>And since Homosexuality is a SIN, there would be no need to
>address same sex marriages. That's like since murder is a sin,
>there is no need to address mass killings.



but the old testament DID address mass killings.
you know, in the part that said you can't go around murdering people.

the old testament is remarkably specific about
what is and is not allowed under the law. the old
testament said what women should do during their period,
what fabrics can be worn, what can and cannot be done during the Sabbath.

so why, oh why, would the old testament leave out the bit about
dudes marrying dudes and women marrying women?

did the folks writing the old testament just forget about it?
or did they not write about it because homosexuality--
as distinguished from heterosexuality-- was not a word, not a concept,
not a thing, until sometime in the late 19th century.
either way, the fact of the matter is it's not there.
so you might wanna stop preaching about it as if it is.



but i know you don't care about any book besides the bible,
so let's get into the passages you cited.
first, we'll deal with the old testament passages.

>Leviticus 18:22-23 — You shall not lie with a male as with a
>woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any
>animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand
>before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. (NKJV)
>
>Leviticus 20:13 — If a man lies with a male as he lies with a
>woman, both of them have committed an abomination. They shall
>surely be put to death. Their blood shall be upon them.
>(NKJV)
>


as all antinomians know,
christians are saved from the
moral law of the old testament by Grace.
which is why it's totally cool for christians to wear polyester, their paychecks at a bank,
and eat delicious pork sandwiches at
church cookouts--even though yesusha himself wouldn't
even think of eating a fried pig.

if you need a reminder about the scriptures
that show that Christians are saved by Grace,
and not the moral laws of the old testament, check
Hebrews 7:18-19 Galatians 3:23-25
Romans 7:4 Romans 6:14




so now let's deal with your new testament scriptures.


>Romans 1:22-32 — Professing to be wise, they became fools, and
>changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made
>like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and
>creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to
>uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their
>bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for
>the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the
>Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God
>gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged
>the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the
>men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their
>lust for one another, men with men committing what is
>shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their
>error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain
>God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind,
>to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with
>all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness,
>covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife,
>deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters,
>haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil
>things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy,
>unloving, unforgiving, unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous
>judgment of God, that those who practice such things are
>deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of
>those who practice them. (NKJV)
>
>





as i'm sure you know, paul wrote his letters to the romans
at a time when roman soldiers were conquering villages
and having non-consensual sex with young boys and slaves.
this is conduct which we still find reprehensible to this day.

again, the bible says nothing about marriages between
two men, or marriages between two women.
the bible passage you cited says that the raping of young boys is wrong, but that really doesn't have anything to do with
the type of relationships we are talking about today, now does it?

and quite frankly, i would hope you would know that was wrong
even if you didn't read it in the bible first.


btw, the other two passages you are about to cite
in your next reply to me (1 Corinthians 6 9-10 and 1 Timothy 1 9-10)
were written during the same time period,
and also are critical of the roman conqueror's habit
of conquering villages and raping children.


like i said, the bible is silent on homosexuality as we know it today.



of course, you can continue to feel icky about gays if you want to.
but don't tell me it's because of what you are reading in the
bible.

that's just the gospel according to case_one.
and for whatever reason, god didn't see fit to put
your views and perspectives in the canonical bible.

i know, because in all my years of going to church,
i never saw your name printed on the top of one of those gospels.



what's the phrase the kids were using back in the day?
you know, when nas wrote that song for jay-z and released it
on his birthday?


oh yeah.
i remember.











ether.





re-read what i wrote again and again.
it makes your soul burn slow.