Alan Chambers and Exodus are commenting once again on Brokeback Mountain.
Here are a couple links you might want to go to for the lastest:
The press-release
Ex-gay Watch
Peterson Toscano’s A Musing for some more and good commentary
Oh, brother.

I’m reading N.T. Wright’s “The Last Word: Beyond the Bible Wars to a New Understanding of the Authority of Scripture” right now. A wonderful book.
You know, it can be fairly easy to go through the few and various verses that are used to condemn all forms of same-sex relationship and present a rational and faithful interpretation that does not come to the same conclusion, to the point where the thread used to tie them all together to sustain the traditional condemnation of all forms of same-sex relationship is frayed beyond its ability to hold up such an interpretation.
For example, one of the favorite arguments used to support the use of the Leviticus condemnation is that while the ceremonial and dietary laws are put aside for Christians, the moral law is not. N.T. Wright decimates that argument (that we Christians are somehow still under this part of the Levitical Code – at least the part that seems to speak to homosexuality) from pages 54-58. I’ve often wondered how anyone can read Galatians and Hebrews and still make the argument that Leviticus 18:22; 20:13 is binding for Christians today.

The claim is offered before corporate board meetings, state and national legislative committees, before conventions and conferences, in front of Joe and Jane America through their television sets, and through any means possible that there is proof, “tens of thousands examples” of this proof, that homosexuals can “walk away from their homosexual desires” and become heterosexual.
This claim is erroneous because their definition of “ex-gay” or “walking away from…” is based on the notion that simply refusing to self-identify as homosexual or gay is to not be homosexual. To deny one’s affectual and sexual inclination towards or attraction to the same-gender… to not engage in any type of same-gender romantic or sexual relationship… to deny that the continued longing for personal intimacy (and in this case with someone of the same gender)… to deny and not admit all these things means that the person is now “ex-gay” and not a homosexual. The person is now one of those “tens of thousands,” regardless of what is truly going on inside of the person!
It is not a change from homosexuality to heterosexuality, but for 99% of “ex-gay” homosexuals, it is a change from the reality of or possibility of a mutually loving and life-long same-gender relationship to asexuality. Of course, there are those who go all the way and enter into legally recognized marriages with someone of the opposite-gender… against their nature, as Paul writes in the first chapter of Romans. Most simply exchange the possibility of relationship for asexuality.

