If you are interested in reading what others have written to me, together with my replies, these are shown below. Please feel free to write to me yourself with your comments or questions.

Oh my Bruce,

Re: http://godslovestory.com/gay.htm

I just came across your website and just had to have a look at your link on Gay Christians. It is so sad to see that another person has been so gravely deceived by the homosexual lie that being "gay" is innate, intrinsic or genetic in the same way as the color of one's eyes, skin, etc. So very sad indeed. I read your entire page on it and all your flawed arguments. I am very familiar with what the Bible teaches, having spent countless hours over 28 years studying it. I feel I can only pray for your enlightenment at some time before your physical death. I am sure you mean well, as do I, but there is no unity here on this subject.

When I was young I wondered how society would get to the point of rampant homosexual activity described as occurring during the last days. I have seen how what was once abhorrent, like abortion and homosexuality, has now become not only accepted but vigorously defended and by, of all things, so called Christians. Surely Jesus weeps, as do I.

If you have not yet found something you are willing to die for, you have not yet found your reason to live!
~ Gerry

I apologise for the delay in responding to your e-mail. Thank you for taking the time to write to me. I appreciate that and praise God for the zeal for the Lord that you have. Hearing genuine concern in your words, I understand where you are coming from because I used to hold similar views.

I am pleased that you have written because this is the very purpose for which I set up the Web Site.

Perhaps one in fifteen of us (regardless of nationality) are gay or lesbian. Whether this is due primarily to nature or nurture it is nevertheless not a choice and it is not something they can change any more than you or I could change our heterosexual orientation. This is an established fact and if I could influence you to do any one thing, Gerry, it would be to check that out for yourself. Talk to some gay Christians if you are able.

We have many gay and lesbian Christian brothers and sisters who love the Lord and yet find themselves rejected by a hostile or uncomprehending Church. I believe the Church has a responsibility to offer homosexual couples a positive theological understanding of their relationship as well as practical acceptance and support, just as we would offer these to heterosexual couples in marriage, to help them honour God and fulfil the same ideal of permanent, faithful, stable love.

Yours sincerely,

Bruce

P.S. Are you happy with me including your e-mail and my reply on the Open Forum page? I will not do so without your consent.

B.K.

Thank you for your reply. Before I forget, yes you may post my email on your site.

Bruce, I have spoken with 'gay' 'Christians' at length. The most notable time was quite a few years back, before gay pride parade days were as common as they now are. The name of the mayor of Calgary at the time was Al Duerr. He was being asked to sanction an official Gay Pride Day and parade for Calgary. The Lord pressed upon my heart to do something I had not done previously and that was to protest this policy before being sanctioned by the city.

I made a large banner that read, "When it comes to perversion, Al says doer!" Needless to say I had a lot of opportunity to speak and pray with many gay Christians who approached me to discuss my banner. Not a one, after speaking with me for a time, left believing their gay lifestyle choice was a morally acceptable one by either themselves or Jesus. One can be gay and be a Christian because practicing the gay lifestyle is no more or less sinful than practicing any other less than perfect lifestyle in which all Christians live in to one extent or the other.

I would have no less an issue with any other 'recognizable by their behavior' segment of the church, apart from gays, who, rather than conform their lifestyle to the clear teachings of Scripture, tried to legitimatize and normalize their behavior through various means, such as the gay community has and is clearly continuing to attempt to do.

The divergence of opinions is truly based on the truth or error of one clear belief. Either homosexuality is a lifestyle choice, controllable by the freewill of a person, no more or less than any other tempting lifestyle choice OR it is innate, genetic and completely separate from one's freewill. You have equated it with the latter and I with the former. Nowhere in Scripture does God condemn or even disapprove of anyone based on their innate and/or genetic attributes. EVERY instance of God's disapproval and condemnation is based on behaviour, attitude, lifestyle, homosexuality included, etc. All of these condemned things are 'sins' and can only be sins if they are within our power of choice i.e. freewill. I have yet to discover anything outside of our power of freewill condemned as a sin. Homosexuality is unequivocally categorized as a biblical sin and if your belief is true, then it is the ONLY innate or genetic behavior classified as a sin. I do not believe my God would or has created any being that would be born with an unchangeable attribute, such as you claim homosexuality is, and then condemn it. If you do not agree with that then you must somehow finagle your way out of the box by trying to claim that God does not condemn homosexuality. Bruce, you cannot make such a claim without doing a total butcher job of the exegesis of Scripture.

