Straight Dope Message Board

[Jim B.]

I actually have been hearing quite a bit about this subject, what Jesus would do concerning gays, if he were around today. It is hard to provide cites (much of it is on TV--like Real Time with Bill Maher just tonight). But I just tell you straightforward what I have heard.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Actually, the strange divisions we now have in sexuality is rather a new thing (I heard on the History Channel, a while ago). But he never mentioned what we would call gay sex acts, in any event.

Also, Jesus was very non-conventional. He said things no one ever said before (like love those who hurt you, instead of 'an eye for an eye' like people thought at the time). If he were around today, he might even endorse gay marriage. Why not?

Also I got this study guide for ethics a while ago (so sorry, no cite), that said many of the old moral rules we follow today, may in fact be anachronisms. In other words, they were established for concepts and beliefs we no longer have today or that no longer apply. People, for example, used to believe a little baby was to be found in a man's 'seed'. So things like coitus interruptus and even masturbation could be tantamount to murder. We now realize a man's semen does not contain a little baby. Also (in RC HS like the previous), they taught us that adultery was really a property crime. Men were never punished for it. It was always the woman who was. And it also was a paternity issue too, that modern technology has also made obsolete.

Finally, I am a bit agnostic myself. But I guess the premise is that Jesus was really the Son of God. Or at least he was divine-sent, in one way or another (use your imagination).

So what do you all think? What would Jesus do regarding gays, if he was around today?

1

[Jim B.]

EDIT: BTW, this discussion is open to agnostics and atheists too. Bill Maher is reportedly an atheist or agnostic. And as I said, I got some of my material for this from him too. 2

[The Other Waldo Pepper]

Upon seeing that a guy was about to hurl a rock at a gay person’s head, Jesus would presumably tell said guy not to hurl said rock; I could elaborate. If a question then comes up about whether one should forgive any trespasses by a gay person, Jesus would presumably reply in the affirmative — helpfully adding that, if a gay person smacks you upside the head, you should let him do that again. And so on. 3

[UnwittingAmericans]

What do you mean, what would he do? Do you mean what would he say on Twitter? 4

[FlikTheBlue]

I think it wouldn’t matter what Jesus, or any other religious figure, would say if they were around today. People believe the way they do and then project that onto the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. Nancy Pelosi and Clarence Thomas both read the same Bible. Ilhan Omar and the clerics of Saudi Arabia read the same Koran. Bernie Sanders and Benjamin Netanyahu are both Jewish. People believe what they want to and then see that in their religious texts. It wouldn’t matter what Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, or any other historical religious figure said if they were around today. 5

[monstro]

Originally Posted by FlikTheBlue

I think it wouldn’t matter what Jesus, or any other religious figure, would say if they were around today. People believe the way they do and then project that onto the Bible, Koran, Torah, etc. Nancy Pelosi and Clarence Thomas both read the same Bible. Ilhan Omar and the clerics of Saudi Arabia read the same Koran. Bernie Sanders and Benjamin Netanyahu are both Jewish. People believe what they want to and then see that in their religious texts. It wouldn’t matter what Jesus, Mohamed, Moses, or any other historical religious figure said if they were around today.

Jesus is supposed to return one day. I wonder if all Christians would even recognize him.

"That long-haired commie pinko coastal elite has got some nerve, calling himself 'Jesus'. Where's his semi-automatic rifle? Where's his MAGA hat? Where's his 'fuck your feelings' t-shirt? That guy ain't the Jesus I know! He's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HIM UP!" 6

[pool]

Originally Posted by monstro

Jesus is supposed to return one day. I wonder if all Christians would even recognize him.

"That guy ain't the Jesus I know! He's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HIM UP!"

You're thinking of Jesús! 7

[Annie-Xmas]

Originally Posted by monstro

Jesus is supposed to return one day. I wonder if all Christians would even recognize him.

"That long-haired commie pinko coastal elite has got some nerve, calling himself 'Jesus'. Where's his semi-automatic rifle? Where's his MAGA hat? Where's his 'fuck your feelings' t-shirt? That guy ain't the Jesus I know! He's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HIM UP!"