Exodus and Focus-on-the-Family have a new effort to “equip” parents, teachers, ministers, youth workers, and concerned citizens to confront the attempt to encourage students to view homosexuality as a normal part of human existence. Homosexuality must be portrayed as something evil, sinful, and disordered. It is called “Groundswell.”
They are opposed to the “lies” perpetuated in schools by teachers, counselors, and others who encourage students to deal with their same-sex attraction in any way other than believing that the attractions are disordered and forbidden. They demand that the students suffering from same-sex attraction and the adults surrounding them must accept the view that God rejects homosexuality in all circumstances. Through the Fundamentalist view of theology and biblical interpretation, those young people can be healed of their homosexuality and realize their true heterosexual selves (or at least live the rest of their lives as virgins and devoid of intimate relationship). Their interpretation of God’s will demands that anyone “suffering” from same-sex-attraction-disorder who does not develop a heterosexual orientation must refrain from any kind of relationship in the sense of eros.
This line emphasizes their continued contention that same-sex attraction can be cured:
“We hear from many desperate students who long to overcome their unwanted same-sex attractions, but have been told that their only choice is to accept a gay identity. They respond with grief and depression to the lies that their sexuality is fated and that they have no right or hope of change.”
What Exodus and Focus-on-the-Family refuse to admit is that the vast, vast majority (if not 99.9%) of those who have gone through and who are currently involved with Exodus and ex-gay ministries will never become honest heterosexuals. They may hope for change, but their intrinsic orientation does not change. Even many ex-gay proponents admit that it may take a lifetime for a homosexual to realize any change, if at all. Their change into their true heterosexual selves may only be realized in heaven. This is hope?
Overwhelming antidotal evidence, and some resent reliable research, demonstrates that God is not in the business of changing homosexuals into heterosexuals. They may cease any type of same-sex behavior, they may actually get married to someone of the opposite sex, but almost all admit that their homosexual orientation has not changed. God may well deal with sexual addiction or compulsion, and all manner of emotional problems that contribute to such conditions. The promise that God will heal someone of homosexuality is false.
Anti-homosexual Christian definitions are dishonest and their actions are manipulative. An “Ex-gay” person is defined as anyone who is involved in an ex-gay ministry or who simply does not want to be homosexual. Their definitions have nothing to do with whether someone stops being attracted to members of the same-sex and develops an honest sexual and affectual attraction to the opposite sex. Ex-gay proponents promise homosexual people, young and old, that with the ministries’ help, with much prayer and scripture reading, with good Christian counseling, and with a refusal to consider that Scripture, God, and the Church may be able to view homosexuality in any way other than sinful, destructive, and rebellious behavior, that those suffering from homosexuality can become heterosexuals, just like God created them to be in the first place.
Soon, in the future, their manipulation, lies, and theologies will be shown to be corrupt, immoral, and dishonest. In the mean time, however, they will raise lots of money, destroy lots of lives, drive many people away from God, and perpetuate a view of Christianity that so tragically harms the cause of Jesus Christ and perverts the Gospel of Christ. It is not that I or many others do not hold Scripture to be authoritative, true, right, or important, but we agree with the growing consensus that the way the Church has dealt with homosexuality over the centuries has been and is wrong. Yet, their misinformation and wrong scriptural interpretation and application goes on doing great harm.

‘Ex-gay’ therapist cited for ethics breeches
Tom Musbach, PlanetOut Network
Wednesday, January 26, 2005 / 06:19 PM
Richard Cohen, an influential figure in the “ex-gay” movement, has been permanently expelled from the American Counseling Association (ACA) because of ethics violations, according to an ACA document…
Read the rest
Here is a very good opinion piece by Mel White concerning Fundamentalists (from a variety of religions) who blame the Tsunami in part on homosexuals.
We have been warned: A closer look at extremists who blame LGBT people for disasters
by the Rev. Dr. Mel White, executive director, Soulforce
December 16, 2004
After the catastrophic tsunamis struck on Dec. 26, most religious leaders of every faith rushed to their pulpits and urged their members to support the victims of this natural tragedy with prayers, food, clothing, medicine and money…
Read it here

An interesting editorial in today’s New York Times from Nicholas Kristof entitled God and Sex.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23kristof.html?th

> from Philanthropy News Digest/Foundation Center newsletter
> August 27, 2004
> Civil Society
>
> University of Massachusetts economist Lee Badgett has studied marriage
> customs in the Scandinavian countries and the Netherlands, where same-sex
> marriage or same-sex partnership rights have existed for up to fifteen
> years. She found, and noted in a briefing paper prepared for the Council
> on Contemporary Families and the Institute for Gay and Lesbian Strategic
> Studies, that previously existing trends in marriage, divorce,
> cohabitation, and out-of-wedlock childbearing did not change. In fact, in
> Denmark, heterosexual marriage rates increased after the adoption of
> same-sex marriage and are now the highest they have been since the early
> 1970s. Divorce rates remained the same in the countries studied. The
> majority of families with children are headed by married couples. In
> Norway, 77 percent of couples with children are married and in the
> Netherlands, 75 percent, compared to 72 percent in the United States.
> According to Badgett, the Scandinavian and Dutch experience suggests
> there is little reason to think heterosexual couples would eschew
> marriage if gay and lesbian couples got the same rights.

