Timeless Wisdom: Religion On The Line 2: Religion, Homosexuality and Sex

Welcome to Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Hear thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles, go to DennisPrager.com.

How many of you remember the American game show To Tell the Truth? I felt like having everybody getting up and going My name is Dennis Prager. And then we would have, you know, a contest to see who could best fake out everybody. That's because I don't assume everybody knows my face. But everybody, thank you for coming. This is an incredibly passionate subject, as you know: religion, homosexuality, and sex. It's not just homosexuality the subject, but that is the— were beginning. How many of you were here for the first session? Also fair. And how many were not? And how many did not vote? Okay, fair enough. Well, I'm going to introduce the clergy in a moment. First, I want to— well, actually, I will introduce them now because I was going to also introduce some of the spouses of them. I have a few things to say in the beginning. Thank you, Elise, for your work in making this possible. And this last Sunday of August, thank you for coming out. If you feel that the summer went particularly fast, raise your hand. If you're thrilled it's over, raise your hand. Why? Too hot. It stays hot, believe me. All righty, my friends. Uh, Religion on the Line was a program that I did on my prior station, KABC. I am not among those who believe that you can't mention other stations. It's just— I love the way— well, on my former station that will go unmentioned. I don't get that. What is the point? If I lose you to that station because I mentioned it, it's— then it— I I deserve to have lost you. I was on, I did the show for 10 years, exactly 10 years, August '82 to August '92, and it changed my life. I gave more about this last week because it was the first one, so I'll be very brief. I was very fortunate, it was a godsend in my life to meet clergy of all faiths, and I mean all faiths. The only faith that I in the world that I know of. I mean, I mean anything— Scientologists, I had Messianic Jews, I had Hare Krishna and his brother Larry Krishna. Every time I say Hare Krishna, I think of H-A-R-R-Y. So it's funny. Anyway, no, but just everybody, and of course Catholic, Protestant, and Jew each week. Many weeks we had Muslim representatives. And it was absolutely— it was not only eye-opening, it was transformative for me. My motto became, after about 5 years, this was what my motto became: the moment you meet people of other religions that you think are at least as intelligent, at least as decent, and at least as religious as you think you are, your life will never be the same. And that's what happened to me. And so my life was never the same. In fact, it was just the other day— oh, I wish I remember who said this to me— but somebody was— I get it all the time. I mean, it was a very popular show, and people in LA remember it fondly. And I'm associated with it for understandable reasons. 10 years is a lot of time. And somebody met me and said, "You know what really impressed me?" I mean, this was like in a mall. This was not at a party or anything, in a mall. Well, I said, "What really impressed you?" "That when the Christians were in trouble, you bailed them out." And I remember that happening because I got— I really— it was like a doctorate in other faiths, and I really was able to make a good case for faiths that I may not hold entirely. But I always add, you don't know how often the Christians came to the rabbi's aid. You know, a rabbi would be challenged, "How can you Jews believe in chosenness?" And then, you know, the minister would say, "Well, I do, and I'm not Jewish. I think the Jews are chosen." And that pretty much knocked the caller out. What's there to say? It can't be all that ethnic chauvinist if a Christian says he believes in it. And, you know, the Christians would get, "Oh, how can you believe that anybody who doesn't believe in Christ is not saved?" And I say, "Hey, they don't think I'm saved and I have no problem with it." Then what are they going to say? "Well, if this Jew has no problem with it, you know, I'll watch baseball." I don't know what they'll do. You know, there's nothing more. So it was a very powerful experience. The clergy tonight, quite hand-picked. Are, and I have no— there's no reason, rhyme or reason to the order except that this is the way I wrote it down in the room. To my right, your left. Is that correct? No, it isn't correct. Oh, there you are. All right. To my left— I'm going to read the sheet down.

That's the other way.

Sorry. From my left, which will work out politically correct if I'm not mistaken, but to your right, is Dr. Edward Hanson, who was pastor of the Hollywood United Methodist Church. And you might know which church we're talking about here because it's got a huge AIDS ribbon on it as you go up toward the Hollywood Freeway. Is that correct? Pastor— so will you welcome, please, Pastor Dr. Edward Hanson. Father Gregory Coiro is a Capuchin Franciscan friar. He is our Roman Catholic priest. Father Gregory and I go quite far back, though he doesn't look old enough for that to be said, but we do go back many years. And he became so adept at representing his faith that the Archdiocese of Los Angeles in fact hired him for years to be its chief spokesman. But he is very happy to be back at St. Francis High School where this year he will be teaching morality and sacraments. Will you welcome Father Gregory Coiro? Rabbi Mordechai Finley is ordained Reform rabbi. His congregation is Or HaTorah Congregation in West Los Angeles, and if you are a Jew, or in fact anybody is welcome, of course, But I go out on a limb in telling you it is one of the most wonderful synagogue experiences available. And he is a remarkable rabbi, profoundly intellectually honest, and I am just honored that he accepted the invitation. Rabbi Mordechai Findley. And our other pastor is Glenn Jackson, who is an evangelical Christian pastor Christian. He is with Independent Christian Churches, but his specific church is Faith Christian Church in Simi Valley. And I know Pastor Jackson for a number of years because I am honored that he studies with me where I teach the Torah verse by verse at the University of Judaism, and has made many probing comments that I have found remarkable. So you're welcome, please. Pastor Glenn Jackson. We have some spouses here, and I will reserve my own for last. I will begin with two of the clergies and daughters as well. Pastor Jackson's wife Nikki and daughters Erin and Ashley are here. Will you please arise, Jackson family, please? Hi, ladies. Thank you. Thank you for coming. And a woman I know many years, is the wife of Rabbi Mordechai Findley, Meirav. Is Meirav here? Will you please stand and we can welcome you. Hey, Meirav.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. What if everything you thought you knew about online exploitation was only the surface? The shocking docuseries Sexploited rips the veil off the digital darkness destroying lives. You'll be stunned by what's uncovered in these real stories. Watch the trailers if you dare. Once you see it, you'll understand why silence is no longer an option. Visit SadleNow.com and watch Sexploited in America, and visit SexploitedFilm.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

And finally, uh, There's a Hebrew statement, "Acharon acharon chaviv," "The last is the dearest," so I saved my own wife, Fran, who is here with me today. Fran, would you please rise? Alrighty, everybody, so this is the way I chose the clergy. I think Fran's trying to get your attention. Oh, yes? Oh, of course, you know what? I forgot because I didn't see him. He was slinking down. My son Aaron is here and I am so excited. Aaron, please. Aaron, Aaron. Oh, that's the best part. This is not the topic I would have chosen if I knew he came, but what are you going to do? You can't, you can't pick them all the time. Well, you know, I finally got him to come. Actually, the family, at least this part of the family, we're headed out to Minnesota where I'll be broadcasting tomorrow, my annual Minnesota State Fair. By the way, I'm supposed to be at the Republican Convention, and they said, "But then you can't go to the Minnesota State Fair." So I said, "Forget it, I'll go to the Minnesota State Fair." So I'm going to go to the convention for Wednesday and Thursday, if you can get into New York. I don't know if the riots, I mean the demonstrations have started yet. We'll find out. But, so I have a very busy week, obviously.

Minnesota is a battleground state, so you're probably more useful there anyway.

There you go, that's right. And my first guest will be, in fact, I have this Senator Coleman from Minnesota tomorrow. Alan, my producer, is on his way to New York, so it's very complex. Anyway, Aaron, it is great to have you, and thank you for coming. All right, my friends, let me tell you a little bit about this, and then we're going to get started. First of all, there's no subject— let me speak very personally. I have said this for years. No subject, period, has torn me as much as the subject of homosexuality. Now, 3 of these clergy are familiar with me, and I am familiar with them. One is not, and it's somewhat for his benefit that I'm saying this, but I, in addition to yours, I have strong positions, but they are not arrived at with ease, because I am torn between, I am, between standards and compassion. If there's ever an area where standards and compassion are not the same, it is homosexuality. I believe that there are standards for what God wants us to do sexually and maritally, and I also believe that every homosexual is created in God's image every bit as much as every heterosexual. I do not believe that every homosexual has chosen his sexual orientation. I don't believe it's genetic, but I don't believe it's chosen. I don't know, and no one knows. I know the literature very, very well. No one knows why people become gay. To make it even more complex, there's almost nothing in common in my opinion, others may differ, this is my opinion, there's very little in common between lesbianism and male homosexuality. Women's sexuality is extremely different from male sexuality. Why women are turned on or attracted sexually to a man or a woman is far different from men's hardwiring. When gay spokesmen say, "We can no more change than you heterosexuals," can— I mean, Dennis, if I told you you had to become attracted to men, be sexually attracted to men, you think you could do it? I, I, I— it's hard for me to imagine, frankly. It's just— it's— you might as well tell me to be attracted to a table. I, I, I— no, I, I don't— I, I, I'd have no relation to that word. On the other hand, uh, this— the, the governor of New Jersey announces that he is a gay American. I don't believe that. I believe he's a bisexual American. These things are very, very complex. Very complex. And then to make it even more complex, I hear that there are people who do change. And it's hard for me to believe, but I can't believe all these men who say they were gay and now they're married and sexually function with their wives are lying. So I don't— I am torn on all of those matters. I am not torn on the heterosexual ideal. I believe that ideally a man and a woman bond, get married, and that the ideal manifestation of human sexuality is heterosexual marriage, monogamous heterosexual marriage. That's the ideal. So I want the clergy, though, not to reinforce what I believe. There will be one or perhaps two who do. There will be two who don't fully, and one who probably doesn't at all. And that's the way I want it. In fact, and Rabbi Findlay can testify to this, I called up Rabbi Findlay, whom I have such respect for, if I talked about, you know, beer-making and Medieval Germany, I would invite him. And, uh, I would attend. You would? He would sample. That's right.

And we'd be German together about the beer, right?

