Biblically (NT) speaking, which is worse?

[BeHereNow]

Biblically speaking (NT), is an adulterous man, divorced woman, or homosexual, the worst sinner?
Christians use the new testament to show what conduct is expected from a Christian.
I think the Ten Commandments make it clear that adultery and homosexuality are on an equal standing. Whether you believe all sin is equal, or some sins are worse than others, these two conducts are seen to be lascivious in nature, and therefore sinful. According to a strict interpretation of the New Testament, they are both a sinful departure from the Holy Plan of one marriage union. They are both a departure from Matthew [10:7] For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife.

We should all have a common understanding of homosexuality, and the Bible does not say much about it.
As for adultery, the Bible has a fair amount to say about it.
~ ~ ~

Matt. [5:32] But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.

So any woman who is divorced, is a fornicator, or an adulteress.
Also, whoever marries a divorced woman is committing adultery. Not just committing a single act of adultery, but engaging in an adulteress life style.
~ ~ ~

Matt. [10:12] And if a woman shall put away her husband, and be married to another, she committeth adultery.

A divorced woman who remarries commits adultery (lives an adulterous life style).
~ ~ ~

Luke [16:18] Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

Any man who divorces and remarries commits adultery, and any man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.
~ ~ ~

So any man who remarries is an adulterer, any man who marries a divorced woman is an adulterer, in other words, divorce and remarriage always results in adultery. Not just a one time occurrence of adultery, but a life style of adultery.
Also, a man who divorces a woman, causes her to be an adulterer (or she was a fornicator), so divorce itself causes or is a sure sign of adultery.
The only time divorce would be acceptable, would be if neither were fornicators, they got divorced, and neither one ever got married or had sexual relations with someone else.

Biblically (NT) speaking, any person who marries a divorced person, or is divorced and remarries, is just as sinful as a homosexual.
Can it be seen any other way?

[AlAyeti]

Gotta go.

I'll be back later today.

[BeHereNow]

BHN: BTW, When David married Bathsheba he had the discretion to wait until she was widowed, so they were not the prototypical adulterers of divorced persons who remarry.
AlAyeti: Odd moral position. I don't want to sink to insulting prose towards you but David killed Uriah the Hittite. He was found guilty of murder and adultery by God. Nathan the prophet was ready for any verdict to be handed down, as the Lord's Prophet. I'm sure of that. (I read the Bible and am not afraid to read it again.) Hardly the scenario you paint of David's decency towards the already pregnant Bathsheba.

I didnt want to bad mouth one of your boys. David did have his good points.
It was partially tongue in cheek. Sorry.

Leave convoluted logic to politicians and child molesters. The only footing you have, is in condemnation for both adulterers and homosexual acts. Both involve physical wrongdoing and tragic consequences. No one should try to be the judge of the spiritual condition of an individual no matter what they choose to do sexually, but justifying one wrong by another is better portrayed as a position Satan would take on the matter.

Im not trying to justify any particular activity. IM trying to explain what the New Testament says about the sin of homosexuality compared to the sin of adultery.
There are a lot of people running around who believe:
1) If its in the bible, you can believe it.
2) Somebody else can tell me what it says because I really dont want to figure it out myself.
3) The Bible says divorce is okay but homosexuality is bad.

Because they believe these things, they want to pass laws to make everyone else act like they do. The want to legislate morality, beyond the concern for the general welfare. They want to do it to a moral certainty, as long as it is their morality, and not someone elses. The want to restrict the harmless activity of certain persons on the idea they are immoral, possibly dangerous, and evil.

AlAyeti: Homosexuality cannot find solace in the individual choosing to use their body parts for what by empirical means is proven to be a futile endeavor. Psuedo-intercourse is by nature an act that can be judged outside of religion. Logic again can be the guide to Biblical matters. I fear science only when it is used to kill and redefine observable facts. In the case of homosexuality, even the assertion that animals in nature attempt this act lands squarely in the irrational. In fact evolution is far more heartless on the futility of same-sex mating as is the Biblical position. There is hope for ann individuals future in the Bible. "Survival of the Fittest" defines as worthless the creatures that do not desire reproduction. Even Jesus (God) says that Sodom and Gomorrah have a better stance on the day of judgment than people in the cities who will not listen to the Gospel. I know homosexuals who believe the Gospels. I know many "scientific" people who do not.

