Homosexuality:

[Miguel]

12"Everything is permissible for me "--but not everything is beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me "--but I will not be mastered by anything. 13"Food for the stomach and the stomach for food "--but God will destroy them both. The body is not meant for sexual immorality, but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14By his power God raised the Lord from the dead, and he will raise us also. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ himself? Shall I then take the members of Christ and unite them with a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that he who unites himself with a prostitute is one with her in body? For it is said, "The two will become one flesh." 17But he who unites himself with the Lord is one with him in spirit.
18Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a man commits are outside his body, but he who sins sexually sins against his own body. 19Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; 20you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.


If you are tempted by sexual desires, it is better for you to be married only to a woman

1Cor. 7:1 Now for the matters you wrote about: It is good for a man not to marry. 2But since there is so much immorality, each man should have his own wife, and each woman her own husband. 3The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. 4The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. 5Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control. 6I say this as a concession, not as a command. 7I wish that all men were as I am. But each man has his own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. 8Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I am. 9But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion. 10To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. 11But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife. 12To the rest I say this (I, not the Lord): If any brother has a wife who is not a believer and she is willing to live with him, he must not divorce her. 13And if a woman has a husband who is not a believer and he is willing to live with her, she must not divorce him. 14For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy. 15But if the unbeliever leaves, let him do so. A believing man or woman is not bound in such circumstances; God has called us to live in peace. 16How do you know, wife, whether you will save your husband? Or, how do you know, husband, whether you will save your wife? 17Nevertheless, each one should retain the place in life that the Lord assigned to him and to which God has called him. This is the rule I lay down in all the churches.

The Israelites were sexually immoral at thepagan revelry around the golden calf

1Cor. 10:6 Now these things occurred as examples to keep us from setting our hearts on evil things as they did. 7Do not be idolaters, as some of them were; as it is written: "The people sat down to eat and drink and got up to indulge in pagan revelry." 8We should not commit sexual immorality, as some of them did --and in one day twenty-three thousand of them died.

2Cor. 12:20 For I am afraid that when I come I may not find you as I want you to be, and you may not find me as you want me to be. I fear that there may be quarreling, jealousy, outbursts of anger, factions, slander, gossip, arrogance and disorder. 21I am afraid that when I come again my God will humble me before you, and I will be grieved over many who have sinned earlier and have not repented of the impurity, sexual sin and debauchery in which they have indulged.


The marriage bed is to be kept pure

Hebr. 13:4 Marriage should be honored by all, and the marriage bed kept pure, for God will judge the adulterer and all the sexually immoral. 5Keep your lives free from the love of money and be content with what you have, because God has said, "Never will I leave you; never will I forsake you."

James 2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment! 14What good is it, my brothers, if a man claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save him? 15Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. 16If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? 17In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. 18But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. 19You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that --and shudder. 20You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? 21Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? 22You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. 23And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. 24You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone. 25In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction? 26As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

James 4:1 What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from your desires that battle within you? 2You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have, because you do not ask God. 3When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures. 4You adulterous people, don't you know that friendship with the world is hatred toward God? Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God. 5Or do you think Scripture says without reason that the spirit he caused to live in us envies intensely?


Babylon seduced the nations of this world by her adulterous teachings

Rev. 14:7 He said in a loud voice, "Fear God and give him glory, because the hour of his judgment has come. Worship him who made the heavens, the earth, the sea and the springs of water." 8A second angel followed and said, "Fallen! Fallen is Babylon the Great, which made all the nations drink the maddening wine of her adulteries." 9A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: "If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb.

Nothing impure will enter God's heavenly kingdom

Rev. 21:26 The glory and honor of the nations will be brought into it. 27Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb's book of life.

[Miguel]

Rev. 22:12 "Behold, I am coming soon! My reward is with me, and I will give to everyone according to what he has done. 13I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End. 14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood. 16"I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star."


Repent!!!!!!!!!!!


These Sexual Orientation Regulations (the “SORs”) apply to
England, Wales and Scotland. They were published on the 7th March 2007
and if approved by Parliament, they will come into force on the 30th April
2007 (parallel SORs for Northern Ireland came into force on the 1st January
2007).