Better yet: "That long-haired commie pinko coastal elite black bitch has got some nerve, calling herself 'Jesus'. Where's her semi-automatic rifle? Where's her MAGA hat? Where's her 'fuck your feelings' t-shirt? That N****r cunt ain't the Jesus I know! She's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HER UP!"[/QUOTE] 8

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Jim B.

So what do you all think? What would Jesus do regarding gays, if he was around today?

He would love them.

Jesus never mentioned homosexuality. Actually, the strange divisions we now have in sexuality is rather a new thing (I heard on the History Channel, a while ago). But he never mentioned what we would call gay sex acts, in any event.

Yeah, my understanding is that homosexuality as an orientation, a matter of identity apart from behavior, "wasn't a thing" back then in the old days. It wasn't how people thought. One might even be able to argue that the Bible says nothing at all, anywhere, about homosexuality as we understand it today. But in any case, you're right: Jesus never mentioned it. 9

[Bullitt]

Yes he would love them. Jesus reached out to and embraced the social outcasts of his day — women, tax collectors, prostitutes, and others. He would do that today. And he wouldn’t tweet about it, his followers would want to but he’d tell them to wait and not tweet until his time had come. After he’d be crucified (or today, what? death by injection? electric chair?), his followers would be afraid and would not be tweeting, not until he rose from the dead, came back alive, ate wth them, and hung out with them. That’s when they’d tweet about him. 10

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Yes he would love them. Jesus reached out to and embraced the social outcasts of his day — women, tax collectors, prostitutes, and others. He would do that today. And he wouldn’t tweet about it, his followers would want to but he’d tell them to wait and not tweet until his time had come. After he’d be crucified (or today, what? death by injection? electric chair?), his followers would be afraid and would not be tweeting, not until he rose from the dead, came back alive, ate wth them, and hung out with them. That’s when they’d tweet about him.

What would he be crucified for today? Seems to me, his ideas in today's world would be quite welcome and very non-controversial. Even if he leveled criticism at the Church - who hasn't at this point? 11

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

[ . . .] Seems to me, his ideas in today's world would be quite welcome and very non-controversial. [ . . .]

Give away all your possessions to the poor ?

Desert your family? 12

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Give away all your possessions to the poor ?

Desert your family?

Yes, yes... take no thought of the morrow....

Fine, crazy. But hardly crucifiable. 13

[Esprise Me]

Perhaps the state wouldn't execute him, but there are plenty of wackos with guns to do that kind of dirty work. I'm not a Christian (or religious at all), but I've often thought of MLK's fate as a pretty good indicator of how we'd respond if Jesus came back in modern times. 14

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

Yes, yes... take no thought of the morrow....

Fine, crazy. But hardly crucifiable.

Hardly crucifiable (nothing's crucifiable); but also not at all likely to be either non-controversial or quite welcome. 15

[QuickSilver]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Hardly crucifiable (nothing's crucifiable); but also not at all likely to be either non-controversial or quite welcome.

Okay. I hadn't considered the more radical elements of his doctrine. 16

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

What would he be crucified for today? Seems to me, his ideas in today's world would be quite welcome and very non-controversial. Even if he leveled criticism at the Church - who hasn't at this point?

If he set foot in certain areas of the country he would certainly be killed by Evangelicals/Fundamentalists upset about what he had to say on a variety of topics. Whether it would be done by the State is arguable but the way we are headed it isn't hard to imagine. It wouldn't take much for legislatures in certain states to enact laws making it a capital offense to protect certain groups like gay people. Or women who have had abortions. Or Muslims and other non-Christians. 17

[l0k1]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

What would he be crucified for today? Seems to me, his ideas in today's world would be quite welcome and very non-controversial. Even if he leveled criticism at the Church - who hasn't at this point?

