Everyone make a big poster and hang it on your wall:
=
"I'll refer back to the Bible before I take the scientific or psychological community as fact." - Nathan Huggins
= = =
Sorry - I suppose I'm reading this out of context. I guess Nathan only wants to apply it only to "sexual morality," not to Galileo etc.

It has been shown that there exist certain genetic predispositions to theft.

Should we say it is not wrong to steal if you are wired that way?

The same discussion could (and perhaps should) be had over same sex attraction.

Tim

Doubtless, there were some who felt that giving blacks the right to vote was catering to the devil: These people had no rights, no literacy, were incapable of excersing such a privilege that belonged to the white slave owners.

Doubtless, there were those who believed that racial intermarriage was also relaxing all religious standards to "amalgamate" the pure white race.

Doubtless, there were many who felt that giving women the vote was diluting the democratic process as women were "too fragile" to pursue education and were, therefore, unqualified to understand goverment and politics.

Times and societal ideas change. We can choose to live in the past when women were "unclean" for a week each month; when touching a pig carcass was an abomination; when it was an abomination for men to lie together"; and when stoning was appropriate for sabbath breakers and adulterers. And, more to date: when adulterers and divorced individuals were excommunicated from the church.

Any institution, churches are no exception, that fails to recognize that simply because old traditions have been practiced for centuries, can be changed with newer scientific and psychological evidence. This has happened in all of the above changes mentioned. Today, there is abundant evidence that there is no damage whatsoever from homosexual marriages: heterosexual marriages continue to survive, as well as breakup; children are found to be no more sexually oriented regardless of their parent's orientation, and that homosexuality is not a sin, nor was it ever considered to be a sin in the Bible as it was a condition unknown at that time. Heterosexual promiscuity is no different than homosexual promiscuity; heterosexual monogmous marriage is the same as homosexual monogamous marriage and both should be equated similarly.

To deny the many rights that only "marriage" confers, is to deny the equal rights to same-sex marriage partners; and the benefits are many: SS. benefits, spousal health insurance, property rights, and much more. This nation should stand for equality in all things to all its citizens. To do less is to discriminate on the basis of "biblical morality" and religion should play no part in its laws. What other reason can there be except religion? As the writer of the article has amply demonstrated: References to the Bible and Christianity are the basis for the writer's position.

Great article, Dr. Burton. I believe what fuels the gay militancy more than anything else is the dogmatic denial by the "Christian community" that homosexuality can never be genetic. It's like a vicious kick in the teeth to gays who are struggling with the orientation. It beats me why we consider it necessary to do so. After all, don't we all teach that we are all born sinners? Does that give anyone an inalienable right to sin?
If we view homosexuality as abnormal, why is it, of all the dysfunctions and deformities that beset us, the only one that cannot be genetic? No one is accused of choosing to be hermaphrodite or autistic or Siamese twins. Then why this one? Thanks to medical science, the hermaphrodite who can afford it can now choose one gender and discard the other surgically. In any event, with or without the surgery, what determines which gender is to be chosen? That’s a knotty question, if ever there was one.
It is technically true that no one is born homosexual. Nor is anyone born heterosexual. Babies have no sexual interest one way or the other. That doesn’t mean that, after six or seven years, whichever way it eventually goes isn’t biologically driven. For that matter, what if sexual orientation did happen at birth? Would that make it God’s design? What about the notion that we are all born sinners? Is that nature or nurture? Does that orientation give us an inalienable right to sin? Is that how God designed us?
Sure we can say that acting on one’s homosexual urges is a matter of choice, just like acting on one’s heterosexual urges. Except that there’s no debate as to whether the heterosexual urge may be acted on legitimately. Sure, accepting one’s homosexuality in a world that largely abhors it has to be a conscious choice. And it certainly is Christian to pray for divine deliverance from whatever urges we understand to be objectionable. But that’s a far cry from accusing people of choosing their urges. Admitting that the orientation is biologically driven doesn’t mean we have to approve of gay marriage or transgendering.
By all means pray. The conversion to which we call the homosexual requires nothing short of a miracle. For while one can, with adequate exposure, acquire almost any appetite, sexual proclivity ought not to be dismissed as something one simply wakes up one morning and decides to take on. Besides, the evidence has long shown that, however one may have come into the urges, if you’re queer, you’re queer.
The nature/nurture question has hardly any bearing on the Bible’s position regarding the homosexual act. While it cannot be denied that there are committed believers struggling with homosexuality, it’s hard to imagine any serious Christian embracing those urges. If God’s word forbids it, believers have no choice but to view it accordingly. The Bible forbids born sinners sinning. There’s just no need to justify our position, whatever it is, by being unscientific and denying the glaring facts.
In ethical terms, the consensual act can be objected to only on religious grounds, as it doesn’t quite measure up to the classic violation of person or property. Still, whether or not legislating against gay marriage thus crosses the bounds of a secular democracy is for the ethicists to figure out.
This issue differs from those of prostitution, gambling and drug use, which have no such genetic question attached to them. Yet legitimizing it certainly constitutes a redefinition—from the Christian perspective, a perversion—of marriage. At the same time, admitting the biological reality of the orientation itself, that it is in many cases not a choice, does not mean legitimizing the act.

It is highly sad that some still hold such bigoted views as was evident by the article.

