The video is much too choppy to enjoy!

If anyone else has trouble viewing this, let me know.

Mr. Carpenter,
It seems like there is a lot of spin put into the comment that SAU sponsored this event. I'm glad that you mentioned, later, that SAU and the SDA Church do not hold or support the views that were expressed by the panel members. It would be great if you posted the reply sponsored by the Religion Department (it was a lot more open to opposing views). I do agree that some points were made that were definately worth looking into, but it seemed that the main flow of discussion was actually designed to cause useless reactionary division. I think that the second Adventist Forum sponsored event, about women's ordination, was much better but still felt like the cards were stacked in favor of one side. It would be great if Adventist Forum actually had discussions that were balanced by supporters from both sides.

This morning, the video came in smoothly, so yesterday must have been the temperament of the computer!

Observer,
Alexander quoted the text present in the description box of the video on YouTube. The words are theirs not his.

This is an incredibly tough issue to deal with and I, for one, would like to commend these young men for openly discussing its complexities. For those of us who, like me, have not an inkling of an idea of what it would be like to be homosexual, having to face the crushing realization that God has not answered our prayers and turned us heterosexual, this panel provided more insight into their plight. At the very least it should beg us to treat these Children of God with dignity, inclusiveness and love, something I fear has not happened very well in our churches in the past. If we do not welcome these individuals with open arms, where is God supposed to send them next?

Excellent presentation and the young men were well prepared. They have given the church the perspective of its young people and who in the church is listening?

It was shocking to hear that a recommendation was made that for a homosexual he would simply have to find another church as the Adventist church could not accept him! What a statement! These are our sons and daughters and with such an attitude we have excluded them from the church. It should be no surprise to hear, as I did in SS class this morning, from the many parents whose children educated through SDA universities no longer attend church

Observer,

Feel free to send your stuff over.

alexander[at]spectrummagazine[dot]org

Am I right in understanding that the Religion Department was offered chance to support this, along with History, Campus Ministries, Social Work, but declined, because they thought that it didn't favor their side?

Are these SAU departments and ministries more supportive of students expressing their own views about homosexuality?

Debates don't resolve issues of right and wrong. They merely decide win or lose. If one were to take the pro-position in a debate on homosexuality and replace the word homosexuality with anyone of a number of descriptive words that describe mind-set i.e. "Kleptomania; Pyromania; Pedophilia what are the chances they would win such a debate with the arguments they put forth? Tom

Tom,

Your bias is showing: In using the word "mind-set" you have assumed that the other words you mention are comparable to homosexuality. There is no biological or scientific rationale to support your assumption.

You are comparing totally dissimilar usages.
Pyromania, pedophilia, et al, have previously been defined as illegal in this country, and as such, are punished as crimes. To compare homosexuality with such action crimes is completely out-of-place. Homosexuality has never been classified as criminal. Homosexual acts may have been, but that is to confuse chosen actions with a biological gender difference. Surely, you would not consider one's race, decided at conception, with pedophilia or pyromania, or would you? If no one chooses either heterosexuality or homosexuality, how can that individual be guilty of a crime. BTW, when did you consciously and deliberately choose to be heterosexual?

Your opinions would have been better expressed if you compared like things.

Elaine

I guess your right. Klepomaniacs, pyromaniacs, and pedophiles all claim the devil made me do it or some other mental disorder. Homosexuals claim God made them that way! You seem to have overlooked that Sodomy is a crime in most states--it is just not prosecuted. A recent president of Andrews found the criminal side to the dismay of many. Tom

Tom,

Do you consider any of the scientific studies showing that homosexuality is NOT a choice? Did the Devil create hermaphrodites and homosexuals?
Is that how one can claim it's all the Devil's fault?

BTW, is heterosexual sodomy also a crime? It has been practiced in many cultures as effective contraception.

"Crime" is a legal term. Homosexuality is NOT condemened either in the Bible or elsewhere. There continues to be a conflation of "Homosexuality" and "Homosexual acts." They are not the same; no more than Heterosexual is simply defining an individual, but not actions. Is a celibate homosexual sinning by simply "being"? If a heterosexual is not sinning by "being" but only by PROMISCUITY why are homosexuals to be judged differently? Is there no place at all for homosexual monogamous relationships? BTW, the Bible says NOTHING, NADA about homosexuality, as the symposium participants showed.

Do you disagree with their conclusions that the church should have room for everyone who wishes to be a part of God's body? Or, that there are those who should be excluded? Thankfully, I can worship with everyone in God's house as being a part of God's family. Those God has not excluded, how dare I refuse?

I would like to thank the panel for finally bringing thought into the University. Nothing would have been more disappointing if the forum were to be done by closed-minded individuals that assume a stance blindly. So I was grateful that both sides were balanced even with their own arguments.

It was a breath of fresh air to see that there are others who are also striving forward instead of assuming that our theology is perfect. God called us to be thinkers. So I would like to thank the panel for presenting the forum in a non-biased approach.

There should be more of this, and allow it to keep being controversial. Only through hard questions and introduction of new thought will we ever grow. And I do believe our schools and church needs growth.

Neander

I really enjoyed this panel on homosexuality. I attended the program on campus on Tuesday night.

Additionally, I have been to many special evening convocations and this has been by far one of the best ones I have ever attended at Southern. When I saw that there was a panel discussion on homosexuality on campus, I expected it to be just another opportunity for people on campus to raise the usual "It's Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve" arguments.

When Matt Burdette presented his research on the views of homosexuality, the biblical views on homosexuality finally became more concrete than just the Adam/Steve arguments. I hope that other convocations here at Southern will live up to the high degree of scholarship and respect that this convocation did.

I was very pleased at the panel discussion. The guys on the stage did an unbiased and thoughtful presentation. I personally agreed with much of what was said. Although I have a different opinion on some of the interpretations, I felt that the panelists were able to open the discussion and give people a glimpse into an important view that all Christians should know and understand. We seem to get so closed minded in the church, that we lose touch with those we are supposed to exist for.

I think we also need to discuss how Christians and the church should relate to GLBTs. I think the controversy is being sparked by the argument on whether or not it is a sin. As far as I'm concerned, that's not up to me to decide. Since its not a situation I personally have, I don't pretend to know what I'm talking about. I'll let God be the judge while I befriend everyone regardless of race, sex, orientation, religion, etc... as Jesus has commanded.

Take care and God bless!

I wrote this e-mail to the panelists and would like to share it here.

Dear panelists,

I would like to congratulate you on the discussion over homosexuality and the Family of God. I believe that it was a good idea to address a topic of such great importance, since it is a major issue in our modern day church society. I appreciated the way you guys strictly followed the Bible and did not take the debate to a personal level, even though you each had a strong opinion on the subject. I also enjoyed how the audience was able to participate in the discussion. And even though some of the questions were a direct attack on some of you, you guys kept your cool and where able to respond in a professional manner.

