| Author | Message | ||
     Scooper (admin) Pooper Scooper Username: admin Post Number: 339 Registered: 3-2003 |
A friend of ours recently married his companion of 25 years while they were vacationing in Canada. They are both men. What to do? We gathered our mutual frends and had a dinner party. Gay marriage is now legal in Vermont, and it looks like Massachussetts is going to follow suit in some form or other. I do not feel that my marriage of 25 years is in any way diminished by the marriage of my gay friends. Rather, I think my valuing of marriage is affirmed by their making the same committment. Now I realize that others of my friends differ with me. They claim that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, because it denotes a relationship that is reproductive in kind (if not always in actual fact). I think that a gay marriage is generative in kind (to use that word as the late psychiatrist Erik Erikson used it in his writings). And that generativity (generating, creating, building up, continuing) is what society needs from all its members, gay and straight. What do you all think? | ||
| Bonnie Garchinsky Sharshon (logosophias) New member Username: logosophias Post Number: 3 Registered: 10-2003 |
I agree with you. Since 1996, my husband & I have created & performed both straight & gay wedding ceremonies, affirming the choice made by two people to join their lives together for various reasons: love, mutual support & growth, etc. In the end, we believe that the federal "Defense of Marriage Act" passed by Bill Clinton will not stand the test of contractual law. For, no matter however else marriage is understood & defined, states generally recognize it as a contract between two adults of sound mind. Moreover, legal contracts must be recognized across state lines, as indeed most have always been. What we've been recommending, meanwhile, is that same-sex couples form a Limited Liability Company (LLC) that could offer them some of the same legal protections granted by marriage. -- Bonnie | ||
| Tracy Hartford (letah) Intermediate Member Username: letah Post Number: 31 Registered: 4-2001 |
Signing a petition that my fellow students and I attempted to have passed into law in Girl's State, a mock legislative camp, was the last time that I ignorantly and stupidly opposed Gay marriage; I did so simply because I was a fundamentalist at the time, and gay behavior was "wrong." I was 16. I was ignorant because I believed that people should not be allowed to do things that *I* considered to be morally wrong. I was stupid because prior to the governor of Girl's state explaining the eloquent truths of "liberty" and "justice" that caused her to Veto the bill, I had never considered why I should not automatically concur with the beliefs of my religion. The new belief that I formed that day openned my mind to the tolerance of alternative perspectives. The belief, echoing the communication of that wise young girl, was that God had given us the ability to CHOOSE. Who then, was I, to take that choice away? Although I am currently undecided in the area of religious beliefs, that kernel of truth still holds sway to me. Wiccan's believe "An it harm no one, do what you will." I think the world would be a much happier place if there was a lot more live and let live, and a lot less live as I live and I'll let you live. Despite the undedided state of my beliefs, I am compelled by the thought that "marriage" is at base a spiritual matter, not a legal one. What's more, it is historically rooted in the Catholic church, and that gives preferential treatment to Christians, because they are the ones that defined marriage. So I think the solution lies with "domestic partnerships." Marriage would remain the religious ceremony that currently takes place, and could also be called other names (mating/espousing/pairing/coupling/joining/etc.) by other religions, or non-religions and could include as many individuals as one wanted to express "spiritual" connection to. It would have no bearing on domestic partnership. Legally, domestic partnerships need not even be romantic or sexual in nature (not that marriage is always both or either of those, anyway), and would be gender neutral. It would merely provide means for individuals to obtain equal treatment under the law, no matter their choices regarding their long-term living arrangements. So, that's my solution. | ||
| lawyer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Society definitely benefits from the generativity of all its members. Of that there is no question. The question is-- what is the role of polity? Polity serves many roles, just as marriage does. None of them include the affirmation of every flavor of generativity which may be found in culture. If this were the case, elementary school teachers should perhaps be issued bar certificates, since they are expected to exercise judiciousness on a daily basis. Heads of household might ought to be given legal documents of corporate status, since they are expected to exercise stewardship. In the case of marriage, polity does not generate, create, legitimize, or affirm it. That is not something that polity is capable of doing. Polity merely bows and recognizes certain aspects of human sexual nature which are even more ancient than polity itself. The best, and most liberal use of polity in this case, is the preservation of justice. It is unjust for magistrates to prevent friends from using the customary legal instruments to pursue their desires for the inheritance of goods. It is unjust for friends to be prevented from comforting each other in extremis. | ||
| Scooper (admin) Pooper Scooper Username: admin Post Number: 368 Registered: 3-2003 |
Lawyer, Interesting argument you have there. I imagine that a good lawyer could argue against gay marriage on the basis of the function of the polity as well. After all, every society has sought to control the reproductive and sexual behavior of its members. | ||
| Daniel Kopanke (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
If homosexuals want to love eachother and spend their lives together, then let them do that; we shouldn't have the right to prevent them.... BUT that doesn't me we have to condone their actions OR deem their relationship a "marriage". | ||
| Unmentionable (unreverend) New member Username: unreverend Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2004 |
I believe in the Constitution's 14th amendment of equal rights. A true democracy is not ruled by religion (theocracy) and to make a nation in to a theocracy it becomes a religious dictatorship not unlike Iran. The only reason anyone would oppose of any kind of marriages, especially same sex marriages is because of religion. A religious person should stick with their beliefs to themselves and not expect others to go along with them and should not force their beliefs on others. Government and church has no busness mixing the two. If marriage were about having offspring one would not have to get married to produce offspring. Marriage is the commitment of two persons regardless of sex to cling one on to the other and forsake all others, to bind the two as one, to share and love only those two as one. It is a ceremony in which each agrees as one mind that they shall cling as if in one body to be together until their last breath leaves their bodies. This act in which these two people so have consented and excepted willingly is certainly no one else's business. Anyone opposing is not counted in the marriage and in no way will such a marriage make anyone less of what they are, will not take away their own beliefs. To deny one person their civil rights over another is to deny everyone their own civil rights. Civil rights is everyone's job and commitment if we are to remain a free society}. | ||
| Believer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Speaking about equal rights can be very dangerous, desire of the one person or the group cannot be prevailed over majority of the population. | ||
| Believer (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
From the gays view-point heterosexual relationship is wrong and they are trying to propaganda that stupid statement through gay parades and creating gay NGOs and other bad things. | ||
| Fleeter (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
I think the debate is massively clouded by irrelevant sentiments. This is my take: 1. The definition of the word "marriage" (so far in human history) involves male and female relationship. 2. Proponents of gay "marriage" are arguing this definition should be changed, in order for gay couples to enjoy the same level of social acceptance and be treated equally under the law. 3. Meanings of words themselves are not somehow "sacred" as some people seem to suggest - including "marriage". Word meanings can and has changed over history. 4. The question in front of people is not, therefore, whether the meaning of the word should change, but whether or not the current social differentiation between "heterosexual-relationship-for-life" and "other-relationship-for-life" be maintained. The word definition will naturally follow once this question is resolved. Given this, my view is that differentiation should be maintained, and I have a simple argument. Namely, human beings: 1. are biologically designed to function heterosexually; and 2. have in most regions evolved to cherish one such relationship. No one would seriously argue that this is not the case. Homosexuals and supporters of their cause try and say that homosexuality is "natural" and therefore should be accepted as social norm. It is "natural" to the extent that cancer is "natural". It is a psychiatric and physiological condition that causes abnormal sexual preference. As such, they deserve all of society's support in medical treatment and/or understanding. They DO NOT deserve vilification for their condition. However, Society MUST NOT say it is normal human tendency - not because we don't want to, but because it is not. We can call it whatever we like - call it marriage, I don't care. But we must not say earth is flat or 1+1=3. We MUST NOT tell our kids that there is no difference between the two sexual options. | ||
| Richard Adler (r_adler) Advanced Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 63 Registered: 3-2003 |
I quite agree with you Fleeter. It would seem we are both politically incorrect. If we are to take the defining of marriage as both the physiological and psychological merging of masculinity and femininity, gay marriage becomes an oxymoron (by definition). Human relationships are often quite complex and so the union formed by any two individuals is certainly not for outsiders to judge. The coupling of two people of any sex should not be an issue here. The defining, however, of what constitutes a marriage to any society is perhaps of real importance, for practical reasons as well as those underpinned by certain spirituality. If physiological considerations are no longer important we could perhaps take the ridiculous extreme of a man wedding his bull terrier or a woman her poodle. Sexual relations could be well described as bestial (vulgar) and certainly considered deviant even if given legal sanction. Perhaps what is vulgar for one is not so for another but a common thread does seem to run through most civilizations. Without trying to sound moralistic, I would suggest there are common standards of decency with indecent behaviour or action proscribed throughout timeless generations. What we do in private should always be protected from interference – this, again, is not the issue. If the definition of marriage remains and continues in its purpose for procreating and nurturing children, then not only do the legal rights of any couple need reflecting on but also the obligatory costs any society will need to bear. Adoptive rights and legal provisions for maternity leave etc. will give lawyers a field day (and great income source). Some Gay activists will be certain their ‘rights’ are enshrined and for many, children will be considered an obligation for society to give assistance with in their provision of (as with hetero-sexuals). A redefining of marriage may also well come to include the combination or integration of many differing combinations - this is perhaps again extreme in example but logical in conclusion and grounded in our age of novelty. Once tampered with, why should monogamy be included as a central qualification for marriage if it no longer satisfies? Love to siblings can surely be provided within a group setting (if one is to acquire the teachings of some of our enlightened 21st Century gurus)? The high point of marriage surely lies in its non-relative definition or positioning - one that has stood us well for centuries. It is essentially the union between male and female and, given its legal sanction, provides both security and priority for the nurturing of children within a family. If society is now to embark on its re-definition perhaps consider the outcomes from a secular objectivity, devoid naturally of any spiritual foundation or even reflection. Secular governemnt is after all quite detached and separate from the spiritual (as it should be). If the moral guide is absent, however (i.e. a lack lustre Church), there is no reason for a “no holds barred” on the defining of the legal relationships between a man, woman or those in between. Ironically, Christianity has taught God fully manifested his presence (in non-androgynous form i.e. fully male) within a time (of all possible times) where the nurture provided from man and a woman was of paramount importance for the development of this divinely human soul. | ||
| tikiking (tikiking) New member Username: tikiking Post Number: 5 Registered: 7-2004 |
Although I am definitely "straight", I have relatives and friends who are gay. They tried being straight for a great many years, even turning to God to help them in their quest to put down their feelings for people of their same gender. The answer they said they received, was that they should "be who they are". So they are today who they have always been. Alas, I don't believe we will ever be privvy to the "final answer". Once again, we are at odds with ourselves over "what is right". This is a social issue, not a spiritual issue. In fact, we are all wandering deeper into a moral, spiritual and social quagmire on this issue. To correct one poster, gays do not believe heterosexuality is wrong- they believe the way they are viewed and treated by the majority of heterosexual society is wrong. They want to be treated as human beings same as the rest of us. Where we go astray is when we try and force our beliefs on them (i.e. it is a sin against God, etc.). If society as a whole does not accept same-sex relationships, regardless of the marriage issue, then this problem will continue regardless of whatever legislation is passed to the contrary. Gays may finally win in court and be recognized as legally married couples, but that will never end the descrimination they will continue to endure at the hands of the heterosexual majority. It is a natural human failing that we lash out or seek to harm that which is different from us. Unfortunately, history supports this... (Message edited by tikiking on August 05, 2004) | ||
| Richard Adler (r_adler) Advanced Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 66 Registered: 3-2003 |
Error appendum: Paragraph should read, "..Surely it is not illegal (within most of western society) for gays to form a committed relationship outside of marriage (or hetero’s for that matter)? – Under Common Law, property rights are certainly applicable in the event of a ‘split’ in either case." | ||
| Desmond Mary Coutinho (desmondmary) New member Username: desmondmary Post Number: 9 Registered: 8-2004 |
An interesting topic, I am correct in understanding the sub-text to be Christian Homophobia? I believe part of the original Lutheran Reformation's attack on the Catholic Church was that since 1000 AD the Roman Catholic Church had reserved the right to legislate over marriages and the Reformers felt that this should be returned to secular authorities as it had been in the first millenium after the incarnation. On the subtext, I have always felt that there was a strong undercurrent of homophobia and anti-semiticism intrinsic to being Christian, obviously with the exception of converts, they always seem to miss the point don't they lads. It's a bit like a few good men, it ain't in any manual, you just wait for chow time and follow the crowd. At the time the American Anglicans elected their first pro-active homosexual bishop there was quite an English scandal involving a mild-mannered celibate canon here in Mummerset Middle England. He lived with a male partner in a celibate relationship and was not seeking actively to campaign for a homosexual lobby. He wasn't seeking to be a Bishop either, he was rather old fashioned still believed in God and didn't think that qualified him to be a Bishop in the Modern Anglican Church. He therefore reluctantly accepted the Cross when he was appointed a Bishop-designate of the Anglican communion. However then the homophobia kicked in. Whereas previously Christians had argued they love homosexuals passionately and affectionately it's the sin they can't stand, in this case they argued that he was not suitable because actually it's the homosexuals they can't stand due to reaction formation. If they allowed God to see them appoint a celibate homosexual Bishop they might all just lose it and start sodomising their wives and mistresses. I am perhaps deliberately misquoting for comic effect. He declined becoming annointed, as he wished to preserve Unity. He was appointed a Dean of Cathedral recently to muted public outcry. My guess is most Christians don't really know what a canon, a Chapter Dean, a Friar, a monk or any of the Churchie stuff really means, and who listens to Bishops at the best of times eh. Well it's nice to get the subject out in the open I guess. In the end it is difficult to confront a gut prejudice; it can be a matter of personal shame too great to own, or perhaps True Christians are still afraid to speak their Truth because the secular rot will prevent their getting a fair hearing. And just because you disagree with me doesn't necessarily mean that you are in denial. It won't stop me thinking that mind. For me human sexuality is amazing, embarrassing in a very English way, so beautiful and so corrupting, a metaphor for saintly sinnerhood. (Be aware I know the Woody Allen line, "then perhaps you are not doing it right," please don't force me to use it.) My prayer would be to enjoy more in greater abundance and trust in love. But I haven't had much success there mate so whatdoiknow. I once saw an entire room of radical theologists held to silence by the last lines of a rather demure oldish Nun as she completed her lectures on Female Spirituality with the concept that the female orgasm was another sign of God's supererogatory superabundance. Personally I would have used the example of the duck-billed platypus, the myriads of insect forms most undiscovered, life at the bottom of the sea etc. But credit to her. That was a more memorable ending. | ||