Thank you for posting this essay. I appreciate Burton's analysis of the situation.

Matt,

As ever you are spot on with your comment.

This is a difficult area, and we should tread gently and carefully, with love in the fore fornt of our hearts and minds.

Thanks for the reminder.

Tim

Regardless of the arrangements in the UK, Civil Unions in the United States do not carry the same rights as marriage in Federal Law, which is the fount of many of the civil rights enjoyed by married couples.

Besides that, the Defense of Marriage Act limits most of the same Federal rights even to legally married same gender couples. Though I am in a registered Domestic Partnership in the state of Washington, I am not eligible for medical benefits because my partner works for the federal government. We cannot inerit each other's social security benefits when we retire, we cannot file joint bankrupcy, joint taxes, which would dramatically lower our burden, and many other examples.

Even if we take on the full responsibilities of a legal union, we are not offered the same rights from state to state. In Wisconsin, the Attourney General is not defending a law that allows same sex couiples hospital visitation rights. The list goes on.

The US constitution guarantees equal rights for all, not just some people.

Seeing content like this on Spectrum is really disappointing. Good people can disagree about homosexuality, but statements like this cross the line: "One does not have to confine their research to the Bible to understand the abnormal nature of same sex relationships. Biblical teaching about gender is also strongly supported by natural law. Human biology is clear that sexual reproduction under normal circumstances is only possible when gender opposites copulate. Further, many avoid discussing the sanitation issues and permanent physiological damage brought on by male homosexual activity."

Clearly this writer is icked out by the idea of men who have intercourse with other men--for him, it is "unnatural" because he is obviously heterosexual. But I encourage him to try to really listen to healthy, happy, spiritual healthy gay men and women to get a better perspective of their experiences. We have to move past our own discomfort level to engage each other in authentic ways.

Keith, you're right that your side is losing this battle, and it has nothing to do with the devil. The simple fact is that a generation that has grown up with gays and lesbians out in the open, and seen that these people are our siblings and friends and not moral monsters. They don't understand why their gay friends should not have the same rights and privileges as the rest of us. Church people may insist that the Bible doesn't like homosexuality--which is certainly true--but the Bible is not much of an authority for young people. Nor is the Bible much of an authority when it comes to stopping an idea whose time has come. Southern preachers defended slavery as a Biblical institution--and it certainly is--but it could not bear up against the moral indignation that this repugnant institution had stirred up in the American people. And those who fought integration and interracial marriage on Biblical grounds--falsely so--found that their bigotry could do nothing about the spirit of the 1960s.

Giving gays and lesbians the same rights and privileges as the rest of us enjoy is an idea whose time has--finally--come. Not everybody will accept it. There is going to be "massive resistance" on the part of those who don't like this development, just like we saw in the 50s and 60s. In fact, some people are never going to change. I live outside the city of Richmond, Virginia, in what used to be back-country before urban sprawl. Behind my development I have neighbors who still speak of blacks the way they did in the 1950s. Bigotry is a poison that's hard to leach out of people who've imbibed it with their mother's milk, especially when it has Biblical support, as slavery and homophobia have.

During Bible times the Israelites referred to all other peoples as "pagans," and Gentiles were the later outcasts. During Christ's time Jews referred to the Samritans as "pigs." Their prayer: Thank God that I am not a Gentile, a woman or a dog," was a constant reminder to themselves that they were God's "chosen people" and all others were to be despised.

Only 200 years ago, most American looked down upon anyone of color and thought they were no better than chimpanzees. Today, it it is homosexuals. Each generation needs an "other" to condemn, and there is little difficulty finding some who are different to be degraded. It becomes very simple to find those who are unlike us and they become the outcast de jour.

Christians may have a stronger resentment to equality of such people as was demonstrated during the days of slavery, and exhibited today with the Christian right. Their high and exalted stance makes them "Bible-thumpers" in proclaiming the "Word of the Lord" is the source for this hateful rhetoric and the only "cure" for such folk is to discover that their beloved child, cousin or close relative is gay. Suddenly, they see that there is absolutely no difference in humans, we are all God's children and he has never turned his back on any.

Personally, I prefer my relationships and sexual experiences to be with women. But I stand up for gays, and anyone who faces discrimination, because I have seen the struggles with a number of friends and dialogued and read a lot to understand the human dimensions of it all in order to be fully empathetic and understanding. I champion equality for all - culture, genetics, language, appearance, gender, sexuality, ability, spirituality ... Discovering Jesus inspires me to do this and opened my heart and mind to champion the cause and rights of any and all who are misunderstood, misrepresented and hurt by those who don't understand. Especially people who act and speak far from the spirit of Jesus, yet do it in the name of God and their religion.

I should have clarified that in Australia, all couples have equal rights under the law except that same sex couples don't have the right to call their union marriage and have it legally ratified under the law. Other than that all couples have the same rights and benefits according to the law. It's interesting that in at least some of the cases in USA gay couples can be legally married and be declared married but they don't have the legal rights that come with that for heterosexuals. The declaration is significant, but lacks follow-on substance.

Keith, is ignorance and foolishness as deep as yours genetic or environmental?

Were you born unable to study genetics and human behaviour, or did your parents make you that way?