Exactly. Oh, you know, you're German, there's no comparison. So I said, Mordechai, what's your position on homosexuality in religion? And if I got this wrong, but the gist of it was, well, Dennis, the truth is I'm quite torn. I said, "Good, you're the man." He expected me to say, "All right, you know what, we'll do another subject." But I said, "No, no, that's exactly what I want is a thoughtful person who does see the arguments on both sides." That's exactly what I wanted. And we called up Pastor Hanson. Church is known for its AIDS outreach and its outreach to gay people. So obviously he comes from a different perspective, and I wanted that. Father Corro and I didn't speak about it, but I assume representing the church's position, I think that he'll have a traditional view. But it'll be very interesting to hear, and I know that Pastor Jackson will represent the evangelical biblical view as they understand it. So let me begin therefore with— I mean, it's so complex, gentlemen, that it's going to be hard for you not to speak a long time. You're all thoughtful and you all have a lot to say. So, but I am going to put you on the spot with an opening summary statement. And the question on the table is: Do you believe that God and/or your religion has an ideal to which we should aspire in sexual matters? Okay, we'll go from there to more and more, we'll narrow it each time. If I stop you, it's never because you're not good or interesting, but because the time is a real factor. What do you believe your religion and your God's ideal is vis-à-vis human sexuality? Does anybody want to begin, or should I? Rabbi Findlay.

I think it's pretty clear from reading of Jewish sources that the ideal in Jewish law and Jewish norms is a Monogamous, heterosexual, procreative marriage.

Okay, that's fast. Uh, no, no, that's great, that's great, because believe me, we'll, we'll have a lot to talk about. I'll now— and I'll just pick Father Coiro.

I agree with what Rabbi Findlay said, and so does the Catholic Church.

Okay, these guys are really brief. All right, uh, let's go to, uh, Dr. Hanson.

I think I cannot be quite so brief.

That's okay.

I think that the ideal that God has for us has to do with the quality of loving, caring, committed relationships. That the ideal for a heterosexual couple clearly is for them to be in a loving, caring, committed joyful relationship as a heterosexual couple. But that ideal does not apply to same-gender couples. For them, the ideal is to have a joyous and loving, committed relationship that fits for them, because it seems God didn't see fit to create everybody just the same. And so that there can't be just one ideal that's related to just a certain group of people. The ideal has to relate to all of God's children. And so that ideal has to relate to these qualities of a relationship and not be limited to heterosexuals.

Thank you. And obviously we'll return to that. And finally, Pastor Jackson.

Well, Deuteronomy says, in the witness of two or three it shall be established. So, uh, that makes three of us that would accept Genesis and out of the Old Testament and Jesus' comments on marriage in Matthew 19, who quotes basically Genesis 2, that a man and a woman shall leave and cleave and the two shall become one. So I would say that marriage is a man and a woman, sex is a man and a woman within the context of marriage.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. Sexploitation has killed more children on American soil than ISIS ever did. While we think our sons and daughters are safe from sexual predators and exploitation, they're being victimized right in our homes, in front of our own eyes, through their phones and computers. And until you watch this docuseries, Sexploited in America, the enemy will remain strategic, methodical, invisible, and deadly. Today, up to 90% of our children and families have already been captured, and you will not know until it's too late. In one case, a boy committed suicide just 27 minutes after he was contacted by this enemy. Rescue your children, protect your families, and defend our nation by watching and sharing the docuseries Sexploited in America. Visit SalemNow.com. That's SalemNow.com. Or visit SexploitedFilm.com. www.SexploitedFilm.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

How do— let me go to Rabbi Finley, because you're the— you stated to me your torn attitude. You were quite adamant about the ideal. Where is your tear?

Well, I would disagree with Dr. Hanson that that an ideal has to therefore, has to encompass within it every person or every possibility that does not conform with the ideal. So I'm torn that while I do believe there is an ideal, meaning if one of my children were to come to me and say, "I think I'm bisexual. Do you care which way I go?" I would care. I would say, "Well, if you're bisexual and you can choose, I prefer you not be bisexual. I prefer you not be homosexual. I would prefer you be a heterosexual person." that gets married and has a procreative family. So I'm not indifferent to it. So that's the ideal. If a person said to me, I'm not able to do that, either through nurturing, wiring, or whatever, I'm not able to engage in a heterosexual monogamous relationship, then I would ask myself what degree of holiness and goodness and humanity can be affirmed in the context in which they're living. So as a clergy person who believes, as Dennis Prager said, they were all created in God's image, that it seems that many different sexual styles are natural, meaning that we're born with possibility, and that biblical Judaism and rabbinic Judaism has decided on one, we can't ignore the nature of people who don't conform to that ideal. We have to address their sexuality seriously. So I don't ignore them, I don't want to diminish their humanity, but at the same time I don't want to back away from my ideal because there are exceptions to the ideal.

Dr. Hanson, how do you react to that? Or let me make it a little easier— not easier, but clearer. They've cited biblical text to support the idea of a heterosexual ideal. What do you have to support your ideal that it doesn't matter if it's heterosexual so long as it's loving?

I think that I speak out of the context of being a Christian, a follower of Christ, a pastor who is serving a very diverse congregation of people. And my understanding of who this Christ is, is that he invited us to tune into where God's Spirit is at work in our lives. Paul expounded on the signs of God's Spirit of love, peace, patience, kindness, and so on. And so invited us to go deeper than a law, but to seek what is really the purpose of law, which has to do with how we live together and treat one another. So I think I would turn to the authority of the Spirit of Christ, which I think calls us to have a much more embracing love than we tend to have when we are legalistic. And it is out of that spirit of love, and consequently also knowing a lot of gay and lesbian people and serving them as pastor, that I would say that God's ideal for human beings is very, is very diverse when you look at the individuals, but speaks of this kind of fulfilling the potentials that God has placed in each individual and in relationships of love and respect and honoring and caring. And that, um, so I would make it in that broader, more universal context than saying that it has to fit just one, uh, rigid idea.

Pastor, are you—

can I respond to that?

Yes, I just want to ask a question, and don't forget your response. I just— on the word legalistic, are you legalistic on polygamy?

Well, I mean, I think that polygamy, what we know about it, I would— the simple answer is no, but I would tell you why. That the simple answer would be that we are invited to, each of us, honor and respect one another in a way that affirms the wholeness of a person. Polygamy, although it was well practiced in the times of the Hebrew scriptures, certainly, and in other parts of the world yet today, it seems from our experience to not offer the fullness of that kind of relationship when there are several women and one man. And that I know there are some Mormons that might disagree. And some that have voiced that. My own sense is that it would have to pass the test of, is it in fact calling each person to the fullness of who they might be as the greatest expression of love?

Pastor Jackson?

Yeah, the Bible, New Testament says that Jesus was full of grace and truth. There's nobody that I know of that loved people more than he did, and yet he had a perfect standard. And one illustration of that, the Gospel of John, he met a woman who was caught in adultery. And he didn't reach down and say, "Well, do you love him?" He forgave her, but then he said, "Go and sin no more." So he practiced love, but then he also kept the standard that was what the Old Testament had, which was your relationship is wrong even if you care about that individual.

On the other hand, the law would have required that she be stoned to death, and he didn't see fit to have that law fulfilled. Instead, there was grace.

Right, but within grace, he also re-established the law that her relationship in an adult— in that case, adulterous situation— was a sin and she needed to stop it.

Sure, and we can talk about why that was a sin.

How—

because it violated the scriptures.

Well, see, I would look deeper than that, and I would say, well, what is it about it that makes it a sin? And I think it's the way that it degrades human beings and the way it doesn't honor and respect others and isn't representative of this kind of respect and care that we should have for one another. I think that's what Christ called us to do, was to go beyond the letter of the law to the spirit. And, and that's what I think we often fail to do when we relate to people who are gay or lesbian.

Well, the book of Judges ends with, every man does that which is right in his own mind or own heart. And if we are all allowed to decide, well, this is a loving relationship— I mean, what if, what if Governor McGreevy said, you know, I love my wife, but I love my lover too, and so I'm going to marry both of them? Would you stop that? Would you say that's a wrong relationship?

It's not just his decision. It's the decision of each person that is involved.

Well, what if all three of them said that was okay?

Well, I can't imagine that. It's a hypothetical. I have not run into that kind of a situation.

I haven't seen her walk out on him.

Well, I think that we're not just saying that there's No guidelines here. I mean, clearly there are guidelines, and those guidelines are reflected very clearly in the scriptures and what Paul has to say about the fruit of the Spirit and what Jesus taught. And so I would be seeking to look for where those— where the fruit of the Spirit is revealed in that kind of relationship.

If a congregant came to you and said he was bisexual, or she was And since we don't believe, and you don't believe, Pastor, in polygamy— Pastor, I need your advice as my Christian pastor.

Yes.

Should I try to fall in love? I'm a woman, I'm bisexual. Should I try to fall in love with a man, or does it not matter the sex so long as it's love?

You know, it's interesting that The gay people I know and the bisexual people I know, you know, it doesn't make life easier to discover that you're gay or bisexual in this society. There is so much prejudice against being gay or bisexual. If you can make a heterosexual adjustment, be happy, happen to meet the person of your dreams and fulfill a life together with a person of the opposite sex, you know, who would want to choose any different? Than that.

Um, but you would offer no, no preference as a Christian minister? If you could love either sex, I don't care which one you fall in love with, as long as it's loving? That would be your position?

I, I would ask them to talk with me about where their own inclinations are and what their hopes and dreams are. And if they hope to have children, if they hope to have a family, if they would like the blessing of their family and relatives and loved ones, I'd be inviting them to discern what and where in fact they feel led in this, and to certainly, if they have the choice, to choose that which is going to be the greatest blessing in their life. Uh, most people I talk with don't have that clear of a choice.

Yeah. All right. Well, I, I, I, it's probably true a lot of people don't, but I was hoping you'd say, look, if it really is 50/50 for that bisexual wanting my advice, I would say, "Look, all things being equal, as a Christian, I have to say try to find a man." But it's not something you would feel comfortable saying. Let me go to the priest and rabbi for a moment. Rabbi, would you do any ceremony with a same-sex couple in the name of Judaism?

