• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • March 11, 2010

    March 11, 2010 | 56 Comments

    Interview with Ugandan Pastor Martin SSempa

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    Pastor SSempa’s Blog

    Link to the Uganda Bill

    Articles Challenging the Uganda Bill

    Articles Defending the Uganda Bill

    Spread the Word:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Facebook
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Mixx
    • MySpace
    • Technorati
    • Sphinn
    • StumbleUpon
    • TwitThis

    Comments

    56 Responses to “March 11, 2010”

    1. David Cheek
      March 11th, 2010 @ 4:17 pm

      Today I’m more proud than ever to call Dr. Brown my teacher and friend. Not only because I hope to move to Uganda with my family in a few years to do mission work and having a pastor on the program from Uganda was a dream come true. But also because Dr. Brown is willing to stand up for the reality and truth no matter what it costs him. I greatly appreciated the oppertunity to hear straight from Pastor Sempa’s mouth about whats in the bill and his views. Of course we found out that everything thats been said by our American media is once again false and rather than Pastor Sempa being a hater of gays, he is in fact a man of compassion that takes people into his home. Without the line of fire we never would have been afforded the oppertunity to hear the truth and we could of easily been swayed by mainstream Christian leaders denouncing the bill. Once again Dr. Brown’s ministry has opened my eyes to the truth, sharpened my spirit, and given me the oppertunity to pray more accurately. Thank you Mike for having the courage to stand up for righteousness even when it costs.

    2. Ruth Smith
      March 11th, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

      Wow, great interview!

      It’s a pity people in my country are so generally misinformed about what Pastor SSempa is really doing. I thank God for alternative media such as Line of Fire.

    3. Dr. Michael L. Brown
      March 11th, 2010 @ 10:29 pm

      David,

      Thanks for the very gracious words, and it will be wonderful when the Lord opens up the doors for you and your family to go and serve the people of Uganda.

      I remember well the song you wrote in 2006 when the Lord broke your heart for the homosexual community.

      Grace and truth will prevail!

    4. Ruth Smith
      March 11th, 2010 @ 10:33 pm

      I posted a link to this show on one of my interactive sites and would say to all: spread the word! Post links from your various sites…let the truth out !

    5. Martin Ssempa on The Line of Fire - Listen Now | Voice of Revolution
      March 11th, 2010 @ 10:38 pm

      [...] Ugandan Pastor Martin Ssempa on the “Anti-Homosexuality” bill is available here: http://lineoffireradio.askdrbrown.org/2010/03/11/march-11-2010/.  Various gay activists were invited to participate in the discussion, but declined.  Jim [...]

    6. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 1:56 am

      My apologies for not being able to participate – it’s tricky doing it from Australia, there’s a time zone difference. Had I been asked, I’m not sure I could have.

      Pastor Ssempa at last admits first that the hole in the law to protect boys as well as girls was fixed years ago, then later says that a new law is needed because…… well, because the law has a hole in.

      As he wrote to Rick Warren:
      “Please note that for over 15 years Uganda has had the same penalty for persons who have carnal knowledge of minors heterosexually, mainly to protect against sexual abuse of girls by men. This time, this provision intends to provide equal protection of boys, among others.”

      The same line he gave here on the show. In fact, most of what he says has been from the same script, in some cases word for word.

      But on other occasions, he conveniently concealed the fact that the law had been amended years ago to provide just such protections. And people have been convicted under it.

      On your show, he stuck to implication, lying by omission. There he went further, into the lie direct:
      “This has and continues to be the law which no one has complained that it is unchristian or a human right violation. Many boys have been violated without legal protection leaving their evil oppressors to get away with no law enforcement protection. The current draft law, simply aims at providing equal protection of the boy child and other vulnerable persons, as currently exists for the girl child. The question for you is this; does the sexual abuse of a boy constitute a lesser crime than the rape of a girl?”

      This is a quote from http://www.martinssempa.com/warren-response.html

      You know the bill does nothing to prevent the heterosexual rape of virgins by HIV sufferers – the vast majority of such cases? Nor that most HIV patients in Uganda are heterosexual, so much so that many do not even know that gay sex can transmit HiV?

      He’s currently correct that it’s not illegal to speak about homosexuality without condemnation – as I’m doing here – without being jailed for many years, as the bill would entail.

      Michael, by saying what you did on this program, it’s not unimaginable that you too would be guilty of a crime under this bill.

      He’s incorrect when he implies the bill is on the Ugandan Pariamentary website. See http://www.parliament.go.ug/billtrack/ – it’s not there. It may be available if you actually travel to Kampala of course.

      It is however on Christian Psychologist Warren Throckmorton’s site, at http://wthrockmorton.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/anti-homosexuality-bill-2009.pdf

      This is the definitive text. This has been confirmed. At the moment, there is no “alternate” as he had told to others in the past, or implied to you on the program.

      At the moment, if two 17 year old girls kiss each other, the bill states that they will be executed. He states that we – meaning the Uganda Joint Christian Council – think that these girls should only get 20 years in jail for this instead.

      And under the law, if anyone sees them, and does not report it to the police within 24 hours, they too are subject to imprisonment for three years.

      Please connect the dots – see this video, which shows exactly what the proposed bill calls for, and which the good pastor has made extraordinary efforts to conceal.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fuEsRJp2nU

      Bottom Line – and you have to listen carefully, discarding all the stuff about intent and what he really meant etc etc:

      He states that if these effects have to come about in order to strengthen the penalties for statutory rape, that’s regrettable, but worth it.

      He also admits, amidst the bafflegab and obfuscation, that the currently applicable penalty under existing laws for statutory rape – hetero or homosexual – is life imprisonment.

      A Ugandan judge has awarded two women $7,000 (£4,700), saying their rights were infringed when they were arrested on suspicion of being lesbians in 2005.

      One of them was undressed by police to prove she was a woman and assaulted.

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7797566.stm

      So much for the “never been a lesbian arrested” bit.

      Michael – I would be glad to discuss this or any other issue with you on air, if we could arrange a mutually convenient time. While I can understand others not wanting to legitimise Pastor Ssempa’s mendacity, I don’t think that’s the way to go.

      I have to say that you asked all the right questions of him. He just answered with plausible bafflegab, as is his habit. Please listen to the few, the very few, actual things he said. Then look at his actions.

    7. Lawrence
      March 12th, 2010 @ 7:33 am

      Thank you Dr mike, for your support to pastor Ssempa for speaking the truth, i believe we are close to the end where some pastors are in support of what we know as a sin. people have to know that homosexuality is a sin which comes under divine judgment Rom.1:18-32. in Africa homosexuality is a sin, Americas should know that. Obama a lot of babies are being kill in your country what do you say about that. you are a father i hope you will not like someone to advice you to kill your child.

    8. Beth
      March 12th, 2010 @ 9:17 am

      Thank you for having this well spoken pastor on to speak out against this terrible homosexual illness of our time, along with the selfish killing of the innocents. It is GOOD against EVIL pure and simple, and the evil one has unfortunately drawn in many good souls who sit on the fence and do not speak up. God will not allow this to continue and people need to get their heads on straight to oppose it now! These people are weak and need our strength and support – most of all our prayers for their conversion. Thank you and continue speaking up for truth!

    9. Taylor Siluwé
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:02 am

      Pastor Ssempa uses events in 1886 and a certain King responsible for various offenses against young boys as a reason to discriminate against gay people in 2010.

