Homosexuality - Here I stand.

[Rudolph Hucker]

But gays are not a minority, and I'll post an article from my former pastor that shows you that.

Yes, I am certain that will surely prove that gays are a mojority.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

Gays are a minority and refused equal rights everyday.
You can see it happening outside the walls of your meeting places ,it is all around.

But then again if it's not christian <Staff Edit> it has to be stamped out.
Funny how I hear all the time that christians are being persecuted and they feel their rights to practice their religion is being taken away, well put the shoe on the other foot.

It's okay to deny and persecute as long as it's not the christian.

 

[one11]

The debate has been raging across the boards for some time now and I have added my oar into the heady mix from time to time. Perhaps I should make my position somewhat clearer.

It worth remember that the debate about 'homosexuality' is more a debate about how one interprets the Bible. Those who stand on their claim that the Bible is literal will never be convinced on anything - they have already made up their minds. For the rest of us who use the Bible in order to shape our lives and to sustain our hope I offer these thoughts.

Point 1. Scientifically, we now know that HIV Aids did not originate within the homosexual community - it originated in the heterosexual community in Africa where its scourge remained masked by the myriad of other miseries that plague that continent. It was only when the virus was 'discovered' in a 'Western' country, the US, that it was even noticed and, unfortunately, it was 'noticed' in the gay community. Immediately, the so-called Church of God blamed homosexuals and levelled their full barrage of hate in that direction. Anyone who raised a different opinion was drowned out. Homosexuals have been living with the fall-out ever since. (Aids and Compassion (1988) edited by Dr. Jim McPherson).

Point 2. Sodom was not destroyed for its homosexuality. Isaiah cites justice as the issue (Isa 1:10, 3:9). For Jeremiah it was adultery, lying and avoiding repentance (Jer 23:14). Ezekiel thought pride, comfort and gluttony where its downfall (Eze 16:14). The Book of Wisdom mentions foolishness (10: 8) and hatred of strangers (19:14) as the reasons. Sirach thinks it was their arrogance (Sir 16:8). Jesus mentions Sodom (Matt 10:15, 11:23-24, Mark 6:11, Luke 10:12, 17: 29) but makes no reference as to what caused its downfall. None make mention of homosexuality as the reason. The real problem with Sodom was it idolatry - its belief in itself that it could do whatever it wished. It could slake any desire, provide for any want - that's was its sin - it set itself up as god. (And herein lies a clear message for a self-indulgent West).

Point 3. The only claim in the Bible that homosexuality could have been the reason for Sodom's destruction comes in Jude 7. But Jude was written in about 80 AD and after one Philo of Alexandria (d. cira 50 AD), a Jewsih philosopher and writer living at the time of Paul, had claimed that Sodom's sin was homosexuality. It was Philo, the only Jewish writer from antiquity that made the first claim which, in all probability, influenced later authors like Paul and Jude.

Point 4. Paul certainly mentions homosexuality as a sin but it might be worth looking at the cultural with which the early believers were surrounded.

The Roman world had come into peace under Tiberius after years of civil wars. Pax Romana bought rest and wealth to a land weary of internal fighting. Tiberius was hailed as hero and was proclaimed Augusta - God with us. The Roman Empire now spanned many cultures and one was the Hellenised Greek culture - a culture that worshiped the human body. (The Olympic Games were held nude - well, at least for the athletics). This aesthetic influenced spread to Rome and coupled with the Emperor cult and the general peace and wealth enjoyed by the citizens, together with the practice of Temple prostitution and blood sports, resulted in a culture that was in love with itself - idolatry. This was the sin Paul was concerned with - the worship of the human body as god and the practice of self-indulgence. Paul was concerned to make separate his 'believers' from a population that worshipped 'self'.

Point 5. We come 'loaded' with the beliefs of the past - even the faulty ones. It is hard to throw off what we have been taught. Yet, we need to examine that past and see it for what it is - a sketchy and ambiguous kaleidoscope of images that are biased towards particular agendas. Yet, it seems clear there is no overwhelming prerogative that the Bible teaches homosexuality is a sin. Clearly there is some ambiguity at best. But what the Bible does teach time and time again is the sin of self-indulgence - where such self-indulgence becomes self-worship. That's our error - worshipping ourselves.

