I am sure I would have stood up and walked out while he was condemning. This occurs because the Pacific Union Conference and its Religious Liberty Department has supported this, and even sent me, a copy of the pamphlet they were urging all pastors to distribute at services yesterday.

This will come back to "bite" us, I predict: taking such a vocal church stance. Although the churches (Roman Catholics, Mormons, and Fundamentalists) are the "heavy-hitters" in the "Yes on Prop. 8" the Adventists should not have taken such a public position, IMHO.

If I were in a church, where such a sermon was preached, I would walk out.

However, as deplorable as this is, it is a double-standard to condemn such behavior by a pastor, and then to laud others for "taking a stand for rights and equality", when they take the opposite stand publicly.

This makes me wonder about the both the Adventist Prop 8 petitions. Both have prominent Adventist leaders telling people how to vote (or doing it via video clips.) Is this fundamentally different from using the pulpit to push one's views on the rest of the church?

I'm not trying to be critical, but raise the question of personal and professional boundaries. Pastors and leaders have the right to have their views and share them like anyone else. Where is the line between doing this and abusing their professional power/trust?

This represents the problem of what the Church State Council has done with their controversial agenda on Prop 8.

By pushing this overtly and inartfully presented political agenda on the church, it appears that some Adventist pulpits have become sullied by the world of attack ads. God's worship hour should not be so cheapened.

Zane, yes there is a difference between an online video and the pulpit.

1. The video space and the site is not paid for by tithe dollars.

2. A YouTube video is not dedicated, sacred community space like a sanctuary (from what?) nor is it corporately owned.

3. What happens with everyone in attendance during the divine service, particularly after the traditional prayer of invocation, is worship of God first. There is no sense of web site videos having the same context.

Pastors who have taken both pro and con positions on this should not use the "bully pulpit" but should be free, otherwise, to announce how they plan to vote and the reasons. Sabbath morning service should be for worship, not politics.

I really sympathize with all pastors in California who took the pulpit last weekend.

I was in California last (not this past) weekend and hung out with a friend of mine that that pastors in So Cal. He was preparing for a board meeting where his elders wanted him to "take a stand" on the issue from the pulpit.

This presented him with a variety of seemingly lose/lose options.

1. Ignore the issue. Preaching on "something in the Bible" (not out of Genesis, Deuteronomy, Romans, etc.) This avoids controversy, but makes the preaching irrelevant as everyone is wondering about the issue, and confused as they have Adventist leaders on both sides of the issue telling them want to do.

2. Take the side against Prop 8, standing up for "equality and justice." This politicizes the pulpit, but if this is really what is at the heart of the issue (as some of the rhetoric seems to say), and this issue is akin to the civil rights movements or the Nazi's in Germany, the pastor should take this stand from the pulpit. This would most likely split the congregation.

3. Take the side for Prop 8, standing up for "marriage" as it was created in Eden and for the good of society, which God cares for. This gets labeled as being "in bed with the right" and fundamentalist.

Tough choice.

Alex, Elaine, "the pastor saying anything he or she wants as long as it is not in the pulpit" is unconvincing to me. Yes, there is a difference, but a.) if the issue is as important as both sides claim, it seems the pulpit is the natural place to address it, b.) in today's age, the internet is much more powerful than the pulpit. If not, why do both petitions list titles next to names?

Jenae,

I have a question for you: What did the pastor say that is contrary to what Saint Paul had stated regarding homosexuality? Actually, if you place side by side what that pastor said and how Paul described homosexuality, you will probably agree with me that Pastor Lyndon Parsons probably watered down the caustic message regarding this issue as recorded in Romans and elsewhere in Scripture.

When Adventist pastors are ordained, they have to promise to preach the word. Pastor Parsons evidently does believe that homosexuality is a sin, and he feels it is his duty to do what he promised he would do in God’s presence during his ordination. I would not be so hard on him. If he believes that homosexuality is a sin, he does nothing wrong in acting according to his conscience.

My personal view of homosexuality slightly deviates from Saint Paul’s attitude. Jesus did state that some are born eunuchs, while others are made by men. Those who are born with a strong inherited preference for the same gender should be treated with compassion and love.

Nevertheless, I believe that it is wrong to elevate such deviancy from what nature decreed for marriage as a lifestyle deserving the coveted position of equality with heterosexual marriage. It is definitely a less ideal lifestyle, and our laws should not provide an incentive for those who are born with normal sexual tendencies to experiment with such deviant sexual behavior.

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

Jenae:

Are you saying you "do not feel the pastor should be using his position to impose his political views on the congregation" because you feel "his political views" have no biblical foundation or because you think pastors should not be addressing political issues?

If you think that his political views have no biblical foundation, would you agree with the following statements:

1. Morality should not be legislated.

2. Marriage is an institution of the state and not created by God.

3. Homosexuality is not a sin.

4. Christians should not cast their vote "on the side of temperance and virtue".

It is impossible to separate God from the affairs of government. Throughout history God has intervened and altered the course of nations and governments. Pastors, lay people, etc., are not to sit idly in regard to government, which is not what you're saying, I think. Your issue is religious leaders such as pastors using the pulpit to push their political views. Assuming, that what he was preaching was just his own personal political view without any biblical foundation, I'd have to agree with you.

Instead he was espousing the views of the Bible on marriage and homosexuality and relating them to Prop 8. Perhaps if the proposition were enforcing some other virtue such as telling the truth, that he'd be right supporting the proposition that stated perjury to be illegal.

God sent Jonah to Nineveh to "preach against it, because its wickedness has come up before" him. The king put out a decree: Do not let any man or beast, herd or flock, taste anything; do not let them eat or drink. But let man and beast be covered with sackcloth. Let everyone call urgently on God. Let them give up their evil ways and their violence. Who knows? God may yet relent and with compassion turn from his fierce anger so that we will not perish."

God is using a secular/pagan king to lead his people back to him, to bring them out of their wickedness. How much more so should a pastor, knowing God's will, preach to his congregation in regard to sin and protecting the sanctity of marriage.

Do you disagree with the quotation he used in his sermon: "Many deplore the wrongs which they know exist, but consider themselves free from all responsibility in the matter. This cannot be. Every individual exerts an influence in society. In our favored land, every voter has some voice in determining what laws shall control the nation. Should not that influence and that vote be cast on the side of temperance and virtue?" (GW 387).

Nic:

>Jesus did state that some are born eunuchs, while others are made by men.

"For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it." Matthew 19:12

Eunuch, as far as I know, gives no connotations of homosexuality in any sense. According to the definition it could read: for there are some who were born unable to reproduce children.

How are you interpreting this verse to equate a eunuch with a homosexual? They are two very different words.

Zane
Your questions are valid and deserve some conversation.

It would seem that on the one hand one should really not be preaching on the hot button issues of the day sort of Give unto Cesar the things that are Cesars position.

I can understand and agree with the general thoughts there.

Where I need to get more input is where the academics and their ego's telling the preachers what the preachers balywick should and should not contain.
Are they advocating for preachers to always keep silent on issues such as prop8 and leave the real mental work to the academics?
Or is the arguement more narrowly defined. Just from the pulpit?
As I look at who they trot out as supporters for the No on Prop8 website, I notice there are some pastors there. I also notice they didnt refuse write up the pastors votes as to keep them pure and set apart from the devisive issues of the day.
So when is a pastor allowed to speak on issues like Prop8?
Alone in private to individuals? Why not the same restrictions on academics? Not on Sabbath as to as Alex says, "God's worship hour should not be so cheapened."?
What about the pastor speaking on the issue on Sabbath afternoon then? No? Then why can the Academics do it?

So, all of you who think the sermon in question was so bad, flesh out your views. When can and when cant a Pastor speak publically on issues like Prop8 and is it any different than SDA academics speaking about it on Sabbath afternoons?

I don't don't believe the pulpit is the correct venue for
political agitation on any topic pro or con as long as the Bill of Rights of the U.S. Constitution declares that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

However, the pulpit is a well known place for preaching against sin. The pastor should have made his case solely on his understanding of Scripture--a lot of pastors have a very poor understanding of the Word and we don't walk out--we may not return!

The pastor of Reid Memorial Church some years ago did much the same thing when the State Legislature was considering changing the Sodomy laws of Georgia. I didn't walk out but I did write him a letter and pointed out the misuse of his pulpit for a political agenda. I included the thought that he was cherry picking the Old Testament--if he were true to his convictions we would be still stoning sinners. He thanked me, we remain friends but he stopped using his pulpit for political purposes.

The issue of the use of the pulpit is much greater than Prop 8.

I think Prop 8 will pass but it will not hold for long--it will be challenged successfully at the national level.

I agree with Michael that since SDA educational institutions claim the same protection as the Church itself, its faculty (academics) should be under the same constraints as pastors when it comes to political speach in the classroom or as identified as speaking other than as a U.S. citizen.

However, when they enter the voting booth, they have the same rights as any citizen to vote their personal view.