Others here are more capable than myself to address this issue. I trust one of them will see it and respond.

AlAyeti: What you are trying to do is justify one sin because of another. That only cements the sin for what it is. It is better to hold out repentence then to sink into childish rhetoric; "He did it too!" Or, you have the right (still) to start another church (congregation) somewhere else and wait until judgment day. "Let God settle the debate." God has shown in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that "He" will circumvent His own "Law" and do something unexpected. The Israelites deserved annihilation and the adulterer at the feet of the crowd and Jesus could have been stoned by law! Repentance is why there is even one person left on Earth who can trace their blood back to the Israelites. All sinned against the Lord time and time again.

The things you write are only true for certain types of Christians.
I am not trying to justify anything. Im am only trying to shows that if we apply a certain standard to the scriptures, we need to apply the same standard to obviously comparable issues. It is the believers who say "infallible word of God, every word means what it says!", who do not know what it says.

But to agree that sin is not sin is outside the definition of being a part of God's plan.

Surely you realize one persons sin is anothers "try not to do it". There are many uses of the word sin, what is and what isnt, the resulting effects of sin, more. What does it mean to say "sin is not sin". Surely you do not claim to have a common belief about sin compared to all Christians who have walked the face of the earth, or even among those walking the earth today.
Of course sin is "outside the definition of being part of Gods plan". That is not a Christian belief, that is a religious belief. Sin may be a different word, but the meaning is there.
And what if it is outside of Gods plan. Many do not care.
Why should they be forced to pretend that it matters?

Like Paul said: There must be divisions among you so that you can see those who are right and those who are wrong.
If you want to allow same-sex relationships or rationalize the unjustifiable position of a "marriage" existing between two men or two women" and that be equaled to adulterers being married, so be it. You have just judged them all as sinners. Well done. You are right.

Speaking for myself, I would think that most homosexuals would be satisfied with a general understanding that morally, they were on an equal footing with individuals who were divorced and remarried. Equal sinners, so to say. Let the moralists fight for their souls equally. Do not single out homosexuals as morally inferior when scripturally, divorced and re-marrieds are equally sinful.

AlAyeti: In the Bible I read, you and you alone will stand for your decisions.

I believe this 100%. That is why I know I have the right to make my decisions, and no one needs to make them for me.
If you believe it, dont you feel others have a right to make decisions different than yourself?



~ ~ ~ ~

Jesus said that He "did not come to change the Law but to fulfill it." In the Tanakh (the Old Testament) which included the Torah, the "Bible" that Jesus would have read, a man could divorce his wife for any reason by a written certificate and send her away. (Kind of like Hollywood now.)

In that same Bible, homosexual acts between men were an abomination. (Not like Hollywood now.)

(BHN: Can we agree to that?) We don't have to because it is a fact, but, I will agree with you for another reason. Holiness. And the holiness of children. (Something homsexuals, by their own "orientation," have no claim to.)
Divorce is not condemend in the Old Testament until you get to the Prophets perspective, when God had had enough of justifying one sin after another by His people. Jesus never changed Biblical law. He appealed to the logic of actions of hypocrites and on that you are right. So then the Christian Church is proven right BY YOU, if they just allow virgins that married to do all of the talking for the Christian Church. I agree with that wholeheartedly!!!
And I am satisfied that "Christians" are not using some perceived "phobia" and are making decisions based on their rights to decide the "nature" of one sin from another. Slapping a person is a far cry from splitting their head open with a brick. But then again Christians are not Jesus.
The silence of the Gospels on homosexuality is deafening in conclusion. The matter had been settled. Israelites would have followed the Levites and would have agreed to its status as an abomination.
Divorce and remarriage was not only allowed "Biblically" but practiced within the people of Israel. BUT. . . the consequences of sexual licentiousness affected the people of God and God sent his Prophets to deal with it.

Old Testament causes more problems than it solves. If you want to start quoting OT position Ill bring out all of that Leviticus stuff, not to mention "kill the disobedient child" argument, too many clearly "not relevant" issues. If we can not agree on the New Testament we will certainly never agree on the OT. I will let your statements stand but objected to.
To say that Christ did not change the law is begging the question. Circumcision was the law and is no longer.
Christians are not Jews.
Jews follow the law.
Surely we can agree.