If he started another riot at a bank, I think that would do it. 18

[wolfpup]

Originally Posted by QuickSilver

What would he be crucified for today? Seems to me, his ideas in today's world would be quite welcome and very non-controversial. Even if he leveled criticism at the Church - who hasn't at this point?

The idealized Jesus portrayed in the Bible would today be regarded, at best, as an unpatriotic socialist hippie bum. But the real (historical) Jesus also included the element of being a revolutionary fighting against the dominant state power. Put all of that together, and Jesus today would be on the FBI watchlist in a heartbeat, probably jailed for treason within months, and subjected to the modern-day version of crucifixion, possibly by being sent to Guantanamo Bay. 19

[Ethilrist]

Originally Posted by l0k1

If he started another riot at a bank, I think that would do it.

"Time to lose my shit, flip some tables and drive everybody outta the building with a bullwhip!" 20

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

It wouldn't take much for legislatures in certain states to enact laws making it a capital offense to protect certain groups like gay people. Or women who have had abortions. Or Muslims and other non-Christians.

Ridiculous. Any such laws would get a permanent injunction before they could be implemented. 21

[Superdude]

Originally Posted by monstro

Jesus is supposed to return one day. I wonder if all Christians would even recognize him.



"That long-haired commie pinko coastal elite has got some nerve, calling himself 'Jesus'. Where's his semi-automatic rifle? Where's his MAGA hat? Where's his 'fuck your feelings' t-shirt? That guy ain't the Jesus I know! He's probably an illegal alien! LOCK HIM UP!"

The better question is whether He would recognize modern-day Christians. 22

[Whack-a-Mole]

Originally Posted by Superdude

The better question is whether He would recognize modern-day Christians.

Brings to mind the cleansing of the temple.

Evangelicals better pray Jesus never returns because if he does they are seriously fucked. 23

[Kolak of Twilo]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Ridiculous. Any such laws would get a permanent injunction before they could be implemented.

Maybe. But where is the injunction stopping Alabama from locking up doctors who perform abortions for up to 99 years?

With several other states moving to implement laws that are equally as restrictive on abortion I don't find it much of a stretch to see these "Christians" emboldened to pass other laws we would have once found ridiculous. 24

[Uzi]

I kind of assumed Jesus was gay. Not married in his 30's? Hanging out with 12 other dudes? Leave your family to hang out with him? He was gay or he was Michael Jackson (or both). 25

[Tim@T-Bonham.net]

We could look at what Jesus actually did. See Matthew 8:5-13, or the similar section in Luke. The story of Jesus and the Roman Centurion. (The only miricle mentioned in the 'Q' source, and appearing in 2 (maybe 3) of the 4 gospels. 26

[BigT]

Jesus was all about comforting the downtrodden. His entire ethos is that the oppressed are actually the most important people. The last shall be first, and all that. He was against legalism, and was really big on saying that "love your neighbor as yourself" was (along with loving God) the entire point of the law.

Homosexuality of today is not the pederasty of the past, nor is it some giant sex cult thing, worshiping a false god. I don't really see what he would find objectionable about it. He would just see an oppressed class of people who need comfort.

So, as a Christian, I see it as my responsibility to be like Christ in this respect. My fundamentalist brethren are into legalism, which Jesus abhorred. 27

[D'Anconia]

Originally Posted by Kolak of Twilo

Maybe. But where is the injunction stopping Alabama from locking up doctors who perform abortions for up to 99 years?

Um, the law doesn't go into effect for six months. CNN says the chance of that happening are "next to none."

https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/15/polit...eck/index.html 28

[Kimstu]

Originally Posted by D'Anconia

Um, the law doesn't go into effect for six months. CNN says the chance of that happening are "next to none."

Only because the ACLU and other godless commie pinko liberals are, you know, challenging its constitutionality in the courts. Not because the Alabama Christians who voted for such legislation have any objections whatsoever to enacting it. 29

[Bullitt]

In today’s news, former LA Rams quarterback and USC Athletic Director Pat Haden is being investigated to see if he had any role in the college admissions cheating scandal. Haden released a statement through his son-in-law, Donnie Dixon Haden.