· The SORs are intended by the Government to ‘outlaw sexual
orientation discrimination by goods and services providers in both the
public and private sector’[1].



· The Government accept that the Regulations raise “complex
issues” about how to reconcile “competing rights and freedoms”[2]. This law has serious implications for the freedom of conscience and freedom of
religion which have existed in this country for many centuries.

· The Government have said about the SORs that “this is not
just about legislation it is about ultimately changing the culture of our
society”.[3] They also claim that the Regulations are “the moral and
appropriate thing to do”.[4]



· The SORs adopt the approach in law that the right to live a
homosexual lifestyle should trump the right to live a Christian
lifestyle[5].



· The House of Commons passed the SORs on the 15th March 2007
in a Committee of 16 MPs in a procedure which was roundly criticised by
Lib-Dem, Labour and Conservative members of that Committee. The approach taken by the Government in giving only 17 hours notice to members of the Committee before their meeting at 8:55am was described as “bringing the House into disrepute”[6]. The 90 minutes given for the debate, involving only 1 MP (other than the 3 front-bench spokespeople) having the opportunity to
make a speech was described as “an outrage as far as democracy is
concerned”[7].

[Miguel]

Here are the points



· Christian organisations support the principle of outlawing
unjustified discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation.



· The opposition from Christians to elements of the SORs is
based on extremely important issues of freedom of religion and freedom of
conscience. It is a question of balancing rights.



· The Government has said “You can either be against
discrimination or you can allow for it”[8] which is a gross simplification of the
issues raised by the SORs. Discrimination cuts both ways: in making
discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation unlawful, the SORs discriminate heavily against those with strongly held religious convictions (see specific examples, below).



· The Government has not published a single piece of evidence
to support the need for these Regulations. The only reference they made in
the consultation paper to support the need for the legislation was from
“several accounts in national newspapers” [9].



· Both the Government[10] and others[11] have made repeated
comparisons between sexual orientation and race and sex in order to
justify the need to outlaw discrimination through the SORs. Arguments based on this comparison have not been supported by a single piece of scientific or
empirical evidence. They are therefore misleading and of no value.



· Attempts by supporters of the SORs to say that any opposition
to the Regulations is an attempt to “legalise homophobia and bigotry”[12]
deliberately ignores the rational, balanced and reasonable criticisms
of some aspects of the Regulations made by many in the faith community.



· Attempts to label Christian groups who oppose the SORs as
‘homophobic’ are attempts to stifle open debate about the Regulations.
Christians’ view of sexual morality is based squarely on the Bible’s
teaching that God loves everyone and that he created sex to be enjoyed
exclusively in the context of a marriage between a man and a woman.
That is not a homophobic view.



· Supporters of the Regulations say they are needed to “send
out a message that we will put behind us the days of violence against
homosexual people”[13]. This is misleading because the SORs do not deal with
violence, harassment or associated behaviour against homosexuals. There are
numerous existing legal provisions dealing with these things.



· The concern about these Regulations from the religious
community has been widespread and united. The Archbishops of Canterbury and York, as well as the Bishop of Durham and the head of the Roman Catholic Church in England have spoken out publicly in supporting those concerns, as has the Chief Rabbi and the Muslim Council of Britain. In Northern Ireland a
detailed joint statement was issued by the Presbyterians, Roman
Catholics, Church of Ireland and Methodists, criticising the content of the
Regulations and calling for amendments to be made.



· The House of Lords Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee
has “drawn the special attention of the House” to the SORs “on the grounds
they give rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the
House” (15th March 2007)[14].



· The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (JCSI) drew the
“special attention of both Houses to the Regulations on the grounds
that they are defectively drafted”[15] in relation to the Northern Ireland
SORs. The JCSI are yet to publish their report on the England, Wales and
Scotland SORs.

[Miguel]

· Amendments to the Regulations can only be made by the House
of Lords voting against them (this would allow amended Regulations to be
re-introduced by the Government).