      No one is defending sex with minors. If this is the fear, why isn’t it a Anti-Pedophilia bill and not an Anti-Gay bill? There are homosexual pedophiles as well as heterosexual. Good citizens who happen to be gay should not be penalized for the actions of some. Are all heteros punished for the hetero pedophiles actions? Of course not.

      The fact that homosexuality is a crime is in itself repugnant, because these laws are religious-based and not everyone is religious. So, in essense, its religious oppression – the state imposing a Taliban-style harsh religious control over the behaviour of all people regardless of their faith. It is wrong, and a slippery slope into the sort of violence that religious conflict is historically known for.

      How many years ago was is that relations between blacks and whites were also illegal – with the Bible being used as a justification? And slavery. Another biblically sanctioned practice which progressive humankind see as archaice, cruel, and soul crushing.

      Uganda is driviing backward, and Martin Ssempa is at the wheel. Someone should revoke his license.

      Our world is rife with one religious conflict after another. Until Christians and Muslims embrace the most basic tenet of most religions and the message of Christ, to love your neighbor as yourself, then we are all doomed.

      You know why? Because people are born gay. So no matter how many laws you enact, people will still be gay.

      Ssempa cries about rape. Yes, it happens. But that “odious” bill goes way beyond that. What does showing extreme pornagraphy (which is offensive to most GAY people) have to do with preventing child rape? Nothing. However it does inflame homo-hatred and leads to mob justice against upstanding gay people on the streets.

      So in a sense, Ssempa is a terrorist. If you don’t believe that, just ask any gay person in Uganda if they are afraid in their own country.

      Do not try to downplay this bill, Dr. Brown. You are fasting losing credibility as thinking man and torch bearer of Christ’s message of love. Do not let Ssempa make the connection between child-rape and gay people. It’s offensive, its homophobic, and its down right ignorant and lastly, and most importantly, extremely dangerous.

    10. Dr. Michael L. Brown
      March 12th, 2010 @ 11:08 am

      Zoe,

      Thanks for your post and your desire to come on the air. Let me first ask Pastor Ssempa to respond to your post here on this forum, OK?

      Again, thanks for posting!

    11. Kjell B Møller
      March 12th, 2010 @ 3:50 pm

      Rev Ssampa is a hero of the church today,worldwide.
      He is an ideal for us in Europa, to hear pastor Ssampa talks with compassion and truth about the these important issue.
      Thanks for a great show Dr.Brown.

    12. JordanNZ
      March 12th, 2010 @ 4:37 pm

      Hey Dr. Brown,

      Ex student of yours here giving my 2 cents here.
      I like how you were good to emphasize that Pastor Ssempa doesn’t favor the death penalty for aggravated homosexuality. This was a VERY good to know.

      …but I think a better question would have been:
      Should the bill pass in its current form would he support it or rally (alongside the homosexuals) to repeal it?

      I don’t see how he can be a pastor of compassion and grace and yet be FOR such harsh penalties for homosexual practice.
      I unfortunatley, with the homosexual community, see a complete double standard and inconsistency here.

      Life imprisonment for consensual homosexual sex?
      Death sentence if one of them has HIV at the time?

      I have read the bill myself several times, this is what the law covers… I am not taking it out of context.

      I understand that Mr Ssempa doesn’t believe that this is the heart of the law…but it’s still what is in the law.
      Why can’t he be totally against the bill with its current sentencing instead of totally supporting it but wishing one of the most ridiculously harsh sentences be lessened?

      Jordan

    13. Hazakim
      March 12th, 2010 @ 7:36 pm

      The pastor made some solid points….why is it that the Western media finds it impossible to believe that a black country can develop their own convictions and opinions? Why would Uganda need white evangelicals to “rile them up” into action when they themselves already have an ancient moral law that pre-dates America? It’s as if they think African people groups were running around naked with no moral clue and, to this day, need white westerners to tell them what to think! Liberals are VERY racist (from planned parenthood to the gay movement). Good job pastor! Keep standing and, I beg you, do not let the West bully your country into conforming to our “standards” or lack thereof! We are not better than Africans!

    14. Hazakim
      March 12th, 2010 @ 7:43 pm

      “What does showing extreme pornagraphy (which is offensive to most GAY people) have to do with preventing child rape”

      LOL!!! Oh, so “extreme” porn is offensive? What about “regular” gay porn? It’s all disgusting. Period. I’ve had the unfortunate experience of seeing images and it is very disturbing to see two mustached men frolic with each other’s hairy bodies. No pretty way to put it. And I’ve yet to meet a gay person that finds this “offensive”.

    15. Dr. Michael L. Brown
      March 12th, 2010 @ 8:36 pm

      JordanNZ,

      Thanks for writing. A few quick questions for you.

      First, where does Pastor SSempa support life in prison for consensual homosexual sex? He and the other pastors actually recommended just twenty years in jail for the rape of a child. He opposes much of the bill as currently crafted and is on record for that.

      Second, is it possible that you have bought into the homosexual mindset more than the biblical mindset? More to the point here, is it possible that you’re thinking through NZ society than Ugandan society? And is it possible that the morals of NZ and America are so skewed that we are no longer offended or outraged or grieved over all kinds of sinful sexual acts?

      I’m not in favor of criminalizing homosexual acts in America (i.e., consensual, adult acts) anymore than I’m in favor of criminalizing adultery in America. But there was a time in our country when both were illegal — and overall, it was a far more moral, family based society.

      Just some things for you to chew on.

    16. Dr. Michael L. Brown
      March 12th, 2010 @ 8:43 pm

      Taylor,

      Thanks so much for posting here. Much appreciated! A few comments in response:

      1) I’m convinced by science and experience that no one is born gay (my late brother-in-law was a former homosexual himself), but I do know how deeply ingrained same-sex attractions are in people and I have great compassion for them.

      2) You wrote, “you are fasting losing credibility as thinking man and torch bearer of Christ’s message of love.” I wasn’t aware that you thought of me as either a thinking man or a torch bearer of Christ’s message of love,” and I appreciate your kind words. Hopefully, as you continue to listen to me you will see that, indeed, I intend to listen, to learn, and hold up the message of the love of Jesus for the entire world to see. Is it possible that that love, at times, may go against the grain of society? Is it possible that, at times, that love might call people to turn to God in repentance and receive a new heart and a new life?

      3) Do you believe Pastor SSempa when he states that boys came to him and said you must do something about gay rape in the boarding schools? And if, in fact, he is telling the truth (and I have no reason to doubt him), and if, in fact, this is a major part of the bill that he and other pastors support, what is wrong with this? Shouldn’t you also be raising your voice to denounce this horrible act?

      I welcome your responses.

    17. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

      A quote from “Yes, Prime Minister” comes to mind:

      Sir Richard: Standard Foreign Office response in a time of crisis. In Stage One we say that nothing is going to happen.

      Sir Humphrey: Stage Two, we say something may be going to happen but we should do nothing about it.

      Sir Richard: Stage Three, we say that maybe we should do something about it, but there’s nothing we can do.

      Sir Humphrey: Stage Four, we say maybe there is something we could have done, but it’s too late now.

      We’re at stage 2. I don’t want us to progress to stage 4, where the legislation is in place, the gallows in operation, and we’re all wringing our hands that we didn’t do something to stop it in time.

