Ex-Gay Watch

Some times I write too much, sometimes I write too little. Nick C.’s remarks are helpful, but I meant to suggest that vaunting ambition of the kind we had seen demonstrated in Mr. Brown might lead him to try to trap the eagle and thus demonstrate his superiority to mere pagan divinity (and show off his metaphorically hairy chest while he was at it).

It feels just a bit like goading, all due respect. I think the strong points have been made rationally and that what this minister decides to do with this knowledge, assuming he even reads this thread, is up to him.

Hey folks,

Sorry if I disappointed anyone by not joining in this time around, but my schedule didn’t permit it, nor will there be much time in the coming days, so alas, you’ll have to enjoy things without me.

I did, however, find amusing some of the speculation as to why I didn’t get involved in the thread, which, as now appears inevitable on this blog, was mixed with both personal judgments against me and myth (for an example of the latter, note the statement that I left the last thread in “a huff.”). For an example of the former, how about this, which is complete falsehood from beginning to end:

Brown projects his own obsession with sexual deviation onto innocent people. He enjoys doing it, he gets paid to lie, and he is applauded by apostate churches for his affirmation of their hypocrisy.

May I wonder out loud if the person posting such baseless comments claims to be a Christian? And if so, I can only ask, as I did in the previous thread, “Is not the pot calling the kettle black?”

As to the question I asked on the radio, namely, Are all sexual orienations gifts from God?, the fullest answer seemed to be:

• “Is it loving?
• Is it consensual?
• Is it respectful?
• Is it giving or selfish?
• Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
• Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
• Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?”

Unfortunately, as noble as these sentiments are, they do not address my basic question, namely, Are all sexual orientations gifts from God? The answer provided here would seem to say, “Don’t judge the orientation, judge the actions and the morals.” And so, not only is this list incomplete from a scriptural standpoint (e.g., a heterosexual couple living together out of wedlock would be guilty of fornication in God’s sight, despite being able to answer these questions in the affirmative), but my point remains: Just because someone believes they were born with a particular orientation and therefore were gifted by God with that orientation, that in itself proves nothing. Rather, their orientation and conduct must be judged by God’s Word and His standards.

In any case, I hesitate to say more here only because my comments will probably trigger some good responses, and again, time does not permit my further involvement at this point. Perhaps in a future thread one day!

And to repeat: If I don’t respond again in this thread, it’s not because I couldn’t manipulate people here or because I was surprised by the intellectual responses or because I decided to take my marbles and go home (or, whatever the latest theory might be), but rather because time did not permit further interaction. I always welcome healthy debate and dialogue, even if I have to ignore lots of silly accusations along the way. So, again, perhaps we’ll meet again in a future thread one day.

Blessings and grace,

Michael Brown

icky, i say…. just plan icky.

Mr. Brown:

Unfortunately, as noble as these sentiments are, they do not address my basic question, namely, Are all sexual orientations gifts from God?

That question was answered by quite a few people in this thread and the previous … not ALL sexual orientations are gifts from God just as not all relationships are not gifts from God, just as not all people who claim to be spokepersons for God are truly spokepersons for God.

What has been stated is that there is a criteria for what constitutes a sexual orientation based on Christian principals and morals and homosexuality, when it is between two consenting adults in a monogomous, committed, loving relationship, can be a gift from God.

The answer provided here would seem to say, “Don’t judge the orientation, judge the actions and the morals.”

That would apply to heterosexuals as well as homosexuals. Just because one has a vagina that is attracted to a penis and the other a penis that is attracted to a vagina does not necessarily mean their orientation is approved by God. The criteria stated would also be a moral compass for heterosexuals in determining whether their orientation is truely a gift from God or just an expression of their inner lusts.

And so, not only is this list incomplete from a scriptural standpoint (e.g., a heterosexual couple living together out of wedlock would be guilty of fornication in God’s sight, despite being able to answer these questions in the affirmative), but my point remains: Just because someone believes they were born with a particular orientation and therefore were gifted by God with that orientation, that in itself proves nothing. Rather, their orientation and conduct must be judged by God’s Word and His standards.

As a Christian, I must correct you on your theology. It is first GOD who will judge all people, not a book. Nowhere in Scriptures does it state we will stand before the Bible and be judged, rather we will stand before God and be judged.

Just because someone believes they were born with a particular orientation and therefore were gifted by God with that orientation, that in itself proves nothing.

It proves many things. More than anything, it proves we believe in God. It proves we believe God created us. It proves we believe God makes people with different gifts for different reasons. It proves we love God and accept how he created us. It proves we can accept how God created us and use it for good purposes rather than turning it against others, condemning them, making them feel inferior, waving a Bible over their heads and telling them they are going to hell. It proves God is the author of all. It proves God uses us to be instruments of his love and grace. It proves that we can be in a loving and caring relationship and enjoy the benefits that God has bestowed upon us.

