We as Seventh Day Adventists believe the Separation of church and state is crucial to our well being. I come across alot of Christians who believe this a christian nation and therefore homosexual marriage would violate our founding fathers intent for our fair country.

I understand and beleive what the bible says about Homosexualty. The Christian RIGHT also believe it is their GOD Given Commision to ENFORCE their belief system on other americans. The 1st amendment clearly says that we as a nation cannot as a nation establish(force) a religion on people who dont beleive as we do.

As SDA's we know full well what forcing doctrine on others can and will do. Many Homosexuals do not prescribe to the levitical OT laws and should not be forced to adhere to them by governmental laws.

All americans have the same rights as all americans. It has taken hundreds of years for americans to figure that out and still many americans STILL dont believe all men and woman are created equal.

As Christians we have been blessed to live in a land that grants us basic rights for human beings. God has given all men rights to choose how we should live that many countrys do not recognize.

Many christians have used the Bible to keep slavery and mysogeny and prohibition of whites and blacks marrying. It wasnt about God's will it was about fear and greed. And Use the BIBLE as back up?

If this was a theocracy (as in ancient Israel) then we would banish more than Homosexualty and fornication (heterosex outside of marriage), adultry, blaspemy,disrespcting parents,murming and complaining, false accusations in court,cherishing something other than GOD, ect.

and some people in the USA would not be happy to just stop the above..

if it feels good-stop it
if it looks good-dont wear it
if it tastes good-spit it out

But this is America- a republic/democracy.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of(OT Levitical/Paul's epistles Christian laws) religion or prohibiting the free exercise(Sabbathkeeping) thereof."

We as SDA's know how important the right to pursure our God according to what our belief is. In other countries they appreciate it much more than us. Our commission is to spread the Gospel of JESUS Christ / Three angels message.Anything else is just playing church

It shares Gods Love for man and we are sinners.
He imparts repentance and grace for all sinners if we choose to Trust and Obey.

Seeing the christians gearing up in california with feathers in a ruffle and claws out with millions of bucks and talents and time to fight their equal americans for rights that they take lightly themselves(50% divorce rate like the worldlings) is repugnant to God.

They arent fulfilling the Gospel commision by doing that no matter what their seared their concience tells them.

They are just alienating more people from God by their ugly zeal.
Jesus said "If I be lifted up- I will draw all me".

not berating sinners adnaseum and making them feel like they should sit in the back of the bus cause they less deserving of happiness and rights in this sin sick world.

I will share a few thoughts.

Marriage is a religious institution. It was created by religion. The civil government recognizes this institution but it is not an invention of civil government.

Families are the building blocks of society. Not all marriages produce children but many do. This was even more true before the invention of birth control. The family unit provides the structure where children are taught right and wrong, how to treat others, a work ethic and religious principles. None of these things can be done as effectively in a setting outside the home.

A gay lifestyle is one that is chosen. Some may argue that many gays are born gay - and they may be right. It could be a birth defect. Regardless of that, to act out on the desires is still a conscience decision which is made. We cannot compare this to skin color or sex and remain intellectually honest. A woman doesn't choose to be a woman. An Asian doesn't choose to be an Asian. They are born that way and there is no changing it.

The gay lifestyle does not promote a healthy community. Gays are much more likely to spread STDs than married heterosexual couples. Studies have also shown that gays are more apt to struggle with emotional disorders, suicidal tendencies, alcoholism and drug addiction. There has been some studies that suggest domestic abuse is more prevalent among gays. Extended families (aunts, grandparents, cousins, siblings, etc.) all living within the same community make the best communities. Public policy should be such that it encourages this. Since the gay lifestyle is less likely to produce children, it is less likely to produce extended families and thus should not be promoted as part of public policy.

Civil unions should be created to allow gay persons some of the rights given to married couples but shouldn't be done in a way so as to encourage the behavior. Gay couples should be able to visit each other in hospitals and prisons. Gays should have access to insurance for their partners from insurance companies that offer domestic partnership insurance (insurance companies shouldn't be required to offer such policies). Gays should get any tax breaks afforded to married couples. Gays should be allowed spousal Social Security benefits. Resident or any legal status should not be granted to foreigners desiring a civil union with an American citizen as that would encourage the behavior instead of simply accommodating it.

You are making a fundamental error. The first amendment speaks to the establishment of a religion, not to the application of particular biblical texts, one way or the other.

The 10 Commandments also prohibit murder, but that does not mean that the government is establishing a religion by also prohibiting murder.