      I’d love to engage Pastor Ssempa in debate. Would you believe that I hope that I’m proven wrong? That his long, long series of incorrect statements are the result of mistakes rather than deliberate mendacity? That he’s not a demagogue, nor using a convenient scapegoat to damage political and religious enemies, nor draw away attention from the problems Uganda has with witchcraft and superstition?

      Perhaps he really believes that Gay Activists in the pay of nefarious powers really are flying in and distributing home computers, iPods and so on to “recruit” victims – just as they do in all western countries.

      See
      http://aebrain.blogspot.com/2009/12/not-that-we-get-choice.html

      For examples of even more extreme beliefs popular in that part of the world.

      Pastor Ssempa is right that he’s not engaging in a “witch hunt”. Because they have those in Uganda. They find someone suspected of witchcraft, pour kerosene on them, and then thrust them into a bathtub-size pyre, pushing them back in until they’re burnt enough not to resist.

      I’ll borrow a leaf out of Pastor Ssempa’s book and give you a link to a video, but by private e-mail. It’s of some recent events in neighbouring Kenya. This is what it means when there are calls for the local populace to “take things into their own hands”, as there have been.

    18. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 9:55 pm

      Martin SSempa have not said anything extraordinary.
      This is common sense, and what people perfectly know.
      It’s good to hear objectivity, without extra attention to one particular sexual deviancy.

      If you take quantity of seminaries and para-church organizations in America, it is extremely strange that their presence is absent from battle against sexual perversion.
      Rick warren is one example… and there are many similar ones.
      It’s sad.

      I do like SSempa saying ” I do not subscribe to people being gay. I subscribe to people doing homosexual acts.”
      But I don’t like him affirming non-existing term “homophobia”.
      If “homophobia” is a negative view of a homosexuality (which is one particular instance of sexual perversion), what are the terms to describe people who have negative views on incest, bestiality etc.

      I personally don’t recognize words “gay” (meaning homosexual), and “homophobia”. They simply trademarks words to market homosexuality. When activists want to maker something to masses, they have to use some catchy words. This is done in all tv commercials.
      Furthermore, note “gay” viewed positively, while “homophobia” negatively. Apparently, it wasn’t enough to redefine homosexuality in more attractive light. They also introduced term to designate those who are “evil”.

    19. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:07 pm

      I don’t know like you people, but I am personally appalled how much attention pederasty/sodomy/homosexuality have gained.
      I am not saying that organizations and methods for treating homosexual deviancy are not needed, what I am saying is that all that homosexuality movement is pretty narcissistic. I mean it!
      Look, how much attention is given to one particular sexual deviancy.
      There are many anomalous behavioral patterns, traits, habits, even addictions, but none of them have gained such hype like the LGBT.

      What scares me the most, is the fact that they have NO arguments to substantiate their claims for “equality” or legitimacy, and still multitudes of people (especially younger ones) somehow manage to defend them.
      I find that disturbing, and alarming.
      If masses are conditioned to be receptive of something that has NO sound arguments to substantiate, then question raises why people were been brainwashed to be such receptive to propaganda techniques, to emotional appeals, to false analogies, etc…
      Isn’t education suppose to make people capable to evaluate arguments and seek objectivity in all matters?

      I say this not because it only concerns homosexuality, but because if multitudes of people can buy into something obviously repulsive, what is the end-goal of such conditioning?
      It is simply alarming.

    20. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:10 pm

      See also
      http://www.findingdulcinea.com/news/Africa/2009/feb/Uganda-Witchcraft-Crackdown-Yields-Arrests.html

      Now read
      http://gayuganda.blogspot.com/2010/03/in-africa-step-backward-on-human-rights.html

      Turning the other cheek is hard. But it’s what is required of us, even those who are not Christian. We cannot fight wrong except through love.

    21. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:20 pm

      Ruth Smith says:

      “Wow, great interview!

      It’s a pity people in my country are so generally misinformed about what Pastor SSempa is really doing. I thank God for alternative media such as Line of Fire.”

      - honestly. I don’t only think they don’t know what he is doing. They embarrass themselves for what they allow to happen in their country.
      While bragging to be ‘world police’ and superpower, degrade human dignity to the hormones-driven animal-like behavior.
      Immediately comes to mind video segment of some dated video “Gay Rights / Special Rights” where sexual perverts marching on the street yelling “F** the church, F** the state. Hormones will decide my fate!”.
      Who would ever imagine that civilized society will degrade to state like this?
      Which reminds me of another quite, that goes something like this:
      - to go from barbarism to civilization requires hundred[s] of years, but to go from civilization to barbarism is requires only one day…

    22. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:28 pm

      Zoe Brian (or Alan, or whatever is your real name),

      “through love.” does not mean allowing people do anything people want to do.
      If you love anorexic, or drug addict, and you capable of helping them, or at least referring them to the source that can help them, is that what loves demands for you to do?
      If a person has the mental condition when he/she thinks he/she fat, while being skinny anorexic, you don’t starve that person.

      Simple objectivity, and honesty on the subject sufficient to point out that you need to help that person seek professional help.
      Same can be said about LGBT, or whatever else sexual anomaly…

    23. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:31 pm

      by the way Brian, I happen to be techy myself.
      Finishing my MS comp. science and first year MS soft. engineering.

    24. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:36 pm

      Evidence – let’s look at the USA.

      The FBI reported the following hate crimes involving actual physical violence in the USA in 2008:

      Against Catholics, just for being Catholic:
      1 Aggravated Assault, 3 simple Assaults.

      Against Protestants, just for being Protestant:
      3 Aggravated assaults, 3 simple Assaults.

      So we’re looking at 10 victims who were violently attacked, just for being Christian.

      Much has been made of this in the Catholic Press.

      Bill Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, said the increase may be due to the Church becoming more vocal on life issues such as abortion and homosexual unions.

      As the Catholic bishops take a stronger stance, he said, it filters down to the laity, and as more traditional Catholics become more vocal, they become targets for those who disagree with them.

      “Unfortunately, it spills over into violence,” he said, adding that it’s just going to get worse before it gets better.

      To put this in context …

      Muslims suffered the following injuries, just for being Muslim:
      5 Aggravated Assaults, 30 simple assaults. 35 people. Three and a half times as many.

      Jews suffered the following injuries, just for being Jews:
      25 Aggravated Assaults, 58 simple Assaults. 83 people. Over eight times as many.

      As for non-Trans gay people:
      5 Murders, 6 rapes, 232 Aggravated Assaults, and 501 simple Assaults. 744 people raped, murders, or violently attacked just for being Gay, or perceived to be Gay, even if they weren’t.

      Data on Trans people wasn’t kept – until the recent Federal Hate Crime laws were passed, the FBI wasn’t allowed to count hate crimes against trans people. But we know just from newspaper reports that at least 19 were slain.

      Note that some states, such as Ohio, have a policy of not reporting such crimes against gays, but do on the other groups.

      Personally, I cannot see how homosexuality is compatible with the Christian Faith as received by scripture, unlike, say, slavery, which is. Others differ. I do not see how this is relevant to arguments for equality, any more than Idolatry being forbidden is relevant to giving equal rights to Hindus.

