Thanks Jared for articulating your thoughts so clearly. I'm in full agreement with you that Christians (Adventist and otherwise) should firmly support gay marriage. The theological issues that have often come up on this site are not the crux here--and, although through my study of scripture I've come to see that gay marriage is not at all in opposition to Biblical principles, that really isn't the issue here at all. This is a civil rights and separation of church and state issue. We should not legislate our religious views of morality. Churches retain the right to bless gay marriages or not at their own discretion. And, as supporters of monogamous relationships, we should support this affirmation of commitment.

This is simply a situation where the CA Supreme Court Justices (who are almost all Republican-appointed, fyi) looked at the legal precedents. If marriage is a fundamental right (they decided it was), then there has to be an overwhelming reason for California to deny same-sex couples this basic right. And, as you point out, marriage actually helps families, communities, and society as a whole, so we all have much to gain by this decision. This decision isn't really as radical as it seems if you read the actual opinion. I also appreciate you pointing out why the slippery slope to polygamy isn't a worry at all by this decision's legal reasoning, and that argument is, in fact, a red herring. I really hope California voters decide not to write discrimination into the constitution in November--that would be a first and an unfortunate use of this document that has traditionally brought all of us equality and more protection.

I love that the first couple to be married today in San Francisco (in about 20 minutes, to be precise) is a lesbian couple in their 80s who have been together for 50 years. As a happily married heterosexual, I feel that the institution of marriage is affirmed by recognizing their lifelong love and commitment to each other--their marriage vows strengthen my marriage vows.

Jared,

well thought out article.

There is probably only one thought that keeps bothering me. Are you suggesting that I accede my faith (in a creator God who designed me, body and mind, for a fruitful and complete relationship by creating one for the other) to a lifestyle apart from this just to be inclusive? Sorry. Doesn't work for me.

And please don't illusion yourself when you say that a commitment is more sanctimonious in a marriage. In this day and age, marriage (homosexual or heterosexual) can be broken in 24 hours after taking vows. Not a reason for cohabitation but not a reason for licensing either.

Jared:

I used to think the same way as you, but don't exactly anymore. The thing is that the Adventist church has a history of pushing for its view of public morality, namely in the area of religious liberty and temperance. I could say that those are different because people are harmed by second hand smoke and lack of religious liberty. But what about those who say that children should be raised by a mother and father if at all possible, and argue against same-sex marriage on those grounds. Now one can dispute that conclusion, but one can't take away their right to argue that point. And if the church leadership and membership is generally convinced of that point, I think it should have the right to promote it.

I'm with you, Jared, on this one. I think the first reason alone should be enough to convince Adventists -- how can we justify imposing a religious definition of marriage on all of society when we've always stood for the separation of church and state? There are no "victims" in gay marriages.

A couple of weeks ago I sat in church and listened to my pastor preach against gay marriage. Then I got to work on Monday and opened an email from my co-worker telling us all that she and her (female) partner had been married on Saturday. Now, I love my pastor and I love my co-worker, but there's no doubt whose side I want to be on in this issue -- on the side of love and inclusion as opposed to judgement and intolerance.

Sona, we don't ban barren heterosexuals or those who clearly do not want a "fruitful" marriage from entering into a marriage commitment, so I don't see how your objection is a fair one. Isn't that argument also what undergirds the Catholic church's opposition to birth control? The idea that all sex should be for procreation?

I agree that all marriage is too easily tossed aside now, but there are real entanglements (legal, financial, not to mention ethical and moral) to marriage. My husband and I have mused about what we might have done during some of our heated arguments (and in 10 years those do happen) if we hadn't been married but had just been living together--it's a lot easier to walk out the door in a rage and never look back. My marriage vows commit me to working much harder in these tough times.

Also, a correction to my earlier post. Del and Phyllis, the first couple to be legally married in California, have been together for 55 years, not 50. Del is now in a wheelchair, and I teared up seeing the two of them emerge from the mayor's office as a legally married couple.

David, I'm not sure what you're saying--just that we shouldn't converse about this topic? I didn't get the impression Jared was trying to suppress anyone's right to voice their opinion, just that it's an issue with core, fundamental values involved so we should not keep silent.

Jared- Totally illogical reasoning. If one were a trained Christian sociologist I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown, without reference to church and state, etc., that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions and the whole idea is totally repugnant to careful thinkers and unproductive to society.

As a California voter for more than 40 years, I will not vote for a constitutional ban on gay marriages which will be on the ballot in November.

A recent poll showed that there are 57% who approve of the gay marriage decision and 42% who are against.

There is no way that those who are strongly opposed to gay marriage can do so on other than their religious beliefs. It is sad that those who oppose prominently display posters declaring "God has declared homosexuality sin," etc. Sin is a religious and theological term which has no place in civil decisions. Neither is there anyone who can rightfully say that homosexual marriages threaten heterosexual ones.
The greatest threat to heterosexual marriages are the participants.

The California Supreme Court made the only right decision in upholding equality before the law. Anything else would be saying that there are groups that are second-class citizens, unable to benefit from all the rights of citizenship of all other California citizens. This was the basis for Brown vs. Board of Education nearly 50 years ago that ruled that "separate but equal" did not result in equal.

Women, until 1920, were not granted full voting and citizenship rights; something this country ruled was wrong. Fortunately, such decisions are not based on the majority; the courts are there to protect minority rights, and if Adventists ever wish to call on the government to support their minority religious rights, they should carefully consider opposing this ruling, as it may come back to haunt them in the future.

Jared,

You misunderstand what separation of Church and State means. Advocating a ban against gay marriage on moral grounds is not an attack on separation of Church and State. The dividing line the Adventist Church makes is religious duty, the first four commandments, and civil duty, the last six commandments.

Gay marriage concerns civil behavior not religious behavior. Religious people have the same right as any citizen to give their opinion concerning what they believe is acceptable decent behavior in the society in which they live. They have a right to vote that the civil government my use physical force to compel obedience to civil law.

Your Friend: Please substantiate your statement that "I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown, without reference to church and state, etc., that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions and the whole idea is totally repugnant to careful thinkers and unproductive to society."

Unless you can do so, it remains a personal opinion which you own; but you do not own the facts.

Sona, two thoughts: First, please not that voting "no" for a law that mandates a religious viewpoint is not a tacit endorsement of gay marriage. It is a vote against making one's personal morality binding on everyone. That is something that we cannot accept.

Second, if we outlaw marriage on the basis that married people can get divorced after 24 hours, then we are simply going to outlaw marriage. All marriage. Because heterosexual couples can be promiscuous or get a divorce equally easily. So that argument doesn't really stand up...

David and YF, you might be interested to note that there have been studies conducted and well documented that demonstrate that children fair equally well in a household with homosexual parents as with heterosexual parents. Here is a place to start reading. So the arguments may not be as illogical as you have made them out to be, YF.

JB, there is no legal (civil) reason deny homosexual couples the right to marriage. That is precisely the reason that the California Supreme Court overturned the language that defined marriage as between a man and a woman.
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

"No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

(It might be helpful to read the Supreme Court's decision, which is linked in the original article above.)

If we have it on the highest judicial authority in the state that there is no legal reason to deny the privilege of marriage, the only remaining reason is a religious, moral one. Can you see the difference?

So in attempting to ban same-sex marriage based on moral / religious arguments, morality is being imposed by civil authorities.

Can you see how this might create problems if as Adventists like to envision the Law banned work on Sunday...if the law mandated worship on Sunday. The big fear that so many Adventists have is that one day laws will be enacted that will legislate religious morality. It is always wrong to do so.

Jared, thanks for this lucid and helpful post. It's sad we're still having to argue these points, especially about why polygamy is different, but I'm glad you still have the energy to do so. Thanks!

Jared,

Is it fair for me to say the next time you are for a program for the poor or an environmental issue that these are not "religious moral issues" for you as a "person of faith"?

There seems to be an inconsistent position taken by you here to me.

No one is violating "separation of church and state" in the US by voting for moral issues they hold that do not "respect an establishment of religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion." These, I suggest, are generally confined to religious issues related to the first four commandments.

pat

Good, Pat. I was hoping that an issue like that would come up. You're correct that I have moral and religious reasons for advocating environmental causes. But notice this difference: the primary impetus behind the movement to reduce greenhouse gases and curtail climate change is scientific, not religious. Religion could not make statements about climate change because climate change is not within the scope of religious inquiry as such. Same goes for land and water degradation, air pollution, etc. The call to action comes from outside of religion, but religion responds appropriately (by taking action!).

On the other hand, this attempt to ban same-sex marriage has no scientific or otherwise civil underpinning. I've demonstrated that point with the text of the Supreme Court's ruling and with the research on children with homosexual parents.

The difference is very important, and we should be quite clear about why one is fundamentally religious and the other is not.

It is possible to separate religion from ethics, but how does one separate morals from religion?

Where does one's morals originate, and as we do not all hold the same moral beliefs, are they
merely personal opinions? What is their basis?

A law against stealing, murder, and lying are moral laws are they not? Even if there were no laws against them, would you feel free to murder or steal?

How does gay marriage interfere with my morals?
It does not force any action on my part whatsoever. Those who do not wish to marry someone of the same sex are certainly not required to do so. How does your neighbor's same-sex marriage affect you or your marriage? Is it not an attempt to legislate your morals or beliefs on someone else? How can such actions possibly harm me? Preventing my neighbor from enjoying the rights and privileges that marriage affords is, in effect, denying him the same privileges that all heterosexual people have; which is against the 14th amendment as shown above.

I can't believe that just because a religious law is right we have to support an opposing civil one just to demonstrate the church and state need to be separate.

In my previous response, I just want to clarify that not ALL heterosexual marriages are forever and not all homosexual partnerships break in 24 hours.

"Fruitful" not only means to bear children but to grow spiritually in a God designed family structure which represents the God-Head.

How does gay marriage interfere with my morals?
It does not force any action on my part whatsoever. Those who do not wish to marry someone of the same species are certainly not required to do so. How does your neighbor's same-species marriage affect you or your marriage? Is it not an attempt to legislate your morals or beliefs on someone else? How can such actions possibly harm me? Preventing my neighbor from enjoying the rights and privileges that marriage affords is, in effect, denying him the same privileges that all heterosexual people have...

I changed 2 words and it makes just as much sense as Elaine's.

What the "New Atheists," and indeed post modern society, put forth as "tolerance" is simply repackaged secular apathy. When we talk about being religious without "imposing" your beliefs on others, or practicing religion within the confines of one's on home, what we are in effect saying is that these beliefs are not important and, since we can't agree on what truth is, have no relevance to the grander world.-
29 May 2008 - spectrum collegiate blog
Faux Pas Tolerance: New Atheism Fosters Misunderstanding
By Eric Scott

That puts it fantastically for me. You can't appeal to my sense of right and wrong without asking me to question my beliefs.

Jared,

There is nothing wrong with the California Supreme Court giving their opinion concerning the meaning of state and Federal Constitutional law. That is their function to interpret the law. They are the final arbiter for the state of California but they are not the final arbiter of Federal Constitutional law. The litigants may appeal to the United States Supreme Court if they so decide and are granted Certiorari by the Court.

The decision of the California Court may be overturned by the court or by a constitutional amendment to the state constitution. Marriage concerns a civil relationship not a religious relationship. This does not cross the line on separation of Church and State. Just because religious people feel that it is wrong for the state to allow gay marriage does not make it a religious issue. Religious people may think and believe it is religious because it is in the Ten Commandments but that does not make it so. They are only giving their opinion.

Morality, i.e. what is thought as good and bad, is within the legitimate domain of the authority of the civil state. Generally when we make a statement such as “you cannot legislate morality” we mean in another person’s mind. When we place people in jail, for stealing, we are enforcing the morality of the civil state that stealing is wrong. Both religious and none religious people may support the state on this issue.

Again you are confusing the first four commandments with the last six. Adventist may rightfully support a ban against gay marriage as a civil duty. They may rightfully resist a state or national Sunday law because it concerns the relationship between God and man. Civil laws state the relationship between man and man.

In order for Jared's points to be taken seriously, one must put Jared's belief ahead of Biblical passages:

1.Leviticus 18:22 Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable.

2.Romans 1:24Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

26Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27In 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.

2.Jude 1:7In 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.

Seems to me, that you would have to eliminate these key texts to consider your proposition. Civil Unions, legal partners, sure. Marriage, I don't think so.

Just off the top of my head, I can think of several Christian Seventh-day Adventist sociologists (one at Southern, one at Andrews) who would agree with Jared that homosexuality does NOT harm children.

Also, this Kindergarten tale about the ten commandments being split up into the first four for God to enforce and the last six for civil society makes no sense. I've never seen that 4/6 split in the Bible.

Let's follow the logic. So it's the government's job to enforce non-covetousness?

Should I withhold my moral vote for a candidate who literally advocates that last one of the six? I think that that would shut down the entire marketing world - not to mention most of our heaven art work. I mean, what part of gold mansion spells "I don't want."

Also, how exactly should our civil society enforce kids honoring their parents? The last I checked, that's pretty much between parents their children and God.

In understanding the Biblical texts in historical context, like we do with the texts about slavery or women keeping silent in church, I recommend Dr. Mary Ann Tolbert's brilliant talk: Homoeroticism in the Biblical World: Biblical Texts in Historical Contexts. See below.

Elaine, if you believe the Sodom and Gommorah story there was total devastation due to the immorality found in this metroplex. There were consequences to others

What's wrong with being legal partners, why do you have to mess with the institution of marriage. Some say, that we have forgotten how some governments failed, like Greece, due to their immorality and laxity and idealizing of homosexual acts. Truth or myth???

Myth.

And I assume that you mean Hellenistic Greece. . .

What's that last history of Greece that you read?

My source: Dr. Will and Ariel Durant's History of Greece. Now that was some great teen reading.

Rome conquered the diffuse Hellenistic states just like it conquered Carthage and the über NOT idealizing of homosexual actS. . .Jews.

Did gayness also lead to the to changing of the various Chinese dynasties, the shift in power between the Portuguese, Spanish, French, and British more recently?

Alex,

Thanks for posting that lengthy but very worthwhile read on homoeroticism in Scripture and HISTORICAL CONTEXTS. I shouted that because it's so important to understanding sacred writings and yet so overlooked by moderns with our outlooks divorced as they are from the biblical world.

I hope that people will take time to read over the article.
As for me, I'm going to bed early as I'm off to the state capitol early in the morning. I hope to find many more thoughtful and challenging comments to stimulate my thinking.

Best unintentional pun of the conversation so far goes to JB for this one:

"They may rightfully resist a state or national Sunday law because it concerns the relationship between God and man. Civil laws state the relationship between man and man.

Interesting article Alex, thanks for posting it.

I attended a class taught by a Pauline scholar who also emphasized that Paul was writing at least part of the time during the reign of Nero and so was especially conscious of the role violently depraved sexuality can play in society.

JB, just one more thought your direction before I take off -

You said above:

"Marriage concerns a civil relationship not a religious relationship. This does not cross the line on separation of Church and State. Just because religious people feel that it is wrong for the state to allow gay marriage does not make it a religious issue."

I hear you making the case that the ban on same-sex marriage is based not a religious (moral) argument, but rather a civic argument. That's an interesting claim in light of two things:

1. The people who oppose same-sex marriage are religious people whose web sites are littered with links to religious organizations and religious rhetoric.

2. Since there is no basis for a civil argument pertaining to the well-being of children or an appeal to a better society that holds water, there is no civil argument.

Have you actually heard any civil arguments that have merit? That is an honest question -- worth looking into.

God bless you, Jared! It is encouraging to me to see a young pastor take this stand!

I would point to the growing number of Christians of all denominations, as well as members of other world religions, who support gay marriage and ask, "How can those who oppose it not realize that they are trying to legislate their religious views on other Christians who believe differently?" That is the very basis of our religious liberty stand.

Jared - thanks so much for your well reasoned and well articulated explanation for why Christians should be celebrating June 16, 2008 as a landmark day in both Civil Rights and Family Values.

An earlier poster described only as "your friend" wrote in response that "If one were a trained Christian sociologist I have absolutely no doubt that it could be shown...that homosexual relationships are injurious to kids who are brought up under such conditions."

I am only trained as a psychologist (my father was a sociologist, so maybe that will help your friend), but I can testify that the psychological data clearly shows that children raised by homosexual parents are not at greater risk for injury in any way. Space will not permit an exhaustive review of this issue here, but perhaps I can provide two citations, and the summary from one of them:

Wainright & Patterson (2008) “Peer relations among adolescents with female same-sex parents”. Developmental Psychology, Vol 44(1),

Herek (2006). “Legal Recognition of Same-Sex Relationships in the United States: A Social Science Perspective.” American Psychologist, Vol 61(6),

Abstract (from Herek, 2006):
"The data indicate that same-sex and heterosexual relationships do not differ in their essential psychosocial dimensions; that a parent's sexual orientation is unrelated to her or his ability to provide a healthy and nurturing family environment; and that marriage bestows substantial psychological, social, and health benefits. It is concluded that same-sex couples and their children are likely to benefit in numerous ways from legal recognition of their families, and providing such recognition through marriage will bestow greater benefit than civil unions or domestic partnerships."

Jared,

You are confusing arguments with subject matter. America is not a religious state, it is a civil state. The legitimate subject matter of the civil state concern money, real property, criminal laws, voting rights, police force, social relationships. The arguments, rational, irrational, religious, non religious may be presented by anyone or any group. Usually influence in politics is greater if a group of people join together to form a lobby or party. Religious people try to persuade others to join with them to decide civil issues by quoting the authority of the Bible. They have just as much right to use religious arguments as a worldly politician does to hold a picnic, barbecue, kiss babies, and shake hands to persuade people to vote for him.

Back in the nineteenth century slavery was a social relationship issue that almost tore the country apart. Some arguments concerning slavery were made by religious groups both pro and con. Other people thought slavery was an economy disadvantage. Then there were people who thought it was inhuman to buy and sell a person like one would an animal. The arguments vary the subject matter is the same.

If you think gay people should marry you are free to have your opinion and to promote it whatever your argument may be. Religious people of a different persuasion have just as much right to give their arguments. The subject however does not concern the issue of separation of Church and state as stated in your reason number one.

I must say that I believe that the pastor and lawyer Alan Reinach has the best explanation of why the church must overcome the evils of homosexuality and oppose gay marriage as a body of Christ.

He wrote about it at religiousliberty.info and was well thought out. He is a very well spoken individual and you shoudl go read it.

You folks here never cease to amaze me with how much you twist, distort and generally diss the Scriptures, regardless of how much you have fooled yourselves into thinking otherwise.

Know I know what Jesus meant about "the blind leading the blind."

More proof of how, as I have said before, there's isn't a belief too silly, too preposterous, that once it becomes du jour some "Christians" aren't going to fall over each other in a rush to find some "biblical" evidence supporting it.

Gay marriage? Yeah, right!

Cliff

I agree with the substance of your blog. But you are much too bright to stoop to such satire. You do neither the cause nor yourself any good by addressing others as "You Folks" and go down hill from there.

There certainly is no Scripture that even implies same sex marraige--So on one hand we had Prima Scriptura and the other
anything goes.

If same sex unions are not a civil crime then I am in favor of a civil union that grants property rights etc. But marraige is a gift of God and not to be trifled with. Tom

Prof.Mary Tolbert states, “whether we're talking about the Hebrew Bible or the Christian Bible with both Hebrew and Greek parts, are intimately connected to the ancient cultural systems in which they were produced.”

While it is true the cultural systems are a consideration for one in finding the meaning of the times in which a text was written, the culture does not control within itself the potential anti-cultural message or the complete parameters of the writers disapproval.

For example, In the book of Romans 1-3, Paul speaks of the “righteous wrath” of God. Greek Philosophy had rejected hundreds of years before that “god” could show wrath. Philo, the Jew from Alexandria rejected the idea of a wrathful O.T. God. (Bevin,Symbolism and Belief, p.185.)

Yet, we have this "anti-cultural" view expressed by Paul to the contemporary cultural systems that indeed God does show wrath.

Contemporary cultural considerations,yes. Binding and forcing God and the inspired biblical writers to their parameters of meaning,no.

Man having sexual relations with man was sin in Torah and Paul’s writings regardless of contemporary “cultural considerations.”

pat

I'm sure Jesus looks approvingly on "loving, monoganamous, and committed" homosexual sodomy, don't you?

What does the use of the word "sodomy" add in that comment, Cliff?

I don't dare say what Jesus looks approvingly on or not, but I do recall that He was generous and accepting to a lot of people who were considered unacceptable in His society.

The usual Adventist relativism when it comes to sin--"I may not be living a wonderfully good life, but Lord I thank you I'm not like this publican here."

How often we do that--make ourselves look and feel better at the expense of others. Righteousness by comparison, maybe?

When we know in our hearts that all our righteousness is as filthy rags, and there's none righteous, no not one.

Not to argue in favor of gay marriage. But hey, at least I'm not a sodomite, right?

Jonathan

Jonathan,
It is simply a "red herring" to say that we are all sinners and that our righteousness is as filthy rags...which IS true, so let's just live and let live.

The issue is we must still call all types of sins whether the attitude of spiritual pride or sins of the flesh by their proper name...that is sin. I suggest that spiritual pride is worse than "fleshly sins" but that acquits neither. Our propensities whether environmental or genetic do not completely control our behavior.

If the church ceases to call sin what it is then that "church" has made a false peace with the world, flesh and the devil. It has removed the necessity of acknowledging sin and asking repentance so that we can be at peace with God in Christ.

That is dangerous and brings condemnation.

That is the issue.

pat

You'll note that nowhere did I say "live and let live." The usual disinformation tricks...

The point I'm making is that while we are quite happy to get bent out of shape over this particular sin, we as Adventists pass over backbiting, gossip, slander, character assassination, deceit, treachery, white or any other kind of lies--and many others. I don't see Jesus grading sin--we've all sinned and come short of the glory of God. Now some sins may have different effects, but that doesn't make it right to ease our own guilt by this "comparison righteousness."

In his dramatic demonstration of dealing with sexual sin, Jesus did not condemn the woman taken in adultery. Yet he also told her to go and sin no more. Not, I would surmise, because he was thinking how it offended him, but because he wanted to help the woman, and that could only come by her changing her lifestyle. As other translations put it, "go and leave you life of sin."

As I said, I'm not arguing for gay marriage. I'm arguing at the hypocrisy that we exhibit in our Pharisaical judgment of others whose sinful propensities are different to our own cherished sins.

Jonathan

Trudy

In defense of Cliff, I believe there is a Scriptural admonition to call sin by it right name. It was Sodomy, It is Sodomy, It alway will be Sodomy. That is what it has been called from the book of Genesis onward to Paul.

There is absolutely nothing "gay" about it!!!! Tom

Tom, the term "sodomy" is not Biblical; it comes from ecclesiastical law I believe, which would make it post-biblical. While it's certainly true that homosexual rape is one of the sins committed (or rather threatened) by the men of Sodom in the Genesis account, the tradition of referring to any homosexual sex act as "the sin of Sodom" is not found in the Bible. While the Bible often uses Sodom as a byword for sinfulness, I can think of only two places where Biblical writers were explicit about particular "sins of Sodom." In Jude 6-8, we are definitely told that immorality and sexual perversion were among the sins of Sodom and Gomorrah. In Ezekiel 16 we are told that the sins of Sodom were that its people were "arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." Should we start singling out wealthy people who are not actively engaged in feeding the poor and label them as "sodomites"? Let's call sin by its right name!!

As for the sexual sins of Sodom, there's no doubt the Bible condemns those. I personally find it hard to draw a straight line between a bunch of thugs who want to gang-rape a couple of strangers who arrive in town, and my co-worker and her partner who are lovingly and faithfully living together, helping to raise each other's kids, trying to buy a house with enough land to keep their horse on, and both working with disadvantaged youth in the community. It's hard for me to see how they're committing the same sin as the men of Sodom were condemned for.

Jonathan,

It is true we Christians remain sinners and are hypocritical if we use the "law unlawfully" to puff us up, condemn others while seeing ourselves as inherently righteous.Rom.2:1.

We are to judge sinful acts and people as a church but leave "final condemnation" to the Lord.

The power of the teaching of Justification by faith alone is that it DOES NOT allow ANYONE to claim holiness and all must seek repentance for their sins and find righteousness in Christ alone. Maturity teaches us our continuing need not our "perfection."

To ignore calling sin by it's name is not loving but hatred and keeps us from the light less our sins be discovered.Jn.3:20.

pat

Trudy,

Shall we just say the Greek... arsenokoites? 1 Cor.6:9.

The disposition of many homosexuals is often better than professed Christians. As I said, spiritual pride is worse than the sins of the flesh. Both are wrong and in need of forgiveness.

pat

Trudy--thanks for you clarification about the use (or rather misuse) of the word "Sodomite." You're absolutely right that it would make just as much sense to call your co-worker a Sodomite from a Biblical perspective as it would a wealthy person who wasn't helping the needy and taking care of the poor. It's amazing how tempted we are to selectively use the Bible to label what we disagree with.

While Sodom and Gomorrah were obviously also condemned for their sexual sins, there's just no logical way to say that a gang rape of strangers is remotely equivalent to two people pledging to love and support each other through sickness and health for better or worse.

Regardless of a someone's Biblical interpretation though--and we all, Cliff included interpret the Bible through our own experience--the issue of gay marriage is a civil one. Nobody is telling churches that they have to bless gay marriage; this is simply the state of California recognizing that it was not equally providing for all of it's citizens as required by its own laws. Married people are happy, healthier, and wealthier, so we all benefit by this. And thanks to Aubyn for pointing out that many studies have found that children raised in a same-sex household are just fine! Children need committed, loving adults in their life; their gender is irrelevant.

Let's think historically and logically here for a minute. In all of the Ancient Near East God only destroyed one city because of same-sex relationships?

As the book I've linked to below shows in Jewish and Christian scripture, when one reads the actual story one sees that it's the non-consensual aspects of the citizens' treatment of the men/Angels that causes the trouble. It's a short-sighted morality that Pat and Cliff are promoting here, one in which God says, I'll kill an entire city for raping men/Angels but not if you rape women and not in the hundreds of thousands of other places where same-sex eroticism is taking place.

And the history in the Bible of the linking of Sodom to same-sex eroticism is not as cut-and-dried as is popularly thought. In fact, in both Jeremiah and Ezekial, Jerusalem is compared to Sodom for its injustice and unfaithfulness, not for same-sex relations.

Here's great textual and logical evidence.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=hist...

Alex-"Let's think historically and logically here for a minute. In all of the Ancient Near East God only destroyed one city because of same-sex relationships?"

It is one recorded because it relates to Israel's development.

Alex-"Jerusalem is compared to Sodom for its injustice and unfaithfulness, not for same-sex relations."

All of the aspects of Sodom...injustice and unfaithfulness including same-sex relations were the focus of why God in His wisdom destroyed it.

Your source is one book by one person who other scholars would no doubt have difficulty with the "evidence" offerred.

