In Canada, the biggest protestant denomination, the United Church of Canada has been ordaining gay and lesbians to the ministry for years. Why has it taken the USA so long to catch up?

I agree with Joe W. Its one thing being homosexual which Christianity has grown to love and accept with no thoughts of God loving them less, which was the opinion stated above, or Gods love coming in degrees, which was a big opinion that those are the only responses to Homosexuals not being able to "do what they want".. is that the Christian motto? "Do what you want?" its another thing to not live chaste lives, skewing one of the most beautiful gifts we could ever take part in, pro-creation. I love those who are homosexual, yet why would i want them to not only endanger their salvation, but lead them astray by saying anything is fine or sin is relative?

Joe W, I'm sure people would like to hear your views, but it doesn't help just to say "I disagree" and then not give much sense of what you even disagree with.

Meanwhile, as someone who has had a close, personal relationship with Jesus since age 5 (pushing 55 this year), was raised in a wonderful, loving home by genuinely Christian parents (who walked their talk in an authentic way that anyone could see, and were greatly loved for that), went through graduate theology school at a wonderful conservative college that actively expected us tomuse the brains God gave us, have read the Bible clear through about 8 times (plus several more times by studying various sections at a time, like the prophets or historical chronicles), in half a dozen English versions and four other languages (including the originals) --- none of which I list as if to do a spiritual "neener neener" bragging, but just to set the picture of where I'm coming from spiritually --- and with all this, yet found at puberty that I was attracted to the same gender as well as the opposite (though more to men) --- all of that, taken together, has forced me over the years to do a lot of grappling, Jacob-and-the-angel-style, with God over what the "passages on homosexuality" are about.

Because if they amount to something like, "variations in sexual orientation (other than 'straight') are 'unnatural', some aberration resulting from humankind's fall into sin, and therefore need to be resisted or 'struggled against' by those who experience such a 'weakness'" (as a lot of evangelicals more or less conclude), then it fails the question of why God would consign not only the 2-4% of people who are authentically (and solely) same-sex oriented, but the at least 45% (and up to 80%) who are somewhere along the spectrum of bisexual orientation as I am (some interesting clinical studies have produced those numbers; of course not all with bisexual orientation are comfortable admitting that even to the selves, usually for cultural or religious reasons), to lives in which we are never "allowed" the same sort of close relationships --- you didn't read me say, "sex" --- with all the affection, bonding, emotional support for one another, and being a part of one another's lives till death do us part, that people are "allowed" in same-sex relationships.

That is, I'd like to ask all who "disagree" over the idea of same-sex relationships: please stop thinking sex, I'm talking all the wonder and intimacy of a relationship that "straight" people aim for and uphold as the ideal for a relationship to cultivate and grow in. Or do people just say all that to sound socially acceptable, but really all they want is a legitimized way to get it on with someone? I hope that's not what they mean!

Here's the fact: this wouldn't be the first time that Christianity has been forced, by the actual facts of God's world, to revise its theology, even doctrines drawn from "the plain reading of Scripture" (which is the usual defense given, under that very devout-sounding banner). You remember the deal with Galileo and whether Earth moves in space or is the center of the universe? Do any "Bible-believing Christians" today make a case that Galileo was wrong, based on the "plain reading of Scripture"? (Actually, some do, see fixedearth.com.) It wasn't only the Vatican, but also Martin Luther (Galileo's contemporary) who denounced his findings as wrong, based on plenty of Scripture that talks plainly about the sun moving through the heavens, but that Earth "is firmly fixed, it shall never be moved". Later, John Calvin also rejected Galileo's "worldly ideas" for the same reasons.

Fast forward a few centuries, and lo and behold, the facts of the universe have irresistibly forced the church to revise its understanding of Scripture (which is what Galileo urged, anyway, not make a false choice between the Bible "or" scientific fact); and lo and behold, the Christian faith did not collapse in secular ruin because of that.