      Um… you do know that polygamy is considered moral in Uganda, don’t you? That is forbidden to church deacons in scripture, but not to others. There are just as many canons in scripture against remarriage after the death of one partner as there are against homosexuality, and many, many more against remarriage after divorce. It seems to me that there is a lot of cherry-picking going on. Which is no doubt why 1 Timothy 2:12 admonishes “But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” Because I point out the inconvenient bits in scripture.

    25. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:40 pm

      Taylor Siluwé,
      if people are born homosexual 9not “gay” because term “gay” has nothing to do with sexual behavior), we only need one thing – to find the cause of that anomaly and fix it.
      If there is a “gay gene” we simply need to tweak it a bit and make a person normal.
      If people are born with sexual attraction and arousal to animals, or siblings, and that is established as genetic cause – well, we need to modify genes. that’s it.
      But simply allowing what is genetic to be legitimate is nonsense!
      Civilized society needs civilized laws and needs to protect it’s citizens from anomalous and destructive behaviors.

    26. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

      Konstantin – it’s Brain, not Brian. Zoe Ellen Brain, BSc, M.InfoTech(Distinction). Doing a PhD in Computer Science, Evolutionary Computation – Canonical Meta-Genetic Algorithms.

      Good luck with your studies. Feel free to contact me if you think I might be able to help.

      I mean it. Life’s too short to worry about trivialities. 1 Corinthians 13 applies.

    27. Konstantin
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:50 pm

      Brain,
      your statistic show … statistic.
      but why do you think people so much repulsive, to the extreme of using violence, to that particular sexual perversion?
      Even though this is not pleasant topic, I am still curious what motivates such extreme display of disgust.

      Even though I do not advocate any violence, I do recognize that some human behavior is brain-wired to be perceived as bad, to the point of being disgusting.

      You see, for that matter civilized people recognize that brain-wired disgust to sexual perversion to mean a need to intervene. Civilized and ethical people, of course do not intervene violently… but with therapy.
      My point is – while negative emotional response is valid and natural, the violent act upon that emotion is not.

    28. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 10:55 pm

      Konstantin – while genes play a part in it, it’s a small part. There are gene sequences that make same-sex attraction more likely, but the effect is subtle, on the order of 10%.
      It’s determined by environment in the womb, mostly. I’ll quote from Sexual Hormones and the Brain: An Essential Alliance for Sexual Identity and Sexual Orientation Garcia-Falgueras A, Swaab DF Endocr Dev. 2010;17:22-35

      The fetal brain develops during the intrauterine period in the male direction through a direct action of testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction through the absence of this hormone surge. In this way, our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female gender) and sexual orientation are programmed or organized into our brain structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual differentiation of the genitals takes place in the first two months of pregnancy and sexual differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy, these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in extreme cases in trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no indication that social environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual orientation.

      I think they over-simplify, because it’s biological, thus there are degrees, and some will be more or less bisexual, others more or less bigendered. Thus social environment after birth can affect behaviour for this boundary minority, while not affecting feelings.

    29. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 11:19 pm

      Konstantin – please call me Zoe. Or Alan, if you must. I wore that name for 47 years, and if it would make you feel more comfortable, feel free to use it. It’s a good name, I rather like it – but not really suitable for a woman.

      Transphobia (and Homophobia), like Racism, appears to be “normal and natural”, all forms of Xenophobia are hard-wired to some extent. There’s a tension there, Xenophilia is also natural. Both have evolutionary advantages, similar to the Fight/Flee reflex.

      It’s so normal and natural in fact, that we have laws against the more pathological manifestations of it. It’s widespread, but is comparatively subtle, and few are so affected by it that they have a strong urge to exterminate others.

      Civilised people, as you put it, do intervene, to prevent lynchings, and even permit miscegenation and marriage outside one’s clan or faith. They do not intervene “therapeutically” to change one’s Faith by coercion – nor to forcibly dye skin colour. They may encourage it, but not to the point of forbidding worship of “strange gods”, nor to conducting pogroms, nor even to denying employment. It’s thought to be a bad thing to have “No Irish Need Apply” on employment advertisements, for example. Or “Nigger, don’t let the sun set on you in this town”.

      Where we have difficulty is where a characteristic of strangeness has come to be seen as inherently evil, as murder is inherently evil. I believe that a good test is “if one in three had characteristic X, would society thrive?”. If one in three people were murderers, or thieves, or drink-drivers, or rapists, I think we can show that it wouldn’t. But if one in three were Patagonian, or liked broccoli, or were homosexual, or Calvinist, or were left-handed, I don’t see that it would make a lot of difference.

    30. Zoe Brain
      March 12th, 2010 @ 11:32 pm

      Note that this is a secular view: if you believe in Theocracy, that civil authorities derive their power from the Almighty, and that the state has a responsibility to enforce one particular sect’s religious view of morality, then go to it. Say so.

      Other belief systems will then have their chance to refute you. Taken to extremes, you get the 30 years war, or the Tai Ping rebellion, or even World War II. The Cold War was a clash of ideologies, not just of geographic units.

      A secular state allows different ideological and religious views to compete in a relatively civilised arena. Hence the US constitution, a highly secular document that grants as much religious freedom as possible consistent with secularity. Within a certain set of rules – rules tightened up considerably after the 1860′s – states are free to do as they want, as long as they give full faith and credit to other states’ laws as they may impinge in them.

      The reason for tightening up the rules was the kind of thing exemplified in the “Dred Scott” decision. This led to the 14th amendment (after one of the more bloody civil wars in history).

      But I digress.

    31. Dr. Michael L. Brown
      March 13th, 2010 @ 12:09 am

      Zoe,

      With all respect to your use of Scripture as a non-Christian, I would suggest that you watch this video lecture of mine “Are We Using the Bible to Sanction Homosexual Practice” at: http://coalitionofconscience.askdrbrown.org/resources/2008_lecture_monday.html.

      You will see at once that homosexual practice is in an entirely different category then, e.g., whether women can lead a church or ministry. Please do take the time to watch the lecture when your schedule permits.

      I know that you don’t post here as an authority on the Bible, and I’d caution you not to embrace the gay activist arguments and readings. To call them specious would be complimentary.

      Thanks, though, as always, for sharing your views here.