Alex, somehow you have made an impression on me and I think of you and the other Global warming guys/environmentalist and congress (plus Fed and Treasury's part in a debased dollar) as part of the problem when I get 4 dollar/gallon gas.;~)

Take care,

pat

PS. Probably said about enough on "warming and homosexuality" for awhile.

Pat: When you say something as illogical and ridiculous as you just did to Alex, it helps me understand how to take all of your other comments. Maybe you should read the latest cover of Newsweek to help understand the economy, gas, and why the wealth of the rest of the world is finally making America pay higher prices. Yikes--so this is what those who oppose gay marriage think like? Definitely helps me filter the comments.

My personal belief as a Christian begins with the understanding that God is Love, self-sacrificing, self-giving Love and ends with the understanding that whosoever loves is born of God and knows God.

My personal belief on the union of two people begins with God's statement, "Iti is not good for human beings to be alone." Do note the word he used was humankind - not a male person.

My God approves of human beings entering into covenant relationships of mutual caring and permanent commitment that mirrors his relationship with humans. This relationship of oneness includes sexual intimacy.

My God specifically said,"Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth. And when the earth is full, quit multiplying and reproducing and concentrate on caring for my earth and for each other."

Our church has a poor record of responding to or upholding human rights in general except as they relate to Sabbath observance. We still do not recognize the rights of women to participate fully in church life. We have been very reticent to speak out on human rights abuses around the world, especially as they relate to women and children. Why then should we take a stand on this particular issue?

Stephanie,

I will be glad to respond to your questions concerning the cost of gas. If it is acceptable to the blog and readers. I asssure you it is not ridiculous.

As a starter. Why can we not increase (supply side)by drilling in Alaska and offshore in the states? How did China become able to create the demand for oil they presently do? How is that related to the manipulation of exchange rates? What is the interplay of the Treasury and Federal Reserve in that equation? Why no Nuclear or clean coal to reduce the need of some fossil fuels in the US?

In all of this it is the poor and those on fixed incomes that will suffer the most.

regards,

pat

pat,

I acknowledge everyone's right to believe homosexuality is a "sin." But is "sin" alone a valid basis for civil law in a country valuing freedom of religion and separation of church and state?

That is the crux of the matter. You may believe homosexuality is a sin. But that does NOT give you a right to legally ban it.

pat "How did China become able to create the demand for oil they presently do?"

I HOPE you are not implying that 1 BILLION people in the world should not have just as much right to pursue access to the worlds natural resources as those living in the good ol' US of A.

But it's probably best to stay on topic, which appears to be the morality of homosexuality and whether or not homosexual marriage should be legally recognized.

jemand,

Good question.

Not me but citizens in Calif. have the right to say what is "generally acceptable moral conduct" including laws against polygamy.

This is not a violation of the US First Amendment.

They also have a right to attempt an amendment to the Calif. Constitution by law which the court shall be obliged to follow.

pat

Jemand,

You are correct as to staying on topic. But it was the Western Investment Banks, especially US and Treasury monetary policy that put China on the "fast track" and this added rapid demand for oil use there thus "unnatural supply and demand side problems."

Results...with falling dollar reulting from that joint Fed & Treasury monetary policy also...in US, SURPRISE higher prices.

pat

PS. Later on another strand perhaps.

Roe vs. Wade is the law of the land, and I believe less is said about it than the "destestable" acts between men. Maybe Alexander should get on a kick to officially accept Abortion as SDA's official means of birth control. Isn't that the way the Chinese do it? How absurd, this is one time I DO agree with Cliff about how absurd some can get within the SDA church and how disrespectful of the scripture some can be!!!!

Donna, said it for me, why this issue amongst all the issues that we could or should take a stand on?

I'll just map out my argument here.

I believe that banning an activity for no other reason than one believes it is a "sin," without additional reasons coming from clearly demonstrable negative social effects, is dangerous and DOES present a threat to the separation of church and state-- and religious freedom as well.

Because that would give the majority religion the right, (and they probably also would have the will) to enact and enforce uniquely religious legislation.

Thus, since there is no non-religious argument against recognizing gay marriage, it would be an affront to religious liberty and separation of church and state, because it would result in a legal precedent to get any number of other purely religious matters in the legal code. It would also violate the rights of homosexuals themselves.

To protect the rights of the minority, our country is not a pure democracy, and it is our national constitution and state constitutions that provide this protection from majority harassment. But this is still not a perfect protection (nothing could ever be perfect), because we can democratically change these documents.

However, the vital importance of protecting minority rights should be important enough to any conscientious voter that he or she should be able to self-regulate and NOT vote for a change in these constitutions based SOLELY on religious argument.

That is my stance. And it does not come from any denigration of religious thought but from the importance of protecting religious and ideological freedom by separating church and state.

(pat- one last thought: it strikes me as selfish to wish China had remained poor and it's billion or so citizens kept from developing their potential so we Americans would pay less at the pump. But I think we agree in the arena of nuclear power, which I think is an important resource to develop. Hopefully another thread will arise in which we may discuss this!)

To say there is no harm to children of same sex partners, is stretching it. Here is one researcher that says that if you compare the stats or outcomes to kids that have gone through a divorce, the stats/outcomes are about equal. Not exactly a stellar set of stats/outcomes:

http://www.clasp.org/publications/marriage_brief3_annotated.pdf

Same-sex couple families

The 2000 Census revealed that out of 5.5 million cohabiting couples, about 11 percent weresame-sex couples—with slightly more male couples than female. One-third of female same-sex
households and 22 percent of male households, or about 163,000 same-sex households in total,lived with children under 18 years old.40 (This compares with about 25 million married-couple households with children under 18.)

Although the research on these families has limitations, the findings are consistent: child renraised by same-sex parents are no more likely to exhibit poor outcomes than children raised by divorced heterosexual parents.41 Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents.42 Children of gay or lesbian
parents do not look different from their counterparts raised in heterosexual divorced families regarding school performance, behavior problems, emotional problems, early pregnancy, or difficulties finding employment.43 However, as previously indicated, children of divorce are at higher risk for many of these problems than children of married parents.

Stephanie, this logic says as much about your reasoning as Pat's:

"Pat: When you say something as illogical and ridiculous as you just did to Alex, it helps me understand how to take all of your other comments. Maybe you should read the latest cover of Newsweek to help understand the economy, gas, and why the wealth of the rest of the world is finally making America pay higher prices. Yikes--so this is what those who oppose gay marriage think like? Definitely helps me filter the comments."

Just a thought. Both may be correlating wrong. In my statistics class I took in school, we were cautioned not to correlate the increase in washing machine sales with the increase in female breast cancer, just because they both may be increasing at the same time.

"I DO agree with Cliff about how absurd some can get within the SDA church and how disrespectful of the scripture some can be!!!!"

Attacking fellow believers because they propose an idea not popularly thought of as Biblical should not warrant questioning of ones respect for scripture or Christian commitment. Tellingly, this is how the losing side of history often plays.

Of course, actually reading some of the proffered books and articles might help us all follow the evidence where it lies, in the actual scriptural record.

Now if one avoids the hard work of widely (yes, I've read Dobson, Adventists Affirm and JATS religiously) and critically engaging scholarship (yes, single-books-written-by-individuals) then we're really not having a discussion about the Biblical evidence.

Without employing comparative analysis among sources, discussions devolve to a grab-bag of frustrations. And that's not a coherent theology or morality; it's just reaction.

I dare someone to read through that entire book on the history of the concept of Sodom. At first, one might grit at the ideas, but by the end, like me, you might find yourself with a greater appreciation for God's Word and a new understanding of same-gender love.

As a teen reading R.C. Sproul and Ravi Z., Richard Davidson, Gerard Hasel, Clifford Goldstein, I started to realize that I was just listening to one side characterize the other. Once I started reading and listening to both sides in their own words, I really fell in love with the search for truth.

(pat- one last thought: it strikes me as selfish to wish China had remained poor and it's billion or so citizens kept from developing their potential so we Americans would pay less at the pump. But I think we agree in the arena of nuclear power, which I think is an important resource to develop. Hopefully another thread will arise in which we may discuss this!)

One last comment on this Jemand. Since I am being misunderstood about China by you. I lived in China 7 years and appreciate their industry and hard work. I hope them the best.

It takes normally many, many years for a country to develope and take the prominence in world trade (WTO) that China has.
This was not just a "natural occurence" within China but one enabled by Western Investment banks, trade policy and "fast track" monetary/currency policy enabled by US Treasury and Fed.and trade pacts.

There has been an explosion of currency inflation in the world creating more demand for commodities. This is "theft" from people on fixed incomes and causes prices to go up quickly and unnaturally for the poor as well as "savers" for the currency they hold.

I think of a quote by Luther in "Romans" on Rom.2:2,3.
"Today we may apply the Apostle's words to those rulers who without cogent cause inflict exorbitant taxes upon the people or by changing or devaluing the currency, rob them, while at the same time accuse their subjects of being greedy and avaricious."

It's wonderful if all are invited to the table. But just printing money to create more demand without creating "more cows for milk" at the dinner table causes either some not to get milk or the price to go up.

There has been theft(monetary) from "savers" and smaller manufacturers in the US in order for this to take place.

Monetary policy whether with good intentions or not has been run for the benefits of special interest not the average citizen and sound money.

I don't fault the Chinese Citizens for that the "pay grade" is much higher in the decision process!

Make sense...Last comment...really.

pat

Alexander, share your knowledge, don't just tantalize/tittalate us with you superior position. That is unfair, and one-up-man-ship, IMO. I am willing to learn, with the right reason, logic and research.

To RDS

Don't let Alexander do your work for you. Work out your own opinions and do your own research. More fun that way!

PS - appreciate your comments. Donna

Fair enough. RDS, did you read the Mary Ann Tolbert piece above?

It's pretty clear that our definitions of sexual acts have changed over the last four thousands years. Do you grant that the way that different cultures and at different times within cultures, meanings of acts change?

And do you grant that it is possible for the Bible to have Ancient Near-Eastern or other cultural practices included?

Do you need examples to establish either of those, or can we proceed?
__

Here's the History of Sodomy piece again, sorry that some of the pages are missing in this google copy.

Good section on the actual Jewish understanding of Sodom.

http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sod...

And some fun reading on how our modern misunderstanding of Sodom emerged.
http://books.google.com/books?id=h5DW46vL3hkC&printsec=frontcover&dq=sod...

I've gotta run to a meeting. Peace, good friends.

Donna, the point was, in a discussion, make the point with the facts, not stand over others with knowledge they claim to have. Present it, let others evaluate it, if you are confident enough of the research.

Alexander, one thing I do not believe is that the Bible is progressive in it's truth. That is a dangerous place to be when teaching Salvation to someone. You will get no respect, and a glazed over look in their eyes.

Alexander, I don't plan to read over 100 pages on Sodomy and the changes it the view of it over time by some unknown reseacher. Pull the pertinent, salient points out for us to evaluate. Most forums insist on this approach, the posting of inches and inches of forum space above without really showing the jist was a waste of forum space in my opinion. Put your position in short form, Alex. It would help me, at least. Include short quotes, in context (short) and let us see what you put as more important than scripture in this discussion.

Hasn't homosexuality been debated in response to previous blog posts? Isn't the salient point here whether or not "sin" privately defined constitutes a legitimate basis for public policy?

Is it not worrying even to those of you who take the position that homosexuality is opposed biblically (and as has been amply demonstrated, that position is certainly not without question among Christians and biblical scholars) that opposing civil law based on biblical texts alone is a dangerous precedent? If the Adventist CHURCH were prepping to recognize gay unions these arguments would have their place. But for the basis of civil law?

The only non-religious argument yet put forward here is that children raised by homosexual parents are on par with those raised by divorced heterosexual parents. Reading from RDS's post the reason for this is given as those children typically DID experience the divorce of a parent. Did you read your own post, RDS?

You quote: "Since many children raised by gay or lesbian parents have undergone the divorce of their parents, researchers have considered the most appropriate comparison group to be children of heterosexual divorced parents." In other words, being in families led by homosexual parents did not in any way RAISE the risk level of these children, because in most cases their parents HAD already divorced and their risk was seen to be EQUAL to other children from heterosexually-led divorced homes.

EVEN IF IT WERE TRUE, that a completely intact homosexual relationship had the same effect on children that a divorced home does, keep in mind that DIVORCE IS LEGALLY RECOGNIZED!

So the only non-religious argument against state recognition of gay marriage fails on two points, that it is not supported by the data, and EVEN IF IT WERE, another equally destructive social construct is legally recognized-- presumably because in certain cases parental rights allow situations which may be slightly more dangerous for children, statistically.

Trudy

You by passed Gen 23-24 Same chapter as the Sabbath.

Churches, but what ever name include marriage as a sacrament or ordinance which in no historic church order blesses or establishing same-sex marraige.

I am on record here several times that if the state agrees to same sex union then all the property rights should belong as to a marraige.

Of course the word Sodomy is not Biblical but the act is outlined quite clearly. You fail to cite Paul in which he describes and condemns consentual same sex copulation.

To do away with the sacred bond of marraige and keep the Investigative Judgment is a hoot of the first order. Tom

Tom, "a hoot of the first order",

Let's add a few more issues that need consideration, like the Sabbath position of the SDAs given what the NT says and the majority of Christiandom, "the state of the dead" given what the majority of Christiandom says.

Since when does a position taken by the courts determine what the SDA church should do. I think that happened in Germany didn't it, during the 2nd World War, with what result?

Let me paint a word picture about missions in Africa.

If you have read about the state of Africa currently, it is in such chaos due to slavery, AIDS, decolonization, recolonization, etc.....

If I as an ADRA worker or SDA missionary had an African woman in front of me wanting to join the church, and AIDS came up and her fear that her truck driver husband might give her the disease the next time he is home, to suggest and expect that she will get a condom on him before relations is like spitting in the wind, when he has probably had relations with anything that walks or crawls since he last saw her and had relations with her.

The answer, like here in America, give the guy the boot and tell him to have relations with the next knot hole in a log, IMHO.

Having said that, that may put a burden on the church to support a lot of women who have to do that. That probably isn't going to happen, right? Go figure, she'll stay with him, die of AIDS and the kids will go to orphanages, like is already happening.

Jemand, at least we know what side you would be on in case of a Sunday Law, eh? Civil Law, does not mean that doctrinal positions of churches have to follow suit.

Respect for the law, yes, accepting it as the standard for our personal or church life, never.

Tom, you're changing your argument. You claimed that the use of the word "sodomy" and the association with homosexual sex as the specific "sin of Sodom" was Biblical; my point was that it does not. I would not deny that there are texts in the Bible that condemn sex acts between men. I was wondering why Cliff had chosen to use the word "sodomy" deliberately in his comment.

I'm not sure why you referenced Genesis 23 and 24 as I don't see anything in either chapter about either Sodom or homosexuality -- is one of us getting the wrong reference?

RDS

ummmmm wrong thread? Maybe?

Anyway, can you justify your reference to Nazi Germany please? I don't see it's relevance. I also don't see the relevance of mentioning various other Adventist doctrines: state of the dead, investigative judgment, Sabbath, etc, unless you ALSO think those are legitimate reasons for civil legislation. I don't think any private definition of "sin" is legitimate basis for any legislation, absent clear and compelling secular reasons as well, do you? If "sin" alone can be the basis for public laws, how could religious liberty and freedom of conscience be protected? How could a government possibly legislate against pride, covetousness, greed, etc?

Marriage is a civil right and the state issues and protects marriage, and divorce. Marriage is not licensed by a church; but if the participants wish, they may have a religious ceremony FOLLOWING their first getting licensed by the state.

It follows that marriage conditions are regulated by the state and never include religious conditions. No church is ever required to marry two persons if they do not wish to do so. Adventists have a long history of refusing to marry two people of different faiths; that is the church's right.

Calling homosexual monogamy a sin is only "sin" as defined by one's religion. The state is not in the business of defining sin, nor should it be. All the rights of marriage: property, insurance, inheritance laws an more, are granted those who are married. Preventing marriage to a separate group of people is to deny them the financial benefits as well as other benefits, and is thus discriminatory.

If for some, the Bible indicts and calls sinful such unions, that is their privilege. However, no one yet has shown how they are deprived of anything by legalizing homosexual marriage. Just as there are many laws that have no effect or impact on us, we really don't have the right to speak out based on our religious beliefs that it is wrong and sinful--for others.

Ah, I guess it took awhile to finish my comment, I was wondering why you were talking about Africa all of a sudden.

Do the following observations help clarify the differences between civil and religious issues?
--Marriage is a religious institution that also involves legal contractual obligations.
--The state's interest in marriage, then, has to do with the oversight of those contractual obligations.
--The state does not have the right to discriminate on who may marry whom based on gender, race, ethnicity, etc.

It seems to me that Adventists rightly oppose all blue Laws. We should be as opposed to Saturday blue laws as to Sunday blue laws, even though we are thoroughly persuaded that the biblical teaching about the Sabbath is clear and unequivocal, we do not want the laws of the land enforcing Sabbath observance nor other arenas of religious morality. Just as the state should not legislate that a Christian may not marry an atheist (though some Christians might believe this is wrong), a Jew a Catholic, or a black male a white woman, so it should not legislate that two same-gendered persons may not contractually engage the legal, fiscal, and personal rights enjoyed by married male-female persons.

Ron Jolliffe

Jen Voight, thanks for the referral to Alan Reinach's article "Same Sex Marriage Threatens Religious Liberty. Here is a salient quote:

"Massachusetts was the first state to approve gay marriage. Thereafter, Boston required adoption agencies to serve gays. Although Catholic Charities accounted for most of the adoptions in the city, no accommodation was offered for their religious objections to placing children with gay couples. Catholic Charities made the difficult decision to close down its adoption services, which had a devastating impact on children in Boston. This was completely unnecessary. Other adoption agencies could have provided the needed services to those gays who sought to adopt. Boston could have chosen to respect the rights of conscience of Catholic Charities, while also providing adoption services to gays. It did not have to be a “zero sum game,” with a winner and a loser. The price of Boston’s rigid adherence to political correctness is that thousands of children who need to be placed in adoptive homes will be delayed indefinitely, and will languish in foster care. What a tragedy! "

http://www.religiousliberty.info/blog/?p=75

No accommodation was given to the Catholics. Wait until it the SDA turn to protect their right to worship on whatever day they wish. Do you think we will be justified in asking for accomodation when we went soft on an issue like this???

In my opinion, California did not "end discrimination," the judges simply changed a definition. Using the "ending discrimination" argument is just a way to sell same sex relations as equal to natural sexuality on a different moral basis, preempting the morality of the oposition. Our society, and now the courts, have simply adjusted the rules of sex and human behavior, they have not righted a longstanding wrong of discrimination. When the (now prior) definition of marriage is a sexual, social and legal union of a man and a woman, then there is no discrimation against two men or two women, because the definition doesn't apply to them.
And, whether or not I'm a religious person, as a citizen, I have every right to have an opinion and argue and lobby for what the definition of marriage should be; why should my having a religious point of view as part of my reasoning limit my participation? Meanwhile, I can argue just as forcefully that as an atheistic evolutionist, the development of our species has been the resuult of the sexual union of a man and woman, whose complimentary parts have evolved in order to provide for the endurance of the race, and that to hold that union in supreme regard above all others, is the highest duty of mankind. Sure, homosexual behavior is understandable, and sure, everyone needs a steady friend, but whether I take my que from Jehovah in the Old Testament or Paul in the New, or fall back on Darwin's explanation of the survival of the parts that fit best, it's a man and a woman who become one flesh, and all other unions are something other. Notwithstanding all the lengthy arguments and positions put forth in recent Specturm blogs and the latest hard copy issue that try to convince us that sodomy really is part of God's plan for his creatures (as long as it's with the same guy), the emporer has no clothes.

Jemand, maybe your perplexity in my mentioning other SDA doctrines on this thread could best be understood by rereading the title of this thread/blog:

Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage

"Calling homosexual monogamy a sin is only "sin" as defined by one's religion. The state is not in the business of defining sin, nor should it be."

So why dont Adventists and the state promote prostitution?
After all, sin is only a religious conviction, right?

Are you for encouraging prostitution Elaine?

Right under our noses, is the answer!!! David Larson's piece, "Words Matter: The California Supreme Court on “Straight Marriages” and “Gay Domestic Partnerships”"

Here is the salient point:

"If it were up to me, we would use the same term for both heterosexual and homosexual unions but it would be “domestic partnership” rather than “marriage.” This would put both on an equal footing in legal word and deed; however, it would also open the door to other types of unions that it is in society’s interest to recognize and honor. These would have nothing to do with sex, either heterosexual or homosexual, and everything to do with mutual support, lasting commitment, and stability.

Here are some cases in which forming domestic partnerships with all the usual benefits and honor would be in everyone’s interest: two widows; a single man and his severely handicapped sister; two men who are “mates” in the Australian sense [not sexually interactive] ; two women who have the same kind of relationship; or just good friends of either sex who plan to spend the rest of their lives together. We should foster healthy domestic partnerships of all these kinds and more."

http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2008/06/17/words_matter_the_...

Michael asked:

"So why dont Adventists and the state promote prostitution?
After all, sin is only a religious conviction, right?

Are you for encouraging prostitution Elaine?"

Do you not know the difference between "promoting" and "legalizing"?

It is not illegal for a person to smoke, at least in certain areas. States' rules on this are not promoting smoking, by anyone's imagination. Many behaviors we would not condone, or nevertheless, "legal" by governmental definition.

You may promote Sabbath observance, but do you wish to legalize it?

BTW, in countries where prostitution is legal, the government has strict health inspections and rules that must be followed. There is a reason that prostitution is called the "world's oldest profession." Making it illegal, just as in Prohibition, had no success in curtailing it--just made it more profitable for many.

you wrote a good article but I'm left with questions, since you didn't specify how this civic-minded article relates to your view of ecclesial marriage..

one can assume either
1. that your views of marriage in the church mirror your views on civil marriage.
2. that your views of ecclesial marriage differ from your views on civil marriages.

for my part I don't think the church should have its ministers or congregations used in civil ceremonies- the pastor should not be an actor for the state.

i don't see the state as normative for the church so these recent changes in marriage laws make me curious- do people assume that the church will mirror society? that it will oppose it?

of course it's perfectly acceptable for you to not want to specify what marriage means for the church in your post on gay marriage in california. you should know that people will read into your article assuming 1 or 2 depending on what their personal views are. so being ambiguous might be more trouble than its worth.

/just to state the obvious, but you and i are both training within theology and for ministry. we're training for church work. hence my question: so what? what does this all mean for us as a church?

Elaine asked,
"Do you not know the difference between "promoting" and "legalizing"?

It is not illegal for a person to smoke, at least in certain areas. States' rules on this are not promoting smoking, by anyone's imagination. Many behaviors we would not condone, or nevertheless, "legal" by governmental definition.

You may promote Sabbath observance, but do you wish to legalize it?"

Do you not know that legalizing something promotes it? THere are restrictions and encouragements in life and in laws. The proverbial carrot and stick. I'm sure you can understand that. Removing restrictions to an action is a promotion.

As to the legality of smoking. If it wasnt in the politicians interest to gain revenue from the sale of tobacco and spirits it would probably be illegal. In the societal aspect, it causes multiple billions of dollars of grief and health damage to its users and those around it.

As to promoting Sabbath observance. I do it whenever I am able and it is already legal. Other than that I dont make any sense of your example.

The point of my query was the validity of your logic concerning gay marraige and the rational you offered to support it. If your rational was correct it should work with prostitution too.

It doesnt work by the way...

Sabbath observance is neither legal or illegal as designated by the state. It is neutral: the state says nothing about a day of worship for anyone, which is what was meant by "making it legal." The state has not ruled on it.

How has legalizing alcohol promoted it? Human behavior is not changed by such laws, as all the evidence has shown.

In having a good-faith discussion, I encourage folks to read this Tolbert article (for those who like their information straight up) and this great piece on I Cor. 6

Arsenokoités and Malakos: Meanings and Consequences

http://www.clgs.org/arsenokoit%C3%A9s-and-malakos-meanings-and-consequen...

"Sabbath observance is neither legal or illegal as designated by the state. It is neutral: the state says nothing about a day of worship for anyone, which is what was meant by "making it legal." The state has not ruled on it."

There are no neutral laws. There is only legal or illegal. And the State has ruled on it in many ways. Either in civil court or in other ways such as becomming a State and accepting the subordination to federal law.

There are however civil prohibitions on gay marraige, sodomy, lewd conduct ect. hence the big news that in California it is now legal to do what was before ILLEGAL. Again NOT NEUTRAL.

"How has legalizing alcohol promoted it? Human behavior is not changed by such laws, as all the evidence has shown."

As you enjoy to say, You are entitled to your opinion but not the facts.

Perhaps you would enjoy researching per capita consumption in the last 100 years and you will see. Its a question not only of if people drink or not but also one of degree. Behavior IS changed by laws.

Here is one covering back to 1750.
http://www.drugtext.org/library/articles/craig102.htm
Some good snippets;
"Great Britain’s experience parallels that of Australia. England reduced overall consumption by instituting fairly stringent alcohol regulation at about the same time as the United States instituted prohibition. Moreover, as Nadelmann notes, it reduced "the negative consequences of alcohol consumption more effectively than did the United States, but it did so in a manner that raised substantial government revenues."
One important way to evaluate the public health consequences of alcohol policies, then, is in terms of how they affect consumption. In 1932 Warburton pointed out that "except for the first three years, the per capita consumption of alcohol has been greater under prohibition than during the war period [1917-1919], with high taxation and restricted production and sale" (260). As table I suggests, both prohibition and postprohibition alcohol regulation kept overall consumption down compared with the decades prior to prohibition. Indeed, postprohibition regulatory policies kept alcohol use sufficiently low that it was not until the end of the 1960s, 35 years after repeal, that per capita alcohol consumption rose to the levels of 1915."

Again proof that regulation affects consumption and that there are no neutral Laws. Promotion (increase or escalation)is the absence of restriction. Dont get confused about promotion as advertizing here. We are not talking about that.
We are talking about how civil law effects peoples actions.

And just in case there is anyone who doesn't understand that homosexuals don't choose their orientation. . .i.e., you can't sin if it's not a choice.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/06/gay-brains-...

Via Andrew Sullivan new research on the neurobiology of sexual orientation:

The scans reveal that in gay people, key structures of the brain governing emotion, mood, anxiety and aggressiveness resemble those in straight people of the opposite sex. The differences are likely to have been forged in the womb or in early infancy, says Ivanka Savic, who conducted the study at the Karolinska Institute in Stockholm, Sweden. "This is the most robust measure so far of cerebral differences between homosexual and heterosexual subjects," she says.

Previous studies have also shown differences in brain architecture and activity between gay and straight people, but most relied on people's responses to sexuality driven cues that could have been learned, such as rating the attractiveness of male or female faces. To get round this, Savic and her colleague, Per Lindström, chose to measure brain parameters likely to have been fixed at birth. "That was the whole point of the study, to show parameters that differ, but which couldn't be altered by learning or cognitive processes," says Savic.

