Michael Brown responds to the Southern Poverty Law Center article on ex-gays
I posted yesterday about a Southern Poverty Law Center article, titled Straight Like Me, by Casey Sanchez, which blasted the ex-gay movement. In my post, I note several inaccurate reports. In this post, I provide a brief email interview with Michael Brown, president of the FIRE School of Ministry, who was named in a companion piece, Former Ex-gay Minister Speaks Out. I emailed Dr. Brown with some questions about these statements and he was very kind to respond quickly.
Throckmorton: In a recent SPLC article, you are referred to as giving a keynote at the latest Exodus Conference. This subject of this article asserts that you believe the Old Testament law should be followed regarding homosexuals. Is this your belief?
Brown: Absolutely not! I am not and have never been a reconstructionist or theonomist, and if we were to put practicing homosexuals to death, we would also have to put Sabbath breakers to death, among many others.
Throckmorton: Furthermore, in that same article, you were paraphrased as saying in that same Exodus speech that you encouraged the audience to “give up their lives” in the fight against homosexuality.
Brown: Out of context. What I did say was that JESUS was worth living for and dying for, and I often quote Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to illustrate what Jesus meant when he said that if we try to save our lives we lose them but if we lose our lives for him and the gospel, we find them. King said, “A man dies when he refuses to stand up for that which is right; a man dies when he refuses to stand up for justice; a man dies when he refuses to take a stand for that which is true.” I was encouraging those fighting unwanted SSA in their own lives to be strong in the Lord and to give themselves unconditionally to His service, then talking about the threat to our freedoms coming through an activist gay agenda as a wake up call.
Throckmorton: Could you react to the following excerpt from the SPLC article: “When you have a keynote speaker like Michael Brown, to me that’s unacceptable. It’s preaching a message of Christians not just simply opposing gay civil rights and believing a spiritual revival is necessary for this country, but actually calling on Christians to lay down their lives in a spiritual revolution to set up civil laws based on one extreme interpretation of biblical laws from the Old Testament [that calls for the death penalty for homosexuals]. It’s Christian Reconstructionism [a doctrine that calls for imposing harsh Old Testament laws on civil society], Christian dominionism. It’s abhorrent, and it’s dangerous, not just for LGBT people but for our entire society. Because if civil laws are based on [Brown]‘s interpretation of the Bible, it’s not going to be a democratic society.”
Brown: Well, as a Jewish believer in Jesus and a frontline apologist, I have been accused of many things, but I don’t think I’ve been accused of calling on people to sacrifice our lives to set up OT law! I can actually send you my power point notes from the message or get Exodus to send you the message itself. I have no clue how such a claim could be made based on my message, which completely contradicts the tone and content of my preaching. Interestingly, since the Exodus conference, I have been invited to become a regular conference speaker with Love Won Out, which is hardly known for calling for the death penalty for homosexual practice.
I was also provided with this link [Straight Like Me] in which the following was written about me: “Brown is “a millennial Jew who once described the red T-shirts worn by his ministry students at a gay rights march counter-demonstration as ‘the shed blood of Christ flowing toward the gates of hell.’” I have no idea if anyone ever said that, but it certainly was not me. Also, our red-shirted students were not part of a counter-demonstration but rather of a compassionate, one-on-one outreach during the city’s gay pride event in 2005.
I intend to send the links to the this and the other post about the SPLC article for their reaction which, if I get one, I will post.
UPDATE: Michael Brown sent a link which provides proper attribution for the quote about the red shirts and the gay pride parade. Flip Benham, head of Operation Save America wrote that in this website newsletter.
Poor thing. I just hate it when virulently anti-gay activists are so unfairly maligned like that.
Emproph,
Actually, when I do say something publicly, I’m more than happy to take the heat for it. When things are falsely attributed to me or presented in a totally misleading way — whether unintentionally or not — then I’m happy to set the record straight upon request.
Is this unreasonable?
Unreasonable? Of course not. You’re just not in any “When-things-are-falsely-attributed-to-me-or-presented-in-a-totally-misleading-way” ethical position to be offended. Which is what I was mocking.
Emproph,
It’s always best to make judgments based on facts and truth, not on what hears about someone else. That was my whole point. I fully understood what you were mocking, and I’m not in the least bit offended. Again, I’m simply looking for people to respond to facts rather than misstatements.
As for my ethical position vs. yours, we obviously see that differently.
Michael,
It’s always best to make judgments based on facts and truth, not on what hears about someone else.
I completely agree. As does Emproph, I’m sure.
We’d just like to see that standard applied to you, as well, when you talk about gay people. We don’t like being lied about either, Michael. Perhaps this experience will give you pause the next time you lash out against gay folks.
I think a lot of peace could be achieved in this world if people didn’t think that seeing someone else as your enemy gave you permission to demonize them. Let’s both shoot for that goal.
“I fully understood what you were mocking, and I’m not in the least bit offended.”
Fully? I was mocking your offense taken to the article, not commenting on any potential offense taken to that mocking.
BTW, My ethical position is that “falsely attributing” things or presenting them in a “totally misleading way” is ethically wrong when done to anyone, or any group.
This was “my whole point,” without so many words — that we obviously do see that ethical position differently.
Emproph,
I did understand what your mocking was about. All clear from the start. But to state once more: I didn’t take offense to the article and had no plans to respond to the misquotes until I received an email from Warren asking for verification.
Timothy,
Please let me know what attacks on gay people you’re speaking about. If I really said something or wrote something, then it can be put on the table. But if it’s something I never said, then how can I be guilty of saying it? So, please let me know what you’re speaking about specifically so I can address it.
Dr. Brown,
I have read this article written by you:
http://www.icnministries.org/revolution/CharlotteShamePF.htm
In the article, you use a great deal of stereotyping and bias for homosexuals.
Do you fail to recognize that there are many Christians who are of the GLBT community? Surely you do not think that the folks you mentioned represent all of the GLBT community? Are we to assume that Christians from the past who have killed Jews represent all Christians in the world? Using the logic you used in your article about GLBTs, one could use it in the same way for Christians. Yes? No?
And what about straight couples who kiss each other in public parks? Hold hands?
Shalom,
Grethel J. Rickman (Geulah bat Avraham Avinu v’ Sarah Imeinu)
“A Reform Jew” and former Assembles of God member.
Timothy,
If you can point out a single instance where I have “lied” about the GLBT community, I will correct it publicly. Please be kind enough to do so. In all my public communication, I have done my best to be fair and accurate, taking issue with gay activism, expressing my moral differences with homosexual acts, based on my understanding of the Scriptures, but seeking to treat everyone with dignity as a fellow-creation of God. And if you have never read my statement to the GLBT community in Charlotte, please go to: http://www.coalitionofconscience.org/statements/homosexualCommunity.shtm.
To be sure, there is a moral divide between us simply over our view of homosexuality, and my stance against gay activism is in your eyes a heinous act of unchristian bigotry. I understand that, and I do not minimize our differences. However, you claim that I have lied about the GLBT community, and I sincerely ask you to show me where and when.
Michael
Shalom Grethel,
Thanks for your excellent questions. My issue was with the public displays at a local gay pride event, and as I repeatedly said to the mayor and city council, if there was a heterosexual event marked by the same open, vulgar sexual displays, I would be raising my concerns just the same.
In point of fact, for most of my life as a follower of Jesus (now, the last 36 years), when it comes to sexual and family issues, I have emphasized heterosexual issues, and I continue to address the problems of the breakdown of heterosexual marriages, rampant use of pornography, etc., but when something vulgar is displayed in a park in my city, or when gay activists — which I understand represent just a portion of the GLBT community — tell me what I can and can’t believe (such as the Soulforce Equality Riders), I will take exception and raise my voice.
As for gay pride events, I have agreed with Kirk and Madsen that the wild displays that often take place there actually discredit the GLBT community and should not be associated with gay “pride.” Would you differ?
Regarding GLBT Christians, I do recognize that there are many professing GLBT Christians, including professing evangelicals, but I do not believe that one can follow Jesus and engage in any sexual acts outside of male-female marriage, be it fornication, adultery, or homosexual acts.
We have a DVD of a public presentation we gave at my home chuch on “Can You be Gay and Christian?” I invited local GLBT and gay-affirming clergy to give a presentation but they declined. However, you can hear my perspective on this DVD, which should be available soon. I’d be happy to send out free copies to those on this blog requesting it.
(BTW, great Hebrew name!)
Dr. Brown
Shalom, Dr. Brown.
Baruch HaShem that we live in a country where we do have remarkable freedoms. Yes?
I have a different perpective than you because I am lesbian and my girlfriend is Christian!
Jesus, himself, taught that one should not judge another person. And James taught that anyone who grumbles against his brother will be judged. Who is any one to believe from the Christian camp? Jesus? James? Paul? Anti-gay Christians? Pro-gay Christians?
I feel that the teachings of Jesus should carry more weight.
That’s my two cents.
I have my agreements and disagreements with both sides, Dr. Brown–as I should. I also disagree with having “sides.” Having a “good guy” and a “bad guy” look at matters is a very Westernized concept that does not resolve any conflict or help bring about any type of shalom. Compassionate listening, I feel is much better.
The one thing that I do agree on is that we should try to treat a fellow human being with as much dignity and respect as we can.
I believe every person is created in the image of God.
I also equally believe that we should not opress the stranger, orphan, or widow.
Every citizen should be treated fairly, with compassion, with and justice. I think a society should care for the well-being of all citizens, not just a select few.
I am very surprised that you do not recieve a response from the GLBT and gay-affirm clergy.
Equally so, why do you not come to a conference for the GLBT community? I will try to attend the Love Welcomes All Conference when it is held in my local area again–in Western NC. Would you like to come, Dr. Brown? If you are interested I can discuss this with my Rabbi who knows the proper contacts and with the regional director of PFLAG, who I am also friends with. Would you come to a PFLAG meeting?
I am also open to reading and hearing any material presented from anyone in regard to their views. You may send me a copy. How may I send you my postal address? Just do not expect me to share your beliefs or to change just as you have stated that you do not like others to tell you that you should change your beliefs.
My Hebrew name? Thanks! Uri Yosef from Messiah suggested the name. And I was very honored by his suggestion. So, I accepted Geulah as my Hebrew name. Many choose another name, too. I didn’t. Geulah says it all.
Peace be with you,
Grethel “Gretta”
Correction: Uri Yosef from Messiah Truth
Dr. Brown,
I will not engage in a battle with you. However, I will provide a few small examples of things “presented in a totally misleading way”.
Soulforce does not “tell you what you can and can’t believe”. No more than does the Catholic Church, the Seventh Day Adventists, or the African Methodist Episcopal Church.
This one is clever. This doesn’t make a claim but implies one: that we all take marching orders from some agenda laid out in Kirk and Marshall’s book, After the Ball. (Incidentally, I’m one of the very few gay people who have actually read the book)
The accusation of GAY AGENDA is implied rather than stated. But your implication is as dishonest as if you said it outright.
From the article Gretta linked:
This goes beyond “totally misleading” to downright untruthful. Yes, gay celebrations do generaly have drag. But then are NOT “commenly marked by” nude parades, open sex acts, or large signs proclaiming “God is gay”. I don’t doubt that there have been some nude person somewhere or some sign saying God is Gay. But they are not typical of gay celebrations at all.
You see, Dr. Brown, I can tell you from personal experience that this is false. I’ve been to gay pride events ranging from Los Angeles, which is flamboyant and edgy, to Fresno, which is ernest and oh so very sincere. I’ve actually sat on committees that laid out the rules for parade participation wherein nudity and certain language was banned. I know that the largest participants in most parades are the churches, followed by the public service groups such as AIDS services.
I don’t doubt that you can find sex acts at something like the Folsom Street Fair – an event that isn’t gay specific. But certainly not more than one might find at Mardi Gras.
So to characterize gay events in such a way goes far beyond spin or misrepresentation. The intent is demonization of “the enemy” with the “gay activist” (i.e. any gay person that is ok with being gay) being defined as enemy.
And, finally
That is totally misleading, to use your words. I don’t object to your opinion or your “stance”. I do object to your claims, your tactics and your unwillingness to acknowledge them as they are.
But what I object more, Dr. Brown, is that in the above statement you set me out to be your enemy. You engage in your culture war and lob missiles at me about what I think and what I believe.
Sorry, Dr. Brown. I’m not going to fight.
And you needn’t justify away all of your statements. I really don’t care. I just want you to realize that what you are claiming offense about is what you dish out on a regular basis.
I am hoping that being on the receiving end might encourage you to reconsider your own tactics.
Timothy,
Thanks for your comments. Since you say you don’t want to “fight” I guess I will have to end the dialogue here. (I did not intend it to be a fight.) If at any point you’d like me to interact further with you, I’d be glad to do so.
For the sake of other bloggers, however, I will respond to one point, namely, the issue of the Soulforce Equality Riders. Their intent was to go to Christian schools and to protest their convictional policy of not allowing practicing homosexuals in the schools. Others related to Soulforce working in California have sought to have certain Christian schools lose their accreditation because of their Christian convictions. Similarly, the European Union has threatened to take Poland to court for its policy of not wanting homosexual curricula taught in their children’s schools. The list could be multiplied ad infinitum. Do most gay men and women even know about these things? Probably not. But there are activists who do have specific goals in mind, and some of those goals include the removal of my right to practice my faith before God — at least as it affects homosexual issues.
As for setting you out to be my enemy, that was not my intent, and if I did that in my post, I certainly apologize.
As for my being on the receiving end — that’s the norm for me, being called a Nazi, member of the KKK, brainwashed Bible bigot, and a host of other epithets on a regular basis. Your post is gracious and tame in comparison.
Again, should you ever want me to interact with you on why I stand by the statements that you cited in your post, let me know and I’ll be glad to do it — not for the purpose of fighting but for the purpose of constructive interaction.
Michael
Grethel,
Yes, my friend Uri Yoseph at Messiah Truth! They have many pages devoted to me.
I also save a seat for him when I debate rabbis in the greater NY area.
I know that you see many different strands of belief in the NT, but for me, all of them speak the same message, reinforcing the same truths — only with different emphases and purposes. And the same Jesus who spoke against being judgmental also spoke against sexual impurity in the strongest possible terms — more strongly than anyone else in the whole Bible — and further underscored God’s design for marriage being male-female union.
Jesus welcomes all to come and be changed, not to come and remain the same, and he urges us to enter the straight and narrow way, telling us that the broad way is the way to destruction.
If you’d like to receive the materials, send a note to http://www.icnministries.org where it says “Contact Us” and just tell them I offered to send you the DVD on Can You be Gay and Christian. If you’re interested in hearing more about Jewish faith in Yeshua, put that in the note too.
Dr. Brown
Michael Brown said in post 72941:
the issue of the Soulforce Equality Riders. Their intent was to go to Christian schools and to protest their convictional policy of not allowing practicing homosexuals in the schools.
No, this is incorrect. Soulforce Equality Riders go to schools where they are invited by students (and sometimes administrators), engage in discussions about glbt issues with students and administrators. Sometimes, this outreach work involves demonstrations as a way to reach people. Mostly it involves engaging in dialogues with students, faculty and staff.
Others related to Soulforce working in California have sought to have certain Christian schools lose their accreditation because of their Christian convictions
Who are these “others”? How exactly are they related to Soulforce? What school(s) have had their accreditation challenged and what specific reasons where given?
Have you even been in contact with members of Soulforce? Ever spoken with one of the Equality Riders? If not what is the source of your claims about them?
Ken – Your definition of invited seems different than mine as applied to an institution. Students can invite people to visit them on campus but they cannot speak for an institution. The routes are announced by Soulforce and then school administrators decide how to deal with the issue. As an example, a student in one of my classes may want to invite a special speaker but I am under no obligation to allow the speaker to speak when the person shows without my approval.
Please provide substantiation of this claim
And also of this one
Sure there are “activists” who want all sorts of things. Fred Phelps is an “activist” who has an agenda. Some Christian “activists” want to legislate a death penalty for homosexuality.
But I don’t assume that you share their beliefs. Nor do I, in my writings or my speaking, bring up such examples to broadly paint all Christians by association.
But the claims you are making in the context of the site suggests that these beliefs you are ascribing to these “activists” are in some way typical or telling. It implies that some sizable segment of the gay community – or at least of those who use activism as a means of acheiving change – wish to remove accreditation for Christian schools and to force you to change how you practice your religion.
I simply request that you prove that these claims have merit, or that you reconsider making such claims until you have investigated them to see whether they are reflective of the gay community at large.
Surely anyone who values honesty is willing to do so.
Ken,
Yes, I’ve interacted personally with one of the Soulforce Equality riders, and some of my colleagues spoke with a good part of their team. They came to campuses where the administration told them they were not welcome, yet they chose to come anyway.
There is much more to the story that is not reported on their website.
Michael
Ken,
I too think you’re mistaken on Soulforce. They set out to do civil disobedience similar to the freedom riders.
I see a different Jesus that you do, Dr. Brown. And the only one that can determine whose view is correct is HaShem, the True Judge. I see a rabbi. You see a messiah.
I’ll contact to get the material from you so that I can hear your view firsthand.
But, what about my invitation? Would you like to come to a conference, meeting, or a GLBT friendly church? You have invited GLBT and gay-friendly clergy to your presentation. Shouldn’t you also be willing to come if invited?
As I said before, I can talk to people who can arrange it.
And, as far as a church goes, you can come to the one that my girlfriend and I attend together. It isn’t far off the beaten path; it is right of the interstate to be exact.
Shoot! Why not come to synagogue, too?
My synagogue’s doors are always open and we do welcome non-Jewish guests.
BTW, not interested in hearing about “Yeshua.” Thank you, any way. You should remember me. Pastor Michael Brown’s fellowship was where I was a member. Now, I am committed to the Jewish community and the faith that Jesus followed–Judaism.
Shalom and blessings,
Grethel
Timothy,
Your point is well taken, and I appreciate you raising it.
One of my friends is the academic dean at a major school in CA, and he informed me of accreditation issues raised against his school by a major leader associated with Soulforce. Let me see how much he’s willing to disclose publicly.
As for the activists of whom I speak, from my perception they are not of the Fred Phelps ilk, and that’s what concerns me. For example, when Ake Green was arrested for preaching in his own church pulpit that homosexuality was sinful, the conviction was only overturned by the Supreme Court of Sweden. (Friends of mine were involved in fighting his case, so I had a good amount of details.)
Soren Andersson, who heads up the Swedish federation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender rights (RFSL) agreed with the verdict, stating that religious freedom was not a valid excuse for offending people. As he said to journalists, “I cannot regard the sentence as an act of interference with freedom of religion.” Where does this end?
Again, I cite this as one example, and as far as I can tell, whereas the vast majority of evangelical Christians — including activists — are absolutely appalled by the Fred Phelps stuff and utterly denounce it, I don’t hear groups like the HRC and NGLTF and others denouncing the arrest of Ake Green. And since I read a good amount of primary literature (meaning, in this case, gay literature by gays), I’m getting things straight from the horse’s mouth.
Now, I have never said that these things are “reflective of the gay community at large”; I’ve said that they are reflective of gay activists and their organizations, but it’s possible that a good portion of the GLBT supports their aims, but I say “possible” and nothing more.
As an insider in the GLBT community, do you feel that my statements are that inaccurate or unreasonable? If so, could you show me where the outcry is in the gay community over these things?
Thanks,
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
What has your experience been like with PFLAG groups?
I have questions about Soulforce, myself. I like some of the material but I do see red flags in areas. These red flags do make me uncomfortable. There’s proper ways of activism. And activism should never cross the line of justice and compassion. Activism should be for Tikkun Olam–not to cause harm.
Shalom,
Grethel
Warren said in post 72955:
Ken – Your definition of invited seems different than mine as applied to an institution.
I didn’t say students were representing the colleges when they invited the Equality riders. I was merely pointing out that the riders didn’t just show up at a college and start protesting as Dr. Brown implied. They were asked to come by someone associated with the college. The goal is to open a dialogue about glbt bias on campus and get people to see a different perspective.
Generally, this involves free form discussions in a location on campus where students congregate. In some cases (usually if the administration tries to prevent them from talking to students), there may be a demonstration or protest. Sometimes (rarely from my understanding) these demonstrations may get some of the riders and local students arrested.
As an example, a student in one of my classes may want to invite a special speaker but I am under no obligation to allow the speaker to speak when the person shows without my approval.
To speak in your class, no. However, if you object to that speaker, does that mean you can deny the student the ability to have him wait outside your class to talk to the students after class?
Dear Mr. Brown,
I’m having a hard time understanding how you could ever expect people at the receiving end of Ake Green’s tongue to stand up and defend him – here are a just a few things Ake Green said in the sermon that got him into trouble:
From a Washington Post article: “There, the 63-year-old clergyman delivered a sermon denouncing homosexuality as “a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society” and condemning Sweden’s plan to allow gays to form legally recognized partnerships.
“Our country is facing a disaster of great proportions,” he told the 75 parishioners at the service. “Sexually twisted people will rape animals,” Green declared, and homosexuals “open the door to forbidden areas,” such as pedophilia.”
And you seriously wonder why gay people aren’t jumping up to defend this person????? When you can show me an example of someone who speaks as strongly or vehemently against Evangelical Christians who they also stand up and support as having the right to say what they’ve said, then maybe we can talk. But when you bring up a case, overseas where the laws are different and in some instances much stricter, and in which the person who said these things was exonerated, AND when you try and compare this with Fred Phelps, it sounds more like you’re trying to further an agenda than discuss fairness and freedom of speech.
Dr. Brown,
I just emailed a request for the info you are willing to send me.
Have you had any contact with GLBT Jewish organizations?
http://glbtjews.org/
Have you ever heard of the EcoRebbe?
Have you also heard of K’vod Habriot and Rabbis for Human Rights?
Shalom,
Grethel
Timothy Kincaid said in post 72971:
I too think you’re mistaken on Soulforce. They set out to do civil disobedience similar to the freedom riders.
Equality Riders are a group within Soulforce that deals with homophobia on campus. Their focus is on discussion, not disobedience.
See my previous response to warren for a bit more detail.
Dr. Brown,
I just want to make myself clear. I DO NOT believe that what happened to Ake Green was fair or just, but the language he used with regard to gay people wasn’t respectful, kind, compassionate, fair or just either. Should he have been threatened with jail time for his words – Absolutely not – However, let’s not pretend that the words he used to describe gay people such as “pervert” weren’t inflammatory. And, I think it speaks somewhat well of the system that he was eventually acquitted.
Ken – You are going to need to document your claims. They run counter to everything I have known about this effort, including some early discussion with two of the riders. Here is the news release for the 2007 ride. In 2006, they went on to campuses which did not want them there and were arrested. Civil disobedience was part of the plan as they were based on the freedom rides as TImothy said.
The ERiders had discussions in advance with CCCU schools and so the schools knew they were coming. But they knew in advance also that they were not welcome on some of the campuses and showed up anyway.
Dr. Brown’s original statement regarding the ride is correct and a quick read of the Soulforce website will verify it.
Regarding Ake Green, from the Washington Post article Jayhuck referenced (thanks, said me the trouble of looking it up
):
With these words, which the local newspaper published at his request, Green ran afoul of Sweden’s strict laws against hate speech.
the last paragraph says he had invited the press to attend that sermon. So it seems to me he was deliberately trying to get arrested in order to challenge the law. Why is it you didn’t think this aspect needed to be mentioned in your recounting of Green’s case Dr. Brown?
From the EqRide website:
Homophobia is globally pervasive, and no community or school escapes its reach. In 2006, during the inaugural Equality Ride, participants traveled to nineteen schools and engaged students, faculty, and administrators in conversation about the damaging effects of homophobic doctrine, the false notion that lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender identities are sick and sinful.
The riders went to place where they disagreed with the school’s policies and said essentially, you are wrong and we are here to tell you so. Why else would they go?
Dr. Brown
I really can’t answer to Sweden and its laws on offensive language. I live in the United States and delight in our nation’s First Amendment. That some gay group in Sweden has Swedish values doesn’t much surprise me; nor should it you.
But rather than iterating a list of every grievance that has been enacted on Christians by gays somewhere in the world, and vice verse (and let me assure you my list would be much much MUCH longer and much more horrific), let’s get back to our basic point.
Can you agree not to smear gay people based on what someone somewhere in the anti-gay industry has told you? Can you agree not to use singular incidents on a foreign continent as some evidence of American gay attitutes? Can you try and genuinely get to know gay people as people, and not as some enemy to be destroyed?
Really, Dr. Brown, we’re human. And, just like you, we don’t want to be lied about. Or insinuated about. Or accused of wanting to restrict your religion based on some event in Europe (which, incidentally Green prevailed). Or accused, really, of anything.
The world doesn’t need to be warned about how evil we are or how we want to destroy society or what horrid secret nasty things we do. Those claims are not true and, frankly, as more people get to know us they don’t reflect well on those who make them.
I think if you stepped back from the cannon and tried to get to know us, you might find that gay people are exactly like you. We have the same goals, desires, need, and dreams. We have the same faith, patriotism, loyalites, and values.
We don’t hate Christians; many of us are Christians. We don’t hate heterosexuals; they are our families and friends. We don’t want to destroy marriage, we want to join it. We don’t want to silence others; we want our voices to be heard.
We have much much more in agreement than in disagreement.
Oh, yes. I forgot. We also all agree that Warren should never dress up in an elf costume.
Grethel,
If I was invited to give a presentation at any of the places you mentioned, I would do it in heartbeat, schedule permitting. So, let me know if there’s an invitation for me to present my views in an open setting, and I’ll see what we can work out.
Dr. Brown
Timothy,
I do think our dialogue here is generating more light than heat, so thanks for sticking with it.
So that you can understand where I’m coming from, my issue is with an activist agenda that is coming my way, whether I like it or not. That’s why I raise my voice. When it affects what my grandkids could be taught in school, or what my students have to deal with in the place of business, or what the courts impose on a society, I’ll get involved.
But my heart is totally with you in terms of caring for individuals, not demonizing a whole community, reaching out to individuals. Here in Charlotte, I reached out to a key gay leader and had lunch with him a couple of times and stay in e-contact with him; I reached out to others but they declined to get back in touch with me; I speak against homophobia to pastors and help them to get past stereotypes of gays and lesbians; I have read so much gay literature that I can feel the pain and rejection and misunderstanding as if I were in your shoes (to an extent, of course).
I know that you certainly can’t reconcile what I’m saying here with my activism, but perhaps as you watch my work more closely you can also hear my heart.
One reason that I held the forum at our church on “Can you be gay and Christian?” was to break down walls and remove the stigma of interacting with the GLBT community, also sending the message clearly that “We don’t hate you!”
Will I stand against gay activism? Certainly. Will I do everything in my power to reach out to the larger gay community in love? By God’s grace, yes.
Again, thanks for taking the time to interact.
Dr. Brown
Jayhuck,
We agree, then, that the arrest was wrong, which was my point. Far less inflammatory speech in different countries — including America — has been punished by the law.
Thanks also for pulling out some of the most inflammatory quotes. I need to check the original text again, however, since the edition I have says, e.g., “Sexual abnormalities are a deep cancerous tumor in the entire society. The Lord knows that sexually twisted people will rape the animals. Not even animals can avoid the fiery passion of man’s sexual lust. Even this [bestiality], some will pursue. For many years, I have heard stories like these from people when I sat and listened as a volunteer telephone counselor. This wasn’t just one incident where people told of the animal [sexual] relations they had had — which had given them satisfaction. So it is abundantly clear that God is not writing a book of fairy tales for people to think of these things. He writes it with the thought in mind that people will act this way when they abandon God. Because of these sins, the land will vomit out its inhabitants.”
So, he was referring to a number of sexual sins spoken against in Leviticus 18, which include incest, bestiality, male homosexual acts, among a couple of others. Again, I’ll check the accuracy of each of the quotes, just for the record.
I’m not defending his sermon in every detail, just the issue of the lack of freedom of speech behind his pulpit. I believe he also spoke with some compassion for individuals as well — not that that would offset the other language — but I don’t think any balancing statements he made were quoted widely by the media.
Dr. Brown
Hello all…
I was asked by someone involved with this discussion to add a personal perspective to the Equality Ride.
As a personal note: I have been a Christian for many years and the Soulforce Equality Ride was–perhaps surprisingly–the only LGBT group I have ever been involved with. For me, activism/advocacy was never that big of a deal.
My decision to go on the Equality Ride was not to change a school’s policy–I was already attending, and about to graduate from, a college that took no issue with my orientation. I didn’t set out to force churches, or even individuals, to change their beliefs. In all honesty, the school policy of Northwest Nazarene or the personal belief of Jane Student won’t effect my life very much.
I do know, however, that it took me many years to wrestle with the messages I received from my church growing up. Messages that said being gay–something I had no control over–was sinful. Messages that lumped me–15 year old me–in with criminals. I almost lost God. And going to a secular institution, too many of my friends had.
I went on Equality Ride ultimately to be a voice to gay and transgender students across the country who were questioning their worth before God. And in every city, I met them.
The routes for the ride were chosen by the Soulforce young adult leaders based on a combination of outreach from students and community members, prior communication with the school, and feedback from the administrations on the ride. Some schools responded positively, some schools responded neutrally, some schools responded negatively. Be that as it may.
I joined the ride in January and spent the intervening six weeks working with administrators (who were thankfully very cooperative) at Pepperdine to plan activities. These activities included worship services, presentations by Pepperdine faculty and pastors, presentations by Equality Riders, lunch and dinner discussions, class visits, and even a trip to an LA museum.
Does the official policy at Pepperdine look any different after our two days there? No. Was it a productive day for all parties involved? Absolutely. I took away so much from my interactions on that campus and that was only one stop!
Unfortunately, not all administrations were as cooperative as Pepperdine and I remember the frustration my friends went through as admins passed them around from one department to another, took messages that went unreturned, or flatly said “Don’t even try talking to us again.” Nonetheless, they planned meet-and-greets at local coffee shops, community centers and churches. There were dinners, frisbee games, Bible studies and discussion groups.
It is easy to dismiss the Equality Ride as a “protest” but “protracted discussion” is really a more accurate description. I had more conversations–not arguments–in those two months than I ever imagined possible.
Warren asks:
The riders went to place where they disagreed with the school’s policies and said essentially, you are wrong and we are here to tell you so. Why else would they go?
For me, it was never to say “you are wrong.” It was to ask, “What do you believe?” because the schools, and individuals all differ in their approaches to Scipture and their positions on homosexuality. It was to ask “What would it look like to be a gay student here?” It was to brainstorm ways to create safe spaces. It was to be a catalyst for discussion within the school. It was to engage in a sought after dialogue.
I believe, if I may be so bold as to speak for my fellow riders, that we go because something has gone terribly wrong in our society. Parents are kicking their children on to the streets. Youth are killing themselves. And all of this is thought to be ordained by God.
I would hope that most pastors would agree that abandoning your child is not what God wants and would counsel a gay or transgender youth to not commit suicide, but we cannot escape these grim realities. And so the Equality Ride offers a new approach. Instead of talking points, and soundbites, and political strategy, and coordinated lobbying the Equality Ride proposes talking with instead of talking at.
Often administrators who, even though at the end of the day they were still anti-gay, said that they were blessed by our presence because it got them talking about something which is not talked about enough and got them thinking about things they don’t often think about. I’m not sure how many “minds were changed” on any given day but I know that countless conversations were started where before there was only silence, misunderstanding, and judgement.
The results are much easer to articulate for schools which allowed us on to campus–while still maintaining their positions–but what about the schools that simply said “No. We don’t value this discussion and we don’t value the perspective you bring to the table.” Why go anyway?
For me, it was because this conversation was too important not to have. Because in all likelihood there is a gay student on that campus who is watching as his school refuses to even *speak to* “those types of people” and she is wondering what that means about her.
In my two months on Equality Ride, we never once set out to “protest” a school’s policy. When a school, like Wisconsin Lutheran, for instance, refused to allow us to come on to campus, we did go anyway. When administrators asked us to leave, 6 young adults stayed to continue conversations with students that had congregated. Two separate groups of over 30 students each were in the middle of discussions when police arrived and countless more were looking on. Before I left the campus a student hugged me with tears in her eyes and said “I wish it didn’t have to come to this.” Her professor, with whom I was also speaking said “I don’t understand why they are arresting your friends, I don’t see what purpose this is serving.” I admit, I asked myself the same question.
Shouting matches aren’t solving any problems and they are tearing families, communities, churches, and this country a part. I want to have dialogue, I want to seek reconciliation–whatever that might look like–and many, many other people desire that as well.
Yes, the Equality Riders sometimes faced arrest. Yes, they were sometimes met by bull-horning toting protesters. Yes, the buses were vandalized. I don’t believe that any of us ever set out to protest. We set out to have conversations–to share our stories, to learn about other stories, to dialogue on faith, to create community–and we were relentless in that pursuit because it is so so necessary.
I saw great value in my conversations–even, perhaps especially, conversations with individuals coming from a completely different perspective than my own. I feel blessed by the positive feedback administrators gave us along the way and I’m hopefully that administrators in the future will continue to see the value of including the voices of LGBT individuals in the discussion of LGBT issues.
That was long and probably rather rambly. I hope it clarified the intentions of the ride and gave a bit of an insight into what happens on the road.
Blessings,
Brian
Our institution was informed by the Equality Ride that we were on their route. It was up to the university to decide how to respond to the fact that ER would be coming to the campus to protest what they believed were anti-gay policies. Also, the ER folks were nonviolent protesters interested in media coverage of the event, which is understandable given their stated purposes. They were also open to discussion of the issues in informal venues.
We just want to live. We are the strangers among you. And God did say, “Justice, justice shall you pursue.” Do not oppress the stranger. Is this not what God wants? What do the Prophets say?
There are six things recorded in Proverbs that God hates and seven that are detestable. None of these, Dr. Brown, are homosexuality.
