I find this sad. I work in the nonprofit world, and see so many inefficiencies when like-missioned organizations compete in a crowded nonprofit community for resources from the same donors. How much better would it be for the mission - the purpose for which the like-missioned organizations were created - if nonprofits merged or cooperated without competing for resources. In this situation, it is likely that this new nonprofit will only divert resources away from Focus on the Family without strengthening the mission of both nonprofits; that is, the family.

Focus on the Family has done a very good job through the years and should be commended for the resourses they provide to the public. I don't know the reason for Mr Dobson's latest endeavor but I believe he has proven that his heart is in the right place. Obviously Mr Peterson has never studied any of the material on homosexuality that is available. The act of homosexuality is mentioned many times, never in a good light. Lev. 18:22, 20:13, Deut. 23:17, Romans 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1Tim. 1:10-11 to name a few. ALL sexual sins of the Bible are worse than other sins because they are done "within the body", you give a piecesee of yourself to someone sexually. And as with all sin it must be said that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Also, the APA has backed off their stance of a "gay gene" theory and issued a statement this past summer about it.

@GP: "The Bible doesn't condemn "homosexuality." It never condemned that. "Homosexuality" did not exist then."
* There you go again, GP. But the Bible says in Lev. 18: 22 You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination." Here the bible describes homosexuality to a "t".
Jesus condemns sexual immorality as well for instance in Matt: 15:19 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications..." And Paul also condemns homosexuality in Rom. 1:27 "...the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another..." The very acts are condemned - not just the contexts in which they were performed. And Paul says in I Cor. 6:9 "...do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals,... will inherit the kingdom of God."

@GP: "It's safe to say, as the majority of men "laying with a man as with a woman" at the temple, likely didn't have strong same-sex orientations. Those who did lay with the crossdressing priests and male temple prostitutes were not having sex as we think of sex, but were instead, sacrificing their stuff of life to their gods."
You have "0" (zero) evidence from the text to support this erroneous belief. You're making stuff up, now. A word of caution from God's word: Rom. 1:18 says "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who SUPPRESS the truth in unrighteousness..." And vs. 21, 22 "they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools,..." And v. 25 "For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie..."

having been a victim of Christian zealotry I find all of the focus on the family and Dobson very frightening. The focus on the family group were notified of a plagiarist of their works and did nothing. My favorite mantra these days is "God Protect me, from your followers". Christianity or any religion that is practiced at the fundamentalist level is dangerous. for example, al-qeda, southern Baptists. I have gotten to where I believe in god, but I refuse to practice religion.

Dear Gregory.....the spirit of your posts is not at all tolerant. Perhaps you should look at getting the the log out of your own eye?

Mr. Peterson,

Are you saying that Lev. 18 and 20 is only telling the people, "don't worship Molech"? (by sacrificing your children)Fertility cult rites?? He is talking about incest, beastality, homosexuality and adultry.

It's safe to say, as the majority of men "laying with a man as with a woman" at the temple, likely didn't have strong same-sex orientations. How do you know this?

Cross dressing priests?? I would like to know where this text is.

The human ovum?? Science has told us even more since 1840, like life beginning at conception.

As a degreed sociologist can you give me your thoughts on the following:
For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:
"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

Everything I have read leans more towards childhood relationships.

The fact that you were in church often doesn't impress me by itself. I know many "baby" Christians that have been in church for many, many years. BUT, tell me of the bible studies, missions work, teaching opportunites you were involved in and I could change my mind.

Perry Stone, c'mon man.

The Golden Rule tells us to do unto others as we would have them do unto us, I sense by your letter that you have been attacked by Christians for your lifestyle or thougts about this subject and that is wrong. Personally, I like to study both sides or any subject and make what I believe is the best informed decision and I believe I have. I only ask that you have done the same and are happy with the conclusion you have come to.

FRIENDLY REMINDER
Comments not relating to the article under discussion will be removed. Stay on topic!

BJ
CT Community

GK Chesterton once remarked that the USA was a nation with the soul of a church. I am pleased that James Dobson is continuing the good fight against the cultural rot promoted in the name of equal rights and fairness, but which has nothing to do with equal rights or fairness and everything to do with legitimization and constitutional protection of every kind of perversion imaginable.

