I see what you're saying. However, in my experience, most people who identify themselves as gay honestly don't care what the church says is "sin" or not. We could pass a law allowing gays to get married, and even call it a "sinful marriage," and as long as it had all the legal rights, they wouldn't care. Do you know what I mean? I mean, yes, it's sad that they don't care about going to hell ... and yes, we should absolutely talk to them about the Good News of Jesus Christ, and never stop preaching, with the hope that some day they will repent and be saved. But between today and the day they are saved, they deserve civil rights. They should not be denied civil rights just because they're sinners.
I cannot see any "deserve" here at all, although I can certainly hear what you are saying. In a liberal, secular, modern, pluralist, democratic society it could be argued that why should not gays have the same rights as every other minority and eventually as the majority, since modern democracy usually rests on the idea that all should be "equal". However, there are numerous problems with this position even in a society such as mentioned. Some of which have been discussed already. So this suggestion is not justified or proven valid just because of circumstances in the society where it is to be implicated. All the negative effects of recognizing gay behavior as an acceptable alternative lifestyle will undoubtly surface regardless of which form of political and social system a society is based on. My view is pretty theonomic so I'm biased of course, but I believe any reasonable christian view ought to be that the more civil society is based on biblical law the better.
Sorry, but I've got YOU on this one.
You know what other sins are labeled as "abominations"? Among other things, eating unclean foods, and wearing cloth of mixed fibers (such as cotton-poly blend, or anything with a zipper or snap). Do you really want to go there?
So you say that eating bacon is worse than murder? Really?
Ahh, I just waited for this kind of argument ... I see what you are saying, but you are wrong here. One cannot use scripture this way you have did it above without making much injustice both to scripture itself and a plausible exegesis of it. The word translated abomination in the OT of the english bibles (stemming from two different words in hebrew, with variations) is used in various contexts and with diverse implications. Mixing fabric (primarily in garments used in worship) is not said to be an abomination, although indeed there's a law against it. But as you've also mentioned unclean meats, they are named such for example in Lev.11. Those who touch or eat same would become unclean. But notice that this uncleaness will only last until evening, and such person could eat even of the "holy things" if having a purifying bath (Lev.22:5-7). It is not said that those who eat such would become abominations. And there is no talk of such person having any blood guilt, being worthy of the death penalty, or that such behavior indicates reprobation (sent as a punishment by God for his sins). So to compare this, albeit sin, with practised homosexual sin is not making up an equal. Eating bacon is not also equal with murder, since eating bacon did not cause blood guilt or made someone worthy of the death penalty.
Other examples there be of abomination in scripture of course, one such is souls who justify the wicked, and condemn the just (Prov.17:15). One example of this is undoubtly people who JUSTIFY wicked souls who proudly live in homosexual sin. Such persons becomes
abominations before God and are as such equally guilty as the wicked that they justify. Automatically these abominable souls, who justify the wicked, will of course also condemn the just. That is, they will
condemn those who rightly tells the truth about the sins of the wicked and who condemn these sins. Paul (in NT) said that souls who lived in homosexual sins are "worthy of death", also notice that the same goes for them that "have pleasure in them that do them", including those who justify and enable these abominations (Rom.1:32). Serious indeed.
Maybe we need to look briefly at relevant application of biblical law. It could be argued that all laws applying to morality would stand even after the cross and thus apply to all people,.not only jews, and that the sinaitic laws (primarily dealing with ceremonial issues) were specifically for the jews as long as they had the temple standing and also after that not to cause a stumbling block to their non-believing kinsmen. The question then is what are these moral laws? Are sexual behaviors applicable? Yes. Food? Yes, it could be argued, but there's also a good argument for a variety between jew and gentile here. As a side note, I personally don't eat unclean foods (for health reasons there are many blessings and benefits with that), however I do not see this as binding upon people who are not jews or israelites. The first apostles were almost all jews. At the time of Paul they gathered in Jerusalem to discuss how the gentile believers should relate themselves to the ceremonial aspect of the law. There it was concluded that gentile believers did not have to abide by the same principles as the jewish believers did in all. But it was said that they were not to eat food offered to idols, not to eat blood, not to eat strangled food and not fornicating (Acts 15:19-20) WIth this said, the rest is easy to spot as the NT frequently repeats commandments that were given in NT. As we can see homosexual sin is condemned in several instances in NT, for example in Rom.1 and 1Cor.6:9-10,1Tim.1:10, Rev.22:15 etc.
So here it has been shown that active homosexual behavior is sin (Lev.18:22), an abomination (Lev.18:22), something that causes blood guilt (Lev.20:13), something that God requires the physical death penalty for (Lev.20:13, Rom.1.32) and sometimes it's even a sign of reprobation (Rom.1:18-32). Five negatives that it does not share with any other sin in scripture (correct me if this be wrong). This means that this sin is something of a dividing line in many fields. Will you understand the seriousness of advocating such "gay rights" as suggested, just because much of contemporary christianity is hypocrital as it singles out homosexual sin while being dead silent about other sins, and just because modern secular society at large has sprinkled down "rights" on almost every thing, person or group imaginable? No christian should be indifferent let alone positive about it.
Fear God. Maybe
that's something to consider?