Maybe if you ever took the time to read the four-fold Gospel you might get to know who God is. If you claim to be a Christian, you may like to get to know him someday. Stop following the Bible and follow the Christ found in the Bible.

Michael Brown said:

Unfortunately, as noble as these sentiments are, they do not address my basic question…

Nor did you address the majority of Rattigan’s post.

As for those who may speculate on your intentions, you only invite more of that and rightly so when you present yourself in alliance with the likes of Peter LaBabera and Matt Barber. That was your choice, and it is very telling, if not of your motives then your judgment – I suspect both.

Dave,

Again, my apologies for not being able to engage in a protracted discussion here, but David Roberts has my personal email, and I would invite further, private dialogue with you on this issue as time permits. Then, if you find anything I write of interest to this blog, you can quote directly from my emails. In this context, however, every post of mine will generate several responses, and I simply can’t devote the time to this thread that I did a few weeks back.

For the record, you have put words in my mouth (in bold, in the article, for example) and people are responding to what you said I said rather than what I actually said (e.g., that there is no moral line between pedophilia and homosexuality). I was, in fact, responding to the talking point of Harry Knox who says that his orientation is a gift from God — not the way he conducts himself in his relationships, but his very orientation — which prompted me to raise my question, plain and simple.

As to my stating that gays have no moral compass, where did I state that? Everyone has some moral compass, and there are gays who are more moral than straights and the reverse. Again, you’re responding to things that I didn’t say or write rather than engaging in a contextual analysis of my actual words. Of course we differ fundamentally on so many issues, including whether any type of same-sex behavior is ever truly moral in God’s sight — but that is different than what you have stated.

So, feel free to email me privately for clarification and/or challenge, and I will have to leave it to your personal integrity to see if you really want to know what my points are and are not.

I’m about to catch a plane now and will be out of pocket for some days, so I really do expect that this will be my last post here, seeing that I’ve opened the door for private interaction if you so desire it. And it is out of my respect for some of your previous comments in the last thread — in which you took issue with some characterizations of me in the midst of fully rejecting my views — that I add this one additional post, seeing I only intended to post one in total in this thread.

Blessings and grace,

Michael

So, while I was out learning a bit more about identifying tree species in winter, Mr. Brown has favored us with a puff of hydrogen sulfide and a view of his lovely polished scales. Shading a set of analytical tools, by dismissing them with, “noble as these sentiments are,” is plain old false witness.

My own use of another set of analytical tools suggests to me that we are privileged to witness both the usual attempt to win the day by shifting the terms of the discussion, and the underlying assertion that Mr. Brown should get away with this because he is actually superior to all of us. While Mr. Brown he might assert that his superiority derives from his affiliation with God, we should note that the affiliation is asserted and then contradicted by the behavior we have observed.

It seems to me that the affiliation we find ourselves observing here is to an audience of folks who share his prejudices. Public discourse like this presumes a variety of human audiences. Some of those audiences have certain difficulties with the light cast by the assumption that human beings share a rather extensive sort of equality. Mr. Brown appears to suppose that his preferred audience wants to see him assert their prejudices in the faces of the supposed hostiles, and then come back to them with news of his triumphs.

One might reference this process as hectoring, but that would connect to how little good that did for Hector personally, and the Trojan people generally, and even to just why Achilles’ anger at the death of his ‘friend’ Patroclus might drive him to kill Hector in single combat and drag the body around the Plains of Troy, and think himself morally justified. Yes, Achilles was famously stuck on himself, and even his friends thought he was a bit out of line, but, they won, abeit badly, and Helen of Sparta/Troy/Sparta had to go home to the husband whose hospitality her other husband had so greatly insulted (Yet another moral issue that does not reference the framework Mr. Brown says he wants to use).

Michael,

For at least the fourth time, we will not engage in private debate with you.

You attack our liberties, lives, and freedoms publicly. We respond in kind.

If you don’t have time to react to all of those who write in response to your public words, you have two choices,

1. Let the response to your public words stand, or

2. Stop speaking publicly

Because we will not allow your behavior to go without comment. We will not allow your activism to go without response. We will not allow you to put a face of rejection, condemnation, and villification on to the body of Christ without countering it.

We will continue to show your words, your actions, and your theology to be contrary to decency, character and the message of Good News. And if you wish to address us, you will do so publicly where your position can stand before the gaze of the world.

Michael Brown said:

So, feel free to email me privately for clarification and/or challenge, and I will have to leave it to your personal integrity to see if you really want to know what my points are and are not.

