Another David,

Its not really argument is it, its more a case of reason with scriptural evidence versus denial.

On a secular basis the present action by the mayor and TFL directly excludes ex-gays and the views of Christians. It also indirectly excludes everyone else whose views are that people can change orientation. This especially when yesterday there was a news item about a rugby player who claims his orientation has changed. One can’t claim to be tolerant and for equality and then demonstrate intolerance and inequality and remain credible.

To the question ""would these adverts be a good way to bring people to Jesus?" Well yes, some who are unhappy with their unwanted same sex desires may indeed see that there are people prepared to help, they then may get to hear and see the gospel in action. With the Stonewall advert they justy get to see what is contrary to God's word.

Naturally for those who deny the Biblical testimony of God, not least 1 Cor 6, where it says some used to be men who had sex with men, the relevance of the gospel will be missed. This inlcudes your remark that it is not a fundamental issue.

When you say the issue should not be a fundamental issue, how can it not be if men who have sex with men shall not inherit the Kingdom? I mean can any of us say wilful idolatry, adultery, theft, greed, etc are not potential barriers to the Kingdom when the Biblical testimony says they are? To be In Christ means we do not wilfully seek them.

You wrote "given the paucity of Scripture on either side" So if this isnt simply a falsehood, cite me the scriptures that countenance men with men instead of women.

Furthermore as to men with men instead of women, it is all men because there are only men and women. It is either/or. Even a 12 year old can understand from Romans 1:26-27 that it says men with women is natural, and men with men is therefore unnatural and indecent. The only scriptural support you might have for not all men is the men who do these things are not men of God, but pagans, (Leviticus 18 & 20 and Romans 1)

We do not need to assume what Jesus would say when we have His Biblical testimony of what He does say. His NT teaching includes as much about sexual immorality as greed, if not more.

Origen - any evidence that the one, historical Christ supported the rejection of OT teaching on sexual morality?  Any evidence to show his apostles, led by His Holy Spirit agreed with you?  It is not convincing for you to ignore the bans on some acts in both the OT and NT and then to claim Christ supports your view without giving any evidence at all - from scripture.  Or maybe you imagine Christ disagrees with scripture when you do?

@Nersen:"any evidence that the one, historical Christ supported the rejection of OT teaching on sexual morality?"

And did He support your rejection of OT teaching on usury?

"Or maybe you imagine Christ disagrees with scripture when you do?"

Ditto.

Origan Adam,

Happy to debate with you but first you need to show where some scriptures, say 2 or 3 that counetence man with man instead of man with woman, in response to Genesis 19, Leviticus 18, 20, 1 Corinthians 5-7, Romans 1. The and only then would it be reasonable debate.

As there isnt any, you are merely digging a whole for yourself, one of disbelief and denial of God's word and getting more and more offended with others who show you what God's word says about such views.

@Nersen:"Even if you really think the church is hypocritical re interest and WO, you can only argue for more hypocrisy as you can't show anywhere in scripture where the sexual practice you want condoned is not condemned?"

I'm sure you know as well as I do where homosexuality is alluded to more positively. As I said to DavidW, women in leadership is condemned by scripture by appealing to the created order much like homosexuality is condemned by appealing to the created order. But apologists for the former find other places to affirm women, and rightly so. However not to do the same for gays is outright prejudice and exceedingly hypocritical!

Nice try, Origen....but no, I know of nowhere in scripture which condones the 'practice' Lambeth 1.10 says is 'incompatible with scripture'..... and you, Roger, Bowman and others never give a clear reference which supports your position....why not?    I am quite happy to agree with all of you if you just give a clear answer from scripture.........  OT food laws do not apply because the NT says so.......clearly.   Care to answer the question re where scripture condones the 'practice' Lambeth 1.10  (and the church catholic today and in the last 2000 yrs) says is 'incompatible with scripture'???  

@Nersen:"Care to answer the question re where scripture condones the 'practice' Lambeth 1.10  (and the church catholic today and in the last 2000 yrs) says is 'incompatible with scripture'???"

Funny you should appeal to the church catholic to support your argument. Churches round the world disagree on everything. The Roman Catholic church teach that leadership is male. Is this something you believe too???

Origan Adam,

Your wrote  "Funny you should appeal to the church catholic to support your argument. "

But he hsnt, he has appealed to scripture. You have no scriptural evidence to support your ideas.

All reputable, official medical, pysychiatric and psychotherapy bodies are refutung and out-lawing these so-called 'therapies' which are in fact,ultimately  abusive.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2012/04/24/california-pushes-for-a-partial-ban-of-gay-conversion-therapies/

Interesting pice on the 'doctor' himself.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9218545/The-man-who-believes-he-can-help-gay-people-turn-straight.html