But there are plenty of reasons why a state might choose to ban homosexual marriage, which have nothing to do with textual evidence from the Bible.

So the argument that prohibiting gay marriage, so-called, violates the First Amendment is specious. It may be a bad idea, it may be a good idea, but it has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

The Amendment that the christian right movement wants to pass dont want gays to have marrital rights of visit their partners in hospitals and such or to be recognized in any way shape or form.

They are many more STDs spread about by hetero fornicators to each other. Gays spread STD..thats a reason why gays shouldnt have marrital monogamous unions?????

And many straight people get married who dont have children by choice or health or other reasons. They still have the RIGHT to get married.

And most people I know do not bow or recogognize God or religion do get married in church or City Hall.

Christians use the BIBLE to give creedance and honour to their own fear and hate.

Its because they dont believe gays are equal to them.

Homos are inferior.
Their love for their partner should not be sanctioned cause its wrong in their own eyes.
It will bring about God's wrath(BTW its coming but not because of the small percentage of gays in the world's sins only).
It threatens hetero marriages(pssst...50% divorce rate and all that adultry and abuse in your own church backyard dont weaken marriage.. hmmm? talk about a BEAM in your own eyes!)

what does that mean? Marriage is a religious institution?

Well yes it is! created by GOD in the Garden of Eden for Adam and Eve. That and the Sabbath.

Its divine. It was also created for mankind hopefully get a glimpse of a GOD Union of Himself and mankind. Its perfect!

and how many here have witnessed a marriage that was like God's love for man and man's devotion to God?

and sinful man(hetero) have perverted it with its abuse of their women and children.

So now the Christians are upset that gays who have rights in America want to be recognized as equal.

Many christian homosexuals do not believe in the Levitical Laws and bigoted heavyhanded interpretations of zealous Bible Thumpers. It does not make sense to them. and Most straight christians in the USA dont EVEN prescribe to the levitical laws either and deny the Ten Commandments as being relevent, so christian Gays are trying to make sense of it all and it dont make sense...

and because of the hatred and fear practiced in the daily lives of straight christian the gay christians (who longed for a GOD who really loves and wants them) started their own churches and movements in established churches. THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT ALSO IN america

and they are non religious gays who dont recognize or bow to God in their lives who want to live their lives as equal citizens.

So saying Marriage is a religiouse institution is irrelevent in their own lives cause they arent religiouse. Just like the hetero counterparts.

the Gays in america have the right to bear arms
and freedom of speech and peaceful assembly and
voting in elections
buying a house...




..to not practice the christian/judao religion.

In America!

.

Gays have precisely the same right to get married as anyone else. Any competent unmarried male can marry any competent unmarried female, so long as they both are willing. There is nothing in the law that bars a homosexual or lesbian from getting married.

What is desired is for a man to marry a man, or woman to marry a woman. That requires a change in the definition of marriage. But there's nothing that says that gay man can't marry a woman, etc..

Once we start redefining what a marriage is, there are no practical limits to that. The definition of marriage, as consisting of one man and one woman simply recognizes what it takes to make a productive pair, who can form the basis of a family, without medical intervention. The fact that that doesn't always happen doesn't change the practical reality.

To be somewhat crude, one man and one woman can mate, produce offspring and become a family. if they were on a desert island, they might even start their own civilization. This demonstrates the simple fact that monogamous marriage is indeed the foundation stone of civilization.

Even if a man has numerous wives, or a wife as numerous husbands, they can only mate one on one.
A man and a man, or a woman and a woman, may do many things, but they cannot mate and produce offspring without a third-party.

So the one man one woman definition of marriage need not be founded on the Bible, but on simple physiology.

This is the point. Marriage comes to us (society) from religion. It was not something that some ancient government or philosopher invented. Civil governments recognize marriage and even perform marriage ceremonies. But the definition of it comes from religion. Baptism is similar. Although civil governments do not perform baptism, they do issue birth certificates and recognize baptismal certificates as a form of identification. Baptism is not defined by the civil government even though it is recognized by that same government. Civil unions are to marriage what are birth certificates to baptismal certificates.

As a nation that values freedom we should accommodate gays. By changing the definition of marriage on the federal level gay US citizens would be allowed to marriage non-citizens. After three years the non-citizen could become a citizen divorce the spouse and both would then be free to marry two more non-citizens and do the same thing again. This would promote the gay lifestyle in the US by allowing the population of gays to grow astronomically over a short time. That would be far beyond accommodation and become promotion. Civil unions on a state level would provide domestic couples with the same rights as a married couple while not allowing them to bring non-citizens into the county.

now immagration has entered the issue.