THE REAL POINT:

Hedonism and narcissitic licentiousness are the root of the issue we are debating. Literally Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior.

Exactly.
And what is your position?
1) All Christians living today agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior".
2) All Christians who have ever lived agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior".
3) Not everyone can agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior, but AlAyeti and other can.
4) All moral persons know what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior", and should want to outlaw it.
5) Other

Why are we hiding behind exegesis?

Hiding?
Christians proclaim "I believe the Word", meaning not the Logos or the Christ, but the Bible. The written word. The written word is supposed to rule our lives, and you feel I am hiding behind it? If I must use it to defend myself, so be it. I do not hide behind it. I bring it out to show what is there.

Give me a break. You are a deist and have no stake in the religious implications on this topic on the political and cultural.

Where did this come from?
I must admit that I enjoy debate for the sake of debate, but when others threaten to make my belief system illegal, I certainly have a stake in the discussion. Religious fundamentalists of any religion can do whatever they choose, but they have a moral obligation to keep it to themselves. An open door and evangelism of course, but the founders of my country hoped to guarantee me the right to choose my belief system, not have it forced upon me.

Now deism is a fine position to take on life and proves you're not insane, but deism is not a good position on Biblical interpretation, seeing things outside the faith and you'll end up an moron like Thomas Jefferson. You will strain out the gnats and not see the elephants. Don't be a deist like Tommy J..
And logic is not in your corner either. It's more like a position of a whining five year old wanting another cookie because his sister got one before mommy caught them.
I'm not trying to insult you I assure you as I truly respect most deists. But I think trying to justify one wrong by another is not a well reasoned position for finding equality.

Now you dont like TJ.
I had thought there was hope for you, I fear I was wrong.
You have been swallowed by the Corporate Church and may never see the light of day.

~ ~ ~

A simple question?

I do not expect disingenous statements from a deist.
You are fully aware that everything we are debating is loaded with perspective and the following defining of it. It takes time to formulate a response. I was writing one when you posed another.
You don't work for Fox News do you? A simple answer to any question is no longer part of society.

My apologies.
I have seen flightier responses to posts.
I saw later what had happened.

With every touch of your keyboard you cement the judgments and veracity of the Biblical God. Not me. I choose repentance. Are you sure you are a deist? You sound awful Baptist-hellfire to me.

Ah, you confuse my argument with my beliefs.
I present the argument of many Christians, living and dead.
The position I present is that of my Amish neighbors. They, and many others, hold firmly in the belief that divorce and remarriage are part and parcel with homosexuality. Scripturally, they are virtually inseparable. There is of course the social stigma attached to homosexuality that adultery does not carry. But when the Amish talk about their English neighbors, I imagine the sweet young man down the road is no closer to hell than the adulterous heterosexuals.
For centuries the church would look the other way concerning homosexuality, but be very outspoken against divorce. When I was a child a Catholic who divorced invariably crossed over to protestant. They had to "leave their church". It was very unusual to be divorced, remarried and Catholic. Homosexuls, though not outspoken, were known to exist, and accepted (don't ask, don't tell).

[AlAyeti]

BHN,

In no way am I trying to insult you in my reponses. I just present my views passionately-impassionate to the questioner. I have respect for the deist perspective. It is (almost) always based on logic. In fact Jesus is refered to as the Logos as a direct result of philosophers like yourself, defining His very nature. Deist versus Atheist is the rationally sane versus the drooling buffoon. You are on the right path heading in the right direction in my opinion.

What did Jesus do towards the adulterers He came in contact with? Both the woman at the well and the woman "caught in the very act?"

He certainly pointed out that they were "sinning."

You are employing the same argument that Satan uses in Genesis in the Garden with Eve, and in Job while visiting God. And especially in the Gospels.

"Did God 'really' say. . ."

"Torment Job and he will curse you to your face. . ."

He questioned fairness and belief and the Soveriegnty of God. But what believers will do is fall at the feet of a forgiving God.

