There is More to Human Sexuality than XX and XY

Not sure what you are getting at, but I can say that this statement is true. Whether God created two alleles that differ slightly, or one is derived by mutation from the other, the outcome would be the same. This is the reason that Creationists can even argue for Intelligent Design (ID) at all. It doesn’t prove whether ID is correct or not, it just makes the argument possible. The big caveat to that is that not all mutations are the same, and some shared mutations would be very hard to explain using ID. But all this is really a discussion for another time and place, as this discussion is about LGBTQ+ people and the proposal they should be allowed to marry and maintain their full membership as SDAs.


Good for you. Then we agree. Mutation is one of the design features that allows for variation in the human population.

Really? Not even microevolution? If you have variation, how are you going to stop evolution?


Yeah, but we can point to the place in the allele where the mutation occurred. Indeed blue and green eyes, and blond hair for that matter many find attractive, so its simply an example of how a mutation can spread rapidly. Aren’t you one who claims mutations are all bad? Well, blue eyes and blond hair are in fact mutations. Read up on blond hair.

Observable mutations would attract attention from other persons.
2 persons capable to replicate themselves would mix these genes
and pass them down to many generations further.

2 same-sex persons deciding to spend their lives together would be
no different than 2 Heterosexuals who decide to spend their lives
together and NOT have any children either because of CHOICE or
because of Not being capable for some reason.
Either me or my wife passed on a Lethal Gene to my oldest daughter.
She could not carry a live child to term. Caused a lethal heart defect
as matured toward 7-8 months.
These things happen as “gifts” from previous generations.

Dunno. I’m not a genetic scientist. That’s what they say the math says. It’s a hypothetical in any case, as it didn’t happen.

Yes, mutations do produce new alleles, but these new alleles are functionally detrimental compared with the original state (by a ratio of over a million to one). You claim that some mutations are functionally beneficial, and that the “diversity” produced by these mutations is vital for human survival, but these beneficial mutations are extremely rare (and never happen at all when it comes to levels of novel functional complexity requiring a minimum of more than a few hundred amino acid residues - for a protein-based system).

The real problem of course is that the rate of detrimental mutations so far outpaces the extremely rare rate of beneficial mutations that natural selection is powerless to keep up - to sort out the bad and keep the good remotely fast enough to stop the detrimental mutations from piling up in each and every generation.

This completely does in the Darwinian notion of uphill evolution over millions of years of time. That just cannot happen. Statically, it is inevitable that we devolve as a species due to our very high detrimental mutation rate. How do you get around this fundamental problem for your argument?

Also, as far as creating potential for huge phenotypic diversity, you know as well as I do that this is easily doable given that most traits are governed by multiple alleles and other genetic elements - even non-coding genetic sequences as well as epigenetic controls. This allows for amazing phenotypic diversity to confront rapidly changing environments without the need to slowly produced new alleles with random mutations that are almost always detrimental and which end up rapidly degrading the functionality of the gene pool over time…

1 Like

I don’t follow you. Why would one particular allele be more perfect than some other version that allows for variation in various environments that might be encountered in this world? I would argue, that such pre-programmed variability would be highly advantageous - a more ideal/perfect system compared to your concept of uniformity within a non-uniform world. The fairly new study of epigenetic controls only adds to this potential for pre-programmed phenotypic variability.

It’s not that there are “some faults”, but that random mutations almost always mess things up far far more often than they come up with some truly novel beneficial function - as would be expected in any complex functional digital-type system (like computer code). And, the real kicker here is the rate at which these detrimental mutations pile up within a gene pool. They just happen far far too quickly to keep up with them. That means that build up more and more and more in each and every generation.

How is that an “ideal design” for God to have created? I’m telling you, we get old and die, not because God created it to be this way originally, but because He is no longer maintaining the system as He did originally. That’s why things get old, wear out, and eventually die. The very same thing is happening to our gene pool. It’s wearing out. It will eventually die and go extinct if God doesn’t step in and save the otherwise dire situation we’re in.

