If you are against gay marriage, you are a bad Christian.

[PoeticVengeance]

AndromedaM31

Christian politicians are using religious arguments to establish that homosexuality is an abomination by quoting the bible which says “ If a man lies with male as lies with woman, both of them have committed an abomination.” While this may be their belief system that still does not give Christian politicians the right to ban Gay marriage. This country was founded on religious freedom, where the people are allowed to worship how they see fit. A ground rule, set up from the beginning, states that separation needs to be made between religion and government, so the two shall never meld to become a theocracy

That particular verse is no longer relevant as moral law and become irrelevant the moment Jesus Christ fulfilled the last prophecy necessary to label him the messiah.

Because the messiah overwrites the Old Laws with the New.

And I do not recall Jesus once saying anything about being homosexual and whether it was wrong.

[PoeticVengeance]

Flemavenger

Quote:

raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.

Romans 1:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

Line 24 shows actions that were extremely deviant and dangerous, but never actually says homosexuality.

Line 25 is idolatry, and does not mention homosexuality.

Line 26 deals with more dangerous and deviant acts, but does not state that homosexuality is one of those acts.

Line 27 details homosexual men doing those previously mentioned deviant acts with each other. Once again, no explicit mention of homosexuality as one of those deviant acts.

In fact, line 27 treats not having sex with the women and having sex with each other as background information. That part is easily replacable in the line with words about having red hair or a cool pair of shoes and doesn't seem to change its meaning at all.

Now, there are even more issues with its usage by you then that, but I will only mention one.

Is that verse material stated by Christ, as Christ's teachings?

If not, seriously consider why you're paying it mind.

Quote:

I will stand by this scripture and I feel that Ananel's arguments against it are weak. I'm too lazy to adress his arguments in this post but I'll probably be compelled to in another post.

Address them please. A separate post if you will.

You can't just say, "I disagree" in the ED and then not write why.

Its like being a cocktease of debate. Don't give us debator blue balls!

Quote:

Quote:

arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.

Though they may have offended God. I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

Just because you won't use a right doesn't mean you don't or shouldn't have it.

All adults have the right to have sex and bear children.

Yet some do not wish to have sex (or are sterile) and can't bear children that way ever. They remain celibate forever (or never get pregnant) and instead adopt.

So, say hypothetically one were to take away the right of Christians to have children through sexually induced pregnancy.

When you claim that you don't have equal rights as a Christian to have children, they could easily make the same claim you just did.

"You have the same rights as us! You can adopt children and I can adopt children. I can't have sex and have children from sex, and neither can you."

You see how that statement is flawed?

Yours is flawed in exactly the same manner.

Just because you would never use a certain right does not mean it isn't a right. Something should be a right if it is ethically justified. And alternately a right should only be taken away if such a removal is ethically justified.

Morals are not ethics and are subjective. Therefore you believing that homosexuality is wrong is not an ethical justification for removing their rights. And it does not counter the ethical justifications for allowing them to marry the person they love and having the same rights and priveleges all married couples recieve and that unmarried couples do not.

[Calmer]

PoeticVengeance

He is actually referring to the Christian form of marriage as a religious term and construct.

It seemed the other way around to me, but I'll go with that for the time being (ELC is free to correct me either way).

PoeticVengeance

Christians have no right to do anything about secular marriage, as it has nothing to do with religion.

As we know.

PoeticVengeance

There is no biblical reason for any Christian sect to consider homosexuality wrong, and to prevent homosexual marriages to occur within the church, as well as outside of it.

So Christians that do so are bad Christians because they are going outside of the teachings of Christ, and even outright ignoring them in some cases.

So we assert that Christians can only consider something to be 'good' or 'bad' if it's referenced or implicitly derived from a reference within the scripture of Christ, and anything not mentioned is by default, amoral, and cannot be considered in either direction?

PoeticVengeance

The Catholic Church is especially guilty of this, as its dogmatic law contradicts Scripture in a lot of cases.