I have no desire to carry on a private version of the type of exchange you have engaged in so far. If you have to tell me privately what your meaning is, this implies that you don’t say what you mean publicly. The entire audio of your appearance is provided in the original post – Dave only highlighted the sections one which he elaborated. We understand plenty.

I don’t think implying that we lack integrity if we don’t quiz you privately about our real meaning is going to help convince your audience that your intentions are good.

I said this earlier, and will say it again:

Mr. Brown: If you cannot distinguish the difference between two people who love each other and wish to build a life together, and a man who has sex with a dog, a corpse, or a child– whether this agrees with what you possibly sincerely believe your book might or might not say about homosexuality…

then…

YOU HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.

End of story. And i don’t need a badly translated book to tell me THAT.

Moreover, you are specifically enjoined by your saviour from thinking that whatever moral compass you believe might have is doing anything more than pointing right at yourself for it true north. What part of “JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED” is inapplicable to one such as yourself?

The bible may or may not condemn some aspects of gay sex. It is amazing to me how unclear G manages to be on the subject, when he is so clear on so many other subjects. So coy: “sleep the sleep of a woman” (literally from Leviticus– do you know what it means? I don’t)) to “abusers of themselves with mankind” (KJV on words we don’t know the meaning of.)

If it were as important to G as it is to you, he would have said: “two men or two women together shall not have sex in and way, shape, or form. They will not be naked together and touching each others’ skin. They certainly will not be bumping nasties. Penis into vagina, that’s it. And you shouldn’t enjoy it too much.”

Now, that is clarity befitting the creator of the universe. “Sleep the sleep of a woman”? Your guess is as good as mine. He was pretty clear about adultery. “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” That’s clear, but the opposition to adultery is usually limited to “Tsk Tsk” and not “let’s pass constitutional amendments to make sure your family isn’t recognized as one and your kids don’t get health insurance.”

Please excuse my use of a certain polished crankiness as I discourse on this site. I have been giving this stuff a portion of my attention since the early 1970′s. As a Presbyterian, I have seen awesome good accomplished, but also remember the sideshows that were hurled at us by the likes of The Presbyterian Lay Committee and PUBC (Presbyterians United for Biblical Concerns). I even remember how Richard Lovelace managed to fill the centerspread of the Layman with thousands of words in a single fit of religiously garbed homophobia that managed to neglect to even discuss the business the General Assembly had presented to the Presbyteries. Having met Richard at the San Diego General Assembly (and Blowout), I do wish that he had had a better life, but he was fronting for people who were trashing us and needed to be called on it. All that ends to color my current perceptions.

That is not always a bad thing. At the Hartford GA I could already tell that Mr. Nicolosi was a crank whose little presentation for One by One I could skip. My little sister confirmed that her fellow Harvard Christian students thought he was getting to be a bad joke.

Ben in Oakland said:

Moreover, you are specifically enjoined by your saviour from thinking that whatever moral compass you believe might have is doing anything more than pointing right at yourself for it true north. What part of “JUDGE NOT LEST YE BE JUDGED” is inapplicable to one such as yourself?

I wonder, Ben, do you prescribe to the “judge not lest ye be judged” philosophy?
If you do, then how would the following not be judging?:

I said this earlier, and will say it again:

YOU HAVE NO MORAL COMPASS WHATSOEVER.

You seem to be saying that if Dr. Brown cannot distinguish between gay sex and bestiality, pedophilia, etc.., then he has no moral compass whatsoever. Seems to me you judged when you 1) said that he cannot distinguish between those things (he makes it abundantly clear in his lectures and writings that he is aware of the differences), 2) drew the conclusion that he had no moral compass, and 3) capitalized this judgement to bring home the point that this is unaccaptable.

Is it possible that a connection can be made between two things, without saying they are equal? I believe so.

Your moral compass seems to be:

* Is it loving?
* Is it consensual?
* Is it respectful?
* Is it giving or selfish?
* Is it mutually beneficial and fulfilling or abusive and unequal?
* Does it dignify or degrade me and others as human beings?
* Does it help or hinder me in becoming a better person?

What if a polygamous relationship meets these criteria? Is it then okay? And should a polygamous marriage be sanctioned by the government? What about a relationship between a man and an adolescent? If it is determined to meet these criteria, then should it be accepted, or even blessed?

My point is not to bash your criteria, which I think are well-thought-out and healthy, my point is to say that once the criteria for what is and is not a good healthy sexual choice is changed from something concrete (such as male-female marriage only combined with the criteria you mentioned) to something more relative and nebulous (such as your criteria alone), then the door is wide open to all sorts of things that you and I would disagree with.

By law, pederasty cannot meet the second of the listed criteria. Even in a “consensual” relationship, it might not reach the final of the criteria. Pederasty is a whole different topic of debate – IMHO, it’s a whole different ballgame from homosexuality, which in the gay rights realm and my realm involves two adults of the same sex.

