those were the days

Drudged up just today:
http://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/Poster-Couple-For-Gays-Rights-Divor...

people will be people
everybody should have an equal right to be wrong
and now that its over, who gets the alimony?
will the lawyers win again?
(3hree of 100's of PG-13 comments)

I'm happy to be part of celebrations of commitment and love. I have no desire to prevent or meddle in friendships and unions where love, kindness and honoring of each other is at the heart.

Civil rights issues should NEVER have been put before voters in the first place. The public did not vote to free slaves, nor did they vote to allow women to vote. This notion of allowing the voters to decide what "equal" means, is ridiculous.

David,
I remember a Civil War and a fight for Women’s Suffrage had something to do with those Amendments to the Constitution. And I'm proud to report that I was one of the 1400+ Adventists that signed the petition to repeal Prop 8.

It saddens and profoundly disappoints me that the California branch of Religious Liberty, an Adventist organization that advertises itself as “defending religious freedom and human rights”, announced its support of Prop 8 without consulting me personally or the other Adventists it claims to represent.

You now find yourself complaining about a legal decision you don’t like. Now, the shoe is on the other foot. Deal with it!

"As it was in the days of Sodom, . . ." The State of California (and the USA) is sinking further into the abyss. And we wonder why Calif. is in such financial straits.

Marraige is a rite or sacriment of the Church. The state should valid a civil union with all the property rights that attend there to. I strongly believe that the institution of marraige is God designed and God blessed. Same sex coupling are Civil unions and the invention of man. Therefore within the realm of the state, not the Church.

I have watched next door as a civil union dissolved--the wronged party had no rights. Was kicked out and had to live in a shelter until she died--where as she have sold her business and placed her entire net worthy into the house and pool. Yet the property was in the name of her partner.

Tom Z

Exactly, "Which part of Sodom is this proposition encouraging?"

The current G&L issue has nothing to do with Sodom. This "Sodom" argument is just playing words to detour from the real issue.
Accusing all G&L of promiscuity is easy, and in many cases unfair. It's just passing judgment without knowing any facts about the person. (Not much of a genuine "Christian" behavior anyway).

I am not defending any behavior that is against common sense and morals. Immoral behavior occurs very often among straight people as well. I just think that our society has been confronted with this 3rd gender that mother Nature came up with, and instead of dealing with the issue in a proper manner, some want to just throw the "Sodom Rock" on them. Not fair, not right, very insensitive.

Churches in general have failed to approach this issue with seriousness and responsibility. And many families struggle with it because they have cases of their own, and the only thing they get from their church is.... nothing!

It didn't happen to me (two girls and a boy), but sometimes I wonder what would I have felt like if one of them came to me and told me they "felt different" about their sexuality. This is also why I try to be sensitive to those who have to deal with such a reality.

George, I can't sit back and let your comment go unchallenged. You say that people with same-sex attraction are "BORN" that way. The way you say that is as if it is a closed case. That is not true. There are plenty of professionals in the mental health field - psychiatrists, psychologists, professional counselors, etc, who believe that same-sex attraction is not genetic, but the result of other factors. Show us the peer-reviewed scientific studies that conclusively prove that SSA is conclusively linked to a gene. That study does not exist. In addition, while there is a VERY vocal group of gays that go around pounding the "born that way" drum, there is a quiet group of people who have dealt with SSA in their lives and are living among us quietly the way God created them, as heterosexual men and women.

Folks, don't believe George's PC untruths. Truth is rarely popular when it calls people to self control, self denial, and change. Majorities don't always define truth either. Just look at so mamy stories in the Bible where the majority was on the wide road to destruction. Go to www.narth.com to read the other side.

@Ain't so: "That is not true. There are plenty of professionals in the mental health field - psychiatrists, psychologists, professional counselors, etc, who believe that same-sex attraction is not genetic, but the result of other factors."

The same classes of professionals also have plenty of people who believe the opposite. I am one of those professionals (Licensed Clinical Psychologist - CA). I have been dealing with people of all kinds for decades, and I can assure you that mother Nature has more to do with it than you are saying.

In regard to, "Folks, don't believe George's PC untruths," I wonder what kind of training/profession/experience do you have in the mental health area to be talking so loud and proudly abut it? Please clarify, so that I may (or not) respect your expert opinion.

And, in this country we as people actually don't have that much power. Even if the majority votes for a certain President, it may be the minority who actually elect him/her.

Al Gore had 400,000 votes more than Bush... It speaks for itself.

The 9th has been overturned so many times that it is trying to set a record. Homosexual activists will not rest until everyone accepts, not just tolerates, their lifestyle. There is no such thing as "gay marriage." It doesn't exist. Once marriage loses any meaning then anything goes. Polygamists can't wait.

Legally the people of California amended their Constitution. They did nothing wrong. Just as Gore lost legally in the electoral college. This is our system. There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows for "gay marriage." There is no right to "gay marriage."

Homosexuals can live together and make contracts about property, health, and inheritance without calling it marriage or civil union. But that is not enough. They crave acceptance and demand it. In the end they will punish anyone who does not bow to this idol.

[Bizarre. Fr. Jim appears to be sinking deeply into a paranoid vision of sexuality. When's the last time he talked to a married LGBT couple? I recommend he experience that reality before opining so wildly. —A.C.]

Jim "Homosexual activists will not rest until everyone accepts, not just tolerates, their lifestyle. There is no such thing as "gay marriage." It doesn't exist. Once marriage loses any meaning then anything goes. Polygamists can't wait."

Often I don't agree with you but in this situation you are correct. Even ignoring the religious aspect there is a sociological aspect to same sex aberrant behavior which hardly anyone wishes to address. No kid should have two fathers or two mothers -- it is totally against human inclination and against the welfare of our society. Nor should citizens have to foot the bill for any of the costs of same sex aberrant behavior.

It's a shame that some professing SDAS have misrepresented both reasonable sociological aspects and religious aspects by supporting the repeal of Prop 8.

Finally, should a group of 3 men should have the right to strike down a referendum which represents the wishes of the majority? Dangerous!!