I have a prayer, I saw it somewhere and it stuck. 'God, thank you for not making me wealthy that I forget you nor so poor that I have to steal'. The West, and the Church, faces bigger problems than homosexuality - the problem of over indulgence.

Wayseer, Point 1 is wrong.

Also, the point of what true marriage meant was lost because the Jews were kicked out of Rome, not to mention you complain about one of Paul's writing being 80 years a.d. while you happily quote the apocrypha which is approx 280-300 a.d.???

Now back to the ancient Hebrews where a lot of scriptures meaning became lost due to their near alienation from the world as well in early Christiandom is why some scripture has lost it's meaning.

First a marriage never was a marriage until it was consummated by the bride and the groom by the shedding of the virgin blood.

Do you know the scripture that says "a man shall leave his Father and Mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh?" Okay, if you do, let me explain further. The bride to be in the ancient Hebrew culture was set up in a house once the man and woman were betrothed (pledged) to each other. The man (the groom) lived at his Father and Mother's house and would visit his (bride) by surprise sometimes even in the middle of the night to see if she was ready to become his wife. If the bride to be said she was not ready for sexual intercourse, the groom to be would then go back home to stay with his Father and Mother. This could go on for a while until the bride finally said "yes" she was ready to have sexual intercourse and shed her virgin blood for him, which could only be done once. Once the sexual intercourse took place and the shedding of the virgin blood, they were married. Marriage is not a piece of paper nor a ceremony nor even a ring. A ring and ceremony are man-made concepts. The shedding of this virgin blood which could only be shared with one man made this a sacred union and no man was to put asunder.

But the reason I am showing you how a marriage became a marriage between a man and a woman pointed to Jesus as our bridegroom and us (the church) his bride whom he shed his virgin blood thus making our relationship with Christ sealed in this blood once and for all time, as all God's covenants were blood covenants and also points to the scriptures in the NT that say (parapharsing) "always keep you lamp light ready because you do not know the day nor the hour the Bridegroom (Jesus) is coming back for his bride (us, the church) which also points to the ancient Hebrew way of becoming "married" (joined in one flesh).

Marriage between a man and a woman is a very sacred thing as well as point to all the prophecies regarding Jesus as the Bridegroom and Christian's as his Bride, which one can read all throughout scripture.

Some people have lived this pure marriage relationship for 50 to 60 years of some couples I know. It wasn't until the hippie movement when drugs and make love not war or love the one you are with became the new world and the new way of relationships. As I look back on this so called love movement, I see a lot of destructiveness and selfishness that came out of that movement, along with all the peer pressure for a girl to lose her virginity because nothing mattered but love (sex and pleasure including drugs). And especially the Bible meant nothing but "love" and all the biblical principles of how special love is became meaningless as this so called love (sex) was just around every corner, so it was nothing special.

So, imo, society has decayed by throwing about biblical principles and not grown in "love" at all. Selfishness yes, but not love.

God did not allow a man to marry a man nor a woman to marry a woman because he wanted friends nor did he allow them to have sex with each other because that would make the marriage between a man and a woman impure and defiled. This is scriptural and so are all the scriptures which relate to human marriage and our spiritual marriage to Christ. It is also good for a child to have both a role model of a female and a male in their lives.

So now here we are in modern society where children can be born without natural intercourse by a woman and a man and people can have babies with turkey basters or other measures.

But do you really think because science has thought of another way to have children that children don't need both a mother and a father and therefore homosexuality should now be okay within Christianity simply because there is no need for natural procreation? Or is there something more you are not expressing that I'm missing? I often wonder if it is now THIS scientific procreation that suddenly makes the prophecies of Jesus the bridegroom and the church the bride now of NO importance. If it does, you throw away most of the Bible. So, I don't think so.

However, to conclude, I am for same sex unions and I see some sort of secular compromise as necessary especially for the children of these same sex relationships.

 

[Archangelus]

That would be a valid point but right now LGBTs and their families are fighting for their lives against those who seek harm to them and the quest for relief from that oppression will not disappear because to some who speak from an enclave of safety it is unimportant.

i agree its rediculous that christians who are supposed to "judge not lest ye be judged", "turn the other cheek" and "treat others that you wish to be treated" just throw this out the window. They talk about homosexuality as a sin but persecuting them is also a sin.

 

[one11]

Certainly no more so than having a shrimp cocktail.

