Filed under Sexuality & Gender on September 15th, 2011 by Michael L. Brown

When I wrote the article, “Did Gay Activism Play a Role in the Murder of Lawrence King,” I knew the reaction would be shrill and almost hysterical. I also knew that most of the attacks would not even deal with the substance of the article. Sad to say, but on both counts, I was not disappointed.

Alonzo wrote, “Dr. Michael Brown is truly a heartless monster!” Similarly, Brandon said, “You, sir, are a monster. . . . It is a shame that you [evangelical Christians] cannot be the victims as well as the perpetrators: that would save the rest of us a lot of grief and despair.” Dave stated, “You are an idiot. You are a bigger reason for this type of crime than any gay rights activist. . . . You’re a narrow minded, ignorant bigot.” (I took the liberty to correct any typos in the comments cited.)

According to Jari, “The level of sheer satanic evil demonstrated in this ‘article’ is mind boggling. If there is someone contributing to anti-gay violence, suicides of gay teens and yes, murder of this poor kid it is people like Dr. Brown and their message of hatred and venom.” Similarly, Denise claimed, “Yeah, Dr. Michael Brown is an activist . . . actively encouraging and supporting the murder of children,” while Jonathan wrote, “What a worthless stain on humanity you are.”

Over at the GoodAsYou.org website, Jeremy could only find one word to describe the article, namely, “Monstrous,” while Chrislove at Daily Kos referred to me as a “viciously anti-gay personality,” encouraging readers to continue reading only if they had the stomach. Brent commented, “I have no words for this evil article,” and Veda seconded with, “Evil and disgusting.”

Limelight asked, “Who Is the Greater Monster? Mr. Brown, or young Mr. McInerney [the murderer of Larry King]?” According to Steven, “Michael Brown is one sick . . . oh, h-ll, there aren’t enough expletives in the world to describe what he is.” Finally, David wrote, “You should be ashamed of yourself. I’m sure the young people in your family are ashamed of you already.” (Note to David. Quite the opposite!)

What did I write that caused such outrage? It was that gay activism was complicit in the senseless murder of Lawrence (“Larry”) King. This, apparently, was more than many people could bear to hear.


Some commenters claimed that I said Larry’s killing was justified or that I was defending his killer. God forbid! To the contrary (and all in the space of less than 850 words), I stated that “under any circumstances” this was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act,” speaking of Larry’s “terribly tragic death,” twice referring to it as being carried out in “cold blood,” four times referring to it as “murder” (including in the title of the article), and stating at the outset, “Of course, there is only one real killer, Brandon McInerney.”

In spite of this, Ezra wrote, “The kid is gay and therefore must be punished? He ‘flaunted’ his sexuality and therefore must be stoned to death? He ‘flirted’ with other boys and therefore must be shot down in cold blood?” Coming from another angle, Scott stated, “Notice how Dr. Michael Brown says he is a Jew [this is printed in my bio at the OneNewsNow website], but is defending an anti-gay bigot who bedecked his bedroom with Nazi symbols.”

Could someone please go back to the article and tell me where I wrote a single syllable in defense of the murderer or in justification of the murder?

Yet Derek went even further, claiming that I am “someone who had to twist himself into a knot to avoid explicitly saying, ‘I think it’s a good thing that boy murdered that gay kid.’”

I guess calling Larry’s murder “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act” and describing his death as “terribly tragic” was not clear enough.


A constant refrain was that I was blaming the victim. Willa wrote, “The spinelessness of this article is typical of the ‘blame the victim’ approach,” while the Daily Kos article was entitled, “Larry King, the Anti-Gay Right, and Blaming the Victim: Or, ‘Murder is Wrong, But…’”

James stated, “It’s time for you bigots out there to take responsibility and stop blaming the victim,” and Craig exclaimed, “Oh good GRIEF! This idiot is blaming King as if he were the female in a rape case. ‘She ASKED for it!’” Ezra commented, “I say good show! Let’s keep blaming the victims for being victimized!,” while Ian wrote, “Talk about taking blame the victim to an extreme . . . .” And Jeff said, “Next Brown will be blaming rape on women.”

Remarkably, not only did I not blame Larry in the article, but I specifically referred to him as a victim, stating that “gay activists . . . have made Larry into a martyr for the cause of gay activism when, in reality, he was more a victim of gay activism.”

When you call someone a victim, you are not blaming them! And when I spoke of his troubled upbringing, that was not to demonize him but rather to create sympathy for him.

Later in the article, I also asked if it was “fair to Larry” for school administrators not to step in when teachers reported that his dress and behavior were causing disruption among the students. My whole point is that the school should have been addressing this situation if they saw problems, for his sake and for the sake of the other students.


While there was outrage over my argument that gay activism played a role in Larry’s murder – something that others have argued, including Larry’s adoptive father – none of the critics had any problem with GLSEN’s contention that “homophobia killed Larry King and destroyed Brandon McInerney’s life.” Instead, my article was described as “religious based, homophobic nonsense,” while Zachary simply stated, “I can’t stand homophobic people.” Brittany posted, ‘This guy is clearly a deluded homophobe,” Trevor said, “I don’t think I have ever read a more clear cut case of homophobia,” and Ian even wrote, “Wow, reading this article made my head hurt. So the killer’s homophobia did not contribute to the victim’s death it was actually the victim’s homosexuality that caused these horrible events.”

Let’s sort this out. I trust we all agree that cold-blooded murder is cold-blooded murder and that Larry’s killing was “a totally unjustifiable, horrific and deplorable act.” It is also my view that, if Brandon had even punched Larry in the face (rather than shot him twice in the back of the head!) that too would have been unjustifiable. If you are being taunted or sexually harassed, it’s best to simply walk away and, if needed and possible, report the matter to your authorities.

But is it “homophobic” if a straight teenager is upset when a gay teenager openly flirts with him or tells others that they are dating or chases him down the hallway while wearing high-heels and make-up? (There are different reports about how much of this happened between Larry and Brandon, but again, Larry’s adoptive father believes that Larry did sexually harass Brandon, while that was one of the factors that contributed to 7 jurors voting for voluntary manslaughter rather than first or second degree murder.) The politically correct view seems to be that straight guys are now required to be indifferent to gay male flirting (or even harassment), otherwise they are “homophobic.” Talk about overusing an already overused word!

Brandon was obviously a tragically violent, troubled teenager, and for all I know, he was someone who hated gays. He might have been a classic example of a “homophobe.” But that doesn’t mean it is homophobic for a straight guy to have a problem with a gay guy’s sexual interests in him or romantic flirtations with him. The problem – the horrific, deadly problem – was Brandon’s reaction.


There was a common line of thinking among the critical comments that went like this: A) Larry’s behavior and actions were perfectly fine and unobjectionable since it was part of his gay identity. B) Being gay is something you’re born with and you can’t change, just like being black. C) Therefore, Larry’s murder was no different than the lynching of a black man.

In keeping with this, Jimbo wrote, “I suppose, with this logic we should blame the black man for flaunting his color before his lynching,” while Stephanie argued, “It’s like saying, ‘Well why didn’t we keep segregation laws in place, because a lot of black people got hanged in response to desegregated schoolsl, we should have just kept things status quo so there were no problems.’”

Jonathan had a more clever approach, commenting, “Breaking: football coach blames anti-intellectual bullying on MENSA activists.” (Question for Jonathan: Are you saying that a teenaged boy wearing women’s accessories and make-up and taunting straight boys is similar to being a Mensa member?)

Bernard also had a clever, sarcastic post: “This guy’s absolutely right. I know that growing up as a Jewish kid in Arlington, Virginia, then headquarters of the American Nazi Party, I was lucky to have parents who always warned me never to disclose my Jewish affiliation to anyone. Really, what business was it of theirs? If I missed a high-holiday service here and there, played softball on Saturdays, brought ham sandwiches to school–it was a small price to pay to ensure that I didn’t make anyone so uncomfortable that they felt inspired to beat me, burn a cross on my lawn, or break my windows. I never forgot that I lived in a majority-Christian country, and that therefore, any hatred anyone showed me was just a confirmation of their basic values, and any toleration they displayed just a demonstration of their ultimate superiority. In fact, I’m happy to say I had the smarts, even at that young age, occasionally to kick a Jew in the face a few times myself–just to throw the Nazis off the scent. I’ll never understand why minorities are so resistant to a little common sense. Why can’t we just go along with the crowd?”

But once again, they’re missing the point. First, just to remind us of the facts, there is no conclusive proof (quite an understatement) that anyone is born gay, while there is ample proof, scientific and anecdotal, that some homosexuals become heterosexual. So, being gay is not innate and immutable, and gay is not the new black, contrary to popular opinion. And how can romantic attraction and sexual behavior be equated with skin color? Second, and more importantly, there were three main issues here, Larry’s disruptive behavior (which was certainly his choice), the school’s failure to take action, and the irresponsibility of gay activists.

To carry out the analogies here, the situation we’re discussing would have been the equivalent of Jewish parents encouraging their kids in a Nazi school district in Germany to come out boldly as Jews and to chase Nazi kids down the hallways while wearing large Stars of David. Would anyone question for a moment that the parent’s encouragement would have been totally irresponsible? (To be clear, I am not comparing being Jewish to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a Star of David to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to Nazi school districts. I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)

It’s one thing, say, for a black man to decide he wants to expose racism by sitting at an all-white lunch counter, knowing that he might risk his life. It’s another thing entirely for black parents to tell their kids to go play basketball in a white supremacist neighborhood, wearing “Black is beautiful” tee-shirts. That too would be terribly irresponsible, and yet that’s similar to what some gay activists do, encouraging kids to come out in their schools while at the same time telling us how dangerous the schools are. (To be clear again, I am not comparing being black to being gay, nor am I comparing wearing a “Black is beautiful” tee-shirt to sexually harassing someone, nor am I comparing our schools to white supremacist neighborhoods. Again, I’m simply carrying out the analogy.)

Scott opined, “Dr. Michael Brown is making the same argument people make when they say that a girl was asking to get raped because she was wearing a mini-skirt.” Actually, my argument would be this: “If parents were telling us that the schools were not safe for suggestively dressed girls, then they shouldn’t be encouraging their daughters to wear mini-skirts.” And no one said that Larry was asking to get killed! In fact, that’s one of the issues I have with making him into a gay martyr. We can safely assume that the last thing he wanted was to be murdered and that he never thought to himself, “My behavior might get me killed, but that’s a price I’m willing to pay.”

And how do you think gay activists would have reacted if a straight kid was harassing a gay kid, spreading rumors about him to the other kids, and chasing him down the hallway while wearing a “Straight is better than gay” t-shirt, to the point that it was disruptive to the other students and complaints were filed by other teachers, asking the administrators to step in. Yet the administrators replied, “We don’t want to violate the civil rights of the straight student,” after which the gay kid finally got so upset that he killed the straight kid. Do you really think gay activists would not be in an uproar over this, even painting the murderer as a victim himself, even while recognizing that he was guilty of a heinous crime?

Not only, however, were these points not grasped, but extreme comparisons were made, like this one, by David S.: “I want you hypocritical ‘Christians’ to imagine the roles were reversed. Instead of Larry being Gay, he was Christian. Instead of trying to kiss the boys, he was trying to minister to the boys. And instead of being MURDERED for his homosexuality, he was MURDERED for his Christianity. The Christian community would be furious about his death. And believe it or not, so would I. I’m furious over the bigotry and hatred this nation has bred, whether it be from the LGBT community or from the Christian community. I’m not bashing all Christians, just the ones who can’t see past the spine of their Bible long enough to realize what they are saying and what they are doing!”

While I certainly appreciate (and resonate with) his renunciation of all bigotry and hatred, wherever it is found, can anyone seriously compare a Christian boy trying to minister to other boys to a gay kid (or straight kid) sexually harassing other kids?

Finally, Dirk (who is obviously gay) wrote, “And none of us have ever ‘encouraged’ young LGBT kids to come out ‘earlier and earlier’. That monstrous lie comes from Brown’s need to paint all of us as pedophiles – it is absolutely untrue, and just an attempt on their part to get more people to hate us.”

Dirk, may I ask what rock you’ve been living under? From GSA’s (Gay Straight Alliances) in middle schools to GLSEN’s (the Gay, Lesbian, and Straight Educational Network’s) school curricula, and from younger and younger openly gay characters on TV to the fact that kids are coming out at younger and younger ages – you’ve got to be kidding me. This is anything but a “monstrous lie.” As for “pedophiles,” who in the world brought that up in this context? And what does encouraging a young person to “come out” have to do with pedophilia?

This is just a sampling of some of the negative feedback to my article, but enough has been said to make clear that, with rare exception, these posts represent reactions more than responses, barely even touching on what the article was actually about. What then was the purpose of writing this controversial article?

* * *

It seems that every week, we hear another tragic story about an LGBT teen committing suicide, and anyone with a beating heart should be troubled over these reports. (Note to my critics: Despite your perceptions and accusations, my heart beats strongly, and I too have agonized over these young lives cut short. I believe, however, that the best approach to bullying, which occurs for a multitude of reasons, is to teach how wrong bullying is, rather than teaching that gay – or, say, obesity, which is another major cause of bullying – is good.)

The story of Larry King is, in a way, more tragic still, since he was the victim of a brutal shooting in what should have been the safety of a classroom. But gay activists have made a serious error in making Larry into a gay martyr (Newsweek even referred to Larry’s murder as “the most prominent gay-bias crime since the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard”), and that is one reason I wrote the article, knowing full well that it would produce such ugly reactions.

In the months before Rosa Parks became a national symbol for the civil rights movement, there were other black Americans who stood up to oppressive white racism. One of them was a younger woman who also said enough is enough and took her stand, but when it was learned that she was pregnant out of wedlock, civil rights leaders immediately realized that she would not be a good poster girl for a national movement. In fact, she might have even played into the negative stereotype of white prejudices.

Yet gay activism is so committed to the mantra of, “This is who we are, we have the right to express ourselves however we desire, and we are always the innocent victims,” that it drew the completely wrong conclusions from Larry’s cowardly killing. This should have been a time for introspection, for asking whether, by wanting to protect Larry’s “civil rights” (this term actually came up in school discussion about his behavior), “pro-gay” administrators neglected the needs of the other students. (Remember that other kids, who did not lift a finger against Larry, were also troubled by his dress and behavior.)

In fact, gay activists have also been irresponsible by pressing whole schools to revolve around the needs of a transgender-identified child who is allowed to use the bathroom and even locker room of his or her perceived gender. They fail to ask, “Is this fair to the other children? Does the ‘right’ of one, struggling student trump the rights of the other students, many of whom are upset and even traumatized by this? And should they be reprimanded for having an issue with ‘the boy who wears the dress’ or ‘the girl who has a penis’”?

Gay activists should have also asked whether they were acting in Larry’s best interests. After all, much of his behavior was not typical for gay teens (in fact, many believe that he was actually “transgender,” which further underscores the fact that he was trying to understand his own “sexual identity”), and he could have gotten along fine while using a little more restraint. But as long as gay activists remind us about gay suicides and the “unsafe” nature of many of our schools, they need to be more wise in their counsel to kids about “coming out.” (I’m not addressing the larger question of whether kids should stay “in the closet” and wait until they’re older and are more certain about their sexuality, or come out and explore their sexuality at the youngest possible ages, or do everything in their power to overcome same-sex attraction. I’m simply saying that, by their own admission, schools are not always “safe” places for kids to “come out.”)

And why is it that any criticism of gay behavior or expression is immediately branded as “hate”? Is constructive criticism never possible? Would it have been right under any circumstances to have counseled Larry to modify his behavior or dress, or would all such counsel immediately be rejected as “homophobic”?

The bottom line is that Larry’s murder should have prompted some soul-searching among gay activists. At the least, they should have said, “We should be more careful.” Instead they said, “We have another martyr.” And that is a real shame.

Michael Brown is host of the daily, syndicated talk radio show, The Line of Fire, and author of A Queer Thing Happened to America: And What a Long, Strange Trip It’s Been.

Spread the Word:
  • email
  • Facebook
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Technorati
  • StumbleUpon
  • Reddit
  • Twitter

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Possibly Related Posts:

Leave a comment »

  1. Dr Brown,
    Unfortunately in our times and culture the voice of reason is more often than not drowned out by the mob mentality. It is the few who are small minded and petty who seem to shout the loudest and the more reasonable are often bullied into silence accepting the comments of the few as if they were the majority. Unfortunately people jump on the band wagon to put something down when they haven’t really read or understood what was said. People who are deceived don’t know it.

  2. Gay Activists are complicit in Larry King’s death to the exact same degree that the Freedom Riders and Dr Martin Luther King were complicit in the bombings of Black churches.

    If they hadn’t have made such a fuss, such bombings would not have happened.

    If you do believe that MLK was “complicit” in the bombings, and somehow “should be assigned some degree of responsibility”, then Dr Brown’s exact words, saying Gay Activists are “complicit” and “responsible”, are correct. You would be consistent, even if I disagree.

    If on the other hand you think that assigning responsibility to MLK for those dreadful events is “blaming the victim”, then so is assigning responsibility for Letitia King’s death to “Gay Activists”, and to the same degree.

  3. Zoe, first, his name was Larry, and at no time was it legally or officially changed.

    Second, you seem to miss the whole point of my article. Nonetheless, I will respond with this simple question: Please tell me when and where Dr. King and other civil rights leaders encouraged irresponsible or flaunting behavior from black children in white areas, and please tell me how someone’s skin color can be equated with the chosen public behavior (I’m talking about wearing girl’s make-up and chasing boys down the hallway) of a gay-identified kid?

