| Index | Bookstore | Links | Resume | Presentations | What To Expect | For My Grandchildren |


I found a real open minded well know Christian!:  http://www.brianmclaren.net/archives/blog/synchroblogging-on-sexuality.html

Check it out and read Acts 8 and see if you can find how they solved the issue!  And, always ask the Holy Spirit:  What is the truth?

The Homosexuality Issue,

Why would I care about this issue?  It is important to help in the healing of the judgmentalism, of those that hate homosexuality, for both the haters, and the homosexuals.  Gays are just one of the last scapegoats, that are used to project hate on, without dealing with our hate.  Helping heal the haters, among us heals all of us.  Recommend the haters learn how to say:  "I forgive myself for judging them as homosexuals." until there is no upset when thinking about homosexuals.  For homosexuals it would help clear up any judgments by learning to say:  "I forgive myself for judging myself as a homosexual." until there is no siting in the word.  The Holy Spirit would be able to work better with both of you.

In our local paper the following article appeared on 10 May 2005 at http://www. newspost.com/sections/opinion/displayletter.htm?storyid=41046

"God's Owner's Manual for Life

Genuine moral, religious objections to homosexuality are not bigotry, they are understanding God's Owner's Manual for Life (God's word). Bigotry is discriminating against the individual who practices homosexuality. This is not understanding God's Owner's Manual for Life (The Holy Bible).

When a child misbehaves, to correct that behavior the child must be informed of the behavior that is incorrect. Are responsible adults intolerant when they correct a child for incorrect behavior? I don't think so. It is an act of love. Likewise, when an individual is informed of behavior that goes against God's Owner's Manual for Life (scripture), the person advising of such behavior is merely acting out of love for the individual, not intolerance or bigotry.



My reply to the Editor would go something like this:

Perhaps Bob, just does not yet understand (“God's Owner's Manual for Life” on10 May 05). What sin did Jesus NOT, atone for? What works, are going to get us to heaven, or keep us from heaven? Is he suggesting that we go back to sacrificing a goat each year? Must we not wear clothes with different colored threads and yet treat women on their period as unclean and on and on? Must we rebuild the temple and put back the curtain that was rent in two? Or, would it not be wiser to ask the Lord Most High directly, whether we would be wiser to really love, or to hate, to condemn or to really give grace, love.  I choose grace and love, and do not condemn either the homosexual, that from my observations, appears to have been created that way to different degrees, nor the judgmental ones, that appear to have created themselves that way, by their judgments.  Just like Jesus said, they know not what they do and are forgiven.  They need to forgive themselves enough to get over it.

Paul was a recovering Pharisee of Pharisees, that admitted he did not always have the mind of God, in his writings. Was it not a miracle that Paul in Romans and 1Corinthians was contrasting the condemnation of the law, with the freedom of grace, and the uselessness of works? It was Greek to me for many years, so I can easily understand many misunderstandings. Many people base their tenants of their faith, on single verses here and there, and have no idea of the overall context of the verses. “God's Owner's Manual for Life” does not explain about the levels of the god most low to the God Most High, but we can understand these levels, by asking the Holy Spirit, enough questions over time, to have those levels revealed to us. The level of judgment is the most low. The level of grace is the most high, and all are redeemed at that level. That is the Good News.  Anything else is Bad News.

How would you feel, if you were born with both organs, for both sexes, and a doctor cut out one of your sexual organ sets, and it was the wrong set of organs for you? Actually that happens more frequently than is generally known. Check out http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency.html.  Perhaps some homosexuals were given the wrong body, by the choice of their doctor.

About 1 out of 1000 human births have varying degrees of both sex organs.  See: http://www.isna.org/drupal/index.php  So, nature does not just produce male and female bodies, but also combinations. Then, we find from twin studies that there is about the same genetic predisposition for prostrate cancer [42%], as schizophrenia [48%], as homosexuality [43% & 52%], as other life challenges.  So, why do some Christians, so harshly judge homosexuals, and less harshly judge the many other genetic predispositions that are expressed? What sin was not atoned for by Jesus? Did Jesus fail in his mission, or do Christians fail Jesus in their mission? Did not Jesus tell that the judgers, that they are judged? Did not Jesus say to essentially forgive abundantly, if not infinitely? 