A case might be able to be made in a polygamous example. However, with marriage described legally as a two-party contract, one which must be made with two able-bodied parties (no animals or children), polygamy and polyamory would have trouble standing up in court with no such legal footing. (high-five’s self for coming up with awesome pun.)

Dave,

I would agree, but it seems to me that Dr. Brown’s point is that in the end, we have to draw the line in an absolute concrete way somewhere. My question is, on a practical level, do you only use your more relative criteria, or do you also use absolute concrete criteria?

When you hear about an instance of pedophilia, do you carefully go through all the circumstances, and consider how the different parties involved feel and experience what is happening, and whether they line up with your moral compass? Or do you instantly say pedophilia is wrong? My guess is the latter.

I suppose the point can be raised that you have already considered pedophilia and believe that in no circumstances does it meet your criteria, but how can you say that given all the variables that can be in a given situation? Who are you to judge? How much harder is it then, when it comes to less clear cut examples like polygamy?

I think we as a society do a disservice to everyone, especially the upcoming generations, when we do not give hard-line clear-cut distinctions between what is and is not right when it comes to sexuality.

Once it is agreed that some sexual relationships are right and some are wrong, then discussion can be had regarding which category bisexuality and homosexuality belong in.

Emily said:

By law, pederasty cannot meet the second of the listed criteria. Even in a “consensual” relationship, it might not reach the final of the criteria. Pederasty is a whole different topic of debate – IMHO, it’s a whole different ballgame from homosexuality, which in the gay rights realm and my realm involves two adults of the same sex.

So you would define what is and is not consensual by what the law says? If I’m not mistaken, homosexuallity was illegal in many places in the recent past. The law, I think, does provide a good starting point, but surely there’s a better and higher measuring stick than that?

A case might be able to be made in a polygamous example. However, with marriage described legally as a two-party contract, one which must be made with two able-bodied parties (no animals or children), polygamy and polyamory would have trouble standing up in court with no such legal footing. (high-five’s self for coming up with awesome pun.)

Again, law? Much more interesting to me than what the law says, is what people believe. Why do you believe that polygamy and polyamory cannot live up to the criteria?

My point is not to say whether polygamy or pederasty is wrong, but to prove the point that the line needs to be drawn somewhere in regards to types of sexual content in and of themselves. Some would place the line at one male / one female marriage only (my wife and I were virgins until our wedding night), and some would place the line somewhere else, but everyone has their line. I’m not talking about making things legal or illegal, I’m talking about what we believe and do, which is much more important.

Dave,

So you would place the bounds at “two consenting, unrelated adults”? Why?

Did you come up with this line based on the fact that inherently, any relationship outside of those bounds does not line up with the moral compass criteria you mentioned? What if you met a couple or group of people that met your moral compass criteria but did not line up with your boundary line of “two consenting, unrelated adults”? Would you then change your boundary line? If one example wasn’t enough, how many examples would it take to convince you to change your boundary line?

In my opinion, these are important questions that need to be considered when deciding who is right or wrong on this issue.

Marcus, where would you place this “boundary,” and for what reasons?

David,

The boundary for my life is monogamous 1 male / 1 female till death do us part marriage. It is an absolute boundary placed there by the God I serve. If I choose to follow my God (in my case Jesus the Messiah), I need to do what He has said to do. It’s a non-negotiable with me, and should be with all of those that claim the name of Jesus.

The boundary line that I have set in my life was the de-facto boundary line for centuries, especially in the Christian Church (which is actually my main concern). That line was torn down by heterosexual divorce and promiscuity, and now it is even being torn down with regards to homosexuality. It pains me to see.

I’m not some old man longing for the “good old days”. I’m a 26 year old man almost 2 years into marriage, who is giving my life as best as I know how to follow Jesus, and I see a society and slowly but surely a church bent on compromising at every step of the way so that people’s feelings don’t get hurt. That which is non-negotiable for me (and wasn’t that easy before marriage, believe me!), is up for grabs and no big deal, even for Christians! Everything is becoming so nebulous that it seems the only people that are sure to be beaten up on and deemed evil are those with enough backbone to put their foot in the ground and say “no further”, such as Dr. Brown.

The good news is that as men like Dr. Brown step up to the plate and refuse to compromise, and refuse to be silent, that it will lead the way for others that didn’t know it was okay to speak up.

In regard to where this boundary should be for the laws of a nation, this is a question too big for me to handle. I’m too much of an idealist to think about national laws, that’s way too complicated

Let me guess, you are one of his students?