The Commandments clearly teach "Thou Shalt Not Steal".

It means you should not forceably take money from one pair of adults to provide services to two other adults just because of their sexual orientation. Services such as law courts, police protection, and inheritance.

Your "Christian" position is "let us steal from the gays to support the straights".

If you want to be consistent, you should have the State get completely out of the marriage business. Any two adults should be allowed to enter into a "civil union", be they straight Christians who have gone through some rite, or a pair of intersex hermaphrodites where science can't even determine what gender they are.

/Bevin

This debate underlines the important distinction between democracy and constitutional democracy. A mere democracy is essentially plurality dictatorship. As far African-Americans are concerned, that's how the United States democracy functioned until about 50 years ago. Constitutional democracy, on the other hand, puts brakes on democracy so that it doesn't degenerate into mob rule. The purpose of a constitution is to safeguard certain rights, regardless of what a changing majority might think of them.

The 14th amendment to the US constitution is a case in point:"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." (Section 1)

Bevin writes: "Keith, is ignorance and foolishness as deep as yours genetic or environmental?
Were you born unable to study genetics and human behaviour, or did your parents make you that way?"
An obviously ad hominem attack! Where is the Spectrum observer?

>>> How many lives have been ruined by the disease that often afflict those who engage in this abnormal activity

HIV has killed a lot more straight Christians than it has gays.

/Bevin

Keith and Your Friend: "Further, many avoid discussing the sanitation issues and permanent physiological damage brought on by male homosexual activity." You are repeating the repudiated testimony of a psychologist whose credentials have been removed.

Even if this might be a problem in the case of promiscuity, you should be thankful that so many gay men want to marry and have a (hopefully) lifetime partner.

A well documented prophecy from about a hundred years ago referring to the USA says that "national apostasy will be followed by national ruin". Interesting that this homosexual marriage nonsense is happening just as the US economy is on the verge of meltdown. May God have mercy on you.

Keith realy is a strange animal. When he gets something right (and he does get things right occasionally), he can be very right. Yet most of the time he is unfortunately very wrong. Yet I appreciate his perspective - it makes me realise why I hold the views I do. Here's why.

"The bourgeoning support for same gender marriage reminds me that this earthly empire that so often feels like home is actually the temporary domain of the deceiving devil" Huh? Is there supposed to be any logic to this?

"...sexual behavior that not too many decades ago was deemed abnormal by the American Psychological Association has all of a sudden been normalized in the Empire State". Is that supposed to be an argument? Should we be guided by the knowledge and understanding of yesterday and not of today? Not too many decades ago racial segregation was also considered to be teh way to go. Does Keith really want us to move back in time?

"However, as a student of prophecy, I see things differently." This bit explains a lot! Maybe Keith should stick to prophecy study?

I agree with the idea that the state should get out of regulating the marriage business, other than 'registering' the contractual union, if requested by the marriage-ees. And I don't think the one man/one woman definition holds up either, certainly not by biblical practice. Two large groups who have a stake in this are Adventists and Mormons, so why are they on the other side of the issue? Adventists have a personal vested interest in the separation between church and state, and Mormon theology historically includes multiple spouses - and WHY NOT? The number of consenting spouses a person has is absolutely not the government's business. Mormon's gave up a key theological belief to become Regular Americans, by golly, and Adventists are sucking up to the religious right at the peril of enabling a risky political/religious cohabitation. Okay, so it might be your church's business who/what/how many you marry, or your family's business but I just don't believe it's the government's job to regulate these personal relationships. Thank you and good night.

Patti C. Grant hits it right on the head.----

Finally, there is inherent in this discussion a far larger issue of freedom and liberty, one which I have not seen addressed here or in other discussions. Above and beyond the arguments about gays wanting "special rights," or whether or not gays "choose" to be gay and could they change if they wanted to, or what is "normal" or "abnormal," the overarching meta issue is simply and fundamentally this: Under the Constitution of the United States DOES ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE HAVE THE RIGHT TO DENY "EQUAL PROTECTION UNDER THE LAW" TO ANOTHER GROUP OF PEOPLE WITH WHOM THEY DISAGREE OR OTHERWISE DO NOT APPROVE OF?

The Adventist Church has not a single leg to stand on with this issue given it's loooong expected wait for the implemenation of the Sunday Blue Law by the state. It would be the absolute height of hypocrisy for the SDA Church to want the state to inforce it's understanding of who can and cannot be married according to biblical interpretation and then turn around and want the State to keep hands off who should worship on what day. Can't have it both ways.

In addition, Daneen Akers begins to really open the door on something when talking about nervous het males, but that goes deeper than objectification, it goes all the way to orientation and possibly wanting to fight against some deep seated urges on some level or the fear of the possiblity of same sex urges even if none are there. Human sexuality is complex and most males don't have a clue and don't really want to have a clue for fear of what might be discovered.(Dr. Burton does not seem to realize that sexual orientaion goes far beyond the "act of sex" which his article is so focused on, thus revealing something about the extent of his understanding of sexuality. Also, I would love to hear what Dr. Burton has to say about hetrosexuals who mirror the same sexual practices that sgl/gays do. BUT that's another story.) So, religion serves as a "nice" covering blanket for many who live lives of quite desperation.

