Keith,

Great stuff! It's reasurring to finally read a column that speaks in a rational, balanced way to a "hot button" issue of our day. You hit the nail on the head! Thanks again for a perspective that's woefully lacking in terms of its failure to speak openly, thoughtfully, forcefully, and yet lovingly among Christian forums today.

Keith,

I appreciate the ardor with which you approach this topic and present your case. It seems clear that you speak from very deep conviction and a passion for godliness. Having read your columns here over the past few months, I would expect no less. I appreciate the way in which you weave together the deep feelings you have on issues of gender identity and race and high moral principles. That too is commendable.

What I find lacking in this discussion of homosexuality is fact, data, and evidence. If we are going to say to our lesbian sisters in the Adventist church that they are acting out sexual addiction, we had better make certain we have more than strong convictions to back it up.

What we find, and what I find now that I have become aware of two of my own close kin being homosexual, is that over and over the evidence (sociological, psychological and biological evidence) points to homosexuality NOT being the result of a choice any more than one's outward physical traits are a choice.

In addition to very compelling (and fast-growing) evidences from social and physical sciences, we have the testimony of homosexual individuals themselves. I have personally spoken with a former Seventh-day Adventist minister who tried for years to live as a straight person. Tried for years to repress, to ignore, to be cured of feelings of homosexuality. Begged God for years to be changed, and when it finally became unbearably obvious that no change would happen, this individual left the ministry.

It is highly irresponsible for those of us who have not experienced homosexuality first hand to say to homosexual individuals, "You're a sexual addict. You're like I am when I find myself unable to turn down desserts."

Making such unfounded statements does two things. First, it contradicts mountains of solid evidence that homosexuality is neither choice nor the result of sexual addiction. Second, it does irreparable damage to our Christian sisters and brothers who want to honor and serve God, but are made to feel as though both God and the church reject them because of something they neither asked for nor chose.

We need to do better than moralistic rhetoric based on personal convictions. We need to square our convictions, however fervent, with the testimony of the sciences and the testimony of homosexual individuals themselves, who are the only truly qualified witnesses on the matter.

Adventists continue to have a difficult time with this topic. I would say that a key difficulty is a lack of direct contact with homosexual individuals and their families.

Reviewed by Spectrum a few months ago, a recent book, "Christianity and Homosexuality: Some Seventh-day Adventist Perspectives" provides an excellent starting place for people who would like to hear about the experiences of Adventists in the LGBT community, some of whom are still Adventists, others are not.

Read more about it here:
http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2007/12/21/christianity_and_homosexuali...

The argument Jared makes for what he believes to be the correct perspective of the homosexual issue is exactly the opposite legal precedent uses as the most unbiased.

It seems to me that even if the issue is decided on evidence an impartial perspective will be the one that sees it the best.

We have numerous examples of people who thought the religious implications were quite clear before they found out their family member was homosexually inclined. Only then did the perspectives change. That is not the best example of an impartial opinion.

Well said, Jared.

This misconception about sexuality, which shows up in ancient near-eastern writings, along with ideas like the gods give illnesses as punishment, has no support among most addiction specialists in the medical and psychological communities.

In fact, the Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health writes:

Sexual activities and relationships with members of one's own sex, whether casual or intimate, are not considered signs or symptoms of sexual addiction. Sexual addiction is not defined by the type of sexual act or the gender of sexual partner. Out-of control sexual behavior is defined as sexual behavior that is acted out compulsively, often with preoccupation (before and after the act), and often without regard for the consequences.

The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health acknowledges along with the American Psychiatric Association, that homosexuality does not imply any pathology or mental illness. Unlike homosexuality, sexual addiction is seen as a disorder in need of treatment. People with homosexual or bisexual orientations have long been stigmatized and may suffer because of this stigmatization. It is important to distinguish between out-of control sexual behavior (sexual addiction) and one's discomfort with their sexual orientation. A trained therapist should be able to help separate the issues.

http://www.ncsac.org/general/papers_homosexuality.aspx

It's a basic fact.

In fact, the evidence suggests that the only folks who really struggle with homosexuality as a sexual temptation are those who live in the closet.

I hope that Keith does not misinform all those young Adventists, because Adventist surveys show that the next generation, who grew up around gay friends and GLBT role models, sees right through the rhetoric. A safe sex message is crucial and I wish that more Adventist leaders would speak out against media imagery that commodifies healthy sexual desire through advertising. But mixing messages of self-respect (which saves kids more than haranguing them) with not respecting others doesn't work.

And all too often, when young Adventists hear church leaders say such scientifically and experientially untrue things, they also start to doubt other things about the church.

And standing up for the rights of GLBT folks IS a continuation of the struggle for social justice.

Desmond Tutu has stated:

"We struggled against apartheid in South Africa, supported by people the world over, because black people were being blamed and made to suffer for something we could do nothing about; our very skins...It is the same with sexual orientation. It is a given."
Yet, all over the world, lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people are persecuted. We treat them as pariahs and push them outside our communities. We make them doubt that they too are children of God - and this must be nearly the ultimate blasphemy. We blame them for what they are."

Last month, afrol News reported: He also regrets the dominant view among his church colleagues. "Churches say that the expression of love in a heterosexual monogamous relationship includes the physical, the touching, embracing, kissing, the genital act - the totality of our love makes each of us grow to become increasingly godlike and compassionate. If this is so for the heterosexual, what earthly reason have we to say that it is not the case with the homosexual?" Mr Tutu asks.

Michael,

Who is best qualified to talk about what it is like to be Michael? You, or a disinterested third party who has heard about Michael on TV and in Newsweek (or World Net Daily)?

By the same token, who is better qualified to describe the experience of a South African, a Canadian journalist who did a story about apartheid or someone who was born and lived their life in South Africa?

What I'm attempting to show is that we who have never experienced homosexuality should never be as presumptuous as to define homosexuality for a homosexual individual any more than it would be right for an Filipino American individual (for example) to tell a Miskito from Nicaragua what it means to be Miskito. To do so would be a form of imperialism.

Attempting to define?
I guess you will have to define what that means to you.

If I understand it correctly, and use your first sentence to grasp your concept, "Who is best qualified to talk about what it is like to be Michael?" I suppose I would know what it is like to be Michael.

I guess I dont see what that has to do with the subject often discussed here which is gay marriage or condoning the lifestyle in the context of the church.

Describe what its like all you want, it doesn't make it objective or impartial in the issues I mentioned in the preceding paragraph.

Truedat?

Hi Keith. It was great to read your reflections on this relevant topic.
I see that some write to you about scientific proof that homosexuality is something you can be born to be. I would like to respond to this by stating that every individual has an opininon and a view of the world and everything in it. You have to be critical towards what you read or hear. Someone might state that homosexuality is natural but naturally an individual would state that if this person accepts homosexuality. To me it makes no sense to compare sexual orientation to the colour of ones skin. And Keith. It's great to see a man with african roots talk about this. Also on the homofobia issue. Phobia is a fear as you explain. You can be afraid of spiders, heights, small rooms, etc. I have two male friends who live together as a couple. I'm not afraid of them. I don't fear them. They're my friends. But I do think that it's wrong for them to live this way. It has nothing to do with fear. It's an opinion, a value.
All in all.
Great observations Keith.
God bless you in your service and your relationship with our Heavenly Father.

Simon Dilling.

Thank you for the compassion of your responses, Jared and Alex.

One of the reasons homosexuals have been associated with promiscuity in the past is because the "morally descent" have for years shunned them to the fringes of society. As humans, we sometimes believe and live by the messages others send us. And when we send messages of condemnation to homosexuals, the results are often destructive.

Fortunately, we have many examples of brave gay men and women who have refused to believe these messages. They live exemplary lives because they have claimed their first identity: that they are children of God. I'm so glad there is a gospel movement in our culture to destroy the old paradigms that have vilified our homosexual brothers and sisters for so long. I can only hope it spreads.

While I do not believe that homosexuality is ALWAYS a sexual addiction, I do believe it is a perversion--whether chosen or inherited. Science is the human's attempt to empirically (using the 5 senses & reason) conceptualize our surroundings. Philosophy does similar but on a metaphysical level. For the Christian, the Bible-believing Christ-following born again Believer, inspiration is superior to both science and philosophy though it must honestly consider them. It seems neither Jared or Alexander see it this way and therefore are willing to define what is fact based more on "truths" derived from science and philosophy over what God Himself authored in His Holy Word. I appreciate their sincerity and charity, but I caution them on the prioritization of their values--assuming they are Bible-based Believers. If not, then by all means abandon this missive.

Science is good--but not always. Philosophy is good--but not always. Inspiration is good--always--but our interpretation isn't always good. So if you want to challenge Dr. Burton from a Christian perspective, while reasoning should be seasoned with the benefit of sound science and cohesive philosophy, inspired commentary should be seen as greater. In my opinion, even from a naturalistic perspective, homosexuality would appear an anomaly--morality aside. Nature itself--biology, physiology, sociology--indicates that homosexual activity is incompatible with prolonging human existence and multiplication without artificial intervention. While this is no automatic reason to exclude homosexuality from the realm of secular societal norms, it surely adds something significant to consider in such a debate.

Fundamentally this is an issue of morality though. Some societies used to believe interracial marriage (race is really a social construct and not a scientific reality) was immoral. Most believed homosexuality was immoral. Almost all believe beastiality, incest and pedophilia are immoral. All likely admit rape is immoral. What authority do we use for these moral absolutes--especially as Christians? Liberal western pluralism & relativism have eroded the notion of moral absolutes thus diluting this debate even among Bible-believing Christians. I’m not suggesting Christians cast aside homosexuals or treat them as unfit for fellowship. All have sinned and fall short. But we must never rationalize or justify sin in anyway. We must embrace and attempt to show unconditional love to others in a real and selfless way--without condemnation. This is how Christ loved--even dying for us WHILE WE WERE STILL SINNERS (Romans 5:6-8).

Lastly (sorry for the immaturity of my long-windedness), mixing up moral arguments with social injustices IS offensive. Comparing the so-called African's struggle in America and in our own continent as well as other places around the world to the struggle of a group of adherents to an immoral practice IS offensive. The problem is that we have been duped into thinking of homosexuality as normal. Love does not excuse immorality; it tries to free the one who is in the darkness of that immorality--even at the cost of the life of the one displaying that love. Just like Christ. Let us so love...

Kurt

As a black heterosexual adult, to hear a black man deny the right of marriage to consenting adults offends me.

One Race, Indivisible.

"The problem is that we have been duped into thinking of homosexuality as normal. Love does not excuse immorality; it tries to free the one who is in the darkness of that immorality--even at the cost of the life of the one displaying that love. Just like Christ. Let us so love.. "

How true and that rational persons on other issues can justify an unnatural act such as the practice of homosexuality is a testimony as to how successful homosexual propaganda has been.

Sometimes it seems as though information filters out slowly into the mainstream but the APA has revised its theory concerning the "Gay Gene Theory." See the link below:

http://www.onenewsnow.com/Culture/Default.aspx?id=528376

Keith has raised a number of number of issues that reflect the shift in Western cultural values. In order to support this shift, there are those who prefer to "bundle" categories rather than keep them distinct. Two of the main suspects are the categorical disctinction and the worldview distinction.

The idea that because an individual is Black and sympathetic to the LGBTQ cause on the basis of "civil rights," is indicative of a confusion of categories. That individual may well understand discrimination and oppression, however; any suggestion that homosexuality or any other sexually deviant practices qualify as an "accident of birth" is a departure from biblical faith, science, and nature. It is an embrace of social constructionism--the new "norm." No doubt the phenomenon of discrimination and oppression assumes similar forms wherever practiced, but to uncritically suggest that there is a categorical relationship between "race": physical characteristics and homosexuality, a socio-psychological phenomenon, is absurd and insulting.

Further, debates such as this one will ultimately become about worldviews. There are many practices such as homosexuality that are OK in a humanistic worldview where the "best" expression of humanity is its autonomy. But when those who subscribe to the humanistic worldview seek to impose that worldview on a biblical worldview or worse yet, a Kingdom worldview, they are simply deceiving themselves. There is no sense in which they intend to acknowledge the Lordship of the King (Jesus) or submit to the principles of His Kingdom. They would prefer to rewrite, re-interpret, and re-classify Scripture (make Him in their own image) rather than submit to the moral imperatives of His Kingdom and receive the merits of His reconcilling work.

When categories are bundled at the expense of critical reflection, almost anything can be justified in the name of sympathy and inclusion. The fact is that the claims of Christ ARE exclusive and there ARE some things that just cannot be engaged in "in the name of the Lord."

Finally, while homosexuality involves sexual expression, I would argue that it is primarily based on a psychological orientation. There may be those individuals who have embraced the culture or are simply experimenting but homosexual behavior, in my opinion is psychologically rooted and has to do with fundamental identity issues. The cultural shift to affirm and embrace the behaviors of homosexuals and through social coersion to label those who don't as "homophobic" reflects the intollerant nature of "inclusion."

Thanks, Keith. These are unavoidable issues.

http://www.narth.com/menus/myths.html

NARTH is an organization supportive of research into, and therapy for, individuals uncomfortable with, homosexuality.
Their website provides and interesting and informative look at homosexuality from another perspective.

Great article Keith. I often wondered why the black community seemed silent when gays compared themselves to oppressed blacks. I'm glad that someone is rejecting that.

Gays can not easily be painted with the same brush. A significant number of them might simply be described as sociopaths. Their preferred form of sexual expression is not the only thing that is deviant.

Most former gays who have forsaken the behaviour aren't interested in being categorized as Xgays. They keep a low profile. When they do offer their experience as an example of God's grace to transform, they are visciously attacked by homosexual advocates. Like Jesus said, Even if one rises from the dead, they won't believe.

Jared refers to one pastor who couldn't change as if that's definitive. NARTH contains an article about an Italian pop song titled "Luca was Gay." The song is about a young man who reevaluated his sexual orientation and changed. So?

Interesting that some homosexual advocates have so many "dogs in the fight." Family members who are gay, and so forth.

Years ago there was a woman posting on SDA sites who claimed to have performed an indecent act on a prominent SDA minister. She somehow reasoned that since she had done such a thing, she was qualified to critique the theology of the pastor. She couldn't understand that the very act she claimed to have performed disqualified her. No way she could objectively evaluate the man's theology in a credible manner.

So it is for those with sons, brothers, etc., who are gay.

A homosexual marriage does not pose a threat to my heterosexual marriage. I have no problem with gay marriage. I do have a problem with Christians attempting to make everyone think as they do.... As for the issue of sexual addiction, while I respect Keith's opinion, I believe he is wrong regarding this issue.

Although I am sympathetic with some of the conclusions of the article, I am troubled by the simplistic presentation. The issues are far more complicated than the author attempts to present them and only fuels the debate without any substantive contribution. Comparisons of homosexuality with eating dessert? I expected a much more scholarly presentation from one whose scholarship I have come to respect. I don't believe one on either side of the debate would stop to rethink their opinions as a result of this article. And if homosexuality is based on sexual addiction, does the author suggest that adultery and fornication is also based on sexual addiction as well?

I find it amusing that many of the postings have been taking over by the LGBT sympathizers. Theology always seems to be watered down when satan uses family members as a foci of sympathy while rjecting biblical truths. I am not sure wether you should debate the Bible with science or vice versa, but I think with the bible you can't go wrong. One thing is for sure, you cannot equate ethnicity with deviant sexuality(deviance means from the norm).
If you want to understand wether or not homosexuality is an addiction you should go to a Gay parade show. There seems to be an obsession with sexual orientation. I do not go around telling everyone that I am a heterosexual. Note that many heterosexuals are also addicts, and that althouh homosexuality is a sin as stated in Romans 1:27, 28
In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done.

This is one topic that obviously will not go gentle into that good night. Though it states "Scripture condemns homosexual practices" (in the 28 fundamentals) the Adventist Church does not teach that homosexuality--the orientation itself, the feelings and impulses--is a sin. This is a thoughtful approach, because virtually nobody chooses to be homosexual.

Perhaps you don't agree with the preceding statement. Tell me truthfully: "WHEN did you choose to be heterosexual?"

You're probably like me--I didn't. When I studied this topic for two years, reading thousands of pages and interviewing dozens of people, I found gays and lesbians saying repeatedly, "I always knew I was different." Whether it's a result of nature or nurture, the orientation occurred before the age of accountability, so we cannot conscientiously hold that person responsible for who they are. In this instance, the term "sexual preference" is a misnomer. We can and do hold people responsible for their actions.

And the APA hasn't actually changed its approach. In 1992, in speaking of Simon LeVay's work on biological distinctions in the hypothalamus of homosexual men, Richard Nakamura of the National Institute of Mental Health concluded, "it will take a much larger effort to be convinced that there is a link between this structure and homosexuality." That was the majority opinion of the APA, and it remains so.

To suggest that a significant number of homosexuals "might simply be described as sociopaths" is indeed simply simplistic--and astoundingly wrong-headed. Who commits most of the murdering, raping, domestic abusing, child molesting, bullying, warmongering, and sexual trafficking? The VAST majority are heterosexuals. Let it go.

As for the "change" factor, employing an Italian pop song as empirical evidence makes as much sense as watching the Thriller video and concluding vampires are real.

Think of it this way: How long would it take for you to "just control yourself" before you became "homosexualized"? Going the other way probably isn't much easier.

"Natural" in a fallen world doesn't de facto mean good. "Unnatural" doesn't necessarily mean bad. Adoption agencies, eyeglasses, pasta, airplanes, and mobile phones weren't in God's original creation either.

The issue comes down (as usual) to the nature of inspiration. Why didn't the Bible writers condemn slavery? Why did they condemn homosexuality? What is a policy; what is a principle? How do we contextualize gracious love now?

Maybe I'll address this topic again when it appears for the one-millionth time in 2019.

(Calling Carrol Grady . . .)

Chris, Heterosexuals outnumber homosexuals at least 10/1. Of course more sociopathic heteros exist; however, my guess is that a much higher % of the ~10% gay community could accurately be described as sociopaths.

Antisocial personality disorder, here described:

http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html

sounds to me like a point by point description of a very high number of the gays I met during the several years I worked with them. How many health clubs, primarily utilized by heteros, have to put up a sign in their locker room which states "No Masturbating"?

Check out the NARTH website.

Woah. All the anger, and vitriol Hansen. Slow down, and remember, "inside voices".

Keith, while I agree with the notion that gay rights is not in any way equal to black civil rights (show me thousands of gay people strung up in trees, and state-sanctioned terrorism and I'll cede the point; nuff said), it's easy to pick on gays and say that these individuals "threaten to further erode the very moral fiber of Africa’s fragile future". It's TOO easy. What about the fact that 25% of men in many portions of Africa willingly state that they have raped and abused women? What about continued, sustained wars? What about corruption in the military, the government, the church? As I said, gay people are the low-hanging fruit that one can pick to demonize. I just feel that Africa's moral fiber is threatened by a lot more than about 8-10% of its population.

Finally, here in Canada we have gay marriage. It happened about 4 years ago. There was an announcement, a vote in Parliament, and it was done. I don't really recall the Church saying a peep. The world didn't shatter, and life continued as normal. Not that I endorse gay marriage, but, how does this affect me again? Tax breaks, powers of attorney for gay spouses? Shrug.

Nik,

Can you help me understand the anger and vitriol, say by giving an example? Many gays are sociopaths. Many are substance abusers. Those are the facts as I understand them. Where's the anger and vitriol?

People who have emotional investments in issues are not the best objective observers and commentators. Any anger and vitriol there?

I once heard a Jewish Rabbi say that Jews should ask themselves how they contributed to the Holocaust. That was a fairly broad minded question from someone who probably lost relatives in the Holocaust. Not much of that kind of thinking here.

Incidentally, Nik, responding to internal stimuli (inside voices) is what schizophrenics do. I prefer objective reality.

Keith I know you love homosexuals... and I am grateful for your thoughts on this subject. So many people, including other Christians, always like to point the finger at Christians who decide to simply follow the Bible and what God has to say on this topic of Gay Marriage. They talk about us judging, the homosexuals, and not loving them, and true many have been terrible and have let us down, stating to be Christians all the while hating and dismembering Gods children the homosexual. They have said, we don't know this or that... But what do they know? Nothing, Im afraid... except that we have to Love love Love and accept accept accept. You know what... that kind of love and acceptance I surely dont need, and neither does the Gay community. People want people to be real in todays society. Tell me who you are and I'll let you know if you can be my friend. Lets be real! it's time to take off the masks and stop loving people to death, literally.
As Christians and true followers of God we must love the homosexuals, its sad that many Christians have not done so, maybe because they don't know how to handle it, or they allow there fears to overwhelm them. That's ok we must give those prejudices to the Lord. The reason we as Christians say that Homosexuality is wrong is simply because the Bible says so .... God said it and we believe it!!! He is the Creator of human sexuality should'nt God Know what He's talking about....have we all forgotten the Bible, and what God has to say about this topic. It's one of the clearest studies in the Bible, there's no argument. God loves the homosexuals more than any of us, and desires for them to be saved .
What we should be discussing is whether or not we love these precious souls that belong to Christ Jesus, and how is that love defined? Do we love people to death because we want to be so "loving" as Christians. This kind of love is not pure and true, blind love is dangerous and is not, "true love" at all. Dont tell me you love me and watch me go straight to hell fire ... what kind of love is that? I dont want that Love....Yet still some of you are saying that Homosexuality is ok and that we dont know what a homosexual is going through, and the famous words so often used in situations like these " dont Judge".. Your love for the Homosexual is damaging and scary, and too safe. That's not love. Love takes risks, risks that says you may not love me after you hear what I have to tell you about your life style. I have friends and family members that I love dearly to my heart and they are drug addicts, and one of my dearest friends is homosexual. Now do you want me to stand by and just "Love Them" without letting them know their lifestyle is eventually going to kill them, and there soul is in danger for eternal life. What kind of love stands by and says sin is ok. We either believe God and what He has to say about Homosexuality, or we dont... that's really the issue.... Believing God.
We know that sin has it's issues, and have left us with a legacy of various distortions. Therefore because of sin, distortions in sexuality occurred. the beautiful Rose now has painful thorns on the stem. it wasn't like that before sin entered. Because of sin, there are people who are more prone to homosexuality than others, there are hermophrodites in our society, so we know the entrance of sin into our world has caused an amalgamation and distortion in human emotions and sexuality. We are more prone to sin than to do good, therefore sin feels more natural to do. Therefore I understand the argument that homosexuality is natural for some and they can't help themselves. Therefore let me say it again, sinful acts feel natural. Sin is Natural!!! It feels right because it's natural. I hope Im making myself clear. That's why Jesus came to break the natural bonds we have to sin, and recreate us over anew. Bible says, any one be in Christ He is a new creature.
True Conversion leads one to move from the natural bonds to sin, to the unnatural bonds to live Holy and right through Christ Jesus. Jesus came to set the captives free... Thats why the Bible helps us in this areas so there can be no doubt as to the nature of Homosexuality. It is wrong! it is not natural physically for the sexual organs to be used in that way, Come on lets get real here! It is unnatural for men to be with men and women with women, but it feels natural to the homosexual because it is in their nature, a nature distorted by the entrance of sin. That's why we can and must love them because we have all been affected by the entrance of sin in one way or another.
As Bible believing Christians we choose to follow the dictates of the WORD on this subject, We must trust the WORD we dont have all the answers, but God said it's WRONG, IT IS SIN . Why as a Christian, would you support a sinful act? Men can love men and women can love women, Nothing wrong with loving the same sex, but it's the act of intimacy in these relationships that makes it so detrimental and sinful. So when you agree to same sex marriage you are agreeing to the sexual act of unnatural intercourse that God has said to be an abomination. Why are we so opinionated? why can't we just follow a simple thus saith the Lord. I guess we are all so super intelligent even moreso than the God who created sexuality and understands it the most. Why do we add to the word that so simply puts things in order for simple minds to understand. We will intelligently place ourselves out of the kingdom if we dont get back to a thus saith the Lord. Science is not God, but he is the God of Science and all wisdom on this Earth, is his first. SO lets elevate the Bible, the Word of God.
If you dont love the homosexual then you cannot call yourself a Christian, and you will not enter into the kingdom. Also if you agree to this lifestyle you are not a Christian either and will not enter into the kingdom. Therefore we must love, and work diligently to help our brothers and sisters in the Gay community to understand the nature of who they are and how God loves them and understands their struggles. Their struggles are powerful and real and they are caught up in the fight for their lives. This is their lot on this Earth their cross to bare, But they don't have to give into the flesh, or bare it alone. Some may have to be single until Jesus comes, and some may find healthy heterosexual relations and ultimately marriages. Christ overcame in the flesh so we can do it to. Regardless if you feel you were born homosexual or you became homosexual, there is power to over come any inherited or cultivated tendancies.
As Christians we must all die eventually to the flesh and it's rulership in our lives. This is hard for the homosexual because, unlike the heterosexual, dying to the flesh does not include sexual intimacy for the married couples that is. But it does for the homosexual couple for their sexual act is sinful and unnatural... unless of course he/she becomes heterosexual.
I have worked with homosexuals who were converted to Jesus, and counseled them to victorious living in Jesus. Some choose to remain single, and others have married into healthy heterosexual marriages.
Lets follow the Bible People and not our opinions. God said it .... so lets follow through with simple unquestionable obedience. Remember He is the creator of human sexuality. lets begin to trust God and take him at his word. Be a helper and provide truth and Love at all risks, and not a hindrance by hating or giving unhealthy love and support to the homosexuals in our community.
Peace and Love.

We've seen moralistic rhetoric from personal conviction on this issue on Spectrum's website before from folk supporting gay marriage right? I don't understand the point of that characterization Jared.

I think it's great that we've got diverse views on gay marriage. Some conservative Adventists seem to caricature us as all being John Shelby Spong types. And yes, some more liberal Adventists would like it if that were true! But it's not and thank God for that!

Yet it does take courage to speak out as Keith has. Keith's closing thoughts on truth-speaking are spot-on. I want to reinforce that point with a quote,

Bonhoeffer was quite critical of his fellow students at Union Theological Seminary. According to Bonhoeffer, to understand the American student, you need to experience life in a hostel which produces a spirit of comradeship as well as a readiness to help one another. The unreservedness of life together, "the thousandfold 'hullo'," manifests the American desire before all else to maintain community. ...

In America in the tension between the attempt to say the truth and the will for the community, the latter always prevails. Fairness, not truth, becomes the primary commitment necessary to sustain community for Americans.

...for American Christianity the concept of tolerance becomes the basic principle of everything Christian. Any intolerance is in itself unchristian." Because Christians in America have no place for the conflict truthfulness requires, they contribute to the secularization of society; a society, moreover, which finds itself unable to subject politics to truth and the conflict truthfulness requires.

Alex, social justice ergo, something Christians should seek?

The full article is helpful I think... while it's focused on truth and politics it also discusses the tendency for liberal Christianity to skew "truth" to harmonize with modernity. You can read Hauerwas on Bonhoeffer here.
...and about the cake,

Chris, isn't that what Keith said? He didn't wake up one day and decide to have a lust for cake, he was born with that craving. The innateness of an attraction (for cake or sex outside of marriage) has nothing to do with the morality of the act (of eating cake or having sex outside of marriage).

I understand what Dr. Archer is saying about the cake... it does seem silly... but it is an apt illustration of how our decisions, not our impulses, should guide our actions.

/The future of Adventism talks and looks like Keith Burton. To look forward one shouldn't look to trends in Western Europe or North America but to Africa and Latin America. Isn't that a beautiful thing?

I feel that this topic would have been a no brainer at all for Adventists and other Christians out there. The dominant evidence that many supporters of gay marriages have comes from psychologists, sociologists and other scientific fields. What we forget is that there is a higher power which explains homosexuality-God. We can all argue with each other about this but what does the CREATOR say about it?? Did God say it was a natural thing??

From the beginning of time God created man and woman and made them have monogamous, heterosexual relationships. He did not create another sexual orientation and when another sexual orientation existed, He frowned upon it and destroyed it as in the case of Lot and Sodom. If we read the Bible, you will find that God clearly makes it plain that homosexual relationships are a sin. This is what an Adventist, nay a Christian, is supposed to see as right. Anthing else after that is like eating the forbidden fruit. God gave all males in the world females to have sexual relations with and showed in his word that homosexualism is wrong. So why are we now encouaging each other to touch that tree (homosexualism) that God said not to touch?

