It's a perfectly good reason to kick them out of your church if that's your thing.

However here's the thing - not everyone shares the belief that homosexuality is sinful. Not even all Christian churches agree on that one. Christ doesn't seem to address it - at least that I know of and, having seen some recent studies on the matter, even if someone has a passage that says he does we can't be sure that's even what was really said.

The entire "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone" quote, for instance, is found only in ONE document out of the massive collection which eventually became gathered together into the bible. It's appended at the end and in a different dialect that was not in use when the original document was written. By some entirely unknown and unnamed scribe. Did that phrase actually get said? Probably not.

Now that doesn't invalidate the base message, necessarily, but it means relying on specific text or phrases is dangerous because they may not be right. One biblical scholar who spent his ENTIRE LIFE studying original scripture, has a degree from the extremely reglious Moody Bible College etc. will tell you flat out that there are more discrepancies in the original biblical texts than there are WORDS in the new testament!

So did Christ ever condemn homosexuality himself? We don't know. If there is something that does lead to that conclusion there's no guarantee that the scribe writing that text didn't just tweak it in there because of their personal beliefs or to dovetail better with the story of Lot or some such.

One thing we can be at least somewhat certain of based on the original texts is that homosexuality, practice of it or lack of it is not a main theme in Christ's teachings. It just doesn't appear enough. Given the holes in the original documents and their disagreements we just cannot KNOW anything much past the 'If it came up at all, it sure didn't come up very much.'

So from Christ's view, we cannot know.

From society's view, however, the practice is not illegal and is becoming less and less marginalized each and every year that passes. Once any kind of homosexual sex was flat out illegal. The Supreme Court shot that down back in (IIRC) 1967.

Marriage is NOT a purely Christian activity. Secular people get married without any religious overtones at all (my own wedding wass purely secular - in fact we had a good friend perform the ceremony, something perfectly legal in this Province with the correct permissions filed). But even if we delve into religion, then many non-Christian religions have forms of marriage. Hindu, Sikh, Buddist, Muslim, Neo-Pagan, Ancient Pagan (of many stripes), Shinto the list goes on and on and on. Not all of those marriages even fit the fundamentalist Christian interpretation of a single man and a single woman. Indeed, in ancient Judaic tradition there are many examples of people extremely holy and beloved of God who were part of various types of plural or multiple marriages. One sect of Christianity does not 'own' the term by any stretch of the imagination.

The United States, people tend to forget, was founded under an original mandate of Freedom of Religion. It is, in fact, why the Pilgrims and many of the original settlers came to the New World in the first place! Within that mandate NO ONE has the right to place their version of marriage (or a funeral or any other sacrament or activity) above any other. LEGALLY the laws as they are should not be. Should never have been save that people are imperfect creatures at following the original Founding Father's ideals. And let's not forget that those ideals were intentionally framed in broad terms. Even their specific beliefs would need amending with the passage of time and it's certain that at least some of them knew that. Recall that when the US Constitution was written slavery was legal and women had few if any rights.

Hatemongers and bigots notwithstanding - Gay marriage is coming. It will happen, almost certainly, when the Prop 8 case finally wends its way to the Supreme Court. And so it should.

It is not for us to judge who someone else may love. As Joel himself says, love cannot be coerced. Nor should it be damned simply because someone who has saddled themselves with a belief system millennia out of date can't get their minds into the twenty first century.

Basically, Aisha has it right. Sure, SHE may not believe that what's going on is allowed by her religion, but as long as they don't follow that religion, well then that's all good now ain't it?

Oh yes, on other little tidbit. For me, a combination of nature and nurture has left me pretty much incapable of faith. It's not what I would choose - because it's a very uncomfortable place to live one's life in. It is, however, honest. Were I to 'profess my belief in Christ' it would be pure hypocrisy because I am not CAPABLE of believing such a thing. I didn't choose to lack that capability. That came with the package same as blue/green/grey eyes, broad shoulders and hair that fell out way too early. It just IS.

And I'm damned/excommunicate for that inability to believe? Well, I suppose that's a good thing because if that is how it is, then I know which side I'd have been on in the war in heaven and it ain't the side that won.