The laws of cleanliness were to stay away from feces or fecal matter or flesh which was "unclean". The reason for this was God wanted us to stay alive and live and fecal matter had and does have deadly bacteria.

Shrimp, lobster, shellfish are omnivores and eat the fecal matter of the sea. Not only that but lobster are like the cockroaches of the sea. These are incests. Don't you know crab is like a spider or that lobster have fillers? Therefore, God told us to stay away from fecal matter or we could die. Again, God wanted friends and people to live and to live right with charity. I agree with all of you on that point and possibly in regard to Sodam and Gomorrha in that it was anal rape not homosexuality.

But this doesn't disregard that fecal matter is dangerous and often deadly and that pigs are omnivores too in that pigs would even eat human flesh. Now these may have been more wild pigs, put pigs are omnivores nonetheless and thus God told us not to eat.

Granted, we have learned to clean shrimp better, but this still doesn't negate the diseases that can pop up due to unclean sex, such as die, nor unclean spinach and other raw vegatables creeping in where manure (fertilizer) is hiding. Cook your spinach and vegatables to be on the safe side, and don't put down so much God's reasoning for us staying clean nor the "cleanliness law". This was thousands of years ago, in primitive times but that doesn't mean we don't have to live in filth today. And, don't forget to wash your hands!

Look, homosexuals are loved by Christians. You really don't need affirmation of that. Some agree you should have same sex unions but not marriage and other countries are telling American homosexuals to take it! Take the compromise of same sex unions and don't take away the freedom of religion where the word marriage or matrimony belongs to the Christian churches. This is our concept, and doesn't belong to those outside the Christian faith. Don't give up freedom of religion, again. We know better.

Listen, it's about time to talk like real people about real issues regarding the logic of this; the pros and cons of this issue in real terms.

 

[Sitswithamouse]

The laws of cleanliness were to stay away from feces or fecal matter or flesh which was "unclean". The reason for this was God wanted us to stay alive and live and fecal matter had and does have deadly bacteria.

Shrimp, lobster, shellfish are omnivores and eat the fecal matter of the sea. Not only that but lobster are like the cockroaches of the sea. These are incests. Don't you know crab is like a spider or that lobster have fillers? Therefore, God told us to stay away from fecal matter or we could die. Again, God wanted friends and people to live and to live right with charity. I agree with all of you on that point and possibly in regard to Sodam and Gomorrha in that it was anal rape not homosexuality.

But this doesn't disregard that fecal matter is dangerous and often deadly and that pigs are omnivores too in that pigs would even eat human flesh. Now these may have been more wild pigs, put pigs are omnivores nonetheless and thus God told us not to eat.

Granted, we have learned to clean shrimp better, but this still doesn't negate the diseases that can pop up due to unclean sex, such as die, nor unclean spinach and other raw vegatables creeping in where manure (fertilizer) is hiding. Cook your spinach and vegatables to be on the safe side, and don't put down so much God's reasoning for us staying clean nor the "cleanliness law". This was thousands of years ago, in primitive times but that doesn't mean we don't have to live in filth today. And, don't forget to wash your hands!

Look, homosexuals are loved by Christians. You really don't need affirmation of that. Some agree you should have same sex unions but not marriage and other countries are telling American homosexuals to take it! Take the compromise of same sex unions and don't take away the freedom of religion where the word marriage or matrimony belongs to the Christian churches. This is our concept, and doesn't belong to those outside the Christian faith. Don't give up freedom of religion, again. We know better.

Listen, it's about time to talk like real people about real issues regarding the logic of this; the pros and cons of this issue in real terms.

I don't doubt that there are many christians who love Homosexuals and feel that they are doing their best for them, to read scripture and make them understand that God will punish them.
Then there are those that use the bible to justify their disgust and prejudice.
I believe we are all Gods children and I also believe that marriage should be for hetrosexuals and homosexuals.I don't believe they will be punished.
You can have civil marriages, but what homosexual couples want is to have equal rights to each others lives and finances and they can't do that if they are not legally married. They want to have the same rights as married couples to be able to see their loved ones in hospital and have a legal say about their partners treatment. They want financial security to be able to have the same insurance rights and tax benefits that heterosexual couples have. Is that so hard to give to them?
I always believe you should walk in another persons shoes and imagine what it would be like if you as a hetrosexual couple were treated the same way a same gender couple were treated on above issues. You would be sad, frustrated and a little angry that you couldn't get married and show your love for one another.

