I'm sure many of you have heard [especially you fellow California residents] that Prop 8 has been overturned, and deemed unconstitutional. Many are happy, many are vexed; but where do I stand in the rainbow debate? Here is where you will find out.

I personally believe that homosexual, bisexual, gender-queer, and transgender peoples, whether they be active or not, will not go to hell or be punished for their sexual/relationship activities as long as they do not harm themselves or others.

Christians commonly react along the lines of "But it goes against God's word!" or "It's an abomination, of course they're going to hell!"

[Please note in the following bible verses, I may only list one version but I actually looked at three, only listing the ones that were the easiest to understand.]

Leviticus 20:13 NIV version-"If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."

This book was written by Moses and was probably issued around 1445 B.C., when the Israelites were camping by Mount Sinai. You see, this is an old testament book. Christians are not bound by the Old Testament, but yet they still read it, and many of them see it as what should be obeyed [despite the fact these are JUDAIC rules for JUDAIC people who follow the religion of JUDAISM.] Even then, it was a holiness pact, a contract with God and the people of that current time to abide by these rules. Both Paul and Christ said these rules do not pertain to Christians. If Christians were to follow these rules, they would also not be allowed to shave their beards, have sex with menstruating women, eat shellfish, and other rules. They would also have to follow the Ten Commandments; one of these is to keep the Sabbath holy, and not do any labor. This has clearly been violated, by Christian and heathen alike.  So, in retrospect it is best that Christians focus on the New Testament, the true testament of Christianity.

I would also like to note that in Leviticus, lesbianism is not directly mentioned, therefore questioning whether it would be discouraged. I believe it would be less of a deal, one sin rather than two, if it is a sin. Why? You see, from what the Israelites knew of the human body, semen was quite literally the seed, the unborn child. Women were just the incubators, and so gay men were committing murder in their eyes. Also, they were in a desert, surrounded by their enemies, and needed as many people as they could to defend themselves and to survive; no child could go to waste. This is also why masturbation was discouraged.

This verse was used for centuries to discourage masturbation. Genesis 38:9-10, NIV version "But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing for her. What he did was wicked in the Lord's sight; so he put him to death also." In this story, it was Onan's job to make a child for Tamar. It is according to Jewish law that if a wife is left husbandless, his brother is to lay with her to create a child for her. He was killed by God for denying her the right of a child, not because he was playing with himself. This is one of many biblical cases in which scripture has twisted for the Church's purposes.

"What about the story of Sodom? Clearly he was displeased by their rampant sexuality, ESPECIALLY the homosexuals."
This story can be found in Genesis 19. The Lord decided to destroy the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah, and in verses 5-8, a group of men try to rape Lot's male guests [whom were angels in disguise]. I believe the wrong of this is not in the idea of sexuality, but in the concept of gang rape, something that has been despised from the very beginning. Even then, people do not rape out of lust; they do it for control. In fact, gay people can be raped too, and they don't have to be raped by other gay people. Straight people have raped gay people.   This is not to say that gay people have not raped straight people, because that isn't true either.

Let us look at Ezekiel 16:48-49, NIV version, and see what it says: "This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Not helping those in need is an abomination to God, not homosexuality. Christ himself, and 4 other Jewish prophets speak of the reasons God wiped out Sodom and Gomorrah, and homosexuality isn't listed once. Out of a million bible verses, only 6 or 7 regard homosexuality. So, I'd like to think it's not a big deal in God's eyes.

"Okay, so we don't abide by the Old Testament. The New Testament is anti gay too!"

Romans 1:26-27, NKJ version- "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." This was written by Paul in A.D. 57 from Corinth, as a letter to the Christian Romans. You see, many of the people who were performing these homosexual acts were not homosexual, and so it was unnatural to them. Why did they do it? The Romans would do it to please their pagan gods, who were worshipped through sex. No praise can come from this behavior; all they are really doing is spreading disease, violating the Lord's temple, a shameful act. Sex is supposed to be a pleasurable procreation process, a special physical and emotional experience to be shared with the one you love. It is not to be taken so lightly as to fling around like they did, nor do I believe that any God would use something so sacred and risky in its own right as a form of worship.