George, you would believe or disbelieve truth based on my degree or choice of my field of study? That sounds a lot like the Pharisees and Saducees in Jesus' time who wouldn't believe him because he did not belong to their club and was home schooled. Truth is truth and stands on its own, irregardless of who supports of doesn't support it.

I'm a person who has experienced SSA and healed from it. I thank God for the few Godly counselors who helped my see and tear down the barriers that kept me from being the real person that God meant me to be. I'm in a great place now.

Visiting a loved one in the hospital. Taking the kids to school. Hiking a favorite path through the woods. Volunteering with Habitat for Humanity. Helping a family member with their remodeling project. Mowing the neighbor's lawn when they are away. Voting. Performing a spoken word and musical celebration of the civil rights struggle of black americans. Reading the paper. Writing poetry. Ministering in Seventh-day Adventist churches. Staying up with a sick nephew. Going to graduations. Putting up a christmas tree. Doing scientific research. Teaching. Praying. Loving.

These is the aberrant behavior of LGBT people I know.

What a disgusting lifestyle.

Wow.

Two consenting adults desire to legalize a monogamous relationship and have civil society recognize that relationship as a matter of law.

Yep.

That is just soooooo unconstitutional.

Alex,

You're free to do what you want with this blog; however, this practice appears to be unique to Spectrum. It could be perceived as invasive among other things. It appears most people have accepted your strange habit though, so if that's the case then there's really nothing to complain about. We don't have to leave a comment here if we don't want you butting into our space.

Trickle Down Immorality = Crime and Clergy Connection

My friend, who would know better than you about zero credibility.

I feel that some of the editorial comments are falling into the area of opinion, rather than holding conversation to a specific standard, and on that basis I would like to see them made as a separate observation rather than an intrusion into the original post.

AC, everything I said was orthodox Christianity. Is that now bizarre? I have certainly counseled those afflicted with same sex desires and attempted to assist them in living a chaste life of holiness. Wow, how weird is that! I recommend the group RC Courage.

As for paranoia. A Canadian bishop was brought before a so-called "human rights" court and accused of saying that homosexual acts were objectively sinful according to the Catholic faith. He defied them and dared them to proceed. They backed down...for now. After Prop 8 there were assaults of Christians in the streets and acts of arson against churches.

It is not homophobic to disagree with "gay marriage" and to note the threat that it poses to faith and family.

I agree with billman and bargain zero.

The greatest danger to the institution of marriage are heterosexuals!

But of course we'd rather scapegoat others not like us!

Carlitas first of all it's not unconstitutional to use faith in crafting policy, it's unconstitutional if the government infringes on or enforces religious practice, and it's unconstitutional for government to favor a particular religious establishment, but it would be false to interpret the constitution to read that faith should not effect our policies. Secondly what's the secular reason for any relationship to be called marriage? This is not a case of homosexuals being forbidden from doing anything, they can have their own ceremonies and call it whatever they want; this is a matter of whether the government should actively endorse such unions. Doesn't that mean the government should have a reason to endorse such a relationship rather then just no reason to condemn it? If you don't think the government has a place discriminating about what relationships are more favored than others then you should favor the government getting out of marriage; because as long as the government calls some relationships marriage and other relationships not marriage the government is making such a discrimination. I could be convinced that the government should get out of marriage, but as long as they're in the business of making value judgments about relationships, I prefer those values to be Christians ones, and there's no such thing as neutral secular values.

Billman, I am not looking to normalize anything. I accept that men and women marrying is "normal" standard, whatever you want to call it. A small but meaningful minority in this country deserve the same protections for their families as opposite gender couiples get when they marry. In this country either all laws dealing with families need to be re-written to under civil unions for all, or GLBT couples could be extended the same rights marriage as stright couples. The latter is possible, the former doesn't seem to be. I hear no groundswell of support to separate the state (civil union) and church (marriage).

What is a marriage in the US and its states after all? Isn't it a civil union with the name of marriage which affords couples and their families thousands of rights and responsibilities? It isn't a religious institution as it appears in law.

The secular purpose doctarine.

The secular purpose doctrine is part of the Supreme Court’s test
for violations of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment.
In the case in which the test was announced, Lemon v.
Kurtzman, the Court held that in order to withstand an Establishment
Clause challenge, “First, the statute must have a secular
legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be
one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute
must not foster an excessive governmental entanglement with religion.”

AC,

It would be nice if Spectrum had nested comments like, say, Reddit. But since it doesn't, it seems odd that you would use your editor ability to advance your opinions (which I mostly agree with, especially when it comes to David Read) over others.

I say, provide that capability to everyone.

billman

no down vote from me...."let them have civil unions" yes, let all have civil unions...get marriage out of the legal language and have it be something recognized by one's spiritual/social communities.

If a particular church does not want to recognize two people as married (for any reason), that is their choice, as long as they follow laws regarding people joined in civil unions.

And if you want to be in a church that that recognizes the types of marriages you agree with, join one that is that way....or be part of one that doesn't and be patient while you work tirelessly swimming upstream. I would personally opt for the former...just makes more sense to me to join a like-minded community.

Bill Cork - given your comment above, I presume you are not a betting man....but I'll bet you 10,000 "Romneys" that the Supreme Court declines to consider this case. My hunch is the conservative justices do not trust Stephens on this issue, and would rather have this "cancer" stay contained in California for the time being.

I think what was meant above is - can two judges "thwart democracy and [bigotry]" - because the "biology" of sexual development would not be thwarted by this decision, it would be recognized.

Well done Phil - and precisely why I think the Supreme Court won't touch it. It's scope is limited to California and would not apply to any other state unless they too had once had legalized gay marriage, then taken it away. I am not aware of any other states or jurisdictions where that is the case.

I think Evans v. Romer was wrongly decided, but the question is, since it was Kennedy's decision and he's the swing vote, would Kennedy decide Perry v. Brown the same way.

He might, but I think not, and here's why: The non-discrimination ordinances passed in some Colorado municipalities were lawfully passed by the governments of those municipalities. Then a statewide referendum nullified those ordinances, without a good reason (the implicit reason being that the larger state disapproved of those municipal measures on moral grounds).