| tikiking (tikiking) Junior Member Username: tikiking Post Number: 11 Registered: 7-2004 |
Richard - you bring up a very good question. I think the issue on the side of the Gays is that they want the "spiritual" union of marriage, just like any couple. Not spiritual in a sense that they get married in a church per se, but the want to be able to go through the experience of the ceremony and have their union be recognized (legally). I can't speak for all gay people, just the ones I've met and discussed this with. I've been to same-sex weddings in California (illegal), and that's the problem. Their union is not recognized, in fact, it is completely invalidated in the eyes of the state, and therefore, everyone else. They want want we "straight" people have: equality under the law. The problem on the side of the current established laws of state do not allow this. Whether you are talking about a formality of a legal union, or the spirituality of the joining of two people, the gays want to be able to do it, and society is resistant. I agree with you that common-law would (and should) support them legally if they were to split, however I see a lot of potential for the same kind of arguement in that scenario as well... | ||
| Richard Adler (r_adler) Advanced Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 67 Registered: 3-2003 |
Tikiking, My take on two people of the same sex performing a ceremony in public to announce their commitment to each other shouldn’t pose a problem but there does need to be a redefining of marriage if it is to be called such. Technically, all are equal in the eyes of Western law - Homosexuals may want what heterosexual couples have but are neither psychologically nor physically equipped to emulate such a union. No redefining of what is in effect a ‘natural’ law can alter this. If their union is in need of some sort of ‘spiritual’ validation then I would suggest support for them does exist – society is generally far more tolerant of homosexuals within our secular and pluralistic framework. My feeling however is, there is a push by some to redefine marriage because many find it to be highly discriminatory – they wrongly take insult to their ‘sense of being’ by the legal status given to a union they are unable to achieve. In our abandonment of the Western Judaic Christian view of marriage there will be a necessary and stark division within our Churches and communities. The appeal of a humanly created institution with something intrinsically divine at its core goes far deeper than the fleeting of any political correctness. The biblical injunction, “what God has joined, let no man separate” is surely referencing not only a spiritual union but a very physical and intimate connection occurring between a male and female within a committed structure or family. Christian Homophobia or homophobia anywhere is obviously prevalent as there is also a fear of all sexuality generally. As I’ve said in earlier posts, I believe the occurrence of the varying degrees of sexual orientation within both men of women to be a ‘given’. Our demure and fearless old nun, however, was probably spot on with her reference to the female orgasm and the ultimate enjoyment gained through perfect design. When properly combined with a male orgasm, a la! You have quite the ‘wholesome’ experience – arguably beyond most in both its sensual and spiritual aspect. | ||
| Efrem (efrem) Senior Member Username: efrem Post Number: 104 Registered: 2-2003 |
Richard, Sexuality is sexuality and orgasms experienced during homosexual sex are just as enjoyable and uplifting as those experienced during het sex; I've experienced both. That my repressed preferences finally liberated themselves has left me in several quandries though and 'coming out' has been both exhillarating and enlightening as I have found yet another level of prejudices within the so-called homosexual community: there is a definite prejudice from what I've come to term 'straight' gays toward trans people, be that 'trans' sexual, gender or androgeny. Another poster hit the nail on the head with their observation that it is a condition of the 'Human Condition' that everyone seems to have a need to look down on others who are different. Slavery among the peoples of Africa existed long before the arrival of 'evil european white boy'(EEWB) and within other civilizations throughout our history up to the present day. Does that long history (a kind of validation according to your logic) justify the act of enslavement of other humans? That homosexuals have been feared, reviled, burned at the stake, had walls toppled on them, stripped of civil liberties in a great many civilizations justify that continued treatment by a thinking, rational society today? The definition of marriage as being only between a man and a woman exists only because it was generated by a patriarchal church, the same church that spent most of the first two millenia of its existence persecuting anyone who was 'different'; be it racially, culturally or otherwise. Homosexuals have been forming lasting unions for generations; however, because of their diminished stature in a great many societies, this 'marriage' was accomplished much in the same manner as early slaves in the US: jumping over a broomstick. I've always been puzzled, from my earliest days as a teenager and my small role in the mid-fifties beginnings of the active civil rights movement to this very minute as I type this message, "Why, when a disenfranchised group be they black, indian, homosexual or whatever, tries to correct that situation; why do others invoke the word of God to discourage that 'correction'?" Also, to suggest that doing away with the 'opposite gender' requirement as a qualification for marriage is somehow equivalent with a woman marrying her french poodle reveals the speaker's fears and diminuation of an entire group of people who've existed in all cultures/civilizations from the beginning of time. I'm sure Leonardo Da Vinci wouldn't agree. Love, Efrem | ||
| Richard Adler (r_adler) Advanced Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 68 Registered: 3-2003 |
Efrem, I find most of your points as valid, including the swipe against those who rest their authority on Biblical quotation. Based on this, marriage in God’s great country should perhaps be defined as follows: 1.Marriage in the United States shall consist of a union between one man and one or more women. (Gen 29:17-28; II Sam 3:2-5) 2. Marriage shall not impede a man's right to take concubines, in addition to his wife or wives. (II Sam 5:13; I Kings 11:3; II Chron 11:21) 3. A marriage shall be considered valid only if the wife is a virgin. If the wife is not a virgin, she shall be executed. (Deut 22:13-21) 4. Marriage of a believer and a non-believer shall be forbidden. (Gen 24:3; Num 25:1-9; Ezra 9:12; Neh 10:30) 5. Since marriage is for life, neither this Constitution nor the constitution of any State, nor any state or federal law, shall be construed to permit divorce. (Deut 22:19; Mark 10:9) 6. If a married man dies without children, his brother shall marry the widow. If he refuses to marry his brother's widow or deliberately does not give her children, he shall pay a fine of one shoe, and be otherwise punished in a manner to be determined by law. (Gen. 38:6-10; Deut 25:5-10) 7. In lieu of marriage, if there are no acceptable men in your town, it is required that you get your dad drunk and have sex with him (even if he had previously offered you up as a sex toy to men young and old), tag-teaming with any sisters you may have. Of course, this rule applies only if you are female. (Gen 19:31-36). The marriage tradition has obviously grown – some have perhaps regressed to an O.T. Biblical definition. The traditional Judaic-Christian aspect of the union of a male and female continues, however, as an important reference point and perhaps the defining basis of any stable society (now hear me out on this). My allusion to a woman marrying her French poodle (obviously too dark in its humour for some) – is more of a side-swipe at what is obviously a one-sided and quite psychotic relationship - an event certainly not out of bounds in terms of today’s behaviour and quite diminishing to man. My point continues and so does my logic, the ultimate union for the procreation and rearing of children within a family involves the complete integration of the fully feminine and the fully masculine – this may conceivably occur within what outwardly appears as a same-sex couple (herein the confusion arises). I would suggest the complete and most rewarding intimacy occurring between two people is when one plays a feminine role and the other a masculine one, otherwise I’d suggest the relationship as being purely platonic. Two separate genders merge to form a union, an androgyny of sorts - they are psychologically one. It is a perfect integration of roles (one of nurture and the other of provision) where neither party is subservient to or controlled by the other. It is not for me to suggest which of our males tend toward the feminine or our females, toward the masculine (even if I might guess it!). All of us, as I’ve said before, contain a degree of both genders – we consist of both the feminine and the masculine with one over-riding the other at conception. Most, however, are born either essentially male or female - this is not to diminish those caught in-between. All have a right to full sexual expression and intimacy. Our statutes do, however, require definition and upholding, with provision for those grey areas. We need to protect the vulnerable and the often abused, usually children, especially where sexual prowess becomes just another form of abusive power. An appropriate definition for marriage, enshrined in law, seeks to do this, even if not perfect. | ||
| Efrem (efrem) Senior Member Username: efrem Post Number: 105 Registered: 2-2003 |
Dear 'Un' reverend but Bishop Annie; Er..., to whom was your enthusiatic endorsement/message intended? Love, Efrem | ||
| Richard Adler (r_adler) Advanced Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 69 Registered: 3-2003 |
Eagle, “Oh so your saying then that here in America that only the Christain faith makes all of the laws of the land, like say in Iran where the Muslims make all of the laws of the land and other religions be damned? Isn't that called a theoracy dictatorship?” Hmm! Didn’t think I was saying that at all – although America is in danger of allowing her Fundamentalists and certain evangelicals too greater say. The intellectual roots, which lie behind America’s constitution, are important – Tom Paine, Jefferson and Abe Lincoln are good examples of intellect without religiosity. Unfortunately, your Bible belted Christians of Jerry Fallwell and Pat Roberts type standing are spoiling the show. “Whatever happened to democracy?” Good question. Democracy prevails, but only if exercised by a majority; it is sorely absent when a minority order is given free rein. Apathy is a spiritual malaise. Where on earth did you get the idea from my posts that you don’t count? Read carefully what I’ve written. You have as much say as I do, certainly on this forum and probably nearly anywhere else you may care to speak. I’ve no problem if you see yourself as part of a neutral sex (or as something sexless) but I don’t believe your position is the defining point of gendered existence. You may disagree with me – that’s fine. If you are offended then best you explain a little more. | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 2 Registered: 1-2005 |
The Federal government in Canada will soon be dealing with the definition of marriage, and will probably have a free vote on it within the next few months. The Supreme Court has already ruled that gay marriage meets the requirements of our Charter of Human Rights, probably making the upcoming vote a slam-dunk. Frankly, I'd rather see the government stay out of this, as marriage is first and foremost a religious institution, and legalization of gay marriage will disappoint millions of Canadians who hold traditional religious beliefs. That being said, millions of Canadians see marriage as a strictly civil matter, so as long as churches won't be forced to marry anyone they don't approve of, then life will go on. At the end of the day, why should the State care about your marital status? Clearly, workable alternatives exist to the traditional family, so why not diffuse the issue, and have the government remove itself from the whole issue? | ||
| David Ross Munn Intermediate Member Username: david_munn Post Number: 42 Registered: 11-2004 |
Randy : I think that the main reason the state needs a definition of marriage is because of taxation laws. If the Canadian income tax laws are anything like ours in Australia, a married couple can get tax breaks. The same applies to defacto couples, so a legal marriage is not necessary, but it doesn't currently apply to same sex couples. But, to me, the extension of these laws to same sex couples suggests the question as to why such tax advantages should be dependent on two people having sex with each other. Tax benefits to help a couple raising children are understandable, but not all couples do have children, and such benefits can be linked to the children and not to the fact that two people form a couple. But if the fact that two people make a commitment to live in a partnership allows them to get tax benefits, then why shouldn't pairs of men or women who live together for extended periods of time, but whose relationship is not a sexual one, also have this advantage? (Two of my aunts, who live in the United States, have lived together as spinsters all their lives - they are now in their eighties - while operating a dairy farm. Why should they be treated any differently than a childless couple by the taxation system?) These issues were dealt with in a humourous way in the recent Australian film "Strange Bedfellows", in which a pair of heterosexual men pretend to be homosexual in order to benefit from tax breaks for homosexual couples. | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 3 Registered: 1-2005 |
David: I agree with your assessment of the situation, and that's why I think the Canadian government would have been wise make the Supreme Court rule on the legality of Registered Domestic Partnerships (RDPs).If we set up a purely secular institution, we could allow all parties who wish to reside together to get access to the associated tax breaks. So if you're taking care of an elderly or infirm relative, or if you wish to co-habitate for any reason, you'd be validated by the government. This approach would diffuse the whole religious end of the same-sex marriage debate, as ALL couples could potentially get a tax break. Married couples (traditional or same-sex) could still participate in the religious sacrament of their choice, but would then have to go to City Hall to have their partnership registered with the government. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 150 Registered: 3-2003 |
Sexuality is the fundamental cohesive force in all societies and is a major influence on social structure and institutions. A society which does not reproduce itself ceases to exist; the sexual algorithm, the drive of male towards female resulting in the production of children who then have to be protected and nourished in order to survive, means that the forms taken by sexuality determine the success or failure of societies. Patterns of sexual behaviour (often strongly influenced by religious beliefs and prescriptions) give rise to social organisation and result in different group forms, which move from the nuclear family (now apparently in decline in most Western countries) to the extended family still surviving over a large part of the third world. Sex has a reciprocal relationship with social institutions; there are relationships between sexual morals and social structure in different societies, most obviously in the relative social circumstances of men and women; it is claimed that strict sexual morals lead to a higher birthrate in society as a whole - not smaller. The family is the main instrument of socialisation, the induction of the individual into the society. In the family, children are taught values, beliefs, and norms, and learn their identity. Our society, through government, continues to need a legal definition of “family” if we are not to evolve into an anarchy of unaffordable and ‘unproductive’ relationships. It may be said, “Who cares – perhaps the more diverse, the better?” Governments (i.e. us) have put on themselves a moral obligation in the support of “family” and therefore become financially responsible to provide for all “couples” so defined as being “together” as such. The strained social commitment on most western governments is currently hardly met. Our ageing populations, with near static growth rates, have a shrinking workforce to tax. As a minor point, this has strong implications for our baby-boomer retirees and those beyond this. The technological separation of sexual intercourse from reproduction, the growing use of abortion, the short duration of marriages, the growing use of artificial fertilisation, all operate to move patterns of reproduction away from those which operated in the distant evolutionary past and bring changes in the structure of societies, for example, smaller families, an increase in the proportion of single individuals, and a reduction in the contribution to societal cohesion made by family relationships. Further technological change is in prospect - asexual cloning of humans, now that it has been shown that mammals can be cloned, opens up startling possibilities for societal organisation and cohesion in the future. It seems likely that sexuality will over time be a less important source of societal cohesion. So, is sex to ultimately become divorced from relationships? Is it to be “handed” out in sex-clinics or brothels for those with frustrated libidos and no sex-partner? Here’s an interesting parallel: Sex is said to be the key to the social life of the bonobo; sexual behavior is indistinguishable from social behavior. Bonobo males remain attached to their mothers all their lives, following them through the forest and being dependent on them for protection in aggressive encounters with other males. There are no indications that bonobos form humanlike nuclear families. The burden of raising offspring appears to rest entirely on the female's shoulders. In fact, nuclear families are probably incompatible with the diverse use of sex found in bonobos. In some modern Western societies one might (not altogether seriously) trace a pattern of sexual behaviour and associated social forms from the Victorian gorilla or orangutan to Sixties chimpanzees to Nineties Bonobos - in California! Welcome to the future ladies and gentlemen! Where men don’t leave their mothers and women are left the burden of childrearing. Hmmm! Sounds liberating. | ||