  4. 3400 words to defend 840 words? Well, at least it will be 5-10 pages in the next book where you show point by point how people attack you for doing what God has called you to do. Martyrs garner more sympathy than monsters. You should get some “media training” and learn to let your words stand as you wrote them and avoid the ensuing fray. You write a 700 page book, I write a 4500 word review, you write a 7000 word review of my review and countless thousand words after that in the same stream to support that review with each response coming minutes after a post. Dang, don’t you ever just go for a walk, sit in the garden, have long dinners with your wife? It must be tiring to always be on the defense. Let your words stand, feel good about them if they are indeed God inspired and move on to good. If I took all my time response at double length to all the folks who do not like what I believe and write, I would never enjoy the beauty and good around me, nor would I have the time I need to DO GOOD. This is to be a help to you Michael, learn to let go and get a thicker skin. Your ego gets in the way. Who cares what someone else thinks of you if you are truly doing God’s will? Forget all the defensive posture. You also do not need to make other people defend you and call for their help either. “Folks, go here and comment on this….. Folks, time to go here now…” Write, speak and move on. As for me and my house (of four dogs right now), we ar going for a hike with one of my closest friends–Netto. When I met her ten years ago she wanted NOTHING to do with Jesus or Christianity. NOTHING. I simply loved her and hiked with her for thousands of miles. Over two years ago she became a Christian and it changed her life, she got saved at 60. My agnostic buddy also went to Israel this year to literally walk where He did. A lovely story of friendship, true compassion and loving evangelism. And, she is still a lesbian. Instead of responding to every last post and assertion here, go hang out at a coffee shop and listen to one of these gay or trans people you speak against so much. LIsten, not tell, listen. They know far more about what it is like to be them than you do. So, you know a few who are “no longer gay.” Great. just this am I was in contact with the former leader of a live in reparative therapy facility. And a leader in a LARGE ex-gay organization. It is interesting to watch him come to recognition of all the damage he did over a 20+ year career. It is interesting to hear his stories and assessments as a leader in with all the leaders. He actually says he NEVER met an exgay–in 22 years. That is interesting. People can “live as heterosexual” –people do it all the time. I know maybe a few hundred of them that did.
    People react against your writing and speaking because you deny their lives, paths to God, walks with God and even their salvation. That is really really offensive. Hilter took physical lives, you rob people of the chance for spiritual eternal lives with your effective roadblock to the Throne. You know what, I think your form of “dead bringing” is actually worse. If they called him a monster, well, maybe the shoe fits. Okay, Ms. Netto, the new creation in Christ, just arrived in all her cheerfulness and love–off we go. God serve Michael, with out a computer.

  5. Kathy,

    Thanks for trying to help, but you obviously assume way too much about me.

    First, being “defensive” is the last thing on my mind. There are literally tens of thousands of posts dealing with my writings or positions (for years, this was the case with my Jewish apologetics work), most of which I’ve never read and almost all of which I’ve never responded to. I am 100% confident that God vindicates His truth, and to the extent I honor Him, He will honor me. I write articles like this to help others and to expose issues, and because I feel led to do so. Feel free to judge me and my motivation (contrary to what the Lord allows), but He knows me a lot better than that. And He knows that I count it a privilege to be slandered for doing what’s right. As for being “thin-skinned” — wow! You really don’t have a clue as to who I am, but my invitation remains open to meet face to face or to talk by phone. Honestly and seriously. And I do pray for you.

    Second, it’s really comical that you think you know my private life and how I spend my time. Join me the next time I’m having fun with my grandkids or enjoying the Lord with my son-in-law or just spending a quiet night with my bride of 35 years. If anything, it seems like you’re obsessed with following my online activities (or, now, showing up at an event we do), so perhaps you should take your own counsel and move on yourself. Surely you have other things to do better than monitoring me and my activities. Plus, if the Lord is with me (which, by His grace, I can say that He is), you’re wasting your time posting articles against me and the like. Move on, Kathy!

    Third, just this week I received two more wonderful testimonies about people delivered from homosexuality, and during the weekend of our God Has a Better Way event, we heard from five different people who soundly saved from homosexuality. Jesus really did it! Wonderful Savior! You completely undermine your whole argument when You deny His power and will to set these people free. Don’t be a false witness against the Lord! And read Sharon A. Lawson’s new book, The Sweet Lie of Lesbianism, when you get the chance. If you can’t rejoice with her and see the genuineness of her story, you’re absolutely missing something in the Word and the Spirit. Again, I pray for you!

  6. Kathy, one more thing. As you know, we don’t allow personal attacks here, so in order to keep posting (which you’re welcome to do, within our guidelines), please step a little (really, a lot) higher. Your words were eerily similar to the words of Jewish counter-missionaries who tell us Jews who believe in Jesus, “You’re worse than Hitler. He wanted our bodies. You want our souls.” May the Lord help you.

  7. Dr. Brown,
    You are correct in stating that there is no conclusive scientific proof that anyone is born gay. In light of this the entire foundation of the gay activist’s agenda for civil rights falls into the abyss of absurdity. The unjustifiable murder of this young man is deplorable. All unjustifiable murder is deplorable. For the gay activists to use this tragedy to further their agenda of hate and phobia of heterosexuals is expected. Why is anyone surprised? The hatred and venom that your attackers spew forth against you is based in their own ignorance of the facts surrounding homosexuality. They know they have no conclusive scientific evidence for being born gay so they resort to vicious and extreme verbal attacks against any and all who would dare to share the scientific facts that there is not one shred of conclusive evidence for the proposed “gay gene”. This may explain why they are so antagonistic and destructive in their agenda. If one does not have any true legitimacy or credibility for one’s basic claims and demands, there are only two main choices: give up your demands or employ lies, fear, hatred, and deception to push one’s agenda forward. It is the evidence of the gay agenda’s moral and intellectual bankruptcy that they so often resort to lies, fear, hatred, and deception to fuel their movement. Thank you for standing against the hated-filled, irrational, unscientific claims and demands of the immoral and Godless homosexual agenda! I stand with you. Countless millions stand with you. Jude 1:14-16

  8. Dr. Brown, again you responded in a way that truly blesses people that hunger and thirst for truth. For a second there I was giving Kathy some coudos(wrong spelling probably but understood) until the latter part of her message to you. Where she began,”People react…) is where I took my somewhat good feelings away from her. I think Kathy needs to possibly go for a walk or sit in a nice quiet cafe shop or maybe take a nap because her final comments certainly were out of order. The nap might do her some good, maybe God will speak to her while she is sleeping as He did with Peter while he was in a trance…:)…God bless

  9. “doctor” Brown, to answer your question, “WHY HAVE SOME PEOPLE CALLED ME A “HEARTLESS MONSTER”?” could it be because you are? You have already proved it to me with all your fundamentalists rationales that are too extensive to list here. The more you write, the deeper you dig yourself into a hole. May God grant you the ability to see your reflection.

  10. So if I understand Kathy correctly – if one dares to write an article with an non-mainstream-conforming, misunderstood thesis, then that person must then remain silent while hostile commentators hijack his article, misrepresent the point, and falsely put words in his mouth that are 180 degrees contrary to what was written?

    And despite the fact that Michael Brown didn’t respond to a single ad-hominem attack on his personal character (but rather re-explained the article’s actual point) you’d like to blame “his ego” for writing a response to the smears?

    For those readers who were actually open-minded enough to weigh the article’s merits, yet may have been confused by the smokescreen, venom, and misrepresentations found in the comments that followed, I actually appreciate that Brown took even more time on this than he already did.

    Nevertheless, it IS a shame that he needed to spend so much time defending against that which he did not even say, instead of having a rational dialogue based on what he actually did.

  11. It is not surprise that homorasts [ those having eros toward homo - i.e. same gender] and multitudes of those who are actively defending the pathology will not accept anything BUT endorsement of gender confusion pathology.
    No matter what you say, ONLY if it is celebrating the ‘oppressed minority’ it will not be good enough.
    The times we live in are THE most weirdest in centuries! When and where in the world prior to queer capture of academia and media would one ever entertain a thought that queers, transsexuals, etc. are normally behaving individuals?
    Irony is despite of efforts of perverts and homorasts in particular to “train stupid masses” to think in certain way, some people smart enough to see what’s happening.

    As to your critics Dr. Brown, they are sentimental, weak and confused individuals, and capitulating to their weaknesses only makes things worse. Sentimental are ‘straight defenders of queers’ – because they feel sorry for ‘oppressed’ queers and think that homosexual (wrong directed) feelings are sufficient ground for justifying the pathology. Confused because they simply closed their mind to obvious fact that same-sex-attraction is pathological and in need of correction. Such queer defenders easily capitulate to queer demands because they don’t have a solution to treat homorasty/homosexuality. They think if society does not have sufficient and proven way to treat a pathology, then we should close our eyes to it and celebrate it.
    What sort of thinking is this?
    Of course lying to people by saying that their pathological condition is ‘normal’ is immoral act. It is immoral on several levels: it is lying to justify same gender lusts; it is detrimental to society in so many ways – leads to confusion, especially for kids as what is sex and why purity is both beautiful and best for them, it leads to crime because secular fold in particular may do acts of violence against homorasts/homosexuals, and what about general perception of other cultures toward the one that endorses such repulsive sexual pathologies??? The list goes on and on. Solution to this particular perversion as to any other perversion first and foremost is absolutely NOT capitulating to queers. Imagine if doctors and society would capitulate to those suffering from anorexia. To have a perspective, ask any one who suffers from anorexia if they suffer from anorexia? :D Worst irony and betrayal of course in this situation is that queers influenced laws and medical community so much that they don’t view queerness as pathology. Irony for queers, and betrayal from medical community.

  12. “Lisa,” may the Lord help you to see His truth and reality. Love speaks the truth, whether it feels good or not. And I find it interesting that a woman who often sheds buckets of tears of compassion every day strongly encouraged me to write the article about Lawrence King’s tragic murder.

    My heart does go out to you, and I was truly pained when I met you a few weeks back. May You experience His goodness and love in a way far beyond anything you have ever known before.

  13. as to those who defend sexual perversion I say this:
    You are mistaken in thinking that Dr. Brown hates queers. As the matter of fact, the issue is not about hate. Issue has to do with factual assessment of a queerness and what is best action to take. That is, you think you love queers more than he does, but then the proper question is – how a love toward a person trapped in perversion would manifest itself? Would your capitulation to a person who’s demanding justification of perverted lusts be considered as loving???
    What’s worse, ironic and sad, is that your capitulation to their demands (or perhaps your own lustful perverted demands) is not helpful, much less loving.

  14. What if everyone ( by “everyone” read “those on both sides of the controversy”): who feels the need to:take a firm stand; define their position clearly, defend themselves against opposition and supply inquiring minds with an ample supply of pertinent material were to instead “go for a walk, sit in the garden, have long dinners…”. I think you know that’s not likely to happen. Instead we should all feel free to say our piece but within the boundaries of “speaking the truth in love”.

  15. “doctor” Brown, thank you for the payer. And just leave it to God to be true to His word, He has already answered your prayer—I am experiencing His goodness and love in a way far beyond anything I have ever known before. Isn’t He good? I’m sorry you were pained for me when you met me. I have no doubt that in your heart you felt something and I also know you will never be convinced you interpreted the emotion you felt incorrectly. But let’s change the subject. I know you are a music lover, have you ever heard the song titled “The Trade” by Bret Williams? Wow, I can’t get enough of it. I hope it blessed you as it does me.

  16. “But is it “homophobic” if a straight teenager is upset when a gay teenager openly flirts with him or tells others that they are dating or chases him down the hallway while wearing high-heels and make-up?”

    No Dr. Michael Brown it isn’t “homophobic’ but it is extremely heterosexist. Is it really to much to ask straight guys to treat an unwelcome advances from a gay person in the same the fashion they would to an unwelcome advance from a female?

  17. “Lisa,” I’ll certainly listen to the song ASAP (I’m not familiar with it). So, who is the real you? The one with the pleasant, gracious post or the one with the previous post?

  18. “doctor” Brown, I confess that you have the amazing ability to push some pretty obscure buttons in me. It is a pity we do not live closer to each other, I think we would each come away with very different opinions of each other. I believe you are 100% sincere, but without the benefit of journeying side-by-side, neither of us can fully understand the Father’s love in each of our lives. I want to opt for deferring all judgement to Him who is the only one able to judge the heart. Grace and Peace to you.

  19. “Lisa,” thanks for your last post. May God’s grace and truth triumph to the full in both of our lives.

  20. So, if being gay is a choice – then I assume, Dr. Brown that means you are bisexual? I mean, what you are saying is that we are attracted to both sexes, but just decide to be either straight or gay. If you are in fact, bisexual then that explains a lot. It makes your obsession with condemning gays more understandable. That and the fact that you can make money off it.
    I understand people’s anger toward you and all those like you who try to use God to condemn others. I feel sadness that you would use your time on this earth to tear people down. However, I come from that background and understand the sincerity of your beliefs – however misguided and ultimately harmful they may be – to yourself and particularly those vulnerable souls in this world. Just sad.
    On a side note. Biblical Literalism (selective of course, as yours is) takes the Bible and turns it into a golden calf of idolatry. You worship a book – written by men. It is your God. The Bible contains beautiful, wonderful, universal truths – but people like you – who must control and arrogantly speak FOR God, simply put it in the place OF God.

  21. Amen.

  22. Daniel,
    I don’t think Dr. Brown has obsession with condemning gays. “Gays” are condemned in virtue of their self-proclaimed allegiance. Gays are the ones that define their ENTIRE existence and lifestyle and everything about them as having same gender attractions…
    So, since they defined themselves with that pathological behavior they are basically condemned themselves.
    The fact that same gender lusts or attractions are pathological is more than obvious! The very purpose and function of a reproductive system (one of many physiological systems a human being has) presupposes attraction to opposite gender. When that deviates, it obviously results in pathology, about as much as no sane person calls blindness a visual “orientation”. Nor is eating food with ears is considered alternative eating orientation. It is only when it comes to pleasure (however perverted it may be) things drastically change because that which delivers pleasure is more cherished and fought for…. But setting emotional and hedonistic drives aside, to assert that having same gender attractions is as normal and equal to having opposite gender attractions is talking against straight forward commons sense observations and intuitions derived from the reality.
    The question is not should the “gays” be condemned (since they are condemned already). The question is how to help (1) them, (2) society, and (3) the preservation of culture itself from becoming more immoral.
    Ignoring the issue and letting “gays” have their way is fulfilling none of the above.
    Point is straight forward: as any sexually pathological behavior, same gender attractions should be sought to be cured. Whether the treatment is developed or not is a different question. But asserting that queerness is normal, is like saying anorexia is normal, or any other pathology is normal.
    Concerning “literalism” it may be a whole another discussion. But, what is YOUR exegesis method? “Pick what thy will – shall be the whole of the law”? Using your approach to the The Bible, Romans 1:26-27 is about what ? Here I am not asking because I don’t know, but to see your embarrassing attempt to dance around it…. all in the name of justifying sexual pathological behavior.

  23. Konstantin,
    It is you who labels someone’s ENTIRE existence and lifestyle around the term “gay.” Gays have jobs, pay bills, watch movies, laugh, cry, etc… The simple fact that they openly affirm their existence and acceptance of that, to you, is reason enough to think you know exactly who they are.
    Using your analysis, then anyone not capable of reproduction is therefore obsolete, unnatural and useless. Nice. Is someone born blind “normal?” Well, in the sense they are not like other people, no they are not the norm. But are they “normal” in the sense that they are still people with strengths, weaknesses, value and worth? yes. Homosexual attractions are a naturally occurring variation in human creation. It’s simple biology. A small segment of the human species is born with different a different orientation. Seriously, what do you say about someone born with male and female sex organs? They do exist. How do they fit in your theology? God made them that way – but in your black and white world, there is no room for anyone not exactly like yourself. Your faith is small if you have to have an answer to everything. If you are going to take the Bible literally then why, oh why do you not do the “judge not” verse?
    My problem isn’t with your beliefs. It is your insistence on targeting anyone who is different.
    My method for understanding scripture is this – It was written by men. Like all things written by men, it is imperfect. If you believe scripture to be perfect – the justification of slavery, the subjugation of women, etc. – then I stand by my assertion that you worship a book rather than God. Again- like many things written by men I think they got to some wonderful truths. But to pretend that God can be contained in our words, is ignorance at best and utter arrogance at worst.
    And to my bisexual comment? Are you also admitting to be sexual attracted to both genders since it is a choice?

  24. Daniel, I was not talking about “not being able to reproduce”.
    I was saying that a priori, same-sex attraction is pathological.
    Attraction precedes actions. A person can be promiscuous adulterer having normal attraction to opposite gender. that’s a different discussion.

    As far as you’re mentioning choice, I think it is irrelevant. As the matter of fact I may think that desire is not a choice but actions are. But having pathological attractions does not make them normal. There are many genetic or environmentally caused disorders.
    By the way why “bi” sexual? Is that limited by physical constituencies? What about “quadro” sexual?
    Fact of the matter, there is no such thing as “bi”, “tri”, “quadro” etc. sexualities. It is either normal attraction or pathological attraction. There are many pathological attractions from same species to different species, from alive organisms to non-alive organisms. I wonder, why you use “bi” as if world is limited by these two.
    There are no “two” correct and normal attractions. There’s one and many pathological ones.
    I am sorry to bring it up, but this is so obvious, it is a crime not to mention it.
    To not present myself as “heartless monster” I think all sexually anomalous attractions have at least one right: to seek treatment.

  25. Konstantin,
    Way to avoid the question. :) If you are going to go down the path of diagnosing everyone who differs from any norm as pathological – then the simple fact is – we are all a pathological mess! (Both of us included) A human being is nothing really but the sum total of their disorders – that is what makes this experience on Earth quite interesting. Why be a hater?

  26. Daniel, you said “Homosexual attractions are a naturally occurring variation in human creation. It’s simple biology. A small segment of the human species is born with different a different orientation. Seriously, what do you say about someone born with male and female sex organs?”
    – well. what you call “normal” in this example is what rather should be called statistically expected, or something of that sort. This has to do with predictability of occurring of certain statistical distribution of certain pathology. It is similar to saying such and such percentage will have attraction to children…. or goats. But this does not make it normal…
    About ” born with male and female sex organs” I say it is pathology/anomaly. It is not “normal”. Whether certain fraction of percent will be born like that is a different issue

  27. Konstantin,
    Romans 1 is about idolatty, particularly in the Gentile cultrue of Paul’s day. Romans 2:1 rubukes the Jews of Rome for judging those mentioned in Romans 1.

  28. Tim, so how is “…Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women …”
    I guess for NON pagans “natural” is different?

  29. Just as an example of the silliness of Dr. Brown’s limited thinking…
    So – it is wrong to have sex outside of marriage.
    Well, what exactly is sex? Is it penetration? Is it a hand on a breast, a mouth on a breast? A hand over clothing? A hand penetrating? A kiss? A french kiss? Oral? I mean, the Bible doesn’t exactly define it. So what is considered sin and what not? If I kiss her, is that okay? What about a hand on the breast, over the sweater? under? At what exact moment have I officially “sinned”? It can’t be relative to the person can it? What is our solid answer? In this Biblical literalism world that you guys live in there has to be a black and white answer doesn’t there? Is it possible that a lingering kiss is a sin to one person, while not to another? When I lust after someone in my mind, how far do I go before sinning? Do I have to imagine actual sex? What if I just imagine touch, etc?
    My point being – nothing is simple. As much as you guys would like to pretend that everything is black or white, the truth is elusive and subjective. I get it. You’d love to go back to 1952 (as long as your white) when everything was repressed and we all acted as if we were exactly the same. I understand the impulse. I just don’t live in the kind of delusional reality that allows me to believe my way is the only correct path.

