Ex-Gay Watch

Richard said:

Ah, yes, Hermeneutics: The slippery art of making the Bible say whatever you want it to say.

Hermeneutics is like anything else, there is a right way and a wrong way. In this case, it’s the difference between exegesis and isogesis, with the former being the right way to study scripture, and the latter the wrong way.

Exegesis: Analyzing passages from a document – often the Bible – to understand what it meant to its author and others in the author’s culture.

Isogesis: Reading something into a document. One starts with a belief and searches a document for supporting passages. Often used with reference to the Bible. A potential hazard is that the interpreter may quote a verse out of context with considering the rest of the passage or the rest of the Bible.

What you bemoan in your comment is isogesis.

Michael Brown said:

It is with good reason that Christian leaders like William Wilberforce and Christian authors like Harriet Beecher Stowe led the abolitionist movement.

While I wholeheartedly agree that the church, at least parts of it, was a driving force in the civil rights movement in the middle of the last century, you must also agree that much of it was at odds with such ideas in the centuries before that. Those you mentioned, unfortunately, are some exceptions and not the rule.

However, I wonder if you would so quickly cast off those scriptures Yuki cited if they had referred to the oppression or punishment of homosexuals? Even if understood by your interpretation, we have a scant number of verses dealing with anything approaching homosexuality – a mere footnote in comparison – yet Yuki has presented 25 concerning slavery scattered throughout the old and new testaments.

It strains credulity to think that you and others would not now be quoting those verses to us in support of your stand against homosexuals if those verses read exactly the same, save the subject being homosexuals instead of slaves.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but did Mr. Brown ever actually give his promised reply to my questions here and here?

Dave,

Thanks for your post. I guess your fundamentalist past gave you a helpful perspective!

As I stated yesterday, I’m about to phase out of this blog primarily due to an intense schedule that begins tomorrow and doesn’t let up for one month.

I’m just finishing a long response to David Roberts (hopefully he’ll understand that between speaking last night and then taking two flights home, I’ve had a few other things going) and then I’ll add one comment on the slavery issue, and, for the most part, I’ll have to leave it there.

The love-fest from all the others towards me will be able to continue in my absence.

Michael

Rather flippant for issues so important to others, no?

‘The lovefest’?

Yeah, we gays tend to get a little testy when our rights as citizens are being challenged including not being able to adopt or love those we choose to love. Growing up in the Christian church I experienced plenty of the ‘love’ Mike proposes.

The audacity of some people…

An aside: reading the rhetoric from the OP was fairly disgusting. Culture war rhetoric–typical of the pentecostal movement.

Mr. Brown,

I sincerely hope that you are never arrested and thrown in general lock-up with gang members, rapists, murderers, etc.

Mr. Lawrence, Mr. Gardner and Mr. Hardwick, amongst others did face that after being arrested under those sodomy laws that you think are no big deal. I am guessing you never spent any time with prisoners or gang members. I am guessing you have no understanding of just what could happen to a non-criminal (or a fellow criminal for that matter) in that enviornment. Because if you had even the slightest clue as to how high the stakes were to the person being put into that cell, you wouldn’t be so flippant about Lawrence v. Texas or Bowers v. Hardwick.

Oops, I’m sorry. That would require that you have empathy for gay people, and you wouldn’t want empathy to get in the way of your political agenda.

Just in case you were wondering what Michael Brown could be so busy with, Peter LaBarabra wants you to know:

http://americansfortruth.com/news/c-span-airs-speech-by-bishop-vicky-gene-robinson-on-christmas-eve.html

One might take this as something of an indication that Mr. Brown is somewhat plugged in to something or other. With friends like that…

One might also wish to consider what this string of more than 200 posts over three and a half days says about Brown and Dobson and the all too similar David Addington and his patron Mr. Cheney.

John said:

Oops, I’m sorry. That would require that you have empathy for gay people, and you wouldn’t want empathy to get in the way of your political agenda.

This type of comment goes a bit too far into the ad hominem. There are plenty of facts to debate and in such a debate I believe Mr. Brown is at a disadvantage. Let’s stick with that.

David,

I was finally able to respond to this post in more detail, as per your request. Let me begin with your closing statement:

The argument that societal destruction looms if we allow such marriages is not only specious, it’s absurd; a bunch of Cameronesque nonsense dredged up to support the fact that the only real objection is the interpretation by some of scripture. That is not enough reason to create laws which restrict the rights of others, unless of course, a Theocracy is actually what you are going for.

Now, I find it interesting that you took exception to my stating that I didn’t feel the force of your Red Herring argument (from which you wrongly deduced that I was calling you an idiot), whereas you feel free to speak against a position I may well hold to in the most denigrating and insulting terms – in the very post in which you’re asking me to explain myself. You’re telling me before I start that I’m a jerk if I hold to such a position. That’s your prerogative, of course, but it certainly takes away the incentive to answer. Nonetheless, I will answer your question. (Notice also that I didn’t accuse you of using a cheap debating trick.)

Where our laws intersect with those values found in the Bible, they probably intersect with those in most holy scriptures. However, this country is not a Theocracy, and so we don’t create or uphold laws based solely on the Bible. We treat all beliefs equally, including the lack of any.

I concur with you, and I never said that we should base all our laws on the Bible. I don’t advocate stoning Sabbath breakers and a hundred other laws that were given to Israel, nor do I feel that it has any legal force to say to a judge or a congress person, “But the Bible says . . . !” I was simply noting that many of our laws go back to biblical principles and that when I make decisions in my life – be it the kind of entertainment I enjoy, the way I raise my family, who I vote for, etc., one of the things that helps me to form my values and to make decisions is God’s Word. But that’s just what I do as a citizen in this country, and to the extent that I have a voice or a vote, I act accordingly. How do you deduce from that that I want a theocracy? Or what in these statement makes me a theonomist or a reconstructionist? The only theocracy I want is the one when King Jesus returns to earth. Until then, in my opinion, theocracies are dangerous while theonomies are misguided, and I believe that it is very easy for Christians to get too politicized.