You are not seeing the real issue with the Gay Agenda and its opposers: What is normal? What is detrimental? What limits to anyone defining their own slice of individuality?

History has shown what a sexually unrestrained populace does to that society.

Your math leads to only one class of people allowed to rule all decisions: The married heterosexual virgin class. Interesting to note that Augustus Caesar (son of a deity) tried the same people. While I would be willing to let these kinds of people lead most of society in terms of morality, there is still issues that arise to right and wrong even within people in a normal mariage.

I assert that you are skirting the real issue of the opposition to unrestrained sexual licentiousness and its offspring homosexuality. While trying trying to jutisy "relativism" you are blaming peoples wrongdoing while at the same time not holding them accoutable for the physical detriment and harm to real people it really causes to our actual world!

Remember I agree with your math. I know homosexuals and adulterers are both Biblically wrong. But again, the Bible holds out forgiveness eternally to anyone who admits their actions are wrong. It's called repentance.

I am more than willing to stack up references from the Old or New Testaments. The scale of justice will not be kind to the same-sex proponents and adherants.

There is consequences you are unwilling to deal with in your somewhat rational approach to this issue.

This subgroup is "Right and Wrong."

Homosexuality cannot be proven right by science if logic is to be used as the guiding force to a rational answer. I believe that is why the Biblical approach is used time and time again, even by people like you who do not believe in the Bible.

I prefer science in my absolute opposition to normalizing homsexuality. It cannot be done from any scientific perspective. With the sole exception of psychology, where it was removed by lawyers and not doctors.

Relativism is a disease far more than it is a panacea. That's historic fact.

[AlAyeti]

Right and wrong is the state of being for the human species.

Children who are not taught the concept should be expected to suffer no ill effects of injustice. In a pre-school, the biggest strongest most aggressive child should have all of the toys and the other children should not even notice.

As soon as a toy is taken away from a weaker child by a stronger child, the weaker one should just go on to something else without emotion.

But this is rarely the case from a non-retarded child.

What is right and what is wrong is inherent to our being. With life experience, comes the settling of the worth of things in regards to the right and wrong they possess. A poor person who robs a bank, though desperately needing the money, shares the same cell block with a garden variety miscreant.

Society judges what is right and wrong by interactions and experiences. And then there is the congenital instincts that exist even to a certain degree within the human species.

Homosexuality does not exist within any definition of the word "normal." There is no bigotry or hatred in holding to that definition in matters of physical interaction between human beings or the animal kingdom. Homosexuality occurs in nature only in aberrant behavior.

Only in the human species do individuals seem to believe they have the right to self-definition. But nature can give respite to the opposers of the individual defining themselves, in the collective collaberative "nature" of human society living in community groups.

Individuals only have the right in a society to do what they want with the acceptance of the health of the collective populace. Otherwise conflict will develope and as history has shown in every occurence . . . war results.

America and the western world in general are at that point with individual sexual preferences being defined as human rights. Crime follows the acceptance of sexual individualism like disease follows unclean behavior. Relativism is decided in the social court of arbitration where there are limits set or there is destruction without cease.

[AlAyeti]

Sorry BHN,

Thomas Jefferson was only a man and a hypocrite man at that. In fact he was part of a treasonous group of anti-English extremists who took power by armed force. This is not historical fact? I should envy these kinds of people why?

The framers in general don't impress me in the slightest if the words these men wrote down (if they really did) give license to child pornography and the major TV networks and the dens of propaganda known as newspapers. Our children are incarcerated and killed by tens of thousands annually by the stupidity spawned in the constitution. The only freedom in the press is for pederasts and sexual miscreants. This is not also fact?

In my humble opinion human events are coming 'round again to disolve the political bonds that give the sexually ill the rights to teach our children in our public schools.

Right and wrong! The constitution now gives license to the very people who use its paper power to impose pederasty on every family in these psuedo-united states.

Jefferson started or was a member of the club that spread the venereal disease of relativism that is killing our world again.

It is somewhat laughable that human secularists denegrate the Bible as "only written words" thousands of years old, and subjugate all by the power of the words writen (supposedly) by men in the 1700's.

I wish you could see the irony of that.