  30. Konstantin,
    Then by your standards, someone who is born blind is completely abnormal – a statistical anomaly. I get it. However, that doesn’t mean that we should force them to go around pretending like they are sighted just because it makes us more comfortable.

  31. Daniel, you confusing the issue.
    When I said statistical I meant it is EXPECTED that certain percentage of people will have a pathological condition in question. Genetics play role in disease inheritance etc.
    But functioning normal is a different thing. Normal attraction is the one that is for the opposite gender.
    Abnormal is for the same gender, or for animals, or corpses.. … and on and on…
    That was my point. You’re adding to it, as IF I care less for people, calling them statistics.

  32. Konstantin,
    Okay – I’ll take you at your word. Though your repeated desire to go to attraction to animals, corpses, children, etc says to me that you are just trying to demonize. As if being attracted to another consenting adult is no different than the being attracted to a corpse… I know, to you it isn’t different but try working up an opposite sex attraction when you are gay then come talk to me – It ain’t gonna happen.
    There are going to be some gay people in the world. And some bisexual, and some transgendered and some hermaphrodites and some blind ones, and some autistic ones, etc. What Dr. Brown does here is try to cast blame on gay activists – instead of taking it himself. I get his point. I’m even willing to see a tiny sliver of the reasoning – but the fact that Dr. Brown can’t take one iota of the responsibility himself for the de-humanizing rhetoric that he continues and continues to pour forth… that says volumes.
    As my grandmother always said – “It takes all kinds of people to make up a world.” Dr. Brown would say “it takes the right kind of people to make up a world – and I get to pick.”

  33. You know what. I’ll bite.
    Doc Brown, Gays shouldn’t have to hide. This is the biggest tenant in their collective movement. They shouldn’t have to preten to be something they’re not, for fear of upsetting the status quo. And the best way for this to come across is to get the status quo to realize that they’re acting like jerks. Ok, according to an old book that a lot of people like, gays are cast in a negative light. So what? They can’t change this (seriously, they can’t. I’m not sure if you’re one of those people who believe in that “pray the gay away” nonsense, but it’s been thoroughly debunked by the scientific community). They’re always going to be attracted to the same sex. They’re just wired like that. Now, as you’ve already stated, we don’t know when physical attraction starts in an individual, but even if (for the sake of argument) being homosexual was a 100% voluntary choice, then so what? Still not a reason to keep them down, or hide themselves from the majority. Variety is the spice of life, after all. We need to have a culture that’s ok with embracing change. And truthfully, this is a pretty harmless change. They’re not going to molest our children or rape us in the street (not saying you said this. Just throwing out some of the other fear-mongering I’ve heard), they’re not going to “turn” other people (that’s impossible). They’re just trying to live their lives just as well as the rest of us. They want to be able to be open about their attraction to others whenever they want and at whatever age, just like us. They want to be able to marry their significant other and reap the government benefits awarded to them, just like us.

    Do you see anything wrong with that?

  34. Daniel,

    You wrote, “the fact that Dr. Brown can’t take one iota of the responsibility himself for the de-humanizing rhetoric that he continues and continues to pour forth… that says volumes. As my grandmother always said – ;It takes all kinds of people to make up a world.’ Dr. Brown would say ‘it takes the right kind of people to make up a world – and I get to pick.’”

    First, I have no problem taking responsibility for the sins and failings of the church in terms of our dealing with LGBT people. See, e.g., http://coalitionofconscience.askdrbrown.org/resources/debate.html. But I take issue with your reference to “de-humanizing rhetoric.” Is it dehumanizing to say that God has a better way than homosexuality or transgenderism? Is it dehumanizing to say that I care about LGBT people but differ with some of their morality or values or worldview?

    Second, when did I ever say or imply that I want the right to pick who makes up our world?

    I look forward to your responses.

  35. Daniel, re: your post #18, when did I ever say or imply that being gay was a choice?

  36. Dr Brown’s writings and responses appear to me to be intellectual and compassionate . From my reading, it appears that he truly cares for the homosexual community ….And cares more than many heterosexuals who appear to be in denial and fear of offering help, counsel, or discipline in this case.
    It is hard for homosexuals, adulterers, (or pick your sin), living in a place of self gratification to detach ourselves from lifestyles and emotions and simply to look at facts. Although we may not like facts because they do not support our agenda, they are the facts. Take emotion and self indulgence out of the picture and one can understand facts. BUT, while we enjoy (or struggle with) our sin, let’s not let facts get in the way!

  37. Konstantin,

    Romans 1:21-23 “21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. ”

    Romans 2:1 ” You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things.”

    You really need to take things in the context they were written. You cannot use Romans 1:26-27 as stand alone verses because of HOW the verses are written. Verse 26 starts with “Because of this”… Verse 24 starts with “Therefore”… you have to start reading at verse 21 to get the full meaning.

  38. I had never visited this site before today, and I probably never will again. I read this piece because a good friend of mine sent it to me. I wish I could say with some degree of sincerity that I found it helpful, uplifting, or even interesting… But what seems to be taking place here isn’t really any of those things.

    I grew up the pastor’s son in a conservative, evangelical Christian church. I’m grateful for my family, my faith, for the way I was raised, and for my relationship with God because it forms the basis of my identity.

    I’m also proud to be gay. I know that’s going to ruffle some feathers, but I couldn’t care less. I’m proud because I know that I am a child of God, created in his image, and I am exactly who he designed me to be.

    To the author, and to the commenters who defend his remarks: If you think this is love, you’ve sorely missed the mark. Some of the things I’ve read here are irresponsible and even reckless for anyone professing to be a Christian, especially when hard truth on these matters remains elusive for even the most learned. If only you could walk a day in the shoes of anyone whose entire life experience you so quickly and righteously invalidate…

    To my fellow gays and allies spending countless hours responding to this nonsense: Why bother? They like it. They feed on it. This isn’t how hearts will be changed. Your time is worth more than this. Leave them to their vitriol and engage with people who are genuinely interested in better understanding who you are.

    Jonathan, 28

  39. Tim,

    I’m sure Konstantin has a response as well, but based on your reasoning, ANY sin mentioned by Paul in his list here in Romans 1 must be viewed through your same exegetical lens. Do you honestly hold to that view? In point of fact, Paul is talking about the descent of humanity into sin and uncleanness, rather than saying that each person who sins in any of his ways go through this same progression. That’s why many gay scholars also acknowledge that Paul clearly taught that all homosexual practice was sinful. For further discussion, go here: http://coalitionofconscience.askdrbrown.org/resources/2007_lecture_monday.html.

  40. Can some of these discussions be simplified? If there is no afterlife, neither heaven nor hell, why not live as we want? IF there is a heaven and a hell are there certain requirements to get into either?
    What choice do we have? Where is the default location if we don’t make a choice?
    Does anybody really care as long as we have our wants and desires met?
    What will it be like IF there is a Judgement? Fear…I’m sorry, I didn’t think You were real, I was basically a good person…alot better than some of the Christians I knew….but God, how can you send me to a place of torment, burning flesh….HELL, forever?

  41. I am part of the creation, a created being, NOT the Creator. I can’t change the rules of a game I did not create. Like it or not, I’m here to play….my own rules….or God’s. TODAY it doesn’t matter….tomorrow…..10 years from now….maybe, IF God is real and this ‘game of life’ was created by Him.

  42. Thanks, Dr. Brown, for pointing this out.
    I did plan on saying similar to what you expressed as “descent of humanity into sin”.
    Contrary to secular popular opinion that monotheism was preceded by polytheism this passage seem to imply contrary view. True knowledge of God existed from the start, but those (majority) who decided to do their own will degraded more and more.I
    In verses 19-20 ["...because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,"] Paul establishes that true and honest person can arrive at recognition that God created all that is created, and that nobody can seek excuse similar to that of Bertrand Russel. Russell’s reply when asked what he would say if he died and found himself confronted by God, demanding to know why Russell had not believed in him was this – “Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence. “. Well, I don’t think this is good enough excuse. I think on that Paul would agree with me.
    Whatever the case, I see a direct parallel between verses 19-20 and 26-28 [" For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting"] where Paul in parallel with “being understood by the things that are made” uses “natural use” and “against the nature”. It is more than obvious that physiological complementarity (not mentioning emotional, psychological etc etc) of men and women is viewed here as that which is manifested to all people…

  43. Hugh, thanks for your post and your civil tone in the midst of such an emotionally fraught issue. A few responses.

    First, we have an open society with certain freedoms and laws. To the extent you or I don’t abuse those freedoms or violate those laws, we’re free to be who we are. Should one point of view prevail in our society, then that would have an effect on the other view. But when it comes to kids in our schools, there must be responsibility and care, and I am very much against making our kids pawns in the culture wars or introducing sexual themes to them before their time (or, against their parent’s wishes).

    Second, while same-sex orientation is not chosen, behavior is, and everyone can control their behavior. As for the possibility that sexual orientation can sometimes be changed, there’s actually plenty of scientific and anecdotal evidence that supports that. I believe the stories of those who told me that couldn’t change, and I believe the stories of those who told me they did change. And from a gospel perspective, all things are possible with the Lord.

    Third, you wrote, “even if (for the sake of argument) being homosexual was a 100% voluntary choice, then so what? Still not a reason to keep them down, or hide themselves from the majority. Variety is the spice of life, after all. We need to have a culture that’s ok with embracing change. And truthfully, this is a pretty harmless change.” To be sure, you’re free to live however you like, as long as you don’t break the law (the same with me), but can you see that some of us take issue with homosexual behavior, especially when it is aggressively pushed on us (through media and other means) and kids are indoctrinated in schools to believe that there’s no moral distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality? Obviously, you don’t agree with me here, but can you see any reason why we would feel this way?

    Fourth, you wrote, “They want to be able to marry their significant other and reap the government benefits awarded to them, just like us. Do you see anything wrong with that?”

    Yes, I see plenty wrong with that. Redefining marriage has many, serious negative consequences, and the only reason the state conveys benefits on marriage is because marriage conveys benefits on the state, and that can only be realized in a heterosexual marriage.

    If you’re able to read my book, A Queer Thing Happened to America, you’ll see that in many ways, gay activism has changed America for the worse, and things continue to get worse as a result of it. By all means, we should be civil and gracious to all people regardless of their sexual identity, but that doesn’t mean we endorse or celebrate or embrace all sexual behavior or romantic attraction, nor does it mean we throw out our moral and spiritual convictions because of the sexual and romantic desires of others.

    Again, thanks for your post.

  44. Johnathan,
    @ your “I’m also proud to be gay. I know that’s going to ruffle some feathers, but I couldn’t care less. I’m proud because I know that I am a child of God, created in his image, and I am exactly who he designed me to be. … …Leave them to their vitriol and engage with people who are genuinely interested in better understanding who you are.”
    – I don’t want to be very rude, but this is a display of some sort of narcissism. First, you say you care less, then you think there are people around who are “genuinely interested in better understanding who you are”. As if people pile up in lines to find out what is so special about ‘gay” life. It just sounds weird.
    On one hand, you claim “relationship with God which forms the basis of you identity.” then you say you “care less” about other Christians views.
    In 1 Corinthians 8:12-13 we read “But when you thus sin against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble.” Now, what sort of attitude is the one in which you “care less” ?
    First, practicing homosexuality is against Christian scriptures, and 2000 year old tradition, then you say you care less, and then you expect people genuinely be interested in understanding who you are…
    Sounds more like you’re constructed your own comfortable view of reality, and closed eyes to objective one

  45. “Please tell me when and where Dr. King and other civil rights leaders encouraged irresponsible or flaunting behavior from black children in white areas”

    You mean, being uppity? Marching in the streets? Attending white schools, even if they required an escort from National Guardsmen to do it? Flaunting their Blackness, their Negritude for all to see?

    Like this?

    As for the accusations of sexual misbehaviour – none of those were witnessed, were they? All gossip and rumour, that the victim, being dead, cannot refute. You know what the Bible says about those who spread gossip, Dr B.

    Possibly the last words the victim spoke expressed a wish to change her name to Letitia. I’m honouring that wish, post-mortem, not because it was “legally changed”, but as the only act of kindness I can do for her.

  46. Zoe, to the extent civil rights leaders encouraged black kids to attend white schools (although in America, the government decides which kids go to which public schools), they fully understood they were exposing those kids to danger, and yes, they were complicit on some level with the consequences. In fact, they sometimes debated these issues as to potential consequences. So, in that regard, you have proven my point. LGBT leaders need to take some level of responsibility.

    With regard to Larry’s behavior, it was witnessed by many students and testified to in court by teachers and others. Why do you question what is commonly known? For a detailed and sympathetic account of Larry’s tragic life and death, see here: http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/07/18/young-gay-and-murdered.html.

  47. The Days of Sodom and Gomorrah and Noah are Here Just like Jesus predicted they would happen before his return.
    I will only state what the Bible says in the Book of Revelation Jesus words specifically says That no HOMOSEXUAL will enter the kingdom of heaven.Can’t get any clearer than that !and those are his own words. the last chapter in that book also says that if anyone takes the words of that book and adds to them or takes away from them then all of the plagues and curses mentioned in it wll happen to them. Stick to the specific scriptures that forbid HOMOSEXUALITY and all these arguments can be avoided because your quoting Jesus words..Let those who disagree take it up with Christ himself He said it …O wait …they will take it up with Christ …on Judgement day:)

  48. Zoe, and let’s never forget that there is a world of difference between skin color or ethnicity and sexual behavior, let alone sexual misbehavior.

  49. God bless you, Dr. Brown,
    You truly do love homosexuals (by wishing the best — but, God’s best — for them): that is another tragedy — that many people cannot see that. I do not know you, but I know you are a servant of the God Who is Love.

    I wish these people could see; on the Judgment Day, all will be revealed, but it will be too late for many, by then. It is very sad that they choose not to see the Truth — sad, indeed.

    God’s blessings on you

  50. a man who thinks he’s a woman (zoe) here again… with same old …”queers are blacks”.
    comparing queer pathological behavior to ethnic group is like comparing shapes to colors…they’re not even in same category, How in the world can you compare mental pathological condition to physical characteristics?
    However humane, loving, or caring one can be… truth of the matter demands recognition that man is not a woman, and for man to desire being a woman is not normal by any means. Same can be said of attraction: a man attracted to other men, or woman to women is not normal.
    It doesn’t rule out complex causes, perhaps let’s grant genetic causes. That is irrelevant. Causes are not the same as condition in question. Causes may or may not be genetic, or societal, or psychological… the fact remains very straightforward: man are men and for them to be attracted to anyone or anything but females is pathological, and for women to have attractions to anything and anyone but opposite gender is pathological.

    For African, or Asian, or European, or Indian … or whatever, it is normal to be who they are since it has to do with physical characteristics, not projected pathological desires to change gender, or mutilate own body, or desire what is not normal and natural.

  51. God bless you Dr. Brown. Sin always blinds us to some degree or another to the truth of God’s word. It also hardens our hearts the longer we indulge in it and refuse to turn away from it and embrace God. It’s the same ancient story of rebellion and, just as the Bible predicted; the day has come where many have abandoned the truth for a lie and call the truth a lie and a lie the truth. When confronted with the truth, many sinners will spew venom like that serpent and father of all lies, Satan. Those that hatefully attack you for loving them enough to tell them the truth are the real haters and intolerant in society and should realize that their sinful actions and hateful thoughts and words will eventually lead them to perpetrate the same physical violence they say they are so vehemently against.

  52. It’s Interesting to note that in the 50′s and 60′s Homosexuals would be admitted to psychiatric hospitals and were kept there because it was considered a mental illness back then, how in the world has the view changed to accept it now? We have more tolerance these days yes but there isnt the same tolerance for other pscyhiatric illnesses like this oneand this one is the worst! they dont let other mentally Ill patients run around rampant instead they are locked up this day and age.Interesting that Homosexuals are no longer considered abnormal ora psychiatric condition to the general masses.We have become too tolerant of everything these days . The most heinous crimes ever committed in History from Nero for example and more were all crimes of HOMOSEXUALITY..Every Heinous type crime committed in society today has a homosexual act in the crime somewhere . Im talking Heinous now (The worst) not just someone shooting his wife I mean the worst of Evil crimes always involve this perversion from Paedos to Serial Killers etc… and were trying to make this a tolerable thing in todays society? My goodness we ARE in the last days!

  53. Dr. Brown – I hadn’t really known if I’d considered you a monster – but I just watched a good part of the link you sent and can now say, Count me with those who call you monstrous. You present such a thoughtful loving persona right before you bring up people attracted to excrement – and then quickly say, I’m not comparing gays to that — nanoseconds after you did just that. Then bring up man/boy love – and then try to say you aren’t saying gays are pedophiles – though knowing full well that is the result and association that you are playing on.
    I believe in the universal truth of scripture – and I do believe that we can delude ourselves into perverse thinking patterns, as you have so clearly done to yourself. I consider you WORSE than the gay-haters, because you have learned the artful disguise of compassion. I much more fully understand where you are coming from. Sad. Sad. Sad. But, there’s no sense in me trying to change your mind on any of this. So, on that count I’ll take the advice of an earlier poster and give up on that. You and the other anti-gay activists and posters are not the audience, but the people. Absent some catastrophic event – which you, I’m sure you would be quick to interpret as God’s judgment on society – the war you wage is a futile one. Just as you won’t convince an ordered society to re-embrace slavery and misogyny, you also won’t get them to continue embracing this discrimination. The younger generations are much quicker to see it for what it is. (One person’s indoctrination is another person’s teaching) You will continue to make a nice living demonizing gays (which, though you claim not to, you are by bringing up every sadistic or sensational sexual activity you can in relation to them – which, I hope you know are all ALSO practiced by many heterosexuals as well), you will make a nice living because there are many with a triggered responsive hatred of gays. Just as there are always those who will make a living pushing those racial divides our society programs in us. But, as each generation passes you will be pushed further and further to the fringe of society. That is a very good thing. However, should a great famine or plague or natural disaster occur – the folks like you, the fringe, the fanatical and the fearful will be there to impose your rule once again on a desperate society. So, in that sense, though the victory is on the side of acceptance – you should take heart that your kind will not completely die out. The cycle will someday begin again as we move backward. For now, I wish you nothing but the constant echoing of the Holy Spirit and hope someday it may pierce this horrible cloud of hatred that you have manufactured around yourself. I can only imagine that there are some deep-seated obsessions and dark places that make you so concentrated and fixated on sexual dysfunction.
    On a side note – I couldn’t help but laugh at how one of the fateful followers here puts a little smiley face after judgment day. Oh, how they want people to see judgment day. They smile at the thought of the eternal punishment of millions. That says so much – the amount of anger, bitterness and hatred that is truly behind many who claim God’s love in their lives.
    And a note to Konstantin – who I have bantered with. Have fun worshipping your god – the book.

