Dear Rhian

you say:

"Jesus’ mission was to reach out to those his society despised,"

I have to disagree.

Jesus mission was to reach out to ALL humanity. Singling out the 'despised' for the sake of an argument about gay marriage flies in the face of Jesus clear pronouncements about "the immoral will NOT inherit the kingdom of God"

Let me ask you a question. (please)... When Jesus reached out to the corrupt tax collectors.. did he seek to impart a renewal of heart to them..through repentance or.... that they would remain in their sin?

Remember the woman caught in adultery ? After he scolded her accusers...he said "Go, and SIN NO MORE"

So, let's make no mistake..the Gospel and our Lords mission is redemptive....being born "again" is also born "anew" into Christ.
'
How does Paul describe it ?

Romans 6

1 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

Homosexual behavior...no matter how much it is argued to the contrary, is sin. Just as adultery, fornication,theft, murder,jealousy are.

I see your argument, but I believe it fails the test of scripture, but passes the test of sentimental emotion for those who wish it to.

As always, the "gay" lobby and their apologists give no answer to the incest dilemma:
If anyone should be allowed to marry, then why not brothers, etc?

The reason they give no answer is not because they don't have one,
it's because giving their answer would waken up the sleeping dead and maybe even some homo-apologists.

Any moral relativist can see that there's no difference between two men getting married and two brothers getting married.
However, admitting so at this stage risks derailing the agenda.
For the reality on incest, look at the response of progressives when one of their own is found to be in a sexual relationship with their daughter:

"Why do we care who he has relations with? As long as he and his daughter don’t risk birth defect by procreating then consenting adults can do as they please. Many royals marry those very closely related, it’s only in our modern society that we find this practice odd."

"It’s ridiculous that there’s a law concerning this. If two (or more) parties are consenting adults, it’s none of the government’s business what kind of sex life they have."

"“Some things are simply always going to be appalling and thoroughly disgusting…” To you, perhaps. Do you want to be the sole arbiter of morality for everyone else in the world? Whatever will we do when you pass on?"

"This isn’t far away from arresting gay people for congregating in bar ala 1969. As the recipient of much maligning as a gay person historically, I would take a long deep breath before condemning the actions of another. May be some of you should too."

http://weaselzippers.us/2010/12/13/lefties-unsurprisingly-ok-with-incest-after-huff-po-writer-arrested-for-having-sex-with-his-daughter/

Those of us who have been watching this all unfold know what the reality is.

Homosexual "marriage"
Incestuous "marriage"
There is no difference.

You cannot logically support homosexual "marriage" and reject incestuous "marriage".
There is no moral difference, relatively speaking.

The question is: How far gone are the homo-apologists?

Algoreisrich

I agree Jesus reached out to all humanity, that’s why I say the scriptures are universalist. But I also contend the gospels show He has a particular focus on the marginalised. Also, his admonitions were more often directed at the complacent religious establishment than at the “sinners” they looked down on. This at the very least should make us pause and reflect on who are the modern-day equivalent of lepers and tax-collectors, and indeed scribes and Pharisees.

One key difference between us is that you assume homosexuality is a sin. If you start with that assumption, then you will conclude that homosexuality is to be discouraged. But I don’t accept it is a sin, and therefore conclude that homosexuals have nothing to repent – except the same stuff as the rest of us. If homosexuality is not immoral, then the real sin is to discriminate against someone because of their sexual orientation.

I also believe that we should not draft laws on the basis we disapprove of someone’s actions, or to impose religious norms. Much human behaviour that IS sinful – selfishness, lust, greed, indifference to the suffering of others – can’t be legislated against and shouldn’t be if it could. I may disapprove of adultery, but it is no concern of the law.

Proxy

There are good practical reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriages – the risk of in-breeding being an obvious one.

The article also points out that marriage is to some degree a social and cultural construct that vaies between societies and over time. In some societies polygamy, arranged marriages, concubinage, and marriages of young girls are or have been the norm (and all are taken as “normal” in the parts of bible!). But almost all societies have strong taboos against incest, and I see no prospect of that changing soon. That said, the degree of separation required varies a lot between cultures. The bible has quite a lot of marriages between first cousins, which we would disapprove of today (Isaac and Rebekah, and sisters Rachel and Leah who both married Jacob).

<<There are good practical reasons for prohibiting incestuous marriages – the risk of in-breeding being an obvious one>>
Please point to data on the risk of in-breeding between homosexual brothers.

<<But almost all societies have strong taboos against incest>>
As most societies still have against homosexuality.

If the taboos against homosexuality can be lifted by a few vociferous agitators,
why not incest?

I repeat,
What is wrong, in your eyes, with two homosexual brothers getting married?

TRUTHNOW78 said: "With recent advances in medicine and science, it will soon be possible to screen out the homosexual instinct. So it seems we've been debating an issue that will soon be extinct.

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/15/science/la-sci-adrenal-20100815

In the end, God wins everytime."

Does God win when homosexual children commit suicide because of attitudes like yours?

Does God win when those who say they worship him choose bigotry and hatred over love and acceptance?

Your idea that homosexuals can be wiped out is one that has been embraced by good Christians before. The Nazis, of course, called for the extermination of Jews while wearing belt buckles emblazoned with the words "Gott Mitt Uns". In Australia, missionaries worked with the government to 'breed out' the Aborigines. Yes, your religion has a fine history of trying to exterminate those who don't accord with your narrow views of what is 'natural'.

Oh dear! Proxy is really getting desperate now........on this issue.

Proxy, incest can fall under any category of human sexuality and I very much doubt whether the gay community would go that far as to draw that much unwanted attention to themselves...since they are constantly reminded by the small number of.....out of date 19th century......bigots....I mean who in there right mind commits these acts now-days. I think you should stop living in the dark-ages and wish all who want to find love......all the best, don't you think?

Maybe you should try to get to know some gay people before you judge.

Tell you what........Go to the taxi-club in Sidney and play some bingo with some really cool human-beings.......and don't worry....I used to be frighten of them as well.

Proxy! They just want to live and love just like you do........so if you have not got the guts to find out who and what their about......just stay in your little corner and as usual......and just point your finger.

You God people need help..........really.

BLU