Dr. Brown, if you are a follower of Jesus than you should know about how Jesus spoke to the Samaratian woman at the well, about his teaching of the good samaritian, about his teaching of the greatest commandment, and about his actions toward the woman caught in adultery. Right?
All of these show a different picture of Jesus that you have stated to me in regard to his teachings about homosexuality, sexual immorality, and etc.
Shalom,
Grethel
Dr. Brown,
I’m not defending his sermon in every detail, just the issue of the lack of freedom of speech behind his pulpit. I believe he also spoke with some compassion for individuals as well — not that that would offset the other language — but I don’t think any balancing statements he made were quoted widely by the media.
I would hope not because the only person who defended his sermon in every detail was Fred Phelps. Fred, in the article I posted above, apparently praised this preacher for his words.
AND, let’s not forget two very important things that Timothy pointed out: This didn’t happen in America and the man was acquitted.
If this man wants to use the word “perverts” and “compassion” in the same sentence, that is fine, but my guess and hope is most of the world would stop listening. I didn’t hear any sort of compassion in his words.
Dr. Brown.
Let me speak to the PFLAG regional director who is a friend of mine. Would you be willing to have those of different view question you? And would you be willing to have others also share who have a different view?
How may he contact you?
Shalom,
Grethel
Dr. Brown,
Will I stand against gay activism? Certainly. Will I do everything in my power to reach out to the larger gay community in love? By God’s grace, yes.
I’m curious what you mean by this? Do you mean that you will prevent gay people from having the same rights as you – that you will prevent gay people from marrying the person they love? Do you mean you will seek to keep gay people being treated as second-class citizens? Do you mean that you will seek to keep gay kids from being protected from bullying and harassment in schools? Because if this is what you mean by reaching out to the gay community in “love”, I can tell you, the community doesn’t need more of that kind of love.
Warren said in post 73052:
Ken – You are going to need to document your claims.
Most of my information comes from Brian Murphy one of the 2007 riders who spoke at Carnegie Mellon University last October (whom I’ve e-mailed and asked to respond here). However, from the news release you cited (emphasis added):
Their mission: to open a dialogue about the painful consequences of discrimination and the religion-based prejudice that sustains it.
In the next paragraph Haven Herrin states:
“Our goal is to foster a conversation about LGBT people and faith. While such conversations are often marked by politics and divisiveness, we bring open minds and hearts to academic settings, where we hope for a genuine exchange of ideas.”
Now as I have stated and the press release points out, on campuses where the administration planned to block them from talking to the students, Equality riders have (did) use alternative means to get their message to the students, staff and faculty.
You also asked (post 73056):
The riders went to place where they disagreed with the school’s policies and said essentially, you are wrong and we are here to tell you so. Why else would they go?
Because gay students at those schools asked for there help in dealing with homophobia on campus.
Grethel,
Well, let’s think about what you wrote here:
1) Prov 6 lists seven sins that are an abomination (Hebrew, to`evah) in God’s sight. Interestingly, that is the same Hebrew word used to describe homosexual acts in Lev 18. So, that would indicate a moral equivalence.
2) I agree that the sins listed in Prov 6 are heinous, but that does not mean that sins not listed there are not heinous. Do I accept pedophilia because it is not listed in Prov 6?
3) Jesus exposed the sin of the Samaritan woman at the well by calling for her husband (she was not married but was living in sin); to the woman caught in adultery he said, “I do not condemn you, now go and sin no more” — not “Go and sin some more.”
4) Jesus also said the following: “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery.’ But I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust has already committed adultery with her in his heart. If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away; it is better for you to lose one of your members than for your whole body to be thrown into hell” (Matt 5:27-29). Another teaching of his was, “It is what comes from inside that defiles you. For from within, out of a person’s heart, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality [the Greek is plural], theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, lustful desires, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness. All these vile things come from within; they are what defile you.” So, the Lord taught that all kinds of sexually immoral acts — which in biblical terms refer to any sexual act outside of male-female marriage — defile us.
I’m just quoting his words, words that I seek to live by — and words which apply to all kinds of sinful behaviors and not just sexual sins.
As for oppressing the stranger, in God’s sight and according to what is taught in His Word, am I oppressing you if I do not believe in same-sex marriages? What if two gay brothers wanted to marry and you frowned on that. Would you be guilty of oppressing them? And since we know that ancient Hebrew culture frowned on homosexual acts, do you think it’s inconsistent to quote the words of the Hebrew prophets to defend GLBT relationships today?
Having said this, I am not invading your private life; I am not attacking you as an individual created by God; and I actually spend a good amount of time helping Christians develop a compassionate hearts towards the GLBT community. But true love does not compromise moral convictions, and that’s where we have our divide.
Do I believe in loving my neighbor as myself? Absolutely, and that’s why I seek to speak the truth to you, even if you reject it, since I would want someone to speak the truth to me regardless of whether it was politically correct or not.
Shalom!
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
As for oppressing the stranger, in God’s sight and according to what is taught in His Word, am I oppressing you if I do not believe in same-sex marriages? What if two gay brothers wanted to marry and you frowned on that. Would you be guilty of oppressing them? And since we know that ancient Hebrew culture frowned on homosexual acts, do you think it’s inconsistent to quote the words of the Hebrew prophets to defend GLBT relationships today?
This is not about brothers marrying each other Dr. Brown. Those kinds of arguments are merely meant to distract from the debate at hand, which involves two unrelated consenting adults of the same sex who love each other and want to get married.
I think its valid to ask WHY some of the ancient Hebrews frowned on homosexual acts, what those particular people and acts were that they frowned on, and if any of that actually says anything about two homosexual people in a committed relationship today. There are many, many things in the Bible that we no longer adhere to today.
Absolutely, and that’s why I seek to speak the truth to you, even if you reject it, since I would want someone to speak the truth to me regardless of whether it was politically correct or not.
I can assure you, the gay community will continue speaking the Truth to you, even though you reject it
Shalom Grethel,
Of course I would gladly be questioned by those who differ and would welcome an equal time setting where others would share. I can be contacted through my website, as you did earlier.
Dr. Brown
Jayhuck,
So I can understand what you mean by civil rights and respond clearly, could you let me know what you would tell two gay brothers who wanted to marry. Do they have the civil right? Or a bisexual man who wanted to be married to both a man and a woman? I’m not being facetious, since real life cases, quite similar to this, are being discussed in courts in America and/or Europe, and I’m curious to see how far you would extend “civil rights.”
As for restriction of freedom of speech in America, how about workers in California being forbidden from using the term “natural family” since it was deemed to be hate speech? To date, the ruling has been upheld by the courts.
I look forward to your responses.
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
I have a Strong’s but I cannot find “homosexuality” listed in the condordance.
There are others who do not share your view about the Hebrew text. The best explaination that I have found online is from the EcoRebbe, Rabbi Gershon Caudill.
Here is his sharing:
HOMOSEXUALITY & THE HEBREW BIBLE:
http://home.earthlink.net/~ecorebbe/id18.html
I have not mastered Hebrew, yet. My college studies come first–Early Childhood Education with concentration in Special Education Associate degree.
I use memorization when I am offering communial prayer. But, my Rabbi is very well educated in Biblical Hebrew as well as other Jewish studies. He holds Bachelor of Hebrew Letters, a Master of Arts in Hebrew Letters, and a Doctor of Divinity. And he has over 25 years experience as a rabbi.
My Rabbi has also shared this very same view about the Hebrew Bible with me and others. As a matter of fact, he has spoken at a Love Welcomes All conference on this very subject. This is how I knew I could trust him to be the first one to tell that I am “gay.” He helped me find PFLAG because I needed support.
The question is would your belief keep me from marrying the woman that I love? To raise a family? And would your belief keep me from being here for her now because she really needs a good support system through a life crisis? {She’s has bipolar disorder. And I have Christians also helping me cope and are giving me support.}
And would your belief system keep you from helping someone like me who has never told their blood family about being gay after the family is told? {There are Christians who are here now for me whenever I am ready to tell my family; my synagogue family already knows.}
BTW, I have done research on children raised by GLBT for college studies. The research was done with a Pentecostal Evangelical classmate. She was opposed to the research topic but by the end realized that GLBTs can raise healthy, whole children.
Ah, but what did Jesus also teach about judging others and loving enemies? And how did Jesus speak to the Samaritan women? Did he call her names? Did he use stereotypes, prejudice, or bias?
Shalom u’ beracha,
Grethel
PS I will speak to my friend as soon as possible. I do not have his email address. But, I should see him on Sunday when I visit the church community that my GF and I associate with.
“And since we know that ancient Hebrew culture frowned on homosexual acts, do you think it’s inconsistent to quote the words of the Hebrew prophets to defend GLBT relationships today?”
Considering what I just shared from the EcoRebbe, can we be so sure that homosexual relationships as we understand them today was condemned? The passage you refer to is very unclear, Dr. Brown. And it is right in the middle of a section talking about pagan temple rituals. A pagan temple ritual us hardly anything like a committed relationship between two people who love each other.
I also believe and know that any Christian or Jewish GLBT would agree that marrying a sibling is not kosher, doesn’t matter straight or gay.
Shalom!
Michael,
(I’m going to call you by your first name – not out of disrespect but so that we can more closely see each other as people.)
I am gladdened that you have one gay activist acquaintance with whom you broke bread once. That is a start and many anti-gay activists never get that far. I strongly encourage you to meet more. You may become very surprised that your mental picture is not consistent with what you experience.
But I also want to propose a notion to you that you may at first find to be bizzare or abhorent, but be patient and think about it:
Michael, you do not have the right to construct a world in which some of the citizens are excluded. You do not have the right to eliminate gay people from schools, work, or society.
You may think it incredible that I make such a claim. But let’s look at it by examining another minority.
Suppose that your grandchild came to you and said, “Grandpa, my teacher said that Muslims are not evil”. Or you son said, “At my job they hired a muslim and I have to work with him. And they said that I couldn’t call him a towelhead and an infidel and tell him he’s going to hell”. Or suppose you were at a courthouse and, oh my goodness, the let the muslim couple get a marriage license.
None of these things are likely to shock you. Because although you believe the religion of Islam is not according to God’s plan and that those who reject Christianity to keep adherence to the teachings of Mohammed are rejecting God’s sacrifice of his Son, you honor the right of all people to practice their religion as they wish. You don’t believe they should be reviled in the workplace or that schools should say they are evil. You respect protections that keep others from targeting them and treating them poorly.
I challenge you to treat gay people at least as you would Muslims.
And ask yourself if these gay activists that are threatening you want anything other than what you would ask for. This activist agenda that is coming your way, is there anything on it that you would be willing to trade to their position. Would you give up what you want these activists to forego?
Though it may be hard to fathom, these activists are human. And American. And very very much like you. There are no “activists” and “non-activists” when it comes to gay people. You can’t say that you have compassion for non-activists when by activist you mean all gay people who believe in equality — which is pretty much all of us.
Now I know that you consider yourself to oppose homophobia and stereotypes. But, Michael, you immediately followed that claim with… a stereotype.
It may well suit you to think of me a in pain and feeling rejection and misunderstood. It becomes easier to pity me… and, of course, not see me as a real person.
I’m not in pain. I don’t feel rejected. I live in Los Angeles where frankly no one cares if I’m gay – including the Christian folk I run into. My work, my friends, my church, the places I eat and shop. No rejection. No pain.
I challenge you, Michael, not to come to us with your words of wisdom, or to tell us we can’t be Christian and gay, or your compassionate convictions. We aren’t looking for someone to speak “the truth” at us.
Come to us with your mouth closed and your ears open. Come to us to learn.
Because what you believe to be true about gay people seems to be very far from what we know to be true.
Dr. Brown,
two gay brothers who wanted to marry. Do they have the civil right? Or a bisexual man who wanted to be married to both a man and a woman?
These are all distractions Dr. Brown and you know it. We aren’t talking about incest or polygamy here, we’re talking about two unrelated consenting adults who love each other.
I would like to echo Timothy’s comments. The gay community has, for years, had people talking TO IT. Of course these people claim that what they are doing is out of love, but it amounts to pity and demeaning gay people. We don’t need more people talking TO US, we need people talking WITH us. Please do “come to us with your mouth closed and your ears open”. I’ll say this again because it bares repeating: The gay community doesn’t need more of what you call “Love”.
As for Natural Family – I’ve heard of the Natural Family Manifesto and about the courts decision in California regarding the two employees who kept putting up flyers in response to gay employees flyers. All I can say is that employers all across this country dictate to all of us what is appropriate speech and what isn’t in the workplace. This isn’t anything new Dr. Brown – its been going on for years. No one has real free speech in the workplace and they shouldn’t either. When people in this country are being taken to court or hauled to jail because they stood in the public square and talked about Natural Families then get back with me, until then don’t use the workplace as some sort of battleground for free speech – it isn’t and it never will be.
In a San Francisco Chronicle on the subject I read: “In this case, the court said, the two employees were not punished and were allowed to submit a reworded flyer.”
Michael Brown asked in post 73151:
Or a bisexual man who wanted to be married to both a man and a woman?
The same thing I would tell to a man who wanted to marry 2 women at the same time. Civil marriages in the US have evolved in to a partnership of TWO equal partners and not equipped to handle more than that. Further if he could devise an equitable, workable system to handle polygamous marriages that addresses the plethora of legal/logistic problems such marriage would create, I would be willing to consider it.
since real life cases, quite similar to this, are being discussed in courts in America and/or Europe,
Really, can you give me a reference for any US cases dealing with 2 brothers trying to marry? or a Bisexual man trying to marry both a man and a woman?
As for restriction of freedom of speech in America, how about workers in California being forbidden from using the term “natural family” since it was deemed to be hate speech? To date, the ruling has been upheld by the courts.
I’m assuming you are referring to “Good News Employee Associate v. Hicks” if not please cite the case you are referring to. This case is not about “hate speech.” It is about offensive speech (which is different) in the workplace. Nor have they been “forbidden” to use the term, “natural family.” They were told they couldn’t put up an anti-gay flyer on the bulletin board (or send similar material via e-mail).
Timothy,
Believe it or not, I’ve thought through the very things you have requested here, and my conclusions remain the same. Is it possible that you could enter my world and see why that is the case?
Let me try to explain for a moment: I grew up in a very liberal home where my organ teacher from the age of five was gay. Sometimes my family would visit him and his partner in New York City (back then they were called “fairies,” as you recall), and there was never anything considered wrong about it. As a believer in Jesus, I have been forgiven much and therefore find it easy to forgive others (or, to judge with mercy, as I have been judged with mercy). Also, the spouse of a very close friend of mine came out of homosexuality, and I accepted this person into my life like anyone else.
But I have no question whatsoever before God that His design and order and will is for opposite sex marriage and relationships, and to break down this order is ultimately destructive. I see GID as a genuine disorder needing help; I agree with the surgeons and psychologists who say that we should treat the mind and not the member; I see two mommies or two daddies as not being in the best interest of children; and again, according to Scripture, I see homosexual acts as being sinful in God’s sight, similar to adultery and fornication. (BTW, on a practical level in terms of the family structure, the new book by Dale O’Leary, One and One Woman, is worth reading.)
Why, then, should I want something contrary to God’s order put forth as ideal or as an alternative norm? You have your reasons for rejecting other orientations, such as necrophilia or pedophilia — we agree here! — and I have my reason for rejecting homosexual orientation as an equivalent of heterosexual orientation.
Do I tolerate hate speech? Not for a second. Do I stand by idly when the Fred Phelps of this world proclaim their venom? God forbid! But that does not mean that I abandon my moral convictions, regardless of how those convictions appear to you.
As for all my posting here online, remember that in this particular instance, I have been replying from the start: Warren asked me about the accuracy of comments wrongly attributed to me, then I’ve interacted with bloggers. I’m not coming in as the wise and compassionate answer man to set the record straight. I’m simply interacting with other posters here, and by God’s grace, I will continue to pursue many ministry endeavors outside of this blog, some of which include humanitarian work in countries like India (from whence I just returned), some of which include outreach to my own Jewish people, and some of which include addressing gay activism as it intersects with Christian values. Obviously, we will not be in harmoy here.
Also, my point about pain and rejection was not to claim that all gays suffer from this, but rather to say, “When I’ve read the books that speak of these things, I can really get into those people’s shoes.”
Lastly, for the record, I’ve interacted at some length with other gay activists, but the ongoing email, occasional lunch relationship has not happened as much as desired, although I will continue to pursue it. And on a daily basis, I interact with the GLBT community — especially while flying — so I certainly do not have some demonized view of a large and diverse group of people. My issue is with an activist agenda.
Michael
Grethel,
I’m more than aware of different opinions about what the Bible says, which is the main reason I earned a Ph.D. in Near Eastern Languages and Litertures — so as to study the Scriptures in depth on my own, without relying on anyone else’s commentary. It doesn’t make me right, but it certainly helps me come to firm conclusions.
I would encourage you to study carefully Robert Gagnon’s book on The Bible and Homosexual Practice. It is a fine work of scholarship and very accurate in its conclusions.
Dr. Brown
Jayhuck,
My question about two gay brothers was not meant as a distraction but as a desire to get into a qualitative discussion of why certain unions would be acceptable and others not. Would you be kind enough to answer whethere you would sanction two gay brothers getting married? And if not, why not?
Thanks,
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
So, what about those who do not have Ph.Ds. in Near Eastern Languages and Litertures?
The majority of Christians do not. So, what does this say? Can they not come to firm conclusions?
As for myself, when questioning I seek those very well educated in Hebrew in order to understand or clarify Torah and/or entire Tanach. And as I discovered there are words in Biblical Hebrew that scholars are unsure of what the words actually mean.
Why do you feel that Robert Gagnon gives a very accurate conclusion?
I also like to use critical thinking.
If I read over this book by Robert Gagnon, I would first ask who is this person? What are his beliefs? Why is he writing this book? What is his main point?
What view of the world does Gagnon have?
What data is given? What experiences are shared?
What evidence is given? What resources does he use?
Is his thinking justified according to what is given?
What techniques does he use to draw his audience into his material?
Does he use fallacies?
1st series of questions answered:
Robert A. J. Gagnon, associate professor of New Testament at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary
2nd: What Christian view of the world does he have?
Unsure. But is associated with, the Presbyterian Church.
Shalom!,
Grethel
Michael,
With all due respect, this is a most frustrating conversation. You do not respond to what we say but instead you talk over us as though we had said nothing at all.
You have started a game of “Yeah, But”.
Yeah but what about Ake Green. We answer that as being irrelevant to your claim about your religious freedoms in America, pointing out that this was Sweden and that Green won.
Yeah but what about the employees who wanted to put up anti-gay flyers. We point out that this is a workplace situation and that they were allowed to put up flyers that were not in opposition to other employees.
Yeah but what about somebody who somewhere might have wanted to marry their brother…
This is pointless. It is not conversation. It is not dialog. It is not communication.
And you may well note that no one else is feeding back the list of horrors that “Christians” have perpetrated on gay citizens. This sort of posturing does not increase communication, it breaks it down. It’s simply plugging your ears and shouting.
Listen to yourself. Seriously. In one sentence you say that you don’t stereotype or demonize. And in the next you do exactly that. You pride yourself that you oppose Phelps, but what you say has almost no discernable difference – or not to those hearing it. It is still untrue, a recitation of grievances that have nothing to do with any of us, and insinuation and accusation. So you don’t use the word “hate”. But Michael, that is NOT the great defining difference that you think it is.
We are not asking you to change your faith. We are not asking you to think gay couples to be acceptable to your religion. We are not asking you to accept the determinations of those in the mental health field that homosexuality is not “a genuine disorder needing help”.
We are asking you to stop making insinuations and accusations about some “gay activist agenda” that exists only in the minds of anti-gay activists. We are asking you to stop bringing false witness. We are asking you to stop taking what you read at CitizenLink and LifeSite and WorldNetDaily and thinking that these are truthful and accurate assessments of gay people, gay activists, gay “lifestyle”, or gay “agenda”.
Because, Michael, they are not. And when you continue to spread this dishonesty it seeps into your soul.
If you continue on this path I fear you are going to find yourself at some point like so many other anti-gays, willing to say anything or do anything no matter how bizzare of abhorent because fighting “the gay agenda” has replaced seeking God and truth.
We are simply asking that you listen. I’m fearing that listening is something that you are unwilling to do.
Timothy
Oh, and P.S. There has never been a time in the history of this country in which the term “fairies” was ever used in a non-pejorative way. If that’s how your family derided your music teacher, they were not a “liberal” as you suppose.
Timothy,
“Fairies” was used in my household in a cute way, and we sat in the home of this couple and hung out with them as if nothing was wrong. You don’t have to believe what I’m saying. (Also, to a five year old, “fairy” did not have a pejorative meaning.)
As for the frustrating nature of this conversation — yes, I feel the same on my end. As I sit here typing at my computer, I’m looking at a wall of books on gay issues, the vast majority written by GLBT authors, so I’m not relying on WND and Citizen Link and other sources. I believe there is an activist agenda because I read the words of GLBT activists, and I can’t ignore Matt Foreman of the NGLTF when he states, ““You want to know the state of our movement on November 10, 2006? We are strong, unbowed, unbeaten, vibrant, energized and ready to kick some butt. . . . The agenda and vision that we must proudly articulate is that yes, indeed, we intend to change society.”
I cannot ignore Mel White when he writes, “Jesus said, ‘Love your enemies.’ Love demands that we quit cooperating with those who oppress us. It is time for a campaign of relentless nonviolent resistance that will convince our adversaries to do justice at last. They have assumed that we are infinitely patient or too comfortable to call for revolution. For their sake, and for the sake of the nation, we must prove them wrong.”
What exactly does this “revolution” mean? Is there no “agenda” behind it? Is Matt Foreman using a non-existent word? You might agree with every one of the goals — that’s not the issue; the issue is whether there are certain activist goals that directly impact my life, and the answer is yes.
Look, Catholic Charities is now out of the adoption business because MA would not give them a religious exemption to not place children in same-sex parented households. Is that something you smile upon?
And the very fact that you could call something referring to the “natural family” anti-gay means that the primary measure of right and wrong is based on what is right in your eyes. Justice, it would appear, only goes one way.
And when you say that there’s very little to separate me from Fred Phelps, I can only wonder how honestly you are evaluating my words. If the failure is in how I’m communicating, I certainly apologize. If the failure is the grid through which you’re hearing things, then that’s something for you to consider.
In any case, if our paths cross, it would be great to sit and talk face to face. And if you feel that it would be fruitful to continue this interaction and time permits, then I’m happy to do so.
Michael
Grethel,
Of course, all of us have certain presuppositions, and honest scholarship study does its best to work past those and engage the texts in the most objective way possible. Ultimately, God is the final Judge as to how we do.
As for Gagnon’s book, in my view, he is remarkably objective, which is why some leading pro-gay scholars have praised his work. That’s why I recommend it.
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
Show me two gay brothers who want to get married and then we can talk.
As I sit here typing at my computer, I’m looking at a wall of books on gay issues, the vast majority written by GLBT authors, so I’m not relying on WND and Citizen Link and other sources. I believe there is an activist agenda
What is the gay activist agenda? Are we once again talking about having equal rights? If that is what is meant by “changing society”, and I think it is, I think most gay people would be on board with this idea.
BUT – by changing society we don’t mean to diminish it. Just as Timothy said above, all we want is to be treated as humans, adults and people who deserve respect and the same rights as everyone else. We aren’t asking ANYONE to change their beliefs or their faith, just to give us “a place at the table”.
By the actions of some Evangelicals I have to wonder if they get some kind of good feeling by keeping gay people subjugated . Does it make Evangelicals feel better about themselves to keep a minority they don’t approve of from having the same rights as they do? Until the playing field is level, and gay people have the same rights as their straight neighbor, I’m not sure we can be having much of a successful conversation at all.
Regarding Robert Gagnon:
I would recommend everyone start out reading a small article titled “Can We Talk? Homosexuality and the Christian Faith: A discussion series based on articles from the Christian Century”.
Read the Article Here
You will find writings by all the following authors, as well as some good criticisms of Robert Gagnon by Walter Wink.
“To Hell with Gays?” by Walter Wink, June 5-12, 2002
“Gays and the Bible,” by Robert A. J. Gagnon, August 14-27, 2002
“A More Perfect Union: Reservations about Gay Marriage,” by Dennis O‚
Brien, January 27, 2004
“Sanctified Unions: An Argument for Gay Marriage,” by Eugene F. Rogers
Jr., June 15, 2004
Walter Wink also responds to criticisms leveled at him by Robert Gagnon
Michael,
You are in Culture Warrior mode. Sadly I have to conclude that nothing I could possibly say can reach you.
I could tell you that the “agenda” of the gay community is to achieve equality under law. This would not stop you from seeing as a nefarious attack on you and your values.
I could tell you that the employee group was formed for the specific purpose of trying to display their dislike of gay fellow workers and to make their work environment unpleasant (as all the news sources agree). This would not stop you from seeing them as allies in a war on evil.
You see gay people – what you call activists – as being a threat to you. You have walled yourself off behind a high wall of “love the sinner” and are not approachable. You have a long list of “yeah, buts” ready to lob at anyone who tries to talk to you. You fire first and ask questions later… or never.
How can I respond? At this point I don’t even see how to reach you. How can I talk when you cannot go a single comment without ladening your speech with accusations and demonizations? With anecdote irrelevant to anything at all?
We often wonder how could people in times of war behave heinously. We have a hard time fathoming acts of attrocities. But these are understandable from a physchological perspective – when you view the other as your enemy you no longer have to view them as like you, a human.
And your culture war is tearing our nation apart. We are waging war on our neighbors, making ridiculous and cruel accusations, and detroying any hope of civility or finding common ground. It is in this culture that folks like Ann Coulter or Al Franken thrive. And I, for one, find it to be the antithesis of the message of Christ.
Michael, there is no doubt in my mind, and it is clearly confirmed to anyone reading this exchange, that you are not at all interested in knowing gay people as people. You do not see any place for gay people to coexist in the world with you.
And that is sad. Not for us, we’ll survive. The tide of history is on our side.
I hope and pray that some day you will be able to cease your combat, stop your insinuations and accusations, quit playing martyr, and let God’s grace heal you so you can see your fellow man as another child of God.
Timothy
Michael,
Please be encouraged – you are articulating just fine, even if it is not what others want to hear.
Timothy,
Be assured that I’m equally frustated in my ability to reach you.
Stil, I ask again, are you unable to see that there are two sides to this issue? That your battle for what you call equality directly impinges on my freedoms and values?
And my reason for citing additional anecdotes in each email is because you tell me that each one previously cited is irrelevant.
In any event, there are plenty of gay people I have interacted with in the last few years, very few of whom are activists, and they would be living proof that I seek to get to know them as people.
As for prayer for my “healing,” let’s both pray to the heavenly Father to do what He sees is needed in each of our lives, and let’s pray that we will both be open to that. And for whatever it’s worth, take a look at all of your posts and all of mine, and please identify each derogatory or accusatory comment I made about you as an individual — I’m talking directly to Timothy Kincaid, not the GLBT community at large — and then see what you’ve said about me. Perhaps this will prove to be an enlightening exercise for you (or other readers too).
Blessings on you,
Michael
Dr Brown,
I ask that you take a look at Timothy’s posts again as well. I think that exercise might be enlightening for you too.
Ann,
Please be encouraged – you are articulating just fine, even if it is not what others want to hear.
I could just as easily say the same thing to Timothy!
I don’t think Dr. Brown is listening to what Timothy and some of us are trying to say.
Michael,
Thank you for addressing me without some appeal to some anecdote. I think that makes it easier to communicate.
You believe that my appeal for equality infringes on your freedoms and values.
What then are we to do? If my equality cannot exist with your freedoms, then what?
In your perfect world, what would become of me?
Michael –
You stated:
“I see GID as a genuine disorder needing help”
I wasn’t sure how that fit in with the discussion of gays and lesbians…sometimes individuals see homosexuality as a form of gender identity issues, and I wanted to clarify to see if this is what you were relating it to. I wasn’t sure, and it’s better to ask than to assume.
Also…you stated:
“Look, Catholic Charities is now out of the adoption business because MA would not give them a religious exemption to not place children in same-sex parented households. Is that something you smile upon?”
It is indeed sad that Catholic Charities couldn’t extend beyond their own world view to accurately interpret the research on same-sex couples as parents. The largest medical, pediatric, psychological, and scientific organizations support same-sex adoptions. Denying individuals the ability to adopt needs to be based on something.
Michael,
Thank you for what you write and how you write it.
I want to chime in and say I appreciate very much the tone and the candor of the conversation occuring on this thread.
Jayhuck, I think we are all listening and I detect much effort to understand. It is good to express views without being jumped on so that they can be examined from a number of perspectives. I know I have expanded my understanding via the conversations here and elsewhere over the last 2-3 years.
Unless I am mistaken, the issue with Catholic Charities is that they wanted to take state money to provide services only to heterosexuals. I don’t have any problems with Catholic Charities spending their own money as they see fit to provide such parents to orphans as they wish. But I have little sympathy with those who insist on taking public funds and then discriminate on a religious basis.
This is one reason why I think that “faith based funding” is the worst possible thing a church would ever want to accept. Because when the rules change, as they do with every administration, you either conform your practices to the secular rules or you lose the program you built.
Jayhuck,
I am listening to you and Timothy, but for many reasons, I do not agree with what is being said. All we can do on both sides of this divide is try to listen, correct? We may not satisfy one another in the process, however,
Dr. Brown
Timothy,
Thanks for your question. My answer might trouble you deeply, and I do not mean to insult you as an individual before God, but I must be candid: In a perfect world, there would be no hatred, no war, no rape, no injustice, no greed, no drunkenness, no violence . . . . Perhaps we agree on this. In a perfect world, there would be no sickness, no mental illness, no barren wombs, no infertile males . . . . Perhaps we agree on this too. And in a perfect world, I would be a very different human being than I am!
But a perfect world would be a heterosexual world, with all loving couples able to enter into a lifelong relationship through which they can produce the unique byproduct of that relationship in their biological children.
If you feel hatred in this statement or utter rejection in this statement, I can understand why. But you ask me about a perfect world, and to me it is painful that you and the person you love the most cannot reproduce the extraordinary life that is the byproduct of the two of you coming together. I don’t see that as God’s ideal, nor do I see homosexual sex as conforming to how we are designed as male and female.
However, since we are not in a perfect world, I would say that you must stand up for what you feel is right and I must do the same on my end, but always with the goal of understanding each other better, always with the goal of communicating openly with each other, always with the goal of not demonizing each other. And if one of us can reach out to the other and pull them over to their side, more power to them.
Does that answer your question?
Michael
Warren,
I know I have expanded my understanding via the conversations here and elsewhere over the last 2-3 years.
As have I Warren – And I owe a great deal to you and your blog for that – And while I appreciate some of what Dr. Brown has to say – NOTHING he says is new. It is the same basic “love the sinner hate the sin” speech that the gay community has been pummeled with for years. I’m willing to admit its my bias, but I think what Timothy is doing is trying to change the discussion so that we don’t so much focus on the gay person as a sinner, as we do treat them as a human being worthy of respect – with the same rights and privileges as everyone else – and you don’t have to change your beliefs about homosexuality in order to give them these things.
Jag,
Thanks so much for asking about what I meant about GID. I had stated that “I have no question whatsoever before God that His design and order and will is for opposite sex marriage and relationships, and to break down this order is ultimately destructive.” Then I listed many gay-related issues, one of which was GID, and since many gays believe GID should be removed from the APA’s list of disorders, I differ with that. My point was that these are not ideal conditions, conditions which are in harmony with God’s ideal.
As for your statement about all the organizations that agree that same-sex parented homes do as well as opposite sex couples, I’m afraid that’s an example of these groups joining in together with a politically correct position, but one which cannot be supported scientifically. See if you can find the article by Walter Schumm, EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE ON GAY MARRIAGE AND CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES. Or check out Dale O’Leary’s new book One Man, One Woman. She has some amazing quotes from gay organizations on same-sex households.
So, I beg to differ with the assessment based on the data I’ve seen and based on the unique role played by a mom and dad in raising a child. Are there loving gay couples? Of course! Are there devoted gay parents? Without a doubt! Is this the best environment for a child to be raised? I do not believe so.
Michael
Dr. Brown,
As for your statement about all the organizations that agree that same-sex parented homes do as well as opposite sex couples, I’m afraid that’s an example of these groups joining in together with a politically correct position, but one which cannot be supported scientifically. See if you can find the article by Walter Schumm, EMPIRICAL AND THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES FROM SOCIAL SCIENCE ON GAY MARRIAGE AND CHILD CUSTODY ISSUES. Or check out Dale O’Leary’s new book One Man, One Woman. She has some amazing quotes from gay organizations on same-sex households.
I’m sorry but the fact that gay parents are rearing children as well as straight parents is backed up by science. There has been a Canadian study, on in New York as well as others that show that the children of gay parents are no better and no worse than children of straight parents.
I also wanted to ask you – do you really believe that simply having a mom and dad makes for having a good household? I know many, many people who had terribly dysfunctional families – but the families both had a mother and a father. You seem to operate under the idea that a household with both a mother and a father is the optimal environment for raising kids and this is obviously not the case. When you have two PEOPLE who love and care for a child, who are also willing to sacrifice for the child – these are the people that make good parents.
Shalom, Dr. Brown.
Thanks for the discussion! And thank you for being kind with your responses. That speaks volumes! You have treated me as a person–not a lesbian who you disagree with– and that I appreciate.
I will most certainly speak to the man who oversees this region’s PFLAG and see if he is interested in contacting you.
In another post you said:
“I see two mommies or two daddies as not being in the best interest of children;”
My response back:
As someone who has been working with children and has studied Early Childhood Education for a little over 2 years now–working on Associate degree, I disagree.
Having a loving, nurturing home is in the best interest of children.