Thankfully for the Catholic Church, contradicting previous scripture is allowable, otherwise it would have been impossible to annul Levitical Law as is done in the New Testament. The Catholic Church also claims a position of enlightened interpretation and therefore self-justifies its changes, in much the same way as much of the Old Testament was declared voided by Christ and/or the Apostles in the New Testament.

PoeticVengeance

He's not saying (nor am I or any other) that Christian churches should be forced to bless marriages of divorced peoples or homosexuals.

Nor am I saying that you are: simply that it is an issue quite clearly related to this.

To give homosexuals the possibility of marriage within the Church, their promoters must declare the authority of those Churches invalid should those Churches deny that option. Doing so means another authority must be found to validate the marriages within that place (or possibly, to seperate the legal and Christian aspects of marriage completely, such as having both a legal matrimonial ceremony at one time, and a blessing/sacrament cerimony at another).

PoeticVengeance

He's saying that any Christian church that does not endorse a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not following Christianity at all, but a form of Puesdo-Christianity.

Any Christian church that does endorse a marriage between such relationships is following a form of pseudo-Christianity as well. For it to be following Christianity directly when it did so, there would have to be an explicit citation within the Bible stating that that sort of marriage is allowed (I don't know of any such passage that exists, and whilst agape is very useful in its own way, it is far too generalised to be a sole justification of something as specific as sanctified marriage between homosexuals).

If a Church is operating outside of the direct Biblical teachings either in one direction or another (allowance or forbiddance), regardless of how secularly acceptable a situation may be one way or another, they're not directly following Christianity.

The Bible does, for example, directly address, on numerous occasions, marriage between a man and a woman, and how they should act: it is, therefore, a given that marriage between a man and a woman is allowable (despite Paul's ravings about the situation). On, say, marriage between homosexuals, young children, beasts, clones, half-dragons and aliens, however, there is much less literature, and just as assuming one way is an appeal to ignorance, so is assuming the other.

[Ananel]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Okay ladies and germs, this thread is a rebirth of AcidSniper's "Being against gay marriage makes you a bad Christian" thread. This is also my supported opinion.

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

• violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.
  
• judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).
  
• raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.
  
• arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.
  

*sighs*
1) I am not sure that you can say 100% for sure that a person is defying the law of agape. They may honestly be attempting, in some misguided fashion, to help people around them.
2) The judgment of actions is not condemned. Even the book of Galatians, despite its stressing of Christian freedom under the gospel, still has the warnings of the fifth chapter. So long as they are sticking to judgment of action and not the person, that is consistent with Scripture. Their judgments may be wrong in and of themselves, but judgment is not completely unheard of in a Scriptural context.
3) Raping is too strong a word. Most are presenting a case that is both inaccurate and poorly developed, but I wouldn't say that they're intentionally raping the scriptures, until they show evidence of making their doctrines stand above the Scriptures' truth in importance.

Elf Lord Chiewn

Additionally, before you start citing Leviticus, the Mosaic Law is moot according to Yeshua. If Christianity is in any way correct, the Old Law no longer applies, and certainly not to non-Jews. Were your ancestors enslaved in Egypt? Did they wander in the desert? Did they do dumb things with a golden idol? Because if not, there isn't even the beginning of a case for the continuity of Mosaic Law.

Actually, to be more precise, it is moot because of the decisions of the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 and the writings of Paul in places such as Galatians and Colossians 2.

[Ananel]

Elf Lord Chiewn

phoenix shadowwolf

ty_ping

Albit Ananel`s thesis could use an update since parts of it have been gone over and Ananel as ceeded a few points.

which points would those be?

Beats me, but if Ananel asks, I'll be more than happy to update the second post to reflect any changes he deems necessary.

Concede's less the word. Clarified is more the nature of the game. Points have needed variuos clarifications. However, I may just update the thing in the reasonably near future, so as to ease some confusions that classically show up.