Alexander, I hope you are not deally with a death in your family, and wonder if it is safe to ask you at this time, why such interest in Homosexuality? Why bring it on to the Spectrum platform? You criticize me on another thread about being critical of Tim Russert's religious beliefs at the time of his death.

Everyone is praising six ways to Sunday, and you have the nerve to say that that question isn't fair game, yet bringing a topic like Homosexuality on to Spectrum and suggesting that the SDA church may want to support Gay marriage, is this not more outrageous than my question about Russert. Russert would be offended probably, if it was suggested that the RCC accept gay marriage. I personally am offended that you polluted the pages of Spectrum with it.

Alexander, couldn't you find a little more conservative institution than Pacific School of Religion and Mary Ann Tolbert, to drag on to Spectrum. Read in their own words what they stand for:

"Throughout its history, PSR has been on the cutting edge of emerging movements for change in the Christian tradition, representing an early voice for the equality of women, resisting racial prejudice and war, and advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and the economically disadvantaged. "

http://www.psr.edu/about-pacific-school-religion

Trudy

Sorry about the reference it should have been Gen 2:3 and Gen 2:4 where God made a sacrament of the Sabbath and in the same chapter made a sacrament of marriage. Seventh-Day Adventists say that to deny the first is to receive the mark of the beast. Why now do they insist on trying to deny marraige as God sanctified it? Particularly endorsing a beast like behavior?

The arguement that God made me this way, He must therefore bless me in this way. Flies in the face of Christ's response "An enemy hath done this!" Natural disasters are always referred to as the "Wrath of God". We have a twisted way of looking at the world in which man invited sin not God. Tom

So, there's something wrong with "change in the Christian tradition, representing an early voice for the equality of women, resisting racial prejudice and war, and advocating for the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and the economically disadvantaged. " ?

I guess I sort of thought that was one of the main points of Christianity. But, you know, I've been wrong before.

Niemand

And wrong again. Sorry.

Christianity is about believing in, following, and testifying to the Creative Power and Redemptive Love Of Jesus Christ.

He forgave sinners He did not endorse sin. His command was "Go and sin no more!"

You mix civil rights and salvation. The Supreme Court has no power to transform or to cleanse. That power was given to Christ alone. The entire Reformation was over the power of the Church to forgive sin by money, or power, or penitence.

Now you would add "boys will be boys!" Tom

I am not sure how we can say opposing gay marriage is protecting separation of church and state? As this issue moves more and more towards a civil rights issue (if it has not already fully ascertained that level), it infringes more and more upon my freedom of religion and our church's.

For example at this point as an Adventist minister, I can refuse to marry a homosexual couple based on my religious convictions. I can refuse to marry a heterosexual couple, again based on religious convictions. I cannot because of civil liberties, of which I absolutely agree with, refuse to marry a Black couple or an Asian couple simply because they are of another race. The government dictates that I do no have this freedom and I agree with their right to enforce that law. If gay marriage continues to gain momentum in this country, will their come a day when the government will be able to tell me I cannot refuse to marry a practicing homosexual couple based on my religious convictions? Would this mandate not infringe upon separation of church and state, and the liberty of conscience!?!
Some may argue well it is a civil rights issue, they may believe it is the same as being black, that a person does not have a choice in practicing homosexuality. I don't know if there are maybe some who have no choice, that may be true. But I do know some, even within my own family that have chosen, and would even I believe admit they have chosen this lifestyle for one reason or another. Now if that is even the case 1 time out of 100 it is not the same as being African-American or Hispanic or Caucasian or any race for that matter. I have not known one black person, white person, brown person, that has chosen to be of the ethnicity they are. This makes these two things vastly different!
Therefore supporting same sex marriage is not in fact to support separation of church and state, it is in fact the very opposite in that it will eventually lead to the infringement of state on moral conscience and religious liberty.

Chad

Jesus seems to have had his own concept about sin. But he was constantly committing what many of his contemporaries would have labeled "sin". As far as I can tell, Christ's message is, at least, STRONGLY social in its focus and goals. Otherwise, what on earth is the relevance of Christianity? IMHO, Christianity should be more about Dr. King, Sister Theresa, ADRA, etc. than evangelistic series.

Marc Stern (American Jewish Congress) wrote an interesting opinion piece on this issue published yesterday in the Los Angeles Times. A link is available at http://www.religiousliberty.tv/2008/06/gay-rights-and-religious-liberty-...

There are certainly a number of points to consider.

Out of curiosity (I really don't know this factoid), does anyone know if fertility clinics are allowed to refuse service to unmarried couples?

Whew!

Returning from Sacramento, I found that you all (readers and responders) have been busy! I'm glad to see that people are thinking about this issue from many perspectives.

I wish I could respond to more, but there is already plenty for people to read above. I do want to respond to a couple of things specifically:

Cliff said, "I'm sure Jesus looks approvingly on 'loving, monoganamous, and committed' homosexual sodomy, don't you?"

If by sodomy you're referring to the concept that derives from traditional Christianity usage meaning anal sex or oral sex (which by the way is what sodomy refers to), do you suppose God is offended by loving, monogamous, committed heterosexual sodomy? Because I think it's pretty safe to say that heterosexual couples engage in the same acts as do homosexual couples. One of my points throughout is that we need to be more uniform in the affirming or rejecting of practices. Consistency, if you please.

Daneen said, "It's amazing how tempted we are to selectively use the Bible to label what we disagree with." This is an example of what I meant in the original post when I said that Adventists insist on speaking the truth in love.

Jemand, you have really hit at the heart of the issue (several times). "You may believe homosexuality is a sin. But that does NOT give you a right to legally ban it." That's the point here, isn't it.

Johnny, my thoughts would be closest to your proposition 2. "that your views of ecclesial marriage differ from your views on civil marriages."

I would contend that in order to maintain the separation of Church and state in an issue where the state has assumed some authority in an issue that to my knowledge was first religious, the definition of marriage as 1. a legal right and as 2. an ecclesial rite or sacrament must be kept distinct.

Therefore, I argue that in the case of same-sex marriage, as a legal right, the state must allow it under the 14th Amendment as the California Supreme Court has ruled. However, as an ecclesial rite, congregations of any religion are under no orders to administer the rite, nor can the state mandate that they administer the rite.

What I mean is that it should be legal, clearly, and individual denominations should be free to decide without interference from the state whether or not they will marry same-sex couples based on their religious views.

Does that help to clarify?

One more thing to help people who are still unsure (or feel that I myself am confused) about why we cannot and must not make laws based on religious reasoning alone (as this amendment to California's constitution would do), I will try to be clear.

The First Amendment to the U.S. constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". This is commonly referred to as the Establishment Clause, and is commonly interpreted as pertaining to 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another or the support of a religious idea with no identifiable secular purpose.

At this point, I must be very clear about who I am and what I am doing. I am trained in theology, not law. I am in no way an expert or a specialist on the constitution. I speak only as someone who has read many interpretations of the amendment and its bearing on practical issues, such as the issue of same-sex marriage.

I welcome insight from legal experts on this matter (and if you're not a legal expert, you're still welcome to add your insights as I am doing, for what they are worth.)

A constitutional ban on same-sex marriage violates the Establishment Clause in that it mandates a religious viewpoint (that God opposes homosexuality and intended for marriage to be between a man and a woman) with no identifiable secular purpose.

RDS, I read the link you provided to an analysis of the issue from the folks at religiousliberty.info. In the article, there were no cases that I could see in which the government violated the First Amendment in any way. The author stopped short of saying that the ruling in Massachusetts violated anyone's religious freedom in light of the Constitution.

Tom: "He forgave sinners He did not endorse sin. His command was "Go and sin no more!"

And when and where did God define homosexuality as sin? If you've taken the time to read all the articles linked here, as well as the comments, there is nothing in the Ten Commandments regarding homosexuality; Jesus never spoke about it. The references to Sodom and Gomorrah as sin, were eliminated by Ezekiel's clear explanation about the sins there as being "gluttony, pride, arrogance, complacency" and never helping the poor and needy, and engaged in filthy practices in front of me." Surely, Lot's concession of offering his virginal daughters reflects the sin of its inhabitants.

As others have said, "sodomy" is a late term, never used in the Bible, but applied by Bible readers much later. It has also been used by heterosexuals as birth control. The dominant "missionary position" throughout history as reflected the dominant male over the submissive female, and thus seen as a political message of the victorious warriors over the defeated ones. Coming from a patriarchal culture, the Bible is only a reflection of the contemporary situation and is written accordingly.

Do you believe that leprosy should be considered an abomination today? Or that all the "abominations" in your concordance are still rightfully considered that today? Or doesn't every individual "pick and choose" those that are relevant today and those that no longer apply?

I think the church could make a better argument in favor of kleptomania-a persistent neuortic behavior to steal. After all many of our ordained in high office have practiced such long before and after Davenport. I know of only one instance where the church appealed to criminal law to punish the thief.

By the way,other than Cliff, has anyone in high office in the Church spoken on this thread or any other Spectrum thread either in favor or disfavor of a Basic Belief 29 in favor of same sex marraige?

How many bloggers think it will become an item on the next
General Conference agenda?

Finally, what is sin? Is it not acting against law? Did God not declare a natural law in regard to marraige?

Obviously, there will be no final word on this or any subject this side of the Parusia. Therefore, despite many attempts to change each others minds--we basically are the same mind still. Thus, on this topic. Good Night. Tom

Tom, please identify the text(s) that God declared a natural law in regard to marriage?

Because many have made that inference from Scripture, does not necessarily follow that God specifically detailed how marriage should be.
No one would desire to return to the biblical picture of marriage where the parents selected a bride for their son; or where a woman might be given in marriage to someone she did not know in repayment for a debt or to cement family or tribal relationships; or when a victorious Israelite warrior was told by God to take the virgins of the defeated nation to be their wives? Is that the kind of marriage anyone would wish today?
We have an idealistic dream of what marriages once were, but who were they benefiting? All our traditions have changed, and as described by a recent married woman, this is her reflection:

"Over the last 10 years or so, as the country has been talking about same-sex marriage, and as my relationship with Ellen has evolved, I've come around to the idea that marriage isn't one institution. Marriage is one word we use to describe a whole suite of institutions. Marriage is about money and property, love and religion, procreation and companionship. For most of history, nobody thought to distinguish between all of those different parts of marriage, because a wedding was the moment when a couple came together in all those ways. The day the priest blessed a couple, they became a single legal entity. That day, they moved into a new house together and had sex for the first time. The myriad distinct ways two people can put their lives together were rolled up in a single event.

In the past several decades, that has changed, for both straight and gay people. Couples routinely live together and have sex before marriage. Babies are born to unmarried women, mostly without scandal. Couples might buy a house together but keep separate bank accounts. A wedding, gay or straight, is not necessarily a moment of great transition so much as it is a simple marker of a years-long process."

Change is a constant: all "traditional" patterns have changed, or are in the process of changing. We cannot roll back the clock, and all our definitions of "sin" will not change humans. We can produce more sinners by enlarging the number of sins. What good will that do? Will that aid people toward "repentance" and turning to God, which is what some of the protesters are endorsing. Does that not alienate rather than attract others to Christianity? Is that the purpose in protesting what is occurring?

Recall the "Seven Deadly Sins" and how many each of us commits every day. Does that promote better living? How?

One thing we too soon forget: no one, not the government or anyone else is forcing anyone to the altar. Those who wish to be married can choose whether a church of their choice or a civil ceremony will suffice. The one change is that no longer will same-sex couples be denied the many benefits, legal and otherwise, that marriage has given. That is out and out discrimination, and was recognized as such by the California Supremes. What happens in California doesn't stay long in California, but other states will be affected, sooner or later.
However, no one's religious freedom is being harmed at all; nor is there heterosexual marriage being threatened. The benefits exclusively limited to straight couples is now available to all.

RDS, why should Alexander be made to use conservative sources? Are they more objective because they oppose extending rights and privileges to homosexuals? If the issue were Civil Rights in the 1950's, would we only accept information from white people who oppose giving rights and privileges to black people? If the issue were women's suffrage, would we only listen to the people who say that only men should vote?

Tom Zwemer, you said that the Supreme Court has no power to transform or cleanse, and that only Christ does. I agree. The Supreme Court doesn't seem interested in trying to do those things, and we as Christians cannot do those things. Especially by trying to transform or cleanse America by making laws to make the country transformed or clean.

At the risk of irritating myself and everyone else on all sides of this discussion, I hazard the suggestion that in California it is too late to be "for" or "against" gay marriage because from here on out the issue will be settled one way or another by the courts and they are supposed to be beyond our direct influence.

By a narrow margin the California Supreme Court ruled that the state's laws may no longer distinguish between "marriages" and "domestic partnerships" because they now guarantee Californians the same things.

Those who oppose this ruling might appeal it all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States. No matter what we say or do, the court's will do what they believe the nation's Constitution requires.

In this legal dispute, the issue of gay marriage will likely take second place to the proper roles of the judiciary, legislative and executive branches of government in cases like this one. In any event the courts either have or will decide things.

Those who oppose this determination might continue their efforts to establish by popular vote an ammendment to California's constitution requiring that "marriage" be limited to heterosexual unions. If this initiative fails, the ruling of the Supreme Court of California will stand unless overruled by a higher court.

If it succeeds its constitutionality will immediately be challenged which will throw the whole issue back to the courts again, with the possibility of it reaching the nation's Supreme Court from this starting place instead.

There are some things we can still do: (1) We can respectfully but firmly oppose those in our denomination who appear to be needlessly shrill; (2)We can resist the attempts of those who will do all they can in California to transform the election process into a single issue contest, thereby distracting our attention from other important issues so as to benefit themselves without the rest of us noticing: (3) we can promote and eventually vote for the candidates who, among other things, will appoint the sort judges we think best.

Here is an example: Those in California who want to make available for their commercial use vast portions of land and coastal waters, are likely to do whatever they can to keep the gay marriage debate boiling as hot as possible so that we pay more attention to it than to ecological responsibility, knowing full well that what we think about gay marriage hardly matters any more.

No matter what side we are on, those of us who live in California have done almost all we can do on this issue at this time. It might be the moment to bring other concerns into view as well.

Dr. Larson, your providing a reality check is an appropriate reminder of our limitations as players in the drama. You also suggest that we need to consider other concerns (I assume by this you mean not allowing the gay marriage debate to become a red herring issue in the presidential election). In writing this article, there are three significant issues at play aside from the presidential elections.

First, there is the issue that California voters will have the opportunity to vote for or against an amendment to the state's constitution that would legally define marriage (and thus the need for well-reasoned discussion to allow informed voting).

Second, there is the issue of how we as Adventist Christians perceive, treat, and love homosexuals (including the rights, privileges, and responsibilities we afford them as fellow human beings made in the image and likeness of God).

Third, there is the issue of imposing particular religious viewpoints on the nation by means of coercive legislation (which I suggest is always unethical, to put it very mildly).

So while the fate of same-sex marriage ultimately rests in the country's legal system, it is fair to say that a great deal remains for us to discuss and decide. And yes, we must never let this become a - or THE - defining issue in the presidential election when there are clearly much more pressing issues to consider. To do that would be to miss the point of this post, I feel.

Good points, Jared. Thanks!
Dave

Mr. Wright

Try Gen 1: 26-28 Gen. 2: 20-24

You might also consider Eph 5: 20-25

As to the word natural how about Romans 1: 26-27

Is or is not Lust as found in Romans 1: 27 among the "deadly sins?

Did you ever consider the power of pro-creation as a special gift of God? A gift on a par with the Sabbath? God did not create carnal knowledge. Grow up. Tom

Jared,
Great reply. It illustrates that it's possible for an ordinand to speak more clearly on politics than politicians themselves. That such a tact is a result of a solid theological grounding- you're excelling in both spheres!

Personally I've decided that I prefer to work to see our state protect the liberties of all rather than mirror our secty morality. That 'persecution' will come from the latter and is delayed by the former.

Why are we so intent on having other people conform to our ideas of personal relationships? At what point does another's marital or cohabitaing practices interfere with ours? When same-sex marriage has been declared the law of the land in California, why is there such an outrage by those who not only do not live in either of the affected states (Mass. and California) but their marital status is not one whit affected by it? Is there some primitive fear that when the traditions one has lived under most of his life are suddenly re-arranged that it causes him to lose his sense of balance and begin to mistrust his country and even his fellowman? Can someone explain this apparent inherent fear?

Tom,

Just because there were only two individuals, a male and a female, in the creation story we make the assumption that the sacramental union of oneness can exist only between a male and a female. God himself said, it is not good that a human being should be alone. Christ prayed that the oneness he experienced with his Father be the model of oneness humans should also experience.

The creative potential that God shared with human beings was not limited merely to the reproduction of little humans. Just as we can reproduce physical bodies in our likeness, we can also create intellectual and artistic endeavors that bear our unique image. We can give birth to concepts and ideas that will grow and expand for centuries to come. We can plant dreams and aspirations that will take root and blossom in future generations. By sowing our seed prodigiously, we can enlarge creation and multiply it in our likeness.

Growing up into Christ is indeed exciting. Continue growing, Tom.

Donna

Tom,

As the only Mr. Wright (I think) that has spoken here, I'll respond to your most recent comment. First, I've made so many responses that I am not certain to which of my comments your most recent post was directed.

Second, if you'd like to argue against same-sex marriage on the basis that procreation is not possible, consider also that there are many heterosexual couples that are unable to procreate. I have (consistently) been calling for consistency here. We need consistency.

As Alexander Carpenter pointed out, homosexuality is not a choice (seriously, who would willingly choose it just because?), and if there is no choice, there can be no sin.

As for growing up, please believe me when I say that I'm trying, and I'm getting there as quickly as I can.

Alexander, a gene for all that ails you, eh? Drunks, gays, cleptomaniacs,.... what else, smoking, beastiality, diobeying parents because of ADHD or some other defect, Sheesh!!!

You are an interesting Special Projects Coordinator for this organ, seems to me you are always on the liberal controversial side when there are plenty of arguments you could fairly quote the other way.

http://allpsych.com/journal/homosexuality.html

"We have examined many causes for homosexuality in the preceding pages, both biological and social. And although an interesting topic of debate, no one theory or experiment leads to a definitive answer. Some believe that the characters found on Xq28 are the Holy Grail of homosexuality research, the elusive 'gay gene'. Others may place stock in the theories of Foucault and Halperin. Perhaps Simon LeVay did reveal to us that anatomy is the key to understanding the difference in sexual orientation. Perhaps there is no one answer, that sexual orientation, whether homosexual or heterosexual; gay, straight, lesbian, or bisexual, all are a cause of a complex interaction between environmental, cognitive, and anatomical factors, shaping the individual at an early age."

Fairer statement in my opinion. Choice can overcome most of the above, even a "gene" for the unnatural, IMO, can be overcome. Why not explore this group on Spectrum some time:

http://exodus.to/content/category/6/24/57/

"Exodus is a nonprofit, interdenominational Christian organization promoting the message of Freedom from homosexuality through the power of Jesus Christ....

"Within both the Christian and secular communities, Exodus has challenged those who respond to homosexuals with ignorance and fear, and those who uphold homosexuality as a valid orientation. These extremes fail to convey the fullness of redemption found in Jesus Christ, a gift which is available to all who commit their life and their sexuality to Him."

Make it a "Special Project"!!!

No choice equals no sin?? That really gets us off the hook of selfishness completely, doesn't it?

Also, what rationale would the state now have to discriminate against three people of any sex getting married?

"Also, what rationale would the state now have to discriminate against three people of any sex getting married?"

That would require a constitutional amendement, most likely, as I believe that the laws for bigamy still apply. No doubt, if you wished to have an extra partner, you might try and let us know if the license is given for three individuals.

Gerhard,

As far as I know, sin is always defined as willful, and therefore a choice. A propensity to sin is not the same as participating in sin. One involves inclination, the other deliberation.

Did you read the discussion in the main article above that deals with polygamy? If not, feel free to check it out. It provides some good reasons (not my own) why the state would reject a multiple partner marriage.

You may also be interested in this article from the L A Times because it provides arguments on both sides of the Same-sex-Leads-to-Polygamy argument. It is a point, counterpoint discussion between two capable experts of the law.

Great links Jared.

Dave Larsons column is good also.
http://spectrummagazine.org/articles/column/2008/06/17/words_matter_the_california_supreme_court_“straight_marriages”_and_“gay_d

Elaine,

Fear factor! Yes, there is a fear that God will hold us responsible for the stench that arises out of California. Remember the story in Judges 19, 20, 21 when the homos wanted to rape the man but he gave his wife instead. They ganged rapped and sodomised her until she died. That was not the end of the story however. God punished the nation for allowing conditions to develop to the point that such atrocities occurred. What was the cost, over 65,000 men perished. Christians have a civil duty to speak up and vote against immoral behavior otherwise we become an assessor to aiding and abetting the evil.

We must not forget, after the state and country has had their say, God has something to say about despicable sexual relationships. We may not live to see the country we bequeath our children but they may certainly pay for our sins. There were only a few people who realized when our forefathers put slavery in the constitution what it was going to cost to root it out: 620,000 American lives. Once false information is put in the next generation’s mind it is not easy to remove it, even good people evil is acceptable.

As far as I can see, the only pleasant things coming out of California right now is Tiger Woods and Fresno State baseball.

glojohn, any Special Projects Coordinator should be even handed, not biased. As Fox News says, "We report, you decide."

To suggest being black is like being homosexual, should insult every black, to suggest equality for women, should insult every woman. Again, there are enough sources to give a more balanced discussion that Alexander has accomplished.

Jared, a propensity to sin, what do you think "original sin" is all about. If the sources were a little more even handed here on Spectrum, choice is what it would all be about.

I am a Biology major, and I know from my Embyrology Class that things can go terribly wrong in the birth/gestation process. Those born with both sex organs, or between both sex organs, need medical assistance to get "set up" one way or the other, but Homosexuality is a choice, it feels good, so do it, that girl turned me down and that guy made me feel good, what do we need a guy for, right Ellen D., you can always get the turkey baster out if you want a kid, and head to the local sperm bank.

Spectrum staff, a little more even handedness on this topic would be appreciated, and going to down town San Fran for your sources, isn't exactly making you look unbiased!!!!

JB

I am truly appalled that you can compare the rape of the levites concubine or American slavery to a consensual same-sex relationship. The first two would hopefully be viewed as horrible crimes by anyone on this forum. But I fail to see how it has been demonstrated that homosexuality is a crime at all, much less anything comparable to an atrocity.
What I fear, more than God punishing this country for finally becoming a little more tolerant is that we will pass down a tradition of fear, bigotry and hatred to our children and grand-children.

Also, in general, as others have pointed out, I see no record in the Bible of God or Jesus making any comment what-so-ever on homosexuality. Any references would seem to come from Moses or Paul. But others have argued much more eloquently than I can on that point.

RDS, finding organizations who agree with one is different than finding good scientific, historical, Biblical, logical reasons to take a position.

On that note, I invite anyone to compare the thoughtful, well-research articles from CLGS with your "journal" article.

Significantly the author does such shoddy research that he got Foucault's first name wrong. It's Michel.

Yes, we all know the not very successful ex-gay Exodus Int'l, but their leaders have a tradition of having a hard time walking their straight talk, if you know what I mean. Also, Exodus has a history of being outright dishonest with research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exodus_International#Incidents

I really don't like your tone, but I will respond.

You do get something right here. I'm terribly biased. . .toward research and critical thinking. If just one person could convincingly refute the linguistic facts in the research and history in the articles that I've referenced, I'd be happy to change my view. Thus far, a lot of the anti-same sex marriage folks have used a mocking, personal attack approach and they seem to get really emotional.

In fact, the logic breaks down clearly on every single level, but that takes comparative analysis. (Tellingly, you complained because I printed an entire article.)

It's not a matter of "on the one hand or the other," on this issue, the key is the quality of ones' research and thinking.

And between you and me, you might be more convincing to our 7000 absolute unique viewers a week with less exclamation points, and more. . .points.

RDS,

I think that it's funny that you insist on even-handedness and cite Fox News, the most obviously biased news organization in the media today.

Jared and Company: After reading all these comments, I must confess that, had I known that one day the church I considered to be God's "Remnant" would one day defend what the Bible cearly condemns, I might have had second thoughts about joining such a Christian organization over half a century ago.

The more I compare our SDA moral stand and behavior with those of other religious organizations, the less morally "fallen" the other religious organizations seem to me, and the less "beastly" does the Roman Church appear to me. As I ponder our attitude toward sexual immorality, adultery, cohabitation, homosexuality, abortion, and divorce, I have a hard time pushing away the temptation to conclude that we are as a religious organization "Remnant no More!"

Please, help me believe that I am wrong! Help me discover the way in which we are still unique in God's eyes! We keep the Sabbath, of course? Didn't those who crucified the son of God hold in high esteem the sacredness of Holy Time? Didn't they rush, after killing their Messiah, to make sure they would be home before sunset?

Yes, we care about health, and we are helping smokers live four or five years longer, but we justify the killing of the unborn, thus depriving them of their entire life span! Shall I also make reference to the "Investigative Judgment" doctrine? Do you think that defending a doctrine which is rather obscure and questionable has moral value in the sight of God if we ignore and deny what is crystal clear in the bible such as sexual sins and the shedding of innocent blood, which are undeniably condemned in Scripture?

Please, help me unravel this tremendous conundrum!

"God has something to say about despicable sexual relationships."

Please explain how the two 80-plus years-old women who were finally able to marry, that they desired marriage to continue "despicable sexual relationships."?

No one would trivialize heterosexual marriage as based on the sole desire to have endless sexual relationships. Why is it so impossible to believe that there are people who desire companionship, love, and care, realizing that God said "it is not good that man be alone."

Marriage, of both different sex, and same-sex, is much, much more than sexual relationships. But, invariably, that is the one disagreeable factor that always appears. Perhaps some here, like Paul, are "turned off" by such sexual intimacy of all kinds.

Glojohn, as Rush Limbaugh said and I believe Fox News feels the same way, "We are equal time." Because the mainstream media is so liberal, balance like Fox's and a voice like Rush's evens the playing field, even though I don't agree with both on everything, they do even the playing field.

Nic - what government or Kingdom to we strive to citizens of? God's Kingdom, no? What government on earth looks like, acts like God's Kingdom? NONE. There is not one. Do the governments of earth have a purpose? Yes, absolutely. If asked to vote on any item, do vote your conscience. But in the end, does it matter whether gay marriage is legal on not from a government of earth point of view to God? No. Does it matter if abortion is legal or not from a government point of view, ultimately? No. The only thing that matters is how YOU will respond to the gay person or the 17 y.o. girl who has been kicked out of her house by Christian parents who can not accept the fact that she is pregnant. If you are willing to die for this girl or for the gay person, then you might have standing to speak. If we treat gay and abortionist with love and compassion, and are willing to "bleed" for them, that is what matters. Ultimately it does not matter what the church or your friends believe. It is what you believe and how you act. And you can't force anyone to believe anything. Might and power does not work. They only one you can control is yourself.
A.W.