[BeHereNow]

It seems you are tying to justify the hypocrisy and immorality of persons hiding behind the bible to justify their bigotry against homosexuality. You do this by saying that homosexuality has not only the bible against it but Darwinism and natural law as well, whereas greed, avarice, adultery, remarriage only have the biblical mandate against them, implying that they are within the natural order, although somehow against gods will.

You justify their blind eye to greed, avarice, adultery by making the absurd claim that homosexuality is some special sin. You allow them to not only ignore the popular sins, but in many cases proclaim that the sin of wealth attainment is actually a blessing. It is the love of money that is the root of all evil, not the sexual love of same sex individuals.

I have no problem with members of any belief system holding themselves accountable to the arbitrary regulations of their doctrine. I have a problem with them claiming that their rules must be observed by everyone. This is especially true when they pick and choose which of their own laws they apply to the general public.

You concede one point to me, and I concede one point to you.
If homosexuality were as rampant as adultery it would be a bad thing for society. Homosexuality is no more good than adultery, including remarriage. Whereas adultery will always be a choice, I believe the evidence continues to mount that homosexuality in some individuals is the "natural order". You say "aberration" as if it is a mistake, the fault of the individual. Hermaphrodites are an aberration but we dont expect them to ignore their desire to have a bonding sexual relationship with another person. An aberration is a statistical anomaly. So what.

Christians try to hide behind the bible. They ignore the log in their own eye. They convince themselves that the immoral actions of themselves and their friends are "acceptable".

How is it that adulterers (divorced and remarried) are allowed to repent, but continue to live in their adulterous relationship, whereas homosexuals who repent must end their relationship?
If repenting homosexuals must end their relationship to be sincere, the same rules should apply to the similar sinners of adultery.
Why arent the adulterers confronted and told to "go, and sin no more."? Remarriage and the lifestyle it allows is the sin and it continues as long as the individual remains married.

Within 24 hours I will be away from the conveniences of modern society for an 8 day period. Please forgive my absence. I may have time for one more reply.

[AlAyeti]

Bigotry is a position held against evidence to the contrary.

Not an applicable word in this debate.

Empiricism commands respect. I am not trying to justify any hypocrisy as I agree with your judgment totally. Though divorce can have basis in no wrongdoing. I agree with your judgment because it is based on observation.

I don't agree with you not applying the same rationality to the opposition to normalizing homosexuality. It is based far more on empirical day to day observation as well as based on the sciences of physiology and biology to prove the position is solidly empirical to oppose it as normal.

Why do you sling mud and put words into my position that are not ever going to be there. I do not justify nor support any of the sins you mention.

The Christian church has been consistently against every single thing you judge as wrong as well.

The only answer is to allow only married people who were chaste before the honeymoon to set the paradigm. If the jab at wealth being a Christian achievement as a mater of faith principles, I can assure you that liars who fleece the flock are far below my opinions of homosexuality being wrong. Didn't Jesus say it would be better for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment then for the people who refuse to hear the Gospel?

Homosexual acts are 100% a choice action. How in the world can you disagree with that? I don't want to get graphic but it just goes against rationality for a thinking human being to not see the choice in the behavior. Even evolution will nod in agreement with that. Aberrant behavior is aberrant behavior.

The Christian position about repentance escapes you and I don't see how. No Christian is pulling apart same-sex couples by religion unless they walk into a church and say "accept us or else." Which is exactly what homosexuals are doing. Theyare forcing their interpretation on everyone. Somehow that is not correct? That is the same position taken with adultery. Divorce carries too many situations to just lump it into one category. Remember yor history. No Christian ever legalized no fault divorce or legalized sexual licentiousness. Judges and Liberal politicians did.

Your quote: "Remarriage and the lifestyle it allows is the sin and it continues as long as the individual remains married."

Where is that in the Bible? And is it not given forgiven even in the Bible? I assume David and Bathsheba were forgiven and we have yet to mention Judah and Tamar. Or, Lot and his daughters. Also the prostitute in Joshua. All are relatives of Jesus of Nazereth.

In any event you are claiming two wrongs make a right. I say let the people who don't commit sexual sins rule the debate and make the laws. We both can agree to that no?

The homosexual agenda is not one of tolerance. Every place where States allow it, the response is "let states decide." Everywhere it is legally outlawed, it is sued to the highest court in the country. Now that is hypocrisy. . . too.