I highly recommend this book:
Brazelton, T B., and Stanley I. Greenspan. The Irreducible Needs of Children. Cambridge: Perseus, 2000.
I am working on setting up my co-op II schedule and talking to the director about getting hired on after the co-op is over and I graduate. And I am also dealing with supporting my girlfriend through a crisis with her bipolar disorder. So, I may not be able to engage in much back and forth discussion at this time. But, I am reachable through email and via my cellphone # which I gave to Eric McCoy
who I contacted via your website.
Be well,
Grethel
Jayhuck – Please find the reference you cite. I have yet to see a study that could answer the question in any general sense. I would like to know what you feel qualifies to cite in that regard.
Also, you are reasoning from anecdote. It is an open question what the impact of arrangements which preclude a mom or a dad will be on kids generally.
Grethel,
Thanks for the kind words. I’ll check out the book when I have the chance.
Also, I don’t normally have this amount of time to blog either, so it’s understandable if you have to drop out for a moment. I might have to as well.
Dr. Brown
Ken,
I’m so sorry. It appears that I missed your post about Ake Green. I will look into the question about the press and respond ASAP. I was not ignoring you.
Dr. Brown
Warren,
I am reasoning from experience, because it really only takes one example to refute the idea that simply having a mother and a father makes for a good household. We all know that this isn’t the case – I was just trying to make that perfectly clear. One mother + One Father does not in any way equal a healthy and supportive environment for children
Here is one article
Here’s another
Here’s another
A nice Wiki Article on LGBT Parenting
There may be others but this is what I found in about 20 minutes online. I had heard of a few of them before.
Jayhuck,
Let’s not forget that there are single parent homes, too. Children who are also in the foster care system and/or adoption systems. Then, there are children who are also raised by a grandparent(s).
In my class that covered diversity, we learned that defining what family means is very hard.
I do suggest the text book that we used to grasp an understanding.
The book is:
Home, School, and Community Relations Fifth Edition by Carol Gestwicki.
http://www.campusi.com/prod.pl?cat=book&op=buy&lang=en-us&search_country=us&shipto=us¤cy=usd&zip=&nw=y&class=&use_ajax=1&pqcs=&ean=9780766863071
My previous co-op experience has also given me concept that family can’t always be defined as mother, father, and siblings.
Shalom,
Grethel
Grethel,
My previous co-op experience has also given me concept that family can’t always be defined as mother, father, and siblings.
And you would be absolutely right Grethel.
Michael Brown says…
So according to Scripture, you “see homosexual acts as being sinful in God’s sight, similar to” remarriage — As per:
Yet you list unrepentant adulterer (as per Biblical definition) Joe Dallas as one of your resources:
Despite:
Joe Dallas, divorced and remarried.
A couple of preemptives,
Forgiven?
Matthew 19:6: 6) So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
Clearly you don’t think man’s divorce laws trump God’s law?
And then there’s this on the subject from Assemblies of God:
“The Bible shows that God expects contracts to be kept even when entered into wrongly.”
Contracts entered into for the express purpose of committing sin should be kept? Is this something you believe?
More to the point, if you have considered a way around all that, why would you not feel the need to disclaim all this when touting Joe Dallas as a moral authority? Did it not occur to you that this might come across as flaming hypocrisy?
The point is, as has been expressed, it’s your anti-consistency position that is at issue here, not your anti-gay position.
Also,
Michael Brown wrote…
Loverly. And if Leviticus 18:22 applies, why not <a href=”http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020:13&version=31″Leviticus 20:13, which commands the genocide of gay men?
If the “abomination” of the command for genocide doesn’t count, why should the abominations listed in Proverbs 6:16-19 count?:
16 There are six things the LORD hates,
seven that are detestable to him:
17 haughty eyes,
a lying tongue,
hands that shed innocent blood,
18 a heart that devises wicked schemes,
feet that are quick to rush into evil,
19 a false witness who pours out lies
and a man who stirs up dissension among brothers.
I have to say that you come across as fitting the bill. At least to the extent that you have a lying tongue and a false witness.
But back to killing gays:
Actually it’s right on their website:
Leviticus 20:13, It’s also mentioned by Scott Davis in the Exodus book, God’s Grace and the Homosexual Next Door.
For reference sake:
Leviticus 20:13 If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.
In neither case do they take the time to denounce this Biblical
mustcommand for genocide.So when it comes to Exodus – and by extension, Love Won Out – being “known” for calling for the death penalty for homosexual practice is pretty much just a web page away.
I guess I’m asking, why the surprise at being connected with such a position?
Emproph,
Thanks for your detailed post. In point of fact, I have spoken out against rampant divorce in the Church for many years, long before I addressed the issue of homosexual acts. (And to be sure, I always preach to myself first, examining my own life and marriage.) To this day, when I speak to fellow-Christians and meet with national leaders, the issue of unjustified divorce and remarriage is always front and center.
May I ask, however, if the things you point to in Joe’s story took place before he was a believer? If so, I would see his sin of adultery on a par with his sin of bisexual promiscuity. He repented of both and has been living faithfully with his wife ever since. Am I mistaken?
And, for the record, then, are you willing to raise the standard across the board and to acknowledge that all sexual acts outside of male-female marriage are forbidden by God and contrary to His plan?
Thanks for the interaction,
Michael
I have to say that you come across as fitting the bill. At least to the extent that you have a lying tongue and a false witness.
Michael,
I do not believe this to be true about you.
Emproph – Your questions and contributions have value as they are raising some good questions. However, please keep the attacks out (lying tongue, etc).
Dr. Brown,
Here is the autobiography of Joe Dallas:
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/pages/joe_d.html
You stated and asked:
“May I ask, however, if the things you point to in Joe’s story took place before he was a believer? If so, I would see his sin of adultery on a par with his sin of bisexual promiscuity. He repented of both and has been living faithfully with his wife ever since. Am I mistaken?”
According to Joe’s autobiography, both he and his first wife were involved in ministry. After he seperated from her, he was a student minister on the M.C.C. staff. (I am not sure what or who M.C.C. is.} The autobiography say that Joe began a personal relationship with Jesus prior to meeting his first wife.
I was curious and researched. This is what I discovered.
Shalom and blessings,
Grethel
-ok, hopefully sans gratuitous attacks…
Michael Brown says,
He repented of both and has been living faithfully with his [SECOND] wife ever since. Am I mistaken?
I’m asking you. How does one “repent” of adultery while one is still (Biblically) committing it?
And, for the record, then, are you willing to raise the standard across the board and to acknowledge that all sexual acts outside of male-female marriage are forbidden by God and contrary to His plan?
Do you need the Bible to confirm for you that you should be attracted to women?
If you cannot even accept God’s Biblical definition of adultery, how is it that you feel you are in a position to require me to accept God’s Biblical definition of marriage as a standard? Especially when I am convinced I was designed this way.
I’m not asking you to accept my assessment of myself, I’m just asking that you condemn it in a consistent manner so that I can take you seriously.
Michael, If a man or woman became a believer after marrying a same-sex partner and starting a family with children–should that new believer leave his/her family or should she/he continue to live faithfully from there out?
Michael –
“As for your statement about all the organizations that agree that same-sex parented homes do as well as opposite sex couples, I’m afraid that’s an example of these groups joining in together with a politically correct position, but one which cannot be supported scientifically.”
Well…I’m not so sure about this. For example:
As early as 2002, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) was also exploring this issue. Dr. Ellen Perrin, led the Committee on Psychosocial Aspects of Child and Family Health at the AAP. They studied adoption by same-sex parents. Her prime task was to determine if there is a disadvantage conferred upon a child who is being raised by two men or two women, in comparison to the same child being raised by a man and woman. Perrin said: “We felt that the data were very conclusive that the answer to that question is ‘no.’ ” Thus, the AAP will support legal and legislative efforts to allow adoption by gay and lesbian couples. Perrin said: “We, meaning basically the Academy of Pediatrics , felt that the research was conclusive enough when taken in its totality to support this policy.”
The APA also mentions literature in their statements…for example one being that the reason they draw their conclusions:
“”Whereas the scientific literature has found no significant difference between different-sex couples and same-sex couples that justify discrimination…”;
“Whereas scientific research has not found significant psychological or emotional differences between the children raised in different-sex versus same-sex households…”
“Legal Benefits for Same – Sex Couples,” American Psychological Association, at: http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/statements.html#11
They reference more particular studies in this statement:
First, homosexuality is not a psychological disorder (Conger, 1975). Although exposure to prejudice and discrimination based on sexual orientation may cause acute distress (Mays & Cochran, 2001; Meyer, 2003), there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002). Lesbian and heterosexual women have not been found to differ markedly in their approaches to child rearing (Patterson, 2000; Tasker, 1999). Members of gay and lesbian couples with children have been found to divide the work involved in childcare evenly, and to be satisfied with their relationships with their partners (Patterson, 2000, 2004a). The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers’ and gay fathers’ parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997). On the contrary, results of research suggest that lesbian and gay parents are as likely as heterosexual parents to provide supportive and healthy environments for their children.
Specific studies? Well, you can start with this one:
Kirkpatrick, Smith, and Roy, Lesbian Mothers and their Children: A Comparative Survey, 51 Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 545, 551 (1981).
The majority of research against same-sex couples as parents tends to come from organizations like NARTH, which has…well…zero scientific credibility.
So, overall Michael, I don’t see these groups joining in a “politically correct position,” (as you have stated) but I see them supporting the overwhelming conclusion of the research.
I respectfully disagree with your position on this, and hope you will take the time and really dig into the literature.
Granted, there seems to be bias on both sides…but the studies are just overwhelming.
Brian,
Thanks for your question, which is certainly a logical one to raise. The difference in the two situations is that under no circumstances would the same-sex relationship be recognized by God, even if He completely wiped the slate clean of past offenses and gave each person a brand new start.
So, let’s say that someone was married, divorced, then living with someone out of wedlock before they came to faith in Jesus (I’m talking about heterosexual marriage and divorce), and God gave them a fresh new start. That fresh new start would require that they either separated or married, but to continue “living in sin” would not be an option.
It’s the same thing for same-sex couples, regardless of what the state confers on them. Making a fresh new start in God would require the breaking of that same-sex relationship.
I trust you understand that I’m not making an independent judgment on this, but I’m simply relating to you my understanding of what the Scriptures teach.
As to the relationship with the children, that would be a more complicated issue to sort out — for obvious reasons — but I would think that a loving parent would want to continue in relationship with a child, but we must remember that in the case of a same-sex couple with kids, at best, they can only be the biological child of one of the parties, and so they are someone else’s child as well, again, potentially complicating the matter.
No one said this was easy, but I do beleive as we do things God’s way, He works things out for the best for all involved.
Michael
Emproph,
I certainly don’t to waste your time or mine, and I hope you won’t find this question offensive, but are you genuinely interested in hearing me out in terms of my answers and “taking me seriously”?
I know that these are hot button issues, and so I’m not personally offended by some of your rhetoric, but I’m trying to sort out the real questions from the rhetoric, so if you really want to hear me out, just let me know, and I’ll respond to your posts ASAP.
Michael
Michael,
Thanks for taking the time to check in and respond. I’ve appreciated your clarity and the tone of your responses.
Michael and Timothy,
I want to thank you both for the tones of your messages. I’ve known Timothy to be an excellent writer with a level-head and compassionate tone for some time, but I think you both give the rest of us something to aspire to when it comes to writing on these sorts of topics.
Jag,
Thanks so much for the detailed response. I’m familiar with most of the material but have not read all of it. I will research more as time permits.
My understanding has been that the sample base and length of time involved in most of the studies — not to mention potential bias in the research – did not justify the positive conclusions drawn about same-sex parenting. I would also point you to the 2004 study of Stacey and Biblarz, both gay activists, in their meta-analysis of twenty previous studies. Well, Stacey and Biblarz concluded that the authors of the previous studies had overlooked the differences they had found.
Dale O’Leary notes that, “children raised by parents with SSA showed empathy for ‘social diversity,’ [obviously, a positive for gays], were less confined by gender stereotypes, more likely to have confusion about gender identity, more likely to engage in sexual experimentation and promiscuity, and more likely to explore homosexual behavior” (One Man, One Woman, 226). O’Leary also quotes Paula Ettelbrick of the NGLTF who stated that the Stacey and Biblarz study had “’burst the bubble of one of the best kept secrets’ of the gay community – namely that the studies it had been using didn’t actually support the claims it was making” (ibid., 227).
This confirms what I had understood to be true: There are differences in kids raised in SSA parented homes, and a number of those differences are negative and deleterious.
Michael
Ann and Eddy,
Thanks for the kind words.
Michael
Dr. Brown,
I still highly disagree with you. I did research on this very subject for a class project. The finding that I found suggest that children raised by same-sex parents do just fine as long as specific needs are met. If you read that book that I suggested you’ll learn that Brazelton and Geenspan list seven irreducible needs of children:
*ongoing nuturing relationships with adults
*protection (physical, safety, and regulation)
* experiences to fit individual differences
* set limits, structure, and expectations
* stable & supportive communities and cultural continuity
* protection of the future (commitment of rich, developed nations to children who live in less developed countries/ help for children in poverty)
Same-sex parents can meet these needs.
Here is info on a study that suggest that teems of same-sex parents are well adjusted:
http://sexualhealth.e-healthsource.com/?p=news1&id=522343
I can get access to Child Development that the study is published in. I just have to wait until the college library opens back up. We should have copies available or I can access it through Academic Search Premier through EBSCO.
Many children raised in homes where there are parents of the both sexes have many issues, too. We can’t over look this fact. Why? The children’s needs are not being met.
Also remember that there are same-sex foster parents as well as parents who chose adoption. Not all the children are biological children of one of the partners. I have a copy of “The Story of a Gay Foster Parent” which was published in the magazine Child Welfare. The article is in Vol. LXXXV # 2 March/April edition of the magazine.
I can email you my review of the article, if you would like. I had to review the article as part of my assignment. The story is told my Dennis Patrick who a Professor at Eastern Michigan University.
His family’s story can also be read here:
http://www.pridesource.com/article.shtml?article=14684
If you get a chance also take a look at this:
http://www.familydiv.org/lovemakesafamily.php
Shalom,
Grethel
PS I could use some prayer. We may not agree on things. But, I can use all the prayer I can get right now. Todah!
Stressful times, very stressful times. Money is tight and I am worried about my GF.
Michael,
I think its worthwhile to note that the studies that support that gay parents raise children who are as “healthy” and well-adjusted as straight parents have been duplicated by different researchers in different countries.
I think its also worthwhile to note that Dale is “a writer and researcher for the Catholic Medical Association.” who apparently has some ties to NARTH – although I’m not actually sure what these ties are yet. Hardly someone I would call unbiased when it comes to these matters.
Some other interesting facts about Dale O’Leary from FactIs.org –
She began intensive study of homosexuality in 1997 in her work for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. While there she assembled and reviewed thousands of articles and scores of books on the subject and she wrote a number of articles for the NARTH Bulletin. She also contributed to the NARTH brief in the Hawaii marriage case. ……
A 1963 graduate of Smith College with a BA in history, O’Leary is married with four children and 10 grandchildren.
Grethel,
It is nice to see the word “shalom” and I extend it to you in this post.
While we might not agree about some things, we do agree about many, including the wisdom of rabbis and an affection for the Jewish religion.
I read that you need prayer and I want you to know that your name will be said in my prayers tonight.
Some other interesting facts about Dale O’Leary from TheFactIs.org -
She began intensive study of homosexuality in 1997 in her work for the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality. While there she assembled and reviewed thousands of articles and scores of books on the subject and she wrote a number of articles for the NARTH Bulletin. She also contributed to the NARTH brief in the Hawaii marriage case. ……
A 1963 graduate of Smith College with a BA in history, O’Leary is married with four children and 10 grandchildren.
Grethel,
I’m sure you’ll be in many prayers soon!
Jayhuck,
First, thanks so much for the gracious words to Timothy and me. We’re all learning, and it’s good to get some positive feedback along the way.
Now, regarding same-sex parenting, I recognize that we’re both suspicious of studies coming from sources that we consider biased, but the only reason I quoted O’Leary here was not to cite her words but to cite her quotes of gay activists.
I’ve been involved in serious academic research in a few fields for 25+ years, and I’m used to facts and theories being analyzed rather than people being written off because of certain associations.
How about checking out some of the papers I referenced, or the study referenced by O’Leary?
In point of fact, my views have shifted on a number of subjects after years of intense study and, when relevant, after much prayerful reflection. In other areas, my views have only intensified with more study and prayer. But I make it my goal to read the best arguments from those that differ with my views, believing that if I’m on the side of truth, then the truth can withstand scrutiny, but if I’m on the wrong side, it will be exposed.
So, my appeal remains: Let’s deal with facts and not resort to guilt by association, OK?
Michael
Shalom Grethel,
I will certainly pray for you. Thanks for sharing the need.
One simple question: Do you believe that the ideal situation for a child is to be raised by the biological mother and father (all other things being equal in terms of the quality of love and care that the parents would provide)? Or, from another angle, do you believe that there are unique things that only a mother can provide and unique things that only a father can provide, and to withhold those things from a child by the design of the relationship (that is, same-sex couples) is not in the ultimate best interest of the child?
This is not to say that there are not fine same-sex parents and lousy opposite-sex parents; it is to say that God made us male and female for a reason, and there is something wonderul in gender complementarity — not the least in parenting.
Michael
Ann, you really warmed my heart. What a blessing! Thank you. May God bless you.
Note:
I left on one very important irreducible need of children that Brazelton and Greenspan give.
*****developmentally appropriate practices
Shalom,
Grethel
Michael,
Now, regarding same-sex parenting, I recognize that we’re both suspicious of studies coming from sources that we consider biased, but the only reason I quoted O’Leary here was not to cite her words but to cite her quotes of gay activists.
I’ve seen anti-gay activists use the words of some gay activists as if they speak for the entire gay community before – I would call this SPIN!
I’ve been involved in serious academic research in a few fields for 25+ years, and I’m used to facts and theories being analyzed rather than people being written off because of certain associations.
How about checking out some of the papers I referenced, or the study referenced by O’Leary?
Because Michael she is not a scientist. I’ve seen the work of scientists, and they say that gay parents do as good a job of raising kids as straight parents. Furthermore, the studies that have been done which show this have also been replicated. THAT is a fact.
In point of fact, my views have shifted on a number of subjects after years of intense study and, when relevant, after much prayerful reflection. In other areas, my views have only intensified with more study and prayer. But I make it my goal to read the best arguments from those that differ with my views, believing that if I’m on the side of truth, then the truth can withstand scrutiny, but if I’m on the wrong side, it will be exposed.
I absolutely agree Michael. I do the same.
So, my appeal remains: Let’s deal with facts and not resort to guilt by association, OK?
I will go you one better and say let’s deal with facts from reputable scientists and look at those studies that have passed scientific muster and not with some views of religious idealogues.
Dr. Brown (Sorry, I have a hard time calling you by first name. It’s a respect thing. Just like I don’t call my Rabbi by first name.
}
You said:
” will certainly pray for you. Thanks for sharing the need.
One simple question: Do you believe that the ideal situation for a child is to be raised by the biological mother and father (all other things being equal in terms of the quality of love and care that the parents would provide)? Or, from another angle, do you believe that there are unique things that only a mother can provide and unique things that only a father can provide, and to withhold those things from a child by the design of the relationship (that is, same-sex couples) is not in the ultimate best interest of the child?
This is not to say that there are not fine same-sex parents and lousy opposite-sex parents; it is to say that God made us male and female for a reason, and there is something wonderul in gender complementarity — not the least in parenting.”
Thank you for the prayer support!
I appreciate it.
You have hit the nail on a very complicated subject. In order to have gender complementarity in modern Westernized civilization a great deal of change will have to be made. First, you will have to take care of the issue of poverty. Why? Poverty keeps many women from taking on the “traditional” role of women because they have to work outside the home. Do you realize how much work this places on a woman when she has to do work outside of the home and then, is expected to undertake a “traditional gender complementarity” role at home? Do you realize the health issues cause by the stress?
Psychologically many women {namely mothers} find it very stressful and damaging to their self-esteem when they try to live up to the “traditonal role.”
You will also find that many men who are in straight marriages and/or relationship are also having to change their own roles to adapt to the needs of the family. You will find men who have to take on the role of “mother”, too.
It is not true that returning to traditional role and traditional family values will cause positive society changes or protect society’s children. A great number of men fail in sharing household responsiblities and child care duties when the mothers are stressed from working outside the home, which is due to poverty and a rising cost of living.
No, I do not believe that men and women have unique roles in regard to child raising. Gender does not necessarily make one a good parent and in this society, the gender roles are extremely unequal now in regard to straight families.
Gender has nothing to do with making sure a child is cared for, feels imporant, and has love.
Gender also has nothing to do with being there for the child, being involved in the child’s education, accepting the child for the unique person the child is, or using positive, constructive discipline techniques.
Gender doesn’t help provide response to the child’s cues and clues in regard to needs.
Suggested points of research:
http://www.ncoff.gse.upenn.edu/mission.htm
http://www.familiesandwork.org/
http://www.childstats.gov/
Michael,
One simple question: Do you believe that the ideal situation for a child is to be raised by the biological mother and father (all other things being equal in terms of the quality of love and care that the parents would provide)? Or, from another angle, do you believe that there are unique things that only a mother can provide and unique things that only a father can provide, and to withhold those things from a child by the design of the relationship (that is, same-sex couples) is not in the ultimate best interest of the child?
I realize you didn’t ask me this question, but I’d still like to respond to it.
Believe it or not, several years ago, I would have agreed with you that a mother and a father, generally speaking, would be the best type of environment for a child. But after looking at all the new evidence and praying about this, I’ve come to the conclusion that that isn’t the case. Gay parents have proved that they can raise very healthy and well-adjusted children and as such, deserve a place at the table. Besides, there are SO many children waiting to be adopted, do you think it would be better to let these kids remain in the system or be with with a same-sex couple who would love, care for, and support them?
I also wanted to add something regarding Dale and her research above. I agree with Jag when she said:
“The majority of research against same-sex couples as parents tends to come from organizations like NARTH, which has…well…zero scientific credibility.
So, overall Michael, I don’t see these groups joining in a “politically correct position,” (as you have stated) but I see them supporting the overwhelming conclusion of the research.”
Michael,
I am indeed troubled by your answer.
“But a perfect world would be a heterosexual world…”
I realize that you are speaking theoretically of a world that is free from sickness, sin, or any imperfection. Nonetheless, I think that I can glean from your answer that this is a world that you seek to create as best you can.
So my question still stands:
Please recognize that I am not speaking hypothetically. I truly want to know what you think that should be done with those, like me, who are gay?
Because, as best I can tell, I seek to create a world in which you need not be coerced or restricted in any material or direct way. But it appears from your words that you seek to create a world in which I cannot exist.
To all,
One quick note to clarify to everyone: I simply cited Dale’s book because of her citations of other sources. Period. And let’s also remember that many of the pro-gay studies were conducted by gay researchers. Is there no bias there?
Anyway, let’s do our best to sort through the facts together as best as we can, which is what I think we’re all trying to do. I also noticed that Warren has started an important new blog re: same-sex parenting, so I’ll respond to the current, open-ended questions here but end the dialogue on the parenting question here after that so that all focus can go to the dedicated discussion Warren has begun.
Michael/Dr. Brown/etc.
Actually, Dr. Brown, everyone actually has a bias. First thing I learned in my very first EDU college course. It is hard to recognize our biases at times.
But, another thing I have learned from college experience is to use critical thinking when reading material. It makes getting facts a lot easier, spotting bias easier, and catching fallacies. 
Thanks for the direction to the same-sex parenting thread.
I hope I answered your question about what I believe is in the best interest of a child in a way that you understand where I am coming from and why.
And have a good weekend!
Shabbat Shalom,
Grethel
Wow, go away for a day and things pile up.
1st topic I want to address is the Catholic Charities issue that came up. I followed this case when it came up last year.
Catholic Charities is a division of the Catholic Church in MA (sort of a subsidary) to that handles the churches charitable work. Including adoptions (until last year). Charities was in compliance with MA non-discrimination laws, and had actually handled adoptions for approximate 13 same-sex couples (less than 2% of the cases they handled). The bishops in MA (NOT the people running Catholic Charities directly) decided to file for an exemption from same-sex placements. I believe this was a political move on the part of the bishops. 8 members of the Catholic Charities board of directors resigned in protest over the bishops’ actions and now Catholic Charities is no longer involved in adoptions in MA.
If you are looking for people to blame for this mess, look to the MA bishops.
You can read the basic details here: Catholic Charities
Dr. Brown,
Jayhuck asked you some questions in post 73141 and Timothy similar ones in post 73923. You have yet to answer any of them, and I would be very interested in those answers.
Additionally, in post 73377 you said:
That your battle for what you call equality directly impinges on my freedoms and values?
How would Timothy marrying another man impinge on your freedom? How would allowing him the same rights you have impinge on your values?
Michael Brown writes…
“Emproph,
I certainly don’t to waste your time or mine, and I hope you won’t find this question offensive, but are you genuinely interested in hearing me out in terms of my answers and “taking me seriously”?”
Yes.
“I know that these are hot button issues, and so I’m not personally offended by some of your rhetoric, but I’m trying to sort out the real questions from the rhetoric, so if you really want to hear me out, just let me know, and I’ll respond to your posts ASAP.
Michael”
I would very much appreciate your response, and I’ll try to minimize the rhetoric.
I would also personally appreciate a response to the issues raised in Timothy Kincaid’s post at the top, #72931.
As far as the adultery of remarriage goes and your use of Joe Dallas as a resource is concerned:
“May I ask, however, if the things you point to in Joe’s story took place before he was a believer? If so, I would see his sin of adultery on a par with his sin of bisexual promiscuity. He repented of both and has been living faithfully with his wife ever since. Am I mistaken?”
According to the Bible, his second wife would be his mistress. That said, it is precisely this faithfulness to her that would be sinful and would need to be repented of.
If your beliefs about adultery are not Biblically consistent, then how can I take you seriously when you say that your beliefs about homosexuality, or any other sin for that matter, are also based on the Bible, as opposed to just coinciding with it?
This is what I meant by “taking you seriously.”
-Patrick
Patrick,
Thanks for the response. I will be getting back to all the unanswered posts ASAP. Also, I have noted a number of very specific questions I asked of the posters here which have not received responses, so I guess we’re all playing catch up in the midst of our other responsibilities.
Just FYI, I was in India for four days of ministry last week and returned home under the weather. Right after that, Warren first contacted me re: the quotes and positions erroneously attributed to me. So, I’ve been getting my health back, keeping up a busy schedule at home, and trying to interact in a substantive way with the many good questions that are being posed. I also have family coming into town later tonight.
So, God willing, I’ll try to get as many things answered before family arrives, but then it might be a few more days before I can get caught up. Be assured it is a not a lack of interest on my part!
Blessings on your holidays,
Michael
Ken,
Yes, things do pile up! As I just mentioned to Patrick (Emproph), I’m aware of posts I haven’t answered yet and I’m also waiting for specific responses to questions I’ve raised previously. (Sorry, but I don’t have time right now to document each one, but at some point perhaps I can.)
Re: Catholic Charities, I’ll get more info on that ASAP and respond more fully. I would rather not give a piecemeal answer.
You ask: “How would Timothy marrying another man impinge on your freedom? How would allowing him the same rights you have impinge on your values?”
Obviously, the answer to that question ties in with some of the unanswered posts (although, to be candid, I have answered some of them from my perspective, and my answers are rejected, just as I reject the responses to my answers), but I will try to answer succinctly.
I’ll respond to the second part of your question first: I do not have the right to marry anyone I want. I am already married and I cannot marry a second wife. I cannot marry my sister. If I had a brother, I could not marry him. I am only allowed by law to marry one person of the opposite sex. Period. That is what marriage is. You have the same right that I have. The fact that you are not attracted to someone of the opposite sex is not a valid reason to redefine the only understanding of marriage the human race has ever had, namely the union of a man and woman.
Now, let’s think about the rights of others. (First, say out loud with me, “I am not comparing you to a pedophile! I am simply raising a question of ethics.” Repeat it a few times if you actually think I’m trying to compare homosexuality and pedophilia.) I have read a number of pro-pedophilia studies (or, more technically, scientific literature arguing for the acceptance of ephebophilia, referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent) where today’s society is blamed for not accepting what other societies have recognized in the past (most notably some aspects of ancient Greek society). On what basis should we not lower the age of consent or not sanction such relationships – especially since the studies also argue that ephebophilia is genetic and that that man-boy love often has very positive effects on the boys? (If you have followed the platform of the new “diversity” party in the Netherlands, some of these arguments will be familiar to you.)
Hopefully, you have moral (and possibly social) grounds for rejecting man-boy love, and so based on those moral grounds, you do not recognize the “right” of a man to have sexual relations with, say, a fourteen year old boy.
Well, I have moral and social grounds for rejecting same-sex relationships (although, quite ironically, I am not allowed to cite the views of conservatives whose scientific studies point to negative ramifications of same-sex households, since they are conservatives!) and I therefore do not see that you have the “right” to marry another man. And if you call me judgmental or bigoted or biased, just remember that’s what the ephebophile calls you.
The same argument, of course, could be raised with regard to polygamy and the like. On what basis do you draw the line between one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one man and two women? I know these questions are always raised, but to date I have not heard a valid answer (nor, do I recall seeing valid answers on these posts to the question of why an incestuous relationship should be forbidden).
Now, to the first part of your question, “How would Timothy marrying another man impinge on your freedom?” The answer is that it would impinge on my freedom in a number of ways.
First, I would now have to recognize that marriage as valid. In other words, if I had a business that only served married couples, I would have to do business with them even though that would be a fundamental denial of my moral and religious convictions that same-sex marriages are contrary to the will of God. (You might bring up the adultery question again, which I’m about to answer for Patrick, but the fact is I do not know the background of every married couple that I do business with – in my hypothetical example – but I do know that two men are two men.) I know hotels that will only rent a room to a couple that can prove that they are married, since they do not want people coming to shack up and share a room for the night. Well, two unmarried people having sex is no worse than two married, same-sex people having sex, yet the latter would now have to be recognized by law and that hotel owner would be required to violate his deep seated moral convictions. That impinges on his freedom!
Second, I would be restricted in related moral choices that I made for my family. In a real situation that took place in MA recently, a Christian couple requested that they be notified before same-sex material was read in the class of their six year-old son. They were informed that they had no right to make that request, since same-sex marriage is legal there!
Third, I would be required to finance that same-sex marriage. How so? I recognize that many companies give insurance benefits for same-sex partners, even if they are not married, but many others do not, only paying benefits to spouses. Well, if Timothy marries another man and my company is required to pay for health benefits for a spouse, I am now required to pay into that, since the money that companies pay out for insurance benefits potentially affects overall income. Of course, you could reply that you have to pay for heterosexual benefits, and in the case in point here, I would not disagree. But that was not your question. Rather, you asked how same-sex marriage impinges on my freedom, and these are just a few quick responses which could easily be multiplied.
Since I’ve been engaged in religious debates for years, I know it’s easy to have a knee jerk reaction and immediately try to refute one’s opponent rather than think through the arguments raised before responding. I don’t always succeed at that, but I do try, and I hope you will do the same.
Michael
Ken,
I found this article on the Catholic Charities situation useful. I’m also going to get further info from some attorney friends who may have been involved as well.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/012/191kgwgh.asp
Michael
I just found an interesting article discussing gay marriage and gay rights and I thought I’d share:
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N35/col35_nesm.35c.html
I haven’t checked into info on the author and etc. But, I will when I have more time.
I am getting ready for Shabbat, Sunday, and Monday. I do not spend the Shabbat at home. I stay closer to where my synagogue is so that I don’t have to drive so far to attend.
And I am staying a few extra days to help my best friend with some work she needs done. So…I will not get back to the interesting discussion here until after Christmas–more than likely. I must spend Christmas with my family; it is the right thing to do.
Shalom,
Grethel
Dr. Brown,
First, I would now have to recognize that marriage as valid.
That is not true. Just because someone has the same rights as you it does not follow that you would have to do anything of the sort.
Second, I would be restricted in related moral choices that I made for my family.
Our choices are always restricted to some degree – but you always have the option of putting your kid in a school that you know will teach them what you want them to be taught.
Third, I would be required to finance that same-sex marriage. How so? I recognize that many companies give insurance benefits for same-sex partners, even if they are not married, but many others do not, only paying benefits to spouses.
First, you are right that gay people ARE forced to pay for heterosexual couples. The majority of Fortune 500 companies already have same-sex benefits in place. Further, its likely that most people are paying for many things that they do not agree with, but this isn’t the point – You didn’t really answer the question about how this would impinge on your FREEDOM – you answered by stating how it might, possibly, effect you financially. The fact that we ALL pay for things we might not agree with is what is really great about this country – it serves to aid in granting equal rights for ALL.
Just so were clear – no one here is talking about sexual relations with minors.
No one wants to take away from your freedom to believe or live as you see fit. We are simply asking that the same rights you give to Buddhists, Muslims or others that you probably don’t agree with be extended to include gay people.
Jayhuck,
With all due respect, I believe my first point stands unaffected by your response, which in no way interacted with what I had written.
As to my second point, that’s the whole point! That’s how my freedoms be restricted. What if I did not have the ability to put my child into a private school? The bottom line is that my life would be affected directly.
Third, my whole point about sex with minors was to raise the issue of, “On what basis is that wrong?” I could go to another website and advocates of sex with minors would be raising the same issues you’re raising, but from their perspective. And, please correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you answering some specific, real-life questions having to do with incestuous relationships going before the courts.
Or, to put this another way, How would recognizing an incestuous marriage restrict your freedom? If a brother married a sister, how would that affect you? On what basis would you deny that person their so-called “civil right”?
