As a believer who loves God, and believes the Bible was given to humanity by God, with the writings inspired and governed by God...my argument is not to dismiss His Word, but to consider all of the Scriptures with depth, honesty, consistency, the context of passages, and with a view to all of the doctrines therein. It is abundantly clear to me that many believers understand God's Word in both a highly selective and non-discerning manner. Everyone is entitled to their conclusion on the issue, but certain much-ignored truths are indisputable in my view.

In all of the efforts to characterize the beliefs of Dr. Bock, let me try my hand at this endeavor. His belief appears clear to me. He obviously does not place "race" in a moral category, and respects racial diversity as part of the perfect creation of God. He would not make the statement that this should be changed in people, if it were possible. It seems to me that he is open to the possibility that some people are born with an innate homosexual orientation, and he can clarify if I have misunderstood him on this. His point has been clear throughout, that even if this is the case for some people, this does not translate into moral acceptability in his view. He has also made the point that, at least in the cases of some people, this orientation can be brought about through various circumstances in life, such as drug or alcohol use, past sexual abuse I'm sure he would agree, or lustful thoughts. His belief appears to be that this can be changed, for at least some people, and at the very least should be denied oneself.

In my understanding of God, what is "perfect" is not rendered so much in the physical creation as related to humanity, but in the principles of love and understanding. It is problematic to relate "holiness" to creation, but I believe is clearly found in obedience to the commandments of Jesus Christ, and given by and through Him.

It is an indisputable fact of life, to myself and to many honest and intelligent people, that some people are evidenced to be born with an innate, homosexual orientation in their very makeup. It is the case for myself. It is amazing to me that this testimony is not evidence to some people, and the outwardly apparent evidence, which is the case in some gay people, is not evidence to these people. I have heard some of God's people call it a "ridiculous" notion, that anyone is born gay. Speak of people as you will, but it is not deniable on that kind of level of certainty. I was born with a homosexual orientation. It did not come from drug use or sexual abuse, because neither of these things existed in my life, and I don't think "lust" is a factor in the life of a twelve year old girl. It is evidenced as part of my makeup, and it came from nowhere but how I was born and created by God. Feel free to hold onto denial of this, but it is true, and is not subject in the least to disagreement by those who possess a certainty, that all people are created heterosexual by nature.

The question now becomes, for believers who see this reality in creation and in the makeup of humanity, in a view to the biblical texts. I believe I've addressed this sufficiently in my summaries here. I also want to note that I personally have the acceptance of God in my life. I've walked with Him for many years, and I've had a profound experience with Him in my life. You can say that He has revealed His will on the issue in His Word, but in my reading of the Bible, what was addressed there was clearly spiritual rebellion, committed out of lust by those who do not love God. It is an important distinction, and God does not judge anyone legalistically. It is easy to see how this may not have represented a full address of the issue, considering the explicit context, and several N.T. precepts are also not the law of the faith today. Considering that God set up the Law in the way that He did, including abomination and death penalty laws, and then rendered these laws not the law of the Christian faith...what more would He have to do to show that the "new covenant" functions with discernment of good and evil, and not according to a rigid use of laws? The law of God is all that defines love, and this also requires high standards and waiting for the right person. It is very clear to me. It is clear to many other people that it is "all the same" to God, and you are entitled to your view.

What I appreciate in Dr. Bock, is that he does not come across to me as an overbearing condemner of gay people, as so many Christians are. I appreciate the problem and the issue for him, and for many other sincere Christians, that it is all about the moral question, as related to how the laws of the land are established. As a personally conservative believer in the Lord myself, I can appreciate that they do not want to see something that they view as immoral sanctioned in the laws. This being said, I have no doubt that the generations of the present and future will discern this issue as not related to immorality, and those who are burdened with this preconception will be outnumbered in time--not in the least as a manifestation of a moral slide, but as a reality of nature and an issue of fairness and compassion. I believe equality in domestic laws, for all of the practical reasons that apply to heterosexual marriages, should and will be established.

Much has been said about "morality" here, but it seems to me that "natural law" would be a more appropriate term, and with a view to the effects and fruits of deeds, rather than a use of religious doctrines. Some people would argue that natural law dictates that all people are to be heterosexual or celibate. That is a fundamental unfairness in my view, and defies sensibility. I don't believe it can be argued that natural law would require that the gay person marry the opposite sex, whom they do not desire and cannot be in love with. (Celibacy is a gift, according to Scripture, and though is stated to be the ideal way of life, relatively almost no one is interested in following this instruction of Paul, including divorced Christians. People want to be married and have companionship, as was the point of the Newsweek writer.) Children do best in loving and attentive homes. The individual who is born gay does best, when he or she is not indoctrinated to believe that there is something dreadfully wrong with him or her, and treated with non-acceptance by parents, which a study has recently shown.

In closing, I want to say that it is "hypocrisy" that has been proposed to be established in the highest law of the land, and in the name of God. It is also a contradiction to the spirit of the Constitution, as rights would now be taken away from people. A certain former presidential candidate gained astonishing support in declaring that "the Constitution should be conformed to the Bible." Never mind what the Bible says about remarriage and adultery, though, as this would step on too many toes. This proposal would not only be an affront to the First Amendment, which they must also want to repeal, but it would drag God's glorious gospel--whose truth can bring a grown man to his knees in tears, because of God's power and love for him--down into politics, and would continue to make it repulsive to many people. God help this nation if this is ever successful. Thanks.