Son-in-law with the same last name? Had to be a gay relationship, right? I was a fan of Haden’s and the Rams back then (1970s). So I looked it up and sure enough, Haden’s son Ryan is gay. In my searches I found this article, Ryan Haden thanks his dad, USC AD Pat Haden, for loving him and his boyfriend.

Pretty cool, that. 30

[nelliebly]

Originally Posted by Uzi

I kind of assumed Jesus was gay. Not married in his 30's? Hanging out with 12 other dudes? Leave your family to hang out with him? He was gay or he was Michael Jackson (or both).

1. Being unmarried in your thirties was unusual at that time but not unheard of. Some Essenes, for instance, were celibate. Most men were married by age 20 or so. That means, however, that most gay men at the time would have been married (and procreating); therefore NOT being married was not indicative of homosexuality. That doesn't mean there was no same-sex activity among Jews at the time. There probably was. But being unmarried was not indicative of that.

2. Hanging out with 12 other dudes seems suspicious? You're imagining, perhaps, orgies? (And it would have been 13 other apostles before Judas left--14, if you count Mary Magdalene, as some scholars do.) Remember that Jesus and the Apostles stayed in the homes of whoever took them in. Few if any homes would have accommodated that many overnight guests at once.

3. There is nothing in the New Testament to suggest that Jesus was a pedophile. I assume you said this to shock and not because you think every man who isn't in a relationship with a woman is a pedophile. It wasn't uncommon at the time for older Greek and Roman men to have sexual relationships with much younger males, including pubescent children. But Judaism forbade such. A frequently misinterpreted and mistranslated line in the Talmud seems to indicate that sex with a female over three years old is permissible, but the line actually refers to virginity (which meant a higher bride-price) and who could be considered a virgin.

That's not to say Jesus was not gay. He may have been. Or he may have been celibate. Or he may have had a sexual relationship with Mary Magdalene or other female disciples. We just don't know, and it's not really relevant to the OP. 31

[Helmut Doork]

Per the bible I guess the same thing he would do with everyone else who commits an abominable act- including, eating shellfish, talking to a woman on her period, wearing polycotton blends, eating ham, eating leftovers, burning incense, seeing a psychic, as you should know- Revelation: 21:27: Anyone who practices abomination will not enter Heaven. So hell for all of them courtesy of a loving god. But curious why you single out gays here any dont worry about all the others? Why no thread, WWJD do with BLT lovers? The bible doesnt differentiate among any of these. 32

[Barack Obama]

From my interpretation of Jesus throughout the bible and the quran, It sounds like he's displayed radical dissidence. He went against the norms, going as far as to claim to be the son of god which only the king *should* be able to do. In fact I believe it was agustus(?) who was on their currency and it stated he was the son of god, so it was a direct jab at the people in power. So I'd imagine Jesus would side with the gays if not for any other reason than just to stab the status quo and societal norms. 33

[fedman]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

He would love them.

Yeah, my understanding is that homosexuality as an orientation, a matter of identity apart from behavior, "wasn't a thing" back then in the old days. It wasn't how people thought. One might even be able to argue that the Bible says nothing at all, anywhere, about homosexuality as we understand it today. But in any case, you're right: Jesus never mentioned it.

have you forgotten Sodom and gomorro? or Jesus saying "man should leave parents and cling unto his wife"? 34

[Intergalactic Gladiator]

Originally Posted by fedman

have you forgotten Sodom and gomorro?

https://medium.com/@adamnicholasphil...t-13ae949d6619

This was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before me; therefore I removed them when I saw it. — Ezekiel 16:49,50 35

[Bullitt]

Sodom and Gomorrah was many many years before Jesus. Old Testament history.

Jesus would love the gays, because he loved sinners and taxpayers and women -- the social outcasts of his day. And he came to save all. 36

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

Jesus would love the gays, because he loved sinners and taxpayers and women -- the social outcasts of his day. And he came to save all.