| Mark William New member Username: amateurmuso Post Number: 1 Registered: 12-2004 |
I agree Richard it's anybodys guess about the future sexual/societal rules, there needs to be some structure or things can lead to anarchy, on the other hand my past was summed up well when you said "frustrated libidos and no sex partner" If I'd had the money I would have been quite happy to stay in a brothel using lifestyle. Alas now I'm a middle-aged father of 2 kids whom I didn't intend having and whom I am financially ill equipped to support/afford. I have always been cynical of and trying to avoid marriage (though I've been in one for a decade or so)due to it's misuse by Hollywood stars and the general skyrocketing divorce rate while I was growing up. Everybody makes mistakes but I believe there should be 'a couple of strikes and you're out' and if you start up a new relationship after that then you loose the right to call it a marriage, ie..you have to use another term. Otherwise to me it becomes a joke eg..Liz Taylor and others (what's she up to number 8 by now?) | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 157 Registered: 3-2003 |
As with you, Mark, I don’t allow a cynical bend in my own attitude or condition to prevent a witnessing of the truth. It is quite prevalent today, those who think that humankind has an innate ability to judge right and wrong are offering challenge to the argument put forward by Kant that as a practical matter any ethical system must ultimately depend on the decisive authority of some power greater than man. There is a need to once more fully recognise both the ethical and spiritual dimension to human nature and the implications this predicates for social policy and individual behaviour. Such ethical values have implications for the structure of the society in which they can flourish. As has been observed, many of the social structures that held society together are now sadly weakened namely, through a spiritual demise providing the grounding of any true ethic. Indeed, the very concept of ‘sharing’ – a far from superfluous word in the concept of shared values – is in many cases nurtured, if it is nurtured at all, in shallow or barren soil. Truthfulness, reliability, trustworthiness, a commitment to moral discipline, devotion to duty and service to others, are endorsed by all religious and ethical authorities and until recently were accepted aspects of being truly human. Yet today they seem all too often conspicuously missing from private and public life. During the last eight thousand years or so, of which we have some knowledge from recorded history, almost all human societies were held together by the glue - the duties and responsibilities – of the male-female bond and their offspring. There have been some variations in this nucleic bond, but the core of male-female-offspring was always there. Even where one parent was missing, the ideal remained for each child to have both a ‘mum and a dad‘. This concept of family has been the nucleus, the social “genetic code”, of our social structure. Accordingly policies, whether in the name of human rights or of fighting prejudice, which weaken even the conventional definition of family need to be reassessed. We should not, for the sake of some concept of fairness, permit ourselves to tamper with this ‘genetic code’ just so that those who object to it or find it inconvenient will feel better about themselves. If we do, we risk unravelling the whole of our social fabric - with consequences that are not difficult to see. One should note the recognition given to “Family” in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations in 1948 and elaborated in two International Covenants, on Civil and Political Rights and on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. Some seventy-five other international conventions expand on those rights, providing broad parameters by which societal values may be refined. Of particular significance within these Covenants is the recognition that “the widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family, which is the natural and fundamental group unit of society, particularly for its establishment and while it is responsible for the care and education of dependent children”. It seems, our own words fly in our very faces. | ||
| Florida Girl New member Username: florida_girl Post Number: 4 Registered: 12-2004 |
> I would like to jump in on this one. Okay, clearly the bible says homosexuality is a horrible sin. However, that is not the question about gay marriage. Some people interpret certain scriptures in the bible that drinking is wrong. Does that mean others who feel that it's okay to have a glass of wine now and then should be legislated NOT to do it. Plus, we simply live in a society w/ both Christians and Non-Christians. Legislating Christian values is WRONG because what if there became more Buddhists or Hindus and then they legislated their beliefs? The world is big and diverse. We don't have to agree w/ or condone homosexuality to realize that homosexuals live among us and they should have the same "human" rights we do. If we do not want to call it "marriage" how about "domestic partnership agreements" which give them legal rights as couples? That seems fair to me. Even if I felt that every homosexual is going to burn in hellfire, I have to believe that is THEIR CHOICE and they were given the right by GOD to exist in this world and live among us. Deal with it is my philosophy. I feel our government has to have basic rules and laws for the land to stop violence, anarchy, stealing, murder, etc. However, leave the "moral" issues to the people. Some will make good choices. Some won't. It doesn't hurt heterosexuals for gay people to get married. Just my thoughts. | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 5 Registered: 1-2005 |
" If we do not want to call it "marriage" how about "domestic partnership agreements" which give them legal rights as couples? That seems fair to me." I agree completely, Florida Girl. From a Canadian point of view, I think the whole issue can be diffused by simply coming up with a generic secular term for adult relationships that could be used by the government for taxation purposes. Something like "Registered Domestic Partnerships". This new institution could be entered into through a Justice Of the Peace ceremony, a marriage in the religious institution of your choice (gay-friendly or traditional) or via common-law relationship that was in place for year's time. Marriage would simply be reserved as a religious sacrament. This opens it up for everyone, and could even be used for tax breaks by an adult who's supporting an elderly parent or by polygamists. No discrimination, and no friction between state and Church. It's a win/win | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 158 Registered: 3-2003 |
"Domestic partnership arrangements" do in fact exist within our western culture - perhaps not in name but the freedom is there for such agreement. Generally, society and its legal institutions accept them, but most Western Governance currently continues to insist on a traditional defining of marriage - for better or worse. In statutory terms at least this should not pose a problem for anyone. | ||
| Mark William Junior Member Username: amateurmuso Post Number: 15 Registered: 12-2004 |
Richard and others I was wondering what you thought specifically about the Hollywood multiple marriages issue. It's a minor issue to most of you probably but for some reason it really angers me the way some of these celebrities carry on. Isn't there or shouldn't there be a point at which they forfeit their right to traditional marriages as with most things valued in society you don't just hand them out continually. I'd expect there'd be a limit to how many times you could sit for and fail a test for a degree or get granted a drivers licence if you'd had enough serious prangs. | ||
| Kimmo (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
Interesting point, Mark... but I think if you're about to marry someone, you know how many marriages they've had before, don't you? Thus you can judge the credibility of their commitment for yourself, before adding to their list. Getting back to gay marriage, don't many people believe in the idea of a 'soulmate'? Presumably gay people have their soulmates also. If you are lucky enough to ever meet yours, shouldn't you be able to legally enshrine your commitment to them, regardless of your orientation? Here in Australia, I've heard gays complain of many forms of legal discrimination against their defacto relationship versus bona fide marriage. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 177 Registered: 3-2003 |
Good point you make Kimmo regarding someones history. Generally it's a case of buyer beware (or be aware) - a little like a used car. If previously only 'used' once and with low mileage probably a good 'buy'. By about the third or fourth owner and many K's (Miles) on the clock, more likely than not, a 'buggered unit' with substantial repairs needed. In seriously addressing you comment, Mark, I guess the celebs show how difficult it is for the commitment of marriage to occur. Their ‘role-model’ denigrates any traditional promise, bearing what many people continue to crave – loyalty, devotion, dependability and fidelity. Maybe “three strikes and you’re out” could apply. By their third ‘union’ the pledge would need, for the purpose of integrity, to have removed, “for better or worse, in sickness and in health and until death do part” – their union is now beneath the level of any marriage, as so defined and so longer need make mockery of the ‘ideal’. | ||
| Kimmo (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest |
The problem with this type of prescription is that innocent parties will inevitably be maligned. I think multiple marriages is a minor issue, compared with people popping out kids on a whim... Where is the license and contract for parenthood? | ||
| Eric Foster New member Username: moondog Post Number: 5 Registered: 4-2005 |
"Marriage", as I understand it, is a religious term. I don't think the government should use this, simply because it is too much of government trying to alter religious doctorine. If Catholics don't like gays, well then fine. Catholic priests don't need to marry gay couples. But in the end, it comes down to discrimination. As a United States politician, even if you are a racist, even if you are a prejudiced against any group, you have a duty to protect and uphold the rights of every citizen of this country. To say that a certain group of people are incapable of forming loving and productive attachments is unsettling, to say the least. Using the word "civil union" would work, I think. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper  Username: adminPost Number: 422 Registered: 3-2003 |
Eric, Using the world "civil union" to mean all such unions performed by civil authorities, regardless of the gender of the members of the union would seem fair. But a huge number of straight unbelievers who have civil ceremonies would scream bloody murder at not being able to call their unions "marriage" just because they were not performed by religious authorities. They would assume that they were being stigmatized as second class, compared to couples who were truly "married." Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Eric Foster Junior Member Username: moondog Post Number: 11 Registered: 4-2005 |
JAH, Are you sure they'd feel stigmatized? It's my understanding that more and more people would rather take as much religious conotation out of their language as possible. "No children, it's not Christmas holidays. It's Winter Break. See? You don't mention Christ in this school." "Uhmm... Mr. Principal, what is that picture of Mary doing in this class room? I think it's affecting the students. We can have no religious stuff around." "And here is our chape- erhm, I mean our religious preference zone." X) Just kidding. But still, I don't think too many people would upset with it after a bit. It would take less adjusting than attaching "marriage" to something many religions find anathema to their morality. Kind regards, Eric Foster | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 14 Registered: 5-2005 |
I wasn’t going to but something keeps telling me to put my 2 cents worth. MR. Scooper I honestly believe homosexuality is a mental sickness where the brain does not register fermions. Have tow people of the same sex the right to marry, why not, as long as they live in the gay non productive world where it is recognised. If we recognise gay marriages, where do we stop? Do we; in another100 years allow people and animals, because they too have a right of sexual expression. Do we also give rights to necrophiliacs and paedophiles? NO this is not an extreme view, because nothing is as it seems at first. Why should I find justification for something that is not natural when explaining the facts of life to my kids. Why should anybody? I’m glad it stops HERE and they cannot produce offspring’s. I’m sorry if this view seems a bit harsh but it is my ethical view. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member  Username: efremPost Number: 131 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael Ray sez: "I honestly believe homosexuality is a mental sickness where the brain does not register fermions. ..." Well...! 'Fermions' is it! That's certainly a new one, but before I could take offense at yet another negative yoke for my tribe to carry, I had to understand the word so I 'googled' it, to wit: Fermions: Particles such as electrons, protons, and neutrons that are the "constituents" of matter and account for its impenetrability. Other particles -- called, "bosons" -- mediate, or carry, forces between fermions. Examples would be photons, gravitons, and gluons. Well, sir, I think that your brain is possessed of a surfeit of 'fermions', thereby making it impenetrable to any rational thought whatsoever. It's become fashionable of late to equate homosexuality with necrophilia and bestiality, as though recognizing this element of sexuality would 'open the flood gates' to every kind of abhorrent behavior imaginable. I'm of an age that I can vividly remember white men exclaiming, "Why..., if we let them ••••••• go to school with our children they'll be rapin' our women next!!" This, of course, was not to be and only reflected the fear on the part of the speaker of his inability to protect 'hearth and home' from the expected bands of roaming negroes intent on defiling their white women. By expressing your fear of necrophilia and bestiality as 'the next step', what are you afraid of sir? By the way, if you consider Michaelangelo, De Vinci, Alexander the Great, Hadrian and the woman who wrote 'America the Beautiful', etcetera, etcetera, etcetera as unnatural..., so be it. I can assure you that I much prefer their 'unnatural' state to your brand of childish, quivering 'normalcy'. In closing, please consider that 'gays' have always been here and, though a small percentage of all cultures across the world for all time, they will always be here. Eskimos are not 'usual' in that they are a very small part of the world population, but they most certainly are 'natural'. Get used to it and stop peeing your pants. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 132 Registered: 2-2003 |
OH..., by the way, given the dismal failure rate of marriages among heterosexuals despite their declarations of its 'sanctity', I've never understood my gay bretherns' fascination with it. Better to arrange some sort of contract between two individuals that doesn't carry the awful connotations. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 133 Registered: 2-2003 |
Class..., it's time for your 'Gay' lesson of the day: LAMBDA AS A SYMBOL OF GAY/LESBIAN RIGHTS "The Enclylopedia of Homosexuality has the following entry on LAMBDA: In the eary 1970's in the wake of the Stonewall Rebellion, New York City's Gay Activist Alliance selected the Greek letter lambda, which member Tom Doerr suggested from its scientific use to designate Kinetic Potential, as its emblem. (Curiously, in some ancient Greek graffiti the capital lambda appear with the meaning "fellate", representing the first letter of either "lambazein" or "laikazein.) Because of its militant associations,the lambda symbol has spread throughout the world. It sometime appears in the form of an amulet hung round the neck as a subtle sign of recognition which can "pass" among unkowing heterosexuals as a mere ornament. Suchemblems may reflet a tendency among homosexuals toward "tribalization" as a distinct segment of society, one conceived as a quasi-ethnic group. In "More Man Than You'll Ever Be" by Joseph P. Goodwin (Indiana University Press:Bloomington, 1989) on page 26, Goodwin writes: The lowercase Greek letter lambda carries several meanings. First of all,it represents scales, and thus balance. The Greeks considered balance to be the constant adjustment necessary to keep opposing forces from overcoming each other. The hook at the bottom of the right leg of the lambda represents the action required to reach and maintin a balance. To the Spartans, the lambda meant unity. They felt that society should never infringe on anyones individuality and freedom. The Romans adopted the letter to represent "the light of knowledge shed into the darkness of ignorance." Finally, in physics the symbol designates an energy change. Thus the lambda, with all its meanings, is an especially apt symbol for the gay liberation movement, which energetically seeks a balance in society and which strives through enlightenment to secure equal rights for homosexual people. HISTORY OF THE RAINBOW FLAG Gilbert Baker, a San Francisco artist, designed the first Rainbow flag in 1978, He created the flag in response to a local activist's call for the need of a community symbol. Baker designed a flag with eight stripes: pink,red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo and violet. According to Baker, those colors represented, respectively: sexuality, life, healing,sun,nature, art, harmony and spirit. Baker dyed and sewed the material for the first flag himself, in the true spirit of Betsy Ross. Baker soon was approached San Francisco's Paramount Flag Company about mass producing and selling his "gay flag". Unfortunately, Baker had hand-dyed all the colors and since the color "hot pink" was not commericially available, mass production of his eight-stripe version became impossible. The flag was thus reduced to seven strips. In November 1978, San Francisco's gay community was stunned when the city's first openly gay supervisor, Harvy Milk, was assassinated. Wishing to demonstrate the gay community's strength and solidarity in the aftermath of this tragedy, the 1979 SF Pride Parade Committee decided to use Baker's flag. The committee eliminated the indigo stripe so they could divide the colors evenly aong the parade route - three colors on one side of the street and three on the other. Soon the six colors were incorporated into a six striped version that became popularized, and that today is recognized by the International Congress of Flag Makers. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 16 Registered: 5-2005 |