That is the big prize. That is why they want "gay marriage" and will not settle for civil unions. See --> Immirgration Equality

Just some quick stats.

63% of American children grow up in a home with both biological parents.
59% of the population is married
24% have never been married
10% are divorced
7% are widowed

Divorce rate for first marriage is 41%
Divorce rate for second marriage is 60%
Divorce rate for third marriage is 73%
Couples without children are more likely to divorce

Those marrying between 20 and 24 years old are most likely to divorce followed by those marrying under 20. Those marrying over 30 years old have a 10% chance of divorce which continually decreases as they grow older.

The percentage of members that have been divorced is:
Baptists 29%
Mainline Protestants is 25%
Mormons 24%
Catholics 21%
Lutherans 21%

why dont we have christian groups rallying and getting upset and spending money,time, energy, and God Given TALENTS at how as


christian men dont love their wives as JESUS loves His Church.

Disobeying Gods commands about marriage and divorce. Marriage and divorce are taken very lightly by our whole church. Even Christians in prominant positions in our SDA church divorce without biblical grounds. And get Remarried just like that. and they are breathing down homos necks who dont claim JESUS as their Saviour?

Its not a christian duty to deny a sect of peoples Rights in America. If they have a duty outside of the Gospel Commision it is to teach and counsel and model what a REAL MARRIAGE looks like according to Paul and Moses and JESUS to the Body of Christ. The world is not interested when they see such disasters in church.

My church is chalk full of 2nd and 3rd marriages. There is a fellow in my church that has been married 5 times and his M.O. is to bring em to church,baptize and cue the "here comes the bride" music...

My church isnt raising up on its hind feet about his lifestyle cause he is straight afterall.

The gays see their hypocracy and the Church has pie on its face.

even fornication is debated among christian circles! whats that all about?

The christians think of homos as inferior and use the Holy Bible of GOD to back up its hate and fear.

The christians best get busy and follow JESUS commands for a change. instead of feeling like they are rich and have no need.

It is a Bible based spiritual fact that we cannot share and witness and sow seeds for Gods Kingdom with people you either look down upon or hate.

I see such seething anger in christian faces when Gay Marriage comes up. It is not rightouse indignation. It is another spirit. The drag God's name thru the mud.

The conservative religious right, which I do not consider myself part of, does oppose no-fault divorce. Groups like Focus on the Family and The 700 Club are very much against divorce.

Shane,thanku for saying that. Ichabod thanku for commenting also

Shane , I have been thinking about the term u used-
MARRIAGE is a RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.. I shouldnt be so flippant about that concept. I thank God I have never married cause the concept of Marriage as being ordained by GOD created in the Garden of Eden sounds downright overwhelming to me.

If I take the scriptures seriously regarding marriage that would mean that only God can truly be behind every marriage conducted on earth! whatever religion or non religion the parties are with. All cultures from all history. Good marriages and bad marriages God joins them together!!! O mY!!!!!

There have been societies in the past that accepted gay marriage and perhaps even their religions - I would have to check into that more. However those societies didn't not fare well for long afterwards. Historically, cultural moral decay is the beginning of the end for a society. The acceptance of homosexuality contributes to that moral decay.

There seems to be two extremes in regard to homosexuality. One is that we abhor it and those involved in it. The other is that we accept it by elevating it to an acceptable for of sexual expression. I think the moderate view where we neither abhor it or accept it is the better choice. This is a view that follows "Live and let live". It provides for the homosexual behavior to be tolerated and to a large degree accommodated- but not promoted.

While the charge of hypocrisy is true, that does not make same sex marriage right.

To say that Christians think of gays us inferior is simply wrong. SOME may think so, but I dare say that most Christians view it just as God does, an abomination. And the Bible is used as the authority because without divine revelation, some justification could probably be found for any immoral act.

The object of passing laws is not to deprive certain sects of groups of their rights. It is to PROTECT rights and promote the general welfare of society. And it is a Christian's duty to vote for or pass laws that do this. Now, it happens that while protecting the rights of the majority and promoting the general welfare of society, it may be that the rights of certain individuals may be infringed upon. For example: while protecting children, a law may infringe of the rights of parents to discipline their children.