I’m feeling much better, but still staying low. I actually have time on my hands.
I’ve been reading the latest edition of Christianity Today, which takes on the topic of gay marriage. The first article, What God Hath Not Joined: Why Marriage Was Designed for Male and Female, by Edith M. Humphre (associate professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary) deals with a variety of points from an anti-gay perspective. Under the heading Distorted Image, she asks what it means to give an authentic welcome to the Church for non-Christians. She says, “No one is to be excluded from the church or any aspect of its life by being Jew or Gentile, male or female, slave or free. The revisionists insist that homoerotic orientation (and, they mean, expression) is just as central to a person’s identity and equally no bar to inclusion in the church.” (emphasis mine) The next paragraph, she starts, “But what about Jesus’ call to repentance?” She goes on to say that revisionists want to dismiss the sinfulness of homosexuality and proclaim it to be just another “Jew and Gentile,” “slave and free” – “straight and gay,” I presume.
One thing that truly frustrates me, especially as someone who can see a rational in both sides of the argument and wants to know Truth, is that prohibitionist Christians cannot come to this debate without first demanding the presuppositional claim that homosexuality, however defined, is sin, and everything then follows from that presupposition. Her comment about Jesus’ calling people to repentance, as in the example of the woman caught in adultery, presumes that homosexuality is already sin and therefore cannot be accommodated in the church, period. How then, according to her, can there be any legitimacy in the calls by “revisionists” to allow homosexual people to be in relationship with any part of the Body of Christ. That would mean, according to the argument, that they are calling the Church to accept sin.
Robert A.J. Gagnon’s does the same thing. He writes is book, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (the proclaimed pinnical of Evangelical scholarship on homosexuality, which scares me) with a stated presupposition that homosexuality is sin and cannot be accepted within the Church. He says his book is written in response to the poor emotionally and psychologically bent gay people he has come into contact with, but it is simply an attempt to justify his preconceived idea of what is correct regarding homosexuality.
Prohibitionists demand the conversation begin with homosexuality as sin, before any evidence is examined. Accommodationists demand the conversation begin with homosexuality not as sin, before any evidence is examined. All their justifications and condemnations then flow from their presuppositions.
Where are Christians who can put aside posturing and declaring God’s Truth before the conversation even begins? Where are the Christians, who are supposed to be striving to know God’s Truth, who will come to the question with a clear slate and say, “I will examine the evidence and draw my conclusions afterward.”? Where are they? Jeremy Marks in England, and Evangelical ex-gay leader who has made an 180 degree shift in his thinking, and Bishop Alexander of Atlanta, and Episcopalian who was opposed to homosexuality and has changed his position, are two examples of people who where theologically opposed to homosexuality and have changed their opinions due to the mounting evidence against the Prohibitionistç—´ positions. I would give anything to find a scholarly book that revealed the process someone went through who came to this question with a neutral attitude, examined the evidences, and drew a conclusion – on either side. I haven’t found one from an Evangelical perspective, and this is what so disappointed by about Gagnon’s book.

Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:21:40 -0400
From: Keucher, Jerry W.
Subject: RE: [HoB/D] “Normative”
Dan Martins writes with his accustomed elegance, “It isn’t even so much about the words as about the ‘music.’ The scriptures ‘sing’ about the normative status of heterosexual marriage.”
I agree. The real nub of the issue is whether “normative” here means “what usually happens,” “what must happen” or “what shows forth most clearly the essence of the thing when it happens.”
There’s no doubt that heterosexual marriage is normative in the first sense. And I will grant (though I’ll get potshots about this, I’m sure) that heterosexual marriage is normative in the third sense. The problem is that we’re constantly saying that what’s normative in the third sense must be normative in the second sense, that is, mandatory.
I think that a mutually fulfilling, lifelong, faithful heterosexual marriage that results in loved and productive members of the next generation is normal in the third sense. I submit that that’s the sense Jesus is talking about when He says, “Therefore a man leaves his father and mother…”
The problem is that the Church goes on to say that since that’s the kind of marriage that really shows forth what marriage is and what best shows forth God’s relation to Creation and to the Church, that’s what all marriages have to be like, and other kinds of behavior are not permitted.
That’s the fallacy the Roman Church is officially in, even though marriages are “annulled” at a brisk clip by the marriage tribunals. Sex is normative in the second sense (that is, it is permitted) only if it occurs in circumstances that are normative in the third sense.
However, there are lots of straight marriages that are not normative in that sense. And the third sense is one that’s very hard to police. A loveless, unhappy union that results in messed-up kids and lifelong misery for the couple is not quite what the Scriptures are singing about.
A series of legally and canonically sanctioned liaisons does not exactly capture the music of the image of God’s covenant faithfulness to Israel. Such marriages would not have been permitted by the churches until very recently precisely because such serial monogamy was expressly forbidden by Jesus Himself.
However, when it comes to heterosexual sex, all the churches seem pretty much to have reached the conclusion that basically it’s okay to have marriages that fall short of what is normative in the third sense. Permitting remarriage, whether following divorce or “annulment,” overt or at least tacit acceptance of birth control (what else can you call it but tacit acceptance when an overwhelming percentage of RC couples use contraception?)–these things are accepted, perhaps reluctnatly, but nevertheless accepted. We recognize that there’s a difference between normal (sense 3) and normal (sense 2).
In other words we have recognized, at least when it comes to straight people, that they are not perfect. Many, if not perhaps most, of their relationships may not fully embody every aspect of the Scripture’s song. And if they mess up, they can have a second chance (at least). If they can’t have children, or if they have so few that they have clearly had sex that was not intended to result in procreation, they are not forced to adopt in order to conform to the ideal. The third sense of what is normative is still appropriately held up as the goal at every wedding, even though the chances are very, very good that this particular expression will not be fully normative in that sense.
I was devastated when, at the age I was learning my letters, I also realized that I could never marry. As what we would now call a pre-schooler I knew that I couldn’t. It would be a sham and unfair to whomever I married. It’s very nice, I’m sure, when the song that you’re innately inclined to sing is the same as Scripture’s song, even if you’ll probably sing a bit off-key in your personal rendition of it. It’s not very nice when you realize that you are incapable of singing that tune. You must express the words in another meter and therefore another tune. (Not to press the poor metaphor to the wall, but the tunes, to my ear, are complementary, not dissonant. And I’ve done my best to sing it as well as I can.)
Here’s the essence. Since we have realized that we should permit, even in the teeth of express Scriptural prohibitions, a distinction between what is normative in the third sense and what is normative in the second sense. We recognize that relationships that fail in significant and material ways to embody fully the ideal still embody important parts of it, and we permit them. So why not same-sex relationships?
The answer when we’ve reached this point is usually along the lines that the complementarity thing is so essential that it trumps every other aspect (life-longness, faithfulness, child-rearing, love). Well, that’s just an assertion, not proof, and it really does seem to have more to do with the yuck factor than with Scripture’s song. Dan, do you have anything else to offer on that point? And please excuse the length of this message.

There is a lot of chatter going on this week over the Senate debate concerning the FMA – Federal Marriage Amendment. The vote on the Senate floor for or against the measure should take place very soon.
Here is an update sent by the Don Wildmon’s “OneMillionDads.” They lost, but they are trying to spin this into some sort of victory, in the sense that this is a very long-term project. They are in this for the long haul.

And, despite all the rhetoric by some Senators as to why they voted against the FMA, the bottom line is this: A vote against the FMA is a vote for homosexual marriage. A vote for the FMA is a vote for traditional marriage.

According to the Religious Right, there cannot be an opinion that voting against this amendment is made honestly because a Senator does not believe that it belongs in the Constitution, rather than the Senator voting FOR homosexual marriage or against traditional marriage.
They have lost. But, anything can happen.