The Moral Majority concept is a mighty awesome tool. It is the very soul of Shock and Awe. Tom

I should add that the most likely text used is found in Lev. 20: 13 "If a man also lie with mandkind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death, their blood shalt be upon them". kjv.

It is still an abomination (sin). But is that sin different from the others listed in Lev 20? Should the state expand its statutes to cover each and all? Today, I believe, that is an issue for the church not the state. My concern with Spectrum's stance is that in opposing Prop 8 it takes the position that there is no Biblical prohibition against homosexual union or so it seems to this reader. Furthermore, it seems to me that Spectrum also claims tax exemption on the same basis as the church, if so then its political activity flys in the face of that exemption. I can understand the church issuing briefs as a friend of the court. But where is the line? To what degree should the church/Spectrum engage in quasi lobbying? That question should be addressed apart from the passion of Prop 8. I personally find both sides within the SDA church community have gone over the edge of the separation constitutionally intended. I am sure someone(s) will enlighten me.
Tom

Since folks continue to opine off the top of their heads and mistate what the Bible says on homosexuality, I thought that I'd post a relatively rigorous verse by verse discussion of each of the texts, including the concept of the eunuch.

"What I believe the Bible really says about homosexuality"

by John S. Dixon

Please understand that I am a sola scriptura Christian. I believe that the Bible alone is our guide and resource to better know the Trinitarian God, and that the Bible really does explain itself, revealing all we need to know about our Creator. I have never, ever twisted what the Bible says to suit my own personal agenda, for doing so would squelch any growth in Him and would cut off the wonderful Spiritual Gifts He has given me.

I was taught that God says that a man that lay with a man or a woman who lay with a woman will surely die and that they are an abomination unto Him. What I learned from reading the Scriptures more carefully, more prayerfully, and even in their original languages, is that this teaching is simply wrong.

Let me explain what the Bible really says.

First, we must agree on a few basic rules that are common to most Protestant churches:

1. The Scripture must be taken and interpreted line upon line, precept upon precept. This is to say that no single verse stands entirely on its own, but rather is fortified by its surrounding text and by other Scripture within the Bible. Taking any verse out of its context, without considering its surrounding text and supporting Scripture, only twists the meaning of the verse.
2. The Bible is infallible as it was written. This does not preclude mistranslation of ancient languages. The original language keeps the message intact, but human translators, being human, sometimes err. Though many denominations hate to admit this, I will prove that this is a definite problem.
3. We are called to reason together (Isaiah 1:18).

That said, let's look at the common passages that people often consider to be those which condemn homosexuality.

Genesis 19: First there is Sodom and Gomorrah, which is a classically held Scripture used most frequently to "prove" how God hates homosexuality. It is a passage that I contend is most often misunderstood. But I will let the Bible interpret itself. It is written in Ezekiel 16:49,50:

"Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom, pride, fullness of bread, and abundance of idleness was in her and in her daughters, neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy. And they were haughty, and committed abomination before me: therefore I took them away as I saw good."

The question I know you will ask is, "What is this about abomination?" Indeed, what is it? Let's look at the account of Sodom again:

The word rendered here as "abomination" comes from "tow'ebah" (in Strong's, it's # 8441), and is said in Strong's to mean "idolatry" or "idolaters". In the Hebrew it is very clear that it does not mean "homosexuality".

In Luke 10:3-12, Jesus talks to his disciples about what to do if they are not greeted with hospitality, and tells what the consequence will be for such towns. In verse 12, Christ says, "But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable [merciful] in that day for Sodom, than for that city." He said this after a full missive on inhospitality, so we must take verse 12 in that context.

You may also look particularly at Genesis 19:4-5, which reads:

"But before they [the men in the house and the angels] lay down [to sleep], the men [Strong's #582, Hebrew word 'enowsh] of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both young and old, all the people from every quarter:

And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? Bring them out unto us, that we may know [Strong's # 3045, Hebrew yada] them."

The Hebrew word "'enowsh" is most accurately translated as mortals, and includes all genders and all ages. Even in the context provided in the story, it is clear in the Hebrew that it is the majority of the town population, male and female, that is represented here.

The Hebrew word "yada" has no sexual context, and means to become acquainted with socially. By no means is yada translated elsewhere with a sexual context, either. If sexual interaction were intended, the word "shakab" (Strong's # 7901) would be used instead, which means to know sexually. It is fascinating to note on the side that the NIV mistranslates yada here as "we want to have sex with them".

[Here's a link to a Hebrew lectionary to back that up.]

That said, the notion that Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed for homosexuality does not hold up. The Hebrew is clear, and nowhere is homosexuality made an issue.

Of very interesting note is that historically it is the Roman Catholic Church that is guilty of the sin of Sodom and Gomorrah. In the Middle Ages, and even after, the Church was always full of riches, with gold and rich foods, and yet allowed thousands upon thousands of its own subjects to starve and be subjected to slavery as paupers in the papal reign. To escape being exposed for the hypocrite it was, the Roman Catholic Church very likely chose to mistranslate and misconstrue the truth of the story of Sodom and Gomorrah to escape the wrath of the people. What better scapegoats than its own abundance of homosexual priests? By pinning Sodom and Gomorrah on this population, the Roman Catholic Church blackmailed its own priesthood into silence, threatening excommunication if anyone spoke against her.

Leviticus 18: In Leviticus 18:22 it is written:

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." (NIV)

In and of itself, it seems very clear. But look at the surrounding context, and something more comes to bear on this verse. Leviticus 18:6-18 tackle having sexual relations with relatives. Verse 19 says a man shall not have sexual relations with a woman during the "uncleanness of her monthly period". (How many of today's Christians actually obey this?) Verse 20 condemns having sexual relations with another man's wife.

Then verse 21 changes gears a bit and begins a discourse on sexual relations that are associated with Molech's worship. Molech, like many false gods of the day, had temple prostitutes, and Molech's followers believed that having sex of ANY kind in the temple would please Molech and increase the fertility of themselves, their spouses, their livestock, and their fields. Verse 21 mentions the sacrifice of children to Molech. Verse 22 should more accurately read "Do not have sex with the male temple prostitutes," which would continue the admonition in idolatry. In fact, the entire Chapter is about idolatry. Consider Chapters 17 and 19, which both speak of idolatry. Why would a missive about sex be inserted nonsensically in between two chapters on idolatry unless it also is meant to address idolatry? If we look at Chapter 18 as a whole, and verse 22 as part of that whole, then that verse must speak of idolatry and false worship in some manner, or else it is a line and precept out of place. Therefore, (come, let us reason together!), it is not a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, but rather a condemnation of the sexual promiscuity of the many idol-worshipping sects in the land the Israelites were coming into.

If we hold to Leviticus' statements as being a blanket condemnation of homosexuality, do we then also obey the rest of the old law? It is written: "For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it [all of the law]." (James 2:10). So a person who adheres to the law must adhere to the whole law, which is contained in the whole of Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. Those three books contain the core of God's laws.

So let's look at some of those laws:

If a man has recently married, he must not be sent to war or have any other duty laid on him. For one year he is to be free to stay at home and bring happiness to the wife he has married. (Deuteronomy 24:5). Does ANYONE keep this law? Could you manage a whole year without a paycheck? How would the military react in the middle of a war when a soldier comes up to his commander and says, "Sorry, sir, but my wife is pregnant and the book of Deuteronomy demands that I go home for a whole year now"? Any man whose wife becomes pregnant is here told that he must stay home for a year without working or else he is guilty of breaking the law!

Do not hate your brother in your heart. (Leviticus 19:17). Don't hate your siblings, even while growing up, or else you have broken the entirety of the law.
bullet Do not cut the hair at the sides of your head or clip off the edges of your beard. (Leviticus 19:27). Don't shave! Ever!

Rise in the presence of the aged, show respect for the elderly and revere your God. I am the LORD. (Leviticus 19:32). If you do not stand in the presence of your elders, or get snippy with someone older than you, you have broken the law.

No one born of a forbidden marriage nor any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation. (Deuteronomy 23:2). So no one who has been born out of wedlock or born from a marriage that was not approved of may enter a church, nor may any of his or her descendants for ten whole generations after. Who checks this? Who would know? How could this one EVER be kept?
This essay continues below.

This is where it becomes more interesting:

If anyone curses his father or mother, he must be put to death. He has cursed his father or mother, and his blood will be on his own head. If a man commits adultery with another man's wife -- with the wife of his neighbor -- both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death. (Leviticus 20:9-10). Anyone who talks back to their parents must be killed for it according to the law! Anyone caught in adultery must be put to death also! It is in the law!

But in John 8:3-11 we see Jesus show what law we are truly under:

The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing Him.

But Jesus bent over and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." Again he stooped down and wrote on the ground.

At this, those who heard began to go away one at a time, the older ones first, until only Jesus was left, with the woman still standing there. Jesus straightened up and asked her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?"

"No one, sir," she said.

"Then neither do I condemn you," Jesus declared. "Go now and leave your life of sin."