  54. You know, I think your first article made you look more compassionate towards the whole situation. I actually agreed with you on a few points, but after reading this one, I feel like the people who wrote hateful things to you had found a few nuggets of truth that they blew out of proportion instead of thinking that they had entirely made things up altogether.

    It’s one thing to say that the kid shouldn’t have been sexually provoking his killer and that the gay community could have given him resources to express his frustration at being one of the few gay kids in his school with unrequited crushes, it’s another thing to say that putting off coming out would have been a better idea. This response to your original article emphasizes that point. By no means are you an activist trying to make things better for kids struggling with their sexualities, you’re someone who just wants them to disappear.

  55. Dear Michael Brown,
    Imagine if Noah quit preaching righteousness to his generation (even though they still refused to listen) They all laughed and mocked him thinking there was nothing wrong with their behavior and hated him.He preached to them not because He hated them but because He knew what was coming. You are a modern day Noah .No one is listening they hate you for trying to warn them of whats to come and just like in Noahs time the rain drops started to fall and it was too late just like one day it will be too late and Christ will return as Judge this next time.. It’s His mercy He has waited and been trying to warn us all .Jesus said b4 He comes back It will be the same way it was in Noahs time .So its an educated guess to say that many will not listen now just like then.
    Jesus has given us all 2,000 plus years to change our evil ways before he brings the Final judgement (Theres a reason its called that of course its not going to be a fun timebut it must happen because along with being Merciful god is JUST and He cannot deny that part of His natureas somethink He has done)SO..Keep crying out your doing Gods will !!!not wanting someone to perish isnt Evil its having compassion for their soul!
    I dont know why they are mad at you? you’re just quoting the Bible.really its God they hate because it says that by a persons actions they hate God, if they say they love God but do not live a Holy life.So it is those who oppose you that are the haters and Monsters their true thoughts are being exposed by their responses to the truth of the Gospel because they are really opposing Gods words in the Bible
    .Jesus also said if they Hated Him they will hate his followers also. So count it as a blessing..You are VERY blessed then Mr.Brown in Gods eyes as you are so hated by the world.The Bible also says that He who loves the world has not the love of the father in them. Homosexuality is a huge way of the world in all its lusts and carnality.People really reject and hate God not you because He is the Message your just the messenger who unfortunatly keeps getting shot. If anyone claims to know the HOLY spirit then their lifestyle will show the fruit of it which is Holiness and not the carnal nature that is listed in the book of Galations..Please stop calling Brown a Monster Hes just quoting what Jesus says So really you are Calling Jesus the Monster //

  56. Konstantin wrote : “a man who thinks he’s a woman (zoe) here again”

    In 1985, the doctors would have agreed with you. I was diagnosed, on the basis of a superficial physical examination and some hormonal blood tests as an “undervirilised male” then, after all.

    In 2005, as the result of having a partial female puberty, I was given rather more tests. Blood tests, gene tests, ultrasounds, MRI scans, hormone tests, all the tests 21st medical science has in its arsenal.

    The resultant diagnosis was “severely androgenised non-pregnant woman”. I commenced treatment to complete the change shortly thereafter – and incidentally, remove cancer risks, fix up my urinary tract etc; the change wasn’t “magical”, it left things in a bit of a mess.

    So – why do you say I’m a man? You must have some reason. Do you think that’s what is written the birth certificate determines that? Mine says “boy” after all – just as that of some men who have fathered children says “girl”, female-to-male changes are rather more common.

    Or are you just intending to insult? To denigrate, as you can’t answer my arguments with anything but an ad hominem attack? Much as Dr B and myself have some really significant differences, neither of us have resorted to such Anti-Christian behaviour.

    Konstantin, please do some research on the area, OK? 5-alpha-reductase-2 deficiency, 17-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency, and 3-beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase deficiency can all cause “natural sex changes”, as can a number of other conditions. I know you probably find that idea unsettling – I certainly do – but really, biological facts no more (and no less) contradict the Bible than does space travel or meteorology. There’s no “firmament”, no “windows of heaven”, no “storehouses of snow and hail”.

  57. “With regard to Larry’s behavior, it was witnessed by many students and testified to in court by teachers and others. ”

    Read the transcript please Dr B. No, the stories were all 2nd or 3rd hand (with one exception). A mother said her son had complained about Letititia harassing him after being shoved around.
    “In the locker room, where he was often ridiculed, he got even by telling the boys, “You look hot,” while they were changing, according to the mother of a student.”

    The first-hand accounts are all about harrassment, often sexual harrassment, the other way:
    “In gym class, some of his friends say that the boys would shove him around in the locker room. After he started dressing up, he was ridiculed even more. He lost a high heel once and the boys tossed it around at lunch like a football. ”

    You seem to put great store in the Father’s testimony – even though he beat his child, which is why she was removed from his care.

    The one exception?
    “And then there was Valentine’s Day. A day or two before the shooting, the school was buzzing with the story about a game Larry was playing with a group of his girlfriends in the outdoor quad. The idea was, you had to go up to your crush and ask them to be your Valentine. Several girls named boys they liked, then marched off to complete the mission. When it was Larry’s turn, he named Brandon, who happened to be playing basketball nearby. Larry walked right on to the court in the middle of the game and asked Brandon to be his Valentine…. At the end of lunch, Brandon passed by one of Larry’s friends in the hall. She says he told her to say goodbye to Larry, because she would never see him again.”

    Letitia did what other girls did. And was cold-bloodedly executed for it some time later. Tell me, if one of the other girl’s “crushes” would have been gay, and killed her (let’s take it as read that that’s a horrible crime with no excuse)… do you honestly believe that the jury would have considered a charge of manslaughter? That, contrary to the Gwen Araujo Justice for Victims Act, there’s still a double-standard?

  58. Konstantin, how convenient that you skip Romans 1:21-25. You go from God says they are without excuse straight to the sex stuff… and then want to go backwards… because they do what you consider unnatural, God must have given up on them… Unfortunately the verses are not written that way. The way they are written is that God says they are without excuse, but they worshiped idols even while knowing God, so God gave up on them, and let them do things that were unnatural for them. It doesn’t give you a way to go backwards. But then you also ignore Romans 2 which starts with a rebuke for those who condemn the people mentioned in Romans 1.

    End is near, WHERE in Revelation is homosexuality mentioned? I can’t seem to find it, nor is it mentioned in any reference material I have.

    Disclaimer — I speak only for myself on how I interpret Scripture through my own study and prayer. This is where God has lead me. I do not expect anyone else to take my interpretation as anything other than my interpretation… just like I do not expect anyone to take Micheal Brown’s interpretation as anything other than Michael Brown’s interpretation. Read, study, and pray. Let God lead you where He will.

  59. Daniel,

    What is truly sad is that you woefully misinterpret my words and claim I’m putting on some kind of act. I imagine you ultimately view God and His Word like: Refusing to believe reality and instead you have to create a reality of your own.

    I’m not concerned about the myth of who I am that you create (my alleged “loving persona” and “disguise of compassion” as opposed to recognizing love that tells the truth, regardless of whether it is popular or not), but I am concerned about your own inability to see and hear truth for what it is.

    You see, if you recognize that I’m speaking words of genuine love and compassion, then you’ll have to wrestle with what I was really communicating as opposed to what you believe I was intending to communicate. It is the Holy Spirit of whom you speak who moved on me so strongly to address these issues and to proclaim to the LGBT community that God has a better way, and it is the clear and absolute truth of the Word that confirms that.

    May the Lord reveal His grace and truth to you so that you can truly understand and know Him. That will make all the difference.

  60. Nicole, why do you think I took the time to write these articles? Why tackle such an unpopular subject when you know before you do that you’ll be reviled and misunderstood? This is not a rhetorical question and I would honestly like to hear your response.

  61. Tim, are you aware that your interpretation is rejected by the great majority of the top Romans’ scholars in the world? Does that concern you at all? You might want to keep studying and praying before so quickly dismissing the views that you reject. And, in fact, both Konstantin and I addressed the objection that you raised again. Apparently, you’re missing the points we are making.

  62. Not that my opinion is worth anything, but I really don’t think Dr B is “acting” or “pretending”. He genuinely believes what he says.

    I can’t account for some of that. He continually quotes discredited sources – those who have distorted studies, much to the researchers’ disgust. It’s not that he’s not been made aware that the sources he quotes are misleading, inaccurate, and in places, downright falsehoods.

    For examples, see http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-not-enough-to-call-them-bigots.html

    “It’s Interesting to note that in the 50′s and 60′s Homosexuals would be admitted to psychiatric hospitals and were kept there because it was considered a mental illness back then, how in the world has the view changed to accept it now?”

    Because when the issue was looked at, there was no evidence that it was a mental illness – it had been assumed to be, because of social and moral disapproval of homosexuality. The same phenomenon was present in the same era in the late, unlamented Soviet Union. Dissidents were diagnosed with “sluggish schizophrenia” – that is, schizophrenia without any symptoms and “delusions of Democracy”.

    To take the most charitable view of the psychiatrists concerned – they may have though “who in their right mind would choose to be Homosexual in 1960′s USA” – or anti-Communist in 1960′s USSR?

  63. Tim, I love your word play! :D
    “because they do what you consider unnatural” as opposed to “let them do things that were unnatural for them”
    Let me zoom in on that. “you consider” vs. “for them”.
    Unfortunately this is not exegesis at all, this is some sort of psychoanalysis about what I consider or what is “for them”. Exegesis is about getting grips with original meaning in context. That’s not what you seem to be concerned with at all…

    @”WHERE in Revelation is homosexuality mentioned? I can’t seem to find it, nor is it mentioned in any reference material I have.”
    – This is another hilarious (or perhaps sad) one liner. You know, that arguments from silence are not good arguments, right? To get a point across, WHERE in the Revelation is necrophilia mentioned? I can’t seem to find it? Hmmm. WHERE in the Revelation is cannibalism of aborted fetuses mentioned? Hmmm. I cannot find it. Maybe it is time to eat aborted corpses, because they are thrown away anyways. What a good argument from silence …

  64. Zoe, thanks for recognizing the sincerity of my motives. Please also realize that we each seem to believe one another’s sources are unreliable or have been discredited, which is why we generally cite the sources we do, believing them to be accurate.

  65. Dr B – regarding sources:

    Here’s one example:

    ony Perkins, leader of the “Family Research Council” said “pro-homosexual activists like to claim that pedophilia is a completely distinct orientation from homosexuality; evidence shows a disproportionate overlap between the two.”

    Perkins argues that “almost all child molesters are male and less than 3 percent of men are homosexual, about a third of all child sex abuse cases involve men molesting boys–and in one study, 86 percent of such men identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.”

    The statistics he cites are from a report assembled by Perkin’s own Family Research Council.

    Titled “Homosexuality and Child Sexual Abuse” this report was written by Dr. Timothy J. Dailey, a staffer at FRC. Dailey’s Ph.D is in Religion, not psychology. Within its contents, FRC uses as its basis evidence from studies written and compiled by A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D.

    Note that in a June 2002 letter later published by the Human Rights Campaign, Dr. Groth wrote to the Family Research Council asking that his name be withdrawn from the FRC’s report. Groth wrote, “homosexual men pose less risk of sexual harm to children from both an absolute and a percentage incidence rate-than heterosexual males.” Groth also said in the same letter “I would appreciate your removing any reference to my work in your paper lest it appear to the reader that my research supports your views.”

    Note also that the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Child Psychiatrists, the National Association of Social Workers and the Child Welfare League of America have all stated that there is no correlation between homosexuality and child abuse.

    Now anyone can make a mistake, and misinterpret a scientific report, especially if one has no training in the area. But once made aware of the error, to continue to state that Dr Groth’s supports their case when he’s plainly stated that he does not, that’s “bearing false witness”, not a mistake, but deliberate and malicious lying.

    Again I refer you to the long, long list of researchers whose works have been distorted by various Anti-Gay groups, groups that you yourself have placed your faith in. It is misplaced, and please look at the evidence that proves that. Don’t take my word for it, look at what the authors themselves say about how their work has been distorted. The following is typical:

    “Over the past few months we have learnt of a number of reports regarding a paper we published in the International Journal of Epidemiology on the gay and bisexual life expectancy in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. From these reports it appears that our research is being used by select groups in US and Finland to suggest that gay and bisexual men live an unhealthy lifestyle that is destructive to themselves and to others. These homophobic groups appear more interested in restricting the human rights of gay and bisexuals rather than promoting their health and well being. “ — Robert S Hogg, Steffanie A Strathdee, Kevin JP Craib, Michael V O’shaughnessy, Julio Montaner and Martin T Schechter

    The report deliberately restricted itself to a specific group of people living a risky lifestyle in specific cities, and further excluded those who were heterosexual. Other reports only looked at heterosexuals exhibiting the same behaviour, who also showed a reduced life expectancy – a reduction that has grown since then, while the (greater) reduction for gays has shrunk dramatically. The group most at risk today are black American inner-city women, not due to their own behaviour, but that of their philandering heterosexual partners.

    None of this matters to those who distorted this report. It’s as if someone had written a research paper on black prison inmates, and that was then misused by racists to claim that all blacks were criminals.

    Honesty requires me to state that the “bathhouse culture” that I’m told is popular in certain gay circles (though by no means the norm) is very risky indeed, involving not just promiscuous sex, but drug use and a variety of criminal activities. Rather like your own past, Dr B, so you’d have a better idea than I would just how self-destructive that behaviour is. I’m glad that you got out of that situation. In that way, you’re a better person than I am, as I was and am extremely straight-arrow, I haven’t been tested as you have. I’ve never stolen, never taken illicit drugs, never been promiscuous – heck I was over 21 before I ever kissed anyone. I’ve never been tempted, so can claim no virtue. My sins are just as numerous of course, just in different areas.

  66. Zoe, I could easily dispute endless sources cited by “pro-gay” organizations. In fact, the last year’s report by the SPLC labeling different organizations as “hate” groups was a classic example of distortion, as I pointed out here: http://www.voiceofrevolution.com/2010/11/29/the-southern-poverty-law-center-debunks-itself/.

    But that’s not what we are discussing. You claim the sources I’m citing are sometimes flawed, and I claim yours are sometimes flawed (or highly biased, which, of course, is a flaw). Sadly, your own life situation produces another kind of bias, albeit a sincere one, causing you to posthumously change the name of a very confused boy, from Larry to Leticia. I’d encourage you to read Walter Heyer’s own story. He actually went through sex-change surgery (MTF) only to discover years later that he was actually suffering from Multiple Personality Disorder, which, when resolved, eliminated his “transgender” identity. He is now happily married to a woman, although physically disfigured for life because of his previous surgery. He also exposes terrible flaws in the medical and psychiatric profession that accommodated his surgery.

  67. Konstantin — Please read post #45 again. “End is near” (that’s the handle this person wants to be known as, so I am using it as such) states that it is CLEAR from JESUS’ words that homosexuals will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven. I just want to know WHERE in Revelation that is so I can study it further. If it is not in Revelation, then “End is near” has misspoken. I just want clarification. Apparently you agree with me that it is not in Revelation, or you can not find it either — but instead of helping me study these things, you dismiss me. My reading of the Bible says that ALL who believe in Christ will be saved and are not condemned. It is through grace that we are saved and not any works we might do. You don’t want to believe I am a Christian, that is your right. Honestly, my faith is between me and God, and, frankly, you don’t enter into the picture when it comes to MY faith.

  68. Tim,

    Two questions for you:

    1) Do you believe what is written in 1 Cor 6:9-11; Gal 5:19-21; Eph 5:5-7, among other, related passages?

    2) Putting aside totally the issue of homosexuality, and just focusing on your notion of what salvation “by grace through faith” actually means, let’s say a serial rapist and murderer asks you if he can still be saved, simply by believing in what Jesus did on his behalf, while continuing to kill and rape? What would you tell such a person, based on your reading of the Bible?

    I sincerely look forward to your responses.

  69. @Tim,
    “It is through grace that we are saved and not any works we might do. You don’t want to believe I am a Christian, that is your right. Honestly, my faith is between me and God, and, frankly, you don’t enter into the picture when it comes to MY faith.”
    – Tim, first and foremost, everything basically is contingent on your definition of “faith”, through which we are saved. What is it, and who has it and how does he know he has it, and how others can know he has it?
    As John Chrysostom (who became one of my favorite authors of 4 century period) would say, it is easy to believe in dogma, living it out is what’s hard. Sure, we ARE saved through faith. James 2:18 says “But someone may well say, “You have faith and I have works; show me your faith without the works, and I will show you my faith by my works.”… I hope you’re not saying to me that we are by no means saved by faith + works (!!), but by faith + sins?
    To help with your rampant individualism, which characterized with complete indifference to other Christians and Christian discipline and accountability in general, please go to Amazon and buy “Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience”. It is amazing how you say “you don’t enter into the picture when it comes to MY faith”, as IF we have our own “faiths”, each with it’s own set of virtues and vices, which may or may not overlap. :D I don’t know where you got this idea, but I suspect it is a direct influence of one of the most powerful western ideologies – individualism. (It is not that hard to see for me, since I was not born in US, but let me mention one very descriptive example… I was listening once to audio by J.P.Moreland, who teaches philosophy at BIOLA, and he mentioned how he listened to the presentation given by children who reasoned against smoking, and he (Moreland) said that, as he expected, all of their reasons had to do with self interests, and how it would harm their health, life pursuits etc. Not a single one of them mentioned how it would harm relatives, society, or anything or anyone beyond themselves…. You get the point. Much worse though, when it is spoken from presumably Christian mouth of a grown up. I am here to put you down in that sense, but I think you need to change a perspective a bit… especially when it runs contrary to hundreds of years of Christian teaching)

    @”but instead of helping me study these things, you dismiss me”
    - ok, to help you study these things, I could say that when God created male and female, He would expect nothing in the sexual relationships besides having male and female. It is a given, and as you know, there are not explicit and thorough list of all possible sexual perversions in the Bible, such as “do not commit homosexual sodomy with 3 persons. do not commit homosexual sodomy with 4 persons… with 2 men and one donkey… etc.” It is unnecessary. People perfectly knew before as they know now what sexual perversion looks like. A man dressed up in skirt wearing wig and behaving like a female is pretty obviously perverted. Furthermore, if Jesus would say homosexuals and those who practice bestiality are immoral, nobody would take a notice and write that down, any more as if Jesus would say one plus two equals to three. What’s the big deal? Everybody knows that! For the same reason, I THINK, there are no direct written prohibitions of homosexuality, or for that matter any other (dare I say) gross sexual perverted sins written in the New Testament as coming from the mouth of Jesus.
    I am not saying that those who practiced such are beyond salvation, or anything like that. I am saying that those were, and are, self-evident. As Paul said in 1 Cor. 6:11 “Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.” implying that God’s mercy extends to all layers and groups of society, and those who wills to abandon sinful life can do so with the power and grace of God.