It's tough for me because it's not only a question of theology and practice, but it's also a question of culture. So when a person says to me, "Will you do my ceremony?" Then in a sense, what they're asking me, will I affirm a state about which I'm torn? But it also means they're typically part of my life, part of my congregation. And what I've noticed as a congregational rabbi is that not every community can assimilate every possibility of human interaction. So, I'm not saying no. What I'm saying is there are so many other factors at play that I don't find myself faced with it. I'm not one of the rabbis who openly says yes, therefore I don't attract people. I focus my congregation on the ideal of monogamous, procreative, heterosexual relationship between two people in the building of family. Those who are looking for a rabbi who does gay-affirming ceremonies will typically go to another rabbi. Here's the question. If I were the only rabbi in Boise, Idaho, where I actually was the only rabbi for a while. I had a student pulpit in Boise, Idaho. I used to fly up once a month and I was the only rabbi for the 50 or 60 Jewish families in Boise. And there was people who were part of the congregation, they supported, they attended, and they wanted some kind of a ceremony. It would be a very different question for me. But I haven't been forced with a question and I don't like to to offer artificial answers with something that I haven't really worked through, both theologically with God and with my wrestling with the tradition. So I'll go back to my initial statement to you is I'm torn, I'm not sure. It would depend on the case and my own life circumstances.

Father Gregory, those who argue a more liberal position will say that, you know, why are you religious people picking on us gays it's— even if you hold that it's a sin based on Leviticus, and we're going to get to Leviticus, but even if you hold that, I mean, there are, there are a lot of sins. Why, why that sin? And my question is, do you think that that sin should be isolated, or is no more serious or less serious than any other sins that might be listed in the Old or New Testament?

Well, I think that raises a larger question with with regard to human sexuality in general. I've often felt that the reaction within Catholicism towards sexual sins has been somewhat overwrought in, say, the last, oh, 50 years. But I think that's been accompanied by changes in sexual mores in society at large that almost demanded that the Church make a response. It's sort of like which came first, the chicken or the egg. People's preoccupation with sex, or the Church's preoccupation with people's preoccupation with sex? And so trying to answer that question then, I think, is, you know, it's a dead end. But are sexual sins the worst sins that people can commit? No. Are they serious sins? Yes. But sins against justice, sins against charity, sins such as various forms of prejudice, racism, sexism, and so forth, These can be far greater sins than sins against the virtue of chastity. And this in no way mitigates or negates the teaching of the Church that all of us are called to be chaste. For married people, that means faithful monogamy. For unmarried people, that means abstinence from genital sexual activity. It's an ideal, that I think we all know is very easy to violate. And so I think in our pastoral approach to people who commit sexual sins, whether heterosexual, homosexual, solitary sins against sexuality, that the pastoral approach is to be as understanding and as compassionate as Jesus was in the case of the woman caught in adultery, yet not to backtrack on standards and say, oh well, that's okay. No, no, it's not okay. It's an issue that we all have to deal with. And the idea of being chaste is that we try to master our sexuality so that it doesn't master us.

Dr. Hanson, and I'm sorry to pick on you, but you do represent the minority position here, though not the minority position in, you know, in every locale. There are places where clearly these other clergy positions would be the minority. But when you hear them, and you've heard this obviously what they say many times, I'm certain, do you think that they, they are reading scripture wrong?

That's a, that's an important question. Um, I think it's that we're reading scripture differently sometimes, and that in fact probably each of us has our own particular way of choosing that which is most appealing to us in Scripture and that which, with which we are most uncomfortable. Today our Sunday school class was looking at Psalm 137, which is the— was made part of— was chosen for a song in Godspell. On the Willows There was the name of it. But it ends with the people have been taken into captivity into Babylon, and They're grieving desperately for their beloved city of Jerusalem and of Mount Zion. And they end with saying, "How happy are those who take little Babylonian babies and dash their heads against the rocks." Well, I mean, that's a heartfelt feeling. It's not a text that I would normally use in a sermon. So it's one of those that, that I wouldn't put as much emphasis on. But I mean, clearly there's the book of Galatians in the New Testament, Paul's letter to the Galatians, and his speaking of freedom and the fruit of the Spirit. I mean, that can be very important to me, that message. And so where I might be drawn towards certain parts of Scripture that speak most powerfully to me. Someone else might be drawn toward other parts of Scripture that speak more to them. There is another difference, though. Sometimes people want to say that Scripture is without error, that it is God's word as if God had dictated it, and that it needs to be taken literally. And when they have that perspective, I think that sometimes there's an ignorance of all of the inconsistencies and contradictions that are actually present in Scripture. And I, and I wonder, how can they hold a position like that? Have they just not read it, you know, or what? You know, because it's all so there.

You want to give an example of one of those, and I'll have some of the clergy respond?

Well, if you look at the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, for example, if you just look at the resurrection stories, um, As to what women were present and what they did at the tomb and how many angels were there and whether the angels were inside, whether there was one angel or two angels. I mean, there's differences in each of those reports as to what it was. You can look at this for yourself. Or if you look at the instruction that Jesus gives, Jesus says, you know, wait in Jerusalem. No, Jesus says, go and meet me in the Galilee. You know, and so you have those kinds of contradictions in Scripture. I mean, certainly because of different sources, you have also some contradictions in the Old Testament. But I mean, those are not troubling to me, and because I'm really looking at Scripture with a view to what is— where do we really see the evidence of God's Spirit that's at work here that gets reflected in what what the people of the Bible have written and shared and has been passed down and been lifted up as sacred. And so that's what I'm doing. And so other people do it differently. And I don't feel like they're necessarily wrong, but they're looking at it with a different view, and that's okay.

Okay. But, well, you don't think it's okay. I mean, well, part of it is great. You both can't be right. I mean, there are mutually exclusive things. But let's— Pastor Jackson, what do you do with those discrepancies in the New Testament that the—

Well, I don't think there are discrepancies. I think any time you have someone observing a historical event, you're always going to get different perspectives. I don't know if there's any reporters here, but let's say the LA Times is here and they say, "Well, there were 5 pastors at this meeting." And the Daily News says, "You know, there was 300 people there." Now, if you just put those in a time capsule and in 100 years get them out, they'll say, Man, one of those people is wrong. Well, there's not one of them wrong. One was looking specifically at the up here. One was looking at the total crowd. And if you go through the, especially the Gospel of Mark, Mark always chooses to emphasize the singular individual who was being spoken to or who spoke. Illustration, there was an individual who was demon possessed. In one of the other Gospels, there was two of them. But in Mark, there's one. And that's because Jesus— Mark always records the individual who is being spoken to, but sometimes the other Gospels will emphasize the whole crowd. So I don't think that's a contradiction. Let me just add this also. I happen to believe that God actually has the ability to reveal Himself both in person and in writing. When the decision on abortion was made by the Supreme Court, they said that they found the right to privacy in the "prenumbrance," which is basically between the lines. And if you take the Bible and say, "You know what? I'm gonna read between the lines," you can come up with all kinds of amazing things. And that's why the Bible says to study yourself, to study to show yourself approved, a workman that needs not be ashamed, rightly dividing the will of God. The Scriptures. And so God wants us to study the Scriptures. Now, you know, we do have to look at culture and all those different things, but I happen to believe that God not only has the capacity to reveal Himself but to keep it.

This episode of Timeless Wisdom will continue right after this. What if everything you thought you knew about online exploitation was only the surface? The shocking docuseries Sexploited rips the veil off the digital darkness destroying lives. You'll be stunned by what's uncovered in these real stories. Watch the trailers if you dare. Once you see it, you'll understand why silence is no longer an option. Visit SalemNow.com and watch Sexploited in America and visit SexploitedFilm.com. Now back to more of Dennis Prager's timeless wisdom.

All right, let's get to the specifics. What biblically suggests to those of you who believe that human sexuality must be expressed heterosexually? What in the scripture tells you that? Rabbi Finley?

Well, first of all, as a rabbinic Jew, it's not just biblical scripture. So we have the verses in Leviticus chapter 18, Leviticus chapter 20 that says specifically that men should— the implication of the verse— men should not have intercourse intercourse with men like they have intercourse with women. I'm paraphrasing the text. It's— they're very meager verses. So if one were to take all the verses in the Torah about that, they're actually not very many. So one then has to go to rabbinic and then the codification of Jewish law where you have laws of— the laws of issur ha'ebiyah, which is prohibited sexual relations. It's very clear in rabbinic Judaism that homosexual intercourse between men is clearly forbidden, and lesbianism is forbidden under the area of promiscuity. I mean, it's just simply not proper sex. As you indicated, it doesn't have the same exact dimension of negativity and prohibition. If I were to take this a little bit forward to now, I just want to add one last comment. There is a notion in Judaism of machloket l'shem shamayim, which means true disputes that have a heavenly intent. Which means they're not conducted in order to defame or to damage, but really to try to find what the truth is. So if it is true, as Dr. Hanson is saying, that inside the dimension of law there's something called spirit, and in an understanding of Judaism that God's will becomes apparent through the generations as people study and as the oral law develops, from a Jewish perspective, revelation didn't end when the Torah was given. Revelation began. The conversation between God and the Jewish people began, and the conversation between Jews themselves began. So we're used to the idea of a machloket l'shem shamayim, of heavenly disputes. I would say in the Jewish world right now, we're in one of those machlokes, one of those great controversies where we're really trying to understand not only what is Scripture teaching us, but what hidden things in Scripture might be there, the kinds of things that Dr. Hanson spoke about, which means, is there a message of love and compassion and so forth that might trump some of these biblical laws. So I don't want anyone to assume that once we find a scripture in the Bible, that closes the discussion. Once a Jew finds a scripture in the Bible, that opens the discussion that takes into the oral law. And from my perspective, the oral law— the discussions of the oral law have not stopped, and we're in one of those discussions today. So if I can just say one last thing here, Dennis Prager, when you said you both can't be right, I think from a Jewish perspective, we might pause, because from a philosophic pragmatic perspective, Judaism wants us to stop for a minute and say, let's not try to solve this right now. Let's listen to each other, let's take our positions, let's engage in respectful debate, let's understand scripture, understand conscience, understand morality, and continue this work. The greatest thing I find disturbing in this conversation, as is conducted culturally, which I tried to indicate before, is the amount of venom that gets introduced. Not the collegiality that one sees here, but when people stake out positions, it's as if a person who does not want to affirm homosexual relations is homophobic, or a person who does do it is destroying religion. Now those both might be true, but from my perspective, we don't get very far if we accuse each other of of, of being either degraded in our reading of scripture or degraded in our moral compassion. It's much better to conduct a holy debate.

Amen. Let me ask Father Cora, what are the bases, scriptural and Catholic teaching, that you stake out your position based on?

