There is also a considerable amount of division and distress over this issue in the LDS Church, which has pushed 'yes on 8' strongly among their membership. Consider this very interesting report in last Sunday's Salt Lake Tribune:

http://www.sltrib.com/lds/ci_10797630

Thanks for the update. This really has been a very interesting issue to follow and be involved with. When I hear the NPR report mention Adventists as an example (and specifically Adventists Against Prop 8) of how religious voters are divided on how to approach this issue, I felt very proud of my religious heritage.

Mark Ferrell's comments (he's listed as a key endorser of the Adventists For 8 site) about a potential law allowing someone to marry a 4-yr-old simply frustrates me. First, although I doubt he meant it this way, he's once again equating same-sex attraction to pedophilia, and there is, of course, no comparison. This is just like the "Pastor's corner" I saw on an Adventist church's website equating same-sex marriage to bestiality. Not only does it show a profound misunderstanding of homosexuality, but it is truly demeaning not to mention demoralizing to gays and lesbians. There is simply no comparison between two respectful, loving adults choosing a lifetime of commitment and a situation like Mark's analogy where one party is clearly being exploited. Our judges and laws are meant to protect everyone's rights, which is why that analogy is simply illogical, beyond far-fetched, and completely off-base. The CA Supreme Court--not known as an "activist" court, simply decided that they couldn't find a real civic reason to deny citizens a basic right. The only reason to continue calling domestic partnerships something other than marriage would be on religious grounds, and that can't be a part of treating everyone fairly under the law.

It's very thrilling to see how many Adventists, especially young Adventists, have gotten energized around supporting religious freedom and equal rights for all, regardless of how they feel about same-sex marriage itself.

And, I for one, am going to be very, very happy when this election is over!

I was at an election-issues forum organized by the Student Association at Pacific Union College last night, and far more time was spent on Prop 8 than any other topic, including presidential candidates, who were only talked about briefly at the end (one student explained this to me by simply saying, "There's just not anything more to be said about the candidates.")I admit to being a bit surprised that so much more time was spent on a state proposition than on our country's leader. But it has that combination of controversy and confusion - the students are obviously in tune to the controversial nature of the prop; and from the questions, many of them are still simply trying to figure out its significance, implications, and purpose.

Regardless of the results of the vote on Prop 8. Will it change your view of homosexual relationships? Will it change your personal social and business relationships with gays?

What exactly will change? No body really knows. It certainly will impact upon affirmative action guidelines. It likely will
empower the gay community and restrict the straight community. Sinners have alway been welcome in the Seventh-day Adventist Church, active open sinning has not. Unless, the Church officially changes its position, it is highly unlikely that there will be a wide acceptance of same sex marraiges to be recognized by the Church and accepted into membership. Although the occasional church may take that step.

The bottom-line question of a Seventh-day Adventist should be: Will this facilitate the development of a final perfect generation or not? If so how? It sound much more like: As it was in the days of Noah! Tom

VOTE NO on PROP 8

Regardless of what Prop 8 supporters say it does in fact take away rights like:
1. Pension plan survivor benefits
2. Guaranteed leave when a family member is ill
3. Long-term care insurance for public employees
4. Tax exemption of inheritance
5. Spousal veteran benefits
6. Ability to not testify against spouse
7. Property tax and home value can be reassessed after death of spouse (meaning taxes can skyrocket)
8. Tax exemption of assets over $11,000 between spouses
9. Shared property
10. Marriage

Daneen Akers,

I certainly don't support Prop 8, but the pro-No arguments I've heard from you and others are so contrived as to be laughable.

You didn't even try to be fair to Mark Ferrell. First, you admit that you doubt that he meant to "equate same-sex attraction to pedophilia", and then you pretend that he did equate the two, merely because your argument demands that he did. Did you learn polemics from Jared Wright and Alex Carpenter?

If I understand Mark correctly (and I ask him to correct me if I'm wrong), he is making the simple point that the "religious freedom" (or "freedom from religion") arguments that pro-No people cling to work as well to protect pedophilic marriage as they do to protect homosexual marriage.

It's a good point. Mark might be right or wrong, but if he's wrong, can you say why? (The "one party is being exploited" argument might be correct, but it misses the point, doesn't it?) I'll watch for answer.

(And while you're about it, could you please show use the relevant quote from that "Adventist church's website" you claim you saw "equating same-sex marriage to bestiality"? I'd love to see that. Right now, I suspect you're making it up for polemic purposes.)

The main issue is whether there is consent between adults. Ferrel's comparison is irrelevant and a scare tactic. A4P8 have admitted using scare tactics which do not correlate with the facts in order to drive their position forward. They can't argue the issue as it currently stands but have to build up paper tigers to scare people of where it could go.

In short they have no argument.

This is an interesting and complex issue. I personally do not care whether it passes or not, just that whichever way I vote is consistent between my understanding of the normative societal rules for country/church and my own personal "freedom" of belief within those "rules". A number of points are involved in this:

* Obligation (if any) of an individual to recognize and live within those normative societal rules (framework)
* Definition of marriage and who owns that definition?
* Does a group have a right to change or co-opt a "standard" definition created by another within the framework?
* Impact of charged statements on overall argument given individual drives of paranoia, resentment, revenge, ignorance, social bonding needs among peer group, etc.,
* Examining the issue solely on it's own merits rather than being caught up in this being used as a tool in a perpetual battle between "liberals" and "conservatives" or whatever other group tension is in place
* Identification of the different belief systems and determining an "answer" based on consistency between each framework to come up with a consolidated position
* Long-term effects on society from proposition
* Consideration that this issue is only a state issue, not national.
* If the terms "domestic partner" are granted all rights that have been given the traditional definition of marriage, is that equivalency? Or does the term "marriage" need to be absorbed as well to have equivalent rights? Is the term "marriage" the only avenue to achieve right equivalency?
* Consideration of procreation as an element in the different frameworks or philosophies. Do cultural standards or laws intended to support procreation have prioritized value vs. those that do not?
* Societal frameworks derived from a non-theistic base, with one example being evolution theory as a base. Procreation and marriage institution role defined within that base as a survival advantage? Survival advantage only measured at an individual level, vs. local society, vs. species?
* Symmetrical arguments with similar, if not the same, situations? ie. marriage restrictions based on age, etc.,
* Society's right to restrict individual rights for overall long-term stability of society. Is stability inherently a good thing?

This is just a beginning list. To properly cover this issue at least academically, would require several years of research and consist of multiple supporting papers which at the end of the day, at best would only consist of a deliverable that would help provide a decision tree to allow one to navigate to a personal decision only. There is no definitive answer.

Of course, who has the time to properly treat any question? So in my case, I have "wing'd it" considering those above issues plus quite a few others not noted. I would just encourage everyone to think a bit more broadly and not succumb to the 4th bullet point which is quite prevalent on both sides of this issue.

It seems like your primary argument against Mark Ferrell's analogy is that homosexual partners are consenting adults and therefore nothing like the exploitive relationships of pedophilia. I also agree that you miss his main point, but for the sake of clarity lets compare homosexual partnerships to polygamy. What possible civil argument could be brought against three loving and consenting adults who want to have all of the rights of a legal marriage. Isn't it simply religious predjudice that prevents us from supporting such relationships? If the judges can define marriage for our culture, then certainly they should prevent the unfair rejection that these struggling relationships face. If we are going to make consent the test of a legitimate marriage then we must endorse one man and two or three women, or three men, or one woman and two men, etc, etc.

Alex,

Thank you for keeping Spectrum readers informed about what is taking place in the Adventist community regarding the Proposition 8.

Personally, I disagree with Dan’s argument suggesting that Proposition 8 is an attempt to impose a “religious dogma” on the rest of the population. There are religious and non-religious reasons for the opposition to same-sex marriage. Homosexual marriage goes against the Bible and also against nature’s design. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure this out. The elevation of the homosexual lifestyle to equality with heterosexual marriage will tend to advance said unnatural lifestyle on innocent children who were not born with homosexual tendencies.

Marriage was designed with procreation in mind, while homosexuality represents an open denial of this natural fact. Even homosexual have admitted more than once that they are not exactly happy for having been born with said tendency towards the same gender. I see no reason for elevating what is a fluke of nature into the category of respectability equal to that of heterosexuality. There will be consequences to the lives of innocent children who will be tempted to experiment this deviant type of lifestyle. Is that what we want for our innocent future generations?