In California, by contrast, the "right" to same-sex marriage was confected by the state Supreme Court; it was pure judicial activism. It was never passed into law through the normal democratic process. After the egregious judicial modification of California marriage law, Californians lawfully amended their constitution by referendum at the first opportunity, to make clear and explicit that their constitution does not require same-sex marriage. Justice Reinhardt (one of the most liberal judges in America) is essentially arguing that once judicial activism has found or invented a new civil right (or in this case changed the definition of marriage), then it can never be changed back by the people acting through normal democratic methods, because of Evans v. Romer. Gotcha! Ha ha.

This is egregious bootstrapping of judicial activism: once an activist court has changed the definition of marriage, then no popular vote can ever change it back. I think this might be more than Justice Kennedy can stomach, notwithstanding Reinhardt's flattery of basing his opinion on Kennedy's opinion in Evans v. Romer.

The irony is that it is becoming increasingly clear that judicial lawlessness isn't necessary to get same-sex marriage enacted. It has already been signed into law last June in New York, and has passed both houses of the legislature and will be signed into law in Washington state. It is possible to change minds and lawfully change statutes. The proponents of same sex marriage disserve their own cause by seeking to short-circuit the consensus building process with judicial activism. They would do better to persuade and build consensus, and change the law through the normal democratic process.

Interesting how many people have objected to Alexander Carpenter's editorial comments - somebody has even suggested this is a "social" site!

Personally I'm happy to see some more "active" moderation of this site (and yes, I'm someone who's also had my comments modified and/or deleted by Alexander on occasion :)

People, we all need to recognise and respect that this discussion board is part of Spectrum/Adventist Forums Assn. Personally I think the individuals whose comments have been edited on this thread have been given a LOT of rope. If you don't like the way the game is being umpired, take your bat and ball, and go play somewhere else! (Or preferably, suck it up, stay, and play by the rules :)

This issue is nothing to do with a specific activity, and everything to do with imposing one's beliefs on others.

The ONLY issue here is whether the a benefit to society (that of giving special treatment to some pairs of adults who happen to appear to be male & female on the surface) exceeds the cost to society of treating individuals unevenly.

In order to give these pairs this preferential treatment, we have to tax all the people who don't qualify more, we have to bill them more, we have to set up and enforce specific laws and regulations.

It is strange that conservatives like David Read, who normally argue against taxing everyone to give money to the poor, are in favor of taxing everyone to give money to these special pairs - pairs who, by the way, often do not need the money!

The Ninth Circuit decision is, in my opinion, correct. The cost of the discrimination does not cover the highly dubious gains.

I have an idea - let's define marriage as a legal contract between sexually active, heterosexual, monogamous, pairs of adults who have never had sexual intercourse with any other person, or engaged in masturbation, or looked at pornography, who have at least one child under the age of 18. Let us require them to post a bond of $100,000 that they forfeit if they break this contract in any way.

/Bevin

Those who want no restraints have taken over the language. To be gay used to mean to be happy and carefree. Not anymore. To be married has always meant the union of a man and a woman. It has been shown that societies function best when normal family relations are maintained--i.e., a husband, a wife, and children.

There is another factor. If the definition of marriage is broadened to mean two people of any sex, the expense to society (in terms of spousal benefits, etc.) will increase dramatically. And, once we've decided that marriage can mean something other than what it has always meant, where do we draw the line? There are polygamists groups out there just waiting for same sex "marriage" to be legitimized, so they can take the next step. If marriage cannot be denied to same sex couples (because it's not fair to prevent 2 people who love each other from getting married), then why should it be denied to 3 people, or 4, or more? This is a slippery slope that I think we should avoid.

Of course, within the SDA church the powers that be would want to come up with levels of marriage. Perhaps and "ordained marriage" which is for straight couples and a "commissioned marriage" which is for same sex couples.

Anonymouswon,

LOL, :)

Bevin,
Heterosexual couples give something to society that homosexual couples cannot. Children. It is therefore legitimate to favor them over the other. To say that homosexual couples can raise children the same as heterosexual couples overlooks the different qualities that a mother and a father bring to the table. You can't have two mommies or two daddies. The roles are different and a child needs both.
This country is embarking on a grand experiment with the basic unit, the family, that I believe will end in shipwreck.
The idea of civil union which is less than marriage leads to a lessening of marriage. Why get married when we can get a civil union that would be less stringent?
Besides if you read the literature of gays about a decade or two ago, you would realize that they are out to destroy marriage. They are succeeding. See the book, Straight and Narrow.

Shepherd: "It is not an issue of discrimination, but of societal benefit."

Too bad many do not realize that that is one of the issues apart from theological considerations.

Allen, none of the homosexual couples that I know seem to be all that interested in destroying marriage. They seem to be more concerned about little matters like health insurance, school fees, saving for a house, and worrying about their families and their jobs.

Truth is, you probably don't even know which of many of the people you come in contact with on a day to day basis are gay.

/Bevin

I tell my gay son that I know he didn't choose to be gay. Why? Because throughout his entire life he has consistently chosen to do what is right. Given the way some of you talk about homosexuals, why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to be one?

Could my son have changed? Change, I believe, occurs through will power. Some have lived as homosexuals, then through sheer will power have "changed". But far more have lived as heterosexuals through sheer will power,l although they are not. They have begged God to change them. Some have lost their faith in God when this didn't happen after 30 or 40 years of earnest prayer and counseling. Many have taken their lives in despair because they could not "change".

Today there are more and more gay people who have found that being honest about who they are is best for them. They believe the words that Del Delker used to sing: "God loves you right now, just they way you ARE." They are devoted Christians / Adventists, active in their churches when given a chance.

I feel many of you speak without adequate thought. You have not given yourself a chance to know a gay Adventist. You judge quickly!

BTW, thorough study of the Bible shows that the story of Sodom had nothing to do with homosexuality. Ellen White did not even say it did. Read what she DID say about it. Speaking of "what the Bible says", please read Ezekiel 16:49 which does say what the sin of Sodom was: "Now THIS was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy." How, after reading that, can you ever again call a homosexual a "sodomite"?