Well, probably Catholicism is closer to Judaism on that subject than we are Protestantism, because one of the, the rallying cries of the Protestant Reformation was Scriptura Sola, that everything would be based upon Scripture alone. Whereas in Catholicism, we base our teaching not only on the Scripture, but we believe that God has also revealed himself in oral tradition, the sacred tradition. And therefore, we look to the Magisterium of the Church, the teaching authority of the Church, to sift through that which is in the tradition and that which is in the scripture to give us authentic interpretation and authoritative doctrines with regard to matters of faith and morals. And so we would base our teaching not only on the scriptural references to the, um, oh, things like a man shall leave his family and take to himself his wife, and that they shall be faithful and the two shall become one. Or the, uh, the condemnation of homosexual activity in the Jewish law. Uh, Saint Paul enumerates homosexuality as one of those sins that will preclude entrance into the kingdom of heaven, along with murder, theft, adultery, and so forth. So we have that scriptural basis, but then we also have the philosophical contribution to Catholic theology, which says that God has given us human sexuality as a gift and attached to this gift there are certain ends, primary ends and secondary ends. And for the longest time, the primary end of human sexuality was seen as being procreation. God gave us human sexuality primarily so that the human race will be continued. As the doctrine developed, though, unity, the unitive aspect of human sexuality, came to be considered equal with the procreative aspect. And so the Catholic Church teaches that the primary ends of human sexuality are to be procreative and to be unitive, and that the best context for, for this to happen is in the sacrament of matrimony, in the married state, where you have stability and fidelity and monogamy. And so our teaching is that sex is Human sexuality, the exercise of the gift of human sexuality, is good and holy when it is between a man and a woman who are married to each other in a context which is loving and open to creating new life. Anything other than that is considered to be, to a greater or lesser extent, sinful. And the word that's used— and this is quite often abused by both sides of the issue on homosexuality is that anything other than being ordered towards procreation and union in marriage is disordered. And very often people will say, oh, well, see, the Church is picking on us, the gay people say the Church is picking on us because they're saying we're sick. That's not what's being meant when we use the word disorder. It's being used in a precise philosophical context, which means that if If your expression of sexuality is not ordered towards union and procreation, then it is not ordered correctly. Therefore, it is disordered. So we could say masturbation is disordered. A husband and wife having sexual intercourse that's using artificial contraception is disordered. So it's in no way just an attack on gay people and gay sexuality and saying, that's disordered. Anything that falls short of the ideal of husband-wife union, procreation, openness to procreation, would be considered disordered. And this comes from 2,000 years of the church's teaching tradition.

Pastor Jackson, is there anything to add on, on bases for saying, holding the position of the heterosexual ideal?

Um, no, it starts in Genesis 2, Adam and Eve. Genesis 2, God says one man, one woman, brings them together. As you go through the scriptures, whenever that pattern was followed, God blessed it. Whenever they went outside of that, whether it was prostitution, adultery, polygamy, or homosexuality, disaster was always the occurrence. 4,000 years later, Jesus comes along and reaffirms Genesis 2 as the established order. And we're now 2,000 years later, and I don't see much of a reason to change that. I mean, we can always sit here and think, well, I would like this, and I would like that. But we have a choice. Either we have an established code, or we decide on our own, well, we're going to do this. And sometimes we do that. You know, the Bible says adultery is wrong. But our society says, well, you know, we like— we don't have as major problem with that, and so therefore adultery is no longer a crime. Or isn't— now it's not even a reason for, uh, in divorce. Um, but whenever we go outside of God's pattern, disaster takes place, and we see that in our society today.

So let me ask Dr. Hanson and Rabbi Finley, debate, because while Rabbi Finley has stated that he understands the position to be the heterosexual ideal, you do say that this is a holy debate that is being engaged in and so on. So I'm going to pose this to both of you. It seems on the basis of what was said now that there— it does appear to, I think, to a fair outsider, if there is such a thing as one, that there is overwhelming preference in Judaism and Christianity for the heterosexual union and not homosexual union. Why can't a gay person who wants to be a faithful Jew or faithful Christian say, "Look, that's the ideal. I try to do it. I can't do it. It's not in me. It's like asking me to be an aardvark. I can't do it." So, I contend that it is the ideal, but I can't live it fully because I am not attracted to the other sex. There's nothing I can do. So my choice is being alone or living a, a good life with one person of my same sex. We will refrain from the specific prohibition of that genital activity, but otherwise we will be, we will be bonded in every way. What is wrong with a gay person saying that? You see, I That's my position. I don't want gay people to live alone. If they can't live heterosexually, I don't want them to be alone. It's not good for man to be alone, period. So here I have a so-called liberal position, but I won't change my religion's standards for the sake of your greater joy in life. And that's why I don't understand how, on religious grounds— and this is my challenge— I do hold the position you don't like. I think that those who are saying Judaism and Christianity do in fact have no problem with homosexual union are in some ways destroying the religion because they are making something up in the name of the religion. So I am troubled terribly. So I'll begin with Dr. Hanson. What's wrong with my semi-solution?

There's nothing wrong with a gay person choosing individually to say, that's OK for me. The fact is that most of the gay people that I know would say that you're treating me as a second-class person. You're saying that somehow I should not have a claim to the fullness of the kind of life that you as a heterosexual person enjoy. The gay people that I know who are in loving, committed relationships are people who manifest in their relationship many of the same kinds of blessings that are in a healthy, happy heterosexual relationship. Some of them are adopting and raising children. And some of them would be of far greater quality and better than some of the heterosexual relationships that we probably are familiar with. So I guess the question is, why hold up some ideal that relates to one portion of God's people and exclude another portion of God's people for whom that ideal doesn't work or apply and isn't an option or available? And why is it that you've got to cling to that? And why isn't it that your religion can't be more embracing and expansive than that and be limited in that way? I mean, that's the take I would have on it.

But you don't take that into any other relationship outside of homosexual conduct. If someone said, "Well, you know, I like 12-year-old girls," I don't think you would say, "Well, if they love each other, let them get married." Of course not. Okay, I have an article here. In Alabama, Carol and Alice Ferdinandson got married. He's 55, she's 32. And they were arrested after they found out that they were father and daughter. Now, that's 50 and 30. You would think, well, why not let them? I mean, they're old enough to make that decision. But society says, I don't think so. You know, Governor McGreevy, you know, a man and a woman, polygamy, all of those different things. It's only in the homosexual relationship do people say, well, we want to be tolerant and we should let them do their own thing. But we don't do that in any other area of sexual conduct.

Pastor Hanson, what's wrong with that 55-year-old man and 30-year-old woman getting married?

I think that, that we've learned through the generations, I guess the human family has, that, uh, that there is a problem when relatives, close relatives, marry each other and beget children.

What if they commit themselves not to have children?

You mean, so it's only a health problem you have, that there might be a child who comes from it who's not healthy?

And if it's only healthy, then certainly homosexuality should really be not condemned necessarily, but at least warned against, because the life expectancy of homosexuals is, what, 25 years less than the average?

Well, I think that behind your statement is an assumption that homosexual people choose to be homosexual. What I'm speaking of is homosexual people who discover that that's who they are. And so the question is, are they going to have a fuller, happier, more fulfilled life if in fact they can be in a loving, committed relationship and be there for each other through the struggles of life that we all face?

Do pedophiles choose to be pedophiles?

In this case, what you're talking about is people doing something destructive and hurtful to people, people taking advantage of people, people using and abusing people. And of course, those are wrong. Those are not reflections of honoring and caring for other people. So what I'm saying is we've got to look to the Spirit of God that is present in all of us and that seeks to guide us toward these respectful, honoring, loving relationships.

Let me challenge the pastor on the other side. Pastor Jackson, do you believe that people choose to be homosexual?

I don't know necessarily that they choose to be homosexual, um, in— but I don't believe that they're— I don't believe that they're born homosexual any more than one would be born an adulterer or, uh—

well, I think people are born adulterers, as it happens. We choose not to be, but we are born that way.

Let me say, now this is just, you know, I'll just throw this out. And maybe the father there can add a little bit more to this. But if you take the biblical position of original sin, that we are born with a sin nature, and everybody manifests that sin nature in some way. Some may say, "Well, I'm a pedophile." Some may say, "I'm a rapist." Some may say, "I'm a thief." Some may say, "I overeat." I mean, there's a lot of different ways that we can take our bent towards sin and go in some ways— we always joke at our church— You know, if you're an alcoholic, you know, ooh man, that's bad. If you overeat, you know, we say, well, let's go to Marie Callender's, get a piece of pie and talk about it. You know, because that's an acceptable sin. Gluttony is spoken about in the scriptures as a sin. But, and so within the context of our society, there are acceptable sinful behaviors.

No, but there is, though, to be honest, though, there is a difference between, because you can choose not to eat at Marie Callender's and still have food, but if a homosexual chooses not to have a man, if he's a male, then he's alone, right? Then he has no one, right? Do you acknowledge that?

Yes.

Okay, so how did he get that way in your view?

I, I think anyone who is caught up in any kind of— and I'll use the term perversion, uh, in not, not in a slanderous kind of a way, but in a, in a disordered way. They're in the disordered way that the father— yeah, okay. That there's a lot of different ways. I mean, some— I think it was Freud said that, you know, a bad mother in some cases—

Even if it's a bad mother though, he didn't choose to be attracted only to his same sex. Is that fair to say?

That's fair to say.

Okay, what do you recommend that he do as a faithful Christian?

I think he has to abstain in the same way.

Wait, wait, wait, wait, what's— so what, can he live with a man and and abstain from genital contact?

I think so.

Oh, that's a big statement.

Brothers do it.

No, no, fine.

Brothers live together.

So you, you, you— so you have my position then, which I— it's often been called liberal position, not, not an accusation I normally get, but, uh, yeah, it's— you, you would counsel a Christian who had attempted heterosexual relations, found them impossible to engage in, and you would not want him to be alone? So you would just say refrain from the Levitical a ban on, on genital intercourse.

Yeah, I don't think there's anywhere in Scripture that says being a homosexual is a sin. Okay, the problem is we have identified homosexuality not with, with a person, but with an act. It is the act of homosexuality, right?

They are different. Exactly. Okay, so by the way, I just want to say, we have here— you— the, the distance— this goes to your point that so often the venom obscures any possible if it's even possible, compromise. And, uh, I mean, we have here an evangelical pastor from the theological right saying, I have no problem with a person being a homosexual. I have a problem with how he acts on it. And I, and I'm not asking him to live alone, and I'm not even asking him not to embrace another man. He should have the companionship of a partner. But there is a prohibition on a specific act. Is that fair to say?