So why don’t I just go along with your desires and back same-sex marriage? Because, in fact, I do not believe it is ultimately in the best interest of the society. You can ridicule for me holding to this, but I’ve thought about these issues at great length, trying to read both sides of the debate, and even without the Scriptures, I would not support same-sex marriage. (Frank Turek has a presentation you can access online on reasons to reject same-sex marriage without using the Bible.) And, since I consider the wisdom of God’s Word in forming personal opinions, that wisdom reinforces my position. Let me also hasten to add that in considering the Scriptures, I challenge my views with the example of Jesus in reaching out to the disenfranchised and marginalized, and that forces me to hear you out and consider your situation and challenge my position. That being said, my convictions as to what is best for our society remain the same. You have probably read David Blankenhorn’s The Future of Marriage, and if so, you know that he argues against same-sex marriage without recourse to the Bible. I concur with his reasoning.

The primary function of the government of this country is not, and I say this as a believer, to ensure that it’s citizens necessarily act in accordance with the laws set forth in the Bible. At at such times when the majority doesn’t understand that, seeking instead to disenfranchise a minority group of citizens via referendum, the court must intervene to make sure all citizens have the rights recognized by the United States Constitution. This is what some call “activist judges” though in reality they are doing their jobs.

Basically, I agree with you here, but we obviously differ deeply as to what the Constitution guarantees, and you would probably side with the legal understanding of the ACLU while I would agree with that of the ADF.

So back to my original question, why can’t the Protestant Church do as the Catholic Church does now, simply ignore any civil marriage they don’t feel follows their view of scripture? I did ask a catholic, btw, and if you get married by a Justice of the Peace, you are not married in the eyes of the RCC. Why then do we not require as a matter of law that couples must be married by a priest?

I’m simply looking at the civil and societal aspects of same-sex marriage, not the religious ones. The fact is, on a civil level, I would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage if it was legalized by the state so I can’t simply “ignore” any marriages that don’t follow my view of scripture.

This country is not a church, and it’s citizens are not a congregation. For some, intimate, loving relationships are only possible with members of the same sex. They aren’t asking for several spouses, just the one that you now get.

I agree totally. This country is not a church. Amen! But the state is not called to guarantee intimate loving relationships; rather, it seeks to uphold marriage, which fundamentally requires a male and female more than it requires “two” (as I have emphasized elsewhere on this thread). You can certainly have an intimate loving relationship, and I’m not trying to stop you,; but you cannot expect the state to recognize it simply because it is how you are constituted. And on a lesser note, is there no sexual fluidity? I had a nice talk with a self-identified gay man while flying to DC last year. He told me he thought he was a happily married heterosexual until his male neighbor made a pass at him and he realized he was attracted to men, and since then, he’s only wanted men. Should he now have the “right” to marry a man?

Now, I know that every time I raise the polygamy question or the incest question, you refuse to follow my alleged rabbit trails. But I never raise the issue as a distraction but rather as a real question. Lawyers for polygamists are bringing their cases to the courts, using language very similar to yours. So, why not just ignore their marriages if you don’t like them? Why impose your view of “marriage equals only two” on them? What makes it wrong? Where it is written in history and why it is compelling that marriage can only join two partners? There is far more precedent for polygamous marriages than for same-sex marriages.
You can say, “But we have laws against polygamy.” Well, we have had laws against same-sex marriages and you argue that those laws should be reversed. You can say, “But I only want one mate,” and the polygamist can say, “You cannot help the state by producing offspring, but I and my wives can. Plus, according to my religious beliefs, I should be allowed to have more than one wife, and you’re restricting me from my exercising my beliefs. And how am I hurting you by having more than one wife?” I can hear him calling your arguments specious and absurd.

Two more points. First, legal recognition is generally associated with moral rightness. If something is legal, it is good; if it is illegal, it is bad. Thus, the legalization of same-sex marriages would send a message to society (intended or not), and that message would be used as leverage to “prove” the rightness of many other related GLBT issues. Second, as evidenced in this thread, same-sex marriage is just one part of a much bigger picture, and based on the intensity of the feelings directed toward me here, it’s clear that same-sex marriage is only the tip of the iceberg. To me, it’s outrageous to think that anyone would want to make transvestitism protected from “discrimination” or to think that it’s my responsibility to accept the rightness of sex-change operations. Yet from reactions to my position that someone should be able to fire a male receptionist who wanted to wear a dress to work (Timothy even deigned to call it a matter of dress code!), it’s very clear where things are going. (The HRC’s policy on “transitioning” underscores this.) One way or another, the rights of those who differ with you will be trampled or scorned, despite all the talk here of me being free to hold to my religious convictions as long as they don’t get in your way. Well, my convictions are getting in your way. Do you grant me the freedom to practice my faith? Only it part.

I apologize for the length of this post, but you’ve made it clear that you wanted me to respond, so I’ve tried to do so in a way worthy of your question. Because I’m going to have to drop out of this post, if you write something that you’d like me to see, or if you would like to interact further on this, please email me privately and I’ll do my best to respond.

Now, to my last short post on slavery, and then I’ll be checking out. Thanks for allowing me to interact with the folks on your website. I trust that others reading it in the days to come will find the interaction worthwhile

Michael

Dear Jonathan in New Jersey

Your post touched my heart. I do admit to having forsaken Christ as my Lord for 14 years, from age 21 to 35. I am now 52 years of age. So, I do understand forsaking Christianity at some level.