@GP: "By not respecting the personal dignity of the GLBT..." Sinful behavior isn't to be dignified!
"Dr. Dobson is an agent of anomie." One need only watch the so-called Gay parades to see the real agents of anomie. And one need only read the Bible to see that homosexuality is "an abomination" and "detestable". Levitcus 18:22; 20:13. Historically, the Jewish religion condemned homosexuality as has the church up to this point. Only with the abandonment of morality based upon the word of God has homosexuality gained any political traction of legitimacy.
Also, GP, you continue to deny that "homosexuality" is in the bible; to be consistent shouldn't you also deny the existence of the "Golden Rule" since the word "Golden Rule" isn't in the biblical text?

This is GREAT news. It is not as though we have too much good media on the airwaves. God's best blessings on the new venture.

If only there were an established ministry with a widely-distributed radio program in need of a widely-known evangelical radio host.

@GP: Dr. Dobson has been a tremendous resource for Christians in particular and even non-christians in general. However, as I read your posts I get the impression your concepts of right and wrong do not correspond in any way to the biblical witness or even what our country has historically held as right and wrong.

Regarding the biblical witness: while God's moral nature has never changed, His requirements for His people have changed. His people Israel were under the Mosaic Law - until Christ came. But it wasn't always that way as Abraham - obviously - was not under the Mosaic Law.

Why the Mosaic Law? Read Galatians 3 and you will find out. (v. 19 "Why the Law then? It was added because of transgressions..." and vs. 24 "...the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, so that we may be justified by faith. 25But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a tutor.")

BUT THE LAW WAS MORE THAN JUST A LIST OF RULES. It had an inward purpose: Deut. 10:16 "So circumcise your heart, and stiffen your neck no longer. Jer. 4:1-4 "...Circumcise yourselves to the LORD/And remove the foreskins of your heart..." and Rom. 2:25-29 "...For he is not a Jew who is one outwardly, nor is circumcision that which is outward in the flesh. 29 But he is a Jew who is one inwardly; and circumcision is that which is of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the letter..."

THE OT MOSAIC LAW DID INCLUDE A DIETARY COMPONENT WHICH JESUS ABROGATED: Matt. 15:10-11 -"After Jesus called the crowd to Him, He said to them, "Hear and understand. 11"It is not what enters into the mouth that defiles the man, but what proceeds out of the mouth, this defiles the man." Later Peter also recognized this change: Acts 10:9ff "...Peter went up on the housetop about the sixth hour to pray. 10But he became hungry and was desiring to eat; but while they were making preparations, he fell into a trance; 11and he saw the sky opened up, and an object like a great sheet coming down, lowered by four corners to the ground, 12and there were in it all kinds of four-footed animals and crawling creatures of the earth and birds of the air. 13A voice came to him, "Get up, Peter, kill and eat!" 14But Peter said, "By no means, Lord, for I have never eaten anything unholy and unclean." 15Again a voice came to him a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer consider unholy." Paul picks up on this theme in Col. 3:16ff "Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day-- 17things which are a mere shadow of what is to come; but the substance belongs to Christ.
18Let no one keep defrauding you of your prize by delighting in self-abasement and the worship of the angels, taking his stand on visions he has seen, inflated without cause by his fleshly mind... why, as if you were living in the world, do you submit yourself to decrees, such as, 21"Do not handle, do not taste, do not touch!"

BUT JESUS DID NOT ABROGATE GOD'S MORAL LAW! IN FACT JESUS UPHELD GOD'S MORAL LAW: Matt. 15:19-20 "For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20"These are the things which defile the man..." AND PAUL UPHELD GOD'S MORAL LAW, TOO: in Gal. 5:19ff "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are: immorality, impurity, sensuality, 20idolatry, sorcery, enmities, strife, jealousy, outbursts of anger, disputes, dissensions, factions, 21envying, drunkenness, carousing, and things like these, of which I forewarn you, just as I have forewarned you, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God." And also in Col 3:5ff: "Therefore consider the members of your earthly body as dead to immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and greed, which amounts to idolatry [well, the immoral, ipso facto, are idolaters! So maybe immoral HOMOSEXUAL BEHAVIOR IS IDOLATRY after all - contrary to what you say.]. 6For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience..."