The state should have a vested interest in protecting innocent children who were not born with homosexual tendencies from the temptation to experiment with what is a less desirable sexual lifestyle and which has proven to be a less stable type of relationship. The future of our society is at stake on the preservation of what is a more desirable and a more stable type of family life.

I’m glad that those representing the “Adventists For Prop 8” website have apologized for “associating same-sex marriage with the judgments of God.” If we are going to blame the sexual sins for God’s judgments; then, for the sake of consistency, we need to include fornication, adultery, and serial monogamy. Anything short of this is unfair discrimination. We cannot unilaterally blame homosexuals for their sinful behavior while being silent about the prevalent disregard of other sins as serious, or perhaps more serious like fornication, adultery and serial monogamy. The institution of marriage has been dealt a serious blow and a black eye by those who adamantly condemn one sin, while ignoring other similar sins.

Daneen,

I read your comments dated on 31 October 2008 at 4:58, and have to disagree. Homosexuality has never been and it will never be a “basic right.” There is no basic right to elevate what is deviant from nature’s design to a state of equality with what perfectly fits nature’s intent: heterosexual marriage. My opposition to same sex marriage is based both on religion and non-religious grounds.

Tom,

On 31 October 2008 at 6:33 you made reference to Jesus’ warning that in the last days a moral situation would develop akin to that of Noah’s pre-flood generation. The context seems to indicate that the sin prevalent then was “marrying and giving in marriage.” On the surface, it gives the impression that marriage is a sin. But on a deeper level, it seems to me that something else Jesus had intended to convey. Can you elaborate on this as it relates to sexual sins?

Will Vote NO,

The list of rights denied to homosexuals you posted on 31 October 2008 at 10:59 seems to be totally fabricated. My understanding is that, under the “Domestic Partnership” arrangement, same-sex California couples do have exactly the same rights as heterosexually married individuals. Have you carefully researched this issue in order to determine the accuracy of said apparently false information?

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

Nic

My point was simply that in Noah's day marrying was some kind of musical chairs. Wife swapping, same gender partnerships ala
Sodom et al. A kind of Californication. Tom

Among the important benefits of marriage, is that the surviving partner can receive all the deceased partner's Social Security, which is not inconsequential. There are many other benefits, listed above that are denied domestic partners, but received by marriage.

This weekend, a very close family friend is being married to a gay partner with all the families in attendance. This is a happy time for them to celebrate this monogamous union. Having known one of the partners family's since before birth, this ruling has given them the opportunity to enjoy all the benefits previously denied them.

No one here, or elsewhere, has given one single detriment to them, personally, by giving equal benefits to everyone. If so, please state them.
How will your marriage, your future plans, your children, your job, or your life be harmed by granting marriage rights to same-sex people?
All we've heard is supposed harms--usually a report from some distant place, but this is a personal question: how are you harmed?

So much fear! So much anger! So much division.... I know that we aren't Anglicans, but Archbishop Tutu's remarks about his own denomination seem to fit here, to paraphrase, the Adventist Church is too concerned about homosexuality! We need to be focused upon Jesus, making the way easier for people to come to him, and then fostering that relationship. Jesus met people where they were. He was someone who drew criticism for his known associations with "immoral" and "undesirable" people. This Prop 8 issue has to be handled in such a way. If we can't talk about it without becoming stumbling blocks to Christ, then what is the point?

Poor Apostle Paul. He gets blamed for many things. Even he recognized that things went sadly awry when he did not preach only Christ. He "supported" slavery. He saw marriage as only for those who could not live an abstinent life. He put women in a very subservient role... But he was expecting Jesus to return really soon, so he was also a pragmatist.

Right now, we have a significant group of consenting adults who are sexually attracted to and involved with other consenting adults of the same sex. There are also a large number who have become families because they have children to rear. There has been no option offered to protect the rights of these couples and families, such as civil unions, and when such laws have been proposed they have also been shot down. Trying to outlaw their existence is like trying to return this country to its indigenous people. Or waving a magic wand and expecting whatever you want to happen.

So, IMHO, a more Christian approach would be to find a pragmatic solution rather than squabbling about semantics, theoretical repercussions, and morally controlling the world like most of the "Christian Right" have been doing.

Where I live, I have seen how even civil unions are seen as "evil" by the "Christian Right". But also how without a law to protect, bizarre disenfranchisement occurs. One year, unmarried people in long-term relationships could have insurance benefits if one of them was a city employee. Because there was no law ensuring the status of civil unions, however, the next year the benefits were repealed, and just imagine the impact that had.

I am concerned about all of those people who have been married in California who could suddenly lose that status, some of them for the second time. Isn't that just crazy-making?

I am of mixed racial heritage and am married to someone who is Caucasian. It gives me a different perspective, perhaps, because if I were born at a different time I would be in an illegal marriage because it would be considered immoral.

I am not in a position to vote on Prop 8, but if I were, I might vote, "No", just so that it wouldn't pull the rug out from under so many people, and so that more useful dialog on a compromise solution could continue. There needs to be an in-between step in there.

Why are we so afraid to call sin by its right name? When did that become unloving and intolerant? Doesn't the life of Jesus demonstrate both love and confrontation? He was the champion of the woman caught in adultery, but he never attempted to legitimatize her behavior. He said, "Go and sin no more." From a biblical perspective homosexuality is a sin, as are many other behaviors we tend to ignore. We are all the angry mob who have no right to throw stones because of our own sinful hearts, but this doesn't mean we should attempt to redefine sin. To do so is simply a desire to save ourselves and cheapens the only source of our real salvation. What we all need is not to feel better about ourselves and what we do, but to be convicted of our depravity and stunned by the scandalous grace offered to us through the cross.
To quote John R W Stott: "If we bring God down to our level and raise ourselves to his, then of course we see no need for a radical salvation, let alone for a radical atonement to secure it. When, on the other hand, we have glimpsed the blinding glory of the holiness of God and have been so convicted of our sin by the Holy Spirit that we tremble before God and acknowledge what we are, namely “hell-deserving sinners,” then, and only then, does the necessity of the cross appear so obvious that we are astonished we never saw it before."

Robert:

I agree with what you said.

It's been said before, but homosexuals are attempting to legitamize their lifestyle through legislation using a God given institution, which the state started licencing.

It's evident that if they were truely interested in rights, they would fight for those instead of trying to destroy the institution of marriage.

Marriage is not ours to define as we please, it is God's and he made it clear what it was. When the laws of man cross God's laws, we must make a stand. The law of the land does not supercede God's laws.

This breaks my heart. I oppose Prop 8 (support gay marriage), but the divisions, false witness, sensationalism, and rejection this is causing within Adventism breaks my heart.

I'm sixth generation Adventist. My family were among the very first pioneer ministers in the Northwest. My grandfather was a conference president and union religious liberty director. My parents were missionaries. And I spent over 20 years dedicating myself to Adventist higher education.

God knows that I did not choose to be gay. My 90-yr-old mother says she knows I did not choose this. Since I became honest and came out I have clung to Adventism. I'm more fortunate than many because the two churches I've belonged to since then have wanted and accepted me, along with my SDA partner.

I've spent years trying to help other gay Adventists remain connected to this denomination. I've spent years actively working for better understanding regarding this (so I guess I'm one of those terrible "activists"). But Doug Batchelor, Farrel in SF, the pastor in Napa, and Reinach have brought me to the point where I see almost no hope for gay Adventists to remain Adventist.

My heart is broken at having to finally acknowledge that my relationship to Adventism is broken. And I'm not alone. I have precious friends who have been driven out of SF Central by Mark Farrell only recently. I have friends across this country who have given up on Adventism because they can no longer abide the attacks and coldness they receive from Adventists.

I know many courageous people have signed on to Adventists Against Prop 8. I've been amazed and grateful. But the hate and rejection from so many pastors that has been magnified during the fight over Prop 8 has caused me to see things about Adventism that I didn't want to see. I feel the pastors are functioning not as "good shepherds" or even the father of the prodigal. So many are acting like guardians at the door to a private club.

Why are so many people willing to shut the doors of the church?

In closing I want to share a few facts:
1. Supporting Prop 8 will NOT prevent homosexual coupling.
2. Gay Adventists in California who have married have now only made a greater moral commitment to each other. They are no "worse" than they were before.
3. Homosexuals are not pedophiles! To say that is false.
4. Supporting Prop 8 will drive people away from Adventism.
5. Historic SDA religious liberty is gone in the Pac Un Conf.