[BeHereNow]

The Christian church has been consistently against every single thing you judge as wrong as well (greed, avarice, adultery).

Two interesting occurrences in my community to disprove this. It concerns greed and avarice.
Now you say the Christian church has been against these consistently and I disagree. There are many sects of Christianity and they differ in how well they stay true to the literal Bible. It is my Amish neighbors who so often follow the narrow path. An Amish family opened a scratch and dent food store. Outdated products and such. They attracted a steady patronage of non-Amish (English) as well as Amish. It seem they were doing too well, making too much money. The church fathers came down on them, they decided they were being treated unfairly, so they are moving to Indiana. In another case (same church) there is a family making pallets. Again, they are making too much money. Their production has been restricted to one trailer load per week. They decided to stay and reduce production.
Now when was the last time you heard of a Baptist minister going to a member of his church and tell him he was making too much money? What preacher stands up on Sunday and says "Brothers, some of our members are making too much money. Nevermind their purity or tithing. Why even their two year olds are wearing store bought shoes. They are becoming wealthy and they had better mend their ways!"
According to you the Christian churches are doing this consistently. I disagree.

The only answer is to allow only married people who were chaste before the honeymoon to set the paradigm.

Well, thats what the rule book says. Its not my idea. If Christians want to follow the rulebook, they should read and follow all of the rules.

No Christian ever legalized no fault divorce or legalized sexual licentiousness. Judges and Liberal politicians did.

Interesting. There are no Christian judges or liberal politicians. I wonder if they all agree with you.

Your quote: "Remarriage and the lifestyle it allows is the sin and it continues as long as the individual remains married."

Where is that in the Bible? And is it not given forgiven even in the Bible? I assume David and Bathsheba were forgiven and we have yet to mention Judah and Tamar. Or, Lot and his daughters. Also the prostitute in Joshua. All are relatives of Jesus of Nazereth.

It is remarriage which causes the sin.
The remarriage causes adultery. It makes adulterers of the couple. Each time the remarried couple has sex they are committing adultery.
Common sense says as long as the marriage continues, the sin continues.
If the Bible forgives practicing adulterers, does it also forgive practicing homosexuals?

In any event you are claiming two wrongs make a right. I say let the people who don't commit sexual sins rule the debate and make the laws. We both can agree to that no?

I see, let those with the strictest interpretations make the rules. Thats really what you mean, isnt it? Let them relax the rules in certain cases if they choose. If they want to hold steadfast, then so be it. Should I assume you are referring to my Amish neighbors as the ones who should set the rules? It seems to me when it comes to Bible teachings they work the hardest to avoid sin. They are so against "diverse kinds" spoken against in the Bible they wont allow combines on the farms because of their diverse nature. A model for all Christians I would think you would agree. Im sure you will admonish any Christian friends you have who are farmers.

[jerickson314]

Homosexuality is also a very grey area. Oft-cited epistolary and Leviticus quotes given in condemnation of homosexuality are, in fact, only condemnations of certain homosexual acts and male prostitution.

100% false in this case, if you are referring to Leviticus 18 and 20, Romans 1, 1 Corinthians 6, and 1 Timothy 1. See here (on a different discussion board). I examined claims like the ones you are making and found them to be incredibly unfounded.

Homosexual orientation is inherited

I've examined both sides on this one, and the "not inherited" has a much stronger case.

However, I will give you that "not chosen" would be mostly correct. However, only the attraction part is unchosen. Any behavior is entirely the result of choice.

so unless you believe in original sin it shouldn't fall under condemnation.

Equivocation. Homosexual attraction != homosexual behavior. (!= is "not equals")

As well as the fact that I do believe in original sin...

In fact, if homosexual attraction was hereditary it would pose no threat to my theology. I just don't think it is hereditary because there isn't any good evidence that it is hereditary, while there is plentiful evidence that certain developmental factors are behind it.

Also, I want to be clear that homosexual attraction does not fall under condemnation. Only lust and behavior do. Attraction is temptation. Lust and behavior are sin. Even Jesus was tempted.

Gay marriage is a tricky issue and I haven't really gotten off the fence as of yet. There are aspects of gay marriage that frankly worry me (should they be able to adopt kids?)