Sure good idea; write a positive appeal against nature and it makes it OK. I’m not afraid of anything, there is right and wrong. That right from wrong is stopped by nature, by not allowing offspring’s like you would in any other male/ female relationship. What is the end product of love in a homosexual relationship? The point is simple; when the end product is not reproductive then the relationship is pointless. And the other point is; if we recognize one illness the doors open for the rest.. sorry if I upset you but my stand is strong on this view. | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 17 Registered: 5-2005 |
Efrem We must have posted at the same time and my reply now does not match your 1st 2 The history of homosexuality is pointless to this debate, all it states that people suffered from this type of illness for a long time. But you must recognise it as illness since it has nothing to do with intelligence, and is not binding just to human form. It happens to animals as well and they are not intellectually about sexual preference. sorry | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 134 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael Ray sez: "...there is right and wrong. That right from wrong is stopped by nature, by not allowing offspring’s like you would in any other male/ female relationship. ..." Ummm...., dear, "offspring like me" ARE the product of male/female relationships..., those relationships you term 'normal/natural'. Since we're all God's creation, are you telling me that you think God makes mistakes? "...The point is simple; when the end product is not reproductive then the relationship is pointless. ..." So..., all the heterosexual people who've had loving unions that didn't produce offspring had 'pointless' relationships? I'm sure a great many of them would disagree with your 'logic'. "... And the other point is; if we recognize one illness the doors open for the rest.. sorry if I upset you but my stand is strong on this view. ..." Thanks for your concern, but I'm not really upset; just weary of listening to the same old dribble from malformed minds issuing their childish fears/prejudices. If it weren't so potentially dangerous and if, in fact, your train of thought hadn't already been responsible for the violent, brutal death of so many of my tribe, I would find your 'logic' extremely boring and not worth my time. As it is, in my experience, your line of thought is directly responsible for encouraging the cro magnons amongst us to pillage, rape and murder a group of people who are basically very peaceful and loving. Having said that, there is evidence that some gays are beginning to recognize the necessity of developing defense networks and personal 'styles'; some to the point of carrying firearms. So..., the next time you and your buddies decide to go 'gay-bashing', that's something you might want to keep in mind. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 135 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael Ray sez: "...The history of homosexuality is pointless to this debate, all it states that people suffered from this type of illness for a long time. But you must recognise it as illness since it has nothing to do with intelligence, and is not binding just to human form. It happens to animals as well and they are not intellectually about sexual preference. sorry ..." I, too, am sorry; I find it difficult (an inadequacy on my part) to discuss anything with fools, drunks and lunatics. End of discussion. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 3 Registered: 5-2005 |
I find it discouraging that people discussing matters of faith are being reduced to "fools, drunks, and lunatics." Being a web site that celebrates diversity of thought and faith having someone ridiculed for their faith seems hypocritical!(I know Dogchurch has nothing to do with this discussion) If I were to state that the only way for salvation is thru the belief that Jesus was/is the Son of God, shouldn't make me a "fool, drunk, or a lunatic." You can disagree with me, and I can disagree with you. But it shouldn't become a yelling match between people with differing faiths. There will be statements that will hurt, but we shouldn't become itentionally hurtful! | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 136 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark sez: "I find it discouraging that people discussing matters of faith are being reduced to "fools, drunks, and lunatics." Being a web site that celebrates diversity of thought and faith having someone ridiculed for their faith seems hypocritical!..." There was nothing in Michael Ray's previous posts that indicated that the opinions he was offering were 'articles of faith', just that those were firmly held beliefs; no mention of whether they were beliefs of the secular or religious nature. If they're secular in nature, and they're beliefs that encourage and result in grievous bodily harm and even murder of individuals, they're up for challenge and discussion; if they're religious in nature, and they're beliefs that encourage and result in grievous bodily harm and even murder of individuals, they're up for challenge and discussion also. As a member of the group against which these beliefs are held, I would no more let them pass unchallenged than any other member of any other minority would. Why heterosexuals believe it is somehow more acceptable to deny human rights to gays than to other groups these days is beyond me; perhaps it's because you have no one else you can 'legally' exhibit your pitiful sense of superiority toward; even to assume the authority to have the ability to 'debate' the worth of the homosexual is an affront, something like looking at the slave on the auction block and deciding his/her worth. From reading the entries of a great many of the 'hets' on this and other discuassions, it's obvious you have no knowledge of many of the issues facing gays as people at all and that you view them as abstractions to be discussed in a detached manner. The 'logic' contained in Michael Ray's posts sound, to the average gay individual, not unlike Hitler's rants about the 'non' humaness of Jews in the thirties and forties; in short, the ravings of a lunatic. There is nothing in Jesus' teachings anti-homosexual, in fact, there is abundant evidence of His affection for and identification with the dispossessed and alienated. And please don't bring up Leviticus..., if you really believed that list of 'abominations' you wouldn't eat shrimp, pork or wear mix and match clothes made of different materials along with a host of other 'sins' mentioned there but indulged in every day by most 'christians'. In addition to sayings such as "Judge not lest ye be judged", the always 'perplexing' Jesus also said He had come not to bring peace but to pit son against father, which some take to mean overthrowing 'old thought' for the sake of discovering new and better ways of 'being'. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 4 Registered: 5-2005 |
I wasn’t condoning or condemning homosexuality or heterosexuality. Nor am I condoning or condemning what any one would say about their faith to another. Of course, if Michael Ray is condoning violence against homosexuals then I would most certainly condemn it. But if Michael Ray is stating his belief, which would be shared by many Southern Baptists, Catholics, Hasidic Jews, etc. that homosexuality is a sin then I would consider it wrong for me to call them names because of his belief system. Just as if a Muslim tells me that I am wrong for not requiring my wife to cover her head, I will just disagree with them. I am not going to call them names for what I would consider to be an over reaction to a couple of short sentence in the Qur'an. I have no way of knowing what was revealed to Muhammad (saas) or the original intent of what was revealed. It can only validated by faith that our modern interpretations are “correct”. So, therefore; I feel/think that I shouldn’t resort to name calling for a difference of interpretation. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 447 Registered: 3-2003 |
Michael Ray, The entire psychological community has abandoned your position long ago, because the evidence did not support it. Homosexuality no longer appears as a mental disorder in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual. If we extend marriage to gays and lesbians, we will still be able to count. Western Civilization relies on binary unions. It is an arbitrary choice, but one can defend it on grounds that binary unions emphasize the equality and dignity of the individuals in the relationship more so than unions of a greater number of people. Unions of people with animals can be argued against because animals cannot be said under the law to give informed consent, and because the relationship is not between equals. Your slippery slope argument is not entirely without merit (there are some polygamists watching the gay marriage movement with great interest), but as I said, we can still count. Efrem, Thanks for the history lesson! Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 18 Registered: 5-2005 |
HOW…I think this has gone out of hand Efrem. I don’t believe that at any point did I suggest murder or gay bashings, I don’t know where you got that from. All I have done is to disagree with homosexuality and suggest it was a mental disorder by evidence that presents itself in nature amongst other animal forms. Sure homosexuals are a product of heterosexual marriages, so is diabetes, down syndrome, poor sight and poor judgment. So what is your point? I don’t know how old you are but someone should have told you how babies are made. And sometimes nature gets bit unkind and dishes out imperfections. The second point I was making and again at no point linked homosexuals with other sexual disorders. The point was clear…..basically, homosexuality was never recognised as a legitimate relationship until recently. Now I can see this open gates of acceptance to other sexual preferences. Maybe not right now but it will happen in near future. Already age of consent has been lowered in many countries. Just goes to show, persistence and right people on the top suffering sexually orientated illness can bring on a change. Scooper You will have to back this one up You say: The entire psychological community has abandoned your position long ago, because the evidence did not support it. *** no one has abandoned no such thing…. What they are saying now is; Being homosexual does not impair on their other judgments and are not dangerous to others in the community. Now there is some change to this diagnostic but the change is only made by homosexuals and is not supported psychiatric diagnostics. Anyway the answer is NO! I do not support gay marriages. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 220 Registered: 3-2003 |
John, Can I perhaps refer you to NARTH (National Association for Research & Therapy of Homosexuality), which certainly challenges your own quite fervent view on the diagnosis of homosexuality? Your statement on the “entire psychological community” is not only misleading but, quite plainly, wrong. You refer to the binary nature of unions as underpinning our western culture, this renders the following as a little intriguing: “While we are all reflecting on such things, it is worth asking, where did the binary nature of marriage come from? In other words, why is "two" important? Two comes from two genders, male and female. From the beginning, it has been so. Now that this foundation has been deconstructed as unnecessary………if husband and wife are not sacred and worth preserving, then why is "two" sacred? Why not three or four? Hello, allow me to introduce the Smiths: Bob, Carol, Ted, and Alice and their six children.” - Professor of Psychology, Warren Throckmorton} The truth... (from NARTH) Scientific research supports age-old cultural norms that homosexuality is not a healthy, natural alternative to heterosexuality. Research shows that gay teens are especially vulnerable to substance abuse and early, high-risk sexual behavior. It does far more harm than good to tell a teenager that his or her attractions toward members of the same sex are normal and desirable. Teens in this position need understanding and counseling, not a push in the direction of a potentially deadly lifestyle. A 1992 study in Pediatrics found that 25.9% of 12-year-olds are uncertain if they are gay or straight. The teen years are critical to the question of self-labeling, so the facts must be presented in our schools in a fair and balanced manner The term "homophobia" is often used inaccurately to describe any person who objects to homosexual behaviour on moral, psychological or medical grounds. Technically, however, the terms actually denotes a person who has a phobia - or irrational fear - of homosexuality. Principled disagreement, therefore, cannot be labelled "homophobia." Psychotherapists around the world who treat homosexuals report that significant numbers of their clients have experienced substantial healing. Change has come through psychological therapy, spirituality, and ex-gay support groups. Whether leading married or committed celibate lives, many report that their homosexual feelings have diminished greatly, and do not trouble them as much as they had in the past. The keys to change are desire, persistence, and a willingness to investigate the conscious and unconscious conflicts from which the condition originated. Change comes slowly, usually over several years. Clients learn how to meet their needs for same-sex nurturance and affirmation without eroticizing the relationship. As they grow into their heterosexual potential, men and women typically experience a deeper and fuller sense of themselves as male or female. If some homosexuals do not wish to change, that is their choice, yet it is profoundly sad that gay-rights activists struggle against the right-to-treatment for other homosexuals who yearn for freedom from their attractions. Toleration of difference does not require intellectual apathy. A respect for pluralism does not mandate relativism. "Tolerance and diversity" means nothing if it is extended to activists and not traditionalists on the homosexual issue. (Message edited by r_adler on June 06, 2005) | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 137 Registered: 2-2003 |
How many in this discussion are homosexual? LOve, Jenn | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 19 Registered: 5-2005 |
Scooper and Efrem Some bible teaching is in order I think, since it has been challenged. VERY IMPORTANT: Matthew 5:17 NAB) "Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Luke 16:17 NAB) It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid." (2 Timothy 3:16 NAB) "All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness..." GOD HATES IMPERFECTION: (Deuteronomy 23:2 NAB) No one whose testicles have been crushed or whose penis has been cut off may be admitted into the community of the Lord. (Leviticus 21:16-23 NLT) Then the LORD said to Moses, "Tell Aaron that in all future generations, his descendants who have physical defects will not qualify to offer food to their God. No one who has a defect may come near to me, whether he is blind or lame, stunted or deformed, or has a broken foot or hand, or has a humped back or is a dwarf, or has a defective eye, or has oozing sores or scabs on his skin, or has damaged testicles. Even though he is a descendant of Aaron, his physical defects disqualify him from presenting offerings to the LORD by fire. Since he has a blemish, he may not offer food to his God. However, he may eat from the food offered to God, including the holy offerings and the most holy offerings. Yet because of his physical defect, he must never go behind the inner curtain or come near the altar, for this would desecrate my holy places. I am the LORD who makes them holy." PLEASE TAKE NOTE: (Leviticus 20:13 NAB) "If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." What is happening? The church is telling you another truth and that truth will be anything that might increase income for the church. There is truth and then there is truth. (Proverbs 10:6 NAB Blessings are for the head of the just, but a rod for the back of the fool. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 138 Registered: 2-2003 |
More Leviticus rantings: Chapter 11 1 1 The LORD said to Moses and Aaron, 2 "Speak to the Israelites and tell them: Of all land animals these are the ones you may eat: 3 any animal that has hoofs you may eat, provided it is cloven-footed and chews the cud. 4 But you shall not eat any of the following that only chew the cud or only have hoofs: the camel, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; 5 2 the rock badger, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; 6 the hare, which indeed chews the cud, but does not have hoofs and is therefore unclean for you; and the pig, 7 which does indeed have hoofs and is cloven-footed, but does not chew the cud and is therefore unclean for you. 8 Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall not touch; they are unclean for you. 9 "Of the various creatures that live in the water, you may eat the following: whatever in the seas or in river waters has both fins and scales you may eat. 10 But of the various creatures that crawl or swim in the water, whether in the sea or in the rivers, all those that lack either fins or scales are loathsome for you, 11 and you shall treat them as loathsome. Their flesh you shall not eat, and their dead bodies you shall loathe. 12 Every water creature that lacks fins or scales is loathsome for you. Ummm..., I guess that kinda lets out throwin' another shrimp on the barbie, eh Michael; oh..., and you can forget having any sausage with your eggs or any pepperoni on your pizza. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 139 Registered: 2-2003 |