I would suggest you do exactly as you believe, but don’t kid your self about how far back the American ideal for marriage has existed. But that aside, were you always a Christian? Was there a time when you had a different belief system? And I realize you will probably protest even the thought, but what if you were actually to change your views in the future, and understand scripture differently than Mr. Brown.

Should we impose your beliefs from before you were a Christian, or those later on should you change your views again (in what some might call growth,) on the entire country, the world? Or do we decide that your current understanding is the rule? What version of your restrictions on the lives of others must we all abide by? And what about those who are not even Christian? Do they count?

This is the point of a secular, civil government. If there is one thing that comes through clearly in scripture, it is that the Church was never meant to be in charge in the world. If power corrupts, it does so ten fold with the Church. And things like slavery, and treating wives as property, went right on happening through all of those times. The Church thrives in adversity, and fails in power.

No one is telling you to live your life differently, but you don’t have the right to not be offended. And we can’t live our lives on the basis of some nebulous consideration “for the children of the next generation.” We must define the rights of individuals as widely as is possible, without infringing unduly on the rights of others. That is the only way to act in a free society where no faith is favored over the other.

If you are indeed a student of Mr. Brown, I doubt you will find much more that lip service given to anyone’s views but his. Even a basic review of his work displays a need to be in absolute control, and he seems to be doing a great job of that – very slick. His “debates” are like skeet shoots, target practice for the theocratic. Good luck with that.

In regard to where this boundary should be for the laws of a nation, this is a question too big for me to handle. I’m too much of an idealist to think about national laws, that’s way too complicated

So what is your point? Is this just useless banter for you? Or have you learned so well that you are doing some theological skeet shooting as well?

Marcus, despite whether or not you think you have the ultimate infallible “Truth” on your side, basing the placement of your ‘boundary’ on your particular Christian biblical worldview is just as arbitrary as another basing the placement of their ‘boundary’ on US law. That being said, in a LEGAL standpoint, US law – secular US law – will trump biblical opinion.

When morals alone are involved, relativism gets involved. you say homosexuality is wrong because your religion tells you that the god you worship says it’s wrong. My religion says it’s morally wrong for a farmer to pick up bits of the harvest he has dropped along the path accidentally – those are to be left for the poor to pick up. Others might say this is ridiculous. Grey areas might be met when it comes to age difference or number of partners. But one thing I have never come across is a reason why two consenting adults of any gender coming together in love could be harmful. I can’t even think of a situation where that would occur, that is unique to a same-sex couple.

David,

I’m much more interested in influencing what you and others think, than in getting some law passed. What a person believes in, what they’re living for, that is what ultimately matters. Useless banter? Only if it is useless to believe in and fight for things. There are other realms to fight in than law. I will vote according to my principles, as it is my right to do, but ultimately there are much bigger and more important things going on in this world than law. Law is derivative of what people believe.

Yes, principalities and powers, etc. Unfortunately, you diverge from most if you are truly not interested in using the law to coerce a particular view, including Mr. Brown. However, try to remember, there are those of us in the Church who consider your view to be the bigger problem.

While I doubt there are any here who have not heard your particular interpretation of Scripture, you’ve given it again. So there you go, all done

PS: You didn’t respond, are you a student of Mr. Brown?

David,

I didn’t see the post you put up prior to the “what’s your point?” one before my last post, and so I didn’t answer the student question you raised.

I’m a member of the church which Dr. Brown attends and founded, and I did take a class of his as a part-time student, but I’m mainly someone that believes similarly, and desires to see change in the Church and society. My job is as a computer programmer.

Yes, principalities and powers, etc. Unfortunately, you diverge from most if you are truly not interested in using the law to coerce a particular view, including Mr. Brown. However, try to remember, there are those of us in the Church who consider your view to be the bigger problem.

While I appreciate how quickly you have been able to lump me in a category and dismiss me, I would like to clarify a few things:

1) You assumed what I meant by “bigger and more important things” was “principalities and powers, etc”. While I do believe in these things you seem to so quickly dismiss, I was in my post referring to beliefs. Mankind’s search for meaning, truth, and a reason to live, and how the Living God is reaching out to answer those questions, was in particular what I was referring to. Surely these things are more important than laws. And I would appreciate being asked what I mean, rather than being told what I mean.

2) I never said I was against changing laws, I said that wasn’t what I was interested in. You may think that anyone that respects Dr. Brown must be some sort of drone, walking according to what he says, but this is not the case, both with me and others in the community I’m involved with.

3) I’m very aware that the view I have is a large problem to those in the Church, and that is the main reason I’m talking about these things.

While I doubt there are any here who have not heard your particular interpretation of Scripture, you’ve given it again. So there you go, all done

Is this a nice way of saying “leave my blog now”? I will respect your wishes if this is what you desire, but would like to know why you wish this if it is the case.