RDS,

I appreciate that you have taken time to share thoughts that are obviously important to you. In fact these issues are important to all of us - we all have some stake in these issues because we are all part of an interconnected web of humanity. What affects part of us affects all of us.

So with consideration for how much we are invested in these issues, and how much we care about the integrity of our faith and the Scriptures (and believe me, I care!), I want to procede cautiously. I want to affirm people amid the discussion and inevitable disagreements.

Having said all of that, I would like you to know that I have personally spoken with many homosexuals, and I'm sure that in my conversations with people as a minister, I will talk with many more homosexuals. And you know something, not a single one feels that their homosexuality is a benefit. Every one, down to a person feels as though homosexuality is as much ingrained in their being as is the color of their eyes.

One man in particular, who is also a relative of mine, asks why any person would ever choose all the stigma and rejection, the depression and anxiety that accompanies homosexuality. Why would a person forgo the opportunity to live a life of deep married love when the alternative would be facing people like many here who condemn their every move. If this were a choice, who would make such a choice!

This relative of mine goes on to say that if God is planning to send him to hell for the way that he is, he will go. But first, he would like to have a word with God.

RDS before you go around acting as if you have the inside track on homosexuality, that you somehow understand the motivation of the deeply committed and conflicted Christian men and women who have struggled with feelings they themselves at times feel are wrong, please take some time to get to know someone who is homosexual. Listen to his or her experiences. Ask how it feels to be gay. Ask whether this is the way he or she would be if it were a choice.

If you do that, if you take time to really listen, I imagine you'll be more reticent in claiming that people turn gay on a whim. It is nowhere near that simple.

Mr Wright (Jared)

Once again you prove my point. You insist upon begging the question. That is why I commented Grow Up. However, I have since changed my mind. What I am deal with in this thread and several related threads is Universalism running under the radar of Seventh-day Adventism. Now that I understand, I have no argument and certainly nothing to contribute. I offer only one apology, that is to Cliff. I can now understand your total frustration.

My views are quite simply: If you claim to be a Seventh-day Adventist then believe, proclaim, and defend the 28 Fundamental Beliefs. If you claim to be a Christian, believe, proclaim, and defend the Christ event as both necessary and sufficient. If you are a Universalist, take off your sheep's clothing and stand with the wolves. After all God made them too! Tom

Niemand,

I am appalled that you are appalled. What has happened to your moral eye sight? You are truly Laodicean. The SDA Church does not support homosexual marriage! Don’t you think your Christian brother should carry some weight concerning your interpretation of the Bible? EGW did not support homosexual relationships, nor did any of our SDA founders, or William Miller, John Wesley, Roger Williams, Martin Luther or the reformers, John Wycliffe, the Waldensians, Augustine, nor any of the disciples, nor Jesus himself. Do you realize you are standing on the same side as Baal worshipers, Pagans and heathens!

You should be worried when you can see clearly the wrongs of past generations but cannot see the one right in front of your nose. The people in Jesus’ day were so confident that they would never have killed the prophets that their fathers killed. Yet the Son of God, greater than all the prophets, stood right in front of their noses, they thought He was devil, murdered Him and thought they had done God a favor.

Elaine,

Do you really want me to explain how to use a Dildo? Everybody who lived in Sodom and Gomorrah were not sodomites. Lot’s wife perished because she sympathized with their life style. In a conspiracy, to be convicted of the crime that was actually committed, the only requirement is you were in agreement with the criminals. If two 80 year old women had been living together for many years, why did they go out of their way to make a public statement in support of lesbian marriage? It was to encourage others to follow them.

Wow, JB, that is a very neat trick you just performed!! The logical leap from homosexual marriage to killing the Son of God is a feat of mental acrobatics of truly epic proportions. Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

(p.s. Why do you wear that mask? Was your face burned with acid or something? No, it's just that they're terribly comfortable. I think in the future everybody will be wearing one.)

A. Way, You stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 6:35

"But in the end, does it matter whether gay marriage is legal on not from a government of earth point of view to God? No. Does it matter if abortion is legal or not from a government point of view, ultimately? No. The only thing that matters is how YOU will respond to the gay person or the 17 y.o. girl who has been kicked out of her house by Christian parents who can not accept the fact that she is pregnant."

I hope you agree with me that governments do not exist in a vacuum. They were instituted by God for the protection of human life and property. This is implied in the U.S. "Declaration of Independence" where we find the following assertion:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Notice the reference to the Creator. The founders of our great nation did acknowledge that we owe our existence to a higher power than that of the government or the governed. We are the result of a careful design, and common sense indicates that sex was designed with an heterosexual relationship in mind. Said Designer has given us a manual to help us function in accordance with said design.

If we are careful in following a car's manual, the same principle applies to our bodies, which were designed to be "the Temple of the Holy Spirit." Any deviance from what God intended for us affects society, our taxes, and the government. The Creator gave specific instructions regarding the proper use of sex, and when adultery, fornication, and abortion takes place, the entire society has to suffer the consequences of such deviant behavior.

Marriage is a sacred institution, and it has been recognized as such for thousands of years. It was instituded at Eden, and it was honored with the presence of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. If it is sacred, then it should not be desecrated by altering it beyond recognition. The profanation of the marriage institution is akin to what Antiochus Epiphanes did to the Jewish Temple in Jerusalem. The Maccabees gave their lives to restore the dignity of said sacred building.

The material Solomon used to build the Jewish Temple did not possess any intrinsic sacred value. Once the building was erected and dedicated to the worship of God, it became sacred. Adam and Eve were the product of dust with no intrinsic value. Nevertheless, once they were blessed by God, their marriage became sacred. Said institution of marriage was recognized as a gift of God for the happyness of human beings and the stability of nations. Whatever harms the marriage institution, harms the welfare of the nation.

Shall we continue to insist that all gays and lesbians live a celibate life from start to finish? Haven't we seen enough evidence that, as we have always been fond of saying, a celibate priesthood is an unnatural lifestyle?

For those who are convinced that the Bible condemns all forms of same-sex relationships (which it does not), do you believe that God would condemn insist that everyone who is born with a homosexual orientation should live lonely (with no close initimate companionship), rejected and ostracized (by Christians) lives? Is this the abundant life Jesus offers His followers?

Read this source, just not the one from San Fran:

"Same-sex Deficit

Dr. Elizabeth Moberly of Cambridge, England, author of two clinical books regarding origins and treatment of homosexuality, believes that it is important to see the homosexual condition as involving a same-sex deficit, resulting in a insecure identity which cripples same-sex relationships.

Due to some early difficulty, especially with the same-sex parent-such as separation or emotional unavailability- there remains an unmet need for love and identification, together with a half-hidden sense of hurt of grievance, towards members of the same sex. Dr. Moberly believes the path toward growth and change requires a same-sex therapist, who will help the homosexual to build a more secure identity through fulfilling legitimate relational needs in healthy non-sexual ways, and through resolving same-sex hurts and conflicts from the past. Dr. Moberly concludes that realistic heterosexual relating becomes possible when same-sex issues have been addressed."

http://www.exodusglobalalliance.org/homosexualityandthetruthp37.php

Inherited Homosexuality?, read what this scientist has to say about it:

"Biological conclusions
Drs. Byne and Parsons of the Department of Psychiatry at Columbia University reviewed the biologic theories of human sexual orientation in 1993 and concluded, "[T]here is no evidence at present to substantiate a biologic theory."25 No study suggests that a simple cause–effect relationship exists.26 And Dr. Earl Wilson wrote, "the disputed evidence for physical causes of male homosexuality is even weaker when it comes to lesbianism."27

Regardless of the role that genetics play in the development of sexual attractions, such attractions are changeable and treatable. In analogy, although the City of Hope National Medical Center researchers found a certain gene present in 77% of the alcoholic patients they studied, we have not abandoned treatment for alcoholism.28 Many former alcoholics have changed their behavior and lead productive lives. You have control over your destiny. As a child of God, you have moral agency and can determine the course of your life. Regardless of any biological thread, thousands of men who struggle with homosexual attractions have made changes in their lives for the better."

http://www.evergreeninternational.org/causes.htm

JB

It's one thing to consider an activity a sin, like many conservative Xtians do with homosexuality, masturbation, etc. It is quite another to compare those sorts of things with genocide, rape, and human trafficking. It's like when a professor of mine compared the Harry Potter series to porn and cocaine, but really, much, much more offensive and (in my mind) illogical and hurtful.
Btw, I would far rather stand on the side of the Heathens than on the side of callous and decidedly un-Christlike Xtians like Luther, John Knox, Charlemagne, and definitely Augustine.

Nic - yes, marriage is sacred. It is an institution of God, not the government. Yes, governments have purpose, to maintain order. You use the example of the U.S. government. How about Great Britain? Egypt? Saudi Arabia? The Taliban? China? Yes, they all have purpose.

Would you advocate that SDA's push for laws that we all keep the Sabbath? It is a holy institution set up by God just as marriage was. In fact, the Sabbath is in the 10 commandments! And while we are at it, we should enforce the 10th commandment which means we won't even want to break the others. Yep - we should force everyone to think like us. That will convince them. But then I read Zech 4:6. You can't force Love. So we are back to my original argument, that it is our response that is the most important. How will we treat the gay and the abortionist, that ultimately matters.
(Matthew 25:40 KJV) ... Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Elaine, you stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 5:37:

"it is not good that man be alone."

I have a question for you: What did the Lord do after asserting that it was not good for Adam to be alone? Did he give Adam a Steve for companionship, or an Eve?

What else did God do regarding sexual deviancy? He made it clear that same-sex activity was an abomination to him. How can you jump from these facts to the desecration of Holy Matrimony by elevating this anomalous relationship to the category of sacred marriage?

If the government wants to be merciful and grant cohabitation legal rights to homosexuals, this should not degenerate into the desecration of a sacred institution which has served civilization for thousands of years.

Jesus was merciful to repentant sinners, but he never presided over nor honored with his presence a homosexual marriage. There is no recorded blessing in Scripture for this type of activity, but rather clear statements that those who engage in it are forfeiting eternal life. How can we, the "Remnant of God," bless what God has cursed?

Jared, You stated the following on 18 June 2008 at 7:09:

"Having said all of that, I would like you to know that I have personally spoken with many homosexuals, and I'm sure that in my conversations with people as a minister, I will talk with many more homosexuals. And you know something, not a single one feels that their homosexuality is a benefit."

It is true that some of those affected by homosexuality were born that way. No doubt! Nevertheless, it is also true that others are the result of aculturation. Even Jesus recognized that some eunuchs were born that way, while others were made that way by men.

Now my question to you: Would you grant that, by elevating this type of deviant sexual behavior to the category of sacred marriage, the result will be that many who would otherwise prefer to follow nature, will be enticed to adopt this type of lifestyle?

You state that none of those homosexuals you have talked to are really happy with their anomalous and unnatural sexual desires. If that is the case, then, why do you want to bless the desecration of the marriage vows which will contribute to the increase of the number of those afflicted by homosexuality?

Should society norms tend to augment the number of those afflicted by homosexuality? Does this make sense to you? Should the government assist in the spread of homosexual behavior or do the opposite?

Nic, I would extend to you the same invitation - get to know some lesbian ladies. Get to know some gay men. Talk with them. Get to be on a first name basis. Listen to their stories. Find out their experiences. Share with them your concerns and allow them to voice their concerns as well.

We cannot go on arrogantly speaking on behalf of other people as if we perfectly understand what they think, feel or experience. We talk as if we are standing in their shoes without even knowing what kind of shoes they wear.

We must stop it. For God's sake stop it.

Carrol,You stated on 18 June 2008 at 10:38 the following:

"Shall we continue to insist that all gays and lesbians live a celibate life from start to finish? Haven't we seen enough evidence that, as we have always been fond of saying, a celibate priesthood is an unnatural lifestyle?"

The question we are trying to elucidate is not whether society should interfere with homosexual behavior, but rather whether the government should bless what the Lord has cursed. Most homosexuals will continue to cling to their deviant lifestyle regardless of what we say or do. The question of this blog is whether we as members of the "Remnant" church should approve the desecration of the marriage institution for the sake of granting homosexuals certain legal rights.

There are many ways of granting homosexuals the legal rights they are fighting for without profaning the sacred marriage institution. What homosexuals want is for society to elevate their deviant sexual behavior up to par with what the Lord has designed, created, and blessed, which is the holly state of matrimony. Humans will never be able to bless what the Lord has never blest.

This is akin to what the Catholic church has tried to do with Sunday. God never blessed the first day of the week, and it will never have God's blessing! Likewise, God has never blessed homosexual activity, and it will never be blest.

How is a same sex marriage consumated?

Nic

How does someone else's same-sex marriage or Sunday church attendance desecrate your marriage or your Sabbath?

Dear Gerhard - you well know how marriage is consumated - or if you don't,ask Nic. He knows all about deviant, abnormal sexual behavior.

I would urge you both to be very, very careful. It has been well documented that persons who strongly react negatively to gays have latent homosexual tendencies.

Donna

Having been brought up in another culture, I'm still trying to make sense of the strong negative reactions I've found in this country in regards to what has been viewed in my ethnic community as the "third sex". I've always thought it's cultural, but does this also mean in some parts of the world, more than in others, there is a greater number of people with latent homosexual tendencies?

http://www.lib.latrobe.edu.au/AHR/emuse/Globalqueering/tan.html
http://pinoykasi.homestead.com/files/2001articles/06282001_Transgenders....

Nic and all the rest,

What do you have to lose by becoming acquainted with homosexual people? Homosexuality will not rub off on you. There is nothing to be afraid of there. I was in Sacramento Tuesday talking with my Representatives at the Capitol. While there, I met and spoke at some length with a man who told me that he was the first openly gay Jewish rabbi. He was a lovely person. He spoke candidly about what it has been like for him as a gay Jew and a rabbi at that. He said that he is tired. He is tired, but not dead yet.

We have to get to know these individuals before we can speak intelligently about what they experience. We certainly have nothing to lose by doing so. If Jesus could live among the people that his society rejected and denounced, why should we as Jesus' followers do any differently? Again, we have much to gain, and nothing to lose by getting to know homosexual people.

On the other hand, when we speak on subjects with no knowledge save hearsay, we stand to lose a lot - particularly our credibility. Why should we expect people to listen to us when the best we can do is offer conjecture and opinion? Opinions are valid in that it is people, fellow humans, who hold them. Yet the validity of people's opnions falls off quickly if opnion is not based on something more than rumors and presupposition.

Nic,

How is it that the passages from Torah and Paul's statements regarding homosexual behavior are not reflecting a more primitive cultural understandings of God's character of love, but the idea of Jesus as a substitute for sin does?

How is it that interpreting John's statement that Jesus is "...the atoning sacrifice (that is, sacrifice that is in line with the OT/temple sense of substitute) for our sins, and not only ours, but the whole world's," as substitutionary is a monstrous distortion of God's loving character, but excluding homosexuals from Christian fellowship is not?

I'm just trying to see the consistency of your interpretive thought.

Thanks...

Frank

There have been a lot of comments, and it was impossible to go through them all. I hope I'm not being duplicative, though I'm sure I will be. I'll try to address as much as I can...

I am in agreement with Pastor Wright. For us to support the legal banning of gay marriage is antithetical to the principles of church and state separation and the gift of free will that God has imparted.

Let's be clear - the support for a religious definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is a religious argument. There is no other foundation. The studies and statistics about the effects on children are post-thought rationales we are using to support our religious foundations (ie, the way people claim that Sunday is the proper day of worship because Jesus rose, when that has nothing to do with why Sunday was first instituted). Codifying are religious principles into secular law is impermissible for the Christian. We as Christians are not called to exert pressure on people by force of law to follow God's edicts. It is the Spirit of God that causes a change in people's behavior and we should not be using flawed human systems to force that change. Banning gay marriage is quite simply human beings trying to combine the church with the state. I don't think that there is any argument against that.

BTW, it is important to note that the separation of church and state is a Biblical concept and not just an American legal concept. Even in a theocracy (like God's Israel), there were very distinct roles for the King and the Priest. Kings were not allowed to lead out in the religious services. Furthermore, the Bible has always taken a negative stance against theocratic acts by kings in other nations. The stories of the Three Hebrew Boys and Daniel in the Lions' Den are clear on God's view of the conjoining of the church (or religious expression) and the state. Finally, and I think most compellingly, it is a state-church union that crucified Jesus Christ (See Matt. 27: 1,2). Any act that would lead to a church state union (like the support of a gay marriage ban by Christian groups who support the move on purely religious grounds), is clearly antithetical to the Biblical thoughts on the subject.

In addition, there are the notions of free will to consider. After the gift of Jesus Christ, the greatest gift that God has given mankind is the ability to think and decide for his/herself. I have often stated that we as humn beings have a God given right to sin. That right cannot be taken away, especially on questions that do not impinge upon the rights of others. So while secular societies can dictate law against murder and robbery (which impinge on another person's right to live or possess property), secular governments should not be in the business of making laws that would decide questions that do not impinge on the rights of others and involve a human being's ability to decide life's great questions for themselves (ie, who should I marry, or when life begins). To attempt to decide these great questions for other human beings, we are essentially telling God that His system of free will is flawed. Who are we to tell God that He was wrong?

Here is the misconception that people often make. I did not see in Pastor Wright's argument (and I am not saying in mine) anything about whether homosexuality itself is sinful. I happen to believe that it is. However, God has not placed any of us in any position to dictate to others through force of law what they should do with their lives. Only God can dictate and even He chooses not to. We should do the same.

This leads me to a few other important points. First, how does the prohibition against gay marriage really address the sin issue? Why are we dealing with an outgrowth and not the problem? Isn't the problem homosexual conduct? Shouldn't we be addressing that issue? Why aren't we? I think it is because we are only concerned with removing the look of immorality rather than immorality itself. Furthermore, why are we so stuck on homosexuality? Where is the movement to ban fornication, or the consumption of unclean meats. Once again I think there is a stigma to homosexuality that makes it particularly repugnant to us, and we are willing to let a whole bunch of other sins go... If you're going to be in support of codifying religion, let's go all out.

Here's the problem legally and spiritually as I see it. We allowed something spiritual to become secular and now that it is about to become to secular we want it back. That's just not fair. Marriage is a religious, spiritual institution, but we allowed it to have secular benefits. We lost this fight when we allowed the government to call its civil union "marriage." Now that gay people want to take part we want to snatch it from them because we never envisioned a world where gay people would want to be married. Well that's our fault for allowing marriage to be co-opted, and homosexuals shouldn't be denied rights for our mistakes. Here's how I think you could fix it. From now on, make everyone do two ceremonies. Leave marriage to the religious realm where it truly always belonged. If you want tax benefits and other secular rights, then all couples, gay and straight, have to go before a judge and get a civil union. We can grandfather in all the couples that are already married, but if you have a marriage planned in the future you will need to married by both the state and the church separately if you want the secular benefits that marriage now holds. This way, we don't discriminate against homosexuals (by either not allowing them to marry or by giving them a "civil union," which is just as discriminatory even if it does have all the civil benefits), and we will be able to protect marriage as an institution of the church.

God Bless everyone,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Hello again everybody,

A brief PS for an idea that I think has already been expressed but should've been in my earlier comment.

Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion. These things are examples of what is called "permissive legislation." I support the right of people to make up their own minds about these basic questions, without legal pressure from Christian groups. So two homosexuals want to join their lives together to partake of the civil benefits society offers in civil marriage? I believe in their right to make that decision, even if I think that they shouldn't (kind of). A woman believes that life doesn't being in the first three weeks of her pregnancy so she wants to terminate it, I believe in her right to make that decision, even if I wish that she wouldn't terminate her pregnancy. By allowing permissive legislation on these issues, we are simply leaving the moral playing field clear and level. God does that for us doesn't He? We should do it for others.

God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Joselito,

Interesting points. To confirm your comments, I used to see "lady boys" around when I used to scuba at Puerto Galero.

Also interesting was that often Filipina domestic workers workers in HK would sometimes have a lesbian style activity friend but later if married would adopt the heterosexual lifestyle without great "trauma."

You have mentioned that "cultural aspect" of behaviour before. Of course in Thailand you have the "gay" and "transexual" community cultures.

regards,

pat

A. Way:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 5:43:

"Would you advocate that SDA's push for laws that we all keep the Sabbath? It is a holy institution set up by God just as marriage was."

My answer is "NO." Notice that I am not advocating the prosecution of those who are living a honosexual lifestyle. I am not saying that those who are living with another individual of the same sex should be deprived of their legal rights.

What I am saying is that the government has no busines granting a marriage license to homosexuals. For thousands of years marriage has been defined by civilization as a union between heterosexuals, not homosexuals. God did bless the marriage institution, and government has no right to desecrate what God has blessed.

The author of this blog has admitted that gays are not exactly happy with their predicament. Granting them a marriage certificate will have the tendency to entice others who are sexually normal individuals to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. The government duty is not to spread the misery experienced by homosexuals to others who were not born with said propensity to sexual deviancy from what nature has designed as the proper and normal sexual role.

Nic:

A question based on your last comment:

If we allow secular government to define marriage in a religious way, based on pressure from Christian groups, what argument do we have when they want to define other religious institutions, like the Sabbath, which you said you would clearly be against? Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?

Jason

Nic:

A question based on your last comment:

If we allow secular government to define marriage in a religious way, based on pressure from Christian groups, what argument do we have when they want to define other religious institutions, like the Sabbath, which you said you would clearly be against? Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?

Jason

Gay marriage should not be an issue if people who are opposed to it are careful enough to make sure that they marry someone of the opposite sex.

Nic,
What did you think of the comment by Jason A. Hines? He said-

Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion. These things are examples of what is called "permissive legislation." I support the right of people to make up their own minds about these basic questions, without legal pressure from Christian groups. So two homosexuals want to join their lives together to partake of the civil benefits society offers in civil marriage? I believe in their right to make that decision, even if I think that they shouldn't (kind of). A woman believes that life doesn't being in the first three weeks of her pregnancy so she wants to terminate it, I believe in her right to make that decision, even if I wish that she wouldn't terminate her pregnancy. By allowing permissive legislation on these issues, we are simply leaving the moral playing field clear and level. God does that for us doesn't He? We should do it for others.

Jared:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 6:59:

"We cannot go on arrogantly speaking on behalf of other people as if we perfectly understand what they think, feel or experience. We talk as if we are standing in their shoes without even knowing what kind of shoes they wear. We must stop it. For God's sake stop it."

You are asking me to "stop it" while giving me reasons not to stop. Have you forgotten the title of your blog: "Why Adventists Should Consider Supporting Gay Marriage"? Notice that the topic you asked us to blog on is not simpathizing with the plight of the homosexuals, but rather supporting granting homosexuals the honorary title of legally married.

Marriage is a sacred institution blessed by the Creator, and recognized as such by civilization for thousands of years. You want me and other Adventists to declare that homosexual behavior should be considered normal and entitled to the same honor granted to those engaged in normal sexual behavior.

You admitted that in your conversation with homosexuals you have documented the fact that these individuals are not exactly happy with their abnormal sexual desires and preferences. This means to me that, by granting them the honorary state of legally married, this will be an incentive for many sexually normal people to adopt the homosexual lifestyle. Is this what you want? Really? You want the misery experienced by homosexuals to spread to the general population?

Jared: Do you realize the fallacy of your faulty logic? And you want me to adopt your erroneous way of thinking? You want me to talk to homosexuals and walk in their mocassins. What will that do to alter my perception of the problem? I do agree with you that they are in fact not exactly "gay" in the original sense of the word. Do I want to ameliorate the problem or to spread the misery to the general population?

Please, encourage Adventists to vote for an amendment to the Constitution in November defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman! Such a move will discourage those with normal sexual tendencies from adopting a lifestyle which tends to make them unhappy! Unless you really prefer that said misery experienced by those practicing the homosexual lifestyle be shared by more and more normal individuals who were not born with deviant sexual preferences.

I know that Jesus loves homosexuals, and I will grant that his love for them far surpasses those not affected by such abnormal tendecies. This is no reason to grant them a state they are not entitled to. Desecrating a sacred institution for the sake of sinners does not make sense to me!

Nic,
Your attacks on Jared are misdirected. He said very specifically that he does view the discussion of
a. the nature of marriage for the state
b. the nature of marriage for the church
as being mutually exclusive. His views in one sphere do not translate to the other necessarily. It's the point that Jason A. Hines made also.

Niemand:

You asked the following question on 19 June 2008 at 7:22:

"How does someone else's same-sex marriage or Sunday church attendance desecrate your marriage or your Sabbath?"

Good question! Bear in mind that the marriage and the Sabbath institutions do not belong to me, but to the Creator. He is the one who blessed both, not I, and is the one who gave us rules for proper sexual conduct. This was done with our happyness in mind.

Please, read my response to Jared, the author of this blog. He did admit that gay individuals are not exactly "gay" in the original meaning of this term. This means that by granting a marriage certificate to those engaged in a homosexual lifestyle, the temptation to adopt a similar way of life will spread to many others who were not born with an abonrmal sexual preference. This means that the government will be engaged in spreading the misery experienced by homosexual individuals to the general population!

Increasing the number of people suffering this type of abnormality does not make sense to me. As Adventists we do not encourage the government to grant a special status for the observance of Sunday as a day of worship. Likewise, we Adventists should discourage the government from granting marriage licenses to homosexuals.

Both the Sabbath and the marriage institutions were created and blessed by God. We should discourage the government from engaging in desecrating either one of them. This is different from suggesting that the government prosecute either Sabbath breakers or those practicing the homosexual lifestyle.

Nic said:

I know that Jesus loves homosexuals, and I will grant that his love for them far surpasses those not affected by such abnormal tendecies. This is no reason to grant them a state they are not entitled to. Desecrating a sacred institution for the sake of sinners does not make sense to me!

How does someones homosexual acts affect you personally, assume not violence is perpetrated against you? How does anyone's marriage affect you personally? If you ban gay marriages, should not divorce also be banned to be consistent?

The Sabbath is a sacred institution, and you have gone on record that you do not think we should enact laws to defend it.

Ultimately, it is how you respond to your fellow human that is important. Love your neighbor. Do good to them.

Did Jesus ever work to overturn civil laws of his day? Say, slavery, capital punishment, even prostitution? We have no evidence of that. He did work with people directly. That is what we should do. Laws of the civil governments of today to enact, will do little to change people. We personally can work to change people. I guess we need to take the logs out of our own eyes first.

Nic:

You stated:

Both the Sabbath and the marriage institutions were created and blessed by God. We should discourage the government from engaging in desecrating either one of them.