The "Marriage" Issue

What if your doctor let you be born a hermaphrodite?  That is, your doctor did not snip or zip up a part.  You would have both a vagina and a penis.  What sex, would it not be appropriate for you to have sexual relations with, since you would be designed for both?  What would be a moral life from your point of view?  Your body would be bisexual.  Why would God design some for both, if bisexual was not appropriate for them.  What would both sides of the homosexuality issues think about marriage, for a hermaphrodite, that was not zipped or snipped by some doctor. That could help clarify their thinking.  Perhaps they would also note a physical genetic factor, at work here.  Perhaps some more compassion, and empathy, would be in order.

There is the religious issue of marriage and civil unions.  There is no spiritual issue.  Homosexuals, with other non judgmental people, could form their own church, like "The Course In Miracles".  Jesus at that level, would approve of their oneness covenant marriages.  The state would have to ultimately recognize their oneness covenant marriages, under our Constitution, or they would be "establishing" their own religion, which is prohibited.

There is no rational need for a "marriage", since "civil unions" could give the same level of rights, through legislation. The irrational reason, is more about human rights and respect. We fought our war of Independence about our rights, and over our English King disrespecting us. We now have the right to be treated equally and with respect. The right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." and being created equal, is what our Declaration of Independence promised us. That is rational after all. The question is: How can we provide equal treatment and respect?

There are church and state issues. Do churches have the right to force our government to limit the rights of some citizens?  No, our government, our Constitution are to defend us from that.  Those like Jerry FalWell and Dr. Dobson are not upholding our Constitution. Churches can discriminate on who they allow to be members.  Our states can not legally prevent or prefer the establishment of any religion according to our Constitution. That may be the real reason that, the some judgmental fundamentalist want to pass a Constitutional amendment. Real Compassionate Christian Conservatives, would be for equal treatment and respect.

Have you ever noticed that there appears to be a set of characteristics, that come with homosexuality?  Not that there are not, degrees of these characteristics. This issue like most issues, is not black and white, but a mosaic of information. This pattern of characteristics, is a clue, that there is a genetic factor, since there are other genetic patterns, for other special groups.

Why would it make sense to create homosexuals? Well, when you think back far enough, to our hunter gatherer stage, it does make sense. There was a need to protect the women that were gathering, with men that would not get them pregnant, while the other men were hunting. There was a need to keep the women company, with men of similar characteristics to the women, except for the ability and strength to protect them. It seems to me, that the needs of the hunter gatherer tribes were met, with the creation of their homosexuals.

Someone wrote that homosexuality is due to all the above, of genes, hormones, upbringing and lifestyle choice. Yet I know there is more.

There is our unconscious, which by definition, we do not know what is in ours, or in others. From working with myself and others I do know that our unconscious does play a large and unknown role in our lives. It is difficult to change our mind, when we do not know, all of what is in our mind. Then there are genes. When about 1 out of 1000 births produce variations of hermaphrodites, with some of both sexual organs, it is not so surprising that there are many more with subtler sexual differences produced.

Taking hormones can change some sexual organs and feelings, but what create the hormones, when we do not take them? Genes? Minds? Both?

As for upbringing, that may be much overrated. When the wrong sex of hermaphrodites was chosen by some doctors, the upbringing simply did not take. It seems that genes can trump upbringing. In fact, genes, and our unconscious, trump most everything.

As for lifestyle choice, don't some heterosexuals in prison, choose homosexuality there, and then choose heterosexuality, when they get out?  Perhaps that is why most heterosexuals think homosexuality is a choice because they can choose it.  Don't homosexuals in prison, act the same there, as outside?  Heterosexuals seem to have more of a lifestyle choice. There is a range of heterosexuality and homosexuality, so some do have a choice and some can recover from either homosexuality or heterosexuality.  Some have a lot less choice.  Perhaps more compassion and understanding would be in order.

Why can some not find peace about that, which just is, as it is?  Why do some of us, still need scapegoats?  What is it in some of us, that we can not forgive?  Look up "projections" and "Jung" online.

Very Respectfully,


We have a local state office holder, Mooney, that speaks for the far right agenda . A local person in a letter to the editor attempted to educate Mooney and his followers most eloquently:

From:  Gazette.Net Letters Updated Dec. 3, 2003

Mooney statement an insult to his office

State Sen. Alexander X. Mooney paints with a broad brush when he claims to be defending "our Judeo Christian faith" against "the radical homosexual agenda." Attitudes on gay marriage are very close to evenly split in this nation, which suggests that gay marriage is broadly accepted across lines of religious belief and sexuality.