Mr. Peterson,

You are very good at spewing hatred in the name of love yourself.

Can you give me some specific examples of the lies that Dr. Dobson is spreading and where we can read this? I don't believe the overwhelming majority of religious scholars and textual critics are incorrect in their acceptance of the KJV, NIV, ESV, NLT, etc. translations of the Bible. Even well known skeptics have said as much. These scriptures are ultimately what forms Dr. Dobson opinion of the gay lifestyle and his studies have simply proven it. I have never read or heard him say that someone is condemed to hell because of their lifestyle (not just the gay lifestyle). I have read him warning people as to where that lifestyle will lead to.

@GP: "Dobson wrote that the [his new] organization will deal with the following: marriage, child-rearing, family finances, medical and psychological concerns, national issues, the sanctity of human life, and the Gospel of Jesus Christ." We need more men and women like Dobson. He could retire but prefers, I guess, to go out with his boots on and in the saddle. Good for him! He has been in the culture wars for a long time and knows better than most what needs to be done. He knows how to make a reasonable biblical case against homosexuality using the bible. But what you can't do, GP is make a case FOR homosexuality FROM the Bible.
*And as for your comment about Paul the Apostle - "Paul is in his all things to all men mode...which means that even if the letter is authentic, Paul isn't. Paul is being manipulative instead of authentic." Well, you might want to complain to Heaven's Human Resources Dept. (I think Jesus is over personnel.) He's the One who Commissioned Paul as an apostle - sooooo, take it up with Him. By the way what other parts of scripture would you like to delete - since you sit in judgment over Paul's writing - which we call Scripture, God's written word - and think him inauthentic? Here's a good starting place: Rom. 9:20 "...who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it?" Throughout your many posts, GP, you've never built a case for homosexuality/gay culture/ss marriage from a biblical basis. And of course we all know why.

Gregory Peterson,

I want to agree with a lot of what you are saying, and for the most part I do. Many Christians, especially the "fundamentalists" and those associated with the Religious Right, are more like the Pharisees than Jesus in their regard for sinners.

I think if Jesus were currently walking among us he would befriend and love on those who are most snubbed by religious people today. I'm willing to bet that, just like the Pharisees in his day, the hardcore religious people of our day would turn their noses at Him just as much.

While I think you have grace, I do not think you have truth. Sexual sin, regardless of one's orientation, is a reality and should be fought against by the individual, in as much as they claim Christ as their Lord. The only sexual acts that I am aware of as being divinely sanctioned are those done by a married husband and wife. We have no examples of anything else. We can discuss ancient cultural and historical standards and contexts all we want, but it still doesn't nullify this truth. Anything done outside of that covenant is sin.

Even Jesus told people to sin no more. In as much as you don't do that too, then you have grace but no truth.

To everyone else,

I think you have truth, but lack grace. In my experience living among the Religious Right and Fundamentalists (I go to a hardcore Southern Baptist church), truth gets the full treatment while grace is usually relegated to a short footnote, if that.

You need to learn how to love the people that your church rejects as sinners. Gregory is right to hold the Golden Rule over your heads in judgment; it is your greatest deficiency.

Regardless of how right your theology of sin is, if you live nothing of it in love you are no better than an annoying noise to be shunned. Quoting Paul, "Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth. Love bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things."

I know your eyes will light on verse 6 above all else, but please do not forget the rest of Paul's explanation of how love looks. Learn how to love those people you've been taught to hate and you might be surprised how far you can get with them.

Being a Pharisee, no matter how right you are, isn't the way to proclaim the Kingdom of God to hurting people.

@Greg M.: "Many Christians, especially the "fundamentalists" and those associated with the Religious Right, are more like the Pharisees than Jesus in their regard for sinners." I take it that you may be referring to James Dobson here as he is the topic. If so, what is your evidence that he is a "pharisee"? Nevertheless, making a generalization like this may render you guilty of the same thing you accuse the religious right/fundamentalists of.
>"While I think you have grace, I do not think you have truth." Could you clarify this statement? Grace and truth comes through Jesus. I don't think you can have grace - God's unmerited love and acceptance - without truth (Jn. 14:6). You can speak the truth - but not in love - but having grace without truth? I don't understand where you are coming from here.