Freedom of religion



· In Regulation 14 of the SORs, there is an exemption from the
non-discrimination requirements for organisations whose purpose is to
practice, advance or teach a religious belief. This exemption acts to
prevent, for example, a vicar in a church from being required to carry
out a blessing of a practising homosexual couple in a civil partnership.



· That this exemption is necessary recognises a basic
principle: “The Government is clear that nobody should be required to act in a way that contravenes their core religious beliefs”[16]. However, the way the
Regulations have been drafted manifestly fails to safeguard this
principle.



· Christians have argued from the moment the SORs were proposed
that the law should not force them to act in a manner contrary to the
Bible’s teaching by requiring them to actively condone any extra-marital sexual
conduct (heterosexual or homosexual).



However, it is clear (from the following examples) that the SORs will
do this. As far as Christians are concerned, the SORs are certainly not “a
big step forward towards dignity, respect and fairness”[17].



The SORs leave a crucial gap in the protection of vicars and
ministers[18] so that it will be illegal under Regulation 11 for them to teach their congregation that they should follow the Bible’s teaching on sexual
morality even where this conflicts with the SORs. For example, it would be
illegal for a vicar to cite the example of a Christian printing company asked
to print material promoting homosexuality, and then say ‘it is better to
follow the Bible’s teaching and risk being sued than to be complicit in sin by
printing leaflets promoting gay pride’.


The Regulation 14 exemption applies only to organisations – individuals
are not protected. This is illogical: Christianity quite clearly makes the
same requirements of an individual (that they do not condone sinful
behaviour) as it makes of a Christian organisation such as a church.


The SORs are inconsistent and discriminatory because they tell a
Christian that whilst in church they have (subject to 1), above) freedom of
religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of expression to be taught that
homosexual practice is a sin, outside the doors of the church, legislation makes it illegal for them to refuse to promote and assist homosexual practice.



Under the SORs an individual Christian GP, for example, would have no
freedom of conscience to refuse to give a reference recommending
homosexual parents as suitable for adopting if the GP did not believe it would be right / in the best interests of a child to be raised without a father and a
mother. This is inconsistent with the freedom of conscience afforded to
the same doctor under the Abortion Act to refuse to recommend / perform an
abortion.



The SORs give no protection to a church or other religious organisation
where they receive funding from the local authority to provide goods or
services such that if a church receives state funding to run, for
example, an overnight homeless shelter, it will lose all the protection under
Regulation 14 and would not even be able to refuse membership of the
church to openly practising homosexuals[19].


Under the SORs there is no protection for commercial Christian
organisations, however strong their Christian ethos. There is no doubt
that under the Regulations a Christian printing company will be acting
illegally if they refuse to print fliers promoting gay sex. This is completely at
odds with the Government’s promise in November 2006 that “I would like to
take this opportunity to clarify that the Regulations will not require
anyone to promote gay rights or a homosexual lifestyle’”[20].


Further examples under the Regulations include the fact that it will be
illegal for an Islamic wedding photographer to refuse to attend and
take publicity photographs at a gay Civil Partnership ceremony and it will
be illegal for a Jewish conference centre to refuse to allow its premises
to be used by an organisation promoting homosexual practice.



Under the SORs there is no protection for many voluntary organisations
which, although run by Christians who are motivated by their faith, are
not strictly 'religious' in the language of the legislation (e.g. a
Christian homeless shelter would not be able to hold the policy that ‘we will not provide services to someone if this were to promote homosexual
practices’).

The case (featured in The Telegraph, 12/12/06)[21] with Haringey
Council illustrates the point. The Christian lady running the voluntary Family
Centre explained very clearly to the Council that her position was "We
welcome gay people but we will not promote gay values". This was not
enough to satisfy the local council who threatened to withdraw funding from
the centre. The SORs will have the same impact in hundreds of other cases.



