Much of the credit due to this article goes to the late Pastor Robert Nelson, who first showed our former church this view in Scripture, to which I see as completely valid and possible and even likely as being the correct interpretation of Matthew 24:37-39)

The Bible implies, shows the concept and shows a pattern that one of the greatest end-time signs would be....

Homosexual Marriage!

Jesus told us to watch, look, pray....

One of the signs He gave, in Scripture, as an end time last of the last days event was the marriage of men with men and women with women.

Where is this found, implied, conceptualized?

Matthew 24:37-39

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Now most would pass that by and see absolutely nothing connected to homosexuality.

Look again.

Read it again.

Now....

What was it like in Noah's day?

Genesis 6:5

And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.

In today's society, I know of no one personally who thinks evil ONLY and who thinks evil CONTINUALLY.

Even the unregenerate know to do good.

Matthew 7:11

If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?

Jesus, post Flood, said man was evil yet not as Genesis 6 says man was evil... in Genesis 6 we see man was evil continually and that every thought was evil CONTINUALLY.

One of the very reasons God sent the Flood was due to the fact of Genesis 6:5.... read the chapter.

Now, I see two things here.

In Genesis 6 we see something which we DO NOT see in Matthew 7.

Matthew 7 speaks of fallen man as giving good gifts and the level of depravity outwardly displayed is not even comparable to Genesis 6.

Why?

I submit that those of the pre-Flood era showed definate signs of full demon possession.

Man, in his fallen state, can "give good gifts" unto his children.

man, in his fallen state, does not think evil "continually", never thinking good, never giving good gifts to his children.

Pre-Flood, says Genesis, was a time when all men on the face of the earth at that particular time were evil, continually and showed that they had given themselves over to demon possession.

If we read in Mark 5 concerning the man possessed with Legion, we see that he had NO CONTROL over himself.... thus, he lived in the tombs as demon possession had so overtaken this man that he could have no place in society.

Genesis 6:5 shows a clear evidence of demon posession.

Now, back to Matthew

Matthew 24:37-39

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Jesus Christ, the Son of God, did not mince words.

The question to all of us is this:

WHY would Jesus give marriage as an END TIME SIGN?

Marriage is the institution of God.

Marriage is honorable.

As a matter of fact, God ordained marriage "from the beginning".

So, if marriage was designed by God as a noraml part of our lives, both for believers and non believers, why would He give the Covenant of Marriage as a sign "for the end"?

Note how Jesus uses marriage as an end time event, and references marriage in NOAH"S day with marriage "just before He returns".

He certainly wasn't talking about hetrosexual marriage as being something of an end time event just before He returns...why? Because heterosexual marriage was instituted by God from post fall, pre flood days, and is never connected anywhere else in the Scripture with such a statement from Jesus Christ.

Many overlook this.

Some see it.

It's like "connect the dots"..... Jesus gave us many many signs, and we usually point to the increase in false prophets, signs in the heavens, etc etc... we always look to the OBVIOUS.

Now, Jesus speaks of the Flood days, speaks of marriage, and says, "As it was at that time when they were marrying, so shall it be just before I return."

I am persuaded that the sign of marriage as a last days event was spoken (1) for a reason and (2) was not refrring to heterosexual marriages.

Homosexual marriage is the reference point I believe Jesus Christ was speaking of in this passage we find in Matthew, and I believe that what we are seeing today in the homosexual community as well as in Government allowing them to become married, is a fulfilment of Matthew 24.

When the fruition takes place, there will be no state or province or government which will stop homosexuals from joining in unholy matrimony.

homosexual relationships are in fact described in teh Bible:

Ruth and Naomi

Ruth 1:16-17 and 2:10-11 describe their close friendship Perhaps the best known passage from this book is Ruth 1:16-17 which is often read out during opposite-sex and same-sex marriage and union ceremonies:

"Where you go I will go, and where you stay I will stay. Your people will be my people and your God my God. Where you die I will die, and there I will be buried. May the Lord deal with me, be it ever so severely, if anything but death separates you and me."

David and Jonathan

1 Samuel 18:1:

"...Jonathan became one in spirit with David and he loved him as himself."