I really don’t see how we can have a fruitful discussion about all this if these very relevant questions I’m raising are simply dismissed as irrelevant to the point. In reality, your responses to these questions would be very telling, and in fairness, I’m going to await answers to those questions (both that of incestuous relationships and the question of consenual sex with an adolescent) before responding further to this particular thread. This way I can get back to the unanswered questions to Timothy and Patrick and others.
If I drop out for a few days, Merry Christmas to those of who celebrate the holiday.
Michael
Michael,
Your first point doesn’t stand – Do you recognize gay marriages as valid because its legal in Massachusetts? I mean you either have to recognize them as valid now because so many states recognize them or you don’t.
As to your second point – many many people don’t put their kids in public school because they don’t like how the school system operates. But the point of a PUBLIC school is just that – it is for the PUBLIC, and that includes gay kids and gay parents. If you want a school to cater your YOUR personal beliefs, that is what we have parochial schools for.
Sex with minors and incestuous relationships are illegal – being gay is NOT. You cannot use these examples to bolster your argument.
Michael,
You so very clearly illustrate the problem with arguing by anecdote.
Illustration one – unlikely to ever impact you. Further, in California, at lease, it is currently illegal to discriminate in employment based on marital status – although I don’t know it to be true, I suspect that providing services is also illegal to discriminate on such a basis. Thus this is not remotely relevant to my marriage circumstances.
Illustration two – to anyone who has followed the David Parker story knows that your version of the story is far from factual. He wanted to make sure that no one – no teacher, no child, no parent – could make any reference at any time to same-sex married persons. He wanted to censor the other children in the classroom from talking about their parents. The principle tried to make accomodations but Parker wasn’t interested in a solution – he wanted a press release.
I really hate this sort of Culture War dishonesty.
Illustration three – this has ZERO impact on your freedoms. You basically are saying that you want to be free to demand that your employer not offer insureance to other employees. That’s just crazy. None of us have that freedom.
Please, Michael, talk about principles and realities. None of these illustrations have ANYTHING to do with YOUR freedom.
I do, however, look forward to your answer to my questions.
Timothy (and others),
I do not flippantly throw around illustrations, and I have followed things carefully as well, yet you refer to “dishonesty” on my part, while others made reference to a lying tongue or false witness. Again, on a personal level, I overlook insult, and this is not about my feelings (or anyone else’s feelings), but in all candor, it seems pointless to provide factual answers when they’re immediately dismissed as dishonest — simply because you have a different take on a story.
I could just as well you accuse you (and others) of dishonesty at every point but I honestly don’t believe that. I simply recognize that you are unable to see the other side of a story, plain and simple, and if there’s an “anti-gay” slant, that’s the side you’ll take. I would be delighted if you proved me wrong by recognizing the validity of some of the illustrations I’ve used. I have not pushed them further with more evidence simply because it seemed fruitless, not because there was not more to be said. I will say this much: If you judged gay activists through the same lens through which you judge David Parker, you would turn against your own community overnight.
As for your larger issues, I’m perfectly happy to talk about principles and realities, but when I do, I’m not specific enough for you, so I give you anecdotes and examples, and then you are quick to dismiss them.
Here’s a bottom line for you: Many of the things you stand for have already impacted my world and infringed on my convictions (or on those of people close to me). One of my friends had an executive position at a major bank with three gay men working for him, all in good relationship. Then the company told him that he and his colleagues had to go through diversity training, which included him having to sit through classes that violated his religious beliefs and moral convictions. He quit rather than compromise.
I’m happy to press each of the three illustrative points I offered to prove that same-sex marriage would impinge on my freedoms, and I will do so if I see there is an honest exchange of ideas. There is, however, another side to the story, which is this: Even if same-sex marriage did not touch my life at all, I would still not endorse or agree with it based on God’s Word and His standards and His plan — obviously, as I understand those things before Him.
I will reply to the responses from Jachuck about incest, etc., in a separate post, but if I said to you, “Well, how does it affect your life if a brother and sister get married? How does that affect your freedom?” — I imagine your response would be, “But those things are wrong or illegal.” Well, I could say the same thing to you: “Well, same-sex marriage is wrong, and in most of the world and most of the country, it’s illegal.”
Either you’ll have to accept answers like that, or you can’t use answers like that (or, in this case, Jayhuck), but you can”t have it both ways.
One more thing: David Blankenhorn, a liberal Democrat, has articulated many of the problems that gay marriage would bring to society in his book The Future of Marriage. I would recommend that you read it if you haven’t done so already. And may I request that you not respond with an ad hoc attack on him?
Michael
Jayhuck,
If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have definite problems with the laws as they stand. No doubt about it.
Regarding public schools, what if I said that public schools are for the PUBLIC – and that includes bigots and homophobes, so if you don’t like it, pull your kids out! You would say, “But being a bigot or a homophobe is wrong,” and therefore the school should not offer moral support to bigotry or homophobia ,even though it’s a public school. Obviously, I would say that the school should not lend moral support to same-sex households or to homosexual practice, since both are wrong, and it is wrong to subject my kids to such teaching.
As to incestuous relationships being illegal, in most of Europe, incest is not illegal. Does that make it right? And how does it affect your world if a brother and sister marry? Why can’t they have the same “civil right” that you argue for? It appears to me that you can’t answer this because to answer it is to argue against your own position. Please look at all the posts dealing with this and all the quotes I’ve provided for you – in response to your challenges – and recognize the corner you’ve painted yourself into. On what basis should I recognize male-male sex as being different than brother-sister sex or adult-adolescent sex? Simply based on what is legal, not also based on what is right or moral or according to God’s design?
Again, in most of America, gay marriages are illegal. Do you therefore accept them as wrong? Or before Lawrence vs. Texas, sodomy was illegal. Did that make it wrong?
In point of fact, I know gay activists who argue for polygamy as well as the lowering the age of consent. Of course, I differ with them strongly, but at least they are consistent. Can you see where you are not?
I hope that the forthright nature of my questions does not strike you as an attack. My intent is only to be clear and to the point.
Michael
A blessed Christmas to EVERYONE!!!!! I’ll be back soon
Michael,
If I lived in Massachusetts, I would have definite problems with the laws as they stand. No doubt about it.
This really didn’t answer my question.
Regarding public schools, what if I said that public schools are for the PUBLIC – and that includes bigots and homophobes,
Public schools are and should be a SAFE PLACE for everyone. Bigotry isn’t tolerated for any other minority and it shouldn’t be tolerated for gay people. I’m not sure what your point is here.
As for incestuous relationships, we aren’t in Europe.
As for gay marriage being “illegal”, well that really depends on what we mean by marriage. If marriage is truly a religious institution, there are churches all over the place performing gay marriages, even when the secular state doesn’t recognize them. I am also of the mind that those laws you mention will soon be repealed.
And I’m sorry but I’ll repeat myself again – incestuous relationships and sex with minors is something that is illegal and I think almost everyone agrees with that. Everyone does not, however, really have a good idea about gay marriage – THAT is still being fleshed out and as more businesses recognize gay couples and more states put in laws to protect them, we are going to see more recognition by the state of these relationships.
As for polygamy – I know straight people who are pro-polygamy.
I haven’t considered anything you’ve written to be an attack
Michael,
Once last thing – I’ve noticed a problem in trying to compare gay couples with brother and sister couples or adult and adolescent couples.
We don’t have a majority of our Fortune 500 companies offering benefits to brother and sister couples or adult/adolescent couples – neither do we have states recognizing such relationships and bestowing benefits on them. I think you’re going to have a problem with this comparison. Granted, its one that has been used by conservatives for years, but now that more and more people and institutions are recognizing these relationships and giving them some long-deserved dignity, going forward with this comparison is going to become problematic.
Timothy,
One more note re: schools in MA:
LEXINGTON, MA – APRIL 19, 2006. Lexington public school officials have told Rob and Robin Wirthlin that since “gay marriage is legal” they may describe homosexual relationships to their son in second grade, without notice, and that parents may not opt their child out of such discussions.
Michael
Jayhuck,
Thanks for the friendly tone, and a blessed Christmas to you.
Time does not permit me to respond fully to your two most recent posts, but here are a few quick thoughts: It’s certainly possible that polyamory activists or incest activists or pedophile activists are in the same boat now that gay activists were in forty years ago. Maybe one day they’ll be able to point to Fortune 500 companies that give them benefits too, etc. What then will that prove? And I remind you that lawyers for some of these other causes use the exact same reasoning and language that was used by gay activists in getting their goals legalized.
Also, I wonder how you would have answered some of the same questions I’m asking forty years ago, when society looked at your situation very differently. And I wonder how the GLBT community in Europe would respond to the questions you quickly dismiss as applying only to Europe.
For my part, I think it’s best to answer in universal and transcultural terms, whenever possible, since the same moral and social principles often apply across broad strata of society. In any case, I take it that your answer to the brother and sister who want the civil right to marry is, “It’s not a civil right. It’s illegal.” Does that settle it, then, for you in the great majority of America, where most states have passed laws affirming gay marriage as invalid? Can I use that same answer to you? “It’s not your civil right. It’s illegal.” Does that do it?
And I take it that your answer to the 25 year old and the 15 year old who ask you, “How does our love impinge on your freedom?” – “It’s not legal.” Does that do it? Do you still not see how you’re using one standard to call for acceptance of your orientation (or love or desire) while rejecting that very same argument from someone with a different orientation (or love or desire)?
Michael
SOME REFLECTIONS AND AN OLIVE BRANCH
I take it as very real possibility that at the end of our current thread, our differences will be greater and our divide even more pronounced. I also take it that we are posting thoughts that reflect our deepest convictions. That being said, I want to offer some reflections and continue to reach out on a personal level. (Please forgive the long post.)
I would assume that when we stake out a position, we are open to learn from our ideological opposites but we are eager to present our viewpoints well with the hope of influencing others. In other words, we want to dialogue but we also want to prove a point. (This would apply to those who already have strong views on a given subject; others might not fit into this category.) On my part, that is certainly my approach: I want to learn from the dialogue, but I also want to get my position across and hopefully get others to see things my way.
In terms of this specific blog (and, this particular thread), while I’m a newcomer here, I have been actively engaged in these subjects for some years now and, for the last thirty-six years, actively engaged in various forms of religious debate and dialogue. I always try to put myself into the other person’s shoes so as to see why they hold to a particular argument. Otherwise, how can I really respond to what they’re saying?
Now, in all candor, some of the responses provided to my recent posts have baffled me. I’ve thought to myself, “You’ve got to be kidding. How could you possibly use that as an argument?” So, in keeping with my habit of many years, I stepped back from things and said to myself, “Even if I strongly disagree, and even I ultimately reject the argument, I need to understand it better. I need to get more of the perspective of the GLBT community here.” So, please let me know if I’m understanding things correctly, OK?
In several posts, the response to my objections has been, “You can’t compare an incestuous union with a same-sex union, since the former is illegal, and gay marriages are now legal and recognized in many different places.” Or, “But just look at how society is accepting and affirming same-sex relationships. Don’t you see what’s happening?”
Again, from my point of view, these arguments don’t impress me at all since: 1) In many places same-sex relationships are not legal; 2) many things that are legal are wrong; and 3) society accepts lots of things that are destructive. But from the viewpoint of the GLBT community, it appears that you are saying: “Come out of the Stone Age! Society is finally waking up and understanding what we have always known, namely, that there’s nothing wrong with homosexuality and that it is no better or worse than heterosexuality.” You are also assuming that all of these developments point to positive progress in the society, hence the frequent comparisons to the civil rights movement or to women’s rights movements or to anti-slavery movements of the past. That line of thinking is obvious to all of us.
What was helpful for me to see was the underlying sense of pride and validation that would come to the GLBT community through this. In other words, “Look at how far we have come! Look at the horrific storm we have weathered. At last, we can see on the horizon the potential of a truly tolerant and understanding world in which we can live, and this gives us a sense of rightness, not to mention confidence.” Would you say that this is accurate?
Now, to help you get into my world, understand that what see you as progress, I see as regress. I note that from 1960 to 2000, the divorce rate in America doubled, teen suicide tripled, reported violent crime when up four times, the prison population went up five times, children born out of wedlock went up six times, and people living together outside of wedlock went up seven times. During this same time period, there were other very positive developments (such as the civil rights movement) and other very negative developments (such as seeking to legitimize homosexuality). Again, I’m simply trying to give you my perspective on this.
I see the breakdown in family values (sorry to use that clichéd phrase) and the breakdown in sexual mores as something very negative, and from my vantage point, some of the things you celebrate as positive in the GLBT community are actually negative, integrally related to these aforementioned breakdowns. Again, I’m not writing this to prove a point but simply to demonstrate how we sometimes pass each other like ships in the night. Does this make sense?
Also, as a Jew, I represent 1/500th of the world’s population, and as a Jewish follower of Jesus, I represent perhaps 1% of the world’s Jewish population, so I tend to identify with the underdog and with the persecuted minority. I also tend to be skeptical of powerful, world religion, recognizing how power corrupts, and, in fact, in many of the places in the world where I minister, the born-again Christian population represents 1-2% of the society. (I’m fully aware that professing Christians make up about 1/3 of the world’s population and that Jews have lots of influence in America; I’m simply giving you my own life experience.) I was just in India where my dear colleague there was an untouchable growing up and he has been under many death threats from militant Hindus over the years. Some of his workers in difficult tribal regions have been badly beaten, and one night while we were preaching together in 1995 militants took over the stage with knives and razor blades in their hands. Might does not equal right!
So, what does this have to do with our dialogue here? From your viewpoint, the fact that society is accepting GLBT values is a source of affirmation; for me, it’s a further proof of the moral weakness of our society and, to the extent that GLBT influence becomes part of the “establishment,” to that extent it’s negative, not positive – and this has to do with my skepticism about the moral rightness of the establishment. (I assume we differ on the issue of abortion, but I personally believe that Roe v. Wade was one of the great tragedies in American history – hence, for me, something being legal does not necessarily mean that it is right.)
Now, I still plan to press transcultural and moral arguments, and, God willing, as soon as I have a long enough break (more than the unexpected few minutes I just found now), I do plan to respond to lots of specifics in previous posts with which I take issue. But perhaps we can at least understand each other better along the way. And perhaps we can continue to set a tone of respect in the midst of our differences.
Thanks for listening!
Michael,
1. I am not interesting in arguing anecdotes.
2. I did not call you dishonest. I called the MassResistence folks that you are referencing here with some regularity dishonest. These are not truthful people and you do not advance your credibility by constantly quoting from their stories.
3. I’m not a liberal Democrat so I have no idea why a book by one would appeal to me.
4. You have yet to answer my question, Michael
I am beginning to believe that this is a question that you do not want to answer.
Michael,
regarding your comments in post 74161, do you actually believe they justify denying an entire class of people rights?
If I have a moral opposition to treating blacks or women as equals, does that mean it would be okay to deny them rights as well?
also you asked:
The same argument, of course, could be raised with regard to polygamy and the like. On what basis do you draw the line between one man and one woman, or one man and one man, or one man and two women? I know these questions are always raised, but to date I have not heard a valid answer (nor, do I recall seeing valid answers on these posts to the question of why an incestuous relationship should be forbidden).
I responded to the polygamy argument in post 73218. As for why incest should be illegal, it is because of the significant potential for children of such unions to have severe birth defects and the abuse such relationships would likely indicate. Frankly, if you cannot understand the distinction between incestuous relationships and same-sex ones, you are not intelligent enough to be debating this topic.
Ken,
Frankly, if you cannot understand the distinction between incestuous relationships and same-sex ones, you are not intelligent enough to be debating this topic.
Amen!
This is the standard conservative Christian argument though – don’t expect them to abandon it anytime soon!!! Religion and reason don’t ALWAYS go hand in hand.
Timothy,
1. You ask me for specifics, I give them to you, and then you’re not interested in anecdotes. I talk principles, and then I’m not specific enough. How then am I to interact constructively with you?
2. Why in the world are you referring to Mass Resistance? I have not quoted from them a single time, and I’ve been to their website less than a half-dozen times in my life. (Note also in post 7447 that I referenced another story unrelated to David Parker in MA.) Really, Timothy, you speak as if you’re always staking out the higher moral ground and yet do not hesitate for a minute to make gratuitous assumptions about my sources of information (in point of fact, I do know how to research a story, just as I’m sure you do) and you are quite free in making personal judgments about the motives of people’s hearts, such as claiming to know that David Parker wanted a press release rather than a solution. How would you feel if I told you that you were just parroting a gay talking point about David Parker? Wouldn’t that be a personal attack on your intellectual integrity?
3. I never said you were a liberal Democrat. However, when I quote a conservative author, I’m immediately told that my source is therefore unreliable and biased, so I happened to mention that this author was not. It looks like in this blog, I’m damned if I do and I damned if I don’t – but that won’t stop me from speaking the truth as best as I can.
4. I formulated the answer to your question as soon as I read your blog, but I’m been in responding to some other posts, getting out some other thoughts, and thinking about exactly how I want to phrase my response, trying to navigate through the minefield of all the things that you’re not willing to interact with, as well as waiting for a chunk of time in which I’ll be able to respond to all the responses I’m expecting.
Michael
Ken,
Perhaps I have not made myself clear, but marriage is the union of a man and a woman, and therefore there is no “right” for two men or two women to marry, anymore than there is a right for any other combination of people to marry, or for a brother and sister to marry. For multiplied thousands of years of human existence, no one has questioned the nature of marriage (in terms of it being for opposite sex union only), and now, for the first time in human existence, a new concept is being put on the table, one that I believe will ultimately be in the worst interest of humanity, not the best interest. On what basis is it a “right”?
While I find it amusing that my intelligence is being questioned in this dialogue, I have yet to hear a single solid response to the questions I’ve raised, as I have pointed out arguments used by groups whose “rights” you reject but that parallel arguments you use. The reason there can’t be a solid response is because to deny them their “rights” (come on now, doesn’t someone have the “right” to marry whoever they love?) is to deny you your “rights,” and to grant them their “rights” is to prove that redefining marriage to include same-sex unions does, in fact, open up a Pandora’s box of new meanings for marriage. You simply can’t have it both ways. (At least you admit that you could open to the possibility of polygamy if certain questions were resolved. I find that consistent with your other arguments.)
Still, regarding polygamy, you stated, “Civil marriages in the US have evolved in to a partnership of TWO equal partners and not equipped to handle more than that.” False. Marriages in the US and since the dawn of civilization have been between a MALE and a FEMALE. In certain times in history, and in the certain parts of the world today, polygamy is practiced, but at NO TIME was marriage ever the union of two equal partners who were not of the opposite sex. And that remains the reality through the vast part of our nation until this day, as well as throughtout the vast majority of the rest of the world.
As for the incest argument, of course I anticipated this response from the beginning but wondered if it would ever come because of the easy and obvious rejoinders: 1) If incestuous unions are wrong because of potentially severe birth defects, then anal sex is surely wrong because it has many more documented health risks than vaginal sex. (Oops! Did I say something bigoted and homophobic just now?) 2) In incestuous unions are wrong because of the potential of producing unhealthy offspring, then same-sex unions are wrong since they do not even have the possibility of producing offspring. 3) The incestuous couple still asks you, “How does our love affect you? On what basis should you deny us our right to marry the person we each love? And what if we marry but agree not to have children? There are plenty of methods of birth control that will prevent procreation. So, if we won’t have children, will you agree that we can marry?” (By the way, just for the record, I do not believe the primary reason incest was considered wrong throughout history was because of potential birth defects but rather because of other sexual and familial taboos.)
And, now a personal challenge for you (and others posting): Let’s see how many posts you can get through without lobbing another personal insult my way, OK?
Michael
Jayhuck,
Your last post brought a big smile to my face. Thanks for bringing some lightness into the discussion tonight!
Michael
Mr. Brown,
First of all, I’m not seeking your approval, so I’m not out to convince you that homosexuality is moral, or Biblically sound or anything else. I can perfectly well understand how people can think that my same-gender attraction is confusion and/or delusion on my part. So be it.
What I would like to establish however, is the basis for your “moral” beliefs. You claim that your beliefs on morality are based on the Bible, yet at nearly every turn you’ve demonstrated otherwise.
I can accept someone saying they are against recognizing same-gender attraction as anything other than a perversion of heterosexuality, that our love is not real, and that GLBT’s are confused, delusional, and in need of help.
What I don’t accept however, is this exact same sentiment expressed under cloak of the “morality” of religion. That, I find to be cowardly and dishonest.
It’s precisely because of your unwillingness to offend that is so offensive. And you’re right, the person above who says so outright is going to catch hell too, so you do lose both ways. But at least I can respect the honesty of someone who tells me to my face (and is consistent in public), that they truly believe that I’m just too stupid to realize that I’m actually attracted to the opposite gender.
It’s not your political incorrectness that is so offensive, it’s your lack of it. And when I refer to “you,” I’m speaking of the entire anti-gay industry. There are precious few in the field, so to speak (Throckmorton being one of them, despite some reservations I have), that don’t employ some measure of deception, either overtly with false information etc., or stealthily with inherently flawed logic, obfuscation etc.
You are the one who is making the claim that your objection to homosexuality is based on the morality of the Bible. You have not only not established this, in many places here you have confirmed the opposite.
When confronted on your inconsistencies, instead of sufficiently rebutting the point, you complain of attack. If your logic is consistenly flawed, it’s perfectly legitimate to question your intelligence. When you use singular negative incidences as a means to depict every GLBT person as being approving of them, then it’s perfectly legitimate to question your honesty.
You can complain about risque pride parades and whatever else you find offensive about what some gay people may be involved with, but to imply that this is indicative of me, or anyone else, without knowing that it is true of us, is to bear false witness. And I take offense to that, in the same way you don’t want to be depicted as a reconstructionist, or someone who thinks I should be put to death.
Many of your comparisons like incest, consensual ephebophilia, and polygamy ARE worthy of being dismissed as irrelevant. If you don’t know why, then that tells me you haven’t done enough research on the subjects in regard to the issue. Which indicates to me that you are less interested in the veracity of the arguments, than you are in simply making them. Secondly, and more importantly, assuming these are all consensual relationships, the only thing that links them is social disapproval, yet you say your morality is based on the Bible, not society (in addition, the Bible condones incest and polygamy). Thirdly, you have yet to establish precisely what the “immorality” of same-gender relationships is, until this is established, how is it possible to compare one morally ambiguous situation with another morally ambiguous situation, given that you consider them all to be “morally” the same? Fourthly, since gay people obviously don’t adhere to your “moral” precepts, what sense does it make to expect us to argue those precepts in regard to other scenarios? Fifthly, slippery-slope-wise speaking, those examples aren’t an argument against gay marriage, they’re just an argument as to where it could possibly lead. Point being, if that’s how gay marriage affects yours, you’ll have to take up the issue with them (incest, ephebophilia, polygamy), not gays.
And this is why your arguments stink. You’re arguing an unprovable moral position in the societal secular realm. You don’t feel the need to ensure that your secular arguments are valid because you are not as invested in them, because it’s not the position you’re operating from. You basically admitted as much, and it makes perfect sense, and such a position is fine — as long as you can demonstrate that you’ve made the effort to look at the situation from as may relevant points as possible. You don’t have to demonstrate them all at the time of argument, but you have to show that you’ve made the effort to understand them all, or at least that you are willing to. Just saying you’re willing to understand doesn’t cut it. Show me, don’t tell me.
The problem here is that secular examples, comparisons and arguments, offered and defended without sufficient muster, serve only to fundamentally undermine your original “moral” position.
It is perceived as an “ends justifies the means” position. Which makes all of your secular arguments suspect, and your sense of morality nonexistent. Because it demonstrates a wanton disregard for truth that exists.
Moral -concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
If you can’t be trusted to understand the importance of verifiable truth, how can you be trusted to have put any more rigor into ensuring the accuracy of truth that cannot be verified?
(To be continued…)
Michael Brown–
I am enjoying your posts. I especially appreciated your comments in 74561. Thanks for being a reasoned and thoughtful evangelical. Sometimes we forget that such people do exist! I’m refraining from jumping into this discussion myself because you and those who are in dialogue with you are doing a pretty good job of staying focussed. I don’t want to mess with a good thing.
Totally off the subject: Has your status as a ‘messianic Jewish person’ brought you into contact with Burt and Pam Singer? I lost contact with them years ago when they went to live in Israel. I’m hunching that they are back in the states but don’t know for sure.
Michael Brown says…
Absurd, unless you’re arguing that you can travel back in time and have examined every union in human history. Clearly you’re not, so it’s an argument limited by what you personally know of historical social tradition. Until you can prove you speak for history, this argument has no basis, furthermore, you’ve already established that no matter what evidence is provided you – even a proven historical majority of SSM, or polygamy, or incest – you still would not be swayed.
If you would not even be swayed by the very basis of your own argument (popularity contest / majority rules), I find it disingenuous that you would expect anyone else to be.
It may coincide with what you believe, but it doesn’t provide a basis for it, had you acknowledged that simple fact it wouldn’t have been so offensive, if at all.
Yes, and here’s why, what’s dishonest about that (among other things) is your depiction of anal sex not only being indicative of all homo-sex, but also as a behavior exclusive to homosexuals. Heterosexuals don’t have anal sex? Lesbians do have anal sex? Gay men who don’t have anal sex still have anal sex? Forget bigoted and homophobic, that implication is downright slanderous.
Secondly, we’re talking about those who consent to the “danger” of engaging in anal sex, not a third party innocent child who has no say in the matter of their potential lifetime birth defects. An illogical comparison at best, dishonest at worst.
Exqueese me, I baking powder? The production of a lifetime of debilitating deformities and health problems is exactly the same as the absence of a lifetime of debilitating deformities and health problems?
By that logical standard, all infertile unions should be invalidated. Is this something you’d like to legislate?
Sure, ok, get married, but first there are some social issues I’d like to work out if this is to be legally sanctioned. Which you, Dr. Brown, can take up with them, because it’s not my fight. But don’t worry, I’ll get around to humoring you.
It really doesn’t help matters when you continue to take the initiative to unnecessarily lower the bar, as evidenced above.
Michael,
Let me explain my purpose in conversing with you. I want to find out exactly what it is that you propose be done with/to me. I want to see if there is some common ground upon which we can agree. And, in particular, I want to see if there can be peace instead of war.
So instead of discussing anecdotes that you read about, or discussing incest or polygamy or necrophelia or whatever, I will simply ask you again:
Folks, I know everyone here is an adult, or at least I hope so. I think these conversations are very helpful in many respects. However…
If someone does not agree with you, it does not reflect well on your position to question the intelligence of your opponent or call names. It is the roughly the equivalent of “your mom!”
So let’s stick with facts or some theoretical foundation and refrain from the personal stuff.
Michael Brown says…
I really don’t know, at what legal lowering of the age of consent do you think parents would be most outraged? Do you honestly not see how that could come across as insulting?
Are you honestly comparing the fight to garner marital rights between two consenting adults with the fight to garner the adult “right” to have a sexual relationship with your underage child? Do you even KNOW what the purpose of age of consent laws are for?
Here’s the problem. “Age of consent laws are there to protect young people from being sexually exploited by adults” *. To consider this concern to be comparable with “moral and social grounds for rejecting same-sex relationships” (#74161), demonstrates to me, only that you make no differentiation between a non-threat, and an immediate potential for threat. By asking that question, in the way that you did, you’ve just made a case for moral relativity, not morality.
Even if I’m not judgmental or bigoted or biased against the ephebophile? And what if I am, that still doesn’t mean that you’re not judgmental or bigoted or biased. You made it a point to characterize the desire for adult / underage relationships as being exclusively male homo-specific, I consider that to be judgmental and bigoted and biased.
You could have just as easily used existing age of consent laws to make your point. So why not use the rampant EXISTING heterosexual failure to protect kids, so as to avoid any potential perception of judgment, bigotry, or bias on your part?
This seems to be one of your biggest complaints, my point is, there seems to be alot you can do to improve the situation.
Just a quick reminder: I’m one person interacting with a good number of articulate and thoughtful people here (Patrick, Ken, Timothy, Jayhuck, Grethel, etc.), so I hope you can understand why I may fall behind on some posts. Also, as I mentioned, with family in town because of the holidays, my time is much more limited.
Timothy — you have my word that I will answer your persistent and important question in my next post.
Patrick — I have yet to reply to your questions on adultery.
Grethel — I have some unanswered posts with you too.
Jayhuck — ditto!
Any other I left you — my apologies!
Warren — see what you started here with this particular post on your blog that pulled me into your world here?
Sorry for the typo!
I meant: Any others I left out — my apologies.
Michael – It happens
Michael Brown said in post 74746:
“Civil marriages in the US have evolved in to a partnership of TWO equal partners and not equipped to handle more than that.” False. Marriages in the US and since the dawn of civilization have been between a MALE and a FEMALE.
No, this is incorrect. In the US the one man/one woman definition isn’t even 50 years old. Because 50 years ago, in many states, civil marriage was defined as “one man and one woman of the same race.” And before that it was “one white man and one white woman.” Marriage has evolved considerably over time. From an arrangement that was mostly about property rights and where the woman (or women in some cases) where little more than the property of her husband. To what we have today, where it is often based on love and equality of the spouses. Throughout history there have been many different criteria placed on marriages and many changes. Your male/female argument shows a fairly myopic view of marriage and is hardly compelling.
Marriage is a civil right in this country. It was ruled so by the US Supreme court in Skinner v. Oklahoma. And re-affirmed in Loving v. Virginia (and a few other cases, I believe). The Loving v. Virginia made it clear that bigotry was not a rationale basis for denying couples the rights, benefits, privileges and responsibilities of marriage. Your slippery-slope arguments are the same ones used to justify bans on inter-racial marriages as well.
Further, incest is in no way equivalent to gay relationships. Your attempts to make such comparisions only serve to highlight your ignorance on the subject.
And, now a personal challenge for you (and others posting): Let’s see how many posts you can get through without lobbing another personal insult my way, OK?
You insult an entire class of people with your analogies yet complain about personal insults.
Warren,
Were you referring to my typo post or to the end of my previous post?
Michael
Dr. Brown, you said:
“Grethel — I have some unanswered posts with you too.”
I understand. It’s Christmas time; I don’t expect you to answer everything. Besides, I’m busy with Christmas, too.
I may be a Jew-by-choice, but my family didn’t convert with me.
So…get back to the posts when you can and have a Merry Christmas!
Shalom,
Grethel
BTW, Merry Christmas to all who celebrate!
Thank you for the acknowledgments Mr. Brown, I realize you’ve got a lot on your plate with this, and if nothing else you say is consistent, I appreciate the effort. So I don’t mean to add to it until the earlier points are addressed, but I want to get these out of the way. (P.S. I’m especially looking forward to hearing about what your perfect world looks like..)
Plenty more to mull on here.
To compare consensual adult same gender relationships with the inherently increased complication of potential familial predation, again, is to make a case for moral relativism, not morality.
I realize that you don’t accept the fact that I consider my same-gender attraction to be as equal and valid as your opposite gender attraction, but can you see how that specific example is not a fair comparison?
I can appreciate the similarity of personal disgust involved for both, but I am convinced I was born same-gender attracted and that my homosexuality is by specific design — whether by God or not. The gender I can experience love with is out of my control.
I understand that you reject my perception of myself in this manner unequivocally, and I accept that. I also realize you have a professional reputation to maintain with regard to what you say, but I personally need for you to find a way to express what you truly mean in a way that can be accepted on a practical and especially conversational level.
I realize it’s not easy, but if you really think your brand of anti-gay Christianity is superior, you’re going to have to come out and say it at some point.
Gay = incest
Are you suggesting that some people are born attracted to-only-their-own siblings? And if they have no siblings, they have no chance for love in their lives? Is this the argument you’re making?
Again, I realize that doesn’t make SSA ok for you. Not my intention, but if you’re going to argue the point, you need to do so in a way that’s as minimally insulting as possible if you truly want to come across as non-bigoted, and whatever else people like me are calling you these days.
I have to say also that the “Biblical morality” part on this doesn’t bode well for your position either. Remember, this is your argument: Anti-incest = Biblical morality:
cousincouples.com:
As far as incest is concerned, according to these verses, I’d say that God’s word points more toward the sanctioning of incestual marriage than against it.
In addition, you’ve also got the beginning of mankind Adam and Eve incest story, and the Noah’s family flood incest story to deal with.
Why would you say your sexual mores are based on the Bible without attempting to refute these points first?
I’m not saying there are not ways around all this, but I am saying that if you’re going to use the Bible as “God’s” moral authority on sexual matters,” it would behoove you to dispute such matters before claiming moral authority on the “immorality” of incest – assuming you don’t want to be accused of hypocrisy, and all of its kissing cousins – judgement, bigotry and bias.
Does this make sense to you, or do you feel that I am attacking you?
Timothy,
You have asked some poignant and practical questions:
What then are we to do? If my equality cannot exist with your freedoms, then what?
In your perfect world [to the extent that you can create it], what would become of me?
First, I want to reiterate that, from my perspective of faith, there will be no perfect world until Jesus returns and transforms the universe, so at best, we can be idealistic to a certain level, but we must always be realistic and pragmatic. That is to say, there will always be some differences and disagreements in this world, but the question is how we handle them, which I believe is what you are asking.
Let me also state, however, that as a person of faith and as eyewitness to God’s transforming power even in this present, fallen world, I believe that you can have an extraordinary encounter with Jesus that would be so profound in its effects that it would change the very core of who you are, and I believe Paul spoke of this when he said, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” (1 Cor 6:9-11, ESV). I’m aware, of course, that you have a different interpretation of the two Greek words used in this passage; I’m simply answering your question from my perspective: In my “perfect” world, you would be transformed by the Lord and would like a healthy, self-affirming, and satisfied heterosexual life.
