What about civil rights for Gays in all areas of life? It is said "You should condemn the sin, but not the sinner", but it is so hard to do for so many Christians who consider homosexuality a sin. But this is exactly what we, as Christians, should do, because after all, a homosexual is still a Child of God. And supporting civil rights for Gays does not mean condoning homosexuality. So civil rights for Gays in all areas of life ahould always be supported by Christians, except perhaps when you're choosing religious leaders who openly believe homosexuality not to be a sin. And on a personal note, even if you sre sexually approached by a Gay, you can just say "No thanks", if it's not your predilection. I did this 3 times during my lifetime and had no problem. What do you think?

What about marriage for homosexuals? Most Christians feel that marriage should just be between a man and a woman, but in reality marriage is only a word, and actually you only have to call a committed union between homosexuals anything you want, because all the homosexuals want are the same rights that married couples have in a committed relationship. It's just another Civil Rights question again. And I believe for homosexuals to insist on calling their committed relationship a marriage is a big mistake. What do you think?

What about adopting children by homosexuals? If homosexuals were to adopt children, the children would probably lose the father and mother role image that is common in nuclear families, although you'd still have the human role model image to follow. But this is also true if the adoption were made by single people as well, and some of the role models in nuclear families are not that great either. But I think that the biggest problem that Christians would have concerning this matter, would be that the adoptees could start emulating the life-style of their homosexual parents. But this would really be determined by what actually causes homosexuality? Is it environmentally caused, or is it genetically caused? What do you think?

ACCORDING TO SCRIPTURE

In the Old Testament, homosexuality is definitely labeled as a sin (Lev 18:22), but as far as I can determine, God never explains why. I suspect that the reason in the beginning might be that anything that prevented the earth from being populated was a sin (Gen 1:28) and homosexuality obviously did that. Whether that reasoning could really be applied today, however. Is questionable. Nevertheless there could be other reasons why this activity might be a sin, but Scripture doesn't seem to reveal any other. Either you have to believe what God just says, which many people do, or you have to look for reasons as to why God says this, which some people need.

The Gospels do not condemn homosexuality specifically, but Jesus does say in the Gospels that He was not going to change the law one iota. (Math 5:18). Now what does He really mean by this, the much of the law, if you read it (Lev 11-24), is rather archaic, and seemingly not meant for today's society. If this is the case, then Jesus probably was talking about the Spirit of the Law.

In the New Testament with most references to homosexuality, there is a question as to whether the words are correctly translated or not, but in Romans 1:26-27 Paul definitely indicates that homosexuality is a sin, and for most Christians this is enough. But if homosexuality is caused genetically, doesn't it go against Paul's description of homosexuality as being unnatural? And I suspect it might be caused genetically in most cases, because who in their right mind would want to be homosexual with all the bigotry it invites around the world. Besides, who would be the victim here if this relationship is between 2 consenting and caring adults? Would God be the victim, and feel it's sinful, if His children aren't being hurt by this relationship?

Here again, one has to consider whether one should be obedient to what God literally says in His Book without question, or to question the "why" of the statement before being obedient to it. But an ideal couple in my opinion, would still be a man with a women, because biologically they think differently, and the mixture of their thinking would tend to make a couple more complete, plus the fact that they are still the only couple that can reproduce and develop a new generation.