If certain churches want to agree to marry same sex couples then shouldn't they be given the choice? I don't condone this to be enforced on every church, it should be the choice of the church to marry or not.

As christians we should show our love and let same sex couples get married in the secular society they live in and not force our religious beliefs on them. If certain churches want to go secular then it is for them to judge if they are doing the right thing not anyone else to impose their differing church doctrines.

It breaks my heart that those who have married in California my have their marriages overturned, it's not right IMO.

 

[BigBadWlf]

But gays are not a minority, and I'll post an article from my former pastor that shows you that.

Yes gays and lesbians are a minority. Falsely pretending they are not is not just dishonest(I guess you want being gay to be a sin but not false witness) and doesn’t change that minority into something else



A minority is any group that is subordinate to the majority and having a distinctive presence within a society as understood in terms of language, nationality, religion, culture, sexuality. as well as little power or representation relative to other groups within a society. Members of minority groups are prone to different treatment in the countries and societies in which they live. This discrimination is based on an individual's perceived membership of a minority group, without consideration of that individual's personal merit or achievement.

 

[BigBadWlf]

arsenokoites ar-sen-ok-oy'-tace from 730 and 2845; a sodomite:--abuser of (that defile) self with mankind.

Just thought I'd add this.....

Apparently you didn’t bother to actaully read the revelant posts in this thread

 

[BigBadWlf]

Wayseer, Point 1 is wrong.

Actually it is correct. The earliest known cases of HIV are among heterosexuals in Western Africa stemming back as early as the 1930’s. In the western world the earliest cases were found among heterosexual men and their families, these men were almost universally in the military and stationed in or passing through western Africa and were known to employ prostitutes there. A well known case would be a Norwegian sailor who was infected in the 1960 and whose saved blood samples indicate HIV infection.

It is terribly sad and distressing when people try to use a disease to justify prejudice and discrimination. African Americans have a statically higher incidence of many disease including diabetes, cardiovascular disease and cancer…does this fact make racism acceptable?

First a marriage never was a marriage until it was consummated by the bride and the groom by the shedding of the virgin blood.

Do you know the scripture that says "a man shall leave his Father and Mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh?" Okay, if you do, let me explain further. The bride to be in the ancient Hebrew culture was set up in a house once the man and woman were betrothed (pledged) to each other. The man (the groom) lived at his Father and Mother's house and would visit his (bride) by surprise sometimes even in the middle of the night to see if she was ready to become his wife. If the bride to be said she was not ready for sexual intercourse, the groom to be would then go back home to stay with his Father and Mother. This could go on for a while until the bride finally said "yes" she was ready to have sexual intercourse and shed her virgin blood for him, which could only be done once. Once the sexual intercourse took place and the shedding of the virgin blood, they were married. Marriage is not a piece of paper nor a ceremony nor even a ring. A ring and ceremony are man-made concepts. The shedding of this virgin blood which could only be shared with one man made this a sacred union and no man was to put asunder.

You are ignoring levirate marriage the common practice of polygamy and the use of rape to force a girl into marriage

But the reason I am showing you how a marriage became a marriage between a man and a woman pointed to Jesus as our bridegroom and us (the church) his bride whom he shed his virgin blood thus making our relationship with Christ sealed in this blood once and for all time, as all God's covenants were blood covenants and also points to the scriptures in the NT that say (parapharsing) "always keep you lamp light ready because you do not know the day nor the hour the Bridegroom (Jesus) is coming back for his bride (us, the church) which also points to the ancient Hebrew way of becoming "married" (joined in one flesh).

It is interesting to note you have left out the fact that there are multiple brides in this parable

Marriage between a man and a woman is a very sacred thing as well as point to all the prophecies regarding Jesus as the Bridegroom and Christian's as his Bride, which one can read all throughout scripture.

The same argument was used in defense of laws prohibiting interracial marriage

Some people have lived this pure marriage relationship for 50 to 60 years of some couples I know. It wasn't until the hippie movement when drugs and make love not war or love the one you are with became the new world and the new way of relationships. As I look back on this so called love movement, I see a lot of destructiveness and selfishness that came out of that movement, along with all the peer pressure for a girl to lose her virginity because nothing mattered but love (sex and pleasure including drugs). And especially the Bible meant nothing but "love" and all the biblical principles of how special love is became meaningless as this so called love (sex) was just around every corner, so it was nothing special.