[Ananel]

Calmer

Any Christian church that does endorse a marriage between such relationships is following a form of pseudo-Christianity as well. For it to be following Christianity directly when it did so, there would have to be an explicit citation within the Bible stating that that sort of marriage is allowed (I don't know of any such passage that exists, and whilst agape is very useful in its own way, it is far too generalised to be a sole justification of something as specific as sanctified marriage between homosexuals).

The problem with this, Calmer, is that it over-stresses the need for a church to precisely adhere to the exact dictates and only those dictates that are listed within the Scriptures, rather than apply the Law of self-sacrificial love generally to the society around it. The idea of Christian Freedom as presented within the latter half of Colossians 2 indicates rather pointedly that those things which are not dictated in the scriptures as being negative may be positive, so long as they do not take one's focus away from Christ.

...or were you planning to stop having church council votes sometime soon?

[You Got Godmail]

Different people have different opinions.
No one has any right to come and invade that opinion.

And what's this whole 'Bad Christian' thing?
You're either a Christian or you're not, there is no good or bad.
Being a Christian is only trying your best to be a good person and following in God's footsteps.
If you're not willing to do that, then you're not a Christian.

[Flemavenger]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Flemavenger

Elf Lord Chiewn

If you are Christian and opposing gay marriage, you are:

• violating the Law of Agape (specifically, Matthew 22:39, Mark 12:31, Matthew 19:19, Romans 13:9), which is at the core of Yeshua's teachings.

I love homosexuals the same way I love all my neighbors. I merely believe that homosexuality is a sin. I also love muderers, but I believe that murder is a sin.

Given this premise, I believe there is a clear distinction between considering homosexuality to be sinful and supporting the oppression of homosexuals. I hold opposition to gay marriage to be the latter.

So since I believe that homosexuality is a sin, you would claim that my opposition to gay marriage is a form of oppression. Considering that I also consider using illegal narcotics to be a sin, I suppose they could claim that by me voting to keep them illegal, I am oppressing drug addicts? By your logic, we shouldn't have laws at all.

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

judging your fellow man, which is warned against in the bible (Matthew 7:1-2, Luke 6:37).

These scriptures are subject to interpretation. Although some Christians condemn homosexuals to Hell, I do not. I feel that simply by believe homosexuality to be a sin, I am not judging anyone. If by simply believing that something is a sin I am sinning, or passing judgement, then we wouldn't be permitted to believe that anything is a sin.

While I understand how a conceptual belief might be removed from practice or action against others, I do not consider the belief in question to be accurate, or to be justification for opposing gay marriage.

And if one person is somehow harmed due to the prevalence of that belief, I consider that to be a sin.

Other Christians might harm homosexuals in the common fashion, "You are Gay therefore I condemn thee to Hell!" however I am not one of these. I merely am opposed to Gay Marriage because I consider homosexuality to be a sin, and I feel that the majority of things I consider to be sins should be illegal, wherewhich manner I shall vote. Your arguments could be used for anything that is illegal.

Quote:

Flemavenger

To me, this sounds like you are the one raping the Bible.

I disagree, as I am certain you expected. LDS texts and doctrine aside, I believe the bible does not support, and certainly does not explicitly dictate, the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

Actually it does in Leviticus, however most Christians no longer abide by the Mosaic Law. I feel that the scripture in Romans is abundantly clear as well that homosexuality is a "vile affection".

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

raping the bible, as homosexuality is not a sin. Don't worry, we'll get to this in great detail, I'm sure. Don't even bother posting "NO UR WRONG" unless you're prepared to post verses along with your assertions.

Romans 1:
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27 And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.

I will stand by this scripture and I feel that Ananel's arguments against it are weak. I'm too lazy to adress his arguments in this post but I'll probably be compelled to in another post.

