosexuality. Homosexuality was condemed in both the old and new testatements whereas the rules re food, temple conduct, etc. are bot in the NT. The Law, given in Leviticus among other places in the Old Testament, was superseded by Jesus' substitutionary death and resurrection.

This string did not begin as a theological debate but rather one of perceived discrimination against homosexuals because of their legal inability to marry in most states. I postulated some examples where "change" could lead such as societal acceptance of polygamy, pedophilia, etc. I was castigated for postulating "extreme" and "absurd" extrapolations to make a point. Truth is, the concept of homosexual marriage being legalized was an "extreme" and "absurd" speculation 25 or 30 years ago by mainstream America. NAMBLA is celebrating the success of the homosexual activists because they know that their own victory (societal acceptance) is not that distant. As moral standards are eroded and we, as a society, become de-sensitized to perverse behavior, then there will be little that we, as a society, are willing to denounce.

Trivializing my question about distinguishing polygamy from homosexual marriage begs the issue. How can you be intellectualy honest in denying someone the right to have multiple spouses (assuming that 3 or more people truly love one another and wish that love to be legally sanctioned)? While you may characterize that position as absurd, and feel justified in doing so, why do you not apply that same standard of fairness to someone who genuinely believes that he or she should be permitted to have multiple spouses? If the controlling principle is that "because I believe it ... it must be so"; then my belief that homosexual marriage is wrong must be valid.

My point is simply that if we, as a society, are going to redefine marriage and family because the existing definition is arbitrary, capricious, discriminatory (insert your adjective of choice), then there is no logical reason to limit the redefinition to TWO people of whatever gender otherwise someone will be disenfranhised. Who will be the final arbiter that can say the redefinition must only recognize homosexual rights and not bisexuals or polygamists who may want more than one marital partner?

"homosexuality still spreads disease, that alone makes it unacceptable.how about a society where children are safe in a park,school,church-etc from pedofiles(a version of homosexuality)"

How do you converse and compromise with this?

pennypriddy19 stated "science supports homosexuality as a genetic, biological condition, whether people want to believe it or not" Please cite me to one legitimate scientific study that establishes that homosexuality is a "genetic, biological condition". If there was one, the headlines would eclipse those proclaiming extraterrestrial life or intelligence in congress. How is it explained that homosexuakls have "come out" of that lifestyle and lived heterosexual lives: If, indeed, it is scientifically determined that homosexuality is a "genetic, biological conditon" and thus must be accepted by society, what are we going to do when science discovers the pedophile gene, the violence gene, the (insert gene of your choice)?

"How do you converse and compromise with this?"

Good luck.

Honestly, when I was younger, I think I was more close-minded then I am now. It was out of ignorance or I was taught foolish things. My dad even admitted that he was a red neck. This didn't make him an awful person -- just ill informed. The more I began to know a greater diversity of people, the more open-minded I became. You don't hate a friend.

I agree that in twenty years that this will all seem silly. But some days that seems like a long march...ah, like today.

"My new hero, Charles Barkley, in an interview last week, on reasons why he is supporting Obama" The only reason he is your hero today is because you PERCEIVE him as saying what you want, just as Barack Hussein Obama is whateeeever Barkley wants him to be,or what ever OPRAH and those who prop her pop-psychology driven feel-good foolishness up as her own 'gospel' want him to be-he has hope that the future has promise and he will bring that future filled with hope and promise and blah blah yadda yadda yadda. The truth is that he's a socialist/ Marxist/ Leninist in the tradition of an early 20th Century Progressive-YOU better look up what these folks like Hillary and Barack already admit to: they want the US to be 'restructured' in the style of a Socialist Utopia-Go read the book 'Animal Farm" it may give you a darkly humorous glimpse into what happens when these power hungry Leftists get their way-Oh,wait! You don't have to read a whole book, just turn on the news, and BAM there he is your Southern Hemisphere HERO! Hugo Chavez!But I digress...tonycamas,your entire posit was tedious and vaccuous,in short. It's just a cop-out to the fact that yoda1 has a valid point; but instead of directly addressing the point with a cogent counterpoint, you flew off the handle.One simply cannot go around loosely and insultingly I might add,ocmparing a grownup's CHOICE of unnatural pleasure partners with the God-given human right not to be OWNED by another human.

By the way, pop-quiz, hotshot-What was the marital status,race,religion, sexual orientation, sex and party of the President who fought tooth and nail,risking his political career and his ALL to abolish slavery,eventually losing his health due to that battle?The most frequently maligned,most made fun of, derided, impugned GROUP of people in modern times, the Married (to a woman), white, Christian, Heterosexual, Male, Republican, that's who!

It's great to see that Barkley isn't "judging" those awful Christians, ya know. He must have just THOUGHT he was a Republican when he saw his pro-Bball paycheck and he must have said to himself-I make alot of money,that's what a Republican is, so I guess I am one of those,now.

Go back and read #19 by yoda1. I couldn't have said it better myself. Yes, I agree- You can't be intellectually honest and DENY the legitimacy of the polygamy / NAMBLA / even beastiality supporter, while isisting upon everyone else's tolerance, no acceptance, no ENDORSEMENT of your own position, how ever misguided, dead-end, or narcissistic it may be.

By the way-that comment by a "progressive---STOP right there-If he's willing to call himself or to be called by someone else, a "Progressive" He has NOTHING to say to Christians who believe that the Holy Bible is the sovereign Word of God, that Jesus Christ is the ONLY way to the Father, and that He is THE Way, THE Truth and THE Life.That word progressive means something in this modern world- and simply stated it is- (Fill in Karl Marx's brain right here).It's a Robin Hood outlook- take from those mean evil richy riches, and give it, well not all of it, I have expenses, you know, like all these people I have to pay to do my bidding, and those houses I simply must live in, anyway give what's left to this other 'targeted' group of people. That should cinch up their votes for me, if I can just find another group to payoff...

24. cyndaelle ---YES! He did warn us of that practice. Look up, if you are "open-minded" as I believe you yourself put it-Look up Leviticus 18 Verse 22, New Living Translation, 1 or First Cronicles 6 Verse 9, or 1 Timothy 1 verse 10,English Standard Version, or 1Cr 6:9 New International Version, Leviticus 20:13, and try these in the NLT as well-Gen 19:5,Judges 19:22,Proverbs 5:16,Rom 1:26,Exodus 22:19. there's probably more, but I'm reeaal sleepy-I'm sorry.Hey I hope it helps guide you out of your particular rut of sin, some of us take what seems like forever, maybe yo ucan start now by praying to help release you from your personal bondage? I'll pray for you,and perhaps now is your time to be released.Maybe you won't continue on in stubborness like somebody I know. Oh, well-start whereever it is that you are. and remember that you are not alone- that is a major lie that you will be 'told' repeatedly.reject it, and move on!

yoda1@pacbell
you are really smart,cool discussion!
jillpixy
i am sure God doesn't compromise-He is the ultimate authority in all things.it is for us to obey our creator to the best of our ability.in my 55 yrs of life compromise has always been a negative thing-no one wins.
good night and God bless
ed

I am an atheist in a same-sex relationship. So, no hope for me then?