"...the soul of Jonathan was knit with the soul of David, and Jonathan loved him as his own soul"

 

Daniel and Ashpenaz

Daniel 1:9

hahaha you know nothing of biblecal custom.

r and n were of different races and religion; one a jew the other a heathen.the binding concerned coming to the god of the jews.

as for david and jonathan, the custom is still practiced in israel today.

a young man is mentored by an older man in a trade and is what we would know as a "second father".

saul, johnathan's dad, was king of isreal and literally, quite literally, had little family relationship.

also, david, being so young, was under johnathan's "wing" and was trained in military might for several years befor ehimself becoming king.

as a side note, savid was heterosexual specificlaly referring to his relationship with bathsheba and bearing children.

the bible says SEX binds the FLESH.

david and johnathan we bound at the SOUL, which is a seperate teaching in itself.

you should probably consider taking up some biblical study as you show very little knowledge on it's wording and hewbrew grammatical structure; as well you show little knowledge concerning hewbrew customs.

Sure we can always find easy answers to difficult questions, but here is what I have since learned. And even though the Bible condemn Homosexuality I want you to just close your mouth and open your ears, hearts, wallets, whatever.

Scientists have long been studying just what makes homosexuals different from heterosexuals, mostly because it could shed light on larger questions of how the brain works. Sexuality is not a distinct area in the brain; what they have found so far is often tightly interrelated (although not always in expected ways) to seemingly unrelated behaviors. It's a fascinating puzzle.

Anyway, there has long been questions about how homosexuality could be passed down genetically, since it is obviously not a trait that encourages its own continuation. And yet there are strong familial connections. Sorting out how much is "nature" and how much is "nurture" is no simple task - especially since it has become increasingly clear that there isn't really a clear line between "nature" and "nurture".

One study found a very intriguing result, one of the clearest yet to show a genetic trend, but not a clear one nor one that applied for all homosexuals. In fact, it didn't directly apply to the homosexuals at all but to their mothers.

Women have two X chromosomes. This is a dangerous surplus, so women's cells have long since evolved to cope by switching off one of them. The chromosome to be deactivated is chosen at random, so if you were to randomly sample a selection of cells from one woman, roughly half will be using one X, and the rest will be using the other. Very rarely, however, a woman can have a condition where this selection is somehow dramatically skewed in favor of one X chromosome or the other. It is not normally considered harmful as long as the favored X is functional. But what they found was that of mothers with no gay sons, this occurred in 4% of cases, but in mothers with gay sons it was 13%. This cannot explain homosexuality by itself, but it may indicate that the X chromosome has more to do with sexuality than had previously been considered. Extreme X skewing in the mother would certainly influence which genes she passed on to her children, since the skewing would occur in her ovaries as well, leading to an unusual favoring of one set of genes in her offspring.

In an earlier study, they found that 60% of gay brothers in the study shared specific DNA segments, one of which was found in gay men only on the X, never on the Y. (It can appear on the Y in straight men.)

These trends cannot independently answer the question of the origin of homosexuality. However, they do suggest it may have a very complex genetic origin, and does not always get expressed for whatever reason.

Now do tell me scientifically, how do you argue with those findings and do you - yourself believe that anyone wants to be gay? (despite what the Bible say)

 

 

Your entire post has been shown to be bogus by leading scientific "gay gene" researchers: (from NARTH)

Is There a "Gay Gene"?

Many laymen now believe that homosexuality is part of who a person really is ?? from the moment of conception.

The "genetic and unchangeable" theory has been actively promoted by gay activists and the popular media. Is homosexuality really an inborn and normal variant of human nature?

No. There is no evidence that shows that homosexuality is simply "genetic." And none of the research claims there is. Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

How The Public Was Misled

In July of 1993, the prestigious research journal Science published a study by Dean Hamer which claims that there might be a gene for homosexuality. Research seemed to be on the verge of proving that homosexuality is innate, genetic and therefore unchangeablea normal variant of human nature.

Soon afterward, National Public Radio trumpeted those findings. Newsweek ran the cover story, "Gay Gene?" The Wall Street Journal announced, "Research Points Toward a Gay Gene...Normal Variation."