In this Jesus shows us that the law saves no one; all are guilty of breaking the law of Moses. The fact of the matter is simple: nowhere does Christ Himself say anything against homosexuality. He reiterates nine of the Ten Commandments, lifting the Sabbath commandment, as it had become a yoke upon the people. Consider Matthew 22:36-40:

"Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"

Jesus replied:

" 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind' This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

So the sum of the law is in loving God and each other. How does this balance with the Mosaic law we looked at only a page back? Again, according to James, if we break even one law under the Mosaic laws, we break them all.

Romans 1: Another commonly used Scripture that is often mistreated to condemn homosexuality comes from Romans 1:26-27:

"Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust one for another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion."(NIV)

Again, on its surface, it seems very straight-forward, but notice how this fragment begins: "Because of this..." Because of what? This passage really begins with Romans 1:18.

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness...

It goes on in verses 22 and 23:

Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.

This passage, taken in context and read for what it says ("exchanged the glory of... God for images made to look like mortal man... and animals...") is clearly about idolatry and pagan worship. To strengthen this point of view, the Scriptures go on to say:

"They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created things rather than the Creator..." (Romans 1:25)

Then it goes on regarding the passage we first looked at, Romans 1:26-27. Taken in context, and translated properly, this passage is clearly about the pagan practices surrounding fertility worship and the sexual acts associated with that worship, performed with the priest of that false god, a "created" god. (Romans 1:25) There is simply no other accurate way to construe this passage.

About eunuchs: Now that we have covered the major passages commonly misinterpreted as condemning homosexuality, let's look at what the Bible says about eunuchs. Before doing so, we must define the term eunuch so that we are in agreement as to what a eunuch is.

According to Thayer 1 a eunuch is not only someone who has been castrated, but is also "one naturally incapacitated, either for marriage or for begetting children." Thayer further defines the word eunuch as "one who abstains from marriage". In his book Reverend Samuel Kader writes:

"By no means did the term eunuch have to be merely a castrated male. It was a broad term, and since a chamberlain for a harem could be promoted, and was a person trusted with the king's intimate things, the term often got generalized to mean an official in the court. Ancient Judah's king Hezekiah was told his sons would be eunuchs in Babylon. He didn't think this was bad news. [2 Kings 20:16-19] He thinks this is good news. He apparently is not worried that the royal line will be ended. Eunuch here, in king Hezekiah's estimate, probably means his children will be officials in the court of the Babylonians."

To further clarify the term eunuch, we can look at what Jesus said of them:

The disciples said to him. "If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry."

Jesus replied, "Not everyone can accept t his word, but only those to whom it has been given.."

"For some are eunuchs because they were born that way; others were made that way by men; and others have renounced marriage because of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it." (Matthew 19:10-12)

In this context, Paul is therefore a eunuch, for he remained single and celibate so that he could fully concentrate on his mission for Christ, for the kingdom of heaven. Reverend Kader writes regarding Matthew 19:10-12:

"In this situation, Jesus and His disciples are discussing marriage and divorce, and the conditions under which it is permissible to divorce[...] But then Jesus goes on to say not everyone can receive His teaching on divorce and marriage, because not everyone can get married.

"His reasons for this are lumped under the category of being a eunuch. From the ensuing description it is obvious more people are eunuchs than castrated males. In the King James Version, Jesus says and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. No one was ever required to castrate themselves for the sake of getting into Heaven." 3

Kader goes on to write:

"So the Lord Himself has expanded the meaning of eunuch to include the unmarried for a variety of situations. Some were made this way by others. Some are born this way. They are unable to get married because they have no natural inclination to have sexual relations with a mate of the opposite sex because of sexual traumas (abuse, etc.) in their past. For some it is not an anticipated option. For others it is not an options at all. The hurt and scars are too deep. For whatever reason, and there are many, eunuch means anyone not likely to get heterosexually involved. At any rate, this list expanded by Jesus certainly includes gay people and others of either sex." 4

Understanding that gays fall into the eunuch definition given by Christ, let's look further at what Scripture says about eunuchs. Isaiah holds several prophetic scriptures for eunuchs:

Now that a clear and stable definition has been established for what a eunuch is, we can see clearly that homosexuals are, by God's Own definition, eunuchs. With that fact established, let's look further at what God Himself says about eunuchs and their place in Heaven.

"Let no foreigner who has bound himself to the Lord say, "The Lord will surely exclude me from his people." And let not any eunuch complain, 'I am only a dry tree.' For this is what the Lord says: 'To the eunuchs who keep my Sabbaths, who choose what pleases me and hold fast to my covenant-- to them I will give within my temple and its walls a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters; I will give them an everlasting name that will not be cut off. And foreigners who bind themselves to the Lord to serve him, to love the name of the Lord, and to worship Him, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold fast to my covenant-- these I will bring to my holy mountain and give them joy in my house of prayer, Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be accepted on my altar; for my house will be called a house of prayer for all nations, The Sovereign Lord declares-- he who gathers the exiles of Israel: I will gather still others to them besides those already gathered'." (Isaiah 56:3-8)

Eunuchs were foreigners to God's temple when this was penned, due to Deuteronomy 23:1 ("No one who has been emasculated by crushing or cutting may enter the assembly of the Lord."). Isaiah here marks an illustration of how the law of Moses cannot be kept by anyone, and how God Himself wipes away the bonds of the Mosaic Law through His love, mercy, and grace. The promise for eunuchs in this passage is not for all eunuchs, however, but only for those who will observe and uphold God's way through His Son Jesus Christ.

It is important to note that wherever the conditions of salvation are discussed, sexuality is never mentioned. (Acts 4:12, Acts 16:30-31, Romans 10:9, Ephesians 2:8-9, John 3:16-17)

It is therefore very clear that eunuchs, a population in which God Himself includes homosexuals, have a place in heaven, and are given "a name better than sons and daughters". It gets no better than that!

Consider what Christ says in Matthew 5:22...

"But 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 hell fire. Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there remembers that thy brother hath ought against thee..." (KJV)

The word to pay attention to here is "Raca." According to Professor Halsall, 5 the word "Raca" is not the same as "moros" (fool), as it is sometimes mistranslated. According to Halsall, a renowned language scholar, the word Raca is common in many Semitic languages and loosely means soft, but with an effeminate connotation. The Akkadian word raq is used to indicate a woman's name or occupation, and its symbol in Akkadian derives from a Sumerian symbol for woman. It can be argued securely that Raca is an accusation of sissy or catamite.

This argument works better if the word "moros" is considered. The word can mean fool, but it also has the amply used connotation of sexual aggressor, or even homosexual aggressor. LSJ19 confirms this, although Johannssen makes much more of it. It could reasonably be argued then that Jesus' words here condemn those who abuse others about their homosexuality. 6

If this is, in fact, Christ's intention, as it appears to be, then those who are critical of homosexuals are, in fact, to be criticized for their stand against them.

Now it is made clear. God made all people as they are innately. Sexuality is innate; the Salk Institute has proven this by mapping the sexuality gene. The Creator made genetics, and is therefore ultimately responsible for how each one of us turns out via those traits that are genetic. It is also very safe to say that God does not make junk, nor does He make people just so He can hate them. After all, God is Love. The real truth is that God not only loves His gay children just as much as He does His heterosexual children, but He has seen the persecution we must endure, and has set for us "a name better than sons and daughters" because of it when we walk with Jesus Christ.

John S. Dixon

References:

1. Joseph Thayer, "Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Coded with Strong's Concordance Numbers," Hendrickson Publishers, (Re-issued 1996), Page 260. Read reviews or order this book safely from Amazon.com online book store
2. Rev. Samuel Kader, "Openly Gay, Openly Christian," Leyland Publications, (1999). Out of print. However Out of print. However, copies can occasionally be obtained from the Amazon.com online book store
3. Ibid., Page 90.
4. Ibid, Pages 91 & 92.
5. Paul Halsall, "Homosexuality and Catholicism Bibliography: Section XVI: Biblical Texts from King James Version & New Revised Standard Version Cited in Full," at: http://www.fordham.edu/
6. Ibid.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/dixon_03.htm

http://libertymagazine.org/article/articleview/702/

Clifford Goldstein makes this point better than anybody else I have seen in his review of Gregory Boyd's "The Myth of a Christian Nation"

Nevertheless, however simplistic his "power under" contra "power over" distinctions are, he still makes a crucial point. Where in the Great Commission are Christians called to gain political power and use that power to bring about a moral revival in their respective countries? Text and verse, please. The fact is the texts and verses aren't there, because that's not what Christians are called to do. And, besides, it never works anyway.

Indeed, after all the years of being in a position of political power, what has the Christian Right accomplished as far as bringing "America back to God"? Abortion is still legal, states are moving toward approving gay unions, and in many schools government-mandated group prayer is still not allowed. All this—after exercising political power for the past few decades. It doesn't seem to be working very well, and, if the past is any precursor to the future, even if the Christian Right gained all the political power it covets, America would be no more closer to God than it was in the "Golden Age" of a few hundred years back, when "Christian America" was butchering Native Americans and enslaving millions of Africans.