Obviously, that still doesn’t answer the question from your perspective, one in which you would say you have no desire to change, so let me answer incrementally: Ideally, in this “perfect” world, I would not know what your sexual orientation was, since that would be a private matter. To the extent you were viewed as “different” as a child growing up, I would do my best to create an environment in which there was no name-calling or bullying, and to the extent that you chose to make your sexual orientation a public thing as an adult, I would do stand against any hatred or violence directed against you and would seek to treat you as a human being first rather than as a gay man first.
The bottom line is that it is not my role as a believer to make others live a certain way and then to vilify them if they choose not to (or claim not to have the power to). It is, however, my role to speak the truth in love to all people, reminding them of God’s standards and urging them to turn away from all sinful acts and wrong beliefs and to turn to the Lord for mercy and forgiveness. As I have opportunity, I do this with all people: With my fellow-Jews, who do not believe in Jesus; with Muslims and Hindus and others who also do not share my faith; with countless heterosexuals living outside of faith or living in various sins of the flesh; and with the GLBT community that I meet, not discriminating against them by not sharing the same gospel message.
Finally, to the extent that you were involved in what I would call activism – for you, fighting for what you consider to be equality, for me, your seeking to legitimize something that I consider wrong or contrary to God’s order – I would oppose that activism, be it in the school system or in the courts or in the churches or in the court of public opinion, but always trying to dialogue with you privately (for the sake of understanding and to avoid demonizing you as a person) and always addressing you with dignity and respect as a fellow creation of God, striving to address the issues and not attack you as a person. And so, if we differed, it would be in a way that could be modeled by others on different sides of the fence, hopefully producing more light than heat. And I would simply act as a Christian witness and as a citizen of a democratic society, seeking to uphold what I understand is moral and right and in the best interest of the society as a whole, but never seeking to institute a theocracy. In that respect, I concur with the words of Dr. Martin Luther King who stated that the church “is not the master or the servant of the state, but rather the conscience of the state. It must be the guide and the critic of the state, and never its tool.” My comments here would reflect that understanding, also recognizing that at present, more than 80% of Americans identify with some form of Christianity, and also recognizing the moral and biblical principles that were involved in the founding of our country.
Does this answer your question?
Michael
Patrick,
I plan to respond to your posts on adultery next. Just FYI.
Michael
Michael,
No. You did not answer my question.
I asked you to explain my position in the world, as you would have it. Instead you talked about yourself, your beliefs, your political activism, you witnessing.
God in His infinite wisdom has decided that some people on this planet would be same-sex attracted. Further, He has decided that the vast overwhelming percentage of those who sincerely seek to change that attraction will never do so. That, Michael, is fact.
I encourage you at some point (though clearly this is not going to be that point) to consider these children of God as human, as equals in God’s sight, and as deserving of a place in society. I encourage you for one brief fleeting moment to consider what you would want in their place. And, Michael, to follow the commands of Christ about how we are to treat our neighbor.
Based on our conversations to date, I don’t think that you are currently capable of doing this. But I do have hope that some day this mindshift can take place. I do hope that the Spirit can move you to cease the Great Culture War you have been waging on those you disagree with, to lay down your weapons and make peace. And I hope you will be open to Him when He does.
Patrick,
I appreciate your questions about adultery, divorce, and remarriage, and I agree that they are relevant to the larger issues of sexual morality that we are discussing. For the sake of clarity, I’ll respond to your various points under several main headings.
1) Do I believe that there is a plague of unjustified divorce and remarriage in the evangelical Church today? Without a doubt, I do, and it concerns me deeply. I have spoken out against this often through the years, both in writing and in public speaking, and I think it is a real and frightful possibility that some professing Christians today – including some leaders – are actually living in adultery in God’s sight. Just for the record, I have addressed this strongly for many years, long before gay activism was a focus for me in ministry.
2) You correctly cite Jesus’ words in Matt 19:9, “I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for marital unfaithfulness, and marries another woman commits adultery” (see also Matt 5:32, here quoted in the NRSV, which I cite to give another translation of the Greek word porneia, which is translated as “marital unfaithfulness” in the NIV: “anyone who divorces his wife, except on the ground of unchastity, causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”) Another relevant text is 1 Cor 7:15, which speaks of a situation in which one of the marriage partners is Christian and the other is not; if the unbeliever abandons the marriage, it would appear that the believer can remarry: “But if the unbelieving partner separates, let it be so; in such a case the brother or sister is not bound.”
What do I understand these texts to say? If there are no biblical grounds for divorce and the parties choose to remarry, they are guilty of committing adultery. If there are biblical grounds for divorce, then remarriage is an option.
To be sure, the subject of divorce and remarriage is always a hot topic among Christians, and in a few paragraphs, it is impossible to do justice to the exegetical and practical debate. For a solid discussion by one of the world’s most respected New Testament scholars, see Craig S. Keener, And Marries Another: Divorce and Remarriage in the Teaching of the New Testament.
3) How does this apply to Joe Dallas? As far as I understand his story (and I have not read his full testimony in detail, so please correct me if I’m wrong on his story here), he was guilty of sexual sin while married, and so his wife had scriptural grounds to divorce him or to accept his desire to divorce. Also, even if his wife had wanted to preserve the relationship, once he became a practicing homosexual, by scriptural definition, he became an unbeliever and was then guilty of abandoning his wife, also freeing her from the necessity of preserving the marriage. She was then free to remarry. When Joe then got right with God and repented of his sins, had she not been remarried, I believe the best course for him would have been to try to reconcile with her. With her being remarried, it would be wrong for her to leave her current husband and get back together with him. Also, I do not see that the Scriptures forbid him from remarrying. (If these sins were committed before he truly knew the Lord, that would also be a factor, since we sometimes come to Him in a total mess, with many things from our past impossible to correct fully. In such cases, it seems that, in many ways, God often gives us a fresh new start.)
4) You state, “The point is, as has been expressed, it’s your anti-consistency position that is at issue here, not your anti-gay position.”
In point of fact, there is no anti-consistency here. The Scriptures only endorse heterosexual unions and marriages, consistently condemning same-sex acts and not allowing for the possibility of same-sex “marriage.” (As a biblical scholar, I can say this with authority; you, of course, are free to challenge me on that, and I expect that you will, but I will say that I am not simply spouting off second-hand interpretations here.)
So, let’s say two Christians had some marital disputes and got divorced without biblical grounds, both remarrying (I’m speaking here of heterosexual unions). Then, some years later they were spiritually revived, feeling convicted of their sins before God and asking for forgiveness, even willing to separate if that would please Him. Let’s just say – hypothetically – that God forgave them and gave them a brand new start, even blessing their current marriage. That is within the realm of scriptural possibility, given God’s prerogative to forgive us and wash us clean. But this in no way would apply to a same-sex couple, since their union would remain sinful and/or illegitimate in God’s sight, based on the consistent testimony of Scripture.
To give an analogy, let’s say that I stole money from you and opened a grocery store using the money I stole. Sometime later, I get spiritually awakened and come back to you with the money I stole and offer to shut down my store as an act of repentance. You forgive me and tell me to use my store to serve the community and never to steal again. That would be like the couple who divorced and remarried in sin but who now uses their relationship to glorify God and serve others, having been graciously forgiven. But if I stole money from you and used the money to start a crime ring, even if you forgave me for stealing the money and did not demand it back, you would still tell me that if I am to be right with God and with society, I would have to disband my crime ring. That would be the case of a same-sex couple: If they were married in Canada and then had a spiritual awakening, repenting of their illegitimate union, God would now require them to separate, since same-sex unions are never sanctioned by God.
Again, I do not mean to appear insensitive or cold in stating this. I’m simply trying to respond to your factual questions in a factual matter.
There are several other posts in which you raise further questions, and I hope to get to those soon.
Michael
Timothy,
Thanks for your even-spirited response. I did my best to reply to your question, based on “my” creating a “perfect world.” I’m sorry it did not line up with your criteria, but I certainly made an honest effort.
You state that, “God in His infinite wisdom has decided that some people on this planet would be same-sex attracted.”
Would you say that about others as well, whose sexual orientations are different than yours? Would you also say that about those whose genetic makeup apparently contributes to an unhealthy lifestyle, like obesity? Or would you work to help obese people become fit, even if most didn’t change? Isn’t this what neighbors are for? And when the doctor tells the obese person, “Unless you lose weight, your heart will fail,” does that mean that the doctor hates fat people? To the contrary, the doctor is motivated by love.
One more question: Do you agree with this statement by a prominent professor?
“Homosexuality is no more a matter of voluntary choice than is left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which this may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why this exists in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that it does exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.” Would that articulate your mindset?
Please do respond to these questions, especially the last one, since there is a real purpose in my asking them.
Also, I pray that the day will come when you can see my actions towards you are in keeping with what the Lord commands when He instructs us to love our neighbors as ourselves. Speaking the truth in love, even when it is unpopular, is what the Lord requires of us. If I was in a popularity contest, I would not tell you the truth. But I am seeking God’s favor only, and, whether you recognize it or not, trying to be a neighbor to you.
Michael
Michael,
These are very good questions you ask and it is refreshing to seeing them being asked. I do understand why you are asking them and I await the answers. For me I do believe it is what we do with our same-sex attraction that is the choice we have and it is extremely important to us being able to understand what love really is.
Michael,
I truly see little point in continuing conversation. Frankly, you seem unable to view gay persons in any light other than one of opposition and as I have said many times over, I have no interest in fighting with you. And, as I think your theology is flawed, I’m not much interested in being told “the truth in love”.
Nonetheless, I will try to answer your question. I do so hesitatingly because I instinctively know that this not an attempt to communicate but rather is a Culture War weapon. And it is frustrating. But here goes:
All parties (gay, anti-gay, casual observer) agree that same-sex attractions are not self-selected.
Further, any close review of ex-gay efforts, therapy, ministries, etc. will illustrate that same-sex attractions are here for life. If you doubt that, I encourage you to read Jones and Yarhouse’s book and look at the statements of those deemed most “successful”.
As to how same-sex attractions originate, there are a great many theories – none are proven conclusively. That there is some biological basis for some persons is pretty well irrefutable. However biology alone cannot yet be declared to be “the cause”. As to whether nature has an “overall scheme” or not, I have no idea.
But, as your “prominant professor” stated, gay folks are here.
Unlike your professor, I’m not as concerned about a proposal on how to handle “it”. I’m more concerned about people. When we oppose “homosexuality” we are freed from seeing gay people. If we take away civil liberties and rights, we can justify that we oppose “it”, not them.
Michael,
Only God can judge whether you truly wish to be treated the same way that you treat gay people. And if I read Scripture correctly, that is exactly how He will treat you.
It was like one of those old-time serial cliff-hangers…Tune in next week. Even though I had myself subscribed to this particular topic, I kept coming back into the site to make sure I hadn’t missed anything.
Timothy knows that I don’t believe it’s a FACT that God “has decided that the vast overwhelming percentage of those who sincerely seek to change that attraction will never do so.” But we can save that one for another day. I’m enjoying the focussed discussion too much to risk a detour!
Welcome back!
Timothy,
I find it extraordinary that you seem to be incapable of seeing the other side of the story, and rather than recognize my deeply held spiritual and moral convictions, forged by years of prayerful meditation and study and self-examination, you simply consign me to a close-minded religious mindset. In contrast, I see where you are coming from and, if I were convinced by God’s Word that homosexuality was simply another sexual variation, on a par with heterosexuality, I would champion your cause in a heartbeat. But for obvious reasons, I cannot.
Now, here’s the reason I pursued these specific questions: You do not grant to others what you desire for yourself. In point of fact, the prominent professor of whom I spoke, Dr. John Money, was one of the pioneer advocates of sex-change surgery. His exact quote said this: “Pedophilia and ephebophilia [referring to sexual attraction felt by an adult toward an adolescent] are no more a matter of voluntary choice than are left-handedness or color blindness. There is no known method of treatment by which they may be effectively and permanently altered, suppressed, or replaced. Punishment is useless. There is no satisfactory hypothesis, evolutionary or otherwise, as to why they exist in nature’s overall scheme of things. One must simply accept the fact that they do exist, and then, with optimum enlightenment, formulate a policy of what to do about it.”
And that is why I raised some of these issues earlier: It was to see if you really championed the “civil rights” of those whose sexual orientation (or, sexual choices made because of that orientation) you deemed to be either immoral or harmful or illegal or inappropriate or contrary to the best interests of society. That is how I see homosexual behavior (which is a choice) and homosexual orientation, which is certainly not simply a matter of genetics but is a complex phenomenon based on both nature and nurture. Regardless of its origins, I see it as contrary to God’s ideal for you, and even if you could not change, that does not mean that we reconstruct social order (such as marriage) to accommodate you, any more than we lower the age of consent to accommodate the man whose only sexual attraction is to teenage boys.
As for your civil rights, you have the same rights I have. In point of fact, no one is giving me special protection because I am heterosexual, and there is no reason to give you special protecion because you are gay. In fact, the more I attempt to treat you AS A PERSON rather than as a gay man, the less you appreciate it. In other words, you have the same right to marry a person of the opposite sex as I do, but you don’t want that right. You want to be treated differently as gay man. You have the same right I have not to be fired from a job for failure to perform. But you want the right not to be fired because you are open about being gay. So everywhere I turn, you confront me with the fact that you are gay, and I continue to make every effort to treat you as a fellow-human being. Somehow, that is enough for you.
Let me also say that I appreciate the lack of vitriol in your posts, but I do find the condescending tone somewhat surprising for someone who constantly claims to be following the example of Christ. Please do consider this for your own growth and development.
Michael
Dr. Brown.
Food for thought…
There is a difference between homosexuality and pedophilia (and ephebophilia, too). Pedophilia and ephebophilia both affect individuals under the age of 18. And that makes a distinction. There is an age of consent to consider. In NC, for example, the age of consent is 16 years-old. In some states the age of consent is 18 years-old.
Now, I want to take something you wrote and change the wording a bit. After I do that I want you to respond to how it makes you feel. I also want you to remember that at one point in history that there were laws established which were very much in line with what I am about to write. And the people who wrote the laws believed very much that they were doing exactly what God wanted.
My rewrite with word replacement:
“As for your civil rights, you have the same rights I have. In point of fact, no one is giving me special protection because I am CHRISTIAN, and there is no reason to give you special protecion because you are A JEW. In fact, the more I attempt to treat you AS A PERSON rather than as a JEWISH man, the less you appreciate it. In other words, you have the same right to marry a person of the CHRISTIAN FAITH as I do, but you don’t want that right. BUT, YOU HAVE TO NOT BE JEWISH TO DO SO. You want to be treated differently as JEWISH man. You have the same right I have not to be fired from a job for failure to perform. But you want the right not to be fired because you are open about being A JEW. So everywhere I turn, you confront me with the fact that you are A JEW, and I continue to make every effort to treat you as a fellow-human being. Somehow, that is enough for you.”
Dr. Brown, somewhere I have a book about anti-Semitism’s origins that list all the Church laws against Jews. One of the laws was that Jews could not marry Christians. The Church was very convinced that it was following what Jesus wanted.
Please think about this. How can you as a born Jew be intolerant? {Regardless of the fact you are now a Christian) Think about that paragraph you wrote to Timothy.
A rabbi whose published diary really made an impact on me is Rabbi Martin Siegel. In the very beginning of his published diary he asks (himself):
“How can Jews, of all people, practice intolerance?”
Rabbi Siegel was speaking of the Jewish community’s fear of “blacks”. And he said that fear was feeding hatred. He wrote his words on December 12, 1968.
I think the same thing can be said of the Christian community and fear of homosexuals, at this point in time. It is feeding hatred. (And not only hatred–intolerance}
Shalom,
Grethel
BTW, intolerance does swing both ways. I am aware of this.
I have had teaching and training on how to recognize bias within myself. Why? As a teacher, I have to be able to work on developing a non-judgmental attitude toward the diversity of the families and children that I work with. Part of working on that development is examining my own self. A teacher should examine personal biases. And a teacher should try to get past the biases to develop understanding and value of diversity.
Part of my own examination did lead to me realizing that there are families I would have difficulty working with. And I went, “Uh, oh!” I thought that I didn’t have a problem. But, I really realized I did. I thought, “What if I have to work with a family who is part of the KKK or some other group like this? What if I have to work with a fundamental Christian family, too?” Regardless of how I feel, I have to do the best I can as a professional to teach the children. I discussed what to do with my instructor/college advisor if I ever face this situation.
Shalom,
Grethel
I very much appreciate your repeated acknowledgment of previous questions and concerns and your attempts to address them regarding myself and others.
I have serious objections to much, but my point for mentioning this now, is that before putting more extraordinary effort into a post, I want to make sure I haven’t been banned first. I lost a passionate post the other night that seemed to go through.
So if this works, I’ll be back
Emproph – The comment you are referring to went to the spam filter for some reason. I retrieved it but cannot seem to find it here as yet. Was it on this thread or the SSP thread?
Dr. Brown, I feel it’s time.
I realize you won’t accept this as truth, nor do I expect you to. What I do expect, however, is that you accept this truth as being as real to me as my memory of yesterday is real to me.
Again, you can call me and those like me (in regard to this specifically) all the more delusional for considering our own memories to be real. So be it. But memories like this are not gay exclusive — not an appeal to popularity, just a recognition that my personal experience is not unique to any demographic.
I remember having lived before. In each of my lifetimes I was either a gay male, or a heterosexual female. Again, I realize you dismiss the possibility of reincarnation being true, so please bear with me.
When this information was revealed to me, the first thing I realized was that we “forget” our past lives by design. One look at the terror of human history (and present) provides ample evidence of the need to forget things in order to even attempt to get over them. How else to begin to forgive those who wronged us in the worst ways possible?
The second thing I realized was the reality of life before birth, and therefore gender before birth.
What it comes down to is this, in order for a heterosexual male such as yourself to be a “homosexual,” you would have had to have been born a female, and you would therefore be a lesbian.
Again, again, I do not expect you to accept this as a reality. What I do expect however, is that you understand that the certitude of the same-gender attraction of homosexual persons like me, is-as-profound as if this scenario were real.
Until you can approach the situation accepting this magnitude of our certainty about ourselves, I don’t believe it is possible for you to respect us in any pragmatically meaningful manner.
As I said, if you were to be a “homosexual,” you would have been born a girl, and would be a lesbian.
If you are to “put on the shoes of” a gay man, you’d have to first “put on the shoes of” a woman, and then “put on the shoes of” a woman who was born with, and grew up with a male body.
I have proof. I am a heterosexual female with a male body. If you are to challenge this, then first you must challenge my ability to recognize memory itself.
Again, my experience is not the point, but I feel confident in stating that those who are unequivocally same-gender attracted as I am, feel as certain about the innateness of their gender attraction as I do. LIKE YOU DO.
Again, I’m not saying you have to accept this, but if you want to come across as being respectful, then you need to respond in a manner that demonstrates that YOU understand that we see ourselves as being THIS sure of ourselves.
I don’t see this happening, because I don’t see any concern on behalf of the “Christian” anti-gay industry’s part for our need to experience love in our lives. (not to mention the blatant lies and hypocrisy)
Humor us for a second, and pretend that you were born a lesbian, how would you take the words that you say?
Warren said…
As far as I was aware it was on this thread. When I pressed submit it went back to the top of this thread as usual, but when I scrolled down, the comment didn’t appear at the bottom.
What is an SSP thread?
Emproph – SSP = same-sex parenting. I can’t find it there either, so somehow, the comment is lost in cyberspace. But just to be clear, you were not banned, nor did I disallow the comment, I just can’t find it.
Patrick,
Your story (in a different way) reminds me of the story of another Patrick/Patricia (Califia), and I have read his/her story with interest and with sadness.
Now, as to your former life memories and the certainty of your of your self-identity (heterosexual female in a male body), this may surprise you, but while I reject the idea of previous lives (reincarnation, etc.), I actually ASSUME that your feelings and that of other gays and lesbians is just what you describe: You are as sure that being gay is who you are (or, in this case, being a woman in a man’s body) as I am sure that I was born (and designed by God) to be a heterosexual male.
That’s why it is a very painful thing for me to stand against what you consider your basic human rights and to not fully affirm your personhood (at the least, you would certainly feel that I do not fully affirm your personhood). I only do this before God because of sacred spiritual and moral convictions, and the catch-22 for me is that if I want to “help” you I have now insulted you. You would say that you don’t want help; that this is who you are and that are you satisfied with your situation and that your only real problem is that people like me don’t just accept you for who you are. I am convinced that it is not God’s ideal for you to be locked up in the wrong body (if this does not accurately reflect your position, I apologize for not stating it correctly) and that He has a solution to your situation and that until that solution was worked out in your life, you could belong to Him – just as many single heterosexuals remain devoted to him, even for decades without a mate and without a sexual outlet.
One of my friends in Charlotte is a former lesbian. From the time she became convinced that her same-sex acts were displeasing in God’s sight until the time she became totally free of those desires was about eight years, but during that time, she did not go back to her old ways. According to her own story, she had GID from her earliest childhood memories. Thankfully, her spiritual journey was not marked by abusive experiences, as is the case with others, as we know, but she told my wife and I that on several occasions, she experienced deep spiritual deliverances, the breaking off of what she referred to as demonic powers at work in her life, and that was the ultimate key to her freedom.
Jesus said that whoever commits sin is a slave to sin, but if the Son of God sets us free, we are free forever. Is there any possibility, even one in a million, that God wants to set you free from feeling like a woman in a man’s body, and rather than having a sex change operation (not that you have said that you want to, but just in case), God could change your innermost perceptions, who you really are inside?
In no way do I want to trivialize what you have written, and that’s why I told Timothy earlier that I have read much gay literature in order to try to get into your shoes. Just the Foreword to Jack Nichols’ book The Gay Agenda offered painful insights, let alone Jack’s passionate book itself; or reading Mike Piazza’s Holy Homosexuals, or a host of other books (including the personal stories of the Mel Whites and Steven Greenbergs), and of course watching the Abomination DVD and reading through the Advocate’s Long Road to Freedom – and on and on. (I should also mention the pro-SSM marriage books like those of Chauncey and Wolfson and Rauch, etc.)
In point of fact, when I speak to pastors and churches about “the gay agenda,” the first thing I address is the church’s failure to have understanding and compassion – if you never read my apology to the GLBT community of Charlotte, please follow the earlier link to that, posted above – and I try to explain to them the mindset of a “typical” GLBT person (who, I’m quick to point, has no other “agenda” than just living a normal life and being accepted for who they are). It is only because an activist agenda comes knocking at my door that I take my stand against that. I am truly sorry that my words and actions strike you as a personal assault, but I hope you can understand my perspective better through this post.
Dr. Brown (BTW, I’m trying to reply to everyone the way I’m being address, just FYI)
Grethel,
OK. I still have to respond to your earlier posts about same-sex parenting, but for the sake of continuity, let me respond to your response to my quote about pedophilia and ephephobilia. I do understand that your SSA has to do with a relationship with a consenting adult female, whereas pedophilia and ephephobilia have to do with relationships with minors. That is a given, and I take for granted that we all start with that assumption. But what no one has responded to yet in this blog is the question of what a GLBT person tells someone with these other orientations, orientations which for them are as “natural” and immutable (and for some, perhaps, supposedly God-given!) as your lesbianism is for you.
Patrick (Emproph) said in a recent post to me that, “I don’t see any concern on behalf of the ‘Christian’ anti-gay industry’s part for our need to experience love in our lives.” Well, what do you (or Patrick or Timothy or Jayhuck or Ken or others) say to the person whose orientation is ephephobilia? What about their need to experience love? And, in keeping with Timothy’s “perfect world” question, what becomes of them?
To be sure, Grethel, you have not accused me of inconsistency and hypocrisy, as have some of the others, and I appreciate that, since it allows us to focus on the issues rather than on rhetoric. But can you see that, from my point of view, it is inconsistent for you to ask me to recognize the legitimacy of your same-sex desires and actions, even though in my eyes they violate scripture and are not in the best interests or our society, while you are not willing to sanction the legitimacy of these other sexual orientations because those orientations are wrong in your sight (or in the sight of society)?
So, please help me to understand: What do you tell the man who is only attracted to young adolescent males – and who, as far as he can remember, always felt this way and, to date, has been completely unable to change – what do you tell him about his need to experience love?
I would deeply appreciate your honest response to this question, which is not just abstract but is as real to those people as your lesbian questions are to you.
Thanks,
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
There was a point about a year or two years ago when I would more than likely would have responded differently to you. I owe a lot to my rabbi and synagogue family for helping me grow. I am not perfect but I try very carefully to treat others well including people I disagree with.
Are we under the assumption that sex and love equal the same thing? Quite frankly the two are not the same thing. Our society confuses the two.
Sex can be an expression of love. But, sex for sex’s sake is not “love.”
With that said, it is not up to me to determine the laws of society alone. It is up to all of us. We can present our cases to the government which represents us.
I disagree with pedophilia and ephebophilia on more basis that just Torah–pursuing justice on behalf of those who can’t pursue justice for themselves, i.e. the stranger, orphan, and widow. Children in my view fall under this category.
I disagree on the basis of the knowledge of human development. A teenager’s brain is not fully developed. He or she do not have the capcity to make decisions as adults do.
In my studies, I have had to take Child Development I and Child Development II. I studied the development of a human from the womb until adolescence.
I don’t find it inconsistent, Dr. Brown. I would disagree with mistreatment of such a man. But, I can’t agree with his desire. The desire can cause harm to someone else–the adolescent whose brain is not fully developed.
Understand where I am coming from?
Shalom,
Grethel
Research material:
http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a787077281~db=all~jumptype=rss
PS
I forgot to add this statement:
A lesbian relationship between two consenting adults is very different. Who is being harmed?
And can a relationship be one where sex is not involved?
Shalom,
Grethel
Michael,
Wow, I guess I was absolutely 100% correct when I deduced that you weren’t interested in communication but instead were trying to set me up with your quote.
Gosh, who’d a thunk it?
I will not be debating your nonsense about pedophilia or ephebophilia (both of which involve relationships of inequalities of power and in that way are more similar to traditional heterosexuality), my freedom to marry a woman (not legally valid, incidentally), the right to fire me for “being open about being gay” (need we discuss the reasons to champion the continuation of this right), the claims that you ascribe to me that I did not make, or even what you think is God’s will for me (an interesting conceit).
When you want to talk about what you, Michael, demand of me, Timothy, then we can talk. As long as you want to dodge and dance and justify the cruelty of your goals by distraction, deflection, and appeals to some “activist agenda knocking at your door”, I’m not going to participate.
So go on and line up the cannons. Rally the troops. March ahead seeking to destroy the enemy. I just choose not to engage in your Culture War.
As opposed to the man whose only sexual attraction is to teenage girls?
I covered this, at length. You ignored it.
The comparison with “the man whose only sexual attraction is that of child-rape” is insulting enough. And please spare me the “that’s not what I meant routine,” OBVIOUSLY this is where that’s going.
The comparison reduces my capacity to love as nothing more than an attraction to sex acts. If this is what you truly feel then say so, but quit insulting my intelligence by perpetually dancing around the subject.
And the fact that you ignored everything I already said on the matter has nothing to do with homosexuality or your “moral” position. You dismissed me above and beyond that position, and given how revoltingly hypocritically insulting the comparison is, from a moral position it’s inexcusable.
And let’s be clear on this as well before you go into another ephebophilia rant about “how is one supposed to tell the difference between one deviation and another?” — With all due respect Dr. Brown, you’re the only one here who seems to want to talk about having sex with teenage boys.
Timothy,
Well, your post got me smiling. I still can’t seem to get you or anyone else hear to respond to the call for “equality” from others. I’m ready to dialogue when you are!
You state: “When you want to talk about what you, Michael, demand of me, Timothy, then we can talk.”
Timothy, I don’t demand anything of you. You live your life according to your convictions and I’ll live according to mine, but even if we differ, I will not attack you personally or demean you as a person. That’s about it on my end. To repeat: I don’t demand anything of you. Who gave me the right to?
You write: “As long as you want to dodge and dance and justify the cruelty of your goals by distraction, deflection, and appeals to some ‘activist agenda knocking at your door’, I’m not going to participate.”
Timothy — no dodging or dancing here, and no attempt to justify anything by distraction. You really don’t seem to understand that there are two very real sides to this issue, and I’d be happy to speak with you privately, by phone, just for the sake of understanding and not trying to prove a point here on this blog.
But as long as you continue to engage in judging me and my motivation and integrity — the very thing you excoriate me for, using Jesus’ words, no less — how can I possibly interact with you in a fruitful way?
Michael
Emproph,
In all seriousness, Patrick, you really do need to exercise some self-restraint in your posts here. Please show me where I have spoken against you personally or called you a liar or a false witness or dishonest or even referred to you personally as sexually deviant. Once again, I will ignore your personal diatribes, but I do appeal to you understand the issues I’m seeking to address. If you’re ready to address those, I’m happy to interact. If not, I’m sure we can both find something more productive to do.
Please also read the post that follows, to Grethel.
Dr. Brown
Grethel,
Thanks again for your even-tempered response.
You wrote, “Are we under the assumption that sex and love equal the same thing? Quite frankly the two are not the same thing. Our society confuses the two. Sex can be an expression of love. But, sex for sex’s sake is not ‘love.’”
Of course, I agree with that statement, and in point of fact, I’m not telling you who you can and can’t love. Who gave me that right? In fact, I’m not telling you with whom you can or cannot have a sexual relationship. Again, who gave me the right to rule your life?
But will I endorse a same-sex relationship (romantic and/or sexual) or vote it for to be legally recognized? Certainly not, for the many reasons stated throughout this blog.
You wrote, “it is not up to me to determine the laws of society alone. It is up to all of us. We can present our cases to the government which represents us.”
Once again, I concur. The problem for me, however, in terms of the environment of this blog, is that when I stand up for my moral and spiritual convictions and simply seek to do what I can as a citizen of this country to see those convictions upheld, I’m portrayed as doing something illegitimate. The interaction thus far with some of the participants has been quite telling in that regard.
Now, let’s return to the question of pedophilia or ephebophilia. Frankly, there is nothing more horrific to me than the sexual abuse of children. As a father and grandfather, and as the friend of many large families with small children, and having worked with Christian orphanages in the Third World, I cannot imagine anyone taking advantage of a child. The thought is repulsive beyond words, and I’m glad that everyone posting on this blog shares that moral disgust. At least we agree on that!
But to continue, you wrote, “I disagree with pedophilia and ephebophilia on more basis that just Torah–pursuing justice on behalf of those who can’t pursue justice for themselves, i.e. the stranger, orphan, and widow. Children in my view fall under this category.”
Well said! The problem is that there are books and even scientific studies arguing for the benefits of ephebophilia – based primarily on the testimonies of the boys, not the adults, many of them years after their consensual relationships with older men. There are the NAMBLA’s of this world – and again, I assume that Timothy and Patrick and the others firmly reject the goals of NAMBLA – that consider the rest of us bigots for rejecting man-boy love.
So why in the world do I continue to bring up this sexually deviant behavior? And why do I submit myself to the howls of protest that will surely rise whenever I raise this subject (or the subject of incest, etc.)? It is simply to challenge some of the standard lines of the GLBT community, such as: “What about our need to experience love in our lives?” or, “Why do you deny us the same rights you have?”
I reply, “But what about the need for others (like the ephebophiles) to experience love in their lives?” You (or others) reply: “But what they’re doing is wrong.” I agree, but based on my understanding of God’s Word and His ways, what a same-sex couple does together is also wrong – and therefore the argument of “What about our need to experience love in our lives?” is certainly not compelling.
As to the question of, “Why do you deny us the same rights you have?” I reply, “But why do you deny those rights to others, like two gay brothers who want to marry?” – and I’m told that for many reasons, they do not have that “right.” I agree, but based on my understanding of the Scriptures and on what is best for society, I do not agree that same-sex couples have the “right” to marry, and therefore the argument based on alleged “rights” alone is not compelling.
And so we go around and around, without convincing each other, which in reality, was never my goal. My goal, instead, was to demonstrate the fallacies and inconsistencies of the “pro-gay” arguments that are used, as well as to learn what I can from the dialogue and allow my own positions to be challenged.
Can you step back from your own involvement in the dialogue and look at the larger issues raised? I believe the attitude you have demonstrated in this posts illustrates that you can.
Dr. Brown
Michael Brown said in post 75964:
rather than recognize my deeply held spiritual and moral convictions, forged by years of prayerful meditation and study and self-examination, you simply consign me to a close-minded religious mindset.
Frankly Michael, I believe it is you who fails to see that your “deeply held spiritual and moral convictions” are what lead to your close-minded religious mind-set.
You have repeatedly attempted to associate homosexuality with pedophilia, despite several people explaining why it is an inappropriate and insulting comparison. Apparently, when you think of gays all you can think about are sex acts which you find disgusting. Therefore, to you gays are the same as any other groups that may engage in sex acts you find disgusting. Yet, rather than educate yourself about what it means to be gay, you simply continue with your insulting and demeaning comparisions.
You actively engage in political efforts that have a real and material impact on my ability to live my life according to my convictions. I do not seek to impact your life at all.
Yet you think this makes you admirable.
I couldn’t agree more.
And no, Michael, I’m not playing the “call for “equality” from others” game. Your equating the allowing of adults to enter into relationships with each other as being the same as lowering the age of consent so that pedophiles can prey on children is insane. One is a relationship and the other is a power play. I know that you know the difference and are simply choosing to be offensive.
You may think you’ve won some point, but I just think that you are behaving boorishly.
Dr. Brown–
A part of this discussion has somehow moved itself over to the ‘same-sex parenting’ thread. The merging starts with post 75814. It’s up to you whether you feel the need to comment there as well but I did think you’d find it enlightening. (You should be able to link to that thread by finding it in the ‘most recently commented’ on the sidebar to this page.)
Dr. Brown,
You stated: “Please also read the post that follows, to Grethel.”
I do not see a post to me; I’ll check back later when I can. I am away from home and I will not be able to respond again until after Shabbat.