Please pray. Please care.

John

John:

>God knows that I did not choose to be gay.

I can agree with that statement. It's probably true of most homosexuals.

>I've spent years trying to help other gay Adventists remain connected to this denomination.

Bravo! People need to understand that the church SHOULD be a refuge for the sinner. A problem arises though when the sinner doesn't acknowledge that his/her sin is a sin, much like the religious leaders of Jesus' time. Every effort should be made to make the church an inviting place. Unfortunately that does not happen always.

>1. Supporting Prop 8 will NOT prevent homosexual coupling.

That's so true, and shows how supporting Prop 8 does not take away that right.

>2. Gay Adventists in California who have married have now >only made a greater moral commitment to each other. They are >no "worse" than they were before.

Gay Adventist? The term gives conotations that homosexuality is accepted. Adventists or any Bible believing Christian should accept homosexuality. Christ calls us to love everyone, but not to condone or support their sinful lifestyle.

>3. Homosexuals are not pedophiles! To say that is false.

True.

>4. Supporting Prop 8 will drive people away from Adventism.

It will drive some away; however, that is not grounds for not supporting Prop 8.

>5. Historic SDA religious liberty is gone in the Pac Un Conf.

How so?

I'm really glad to see some new names commenting here--thanks for sharing your thoughts!

settembrini (not verified) --I'm not trying to be polemical, and Mark Ferrell and I have conversed offline about our stances. I am very sure that he didn't intentionally equate homosexuality with pedophilia, but his analogy still does that (and it's pretty common to hear people put the two and bestiality in the same category). The exploitation argument--i.e. there is no comparison because one involves an inherently exploitive relationship while the other involved committed, monogamous, loving equals, is a good enough argument. The other issues you address are much better addressed here--I couldn't do them justice: http://adventistsagainstprop8.org/faq/

Daneen wrote:
--

other involved committed, monogamous, loving equals

--

Now if we redefine marriage as something other then it has traditionally been known why should the idea of loving equals, commitment or monogamous remain?

In fact legally they don't matter one bit, yet you use them in your argument, why is that? Would you oppose same sex marriage if the couple were not monogamous, not loving equals and not even all that committed?

Excellent point RC.
Its like proving a formula. Change the varibles. Re run the same calculation. Does it come up with the same result?
It will be interesting to hear the answer.

"Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God." 1 Corinthians 6:9, 10

How is it that out of a list of 10 different sins, Christians pick out homosexuality (abusers of themselves with mankind) as the one sin that is acceptable?

Arguments for homosexual acceptance applied to alcoholism:

I was born with a propensity toward alcohol. It wasn't my choice. Who would choose the life of an alcohol? I hid my attraction to alcohol for many years, but it was no use. I wasn't happy because I was living a lie. I wasn't being me. Once I was able to admit I was an alcoholic and living the life I was born to, I felt so free. I've never been happier in my life. Now, if I could just get everyone else to feel the same way about alcoholism as I do then I wouldn't feel so judged.

Paul continues: "And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

God can recreate us. Alcoholics can overcome and be free from their sin no matter how addicted or strong their propensity is toward alcohol.

We should "flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body."

God does not want us to embrace our sin. He wants us to flee. We all have corrupt hearts, but are we to give up and say, "Well this is the way I am, no use fighting." No!

Our bodies are not our own, but "ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's."

We do not glorify God when we continue in our sin. Telling ourselves that God cannot change our desires is to doubt his ability to forgive and restore us to his image.

Now, since homosexuality is a sin against our own bodies, I would not pass any laws that prohibit homosexuality necessarily, but I will defend and pass laws that keep sin from being cast as righteous, instituted by God. By doing this I do not take away a persons right to lead a sinful life.

We are created equal and should have equal access to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness till it infringes on somebody else. As a Christian, I consider it an infringement for homosexuals to redefine my God's gift to humanity--marriage. They have no right to change what God has made holy. It is on that basis that I would vote YES on Prop 8.

Shane:
Exactly! And if people think that God doesn't heal homosexuals, go to www.portlandfellowship.com and read some of the stories.

Personally, I do not see how professors at LLU can be against this Proposition unless it is in fear of how the SDA church will be treated by the public when a Sunday Law is presented for consideration, when the SDA Church will be the minority.

The Bible is very clear as the SDA church is on Gay Marriage. I am baffled at Julius Nam and David Larson. It has to be a Sunday Law thing, I'm convinced from a previous discussion and video on Spectrum. If you think the general public, if they want a Sunday law is going to be kind to you Julius and David, think again, you don't compromise for your own selfish interests, unless you have it in writing.

"Personally, I do not see how professors at LLU can be against this Proposition unless it is in fear of how the SDA church will be treated by the public when a Sunday Law is presented for consideration, when the SDA Church will be the minority."

Good point NCTer,

That begs the question, if we oppose prop8 will the sunday law never come?
Or,
When it does come, do we get a pass since we will say look back at prop8 and see we opposed it?
Of course not. Its stupid to think there is any linkage.

If it comes, it will come no matter our actions on prop8.

Robert, you have pointed us to a website. However, unless any group promising to "change" homosexuals is able and willing to give us the results of their programs, skepticism rules the day.

There have been many, one of the first, Exodus, has had minimal success, and was a place for forming gay relationships.

"Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away."
2 Timothy 3:5

Is this not the description of those who tell believers to accept homosexuality? Are those who are denying God's claim to restore, recreate his image in us? If God cannot forgive me and give me freedom from ALL my sins, than the message of the gospel is nothing but lies.

How then should we excuse our sins in the light of God's word?

Elaine:

Do you believe that we can have victory over any sin through the aid of Christ?

Do you believe homosexuals can overcome their sinful lifestyle?

Homosexuals can overcome their problem through the saving grace provided by Prop 8.

Why does not Prop 8 give people the mechanism of how they might overcome sin? Instead, it only points out their sin. It should reference salvation through Jesus Christ. Instead it only codemns, not unlike most legalists.

"Do you believe that we can have victory over any sin through the aid of Christ?"

Not until someone is willing to come forward and claim to be free of sin, or sinless.

Claims are cheap; evidence is more convincing.
Where's the evidence?

Sins are variously defined:

Do you believe it is a sin to carve or sculpt an image?

Do you believe that a child should be punished for a parent's sin? (See the 2nd commandment.)

Do you believe people should be killed for working on the Sabbath? (See the Fourth)

Do you believe that abusive parents should be honored and it is sin not to do so? (See th 5th)

Do you believe that your thoughts can be sinful?

Do you believe it is a sin to wear clothing of two different fabrics?

Do you believe it is a sin not to keep Kosher?

Do you believe it is a sin to grow two different crops in the same field?

Do you believe that sin is an act, or that all humans are sinners from birth?

Why is this debate being framed as a religious issue when it has to do with society and biology? The current law in California insists that I agree that a state sanctioned personal relationship between two men that includes anal sex is the moral and biological equivilant of the similar relationship of a male and female, and is now called by the same name. (I comment only on men as that's my make and model.) I fail to understand how it is the same and thus wish there to remain a distinction between the male/female relationship (whether created or evolved, take your pick) that is the foundation of the continuation of the human race that has always been held in highest esteem above all other relationships. I understand and accept that other types of human coupling, by common or contract law, whether of the same or multiple sexes, may be a good thing for its participants and society, because such relationships take care of important benefit and inheritance issues. But calling such other couplings by the same name as marriage is blurring a vital definition. How does it hurt us? It forces us to bow to political pressure to accept the notion that a copy is the same as the original. And that will be taught in schools. So I'll vote Yes on Eight. And "no," it's not because I don't love my gay buddies and don't want them coming to church with me.

". So I'll vote Yes on Eight. And "no," it's not because I don't love my gay buddies and don't want them coming to church with me."

You only do not want them to have the same equal rights as you, and all heterosexuals have? The many benefits have been listed by others here.
What benefits would you you trade that
"domestic partners" have if they are equal?

As an incurable heterosexual, I am emotionally uncomfortable with the idea of gay marriage. But will someone tell me exactly how allowing persons of the same gender to "marry" infringes on my own liberty?

I fail to see how homosexuals can do anything to the institution of marriage that heterosexuals have not already done to it.

Having said that, it does seem to me that the proper solution, which would correctly separate church and state, would be for the state to concern itself with matters such as tax, inheritance, visitation, property rights, etc, through the instrument of a civil union.

Then let "marriage" be the province of churches, who might define it however they wish.