Oh..., no catfish either!! LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 140 Registered: 2-2003 |
Leviticus 19, 19 19 "Keep my statutes: do not breed any of your domestic animals with others of a different species; do not sow a field of yours with two different kinds of seed; and do not put on a garment woven with two different kinds of thread." Mmmm...., well, I guess we all blew that one with all the mules running around; and, I suppose a lot of farmers will be disappointed and driven further still into bankruptcy when they find they've been violating this rule; also, the one about the clothes I guess means most of us will have to start going nekkid, eh? LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 5 Registered: 5-2005 |
WOW... I agree with Mr. Ray that those are Biblical, and I have no authority to change what is written. But, I surely will not be throwing the first stone. Mr. Ray, how about Peter's vision? I have always interpreted his vision as an opening to Gentiles, barbarians, whores, homosexuals, adulterous, Shrimp eaters, pork eaters, uncircumcised, etc. For the Lord made them all, loves them all, and Peter's vision was one to Christ's disciples that we should love them all, and certainly not bash them. Where's the Love? I understand and sympathize greatly with Mr. Ray's disappointment in the Church's stand on a great many things involving the Judeo-Christian writings/traditions; The "Great Gray-a-facation" of the world can easily be seen by believers of the Word. But just because I don't believe Subjectivity is king, but only GOD is the King of kings, doesn't diminish my Love for Mr. Ray, Jenn, and even the fundamentalist who wants me dead; for God commands me to love all! May peace be upon you! | ||
| Michael Ray Junior Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 20 Registered: 5-2005 |
Jenn I didn’t think that I was going to bring out the worse in you or for that matter anybody.You have managed to associate me with very low characters, from organised criminal to murderer and all because I believe different to you. OH! WELL! Such is life. Few posts ago you where ready to embrace god when you thought there was biblical justification for the act and now that you know different, you are ready to make fun of him. Now you are making me laugh, they say laughter is good. Thanks | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 141 Registered: 2-2003 |
Michael sez: "I didn’t think that I was going to bring out the worse in you or for that matter anybody.You have managed to associate me with very low characters, from organised criminal to murderer and all because I believe different to you. ..." Let me see if I can explain it to you this way; when you equate homosexuality with subnormal behavior and suggest our acceptance by society at large means necrophilia and bestiality are next, that opinion of yours dehumanizes a whole segment of society. I would imagine that the views you've shared here, you share with your friends/associates in Oz. At one point in the USA, blacks and American native people were thought of as subhuman and less than animals; consequently there were a great many lynchings, beatings and other violent acts visited upon their race simply because there was little or no chance of the perpetrators being punished for harming 'things' that had no value as conscious, feeling, intelligent beings. I imagine the same situation existed at one time in Oz with the native people there. When you voice the kind of asinine thoughts you've voiced here, you encourage others to think there's justification for whatever violence they wish to visit upon gay folks. Your vicious selectiveness in quoting Old Testament scripture to validate your ignorance is totally unacceptable and as a member of the group you are encouraging violence toward, you will not escape my condemnation and villification. Jesus said "...turn the other cheek"; at the same time, He blew his top at the money changers in the temple and cursed a hapless fig tree among other outbursts of anger. Following His example, while I am generally able to accept other folks foibles and quirks in a non-judgemental way, I draw the line at mindless hate, which is what your 'opinions' generate. In my view, you probably have such strongly held, misinformed beliefs because you recognize a propensity within your own psychological make up that lends itself to same gender attraction and that makes you very uncomfortable. I hope you are eventually able to come to terms with that propensity in a way that's beneficial for all concerned. LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 6 Registered: 5-2005 |
I ask this in hopes that there can be a polite conversation; this is not to continue stirring the bitterness between people. How can people, whose belief system is based in the Judeo-Christian(Muslim as well) faith, rectify the growing movement towards, not just tolerance of "Biblically Incorrect" actions, but the acceptance and teaching of these actions as an acceptable alternatives? Question for Jenn: So most of the followers of the "Big 3" are only against homosexuality because they are homophobic and not because their Holy Books say they should be against homosexual activity? That seems awfully demeaning to the 3 billion followers of the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) (saas). The over simplification of their position seems to be as wrong as a follower of the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) (saas), taking God’s role and pronouncing Judgment upon you, rather than on an act. May peace be upon you! | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 142 Registered: 2-2003 |
Mark sez: "Question for Jenn: So most of the followers of the "Big 3" are only against homosexuality because they are homophobic and not because their Holy Books say they should be against homosexual activity? That seems awfully demeaning to the 3 billion followers of the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) (saas). The over simplification of their position seems to be as wrong as a follower of the God of Abraham (Ibrahim) (saas), taking God’s role and pronouncing Judgment upon you, rather than on an act." Well.., first of all, I don't 'know' that 'most' of the followers of the 'Big 3' (by that, I suppose you mean the Trinity) are actually 'against' homosexuality. Most ordinary people in my life, while they may not practice homosexuality, could care less what someone else does in the privacy of their own lives/bedroom. Of course, when I go out kinda 'femmed' up, I do get odd stares occasionally, but that's only because most folks aren't used to seeing feminine men expressing that side of themselves publicly. I DO know that, aside from the occasional twit I run into on this and other groups/lists, quite a few religious 'leaders' have made media 'names' for themselves by voicing negative opinions about gays. The media, in turn, interprets this to mean that these 'leaders' speak for the hearts of all members of whatever denomination they seem to represent. However, as I said, in my life nothing could be further from the truth as I know several folks born and raised in the Southern Baptist tradition for instance who, while they are heterosexual, remain friendly and neighborly. As I mentioned earlier, the 'Good' book has all sorts of sanctions about all sorts of things that are termed unclean and abominations, most of which are ignored these days. 'Abomination' does not translate to sin or eternal damnation. To truly understand my feelings about all of this I would have to go into a rather lengthy explanation of my own spirituality and 'sense' of the 'God Force'; something I'm not really inclined to do at this point as I have work in my carpentry shop to do. Suffice it to say that I believe any religion/philosophy that condemns or encourages the condemnation and or violent/psychological mistreatment of anyone because of something they cannot do anything about is, itself, an abomination. Please don't start with me about 'Ex-gay Ministries'. You don't know anything about them except what you choose to read that reinforces the beliefs you want to support. As for teen gays who begin 'spiraling out of control'; the teen years are when lots of folks of all persuasions, regardless, do some pretty goofy things, experimenting with alcohol and drugs among them. It just so happens, that in addition to the usual plethora of 'teen angst', gay teens also have the realization that they are indeed very different from their peers and a great deal more psychological, social and emotional suffering results from that realization. I first noticed that I was feminine as a sixth grader and it was quickly condemned by my classmates; I crammed it down inside for the next thirty five years and only started enjoying that part of me well into my forties. In the meantime, I made life miserable for me and the 3 women with whom I tried to form 'normal' relationships. I'm not the only one this has happened to..., it's an old story. The younger kids today seem to be more accepting of 'variations on a theme' and I say, "God bless'em!" LOve, Jenn | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 143 Registered: 2-2003 |
JAH sez: "Efrem, Thanks for the history lesson!" You're quite welcome, Reverend Scooper. LOve, Jenn (Message edited by efrem on June 06, 2005) | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 7 Registered: 5-2005 |
Jenn: I am truly sorry we have a world in which you feel the need (rightly so or not) to be so defensive. I am not attacking you in any way. I am only pointing out that the "Big Three"** traditionally has never condoned homosexual activity. So having the viewpoint that homosexual activities are incorrect "in the eyes of the Lord" would be common place. **(That is my humorous (attempted) way of connecting Judaism, Christianity, and Islam into one massive Traditional God of Abraham/ Ibrahim (saas) using the nomenclature as Chrysler, GM and Ford are traditionally termed the Big Three Automakers. ) ----- This is my viewpoint only: I see homosexual activities as being no different than premarital sex, Adultery, etc., Biblically speaking. The reason is based in Procreation vs. Recreation. I wonder about my own marriage. My wife and I are not planning to have children, and in the Catholic, Hasidic, Taliban Muslims(I am not comparing Taliban to Catholic, Hasidic etc. please don't think I am!!) and other sects of the “Big 3” I am only having recreational sex and not procreational sex so therefore we are wrong in our actions. Protestants try to make the argument that recreational sex is permitted in the confines of marriage. I don’t know for sure how they Biblically back that up; I would think that any conservative (literal) reading would leave the person thinking that any activity resulting in emission that was not intended for creating life would be wrong; hopefully theoretical wrong and not burn in hell wrong. I can’t imagine God being displeased for unconscious nocturnal emissions. Then again, if we take everything too literally I would need to sit in a Monastery, staring at a blank wall praying for the rest of my life for forgiveness of my wretchedness! I really like Paul, of the NT, his interpretations brings redemption to us through Christ, by my faith. I pray to God that Paul was correct! I do not see you as any more of a sinner as I would see myself as a sinner. My questions, comments and concerns are never geared to anyone as if I am holier than thou! I pray for peace for you, and for all. No matter your Colour, faith, preference, orientation, etc. We are all God’s children and may peace be upon us! | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 144 Registered: 2-2003 |
Ummm..., here's another way to think about 'things': http://www.kwanumzen.com/pzc/newsletter/v09n10-1997-oct.html "...At one time, the citizens of Kesaputta asked the Buddha what they should believe. They were very confused by the many religions in vogue at that time. The Buddha said, "Do not accept anything by mere tradition. Do not accept anything just because it accords with your scriptures. Do not accept anything because it agrees with your opinions or because it is socially acceptable. Do not accept anything because it comes from the mouth of a respected person. Rather, observe closely and if it is to the benefit of all, accept and abide by it." This Sutta - the Kalama Sutta - is the root of Zen-style inquiry into the true self. ..." LOve, Jenn Kill the Buddha. | ||
| Mark Boyd New member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 8 Registered: 5-2005 |
Nothing personal, but this would be the same case of sorting out and picking what one wants, rather than looking at the whole. I am not critiquing you, I do it myself; but I wonder how is it that Mr. Ray is wrong for selecting only the passages he wants that supports his position, yet it is fine to ignore Asian philosophy and religious practices because it suits their desires? Confucianism: Procreation was the only legit reason for sex (generally speaking) Buddhism: 4 noble truths, 8 fold path, etc. desire is what leads to human suffering, Sex isn’t desire? Taoism: Ying/Yang, literal terms of emissions of masculine Yang was limited and wasn’t allowed/encouraged without multiple couplings with Yin. No autoerotic or homosexual activity. Just because I want to accept certain truths from multiple religions shouldn’t make my beliefs more authentic than someone who is a devotee to just one or should it? I would be using the same argument if it were Mr. Ray defending adultery or premarital sex. Which I am guilty of 50% of the last sentence, so I want to stress again that I am not trying to hassle anyone in particular; sin all the same (Western Terms), matters not how it is spelled. May peace be upon you! | ||
| Michael Ray Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 21 Registered: 5-2005 |
Mark Boyd This of course is only my view. The OT was god’s law the NT is mans law. If you look at it logically the OT is only relevant if you are Israelite. Never the less it does show how god thinks and the laws that he sets cannot be broken. The OT was admired by the rest of the world but hopeless if you where a genital, so the change was inevitable. This way everybody could be part of this great glory and not having to loose their foreskin. So, Peters trance to me is just a way to rebel against God without suffering public stoning. And if you are curious…yes I was raised as a Christian. What the Christen church teaches differs greatly on the philosophy and sexual appetites of the priests or teachers. And they have very little biblically to support any of their theologies on sexual orientations. Sexual orientation is a chemical/hormonal imbalance and not biblical tolerance. Now my gripe against homosexuality is marriage and passionate kissing in public. Because there is no way in this world that, that it is normal and I should not have to tell my kids lies or make excuses for homosexuals. I don’t promote my sexuality by raising a flag, saying I’m a heterosexual so why should they. | ||
| Mark Boyd Junior Member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 11 Registered: 5-2005 |
Mr. Ray, I understand your displeasure with public display of affection for homosexuals. But I hold the same displeasure for any public display of affection. I am very disappointed with society’s lack of respect in general. It seems that since the 50’s there has been a diminishing in public appearance and behavior. I lean (politically speaking) libertarian; so there isn’t a chance in Hades that I would support governmental dictates into how people should act in public (of course there are general decency laws that need to be upheld), public action needs to be left up to people’s conscious. We as a nation and a world seem to be loosing that sense of decency. I am horrified by the actions of Right Wing extremists from anywhere, but when I go from the History Channel to my local PBS station (Go ahead and crack on me, A Libertarian who watches PBS!), I have to pass MTV, VH1, BET, etc. I realize why the Taliban, Al Qaeda, certain Christian Militias, et al, want us dead; and why the Christian right wants to bury me in behavior laws. It seems that we have allowed the mind frame of 13 yr olds to control our societal norms. Oh well, May peace be upon you | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 448 Registered: 3-2003 |