I too believe you genuinely care for the gay community but you are doing them a GRAVE DISSERVICE by accepting their lifestyle no matter how loving, gentle, kind, sweet, etc. some gays may be. The negative statistics for homosexual unions are even worse than for the general population as far as social, mental problems, etc. These problems are NOT caused by society's non-acceptance (at this time) of their lifestyle. If the definition of homophobia is "fear of or contempt for lesbians and gay men /or being a homosexual" then I postulate that it is the homosexuals themselves who are the most homophobic. This is because this fear is clearly demonstrated in their insatiable and relentless pursuit to 'normalize' their behavior and have it 'accepted' by not only 'mainstream society' but ESPECIALLY by Christians. Will they succeed? For THEIR sake, I hope not.

Gerry

From: Bruce
Dear Gerry,
Thank you again for your reply. I apologise in advance because this is quite a long e-mail.
We are in agreement that the root of our disagreement is the one issue that you mentioned. Either homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or it is not. You are convinced that it is and I am convinced that it is not. This is an oversimplification of our respective positions, I know, but essentially it is where we stand.
One aspect of that oversimplification, for me, is that I believe that people don't all fit neatly into discrete "straight" and "gay" boxes. Sexual orientation is much more of a continuum and whilst the majority of us can be described as heterosexual there are huge differences between individuals. Also we can identify homosexual and lesbian people as well as transgender and bisexual individuals, for example, and there are those whose orientation is best described as in-between some of our definitions.
I am describing their sexual orientation here but there is also one in about every two thousand babies born with an intersex condition of congenital mixed sex anatomy. (This is slightly off our main point, I know, but much unnecessary suffering has been caused for such individuals and their families because until recently doctors though that sexual orientation was determined by "nurture" rather than "nature". They consequently assigned a sex to the child, with the best of intentions and then performed surgery and tried to get them to grow up as the "male" or "female" that they had decided. This is now understood to be wholly in error and that the sexuality of the child cannot be determined by society. All of this is documented and you can find much useful information on the Internet.)
But now, the main point. The evidence is overwhelming that we do not choose to be either heterosexual or homosexual. (This is true regardless of what has determined that sexual orientation, i.e. the relative importance of genetic and environmental factors.) The reason that you don't accept the clear preponderance of evidence of this is exactly what you stated in your last e-mail.
You believe that God condemns homosexuality.
And, quite rightly, if God did condemn it then it would have to be something that individuals could change. If you believe that the Bible condemns it then whatever arguments the scientific and medical community bring forward to show you the truth, will be rejected.
The evidence that sexuality is not a choice is conclusive and is there for you to examine. Let me just quote from the Wikepedia article "Ex Gay" to make the point.
The ex-gay or exodus movement is a controversial movement that consists of several groups that seek to alter the sexual orientation of homosexual or bisexual individuals to a heterosexual orientation. Most, though not all, of these groups believe that all homosexual or bisexual individuals should attempt to make this change. Ex-gay groups offer counseling, prayer, and other techniques to achieve this. The method in general is called reparative therapy. Most ex-gay organizations extend this to include people who identify as transgender, on the basis that they consider such feelings or behaviour to be related to homosexuality.The movement is primarily based in the United States (though it exists in other countries such as Canada, Sweden and the United Kingdom) and is largely led by evangelical and fundamentalist Christians (see also Homosexuality and Christianity).
"The modern ex-gay movement has been broadly condemned by nearly all major psychological, psychiatric, and medical associations. Today, these associations point to a lack of scientific evidence suggesting that homosexuals can change their orientation and argue that homosexuals have no reason to do so aside from societal pressure. They say repressing those feelings may cause future psychological damage. These assertions are vigorously disputed by those in the ex-gay movement.
Because of the differences of opinion between modern medicine and fundamentalist Christianity's views on what homosexuality actually is, establishing a dialogue between the two groups is difficult at best.

