Not true. The Sabbath starts Friday night and basically covers Saturday.
Although Jesus never formally said “Homosexuality is still bad,” there are prohibitions against homosexuality in the New Testament (See, e.g., 1 Timothy 1:9-11 (which equally condemns lying); 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 (which equally condemns drunkeness)).
Jesus also talks about marriage in terms of a man and a woman:
And homosexuality was certainly prohibited under the law of the Old Testament, and Jesus said this:
Some people think Jesus was saying that all of the laws in the Old Testament still apply. (Note – I don’t agree with this interpretation.)
I think “teaching” or “thought” would be fine, so long as we agree that Christians are free to believe whatever they want to believe, and just because Aquinas or CS Lewis or the Pope say something about God’s will or law mean they speak for all Christianity, or that they’re correct.
I think the answer is that they’re not more important. Or at least they shouldn’t be.
First of all, as I said above, homosexuality is condemned in more places than just one chapter in Leviticus.
Second, one possible reason that Levitical laws do not apply to Christians anymore is that Levitical laws applied under the Old Covenant between man and God. Jesus came and established a New Covenant, which superseded the laws of the Old Covenant. Here’s Wikipedia on the subject, and here’s Hebrews 8 and 9.
As I said above, some people think Jesus’s new laws incorporated all of the old laws. And some people don’t believe in the New Covenant theory. So there’s certainly some disagreement about this.
I’ve always thought that, based on todays idealogues, that ‘thou shall not be gay’ was the 12th commandment. “Thou shall not abort” must be the 11th.
There’s a book called “What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality” by Daniel Helminiak, Ph.D.
There’s a whole chapter entitled “The Abomination of Leviticus” - he starts off to say that “homogenital sex meant to be like the Gentiles, to identify with the non-Jews.” (p45) It was the meaning behind having homosexual sex, not the sex act itself, that was the problem for members of the Jewish faith as it was against the Holiness Code of Leviticus.
According to the author, abomination is another word for “unclean” as per his interpretation of Lev 20:25-26. “The early Israelites thought it [homogenital sex] was dirty. It was prohibited not because it was wrong in itself but because it offended sensitivities … Homogenitality made a man like a Canaanite. And to the Israelites, God’s chosen people, that was unacceptable.” (p51-2)
The book is pretty fascinating, for those interested in the topic. ;j
But an eleventh commandment would mean the tablets wouldn’t be symmetrical anymore
:wally
A bunch of years ago in high school, we were supposed to find a website for a history class pertaining to one of the Revolutionaries in America. I picked Alexander Hamilton. The first thing that came up after the search was a site that claimed he was gay and that his partner was George Washington. Apparently, George’s marriage to Martha was one of convenience. I printed it up on pink paper and handed it in.
On the same paper was a link to Jesus, who they claimed was gay and had some evidence. I believe I clicked on it, but I don’t recall specifics.
Long story short, that’s out there on the internets, if you wanna look fer it.
Or check post #8 in this thread…
It was the third one on the third tablet, the one that Mel Brooks dropped.
Don’t be a Dick.
Everyone should NOT love Raymond.
No sleeping with people of your gender.
Wear white after Labor Day.
Draw Happy Trees.
and…
Fuck tha Police.
Wow, now that’s a neat trick. This passage, written long before the entire NT, is referring to the Bible. And Christians, who not only mistranslate and mangle Jewish scriptures as well as explicitly NOT following this command (since they have definately not kept the commandments there referred to, and have in fact played cafateria-style games with which to follow) are somehow in a position to lecture us on this?
So, wait: the NT is, what again, according to this passage which supposedly you think refers to all of Scripture?
So this applies to the entire Bible, how, again?
Which unfortunately happens to be utterly incoherent. The idea that the Bible is the sole authority on what Christianity is all about is an idea that’s less than 500 years old. Before then, everyone understood that scriptures could only really be understood in light of the traditions and other teachings passed down and with the scriptures. Heck, Jews and Catholics still understand that. And it makes a heck of a lot more sense than the “Bible-only” heresy. For instance, many Protestants reject intercessory prayer because it’s not in the Bible. Well, guess what: it existed long BEFORE the Bible: a practice of the early church. Why does it make sense to dump something that was good enough for the early church in favor of a collection of texts put together 400 years later that even THEN wasn’t meant to be the be-all and end-all of things, just what was considered to be the finest and most reliable and important documents?
This is true. There’s only a finite amount of cashews in the mixed nuts, people. Of course you like the cashews…I like em mah-self. Don’t go bogarting them and keeping all the cashewy goodness to yourself.
This falls under “Don’t be a Dick”, as far as I’m concerned. This is just simply a shade of Dickery.
If you’ve seen Team America, then you know what Dicks are capable of.
Ironic that Christians ignored these admonitions and added a whole bunch of new scripture.
This passage applies only to the Book of Revelation itself. The New Testament didn’t even exist yet and the author had no idea that his apocalypse was ever going to be Canonized as part of anyone’s Bible.
These passages do not condemn homosexuality. The Greek in these passages is typically mistranslated in English. Nothing in the NT condemns homsexuality.
He doesn’t explicitly say it has to be a man and a woman and comments on marriage really have nothing to do with homosexuality anyway.
It’s not so certain that the Hebrew Bible condemns homosexuality (as opposed to homesxual acts in the context of cultic practices) and Jesus supposedly repealed all the Levitical laws anyway.
The Roman Catholic Church considers homosexual activity to be subsumed under the commandment against adultery, as it considers all fornication (including masturbation).
It is the ten commandments - “Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his ass…”
Ermm . . . Because it’s just too embarrassing to be mentioned in the Decalogue? Sure it’s forbidden, but discreetly buried among the details, like building your roof with a parapet and not mixing wool with cotton.
It is worse than that. 
The complete 10th commandment:
“Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbor’s.”
Notice the white wash? While new translations go to pains to make sound innocuous, those servants there were slaves.
I bring that up because in the commandments here we have an item that is considered now a worse sin than coveting: keeping other human beings in bondage, and I’m not talking about the kinky kind.
Whereas they like it or not, society changes, and religions changed with no problems in the far past because virtually everything was an oral tradition, unfortunately these days we have writing that has the pesky habit of showing how inadequate is to apply rules of the past in the world of the present.
Attempting to enforce unfair old rules, that before would have been changed with little fuss to make religion more in tune with society, is what IMHO will eventually end the old time religions.
OTOH, we have, “Thy rod and Thy staff, they comfort me!” 
Not everybody believes that was about homosexuality.