In answer to the question John poses to me, the overarching principle is more than a loving, committed relationship. If this is the standard, then "adultery" would also be acceptable, which is a violation of one's commitment of love to their spouse and is sin on this basis, which was addressed in the Ten Commandments. The question is not particularly fit to be answered, but I'll just say that I would be just as offended by the concept of an incestuous relationship as just about anyone would be. The topic here is about people being born innately homosexual, and the type of love and commitment that I am speaking of is before God and is in the light. God will be the Judge of all people. I've never stated this to be the complete criteria that God, being a righteous Judge of the hearts of all people, would be looking at.

The issue here is about "gender," and gender issues do not constitute "immorality" in my understanding of the Bible. There is an explicitly stated context in all of the references that speak of condemnation, and this context explains that it is lust, rebellion, idolatry, and unfaithfulness that constitutes sexual immorality. "In Christ there is no male or female." (Gal. 3:28) To condemn purely on the basis of gender is legalism, and takes nothing into consideration except the written law, which is wholly not how law functions in the church. There is more to be taken into consideration on this issue, considering that we are speaking about an individual's "natural makeup," not the "rebellion" that was prolifically spoken of in the Bible. Man looks upon the outward appearance; God looks upon the heart. I could give a list of examples of how disastrous it would be to cite and apply biblical passages standing alone. John states that "the Bible presents homosexuality as immoral," but this is without any view to the context in which passages were stated, or any other principles of Scripture. This is no more true and complete, than it would be to say that to work on Saturday is worthy of death, or to eat pork or shellfish is abominable in the sight of God. God has written His law on our hearts, and this is a matter of one's own conscience and personal relationship with God. Also important to note, if the condemnation were about a particular act, it would have been forbidden for all people. The condemnation was regarding a certain type of lawless person, who had a rebellious heart towards God. The context of the passages explicitly shows this to be true. This theological reasoning does stop with the Bible, and it is based on the Bible.

In speaking about anecdotal evidence regarding "moving on the spectrum" in terms of our sexual orientation, I can tell you that I am not "heterophobic" and I would not be interested in an intimate relationship with a man. As a gay woman, it is not in me and would not be a possibility for me. I don't mean to be insulting about whatever it is that John is speaking of, but there is a difference between love and intimacy, and what it seems to me that John is speaking about.

He is saying that he could move on the spectrum, and that heterosexual people he has spoken with also believe they could desire the same sex. John, are we speaking about basically animalistic activities, or are we speaking about love and intimacy from the deepest and most complete part of one's heart and being? If you are speaking about the former, that would be like macaroni and cheese, compared to a seven course, porterhouse steak dinner with wine...if you are speaking of the latter, I don't believe many heterosexual or homosexual people would agree with you. Possibly, through introspection, you feel that an experience with a man would be something meaningful--I don't feel the same way, and there is no comparison for me. Most straight men would possibly do bodily damage to you if you physically tried to explore the prospect with them. I'm sure, and I mean this sincerely, that you could find plenty of gay or bisexual men who would love to give you or your friends the chance to explore this in yourself...provided they are not walking in a close relationship with Jesus Christ, who would require much more from them than what that would be about. I think your words do reveal what you are speaking about, but perhaps you will clarify what type of sexual relationship you are speaking about for all of Dr. Bock's readers.

As far as the straight Christian who believes the gay Christian should be able to change...the premise there is that they believe that all people are to be heterosexual, end of story. (I suppose they would believe that "asexual" would be acceptable) "Hypocrisy" I believe, has more to do with one's stated beliefs in an ethical sense, so I don't see this in terms of their belief that the gay person can change, while they would have no desire or consideration of what it would be about for themselves to change. They don't understand that the gay person's sexual orientation is as deeply a part of them, and important to them as part of the gift of life, as their own sexual orientation is--and there are many truths of the Bible that they do not feel an obligation to process. (I believe there is a hypocrisy, but not in the sense that you are speaking of.) In my belief, many Christians are challenged in the integrity department. It is one thing to believe homosexuality is wrong...other things many of them are engaged in for their beliefs, are another thing altogether. Just some thoughts for consideration.