I also want to mention to you that I do not contemplate about issues like many Westernized minded people do–black vs. white. I try to examine as much info as possible. I suppose you can say that this is a “Jewish” way of thinking. Thus, you can see why I feel more comfortable within the Jewish community.
The question you asked me is much more complicated than looking for an inconsistancy in my view of “equality.” All details must and should be considered. We also must remember seperation of church and state.
My way of thinking is in line with the nature of the Talmud. For those who are not familiar:
http://library.law.miami.edu/jewishlaw/jewishguide.html
Look under “3. Law Codes” which explains.
Shalom,
Grethel
Patrick,
Little by little now, I’m attempting to respond to some of your posts. Let me say that I really appreciate the time you have taken to answer some of my questions, and in many cases, you have put some excellent issues on the table. My schedule often gets very intense and does not afford me the luxury of engaging in extensive blogging, but I do realize how important these issues are and I certainly take seriously the viewpoints of those on this blog, even when we strenuously disagree.
For the moment, I want to clarify one small point. You wrote:
“Michael Brown says…
‘In certain times in history, and in certain parts of the world today, polygamy is practiced, but at NO TIME was marriage ever the union of two equal partners who were not of the opposite sex. And that remains the reality through the vast part of our nation until this day, as well as throughtout the vast majority of the rest of the world.’
Absurd, unless you’re arguing that you can travel back in time and have examined every union in human history. Clearly you’re not, so it’s an argument limited by what you personally know of historical social tradition. Until you can prove you speak for history, this argument has no basis, furthermore, you’ve already established that no matter what evidence is provided you – even a proven historical majority of SSM, or polygamy, or incest – you still would not be swayed.”
What surprised me was your comment about the absurdity of my being able to know such a thing. I was obviously referring to the historical record that’s been preserved, to anthropological and textual studies, to archeological evidence, etc. My whole field of study in grad school was examining ancient texts, and then others would build on our philological studies to draw cultural and social and historical insights, etc.
Now, if you are challenging me on how I know about every recognized marriage in history, you’re obviously right. No one knows that, and I certainly wasn’t making that claim. My apologies if that is how my language appeared. My point was that the record preserved from us around the world and in many ancient cultures points to a taboo against incest, and I am not aware of any culture-sanctioned marriages for incestuous couples.
If an anthropologist would like to chime in here with some data from the ancient world, I’d be happy to interact.
So, in any case, I just wanted to clarify that point here as well as to be sure that you did accept the studies of historians and philologians and others who deal with ancient texts and cultulres.
As for the rest of your response (just cited), I’ll be back to you!
Dr. Brown
Ken,
I’m responding to post 75074.
I had taken issue with your previous statement that “Civil marriages in the US have evolved in to a partnership of TWO equal partners and not equipped to handle more than that,” and I responded by saying, “False. Marriages in the US and since the dawn of civilization have been between a MALE and a FEMALE.”
You then responded by stating that, “No, this is incorrect. In the US the one man/one woman definition isn’t even 50 years old. Because 50 years ago, in many states, civil marriage was defined as ‘one man and one woman of the same race.’ And before that it was ‘one white man and one white woman.’”
Actually, what I wrote remains unchanged, and, in point of fact, is only supported by you. I was simply stating that in our history (and, for that matter world history), the institution of marriage only joined a male with a female (not even stating one man and one woman), not a male with a male or a female with a female. Even polygamous unions were never same-sex unions. Nothing that you wrote affects that at all. Obviously, I was not saying which males or females could marry (did I argue that our laws allowed for a male to marry his mother?) but that marriage has always and only joined parties of the opposite sex. Again, you provided further support for my statement, not less.
You closed by stating, “You insult an entire class of people with your analogies yet complain about personal insults.” First, the purpose of my analogies is to challenge standard arguments that are used in the same-sex marriage debate (such as, “Why can’t I marry the person I love?”), since the GLBT community largely rejects that very argument in the analogies I raise. I have stated that repeatedly and yet some bloggers insist on taking every analogy I use as a personal comparison. Just re-read post 74161 which, ironically was written to you, and you will see that I have made myself perfectly clear. I wrote there: “Now, let’s think about the rights of others. (First, say out loud with me, ‘I am not comparing you to a pedophile! I am simply raising a question of ethics.’ Repeat it a few times if you actually think I’m trying to compare homosexuality and pedophilia.)”
Second, I’m not complaining about personal insults. Really, if I was that thin-skinned or felt that this was all about my feelings, I would never have gotten into this discussion. I am simply pointing out that such invective does not enhance the dialogue and that it is also hypocritical given the alleged higher moral ground claimed by some of the posters here.
Michael
Sigh, I really don’t want to be drawn off onto the pigtrail of incest, etc.
However, for factual accuracy, let me chime in
Historical references tell us in to uncertain terms (Van den Berghe and Mesher 1980) that insestuous marriages were recognized in ancient Egypt, the Incas of Peru, and the polonesian Hawaii’ans.
And lest we think this some practice of the immoral heathens, Genesis 12:10-20. It seems only the Muslims believe that Abraham and Sarah were not half-siblings.
And as for same-sex unions, they’re pretty well documented. Often they were different than current marriage… but so was marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions
The “never ever in history” arguments are more convincing when they are factually accurate and not easily refuted.
Timothy,
Thanks for the post. I’ll check the references ASAP.
As for Abraham and Sarah, they were half-siblings, which of course colors the issue. The question is of full-siblings.
But again, thanks for the references, which I’ll look into further.
I’m sure you know that the biased scholarship of Boswell’s book on Same-Sex Unions in Europe has been exposed by other historians, but I will certainly check out the resources cited in the Wikipedia article. I also want to remind you of the question at hand, which is the institution of marriage where such existed, not of any other type of “union.”
Once more, thanks for the post.
Michael
Michael –
I have observed you go back and forth with a number of responders. My opinion is that there will always be a contingency of individuals who disagree with same-sex marriage, and I’m fine with that. You fit a pattern of oppression that we saw with those who opposed interracial marriage on biblical grounds, and who defended slavery on biblical grounds just the same. Eventually, the truth comes forward, and I am a patient woman.
As a woman who was legally married to another woman in Canada, I can say that both history and economics are not on your side. History for the reasons I stated above, and economics because of my forthcoming paragraph.
If America wants to stay competitive with the world market, they will aspire to attract the best and brightest…gay, immigrant, etc. We see that most of the most successful cities in the United States have cultures which tend to be tolerant to both groups, indicating an atmosphere of openness. As we narrow our laws, we will stop attracting the talent – and they will simply go elsewhere. See the books “rise of the creative class,” and “flight of the creative class,” as well as the works/studies by economist Richard Florida (straight, by the way) which support my statements.
More than my faith in America doing the “right thing” with respect to same-sex couples, I have faith that America will do the thing that will reward it economically.
Beware of much forthcoming frustration Mike, you are on the losing side of history on this one.
Timothy,
Well, this time I’m the one who must express surprise. We all know that Wikipedia entries are a mixed bag, but often they are supported by solid scholarly references. In the case at hand, the article you cited was incredibly specious in terms of supporting the sweeping claims it made.
More importantly, aside from the unsupported statements, the primary unions that are being discussed are pederastic in nature – how ironic that you are now the one to open this can of worms! – and the article even links to the article entitled “Historical Pederastic Couples.”
To quote some telling lines from the article, first with reference to Asia:
“Same-gender romantic love or sexual desire has been recorded since ancient times in the entirety of the continent of Asia, right from the Middle East to South Asia to East Asia. Such desire often took the form of same-sex unions, usually between men, and often included some difference in age. . . .
“In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies. The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family. Generally, this practice – though unusual even in China – was reflective of the value Chinese culture placed on the reciprocal relationship between benevolent elders teaching and guiding the obedient younger members of society.
“In Japan, Shudo (?? shud? or sh?d?), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo, in its pedagogic, martial, and aristocratic aspects, is closely analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty.”
Timothy, is this your support for historical same-sex unions being recognized by ancient society? Various forms of all-male pederasty?
Here’s more from Ancient Greece, citing the same article:
“In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects.”
And then this from Africa:
“In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father.”
So, the very thing that I am reproached for on this blog – namely, raising the question of the “rights” of ephebophiles and others – is now the primary basis for your argument on the history of same-sex unions. Is this really the historical precedent to which you want to point? And do you realize that in doing so, you are merely echoing the NAMBLA’s of this world that feel they the gay rights movement sacrificed them on the altar of political expediency, claiming that the early gay rights movement actually celebrated what it called the rich history of man-boy love?
Finally, I point out some of the many qualifying comments made in the article regarding attempts to parallel historic same-sex relationships with the institution of marriage: “At the same time, many of these relationships might be more clearly understood as mentoring relationships between adult men and young boys rather than an analog of marriage. . . . In ancient Rome, the Emperor Nero is reported to have married two other men on different occasions. However, they were both eunuchs and much can be read into his mental state by the fact that he made them up to look like Poppea, his deceased wife, who he was presumed to have killed by kicking her in the stomach until she miscarried bloodily. Other Roman Emperors, including Diocletian, are reported to have done the same. The marriages however did not fall under the scope of Roman law and are considered as camp. In their time they provoked amazement and contempt. . . . The Roman use of sexuality as a form of dominance, as well as a means to conquer a male enemy through rape, have been linked with the increasing intolerance of same-sex relations in Rome.”
So, these are some of your arguments? Honestly?
I will return to the question of “incestuous marriage” ASAP, but I would hope that the next time you seek to point out any perceived inaccuracies in my statements you provide real data that supports your views – unless you want to equate same-sex marriage today with pederastic relationships in the ancient world.
Michael
Timothy,
One more note on the article you cited in Wikipedia.
It makes references to “vellamaria,” a rite practiced in the Balkan states in which a relationship between man is recognized. Once again, however, this is a pederastic rite, practiced especially in Albania, and it is one which precedes marriage (between a man and a woman).
To quote directly from a Geg Albanian:
“The lover’s feeling for the boy is pure as sunshine. It places the beloved on the same pedestal as a saint. It is the highest and most exalted passion of which the human breast is capable. The sight of a beautiful youth awakens astonishment in the lover, and opens the door of his heart to the delight which the contemplation of this loveliness affords. Love takes possession of him so completely that all his thought and feeling goes out in it. If he finds himself in the presence of the beloved, he rests absorbed in gazing on him. Absent, he thinks of nought but him. If the beloved unexpectedly appears, he falls into confusion, changes color, turns alternately pale and red. His heart beats faster and impedes his breathing. He has ears and eyes only for the beloved. He shuns touching him with the hand, kisses him only on the forehead, sings his praise in verse, a woman’s never.” (Cited by J.G. von Hahn, Albanische Studien, 1854.)
So, not only is this not a “marriage” rite, but it is an overtly pederastic relationship. This is some of your proof?
Michael
Jag,
Yes, I go back and forth with lots of responders because of the nature of this blog. That’s life!
As for being frustrated now or in the future, I’m really not frustrated at all. I’m simply seeking to honor the Lord and help people. You, for obvious reasons, feel that I’m totally misguided in this, but I assure you: I’m not frustrated and my faith in God would not be in the least bit tested if same-sex marriage was legalized throughout every country in the world. So, no need to worry about that!
I would beg to differ, however, with two of your claims: First, that the battle for same-sex marriage is analogous to the battle for civil rights in the past (or for women’s rights, etc.). An excellent, in-depth study, examining biblical and cultural arguments, is provided by Dr. William J. Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals: Exploring the Hermeneutics of Cultural Analysis. Also worth reading is Willard M. Swartley’s book Homosexuality: Biblical Interpretation and Moral Discernment. Interestingly, many black leaders take offense at the civil rights movement being compared to the GLBT movement (although many others, of course, do see it as a parallel).
Second, your point about more successful cities being more tolerant is actually a mixed bag. These cities often have higher percentages of children born out of wedlock and higher percentages of murder and violent crimes, among other negative statistics. So, there is good and bad in larger cities, and the fact that homosexuality is often more tolerated or accepted actually proves nothing. As for the economic battle, I’m fully aware that corporate America is largely pro-diversity (meaning, in this case, “pro-gay”), but whether that will overcome the legion of moral and religious and societal objections to same-sex marriage remains to be seen.
As for being patient, the Scriptures already tell me what the final outcome will be, and so even if several generations went in what I considered to be a wrong direction, I would still be confident that God’s kingdom will ultimately be established on this planet and at that time, perfect justice and righteousness will prevail. I can wait too.
Mike
Sorry, Michael. I am no longer engaging in your Culture War. Have a Happy New Year.
Blessings on you Timothy! Remember I’m always happy to interact, be it by phone, face to face, or online.
May the Lord’s grace be poured out on you in wonderful and surprising ways in 2008.
Michael
Michael Brown wrote…
You mean like the literal first family, Adam and Eve’s, and then again Noah’s family after the flood?
Or did unchanging God change his mind about that “full-sibling” incest?
Biblically speaking — in regard to what seems to be God’s unequivocal design and approval of immediate family member incest – why do you not support adult-consensual-incestuous relationships in the context of one man and one woman marriages?
May the Lord’s grace be poured out on you in wonderful and surprising ways in 2008.
And on you too Michael. I also have to echo Timothy’s sentiments however, “I am no longer engaging in your culture war”!
I finally figured out what he’s doing with the whole “if I approve of your consensual relationship, why not approve of a child’s consensual relationship with an adult?”
This one’s a doozy.
Now we’re all familiar with the canard: “why do gays define their core selves by their sexual behavior?” Obviously we don’t, at least not inherently anymore so than straights do.
So the anti-gay ploy here is to keep us on the defensive by having us defend ourselves, against ourselves (i.e., what they have defined us as).
Dr. Brown takes this simple canard – especially in regard to the “ephebophilia” card – several obfuscatory steps further.
In regard to my example above, it would go something like this:
First we are told that two unrelated things are not being compared as equal, then we let our guard down, then we are “asked” to defend the difference.
In advertising terms it’s called bait and switch.
The question of “what do you then say to this “consensual” (incest, minors, polygamy, etc.) relationship” is to fully retract the original disclaimer that the unfair comparison is not being made.
Long story short: I realize that you’re not insane, but prove that you’re not insane.
Same with the sex-with-minors canard – under guise of “ephebophilia.”
Examples:
It appears to me that Mr. Brown’s argument is essentially that WE are arguing that consent of any kind equals consent of every kind – for no reason at all.
A concept equally applicable to all aspects of life for everyone. What Mr. Brown is attempting to do here, in this case, is make such a universal argument out to be same-gender exclusive.
It’s a glorified strawman argument. Take something you have no direct argument for, compare it with something bad, and then condemn them both the same.
Except that he riddles it with obfuscation by first denying the comparison, and then asking us to defend ourselves against the comparison.
And then ignores when this point is made by claiming persecution for his “deeply held moral beliefs.”
Re post 75796 – Michael Brown’s response to the adultery of remarriage, and his use of (Biblically speaking) unrepentant adulterer Joe Dallas as an anti-gay reference on his website.
Well then, in point of fact, you’re wrong about your concept of facts, especially in regard to your contention that there is no inconsistency here on your part. But unlike you, I and others can, have been, and will continue to prove it.
Grethel and I have both quoted from the source and have each provided links, so what you should have said is, “I’ve ignored the truth of the situation twice now, so correct me if I’m wrong and I will most likely ignore it for a third time.”
That would have been more honest.
But for the record, and for the third time, here is the link again:
http://www.stonewallrevisited.com/pages/joe_d.html
Strikethrough here = irrelevant:
First off, according to this article, Joe Dallas was a believer long before the time in question.
Secondly, you’ve just argued that the sin of perpetual adulterous remarriage can be sanctified by salvation. And therefore have opened the door to the argument that perpetual sin itself can be sanctified by salvation.
Since when does God sanctify the active engagement in sin (as per the adultery of remarriage) simply based on one’s acceptance of salvation?
Again, let’s see what your “Biblical beliefs” have to say about all this:
Except for the Paulian unbeliever qualifier, God’s words through Himself as Jesus Christ sound pretty clear to me.
Michael Brown says…
Ah, and therein lies the rub of your so-called Biblical basis for morality – whatever you decide lies “within the realm of scriptural possibility.”
And no matter what you decide is “within the realm of Scriptural possibility,” you can always attribute your own “interpretation” to be that of God’s. How convenient for you. How very, very, convenient.
Don’t worry, I realize you’re right and I’m wrong all the time forever no matter what. So be it.
But then, how do you get around the warning on the last page not to take your own “within the realm of Scriptural possibility” approach to the Bible?
If you’re directly contradicting God’s words through Himself as Jesus in regard to remarriage, how is that not adding or taking away words and / or meaning from God’s word – the very thing you claim is the basis of your own morality?
Michael Brown says…
I have just demonstrated that there is an inconsistent position here, AGAIN, and you have yet to prove that I am wrong.
Worse than that however, you continue to demonstrate that you have no desire to prove that I am wrong.
__________
Wait wait, let me try…
Emproph’s impression of Michael Brown’s response to this post:
To which I would reply,
Roller coaster ride, kitchen sink, price of milk.
Timothy, I have serious issues with this whole ‘culture wars’ deal you bring up. You made several accusations as to the state of Michael’s heart for gays way up near the top in post 72754. Michael asked you to support your allegations both in a brief post and then, in a longer one, he said:
If you can point out a single instance where I have “lied” about the GLBT community, I will correct it publicly. Please be kind enough to do so. In all my public communication, I have done my best to be fair and accurate, taking issue with gay activism, expressing my moral differences with homosexual acts, based on my understanding of the Scriptures, but seeking to treat everyone with dignity as a fellow-creation of God. And if you have never read my statement to the GLBT community in Charlotte, please go to: http://www.coalitionofconscience.org/statements/homosexualCommunity.shtm.
To be sure, there is a moral divide between us simply over our view of homosexuality, and my stance against gay activism is in your eyes a heinous act of unchristian bigotry. I understand that, and I do not minimize our differences. However, you claim that I have lied about the GLBT community, and I sincerely ask you to show me where and when.
Your response to that was:i>”I will not engage in a battle with you. “ It puzzled me why you led with that. Dr. Brown simply stated the belief system he operates from and that he is public with his beliefs. Why did that strike you as combative?
As I reread through the thread, it does seem that this ‘battle’ you referred to so early on morphed into the ‘culture wars that you will not engage in’. Is that correct? Were you already anticipating an endless culture war in your “I will not do battle” comment?
I’m really just trying to understand what exactly in the discussions translated into ‘culture wars’. The conversation seemed both polite and responsive from Michael’s end. You were leaking sarcasm but were within blog norms. Where did you pick up on a ‘battle’ or ‘culture war’?
I’m not trying to draw you back into further discussion with Michael, I really feel a need to understand this ‘culture wars’ thing. I’ve had that comment thrown at me a time or two and never quite understood my offense.
Jayhuck,
Thanks, and blessings on your new year as well!
As for “my culture war,” how about coming up with something more original?
On my end, I’ve been seeking to walk a certain way before God for the last thirty-six years since he wonderfully delivered me from a wasted and decadent life. The “war” of which you speak has actually come to me, and I’m simply trying to respond in a truthful, God-honoring, constructive, and compassionate way.
I’ll miss you if you’re not around, but hopefully our dialogue will not end here.
Michael
Patrick,
One more appeal to you use some restraint in your posts, OK?
You write (with reference to my comments about Joe Dallas’s testimony): “Grethel and I have both quoted from the source and have each provided links, so what you should have said is, ‘I’ve ignored the truth of the situation twice now, so correct me if I’m wrong and I will most likely ignore it for a third time.’
That would have been more honest.”
Please check your posts and take note of every time you accuse me of dishonesty or the like, OK?
On my end, I’m trying to respond to a legion of posts from a number of articulate bloggers, and at the same time, the rest of my life does not stop: I’m president of a Bible college and a full professor there; I’m also a visiting professor at other seminaries and a conference lecturer; I oversee a team that is responsible for a church of 450 people and 200 missionaries on the field worldwide; I travel extensively in the States and overseas; I’m engaged in Jewish apologetics and outreach; I’m in the midst of several writing projects; I have a TV show that requires a massive amount of work; I also have a wife, two kids, and four grandkids, plus the need to maintain my private times with the Lord and hopefully get some exercise here and there . . . .
Why do I say all this? Simply to say that in the midst of my busy schedule, I’m really trying to devote quality time to this blog, but I have not had the opportunity to check every link, and sometimes in responding to certain posts (like long ones like yours) I don’t re-read every line each time but rather focus on key issues.
So, there’s nothing dishonest here, nor is anything being ignored, and I HONESTLY think that it would go a long way to getting to real issues if you could just hold off on the rhetoric which, I might point out, began with your very first post.
Dr. Brown
Patrick,
One more example of something that you really need to refrain from. You wrote:
“I have just demonstrated that there is an inconsistent position here, AGAIN, and you have yet to prove that I am wrong.
Worse than that however, you continue to demonstrate that you have no desire to prove that I am wrong.”
Please, friend, put aside the personal judgments. I have no idea what causes you to think this way– if I didn’t have a desire to prove you wrong or to prove the rightness of my point, why in the world would I engage you on these posts? — but I ask you once more to refrain from these attacks, since they really distract from the very important issues that you raise.
So, to repeat: I value what you have to say but it’s difficult to separate the rhetoric from the important stuff. Is this so unreasonable?
Dr. Brown
Patrick,
You wrote, with reference to the population of the earth through Adam and then Noah: “Biblically speaking — in regard to what seems to be God’s unequivocal design and approval of immediate family member incest – why do you not support adult-consensual-incestuous relationships in the context of one man and one woman marriages?”
Obviously, the only time that God clearly approved of “incestuous” relationships was in the first years of the human race (after creation, as stated in the OT), and that is because those who were the only human beings around! Adam and Eve’s son had to marry Adam and Eve’s daugther. No other options! But this was clearly exceptional, as evidenced by the healthy nature of the reproduction. As for Noah’s day, his three sons were married already, and so the potential marriages in the first generation would have been between cousins. Beyond that, the Scriptures are quite clear in their prohibition of incestuous relationships, as evidenced by the long list in Leviticus 18.
That is enough for me in terms of why I would reject a consensual, adult, incestuous union today: God’s Word is against it, as it is against same-sex unions. Having said that, we also understand that there are reasons that God is against it, some of which have to do with family dynamics and others with health issues (for offspring, as you noted in an earlier post).
Dr. Brown
Eddy,
I set out from the beginning to find some common ground with Dr. Brown. I sought to communicate with him in a manner in which I might with Warren or Dr. Blakeslee or others – based on the matter at hand, based on actual facts, based on my life instead of some nebulous “gay activists”.
That is the purpose of my “I will not do battle” comment. I was not going to lob accusations or list grievances or see who could be the greater martyr. I wasn’t, in short, going to do what most blogsite comments do – place winning at a higher premium than communication. Knowing some of Dr. Brown’s history, I felt it important to set down the ground rules for the conversation.
Dr. Brown was repeated unwilling to have a conversation. His communication was a constant recitation of imagined harms and threats including anecdotes from Sweden and those which I know to be factually different from how he claimed them to be. When refuted, he never stopped to wonder if his assumptions based on these incorrect stories were wrong, he just hopped back up with another “yeah, but” anecdote.
Dr. Brown was unwilling to talk about how his political ideals would impact gay people. Completely unwilling. He wanted to talk about incest and pedophilia and other completely unrelated topics. The gist of his argument seemed to be “let’s not talk about what I want to do to you, let’s talk about how you don’t want to support pedophilia. Or do you? Huh, do you?”
Dr. Brown was unwilling to discuss gay people. He only talks about “gay activists”. And he refused after I asked him three times to ever tell me exactly what he would do with me – not some unnamed gay activist, but me. He could talk about what he thinks he’s justified in doing… but not how his actions and goals would impact the life of an actual living breathing person. Like many in the Culture War, he can only objectify his opponents, he can’t see how his War is harming them.
Dr. Brown pretends to not understand one’s points. He pretends to think you mean something other than what you are clearly saying or demonstrating. For example, when I corrected his points of fact about same-sex historical relationships, rather than admit he was factually incorrect, he took those among the listing of examples from the site that were age disparant and pretended that this was what I was talking about.
And Dr. Brown delights in “laying traps”. For example, the rather obvious one where he tried to get me to equate homosexuality with pedophilia by using a quote and changing the words. Even when I refused to step in the trap, he went right on as though I had because he wanted to “make his point” and not have discourse.
These are not the tactics of someone who seeks knowledge or communication. These are the tactics of someone who wants to fight. These are the tactics of someone who wants to destroy those who disagree with them and who wants to “win”.
When he started talking about NAMBLA, I was done completely. THat is the hallmark of the Culture Warrior – ignore the conversation and fire the cannons.
So, I’m letting Dr. Brown “win”. He’s not one who can be engaged in conversation – he doesn’t WANT conversation. He isn’t open to anything, ANYTHING, I or anyone else has to say. He already knows “the final outcome”. He believes that God is on his side and that he’s fighting the good fight against sinners and heathen so he doesn’t have to listen.
I have no problem with him believing whatever he likes. But trying to talk to those who have their fingers in their ears is a waste of my time.
I’ll let God deal with Dr. Brown. He’s better equipped than me.
As for your uncertainty about why you may have been accused of culture war… I’m not certain, I’d have to know the context.
It may have been when the other party thought you weren’t interested in them but only in destroying them. Perhaps they thought that you see others only in terms of a threat rather than a brother. They may have gotten the impression that you were seeking civil action without the slightest regard as to how your action was going to hurt others.
That doesn’t sound much like you, Eddy, so I really am not certain why the accusation was leveled at you.
Patrick,
I will begin to interact with your post 76721.
You begin by stating:
“I finally figured out what he’s doing with the whole ‘if I approve of your consensual relationship, why not approve of a child’s consensual relationship with an adult?’”
Actually, there was nothing to figure out. I think I’ve been pretty straightforward the whole way through in terms of why I raise these questions. (For the record, I’ve emphasized the situation of the ephebophile more than the pedophile because the former is attracted to adolescents and the latter to children.)
You wrote: “Now we’re all familiar with the canard: ‘why do gays define their core selves by their sexual behavior?’ Obviously we don’t, at least not inherently anymore so than straights do.”
Fair enough, but please hold on to that thought.
You then wrote: “So the anti-gay ploy here is to keep us on the defensive by having us defend ourselves, against ourselves (i.e., what they have defined us as).
“Dr. Brown takes this simple canard – especially in regard to the “ephebophilia” card – several obfuscatory steps further.”
Well, let’s see if you followed my reasoning here.
You wrote: “In regard to my example above, it would go something like this:
“I’m not saying you define yourself by your sexual behavior, I understand perfectly that you define yourself by who you love. So I’m not equating the two, I’m just asking what you would say to the person who DOES define themselves by their sexual behavior.”
Not at all! Who said that the ephebophile defines himself by his sexual behavior? He would say to you the same thing you just said to me, namely, that ephebophiles (or, for that matter, pedophiles) no more define their core selves by their sexual behavior than gays do. They would say that this is who they are in the core of their being and that it is a matter of love and attraction more than sex. And they would also say that this is who they have always been and that their orientation is immutable, just as you would say yours is.
So, the question I have asked over and over again is: What do you say to THAT person about his desire to experience love? I know that you are a thinking man and that you are fully capable of raising serious and challenging arguments, which is why I can’t for the life of me figure out why you think I’m asking anything other than what I’m asking. And so, the question still remains unanswered by you or the others posting.
Now, please understand: I am not minimizing the importance of your question – for you personally or for others in similar situations. I have simply been trying to demonstrate that the question cannot be the basis for changing the way our society views things.
You wrote: “First we are told that two unrelated things are not being compared as equal, then we let our guard down, then we are ‘asked’ to defend the difference.”
Hopefully, by now you can see that this was not what I was doing at all.
“In advertising terms it’s called bait and switch.”
Well, this is not advertising, and it’s not bait and switch. How about, “It’s called put the issues on the table and ask someone to respond to them directly”?
More to come ASAP.
Dr. Brown
Dr. Brown,
What do you mean when you say “the war has come to me”? My understanding is that conservative Christians started the war in the way they began responding to gay people’s search for equal rights.
Response to Dr. Brown’s post # 76374 to me posted on December 27, 2007:
Dr. Brown, you said:
“Thanks again for your even-tempered response.”
You’re welcome.
You said:
“But will I endorse a same-sex relationship (romantic and/or sexual) or vote it for to be legally recognized? Certainly not, for the many reasons stated throughout this blog.”
My response:
I don’t expect you to. I didn’t when I was involved with the Assemblies of God and shared the organizations mindset. Your mindset is similar. And I do not believe in trying to change who a person is. I don’t want to convert you in any shape form or fashion. To me, that is unethical.
Likewise, I don’t want someone to expect me to vote the way you do. I don’t. I know vote for same-sex marriage and I use URJ’s Religious Action Center to write to my government representatives about same-sex marriage issues. Also, I use Care2.com’s petition site to voice my views.
You said:
“Once again, I concur. The problem for me, however, in terms of the environment of this blog, is that when I stand up for my moral and spiritual convictions and simply seek to do what I can as a citizen of this country to see those convictions upheld, I’m portrayed as doing something illegitimate. The interaction thus far with some of the participants has been quite telling in that regard.”
My Response:
I am very sorry for the interaction that you have had. I can’t appologize for other people’s behavior, though.
You have as much right as we do to voice views to our government. It is the government that has the hard job of filtering out the views and making the decisions.
At least, Dr. Brown, you are willing to stand up and voice your views! I applaud you for that. It saddens me when people do not share their views with the government and then complain about the government.
And it saddens me more when people don’t register to vote or when people are registered to vote and don’t!
You said:
“As a father and grandfather, and as the friend of many large families with small children, and having worked with Christian orphanages in the Third World, I cannot imagine anyone taking advantage of a child. The thought is repulsive beyond words, and I’m glad that everyone posting on this blog shares that moral disgust. At least we agree on that!”
My response:
I can’t express to you the anger I feel when I think of someone harming a child.
You said:
“Well said! The problem is that there are books and even scientific studies arguing for the benefits of ephebophilia – based primarily on the testimonies of the boys, not the adults, many of them years after their consensual relationships with older men. There are the NAMBLA’s of this world – and again, I assume that Timothy and Patrick and the others firmly reject the goals of NAMBLA – that consider the rest of us bigots for rejecting man-boy love. ”
Once again, we have to allow the government to do the work that we expect the government to do. Personally, I question these studies. And I would very much speak up against legalizing ephebophilia. Sounds to me like I need to do some research and then, I need to do some speaking!
You said:
“And so we go around and around, without convincing each other, which in reality, was never my goal. My goal, instead, was to demonstrate the fallacies and inconsistencies of the “pro-gay” arguments that are used, as well as to learn what I can from the dialogue and allow my own positions to be challenged.”
Humans are prone to fallacies and inconsistencies. It doesn’t matter what a person stands for; people just are prone to such ways. The best thing to do is to recognize this and try to use critical thinking as much as possible.
BTW, I accept compassionate listening. It works better!
I learned about compassionate listening through my Rabbi who has had experience working with compassionate listening through The Compassionate Listening Project. {Google to find out about the organization.}
You asked:
“Can you step back from your own involvement in the dialogue and look at the larger issues raised? I believe the attitude you have demonstrated in this posts illustrates that you can.”
I try. And I have been trying.
My involvement also does affect my thinking and I can’t say that it doesn’t. My girlfriend is Christian and a mother. Her children are very wonderful children who also have special needs due to dwarfism. I love her and the children with all my heart.
I can’t promise any more responses. College will be starting back up soon. I am busy with my synagogue community and with the church community that my GF and I are involved with. I am trying to get very much involved with the URI {Interfaith organizatio} in this area. I have friends and family to spend time with. And I try to squeeze time in with my GF and children. So…
I’ll do my best.
I do have email. Your staff has it along with my cellphone number.
I still haven’t had a chance to talk to the PFLAG group here. But, I will. I was more concerned about helping my GF through a crisis. I’m sorry. I give you my word, I will talk to the regional director.
Shalom and blessings,
Grethel
Timothy-
In response to my question about the culture wars you said: I set out from the beginning to find some common ground with Dr. Brown. I sought to communicate with him in a manner in which I might with Warren or Dr. Blakeslee or others – based on the matter at hand, based on actual facts, based on my life instead of some nebulous “gay activists”. But this isn’t true. You’re very first comment to Dr. Brown was:
Michael,
It’s always best to make judgments based on facts and truth, not on what hears about someone else.
I completely agree. As does Emproph, I’m sure.
We’d just like to see that standard applied to you, as well, when you talk about gay people. We don’t like being lied about either, Michael. Perhaps this experience will give you pause the next time you lash out against gay folks.
I think a lot of peace could be achieved in this world if people didn’t think that seeing someone else as your enemy gave you permission to demonize them. Let’s both shoot for that goal.
So, in your very first comment you accused him of lying, of lashing out against gay folks, seeing gay people as the enemy and demonizing them. That doesn’t strike me as setting out ‘from the beginning to find some common ground’.
Dr. Brown countered asking you to support your allegations and you never did. You came back at him several times with your question about ‘what would happen to you’. You felt he never answered; I felt he did.
1) If you worked at the same secular workplace, he would be bound by it’s secular principles. In most cases, this would work out but if push came to shove, he’d choose to leave rather than change the company’s policies. (gleaned from his anecdote about his friend)
2) if it’s an issue like gay marriage, something on the state or national level, he’d be against it and would exercise his political freedom of speech to attempt to influence the outcome
3) this is uncomfortable and he realizes how misunderstood it is but he feels he’d be remiss in his Christian duties if he didn’t speak his mind
4) he admits that he bases his morals on a traditional conservative interpretation of the Bible
5) he wonders where you find the base for your moral interpretations (That’s why the pedophilia talk. He knew you felt pedophilia was wrong but was trying to find out where your sense of rightness/wrongness is based. (Where does our common ground begin?) What issues between same-sex marriage and pedophilia could or would be justified ?)