I think that it takes time to grieve. It takes time to separate the life of Jesus in the Bible from the actions of the church in history. It takes time to reach the ‘yes’ and ‘yes’ conclusion of Hosea 6:1, “Come, let us return to the Lord. He has torn us to pieces, but He will heal us.”

Being torn by this life is difficult, indeed. Being torn by our brothers-in-Christ is double-the-pain. My feeling that a God of love ‘tore me to pieces’ with a desire to be straight and male, but with an opposing engine that is bisexual and female…. is an aspect of love that is incomprehensibly complex.

Knowing that ‘He will heal us’ is a cover of love that becomes all the more incredible when laid upon that driving engine. It is like saying, ‘the damage He gave (or allowed) is the very furnace that purifies our faith, and makes us all the more valuable to Him.’ The engine does not stop; but it endeavors to carry His love in every car of the train, now.

May I offer one of my own fiction short-shorts for your reading? It was penned to a transgender in Christ with HIV. Tis but a few pages in length. Perhaps, it can be a small piece of healing to you also. It is a simple story, k? Nothing terribly doctrinal, at all. My heart is broken for you; you are in my prayers this night.

http://carynlemur2.com/short-MasterV.html

Much love in Christ always and unconditionally; Caryn

The slavery issue is always brought up (and rightly so) when dealing with the question of what the Bible says about homosexual practice and how those texts should be applied to today. The issue of women’s rights comes up as well. In fact, God willing, the first night of my lecture series at the Blumenthal Performing Arts Center in Charlotte this year (Feb. 11) will be devoted to this very question: Are We Using the Bible to Sanction Anti-Homosexual Prejudice? Among other things, I’ll be raising the issue of how Jerry Falwell once backed segregation, thinking that it was the Christian thing to do, or how others used the Bible to rob women of their rights or to justify slavery. I’ll be happy to send a copy of the lecture to David upon his request, once it’s available.

I do recommend the scholarly and technical work of William Webb, cited above, that submits all the relevant texts to a rigorous scholarly analysis, challenging many of our pet assumptions and calling for sound hermeneutical principles (as opposed to proof texting or reading the Scriptures in an atomistic fashion). He asks “the questions of what aspects of the [biblical] text we should continue to practice and what aspects we should discontinue or modify due to differences between cultures.” He concludes: “The comparative outcome is this: the homosexual texts are in a different category than the women and slavery texts. The former are almost entirely transcultural in nature, while the latter are heavily bound by culture.” Before trashing this conclusion, work your way through his book.

I’m not going to reproduce my entire lecture here (if you’re in the Charlotte area, please do come by; in fact, the second night we’ll be asking the question, “Is There Such a Thing as Ex-Gay,” and the third night, “Was Jesus Tolerant?”, and we have an open mic for questions each night at the end), but I will say briefly that: 1) slavery as it was instituted in ancient Israel bore no resemblance to modern slavery, whereas same-sex practice (regardless of its associations) is universally condemned in the Scriptures; 2) there are many verses that point to the liberation of slaves as a divine goal, including the exodus from Egypt and the Lord’s jubilee proclamation in Luke 4 (based on the usage of Lev 25 in Isa 61; the Hebrew concept is called d’ror), and so Christians have worked those principles out to fight against slavery; 3) in contrast with this, there is not a single verse in the Scriptures that gives any explicit or even implicit endorsement of homosexual practice; 4) when Jesus reached out to the marginalized, he did so to change them, not simply affirm them.

Again, there is much more to say on this but time and other commitments do not allow for me to engage any further. And I know this might be too much to ask, given the sentiments on this blog, but I would appreciate it if no one questioned my reasons for dropping out. I had no idea the article was coming out about me in the first place, nor did I expect to have spent so much interacting with all of you the last three days. And just like many of you, I’m super busy, with six flights in the next two weeks, an Israel conference to speak at in FL, two seminary classes to teach in CA (fifty hours in six days), two modular classes to teach at FIRE (thirty hours in two weeks), plus the aforementioned lecture series and more out of state travel. (It may surprise you to know this, but out of all these events, only the lecture series is focused on GLBT issues.) So, I’m simply explaining that, like so many of you, my plate is full and I’m not ducking issues or afraid to tackle your objections, and I would hope that you would realize that I have been just one person responding to many different people. If I failed to respond to one of your posts I do apologize, but I did the best I could to prioritize this thread for these days, and I appreciate the opportunity to interact with each of you.

Michael

Permit this one additional post.

I just spotted these words from Timothy about my emphatic rejection of a theocracy:

Delighted to hear it. Truly.

I keep hoping there is some common ground out there some where. Perhaps this small area is it.

Well, since positive words have been few and far between for all of us these days, and despite the fact that the rest of Timothy’s post does challenge my position (and I appreciate his call for me to quietly reflect on these issues, which I actually continue to do), I could not help but be glad to see that, at least for one moment, Timothy was delighted by something I wrote, to which I must say, I’m delighted as well! Maybe we do have one small (or even tiny) area of harmony.

As to the constant calls for empathy, I don’t know what to say other than what I’ve said many times before: I have tremendous empathy for the positions espoused here; I wrestle deeply with the ramifications of my position; I take no joy in the fact that in your eyes, I am a monster robbing you of your most fundamental rights; and it is because of these things that I have prayed and studied and listened and considered and reexamined things. Some posting here felt free to judge that I was incapable of having empathy, but all that tells me is that you don’t know me at all. I can have empathy and still differ with you and still hold to my convictions. And they are convictions not just born out of study of the Scriptures, they are born out of communion with Jesus, my best Friend, and I would rather disappoint you than disappoint him.