Dan,

I don't know enough about Dobson and Focus on the Family to address any of this to them. What I said was based off of what I saw happening on this thread, from my experience in a Southern Baptist church, and as a former soldier in the Culture Wars.

And of course, the Pharisees had truth on their side, more or less, but did not have grace it seems.

Having truth without grace is, as you defined it, acting in a matter that does not display God's unmerited love and acceptance. Jesus displayed this grace to the outcasts of his society. As we are called to be imitators of him, I think it is important that we do the same, yet with truth.

Gregory Peterson,

Using the Bible as a standard for discerning God's will in a matter is not an example of Biblio-idolatry, as you claim. After all, were not the Bereans commended for searching the scriptures to see if what Paul said was true? On the other hand, using one's own self to determine right and wrong to the extent you do is an example of self-idolotry. Both may be imperfect, as they are dependent upon man's interpretation, but the former is at least more perfect than the latter.

I am all for re-evaluating traditional interpretations as new information comes to light. I have done this several times myself in the past, and I even found your discussion on temple prostitutes above very interesting, and worthy of more study if I ever acquire the interest.

But, I do not think there is room to re-evaluate sexual ethics from a Biblical point of view to the degree you want. Sexual actions are not sin if done by a husband and wife within a marriage covenant. There are many areas of scripture in support of this, none in support of other alternatives, and many against these other alternatives. If you think I am mistaken, I am open to correction if you wish to provide examples.

I agree with the stand that Mr. Dobson makes regarding same sex marriage. I am glad that he will continue to take a stand as long as he is able.
The reason I do not support same sex marriage is based on some words from Frank Turek that make a lot of sense to me: The truth is every person in America already has equal marriage rights! We’re all playing by the same rules—we all have the same right to marry any non-related adult of the opposite sex. Those rules do not deny anyone “equal protection of the laws” because the qualifications to enter a marriage apply equally to everyone—every adult person has the same right to marry.
Gays want the court to believe that because of their sexual desires they are a special class of persons that is being discriminated against. In other words, they think that sexual desires guarantee people special legal rights.This would mean that men born with a desire for many women (i.e. most men) are having their rights violated because marriage laws provide no means for polygamy. Likewise, it would mean that people desiring to marry their close relatives don’t have “equal rights” because our marriage laws have no provision for incest. And bisexuals could object because existing marriage laws don’t allow them to marry a man and a woman!"

Dr. Dobson has done wonderful things for the family. Is he too conservative? Perhaps. Does he represent a more Republican point of view? Yes. Has he attempted to help those that want out of the gay lifestyle? Yes. He has put his money where his mouth is.

I also believe that Christians, mainly conservative Evangelicals, regardless of parties, have demonized Gays because we do not understand them and dislike the sin so much. Yes, I think it is a sin to have gay sex, but before you throw the first stone, I also think that fornication is a sin. Adultery is a sin. Cheating the poor out of their resources is a sin, yet the church does not condemn them with the same energy that we condemn the Gay and Lesbian lifestyle.
I wish not to condemn anyone because that places me in the place of a judge. I believe that the Bible tells me that my place is to proclaim the good news and if someone wants to hear about how they can change their lifestyles, then great. I do not offer my opinion unless it has been asked.
I have dear friends that are gay that I love very much. However, they know that I don't agree with their lifestyle nor the Bible in my opinion. They know that. They don't agree with me that I should be heavy and cause my body health problems because of it.
My heart breaks for the Gay community as they feel that allowing them to be married is the first step towards their freedom and equal rights. I think that they are mistaken. Jesus Christ, not his church, is the first step towards fulfilling the void that gay and lesbians are trying to fill with sex and relationships.
My love goes out to the many that are trying to find answers. I pray that the church of God, those of us who claim to know him, can be better examples of his truth. That we may love our God and our brothers and sisters as we love ourselves. That we may speak the truth in love and testify that Jesus has already paid the price of our salvation from this world, that will pass away anyhow.
Happy New Year!