No, as has always been the case—Jerry Falwell (may he rest in peace) being the perfect example—the foray into politics changes the church more than the church changes politics. It's nice to have an influential and articulate voice like Dr. Gregory Boyd sounding the trumpet about this "evangelically incorrect" fact. The church he loves would be well-served to listen to him. However, as the exodus from his own congregation shows, it's not what many want to hear.

Shane,

What you stated on 03 November 2008 at 4:18 is probably the correct reading of the text. Nevertheless, it looks that I am in good company in using this biblical passage in connection with homosexuality. Notice the following biblical commentary:

*********
“Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Bible Commentary
12. For there are some eunuchs which were so born from their mother's womb-persons constitutionally either incapable of or indisposed to marriage.

*********
Notice that this Bible commentator included the “indisposed to marriage” alternative. Nevertheless, regardless of whether this interpretation is valid or not, the fact remains that Jesus recognized that some are born with abnormal either physical or psychological characteristics. This should provide a partial answer to the “nature-nurture” controversy.

My feeling is that those born with abnormal sexual tendencies might not be sinning for experiencing abnormal sexual attractions. Due to some genetic fluke of nature, their brain has been miswired for normal sex. I know that God could rewire them, but I am not sure that the Lord would do this in every instance. This was the experience of Saint Paul whose prayers for healing were not granted by heaven.

At the same time, I am intentionally refraining from stating whether it is morally acceptable for one born with homosexual tendecies to adopt this unnatural lifestyle. I will rather leave such a judgment to heaven. Notice how Jesus ended his comments about eunuchs:

*********
“Weymouth New Testament
There are men who from their birth have been disabled from marriage, others who have been so disabled by men, and others who have disabled themselves for the sake of the Kingdom of the Heavens. He who is able to receive this, let him receive it."

*********
Jesus did not state that those born eunuchs will be deprived from paradise, but he rather said: “He who is able to receive this, let him receive it." From this I conclude that Saint Paul’s passage in Romans 1 might be applicable to those who intentionally choose such a deviant lifestyle in defiance of what nature has provided for them. Notice the way Paul words his condemnation of homosexuality.

*********
“26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.”

*********
In spite of what I have stated, I am voting “Yes” for Proposition 8, because if homosexual behavior is elevated to the honorable state akin to that of heterosexual marriage, then many who were not born with such abnormal desires might be tempted to experiment with this deviant type of lifestyle. I don’t want this for my grandchildren.

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

Alex

I admire your passion on this subject, I appreciate your endurance, and forbearance with me and others. But, I must
disagree with your exigesis of Lev. Two wrongs do not make a right. Obviously there is not just one sin in the world.

Few consult Lev. for their authority on any other topic, that is for sure.

Tom

Jimmy Carter once was interviewed by Playboy. There was an documentary on Dutch TV regarding the impact of that interview on his career. The reporter said something like: there is no nation on earth where sex is so loaded with taboos and yet its culture so drenched with the same as the United Sates.
Discussions as shown on the pages of this blog can hardly be found in Western Europe, save on the pages of some die-hard fundamentalists. The obsession with abortion and homosexuality as shown on the pages of sdaforum and on this blog is really pathetic to the European mind.

As a pastor myself I see all too often how hypocritical and biased heterosexual people can be to homosexuality. I've seen (especially male) Adventists years ago, chasing homosexuals out of church, but I've also seen some of them tearing their hairs out, begging for mercy, when they discovered their own son of daughter was homosexual.
When I was allowed to have a closer look upon the heterosexual life of so many "straight" people, it became apparent that they were as devious in their heterosexuality as they accused homosexuals to be. I've lost count of the hours of counseling involving double standards of sexuality.

Reading the pages of the above mentioned blogs - what I discovered in my pastoral life apparently does not apply to so many American Adventists. What I read here implies that most American heterosexuals have a clean, holy sort of sexuality - a 100% sexuality as God wants them to have it, so that they have a sort of inherent right to condemn the sexuality of homosexuals, with the Bible in their hands. Yeah right.

I love this from Clifford Goldstein:

"Where in the Great Commission are Christians called to gain political power and use that power to bring about a moral revival in their respective countries? Text and verse, please. The fact is the texts and verses aren't there, because that's not what Christians are called to do. And, besides, it never works anyway."

He is definitely on the right track here. Like Henk says, this is an argument about sex, nothing more, nothing less.

Alex:

>The Hebrew word "yada" has no sexual context, and means to become acquainted with socially. By no means is yada translated elsewhere with a sexual context, either.

The verb yada is "Often put by a euphemism for sexual intercourse.--(a) of a man; to know a woman, i.e. to lie with her, Gen. 4:17, 19; 1 Sa. 1:19, etc.; also as applied to crimes against nature, Gen. 19:5." (1)

1. In Genesis 4:17 "Cain KNEW his wife; and she conceived, and bare Enoch." The word "knew" (yada) is the same as in Genesis 19:5,7. Granted, yada is not always used as a euphemism for sexual intercourse, but within the context of the story it is quite clear this is not about getting to know someone; it's about sexual intercourse.

2. Another example of this is 1 Sam. 1:19, 20 where "Elkanah knew Hannah his wife; and the LORD remembered her. Wherefore it came to pass, when the time was come about after Hannah had conceived, that she bare a son, and called his name Samuel, saying, Because I have asked him of the LORD." Hannah had been in the temple praying for a child. Clearly, within the context of this story God remembers her request when she has sexual intercourse with her husband and she becomes pregnant.

3. Another example (Judges 11) is when Jephthah "vowed a vow unto the LORD, and said, If thou shalt without fail deliver the children of Ammon into mine hands, then it shall be, that whatsoever cometh forth of the doors of my house to meet me, when I return in peace from the children of Ammon, shall surely be the LORD's, and I will offer it up for a burnt offering."

He comes home and his only daughter meets him. "And she said unto her father, Let this thing be done for me: let me alone two months, that I may go up and down upon the mountains, and bewail my virginity, I and my fellows. And he said, Go. And he sent her away for two months: and she went with her companions, and bewailed her virginity upon the mountains. And it came to pass at the end of two months, that she returned unto her father, who did with her according to his vow which he had vowed: and she KNEW no man."

Once again "she knew no man" is a clear reference to sexual intercourse. We can know this because she bewails her virginity. She was going to die a virgin; she would know no man.

4. Genesis 4:1 "And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain..." Same word, yada, used again as a euphemism for sexual intercourse.

These four texts clearly use yada in a sexual context. True, yada is not used in a sexual context in all verses, but it is clear from the context of others that it is. This is true of other languages, using the verb to know as an euphemism for sexual intercourse. To supply just the meaning that Mr. Dixon does to all the texts using the verb yada is incorrect.

Now, in regard to Genesis 19.

"And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may KNOW them." Genesis 19:5

The same word, yada, is used here. So let’s examine the context of the story.

"And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly. Behold now, I have two daughters which have not KNOWN man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof." (v. 7, 8)

Is there really a question in verse 7 as to the meaning of yada? Why does Lot say "do not so wickedly" if they were just wanting to "become acquainted with socially" as John Dixon puts it?

Also, why does Lot offer up his daughters to them as women who have "not KNOWN man"? Are we to understand within the context of this story that Lot is baiting the men of Sodom with his daughters who have not become acquainted with socially with other men? Or is he saying, I have two daughters which are virgins? The context is clearly speaking of sexual intercourse; his daughters are clearly virgins.

Mr. Dixon does not take context into account in all cases. Also, it appears he did not research the use of yada as thoroughly as he should have. In any case, his statement is incorrect.

In Luke 10 Jesus is speaking to his disciples, "Go your ways: behold, I send you forth as lambs among wolves." In verse 10 Jesus tells the disciples "into whatsoever city ye enter, and they receive you not, go your ways out into the streets of the same, and say, Even the very dust of your city, which cleaveth on us, we do wipe off against you: notwithstanding be ye sure of this, that the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you."

Jesus is counseling them on what to do when a city does not receive the message they have. This is about rejection of God's message, not being inhospitable. He tells them to tell each city that “the kingdom of God is come nigh unto you.”

It is more congruous with verse 12 when Jesus says “that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Jesus’ point is not hospitality, but rejection of God’s word. Read Luke 10 and you will see this is the story: Jesus sending out his 70 into the world to tell them that the kingdom of God is here and that those who reject it are worse off than Sodom.

Mr. Dixon tries to use this text to support his theory that hospitality was the issue for which Sodom was destroyed. The text does not say that at all and Jesus makes no allusion to that reasoning.

Leviticus 18:22 “Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it [is] abomination.”

The reason this text “seems very clear” is because it is just that—clear. This chapter is very clear in its intention and that is to communicate unlawful sexual practices.

“Then verse 21 changes gears a bit and begins a discourse on sexual relations that are associated with Molech's worship.”

The only reference to Molech in the chapter is in regard to children sacrifices. The proceeding verses continue to outline unlawful sexual practices. If any verse seems out of place it would be verse 21, because out of a list of 17 unlawful sexual practices, God throws in sacrificing children to Molech.