Of course, certain necessary qualifiers were added within those news stories. But only an expert knew what those qualifiers meant. The vast majority of readers were urged to believe that homosexuals had been proven to be "born that way."

In order to grasp what is really going on, one needs to understand some littleknown facts about behavioral genetics.

Gene Linkage Studies

Dean Hamer and his colleagues had performed a common type of behavioral genetics investigation called the "linkage study." Researchers identify a behavioral trait that runs in a family, and then:

a) look for a chromosomal variant in the genetic material of that family, and

b) determine whether that variant is more frequent in family members who share the particular trait.

To the layman, the "correlation" of a genetic structure with a behavioral trait means that trait "is genetic"-in other words, inherited.

In fact, it means absolutely nothing of the sort, and it should be emphasized that there is virtually no human trait without innumerable such correlations.

Scientists Know the Truth about "Gay Gene" Research

But before we consider the specifics, here is what serious scientists think about recent genetics-of-behavior research. From Science, 1994:

Time and time again, scientists have claimed that particular genes or chromosomal regions are associated with behavioral traits, only to withdraw their findings when they were not replicated. "Unfortunately," says Yale's [Dr. Joel] Gelernter, "it's hard to come up with many" findings linking specific genes to complex human behaviors that have been replicated. "...All were announced with great fanfare; all were greeted unskeptically in the popular press; all are now in disrepute."{1}

Homosexual Twin Studies

Two American activists recently published studies showing that if one of a pair of identical twins is homosexual, the other member of the pair will be, too, in just under 50% of the cases. On this basis, they claim that "homosexuality is genetic."

But two other genetic researchers--one heads one of the largest genetics departments in the country, the other is at Harvard--comment:

While the authors interpreted their findings as evidence for a genetic basis for homosexuality, we think that the data in fact provide strong evidence for the influence of the environment.{2}

The author of the lead article on genes and behavior in a special issue of Science speaks of the renewed scientific recognition of the importance of environment. He notes the growing understanding that:

... the interaction of genes and environment is much more complicated than the simple "violence genes" and intelligence genes" touted in the popular press.The same data that show the effects of genes, also point to the enormous influence of nongenetic factors.{3}

More Modest Claims to the Scientific Community

Researchers' public statements to the press are often grand and far-reaching. But when answering the scientific community, they speak much more cautiously.

"Gay gene" researcher Dean Hamer was asked by Scientific American if homosexuality was rooted solely in biology. He replied:

"Absolutely not. From twin studies, we already know that half or more of the variability in sexual orientation is not inherited. Our studies try to pinpoint the genetic factors...not negate the psychosocial factors."{4}

But in qualifying their findings, researchers often use language that will surely evade general understanding making statements that will continue to be avoided by the popular press, such as:

...the question of the appropriate significance level to apply to a nonMendelian trait such as sexual orientation is problematic.{5}

Sounds too complex to bother translating? This is actually a very important statement. In layman's terms, this means:

It is not possible to know what the findings mean--if anything--since sexual orientation cannot possibly be inherited in the direct way eyecolor is.

Thus, to their fellow scientists, the researchers have been honestly acknowledging the limitations of their research. However, the media doesn't understand that message. Columnist Ann Landers, for example, tells her readers that "homosexuals are born, not made." The media offers partial truths because the scientific reality is simply too unexciting to make the evening news; too complex for mass consumption; and furthermore, not fully and accurately understood by reporters.

Accurate Reporting Will Never Come in "Sound Bites"

There are no "lite," soundbite versions of behavioral genetics that are not fundamentally in error in one way or another.

Nonetheless, if one grasps at least some of the basics, in simple form, it will be possible to see exactly why the current research into homosexuality means so littleand will continue to mean little, even should the quality of the research methods improveso long as it remains driven by political, rather than scientific objectives.

Understanding the Theory

There are only two major principles that need to be carefully understood in order to see through the distortions of the recent research. They are as follows:

1. Heritable does not mean inherited.

2. Genetics research which is truly meaningful will identify, and then focus on, only traits that are directly inherited.