My expectations were superseded. I came prepared to see a clash between the two opposing sides of the issue but I was relieved to see that the debate was well planned as to not leave room for offense. I would like to see a more in depth continuation on the subject. I would also appreciate discussions over other contemporary issues conducted in likewise manner.

The recent panel discussion on homosexuality and the Adventist church was a prime example of what a university is all about. As I sat there listening to the ideas and well-researched viewpoints, I was proud of SAU!

That the University would sponsor a discussion such as this was truly inspiring. Hopefully there will be more discussions in the future that will continue to be a catalyst for thought and change among the students and faculty alike.

The panel was held in a very scholarly manner. One side presented the view that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. The image of God is reflected by loving individuals (e.g. Jesus) just as much as through heterosexual couples. Leviticus is firstly part of the ceremonial law, and secondly more concerned about wasting semen than about the morality or immorality of the homosexual relationship. Most verses that condemn homosexuality do so because of its association with idolatry. 1 Corinthians 6, for example, is a graphic reference to the male temple prostitutes (literally "soft men") and their patrons (loosely translated "homosexuals"). It is a condemnation of pagan idolatry, not of homosexuality in general.

The other side held that the heterosexual couple is the highest reflexion of God's image and character. God did, after all, create Adam and Eve and tell them to procreate. He never gave any indication that men should copulate with men or women with women. In an effort to maintain the debate at a high scholarly level, Matt conceded that the 1 Corinthians 6 verse is irrelevant to the debate.

Each side was given equal time to articulate its views, although it is unfortunate that one member of the conservative side had a terrible case of stage fright and was unable to say anything coherent. This was not an attempt on the part of the organizers to weaken the conservative argument. They asked numerous others to fill the position (myself included) before they asked this student.

After the officially period debating ended, both sides agreed that the Bible's treatment of homosexuality leaves the subject open for debate. There is not a clear mandate for or against it. They then argued that whatever side the church comes down on, it should welcome homosexual individuals into fellowship. They then answered questions from the audience. The idea of having a gay and lesbian club on campus was from the audience, not the organizers. The panelists, in fact, said it was unreasonable to expect a conservative institution like Southern to endorse such a club.

The debate was attended by approximately 150 students, I would estimate, who all paid close attention. The student body seems eager for discussion of relevant social issues such as homosexuality.

Education is the search for truth, not truth in and of itself. With respect to Tuesday's panel discussion, I found many in the audience came in with this mistaken belief, and thus turned a search for truth into an emotionally -charged argument. What was an intellectual and academic event was, by many imprudent members of the audience, an attempt to create a circus-like atmosphere. Cheers were awarded to the conservative argument after every dependent clause, and jeers were dealt to the liberal viewpoint before it was even expressed. When I left the panel discussion, what optimistic views I had of many Southern students being open-minded were diminished.

Consider this episode, a shining example of my experience. I remember Raymond's microphone getting some feedback during his reply to the conservative contentions. Three gentlemen behind me yelled that, "It is GOD shutting him up!" Though I had heard comments like these before, this was enough. I waited until I calmed down and directly confronted the man sitting behind me. After calmly asking him to be respectful, his reply was along the lines of, "No, they aren't asking for audience opinions, so I'm going to say what I want! If you want to talk about this outside we can do that." Though I dislike stereotypes, I already supposed him to be a Theology major. Later I found out he was.

My point is behavior like this is anti-intellectual and inappropriate. My views about the future of our church and our university have been somewhat compromised. Many students who I have talked with seem to believe that because I endorse a panel discussion about a controversial topic, I automatically support that topic. I think these students should demand a refund from Southern (or from their department), because they have not been taught the fundamentals of academic discussion and discourse. But let us suppose I do support a topic, such as accepting homosexuals into the family of God. The remarks I have receive in no way should occur on a university campus, much less in the Adventist church.

I believe more panel discussions should happen, no matter what the topic. Let truth be authority. Let the arguments stand alone, free from the raucous momentum caused by narrow-minded individuals. Most of all, let education remain the search for truth. If we already have the truth, then why even go to college? I find that in a certain department on campus, this is the case. No critical thought is necessary because there is one truth. Progressive revelation and questioning fundamental assumptions is frowned upon. Instruction consists of identifying and recognition only comes through laying independent thought down and upholding the dogma of "groupthink."

Though some would say we have let the Devil in at Southern and what is happening is a disease that must be stopped, I would counter that the real disease is anti-intellectualism, bigotry, and for some, apathy. Never have I seen on this campus so much discussion regarding such an important issue. If this panel discussion has caused some to examine their beliefs and look critically at different opinions, I call that a success. In short, let us encourage the solution and not the disease.

I would like the panelists to remember two things:

1. Close-minded people will ALWAYS BE close-minded – so don’t let them get you down.

2. When the going gets treacherous, … DUCK & COVER until the firing subsides.

All of you obviously put a lot of work into this panel discussion, all of you have touched some raw nerves, … but (hopefully,) you have made some people re-think some theological “givens” that aren’t really “written in stone.”

(Written to the panel on Wednesday after the panel.)

To the panel—

I want to thank you all for your efforts in addressing an issue that is far too often swept under the carpet in our community. Your extensive studies were made evident by the intelligent, Biblical perspectives presented. I am proud that there are people on campus who are actively seeking God’s truth and trying to teach it to others—it is by no means an easy task teaching God’s people. I believe it is vital to show Christ-like love to all people regardless of their lifestyle. Was not the greatest commandment to love? To do anything otherwise is to neglect the very life that Christ lived and taught.

I am also pleased by your application statement. It is oftentimes not very easy to put opinions aside and come to a consensus, but you all did that beautifully. The ongoing battle between liberals and conservatives has no place in the body of Christ. We are meant to be unified as one body with one head. It is an admirable gesture to publicly join together two positions in a loving effort toward, hopefully, a unified body of Christ where there is room for ALL sinners.

Do not ever forget these efforts—our church needs people like you.

With thanks,

A. Hartz

In some areas the Bible clearly ended up on the wrong side of history. For instance it approves of slavery, the semitic as well as the Roman variety. Everyone admits today that slavery violates the very spirit of the gospel. Conversely, the Bible disapproves strongly of homosexuality (I'm sorry panelists, I don't believe for a minute that Paul would have modified his views on homosexuals if he had been teleported to our day), and again history is in the process of making the Biblical view obsolete. Conservatives may deplore that, but if slavery is anything to go by, the Christians of the future will accept homosexuals as equals before God.