Pretty sure that's supposed to be "tax collectors," no? 37

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Miller

Pretty sure that's supposed to be "tax collectors," no?

Yes! Thanks. 38

[Flyer]

Whether deliberately or unwittingly, I do not know--but there is a tremendous amount of obscuring in this thread between the sin and the sinner. It is true that Jesus would love homosexuals. It is equally true that He would condemn their sin.

Many people in this thread don't seem to understand that Jesus was moralistic and legalistic. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17). Many people today focus on God's love to the exclusion of His other attributes. But He is also just and holy; such a God cannot, by His very nature, cannot let sin go unpunished.

Far from showing the "love" that lets things slide without punishment, He tightened the standards of morality. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27, 28).

To the homosexuals who were ready to repent, and give up their wicked lifestyle, Jesus would say, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14b).

To the "Christian" homosexuals who proudly proclaim and defend their sin, He would say, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33). 39

[running coach]

Originally Posted by Flyer

To the homosexuals who were ready to repent, and give up their wicked lifestyle, Jesus would say, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14b).

To the "Christian" homosexuals who proudly proclaim and defend their sin, He would say, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).

Straight Christians just declare themselves forgiven and then go back to sinning. Why is that option not available to gay Christians? 40

[thorny locust]

Originally Posted by Flyer

Many people in this thread don't seem to understand that Jesus was moralistic and legalistic. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17). Many people today focus on God's love to the exclusion of His other attributes. But He is also just and holy; such a God cannot, by His very nature, cannot let sin go unpunished.

Which is why Christians who are upset about homosexual behavior are equally upset about interplanting crops, failing to return property in the Jubilee year, and breaking the Sabbath, right?

Not to mention a whole lot of other things in the law and the prophets. 41

[Thudlow Boink]

Originally Posted by Flyer

To the homosexuals who were ready to repent, and give up their wicked lifestyle, Jesus would say, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14b).

Well, yes: If they were living a wicked lifestyle, Jesus would ask them to repent and give it up.

But, having done so, they would still be homosexual. Homosexuality itself is an orientation and is not something someone can give up. 42

[rsat3acr]

Originally Posted by running coach

Straight Christians just declare themselves forgiven and then go back to sinning. Why is that option not available to gay Christians?

because the gay Christians aren't the hypocritical bigots that most fundamentalist Christians are. Though I think you were actually being facetious.

Additionally Jesus was against divorce but I know quite a few divorced Christians that rail against gays. See previous statement above. 43

[Miller]

Originally Posted by Flyer

Whether deliberately or unwittingly, I do not know--but there is a tremendous amount of obscuring in this thread between the sin and the sinner. It is true that Jesus would love homosexuals. It is equally true that He would condemn their sin.

Many people in this thread don't seem to understand that Jesus was moralistic and legalistic. "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil" (Matt. 5:17). Many people today focus on God's love to the exclusion of His other attributes. But He is also just and holy; such a God cannot, by His very nature, cannot let sin go unpunished.

Far from showing the "love" that lets things slide without punishment, He tightened the standards of morality. "Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: but I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart" (Matt. 5:27, 28).

To the homosexuals who were ready to repent, and give up their wicked lifestyle, Jesus would say, "Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee" (John 5:14b).

To the "Christian" homosexuals who proudly proclaim and defend their sin, He would say, "Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?" (Matt. 23:33).

Where in the Bible does Jesus describe homosexuality as a wicked lifestyle? 44

[Bullitt]

Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink

Well, yes: If they were living a wicked lifestyle, Jesus would ask them to repent and give it up.

But, having done so, they would still be homosexual. Homosexuality itself is an orientation and is not something someone can give up.

I believe that, today, Jesus would know and accept that homosexuality is an orientation and not an activity one gives up. 45

[Red Wiggler]

What an interesting question. Would Jesus be a science believer or a science denier? 46

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Bullitt

I believe that, today, Jesus would know and accept that homosexuality is an orientation and not an activity one gives up.