Even outside of the context of Biblical morality, there is also the fact that the gay lifestyle is unhealthy for gay people, and thus permitting gay marriage would be heinous towards homosexuals. And if they want to change as is possible, being married would make this difficult.

but I find the hate-mongering and hypocrisy of the opposing side repugnant in the extreme.

I'm not really the "opposing side" (nor are you making this allegation, I know). These people are. I'm the middle, you might say.

There are at least TWO false and dangerous views of homosexuality within Christianity.

One is that God hates homosexuals and there is no hope for heaven if you are attracted to others of the same sex. This is refuted by 1 Corinthians 6:11, for starters.

Another false view is that homosexuality is morally acceptable and that there is nothing wrong with it.

Both of these views do not stand up to any serious scrutiny. The truth is that homosexuality is like other sins.

In the case of adultery and divorce here, all three sins are of a sexual nature. I see no reason to believe anything different than that they are equal in God's eyes. None is any "better" or "worse" than any other.

[jerickson314]

There are a lot of people running around who believe:
1) If it's in the bible, you can believe it.
2) Somebody else can tell me what it says because I really don't want to figure it out myself.
3) The Bible says divorce is okay but homosexuality is bad.

I happen to believe in 1 (with some reservations as to what you might mean), but not in 2 and 3. To clarify, it is certainly possible that I am interpreting the Bible wrong somewhere. It is also possible that my English Bible has been mistranslated at places, or that scribal errors have been introduced into the text.

Because they believe these things, they want to pass laws to make everyone else act like they do. The want to legislate morality, beyond the concern for the general welfare. They want to do it to a moral certainty, as long as it is their morality, and not someone else's.

This is mostly an ad hominem red herring, attacking some people's positions rather than the topic at hand.

I will say that under moral absolutism, only one morality is right. If the Bible is the infallible word of God, its morality is right for all people at all places. Nonetheless, whether this should be enforced in civil law is a topic of debate outside of the scope of this discussion. I haven't really made up my mind on this.

You are approaching the problem with relativistic presuppositions, to the same extent as the people you are criticizing do so with absolutistic presuppositions.

The want to restrict the harmless activity of certain persons on the idea they are immoral, possibly dangerous, and evil.

Harmless, oh really?

Surely you realize one person's sin is another's "try not to do it". There are many uses of the word sin, what is and what isn't, the resulting effects of sin, more. What does it mean to say "sin is not sin". Surely you do not claim to have a common belief about sin compared to all Christians who have walked the face of the earth, or even among those walking the earth today.

A lack of understanding and consensus does not indicate a lack of truth.

Of course sin is "outside the definition of being part of God's plan". That is not a Christian belief, that is a religious belief. Sin may be a different word, but the meaning is there.
And what if it is outside of God's plan. Many do not care.
Why should they be forced to pretend that it matters?

If Christianity is true, then it is true for all people. You are using nonChristian presuppositions.

Speaking for myself, I would think that most homosexuals would be satisfied with a general understanding that morally, they were on an equal footing with individuals who were divorced and remarried. Equal sinners, so to say. Let the moralists fight for their souls equally. Do not single out homosexuals as morally inferior when scripturally, divorced and re-marrieds are equally sinful.

Correct! Although I wouldn't say they should be "satisfied", especially since they are capable of changing their behavior regardless of whether this is true for attractions.

Exactly.
And what is your position?
1) All Christians living today agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior".
2) All Christians who have ever lived agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior".
3) Not everyone can agree on what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior, but AlAyeti and other can.
4) All moral persons know what constitutes "Sodom and Gomorrah "ish" behavior", and should want to outlaw it.
5) Other

A lack of understanding and consensus does not indicate a lack of truth, like I said before.

Religious fundamentalists of any religion can do whatever they choose, but they have a moral obligation to keep it to themselves. An open door and evangelism of course, but the founders of my country hoped to guarantee me the right to choose my belief system, not have it forced upon me.

Depends on what you mean by "keep it to themselves". Christian salvation is only meaningful if it is your free choice. This should not be changed. However, this doesn't mean that people shouldn't promote their beliefs, or even that this should be limited to evangelism.