Mr. Dixon makes no argument to negate the meaning of this text. He skirts around about laws, but never addresses directly the text itself, only to say that it’s “a condemnation of the sexual promiscuity of the many idol-worshipping sects in the land the Israelites were coming into.” God begins chapter 18 with “I am the LORD your God. You must not do as they do in Egypt, where you used to live, and you must not do as they do in the land of Canaan, where I am bringing you. Do not follow their practices.” Apparently the Egyptians and Canaanites practiced the list of sexual behaviors and God was telling them not to follow their practices.

Mr. Dixon diverts on the issue of the law, which is another topic, but he seems to be arguing that because we’re under a new law that all those sexual practices are now permissible. He reasons if homosexuality is condemned why aren’t we keeping all the other laws and if we’re not keeping all the other laws then this condemnation of homosexuality is irrelevant. I can barely make sense of his reasoning because he doesn’t stick with the issue: you shall not lie with men, as with women. He shows nothing. I cannot see it. If I am missing it please show me.

Romans 1:26, 27 “Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

Mr. Dixon’s argument here is “this passage is clearly about the pagan practices surrounding fertility worship and the sexual acts associated with that worship, performed with the priest of that false god, a "created" god.”

In verses 18-32 Paul talks about the “ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness” (v. 18 NKJV).

“Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.” (v. 22)

I would agree that Paul is speaking of idol worship.

“Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.” (v. 24, 25)

So God gave the unrighteous and ungodly up to uncleanness because they corrupted the glory of God with images of man and animals. He gave them up to the lusts of their hearts and to dishonor their bodies among themselves.

“For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.” (v. 26, 27)

For exchanging the truth of God for the lie, and worshipping and serving the creature, God gave them up to their “vile passions”. What were some of those vile passions? Men abandoned the natural use of the woman. It’s evident that this is sexual, because the proceeding phrase says: “burned in their lust for one another.” Men were lusting for each other, committing what is shameful.

I haven’t read anything about fertility worship so far, but even if this were a direct reference to sexual acts committed in fertility worship are we to assume that these acts committed outside of fertility worship are then acceptable? Hardly. Mr. Dixon is literally arguing that Romans 1:26-27 isn’t talking about homosexuality, but about the “pagan practices surrounding fertility worship” and the “sexual acts associated with that worship”. So men lusting after men is not homosexuality?

Mr. Dixon does little to support his own assertions about the texts. The arguments rarely directly address the texts and often resort to weak and faulty reasoning. He skirts around the issue so much I am confused as to what his actual argument is. His arguments are some of the silliest ones I’ve encountered that attempt to justify that the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. Over and over he admits “it seems very straight forward”. Well Mr. Dixon, that’s because it is!

I’ll try to address the eunuch arguments later. My brain needs a break.

1. http://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3045&t=...

Shane

A powerful rebuttal--give us more as soom as you are rested. Tom

The arguements people use as biblical support for homosexuality are so thin that many of us wonder whether the person making them is actually serious.

Yea, for Clifford Goldstein!!!!
Jan, what is the reference for the quote? I totally agree with him . . . was the statement in the context of this issue?

I'm not sure you can credit Clifford Goldstein for the origin of the quote. The credit goes to Greg Boyd, who Cliff was quoting when he reviewed Boyd's book, "The Myth of a Christian Nation". Way to go Greg!!!

To Michael:

I think you are absolutely right about your impression that "The arguements people use as biblical support for homosexuality are so thin that many of us wonder whether the person making them is actually serious."

Permit me to exit from any debate mode and make a sociological observation about "us": I have a more "liberal" conclusion than you might have and yet my impressions of the process are identical to yours. "The arguements people use as biblical support" against "homosexuality are so thin that many of us wonder whether the person making them is actually serious."

That doesn't mean that you or I are evil or stupid or anything like that. What I think is at the root is that Adventism has a real challenge about hermeneutics, or the rules for interpretation of scripture. A lot of the disagreements in our church are about two (or more?) different processes for interpreting scripture.

You have correctly pointed out the problem: Not only do we have disagreements about our conclusions, but we don't understand or agree with each others' processes to arrive at "truth."

I hope the church will have more dialogue about the issues of hermeneutics in the future or we're destined to continue disagreeing violently. I think we can live with different conclusions. But I'm not sure we can continue to exist when we don't understand how people who disagree with us arrive at their conclusions.

What do you think? Will we be able to understand and co-exist? Or is the tent too small for that?

With good will,

-- Tim

Henk:

You say, "The obsession with abortion and homosexuality as shown on the pages of sdaforum and on this blog is really pathetic to the European mind." Ah, the cultured European mind! So how's that working out for Christianity over there? Are the churches in Berlin, Amsterdam, Paris and Stockholm full of zealous believers? Are the faithful crowding in to feed on the word of God, as presented from your sophisticated pulpits? How about church growth? How about the relative growth of Christianity and Islam in Western Europe? Can you tell us you're doing better than we benighted Americans?

Where are you? Germany, the Netherlands? Enjoy your illusory freedom while you can. A generation from now you will indeed be thinking about homosexuality again, but under the whip of your imams. You'll wish you had access to a pathetic blog like this one, but don't count on it.

Tim,

You have rightly concluded that hermeneutics and individual interpretation has caused most of the difficulties in doctrine since the church's inception. It will only exacerbate, or else diminish, leaving doctrines of little or no importance unless there is a concerted effort to better educate members.

What is your suggestion for accomplishing this? And how can it realistically be achieved?

Tim
Very good point and something to think about for sure.

My grandfather once told a story of 2 Swedes who were going to build a house. They were brothers and Oly told Sven to go and buy some nails.
Sven came back with a box and reached in and showed Oly when he got back. Oly was very upset. "Sven you idiot. you let them sell you a box of nails with half of the heads on the wrong end."
Sven smiled as the younger higher tech brother and said, "Oly, your the idiot. Those nails are for the other side of the house."

Which was right? Both dumb. Both totally mentally unable to grasp the nuances of using nails.

I often see people relying on their intellect and human sense of right and wrong to determine issues well beyond their mental capabilities.

Therefore where is the safety?

The side of the box of nails says in the instructions:
Put the pointy side towards the wood and pound in to secure to second piece of wood.

Would Sven and Oly be better off if they just read the box and did what it said?

Since as you say it really gets down to interpiting the instructions on the box.

I ask a series of questions to both sides.

1.Read the instructions.
2.Read other possible interpitations.
3.Compare which is the most convoluted to make its point?
4.Do the people who support the newest interpitations have an air of intellectual elitism?
5.Look at the path of history and humanity.
6.Do any of the interpiations follow the path of history? (Eden to Armeggedon)
7.Do they follow the path of a civilization in decline?
8.Make a list of applicable quotes (pro and Con)in their original construct.
9.Where is the weight?

re Hermeneutics and the future.

I appreciate the comments.

I don't know the answer to how we will all agree on the outcomes or even the processes. I remember back in '85 or so there was a huge battle over whether the proper methodology was the historical-critical method or the historical-grammatical method. The latter had more votes and became the acceptable methodology. But it really didn't stop people who preferred the other.

It kinda reminds me of Dr. Suess' Butter Battle Book.

What I _can_ know is that when I get angry or snide it's usually about my insecurity of some kind. And I often lose sight of the great commandment to love, choosing rather to win (which usually isn't a win at all.) or inflict some discomfort on someone.

So peace. If my preferences win during the election I guess I won't be angry. But I will be sad, because the outcome really doesn't solve our core problems that separate us.

-- Tim

Too many here don't understand the difference between believing something and making other people believe it. There are too many who want to foist their beliefs on others.

This is the root of persecution and it has taken in the leadership of the church.

We are on the brink of a Christian Taliban in California. Just wait and see. And some Adventists will have welcomed it with open arms. They will think it is a good thing so long as it doesn't involve the Sabbath. Narrow mindedness and bigotry don't have many limits.

Henk,

Since you made a direct reference to sdaforum in your 03 November 2008 at 3:47 posting, I have no choice but to respond. Evidently you were negatively impacted by your reading of my sdaforum website. Nevertheless, you did not make any specific reference to the material you read from said source. There are thousands of items listed there. Could you provide me with the link to what you did read which lead you to the conclusion that it was “pathetic”?

If what you read is my doctoral dissertation, could you point to where I failed to meet your expectation? Did you find factual errors there, or did I perhaps reach erroneous conclusions? Can you be more specific so that I might respond, explain, or correct what is in error? I invested thousands of hours into said research, and I would treasure any meaningful input you could provide.

I could respond by pointing to the “pathetic” state of the Christian church in Europe, and to the moral decay present in said part of the world, but I won’t do that, since you probably are cognizant of this better than I do.