If we allow same sex marriage and view it as normal, then polygamy, marrying whomever (fill in the blank including your dog) would be no less deviant.

Gerry

Marriage can be viewed as a religious institution or merely a social contract for the unreligious. Unfortunately, many of those who view it as a religious institution do not take it seriously as such, i.e. that it is a most solemn covenant made before God as witness.

Gerry

I'm with ParadeOrange on this one.

If gay marriage is against your religious and moral principles, the solution is simple: don't participate in one.

If you are worried about the sacredness and good name of the marriage institution being damaged, then the solution is to make your marriage the best it can possibly be, by treating your spouse with fidelity, love and respect. The failure to do so, by many heterosexual couples including those who claim the name of Christian, does more on a daily basis to degrade the sanctity of marriage than any number of same-sex unions possibly could.

I don't recall Christian believers in New Testament times lobbying Caesar's government to take a stand against homosexual practices and other activities that went against Christian doctrine and practice. And that was during a time when such activity was extremely widespread in the ancient Roman and Greek world, to the point of being regarded as normal.

We need to once again take a good look at what separation of church and state really means, and what it means to keep the things of God and those of "Caesar" separate.

aldona

Gerry I wasnt defending gay marriages by reason of christians hypocracy. and re: your 2nd post- yes it is very solemn and sacred- Thats what I was talking about what MARRIAGE really Is! Then why all the divorce Blanche! the christians should be really upset by this!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

and Aldona thanku for saying that.
and Shane... yes it is the sign of declining civilazation- hence.......




J E S U S IS C O M I N G !!!!!

O yes! Gerry,

I am glad that you know many christians who look at their fellow human beings who are in the gay lifestyle or struggle with homosexualty or both as equal!!!!!!!!!! Wow I have never known many christians who feel that way.

When you are a 13 year old who goes to church for the first time and the Ministers wife tells your mother that "all homos should be lined up and shot" and everything after that that seems to echo that sentiment for decades you slowly come to that conclusion on how christians feel inside.

When a church as whole berates,tells jokes about, harrasses, offended by, preached against, denied access, snickered about, murders and get away with it (dan white who was a christian murdered Mayor Moscone and Harvey Milk), and the church wants the homos to hide in shadows and stay in the closet

you kinda get a feeling...


u know what I mean?

if we're going to be serious about separating church and state, then we have to get the state out of all sorts of social welfare issues.

Leaving that issue to one side, however, the state has plenty of reasons to support and regulate marriage. Marriage is not just a religious institution, but is also a social institution, which affects the health of the state. Therefore, the state has a clear and compelling interest in defining, supporting and regulating marriage.

Those who study the family recognize the data is overwhelming that children need a father and a mother. Children raised without were apparently other are much more likely to be a burden on the state. In fact, studies of prison inmates indicate that, controlling for all other factors is the single bullet best indicator of becoming a criminal. No other factor, not race, not socioeconomic status, nothing is predictive as being without a father.

I really hope no one will raise the specious point that not everyone without father goes to jail. Of coarse not. Not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer, but that doesn't mean smoking isn't the major cause of lung cancer. So let's just not start the fallacious arguments.

Families to undertake to bear and raise children thereby provide the next generation of citizens and taxpayers, and make survival of the state possible.in so doing, they undertake burdens both economic and otherwise, for which they will never be adequately compensated. Since the state benefits from stable families, and therefore is in the state's interest to promote stable families, and even to subsidize them with tax breaks etc.

As I said in an earlier post, a single man and a single woman have the potential to produce children without the intervention of anyone else. That same grouping provides the optimum environment for raising children. So the state has a compelling interest in encouraging, subsidizing, defining, and regulating monogamous heterosexual marriage.

"Homosexual marriage" is therefore an oxymoron.if the state determines that some sort of civil partnership for other groupings of individuals is beneficial to the state, then it might choose to create such institutions. If the state determines that such civil partnerships lead to damage the state, then they should be prohibited.

As for the other matter, I am amused that those who are horrified that the church should influence the state. In any way, but are perfectly happy with the state to assume all sorts of functions --- caring for the poor, etc., which are in fact urged by the church.

Well wouldnt promoting straight marriage as a serious cemented till death do u part kinda thing uphold marriage?.. where divorce is not frivolously given. Marriages are so easy to obtain on a whim. Most straight people I know who have been married more than once ,by example, do not take their sacred solomn covenants so seriously. R they screaming the loudest over gay marriages?