I'm sure we'll get into this later as well, though I believe I ought to clarify that Ananel's arguments were against common interpretations of the original text and not against the biblical text, and that I disagree with the Infallibility Doctrine. As such, I should mention that I do not consider Paul to be an exceptionally reliable source, nor do I consider his epistles, which were not written to you or me, to be especially relevant.None of the Bible was actually written for our day. This is a major reason why our church has the Book of Mormon. The last Prophet to write in it, named Moroni, compiled it based on a vision he had where God showed him through the spirit what our day would be like. The book is far more relevant to our day than the Bible is. I actually appreciate Paul very much as a Prophet. His writings are often misconstrued by mainstream Christians to claim things like "works don't matter", not understanding that Paul was speaking towards people who were trying to hold to the Mosaic Law, rather than saying works no longer matter.

Quote:

Flemavenger

Quote:

arguing against equal rights for a people who are hardly different from the norm and who never offended you.

Though they may have offended God.

As might be reasonably expected of any man. Two wrongs do not make a right, one wrong does not make a right, and it is not the place of man to pronounce divine judgment as though he knew the mind of God.
Very true. I'm sure I'm guilty of this more often than I realize, but I feel that the world is better off with things my church considers a sin to be illegal, and this is my legal right to vote the way I choose.

Quote:

Flemavenger

I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

However, as a heterosexual, you have the legal right to marry those whom you are sexually attracted to, and those whom you desire to enter into a lifetime partnership with, whereas homosexuals are not afforded this right. This is unfair, and while it may not appear to be anti-gay at first glance, it is. Homosexuals are those most affected by this, and to the best of my knowledge there is no legal or constitutional reason why this ought to be law.

It is law because society and mainly Christianity has historically considered homosexuality to be wrong, thus they have used their legal right to vote it as such.

[Flemavenger]

Elf Lord Chiewn

Old one got recycle-binned.

Thanks for dropping in, BTW.

And Peer.

And Flem.

And anyone I've overlooked.

And I'm trying to fight the urge to type "Old Actumen is ooooold" in really big letters.

Anytime. Thanks for having the discussion.

[AciDSniper]

mouseylae02

Different people have different opinions.
No one has any right to come and invade that opinion.

And what's this whole 'Bad Christian' thing?
You're either a Christian or you're not, there is no good or bad.
Being a Christian is only trying your best to be a good person and following in God's footsteps.
If you're not willing to do that, then you're not a Christian.

It's an overgeneralization to get people to the first post. It's fairly difficult to sum up an argument this complicated in ten words or less. I fail to see how it fits within the teachings of Christ to use such a questionable issue of relationship with God as an excuse to commit a horrible injustice against millions of people in the name of Christ. Also there's no clear condemnation of homosexuality anywhere within the original text due to the clear end of the old law in Colossians 2 and Acts 15 and translational issues of Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 6. All of the translational issues are laid out in the second post of this thread.

[Flemavenger]

Actumen

Flemavenger

I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

This logic makes no sense to me.

Everyone is, more or less, subject to the same rights under US laws, sure... But people are not uniform clones, different people exercize different rights to varying degrees. neutral As (I assume) a heterosexual, you choose to (Currently, or might in the future) exercise your right to marry a woman who you are attracted to in one way or another. Chances are you will not marry another man, because you are a heterosexual.

As a homosexual, I do not have the right to marry whatever man I desire. I still have the right to marry a woman, but that right I choose not to exercise, as you have clearly chosen not to marry a man. However, I have no right to be marrying a man, and thus cannot.

Does that seem fair to you?

Everyone has the right to visit their doctor, but some people can't because they're poor, or there is no medical staff available to them. Does that seem fair to you, either?

Note: This is all a hypothetical situation.

Your logic is flawed. Your argument is basically, "He get's to do what he wants, I don't get to do what I want, and that's not fair!"

This argument could be used for essentially any law. I choose not to use illegal narcotics, so it's easy for me to say, "Hey, let's keep them illegal." while the drug addict is saying, "Let's legalize them because I don't get to do what I want, and that's not fair!"

I'll have to address Romans later. School starts in 45. Good luck to all of you.

[linaloki]

Flemavenger

Actumen

Flemavenger

I have no rights that homosexuals do not have. I can get married, and so can they. I cannot get married to someone of my gender, and neither can they.