When it came to slavery, Ellen White and the other abolitionists could care less that this "peculiar institution" had divine sanction, and was approved in both the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. EGW, for instance, opposed the Fugitive Slave Act and urged people not to obey it:

"The law of our land requiring us to deliver a slave to his master, we are not to obey; and we must abide the consequences of violating this law. The slave is not the property of any man. God is his rightful master, and man has no right to take God’s workmanship into his hands, and claim him as his own." (Testimonies 1: 202).

But note that in doing so, she elevated morality above scripture. To her the spirit of the Bible--in this case--was more important than the letter.

The apostle Paul, on the other hand, felt so beholden to Roman civil law (probably less to the slavery legislation of the Torah) that he induced the convert Onesimus to return to his Christian slaveholder in Asia Minor (Epistle to Philemon.) To Paul slavery was no denial of the spirit of Christianity. To EGW (to her credit)it was.

I hope people of faith will come to treat the Biblical condemnation of homosexuality the way they now view the Bible's sanction of slavery--as an outdated relic of Antiquity.

Aage Rendalen

I wouldn't care if the bible said "Homosexual individuals in the year 2008 are immoral and they all shall be condemned to hell." I would still be forced to disagree.

To be narrowed to a largely biblical debate seems somewhat silly except to carry out a pedantic search for legal loop holes to allow one's self to believe what is right. It's my position that justice and compassion know no book of law and need no endorsement to be fought for. I wager a loop hole could be found for any behavior (example Murder: God sanctioned genocide on neighboring civilizations and the killing of unarmed woman and children). Should we hold a biblical debate on genocide? No where that I know of in the bible does it condemn genocide. I can think of more divinely directed genocides than mentions of homosexuals.

Even in the favored Sodom and Gomorrah mentioning of homosexuality we have the "good guy" offering his daughter to be gang raped. Should we take away from that story that the bible supports giving one's daughter up for rape?

At what point do you simply give up looking for a loop hole if it's not there? Should church members be asked to change their convictions to conform only with biblical doctrine? Church doctrine has been decided almost exclusively outside of the realm of biblical jousting (Women's rights, Slavery etc etc etc.) and I wager this issue will as well.

Baby steps I suppose.

Galvin,

If we believe that the Christian and Jewish Scriptures are sacred, then we need be careful in how we apply the texts to individuals significantly removed from the time in which those texts were written. The point: there are biblical principles within scripture that are within stories that confront a cultural construct within context of the time period.

The story of Sodom and Gomorrah is a perfect example of this. Whether or not the story actually took place is not the point, the point is that the people of those cities were not hospitable to their guests--a time-honored Jewish custom. The same-sex acts (not homosexuality), rather gang rape and sexual variance are for the purpose of violating Lot's guests.

I'm off to drive home to Jersey right now, more later.

Seventh Day Adventist has been blessed with a better understanding of the Bible than any Church on this planet. Yet we dare to have the audacity to contemplate the acceptance of the abominable practice of homosexuality. God destroyed the Antediluvians, the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah and the Canaanites for such gross behavior. It is a disgrace for us to discuss it in our schools.

If we want God’s blessing and protection, from the evil coming on this world, we can never accept homosexuality among us. In Ezekiel 20 the Israelites wanted to be like the nations around them, at the same time they wanted God’s blessing and protection, but they were told this could never happen.

JB
The issue is not "acts" but people. It is easy to condemn unmentionable acts, but it is not so easy to tell a friend who for no fault of his own is different from you that he is damned.

And a bit of gratuitous advice: if you want to preserve your belief that Adventists score higher on God's Bible quiz than anybody else, you should avoid studying theology at a reputable university. I was there once myself.

Gavin
I agree with you that culture and not exegesis has driven Christians to change their stand on a number of issues. I agree with Raymond, though, that in a church context, you can't advocate for an issue as if there was no Scripture or tradition to which people are understandably very attached. (Translation: you come across a bit rough around the edges.)

A wager: there is not one person posting here who lives solely by all of the injunctions found in Scripture: not one.

Explanations may abound: we live in a different world (true), their customs were based on lack of scientific and biological knowledge of the human body (ample evidence of that), their understanding of the cosmos was much less than ours with our telescopes and space satellites, and more.

How then, can anyone claim that their ancient prescriptions and classifications of abominations (as explicitly detailed by the panel) shoud guide our understanding and actions today? How many refuse to be near a menstrual woman today? Or a man who has released semen less than 24 hours? How many defer back to Levicitus for their descriptions of many things, usually directed at men and often to the great disadvantage of women?

Not until you are ready to admit that we should return to those "Biblical Daze" in all our manner of living, will anything said about a condition that was totally unrecognized and unknown, will have any importance. E.g., the ancients knew nothing about the female's contribution to reproduction, believing that the male carried life and the female was only an incubator for life that was implanted--thus the virginal conception was believable because of their ignorance of male/female genetic inheritance. Not until Mendel, in the mid 1880s, was genetic inheritance fully understood. This explains the waste of semen mentioned by the panelists in failing to "be fruitful and multiply," distorting God's plan. It is unwise to follow that instruction today when our planet is suffering from over-population with eventual famines and other natural diasters, including wars, that somewhat offset the population growth.
Folks, we are not living in the firsts century A.D., nor should we expect to live as they did. Do you understand the difference between "descriptive" narrative and "prescriptive"?

I am pretty coarse. :D

My exception though is that it's all a song and dance.

This debate is part of the dance. Whoops forgot SDA... just song no dance. (I jest, I jest. :D ) Church doctrine is almost never changed through further biblical interpretation. The debate happens in society. The justification is later found in the Bible to conform and align with public opinion. To debate it on biblical terms is really little more than a warm up for the later process once the hearts and minds of the congregation have been decided.

This debate is proof that both positions could be justified biblically. Beyond that it's of little interest.

---

As I see it. Sexual rights are just as important as the civil rights movement, women's sufferage or the emancipation of slaves. And bigotry such as JB's completely disgust me and I have no tolerance or patience for it. The fact that there is even a debate over whether or not we should tolerate and accept them offends me and I hope we look back on this part of church history with the same humiliation that we do on the slave trade or the conquest of the Native Americans.

When it comes to this topic I don't mince words.

This debate was very inspirational to watch. I now have hope for the future of the SDA chruch; that is if these fine panelists stay in the church.

A couple of comments:

1. Using terms such as sexual orientation, same sex sexual intimacy and GBLT people is more accurate and leads to less confusion than "homosexuality". No wonder so many people confuse same sex sexual intimacy with sexual orientation. GBLT people experience the full range of partnering experiences. Love, companionship, trust, respect, friendship, longing, mutual support and responsibiity.

2. I was happy that someone brought up the catch 22 that GBLT people face in the SDA church and throughout the conservative Christian world. You can't be sexually intimate unless they marry, and you can't marry because of their sexual orientation.