The same will happen when it accepts the facts of God's creation regarding variations in sexual orientation --- which, by the way, have been recognized as so ubiquitous across the rest of the animal world that researchers in the life sciences now acknowledge that there is no form of (sexually-reproducing) life in which same-sex behavior, including bonded mating pairs (sometimes for life, as with many species of birds), have NOT been observed. (And, far from being "aberrations", as some Christians insist, they are shown to have a wide range of advantages for both individuals and species: for example, with Australian black swans, among which some 25% of lifelong mating pairs are male-male, young raised by males [they bring in a female temporary partner to produce eggs] are statistically much more likely themselves to survive to adulthood and raise their own young, it's though owing to the more competitive all-male environment they were raised in.) (You can read a lot more about that a

PS--- as is often quipped in debates: of course everyone has a right to their own opinions; however, neither you nor I nor anyone else has a right to our own facts. Theology has to align with fact, since facts are part of God's world --- and not try to force fact to fit our doctrines, square-peg-round-hole style.

Mark,
I cannot get over the idea of putting the "Sex Topic" aside. The reasoning for that is not good. The "lets not think about that part" belief. I feel like there is only fallible reasoning being stated, rather than research, blaming others and always wanting to be correct. I know that I could possibly be wrong, but that doesn't make you correct.

Great thoughts nonetheless!

God Bless us sinners

Here's the deal: I will agree that people can maintain the "plain reading of Scripture" that seems to indicate that same-sex orientation is a sin (or at very least, a flaw that shouldn't be given in to), but only as long as those same people will also agree to reject Galileo's "worldly" ideas in favor of the "plain reading of Scripture" as well, and declare (and teach their kids) that Earth is fixed in space, and that the sun and all the heavens revolve around it. At least they will maintain integrity or consistency that way.

Theres only one "N" in Costatine! Lol!


Thanks for discussing!

Great discussion! There is much I could say, too, here, but perhaps I'd just repeat much of what's alreay been said. The one question I have often asked of people who say homosexuality is a choice is, "When did you choose to be heterosexual?" No one to whom I've asked that question has responded. Also, in my humble opinion, the overarching message of Scripture with regard to human relationships is NOT an "anything goes" attitude, but rather that God calls us in ALL our relaionships > with lovers, friends, neighbors, co-workers, family, etc to live into those relationships with love, respect, honor, integrity and the like. I did not marry my husband for the sex. That's a great part of our relationship (when we are not too tired as parents of twins), but I married him because he's my best friend, the one I dream with, want to grow old with, the one that calls me to be a better person. The same sex couples I know and love are together for the same reasons and I see the spirit of God with them. I echo Mark - If I am wrong, I'd rather err on the side of love and grace. In a world where earthquakes happen, too many people are hungry, children are abandoned, abused, neglected and even murdered, I will stand up for love every time!!!!

Mark,
I want to thank you for speaking on this topic. Though I am not gay myself, or christian for that matter, I have read the bible and found that there are many "laws" In the bible that christians no longer enforce. We don't sell our daughters into slavery, we don't stone our children, and we don't not eat pork on fridays. Its good to remember when the bible was written, and that, though inspired by god, was written by man who tried to understand the inspiration from god to the best of their ability. We as man are not perfect, it is quite possible that we may have somethings wrong about and in the bible.

(again, I went on too long!)

Please refer again tot he example I gave you, of Galileo and the events around his findings, that Earth in fact turns on its axis and orbits the sun, rather than the sun and everything else orbiting Earth, as had long been supposed (and as the plain reading of Scripture had been used to justify). If you take the Bible at face value, you cannot escape the conclusion that you have to accept that the sun and the universe literally revolve around Earth, and again I'll issue my challenge to any who want to support a "face value" reading of the Bible (which would include its passages mentioning same-sex behavior) that they must also reject Galileo's views, and hold the (apparent) biblical teaching that Earth is the center of the universe.