  70. :D
    I have a funny typo. in previous post I meant:
    “I am here NOT to put you down in that sense…” and wrote “I am here to put you down in that sense”
    sorry that’s a typo!

  71. @Zoe,
    I understand your temptation and strategy to find Communists and Nazis as scape goats…. but you should resist temptations as they lead to bad things. In your case to very bad reasoning.
    You said: “Because when the issue was looked at, there was no evidence that it was a mental illness – it had been assumed to be, because of social and moral disapproval of homosexuality. The same phenomenon was present in the same era in the late, unlamented Soviet Union. Dissidents were diagnosed”
    There are two things I want to say to that and one things in general:
    (a) you present sexual perversion / sexual pathology as simple political issue
    (b) you assume that if you demonstrate something as being disliked by Nazis or Communists you establish therefore that the thing in question therefore is not bad
    (c) no progress can be done with discussion on this issue without preliminary consensus on the nature of the same-gender attraction.

    (a) so, you assert that Communists are simply were against homosexual practices because it was their political agenda? Well, what about stand against bestiality? Also a political agenda? What about street debauchery, prostitution, and child molestation? Also “their” political agenda? I understand that years of careful demonization of USSR by USA and USA by USSR led to lots of stereotypes and should you say word Communist, and add that they did not approve of homosexuality – perhaps it will lead to lot of followers. It is just ridiculous. I have to agree to some of what you’ve said though, but it includes many things. For instance, hard-core atheist Communists would/could place Christians in asylums [perhaps dream come true for Dick Dawkins, who argues along such lines]. Christians were also sent to ‘work-till-death’ camps too. In addition, of course same could have happened to pro-western political activists etc etc. I am saying, it is true that dissidents were treated badly. BUT, you also have to understand, that average person living on the street would go to work, provide for a family etc etc. Don’t get caught into stereotypical views as if all people in USSR were hard-core communists who meditated day and night as how to destroy America and incarcerate homosexuals. To conclude, your saying that the primary drive for ‘homosexual discrimination’ was political. But then, let’s move to next point…

    (b) if ‘denial of equality’ for queers was political, what was then denial of ‘equality’ for bestiality, or orgies, or necrophilia, or pedophilia? Also political? You see, perversions are come and go in bulks. If you argue that one is ‘alternative orientation’ then why not the others? If Nazis and Communists were against homosexuality, and against bestiality, and against necrophilia, and against pedophilia…. why are you not arguing that these are also ‘alternative orientations’ which were persecuted due to political reasons…? This lead us to the next point….

    (c) to make reasonable discussion about anything, all must agree on what is the nature of that which we are discussing. What is homosexuality? What is same-gender attraction? I say, any person with or without education, should be fast to respond that it is (1) unnatural, (2) disordered, and (3) pathological mental condition. For a Christian it is also a sin, and not a minor one.
    You said about queerness ” there was no evidence that it was a mental illness”. Well, let’s think for a second..:
    The very reason human beings have sexual attractions, are due to the sexual reproduction carefully orchestrated by Creator, to include both MALE and FEMALE. This is what a natural, and orderly, balanced and tuned human instrument plays (if I can use an analogy here). That is a relationship like a pretty melody where notes go where they should and it flows natural and beautiful physiologically, emotionally. psychologically, sociologically. spiritually, etc, etc. This is very easy to understand, and it takes zero academic degrees.
    Now, what are we to say about sexual perversions. pathologies, deviations, anomalies, sins, etc?
    Well, if normal, and orderly relationships are such that they presuppose by very necessity of having male and female, having anything else leads to disordered (to the point of being ugly and repulsive) melody, so to say.
    I mean, this is more than obvious. A man sexually attracted to other man, to a 6 year old girl, to a goat, or worse… cannot be seen with honesty as normal. This is so obvious that most if not all societies recognized that.
    Again, a reproductive system, presupposes opposite genders. Healthy parenting presupposes normal parents. Who in the world wishes for children to be raised by three males who happen to self-identify as three women, or two men and a woman, or perhaps as man, woman, and ze. This is not just blatant denial for obvious pathology, but very irresponsible as society, and insensitive to needs of children. What’s more it is insensitive to the needs of those who are mistakenly consider themselves as something other than they are… As I mentioned before, letting anorexic starve to death is not loving action to permit him/her do what she/he wills at a moment.
    I hope all sane and honest people see that man sexually attracted to other man is obviously not normal. So, then you say “there was no evidence that it was a mental illness”. Ok. What sort of illness is it, if not mental?
    Diabetes is not a mental illness since it has to do with biochemical machinery going disordered. Cancers result often when DNA replication does not work normally. or orderly… So what is the case for a man to be sexually attracted to another male, or a child, or a donkey? It has to be caused somewhere somehow? But since it has to do with mental characteristics – attraction – it has to be metal disorder. A man having man’s body, wishes to mutilate it to become somewhat resembling woman infertile body… is obviously disordered individual. Question then, again, is it mental or not? Well, if you look at one’s body and take blood samples, and all other possible samples, most likely you will not find anomalies there. Furthermore, even if you would, still the nature of anomaly has to do with how a person behaves and what he desires (i.e. to have woman’s body), thus making it a mental disorder…

    Last, but not least, if you don’t see it, let me point you to the fact that your expressions, and particularly quote I used above are sort of derogatory. They are derogatory in a sense that they imply we are so dumb that we cannot see the obvious fact of how perversion is anomalous, and you attempt to use comparisons between skin color and pathological sexual desires and hope we don’t catch it… That’s speaks volumes as to how our intelligence is perceived ;)

    Peace to all, and respect to Dr. Brown!

  72. The sole reason why I’m trying to get point across that queerness is pathological, anomalous sexual desire is because it is a fundamental issue. If queers would demand right to be treated instead of, let’s say, being executed, I would support right to treatment. But when they say they are ‘as normal’ if not better than so-called straight people, then this is where it becomes ridiculous… and frankly offensive, as I mentioned above in previous post.
    To tie this to the original article about Lawrence King, you may start to see a perspective. As a Christian, one does not practice nor endorses violence, but a person raised in secular environment may act violently to offensive implications. ….Especially, when anomalous sexual attraction is backed up by administration in school, calling it “his right to do so”.
    just saying

  73. Konstantin – “As John Chrysostom (who became one of my favorite authors of 4 century period) would say, “….
    The Earth is Flat. He was very big on that idea. He didn’t like Jews much either, as his sermon “Discourses Against the Jews” indicates.

  74. Zoe, you’re making yourself look less than intelligent.
    A lot could be said, but I can tell you have very little or no exposure to the man’s writings. And even if you were, it would make no difference, as knowledge of something does not guarantee any respect for it.. as was demonstrated by so-called instructor at CSULA when she taught ‘esthetics’ and commented on medieval painting of Jesus’ baptism with dove pooping on Him… or something like that. Point being, character gives away person with any degree or no degree. ;)
    @”He didn’t like Jews much either” well, Jews and pagans persecuted early church, so by the 4th century when Christianity became official Roman Church, there were three centuries to reflect upon … with, as I suspect, more then enough examples.
    @”The Earth is Flat. He was very big on that idea. ”
    whether it is flat or triangular, makes little difference as to whether something is vice or a virtue. If you brag so much about “our” current advances in knowledge, let me remind you that we live in time where consensus is still devoted to the most ridiculous ideology of naturalism, which should be dead already since about 1950s when discovery of DNA should have put Darwinism and its imaginary stories to rest once and for all. So, while certain views of physics have changes since Aristotle, I doubt ethics did. Whatever was considered virtuous by Aristotle is still considered virtuous despite his less than perfect ideas on how objects move…

  75. So there is NOTHING in Revelation about homosexuality??

    Michael Brown — Yes, I believe what is written in those verses… what I don’t agree with you about is how any of it is related to homosexuality et al.

    Konstantin — I do not believe in collective Salvation. My faith is between me and God, and is on display by my works, but my Salvation is not dependent on them. The works I do are a manifestation of my faith. There is NOTHING I can do that would be acceptable to God as I am a sinner, and everything I do is tainted by my sin. I also believe the same about you, as we are ALL sinners. I know I will sin until the day I die. The ONLY person to ever walk this earth who never sinned was Christ, and He will be the only person to do so until the end of the world.

  76. Tim,

    Thanks so much for your response.

    So, how do you reconcile those verses with your view that there’s nothing in our conduct that can in any way affect our salvation? And what is your reply to the serial rapist and murderer who wants to know if he can receive salvation from Jesus and continue in his sin? It should be a fairly simple answer for you, yet I didn’t see it in your reply.

    Also, how carefully have you studied the meaning of the two words associated with homosexual practice in 1 Cor 6:9-10? I find this note on the Online GLBTQ Encyclopedia to be very enlightening: “The meanings of these Greek nouns have been the subject of lively debate, largely provoked by gay authors anxious to show that Paul and the early church had not intended to condemn homosexuality per se as harshly as has been traditionally supposed, but only a degraded type of pederasty . . . associated with prostitution and child abuse.

    “Recent scholarship has shown conclusively that the traditional meanings assigned to these words stand.”

    So, even an online gay encyclopedia recognizes that Paul was talking about homosexual acts.

  77. I have a professor of empathetical rhetoric ( and a Christian) spending a few days with me to ‘study” me–she says some VERY interesting things about these exchanges and validates lots of what I think about all this. aside from that–hew do simple people know they are saved without the benefit of all this Word Wars? Some of you make the path to God sooooo difficult. Good night. going to sleep under that stars, again. He wrote His message there.

  78. @Tim,
    to your “I do not believe in collective Salvation” Yes, you don’t believe in collective salvation, but in “lone ranger” faith, with little or no accountability or care for other Christians and the community as whole. That’s why I told you to check you “Scandal of an Evangelical Conscience”. Perhaps, I have misunderstood you. Church is, and was a community. it is refereed to as body of Christ for a reason, with more than one comparison of different Church members to body parts (i.e. Romans 12), since we’re not lone rangers.
    @”I know I will sin until the day I die” Well, again, it depends what you mean… To take one extreme, think of Catholic priests who molested boys, and what sort of retribution they got? Simply moved to other church, as documented in “Deliver Us From Evil” DVD. As they describe “He [Oliver O’Grady] was merely transferred to a different perish time and time again and never more than 60 miles away from his previous location. ”
    Now, one can think “hmm, if all sin till the day they die, this makes good sense”. But this should not make sense in light of systematic analysis of New Testament. If priest were found guilty, he should not ever be a priest again. That’s my understanding. But if I were to take your view, understood in certain way (where all sin is equal), then, oh well what’s the big deal. We all sinners. One happens to be a child molester. That’s fine. We all sinners! let’s not be judgmental!
    Well, I don’t think this is a good theology. Again, I would take a chance to recommend “A Scandal of Evangelical Conscience”, and perhaps emphasis on 1 John.
    For example, 1 Cor. 6:9-11 says: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God. ”
    Gal. 5:19-21 ” The acts of the flesh are obvious: sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; idolatry and witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissensions, factions and envy; drunkenness, orgies, and the like. I warn you, as I did before, that those who live like this will not inherit the kingdom of God.”
    Emphasis on holy/virtuous life were a core of early Christian Church.
    To recall, your “I know I will sin until the day I die” may be understood in more than one way. If you talk about sanctification, sure, perhaps there will always be room for improvement. But to take other extreme, living a life that is characterized by sin is not an option.
    take for example:
    Eph. 5:8 “For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of light”

  79. Konstantin wrote:
    “@”The Earth is Flat. He was very big on that idea. ”
    whether it is flat or triangular, makes little difference as to whether something is vice or a virtue.”

    But whether someone is male or female does. When it comes to Intersex and Trans issues, some are making statements about biology that are as inaccurate as the statement that the Earth is Flat – and then condemning others on that flawed basis. While the ignorance is quite pardonable, justifying persecution and denigration on the basis of false statements is not.

  80. Konstantin wrote:
    I understand your temptation and strategy to find Communists and Nazis as scape goats…”

    The only Nazi involved was the killer. It would be difficult saying that someone whose bedroom was adorned with memorabiloa of the Hitler Youth, which he wrote of approvingly, without seeing a possible connection with Nazism. Those who deny such a connection because that’s inconvenient for their beliefs colud perhaps be seen as a little obtuse.

    “you assert that Communists are simply were against homosexual practices because it was their political agenda? ”
    No. I fail to see how anyone could interpret “dissident” as “homosexual”, but you’ve managed it, so I better be clear. No, I mean that their Faith in Marxism meant that they had to consider the desire for personal freedom to be axiomatically perverse and mentally unhealthy, by definition.

    The rest of your long post adduces axioms without evidence “The Earth is Flat, that’s obvious” – and argues from there. You mix Homosexuality with Pedophilia, the way some mix Christianity with Perversion – Cannibalism, adorning dwellings with representations of someone being tortured to death, ritual child abuse and so on.

    Such mixing is fundamentally dishonest.

  81. Kathy, salvation is a wonderful, free gift from our Father through Jesus, so simple a little child can receive it, but it is a gift that radically transforms us and one that requires radical obedience. And that’s the wonderful miracle of the new birth! The Lord literally changes us from the inside out, enabling us to cast off our old way of life and to become new creatures in Him. What a Savior!

  82. So, we are not saved BY living a new life, otherwise grace would not be grace, and we would still be under the old system of works righteousness. We are saved TO live a new life. How wonderful!

    (This continues post #79.)

  83. @Zoe,
    post on Marxists is funny: “desire for personal freedom to be axiomatically perverse and mentally unhealthy, by definition.”
    personal freedom and freedom to perversion are two different things. It is ironic and funny how westerners in general delight to do immoral things and say it is freedom and democracy issue. :D And if you don’t like it, you got to “hate” freedom…
    “Axioms with no evidence” ? :D
    A man sexually attracted to other man as being not normal requires more evidence? :D
    It is typically western sort of living in denial… well, not this method is getting global. But it is funny nonetheless.
    A man is attracted to a man or a goat, and it is somehow my burden of proof to show that it is disorderly either morally, psychologically or both.

  84. @ Kathy,
    I am sorry if I contribute to the confusion and make path to God look so difficult.
    But, take into consideration issue with maturity. When a person gets saved, it may take some time to get rid of certain vices. As the matter of fact some of us struggle with those for years.
    BUT, when Gene Robinson is an ordained homosexual – that’s when it becomes insane. It is one thing to look at young Christian (meaning young in faith) and at one who’s presumably a leader… and expect same fruits in their live. Maybe expectation of some spiritual fruits is what throwing you off.. and paints picture of having hard path to God…

  85. I have never heard of the “Online GLBTQ Encyclopedia” before.

    If I sin against God, it is between me and God,. If I sin against you, it is between you, me, and God. Rape, of any kind, is not only a sin against God, but also a sin against another human. It seems to me, once again, you are focusing on acts. Whether or not an individual actually commits an act you consider sinful. seem immaterial to you, based on how I am reading what you write. If you believe homosexuality (et al) is sinful, that in your opinion. I do not agree. I believe homosexuals sin. I believe heterosexuals sin. I believe there are M/F marriages where the couples sin all the time…. and yes, sometimes in acts agasint their spouse. ANY abusive relationship, in my opinion, is sinful. We are told in the Bible if someone sins against you, you are first point out their sin in private. If they continue to sin against you, you are to point it out to them again this time with witnesses. Even if you believe homosexualiity is a sin, HOW is a person just by being homosexual sinniing against you?

  86. @ Tim,
    “Even if you believe homosexualiity is a sin, HOW is a person just by being homosexual sinniing against you?”
    I don’t know if you addressed this to me or Dr. Brown, but my take on that would be something like following:
    - When a married man has attraction to a female who is not his wife, and sexually fantasizes about her this is pretty much qualifies as sin between him and God, as nobody else involved YET. On the other hand, homsexual is presumably one who practices sex. Anyone who practices sex, must have someone or something to practice it with. That is, having same-gender attraction is not technically the same as acting these out and be proud about it.
    Setting this distinction aside, as far as how it affects me. It depends if I take a Christian position or non-sectarian general position on that. From Christian position it is easy. As I alluded to before, Christian Church is numerous time compared to the body, and its individual members to body parts.
    For example 1 Cor. 12:12-27 (HCSB) ” For as the body is one and has many parts, and all the parts of that body, though many, are one body—so also is Christ. For we were all baptized by one Spirit into one body—whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free—and we were all made to drink of one Spirit. So the body is not one part but many. If the foot should say, “Because I’m not a hand, I don’t belong to the body,” in spite of this it still belongs to the body. And if the ear should say, “Because I’m not an eye, I don’t belong to the body,” in spite of this it still belongs to the body. If the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be? If the whole were an ear, where would be the sense of smell? But now God has placed the parts, each one of them, in the body just as He wanted. And if they were all the same part, where would the body be? Now there are many parts, yet one body. So the eye cannot say to the hand, “I don’t need you!” nor again the head to the feet, “I don’t need you!” On the contrary, all the more, those parts of the body that seem to be weaker are necessary. And those parts of the body that we think to be less honorable, we clothe these with greater honor, and our unpresentable parts have a better presentation. But our presentable parts have no need [of clothing]. Instead, God has put the body together, giving greater honor to the less honorable, so that there would be no division in the body, but that the members would have the same concern for each other. So if one member suffers, all the members suffer with it; if one member is honored, all the members rejoice with it. Now you are the body of Christ, and individual members of it.”
    This, in my opinion, means many things: care, help, but also responsibility, and accountability.
    It is not the only and sole role of a Church to condemn you… or condemn others, but it is like earthly family, only larger. It should help those in need, those who are just getting born, who needs discipline, correction, help, instruction, motivation, etc, etc. My point is individualism turned perception of a Church as the one like a store, where people come to purchase a service or goods… I am not saying this is what you hold, but this is true in many situations.

  87. oh Konstantin —- never be fooled that I am simple minded and cannot think far bigger than what I post. I try to see it from the POV of others–how hard some Law holders make this.

  88. ” On the other hand, homsexual is presumably one who practices sex. ”

    You are presuming a lot. I know plenty of homosexuals who do not have, and some never have had, sex. Again, you seem to be focusing on acts. Can homosexuali acts be sinful? Yes. Can heterosexual acts be sinful? Yes.