Ah, folks, Apologies for not knowing about NARTH. They must be some sort of fringe organization. I could find no reference to them on the American Psychological Association website. But I did find this reference. With regard to those of you "rules" folks, I see that the subject of the rules that you all break has been mentioned. I note that Jesus is quoted in the Gospels as stating that he did not come to break the Law but to fulfill the Law and that not one iota of the Law would pass away until all is fulfilled. Some Christians who wish to deny the OT claim that in Christ, all is fulfilled. To me it is self-evident that this cannot be a valid interpretation. We are still here for some reason. All is not fulfilled until the End of Time. Which means that the rules are still in force, and that all of us break them. Or, in the language of those of you who talk about imperfection, I quote Jesus: Let one among you who is without sin cast the first stone. Of course homosexuality is an imperfection. So is heterosexuality as we currently manifest it, if one is disposed to take Fall of Humankind in Genesis seriously. That is to say, holy desire is corrupted by Sin and contaminated with Lust. John Milton gives the most compelling description of this idea in Paradise Lost. On the other hand, God seems to work just fine with instruments that seem imperfect to us. "Walk before me, and be thou perfect," the Voice of God says to Saul in the Temple. Is Saul perfect? Far from it. Can he make himself perfect in response to God's command? No, he does not have that power. So how can God say such a thing? Because the command itself makes Saul perfect for God's purposes. Compare the imperative uttered by Jesus to a leper, who had said to Jesus, "If you will, you can make me clean." And Jesus said, "I will, be thou clean." The leper cannot cure himself. The imperative "be clean" cleanses him of leprosy (not necessarily Hansen's disease - lots of skin ailments were called leprosy in those days). So those of you who are hung up on the imperfection of homosexuals are hung up because their imperfection is different from your imperfection. To those of you who are Christian, I say we are all in this together, gay and straight: We all stand on the same side of the Cross - the one we drive the nails in. I remember Jesus' parable in the Gospels about a Pharisee and a tax-collector (I think) praying. The Pharisee thanks God that God has not made him like the tax-collector. The tax-collector prays simply, "God have mercy on me, a sinner." In the parable, Jesus appoves of the tax-collector's prayer, and condemns that of the Pharisee. (The Pharisees were a major Jewish sect known for being scrupulous in their observance of the Law.) Now, following St. Paul's admonition that it is better to marry than to burn (with desire), I think we need to create a legal status for gay and lesbian couples in order to secure their rights to inherit each other's property, get alimony, get child support for any adopted children, make health care decisions for each other in time of incapacitation, etc. That is to say, we need to encourage gays and lesbians to engage in civil unions rather than to burn with desire, or to engage in high risk behaviors. It's reasonable, it's charitable, and it's good public health policy. And it strengthens the concept of binary unions by legally recognizing the unions of the five percent or so of the population who are currently excluded from such recognition. If those of you who are straight don't want to call it marriage, I can understand that. If those of you who are gay, lesbian, or bisexual feel marginalized because it isn't called marriage, well, gays, lesbians and bisexuals get marginalized in a lot of ways that are worse that that. I'm sympathetic - I'm happy to call it marriage. But if the majority of our fellow citizens can't bring themselves to call it marriage and would rather say "civil union," deal with it, and move on. As for public displays of affection. Get over it. While gratuitous displays of lust are indeed a bad thing, tasteful displays of love are a good thing. And by tasteful, I mean something short of what Tipper and Al did at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Ray Beckwith Junior Member Username: ray Post Number: 19 Registered: 9-2004 |
Bravo Futterman. I think you finally put the whole thing in perspective. Stingray | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 223 Registered: 3-2003 |
It is moronic to even suspect that homosexual unions could in any way threaten "the family” however, the notion that there is no rational basis for acknowledging only hetero marriages is severely strained. Just because gays can (sometimes) adopt, and just because some heterosexual couples choose to not have kids or can't have kids, does not make the distinction irrational. Homosexual couples simply cannot procreate, and procreation is what underlies most of the marriage concept as a justification for different treatment. This is a classic case of where the legislature should make the call, as a matter of social justice and as a matter of judicial credibility. Clearly, a distinction should be made between civil unions and marriage. To combine both as meaning the same merely muddies a distinction given by the state with a religious definition. I’m in a loving but unmarried relationship; I nevertheless uphold the model of marriage as being superlatively protective of children. The real problem society now faces are those children born outside of a committed relationship – something obviously reaching far deeper than the biological glue bonding a female to a male. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 2 Registered: 6-2005 |
A few corrections on Futterman's original commentary: a) gay marriage is not legal in Vermont, civil unions are a separate entity, and b) civil unions are available for ANYBODY. This includes anyone seeking to include anyone as a participant in their employee benefits who is not a spouse. This can be a brother or sister, parent or other relative, a gay lover or a platonic cohabitant. That is right: if civil unions are 'marriage' in Vermont, then Vermont legalized incest. They had to to comply with the court ruling that mandated the legislation, in that it could not violate the equal protection clause in any way. This didn't keep it from doing so, because it specifically limits the union to two people, which discriminates against polyamorous relationships. Now, to really twist your brains: I am pro-gay marriage, but against government involvement in marriage. Government marriage licensing began as the feudal lords right of prima nocti, i.e. you may have seen this in Braveheart: the right of the king to your spouse before you on your wedding night. After we in the US became free, free white people needed no marriage licenses. Marriage licenses were considered property titles in states that regarded the wife (or her womb) as property of her husband, or where both were property of a slaveowner. In slave marriages and interracial marriages licenses were required, like AKC breeding papers, to regulate miscegenation. If you are rightly offended at all this talk, you should be. Free people should not be required to have licenses to be married to each other. The state has no authority to require them of free people. For gay people to avidly WANT the state to declare such ownership status over them (and marriage licensing is how the state establishes authority to mess with how you raise your kids) belies that they are either terribly decieved, or have an ulterior motive. It turns out that at least some do, in that the only part of marriage that gays cannot reproduce via regular contract law is the inheritability of social security benefits. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 145 Registered: 2-2003 |
Two or three years ago, had anybody suggested that the current fed admin group would've started screwing around with birth control and abortion without expecting to get their heads bashed flat by the women in this country, I would've called them extremely silly. Well..., they have..., and the women haven't. Earlier, under this topic, I berated a certain individual's characterzation of gays and what he believed would be the next step if their humanity was recognized. I said it encouraged violence toward gays. Here's the latest folks, from your friendly 'christian' coalition. First a neo nazi in the white house and an ex nazi in the vatican..., what next..., it's the "Return of the Pink Triangle".... LOve, Jenn Christian Coalition: Gays Should Wear Warning Labels by 365Gay.com Newscenter Staff Posted: June 13, 2005 http://www.365gay.com/newscon05/06/061305pride.htm (New York City) The leader of a conservative Christian lobby group says that gays should be required to wear warning labels. "We put warning labels on cigarette packs because we know that smoking takes one to two years off the average life span, yet we 'celebrate' a lifestyle that we know spreads every kind of sexually transmitted disease and takes at least 20 years off the average life span according to the 2005 issue of the revered scientific journal Psychological Reports," said Rev. Bill Banuchi, executive director of the New York Christian Coalition. The journal regularly publishes articles described by many mainstream psychologists as misleading and faulty. The homosexuality morbidity study was conducted by the conservative anti-gay Family Research Institute. Banuchi called LGBT Pride celebrations held in New Paltz, north of New York City, and other areas of the country on the weekend "sad". He called on people to "pray for those who are deceived by the lies of popular culture, who are caught up in a destructive lifestyle, and for the children who are being zealously evangelized by radical homosexuals." It is not the first time gays have been told they should wear labels. In Nazi Germany gays were forced to wear the pink triangle to differentiate them from other internees at concentration camps. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 3 Registered: 6-2005 |
While I certainly don't support labelling gays, I do think that the tolerance for letting HIV positive people (gay or straight) run loose, infecting others at will (HIV spread is now largest outside the gay community among straight teens), is a health hazard that is being allowed to happen for political reasons. Any time someone suggests that the problem be dealt with, the militant gay rightists start ranting about nazis.... while people continue to get infected and die so that others can 'have their rights'... there DOES need to be a cultural solution implemented now, to limit the spread, before a cure is discovered. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 146 Registered: 2-2003 |
These are the latest statistics I was able to find, they don't support your contention. On what do you base your assertion that teenagers have the highest rate of infection..., any URLs you can post? http://www.avert.org/usastata.htm LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd Member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 21 Registered: 5-2005 |
I have always found it such sick irony that one of the few times we humans have ever acted humanly, it back fired. I am not suggesting this, but only wondering about it: If we had acted like our barbaric relatives and quarantined those afflicted, would it have propagated at such a rate, and could we have contained it -besides the few strays. Just playing the "if" game. | ||
| Ray Beckwith Junior Member Username: ray Post Number: 20 Registered: 9-2004 |
Funny how he neglects to mention that the primary reason for the reduction in average livespan; the vastly higher suicide rate among gay men that is directly attributable to persecution by moronic hatemongers like himself. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 4 Registered: 6-2005 |
a) the newest you show are from 2003 b) the stats you show clearly show that teen HIV infection rate grew by 10% over three years, while all other groups, except for the middle aged gay community's infection rate(which grew by 20%), are seeing no growth or declines in infection rates. You need to learn to read stats. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 5 Registered: 6-2005 |
Also, from the site you referenced: "AIDS education and adults Of the 40,000 approximate new HIV infections in America, it has been estimated that at least half occur in people aged under-25 years old31. Of the 43,171 AIDS diagnoses in the same year, the CDC estimated that 41% were amongst the 35 - 44 age group." | ||
| Ray Beckwith Member Username: ray Post Number: 21 Registered: 9-2004 |
My Dear Mike: No one denies that the spread of HIV is a huge problem and no sane person doesn't want to see it stopped, but we cannot allow the extremists use our desires to continue to persecute our brothers and sisters. You mention "political reasons" for allowing the spread of HIV to continue. I wonder, who are you accusing. The way I see it, the people who have the most to gain by the continued spread of HIV are those that quote the statistics in order to support their persecution of Gays (they are also the ones railing about safe-sex education and condom distribution among those same teens). Blaming any group or labelling a lifestyle as hazardous will not solve anyones problems. Informing and educating those most at risk and providing them with the tools to prevent infection is the only humane way that will succeed. Stingray. | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 6 Registered: 1-2005 |
"Blaming any group or labelling a lifestyle as hazardous will not solve anyones problems. Informing and educating those most at risk and providing them with the tools to prevent infection is the only humane way that will succeed." Stingray, as Mike pointed out earlier, American HIV infections seem to be increasing among our youth, who have had a ton of education and information thrown at them. Clearly, if ANY activity that could potentially shorten your life by 20 years should be risked as hazardous. Perhaps, a different approach needs to be used. I'm a little leary of any worldview that says any lifestyle is as good as the next. People need to be made aware of the dangers involved in gay OR straight promiscuity in a way that doesn't promote violence and/or hatred against others. Is this possible? | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 7 Registered: 1-2005 |
"Funny how he neglects to mention that the primary reason for the reduction in average livespan; the vastly higher suicide rate among gay men that is directly attributable to persecution by moronic hatemongers like himself." Is suicide strictly a young gay male problem? Do young lesbians have a similar spike in suicide rates? If not, why? My understanding is that suicide is one of the leading causes of death for straight youth as well... Hopefully, one day, we'll all be able to work towards creating a world where EVERYONE will want to live, and suicide will be greatly reduced. | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 147 Registered: 2-2003 |
"...Posted by Mike Lorrey on Tuesday, June 14, 2005 - 11:07 am: a) the newest you show are from 2003 b) the stats you show clearly show that teen HIV infection rate grew by 10% over three years, while all other groups, except for the middle aged gay community's infection rate(which grew by 20%), are seeing no growth or declines in infection rates. ..." OH GOOD..., somebody on this list WAS paying attention; I was starting to think folks around here were just throwing darts at the board. LOve, Jenn By the way, just heard a report this A.M. on "Morning Edition" that the latest stats are the highest among black females and males. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 7 Registered: 6-2005 |
Ray, I completely understand your concern for the civil rights of all. I do believe that the gay rights community is ignoring the precept that your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. When the 'fist' we are talking about is a communicable deadly virus, sexually promiscuous people of any gender or preference must face a curtailment of whatever liberties are most essential to the spread of that virus. Your right to •••• around doesn't give you a right to kill me, capiche? When my right to live runs into your right to •••• around, guess which one takes precedence? Individuals who ignore this are committing a crime of reckless endangerment and depraved indifference. When you commit a crime, you waive other rights through your demonstration of disregard for the rights of others. It is on this basis that the first quarrantine laws were approved by the SCOTUS back when the courts still had regard for the Constitution and the Common Law. Typhoid Mary and her lawyers made all the same excuses that gays now make. (Message edited by mlorrey on June 14, 2005) | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 148 Registered: 2-2003 |
There seems to be a general 'thrust' on this message board from 'heterosexuals' that 'gays' are somehow responsible for the existence of 'hiv/aids'. As I recall..., the whole thing was started by some chimpanzee group somewhere...; so, why don't you all bugger off and go demonize chimpanzees and forbid your daughters/sons to date them? Right now..., there seems to be a world-wide epidemic of this aids crap and all you can do is sit around and blame gay people; I hardly think that's fair. If gays were the only people to get aids how come you 'hets' are getting it now..., can it be because of most of the guys that approach me...? they're 'straight' married guys who 'just wanna fool around'. I don't have aids, but that's been my experience; 'straight' guys who wanna get it on with femme males. So...., now what...? Now who do you blame for aids; chimpanzees, gays or 'straight' guys who 'just wanna fool around'? LOve, Jenn | ||
| Mark Boyd Member Username: tkdboyd Post Number: 23 Registered: 5-2005 |
I am a faithfully monogamous married white male. I do not carry any STD’s. AIDS is primarily a STD. There is still IV drug users that pass the disease. Since the late 80’s (besides those who were born with it and the extreme minority of transfusion based, or medical professionals, etc.) it has been a behavioral disease. (Yes I know there are rape and incest, etc.) But people who do not fornicate, or force their fornication upon someone else, will virtually have no chance of contracting HIV/AIDS. So therefore I have a nearly 0% chance of contracting HIV/AIDS. I am not blaming anyone, just pointing out what I believe/think to be reality. If this isn’t the case, please, someone tell me. It hasn’t become an air born pathogen has it? If we could reduce the hedonistic fervor that is rampant in humanity we would cure most of our issues regarding STD’s! I am not blaming any specific group, I am blaming a specific action, and that action would be promiscuity. | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 8 Registered: 6-2005 |
Mark is right here. There are two main HIV virus strains, only one of which is prevalent in the US and which seems to require (a) repeated anal intercourse with an infected partner, or (b) intravenous drug use, sharing needles with infected persons, PLUS (c) a suppressed immune system, to transmit infection. The more your system is suppressed (say, from drug use and abuse), the easier it is to be infected. Hetero transmission is still rare and generally occurs when hets (a) engage in repeated anal intercourse or (b) repeated intercourse with an infected, drug using partner. Straight individuals who stay away from drugs, don't have sex with drug users (or those who do have sex with drug users), and are not involved in medical treatment of infected persons have virtually a zero percent chance of infection. Straight guys and girls who just want to 'get it on' but are not infected cannot in any way get infected by being promiscuous with other uninfected persons. It is quite clearly the presence of infected persons in society who either refuse to get tested or hide their infection status and continue to engage in promiscuous or other risky behavior that is the source of the problem. The nazis put pink triangles on gays because of hate unsupported by any facts. I don't want to target gays, I want infected persons, straight or gay, to be identified and identifiable. Nobody has a right to willfully choose to infect others. We all have a right to know the infection status of those we become intimate with. I certainly do not advocate any sort of open patch like a pink triangle, that would allow for public discrimination and possibly hate-group targeting, but a 'biohazard' tatoo on a butt cheek should be sufficient. By the time you see someone's butt cheek, you likely have crossed the line into 'right-to-know' land. (Message edited by mlorrey on June 15, 2005) | ||