@GP: But regardless of what homosexuals can DO, if they practice homosexual behavior they cannot please God: I John 3:4 "Everyone who practices sin also practices lawlessness; and sin is lawlessness." I find it interesting that you continue to refer back to your college sex life. Your transparency is kind of disturbing. If you have read the bible you would know that God disapproves of that kind of promiscuous behavior (whether homosexual or heterosexual) - and yet you cabbage onto the golden rule articulated by the Saviour who condemns the very behavior you are so proud of. Remarkable! The more I read your posts the more I am convinced the Homosexual/Gay Culture is a large part of the moral rot that James Dobson has opposed for years.

@GP: "You're presuming that I had been "promiscuous." Were you blinded by wanting to label me as "promiscuous?" Yeaaahh, well I'm not presuming anything. You stated on another thread that you were called Dr. Condom in college. Hey, just taking you at your word. Sooooo, yeah. Whatever you say, Dr. Con...er ah...GP. You weren't promiscuous in college (wink, wink, nod, nod). Got it!

Thank God for James Dobson...
Gregory, Let's just redefine and redefine and redefine. The term gay was originally used, until well into the mid-20th century, primarily to refer to feelings of being "carefree", "happy", or "bright and showy"; it had also come to acquire some connotations of "immorality" as early as 1637.The term later began to be used in reference to homosexuality, in particular, from the early 20th century, a usage that may have dated prior to the 19th century. In modern English, gay has come to be used as an adjective, and occasionally as a noun, that refers to the people, practices, and culture associated with homosexuality. By the end of the 20th century the word gay was recommended by major style guides to describe people attracted to members of the same sex. At about the same time, a new, pejorative use became prevalent in some parts of the world. In the Anglosphere, this connotation, among younger generations of speakers, has a derisive meaning equivalent to rubbish or stupid (as in "That's so gay.").


Greg, so all you are saying is gay is the new word for homosexual. This won't last. Eventually there will be another word for it. What remains is the meaning of the word. In any language the meaning is sexual attraction to the same sex. Whether or not that attraction is acted upon is up to the individual. A person can "be gay" and not practice his/her gayness. They can recognize it is a sin and choose to remain celibate just as a person who is not married but sexually attracted to a person of the opposite sex can choose to refrain from having sex because they recognize it is a sin. All people can choose to marry. But marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. This is in the best interest of all Americans lest we lose the definition of marriage all together. Do what you want. Sin or do not sin. But allow us to keep the definition of marriage in tact.

Gregory Peterson,

It may be helpful in the future if you edit your posts for redundancy before posting. It seems some things were repeated.

The alternatives you showed were not the alternatives you needed to justify your argument. All you showed me was how marriage between a man and a woman has changed over the years. I have no issue with that.

I asked you for examples where any sort of sexual activity was given divine sanctioned outside of marriage.

I also asked you for any example of a divinely sanctioned marriage that was between two men or two women, or any combination outside of the man/woman pattern.

Aside from both of these examples, your argument is devoid of any divine approval. I suspect this is why you support a sexual ethic that looks to the culture for approval as opposed to God.

You can do this, but you're on your own if you do. You have no justification for resorting to the Golden Rule as your supreme guide, because, as I pointed out, even Jesus himself told people to go and sin no more after forgiving them. Hence also why I said you operate with grace but no truth.

To conclude, any understanding that leads one to believe any form of sexual activity done outside of a divinely sanctioned marriage is not sin, is an example of depraved thinking.

If I were you, I would tread very carefully here. Jesus had some very powerful and terrifying words for those who lead others to sin.

@Gregory M: Careful now. ;-) You are starting to sound like others of us who started out like you have but soon discovered what you have found out. Hence, the very pointed and concise responses to GP by some of us. Otherwise, you are very articulate and thoughtful and I have enjoyed reading your posts.

@GP: "I said that the Golden Rule is the sanction for the marriage equality of same-sex couples." Remarkable! That you would quote for support the very One who condemns your immoral behavior. You must be thinking of another Golden Rule in another bible written by another Jesus. Matt. 5:19-20 For out of the heart come evil thoughts...adulteries, fornications... 20"These are the things which defile the man..." You think maybe Jesus was just kidding when He said this?

@GP: As always - you give too much information.
Prov. 3:7 "Do not be wise in your own eyes;
Fear the LORD and turn away from evil.