3. It was also good to hear a bit about the complexities of biological sex, gender identity and expression and sexual orientation. Intersexed people like myself who are also members of the GLBT community are a reminder that started in Genesis with male and female is a vast oversimplification of the biological diversity of humanity.

Aage,

I think Elaine has pointed out very clearly that we are all sinners. This means if God is going to punish sinners we are all going to suffer. We are reminded of this every time we go to a funeral: “The saint who enjoyed the communion of heaven, the sinner who dared to remain unforgiven, the wise and the foolish, the guilty and the just, have quietly mingled their bones in the dust.”

There is one and only one way of escape. We must confess our sins and forsake them through the power of the Lord Jesus Christ. Sin such as the gay life style has been condemned for so long by the righteous that it is beyond question. We are all born sinners but that is not an argument to God that we a not sinners because we were born that way, nor can it be a justification for the gay person that he was born that way. Christ has the power to cure hereditary or cultivated sins.

It is not possible to separate the “acts” of a person from who the person is. We are defined by how we live. I agree, it is not easy to condemn a friend for bad behavior, or even more difficult to condemn our own behavior when it is wrong, but if we are going improve and go on to become mature people it must be done.

This discussion is destined to go around in circles as interested persons look for acceptance of homosexual life styles. Every Bible student knows that homosexual practice is clearly condemned as a sin needing forgiveness. That we are all sinners in some way is beyond dispute. Therefore,an heterosexual who is a practicing adulterer, child abuser, fornicator etc. is just as much condemned as one who is a practicing homosexual. The on-going debate is to find acceptance for homosexual life-styles as "normal" within the Church community. Sadly, a point can be made that sinful heterosexual life styles have already to a remarkable extent been normalised by the turning of a blind eye by pastors and congregations in the SDA Church.

Greetings,

I've enjoyed reading the responses to the topic at hand. This is generating as much conversation here as it had on campus in April. First of all, I’d like to make clear my bias on this issue. I am a theology major at SAU therefore some of you may write me off as being one of the “biased and bigoted people” from that “close-minded” department on campus, but hear me out and base your opinion on my arguments rather than my major.

First of all, I agree with my good friend mhermann that I was both very pleased yet appalled at some of the responses to this convocation. This was by far the best one all year because it did what none other could do: make people think and come face to face with whether their beliefs are based on biblical principles rather than simply going along with what we’ve been told to believe. With that being said, the theology major that mr.hermann encountered in NO WAY represents the department as a whole therefore to label us all that way is erroneous.
To understand this issue, it is important to see the historical period which we live in. “In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association (APA) removed homosexuality as a mental disorder from the APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-II). This decision was a significant victory for homosexual activists, and they have continued to claim that the APA based their decision on new scientific discoveries that proved that homosexual behavior is normal and should be affirmed in our culture.” Feel free to Google this information, it’s out there. This decision taken by the APA is a significant reason why we are debating this issue today. However, the bible does not pull any punches on this issue. While BEING a homosexual is not a sin, what the bible DOES condemn the sexual act itself in both the Old Testament and in the New.

When I hear the argument regarding slavery being condoned in the Bible, I remember the conversation Jesus had with the Pharisee about divorce in Matthew 19. While the bible made provision for slavery just like it did for divorce, it neither condones it nor affirms it. Homosexual acts, on the other hand, are condemned in not only the Protestant faith but also Catholicism, Judaism and Islam. Think about it, even though they each have different beliefs, all agree practicing homosexual behavior is wrong because the issue is not a matter of beliefs or culture but a moral one.

A question at the convocation was “Would homosexuality exist had sin not entered into the world?” Even though that question was sidestepped, the answer is clearly “No”. Neither will homosexuality exist in the New Earth, so why should we suggest that the practice be condoned here? Sodom and Gomorrah were not destroyed solely because of homosexuality but I’ve written too much already.

Finally, I have friends as well as family members who are homosexual. I can and do love them as brothers while not agreeing with their lifestyle. Yes, I hug them and hang out with them like any other person and they even have gone to church with me! When it comes to the church, we all know it isn’t perfect. Yet, the way to change things is not by lowering the standards but elevating Jesus to all. This includes his both his love of the sinner yet, also the command to “go and sin no more.” One last thing, does anyone know if the response that the religion department gave (at the request of the administration) on this issue is out there somewhere? I feel that would be the best example of how both the department and our church as a whole feels about this issue. I have more i can say, I'll leave it at this for now.

Nelson
Good thoughts thus far. By the way 2/3 of voting members of APA abstained from 1973 vote according to my reputable Psychiatric Prof.,Gary Rupp,M.D.,who I had in counseling classes at RTS. Most members felt it should be kept as a disorder. 1/3 of members voted and decided the issue that dropped homosexuality as a practice as a disorder. He says there were very strong political issues/overtones associated with the vote at the time.

A loving God "of relationships" never accepts disobedience as love. God is Love..."love" is not God. He accepts repentant sinners who are seeking to follow His will by His grace.

These "attitudes" are welcomed into the fellowship of the Christian Community as members of the body of Christ. All may come and associate but all are not to become members of the body of Christ until they have the above attitudes of not willingly and openly "practicing sin" (present continuous tense). This of course requires that one acknowleges what sin is in the first place. Jer.3:13.

Love and show respect to all...yes. Accept what the Bible as read by a 12 year old can understand as sinful behavior (before all types of deconstruction of human language) as "good"...no.

Tom Z. and I are somewhat burned out on the issue I think as it is not our major focus or purpose in life. We know and both have homosexuals close to us (as I understand) and don't make it a practice to bring up the issue to them unless asked as they already know my view.

They also know that I consider myself a sinner.(yes, we are all yet incomplete) That I attempt to call sin by the name the Bible calls it as it applies to my past and present mistakes. tHAT By God's good Spirit, I seek to be an overcomer while reckoned as righteous in Christ my Savior. Simul Justus et Peccator. Praise GOD!

Are you out there and ok Tom? Hope so!

Regards,

pat

Once again, several Pat facts are just flat out wrong.

As a matter of fact, at the meeting of the newly elected Board in Hawaii in May 1973, the late Dr. Jack Weinberg made a motion to make the change in DSM-II, but while it was evident that the motion might pass, it was felt by the Board that input from the Assembly and other components of APA as well as a recommendation from the Task Force on Nomenclature was necessary.

However, major credit must be attributed to Dr. Robert Spitzer for the action of the Board.