This logic makes no sense to me.

Everyone is, more or less, subject to the same rights under US laws, sure... But people are not uniform clones, different people exercize different rights to varying degrees. neutral As (I assume) a heterosexual, you choose to (Currently, or might in the future) exercise your right to marry a woman who you are attracted to in one way or another. Chances are you will not marry another man, because you are a heterosexual.

As a homosexual, I do not have the right to marry whatever man I desire. I still have the right to marry a woman, but that right I choose not to exercise, as you have clearly chosen not to marry a man. However, I have no right to be marrying a man, and thus cannot.

Does that seem fair to you?

Everyone has the right to visit their doctor, but some people can't because they're poor, or there is no medical staff available to them. Does that seem fair to you, either?

Note: This is all a hypothetical situation.

Your logic is flawed. Your argument is basically, "He get's to do what he wants, I don't get to do what I want, and that's not fair!"

This argument could be used for essentially any law. I choose not to use illegal narcotics, so it's easy for me to say, "Hey, let's keep them illegal." while the drug addict is saying, "Let's legalize them because I don't get to do what I want, and that's not fair!"

I'll have to address Romans later. School starts in 45. Good luck to all of you.

Not only do you have the right to marry who you want to marry and homosexuals don't, you also get a ton of rights, like adoption, that homosexuals don't. Also, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights composed in 1948 declares that marriage is a RIGHT for all, without seperations due to race, religion, nationality, colour, sex, language, social origin, property, political or other opinion, and birth or other status.

Sounds to me like a denial of rights. Also, your little, "I don't, so I don't care" thing can be taken too far. Apathy's a b***h if applied towards something you care about.

[PoeticVengeance]

Calmer

PoeticVengeance

He is actually referring to the Christian form of marriage as a religious term and construct.

It seemed the other way around to me, but I'll go with that for the time being (ELC is free to correct me either way).

PoeticVengeance

Christians have no right to do anything about secular marriage, as it has nothing to do with religion.

As we know.

PoeticVengeance

There is no biblical reason for any Christian sect to consider homosexuality wrong, and to prevent homosexual marriages to occur within the church, as well as outside of it.

So Christians that do so are bad Christians because they are going outside of the teachings of Christ, and even outright ignoring them in some cases.

So we assert that Christians can only consider something to be 'good' or 'bad' if it's referenced or implicitly derived from a reference within the scripture of Christ, and anything not mentioned is by default, amoral, and cannot be considered in either direction?

Not quite... I may have been unclear:

Its more like Christians can not claim anything is directly forbidden or considered sinful by God if it is not referenced or implicitly derived from a reference within the scripture of Christ.

Anything else is irrelevant to Scripture for Christians, and irrelevant to God in terms of Christians.

However just because something is too small scale for God to consider relevant to the universe as a whole, doesn't mean its too small scale to be relevant to small groups.

So my expectation would be that Christians would use ethical and logical justifications to build morals on things not handled in the relevant sections of the Bible.

So a Christian would be able to go against Gay Marriage, provided he/she could ethically and logically justify it. But that Christian would not be able to use the Bible to support that opposition. Therefore it is not a religious opposition to homosexual marriage but a personal one.

So to clarify, a Christian that engages in a religious based opposition of gay marriage is a bad Christian, and one that engages in a personal opposition to homosexual marriage is not (although he/she is probably bad with logic in that case.)

Sorry for the misunderstanding, as it appears I wasn't very concise.

Was that better?

Quote:

PoeticVengeance

The Catholic Church is especially guilty of this, as its dogmatic law contradicts Scripture in a lot of cases.

Thankfully for the Catholic Church, contradicting previous scripture is allowable, otherwise it would have been impossible to annul Levitical Law as is done in the New Testament. The Catholic Church also claims a position of enlightened interpretation and therefore self-justifies its changes, in much the same way as much of the Old Testament was declared voided by Christ and/or the Apostles in the New Testament.