How can you say this knowing even the basics about genetics? Do you really think that Cain and Able had to have been identical twins? If so, you must not understand that most traits are governed by multiple different alleles and genetic regions that can be mixed and matched via Mendelian-style variation (not to mention variable epigenetic controls) to produce an enormous variety of phenotypic differences within human offspring (as well as with plants and animals). Your notion that variation would have been impossible within an Edenic state for humanity is based on a very poor understanding of the potential variability for pre-programmed genetic information within the human genome.

1 Like

Random mutations allow for variation, but not good variation. Good variation can be based on Mendelian-style variation, variable epigenetic controls, and perhaps even well-controlled viral-type translocating units within the genome. However, completely random genetic mutations are most certainly not an ideal or Divine way to produce useful variability as compared to the original gene pool. Uncontrolled random mutations are almost always detrimental and build up within the human gene pool far far faster than they can be eliminated - in each and every generation. That’s not good design. Far from it. That’s what happens when there is a lack of design and maintenance of a system. It starts to naturally break down and fall apart.

1 Like

Too much variation at one time. The finches at the Galapagos have lots of variation, pretty significant, but they can still interbreed and yet they are all finches. That is variation. Changing to a robin, or an ostrich, or a reptile is too much. Organisms are resilient, but change to much and they crump… I agree with Pittman

mostly but not all. They usually are a degredation rather than an improvement.

I did. They thought maybe northern European need for less shading of skin by dark hair to promote Vit D production. But then they said this at the end:

Currently, there is no accepted theory regarding the true origins of blond hair. However, there seems to be a consensus among researchers that the evolution of blond hair did take place more than once; this hypothesis carries much credibility among scientists worldwide.

Oh, yeah… Got to love those just so stories…

Actually, no I did not say that. Here is my exact wording:

I did not use the term vibrant as a synonym for survival, I was using it to refer to the wondrous esthetic nature of a diverse human population. I am not even hinting at some sort of evolutionary meaning.

I am not interested in arguing this point or any other related points, as they are not germain to the main points I make. I am not making any kind of evolutionary argument, and for some reason you seem obsessed with arguing about evolution and the doom of the human race due to the overwhelming effects of mutation. I just see your ideas in this regard as way off base, and they disagree with the great bulk of the evidence, but I do not care to further argue the point here. I will just leave you with your ideas and move on.

Here is the center of the argument:

  1. Mutations are a fact of genetics, and I have no problem conceding that the majority of them are detrimental, but a large number are also either inconsequential or only mildly detrimental. It is these mutations which I am most interested in, because I contend that these largely inconsequential mutations, or maybe I should call them variations, since many of the traits of interest are certainly caused by more than a single allelic variant at a single locus. . . Anyway, these inconsequential variants need not have value judgments placed on them, unless they lead to behaviors that are properly recognized as morally wrong.

  2. Differences of sexual development represent some of what I am classifying here as inconsequential, since they are not inherently detrimental. Due to some of these differences, gays, for example display same-sex attraction, leading many of them to desire entering into marriage.

  3. Because same-sex marriage, and same-sex sexual relations within such a context are not morally wrong, the church should not prohibit members from entering into a same-sex marriage.

And there you have the central argument. All the other debates over other other issues we have been having are peripheral. In fact, in the end it doesn’t even matter whether you agree that same-sex attraction represents a genetically based variation, since same-sex, monogamous relationships are not morally wrong.

If you believe that same-sex, monogamous relationships are morally wrong, then please direct your arguments to that. What about such relationships makes them morally wrong? And just pointing to the Bible’s “clobber texts” is insufficient to prove that such relationships are morally wrong, as the same Biblical key test approach could just as easily be used to prove that slavery is acceptable (which runs counter to the common sense argument that slavery is morally wrong) or that eating meat with the blood still in it is wrong. You need to show that same-sex, monogamous relationships have features that cause moral harm in order to consider such relationships morally wrong.

