Chuck, thanks for your response. I'll be glad to answer your comments and questions.

(1) To clarify, the main point of my response was not an attempt to persuade that homosexual relationships can be honoring to God, although it is my belief that they can be. My point was to highlight the importance of speaking truthfully and fair-mindedly in making your argument against these relationships, which I believe is sorely lacking in the church in the sight of all, and as I see it to be a disservice to the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Regarding the Romans passage: I encourage readers to examine carefully the entire passage, with a view to the context that is being explicitly laid out regarding the type of person Paul is looking at.

Your belief appears to be that this passage shows that same-sex intimacy is inextricably woven, and the same in origin, with the bad character and a godless spirit that he spoke of, i.e., (a) the denial of who God is, though they knew Him, (b) a heart that does not love God or give thanks to Him, (c) the worship of idols, (d) the exchanging of the "natural use" of body parts, which implies to me a sense of rebellion of spirit (as do the other points) as being the purpose of the acts, (e) which were committed in lust, and (f) the very extensive list of bad character qualities, of which these individuals were guilty and encouraged others to engage in.

The fact that they were "turned over" to these things was related to God's relationship with these particular individuals who had turned their backs on Him, and to anyone who acts rebelliously against God. This very extensively described character does not describe in the least the type of character of the individual that we are speaking about. Paul associated same-sex acts with this spirit of rebellion, because this was from his own awareness and his experience, and he had no reason to believe otherwise. I do not believe he spoke with full knowledge of the issue, which his description proves to me, and which I believe was the intention of God in how these references were explicitly written.

The point of this passage was all about a spirit of rebellion against God. Biology itself (or body parts) does not constitute either rebellion or godliness--how one lives their life is what constitutes these things. He is a God of the heart. You are entitled to take this at face value regarding same-sex relations, but it doesn't describe either myself as a person, or the nature of same-sex intimacy in and of itself, so I cannot take it that way.

It is also important to note that the commandment of God is not to blindly follow every word of Paul, nor do we. As born-again believers, we are to rightly discern the natures of things, and we do not live by all instructions in Scripture, which is a teaching of the New Testament itself. This is an extensive study of the Bible, and some of what I have to say about this is in my subsequent comment that I posted.

(2) As to being born gay: You say that the evidence shows that people are not born gay, but this evidence that you are alluding to is not the experience of those individuals who were born gay, myself included, which is evidenced from childhood. Many people would agree that a distinction can often be drawn between gay and straight individuals, for not all but for some gay people, based only on the inherent makeup of the person. For example, I always guessed that CNN's Anderson Cooper may be gay. I looked him up on Wikipedia, and sure enough he is. To make myself clear, it is not a femininity that I see in this particular example, but it is something in his makeup and frame. For some gay people it is very apparent, and for others it isn't. For some people it is merely a preference. In the understanding of many people, it is a fact of life.

As to whether this constitutes "morality" or not: You and I apparently have a different understanding of what constitutes morality. I think it is based on how we treat people (or other living creatures). Morality and a love for God does speak against promiscuity, for very substantiated reasons, and it requires high standards. Economy issues are related to morality, as we are "mortgaging our children's future," in the words of one outspoken thinker. I don't see gender-related condemnations raised in any of the most important areas of Scripture, e.g., the Ten Commandments, the teachings of Jesus Christ, or the Book of Revelation, which could have easily been done for the sake of the complexities of this issue. Jesus made no such condemnation. He spoke of a model of marriage, absent of any condemnation (except...). I don't believe it is related to morality, and a condemnation that is based solely on a gender issue would be "legalism" in my view, and has nothing to do with the heart of the person or the fruits of deeds.

(3) In your statement that I commented on regarding "the homosexual relationship," what you are doing here is establishing your understanding of the larger social issue, based on a generalization from your experience with "firsthand testimony," which completely ignores the testimony of the individuals for whom the issue of domestic partnerships is all about. Your words speak for themselves.

In comparison, what you are doing is along the lines of citing the high out-of-wedlock birth rates of African Americans, in order to establish a view of these people and limitation of their rights, if we still lived in a society where this could be done. This would be an egregious injustice, and not a true representation of what it is about to be a black person at all. It is not how God judges people. If pointing this out is an ad hominem attack, you must believe that it is wrong to bring up these principles for the sake of truth and justice, which is all that I did in my comment. (The biblical issue is separate from this as a principle. In a fair and truthful discussion, it should not make a difference regarding the use of this tactic, which should not be needed.)

As to spreading falsehoods, I believe it is clear that your statement feeds right into the beliefs of many people, as to how we should view gay people and what same-sex relationships are all about. It is a blatant misrepresentation. There are very different kinds of people in the world. You could speak about those realities in a different context, if it is done fairly, but not as a foundation for your beliefs about homosexual relationships. What you are talking about is very far from what is being discussed on the issue of domestic partnerships.

(4) In addition to what I have said, I didn't simply dismiss you without addressing your words, and I did address it in a substantive fashion. You used the lifestyles of some people to establish your beliefs on all gay people and relationships, did you not? It is a fundamental injustice and untruth. In my understanding, if you highly regarded speaking only substantiated truths to make your argument, you would not be able to address the issue in the way that you did. Love would require no less.

In answer to your concluding question: If it could be established that God gave us a simple set of laws to live by, and did not also prolifically establish principles that show that we are not to understand His Word in this simplistic way, I would absolutely live by all commandments of Scripture. You seem to be reading a different Bible, where we are to live by all of the instructions therein. That is not the Bible that God gave to us. This is precisely why it is highlighted in Scripture that "love" is the entirety of God's law. (Romans 13:8-10 among others) The commandment of Jesus Christ is to love your neighbor as yourself. He is a God of the heart, and Scripture shows a view to the fruits of deeds. He showed that it is possible to use the Law to wrongly condemn "the innocent," and He commanded His people to be very careful in how we judge others, and that we are not to judge "according to appearance." (John 7:24)

He not only established His Word with a view to reason and discernment, and the true essence of righteousness (John 1:17 and others), He also created some people with a homosexual orientation from birth. God will decide whether people will be accountable to have understood this from evidence in the makeup of humanity, but I personally know it to be true. The God of Scripture is compassionate and reasonable, and I believe God cares about this reality of nature, and that the priorities of those who place heterosexuality above the gay believer are amiss. I have no doubt that the hand of God is upon this, and it is part of His plan. He will also be the Judge of people's use of His Word, as to consistency and a thought process regarding its complexities.

Chuck, I would like to know what your understanding is on what I am speaking about in my other post. It addresses complexities of Scripture and the church's use and understanding of God's Word. I'll answer only briefly if necessary. I have a strong perspective on the issue, and I don't wish to take over the dialog any further, but I do thank Dr. Bock for allowing an alternative view, and it speaks well to his integrity. He is entitled to his view. My main point, as I said, is to encourage truthfulness and fair-mindedness in how you address the issue. God needs nothing more to make His case on any issue. Thinking people deserve nothing less.

In love and truth. Lynn