But in the case of Galileo's findings, the "context" of Scripture involved knowable facts of the universe, which, after demonstrating that they were not mistaken observations but actual fact, forced a rethinking of church doctrine. The way Galileo put it, in a response to his critics, was this (from his essay called "Letter to the Grand Duchess Christina", which is available in a number of editions of his collected writings) (and I apologize for quoting from memory, which may not be completely exact, because I don't have that book in front of me at the moment; it's at home): "We hold that the Scripture is true, and that the creation [natural or physical universe] is true; and two truths cannot contradict each other. If, then, we have diligently inquired into the natural world [we would call that research, or using the scientific process], and it appears to contradict Scripture, then it is neither Scripture that is wrong, nor the natural world, but our reading [i.e., views or interpretations] of Scripture that are wrong."

That is the approach that the church has to take in this case: it isn't "fallible reasoning" (again, you didn't give any reason for saying that), but observable and testable facts of the known world, both animal and human, that demonstrate that same-sex orientation, behavior, and relationships are indeed utterly natural and in fact beneficial in the overall context of God's creation, not "wrong" nor "flaws" nor "sin" nor anything else that could be seen as destructive.

(It should go without saying, that anyone who points to some specific same-sex behavior or relationship that proves damaging or destructive, must also, to be consistent and not hypocritical, point to at least as many mixed-sex relationships that also prove damaging or destructive to the persons involved. Dysfunction or abuse in any relationship doesn't, of course, somehow serve as proof that all of the same kind of relationships are therefore "wrong"; you could rule all out ALL human interrelationships of any kind, if you followed that false logic.)

It is the "homosexuality is wrong" view in the church that is itself based on (1) lack of context, (2) flawed (meaning, not very rigorous or even honest) interpretation of Scripture, and thus (3) flawed, or in your word, fallible, reasoning. The biblical passages in question have been amply shown by various researchers to refer, in context, to cultural practices such as temple prostitution or even trafficking in children (young boys in particular).

Again, I respect you or anyone else having their own views or opinions, but I have made a practice, increasingly though my life and studies, to let my beliefs line up with fact, as I keep learning better what is actually fact; because I know that I don't have a right to my own facts. Whether fact turns out to line up with what I had believed (or wanted to be true), or turns out to be completely the opposite, or (as happens most often) turns out to be somewhere in the middle, regardless --- belief has to line up with fact in order for it to not be, well, just make-believe.

i would love to know what the commandment love your nbour as yourself has to do with ordaining homosexuals.god loves us all we have alled sinned. He hates the sin in us.come on homosexuals we honestly love you with the love of Christ and accept you. Somewhere in your personal life something has happened and you have chosen. Father, mother relationship.it's a tough one. Ordain, lead a church I don't think but let god judge .

Hi all,

I love the discussions above. I thought I might jump in on it. However, I would just like to start by asking a simple question.

I am not a bible buff, and I will never claim to be. I was thinking over what I do know. I know that in the bible the laws speak about the "act" as being wrong, as being a sin. I don't ever remember reading that the person is bad, but rather the "act" of the person is bad. So my question is this, is everyone debating that because someone considers him/herself to be "homosexual" by affiliation of action or by just classification?

Roger,

A few comments:
You concluded, not me, that it is "'a roundabout way of saying that "no one can really tell what those verses mean'..all of us here, you included, are being silly in trying to propose one meaning or another, for anything in Scripture at all." I was not talking about myself, but I was talking about those who do not use context when reading scripture. I, personally, believe in a credible church which has had theologians for the past 2000 years. Now, they could be wrong? They could be all wrong? One is not silly for relying on credible sources, such as the sacred tradition of the Eucharist and theology, but one is silly for relying on your own interpretation, context included, of what you want the scripture to tell you.

Which Church are you involved in? If it is the Anglican church I would understand the greatness of your knowledge, since I believe the Anglican church is beautiful. And you believe in the context part of scripture, which most of protestantism leaves out. However, I agreed with not looking at scripture face value. That would leave out the context. Thus me agreeing with Galileo makes little sense because I do not look at scripture that way. Fallible reasoning, on the other hand, would be whatever you would like to believe, based on whatever you feel is correct, rather than what is correct. That was not pointed at your facts that you mentioned about birds and I apologize if it was taken incorrectly.
you say,
"but observable and testable facts of the known world, both animal and human, that demonstrate that same-sex orientation, behavior, and relationships are indeed utterly natural and in fact beneficial in the overall context of God's creation, not "wrong" nor "flaws" nor "sin" nor anything else that could be seen as destructive. "

observable and testable facts show that it is not a sin? Did you use the scientific method to figure out if this was morally correct? Also, define destructive. Destructive to humanity? destructive to culture? or Destructive towards the Body of Christ?