This discussion is NOT about whether it is OK to be gay. It is NOT about whether it is OK to have a relationship if you are gay. This is NOT a discussion of whether homosexuals can "change".

It IS about not legislating morality. Many of you seem to have forgotten that Adventists have long supported the right of others to believe differently than SDA beliefs dictate.

There is ANOTHER time and place to start a thread on:

1. Can homosexuals change?
2. Is homosexuality a sin? And when does it become sin?

Your blythe and simplistic answers are very hurtful. I've lived this life for 60 years. I know the reality far better than most of you because you've never dealt with this directly. How would you feel if the state of California was about to vote on something this personal for you?

Jesus never sought to legislate anything!!! Have you forgotten that? He sought out the marginalized. He spoke to them about sin. But He NEVER led any political movement. What you are doing is not Christlike. You would see that if you would only stop condemning before thinking.

John

You only do not want them to have the same equal rights as you, and all heterosexuals have? The many benefits have been listed by others here.
What benefits would you you trade that
"domestic partners" have if they are equal?

Posted by: Elaine Nelsona (not verified) | 01 November 2008 at 1:07

If these legal protections are so paramount, so important, then why are their laws for common law marraiges and millions of people living together for years, having children and not even interested in getting married. I'll only mention a couple more famous ones you might know.
Goldy Hawn and Kurt Russel
Gene Simmions and Sharon Tweed

The arguement for homosexual marraige is a non starter if goodies and benifit packages are the reason its wanted.

John wrote:

--

Jesus never sought to legislate anything!!! Have you forgotten that? He sought out the marginalized. He spoke to them about sin. But He NEVER led any political movement. What you are doing is not Christlike. You would see that if you would only stop condemning before thinking.
--

By that reason you should simply not vote. Either way just let other people decide public policy. Of course if you took it to the logical conclusion then no Christian should have anything to do with public policy. Of course Jesus did not live in a democracy or a democratic republic so the logic of your position is actually questionable.

A domestic partnership can have all the rights as a normal marriage. And they should. No problem. However, a child from a normal marriage will have genes from both parents, but there is no way this is going to happen in a domestic partnership. Possibly from one parent, but not both. Biologically, one parent is left out(Nice area for a practicing lawyer). For this one simple reason, domestic partnerships and traditional marriages are not the same. Let's keep it that way.

Elaine,

On 31 October 2008 at 5:09 you have argued again that “there are many other benefits, listed above that are denied domestic partners, but received by marriage.” Are you sure of what you are talking about? Can you elaborate? I have heard you argue this point again and over again, but I have been unable to verify the accuracy of what you have been asserting. Notice how the 2005 California for domestic partners is described:

*********
“California Enacts Sweeping New Domestic Partner Law for 2005.

Registered domestic partners in California will have many new rights and responsibilities under AB 205, the new domestic partner law that took effect on January 1, 2005.

Under AB 205, registered domestic partners are now entitled to the same legal treatment as spouses in most areas of state law: Community property laws apply, and a lower-earning partner will have the right to seek support from the higher earner after a breakup. Partners will be responsible for each other's debts, and in most circumstances will have to use the court system to terminate their partnership, rather than simply filing a termination notice.

Children born into a domestic partnership will be considered the children of both partners, although legal experts believe that it's still prudent to complete a domestic partner adoption, as parental rights may not be recognized outside of California without a court judgment. And except for the parentage rule, the new law is retroactive to the date of registration -- so property acquired after registration but before January 1, 2005 is subject to community property laws unless the partners agree otherwise in writing (see below).

This is only a partial list of the rights and obligations created by AB 205. It's important to remember that this is a state law, and that the federal government does not recognize domestic partnerships. Domestic partners are not entitled to their partners' Social Security benefits or to any other federal benefits that married couples get.

Domestic partners cannot file either state or federal tax returns jointly. Also, a domestic partnership in California won't be recognized in most other states, so partners won't necessarily get the rights they are entitled to under California law when they move to a different state.”
http://www.nolo.com/support/detail.cfm/ObjectID/5F8413D8-61FC-417A-B2F09...
*********

According to this seemingly reliable source, the only thing denied domestic partners are the federal benefits granted married individuals. I do not see the need to downgrade the marriage institution in order to grant federal benefits to homosexuals. What same-sex partners need to fight for is at the federal level, instead of insisting on equality with married couples. Marriage is a special institution which has been designed for those who are willing to abide by what nature provided for them.

I would like to cite some comments taken from an “Adventist Today” blog dealing with the same issue:

*********
“On October 29th, 2008 roninsjc says:
The people who have already had the state determine that a homosexual union is equal to a heterosexual marriage have had their liberties violated and authority challenged. If you care to view their experience it is found at the following website http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid1815825713

The state has an interest in preferring heterosexual unions over homosexual ones. The traditional family provides greater stability and is a superior arrangement for raising children. This does not mean that some heterosexual parents can't do a terrible job of raising children or that homosexuals can't do a great job with children.

The state by sanctioning only heterosexual marriage is putting forward the idea that this is preferable all things being equal in raising children and for society in general. I think Scripture is clear enough in advancing this idea as well. I'll definately vote yes on 8 and hope you'll do the same. “

*********
As you can see, there are both religious and non-religious reasons for voting in favor of Proposition 8 in California next Tuesday. Those who have not voted yet, should consider the advisability of doing so and thus help preserve an institution which has served humanity for thousand of years.

You may think that homosexual marriage will do no harm to heterosexual couples, nevertheless, we need to give priority to the harm that homosexual marriage will do to all those innocent children who are not born with same-sex tendencies who might be induced to experiment with such a less desirable lifestyle.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

John, you wrote: "Jesus never sought to legislate anything!!! Have you forgotten that?"

Paul understood that Jesus was the God of the Old Testament. I Corinthians 10:1-4. As the LORD (YHWH) of the Old Testament, Jesus was the most notable law giver of all time and it was He who condemned homosexuality through His servant Moses. It was He who wrote the words of the Ten Commandments with His own finger on the tables of stone as the law giver of all of us. In Matthew 5:17-19 Jesus said He did not come to annul the law, but came to embrace the law and give it a full interpretation. He also warned against making some of His laws more important than others. God's declarations and warnings against homosexuality are just as valid today as at any time in the past. So long as Earth and sky exist, we are all accountable to God's law. Being committed to a sinful relationship is no virtue.

For those who express the need for a gay life partner and can't wait, is the sex drive of a homosexual person somehow stronger and less controllable than the sex drive of a heterosexual person? Is waiting on the Lord not an option? Is God pleased when a person, heterosexual or homosexual, forms a relationship with another person just for the sake of sexual satisfaction? Scripture teaches every one of us to be in control of our drives and wait until we find a godly partner with whom to make our lifetime commitment. 1 Corinthians 7:8-9. A godly partner will never be a homosexual partner. The waiting may take years or decades, or it might never happen. But is heaven and all eternity so cheap that one would trade all the years of eternity in the sinless New Earth for a few years or even a lifetime in a forbidden, sinful relationship in the here and now?

Your birthright inheritance awaits you. Don't be like Esau and sell it cheap. Wait on the Lord and He will strengthen your heart (Ps. 27:14), He shall exalt you to inherit the Earth (Ps 37:34), and He will save you (Pro 20:22).

John Young, thank you for speaking up.

Apparently Alan isn't familiar with the difference between a very specific, never reconstituted, pre-industrial, pre-scientific, single-religion theocracy and our incredibly heterogeneous American democracy.

Notice that when the power hungry disciples asked about tossing some God authority into the public sphere, Jesus replied: MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.

Alan points out that Jesus made the Ten Commandments. But he fails to note that Jesus, while on earth, choose to privately model His principles rather than turn, say commandments 5-10 into a public campaign. And anyone who knows the 1st century mix of Roman and Greek culture would know that sin did abound. But still God was doing something even more effective.

Above, Alan quotes from Matt 5, but he stops short of the meaning of those very verses he's referencing. If one reads on:

19Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

20For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no case enter into the kingdom of heaven.

21Ye have heard that it was said of them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment:

22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

As has been the theological tradition for ages, one see Jesus both expanding and personalizing the great moral commands. No where in the Old Testament was their anything about going to hell for lame-calling, but here Jesus treats it as equal to murder.