1 Corinthians 6:9-11 NKJ version- "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. and such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." Paul also wrote this in A.D. 57, to help the people of Corinth as he was in Ephesus. The Corinthian and Ephesian churches were bickering at the time, and Paul was trying to make peace. This verse may seem to speak loud and clear, and in English it does; but in Greek, Paul uses the words malokis and arsenokoitai? Greek scholars say it [malokis] probably meant school boy, and the NIV version says it means male prostitute. Either way, pedophilia and being with whores is not encouraged by God, no matter what gender they are.  Nobody really knows what arsenokoitai means.

"… They choose to be gay."
How do you know? Are you secretly gay?  Why would someone choose to be gay/lesbian/bisexual with all the persecution they face? The only reason I can think of that someone would choose to be of a different sexuality is if it somehow seemed right to them; meaning it has a scientific origin. Did you know that the brains of gay men are of similar size to women's size, that they are smaller than the brains of heterosexual men? Did you know that bisexual and lesbian women respond more masculinely when they are startled, and not like heterosexual women?

God loves everyone, and made them in his image. For what I know, homosexuals are born that way. I've met people who have felt an attraction towards those of the opposite [or of both sexes] all their life. Why would God persecute his creation, for being what comes natural to them? Would God condemn a retarded child, for not understanding His Word, despite the fact that it was born that way and he created it to be so? No. God is not a hypocrite. Even the gay man and the retarded child are made in his image, and they are fearfully and wonderfully made. One may say, "Okay it comes naturally to them. It's still a sin." My question is, "How?" I understand that men and women's bodies were made to fit together [as that is the way humans pro-create so it is appropriate], but you can't say it is incompatible for peoples of the same gender to haves sexual enjoyment from each other. Then one may say, "That's why God gave us free will." Stop using that excuse. I am utterly tired of hearing it, and people using it as a loophole.

"Well, Jesus says it's wrong to be gay!"

Let me tell you a secret: No he doesn't. Never, in any of the verses regarding Jesus Christ, or in the direct words of Jesus Christ is homosexuality condemned, or even mentioned. Neither do any of the Jewish prophets mention it.  If anything, Jesus promoted loving anyone and everyone, whether they seemed to deserve it or not. An example of this...

Luke 7:36-48 "Now one of the Pharisees invited Jesus to have dinner with him, so he went to the Pharisee's house and reclined at the table. When a woman who had lived a sinful life in that town learned that Jesus was eating at the Pharisee's house, she brought an alabaster jar of perfume, and as she stood behind him at his feet weeping, she began to wet his feet with her tears. Then she wiped them with her hair, kissed them and poured perfume on them.
When the Pharisee who had invited him saw this, he said to himself, "If this man were a prophet, he would know who is touching him and what kind of woman she is—that she is a sinner."
Jesus answered him, "Simon, I have something to tell you."
"Tell me, teacher," he said.
"Two men owed money to a certain moneylender. One owed him five hundred denarii, and the other fifty. Neither of them had the money to pay him back, so he canceled the debts of both. Now which of them will love him more?"
Simon replied, "I suppose the one who had the bigger debt canceled."
"You have judged correctly," Jesus said.
Then he turned toward the woman and said to Simon, "Do you see this woman? I came into your house. You did not give me any water for my feet, but she wet my feet with her tears and wiped them with her hair. You did not give me a kiss, but this woman, from the time I entered, has not stopped kissing my feet. You did not put oil on my head, but she has poured perfume on my feet. Therefore, I tell you, her many sins have been forgiven—for she loved much. But he who has been forgiven little loves little."
Then Jesus said to her, "Your sins are forgiven."

