This is a post specifically for Dan. It is something I’ve been wanting to do for a while and I have been trying to find something that is as comprehensive in its covering of the issue of homsexuality from a Christian perspective as this piece is.

It is put together by a guy named Ross A. Taylor. I don’t know if he designs helicopters. I don’t know exactly what he does for a living, whether religion is a hobby or a career or what. For all I know, he cleans stalls at the racetrack. It really doesn’t matter, except to one particular visitor to this blog.

What’s important is what he presents in his piece. And it is only that to which I hope Dan will respond. This piece covers every pro-homosex argument I’ve ever heard or seen or read as far as the faith is concerned. Dan’s friend, Michael with the three names has hit on much of it. (Though I hadn’t the education at that point, I found those arguments suspect and it earned me banishment from that blog.)

Of the many people used as sources for Taylor, both pro and con, are bits from the same Olliff and Hodges, the Hodges one visitor criticizes because of his main field, as if he is then disqualified from commenting on the issue. (Perhaps as a result of Hodges main profession, this particular visitor can’t imagine someone being expert on another topic at the same time. Kinda points to his own insecurities regarding his own abilities.)

Another is Robert Gagnon, who has been dismissed for reasons unknown (except for one really silly reason I heard from a homosexual blogger who never visits here). All I know is that the homosexual enablers pooh-pooh Gagnon’s expertise without explanation.

It is my hope that should Dan take me up on this challenge, that he will resist trashing the people making the claims and address only the claims themselves. If those claims are wrong or mistaken, there must be some explanation as to why which can easily be reviewed by others so as to make their own opinions. For example, regarding another piece from Olliff and Hodges that I cut and pasted to my first ever post, Dan, who says he actually read it, said simply that he just doesn’t buy it, without ever explaining why or what he found wrong with their perspective.

This challenge to Dan is in response to his insistence that his current beliefs regarding homosexual marriage is based on prayerful meditations, his God-given reasoning and serious study of the Bible. Well, we can’t really speak to his meditations or his reasoning. But his reasoning, I would expect, must in some way be based on his Biblical study. As this Taylor piece suggests very strongly, there doesn’t exist anything Biblical that could influence anyone’s reasoning toward the belief that God would bless homosexual marriages, relationships or loving and committed monogomous homosexual relationships.

I really hope Dan takes this challenge and reads the link. He can take all the time he needs. He can refer to any of the links found within (though at least a couple are broken) and try to show why any of the points made are mistaken or false. I don’t think he can. As I said, the piece is pretty comprehensive. It even allows, a time or two, where a pro-homosex argument is possibly sound, even if not strongly so.

In the meantime, I want to ask everyone else to refrain from any commentary at all. If Dan is especially busy, it could take a couple of days just to get through it (it did me with the usual interruptions of family life) and if he wants to check out the links within, that’ll make it take longer. Then, let him take the time to address whatever points to which he may feel he has a good counterpoint.

Should he agree to go ahead, I hope he doesn’t just dismiss the whole thing without any comment. I hope he feels comfortable rejecting his current philosophy if the argument compels him so. If he’s as open to being persuaded as I am, he will find support here. If he is not persuaded, he will find support only if he can explain his resolve against the evidence presented.

After a couple of weeks, whether Dan comments or not, then anyone can comment. But Dan has first rights of commentary and I’ll delete any comment that publishes before him. The only caveat to this whole thing is if he and Bubba decide to take up Craig’s offer, at which time they can both link to this article as it serves their debate there. Then, this post will be open to anyone who cares to address the points made in the piece.

It’s a tough challenge, Dan. How strong are your convictions? How good is your ability to defend what you believe against the overwhelming evidence that you will encounter here? I believe you are misled. Show me why I’m wrong.