You must be true to your conscience and do what you feel he requires and desires; I must do the same.

Blessings and grace,

Michael

they are convictions not just born out of study of the Scriptures, they are born out of communion with Jesus, my best Friend, and I would rather disappoint you than disappoint him.

Mr. Brown, then you have disappointed your best Friend, because he said, “Amen I say to you, as long as you did it to one of these my least brethren, you did it to me.”

The Holy Gospel of Jesus Christ according to St. Matthew 25:40

Yuki,

I reviewed my earlier comments to you about slavery in your first post, of which Timothy said I sounded condescending. I agree that I sounded that way and I do apologize. Regardless of our differences, I should not have responded like that.

I do not intend to continue posting here, as I’ve noted, but I wanted to set this right.

Thanks for your understanding,

Michael

Caryn, please. You and Bonnie do serious research on Michael Brown before attending this conference.

Read The Southern Law Center Intelligence Report.

Read Brown’s attacks on his critics.

Read QInterstate’s experience at the last conference.

Read QState. Read everything you can get your hands on about Brown and the Florida ‘revival’.
If you are familiar with knock ‘em down Browns dominionism Pentecostalism, don’t let anyone attending the conference physcially touch you in prayer.
From ICN:

…he is now fully engaged in reaching out to homosexual men and women with compassion while taking a strong stand against homosexual activism.

The Brown hyper-graphology (while a common pattern) you see in this thread has nothing to do with compassion or dialogue. It’s another smoke screen. Brown is taking bigger steps, political ties with LaBarbera, Exodus book sales, conferences etc.
Timothy is correct.

Be safe. Check in regularly with trusted friends. Please guard, ground and prepare yourselves mentally, emotionally and spiritually.
Go under the mercy.

Michael Brown,

Your response to my outlined questions is pretty disappointing, but I learned a while back to expect you to go all over the map as to avoid a direct answer. Since this is your final reply (sort of, you keep amending), I’ll follow a few rabbit trails just this once. As a result, this thread will be quite long so please forgive me everyone.

Now, I find it interesting that you took exception to my stating that I didn’t feel the force of your Red Herring argument (from which you wrongly deduced that I was calling you an idiot), whereas you feel free to speak against a position I may well hold to in the most denigrating and insulting terms – in the very post in which you’re asking me to explain myself. You’re telling me before I start that I’m a jerk if I hold to such a position.

Well, no that’s not what I said. I said:

The argument that societal destruction looms if we allow such marriages is not only specious, it’s absurd; a bunch of Cameronesque nonsense dredged up to support the fact that the only real objection is the interpretation by some of scripture.

The argument(s) I’ve read concerning this are all pretty much a bunch of garbage, and most have a strong stench of the kind of quack science put out by Paul Cameron. If you take these to hold much water, then you can call yourself whatever you like but at the very least I would say you are wrong. I thought I was quite candid with my comments, as opposed to the camouflaged condescension of your debating trick before.

I was simply noting that many of our laws go back to biblical principles and that when I make decisions in my life – be it the kind of entertainment I enjoy, the way I raise my family, who I vote for, etc., one of the things that helps me to form my values and to make decisions is God’s Word. But that’s just what I do as a citizen in this country, and to the extent that I have a voice or a vote, I act accordingly. How do you deduce from that that I want a theocracy? Or what in these statement makes me a theonomist or a reconstructionist?

How exactly do you think a theocracy comes into existence, Mr. Brown? What if something comes to ballot which is entirely Biblical, but would result in the damage of the rights of others? And while we are at it, why would you not vote for a measure that would call for stoning? Is this not in every way a scriptural practice? Or how about some of those rather frightening OT practices which in every way are a command, would you vote for them? These are the natural extension of your comments above.

So why don’t I just go along with your desires and back same-sex marriage? Because, in fact, I do not believe it is ultimately in the best interest of the society.

These arguments are a tad too convenient. What if we were to hold heterosexual couples to the kind of uber-standards you do homosexuals? Why do you suppose we don’t require each couple to undergo psychological evaluation before marriage, to find out if it is likely to be a solid marriage, and not end up a drain on society. Find out if there is a risk the husband might beat the wife (future drain on our health and legal systems, not to mention welfare if she has a period of no income after leaving him).

And what about further evaluation before the couple is allowed to have children. Can you imagine the grief and sheer carnage we might prevent, incredible negative effects on society we might avoid, if we were to do that? Should we not deny couples without sufficient income, mental backgrounds of stable, healthy childhoods, etc, the ability to procreate? We do this for adopted children now, why on earth should natural parents be exempt? Would this not be in the best interests of society?

And I realize you don’t like no-fault divorce, I don’t care for it myself. But in truth, why do we allow divorce at all unless there is adultery? Simply do not allow it. Would you vote for this, it is certainly biblical. And adultery, wow, let’s get those laws back, would you vote your conscience there, if someone put that up for ballot, would you vote your conscience and make adultery criminal, punishable by time in jail perhaps?

Do you understand now, Mr. Brown, how inconsistent this all is? You and I both know the only reason for your objection to same-sex marriage, and that is your interpretation of scripture. And that sir, is a matter where your conscience guides your life only. When you vote, you are excising control over another’s life. And that’s why I said earlier, the real courage for someone like you would be in allowing others the freedom to run their lives according to their own consciences – free will. Because frankly, what you and the rest of the church are doing has not worked – it is counter productive and negates all the signs and wonders you will ever experience at a thousand “revivals.”

The fact is, on a civil level, I would be required to recognize a same-sex marriage if it was legalized by the state so I can’t simply “ignore” any marriages that don’t follow my view of scripture.