  89. Tim, the difference between homosexual acts and heterosexual acts is that the former are always sinful in God’s sight and contrary to His will, whereas the latter can be holy in the context of marriage (which, in God’s sight is only male-female).

    As to the question of how someone engaging in a (private) homosexual act is sinning against me — they’re not, but why is that an issue? They’re sinning against God, and in His love, I would call them to repentance and offer them salvation through Jesus. There are all kinds of sinful acts that people in private which don’t affect me or you, but they are sinful nonetheless.

  90. Kathy, this is a serious question, not an attempt to bait you. And I’m not bringing up homosexuality for a reason, so no comparison is intended. I simply want to understand what you believe.

    Let’s say you’re witnessing to a man who is living in adultery, sleeping with another woman while his wife is at home with the kids, and he asks you, “If I want to be saved, must I go back to my wife and break off with my adulterous relationship?,” what would you say to him? And if your answer is, “I would introduce him to Jesus and let the Holy Spirit convict him,” would you say that it is possible for him to be in right relationship with God while continuing to commit adultery?

    Again, I simply want to understand what you believe.

  91. Tim, I only meant that word “homosexual” perceived BY ME as one who actively practicing his attractions. That’s why I said that. I know I should have worded it better. My point was that same-gender attraction is to me at least says about the person’s object of attraction, and nothing really as to what person actually does.
    @”Again, you seem to be focusing on acts. Can homosexuali acts be sinful? Yes. Can heterosexual acts be sinful? Yes.”
    - yes you getting closer to my point, with one distinction however…

    same-gender attraction —- leads to ——–> same gender sexual activities (sinful without exceptions)

    complementary-gender attraction
    leads to
    | |
    | |
    v v
    [sinful] [not sinful]
    lust, fornication, life-time monogamous
    adultery, etc. relationship (ie. Eph. 5:21+)

    To rephrase it, and in accordance with what Dr. Brown said,
    complementary-gender attraction if materialized may or may not be sinful,
    while same-gender attraction if materialized are ALWAYS sinful.
    That’s basically what NT seems to teach on the subject, and it is in accordance with Christian tradition and Christian sexual ethics.

  92. oh well, chart did not work vertically. so here is horizontal version:

    man+woman —- leads to —> [sinful] lust, fornication, adultery, etc.
    . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . |———–>[not sinful] life-long monogamous relationship (ie. Eph. 5:21+)

  93. Eph 5:21 “Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.”

    This is where we will have to agree to disagree, because I believe homosexual couples can submit themselves to one another in the fear of God.

  94. To answer your question: Because you are a heartless monster. That you don’t think of yourself as one comes as no surprise; the most prejudiced, hateful, destructive people in history have always conceived of themselves as misunderstood saints on a noble quest to improve the world.

    Fortunately, I don’t think you’ll be remembered as a misunderstood saint in 20 years (if you’re remembered at all, and you probably wont be). You’d be remembered as another wave of evangelicals who failed to learn from their own past of being on the wrong side of every major social justice issue for the past few decades and who needlessly held up the true moral leaders of American culture, which are not evangelicals (who lag behind the culture, revising its positions on topics like female equality, civil rights, and environmentalism only after the broder culture has done so), but secularists.

  95. Dr. Brown,

    I’m sure you’re a very busy man but I’m curious as to why you used my name in your response as well as titled it after what I said about you yet you haven’t taken the time to address me so I’ll ask again:

    “But is it “homophobic” if a straight teenager is upset when a gay teenager openly flirts with him or tells others that they are dating or chases him down the hallway while wearing high-heels and make-up?”

    No Dr. Michael Brown it isn’t “homophobic’ but it is extremely heterosexist. Is it really to much to ask straight guys to treat unwelcome advances from a gay person in the same the fashion they would to an unwelcome advance from a female?

    Also you say gay activism is complicit in Larry King’s death does that also extend to the role anti-gay religious rhetoric plays into the death of children like Jamey Rodemeyer?


  96. Alonzo,

    I apologize for not responding sooner, but I didn’t see your earlier post. Thanks for your understanding.

    To respond to your points, I do not accept the term “heterosexist” the way it is commonly used, which is in a derogatory way. To me, it is being a healthy heterosexual to not like the idea of a homosexual expressing feelings of attraction to me, but any expression of hatred or, God forbid, violence, would be wrong on my part. But I don’t see that as heterosexist — although I probably just described what you define as heterosexist, so we differ there.

    I can’t check the YouTube link from my present computer, but as soon as I do, I’ll respond. Thanks for your patience.

  97. Alonzo,

    One further comment to add to my previous post. You ask: “Is it really to much to ask straight guys to treat unwelcome advances from a gay person in the same fashion they would to an unwelcome advance from a female?”

    Actually, yes, it is. It is natural for a heterosexual man to be attracted to woman but not to men, so you’re comparing apples with oranges in terms of how we would respond to unwelcomed advances from a female. Both are unwelcome but they are perceived differently. I hope you can understand this.

    As for Jamey’s death — how horrible to watch this video and then realize he took his own life. Whether you can believe it or not, one reason I wrote my initial article was that I was also sickened by the murder of Larry King. I deplore acts of violence like this, and I grieve over the murder or suicide of a gay-identified kid just as I grieve over the murder or suicide of a straight kid.

    So, to the extent that the Fred Phelps of this world and their “God hates fag” rhetoric contributed to Jamey’s death, yes, they are complicit. I deplore that kind of rhetoric as well.

    As for preaching the good news of Scripture, no, that is not complicit in his death.

    Please let me know if I have answered your questions, and thanks for posting here.

  98. Alonzo, yet another post. :)

    I searched the page here but found no previous post from you before #92, above. Did you post under a different name? Otherwise, I responded to the first post from you that I saw.

    Also, had Jamey been around the young people in our church and ministry school, he would have found true friends who would have loved him and treated him graciously and defended him against bullying, regardless of how he identified. On your end, I wonder if you have a solution for kids like him other than, “Come out boldly and let’s create an environment in the schools where everyone accepts you.” Perhaps he was wrestling with other issues and needed serious help and counseling? Perhaps simply telling him, “It gets better” was not the message he needed to hear?

    Regardless of the answers to these questions, it is a terrible and tragic loss of life. Heartbreaking is the only way to describe it.

  99. Definition: Heterosexism is a form of discrimination that favors heterosexuals over lesbians, gay men, and bisexuals.

    Not really sure how that’s derogatory when this is what you in fact do.

    You say as “a healthy heterosexual to not like the idea of a homosexual expressing feelings of attraction” to you that you would never express hatred or violence but you never answer the question as to what you would do.

    I get and understand your “ick factor” if a guy came onto you which are a normal reaction for those who share your views with regards to sexuality. But if you wouldn’t respond in hatred or violence it seems to me that you would in fact decline the advance the same way you would an unwanted advance from a woman.

    That is the only message I can take from your response unless you’re not being completely honest about how you would react if another man made an advance towards you.

    So if that is the case I don’t see anything wrong with teaching teenagers who live in a society where they have peers who are homosexual identifying that the proper way to handle a unwanted same-gender advance is in the same fashion they would if it came from someone of the opposite gender.

  100. Alonzo,

    I see the term heterosexism used in a politicized and derogatory way all the time, as in your definition which uses the term “a form of discrimination.” Do you not see how that is derogatory?

    I agree with you that, as far as outward responses are concerned, we should teach people to treat others with civility, even if their actions towards us are offensive, with the caveat that a guy could say to a woman who approached, “I’m not interested” (for whatever reason), whereas if a guy approached him, he could say, “I’m not gay.” Either way, however, an abusive response is unacceptable, and our kids should be taught this. We agree.

    The point I was making had to do with what you and others call the “ick factor,” specifically, it is not homophobic for a straight guy to have an “ick factor” feeling if another guy made unwanted sexual advances towards him.

    So then, since I did quote your words in the title of the article, what, in your judgment makes me a heartless monster. I’m not personally offended by the accusation nor do I have the slightest ill will towards you, but I am curious as to why you chose to make such a harsh accusation

  101. Dr B:
    “You claim the sources I’m citing are sometimes flawed, and I claim yours are sometimes flawed (or highly biased, which, of course, is a flaw). ”

    Most of my sources – Holy Bullies for example – are biased. As are yours. Bias can be discounted, it’s whether the sources actually lie or not that’s important. One can, by reading widely, remedy the one-sided slant of any individual source. I note that you too don’t just read sources that try to sell a line you agree with, nor do you uncritically praise every source that is “on your side” in one regard – the Westboro Baptists come to mind.

    Please have another look at http://holybulliesandheadlessmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/09/its-not-enough-to-call-them-bigots.html

    Discount the slanted, even bigoted words, as I did when I paraphrased them. The highly emotive words harm, not help, discourse. The facts should be allowed to speak for themselves, and all the facts, not just the ones supporting one view. For example, on that site, you’ll not find anything about the subculture of promiscuity and licentiousness that is part of, but not typical of, the GLBT movement. It doesn’t fit their lede.

    Look at the facts. The long list of researchers who have stated their work has been deliberately and (according to some of them) maliciously distorted by groups you hold “reliable”. Look at your own words, those about “reduced lifespans” of homosexuals, based on what NARTH, FotF and others have told you what scientific research has said, then look at the actual articles those statements are based on.

    I have the same problem: I look at what others have said “Dr Michael Brown” has said, and then looked up what you actually did say, and I see significant differences. I discount such sources thereafter, or at least, fact-check them carefully rather than accepting uncritically their accounts. May I ask you to do the same.

    As regards Walter Heyer, Charles Kane, and the handful of others in the same situation, mis-diagnosed or obtaining treatment via back-door means and liberal applications of money – where are the rest?

    The science says the treatment is only 98% successful; given that approximately 2000 surgeries are performed on US citizens every year, that means there should be dozens of new cases every year where a poor outcome resulted, sometimes from mis-diagnosis. NARTH put it at 40%, based on comparisons of Trans people with the general population, so there would be tens of thousands of people who are supposed to be unhappy with the result. Where are they?

    Such comparisons with the general population are inherently flawed – any medical situation, such as diabetes, depression, heart disease, eczema – when treated will still show that the patients as a whole do not do as well as a healthy population – unless the treatment is 100% successful, 100% of the time, with 0% misdiagnosis and 0% complications – something not true of any medical treatment. Furthermore, the situation of concentration camp survivors did not magically get 100% improved the instant they were released – many suffered lifelong problems. That doesn’t imply that release was an ineffective or inappropriate treatment, just because they didn’t do as well as the general population afterwards.

    I’m particularly interested in the cases of medical malpractice – or at least medical incompetence – in some such cases. Walter Hayer’s is one such case, any half-competent psychiatrist would have realised he wasn’t transsexual. Another is that of Josef Kirchner, though here it’s more understandable – they didn’t check that he was 46X/46XY, Intersexed Turner Syndrome Female/Standard Male, and interpreted a gay man whose body naturally feminised at puberty as being a transsexual woman. But even then, a truly competent psychological examination would have determined that he wasn’t female.

    You’ll still find his case used by various religious groups as a “poster boy” to say that all sex reassignment surgery is wrong – based on his site “Help me reverse my sex change”.

    I’m very much concerned that there’s a lot of ignorance out there – that children who show any deviation from 100% feminine or 100% masculine stereotypes are either given “reparative therapy” to “beat the girl out of them”, or encouraged to transition. Any gender specialist can distinguish Transsexuality from such cases, the way that any competent medic can distinguish coughing due to a cold from the coughing caused by lung cancer. Treating both situations identically, be it with “an aspirin, plenty of liquids, and bed rest”, or alternatively, “chemotherapy, radical surgery, and radiation treatment” is absurd.

  102. Zoe,

    Yes, I do my best to read all sides of an issue, which is why I quote so much from LGBT sources in my books. And, with academic training as a philologian, everything for me must be text based — meaning, the original sources. I carry that same mentality over into other studies as much as possible.

    As for the Holy Bullies site — my! What a perfect example of inaccurate and biased-to-the-point-of-flawed posts and reporting. I challenged the author of the site and similarly named book in an e-exchange some years ago and told me I’d gladly make it public if he agreed, but that was not his choice, so I honored it. It’s quite rare that I see his posts today, but I do know what I read in the past. And yes, I’m sure there are “religious right” sites that are just as flawed. As for Fred Phelps — oh no! In no way is he on my side or me on his.

    I agree that there’s lots of ignorance out there, and as you see, I’ve never censored your posts here or on Facebook, allowing you have your say and present your POV, which you always do with much grace towards me, which I appreciate. I would just say that we have different approaches to what is best in different situations for people, although we both agree that there is no cookie-cutter answer.

    As to your question re: Walt Heyer and others, namely, where are the rest, Heyer claims that more than 90% of people who underwent SRS have failed to respond to follow-up questions in some research, hence many of them may have had a negative outcome that was not reported.

    Have you seen this report? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21364939 Please do take a moment to look at it and tell me what you think. I’m truly interested to hear your opinion.

  103. Hi, Dr B. Just to make sure we’re on the same page, that’s
    Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. Dhejne C, Lichtenstein P, Boman M, Johansson AL, Långström N, Landén M., PLoS One. 2011 Feb 22;6(2):e16885.

    That’s pretty good science, and I blogged about it. Also worth reading are some of the references, in particular Mortality and morbidity in transsexual subjects treated with cross-sex hormones. van Kesteren PJ, Asscheman H, Megens JA, Gooren LJ. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 1997 Sep;47(3):337-42.

    Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

    That’s pretty uncontroversial, and a matter of common sense. It would be interesting to compare the results with control groups of concentration or rape-camp survivors, or those who suffer a similar degree of persecution. Those with cerebral palsy, or those who are disfigured, for example. A control group of the general population doesn’t give us enough data. It’s impossible, given the extreme transphobia and persecution that post-treatment transsexuals endure, to sort out what problems are inherent, and what are caused by the unremitting hatred – even the almost universal disapproval by those not given to hatred (like yourself) – they’re exposed to.

    More useful would be to take two groups – one who have had surgical intervention, one who have not – and compare outcomes there. This has not been attempted though since the 70′s, as so many in the control group suicided before the end of the experiment that it was deemed unethical to continue. Just as comparing the effectiveness of tourniquets vs no treatment would be unethical, too many in the untreated control group would die.

    The same ethical problems attend surgical intervention for non-transsexual but clinically gender dysphoric people. Obviously insisting that they get surgery is ethically (and morally) bankrupt. Even encouraging them to get surgery is unethical. We should mildly discourage them, point out non-surgical, even non-hormonal, options first, in such cases. We should be equally careful though to let them know that the surgical option won’t be arbitrarily withheld – for otherwise we can easily trigger suicide if we get the diagnosis wrong, and they’re transsexual but atypically so.

    Basically, the Swedish study showed that any psychic damage caused by living with untreated transsexuality doesn’t magically disappear just because the cause is removed. I know that from personal experience; my degree of damage is relatively mild, not visible externally. I don’t meet the diagnostic criteria for Social Aversion Disorder, I just avoid going out to restaurants, theatres and the like. Similarly, I avoid colourful clothes, wearing makeup and so on, I just want to fade into the background and not be noticed. I’m better than I was, just not fully healed yet. I figure that if that’s the worst of my problems, I have little to complain about. I see too many people living uncomplaining lives with really significant issues, and feel ashamed to even mention it.

    I suspect based on my own observations, that the study doesn’t tell the complete picture. I know this is anecdote, but please bear with me. I see two fairly distinct groups; those who have been severely damaged, drug-addicted, many psychiatric co-morbidities, really dysfunctional, and those who have been hurt just as badly (perhaps even more so) but for whatever reason have not been so badly damaged. The latter tend to get treated, and get lost from the system, they’re cured. Only those with psychiatric disturbance other than transsexuality – problems that often (not always) are caused by trying to “tough it out” for too long – get captured by long-term follow-up. While the picture is better than the Swedish study would indicate for the first group, it’s actually considerably worse for the second.

    I’ve tried to get better long-term follow-up in Australia – even in my own case, I would have thought that psychiatrists would have been interested in gathering data about it. But it seems that the medical profession generally is only interested in people with medical problems, they lose interest in those who are healthy. This seems to be true for all medical conditions – broken arms, the works. No follow-up over a decade to give scientific proof to see how effective (or otherwise) the treatment was, they just hope for the best and assume that if they hear nothing, no news is good news. Sweden, and other countries with centralised, socialised medical systems give us the only hard data we have. Even then, many of the first group are functional enough, and thus wealthy enough, to seek treatment outside the system. Swedish surgeons have only performed ~350 surgeries in total. Some Thai surgeons do that many in two years, and are far more practiced and proficient at it. Currently, no Australian surgeons do FtoM surgery, all patients have to go overseas, usually to Serbia. Thus the only follow-up for their results is from the individual GPs.

    And if you think this situation is dire – it’s vastly better than the situation regarding Intersex patients. When we finally got some long-term follow-up data there in early sex assignment of newborns, the results were shocking. 20% have “poor surgical results”. An additional 30% got assigned the wrong sex (and in some Intersex conditions, 60%). You have to wait till the child is old enough to tell us what sex they are before intervening like that.

    Discordant Sexual Identity in Some Genetic Males with Cloacal Exstrophy Assigned to Female Sex at Birth Reiner and Gearhart, N Engl J Med. 2004 January 22; 350(4): 333–341.
    RESULTS Eight of the 14 subjects assigned to female sex declared themselves male during the course of this study, whereas the 2 raised as males remained male. Subjects could be grouped according to their stated sexual identity. Five subjects were living as females; three were living with unclear sexual identity, although two of the three had declared themselves male; and eight were living as males, six of whom had reassigned themselves to male sex. All 16 subjects had moderate-to-marked interests and attitudes that were considered typical of males. Follow-up ranged from 34 to 98 months.
    CONCLUSIONS Routine neonatal assignment of genetic males to female sex because of severe phallic inadequacy can result in unpredictable sexual identification. Clinical interventions in such children should be reexamined in the light of these findings.

    Sex is in the brain, not the genitals. It’s set before birth – though it may not be wholly male or wholly female (it usually is though). Sometimes most of the body is of one sex, but the bits of the brain that determine sex are of the opposite sex. Hence Transsexuality. When the situation is more mixed, while this can result is various forms of Transgender, usually it doesn’t, the person is “normally” male or female, just maybe a bit “sensitive” for a male, or “butch” for a female.

    Same with Sexuality. Most people (to state the obvious) are heterosexual, and unalterably so. A few are homosexual, and unalterably so. Some are bisexual, and for them their behaviour (if not their attractions) are a matter of choice. All the rest can either be sexually active with those they’re attracted to, or celibate.