Ex-gay groups and changes in sexual behaviour
From the point of view of ex-gay groups, a change in the sexual behavior of an individual from homosexuality to either celibacy or heterosexuality is generally regarded as "change," irrespective of any actual change in the underlying sexual orientation. Many ex-gays live celibate lives. Although the wisdom and moral necessity of doing so is hotly contested, the capacity of homosexuals to do so if they so choose is not disputed. Other ex-gays marry opposite-sex spouses and remain faithful to their spouses within their marriages. As a matter of morality, it is generally regarded that the spouse must be made aware of one's past and/or ongoing struggles with same-sex attractions before the marriage takes place. Some married ex-gays acknowledge that their sexual attractions remain primarily homosexual, but seek to make their marriages work anyway.
Because of the way that ex-gay groups regard homosexuality and because of the way they define the term "ex-gay" itself, "relapses" into homosexual behavior are hardly surprising to ex-gay groups. Since one may be "ex-gay" without having experienced a total, or even any, change in sexual orientation, that some ex-gays may "fall back" into "old patterns of behavior" is seen as something to be expected. Ex-gay groups regard embarrassing exposures of their leaders engaged in homosexual behavior in the same way that an Alcoholics Anonymous or similar group might regard the exposure of one of its leaders to have taken up drinking again."
"Ex-gay claims concerning changes in sexual orientation
Many ex-gays claim that their sexual orientation has been altered as a result of their treatment. Most say they have experienced a decrease in same-sex attractions coupled with an increase in opposite-sex attractions, and a significant number claim that their sexual orientation is now predominantly heterosexual-that is, that their opposite-sex attractions now exceed their same-sex attractions. Very few, however, claim to have completely eradicated their same-sex attractions such that exposure to homosexual imagery would pose no temptations.
These claims of an alteration in one's underlying sexual orientation are hotly disputed by the scientific and gay communities, and there is scant scientific evidence suggesting that any actual changes in sexual orientation have taken place. Ex-gay groups rely heavily on testimonials, and the scientific evidence they cite are generally survey results of reported change among ex-gays. Those changes in reported sexual orientation are generally dismissed as the result of denial, wishful thinking, sexual repression, or willful deception. At most, the body of scientific evidence supports the assertion that it may be possible for a small percentage of persons with a homosexual orientation to modify that orientation."
Not surprisingly the neutrality of this article has been disputed by some who realise that it shows the futility of trying to make gay people straight.
You have to admit, however, that it is now generally acknowledged by the psychiatric community that homosexuality is not, after all, a disease which can be cured.
In December 1973 the American Psychiatric Association pronounced that homosexuality per se is not a mental disorder or a disease. Consequently the American Psychological Association has taken the official position that it would be unethical to try to change the sexual orientation of a homosexual.
However, many people who are homosexual have been so indoctrinated with the prejudices of our society that they cannot accept their sexual orientation as normal. Your exercise with the "When it comes to perversion, Al says doer!" banner has sadly contributed towards this. Of course, I am sure you meant well, but please, let me urge you to study the facts on this and not just listen to fundamentalist Christian propaganda.
The main part of my Web Site was dedicated to understanding and interpreting of Scripture because this is the root of the matter. Once you see that the Bible doesn't condemn homosexuality, you are free to begin to see that some of our brothers and sisters are gay by nature.
Now, what they (or we) do with our sexuality is a different thing altogether. We can use it to glorify God or to act selfishly and harmfully towards others. You write about the negative profiles of the gay community in relation to the straight community and say "These problems are NOT caused by society's non-acceptance (at this time) of their lifestyle."
That is so tragically false. I spoke to one young gay man just recently who was brought up in a Christian home and began to discover he was gay as a teenager. Believing that his thoughts and urges were sinful in the extreme he cried himself to sleep night after night and suffered from depression before finally talking to his parents. If anyone could have changed their sexual orientation, this young man would have. He prayed and fasted, he accepted counselling and all help that was offered. But eventually he came to accept the truth. He was gay and that was the way God made him. He is now happily pursuing his chosen career and enjoying a positive, fulfilling life.
It really saddens me to read your confident assertion that society has not caused problems for homosexuals. If you could see it from their point of view for just a moment you might begin to understand the pressures they are under. For example, when a young couple walk down the road hand in hand, people will smile and accept that public show of affection as natural and healthy. But gay and lesbian couples are largely unable to show any signs of affection in public. They risk causing offence, and getting abuse which, in some cases, is extreme.
I'm afraid that I cannot accept your statement that homosexuals themselves are homophobic. Homophobia means fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals. Opposition to same-sex activism on religious, moral or political grounds may also be referred to as homophobic. To my mind, that makes your words homophobic, Gerry. Can you not see that any group that is demonised and ostracised by their community (and especially those they look to for spiritual guidance) would naturally seek to be recognised and accepted for who they really are?
We don't know why people are homosexual, but we know that there always were, are, and will be homosexuals. Some estimates suggest that 7 to 8% of the population in the United States and throughout the world is lesbian or gay; at least one member out of every four families. (You may question that figure and I would not be dogmatic regarding numbers.) For them, homosexuality is their true nature. To ask them to behave otherwise would be to ask them to behave unnaturally.