Mooney is further inaccurate in citing "our Judeo-Christian faith that this country was founded on." Our country is based on the concepts of individual liberty and self-government, not on any particular faith. Despite their Christian backgrounds, the founders were extremely careful not to taint the foundation documents of the U.S. with their own bias, and the omission was purposeful and poignant.

Mooney's stated support for a constitutional amendment defining marriage to exclude gay couples shows his utter contempt for constitutional integrity, and for the lessons of history. Amendments have generally affirmed individual rights and limited government power to abridge those rights. A notable exception was the fiasco of Prohibition.

Mooney seems to find it appropriate to use his position to impose his personal religious views and the law of his creed on the citizens of Maryland. In doing so, he defies the First Amendment. Worse, he encourages the lowest kinds of bigotry and misplaced self-righteousness. That Mooney finds this sort of appeal to be reasonable or moral is an insult to his constituency and to his office.

Margaret E. Naab, Damascus


The following shows that the expression of feminine characteristics can even come from polluting our waters.

"Message: 14

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 11:15:01 +1200

From: "bmolloy" <[email protected]>

Subject: Drink the water, change your voice....


A study into the health of English rivers has found that one third of male fish are growing female reproductive tissues and organs as a result of chemical pollution in the water. This has raised fears for future fish population growth, as well as for the health of all other wildlife, and even humans.

The phenomenon was first noted in the early 1980s, in the River Lea, Hertfordshire, where 'male' roach were found to contain developing eggs, and had therefore been feminised. Subsequent research showed that treated sewage effluent in many parts of the UK were oestrogenic to fish, and that populations of male roach living downstream from eight large sewage treatment works in the UK were feminised to varying degrees.  

Similar phenomena have been noted in birds, otters, seals and frogs.

Professor Charles Tyler, of Exeter University, who led the research for the Environment Agency, told edie the reason for the sexual disruptions in the populations was due to the increasing use of a group of chemicals known as endocrine disruptors which mimic the female hormone oestrogen and can alter the growth of reproductive and other organs in the body.

These chemicals are found in a wide range of industrial products such as plastics, detergents, shampoos, paints, pesticides and alkyl-phenolic compounds, as well as pharmaceutical products such as steroids and contraceptive pills.

They are often then discharged into rivers through sewage works.

"From our lab based studies, we've found that the young are affected most, and are more sensitive. But, all life stages can be affected," Professor Tyler warned.

He said that studies had already shown a reduction in size of male genitalia in otters, as well as a drop in sperm count and sex drive in a number of species, and a lack of aggression and territorial behaviour in birds.  Hermaphroditic changes have even been noted in polar bears, he said.

The changes are most dramatic in creatures that live in or around the water, but Professor Tyler raised concerns that the effects could be more dramatic as the chemicals become more concentrated up the food chain.

"We are not talking about a single chemical here, but a whole mixture.  Anything living in the water could be ingesting a range of endocrine disruptors, so anything then feeding on those creatures will ingest them too," he said.

The fact that such reproductive abnormalities have been noted across such a wide range of animals raises obvious concerns that the same phenomena could start to affect humans.

"The jury is out on that one," Professor Tyler said. "There's not enough data to scientifically prove the effects on humans. However, the hormonal system controlling reproduction is much the same in humans as it is in a lot of animals, so there is no real reason why people shouldn't be affected."

Equally worrying, he said, was the fact that the presence of endocrine disruptors could cause a rise in the number of hormone dependent cancers, such as breast cancer, and could even be the cause for the widely reported global drop in sperm count among men.

The good news is that this problem is being addressed. Professor Tyler sat on the advisory panel for the REACH proposals on chemical legislation, and his research has been funded by the EU specifically to look at endocrine disruptors.

His department has forged links with industry and has pioneered research into removing the chemicals from sewage effluent in the first place.

"They need to be removed at the waste water treatment works. There's a number of pilot studies taking place using ozonation and activated carbon, which have proved highly effective," Professor Tyler said.

In addition, the department has developed in vivo testing systems for endocrine disrupting chemicals using fish, which have now being used in a number of industry laboratories and are under consideration by OECD for use in test guidelines for assessing the effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals.