Almost every human characteristic is in significant measure heritable. But few human behavioral traits are directly inherited, in the manner of height, for example, or eye color. Inherited means "directly determined by genes," with little or no way of preventing or modifying the trait through a change in the environment.

How to "Prove" That Basketball-Players are Born that Way

Suppose you are motivated to demonstratefor political reasons--that there is a basketball gene that makes people grow up to be basketball players. You would use the same methods that have been used with homosexuality: (1) twin studies; (2) brain dissections; (3) gene "linkage" studies.

The basic idea in twin studies is to show that the more genetically similar two people are, the more likely it is that they will share the trait you are studying.

So you identify groups of twins in which at least one is a basketball player. You will probably find that if one identical twin is a basketball player, his twin brother is statistically more likely be one, too. You would need to create groups of different kinds of pairs to make further comparisons--one set of identical twin pairs, one set of nonidentical twin pairs, one set of sibling pairs, etc.

Using the "concordance rate" (the percentage of pairs in which both twins are basketball players, or both are not), you would calculate a "heritability" rate. The concordance rate would be quite high--just as in the concordance rate for homosexuality.

Then, you announce to the reporter from Sports Illustrated: "Our research demonstrates that basketball playing is strongly heritable." (And you would be right. It would be "heritable"--but not directly inherited. Few readers would be aware of the distinction, however.)

Soon after, the article appears. It says:

"...New research shows that basketball playing is probably inherited. Basketball players are apparently 'born that way!' A number of outside researchers examined the work and found it substantially accurate and wellperformed..."

But no one (other than the serious scientist) notices the media's inaccurate reporting.

What All Neuroscientists Know:
The Brain Changes with Use

Then you move on to conduct some brain research. As in the well-known LeVay brain study which measured parts of the hypothalamus, your colleagues perform a series of autopsies on the brains of some dead people who, they have reason to believe, were basketball players.

Next, they do the same with a group of dead nonbasketball players. Your colleagues report that, on average, "Certain parts of the brain long thought to be involved with basketball playing are much larger in the group of basketball players."

A few national newspapers pick up on the story and editorialize, "Clearly, basketball playing is not a choice. Not only does basketball playing run in families, but even these people's brains are different."

You, of course, as a scientist, are well aware that the brain changes with use...indeed quite dramatically. Those parts responsible for an activity get larger over time, and there are specific parts of the brain that are more utilized in basketball playing.

Now, as a scientist, you will not lie about this fact, if asked (since you will not be), but neither will you go out of your way to offer the truth. The truth, after all, would put an end to the worldwide media blitz accompanying the announcement of your findings.

Gene Linkage Studies:
"Associated With" Does Not Mean "Caused By"

Now, for the last phase, you find a small number of families of basketball players and compare them to some families of nonplayers. You have a hunch that of the innumerable genes likely to be associated with basketball playing (those for height, athleticism, and quick reflexes, for example), some will be located on the x-chromosome.

You won't say these genes cause basketball playing because such a claim would be scientifically insupportable, but the public thinks "caused by" and "associated with" are synonymous.

After a few false starts, sure enough, you find what you are looking for: among the basketball-playing families, one particular cluster of genes is found more commonly.

With a Little Help from the Media

Now, it happens that you have some sympathizers at National People's Radio, and they were long ago quietly informed of your research. They want people to come around to certain beliefs, too. So, as soon as your work hits the press, they are on the air: "Researchers are hot on the trail of the Basketball Gene. In an article to be published tomorrow in Sports Science..."

Commentators pontificate about the enormous public-policy implications of this superb piece of science. Two weeks later, there it is again, on the cover of the major national newsweekly: "Basketball Gene?"

Now what is wrong with this scenario? It is simple: of course basketball playing is associated with certain genes; of course it is heritable. But it is those intermediate physiological traitsmuscle strength, speed, agility, reflex speed, height, etc.-which are themselves directly inherited. Those are the traits that make it likely one will be able to, and will want to, play basketball.

In the case of homosexuality, the inherited traits that are more common among male homosexuals might include a greater than average tendency to anxiety, shyness, sensitivity, intelligence, and aesthetic abilities. But this is speculation. To date, researchers have not yet sought to identify these factors with scientific rigor.