Men desiring woman and visa versa will always be here and wont diminish. dont panic. The striaght marriage is not threatened and if is(and it is) its because of what the straights have done to their marriage in the church and without.

the kids without fathers is mostly a staight thang and most of the other ills that comes from that.
woman having sex with men without marriage ect.

and affirmative about what the church regarding the poor ect.

The church has failed all their missions given by God.

The church was supposed to be there for the masses dying of AIDES to offer God's Love and forgiveness and not shunned and told 'told ya sooooooo!".It did the opposite.

Now the church has another mission and from the news it looks like its failing AGAIN!

THe State and the church is both involved in the wedding. I agree. Some dont CHURCH it. But we all STATE it.

So the bottom line is whats in it for the state?

I suppose you can look at it that way.

But when I see a couple getting married its the last thing on their mind.

Maybe many christians here think like that as they walk down the aisle. I dont know.

But I was thinking more about cival liberties and equal rights and all that.

actually, the typical wedding ceremony emphasizes the issue of family and fertility. The older generation is usually ushered in the special seating, and the younger generation is included as flower girls and ring bearers and candle lighters. The marriageable generation is represented in the couple, the groomsmen, and the bridesmaids. So the family as the transmitter of civilization, a continuation of the race is definitely present. And of course, the custom of throwing rice was a promoter of fertility in the union.

As far as civil rights, and civil liberties go, I addressed that already. a homosexual person has precisely the same right to marry as anyone else. Nothing on the marriage license either requests information about sexual orientation or indicates that homosexuals are ineligible. What is desired is a redefinition of marriage, so that a man can marry a man or a woman can marry a woman.

But if you're going to redefine marriage, why stop there? Why not say any people who want to marry any others can do so in any combination? As indicated in an earlier post, one man and one woman are the basic unit of reproduction for the human race. Nothing will change that. And traditional definitions of marriage recognize that simple physiological fact.

well they are people who dont want to stop there but I wont take up their cases. Its not my bag daddio.

I am not advocating gay marriage.

when I see christians fuming and seething and fearing and justifying their opposition to gays joining their lovers in matrimony. even gays to think about the priveledge of actually joining society as equals and join the person who means the most to them gets christians rattled.

These christians as a whole as a church as a Club as a group do not uphold marriage as a sacred covenant. They dont have their head on straight.
They dont have a right to deny my right. How presumptuous. How foul. they think they are following the Bible? Barking at something other than yourselves? not looking inward and Christward?

It is so ugly to see. Thats not their job. They are kidding themselves. Goodness gracious. A group of people wanting to live their lives to join in matrimony. And they can bring in the older generations and flowergirls(like you've never seen!!!).

and yes it can be redefined.
why cant it?
The straight marriages(for those lovable aged moppets) it wont take anything away from the way it was always done. It will add.

Ichabod, I know you dont know me and I dont know you. Apparently we disagree(even though I do agree) sooooo....

We are on two different pages. I see fear and loathing in their opposition to gays rights and you see something else.

The church plays out like it always played out. I am not blindsided by it.

I don't recall Christians voting Caesar into office either. Obviously those living in a democratic republic are going to have different responsibilities than those living under dictatorships.

The main reason why we didnt see the christians lobbying the Roman government is because that wasnt Jesus commision for the christians to get into.
We are to spread the gospel
not spend so much time, money, abilities, gifts and talents

to oppose,

march against,

enact laws,

disenfranchise,

deny basic human dignity and

alienate
people we disagree with who need JESUS.



creepy
creepy
creepy

The early Christians were living at a time when they had NO say on the enactment of laws. We do. As Christians, how shall we vote on unjust or immoral issues?

Gerry

What right are you denied?

As far as "fear and loathing" goes, probably some feel that, and other don't.

As for myself, I'm tired of being labeled 'homophobic.' I'm not in the least afraid (phobic) of homosexuals. I do not see any indication in the Bible that homosexual sex is a worse sin than any other sexual sin. Not only that, but it is my understanding that the worst sins are spiritual: pride, envy, etc.

I do not know if desiring sex with someone of the same sex is sinful--any more than desiring sex with a woman other than my wife is a sin for me. Temptation is not sin, but if I indulge in such fantasies, that's another matter.

I do not know to what degree choice is involved in homosexuality. I've heard the arguments both ways, and I simply don't have enough knowledge or evidence to come to a conclusion.

For the sake of discussion, I'm willing to grant that it is inborn. But since the person's desires do not match the body God gave them, I would have to regard such an inborn condition as a sort of 'birth defect.'