· It is important to note that it is quite possible to draft
the SORs in a way which strikes a better balance between the competing
rights, and the Government could easily have done more to safeguard the
fundamental freedoms of those who hold religious beliefs. For example, under
similar Canadian laws, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice held that a
Christian printer could not be compelled to print everything a gay or lesbian
organization brought to him where to do so was contrary to fundamental
beliefs (Ontario Human Rights Commission v Brockie (2002)).





Education



· The Government has repeatedly stated that “the Regulations
will
not require changes in the current curriculum nor will they force
schools to
change how they deliver education to their pupils”[22] and yet the
specialist Parliamentary lawyers who advised the Joint Committee on
Statutory Instruments only the day before this statement was made, were
adamant that the curriculum was covered by the SORs. The Joint
Committee on
Human Rights stated that this issue was in urgent need of clarification
by
the Government[23].



If the SORs do apply to the curriculum then they will make it illegal
for
all schools (including faith schools) to subject a pupil to “any other
detriment”[24] (defined by judges as meaning very broadly “putting at a
disadvantage”[25]) by the teaching that is given. The homosexual
parents of
a school child could argue that the child was ‘put at a disadvantage’
if the
school (even if it was a Christian school) was failing to educate
pupils
that homosexual relationships were just as acceptable as marriage
relationships.

There are already reports of schools who understand their obligation
under
the SORs will be to begin to promote homosexuality: “Fourteen primary
schools are already taking part in a £600,000 Government-funded study
aimed
at familiarising children with gay and lesbian relationships. […] Dr
Elizabeth Atkinson, reader in social and educational inquiry at
Sunderland
University, said: "The purpose of the project is to support schools in
meeting their requirements under the Equality Act, which will require
all
public institutions to meet the needs of gay and lesbian users.”[26]

· The Joint Committee on Human Rights has also expressed the
remarkably illiberal view that “the Regulations should clearly apply to
the
curriculum, so that homosexual pupils are not subjected to teaching, as
part
of their religious education or other curriculum, that their sexual
orientation is sinful or morally wrong”[27].





Procedural issues relating to the Regulations



· Between March 2006[28] and January 2007[29], no information
at all was given by the Government regarding the content of the highly
controversial SORs. When concerns were repeatedly raised, the Lawyers’
Christian Fellowship were told (in a letter from Meg Munn MP, 17th
November 2006) “We will publish a Government response to the consultation
setting out our conclusions in the light of the consultation findings in good time to meet the timetable for commencement”.

[Miguel]

After the 11 month silence, the Government published both the
Regulations and their response to the consultation on the 7th March. Within 7 days they had expedited proceedings so that the SORs went through the House of Lords Merits Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the House of Commons Delegated Legislation Committee. Within 14 days of publication, the SORs will have gone through both Houses and, unless opposed in the Lords, will become law.



This procedure is undemocratic and makes a mockery of the Government’s
supposed commitment to listening to the views of the electorate (an
unprecedented number of whom submitted to the consultation on the SORs:
there was an “exceptionally strong response”[30] on the issue of
religious freedom in favour of broader exemptions).



· Repeated requests were made by MPs in the Delegated
Legislation Committee to postpone the debate. The requests were refused by the Labour MP chairing the debate. That chairperson declared that the only way possible to delay the debate would be for a dilatory motion to be passed. When an MP duly sought to bring such a motion the chairperson refused to accept it: it was not even allowed to go to a vote.



Not one Lib Dem or Labour MP (aside from their respective frontbench
spokespeople) had the chance to speak[31] about the Regulations, and
the only Conservative MP (other than their spokesperson) who was called by
the chair only had 2 minutes before the vote was called. Ironically, just
one week earlier Ruth Kelly stated about the SORs that “Good Government is
not about ducking difficult questions – it is about robust debate”.[32]



· In the time between their publication on the 7th March and
the Delegated Legislation Committee meeting on the 15th March, the SORs had
been withdrawn 3 times because of drafting defects. Over 20 changes were
made to the Regulations within this time and many of those changes affected the scope and substantive impact of the Regulations.