Peace,
Alex

THE ISSUE is "freedom of choice"!! But that issue cuts both ways. The freedom of a church minister to NOT be compelled to go against his/her conscience and marry a gay couple without facing a lawsuit. The freedom to not artificially inseminate a gay patient against your conscience. The freedom to exclude your child from state mandated "education" about the "normalcy" of homosexuality....etc.
This law (as I understand it) gave an out for that "freedom of choice" which Proposition 8 did not, violating ones "freedom of conscience" and placing the state in a position to dictate "conscience" in California but not in New York. A very important difference IMHO
I live in an area with many Mormons and (believe it or not) this really is the crux of the matter. (Verified to me by the local bishop and many others)
The science of "homosexuality" is still not definitively understood. I clearly understand that there are people who are born with a propensity for "homosexuality" but how that is expressed "nature vs nurture" is still not understood.
The church should not oppose "equal rights" i.e. civil unions but should resist violation of "the freedom of conscience" inherit in many of the laws being put forward currently.
From a Christian perspective homosexuality is clearly not promoted by the Bible or by Christ per se but what is promoted is "love God and love your neighbor" and we must use that as the benchmark for how we approach this subject personnally and corporately IMHO
God died to preserve our "freedom of choice", even though many would choose against God in the long run and this issue is similar in many ways. Only God can "sort this out" ultimately and I must love my neighbor and leave it in God's able hands until that happens.
All the best this "freedom weekend" ( 4th of July)
Fred

Some have suggested the State should get out of the marriage business. That doesn't make sense if the contentions are largely about the tax breaks and laws of inheritance.
Maybe if the religious groups got out of it, the State could see that all registered unions are eligible for the same benefits. And then the churches, etc, could load up with their traditional requirements. See the Prince of Monaco and his bride have already sat down together for the legal part, and soon they will have the big party with all the trimmings. Their wedding ceremonial will be no less "sanctifying" for them already having their legal status established.
Keith Burton, or any other sectarian official, would be free to bless, or not, a union and not have their customary role diminished at all.

Many older Americans (some in my own family) have chosen not to get married altho they co-habit because they will lose on the benefits front. They are way past reproducing stage and may or may not even have sex. They enjoy each other's company, want to share an abode, and no longer care about what their fundy children (in my family's case)think about it. Good for them.

I myself know of homosexual couples here in TN who are legally married (she's lesbian, he's gay and they have been best friends since college way back when) who have been legally married to each other for several decades. They have all the rights of straight people who are married and shag regularly, whether or not children are involved.

I know couples who are straight professionals, who are heterosexual and never intended to have children, and are married with no hassle from society.

Methinks some people should get over it.

I also have a very close relative, widowed, who is now living with a retired friend, also widowed. She would lose much, or all of her SDA sustentation if whe remarried. This is a recipe for forcing those in such positions to "live in sin" to use the old phrase.

Why should it make any difference who other's choose to marry; whether they marry; or anything else in their private lives? Should they first check on our sensitivities to their choices? Did we do that when we married?

In most countries, marriage is a civil ceremony and only those who wish a religious ceremony may do so. In the U.S. many, if not most marriages are religious, or at least held in a church setting. Would we check with our neighbors before we married to get their approval? Would we check with them on whether we should join with a particular church? Get over it, folks! If we do not accept other's privacy, we should not expect them to accept ours; and all SDAs know that someday we may need all the friends we can muster!

Alle and Elaine: Well said! Some of our social policies in the United States don't make sense. Instead of encouraging and enabling peple to live together in supportive relationships of all sorts, they make this more difficult and expensive. Amazing!

It should be given that:
1. generally, people, including Seventh-day Adventists and most other Christians, strongly believe and value the ideals of marriage rather clearly affirmed in scripture;
2. the history is long and deep and the understanding is well nigh universal in most cultures that marriage means the union of male and female;
3. such heterosexual marriages have for the most part served humankind very well;
4. it is best for Christians not to disregard or demean the current drive to legalize and institutionalize other forms of familial relationship, such as male-male or female-female;
4. choice is a value that is to be respected, and true morality cannot be imposed on the unwilling, even when negative or destructive consequences are evident one way and/or the other;
5. it is often necessary to make a sharp distinction between what could be made easily permissible or mandated by law and what many consider as essential morality rooted in nature and/or in religion.

From a biblical, "kingdom of God", perspective there has to be continuing tension between what human organizations have the power to make into law or adopt as a civil right and what to many is an issue involving the distinctive values of another society, one in which the pure in heart see God. So then the principles that govern human society are not to be confused with the principles of the kingdom Jesus established as not of this world. There are times when these two perspectives may converge, but there are other times when they must remain mutually exclusive. For me, the current debate about same-sex marriage is one in which the legal permission or civil right and the moral or religious conviction need to be divorced in some degree if we are to assume a position that is consistent and non-threatening.

In a diverse society and an increasingly diverse church, how can this be done so that one does not feel "torn"? On the one hand, let us acknowledge that it is neither farfetched nor cut-like for many Christians to view the idea of same-sex marriage as repugnant and not biblical; and I would think that needs to be appreciated or at least respected.

At the same time, the idea of same-sex partnerships is justifiable and perhaps needs to be given a firm footing without unduly judging its inner workings or intimate content. Indeed, to foster such relationships may very well be a part of the ministry of reconciliation affirmed in the NT.