I was in my post referring to beliefs. Mankind’s search for meaning, truth, and a reason to live, and how the Living God is reaching out to answer those questions, was in particular what I was referring to. Surely these things are more important than laws.

This is fine, if perhaps a sign of one who might tend to over-think things, however, it’s a bit broad for the scope of our discussions. Also, this is not a religious or philosophical blog, but since almost every ex-gay effort stems from someone claiming a Christian “world-view” we do end up talking about issues of faith a lot. That said, we aren’t here to convert anyone, and neither are you if you wish to continue participating.

I never said I was against changing laws, I said that wasn’t what I was interested in.

Now that’s a Brown like statement

You may think that anyone that respects Dr. Brown must be some sort of drone, walking according to what he says, but this is not the case,..

Actually no, I don’t assume that, however if I were to go by the emails I have received and your comments here, I could be persuaded. He is the sort of person who might command such uniformity, and his actions previously mentioned on XGW indicate a man who does not play well unless he is in control. So we shall see I guess.

Is this a nice way of saying “leave my blog now”? I will respect your wishes if this is what you desire, but would like to know why you wish this if it is the case.

If you were being asked to leave, you would know without a doubt. However, I do suggest you take some time to read and learn what we actually discuss here, before posting further. The threads are mostly topical (something we are ignoring with this line of comments, btw) and while there is a certain amount of room for the kind of mental gymnastics you are talking about, try not to go overboard.

I’m reminded of an admonishment, “don’t be so heavenly minded that you are no earthly good.” Just a suggestion that might help you here.

Marcus wrote:

Is this a nice way of saying “leave my blog now”? I will respect your wishes if this is what you desire, but would like to know why you wish this if it is the case.

I am not saying “leave this blog now,” but I have been curious why you came to this blog to begin with. Not that Exgaywatch is limited to gays, ex-gays and others with direct links to the gay community or anything; but I find it ever so curious that a 26 year old heterosexual who doesn’t appear the least bit supportive of gays and lesbians has taken any interest, let alone such an intense interest in this site over the last few days.

After Dave managed to get you to acknowledge your connection to Mr. Brown, it makes a bit more sense.

Mr Brown indicated that he would not be able to participate in this blog and asked that David Roberts and Dave Rattigan communicate with him via email. They declined.

Which leads to my quesiton: Are you here on your own to defend Mr. Brown and his views, or were you pointed in this direction by Mr. Brown?

Marcus said:

The boundary for my life is monogamous 1 male / 1 female till death do us part marriage. It is an absolute boundary placed there by the God I serve. If I choose to follow my God (in my case Jesus the Messiah), I need to do what He has said to do. It’s a non-negotiable with me, and should be with all of those that claim the name of Jesus.

“The [moral] boundary for my life is monogamous 1 male / 1 female till death do us part marriage.”

Could you describe what you find to be the inherent, and therefore “absolute morality” of this boundary?

Or are you suggesting that if the Bible expressly condoned same-sex marriages, that they would then be perfectly “moral?”

My point is not to bash your criteria, which I think are well-thought-out and healthy, my point is to say that once the criteria for what is and is not a good healthy sexual choice is changed from something concrete (such as male-female marriage only combined with the criteria you mentioned) to something more relative and nebulous (such as your criteria alone), then the door is wide open to all sorts of things that you and I would disagree with.

I don’t think there can be anything much more nebulous than rules and supposed absolutes that have attained their…sacredness, simply because they’ve always been that way.

In other words, I’ve never bought that the idea of “1 man + 1 woman = good; all else = bad” being anything close to “concrete.” I think that Dave’s points of reflection, that you criticize, on the other hand, are wonderfully transparent; I can read them and see the values and morals that lie behind them, which I find to be much more concrete than a rule that’s held aloft because of tradition, which, to me, is opaque and without meaning or explanation.

Marcus, before I have to apologize for misspeaking, let me clarify that better.

When you say that your moral boundary for sexual relationships is “monogamous 1 male / 1 female till death do us part marriage,” what is it that you personally find to be — outside of the Bible, and outside of tradition — the objective morality of it?

What is it inherently about that boundary that places it in the category of Golden Rule-right and wrong-morality, to the exclusion of monogamous same-sex till death do us part marriages?

Actually Emproph, I thought we were all meant to be celibate; as the ideal. ?

A “but get married if you have to rather than burn in lust” seems a cop out. IMHO.

What is the morality behind that slippery-slope of even recognising heterosexual marriages in the first place? Clearly those involved in them haven’t lived up to the ideal.

And if straight marriages, then why not gay ones?

Then again, we are talking about S/Paul’s opinion; and I’m not sure how much weight I’d give to the opinion of someone who came to his revelation after hitting his head in a fall.