@GP: "... there is not such thing as "too much information..." Then don't complain when your behavior critiqued.

@GP: "... if you critique my behavior, then I get to critique yours..." Hey, whatever floats your boat. But really, GP, this thread is about Dobson - not you and what you think is sexy. And when you "put" your life out there - like you are wont to do - well, I just don't know if you're bragging or complaining. So, like I said before, if you don't want your behavior critiqued, don't put it out there where it can be critiqued.

@GP-I like being wrong...if it doesn't cost too much money anyway.

You must be a very happy person then.

Dr. Dobson apparently has great admiration for "common sense," something I don't share with him. I try for "good sense" instead. Good sense takes reliable information.

Most of your post make "no sense". Can you give some of this reliable info. More than just your opinion, we all have one of those. I mean like studies that have been done. That's all it would take to "prove" Dr. Dobson and the AFA are lying. But hey, you're happy and that's what is important. The people in Noah's day thought the same way.

Daniel Pat Moynihan coined the phrase "defining deviancy down" to describe how we as a culture tolerate increasing levels of criminal behavior, behavior that at one time would have been swiftly punished. Although homosexuality is not considered criminal behavior, Moynihan's alliterative phrase certainly describes our culture's acceptance of this perversion promoted by the radical homosexual activists. This is precisely what James Dobson is fighting against in this culture war. With some success homosexual activists have been able to posture their perversion as a normal albeit alternative life style not so much different from the heterosexual norm. Reinterpreting and/or disregarding vast portions of scripture is just one way they have tried to convince Christians that homosexuality is okay, indeed normal. In fact progressive (read liberal/postmodern) christian thought attempts to give a theological/historical/sociological/philosophical foundation to their erroneous beliefs. Progressive christians proffer their take on homosexualality by appealing to our general sense of justice and fairness, all the while ignoring what the bible actually says about it. When confronted with the biblical texts (Lev. 18:22; Rom.1:26,27; I Cor. 6:9) which specifically condemn homosexual behavior, the progressive will say something to the effect, "Oh, those verses refer to idol worship; they don't refer to gay people. Homosexuality is not even mentioned in the bible." [This reminds me of the old joke about a man who was caught in the arms of another woman by his wife. He was certain he could talk his way out of it. So he said to her: "Who are you going to believe? Me or your eyes."] When this tactic doesn't work, the progressive will usually tell you that those prohibitions in the OT were for the Jews not for us today. (As if God changes His mind about morality.) "After all", the progressive will say, "the Jews were prohibitied from eating shellfish, as well. Do you eat shellfish?" Nevermind though that Jesus abrogated the dietary laws - but not God's moral law. Then if this tactic doesn't work, the progressive will then usually just call you a bigot. Thank God for James Dobson and others who stand up for Biblical values.

@GP: "It's a common bigotry/misconception which I'm too lazy to defend with critical thinking." Which is Dr. Dobson in a nutshell."
Wait a minute...(Tee hee hee)...I think you just committed - in essence - (guffaw, guffaw) what you accuse Dr. D. of doing, using name calling/ad hominem attacks, sweeping generalizations, etc. Shame, shame, (tee hee) shame.

Dan,

I glad someone else has noticed the hyprocrisy in Mr. Peterson's post. Apparently if you disagree with someone (notice I didn't say if they were wrong) then you have the right and the obligation to destroy that persons credibility with absolutely no regard for the truth.

One again his post makes a very poor case against Dr. Dobson. I read over the Haney-Lopez article and did not find one mention of a study on homosexuality.

Anyone who wants to compare race to gay is comparing apples to oranges. The Bible never condemns someone based on the color of their skin. Jew and Gentile are pretty much it as far as people groups. It is true that the church overlooked slavery for many years and some southern denominations split from northern ones over the issue. There was no biblical approval for this type of slavery. But it is also true that a Christian man helped stop the slave trading in England. The gay community only wants to use racism to help further their agenda. The black community has said as much.