It doesn't matter who is involved-a president, a church member or even a pastor. If we tread on this path of supporting homosexuality, then we are going against clear biblical teachings. Those psychological and scientific associations that most of us are so bent on following are actually biased. The decisions they make are based on who has majority in their councils and not out of moral conviction. I am a psychologist and have seen first hand how these organizations like the APA make their rulings on what is and what is not a disorder and if we are looking for a moral viewpoint, then its not safe to consult them.

Anyway, l do not care who you are...homosexuality is against every fibre of God and should be the same with all Christians. We all are not perfect but we should be striving to do the right thing. If you think those who left church because of this issue were right, listen to this verse, 1 John 2 vs 19..."They went out from us, but they did not really belong to us. For if they had been of us, they would have remained with us; but their going showed that none of them belonged to us." Don't let false pastors or leaders lead you astray. These homosexual rights are coming from the world and if we want to follow Christ, then we can't accept homosexuality.

However, l know there are a lot of gay people out there seeking the Lord. I know what you are going through is hard but all l can say to you is don't give up trying. I do not believe that you were born with it but that you were socialised into it, either while growing up as kids or through experimenting in your later years. Whichever way it is, don't settle for that gay sexual orientation-God has a plan for you and from his word, l don't think it is to be gay. We all have battles to fight in our lives that must bring us closer to God and this one is yours...fight the good fight and you will win....Never give up!!!!!!!!

Charles Scriven

Love your passion, Keith, but would you say heterosexuality is an "addiction"?

I don't think so.

All the evidence suggests that homosexuality is (at least most of the time) a given. (Kids and adolescents don't DECIDE what kind of sexual dreams they will have?)

One of my friends (who has one staight son and one gay son) told me: "When you love someone who is gay, it changes your mind."

Part of the reason, of course, is that when you love someone who is gay, you know, you really know, their struggle.

On homosexuality, I think, Keith, that you should consider changing your mind.

There were four reasons major I left the SDA church

- their stance on evolution

- their stance on gays

- their stance on women in the ministry

- their lies about EGW

My daughter recently decided not to go back to a Sunday congregation because of their stance on gay marriage

Most people I encounter over the age of 30, and almost all under the age of 30, accept homosexuality as a valid sexual orientation, and reject the notion it is "chosen"

Recently a major Psych Assoc rejected the concept that you could change most homosexual orientation with therapy

When I read articles like this, my main reaction is "I'm glad my money is not funding this uninformed nonsense"

/Bevin

Bevin,

Your statement about why you left Adventism to me is suspect, showing you haven't really studied the issues, nor have discernment:

1. Macroevolution has never been demonstrated.

2. Homosexuality is a choice except in cases of gender disputes, "Was this person born female or male?" Then a physician has to make a decision. To say a gene exists for every thing that ails man is simplistic.

3. Let the women fight their own battle. There are good Biblical reasons for the belief, but I personally wouldn't have a problem with women ministers, but to leave a movement over it when we see the first woman Senior Pastor of Loma Linda University Church being installed.

4. EGW can easily be seen as a devotional writer and not have to leave a denomination over it. I vowed after Glacierview, the Bible as my guide. Very liberating. After all EGW herself asked us to test her teachings against the Bible, did she not.

You should take another look at why you REALLY left the church and I bet it is some other axe you may be grinding.

Charles Scriven

Raj Attiken, president of the Ohio Conference, argues that "Hypocrisy is bad; the existence of hypocrisy is good."

He means: It's good to belong to a community whose moral reach exceeds the grasp of the members. (There would be few hypocrites if we would just lower our ideals enough.)

Bevin, I understand (I think) your impatience. But the Christian revolution is still the one overwhelmingly transformative revolution in (at least Western) human history. Secularism has proven itself capable of atrocities that dwarf, in number of victims, anything previous to it. And by failing to connect its (sometimes flourishing) human rights agenda to any feature of reality (reality is dog-eat-dog, and that's it), secularism puts at risk all the moral gains that hark back to Jesus resurrection.

Of course I don't know if you have chosen secularism, or have linked up with some other religious community. So forgive me if this doesn't fit at all.

I wish, and this is the main point, that the likes of you could be part of the Adventist community again. You are thoughtful and engaged, and I appreciate it.

Chuck

Oh Hansen. Gotta love the guy.

I'm assuming the psych Hansen knows is from his GED high-school class.

He said:

"Can you help me understand the anger and vitriol, say by giving an example?"

Sure, I'll even provide him with his own quote:

"Many gays are sociopaths."

Also,

"My guess is that a much higher % of the ~10% gay community could accurately be described as sociopaths."

Haha! Really? I'd LOVE to see your stats, and the actual peer-reviewed journals you read. It's not your place to "guess" on matters of abnormal psychology, unless of course your GED psych PhD tell you that you can. Sociopathy is actually a quite rare diagnosis which can only be made by a certified psychologist/psychiatrist who conducts interviews and reviews a patient's history. Again, you wouldn't know this. It's a good thing you only say dumb things on message boards so that this 20-year old can correct you. That way, you wouldn't embarrass yourself in public.

I do agree that many individuals are substance abusers. I'm just not sure that I (or you for that matter) can single out gays as using a disproportionate amount of any substance.

I must say, your Jewish Rabbi story was quite touching. NEXT.

Finally, you misinterpret my comment on "inside voices". Incidentally, when a grade 2 teacher says "inside voices" to her young students, she (statistically) means stop yelling, ranting and going on tirades. Kind of like the point of this message board. "Inside voices" means to engage in "thoughtful conversation and a healthy exchange of ideas and perspective".

And just so you know GED Dr. Hansen, the "internal stimuli" you speak of when you deride schizophrenics is called an auditory hallucination. Also relatively rare. I too prefer objective reality.

Have a wonderful evening.

For years, homosexuality has been given more attention than others sins. I have come to the conclusion that many in the body of Christ simple do not possess the skill, knowledge, and scriptural wisdom to deal with any addictions facing people of our world today. We have preached against sin and even dealt with sin, but we have lost the compassion and ability to deal with the suffering people have endured. We often seem phanactical in our approach to homosexuality when we should be theological from an academic, historical spiritual and pratical way in addressing the issue of homosexuality. It is in my view that until theology in Christianity is cured of laryngitis, we will never get to heart of the matter of men assasinating their masculinity.

Johnny,

As far as moralistic rhetoric, here's what I'll say:

I have no problem whatsoever with rhetoric that's informed by morals. I hope that my own rhetorical reasoning demonstrates moral conviction. I think it generally does.

When I say that we need more than moralistic rhetoric, or that we need to do better than simply airing our strong convictions, I'm suggesting that we also need to weigh evidence and let that inform our strong convictions. I would reject the idea that considering secular evidences over and against religious "evidences" (by which I mean religious tradition and communal mores) equals skewing truth to harmonize with modernity if by truth you mean what the Bible says or what the church says.

The point is simply this. If we are going to move past simply pitting one strong moral conviction against another (or as many in this thread have commented, airing our own opinions), we might best move forward by considering two things (which I've already noted):

1. The best comprehensive evidence from all the sciences
2. The testimony of people who actually are homosexual and can testify as to what their experiences have been.

I feel as though it is preposterous for us to accuse people of being sexual addicts without having any personal understanding of their experiences.

As with so many discussions, the underlying issue is one of biblical authority. Many appeal to Scripture as the moral authority; others view Scripture as a moral paradigm on par, perhaps, with other sources of moral influence. The latter perspective demands that the prohibitions in the Bible must be viewed in light of current advancements in understanding while the former viewpoint accepts current understandings as illuminated and judged by the Bible's teachings. If these discussions are to arrive at any semblance of resolution it will only be after agreeing on a common understanding of biblical authority.

For many Christians—and, of course, many Adventists—biblical authority trumps all other sources. For any perspective to gain traction with them (and I include myself in this group), an appeal must be made to Scripture and the teachings of the Bible allowed to guide in understanding that which is truly moral.

Chuck and Jared have focused their comments on Keith's use of 'addiction'. Used in this conversation, such a term does suggest that homosexuality is an acquired habit.

It's suggested that if Keith really knew a homosexual he would realize that is not true. Yet Keith's article makes clear that the question of if homosexuality is acquired (nurture) or innate (nature) makes little difference. I believe that Keith is using 'addiction' in the way AA does- one is an addict not because one chooses to drink often but because one is inclined to drink to the point where ones desire is beyond ones control. AA meetings are, after all, full of many folks who currently don't drink...

So really, either view has us arriving at the same place. That is, we are asking how the Christian should deal with an inclination that is beyond ones control and is fully a part of ones self? The article argues that our understanding of right and wrong does not have to be determined by our sinful human inclinations.

So, if our moralistic rhetoric (as Jared says in his latest comment) is to be determined by something, what thing would that be? Our feelings? What science is currently claiming to be absolutely true? The feelings of someone we love? I understand that some types of morality are constructed this way but I'm not convinced that Christianity is.

Nik, For a 20 year old [possibly gay] young man, you have a good attitude. I appreciate your lightheartedness. Generally, I don't give much credibility to scientific research on gays which requires self reporting. The reason being that gays are often liars. What they say regarding their sexuality is often a lie or they are so confused, they don't really know the facts themnselves.

For some reason, homosexuals are very fond of "peer reviewed" material. If the director of a medical ward is a licensed psychiatrist who happens to enjoy seducing young hispanic men, would you consider him an objective "peer" if he were to review an article contrary to homosexual interests, submitted to a "peer reviewed" professional journal? I would not.

Check out the NARTH website:

http://www.narth.com/index.html

Here are some articles, for your reading pleasure, which turned up on a quick Google search:

"A systematic psychiatric study was carried out with a group of convicted women felons. All the women received at least one psychiatric diagnosis. Sociopathy, alcoholism, drug dependency. hysteria, and homosexuality were encountered more frequently than would be expected in the general female population. Sociopathy or hysteria was found in 80 percent; a 20 times greater prevalence of hysteria than is found in the general population was the most striking finding. The results of this study confirm other work suggesting that there is a significant association between sociopathy and hysteria."

http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/127/3/303

"Summary: Recent studies show homosexuals have a substantially greater risk of suffering from a psychiatric problems than do heterosexuals. We see higher rates of suicide, depression, bulimia, antisocial personality disorder, and substance abuse. This paper highlights some new and significant considerations that reflect on the question of those mental illnesses and on their possible sources."

"Ellis et al. (1995) examined patients at an clinic which focused on genital and urological problems such as STD's; he found 38% of the homosexual men seeking such services had antisocial personality disorder, as well as 28% of heterosexual men. Both levels were enormously higher than the 2% rate of antisocial personality disorder for the general population (which in turn, compares to the 50% rate for prison inmates) (Matthews 1997)."

http://www.narth.com/docs/whitehead.html

"Sometimes, though, a patient would be set off by nothing in particular. More accurately, nothing external, as schizophrenics often had a disjointed internal dialog that could upset them or tell them to do things. This was referred to as “responding to internal stimuli,” and would appear on incident reports where a patient would appear to go off for no discernible reason. Even with medication, some patients were subject to bouts with their internal demons, so on the ward, one’s guard was never entirely down."

http://www.goodjobsucking.com/?p=33

Do any Adventist Christians want to sign up to the make adultery illegal campaign? Or have we accepted even tho adultery is immoral but not illegal in our society what two non married consenting adults choose to do in private is none of our business and the law of the land should keep out of it?
How will gay marriage effect you as an Adventist Christian? Will it stop you from going to church on Sabbaths, will it prevent you from taking part in a heterosexual union? I have no fear of gay marriage, I see no reason to deny consenting adults the right to marry just because I do not like what they do in bed or out of it, as far as I know being gay is not illegal hence denying them marriage does not make any civil sense. Either we want our governments to run on some kind of Adventist theocracy in our image or not.

Hmm, take a day of rest off from Spectrum and see what happens!

Keith, I know there are many like you who resent the comparison of homosexuality and race. But as a number of others have already noted here (and I have yet to read all the posts), homosexual orientation is NOT a choice. Choice would indicate that a person is NOT homosexual.

Having spent much of the past 20 years in a ministry for other families of gays and lesbians (I have a gay son) and much of the past 14 years learning to know hundreds of gays and lesbians, I have yet to find one who has chosen to be gay. While many have finally accepted that they cannot change, they have all spent years or lifetimes trying.

Let me add that there are a number of Black leaders who DO recognize the similarity of racial oppression and the oppression of homosexuals, transgender and intersex people - such well-known Black leaders as Archbishop Desmond Tutu and Coretta Scott King. I find it sad when people who have begun to find freedom from oppression want to deny it to others who are still oppressed.

It has helped me to understand homosexuality and transgender better to learn about intersexuality, where it is possible to see people born with sexual organs of both sexes or ambiguous sexuality (something like 1 in 10,000 births, I believe). If this can happen where we CAN see it, is it not possible that something similar can happen in the brain, where we CAN'T see it? Actually, through PET scans it is now possible to SEE which areas of the brain are activated by exposure to sexual stimuli. Having also come to know a fair number of transgender and intersex people, I realize what emotional pain and confusion they endure, as well.

I might have more to say after reading the other posts, although I can't help thinking everything has already been said that can be said on this topic!

I usually check the "Black" box on census forms, and don't resent any community's push for public recognition, civic equality, or religious charity. The transAtlantic slave trade is not lessened by emphasis on the 20th Century Jewish Holocaust, and the Jewish Holocaust is not lessened by recognition of genocide in Armenia or Sudan. I have many brothers and many sisters, and recognize them all.

There are many parallels between the journeys of African-Americans, women, and gay people, and those journeys intersect for more Americans than I used to think. For many leading Black scholars and activists, they have intersected for over a century -- from Alice Dunbar-Nelson and Countee Cullen through James Baldwin and Alice Walker to innumerable and unnamed men and women today.

The journeys are not the same, but no human journey is the same. In the 60s and 70s Black men were slow at recognizing and working towards civic and social equality for women, and they often used the excuse that the Black community shouldn't divide its efforts -- because racial issues hadn't been resolved, other minorities should just suck it up and Fight the Power. The same was true in the predominantly White feminist movements with regard to race and sexuality, and so people who were marginalized in society often found themselves marginalized again in protest groups formed to fight marginalization. Rights movements, which begin by proclaiming the great theme of oneness, often degenerate into blinkered exclusivity. People forget that equality doesn't end with "Me" or "Us," and they get off the equality boat before it has reached shore.

I recognize the tendency for some Afro-centric scholars to blame "western liberals" for certain things. (Is "western liberals" code for "Hollywood"? "The New Professoriate"? "American media"? "White folks"?) It's true there's a long history of European and American morals and politics being exported around the world without due respect for locals. It's just as true that there's tremendous variation native to the African continent, and that variation can't be sourced to nefarious Western intervention designed to undermine "the African family." When I was younger and reading Afrikan nationalist scholarship, I learned a number of myths about an idealized African social structure, with embedded anti-homosexual and misogynistic ideas about nature, roles, and family. I later had to unlearn a lot of these myths -- but I still recognize them when I see them.

I understand their source, but no longer affirm them because I find them misinformed. As Keith says, I "fully empathize," so I guess we have empathy in common.

By the way, Keith, best wishes on your upcoming trip. I think a message of responsible, ethical conduct is always going to be valuable no matter where in the world you are and which community of youth you are speaking to.

Educated people do lots of harm to gay adventists, when they stand by beliefs that are outdated in view of new scientific discoveries. This seems to be the case of the author of the article above. He is basing his assumptions on outdated information he inherited from his peers, and is clearly prejudiced against homosexuals based on those beliefs.

I guess I will come back with one more comment, although I think we are all fully polarized on this issue by now. I do wish there could be more civility, Christian love, and attempts to understand each other instead of ramming our opinions down each others' throats.

I have come to the conclusion that the basis of our disagreements on many issues besides this one is rooted in how we read the Bible. Would it be possible sometime for us to look at each of the "clobber texts" individually and discuss (not cuss) how we read and understand them. Because that issue must be settled before we can make progress in any other area. But then, maybe I'm dreaming when I think that issue could ever be settled here???

Kurt is just repeating what so many others have said. Intimacy is a gift from God to all humans. Real intimacy for homosexuals cannot be achieved in truth by forcing them to marry an opposit sex person. Too many of us went that way before we understood the issue, and made our lives miserable. Are we going to continue telling young SDA homosexuals to do the same?

Kut said "Nature itself--biology, physiology, sociology--indicates that homosexual activity is incompatible with prolonging human existence and multiplication without artificial intervention. While this is no automatic reason to exclude homosexuality from the realm of secular societal norms, it surely adds something significant to consider in such a debate" If that is the case, infertile people and couples who do not wish to have offstprings should not be allowed to marry either.

After reading your blog again, Keith, I must make one more comment. In your conclusion you speak of hedonism, indulging animal instincts, sexual passions and loose morals. Is this what you think of when you think of homosexuals? This seems terribly judgmental to me. There are many heterosexuals who could be thus described as well. But many Adventist homosexual couples I know have every bit as high standards of love, care and faithfulness in their relationships as do my heterosexual friends. Please do not say such judgmental and hurtful things when you don't know what it is like to be homosexual.

"Lets follow the Bible People and not our opinions. God said it .... so lets follow through with simple unquestionable obedience."

It's that kind of thinking, and Carrol's cogent comments on "how we read the Bible" that is PRESUMED to be the same for all. That's the first and most erroneous presumption on any biblical topic.

For the person who said "God said it....so lets (sic) follow through with simple unquestionable obedience, effectively makes robots. Except....there is not person alive who follows all the instructions or prohibitions that are in the Bible! Everyone is a selective "cherry-picker" of texts.

I dare anyone here to use the Levitical rules as their medical guidelines today. Or numerous other rules from the Bible. We reject what we judge to be irrelevant or out-moded, and choose the others for pointing out "O.P.Ms" (Other People's Sins).

Yes, more than enough has been said here, but I want to express my thoughts anyway.

First, I'm a gay man and I am married to a wonderful Adventist Christian man.

Second, I'm a Christian. And I'm an Adventist. Hansen, don't tell me again to leave the church. I consider that blasphemy. You are out of place as are others who would say that.

Third, African, please don't insult me by comparing me to the people you see in gay pride parades. They are a stereotype that is no more representative of all homosexuals than are black thugs, thieves, and drug dealers representative of all those with African heritage. I'm insulted by being stereotyped by people who have suffered so much from being stereotyped themselves.

Fourth, so many of you speak with great certainty about this when you really know nothing. Every time someone insists that I chose to be homosexual, I am hurt to the core. My Godly Adventist mother is nearly 91. She told me again last month, as she has many times, that she knows I would never have chosen to be gay. She says she knew I was gay from the time I was a little boy. And she reminds me that, from the time I was a little boy, I tried very hard to be good and do what was right. And she knows how I have suffered from the idea that I was someone who many in the church and society reject.

Fifth, Johnny, how absolutely insulting to compare who I am with an innate lust for deserts. How insensitive. Let me ask you a question. If a wonderful, tempting cake was sitting on your kitchen counter, would you not want a piece? Addiction? Well I would equate that with a need to have sex at least every day if not more often. If you must know the intimate details, my partner and I can sleep together night after we don't have sexual relations even daily. If I were a sexual addict I would have gone out and found a man to have sex with this last week when my partner was away from home for five days. Earlier this summer he was away on business for more than two weeks and we remained faithful to each other. We have a strong emotional bond of which sex is sometimes an expression. So, Michael, your idea of addiction is way, way off base in reality. Am disappointed that SPECTRUM would publish an article that is so poorly researched as yours.

Sixth, Frank, I think your suggestion that people like me have "assassinated" our masculinity is stooping very, very low. I am very much a man. I may not express my masculinity in the same way you do, i.e. I have no interest in watching sports on TV (of course I chose to deny a strong interest in sports, mind you), I'm a man.

Seventh, my partner is very African except in his ethnicity. He was born in Africa and grew up there. His parents gave their entire working lives to working in Africa. Then my partner himself returned to spend many years of mission service in Africa himself under very difficult circumstances in remote places. He speaks African languages fluently. And he still speaks on the phone with Africans who are his friends. He knows well the *choices* that have kept many Africans sick and impoverished. He knows the corruption among African Adventist workers. So, Keith, don't talk to us about Africa. I'd say my partner is far more African than you are and knows far more about Africa than you do. Blood isn't everything.

Am I angry? I suppose I could be. Does all the ill-informed accusatory discussion here hurt me? Absolutely. I know in my heart that you are "saying all manner of evil against me falsely." Keith, and others, you only *think* you now about me. But I'm here to tell you that you are very mistaken.

Finally, heartfelt thanks to my personal friends Carrol Grady and Chuck Scriven. You do indeed know my partner and me. You know our story and our lives. And thanks to Jared and Alexander who I look forward to meeting soon.

Oh God, why did I have to be born to be someone who would be so misunderstood and often attacked, even in your church?

I have been extremely disappointed in Dr. Burton. He is held in high esteem by many of my young friends - and I expected more of him - As a Christian, as a scholar and as a gentleman.

Hopefully - he will address the sexual addictions of the heterosexual men when he speaks in Africa - of their use of women - and young girls - and their promiscuous behaviors that has led to the wide spread AID epidemic and leave his misunderstandings and misinformation regarding gays in the US.

One more thing, Keith. Credentials!

I'm a college administrator with a Ph.D. and I've taught critical thinking skills for many years. The infusion of critical thinking into the curriculum is one of our college's goals which I am responsible for promoting and assessing. Those are my credentials.

As part of teaching critical thinking, I have always taught my students that anyone can write anything. But that something published, especially on a blog, is not necessarily authoritative. Thus, it is important to ask what are the credentials of the author in determining the value of the author's writing.

So, Keith. I don't know you. What are your credentials? What qualifies you professionally as authoritative on addiction, sexual addiction, and homosexuality? Or are you simply expressing opinions here?

Keith, you are clearly gifted as a wordsmith. Your article is well written with language that almost has a melody as I read it. I can almost hear this as a sermon being preached in front of a congregation.

You are also dead wrong about this subject. I cringe to think of how many more gay children will give up and turn to suicide as they are bombarded with such messages as these. To anyone who truly knows about homosexuality, your article is clearly based on ugly prejudice, despite the beautiful language in which it is written. It's a little like putting an elegant gown on a warthog.

Ignorance of a subject has never prevented writing about it. This is amply demonstrated with this subject where opinions are infinite.

Actually if homosexuals were just perverted heterosexuals and sexually addicted people as Keith Burton describes them, it would have been a lot easier for any young man growing up adventist to avoid such a predicament. Specially when most homosexuals are very smart and have many great great talents. Would they be stupid to the point of going that way? They would have not had to pray for a change year after year, and they would not have gotten married to unsuspecting women, hoping to force themselvs to conform and become true heterosexuals. The possibilities would have been many. You know where I'm coming from.

The only way Keith and many others can change their acquired prejudices into positive knowledge would be for them to get to know a homosexual personally and ask questions.

I have learnt that the SDA church is a mirror image of Catholicism. In fact, if there was no Catholicism there would never be the SDA church.

Catholic celibate priests claim to be experts when it comes to sexual matters. Wonder where they get the hands-on experience from?

Adventist, supposedly straight preachers claim to be experts on sexual orientation. What qualifications and experience do they have?

It's hard to be gay. I've never been one by seen my friends. I don't think any of them would have chosen to be gay, if they had a choice. I am offended by those who claim otherwise.

Please read more bishop Desmond Tutu, please read more bishop John Spong - they are the real giants of contemporary Christian theology. You will find out that even the Bible hardly mentions homosexuality. Making such a big fuss over it is both unchristian and unbiblical too.

By the way - what did E G White have to say about homosexuality? I really don't know. I only remember reading her prohibiting (in the name of God!) "interracial" marriages.

Ellen White never mentions homsexuality - even in her chapter on Sodom and Gomorah in P&P and even though it was a fairly popular topic of conversation in her day because of Freud. She does, however, speak considerably about "solitary vice" wich was not a topic of parlor converstion.

"Second, I'm a Christian. And I'm an Adventist. Hansen, don't tell me again to leave the church. I consider that blasphemy. You are out of place as are others who would say that."

John, Did I say that you should "leave the church"? I must have missed that part of my post. I just reviewed my posts on this thread. Perhaps I overlooked it?

I have at times advised gays to separate from Adventism for their own spiritual development. It can be a toxic organization, not only for homosexuals.

Gays, like all sinners, need Jesus. They don't need Adventism.

http://www.narth.com/docs/ram.html

Some Rams prefer to mount other rams; consequently, gay proponents have seized upon this information to advance their own interests.

It appears that this behaviour, rams mounting other rams, is done primarily by rams who failed in their bid to become alpha males.

If an alpha male is culled, by hunting, for example, the rams who preferred mounting other rams will strive to take the place of the culled alpha male and resume heterosexual conduct.

Read the entire article, to be sure I haven't tried to fool ya.

These comments reveal two things.

1. That gay marriage is the third rail of liberal Adventists. Donna (and others) note how their regard of Keith has been lowered by this piece. His presentation or his opinion? Be honest now...

2. That supporting sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage requires one to marginalize and relativize Scripture. Hence the positivist view of our body (and its desires). Col. 1, Rom. 8 and many more make clear that our minds and desires are oriented away from God. The Bible definitely would not have Christians privilege our sinful human nature over Gods command.

/and that yes, some people actually do take Bishop Spong seriously...

Johnny,

Personally, I don't agree with Keith's opinion. But it's particularly his presentation that I find objectionable. It's shallow and unconvincing, and very bigoted. He fails to explain his point convincingly, and does not appear interested in other opinions. He already knows better!

"Supporting sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage" - as you put it, does not require one to marginalize and relativise Scripture. Not at all. It's only a particularly bigoted interpretation of Scripture that condemns homosexuality. If you try to understand the texts usually quoted to condemn homosexuality, you will see that they are actually about something else (at least most of them). And even if the Bible did condemn homosexuality, I'd still insist that we put reason, knowledge and common sense before blind faith.

I am surprised that Spectrum featured this article; not simply because I disagree, but because Brother Burton professes to know something on this subject. He knows nothing. He did not even speak to a sampling of gays and lesbians--he didn't need to--he already knows everything.

Brother Burton, if you have gay or lesbian relatives, they have not been encouraged by this article to speak to you. You have slammed that door loudly.

Had I written an opinion that Brother Burton knows nothing about being African-American and that he should learn from me because I am authority on this subject, anything I would have written would have deserved the scorn that would have been heaped upon it. Brother Burton, your view is at best second-hand. If you choose to reiterate the traditional scriptural views without recognizing that other views are possible, then you would have been entitled to that view and to be treated with respect. Have you ever examined the alternate readings? You really should, considering this is a somewhat "Adventist" forum where such considerations are respected.

When you profess that homosexuality if just another addiction, you are speculating. It is all right to speculate, as long as you point out that your belief is an opinion not supported by science. Adventists do this all the time when their Creation beliefs are not supported by science.

Your article could have used another paragraph. I would have been intrigued to hear about the day you considered being gay but decided against it. Was that a challenge? Was there ever a man to whom you were attracted emotionally; someone with whom you could easily have set up housekeeping? Did you think men were handsome and possibly appealing to have sex with, but that in spite of your attraction you decided to make your life with a person of the opposite sex? Did you find that difficult?

Of course I am being facetious. You probably never experienced that crossroad for the simple reason that it does not exist. If not for you, then also not for me.

For those of us who experienced pain because of your prejudice and misinformation, this is only one more to endure. I am only disappointed that Spectrum would publish an article that appeared to make scientific statements without support. Surely as educated Adventists we could have asked for better.

We interpret the Bible based on many things. There are those of us on this thread who support gay rights and also support the equality of women in practical ways, neither of which are Biblical. There are those who support the equality of women but not gays. There are those who support neither but don't support slavery. There are those who question whether sin by Adam and Eve brought death to our world.

As time goes on and our ethical and scientific understandings change, we revisit Biblical passages and our understanding of them. Even though this is often done communally, the conclusions we reach individually are based quite a bit on our own experiences. Those who love someone who is gay are going to approach things differently. Those who have a strong aversion to the idea of gayness are going to see the Biblical verses condemning homosexuality as correct because they viscerally sense it as wrong and disgusting. Both conclusions are often reached after prayerful consideration I would add.