"I have little doubt that there are alternatives to endocrine disrupting chemicals," Professor Tyler said. "Whether the chemical industry ever uses them is unfortunately a matter of economics, not public health."

By David Hopkins Source: edie newsroom Faversham House Group Ltd 2004.

From:  http://www.uexpress.com/dearabby/ on 11 May 2005

"DEAR ABBY: In a recent column you advised the mother of a girl who had confided that she is gay and wants to come out, that homosexuality has "nothing to do with parenting and everything to do with genetics." You need to retract that statement. If you do not publicly admit your error, I will know you are a mouthpiece for the gay and lesbian crowd. -- LEONARD IN LYNCHBURG

DEAR LEONARD: If I did not believe with all my heart that what I wrote is true, I wouldn't have put my thoughts on paper. Homosexuality is simply a variant of sexual orientation. Those who claim it is "unnatural" should direct their attention to Dr. Joan Roughgarden, a biologist at Stanford University with a Ph.D. from Harvard, who states that more than 300 vertebrate species have been found to practice homosexuality. (A visit to any zoo might confirm it.) And while one gene may not be responsible for this variant, Italian researcher Andrea Camperio-Ciani of the University of Padua notes that research findings point to there being more than one "gay gene," and that the genetic factors linked to homosexuality in men are also linked to increased fertility in women.

I stand by my reply.

Dear Abby is written by Abigail Van Buren, also known as Jeanne Phillips, and was founded by her mother, Pauline Phillips. Write Dear Abby at www.DearAbby.com or P.O. Box 69440, Los Angeles, CA 90069."

Addition on 12-20-05:  Here is a letter to the editor that was limited to 200 words:

Publication: News-Post; Date:2005 Nov 30; Section:Editorial & Opinion; Page Number: A-12

http://www. newspost.com/sections/opinion/display_lte.htm?storyid=44673



   We went to see the movie “Walk the Line.” I saw Joaquin Phoenix had a cleft lip. I was a camp counselor, with many recovering kids like that. They had deep, resonant voices. I can see how Joaquin could imitate the deep resonance of Johnny Cash.

   Did you know that some fraternal twins have conditions that about one-fourth of their siblings also have? Some percentages of conditions double for identical twins. It doubles for gays.

   Did you know that there are unique resonances for some recognized genetic conditions? Then, there is “junk DNA,” that scientists cannot yet sequence, which is over 90 percent of our DNA. Have scientists called it “junk” because they cannot yet understand it?

   Have you noticed that some gay people also have unique voice resonances? Are not many gays nicer and more talented than bigots who hate them? Please understand that bigots cannot help themselves, because their hate is really just unconscious hate, for themselves, and they are just projecting their unconscious hate on others, as their scapegoats.

   They really need forgiveness and compassion, especially for themselves. Then, they can help themselves, as they start to wake up.

What else, could I write to the Editor? [added Jan 05 2006 @ 12AM]

It has been reported that unintelligently using antivirals, before we get bird flu, devolves us to be more vulnerable. We have already evolved stronger bacteria, with antibiotics.

But, what if gays were one of the best arguments, for intelligent design? Back when we were hunters and gatherers, there was a real need for some males, to protect female gatherers, when male hunters were out on their hunts. Hunters, needed for some gatherer like males, to not want to mate with gatherer females, and to get along swell with then. How could natural selection through sexual reproduction [evolution] by non gays, create, or continue, reproduction of gays, to meet these needs? So, there must have been intelligent design, to meet that special need!

Why do so many of the advocates of intelligent design, reject our creator's creations? Why are so many so against the results of intelligent design, and evolution, created by their creator? Only people make us ride in the back of the bus, while our creator put us on the bus. Why do some Christians advocate for their creator, before getting to the level of acceptance, of their creator? Is it that they still know not what they do?

When you are transformed, to even more open minded by the Holy Spirit, check out HTTP://GOSPELREVOLUTION.COM and HTTP://NEWDIMENSIONS.US.  Google "The Course in Miracles" and "Full Preterism".

Web RecoveryByDiscovery.Com


| Home | Resume | Bookstore | Links | Site Index |


Copyright (c) 2004, revised 2008 ,9 by Michael Foster @ http://www.recoverybydiscovery.com