6) in his perfect world, there would be no more sin, no more pain, no more sickness, no more bitterness and war. (‘Perfect world’ seemed like a part of the trap you were trying to lay. Force him to say that I’d have to ‘stop being my gay self’ to fit into his perfect world. But, what if we turned it? Would people like Dr. Brown fit into your perfect world? People like me or Mary? Like Alan Chambers? Like the ex-gays? I can’t imagine us having a place in your perfect world.)
7) he’d speak out and stand up against bullying but wouldn’t want school programs to actually advocate homosexuality
From there we had lots of talk about pedophilia but it was all charges, guesses and insinuations about what he was implying, where he was trying to go with it, even that he was a latent pedophile, etc. (you, Emproph and Ken primarily). None of you would actually respond to his direct question because you felt it was a trap. How dishonest of him to ask a question that demanded more than a pat answer! But, wasn’t that what your question was, as well? Isn’t that why you kept asking it?
Anyway, so far, it’s looking like the ‘culture war’ is simply that he believes it’s sin and includes that in his preaching and in his personal political views. If it’s something more than that, that’s what I’m having trouble seeing.
Happy New Year, All! (I’ll likely be checking in all weekend but realize that some of you may be ducking out.) Stay safe!
Eddy,
The culture war was started and continues to be waged by conservative Christians who don’t agree that all people should have equal rights – there’s more to it than that, granted, but it seems, from what I’ve read, that this is a big part of it. THAT is what this ALL boils down to. You couch Dr. Brown’s behavior in terms of him speaking his mind. No one on here wants to silence anyone’s speech. It is his actions that are the problem. He tries, through legislation, to impose his views on the rest of society instead of simply living and believing the way he sees fit. He wants to force others to live under his religious beliefs. Is that right?
If you want to know more about the culture war, there is a nice and short Wikipedia article on the subject: Culture War Article
As for pedophilia – haven’t we determined that this is a disease and homosexuality is not?
Jayhuck – For what legislation do you suppose Dr. Brown advocates?
Eddy,
As an example of the way Dr. Brown operates, take this quote from one of his articles titled “Charlotte Pride or Charlotte Shame” as an example:
What may, however, come as a surprise to residents of Charlotte is that this city has been specially targeted by the gay community. Referring to the recent $195-a-plate gay dinner in the city, homosexual activist Shane Windmeyer stated that the event “offers an opportunity for us to come together and look at how we want Charlotte to be in five or 10 years.”
What exactly does this mean? Does it mean more of what was flaunted at last May’s “Charlotte Pride” event – more gay and lesbian couples passionately kissing in our public parks, more photos of totally naked men advertising “hot nudist camps,” more overt references to little girls as “dikes on trikes”? (All this – and more – took place in Marshall Park last May.) Is this what Charlotte will look like in five or 10 years?
Perhaps it is time for our gay neighbors and friends to be surprised. Perhaps the bold proclamation of the gay agenda for this region will serve as a wake-up call to the hundreds of thousands of residents who do not believe same-sex marriages are conducive to healthy families and wholesome childrearing, who do not believe that queer is quaint, and who do not believe that pornographic images belong in our public parks – be those images heterosexual or homosexual. Perhaps it is time for a different agenda to be articulated, one that says, “We too have a vision for how this city will look in five or 10 years. And in our vision, what is now called Charlotte Pride will be remembered instead as Charlotte Shame.”
Doesn’t anything in this quote strike you as fear-mongering? The use of the words “wake-up call” and implying that gay people must all be judged by the actions of a few? I’ve been to gay pride parades, I used to even participate in a few of them, but I seem to remember ALL sorts of people participating in them, people who span the spectrum from “conservative” to uninhibited. I’m also curious to know if most gay people really participate in them – I don’t know for sure but my guess would be No. Do you think its fair of Dr. Brown to say all these things, make these insinuations? I’m curious. If he’s not out-and-out lying, isn’t he somewhat twisting the truth? He’s trying to paint a certain picture of gay people in order to “rally the troops”, and I don’t agree with that.
Warren,
How about he advocate for equal rights for all people, then preach, live and educate as he sees fit!
Warren,
Maybe those expectation are unrealistic but a man can dream, can’t he???
Warren,
Jayhuck – For what legislation do you suppose Dr. Brown advocates?
I think I misunderstood your question when I read it earlier. I think its pretty clear he advocates for legislation that prevents gay people from having equal rights? Is this what you meant? He often talks about opposing the “gay agenda” and that is what that usually means.
Eddy,
Thanks for your detailed post. I was quite surprised at Timothy’s response to you since I really sought to engage him as a human being and to interact with his questions. Apparently, he feels I did not — but that won’t stop me from continuing to reach out and interact.
Blessings on your new year,
Michael
Grethel,
It’s been a delight interacting with you, and my office does have your contact info.
If you’re ever in the Charlotte area, please pay us a visit.
Blessings on your (non-Jewish but still important) new year!
Dr. Brown
Jayhuck,
Thanks for your questions. I guess we get to interact a little more before you check out officially.
When I state that the culture war came to me, I really do mean that. When we moved to Charlotte, dealing with homosexual issues was the last thing on my mind, and then some of my friends went to the gay pride event and were shocked. (Thankfully, it has been greatly tamed since then, for a number of reasons.) We could not believe that things like that were taking place in our city in a public park, and as I told the mayor and city council, whether heterosexual or homosexual, the public displays were appalling. That’s an example of the “culture war” coming to us. (BTW, to this day, I can’t imagine why such things are associated with “pride.”)
One of my students works in a pre-school in our area. Some of the well-known pro-gay-family children’s books are there as part of the required reading program (for the teachers to read to the students), and the teachers are not allowed to refer to the children by gender (boys or girls). This is highly offensive to some of the teachers, and it violates their religious and moral conviction. That’s another example of the culture war coming to us.
I could go on and on with other examples, but I’ll just give a couple more: When the Human Rights Campaign wants companies to have a policy granting special bathroom privileges to people undergoing sex-change operations, and when it calls on companies to warn and even fire workers who express that they are uncomfortable with Bob coming to work in a dress — I have the actual literature from the HRC for each word I’ve stated here — then the culture war has come to me.
And let’s also remember that the early gay lib movement was anything but tame and tempered in its approach. As explained by gay activist Mark Rubin:
“The Gay Activists Alliance stood for writing the revolution into law. Although individual members would ally themselves to causes not directly related to the oppression of homosexuals, the organization’s single issue focus enabled it direct all of its energies toward working intensively in, on, with, and against ‘The Establishment’ on issues effecting lesbians and gay men.
“It said, ‘We demand our Liberation from repression and to the point where repressive laws are removed from the books and our rights are written into the documents that protect the rights of all people, for without that writing there can be no guarantees of protection from the larger society.’
“The means to achieving these ends included, street actions famously defined as ‘zaps’, marches, picket lines, political lobbying, education, active promotion of the need for lesbians and gay men to come out of their closets, and a constant in-your-face presentation of the fact that gay is good. Its goals were revolutionary in that it sought, through these means, to restructure society.”
This “culture war” was brought to me and my generation, and I am simply standing for what I believe to be right and good and to resist what I believe to be deleterious and wrong.
I care deeply for all people, but that does not mean that I agree with the type of restructuring of society that Mark Rubin and others have called for.
Can you see, then, that I was not the one to start this “war”?
Michael
Jayhuck,
You asked, “How about he advocate for equal rights for all people, then preach, live and educate as he sees fit!”
Well, rather than starting this whole thread over again from scratch, I do think we’ve covered this ground already. But, to recap:
First, you and I do have equal rights. For example, we both have the right to marry one person of age from the opposite sex, but we do not have the right to marry whoever we love (be it a second spouse or someone who is not of age or our own brother or sister or someone of the same sex).
Second, I don’t think that you “advocate for equal rights for all people” in the sense that you’re stating here, otherwise you would have to argue for the “rights” of all people to be married, regardless of the combination of people or situations involved. (Again, we’ve been around and around on this one already, with my questions about other forms of relationships that most of the participants on this blog are not comfortable with and are not ready to endorse.)
Third, if I “preach, live and educate” as I see fit, I will stand against some of the very things you are fighting for – but always treating you with dignity and respect as a human being, and always working within my rights as an American citizen (in other words, not trying to force you to agree with me or to use intimidation or force – God forbid! – to coerce you). And I would expect you to respond in kind, fighting for what you consider to be progress and what I consider to be decline.
But let me end on a conciliatory note for the New Year. Whether you believe it or not, I really do seek to break down walls and to help Christians turn away from wrong attitudes towards GLBT folks as a whole, and by God’s grace, I will continue to do that. Perhaps one day we’ll even get to meet outside of this blog and grab a meal together.
Blessings on you in 2008!
Michael
Jayhuck–
No, I don’t believe that a wake up call is the same as fear mongering. Thanks for asking.
As I said, I also have trouble with vilifying someone, refusing to back up the charges with specifics that could be discussed or answered to and somehow being under the impression that the vilification qualifies as ‘trying to find common ground’.
I really just have this one burning question; it’s the statement I closed with above: Anyway, so far, it’s looking like the ‘culture war’ is simply that he believes it’s sin and includes that in his preaching and in his personal political views. If it’s something more than that, that’s what I’m having trouble seeing.
Michael,
First of all, I’m technically ex-gay, although I’m not comfortable with this term.
I actually know of gay men and women who marry just for the tax benefits, but that isn’t my point. Do you really think that the fact that you can marry someone you love and I can’t is equal?????
If you truly care about treating me with dignity and respect, why wouldn’t you allow me to marry the person I love?
Its also one thing to live, preach and educate as you see fit, and quite another to force people to live under your religious beliefs by supporting legislation that does just that.
And you are right as far as those other relationships go Michael, but we’ve already told you not just why we are uncomfortable with them, but why they are wrong and why same sex couples should be allowed to marry.
I really do appreciate your tone Michael, but the way you work, the way you try to use a broad brush stroke to characterize all or most gay people in order to rouse those on the right to work with you is wrong, and I hope that one day you see that.
I do wish you a happy and blessed New Year Michael, but I doubt I would ever sit down to dinner with someone who doesn’t respect me enough to allow me to marry the person I love.
Michael,
Actually, conservatives WERE the ones to start this war. What gay people were doing is asking to be treated as equals. Not to be looked down on or pitied, but merely to be treated as adults, who don’t have a disease, who are acting legally by forming their relationships – to be allowed to marry.
It was in the way that conservatives responded to this that began the war. There was no war until they responded like they did.
Jayhuck,
Thanks for your posts and for sharing some of your story. I appreciate that.
As to who started the “war,” it certainly is a matter of perspective, isn’t it? If you look at the subject of same-sex marriage, throughout human history, the institution of marriage has been between people of the opposite sex. Now, for the first time in millennia, people are trying to change that. Who started that “war”?
As to the question about the “right” to marry whoever you love, I really do think I’ve responded to that in great detail in many posts above. Perhaps you’ve missed some of them? As I have pointed out repeatedly, you do not grant that same “right” to others – be it the brother and sister in Germany who want to be married; be it the man who is in love with a fourteen year-old boy; be it the man who is already married to one woman he loves but who now loves another man too.
Of course, we can rephrase the question from, “Why shouldn’t I have the right to marry the person I love” to “Why shouldn’t marriage include same-sex relationships?” – and I would have a host of religious and moral and societal reasons why I would argue against that. Does that make me bigoted, homophobic, mean-spirit, intolerant, and unfair? Before God, I believe that same-sex unions are wrong and contrary to His order, because of which I believe they are not in the best interest of our society, and I believe that in the generations to come, that will be clear. Yet because of that you could not sit down with me and have a meal together?
Chai Feldblum, a Georgetown University law professor and a lesbian activist had something very interesting to say. She wrote: “It seemed to me the height of disingenuousness, absurdity, and indeed disrespect to tell someone it is okay to ‘be’ gay, but not necessarily okay to engage in gay sex. What do they think being gay means?” But, she continued, “I have the same reaction to courts and legislatures that blithely assume a religious person can easily disengage her religious belief and self-identity from her religious practice and religious behavior. What do they think being religious means?”
She explains: “When we pass a law that says you may not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, we are burdening those who have an alternative moral assessment of gay men and lesbians.” Now, Maggie Gallagher notes that Prof. Feldblum believes that, “Most of the time, the need to protect the dignity of gay people will justify burdening religious belief. But that does not make it right to pretend these burdens do not exist in the first place, or that the religious people the law is burdening don’t matter.” Does this make sense to you?
Finally, I would ask you to give me examples of where I have painted the GLBT community with a broad brush. The fact is, I make constant reference to gay activists to distinguish them from the broader community – although, ironically, I get excoriated for referring to gay activists! – and I have stated plainly that the “average” GLBT person has no more agenda than simply living a productive and enjoyable life and just being accepted for who he or she is. But where activists go on the offensive, I will use this as a “wake-up” call, and when the GLBT community chooses to defend public vulgarity rather than renounce it and keep it out of its public events, I will hold them accountable. And when groups like the HRC call the vast majority of the human race “right-wing extremists,” since we hold to male-female marriage, I will certainly take exception to that.
The dialogue continues . . . .
Michael
Eddy,
Anyway, so far, it’s looking like the ‘culture war’ is simply that he believes it’s sin and includes that in his preaching and in his personal political views.
If what you mean is he votes against equal rights for gay people, then you would be right. The culture war, as I said before, was started for some of these reasons.
When I was talking about fear mongering, I wasn’t just talking about the use of the phrase “wake-up call”, I was talking about how he attempts to characterize all gay people in a certain way in order to get people to back him up. THAT, to me, is fear mongering.
You can villify someone, or a group of people in this same way. Gay people who demand equal rights are seen as the enemy, although he never uses this term, and no matter how many tactful terms he uses or how often he hides this fact under a pleasant tone, this is still what he is doing. I know he believes it is right, and I know he believes that he loves gay people, but *I* still firmly believe that after decades of HIS/THIS kind of love, its time for a change.
Eddy, you seem to have difficulty understanding what certain things are implied in his speech, and in the way he words his speech.
[...] Michael Brown responds to the Southern Poverty Law Center article on ex-gays - [...]
Michael,
First of all, what IS a gay activist in your eyes? If a gay person votes and fights for equal rights but doesn’t right books or march in parades, are they considered activists?
As for: “Yet because of that you could not sit down with me and have a meal together?”
I’ll say it again to make sure you understand. If someone doesn’t respect me enough to allow me to marry, if they believe they know what is best for me and treat me in this way, I will not have dinner with them. I think its wonderful that you reach out your hands to the gay community and that you use the kind tone you use, but until you start treating us as equals, and until you start putting us on equal footing with you, as long as you work to keep various rights out of the gay community’s reach, there can never be much of a meaningful dialogue.
As for people trying to change the institution of marriage, I’ve believe we’ve had this discussion before. The institution of marriage has changed a great deal throughout history, and the fact that it will probably continue to change shouldn’t surprise anyone. When gay people asked for a place at the marriage table, they didn’t want a war, they wanted respect and equal treatment. When conservatives said no, you don’t deserve it and we will work to withhold those rights from you, that is when a war started. Maybe it is a matter of perspective, but it seems pretty clear to me when the actual culture war began.
Dr. Brown,
Here is the reality you are going to have to come to terms with. Gay people and gay couples are NEVER going to go away. Their numbers will likely increase. My question then is, knowing this, is it better for a society to have these relationships in its midst and not encourage them to be monogamous, or is it better for society to grant certain rights, privileges and benefits to these couples so that more of them are loving, long-lasting and monogamous? The answer seems pretty clear to me. If you care about society, you have to grapple with this reality.
Jayhuck–
I got my answer in your reply to Dr. Brown. Thank you. Please consider that you have admitted yourself that you cannot have meaningful dialogue with someone who believes as Michael does. This is more true than you know. You haven’t been trying to dialogue; you’ve been engaging in the war you accuse Michael of. A dialogue is at minimum, two parties sharing ideas. Since you admit that Dr. Brown’s viewpoints aren’t even worthy of discussion, you haven’t been dialoguing; you’ve been making little speeches.
You do have the right to feel that way about Dr. Brown–but if you are aware that you can’t have meaningful dialogue with someone with his viewpoints–you really ought to wonder why you expect him (or us) to listen to you. I’m personally concerned about the censorship. What was it–two weeks ago–that you and Timothy were discussing the blessings of the prostate gland? Yet, now, you propose to draw a line for the rest of us here saying that voices like Dr. Brown’s have no place in meaningful discussion. You can decide that for yourself but not for me.
Eddy,
It is my impression that the conversation that you observed between Micheal Brown and myself took place primarily in your own head.
But to address one point: there is already a place for you and Mary and Dr. Brown in my world. I would fight for your rights to believe and do as you wish. I would insist that you be treated equally by your government. I would demand that there be no barriers placed on your access. I would champion the recognition of your relationships – even if I thought they were bound to eventually cause harm.
You know this to be true.
You also know that this devotion to the freedom of those who disagree with me is not always reciprocal.
But those who love freedom and equality have long known that there will always be enemies of freedom and equality who claim moral superiority while they seek to interfere in your life… doing God’s work, of course.
Jayhuck,
I invite you to disengage from the Culture War and to let him “win”. There is nothing you or I or God Himself could say that would have any impact on Dr. Brown.
Let it go. There’s no way to make progress here.
Jayhuck,
I cannot emphasize to you enough that what I see you accusing Dr. Brown of I have seen used time and again by yourself and Timothy and Jag to lump all ex-gay people into one general category when there are many differing reasons why someone might wish to give up this type of behaviour. I want to thank all of you for helping me to clearly understand why I can not support your cause for same-sex marriage or acceptance of the gay life even as you describe it for yourself. It comes across much too hypocritical and anger based. It shows very little room for any kind of open discussion.
Perhaps the tone of gay activists has changed over the years, but I have followed this for many years and there was little respect shown for people of faith in the early days of this debate. I saw alot of what you are telling me is the extreme. I still see this extreme in pro-gay magazines (which are available to the general public here is Canada) and they are often very disrespectful to people of faith. The war was most definitely started by gay activists some 40 years ago and these people are still trying to push the envelop and ofter admit this is what they are doing.
Amen Jayhuck!
Eddy,
Yet, now, you propose to draw a line for the rest of us here saying that voices like Dr. Brown’s have no place in meaningful discussion.
I didn’t draw a line for you Eddy, and I didn’t make a general statement saying that voices like Dr. Brown’s have no place in meaningful discussion.
you’ve been engaging in the war you accuse Michael of
You are right – I’ve been engaging in the war started by people like Dr. Brown, one in which I said I would disengage and for that I’m sorry.
A dialogue is at minimum, two parties sharing ideas. Since you admit that Dr. Brown’s viewpoints aren’t even worthy of discussion, you haven’t been dialoguing; you’ve been making little speeches.
I think that’s a bit unfair Eddy. Even if we don’t agree, even if neither of us changed the other’s mind, we were still sharing ideas on a number of things.
Timothy,
I invite you to disengage from the Culture War and to let him “win”. There is nothing you or I or God Himself could say that would have any impact on Dr. Brown.
You are right. Its easier for me to say sometimes than to actually DO!
Concerned,
I have never lumped all ex-gay people together – heck, I technically am an ex-gay person. What is odd is that I have to keep repeating this fact. Ever since I met Mary and some other ex-gay individuals who have their own personal views, but still fight for the rights of gay people – I knew I couldn’t lump all of them together. However, I do make accusations against ex-gay organizations, but that’s not the same thing. I realize there are many “ex-gay” individuals out there who define ex-gay in different ways, and who have different beliefs when it comes to equal rights for gay people. If its true and I have lumped all ex-gays together in a post before, I am sorry.
Let me ask you this Concerned. If a group of people were trying to tell you that you didn’t deserve certain rights, that you didn’t deserve to marry the person you loved, that you deserved to be treated as a second-class citizen, wouldn’t you be a little upset. I’m honestly surprised that so many gay people, on here and outside of cyberspace are able to be as polite and gracious as they have been with those who try and deny them equal rights. I think you need to re-read some posts here and check out how different gay people react to these situations before you go doing back to me what you claim I was doing to you – saying that all gay people are angry and hypocritical! There have been some amazingly compassionate and well-thought out messages posted by gay people on this blog.
Jag,
Thanks
Timothy,
I have no desire to “win,” since I’m not in a war with you or in a debating contest.
You are passionate about your viewpoints and I am passionate about mine, and we each do so before God.
Perhaps you can find it within yourself to accept that fact and to drop the rhetoric? It really is not helping your cause.
Again, I wish you abundant blessings on your new year.
Michael
Concerned,
Let me just add that it doesn’t sound as if you are truly trying to understand gay people or why they deserve equal rights, it sounds as if you are looking for reasons to justify beliefs you already have.
Timothy,
But those who love freedom and equality have long known that there will always be enemies of freedom and equality who claim moral superiority while they seek to interfere in your life… doing God’s work, of course.
I applaud you for this statement. It is something I have known for some time but could never have said quite as well as you! Thanks!
And abundant blessings on your new year also, Michael.
Jayhuck,
Let me try to respond to all your recent posts in one long post (with a quick shout to Timothy along the way).
First, let me make reference to something said by “Concerned,” specifically, “Perhaps the tone of gay activists has changed over the years, but I have followed this for many years and there was little respect shown for people of faith in the early days of this debate.” Here’s a recent case in point, from the Gay and Lesbian Educators [GALE] of British Columbia, “we must dishonour the prevailing belief that heterosexuality is the only acceptable orientation even though that would mean dishonouring the religious beliefs of Christians, Jews, Muslims, etc.” So, it would appear that “civil rights” for one group means limited rights for other groups.
Now, to your specific comments. You write, “Here is the reality you are going to have to come to terms with. Gay people and gay couples are NEVER going to go away. Their numbers will likely increase. My question then is, knowing this, is it better for a society to have these relationships in its midst and not encourage them to be monogamous, or is it better for society to grant certain rights, privileges and benefits to these couples so that more of them are loving, long-lasting and monogamous? The answer seems pretty clear to me. If you care about society, you have to grapple with this reality.”
At the risk of being redundant, if I believe that same-sex relationships and same-sex acts are wrong in God’s sight and contrary to His order, why should I “grant certain rights, privileges and benefits” to same-sex couples? Would you accept this argument about other orientations or behaviors? I keep asking that question because it simply does not get answered in a substantive way.
Let’s just say that I make the argument that the compulsive exhibitionist is never going away (and I am NOT comparing gays and lesbians to compulsive exhibitionists). Well, why not accept the behavior as normal and remove the stigma? This way, the person does not have to live with constant rejection and judgment. I imagine you would say to me, “But the behavior itself is wrong,” and I would agree. So also, I do not believe that God intended men to have romantic and sexual relationships with men or women with women – the Scriptures are totally clear on this point, in my studied opinion – and therefore I cannot in good conscience endorse same-sex marriage or civil unions. So, fill in the blank in your sentence and replace “GAY PEOPLE and GAY COUPLES are NEVER going to go away” with some other group whose orientation or behavior you do not endorse, and see if you could still write the rest of your paragraph the same way.
Also, most of the benefits that accrue to marriage can be obtained by same-sex couples without marrying, and, to me, more importantly, the issue of monogamy has to do with love and commitment more than a marriage certificate. So, the reason I do not cheat on my wife is not primarily because I made a public vow one day (although that is certainly a factor) but because I love my wife and am committed to her and I would not want to break the sacred trust we have with each other. But I assure you: I felt this way the moment we were in love, and there was no more chance in my mind that I was free to sleep with another woman before we were married than after we were married.
And one more thing on the issue you raise. For me, there is a real and clear slippery slope ahead – in fact, we’re on it already – and no sooner am I having to address your question about “equal rights” for gays and lesbians then I have to address the same question from the transgender community, even down to little children in public schools (witness the recent issues before the Board of Ed in Montgomery County, MD). It is a direction which I am convinced is not in the long term best interest of society.
Next, you wrote to Eddy that, “When I was talking about fear mongering, I wasn’t just talking about the use of the phrase ‘wake-up call’, I was talking about how he attempts to characterize all gay people in a certain way in order to get people to back him up. THAT, to me, is fear mongering.”
Jayhuck, once again, at the risk of being redundant, in the article you cited, I was pointing to ugly things being done in public in 2004 – things that the police cracked down on in 2005 and then the GLBT community self-policed beginning in 2006 – and I was simply quoting from a local gay activist who has some very pronounced views about what the world should look like. How is that characterizing all gay people?
And how about quoting from the opening paragraph of my article entitled “Charlotte Pride or Charlotte Shame”? Here it is: “Although it is politically incorrect these days to speak of a ‘gay agenda,’ there is no doubt that many gays and lesbians do, in fact, have a specific agenda, one that is designed to bring about both ideological and social change. This should come as no surprise, since the homosexual community sees itself as locked in a struggle for equal rights, having to combat antiquated and hateful ideas on a daily basis. From their perspective, they are faced with the formidable task of overcoming deep-seated biases, bigotries, and intolerant attitudes. It is high time, our gay friends would tell us, to end discrimination based on sexual orientation, just as Americans have sought to end discrimination based on race, color, or creed. It is high time, they would argue, for liberation and freedom.”
So there you have it: my description of the evil gay community and their ominous agenda. Really now, how can you read this without recognizing that I understand the viewpoint of the GLBT community but still reject it?
Perhaps another question that I raised in that article should be raised here “And isn’t it ironic that those who most loudly call for tolerance are often the very ones who seek to suppress and muzzle all opposing views? Is not this the height of intolerance?” I know that Timothy just wrote to Eddy that, “I would fight for your rights [and Dr. Brown’s rights] to believe and do as you wish.” Yet it appears to me that Timothy opposes this very right and feels that even to engage in discussion with me and my kind is a waste of time. I must ask honestly and openly: Is there really consistency here?
Finally, in the same article I write, “Perhaps it is now time even to ask our gay and lesbian friends – people whom we love and care for, but people whose agenda we oppose – Are you really proud of everything that took place at last year’s ‘Pride’ event? Is this how you want to be known? Surely, if traditional couples came together for a ‘Celebration of Marriage’ day in a public park, little children would feel welcome, and people would not have to close their eyes and cover their ears to avoid contact with vulgar and obscene images, gestures, and words.” Is not this an appeal to the wider GLBT community to separate itself from these things?
Finally, here’s the answer to your question asked in your first new post, “what IS a gay activist in your eyes? If a gay person votes and fights for equal rights but doesn’t right books or march in parades, are they considered activists?” First, I’ll state again that I don’t believe the majority of gays and lesbians have any more “agenda” than the average heterosexual person. Second, I don’t consider the millions of conservative Christians who vote according to their principles to be activists anymore than I consider a GLBT person who votes according to his or her principles to be an activist. Third, a dictionary definition of an activist is, “an especially active, vigorous advocate of a cause,” and so in any community, activists can generally be recognized. They are people who fit this definition just given. I am an activist for the values for which I stand; I have no idea whether you are. Wayne Besen describes himself as an activist, and he obviously is. Others are less vocal but are actively involved in groups like GLSEN or GLAAD or the NGLTF or the HRC. Those people would qualify as activists.
I hope this helps!
Dr. Brown
Timothy,
Upon reviewing some of your most recent comments, I feel that it is appropriate for me to ask how you know that there is nothing “God Himself could say that would have any impact on Dr. Brown.”
Thanks for your response.
Michael
Jayhuck,
Like you are. I often see close mindedness rather than a willingness to walk in anothers shoes. The debate you are so forcefully defending is doing much harm in other peoples lives. I have seen how it destroys families because I live in a country that already has such acceptance. Luckily the political forces that imposed it on us have been thrown out. We can only hope that it is for a long time.
Concerned,
I have seen how it destroys families because I live in a country that already has such acceptance. Luckily the political forces that imposed it on us have been thrown out. We can only hope that it is for a long time.
I have seen the opposite Concerned. I have seen real love, compassion and sacrifice from gay people, gay couples and gay families.
Homosexuality and heterosexuality do not destroy families, unhealthy people do. Just because I know many dysfunctional heterosexual families does not mean I run out and blame the problem on the sexuality of the parents or those involved, but it sounds like this is what you are doing with gay people.
Dr. Brown,
A blessed New Year to you as well
Timothy,
So, we have found a point of agreement: Wishing one another abundant blessings in the new year, and doing so from the heart.
Michael
Michael,
I wish you the happiest and most joyous new year.
Timothy
Timothy,
You know, its actually kind of liberating
I want to wish you and everyone else that is a part of this blog “family” who I haven’t said this to already, a happy, and safe New Years Eve, and a blessed and joyous 2008!!!!
Eddy said in post 76929:
From there we had lots of talk about pedophilia but it was all charges, guesses and insinuations about what he was implying, where he was trying to go with it, even that he was a latent pedophile, etc. (you, Emproph and Ken primarily).
I never implied Dr. Brown was a pedophile. I believe is uses that analogy to antagonize gay-rights supporters. That he knows just how inappropriate and insulting it is and brings the topic up every chance he gets.
None of you would actually respond to his direct question because you felt it was a trap.
Grethel did respond to that argument in post 76100.
I think if you were to examine Dr. Brown’s posts a little more closely you would see that Timothy’s assessment of him is much more accurate than yours is. I believe Dr. Brown isn’t the least bit interested in any form of honest discussion. He simply wants to “win” the debate any way he can. And I too am no longer interested in anything he has to say nor will I continue to attempt any form of discussion with him.
Timothy said: It is my impression that the conversation that you observed between Micheal Brown and myself took place primarily in your own head. But it’s also Timothy’s impression that he reached out to Dr. Brown trying to find common ground when, in fact, Timothy’s very first comments to Dr. Brown were four accusations.
It was Timothy’s impression that Dr. Brown wasn’t answering his question yet I demonstrated via 7 points that Dr. Brown was answering all along. Dr. Brown checked in later and thanked me for my response–meaning I had correctly heard him. I’m going to conclude that Timothy’s impressions aren’t always based in reality.
Jayhuck–
It’s my feeling that you do draw a line when the comments are as combative and non-responsive as they were with Dr. Brown. I was quite impressed by his incredible patience in answering and became increasingly appalled at the tone of the responders. That’s just my opinion but I believe an objective re-reading of this entire thread would support it.
By the way, EVERYONE WHO VOTES ‘tries to impose their views on the rest of society’. People disagree…that’s what politics is about. You ‘respect’ Dr. Brown’s right to his beliefs as long as he doesn’t speak them, act on them, vote them; that’s not respect.
Warren: a fascinating new topic idea.
Can people on opposing sides in the culture war find any areas of meaningful discussion? Could anything be gained by such discussions?
Timothy, Jayhuck, Patrick, Ken, and others,
With all seriousness, as we exchange our new year’s wishes for one another, I really do believe that there is something to this.
We CAN have our differences and be on the opposite side of the ideological divide without demonizing one another, without being hateful to one another. We CAN sincerely pray for God’s best for everyone involved while holding to our convictions and acting upon them, even if in doing so each side feels opposed by the other side. Can we not do this while looking one another in the eyes and saying, “I respect you, I care about you, but I strongly differ with you?”
If I can change your viewpoint or you can change mine, fine and good. If our views can be nuanced in any way through our interaction, wonderful. But at the least, we can still listen to each other and be reminded of our joint humanity before God, and to me, this is always a positive step and something that always comes out of constructive, honest dialogue.
Praying for God’s best and His will and His highest goals for everyone on this blog,
Michael
Patrick,
Be assured that with all the kind New Year’s wishes being exchanged, I still intend to respond to the unanswered points you have raised to me (including Joe Dallas’s testimony, etc.). Sometimes it’s easier to respond to the most recent posts, which I have been doing the last day or two, while neglecting ones from a few days back, especially when they’re filled with so many important points, like yours often are.
Thanks for being patient!
Dr. Brown
Eddy,
I was quite impressed by his incredible patience in answering and became increasingly appalled at the tone of the responders. That’s just my opinion but I believe an objective re-reading of this entire thread would support it.
I was also quite impressed with Timothy’s patience as well as Michael’s – I’ve seen many people on here, including Jag and Timothy be incredibly patient and compassionate towards those who would tell them that they don’t deserve equal rights. Its one thing to be kind and patient when you are in a majority and are enjoying these rights and quite another when you are an oppressed minority. Personally, I think it takes a great deal more character to be patient, kind and understanding when you are the latter, and my hat is off to those who have accomplished this.
I’m enjoying all the farewell speeches. They don’t come off the least bit manipulative.
Eddy,
You ‘respect’ Dr. Brown’s right to his beliefs as long as he doesn’t speak them, act on them, vote them; that’s not respect.
You are wrong. I never said anything about speaking or acting on them. In fact, what I said is that Dr. Brown can and should, speak, educate and live as he sees fit. What I would hope that everyone would do, however, is allow all law-abiding people to have equal rights, and he does not see this as necessary. I’m sorry if I did not make this clear earlier. Timothy was very gracious about this matter in post 77192.
I, unlike Dr. Brown, do not believe in imposing my religious views on others through legislation.
Dr. Brown,
We CAN have our differences and be on the opposite side of the ideological divide without demonizing one another, without being hateful to one another. We CAN sincerely pray for God’s best for everyone involved
I believe everyone on here does, and always has felt this way. I’m sorry if I didn’t make illustrate this in my own posts, and please don’t take my unwillingness to have dinner with you as hateful. Sometimes you have to know when to walk away, but that doesn’t mean I don’t pray for you or wish you well.
jayhuck – Could you identify the legislation that you believe Dr. Brown would like to see enacted?
Warren,
Haven’t we already been through this? Dr. Brown would support legislation that would deny marriage rights for same-sex couples. I think he’s already, at the very least, implied that this would be the case.
Warren,
I am not clear, however on where he stands on hate-crime legislation, civil unions, workplace, living and other protections for gay people. I have my ideas.