    32. Konstantin
      March 13th, 2010 @ 5:14 am

      @ Brain,
      1.) “marriage outside one’s clan or faith” is not sexual deviancy. It is not repulsive. When something extreme happens, like eating aborted fetuses, or sexual perversion – then it is disgusting for reason. “No Irish Need Apply” or “Nigger, don’t let the sun set on you in this town” have no sexual deviations from natural constructive behavior.
      2.) [a]“if one in three had characteristic X, would society thrive?”. This of course reminds me of Kant’s first categorical imperative (since I was an undergraduate philosophy major):
      – “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” And of course you can see that universalizing homosexuality, incest, or whatever non-straight will lead to complete chaotic moral despotism. (as the matter of fact I do like Kant’s 1st and 2nd imperatives).
      [b] “But if one in three were Patagonian, or liked broccoli, or were homosexual, or Calvinist, or were left-handed, I don’t see that it would make a lot of difference.” Here of course you have completely unrelated ideological, theological, sensory, and sexual categories.
      - “Patagonian” has to do with a geography.
      - ” liked broccoli” has to do with personal, subjective, legitimate option of what to eat. It has no moral bearing because it is eatable and has vitamins for your body (particularly known for vitamin C).
      - “Calvinist” is a theological position.
      - “left-handed”. simply behavioral/physical trait. You can add here, eye color, skin color, hair color, height, weight, age, etc.
      - “homosexuality” as you know is a specific sexual deviancy from normal conduct. There are multitudes of deviances as you know: attraction to same gender, to children, to siblings, to animals, to corpses, etc. If you were to be true to logic, you would see the pattern. You cannot say that liking or disliking broccoli is deviant. There are many vegetables and fruits that people should it. Calvinism for instance is a theological framework, view, or set of doctrines. It indeed may be true or false, and therefore it is a subject to examination. It is more sophisticated than simply belong to one or the other country.
      Furthermore, of one in three were cannibals, you can make a case that society would thrive as well. How would that directly concern you if your neighbor would either (a) purposely, deliberately, and willingly would agree to cut off his arm and eat it, or give/sell for someone else to eat? It’s not even eating whole body. And it would not affect your marriage or your eating habits. would it? or (b) would make an abort and sell or eat the fetus? The fetus is already dead. It does not harm anyone. does it? indeed it is a recycling of a sort. … well I think both those are ridiculous beyond comprehension, as you may agree. But strictly speaking, if one in a three persons would do it, society would “strive” (as you put it). Unfortunately, ‘strive” is one of those qualitative attributes that hard to measure objectively without proper moral guideline to compare it to.
      this brings us to the nest point.
      3.) “if you believe in Theocracy, that civil authorities derive their power from the Almighty, and that the state has a responsibility to enforce one particular sect’s religious view of morality, then go to it.” So far, in what I wrote I have never invoked or quoted any religious text. You yourself have quoted quite a bit though.
      It is funny to observe internet blogs and posts where somehow stereotype have emerged that opposition to homosexuality is solely religious. But this is ridiculous assessment. I will even dare to say that without Christianity homosexuals are already condemned by natural law (i.e. objective morality people perfectly know, but not always follow. and often subdue). Christianity does not serve as a judge here. On the other hand, Christianity offers repentance, and compassion, and seeking treatment to whatever can be humanely treated (in case you deny miraculous/supernatural intervention). But whatever the case… it is not Christianity that servers as a judge. You can survey history and see. In Soviet Union, which was officially atheist, no sexual perversion was affirmed and celebrated, and I don’t even mention “pride” parades. Again, just like I said before, people are “brain-wired” (more like having conscience with universal law imprinted) to be repulsive to certain behaviors. You can of course deny that there is universal moral law like many secular anthropologist do, but this will lead to to multitudes of oxymorons and contradictions (and who takes anthropologists seriously anyways?).
      Furthermore, “civil authorities” have very minuscule power. They cannot decide morality. They can create laws of the land, but they can’t change universal laws. And “one particular sect’s religious view of morality” has nothing to do here.
      As I said, you don’t need a religion to derive that sexual deviancy/perversion is unhealthy. But you need Christianity to make room for compassion, because Christianity give people chance to change their ways.
      If you live in secular society, and this society comes to the conclusion that sexual perversions should be punished by law (as say pedophilia, necrophilia, an bestiality are), then where would compassion and chance to repent will come from. There is no coming back. There is no obligation for secular society to have any compassion to that behavior that is established to be destructive, disturbing to others, and violating harmony in society.
      For instance, if someone decides to eat vomit in McDonalds, would it directly affect me? Well, he’s not making me eat it. But it really emotionally/psychologically disturbing. So why would law of that land allow it? Just lock the person in mental institution and that’s it. But to give a second chance, this is where Christianity comes it. So, ironically I don’t think homosexuals or any other person practicing non-heterosexual anomalous behavior should seek to demonize Christians. They are not really the ones who tells that a perversion is a perversion. Kant’s 1st imperative, for example, is sufficient to put all sexual perversion into jail or mental hospital, …and it is not religion-based.

    33. Konstantin
      March 13th, 2010 @ 5:47 am

      @ Brain,
      “..while genes play a part in it, it’s a small part. There are gene sequences that make same-sex attraction more likely, but the effect is subtle, on the order of 10%.”

      I did not meant that homosexuality is genetic. I mentioned genes because it is assumed that if something is proven to be genetic, it becomes legitimate. It is completely false, but it is a popular cliche.
      Therefore, the more general argument would be this:

      1.) When we find comprehensive cause or causes for a particular deviant behavior, and
      2.) we will develop sufficient methods to remove, change, correct causes or the consequences of those causes, and
      3.) [we know that deviant behavior need to be corrected for the benefit of the very person practicing it and the society that practicing person belongs to, because it is destructive for the person or the society, or greatly emotionally disturbing]
      4.) [and we are morally obligated having tools, methods and knowledge to correct anomaly, especially under the Hippocratic Oath]
      5.) we, as a society, will be obligated to correct it.

      Of course, you are free to disagree with any premises above, but I mentioned genes because many homosexual activists always rely on affirming that homosexuality is genetic.
      To me personally, whether it is genetic or not, bear very little meaning.
      IS != OUGHT. This is perfectly known logical fallacy and common sense. It is impossible to derive “ought” from “is”, which reminds me of some (another) irresponsible, illogical article I’ve read some time ago. In that article, author said that archeologist discovered that some hundreds years ago there were homosexual practice, and therefore homosexuality should be viewed as legitimate, etc.
      This brought two immediate things to my attention:
      (1) how reliable are those discoveries? are they legitimate, or biased?
      (2) how is finding evidence that homosexuality was practiced long ago helps homosexuality being viewed moral?

      well, number (2) is the nail in the coffin. If it were discovered that people used to rape other people, kill them, rape their corpses, and eat them… would it somehow make those practices moral?
      Observing what people do or did have nothing to do with what they should do.

    34. Konstantin
      March 13th, 2010 @ 6:06 am

      @Brain,

      “Transphobia (and Homophobia), like Racism, appears to be “normal and natural”, all forms of Xenophobia are hard-wired to some extent.”

      -unfortunately terms “transfobia”, “homophobia”, and “xenophobia” are not really a terms describing objective reality, besides of course your particular worldview you cherish. Those terms are only applicable in your worldview, same as “reincarnation” in Hinduism.
      To make things worse, phobia is not equal to disgust.
      If I don’t like people eating vomit in fast-food restaurant, or even theoretically conceiving them having sex with corpses, does not (I hope under “your” definitions) make me into “necrophiliaphobe” or “vomit-eater-phobe”. …it’s simply ridiculous!!!
      The terms you use are political. They are not descriptive in any objective sense.
      We all grown up enough to know what is politics and marketing and what is not… (unless of course you buy everything advertised on TV, …because it has been on TV).

    35. Konstantin
      March 13th, 2010 @ 6:21 am

      @Brain

      phobias are no simple dislikes or oppositions to something.
      First of all, disgust of homosexuality is not unsubstantiated.
      Secondly, it is not as extreme as to call it a ‘fear of …’.
      Thirdly, even if it were a fear, this fear cold be called perfectly normal because homosexuality is destructive behavioral pattern.

      Otherwise, under your simplistic semantic calculus,
      – capitalists are socialism-phobes
      – socialist are capitalism-phobes
      – democrats are republican-phobes
      – republicans are democrat-phobes
      – you is konstanin’s-view-phobe
      – i am you-phobe
      – etc.