This doesn’t explain why the highest rate of sexually transmitted diseases in the United States was in the 1950’s

So, imo, society has decayed by throwing about biblical principles and not grown in "love" at all. Selfishness yes, but not love.

Well the attempt to justify prejudice and discrimination certainly is selfish and absolutely has nothing to do with love

It is also good for a child to have both a role model of a female and a male in their lives.

Ignoring the fact that when socioeconomic factors are balanced between single parent and two parent homes all statistical differences between the children vanish.

However, to conclude, I am for same sex unions and I see some sort of secular compromise as necessary especially for the children of these same sex relationships.

Sounds like you are saying gays and lesbians can ride the bus…they just have to sit in the back

 

[BigBadWlf]

The laws of cleanliness were to stay away from feces or fecal matter or flesh which was "unclean". The reason for this was God wanted us to stay alive and live and fecal matter had and does have deadly bacteria.

Shrimp, lobster, shellfish are omnivores and eat the fecal matter of the sea. Not only that but lobster are like the cockroaches of the sea. These are incests. Don't you know crab is like a spider or that lobster have fillers? Therefore, God told us to stay away from fecal matter or we could die.

Yet cultures all over the Mediterranean managed to eat shellfish all the time without dropping dead. I wonder how they managed that

Again, God wanted friends and people to live and to live right with charity. I agree with all of you on that point and possibly in regard to Sodam and Gomorrha in that it was anal rape not homosexuality.

"This is the sin of Sodom; she and her suburbs had pride, excess of food, and prosperous ease, but did not help or encourage the poor and needy. They were arrogant and this was abominable in God's eyes." Ezekiel 16:48-49

But this doesn't disregard that fecal matter is dangerous and often deadly and that pigs are omnivores too in that pigs would even eat human flesh. Now these may have been more wild pigs, put pigs are omnivores nonetheless and thus God told us not to eat.

What about all those cultures who ate and continue to eat pork without any problems?

Look, homosexuals are loved by Christians. You really don't need affirmation of that.

So are/were blacks…I guess that means they didn’t need things like civil rights or anti-lynching laws

Some agree you should have same sex unions but not marriage and other countries are telling American homosexuals to take it! Take the compromise of same sex unions and don't take away the freedom of religion where the word marriage or matrimony belongs to the Christian churches.

So gays and lesbians should be second class citizens because you want special rights

 

[Texas Lynn]

But gays are not a minority, and I'll post an article from my former pastor that shows you that.

Does he moonlight as a civil rights attorney?

 

[Dogbean]

Please see this article by a pastor of the best church I ever went to.
http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_files/HomosexualityNoChoiceNoTolerance.pdf
It shows that homosexuality is a choice, not a condition, and thus, gays are not a minority, because to be a minority you have to be so by something that is not your choice, such as race.

 

[Texas Lynn]

The bride to be in the ancient Hebrew culture was set up in a house once the man and woman were betrothed (pledged) to each other. The man (the groom) lived at his Father and Mother's house and would visit his (bride) by surprise sometimes even in the middle of the night to see if she was ready to become his wife. If the bride to be said she was not ready for sexual intercourse, the groom to be would then go back home to stay with his Father and Mother. This could go on for a while until the bride finally said "yes" she was ready to have sexual intercourse and shed her virgin blood for him, which could only be done once. Once the sexual intercourse took place and the shedding of the virgin blood, they were married. Marriage is not a piece of paper nor a ceremony nor even a ring. A ring and ceremony are man-made concepts. The shedding of this virgin blood which could only be shared with one man made this a sacred union and no man was to put asunder.

This certainly could be an accurate description, at some times, of such marriages among members of the upper classes. Indeed much of the Bible is written with them in mind. The story of the prodigal son for instance concerns a family with hereditary wealth and title to productive land and servants and workers under their control. Of course such an ancient form of feudalism has no equivalent in today's society. But marriages among lower classes essentially constituted a form of legalized rape. Those were a matter of the transfer of an item of property, the woman from its first owner, her father to her second owner, her husband (husband is an ancient term for a landowner-farmer).