I didn’t say they wouldn’t exist, that your life wouldn’t ever intersect with a married, gay couple. Good grief man, are you that hung up on this? But since you mention it, what about all those Catholics who have to deal with marriages which are sacrilege before God in their eyes? A couple married by a JOTP and not a priest have committed a mortal sin – they are bound for hell as I understand it. A Catholic must recognize that couple on the civil level, knowing they have done this terrible, immoral thing and are now living in a sinful embrace. This is a reality for the Catholic, don’t they count? How do you rationalize forcing them to do such a thing, compromise their faith so? The point is, the church does not have to recognize them and thereby compromise what they believe as their morality or adherence to scripture, and that’s a far as they have a right to expect it to go.

Two more points. First, legal recognition is generally associated with moral rightness.

Perhaps in your reality. Is it moral to you that you can gamble legally? Is it moral to you that in parts of Nevada you can hire a prostitute legally? Is it moral to you that a girl of 13 can legally be married in New Hampshire? There really are a bunch of these. And the fact is, what may be moral to you, might not be to another faith and lest you forget, you agreed with me above that your statement was in error, that the majority does not always win in our form of government. That morality issue may fly back in your face one day when what the next guys religion considers moral may get picked over yours. Bottom line, and I believe you also agreed with this above (it’s hard to keep track of which positions you have changed and which are the same), that we don’t check scripture when making laws.

To me, it’s outrageous to think that anyone would want to make transvestitism protected from “discrimination” or to think that it’s my responsibility to accept the rightness of sex-change operations. Yet from reactions to my position that someone should be able to fire a male receptionist who wanted to wear a dress to work (Timothy even deigned to call it a matter of dress code!),

The only people I can think of that have any say in how a transgender person deals with their life is that person, and their therapist and physician. It’s none of my business, nor is it yours. You need to get over this feeling that you are everyone’s mommy and daddy. And certainly if you are going to speak of these issues in public, learn the difference between transvestite and transgender, you owe others the decency of at least that much.

One way or another, the rights of those who differ with you will be trampled or scorned, despite all the talk here of me being free to hold to my religious convictions as long as they don’t get in your way. Well, my convictions are getting in your way. Do you grant me the freedom to practice my faith? Only it part.

No one promised that you won’t be scorned, and I have no control over that. If you hold views which the general public find repugnant, I’m sure you will get some grief. But you have every right to hold those views and speak out on them. If by your opposition to my rights you are trying to avoid having others disagree with your views, or find them offensive, that’s pretty selfish. And if you feel that ever having to deal with a gay married couple or even a transgender person, and treat them like a human being, is preventing you from practicing your faith, then again, you have some odd ideas about faith.

The length of this thread is why an unmoderated discussion with Michael Brown will soon accomplish nothing. I didn’t even respond to every side issue and look how long this is. I’ve made some observations as I am sure others have, and we will be posting again as we gain more background and history. Stay tuned.

Do you understand now, Mr. Brown, how inconsistent this all is? You and I both know the only reason for your objection to same-sex marriage, and that is your interpretation of scripture. And that sir, is a matter where your conscience guides your life only. When you vote, you are excising control over another’s life. And that’s why I said earlier, the real courage for someone like you would be in allowing others the freedom to run their lives according to their own consciences – free will. Because frankly, what you and the rest of the church are doing has not worked – it is counter productive and negates all the signs and wonders you will ever experience at a thousand “revivals.”

David,

I think you sum up the issue nicely in this paragraph. Some Fundamental Christians grab hold of a few verses in the bible and then work backwards from there when determining the status of GLBT people.
In the absence of a “God” who actually substantiates their beliefs with demonstrations of “power,” they are left to come up with their own system for dealing with tgt. The system is as inconsistent as their arguments, indeed, as inconsistent as people (which is telling). For example, on the one hand, programs offered by Exodus and affiliates claim that gays are made by bad parents during a childs upbringing. On the other hand, those same programs purport that tgt is a result of “generational sin” (“…the sins of the fathers being visited upon the children up to the fourth generation…”), which suggests one is born gay. Gee, if it’s part of the “sin nature,” is it “un-natural? If they really believe that gay sex is equal to “adultery,” i.e., ‘sin is sin,’ then why do they not follow Jesus’ lead and simply say “…go and sin no more.” Why is a special “ministry” needed for tgt if tgt is not special? Since their God is not willing to ‘fix’ gay people, they have to do it for “him.”

A simple way of finding out if Mr Brown wants a theocracy is to ask him if idolatry should be illegal. The Bible clearly condemns it, the US Constitution clearly makes it legal (demonstrating that the US Constitution is not based on the Bible). He argues that because homosexuality is not consistent with his view of the Bible, homosexuals should not have the same rights and privileges others get. Yet, the Bible clearly condemns worshiping other gods. Therefore, I wonder if Mr Brown believes being a Hindu, Muslim, etc should be illegal?

Mr Brown said: “The comparative outcome is this: the homosexual texts are in a different category than the women and slavery texts. The former are almost entirely transcultural in nature, while the latter are heavily bound by culture.”

Question: how does the average believer decide which texts are transcultural and which are culture bound? How does one pick and choose? Is there an agreed-upon formula or standard in Scripture — or are each of us free to obey the laws we want, impose that ones we don’t like on others and disregard the rest? I know believers who insist that ALL Scripture is transcultural — even though they don’t feel obligated to actually obey it.

Caryn,

One further caution:

Dr. Brown has in the past used any non-confrontational communication with a gay person as evidence that he is not bigoted. He did so with one gay person with whom he had lunch. He did so on this thread with Dr. Knox.