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

Settembrini,

Point taken. Congratulations with your Christian nation. And now to the point: is your sex life holy, without moral flaw, acceptable to God? You start sex with a prayer, and give thanks to God when you're finished? No abomination crosses your mind? You have a moral right to condemn the sexuality of others because your sexuality is what God had meant it to be, pure and holy?
Again, I've seen persons expressing similar thoughts like you do, and boy, what a bunch of unpalatable secrets they harbor in their souls. Textbook psychology.

Nic,

Some people take a certain topic and make it their goal of life. They chew it till it's dead meat. All I am saying is that the way of discussing homosexuality (and abortion, euthanasia) is foreign to the West-European mind. The only place where I encounter it is in East-European countries and Italy and Spain. And indeed, I cannot help but looking at this sort of mission other than with embarrassment and pity.
Apparently people who are making homosexuality such a hot topic do not see that in origin it has nothing to do with Christianity. They grab a Bible and fight this sort of sexuality till their last breath. They would have fought it as a pagan, a Muslim, a Hindu. It's a personality streak, and again, textbook psychology, how many persons fighting homosexuality the way some do on the pages of this blog, do you think, are in fact battling homosexuality in themselves?
Finally, no, I'm not going to give you extra food to chew on. This will suffice.

Ah Henk!

Here you are again, slumming in our pathetic American blog. But why are you so evasive, so partisan, so ignorant? You say "to the point" then you pointlessly ask me all about my sex life. You think Italy and Spain aren't Western European. You tell us that persons "fighting homosexuality" are obsessed, but you're OK with persons who promote homosexuality. You think anyone who dislikes homosexuality is a homosexual. Ah, that European enlightenment!

Why not answer the question? How's your enlightened attitude working out for Christianity over there?

By the way, did you notice goofy Jan claiming he's "on the brink of a Christian Taliban in California." As a sophisticated Western European, maybe you could tell him what the imams are like where you live, or is it a crime to criticize Islam in your enlightened country?

Henk

I agree with the current SDA preoccupation with homosexuality such as Sprectrum and a major work coming out of La Sierra. You make the point that those preoccupied with "fighting" it may well be fighting homosexual tendencies themselves. You make an excellent point. I believe the evidence would indicate just the opposite those preoccupied with approval and justification of a gay lifestyle and those championing their cause are the ones with homosexual urges. Certainly, the young man at Southern Adventist University at first took great exception to my inference of his life style. Subsequently he came out of the closet and was greeted by Spectrum with great applause for his courage and his crusade.

I knew I was heterosexual as soon as I could page through old Sears catalogs in the out house just off the railroad tracks in the little town of Pound, Wisc.

Frankly, the SDA church can capitulate on the topic as Spectrum wishes and it will not affect my confidence in Jesus Christ nor my understanding of God's intention in the gift of procreation.

I do think accepting gays into the church could have the potential of confusing a lot of vulnerable young people. I believe that sexual promiscuity of any form is an abomination however, one understands the meaning today or in the time of Moses.

The issue Henk was introduced by homosexuals and their advocates--the preoccupation is theirs--they seem to greatly enjoy all the attention.

I don't understand your enjoyment and glee over such disgusting behavior that is an abomination to the Lord and a prohibition of the church you serve.

I think Paul says somewhere something like this: "The married bed is undefiled." Is that the issue. If gays marry then their social status is improved? I believe, they should have legal property rights--but I think the church has no business in sanctifying what God has declared He finds an abomination. I also think that persons with church credentials should either support the doctrinal and procedural standards of their order or get out. At least shut up about it in public. Tom

Tom,

It all depends how you read the Bible. Some people will find justification for discrimination in the Bible, for capital punishment, for subjugation of women, for slavery, for capitalism, etc. Is not there anything that the Spirit can lead you to? A new elevation of christian ethics not based on the letter of the law but on the renewing inspiration of the Spirit?
Judah saw nothing else than a harlot in his daughter in law. Was he punished for his moral failure as women were in those days? No, he was not. Only in later days, when harlotry was mixed with religious sexuality is became clear that there is a higher understanding of sexuality. Solomon had many wives. Was he punished for it? No. But the law of your country and mine prohibits bigamy, and we have good reasons for that. I keep an open mind to a progressive ethical understanding.
Let's be clear about one thing, if anybody, quoting Leviticus and other texts, wants to say something about what Gods regards an abomination, one should be radical on all points Leviticus is making. Methinks nobody is living like that; the abomination rests upon all of us, so let's quit this holier than thou attitude.
Plato said something about sex: the beast with two backsides. What is it that you dislike in homosexuals that you do not find one way or another in your own life? Isn't it your imagination that is playing tricks on you, when you think about two homosexuals making love? "The married bed is undefiled". Why is anybody so intrigued by the homosexual bed? It's not the bed that counts, but somebody's state of mind. Let the one without a dirty mind throw the first stone.
Yes, a few homosexuals are fighting for their rights, as you have done for yours. And they have rights in church as well. What's the big deal here? And indeed I think that the church should be at the forefront to battle discrimination, and we agree that homosexuals are discriminated, in society and in the church, don't we?
Finally, you are mistaken; I do not enjoy "disgusting behavior" (so, again, it's the preoccupation with the deed, isn't it?). I'm looking at Jesus and his way of dealing with human beings, regardless their sexual occupations (or orientation). What is so difficult about that in church? If we can throw out discrimination in church, society will gain strength by it.

Tom
Your vehemence surprises me. Homosexuality is not a doctrine, it's people. From the beginning of time, some people have woken up to the fact that they're different from the rest of us. In OT times already homosexuality was deemed such an incurable condition that it could only be rooted out by killing these people.

Today nobody wants to go the Biblical route and kill homosexuals, even though "God" was the one who advocated the idea at the time. We just want to marginalize them. It's the Biblical way, but is it the Christian way?

Slavery was also the Biblical way. It, too, was an idea that "God" came up with, an idea endorsed implicitly and explicitly by all Biblical authors, including Paul. Yet today Christians feel that simply being biblical is not enough. Policies also need to be Christian, and slavery clearly is not.

Treating homosexuals as equals is.

And Jan is right. Even if you think the Bible is against homosexuals (it is), why should you try to legislate the idea? You surely would not want a majority of muslims to put the Sharia on the ballot,would you?

The difference between democracy and constitutional democracy is the difference between majority dictatorship and tolerance.

Isn't there a responsible way of interpreting Leviticus besides an "all or nothing" approach?

Aage, did they really stone homosexuals because it was deemed an "incurable condition"? Didn't they stone adulterers, too? Is that an "incurable condition"?

And, by the way, they never stoned anyone in the Bible for a state of "being." They stoned people for the actions they participated in. So let's not say they stoned homosexuals. They killed a man for "lying" with another man (Lev 20:13).

Regarding the post as a whole: as a pastor, I try to steer clear of "political" sermons, and I certainly would never tell someone how to vote on anything. I am not their conscience. But at the same time, we do have a duty to address those things that are addressed in the Bible - and homosexuality is one of them. If I talk about these things from the pulpit, I would feel compelled to allow the audience to make up their mind for themselves how they should vote in light of the testimony of scripture.

Henk, Aage

You guys have me all wrong. My personal history and my work history will indicate that I have treated every person fairly, sexual orientation had nothing to do with my neigbhorliness, my church affiliation and personal friendship with people like the Chair of the Music Department at the local state university who was also Minister of Music at my church who died of complications of AIDS. It had nothing to do with my recommendations for promotions and raises for Lesbian or gay faculty at the Medical College of Georgia. (There were plenty with tenure, full professorships, and competitive salaries with my endorsement of their professional contributions to the institution and the State of Georgia.) My concern, is the advocacy and justification of unnatural sexual behavior by SDA theologians: the anti-Prop. 8 guys are trying to justify homosexual behavior rather than simply saying the ammendment is a bad way to modify the California Constitution. Each person should have all civil rights as long as they have not been convicted of a felony.

I am pro people. I have never discrimminated against anyone on the basis of race, gender, national origin, religion, or sexual orientation. I do believe that the SDA clergy are out of line in their advocacy role on this issue.

I have no difficulty worshiping with any person who confesses
Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior. However, I do believe that church membership and ordination are endorsements. I do not advocacte, endorse, encourage, or justify homosexual activity. It is the justification and advocacy by SDA clerics
that I take issue with. That is simply due to the oath taken at their ordination--There is far less Scriptural evidence to get from Dan 8:14 to Hebrews 10 to Rev. 14 than there is to
discount Lev on man with man copulation.