Personally, I think if we are going to err, it is more important to err on the side of love than on the side of scriptural correctness. Following the Bible's various injunctions without interpreting them based on our current understanding of what is loving leads to some very awful behavior. Jesus said the most important thing is to be loving. While it is true that it can be loving to help someone stop destructive behavior, that is only true if the behavior is actually destructive. Loving someone of the same sex is not destructive. Leading a promiscuous life is. We don't have to approve of everything homosexuals do any more than we have to approve of everything straights do.

I think part of what makes spectrum a good place to read is the fact that they do feature articles such as this. Andrew, I think your take on it is bang on, though. But I think it's important for this view to be aired so that intelligent commentary can ensue. This view was aired plenty as I was growing up. If only I had a forum like Spectrum at the time where intelligent people pointed out the inherent flaws in a view that is offered without adequate knowledge of a subject. Even among all the ignorance that is written in response, it would have done me a world of good to hear from both those who disagree with the article, and those who agree with it, but point out the need of the church to love people like me even if they don't agree with me being gay.

Dr Keith!
This article makes a great contribution to the ongoing discussion on a Seventh-day Adventist hot potato issue. However, I think perhaps, this article would be better had you not qualified homosexuality as an "addiction" but rather a sinful lifestyle. The scripture will support you on the former, not the latter. Your thesis that understanding of right and wrong does not have to be determined by our sinful inclinations, stands on solid biblical foundation and prohibits gay marriage.

I would have liked to see your understanding of the difference between homosexual orientation and homosexuality reflected in the article. While both are the effects of sin, understanding this difference helps us guard against intolerance and inspire compassion for those whom as a result of sin may be more like a woman living in a male body, for example, or visa versa. Although, Gays will take umbrage to this, homosexual orientation is evidence of the deformity of sin as "the whole creation groaneth" (Rom. 8:22). And it’s not all about the sex, because there are Christians who identify as Gay but do not condone or practice the lifestyle by remaining celibate. "Some are eunuchs because they are born that way (Matt. 19:12).

On the question of discrimination, I do think that the struggle for civil rights in the Gay population has a lot in common with the struggle for civil rights among Black people and other minorities. That's why I would add to the rights you mentioned at the end of your article, the right of Gay people to not be discriminated against in employment, medical care among other basic human rights. Gays do have the right not to be victims of hate crimes and the church aught to lend its voice to this issue too also. It is a fact, that Gays and Blacks alike face widespread discrimination and segregation in civil society. The church unfortunately, remains the most segregated institution in the world and Blacks and Gays continue to face the brunt of that segregation. Inadvertently, by its neglect to defend Gays against other discriminations coupled with its use of insensitive rhetoric in propagating dogmas, the church often sends a message that seems to justify discrimination of Gays and may encourage hate crimes. That's why more than ever before, it is important for the church to defend the civil rights of all people including Gays. Marriage is not primarily a civil right! Marriage is moral institution designed by God to be contracted between a man and a woman. Therefore, people who do not believe in gay marriage are not necessarily homophobes.

One of the qualities of Spectrum I most appreciate is its willingness to present different points of view. One of the qualities of the Adventist church I most appreciate is the spectrum of viewpoints within our church body. The church is the people in it; not a particular policy promoted at any given time. We have changed our policies and our attitudes toward a variety of issues over the decades.

I believe in freedom of speech. That means however, when someone says something I believe to be harmful, not Biblical, and spoken out of ignorance of the the issue, I need to speak up. A friend of mine has a quote on his door: "Evil will not prevail because evil exists. Evil will prevail because good men do nothing." Even people that mean well can say or do things that cause harm. If we are to be "watchers on the tower" we need to confront those actions.

Whether or not he intends it, I believe that Keith Burton is speaking in ways that promote Biblical and developmental ignorance, bias and, the root of thought pattens that have resulted in hate crimes. This is particularly sad for me because he speaks of a country that has seen enough of those patterns.

As readers of this magazine know, there are many thoughtful Adventist theologians, ministers, church administrators, congregations, exigisists, etc who have come to understand the Bible texts in a far differnt way than Keith has. In their prayerful studies they have found that the texts often used to condemn long term monogamous same sex relationships are, in actuality, discussing abusive behavior, not committed relationships.

I hated to hear about the times in the 1960s when white Seventh-day Adventists in the United States blocked the door of their churches to black Seventh-day Adventists. I have been saddened when church leaders have told women in physically and sexually violent marriages that God intends for them to stay in that situation. I am saddened to hear what Keith says because his viewpoints continue to promote the unnecessary and unBibilical pain caused to yet another vulnerable constituancy of the Seventh-day Adventist Church.

In all of this, I believe that God is leading our church and I will pray that we all become more like Heaven.

Blessings,

Catherine

Catherine - thanks so much for your thoughtful, kind remarks.

What saddens me is that our own Theological Seminary is hosting a conference this fall - which is designed to promote just the type of thinking that Dr. Burton espouses. Those who have an alternative points of view have not been invited to participate.

How do you propose That "thoughtful Adventist theologians, ministers, church administrators, congregations, exigisists, etc who have come to understand the Bible texts in a far different way than Dr. Burton" make their voice heard in our Adventist community?

Donna has squarely faced the problem: when the deck is stacked, and no alternative views are to be heard, why bother with the facade of a "conference" to discuss a subject when it has already been signed, sealed and will then be delivered.

There's a long history of such "deck stackings": Glacier View is just one of many, perhaps the best known. Recently at Southern Adventist (and reported here) there was such a "conference" with absolutely no alternative view allowed! All were either ministers (who know all about human sexuality!), and denominationally employed teachers and one student.

No discussion of scientific knowledge on this, merely quoting and interpreting Bible texts. And presumed that everyone reads the Bible exactly as they.

That's unfortunate. Apparently Keith missed his own message.

Just two months ago, he wrote an article pointing out the value of expertise in the discourse of the church.

http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2009/06/05/expert

Candidly, even humbly, he shared times when he has preached a sermon or presented a view and someone who has devoted a lot of time to the study on it has corrected him on basic facts.

He wrote:

After preaching a fact-filled sermon one day, I was confronted by one of my college science professors who happened to be in the congregation. “By the way, son,” he said in his fatherly tone, “the principle you mentioned is not a law of thermodynamics, it is Newton’s third law of motion, otherwise known as ‘the law of reciprocal actions.'

Similarly, there is significant scientific evidence against his absurd claim that homosexuals are sexual addicts.

Sexual activities and relationships with members of one's own sex, whether casual or intimate, are not considered signs or symptoms of sexual addiction. Sexual addiction is not defined by the type of sexual act or the gender of sexual partner. Out-of control sexual behavior is defined as sexual behavior that is acted out compulsively, often with preoccupation (before and after the act), and often without regard for the consequences.

The Society for the Advancement of Sexual Health acknowledges along with the American Psychiatric Association, that homosexuality does not imply any pathology or mental illness. Unlike homosexuality, sexual addiction is seen as a disorder in need of treatment. People with homosexual or bisexual orientations have long been stigmatized and may suffer because of this stigmatization. It is important to distinguish between out-of control sexual behavior (sexual addiction) and one's discomfort with their sexual orientation. A trained therapist should be able to help separate the issues.

http://www.ncsac.org/general/papers_homosexuality.aspx

Now I see some folks dismissing science or trotting out the bogus and repeatedly debunked NARTH stuff, but to be logically consistent, someone who respects the scientific method, the same one that gives governs hundreds of millions of parts of our lives from engineering to health care to storm tracking, but at least confront the evidence.

For someone who did graduate studies at Northwestern, I'd expect a little more respect, not only for at least the practice of relying on evidence when attacking others, but also more attention to his own earlier argument about experts.

Everyone recognizes that everyone can hold opinions (there's no need to attack Keith personally) he just isn't being consistent with his own words:

In this postmodern age that sponsors boundless creativity and challenges claims that certain people may have authoritative expertise in specific disciplines, the Church is in need of spirit-filled men and women who have been specifically gifted with the skill of biblical interpretation and application.

http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2009/06/05/expert

And increasingly in our own church, biblical scholars like Fritz Guy, historians like Julius Nam, church leaders like Larry Geraty and Mitchell Tyner are recognizing that treating gays like we'd want to be treated is good for the church.

Keith suggests that liberals are loose. Ha. Ha. I don't think that sexual activities is determined by ideology. And any look at the news of late - Sen. Ensign, Gov. Sanford - debunks that simplistic canard. And maybe he should talk to some of the greatest generation liberals who support gays and the Spectrum platform.

It's amazing how many men are just fixated on the sexual experience of gay men. To follow Keith's logic, the lovingly committed middle-aged lesbians I knew in seminary are somehow more sexually sinful in God's eyes. Huh?

The logic just doesn't follow, nor does the simple idea that Christians who pay attention to cultural context in the Bible are less faithful to God's Word in their lives. It's bogus. Remember the same argument was made by Southern Christians to defend their "biblical" practice of racist slavery. That's in part why Desmond Tutu supports GLBT rights in the church.

Remember most Adventists were Northern liberals, and practically secular humanists with their belief in soul sleep. Let's remember to debate this issue on its Scriptural, traditional, rational, experiential merits and not cast about for slippery slopes.

Secular humanists? Practically sure except for small details like their religious fervor and embrace of the supernatural and rejection of positivism.

The slippery slope should be avoided? As in we should not talk about how straight proponents of gay marriage see their own heterosexual sex before marriage as uplifting? Or is slippery slope what we're on when we're drinking and smoking? Or is it more cerebral like the 'rational' dismiss of 'zombie Jesus' as a living, died and resurrected Christ?

I agree. We should stay off this slippery slope.

Johnny asked, regarding my comments, if it were Dr. Burton’s opinion or his presentation that concerned me. I thought his presentation WAS his opinion. As I read his article, he objects to the civil rights of gays being equated with the civil rights of blacks. He feels they do not equate. His reasons – which are his personal opinion – is that gays as a minority are not deserving of the same civil rights blacks as their minority status is based on a sexual perversion . To grant them freedom to marry would be to “erode the very moral fiber of Africa’s fragile future.”

This issue of gay rights, as is the issue of rights for women have a common ground. How one views both of these issues – as well as most of the issues which divide us on this forum and within the church - has to do with how one reads and interprets Scripture and how one sees and envisions God and his expectations. There are those, like Dr. Burton, who have a primary concern for the authority of the Bible. As Johnny fears and stated in his post, “supporting sexual activity outside of heterosexual marriage requires one to marginalize and relativize Scripture.” There are others who take the Bible seriously who see “letting the oppressed go free” as being the very essence Scriptural mandate.

Others like Donna have said it many times, and I'll reiterate it here. As much as we talk about things like evolution vis-à-vis creation, the role of women in public ministry, homosexuality and all the issues that get us fired up, it seems as though the heart of our discussion is scriptural authority and Wesley's Quadrilateral.

The dividing lines can be followed back to different convictions on the place (role) of Scripture in the community and to divergences on the topic of Inspiration.

So I'm going to call out the whole Adventist church right here and now (and I know you're all listening, so...good).

Rather than beating around the bush with conference after conference on Creation or Marriage or Ecofeminism (as much as I appreciate all those topics and am glad that we've discussed them in public), what we really need to do is have a serious, scholarly, public, and did I mention scholarly discussion of how we ought to understand, interpret and use Scripture in our faith community in the 21st Century. It seems to me as though if we were to do that, and if we were to arrive at some sort of consensus, we would begin to have some nice hooks to hang our other theological hats on.

Of course some sort of consensus could turn out to be an unrealistic objective given the diverse and fervently-held views of our Adventist sistren (and brethren).

I agree.

It is very hard to reconcile the SDA church's approach to divorce with its approach to evolution, women in ministry, etc

Let's face it - the Biblical injunction against divorce, and especially remarriage, is about as strong as it gets...

/Bevin

"Marriage is not primarily a civil right! Marriage is moral institution designed by God to be contracted between a man and a woman."

If one checks, marriage is a civil institution and is defined by the state. One must get a license (not a religious one) before marriage will be recognized.

If one wishes a religious ceremony, that is also a choice, but it cannot be legalized without the civil authorities issuing a license for that specific permission.

@ Bevin -- an empowered group can always afford to be compassionate to itself. The baby boomers who married in the 60s and 70s brought us an uptick in divorces in the 80s and 90s. At the same time they became old enough to run the churches, and here we are today with not only a more compassionate policy on divorce but also a much less rigid application of it depending on where in the world we are.

Somewhat jaded point of view = Gen X/Y.

Great idea, Jared! But there is already a consensus—the vast majority of the Seventh-day Adventist Church views Scripture as described thus:

The Holy Scriptures, Old and New Testaments, are the written Word of God, given by divine inspiration through holy men of God who spoke and wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit. In this Word, God has committed to man the knowledge necessary for salvation. The Holy Scriptures are the infallible revelation of His will. They are the standard of character, the test of experience, the authoritative revealer of doctrines, and the trustworthy record of God's acts in history.

A quote from our fundamental beliefs aside, I would appreciate a reasoned discussion (perhaps even a conference or two) devoted to the topic of Scriptural authority. Perhaps Spectrum would spearhead such an endeavor?

Beth, I always appreciate your gentle and sensible comments.

Jared, I hope you can follow through on the idea of tackling how we read the Bible. There is so much information available now on the early church and early manuscripts that we really need to take a new look at how God speaks to us through the Bible. I really enjoyed the recent presentation at the SDAF by Dr. Baldwin on the influence of oral tradition and scribal activity on the Bible.

Donna, Funny that you are portraying certain individuals and viewpoints as "victims" whose opinion is not valued. You wonder how their voice will be heard? Seems like they be the ones who started this with their volume on homosexuality, embraced by the president of Kinship as "our book."

Their/your voice was heard loud and clear. Spectrum published an excerpt, the piece by Br. Jones, which likened homosexuality in our times to eating unclean food in Biblical times.

Alexander, NARTH has been debunked? By who? Gay psychiatrists, lesbian psychologists, and other partisans who themselves are confused about sexual expression.

I spent several years on the front lines of the AIDS crisis in West Hollywood. Do you know where some of the physicians, who pioneered AIDS treatment are now? Dead. They were gay and infected with HIV themselves.

NARTH may be the only legitimate professional organization offering a different perspective on homosexuality. Are they perfect? No. But do you think the cabal of mental health professionals who are gay themselves, both psychiatrists and psychologists, could even begin to give a fair hearing to scientific evidence which counters their personal and social agenda?

Absolutely not.

I'm glad to see that people like Nick Miller are going to confront this issue in Adventism. I hope Ted Wilson, Roy Gane, and how I wish Dr. Hasel was around now, would put the lies and subterfuge surrounding this matter to bed.

The Bible has less to say about pedophilia than it does about homosexuality. The fact that most of the RC pedophilia attacks were homosexual, seems to be lost on too many people.

I had a "good friend" when I was young, a guy who grew up in the same small town I did. One day, after returning from a two year "vacation," He wanted me to sodomize and orally copulate him. I said, "NO, I'm walking with Jesus." I decided to not be gay.

The idea that people don't make a decision to be gay is an absolute lie. People decide to act out on their feelings, just like the girl who gives up her virginity on a pallet behind the local Dairy Queen.

I had an acquaintance who regularly had sex with her father. She had done this over a period of years. She was no child, either. She was nearly thirty when I became acquainted with her. They normally started out drinking alcohol together, then had sexual relations. There was a definite pattern and a decision.

Call it an addiction, sinful behaviour, whatever.

Jesus is our only hope. But he can only help if we let him.

Hansen, you've apparently lived an interesting life. And it apparently influences your opinions. You might reflect on the reality that your attitudes and misunderstandings about same-gender relationships might be colored by these very anecdotal and extreme examples.

That you resort to calling physicians and psychologists, et al, "gay" because they support GLBT rights is a very logically and epistemologically flawed argument. Are all men who support women's ordination against the arguments of Dr. Hasel actually women? What about those who fought for African-American civil rights? Actually, white folks who stood up then were called a very derogatory name. It's an old trick to imply that those who stand in solidarity with others are doing so for "unseemly" motives.

Here's a helpful critique of NARTH, from the other side. It just has no scientific credibility. In fact, here's a really good explanation of the shoddy work they do and the way that they try to propagandize through the media, while avoiding actual scientific research.

http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2009/07/30/13625

____

Back to some of the personal experiences you relate in your comment. In fact, although it's not everyone, over and over some who oppose gay rights seem have a predatory experience which colors their understanding of homosexuals. Just as you reported. It's unfortunate, but it is the exception. This is just unfortunate stuff but it is important to separate sexual violence from healthy expressions of sexuality. (Think of all the women who experience sexual violence from men. Do we judge all men through that lens?)

But inside your comment you reveal a kernel of hope. Just because incest occurs doesn't mean that parents and children are mostly sexual addicts. The same follows with same-gender sexual attraction. Period. Let's not let personal issues with sexuality (remember Ted Haggard) color our application of basic equal rights.

It's in the seeds of new life that Jesus sowed by His life and death and resurrection.

Reading the Bible is essential to this problem. I agree that we need to focus on this as essential learning. For years people have been hurt in the debates over women's roles in church. But, you say, that is what Paul was inspired to say. Oh really? If we learn to read the Bible in an informed careful manner, we will be open to learning that the most recent scholarship on Paul's writings suggest that the statement about women keeping silent was inserted into Paul's writing by another author a generation after Paul lived.

Does that disturb you? Do you feel unsettled by the idea that textual analysis could show this? If so, remember that the GC paid Fred Veltman to conduct extensive textual anaylsis of the Desire of Ages to determine what was actually written by EGW and what was borrowed. Dr. Veltman did not set out to do that on his own. The church officially assigned him that task. So if that could happen with EGW, we need to be open to having the same thing inform us about Paul.

My point is that there is great risk of misusing the Bible because we are too literal about taking it just as it reads without sufficient knowledge. And over time we will learn things that may cause us to change our understanding of what the Bible is saying.

Yes, I agree that Biblical interpretation is a core issue in the question about homosexuality. Already Adventist scholars have devoted their specialized knowledge to showing us how to understand the Biblical texts about homosexuality, yet many find that information inconvenient and respond with criticism - that is if people have even taken the time to become sufficiently informed.

In the mean time, people are hurt, people are driven away from the SDA church, people are driven away from God, and some are driven to suicide by views such as those expressed by Dr. Burton and others who have responded. That is why Dr. Burton's views are so damaging. It is so easy to opine that addiction is "the problem" without regard to the consequences of saying that, to say nothing of Dr. Burton's professional reputation. It took me less than a minute to determine that Dr. Burton's doctorate is in theology, not in psychology or a related field of behavioral science. And how many on this forum subscribe to the idea that a minister is capable and authoritative on any subject: psychology, church administration, finance, college and university administration, hospital administration, etc.?

I am certain that Dr. Burton's dissertation committee would not have accepted something as a source with no more credibility and documentation than he provided. Certainly he was taught to back up his assertions with solid, reliable documentation. That was certainly expected of me when I earned my doctorate.

William Miller, Joseph Bates, James White, and others who studied diligently to learn "present truth" were open to that study giving them information that did not agree with what they had known previously or what was commonly accepted in their churches. Adventism was founded on thorough inquiry, not a desire to confirm or conform. I believe that spirit has now been lost.

From a different perspective, I want to add this. Why should we not be concerned for human rights, even for those of homosexuals where you agree that the homosexual relationships are right of wrong? Dr. Burton seems to suggest that Christians should not be concerned about human rights if they are supportive of a people with home Adventists disagree. I find that alarming! Pleas read the article at the following link:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq-gays18-2009aug1...

If you do not find this to be a human rights issue and you do not feel Christian concern about this regardless of your view on homosexuality, I would be alarmed. Why?

Did Jesus model the idea that the "human rights" of those with whom He disagreed did not matter? Do you truly want to be Christlike, Dr. Burton?

"I am certain that Dr. Burton's dissertation committee would not have accepted something as a source with no more credibility and documentation than he provided. Certainly he was taught to back up his assertions with solid, reliable documentation. That was certainly expected of me when I earned my doctorate."

Excellent assessment. It's true "there's nothing like facts to spoil a good story, or theory."

Dr. Burton's qualifications are theoretical and flimsy to the point that there is not one accredited doctoral program that would accept such a sad dissertation on a subject in which fewer facts were given. His were all personal opinions, and as FDR's VP once said about his job: "It is worth a cup of warm spit (I believe another term was used).

When we continue to have theologians who are considered by many to be "experts" in every subject from anthropology, biology, geology to zoology, AND their opinions are given great credibility, we have sunk where we should: to having absolutely no influence with those who are educated and their gullibility meter still functions.

It reminds me of an email I was sent today, based on Fox news and a Glen Beck rant, warning everyone about a certain website. Within two seconds snopes.com showed it was a false rumor. Unfortunately, most people don't care to know that; they desperately want to believe the worst--as indicated by the writer who chose to believe all humans are criminals, or worse.

Alex,

I guess I didn't clearly express myself. I'm not suggesting that mental health professionals are gay/lesbian because they support gay rights. They support gay rights because they are homosexual themselves. Their opinions, professional or not, are about as valid as Dr. Mengele's thoughts, whatever they might be, about circumcision. (I must admit that I have no idea about his thoughts on circumcision).

It is also a mistake for you to assume that predatory experiences with homosexuals are the basis of my views, if that is what you are, indeed, suggesting. I was once aggressively approached by a predatory homosexual in a restroom. He quickly got the idea that I was capable of extreme violence. He preferred training mentally incompetent young men to orally copulate him, rather than personal injury, so he backed off.

Contrary to your understanding, I had numerous positive experiences with gay men. I was employed by an art gallery in Los Angeles owned by four men who, to all appearances, were gay. I actually lived with two of them for nearly a year. It never occurred to me that they were homosexual, although vaarious people thought otherwise.

Three of them attended church with me at least once.

Box turtle is an interesting website, obviously partisan. While I lack the interest to critique all the research being done on homosexuality, having personally interviewed an individual whose homosexual orientation was changed through Christian conversion, the "science" is not especially important to me.

There are others. Those who remain "straight" usually just get on with their lives. Few are interested in becoming embroiled in the controversy that comes with being an Xgay.

NARTH offers another view of homosexuality, one that merits consideration.

If a fornicating heterosexual can become chaste through the justifying righteousness of Christ, so can the homosexual.

Paul said to marry if you had to in order to keep from sinning.

Every male christian is supposed to be in love with a man- Jesus. More than his wife, children, siblings, parents, etc.

Since there is supposedly to be no sex in heaven I would assume all males will be the equivalent of a chemically castrated sex offender in the here-and-now.

Slaves are good, so the Bible says. Treat 'em right, at least don't hurt them so bad they die immediately per the NT.

Women are bad, bad, bad, evil, to be subjugated, cast out of the camp once a month for a week, daughters sold for the best dowry you can get, kill everybody except keep the virgins (they even paid a tithe of the virgins to the priests).

Come on guys and gals. Most everybody here except Hansen and the author of the piece seem to be humanists. Humanists make up their own minds just like you so-called SDA's do. The Bible is great, the Word of God, except for all those parts that have been proven factually wrong, barbaric, or you just don't agree with anymore.

And to the author I would say that your Prophetess, the Great Spirit of Prophecy, claimed those with your skin tone are the result of crossing humans with wild apes- the Great Amalgamation.

Why all the wasted server-space on something that is clear as night from day per the Bible? A man lying with a man is an abomination to your god. Period. End of story. All these debates seem to be between those that say they are believers and actually ARE believers in the whole Bible and those that say they are believers but are NOT believers in all the Bible.

- sentence deleted -

Outside the church I don't have to discriminate against gays, lesbians, TG, women, those of other faiths or no faith, other colors, animals, nor pray for the destruction of humanity (and the sooner the better).

I'm a Humanist, and those here who rationalize or want to reinterpret away the homophobia of the Bible sound just exactly like ME. I think the author's article is exactly what I would expect to hear from a deluded believer. Bigoted- check. Homophobic- Check. So what. That is the way the Word of God is. Get over it or leave those that want to hold on to the best thinking from 2 12/ thousand years ago to themselves IMO. Trying to bring believers using rational debate is futile. Just get out the strongest lines you can think of (and that are permissible on the forum) and fire away.

Unlike Bevin, I left when I figured out that Jesus was increasing the probability of the wedding feast guests being ticketed for riding-donkey-while-drunk. How could Ellen say people were going to the Lake of Fire for doing less than what Jesus Himself did?

Beats me. Oh, course now, she is "devotional". Why be in a cult if you have come to the conclusion the leader was just a good writer?

And a married gay SDA couple? That has to take the cake. Man, you guys are just gluttons for punishment.

keafan: tone it down if you want to continue to be able to post here. - website editor

John Young, Can't you do any better than Biblical deconstruction? Really, you can find any outlandish thing about the Bible. And if not, there are lots of people, even here, I won't mention any names, who can make up any absurd and ridiculous thing to undermine the authority of Scripture.

How about Romans? Any problems with the integrity of the book? If you run on down to Borders and look in the religion section, you can probably find some "scholar" who will provide you with some "research" to soothe your conscience regarding Paul's condemnation of homosexuality. You know, "Men with men, working that which is unseemly."

In the same context, he refers to homosexual practices as "unclean." UNCLEAN. Every passage in the NT which condemns uncleanness is also condemning homosexuality, unless something else is specifically at issue.

The NT condemnation of homosexualiuty is not based on a couple of problematic words, the meaning of which is disputed.

Romans is talking about homosexuality. It is unclean. It is condemned by various other NT passages which condemn uncleanness. And there is no case to be made that only a certain kind of homosexuality is condemned.

Here's the Homosexual' prayer, recently conceived by me, as I consider them merits of Christ:

"Dear Lord, I'm sexually attracted to other men. I confess that there is no Biblical permission for me to have sex with a man even though I have an uncontrollable desire to so do.

You understand the sinful desires of humanity. I'm too weak to resist the desire to have sex with a man. I confess that it is not your ideal. It is a sin. I pray for your blood to cleanse and your spirit to empower so I can glorify you in every way.

I'm trusting you to save me. You revealed your love for me on the cross. I accept your sacrifice in my behalf.

In Jesus name."

He won't fail you, John.

Has He failed all the many sincere SDAs who prayed a similar prayer, some for years--and if He didn't fail them, was it because they didn't try hard enough, pray long enough, or what--

That's like praying to be relieved of a terrible illness, or saying to a parent with a child with a fatal disease that God will not fail. Where do you find proof that people's prayers are always answered, or where in contemporary life does that occur.

Hansen,
As far as I know, there is only 1 passage in the whole Bible that can be stretched to cover lesbians. Looks like God hates gay men but doesn't so much mind lesbians. Probably this is the ultimate proof that God is a man after all - right?

Elaine, sentence deleted - website editor.

I've had a different experience. The God I serve has blessed me abundantly, in so many ways, I praise him every day. I love his Word. I believe it. I've experienced its transformative power. I see it work in the lives of others, changing them from lost souls without hope in the world, to children of God. I accept its testimony regarding the virgin birth, the infinite sacrifice of Christ on the cross, and his resurrection.

The power that raised Jesus from the dead can work in our lives too. So sorry for those who don't have that experience.

Communism did a lot to transform the lives of the rural peasantry in China. If the gospel has failed you, and others like you, why not try the writings of Mao? Like water witching--if you're dry, give it a try.

Summary:

There are

1. extremely vocal same-sex-attraction/action-is-a-sin SDA (Hansen and Burton are here)
2. less vocal same-sex-attraction/action-is-a-just-another-sin SDA - no different to pride, gluttony, and many other sins that barely get a mention
3. less vocal same-sex-attraction-is-not-a-sin SDA -
4. extremely vocal same-sex-attraction-is-not-a-sin SDA -
   very few here, because it is too uncomfortable. People in this camp rapidly move to...

5. extremely vocal same-sex-attraction-is-not-a-sin ex-SDA -
   Bevin and Elaine, for instance

and no-one knows how large the two central groups are, but some little evidence suggests that the majority of older SDA are in group 2, and younger SDA are regionally varied between group 2 & 3

/Bevin

Bevin,
I'm not sure that 5 is as likely to follow 4 only because this is an issue that not just SDAs are struggling with but many other churches as well. Of course there are varying degrees of acceptance but our society as a whole (even the secular part) is going through growing pains on how to rethink the GLBTs among us.

SDAs are much more out of step with other churches when it comes to how they treat women. One could easily leave the SDA church and find another which is not extremely liberal and still makes it a point to treat women equally. I'm not sure that is the case for the GLBT issue, at least for now.