I submit therefore that Christians should not find it difficult to support two different social constructs: LEGAL MARRIAGES and LEGAL PARTNERSHIPS - both relevant to the kingdom of God and to the present social order. This two-dimensional approach is not new, of course. But the idea of institutionalizing legal partnerships, (though not exactly like commissioning women pastors instead of ordaining them), contains important Christian values in that it preserves the sanctity of marriage - neither conflating it, altering its definition, nor diminishing its status. Nor is legal partnerships intended to advocate or endorse behaviors that many consider to be unacceptable.

What it does is to simply give legal standing and social support to people, for whom heterosexual marriage was either not available or not a worthwhile option, to form trusting partnerships in ways that mitigate the pain and risk of social and emotional isolation and open doors for creative endeavors together.

It is always possible that what people choose to do in the privacy of such partnerships could constitute a violation of its intent or an abuse of its privileges; but is this not also true of a host of legal marriages? And who wants to undertake the task of probing into everyone's bedroom, or closet, or office? On this, let God be God alone.

To some, this position may seem rather liberal for one who is temperamentally a centrist. However, as a ministry that contributes to healing the brokenness of the human condition, the need for partnerships of this kind, with all the potential abuses and risks, is frequently so obvious that it is often saddening to see their absence.

Isn't it, really, about the concept *and* the word, marriage? Think about how traditionalists have modified their words as common-law unions have become more common. Hardcore conservatives may stick with the husband-wife nomenclature in all settings. However, it seems proper to reserve that for particular contexts, usually of the private, face-to-face kind. More to the point, if, in conversation, a woman was introduced to me as another's partner, I would not insist on knowing if she was the other's "wife".
Maybe the responsibility for pressing the claims of monogamy is shifting to individuals and their behaviour, beyond the shelter of tribal sanctimony. In other words, for most adult males, it seems the better strategy for recommending their choice of marriage is to enhance their own partnership, rather than seeking to demean others.

EMIR JAY, let me clarify. You seem to have missed the totality and the essence of what I wrote. I am not "advocating legal partnerships instead of legal marriages", as you suggest. There is no "instead of" in my position. I am proposing two distinct approaches; and my reason for doing so is to bring a measure of rationality to a contentious and divisive issue having deep historical, religious, cultural, and social significance in our global village. You may see legal partnership as an approach that "enshrines" discrimination: I see it as a giant leap away from radical discrimination.

The Christian world view has norms that are often distinctly different from the shifting norms of society. As much as possible, Christians need to search for ways to coexist in societies that hold such differences of values and norms. Problems arise because some Christians appeal to the norms and laws of society for cover, pretending that they are always identical to biblical norms; other Christians appeal to biblical norms, assuming that they are irreconcilable to all social values.

If we are looking for a single approach that "everyone" would find acceptable then we are talking of some utopian dream that obviously is not realistic here and now. A degree of tension is inevitable - especially so because of the two separate worlds in which Christians must live. But we need to try and make such tension tolerable. We don't do so by demanding a whole loaf of bread for ourselves, dismissing history and beliefs and regardless of how meeting such a demand leaves a host of others fearful and unsatisfied. Of course we are free to establish a new form of "justice" that could only perpetuate contentions and divisiveness - one whose norms will tend to dilute the Christianity faith into a populist but toothless and benign world view, rather than maintaining it as the salt of the earth.

Legal Marriages themselves are essentially partnerships, are they not? Legal Partnerships (or whatever we may call it), I see as another type of partnership that accommodates a variety of human situations the Christian definition and norms of marriage do not accommodate. It seeks to apply the Christian value of love to the human condition. it opens a door of accommodation and healing within society without redefining or confusing the biblical model of marriage.

Hedrick, just what is "the biblical model of marriage"? To give the subject its' due, wouldn't we need to know how Jews accommodated their laws and rituals to protect their property under Babylonian, Greek, Roman, etc, dominions? And how new Christians adapted to life while moving from pagan to Judaic rules?
I hate to suggest this, but maybe the GC could set up a working party to see if SdAs may accept marriages that have been solemnised under different traditions.

Question to Spectrum: What is the purpose of fostering this essay? Are you hurting that much for attention? Criticism of your writings? You have an excellent view of ethics and Christianity with dynamic and stimulating writers who contribute richly to what I call a library of progressive views. The argument that "this blog is a ground for free expression" would be a demagogue one, based kind of reactions you acquire/allow/block…

If you are going to use Genesis as the "model", then you have to allow brother marrying sister, and perhaps parent marrying child.

If you are going to allow later modification to this rule, then you are going to have to allow polygamy.

/Bevin

Emir Jay,

It could not have been said more clearly. Thank you.

Emir and bevin:
Thanks for your very revealing comments. I knew I was stepping into a hornets nest by daring to comment on the issue when I am not an authority on it. However, I should say that there is value in looking at the big picture, as i try to do, and be as coherent as possible, rather than incoherent or discordant. The tendency to pick and choose words or phrases, isolate them from the whole story, and proceed to debunk them one by one so that one can claim a sort of phony victory is not my style. So I am not inclined to offer much more than what I have already twice offered for constructive reflection.