Hard words. But rhetorically significant because Jesus is recontextualizing His rules in a new socio-political context, one in which the Jews now existed in a diffuse and diverse context. Instead of connecting (and being judged) corporately, Jesus is translating the decalogue into personal moral actions, between oneself and God regarding heaven and hell. The Roman state took care of prohibiting murders - but no one is going to ask the state to enforce that no anger, no Raca law. Thus, in this context Jesus keeps the Law fresh (and out of state corruption) by making sure that we understand its truths as a personal covenant with Him about how we relate to others.

Thus one sees that Jesus is actually just merely upholding old laws, but expanding the meaning of the verses beyond just traditional understandings, particularly when political contexts have changed from when the Law was given.

But let's take a second and ponder.

Citing the 10 Commandments in public policy arguments make no sense as I've heard nothing that says anything in the Decalogue that actually addresses same-gender love. I assume they reference adultery, but as every Old Testament scholar knows, the word is which is concerned specifically with breaking wedlock. We can discuss premarital sex elsewhere, but let's be clear that the literal reading of the 10 Commendations has nothing to do with same-gender love. The commendatory is not so much concerned with the action as they breaking of vows. Furthermore, anyone citing the Ten Commandments as their justification in getting sin out of society are picking and choosing what they don't struggle with, because covetousness is much more destructive to our social fabric (see our economy) as are actual adulteries which are legal in California as is lying most of the time, as is dishonoring ones parents in multiple ways. So same-gender folks who actually want to get married and remain faithful to each other are having Christians pass a law based on no commandment while much more sins abounds. It really is completely absurd.

And just so we're clear here, God directly calls lying an abomination. Even if one thinks that same-sex relationships are sinful, keeping them from the stability of marriage won't make them stop, it will just make them less meaningful in our society.

What drives this desire to root sin out rather than aim for a just society?

In addition, to the Puritan fantasy to implement some nonexistent golden age (see Cromwell) there is a reoccurring personally Puritan (Pietism) trait. This is often among new converts to Adventism and other conservative Christianities. This tendency is evident in how they deploy parts of the beliefs as a way to help them control themselves against what they left behind. Thus, they try to turn the rules of the religion into wider standards so they they feel more secure battling the sins of their past. Because conversation marks such a break with the past and they don't want to return, whenever they see anyone changing the paramenters of the faith into which they converted, they react strongly because their security, even identity, is at stake.

One can also see in Alan's argument the old pagan belief that homosexuality is a lack of sexual self-control. This completely unscientific and extra-Biblical idea lies behind the skepticism to overwhelming research that shows that homosexuals have no more control over their orientation than you do Alan. Do you decide every day to like women or does that just come naturally? It's the same experience for the vast majority of humans along the gender continuum.

The "gays just need to control themselves" myth comes from the mostly male obsession with trying to control their own sexual desire and has nothing to do with orientation. You don't see a lot of women who really care, but boy are there some men who really fixate on the plumbing aspect of same-gender love. This gets to deeper issues of power in human sexuality, on which I recommend Michel Foucault. The bottom line is that there is no proof either in science or in basic human observation that shows that sexual control differs between straights and gays.

Coming from these religious and sexual experiences and assumption, the issue of self-control then gets projected onto Others as public policy. One must struggle to hold the line against creeping temptation and foundation decay. There is kind of an unconscious sympathetic approach - layers in fact: if I can just purify myself, my family, my church, my society then I won't suffer in this constant battle over sin. (And often, sin boils down to sexual desire, especially for men.) One will notice that Adventists for Prop 8 does not list a single women in their front page list of key endorsers. All men. And many of them are converts to Adventism. In this context, Adventist beliefs (and traditional views of sexuality) are a system for control.

I agree that human groups have to have strong boundaries around sexuality, because attraction is such a strong appetite. It tears up productive social networks. But this is precisely why I support two person straight and same-gender marriage - it actually gets at the principle that Paul is getting at in I Cor. 9: 1-11. Namely, that coupling is good for forming strong Christian communities.

Let's get back to the Bible here;

Great to see Alan quoting from I Cor. 9, but again he reading 7-9 literally, and not applying that exact same hermaneutic to all of Paul's words.

5. Do not deprive each other, except perhaps by mutual consent for a time, to be free for prayer, but then return to one another, so that Satan may not tempt you through your lack of self-control.

6. This I say by way of concession, however, not as a command.

7. Indeed, I wish everyone to be as I am, but each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another.

8. Now to the unmarried and to widows, I say: it is a good thing for them to remain as they are, as I do,

9. but if they cannot exercise self-control they should marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.

10. To the married, however, I give this instruction (not I, but the Lord): a wife should not separate from her husband

11. --and if she does separate she must either remain single or become reconciled to her husband--and a husband should not divorce his wife.

Note that we don't practice verse 11 in our churches, nor have we made it a Proposition for which we all campaign.

Nowhere in that do I read anything about same-gender attraction, in fact, it seems to be saying that folks should get married. But if one actually reads all the verses in the Bible on the subject and checks out the context and the original meaning of the words, it's clear that, like women in authority, divorce, lex talionis justice - the traditional meanings associated with the words about women's ordination, homosexuality or only men getting to divorce their wives were Ancient Near-eastern cultural meanings that we're read into the text. It is clear that slavery was not condemned by Paul, in fact, he encouraged it and Christian slave owners used his words to justify their racist economy. It was clearly in the Bible and it was traditional as well. So were prohibitions toward interracial marriages, due to Nehemiah, et al.

But it's traditional?

As we see with interracial marriage, women's participation in human institutions and religious tolerance used to not be a part of the human tradition. In fact, using traditional to justify discrimination doesn't stand up morally, as Martin Luther King Jr. taught us. The only other non-doctrinal argument for Prop 8 is that it's not natural.

But this doesn't hold up at all. Baboon or mechanical hearts keeping little kids alive are not natural. And furthermore, every sexual act that gay folks do, straight couples do to, including conceiving and raising children.

There is no secular argument for Prop 8. It is all doctrine and as I hope you'll agree, faulty doctrine at that.

So, if we do allow some sins in our state culture

and we do try to slice away ancient traditional understandings of identity from God's always unfolding Truth,

and if we recognize that Sodom was a story about hospitality and male lust for everything, not homosexuality in particular

and if we recognize that despite the holier than thou rhetoric, we don't actually even turn the 5th commandment into public law, nor even the adultery law since adultery is not prohibited by law, neither is the tenth commandment,

and all the natural arguments are bogus since every sex act that same gender folks enjoy is also enjoyed by straight couples sinlessly in marriage,

and Jesus could have tried to rid His Palestine of many sins, but he focused on the poor,

and Paul clearly recommends marriage and until we really read him literally on everything from divorce to women to slaves,

and since we don't live in a theocracy in which our laws have to conform to the Bible to increase God's approval,

therefore, there is no consistent traditional, natural, Biblical, political or logical reason to vote for Prop 8.

A plea for understanding: Prop 8 supporters, remember what your opponents are up against.

Pro-No on Prop 8 people are in a difficult position, morally and intellectually, and it certainly shows up in their arguments on this blog. But consider the following before you think too harshly of them.

1. They are mostly-well meaning persons with democratic ideals, but their herd mentality has tricked them into supporting an over-reaching, undemocratic decision that effectively changes the laws and traditions of a great state. That's a tough position to defend.

2. Their own democratic principles would require them to take political action through the legislature to achieve laws they consider just, but they know that sticking to their principles wouldn't have the result they want, so, unhappily, they have abandoned their principles. They're only human.

3. Being "liberals" they assume that they always have the moral high ground, that Jesus is on their side, so it's OK for them to be archly judgmental, to twist their opponents' words in order argue against what they didn't say, to imply and even say (in many cases) that their opponents are unChristian, to fling out intentionally insulting words like "homophobe." What else do they have, other than those red-herring arguments that purport to defend homosexual marriage and carefully fail to mention that their side is actually promoting that most illiberal of things: judicial tyrrany?

(In case it's relevant: I don't support Prop 8, but not for any reason given by pro-No people in these blogs.)

The Sermon on the Mount is The Transcript of Christ’s Character. It is the first full public statement of His Action Plan. Good Christian people can read this sermon and come away with entirely different ideas about Prop. 8. His Action Plan was not designed to be used as a political argument but as a personal guide to Christian living in the order of the Savior Himself.

Since, that Sermon was addressed as the ground substance of a political stance, it should be placed in context of the totality of the Christ Event.