Yeah, I—

wait, wait, wait, forgive me one sec. How do you react to that? Why is that— is it all thanks to that one act? Because that makes a gay person a second-class citizen. Why can't you— see, he is saying, look, we want you to be— we want you to have love, we don't want you to be ostracized, we want you to have a fulfilling life, but we also want to be true to our religion. And you're saying, look, to hell with those verses. I know better that God, Christ, wants me to be loving, but I, I can't do that to my religion. The hell with those verses, because then it's Dennisism, it's not Judaism.

Sure, I, you know, I, I understand that this is, uh, um, that we have been, been really brought up in religions that have taught us, here's the rules, these are the beliefs, and that when we're suddenly confronted with new realities that are beyond our experience and our understanding, that then it feels like somehow to, in some way, engage and embrace these new realities, it can be threatening to what our faith says. And I understand that. It's difficult for, often for gay people themselves, to come to somehow to a place of reconciling who they are what they experience with what they've been brought up to believe. And so I don't know if it's true in the governor's case, but perhaps it took him that long in his life to finally come to terms with what he really felt, because all of the pressures may have been on him to adapt heterosexually when that wasn't being true to who he really was. I don't know, but I'm just speculating. I know that that's a true story for a number of people that are members of my congregation. And that, so that that internal struggle between faith and between what one discovers oneself to be is very real and very powerful. And so it takes time for a person to finally come to understand how they are also included in God's love and how they can be an embodiment of God's love in the world as Christ was in their own daily lives. As a gay or lesbian person, and indeed that that's what they're called to be, just as all of us who are seeking to live as God wants us to live are invited to represent that spirit in our daily living.

But how do you know how God wants you to live if you're prepared to dump the verses that don't work for you?

I think that it is done with perhaps fear and trembling and done with prayer and discernment and and a lot of biblical study in the Methodist tradition that I'm in, we're given not just scripture alone and not scripture and just tradition, but John Wesley, who was the founder of the Methodist movement, added experience and reason. So that we're supposed to be engaging seriously with scripture and to take it seriously. We're also supposed to really look at the tradition that we've had handed down through the teachings of the church. And we are to look at the experience and bring reason to play with it to try to finally discern what we truly, deeply believe and hold as that which—

Rabbi Finley, do you believe that God creates people gay?

I've never put it that way, but I, like you, have reached a conclusion that we don't know what makes a person gay, which means they might be born that way.

Born that way. Okay, but even if born that way, do we— I'm not comfortable, I hate the word, but I'm not theologically accepting the notion that God made people gay. And this is not— it could be taken as an offense, it is clearly not meant that. I think God wants us to be heterosexual. You believe that?

Yes.

Okay, you believe that and the pastor believes that. Pastor Hanson believes that God wants us to be loving, that God does not have a preference, heterosexual or homosexual. Is that fair to say?

I would—

I guess that's, uh, that's close.

How did I miss? Where did I—

you see, I, I think God has clearly, uh, in creation, has allowed for great diversity. Does God prefer red flowers over blue flowers over yellow flowers?

No, he does— that's clear he doesn't. Yeah. Okay, so the difference between heterosexual and homosexual is the difference between red and blue and yellow. It's that insignificant.

It's, it's in fact something to be celebrated that there is this great diversity in creation.

Can I ask a couple questions, Doctor? Do you do civil ceremonies in your church?

Do we do civil?

Civic? Yeah, between gay couples.

We have not been allowed to do that by our denomination for the last several years. It's been forbidden of United Methodist churches to conduct these ceremonies in their churches. But interestingly, our own particular congregation is struggling with, do we want to go ahead and do it anyway?

I ask that question— let's assume that they allow you to do that.

Sure.

How young of a man would you allow to go through one of those ceremonies?

Very— I mean, my own—

in your own case?

In my own case, I would be certainly asking that these be two mature adults who are making an adult decision.

So you would not allow, say, a 17-year-old?

No, I, I wouldn't.

Now, that's a person, because that brings up an interesting point. Would you marry a 17-year-old girl to, say, a 19-year-old typically not.

I mean, I would have to be persuaded from the families of these— of this young couple. For example, if they're— if the girl was pregnant, for example, that might come into play. I would be doing the kind of counseling that would lead me to make an exception in the case.

So you would treat the girl differently than you would treat the man?

I would treat her differently.

Well, you wouldn't— you might marry an 18-year-old girl where you— whether where you wouldn't marry, say, an 18 or 19-year-old boy, man, in a gay relationship?

It would depend upon the circumstances. I would treat it very individually.

By the way, let me return. I understand the point of your question. And let me return, though. Let me just explain to everybody, and anyone is free to comment, why it bothers me to say God created people gay. And there are people who may well be born gay. But the notion that God created that way, obviously, first of all, it would violate the notion because why would God tell us to do something which he made it impossible to fulfill? It seems that either you have to give up one or the other. You have to give up the scripture or you have to give up a good God, and I'm not prepared to give up either. So I don't believe that God does that. But let me tell you what hit me when this language becomes pervasive about the diversity idea. In the deaf community in this country, there is organized opposition to the cochlear implant. This is an implant in the ear that can give children or adults hearing who do not have it. The deaf community is opposed to it because it implies that deaf is second best to hearing, that they're second-class citizens, the deaf. Who are you to tell us that sign language is not every bit as rich as hearing language? And so because of this pervasive ideology of, hey, everything is good and God wants diversity, the deaf have adopted that. So there are vast numbers of kids who could hear who are deprived of hearing by parents and a deaf community because it implies the kid is a second-class citizen and that somehow God did not make him that way.

I am curious how you would react to the deaf community pastor who says, "God created our children deaf, and it is none of our business to change them." I think that we're very aware that if there's a cure for something in terms of offering the ability for someone to hear who cannot hear, hear, that we would want to offer that to people. But I can understand where people who have been deaf for many, many years and for whom that is a deeply ingrained part of how they understand themselves and how they've come to live their lives, that suddenly for people to say, oh, they must have this, would be in some way to not honor their memories and experiences and life meaning.

Well, we don't— honor Christian Scientists who deprive their children of transfusions.

I'm talking about the life experiences of people.

I'm not talking about their life experiences that God cures illness. That is the basis of Mary Baker Eddy's pronouncements on sickness. I want to know where you're prepared to say diversity is sinful.

I think, uh, Diversity becomes sinful when the consequences of that diversity are leading to destructive kinds of things. And when also when people in the midst of diversity are not willing to honor it and to honor the diversity that's around us, the existence of institutions like slavery, of prejudice against ethnic minority people, of fear of people speaking other languages, of the different cultures that people are afraid of, and not being— because of the fear that enters in, I think sometimes diversity is a great burden for people. But I think God rejoices in diversity and invites us to grow spiritually to the point where we learn to appreciate and love and celebrate that diversity when it lifts people up and when it enhances their lives and when it adds to the quality of life for more and more of God's children. It's when these things become destructive and divisive and hurtful to people that then—

Well, it's not destructive to be deaf. So why— do you have a position? Would you say to a deaf parent who came to you as a pastor of Christianity, say, you know what, they want— the doctors say my child could hear, but we're committed to the diversity of having deaf and hearing people. What would you say?

Well, I would— if there's an opportunity for people to hear, I want to encourage them to hear. I think it's a wonderful gift to be able to hear.

I think it's a wonderful gift to make love to the opposite sex.

Great, do it.

Okay.

You hear that?

I've been told by the Christian pastor.

Let's close in prayer. And Dennis, Dennis, can I piggyback on that? He used the term destructive twice in that. Do you believe that the homosexual act as practiced within the gay community today is destructive?

Clearly, in sexual relations, there are times when sex is destructive. Sometimes in heterosexual marriages there is abuse, and there is—

no, I'm not talking about abuse, I'm just talking about—

but, but the— but in a committed, loving gay relationship, I don't believe their relating sexually is destructive. In fact, I think it probably strengthens the bond of their love and care physically destructive though.

You mean the disproportionate amount— I mean, let's call a spade a spade. You mean the disproportionate amount of AIDS that is in the gay community?

Well, not just AIDS. Syphilis. San Francisco announced this last year that in the bathhouses, the rise of syphilis and gonorrhea and so many other sexually transmitted diseases is becoming epidemic again.

I think promiscuity and irresponsible sex has consequences that are destructive. There's no doubt about it.

Dennis, I'd like to comment on—

Rabbi Findling. Sure.

Where I think things have become so confused in Judaism, I think you have astutely pointed out that arguments from nature are very difficult to comport with our ideas of God because God has created diversity among human beings. As you pointed out over here, there are pedophiles, there are people who are attracted to incestuous relationships. If one were to say, because there's diversity and it happens in nature, therefore God must approve it, is inconsistent and paradoxical of itself. So God might say, all these things are part of nature, but I only approve of this. Let's say what Scripture says. So how do things become so confused? In Judaism, we have in rabbinic Judaism, now and then, the examination of a scriptural verse that rabbinic Judaism then deconstructs and takes the validity out of the verse by interpreting it into not being actionable. And it seems that the rabbinic motivation is, for lack of a better term, ethics, meaning unnecessary harm is caused to a person. So, for example, in last week's Torah portion, we have the commandment regarding the gluttonous and rebellious son. And it says if he conducts himself in a certain way, he'll be stoned to death. And then you have in the book of— in the Tractate Sanhedrin in the Talmud, As the rabbis go through this scriptural passage, they interpret in such a way where one rabbi finally says, "There never was one, there never will be one." So one would say, why did God put it in the Bible if there never was one and never will be one? One of the answers is to make 13-year-old kids study it and think they might be the one.

Okay? Right? What page is that in exactly?