Dr. Spitzer was a member of the Task Force on Nomenclature, chaired by Dr. Henry Brill. Dr. Spitzer had been in contact with gay activists who appeared at meetings in New York. He organized a symposium at the APA annual meeting in Hawaii with representatives from all sides including gays and lesbians. Dr. Spitzer concluded from this meeting that action was necessary. He brought the issue to the attention of Dr. Brill who then assigned Dr. Spitzer the task of preparing a resolution and a memo ensuring that the document to be presented was scientifically sound and persuasive.

It should be noted that the resolution had already been approved by the Council on Research and Development, the Reference Committee, and the Assembly. Yet in order to obtain passage of the resolution, certain compromises had to be made to secure unanimity of the Board. Thus, the recommendation of the task force that homosexuality is "a normal variant of human sexuality" was rejected by the Board.

The Board changed the wording of the task force that homosexuality "by itself does not constitute a psychiatric disorder" to "does not necessarily constitute a disorder." The unanimous approval by the Board of Trustees made history, and for most of us on the Board it was gratifying moment and one of the high points of my APA presidency.

A group of psychoanalysts then filed a petition for a referendum to reverse the action of the Board. The referendum was held during the regular APA election, and the Board action was supported by 58 percent of the voters, with 37.8 percent in favor of overturning the action out of slightly more than 10,000 voting.

It passed with a 3/2 margin. True, there were around 18,000 members of the APA community, all entitled to vote, but to argue that non-voting abstainers (voting abstainers = 4.2%) somehow corrupt the results would require application to most other votes, such as US elections and General Conference sessions, in which not everyone qualified chooses to exercise their right. Furthermore, to intimate that all those who didn't vote did so in opposition requires a fanciful leap, particularly since the decision has continued to hold in a democratic body. To apply Occam's razor here, it seems that those abstainers were split into pro and con camps with plenty of folks who didn't care either way.

There is no way to reputably cut the data to come up with the argument that 2/3 of voting members abstained. It appears that your reputable prof. is making wholly unsubstantiated assumption that all those who didn't vote agreed with those who voted against.

This sort of bald-faced intellectual dishonesty continues to cloud arguments from climate change due to the carbon-basis of the industrial revolution to finger-wagging against same-gender affection.

Here's some further fact-checking vis-a-vis the traditional complaints about the APA vote. http://www.ralliance.org/TVC_APA.html

Also, did Pat just advocate for a 12-year-old interpretative approach to Holy Scripture? Is that really what's required to single out two women kissing as sinful? Ooh, yuck! Gay cooties!

Alex,

I sourced the APA situation from my MD.Counseling Prof. at RTS. If he is wrong, and I allow that possibility, I will accept it. Your sources may also be wrong. I don't have privy to the actual facts of the '73 meeting and events leading up to it.

Boy are you ever fixated on global warming Alex. That is a little scary to me. I understand that their has been little recorded warming according to some in about 9 yrs. In Nature Mag.'s most recent issue some were implying warming is on hold for perhaps another 5+ years as I understand it. Perhaps "negative feedback" is working.

As to 12 yr.olds and scripture. I do not believe that the language of scripture was written in a way that required one to reframe the majority of very clear cut language. This is not the genre of poetry or prophectic symbolism. That does not mean that proper theological training is not most useful/"at times necessary" when studying scriptural topics.

Misapply my words and intents as your usual practice is and necessitates to accomplish your agenda Alex...but it doesn't faze me.

PS. Curious if you are willing to acknowlege your poor exegesis of Haggai and "redistribution"?

pat

PS. Actually Alex I find ladies kissing to be rather sensuous at times...but that is the "old Pat" and I try to avoid the thoughts. Chew on that a while...boy have I become vulnerable!

Sure, the reason I provided sources is so that anyone would be able to check my facts (including an APA president) and not merely wonder if I'm wrong.

I just tossed in the global warming thing for kicks. . .it might just be true. : )

Perhaps I'm overreaching, but the argument that I was making with Haggai is that God clearly was calling for redistribution - from the wealthy paneling their own houses to paying more attention to God dwelling among them. From there we have God actually present on earth in Christ telling us that as we do unto the least of these we do unto God. Therefore, it seems that if God was calling for financial refocusing (wealthy paneling to God on earth) and then God on earth said care most for the least, then we shouldn't wait for the second coming to treat others like Jesus.

If one is going to recognize the variegation of scriptural meaning regarding poetry and genre, than why not recognize the cultural influence as well?

Our friend Nelson grants that God accepted the culture of slavery but also accepted the culture of homophobia. Then God rejected the culture of slavery, but not a culture of homophobia. What's missing, of course, is a consistant hermeneutical principle as to why one collection of verses is no longer eternally true but the other is.

Why can't I apply these verses today?

Let all who are under the yoke of slavery regard their masters as worthy of all honor, so that the name of God and the teaching may not be blasphemed. Those who have believing masters must not be disrespectful to them on the ground that they are members of the church; rather they must serve them all the more, since those who benefit by their service are believers and beloved. Teach and urge these duties. Whoever teaches otherwise and does not agree with the sound words of our Lord Jesus Christ and the teaching that is in accordance with godliness, is conceited, understanding nothing, and has a morbid craving for controversy and for disputes about words. From these come envy, dissension, slander, base suspicions, and wrangling among those who are depraved in mind and bereft of the truth, imagining that godliness is a means of gain. (1Tim. 6:1-5)

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with fear and trembling, in singleness of heart, as you obey Christ; not only while being watched, and in order to please them, but as slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart. (Eph. 6:5-6)

Tell slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect; they are not to talk back, not to pilfer, but to show complete and perfect fidelity, so that in everything they may be an ornament to the doctrine of God our Savior. (Titus 2:9-10)

Slaves, accept the authority of your masters with all deference, not only those who are kind and gentle but also those who are harsh. For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. (1Pet. 2:18-29)

Nelson writes:

While the bible made provision for slavery just like it did for divorce, it neither condones it nor affirms it.

I hope that with all this liberalization at SAU that they're still teaching their students to read the plain words of the Bible. : )

I believe that those verses are, in fact, full of affirmation about slavery, including suggesting that it is to the glory of God. It is significant that white Christian slave owners used these to label abolitionists as going against the natural order that brings glory to God. Shouldn't those Christian slaves obey their Christian slavemasters?

Roughly 160 years ago, after the U.K. outlawed slavery but before the U.S. did, would someone have been Biblical in the U.K. but not in the U.S.?

And would that U.S. slavemaster been justified in enslaving a person to keep them from homosexual acts?

I'm just looking for a consistent hermeneutic, one that shows the interpreter is not just reading their own desires (or culture) into the text.

I was very pleased to see that SAU had a debate on Homosexuality. I once went to that school and while I attended I knew of people who were discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. How does that make a "religious" school look? Is God not suppose to be the main focus? One of love, understanding, forgiveness, respect, and acceptance. Many Christians are close-minded hypocrites. For the SDA church to discriminate against homosexuals, makes me ashamed to even say I am SDA. I want to be part of a church who is loving and shows compassion regardless of orientation.