Early in the Common Era, Jesus left his carpenter bench, walked East to the river Jordan where John the Baptist was preaching and baptizing repentant sinners. Jesus asked to be baptized. John, recognizing his cousin, remonstrated saying: “It is I that should be baptized by you!” Jesus replied, “Permit it be so.” John complied. ( From the Gospel of Matthew)

What a marvelous act of mercy. Jesus not only lived and died for me but he was baptized for me. As Jesus came up out of the water, a voice from heaven introduced Jesus saying: “This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.” The Holy Spirit in the form of a dove descended and landed on Jesus’ head. What an inauguration! But the installation ritual had only begun. (From the Gospel of Matthew.)

Jesus is led away, by the Spirit, into the wilderness for 40 days, reenacting Israel’s 40 years of wandering in the wilderness. At the end of the 40 days, Jesus withstood the temptations and blandishments of Satan. With the approval of heaven and the victory in the wilderness, Jesus was ready for His Gospel Ministry.

A precis of His ministry would be: recruitment of the twelve, followed by His mission statement, His acts of mercy, His words of grace and guidance, His patience and clarity during cunning debate, His steadfastness under physical and mental torture, His endurance of a cruel death, His startling resurrection, His reassuring presence, His triumphal return to Heaven.

Continuing the story, Jesus returned to the river and began recruiting His disciples. He attended a wedding feast at Cana, where his mother preempts His mission by requesting He provide a fresh supply of wine for the feast. Thus, Christ’s first miracle was to turn water into wine (A refreshing example of Christ’s endorsement of the celebration of marriage). He returns home to Nazareth, and reads from Isaiah 61 “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me” thus announcing His Messiahship and mission.

Matthew picks up the story in Matt. 5. Jesus addresses the multitude on the side of a mountain. Many see this sermon as Jesus’ inaugural address. It was indeed a classic and definitive re-interpretation of the Law that He had written on tables of stone which He personally gave to Moses. We know that presentation in the Gospel of Matthew as The Sermon on the Mount.

To fully understand the Sermon on the Mount it must be given at least four readings. If one reads it “cold” it becomes a nightmare of legalistic terror. He that hateth his brother is a murderer; (from Matt. 5:22) He that lusteth in his heart is an adulterer; (from Matt. 5: 28) “be ye therefore, perfect, even as your father which art in heaven is perfect”. Matt. 5: 48 Ghastly unvarnished perfectionism!

However, if one reads the Sermon on the Mount initially as the action plan of Christ’s ministry, the full range and impact of the sermon becomes clear. Christ opens His sermon with the beatitudes which describe the fundamental characteristics and joys of the perfect “man. Having described Himself, He quickly gives eternal assurance: “Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.” (Matt. 5: 17)
He goes on to elaborate by saying “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matt. 5: 18)

What a promise! Knowing that He came away from His encounter with Satan as victor, we have not only a sense of assurance but an overwhelming sense of awe and thanksgiving as we read in the Gospel of John His final words on the cross: “It is finished” or it has been accomplished. What Christ came to do He did before the entire universe: He fulfilled the Law, He revealed the truth about God, the Father, He redeemed a lost world, and He totally demolished Satan’s claims against both the Godhead and man.

Rejoice, Jesus Christ has fulfilled every jot and tittle of His Action Plan. The “Law” as he explained it, in His inaugural sermon, is the very transcript of His character—His life style.

What couldn’t be done by fallen man has been done by that one “new man: Christ Jesus”. God once again has an uncontested federal man, a New Adam. All heaven rejoices. Paul retells the story so reassuringly in Romans 5: 19 “For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous.”

The finished work of our Lord and Savior not only fills us with a sense of awe and thanksgiving and introduces us to the ethics and ethos of the Kingdom of Heaven. “He that hath seen me has seen the Father.”

Beyond that sermon, Jesus reinforced the ethics and ethos of the Kingdom of God with parables and analogies recorded throughout the four Gospels. Certainly we recall His introduction to His “stories” “The Kingdom of Heaven is like”---

Yes, the Kingdom of Heaven is exactly like Jesus. Having read the words of those who saw, heard, and watched Him, we also know the Father and the Holy Spirit for they are One, with Christ, the Triune God!

It is by such beholding, that we become changed. We are now free to read His words for a third time. Not only did He fulfill every “jot and tittle” but He gave us the blueprint for the life style of the forgiven. His invitation: “Follow thou Me!” is an invitation to discipleship—an apprenticeship to live and work in the ethos and ethics of Heaven.

Men and women through the ages have attempted to replicate the Christ event to no avail. The believers’ task is not to reenact the Christ event but to tell it as unimpeachable sources. Our life style is not to gain heaven but to gain converts to Jesus Christ.

Following Jesus means to “do justly, and to love mercy and to walk humbly with thy God.” (From Micah 6:8) To do justly, one’s transactions will be fair and generous. To love mercy is to give mercy not demand it. To walk humbly with God is to remain teachable, using what is learned not only in self improvement but in gracious and generous leadership. “Neither do I condemn thee, go and sin no more!” The words of Jesus becomes the mantra of the forgiven.

As we read His words for the fourth time, they become collectively, the mission statement of the church, for he said those words to over 5,000 men plus women and children—the Church. Christ not only invites, He commands: “Go ye therefore and teach!” As a Carpenter, as a Redeemer, as our Lord and Master He calls us to apostleship. We also are to build: communities of faith, not only in the “corner where we are”, but collectively as a world wide movement. The church is not only a haven of rest and communion but the headquarters for evangelism. Christ offers us an “open door” to come in for healing and then to go out to serve.

The Gospel Commission is to tell the story of Jesus. How He lived, why He died, and the personal and eternal consequences of the Christ event.

There is no better place to begin than with the simple songs as well as the great hymns of the Church. “I Love to Tell the Story”: “How Can I Keep from Singing”; “Amazing Grace”. Just think of how the Gospel opened the pen of Charles Wesley. The music of the church makes a David of us all.

“We would see Jesus.” Let us show Him to the World!
What better place to start than with the Beatitudes? A facet of Christ’s character shines forth from each of the Beatitudes. From the glow of His life, we become, “A light unto the world.” Matt. 5: 14

Amen. Tom

On Tuesday, in the State of California, let every voter vote their best informed judgment on each and every issue of state.
Let no person judge them for their action. That is for God alone. A blog is for sharing beliefs including long held differing views in an effort to inform and persuade not to berate. Characterization of those holding differing views is
not a part of formal or civil debate or conversation. tjz

Robert,

The arguments you posted on 31 October 2008 at 4:57 in defense of the marriage institution are quite relevant to this issue. If Proposition 8 fails to pass next Tuesday, polygamist will have a field day, since there won’t be any reasonable defense against the legalization of polygamy.

John,

Your arguments dated 31 October 2008 at 6:28 in defense of homosexual marriage are quite appealing and you seem to be quite eloquent; nevertheless this doesn’t mean that we should downgrade marriage to what is against nature and against what the Lord designed for the welfare and happiness of humanity. For the sake of those innocent children who are not born with homosexual tendencies, you should resign to live without a marriage piece of paper.

Why don’t you fight instead for the only right you are currently not entitled to under the California partnership program: federal benefits? Please, do this for the sake of the future generation of children who are not born with the unnatural preference for the same gender.

Many of them will be tempted to deviate from what nature designed for them if California allows homosexual marriage to continue. Can you do this? I believe that the Lord is the one asking you to sacrifice for the sake of others. This is exactly what Jesus did when he became a human being. If you do this, I believe that Lord will bless you.

Alexander,

I read your long response to Alan’s posting dated 01 November 2008 at 9:52. I thought that some of my comments were rather verbose, but it looks like your 150 lines of text left my 50 lines posting in the dust. I have no doubt that some individuals are in fact born with homosexual tendencies, and even Jesus stated on one occasion that some eunuchs are born that way, while others are made so by men. Someone has stated that the most powerful sexual instrument is the mind, which leads me to believe that those who are born with same-sex preferences are the result of faulty brain wiring.

I believe that God has the power to rewire a person's brain if he so desires, but I am not sure that God is ready to do so in every instance. The Lord could cure every person afflicted with pain or disease; nevertheless even Paul acknowledged that his prayer for healing was not granted by God. Should I condemn those who have been born with homosexual tendencies? I could, but I won’t. I will rather leave this to the Lord.

In spite of this, I am planning to vote “Yes” for Proposition 8. I see no reason to elevate a deviant lifestyle from what nature designed to the honorable state of marriage. Allowing homosexual marriage to continue to be legal will convey the wrong message for future generations. Children will be taught in school that the homosexual lifestyle is as desirable as the heterosexual one.