That there's always a first. But in any case, one could say that, you know, for example, eye for an eye, tooth for a tooth, some would say that the Bible actually meant it and others say the rabbis took that out because it seemed unnecessarily cruel and there are other ways, for example, monetary compensation. So it seems that there is an underlying hermeneutical or interpretive motif in rabbinic Judaism that sometimes the dictates of scripture are softened because of ethical concern. Then you move into the modern period where in Reform Judaism, the notion of ethical monotheism became important. In fact, we have notable authors today who actually made their introduction into Jewish literary circles with the term ethical monotheism. You might know who some of those people are, Dennis. And part of the teaching of ethical monotheism was we believe in one God who primarily teaches ethics, and ethics is mostly about harm being caused between people. So therefore, if one says, in a given act, no harm between people is caused because they're consenting adults, one might say therefore it is not unethical. It might be ethical. And therefore religion does not have the job of prohibiting it if religion is basically ethics. So in a situation today, again, especially Reform Judaism, but it has leaked over into Conservative Judaism, the primacy of ethics has diminished the idea that God can command people morally when there's no moral, when there's no perceived moral victim. And that's one of the great problems today. And one reason I think this debate has to be conducted, opened, is we have to really examine what is morality? Is that only when there is a victim? Is there a kind of morality that's simply between us and God? Is abstinence a moral position even though when a person says, "You're not hurting me if you make love to me. I'm not hurt. I want you to make love to me." And a person says, Well, it's still not moral. What does that mean? When there's no victim but it's morality, if religion is essentially about ethics. So one of the great confusions that we're addressing now, I think, in liberal Judaism is the statement that Judaism is essentially ethical monotheism was a mistake. And I think we're now— right now we're bearing some of the fruit of that declaration. I don't think it's entirely wrong. I just think it's a wrong emphasis. Emphasis as we try to conduct the debate on the many things that are left out of ethics, if we understand ethics meaning harm caused between people.

This was a profound, nice, veiled attack on my life's work, but that's okay, but that's okay. I perfectly accept it.

It's not the first time I've said it to Dennis.

You're not going to get it.

It's a very valid, it's a very valid criticism. I want— it is, it's a very important one. Uh, what really— that's, it's, it's a great question. Is what does victimless mean and when is it applicable? And, and these are enormous. And I will tell you where in this specific issue where it may apply, and that is raising children. First, I do want to say though to the pastor, and you don't have to react, it's obviously you're free to, but you don't have to. Dennis Prager: I understand why a gay person would think that maintaining the heterosexual ideal renders him or her a second-class citizen, but I don't believe that that is the case at all, any more than Arnold Schwarzenegger is a second-class citizen because he cannot run for president. But I can't. He cannot run for president because he was not born in the United States. Does that make him a second-class citizen? The idea that he, the governor of California, is a second-class citizen is inconceivable. But there is an ideal that to run for president, you are born in the U.S. There is an ideal that to, at least up until Saturday night, uh, in California, that to get a driver's license you have to actually be legally here. There is a movement that of others who don't like any of these ideals because they seem to imply that the other person is second-class citizen. If we teach English only in schools, it implies Hispanic kids are second-class citizens. To me, that is nonsense. My father's native language was not English. He grew up in a Yiddish English-speaking home. If we had adopted the attitude that he's a second-class citizen because they don't teach in Yiddish, I wouldn't be a talk show host because I'd have grown up in a family that didn't speak English as fluently and didn't speak it accent-free. Thank God he grew up in an English-speaking school and he spoke Yiddish to his parents who didn't speak English. So this notion that because there are standards, those who don't or cannot live by them are second-class citizens, I reject a priori. A homosexual is not a second-class citizen because for whatever reason he can't live heterosexually. That's nonsense to me. It's a total non sequitur. And the Schwarzenegger example is the one I hold. Now, you're free to react, and I assume you want to, so go ahead.

I think that there's a certain privilege that is granted in our society, which, I mean, clearly where most people are heterosexual, where the institution of marriage grants certain duties, responsibilities, as well as privileges, rights. And so when you deny a certain portion of your population who were born and raised in this country, who are not immigrants, who don't speak a different language, but who discover, integral to who they are, that they are not heterosexual, but they are homosexual, and who want to celebrate and enjoy the same rights and privileges of every other citizen of this country, but because they are homosexual cannot avail themselves of that institution which grants certain rights and responsibilities, then there's a feeling on their part of this is like being a second-class citizen. Why aren't these rights and responsibilities and privileges available when you are a gay person as it is for a heterosexual person? And I think that's the civil rights issue part of it that is experienced there.

Okay, yeah, Father Curran.

I've been kind of quiet, so I'm going to take the floor for a while. Good.

Thank you.

I'd like to comment on a few things. One, what you said about encouraging people who are gay to live together, but live together as brother and brother, or sister and sister. I'm very fond of quoting the late Cardinal Basil Hume, who was Archbishop of Westminster, in London, when he wrote in a pastoral letter on the subject of homosexuality, he said, every experience of love, even love between two men or two women, is an experience of God, for God is love. However, not every expression of love is godly. And I think that's a very good middle course to take to say that, yes, two members of the same sex can have a very enriching, wonderful, caring, and life-promoting relationship, but it need not have expressions which are themselves contrary to God's expressed will. The second thing I would like to paraphrase is a homily given by our own Archbishop, Cardinal Roger Mahony, several years ago. When he celebrated a Mass in the 10th anniversary of the Archdiocesan Ministry to the Gay and Lesbian Catholic Community. He said, "We are confronted with the question: Is homosexuality a puzzle or a mystery?" If it's a puzzle, then it means we're going to try to find a solution as to why some people are, have a homosexual orientation. But it isn't a puzzle, it's a mystery. And mystery doesn't invite us to seek solutions. Rather, mystery invites us to seek the, the depth and to see the, the hand of God even in situations where we might not fully understand what it is that's being given to us or being revealed to us. And so what causes homosexuality isn't a puzzle. It's a mystery. My personal belief is that people are born with a certain predisposition, but that there are nurturing factors that have to kick in in order for that predisposition to find its way into a homosexual orientation. And then thirdly, I'd like to comment on what Dr. Hanson said about gay marriage, which I believe is an oxymoron. The reason society gives benefits and privileges to marriage isn't for the individuals involved; it's for the good of society. It's a case of individual rights versus the common good. Two men and two women entering into a marriage-like relationship does not offer to society the same benefits as a man and a woman who enter into a heterosexual marital relationship in which they raise a family, This is the basic cell upon which society is based, and it is at our own peril as a society that we diminish the meaning and the value of marriage by calling non-marital relationships marriages.

I thank you. I want to get to one other thing, the raising of children, but we are going to take questions or comments Actually, questions would be better in this case.

From—

am I beeping here? I got a new thing, forgive me. It is. All right.

It's a call from that big station in Minneapolis.

That's right.

It's God, he wanted to remind you that marriage is man and woman.

That's what it said. Do we have a roving microphone here? Do we? Yes? Who's in charge of the roving microphone? It's over— the microphone is over there? Alright, we're going to get— so let's take some of your questions because I— the time is flying, as they say, and I want to raise the issue of the family and the raising of kids because the final— as a final issue here. But let's get some of your comments or questions. All I ask, I don't care frankly if it's a comment or a question, I care if it's brief. That's the only thing. Make it brief. Yes, please.

I have a question. You've been discussing homosexual relationships, and in discussing it, you've said— several of you have said that when you have a committed, loving marital relationship, heterosexual, with procreative sexual relations, that that was a good thing. What about marriages that for whatever reason, are having sexual relationships that are described as what I just said, that are of course having sexual union without the intent for procreative purposes, whether it's either age or simply a desire not to have children?

Well, in the Catholic understanding, it would be that acts of sexual intercourse would be open to the transmission of life. There's no requirement, much you know, much contrary to popular opinion about Catholic sexual morality, there's no requirement that when couples engage in relations that they have to intend to create new life at that particular moment. What's required is that there's the openness to new life. And even when you get into situations where one or both are sterile, or you're talking about an older couple, you know, they are engaging in the act which is itself proper to the generation of new life. And therefore is morally licit. Whereas when you're talking about two men or two women, as Dr. David Rubin said in his book, Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex But Were Afraid to Ask, two plugs, two sockets, no electricity.

Okay, the—

that was brief, wasn't it?

Yes. Any other comments on the question?

I just, I mean, your question goes to the heart of my statement, meaning if I believe that the ideal is monogamous heterosexual procreative marriage between two people, and I should say loving, other person might say, "We don't intend to have children," and I would say, "Well, that's not the ideal." If you can't have children, that's one thing. If you could but you choose not to, I wouldn't be indifferent. There's been times as a rabbi and as a counselor, I've tried to persuade people who can have children who choose not to, to have children. Sometimes they say, "Look, we're just not going to have kids." I'm sad for them, but— so it's not the ideal. That doesn't mean I don't think there's sanctity and love, and I wouldn't officiate at their wedding, but I don't think it's the ideal. So I believe in an ideal. I believe that marriages should be lifelong. I happen to be divorced and remarried. Now, I'm not the ideal. Okay, I'm glad I got divorced, I'm glad I got remarried, but the best thing would have been to get married to one person, stay married the rest of my life. That would have been ideal. I'm not gonna pretend that just because I didn't do it that there wasn't an ideal. I wish I would have met my wife first. What can I say? So there's lots of people don't live according to the ideal. That doesn't mean they're less than others, just mean this, they're not living the ideal.

Yeah, the evangelical community would probably not be as strong as the Catholic position on birth control, but they would certainly buy into Genesis 2 that, you know, a man and a woman shall come together and the result of that shall be children. There are 3 purposes for sex in marriage. One is procreation. One is pleasure, which is a nice thing. Hebrews 13, "The marriage bed is undefiled." So a married couple, you know, there are no restraints on that. In the New Testament, it also talks about marriage being a picture between Christ and His church, that that's the union between God and His people. There is no— well, I guess Genesis would be a command to be fruitful and multiply. That may be one of those commands that, at least within the Protestant area, we don't make as strict as some others. Maybe we should, you know. I mean, the best way to grow a church is to have everybody have 14 children.

That's right, you know. Yes, please.

I'm deeply troubled by the, um, by the discussion itself, besides the homosexuality. If I want to ask that, does the scripture is verbatim unchangeable unthinkable, no context, and word for word. If that be so, like the rabbi said in Deuteronomy 21, that an errant child, irresponsible or rebellious child, shall be stoned to death. We haven't seen many, even in the last 1,000 years, let alone maybe last 500 years. The other thing is troubling, that being led by feelings, My feelings are rampant, and if I translated one millionth of my feelings to action, I would be very troubled and I would be in trouble. Personally, I may not destroy anybody, but I'll be in trouble. And I'll probably destroy in a cosmic sense to the society. My examples will not hold up very good. So should the scripture be so? So fluid everything goes because of feeling, or should the scripture have some content with context?