Of course these concerns don't occur totally independently of each other and many have come to see social justice issues as intertwined.

The real dilemma is what does the church plan to do with this "hot potato." They can excommunicate the known gays and lesbians; allow attendance but not membership (what about those who were baptized as a 9-10-yr.-old); or post a sign on the door "no homos allowed."

If it is such an abomination (the Bible's description) then it's in the same category as working on Sabbath, eating shellfish, and a host of other things.

Ranting and raving is avoiding the solution to how the church should handle sinners it its midst (nevermind that no one can qualify for being a non-sinner). Somebody willing to suggest the answer.

Bevin, more interesting would be to survey by gender. Guess what that would reveal: Far more homophobia in the male sex. Women aren't threatened by either gays or lesbians. Evidently, men are much more insecure of their masculinity than women of their femininity.

So this is another survey the denomination should do, along with their survey on how to treat evolutionists

It is so much easier to rant than it is to do good surveys

Then again, getting things done (helping the community, helping teens, effective evangelism, ...) has never been a strong point of any SDA church I have been involved in

/Bevin

My parents were married in the Netherlands in 1948. They were married twice in the same day: first at city hall and then they proceeded (rather romantically) by horse-drawn carriage to their church. The church wedding was in keeping with their religious convictions. Their city hall appearance was their "legal" marriage.

Adventists hold marriage in much the same esteeem as the Sabbath.

Catholics view marriage as a "sacrament", also a very high esteem.

Atheists also marry, but not out of religious conviction. The fact that some people hold religious beliefs about marriage is irrelevent to them.

Christians (and other religious groups) appear to have difficulty with the idea that marriage is firstly a secular, legal institution. One does not need to be religious to be married.

That is what gays and lesbians are seeking in the US and elsewhere: to be legally married. If the faith community wants to applaud and support it, fine, but for many, this is not necessary. Some Adventists (and other religious groups) are in a dither because they think they may be forced to perform such a marriages against their will. Adventist Churches, as far as I know, have not yet been forced to marry divorcees, so being required to perform same-sex marriages seems unlikely, but if it will make them feel more secure, let's enshrine in law the right to opt-out.

Lesbians and gays want to be able to show up at city hall and get married. They do not want to be prevented because of people with religious qualms. Let's keep religion out of city hall. It does not belong there.

If religious groups want to prevent same-sex couples from participating in civil marriage, they will need to come up with legal arguments demonstrating whose legal rights would be compromised.

Passage of Proposition 8 in California was clearly religiously motivated interference in civil law. This should have been recognized by the SDA Church as the bugaboo we have feared for many years, but since it was only "Samaritans" who were affected, who cared?

Andrew Dykstra

Right on, Andrew. The actions of SDA religious liberty directors in this issue have been a total reversal of our traditional understanding of religious freedom.

Adventists truly believe that the Sabbath is required of all good Christians (or perhaps, everyone).

However, we do not expect to introduce legislation commanding it.
For those who do not wish the U.S. to legalize same-sex marriages, unless it affects them, let others have the freedom of conscience to live as they wish--when it impacts no one else.

Marriage IS a civil right; the state legislates and licenses marriages. No one should impose their religious beliefs on this as it would be contrary to the First Amendment.

The church may rue the day they adopted this position.

Keith, how thoroughly have you searched the history books about slavery? Did you find some of your own greedy black brothers trading black brothers from tribal wars in Africa:

"African tribal wars produced captives which became a bartering resource in the European slave market. Other slaves were kidnapped by white and black hunters. The main sources of barter used by the Europeans to secure African slaves were glass beads, whiskey, ivory, and guns."

http://www.liu.edu/cwis/cwp/library/aaslavry.htm#middle

What American did getting involved in slave trading will forever scar the historical landscape, but let's tell the story in all it's gory details, man's inhumanity to man, eh??

As I stated earlier, among Bible-believing Born Again Christians, God's Word IS the final authority on morality--not scientific findings, coherent philosophical ideologies, or even personal human experience. All these are fine but wholly unsuitable to serve as moral plumb lines. If you disagree with that statement then we need to have a different conversation.

Assuming that you agree with the authority of the Word (if you're still reading this) then the next question is accurate interpretation. Homosexuality is clearly (well, clearly TO ME) spoken of as an abomination. If I've misinterpreted inspiration, then please show me. I'm pretty sure I understand it correctly but I am indeed human and subject to misunderstanding. Perhaps this is one of those areas but you cannot convince me using scientific studies, philosophical positions or the evidence of human experience (personal or third-party).

Now who's ready to do that?

Let me add this; the church SHOULD fight for the rights of homosexuals to be protected from hate crimes, discrimination,and other forms of oppression but, IMO, not BECAUSE they're homosexual but BECAUSE they're humans. Also, it is difficult to justify refusing homosexual marriage in a secular society but I cannot violate my personal conscience to support it as I DO NOT see marriage as PRIMARILY a civil institution. However, I am VERY hesitant to impose this TRUTH on others and think we need to be careful when it comes to the legislation of morality that finds its primary basis in faith.

Lastly, I'm not suggesting that homosexuals are automatically sexual perverts or addicts. These are sins that plague heterosexuals as well. I AM saying that even if a homosexual is monogamous, loyal, loving, and display all the virtues a spouse should possess, his/her homosexuality is STILL a sin because his/her Creator SAID it is. Or did He?

That's the real debate in the Christian realm. Not all the other noise. So, again, what DOES the Word REALLY say?

Lest I am misunderstood, homosexuality IS a perversion according to Scripture--as all sin is. That does not mean every homosexual is a pervert. But like any sinful weakness, whether we're born with it or acquire it, Christ is able to give us victory over it. If we choose to normalize it or otherwise rationalize it then how could He? If the church continues to denomize and disrespect homosexuals how can Christ's love reach them? If the church misunderstands what Scripture says about it, how can we be enlightened? If we're correct--and I believe we are--how can we remain uncompromising while genuinely loving without condemnation?

Kurt

Okay, Kurt, I'll accept your challenge. Let's start with the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. Here is a Bible study I did on it:

The Story of Sodom

As far back as the 12th century, this story has been interpreted as evidence that God destroyed Sodom because of homosexuality.1 Is this view warranted?

When did God decide to destroy Sodom ?

“Then the Lord said, ‘The outcry against Sodom and Gomorrah is so great and their sin so grievous that I will go down and see if what they have done is as bad as the outcry that has reached me. If not, I will know.’” Genesis 18:20-21

God was already planning to destroy Sodom before the incident with the angels, but in response to Abraham’s pleading He agreed not to destroy it if ten righteous people could be found in Sodom .

What was Lot’s response to the two strangers (angels) who came to Sodom?

“The two angels arrived at Sodom in the evening, and Lot was sitting in the gateway of the city. When he saw them, he got up to meet them and bowed down with his face to the ground.

“‘My Lords,’ he said, ‘please turn aside to your servant’s house. You can wash your feet and spend the night and then go on your way early in the morning.’

“‘No,’ they answered, ‘we will spend the night in the square.’

“But he insisted so strongly that they did go with him and entered his house. He prepared a meal for them, baking bread without yeast, and they ate.” Genesis 19:1-3

Who then surrounded Lot ’s house?

“Before they had gone to bed, all the men from every part of the city of Sodom – both young and old – surrounded the house. Genesis 19:4

This mob included every man in Sodom. It is unlikely that most of these men were homosexual in orientation. For there to have been a continuing population in the city, most of them must have been heterosexual men – husband and fathers.2

What was the mob’s intention?

“And they called to Lot and said to him, ‘Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.’”

“So Lot went out to them through the doorway, shut the door behind him, and said, ‘Please, my brethren, do not do so wickedly! See now, I have two daughters who have not known a man; please let me bring them out to you, and you may do to them as you wish; only do nothing to these men, since this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof.’”

“’Get out of our way,’ they replied. And they said, ‘This fellow came here as an alien, and now he wants to play the judge. We’ll treat you worse than them.’ They kept bringing pressure on Lot and moved forward to break down the door.” Genesis 19:5-9

The Hebrew verb “to know” occurs 943 times in the Old Testament, but in only ten of those instances is it used in the sexual sense. This is one of them.3 By offering his daughters instead of his guests, Lot confirms that the mob’s intention was sexual in nature.

However, the mood here seems to be one of violence rather than sexual desire. Lot seems to indicate that he had offered the strangers shelter in his house because he knew how the Sodomites might treat them. And it is likely that when Lot, himself an alien, brought the strangers to his home, the men of Sodom may have suspected them of being spies. Their threatening, “We’ll treat you worse than them” also indicates violent intent. Their intention seems to have been homosexual gang rape.

There is a similar story in Judges 19, where a traveling Levite and his concubine are offered shelter in Gibeah and wicked men of the city demand that the host turn the Levite over to them. Instead the man’s concubine is pushed out the door, and the evil men rape her all night long until she is dead.

What is the meaning of homosexual rape?

Rape is not motivated by sexual desire, but by a need to show power over someone disdained as weak and vulnerable. In ancient times women were looked down on and were considered as property owned by men. To rape a man was to humiliate him by treating him as a woman. Captives of a conquering army were often subjected to this act of contempt. This helps to explain Lot’s act of trying to save his male guests, who he saw as more important than his daughters, and it also explains why the men of Sodom wanted to show their power over the men, rather than Lot’s daughters. We can understand this by looking at what takes place in prisons today, where the most powerful inmates sexually assault those who are weaker, asserting their dominance by subjugating others.3

How do other biblical passages describe the sin for which Sodom was destroyed?

“In the first chapter of Isaiah, the nation of Judah is rebuked through a comparison with Sodom and Gomorrah. The specific sins mentioned are greed, rebellion against God, empty religious ritual without true devotion to God, failure to plead the cause of orphans and widows, failure to pursue justice, and failure to champion the oppressed. There is no mention of homosexuality.”5

“In Jeremiah 23:9-15, Jeremiah expresses dismay over the behavior of the prophets of Jerusalem and says that God considers these leaders to have ‘become like Sodom’ and the inhabitants of Jerusalem ‘like Gomorrah’ (verse 14). Again, nothing is mentioned about homosexuality. Instead, the focus is on adultery, lying, and cooperating with evildoers rather than urging people to turn away from wickedness.”6

“Look, this was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters had pride, fullness of food, and abundance of idleness; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty and committed abomination before me. Therefore I took them away as I saw fit.” Ezekiel 16:49, 50.

Some have speculated that abomination refers to homosexual acts, but the word for abomination has also been applied to many other actions, such as “haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that hurry to run to evil, a lying witness who testifies falsely, and one who sows discord in a family.” Proverbs 6:16-19

“But when you enter a town and are not welcomed, go into its streets and say, ‘Even the dust that sticks to our feet we wipe off against you. Yet be sure of this: The kingdom of God is near.’ I tell you, it will be more bearable on that day for Sodom than for that town.” Luke 10:10-12

Jesus referred to Sodom in the context of inhospitality. Ironically, Christians use this story that condemns uncharitable attitudes toward strangers to justify their inhospitable treatment of gays and lesbians.

“In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire.” Jude 7

In this reference, sexual immorality and perversion is mentioned, but not specified. Some have translated this as “fornication,” (heterosexual relations outside of marriage). Jeremiah mentions adultery as one of Sodom’s sins. There is no reason to assume that it refers to homosexuality.7
_______________________
1Daniel A Helminiak, What the Bible Really Says About Homosexuality ( New Mexico : Alamo

Square Press), 2000, 44.

2Letha Dawson Scanzoni and Virginia Ramey Mollenkott, Is the Homosexual My Neighbor? ( San

Francisco : Harper-Collins), 1994, 58.

3Helminiak, 45.

4Scanzoni and Mollenkott, 58, 59.

5Ibid., 61

6Ibid.

7Ibid., 61-62.

After we discuss this text we can go on to another.

Then again, getting things done (helping the community, helping teens, effective evangelism, ...) has never been a strong point of any SDA church I have been involved in
Posted by: bevin | 19 August 2009 at 10:11

Not sure I understood your above statement, Bevin, but were you saying that despite your participation your combined efforts had been ineffective? Or, that you couldn't get enough members interested in doing these things sufficiently to be effective?

I can think of at least one example near where I live of an SDA church (Eagle Rock, northeast LA) that's doing more than any Sunday church, with the exception of one, within a mile radius, in every aspect of congregational life and service functions you mentioned.

Carrol,

thank you for the wonderful hermeneutical essay. I am copying it for reference. It is quite similar to a course in Human Sexuality I took several years ago at a Mennonite Seminar. For those who read the Bible so literally that the context, interpretation and cultural practices are ignored, it only betrays lack of serious study and reliance on subjective opinions--which are usually deemed to be the correct ones.

Thanks, Elaine. There is a whole series of Bibles studies on this subject, in a Seventh-day Adventist context, on my website, www.someone-to-talk-to.net

>>Then again, getting things done (helping the community,
>>helping teens, effective evangelism, ...) has never been a
>>strong point of any SDA church I have been involved in
>>Posted by: bevin | 19 August 2009 at 10:11

>Not sure I understood your above statement, Bevin, but were
>you saying that despite your participation your combined
>efforts had been ineffective? Or, that you couldn't get
>enough members interested in doing these things sufficiently >to be effective?

Effective organizations

(a) decide on a worth-while goal

(b) decide on a plausible method of achieving that goal

(c) allocate resources to the tasks needed to execute that method

(d) execute the tasks

(e) monitor progress, and correct any issues that arise

In my experience, my local SDA churches (Brighton-Adelaide- Australia 30 years ago, and Nashua&Manchester-NH-USA 30 years ago to today), and the Northern New England conference (30 years ago to today)

(a) choose goals on a personal whim

(b) choose a method based on a whim, and ignore evidence suggesting it won't work

(c) use the "God will provide" resource allocation method, while spending their resources on things not chosen as part of (a)&(b)

(d) execute erratically

(e) and completely fail to monitor and fix what goes wrong

Let me provide you with an immediate incident from this last week. Because some friends were in town, my wife accompanied them to the College Church in South Lancaster Ma. She told the person on door duty that she did not need to sign the visitors book because she was there intermittently. Never the less the person said "sign it, just for me". This week we got a stamped black and white printed post card "thank you for visiting our church - visit our website", hand addressed card from an unidentified "member of the staff".

The GOAL is clearly a plausible one - make visitors welcome.

The METHOD is silly (compare it with the Epscopalian church my daughter visited one day in Christchurch New Zealand where the greeter established she truely was a visitor and then found her a seat right beside a very friendly member of the congregation of about her own age)

The RESOURCE allocation is some anonymous staff member's time and some money for stamps - completely inappropriate for the goal

The execution was good - we got the card

The monitoring and fixing is obviously not happening, or else this silly waste of time and money would have been cancelled. Our reaction to the card was "what a silly organization". They are actively spending resources to look incompetent and unwelcoming.

/Bevin

Sorry for being so late to the party (and Happy Sabbath everyone).

I've read most (but not all) of the comments here, and it seems that there is one issue that is being overlooked (sorry if it actually hasn't been). Burton's comments seemed to be based on the underlying notion that as Christians we should be vigilant in ensuring that the morality of our societies should be aligned with our Christian morality. Therefore it's oh-so-problematic that South Africa has allowed homosexuals to marry.

The problem with this statement is that it's not supported by the Bible. There is no verse in the Bible that supports the idea that Christians should be lobbying their government to make laws that will make the citizens of that government act more like Christians (notice I said "act more like" and not "be"). Of course we do have God making societal law in the Old Testament, but clearly our American government is not a theocracy(Please let's not get into a debate about whether this is a "Christian" nation. I really don't want to have that discussion and it gets my blood pressure up that people could even believe that.).

What I think Christians fail to realize is that the alllowing of homnosexuals to have civil marriages does not either effect your religious marriage, nor does it remove the opportunity for you to minister to homosexuals and have the Spirit influence/change their behavior if that's what should happen. As someone who is genuinely conflicted about the issue of homosexuality, I can understand the impulse to say that it is a mode of behavior that should be changed. In fact, I do understand Burton's point that it is different from race in the sense that homosexual behavior is behavior tied to genetics (at the very least in my limited understanding). The mind controls behavior and therefore behavior can be changed even if there's a genetic predisposition. The same is not true with race. However, the issue then becomes whether that extra burden should be placed on someone who is genetically predisposed to homosexual behavior.

But enough about what I don't know. :-) What I do know is this - The Bible does not support us using the government as a sword of Damocles, forcing people to live the right way without a true change of heart. Instead, God wants us to introduce people to Him, so that he might make a change in people from the inside out. If we had more faith in this method, it would not matter what the laws are, because people would live the right way (whatever that may be) because of their relationship with God, not because of the laws of government.

PS - Some people on here have mentioned the Conference on Homosexuality taking place at Andrews this Fall, and how unbalanced in thought it appears to be. I actually asked an organizer about this problem, and was told that this conference is in response to another conference that was held at some point that was unbalanced in the opposite ideological direction. Therefore, this conference is not meant to be equal discussion, rather it is a rebuttal to an earlier conference, which explains why the views will be slanted to one side. I guess I can understand that.

Jason, thanks for setting out so clearly what ought to be clear to everyone. Now about that conference at AU. It was actually organized by a lawyer who heads the Institute of Religious Liberty at AU and who takes the opposite position from yours, insisting that the church needs to be heavily involved in pushing legislation to deny the right to gay marriage. That is one of the views to be presented, along with theologically conservative views about what the Bibles says and belief in the possibility of orientation change. The first conference referred to, while presenting papers from liberal viewpoints, solicited responses to those papers from those on the conservative side; however, all but one refused.

How many sociologists and psychologists are on this committee, or is it mainly composed of theologians. Oh, I forget, they are experts in human behavior of all kinds. ;-)

> Oh, I forget, they are experts in human behavior of all kinds. ;-)

Often from first hand experience, while being a pastor

/Bevin

Carrol, we're speaking about the same person. That was "the organizer" that I spoke to about this issue. The reason I had the opportunity to speak with him about it was because he invited me to be on a panel discussing the legal/political issues surrounding legislation on gay marriage. So there will at least be a dissenting voice on that panel. However, I did not know that responses were solicited for the previous conference.

Thank you, Jason. I am planning to attend, if only as a silent witness to another viewpoint!

I'm glad that Andrews is organizing a conference that will represent what most Christian people believe. Homosexual advocates conveniently forget that they started all this.

The president of Kinship referred to the book on homosexuality, trumpeted by Spectrum, as "our book." No way Gay Adventists would be embracing a volume that largely reflected negative social perspectives on homosexuality, and presented a sensible Biblical position.

I refer to a sensible position because the reasoning I have seen from gay advocates does not impress me as even handed or reasonable.

No doubt, for gays and their supporters, the very discussion of the subject is a huge victory. As Oscar Wilde said, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about."

No doubt Nick Miller will be excoriated as a closed minded bigot by gay partisans. Why? Because he is married to a woman and the father of children. Perhaps gays would prefer a man with a two year nursing degree instead of an attorney with a doctorate in church history. One who recreates in bath houses rather than with his family might be suit their tastes.

If I prayed much, Nick's work would be an answer. I hope his team will send gays and their advocates running for the closet.

I don't usually get personal on these forums, but your hatefulness disgusts me. You misrepresent gay people and christians alike...gay people by stereotyping and wishing ill upon them, and christians by being so hateful in the name of Christ.

I imagine if anyone calls you a close minded bigot it is only because they have read your words to confirm their opinion.

Get as personal as you like Jamie. I hate the idea of men sodomizing and orally copulating one another. So yes, my mind is closed to that form of sexual expression.

Carrol, thanks for your post with your take on the Sodom & Gomorrah story of Genesis. Certainly I am approaching it with a certain paradigm and bias and I'll try to be cognizant of that but I must tell you so far I find your arguments tenuous thus far. I am still mulling over it and will give you a response shortly--God willing.

Hansen, I find you unnecessarily vitriolic. Please tone down the rhetoric as it comes off hateful whether or not it indeed is. I'm not accusing you of hate, just the impression you're giving i.e. "Perhaps gays would prefer a man with a two year nursing degree instead of an attorney with a doctorate in church history. One who recreates in bath houses rather than with his family might be suit their tastes."

Prov 15:1-2 (KJV)
1 A soft answer turneth away wrath: but grievous words stir up anger.
2 The tongue of the wise useth knowledge aright: but the mouth of fools poureth out foolishness.

Prov 25:11 (KJV)
11 A word fitly spoken [is like] apples of gold in pictures of silver.

Prov 25:15 (KJV)
15 By long forbearing is a prince persuaded, and a soft tongue breaketh the bone.

Prov 18:19 (KJV)
19 A brother offended [is harder to be won] than a strong city: and [their] contentions [are] like the bars of a castle.

I'm simply saying the truth does not need help and the sinner does not need insults--though we often mix up the two.

Is Hansen the homophobe of Spectrum, or could there be more. Pscyhologists have a term for such irrational phobias, which is stated.

Hansen is clearly demonstrating that attitudes towards gays are irrational and deeply ingrained in ones upbringing.

Biologically there is no significant difference between oral copulation by a male and a female, and by two males, yet Hansen feels the need to condemn one act but not the other.

Similarly anal sex is the same regardless of the genders of the participants. Again Hansen feels the need to condemn one particular variation.

The author of the original article is African. In Africa, at least in Malawi, it is standard practise for teenage boys to masturbate in groups. Such behaviour is NOT regarded as 'gay', and is apparently no more frowned on than solo masturbation is in the white USA social group.

Irrationality must be assumed in ones interactions with people. There are very few rational people around.

/Bevin

Speaking from the perspective of one who was associated with one of the first dedicated HIV treatment centers in America, I'm not ashamed at all to be considered a homophobe.

Possibly I suffer from
PTSD after seeing so many young men die a horrible and usually unrepentant death. Watching their family members anguish over their dying sons was not really that joyful an experience, either. The anxiety I experienced after being potentially exposed to HIV through an industrial accident was not really that fun, come to think of it.

Also, being deeply involved in one of the test cases which the gays were setting up to change the laws on assisted suicide may have tweaked my perspective a bit as well.

http://www.pavelic.us/1996/05/15/assisted-suicide/

Am I supposed to be ashamed of eschewing sodomy and oral copulation among members of the same sex? NOT!

Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the NT in numerous places because it is categorized as unclean.

"Homosexuality is clearly condemned in the NT in numerous places because it is categorized as unclean."

In the same way as women following childbirth (what reason is it twice as long if a female child); the same "unclean" is mentioned dozens of times in the same book. Why is this type of "unclean" so much worse than the others, for which there is no concern.
Morticians are unclean for touching dead bodies; men are unclean following an emission; yet who has been condeming these. Are there gradations of unclean in the Bible.

Thank you for responding to my Bible study, Kurt - I'll look forward to more engagement. And thanks to those who responded to Hansen. I find his remarks extremely crude and vulgar, as well as unkind.

Elaine, I once had a friend who often responded in ways which I thought either intentionally dishonest or downright stupid. As we became better acquainted, I discovered that English was one of a few different languages in which he communicated. He was neither dishonest or stupid. He was stretching his English language comprehension level beyond what he had, at that point, attained.

I have tried to keep him in mind when reading some of the responses and posts on this sight. I doubt that many have as valid an excuse as did he, but their may be other reasons, Alzheimers, for example.

The term translated as "uncleanness" in Romans is translated as impurity in the NASB. Any form of the word appears a very few times in Romans. It is often used by other writers to describe demons. The word is the same one used in the expression "unclean spirits."

It is not a word that is used to describe ceremonial uncleanness in Romans. It is taLking about moral pollution--sin. You'll find the word in 1 Thessalonians 4:7 used in contrast with sanctification or holiness.

Here are several passages which you can see the word and a closely related form of it:

Ro 1:24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity <167>, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them.

Ro 6:19 I am speaking in human terms because of the weakness of your flesh. For just as you presented your members as slaves to impurity <167> and to lawlessness, resulting in further lawlessness, so now present your members as slaves to righteousness, resulting in sanctification.

2Co 12:21 I am afraid that when I come again my God may humiliate me before you, and I may mourn over many of those who have sinned in the past and not repented of the impurity <167>, immorality and sensuality which they have practiced.

Ga 5:19 Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity <167>, sensuality,

Eph 4:19 and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity <167> with greediness.

Eph 5:3 But immorality or any impurity <167> or greed must not even be named among you, as is proper among saints;

Eph 5:5 For this you know with certainty, that no immoral or impure <169> person <169> or covetous man, who is an idolater, has an inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

Col 3:5 Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity <167>, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry.

1Th 2:3 For our exhortation does not come from error or impurity <167> or by way of deceit;

1Th 4:7 For God has not called us for the purpose of impurity <167>, but in sanctification.

Re 16:13 And I saw coming out of the mouth of the dragon and out of the mouth of the beast and out of the mouth of the false prophet, three unclean <169> spirits like frogs;

Carrol, My remarks may sound "crude" and "vulgar" to you; however, I am not an enabler who is affirming homosexuals in their sin. I'm simply calling a spade a spade.

May I suggest to you a book by Larry Kramer entitled "Faggots". Here's a few remarks about the book from Wikipedia:

"The novel caused an uproar in the community it portrayed; it was taken off the shelves of the Oscar Wilde Memorial Bookstore—New York's only gay bookstore, and Kramer was banned from the grocery store near his home on Fire Island.[1] Reviewers were incredulous that Kramer's accounts of the intricacies of gay relationships were accurate; both the gay and mainstream press panned the book.[13] On the reception of the novel Kramer himself states, "The straight world thought I was repulsive, and the gay world treated me like a traitor. People would literally turn their back when I walked by. You know what my real crime was? I put the truth in writing. That's what I do: I have told the [edit] truth to everyone I have ever met."[1] Faggots, however, became one of the best-selling gay novels of all time.[14]"

Hansen, what about

"It exuded a sense that gay men could do better if they understood themselves as fully human, if they could shed their self-loathing and self-deception...."

"Our own country's democratic process declares us to be unequal, which means, in a democracy, that our enemy is you," he wrote in 2007. "You treat us like crumbs. You hate us. And sadly, we let you"

In short, the gay people I know are no more promiscuous than the straight people I know, and the expressed loathing of people like you has caused more damage than the sexual orientation.

If you take ANY group of people, and for hundreds of years tell them "God loathes you and I loathe you", you are going to create problems.

And don't try to tell me that "you hate the sin but love the sinner" - you blew that argument when you wrote "I hate the idea of men ...". If you had used some emotionally neutral term such as "disapprove" or "disagree" I would accept it, but you can't HATE what a person does and love the person.

/Bevin

Bevin, I agree with you about hating the sin and loving the sinner. Its bunk. When Elijah chopped up and decapitated numerous priests of Baal, I don't believe that he was in love with those people as he hacked them to pieces. Funny thing is, he was translated not long after. He was taken to heaven without dying, the same man who chopped to pieces the idol worshippers. Not sure where "Love the sinner and hate the sin came from." Maybe Sr. Ellen G White said it?

Paul cursed the people he thought of as interferring with the salvation of others, even suggesting that some castrate/mutilate themselves in their zeal for circumcision.
Where's the love? Jesus told his disciples to shake the dust off their feet as a testimony against those who reject the gospel.

Homosexuals, who refuse to repent of their sin, regardless of their protestations to the contrary, are rejecting the gospel. Many of them are sociopathic types who have no qualms about making a mockery of Christian faith. If falsehood helps their cause, few have scruples to the contrary.

Most of the gay people I have known who are successful in their own pursuits really don't care much about the disapproval of others. One acquaintance of mine, the lover of a friend, was an architect who designed sets for the television industry. You think he cared if the local SDA pastor approved of his sexual life? Another was an internationally acclaimed designer of luxury hotels. Think he cared about the approval of the religious liberty secretary?

Sure, there are constricted personality types who, among other dysfunctional personality dimensions, are sodomites, gays, whatever. But that is usually just one of a constellation of personality problems. Their mentality is one of victimhood. They are nihilists, masochists, sadists. They will jump on a perceived slight. But being gay is just part of a larger problem. Mentally healthy gays don't care about or seek my approval.

The twin brother of a friend of mine was a notorious gay. He rode motorcycles, wore leather, picked up hustlers in bars. I suppose that we both knew that if I disapproved of him, as far as he was concerned, I could blow my own head off with a .45, or he would do it for me. We got along fine. Not that he was a violent type. Perhaps you catch my drift?