It wasn't until the hippie movement when drugs and make love not war or love the one you are with became the new world and the new way of relationships. As I look back on this so called love movement, I see a lot of destructiveness and selfishness that came out of that movement, along with all the peer pressure for a girl to lose her virginity because nothing mattered but love (sex and pleasure including drugs). And especially the Bible meant nothing but "love" and all the biblical principles of how special love is became meaningless as this so called love (sex) was just around every corner, so it was nothing special.

I believe this is inaccurate and simplistic. There was no "hippie movement" in the same sense there was a 'civil rights movement" or anything else. A segment of the population which did not work regularly and is involved in unstable relationships and substance abuse was certainly nothing new at that time. What was new was the development of oral contraceptives which effectively made separation of sexuality and procreation possible. This is perhaps the most amazing transformation of the twentienth century.

So, imo, society has decayed by throwing about biblical principles and not grown in "love" at all. Selfishness yes, but not love.

Certainly overall society has much improved from fifty or a hundred years ago.

God did not allow a man to marry a man nor a woman to marry a woman

More correctly the Hebrew patriarchs didn't.

But do you really think because science has thought of another way to have children that children don't need both a mother and a father and therefore homosexuality should now be okay within Christianity simply because there is no need for natural procreation?

Much of the assumptions in this suggest children being raised by single parents is a new thing. It isn't. Society has improved in the sense marriage is not an economic necessity for people as it once was.

Like everything else, marriage has constantly changed.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Some agree you should have same sex unions but not marriage and other countries are telling American homosexuals to take it! Take the compromise of same sex unions

I used to agree with this. So did all the major LGBT civil rights organizations. I and they changed upon learning how this was wanted by grassroots LGBT families. That such a change acknowledges how these families are no less than heterosexual marriages and deserve such acknowledgment trumps such unwise "compromises" (which American religious right groups vigorously fight anyway).

and don't take away the freedom of religion where the word marriage or matrimony belongs to the Christian churches. This is our concept, and doesn't belong to those outside the Christian faith. Don't give up freedom of religion, again. We know better.

I'm sorry but this does not make any sense as long as there is a civil meaning to marriage. The only aspect of "freedom of religion" applicable is the one in which churches which choose to perform same gender marriages cannot obtain civil recognition of these.

 

[Texas Lynn]

It breaks my heart that those who have married in California my have their marriages overturned, it's not right IMO.

I don't believe that is going to occur according to the CA Attorney General. Of course it's not for lack of trying by the forces which want that to happen.

 

[Texas Lynn]

Please see this article by a pastor of the best church I ever went to.
http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_files/HomosexualityNoChoiceNoTolerance.pdf
It shows that homosexuality is a choice, not a condition, and thus, gays are not a minority, because to be a minority you have to be so by something that is not your choice, such as race.

I think it shows that that's his opinion but as written it's a very uninformed opinion.

 

[Dogbean]

I think it shows that that's his opinion but as written it's a very uninformed opinion.

Sorry you feel that way.

 

[Jase]

Please see this article by a pastor of the best church I ever went to.
http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_files/HomosexualityNoChoiceNoTolerance.pdf
It shows that homosexuality is a choice, not a condition, and thus, gays are not a minority, because to be a minority you have to be so by something that is not your choice, such as race.

First of all, what makes your pastor's opinion on the matter carry any merit? Is your pastor also a Psychiatrist or Psychologist? If not then his article is meaningless to all but the poorly educated and gullible who might actually think he knows what he's talking about.

Second, homosexuality is not a choice in the majority of cases. Countless peer reviewed, legitimate studies, and personal testimonies would prove you wrong, so quit spreading that lie.

 

[Zeena]

Second, homosexuality is not a choice in the majority of cases. Countless peer reviewed, legitimate studies, and personal testimonies would prove you wrong, so quit spreading that lie.

Are men created in the image of God or AREN'T they?

1 Corinthians 6:15
Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid.

 

[HaloHope]

Please see this article by a pastor of the best church I ever went to.
http://www.millersvillebiblechurch.org/_files/HomosexualityNoChoiceNoTolerance.pdf
It shows that homosexuality is a choice, not a condition, and thus, gays are not a minority, because to be a minority you have to be so by something that is not your choice, such as race.

No offence to your pastor but thats just an opinion.
I never made a choice on my sexuality, I just am attracted to girls, never guys. Its just the way it always has been for me.