I don’t want my grandchildren to be tempted to experiment with such less than ideal sexual norm. Homosexuality can never be the best for humanity. It represents a fluke of nature and it will remain so no matter how hard we try to make it appear as on par with what nature designed family life. Jesus said of divorce: “In the beginning it was not so.” I believe that he would say the same today about homosexuality.

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

John Young, when the men brought the prostitute to Jesus what did He say and do. Did he get into whether what she had done was allowed by Roman Law vs Jewish Law? NO!!! He wrote on the ground, some think the sins, or Jewish violations of the law the men had committed, although the Bible doesn't say exactly, but then he said:

"John 8:10Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

11"No one, sir," she said.
"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

Now, if this incident were repeated and Jesus were presented with the same situation the next day, what would his answer have been. Jesus was compassionate the first time, the second time, would he have been so compassionate?

Would Mary's empassioned plea that she had lead the prostitute's life for 30 years have had Jesus waffling on how he felt about prostitution.

There are various actions, that the state has varying views on the actions from Jesus. Our goal is not to reconstruct a citizenry to our Christian rules, UNLESS, the rules sought add safety to the rest of the citizenry, be it public health, or other Federal or State concerns. A kleptomaniac that has never been caught for 20 years, would his claim of a gene, or that he/she had lead this life for 20 years soften his punishment, MAYBE, on the initial offense, but repeat offenders would be dealt with harshly because, there is a social interest, an owner of the merchandise that has been cheated.

Same for the pedophile, on first offense, maybe compassion, on repeat offense, society's chidren are at risk, so society would get involved.

With homosexuality, now that the Public Health issue is known and understood, society considers it victimless. However, if you wish to live your life only secularly, and not with a church group that has standards against such behavior (for Biblical reasons) then you can not expect other than a similar answer that the prostitute got, "Neither do I condemn you, go now and cease your life of sin."

If I told you what you want to hear because of 60 years of living this sin, would I be doing you a favor.

Very much also like the Evolutionist/Atheist that is attempting to convince you his view is correct, it leads to death and dust, with no hope of the afterlife. So too, your life style, secular entities have allowed you to come out of the closet, but the standards of Jesus/God are what they are, no matter how many years you have lived it.

The year is 2016. It is November 1 and Seventh-day Adventists in what they call the Pacific Union Conference are in the historic fight that Ellen white predicted more than 100 years previously.

The Mormon Church, based in Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Roman Catholic Church have combined their enormous financial resources to fund a ballot measure declaring that every person living in California must attend church on Sunday and that no business may be conducted on that day. The U.S. economy has never recovered from the crisis of 2008, and most of American society is in chaos. The Mormons and Catholics have banded together to declare that the strength of the family is vital in these times and that Sunday observance is key to strengthened families, best for children, and will bring the blessing of God.

Four years ago the Mormons funded another proposition that successfully dissolved all interracial marriages. Hundreds of Adventist families were torn apart because one parent was asian or black, and the other parent was anglo. Even Mexican and Anglo marriages were declared invalid. Alan Reinach fought to no avail to protect these Adventist families.

In the mean time Loma Linda University had also been taken over by the Roman Catholic Church because Adventists were declared a sect legislation had dictated that no group identified as a sect could operate a health care institution in California. La Sierra University and PUC had also been closed down rather than comply with the legislation to teach that Sunday observance was vital to the protection of America.

Four years before that, in 2008, Mr. Reinach had heroically led the defense of the family by supporting what had been called Proposition 8 which prohibited and invalidated gay marriages (although the Pacific Union had refused to endorse Reinach's opinion). The major funding for this had also come from the Mormon Church. Most Adventists, with leadership of pastors such as the then senior pastor in Napa and San Francisco, had enthusiastically joined with the Mormons in supporting this measure because it was so "Biblical" and protected the family.

But now, eight years later, Adventists are frightened. But what were they to do? They had been supporting the "moral" propositions of the Mormons. Now this had turned on them. They had not seen the ingenious devices of the devil that have now ensnared them. What appeared so good had become their poison.

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.
When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out."

Folks, remember Germany! In 2008 you were not gay,...

John

A very neat scenario. However, the scenario written by the Attorney for the General Conference is much accurate according to existing law. My administrative career was in Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity. I was never reversed. My successor was reversed by the federal courts three times in his first year.

I find the G.C. attorney is much closer to the potential for
confrontation with the law than you depict in your well immagined story-line.

The basic problem as I see it is: Why does a church that prays for the return of Jesus keeps trying to put off the requisite time of trouble prior to that return. If there must be a time of trouble to finally vindicate God, why not say: Bush wise--"Bring it On!" Tom

P.S. E.G. White's view of the future is about as close as yours. If there is a time of trouble it will be the SDA church linked with the dispensationalists more likely than the Romon Catholics linked with the Latter Day Saints.

Prop 8 should be decided on its merits or lack thereof and not on some wild eyed halloween scare tactic.

Which ever way the vote goes it will not change the moral climate of California one bit. So relax--spend your time reading "Why Jesus Waits.". Tom

Marriage of the same gender? An oxymoron as there is no such thing. Marriage can *only* occur between a male and female any arguments notwithstanding.

Sexual relationships between those of the same gender are a sin and the Bible is clear on the subject. Nothing at all complicated about this matter.

Robert Stafford says: "for the sake of clarity lets compare homosexual partnerships to polygamy. What possible civil argument could be brought against three loving and consenting adults who want to have all of the rights of a legal marriage."

Actually, I think outlawing polygamy was a violation of the separation of church and state. That's why action has only been taken against the FLDS settlements because of their abuse of young girls, which is a similar situation to pedophilia. As we all know, polygamy was countenanced, provided for, and apparently blessed throughout the OT times, and has continued to be practiced in many areas of the world to the present time. Most Christians have come to recognize that it is not God's ideal, just as we have come to recognize that slavery, once condoned and regulated by biblical writers, is not God's plan. And as we are beginning to recognize that owning and oppressing women, also widely practiced in biblical times, is not God's plan. And as, with modern scientific research findings, we are just beginning to recognize that homosexuality is a naturally occuring phenomenon in a minority of people that should be accepted and accommodated in as loving a way as possible.

Polygamy? No one can argue that it's not biblical.

In the LDS furor, it was based on underage females that were being married to older polygamous men. Marriage for minor is illegal in all states, only with the age of female minors differing.

If consenting adults wish to be in a polygamous marriage, that should be within their rights. It will surely not affect other's monogamous marriages, and to each his own.

Elaine

Strange isn't it? When a man has more than one woman it is called polygamy. When a woman has more than one man it is called whoring. Tom

John,

Regarding your comments dated 01 November 2008 at 5:41, I would like to suggest to you that you have no reason to fear that the SDA Church would allow the SDA institutions you named to be closed as a result of standing for what is morally right. History has shown that, when push comes to shove, we always find a way to compromise out of a tight spot. That is what happened in Germany during the Nazi regime.

The leaders of our church cooperated with Hitler while the genocide of the Jews was taking place. They had no courage to risk loosing their institutions and their lives for something like that. Of course, after six decades had gone by, the German and Austrian leaders of the SDA Church issued a joint public apology for what had taken place sixty years before, and everything was fine again.

More recently, when the State of Hawaii legalized the practice of abortion, again our church found a way to compromise and save out hospital there from financial distress. Half of the doctors at our hospital there, who were non-Adventist, demanded the right to offer abortion services to their patients.

The SDA physicians protested, the issue went all the way to the North American Division, and the then NAD president publicly declared that the Adventist Church was leaning towards abortion because there was too much hunger and overpopulation in the world. The result? Several of our hospitals started offering elective abortions to their patients.

If we were ready to compromise our sacred principles when our institutions and when the lives of thousands of innocent unborn babies were at risk, what makes you think that our church would dare to risk the loss of institutions like LLU and PUC now that they are much more financially valuable and when the income of thousands of our employees would be in jeopardy?

Contrast our willingness to compromise with the attitude of Catholic hospitals. They simply do not offer abortion services, period. When confronted with the need to compromise on offering adoption services to homosexuals, the Catholic Church opted to close their facilities. I guess they have not learned the advantage of the art of compromise. Stand for the sake of principle and loose LLU and PUC? You must be living in utopia!

Wake up my friend! Read my doctoral dissertation dealing with the way we compromised on the issue of abortion. Here is the Internet link:

http://www.sdaforum.com/page13.html

Let me paraphrase your parting comments as follows:

"When the Nazis came for the communists,
we remained silent;
we were not communists.