      Again, here is the test:

      1.) is this feeling excessive?
      2.) is this feeling unreasonable?
      3.) is this feeling persistent?

      while 3 can be said of many things, 1 and 2 are clearly can and should be challenged if you were to apply them to people who oppose homosexuality (or other sexual deviances – i.e. non heterosexuals).
      As I wrote in previous posts, it is NOT unreasonable at all. There are good reasons why sexual perversions should be prohibited and discouraged. They are destructive for people involved, people around, and children whose psychology has not yet developed. For example, if you visit NAMBLA’s website you will find real testimonies of children who presumably express interest in sexual relationships with adults. But even if those are genuine testimonies, are those kids are psychologically fine? It still (at least to me), after visiting that site, seems pretty reasonable to prohibit pedophilia. Same as it is reasonable to prohibit and discourage homosexuality.

    36. JordanNZ
      March 13th, 2010 @ 7:07 am

      Hi Dr. Brown,

      Thanks for replying to me, great discussion as always.

      I understand that this may get swamped by the mass of replies but I thought I would throw it out there anyway.

      I did understand that Mr Ssempa wants the punishment changed for aggravated homosexuality, and that he would prefer it to be 20 years imprisonment etc. However my question was should the bill get passed in its current form, would he seek to repeal it alongside the homosexuals?

      Because in its current state I think, and I dont think I am alone, that the death penalty for this is absolutely abhorrent regardless of your view of homosexuality in society.
      I think in this case, the NZ mindset and biblical mindset would agree that this is terrible!

      So let’s say for the sake of argument that this bill gets passed as it is. How do you think Mr Ssempa, the coalition of conscience or the evangelical community would react?

      I would hope they would be deeply grieved and seek to repeal it to lessen these very harsh sentences…. But I fear that most of them would actually rejoice instead…
      This upsets me.

    37. Zoe Brain
      March 13th, 2010 @ 9:36 am

      There are a number of issues here – and the people who have raised them have shown goodwill.

      No-one seems to have addressed the paper by Swaab and Garcia-Fulguras. That’s a pity. Certainly one would have to ask questions – do these people have a good reputation? Do they have bias – are they pushing an agenda? How about the sample sizes, is the data reliable?

      Let’s assume, purely for the sake of argument, that their conclusions are valid. That sexual orientation is something we are born with. I’d go further, and say that because the cause is biological, it’s inescapable that there be degrees, that it cannot be binary. That while the majority will be androphillic or gynephillic, a sizeable proportion will be a mixture to a greater or lesser degree. Thus someone who is bisexual could be functionally heterosexual, or homosexual in behaviour. For them, it is a choice. They are attracted to both sexes, but it is no greater hardship to only act on that attraction to one sex as it is for a happily married monogamous woman to remain faithful to her husband, even though there may be many other men she finds attractive. Furthermore, it is possible that severe social or familial pressure could suppress a weak attraction, so the feelings are not apparent without some trigger. These however are exceptions: for most, the choice is celibate or not celibate, the target of attraction is fixed.

      One should therefore offer as a choice for those conflicted by their attractions and beliefs, who may suffer dreadfully, such help as we can to determine if they could be in the minority who are bisexual (and therefore have the inborn ability to be functionally of the desired sexual orientation – usually heterosexual – ) or whether they are the more usual case. In the latter, we have to help them accept their feelings without guilt, but help them not act upon them if that would cause them distress.

      Of course, if the conclusions Swaab and Garcia-Fulguras come to are rejected, then my conclusions don’t apply.

      In any event, to determine whether same-sex attraction is a bad thing in its own right, we have to look at other evidence. It is a separate issue. I’ll take it as read that scripture forbids it, but are there good, solid non-religious grounds for forbidding it too?

      Personally, I find the arguments put forward by the Iowa court pursuasive. (See section H on intermediate scrutiny on page 50 of http://www.iowacourts.gov/wfData/files/Varnum/07-1499%281%29.pdf )

      I thus see this “perversion” – no matter how upsetting I find it personally (and I do, by the way) no worse than the “perversion” of being left-handed. Something else that is set neurologically (assuming Swaab et al are correct).

      The comments above seem to argue that same-sex attraction is to be eschewed because it is a perversion, but without saying why. Is sex solely for procreation? Is non-procreative sex perversion? Is perversion always to be eschewed simply because it is perversion, and not because it hurts anyone?

      Now I better listen to the 1.5 hrs of Dr B’s lecture. I may have to do it at University, as I’m charged 10c per Megabyte of download.
      I can justify it as part of my extra-curricular research, something the University encourages.

      I’m sure he has some excellent arguments why I’m mistaken.
      He asks the salient question : Are We Using the Bible to Sanction Anti-Homosexual Prejudice?

      Before viewing it, from the evidence before me, I’d answer unhesitatingly in the affirmative. The fact that he even asks the question, and is willing to address it, gives me pause though. Because I’ve not seen this question asked by “his side” of the Culture War before. It is an anomaly in itself, which must cause me to re-examine my beliefs, even before I see the video.

      One thing – to clear up any misconception – I’ve not come to my views through any “homosexual agenda” or activism. I classify those along with scripture as irrelevant. I’m neither Gay nor Christian, for one thing!

    38. Zoe Brain
      March 13th, 2010 @ 9:53 am

      Komstantin wrote:

      i am you-phobe

      Oh I hope not! You may disagree with my views, but hopefully my existence doesn’t upset you!

      It does some, I admit. I have been told to my face that, given the opportunity, they would exterminate mutants like me, for the Good of Society. I believe them.

      You don’t strike me as one of those. I doubt you’re even aware of my unusual circumstances.

      If you could supply me with some non-politicised terms to use for the concepts we agree on, please do so. The word “Homophobia” like “Racism” has become debased, but I don’t know what else to use. Спасибо большое

    39. Ruth Smith
      March 13th, 2010 @ 10:30 am

      Zoe,

      Certain statements of yours seem to be alluding to something — I’ll just ask you point blank if I may. Are you a transgendered person? That is, were you born male?

    40. Shirley Ogata
      March 13th, 2010 @ 7:01 pm

      Thank you for having Pastor SSempa as your guest. We Americans tend to jump to conclusions, before we get all the facts. Unfortunately our Pres. and Clinton land in that group. Plus we Americans can be such a prideful and nationalistic people. We need to first understand others before we start pointing our fingers. God bless you and your ministry, Dr. Brown. May you continue to enlighten us with the truth.

    41. Our patient hope
      March 14th, 2010 @ 2:38 am

      I think this topic is extremely interesting. As a simply FYI most African countries with the exception of South Africa have legislation that makes homosexuality illegal. So Uganda is not some out-lier in that regard. I also think that this whole topic is essentially about the difference between the Church and the kingdoms and nations of this world. The church is a Holy Nation, some members of it are in this world whilst those who have died are with the Lord in the heaven of heavens. I think thats what theologians would call the distinction between the invisible and visible aspects of the church. So no matter what worldly citizenship we may have, we as Christians are all one body, one nation, part of one kingdom under One King.

      This is important because from this we know that the commandments and precepts that are given to us, are for us to keep and practice. The world which is lost in sin has its own laws. Some close to the righteous one’s found in the word of God others contrary and completely different. My understanding is that it is God’s intention that all be saved and so it is also his intention that all abide in his word and keep his precepts. However, not all shall repent and join his kingdom though he knocks at the door inviting them to join him. And so the nations follow after diverse gods and have a morality that is contrary to God’s holy desires.