If Jesus was indeed the Son of the God that created the Bible [the #1 weapon against homosexuals other than perhaps the Koran] would he have been a bit more cruel? This woman was supposedly a prostitute, and clearly committed other wrongs in her life [note all sins are equal in the Lord's eyes, and this is presuming homosexuality is a sin] yet she was forgiven, and treated with love. Isn't that how it should be, a God who loves us and takes us in no matter how much we screw up, instead of condemning it for being human?

[It's amazing how ignorant Christians can be. "A recent study quoted by Dr. Peter Gomes in The Good Book found that 38 percent of Americans polled were certain nthe Old Testament was written a few years after Jesus' death. Ten percent believed Joan of Arc was Noah's wife. Many even though the epistles were the wives of the apostles." ~soul force.org Some say that not all Americans are CHristian, but a good majority have had some sort of Christian background.]

"Allowing them to marry would violate the sanctity of marriage! Marriage is a union between a man and a woman, by God."
Umm, according to Dictionary.com the 1st definition of marriage is along those lines; the following 3 definitions afterwards can define a union of two people no matter their gender. These may not be the 1st definition listed, but that is because it is less popular. It does not make them any less valid. I would also like to bring up what I consider to be a true violation of marriage: divorce. As of 2002, roughly 43% of American marriages ended in divorce. That is a violation of marriage. The bible does not encourage divorce,  in neither the Old or New Testaments, and neither did Jesus.

Mark 10: 1-12 NIV version - "Jesus then left that place and went into the region of Judea and across the Jordan. Again crowds of people came to him, and as was his custom, he taught them.
Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, 'Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?'
'What did Moses command you?' he replied.
They said, 'Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away.'
'It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law,' Jesus replied. 'But at the beginning of creation God 'made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.'
When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, 'Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.'"

Divorce was out of the question until Henry the VIIIth came along, and the Catholic Church rejected him. Miffed, he created his own church [now known as the Anglican church, the dominant church of England] to appease himself. Now that is a violation of marriage.
Despite the fact I do not have all the research to back this quote up, I'm sure the quotee does. Her words make sense, and I believe they should be heard.

"Marriage is a legal ceremony, a binding of two people who are in love, and this idea was around LONG before Christianity even came onto the scene; people were betrothed to one another as far back as Civilization history goes. It's not governed by religion any more. if atheists can get married in a church - which they can, without issue - why can't gay people? Allowing gay people to marry will not lead to people marrying animals; this view is entirely unsupportable and ridiculous. The animal doesn't feel the same way as the human; they can't say their vows and they have no idea of what they're even agreeing to. marriages can't be one-way unions or cross-species. Gay people are not another species…
And to pick up on the last part - being gay isn't "wrong" in the slightest. It can be easily explained as a natural "population check", to help prevent numbers from rising beyond sustainable levels. It is a natural occurrence observable in over 500 other animal species so far, and there are many hundreds more to be
studied." ~ :iconKezzi-Rose: our fellow deviant

[I couldn't have said it better myself.]

"Okay, so if homosexuality is wrong, do gay animals go to hell? It only proves it's a savage, animal-like behavior, a habit taken on by those around us."

Well, animals also happen to occasionally kill their young and lick their own genitals [habits that are obviously not encouraged in human beings], yet they have good reason for those things and more. Everything an animal does has a purpose, they are hardly ever "out to get us". If anything, animals have souls more advanced and God connected than our own. I don't think God would send an animal to hell for doing what comes naturally to them, even if it seems wrong to us. They don't know what's wrong, and depending on your view, not being "straight" isn't wrong.

"Even when we believe the scriptures are 'without error,' it's a risk to think that our understanding is without error." ~Reverend Mel White [Mel White is homosexual, believe it or not.]

"Homosexuality is not a mental disorder and thus there is no need for a cure." ~The America Psychological Association [This quote proves that the APA does not see homosexuality as a disorder, and considers it to be natural.]

I want God's gay and lesbian children to know of God's unconditional love and acceptance of them as well. We cannot find any condemnation in scripture for committed monogamous same-sex relationships." Rev. Charles Coppinger

"Even the devil can cite Scripture for his purpose." ~William Shakespeare