Marcus: this is an oblique way of noting that for all your (apparent) concerns about “slippery slope” arguments; you haven’t addressed the real slippery-slope that Michael Brown is all too (apparently) ready to use and manipulate. That was the purpose of the original post.

When he readily compares me and others to paedophiles and every other sort of actually abusive or actually selfish person, where do you imagine that will end up? (A: my persecution.)

Michael Brown wants to compare me to the scum of the Earth: and he’d better have a better reason than the boring fact I’m gay and in a monogamous 16 year relationship.

(nice call on the affiliation, David Roberts!)

Marcus,

Let me ask you one other question; did Mr. Brown ask you to read/post here, or did he tell you about this forum and the post about him, or all of the above?

Be honest

grantdale said:

and I’m not sure how much weight I’d give to the opinion of someone who came to his revelation after hitting his head in a fall.

I know he fell to the ground when God spoke to him as Saul, but I don’t remember anything about him hitting his head. Either way, it’s borderline mocking of a major faith shared by many readers, let’s play nice.

Heresy is not a synonym for mocking, David. I was not, and I don’t want it seen that way.

If you read the passages literally, I don’t mind. I prefer a dizzy spell, concussion, and false attribution. (I don’t mind the message, or the faith; it’s the miracles that leave me cold.) But that’s just me. And I wasn’t there.

The message of a “Road to Damascus” experience is unchanged regardless of how one reads the cause of it. And it was to Damascus that I was heading…

If I am to be faulted, it’s because I was being oblique to the point of obscurity raising RtD by stealth : it’s one I hope many would have with regards to gay men and women.

“Road to Damascus” parallel version : how was I ever so wrong, and so sure of myself? And why have I set out on this journey in order to persecute people at the other end?

Which would have been the point made, eventually. Now, I need not.

Shouldn’t Saul / Paul’s story be mockworthy anyway?

He met Jesus as the result of “falling to the ground,” as per Acts 9:1-6, and then eventually goes on to exclaim that same-sex attraction is the observable manifestation of sin in the physical world, as per Romans 1:18-32.

If knowing Jesus is knowing the Golden Rule command, then Paul’s linkage of SSA — directly with evil — strikes me as indicative of the same mental disorder that the virulently anti-gays of today’s generation exemplify. Clear evidence of a lack of discernment between objectivity and morality.

And given my understanding of that evidence as clear, It seems perfectly legitimate to me, to question his prior witness of “the truth.” Whether one is a believer or not.

I’ve known Michael Brown personally for a number of years, and I have to say that your perceptions of him are radically warped. It’s unfortunate to see (though it’s not surprising) how a man can be so misconstrued by folks who are not willing to read in context and to hear in reality what a man is saying. I encourage you all – at least those who are really concerned for truth- to review these posts with no immediate intention to react subjectively. If we’re really pursuing the truth, we are more likely to discover it. Don’t discount what Mike Brown says because of your preconceived assumption of what the man is like. I’ll tell you, he’s a kind and humble man who is not willing to back down from what he believes God has spoken. Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, you owe it to yourself to set aside shallow accusations is view of a better pursuit- namely, the pursuit of truth.
Peace,
Bryan

“kind and humble” v. “not willing to back down from what he believes ”

Interesting word choices.

I do agree that Brown is “not willing to back down from what he believes”. He has show that over and over.

It doesn’t matter what proof is put in front of him or what anyone else has to say. Brown is completely and entirely convinced of the superiority of his opinion. This is evident not only in his obnoxious disregard of facts and objective reality on the issue of homosexuality, but also in his dealings with others.

But most folks objectively reading what Brown says here (or anywhere, really) would agree that “kind and humble” is far from accurate. His advocacy is certainly not kind and the arrogance with which he seeks to impose his views on others is not humble.

I’d have to say that you only know him half as well as you think.

“Are all sexual orientations gifts from God? Zoophilia, or coprophilia, the sexual stimulation by faeces, or bestiality, I mean things that everyone would be repulsed by, or paedophilia. Are those gifts from God? … How do you distinguish which sexual orientation is a gift from God and which is not?”

What a warped mind. If someone cannot tell the difference between a beast, poo, and an adult human — should they really be telling others how to live their lives?

Secondly, repulsion is hardly a valid measure of anything. As a child, most vegetables repulsed me, as did seeing anyone of any orientation “make out”. No offense to the ladies, but I find their genitalia to be less than a pleasant sight — does that mean there’s something wrong with women? Hardly. Some folks are disgusted by people who let their pets on the furniture, animal hair anywhere, the sight of toes. Repulsion is relative. The other thing about repulsion is that it it can change. Things that were once repulsive, through exposure and maturity, can become boring.

Bryan, paraphrased: “Brownie, you’re doing a heck of a job!”

