May 26, 2011Dear Sir,Walton Brown's recent opinion column titled, Putting Gay Rights Back on Agenda certainly got one thing right, which is that speaking out in the public square on this issue does require us to first “eat a great big slice of courage pie”. It is an emotionally polarising moral issue that routinely degenerates into personal attacks in order to silence dissenting voices. Notice that between them Brown and Ms Assan have already characterised any qualms about their position as “Hate” perpetuated by a “minority of pseudo-religious zealots providing a selective reading of the Bible to justify their bigotry”.Tolerance necessarily implies disagreement. You cannot tolerate a person that holds your view, you simply agree with them. Tolerance is restricted, by definition, to those you think are mistaken. Brown thinks the “zealots” are mistaken, but his notion of tolerance here allows only acceptance and has stripped the word of its necessary element disagreement. He has completely distorted the concept of tolerance, for he immediately resorts to labelling those that disagree with him as intolerant bigots.No doubt Mr Brown would try to justify his intolerance by invoking the mighty Voltaire who asserted that a civil society must not tolerate intolerance. What should one make then of his aggressive intolerance of religiously based reservations about same-sex sexual behavior? All of us who are concerned for the creation and sustainment of a healthy Bermudian civil society want to put an end to oppression where it exists and I would suggest that surely he must cease such discriminatory stereotyping of his fellow Bermudians and deal with this moral issue in a civil manner.Mr Brown purports to speak on behalf of “at least ten percent of the population” that harbour same-sex attractions, but he is erroneously drawing that figure from the assertions of sexologist Alfred Kinsey, whose fraudulent sampling methodology was exposed under peer review. Kinsey's biased conclusions arose from his stated belief that morality has no place in discussions of sex and advocated the need to resist moral qualms about any type of sexual expression. I doubt Mr Brown would be so keen to cite Kinsey's positive attitude towards incest and bestiality nor, surely, would he wish to favourably remark on Kinsey's research involving the molestation of infants as young as two months old in the name of sexual freedom. Numerous population studies across the globe have consistently revealed a much smaller figure of one to three percent. That is not to say that such persons are not worthy of legal protection, but the obvious motive behind citing the larger percentage is to create an impression that same-sex attraction is far more prevalent than it actually is.The real thrust of Mr Brown's case is that bigotry is bigotry, no matter who it is directed against. I certainly agree with him on that point, as I have already noted his inconsistent application of this principle. Thus the question for discussion is really about whether taking a biblical stand against a specific type of behaviour amounts to bigotry. Racial discrimination obviously amounts to bigotry because it involves treating a person as less than human based on what he is. Many people of all racial types believe on the basis of Scriptural references in both the Old and New Testaments that physically acting on same-sex attraction is morally wrong. But in doing so, they are not saying that people harbouring such desires are less than human and should be treated as such. But Mr Brown admits no distinction between what someone ís (black, for example) and what someone does (sodomy, for example). Equating the two is a common and powerful rhetorical flourish, but the impartial observer (as far as one can be impartial) can acknowledge that there is a categorical difference between the two, such that it thus unfair and inaccurate when Mr Brown conflates bigotry with a moral position on a particular type of behaviour.It is also ironic that Mr Brown claims a “casual” reading of the Bible will support his case for it is clear that is all he himself has done. He tells us that Christ “embraced everyone” but he fails to notice that Christ was willing to embrace everyone who recognised that they fell short of God's perfect standards of morality, recognised that forgiveness could be found in Christ alone, and turned away from their sins in repentance. Christ was firm that no one is beyond forgiveness, but this inclusivity rests on the necessary prerequisite that one must first acknowledge a need for forgiveness, followed by a life dedicated to turning away from sinful behaviours.Mr Brown sadly characterises Christian opposition to changes in the law with words like “discrimination”, “hatred”, “fear” and “bigotry”. Followers of Christ, however, base their moral opposition in the Biblical truth that sexual relations between people of the same gender is a sin (certainly not the greatest of sins, but a sin nonetheless) that should be repented of and abstained from, not normalised, legitimised or celebrated in society through special protections under the law. Brown claims that ordinary legal protections do not go far enough, but that is obviously because he wants to move beyond a position of cultural tolerance toward a state of cultural affirmation imposed through special legislation. As hard as it may be for him and others to accept or believe, a sincere Biblical opposition to such an amendment is rooted in love for people with same sex desires, not hatred. For these “pseudo-religious zealots” recognise that if society comes to support the notion that acting on those desires is no longer sinful, then there is little motivation to repent of them, in spite of what the Bible has to say about it. They see this as a great tragedy.Yes, some purported “Christians” have a hateful heart and say horrific things (Fred Phelps springs to mind). But moral resistance based on the Bible is ultimately rooted in the love of Jesus Christ, who so loved the world that He gave His life for all humankind, so that any who recognise His authority and repent will be spared the penalty for their sins and receive the gift of eternal life.I am all too aware of the severe social consequences that often follow adding one's name to the ‘wrong side' of this controversial discussion. My only hope with this letter is to try to put a human face on the ‘hater', the ‘homophobe' and the ‘zealot'. Any mistakes I have made as an impromptu ambassador for Christ are the result of my own shortcomings, for which I hope I may be forgiven.STEPHEN NOTMANPaget