A friend of mine has a St. Bernard, a dog which is highly unusual in these parts. Supposedly it came from a litter of search and rescue dogs that were looking for survivors of the Sichuan earthquake, a couple of years back. I can't say that I "love" that dog, but I prefer its company to, say, someone who wants me to sodomize them.

I spend a lot of time playing wushu with a long sword. Some of the forms I do were developed by taoist priests. They recount ancient lore which involves dragons and snakes and constellations and cosmic conflict. Maybe those things have somehow influenced my view of the world.

Speaking of world view, I noticed that Daniel Helminiak, quoted by Carol as an authority in her "Bible study," is an openly gay "priest" who resigned from the RC priesthood. The book he wrote, which Carol quotes, was published by a publishing house which specializes in GLBT publications. He is hardly a Biblical scholar.

Carrol/ Helminiak reference the word "know."

The NASB actualy translates the word as "rape" in one case, the story of the Levite's concubine, in Judges. Not sure why the translators didn't use the term rape in the Sodom story. The men certainly wanted to rape the guests of Lot.

Helminiak is another gay posing as a Biblical scholar to advance his partisan interests. No reason to take what he says seriously, yet Carrol wants to quote him as an authority in her "Bible study." Shameful.

Hansen writes: "I noticed that Daniel Helminiak, quoted by Carol as an authority in her 'Bible study,' is an openly gay 'priest' who resigned from the RC priesthood. The book he wrote, which Carol quotes, was published by a publishing house which specializes in GLBT publications. He is hardly a Biblical scholar. ... Helminiak is another gay posing as a Biblical scholar to advance his partisan interests. No reason to take what he says seriously, yet Carrol wants to quote him as an authority in her 'Bible study.' Shameful."

Hansen, what is, minimally, shameful here is your argument.

You infer that the man's gayness is cause to discredit him as a Bible scholar. I'm unaware of any universally accepted metric whereby gayness has anything whatsoever to do - per se - with someone's scholarly credentials. Yet you infer that he cannot be honest with his exegesis due to bias. Perhaps. I don't know anything about the man. But I do know your argument here is a total non sequiter.

There is much clearer bias being exhibited by you than the one you are accusing.

Rich,

Do you think that a person who is openly gay is in a position to present an objective study on homosexuality? I do not. Part of the reason is from experience I have had analyzing the Biblical positions set forth by gay "Bible scholars." They are unable to set forth interpretations which contradict their politics/orientations, and so forth.

Real Biblical scholars don't need to have their work published by presses which specialize in publications advancing partisan interests, such as Alamo Press.

I can give you specific examples. Jeremy Townsley's work on the meanings of Greek terms used in the NT which are translated as "effeminate," "homosexual," and "abusers of themselves with mankind." Jeremy has done a great job on assembling the data, no question about that. His handling of the data however, reveals a certain bias which is not supported by the context of the passages which he cites.

He takes the position that the term(s) in question are best translated as homosexual rape and do not refer to "sanctified" Christian homosexual relationships. Problem is that that view just does not always fit the context.

Another example is a speaker at Fuller,a gay man who died from AIDS. His work, when checked, was not supported by the proofs which he cited. I know because I checked his references in the specific lexicon to which he referred.

I might also refer to the work of Br Jones, posted on this website. His conclusions, among which was the equating of eating unclean foods in NT times with homosexuality, are NOT supported by sound Biblical scholarship. He was nothing more than a "hired gun."

I don't know about his sexual preferences but I do know something about Biblical interpretation. The upcoming conference at Andrews indicates that I'm not the only one who has disagreements with the "theologians" who wrote articles for that book, so lovingly embraced by the Adventist gay community as "our book."

Helminiak's own comments in a PBS interview, in which he wants to shift the emphasis away from homosexual acts to the condition which presupposed those acts impresses me as nothing more than sleight of hand. Hardness of heart leads to homosexual conduct, according to Helminiak. So he wonders why people aren't against hardness of heart instead of homosexuality. People are opposed to hardness of heart.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/assault/interviews/helmini...

It just so happens that in some societies, perhaps many, homosexuality is viewed as a particularly disgusting manifestation of "hardness of heart." No question that divorce, for example, is often the consequence of hardness of heart, as are most other sins. Many societies also view divorce as loathsome. Adventism, in particular, 30, 40, 50 years ago, was death on divorce. Not so much any more, considering that even one of its most prominent spokesmen has been divorced and remarried.

If gays really want to be accepted, let one become an evangelist and start bringing tithe payers into the church. That would do a lot to improve their situation.

“I can't say that I "love" that dog, but I prefer its company to, say, someone who wants me to sodomize them.”

Don’t flatter yourself, Hansen. Seriously. I doubt many gay men want YOU to sodomize them. Despite your insinuations, we are not animals. We are people. You’d do well to remember that.

“Do you think that a person who is openly gay is in a position to present an objective study on homosexuality? I do not.”

Do you think that a person who openly hates gays can present an effective argument against homosexuality, as you are trying to do? I do not.

Does that mean God will be as hateful and vitriolic with you as you are with us? I hope not. I hope He is kinder than you are.

Hansen writes: "Do you think that a person who is openly gay is in a position to present an objective study on homosexuality? I do not."

But Hansen, somehow you believe that a non-gay person IS in a position to present an objective study on homosexuality. Why is that?

Every human struggles, of course, with bias and knowledge impairment. We know so little. Fine. But you are suggesting that one type of person (non-gay) is somehow capable of overcoming such bias but the other is not. The 'evidence' you present for gay bias is anecdotal. Your experience. I should perhaps say - your perception of what was taking place during your experience. But I'm not ready to accept your perception as normative.

I return to my previous statement: "I'm unaware of any universally accepted metric whereby gayness has anything whatsoever to do - per se - with someone's scholarly credentials."

Having a possible vested interest in an outcome is a legitimate cause for caution and should generate more rigor in examining a proposed conclusion. But the quality of one's exegesis ought to be evaluated on its content. Not the a priori rejection you offer here.

"If gays really want to be accepted, let one become an evangelist and start bringing tithe payers into the church. That would do a lot to improve their situation."

Bringing converts into a church with such open hostility as expressed here is an impossibility. Until the church is ready to accept EVERYONE, it would be futile and foolish to try to bring in converts who are viewed in such a manner as expressed by many here.

It's like inviting someone into a pit of vipers, which is what is so very well expressed here that it is a turn-off to many straights who can love as well as tolerate those who are different.
Until the church and its members are all ready to accept homosexual monogamy, they will continue to feel as outcasts. That's exactly what is being preached by Hansen and others who agree with him. In fact, if burning at the stake were still legal, that would be the method of choice, it seems.

An excellent point, Rich.

It is, at minimum, a basic of critical thinking to avoid this sort of common logical fallacy. But even more, the quick leap to identifying another's bias keeps us from really wrestling with the weight of an-Other's argument.

The "counter" fact that hundreds of millions of straight folks support GLBT rights while almost no gays fight it should put to rest these pointless claims of bias.

Of course, so quickly losing their epistemological framework, some will then expand their "bias" to suggest that the hundreds of millions of straights who support gays are actually really sexually biased. But in doing so their argument becomes a parody of no moon landing and birther conspiracy theories.

And thus they reveal themselves to be among those with the most to lose politically and the least to lose intellectually.

Not that I have much hope for change.

The fact that 37% of Americans believe that haunted houses are possible actually makes me find it miraculous when someone moves beyond anecdote to examine counterfactuals on their own terms.

As Henry David Thoreau wrote: “Could a greater miracle take place than for us to look through each other's eyes for an instant?”

Some of the faulty arguments in the article, which indicate why the author's conclusion against equal-right advocacy is so poorly argued and indefensible.

A privilege is something granted to one by someone holding power (i.e. the state), a right is something you have regardless. Sexual activity by consenting adults is outside the purview of the state (see Lawrence v. Texas). Restriction of the extension of that right, marriage, is thus discriminatory, see Equal Protection. Thus gay marriage it is no more a privilege than free speech is.

Implying that international criticism is foreign meddling echos the Iranian government's recent complaints. "If you would quit highlighting our repression of citizens' rights there wouldn't be any repression to highlight". I hope by such statements as "imposition of ideologies that threaten to further erode the very moral fiber of Africa’s fragile future" or by highlighting HRW as US based and critical of the "sovereign government of Burundi" that you are not soft selling the old cannard that homosexuality is a decadent Western imposition.

"Think about it, the proponents of gay marriage are basically saying that being gay is no different than being Black!"
The commonly used analogy is that the State has discriminated against people by withholding rights, with sexuality as has also been done by race. I've never heard gay rights activists "basically saying that being gay is no different than being Black!" Strawman argument.

Your next argument seems to be that discrimination based on sexuality is justified because of your moral view, but it should in no way be implied that homosexuals are being discriminated against as a group as other groups have. Logical fallacy/ self-contradicting.

I'm underwhelmed by the casual description of addiction. There certainly are sexual addictions, but any evidence given that gay sex indicates addiction? Nope. I haven't done studies on this, but it seems quite a few straight people also seem to enjoy sex; oh and breathing, it that also an addiction? Unsupported claim.

For the sake of argument I'll ignore all accepted medical science and say homosexuality is an addiction and re-frame the dessert analogy: You approach the fridge when a gang of Freegan Police burst in and prevent you from eating your dessert and provide you instead with carrot sticks. Thus we see that social rights are best regulated by the moral determinations of those who hold power. Just to be clear, this ideology is what is bad about the Taliban.

Completely lacking is any argument why religious beliefs should dictate civil codes in a secular society. How long till one can expect Saturday-observance laws via this thinking?
The conclusion is a striking example of those utterly unable to grasp that legislation preventing the government from discriminating (the various "gay-marriage" statutes) enshrine "negative rights" i.e. freedom from the government's discrimination on the basis of sexuality and does not preclude moral crusaders from advocating the "right to shun, . . .or say no to sexual passion . . . the right to become a truly civil society where human rights are framed in the context of moral law.
It's just that if you are gay, well, you get to have those rights too.

Wading through this blog was truly an interesting experience. I’ve read other threads on this site on the same topic (homosexuality), and I usually come away feeling the same – a little bit of hope and a lot of frustration. I can not read this type of discussion without being deeply affected personally. If you make it through to the end of my two-cents worth, you will understand why.

Because this thread has gone all over the place on this subject, I’m going to use material I included in an open letter to It Is Written in 2006. Without addressing specific statements that have been made here, my comments will touch on: the claims of those who say they have changed and the therapists who claim to have ‘changed’ them; a bit of theology; ethics regarding the subject of change; and the typical response of the “official” church and the consequences thereof. My comments rise out of my own humble experience over the past 30 years.

It Is Written Television
Box O
Thousand Oaks, CA 91359

An open letter:

I am writing in response to the 2006 It Is Written programs on homosexuality, and to convey my disappointment with the way this subject matter was presented.

You introduced the June 11 segment by saying, “Today you are going to meet a remarkable man who says that God took his life, and turned it around completely. And now he is living free.”

Some 25 years ago, I read the 1981 Ministry Magazine interview of Colin Cook. There I read an incredible account about a remarkable man who claimed that God had turned his life completely around and that he was living free of his homosexuality. Because of that article, I contacted Mr. Cook. What started out as a road of hope slowly turned into a decade-long journey of psychological and spiritual distress. In the mid 1980’s, a former It Is Written host made the same claims about his guest. At that time, Mr. Cook spoke as articulately and convincingly on the subject of changing one’s sexual orientation.

While I do not suggest that Ron Woolsey has engaged in any of the misconduct documented to have taken place at Quest Learning Centre, I find it irresponsible for a Bible-based ministry, in light of all that we have learned about sexual orientation in the last twenty-five years, to be treating the topic of homosexuality once again in such a way.

Although my experience with Mr. Cook was difficult, this is not the basis for my remarks. In addition to professional training, I have had considerable access to first-hand accounts about the realities of “changing” ones sexual orientation.

During my 5-year association with Mr. Cook, I also participated in several Exodus International conferences (an umbrella organization for faith-based “reparative therapy” ministries in the USA). I facilitated a Homosexuals Anonymous chapter (co-founded by Mr. Cook and sponsored by the Adventist Church) for 3 years in Toronto, Canada, and I worked at arms length with a “change ministry” in that city. I attended the Metropolitan Community Church in Toronto for 3 years (a gay affirming denomination founded in the United States). I was the President of Kinship Canada for four years. In Ottawa, Canada, I was a gay-line counsellor for five years. I have also attended six conferences sponsored by SDA Kinship International, and two by Evangelicals Concerned.

Speaking from this experience, I respectfully suggest that there was nothing new presented in these It Is Written programs. Rather, the manner in which the theological and psychological issues surrounding homosexuality were dealt with by these programs was, in my view, irresponsible if not unethical. For example:

1. Theologically, your dismissal of the idea that the sin of Sodom was “inhospitality” was a simplistic reduction of what that word means to those who use it, thereby misrepresenting the issues in the story.

“Inhospitality” is an expression that encompasses all that scripture says about the sins of Sodom. While the term does include sexual acts, the sinfulness is in the violent and degrading intent of the perpetrators. The violence, indulgence and human neglect, which the other twenty or so Biblical references* would have demonstrated, were not cited.

It is interesting to note just how much “hospitality” does play in the story as Ellen White suggests in Patriarch and Prophets: “Lot did not know their true character, but politeness and hospitality were habitual with him; they were a part of his religion….Had he not cultivated a spirit of courtesy, he might have been left to perish with the rest of Sodom.”

The only text selected for comment, was Jude 1:7. This text, with its reference to “going after strange flesh”, was equated to homosexuality. Many scholars argue that the context can just as accurately mean desiring “angel” visitors. In any event, the issue to which this text refers is the fact that the people had “given themselves over” to their behaviour; a complete abandonment of any sexual restraint.

I fear that It Is Written, by using this text in this way, will contribute to the belief among its viewers (who may have never given serious study to this topic) that homosexuality equals an abandonment of any sexual control. While Mr. Woolsey may have “abandoned” himself to a particular “lifestyle”, it is a misrepresentation of homosexual people to generalize in this way.

2. Ethically, counseling practices, including those involving pastoral counseling, recognize the client’s right to “informed consent”: the obligation to inform people of the realistic outcome of pursuing a particular course of therapy. (American Association of Pastoral Counselors – 1994 – Principle III – B) This series of programs implies that anyone can achieve a similar outcome by following various ‘steps’, as outlined in your guest’s book. There is evidence to demonstrate that pursuing “reparative” therapy is not likely to achieve the outcome promised. Promising someone a particular outcome, even within a faith context, could be regarded a form of professional misconduct. I am amazed how easily religious institutions feel they are under no ethical obligation to uphold such standards.

3. Woven through these episodes is the suggestion that if a homosexual person “wants to be saved” Jesus will change him or her. This is a disappointing use of the faith experience. What God can do, and does do, are two very different things, which scripture frequently bears out. People are often led to despair by confusing the two.

Bookstores are filled with the stories of “Christians” who once gave the same testimony, with the same sincerity, as Mr. Woolsey; only to tell a different story years, even decades later. Then, when these people collapse psychologically, and their marriages fail, they are blamed for not having prayed enough, tried enough, or “wanted” enough.

Fifteen years ago I had surgery for cancer. Due to the location of the cancer, Doctors were able to “cut it out”, and I survived. A classmate of mine, from my high school years at Kingsway College, who was married and raising a family, died after a long battle with cancer. Would any medical professional advocate that my “recovery” story be used as a benchmark for all others? Should my pastor have suggested that my faith was greater than that of my classmate? Would anyone dare suggest that she didn’t sincerely “want” to be healed?

My sister has had heart surgery four times. All were necessary, and all were successful. Many of the people she has known since childhood, suffering similar conditions, have either died or are living with considerable lifestyle limitations. Similarly, I know “Christians” who have lived with depression for years. They “want” freedom, but it has not come in the way well-meaning church members have insisted it should.

I do believe in offering people hope and in the power of another’s testimony to encourage. For the last five years, I have facilitated groups for the Anxiety Disorders Association of Ontario. We provide our clients with the best information available to live healthy, productive lives. We offer them “hope” and even invite members from previous groups to share their “testimonies”, but we never do so with the intent of suggesting that everyone will experience the same outcome. Most importantly, we would never ignore the testimonies of those who don’t reflect the outcome we expect.

This brings me to my final point. It Is Written claims that it wants to present this issue in a “balanced” way. How can this be the case when only one side of the human experience is heard? I don’t believe that, in the last twenty years, It Is Written has ever given air time to one Seventh-day Adventist who could testify to a different experience with so-called “change”. With all due respect to Mr. Woolsey, he is not the first minister to claim he has “changed” and married, and he will not be the last. By contrast, I do know that, over the last 20 years, the testimonies of Seventh-day Adventists whose experience do not conform to the church’s expected outcome have been dismissed outright.

I know, from experience, the effect this kind of program has on the Body of Christ. At the local church level, the next time the subject comes up in a Sabbath school discussion, some dear saint is certain to say, “I heard on It Is Written that homosexuality can be cured. This Adventist minister testified that he has changed and he is now married with children.” That will shut down any further dialogue -- end of discussion. The homosexual church member will think Mr Woolsey holds secrets to resolving this issue that no one else has ever had. Armed with this information, pastors and family members will encourage the homosexual person to wholeheartedly entrust themselves to the “reparative” process. In essence, “throwing him or her self off temples”, believing that God will honour their leap of faith and that angels will bear them up into heterosexuality. In their ill-informed presumptions, many fall to the ground disillusioned and abandoned.
Then, gay organizations and other support groups, which are frequently maligned, will help those people put their lives back together. I have seen this happen countless times.

I do know a handful of people who, I believe, give authentic accounts of adjustment to heterosexual relationships. They acknowledge, however, that the factors that contributed to their adjustment reflect their personal situation, and they would be reluctant to suggest that everyone can reach the same outcome.

It is my hope that It Is Written will some day be open to discussing the diversity of experiences among Seventh-day Adventists, and other Christians, in relation to issues surrounding homosexuality.

For those who may be interested in apprising themselves of a variety of viewpoints on the complex subject of homosexuality, I commend the following web sites: www.someone-to-talk-to.net (Seventh-day Adventist); www.ecwr.org (Evangelical); and www.courage.org.uk (Anglican\Evangelical – England). I have personally met the founders of the groups represented by these sites, and can attest to their integrity.

Respectfully,

* Gen.13:13; 18:20; 19:13; Deut. 29:17-26; 32:32-38; Is. 1:9-23; 3:8-15; 13:11-19;
Jer. 23:10-14; 49:16-18; 50:2-40; Lam. 4:3-6; Ez. 16:49-50; Amos 4:1-11; Zeph. 2:8-9
Matt. 10:11-15; 11:16-24; Mk. 6:10-11; Lk. 10:10-12; 17:26-29; 2 Pet. 2:6.

Jamie, While you describe "Faggots" as a book which satirizes gay life, Kramer himself, the man who started the Gay Men's Health Crisis and ACT UP, insists that it was a truthful accounting of gay sex in NY. I might also point out that Randy Schilts said as much about gay life in SF. The gay community had been warned by public health officials that the bath house scene there was a potential infectious disease nightmare, before AIDS was an issue.

My own experiences in Los Angeles, informed by numerous interviews with AIDS patients over the course of several years, confirm that rampant debauchery, akin to that of NY and SF, was the order of the day among Los Angeles homosexuals. I can name the bar, in Silverlake, where nearly every gay person I contacted, at one time frolicked.

Aside from the moral implications, the public health issues which permeated the gay community should have been justification enough for a concentration camp like scenario.

According to law, individuals with infectious diseases who pose a risk to others can be locked up against their will. The laws are rarely utilized, even in the case of TB patients.

Hansen, you continue to present the best reasons for gay monogamy--the perfect answer to all the diseases you describe.

Promiscuity is always risky; monogamy should be promoted for all orientations.

Gay monogamy is a bigger farce than heterosexual monogamy.

Hansen, 'satirizes' is not my own description...that's what the publishers call it on Amazon.com. At any rate, you are still taking the worst, most extreme aspects of the gay experience and extrapolating it to cover all gays. Not only is that unfair, it is also dishonest. It does however lay bare your character for everyone here to see.

Andrew Dykstra, read the following polls and realize that you are in a minority in your view. Be honest about the kind of health problems this "orientation" presents for you, if you dare. Also supply statistics to counter the poll numbers "gallupped" in front of you, eh??

I would be curious for you to present when you realized that you were gay, and what emotional or envioronmental things were happening in your life, including your acceptance by the opposite sex.

The previous was present in the interest of truth, not to denigrate someone who wishes to practice homosexuality in the privacy of their bedroom.

Sorry here is the poll:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/8005/teens-homosexuality-nature-nurture.aspx

Jamie, Have you ever read "Faggots"? If so, why do you believe that it is a satire? If not, why are you commenting upon something about which you know little or nothing?

Rondo: Yes! I find the opinions of indoctrinated teens to be very supportive in justifying my fear of teh gays! (I shudder to think of those who may have taken comfort in having their prejudices reified).

Especially when considering how much those teen opinions must have been influenced by their elders and not but such banalities as reason and fact, I conclude that it is very important to get young people to think the way I do before they can come to their own conclusions!

But honestly, as a resident of Massachusetts, I can say with some certainty they sky has not yet fallen.

Thank you, Gerald, for your courage is so openly sharing your experience. I have also heard dozens, if not hundreds, of stories like yours.

I would just like to add that my son spent four years in reparative therapy, trying to become heterosexual. At the end of that time, all he could say was that he had learned to suppress his same-sex feelings. While I don't believe that trying to suppress your true nature is a healthy or really an honest way to live, when he told us he wanted to get married, after sharing our concerns because of other people's experiences, we promised to support his decision. He is now married, and we pray daily that they will be able to make a success of their marriage, but we know that this is a road that most often leads to heartache.

I recently enjoyed this concise explanation of opinion polls by Sir Humphrey of Yes Minister. It is one issue my colleagues often discuss when teaching research methods.

Re. the poll Rondo linked to, it would be curious to see comparable data on beliefs about whether heterosexual desire or behavior are also innate or environmental -- though such questions about any orientation or behavior are incredibly reductionist. I see that the Galluppers apparently didn't report any questions on heterosexuality for that responding sample, and their data analysis link is broken. It would be curious to see, but not pivotal for me. Polls tell us something about the respondents, but little about the realities they're responding to.

On innumerable issues, some people are open to persuasion via poll, the consensus of their favorite authority figures, data they peruse, experiences they have, and/or the gurgles in their intuitive gut. Others are more open to confirmation by these means. In our church and on issues like sexuality, divorce, gender roles, ordination, the nature of Christ, the nature of scriptures, questions of our origins and change, more people seem to be open to confirmation than to persuasion. Not much learning will be possible under such circumstances.

Carrol, I'm not really interested in adding to your personal pain; however, since you have chosen to make a public matter of your family business, it seems fair to remark upon it.

Your son is admittedly sexually attracted to men but has found a way to repress his sexual desires and marry a woman. What kind of a woman marries a guy who is admittedly repressing his desire for sex with men?

If I understand "repress" correctly, that means that deep down inside, he wants to have sex with men but instead is going to have [or not have] sex with a woman.

This is exactly the type of thing which leads to pedophilia.

Careful.

Jamie, Have you ever read "Faggots"? If so, why do you believe that it is a satire? If not, why are you commenting upon something about which you know little or nothing?

I already told you why I said it was satire. I guess I believed the product description at Amazon.com which says "The book is a fierce satire of the gay ghetto".

I did read the first 3 or 4 pages, and it was indeed disgusting. It also doesn't speak to my experience as a gay man, or any gay people I know. I'm not saying that doesn't go on, but to say it is the norm is simply false. Have you read the book? If the rest is like the first 4 pages then it really does only speak to the fringes of the gay community.

This is exactly the type of thing which leads to pedophilia.

Do you just make this stuff up?! I went the other way...I denied that I was really gay (just like my church told me to, indirectly). I got married and had 4 kids. In the 14 years I was married, never ONCE did I feel an inclination to molest my kids or anyone elses. I guess I can't speak for everyone, but my repression didn't turn me into a pedophile...and a good chunk of my gay friends were in the same position as me at one time, married with children, and they didn't turn into pedophiles either.

Once again the things you say about us, and my own experience simply don't match up.

Hansen, why don't you share a little about your personal background with us so we can understand where you are coming from?

Hansen,

Your question\comment to Carrol is an excellent example of the mixed messages that we gay folk have to deal with all the time. While my frustration will come through in this response, I don’t mean for it to be disrespectful.

I will offer several reasons why I think that a woman would marry a guy who is admittedly repressing his desire for sex with men. They are not scientific answers, but they are based on some personal experience. I will let Carrol speak from her own experience with respect to her son and his wife.

1. Many women have been duped into believing that they can love their men into ‘healing’ because, as Mr. Burton has suggested, homosexuality is just an addiction. After all, gay folk are just heterosexuals that are addicted to sex with people of the same gender. A little bit of pray and lots of opposite-sex loving will fix everything.

2. Many women actually like the non-heterosexual sexual nature of their relationships. For whatever reason, the less aggressive sex-focused behaviour of their ‘repressed’ homosexual partners\friends appeals to them – for the time being anyway. Then in 10, 20, 30 years from now, they will be in counselling because their partners never ‘desired’ them in the way they wanted or really needed to be desired. But, don’t worry – these women will ‘repress’ how much they are really hurting as well.

3. Finally, many women do not really know the extent of her partner’s repression. Why is that? Repression and denial are the name of the game.

It has been demonstrated over and over again that we who have attempted to change become very good at denying our feelings, exaggerating the degree of our ‘change’, compartmentalizing our world, and repressing our desires and needs. What else should be expected, however?

A valid question is why we allow ourselves to get into this ‘repressed’ state, at all. My answer is simple. In churches and reparative therapy circles, an ‘end justifies the means’ approach is approved of. Also, when the god-given need for companionship and intimacy collides with ‘all faggots go to hell’ theology, our motivation to deny and repress is complete. Almost anything is acceptable as long as we are moving toward heterosexuality.

Then, Hansen, you caution that, “This (repression) is exactly the type of thing which leads to pedophilia. Careful.”

Careful! Be careful! What is heavens name do you want from us? Now it seems that when we get ourselves into marriages – to the glory of god and the satisfaction of our heterosexual critics – we are cautioned that we might become pedophiles.

We are damned if we do, and we are damned if we don’t. We are damned if we ‘deny’ our repression and we are damned if we ‘admit’ our repression. It is my experience that most Christians would prefer that we keep quiet about the extent of our repression. Without it being told directly, the church tells us there is too much at stake. The church needs to be seen as having all power and all solutions. The members need to hear only positive stories. Those who are our harshest critics want their cake and to eat it, too.

The Catholic church knows well what happens when people – gay or straight– repress their sexuality. We can repress ourselves in or out of marriage. Whether repression ends up in pedophilia, is one thing. But I am confident that when human beings are vilified, shamed and shunned – relentlessly - from childhood, they are going to act out in some way. Some people see only promiscuity and addiction and link it directly to having a homosexual orientation. The same people seem to be incapable of seeing the ‘crazy making’ they put us through by the mixed messages, confused expectations and double talk? They do not see the depression, the desperate frustration, the self injury and suicide that comes from never being listened to, shamed into trying to ‘change’, and shut out of our church homes – all theological debate notwithstanding.

Repression and denial reign – praise be to God!

Jamie, People are not always the same; however, your experience may not be typical. On the other hand, since my remarks are based on observations over a several year period in Los Angeles, it may also indicate that the type of gay people who flocked to LA/West Hollywood/Silverlake, represented an extreme end of the gay community.

I also knew of well adjusted gay men in the LA area who had satisfying careers and many other dimensions to their life than being "gay." A few had been married to women in the past.The largest problem was with those people who had nothing else going for them than being homosexual. Perhaps they were just losers who also happened to be gay.

Regarding the pedophilia issue: How many RC priests who attacked young boys set out to become child molesters? Do you think that anyone would have that as a career goal, to be a child molesting priest? I doubt it.

These attacks were nearly always man on boy. They were homosexual. In my work in the AIDS community, I sometimes met men in their early twenties with AIDS. That meant they were exposed to HIV when they were around 12 years old. A bit young for legal consent to sodomy.

You should realize that because your experience is different, it doesn't negate the very real gay lifestyle in certain places which precipitated the AIDS crisis. Places such as NY,SF, LA, which had thriving gay communities.