(sorry, couldn’t help myself…)

Apparently, and regardless of whatever Michael Brown says or does in public, there is a secret Michael Brown that is known by only the select few. This secret Michael Brown is not the same as the public Michael Brown.

If we take Bryan’s glowing (but, note, unsubstantiated) personal reference at face value, or emailed Michael Brown in private… we could also know The Real Michael Brown(R).

And I know that looks like swamp land in Florida… but, hey, make me an offer: you’ll really love it after you’ve paid the deposit and moved there. Trust me.

I don’t know michael Brown at all, other than through these pages. I’m sure he’s a lovely man, as long as you are heterosexual, white, and christian. But his opinions (not knolwedge) of gay people are lakcing any charity, understanding, or logic.

Ultimately, I find this very wearisome. I appreciate Mr.. brown’s willingness to dialogue–sorta– but ultimately, it all boils down to this;

“I don’t approve of homosexuality, you people do not deserve a place at the table, and I will do everything in my power to make sure that you never get one. If I can force you to go back into the closet so that I never have to think of you again, then I will do so, because it really makes me uncomfortable to think that I will have to end my prejudice and then actually have to do something–like feed the poor and stop war–that is actually, shall we say, IMPORTANT. And frankly, I really don’t give a damn about how much pain, suffering, misery, hurt, and destruction I cause gay people and their families, because ultimately, you don’t matter to me. Unless, of course, you end up agreeing with me (pace, randy Thomas) in which case you are suddenly important. Meanwhile, you are just a bunch of fags and dykes, and the sooner I can make you go away and re-establish the myth of heterosexual hegemony, I’ll be happy.”

Well, Mr. brown, I’m not happy about that. Despite what you believe, I have as much right to be here and have a happy full life as you do, and on my terms not yours.

You give away your real agenda in a very subtle way: no gay teachers in the school, unless they are totally closeted and no one ever finds out. The sin is clearly not homosex, but being found out. Back in the closet. It’s the only way self-righteous, moralizing prigs can be happy about our existence.

Ultimately, Mr.. Brown, you are an anti-gay bigot. Unfortunately, the world is full of people just like you, who have appointed themselves G’s representatives on earth, and who feel that they have the right–nay, the duty– to makes the lives of other people whom they do not know and clearly know nothing about, as miserable as possible, because they don’t approve of their race, religion, ethnicity, language, gender, national origin, skin color– or sexual orientation. It’s a story as old as the Midianite storm god telling the Hebrews that the lives of the people in the promised land were not really very important after all. And we are still paying the price for that insidious piece of “holiness” in pain and suffering even today whenever a 15 year old suicide bomber takes out 30 Jews with a nail bomb. (And I am a Jew, and pro-Israel).

Any god who states that you have the right to hurt people in his name is not one that is worth worshipping. The bible makes it clear that the price of admission for his favor is to be no better than he is.

You proclaim you peculiar interpretation of the bible, or the preservation of marriage, or the innocence of the children (TM), or any number of other reasons which flatly only accord with your prejudices, not any sense of reality.

I’ll tell you what the message of the old testament is–smite people. I’ll tell you what the message of Jesus (not that asshole, Paul) is: leave everybody the hell alone.

honey, it’s just sex, albeit a form of sex that makes your anus clench. And if there is one thing we have learned from centuries of religionists and heterosexuals running the world, it is this:

Sex is the cheapest thing in the universe– next to human life. michael Brown’s obsesions about my genitalia provre that once again.

grantdale:

Apparently, and regardless of whatever Michael Brown says or does in public, there is a secret Michael Brown that is known by only the select few. This secret Michael Brown is not the same as the public Michael Brown.

Public Michael Brown, Secret Michael Brown, Secret Agent Michael Brown, it doesn’t matter. When one talks publically and claims to be Christian without following the Christ who founded Christianity, I take issue. If he one day decides to read and study the Gospel he will realize he will have to step down as an anti-gay crusader.

What about the undoing of the foundations? You undo male-female, you undo marriage, and everything is up for grabs, totally. What about the effect on the next generation that grows up with complete uncertainty about marriage, complete uncertainty about male-female? Don’t we have a responsibility in terms of justice to care about the family and the children and the next generation?

What if relationhips were built on love and trust and honor and respect and commitment and the celebration of God’s love rather than built on a functioning male member and a fertile female inner parts? (I am trying to be discrete here). If a relationship was built on the principals mentioned above, it wouldn’t undo male-female relationships but rather strengthen them. If the “next generation” saw relationships built on religious principals rather than functioning body parts, maybe the divorce rate would go down (at least for the fundamentalists), maybe more orphans would be adopted into happy homes, maybe fewer children will live in disfunctional families.