The issue is you guys twist truth to make an error and twist error to make a truth and call it evangelism and ethical concern and then have the gall to demand a "Perfect Final Generation" as a necessary final step in the vindication of God and the return of Jesus. Let me read your disclaimer of
the SDA exigesis of Dan 8:14 and its application to Heb. 10 and Rev 14. Then I'll believe your understanding of Lev. 20: 13
Let me read your disclaimer of E.G.Whites' views on masterbation, homosexual behavior and a host of other outlandish predictions and views and the pall it casts on her role as a latter day prophet. If you are champions of truth--step up to the plate. Tom

My goodness Tom, "step up to the plate". You want my head on a plate? Just kidding.
In a way you are comparing two categories of problems and make the one's exegetical credibility dependent upon the other. Come on, you can do better than that.
The problem with your juxtaposition of problems is that the one is more of a moral issue and the other more of a hypothetical theology, although I would agree that sometimes we as a church have chased out of church more people because of our speculative theology than on moral grounds.
Do you have an issue with me because of my theology or because of my acceptance of homosexuals as human beings with another orientation than I have myself?
I don't mind taking on the subject that you challenge me with, but I do not see the relevance. My point is simply this, that our christian morality changes over time, and I hope it changes for the better.
We do not live in OT times, and what we really mean by "the inspiration of OT texts" has not been fully debated/crystallized in our church. Throughout christian history the image we have of God has often been seen as incompatible with the OT God. When sister Palin sees the US mission in Iraq as a mission blessed by God, she is ignorant, to say the least, of the more encompassing vision of God the Father as revealed by Jesus Christ. I'm not bound by Leviticus, although some Adventists would challenge me for my eating, for the sake of the argument, "pork". Neither did I regard my wife "unclean" when she had her period. I do not have to respect my slaves and free them after so many years, because I do not have any; the christian principle is that we do not own people, or is this too unbiblical to you.

When it comes to homosexuality I, in return, would challenge you to explain, not just state or cite a text, why you find homosexual behavior an abomination, taking into account that we all are walking in the blind alley of lust, covetousness and spiritual adultery. Never looked at other women with "human weakness" in your eyes, a sort of "abomination"? Usually people expect from homosexuals a strenuous abjuration an denial of their sexuality - something they would never ask of themselves.

When it comes to homosexuality I, in return, would challenge you to explain, not just state or cite a text, why you find homosexual behavior an abomination, taking into account that we all are walking in the blind alley of lust, covetousness and spiritual adultery. Never looked at other women with "human weakness" in your eyes, a sort of "abomination"? Usually people expect from homosexuals a strenuous abjuration an denial of their sexuality - something they would never ask of themselves.

Posted by: Henk (not verified) | 04 November 2008 at 3:56

Henk,
Homosexuality is abberant behaviour. Not according to design. Impirically.

You seem to confuse some things in evaluating the factors.
You ask Tom,
"Do you have an issue with ...my acceptance of homosexuals as human beings with another orientation than I have myself?"

Is that something we all do differently than you? Who is out hunting them down? No one. Who would deny them the same societal legal benafits like inheritance and hospital visitation ect? No one.

So an unconvincing comparison.

Second and most troubling is your multiple attempts at moral equivilence. In any form about as convincing as 6 year olds saying, Well Johnny jumps off the roof so why cant I?

Did any one ever say that some heterosexual relationships are deviant? No, but such admitions of reality dont justify other deviant behaviours either.

Instead of arguements like, "When I was allowed to have a closer look upon the heterosexual life of so many "straight" people, it became apparent that they were as devious in their heterosexuality as they accused homosexuals to be. I've lost count of the hours of counseling involving double standards of sexuality." why dont you address the real deviant problems both in heterosexual and homosexual relationships?

If you use (as you do) examples of deviant heterosexual behaviour as a rational why homosexual behaviour should be condoned, you have a serious problem in reasoning cause to effect.

Try advancing your position in the positive. Why is homosexuality the best thing since sliced bread?
Can you advance it on its own merits or is moral equivilence all you have to work with?

Henk

You suggested that because that my disagrement with you on the homosexual issue, I must be fighting homosexual tendencies. You are the one who made this issue personal not me. You are the one who challenged orthodoxy on the issue.

I merely suggested, if orthodoxy is the issue then doctrine is on the table. Why not take an issue that has occupied page ofter page on a personal life style when the entire issue of soteriology is swept under the table by those who pledge their life work to salvation?

When did I say I supported Palin?

You don't know my politics, you don't know me period.

You have a great talent for begging the issue. For a very capable bright learned man, for shame. Tom

Henk, not to defend Sarah Palin, but you are the product of warped media coverage. She never said that the Iraq war effort is "blessed by God," she said that we should pray that it is blessed by God. There is a world of difference between the two statements. One is stating a fact, the other is urging people to make sure that our actions are in accordance with God.

With this being said, I am not at all advocating the war in Iraq or any war, or even Palin. But let's make sure we have the facts straight.

P.S.

Henk

In your extensive research do you know how many women have died because of Cystitis in third world countries?

How many were virgins? The issues of hygiene were part of the ethos of an uninformed nomatic people living in desert conditions.

Did you ever ask the question Why? Even in an agnostic university Moses was hailed as the father of preventive medicine. Tom

Tom
I don't think anybody who has got a feel for who you are on this blog would suggest that you are bigoted in any way when it comes to people, be they Catholics or gays. It just thought your rhetoric was a bit over the top. Using the word "abomination" about people may be Biblical but, I would hope, not Christian (i.e. in the sense or ethically valid).

Seven-year olds react with disgust when they learn the facts of life. To them the yuk factor is overwhelming. That's unfortunately how many hetero-sexuals react when they learn the homosexual facts of life. But the real fact of life is that we're sexual beings, whether we're hetero or homosexual. And whether we're one or the other is a question of how the DNA dice landed.

Paul in Corinthians realized that it might be too much to expect heterosexuals to remain celibate, and that instead of being consumed by lust, people should get married. Tom, I grant any church the right to stick with the literal reading of the Bible and oppose, on principle, gay marriage, but this is a religious point of view, and I don't believe in legislating religion.

If gay marriage threatened the social order and undermined its moral values, that would be a different thing. But although it offends conservatives of every stripe, it doesn't offend the secular values upon which the social order is based.

Politics is about secular values and the organization of society, and there is no public interest at stake in denying gays and lesbians the protection of the Constitution and its 14th amendment. In church we may be unequal, but not before the Constitution.

Aage

Thank you.

I agree with your view about politics. My disgust was the
arguments used on opposition to Prop 8. 1. It will bring on the time of trouble. 2. Homosexual behavior is normal and such be approved in secular society and in the church as well.

I know several homosexuals with church membership--but it was on the basis of don't ask don't tell.

In my personal and professional life I have considered homosexuals as neighbors and friends. Except in a few cases when they came on to me. All three incidents were with SDA church members in good and regular standings as far as the Church knew. I made no charges. I made it very clear--You keep away from my space. Tom

Michael,

It seems to me that stating that homosexuality is "aberrant" behavior implies a value judgment of the person who happens to be a homosexual. My point is simply that heterosexuals often see the homosexual "aberration" and seldom see their own heterosexual aberrations, which they prefer to call "vigorous and healthy interests in God-given sexuality".

Tom,
Whether you are fighting homosexual tendencies, as you call them, I would not know. You take my remark personally. Well, it remains a fact of my pastoral findings that the ones who fight homosexuality very often have a troubling image of their own sexuality, many times caused by repression of homosexual tendencies, to use your word. The dichotomy between heterosexuality and homosexuality is not a binary one, black or white; there are many shades of grey here.
For the rest, what can I say. I for one do not believe that it is possible to accept a homosexual person as a person and at the same time disavow his sexuality. You accept the total person, hook, line and sinker so to speak, or you do not.

Are the laws stated in Leviticus given with an eye on our physical health or given as religious taboos, or both? The example I gave: to regard a woman in her period as "unclean", not to be touched, must give you a hint. What follows is personal, Tom, I can't help it. These laws presuppose a temple ritual. Did you send your wife into seclusion when she had her period, and did not touch her because of her uncleanness until she had her uncleanness ritually washed off after a couple of days after the last day of her period? I guess not. Then, were you disobedient, morally wrong and falling under God's judgment? Did you disregard the law not to have intercourse with her until she was ritually clean? How much are these Levitical laws applicable to us Christians from the gentiles anyway?

Shawn,
Yeah, I did mix the two, apparently. Apology. Still I find Sarah Palin's statement rather troubling:
"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
As a heterosexual I would say - she must be cocksure to say such a thing about what is God's plan with Iraq. Apparently she knows the will of God better than I do. Shame on me.

Henk

Buzz off. If you had intercourse with your wife during her period you are sicker that I thought. Tom

"Until she was ritually clean", Tom. Read carefully. You apparently have not read Leviticus. And I'm not sick.

"For the rest, what can I say. I for one do not believe that it is possible to accept a homosexual person as a person and at the same time disavow his sexuality. You accept the total person, hook, line and sinker so to speak, or you do not."

Henk
In your line of work I thought you might have thought about the fact that God came to save people from their sin not in their sin.

Are you sure your statement, "You accept the total person, hook, line and sinker so to speak, or you do not." passes that test?

How do you see that in light of your position?

Also "aberrant" is not a value judgement. Read a definition.

ab·er·rant (br-nt, -br-)
adj.
1. Deviating from the proper or expected course.
2. Deviating from what is normal; untrue to type.
n.
Homosexuality is definitly that by anyones definition.

I may be completely wrong but I am sensing that possibly you are what we might call a touchy-feely personality and raw data means very little to you as do dictionary definitions.
That personality type if heavily infuenced by what feels right to them. It also tends towards moral equivalence.