@GP: "..."race" is also a social construct which didn't exist in Bible times..." Acts 17:26 "...and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation..."
Galatians 3:28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus." And Romans 9:3 "For I could wish that I myself were cursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my brothers, those of my own RACE (my caps)..."
I guess SOMEONE in the bible forgot to tell Luke and Paul race wasn't a social construct. Of course,they weren't "postmodern man" either with postmodern sensibilites and a postmodern vocabulary and an exalted sense of self. Just think if Paul, Luke - oh! and don't forget Jesus (Mark 7:26 "Now the woman was a Gentile, of the Syrophoenician race.) - had been able to read Berger and Luckmann's The Social Construction of Reality or Michael Foucault what a different New Testament we would have today. Oh, we would be so much more socially graceful and sensitive. (Memo to self - be postmodern, don't be gauche.)

Mr. Peterson,

What you write, Cecil, is not what the religious right of my childhood was saying. ?? So who is right??

In biblical times a Jewish man could "sell" himself into slavery to pay off a debt. But after no more than 7 years he would be released.

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780 and became the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson-evangelical and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp-evangelical, Hannah More-evangelical and Charles Middleton-evangelical. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists. He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

From what I read about Darwin, he was against slavery but I don't read where he was very involved with abolition. When I google British Abolitionist, the names above pop up, but no Darwin.

I do know that Hitler was big on Darwin though.

"My tentative impression is that Calvinistic tradition leaders were the main proslavery apologists. Methodists, Baptists and Disciples of Christ members pretty much WERE the KKK after the Civil War."

I know you have NO proof of this allegation.

"Activist judges"mmmmm, EVERY state (what is it 30-31?)that has been allowed to vote on the definition of marriage has voted AGAINST gay marriage. And I thought judges enforced laws???

Still waiting on those studies......

"`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.' A Postmodern theory of language, no doubt.

Lord, have mercy on us all.

I have heard Dr.Dobson for many years..I used to find his
quite good..but in the last few years..he is more political than
what is his formal school training..it has become so political
that it is like listening to a ultra right wing politician..
when I listen to Christian radio I do not like it to be a poltical
platform as a program..there is just something about over mixing
polotics and religion is the same always done program that is
to me..not doing any of the issues well. Politics is politics..
religion is relgion..Jesus which they should know..did not get into
politics at all..I do not think God of the bible is a Republican
nor a Democrat..however the Democratic party of today does seem
to support..the Jesus teaching of concern and help for the people
in general and not the overdone..for the already very rich so
exclusively as the Repbulican party seems to in the last years.
ie Roberts of the Supreme Cout ..the huge to big to fail international coporations..more power to give their views to
influence elections in the United States..these corporations send
many American jobs overseas where they then get higher and higher
profits from cheaper labor..etc. I never see in Dobson commentary
his giving an opposing viewpoint on what he says about government
issues of today...unlike what not Fox news but other tv stations
on political and issues of the day..always allow another viewpoint
on the issue to be given. I also question the non profit situation
these particular programs seem to be able to have a very good profit to run their programs..and many take trips which they can
call business trips..ie cruise here and there and take their own
expenses for these trips off their income tax..the way income
tax situations pertain to religious situations..that may be good
when it is really beneficial to all key word ..the public..but
as it is the expenses to take the cruise with them etc..many today
could not afford to do that cruise with them..I do not see them
give any to that problem..as to in todays time..Christians that
simply do not have the income to go on a cruise with them..also
to me all of this is not bibical as the bible says..it is political plus using donations given in part for their very nice
vacations..hardly then the Jesus of the bible.

I read with intrest the other comments. Many were straining at gnats and swallowing Camels in the attempt to convince through sheer wordiness the abandonment of God's Holy word, the Bible, and the acceptance of the equally faith filled world view which says there is no god so therefore whatever I feel like goes.

Well the reality of life is that there is a God who says in the beginning God created the heavens and the Earth. He made everything and everybody and men and women only for each other for procreation and pleasure. But in time men and women abandoned Gods plan and in sheer lust and sin began to lie together, men with men and women with women commiting indecent acts and earning the penalty of rejecting Almighty God.

And that is the proverbial bottom line. We believe there is a God who created a world to function within certain perameters which does not include the deliberately chosen act of homosexuality or lesbianism others do not. Anything else is our own lust for each other and sin.

Follow God's plan or you are answerable to Him. Homosexuals and lesbians please abandon the Satanic plot to decieve you...while there is still time.