I understand your stance on Love rather than Sex. When we think of marriages we do not focus entirely on the sex, yet it is that gift from God. However, if you believe in the Anglicanism which I am guessing, or most of Christianity for that matter, You probably support contraceptives such as birth control, condoms, vasectomies, cliterectimies.. And this would express how your belief of sex can be used for solely pleasure. Do you believe sex is solely for pleasure? I do not believe homosexual sex can produce fruit.. but I could be wrong.

You also stated:
"It is the "homosexuality is wrong" view in the church that is itself based on (1) lack of context...
*What is the context for all of the apparent anti-homosexual verses? They all mean something other than what they say?

(2) flawed (meaning, not very rigorous or even honest) interpretation of Scripture,
*Who is making unhonest interpretations of this? If you are in the Anglican Church, Which I am guessing that you are again, there seems to be no problem with ordaining homosexuals. Who are you referring to here?

(3) and thus flawed, or in your word, fallible, reasoning.
*fallible reasoning for not supporting homosexuality 100%? I'm guessing the early John Chrysostom was completely wrong during his Homily on Romans..(in regards to Romans 1:26) "All these affections then were vile, but chiefly the mad lust after males; for the soul is more the sufferer in sins, and more dishonored, than the body in diseases"
John had this wrong too?

The biblical passages in question have been amply shown by various researchers to refer, in context, to cultural practices such as temple prostitution or even trafficking in children (young boys in particular).
*While this is true, the moral law which stems from the natural law, which I would assume you agree with, never changes.. would you agree that God's moral laws do not change? An they are solely about temple prostitution and child trafficking and nothing else? Nothing to do with homosexuality's practice?

I'd like to refer to your factual bird statements. Are you saying that since God made the birds, and they're somewhat homosexual, that it's completely fine and natural for us to do it as well? Does that damage their souls at all? What about killing other animals.. should we kill other humans because animals do it naturally?

I am not a genius, though I enjoy asking questions and seeking answers. I may not be 55 and have multiple theological degrees, but I'm sure you can respect that and I respect all stances on The God Article.

And, If you are not Anglican, I apologize. Though, why the outreach of homosexuality if you are already aloud to do it under your church roofs?

Another study showed that HPV was found in 91% of HIV positive homosexual/bisexual males (http://ari.ucsf.edu/science/s2c/anal.pdf) HPV has its links to anal cancer which is also 9000% (or 90 times) more likely to infect HIV positive homosexual males. (International Journal of STD & AIDS February, 2007)

This is attributed not just to unprotected sex, but condoms are known to have little effect in the prevention of HPV.

I just briefly covered practicing male homosexuals, without going into Lesbians in order to save us some time and so I can move onto my other points. However, it really seems odd that God created mankind with the intention of having 'natural' gay couples while at the same time allowing diseases to exist that will, at incredibly heights, infect MSMs in their normal venue of intercourse as opposed to vaginal intercourse between heterosexual couples.

I would at this point look forward to your explanation/rebuttle of the "number game" Also if you could provide any health statistics that show heterosexuals suffering higher rates than homosexuals I'd be elated I was researching myself but I had difficulties. My failing I'm sure.

Now. On to matters of faith.

Quickly though back to regarding nature you said. "That is the approach that the church has to take in this case: it isn't "fallible reasoning" (again, you didn't give any reason for saying that), but observable and testable facts of the known world, both animal and human, that demonstrate that same-sex orientation, behavior, and relationships are indeed utterly natural and in fact beneficial in the overall context of God's creation, not "wrong" nor "flaws" nor "sin" nor anything else that could be seen as destructive. "

Here's fun trivia. Did you know Male lions, though not the dominant hunters, will kill for the sheer joy of it? National Geographic had an interesting issue about them finding individual hyenas, killing them, and leaving the carcass without so much as a bite. Hell, Ants have wars with each other! Am I trying to compare killing for fun or war to practicing homosexuality?