Gerald,
Your observations are right on about the impossible bind gays are put in by people who apparently wish they would just cease to exist. And your description of the ultimate outcome of most gay/straight marriages is the one I've seen over and over again, and precisely why we feel concern about our son's marriage.

Hansen,
You should realize that what you may have observed in Hollywood isn't at all typical of the majority of ordinary gay people. You should also realize that many of those who end up in the Hollywood gay scene do so because the churches to which they once belonged condemned them to hell!

When one is made an outcast by the church family, the only one he knew, what is the alternative. To judge all gays by the Sodom of San Francisco or L.A. is like judging everyone by recent prison parolees--a most unfair comparison. There are wonderful gay people, I have some as friends, and they are nothing at all like your past associates which is very limited.

You should realize that because your experience is different, it doesn't negate the very real gay lifestyle in certain places which precipitated the AIDS crisis. Places such as NY,SF, LA, which had thriving gay communities.

I agree with you (see, we can agree on something). But I want to add that you should realize that 'the very real gay lifestyle' that you speak of isn't the ONLY 'very real gay lifestyle', nor is it necessarily normative, nor is it more real than MY lifestyle. Go to Amazon.com and read some of the reviews of the book we were talking about. I found it fascinating how some of them proclaimed the book's 'truth', and how others saw it as a description of a lifestyle that didn't match their experience since they were outside of the New York party scene. I don't doubt that big cities with bigger gay populations have a bigger gay party scene. I also don't doubt that those same cities have a slew of gay people who aren't into that scene.

Much of it is simply basic personality in ways that are the same for gays and straights. For example, I don't like to go to bars. I never have. They bore me, especially ones with music too loud to converse over. After coming out, I went had a friend take me to the gay bar nearest me, because I figures I should at least go once and see what it was like. It turns out it was a normal bar, only full of gay people, and it bored me as much as any other bar I'd been in before coming out. My point here is that many of us, gay or straight, aren't going to be into that kind of scene. If I were to go down to Hess Village (the local 'bar street') and judge heterosexuals based on what I see there, I would have to say that straight people are promiscuous alcoholics who think nothing of peeing in the streets.

That all said, I think you and I agree that gay people are more promiscuous than straight people in general, However, I don't think that is BECAUSE someone is gay. In fact, I strongly suspect that if women said 'yes' as much as men said 'yes' when it comes to sex, then you would find that straight men and gay men are equally promiscuous.

None of that, however, means we should deny gay rights. Gay people should be treated equally under the law. If Christians disagree with 'the gay lifestyle' (which for me, incidentally, mostly consists of laying on a couch, watching Battlestar Galactica, and rubbing my boyfriends feet), then they should let God sort it all out when he returns. What consensual adults do with each other is up to them, and if God doesn't like it, He'll deal with it when the time comes.

No word from Andy D. yet. Maybe other gays on this thread, can relate what type of physical problem they encounter with raw gay sex. After all certain orifices were not made to have sex in. I one counters, "We use condoms all the time." Point proven, it is not nature's way, it is a perversion and deviate, whether you have gotten so use to it, you claim you were born that way.

If you are really honest about what your doctor has to do for you when you have raw homosexual sex, I believe it would be an eye opener.

Gerald, I have never suggested that gays should repress their sexuality. What I have said is gays should acknowledge that it is sinful and trust God to deal with it.

Adventism is a toxic organization as far as gays are concerned. Gay people who hang around Adventism and then experience pain are exhibiting the same dysfunctional characteristics which permeate much of the gay community.

If people want to be gay, be gay. If you do have faith, trust God to work things out for you. It is a mistake to expect affirmation from non gay Adventists. You may be affirmed as a struggling child of God. You shouldn't be affirmed as a homosexual, any more that any other sinner should be affirmed in their sin.

The work of those who are mishandling Scripture in order to affirm homosexuality are doing a destructive and damaging work. They are the real enemies of the gay community.

The kind of stuff I'm reading about here, repression, sham marriages, and so forth, are only going to increase the discomfort of gays. While being gay may be inconvenient, becoming a pedophile because of not adjusting to being gay can lead to imprisonment. Prison is not the place for a pedophile, or perhaps it is

Rondo and Hansen, I expect you will sleep better tonight, knowing that you have made a few gay people who read these blogs so heartsick that they are not sure they can handle going to church tomorrow, with a church family that taunts them and speaks so vilely about them. Good work!

So .. gay bashing is acceptable on this site?

http://www.crimemagazine.com/03/geoghan,1201.htm

The above link is to an article about a pedophile priest who was murdered while in prison. The article suggests that pedophiles are attracted to young boys because they themselves are immature, they have not become men, psychosexually. Also interesting is how Geoghan essentially blames the children for his behavior.

There was a lengthy article in Rolling Stone about Geoghan. He had a yenta like sister who played a major roll in his life. She made excuses for him, blamed others for him, shielded him from responsibility, enabled him by validating him.

The Geoghan scandal is credited with bringing down Cardinal Law in Boston.

Geoghan was evaluated and treated by mental health profesionals who were, for the most part, continually wrong in their evaluation and prognosis. Their mistakes contributed to a career of molestation which spanned 30 years and involved a multitude of children.

Incidentally, he was a homosexual, a constricted one; consequently, young boys were his preferred sexual partners, willing or not.

His murderer was a homophobe who himself had been molested as a child.

Dick, apparently so.
Possibly because it isn't recognized as such.

Hansen,

A word to the wise. It has long been recognized that folks who speak as you do - usually have repressed homosexual tendencies themselves. You are giving yourself away by your continued diatribe against homosexuals. Hopefully when you come to peace with who you are you will find that there are folks who can accept you as you are. Until then, I would suggest you keep your opinions to yourself.

I agree Donna, "methinks the gentleman doth protest too much"

I have a friend who made the mistake of marrying one of these "trying to be heterosexual" homosexual Christians. It wasn't too many years before he realized he was not being true to himself, left her, divorced her, and returned to being openly gay.

All the science says
> that the orientation can't be undone
> it is not a choice
> that promiscuity and attraction to children happens with both homosexuals and heterosexuals.

Of course, most people prefer their preconceptions over research - especially if it helps distract themselves and others from their own issues

/Bevin

LOL, Yeah, I've heard that one before, Donna. Reaction formation. Sorry. It doesn't play well here. The direction this is headed now is typical. Attack the person who brings a message you do not want to here. Dr. Stone, who knew more about the subject than anyone else, was banned from the site.
Do you suppose Elijah was a closeted baal worshiper?

My opinions were formed after spending countless hours with a multitude of gay men from every walk of life in Los Angeles. I had in depth interviews with many regarding their sexual habits as well as initiation into the gay life style. I was also associated with two of the earliest AIDS treatment centers in the United States. I won't be keeping my opinions to myself simply because you don't approve of my view. My experience, which undoubtedly eclipses anything you have had, informed my perspective.

Donna and Bevin, I hope you aren't suggesting that Hansen may be gay as an insult to him...and I hope that Hansen knows that there is nothing insulting about being gay.

I remember all of those years scared that someone might think I was gay. I also remember the freedom that came with the realization that it is right and good for them to think I am gay, because I AM! It was nice realizing that it wasn't something insulting or degrading.

If I say, as one NAD president has, "Des Ford will never be reconciled to the church under my watch!" Is he a Ford basher, or standing for truth?

Read this article that starts with two experts differing on the subject we are into. The opening quote:

""Research suggests that the homosexual orientation is in place very early in the life cycle, possibly even before birth. It is found in about ten percent of the population, a figure which is surprisingly constant across cultures, irrespective of the different moral values and standards of a particular culture." Statement on Homosexuality, American Psychological Association, 1994-JUL.
The question of whether someone was "really" straight or "really" gay misrecognizes the nature of sexuality, which is fluid, not fixed, a narrative that changes over time. . . . It reveals sexuality to be a process of growth, transformation, and surprise, not a stable and knowable state of being." —Marjorie Garber, Vice Versa: Bisexuality and the Eroticism of Everyday Life, 1995

"

http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/glbt_issues_life/59951

Read the whole article, some are "real gays" some "new gays", the later by choice. It says nothing of the right of a church to have a standard, nothing of those who easily attach " - basher" after everything they have a standard "against" and their rights.

Another article that I feel gives a "fair" both sides approach is here:

http://www.conservapedia.com/Homosexuality_and_Choice

Note the excerpt:

"Homosexuality and choice are closely related. When answering the question of is homosexuality a choice one has to consider that homosexual acts between consenting adults are, by definition, done by choice. Yet the relationship between desire and choice is a matter for debate,[1] and activists often attempt to blur the distinction between having a desire and choosing to act on it.

"

Read on:

"Proponents of the homosexual agenda often claim that homosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that homosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting homosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent homosexual desire. People with homosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the temptation to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the Bible.

"

What does it say about you that you feel a site called "conservapedia.com" can give a homosexuality a fair shake? The site is clearly

Hmm...I had what I thought was an eloquent bit or writing that was just swallowed up in cyberspace, leaving my previous post cut off mid-sentence. I'll take that as a sign (for now) and shut up for the rest of the day...

Jamie, for as long as I have been reading Donna, I can trust she meant NO insult at all and I appriciate her post! (and yours as well)

Bevin, you said it perfectly!

Rondo, for myself, it is quite laughable to think a site that calls itself "conservapedia" is going to be "fair"! Let me guess, Fox "News" is "Fair and Balanced" too?

Change one word in this paragraph:

"Proponents of the heterosexual agenda often claim that heterosexuality is unchangeable and has a genetic basis. However, this does not prove that heterosexuals do not choose to behave this way. By definition, a consenting heterosexual relationship must be made by choice, even if there is a latent heterosexual desire. People with heterosexual tendencies in their genetics can still resist the temptation to commit sin, and remain faithful to the teachings of the Bible."

At what point, then, do heterosexuals resist the temptation to commit sin and remain faithful to the teachings of the Bible. The teachings of the Bible clearly illustrate polygamy as the major pattern for most of the Hebrew's history. Why is that not the preferred marriage pattern if we follow the Bible.

No one has tackled the question of whether heterosxuality is either genetic or changeable. Yet, there are many who claim the opposite for homosexuality as if it were a choice. No one yet has answered when do heterosexuals choose their orientation. If they cannot answer truthfully, why then is the onus on homosexuals to claim that only they CHOSE their orientation. It can't be both ways. Either everyone makes a conscious choice or no one does.

Elaine, if you use the Bible as the standard, a heterosexual choice is acceptable, a homosexual one is not. Multi-spouses is not a modern day option by law, with few exceptions, so one must abide by the modern law.

Elaine what was your point. The point of the article was our actions are choices, therefore homosexuality and heterosexuality are choices, and not as a result of nature (genes) but one's environment. Choice is action, desire is not action until choices are made on those desires, where evilly generated in the mind or otherwise generated, but the bible is the guide and cultural context has always been part off the study and discernment needed in reading the Bible.

Claiming the Bible as the "guide" is used by those who selectively
"choose" what to obey and what to ignore. No one today uses everything advised in the Bible, and if honest, would admit it.

I do not accept the Bible as the last word on science, if one did, we would not even need modern knoweldge but could simply rely on the 2500-year-old conclusions reached therein. If anyone has read much of the Bible it should be clear that many of the problems thought to be "curable" were said to be miraculous ones. No one has given any evidence today that blindness or leprosy is cured by the procedures used in the Bible. If they truly believed in the Bible, there would be no need of modern scientific knowledge. Yet I don't know any dedicated Christians who would presume to to do so.

"Cultural discernment" should allow us to understand the latest scientific conclusions of homosexuality: it is not a "choice" anymore than heterosexuality is a choice. Has anyone claimed that the latter is a choice--I don't believe so. Unless the purpose making such statements is a bona fide medical psychologist or psychiatrist, it might be believable, but then he would be at odds with the entire Psychological community. There is a word for such:
Quacks. If one accepts the latest medical science, yet ignores the latest psychological scientific studies, it a CHOICE that he makes to either accept or ignore what suits him. Not the best way to convince others. One who does so refuses to accept objective reality and erects a barrier to further discussion of most any subject.

"The teachings of the Bible clearly illustrate polygamy as the major pattern for most of the Hebrew's history. Why is that not the preferred marriage pattern if we follow the Bible."

Another whopper, Elaine? Ever try to deal with reality when refering to Scripture?

Contrary to your falsehood, polygamy was forbidden to Hebrew kings in Deuteronomy 17:17.

If someone did have more than one wife OT law protected the interests of the firstborn (Deut. 21:15-17).

While OT kings may have been polygamous, this was clearly contrary to the instruction given in Deuteronomy.

Numerous important OT figures were not polygamous. Adam, Noah and his sons, even Abraham. The status of Hagar was not that of a wife. Job had one wife. Jacob did not set out to be polygamous. Laban took steps to insure that Jacob would take no other wives besides his daughters (Genesis 31:50).

While there certainly was polygamy, it is false to say that this was the major pattern throughout OT history. I've pointed this out to you before, yet you continue with this whopper. Do you have evidence to the contrary which would show that the average Jew was a polygamist or that this was normative for the prophets. What were the names of the wives of Elijah or Elisha? How about Jeremiah, who was forbidden to take a wife? Was he a polygamist?

Nabal, neither prophet or king had one wife, Abigail. Ezekiel had one wife. With how many women did Jezebel share the throne?

Why lie? The truth is better. Incidentally, these were all heterosexual marriages.

Hansen,
Many of the stories we have in the OT, of God's most prominent followers, show them having multiple wives. That may not have been God's preferred plan, but it was part of the culture of all peoples of that time, and the Israelites were no different. If a man could afford it, particularly if his first wife was unable to provide a male heir, he was free to take another wife. Take Abraham, Jacob, David, Solomon, Elkanah, as examples. God singularly blessed each one of these men, and Jesus was born through their lineage. Why shouldn't we assume that many of the Children of Israel lived very similar lives? And why would God give a specific law providing for the rights of the first wife if a man had two wives? (Deut. 21:15) That, my friend, is the reality we find in the OT.

Hansen,
The suggestion by Donna, and seconded by Bevin, is a well-documented phenomenon, with Ted Haggard (former president of the National Association of Evangelicas) as a prime example. It may not be true of you, but your shrill, hateful rhetoric certainly sounds like a textbook case. If you don't want people to make assumptions, I suggest you tone down your attacks and learn to speak in a reasonable, courteous, Christian way.

Rondo,

If a person "chooses" to become a homosexual, they are not really homosexual, but a perverted heterosexual. Certainly a heterosexual can choose to engage in homosexual behavior for the novelty of it, but that doesn't mean he is homosexual. And there are plenty of homosexuals who have chosen not to engage in homosexual behavior, but that doesn't mean they're not homosexual.

Human sexuality may be slightly fluid - that is, it might move a few degrees one way or the other over one's lifetime, but I know too many gays and lesbians who have tried for years to change, without success, to believe that it ever changes drastically.

It is well known that many prisoners practice homosexuality while incarcerated. This does not mean they are true homosexuals, as when they are free, they embrace the heterosexual life. That is describing a "choice" or rather a "limited choice." A true homosexual never "chooses" his orientation anymore than we heterosexuals "chose" ours. Why do heterosexuals seem to have more knowledge of the homosexual. It is as ridiculous as a Caucasian to say that he truly "knows and understands" what it is to be black. Yet, we have such proclaimed "experts" pompously pontificating prevarication.

Love your alliteration, Elaine!

Carrol, it's a habit I don't always resist! I'm also drawn to limericks and find them so very amusing.

Ms. Grady, I had a friend who was a smoker who was told by his doctor he was going to die if he didn't quit smoking. He tried to stop but because he had smoked three packs a day since he was 17 and he was now in his 60s, he gave up and chose to die with his habit, and his personality intake.

That was a choice. Just like a man who has the desire to have a certain type of sex, because he like the feel of it, and the female wooing is complicated more then his wooing guys at a gay bar, it is still a choice to engage or it is rape. It is comfortable, society has accepted it, BUT the church and God stand against the choice. The person should still be loved as a human being, but the act should not be accepted or rewarded if one has standards against the act. You are violating that person or groups rights to have a rule against that act, that by the way, you can prove the Bible is against it if your exegesis is on target. Too many eisegesis the topic though, because they like the feeling, of repeat action. Because it feels good doesn't make it acceptable in the Church or God's sight. Some or most sins feel good, but your pushing me to bigoted status won't change the fact that the Bible calls it a sin and an abomination.

In a secular society, I don't have a problem with homosexual rights. But when you want to whittle away at salvation with it, that is when others have a right to step in and reveal how the Bible says one is saved or lost.

"have a right to step in and reveal how the Bible says one is saved or lost"

But what if there are different interpretations of the Bible, who is to decide if not the individual's conscience.

Elaine, science is extremely limited in what it can help man with. It can only observe what is observable. If God creates something, it is not observable usually, less miracles today, etc.

But what of origins, that are unobservable, but the Bible, God's Word declares He originated things, science won't be able to prove it false, since we were created by God, and cannot observe that act. Science has it's limitations, but has brought, unarguably much benefit to humanity. Your desire to try and make the Bible a science primer, is impossible. Is John Baumgardner's Catastrophic Plate Tectonics able to be proved by science, depends on if you accept models and theories absent personal observation. Scientist do that all the time with evolution, extrapolating the answers, overlooking dating mechanism flaws, wanting to believe only what man can observe, not God's words.

"Just like a man who has the desire to have a certain type of sex, because he like the feel of it, and the female wooing is complicated more then his wooing guys at a gay bar"

Seriously? You really think that gay men are wooing guys because it's too complicated to woo women? Am I understanding you correctly?

Your limited life experiences give you a very narrow perception of reality, Elaine. Black people experienced racism. It is very possible for other people to experience racism as well. White people in certain parts of China, for example. They are subjected to racist taunts, openly discriminated against in housing, social activities, over charged when purchasing goods, and so forth.

During the Boxer Rebellion, they were murdered simply because they were white and or Christian. It is quite possible for white people to approximate the experiences of blacks. Whites have been marginalized, persecuted, even murdered by racists in China simply because of their race, just as Blacks in America. Of course there are differences; however now the experiences are quite similar.

Carrol, If you consider my honest report based on observations and interviews with scores of gays over several years shrill and hateful, that is your problem, not mine.

You and Donna can fantasize all you want about my sexual preferences. Sorry I don't have a photograph available for you.

I forgot to mention that I worked in several prisons in California over a period of years. One of the guys who attended the chapel services I conducted was raped by another inmate. I also had to deal with controversy stirred up by openly gay guys who were peddling their rear ends on the cell blocks and then coming to chapel services.

I had to bring a lesbian before an informal disciplinary hearing for public acts of overt homosexual expresion. You sure you want to talk about homosexuality in prison with me?

Thank god there are people here who know everything about everything, otherwise, how would we know what to think?

Each of us is colored by our own personal experiences; it could not be otherwise. For those who learned about homosexuality largely from prisons or in the gay districts of San Francisco or L.A. it is not the same for everyone across the country.

I grew up in the Deep South and remember seeing the separate drinking fountains, separate rest rooms, and separate schools and housing areas for the "coloreds" as they were called then. My oldest daughter began school in L.A. where her best friend was African-American, although she never even thought of it or did we know until the school year was over and we met her and her parents! On returning to school in the South, she immediately asked "Why are the dark-skinned people made to ride in the back of the bus," innocently not knowing how things were before Civil Rights. So, to say that I am "limited in my experience" is true of everyone--none of us has experienced all the possible events in life, however it is not the only one, but theirs alone.

The daughter mentioned above spent nearly 20 years as a nurse in prisons, so she is inimitately knowledgeable about the flagrant homosexuality rampant behind bars. She could immediately look at the fact of an inmate and know that he had been dominated by rape. She rarely, if ever, spoke of her experiences in the infirmary and clinical practice. Prison inmates are surely not the average population nor should they be judged similarly, although for some it seems that has been the majority of their experiences and choose to limit their perspectives based on that view.

Why do those who have limited experiences with homosexuality, dismiss those parents who have known their children since birth, and the realization, pain, and recognition that their child will always be ostracized, criticized and demonized by folks represented by some on this blog. Are your experiences more valuable than theirs--and if so, why.

I want to thank Dr. Stone and Hansen for their perceptive analysis of our family's situation, especially on behalf of the hundreds of other parents and gay men who have told me our story is so similar to theirs. You have certainly made us aware of our faults and failings.

Dr. Stone's posts today have been deleted, which will make some of the other comments here appear out-of-context. Each time Dr. Stone returns he does so via a different IP address, because we block each one he uses. He has been banned, but cannot bring himself to accept this and move on. He has no 'rights' here, every poster is a guest. And he has repeatedly demonstrated that he is unable to operate with within accepted norms of courtesy. Today was no different. We cannot effectively block permanently, we just have to keep preventing each new IP address used. And we will. He will not be allowed back. He needs to grow up and leave. This is not a mandate from one individual, such as Rich Hannon. It is a team decision. - website editors

Hansen,

To my knowledge, the Boxer Rebellion in China was a counter-hegemonic, anti-imperialist uprising against the colonial powers and Christian missionaries. Many Chinese Christians perished as a result. It was far from being racially motivated or directed against whites per se.

Most tourists and many foreigners pay extra for goods and services in China, that you'll also find in any developing country, not because of racial prejudice. It's capitalism - the profit motive - at work, plain and simple, you've encountered, I think.

With regards to Male-Sex-with-Male (MSM) among prisoners, this appears to be mainly situational. It doesn't follow that they are homosexuals.

Briefly, I think we need to refine the meaning we assign to racism and homosexuality.

Hansen wrote> "Sorry I don't have a photograph available for you."

Amusing.

Our self-proclaimed expert on gayness believes that a photograph would help us decide whether or not he is gay.

Even I know you can't tell from a photo.

/Bevin

Joselito, Sorry, the Boxer Rebellion was racially motivated, at least in part. While true that many Chinese Christians perished, it was because of their association with White imperialists and what were perceived as "foreign" belief systems.

Of course there were numerous issues which created the milieu which brought forth the Boxers just as there was more to the Holocaust than antiSemitism. The Civil War was not only about slavery, i.e, race. To deny it as an important factor is naive.

The Chinese would be unlikely to admit that they are racist xenophobes. They continue to perpetuate myths so hypocritical they themselves can't relate them without a smirk. They usually are quick to admit, under cross examination, what a sham they perpetuate.

That's one reason they are so well known for avoiding conflict. The lies and hypocricy which permeate their society are so thinly woven that they collapse under the slightest scrutiny. Conflict doesn't pay because it is a way to get at the truth, something the Chinese usually want to avoid.

If you think that the overcharging of foreigners is simply capitalism at work, how is it that no merchant would dare to overcharge an obviously wealthy Chinese?

They know they would be boxed about the ears. On the other hand, many Chinese merchants would rather not do business with a foreigner if they can't cheat them.

I hear Chinese people constantly deny racism. It's just another one of the numerous lies which are constantly told.

As for homosexuality in prison, for most convicts, situational homosexual conduct is not an option. Sex with a member of the same sex is still homosexuality. Most inmates do not indulge. Those who do, being sociopaths anyway, think not much about it.

Wow. How classy! How breathtakingly noble and gracious! Attacking a mother for her son's homosexuality and all the pain that results, particularly from comments made by insensitive and ignorant buffoons.

All arrogance is borne of ignorance. As Mother Teresa observed, "Humility is nothing but the truth." Somehow, though, the most truth-filled among us missed the humility.

Say, boys, why not trot out details of your family's lives, every hidden corner, every excruciating pain and sadness your children (and you) have experienced, and let everyone have an unscrupulous, scrutinizing look so we can blame you for all of it, too? Doesn't that sound like fun?

In the future, when you make similar outlandish and egregious comments, feel free to add "Christian" after your name. Then the "(not verified)" that follows will be absolutely fitting.

Alex said, "Of course, so quickly losing their epistemological framework, some will then expand their "bias" to suggest that the hundreds of millions of straights who support gays are actually really sexually biased. But in doing so their argument becomes a parody of no moon landing and birther conspiracy theories."

No suggestion, I'm stating it. Premarital sex, smoking organic cigarettes and/or cigars and drinking alcohol are three things that Adventists should not do. Sin inspires shame and secrecy when redemption hasn't been accepted. There is a correlation between the moral laxity of these straight Adventists and their support of gay marriage. Not all of them but some of the most vocal ones anyways...

Really it's not so new this debate... this split, between sin and service, obedience and selfishness is _the_ great controversy. Alex is right however, most people will end up agreeing with him on gay marriage and more. Narrow is the way... but great is God's grace! Come to Jesus!

In the name of decency, and as a very frequent poster, I am asking (and many others will agree with me) that Dr. Stone, who was previously banned here, will not be allowed to EVER post here again. And the accusation against Carrol as the cause of her son's homosexuality was way beyond the pale. Please, please, do not allow such personal attacks, especially when no one knows the person attacked and simply strikes out at anyone they choose. Dr. Stone is reprehensible in his attacks and Hansen is a close second.
Neither know how to carry on a civil conversation without ad hominem attacks.

As was noted above in an addition to an earlier posting, Dr. Stone is banned. However, it is impossible to identify an actual individual from the internet and keep that person from posting always. The best we can do is identify the IP address of the computer where the posting originated and block it. Then delete the posts. In Dr. Stone's case we have done such blocking action about a dozen times. He doesn't quit. He finds a way to return. And we block him again. There is something pathological in this persistence. But we can assure him, and others, that while some of his posts may temporarily get through, they will be found, deleted and the IP address he uses will be blocked. He will NOT be re-admitted. Our policing of common decency in conversation is not perfect. And this thread particularly has at times been over the line. Hansen, I hope you take note. But he is not alone. We block and ban as an absolute last resort. It is shameful to be unable to approach even contentious subjects except in 'attack mode'. How can our zeal for 'truth' - as we understand it - blind us to necessity for norms of courtesy? - website editors

Chris, I agree that putting Carrol on trial seems rather low; however, she has taken it upon herself to make a public issue of what is normally a private family matter.

She has taken a rather militant stance in favor of homosexual inclusion; consequently, because of the polemical nature of her approach to the subject, I hardly see how one can claim that going after her is out of bounds.

She chose to make herself and her family central issues in this controversy. We are not talking collateral damage here. Much of what she says is based on her personal experience as a mother of a homosexual, who is now planning a marriage to a woman.

If she chooses to back off, then I'm sure those who oppose her will do the same. If she insists on entering the lists and expects to hide behind the shield of an anguished parent, she's expecting too much. I saw plenty of anguished parents watch their sons die from AIDS. She gets no free pass from me. She's doing a lot of damage. I consider one of the real enemies of the gay community, not their friend. There are people in the gay community who are truly seeking for truth and are looking for ways to break the shackles which bind them. They are the ones who deserve help.

I don't understand why she should be given a voice here and Dr. Ron Stone refused one. He's a qualified physician offering a health care professional's perspective on a subject upon which he is well informed. Really, much better informed than his detractors.

Hey Johnny,

Greetings from the Northwest where I've been camped out the last little bit.

I will chime in here because your last comment was addressed to straight Adventists who vocally support equality for homosexuals. I am such a person. I don't want to speak for others because doing so usually runs the risk of misrepresenting the other. Nevertheless, I will risk it this once.

There are many notable Seventh-day Adventists that are straight, in many cases happily married, and who support equality for homosexuals. Many quite vocally. People like Fritz Guy, David Larson, Carrol Grady, Julius Nam, Trisha Famisaran, Chris Blake and even someone with whom we both had lunch a few weekends ago. For that reason, it seems a little bit unfair to suggest there is a correlation between moral laxity and support for same-gender relationships or those engaged in them, if that was indeed the suggestion.

For me, and I suspect many other Adventists, one of the things that has made a large difference in attitudes about homosexuality was coming in personal contact with individuals who want very much to live their lives in accordance with God's purposes, who want to be good, upright Christians, who value the Adventist Church and its teachings, but also find themselves incurably homosexual.

All that I have to go on is what I have heard from these individuals and the many others like them. And what they tell me over and over is that they did not choose to be the way that they are, they for a long time felt shame, endured ridicule and self-hatred, wanted to change, asked God to change them, and yet in the end found that they were still gay.

Since it has not been my own experience, all I know is what others have told me. I take them seriously. I believe they are telling the truth. For that reason, I support them fully, and I do not believe their homosexuality is sinful any more than my heterosexuality is sinful.