Are you sure that's what God has called us to do? I personally believe that the call is to not have the government involved in either of them. This is the separation of church and state that God has always supported. You still have not addressed by question from earlier about whether you would be ok with the government making Sabbath laws if those laws fit the proper definition of the Sabbath. The question is not what type of law is being passed, it's the fact that the government is seeking to meddle in religious affairs at all. The government should not be in the marriage business. They should have civil unions if they want to confer benefits on those who decide to be life partners. But if they do that, they can't discriminate based on sexual orientation, in the civil realm. Now religiously, each denomination is free to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation as they choose, that's fine.... But to try and take religious proclamation into the secular realm invites the government to decide all religious questions, and that is not advantageous for anyone.

Jason A. Hines

RE: the threat of gay marriage to heterosexuals, see this:
untitled (66.0 KB) Well, I guess I don't know how to make a link here, but copy it into your browser.

Nic

I guess I consider that the bulk of any unhappiness or "suffering" experienced by members of the gay community would be because of the response of the rest of the community, i.e., condemnation, ostracization, and so on. I would further suggest that if you actually think that all homosexuals are miserable then you need to meet a few and verify that for yourself.

I submit that if the institution of marriage and the Sabbath as a concept or whatever belong to God, then let God defend them. I'm sure that She would be much more effective than any of us. Besides, She has the benefit of knowing exactly what She intended by those institutions.

Also, as others pointed out, homosexuality does not appear to be contagious, although I must concur with Donna that you might want to be careful about the possibility of awakening any latent tendencies. . .

I think this quote from the next book discussion club selection, _I Don't Believe in Atheists_ by Chris Hedges, is relevant to Jared's call for those who oppose gay rights to get to know some gay people personally:

"As human beings, we can imagine and empathize with the plight of others...When we lose this capacity for empathy, when we see the other as someone who must be "educated" to embrace our values or eliminated [as Cliff suggests, they should leave the Adventist Church], we slip swiftly back into the world of animals." (who, as he earlier states, do not appear to have feelings of guilt or remorse)

Some have concerns about the effects of this court ruling on Adventist institutions. I found this interesting comment on NARLA's blog site, where Alan Reinach is also discussion this issue:

In the case of a hospital that is requested to assist in in an artificial insemiantion and the religious doctors were not given aa conscience exemption, I would like to state that when a religious institution that accepts government funding for its operation that denial is an appropriate action. As long as such institutions accept federal or state funding, coming fromt he pockets of all citizens, including lesbians in this instance, they have an obligation to be totally colorblind on services. We can’t have it both ways, want religious exemptions and then on the other had oppose religious establishemnt, and the use of tax funding by religious organizations.

This is from John Stevens, a lawyer and former religious liberty director.

Jason, your comments are most appreciated and make total sense by separating religious issues from non-religious. If the objection to same-sex marriage is based on one's religious beliefs, then by definition, it is a religious issue, and as such should not become a part of civil law.

Tom said: " God did not create carnal knowledge."

Hmmmm. So how did Adam and Eve ever conceive (pun intended) of how to "be fruitful and multiply without carnal knowledge?

Re: the fear of homosexuality being a contagious condition by legalizing it is about as far-fetched an idea that has been expressed here without a shred of evidence to support it.
If one has homosexual friends must he fear of "catching" it? Must a child fear a gay relative for the same reason? I'll repeat: Grow up and smell the coffee.

Jared, the only thing missing from your story about the gay rabbi, WWJD, What Would Jesus Do, probably say like he did to the harlot caught in the act, "GO AND SIN NO MORE".

Your objective is to get people to listen or respect you. To give in on your standards will do that? NOT! I missed the point of the story.

1. That there are nice Homosexuals out there.

2. That you wish to be listened to.

3. Adventists would be listened to if not so judgemental or had standards unique from the world.

Help me with this story of yours, the moral of it?

TeH GHaY eet es CATCHING!

Seriously though, you sound like a middle schooler worried about "cooties."

Gay doesn't work that way. Homosexuality is NOT an adult version of cooties... or maybe then again, given the irrational fear of "catching" homosexuality shown by some posters, it is.

Mr. Nic Samojluk,

From the business side of things, when two women come to you looking for a home in Loma Linda, and it is obvious that they are lesbians, do you help them find a home so that they can live in sin, or do you refuse to help them and lose clients that way.

And also, if you need a new slogan for your real estate business (because "I also run SDA Forum" is not bringing in business), here are some suggestions for you free of charge:

Flamingo Realty: Not as pink as you think!
Flamingo Realty: Keeping the I.E. homo-free!
Flamingo Realty: If you're gay, there's no way!
Flamingo Realty: The back door isn't open!
Flamingo Realty: Don't come out of our closets!

(p.s. life is pain highness. anyone who tells you otherwise is selling something.)

Donna:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 7:22:

"I would urge you both to be very, very careful. It has been well documented that persons who strongly react negatively to gays have latent homosexual tendencies."

Thanks for your diagnosis. This is why I have determined to vote for an amendment to the California Constitution in November defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman in order to prevent myself from being tempted to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, to which, according to you, I have unborn tendencies!

Jared:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 7:52:

"What do you have to lose by becoming acquainted with homosexual people? Homosexuality will not rub off on you. There is nothing to be afraid of there."

Evidently you do not trust the authoritative opinion of Donna Haerich posted on 19 June 2008 at 7:22 in which she warned me about my "homosexual tendencies." As you can see, there is much to dread for me, if Donna is right. Tell me why you ignore her "wise" opinion! And tell me why you want me to run the risk of joining those who, according to you, feel miserable about their unnatural condition.

Frank:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:04:

"How is it that the passages from Torah and Paul's statements regarding homosexual behavior are not reflecting a more primitive cultural understandings of God's character of love, but the idea of Jesus as a substitute for sin does?"

Good question! There is no doubt that there exists an apparent contradiction between my defense of the marriage institution and the opinion I advanced in another Spectrum blog dealing with the theory of the Atonement.

The reason is very simple: I am for protecting the sacredness of the marriage institution on the basis of morality, religion, and the U.S. Constitution. I see no reason to desecrate Holy Matrimony for the sake of granting legal rights to homosexuals. This can, and is being done without destroying what has been revered and protected for thousand of years by civilized societies.

The Declaration of Independence acknoledges the Creator is the foundation of our democracy. The government does not exist in a vacuum. It acts under God's blessing for the protection of its citizens and their properties. The author of this blog admitted that homosexuals are not exactly happy with their abnormal tendencies.

If we grant them a marriage certificate, this will have the tendency to elevate to normalcy what is sexually deviant, and described as such in Holy Writ. Many sexually normal individuals will be enticed to adopt a homosexual lifestyle. I do not believe that the government should encourage the spread of misery to the general population.

The case of the Atonement is quite different. I do not find any support in the Bible for encouraging others to adopt a homosexual lifestyle, but I see ample support for the moral view of the Atonement.

The last book of the Bible describes Jesus as "the Lamb of God slain from the foundation of the world;" The Messiah is described in Is. 53 in the past tense instead of the future one; Besides, Ellen White tells us that the Cross was a window for our dull senses that we might have a glimpse of the suffering God was subjected to since Lucifer rebelled in heaven, and she adds that Jesus' suffering did not begin nor did it end with the Cross of Calvary.

All this means to me that all those biblical statements describing Jesus death from a legal point of view reveal a lack of understanding the metaphorical meaning of biblical language. If you prefer the legal model which requires a payment in terma of suffering, then consider that such payment was amply made by the time Jesus was born in Bethlehem.

Understood this way, the cross was in fact an overpayment. The Lord predicted a bright future for the nation of Israel in the event they were faithful. They opted to reject their Messiah, which forced God, out of love, to allow the death of Jesus, knowing that this would entice many to opt for God instead of joining Satan's rebellion and thus be saved through the shedding of his blood. In other words, God did not require the death of Jesus, but rather permitted it for the salvation of many.

To all the readers of this blog: If you are tired of reading what I have stated before, I need to apologize. I feel duty bound to answer all the questions directed at what I have posted. The moment those questions cease, my need to repeat myself will cease as well!

As to the main point of this post, which asks whether we as members of A church, Adventists, or THE church, Christians, should have an opinion as to gay marriage: It seems to me that we are unnecessary limiting ourselves by aquiescing to the general consensus that the only opposition to homosexual marriage is based on a religious conviction. It appears to me that gay marriage proponents have conveniently and effectively painted us into that corner, from which, we now, seem to have to agree that as our only opposition to gay marriage is a religious one, it's none of our business what the majority of the people of California or The State (I live here) decide marriage should be.

But besides my/our religious convictions, am I the only one whose assessment of homosexuality as a genital action on a purely human physical basis, (who needs Genesis 2:21-24) clearly shows that such is an erzatz, approximation, or copy of the real McCoy? Therefore, I could, and would argue just as strongly from an evolutionary point of view that our respective sexual equiptment and activity exists to work in compliment with the opposite sex. As such activity is the basis of the human race and, and as its normal result, children, is the only hope for our species' survival, we should, (and always have), given supreme regard to that union, providing it with unique privileges. But now my State has officially stated explicitly that the sexual union and function of two individuals that do not sexually compliment each other are nevertheless to be viewed with the same regard, and their sexuality is to be held in the same esteem as the sexuality that came either from God or via mutation and natural selection. I am now told to agree that the substitute is just as good as the real thing or keep my mouth shut. This is what the objection is.

There's no objection whatsoever that people should be able to live with their companions of whatever sex, that they should have ways of sharing or inherting property, having particular benefits, that they should be treated with respect, and so on a so forth. Everybody needs somebody, and individuals or the State can come up with all kinds of contracts that will take care of those necessary things in life. Fine, I applaud that.

Meanwhile, of course we all have hordes of gay friends, and bosses, and collegues; and of course we love them. I am not being facetious; having lived and still working in San Francisco for many years. That's not the point. I agree there's no reason, as (St.) Paul says, that we have any excuse to be rude and I was glad that there was not a big anti gay demonstration here on Tuesday. Nevertheless, as a member of the human species, either evolved or created (take your pick), I, nor my church, has any reason to abandon the conviction, nor be quiet about the fact that the natural sexual union of two adults can only be fully exercised by a man and a woman, and that different pairings are not their equal.

What's the harm? Tough question to answer. When the State decrees that the erzatz pairing of men/men or women/women are the complete equal of men/women, our understanding of sexuality (as will now also be the official position taught in the public schools) becomes more and more muddled with results that I believe will be a detriment to our children and society. And how long will it be before Loma Linda is sued because it would not hire a married lesbian?

by the way, is there a spell check on this site?
thank you.

Bless You Elaine

I knew the instant that I used the phrase Carnal knowledge, I would be hearing from you. In case your interested I used the term consistent with Merriam Webstrs Collegiate 10 th edution page 174 and I quote, in part: Syn. having a relation to the body may mean only this but more often connotes dergortorily an action or manifestating of a person's lower nature---implies sexual apetite with absence of the spiritual-

I fully support not only full civil rights and active business and neighborly conduct between hetero and homosexual persons. I fully agree that homosexuals have access to the throne of Grace as to heterosexuals. I do not agree that the Church as commissioned by Jesus Christ gave lea way to blessing the sexually activity of homosexual couples or groupies any nore that the Church is to contenace heterosexual activity outside of Holy matrimony.

I have shared my personal experience with "so called" SDA homosexuals--three incidents of predatory practice. I may nor may not have cited my work as Senior Affirmative Action officer of a Medical Academic Health Center in which I had to deal with two cases of predatory homosexual practice, one with a minor and one with a patient.

I have also had to deal with early victims of AIDS.

I have also cited my caring for a terminlly ill lesbian neighbor. The issue has alway been church membership not citizenship. This idea that the state will compell a minister of marry a homosexual couple is just plain nonsense and begs the issue at the lowerest level.

This idea of a noble long suffering innocent victim of God's gamesmanship is nonsense. Tom

For those of you who are interested in finding out what Adventist homosexual individuals have to say, Seventh-day Adventist Kinship is an excellent resource -- highly informative, thoroughly thoughtful, and very relevant to our conversation here.

Tom, I also consulted my American Heritage Dictionary before using the term. "Carnal" relating to desires and appetites of the flesh or body: sensual"

"Carnal knowledge: sexual intercourse."

Procreation would end if there was not first the sensual desires and appetites. Surely, it was God's plan in creating humans. To suggest otherwise is to consider them as animal passions that must be subdued: an impossible arrangement and to marry someone who had no sensual desires would be a travesty.

To confuse "predatory homosexual practice" with consenual adult relationships has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of gay marriages.
There is far more predatory heterosexual practices. Do we then condemn all heterosexual practices?

I agree with you that there should never be a compulsion for a clergyman to perform a homosexual marriage. Again, this has nothing to do with the civil marriages being discussed.

The only reason religion enters the picture is because the most vocal opponents of this have been, and continue to be on religious grounds.

The analogy has been used that because Adventists firmly believe that the Sabbath is the 7th day and should be kept holy, that they have no rights to enjoin others to obey the religious laws that they do. By the same principle, no Adventist should require that others obey a principle (homosexual marriages) that he opposes. How will gay marriages impact on those who are: single, happy heterosexual; celibate, or ? It's impact will be only on those who choose, and now have been given the freedom to enjoy the privileges and benefits that have formerly been given only to heterosexual marriages. For that fact alone, it was a discriminatory law and should have been abolished. It's clearly stated in the Constitution and it's been repeated above. No one is compelled to go against his own personal convictions of living differently. Why do we desire to meddle in other people's personal relationships? Why should it matter to us who some stranger chooses to marry?

The subject was mentioned regarding businesses.
If you hold yourself out as a realtor and refuse to show a home or property to someone based on your assumption that they are: black, non-Caucasian, lesbian, or homosexual, you may well be charged with discrimination.

No less than a physician who would refuse to treat a non-married ob patient, or someone who contracted AIDS sexually or through needle exchange or blood transfusions. Healthcare professionals do not judge their patients but treat them, period. I believe that as Christians, we are also warned not to judge.

Elaine you and I agree perfectly on all matters civil. My point about predatory practices---in my experience homosexual predatation is 100% Even if the percentages were the same would you advocate church membership to a hetrosexual predator?

As to the word carnal! I used it in is derogratory sense as you well understood. Now you would extenuate the matter by begging the issue again and again.
But as I stated earlier, I'm in the wrong thread. I just had to have one last joust with you Elaine--you are such an able
combantant. Stick to it. Tom

P. S. Isn't it interesting that we have Christ's word on it that there will be no marrying in heaven Maybe not even flesh and thus no carnal nature--anyone waiting in line to sign up?

Elaine,
In regards to your last paragraph, I'd like to mention that you are partially correct in that Realtors cannot discriminate againgst certain classes. Age, gender, familial status,national origin, disabled persons, religious beliefs. However, as a Realtor, under the law, Nic CAN discriminate against gays and lesbians. They are NOT a protected class, UNLESS they have AIDS, then they can be considered disabled and would be protected under that provision. As a Realtor, Nic knows all this or at least he should if he's up to date on the laws of the land. So he can discriminate until the cows come home if he doesn't want to assist gays and lesbians. But I doubt seriously if he is a good business man he would do that. Gays and lesbians have the highest disposable income compared to the average US citizen. Therefore it would make great business sense to have financial dealings with them. You know when it comes to the almighty dollar, as the saying goes "money talks and bull...walks!" I wonder how many "good" Christians have taken the opportunity to turn away a profit from gays and lesbians?? But since they are NOT a protected class, Nic and anyone else can discriminate at will without ramifications.
How sad for them. As my Dad used to say though, "busines is business." Funny how when money is involved, some of the moral convictions of "the saints" falls by the way side.

Sorry Elaine, I didn't mean to step on your toes, just wanted to set the record "straight."

Blessings to all as we seek to live the life Christ intended, to love God first and your neighbor as yourself (myself.)

Cheers,
Bret

Bret:

I may be in correct in this, but my understanding is that Nic may not be able to discriminate against gays as a realtor for much longer. In two cases one in CA and one in MI, courts have said that it was unconsitutional for landlords to refuse to rent to pre-marital cohabitants based on their religious beliefs. How will Nic be able to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of his religious beliefs in light of these cases? You may be correct that Nic may be able to do it now (I don't think a case involving homosexuals has gone before the courts), but I doubt it would last much longer. Am I misguided in my few of these cases?

Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Jason,Esq, I wonder what recommendation you have when a Sunday Law hits the legislative docket, go along to get along? In Massachuestts, the RCC was given no exemption for their religious beliefs about not adopting to Homosexuals and shut down rather than violate their conscience.

SDA do get it, this is related to our Religious Liberty. Guys like Jared and Alex don't seem to see that. They just want to be listened to. Good luck after a Sunday Law, if you are one that believe that is the final test.

Jason,
I don't believe you are misguided at all. However, nothing as of this date has changed, and as a side note, the Feds may leave this one up to the individual states to hash out. But, as of this writing, when it comes to Real Estate, discrimination is allowed on the basis of sexual orientation. Even if Nic cannot eventually discriminate on sexual orientation (which personally I see a long way off)I'm sure he could find "many other reasons, legitimate or not," to discriminate. Not living in CA any longer, I'm not sure how the latest ruling by the CA Supreme Court will affect all this? Married gays could now fall under the protection of familial status. But I'm not sure about that.

I'm still literally baffled by the "venom" that spews forth from individuals who claim Christ as their personal Savior. For me, the MOST important lesson Jesus Christ's life has taught ME is to treat others with respect, honor, love, and dignity even if we differ on our theology and points of view. NEVER once did Jesus treat another human in less than the above mentioned traits. HE IS MY EXAMPLE, therefore I will go on singing His praises regardless of who thinks what of me and my salvation. I know for a fact Jesus died for me, He loves me, and guess what, I WILL be saved by His grace and His grace alone. Let those who want to busy themselves in judgement, judge. Let the dead bury the dead. It affects me not. God the Father, Jesus Christ His Son, and The Holy Spirit are my refuge, my strength, and my salvation. And if someone out there feels like casting the first stone, so be it. God did NOT die and leave me in charge to convince anyone of anything. I stick to my side of the street and give love as best I can, along with forgivenes. That's what Christ has done for me. I want to be an agent of love and compassion for all, even those I feel speak in poor taste. "God help me to live your love on a daily basis regardless of how I am personally treated. In Christ's name, amen."

Blessings to all,
Bret

To Bret: Thanks for the clarification. I think we're basically of the same mind on this issue.

To RDS: It's interesting that you bring up Sunday legislation. The reason why I am opposed to the government being involved in the marriage question is because I think it opens the door to the government deciding all kinds of religious issues, including the Sabbath. I want the government out of all religious questions, marriage (therefore no ban against homosexuals having a civil marriage), and the Sabbath (no mandate about a day of worship). Now some might say well prophecy says it's going to happen, so why speak out against it, but that doesn't make sense to me. Even though we know bad things (like the Sunday Law) are going to happen, that doesn't remove our responsibility to speak out against things that our wrong (like the Sunday Law, and the government deciding religious questions for its citizens). The bottom line is this - Religious questions are between a human being and their god (whoever it might be). God has given the freedom for human beings to make up their own minds about those questions, and our government should not be in the business of trying to tip the scale in one way or the other by outlawing things that a particular religion feels is wrong.

In the case of the Roman Catholic Church, I would need more details about why they weren't given an exemption. I would surmise that it is probably because they had government money tied up in their adoption system. Whatever the government funds, it has the ability to regulate. BTW, that's why I'm also against churches taking government funds. If they had gov't money tied up in their, they have lost their ability to "discriminate" as they see fit. And I don't disagree with their that if that was the case. If that wasn't the case, then I would certainly be against the gov't telling a freestanding church what to think and belief b/c of the separation of church and state, just like I am against us forcing homosexuals into "right" behavior because of the separation of church and state. However, you haven't given me enough information on the example, so I can't give a solid comment about it.

God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

To RDS: A small postscript. It's interesting that you think religious liberty allows you to practice your religion with impunity, trampling on the rights of others so that your conscience can be "clear." (This is an assumption that I'm making based on your statement, "SDA do get it, this is related to our Religious Liberty. Guys like Jared and Alex don't seem to see that. They just want to be listened to.") Your religious liberty doesn't allow you to answer spiritual questions for other people by outlawing what you deem to be "sinful" acts. I see know Biblical basis for that, and that thought process does not align itself with Jesus's teachings (see Luke 9:51-56, to see how Jesus deals with people who oppose Him and how He deals with those who seek to punish those who oppose Him).

God Bless,

Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Jason:

I will attempt to respond to a few ideas you included in your long posting on 19 June 2008 at 8:19. I will precede my comments with some of your quotations:

You said: "There have been a lot of comments, and it was impossible to go through them all."

True! Unfortunately, since you did not take the time to read what has been discussed before, this should not force everybody else to repeat what they have previously argued already.

You stated: "I am in agreement with Pastor Wright. For us to support the legal banning of gay marriage is antithetical to the principles of church and state separation and the gift of free will that God has imparted."

I have answered this argument already more than once. It would be unfair for the readers if I were to repeat everything one more time. Please, take the time to read what has gone before!

You said: "Let's be clear - the support for a religious definition of marriage as between one man and one woman is a religious argument. There is no other foundation."

Wrong! There is another foundation. Please, read what I have already stated about this!

You stated: "We as Christians are not called to exert pressure on people by force of law to follow God's edicts."

Nobody is asking the government to prosecute those who are living the homosexual lifestyle. The issue is whether we should grant homosexuals a marriage certificate. Marriage has been defined for thousands of years as the union between a male and a female. I see no valid reason to alter this.

There was a time when only the church was allowed to issue a marriage certificate, which the state would recognize. Society did hold that marriage was a sacred institution that originated by the Creator, who is included in our Declaration of Independence.

You said: "Banning gay marriage is quite simply human beings trying to combine the church with the state. I don't think that there is any argument against that."

Wrong! Marriage was originally considered a sacrament in the West, a sacred act. The church's right to issue marriage licenses was taken away from the church, and now the government wants to totally desacralize what was at first a religious duty and privilege.

You stated: "So while secular societies can dictate law against murder and robbery (which impinge on another person's right to live or possess property), secular governments should not be in the business of making laws that would decide questions that do not impinge on the rights of others and involve a human being's ability to decide life's great questions for themselves (ie, who should I marry, or when life begins).

Wrong again! If the government has no right to determine when human life begins, then how can the government determine when a murder has taken place? Some argue that human life begins at birth; others when the baby can survive outside the birth chamber; while still others like Peter Singer, 30 days after birth, to give parents a chance to decide whether they really want to keep the baby.

Which of these options should the government use to determine when a murder has taken place? Sometimes, when a pregnant woman is killed, the legal system determines that a single count of murder has taken place, while other times it considers this to be a double murder. Isn't this rather confusing and inconsistent?

You stated: "We allowed something spiritual to become secular and now that it is about to become to secular we want it back. That's just not fair. Marriage is a religious, spiritual institution, but we allowed it to have secular benefits."

We allowed? Are you serious? A few years ago the people of California approved an Initiative defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman. The current change was not "allowed" by the people, but rather dictated by unelected judges of the Supreme Court. This is called judicial activism? A few unelected liberal judges adjudicating to themselves the power to make new law.

Making new law is the task of the Legislature, not the Supreme Court. This is why we need to amend the Constitution. The same thing happened with Roe v Wade! We have spineless legislatures both in the state and Washington who allow judges to usurp their power.

You stated: "Here's how I think you could fix it. From now on, make everyone do two ceremonies. Leave marriage to the religious realm where it truly always belonged. If you want tax benefits and other secular rights, then all couples, gay and straight, have to go before a judge and get a civil union."

Amazing! Great conclusion based on a Solomonic decision. I fully agree with this. A vote for an amendment to the California Constitution will help us move in this direction, I believe!

I would prefer if you would all refer to me as Reverend Wright.

Just kidding.

"Leave marriage to the religious realm where it truly always belonged. If you want tax benefits and other secular rights, then all couples, gay and straight, have to go before a judge and get a civil union."

"Amazing! Great conclusion based on a Solomonic decision. I fully agree with this. A vote for an amendment to the California Constitution will help us move in this direction, I believe!"

Have you read the Supreme Court's ruling? There is no mention of religious ceremony; ergo, all couples can be married before a judge, or other appointed individual without any amendment to the Constitution. The only amendment proposed is for a ban against gay marriages.

Nic:

As always your comments are interesting, but slightly misguided. I guess there are some things we can't discuss because as I said, it is really impossible to read through all of the posts to find yours. I'll address some comments in general, and I guess we'll just have to leave them there. Maybe if you could let me know exactly where you address my first two questions, then I can go read them specifically and comment. That seems like a fair solution.

As to your other comments:

As to whether the marriage definition is a religious argument - I have heard other foundations and I see them, as I stated before, as post thought justifications. I think I explained that in one of my posts. Because of this country's Judeo-Christian background, everyone's sensibilities about what is appropriate are informed by that background. But even if there are other justifications, your justification is clearly spiritual and so my argument does apply to you and other Christians, even if it doesn't apply to others.

As to not prosecuting homosexual lifestyle - Yes you are prosecuting the homosexual lifestyle. People who are couples progress until they commit to each other for life (or at least they have the option). This would be the natural progression for homosexuals as well. To deny them that as a secular option is attacking their lifestyle. To say you can be gay but you can't have civil marriage is like throwing someone in the ocean and telling them not to get wet.

About church and state and marriage - I agree with you that marriage was once the exclusive domain of the church. I think where you're wrong is saying that the state took it. The state didn't take it, they co-opted it, and by doing so, created their own form of it. That is why people to this day are married by the power invested by God AND the state or commonwealth in which the ceremony takes place (I don't believe that the phraseology I just mentioned is used in civil marriage ceremonies. If it is it shouldn't be.) So right now, there are two types of marriage - civil marriage, and religious marriage. I am for the rights of homosexuals to civil marriage. I am against the rights of homosexuals to religious marriage.

As to the right to determine when life begins - You misunderstand my point, but I think it's my fault for not being clear. Clearly the state has a definition of when life begins. But they do not force their citizens to believe in their definition, unless it's something that we can all agree on (People walking around are clearly alive. Furthermore, this argument is tied to my discussion of permissive legislation, which is in one of my earlier posts.). They have created a system to decide when life begins that is the best they can do, considering the fact that they are trying to decide a clearly spiritual question. Of course it's confusing! Human beings always get confused when they try to grapple with spiritual principles devoid of God's guidance. But they have to do that because the job of government is to create a moral system for those who refuse to live by God's law. (That has to be correct. If people are living by God's law, what the government says on these questions is irrelevent, right?) If the government decides to define marriage according to religious principles, then they would be making a decision on a spiritual issue and forcing everyone to live by it. That is a violation of free will, and even God doesn't violate that.

As to allowing the gov't to co-opt marriage - I wasn't talking about the current change allowing gay marriage, I was talking about the moment when the church allowed the state to give civil benefits for a religious union. To be honest I don't know when this country decided to that. It probably goes way back to England and European culture (It probably dates back to the Holy Roman Empire, when the church and state were one.). That's the "allowing" I was speaking of. If we had not allowed the state to provide civil benefits for marriage, then we would not be in this position where "marriage" is being extended to people we disapprove of morally. But really my argument is that our marriage (religious marriage) is not being extended to homosexuals. It is instead this governmental marriage that is being given to them. I don't care what the government does with their form of marriage. In fact, I think fairness dictates that they have to extend it to all people no matter their sexual orientation.