No, of course not.

What I am saying however is that just because something occurs naturally in nature has NO bearing whatsoever on whether or not it's an acceptable moral behavior. Animals are not susceptible to matters of morality, and therefore cannot be used as comparisons to humanity. Like I stated before, double standard. If you're willing to believe that because these birds and the other documented 1500 species that show instances of homosexuality (used your friend wikipedia for that number) then you have to consider the possibility that killing for fun and waging war are things God WANTED us to do.

Clearly however you do not believe the latter, as I would hope no Christian would.

And finally it brings us to scripture, which we are as Christians ultimately searching and studying to determine just what did God want us to do?

Did not Leviticus tell us to put to death both men who slept with men, and men and women who committed adultery together?

Clearly we don't practice this. Why? It's incredibly simple. Jesus said it himself in Luke 20:22 "This cup which is poured out for you is the new covenant in My blood."

A new Covenant! How nice! God has made in Christ a new Covenant that does away after fulfilling the old! The harsh punishments/ceremonies of the Old Testament have been washed away.
Seeing as how the pharisees were prepared to stone a woman for adultery, it would be hard to claim that they would NOT do it to homosexual offenders.

In Historical context, the Old Testament times were very difficult and there were many nations that warred against Israel.
Therefore, God instituted laws, as difficult as they were, that were consistent with the culture of the times, that ensured the survival of the Jewish nation, that helped to maintain social structure, and also reflected the harshness of the law.

Could you imagine if the message of turning your other cheek had been delivered to them at that time?? The people of Israel would have never existed long enough to make it to the birth of Christ.

So under occupation of the Roman Empire, most of the territory Christ and his disciples traveled through was secure, and safe from the wars that had plagued the house of David and all those before him during the life of Christ.

This was therefore the perfect time to deliver the New Covenant. A time where a people not so dependent on the harshness of the law to survive were able to see what was inherently against the nature of God (love, peace, nonviolence, etc.)This was the message Christ brought, doing away with many of the old practices we read about in the Old Testament.

So why does the Christian Church (even amongst its divided denominations) still almost entirely oppose homosexual union?

Lets read the go to NT verse, "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually imm

Sorry quick edit.

This was therefore the perfect time to deliver the New Covenant. A time where a people not so dependent on the harshness of the law to survive were able to see what was inherently against the nature of God (love, peace, nonviolence, etc.)This was the message Christ brought, doing away with many of the old practices we read about in the Old Testament.

The words in the parenthesis are supposed to reference the nature of God/Christ

Fratlanta,

I applaud you in your research. However I have one address I'd like to make, I will leave the rest to Mark and Mr. Smith. The Roman Empire as you state was not "secure, and safe from the wars that had plagued the house of David". In fact they had just as many enemies, and wars, because of the power that the Empire had amassed. The Parthian's for instance posed a constant threat through out Roman History, not exempt is the time period in which Jesus and his Disciples walked. Israel and those territories also were in constant revolt and calamity against the Empire, and with themselves.

Also you quoted 1 Cor. which was written by Paul. A person I find to be another one of the Fallible Men of the bible trying to interpret the will of God. However, another biblical writer (Peter) states that Pauls messages are "hard to understand" and "will be twisted to their own destruction". (2 Peter 3:16)

Joe B,

Yes sorry I didn't provide further clarification. I'm quite aware of the Parthian/Roman conflicts that did provide a constant threat of danger. However! Oddly timed enough, Gaius Caesar and Phraataces through compromise avoided war in 1 A.D And it was not until decision of the Parthian King Artabanus II to place his son on the vacant Armenian throne triggered a war with Rome in 36 AD, between 1-9 years after the death of Christ. So while it may have not been a utopia, there was no war between the Parthian Empire and Rome during Christ's ministry.