I say that sincerely, and as your friend.

Hansen,

Going after anybody personally is out of bounds. One would think that this would be self evident. If it is not, the paragraph under "Post new comment" spells it out.

"He's a qualified physician offering a health care professional's perspective on a subject upon which he is well informed."

Snort. He, like some others here, seems to like to talk - at length I would add - about anal penetration and oral sex and orifices and all the disgustingly enthralling things that gay men do in bed. It is very important to know exactly what goes on you see, so one can be even more outraged at all the fascinating, oh so fascinatingly icky things. One must read the books that describe wanton gay sex, highlighting the important passages to be studied closely, so one can better help all the poor gays crying out for help.

Seriously, some of you have issues when it comes to this topic. It is possible to discuss the sinfulness or lack thereof of homosexuality without dwelling obsessively on the sex. I'm not saying anyone is necessarily gay - just saying that you are letting your issues (whatever they might be) get in the way of talking about the subject in a kind, non-creepy way.

It reminds me of my favorite heterosexual argument against gay sex given by Paul Cameron, researcher popular with the religious right:

“People in homosexuality are incredibly evangelical,” he adds, sounding evangelical himself. “It’s pure sexuality. It’s almost like pure heroin. It’s such a rush. They are committed in almost a religious way. And they’ll take enormous risks, do anything.” He says that for married men and women, gay sex would be irresistible. “Martial sex tends toward the boring end,” he points out. “Generally, it doesn’t deliver the kind of sheer sexual pleasure that homosexual sex does”
http://www.pflagdetroit.org/Holy_War_OnGays.htm

Hmmmm. I think someone needs to pull old Paul aside and let him know that if he finds married sex so dull, maybe he's just doing it wrong. OTOH, with a testimony like that, maybe he finds it dull for other reasons.

Those evil gays are having such amazing mind-blowing sex doing such sick twisted things like. . . . that I . . .I . . Oh I just lost my train of thought.

Jared,
Re-read my comment- I was talking about some single straight supporters of gay marriage. I was not making a broad generalization about all straight supporters of gay marriage.

So I'd like to say once against that what is true for one isn't true for all and, moreover, identifying sin in others isn't what we're called to do despite the model for discerning between good and bad in Luke 6...

The whole point Jesus was getting across in John 8 was that our job isn't to be morality police seeking and identifying sin where we see it. It's easy to be caught up in that isn't it. To be called out of sin is to accept the redemption of a Christ who came to save not condemn.

Beth, Although I may have missed the details listed by Dr. Ron Stone, having spent time with a gay man with rectal cancer, I can assure you that things gays do and the consequences are relevant to the discussion. Anyone who takes time to peruse the CDC website will be shocked and disgusted to discover how the body responds to the abuse thrust upon it by gays.

Simply as a public health issue, gay sex is a menace. While I met numerous "gay couples," none that I know of even pretended to be monogamous.

While it may happen, reports of chaste gay monogamy over an extended period of time are most likely a lie, one reason gay studies involving self reporting are not worth much.

Jared, The expression "going after" Carrol was ill chosen. "Engaging her on the issues" would have been a better choice of words.

http://www.victorjadamson.com/index2.html

I think most comments on here are inappropriate and one doesnt need to stoop to that level.

http://www.sdakinship.net/

Jared, The expression "going after" Carrol was ill chosen. "Engaging her on the issues" would have been a better choice of words

If you really believe that, I have some swampland in Florida to sell you...

There is indeed a difference between 'going after' and 'engaging', and that guy was definitely 'going after', right down to the cheap shots and all.

Johnny,

Gotcha. Sorry for misreading!

This old lady will be 85 in two months and to even suggest that I am a "closet" homosexual is ludicrous. I am tolerant of all those who are declared "others" and would be banned by those religious zealots who love to police others' private actions. No one has given them permission to do so, but they have chosen that obnoxious role for themselves.

God alone, is the judge of our hearts, and those who wish to get an early start at judging must meet the qualifications of a perfect God who has no sins. "He who is without sin, cast the first stone" needs to be reiterated.

Whether you have your own lists of "sins" take a page from the Middle Ages, or even the Puritans, who had an unlimited list from which to choose. Anything that would separate you from the love and acceptance of God is a sin. Making an idol of a "pet" sin--only found in others, is a full-time occupation for many so-called "Christians" who are better identified as the Devil's children.

The evil work being done by individuals who want to affirm homosexuals and introduce them into church fellowship requires desperation, perhaps unprecedented.

The Biblical call to all sinners is for repentance, yet homosexuals somehow expect to be exempted from this very basic Christian "work." There is no example in the Bible of sanctified homosexual love. It is a fantasy, a fiction, an absolute lie.

The testimony of Victor J. Adamson should be studied and contemplated by others. After many years of homosexual experiences, he realized the futility of his life, as is common with so many sinners who REPENT of their sinful life.

His life changed.

Johnny Ramirez, you amaze me. Given your know support against Prop 8 and then to say we as Christians aren't to hold each other accountable for righteous living, sheeeeeeeeesh. Read 1 Tim 5:20:

"20Those who sin are to be rebuked publicly, so that the others may take warning."

Read 2 Timothy 4:2:

"2Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction."

Johnny there is an objective standard whether you believe in or members of Spectrum believe in it. It is not the slippery slope you purport, or the loose standards you say can go either way depending on the person. And you teach at one of our schools?????Why pay extra for that sort of education that is whatever you want it to be. I can get that in public school!!!!

Does anyone else think this conversation has gotten off topic?

At any rate, I think I'll bow out for a few days, maybe more. The differing opinions fascinate, amuse, and anger me. Some of them make me happy too. I'm glad to see that all Adventists aren't stuck in a framework that short circuits their ability to think logically. But I see that for those with such short circuited ability, there isn't really anything anyone can say that will make sense to them if it isn't from within their framework (or world view is maybe a broader way of putting it...but broadness doesn't seem to fit).

Elaine, at 63, I can only hope I have your energy & clarity of thought when I reach your age!

My own observation is that prison homosexuality is greatly exaggerated. Rape is rape, whether male on male or male on female. It's not about sex in prison or anywhere else; it's about power, control, domination, humiliation of the victim.

Beyond a certain point, I do not understand the "Black" existential experience in America because I'm an aging white male. I don't understand a woman's experience of life for obvious reasons. Nor do I understand the nature of people whose sexual orientation is toward their own gender.

Here's what I do understand & why: I have a sister, a cousin, and several friends who are gay/lesbian, and live out their lives in devoted, loyal, singular relationships. It's clear to me, at least with my sister & cousin, that they were born that way. I don't recall waking up one day & making any "choice" about which gender I'm attracted to--and neither has anybody else on this thread. It is nice to be part of the majority; I don't have to defend/explain myself to any of the accusing stone throwers.

One final thing: If I'm going to err in my judgements about anybody else, I choose to err on the side of grace. Period. Full stop. Praise God from whom all things flow, especially the blessed people above who are willing to defend the oppressed!

Shalom!
Jeris E. Bragan

Hansen,
About the Chinese, I believe you're grossly misinformed but I'm not here to defend them. Just to let you know, in case you haven't noticed, my surname was inherited from my dad who migrated from China as a young boy.

Jeris and Hansen,
Male-Sex-with-Male (MSM) and Female-Sex-with another-Female (FSF) are not uncommon. Whether it's a clinical condition or not, especially in a prison setting, neither practice is homosexuality per se if I understand correctly the use of the term.

I believe, as a practicing clinician, that it's possible to reason our way to understand another person's experience, to some extent. Otherwise, all professional counseling and any attempt at self education by specialists would be meaningless and unnecessary.

FYI, the upcoming conference on homosexuality in Andrews U, from what I've read, includes two noted psychologists as presenters. Stanton Jones of Wheaton College and Mark Yarhouse of Regent University have extensive experience researching and publishing on the subject.

Thank you, Jeris!

Many physicians have written tomes about various diseases and many are also specialists in their fields. However, when they have been diagnosed with a serious, life-threatening disease, although, or maybe because they are so knowledgeable about it, they react like their patients: they are uncertain about their life expectancy, what and how much to treat, and the many decisions suddenly faced by their patients are brought home in a sharpened manner.

This is the same analogy that we all should remember about homosexuality. How many stories have we read and heard about those who had very definite opinions of its sinfulness and yet, when faced with the knowledge that it is their child--who they've known and loved since birth, their attitude must take a (perhaps gradually) 360 degree turn.

If all those who speak so condemningly could tell us that they have a child or sibling who is gay, then it would have meaning. Otherwise, it is a theoretical opinion, often based on the extremes of the gay population which in no way resembles the entire community any more than the heterosexual swinging bar-hopping promiscuity reflects the majority of heterosexuals in the U.S.

Hansen,

When did you first realize that you might be straight? When did you decide to be a heterosexual? Did you always know you were straight? Or did you first experiment with opposite sex? So do your family and friends know you are straight? How do you know if you are definitely straight if you have never kissed someone of the same sex before? Do you think being straight might just be a phase? Maybe in a year or two do you think you might be attracted to the same sex? So do you have any other straight friends, or are you the only straight one in your group? Are you active in the straight community? Do you support straight rights, do you think that a straight person should have the same rights as a gay person? Do you think straight people should be allowed to marry and raise children? Are you a practicing heterosexual, or are you just slightly attracted to the opposite sex? Do you think straight people should be allowed to adopt children, I mean what happens if they influence the sexuality of their kids? So when did you first decide to come out of the closet about being straight? Do you openly live a straight lifestyle?

In a recent sermon, the pastor explained the sins of Sodom. This makes so much sense to me in light of the first commandment: Thou shalt have no other gods before Me.

Sodom's sins were:
~~ pride
~~ failure to help the poor
~~ lack of hospitality to foreigners
~~ seeking dominance over angels
~~ seeking dominance over the Divine, over God.

Mervin: BRAVO! Just don't hold your breath for his answers.

Wow this has evoked so many responses, I guess in the near future we will also be having the same discussions about, Paedophiles, Murderers, Thieves etc... as they will all by then have proven that they cannot help what they do in the same way that a white person cannot help being white or a black person being black.......I guess the same will also be true for those who are racist, bigots and those who are homophobic too, it will all be in the genes and therefore justification for the way they behave.

There are differences in behaviour that we admire, some we respect, others we punish, and others we cure.

Learn to tell the difference.

/Bevin

Hi Mervin, I can tell you exactly when I decided to "be straight". It was sometime after September 7, 1970. I know the date because that is the date written in the Bible which was given to me by my great aunt, the niece of D.M. Canright.

I was visiting a friend, a young Italian man. We had been close friends in the past but had drifted apart. As we chatted, he suggested that I orally copulate and sodomize him. I laughed in his face and declined. He was surprised and wondered why I would not participate in such an activity. I then shared with him my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was born of a virgin, crucified on a cross and raised from the dead.

You may think it strange that a friend would make such a request; however, in the area where I grew up, it was not completely unusual. Previously, another close friend of mine appeared at my home one morning. He had been reading about Salvador Dali and decided that if Dali was homosexual, he might give it a try as well. He plainly announced that he was homosexual. I continued eating my breakfast, which i believe was Cheerios and milk with a sliced banana.

I didn't respond to his remark. I decided to think over the implications of one of my closest friends being homosexual. The next day or so he returned and said that he had decided that being straight was more "efficient."

Contrary to your belief, people do make decisions regarding their sexuality. Granted, for the same sex attracted, the compulsion to act out on gay desire may be uncontrollable.

Acknowledgment of the act as sinful, confession, and trust in Christ, are the Christians refuge. Gay affirming ministries are doing an evil and destructive work, especially among young people who may be struggling with same sex desire. Through fasting and prayer people do change. The justifying righteousness of Christ is accompanied by resurrection power.

http://lukeford.net/blog/?p=10181

The link above was supposed to go to an article Luke wrote about homosexuality. It doesn't

Hansen,

It is bad science to base entire theories on an extremely limited sample. I have no doubt that some people decide to try on a sexual identity to see if it fits. But that, as your "Salvador Dali" reading friend shows, does not make a person gay or straight - any more than trying on a shoe to see if it fits changes the size of the foot.

Of course, since you think that a photograph of yourself will help people realize you are not gay...

You seem to have a fascination with the mechanics of sexual activity. It does not help your cause - it simply causes offense to some, and causes me perceive you as immature and uncouth.

/Bevin

I guess I only lasted a day away...too much time on my hands I guess :-)...

Anyway, if you can't tell the difference between same sex love between two consenting adults and murderers, theives, etc. who HURT others, then I feel sorry for you.

Choice is when one acts or receives acts willfully. Otherwise it is force, or rape. In that situation it is not choice. Both heterosexual and homosexual are choices. Willfully chosen.

Rondo,

Your definitions are interesting, though I'm not sure they work out in reality. I did not choose to be attracted to women. It was never something that I consciously decided I would do. Just sort of came naturally. Likewise, people whom I've spoken to that are attracted to members of the same gender all report the same thing - they did not decide to whom they would feel attraction.

The conclusion I'm led to is that one's gender preference, sexual orientation if you prefer, is not volitional - it's not a choice. The relationships that a person chooses to pursue, whether romantic or otherwise, have more of a volitional component to them.

You have a hierarchy of values, Bevin, which is just as perverted as the homoeroticism which enamors you. You consider my post uncouth and immature, yet the people who actually do the things I mentioned, how would you describe them? Perhaps had I chosen to participate in the abominations my friend desired, I would be mature and couth? If rejecting sodomy is immature and uncouth in your mind, that's not my problem. You see, because I believe in the Bible, its miracles, its creation narrative, its prophecies, its moral teachings, rejecting the things which you defend, making a choice to live a moral life, is an option which I exercise.

If you and your tribe choose otherwise, that's your own affair.

Andrew and Carrol, I'm confused, is marriage religious or civil? Which do you want it to be? Do you want society to bear the cost of the benefits given to gay marrieds, or are you willing to just be civilly married without the additional cost to society.

Whether you like it or not, a church must stand for something or fall for anything. So you were brought up Adventist but strayed from the standards. So you want the SDA to come your way, rather than holding firm to their standards and God's.

Andy D., can you point me to the post where you tell us whether you have physical problem each time you have unprotected homosexual sex and have to have a physician put "humptity dumptity" back together again??

Elaine, what of the parents of murderers and sex offenders, it is ok that you are compassionate to one type of parent with disturbed or kids with disturbing behaviors, but be consistent. Do let the more heinous kids and parents escape your pervue. Nice to be compassionate until it is your next door neighbor who molests and buries your grandaughter alive in a garbage bag. Me thinks you would have different emotions running through your veins at that point.

Standards are set by emotion, by by right and wrong, eh???

Rondo,
Please read with more care. I said "The whole point Jesus was getting across in John 8 was that our job isn't to be morality police seeking and identifying sin where we see it. It's easy to be caught up in that isn't it. To be called out of sin is to accept the redemption of a Christ who came to save not condemn."

Again, I believe our tendency is to be more like the mob than like Christ. There is sin and scripture is normative for Christians and Jesus does call us out of sin yet there is something that differentiates Christ's approach to sin and sinners from that of the mob. What would you say that is?

Rondo, your demands that Andrew discuss his personal sex life are voyeuristic and out of bounds.

You and Hansen are embarrassing yourselves. You may think you are making a point but the only point you are making is that you are waaay too interested in the details of gay male sexual behavior to have a healthy discussion about it.

Beth, People ought to realize what being gay is all about. Homosexual expression is not really "gay." It's often a brutal and painful foray into base animal behaviour. If people are offended by references to what it actually entails, maybe YOU should be asking yourself why. The continual sniping and innuendo that those of us who oppose homosexuality are ourselves the perverts is absurd in the extreme.

I've seen people with rectal cancer and AIDS. A gaping, putrefying chasm, nearly large enough for a beer can, sits where their ano/rectal canal used to be. There's nothing "gay" about it. It's quite humiliating for the individual. The stigma and obvious correlation between the behavior and manifestation of the illness is unfortunate.

Gay affirming individuals and ministries are the real evil. I'm way beyond the point of being intimidated by those who call me a "fag."

Hansen,

I am a paramedic. Your attempts to gross me out fail miserably - although I am certain that they succeed on others. That you are trying to gross people out shows how uncouth you are.

I have lost count of the number of people I have taken to hospital by ambulance. Not one of them had the kinds of physical problems you vividly paint. Health problems in today's USA society are largely due to poor diet, drug abuse, lack of exercise, and tobacco.

In Africa, as in the US, AIDS is a disease spread by promiscuity, regardless of sexual preference. It spreads to the spouses, children, and others other than the promiscuous.

I have an idea - if you want to discuss this rationally, why don't we change the focus just slightly and discuss the lesbian lifestyle. Here your fascination with anal issues doesn't apply - but I assume you believe that sexual orientation is also a sin.

/Bevin

My experience was working with the gay community, Bevin, homosexual men. I interviewed many HIV discordant couples. Even came across a gay SDA physician with end stage AIDS. One of the coarsest and most vile individuals I encountered over a several year span.

Since I don't know much about the lesbian community, there would be little point in discussing it. I like to discuss things which I am informed about.

Unlike you, I saw what I have described, and much, much more. Your superficial knowledge of the health issues r/t gay promiscuity, which essentially defines the gay community, puts you in league with Elaine, who considers herself knowledgable because of her granddaughter's gay neighbor. You two stick together and keep talking. At least you can listen to ech other.

Hansen - you do not need to engage in this sort of attacking, ad hominim, commentary. Stop it! - website editor

The infectious disease health issues r/t MSM are much more pressing than life style issues. Monogamy among gays is a joke, often a lie. The idea that there is some kind of sanctified homosexuality practiced by gay SDAs is another fiction concocted to fool the gullible.

Just because one partner plays "Harriet" at home doesn't define nor proscribe the activities of "Ozzie".

Elaine,
Your analogy with regards to the behavioral similarity between patients and specialists in dealing with their own situation breaks down if we accept the assumption that homosexuality is not a clinical condition - not an illness, IOW. Medical professionals stress the importance of evidenced based practice so that many of them, not all. try to maintain objectivity by deferring to their professional colleagues in matters regarding their own care. (It's best, for example, for someone like Carrol to let her son make his own choice of a different counselor - as a private matter of seeking a second opinion.)

Bevin and Hansen,
I don't know of any connection between rectal cancer and anal sex, but I could be wrong. What has been unrecognized until lately, and there's now mounting evidence that MSM (male-sex-with-male) and FSF (female-sex with-female) may indeed be a significant risk factor for the spread of HIV-AIDS and STD in Asia and sub-Saharan Africa. Let me just reiterate that MSM/FSF is not synonymous with homosexuality. Here's some references I lifted from PubMed.

1) Men who have sex with men and HIV/AIDS in sub-Saharan Africa. Smith AD, Tapsoba P, Peshu N, Sanders EJ, Jaffe HW.
Department of Public Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK. Lancet. 2009 Aug 1;374(9687):416-22. Epub 2009 Jul 17.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19616840?ordinalpos=14&itool=EntrezSy...

2) The global epidemic of HIV infection among men who have sex with men.van Griensven F, de Lind van Wijngaarden JW, Baral S, Grulich A.
Thailand Ministry of Public Health--US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Collaboration, DDC7 Building, Ministry of Public Health, 11000 Nonthaburi, Thailand.
Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2009 Jul;4(4):300-7.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19532068?ordinalpos=37&itool=EntrezSy...

3) Absent sexual scripts: lesbian and bisexual women's knowledge, attitudes and action regarding safer sex and sexual health information.Power J, McNair R, Carr S.
Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Australia.
Cult Health Sex. 2009 Jan;11(1):67-81.

4) Homonegativity, substance use, sexual risk behaviors, and HIV status in poor and ethnic men who have sex with men in Los Angeles.Shoptaw S, Weiss RE, Munjas B, Hucks-Ortiz C, Young SD, Larkins S, Victorianne GD, Gorbach PM.
David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
J Urban Health. 2009 Jul;86 Suppl 1:77-92. Epub 2009 Jun 13.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19526346?ordinalpos=39&itool=EntrezSy...

"Andy D., can you point me to the post where you tell us whether you have physical problem each time you have unprotected homosexual sex and have to have a physician put "humptity dumptity" back together again??

Get an education before saying stuff like this, will you? Not to be overly crude, but what goes in (if a gay couple choose that form of sexual expression, and not all do) is no bigger than what usually comes out during a normal and healthy bowel movement. To suggest that body parts are ripped apart each time a gay person has anal sex is simply not true.

Hansen, Farrah Fawcett passed away because of rectal cancer. She's not gay. It may or may not have been because of her sexual activity.

Joselito, there is indeed a connection between rectal cancer and anal sex. It's for the same reason that there is a connection between heterosexual intercourse and cervical cancer (though I don't hear the anti-gay bigots mentioning THAT at all!). But anal sex doesn't CAUSE rectal cancer any more than vaginal sex causes cervical cancer. The possible contributing factor is certain strains of the HPV virus. There are about 80 strains, and most do not cause any problems at all. But a few can lead to cancer (which may be prevented by the HPV vaccine). About half of all sexually active men and women carry a strain of the HPV virus.

Because gay men engage in anal sex more than a man and a woman usually do, they have an increased risk of rectal cancer because of their increased possible exposure to the HPV vaccine. Hansen is right in this regard, although he seems to be trying to make it look like most gay men run into this problem, which is not the case. But a higher percentage of them do compared to straight people...(I'm not sure how the numbers would look compared to both rectal and cervical cancer combined in the straight population, however).

Even so, this does not make being gay any more wrong than increased cervical cancer risk makes being straight wrong. In fact, it is even more of a reason to encourage gay marriage and monogamy among the gay community. I say 'encourage' because let's face it, monogamy among the human race is pretty rare and I think it is traditionally even more rare among gay men. Again, that doesn't mean being gay is wrong. The AGBs (Anti-Gay Bigots) here are mixing up issues when they try to bring this stuff up as a reason being gay is a sin.

And yes, I've taken to calling certain posters AGBs...that's not everyone who thinks being gay is a sin. There are many who think it is a sin, but who also think that human rights trump that and that people should all have the same rights regardless of belief. But I think we can clearly see, by the tone and the rhetoric here, who the AGBs are.

"because of their increased possible exposure to the HPV vaccine"

That should have said, "because of their increased possible exposure to the HPV VIRUS.

It never takes long for these discussions to reduce human sexuality to male sexuality, homosexuality to one or two male homosexual acts, and marriage to authority for sexual intercourse.

When I was growing up, the absolute last thing I wanted was a "let's rap" discussion about sexuality from church folks because they were never able to zoom out from Touch Not the Unclean Thing. For whatever reason -- culture, training, dogma, negative experience -- their sense of sexuality was abridged and so that's all they had to pass on to their children and to us. I wasn't interested in abridgment then, and I wouldn't voluntarily expose anyone to it now.

But I am eternally grateful to my mother who, as a former midwife and RN, was able to overwrite both the blinkered nonsense that passed for moral teaching at our churches and the sex-without-ethics classes that passed for education at our schools.

Sure there are gaps in what she taught me; she was a product of her generation and also a product of the same culture that gave the OP his perspective on sexuality, intimacy, and union. I understand that.

Adventism has never been the shining star for a sensible approach to sexuality, though, so it almost seems weird to expect some sort of mass Damascus road revelation on it now -- and I don't expect it. Like most post-Graham traditions, Adventism has nurtured a suspicion for anything that could possibly be construed as "base" or "animalistic"; anything that smacks of "urges" or "lusts." If whole grains don't cure these propensities, the sanitarium should... and lots of prayer! As the OP said, back away from the cake! Given the period in which the denomination began, this is understandable.

But wherever these ideas are the bedrock for teaching and preaching lived Adventism, colleges and churches will keep miseducating people, and they in turn will teach otherswhat they've been taught. I have found that people only get off this gerbil wheel when they finally become willing to listen... and this is a rare thing.

Nevermind 'base' or 'animalistic'...I think there is a general suspicion about anything that brings pleasure or fun into people's lives, whether it has to do with sex, music, food, or whatever. If you aren't suffering, you must not be much of a Christian!

I think that is changing among more and more people, but that attitude is still around plenty.

When the church "profit" warned women never to "excite the animal passions" of her husband, what should we expect--except that all sex is animalistic--even in the marriage bed!

Beth, interesting comments. When HIV was first being discussed, the blood barrier of the colon of the male had to be discussed. Sorry if that is too sensitive a topic. And if some homosexual males feel that their sensitivity is interfered with when protected sex is used, then you have to get into the nitty gritty. My mom was a nurse and new a doctor who saw homosexuals after the raw homosexual sex. They would get infected, and the doctor would have to sort it out.

Ecoli in our food source is one thing but put in as sensitive a place a the male privates and it can be as serious as an Ecoli food outbreak. Sorry to offend your sensitivities, but what do you think this discussion is about, a peck on the cheek???

Ok, I will dance around this to hopefully keep the censors at bay, but what about the guy or gal attracted to a sheep, because they are attracted is that the issue that determines sin or not.

Not this quote also about virgins and cervical cancer:

"It is very unlikely that you would get cervical cancer if you are a virgin. But we do not know for sure if this completely protects you. There are risk factors for developing changes in the cervix that can lead to cancer, or for cervical cancer itself. "

http://www.cancerhelp.org.uk/help/default.asp?page=5391

What do all you posters think Keith is so offended with the comparison of the Civil Rights Movement with the Homosexual Rights Movement. If I was Black I would be steaming made. Every day as a Black man I can't escape my blackness walking down the street. A Homosexual can hide his Homosexualness walking down the street if he chooses. That is why Keith is so mad about the comparison!!!!

Rondo, sheep cannot consent to sexual relations with a person...no animal can.

And yes, anal sex is one of the easiest ways to transmit HIV, whether one is gay or straight. And yet, if both parties do not have HIV, then they can't get it no matter what kind of sex they have with each other. Again, all the more reason to encourage gay marriage.

And just because you can hide your orientation (and frankly, some people cannot) doesn't mean that we don't deserve the same rights as you do. Homosexual rights and civil rights are not separate things. Civil rights are about the rights of ALL people, not just straight people. Honestly, some of you remind me of the pigs in "ANIMAL FARM" with their sign that says "All animals are equal, but some animals are MORE equal than others". That's pretty much what some are saying..."All people are equal, but some are MORE equal than others." It's hogwash.

As a gay man, I *am* equal to a straight man, whether or not the law agrees with me. The trick is getting the laws of a secular country to recognize that, just as blacks, at one time in history (and even still sometimes) had to fight to have legal recognition of what was already true.

Does anyone else find it strange that lesbianism is never discussed. Homosexuality, it seems, is basically homophobia, and it is the male's fear, as women fear neither lesbians nor homosexuals. The male has is sexuality threatened; while the female can enjoy the company of both without fear or being threatened by their orientation.

Always, the disease factor arises; and yet, is there any disease limited to lesbians that does not also effect heterosexuals. Shall we conclude that lesbians are not being condemened, only male gays.

To conclude that all those who desire to marry, whether hetero or homo, is solely for physical intimacy is a very faulty premise, else there would be no lasting marriages, as any one should realize that sex is a very poor reason to marry, period. People choose a life partner because they have mutual interests, they have personalities that "mesh" and because they enjoy the companionship of the other. That occurs in all monogamous relationships, whether gay or not. To compare promiscuity with monogamy is a terrible distortion.

Website editors

My apologies for stepping over the ad hominem line.

Sincerely,

Hansen

Elaine, I think lesbianism is hardly discussed because the AGBs have no ammunition against it. I seriously doubt that promiscuity in the lesbian community is any greater than in the straight community, and is perhaps less so (for all I know). And safe sex? Well, it's pretty much the safest sex you can have when two people are involved, and carries less risk of STD's than straight sex. Commitment? Well, there's a joke that says something about renting the u-haul after the first date...it is only a joke, but it may come from a kernal of truth somewhere.

Gay men are simply easier to take shots at.

A firmly held view is not necessarily a bigot view, and may be over the ad hominem line the censors should draw for civil discussion. At any rate, God created a balance of man and woman, it may be that lesbianism is not discussed as much because there is not usually penetratation, at least penetration that can harm and cause disease. Do I have to draw you a picture Elaine????

Funny. In the UK during the 90s there was big public educational pushback against the theory that "It's not 'real' sex if there's no penetration." Amazing how lasting these ideas can be.