As to Judicial activism - In my opinion, there is a difference between laws and rights. The court determines what rights exist, legislatures determine how to extends rights to the citizens through law. Therefore, I have no particular problem with the Court determining what rights exist based on the words of the Constitution and the times in which we live. The Constitution to me has to be a living document, simply because the Founders were not God - they could not have conceived of every possible situation.

As to my way to fix the problem - Glad you agree!! :-) However, I can't see how voting for a ban on gay marriage is a step in the direction of my solution. Once you lock homosexuals out, why would the heterosexual majority ever revisit the issue and make everyone go get civil unions?

God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Jason:

You added the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:27:

"Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion."

I have to disagree! By granting homosexuals a marriage certificate, you are sanctioning what has historically been a sacrament. The moment you honor homosexuals with a sacrament, you entice many people who have not been born with the homosexual tendency to adopt such a lifestyle; which, according the the author of this blog, represents an unhappy state of existence. Why would you encourage the spread of misery to the general population?

Something similar we could say about the legalization of abortion. Following the legalization of unborn-baby killing, the number of abortions mushroomed to one million and a half per year overnight.

You also stated: "A woman believes that life doesn't begin in the first three weeks of her pregnancy so she wants to terminate it, I believe in her right to make that decision, even if I wish that she wouldn't terminate her pregnancy."

Please read my previous post! Your solution is problematic: How can the government decide when a murder has taken place if the decision of when human life begins is left to the whim of every individual?

You ended with: "God Bless."

The Lord will never bless what he has cursed! There is a curse for the shedding of innocent blood. This is why God allowed the destruction of Jerusalem more than once.

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 8:59:

"If we allow secular government to define marriage in a religious way, based on pressure from Christian groups, what argument do we have when they want to define other religious institutions, like the Sabbath, which you said you would clearly be against? Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?"

Good question! Both the Sabbath and Marriage are sacred institutions. I believe that the government should have never messed with sacraments. I think that your previous Solomonic suggestion is the best solution to this conundrum. Let the church issue sacred marriage certificates, and the government issue legal union contracts.

Johnny:

You asked the following on 19 June 2008 at 9:17:

"Nic, What did you think of the comment by Jason A. Hines? He said-'Support for opposition to a ban on gay marriage IS NOT support for gay marriage, much in the same way that support for the abortion rights IS NOT support for abortion. ..."

I did answer that. Check the following posting:

"Posted by: Nic Samojluk (not verified) | 19 June 2008 at 5:17"

If you have any other question, let me know!

Elaine,
I want to express once more that I was in no way trying to correct you or make your point invalid. If I offended you, I humbly apologize. I did however, feel the need to clarify the reality of the legal situation in Real Estate and gays. You were on the right track, with only a minor (or major, however one looks at it) exception. Keep on posting as some of us really do enjoy your dialogue!!

Blessings to you,
Bret

Johnny:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 9:40:

"Your attacks on Jared are misdirected. He said very specifically that he does view the discussion of
a. the nature of marriage for the state
b. the nature of marriage for the church
as being mutually exclusive. His views in one sphere do not translate to the other necessarily. It's the point that Jason A. Hines made also."

Fine! Why don't we opt for Jason's Solomonic judgment? Let the church be in charge of the sacred duty of issuing marriage licenses, and let the government issue legal union certificates.

Nic:

First a quick point - I addressed your question about determining life in my response to your initial comments.

I guess we will differ on whether support for rights is support for the actual activity, though I can't see how anyone believes that. There has to be, and definitively is, a difference between supporting someone's right to something and them actually committing the act in and of itself. For example, I support people's right to go to bars and drink, even though I wish that they wouldn't. Here's the most compelling argument. God gave you the right to sin, correct? You can't say no to that, because that's what free will is, the right to make your own decision whether right or wrong. Are you saying that God supports sinning because He was the one who gave you the right to sin? Of course you're not saying that, because we know that God does not support sin. Therefore, it is clearly apparent that someone can support the right of someone to do something even though they don't support the act.

Furthermore, just because the act increase once the right is given doesn't mean that the person who supports the right supports the act. Sin occurred when God gave the right to sin to Adam. Once again we know that doesn't mean that God supported the sin. Same with the abortion argument you make. Just because abortions increased after its legalization doesn't mean that those who are pro-choice support abortions.

Once again, I think the logical breakdown in my argument for you comes when you consider marriage as only one type of thing - religious marriage. This isn't the case presently. There are two types of marriage, civil marriage and religious marriage. So gay "marriage" is not the conferral of something sacred, unless you consider civil marriage sacred, which I do not. Civil marriage has not been blessed by God, there are no rules in the Bible that govern it, it is strictly a man made construct. I'm willing to give homosexuals the right to a mad made construct. I don't see any reason why anyone shouldn't be ok with that, unless we're trying to punish homosexuals, which is God's jurisdiction, not ours.

God Bless,
Jason

PS - I agree, God cannot bless what He has already cursed. I don't believe that these homosexual civil marriages would be blessed by God. However, I do believe that God blesses people depsite their actions...

Jason,
Just a couple of unoriginal thoughts on your above post. Having a human king was an abomination to God, something that made Him want to puke, yet He accepted Israels decision and blessed the kings when they followed Him in other ways. God also said He would drive the occupying tribes out of the promised land with hornets - He never envisioned bloody wars with man-made weapons, yet He blessed Israels war efforts when they were following Him in other ways. Monogamy was God's ideal, yet He blessed Solomon, Abraham, and David and a whole list of others who had multiple wives. To me, these pragmatic actions by God are the greatest evidence that He will bless gay unions. "Gay" may not have been in His original plan, yet He will honor those gay people who show loyalty to each other and to Him.

I wish I could claim the above paragraph as my own original thinking, but alas, I cannot. A friend wrote this out on another blog, but I was so impressed by it, I felt it worth repeating. I'd love to give credit where it is due, but I do not want to reveal ones identity without their permission.

So I present these ideas, not as my own to be sure, but as food for thought. I apologize to my friend for plagarizing his thoughts and comments. But I found them to be profound.

Blessings,
Bret

Brett:

Thanks for the comments. Some of them (like Israels' desire for a king) I have seen before. Others I hadn't seen. But in any case, the point is very valid. God causes the sun to shine and the rain to fall on both the just and the unjust. Therefore, even if a decision is not pleasing to God, He does not remove blessings from the person. I'm so glad God isn't like us. :-)

Jason

Righteous Liberty Offer many degrees of freedom within the United States. There are of course several limitations as to where worship can be practiced, rstrictions on abuse of children and others, breaking established civil law. Certainly a homosexual community chould form a church with parallel fundamental bliefs of Seventh-day Adventists, they just could not use the name Seventh-day Adventist in their logo or in their literature--that name is copywrited.

They even could assert that Jesus and His twelve where the prototype. They are given an open field as is any other body of three or more, required to form a corporation.

By the same token, any church body can exclude any and all who don't mean the entrance requirements or make due pledge toward established practices of the body.

That is Freedom. To come, to go, to form, and to disband. Yes even to proclaim and to recruit even to discipline and to disfellowship.

Of course, all this can been done within civil statutes. But one should recall that all is also done before God. Tom

I hold no office in any church. Thus, those of contrary views have nothing to fear from me or my word processor.

I have found in the Spectrum site, many interesting and challenging topics and friends. I do shudder at the trend toward universalism. My only puzzle remains, why Dr. Douglass holds such sway in a philisophical melieu that sees no final perfect product prior to the parusia. At the moment the trend seems rushing towards a Twinkie theology. Soft, mushie, and sweet, with no nutritional value.

Having spent days filling sand bags in my youth, I feel for those in the mid-West yet not a peek out of a host of word processer addicts. Tom

A.Way:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 9:56 the following:

"How does someones homosexual acts affect you personally, assume not violence is perpetrated against you? How does anyone's marriage affect you personally?"

You are asking the wrong question. The right question should be: "How does granting homosexuals a marriage certificate affect the sacred marriage institution?" and, "How does it affect the general population?"

The answer is: Such an action desecrates the marriage institution, it destroys the true meaning of marriage, it lowers what God instituted at Eden to the level of what the Lord abhors, it affects the true function of the family, it deprives many children of the benefit of having a dad and a mom, and it tends to popularize a less desirable lifestyle for our citizens. The backbone of our civilization is a healthy, and stable heterosexual family. Homosexuality tends to weaken and cheapen the family institution.

You also stated: "If you ban gay marriages, should not divorce also be banned to be consistent?"

If banning divorce would diminish family breakup, I would go for it. There was a time when divorce was more dificult to secure, and the family was more stable. The sexual revolution of the sixties forced society to make divorce readily available to anyone.

This represented no progress for society, I believe. When I was young, divorce among Adventists was a rare phenomenon. Nowadays, you see this taking place on a daily basis. Is the church better of for this change?

You stated the following as well: "The Sabbath is a sacred institution, and you have gone on record that you do not think we should enact laws to defend it."

There is a drastic difference between the Sabbath institution and marriage. Most Christians believe that Sunday is the most appropriate time to worship the one who resurrected on Sunday. It would be crazy for SDA's to try to impose Sabbath observance on Christianity.

In the case of marriage, most christians do believe in the sacredness of this institution. If we can persuade people of the importance of preserving what has benefited society for thousands of years, why not?

You stated as well: "Ultimately, it is how you respond to your fellow human that is important. Love your neighbor. Do good to them."

Have you heard the expression: "Love must be tough? God loves us, no doubt, but judgment day will be tough! That is what Jesus said. Do you believe this?

You did ask: "Did Jesus ever work to overturn civil laws of his day?"

Of course he did. He said to his followers: "Moses told you, but I say unto you ..." For the Jews there was no law more sacred than the one written by Moses, and Jesus modified it. Read the Sermon on the Mount and compare it with Jewish laws!

You also said: "Laws of the civil governments of today to enact, will do little to change people."

If that is the case, then why do we have laws? Would you feel safer if there were no laws? Would society be better off without laws? God had granted the power of the sword to keep evildoers in check, and the power of the Spirit to appeal to peoples' good will. Both the government and the church were designed to minister to peoples' need for security and safety.

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 10:06:

"Nic: You stated: 'Both the Sabbath and the marriage institutions were created and blessed by God. We should discourage the government from engaging in desecrating either one of them.' Are you sure that's what God has called us to do? I personally believe that the call is to not have the government involved in either of them."

How can the government desecrate the marriage institution? By granting a marriage certificate to those who engage in what the Lord abhors. Homosexuality is against nature, against design, and it cheapens the sacred marriage institution.

How can the government desecrate the Sabbath? By forcing or making it difficult or impossible for Adventists to keep the Sabbath holy, and by denying accomodation rights to Sabbath keepers. This is why I said that I am oppossed to the desecration of those two sacred institutions by the government.

Of course, the government has no business policing the way I keep the Sabbath, and no business checking peoples' bedrroms to detect any homosexual activity that might take place there.

You also argued: "You still have not addressed my question from earlier about whether you would be ok with the government making Sabbath laws if those laws fit the proper definition of the Sabbath."

Read my previous answer!

You stated as well: "The government should not be in the marriage business. They should have civil unions if they want to confer benefits on those who decide to be life partners."

Amen, my friend! I already stated that this suggestion of yours represents the only Solomonic solution which has been advanced so far on this blog!

Niemand:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 10:19:

"I guess I consider that the bulk of any unhappiness or "suffering" experienced by members of the gay community would be because of the response of the rest of the community ..."

I agree that your argument is partially true. Nevertheless, God is also to blame for this. He is the one who inspired his prophets to record so many statements condemning the practice of homosexuality.

You also stated: "I would further suggest that if you actually think that all homosexuals are miserable then you need to meet a few and verify that for yourself."

I don't need to do this. I trust in the wise judgment of the author of this blog who has asserted this fact. Besides, if Christians were to keep silent on this issue, and if the Bible were destroyed, there is no way anyone could keep the Holy Spirit from doing its God assigned task, which is to convict people of sin, which is a great cause for their misery.

You stated as well: "I submit that if the institution of marriage and the Sabbath as a concept or whatever belong to God, then let God defend them. I'm sure that She would be much more effective than any of us."

Perhaps we should tell God to send his angels to preach the Gospel of salvation as well. It should be his job, not ours, imperfect and prone to blunder sinners. Why don't you suggest this to Mark Finley, or the Quiet Hour people?

You also stated: "Also, as others pointed out, homosexuality does not appear to be contagious, although I must concur with Donna that you might want to be careful about the possibility of awakening any latent tendencies. . ."

It's either contagious or it is not. It can't be both at the same time. Please, make up your mind!

Nic:

I realize that you're answering posts in order so maybe you haven't addressed this yet because it was never explicitly stated until one of my later posts. However, I think most of my posts have been clear about my belief that what the marriage right that government would be conferring on homosexuals is not the religious form of marriage that is holy and sacred. They would be conferring the civil form of the thing called marriage which is not sacred in any way shape or form. I still have not received an answer from you on why it would be wrong to confer the right of civil, unholy marriage to homosexuals. Arguments stating that granting the right of civil marriage to homosexuals would desecrate the holy institution of marriage do not apply to this question because the government would not be granting homosexuals the right to anything holy.

Although you say you have, I don't think you have answered my previos question on secular law-making. That question was, "Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?"

Your response was: "Both the Sabbath and Marriage are sacred institutions. I believe that the government should have never messed with sacraments."

Ok, so you told me that you think the government should have never messed with the sacraments. I don't know what you mean by that. To me, the government messed with the sacraments when they started giving civil benefits based on marriage. That was when they messed with the sacraments, not when MA or CA allowed homosexuals to have civil marriage (see the previous point for why I don't think anything holy was disturbed then.). But while you say they shouldn't mess with the sacraments you still have not answered the general question. Support for a ban on gay marriage seems to be like support for the government to define a religious institution because they have the proper definition. What I think you're not seeing in my point is that to allow a human, earthly government to define a holy institution (even if they get it right) IS messing with the sacraments. We would never allow them to do this with the Sabbath. Why? Because we're fairly sure that they would come to the wrong definition. My problem is that if we allow them to define one sacrament (even if they are correct), what justification do we have when they want to define other sacraments in ways that we believe to be incorrect? When they come to define the Sabbath (which we know they will), and we raise our voice in protest, their answer will be, "But you let us define marriage...."

Point being - you still haven't answered my question, so I'll restate it with a little more detail, "Is it ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right," because it seems like the gay marriage question is an example of this and you support it.

Sorry to belabor the question, but I do feel that it hasn't been addressed.

Thanks and God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Hello friends,

I have enjoyed following this most interesting discussion.

FYI: In response to the webmaster's invitation following Mr. Wright's essay, I have written a careful, respectful essay that includes responses to each of Jared's seven reasons, with links to informative, thought-provoking articles that enlarge upon or contribute to my points.

I submitted this via email, as suggested, two days ago. It seems the webmaster must be busy. Until now, unless I am mistaken, the piece has been neither acknowledged nor posted. I find this odd, because as you all know, in a blog such as this, topics come and go with "swiftitude."

If anyone would care to read this essay, feel free to email me and request it at J^Goffar^verizon^net.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Janine Goffar
Loma Linda, CA

UPDATE: Upon checking my email this morning, Alex has acknowledged receiving my essay.

Janine

The man in black:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 11:29:

"From the business side of things, when two women come to you looking for a home in Loma Linda, and it is obvious that they are lesbians, do you help them find a home so that they can live in sin, or do you refuse to help them and lose clients that way."

My friend: I have no idea what your occupation is. But let me ask you in turn the following question. Do you discriminate against Sunday keepers? If you are in the health profession, do you refuse to provide your services to Sabbath breakers? Would you recomment that the Loma Linda University admit only Sabbath keepers as patients and students? If this doesn't answer your question, then tell me what is your job, and I will modify my questions to fit your specific situation.

Notice that I have stated in the past that I am not suggesting that the government should start to get into people's bedrooms to verify that no honosexual acts are taking place there. Neither have I suggested that the state should regulate Sabbath keeping.

The business of granting marriage licenses needs to be regulated. Would you grant a physicians license to nurses who do not quelify? Would you issue a lawyer's licence to anybody who requests it? For thousands of years marriage has been defined as a union between a man and a woman. What is wrong with this? Homosexuals do not qualify! Period!

Now, regarding the implication of your question suggesting that I am ready to sell my integrity for the sake of profit, I forgive you because you don't know me. This forces me to act in my own defense, like Paul did as recorded in the Bible. Let me tell you a few things you don't know about my motivation behind both my business and my hobby.

Back in the nineties, when I realized that the leaders of the SDA church had opted to compromise on the issue of abortion and some of our hospitals began offering elective abortions services, thus breaking the Commandments which clearly forbids the shedding of innocent blood, I made many attempts at coming in defense of the innocent. I got nowhere. Every avenue was blocked to me.

That was before the availability of blogs. I had no way of getting anything published in our SDA magazines. One day, as I was leafing through Spectrum and Adventist Today, I noticed that every article's author's name was accompanied by a Ph.D. designation. Right there, I made up my decision to sign up for a Ph.D. program. It took me ten years to accomplish this on a part time basis. I sacrificed ten years of business profits for the sake of the unborn.

Do you know many individuals who have done this? Consider, before you answer, that at my age, 76, there is no chance of financially recovering my investment in time and money. Who is going to hire someone my age to teach? And if someone did, how long it would take for me to recover the investment I have made? What are my chances of profitting from this hobby of mine? And you are suggesting that I am ready to compromise my integrity for the sake of profit? Of course, you did not know this. Therefore, I forgive you!

I also forgive you for the following cheap pun you included in your comments:

"And also, if you need a new slogan for your real estate business (because "I also run SDA Forum" is not bringing in business), here are some suggestions for you free of charge:

Flamingo Realty: Not as pink as you think!
Flamingo Realty: Keeping the I.E. homo-free!
Flamingo Realty: If you're gay, there's no way!
Flamingo Realty: The back door isn't open!
Flamingo Realty: Don't come out of our closets!"

I have no idea why you have demeaned yourself with this! Nevertheless, I repeat: I fully forgive you!

May the good Lord bless you and me and the church we serve!

Gerhard:

On 19 June 2008 at 12:37, you argued that granting marriage licenses to homosexuals doesn't make sense even if you do not believe in a Creator, and prefer the evolutionary theory as an explanation for our existence.

Thanks for your clever reasoning! There is no denying that those who believe in evolution should, for consistency sake, support an amendement to the Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman.

The theory of the survival of the fittest demands that we grant a privilege status to those who contribute to the survival of the human species. Homosexuals do not qualify! If we deny granting a physician's license to unqualified individuals, we should also deny marriage licenses to homosexuals!

Bret:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 2:30:

"... as a Realtor, under the law, Nic CAN discriminate against gays and lesbians. They are NOT a protected class, ... But I doubt seriously if he is a good business man he would do that. Gays and lesbians have the highest disposable income compared to the average US citizen. Therefore it would make great business sense to have financial dealings with them.

You know when it comes to the almighty dollar, as the saying goes "money talks and bull...walks!" I wonder how many "good" Christians have taken the opportunity to turn away a profit from gays and lesbians?? But since they are NOT a protected class, Nic and anyone else can discriminate at will without ramifications. How sad for them. As my Dad used to say though, "busines is business." Funny how when money is involved, some of the moral convictions of "the saints" falls by the way side."

Bret: How sad for you to impugn my integrity without knowing me! I invite you to read my response to "The man in black" on 20 June 2008 at 6:30. Please, read it! Scroll up and read it, and then tell me whether you still believe that I am ready to sell my soul for profit. I expect your response from you on this!

My business is real estate, and I have sacrificed ten years of profit from real estate for the sake of the unborn, and I am 76, with no chances of ever recovering my investment, and you are questioning my integrity? May the good Lord forgive you for this! I already did!

Nic,
I will humbly apologize for questioning your integrity. Not because you "expect" a response from me, but because I feel compelled to do so, and you're right I don't know you personally. I only know of you by what you have written in this blog. I am sorry and I do ask your forgiveness. I also congratulate you on "giving up" ten years of your life for a cause you believe in, the unborn. Just a question, do you feel as strongly about the US going to war unprovoked and having our men and women DIE too?? Killing is killing as far as I'm concerned, but that is WAY off topic!!

I'm just curious, do you do business with helping gays and lesbians find housing?? A sincere question here.

Again, my sincerest apologies for assuming you would or would not do business with gays and lesbians. My words were unwarranted.

Peace,
Bret

Nic

Courage, The first sign of a lost argument is to attack the opponent rather than the issue. You may have noticed that several have suggested that those who oppose homosexual rights are in fact border-line homosexuals--now that is pushing the envelope. It certainly indicates that they have at least lost the argument if the best they can do is to impugn their opponent.

The basic problem with the entire thread is the presumption that anyone should unilaterally "tell" the Church what to do!

Why not simply say, This is how I feel about inclusion and why. Furthermore, I personally think it consistent with Christianity, certainly of brotherhood. After that, if you can organized a substantial number to create a petition--have at it! If you lose, you always have at least two choices.

My reading of Scripture assures me that God planned it other.
Thus, it must be an enemy that did this!
Tom

Hi Tom,
I hope I'm not one who has pressumed to "tell" the church what to do. I have my hands full worrying and taking care of my own life, little own try and tell someone else what to think or how to behave. My opinion is, God did not die and leave me in charge of judging other people. "Judge not that ye be not judged." I fall way short of this as my last post to Nic indicates. I have many failings even though I do try to live a Christ-centerd life.

I do have a small concern when you mention "losing an arguement." My Dad ( a GREAT man in my book, whom I respected very much) used to say that if one person loses, we all lose. As Christians and thus famly, it seems we should all be on the same team, EVEN with our differing of opinions. Challenging thoughts, stimulating conversation, etc., is good for me, but as you stated, attacking another personally (as I did), is inappropriate. So with that, I submit that I will turn my eyes back to Christ and let Him lead me, guide my thoughts, and help me to be more loving to those around me. Especially those who challenge my preconceived ideas.

Thanks for the posting.

Blessings,

Bret

Nic,

I wholeheartedly applaud your commitment to the cause of the unborn, and your sacrifice to get a Ph.D. education in an effort to be taken seriously in the realm of public dialogue. (Thank you for sharing that story; it touched me.) I regard that sacrifice with no less than awe and heartfelt admiration. I have thought of doing the same thing myself.

I haven't, for two reasons. One, I realize I learn far faster and more efficiently on my own, and that I am likely a better writer and thinker for NOT having gone back to school than if I had, where much time and energy would have been expended on material irrelevant to my interests and very possibly antithetical to my values.

The other is that I realized that if one is good enough at writing and thinking, one does not require a Ph.D. for the better outlets to be interested in you. (The two are, of course, connected; writing, as someone once said, is a mirror for the mind.) Do not believe anyone who says you need a formal education to be good at either. If you look closely at history, most of the greats who ended up writing and thinking well did not do so because they went to grad. school, but because they spent their lives reading great material and practicing both.

If you are second-rate at either, yes, you will need an alphabet behind your name. If you are first-rate, you will not. It’s a simple as that. Check out the Wall Street Journal editorial page; they print many unpedigreed authors, as do most mainstream sources. They would very possibly print you. But you—and they—have to be of high quality. (If a journal is sub-par, but you still think it reaches an important audience, your best approach is to simply keep pestering; they might let something through eventually, and you will get a hearing amongst their readership even though their editors won’t respect you because all they know how to respect is degrees.)

Take Dennis Prager as one example. I make no secret that Dennis has and continues to be a valued mentor of mine. He dropped out of his Master’s degree program in International Affairs at Columbia University, because of a values clash with his major professor. He started by writing and publishing his own newsletter. He now has his own radio show, and is the author of several superb books (one hit the New York Times Best Seller list). He writes a weekly column published on at least three major Internet sites and in majojr newspapers all across the country. He is the speaker in highest demand on the Jewish speakership circuit. He has two honorary doctorates. He has never been back to school.

No respectable journal will turn you away if you write well and offer terrific material on a consistent basis. No string of letters after one’s name, however long, will grant entrée where one is poor at thinking or writing.

You are quite talented at both, in my humble estimation. You make a good showing on this blog, which is pretty off-hand and surely isn’t always one’s best. Some of your probably very well educated opponents here respond to your nicely-phrased arguments with disrespect and/or downright meanness, which usually indicates a weak mind and always loses an argument. So, my advice to you is, tighten up your skills and get to work. You have a real mission. I admire that mission, and the passion with which you pursue it.

God bless you,
Janine Goffar

A very cogent question was asked: If you observe the 7th day Sabbath, would you do business with someone who, in your mind, was desecrating it every week? Are they sinning by ignoring the 7th day as holy?

Would a SDA refuse to be involved in any business with a regular "sinner" who desecrated the 7th day?

How do we prioritize and categorize sins? Is homosexuality the worst? It would seem so, as it is the one that most religious people wish to be involved in making rules for others to follow.
If we are law-abiding citizens, why should we protest against people who are also obeying the law of the state in which they live? What is our argument against them doing so?

Has anyone made an argument against homosexual marriages that is not supported by the Bible? If so, it has no place in civil courts which separate church and state.

Recently, a local church pastor wrote a letter to the newspaper and used the Bible in support against homosexual marriage, quoting Lev. 20:13.

In replying, someone asked about the rules governing the beating of your slaves (Ex. 21:20-21), killing disobedient childrllen (Deut. 21:18-21), killing women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21), killing people who work on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), offering up your daughters to be gang-raped (Genl. 19:8), polygamy (Ex. 21:10), incest (Gen. 19:32-36), killing people who worship a different god (Deut. 17:2-5), killing all the men, women and boys in a village but keeping the virgins and prepubescentg girls for yourself (Num. 31:15-18), genocide (1 Sam. 15:2-3), and selling your daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7).
I suggest that all sincere Bible-believing people read Leviticus as well as the other four books of the Pentateuch so that they too can bechom highly moaral, well-informed people qualified to make our laws and judge others. We do onot know what position Jesus took on this issue, since he never mentioned it. Are we a better judge than he is?

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 2:48:

"I may be incorrect in this, but my understanding is that Nic may not be able to discriminate against gays as a realtor for much longer."

I need to make this patently clear: I have never, nor I intend ever to discriminate on the basis of lifestyle. The reason? If I do this, then to be consistent, I would have to refuse real estate services to Sabbath breakers. Would anyone suggest to Loma Linda University to refuse their services to Sabbath breaker or homosexuals? Did Jesus provide his healing services to healthy people only?

Granting marriage licenses is totally different. The government grants physician's licenses only to those who qualify. It should do the same with the granting of marriage licenses. Homosexuals do not qualify. Period!

Elaine:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 4:40:

"Have you read the Supreme Court's ruling? There is no mention of religious ceremony; ergo, all couples can be married before a judge, or other appointed individual without any amendment to the Constitution."

