Star Trek

your insistance that it is a choice is an escape.  If you deny that they are the way god made them then you can justify your hate.

Just sawn an article that Billy Graham just came out endorsing NC's proposed amendment to support Biblically defined marriage.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/rev-billy-graham-endorses-nc-amendment-to-ban-gay-marriage-the-bible-is-clear/

I tend to agree with Wissa that most gays do not "choose" to be gay.

Still, even if they did "choose", that is and should be considered their choice. As Bevi said earlier, it is not for us to question their choice, or to discriminate (or perhaps it is clearer to say to prejudge) such indidivuals. I also very much doubt that Jesus would want us to be prejudiced against such people either. Jesus was about charity and forgiving, so I doubt that he would have been in favor of the prejudice that so many "modern" Christians insist on practicing.  

so what?  we are supposed to be living with a separation of church and state.  The california assembly said there was no good reason not to allow gays to marry. 

And you accuse me of "hate" when it's really concern for another person.  Because I care, I don't approve of people doing things that are harmful (and all sin is harm.)

Now... you're hatred of the Bible is apparent.... can't let God tell you right and wrong....   But then again, that's your choice.

I don't hate the bible.  I hate the self rightousness and arrogance of people who choose to follow it.

I have met some wonderful christians here.  It's the hatefull ones I don't like.

The point is that they don't need an excuse. There is nothing fundamentaly wrong with the life style they adopt. To express love for another individual, even sexual love in a monogamous relationship, is not wrong. It is bordeline mental illness to suggest that it is.

Hint:  It's the same guy that allocated funds for the Bible to be printed by the US Government and money to be used for missionaries.

Hint 2: Even though a majority of people believe it is, it's not in the US Constitution.

Amendment I:  Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

I don't care if it's in the constitution or not.  I'm not american remember?  and this is not an american centric topic.

all western countries have as an ideal the separation of church and state.  You allow fundamentalists of any religion to take over the governmant and you tyranny.  Look around the globe if you don't believe me

Alright here's the irony of the situation - there are a handful of biblical references apparently condeming homosexual practices.  However thereisn't complete agreement among biblical linguistic scholars that they are correctly translating terms in the early books of the Bible concerning  sexual practices.  There isn't agreement as to what word would correspond to the modern concept of homosexuality as non-coercive relations between two adults with a life-long exclusive attraction to the same gender.

At the time the Bible was written there were fertility practices in neighboring non-monotheistic religions, temple prostitues of both sexes, the practice of male on male rape of strangers equivalent to modern prison rape, pedophila, and slavery of young children usually sexually abusive..     It's not clear whether the terms for these practices are being confused with what we would consider homosexuality.

But again... look up the origins of the ideal of "separation of church and state" - it means almost the opposite of what people have redefined it to mean today.

no base govemment on what is fair and right to all citizens.  Not just those that follow a particular religion.

and I didn't bring up the constituion.  I brought up the ideal of separation of church and state.  Something I believe was actually mentioned in the bible was it not?