Eddy,
Perhaps this will make things a little clearer. My hope and prayer is that we will one day live in a world, something like Timothy described earlier, where everyone is free to speak and live as they see fit, but champions equality. I hope I’m not out of line by saying this (please forgive me everyone if I am), but Timothy, I and I’m sure even Jag and Mary BELIEVE in real equality for those we disagree with – can others say the same?
Jayhuck said: Perhaps this will make things a little clearer. My hope and prayer is that we will one day live in a world, something like Timothy described earlier, where everyone is free to speak and live as they see fit, but champions equality. I hope I’m not out of line by saying this (please forgive me everyone if I am), but Timothy, I and I’m sure even Jag and Mary BELIEVE in real equality for those we disagree with – can others say the same? Yes, they can.
Warren,
You ask about Dr. Brown’s political agenda.
Dr. Brown supported and lobbied for efforts to restrict the Charlotte parks from allowing gay people to congregate for their cultural celebration.
He opposes ENDA and considers it a “real concern” that so many congressional leaders believe that gay persons should have the same protections in the workplace as racial minorities, women, Jews, Christians, or Jews who are Christians. He alligns himself with Peter LaBarbera and his rantings on this issue.
http://www.coalitionofconscience.org/email/archive/102507.htm
Brown alligns himself with Family Research Council on Hate Crimes legislation. He repeats the fraudulently spun story about Michael Marcavage and his Repent America team in Philadelphia. Oh yes, grandmas are going to jail if the federal government tracks violent crimes against gay people. “If hate crime laws proliferate, the freedom to speak one’s mind will be limited to those who celebrate and promote homosexuality.”
He also joins with Don Wildmon of AFA to perpetuate the lie (yes, deliberate lie) that protections based on sexual orientation would include incest, pedophilia, sadism, and beastiality.
(I’m not linking all the sources so this doesn’t get tied up. If need be, I can provide the links)
Brown claims not to be at war with any individuals. No, he’s all about love. But this is the sentence with which he opens endorsement of Linda Harvey and Mission America’s opposition to the Day of Silence:
Dr. Brown regularly appeals to the myth that gay persons follow some manifesto created by Madson and Kirk to achieve a nefarious agenda. Ironically, he follows many of the ideas that they laid out. He presents himself as a martyr, he accuses his enemies of being intollerant, he portrays those he doesn’t like as being a secret cabol of the powerful. While the gay community never set out to deliberately follow After the Ball, it certainly seems like Brown has.
He claims that gay groups – such as HRC – are not civil rights groups and claims they are “extreme” and “radical”. (Working for gay equality seems to be the only qualifier that makes HRC “extreme” and “radical”)
He regularly links homosexuality with pedophilia and uses the latter as an argument against the first. Incidentally, it is same-sex pedophilia that he discusses to make sure the link is made in the mind of the audience. Example “..why shouldn’t pedophilia – especially, “consensual” sex between a minor and his “lover” – be protected under that same heading?”
He uses the tactic of anecdotes – always presented in National Enquirer standards – to insinuate the evils of gay people. These never seem to have the factual basis that Brown suggests, but his point has been made. Facts and honesty are not the point, insinuation and skewed stories scare the audience into fear and retaliation.
http://www.coalitionofconscience.com/articles/didYouKnow.shtm
Brown has clearly identified his tactics. He talks about “love” but engages in war. He talks about individuals but refuses to acknowledge that his actions harm individuals. He talks about “activists” but by his definitions, every gay person who is unwilling to be treated inferiorly by their government is an activist. He links his enemies to other dispised groups (a Hunter/Madsen technique). He sets himself out to be a martyr (Hunter/Madsen). He pits his arguments as evil v. good. He uses his own personal religious beliefs as supreme right to invalidate any counterargument or presentation of fact by those who don’t share his beliefs.
Brown has clearly identified his alliances: Don Wildmon, Pete LaBarbera, Linda Harvey, Michael Marcovage. These are not your garden variety conservative Christians. These are people who will say anything and do anything in their efforts to harm the lives of gay individuals. They have long ago abandoned any sense or reason or compassion or even pretense at honesty. They exist for one reason only – to war against those they dislike. While he calls HRC extreme (an ironic moniker considering their position on the recent ENDA campaign), he himself is alligned with the most extreme anti-gay voices around.
You are not unfamiliar with this camp, Warren. And I don’t think you would be willing to sully yourself by affiliation.
I did not list any of this before. I did not want to make this about Dr. Brown. I wanted to try and get at issues and have conversation.
And I am going to resist Dr. Brown’s defending of himself and justification of his alliances, tactics, and words. I will not make this about making Dr. Brown a a martyr of the Evil Timothy.
But you asked, Warren, and I think it is important to know who it is that we are dealing with.
Jayhuck,
May I ask once more if you REALLY mean “everyone” in post 77525? Are you sure that you would not have to qualify that?
If a Muslim extremist has the message of, “Join us or we’ll kill you,” should that person be “free” to carry out those beliefs and actions, without restraint and without legal repercussions?
And back to my perennial questions, should the polygamists be allowed to freely practice their convictions? Should all consenting partners, regardless of age, be granted their “rights” to pursue their romantic and sexual relationships?
I fully believe that all human beings should be treated with dignity and respect and love, but when they break laws (such as rape or murder), justice and the functioning of a proper society demands a punishment. And when a person seeks to change the law in a way that violates my moral convictions — even if it is moral to those trying to pass the law — then I will exercise my rights as a citizen to vote against the law, I will raise my voice to educate, and I will reach out to those on the other side with integrity and grace.
Why isn’t this enough? Why must I abandon my heartfelt, scripturally supported convictions to live in your perfect world?
I’m really trying to understand where you’re coming from, since if this particular thread is an example, while I preach co-existence in the midst of our differences, with each side fighting for what they believe is right but only with truth and honor, those who oppose my views cannot co-exist with me. I am incorrigible, hopeless, virulent anti-gay activist — and presumably not part of the “everyone”!
Let’s be real here: If Timothy and Ken and you have decided to drop out of the dialogue with me because it’s hopeless and all I want to do is win — Timothy’s words and sentiments, not mine — how are we expected to LIVE side by side in real life? You can’t even tolerate me on an Internet blog — and all that, in the name of tolerance!
You would say, “But you’re in the majority position, exercising all your rights and privileges, while the GLBT community is oppressed.” I understand your position, so by all means, stand up for what you believe, and I’ll do the same on my end.
In great detail I painted a picture for Timothy as to how this would work in real life, but it was dismissed with nary a word of subtantive interaction. To me, all this is really very enlightening.
As for your question as to where I stand on, “hate-crime legislation, civil unions, workplace, living and other protections for gay people,” I would afford the same legal protections for gays as for heterosexuals — that is to say, protection from everything proscribed by the law — but would not endorse adding sexual orientation and/or sexual identification under hate crimes. I’m happy to explain why if you would really like to know more, but in short, I don’t see you wanting to add hate crimes against heterosexuals to the legislation. What if a gay man attacked me because he hated heterosexuals? Why shouldn’t that be a federally protected hate crime? (I could add: What if someone attacked me because they hated males, or tall people, or people with big noses and mustaches? Why isn’t that kind of hate punishable by special legislation? There are other reasons that I take issue with the hate-crimes, more important than what I’ve raised here, but that’s for another discussion.)
As for same-sex civil unions, I would not support those for the same reasons I would not support same-sex marriages (although I would repeat that most of the benefits that you could obtain through a civil union could be obtained already through other means). As for workplace issues, since “T” is clearly part of GLBT today, and since gay activists were unhappy with that aspect of the hate-crimes bill being removed, I think that’s a good place to start: If I, as an employer, am unhappy with Bob, my receptionist at my dental office (just for the illustration here), wearing a dress and wig to work while “trying out” his new female identity before undergoing sex-change surgery (as is often recommended), should I not have the power to dismiss that person over that? (Lest you think I’m just talking in the abstract, real life situations like that have arisen.)
Dr. Brown
I think this best exemplifies Brown’s perspective and intent:
And this exemplifies his tactics
As it turns out, the Netherlands story was completely untrue. There was no polygamous marriage recognized in the Netherlands. But yet the falsehood remains on his website as though it were fact. No retraction, to correction, no revision, not even an asterisk.
http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2005/10/05/lies-hypocripsy-and-same-sex-marraige/
And just for fun…
I don’t often discuss Robert Gagnon, but since Brown refences Gagnon as the authority on Scripture, I think this quote of Gagnon is worth observing:
This is in context of Gagnon chapioning the firing of gay persons, especially for white collar jobs. He also favors denying housing to gay persons.
I know Gagnon is revered in the anti-gay camp. I’m not so impressed.
Dr. Brown,
I think if you re-read this thread you’ll see we’ve already qualified these things. I feel that we are simply going around in circles at this point.
To be fair, I never said that I couldn’t tolerate you. Take care Dr. Brown.
Timothy,
Thanks for pointing out my failure to update my article after further reporting on the Netherlands situation came out. I’ll correct it ASAP.
As for your opening quote, since I’ve written whole books on the subject of our calling to a NON-VIOLENT Jesus revolution, interested readers can be referred to multiplied pages explaining my alleged “perspective and intent.”
And may I challenge your own pursuit of integrity here? You falsely accused me of relying on the Mass Resistance website, and I corrected your assumption. Was there any retraction or apology on your end? You assumed I was making reference to the Parker’s with a situation I referred to, dismissing it completely. I then cited an article referring to a different couple with the same situation in the same location. Did you apologize or print a retraction? No. I could multiply examples, but let’s start here.
So, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
Michael
Thank you Timothy and Eddy – God bless you!
Tim, I think we’ve all done a good job of bringing to light how Dr. Brown operates. You better than most, and I’m betting many people, including myself, appreciate that
Just so you know Dr. Brown, I know you believe you have good intentions, and I believe you are, at heart, a kind and compassionate person. Does that mean I should work to carry on this conversation or have dinner with you, no, it doesn’t. Does that mean I believe you give me the respect or dignity I deserve, NO, it doesn’t mean that either – and this is part of the reason I wouldn’t choose to share a meal with you.
Your arguments against gay people aren’t new Dr. Brown, in fact I’ve heard them all my life. Not that they have to be new, mind you, but I’ve personally heard them ALL before, and this forces me to ask myself this question – why should I continue this conversation when I’m not hearing anything new and I feel that we are going around in circles? Timothy talked about it before, but it boils down to a lack of progress. I feel that I am spinning my wheels and there are so many more worthwhile things I could be doing. I feel that I’ve gotten the sense of who Dr. Brown is at this point, and what he believes. Perhaps, if things change, we could have a meal in the future, who knows? I never close any doors!
As hard as this is for me to do, and believe me it IS hard
– I won’t be back to this thread (ok, well, never say never, but that is my goal). I do dislike not knowing what people say about me and not having a chance to defend myself, but if by winning (that little talk we had earlier), we mean having the last word, then you get to do it/have it Dr. Brown – as far as I’m concerned anyway. I, on the other hand, am going to take a cue from some other frequent posters that I respect and let this thread go – I’m sure we’ll meet on other threads or elsewhere in cyberspace 
God bless!
I’m off to ring in the New Year with friends and family.
Timothy,
One more note: I must take exception to what you attempted to do in your previous post. You cite an opening paragraph from an article of mine written in 2006 to create a very misleading picture — allegedly as revealing my tactics. For the sake of the truth — and as a fair way to end the year — here’s the article in full. It’s also interesting that you post this now, since it was a misinterpretation of similar comments of mine that began this very thread (when Warren called for me details about the SPLC allegations). And please note carefully how many times I make reference to gays or gay activists in the article.
Let me also highlight this one quote (with emphasis), since, again, it stands in direct contradiction to the SPLC allegations: “And the only way we can have a true Jesus Revolution in our nation – A NON-VIOLENT REVOLUTION BASED ON PURITY, COMPASSION, AND SACRIFICE RATHER THAN ONE BASED ON ANGER, INTIMIDATION, REBELLION, AND FORCE – is to have a sweeping revival in our churches.” I stand by this statement and the sentiments behind it wholeheartedly, and I will continue to call for “a spiritual, moral, and cultural revolution.”
May God speed it in this new year!
Blessings,
Michael
Here’s the article in full:
On Friday night, September 22 [2006], the eve of the Feast of Trumpets, I spoke at a meeting in Moravian Falls, North Carolina, urging those in attendance to hear the trumpet call, to wake up to reality, to recognize that we are in a life and death struggle, to understand that we cannot reduce a concept like “revolution” to a popular religious cliche. We really are in a war!
That Friday night service marked the beginning of a solemn, ten day season on the biblical calendar, beginning with the Feast of Trumpets (called Rosh HaShanah, the New Year, in Judaism) and ending at sunset, Monday, October 2, with Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement. Jewish tradition calls these ten days the “days of awe,” a time of repentance and awakening and soul-searching, a time in which God is judging the world. It is a time to stir ourselves and to wake up. It is a sacred, holy season.
Little did any of us know that during the next ten days there would be three tragic school shootings – the most heinous and horrific of all being the slaughter of the five Amish girls on the Day of Atonement – not to mention news of the gay sex scandal involving Representative Mark Foley and some of his male pages.
All four cases involved minors, and three of the four cases involved the sexual molestation of children, including the claim by Congressman Foley that he himself had been abused by a clergyman when he was a teenager in addition to the report that the murderer of the Amish girls had molested minors in his family twenty years earlier when he was only twelve.
What has happened to our society? Has the world gone completely mad? The answer is absolutely yes, the world has gone completely mad – but this is hardly a recent development. As painful and shocking as these recent events are, the Scriptures state plainly: “We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one” (1 John 5:19). This is where we have allowed ourselves to be deceived, where we have failed to grasp reality. We live in a battle between two kingdoms, and we can never be totally at home in this world.
And yet there’s more. To whatever extent America was a “Christian nation” in the past, it has long since taken a terrible moral plunge. We went over the deep end years ago, and the slaughter of the Amish children did not mark the end of innocence in our nation. The end of innocence came decades ago – in fact, it came long before the Columbine massacre in 1999 and well before the legalizing of abortion in 1973 – but we have failed to grasp the urgency of the hour. Reality makes us uncomfortable, and we would rather continue to sleep on in comfort than wake up. But we cannot afford to slumber any longer. The trumpet is sounding a loud and clear note. It is time to wake up!
We need to face the facts: Our nation is saturated with violence – from TV to the movies to video games to the Internet to sports – and is drowning in sexual addictions. And no one has been more attacked than the children, from abortion on demand to the decimation of the family, and from sexual predators (we have roughly 400,000 registered sex offenders in our land) to godless educational curricula. The cold-blooded, execution-style killing of little children in a one-room school house only underscores the moral depravity of our society. It is but a symptom of our long-standing sickness.
In 1969 Dr. Bill Bright wrote, “We live in the most revolutionary period of human history. . . . Social band-aids and reform antiseptics give little hope for a cure or even an improvement. A revolution is needed.” How much more can this be said today? It is revolution or we die, revolution or it’s over, revolution or it’s too late. And the only way we can have a true Jesus Revolution in our nation – a non-violent revolution based on purity, compassion, and sacrifice rather than one based on anger, intimidation, rebellion, and force – is to have a sweeping revival in our churches. We need a massive, repentance-based, Spirit-empowered movement that awakens us from our stupor and calls us to battle. We have no other choice!
It is true that, as Americans, we have the responsibility to be involved in the political process, doing what we can to elect righteous officials and to call our elected officials to stand for what is right. Yet we must be realistic: There is no political solution for our nation’s illness, nor will a new Christian teaching or an exciting new seminar get the job done. We need a spiritual, moral, and cultural revolution.
In 1999, the call for a Jesus revolution began to be sounded by many leaders throughout America and around the world. Seven years later, that call is louder and clearer than ever. Can we count you in?
http://www.coalitionofconscience.org/articles/wakeUp.shtm
One quick correction – I said *I* above when I really meant to say “the gay community” when talking about respect and dignity!
In post 77538 it appears that Timothy is finally willing to answer the very first question that Dr. Brown asked him. And, now that Timothy has been ‘forced’ to share the dirt with us he is careful to add: And I am going to resist Dr. Brown’s defending of himself and justification of his alliances, tactics, and words.
I’m trying to be clear on what that means. Do you mean just you or do you mean we should all resist anything he says in answer to your charges? I haven’t been party to ‘shut them up before they have a chance to answer’ bullying since high school. (Please note: Timothy didn’t include the possibility of ‘explanation’; it’s ‘defending of himself’ and ‘justification’. Guilt is already presumed.)
Dr. Brown,
How about Timothy’s first charge. That you supported and lobbied to restrict Charlotte’s Gay Pride from congregating? Were you seeking limits or elimination? Were you party to an effort to prohibit gay pride assembling or were you trying to curtail the excesses and enforce existing laws?
Jayhuck,
All the best to you! Perhaps we’ll meet on another thread one of these days, although I don’t foresee being able to give as much time to other threads as I was able to give to this.
Blessings,
Dr. Brown
Timothy,
Robert Gagnon is a fine NT scholar, which is why even a pro-homosex scholar like Marti Nissinen, author of Homoeroticism in the Biblical World, stated that Gagnon’s major book could not be ignored.
Perhaps you could show me where he is guilty of faulty exegesis of the Hebrew or Greek?
Michael
Timothy,
Somehow I missed your detailed post 77538. You obviously know me better than I know myself, plus you’ve stated that “I am going to resist Dr. Brown’s defending of himself and justification of his alliances, tactics, and words. I will not make this about making Dr. Brown a martyr of the Evil Timothy.”
Timothy — no one is making you Evil Timothy and no is calling me a martyr. This is, however, quite a fascinating scenario for me to observe: You attack me at length in a post, then make clear that you are not willing to hear a syllable from me regarding what you have written, and then set it up as if you are the victim in the interchange. In any event, the case is apparently closed before it is opened, since you have no desire to hear any other side of any story cited, and when I expose inaccuracies or exaggerations or false statements on your part, you fail to admit your error. This is “Christian” interaction?
That being said, should anyone want to get the rest of the story — or perhaps the real story — on anything mentioned in your post, I invite them to ask here online, and I’ll respond openly and candidly. (I noticed Eddy’s recent question about your aforementioned post, so I’ll respond to that first.)
I will, however, ask you a question that harks back to one of your earliest posts to me: Since it appears that almost no gays and lesbians read Kirk and Madsens’s “After the Ball” — I say this based on the general disclaimers I hear from GLBT folks about this book — how did it become a top NY Times Bestseller? Just curious!
Michael
I had trouble with the prejudgements implied in Jayhuck’s statement:“Your arguments against gay people aren’t new Dr. Brown, in fact I’ve heard them all my life. Not that they have to be new, mind you, but I’ve personally heard them ALL before.
For months I was challenged on this site for beliefs people believed I held because of my connection to things ‘ex-gay’. For months, people belabored our discussion with “I’ve heard it all before” until one day someone realized ‘oh wait, he is saying something different’. I believe Timothy was one of the first to recognize that I was beating a slightly different drum. I have reason to believe that Dr. Brown beats a slightly different drum as well…not the one you expect and not the same as mine either. But we won’t find out if we presume from the start that he has nothing unique or different to say.
Jayhuck–I purposely went mellow so as not to draw you back in. I know the frustration of trying to leave a discussion (or the blog itself) and yet feeling hopelessly sucked back in. Good luck.
15 minutes til New Year’s here! Happy Leap Year Everyone!
Let’s see what God has to say on the matter.
http://www.biblicalpolygamy.com/
This site has 40 examples of polygamy in the Bible. There’s a chart at the bottom of each page which lists them all. I’ve plugged a few into BibleGateway and so far they’ve come up legit.
A few examples:
Gideon
A judge of Israel
Drumah, Shechem
“And Gideon had threescore and ten sons of his body begotten: for he had many wives.” Judges 8:30
———
Esau
3 Wives – Judith, Bashemath and Mahalath
“And Esau was forty years old when he took to wife Judith the daughter of Beeri the Hittite, and Bashemath the daughter of Elon the Hittite:” Genesis 26:34
“Then went Esau unto Ishmael, and took unto the wives which he had Mahalath the daughter of Ishmael Abraham’s son, the sister of Nebajoth, to be his wife.” Genesis 28:9
———
Abraham
Faithful friend of God and father of the Hebrew nation
“Father of the faithful”
3 Wives – Sarah, Hagar and Keturah
“Now Sarai Abram’s wife bare him no children: and she had an handmaid, an Egyptian, whose name was Hagar.” Genesis 16:1
“And Sarai Abram’s wife took Hagar her maid the Egyptian, after Abram had dwelt ten years in the land of Canaan, and gave her to her husband Abram to be his wife.” Genesis 16:3
“Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name was Keturah.” Genesis 25:1
———
Forty examples of polygamy in the Bible seems like a pretty compelling argument in support of God’s own support of polygamy as opposed to his opposition to it.
So why is one man one woman marriage considered to be a Biblical standard of marriage, or even “the way it’s always been?”
Timothy,
One more quick question for you: Is it ethical when writing about someone to put a sentence in quotation marks as if the person himself made the remark when it actually came from another person? To be specific, you quote a remark which, I believe, came from a CWA emailing and then attribute it to me. Was this an oversight on your part? (Again, I’m referring to post 77538.)
I personally appreciate the work of FRC and others (obviously, you appreciate HRC while I appreciate FRC), but I honestly don’t understand what purpose you could have of erroneously attributing quotes to me. Again, this is how this whole thread began. It looks like history continues to repeat itself.
Once more, no hard feelings on my part, but in the interest of truth, I think it’s important that I mention these things here on the blog.
Michael
Eddy,
To answer your question, when I spoke to the mayor and city council (the speech was recorded), and when I met with the police and district attorney (in each case, being one of several people who spoke or was in the meeting), my only request was for laws against lewd public conduct to be enforced. And as I said publicly and in writing, had there been a heterosexual event with public displays similar to those of the early gay pride events in Charlotte, I would have raised my voice against those as well.
Do I personally like gay pride events in my city? No. Do I think that homosexuality should be celebrated? No. Do I have the right to stop lawful public gatherings of gays and lesbians? No again.
To be precise, then: “How about Timothy’s first charge. That you supported and lobbied to restrict Charlotte’s Gay Pride from congregating? Were you seeking limits or elimination? Were you party to an effort to prohibit gay pride assembling or were you trying to curtail the excesses and enforce existing laws?”
I was seeking to curtail the excesses and enforce existing laws. I also helped to organize a group of about 120 mainly young people in 2005 who went into the park and shared the gospel with those attending the event. (This was strictly one on one, and no one was harassed or coerced to speak in the least.)
Thanks for asking. Hopefully, people will actually take note of the facts.
Dr. Brown
Patrick,
Thanks for your post on polygamy in the Bible.
Yes, there are plenty of examples of polygamy in the Scriptures, and I appreciate you citing some of the examples. Anyone who has read the Old Testament has been aware of this, but you’re right in assuming that some of the posters here may not be familiar with the material.
You ask, “So why is one man one woman marriage considered to be a Biblical standard of marriage, or even ‘the way it’s always been?’”
I certainly did not make that statement here on this blog, but you do raise a good, general question: Why didn’t the Bible explicit prohibit polygamy from the start?
Actually, from a biblical standpoint, homosexual acts are a more serious violation of God’s order and are more roundly condemned. That’s how important heterosexual relationships are in the Scriptures.
As for polygamy: 1) The first pattern established by God was Adam and Eve (one man and one woman). That is to say, God did not give Adam two wives but one wife. 2) There is not a single positive example of polygamy in the Bible but there are many negative examples (such as the problems Jacob had with Rachel and Leah; the problems David had with his wives; the problem Solomon had with his wives – and harem!). 3) Jesus in the New Testament reinforces the teaching of one man cleaving to one woman, and there is no mention of any apostle having more than one wife. 4) Paul sets it forth as a rule that a church leader can have only one wife, and leaders, conversely, were called to set examples for the rest of the congregation.
Based on these scriptural examples and teachings, it has rightly been concluded that the Bible, read in totality, is against polygamy. But I repeat: From a biblical standpoint, polygamy is not spoken of in the same negative terms as is homosexual practice, although I oppose both based on the Scriptures.
Thanks again for the post.
Michael
(I’m having trouble with the preview, so please forgive any mistakes)
I didn’t get around the this one before, *sigh,* so just to make it official, *sigh.*
This is an article I put together about a year ago:
———
Polygamy…and the
not soslippery slope.The slippery slope argument that same-sex marriage will lead to polygamy is a staple of anti-equality organizations like Focus on the Family. As former Senator Rick Santorum queried earlier this year, “If gender doesn’t matter anymore, why does number matter?”
I haven’t had a good grasp on the merits of this argument – until now.
From the book “How To Win An Argument” by Michael Gilbert:
So first of all, we’re talking about the equal right to marry one spouse, not the additional right to marry additional spouses.
Though I suppose any marriage arrangement outside of one man and one woman would be considered equally non-existent to some. Thus, one “zero” gay marriage would appear to them as equal to one “zero” polygamous marriage, ergo, gender equals number.
A pretty basic difference, albeit not for those who are convinced that homosexuality is a perversion. But when it comes to those who politicize this so-called argument, with all the “research” they do to demonize gays, they’ve GOT to be aware of the following.
I found this article fascinating and most of it was new to me. It was thorough and it seems every base was covered. (BTW polygyny = polygamy)
A few highlights:
Sound familiar? And so far America is only generally sexually repressed, imagine if we were sex-ratio imbalanced on top of it.
If they gave reasons as compelling as those as to why same-sex marriage was destructive to society, even I’d be against it!
But for contrast – from the Focus on the Family web site:
One would think that with their million$ upon million$, AND the Family “Research” Council at their disposal, Focus on the Family would have been able to determine at least as much as has been presented here – on their own.
The effects of polygamy are inherently opposed to those of same-sex marriage. They’re two completely separate arguments, in practice AND in principle.
——
The full article I drew from is here:
One man, many wives, big problem: When some men have several brides,
Chicago Sun-Times, Apr 9, 2006 by Jonathan Rauch
I posted this mainly for those here who can appreciate its merit, but a P.S. for Michael, if you’re going to respond to this post, I will assume you have read the article linked above, in full – just so that the rest of us know, that you now know, what we know. I thank you in advance.
Eddy,
I didn’t read any of Dr. Brown’s statements in response to Timothy or Myself, but I did read yours. If Dr. Brown is saying something new or unique, he hasn’t said it yet, and every single thing I’ve heard to date is a repeat of things I’ve heard throughout my life. I’d love to hear something new Eddy, I really would, but that hasn’t happened yet.
Eddy said in post 77712:
I have reason to believe that Dr. Brown beats a slightly different drum as well…not the one you expect and not the same as mine either.
And what do you base this belief on Eddy? I have yet to see Dr. Brown post anything to indicate he is any different from other anti-gay “compassionate”, conservative christians. The same methods of presenting the extremes as though they were the common case; focusing on the minutiae while ignoring the salient issues; biased distortions of facts; insulting analogies. I’m not seeing a whole lot different about Dr. Brown.
But we won’t find out if we presume from the start that he has nothing unique or different to say.
My opinions of Dr. Brown have been based largely on his posts here. Past experience with others like him has allowed me to quickly see all the red-flags in his posts and to realize he isn’t really interested in any sort of honest discussion.
Michael–
Thanks for your clear response to the first allegation on Timothy’s late appearing laundry list. I am similarly perplexed as to how to proceed. The “I’m leaving” and “I will resist” comments were already on the table when I posed my question. Maybe you and I (and the recently returned Emproph) are the only ones in the room.
Timothy-
I would like the links you offered that support the rest of the allegations. The learning never stops! If you’re officially ‘out of the discussion’, that’s okay, just the links will suffice. Thanks.
Off the Wall New Year’s Musing: Every time a place a word in italics or bold using HTML, I think of Timothy! LOL. I’ve been using them ever since Timothy got me over my hurdle…but, it’s true, time I start the code, there’s still that momentary remembrance.
Happy New Year, ANN, wherever you are…
Ken felt the need to challenge this statement I made:
I have reason to believe that Dr. Brown beats a slightly different drum as well…not the one you expect and not the same as mine either.
And what do you base this belief on Eddy?
Well, we already learned that his concerns re the Charlotte Gay Pride were about enforcing existing local laws NOT in restricting the lawful parts of the assembly. That might not be new to you but it’s a distinction that has been muddied for many who read here. And, like it or not, it IS a different drum beat than the one you want to portray him as having. So, I stand by my exhortation.
As to your second objection, you offered no substance to support your allegations of ‘all the red flags’ or that ‘he isn’t really interested in any sort of honest discussion’. So, I’m going to stay with “But we won’t find out if we presume from the start that he has nothing unique or different to say.”
Speaking of red flags. It’s always a red flag when someone claims that their opinions are ONLY based on what’s currently being said and immediately afterwards say “Past experiences with others like him…” are the basis for my comprehension.
Eddy (and Timothy, if you’re there),
After I got offline last night, I began thinking about Timothy’s post 77538 again, and I couldn’t help but make some further observations, especially about methodology and double standards.
First, every time I cite anything specific in any post, I’m accused of citing a falsely reported story, as if Timothy has the real lowdown on every gay-related incident and I only have unreliable, second-hand information. Of course, in a case where something was not reported accurately by the media — such as the polygamy case in the Netherlands — I do my best to go back and make a correction (which is why I expressed my appreciation to Timothy for pointing out that I had not made the correction to my online article that mentioned this). But the fact is I always do my best to check the accuracy of the sources, and in some of the very cases where Timothy stated that I was simply reporting conservative media rumors, I had friends who were intimately involved with the legal cases – and the facts were just as I had reported. Now, what makes this all the more ironic is that the very first charge Timothy brought against me was not accurate, whatever his source might have been. The double standard was there for all to see.
So, Timothy claims that, “[Brown] uses the tactic of anecdotes – always presented in National Enquirer standards – to insinuate the evils of gay people. These never seem to have the factual basis that Brown suggests, but his point has been made. Facts and honesty are not the point, insinuation and skewed stories scare the audience into fear and retaliation. “ In reality, my own habit is to be pedantic about citations and accuracy to the point of frustrating people with endnotes and details. As for the skewed stories, etc., perhaps the skewing is not coming from me but against me?
Second, Timothy gives the impression that he has withheld dirt about me until now, writing, “I did not list any of this before. I did not want to make this about Dr. Brown. I wanted to try and get at issues and have conversation.” He even tells Warren, “I think it is important to know who it is that we are dealing with.” This too is fascinating. Does anyone on this blog not now that I am a conservative, Jewish Christian activist? Didn’t I draw attention to my Coalition of Conscience website in one of my earliest posts? In the very blog that started this whole thread, I told Warren (with reference to my Exodus Conference message this past June): “I was encouraging those fighting unwanted SSA in their own lives to be strong in the Lord and to give themselves unconditionally to His service, then talking about the threat to our freedoms coming through an activist gay agenda as a wake up call.” I think that’s pretty clear!
The Coalition of Conscience is a grass roots network of Christian leaders and believers, based in the Charlotte area, who are working together for moral and cultural change through the gospel, and my primary focus thus far has been dealing with gay activism. Is it a surprise that I do not support including sexual orientation in the hate crimes bill? Is it a surprise that I have issues with ENDA as it stands? Jayhuck noted in a recent post that he could surmise where I stood on these things already – rightly so. As for the feeling that all this stuff has been dug up on who I really am – to Warren’s alleged enlightenment, no less – most of it comes from one page of the Coalition website that lists past emails. Nothing hidden or secret there!
Third, there is the constant guilt by association or guilt by insinuation that I frequently find in Timothy’s post and in other related posts. So, for example, if I forward to the Coalition e-list one email with good useful information from Mission America, I therefore believe everything that is on their website or I agree with the content of every email they have ever send out. The same with AFA, for example. Again, none of my emails are hidden and whenever any related subjects have come up in this thread, I made my viewpoints clear. Yet I am now, by implication, in alliance with everything said by Don Wildmon about homosexuality. (I’m not saying this to speak against Mr. Wildmon; I’m simply illustrating a tactic used consistently in these posts.) As for my actual affiliations, please remember that I stated in the initial blog with Warren that I was going to be speaking at the Love Won Out conferences sponsored by Focus on the Family. I’ll also be speaking at an FRC event for the first time in a couple of months. No secrets here!
Still, the feeling I get can be illustrated like this. Let’s say I’m explaining to a gay man in France that I’m simply acting as an American citizen in the stands that I take. He then replies, “But America is bombing innocent Iraqis and Bill O’Reilly called for the economic boycott of France!” If you’ll go through the posts, you’ll see this kind of approach, one that really distracts from the issues themselves. I also notice that no matter how I carefully and clearly respond to a question – such as my definition of a gay activist and how I use the term – Timothy does not hesitate in the least to tell me what I mean by the term and redefine how I use it. (Again, Timothy, if you’re there, I’m not playing into your “Evil Timothy” and “Dr. Brown the Martyr” scenario; I’m simply seeking to give truthful reflections on your post for the benefit of other readers. I would be delighted to take some time and talk by phone privately, just to clear the air, and not to prove any point.)
Fourth, there is the apparent failure to recognize that there are two sides to the story. I appreciate Timothy’s conviction that he is totally right in his views and that I am totally wrong. His passion is admirable. But I take for granted going into a dialogue like this that both sides feel strongly about their views and that each side claims a moral base for those views. Timothy, on the other hand, doesn’t seem to realize that there can be any moral or spiritual basis for opposing his view. (How the tables have turned in all this!) Thus he states, “[Brown] uses his own personal religious beliefs as supreme right to invalidate any counterargument or presentation of fact by those who don’t share his beliefs.”
Hardly! Rather, when asked why I stand where I stand, I explain that I am deeply convinced by the Scriptures and by years of prayerful reflection that homosexuality is not a gift from God and that homosexual acts are sinful in His sight – and therefore I do not believe that there should be same-sex marriages or the like.