When they locked up the social democrats,
we remained silent;
we were not social democrats.

When they came for the trade unionists,
we did not speak out;
we were not trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
we remained silent;
we were not Jews.

When they came for us,
we decided to compromise
And saved our institutions!

Six decades later,
when the danger was past,
we issued a public apology
and cleared our names!

We may be dumb,
But we are not stupid!”

Nic Samojluk
www.sdaforum.com
An Independent Web site
Not Associated With the Association of Adventist Forums

>Polygamy? No one can argue that it's not biblical.

Are you suggesting that because polygamy was practiced by some that it is justified? Man has perverted many things, but that does not change God's original design, which is very clear.

John Young
I've seen some pretty wild reaches at justifying No on Prop8 and homosexuality in general, but your example takes the cake.

Hey, I noticed that some folks here have not joined in the Happy Sabbath project. Pony up.

http://www.spectrummagazine.org/blog/2008/10/31/happy_sabbath_project_we...

Alexander Carpenter

Your response to my post dated November 1, 2008, is a splendid example of pretzel analysis – a twisting of my words to make them say what I did not to distract the reader from the points I made. For example, you began by writing: “Apparently Alan isn’t familiar with the difference between a very specific, never reconstituted, pre-industrial, pre-scientific, single-religion theocracy and our incredibly heterogenous American democracy.” Apparently you believe that the instructions God gave the Israelite people are inferior to the ideas we are able to develop for ourselves even if our modern ideas are contrary to the specific instructions given by God. In short, you seem to believe that you know better than God. Your statement is a mis-characterization of the Israelite people and a total misrepresentation of what I am familiar with. Let’s consider your adjectival phrases.

You seem to suggest that the Israelite people were isolated from contact with those of any other ancestry when you use the term “never reconstituted.” But that ignores the fact that foreigners and sojourners were joining them throughout their history, and the LORD’s instructions that applied to the descendants of Israel applied to these newly added people in exactly the same way. Num 15:29-31. While the covenant was made with Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and his descendants, the twelve sons of Jacob married women who were outside their clan. Even Moses himself did not marry a daughter of Israel, but married a woman from Ethiopia whose father was a priest of Midian. Num 12:1, Ex 3:1. Moreover, when the Israelites conquered another nation, the men were free to make any of the women their wives. Deut 21:10-13. What do you make of the stories of Rahab and Ruth, both gentile women who became ancestors of King David and the Messiah? What do you make of the foreign women the Jews married when they returned from the Exile? It was only the ones who refused to convert to Judaism who were sent back to their homes of origin; the others became fully Jewish. What do you make of the Jews who moved into the diaspora, married non-Jews, converted them, had offspring, and continued to believe and practice what was taught in scripture? The Hebrews were given land at the cross roads of civilization so that their culture would be constantly open to traveling people. To suggest that the Israelite people were “never reconstituted” in the sense of being a pure, inbred stock isolated from other people is a terrible misrepresentation of their lineage, culture, and history.

You seem to suggest that the development of industrialization and the scientific method has somehow advanced modern man beyond the need of the advice of God or has changed human nature so that we are free to dispense with God’s instructions that aren’t provable by these standards. Nonsense! Human beings will always need God’s guidance.

You seem to suggest that the Israelite people were unaware of other religions or religious options by calling their society a “single-religion theocracy.” This “single-religion theocracy” was intended to be a protection against the many competing false religions with their despicable practices. The Egyptians had over 100 different gods they worshiped, and the most popular ones were shown to be powerless when directly confronted by the God of Israel during the plagues. When the Israelites entered the land of Canaan they were told to destroy the idols they found and not even ask about the things the pagans had been doing because it was so despicable and they might want to imitate them. Deut 12:29-32. Moses warned that, after his death, they would stray from God’s instructions. Deut 31:29. Ezekiel was taken by the LORD and shown certain pagan practices which the Jews had adopted that were driving Him away from His sanctuary. This included an idol at the entrance of the Temple, crying for Tammuz, and worshiping the sun at the East gate of the Temple. Ezekiel 8. The LORD called these practices abominations. An abomination is something that brings terrible destruction. It would have been good if the Israelite people had been faithful to their God in all things. God is able to do so much more for His people when they are faithful. Even in a theocracy the people must listen to and follow the advice of their God.

Next, you wrote: “Notice that when the power hungry disciples asked about tossing some God authority into the public sphere, Jesus replied: MY KINGDOM IS NOT OF THIS WORLD.” This statement by Jesus was not given in response to any so-called power hungry disciples asking about tossing some God authority into the public square, but was a response given to Pilate during his private questioning of Jesus in the context of the false accusations expressed by the power hungry religious leaders who wanted Jesus dead and claimed He was attempting to overthrow the Roman power in an attempt to incite Pilate’s anger on their behalf. John 18:36. Jesus taught openly in the synagogues and the Temple daily. Luke 19:47. His ministry was a public ministry. Please note that there are over 30 references in scripture to his public instruction. Your statement is a total misrepresentation of the facts.

Next, you reference my quote of Matthew 5:19 and state that I stop short of the meaning of the very verses I referenced. Au contraire! The point I made for this verse is that Christians like to make some commands of God more important than others. Seventh-day Adventists are no exception. SDA’s love to point to the Ten Commandments as the most important of all the commands God gave, but when the scribe asked Jesus to identify the chief commandment, He began His answer by quoting the shema from Deut 6:4: “Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.” Mark 12:29. The most important command, the prologue to any commandment of God, is to listen to the voice of the LORD. The wholesome response to listening to the LORD is to love Him with all one has and to love one’s neighbor as one’s self. Jesus’ teaching in Matthew 5:19 is a guard against the notion that some instructions from the LORD are more important than others. The rest of what you wrote in that section about context is off point.

Your next error is your insinuation that I referenced the Ten Commandments in regard to the issue of homosexuality. I did not. If you’ll go back and look at my post, I began with a quote from John were he incorrectly claimed that Jesus was not a law giver. My reference to the Ten Commandments is only to cite them as the law that was written by the finger of God and that Paul understood that the God of the Old Testament was Jesus. Jesus was a law giver. I made no argument that the Ten Commandments is the basis for taking a position against homosexuality. However, the author of the Ten Commandments is also the author of the instructions given elsewhere against homosexuality. It is a misrepresentation of scripture to claim that Jesus was not a law giver. You’re entire diatribe against me in this section is a misrepresentation of what I wrote.

John also fails to notice the many times Jesus expressed scathing rebukes to the scribes and Pharisees.

Next, you misrepresent my comments about self control. I did not say that gays have less self control than others. I applied the self control issue equally to both gays and straights. We are all in the same boat when it comes to self control. God's people are no more at liberty to having casual sex according to the Creator’s design than to having a committed gay relationship. Both are equally wrong. Self control is vitally important regardless of which camp one is in. Your statements implying that I made some other argument are unsupported by fact.

Next, you imply that Paul supports coupling of all sorts in his statement in 1 Corinthians 9:1-11. In this you fail to notice that Paul specifically refers only to heterosexual couples in verses 1-5 and 10-11, to single men like himself who remained single for the sake of advancing the Gospel in verse 7, and to singles and widows in verses 8-9. Nowhere does Paul even imply that a gay relationship is better than remaining single. You say that I read the words literally. I confess, I do read the words literally because I find no evidence that these words are used figuratively. Where are the figures of speech in this passage? Where is the evidence that these statements are to be understood figuratively or euphemistically?

You decry my failure to apply a consistent hermeneutic to all of Paul’s words. But you fail to notice that Paul referenced the deviant behavior of certain Jews in Romans 1 and that God had to abandon them to their sinful passions.

“For this reason God abandoned them to shameful passions. Their women perverted natural functions for unnatural, and similarly the men forsook their natural relationships with women and burned up with their lust for one another, men committing shamelesness with men and so acquiring in their persons the penalty that was coming to them on account of their wrong behavior. Just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any more, so God gave them over to depraved thoughts, to practice what is not decent, because they have been filled with every sort of wickedness, immorality, depravity and greed . . . While knowing God’s ordinance, that those practicing such things deserve death, they not only practice them but even give their approval to those who do them.” Romans 1:26-32.

You admit that Paul says nothing in support of gay relationships, but surmise in your commentary that if one reads all the words on other subjects such as women’s ordination, divorce, sl