The GC/NAD and the Supreme Court’s LGBT+ Decision

Spectrum Website
#21

One may worship without being a member, and gain most of the benefits if they so desire. The church teachings on homosexual behavior are clear. If you want to be a hypocrite on the matter, then allow openly practicing gays membership. Or change the teaching.

My primary concern is the youth. If you allow a gay to be a member, they will say to you, "You let so and so in, and here is what the Bible says. So why can’t we sleep with our girlfriends, or why was my mom asked to leave after the affair?

I don’t know a good answer, unless you treat all equally before the teachings of the church.

1 Like
#22

Allen Shepherd

YOU STATE:
GAYS DO NOT HAVE TO DO AS THEIR PROCLIVITIES DICTATE.

Allen are you married and sexually active ?
If so, why are you not following Apostle Paul’s advice that remaining single and CELIBATE is the preferred option ?

While gays “ proclivity “ ( endowed by the hormones God provided for them ),
is to find a mate with whom to be sexual,
they like most romantic couples,
put a higher value on the love, validation, affirmation, esteem, support, conviviality, companionship that coupling affords.

Your denying gays / lesbians their “ proclivity “ condemns them to a lifetime of abject loneliness.

Not to mention, possible economic deprivation and homelessness- —- in these harsh economic times with massive unemployment, it is often the employed partner who sustains the jobless one.

In my 84 years, I have watched with amazement and amusement as churchmen ( pastors, administrators, parochial teachers ) when widowed while in their “ viagra “ years, are almost always remarried within a year of losing their wives.

Clearly, not for the sex, but because of their overwhelming LONELINESS

Yet, these same hypocrites, like you, were the first to deny and condemn companionship, love and happiness to gays / lesbians who had zero choice in their sexual orientation.

You ask for my personal information.

My wife and I, ( both anesthesiologists ) were happily married and I would never have left her. However when she tragically died in 1989 at the age of 53, I realized that I could not be sexual with another woman, so unlike the churchmen alluded to above, I remained single and lonely for the next twelve years.

Then I found an incredible man ( through a gay matchmaker — his fee was $2,000– I have proclaimed repeatedly that I would have paid $200,000 for this mate ).

He is a dentist, a published poet, a consummate artist— water colors, oils, sketches.
Between us, we own seven homes to which we travel — we are itinerant in our retirement. We have happily been together for twenty years.

Our six adult offspring have been unbelievably supportive of our relationship — my four kids, and his two, are so happy that we are not alone and miserable ! I

I have one set of grandchildren in London England and the other set in Maui Hawaii —- twelve time zones apart ! He has three grandchildren living in Phoenix, Arizona.

Regrettably, my partner now has advancing Alzheimer’s and I am happily his caregiver, now in my Maui home.

Now that I have been so transparent, here is a PERSONAL question for you:
At what age did you make the deliberate, definitive choice between being heterosexual and homosexual??
Or were you, fortunate for you, born straight ?.

6 Likes
#23

Well, the church is full of hypocrisy on that matter. You don’t have to look any further than 3abn recent history.

Likewise, pointing to the rules that were largely created so you can point to these for justification makes little sense when it comes to circular logic inherent in such arguments.

How many people in your youth do you think will make it till marriage without having a sexual experience before it? Realistically? How many do you think consume porn as a vicarious alternative for having their urges satisfied? How much do we actually address any of that in our churches?

It seems to me that you are leveraging non-existing reality of one set of ideals in order to project on non-existing reality of the other.

I would think equality would be that we are equally concerned about certain things on the other spectrum of human sexuality, instead of pretending that we have it covered there with no problems at all. I highly doubt that including homosexuals will all of a sudden unravel the fabric of modern Adventist sexuality beyond the point which it exists currently.

2 Likes
#24

Quite an interesting article.

The court has already said that a church may discriminate in this matter. The church teaches that homosexual behavior is wrong so has always retained the right to hire those who will support its teaching. I don’t believe that will change. The court has already ruled before, and will doubtless receive a case that will clarify the issue.

But is it discrimination to only hire those who will teach as the church teaches? I think not. Why would you hire a person who undermines the very beliefs of the group? You are shooting yourself in the foot. We do associate together because we have a common set of beliefs, after all. Now there are plenty of differences among the membership, but to hire someone who has a fundamental issue with an important one is surely the epitome of foolishness.

So, to frame this as an issue of discrimination is incorrect. It is an issue of church identity. A church that allows for gay membership is denying a teaching of scripture, thus taking another authority as its standard. The Bible is the bedrock of Adventism, our constitution in a way. For America to deny its constitution is to deny its identity as America.

It is the same with the church. It has an identity, and has a right to uphold it, as it sees its way in following God.

I thought it a bit ironic that Lawson was fired by a gay individual!

1 Like
#25

Read Paul’s advice carefully. His advice on celibacy is not a command of God.

Some do remain celebate, other marry the opposite sex, which can work. The Bible says homosexual behavior is forbidden. You can go ahead, your prerogative. So just do it, and let the church alone. You act as if the church has to align with your beliefs. Well, it doesn’t.