| Randy Walton New member Username: barkley28 Post Number: 8 Registered: 1-2005 |
"If we could reduce the hedonistic fervor that is rampant in humanity we would cure most of our issues regarding STD’s! I am not blaming any specific group, I am blaming a specific action, and that action would be promiscuity." Exactly, Mark! HIV/AIDS is just another problem that mankind has developed because we can't seem to stop being promiscious. If everyone - gay and straight - could just stop sleeping around so much, we'd have much less of a problem with STDs. How this all fits into the "dogchurch" realm is anyone's guess - I think pretty much any "religious" worldview would encompass self-respect and a degree of morality that would discourage promiscuity and the related spread of STDs, right? | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 9 Registered: 6-2005 |
Also: a note on gay marriages in other jurisdictions: read the fine print. As an example, a gay couple from Connecticut who got a civil union in Vermont tried to get a divorce two years later in CT. The CT courts stated that since CT didn't recognise their civil union, they could not divorce them. Vermont's law only allowed for Vermont jurisdiction over dissolution of civil unions if at least one party was a VT resident, which neither were. Consequently, the couple couldn't get 'divorced'. Wags called it a 'pro-family' decision... ;) | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 457 Registered: 3-2003 |
Randy, Right! Promiscuity and IV drug use enable HIV/AIDS to spread. We here at VCBC are against both behaviors. Therefore, we encourage monogamous union as an alternative to promiscuity. For those who have the charism or gift of abstinence, that will do as well. Basically, the last several posts have just underscored the point I made earlier: The idea that it is better to marry than to burn with desire applies to lesbians and gays just as it does to straights. Mike, Thanks for the bit of irony. Looks like you have an example of why some things can't be left up to the states, even though Dick Cheney thinks that's the way to go on this one. Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 226 Registered: 3-2003 |
John, Having recently discovered your American poet, philosopher/theologian and farmer Wendell Berry, I lament with him when he says, "Because of our determination to separate sex from the practice of love in marriage and in family…our public sexual morality is confused, sentimental, bitter, complexly destructive, and hypocritical." “…..modern Christianity has cut itself off from both nature and culture. It has no competent interest in biology or ecology. And it is equally uninterested in any feature of culture by which humankind connects itself to nature: economy or work, science or art.” – Berry, Cross Currents. | ||
| Michael Ray Intermediate Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 37 Registered: 5-2005 |
MR. Adler For anybody to reach salvation takes more then just calling your self a Christian. You also must live and obey the rules set in the bible to the best of your ability, not the rules of your church or your personal rules. It clearly says, “homos not allowed”Now if you are compassionate about people’s rights, well then that’s OK by me, but don’t use Christianity or the bible as a reference or wisdom you somehow enquired by just calling your self a Christian. If you reply back to this…..I insist you point to a quote in the bible supporting your view. What is modern Christianity? Nothing more then a “JOKE” something George Bush believes in. | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 227 Registered: 3-2003 |
Just for the record Mike, no where in this forum have I called myself a Christian nor have I merely refered to the bible as the sole authority for Sophia - mind you, I do find it a good point of reference for her. The point made by Wendell Berry is that modern Christianity is losing its reference point when it fails to conncect the wisdom of ancient culture with the new i.e. - "new skins for new wine" does not destroy the basis of wine-making or its enjoyment. The New Testament writers and Jesus were certainly aware of this when they wrote of not engaging in sexual immorality. Any sexual immorality of that time was associated with the Greek term Porneia (pornography) which included homosexuality, incestuous relationships, unnatural acts with beasts and animals, premarital sexual activity and extramarital sex. Modern culture is attempting to redefine Greek understanding and certainly what early Christianity was about. | ||
| Michael Ray Intermediate Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 38 Registered: 5-2005 |
MR Adler Oops” I must apologies my misunderstanding here. The way I understood it seemed like you were advocating the modern changes. | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 458 Registered: 3-2003 |
Michael Ray, You are being sarcastic by implying that Christ died just to update your rulebook, I hope. Updating the rules doesn't require the Incarnation-Crucifixion-Resurrection. It just requires an editor. Standard Christian theology holds that Salvation is entirely the work of God, and that any good works, including obedience to the rules, is a response to the gift of Salvation. Richard, Loved that first Berry quote. With respect to the second I do take issue with Berry's use of the word modern, when he really means only one current in modern Christianity, the Fundamentalist Current. There are plenty of Christians well aware of biology, and ecology, as well as physics and cosmology. And I suppose Sister Wendy faked her interest in art... Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 228 Registered: 3-2003 |
This is a little off topic, but here's the article in full from Cross Currents by Berry: Christianity and The Survival of Creation Berry's reflection on the word “modern” goes to the problem of our duality where we continue to split the spiritual from the physical (something the ancients weren't as prone to), “We have presumed to say that we are made of two parts: a body and a soul, the body being "low" because made of dust, and the soul "high." By thus valuing these two supposed-to-be "parts," we inevitably throw them into competition with each other, like two corporations. The "spiritual" view, of course, has been that the body, in Yeats's phrase, must be "bruised to pleasure soul." And the "secular" version of the same dualism has been that the body, along with the rest of the "material" world, must give way before the advance of the human mind. The dominant religious view, for a long time, has been that the body is a kind of scrip issued by the Great Company Store in the Sky, which can be cashed in to redeem the soul, but is otherwise worthless. And the predictable result has been a human creature able to appreciate or tolerate only the "spiritual" (or mental) part of Creation, and full of a semiconscious hatred of the "physical" or "natural" part, which it is ready and willing to destroy for "salvation," for profit, for "victory," or for fun. This madness constitutes the normality of modern humanity and of modern Christianity.” I’ll enjoin with Sister Wendy Beckett who, in 2000, said , “In fact, anybody who has a narrow sense of their religion, whether they're Jew or Christian or Muslim or whatever, has only to look long and intelligently at the great work of another tradition and they will see what the religions have in common.” | ||
| Michael Ray Intermediate Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 40 Registered: 5-2005 |
Scooper I do not see my self as sarcastic; Christians should accept the whole bible and not add words or remove scripture to accommodate their lifestyles. Any of my opinions are supported by the scripture and not by some third party philosophies. Here is another on no gays allowed. (Romans 1:24-32 NLT) So God let them go ahead and do whatever shameful things their hearts desired. As a result, they did vile and degrading things with each other's bodies. Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever. Amen. That is why God abandoned them to their shameful desires. Even the women turned against the natural way to have sex and instead indulged in sex with each other. And the men, instead of having normal sexual relationships with women, burned with lust for each other. Men did shameful things with other men and, as a result, suffered within themselves the penalty they so richly deserved. When they refused to acknowledge God, he abandoned them to their evil minds and let them do things that should never be done. Their lives became full of every kind of wickedness, sin, greed, hate, envy, murder, fighting, deception, malicious behavior, and gossip. They are backstabbers, haters of God, insolent, proud, and boastful. They are forever inventing new ways of sinning and are disobedient to their parents. They refuse to understand, break their promises, and are heartless and unforgiving. They are fully aware of God's death penalty for those who do these things, yet they go right ahead and do them anyway. And, worse yet, they encourage others to do them, too. Jesus supposedly died for our sins; meaning he allowed us repentance for our sins. He did not die so we can continuously sin. Sin once by mistake and you and you are forgiven providing you accept Christ and change your ways. Homo marriages and homo priest is a continues sin and is against god and nature. I know you have friends in this type of promiscuous relationships and you have a very bias opinion. I also have read the site you posted op philosophies of homo sexuality. Mind you they are human philosophies and not Christian. Jews were condemned for not being able to keep the 10 commandments Christians are condemned for exploiting God. Cheers | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 149 Registered: 2-2003 |
http://www.godmademegay.com/Letter.htm THE NEW TESTAMENT In the New Testament there are three passages to consider. Romans 1:21, 26, 27 Revised Standard Version 21 for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him... 26 For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, 27 and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men... The King James and New International versions say virtually the same thing. Romans 1:26 and 27 clearly speak of same-gender sex by both men and women, the only passage in the New Testament that does so. Rom. 1:18-32 speaks of Gentiles (heterosexuals) who could and should have known and served and given thanks to God but would not, so God gave them up and let them do whatever they wanted to do, and that resulted in degrading and shameful acts, including same-gender sex. It is almost a moot point, but Paul is not listing sins for which God will condemn anyone, he is listing sins that occur because people have forsaken Him. These are acts committed by those who have turned away from God and so become "consumed with passion." All of us recognize that those who forsake God and give themselves over to lustful living--homosexual or heterosexual--stand condemned by the Bible. This passage is talking about people who chose to forsake God. Conservative theologian Richard Hays says, "No direct appeal to Romans 1 as a source of rules about sexual conduct is possible."B-6 I Corinthians 6:9 King James Version: 9...Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate [malakoi], nor abusers of themselves with mankind [arsenokoitai], 10 Nor thieves..., shall inherit the kingdom of God. New International Version 9...Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes [malakoi] nor homosexual offenders [arsenokoitai] 10 nor thieves...will inherit the kingdom of God. Revised Standard Version--1952 edition: 9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God. Revised Standard Version--1971 edition: 9...Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts [malakoi and arsenokoitai], 10 nor thieves..., will inherit the kingdom of God. A comparison of how the two Greek words are translated in the different versions shows that translations often, unfortunately, become the interpretations of the translators. In I Cor. 6:9 Paul lists the types of persons who will be excluded from the kingdom of God and for some he uses the Greek words malakoi and arsenokoitai. KJ translates the first "effeminate," a word that has no necessary connection with homosexuals. The NIV translates the first "male prostitutes" and the second, "homosexual offenders". The RSV in its first edition of 1952 translated both words by the single term, "homosexuals". In the revised RSV of 1971, the translation "homosexuals" is discarded and the two Greek words are translated as "sexual perverts"; obviously the translators had concluded the earlier translation was not supportable. Malakoi literally means "soft" and is translated that way by both KJ and RSV in Matt. 11:8 and Luke 7:25. When it is used in moral contexts in Greek writings it has the meaning of morally weak; a related word, malakia, when used in moral contexts, means dissolute and occasionally refers to sexual activity but never to homosexual acts. There are at least five Greek words that specifically mean people who practice same-gender sex. Unquestionably, if Paul had meant such people, he would not have used a word that is never used to mean that in Greek writings when he had other words that were clear in that meaning. He must have meant what the word commonly means in moral contexts, "morally weak." There is no justification, most scholars agree, for translating it "homosexuals." Arsenokoitai, is not found in any extant Greek writings until the second century when it apparently means "pederast", a corrupter of boys, and the sixth century when it is used for husbands practicing anal intercourse with their wives. Again, if Paul meant people practicing same-gender sex, why didn't he use one of the common words? Some scholars think probably the second century use might come closest to Paul's intention. If so, there is no justification for translating the word as "homosexuals." Other scholars see a connection with Greek words used to refer to same-gender sex in Leviticus. If so, it is speaking of heterosexuals given to such lust they turn to such acts. Richard Hays tells us, "I Corinthians 6:9-11 states no rule to govern the conduct of Christians."B-7 One commentator has another reason for rejecting the NIV and original RSV translations, "homosexuals." Today it could mean that a person who is homosexual in orientation even though "of irreproachable morals, is automatically branded as unrighteous and excluded from the kingdom of God, just as if he were the most depraved of sexual perverts."B-8 So I Cor. 6:9 says nothing about homosexuality with the possible exception of condemnable pederasty. I Tim. 1:10 King James Version: 9...the law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and for sinners,...10...for them that defile themselves with mankind (arsenokoitai)... Revised Standard Version - both 1952 and 1971 editions: 9...the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for 10 immoral persons, sodomites (arsenokoitai),... New International Version: 9...the law is not made for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful...10 for adulterers and perverts (arsenokoitai) Here only the RSV specifically refers to same-gender sex, using the term "sodomites," which is the translation given in both the Old Testament and New Testament to Hebrew and Greek words for male temple prostitutes. The KJV probably has the same thought. The NIV does not necessarily refer to same-gender sex. Again Paul has used the Greek word arsenokoitai, the word in I Cor. 6:9. As discussed above, this word would have no reference to homosexuality or homosexual sex in our discussion. So like the other two New Testament passages, I Tim. 1:10 says nothing about homosexuality or homosexuals and nothing about same-gender sex unless that of temple prostitutes or possibly the molestation of young boys by heterosexuals. In view of the facts set forth above, we realize there is no moral teaching in the Bible about homosexuality as we know it, including homosexual sex (except possibly pederasty). The Bible cannot be used to condemn as immoral all same-gender sex. It clearly condemns lust, whether homosexual or heterosexual. There is certainly nothing in the Bible about anyone going to hell because he or she is homosexual. All who go to hell will go for the same, one reason: failure to commit their lives in faith to Jesus Christ as their lord and savior. From a slightly different approach to interpretation, Dr. Robin Scroggs states, "The basic model in today's Christian homosexual community is so different from the model attacked by the New Testament that the criterion of reasonable similarity of context is not met. The conclusion I have to draw seems inevitable: Biblical judgments against homosexuality are not relevant to today's debate."B-9 [Italics his] Dr. Gomes concludes his discussion of homosexuality and the Bible with these words: The Biblical writers never contemplated a form of homosexuality in which loving, monogamous, and faithful persons sought to live out the implications of the gospel with as much fidelity to it as any heterosexual believer. All they knew of homosexuality was prostitution, pederasty, lasciviousness, and exploitation. These vices, as we know, are not unknown among heterosexuals, and to define contemporary homosexuals only in these terms is a cultural slander of the highest order, reflecting not so much prejudice, which it surely does, but what the Roman Catholic Church calls "invincible ignorance," which all of the Christian piety and charity in the world can do little to conceal. The "problem," of course, is not the Bible, it is the Christians who read it.B-10 | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 150 Registered: 2-2003 |
http://gaychurch.org/ | ||
| Scooper Pooper Scooper Username: adminPost Number: 459 Registered: 3-2003 |
Efrem, Thanks for the moral/intellectual support! Michael Ray, I take it that you are not a sinner? Because there is more to Religion than pleasing your Imaginary Friend | ||
| Mike Lorrey New member Username: mlorrey Post Number: 10 Registered: 6-2005 |