I would go even one step further. I think a moral argument can be made against people who do all they can to prevent same-sex marriage. When you do what you can to prevent SDA LGBTQ+ people from getting married with the church’s blessing, telling them that they must remain celibate or they are living in sin, you are preventing those individuals from fully experiencing a fulfilling life. You may even be damaging their ability to have a positive spiritual experience. These outcomes represent moral harms, and thus strong opposition to same-sex marriage for SDA LGBTQ+ members is itself morally wrong.

Now, I am willing to be more understanding than that, however, as I think God is too, of those church members who oppose same-sex marriage. I am willing to be compassionate and merciful toward those displaying such moral failings because I recognize how complicated the issue is. Many are ignorant of the deeper issues faced by LGBTQ+ people and are also often ignorant of how deep a spiritual experience many of these individuals have. They love God deeply, have struggled with their identity as LGBTQ+ individuals, and have finally come to a place of peace and reconciliation with God. If only those who oppose same-sex marriage could observe these spiritual struggles first-hand, they might finally come to realize how much moral harm we are doing when we oppose full affirmation of LGBTQ+ people and same-sex marriage. I think Jesus made it abundantly clear when he quoted Hosea saying, “for I desire mercy, not sacrifice.”

It is my fervent hope that many who are now so opposed to same-sex marriage and full affirmation of LGBTQ+ people in the church will get on their knees and ask God to humble them and listen to God’s words of love to all, including the LGBTQ+ among us. We should not label evil what is morally acceptable. if we would let this sink into our hearts, we could make the path much easier on the LGBTQ+ young people currently growing up in the church, and they would not have to face the same sense of rejection that many older LGBTQ+ members have experienced, many of whom have left the church in despair and some who became so discouraged they committed suicide. We can do better.


You seem to like to take these discussions down rat holes instead of dealing with the primary issue…how we treat people who are, obviously, born with a different orientation than the majority of us. Even if you think that Moses or Paul, the only two authors who deal with this issue are correct. It still doesn’t (A) give you the right to judge this community. & (B) God is still going to hold you accountable if you mistreat, marginalize or demean them in any way. © and if you say that they can’t be SDA church members, then everyone of us, and that certainly includes you, because you judge them which is a sin, should all be removed from the church books.
Stop looking for ways to exclude and try and find ways to include everyone that has been moved by the holy spirit to become part of the body of Christ. If the spirit is directing them to want to be a part of us…then how dare you try and prevent that.


I’ve been around the block so many times on this subject, I feel there are ruts engraved in the blacktop. From personal experience I can testify that it is difficult, yes impossible IMO, to stay in a church that suddenly sees you as a sex act, rather than a person, once you tell them you are gay. One will forever be viewed with skepticism by people who don’t understand or just plain don’t care.
What can I add to this discussion, that I haven’t already said. The best advice I can give is if you are gay do not join the SDA Church. I was faithful to the church, but wandered in a wilderness for at least 40 years, refusing to accept what I was, heaped piles of guilt and shame on myself for something I never chose, tried to be a straight man that I wasn’t,.stayed in mixed orientation marriage for 32 years and tried to convince myself it was working when it wasn’t, listened to quack Christian therapists who kept me in a closet of fear and doubt while telling me they were helping me… let’s see did miss anything.
At 63 I left the church, and unlike Lot’s wife I didn’t look back. I still keep up with some of what’s going on in the church by way of Spectrum. I suppose it’s a hard habit to break. I still have some SDA friends, most of which are here on Spectrum.


One can be part of the body of Christ and not be an Adventist. I found another fold, and the sheep are accepting and affirming. I have yet to find one wolf in sheep’s clothing among its membership.
A couple did leave when our church baptised a teenage girl and accepted her 2 lesbian mom’s into fellowship shortly after I joined 3 years ago. I guess the irony is he asked me to take over his class when he left, telling me I was well versed in biblical understanding. I guess he hadn’t heard yet that I was gay.


My understanding of your position is that Paul and Moses, accepted by most Christians as authoritative, do not matter. If they do not agree with your thinking, sort of to — with them. You stated that plainly.