Right. You are— he is delineating the dilemma. That's the tear that you were describing, Rabbi Findlay. Let me, if I may, since I've been atypically— I wouldn't say quiet, but I—

Non-committal.

I think your name is up on top there. So I'm allowed.

So I'm allowed. Okay, uh, I— let me just deal with the law that you raised, and it was raised earlier too, about stoning the rebellious child. I defend the Torah specifically on— in, in all of its difficult verses, because I know that if— I have a very powerful challenge from the left, and it's an honest challenge. Well, Dennis, you think Leviticus is right on, uh, homosexuality. Well, you think it's right on, uh, stoning children? That happens not to be in Leviticus, but the same Torah, okay? Deuteronomy, as it happens. Uh, is, is that right? Well, so I have to think, look, if it's not right on stoning children who are rebellious, then how do I know what's right on homosexuality? Which is exactly the left theological left position. Look, we take what we, we know is elevated and there are things that are not elevated. But my problem with that is even deeper than my problem with the difficult verses, and that is then I am the religion. I am Dennis's Torah. That's it. But that's frightening beyond words, not because I'm frightened of, you know, that's the end of my reliance on something that I've been relying on, although that is a factor. It is because I now see moral anarchy on earth. Everybody will say that their Torah is their Torah. Their testament is their testament. Now, as it happens with that verse, I will tell you, you want context? I'll give you a context. And you're right to ask for context. I think the Torah was unbelievably progressive with that law. Progressive, not regressive. How? I'll tell you exactly how. In all of human history, Parents owned children. They could kill them, beat them, do whatever they want with them without any repercussions. That is true, unfortunately, in much of the Arab world to this day, where if a daughter brings quote-unquote dishonor to the family, she's murdered by a brother or a father. The idea was you could kill your child. The Torah made a brilliant way of getting it out of parents' ability. Hey parents, we're not taking away your authority to kill your child if you think your child deserves it. Just, you can't do it. The court only can do it. And the Talmud is right. It never happened. What, are you going to go to court and the mother's going to say, "Yeah, yeah, kill him, kill him. Go ahead, court, get him." First of all, there's no mother in history who wanted to kill a child. I mean, that's not true. Every mother wants to kill their child. I mean, you know, there's no mother who seriously contemplated it beyond the emotion of the moment. And so they got child, they bring the child to the court, there's a whole trial. By that time, mommy is looking at the kid, probably daddy is too, "Oh, come on, this is over. Let's go back, Sean, and you know, we'll have a great life." It never happened, but the Torah brilliantly took it out of parents' hands. And I can show that with slavery, and I can show that with all the difficult issues. This is my Torah. It is right. I debated Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard Law professor, in New York 3 years ago on Judaism. And a huge crowd there and everything, and we differed on everything. He thought 2 and 2 was something, I thought 2 and 2 was something else. We differed on everything. Finally, about 3/4 of the way in, you'll enjoy this, I think, I said to— I said, "Ladies and gentlemen, I think I can summarize the difference between Professor Dershowitz and myself the following way: When Alan Dershowitz disagrees with the Torah, he thinks the Torah is wrong and he's right. When I disagree with the Torah, I think the Torah is right and I'm wrong." And then Dershowitz, Alan Dershowitz said, "This is the first time tonight Dennis and I agree." That is exactly how he sees it when he differs. And that is, Pastor, with all respect, how I regard the entire religious left. When they disagree with the Bible, the Bible's wrong. Whereas when I disagree with the Bible, I try to figure out why I'm wrong. That's it. Okay. We have a microphone with somebody here.

Sir.

Yes.

Dennis, this question is directed specifically to you because I greatly respect you. I listen to you daily. A lot of my things that I do with my family are based on what I learn on your show, and I've listened to you.

So thank you.

Thank you for that.

I know I'm getting prepared for an attack. Here we go. I appreciate it anyway.

Here we go.

I have 4 children: 23, 21, 16, and 14. I'm a Protestant. I attend church. I read the Bible. I believe in the Bible. I try and teach my children ethical and moral decisions throughout their life. I have a 16-year-old son. He is not attracted to women. He, um, he's open to be. He wants to be. He feels he's gay. He's come to me with concern about that. My question to you is, do I need to fix him? In order for him to be eternally saved?

Oh, well, you're at— you're— since eternal salvation is a Christian concept, not a Jewish one specifically, I'll let Christians answer the salvation question. But my position on having a child who's gay is you love that child every bit as much as any other child. It's a non-issue. I don't think it's an issue to any of the people up here. About the fix issue, I have no answer on that because I am absolutely agnostic on the question of whether a human can change in that way. The reason that I'm not entirely opposed to the belief is because it is clear that heterosexuals, under certain circumstances, do engage in homosexual sex, like prisons, on ships, etc., that there are Greek men with boys obviously, unless one holds that all Greek men who could do so were in fact homosexual, which would distort the percentage of homosexuals in that society. Clearly, behavior, if not orientation, can be changed. My heart believes that a true— a person who truly cannot be attracted to the opposite sex, I don't know what, what can be done. On the other hand, when people come out in various groups and say they have, they have. I had, when I was director of a Jewish institute, a young man of 20 came over to me and told me that. And he was terribly torn. He was, my heart broke. He wanted to be homosexual like I want to be, I don't know, Catholic. Not true. I'd rather be Catholic, actually. Rather be Catholic than gay. Isn't that funny?

But not a priest.

That is funny. That is funny. Right. Oh, that's a good one. Right. Catholic priest. That's a separate issue. He's right on. That's right. Spoken like a good heterosexual Jew. Okay. The, uh— So I said to him, and I— this will sound to gays who might be here and to the pastor as so absurd that it's amazing I would admit to it. But I want to admit to it because I know my heart was in a good place. I said to him— he really appreciated me, like you say you do, and it means the world to me. And he said, Dennis, I want to be a faithful Jew, and I've listened to you all summer. What do you want me to do? What should I do? I said, are you certain, absolutely certain, that you can't be attracted to women. Is Aaron here, by the way? He is. Okay. So I'll euphemistically speak. He's playing Game Boy, it's a non-issue. That's true. If you have an 11-year-old playing Game Boy, it does not matter what we talk about. That is absolutely correct. Anyway, I said to him, why don't you look at some pictures from various magazines. And, you know, you all know what I'm referring to. And just, you know, and try to be aroused in that way and see what you can do. And he stayed in touch with me for about a year, and he tried all the things that I recommended. And anyway, nothing worked. Then he just, you know— but my methods are primitive, I assume, compared— no, no, I'm sure they are. But at least it was, it was new to me to work with somebody like this, and I wanted to learn to, as well as try to help him. I don't know. I can't answer the fix issue. I can't answer it. You have to talk to Christians who deal with that.

I do have an answer for that.

Okay, please.

You asked me earlier if I believe that homosexuals were born. I, I think, and I can't prove it, this is just my thing, that this situation here is why you have the incredible rise of homosexuality in our nation. We have concluded— our society has concluded If I have a sexual thought about a man, I must therefore be a homosexual, and I must therefore then go to hell.

The problem was that that's not what he said. He said— this is more affirmative— he said, my child is not attracted to girls.

But why is that a problem? See, if, if I'm not attracted to girls, I must therefore be a homosexual. And I, and I don't— I did— I deny that. In 1 Corinthians chapter 7, Paul talks about the gift of singleness. And he uses Paul as an illustration. He said, "You know, if I was married, I would have to take care of my wife, and I would have to take care of my children, and all those other things. But you know what? God has given me the gift of singleness, therefore I can serve God with all of my heart." Now, I disagree with the Catholic position on celibacy, but that's where this comes from. That we believe that we should be set aside from sexual activity so we can serve God. With a whole heart. I would challenge your son to say, "You know what? You may not be attracted to women because maybe God wants you to think totally about Him." And say, "You know what? Don't think about sex." Now, how many men think about sex? I heard one time it's every 6 seconds. You know? You're 16.

That's for the asexual men.

Yeah.

You know, you're 16. 16, you're— the movies, the TV, high school, halter tops. You're going to think about sex. You're in gym class. I mean, you're going to think about sex every minute of the day. But just because you're not consumed with thoughts about sexuality for women doesn't mean anything other than you're not consumed with sexual thoughts about women. And maybe it's God saying— I don't know what your son's name is— maybe God wants you to be consumed with him.

Okay, let's, let's just assume though that he does do that, that he that he chooses to be consumed with God.

And he—

and, you know, he's 16 years old and I'm telling him, don't be so caught up in what your sexual orientation is. Be caught up in things that are important to a 16-year-old. Be moral, be true, be faithful, be loyal to your friends and those things, and we'll see what happens. But let's say that he does that and 5, 6 years from now he's just determined that he is to be gay. Would you tell me that I need to tell him that he either needs to— so he needs to be alone and be dedicated to God and deny himself the life of companionship with another human being because he's chosen that he can't be with a woman.

In 1 Corinthians 6, Paul gives a list of several sins, one of which is homosexuality, and he says none of 2 things. He says, "None of these will see the kingdom of God." 2, he says, "And such were some of you." Now, I understand that by saying I believe that homosexuals, those who are consumed with homosexuality, will not go to heaven, that raises incredible emotion. Let me just say this: Heaven is not my home. When people knock on my door, I get to say, "You can come in." you can't come in. If I'm at somebody else's house, I can't say that. Heaven is God's home, and I believe that whether I say this is right or this is wrong, God has established the criteria upon which people will come in. And whether I agree with that or not, it doesn't change the criteria. So, so I think, I think you, you need to sit down with your son and say, here is what God says. And he is the one, you know, I'm not going to be in heaven at the gate saying you can come in and you can't come in. I'm going to be flat on my face praising God I got there. Unworthy am I. But I think you do need to do two things. I think you need to sit down with him and go through every medical thing you can on the homosexual lifestyle. This is what you are getting into. I mean, it's nice to say, you know, we love each other and all that kind of stuff. But there are incredible physical medical consequences from that lifestyle. And there's incredible— and I think you can just challenge him and say, you know what? This may be an area— I mean, how many men want to be married to Catherine Zeta-Jones? You know, they can't. You know, so to say I want I have to follow through on it. And I think that's where our— especially our teenagers are today. Because I have this idea in my mind, I am forced to follow through on it. And I think that's when it becomes— you know, it's like an alcoholic. You had a drink when you were 16, oh, I must be an alcoholic. Therefore, what's my lifestyle? You start hanging out at the bars. You start going out with the guys. You start drinking. And what do you become? You know, and it becomes in essence a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Because it's your child and there's so much on the line here, I, I want to get a variety of responses. And thank you, uh, Pastor Jackson.