To those of you who speak of marriage having existed since the beginning of this world. Go back and study the accurate history of marriage, and then come back and say that again. Marriage began as a legal contract around the 12th century and was not a sacrament of the church. That is why in Europe even today there are separate civil/legal and church ceremonies to be married. Only in America have the two become intermingled. From what jurisdiction did the great people told about in the OT have a marriage license? From nowhere, because civil marriage did not exist! Yes, God's "original plan" brought a man and a woman together. You accept much today that isn't according to the original plan. Is that then a horrendous sin?

@David Taylor: ...why would anyone in their right mind CHOOSE to be one?"

David, today I was thinking of it. And thought about posting this very question tonight. For my surprise, when IO checked it out here you had already done it.

Yes, which straight person in their right mind would CHOOSE to not get into a traditional heterosexual relationship? Who would choose to refuse the pleasures of an heterosexual relationship?

I can see that you have a better and clearer understanding of this issue than many of those "saints" on this blog that throw mud and rocks on others in a very insensitive way - just because they have no clue of what they are saying. Those "moralists" usually are compensating for some of their own failures (sins) and keep just judging and stoning others. (In the name of God, usually...)

But let it go brother, just keep moving forward. And yes, please share your thoughts and perspectives here, because first of all you have great authority just because you have this issue in your own family. Don't be ever discouraged by insensitive people.

IMO, Truthwave with each and every posts further illustrates his(?) complete and total disconnect with the teachings of Jesus. If he lives his life with the same bile and vitriol as his posts on Spectrum, I can only feel sorry for those that must associate with him from day to day. For me, it's much more simple. I can hit or click on .

TruthWave: You are proof texting. Read the WHOLE passage. Leviticus 20:13? Proof positive? Pardon me, but have all you men carefully observed Leviticus 20:9 or 10 (go read it)? How many people who have committed adultery have you seen put to death? Does your congregation do that? I'm sure there are adulterers there. Should we not be consistent in the application of the Biblical laws?

Besides, you're off the track completely. This discussion is not about whether homosexuality is right or wrong. It is about not imposing our religious beliefs on others. That's called religious liberty. An old Adventist standard. That is, I believe, the intent of "Adventists Against Prop 8".

Would you like zealous Christians to enact a constitutional amendment prohibiting you from worshiping on Sabbath because that is for "family values"? What is the difference between that and your zeal to enact laws prohibiting gay marriage? You can't have it both ways. You both think you are right as "good" Christians.

Do unto others, Jesus said. So you make sure laws prohibit marriage, and others can in turn enact laws prohibiting you from worshiping on Sabbath.

Be consistent. And be careful about messing with the parent of a gay child. ;-) Out of love many of us study extensively to understand our children and their relationship with God.

Thank you, David Taylor!

TruthWave,

You've quoted Leviticus 20:13, however you haven't addressed my comment above about about how this text is addressed only to men and not to women. It would seem there is no prohibition preventing women from having relationships with other women. How do you explain this? How can it be ok for women, but so wrong for men?

It is distressing to read comments which shows lack of compassion, understanding nor desire to wear the same shoes of those who are LGBT. It is distressing to read comments of those who throw up texts in black and white from the Scriptures purporting to be the defence of the status quo not caring that there are other folks who are also entitled to dignity, respect, companionship and love in the only way they can express love. The same people who will bend over backward to offer the hand of friendship, help, support to those who are in need. The message from the gospel is this, if you treat people who are different from yourselves with indifference, blasting them with bible texts with bias and prejudiced opinions, then you are treating Christ the same way. It is not for you or anyone to judge, but God.
I know too well how each Sabbath as I worship God with all my brothers and sisters, that if they knew the real me, I'm not accepted and loved. I know too well, the pain of being celibate and being lonely and putting up with the fact that others who claim to be changed or are rigid with the concept of being celibate are very sadly lonely and missing companionship, happiness in their lives because they believe the same rules and dogmas as those who believe that LGBT folks need to change.
Only God knows the heart and He understands and cares.

Which marriage is Biblical?
http://skepoet.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/300981_211527202248619_100001...

I agree Horatio, it is wrong to label people who don't support marriage rights for same sex couples as homophobes. Absolutly.

By the same token, it is wrong to label gay men and lesbians as: Degenerate, unfaithful, bad parents, morally weak, a drain son society, diseased, etc. I have heard all these labels here on these forums.

@Horatio: "...those who adhere to the Biblical model for relationships..."

It's sad that those are the ones who always throw mud and rocks on people who are, let say, "different from the traditional genders" or from the majority.

Many times I have thought, "What would life had been like if I were born gay?"
Those accusers and finger-pointers (exactly, the "saints who adhere to the Biblical model") should consider this also. What would you feel - YOU - if you were born gay?

Please don't come up with the theory that people are not born "different" from the two traditional genders, that it's just their "choice.". May be many are not, but it's now well known that there are genetic formations linked to the gay type of people.

How would YOU feel if you were gay?
How would you speak if you had a gay son on daughter?

Would you write, too, an insensitive comment like this: "...heinous nature of their sin before a holy God before they will even feel the need to repent of their sinful lifestyle,..." - where it is obvious that he, or she, (Truth_Waived) assumes that the whole LBGT community exists by choice, without even being fair acknowledging that there is a genetic component to it?

I mean, how low can some people go in their arrogance, lack of human sensitivity, and religious delusions?

I don't pretend to stand in judgement on this issue. In a secular society (government), I can't think of a valid reason why a gay couple should not enjoy the same rights and protections that I enjoy as a heterosexual. As a Christian, I believe that the Bible does not endorse the lifestyle of homosexuality. But to suggest that it is a greater sin than others is flawed.

I once attended a summer arts colony in the mountains of North Carolina. Assuming that a bunch of liberal types were coming to town, 50 churches took out a full page ad in the local paper and signed their names to it. It read, "We the Churches of North and South Carolina stand against these sins against the Almighty God - homosexuality, bestiality, pedophilia, etc." It listed a bunch of terms I'd never heard of...about twenty or so in all. Interestingly, pre-marital sex, lust, and adultery failed to make it on the list.

