One of the problems that I have with anonymous' take on the issue, is that he/she seems to have embraced the idea that the social and political issue at hand is "Christians vs. non-Christians." This couldn't be further from the truth. As anyone who follows the issue knows, the Christian church is divided on the issue, and for good reasons. The complex way in which God established His Word should not be taken in a simplistic manner, as many would agree. The commenter states that he/she has no wavering that homosexuality is sin. (For the sake of simplifying, I'll refer to the commenter in the male pronoun.) It is fine if an individual is convinced in his or her heart that homosexuality, in and of itself, is sin. This is all part of the freedom that God has given to people, and of course this belief is not entirely without a foundation. However, many people--including believers in Christ, who love God as much as those who believe that homosexuality is sin--would agree that this belief must rely on a selective and non-discerning take on Scripture, and must ignore many truths regarding the issue and the Bible itself.

He goes a step further in his comment, in stating that homosexuality is an "abomination" in the eyes of God. One more step for mankind in the purposed use of "partial truths." In the Bible that God gave to humanity, if it is taken in a simplistic and partial truth manner, if a man has bacon and eggs for breakfast, and mows his lawn on Saturday, he has both committed an "abomination" (consumption of pork), and is wholly worthy of "death" by stoning (working on the Sabbath). There is a slight difference in the meaning of the Hebrew words used, but this doesn't take away the severity of the definition of any use of the term, and the word that is used on this issue is also used in other areas that are obsolete today.

You can cite the fact that the New Testament places these serious commandments in a very different light, and therefore cannot be compared with this issue, but this precedent actually does much to establish the very point of the individual who sees the issue of homosexuality through careful and discerning eyes. One cannot honestly cite the "abomination" element of the commandment regarding "a man lying with a man as with a woman," when an "abomination" in the Old Testament was specifically regarding the "Holiness Code" of the Mosaic Law, and is "obsolete" under the new covenant, in terms of being an authoritative law of the Christian faith. Many people would agree that it cannot be taken as a reference to the inherent character quality of something, but must be looked upon with all facts and truths taken into consideration.

The Bible has a great many laws, particularly in the Old Testament. God has established a "new covenant" with His people, which He announced to His people in the Old Testament, and which has been established through the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of His Son Jesus Christ. He has written His laws on our hearts. Maybe this is not the case for some believers, but I do not see this code written on the hearts of people today. The N.T. has spoken to this principle of God's Word, in making it clear that the law of God, in its entirety, is love. This is love in its truest form, and the law of God for all time is limited to all that this defines. If the commenter believes that "love" cannot accept same-sex relationships in God's family, and that the issue has been addressed in a complete sense in the Bible, that is between him and his God and he is entitled to his belief. Many Christians disagree with his view.

Many people can see that there is a biological truth to the idea that some people are born with a homosexual orientation, so it becomes a question of how we are to understand the "letter" and "spirit" of the law, and our obligation to it as believers. Paul's address in Romans 1 absolutely does not describe or define the gay individual or relationship in an inherent sense, any more than do the O.T. addresses of violence, utter disregard for God and humanity, and temple prostitution of all things. I suppose it would be difficult to actually prove this truth, but the gay individual can be as filled with the Holy Spirit and faithful as the most faithful of heterosexual persons.

I have to say that this discussion never did yield an explanation of why it is that remarriage after divorce is completely acceptable in the church today, despite the words of Jesus calling this adultery, with only one exception and in no uncertain terms. The easy acceptance of disregarding this commandment of Jesus--who spoke no commandment regarding the homosexual issue by the way, and "adultery" is condemned in all of the most significant areas of Scripture--leads to a decrease of a deterrence to divorce. I make no personal judgment on the issue, because it is a complex issue and is for God to judge, but my point is regarding what is specifically written, and the necessity for "reason" to be brought into the picture on these issues. Has the church called evil good here, and vice versa? Or are the tenets of Christianity decided by popular opinion in the church, and what is considered "normal" by the majority? I wonder if the commenter believes that "remarriage after divorce" is an issue of the true Christians vs. unbelievers.

I do appreciate any efforts to separate church and state, which I believe is for the cause of the glory of God and His eternal purposes, and a concern with how Christianity is perceived in the world. I will also say that what the public sees--those who do know God, and those who do not know our God and Savior--is not only the hateful and aggressive language of some Christians on this issue, but also that many blatant untruths are spoken by believers, for the cause of making our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters, our children, citizens, and neighbors "the enemy" of America and of the Christian church. My prayer is for humility, understanding, and truthfulness to be seen in the church of Jesus Christ.