      For sociological and spiritual reasons, different nations have had different views on how human beings ought to conduct themselves. And so to one population homosexuality or the use of mistresses etc may be an abomination whereas it is the norm and accepted as such in another. We see this now as we contrast Western Liberalism with African cultural beliefs regarding sexuality. This is all in the domain of the worldly and spiritually dark.

      In the Body of Messiah, God has given commandments regarding sexuality that all people no matter what their country of birth is are to keep. He is our beloved Father and King and so we submit to Him in love. What I’m not sure about is whether it is correct for Christians to force our understanding of holiness on a people who do not acknowledge the power of God. Why have unbelievers that act moral but are still dead in sin? In Uganda its clear the issue is as much to do with cultural identity as it is to do with religion. The two are being mixed up as is usually the case, and I’m not sure that pastors should involve themselves in support for the bill.

      Biblically speaking, in Ancient Israel similar punishments were to be enforced and so we can not say it is unbiblical as there is precedent for it. However we are under a new covenant where we clearly understand the brevity of sin especially how different sins are more or less offensive and from that we learn to love holiness as we grow in grace. We do not have the authority to start advising a government as to what punishments to give out. We can say what the Bible says but if we do that then we should also mention that the Bible calls all to repentance whether gay or straight.

      The time shall come when Jesus shall give forth his Laws from Zion and teach the nations, but that time hasn’t yet come. I think until then pastors should let the world deal with how it choses to govern its people and simply preach to them so that in Messiah they can now live as God desires.

    42. Joseph Ortiz
      March 14th, 2010 @ 5:59 am

      wow Dr. Brown GREAT JOB!

    43. Dr Michael L Brown
      March 14th, 2010 @ 1:21 pm

      Folks, thanks for these terrific posts! The detailed discussion is wonderfully helpful, and I appreciate the time it has taken to respond to one another in such detail.

      A few very quick notes:

      1) JordanNZ — I don’t know the answer to your question but I’ll try to find out. I do think, however, that it’s more helpful to show support for what the pastors are trying to do and to encourage them to reach out with grace to those with same-sex attraction as opposed to questioning what they might do if the bill passes as is. They are under enough international attack right now.

      2) Zoe — aside from the fact that all my studies indicate that while there may be a genetic or biological contribution to homosexuality there is absolutely no genetical or biological cause for homosexuality (in fact, far from it), for argument’s sake, let’s say that someone is born homosexual or bisexual. (Again, this is just for argument’s sake.) Based on this, you write, “One should therefore offer as a choice for those conflicted by their attractions and beliefs, who may suffer dreadfully, such help as we can to determine if they could be in the minority who are bisexual (and therefore have the inborn ability to be functionally of the desired sexual orientation – usually heterosexual – ) or whether they are the more usual case. In the latter, we have to help them accept their feelings without guilt, but help them not act upon them if that would cause them distress.”

      What, then, do you say to someone who says that he was born with sexual and romantic attraction to children, and only to children? Surely you have read the studies regarding pedophilia that make the exact same “innate and immutable” claim that is made regarding homosexuality, yet none of us would dream of making a social construct justifying or legitimizing or accepting or tolerating or condoning pedophilia because the person was “born that way.” In fact, if you’ll study the literature produced by those who advocate “man-boy love” (which is sharply distinguished in their minds from non-consenual man-boy sexual activity) you’ll find both adults and boys (the latter, looking back years later) praising these relationships as loving and positive and beneficial.

      Thankfully, society still recognizes the utter wrongness of adult-minor sexual and romantic relationships (notwithstanding the culture of ancient Greece!), despite claims of being “born that way” and unable to change. Society needs to hold to its recognition that same-sex relationships are wrong as well, despite the “innate and immutable” arguments.

      Should we stand against homosexual practice with compassion and understanding? Absolutely. Should we endorse it or legitimize it? Absolutely not.

    44. Zoe Brain
      March 15th, 2010 @ 6:22 pm

      Ruth – medically speaking, I’m a protandrous pseudohermaphrodite. One of the rarest forms of Intersex. Biologically female – or at least, more female than male – but born looking more male than female. That changed at puberty.

      Such changes are usually in the other direction – protogynous pseudohermaphrodites are about 100 times more common. Boys who are born looking like little girls, are often brought up as girls, but who masculinise at puberty.
      See this CNN story for example:
      http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/meast/12/17/gaza.gender.id/

      Protogynous pseudohermaphrodites are so much more common because there’s two common genetic anomalies that can cause this effect – 5alpha-reductase-2 deficiency (5alpha-RD-2) and 17beta-hydroxysteroid dehydrogenase-3 deficiency (17beta-HSD-3).

      The protandrous cases are much rarer, and have a variety of extremely rare causes, most of which are not well understood.

      Regardless of exact circumstances, this causes interesting legal, ethical, social and theological issues.

      I’ve never identified as transgendered. But while technically not transsexual – the formal diagnosis for that under both the DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 psych manuals precludes having an Intersex condition – essentially I was for 47 years. Till a miracle happened. It’s 1 in 10 million or so, we think. So rare we can’t even tell how rare it is.

    45. Ruth Smith
      March 15th, 2010 @ 6:35 pm

      Thank you for sharing that, Zoe.

      A lot of what you just shared must be viewed in the context of how many people have this condition and what the underlying causes must be, which I don’t think science has quite caught up with. I appreciate your willingness to put yourself out there and even talk about this extremely private condition.

      You say a “miracle” occurred — was this biological, psychological, was this your acceptance of which sex you felt yourself more to be, or — rather than me guessing, won’t you please explain?

      Thank you so much

    46. Zoe Brain
      March 15th, 2010 @ 6:45 pm

      Dr Brown – you ask a really good question there. Some people think that pedophilia is inborn. Certainly it seems to be completely resistant to any form of psychiatric therapy. But until we have evidence of a difference in neurology, we’re in the same boat as we were with Transsexuality in the 1960′s. We have reason to believe that it could have a biological causation, but we have no real proof. Personally, I’m sceptical of that, but could be wrong.

      If it is innate, unchangeable, then the obvious course of action is to teach people how to be happily and completely celibate. And to give whatever help we can to them, lest they harm others.

      I’m not saying that the power of prayer can’t cure them. I’m saying that it’s as common as prayer curing amputated limbs.

      Now I really must get to seeing that video of yours. Unfortunately I’m off to Sydney tomorrow to participate in a forum about Intersex, along with a good friend of mine. She has Swyer syndrome – complete gonadal dysgenesis. More female than male (despite the chromosomes), and she’ll need to make a decision soon on which course of hormone therapy to take, a masculinising or feminising one. It has to be one or the other, or bad things happen medically. Delaying puberty past age 25 causes skeletal issues.

      The only way she could have children is as a surrogate mother. She has a complete female internal reproductive system… apart from ovaries. That tissue is dysfunctional, a mix of male and female, due to her 46,XY chromosomes (usually only found in males).

      I know such people personally. They are my friends. Please forgive me if I have difficulty taking the whole issue about homosexuality as a sin very seriously. By some measures, I’m male, by others, female. As is my friend Nat. She identifies as neither M nor F, I identify strongly as F. Whether we’re legally male or female depends on the jurisdiction.

      I would consider any romantic involvement of myself with another woman to be lesbian. But some people would disagree, and say it was actually permissible, and only a relationship with a man would be sinful. Others say the reverse. Both claim that God is on their side.

      I just want to be on His.

    47. Dr Michael L Brown
      March 15th, 2010 @ 7:06 pm

      Zoe,

      Thanks for your thoughts, and again, you know how sympathetic I am to the struggles and changes you have lived through.

      From what I have studied, you can make at least as good a case that pedophilia is inborn and immutable as you can that homosexuality is (although I don’t accept that either are), and therefore what you wrote about the one I would apply to the other: “If it is innate, unchangeable, then the obvious course of action is to teach people how to be happily and completely celibate. And to give whatever help we can to them, lest they harm others.”

      For scores of reasons, I see homosexuality as contrary to God’s order and contrary to what is best for the human race, but, thankfully, I do know of former homosexuals who have been transformed by God’s power. I also know of people who were sure they were born in the wrong body and lived out an active homosexual life for years before being transformed by God’s love and power. I just heard from another one today, and one well-known speaker was on the verge of sex-change surgery shortly before the Lord changed and saved him.

      May God’s grace be poured out upon you!

    48. Dr Michael L Brown
      March 15th, 2010 @ 7:07 pm

      Zoe,

      One more note: I am sorry to hear about your friend(s) situation, and I know that these people need more love and care and understanding than most of us can grasp. I look to the Lord for a comprehensive, truly healing answer.

    49. Zoe Brain
      March 15th, 2010 @ 8:16 pm

      You say a “miracle” occurred — was this biological, psychological, was this your acceptance of which sex you felt yourself more to be, or — rather than me guessing, won’t you please explain?

      I’d picked the new name “Zoe” at age 10. When I thought that a silly mistake had been made, putting me in with the boys when it was obvious I was a girl.

      Later, when I found out that boys and girls were born looking different – I’d never seen a naked female, and Sex Education was not in the curriculum in the UK in the 1960′s – I had to re-assess the situation.
      Nothing could shake the feeling that something was terribly wrong, that I was a girl with a boy body. But such a situation was too terrible to live with, so I had to deny it. I had to acquire a minor psychosis or die.

      I tried to be the best Man any woman could be. It’s obvious in hindsight that I tried to be the kind of guy I should have married – I used that image as a role model. (I was asexual by the way, not interested in men at all).

      What made things more difficult was that I was obviously Intersexed. I’d been (mis)diagnosed with PAIS-I in 1985. The “Undervirilised Fertile Male Syndrome” subcategory. I looked male, very male, to all but an expert. With my clothes on, anyway.

      I had my female puberty in 2005. And with 21st century technology, gene scans, MRIs, ultrasounds, endocrine assays etc etc the consensus was that I was most accurately classified as a case of “severe androgenisation of a non-pregnant woman”. By then, I looked female to all but an expert, again, with my clothes on anyway. I sought treatment to remedy that last bit, and my OB/Gyn now is quite happy with the result, and so am I.

    50. Zoe Brain
      March 15th, 2010 @ 8:50 pm

      Micheal – the reason we’re doing this forum, and not hiding as so many others do, is because we’ve had it relatively easy compared to most.

      SOMEONE has to stand up. Or the situation will continue. To those to whom much has been given, much is expected.

      Thanks so much for your benediction. Our challenges are unusual, that I’ll grant. But no worse than many others have. Nowhere near as bad as some.

      As regards the speaker who “narrowly avoided” a sex-change operation, if it’s the person I’m thinking of, this is an obvious case of mis-diagnosis by a non-specialist. The symptoms weren’t those of transsexuality, but paraphillia. Transvestitic fetishism, at least according to the diagnostic manuals, and a pretty obvious case too, not hard to diagnose. That they were ever considered for surgery for a moment is a cause for real worry. I’m surprised they didn’t react badly to the hormones – assuming these were even taken. There should have been signs of permanent change long before surgery.

    51. Ruth Smith
      March 15th, 2010 @ 10:11 pm

      Dear Zoe,

      The Lord loves you, Zoe, in a deeper way than any human being will ever and ever could. When He walked the earth, and went into the synagogue, He opened up the book of the prophet Isaiah and read about Himself: “The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised.” Luke 4:18. Zoe, the Lord loves you more than anyone ever will! He is the Great Physician, whose healing goes deeper than any surgeon’s knife. I pray that you will learn more of Him. In Him you will find all that you ever wanted, as I can tell that you are a serious thinker who is not easily pleased with superficial “fixes.” In Him you will the deepest healing imaginable. I pray that you will avail yourself of His outstretched hand.

      Much love,
      your sister, Ruth

    52. Ben
      March 17th, 2010 @ 4:14 am

      christendom rears its ugly head again, as it has done so during the dark ages, with this utterly disgusting Bill under the guise of christ-like moral guidance. as the Lord made it abundantly clear he is not here to judge but to save, and he gives us free will to choose good from evil, without coercing us either way. besides, the lord himself gives people over to their sin, so who are we to do any different by forcibly coercing them to do God’s bidding?

      but more pertinently, why stop with homosexuality? What about adultary? what about fornication? what about punishing those who blaspheme the holy spirit and those WHO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLDGE Jesus as Lord and as as the chosen Jewish messiah? why oh why then do we focus on the homosexuals? if we punish them we may as well punish the jews too for their lack of unbelief, for it surely is a sin to reject God’s annointed one.

      just as the “christians” punished the jews for their continued rejection of the messiah back in the dark ages so too are we punishing the homosexuals for their rejection of God.

      That’s why i say throw this bill in the trash where it belongs, and let God judge alone judge us for all our deeds when we are raised up for our final judgment.

      may God have mercy on us!

    53. Zoe Brain
      March 19th, 2010 @ 9:03 am

      Ben – there could be difficulty with some of those sins you mention – polygamy is quite accepted in Uganda, and is not looked on as sinful.

    54. Bro Ramon Arellano
      March 22nd, 2010 @ 10:43 pm

      I don’t favor homosexuals and lesbians, I abhore their sins. To me, homosexuality and lesbianism are abominable. But I cannot condemn them to death because then I hate the sin and I commit another sin. I am in favor of disciplinary measures plus counselling. The Ugandan government must be fair, just, and do everything in love.

      Shalom!

    55. Joshua Harris
      March 27th, 2010 @ 1:17 am

      It is very disturbing to me that so many in our country, in our media, in our churches had opinions against this man with out even hearing him once. The law, in all it’s severity, does not judge a man before he is heard. We’d be wise to do the same.

      I can’t say I agree with all the measures of the bill, from what I’ve heard. But I think if we saw by first hand experience, in the US, the kind of ravishing scourge AIDs had been to Uganda we would not say that it’s harsh to have a death penalty for an infected person having sex with another person and KNOWINGLY putting another at that risk – something like that is criminal. We have AIDs here, not nearly as common, not nearly as severe. I think we’d have a different perspective if we had experienced life in Uganda in the last 25 years.

    56. Martin Ssempa on Line of Fire: An analysis — Warren Throckmorton
      March 30th, 2010 @ 6:16 am

      [...] of Fire. I was invited to join in but I was teaching at the time the show aired. The program is online here. Brown said several times that he invited critics of the bill to come on the show or call in. No [...]

    Leave a Reply