· In addition, in their consultation paper on the SORs the
Government declared that “We look forward to hearing your views on our
proposals, so that we can take these into account”[33] but it appears
that the responses were ignored in relation to the key issues. Although “a
majority of both individuals and organisations sought a widening to the
[proposed] exemptions”[34] the Government rejected this.



· The SORs are now due to be laid in the House of Commons on
Monday 19th March. On Friday 16th March there was a rumour that there may also be a vote on the floor of the House of Commons on Monday 19th March and not on Wednesday as would be usual practice in this situation. This news has come late and at a time when MPs may not have had time to realise what is happening and that there might be a crucial vote.



· We request MPs to be present at the vote on the SORs and to
vote against them.

















Andrea Minichiello Williams

LCF Public Policy Officer

0771 2591164

http://www.lawcf.org

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk

If you do not want to receive anymore emails from Andrea Minichiello
Williams please click on reply and put UNSUBSCRIBE in the subject field



If you need to contact Andrea please contact her on
andrea@williamsa.force9.co.uk



Websites: http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk and

http://www.lawcf.org

Please consider financially supporting the work we do by making a
donation:

http://www.christianconcernforournation.co.uk/donation.php

LCF registered charity number 1017695





--------------------------------------------------------------------------------










--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] Government SOR consultation paper, pg 7

[2] Government response to SOR consultation paper, page 6

[3] David Hanson MP (The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office)
Second
Delegated Legislation Committee ‘Equality Act (Sexual Orientation)
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 [Column 36]

[4] Ibid. Column 36

[5] See the Joint Committee on Human Rights (Legislative Scrutiny:
Sexual
Orientation Regulations) HL Paper 58, HC 350 at paras 44 and 52

[6] Bernard Jenkin MP, Twelfth Delegated Legislation Committee, Draft
Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2007, 15th March 2007
[Column
4]

[7] Ibid. Edward Leigh MP [Column 6]

[8] Harriet Harman MP (New Statesman, 29th January 2007)

[9] Government SOR consultation paper, para 2.3

[10] Government SOR consultation paper, para 2.5

[11] For example, Clive Betts MP, Second Delegated Legislation
Committee
‘Equality Act (Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006
[Column 7]

[12] Ibid. Angela Eagle MP [Column 9]

[13] Ibid. Jeremy Corbyn MP [Column 22]

[14] 14th Report of the session 2006-07

[15] Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments 24th January 2007
(published
30th January 2007) (HL Paper 37, HC 82-vi)

[16] The Government response to the SOR consultation, page 10

[17] Ibid. Page 7

[18] This appears to be an inadvertent gap

[19] This again appears to be an inadvertent legal consequence of the
way
the SORs are drafted

[20] Letter from Meg Munn MP to the Lawyers’ Christian Fellowship (17th
November 2006).

[21]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/12/nxmas112.xml

[22] Meg Munn MP, Second Delegated Legislation Committee ‘Equality Act
(Sexual Orientation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 [Column 16]

[23] Joint Committee on Human Rights (Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual
Orientation Regulations) HL Paper 58, HC 350, para 63 – 67

[24] Regulation 7(1)(c)(iv)

[25] Jeremiah v MoD [1979] 3 All ER 833

[26]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=441542&in_page_id=1770

[27] Joint Committee on Human Rights (Legislative Scrutiny: Sexual
Orientation Regulations) HL Paper 58, HC 350, para 65

[28] Publication of the Government SOR consultation paper

[29] The Prime Minister’s statement about catholic adoption agencies

[30] Government response to the SOR consultation, page 9

[31] Notwithstanding interventions and points of order

[32] Ruth Kelly MP, 7th March 2007 (Government response to the SOR
consultation, page 6)

[33] Government SOR consultation, page 7

[34] Government response to the SOR consultation, page 15

[BIANCA RODRIGUEZ]