Also, because King Herod was the leader of Judea's 'client kingdom' Everyone knew that Rome was the source of both the wealth and also the source of some of the problems that occurred in the Jewish state. So the political reality of the day was of a dominant power overseeing the life on a day-to-day basis. There is no historical evidence that suggests Judea was a war driven entity at that time, even with a standing army.

In regards to Paul, I'm afraid that is simply your 'personal interpretation' on the fallibility of Paul's teachings. You are simply taking what you want to be the law and rejecting what you don't. Using Peter as an attempt to discredit Paul is impossible because you have personally sided with Peter in this over Paul because of what YOU think is right. Also Peter's letter (or whomever the author was) does not specifically discredit Paul's claims. I'm afraid that leaves your stance without any merit other than your personal opinion/interpretation.

Many thanks.

There should be more people like you. I use to be a Christian...and you are totally right about how little there really is in the bible condemning gays...its ridiculous in my opinion...
I personally have given up on being a christian because of all the people who said "I dont hate you I just hate the sin..." I couldn't go around thinking that about my gay friends because I know they are good people all the way around. Maybe someday the prejudice will end. We can only start with ourselves.
Thanks for sharing.

There was a time in evolutionary history when in-group/out-group thinking was a life and death issue. If a group wasn't of your tribe, they might well want to kill you and take your village, so it was safer to distrust them as the default position. We have long since past that time, but we seem to need to invent out-groups still. Can't politely do it with Jewish people or blacks anymore... I guess gays won the contest for the next out-group. Thankfully, this too is coming to an end as we collectively Grow Up.

I love how this topic has turned to the topic of love. I am a Roman Catholic. I love each and every person that I come into contact person because each person is a child of God, done so through the incarnation of Jesus Christ.

I am speaking for myself, and I hope my fellow Catholics can agree, that our views on homosexuality are nothing but love. I love each and ever person who is homosexual. I love the person. The act of homosexuality is a mockery of the gift of life which comes from God. The main point of sex is to bring life into this world.


This is to bsienk90- when you say "I personally have given up on being a christian because of all the people who said 'I dont hate you I just hate the sin...' I couldn't go around thinking that about my gay friends because I know they are good people all the way around. Maybe someday the prejudice will end. We can only start with ourselves." The quote about hating the sin and loving the sinner does not imply that everyone that believes that is going around all the time thinking "I really hate the sin such and such person is committing." A person who thinks this way a hypocrite. I would submit that a person who holds this belief is constantly thinks "I love such and such person so much regardless of their sin. I will never love the sin though."

I don't see your point, or maybe I do and I think it is irrational. You say that "Maybe someday the prejudice will end." What do you mean? Do you mean the prejudice towards homosexuals? If so I hope that all prejudice is gone as well, regardless of what kind of prejudice it is. (I think and hope this is what you mean). But when you include the quote of hating the sin not the sinner, you sound as if you are against people hating sin, hating bad things. You make it sound as if you want prejudice towards sin to go away. This idea leaves me confused at how anyone could even condone that.

God designed man to be with woman. I was listening to a lecture on "Theology of the Body for singles" and the speaker, whose name escapes me at moment and I apologize, explains this nicely. "the parts just fit". I don't think the Creator of the universe would make a mistake that would limit only male and female to experience the true gift of sex. I argue that God created mankind with perfect intelligence. This being said I do, and will never condone the "act" of homosexuality. I accept and love each and every person that I come into contact, regardless of their gender, race, sexual orientation, etc.

I did not include biblical reference because many of the people here pick and choose what to believe from scripture, therefore making scripture an invalid reference to be used. As I stated before that I am not a bible buff. This remains to be the case. Nothing has changed since last night. However, I do know where to find Scripture that supports and blesses the union of man and woman, and Scripture that rebukes homosexuality. So do not mistake lack of Scripture reference as complete ignorance of Scripture. Like I stated above, I did not include Scripture because it appears to be ultimately invalid in this discussion.