He even used the instance of one person allowed to ask a question from the floor of his anti-gay seminar as evidence that he is open (he went on to mock and demonize the guy, but in another venue).

If you interact with Dr. Brown, I think it is very likely that he will use you as an argument of how he is not transphobic. Just keep that in mind.

Question: how does the average believer decide which texts are transcultural and which are culture bound? How does one pick and choose?

I’m not sure what Brown means by “transcultural/culture bound.” But he is drawing on William Webb’s work, referenced above. According to this review Webb observed that in the Bible slavery and women’s rights are always treated progressively (redemptive is Webb’s term), whereas homosexuality is always condemned. Apparently Webb concludes that Christians today should take a redemptive stance on slavery and women’s rights, and, to be consistent with scripture’s prohibitive view, condemn homosexuality.

Nick and Michael,

I’m really trying to exit this blog, but here are quick answers:

Nick — of course not! They should be fully legal. The last thing I want is a theocracy.

Michael — excellent question, and very fair and important. David Roberts has my personal email, and he has my permission to give it to you so we can discuss this more if you desire.

Thanks (and hopefully, goodbye for a while),

Michael

“…he was a happily married heterosexual until his male neighbor made a pass at him and he realized he was attracted to men,…”

oh…please. Cut the crap. This is just silly.

Compare the following two quotes from Michael Brown’s contributions here and tell me he does not contradict himself.

When dealing with homosexuality & same-sex marriage:

So, as a citizen of this country, I could not in good conscience support a law that sanctioned something that I understood to be contrary to God’s order and sinful.

Then, when asked because idolatry is explicitly listed as sin in the Bible, should worshiping other gods be made illegal:

Nick — of course not! They should be fully legal.

Thus, it appears that Mr Brown is willing to support a law that sanctions something that is explicitly declared sinful and contrary to God.

So, if it involves homosexuals, then Brown cannot support any law that goes against the Bible. But if it involves other things (including idolatry), then he is willing to support laws that go against the explicit biblical commands (Old and New). Amazing how idolatry is condemned in the 10 commandments but homosexuality is not. Yet, Brown is more lenient to the idolatrous than homosexuals.

That is hypocrisy based in prejudice, at least in my opinion.

Nick–My point all those many postings ago. It isn’t isn’t abour religion, it’s about the existence of gay people and how much that bothers some heterosexuals (or some soi-disant heterosexuals).

“…he was a happily married heterosexual until his male neighbor made a pass at him and he realized he was attracted to men,…”

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

WOW. That is… amazing. Let’s see what we got there:
• The “predatory gay man” that “turns” someone gay by making a pass at them.
• The person who was not gay and never in his entire life thought he might have been until this aggressive homo “went after” or “targeted” them.

To respond:
• Men have made passes at me and it didn’t make me “realize” I was straight. Nor did it make me even entertain the notion. Most of these men were creepy.
• I have “entertained” the possibility – and fact – that I’m gay my entire life. No “abuse” or definitive event “aroused” it out of me. It was a gradual acceptance in my life that was very private and personal.

Regarding that “translation” of william webb. that idea of progressive-vs-condemning is just plain silly. It’s search for meaning and pattern where there isn’t one, and then claiming it has relevance to your pre-ordained conclusion– we think gay is bad, and here’s our biblical interpetation to back it up.

Nick,

I apologize in advance for having to end my side of the discussion with you here, although I assume you’ll continue to post your views for others to read. But as I’ve been saying the last day or so, I really have to wind things up, despite the importance of the topics being raised, and I have probably more than worn out my welcome here.

In reply to your comments, you have the legal right to be openly gay in America, and I support that legal right, just as I support the legal right of a Muslim to practice his faith here in America. But I do not support same-sex marriages anymore than I support the “right” of a Muslim to practice polygamy in America, despite that being part of his religion, and I don’t support teaching homosexuality as normative in our schools anymore than I support teaching our school kids why they should consider believing in Allah.

Now, as for my opinion as to which is “worse,” homosexual practice or idolatry, the answer is idolatry.

Again, I’m sure you’ll have a response to my post, and I assume it will a merit a response from me, so please do not take my non-response to indicate a lack of interest on my part. (For others reading this post, the same can be made for the questions you may have raised that I was not able to respond to. Perhaps in another setting, at another time, the discussion can continue.)

Michael

now here is a parsing of words and concepts that just pisses me off.

“you have the legal right to be openly gay in America.”

Yes i do, but not if you would have your way. I’d be both a criminal and back in the closet.

So here’s a question for, you Mr,. Brown. why can’t you just admit you really don’t like gay people at all? At least then, you would be honest. I can respect an honest bigot, but not a hypocritical one.

I already answered Michael Brown’s question regarding polygamy and incest, and those who want to have multiple wives ARE NOT using the same argument or even similar ones that the gay community is.
And his comparisons, however social and civil do NOT stand up to that which concern gay people and his argument IS religious.
It’s ALWAYS been religious.
He couldn’t care less about the scientific or characteristic meaning of being homosexual.

And he will be making no sacrifices whatsoever in the civil lexicon of what legal and civil marriage are in our country.
The basics are very simple, they are few, and he’s already running out of here.
Folks, can somebody tell me why people like him or Warren Throckmorton behave as if I’m not here?

The religious question and scientific questions keep getting conflated. And it matters a great deal that religious context be set aside for some arguments.

And as far as the moral question is concerned, we all know that liars, thieves, cons and murderers AND adulterers can all marry once and again and again.
A life serving prisoner in jail can be married legally because our society believes that marriage serves a grounding and supportive role for individuals who choose it.
Even if by their status as incarcerated or even severly handicapped limits them in so many ways in society at large and for the support of children.