I was referring to the November Initiative proposing an amendment to the California Constitution defining marriage as the union between a man and a woman!

"Has anyone made an argument against homosexual marriages that is not supported by the Bible? If so, it has no place in civil courts which separate church and state."
Posted by: Elaine Nelson (not verified) | 20 June 2008 at 8:31

Elaine

The following piece on homosexuality, not using the Bible/religion as material evidence, may be of interest to you. Here I quote in part:

"... perhaps the most significant recent social change involving homosexuality is the emergence of the gay liberation movement in the West. In philosophical circles this movement is, in part, represented through a rather diverse group of thinkers who are grouped under the label of queer theory. A central issue raised by queer theory... is whether homosexuality, and hence also heterosexuality and bisexuality, is socially constructed or purely driven by biological forces."

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/homosexuality/

Joselito,

I am impressed with your ability to research many of the "contrarian" thoughts you post. Thanks.

pat

Yes, I also appreciate that Joselito finds sources (respected ones) to help inform his thoughts. That article he linked to is interesting; it's talking about the theoretical underpinnings of queer theory, how it's changed over the years, and how many ways queer theory operates today. It's particularly talking about how identity and labels like "homosexual" "heterosexual" even gender are socially constructed concepts with language reinforcing these concepts throughout every level of society.

This is not a look at the science or biology of sexual orientation rather a look at how identity is socially constructed--and that's a concept that's talked about often in all sorts of areas of study, not just queer theory (I've had many discussions of this as it relates to literacy and writing in my graduate studies).

The conclusion is essentially that this is a polarized issue because for many people it involves issues of morality and justice--I think this thread is quite supportive of that conclusion.

I have no problem with justice of the peace weddings for Homosexuals, but if we are going to fill the courts with suits against churches that refuse to do the ceremony or utilitize their facilities, that church ought to go all the way to the US Supreme Court. I'd like to see that vote.

As far as the benefits end, that is an additional cost to businesses to be passed on to the consumer. In an already flailing economy, who needs another drag on it.

I am for everyone having health insurance, and the ability to be at the death bed of a dying friend, but the forcing of states to recognize a marriage before they decide it is one in their state, I believe the Homosexuals should have to dodge that one until all states have decided or the US Supreme court decides, this SECULAR issue.

Jason:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 4:57:

"Maybe if you could let me know exactly where you address my first two questions, then I can go read them specifically and comment. That seems like a fair solution."

Due to the large number of comments that have been posted here and the large number of comments I have posted, it would take less time for me to answer those questions all over again if you repeat them. Right now I am desperately trying to get caught up with answering the comments I have not have had a chance to answer yet. I did never imagine that blogging on a single topic like this would become a full time enterprise!

You also stated: "As to whether the marriage definition is a religious argument - I have heard other foundations and I see them, as I stated before, as post thought justifications. I think I explained that in one of my posts. Because of this country's Judeo-Christian background, everyone's sensibilities about what is appropriate are informed by that background. But even if there are other justifications, your justification is clearly spiritual and so my argument does apply to you and other Christians, even if it doesn't apply to others."

Our legal system is rooted in the Judeo-christian culture. The Declaration of Indpendence makes reference to God as the Creator. God created the first human couple, and they were designed to complement each other. Even Darwin's theory of Survival of the Fittest would disqualify homosexuals from being entitled to a marriage license. Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.

Can you imagine if everybody adopted such a lifestyle? What would be the future of our country. Right now, the average American woman is not producting enough offsprings to replace the aging population. Were it not for the legal and illegal immigration, our population would implode. The government is foolish in elevating a practice that is detrimental to our future to a state of equality with what civilization has recognized as a sacred institution for thousands of years. Do I have to say more?

You stated as well: "As to not prosecuting homosexual lifestyle - Yes you are prosecuting the homosexual lifestyle. ... To deny them that as a secular option is attacking their lifestyle. To say you can be gay but you can't have civil marriage is like throwing someone in the ocean and telling them not to get wet."

It seems to me that you have misinterpreted what I have stated. What I meant is that I am not suggesting that we should have policemen checking everybody's bedroom to make sure no homosexual acts are taking place there. Your logic here fails me! If I deny a lawyer's licenss to someone who does not qualify, would you argue that I am attacking said applicant's lifestyle? On the basis or either religion or evolution a homosexual does not qualify for a marriage license. Marriage is an old and sacred intitution. Sacred for religion and for those following Darwin. There is no need to sacrifice a sacred cow for the sake of relishing barbecued meat!

You stated: "So right now, there are two types of marriage - civil marriage, and religious marriage. I am for the rights of homosexuals to civil marriage. I am against the rights of homosexuals to religious marriage."

For thousands of years there has been a sacred notion attached to marriage. The moment you grant a marriage certificate to homosexuals, you desecrate this institution. Why sacrificing this when we can accomplish the same by other means: simply having the government issue Civil Union Certificates and reserving the issuing of marriage documents to the church--or Darwin Scholars if you prefer.

You also stated: "But really my argument is that our marriage (religious marriage) is not being extended to homosexuals."

True, but there is an aura of sacredness historically attached to the term "marriage." I am oppossed to sacrificing such a sacred cow when there are other ways of granting homosexuals the legal benefits they demand.

You stated as well: "As to Judicial activism - In my opinion, there is a difference between laws and rights. ... The Constitution to me has to be a living document ... "

Your view of the Constitution has allowed unelected judges to thwart the wish of the people. Some years ago the citizens of California approved an Initiative defining marriage as the union of a man and a woman. Now a group of judges decided that the will of the people has no bearing and voided it.

Likewise, back in 1973, a group of unelected Justices of the Court invented a privacy concept in order to legalize the slaughter of 50 million unborn babies. This is the result of your concept of a "Living Document." Altering the Constitution is the prerogative of the people, not the courts. Creating laws out of thin air is the role of the Legislature, not the courts!

You also stated: "As to my way to fix the problem - Glad you agree!! However, I can't see how voting for a ban on gay marriage is a step in the direction of my solution. Once you lock homosexuals out, why would the heterosexual majority ever revisit the issue and make everyone go get civil unions?"

If we opt for the idea of the govenment issuing a Civil Union Certificate, and the church a Marriage document, then the first document would take care of the legal rights, and the second of the spiritual benefits.

God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

God bless!
Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.

" Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation."

Please give more than a personal opinion when making such pronouncements. Where is there evidence that has occurred, or that it entices people to become homosexual?

Jason:

You stated on 19 June 2008 at 6:03:

"Sin occurred when God gave the right to sin to Adam. Once again we know that doesn't mean that God supported the sin. Same with the abortion argument you make. Just because abortions increased after its legalization doesn't mean that those who are pro-choice support abortions."

My friend: You are ignoring that the Lord attached serious consequences in the event man opted to disobey. The penalty was death. Compare this with the way we as a church treat the abortion issue.

Instead of warning people about the serious consequences of killing our unborn babies, the church justifies the dismemberment and poisoning of innocent human beings in the case of rape, incest, malformation, or if the unexpected pregnancy has a temporary adverse effect on the mental state of the woman.

Is God's attitude toward sin similar to that of the SDA church? Jesus excelled in mercy, but he repeatedly would tell sinners: "Go and sin no more!" We say, "You haven't sinned." This prevents women and the men who take them to have an abortion from repenting and seeking forgiveness!

You also stated: "So gay "marriage" is not the conferral of something sacred, unless you consider civil marriage sacred, which I do not."

I hope you will agree with me that historically there has been an aura of sacredness to the title of "Marriage." As long as this was granted to heterosexual individuals, there was no problem. Now that the government has decided to confer the same honorary document to homosexuals, the situation has been altered. Let the citizens of California decide what their will is regarding this issue!

You ended with: "PS - I agree, God cannot bless what He has already cursed. I don't believe that these homosexual civil marriages would be blessed by God. However, I do believe that God blesses people despite their actions..."

I can drink to that! I mean filtered Evian water.

Bret:

You stated the following on 19 June 2008 at 6:58:

"Having a human king was an abomination to God, something that made Him want to puke, yet He accepted Israels decision and blessed the kings when they followed Him in other ways. God also said He would drive the occupying tribes out of the promised land with hornets - He never envisioned bloody wars with man-made weapons, yet He blessed Israels war efforts when they were following Him in other ways. Monogamy was God's ideal, yet He blessed Solomon, Abraham, and David and a whole list of others who had multiple wives. To me, these pragmatic actions by God are the greatest evidence that He will bless gay unions. "Gay" may not have been in His original plan, yet He will honor those gay people who show loyalty to each other and to Him."

I can drink to that also! Nevertheless, why not avoid the less than ideal whenever possible?

"I'm sure Jesus looks approvingly on "loving, monoganamous, and committed" homosexual sodomy, don't you?"

Yes, I'm sure he would. Jesus was a nice guy.

Jason:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 4:42:

"However, I think most of my posts have been clear about my belief that what the marriage right that government would be conferring on homosexuals is not the religious form of marriage that is holy and sacred. They would be conferring the civil form of the thing called marriage which is not sacred in any way shape or form."

I did answer this in my most recent responses to you. Historically, there has always been an aura of sacredness connected with the Marriage institution. I see no reason to sacrifice a sacred cow when there are other means of granting homosexual couples the legal rights they demand.

You stated: "Are you arguing that it is ok for gov'ts to define religious institutions, so long as they get it right?"

The answer is "Yes," and "No," depending on the context. Yes if we are talking about defending Sabbath keepers protection from a refusal to gran reasonable accomodation in a work place. No, if we mean their right to refuse church employment to individuals whose lifestyle is offensive to the church.

You also stated: "Ok, so you told me that you think the government should have never messed with the sacraments. I don't know what you mean by that. To me, the government messed with the sacraments when they started giving civil benefits based on marriage."

I disagree. The church has no authority to grant legal protection or legal benefits. That is the role of government. As long as the government was not granting marriage certificates to homosexuals, they were not desecralizing the institution of marriage.

You stated: "Support for a ban on gay marriage seems to be like support for the government to define a religious institution because they have the proper definition."

I don't think so! The marriage institution originated within the church. It was sacred in the eyes of man and God. The government should let the church do what it knows best and what is within its proper role. Spiritual benefits belong to the church, and legal rights to the government.

You stated also: "What I think you're not seeing in my point is that to allow a human, earthly government to define a holy institution (even if they get it right) IS messing with the sacraments. We would never allow them to do this with the Sabbath."

Perhaps I do not see the King's royal attire because the king is naked!

You stated: "My problem is that if we allow them to define one sacrament (even if they are correct), what justification do we have when they want to define other sacraments in ways that we believe to be incorrect? When they come to define the Sabbath (which we know they will), and we raise our voice in protest, their answer will be, 'But you let us define marriage....'"

Your problem is not mine! Letting the church own what it has historically been the prerogative of the church is not defining marriage. It is simply letting the church take care of its spiritual business.

Thanks and God Bless,
Jason A. Hines, Esq.

Thanks and God bless!
Nic Samojluk, Ph.D.

brother, you should reconsider being a pastor! being a SDA, being a Christian.

You sound more like a president of a moralist's club.

Reconsider...

Bret

Jesus Christ won His Case and that is all that really matters.

Grace and Blessings. Tom

I was out sick for a few days and missed this whole discussion in real time. There are a couple of notes I would like to introduce:

1. Marriage between same sex couples, as with any other couple, is about love, mutual support and community support. It is not about particular sex acts. Those who equate same gender marriage with sodomy or other sex acts are missing the point and maybe a bit oodly concered about what people do in their bedrooms. Am I the only one that finds it creepy how soon sodomy comes up? There are other forms of sexual intimacy that same gender couples engage in.

2. As an official in the church, I expect more compassion from Cliff.

3. Only full marriage rights offer same gender couples the same rights as their opposite gender counterparts. This is why GLBT rights advocates fight so hard for marriage rights. Marriages are portable, civil unions and registered domestic partnerships are not.

Tom,
No truer words were ever spoken... point well taken!

Right back at ya, my friend!

Bret

Hispa,
Color me slow on the uptake, but I'm not sure who your comment was meant for?

Just curious?

Bret

"As far as the benefits end, that is an additional cost to businesses to be passed on to the consumer. In an already flailing economy, who needs another drag on it." --- RDS

So you DO wish to deny to homosexuals the same, secular rights that other couples have. Specifically, here you would deny them health care to save "the economy." How selfish and morally bankrupt of you. I suppose your stock options are more important than the life and health of a living and breathing person. Now I see where to place comments against granting full marriage (including the name) to homosexuals-- as truly masking a wish to keep the playing field distinctly unequal.

The truth is there ARE real legal differences between "civil unions" or "domestic partnerships" and whatever else has been granted to homosexuals and the rights given to heterosexual couples. This is wrong.

I am a strong advocate for every one to have health insurance not tied to their employment, lost when unemployed and available again when fortunate enough to have a job. Your reation assumes alot about my view. It was pointed out to help those dealing with the issue that there is that cost involved, while millions more have no health insurance.

It probably is what will drive the Presidential Election, amoung other issues.

I totally agree with you on this one. That is why I stood in the hot sun every day durring the petition gathering for the "Limits on marriage".
I was there to tell people to "read everyword" and be careful what you sign."
I was there to educate people, gather supporters who pledged not to sign the Limits on Marriage petition. People who support freedom will not vote for this measure on the California November ballot. For that I was called names, shoved, and even spit on by people who claimed they were Christians.

I am a Christian too and to me that means spreading the love of God to every, man, woman and child I come into contact with. I honestly believe that our bodies are vessels that carry us through our time on earth, they will not be going to heaven with us, so it will not matter what sex we were on earth or what we looked like. What will matter is who we loved. In America we have faught hard for our freedoms, we should not give them away with a check in a box on November.

I am proud to say that I stood in the hot sun everyday during the gathering of signatures for the "limits on marriage" petition. I was there to educate people by telling them to "Be careful what you sign and read every word."

I was there to tell everyone that God created us all and loves us all equally. How can we expect to win souls by judging others and calling them an abomination? Spread the love and leave the judging to God.
Remember if you vote to take the freedom of others away someday someone can vote to take away yours also.

I have been allowed to love and marry my husband because someone faught for our freedom to do just that. I am a white female and he is a man of color. I vow to stand up for others freedoms even when it does not pertain to me. That's just how I roll.
So thank you for having the guts to write this article.
Love, Lorna Brown

Lorna,

Thank you for sharing your story! That others standing for freedom and justice paved the way for your marriage and provided you with a reason to stand for freedom and justice is inspiring to hear about. A very valuable contribution to this conversation!

It also brings to mind something that we quote from Scripture often, but sometimes fail to attach to real situations in life:

"For it is not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit says the Lord Almighty."

Bret:

You stated on 20 June 2008 at 7:22:

"I also congratulate you on "giving up" ten years of your life for a cause you believe in, the unborn. Just a question, do you feel as strongly about the US going to war unprovoked and having our men and women DIE too?? Killing is killing as far as I'm concerned, but that is WAY off topic!!"

True! It is another topic. Therefore, a quick answer. Before we invaded Iraq, following the president's announcement of his intention to go to war, I wrote the following article, which I published in the www.sdaforum.com. The title and link is here for you: A Preemptive Strike Against Iraq? http://sdaforum.com/test/page14.html. I followed this with two other articles: The Rush to War http://sdaforum.com/page154.html, and The Origin of the Preemptive Strike Doctrine http://sdaforum.com/page35.html.

You also asked: "I'm just curious, do you do business with helping gays and lesbians find housing?? A sincere question here."

I do not discriminate against homosexuals nor Sabbath breakers. I do not ask questions about lifestyle nor religious affiliation.

God bless!

Tom:

You stated the following on June 2008 at 7:34:

"Courage, The first sign of a lost argument is to attack the opponent rather than the issue. You may have noticed that several have suggested that those who oppose homosexual rights are in fact border-line homosexuals--now that is pushing the envelope. It certainly indicates that they have at least lost the argument if the best they can do is to impugn their opponent."

Thanks for you comments. The Bible says that "All things work for good for those who love God." So the question is: Do I really love God? My first response is similar to that of Peter: "Of course, I do!" But then I must add. "Lord, you know all things." Only the Lord can read the deep motivation for the things we do and say. This means that those who criticize me might be moved by a deep loyalty towards God. I have to let God be God!

Lorna, I just hope that your husband's skin color isn't the motivation to support gay marriage. I would be very insulted, as a lot of African American are, to have their civil right movement compared to the gay cause.

Carlitas, I asked this question once before and never got an answer, What about underage boys that want to have sex with older men, and vica versa. Ther is such a movement. Why not get behind their civil rights??? Some older men feel sex with underage boys is ok. What says Spectrum? Another cause celeb?

Janine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 8:11:

"I wholeheartedly applaud your commitment to the cause of the unborn, and your sacrifice to get a Ph.D. education in an effort to be taken seriously in the realm of public dialogue. (Thank you for sharing that story; it touched me.) I regard that sacrifice with no less than awe and heartfelt admiration. I have thought of doing the same thing myself.

I haven't, for two reasons. One, I realize I learn far faster and more efficiently on my own, and that I am likely a better writer and thinker for NOT having gone back to school than if I had, where much time and energy would have been expended on material irrelevant to my interests and very possibly antithetical to my values.

The other is that I realized that if one is good enough at writing and thinking, one does not require a Ph.D. for the better outlets to be interested in you.... No respectable journal will turn you away if you write well and offer terrific material on a consistent basis."

Janine: Thanks for you encouraging comments! I entirely agree with everything you have said. When I signed up for a Ph.D. program, I had the feeling that I could be published in some of the general public outlets. That was not my interest. I felt called to address my fellow Seventh-day Adventist believers, and all my efforts were fruitless. I am convinced that the problem was not the quality of my writing, but rather my determination to move upstream instead of downstream.

At that time, there were no SDA blogs. I believe that I was the first SDA to provide readers with the advantage of responding online. I have since discontinued that feature in the www.sdaforum.com because of lack of time to monitor the increased number of spammers. I am no longer concerned about getting published. I can hardly keep up with the opportunity for sharing my views in the Adventist Today and Spectrum blogs. I do not need more than that, since I also need some time to take care of my business!

God bless!

Elaine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 8:31:

"Has anyone made an argument against homosexual marriages that is not supported by the Bible? If so, it has no place in civil courts which separate church and state."

You have asked the wrong question! The church is the one who invented the marriage institution. Besides, our justice system has a Judeo-Christian origin, and our Declaration of Indepenence acknowledges God as the Creator. I conclude that the state has no right to desecralize what the church and God did bless. Let the state take care of legal matters through a Civil Union document, and allow the church to concern itself with the spiritual blessing by means of a sacred marriage ceremony.

You also stated: "Recently, a local church pastor wrote a letter to the newspaper and used the Bible in support against homosexual marriage, quoting Lev. 20:13.

In replying, someone asked about the rules governing the beating of your slaves (Ex. 21:20-21), killing disobedient childrllen (Deut. 21:18-21), killing women who are not virgins on their wedding night (Deut. 22:13-21), killing people who work on the Sabbath (Num. 15:32-36), offering up your daughters to be gang-raped (Genl. 19:8), polygamy (Ex. 21:10), incest (Gen. 19:32-36), killing people who worship a different god (Deut. 17:2-5), killing all the men, women and boys in a village but keeping the virgins and prepubescentg girls for yourself (Num. 31:15-18), genocide (1 Sam. 15:2-3), and selling your daughter into slavery (Ex. 21:7)."

Elaine: The Good Book also tells us to examine everything and retain what is good. Preserving the sacredness of the marriage institution is good for the church and for the general society as well. It represents an advantage for those believing in the theory of evolution as well, because they are concerned about the survival of the fittest.

Can you imagine if everybody decided to adopt the homosexual lifestyle? Would there be a future for our country? Currently the average American woman produces less offsprings than what is needed to prevent a population implosion. Were it not for the legal and illegal immigration, we would be going downhill already. The situation in Italy, Russia, and Japan is even worse.

Elaine:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 10:43:

"'Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.'

Please give more than a personal opinion when making such pronouncements. Where is there evidence that has occurred, or that it entices people to become homosexual?"

Elaine: Wrong question again! Granting marriage licences to homosexuals is a new experiment. How can you provide evidence for something that is still in diapers?

The best evidence we can secure is what happened following the Roe v. Wade decision wich opened the fllodgates of hell by declaring an open season for the genocide of the unborn. Overnight the number of abortions mushroomed into a million and a half per year. That is the best example I can think off.

Nic

I know of one obstetrician who was miltiantly against abortion on demand, as soom as Roe v. Wade became the law of the land--he became the leading abortionist in Western New York, Penn, and Ohio. His change of mind came about this way. If it is legal and someone is going to do it and for pay it might as ell be me! Tom

P. S. Isn't it interesting that we have Christ's word on it that there will be no marrying in heaven Maybe not even flesh and thus no carnal nature--anyone waiting in line to sign up?
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 19 June 2008 at 2:12
-----------------------------------------------------------

I refuse to believe in a heaven where committed, loving monogamous relationships (that form the bedrock of human relationships and all we hold near and dear) are banned!
What kind of cruel God is that?

These threads are so much fun.

Seems God's can't get us to do one thing without a quarrel.

"I mean Lord, what do you mean by "do" for example?"

In other words, in the new theology, is there anything that you believe God asks you to do that you don't want to do?

(And just to be clear, we're not talking about something that is "hard", but rather something you absolutely would not do if God didn't ask you to.)

I'm not certain why it would be more expensive to provide health insurance to homosexual rather than heterosexual partners. Why should either be more of a drain on the economy than the other?
Dave

Nic I am continually puzzled by your emphasis on people choosing to be gay. While it's true that we don't understand a whole lot about what goes into orientation, I think it is pretty safe to say that it is usually not something one chooses. We can even set aside all the research on the topic and just rely on common sense. Did you choose to be straight?

I'm a straight woman. Never doubted it honestly and I have absolutely no desire to be with a woman. Even if God Himself came down and said I'd get a free pass with any woman in the world I'd have to politely decline. Just. Not. Interested.

I'm assuming (maybe I shouldn't) that most other straight people feel that way too. Just not interested in the same sex in that way. Why would we think that there are a bunch of straight people that would suddenly WANT to have sex with the same sex if they were told it's ok? Heck I think it's ok and I still wouldn't, even if I wasn't married.

Did you know that children of same sex couples are not any more likely to be gay/lesbian themselves? Wouldn't one think that if we were choosing such things that "gayness" would crop up more in the environment more supportive of it?

It's also interesting to me that there are fewer bisexual people then gay/lesbian. One would think, especially if we were all choosing our orientation, that bisexuality would be more popular than flat out gay. More partners and one could certainly pass as straight more easily. Who knows, maybe there are actually more but they feel pressured to identify with one "team" or the other. I think it's more likely though, that there just are fewer (and the research tends to back that up.)

Well explained Beth. I'd like to hear from some "gay choice" folks an actual number of LGBT folks with whom they conversed about their identity.

Here's Rev. Mel White, an evangelical Christian, relates his journey of coming to understand homosexuality as a gift from God.

Alex, give it up, God didn't make this guy gay, he likes it. You deny the power of God:

2 Timothy 3
Godlessness in the Last Days
1But mark this: There will be terrible times in the last days. 2People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, 3without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, 4treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— 5having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with them.

That about answers the video, I think.

"methinks the lady doth protest too much" - a truth written by a secular man, is still truth.

Some people perceive it necessary for a constitutional amendment to protect from what they perceive as "enticing" and "tempting".

Sorry, you'll still be "enticed" and "tempted", and you'll still have to hold your breath as hard to suppress your "deep motivations", even with a constitutional amendment.

Just how would the granting of a civil marriage contract between two same gender persons make us all into homosexuals? Will a constitutional amendment banning it protect you from enticement and temptation?

I think your mind is closed. Could you try to prove me wrong?

I recently visited a 90+ y/o friend in the hospital. When I enquired about her status, the staff asked if I was related. I had to explain that she had no family in this state, and a distant cousin on the other side of the country was the only living blood relative (waiting to inherit). Fortunately, I seem to have an honest face, and her situation was not critical (broken ankle), and she was still alert. For this one situation alone - hospital/medical care, (apart from the many others), I would support civil marriage for persons committed to each other. Even though I personally have no interest in such an institution.

tani

BTW, since EGW is the penultimate authority for most here, myself included, I could find NOTHING on the White web that she said about homosexuality. About "sodomy" and "Sodom" she had one very telling statement (free quote -- check it out yourself)"'it did not arise all of a sudden but grew. First, there was a man and a woman... and they taught others....'".

Seems like the S-o-P had no pressing message for the Messenger-of-the-Lord on this topic which features so prominently on the minds of SO MANY in our nation. Enough to help tip the scales seven years ago.

And "sodomy" for her seemed to involve persons of opposite gender.

Go check it out for yourself: Google EGW, then check topics. Get enlightened. Never mind what the editors say.

tani

Who are we kidding tani?

Ellen White wrote about the Sabbath (relatively harmless), and look at what people have done to her.

Why would homosexuality be any better?

God lost this one a long time ago.

If God is Nature (or close, as is popular these days), then "natural" is "godly".

Like the Rabbis, we too have a veto on God.

Just a word in favor of heterosexual marraige (is there any other kind?) My wife and I will celebrate our 59th wedding anniversary next Monday. We have three lovely children, we have three lovely grandchildren and two lovely great grandchildren.

Loving memories of trips, uncles, aunts, grandparents, horses, dogs, cats, burros, ponies, camping, water sports, graduations, baptisms, first jobs, promotions, raises, births.

Most of all as a great grandpa, I understand God a lot more now that I did at 18--the fruit of marraige was a central part of that learning. I think God planned it that way. Tom

My parents were married on January 15, 1948 in the Netherlands. They were married twice that day. First they went by horse drawn carriage to City Hall where the legal marriage occurred and then they proceeded to the Netherlands Reformed Church of their city and were married in a religious ceremony. The first was the mandatory means, the second was optional. Marriage is a legal contract in our society. The religious meaning depends on what your religious convictions are, if any. You don't need to be of any religious persuasion to be married. Atheists too can marry. Legal marriage comes with both responsibilities and priviledges. Church marriages that are performed without civil recognition are not true marriages and are not recognized as such under the law. Here in Canada when we went through this discussion a few years ago, the government was actually talking about getting out of the marriage business and leaving it up to churches/synagogues/mosques to perform. I am thankful they took the courageous step and extended marriage to same-sex couples too. Our experience in Canada proved that the sky did not fall when the law passed. Society did not collapse. Roman Catholics and Seventh-day Adventists have not been forced to marry divorcees yet, and it is unlikely they will be forced to perform same-sex marriages either. When they are forced, I, as a gay man will be the first to go out in the street to protest.

Andrew Dykstra

Andrew, thanks for adding that valuable perspective to this tremendously lengthy conversation. Your point is a good one!

Andy, the question is not if the civil authorities accept you or even the religious people on earth accept you, but will God accept you for eternal life believing what you believe, acting as you do.