And Bevin, while it does not have to take years of study to acquire a proper approach to biblical interpretation, it does require some hard work. If i began previous comments by assuming too much, (and i think i did), I apologize. We can make the Bible say anything we want, if our approach to it is fundamentally flawed. And that seems to be a huge part of the problem.

As one of the most respected student of biblical interpretation used to say, the Bible is not primarily a "code book of deeds to be done and sins to be shunned". It is essentially a revelation of the truth about God and his ideal for humankind; but it is couched in the context of the badly broken human condition and in human language. It is no longer a surprise to me that the Bible contains the gory record of incest, or polygamy, or murder and genocide for that matter. But am i to take those behaviors as what the scriptures are advocating?

It is the Bible in the entirety of its message and consistency of its broad themes, especially as culminated in Jesus Christ, that justifies its timeless truths - not just the record of human foibles and misbehavior, (which a merciful God graciously bypasses or pardons).

"If you don't have a marriage certificate from an appropriate secular authority, you are not married, period, no matter which religious authority claims you are. That is why arguments that, based on religious grounds, legal marriage should be heterosexual only have no validity. Religion simply does not have jurisdiction over the definition of marriage" (Emir Jay)

In France, whose separation of church and state (since 1905) is as rigid as that of the US, couples have to be wed by a representative of the state to be considered married. If they want church sanction, they can arrange for a church ceremony after the civil act. This seems to me the perfect solution for same-sex marriage also. It would allow conservative churches to deny same-sex couples the blessing of the church, but it would not keep the couples from getting wed in a civil ceremony.

What we're seeing in the US today is an attempt by religious conservatives to dictate to the state what it can and can't do.

I have never really seen that Christians in the USA are entirely in favour of separation of church and state. Noble in principle, to a degree, is what that attitude - but ultimately the idea that this is a christian nation has rarely left the consciousness of american christians and they desire and believe they deserve to have their ideology, preferences and prejudices preserved.

Royo, I love the title of your book at the end of your comments: "Hold it preacher!" What a great message to send out to all the official and self-styled preachers who are speaking out against equality and wanting the state to keep maintain church/their ideas and practices. Hold it preacher, holdi it! Speak about something you actually know something about!!

Royo, I love the title of your book at the end of your comments: "Hold it preacher!"

Thanks for your kind remarks. This is my third attempt to tell you thanks. The previous two disappeared. The site probably has a problem with your name. That's why this attempt doesn't include it.

Aage
I think your solution is reasonable and sensible. I doubt that it would eliminate the problem however in some activists minds. The Christians have been painted as "imposing" their religious views on the GLBT group but in my experience in S CA. and watching what has transpired in San Francisco, Ashland, Or. and other areas of the country(less frequently) it is equally as true that the "gay activists" are just as aggressively pushing their "agenda" and won't be totally satisfied until "homosexuality" is accepted by society as "normative". There are lots of "under employed lawyers" who are more than happy to push that agenda.
Just look what the California Dept. Education is trying to push in the public school system from kindergarden on up!!
Graeme
Re: Rome
You might want to pull out your history books and review the history of Nero, Caligula etc. The moral decline of Rome involved much more than just "sex" but many aspects of morality in society at large.
So much for the "Spectrum" break, now back to the house painting!!
All the best
Fred

Aage
Interesting article in tonight's newspaper on SB48 a bill sent to Ca. Governor J Brown for his signature that requires public schools in Ca. and the Ca. Board of Education to "adopt textbooks and other teaching materials that cover the contributions and roles of sexual minorities (specifically GLBT ) in the social studies curriculum" as of the school year 2013-14. It also would prohibit material that reflects "adversely on gays." The article states this is just another step in the "gay agenda".
As I was saying earlier....
Fred

Yes there is a gay agenda, good or bad. But as we straight, thus-saith-the-Lord believers observe it with horror, let's ask ourselves what role are we playing in driving it. How many of us, for instance, with our claims that marriage has always been about one man and one woman, will ever acknowledge the ethical evolution behind that norm, right there in the thus-saith-the-Lord? Take a closer look at it here.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10150216392859135&set=a.48763553...

Don't blame the Lawyers for the Anthony Verdict. That was handed down by a jury of citizens, probably because they learned science by watching a video instead of actually going out and doing it themselves.

I am confused by the term "protected status". If I knew what it meant I might be able to give examples.

Tom,

That was settled long ago in the Merikay vs. Pacific Press: The church institutions must abide by federal and state regulations if they receive federal or state aid and are, therefore, subject to the same laws as all other businesses. Only those that receive no government aid will not be forced to abide by non-discriminatory laws. (That's my two cents worth.)

As I understand it, Pacific Press was not devoted solely to denominational publications but also accepted non-SDA jobs, which allowed it to be covered by the same work laws.