I know that Spectrum is a forum geared to Adventist issues and people. I get it that there are those in our fold who want the denomination to take a stand for homosexuals. Ironically, one of the things that I respected early on in my exploration of the SDA Church is the fact that it seemed to stay neutral on this issue. To date (maybe I've just been lucky) I have never heard an Adventist preacher focus on the egregious sin of homosexuality...nor have I heard them pushing the idea that the Bible takes no position and so we should be fully open to homosexuality within our church. The Central SDA Church in San Francisco took the beautiful position of welcoming all LGBS people into their congregation with the aim of giving them a place to get to know God. They went out of their way to incorporate these people into the ministries of the church (as opposed to ignoring or ostracizing them.) When I asked about this intentional choice, some members of the congregation explained that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict and transform people of any and all sin.

" When I asked about this intentional choice, some members of the congregation explained that it is the job of the Holy Spirit to convict and transform people of any and all sin."

What a contrast with some "judges" we have here at Spectrum. "Our judges" take the matter in their own hands and crush those "sinners" for good.

I wish those "saint judges" would allow God to deal with His creation at His designed time. We didn't create anybody, God did! Let Him deal with the issue, I am sure He knows how to manage the situation in the right way.

By the way, He will deal properly with everyone's "situation" including those who are addicted to pride, those who lie, those who covet, those who steal time from their employers texting personal messages during work time, those who are bad parents, those who are bad children and neglect their parents, those who "think" about adultery, those who are actually adulterers, those who are arrogant, those who are unkind to others, those who exploit their employees, those who preach modesty to women but wear expensive golden watches and ties, those who discriminate against other people, those who cheat(ed) in school, those who didn't pay right taxes, those who borrowed money and never paid back, those who......

I don't think I need to continue the list; at this time probably everyone already found his/her own category..... and quit reading my list anyway.... (reminds me a certain story in the Bible...)

God knows how to deal with HIS creation, He doesn't need "our saint judges" to help Him!!!

This is not a commentary on the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality or of gay marriage. It is merely a commentary on what I feel might be the poverty of argument made by the above opposers of Prop 8.

Is religious liberty really the issue here? As noble as that might sound. What exactly is the particular religion and/or religious belief inherent in the wishes of the LGBT community that they should be allowed to marry? I thought the desire to be married had to do with the rights that come with marriage. If those rights are afforded civilly, then what really is left to desire except the redefinition of the word "marriage"?

Can someone, please clarify? Is anyone's religion really being trampled upon here? What Is LGBT's religion, and if there is a religious code in this community, how is their religious liberty being threatened here? Isn't this just a wish for acceptance rather than a wish to practice religion?

It would be helpful if those who oppose Prop 8 could point out the religious aspect of their argument, and what liberty is being threatened in the LGBT community. Or am I missing something? It wouldn't be the first time I don't have a handle on issues, so I await someone's clarification, if there is any.

I don't think that Proposition 8 is a religious issue at all. It is civil. But as Christians, we must vote our conscience. If we can truly live two separate lives (secular/religious), then we have worked ourselves into a form a schizophrenia. Therefore I think it is valid to consider how our religious understanding of the issue of homosexuality intersects with the civil question of equality.

That said, as alternate sexual relationships become more normative in our secular society, it will become increasingly difficult for religious institutions to not take sides. Thus far, Adventists have largely remained on the sidelines.

In the annals of jurisprudence, relgious dogma has no place in determining what is constitutional and what is not. To sit here and berate homosexuals as reprobates, as many have, is not the point in this discussion over the legal ramifications of marriage. In fact to fall back on that argument actually weakens the legal arguments to uphold marriage as between one man and one woman.

This issue about same sex marriage can not be addressed as an equality issue because in reality it is a definition issue. Proposition 8 clearly defined marriage as between one man and one woman, no mention was made of denying a right. Two people of the same sex are disqualified from marrying each other because by definition they don't qualify. If you tamper with the definition of marriage, what is next, polygamy? Do we revisit the time when theterritory of Utah was prohibited to become a state until it banned polygamy?

Gays have every much a right to marry, someone of the opposite sex, as does anyone else. I'm gay and I have been married to a woman for nearly 30 years. The church can have religious reasons to ban same sex marriage, but in the courts must decide this issue on an other basis. Those supporting Prop 8 had better shift their arguments to a civil position or they are sure to lose legal standing for upholding it.

I am for less homophobia and more compassion to gays. But at the same time, I think that legalizing same sex marriage will open up a legal can of worms that will undermine the religous liberty of religious institutions and individuals than run afoul of those who are using this agenda for more than securing gay rights, but are looking to punish those who do not fall in line once they are in the legal drivers seat. There are already some court cases that indicate this is the direction the momentum is going.

Tom, your argument makes much more sense to me, especially coming from one who is gay. I like the way you think. The opposers on the video would do well to consult with you before making any more baseless pronouncements.

You did say: "Those supporting Prop 8 had better shift their arguments to a civil position or they are sure to lose legal standing for upholding it." I think that statement applies equally to those opposing Prop 8. Don't you think?

Even if we concede the argument that homosexuals are born that way, so what?

I wasn't born monogamous, but God says to I am to only have sex with my wife. The fact is, I was born impatient, prone to outbursts of anger, selfish, self-centered, unforgiving, etc., as all people are. And yet we cherish and affirm the opposite of all those things and teach our children to move away from their born-that-way behavior.

What will the Adventists cheerleaders who celebrate Prop 8’s invalidation do when NAMBLA (man/boy love association) say “hey, what about us? We are born this way.” Are you going to come to their defense and claim it to be a “religious liberty” issue?

Where do we draw the line? A non-emotional response would be appreciated.

tg

"Thomson, unless I am misreading you, I agree with your point. I don't think religious liberty is the issue to be considered.

Ah, George, my bad. You were not misreading me. I was misreading you. I thought you were saying that the opposers in the video were not making it about religious liberty. Okay, so we are on the same page on that score after all. .

Another disgrace to Adventism....I don't know which is worse....this or the horrible Pro-Choice stand the Church takes?

There is litle "black and white" any longer...it is mostly "gray and black".