    For those who believe that prayer has the power of healing – be it to re-grow a missing limb, cure cancer, make the halt walk and the blind see, or to change someone’s race for that matter – then by all means try it, if the patient requests it. By all means set up an experiment, different groups, some praying in Jesus name, others is Allah’s, others in Odin’s, others in Zeus’, Brahma, or whatever. See how effective that is, long-term, by objective measurements.

  104. @Zoe,
    I could not resist to ad to your post:
    “Most people (to state the obvious) are heterosexual, and unalterably so. A few are homosexual, and unalterably so. Some are bisexual…”
    .. and some are trisexual and some are quatrosxual… some are pedosexual, and some are zoosexual, and some even necrosexuals… queer rainbow, after all has, six colors not just two.

    @”Sex is in the brain, not the genitals” I tried to imagine that picture. I watched last weekend on “glorious TV box” (which I do not watch that often, since I have to attend to discussions like this, and other needs) interviews from some serious criminals, here in US, who killed people (some even relatives) and bit off their brains. But imagining sex in the brains, is too much.
    On the serious note, I know naturalists love to use brain and mind interchangeably, and it is too funny to observe that, especially because they do it on purpose to prove naturalism by assumptions and axioms (something you attempted to accuse me of ;) ) Good old “prove by repetition and annoyance”. Works with evolution, queer agenda, and naturalism. Just repeat it, again, and again, and you will perhaps prove it’s true simply by annoying the opposition into submission… :D

    As far as your idea about analyzing prayers, I personally do not think it will work. Not because there are no miracles, but because God is smart enough to see what’s going on. :D It is like “smart” people will dissect God’s intentions and actions. Perhaps, even coerce Him to do something? I don’t think it will work very well…
    As far as Zeus concerned, I personally think that worship of that deity is closer to your view of sexuality than to those of a average normal person. That is, in pagan worship of the day people would castrate and mutilate their bodies thinking they pleasing gods. You can read Augustine’s “City of God” to learn that and much more.
    As far as Brahma, you don’t pray in Hinduism, you bare your carma. Praying for better, would only mean being empty bamboo in the next recycle cycle of path toward nirvana. So, getting better, is not really getting better after all….

    Definition: Heterosexism is a word created by queer activists to demonize form of sound view of the world that favors heterosexual behavior over pedosexuals, zoosexuals, polysexuals, necrosexuals, and many other perversionsexuals… and perhaps homosexuals as well…
    While I am sorry about death of a confused child, and life-time incarceration of another child… I don’t think deliberately confusing kids and experimenting how society will react to “innocent ones coming out of the closet” political program is a good strategy for society or even for homosexuals themselves.
    I am more inclined to believe that queer activists are the ones who should rethink if their sought for “normalcy” is worth so much mess… unless selfish perverted lusts see no mercy. As far as America is concerned, homosexuals can form their unions and not go to jail. On the other hand, pursuing “normalcy” from society is hard since people are not
    that naive! Same gender attraction is pathological, and it is pretty evident by thinking about it … half a second.

  105. oops, I forgot to close HTML tag in previous post. everything is italics now.
    ( I noticed Zoe used some, so I thought let’s see why not. I work with web apps. 8 hours a day anyways :D )

    by the way, …so that you don’t feel disadvantaged, here’s what you do:
    <i> italics</i&gt = italics
    <b> bold</b&gt = bold

    in case you need to emphasize. I hope to be hopeful, in any way possible

  106. <i> italics</i> = italics
    <b> bold </b> = bold

  107. @TIM “Revelation chapter 21 doesnt get any clearer and also 1 corinthians 6:9 says it even clearer.or in Genesis where He made a man and woman not two men or two women..If this isnt clear enough for you where it says “no practing Homosexual will not inherit the Kingdom of God ” or No sexually Immoral or Vile person ” (look up menaing of Immoral and Vile ) then I think you need to get a childs translation Bible where its maybe a little bit easier to understand for you. ALso If thats not clear to you the & Churches in the Bok Of Revelationceased to exist all but one to this day because of their filthy perverted lifestyles.All you have to do is study the lives of the people who lived in the ancient Roman and Greek cultures and you will understand why God Judged those Churches and cities and warned His followers not to do the same or they would havethe same fate. Just studying the 7 Churches alone will open your eyes and you will see what behaviors god dispises. Example during the time of the Church of Ephesus for example do a study on the culture during that time and see what God thought about it….(Just for starters) …Then continue to study the cultures of that time and how they were steeped into Immorality and How God warned them not to be like them etc…

  108. *Typo* ….The 7 Churches in the book of Revelation..

  109. Historians know that the final fall of Rome was that Rome allowed gays in their Military. The Roman citizens who were NOT Gay left the military to join with the barbarians because they were disgusted by what they saw going on with all the perversion and turned on Rome itself and fought against them with the barbarians.
    Now that the other day America has openly allowed gays to join our Military we will soon join the same fate as Rome and fall
    .Conservatives will not stand for it and begin to leave the Military in droves as America will become weakened for sure just like Rome did as an Empire .
    Now countless suvillians will be exposed to the H.I.V. virus as wounded gay soldiers get their infected blood all over their fellow men in combat exposing them to the virus then taking it home to their innocent wives and unborn babies who will then become infected.
    There needs to be a law now that an open Gay needs to be tested for H.I.V. when joining and continued to be tested, If found positive their needs to be a law that they have to be discharged. A lot of men will leave the Military because they dont want to have their chances of being infected on the battle field increased or in the operating rooms on the battle field..

  110. Konstantin – what makes a mind? Or, looking at the particulars, what makes a male or female gender identity? We know it’s not environment. You’re familiar with the David Reimer or John/Joan case?

    I forget who said it, but “If we castrate a boy, surgically assign him a female body, bring him up as a girl, treat him as a girl, but he still insists that he’s a boy, then it’s unlikely in the extreme that post-birth environment has much to do with it”.

    Perhaps you believe that it’s some Magical, Mystical, Methaphysical thing, that someone has a “male” or “female” soul. That the mind is an artifact of that.

    Perhaps – but those with brain damage have their minds permanently altered, whereas those with fingers amputated do not. This would at least suggest that the brain is the “seat of consciousness”, the mind a process running on that hardware if you like.

    Now please look at this paper for example. One of many:
    A sex difference in the human brain and its relation to transsexuality. by Zhou et al Nature (1995) 378:68–70. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v378/n6552/abs/378068a0.html

    Our study is the first to show a female brain structure in genetically male transsexuals and supports the hypothesis that gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones

    or this one:
    Regional cerebral blood flow changes in female to male gender identity disorder.> – Tanaka et al, Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2010 Apr 1;64(2):157-61. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20132527

    RESULTS: GID subjects had a significant decrease in rCBF in the left anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and a significant increase in the right insula compared to control subjects.
    CONCLUSIONS: The ACC and insula are regions that have been noted as being related to human sexual behavior and consciousness. From these findings, useful insights into the biological basis of GID were suggested.

    It’s too simplistic to say “they have male brains in otherwise female bodies”, only certain structures in the brain need be affected, but that does capture the essence of the situation.

    As to why if these particular structures are cross-sexed, it leads to a cross-sexed gender identity, that’s another matter. We can observe that it always does in humans; we can observe in animal experiments that similar structures when we induce cross-sexing cause cross-sexed behaviour. But we can only theorise why. The best explanation that fits the facts is that of Diamond, in
    Biased-Interaction Theory of Psychosexual Development: “How Does One Know if One is Male or Female?” M.Diamond Sex Roles (2006) 55:589–600 http://www.hawaii.edu/PCSS/biblio/articles/2005to2009/2006-biased-interaction.html

    A theory of gender development is presented that incorporates early biological factors that organize predispositions in temperament and attitudes. With activation of these factors a person interacts in society and comes to identify as male or female. The predispositions establish preferences and aversions the growing child compares with those of others. All individuals compare themselves with others deciding who they are like (same) and with whom are they different. These experiences and interpretations can then be said to determine how one comes to identify as male or female, man or woman. In retrospect, one can say the person has a gendered brain since it is the brain that structures the individual’s basic personality; first with inherent tendencies then with interactions coming from experience.

    Basically, parts of the brain dictate instincts, emotional responses, body language, and these are sexually dimorphic, part of the patterns that enable us to recognise and differentiate between the sexes. A child with a female-typical set of emotional responses, sense of smell and so on will, when socialised with other children and adults of both sexes, come to identify with those they are most akin to. That’s regardless of their external appearance, it’s not how they look that’s important, it’s how they feel, emote, think, perceive.

    Now the “male” or “female” spirit/soul metaphysical explanation for what is otherwise inexplicable except by such theories may be true. But the track record of history shows that similar and far more puzzling and spectacular physical effects – eclipses, thunderbolts, tides, reproduction, rainfall, disease and so on all had non-metaphysical explanations. Furthermore, that things like heartbeat, blood flow, and the principles of metabolism is the same for humans as it is for all mammals.

  111. End is near wrote:

    Genesis where He made a man and woman not two men or two women..

    The existence of Intersex people like myself contradicts that part of Genesis as much as Space Travel, Astronomy and Meteorology contradict the bit in Genesis about a “Firmament” on which the stars are fixed, that keeps the “Waters above” out.

  112. @Konstantin

    Due to the callous manner in which you address LGBT people – you have no agruement worth listening too nor worth my time.

    Good day and may you always be blessed.

  113. Alonzo,

    I look forward to your responses to my questions in the previous posts, above. Thanks in advance.

  114. Dr. Brown,

    “The point I was making had to do with what you and others call the “ick factor,” specifically, it is not homophobic for a straight guy to have an “ick factor” feeling if another guy made unwanted sexual advances towards him.”

    As I stated before I don’t think the “ick factor” is homophobic. However I do know plenty of heterosexual men and women who find being flirted with by a member of their gender either flattering or simply benign which in my opinion should be the case for everyone. Just because a gay person hits on you isn’t going to make you gay nor does it mean you have to have “icky” gay sex with them.

    With regards to me calling you a heartless monster I stand by that statement as I don’t feel gay activism is responsible for the tragic death of Larry King. As I believe telling young people its okay to be who they are in my worldview isn’t wrong. I could go into further detail as to why I believe that but since you clearly have a faith based bias with regards to sexuality it would be a fruitless endeavor on my part.

  115. @Zoe,
    “Perhaps you believe that it’s some Magical, Mystical, Methaphysical thing, that someone has a “male” or “female” soul. ”
    - perhaps not. I do not believe in male and female souls. I was saying that brain is not the mind, and having mind does not require having brain. that’s all. It is what usually is referred to as substance dualism in philosophy of mind, and it is as old an idea as perhaps human reflection on the issue…

    “The existence of Intersex people like myself contradicts that part of Genesis ”
    - no. existence of pathological condition does not contradict anything. For example existence of blind people does not contradict Genesis’ account of having two people who had eyes and could see.

    you quoted that “gender identity develops as a result of an interaction between the developing brain and sex hormones”. well, granted. as any other pathological condition, perhaps there’s a hormonal dysfunction that leads to so-called intersexes like yourself.
    As I stated before, it is interesting and separate issue to study causes of pathologies, and completely different to categorize pathology as something normal.

  116. Alonzo,

    All clear on the “homophobic” issue, and all clear on your “heartless monster” statement. Again, I was not offended from the first moment I read your comments (among many others), but you seem to confuse the question of whether my perspective is valid in any way as opposed to whether I have a compassionate heart. Compassion compels me to write, regardless of how unpopular my words might be, since a young life was cut short, and that remains a terrible shame.

  117. Dr. Brown,

    I am as well as many other people are deeply offended by your ‘compassionate’ words. To imply that gay activism is the reason a child is dead and another child is imprisoned is in my opinion heartless. Gay activism only seeks to create a world where gay people both young and old can live their lives without shame and free from the spiritual abuse of others.

  118. Alonzo,

    As you know, I said gay activism was “a reason.” Do you think Joy Epstein feels in any way responsible for Larry’s death in her heart of hearts? And gay activism wants to put people of faith in the closet. That’s a demonstrable fact, documented hundreds of times over. It is not as benign as you make it out to be.

  119. Alonzo,
    unfortunately, world where people having eros toward same gender, both young and old without shame.. is very sad world indeed. As the matter of fact it is so against basic universal human conscience, that people who don’t know any better than solve their issues with violence will be invited to do so.
    Question is not whether people are repulsed by sexual perversions. This is non issue. Issue is how they will react to this? As you can see, if you push perversion “in your face” some people are not as nice as Christians, and take issue personally. Not that it good thing. I am not only sad for the one killed, but for the one who’s in jail, as it could have been easily prevented… if homosexual activists would actually care, and not used children as means to their (lustful) ends.

  120. Alonzo.
    you have another interesting statement: “I believe telling young people its okay to be who they are”
    well. what in the world should I understand by “who they really are”?
    when children are born they urinate themselves. This is who they really are. That’s why adults train, discipline, counsel children….

  121. Konstantin,

    Your arguments are shallow and offensive. Against my better judgment I shouldn’t even engage you nonetheless – being gay is more then just “lust” but I’m not going to waste my time explaining this to someone whose views on sexuality are as narrow as yours.

  122. Alonzo,
    my views on sexuality are as narrow as they are objective. read what I wrote above. I don’t need to repeat. Why in the world a man attracted to anyone or anything other than female should be considered nota pervert? Why?
    Sexual reproduction means two genders produce kids. Sexual desire which is normal, is a priori means opposite gender. How in the world can my views be not narrow on this issue?
    My views on eating also very narrow: you eat with your mouth and not with your ears, or eyes. That’s very narrow too. If one perceives his “eating identity” or “eating orientation” to be something other than that, it is not my fault not a fault of my narrow view on eating process.

  123. Dr. Brown,

    “Joy Epstein feels in any way responsible for Larry’s death in her heart of hearts” I think she should feel some responsibility but not for the reason you think so. Larry created a hostile environment for a peer and she should have step in and done something about it regardless of the sexuality of the students involved.

    “gay activism wants to put people of faith in the closet.”

    No Dr. Brown gay activism doesn’t want to put people faith in the closet – gay activism wants people to stop using their faith againist LGBT people’s LIVES!!!

    BTW: You must be aware there are many open and proud gay Christians, Catholics and Jews and gay Muslims in the USA.

  124. Alonzo,

    I’m sure you mean what you wrote, but this a well-known, fully-documented fact — affirmed by some gay activists too — that religious freedoms must be curtailed in order to embrace sexual freedoms. You can put all the caps and exclamation points you want in your post, but these are facts. I document this extensively in chapter 14 of A Queer Thing Happened to America.

    As for open and proud people of faith, I say that they have to distort their faith’s teachings to support their homosexuality.

  125. Konstantin,

    “Why in the world a man attracted to anyone or anything other than female should be considered nota pervert? ”

    Because there are men and women who are attacthed to their own gender – FACT!!!
    in YOUR VIEW and others that think like you believe they are perverts – that’s being narrow-minded.

    Homosexaulity is simply a deviation of the norm in the same manner being left-handed is.
    With regards to reproduction that is the reason heterosexuality is and always will be the majority. The simple fact homosexuals exists has no negative impact on the propagation of the human species whatsoever!

  126. Alonzo,
    “You must be aware there are many open and proud gay Christians, Catholics and Jews and gay Muslims in the USA.” …the key word is “in the USA.”.
    Is this an attempt to discredit the American culture?

  127. Dr. Brown,

    “religious freedoms must be curtailed in order to embrace sexual freedom.”

    I believe they should when someone’s religious freedom is used to prevent gays getting the same federal protections for their families via civil marriage they should in fact be curtail.

    “As for open and proud people of faith, I say that they have to distort their faith’s teachings to support their homosexuality.’

    And that sir is the very spritual abuse I speak off, it simply amazes me how a person of faith can be so bold and arrgoant to question another person relationship with God.

  128. @ End is near — I have read Rev 21 completely. It doesn’t say homosexual anywhere. Now, if you are calling ALL homosexuals (even those who have never engaged in any acts) “sexually immoral”, then I can see it… I disagree with it, but I understand your logic.

    I have stated several times that I disagree with translating “arsenokoitai” as “homosexuals” in Corinthians and Timothy. I prefer Martin Luther’s (1500s) definition of the word — what we would translate as pedophiles today.

  129. Alonzo, actually, the persecution by gay activists goes far beyond that, but either way, you justify it.

    As for questioning someone’s relationship with God, first, I said the people are distorting what their sacred texts say. Second, do you judge my relationship with God in any way?

  130. Dr. Brown,

    I’m just mere mortal it isn’t my place to judge anyone’s relationship with their God.

  131. Alonzo,

    I respect that, and I am not your judge. Is it possible, then, that God is leading me to do what I do?

  132. Alonzo,
    @”Homosexaulity is simply a deviation of the norm in the same manner being left-handed is.”
    - not “simply in the same manner” at all. Lefthandedness or righthandedness does not in any way be attributed to anything remotely related to morality or anything fundamentally important.
    Having one’s perception of sexuality be completely dysfunctional to the point of being attracted to that which is opposite of what one should be attracted to – that is important.
    I am not concerned with with homosexuality as fundamentally detrimental to the “propagation of human species” per se. I am concerned with categorization of a obvious pathology as being equal to that which is normal. Homosexuality is a pthology, as any other wrong directed sexual attraction… There are more than one, or two… And it should be treated accordingly. It is simply not normal, or expected of a person to be sexually attracted to the members of the same gender. There’s nothing clever or profound about this view. And it doesn’t even have to be religious either. It is very straight forward.

    @”Because there are men and women who are attacthed to their own gender – FACT!!!”
    well. I do not dispute the fact at all. As the matter of fact I do not dispute the genuineness of pedophiles who are attracted to children or those who attracted to relatives or whatever. Just because something is genuine does not makes it normal though. For example, anorexics genuinely think they are overweight when they are dangerously underweight. Whatever the reason may be – emotional, psychological, hormonal, etc ,etc, is of different category then the fact that they are not acting normally/healthy nor comprehend reality fundamentally objective.

  133. Maybe your God does, nonetheless when it comes to LGBT people it’s my firm believe they should live out their lives however they deem fit.

  134. Konstantin,

    “I am not concerned with with homosexuality as fundamentally detrimental to the “propagation of human species” -

    “Sexual reproduction means two genders produce kids. Sexual desire which is normal, is a priori means opposite gender. ”

    Your arguments clearly conflict each other. I can’t argue with you when it’s clear you find homosexaulity innately wrong. Which you’re entilted to just as I’m entiltled to see nothing wrong with homosexuality.