Aage
As I'm sure you are aware there has already been a case of physicians being sued because they would not artificially inseminate a lesbian couple who wanted a child. This case is still going up the "appeals chain" as I understand it but so far the courts have ruled the physicians can't follow their "conscience" but must provide this service inspite of their "conscientious objection". The "special protected status" has to do with any violation of these laws can be declared a "hate" crime with much stiffer penalties. In Ashland, Oregon the group putting on a parade recently was sued because they didn't want a "gay pride activist group" to have an entry in the parade feeling that this was not in line with this parades theme. This is the type of "activism" that is increasing daily in California and elsewhere. True, this is not religious Armageddon but it is indicative of a much more aggressive stance by the "activists" that we as a society face and they aggressively use the legal system to promote their causes.
With the over abundance of underemployed lawyers they have plenty of time to sue "at will" and this is very detrimental to society at many levels. Obama put a large amount of money in the "stimulus package" to fund private attorneys (through the states AG's offices) for the purpose of promoting HIPAA lawsuits. (a direct political payback to the trial lawyers) We certainly don't need anymore "lawsuits" IMHO
Hope all is well in Virginia!! Watch out for the "steam heat"!!
Fred

The lawsuit against conservative Christian physicians for refusing artificial insemination to a lesbian patient concluded in a 2009 settlement, after the CA Supreme Court found in favor of the patient, Benitez. It's a fascinating case, so am attaching material about some of the details.

From article/source 1:
During the visit, Benitez said she mentioned to the doctor that she was a lesbian. Brody informed Benitez that she would help her with fertility treatments and could treat her after she became pregnant, but the obstetrician said her religious beliefs would keep her from performing artificial insemination on a homosexual. Brody said another doctor in the group would be able to handle the procedure.

Benitez said the doctor's remarks upset her, "but I appreciated her honesty." As long as she could get the care she required, Benitez said, she would tolerate the obstetrician's approach. Besides, Benitez said, she did not feel she had much choice, since Brody's medical group was the only one authorized by her health plan.

Court documents say Benitez saw the obstetrician for 11 months, receiving drug and hormone therapies as she tried to inseminate herself at home with sperm from a sperm bank. In April 2000, Dr. Brody performed diagnostic surgery on Benitez to determine her suitability for artificial insemination.

Benitez and the obstetrician arranged on July 5 for an intrauterine artificial insemination, which must be performed by a doctor, at the North Coast medical group, the lawsuit alleges. The suit states that on July 7, Brody's colleague, Douglas K. Fenton, telephoned Benitez and told her that because of the feelings of Brody and other staff at the medical office about Benitez's lesbianism, she could not be treated at the office.

http://articles.latimes.com/2003/feb/18/local/me-mom18

From article/source 2:

In court documents, the doctors claim they refused to treat Benitez because she is a single mother, not because she is a lesbian, but Benitez says the physicians originally told her that her sexual orientation was at issue. ... Jill Morrison, legal counsel to the National Women's Law Center, argues the distinguishing factor in the case is that the doctors refused to perform IVF for one patient, even though they provide the procedure to other women. "Usually, providers who object to certain services object to them for everyone," Morrison said, adding, "In this case, they don't object to the service, just the patient."

Writing for the [California Supreme] court, Justice Kennard said: “ …defendant physicians contend that exposing them to liability for refusing to perform the IUI medical procedure for plaintiff infringes upon their First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. Not so. As we noted earlier, California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act imposed on business establishments certain antidiscrimination obligations, thus precluding any such establishment or its agents from telling patrons that it will not comply with the Act.”

http://www.proudparenting.com/node/766

Roy Binghy wrote on 7/05/2011: "The church's tenets are for the church, not to be imposed on the wider society".

Your statement seems to caricature the church, putting it into a box distinct from and in opposition to society. What is "the" church anyway? And who comprises society? The fact is the church consist of people, and church members are very much a part of the complexity of human beings we call society. I would suspect that they, like others, have a legitimate role to play in the dynamic fabric of what you call "the wider society". Or do you think church members are to be excluded as cult-like aberrations and shape up or shut up? Is that not the attitude that led to the torture and execution of Christ and countless others - shape up, shut up, or off with their heads?

By their laws and through powerful law enforcement agencies governments do have the power to "impose" their will on the wider society. As far as I can tell churches in the modern era do not have such power; but I hope they can have a voice of reason and contribute to peace-making and justice in society - without surrendering integrity.

Keith
Thanks for the update on the Dutch church! I believe you might be reading a little to much into the current discussion about the USA SDA church and what is going on in the larger Christian community in the USA. Things are not as "grim" at the local church level in my experience. There are some very judgemental folks in the church at large as there are in society at large but I believe love and tolerance are on the increase within the church from my vantage point.
All the best
Fred

The change in social mores is much more rapid that some might wish. Think of how a few short years ago all children born of single mothers were hidden and outcast and their children were considered illegitimate or bastards.

Today, there are more children born to single mothers than married. A rapid change in a decade, demonstrating that when people are exposed more to different strata in society they are made less uncomfortable. Of course there is one
thing that will change most anyone: to discover that your child, your brother or sister, aunt, uncle or cousin or even a friend whom you care about, is gay. The realization that the gays are not a different breed of humans, but just like you and me. By coming out of the closet, gays have shown that they only want what everyone wants: to live in respectability and not hidden as outcasts.

So Fred, why should the city be allowed to exclude GLBT people from the parade? Why should a gov't, using tax dollars collected from the public, put on a parade but then turn around and refuse to allow a certain segment of its tax paying public to participate?

The city is well within its rights to insist on certain behavior and dress codes from participants, but why should it be allowed to exclude GLBT people based on no reason other than the fact that some people don't want to be reminded that GLBT people exist and live in our communities? They wanted to march and carry a rainbow flag! What is so objectionable about that that the city would have the right to exclude them?