But someone like Ellen DeGeneres and Portia DiRossi cannot marry. Or my rabbi and her attorney life partner of 18 years in the support of the boys they adopted.

The moral question remains: does the worst heterosexual have more rights to basic and supportive freedoms than the most upstanding and contributive of homosexuals?

When the answer is yes, there is no equal measure or standing and no moral grounds on which to stand.

The status regarding close relatives and those already married are not a matter of one’s human condition, as I stated before.

Brown is the one with all kinds of straw men at the ready. He refuses to regard gay people as a separate issue and what second class citizenship really means.
Brown could NEVER claim that is what HIS situation would revert to if gay people were elevated to equal access and freedom.
Christians wouldn’t be punished and are not for expressing themselves as such?
Again, he selfishly only sees what he thinks he might have to give up, rather than if he actually does or has. And is perfectly fine with someone all he believes being at the expense of gay people.

But why support such legal restrictions or punishments on a gay person who expresses themselves openly as such.
Again, Mr. Brown here forgot the principle of treating someone the way HE’D want to be treated.

Not surprising he didn’t last long here. As long as he can’t acknowlege and abide that gay peope are separate and have to be see as having a different orientation, not different regard for what is right and supported by society at large, he hasn’t learned very much, despite all the books he’s claimed to have read and understood.

I would appreciate your intelligent insights my friends as to why I’m so ignored by him…and his ilk.

Regan: even if those two hucksters aren’t paying attention to you, i am. And you’re arguments are flawless, which is why they don’t respond to you.

Stop fibbing, Dr. Brown

In reply to your comments, you have the legal right to be openly gay in America, and I support that legal right,

No, you don’t support that legal right. As you stated above, you support the reversal of Lawrence v. Texas knowing that such a reversal would remove the right to be openly gay in a dozen states.

You may argue that it’s because gay people are “using” Lawrence to make legal arguments that you don’t like (a claim that I find laughable), and you can claim that it “isn’t being inforced”, but ultimately you do not “support that legal right”.

Also, you believe that public school teachers should be fired for being openly gay. That doesn’t sound like support to me.

The fact is, Dr. Brown, you haven’t yet found an anti-gay legislative effort that you didn’t support or a pro-gay legislative effort that you didn’t oppose.

Many years ago, when I was fighting against an anti-gay initiative in my state, I met a lady on the opposite side who was full of mis-information and of hate-disguised-as-love. (Her favorites were that all gay men are mass murderers and child molesters). She asked me to write to her. I took all of her material, copied it, and did some research. I showed her where nearly every statement she made was, according to reputable research and information, either a distortion or an outright fabrication. I did it respectfully logically, and calmly. The next time I saw her, I asked her if she received and read my letter. Her response was: “I don’t have time to read letters from homosexuals.”

And on a lesser note, is there no sexual fluidity? I had a nice talk with a self-identified gay man while flying to DC last year. He told me he thought he was a happily married heterosexual until his male neighbor made a pass at him and he realized he was attracted to men, and since then, he’s only wanted men. Should he now have the “right” to marry a man?

Dr. Brown has long had a habit of arguing from anecdote.

I imagine that this works quite well in his usual audiences. They don’t know the “married twins” story is a hoax. They don’t know that Ake Green isn’t sitting in jail. They don’t know the truth behind Michael Marcavages’s efforts to interrupt gay events. They don’t know the David Parker was not “arrested for standing up for his child’s rights”.

But when he comes here (or other sites where gay people comment) he’s confronted by folks that are not fooled by his fairy tales. We know the facts, the back story, and the lies told by Brown’s buddies at ADF and Peter LaBarbera. So his anecdotes result in derision and a presentation of the facts which refute his claims.

So what does Dr. Brown do? He presents a story that cannot be refuted. He’s the sole source. We can’t prove him wrong.

Sadly, the story he presented is so fanciful and culture war crafted that you just can’t help but laugh. And i dare say that there isn’t a single soul here that actually believes that some happily married heterosexual was seduced into homosexuality by a pass from his neighbor thus proving magical sexual fluidity.

I don’t claim that Dr. Brown made the story up out of whole cloth; though it wouldn’t surprise me.

Perhaps some guy was playing games with his vehemently anti-gay plane mate. Or perhaps he told some version of this story that has since been recrafted to support Dr. Brown’s agenda. But whatever the origin, the story is – at best – naive.

Yet again Dr. Brown has used the implausible (or downright untruthful) to argue by anecdote. And yet again he’s made himself appear to be startlingly misinformed and possessing of poor judgment.

Timothy: I think it would be fair to say that he does support the right to be openly gay. but don’t have sex because he wants to be able to throw you in jail. And don’t expect to keep your job, either.

but you can still be openly gay. Just expect the full weight of the heavy consequences you will pay for daring to flout his hypocritical implementation of his interpetation of G’s alleged word.

Timothy: if this “proves” sexual fluidity, does it also then not “prove” that there is no such thing as a heterosexual, only sexually “fluid” (gotta love the unintended punniliciousness of that!–hope it doesn’t leave any stains). sillyness piled on silliness. If these idiots and bigots were only not so dangerous, we could all be laughing.

Very Paraphrased:

Nick,

Now, as for my opinion as to which is “worse,” homosexual practice or idolatry, the answer is idolatry.

Michael

Homosexual attraction being idolatry, and homosexual practice being the expression of that idolatry.

The only thing worse than homosexual “practice,” is the idolatry of the acceptance of homosexual attraction.

In a sense innocence, technically, you’re good with God as long as you hate yourself for having gay sex while you’re having it.

The “idolatry” is in thinking your human sexuality is ok, especially if you’ve gotten married. Remember, our love is completely fake in God’s eye’s.

Our love is completely fake in Love’s eyes.