So what about the Scriptures?
In fact, nowhere in the Bible is there mention of those whose true nature is homosexual. The Bible talks about homosexual acts. The apostle Paul was writing in Romans 1 of heterosexual men who committed homosexual acts. For them, they were committing acts against their own nature. Homosexuality, however, is not unnatural since it exists throughout nature. It is just as natural for one person to be heterosexual as it is for another to be homosexual.
I have tried to demonstrate in my Web Site that a simplistic searching of the Bible to obtain the definitive list of "do's and don'ts" for Christians is not satisfactory. The Old Testament has a plethora of commands that are not applicable to Christians today. From dietary laws, to ritualistic laws to Sabbath keeping, there are commands that Christians today do not follow literally. We have generally come to see that these have spiritual application for us but need interpretation for the current times.
However, many Christians don't realise that we are to do the same with the New Testament Scriptures. Jesus condemned the Jews of his day who stuck rigidly to the letter of their law yet missed the spiritual point of it. Too many Christians are doing the same thing today with the New Testament.
Look at what the apostle Paul says about women. He plainly commands that women must wear a head covering in church as a sign of their subordination, (1 Cor 11:5-9); that women must be silent in the churches 'for they are not permitted to speak but must be silent as even the Law says'; that no woman may teach or hold authority over men, 'for Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet woman will be saved through child-bearing ...' (1 Tim 2:12-15)
Today, these passages, which are so clearly demeaning to women, are highly embarrassing to those who defend a literalist view. Paul himself lays far more stress on them than on his references to homosexual acts. Yet in practice few even of the most so-called biblical churches now enforce the veiling of women or keep them silent in church. If challenged on this, biblical conservatives will use exactly the same sort of arguments which on other matters, not least homosexuality, they condemn as 'getting round the plain meaning of Scripture' or 'capitulating to the spirit of the age'.
In the case of Paul's teaching about women, they have to admit to making a distinction between temporary, 'culturally conditioned' teachings in certain passages, and wider biblical principles of justice and love with which those texts are now understood to conflict. Or else they will argue that Paul's teaching on women was conditioned by special circumstances in the churches he was writing to (though in fact more than once Paul says his teaching about women is binding on all the churches).
On these points, even hard-line fundamentalists have been forced to recognize that certain biblical teachings must be weighed against other biblical principles and changed social conditions, and must sometimes be set aside. It is for this reason that I have proposed looking at the spirit of every command and prayerfully seeking God for the way to apply the spirit of the law in our personal circumstances.
If we do that, will there be mistakes of judgment made? Of course! We are only human. But Jesus came to bring grace and truth. It is precisely as we recognize our absolute need of his help and the guidance of his Holy Spirit individually and continually, that we grow in grace and knowledge.
Christians eventually came to see the evils of slavery, despite the lack of any Biblical censure and in fact, its tacit acceptance in both Testaments. Yet the understanding of the spirit of the law of love finally broke through. I pray and believe that the same will be true of our treatment of gays in this century.
Sincerely,
Bruce

Thank you for the obvious effort you put into your reply. If for nothing else, it at least has helped me to ascertain the methodology you have employed in order to arrive at your current beliefs. I do not doubt for a moment your genuine empathy and concern for practicing homosexuals. Never-the-less I am not persuaded by any of the arguments presented. The credibility of the omniscience of the psychiatric profession is not a source of authority and/or truth for me, no matter how well intentioned they may be. I apologize if my position's arguments were simplistic. I wasn't in the frame of mind to thinking we would be exchanging lengthy email discourses on the subject.

I just want to mention one point for now, regarding your argument about fundamentalist Christians picking and choosing which Scriptures may or may not apply to any given circumstance. The point in question is the keeping of the Sabbath. The Sabbath has always been Saturday (Friday sunset - Saturday sunset) and this has never changed. I personally believe that the Christian church, as a whole, should be keeping the Sabbath and should not have substituted Sunday in its place. The Sabbath is eternal and is consistent throughout the Old and New Testaments and well into the future as clearly expressed in Revelation. Just because "Christians" are not keeping a commandment, because of social mores or changing customs, does not mean the commandment is not meant to be kept as instructed. The commandments were given to us out of love from our Heavenly Father and are not burdensome but liberating.

A quick mention of my banner "headline". It was not meant to do anything other than garner attention, which it most certainly did. Also, if you had witnessed the lewd public behaviour of the gay protest participants, you would have had to concur that my banner message was in no way inappropriate. Let's just say the homosexuals were NOT just walking down the streets holding hands affectionately. If gays truly want acceptance by mainstream society then may I suggest they work on themselves to curtail their gross behaviour during their so called gay pride events.

Thank you for your sincerity,

Gerry