  135. Alonzo,
    people have different “firm beliefs” from Scientology to Mormonism to Mormon polygamy…
    I don’t know what drives your beliefs. But nor Christian Scriptures, nor logic could have be driving force behind them. Where did you get them, and why are they strong?
    …especially “however they deem fit.” part. So, basically, there’s nothing in reality that can correct that special group of people? Should they ascend to mount Olympus and we build temples for them. I’m just kidding. But that some strong special status. I can’t say this of anyone, be it Bill Clinton (see Monica), or Obama (see “welcome to your [homosexuals] White House), or anyone else.
    Morality is obligatory and objective, and basically it prescribes how people should act, in contrast to how they do act.
    Scriptures are obligatory to.
    So if you take non-religious, or religious position, either way it is hard to find ever example to tell anyone can act “however they deem fit.”. From Christian point of view, it is even more confused to say the least.

  136. Konstanin,

    You clearly have expressed a faith based bias with regards to homosexuals so any argument I would present to you would be unsatisfactory.

    With regards to my logic I know too many happy well adjusted gay people to ever feel the need to discriminate againist them in any fashion nor do I feel they need to be “corrected”.

  137. Alonzo, let us each live our lives as we see fit in God’s sight, as long as we don’t violate the law, and may truth and light triumph.

  138. Alonzo,
    @”Your arguments clearly conflict each other. I can’t argue with you when it’s clear you find homosexaulity innately wrong. ”
    (1) no they are not contradictory. Sexual desire of man for anything other than woman, and of woman to other than man is pathological and dysfunctional at least… and perhaps immoral, and sinful as well.
    The other statement has to do with extent of such anomalous sexual attraction, and its impact on propagation of human species.
    For example, necrophilia is not really massively detrimental to propagation to human species, if practiced by few. But that does not mean that it is normal or ok.

    (2) yes, I find same gender attraction as innately wrong, and that is driven by nothing else than common sense, and honesty. I don’t find capitalism, or communism, or socialism. or Obama care… as innately wrong. I see many things as debatable and such. But same gender sexual attractions are obviously not right, and saying that they are does not do good to the kids, to the society, and to the people having those desires….
    that’s my position.

  139. Konstantin ,

    Pedophilia, zoophilia, necrophilia are behaviors where only one individual can consent to a sexual act. Homosexuality involves 2 consenting members of the same gender that regardless if you don’t believe it or not involves more then just sex.

    I find nothing objectionable about appropriate same gender attraction and that’s my position.

  140. Alonzo,
    I understand “involves more then just sex”. I had, and have male friends. I also have sisters and brothers, nieces, and nephews… But none of these relationships are sexual.
    When attraction, much less behavior to anyone besides opposite gender emerges, that’s when you know you got perverted desires or acts.
    You also mentioned “only one individual can consent to a sexual act. Homosexuality involves 2 consenting members”. That makes no difference. In incest there can be two, or maybe three members… In polyamory (more like polyerosy, since it is not love but lust), many members can be involved in orgies… (whether human or not).
    just saying.. consent is not a golden rule of legitimizing a behavior

  141. Konstantin,

    Your whole argument is based on the fact that you find homosexuality as “perverted desires”. I’m sorry my reality says otherwise I know gay couples who been together for over 15 years and I see them same love in their eyes that I saw in my parents eyes. There’s nothing you can say to me that going to make me ever believe that homosexuality is wrong!

    Heterosexual incest is wrong simply because of the chance of birth defects which would then involve non-consenting life.

    In regards to polyamorous relationships I have no judgment on that either as if all members are of age I see it as benign and that’s my own opinion.

  142. How can I unsubscribe to this thread?! :) It’s annoying now. Konstantin must be a closet case. No truly straight guy is this obsessed with gay sex. Anyway, I wish there was an off button – — Wait, I just saw a little manage your subscriptions at the bottom. Yay! I can get out of this mess. :) Dr. Brown – I feel compassion for you in your misguided fervor and literalist delusion – I think your words and acts are monstrous (the sly comparisons while claiming not to, the blaming of people while taking no responsibility yourself, etc) but you probably are a decent man in other respects(though every villain is usually a good grandpa) . I suspect someday those scales will fall from your eyes. As to pushing “Christians in the closet” – only insomuch that we have pushed racists “in the closet.” Words have consequences here on earth. Simple as that. You want to tell someone they are going to hell at work – have at it, but don’t expect to keep your job that long. You want to tell an employee one race is better than another, have at it – but don’t expect not to be fired and/or shunned. Same concept – not rocket science. (And anyway, isn’t there a few verses that say Christians are supposed to count it joy when they are shunned and persecuted in this world? All this whining about gays trying to shut you up when scripturally you should LOVE it. Dang, why can’t you guys ever take THOSE verses literally!) Adios Amigos! :)

  143. Daniel,
    @”No truly straight guy is this obsessed with gay sex. ” :D I’ve heard that one before.
    I am not obsessed at all. I simply seeking to establish and get the point across that man sexually attracted to man is not normal that’s all. ;)

  144. correction to my #134.
    perhaps I find communism wrong since it is utterly atheistic. If it weren’t it would be a different story…

    “There’s nothing you can say to me that going to make me ever believe that homosexuality is wrong!”
    - enough said. why then we having this conversation?

  145. Daniel, you can call my views “literalist delusion,” but your issue with God’s Word, not me.

    “The words of the LORD are pure words, like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” (Psa 12:6)

    “The law of the LORD is perfect, reviving the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple; the precepts of the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart; the commandment of the LORD is pure, enlightening the eyes; the fear of the LORD is clean, enduring forever; the rules of the LORD are true, and righteous altogether. More to be desired are they than gold, even much fine gold; sweeter also than honey and drippings of the honeycomb. Moreover, by them is your servant warned; in keeping them there is great reward.” (Ps 19:7-11)

    “Whoever is wise, let him understand these things; whoever is discerning, let him know them; for the ways of the LORD are right, and the upright walk in them, but transgressors stumble in them.” (Hos 14:9)

    Daniel, the scales fell from my eyes 40 years ago, and since then, God has been my Father and Jesus has been my most wonderful Friend. I pray you will come to know Him in an extraordinarily life-changing way. As for counting it joy when I’m reviled for the faith, yes, I have the privilege and joy of doing that just about every day of my life, and I count it a privilege.

  146. Konstantin,

    You were the one asking me questions I just responded.

  147. Thank You ! Danie for saying bye…now i dont have to see the mame Daniemjo in my inbox anymore …Now everyone else go and feed the poor or something or get off the net for a while geez…

  148. Konstantin wrote:

    Lefthandedness or righthandedness does not in any way be attributed to anything remotely related to morality or anything fundamentally important.

    Historically, that has not been the accepted religious view. There are many quotes in the Bible that say that the righteous will pass by the Right Hand of God, the Damned by the Left or “Sinister” side.

    And he shall separate them one from another,
    as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats.
    And he shall set the sheep on his right,
    but the goats on his left.
    — Matthew 25: 32-33

    “Lefties here who went to school in the last century have described being physically forced to become right- handed, in both public and parochial schools. Justification for this kind of bias and behavior was found in the teachings of all the Abrahamic religions, think of the sheep and goats passage in Matthew with the righteous on the right and the evil on the left. The Buddha similarly described the left- hand road as the wrong way in life.”

    “In some definitions, the Left-Hand Path is equated with malicious Black Magic and the Right-Hand Path with beneficial White Magic.”

    “Prejudices against left-handers abound, for throughout history, lefties have been considered inferior. Centuries ago, the Catholic Church declared left-handed people to be servants of the Devil. For generations, left-handers who attended Catholic schools were forced to become right-handed. Only a few decades ago in Japan, left-handedness in a wife was sufficient grounds for divorce. The wedding ring is placed on the left hand in order to chase away evil spirits that may haunt the marriage. In Arab nations, the right hand is used to touch parts of the body above the waist, while the left hand is used for below the navel. Bedouins segregate the women to the left side of the tent to keep the right side free for the men. (Making it fairly obvious to determine which gender is considered more important.) Natives on the Guinea coast never touch their left thumbs to their beer mugs, in the belief that it would poison the beverage. Maori women weave ceremonial cloth with the right hand, because to use the left hand would profane and curse the cloth – the penalty for using the left hand is death. African tribes along the Niger river do not allow their women to prepare food with the left hand for fear of poisonous sorcery.

    Religion has played an important part in oppressing the image of the left hand. In Matthew 6:3 of the Bible, Jesus instructed his followers that when they do charitable things, to “not let thy left hand know what thy right hand doeth.” Jesus also expressed the following sentiments regarding the Judgment Day. “And before Him shall be gathered all nations; and He shall separate them one from another, as the shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats; and He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, ‘Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world…’ Then shall He say into them on the left hand, ‘Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels…’ In the Old Testament, God told Jonah the wicked city of Nineveh contained people so sinful they “cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand,” leaving us to infer that they cannot discern between good or evil. Greeks, in their worship of Zeus, posted sentries to watch people entering the holy temples and make sure they entered with their right foot, because entrance with the left foot was thought to curse the building. Also, the Greeks took care to never put their left leg over the right while crossing their legs. In Hindu rituals, followers are required at times to circle people and/or objects three times, from left to right to cleanse them.”

    Left-handedness has been described as “perverted”, “abnormal”, “pathological”.

    Remind you of anything?


  149. Zoe, in the midst of our differences, I appreciate your persistent and patient posting. Putting aside the question of the alleged innateness and immutability of homosexuality (where we also differ), can you see an intrinsic difference between left-handedness and sexual behavior? The left-handed person is doing the same things as a right-handed person, just with a different hand, whereas a homosexual person is doing something fundamentally different than a heterosexual person, being attracted to and sexually involved with someone of the same-sex as opposed to someone of the opposite sex.

  150. Dr. Brown:

    Did you hear that the USA military’s “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” policy is no longer policy as of Tuesday morning?

    I predict that in a few years the Defense of Marriage Act will eventually be repealed and the Employment Non-Discrimination Act will eventually be enacted.

    As such, I am curious about how you feel whenever you experience political defeat on particular issues? I understand that Christian fundamentalists generally have their way politically in the United States, since so many Christians complain whenever laws are enacted that do not correspond with their beliefs. That tendency is the reason why I am curious about your feelings on the rare occasions when you do not have your way politically. Thank you. :-)

  151. Adam,

    Yes, of course I’m aware of what happened with DADT, and while I personally don’t expect the repeal of DOMA or even the passing of ENDA, if those things happen, nothing is affected in terms of my philosophy and approach to ministry and life. I continue to do what is right before God, by His grace, and the darker it gets, the more our light must shine.

    I actually put very little faith in the political system itself, and I also don’t agree that “Christian fundamentalists” are used to getting our way politically. To the contrary, there are scores of cases every year that go against our views (although I’m using your term “Christian fundamentalists” just to make communication simple), plus we’ve had tragic setbacks like Roe v. Wade, which still hasn’t been overturned since 1973. And I hear constant complaining from anti-religious folks the moment things don’t go their way. I’m sure it’s a mixed bag overall, but this is a good book to read: http://www.amazon.com/ACLU-vs-America-Exposing-Redefine/dp/0805440453/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1316673993&sr=8-2.

    My faith is in God and His Word and His promises and His power and wisdom, and ultimately, Jesus will return and set everything right. I want my testimony to be that I never backed down from doing what was right, whether it was popular or safe and therefore be unashamed when I stand before God one day.

  152. Putting aside the question of the alleged innateness and immutability of homosexuality (where we also differ), can you see an intrinsic difference between left-handedness and sexual behavior?

    Of course. But I don’t see the same difference between using one’s left-hand – a behaviour – and sexual behaviour. Both are choices, to the same degree.

    Someone who; like me, is ambidextrous (many Intersex and Trans people are not right-handed – though “ambiclumsy” might be closer in my case) has an untrammelled choice. I’m equally bad with either hand, a matter of neuro-anatomy as we now know. However, unless you assert that everyone is ambidextrous too, the choice they have of their behaviour, which hand they use, is no real choice at all. While a few who are borderline (for biology is not binary) may be able to benefit from “Ex-Sinsistral” therapy to “repair” their “abberrant behaviour”, as many religions require of them, many more would just get damaged by it.

    The fact that handedness is immutable and innate doesn’t prevent some people on the border from “changing” – it’s just that it’s rare. Many others will use their off-hand in a poor fashion, but they will never be as facile with it as they are with their natural hand. While behaviourally they will be right-handed, they’ll tell you ashamedly that they are still left-handed. Yet others will avoid tasks involving great manual dexterity (as they have manual sinistrality) altogether. And finally others are able to use either hand, and for them it’s a matter of training, habit and custom.

    The similarities of sexual orientation and handedness are obvious. As are those of handed behaviour and sexual behaviour. Four separate concepts.

    Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality – Ernest Govier, Milton Diamond, Teresa Wolowiec, and Catherine Slade – International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

    Elevated sinistrality in transsexuals. – Orlebeke, Jacob F.; Boomsma, Dorret I.; Gooren, Louis J. G.; Verschoor, Anton M.; Van Den Bree, Marianne J. M. Neuropsychology, Vol 6(4), Oct 1992, 351-355.

    The Praeger handbook of transsexuality: changing gender to match mindset Rachel Ann Heath Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p56-57 describes the mechanism behind this correlation.

    There is another difference though; one regarding morality, ethics, and independant of religious belief or non-belief. No-one has ever broken anyone else’s heart by their handed behaviour; but many hearts have been broken by sexual (mis-)behaviour. Cheating is unkind. When a woman has sex with a man, she gives him part of her heart. Do that with too many men, she has nothing left to give, and is diminished. I don’t know if men are the same way, but the evidence argues against it.

    I’m really very old-fashioned, too much so for the world I live in. More so even than you. Dr B, in some ways. I make no distinction between any extra-marital sex, be it pre-marital, adulterous, fornication, casual sex, hook-ups, prostitution, fooling around, getting to first base, bundling, and regardless of the sexes of those concerned.

    Dichotic Listening, Handedness, Brain Organization and Transsexuality – Ernest Govier, Milton Diamond, Teresa Wolowiec, and Catherine Slade – International Journal of Transgenderism, 12:144–154, 2010

    Elevated sinistrality in transsexuals. – Orlebeke, Jacob F.; Boomsma, Dorret I.; Gooren, Louis J. G.; Verschoor, Anton M.; Van Den Bree, Marianne J. M. Neuropsychology, Vol 6(4), Oct 1992, 351-355.

    The Praeger handbook of transsexuality: changing gender to match mindset Rachel Ann Heath Greenwood Publishing Group, 2006 p56-57 describes the mechanism behind this correlation.

  153. @Zoe,
    “The similarities of sexual orientation and handedness are obvious.”
    :D very obvious. for example both cannot be observed in stones, and trees. That’s when similarities end. ;)

  154. Adam, your question is pretty derogatory or pretty naive.
    (1) sexual perversion becoming a political issue is a sad thing in the first place. Then, there’s failure on your part to differentiate between political and moral issues.
    (2) anyone, who understands that better is replaced with worse, especially moral with immoral cannot have “better” feelings about it.
    What is the point of asking such an obvious question?
    Furthermore, using expression “fundamentalist” is very interesting. I’m almost certain you have no clue what would word “fundamentalism” mean as applied to Christianity, and you simply used it to correlate to widespread knowledge of Muslim fundamentalism where “fundamentalism” is understood as very bad thing. By analogy, you think if you use it on Dr. Brown you will touch a nerve, or coerce him to react in certain way. It is pretty transparent what you’re trying to do. ;)

    As for the “rare occasions when you do not have your way politically”, I can only say – you got to be kidding me. Divorces, fornication, adultery, molestation, orgies, porn industry, human trafficking, teenage pregnancies, teenage abortions, teenage STD rates, etc. etc. are good and well, and you manage to say “rare occasions”? I hope you’re not living in denial. It seems to me that immorality rules the day, and politically too…

  155. Zoe,
    your superficial analysis of lefhandedness and its historical ans social perceptions is sort of interesting, and to this day right is considered more preferable than left, in many cultural idioms etc.
    But you’re obviously exaggeration the issue. And I never in my life heard that lefthandedness is bad based on that passage from the Bible. this is very strange Bible application.
    Consider story from Matt. ch. 20:20-28:

    “Then the mother of Zebedee’s sons came to Jesus with her sons and, kneeling down, asked a favor of him. “What is it you want?” he asked. She said, “Grant that one of these two sons of mine may sit at your right and the other at your left in your kingdom.” “You don’t know what you are asking,” Jesus said to them. “Can you drink the cup I am going to drink?” “We can,” they answered. Jesus said to them, “You will indeed drink from my cup, but to sit at my right or left is not for me to grant. These places belong to those for whom they have been prepared by my Father.” When the ten heard about this, they were indignant with the two brothers. Jesus called them together and said, “You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be your slave— just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

    Apparently she did not consider being at the left hand of Jesus as being queer. Do you think? Maybe she was asking for a blessing for one child, and curse for another ? I don’t think so.

  156. “Then, there’s failure on your part to differentiate between political and moral issues.”

    I believe many Christians likewise fail to make this distinction. Perhaps you should lecture to them about this matter rather than me.

    “What is the point of asking such an obvious question?”

    I was rubbing it in Dr. Brown’s face that he did not have his way politically regarding “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” I bet it upsets both you and Dr. Brown that “Don’t ask. Don’t tell.” is officially repealed. Huh? Get over it! Besides, it is not as if what I said to Dr. Brown was any of your business anyhow Konstantin.

  157. Bravo! Why is it that “tolerance” as it is defined today seems to mean “HAVING TO NOT ONLY AGREE WITH THE PERSON BUT WITH EVERY ONE OF THEIR BEHAVIORS” … That is NOT the meaning of Tolerance — or for that matter, of “Love”…. and one of the places I see this most horrendously displaysed in in “the “gay agenda” . Thank you for standing firm and standing in the gap. Bravo to you!

  158. Sounds like a gay panic defense. Basically if gay activists hadn’t told him to be proud of who he is he wouldn’t have died? Being gay isn’t a thing to be killed over flaunted or not. I think this quick text defines you fallacious reasoning: “parents were telling us that the schools were not safe for suggestively dressed girls, then they shouldn’t be encouraging their daughters to wear mini-skirts.” yes because women wearing short skirts are to blame for their own problems and not the guys who should know better.

  159. Let me point this out, if a child as old as larry promoted the bible openly in a Christian-unfriendly community because of your influence…and a radical Islamic killed him because of it, could I blame you instead of the intolerance? Should I blame how he flaunted the bible as long as I point out that he was a victim? You would be right to call me a monster…why should anybody treat you differently.

Leave Comment