I'm glad I don't believe that the dead can know what is going on, because if they did, our Pioneers would be disconnecting themselves from the name Seventh Day Adventist as fast as they could.

Here's why this is about religious liberty.

No, it's not about defending the religion of the homosexuals. It's about them wanting freedom from Christianity.

Unfortunately many Christians are falling right into this trap by persecuting homosexuals. It's not about freedom for their religion, it's about freedom from our religion.

That people feel the need to want freedom from Christianity is a sad commentary on both them, and on the state of modern Christianity as it exists in America. But then, Ellen White does prophecy that American Christianity will become beast-like, and I don't think anyone can really disagree with that right now.

If I remember correctly it does say in the book of Isiah that in the last days 'seven women shall say to one man etc". So prophecy it self fortells the restoration of polygamy in the true church.

While seven wives does seem like a good idea the thought of seven mothers in law is a bit much.

However if society accepts marriage of homosexuals which the Bible prohibits what objection can we have to polygamy which is not condemned.

While I do not understand the sexual attraction between those of like gender I do believe it is possible to love more than one woman at the same time. As far as one can tell in cultures where polygamy is practiced there is a lot less divorce and broken homes.

From what I've heard, if the SDA church in North America would have been willing to accept polygamy for the converting Africans, the Africans would have supported women's ordination in North America.

and sense the Bible does not condemn polygamy (and requires it under certain circumstances), who are the close-minded bigots?

"It's not about freedom for their religion, it's freedom from our religion."
The First Amendment protects both for everyone. Who is trying to impose their beliefs on the rest of society but those whose rally cry is for same sex marriage. They are bent on changing the historic interpretation of marriage which has nothing to do with those who oppose such change wanting to impose their religious beliefs on gays.

Yes there are those who support traditional marriage who resort to those clobber texts in the Bible
that speak on homosexual practices. They may get away with that in the religious world, but in the legal world it won't get much traction. If anything it can backfire and acturally help the argument of those who are claiming religious prejudice of those opposing gay marriage.

Dispense will the religious rhetoric and gay bashing and stick to the legal ramifications. The state has a vested interest in preserving marriage as the bedrock of society to be preserved at it has been defined by civilized nations of the world for centuries.

Please note that the above Tom is not Tom Z

Tom Z

Who is limiting religious freedom? We're talking here about California's Proposition 8. In California I would say it was religious groups led by Mormons and the Roman Catholic Church spending millions of dollars to impose their definition of morality on all of society. And you say gay people are wanting to change your religious freedom? There is no foundation for that in truth.

My son is married to the man He has loved for the last 15 years. Has that ruined my marriage to His mother? No! But our family is stronger for our mutual love and acceptance.

Polygamy? Monogamy is a rather recent invention in Judeo-Christian history. Polygamy was common in the OT. So you say there is ONE "original plan" with ONE man and ONE woman? The Bible, if you really read and grasp what it says, tells that God sanctioned polygamy (one man and several women) after He created the "original plan".

I've been thinking today about some texts: "For God sent not His son into the world to condemn the world," "Judge not that ye be not judged," "Let the wheat and tares grow together", "ALL have sinned and come short of the glory of God". Even if no one on this blog is homophobic, there are certainly some who seem very judgmental, ignoring the clear commands of Jesus.

Some of you would have condemned Jesus because He would have sat down to a meal with a group of gay people and listened to them, just like He did with those who society marginalized in His day. He had a reputation for associating with the wrong kind of people instead of condemning them. He would have loved His gay followers just like He reached out in love to Samaritans. What don't you get about what Jesus would do? Is it important to emulate Jesus, to be Christlike? Really? Then please demonstrate that!

@George Tichy:

"Truth_Waived: ...I don't buy that loser's limp...."
With language like this, and with your "sanctified" and judgmental attitude, there is no room for a serious conversation on this issue. You are just plain biased, and "full of it"* - that's it.
This is the truth and nothing but the truth...
(I know I am plagiarizing this last phrase, but since this is a quasi-Adventist environment, it's not a problem at all.)"

The language that I use is not the issue, the issue that you have with what I have written, is that when confronted with the truth, you can't handle the truth. LGBTs who deny that the Gospel of Jesus can't change them into saints, deny that the power of God can transform sinners into saints. If you as a professed Christian, take that position you might as well become an Atheist, because you have conceded that the Devil is stronger than the Holy Spirit.

If the Sda church decided on a pogrom of "living" in adultery (divorce) the membership would decrease between 30 to 50 %.

If the SdA church decided on a pogrom of committing adultery (lust) there wouldn't be anybody left to collect the offerings and turn out the lights.

Tom Zwemer:

I just went back and read Tom's post and it didn't sound bad--made considerable sense.
Actually, when I first read yours, I thought you were trying to distance yourself from Tom's ideas. But now I think you fellows are not so far apart.

Fr. Jim, "There is nothing in the US Constitution that allows for "gay marriage." There is no right to "gay marriage."

And there was nothing in the US Constitution outlawing slavery or demanding only white males could vote. Seriously? Are you going to rely on such a morally and ethically void argument?

Claritis, Bevin,

RE: Gay parenting As I said above, the stats are out on gay parenting. See Slate Magazine, March 12, 2004. Now this is 8 years old, but even gay researchers in this article had doubts about the research being done claiming that gays could raise children well. And don't tell me of your sister who has 3 fine children that she raised with her gay partner. That is anecdotal. We need a study of a large number over many years.
We do know that single parents (that is only one sex involved) do not do as well as heterosexual two parent homes by any means. There is no question on this one. See Single Parent Success Foundation: Single Parent Statistics.

So my point is, why legalize something we do not know about, and risk the lives of children?

RE: European birth rates. Think of it this way: To replace the population, the birthrate has to be about 2.2 births per woman. Now to make it simple, at 1 pre woman, the population would halve in one generation and quarter in a second, and be only 1/8 in a third, 12.5% of the original number. It is a logarithmic decrease. Sweden has a population of 9 million. that would be 4.5 in 30 years and 2.25 in 60. It does not take long to get to low levels. And if the Muslim population (about 150000) more than doubles in a generation, which is what they are doing, then you can see in 60 years, they would have close to 600000. Sweden is a very homogeneous country, but there is immigration from muslim countries. So even in one generation with 300000 muslims, this is a significant number. France is much closer to parity with its muslim population. See book: America Alone.