And I do think you need to love your son.

If I can just add one thing, I, I teach in high school. I've had young men come to me and say, Father, I think I'm gay, whether it be within confession or just in the counseling sessions. And when a young man is 15 or 16 years old, the best advice I can give him is, you know what, human sexuality at your age is very, very fluid. And I would not, if I were you, identify myself as being gay or straight or bi until you get to maybe 20, 21 years old when things are a little bit more fixed. I think if we allow a young man to say, I'm gay, at 15, then you may be cutting off the possibility that it's a phase that he's going through and, and that he's on his way to heterosexuality. But at this particular point in his life, he's being attracted towards other men, coaches, teachers that he admires, and so forth. So I would recommend that you have your son remain open to the idea that the day will come that he will be attracted to women, and that the day will come that he will want to get married and have children, and so forth. If it turns out when he's 21, 22 years old, you know what, I'm only attracted to men. As Dennis said, love him as you love all your other children, because he's still your son and he's still God's child.

Thank you, Father. Rabbi, what would you advise?

I can't think of anything substantially different. Again, I would like to promote as much possibility through psychiatric, psychological, other kinds of treatment, including patience, forbearance, celibacy until that he were sure, and if he were sure and that's the kind of lifestyle that he were to choose, I would try to guide him to the most careful and holy way to express it.

Pastor Hanson, what would you say?

Well, clearly it's a painful thing to experience when you love someone and they're coming to you with these deep feelings. And there's no question that it's calls for a loving response. And as you would anticipate, I don't believe that a loving God would exclude your son or any other gay or lesbian person who is seeking to live as a loving human being in this world, seeking to honor and respect others and themselves, and seeking to be responsible with their lives. You know, the question about what Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians or what's in 1 Timothy or what's in Romans There's questions among the biblical scholars about what the original Greek really referred to and what Paul is really referring to. I think the rest of the message of the New Testament, and certainly what Jesus teaches, is that we are called to love one another. Jesus said we're going to be judged on, did you welcome the stranger? Did you feed the hungry? Did you clothe the naked? Did you visit those who are sick and in prison? That's the criteria for the great judgment. Well, it's not whether you're gay or straight. That's not it. And, you know, and I guess I would own, as Dennis suggested a moment ago, that if that's what Paul really meant, to say that God excludes people that are homosexual, no matter how wonderful of human beings they are, then I just disagree with Paul.

Well, it's easier for me to disagree with Paul. I mean, I have to say, because you're a Christian pastor and I'm not. So it comes with a much heavier price to you. All right, yes please.

I'd like to know if each of the representatives feel that adoption— is adoption considered procreative?

I would say no. I think procreation has to start with the biology of it. I think adoption is a wonderful thing, and as you go through Scripture, there are some great adoption in the adoption story is Moses being the chief. And I worked for a fella when I was in college who had adopted 21 children. And he was a wonderful, wonderful example.

21?

Yeah. He had the United Nations and he owned an Apple Watch.

When his family went to a restaurant, did they like—

They took the bus out.

Did they book the restaurant? Yeah, we'll reserve it for the family. 8 tables, please.

I know a similar situation where this Irish-American family adopted all these multiracial children, and so you have somebody who looks like he just came from Nigeria and his name is Declan. He gave them all Irish names, and you know, someone from Korea and her name is Siobhan.

That's great.

It's a very interesting situation.

Well, procreative literally means to create a new person, but It's in the scripture. You mean it in lieu of adoption, in lieu of procreation?

If you talk about the value, or the, the value of marriage, value of the sexual act in marriage is to procreate, and if one chooses to add, to bring new life through adoption as opposed to the sexual act, then would that, by the, by the people who say that that sexual, the sexual act in marriage is for procreation, would that satisfy it? Would adoption satisfy it?

If one could not procreate, I mean, let's think of an example where a person, a couple say, we think the human condition is so despicable and so despairing, we refuse to bring children into the world. They're utterly nihilistic, they don't believe in God, don't trust God, so they're choosing not to have children, but they feel sorry for kids that don't have parents, so they adopt. So in my opinion, I would say to them, well, don't be so nihilistic, don't be so despairing, have your own children and adopt, or if you can't have children, adopt. So I will, again, I go back to my ideal that ideally marriage ought to be the things that I enumerated before. I certainly think adoption is a wonderful thing both for a couple to adopt and both for the child who gets adopted, but it doesn't take the place of procreation for a couple that can procreate.

Let me also add, in the New Testament, there is no one who is born a Christian. We are all adopted into the family of God, and that gives you God's view of adoption.

That's a good one. We're all adopted. I agree with that. Okay, yes please.

Well, this is for Reverend Jackson. I want to know, do you actually think that gay men are more promiscuous and have greater medical risk to the world than straight men. Because, you know, I've been in locker rooms where all the guys talk about is how many women they have had in their life. And we look at Magic Johnson, who, you know, said that he had several sexual relationships while he was married and before he was married. And then you, you know, you talk about being king of the jungle and how the lion goes out and gets all the lionesses. How this, this, uh, it just doesn't seem to me to be a homosexual drive that men have. It seems to be a male drive that men have, that they need to have many sexual relationships. And I don't see how you can equate homosexuality with being more promiscuous than heterosexual.

Well, I don't have all the statistics. Let me just give you an article out of The Advocate, August 23rd, 1994. The number of partners—

National gay newspaper.

The number of partners in the previous year: 24% had 2 to 4 partners, 18% had 5 to 10, 57% exceeded 30, 35% had 100 or more partners. Now, I don't think per se— because obviously there are homosexual couples who never go outside. Of that bond. There seems to be something, and Dennis has mentioned this in several cases, there is something about women that tame men. If we do not—

Like, "I'll kill you." Yeah. That's pretty much it. It's very effective.

Now, there is no law that says homosexuals homosexuals have to be promiscuous. But it seems, at least based on what The Advocate discovered, and I think if you went up to San Francisco and just surveyed people, there is within the lifestyle of today's homosexual an incredible promiscuity that says, "We will not control ourselves." We will— I've never been to a, you know, gay bar. I've never been to a bathhouse. But there seems to be an incredible amount of promiscuity within the gay community today.

Can I just—

Yeah, please.

If that's true, then why would you reject gay people to be in your church to give them that counsel that they need to stop the promiscuous lifestyle? In other words, it seems to me like you feel he does reject people. By just the very nature of the fact that you don't want gay and lesbian people to marry each other, Marriage is different than sexual activity. Yeah, but we also know that, you know, if you're a gay governor or if you're Magic Johnson, you still may be in an adulterous affair because these feelings of, you know, being the king of the jungle still keep going on no matter if you're gay or straight. And it just seems to me as if we are in this kind of a mood in the church that that we are tolerating gay people as long as they don't make any noise and as long as they don't want all of the same rights and conditions and God's love that the straight community has. It's fine. In other words, I don't think you would be counseling a heterosexual male that's getting ready to marry a woman that may have had, you know, a lot of women in his life, that you were promiscuous in the past and you need not to worry because you're saying that women have a tendency to tame. But, you know, I know a lot of women that have been hurt and destroyed by men that just go on and do whatever they want to do, and so do you. So I don't know, it just seems that I do believe that the church, all of you in the faith community, with the exception of our church, which I'm a member of with Reverend Hanson, I do believe that you are pushing the gay community away by saying that they can't be full, loving members of the body of Christ because they're gay.

I have to disagree with you, sir, because I think part of it is that we put up— say, for example, the Catholic Church— we put up a certain teaching for people who are intent upon living a homosexual relationship. Realizing that that's outside the realm of the teaching of the Catholic Church, they're going to make the choice not to be participants in the life of the Catholic Church. But I can tell you that we have thousands upon thousands of gay Catholics who are, on one hand, struggling with reconciling their personal life and the teaching of the Church, and maybe they're not achieving the great success rate that they might want, But they realize that for anybody in the Christian community, that life is a struggle against temptations and so forth, and you're going to stumble and fall. But our religion is about fall and redemption, and then you get back up. Where I have a problem is with those who say, well, because I do it, it can't be a sin, or must not be a sin, because I'm the one that did it.

The call of God to the people of God is to love sinners. I mean, I had a lady in our parking lot one time and she said, "What do you have to do to attend your church?" I said, "Well, first of all, you have to be a sinner." And she says, "Oh, I qualify." I mean, our church is made up of major sinners of which the senior pastor happens to be one of them. But I think like Father said there, it is the church's responsibility to say, "Thus saith the Lord." God says this is best. This is a sin. And I'll just give you an illustration. Now, if a couple— in fact, we've had this happen— couple living together come to our church. We love them. We say, we're glad you're here. We want you to come back. But we also need you to know that if you ever desire to be a member of our church, the Bible says that if you're having sexual relationships, you need to be married. And we've had people say, gee, that's awful restrictive and leave. But we can't say we're going to lower our standard any more than if someone came and said, "You know, I'm an abusive husband." And we said, "You know, that's wrong. Gee, bigots, don't you want these men in your church?" Well, yeah, we want them in our church. But God has called us to— God has set the standard. We don't set the standard. God has called us to preach He is the standard, and the standard that he has set is man, woman, marriage, sex inside of that.

I'm going to— we have to conclude, and I thank you for that challenge, sir. I want to ask Pastor Hanson the final question and then just thank the distinguished clergy.

Did he say distinguished clergy?

Yes, the distinguished clergy. Yes, you are. It's a very wonderful panel. Pastor Hanson, I am just curious. Purely curiosity, human question. It's not a theological one. When you hear what all of us have said— and by the way, I have tremendous thanks to you for coming, and he deserves a real, a real thanks.

This has been Timeless Wisdom with Dennis Prager. Visit DennisPrager.com for thousands of hours of Dennis's lectures, courses, and classic radio programs. And to purchase Dennis Prager's Rational Bibles.