Can't it be both? 47

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by thorny locust

Which is why Christians who are upset about homosexual behavior are equally upset about interplanting crops, failing to return property in the Jubilee year, and breaking the Sabbath, right?

Not to mention a whole lot of other things in the law and the prophets.

Ever hear of the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles?
The distinctions between the Ceremonial & the Moral Laws of Torah?
What applies strictly to the nation Israel & what applies universally to all humanity?

I do give you credit for going beyond the "what about eating pork & shellfish & wearing mixed fabrics, huh?" that I usually see in these discussions.

However, check out this elaborately produced & scholarly deep cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI&t 48

[Chisquirrel]

Originally Posted by FriarTed

Ever hear of the Jerusalem Council of the Apostles?
The distinctions between the Ceremonial & the Moral Laws of Torah?
What applies strictly to the nation Israel & what applies universally to all humanity?

I do give you credit for going beyond the "what about eating pork & shellfish & wearing mixed fabrics, huh?" that I usually see in these discussions.

However, check out this elaborately produced & scholarly deep cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r2m_cffRjI&t

Sweet. Can you point to those Bible verses, or better yet, the actual word of God that states those things? I don't remember those parts of Leviticus or John. 49

[FriarTed]

Originally Posted by Chisquirrel

Sweet. Can you point to those Bible verses, or better yet, the actual word of God that states those things? I don't remember those parts of Leviticus or John.

OK, in Acts 10, Peter has a dream of God telling him to slaughter unclean animals & eat them, then awakens to get a request from a Roman centurion to come tell him & his loved ones about God/Jesus. He goes to share the Gospel with them, they believe & receive the Holy Spirit, which shows Peter that God is disrupting the old Jewish/Gentile barriers, so he goes ahead & baptizes them without putting any Judaic demands on them.

In Acts 15, the whole issue as to what God requires of Gentile believers, including circumscision, kosher diet, and other aspects of the law of Moses, finally forces the Apostles to consider the issue, with input of Peter regarding his dream & experience with the centurion's household, and from Paul regarding his ministry to the Gentiles. The final result, endorsed by James "the brother of the Lord", that Gentiles need not get clipped nor be bound to the Israel-specific laws of Moses, but they are forbidden from idolatry & eating things offered to idols, "blood" (either violence or eating blood), eating strangled (inhumanely slaughtered) animals, and sexual immorality.
Those things were forbidden in what the Rabbis considered the Noahic Law given to all humanity. That was what's often called the Jerusalem Council.

In Leviticus 18 & 20, the sexual taboos are listed: incest, adultery, male-male intercourse, bestiality, along with child-sacrifice, with the notation that it was for those practices that the pagan peoples are being displanted by Israel.

Leviticus 19:19 is the law against mixing plant seeds, interbreeding animals, & mixing fabrics (specifically wool & linen), as symbolic of Israel/Gentile distinction.

Paul in Romans 1:26-27 & I Corinthians 6:9-11 includes same-sex relations among forbidden practices to all people. Now, to Christians, Paul was the Apostle to the Gentiles- Christ's Agent to bring us the Gospel & what He required of us, even as Peter & the rest were sent to Israel. Throughout his letters, he emphasizes the freedom of believers from kosher diet, circumscision, Sabbath & festival obligations. That does not free them from the moral obligations.

Now WWJD regarding gays? Same thing He did with everyone- show compassion on them where they were mistreated & weak, call them to repentance where they mistreated others or sinned against God's requirements, and hold them to account if they persisted in sin.

I see no reason to think He would bless (or does bless) same-sex marriage, or approve of same-sex relations- any more than He would approve of adultery, incest, or bestiality, nor would He consecrate sexually-active gays into ministry. He would not deny them food or shelter or work, nor would He condone anyone who does so. But neither would He endorse their sexual activity, nor would He require anyone to do so.

No, I do not equate gays with those who practice incest, who cheat on their spouses, or have sex with animals. I only say that those practices are similarly forbidden, not just in Torah, but since Christ's coming. 50