We live in a sinful world. Some "Christians" try to say that same-sex relationships aren't part of God's plan...well tell me what part of this world was truly part of God's plan...sin changed everything. I also fully believe that some people are born "gay". Why would someone chose to live a life where they will face discrimination, be outlawed, families disown them, churches outcast them. Would you, as a straight person chose that? You would have to be crazy, right?!

It is also funny that whenever a straight person is asked, what if one day they were told that being straight was wrong, and they had to be homosexual to be accepted...they couldn't even wrap there small close-minded brains around the thought that something they were "naturally" could be wrong. So why go telling homosexuals they need to be reformed and change their orientation? For some, if not most, its impossible.

Above all us, what really matters in life is having a loving relationship with God and loving man-kind. I think that God looks more gracious on a homosexual who is in a loving relationship and loves God, then a straight person who is judging and showing hate towards one of God's children.

Funny that a 12 year old could read it one way... but we often 'shield' many parts of the bible from 12 year olds because it would "lead to confusion".

The bible should be read plainly when it plainly matches our expectations but in depth greek and hebrew study overlayed with cultural interpretation when it differs?

It is undeniable that there is no consistent hermeneutical principle that the church has applied to scripture. You will likely not live long enough to see it, nor the criteria used to select scripture that is relevant today and that is outmoded culturally.

That is why it's imperative that each person read and interpret scripture through his own reasoning ability. To do less is to return to the days of illiterate parishoners who were at the mercy of the clergy to define proper religious belief and behavior. Not until the church gets up to speed and realizes that a great number of its members are as knowledgeable, if not more so, than many of its clergy, will it be able to forestall the questioning and exodus of its more enlightened members.

Is anyone else ashamed of the church's position on this and other subjects? When asked can you give the position of the church as accepting or rejecting of homosexuals? Do you also agree or disagree with the position of excluding female ordination? While most other protestant bodies include female ministers, the SDA church is one of the few that continues to deny equal recognition.

Alex,

Gary Rupp was not a Yoyo or alarmist. I went back to my notes which are sometimes not the best and they said ,"1973"-- classification changed. Then I saw 1979 in the margin of where I also had some of the voting info I gave.

Part of Rupp's point was an "APA administrative" push at the time for change that Rupp, a contemporary and member at the time, said was not in the accord with the majority of members. I wonder if there was a later '79 vote or questionaire that said the old designation should have remained? It's been 10 yrs since I had the class.

Anyway, I wonder if we have any APA MD Psychiatrist of the time period(late 60's through 70's) who are readers that could give us their take.

pat

Elaine,
I am ashamed on the church's position on the subject of homosexuality. And I do not think that women should be excluded from ordination. That is showing discrimination against women, something that has happened for way too long. I thought that everyone was created equal and seen equal in God's eyes? It is hard to be part of a church with hypocrites, but no one is perfect right? I think that people should be more concerned with their relationship with God then on what their neighbors are doing.

I post this for information puposes. I can not attest to all the info, as this is not my field of expertise, but I believe this site offers positions with which one can see other legitimate opinions which one might not see if they had only one source of information availiable. You know something like Spectrum.

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

1 view of the history of classification change.

pat

Whether or not homosexuality is classified as a disorder is somewhat irrelevant.

Near sightedness is a "disorder". Compared to many animals all human vision is a "disorder" as far as resolution is concerned. But near sightedness isn't viewed as something for which people should be condemned on a moral basis.

The NARTH opinion states that being a homosexual is a disadvantage. Fine. If someone would rather have a larger pool of potential mates... let them under go NARTH conditioning.

But every single argument I could find used against homosexuality in that article could be applied to Mexican Immigrants:

§ Mexican immigrants are disadvantaged because of a language barrier.

§ Mexican immigrants are more distressed because of culture shock.

§ Mexican immigrants are intrinsically disadvantaged due to prejudicial hiring practices.

----

I would wager I don't view more than 4-5% of the opposite gender "dateable". I guess I also am a sexual deviant. As are people who live in small towns. The infertile...

I couldn't agree with you more Gavin. I enjoy reading your discussions.

I’d like to begin with a question:

“Does the Creator of the Universe reserve the right to determine what is normal behavior or abnormal behavior? What is moral or immoral? Or has he transferred all of that duty to mortal men and women?”

If he gives us jurisdiction and we can set our own standards, then the APA’s decision to remove Homosexuality as a mental disorder would be an example of how men can make and unmake moral standards depending on the times they live in. Yet, if He does reserve the right to say what is natural and unnatural then we as people can fuss all we want but that won’t change something the Lord has said.

Mr. Carpenter gave the following verses to support his argument: 1 Timothy 6:1-5, Ephesians 6:5-6, Titus 2:9-10 and 1 Peter 2:18-29 then said:

“I believe that those verses are, in fact, full of affirmation about slavery, including suggesting that it is to the glory of God.”

I’ve read the passages over and over and (help me if I’m mistaken) I find nowhere in those text anything that reads “Slavery is a glory to God”. If it did read that way, then the fact that I am a Hispanic from African decent not in bondage under another person would mean I am dishonoring God. I’m sure slave masters used this rationale also. Rather, I find the suggestion in all these verses that slaves being obedient to their masters is a glory to God as a testament of how his Spirit can infuse a person under bondage with the love and peace only Jesus can offer. Or as your reference in 1 Peter said:

“For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval.”

Now a brief history on Israelite slavery as found in scripture so you won’t use these texts out of context next time.

In antiquity, slavery was an institute accepted by all with usually little guidelines for what could and could not be done. In Israel’s case however, there were certain limits:

1) Only prisoners of war and not Israelites could be sold as slaves. (Num. 31:7,9,18; Dt. 21:10)
2) The Israelites were prohibited to buy or sell people from their own kind. However, by different means, an Israelite could become a slave as a result of an action they themselves took. (Ex. 21:2; 22:2; Lv. 25:39; 2 Kings 4:1-7; Nem 5:1-13; Am 2: 6,8)
3) Israelites also had the option to sell themselves freely as slaves. (Ex. 21:6, Dt. 16:16)

While Mr. Carpenter is correct in his claim that many people during that time period used his texts as reasons to support slavery, He failed to mention the texts that abolitionists used in their arguments:

“For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body- Whether Jew or Greeks, slave or free- and we were all given the one Spirit to drink.” 1 Corinthians 12:13

“There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” Galatians 3:28

“Because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.” Ephesians 6:8

“Here there is no Greek or Jew, circumcised or uncircumcised, barbarian, Scythian, slave or free, bur Christ is all, and is in all.” Colossians 3:11

The principle being that Paul and the other apostles wrote all the texts we find about slavery while keeping in mind that at the foot of the Cross, all men are equal before God. Therefore in the political and religious conditions the world found itself in during the 19th century, slavery couldn’t exist while following these principles.