Michael Ray, You say, "Christians should accept the whole bible and not add words or remove scripture to accommodate their lifestyles." I take it then that you keep kosher, that you worship only on Saturdays, that you do not work at all on the sabbath, that you fast regularly, that your wife obeys you, that you do not spare the rod from your children, that you stone those who commit blasphemy, adultery, or other mortal sins, that you do not tolerate a witch to live, that you become violently objectionable at church bingo nights, bake sales, or other commercial activity at church, and keep all the other cultural practices of Judaism in the day and era of Jesus? | ||
| Efrem Senior Member Username: efremPost Number: 151 Registered: 2-2003 |
Typhoid Mary: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/typhoid/letter.html | ||
| Richard Adler Senior Member Username: r_adler Post Number: 229 Registered: 3-2003 |
From a Letter to Louise.. “Psychologists have found that the gay man has an exceptional supply of feminine characteristics (enough that he falls in love with a man -?), and the lesbian has an exceptional supply of male characteristics (enough that she falls in love with a woman -?). Psychologists are recognizing that this special combination of characteristics in homosexuals often results in their having exceptional potential.”- This does not deride the basic masculine feminine concept as found within creation but in fact enhances it. “The eminent psychologist Jung gives five very positive aspects of the homosexual male: · This [homosexuality] gives him a great capacity for friendship, which often creates ties of astonishing tenderness between men, and may even rescue friendship between the sexes from its limbo of the impossible. · He may have good taste and an aesthetic sense which are fostered by the presence of a feminine streak. · Then, he may be supremely gifted as a teacher because of his almost feminine insight and tact. · He is likely to have a feeling for history, and to be conservative in the best sense and cherish the values of the past. · Often he is endowed with a wealth of religious feelings, which help him to bring the ecclesia spiritualis [the spiritual church] into reality, and a spiritual receptivity which makes him responsive to revelation.” – As one who has admired Jung for some time I resonate with this. “Must sex be between male and female? One act of sex must be. Is that all of sex, or for heterosexuals does sex--let's think only of beautiful sex--involve many other acts, some of which sometimes become more important than that one act? Does marriage make sex beautiful and moral? Even those who insist that sex must be only in marriage admit that there is often immoral sex within marriage--selfishness, exploitation, even rape. So the marriage certificate is not what determines whether sex is moral or immoral. Then we must say that if legality is not the criterion for the morality of sex, lack of legality cannot be the criterion for its immorality.” – Sex outside of the institution of marriage should therefore not be considered as necessarily immoral. As protective and as stable the marriage tradition might be it is not a dictate for morality. | ||
| Michael Ray Intermediate Member Username: cmiyc Post Number: 41 Registered: 5-2005 |
I would just like to point out that even the slightest change can alter the bible and the direction of its intent. I will post the rest of the references and the histories of the rest of them as they get posted to me. First we will be posting the differences in the New King James version, from the original 1611 version. Then we will be showing many of the deletions and changes to the wordings and changing the meanings which the new versions do. > > In subsequent postings I will be going deep deep into the beginnings of the translations from which all of the bible versions came. There was basically two different paths they took. > > A lot of this will be things I have copied and then pieced together and some of it will be my findings. > > I hope someone gets much from this. > Ed > > > > V--THE SO-CALLED JUSTIFICATION FOR OTHER REVISIONS > > The King James Version of 1611 has not been revised but only corrected. But why does it make that much difference? > > Although there are several reasons why this issue is important, the most pressing one is that fundamentalist scholars are using this myth of past revisions to justify their own tampering with the text. > > The editors of the New King James Version have probably been the worst in recent years to use this propaganda ploy. In the preface of the New King James they have stated, "For nearly four hundred years, and throughout several revisions of its English form, the King James Bible has been deeply revered among the English- speaking peoples of the world." In the midst of their flowery rhetoric, they strongly imply that their edition is only a continuation of the revisions that have been going on for the past 375 years. This implication, which has been stated directly by others, could not be more false. To prove this point, we will go back to the book of Ecclesiastes. > > An examination of the first chapter in Ecclesiastes in the New King James Version reveals approximately 50 changes from our present edition. In order to be fair, spelling changes (cometh to comes; labour to labor, etc.) were not included in this count. That means there are probably about 600 alterations in the book of Ecclesiastes and approximately 60,000 changes in the entire Bible. > > If you were to accuse me of including every recognizable change, you are correct. But I am only counting the sort of changes which were identified in analyzing the 1611 King James. That's only fair. Still, the number of changes is especially baffling for a version which claims to be an updating in the same vein as earlier revisions. > > According to the fundamentalist scholar, the New King James is only a fifth in a series of revisions. Then pray tell me how four "revisions" and 375 years brought only 400 changes while the fifth revision brought about 60,000 additional changes? That means that the fifth revision made 150 times more changes than the total number of changes in the first four! That's preposterous! > > Not only is the frequency of the changes unbelievable, but the character of the alterations is serious. Although many of the alterations seem harmless enough at first glance, many are much more serious. The editors of the New King James Version were sly enough not to alter the most serious blunders of the modern bibles. Yet, they were not afraid to change the reading in those places that are unfamiliar to the average fundamentalist. In these areas, the New King James Version is dangerous. Below are some of the more harmful alterations made in the book of Ecclesiastes. The reference is given first; then the reading as found in the King James Version; and last, the reading as found in the New King James Version. > > 1:13 sore travail; = grievous task > > 1:14 vexation of spirit; = grasping for the wind > > 1:16 my heart had great experience of wisdom; = My heart has understood great wisdom > > 2:3 to give myself unto; = to gratify my flesh with > > 2:3 acquainting; = guiding > > 2:21 equity; = skill > > 3:10 the travail, which God hath given; = the God-given task > > 3:11 the world; = eternity > > 3:18 that might manifest them; = God tests them > > 3:18 they themselves are beasts; = they themselves are like beasts > > 3:22 portion; = heritage > > 4:4 right work; = skillful work > > 5:1 Keep thy foot; = Walk prudently > > 5:6 the angel; = the messenger of God > > 5:8 he that is higher than the highest; = high official > > 5:20 God answereth him; = God keeps him busy > > 6:3 untimely birth; = stillborn child > > 7:29 inventions; = schemes > > 8:1 boldness; = sternness > > 8:10 the place of the holy; = the place of holiness > > 10:1 Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savour; = Dead flies putrefy the perfumer's ointment > > 10:10 If the iron be blunt; = If the ax is dull > > 10:10 wisdom is profitable to direct; = wisdom brings success > > 12:9 gave good heed; = pondered > > 12:11 the masters of assemblies; = scholars > > > This is only a sampling of the changes in the book, but notice what is done. Equity, which is a trait of godliness, becomes skill (2:21). The world becomes eternity (3:11). Man without God is no longer a beast but just like a beast (3:18). The clear reference to deity in Ecclesiastes 5:8 ("he that is higher than the highest") is successfully removed ("higher official"). But since success is what wisdom is supposed to bring us (10:10), this must be progress. At least God is keeping the scholars busy (5:20). Probably the most revealing of the above mentioned changes is the last one listed where "the masters of assemblies" become "scholars." According to the New King James, "the words of scholars are like well-driven nails, given by one Shepherd." The masters of assemblies are replaced by the scholars who become the source of the Shepherd's words. That is what these scholars would like us to think, but it is not true. > > The New King James is not a revision in the vein of former revisions of the King James Version. It is instead an entirely new translation. As stated in the introduction, the purpose of this book is not to convince those who use the other versions. The purpose of this book is to expose a fallacious argument that has been circulating in fundamentalist circles for what it is: an overblown myth. > > That is, the myth that the New King James Version and others like it are nothing more than a continuation of revisions which have periodically been made to the King James Version since 1611. There is one problem with this theory. There are no such revisions. > > > The King James Bible of 1611 has not undergone four (or any) major revisions. Therefore, the New King James Version is not a continuation of what has gone on before. > > It should in fact be called the Thomas Nelson Version. They hold the copyright. The King James Version we have today has not been revised but purified. We still have no reason to doubt that the Bible we hold in our hands is the very word of God preserved for us in the English language. The authority for its veracity lies not in the first printing of the King James Version in 1611, or in the character of King James I, or in the scholarship of the 1611 translators, or in the literary accomplishments of Elizabethan England, or even in the Greek Received Text. Our authority for the infallible words of the English Bible lies in the power and promise of God to preserve His Word! God has the power. We have His Word. > > 337 verse changes in comparison to the KING JAMES VERSION AV1611******* > > > > > VERSE DESCRIPTION OF 337 CHANGE'S THAT ARE REMOVED IN THE MODERN TRANSLATIONS CHANGED IN THESE VERSIONS... > Isaiah 14:12 > CHANGE "Lucifer" TO "morning star" ("How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!") The Lord Jesus Christ is the Morning Star. See Revelation 22:16. Click here for a detailed word study on morning star. MORNINGSTAR WORD STUDY NIV > > Deuteronomy 23:17 > CHANGE "sodomite" TO "shrine prostitute OR cult prostitute" ("There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.") This change also occurs in 1 Kings 14:24, 1 Kings 15:12, 1 Kings 22:46 and 2 Kings 23:7. NIV, NASB, RSV > > Deuteronomy 32:22 > CHANGE"lowest hell" TO "realm of death (et. al)" ("For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.") NIV, NASV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Daniel 3:25 > CHANGE "the Son of God" TO "a son of the gods" ("He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Daniel 7:10 > REMOVE "judgment was set" NIV, NASV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Psalms 8:5 > CHANGE "the angels" TO "the heavenly beings (et. al)" ("For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Micah 5:2 > CHANGE "everlasting" TO "ancient times or ancient days (et. al.)" (""But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from old, from everlasting.") > Contradicts Psalm 90:2 "...from everlasting to everlasting thou art God..." NIV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Zechariah 12:10 > CHANGE "his only son" TO "an only child" ("And I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the spirit of grace and of supplications: and they shall look upon me whom they have pierced, and they shall mourn for him, as one mourneth for his only son, and shall be in bitterness for him, as one that is in bitterness for his firstborn.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Psalms 9:17 > REMOVE "turned into hell" ("The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.") NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Psalms 12:7 > CHANGE "thou shalt preserve them" TO "you will keep us safe and protect us"(et. al) ("Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.) > NOTE: Changes the emphasis of what is preserved in verse 6: "The words of the LORD..." > --------------------------------------------------------- > In the NEW TESTAMENT NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > --------------------------------------------------------- > > Matt. 1:25 > REMOVE "Firstborn" (And knew her not till she had brought forth her FIRSTBORN son: and he called his name JESUS). The word "firstborn"(also appears in Luke 2:7) refers to Jesus was the first child (of 5 children) that Mary had given birth to. NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 5:22 > REMOVE "without a cause" (contradicts: Psalms 25:3, Psalms 69:4 and Psalms 35:19 "Let not them that are mine enemies wrongfully rejoice over me: neither let them wink with the eye that hate me without a cause." And many many other verses that are in conflict caused by this omission. NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 5:44 > REMOVE "bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you,...which despitefully use you," (contradicts: Psalms 109:28 Let them curse, but bless thou: when they arise, let them be ashamed; but let thy servant rejoice.) NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 6:13 > REMOVE "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen." (This is the Lord's Prayer) NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 6:27 > CHANGE "cubit to his stature" TO "hour to his life" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 6:33 > REMOVE "of God" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 8:29 > REMOVE "Jesus" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 9:13 > REMOVE "to repentance" ( "... for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."(see also Mark 2:17. Removal of "to repentance" leaves the verse meaningless. Calling sinners to do what?) Note: contradicts Acts 17:30; 2 Peter 3:9 NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 11:23 > REMOVE "hell" NIV, NASV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 12:6 > REMOVE "one greater" TO "something greater" NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 12:35 > REMOVE "of the heart" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 12:40 > CHANGE "whale" TO "fish", sea monster NIV, NASV, NKJ, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 12:47 > REMOVE ENTIRE VERSE "Then one said unto him, Behold, thy mother and thy brethren stand without, desiring to speak with thee." NIV, RSV, NRSV, > > Matt. 13:51 > REMOVE "Lord" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 15:8 > REMOVE "draweth nigh unto me with their mouth" Contradicts: Isaiah 29:13 "Wherefore the Lord said, Forasmuch as this people draw near [me] with their mouth, and with their lips do honour me, but have removed their heart far from me, and their fear toward me is taught by the precept of men:" and also Ezekiel 33:31 "And they come unto thee as the people cometh, and they sit before thee [as] my people, and they hear thy words, but they will not do them: for with their mouth they shew much love, [but] their heart goeth after their covetousness." NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 16:3 > REMOVE "o ye hypocrites" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 16:18 > REMOVE "hell" NIV, NASV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 16:20 > REMOVE "Jesus" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 17:21 > REMOVE ENTIRE VERSE "Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting." NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 18:11 > REMOVE ENTIRE VERSE "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 18:26 > REMOVE "and worshipped him" (A key verse for showing that only Jesus is worshipped in the New Testament) NIV, NASV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 19:9 > REMOVE "and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit adultery." NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 19:17 > CHANGE "Why callest thou me good" TO "Why do you ask me about what is good" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 19:17 > REMOVE "God" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV > > Matt. 20:7 > REMOVE "and whatsoever is right that shall ye receive" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 20:16 > REMOVE "for many be called but few chosen" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 20:20 > CHANGE "worshipping him" TO "kneeling down" (referring to worshipping the Lord Jesus Christ) NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV > > Matt. 20:22 > REMOVE 12 WORDS "baptized with Christ's baptism" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 21:44 > REMOVE "And whosoever shall fall on this stone shall be broken: but on whomsoever it shall fall, it will grind him to powder." NIV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 23:14 > REMOVE "Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye devour widows' houses, and for a pretence make long prayer: therefore ye shall receive the greater damnation." Note: contradicts Luke 20:47 "Which devour widows' houses, and for a shew make long prayers: the same shall receive greater damnation." NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, NC > > Matt. 23:33 > CHANGE "damnation" TO "condemn" NIV, NASV, NKJ, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 24:36 > ADD "nor the Son" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 24:36 > CHANGE "my Father" TO "the Father" (very similar to the John 10:29 and John 10:30 change, clouds deity of Jesus) NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB, NC > > Matt. 25:13 > REMOVE "wherein the Son of man cometh" NIV, NASV, RSV, NRSV, LB > > Matt. 27:35 > REMOVE "that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots." & |