I'm glad you brought this up.

The question is raised whether it actually has the position of enlightened interpretation that it claims.

Whereas Jesus fulfilled specific prophecies that labeled him the messiah (and granted him the authority to make such changes) the Catholic Church's authority appears to be noticably less supported by any form of Scriptural litmus test.

You are free to dispute this. I think it would be an interesting conversation.

Quote:

PoeticVengeance

He's not saying (nor am I or any other) that Christian churches should be forced to bless marriages of divorced peoples or homosexuals.

Nor am I saying that you are: simply that it is an issue quite clearly related to this.

Okay. No problem then.

Quote:

To give homosexuals the possibility of marriage within the Church, their promoters must declare the authority of those Churches invalid should those Churches deny that option. Doing so means another authority must be found to validate the marriages within that place (or possibly, to seperate the legal and Christian aspects of marriage completely, such as having both a legal matrimonial ceremony at one time, and a blessing/sacrament cerimony at another).

Actually, legal marriage should be separate from the Christian ceremony. State officals should be the ones to perform them, as it is a secular ceremony to gain secular rights.

Then if the couple is composed of Christians, it can get a Christian ceremony too.

Of course, being licensed to perform secular marriage isn't something we need to restrict. A church offical can still have that ability, but there must be a religion neutral government offical nearby that can perform the marriage if the church refuses.

Quote:

PoeticVengeance

He's saying that any Christian church that does not endorse a marriage between a man and a man or a woman and a woman is not following Christianity at all, but a form of Puesdo-Christianity.

Any Christian church that does endorse a marriage between such relationships is following a form of pseudo-Christianity as well. For it to be following Christianity directly when it did so, there would have to be an explicit citation within the Bible stating that that sort of marriage is allowed (I don't know of any such passage that exists, and whilst agape is very useful in its own way, it is far too generalised to be a sole justification of something as specific as sanctified marriage between homosexuals).

If a Church is operating outside of the direct Biblical teachings either in one direction or another (allowance or forbiddance), regardless of how secularly acceptable a situation may be one way or another, they're not directly following Christianity.

A good point to raise. I will modulate my posts in that direction from now on.

Quote:

The Bible does, for example, directly address, on numerous occasions, marriage between a man and a woman, and how they should act: it is, therefore, a given that marriage between a man and a woman is allowable (despite Paul's ravings about the situation). On, say, marriage between homosexuals, young children, beasts, clones, half-dragons and aliens, however, there is much less literature, and just as assuming one way is an appeal to ignorance, so is assuming the other.

Does the bible address heterosexual marriage within Jesus' teachings?

If so then yes, you're right. Homosexual marriage is not forbidden but it is also not granted. Its something God has left to us to decide.

If not, then heterosexual marriage is weighed the same, and is up to us to determine its formation and actions.

[PoeticVengeance]

mouseylae02

Different people have different opinions.
No one has any right to come and invade that opinion.

And what's this whole 'Bad Christian' thing?
You're either a Christian or you're not, there is no good or bad.
Being a Christian is only trying your best to be a good person and following in God's footsteps.
If you're not willing to do that, then you're not a Christian.

Gee if a plumber can't work with pipes, he's pretty bad at being a plumber, right?

So if a Christian doesn't follow his own religious laws then he's pretty bad at being a Christian right?

Let's think it through before we post, okay?

[PoeticVengeance]

Flemavenger

Quote:

Flemavenger

To me, this sounds like you are the one raping the Bible.

I disagree, as I am certain you expected. LDS texts and doctrine aside, I believe the bible does not support, and certainly does not explicitly dictate, the idea that homosexuality is a sin.

Actually it does in Leviticus, however most Christians no longer abide by the Mosaic Law. I feel that the scripture in Romans is abundantly clear as well that homosexuality is a "vile affection".

You would be a bit surprised (and probably disguisted) to know how many Christians use Leviticus and Leviticus only to support their views on homosexuality.

Could you quote that verse in Romans that calls homosexuality a vile affection?