Anyone with a birth defect deserves my compassion, not my condemnation. My daughter,for example, works with adults with mental retardation. Many of these have Down's syndrome. We feel compassion for them.

The depredations of sin have caused many types of birth defects. In one way, we all suffer from one or another, as none of us grow to Adam's stature, nor do we live for centuries any more. So we all need to relate to one another as fellow sufferers in this broken world.

In the past, and sometimes still, those with Down's syndrome are stigmatized. The same is true of homosexuals. It is a pity in both cases, and it is wrong. But the opposite fallacy is to declare these individuals to be 'totally normal.' That would be an equal injustice. It would deny reality, and deny those in need of the opportunity to receive the care and/or assistance they need.

Well, sort of.




Of course, that's not the point. The point is that they cannot contribute brides and grooms or flower girls and bible boys for the next generation of weddings. The whole point about the inclusion of multiple generations is to demonstrate how marriage has always been about continuing the human race.

well I guess I wont get into wifeswapping swinging parties and open marriages and men impregenating more than one lady at platos retreat and vietnam and korea. thats been around since i was aahh iddy biddy bubby and before.

If u are going to the web to prove if married gay men fool around u will find it. Welcome to the world. I have no illusion that gays will be better than their straight counterparts.


The gays who are or not married will not be having children(there is always exceptions) anyways.And many gay men do have children - I have a son.
They will always be men and women who marry and carry the civilazation on.

And about that thang about it being inborn or choice. So what if they chose it. Its their choice.
They still should be able to have equal cival rights as americans.
And I didnt think u were homophobic. I dont know you.

and about being 'normal' - its over rated.

and it is normal. sin is normal for sinners.

Gerry u would vote your conscience instead as many americans- their pocketbooks.

. That's an interesting attempt to dodge the issue. I didn't go to the web to prove that married gay men fool around. I merely went to a New York Times article on gay marriage, and there I found that gay men who are supposedly married define marriage to include the occasional threesome.

that's pertinent, because we continually hear that gay marriage will strengthen marriage. But here we see quite the opposite: that those engaged in so-called gay marriage, not content with redefining it as including a man and a man or a woman and woman, now go ahead and defined it as including three persons or more.

Raising the issue of those heterosexuals who are unfaithful to their marital vows actually disproves your case, rather than proving it. Because people who engage in such practices recognize that it is a violation of marriage. No one has suggested that heterosexual marriage should include "the occasional casual three-way."

In addition, it is continually asserted that recognizing gay marriage is not a "slippery slope." But this New York Times article demonstrates that the slippage has already started in gay marriages.

As to your other arguments, that make no sense. Of course there will be those who will continue to marry, and carry on the race. The question is not whether some will, but whether enough will marry, stay together, and raise stable children so that civilization can be maintained. It's easy to make and procreate, letting the progeny grow up uncivilized like weeds and prey on civilization. Staying together, making a family, and raising responsible productive citizens is a difficult task, and society has a compelling interest to promote that.and that's why the state has secular reasons to support marriage. Anything that detracts from that goal should be discouraged.

why is choice important? Well, actually, it's been homosexuals, who made the issue of choice so important. Because if it's a choice, then it's not a civil rights issue, by any stretch of the imagination. Choices have consequences, to make the choice is to choose the consequences. So homosexuality is a choice, homosexuals cannot complain about the consequences. It has been the argument of homosexual community that it is not about choice, but that homosexuality is inborn. Again and again I have read disclaimers saying things like "who would choose such a situation?" As though that settled the issue. So I'm simply answering the chosen defense homosexual community.

finally, concerning your "sin is normal" comment. One of the continual arguments of the homosexual community concerning Romans chapter 1, is that or I homosexual, desiring someone of the same sex is "natural" for them, and therefore Romans one doesn't apply. I happen to agree with your comment. But that invalidates the "homosexual desire is natural" argument.

I am not defending gay marriage I have stated that in a lone post earlier in the dialogue.

Of course I see all the holes and I know many and have known many many gay people. Some celibate some randy and others in a relationship. I see all the foibles.I see the exact things in my little country SDA church.

And I thanku for taking the things I say and answering them. I want to hear what christians have to say about this. Thats Why I started this.
I dont want to hear the usual rhetoric or scriptures or fear tactics. I have heard them all.

and know full well what progay theology says about Romans and all that.

I didnt dodge the issue of gay men having sex with other men or woman. what am I supposed to