RE: Problem for church is civil unions are OK. If Civil Unions become legal, the church institutions, hospitals etc. would be required to recognize them as legitimate. They would be requited to treat them as regular relationships, though the church taught they are sinful. I don't think a hospital has to recognize a live in girl friend of an employee. Civil recognition of gay relationships would change how they would have to deal with their employees, curtailing their religious freedom. At least it SEEMS that way to me.

On more thing. Those that are against gay marriage or gay relationships are characterized by the other side here as mean, judgmental, and un-Christlike etc. All this because they hold to a certain OPINION. Now the other side is not, shall I say, JUDGED in any way for their opinion. This is unfair. And clearly prejudicial.

Just because someone deems homosexual relations as sinful, does not mean he is a cad, some ogre, or anything worse for that matter. We can discuss ideas without judging, or can we?

Seventh-day Adventists had every right to vote for Proposition 8 if they wished, but that the Conference should stay clear of endorsing it. Adventists could and should make the argument they have in their hearts on this tricky matter. Personally, while I doubt I will ever subscribe to the idea that gay relationships are marriage, and that gay intimacy strengthens the Lord's work and is within His will, I also don't believe the Conference Office should be endorsing these kinds of referenda. Not according to our Adventist understanding of religious liberty.

Other than gay "normalization", I am liberal (though I prefer the term progressive) in much of my political leanings these days. I voted enthusiastically for Barack Obama and consider him to be the best president since Eisenhower. I stand very strongly for green energy, public transportation, civil rights, public health care, conscientious objection, limited defense spending and nuclear disarmament. Keynesian intervention works and has for the last 75 years, so don't let's toss it over now.

On the conservative side, besides questioning the 'gay agenda', I also stand very strongly for public morality, limits on drug, alcohol, pornography, vulgarity and birth control. I can't stand the entertainment and pro athletics mores of today. I also see the dangers of the welfare state and other forms of government dependency.
Most importantly, I believe we Christian need to find ways to engage in public discourse without becoming either papist bullies or weak kneed wishy washy softies, and most importantly, we need to strike this balance by staying away from political arrogance of opinion, which will help us all develop the unity we need to win a sin weary world to Christ.

Aside from the mandates of California law, why is that an Adventist institution would object to providing benefits to the spouse of an employee if that employee is in a same-sex marriage. Merely providing benefits to the couple is not endorsing the couple's relationship any more than providing its services to the public is endorsement of the public's lifestyle choices. For instance, an Adventist hospital provides services to patients who engage in lifesyle practices that the Adventist church abhores (e.g. smoking, alcohol consumption, etc.) But just because the hospital provides services to those patients doesn't mean the hospital automatically endorses their lifestyle choices. An Adventist educational institution will enroll a non-Advenstist student who comes from the home of irreligious parents, but that doesn't mean the educational institution supports the practices of the parents. If its a business, then that's all it is. Employ a person who happens to be in a same-sex marriage because the employee is a valuable asset to the institution. And pay the spousal benefits. That's good busines. Doing so doesn't mean anything else - to me at least.

We need to not worry about what other people will think. Jesus didn't.

Carlitas,
I am aware that education decreases birth rates. The question was about Europe and their family style. Their style is leading to birthrates that will not sustain their population. Taking them as an example as they are presently living will mean slow decline. It is happening in Japan also. Bevin was citing Europe as an example of how we should live. I'm not sure it is a good idea.
RE Parenting. The article I quoted noted that there is such bias in the studies that a conclusion can not be reached. This statement was by a Gay sociologist, I believe. And Slate is no friend of conservatives. So it certainly carries credence. She also mentioned the findings you have noted. Again, stating bias. None were scientifically controlled etc. So, according to this source, there is no scientifically done study that shows benefit
I assume your conclusion is based on the studies you mentioned. I don't think you can reach that conclusion because of bias in the studies. So, as I said, the stats are still out. I have to say, just on a common sense basis, a child needs the disciplinary input of a male, the more objective and distant parent, and the love and nurture of a female., the more subjective and close parent.
It is interesting that in African elephants, cubs or whelps or whatever baby elephants are called, grow into disturbed "teen" elephants without a male in the pack or herd or whatever.

with over 40% of children in the US being born to unmarried mothers and nearly 50% of first borns so, it seems to me that arguing about which 2-parent homes are better is pretty meaningless. Any two parent home as to be better than a 1-parent home, be the same gender, different gender, married or not, or even of the same generation.

I would speculate that a single woman raising a kid under the same roof as her divorced mother is better than just the single woman. How much more so would be a child raised by two women (or men) in a loving relationship.

Studies show some things....as does common sense. Let's focus on the big picture, having as many kids raised in loving families as possible - and not worry about the composition of those families.

So Tom - you would then deny a child born to a young single mother and put up for adoption, a home with a same sex loving couple preferring the child to grow up in orphanages and foster homes, moved over and over again, and never getting the chance to form lasting bonds with loving adults.

This does not sound like the version of you I am familiar with from your other posts. Are you sure this is the real Tom? ;-)

So, in your mind, Anonymouswon, 2 wrongs make a right? There are plenty of normal couples out there who want to adopt babies. The statistics don't lie: children do better in a home with a mother and a father. A child raised in house with 2 men or 2 women is going to grow up confused at best.

What you call a "loving relationship" is a perversion of the Biblical model of a true loving relationship. A true loving relationship would not take what God has called an abomination and try to pass it off as true love. Some do it in ignorance, of course, but there are plenty who do not.

Boy am I glad no one can throw stones in cyberspace. :)

@Charles Reid: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Charles, as you can see there are many "saints" disputing for the privilege of casting the first stone...

George, you missed my point entirely. I was anticipating getting stone for my comments. I have no wish to stone anyone else. Tom made my point more clearly. You presented a false dilemma.