Would someone care to find me a verse where God openly affirms that the institution of slavery is a “glory to God” or where he says Slavery is “an abomination to His eyes” while not violating the context in which it is located? The truth is that we never find an instance where God spoke openly giving his stamp of approval for or against slavery. He merely pointed out that “If you’re going to do this practice, treat them with respect because remember that you too were once slaves in Egypt (Deut 24:22) and remember that all men (and women) are still equal before my eyes.”

Why the Old Testament or Jesus in the New remained silent in either endorsing or condemning this issue, I don’t know. Yet, He is still the Creator and some things we just won’t know until we all get to Heaven.

I’m done with this Red Herring. Now back to the topic of this discussion. Homosexuality is treated in a different manner than slavery in Scripture. Does God, our standard bearer, say that the practice of homosexuality if an abomination? Leviticus 18:22 says Yes. Does Scripture say that homosexual behavior is abnormal or unnatural? Romans 1:26-27 gives answers to that. Does God, our Creator, reserve the right to say what kind of behavior is acceptable or not in Heaven? 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 would suggest so. Obviously more texts exist but I’m sure you’ve all heard them.

I love gay people (Yes, I said it and affirm it). I have no problem with them. But just because I stick to what the word of God says, does that automatically make me homophobic? I don’t think so. In this age of moral relativism where there are no absolutes, I submit that God’s word and its principles are timeless. The Bible may be old but as the quote goes “It is an anvil that has worn out many hammers.” This will soon include liberal Historical-Criticism.

Or as Napoleon said:
"The Bible is no mere book, but a Living Creature, with a power that conquers all that opposes it."

Again, I hope that when SAU’s Faculty response to his topic goes online, that it gets posted here. Then, hopefully, all the sarcasm, accusation and left wing bias that people criticize these blogs for can give way to the thoughtful, intelligent and respectful conversation that ever person deserves. No matter what their opinion is.

"“Does the Creator of the Universe reserve the right to determine what is normal behavior or abnormal behavior? What is moral or immoral? Or has he transferred all of that duty to mortal men and women?”

It all depends if you make all moral decisions based by what is written in the Bible. How many times, and under what conditions, does the Bible label something an "abomination"? Would that term mean "immoral"? How is "abomination" used in Scripture? It has certainly been a word liberally interpreted (in English) in the Bible today. Are the terms synonymous in common usage? If there's a difference, "immoral" was not used in Scripture, while abomination is used more than several dozen times.

Are all such abominations mentioned in Scripture, considered to also be abominations or immoral today?

How great it will be when, in the presence of God Almighty, we view all of our gay brothers and lesbian sisters receive the crown of glory from Christ Himself--in all majesty and splendor--then to hear him declare, "Well done my good and faithful servants, well done!"

What sense of joy fills my heart when I think of that most wonderful day! Holy God embraces his homosexual children--beloved and blessed of God, created gay for his great plan. What a day it will be indeed!

Thank you God for all of your gay and lesbian children let me be a good steward to them and all of your children.

The panelists were brilliant and to be commended. Bringing such a topic as homosexuality to the forfront was wonderful. Our church according to the statistics and based on membershp numbers, should have basically close to a million gays and lesbians in its membership list, if not more. People have terrible misconceptions about gays. The panelists brought important points to the clarification of all the open minded folk who are willing to be educated in this subject. Some will reject any findings choosing instead to continue being prejudiced against these God's children. As it was well explained by the panelists, such prejudiced by choice individuals have not understood the love for one another Christ spoke of. They choose rejection and hate.

Ed,

Your last comment is that "they choose rejection and hate."

I suggest there are at least two types of people that your comment may be directed toward. There are those that are bigoted towards anything and anyone different from themselves weather it is the color of their skin, nationality, religion etc.

On the other hand there are those of us, myself included, that feel the Bible is the inspired Word of God and thus reveals His will for His people. While we may "like and love" some of those who are "gay,lesbian" among us we feel it is our responsibility to point out our love to God by upholding His Word as we understand it (even when it also challenges our own personal behavior) "even more" so than we love those who are close to us. We feel most uncomfortable in suggesting God's Word is not true for guiding our life.

You see, that is the conviction that some of us hold...and, that is not born out of "rejection and hate" even if we are "rejected and hated" by those who accuse us of it because of the belief we hold. Mt.10:37.

regards,

pat

Has Christ given us the commission to point out other people's "sins"? Haven't we been given the commission to tell of his love for everyone? Did he point out people's sins when he was here? Did he even ask what their sins were, if all were sinners?

We are to show Christ's love for everyone, sinners included, and were never given the commission to be "sin detectives." Our list of "sins" are not Christ's lists as this is an area in which he never adressed, and in one which we should remain silent, as he did.

Sorry Elaine,
You overlooked the sins we wrote in the sand as well as the sins he actively punished when he drove the money changers from the temple. Or when he confronted some people saying, You dry bones, or whitewashed tombs.
Jesus was never silent.
Although there are some who cannot understand that he taught principals and not only specifics.
One may say insider trading is OK and the church should change the tithe system to a Pyramid or Ponzi scheme since Jesus never said we couldnt.
That however would be wrong as he left nothing uncovered in the principals he taught.
You are also in error when you say, "...and were never given the commission to be "sin detectives."
The texts "in extreme brevity" say, Man looketh on the outside but the Lord looketh on the heart. This is not a command to look at nothing but a clarification of where our responsibilities end and the Lord takes over. You may remember the text, "Am I my brothers keeper?"
We do not determine someones motive since it is in the heart, but we can witness the actions which we are to respond to.
I know this will be a semi futile argument to someone who picks and chooses biblical counsel, but still hold out hope:)

What Pat did not learn from the panel detailed explanations, is that homosexuals as much as it is with heterosexuals, did not choose or ask to be born with a difference, but just as they are they were also created by the power given by God, when He (God) comissioned Adam and Eve to procriate. Homosexuals are born from heterosexuals, did anyone forget that? Not everything we see in this world can be entirely explained, homosexuality being one of those things. Deuteronomy: 29, 29 tells us that. We being all sinners were not given the command by God to explain away others that are different than ourselvs, in any way that will diminish their value as human beings.