Homosexuality

As a mature christian lady, but with a very open mind and no religious denomination, but a solid faith in God, I would like to write my comments about this issue. I believe that God loves the sinner, but not the sin. I know many homosexuals that are very good people, decent and educated people, but I know some others that shows their deviations with no respect for other people at all. I disagree with the people who thinks that homosexuals are not born that way, that they develop the homosexuality. Most of homosexuals are born that way, but some of them keep it to themselves because they are ashamed or scared. Some others developed their tendencies because of another factors. When we are fundamentalist about the Word of God, our tendency is to judge and criticized. The only one who has the right to judge is God. Nobody else. Don't forget! Nowadays, I'm against the protests and the demands of homosexuals about equal rights, including to marry between them and even adopting children. Married is for two people of different sex (man & woman) and children should be raised by a couple of different sex. Children needs both figures, both examples. God made it that way, guys. There's no other option. As per homosexual couples, that's their life. If they choosed to live together for the rest of their lives, that's their choice. But, please, don't pretend to have the same rights as an heterosexual couple. Don't pretend that everybody has to applauded your lifestyle. Keep it by yourselves. I respect you with all my heart as human beings, but I cannot agree and feeling pleased in seeing two men or two women kissing, hugging and something else...
God bless you all.
With respect,
Bianca Rodriguez.

[SERay]

Homosexual Rights and Judgement

Very well put Bianca! I agree completely. There are many church attendees who can quote extensive lengths of scripture, but are so full of self-righteous pride that their tongues spill forth only judgment. This is not God's heart nor is it the message of Jesus. Be it known, knowledge without humility and love yields a judgmental spirit.

I reflect on John chapter 8:1-11 about the woman caught committing adultery. When Christ was left standing alone with the accused, Jesus said to her, "Neither do I condemn you. Go, and sin no more." He did not judge her, nor are we to judge anyone. It is another thing to call into accountability one who claims the name of Christ and is guilty of sin that leads to death. That MUST be swiftly dealt with and as written in 1 Peter Chapter 4, judgment BEGINS in the house of the Lord. However those outside the church, who choose to live as those destroyed in Sodom and Gomorrah, must be willing to face there own consequences. It is not for us to judge.

Genetically speaking, people are often born with a propensity to misdirected affections much like children born as transgender. This is not spiritual in origin, this is a physical reality that can become a spiritual issue. Homosexuals are no more evil that anyone else who have committed sin. However, because their position in life is marked by many just scourgings of scripture, they are quickly labeled as reprobate. Can we say the man who has a lust for underage girls is born with this unnatural desire and is subject to unfair judgments? Or has the man become immoral by progressive choices that resulted in a pedophile tendency? What I do know is each person is ultimately responsible for their own choices. If I am to heed a deviation of my sexual orientation that is a perversion of God's moral absolutes, then I will receive my just end if I never repent before death.

Therefore we should choose carefully, making sure our choices reflect God's standard from his human guide book called the Bible. Inspired by God, written by man. Even if there are grammarical errors or if the story is an allegory, the Spirit that is behind the Holy Book is God's Spirit. Do not become consumed by who said what or how it is written as foolish men do. Rather be open to God's Spirit through the essense of the messages written. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, thoroughly equipped for every good work" (2 Timothy 3:16-17).

I write this to those who ignore the clear warning in scripture regarding the homosexual lifestyle. "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinthians 6:9-10) One must argue the authenticity of the scripture and deny the source of origin to justify continuing in this sin. I must say man wrote it therefore I have grounds to disqualify it. Then I am left to constuct my on moral code or what is right and wrong. Scripture quotes God, the one who sins MUST die! Christ died for us, but we must recieve His death and follow his precepts... obey his teachings.

There are members in Christ's church or who serve in the church as leadership and claim fellowship with God through Christ. The practicing homosexual is not in Christ, they do not have His Spirit nor are they genuine Christians. One cannot continue in and knowingly practice sin and have Christ's Spirit which is the seal of salvation. When Christ comes in, we are changed, despise known sin and flee from it. THAT is the test for yourself to know if your conversion is authentic. Practicing homosexuals WILL be separated from God eternally if they don't repent completely. This is an absolute truth and denying it will only increase the veil of darkness shrouding the discernment of the soul.

Please review article on homosexuality from the main site here: http://www.eternalpath.com/homosexuality.html