It used to be acceptable to think that GLBT people are so damaging to society that they need to remain invisible if they have to exist. We could hide our children from any exposure and fear them from afar. Those days, thankfully, are over. The assumption that they do not have a rightful place in society is fading fast although, unfortunately, will linger longest among the religious.

Fred,
After some further investigation and a consult with my city attorney husband, I agree that you are correct if the parade organizers were a private organization. I was under the impression that it was city organized which might be true but probably isn't. So yes, if they were a private organization they would have the right to exclude.

However, I still have to disagree with your idea that it is the GLBT people who are trying to make it a political event or statement. By excluding them, the parade organizers are making a very strong statement that they wish for GLBT people to not be included in their community. By insisting that GLBT people be hidden and invisible, they are the ones turning it into something. If GLBT people quietly accepted such treatment, they could never be seen as something different than the bizarre stereotypes many people have. By marching along with the PTA and the rotary club and the fire department, they aren't making a political statement, they are simply joining in with their community. I understand that some people do not want that to happen, but I think it's a shame.

I guess it comes down to whether one thinks GLBT people should be a part of society or not. If you don't, then you see any effort on the part of GLBT people to be considered normal as some sort of agenda. If you think GLBT people should be just as much a part of our society as heteros, then you are left scratching your head.

Instead of having a "Christian" argument/discussion over the morality of homosexual marriage, why not outlaw divorce instead? The divorce rate of Adventists is the same as that of non-Adventists, which speaks poorly of the so-called "morality" that Adventists love to preach to others, but at least half of them just based on this one statistic do not practice what they preach. Now if we were to add how many Adventists have pre-marital sex and do any number of other "immoral" activities, I think SDA's would rate right down there with the rest of the world. I believe Matthew 7:3 here applies very well when it says,

"Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"

This is my first time on this site....from what I have seen so far, I doubt that I will be returning. If this is what Adventists call a Christian site, I'd hate to see what you call a site that spreads prejudice and hatred toward a group of people who you don't understand or with whom you don't agree.

Natalie

Reply to: [Fred Eastman - Sun, 07/10/2011 - 08:27 ]: “…from my point of view the constant drumbeat of gay activism is over the top for the community and is such an 'in your face attitude' that it is counterproductive in the long run…”
=
I agree. I am close enough to the San Francisco GLBT scene to know that there is still a lot of unnecessary behavior that can be described as exhibiting a counterproductive 'in your face attitude.'
=
In communities that are just waking up to the existence of a view on this or any specific subject, there may be more excuse for some loud behavior to call the subject to public attention. But I hope that as public acceptance grows, behavior of the group will also change, toward greater social 'blending in.'

Hi Tim,

Thank-you for your gentle tone. Your last point was mostly incorrect. Perhaps there was more you were trying to say about how biological children make a family that I wasn't sensitive to.

One is open to the possibility (not certainty) of the creation of life and family, and the other is not.

1) Same-sex couples can create family, so you are at least half-wrong. Lesbians can be artificially inseminated and create life--the half you got right is only half right.

2) We don't need more people giving birth on this planet, while we probably do need more stable couples adopting children.

Brightest blessings,

Elaine

When you say that Congresswoman Michelle Bateman's psychologist husband has converted homosexuals through Bible study and prayer are you talking about spiritual conversion or change in sexual orientation? I certainly believe in spiritual conversion, but from own experience psychology that promises orientation change from gay to straight is dangerous. Been there done that. All it did for me was cause me to have a nervous breakdown.

Having to hear ignorant homophobia that relegates gays to a moral trash heap on one hand, and over the top gay activism that is in your face on the other is very stressful to me. There are times I wish this ongoing conflict would just go away.

Hi Natalie,

Your comment was spot on. Please forgive those who perpetuate hatred out of ignorance and misunderstanding. That's not what Jesus has called his children to do. Bigotry and hatred is the culture of Babylon, love and inclusiveness is the grace of the Kingdom. Let us all pray for more grace and less judgment of our fellows.

Of course, Jesus did say (Luke 6:37) that we must judge others or we ourselves will be judged. This follows Luke 6:36 which reminds us to judge harshly, just as God is a harsh judge. It parallels Matthew 5:48 where we are exhorted to be perfect as God is perfect. From these texts it is possible to infer that we must always judge the imperfections in others so that we do not have to feel the pain of our own imperfections. (Yes, I see the irony, even as I write it. Please! Judge me harshly!!!)

Brightest blessings,

In my humble observation and opinion, whatever outcome there is with our federal government's decision with gay marriage, will give us clearer understanding of the inevitability of "Sunday Law's." No matter who a person is or what they practice there should always be kindness and compassion, but compromise truth for error is foolishiness. Growing up I did a lot of bad things, got in trouble in school, and did things that my parents STRONGLY disagreed with, but they still loved me. God's love should move us to REPENTANCE of SIN not the ACCEPTANCE of SIN. As SDA we recognize two institutions that God established at Creation: Marriage and the Sabbath. The only two things humanity was allowed to take with them out of paradise after the fall: Marriage and the Sabbath. What is being spiritually attacked today, and is being looked upon as a civil matter: Marriage...what is the next issue that will be inevitable?