If I was hired by the church and taught that gay behavior was OK, then I would be a hypocrite.

I understand the loneliness. My mother died at 52, and my father became infatuated with one of my brother’s girlfriends! I told him it would not work, but he married her anyway and got divorced in 2 yrs because she wanted to date around a bit. He never remarried. And reminded lonely.

I did not ask for your personal information. But commented that this issue was personal for you. I see that it was.

You accuse anyone that does not go along with your thinking as a hypocrite. No. They just disagree with you and your behavior. That does not make them a hypocrite. Be a bit less judgmental, or just do as you please and live and let live.

#26

Allen Shepherd
You find it a bit ironic that Lawson was fired by a gay individual ?
Please be advised that closeted, self hating, self loathing gays
( programmed that way by society ) are often more hateful to gays
than their neutral straight friends.

Please be advised that numerous politicians, prolific
in their advocacy and support of anti gay legislation,
were later outed as being closeted gays.

2 Likes
#27

Jesus said, “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery.” Matt 19:9. The disciples did not like it either (see Matt 19:10)

The rules were not mad to point to these for justification. Jesus said it. Even Matthew did not like it.

In Adventism, the local church has right to judge the behavior of the members. Are you criticizing me for doing what Danny’s local church would not do?? I’m not sure its circular criticism, but its something like that.

I bet there are plenty of them that have done these things that I have not known about. I can’t do anything about something I don’t know, but did act when I did. Just because many people are doing something secretly doesn’t mean to ignore it (See Acts 119:16-20). I have addressed such actions to the church from the pulpit. But more often personally. Much more effective. I might add that Paul said fornicators would not be in the kindfom. Don’t you think I should be interested in an issue that prevents heaven? Jesus would say when I got there, “Why did you not warn them?” I don’t want to be speechless at that time.

Where did you get that idea? I addressed the problem as I saw them. And as Jesus asked us to.

#28

Sorry, Allen, you did indeed ask for my PERSONAL information.
You inquired why this issue was so personal for me and whether
I had a gay relative, son or daughter. Please check your posting !

You also state that I should let the church alone.

Please be advised that I have done just that - I have abandoned Adventism,
because I can no longer tolerate their miserable medieval mindset of misogyny and homophobia

I have been fortunate to find, in each of the areas I travel to,
alternative spiritual havens , amazingly each with ORDAINED clergywomen
as head pastors, which offer me full impeccable inclusion,
love and and acceptance

4 Likes
#29

I see, It is societies fault, (along with the church’s), and closeted gays, and politicians etc. I am aware of the issues there. Everyone should be responsible for their own behavior. You are doing as you please. It would seem to me that you could live your life and not be so critical of the church, who has a differing opinion. No one is chasing you and hassling you, are they?

And does a gay deserve the right to remain closeted?

Your anger and bitterness are pretty clear in your posts, that’s why I noted that it was personal. Why?

#30

Yes, I know what I said. I asked if it were personal, that is a personal issue. I was not really asking for personal information. But I apologize for misleading you.

I am happy for you. But I do not apologize for the church’s teachings. You have “abandoned” Adventism, and chosen another group for spiritual haven, another more amicable association. They even ordain women, a practice of the truly faithful! Best of luck.

#31

Unless @Stephenundercoversda can tell us what precipitating factors influenced him to choose to be a heterosexual instead of remaining a homosexual or asexual.

3 Likes
#32

How certain are you that heterosexuals do not expose themselves to disease, death and other problems simply by being heterosexuals?

5 Likes
#33

Breaking Gnus fromAdventist Allium-Verdant Rascallion reporting:
I’ve heard from several anonympus credible sorces that the next of the flotilla of foundational beliefs to be heralded proudly will be that no Adventist can baptize anyone on fire. No ordained, commissioned, unordained, uncommissioned can sprinkle, dunk, vapor, or ice challenge anyone who is on fire, was on fire, or likely will be on fire. Whether by spontaneous combustion, self-immolation, amazing friction or lightning strike, no such person shall ever be legally baptized.

Even if they are only smoking a little bit.

Stephen"outofcoversda" brought out some ire, err, satire in me.
I had to reread his post to be sure. I’m certain he meant it.
I hope he realizes how much I mean my satire.

#34

If you are paring up sexually with someone, you take some risk. The states do not require an HIV test before granting a license for nothing. HIV and other STDs are less in heterosexuals. Check the CDC on the matter: Sex Having Sex with Men.

1 Like
#35

Allen, pretty clear, two things.

You apparently do not read here very often, or fail to read thoroughly. Robin has provided full disclosure previously, something many of us here who could learn something from if we cared to, but likely wont because we busy ourselves castigating the sins of our brothers, our sisters, our presidents all the while blithely glossing over our own equally numerous faults.

And since clearly you were uniformed of Robins story, your “innocent little query” seems to instead have been an attempt to slur him. I don’t believe I’ve seen a biblical edict to slur folks-for any reason.

Or am I being a bit too personal with you?

2 Likes
#36

I teach 5-8 science to the children. What do you think matters more, what I teach or what I am? I can tell you from experience. They will forget the science, but they will remember what I stood for and what I am. They have returned yrs later and said so.