Michael Brown, Alan Chambers, and their anti-gay ilk know so, they just don’t have the spiritual spines to say so outright.

Mr. Kincaid so eloquently said what I wanted to say. All I could formulate is “this is silly crap”. Tip-of-the-hat to Timothy! (and to Emily).

Dr. Brown: Trust me. If that man was happily married it was only out of convenience or peer pressure. And 10-to-1 I would bet he had a profile on realjock.com/gay.com and had online fantasies to tide him over until he recognized his sexual desires were not being met.

Who would care to speculate how many “happily marrieds” are on gay.com at any given moment. I can only speculate on the number but I can give you several personal examples from my experiences on…cough cough…online gay chat rooms and at the gym.

Fluidity = really is: unable to recognize or in deep denial

Emproph: my point exactly a few posts ago

“So here’s a question for, you Mr,. Brown. why can’t you just admit you really don’t like gay people at all? At least then, you would be honest. I can respect an honest bigot, but not a hypocritical one.”

Well, not that my comments necessarily fueled these responses [pats self on back], but I am relieved that others are seeing just how dangerous this man’s ideas are.

We should not give him an inch, no, not for a moment. With his intentions laid bare there should little discussion of ideas and significant, effective resistance.

As we’ve seen he has no desire for fair and balanced dialog. His speech is a battlecry–an attack on our rights as United States citizens.

It’s funny. Now that I’m an openly gay man, I see myself as just a regular guy: one with a great job, two beautiful children, lucky in love with a good partner and an ex-wife who is still my good friend. I don’t see my life as part of some gay agenda trying to take the country from heterosexual people. I’m just trying to live my short life as optimally as possible. I’m sure others here feel the same way.

Her favorites were that all gay men are mass murderers and child molesters

You would think the evening news would report such truths!

Oh wait! They do! On Fox News! Sorry almost forgot about that channel! HeHeHe…

Lesbian Gangs anyone?

Dear all: I wanted to take a moment and say thank you for the concern that has been expressed towards Bon and I about our attending the Feb 14 dialog in Charlotte NC, USA. I received some notes here; and some privately.

But God has combined the members of the body and has given greater honor to the parts that lacked it, so that there should be no division in the body, but that its parts should have equal concern for each other. If one part suffers, every part suffers with it; if one part is honored, every part rejoices with it. [I Corinthians 12:24-26]

I hope that we do not ‘suffer’ at all. But if we do, it is good to know that we have an ‘extended family’ here on Exgaywatch that is concerned for us, and that can help us to recover.

Blessings always! May the Lord bless you for your kindness towards us! Much love in Christ; Caryn

By the speed of response dying down over the past day I guess everyone feels like what I am feeling about Michael Brown now. Tired of listening to a person who refuse to listen. From contradictory remarks of homophobia based on ‘the best interest of society’ but later changed to ‘the scriptures’, from double standards on slavery and idolatry as opposed to homosexuality.

On my part, the biggest insult he gave to himself is his total lack of knowledge about transvestites. In fact, I was tempted to question him on the difference between a transvestite and a transsexual, then ask him what he knows about HBS. But I guess in the end he would then turn to throwing at the table whatever books that supports his delusional thinking and ideas. He would then probably attempt to justify his transphobia instead.

Yes, that is it. This post is no longer The Fighting Words Of Michael Brown; but seems more like The Justifying Claptrap Of Michael Brown. Sad. Sad for him indeed.

If you could say the word, and by so doing, eradicate homosexuality from the face of the earth, would you do it?

or

If you could say the word, and by so doing, eradicate anti-homosexual scriptures (or those interpreted as such) from the pages of the Bible, would you do it?

Many Jews have also wondered why the anti-pork thing is there?

And Jewish dietary laws are very strict. Pork and shellfish may only be eaten in Chinese restaurants.

As my partner, Jim, would say, “Old joke. Still good.”

He uses that joke in his new play about Zero Mostel, called “Zero Hour.”

Brown comes to our turf with nice civil discourse,
but his goal is to smite us without remorse.
Concern for all gets a nod,
while he goes forth in jihad
as a virulent bigot in a Trojan Horse.

I was watching the helmet headed Beveryly LaHaye being interviewed by Larry King.
“We love homosexuals” she said with her pasted on smile.
Do the Michael Browns and Beverly LaHayes ever stop to think if ‘the homaseckshals’ love them back?

Do they ever ask? Do they EVER consider actually listening to gay people?

Would Michael Brown or Beverly LaHaye EVER lecture black people or determine that they know more about being black or racism than a black person who came of age during the civil rights era?

This is what infuriates me about this all too apparent and luxurious arrogance of these folks.
If I want to know about Jews, learn what it means to be Jewish, find out about what the Holocaust was like. I will consult Jews, I will talk to a concentration camp survivor.

Talking to EX gays about being homosexual doesn’t qualify. These are gay people made as uncomfortable with their orientation as people like Michael Brown are.

You have to talk to survivors. To people who embrace who they are and have learned how to live in the world as who they really are.
Just like Jews, despite being under siege and threatened in many places.
Like those determined to allow the world to know the truth about them and their place among us.

It’s the gay folks who should do the TELLING, and people like Michael Brown to humble his fat ego enough to ASK and LISTEN.
He has no reason NOT to believe a gay person and no reason to dispute gay folks. Therein, you can only find commonality. Such as being gay is acquired the same way being heterosexual is.

It’s when you’re loved back you know you’ve arrived at the truth. Even moreso, if I’m trusted to say anything for the gay community BY gay folks, THAT is even more of an arrival to the place we all need to be.

Which is being trusted to look after each other.
And after all, isn’t that what Jesus wanted?