Thank you for the opportunity to share my insights to a thought. (I apologize for any grammatical errors as well, lol)

The fundamental difference, to my mind anyway, between gay and straight people is the way that they are comfortable connecting with another on a deeper emotional level. I didn't realize that I was a lesbian until after the age of 40 and 3 children, when I finally connected the emotional dots: My emotional comfort and sense of connectedness comes in my relationship with another woman. I role-played throughout my marriage, although I didn't realize that was what I was doing. Being with my husband just didn't "feel right" sexually, and we didn't connect emotionally.

Not to be crude, but anybody can "have sex" with anybody. Sex is sex. Parts are parts. Being gay is about a deeper emotional connection and feeling safe in an intimate way--feeling "right" when with the same-sex partner.

Once we know something, we cannot "unknow it." I have no doubt that my creator knows full-well how I am made and with whom I am designed to connect in partnership and loving support. To live any other way would be, for me, the wrong thing to do, and living a lie.

Good discussion.

Amy B-

I don't feel that you can make assumptions to grand as saying "we stopped being God's children, and started being children of the Bible. We have made the bible into and idol and lost the perspective of what it truly means to follow Jesus." Making this statement you sound as if you are assuming everyone is like that. That is clearly not the case.

"Instead we have made it a god unto itself and have worshipped it year after year"??? I am not sure where you get your information or what church you go to but I know for a fact that Catholics, especially since I am one, do not worship any words that are printed on pages of the Bible. That is most definitely idolatry. Instead we as Catholics worship the speaker of those words, the Trinitarian God, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit, three different persons in the one nature of God.

When Jesus said we should love our neighbor, even our enemies, he did not change the way we should look at the whole bible, but rather the Old Testament. The New Testament is based around Jesus's teaching.

Sorry slow and bad typist on a timed website. Since Paul, Timothy, Titus, 11 of the 12 desciples, and Jesus were without wives they would have been excluded from a very large number of churches today. One Roman wedding announcement went something like this: "The blushing groom took his 17th bride today. It was the innocent bride's 12th groom. Reception to follow.". The homosexual who takes multiple partners during the night/life is likewise excluded from service. The Bible gives several other classes that are excluded from service: the active alcoholic/"town drunk", the greedy, the thief, the murderer, the coveteous, the idolitier, the cruel/unloving, the judgmental, among others. If a church is to exclude the holosexual the they must also exclude these other classes as well. Then who would serve? We allow those who worship the false gods of money and power and sex and self to serve, and somethimes with "all honors"; so, why not the celebate homosexual?
In the pagan world, the act of worshipping some of the gods and goddesses required the use of male homosexuals to "service" the male and female worshippers. As active parts of the active worship of these pagan gods and goddesses they were excluded from the faithful --- because they were actively worshipping the other/wrong gods, If they changed and gave up the other gods and their worship of them, then they were to be accepted into the faithful. "No man can serve two masters/gods." Active homosexuals did not reproduce which was a very major neccessity back then. The Cities of the Plain (Sodom and company) had a requirement than no one could enter the city for the first time without being homosexually raped (From biblical and extra-biblical sources). It was the violence that brought down the cities as much as everything else. Ditto for Noah and his day. Homosexuality goes back to the early beginnings of man. It is violence that brings dowh the judgment.
Why does God "hate" homosexuality then? Our job is to reflect on earth Christ in heaven. The married life on earth is to reflect the church and Christ in heaven. Idolitry is forbidden because it gives the unbelievers tha picture of either the church or Christ taking other "Mates". The church other "saviors/Husbands/gods"; and Christ other "brides/unredeemed groups/goddesses". Since this isn't so it is forbidden for the believer to mirror the possibility of it being so. murder is forbidden because it presents the image that humans are without worth. Christ died to redeem hummanity so that they might show forth their true worthiness. Murder in all of its forms (and not just the taking of the phyical life either) denies this. Homosexuality presents the image that it is alright for the church to take other lovers/saviors/gods. It is for this reason that non-celebate homosexuality (and adultry and fornucation) is forbidden. The rich man who buys himself ahe office of head deacon is just a forbiden as the active homosexual.

"Am I right and you are wrong? God only knows. But I'm going to fault my choices towards love."

THIS is the key!