Hiring a gay tells them something about the church, and its teachings. That the church does not take the teachings seriously.

1 Like
#37

Not at all. I did not know his personal matters at all. I just sensed the issue was personal for him.

Second, it was not a slur. Since I saw such anger, I thought it might be well to get it out there.

No harm intended. Sorry.

#38

Thank you TIMO, for your support of me!

BLACK LIVES MATTER has generated a new concept
/ buzzword: —- ‘ WHITE PRIVILEGE “— although millions of whites
in Appalachia and elsewhere, would not identify.

Many on this site exhibit the epitome of
“STRAIGHT PRIVILEGE”

They smugly gloat and exult in self righteousness,
self congratulation, self satisfaction, that they are freely able to
exert their “ proclivities “ in their marriage, while denying these
rights to others.

Shepherd asks whether I have been “hassled “ by Adventism.
Fortunately for much of my adult life I was perceived as married with
children. After the demise of my wife I was heavily closeted.

More recently, with fortunate multi million $$ stock market
earnings, my generosity to congregations, somewhat inhibits
them being nasty to their biggest donor !

But now they have lost these contributions when I
exited Adventism.
I am still a generous supporter of SPECTRUM

However, attending KINSHIP KAMPMEETING
I am sickened by the poignant, personal histories of
other gay Adventists whose childhoods / adolescence
were devastated by shunning, shaming, rejection and hate.
“ Hassling “ is an understatement !

I had an epiphany at the last KINSHIP KAMPMEETING:
—- had this been a group of gay Buddhists, gay Hindus,
gay Japanese Shintos, NONE / ZERO would have suffered
as gay children, because those religions are not homophobic.
Having Adventist families / congregations / schools
was a horror story for them !

Allen Shepherd’s father whom he says remained single
after being widowed / divorced, had “ straight privilege “
that allowed him to remarry without comdemnation.
I personally know dozens of single, widowed, divorced
Adventist women, lonely, who would have eagerly bedded,
cooked for, and cleaned for this man, just for his companionship!
That he chose not to avail himself of this “ straight privilege “
was his option.

1 Like
#39

Indeed! They need a little education.

On another note, your previous post got me cogitating. I think SDAs (and most Christians) are too obsessed with sex and policing other people’s behavior around it. In spite of the fact that the only sexual activity explicitly condemned in the Bible are widely accepted taboos such as incest, bestiality and adultery, the church has at times considered certain sexual behaviors even between monogamous heterosexual couples as wrong (e.g., oral and anal sex). In fact, there seems to be an unspoken hierarchy of sexual rules, most of which have no Biblical basis, and the reasons why some are worse than others can seem a bit arbitrary at times. So, here is my attempt at laying out the hierarchy, starting with what is acceptable, and moving to that which is considered the worst. I will attempt to make my list as complete as possible, but by no means comprehensive.

Always acceptable: heterosexual sexual relations in marriage with the intent to produce offspring.

Acceptable to most SDAs: heterosexual sexual relations in marriage for sexual pleasure and bonding (no intent to reproduce)

Questionable sexual behavior: heterosexual sexual relations in marriage involving mutual masturbation, oral sex, anal intercourse

More or less sinful sexual behaviors: heterosexual sexual relations between two individuals that are engaged to be married.

Clearly sinful sexual behaviors (assuming heterosexual orientation): premarital sex between committed singles, masturbation, viewing of pornography, remarrying after a divorce if the divorce was not due to adultery of the other partner

Clearly “very” sinful behaviors (assuming heterosexual orientation): casual sexual encounters among singles, adultery.

Clearly “very, very” sinful behaviors (assuming heterosexual orientation): swinging, repeated adultery, open sexual relationships.

The worst of sinful sexual behaviors: pedophilia, same-sex sexual relations in any context (including marriage between same-sex partners).

Now my question is, why is same-sex sexual behavior always considered the worst, on par with pedophilia? And what is this penchant for seeing some sexual sins as worse than others? Or for that matter, why are sexual sins considered worse than things like lying and gossip? Admittedly my rankings would also vary, depending who you ask.

2 Likes
#40

I did not say he did not have relationships, but he never remarried, and could have if he had not gotten burned once. He remained lonely in spite of the relationships.

So, no you have not been hassled. Good.

Hmmm… I did not deny your right to do whatever you want. You are doing it aren’t you? Where was I smug or gloating or exulting in self righteousness and self congratulation. I have my own problems, that I have not shared. I know the human condition. We are all sinners. You and me both. Why would you feel I think that way, when it did not once enter my mind? I strive to get people to heaven, and the Bible says that certain acts keep them from it.

But, go ahead, do as you please. I do not have control over you.

Come on Bryan. How many open disciplinary actions on sexual matters have you actually attended, or know of? I know what the churches do and how they act. It is not common, and SDA’s are not obsessing over it. My daughter said she had never seen one. The churches hardly discipline anyone anymore on any sin. So I am curious where you got the idea about obsessing.

I see it discussed here more than anywhere else. Maybe it is liberal Adventists and non-Adventists that are obsessing?