Christian heterosexuals not respecting homosexuals, feel they have the right to condemn them using Bible passages that have nothing to do with homosexuals of today, who are recognized by having a different orientation. The panel went into details of what those clobber texts meant and in what context they were written. Pat and others will not accept any explanations except for the ones he and others have assimilated from past interpretations of those texts.
If homosexuals are judged for not representing God's image in their state, why not go a little further and include down syndrome people (not to compare such to gays) and others with deficiencies that do not fit the "Normality" expected, and call them also immoral? Yet we are all used to the accomodations made in society to make those people's lives confortable. Why not do the same for homosexuals?

At the end it's all a matter of obeing Jesus command to Love one another as we would like to be loved. The panel explained real well how we can fulfill the law by acting in such a way.

Ed

Ed,

Deut.29:29 says the secret things belong to god but the things revealed belong to us.

He has revealed that homosexual BEHAVIOR is wrong. I have an "orientation" of being a "womanizer" but the behavior of acting it out is unacceptable to God.

You mention Physical defects and wonder why that is not "immoral." There is no behavior involved with any physical defect or truly mental physical condition that is immoral in itself because it involves unchosen behavior.

Ed, I would have made no comment except I will not accept that those who disagree with the behavior of homosexuals/lesbians do so out of "rejection and hate."
That is "hatred" of my belief system.

A pragmatic lesson of life is be careful when you spit in the wind because some is likely to be blown back on you.

Regards in "love"

pat

Pat,

If homosexuality was just a behavior as you all call it, we would not be having this conversation, because behavior can be changed. But as heterosexuals have been told a number of times by by homosexuals themselvs, it's not a behaviour they acquired one day out of the blue, it's in reality an identifying genetical mark they are born with. All we need to do to resolve the issue is to believe what we are told and to mind our own business and leave others to live their lives with what God gave them, as long as when in that process, they are not doing anything to invade other's lives and privacy. Some heterosexuals have a continue desire to dictate to others something they would not be willing to do themselvs.

Ed,

Who is to say that some men do not have a "genetic marker" for "womanizing." How much research has been done on this? Who knows what the genectic code markers will show in 50 yrs? A few years back in Time mag. some genetic scientist speculated that adultery was genectic.

My father had an affair and was a "womanizer." He later repented and was "led of the spirit." At least one of my two older brothers were "womanizers."

My "propensity" is to do the same. Not "all men" and families seemingly show that "propensity."

I have repented and by God's grace live in a monogomous relationship. I am serious about this and I am not "making light" of you and your "propensities."

So, I suggest again it is behavior that the Bible is concerned with on the "ethical" level. Rom.8:13,14.

Praise God that in Christ we can be a "new creation."

Regards,

pat

I think Daneen mentioned (and some others may also have commented) that the California Supreme Court yesterday overturned a ban on gay marriage in the state. News outlets are now reporting on the supreme ire of religious and political groups on the Right branch of the California vine. Apparently, the GOP plans to put forth a ballot initiative banning gay marriage that would overturn the CA Supreme Court ruling.

As a Californian and a Seventh-day Adventist, I offer these responses:

1. Governor Arnold Schwarzeneger has managed to run up a $16 BILLION dollar defecit in California, slashing funding in education while increasing spending on prisons. California's teachers receive pink slips and schools statewide struggle without sufficient funding. Meanwhile, the California GOP has voted unanimously to leave a "sloophole" in the State's tax codes that provides tax breaks to yacht owners (resulting in the CA GOP being dubbed the Yacht Party). If we want to discuss issues of morality in politics, this is the place to begin.

2. As an Adventist who affirms separation of Church and State, I strongly oppose measures that dictate policy on matters of conscience. Outlawing gay marriage strictly on moral grounds is tantamount to coercive mandating of a religious viewpoint.

3. There is a double standard in vociferously supporting marriage and family values while at the same time opposing statutes designed to promote fidelity and monogomy (i.e. gay marriage). If Christians consider marrying preferable to cohabitating, then we should be consistent in that affirmation.

4. Banning gay marriage constitutes religious discrimination. For most Christian organizations in particular, marriage is a religious rite, even a sacrament. A law banning the free practice of a religious rite is a breach of Church-State separation, it would seem. If individual denominations refuse to marry gay couples, it should be their prerogative, not that of the government.

5. Homosexual marriage does need to be a threat to me, my choices, or my way of life. The practice of marital fidelity by homosexual couples does not impinge upon any of my liberties, it does not harm me or my religious practice, and it does not threaten God or God's sovereignty.

Pat, I think you are comparing apples and oranges. Cheating on a spouse is a serious betrayal of trust and breaks the most important promise most people make in their lives.

When two people of the same sex comit to a lifelong permanent and exclusive relationship, their sexual behavior is an extension of their love. It is not "behavior".

I have a propensity to love someone of the same gender, and I do. We have committed to an exclusive relationship for the rest of our lives. We live under the same roof. We both support the household and share the chores. We talk about current events and politics. We tell each other, several times a day, that we love each other. We trust each other unreservedly. We kiss tenderly and hug every morning when we go to work. We hold hands when we walk or when we're just reading in bed together. We respect each other. Sometimes we extend our loving relationship to sexual contact.

How is this like cheating?

Whatever the Bible says about sexuality, it does not address the kind of egalitarian, love relationship I just described, even in the context of heterosexual marriage.

Carlitas,

Why is it that only gay/lesbians have "genectic propensities/orientation" and not men/women to "propensities to multiple partners" as evolution might suggest?

Why is one behavior/propensity acceptable and not the other?

pat

Pat,

Because it does not betray the trust relationship between two people.

Carlitas,

But perhaps that is not "my genetic propensity" not to betray trust.

This has gone far enough perhaps. I want you to know that someone very special to me who I love is a lesbian...and she knows it.

My point to this person, in my view, is that I don't follow my desires/genetic propensities in addition to my love for my partner because I don't believe God allows for the behavior. And that belief does not come out of "rejection and hate."

All that is best in your journey,

Later,
pat

Even though and apparently Pat has hung up on this exchange, something he said which follows ("My "propensity" is to do the same. Not "all men" and families seemingly show that "propensity. I have repented and by God's grace live in a monogomous relationship") shows the unfairness in relation to this whole subject. Heterosexuals may have a propensity to womanize, flirt with members of the opposit sex while being married, etc. Yet, how much easier for them it is in reality when they can say as Pat says "I have repented and by God's grace I live in a monogamus relationship". In other words, there is a escape and a phisical/emotional substitution for them.

Gays are to pray and survive without sexual activity if unmarried, and since marriage is not be allowed, as christians understand it to be only between a man and a woman, gays are therefore thrown into a valley of desperation for life. They are destined to live outside of any kind of intimate companionship. Thus, God's affirmation and understanding that man was not supposed to be alone is only to be applyed to heterosexuals, because according to such interpretation of God's will by so-called "loving christians", gays do not deserve to enjoy that side of their humanity.

Ed