Perhaps if you could address my questions about your moral equivalence arguements I might be better able to understand where you are coming from.

PS
After reading your post to Shawn I am scratching my head about your thought processes.
What does being a heterosexual have to do with anything about Palin and Iraq?
I'll put the quote up so you wont have to go back and look for it.
Shawn,
Yeah, I did mix the two, apparently. Apology. Still I find Sarah Palin's statement rather troubling:

"Pray for our military men and women who are striving to do what is right. Also, for this country, that our leaders, our national leaders, are sending [U.S. soldiers] out on a task that is from God," she exhorted the congregants. "That's what we have to make sure that we're praying for, that there is a plan and that that plan is God's plan."
As a heterosexual I would say - she must be cocksure to say such a thing about what is God's plan with Iraq. Apparently she knows the will of God better than I do. Shame on me.

Posted by: Henk (not verified) | 04 November 2008 at 11:03

Michael,

Yes, when you rephrase your premise.

Henk

Oh you resent implications/accusations? Touchy are you? I just thought you should get the feel of personalization of argumentation.

Why in the world don't you address the sum of Lev.20: Like vrs 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21.

When did you discover that two wrongs make a right?

I pity those who might come to you for personal counseling.

You don't need to answer the above because I do not wish to continue or respond to your nonsense. By the way, I do appreciate Michael's more measured and mature approach. Your implications got under my collar--because I thought you frock would have taught you better manners. Tom

Michael
You said:"In your line of work I thought you might have thought about the fact that God came to save people from their sin not in their sin."

You point of view would have had validity if homosexuality was about what people chose to do as opposed to who they are. The only thing that will save people from their sexual orientation is either castration or execution. Origin went for the former, the Torah for the latter solution.

Henk
I agree in large part with your point of view but I hate the way you argue. There are people who could sell fridges to eskimoes; you couldn't sell ice cream at the beach.

Michael,

I'll give it a try, and if unsuccessful, I'll quit this subject.

"God came to save people from their sin not in their sin."

Is this a theological statement or a popular one-liner? I know what you try to say, but these kinds of statements are misleading when dissected in the theological lab. The tendency in Adventist theology is to isolate sin from human (sinful) nature. That's because of our Methodist heritage. A good portion of Reformation theology could have a chance of correcting our shallow view on the role of sin in human nature.

Another difference of opinion I apparently have with you is about what we precisely mean when we use the words "person" and "personality". Usually Adventists have a wholistic view when they formulate what a person is. I would best be understood as someone who believes that sexuality, hetero- or homosexuality, is not be separated from a person, and it defines for a great part what we understand his or her personality to be. Clearly when you use the word homosexual, you're not using the word in a neutral, descriptive manner.

Lastly, whether I am a touchy-feely sort of person is not relevant to the argument. Sure, I use dictionaries and "raw data". I don't know what you understand by words like "raw data" unless you show these data. Anyway, "aberrant" is not just a neutral word when you use it in connection with homosexuality. And what normality is, is quite debatable, especially as normality changes over time. Sometimes people have to make "war" (= a fight with arguments as weapons) to change patterns of thinking. Just arguments, hopefully clear thinking, debate, tests, and recognition of (overt) emotions (look at Tom's emotions when questions are to direct for him to evaluate with his mind only) when they blur the argument. I see too much disgust creeping in debates like this. Sometimes it's worth a try to place yourself into the position of a homosexual person, although in the end it's very difficult to do. But at least we shuld be able to recognize discriminatory expressions when they pass by.
Good luck.

Aage,

It's not my purpose to be careful and understanding when people make somebody else's life in church subject of their disgust. They should be confronted with their bigotry. For the rest, I'm really a nice guy, drink coffee all day, and have fun.

"Hate the sin but love the sinner" is such a hypocritical mantra.

To hate a person for who he is implies that he can separate himself into two parts. We ARE who we ARE and to imply that we can be separated occurs usually when the discussion is about sex.

Can a heterosexual separate that from who he is?
Are humans dual? Turn the tables and tell a heterosexual (sinless?) that you love him but hate who he is. How is that different from telling a person born with physical anomalies, such as cerebral palsy or malformed physically that such an aberration is "sin." If that is what is believed, then did God create each person, even with anomalies? How should Christians react to those people? Only if one accepts that an individual CHOOSES an aberrant abnormality would that be true. The assumptions that people "choose" homosexuality is behind such labeling of deviant behavior when they are living what is as normal for them as a heterosexual is behaving normally.

How can any heterosexual "choose" his orientation? When did that occur? If it is normal for you, do you honestly believe that homosexuals "choose" their orientation? It seems that the misunderstanding is the inability to believe people are truthful when they claim having always been homosexual? Isn't that close to breaking the commandment against bearing false witness?

I was a student at E.M.C. The visiting minister was the Auditor of the Lake Union Conference. He gave a rational objective resume of the Union Growth and its implications for
the future. Two hours later, at a Week of Prayer at Broadview Academy, a student asked for a private meeting with the Evangelist. She burst into tears and told a story the shocked the Union including me--I was the paper boy that delivered a daily paper to the home of the Auditor. His wife, a lovely young woman with two little children. The story the girl told was the five day affair she had with the auditor while he was "doing the books at Broadview Academy". He was forced to resign. The wife filed for divorce. The family was broken. The community was shaken. I lost a client. My point is simply the church acted quickly, fairly but sadly. The church should not and can not condone open defiant sin. That is what is at stake in the current debate. The way around the problem is to declare that it is not open defiant sin. That is a very difficult task. Those who enjoy clouding the issue become bleeding hearts. And clain any others as unfeeling hard hearted bigots. Those who see otherwise simply say "Enjoy your lifestyle if you must, but don't ask the Church to bless it." Evangelism is the Good News that God can solve problems not that God accepts peoples problems. Tom

Tom the sad story has happened more places, and the people that were hurt were many.

Now, when two consenting adults, whether hetero or homo decide to join their lives together, who is hurt?

Sorry Henk,
It seems like we are from different planets.
I'll use 2 examples as to why.

1. "Anyway, "aberrant" is not just a neutral word when you use it in connection with homosexuality."

This is of course silly talk. Your impressions. If you deny that the dictionary definition of "aberrant" does not apply to homosexuality, there is no hope for you having a rational discussion.

2. And what normality is, is quite debatable, especially as normality changes over time.

Do you mean like homosexuality and the last 6000 years? Yeah, their are constantly changing that definition. NOT.

This is the 2nd example in only 2 of your sentances where the mindset you have precludes the ability to have a rational discussion on this issue.

I wish you well.

Tom,

Probably you are beyond the point of no return of accepting my argument, but really, we were arguing about homosexuality and not a 5-night stand. If you imply to equate homosexuality with adultery, then we better stop and wait for a generation with more understanding and less willful misrepresentation.

Michael,

I gave it a try. The best way to go for you is to stay on your planet and wait till one of your loved ones turns out to be homosexual. I hope your planet will be large enough for your loved one to get lost, or your heart big enough to embrace that loved one and give him or her your blessing for the relationship of his or her choosing. When I'm still around on the same planet, let me know your argumentation.

OK, let's stop here, guys.

Henk,

Thanks for your response dated 04 November 2008 at 7:56 to my posting. Unfortunately you did not bother to honor my request. I read all you posting that followed, which is evidence that you failed to answer my question not due to a lack of time. You rather avoided it. All I asked was for you to explain the reason you described whatever you read in my web site as “pathetic.” I did not ask for a treatise, but rather only a reference to what you had read which led you to conclude that it deserved your pity.

Did you find there factual errors or perhaps errors in judgment? It would have taken you no more than ten minutes of your time to provide me with a link to the material you did read and a simple sentence stating the reason you felt it was pathetic! I conclude that very likely you have never visited nor ever read any of the material I have on my sdaforum web site. This coming from a minister of the Gospel is disappointing to me. I hope I am wrong, but I have no intention of changing my opinion unless you give me evidence that I am in error.

And by the way, heterosexuals did not start this legal fight. It was started by four liberal, unelected judges who defied the will of two million California citizens who had voted for affirming what had been a tradition going back for thousands of years: that marriage is between members of the opposite gender. So the question is: Who in fact is obsessed with the homosexual problem: straight or gays?

On 04 November 2008 at 1:57 you stated that “homosexuals are fighting for their rights.” Says who? Four activist judges? Do we live in a democracy or a country where a gang of four can rule from the bench against the will of the citizenry? Gays are attempting to make us believe that their lifestyle is normal. Normal? I you apply the bell curve to the general population, will homosexuals be within what scientifically is considered normal? They would in fact be on the fringes of said curve.

Under what scientific definition could they be considered as normal? How many standard deviations can a segment of the population be and still be treated as normal? From this I conclude that attaching the term “deviant” to homosexuals is a scientifically correct and proper description of where they stand in relation to heterosexuals.

The point you emphasized on 04 November 2008 at 3: