But wait, besides AIDS...maybe if all these homos are pi$$ing off The Almighty, Jesus might just let one of those earthquakes hit California Dead Centre! :(
Then we wouldn't have to argue from selected scriptures about what is right or wrong with all that evil social deviant behaviour, the proof would be in the destruction all around us!!
God I love religion!
(I guess China must have been really asking for it!)
Of course the state of Ohio doesn't recognize gay marriage. So now that they're getting old, they have no assurance that if one becomes really ill, the other will have any say in her care, even though they've been together for about 30 years. That's just sad.
This was brought up in another thread. Doesn't a power of attorney for health care override some family member's claim? Especially if it is done while the patient is of sound mind, I can't imagine that would not rule.
In any case, that could be changed without changing what marriage is, or changing what the majority believe marriage is.
On the Bible front, let's be logical for a minute. Don't you think if this were such a burning issue to God, He'd have put it in the Ten Commandments?
In the New Testament, those 10 are summed up in "Love God and love your naighbor." I don't see where loving my neighbor gives me license to stick my nose in my neighbor's business and tell him or her whom to love.
Honor they mother and thy father? Did you not see that?
How does the child really do that if they have two mothers or two fathers ... and one real parent is gone?
I'm not big on everything in the Bible, but I'm not big on the state changing traditional beliefs, against the will of the majority. The state doesn't stop people from loving anyone, it just does not give them a license to marry.
Taking the Bible out of it, I think the big issue is the children, not the sex. Evidence supports the bio family being the best unit, or a single parent being better than adding a step parent ... though this doesn't even get into the (added anxieties of?) same sex step parents.
... most children are better off economically when they are able to share in the income of two adults. When a second adult joins the household, there may be a reduction in the time and work pressures on the single parent.
The research overturns this optimistic assumption, however. In general the evidence suggests that remarriage neither reproduces nor restores the intact family structure, even when it brings more income and a second adult into the household. Quite the contrary. Indeed, children living with stepparents appear to be even more disadvantaged than children living in a stable single-parent family. Other difficulties seem to offset the advantages of extra income and an extra pair of hands. However much our modern sympathies reject the fairy-tale portrait of stepparents, the latest research confirms that the old stories are anthropologically quite accurate. Stepfamilies disrupt established loyalties, create new uncertainties, provoke deep anxieties, and sometimes threaten a child's physical safety as well as emotional security.
Perhaps it would seem a lesbian couple that decided to have the child together would come close to simulating the two bio parent family ... but I don't think there is data on that. I prefer more emphasis on the concept of the bio family unit ... instead of making having children seem more independent from marriage. So far the vast majority still think that way also, it would seem.
Sorry, but I missed the significance of Jennifer not knowing what sex she was at five. Her mother was fundamentalist Christian .. where was the Father? Was she abused ... was the father absent, was the mother really gay (donna and rosie?) ... that is not much of a case history to make any "judgements" on. Even if she was born homosexual, why would she not know what sex she was at five? Something strange was going on in that house. And now she is a lesbian.
Honor they mother and thy father? Did you not see that?
I did see that. You're making a leap in logic. I'm sure that you've heard that the letter of the law kills; the spirit (of the law) gives life. What if Daddy's a rotten murderer, or Mommy's a crack whore? C'mon Rhino, you're smarter than that.
How does the child really do that if they have two mothers or two fathers ... and one real parent is gone?
And what if one parent dies? The child could honor his/her parent's memory, but not the parent, correct? Again, a leap in logic.
I'm not big on everything in the Bible, but I'm not big on the state changing traditional beliefs, against the will of the majority. The state doesn't stop people from loving anyone, it just does not give them a license to marry.
How is the state "changing traditional beliefs"? You're still free to believe whatever the heck you please, even if 2 million gay couples in California get married! I would contend that the state has no damn business determining which tratitional beliefs it should either promote or discourage.
Sorry, but I missed the significance of Jennifer not knowing what sex she was at five. Her mother was fundamentalist Christian .. where was the Father? Was she abused ... was the father absent, was the mother really gay (donna and rosie?) ... that is not much of a case history to make any "judgements" on. Even if she was born homosexual, why would she not know what sex she was at five? Something strange was going on in that house. And now she is a lesbian.
The point was that age 5, before she even knew what sex was, she felt like a boy.
No, she was not abused. Yes, her father was in the home. The mother was not and is not gay. I didn't present a "case histroy." I merely pointed out that this issue doesn't revolve around sex, although people want to make that the big deal.
I stated how I feel about this issue, and that's really all I wanted to say. That's why it took 10 pages before I got into this, because it's always such an interminable argument.
I agree with you that something "strange" may have been going on in that house.
I don't personally believe that people "just know" they are homosexual at 5 or 6 years old any more than I believe a person "just knows" they are heterosexual at that age. In other words, I don't believe a person is born homosexual. Much of what is defined as sexuality comes to us via learned behavior and role play. However, that's strictly my personal opinion based on the anecdotal evidence that every gay person I have ever known has related a story to me referencing childhood sexual abuse. If someone had something scientific to show a genetic propensity I would certainly reassess that opinion.
Sometimes, however, a single, brief event can be so traumatizing it will shape the way that a young impressionable mind develops and have a lasting impact on how they consequently think and act as adults.
But, the question I ponder is why, we, as a society, feel we must deny them the same equal rights that are freely enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts simply because they may have been the victims of a traumatizing event that was beyond their control?
Putting the sexual aspect on the back burner, take a look at benefits.
This being Memorial Day weekend, I will use that as one simple example.
There are 125 national cemeteries in this country. More are currently expected to be built. An average of 1,800 veterans die every day. Of that number, 10 percent are buried in these cemeteries. This year alone, it is expected the number of interments will set a record at a projected figure of 107,000 veterans and dependents. As best I understand, non-legally married spouses do not qualify for interment.
Here is a link that discusses qualification requirements---http://www.cem.va.gov/
To put it simply, a legally binding marriage contract is required for participation in this very meaningful benefit.
I did see that. You're making a leap in logic. I'm sure that you've heard that the letter of the law kills; the spirit (of the law) gives life. What if Daddy's a rotten murderer, or Mommy's a crack whore? C'mon Rhino, you're smarter than that.
LOL ... now you are the one changing the conditions to fit what you want this simple commandment to say. "Honor they Father and Thy Mother" ... you add in crack whores and murderers and say I'm making a leap in logic? Come on Linda, you're smarter than that ...
And what if one parent dies? The child could honor his/her parent's memory, but not the parent, correct? Again, a leap in logic.
Again you are adding in unusual conditions ... not me. It is a simple commandment.
Is this really even a question, for people that believe the Bible is inspired by God? It seems a pretty giant leap to say the Bible has nothing against homosexual acts. I don't see how you can honestly reconcile that conflict. You have to hold to the one and deny the other, at least on this point.
How is the state "changing traditional beliefs"? You're still free to believe whatever the heck you please, even if 2 million gay couples in California get married! I would contend that the state has no damn business determining which tratitional beliefs it should either promote or discourage.
The state is marrying gay people ... that is changing what the vast majority believe the state should be doing. Since the village is raising the child now, those decisions get taught in school to children. The state is deeply involved in deciding family issues ... these decisions don't happen in a vacuum.
The point was that age 5, before she even knew what sex was, she felt like a boy.
Her Uncle was in Hollywood and committed suicide ... this one bit of anecdotal evidence based on one supposed quote from a five year old doesn't seem to mean much, if anything. It may say more about the view of the person writing the story.
"The amount of deviant behavior in American society has increased beyond the levels the community can 'afford to recognize,'" Moynihan argues. One response has been to normalize what was once considered deviant behavior, such as out-of-wedlock birth.
An accompanying response has been to detect deviance in what once stood as a social norm
, such as the married-couple family. Together these responses reduce the acknowledged levels of deviance by eroding earlier distinctions between the normal and the deviant.
He is not talking about gay marriage, but the effect of any behavior outside the normal wedded birth. Your "yeah, but what if the father is a murderer and the mother is a crack whore" fits in here. Those extremes don't change the simple commandment. "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" There seems too much effort from the left to break down that traditional family unit.
That is a very interesting article that is not about the gay issue ... I stumbled on it while reading humorous Dan Quayle quotes ... "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
How is the state "changing traditional beliefs"? You're still free to believe whatever the heck you please, even if 2 million gay couples in California get married! I would contend that the state has no damn business determining which tratitional beliefs it should either promote or discourage.
The point was that age 5, before she even knew what sex was, she felt like a boy.
Technically, you're right. However, the state interjects it's "official sanctioned" belief systems into state supported public schools for indoctrination of the young, among other things like tax benefits etc.
I, personally, don't really care about "gay" marriage. It can't hurt me or anyone else and I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for the actions of others. People are going to do what they're going to do with or without state sanctions. People just need to accept that, but few do, it seems, and they contend among themselves to use the coersive power of the state to promote or ban whatever cultural thing they either like or dislike.
The state, along with the people, needs to adopt the Wiccan Rede that goes something like this...
"An thou harm none, do what thou wilt be the whole of the law."
Maybe that's not exactly accurate, but it gets the point across. People should do whatever the hell they want to as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. Can you imagine a law office with just THAT in the library?
Of course, such a concept would be untenable as it would put the lawyers, libtards, neocons, vegans, preachers, socialists, fundies, social activists and most politicians out of business, leaving people to seek their own destinies as they see fit.
Got a cousin that when she was a youngster was quite a tomboy and announced she wanted her named changed and was going to grow up and be a boy! I know this was no later than 2nd grade. With some proper parenting she is still quite the tomboy type working on a huge ranch side by side riding,roping and shooting with her husband and 5 children. She is very happy. Then there was the other cousin from another family at a very young age that liked to dress as a girl an honestly had quite a feminine streak in him. While his 3 other brothers hated house work and escaped to the fields for "man work" he tried to stay in and cook, clean and wanted to learn to quilt. But, then with some proper parenting and teaching him to quilt, but his "thingie" had a "special purpose" he grew up to father 7 great kids without a single sign of gender confusion showing up.
Why is it when something is defined so clearly in the bible; even those claiming they serve a Christian God choose to serve the creation more than the creator? When something was against the original design they choose to redefine the standards and do so because they know "such nice people" that happen to be "that way". I know some very nice idol worshipers, so seriously God doesn't mind because they are so nice. Uh Huh! I just can't grasp where their judgement is coming from; so 1 of us has some real judgment problems.....
Then they that support and have pleasure in supporting those that are "that way" like to define everyone else as haters. You support or you are full of fear and hate. Notice they re-define words and make some up; Islamophobia. Why not it worked so well for the gays!
Sometimes, however, a single, brief event can be so traumatizing it will shape the way that a young impressionable mind develops and have a lasting impact on how they consequently think and act as adults.
This seems most likely to me ... homosexuals just don't reproduce enough to have this be a genetic trait, as I see it.
But, the question I ponder is why, we, as a society, feel we must deny them the same equal rights that are freely enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts simply because they may have been the victims of a traumatizing event that was beyond their control?
Well I tend to agree except maybe when it comes to "marriage" and "distributing" children. If indeed these are "damaged" people, are there aspects that will be passed on to children? Even if it is not the homosexuality that would be passed on, do we know what it is?
Maybe they should still raise kids in most cases, but maybe it really hasn't been looked at. Of course people are damaged and heterosexual also ... but voters seem to have a strong opinion on this marriage thing. If the village/government is raising the child and choosing caregivers ... it gets more complicated.
Of the 10% buried in national cemeteries, are 80% single? I just wonder how many people are effected here. It seems something could be worked out in most situations like this.
Without real evidence, it seems the left wants to use those arguments like Linda's as proof sexual preference is genetic.
So say the kids Ductape mentioned has parents teaching about sexual roles, but there are a few teachers in school feeling the need to be sure that somewhat "prissy" Jonny needs to be told that it is quite OK if he likes boys. Maybe they can explain how condoms work since it will be especially important for him. And maybe they can demonstrate some gay sex with dolls, since his fundamentalist bigoted parents are not enlightened enough to teach him.
I do know there are plenty of teachers that feel the need to insert some leftist dogma into their teaching, from grade school through college. For them, "gay marriage" is largely just another step in the political process.
These leftist activist teachers need to be kept in check. My Dad was (rightly) fired from his teaching job for teaching the Bible some 50 years ago ... there needs to be as much control today over the leftist agenda/religion being pushed on the public today. I think that can be done, and homosexuals still can be treated fairly.
Your article appears to be nothing more than an opinion piece with nothing much to substantiate it. While the author does make reference to "research" we are never told what the research was, who performed it, etc. etc. etc.
Your article appears to be nothing more than an opinion piece with nothing much to substantiate it. While the author does make reference to "research" we are never told what the research was, who performed it, etc. etc. etc.
He quotes many different researchers and names them ... I guess we are used to links though.
Almost every paragraph names a researcher and quotes them or paraphrases them.
eyesopen, the reason why i thought it was necessary for me to address your post is because i am the one who stated that God is against homosexuality, i am the one who listed scriptures in support of my position, and i am the only person on this thread who has flat out stated that homosexuality is a sin...
these are the points that your post addressed... further, i am the only one here who has stated that God is not gonna "bless" california because of this...
so if you are not talking to me personally (or someone like me who holds the same perspective as i do), then who are you talking about when you say that you "wholeheartedly disagree with the biblical interpretation that says God hates homosexuality"...
who are you disagreeing with, if not me??
(and why are you so surprised that i would respond to your post?)
You may have been the only one to actually "say" those things but many posts alluded to them.
I am not surprised that you responded to my post, I'm surprised that you took it personally. Had I wanted to make it personal I would have done what I am doing now and directly addressing you or better yet I would have PMed you.
As for the "disagreement" believe it or not this board is not the only place that these sentiments are voiced. I made a blanket statement that you very kindly quoted above. I'm simply stating my opinion just as everyone else here is doing.
yes, i spent time in twi from 94-97...
and you say that the "homo" purge started in the early 90's & ended when lcm left...
i'll have to take your word for that because i was unaware of the specifics of the timeframe for the "homo" purge...
Dont take my word for it I got that information from the various letters and documents stored right here on GS. And as I said I was just using it for reference. If you werent coming from that "mindset" then you did a good impersonation (at least from what I remember from what I read) but I'll 'take your word for it' and apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.
evidently, you think that you have some special information on how to interpret what the bible means when it talks about homosexual acts,
but you don't want to share it??
Actually Jen-o and Rhino I have no special information, I simply did what I was taught to do...I studied. Perhaps if you would for example take that verse in Leviticus (18:22) that everyone likes so much and simply read from the beginning of the chapter. See what the context is and then do some research on what God is referring to...yup that means that you actually have to put the Bible down and read some history. Then return to that verse with a renewed and clearer understanding. It is talking about an idolotrous ritual that was performed by both the Canaanites (where Isreal was going) and the Egyptians (where they came out of) The topic of the chapter is clearly idolotry as in verses 2, 4, 5, and 6 God has to remind them that He is their God and that they need to be doing what He says. Again in chapter 20 (where the other verse is) the topic is idolotry and the referrence is a ritual used in idol worship. He tells them not to go whoring after Molech (King idol).
Really this is not rocket science...But there is much more that I have taken 40 pages in my book to clearly lay out the history and the time lines and I refuse to take up all of the space here to explain it all to you. If you don't want to read what I have already researched, if for nothing more than a different understanding then don't...I really dont care. But please stop assuming that I have no formal education in Biblical Research. Just because I dont parade my credentials under everyone's nose does not mean that I do not have them.
if someone has done a great deal of research on the topic,
they should be able to briefly and succinctly state the reasons why they believe the way they do...
Simply put, I have found no where in the Bible that actually addresses homosexuality as a lifestyle or an orientation. The 10 verses used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality with the exception of one do not even touch on the subject. All I did was some honest research and then I wrote it all down to share with others. It takes up a lot of space. So no I will not reproduce it here and if some think that is a cop out...well that is your opinion. So is that simple enough?
And just for the record I would love for you to tell any one of my professors that they need to "briefly and succinctly" state their views on any given topic that they have spent years researching.
As I said bfh, I came across it reading funny Dan Quayle quotes ...
It made a lot of sense to me, and I doubt she made up the quotes ... and she quoted several researchers, as far as I can tell.
I'm not sure if you are just trying to discredit her, or if you disagree with some specific points. I didn't see you offer any conflicting evidence or even any points you disagreed with. Do you have newer evidence that conflicts? Have families gotten stronger since 1988? You say the survey she used was from 1988 ... but it seems that was just used in the opening paragraph and she gives the date. This article is from 1993, by the way.
Yes, even if you quote actual stats, they can be made to lie. It seemed she made many quotes from established researchers' conclusions that made sense. I don't see that things have improved since then, but rather have gone downhill.
There is no doubt much newer stuff ... go ahead and present it ...
anybody .... anybody ... ....
97.327% of all statistics are just made up numbers.
sure ... give or take 12.542% for the margin of error ...
So you are going to believe all those people are bigots because they disagree with you ... unless someone PROVES you wrong ... prove to me that doesn't make you bigoted.
That is funny. If I am intolerant of bigoted views and prejudice that makes me a bigot? You an a number of posters here are know for this twisted logic, turning this back around on anyone who doesn't agree with you.
from wikipedia:
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
There you go. I am not the one intolerant of lifestyles, or identities that do not harm anyone, and while I am intolerant of certain opinions I am not prejudice or discriminating against those people. On the other hand, many posting here are.
As to the "homophobe" statements earlier by WW, a phobia is a fear and while it does not fit everyone that disagrees with homosexuality is it does fit for some as does certain people being hateful of homosexuals. While it may not be a clinical term (maybe it is, I don't know) a phobia is simply a fear and at times an irrational fear. I don't see a reasonable explanation for those people that believe that homosexual marriage is somehow going to destroy or effect heterosexual marriage in any way. We are talking about taking something that is already going on in a couple states and other countries as a union and something that is already going on without being legally legit and including it into a definition. That seems like an irrational fear to me.
As to the data concerning children raised by gay parents, there is plenty and by no means is it just "rich Hollywood types."
More than 25 years of research have documented that there is no relationship between parents' sexual orientation and any measure of a child's emotional, psychosocial, and behavioral adjustment. These data have demonstrated no risk to children as a result of growing up in a family with 1 or more gay parents. Conscientious and nurturing adults, whether they are men or women, heterosexual or homosexual, can be excellent parents. The rights, benefits, and protections of civil marriage can further strengthen these families.
I've heard thirty five years of studies from other sources. Many groups have done studies on this like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association as well as others. Anyone who is actually interested might look it up.
I am sorry some kids are fettered with reading, although I know of no curriculum where this book is required reading, maybe it is somewhere. Around here, books similiar to that are available, but not required reading, to fill a need for thse children who need to understand something relevant to them. I applaud that they are available. I didn't know that was a negative life change for myself. Dictionary definitions change all the time. It still doesn't change my way of life. I am mostly unaffected by what you call this "agenda", far less than I am affected by the agenda of certain other groups who wish to impose their own beliefs into the political spectrum.
Any group/class/religion seeks to make thier ideas be treated with respect, and themselves to be treated like well...... humans. I don't have a problem with that. I reject some people's ideas all the time but I still treat them the same as I would anyone else. My lifestyle goes on just the same. Now and then I actually learn from another viewpoint. That's not all bad.
Been busy the last few days but wanted to answer your post Hap.
First I think we both agree on this that everyone is entitled to equal legal rights regardless of any differences in lifestyle. I think we disagree on how that is assured. I think it can be assured by changing the laws to include civil unions and marriage. I don't believe that one needs to change a words meaning to make something fit. We add hundreds of new words to dictionaries every year. words that do not meet the standards of other similar words. Yet when it comes to marriage we somehow have to ignore the rule of logic and squeeze this word to fit. Next Just for the record I have no problem with books as long as they are not mandated or forced upon anyone . I have no objection to them being available if one does not like what they represent simply don't read them ,others may like them. I suppose Hap that around here since we have Fred Phelps and his clan so active that maybe the forced indoctrination is offered as a counter to balance the scale. To have a diversity day and only feature gay issues is however still wrong its a sham there are lots of diverse groups. Just be honest your using a word to slide in your agenda, its not really about diversity it is about gay issues. People should be given the same right to refuse this as those who don't want to read the books. Again I don't necessarily have an objection to the presentation just the requirement of it. This gets to the heart of the issue I guess for me Why can't gays be happy with equal presentation, it seems that is never good enough, they want required indoctrination, they want what has stood the test of time to change for them. And yet scream when, say for instance a religious group seems to get the same. I say offer what you want ,require none.
Those who seek to change the meaning of marriage say they are updating the word to keep up with the laws, however an examination will tell you differently. first the changes started long before any laws changed, second most states still have no law change and the ones that do are under challenge. So why the rush? Agenda to change the language to reflect their views ,then the law changes can cite the language as reason for their case. Buy the way I'd oppose any change of an established meaning of a word for say a religious reason as well.
You know almost every day I sit at the dog park and talk with a gay man I'll call Frank, nice guy, very funny cares for his dog, appears to be kind. Many days if I stop to pick up coffee on the way I grab an extra cup for him. Originally I started talking to him because he often sat by himself with his dog SPANKY as in (spanky spanky the behind). I felt bad for him because many I'm sure ignored him because of the fact he is gay. Eventually the group grew to a large gathering. I think that has been a good thing for him as well as others. I resent the fact that if I don't agree with someone changing a words meaning, that I'm somehow homophobic.
i wish you were as concerned about the source (and accuracy) of your own information that you posted about animal infanticide as you are about the article that rhino posted...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. i don't see anyone disputing the content of the article, only questioning the author's credentials, credibility, and the style of her writing (i.e. she didn't include whether the research articles she referenced were peer reviewed, and who paid for it)...
most of the article seems to be based on deductive reasoning (and common sense)... the facts provided can be independently verified, and references to researchers are provided for further verification... (looks like a normal article to me)
I am not surprised that you responded to my post, I'm surprised that you took it personally. Had I wanted to make it personal I would have done what I am doing now and directly addressing you or better yet I would have PMed you.
eyesopen, i'm not sure what you mean by "took it personally"...
you posted something that i thought was relevant to what i had posted, so i commented on it...
usually when the term "took it personally" is used, there is an element of offense and emotional upset...
i was neither offended nor emotionally upset by anything that you said...
i was merely responding to a comment on a message board which seemed relevant to me...
and i don't think i need to wait for someone to address me by name or PM me in order to make a comment...
Actually Jen-o and Rhino I have no special information
the reason why i called it "special information" is because it is information that leads to a conclusion which is contrary to the plain meaning of the scripture...
Perhaps if you would for example take that verse in Leviticus (18:22) that everyone likes so much and simply read from the beginning of the chapter. See what the context is and then do some research on what God is referring to...
wow... that's quite an assumption...
what makes you think that i have NOT read the whole chapter of leviticus 18??... or the whole book for that matter??
i am very familar with leviticus 18...
familar enough to know that -
verses 6-14 deal with incest
verse 20 deals with adultery
verse 22 deals with homosexuality
verse 23 deals with bestiality
verse 24 says do NOT defile yourself by doing these things (as other nations have defiled themselves with these practices)
and verse 3 says that these "doings" (practices, deeds, acts) were done by the egyptians and the canaanites, but in contrast "you shall not do them"...
this the PLAIN meaning of the scripture in this chapter...
if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)...
verses 6-23 is a list of prohibitions and homosexuality is sandwiched in between the specific prohibitions...
so what applies to homosexuality applies also to incest, adultery, and bestiality...
further, verses 26, 27, & 29 call the items on the list "abominations"...
while verse 30 calls them "abominable customs"...
egypt and canaan were idolatrous nations, but they were also nations that practiced these abominable customs...
like i said, this is the plain meaning of the scripture... and i agree with you: this really is not rocket science...
i don't need to read 40 pages of history and timelines to see that this is a list of prohibitions...
If you don't want to read what I have already researched
no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board...
if you can't (or won't) summarize your ideas, then so be it...
but i don't put much weight in unsupported opinions...
Simply put, I have found no where in the Bible that actually addresses homosexuality as a lifestyle or an orientation.
the bible addresses the homosexual act...
and a lifestyle is composed of habitual acts...
i am not so sure why you have not found this addressed in the bible... since clearly it is there, as i have just pointed out...
And just for the record I would love for you to tell any one of my professors that they need to "briefly and succinctly" state their views on any given topic that they have spent years researching.
the mark of a good professor is the ability to boil it down to the bottom line... and make it so simple that a child could understand it...
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
22
22
52
16
Popular Days
May 18
57
May 17
34
May 25
29
May 21
27
Top Posters In This Topic
jen-o 22 posts
WhiteDove 22 posts
rhino 52 posts
bfh 16 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2008
57 posts
May 17 2008
34 posts
May 25 2008
29 posts
May 21 2008
27 posts
Posted Images
Shellon
Finally! Simple, basic, honest, easy.
Thank you
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Thanks Linda! That just about sums it up for me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Amen, Linda
SURF OHIO!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bumpy
But wait, besides AIDS...maybe if all these homos are pi$$ing off The Almighty, Jesus might just let one of those earthquakes hit California Dead Centre! :(
http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-1317088,00.html
Then we wouldn't have to argue from selected scriptures about what is right or wrong with all that evil social deviant behaviour, the proof would be in the destruction all around us!!
God I love religion!
(I guess China must have been really asking for it!)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This was brought up in another thread. Doesn't a power of attorney for health care override some family member's claim? Especially if it is done while the patient is of sound mind, I can't imagine that would not rule.
In any case, that could be changed without changing what marriage is, or changing what the majority believe marriage is.
Honor they mother and thy father? Did you not see that?
How does the child really do that if they have two mothers or two fathers ... and one real parent is gone?
I'm not big on everything in the Bible, but I'm not big on the state changing traditional beliefs, against the will of the majority. The state doesn't stop people from loving anyone, it just does not give them a license to marry.
Taking the Bible out of it, I think the big issue is the children, not the sex. Evidence supports the bio family being the best unit, or a single parent being better than adding a step parent ... though this doesn't even get into the (added anxieties of?) same sex step parents.
Perhaps it would seem a lesbian couple that decided to have the child together would come close to simulating the two bio parent family ... but I don't think there is data on that. I prefer more emphasis on the concept of the bio family unit ... instead of making having children seem more independent from marriage. So far the vast majority still think that way also, it would seem.
Sorry, but I missed the significance of Jennifer not knowing what sex she was at five. Her mother was fundamentalist Christian .. where was the Father? Was she abused ... was the father absent, was the mother really gay (donna and rosie?) ... that is not much of a case history to make any "judgements" on. Even if she was born homosexual, why would she not know what sex she was at five? Something strange was going on in that house. And now she is a lesbian.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Linda Z
Rhino said:
I did see that. You're making a leap in logic. I'm sure that you've heard that the letter of the law kills; the spirit (of the law) gives life. What if Daddy's a rotten murderer, or Mommy's a crack whore? C'mon Rhino, you're smarter than that.And what if one parent dies? The child could honor his/her parent's memory, but not the parent, correct? Again, a leap in logic.
How is the state "changing traditional beliefs"? You're still free to believe whatever the heck you please, even if 2 million gay couples in California get married! I would contend that the state has no damn business determining which tratitional beliefs it should either promote or discourage.The point was that age 5, before she even knew what sex was, she felt like a boy.
No, she was not abused. Yes, her father was in the home. The mother was not and is not gay. I didn't present a "case histroy." I merely pointed out that this issue doesn't revolve around sex, although people want to make that the big deal.
I stated how I feel about this issue, and that's really all I wanted to say. That's why it took 10 pages before I got into this, because it's always such an interminable argument.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Rhino
I agree with you that something "strange" may have been going on in that house.
I don't personally believe that people "just know" they are homosexual at 5 or 6 years old any more than I believe a person "just knows" they are heterosexual at that age. In other words, I don't believe a person is born homosexual. Much of what is defined as sexuality comes to us via learned behavior and role play. However, that's strictly my personal opinion based on the anecdotal evidence that every gay person I have ever known has related a story to me referencing childhood sexual abuse. If someone had something scientific to show a genetic propensity I would certainly reassess that opinion.
Sometimes, however, a single, brief event can be so traumatizing it will shape the way that a young impressionable mind develops and have a lasting impact on how they consequently think and act as adults.
But, the question I ponder is why, we, as a society, feel we must deny them the same equal rights that are freely enjoyed by their heterosexual counterparts simply because they may have been the victims of a traumatizing event that was beyond their control?
Putting the sexual aspect on the back burner, take a look at benefits.
This being Memorial Day weekend, I will use that as one simple example.
There are 125 national cemeteries in this country. More are currently expected to be built. An average of 1,800 veterans die every day. Of that number, 10 percent are buried in these cemeteries. This year alone, it is expected the number of interments will set a record at a projected figure of 107,000 veterans and dependents. As best I understand, non-legally married spouses do not qualify for interment.
Here is a link that discusses qualification requirements---http://www.cem.va.gov/
To put it simply, a legally binding marriage contract is required for participation in this very meaningful benefit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
The statistics above are from an AP article written by Joe Milicia (05/25/2008)
edited: Sorry, I couldn't get the link to work so you will have to type it in(or google National Cemeteries) and then look for "eligibility".
Edited by waysiderLink to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
LOL ... now you are the one changing the conditions to fit what you want this simple commandment to say. "Honor they Father and Thy Mother" ... you add in crack whores and murderers and say I'm making a leap in logic? Come on Linda, you're smarter than that ...
Again you are adding in unusual conditions ... not me. It is a simple commandment.Is this really even a question, for people that believe the Bible is inspired by God? It seems a pretty giant leap to say the Bible has nothing against homosexual acts. I don't see how you can honestly reconcile that conflict. You have to hold to the one and deny the other, at least on this point.
The state is marrying gay people ... that is changing what the vast majority believe the state should be doing. Since the village is raising the child now, those decisions get taught in school to children. The state is deeply involved in deciding family issues ... these decisions don't happen in a vacuum.
Her Uncle was in Hollywood and committed suicide ... this one bit of anecdotal evidence based on one supposed quote from a five year old doesn't seem to mean much, if anything. It may say more about the view of the person writing the story.
A little more from my article ...
He is not talking about gay marriage, but the effect of any behavior outside the normal wedded birth. Your "yeah, but what if the father is a murderer and the mother is a crack whore" fits in here. Those extremes don't change the simple commandment. "Honor thy Father and thy Mother" There seems too much effort from the left to break down that traditional family unit.
That is a very interesting article that is not about the gay issue ... I stumbled on it while reading humorous Dan Quayle quotes ... "I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy - but that could change."
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ron G.
Technically, you're right. However, the state interjects it's "official sanctioned" belief systems into state supported public schools for indoctrination of the young, among other things like tax benefits etc.
I, personally, don't really care about "gay" marriage. It can't hurt me or anyone else and I don't believe God is going to hold anyone accountable for the actions of others. People are going to do what they're going to do with or without state sanctions. People just need to accept that, but few do, it seems, and they contend among themselves to use the coersive power of the state to promote or ban whatever cultural thing they either like or dislike.
The state, along with the people, needs to adopt the Wiccan Rede that goes something like this...
"An thou harm none, do what thou wilt be the whole of the law."
Maybe that's not exactly accurate, but it gets the point across. People should do whatever the hell they want to as long as they don't hurt anyone else in the process. Can you imagine a law office with just THAT in the library?
Of course, such a concept would be untenable as it would put the lawyers, libtards, neocons, vegans, preachers, socialists, fundies, social activists and most politicians out of business, leaving people to seek their own destinies as they see fit.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Got a cousin that when she was a youngster was quite a tomboy and announced she wanted her named changed and was going to grow up and be a boy! I know this was no later than 2nd grade. With some proper parenting she is still quite the tomboy type working on a huge ranch side by side riding,roping and shooting with her husband and 5 children. She is very happy. Then there was the other cousin from another family at a very young age that liked to dress as a girl an honestly had quite a feminine streak in him. While his 3 other brothers hated house work and escaped to the fields for "man work" he tried to stay in and cook, clean and wanted to learn to quilt. But, then with some proper parenting and teaching him to quilt, but his "thingie" had a "special purpose" he grew up to father 7 great kids without a single sign of gender confusion showing up.
Why is it when something is defined so clearly in the bible; even those claiming they serve a Christian God choose to serve the creation more than the creator? When something was against the original design they choose to redefine the standards and do so because they know "such nice people" that happen to be "that way". I know some very nice idol worshipers, so seriously God doesn't mind because they are so nice. Uh Huh! I just can't grasp where their judgement is coming from; so 1 of us has some real judgment problems.....
Then they that support and have pleasure in supporting those that are "that way" like to define everyone else as haters. You support or you are full of fear and hate. Notice they re-define words and make some up; Islamophobia. Why not it worked so well for the gays!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
This seems most likely to me ... homosexuals just don't reproduce enough to have this be a genetic trait, as I see it.
Well I tend to agree except maybe when it comes to "marriage" and "distributing" children. If indeed these are "damaged" people, are there aspects that will be passed on to children? Even if it is not the homosexuality that would be passed on, do we know what it is?
Maybe they should still raise kids in most cases, but maybe it really hasn't been looked at. Of course people are damaged and heterosexual also ... but voters seem to have a strong opinion on this marriage thing. If the village/government is raising the child and choosing caregivers ... it gets more complicated.
Of the 10% buried in national cemeteries, are 80% single? I just wonder how many people are effected here. It seems something could be worked out in most situations like this.
Without real evidence, it seems the left wants to use those arguments like Linda's as proof sexual preference is genetic.
So say the kids Ductape mentioned has parents teaching about sexual roles, but there are a few teachers in school feeling the need to be sure that somewhat "prissy" Jonny needs to be told that it is quite OK if he likes boys. Maybe they can explain how condoms work since it will be especially important for him. And maybe they can demonstrate some gay sex with dolls, since his fundamentalist bigoted parents are not enlightened enough to teach him.
I do know there are plenty of teachers that feel the need to insert some leftist dogma into their teaching, from grade school through college. For them, "gay marriage" is largely just another step in the political process.
These leftist activist teachers need to be kept in check. My Dad was (rightly) fired from his teaching job for teaching the Bible some 50 years ago ... there needs to be as much control today over the leftist agenda/religion being pushed on the public today. I think that can be done, and homosexuals still can be treated fairly.
Edited by rhinoLink to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Rhino,
Your article appears to be nothing more than an opinion piece with nothing much to substantiate it. While the author does make reference to "research" we are never told what the research was, who performed it, etc. etc. etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
He quotes many different researchers and names them ... I guess we are used to links though.
Almost every paragraph names a researcher and quotes them or paraphrases them.
It looks very fact based to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eyesopen
You may have been the only one to actually "say" those things but many posts alluded to them.
I am not surprised that you responded to my post, I'm surprised that you took it personally. Had I wanted to make it personal I would have done what I am doing now and directly addressing you or better yet I would have PMed you.
As for the "disagreement" believe it or not this board is not the only place that these sentiments are voiced. I made a blanket statement that you very kindly quoted above. I'm simply stating my opinion just as everyone else here is doing.
Dont take my word for it I got that information from the various letters and documents stored right here on GS. And as I said I was just using it for reference. If you werent coming from that "mindset" then you did a good impersonation (at least from what I remember from what I read) but I'll 'take your word for it' and apologize for the apparent misunderstanding.Actually Jen-o and Rhino I have no special information, I simply did what I was taught to do...I studied. Perhaps if you would for example take that verse in Leviticus (18:22) that everyone likes so much and simply read from the beginning of the chapter. See what the context is and then do some research on what God is referring to...yup that means that you actually have to put the Bible down and read some history. Then return to that verse with a renewed and clearer understanding. It is talking about an idolotrous ritual that was performed by both the Canaanites (where Isreal was going) and the Egyptians (where they came out of) The topic of the chapter is clearly idolotry as in verses 2, 4, 5, and 6 God has to remind them that He is their God and that they need to be doing what He says. Again in chapter 20 (where the other verse is) the topic is idolotry and the referrence is a ritual used in idol worship. He tells them not to go whoring after Molech (King idol).
Really this is not rocket science...But there is much more that I have taken 40 pages in my book to clearly lay out the history and the time lines and I refuse to take up all of the space here to explain it all to you. If you don't want to read what I have already researched, if for nothing more than a different understanding then don't...I really dont care. But please stop assuming that I have no formal education in Biblical Research. Just because I dont parade my credentials under everyone's nose does not mean that I do not have them.
Simply put, I have found no where in the Bible that actually addresses homosexuality as a lifestyle or an orientation. The 10 verses used to prove the sin nature of homosexuality with the exception of one do not even touch on the subject. All I did was some honest research and then I wrote it all down to share with others. It takes up a lot of space. So no I will not reproduce it here and if some think that is a cop out...well that is your opinion. So is that simple enough?
And just for the record I would love for you to tell any one of my professors that they need to "briefly and succinctly" state their views on any given topic that they have spent years researching.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
The article that you referenced in a previous post, "Dan Quayle Was Right",
was written by a She not a He. Her name is Barbara Dafoe Whitehead.
The article was written in 1993 and the survey that she uses from the
National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) is from 1998, a full 20 years ago.
I'm just curious, do you have anything more recent?
How many years did the NCHS survey encompass? Did it span the entirety of Generation Y,
which is dated from 1983 to 1997? And if it did, how is the next generation, Generation Z, faring?
Ms. Whitehead quite deftly uses the anonymous social scientific evidence ploy when she says,
"according to a growing body of social-scientific evidence" and then goes on to state her position as if it were a given.
But what I'd like to know is, what specific social-scientific evidence is she referencing? Has the research and written documentation of said
research been done by a reputable institution? Were the articles peer reviewed? Who paid for the research?
Who paid Ms. Whitehead to write the article "Dan Quayle Was Right"?
And last but not least, what are Ms. Whitehead's bona fides?
I am always skeptical of generalizations and anonymous sources. The cigarette companies paid
for research that said smoking caused no health problems whatsoever, and that wasn't exactly factual.
One thing that I keep in mind when I read fact filled articles is this: Statistics can be made to support any position whatsoever.
Stats are, by far and away, the easiest thing to spin.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
97.327% of all statistics are just made up numbers.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
rhino
As I said bfh, I came across it reading funny Dan Quayle quotes ...
It made a lot of sense to me, and I doubt she made up the quotes ... and she quoted several researchers, as far as I can tell.
I'm not sure if you are just trying to discredit her, or if you disagree with some specific points. I didn't see you offer any conflicting evidence or even any points you disagreed with. Do you have newer evidence that conflicts? Have families gotten stronger since 1988? You say the survey she used was from 1988 ... but it seems that was just used in the opening paragraph and she gives the date. This article is from 1993, by the way.
Yes, even if you quote actual stats, they can be made to lie. It seemed she made many quotes from established researchers' conclusions that made sense. I don't see that things have improved since then, but rather have gone downhill.
There is no doubt much newer stuff ... go ahead and present it ...
anybody .... anybody ... ....
sure ... give or take 12.542% for the margin of error ...
but that is only true 47.3% of the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
bfh
Rhino:
You are presenting an argument regarding the decay of the "traditional family unit"
and using Ms. Whitehead's article as a source to back-up said argument.
I am merely questioning the credibility of the source you quoted (see your post #206, 209),
along with the material and references she presents. In fact, in post #206 you refer to the source material as "evidence".
As such, the onus is on you to insure that you have a credible source; it is not up to me.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
lindyhopper
Boy, an explosion since I last was here.
rhino-
That is funny. If I am intolerant of bigoted views and prejudice that makes me a bigot? You an a number of posters here are know for this twisted logic, turning this back around on anyone who doesn't agree with you.from wikipedia:
"A bigot is a person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding ideology.
The origin of the word bigot and bigoterie in English dates back to at least 1598, via Middle French, and started with the sense of "religious hypocrite", especially a woman. Bigot is often used as a pejorative term against a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices even when these views are challenged or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable."
There you go. I am not the one intolerant of lifestyles, or identities that do not harm anyone, and while I am intolerant of certain opinions I am not prejudice or discriminating against those people. On the other hand, many posting here are.
As to the "homophobe" statements earlier by WW, a phobia is a fear and while it does not fit everyone that disagrees with homosexuality is it does fit for some as does certain people being hateful of homosexuals. While it may not be a clinical term (maybe it is, I don't know) a phobia is simply a fear and at times an irrational fear. I don't see a reasonable explanation for those people that believe that homosexual marriage is somehow going to destroy or effect heterosexual marriage in any way. We are talking about taking something that is already going on in a couple states and other countries as a union and something that is already going on without being legally legit and including it into a definition. That seems like an irrational fear to me.
As to the data concerning children raised by gay parents, there is plenty and by no means is it just "rich Hollywood types."
From the Official Journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics
I've heard thirty five years of studies from other sources. Many groups have done studies on this like the American Psychiatric Association and the American Psychological Association as well as others. Anyone who is actually interested might look it up.
Edited by lindyhopperLink to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Been busy the last few days but wanted to answer your post Hap.
First I think we both agree on this that everyone is entitled to equal legal rights regardless of any differences in lifestyle. I think we disagree on how that is assured. I think it can be assured by changing the laws to include civil unions and marriage. I don't believe that one needs to change a words meaning to make something fit. We add hundreds of new words to dictionaries every year. words that do not meet the standards of other similar words. Yet when it comes to marriage we somehow have to ignore the rule of logic and squeeze this word to fit. Next Just for the record I have no problem with books as long as they are not mandated or forced upon anyone . I have no objection to them being available if one does not like what they represent simply don't read them ,others may like them. I suppose Hap that around here since we have Fred Phelps and his clan so active that maybe the forced indoctrination is offered as a counter to balance the scale. To have a diversity day and only feature gay issues is however still wrong its a sham there are lots of diverse groups. Just be honest your using a word to slide in your agenda, its not really about diversity it is about gay issues. People should be given the same right to refuse this as those who don't want to read the books. Again I don't necessarily have an objection to the presentation just the requirement of it. This gets to the heart of the issue I guess for me Why can't gays be happy with equal presentation, it seems that is never good enough, they want required indoctrination, they want what has stood the test of time to change for them. And yet scream when, say for instance a religious group seems to get the same. I say offer what you want ,require none.
Those who seek to change the meaning of marriage say they are updating the word to keep up with the laws, however an examination will tell you differently. first the changes started long before any laws changed, second most states still have no law change and the ones that do are under challenge. So why the rush? Agenda to change the language to reflect their views ,then the law changes can cite the language as reason for their case. Buy the way I'd oppose any change of an established meaning of a word for say a religious reason as well.
You know almost every day I sit at the dog park and talk with a gay man I'll call Frank, nice guy, very funny cares for his dog, appears to be kind. Many days if I stop to pick up coffee on the way I grab an extra cup for him. Originally I started talking to him because he often sat by himself with his dog SPANKY as in (spanky spanky the behind). I felt bad for him because many I'm sure ignored him because of the fact he is gay. Eventually the group grew to a large gathering. I think that has been a good thing for him as well as others. I resent the fact that if I don't agree with someone changing a words meaning, that I'm somehow homophobic.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
gee bfh,
i wish you were as concerned about the source (and accuracy) of your own information that you posted about animal infanticide as you are about the article that rhino posted...
peace,
jen-o
p.s. i don't see anyone disputing the content of the article, only questioning the author's credentials, credibility, and the style of her writing (i.e. she didn't include whether the research articles she referenced were peer reviewed, and who paid for it)...
most of the article seems to be based on deductive reasoning (and common sense)... the facts provided can be independently verified, and references to researchers are provided for further verification... (looks like a normal article to me)
Edited by jen-oLink to comment
Share on other sites
jen-o
you posted something that i thought was relevant to what i had posted, so i commented on it...
usually when the term "took it personally" is used, there is an element of offense and emotional upset...
i was neither offended nor emotionally upset by anything that you said...
i was merely responding to a comment on a message board which seemed relevant to me...
and i don't think i need to wait for someone to address me by name or PM me in order to make a comment...
the reason why i called it "special information" is because it is information that leads to a conclusion which is contrary to the plain meaning of the scripture...wow... that's quite an assumption...what makes you think that i have NOT read the whole chapter of leviticus 18??... or the whole book for that matter??
i am very familar with leviticus 18...
familar enough to know that -
verses 6-14 deal with incest
verse 20 deals with adultery
verse 22 deals with homosexuality
verse 23 deals with bestiality
verse 24 says do NOT defile yourself by doing these things (as other nations have defiled themselves with these practices)
and verse 3 says that these "doings" (practices, deeds, acts) were done by the egyptians and the canaanites, but in contrast "you shall not do them"...
this the PLAIN meaning of the scripture in this chapter...
if you are saying that this is NOT the meaning (and this all refers to an idolatrous ritual), then are you saying that the prohibitions against incest, adultery, and bestiality also refer to an idolatrous ritual?? (and there really is no prohibition against those things?)...
verses 6-23 is a list of prohibitions and homosexuality is sandwiched in between the specific prohibitions...
so what applies to homosexuality applies also to incest, adultery, and bestiality...
further, verses 26, 27, & 29 call the items on the list "abominations"...
while verse 30 calls them "abominable customs"...
egypt and canaan were idolatrous nations, but they were also nations that practiced these abominable customs...
like i said, this is the plain meaning of the scripture... and i agree with you: this really is not rocket science...
i don't need to read 40 pages of history and timelines to see that this is a list of prohibitions...
no, i don't want to buy a book in order to have a conversation on a message board...if you can't (or won't) summarize your ideas, then so be it...
but i don't put much weight in unsupported opinions...
the bible addresses the homosexual act...and a lifestyle is composed of habitual acts...
i am not so sure why you have not found this addressed in the bible... since clearly it is there, as i have just pointed out...
the mark of a good professor is the ability to boil it down to the bottom line... and make it so simple that a child could understand it...anyway, nice chatting with you....
peace,
jen-o
Link to comment
Share on other sites
doojable
Ya - I know this is already in my signature, but it seems to warrant it's own post here.
Edited by doojableLink to comment
Share on other sites
Ductape
Why not use the quote where he said the bible is pretty childish?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.