So, when I mention their thinking, I am taking this discussion down a rat hole.

Who knows the way to heaven, Paul and Moses, or you? Jesus quoted from Moses, and Paul has always been accepted as a man of God. But you? “I don’t care what they say, homosexual behavior must be accepted.”

Your gospel is inclusivity. Everyone must be included. Even Jesus did not believe that (See Matt. 25:31-46). So, who is to be included? You reject Moses and Paul on the matter, and accept your own thinking as determinative.

I think I’ll stick with Paul and Moses, thank you.

Right, “how dare I…?”

I believe we are to try the spirits “Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God…”

And how would I test such a spirit? Jesus said to check them against the scripture. But wait, we can’t trust Moses or Paul…

Tom, as I recall your story, before you became an SDA, you were an open homosexual, having multiple partners partaking in very risky behavior. I believe you said that with what you were doing, you would have been dead from AIDS by now. And you mentioned that you now have three children that you would not have had, etc.

I remember when you were still married, encouraging you to not go to gay gatherings etc. I Was rebuked by the WedEd for it. But I could see where this was leading.

I am sad to see you renounce the church. But I think they did do some good for you.

This is the essence of your position. Nice demonstration, succinct and forceful.

This itself is a biased view of the matter, giving a negative connotation to the mere statements of the Biblical writers. Adulterers would consider “Thou shalt not commit adultery.” a “clobber text”, as would thieves, “Thou shalt not steal.”

You have already made up your mind when you use the term “clobber text.”

This is the problem. You have removed the clear injunctions from consideration. If it were just Levitcus, you might be able to pull it off. But then you have to explain away Paul, who is pretty clear about it. At least until 1960 or so. I have read all the arguments and they are dodges to get around what the texts say. And it is so important, for salvation depends on it.

I’d love to accept gays as you do. So much easier, the culture encourages it and all. To take the stand I do allows me to receive disdain in general, and nice posts like from Lindy: “You are going to be judged!!” I don’t even tell ones I know are in sin that!

I understand yours and Lindy’s concern for gay people. I think you both take a too rosy view of the practice. The gay liturature is pretty damning, actually. The few pieces I read advocated for open marriages for heterosexuals, because sex for years with a single individual is just boring, we gays know it and can help you reach real bliss. Dalliances outside will actually help! McWhirter’s discovery was so right that we all should do as the folks he studied did. It’s scientific after all.

I think God prohibited if for the vey lengths to which its advocates go. The few that do not go so far will suffer for the excesses of their brethren. But the excesses are the problem.

Very few people are truly monogamous over their life time. Even in heterosexual context of the dating world, there’s multiple partners before marriage, with statistically 50 percent ending in divorce.

So, it would be interesting to see what percentage of people have a single partner over their entire lifetime.

Past that, my guess is that marriages with children are a more locked in than those without.

It will be interesting to see what percentage of marriages without children end up in divorce.

Likewise, it will be interesting to see what percentage of spouces admit to exta-marital affairs.

We can then compare apples to apples.

1 Like

I think this is like sex before marriage. In the 30s and 40s, society frowned on it, and kept it in check for the most part by shame etc. Then people changed their minds on the matter,

What happened, more pregnancies occurred, more single mothers, and more abortions.

So, what is the happier outcome? You can choose whichever side you want, someone will suffer for your choice. In one, the children and babies suffer, in the other the parents are shamed and suffer.

If one does not follow the rules (in the case no sex before marriage), someone suffers.

Same with this issue.

I think you are missing the point. Christianity is a sociological construct driven by ideals. These ideals are guiding principles in an institutional setting where people are collectively encouraged to follow these.

How many people in you congregation are ill because they have decided that they are settled in their food preferences they have acquired from early childhood? Does it mean they should be disfelowshiped until they get their lives in order?

What’s the point of the church then? It would be perpetually empty, or would be filled with people who are ignorant about their personal shortcomings while they point the fingers at those of other.

1 Like