Joselito -- I forgot to acknowledge that third article you posted on education and scripting. It's terrible that it's taken until 2009 for such a study to be done (let's hope it's replicated outside California...) -- but given the perpetual skew of sexuality research, it's not at all surprising.

The findings -- the concerns that participants raised -- are not surprising to me either. Over the years I've kept half an eye on similar studies of teenagers, heterosexual women, and people in lower economic strata, and the same themes recur among those populations too. Very interesting.

KM, so you were about to tell us how procreation happens without penetration?? I am waiting on bated breath. Don't start with the way Salmon do it at the end of their journey, you can do better than that!!!

People choose a life partner because they have mutual interests, they have personalities that "mesh" and because they enjoy the companionship of the other.

Posted by: Elaine (not verified) | 03 September 2009 at 2:38

------------

Elaine, I would say that people should marry for the reasons you've suggested, but I've observed many college-age marriages and marriages of long-time singles, and the common practice doesn't follow this ideal.

The sexual desperation on the two Adventist campuses I'm most familiar with is legendary, and I've been told that's normal for Christian and bible colleges across the US. I think it's sad that, en masse, we're not better equipped.

Rondo, your predictions are unsound -- but amusing. :)

KM, you must be a good Republican and can argue that Bill Clinton was a liar when he said or claimed, "I did not have sex with that lady, Ms. Lewenski." The traditional view is that all roads lead to sexual intercourse, or penetration. But recently the term has been broadened:

http://health.discovery.com/centers/sex/sexpedia/intercourse.html

Thanks for the link, Rondo.

The scandal and impeachment might have been one of the biggest media events I remember from the 90s bar the LA riots and the Simpson trial. Still think it was a really tragic situation.

Rondo and Hansen,
Apparently your viewpoints have been formed from what you have observed - and no one would deny that there is a certain part of the gay community who are represented by your descriptions. Just please do us the favor of not trying to label all gays and lesbians with that stereotype. Because there are other realities which you apparently have not seen. And let me remind you again that a number of prominent Black leaders do stand up for gay rights.

Gay rights are one thing. Something that is probably required by the legal system in America.This is not about gay rights. Homosexual affirming ministries are about calling evil good. Homosexual marriage is just like Sunday keeping. No Scriptural authority for it. Just as going to church on
Sunday is, to some, better than not going at all, so is gay "marriage" better than promiscuity, from a public health perspective.

In the eyes of God, gay marriage and gay promiscuity are sinful. Both fall short of God's ideal. Heterosexual marriage, on the other hand, was ordained by God, like the Sabbath. Gay marriage, like Sunday was not.

It's good to have a choice, however. Sinners can receive the mark of the beast either way, rejection of the Sabbath for Sunday, or rejection of heterosexual marriage for homosexual marriage.

So say some.

Jamie,
HIV-positive men and HIV-positive women seem most susceptible to HPV-associated cancers of the cervix and anus, as well as other body sites, whether or not they engage in anal sex.
1) Risk of human papillomavirus-associated cancers among persons with AIDS.J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009 Aug 19;101(16):1120-30. Epub 2009 Jul 31.
Chaturvedi AK, Madeleine MM, Biggar RJ, Engels EA.
Infections and Immunoepidemiology Branch, Division of Cancer Epidemiology and Genetics, National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, 6120 Executive Blvd, EPS 7072, Rockville, MD 20852, USA.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19648510?ordinalpos=12&itool=EntrezSy...

2) High prevalence of anal human papillomavirus infection and anal cancer precursors among HIV-infected persons in the absence of anal intercourse.Ann Intern Med. 2003 Mar 18;138(6):453-9.
Piketty C, Darragh TM, Da Costa M, Bruneval P, Heard I, Kazatchkine MD, Palefsky JM.
INSERM U 430 and Hôpital Européen Georges Pompidou, 20 rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France

3) Human papillomavirus-related disease in people with HIV. Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2009 Jan;4(1):52-6.
Palefsky J. University of California, San Francisco, California 94143, USA.

Hansen, does that mean that King David, King Solomon, and indeed, even Abraham, the father of Judaism, Islam and Christianity received the Mark of the Beast for falling short of God's ideal for marriage? After all, they all had several wives. If God's ideal was one man, one woman, then it doesn't matter if the bastardisation of that ideal comes in the form of polygamy or same sex marriage does it? If the biblical patriarchs get a free pass even though they were polygamists, why should gay people be any different?

I'm glad to see you believe that gays should have legal rights in America, though.

Joselito, I agree with you. I was talking more about those cancers in those who are not HIV positive. Of course, HIV positive people are more susceptible to many diseases since their immune system is under attack.

The obsession about how people live their private lives is one largely associated with Christians; how many atheists or secular humanists devote such an inordinate amount of time discussing, judging and worrying whether other people's private lives conform to a personal standard that they choose.

If we believe that we should not judge, then it is something that some Christians disobey each and every time they question another person's private life. Is it because they think that God is inadequate to judge and needs a little help, or is for lack of anything better to do.

Jamie, running after someone else's articulation of "the ideal" may not be the best use of your energy. Who created you, who are you today, and what is your Creator making of you?

Humanity is not "original man" and hasn't been for quite some time. No more original diet, no more original work load, no more original wardrobe. Original life span is gone. Original family cracked up pretty quick, and I'm not sure that if Adam were alive now he would recognize me or my lifeworld.

But we are of course analogous to the plural man of Genesis, and Jewish rabbis from Hillel through Jesus, Paul, and the scholars who compiled the midrashim varied the lessons that they drew from that analogy as they taught. Look at the Bereshit Rabbah and you find that some of these lessons are quite quaint; but the source itself is rich enough to make them possible.

"Jamie, running after someone else's articulation of "the ideal" may not be the best use of your energy"

KM, Agreed. I was just pointing out that maybe it's not such a good idea to apply that articulation of "the ideal" to one group of people, especially with the insinuation that God will turn His back on those who don't reach that ideal, when the patriarchs of one's religion don't even reach that ideal in a different way.

what a sick, sick, disgusting article. Africa has issues, the recent report that one fourth of South African men (of all races) admits to rape, and over 90% of Liberian women have been raped... THOSE are issues.

Homosexuality? HUH?

sentence deleted - website editor

Jemand's comment made me go back and read the article itself again (since it's been a long time of just reading and responding to comments). Some of the article actually made me laugh. Sentences such as: " but that’s exactly where I’ve evolved in my understanding of homosexuality–whether procured by nature or nurture, it’s one of many forms of sexual addiction. "

Evolved understanding? Hardly. Especially when a few sentences later he says "And yes, it is all about the sex–if sexual desire were not a part of homosexual relations those relationships wouldn’t be homosexual."

He doesn't get that these things do work in reverse. Does that mean that heterosexual relations are all about the sex? If homosexual relations are all about the sex than so are heterosexual relations. If he truly believes that, I feel sorry for his wife because if we go by his own standards then his relationship with her is all about the sex as well.

Jemanda, I have to agree with you completely. Even if one disagrees vehemently with whether or not it's okay to be homosexual, Africa has a lot more pressing issues than this to focus on.

Why has the author not responded to any of these posts? Surely he has something to say in response.

Carrol, Keith is currently traveling. On a preaching/teaching trip to South Africa.
I have no idea whether he intends to respond when he gets back but I wanted to make it clear that he isn't silent now because he's avoiding the conversation.

@ Jamie -- I understand you.
Thanks.

The essayists that post here, and then aren't around to debate or even discuss what they wrote, are comparable to "drive-by-shooters" who let fly their bullets of words and they don't contribute anything more to the conversation.

Suggestion to Spectrum editors: When someone is asked to write an article, include in the request that they be available, at least periodically, to answer the many questions that they have raised. Most of them, especially of such controversial opinions, should know for certain that it WILL be a controversial topic. Is this too much to expect--or else postpone the publication until the writer is available to comment further.

Elaine, this would be ideal. And I'm a little surprised Kieth has not participated. Perhaps it is due to travel. Since our authors are not paid it is a bit tricky to mandate too much of them. But if a piece is controversial, as this one has been, it is even more important that the author participate. - website editor

I know for certain that he has been out of the country.
Would like to request a little grace on this occasion.

I thought Keith had posted once early on. Maybe not. At any rate, I think it's okay for an author of a piece to just let it stand on it's own merit. I don't think it should be a requirement for them to partake in the discussion afterwards, though I wouldn't be against them doing so.

I think that his article made it very clear how he thinks, so I'm not sure there is much point of him coming on here to repeat what he has already said.

If I'm not mistaken, KM, Keith sounded like he was out of the country when he wrote the piece. You know they do have the internet in other countries!! Read his conclusion about South African sermons to the youth.

Keith is not the only black man expressing his revulsion, in one way or another, at being esteemed akin to homosexuals

http://americansfortruth.com/news/pastor-ken-hutcherson-calls-on-dnc-to-...

This website, "Americans for Truth about Homosexuality," provides an informative glance at the "gay" world from another perspective.

On a related note, "Concerned Women for America" posted an informative obituary on Harry Hay. Mr. Hay, credited with politicizing the "gay" movement, died an avowed homosexual and pedophile, one who celebrated his own first gay experience when he was fourteen years of age

http://www.cwfa.org/articles/2751/CFI/cfreport/index.htm

As one reads thorugh biographical material on Mr. Hay, little is said about his pedophilic interests. Perhaps, like the gay movement he helped start, it was decided that links to pedophilia should be purged from information available to the general public.

Not that its relevant, but in addition to being a militant gay and pedophile advocate, Mr. Hay also had links to the communist party. A complex individual. Mr Hay dropped his communist connections in attempting to legitimize the gay movement. Later, he, as well as others, decided that his pedophillic proclivities also hindered the gay interests.

Being fundamentally evil, gay proponents are willing to package their "product" in whatever way they perceive the public will buy it. Deception and an unknown agenda are at the bottom of their work. NAMBLA was banished from gay celebrations, not because they are eschewed by gays, but because their presence was deemed unsuitable for the new gay positioning.

During my work in the AIDS comunity, I saw just three young men in their early to mid twenties. All had apparently been sodomized in their young teen years and infected with HIV.

"Being fundamentally evil, gay proponents are..."

Are you serious?! Gay proponents are now fundamentally evil? The reason why many here don't take what you have to say seriously is because you lie. First, gay proponents are not fundamentally evil and to say so is outright slander. Second, NAMBLA and pedophelia in general is just as eschewed by gays as it is by straights. Because a percentage of gay men are pedophiles, just like a percentage of straight men are, does not mean gay men in general approve of or accept pedophelia. Again, to say they do is an outright lie on your part. I'll prove it--I'm gay, and I am absolutely against pedophelia. I know a lot of gay men and I don't know any of them who are okay with pedophelia or NAMBLA.

To paint all gays with the brush you just did is offensive and dishonest. As far as I'm concerned, you just lost what little credibility you had left in that last post. Calling a whole group of people fundamentally evil while you lie about us is hypocritical, don't you think?

Rondo -- I know. I also know what he was doing abroad and read one of his late reports on it earlier today. My sole point was that he was legitimately occupied since the OP. Hopefully we've established that now and can move on.

*******

The Black community in America has had a mixed approach to women and sexual minorities for the whole of the 20th Century. People are entitled to take offense to other people's pain; I'm not sure how "my oppression is more oppressive than your oppression" advances anyone, but it's been a common theme in both religious and political movements for the longest time. It showed up within the Black nationalist movements during the 1960s and 1970s and was used to marginalize women who believed that discrimination against women was just as problematic as discrimination against ethnic groups, and men and women who believed that discrimination against sexual minorities was just as problematic as any other kind. There often comes a point where groups designed to be sensitive to injustice get stuck on one or two ideas and lose the ability to see injustice in other places or against other groups. There is always a "good reason" for this.

Our Adventist "idea pairs" may be freedom to worship (we are not always so gungho about freedom *not* to worship) and a Christ who's returning to clean up. As much as I value these ideas, I've also found it helpful to ask myself what they prevent me from seeing. Focusing is not "bad"; nor are many of the ideas that we've advanced over the years. But losing the ability to shift and refocus our vision makes us blind to the rest of the landscape. That's not been good enough for me, but I've also realized that not everyone's built that way. The granny who is born, lives, marries, and dies in the same town is just as much a citizen as the kid who visits every state before he's 22.

Jamie, It is correct to represent people who refuse to repent of their sins as fundamentally evil. The call of God is to repentance, from darkness to light, from the power of Satan unto God.

In general, homosexuals refuse to acknowledge their sin. This,no doubt, corresponds to the narcissim which characterizes their disordered personality.

While you may eschew pedophilia, it is obvious that Harry Hay, the founder of the gay rights movement, did not. Furthermore, to suggest that NAMBLA, which used to have a place in gay pride parades, is loathed by gay men in general, is avoiding the reality of your history.

A significant number of immature men who became openly gay men were sexulized by older men. They were abused, in one way or another, in a prepubescent state.

A good friend of mine was molested, sexually, by his father's best friend. Later, when he grew into a handsome young man with a mustache, his abuser approached him with an offer to pose for gay pornography.

All your protestations are in vain, just like gay love. Look up the term "Chickenhawk," sometime, on Google.

Y'know, the "gay = Communist = un-American = eeeevil" equation has been running since at least the 1940s.
One of the founders of CORE, Bayard Rustin, was attacked in this way.
Martin Luther King, Jr., was also accused of homosexuality and still is thus accused in some white nationalist groups -- for certain people it remains a reliable way to discredit someone.

Sixty years and still going strong.

Sure, there are Black people who do not see acknowledge the prejudice that gay people face. There are also Black people who do. There are gay people who are closed-minded when it comes to race issues, and there are others who are happy to support anyone who's disenfranchised or disrespected.

Seems to me this is less about the boxes a person checks off and more about their experiences, social position, and facility for empathy. Experience may be the best teacher (Mel Boozer once spoke to this). In the absence of experience, it can be really hard to see the similarities between your situation and others'. It is even harder to see those similarities if your self-concept is predicated on difference.

Hansen, you are not the expert on homosexuality you seem to think you are. Nor did God appoint you to be the judge of who is evil and who is not. Please show just a mite of Christian compassion and humility and you might gain a little more credibility.

Carrol, Spectrum has asked all who participate on this forum to refrain from personal attacks. That's a good policy. Mentally ill, emotionally disturbed, organically brain diseased people require treatment, not engagement.

Trolling, on many websites is forbidden. Trolls can not be engaged on the issues because they are not dealing with issues. They are coping with their own illness. They act it out on the website. Adventism is full of people who act out their own mental dysfunction in the context of religion.

Mario Puzo said that Italian is a particularly satisfying language in which to curse and revile others. Adventism, for some reason, functions in the same way for dysfunctional individuals. It provides some special vehicle for unconverted people to be "religious."

Scripture says we reap what we sow. Get it? We reap what we sow. Good luck.

Hansen, what is your reply to those who would point out that a great deal of straight women were sexually abused by a man in their childhood?

hmmmm.... maybe they would have been lesbians, eh?

Sorry Hansen, you're too late. I can see through MANY of your posts that you take an experience of 'a friend' or of someone you 'interviewed' or some extremist big mouth and then extrapolate that to include most, if not all, gay people. So you worked with AIDS patients...it clearly doesn't make you into the expert you think you are, and anyone who actually knows gay people can see that. You are free to paint us with a broad, inaccurate brush, but don't fool yourself into thinking most people don't see through it, and I doubt they lend it much credence.

It might do you some good to go re-read your last posting above and see if it might be self-descriptive.

One main reason other threads have been far more informative and successful in moving the conversation forward was the moderating presence of the original poster.

Can anybody please tell me if Dr Burton, following his original posts, has replied to or even once acknowledged comments and questions that were addressed directly to him?

Denouncing Sabbath Worship
Article - Keith Burton - 07/03/2009 - 04:02 - 181 comments - 0 attachments

Civil Rights and Savage Wrongs
Article - Keith Burton - 08/15/2009 - 22:57 - 266 comments - 0 attachments

The Expert
Article - Keith Burton - 06/08/2009 - 16:57 - 40 comments - 0 attachments

Joselito, in a post above, I asked Spectrum that before publishing an article that they request that the writers at least be available and answer the many comments resulting from their essay. Not to do that, is frustrating and if there is sufficient time to write an essay, surely, there should be time to at least respond a few times. Otherwise, it's a "hit-and-run" type of article which is not in the best interest of Spectrum, IMO.

Whether Burton is in Africa or the Arctic, there are computers always available.

OPEN LETTER TO THE SPECTRUM EDITORS:

As a courtesy to the many bloggers that have been encouraged to use this site, we request that any essayist who contributes an article, be at least available to answer some of the many comments resulting from his or her article. Not to do so, leaves frustration and incomplete resolution. Is that too much to ask. See Joselito's post above where Dr.Burton has written 3 controversial articles, and nearly 500 comments and he is out of the country, unavailable. Surely, Spectrum can do better in promoting good conversation.

We cannot guarantee this, but is is certainly a reasonable request and expectation. We will request this of Dr. Burton for the future. - website editors

Yawn.

I don't blame Dr. Burton for doing a drive by. There's no point for him to engage people who are gay themselves, gay sympathizers, family members, whatever. He expressed his personal revulsion for homosexuality and moved on. Nothing he is going to say is going to change your mind but you'll waste a lot of his time.

Adventists are notoriously needy, clinging, types. Dr Charles Thomas said Adventists were the worst group of people to lecture on health reform because we are always clamoring for some indulgence. Cookies,crackers, peanuts, fruit juice, homosexuality, whatever.

Dr. Burton apparently has sense enough to spend his time with people who will respond appropriately to his message. Good on him.

Hansen, how have you escaped this "notoriously needy, clingy" nature you say Adventists have?

KM, he's just generalizing again.

I've thought about it and realized that it is clear we are being played here. No one seriously poses arguments using the "I once had a friend who ______, and therefore all _______ are horrible evil sociopaths" line of reasoining. And here I am actually arguing BACK to such nonsense. It occurs to me that this is a joke, and he just keeps going to see how ridiculous his arguments can be before we realize he is having us on. And so far they've gotten to the point that the arguments posed are just plain stupid and senseless. And then I'm stupid enough to respond! All I can say is "Good one, Hansen, you got me."

Dr. Burton's approach to the gay community is the correct one. Rebuke them and then ignore them. Most of the homosexual militants here are either Adventist atheists or homosexuals themselves. Some are pathological grievers. Nothing he is going to say is going to change them. Dialogue? LOL.The only thing he is going to acheive by making himself available is personal insults and abuse.

Few well balanced and mature individuals waste their time.

I left AIDS work when the protease inhibitors became available. Those who responded well recovered and went back to their wicked behavior. Why should I waste my time with people who love to sin and refuse to repent?

Here's dust in your eyes.

y'know, Hansen, it is you who's engaging in wicked behavior.

And if that's too personal for the mods, than here's a second sentence. y'know Hansen, it's those who display hateful disregard of true human love who are engaging in wicked behavior.

We have homosexuals posting in this very thread, if Hansen's statements are allowed to stand than mine should be too.

We are seeing great examples of wicked, hateful, truly evil behavior contrasted to and organized against persons who are just hoping for recognition of their love. Hate responding to Love! And what did your god go on about all the time when he supposedly visited last?

hmm... y'know, I think that god if real would castigate many here for not *just* taking his name in vain but making it into something absolutely vile.

I find it fascinating that Hansen's last few statements actually apply to himself...not the gay parts, but the very things he is criticizing actually apply to his behaviour in this thread.

Very interesting indeed...

Jamie,
Sometimes Hansen actually posts thoughtful, compassionate comments on other topics. He is clearly capable of it but this topic sends him around the bend like no other and he ends up squarely in troll territory - whether meaning to or not.

Every once in awhile I've read such outlandish comments that I've even thought he's doing a parody. However, in the past I've suggested others on this blog are being sarcastic or doing a parody because their comments were so extreme and I've had to retract it - turns out they really did think that way (gulp.) I also know there are no doubt some who gulp at a few of the things I say too which is why we are a spectrum I suppose.

Anyway, I'm sorry you put forth effort to engage him in a kind and reasonable manner but the effort wasn't wasted, as you know. There are silent others reading this and I, for one, appreciate your thoughts and perspective.

When God was here on earth, Jesus, he took stands. He was not just for any kind of love, but pure love. Consider the prostitute found in adultery, he did not urge the punishment of the day, stoning, but said, "Go and sin no more." The homosexuals on this thread would do well to take heed of this. Jesus did stand for something, he did have standards of behavior. He was not as some have suggested "God is only LOVE" but declared sin by it's right name.

Interesting that Jesus MUST have thought homosexuality was such a big deal, but He never mentioned it, not even once, that we know of.

Jesus never condemned bestiality either in his life time, but...

I love it when posters use Christ's example as our guide. He is our guide, but like a guide into a wilderness area, not every topic of dicussion comes up. Christ's custom was to attend the synagogue and temple for sacrifices, should that be our guide and example? To deal with Homosexuality with Christ's silence on the matter is that absurd, IMO.

The point being, you still pick and choose what you are going to follow, and then pretend that you don't. It's not like the rest of us don't notice the blatant hypocrisy either. Follow it all...allow slavery, polygamy, stop wearing clothes with different thread, and what-have-you, or admit that you pick and choose.

But when you pick and choose different things than I pick and choose, and then condemn me for my choices, it just doesn't fly. Sorry...it just doesn't.

Such "hot" topics as homosexuality leads to the use of the Bible as a hammer to hit folks over the head--maybe pound some sense into them!

This destructive use of the Bible has led millions to reject all religions and view the Bible merely as a weapon for the armed to use conveniently.

You're so right, Elaine.

Bishop Spong's "The Sins of Scripture" should be recommended to those who worship the word of the Bible instead of God alone.

Getting out in the tall grass if Spong is who speaks for God, IMO. Not much discernment in his camp!!!

Because he doesn't agree with your camp, no doubt.

Bishop Spong is not for everyone: only those willing to open their eyes to a new and larger view of Christianity. His approach lessens the constant behavioral "armies" so often experienced in, yes, Adventism, into the beauty of living the Gospel as shown in the NT--which is the sine qua non for Christians--not the OT which has been the major source for SDA doctrines since its inception; and thus why we still have the "morality and behavioral police" on the lookout for any possible infractions which they deem are not in accordance with scripture.

Authors who reply repeatedly in the comment section of their blog posts are the exception not the rule on Spectrum.

I agree that it would be nice if authors of columns, Sabbath school commentaries and blog posts would comment but would simply note, as long as we're discussing expectations, that Dr. Burton has not been 'lax' in not replying.

Like a car wreck, this thread for some reason has been hard to look at, and yet I keep checking in.

I was initially amazed at Dr Burton's diatribe and bewildered at his calloused and inflamatory commentary. I was also amazed that someone's comments could be so hurtful and hateful and they still be considered an apologist for Christ.

It has also been painful to read the repeated comments of Hansen. There is no love and nothing in his words that would attract me to be a part of any organization he was or is affiliated with. Nothing!

I would go so far as to say, that if Heaven is to be made up of the likes of these, and if my attitudes to others would need to be in line with these men for me to be acceptable there, I would rather not go.

Randy, I can agree with your comments completely. If heaven is to made of those who have contributed some of the hateful and intolerant messages demonstrated by a few here, I want nothing to do with it and would prefer the community of the agnostics, even atheists that will furnish excellent conversation in the other place--wherever it may be.

Hell rather than heaven, to enjoy homosexuality until consummed. Now that is strange. The thread I think needs to be closed when it gets to the point that people start saying they would rather rest in hell than follow God's Word. Really, there are some that are hoping that those so inclined will get their wish, which will make heaven purer than imagining unrepentant perverts and deviates walking through the pearly gates.

Please note and do not disregard the statement was prefaced by "IF."

No one knows who the inhabitants of either place will be, but "IF" heaven is filled with the intolerance often demonstrated here, for some it would be less of heaven and more of the other place. One can only extrapolate that the same attitude, "if" demonstrated in a religious community, would be rejected also.

Rondo, you've COMPLETELY missed the point. No one was saying they'd rather be in hell IN GENERAL. They were saying, with a hint of sarcasm, that hell would be a more joyful place to be than heaven IF heaven were full of the hatred and intolerence displayed in this thread.

I guess the question is, will you enjoy heaven if there are all sorts of gay people there, still loving their partners? Or will you still be too upset about what Other People are doing to participate in the joy that God had given you?

Jamie, seems you have a trend going here, with Elaine cheerleading. Spong, and rather be in hell than a pure heaven. I don't think I miss your drift at all. I know of a lot of sins that some hope to take to heaven with them. Think of the home wreckers, adulterers as well as homosexual deviates. You might feel more at home at HS.com where God is ONLY love, The standards take a back seat and never develop if you don't want them to or you feel COMFORTABLE with your feelings. Comfort isn't the standard of behavior, Jamie.

I was thinking about this thread yesterday, and how difficult it is to define 'homosexual'. Here we have Hansen, Rondo, and others acting like it is a big deal, and yet the precise definition eludes me.

What is the exact action that defines a pair of male friends as 'gay'?

() living in the same house
() sharing the same bed
() touching each other's genitalia
() orgasming while in the same bed
() monogamous anal intercourse
() polygamous anal intercourse

All Hansen's arguments are based around his assessments of the healthyness of the later - but we don't condemn people to hell for not wearing their seatbelts, for being obese, for being overly stressed, or for working in an asbestos factory - all of which are far worse for you. Furthermore he does not condemn heterosexuals for the same practises

All the previous activities are engaged in by most SDA - so obviously they aren't being condemned.

So, I am looking for a biblical definition (not euphemism such as 'lying together') of where the hell line is...

/Bevin

Rondo,

There is nothing bigger than love. Jesus clearly taught that. Therefore saying that God is ONLY love misrepresents love, and misrepresents God. If only you knew love, everything else would come to you naturally.

I think I was chearleading for Elaine and Randy just then :-).

Here is where I stand. I am gay, and I am fine with that. I like me as I am. If God wants to change me into a straight man, He is free to do so (though it would be cruel of Him to do that at this point in my life when He could've saved a LOT of heartache by doing it much earlier).

If I wind up in Heaven, and God has to make me straight before I walk through those pearly gates, so be it. I'm okay with that, since I trust that He'll do what's best there, and that we'll all be joy-filled with whatever he has for us up there. But since He is CLEARLY not interested in changing me into a straight guy down here, I can't see why he'd be all of a sudden concerned with it there.

Rondo,
I am amazed at your reaction to my brief comments.
You stated....."Hell rather than Heaven, to enjoy homosexuality until consumed"....where on earth did that come from?
No where in my comments did I mention, or even allude to homosexuality.

My comments were directed at the stridently hateful dialogue, name calling, prejudices, judgmentalism, and misrepresentation of Christianity, by those using their pious understanding to condemn those who's sexual orientation and or understanding of Scripture is different than their own. My goodness, we are talking about God's children here.

I was very disheartened initially by Dr. Burton's diatribe, but the continued onslaught of malicious and vindictive spewings of Hansen and yourself, along with a few others, showed me, that if this is Christianity, I want none of it.
If I have to think like you, and belief as you do, and if heaven will populated by such hurtful intolerent people as those making such comments here.....it is not the place for me.

Somehow the words of 1 Corinthians 13:1-2 come to mind. Please take the time to read them, because post after post after post, by Hansen and yourself, all I am hearing is...sounding brass, and clanging cymbals.

You might have the gift of prophecy, know all mysteries, have all knowledge, as to move mountains, but don't have love..you are nothing.....1 Corinthians 13:2

I have a sense though, that heaven will not be filled with the pious, the guardians of the law, the holier than thou's, or those who foist their misrepresentations of Christ on others.

Just a hunch....

but don't you know, jamie?

they DO have love.

They've just redefined it to me "following my infallible rules"

and then they go and fuss about homosexuals "redefining marriage" isn't a bigger deal to redefine "love" until it's the opposite?

I think Rondo and Hansen need to know that their remarks have caused one gay person who has been reading these posts to become suicidal.

Yes, jemand, but you forget, it's not REAL love unless it comes with the threat of hell-fire (eternal or not).

Carrol, that's horrible. I hope they realize that people who say hateful things on here are NOT worth killing themselves over. Furthermore, rejection from a church that is more about exclusion than inclusion is also not worth suicide. I hope he or she realizes that whatever these people say does not mean they aren't worthy and loveable JUST AS THEY ARE.

How can those holding such hate, and telling everyone, so piously claim to be Christian--to the point of giving one suicidal thoughts. Such rejection is of the Devil.