I agree Alan, the type of research we are speaking of has problems. One thing none of them really speak of is measures of population variation. Range, variance, standard deviation are not supplied in most I have read. In many cases when grouping people we can sometimes get in a case where there is more difference between the individuals in the groups, than there is between the groups.

To be clear, I AM saying that gender of parents does not matter, yes. I have known many male parents who beautifully fulfill what we generally see as the female nurturing aptitude, and female parents who sucessfully employ discipline, what we call a male aptitude. My parents are examples of this. They are both well educated thoughtful people. My dad happened to be reluctant to punish us and my mother quick to discipline. It did not matter where the love and discipline came from. The important thing is that they were there, loving and disciplining us. In other words, there was more difference between their particular parenting aptitudes than all males compared to all females.

I don't see any sort of conspiracy to keep any point of view or any research results, out of the literature. Science, including social science is published and available for all other scientists to test. In fact, this is the great secret of science that it works constantly to manage biases which are a part of the reality of human thinking. Science is not blind to the biases but activly working to overcome them.

For the record, the Pacific Union conference did not endorse Proposition 8, neither did it oppose it. In an editorial in the Pacific Union Recorder, President Ricardo Graham, gave no reccommendation on how to vote other than each to his own conscience on this ballot initiative.

The religious liberty department of the Pacific Union did endorse Propositon 8, and for good reasons as
Alan Reinach stated in an article in the same issue of the Recorder. Alan is the religious liberty director of the Pacific Union. I know him personally and he is not anti-gay in the least. His position is squarely based on religious liberty implications and I agree with it. Case law based on court decisions has already started down a road where gay rights trump freedom of conscience. It has already happened here in California where a gynocologist was sued and lost because he refused to perform a medical procedure of articfical insemination for a lesbian couple because it violated his religious beliefs and conscience.

The other Tom

"The Word of God" is sooooo human!"

Oh, really? That's not what my Bible says. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God," is what is says. It also says that "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." It is human only in the sense that men wrote it down. It is either the word of God, or it isn't. If it is only human we are under no more obligation to follow its precepts than those presented in "Mein Kampf."

"No additions since, say 90 AD. That is its weakness and its strength." - Allen Shepherd

I think it should rather read,
"No additions since, say 90 AD until 1844 That is its strength and its weakness."

"You must be the only one who holds to that view."

Sure...

Even calling everythingg in the Bible 'The Word of God' is a label and interpretation.

You've got it backwards, Bevin, as usual. Evolution is not science. It is clearly a religion, as Ben Stein made clear in is documentary. It has speculated on much, but proved nothing. It uses obfuscation and sleight of hand to fool the masses. ID is science, having shown the impossibility of complex systems having evolved randomly. It's all about the evidence, and it leads away from evolution.

If ID doesn't belong in a classroom, neither does evolution.

"Do you want your children taught in science class that ID is superstition?" No, I want them taught that evolution is a fairy tale for those who don't like the idea of God.

Horatio,

Clearly you have no idea about life and earth sciences. They clearly agree and support each other, and the idea of evolution is what binds them. Many disciplines, such as genetics did not even exist during Darwin's lifetime, yet provided total support to what he proposed.

ID is not science in any way, although some scientists do accept it. That is all. Even Michael Behe, leading ID scientist is an evolutionist, since he accepts common descent, as well as the evolutionary timescale.

Fallen! Fallen is Babylon!!

Soon the SDA will be BAPTIZING and even ORDAINING gays and lesbians to the MINISTRY!! Come on, people, this is not a matter of "equality" but of "compromise".

How you people dare to use the BIBLE to defend your ideas???!!??!!!

Mercy!

@Bible: "How you people dare to use the BIBLE to defend your ideas???!!??!!!"

How dare you use the BIBLE to defend YOUR ideas???!!??!!!
.
.
.
See how far that got us?
So, how about some productive dialogue rather than 'clashing cymbals' and 'resounding gongs'.

Railing against what is occurring is of no help. Living in our world today we need to accept "what is" and be compassionate on those who need our help. Children will continue to be born: we can weep and wail, but they must be housed, fed, and educated so we must do all we can to help the most helpless without a voice: children.
Blaming parents is like closing the barn door after the horses have escaped. Futile.

FYI: Texas, the largest state that teaches abstinence only in their schools, incidentally, has the highest teen pregnancy rates. Sweeden and Norway, with their open sexual instructions, have far fewer teen mothers; and there is no stigma or illegitimacy attached to single parents. For most of the world's history parenting was a biological event required to propagate the race; marriage is a more recent invention.

There are the laws of the land, and there are the LAWS of God. If the laws of the land come into conflict with the LAWS of God, then we all agree as Adventists, that the LAWS of God comes first.

If the state claims that we should pay tax to Cesar, then render to Cesar, what is Cesar's.

If the state claims we should bow down to his Babylonian image, then let us remain standing as God's LAWS come first. If the people want to place the laws of the land over the LAWS of God, then let them bow. We all have our freewill. However, those who place God's LAWS first, let them remain standing.

Thus, conclude this. The state is posing something God's LAWS speak against, so let us remain on God's side.

As far as fighting for religious freedom goes, every man and woman has the right to choose whom they will serve, be it the state or be it God. This "prop 8" is as much a target on OUR (we Adventist) religious freedom as it is to those who it is seemingly targeting.
Say yes? are we then MERGING church and state, and tossing religious freedom out the window? God forbid!
Say no? are we then putting the state above the LAWS of God. God forbid!
Is this not similar to what the pharisees tried to do Jesus, posing him with trick questions much like the one concerning tax to Cesar?

Let us do what Jesus did, If people wish to serve Cesar, let them serve Cesar. However, let it also be made known, crystal clear, that we Adventists hold the LAWS of God and will not be marrying any Gays and Lesbians, for the LAWS of God always come first. Christ is Head of the Church, not the state. It is not we Adventist who is against religious freedom, nor is it us who promote G&L, but is is God who is against both, so let Him fight this war and let us not be sucked in to the enemy's tricks. Let Jesus answer, just as he did the pharisees. As for us, let us plain and simply, serve the LORD, including by upholding His LAWS which were intended to GOVERN the LAND in the first place.

...between same gendered people ...