What the majority of respected scientists now believe is that homosexuality is attributable to a combination of psychological, social, and biological factors.

From the American Psychological Association"[M]any scientists share the view that sexual orientation is shaped for most people at an early age through complex interactions of biological, psychological and social factors."{6}

From "Gay Brain" Researcher Simon LeVay"At this point, the most widely held opinion [on causation of homosexuality] is that multiple factors play a role."{7}

From Dennis McFadden, University of Texas neuroscientist:"Any human behavior is going to be the result of complex intermingling of genetics and environment. It would be astonishing if it were not true for homosexuality."{8}

From Sociologist Steven Goldberg"I know of no one in the field who argues that homosexuality can be explained without reference to environmental factors."{9}

As we have seen, there is no evidence that homosexuality is simply "genetic"--and none of the research itself claims there is.

Only the press and certain researchers do, when speaking in sound bites to the public.

---

Endnotes

{1} Mann, C. Genes and behavior. Science 264:1687 (1994).

{2} Billings, P. and Beckwith, J. Technology Review, July, 1993. p. 60.

{3} Mann, C. op. cit. pp. 1686-1689.

{4} "New Evidence of a 'Gay Gene'," by Anastasia Toufexis, Time, November 13, 1995, vol. 146, Issue 20, p. 95.

{5} Hamer, D. H., et al. Response to Risch, N., et al., "Male Sexual Orientation and Genetic Evidence," Science 262 (1993), pp. 2063-65.

{6} The American Psychological Association's pamphlet, "Answers to Your Questions About Sexual Orientation and Homosexuality."

{7} LeVay, Simon (1996). Queer Science, MIT Press.

{8} "Scientists Challenge Notion that Homosexuality's a Matter of Choice," The Charlotte Observer, August 9, 1998.

{9} Goldberg, Steven (1994). When Wish Replaces Thought: Why So Much of What You Believe is False. Buffalo, New York: Prometheus Books.

The above article was adapted from two sources: a paper entitled, "The Gay Gene?" by Jeffrey Satinover, M.D., in The Journal of Human Sexuality, 1996, available by calling (972) 713-7130; and past issues of the National Association of Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH) Bulletin. For an in-depth discussion of homosexuality and genetics, consult Dr. Satinover's 1996 book, Homosexuality and the Politics of Truth, published by Hamewith/Baker Books.

All this gay stuff makes me feel icky. Anyway you did not answer my question, whatsoever. You ranted and I just can't stand it when people side step questions.

Anyway, have at her....

Punk wrote:

All this gay stuff makes me feel icky. Anyway you did not answer my question, whatsoever. You ranted and I just can't stand it when people side step questions.

Anyway, have at her....

The answer is that yes, people want to be gay, just like crack addicats want crack..... yip, they WANT TO even though it kills.

WWJD wrote:

Punk wrote:

All this gay stuff makes me feel icky. Anyway you did not answer my question, whatsoever. You ranted and I just can't stand it when people side step questions.

Anyway, have at her....

The answer is that yes, people want to be gay, just like crack addicats want crack..... yip, they WANT TO even though it kills.

  dont take this the wrong way wwjd ,but you really have no clue on that which you are saying.

So are you saying you condone it? Or....

hush, hush!!

hi one&only ....i don't take it the wrong the way because i know all about what i'm talking about or at least i think i do and if i think i do but i don't does that mean i do or don't?and nips i don;t condone homosexuality though neither do i hate homosexuals

if anyone wants to be homo well go to it but to not get everyone else involved in it   ..

 

we did not need another special group to cater too  aand with special privilidges

 

 

we might as well now that homo's are allowed to do what they want in public (even us the straight people would get arrested for some things they do )  let all other sexual deviants perform what they want  and give them our blessing since like most here seem to say the sexual deviations are part of who you are  so it should be allowed

The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians 6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result of denying and disobeying God. When a person continues in sin and disbelief, the Bible tells us that God ???gives them over??? to even more wicked and depraved sin in order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God. 1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual ???offenders??? will not inherit the kingdom of God.

God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us that a person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Romans 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a ???greater??? sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God???s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2 Corinthians 5:17).

It's a SIN!!!

AMEN!