Most of all as a great grandpa, I understand God a lot more now that I did at 18--the fruit of marraige was a central part of that learning. I think God planned it that way. Tom
Posted by: Tom Zwemer | 21 June 2008 at 4:14
=======================================

Mr. Zwemer, Ms. Grady will and has argued that the benefit of knowing God "a lot more" through marriage should not be denied to homosexuals.

Good morning RDS,
Personally, I thnk John 3:16 answers your question to Andrew. By Grace, we all our saved. Knowing that I sound like Universalist, I do believe it's true that Jesusu died for all of us.... all of us sinners, whatever OUR particular sin may be. And I'm not implying that I feel being gay is a sin, it's just that I believe heaven is available to all who want it. "man looketh on the outside, but looketh on the heart." And thank God, He is our judge and not like us, as Tom so eloquently put it earlier. I like Lorna's idea of going out into the masses and spreading the love of Jesus rather than telling people they are an "abomination" and doomed for hell IF they don't change their ways. Wasn't the Cross ALL about love anyway?? Why is it that WE (including myself) feel the need to deicide who God will or will not save in their condition?? Not one here hasn't fallen short of the glory of God, so "let him who is without sin cast the first stone."

Happy Sabbath and blessings to you,
Bret

Mr. Dykstra,
Similarly, Adam and Eve did not die immediately upon eating the fruit. It took a while and they surely never knew how bad the earth would turn out 6000 years later.
Anything that is contrary to the will of God will lead to societal collapse. Just because you won't see it doesn't mean it won't happen.

(Not that that is any reason to keep God's commandments anyway...)

CRRECTION:

"man looketh on the oustside, but GOD looketh on the heart."

Sorry.
Bret

Happy Gay Pride weekend, everybody. Well, I speak to those who are celebrating or are happy for those who choose to celebrate. I'm waiting for the Sabbath to be over so I can join the celebrations later on this evening. I don't have any sda gay friends to celebrate with so I thank you for giving me this forum so I share my joy with other progressive sabbath keepers.

A reply to RDS

A statement by Ellen White which has meant much to me goes something like this: "We are not to worry about what God thinks about us, but rather what God thinks about Christ our Substitute and Surety."

I do care what God thinks about me and I freely confess to believe in errors. Ellen White has stated we have much to learn, but much much more to unlearn. May I unlearn as God reveals my errors to me.

As to God accepting/rejecting me based on what I believe, I am thankful that is not the basis for His acceptance of me. I trust not in what I believe, but in Whom. I am hid in Him and while I do not knowingly wish to cling to error, I trust Him to accept me fully anyway.

That's what's so amazing about grace!

In Early Writings, Ellen White speaks of a sort of wagon train where people, their wagons and horses were on a journey to the Kingdom. As they progressed, the path got narrower until they had to dispose of the wagons and with lessening room on the road, they had to dispose of their horses. Later their possessions were thrown over the precipice. Finally they stood at the edge of a huge gulf. Ropes were suspended seemingly from Heaven and no one was sure what held them up. One person at a time swung acroos the abyss to glory on the other side. The rope naturally represents our faith and the hope that God will sustain us.
On the surface this might seem a parable against trusting to material goods, but it might also represent giving up cherished opinions. They may be too hard for some to give up, but then we will NEVER unlearn what needs to be discarded.

Come let us reason together saith the Lord. May we be as prepared to unlearn as we are to learn.

Andrew Dykstra

Andy and Daneen, Rev. Flunder sort of puts down knowledge, read this:

Proverbs 1:7 The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and discipline.

Andrew Dykstra, I think when God comes you should chose a mansion right next to RDS and then cheerfully wave to him every day. There isn't supposed to be gnashing of teeth in heaven but if one listened hard enough. . .

Of course, because I think such thoughts, I'll be over in the step-down mansions :)

Beth, we better stay on knowledge instead of personalities, don't you think, I believe Daneen had a good idea with that.

I have been misquoted. I did not make this statement:

'Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle. This is not for the best interest of our nation.'

I was questioning the presumption of someone else that it would entice normal people to become homosexual and asked for evidence.

The answer that because Roe v. Wade was an opportunity for some physicians to make money performing abortions was a non sequitor. The first is based on equal rights; the second is based on someone seizing an new business opportunity.

Any time such a presumption is aired about homosexuality as being "contagious" is so off-the-wall fear, that it should require no answer from intelligent people and should be dismissed as fear-mongering.

Nic wrote: "Granting a certificate recognizing the homosexual lifestyle as equal to that of heterosexuals would have a tendency to entice many normal individuals who were not born with homosexual tendencies to adopt such a lifestyle."

A lesbian couple lives next door to me. Since gay marriage was legalized here I've been look longingly over the back fence thinking, "Hey! I could be just like them! Why don't I leave my husband and marry a woman? After all, the fact that it's illegal is the only thing that's been holding me back all these years!"

[/heavy sarcasm OFF]

Does anyone seriously, truly believe that a "homosexual lifestyle" is something people choose based on the fact that it's now more convenient and socially acceptable?

Oh, and re the Mel White video above: everyone should read his book. It's not going to change your mind if you take a hard-line traditional anti-homosexuality position, but it will at least give you a glimpse into how the "other half lives" -- what it's like to struggle for a lifetime with the firm belief that it's a sin to be gay, and the unchangeable fact of a homosexual orientation.

RDS, I'm sorry. I realize now that sounded more biting than I meant it to. I wasn't trying to get at you - I just had this picture in my head that struck me as funny but I can see how really it isn't. Again, I'm sorry.

RDS,
Excuse me for not knowing, but who is Rev. Flunder in your qoate above?
Bret

Ha. Ha., TrudyJ:

My girlfriend just sent me a text. She's at a forum listening to Mel White in person. And I posted the video last night. Talk about coincidence.

Actually I'm beginning to wonder if the most vocal persons fearing a rush to homosexual relationships are actually trying to talk about much deeper issues of society, libido and relationships. Which is a great discussion, but requires, first, a recognition that homosexuality is an issue of identity, not libido.

As I see some repeating the unscriptural notion that it's a sin, it's sounding more and more like a discussion about self-control which is actually the pre-heliocentric, Ancient Near-eastern idea about same-sex attraction - without any idea of natural cause and effect - they thought that folks who couldn't control themselves exhibit same-gender attraction.

And one sees that behind some of the arguments above. But one has to go pretty far into conspiracy land to discount decades of heavily cross-checked research to promulgate the idea that same-gender attraction is a lack of self-control. Plus, it requires quite of bit of hubris for anyone here to call a homosexual who has unsuccessfully tried to change their identity a sinner while we all struggle with the empirically socially destructive sin of selfishness.

Daneen, the word hubris used by Mr. Carpenter seems rather vitriolic don't you think:

hu·bris: exaggerated pride or self-confidence

Maybe the double standard should stop and we get back to knowledge instead of insults, Daneen, I agree with you.

Bret, check another thread for Rev Flunder:

http://spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/06/20/prophetic_short_sermon_serie...

Trudy J., does anyone truly believe that someone choses to smoke, knowing it will kill them, and doesn't have a faulty gene somewhere, like a smoking orientation, that they just are a smoker. And all along we have been discriminating against them.

Bret, you said:

"I like Lorna's idea of going out into the masses and spreading the love of Jesus rather than telling people they are an "abomination" and doomed for hell IF they don't change their ways."

Do you know what Jonah was so frightened of going to Ninevah, was it a specific message about sin or not?

wow i sure appreciate this article...i've had a tough time explaining my "liberal" views, expecially in political conversations, that i think we should not oppose gay marriage, because, seriously, it is a llfestyle choice and trying to make others live the way we do based on personal beliefs sounds just a tad like hitler. and we all know how that ended.

And, yes, I believe it is a choice to be gay/lesbian/bi/homosexual whatever you want to call it if it's not the traditional man+woman=marriage.

Just as some kids are born with "tendencies" to addiction or violence, because of their parents track record, its the same philosophy to theorize that maybe some kids are born with "tendencies" to adopt an alternative lifestyle. But its up to you whether you allow yourself to foster those "tendencies" and make it a habit/lifestyle.

Still doesn't give me the right to tell someone they made choice different to mine. All i can hope is that the choices i make to have a relationship with God make up for "human nature" and "unfortunate negative nurture".

RDS,
Your point about Jonah (being called of God to speak on His behalf) is well taken. And from my own personal experience, LOVE has always won out over judgement from my fellow man. Love speaks to the heart in the way The Holy Spirit does. Guess the bottom line for me, and me alone, is I'd rather be on my death bed some day knowing that I spread love and compassion rather than judgement and hate. I'll leave the judgement up to Someone MORE qualified than I, the Good Lord. I do thank you for the response.

Blessings,

Bret

Why not just leave the job of changing hearts up to the Holy Spirit??? I'm not trying to change anybodys heart or mind here... everyone is free to choose and decide for themselves what they believe to be Truth. I do believe the Spirit will guide us all, IF we only ask. :)

Bret
P.S. I still believe LOVE wins out every time, look what Christ's love did for all of us!!

I think the Adventist Seven Day Church could never support the practice of Homosexuality, because this practice is anti biblical. The church and his members love all men a woman, including those who are homosexuals, but we firmly believe that such conduct should change through the power of the Holy Spirit in his life. Support marriages between same-sex couples distorted God's plan for marriage.

Then the official position of the church.

Seventh-day Adventist Position Statement on Homosexuality

The Seventh-day Adventist Church recognizes that every human being is valuable in the sight of God, and we seek to minister to all men and women in the spirit of Jesus. We also believe that by God's grace and through the encouragement of the community of faith, an individual may live in harmony with the principles of God's Word.

Seventh-day Adventists believe that sexual intimacy belongs only within the marital relationship of a man and a woman. This was the design established by God at creation. The Scriptures declare: "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh" (Gen. 2:24, NIV). Throughout Scripture this heterosexual pattern is affirmed. The Bible makes no accommodation for homosexual activity or relationships. Sexual acts outside the circle of a heterosexual marriage are forbidden (Lev. 20:7-21; Rom. 1:24-27; 1 Cor. 6:9-11). Jesus Christ reaffirmed the divine creation intent: "'Haven't you read,' he replied, 'that at the beginning the Creator "made them male and female," and said, "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh?" So they are no longer two, but one'" (Matt. 19:4-6, NIV). For these reasons Adventists are opposed to homosexual practices and relationships.

Seventh-day Adventists endeavor to follow the instruction and example of Jesus. He affirmed the dignity of all human beings and reached out compassionately to persons and families suffering the consequences of sin. He offered caring ministry and words of solace to struggling people, while differentiating His love for sinners from His clear teaching about sinful practices.

This statement was voted during the Annual Council of the General Conference Executive Committee on Sunday, October 3, 1999 in Silver Spring, Maryland.

In all these discussions, I am reminded of how grade schoolers respond when discovering what their parents were doing when "making love" or "making babies." They all said, Ugggh! Gross!

Ten years later their responses definitely changed. What they once found offensive is viewed entirely differently in just a matter of a few years.

The main problem in homosexual marriage or homosexuality is that people who regularly enjoy sexual intimacy do not find it offensive or repulsive; it is only when they try to imagine that there just might be individuals who enjoy all the companionship, mutual interests, and respect: IOW, all the traits appreciated by heterosexuals, but on the basis of physical intimacy they find it all "gross" "offensive" and worse.

Does it not occur to heterosexuals that there are those who wish ALL the pleasures and "better or worse" for themselves, wish to deny it to others on the basis of their sexual expression of love? Is mutual love and caring limited in its expression or limited to who it is extended?

Two same-sex individuals have lived together for years without sex: less expensive, they are good friends, or even relatives. Would vows of celibacy in such arrangement meet with any better response? Isn't all the disgust and disgreement to this California law based solely on sexual intimacy between two people of the same sex? If the heteros here had no other reason to marry than for sex, what does that say, and why are homos judged so differently?

Abkei wrote:

I think the Adventist Seven Day Church could never support the practice of Homosexuality, because this practice is anti biblical.

1) Should there be a constitutional ban against gay marriage?
2) Should secular laws ban gay marriage?
3) Should secular laws support the observance of the 7th-Day Sabbath? (seventh day, not Sunday)

If you say no to #3, for what reason? Do those reasons apply to #1 and #2?

4) Should homosexuals come to church?
5) Should smokers come to church?
6) Should child abusers come to church?

(Matthew 18:11 KJV) For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.
(Luke 19:10 KJV) For the Son of man is come to seek and to save that which was lost.

7) Should we have secular laws against gossiping?
8) Should we have secular laws against coveting?
9) Should we have secular laws that enforce the principle that we love one another? (agape love)?
10) Again - should we have secular laws that ban gay marriage?

(Ezekiel 16:49 NIV) "'Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy.

Is the Adventist Church a bunch of Sodomites? I know a number of its leaders are "overfed". That is one thing unlike what you do in your bedroom, that you can't hide.

11) Should we have secular laws that ban overfeeding? Over feeding is the cause of most of our chronic diseases and is the cause of most deaths by heart disease and cancer. And what we eat affects the environment - see Pastor Wright's blog. Very cool by the way pastor. Oh that Adventists would see health reform for what it really is...

(Zechariah 4:6 NKJV) So he answered and said to me: "This is the word of the LORD to Zerubbabel: 'Not by might nor by power, but by My Spirit,' Says the LORD of hosts.

A.W.

RDS says: "I would be very insulted, as a lot of African American are, to have their civil right movement compared to the gay cause."

Are you aware that Dr. M. L. King's wife, Coretta, has made a number of statements in support of gay rights?

"I still hear people say that I should not be talking about the rights of lesbian and gay people and I should stick to the issue of racial justice... But I hasten to remind them that Martin Luther King, Jr., said, 'Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere'.... I appeal to everyone who believes in Martin Luther King, Jr.'s dream to make room at the table of brotherhood and sisterhood for lesbian and gay people."

"We are all tied together in a single garment of destiny... I can never be what I ought to be until you are allowed to be what you ought to be," she said, quoting from her husband. "I've always felt that homophobic attitudes and policies were unjust and unworthy of a free society and must be opposed by all Americans who believe in democracy."

"Gays and lesbians stood up for civil rights in Montgomery, Selma, in Albany, Georgia, and St. Augustine, Florida, and many other campaigns of the Civil Rights Movement. Many of these courageous men and women were fighting for my freedom at a time when they could find few voices for their own, and I salute their contributions."

"We have a lot of work to do in our common struggle against bigotry and discrimination. I say 'common struggle,' because I believe very strongly that all forms of bigotry & discrimination are equally wrong and should be opposed by right-thinking Americans everywhere. Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is surely a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial, religious, gender, or ethnic discrimination."

"Homophobia is like racism and anti-Semitism and other forms of bigotry in that it seeks to dehumanize a large group of people, to deny their humanity, their dignity and personhood. This sets the stage for further repression and violence that spread all too easily to victimize the next minority group."

RDS asks: "What about underage boys that want to have sex with older men, and vica versa. Ther is such a movement. Why not get behind their civil rights???"

The problem with pedophilia is that such a relationship is not between equals. When one person has more power in a relationship than the other, this is recognized to be manipulative. With all sexual sins: promiscuity, unfaithfulness, incest, rape, pornography - people are hurt. They treat each other like objects, rather than with the unselfish, giving sort of love between two people who truly love each other. But in the case of two men or two women who truly love each other, it is the same as in the best examples of committed heterosexual love.

And for those who still want to compare same-sex orientation with a tendency to smoking or kleptomania, etc., all the latest research indicates that before birth a gay baby's brain is hard-wired for same-sex attraction, and NOT for opposite sex attraction. Nearly all mixed-orientation marriages eventually fail - they are not truly fulfilling for either partner.

Love the person, hate the sin.

Just because I support gay marriage socially doesn't mean I support homosexuality as an "approved" lifestyle choice.

God gives each one of us the choice, why can't we do the same for others? Still doesn't mean I think it's right. But I am not God to dictate how to live your life.

I'm not being complacent or tolerant, I am sending a message of "God loves you and so do I".

Joann - I want to say, Amen! Oh that the Adventist church would understand that Law of the Universe is Love. And that God is Love. That is the everlasting Gospel. Always has been, and always will be.

I am a Caucasian gay Adventist male.

I believe it would be extremely presumptuous of me to dismiss the thoughts of an African-American by saying, "You be quiet. I'll tell you all you need to know about being African-American." I would have fully earned the contempt that statement invites.

Why, then, do heterosexuals presume to dismiss my profession that homosexuality is not chosen? It is no more chosen than is left-handedness. How can heterosexuals dismiss me so readily as not knowing what I'm talking about? Why do they profess to know better?

What I do have choice over is how I conduct my life. I can choose to be promiscuous, irresponsible, or suicidal, or I can choose to dedicate my life to Christ, to helping to uplift humanity in whatever modest way I can.

Why is it so difficult to take me at my word?

Well, the answer to that is my profession creates difficulties. It begs the question "How can God condemn this man for his homosexuality if he did not choose this? God would not be that unfair, would He?"

There are people who would blithely tell me how I must live out my life. One sexually active (married) pastor once told me I am obligated to be celibate. This is the only way I can live my life responsibly.

The point of the Jared Wright's essay is that homosexual people should have another choice, another way to live responsibly, productively and healthily.

Raising false issues of paedophilia, beastality and polygamy are completely irrelevent and intended to muddy what seems to me to be otherwise clear waters.

I am indebted to the author of the original essay.

Andrew Dykstra

Carroll Grady, I wasn't speaking of pedophilia, but the "North American Man/Boy Love Association" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NAMBLA#The_founding_of_NAMBLA.

If you support the wacko civil rights of one group, you will have others to follow like this one.

RDS: Yes, I knew to whom you were referring, and that is exactly what pedophilia is: the exploitation of boys by older men. Young boys are in a subordinate position in such relationships.

RDS,
"WACKO civil rights????" Now that statement really makes me want your brand of Christianity. AA has a saying, "attraction rather than promotion." Too bad more of us Christians don't subscribe to that philosophy. :(

Stil, blessings to YOU!!

Bret

Take any thought, any cause that can pop into your head. Is is worthy to be espoused on Spectrum. If it is, it will become a gutter journal. Bret, any attraction as long as they don't promote it. Sheesh, writing it here is promoting it even if one is not espousing it.

I must agree with Mr. Dykstra, especially where he says that "issues of paedophilia, beastality and polygamy are completely irrelevent and intended to muddy what seems to me to be otherwise clear waters." It is no more logical to say that allowing heterosexual sex will result in pedophilia, beastiality, and polygamy. In fact, I for one find it offensive that the initial reaction is such, because the underlying inference is that homosexuality is deviant, and beastiality is deviant, therefore, homosexuals must also be attracted to sheep.

We have *got* to stop thinking of homosexuals as 'other,' even if we do decide that what they do is against "God's" law. To me, marriage is the union of two people who are in love, the tying of two souls. Why would homosexual marriage be any different? And in what way does allowing two people who are in love to publically and officially articulate that love relate to a human who likes to have intercourse with a llama? To imply that they are in any way parallel is *far* more an abomination than any so-called 'perversion' of heterosexual love.

I applaud your courage and conviction, Mr. Dykstra. Thank you for adding your voice to this discussion.

~j p katz~

RDS.
Guess you are right...I was only wanting to react to the use of the word "wacko." But again, you are right, I'm no different by quoting AA. My bad and I WILL take ownership of its use.

Bret

Perhaps, RDS, you will designate what "wacko civil rights" should be done away with. Surely, not any of your civil rights you enjoy.

You profess that homosexuality is not a choice. I will have to agree to disagree with you on that one Mr Dykstra :) I do agree, however, that same-sex relationships are too often put out of context and portrayed as primarily physical relationships and not necessarily as healthy, because in some situations, i would rather have a kid brought up by two same sex forward thinking rational beings rather than two beings who succumb to alcohol or promote violence.

I believe that I should take full responsibility for my actions in good conscience of my relationship with God, and take full responsibility for any actions I take and choices I make. Therefore if I believe God's plan for me is to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex, then I allow God to fulfill that plan.

I could choose to pursue relationships with someone of the same sex, however I have chosen for myself the belief that God desires for me to have a relationship with someone of the opposite sex. If you can see a disconnection between God's ideal for you and what's going on, then you are ready to begin the life-changing relationship that God calls for.

Again, this is just my opinion, all I can do is encourage everyone to think for themselves and live their lives the way they CHOOSE to live it, not live their lives the way that society tells them to live it. Your choices are a reflection of your relationship with God...that's a heavy thought but it keeps me in check!

Again, it comes down to what you believe about God, his revelaed plan for your life, your relationship with Him, and the choices you make as a result.

Elaine, there are societal norms. You play dumb if you don't know what the mainstream norms of the USA or the SDA church are. No special treatment requested from this end, how about yours?

" if you don't know what the mainstream norms of the USA or the SDA church are."

Please identify what you categorize as "mainstream." Having been an SDA by birth more than 80 years ago, I have witnessed phenomenal changes in lifestyle, behaviors and more of the SDA church. What local church can claim to be "mainstream"? Individual churches take on an atmosphere depending on the membership. Some are quite conservative and notice dress and other choices that are traditional; others are more liberal and accept those who wish to worship with them (I happen to attend one in that category).
Labels are made by the observer and subject to his ideas.
Like politics: there are conservatives who take liberal positions on some things and vice versa.

However, Spectrum is NOT an official organ of the SDA "mainstream" church. If one wishes to read publications representing such a one, there are numerous papers, including the Review, Ministry, Adventist Theological Society, GRI, and more. Spectrum, thank God, is an independent organ with no affiliation with the "mainstream" or other adjectival part of the church.

Wacko civil rights. . .

This is one of the reasons, as painful as it is, I believe in free speech. After awhile these folks who come on here who get all riled up over equal opportunity for LGBT Americans, expose their prejudices.

Sorry RDS: basic critical thinking here. Your example is a classic slippery slope logical fallacy.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html

Some may have noticed RDS trying to paint folks on this site as "crazy Adventists," but in fact, almost every Adventist I know would find this dismissive attitude toward civil rights very telling as to the fear that lies behind his crazy paranoia toward gay people.

RDS still hasn't answered my question about how many LGBT folks he's talked with about this issue in the last year.

Alex,
I agree whole-heartedly with you on free speech. And yes, I did get a bit miffed at the choice of word such as wacko. Even under posting in comments, it asks to refrain from attacking anyone... I would assume that would extend to groups of people also. There are MANY diferent people reading this blog... I can only imagine some stranger trying to wade through some of the venom used. As far as getting all riled up about LGBT Americans and what I think their civil rights should be, I believe I have refrained from just that. I don't feel exposed nor do my prejudices. However, I will expose myself now and say that I think we are all created equal under the law AND God.

Just my 2 cents worth and that's probably about all it's worth! :)

I did appreciate your reference to the slippery slope... great sight.

Blessings,
Bret

Alex,
I am so sorry, I read your post so fast I MISSED the point!! Not so quick on the uptake here. I do apologize... I now understand your point, and thank you for it!!!

Again, blessings,
Bret

There is a difference between live and let live, and Salvation. We seem to be mixing them as we discuss this subject of Gay Marriage. I am not "paranoid" about gay anything, other than public hygeine, and I think that got taken care of years ago when San Fran had to deal with the free wheeling Homosexuality in the bath houses.

Protect yourself from the diseases, Andy, and you can live in the USA however you wish, but God is the judge of who will live in heaven.

Alex, never tried to paint people as crazy Adventists, but to expect equal civil rights for everyone no matter what they believe I think was proven by mentioning the serious organization of "Men/Boy Love". At some point, Alex, you do have to be somewhat discriminating as to which Special Project you consider for Spectrum, don't you?

To RDS

No my husbands skin color is not my reason for supporting gay marriage. I support freedom for all people. I do not support making petty laws that infringe on other peoples freedoms.

I was pro-intergration long before I was old enough to
fall in love.

I was pro-life long before I became a mother. (my choice)

I was pro-choice long before a friend who was a rape victim opted for an abortion.(not my choice)I drove her there.

I was pro-gay long before I attended a funeral of a 17 year old Adventist suicide (because his parents and church abandoned him when at 16 he admitted he was gay)I know for a fact he was still a virgin so it wasn't about SEX.
My acceptance allowed my cousin to admit to me she was gay even though she doesn't feel she can tell her family.

It's about civil rights, equality, compassion and love.
Not about judgement.

Do you get angry when people portray Jesus as a blue eyed white man? Do you say to yourself boy are those who are prejudice going to be surprised when they find out Jesus is a man of color?

What I am going to say now is shocking and I mean it to be. Just maybe it will make you stop and think.

Jesus was without sin, he was single, pure, a virgin.
What if it turns out he is gay?
Why was John called the disciple whom Jesus loved? Didn't Jesus love all his disciples?
I don't for a moment believe it is true but don't be so quick to think being gay is an unpardonable sin, after all it didn't even make the top 10.

Love, Lorna

Lorna, here is one person's opinion of the unpardonable sin, which I tend to believe is correct:

"Anyone who rejects the Holy Spirit's convicting influence and does not repent will not be forgiven, 'neither in this world, neither in the world to come' (Matthew 12:32)" [Ray Comfort, "The Unpardonable Sin," The Evidence Bible (Gainesville, Florida: Bridge-Logo Publishers, 2001).].

That would be true of the sin of Homosexuality if the Holy Spirit spoke and attempted to convict them of it, and they rejected it.Don't be so certain of your answer, eternity depends on it.

The parents that rejected their child and committed suicide, is sad indeed. There is plenty of help for so "afflicted". I accepted Homosexuals as fellow citizens, but that secular act is different than God accepting that sin. It could be the unpardonable sin if they have continually rejected the Holy Spirit's appeal, the Holy Spirit will not always plead with man.

Also, note:

Gen 6:3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man ,,,

Tom

Thanks for posting the following on 20 June 2008 at 5:34:

"I know of one obstetrician who was miltiantly against abortion on demand, as soom as Roe v. Wade became the law of the land--he became the leading abortionist in Western New York, Penn, and Ohio. His change of mind came about this way. If it is legal and someone is going to do it and for pay it might as ell be me! Tom"

Denying that a similar increase in homosexual activity will follow the legalization of marriage is being rather naive.

Beth:

You stated the following on 20 June 2008 at 10:24:

"Nic I am continually puzzled by your emphasis on people choosing to be gay. While it's true that we don't understand a whole lot about what goes into orientation, I think it is pretty safe to say that it is usually not something one chooses. We can even set aside all the research on the topic and just rely on common sense. Did you choose to be straight?"

I have not, but others have. I do not believe that common sense should have priority over research! Common sense tells me that it is rather stupid to get addicted to tobacco and crack. Nevertheles research indicates that people quite often, for diverse reason, act against common sense. I do not smoke pot or crack, but others do. Common sense tells me that it is extremely unwise and dangerous to drink and drive, yet lots of people do that.

Nic

You are correct but, I believe it will become increasing open and promoted. Tom